Posts from July 2009

Transit

Gaithersbungle, part 6: What else $3.8 billion could buy, more specifically

by David Alpert   •   July 29, 2009 2:26 pm

In Part 3, we looked at MARC expansion proposals, which would increase transit service in the I-270 corridor for much less than the $3.8 billion the Maryland State Highway Administration wants to spend to widen the freeway. The Action Committee for Transit came up with a more specific dream package of transit proposals, which I turned into a map.

This map includes the following:

• Extension of the Red Line to Germantown. The Red Line would use the I-370 and I-270 right-of-way from Shady Grove to Germantown, then end in an underground station at Germantown Town Center.

• All-day, bidirectional MARC service to Frederick. A new station near White Flint, to serve the planned, dense, transit-oriented development in that area. And through-routing of MARC trains down at least to King Street.

• A MARC extension to Hagerstown, using an old and abandoned right-of-way.

• The Corridor Cities Transitway, using the less circuitous original alignment and an extension to Clarksburg Town Center. With the Red Line, riders from north of Germantown wouldn't have to ride all the way through the office parks west of Gaithersburg to get to Rockville, Bethesda or DC.

• A streetcar along Route 355 (Rockville Pike/Hungerford Dr/Frederick Rd) from the White Flint Mall to Gaithersburg. It would stop at the various Metro stations, Montgomery College, Gaithersburg MARC, and Lakeforest Mall before turning west to a new Red Line station and Metropolitan Grove MARC, where it would connect to the CCT.

According to ACT's calculations, all of this, including light rail on both the CCT and the 355 line, would cost less than the current proposal to widen the freeway and build a bus rapid transit CCT. Plus, Maryland could build these individually instead of all-or-nothing.

Should Maryland execute this plan? It depends. If the state is intent on spending $4 billion in the 270 corridor, then this is far superior. Drivers would benefit, too, because this transit would shift enough trips off of I-270 that the existing road could handle the remaining auto trips.

However, this area isn't the best place to put so many jobs and so much infrastructure at all. Eastern Montgomery County has been waiting for its transit for a long time. There are many development opportunities at Wheaton and Glenmont, and plenty of parts of Silver Spring still eager for the promised revitalization. Matt and Reza's map showed how underutilized our existing infrastructure is in the east, especially in Prince George's County. Between the planned development at White Oak and White Flint, Montgomery could already accommodate its expected growth for the next 20 years without a lot of new jobs way up there. There's plenty of room for biotech growth in Baltimore, too, and they have an ambitious transit plan of their own.

The 270 widening is a bad idea for two reasons: it increases auto dependence, and shifts the epicenter of jobs and housing westward away from the developed part of the region and the state. An all-transit alternative would accomplish all of the mobility goals in the corridor for the same or less money. But the even smarter planning would put some of the transit and a little bit of the growth over on this side of the county, and put more in the other, better, and needier areas.

Previously:

• Part 1: Planning Board staff latest to ignore better way for Gaithersburg
  
• Part 2: Old, tired formulas generate old, disastrous solutions
  
• Part 3: What else can you get for $3.8 billion?
  
• Part 4: Why emulate Tysons' existing road network?
  
• Part 5: What you callin' a city?

Development

Smart growth with more affordable housing in Wheaton, take 2

by Cavan Wilk   •   July 29, 2009 12:50 pm

Last year, the Mehring Group submitted a proposal to the Montgomery County Planning Board to develop an empty three acre parcel of land that sits on the 2800 block of University Boulevard between Westfield Wheaton and the Kensington Heights section of single-family houses. After the Planning Board rejected the proposal, Mehring resubmitted a proposal for 24 townhouses and 3 single-family houses. Some units will be required to be Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU) under the current zoning). The Planning Board will decide on the new proposal on Friday.

The Kensington Heights Citizens' Association vehemently fought the proposal. Back in the fall of 2007, they cynically submitted a proposal to include the land in the Legacy Open Space program. This plot of land is an excellent place for Smart Growth. The property is completely surrounded by human uses and is too small to provide a complete animal habitat. The environmental benefits of having residents live within walking distance of transit and amenities outweigh the minimal environmental benefits of a three-acre plot of land surrounded by human uses. Additionally, it will help with housing prices in the area by better balancing supply and demand. The new townhouses would be situated in an extremely transit-rich area, on the outskirts of a legacy walkable urban town. Two major bus lines stop there, and the Red Line is a ten-minute walk away.

Since the original proposal and rejection, Wheaton has only continued getting more urban and vibrant. New townhouses on Georgia Avenue between Blueridge and Arcola Avenues are almost finished. The Planning Board has since approved the Avalon Bay mixed-use development ten minutes north of the Metro, which will house a new modern Safeway (minus the wasteful parking lot in front). New local, small businesses like Dejabel Cafe along with chain stores like Cricket Wireless have opened up and continued bringing in a greater mix of people and dollars.

A new Wheaton Sector Plan is currently in the pre-preliminary stages of drafting. While the Sector Plan is being drafted, the old 1990 Sector Plan is still in use. It would be unwise to delay this proposal until after the new Sector Plan is finished and approved. The current timeline calls for the plan to finish in 2010. However, with the upcoming 2010 election cycle, it is not at all inconceivable that the new Sector Plan won't take effect until after the County Executive is sworn in in 2011. Under such a scenario, the developer would not be able to break ground on these new housing units until 2012 at the earliest. That is quite a long wait for something that is so sorely needed in downtown Wheaton.

In addition to the long-term economic benefits of this proposal, there are many potential short-term benefits. There was much debate in the beginning of the year about a national economic stimulus package that eventually got passed. Some, like Princeton Professor of Economics and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman are still debating it. The construction dollars from this project would provide a super-local stimulus portion. Building car-dependent sprawl was a major piece of our national economy between 1946 and 2008. In this case, the construction dollars would go towards a more sustainable living arrangement. There are contractors and sub-contractors who would find work constructing 27 units in Wheaton. The sooner those construction dollars can start flowing, the better off our town, county, and region will be.

Most likely, under the new Sector Plan, a proposal for 27 housing units with MPDUs would be approved. Therefore, it makes little sense to delay a project with so many benefits. The original proposal with more housing and more MPDUs would have been even better, but at this juncture, Montgomery County should move ahead with this project now.

Public Spaces

On the calendar: 17th, 18th, bike lanes and streetcars

by David Alpert   •   July 29, 2009 11:34 am

This week and next, there are several important opportunities to advocate for better streets in DC, whether for bicycles, pedestrians, streetcars, or retail along the edge.

These events and more appear on the Greater Greater Washington calendar. Know of an event we should list? Email it to info@ggwash.org.

Budget

Council considers some of our revenue ideas

by David Alpert   •   July 29, 2009 9:55 am

The DC Council is still making some of the most important decisions of the year behind closed doors, and all we had yesterday was 140 characters at a time from Mike DeBonis. DeBonis did manage to tweet some of the Council's revenue ideas, including a few from our list:

mikedebonis Raising gas tax to MD rate would bring in $3.5M

mikedebonis 'Selected' license and permit hikes estimated to raise $5M. Raising drivers license and car registration fees would raise a half mil

mikedebonis Should DC employees pay market rate for their parking rather than just $80 a month? Upping it to $120 would raise $1.2M

mikedebonis T Wells and M Cheh support market rate parking for dc gov workers. Others do not. Evans to wells: 'when's drive to work day?'

ggwash And how about charging market rate for Council staffers and, most importantly, Councilmembers? Would never fly of course.

mikedebonis Attn @ggwash: Graham proposes hiking RPP fees: $15 for the first (as now); $50 for the 2nd; $100 for each addl. Will raise $1.8M

By the way, Greater Greater Washington now has a Twitter account. I tweet some of the exciting Breakfast Links ahead of time (when I first find them), links to important articles, and other stuff. Follow ggwash here.

Links

Breakfast links: Full of hot air

by David Alpert   •   July 29, 2009 9:06 am

History

Then and Now: The Toronto apartment building

by Kent Boese   •   July 28, 2009 4:00 pm

The Toronto, located at the southwest corner of 20th and P Streets, NW, began life in 1908. An April 12, 1908, article in the Washington Times described the beginnings of the Toronto in this manner:

Work was commenced last week on the six-story apartment house to be erected at Twentieth and P streets northwest, by Thomas H. Pickford. The architect, A. H. Beers, has also submitted final designs, which have been accepted, for a structure to cost $125,000.

The building will face eighty feet on Twentieth street and ninety feet on P street, with the entrance on the latter street. The materials to be used are gray brick ad stone, while the frame will be of steel.

Perhaps the most noticeable feature of the building and the one that will most quickly attract the attention of apartment hunters is the abundance of light afforded by the unusual number of windows. On the P street front the plans provide for twenty-five bay windows, with three windows each, and thirty-eight other windows. The Twentieth street front has a corresponding number.

There are to be six apartments on each floor, of four, six, and eight rooms each, an arrangement not found in many Washington apartment houses.

Mr. Pickford expects to have the building ready by the first of October. This is one on the largest pieces of private building now in progress in the District, and will afford employment to a large number of men through the summer. Its completion will add another high-grade apartment building to the already large number constructed in recent years.

Other than being painted, the exterior of the building hasn't changed that much over the years, as you can see. It does appear that a decorative cornice has been lost over the years.

Two close up details of the bay window decorations:

Government

Should WMATA agree to Google's license terms?

by Michael Perkins and David Alpert   •   July 28, 2009 2:01 pm

Previously, we noted that Google Transit in the DC region has stalled, and discussed Metro's license terms. While Metro has released data under a license, Google isn't willing to accept Metro's license, and is instead waiting for Metro to agree to their terms. Are Google's terms reasonable? Should Metro sign the agreement as is, or negotiate further?

We don't completely agree on this question, so we've structured this article as a point-counterpoint. Below is Michael's opinion; David's response follows.

Metro should sign Google's agreement

by Michael Perkins

Google's boilerplate agreement is very simple, for a legal agreement. Google asks for a royalty-free license to actually use the data. The agreement defines how a transit agency makes its information available and keeps it up to date. It allows Google control over the "look and feel" on Google's site.

Metro also warrants that it has the power to enter this agreement, and that it's not violating any copyrights or patents by letting Google use the schedule data. As an information service provider, Google needs to be reasonably assured that when they use copyrighted content or trademarks, they are using them with permission or making a fair use. If another entity provides the content under a license, Google need assurance that that party has the legal capability to do so. The surest way of doing this is to require that the other party be financially responsible if they're wrong—to "indemnify" Google.

Google also requires Metro to indemnify them against any other lawsuits arising from Gogole's use of the transit data. Contrary to what I thought before, it doesn't look like they're concerned about being sued if the data is wrong. There's a general disclaimer in the Google Maps terms of service that protects both Google and Metro against any inaccuracy in data.

Other terms limit liability, establish a mutual confidentiality agreement, and provide for terminating the agreement. This is all pretty standard for a legal agreement between two companies that might want to do business.

In my opinion, Google's terms are reasonable.

Parking

Fun is good

by David Alpert   •   July 28, 2009 12:13 pm

The wind in your hair. The rush of motion. The breathtaking view of the landscape. These are some of the joys of riding in a machine invented right around the turn of the twentieth century. I'm talking about the Ferris wheel.

Riding in Ferris wheels is a lot of fun. Millions of people do it. They've appeared in countless American movies. And that's why, no matter what some "Smart Growth" advocates try to do to restrict Ferris wheels, the DC government should continue structuring its public policy around ensuring free and unlimited Ferris wheel rides.

Fun is watching the brightly colored gondolas spin around and around. Stopping at the top while people get on and off at the bottom may be much derided, but the time alone with your thoughts at the top of the wheel is incredibly relaxing. Ferris wheels may be just a wheel and a motor to some, but to most they provide the childlike joy and feeling of freedom they want. Teacups, Scramblers, and bumper cars may provide brief glimpses of fun, but are never loved like Ferris wheels.

Streets like 15th Street, NW used to have much wider front yards for the houses, but during the twentieth century DC took away much of this "public parking" area to construct Ferris wheels. After decades of designing the city around Ferris wheels, there is one on almost every block, but that's simply not enough. Residents of some denser neighborhoods complain about having to wait as much as a half hour to get on a Ferris wheel when they come home.

That's why we need zoning rules that require all new apartment buildings to construct Ferris wheels on their property. That's also why some Councilmembers have introduced legislation to spend public money on constructing new Ferris wheels, and some people have advocated tearing down buildings like the Reeves Center to put in Ferris wheels.

Some "Smart Growth" advocates suggest instead that we end the current policy of keeping all rides free and letting people ride as many times as they want in a row. They say this is unfair, because some people keep taking up Ferris wheel seats all evening, and propose "performance Ferris riding" to set a market price for rides. But that will hurt poor people. "Smart Growth" advocates may try to make Ferris wheels more inconvenient or more expensive, but people still want to enjoy the rush of riding high atop the city in Ferris wheels. Some residents feel that the Ferris wheels "tower over" their houses and the bright lights late into the night interfere with their sleep, but that's just part of the fun.

Obviously, the above is farcical. Yet it's the very argument Gary Imhoff made on Sunday with his ode to the private automobile. He derided the "Smart Growth" advocates for daring to suggest that cars ought not be king in all circumstances. After all, they're so much fun:

Fun isn't just sports cars and muscle cars going twenty or thirty miles over the speed limit. It's also the toy cars — Volkswagen bugs in the 1960's and smart cars today — that make everybody smile. ... Fun is also the comfy, cushy sedans associated with staid uncles and aunts. ... Fun is the pickups that let their owners feel they can do any job they need to do.

The point Imhoff and others miss is that we don't subsidize most other forms of fun. Just because something is fun doesn't mean our public policy should give that fun priority over other fun, or that we should devote substantial public land to that fun at great taxpayer expense, or require new buildings to spend millions of dollars to accommodate the fun, crowding out other uses. Imhoff's argument appears to boil down to this: either something is good, or bad. If it's good, then any policy that increases it is good, and any advocate for any policy that says otherwise must be trying to destroy the happiness that comes with it.

There's nothing wrong with finding cars to be fun. Of course, other people find walking, bicycling, and taking Metro fun. Imhoff writes, "Subways and buses are the appliances, conveniences that can be appreciated but are never loved." Many Greater Greater Washington readers, I suspect, beg to differ. Many commuters stuck in traffic, meanwhile, don't find cars much fun at all. Why are the desires of those who enjoy walking or bicycling insignificant, while those of the car enthusiast paramount? Nobody's advocating to outlaw auto shows or vintage car parades.

The irony of Imhoff's argument becomes most clear at the end of his love letter, when he writes,

Drive the 14th Street Bridge over the Potomac River, and if your timing is right you can see a thrilling sight. On the bridge will be cars, bicycles, and pedestrians; on the next two bridges will be a train and a subway car; underneath will be boats on the Potomac; and above will be airplanes coming in for a landing at Reagan National Airport. It's the history of transportation, of the twentieth century, in one spot.

That spot is indeed thrilling. But, as Imhoff noted, your timing has to be perfect to catch a fleeting glimpse of the walkers, bikers, boats, trains and planes on 14th as you speed across the bridge and keep your attention on the road. But there's a much easier way to take in the glory of the bridges over the Potomac: walk or bike there. It's too bad Imhoff doesn't consider that much fun.

Transit

Where the Metro riders are, and aren't

by Matt Johnson   •   July 28, 2009 10:04 am

How full are Metro's trains at any point in the system? What routes do riders take when confronted with a choice between two transfers, or between a longer one-seat ride and a transfer? Last year, in discussing maps I created about the proposed Blue Line reroute, a reader asked about this, but Metro hasn't collected the data.

To answer this question, classmate and frequent GGW commenter Reza and I created a non-scientific survey, and used the data to build a diagram of passenger traffic on Metro system. This survey was unscientific and the results should not be considered as absolute facts. It does show potential trends, but a larger and broader sample would be necessary to validate these results.

The survey first asked respondents to state a certain preference, like the top factor they use to decide on a route. Later, it presented a specific scenario and asked respondents which route they would choose. Overwhelmingly, survey respondents primarily prioritized getting to their destination in the shortest time. A plurality of 44 percent chose minimizing transfers as the second most important factor. For the third choice, a plurality of 37% said, given the option, they'd choose a line with more frequent trains.

Based on the responses, Reza and I created a decision tree to assign the trips from the 2007 Ridership Survey to the links of the Metro system. On the segments of the system without alternative routes, the diagram is 100% accurate from Metro's origin and destination data. For example, ridership between Takoma and Silver Spring is definitely almost twice as high as between Silver Spring and Forest Glen, which is why Metro turns back half of Red Line trains at Silver Spring. Inside the area with alternative routes (bounded by Fort Totten, Metro Center, L'Enfant Plaza, Rosslyn, and Pentagon), the diagram relies on the non-scientific and possibly non-representative survey.

This information is very important to helping Metro make good decisions about service. Dropping the percentage of rush hour Blue Line trains at Rosslyn 40 percent to only 20 percent, as Metro proposes, would make the most sense if about 80 percent of riders at Rosslyn were on the Orange Line. But some readers of Greater Greater Washington and elsewhere commented that their Blue Line trains between Rosslyn and Arlington Cemetery seem pretty crowded, and that they probably would become even more so if Metro halved the number of trains.

Metro's May 2007 ridership survey lists the number of trips made from any station to any other station, on average, but not which path riders take to get there, when they have a choice. We don't know what emphasis riders place on factors transferring versus travel time, and therefore can't ascertain what routes people would choose if given an option. Of course, a trip from Shady Grove to Dupont Circle can only happen via the Red Line, but from Van Dorn Street to L'Enfant Plaza, the rider has to choose between the one-seat Blue Line ride and a transfer to Yellow, or a trip from Woodley Park to Prince George's Plaza involves a transfer at either Fort Totten or Gallery Place.

Metro needs accurate models to make decisions about service levels given its budget and infrastructure constraints. They periodically take a statistical sample of riders to determine where people are boarding, where they're exiting, and how they get to and from stations. But they have little data about how people get from point A to point B. One method that Metro uses to determine the ridership on certain line segments is to station workers on the platform to count passengers on trains, but this doesn't capture all information about route choices. WMATA should consider adding those questions to their ridership surveys.

The ridership per link estimated by our survey and assignment model show some interesting relationships.

Links

Breakfast links: The blind spot

by David Alpert   •   July 28, 2009 8:09 am