Posts from May 2009
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is dominating the conversation in Washington as analysts begin to dig into her past rulings. And while she has yet to weigh in on abortion, the judge has spoken loud and clear on an issue of interest to livable streets advocates: eminent domain.
As a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor ruled against property owners in Didden v. Village of Port Chester, a case that centered on plans for a CVS drug store in Westchester County.
Lawyer and blogger Ilya Somin, who urged the Supreme Court to consider the Didden case, has a thorough
During her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor is likely to get pointed questions on Didden from conservatives who were dismayed when the nation's highest court ruled in favor of eminent domain rights in 2005's Kelo v. New London. But should urbanites, and livable streets advocates in particular, also be concerned by the nominee's stance on takings of private property?
In theory, eminent domain can and should be used for beneficial purposes, such as transit expansion. Yet a recent push along those lines was halted by the Colorado state legislature last year, and proposed curbs on eminent domain are also imperiling the future of light rail in the Houston area.
On the flip side, local governments often take private property for new development projects, claiming that commercial and office buildings justify a standard of "public use"
Sotomayor's appeals court handed property owner William Brody a partial victory in 2005, ruling that his due process rights were violated but not requiring Port Chester to reverse the condemnation. In fact, the Brody opinion (available for download here) states that judges should not weigh in on the merits of taking land for "public use":
[T]he role of the courts in enforcing the constitutional limitations on eminent domain is one of patrolling the borders. That which falls within the boundaries of acceptability is not subject to review.
Streetsblog Greater Greater Washington readers think about the Didden and Brody cases, and the role of eminent domain in community development?
Cross-posted from Streetsblog.
We talk a lot on this blog about the way that government policy can help to create livable streets. But we don't often discuss the role that individual property owners can play when they're inspired to create a more pedestrian-friendly space.
The owner of this property in Miami has decided to convert a parking lot to a terrace.
It seems that recent development and new emphasis on the pedestrian landscape has encouraged a property owner in Brickell to replace a small surface (parking) lot in front of a building with more pedestrian-oriented and occupiable urban space fronting the sidewalk instead. Over the last couple of months, workers have been busy transforming the old parking spaces into an elevated outdoor seating space for what I presume will be a restaurant (or expansion of the existing restaurant next door).
In essence, the integration of the building within the urban fabric has been reconfigured to make it more responsive to pedestrians and more fitting with its surroundings. Prior to these changes, the building?s parking layout served as a physical and visual barrier between the pedestrian and the building. Much in the same way that buildings are setback behind inhospitable and unwalkable parking in the suburbs
— pedestrians walking the streets were not greeted by a building facade or window but rather by a long row of car exhausts and vehicle bumpers that contribute nothing to the urban atmosphere.
Luckily, the transformation of the space will change this unfavorable dynamic and create a more lively and active environment on the streets.
It's part of a process that the post's author, Adam Mizrahi, likes to call "automobile attrition." And it's an intriguing example of how, when a neighborhood achieves some livable streets momentum, the dead space created by cars and parking becomes more apparent.
More from around the network: Newton Streets and Sidewalks talks about how more roads don't ease congestion; Urban Milwaukee has a personal story about how senior citizens can get shut out of walkable neighborhoods; and The Infrastructurist looks at why Hawaii got complete streets legislation and Missouri didn't.
Cross-posted from Streetsblog.
Then (left): The home occupied by Justice Horace Gray. Gray was on the Supreme Court from 1882 to 1902. This structure later became the location of a Christian Science Reading Room.
Now (right): The Brutalist Third Church of Christ, Scientist. The church was built in 1971. Since opening, the building has not been well suited for the church, which has experienced declining attendance at its services. It currently has received the green light for demolition.
Trottenberg's ascension signals that the Obama administration will make transit a serious priority and encourage a more equitable consideration of urban priorities during debate on the upcoming federal transportation bill. Her dozen years of Senate experience, including stints in the offices of Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), also will prove a valuable asset to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, himself a veteran of the House.
But it's Trottenberg's independent analysis of the recent economic stimulus bill that stands out. She joined New York City DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and former New York State DOT Commissioner Astrid Glynn for a series of progressive recommendations for the stimulus plan
And in a panel discussion at NewTalk, Trottenberg acknowledged that the stimulus bill's speedy delivery of cash to state DOTs was at odds with the Obama administration's goal of promoting "green energy":
It appears that we have made some progress in advancing a more transparent and accountable infrastructure policy in the economic stimulus bill, but it's likely that we will not do much to achieve what should be our ultimate goal
— resolving the more fundamental question of what we are trying to accomplish with our federal investments and targeting the funds accordingly.
For example, President-elect Obama has called for a "green energy" approach to economic recovery, which will focus on projects that reduce energy consumption. However, if you survey the potential list of transportation projects proposed by a number of State Departments of Transportation, it appears likely this legislation will fund billions of dollars in new highway capacity in suburban and exurban areas. These projects will exacerbate auto-dependent development and increase fossil fuel consumption.
It's too soon to say whether Trottenberg can combat the desire for political expediency that led to some bad transportation decision-making in the name of economic stimulus. Yet her arrival in the Obama administration is certainly good news.
Cross-posted from Streetsblog.
JDLand got a copy of the current design for the 11th Street bridges project. The original EIS showed a potential layout for the ramps and bridges, but DDOT asked engineering firms bidding on the project to design their own implementations.
The winning proposal, from Skanska/Facchina, would improve on the original design in a few ways. It places the two bridges (highway and local) closer together, shrinking the overall footprint of the project. It also lowers some ramps on the Anacostia side, allowing trees to obscure the view of the ramps from Ridge Place and other residential streets. And the firm claims that they can build 75% of the project without disrupting the existing traffic flow, by building new segments and ramps next to or around existing ones.
According to DDOT Director Gabe Klein, DDOT was able to mix and match some features from various proposals. It's not clear whether this is the blended design or just S/F's original suggestion. A few potential improvements jump out. Southbound on the local bridge, the original EIS showed a fairly sharp right turn to Good Hope Road and the freeway. S/F, instead, places a gentler turning ramp to Good Hope while keeping a sharp turn to the freeway. They have space to do that because they've moved the local bridge closer to the freeway bridge. However, it would be even better to just keep the sharper turn, allowing for even more space in Anacostia Park uninterrupted by freeway ramps. The sharper turn would also encourage lower speeds on the local bridge, which is not supposed to be for high-speed traffic and will accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and potentially streetcars.
The freeway bridge seems to have two ramps exiting as drivers reach capitol hill heading northbound. The original EIS only showed one, to M Street I can't figure out why there are two here. These ramps seem to also spread more widely away from the freeway. That might be an effort to build more of the project without disrupting the existing project. However, if the ramps hugged the freeway more closely, that would leave land along 12th Street that could one day be developed. Similarly, from the drawing it appears they are moving 12th Street over a little bit. If so, it's not clear why.
JD also notices that some of the ramps are missing in the drawing; according to a commenter, DC only has $230 million of the $360 for the full project, and has bid out the first portion to start.
Update: kk points out that the current ramps let drivers use either the local or freeway bridges to cross the river from Capitol Hill and access 295. In fact, if the freeway bridge gets backed up, it appears to be very easy for drivers to get off 295, take the local bridge, and then hop back on the freeway at the other end. The purpose of the local bridge is to accommodate traffic between the neighborhoods on either end, not to function as even more lanes for through traffic or to be a very expensive, very long off-ramp from the freeway to Capitol Hill.
Perhaps the interchange with the Anacostia Freeway should prevent cars from getting off the freeway and turning onto the bridge, or entering the freeway from the bridge. If drivers on the Capitol Hill side want to get on the freeway, they should get on the freeway side of the bridge instead. Doing this would also simplify the intersection where C-1, C-2 and C-4 all meet. Plus, this could allow narrower ramps, which might save money that DC could use to pay for the rest of the project.
The Streetsblog Network aggregates content from many local blogs advocating for similar policies as here on Greater Greater Washington. Sarah Goodyear regularly summarizes the best of those posts. You asked for more frequent "links" posts; since there often isn't so much local news, we're going to start including many of her roundups to tell you about important and interesting developments around the country. - David
This morning, Jeff Wood at The Overhead Wire points us to a newly released measure of CO2 emissions from the Center for Neighborhood Technology (which just won a 2009 MacArthur Foundation Award for Creative and Effective Institutions, BTW). He says maps like these help to show why changing land-use patterns is vital in the fight to diminish greenhouse gases:
CNT has released another Affordability Index update that shows transportation emissions is 70% less in cities than in the suburbs. Why is this? Because people don't have to drive as much. You can see already the benefits, and it isn't all about electric cars. Yet some in Southern California think that SB375, the landmark climate change bill, can be addressed with electric cars alone. Sorry guys. It doesn't work like that.?
But it's not just transportation, it's building as well. We need to look at this as a complete system. This singular focus on one method is somewhat maddening. I know there are a lot of people who are hoping for a magic green car or a magic green building but we're also forgetting our water usage and population growth among other things.
The CNT site has some very cool maps that compare not only CO2 emissions from household auto use per acre and per household, but also the cost of housing and transportation as a percentage of average household income in many regions across the country.
As The Overhead Wire points out, maps like these point out the importance of development patterns in limiting emissions, and the reality that only a holistic solution will make a dent. Zero-emissions vehicles aren't going to solve the nation's carbon bloat any more than a diet pill can provide a long-term solution for an obese individual.
Other fun stuff from around the network: Brooklyn by Bike protests the girlification of women's bikes (stop the flowers!); Cyclelicious has the news that French prisoners get to participate in their own Tour de France; and World Streets has data that suggests that swine flu killed more people with traffic fatalities in Mexico City than with germs.
Cross-posted from Streetsblog.
DC needs an architectural historian to serve on the Historic Preservation Review Board. John Vlach's term has expired, and while he's offered to remain on the board, Mayor Fenty nominated someone else, Christopher Landis, to replace Vlach. However, while he has architectural training who works on historic buildings, Landis is not an architectural historian. And that's a problem.
Christopher Landis. Photo from the DC Council confirmation hearing.
At last week's confirmation hearing for Landis, DCPL's Rebecca Miller pointed out that National Park Service regulations require a state preservation review board to contain an architectural historian (as well as a historian and an archaeologist). Without one, DC could lose about $500,000 in federal historic preservation funding, the Current reports.
Rather than disapprove Landis's nomination, DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray urged Mayor Fenty to withdraw the nomination and resubmit his name in July, when several other board members will be up for renomination or replacement. Meanwhile, however, HPRB needs an architectural historian.
A qualified "architectural historian" need not have a degree in architectural history; related fields, including art history with work in architectural history, also qualify. Vlach, for example, is an anthropologist. Here are the NPS guidelines:
The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history are a graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely-related field, with course work in American architectural history; or a bachelor's degree in architectural history with concentration in American architecture; or a bachelor's degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely-related field plus one of the following:According to the Current, Miller submitted nine potential nominees. Who else? Do any of you meet these criteria? Do you know any DC residents who do, and who would be willing to serve on HPRB, spending one day a month at their meeting? Potential nominees ought to believe in the goals of historic preservation, but would ideally also consider the actual merit of each structure on its own, instead of simply landmarking a structure because of "momentum," as Vlach has argued in the past.
1. At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an academic institution, historic organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or
2. Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history.
Today, Metro staff presented their proposal for retail vending in Metro stations to the Board of Directors' Customer Service and Operations Committee. The plan was the same or almost the same as the plan they showed the RAC earlier this month. Board members had similar reactions to many RAC members, expressing general support for the program but opposing any exploration of food sales and pushing for a greater emphasis on small businesses.
The Post's Robert Thomson was liveblogging during the meeting, and has a detailed summary of each member's comments. DC Councilmember Jim Graham expressed strong support for a vending program, but said that he doesn't support "opening the door" to food. He relayed an incident from a few years ago where Metro police arrested a young girl for eating a french fry, which Graham said became an international press sensation. He fears that selling food, coupled with stepped-up enforcement, would invite more french fry incidents.
Chris Zimmerman of Arlington echoed Graham's concern, as did several other members. Zimmerman said that he had previously suggested Metro explore DVD rentals with a certain vendor that already appears in many drugstores and grocery stores, or other similar options. Staff said that a previous RFP for non-food vending had only yielded three unsatisfactory responses, but Board members expressed skepticism that Metro can't make something work.
Board members also criticized the focus on a "master licensee" to operate vending at twelve or more stations. Zimmerman said that Metro is used to making very large purchases from large organizations (like huge orders of rail cars), through heavyweight procurement processes. That, he suggested, wasn't right here. Instead, the Board instructed staff to write an RFP open equally to vendors that want to serve one station or many.
Before Board members spoke, I took advantage of the new policy allowing RAC members to testify at committee meetings. I summarized some of the objections that RAC members had raised, but speaking personally, recommended that the Board allow staff to release a very broad RFP to solicit proposals for food and non-food vending, from large and small businesses alike. More data is always better than less data, and the Board can better weigh the possibilities around food with a sheaf of bids in hand, for food or for flowers, from big and small companies alike.
Perhaps vendors would suggest frozen pizzas that would be almost impossible to eat on the train. Perhaps they will devise other ideas. At the very least, it would be helpful to know how much revenue we are foregoing. Maybe the cost of added enforcement would exceed the added revenue from food. If so, that would be good to know; if not, we should know that too. But the Board decided that they weren't willing to open that particular door, at least not yet.
Zimmerman did agree with me about keeping the RFP broad in some other ways, however. Some members, like Fairfax's Jeff McKay and Graham, suggested focusing on other stations such as Franconia-Springfield or Georgia Avenue-Petworth with limited retail opportunities outside the station. That might be a good idea, Zimmerman said, but he pushed to keep the RFP itself broad enough to encompass all stations, from Gallery Place to the most desolate park-and-ride. Metro wouldn't actually sign contracts for all 86 stations, but allowing potential vendors to choose the stations, rather than Metro, would bring in the widest possible range of non-food proposals.
The committee asked Metro staff to come back next month with a revised proposal for an RFP that gives more emphasis to small businesses and excludes food. Most likely, that will result in a better program for riders, with more diversity and less trash. At the same time, it may not attract nearly as much revenue as other programs might have. That's clearly a tradeoff the Board, many RAC members, and most members of the public were willing to make.
- The Metro plan has changed a lot since 1968
- Shepherd Park neighbors tell car2go users to stay out
- Did Rush Plus depress Blue Line ridership?
- Forget the Washington Monument; DC's tallest tower is actually in Ward 4
- Watch Metro grow from one short line in 1976 to the Silver Line today
- Do you know the station? It's whichWMATA week 15
- Montgomery and DC officials start talking about working together on transit