Peter Harnik - Greater Greater Washington

Should Arlington transform Quincy into its own Central Park?

Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:36:00 EDT

It's been about 35 years since Arlington graduated from backwater suburb to forward-looking city. It's missing one final piece to complete its transformation: a great central park.

Concept sketch of potential park from Richard Fitzhugh. Click to enlarge.

Arlington has all the trappings of a true urban area. There are high-rise office buildings, a walkable, mixed-use Metro corridor, tens of thousands of apartments, scores of exotic restaurants, active retail streets, even several live theaters and jazz bars. But it doesn't have a central park.

Arlington also has many green spaces, but they are essentially a collection of suburban fixtures. A mix of natural stream valley corridors, sports fields, school grounds, and Potomac River parkway frontage, Arlington's green spaces don't serve the same function as an urban city park.

A central park is the kind of community space that is nice to be in and share with others, regardless of use or purpose. It's a place with terrific curving paths, handsomely edged; pleasing benches and memorable light stanchions. A place with a mix of beautiful trees properly kept up; bushes, hedges and grassy areas, maybe even splashes of flowers; a pond and a bridge. And not a single chain-link fence. It's a place that's truly special to go for a picnic, to walk hand-in-hand, to show out-of-town visitors.

At a minimum, a central park for Arlington should look something like Lafayette Park, the ornamental square across from the White House. Arlington could do even better than that by evoking some of the great feeling of New York's Central Park on a smaller scale.

Fortunately, Arlington already has a great, central 12-acre location for this park, and it's already publicly owned: Quincy Park.

Bounded by N. Quincy Street, Washington Boulevard, N. Nelson Street, and 10th Street, and right between Ballston and Virginia Square, Quincy Park is home to the Central Library. The park is adjacent to dense residential neighborhoods with hundreds of yard-less residents, near thousands of daytime lunch-eating workers, flat without geological or hydrological constraints, close to Metro, and already has quite a few impressive trees.

What would it take to rebuild Quincy into a memorable, ornamental, walking city park?

A better boundary. The park needs a beautiful perimeter edge consisting of an appealing, wide sidewalk and an appropriate defining mixture of wall, fence, and hedge. As Frederick Law Olmsted pointed out 140 years ago when he designed New York's Central Park, a park's boundary and entrances set the tone for the visitor's entire experience.

Water. A central park should contain a generous water element. This could happen in a number of ways: a significant sized lake, or perhaps two ponds joined by a brook, or a non-flowing canalway traversed by a graceful bridge or two, or at the very least a fountain.

Fewer sports fields. The park could still contain a couple of tennis and basketball courts, a playground, and possibly even one ballfield, but only in a carefully designed, unobtrusive fashion. (And lets get rid of those junky storage buildings and utility boxes, too.) Elegant features for other users need to take precedence over sports facilities in a central park, while the county can satisfy the need for playing fields elsewhere.

Less parking. The entire gravel parking area in the northwest corner should go. And since the library has underground parking, perhaps half of its outdoor spaces could also be taken out to allow room for more natural features.

Could this vision become a reality? Yes, if enough people speak up for it.

Of course, it won't be easy. Crowded Arlington needs sports venues, and Quincy Park is well used for tennis, soccer, baseball, softball, volleyball, and more. But the school board just voted to construct a new softball field on the campus of nearby Washington-Lee High School, thus providing the opportunity to remove the existing softball field at Quincy. If Arlington pursues a central park, it can work to add other playing fields to replace any lost here.

Even redesigning the acre-sized southwest corner of the park into an appealing entrance way could revolutionize people's sense of the park and stimulate a conversation about what to do with the rest.

All kinds of parkland, from sports fields to wilderness corridors, deserve support. But an urban central park is something different, something unlike any of the 1300-plus acres of current open space in Arlington and it deserves support, too. Arlington won't be a true city until it happens.

36 comments

Arlington park shows that skaters can share public space (Sep 29, 2011)
Parks popping up tomorrow for Park(ing) Day (Sep 20, 2012)
Put a lid on DC's reservoirs (Aug 11, 2010)
Poplar Point and the Case of the Too-Large Park (Feb 4, 2009)
Manage Rock Creek like Central Park or Yosemite? (Feb 25, 2011)

Dulles Airport must reduce its carbon "toeprint"

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:16:00 EDT

by Peter Harnik and Camille Loomis

It's well known that air travel generates a large "carbon footprint" because of its greenhouse gas pollution. Less discussed is the carbon impact merely of getting to the airport—the "toeprint" of the flight. The more single-vehicle trips, the bigger the impact. Of many culprit airports across the country, one of the worst is Dulles.

Photo by sbamueller on Flickr.

Technically, Dulles is reachable by mass transit. However, the service is so poorly publicized and the transit schedule is so inadequate that it draws few riders. In fact, unlike virtually every other city, it is now literally impossible to take an express bus from downtown to Dulles. The venerable Washington Flyer bus from 16th and K Street was eliminated in 2004.

There is a Flyer bus from the West Falls Church Metro, but of the 17.8 million passengers who use ground transportation to or from Dulles every year, only about 250,000 use it. Another 500,000-or-so use Metrobus Route 5A from L'Enfant Plaza and Rosslyn. Everyone else—more than 17 million persons—either drives his or her own vehicle, rents a car, gets a car ride from a friend or takes a taxi. The waste of fuel (and money on taxis) is considerable.

One problem is the schedule. The Flyer normally operates only every half hour, sometimes less. Bus No. 5A is on a 40- to 50-minute schedule weekdays and hourly on weekends. Considering those schedules and the length of the actual ground travel, it is literally possible to spend more time transiting to Dulles than flying to Chicago.

Complaining to the Flyer management yields the response that there is no demand. "Take a look around you," they told me. "There are only 10 passengers. We can't even fill the buses at two per hour, much less if we ran four or six."

With that kind of faulty logic, a single bus per day would be packed with passengers. Rather, generous scheduling is key to any successful transit service.

There is fantastic demand to get to Dulles. The airport has an astounding 40,000 parking spaces, which consume 300 acres. The problem is that parking and transit are handled by two different authorities with two different profit structures pricing regimes. Neither has any mandate to do anything about the carbon toeprint.

Passengers who drive can park for $10 per 24 hours, which also buys them a free, frequent shuttle bus to the terminal. Since the Flyer costs $10 each way, not including the Metrorail fare to West Falls Church, this inexpensive parking makes it financially advantageous for a single person on a one- or two-day out-of-town trip to drive.

With more passengers in the group, the reward for driving increases. And compared to using a taxi roundtrip, the cost of parking breaks even for about 10 days of travel.

Passengers aren't the only ones who travel to Dulles. The airport's workforce is an astonishing 36,000. For every 12 airline passengers and their toeprints, there are an additional nine airline and airport workers driving on the Dulles Access Road and other routes. These people have it even better. Courtesy the Transportation Security Administration, parking for them is free. The Washington Flyer offers Dulles employees a discount of $4 on each bus trip, but how many people with the choice would choose to take a bus for $6 versus driving a car for free?

It's not that Americans "love to drive" or "can't be pried out of their cars." Maybe they just prefer not to be stupid enough to turn down low cost parking and a personalized schedule for expensive and intermittent transit. As for the toeprint—society's costs of wider highways, wasted gasoline, air pollution, heat island effect, loss of productive land, water pollution from runoff and extra automobiles—those are paid by everyone, even those who use transit.

Solving this problem is not that difficult. It can be done incrementally. After all, creating an airport with 40,000 parking spaces but only two or three half-filled shuttle buses an hour was also done incrementally.

On day one, increase parking rates for travelers by $2 per day, not a devastating increase but enough to nudge a few thousand people onto transit. Simultaneously, reduce the TSI parking subsidy to workers by $2 a day and raise the bus subsidy by the same amount, nudging a few more thousand away from cars.

With this mini-surge in demand, the Flyer and Metro can reduce the headway between buses to 20 minutes and the Flyer can also reduce its fare a bit. One year later, $2 more for all parkers, a slug of additional transit passengers, and a bus schedule of every 15 minutes or maybe even every 10.

The third year, who knows? Maybe $20 parking, continuous low-cost shuttle service, significantly fewer cars on the road, less pressure to widen I-66, cleaner air and the opportunity to start depaving some of the vast expanse of asphalt at Dulles would all become feasible. Finally we'd be going from a cycle that used to be vicious to one that is virtuous.

The United States spent 75 years moving up inexorably from transit to cars. We can climb back down this shaky ladder in the same methodical way, by charging appropriate costs for autos and providing transit levels that match the growth in demand. The place to start is with large public institutions that have predictable ridership and manageable transit modes—places like Dulles Airport.

55 comments

A better strategy for Orange Line shuttle buses? (May 25, 2010)
Time to ground the Washington Flyer (Jul 16, 2009)
MWAA considers moving Dulles Airport Metro stop (Aug 11, 2010)
Metro responds to Orange Line shuttle suggestion (Jun 1, 2010)
Infrequent airport buses offer a lackluster welcome (Dec 22, 2009)