Great maps. Thanks for sharing.

by Alex B. on Jul 7, 2009 11:17 am  

Those are terrific maps. Wish they had also done New Carrolton as I wonder what the effect of IRS relocating most offices there 10 years ago from downtown has been. This would be important as to whether re-locating major job centers to major transport hubs in what are viewed as less desirable places to live makes them more desirable.

David-There's an excellent new article by Prof.Baumann at SUNY, a geographer, entitled "Washington, DC- an Urban Heat Island" that while desperately needing reformatting, may be good for a future story. It has an excellent space shot of heat in DC which shows where auto traffic's effects are worst.

The article and the excellent heat photo are here:
http://employees.oneonta.edu/baumanpr/geosat2/Urban_Heat_Island_2/Urban_Heat_Island_Part_II.htm

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 7, 2009 11:53 am  

I really like the idea behind these maps, thank you for posting them! I guess if I stated how I think it's crazy that I work in Reston and I have coworkers who come here from places like Germantown and Elicott City, I'd sort of be preaching to the choir. But I certainly confess it's a problem that's hard to sovle; it's often easier to change jobs than change houses.

Of course, a lot of that stems the government subsidizing home ownership over renting, but that's apparently a sacred cow... And in fairness, not an entirely bad one. Even when one rents, it can still be hard to relocate, it's worth remembering.

I deal with it on a micro scale: I try to live fairly close to where I work. Living in Arlington (again) is nice: I have a 17-18 minute commute in the mornings since I don't hit traffic. The evenings are another story, even though I typically leave around 7pm. As for when I lived in DC, I specifically chose a place that would make it easy to commute to Reston from (Glover Park/Cathedral Heights). About 25 minutes in the mornings, same disclaimer on the evenings.

Of course, I can't afford to buy a place in Arlington or DC. But, in fairness, nor can I afford to buy one in Loudon County :)

by Justin on Jul 7, 2009 12:11 pm  

Great post. I like it so much wrote about it on BDC as well.

My point: Moving the jobs to the suburbs to try and shorten commutes doesn’t work.

by BeyondDC on Jul 7, 2009 12:17 pm  

There is one thing that I am missing. Couples that live together, but work in different places. I don't know how you can keep their commute down. You can only live close to one place.

by Jasper on Jul 7, 2009 12:26 pm  

If our job centers weren't so spread out then it wouldn't matter.

by BeyondDC on Jul 7, 2009 12:32 pm  

Its interesting to see that still for the most part it appears that people try to live near where they work, or they try to find a job near where they live.

by spookiness on Jul 7, 2009 1:14 pm  

Those federal government maps may be a little off; they aren't including the crazy people who live in Charles Town, Fredricksburg, or Winchester and commute into work.

the Silver line is still a boondoggle, but if you look at the Tysons pattern you can see how Rt 7 could be turned into a new Orange line corridor. I wonder if the Silver line is going to include massive parking increases at the connector station in Falls Church.

by charlie on Jul 7, 2009 1:55 pm  

Cool maps! Just like John Snow's!

by Bianchi on Jul 7, 2009 2:30 pm  

I live in Rosslyn, and when I was looking for a new job a few years ago, I wouldn't even bother to look in MD. Did I miss out on a potentially fabulous job? Perhaps, but I knew I would drive myself crazy with a long commute, either by car or transit. (I ended up finding one in Crystal City.)

by Betty Pawsheifer on Jul 7, 2009 2:40 pm  

Charlie, do you mean East Falls Church getting new parking garages? I don't think that will happen as the lots around the station are all surface parking and are pretty small. Combined with the outcrys from people who park here, and the neighbors across the street complaining I don't think that will happen. And you probably know this already but the Silver Line won't stop at West Falls.

by Joshua Davis on Jul 7, 2009 2:59 pm  

Betty, my experience with job hunting a couple of years ago was similar. I live in walking distanc of the Red Line in Wheaton. I made sure to not even bother applying to work anywhere in Virginia that's not on the Metro in Arlington. That would be a long commute but at least it would be consistent. I didn't even bother with Tysons or points west.

by Cavan on Jul 7, 2009 3:08 pm  

Look at the Bethesda Map and tell me the Purple Line's ridership wouldn't be enormous.

by alex on Jul 7, 2009 3:40 pm  

East Falls Church has a local area study going on to redevelop the surface parking lots so we avoid having multi-story parking garages built. The neighbors are participating in this process which is being sponsored by Arlington County and the City of Falls Church. It has WMATA and VDOT participation as well.

by Michael Perkins on Jul 7, 2009 4:11 pm  

I think the maps clearly show that commutes are shortened as people move close to their jobs. It shows that planning is effective in locating people. And the government's incentives to cover more of the 83 Metro stations with jobs is a good thing. In Europe all rail lines are developed somewhat equally with housing and it works well.

But the textbook dogma of centralizing development in central DC does not completely work here because of highly unusual geographic conditions. Unlike San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle or even Manhattan which are built on points of land in the sea, Washington is built in what nature intended as a wetland in a bowl and it one of the worst places for a city. Denver and a lot of other American cities are also built in bowls and LA is a horrible location.

Our problem isn't unsurmountable here as it's mainly the central half of DC that's in such a stagnant bowl. But livability in that bowl is in crisis and ignoring that factor would just lead to first days where we will have to wear gas masks to go outside in the central half of DC and then to days when autos will have to be curtailed. Without insisting on envirnomentally neutral development at a minimum in the "heat island" the crisis will just get worse.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 7, 2009 4:15 pm  

@ Tom:

Huh? DC was not built on a swamp. Sure, Hains Point is fill, and Constitution Ave used to be a canal - but the vast majority of the District is on dry ground.

The heat island effect happens in every city.

by Alex B. on Jul 7, 2009 4:51 pm  

Tom,

DC is also not bowl-shaped to the degree that Denver and LA are: we don't have vertical gains into legitimate mountains like they do. No, DC is relatively flat, with the exception of the Potomac and Rock Creek gorges. Besides, the air quality in Manhattan is awful!

by цarьchitect on Jul 7, 2009 5:18 pm  

Alex B.- Tiber Creek, which is now under Constitution Ave., was used to drain the swampy marshes in that part of DC. Very old photographs of the rear of the White House even show cattle grazing among swampy grasses. The area from about Pennsylvania Avenue to the escarpment (or fall line) which roughly follows the old city limits of Florida Avenue was originally very rich farmland because of the high ground water level and being riddled with underground streams. But the "bowl" of DC is roughly from the escarpment to the Arlington ridge where Lee's house sits.

The pollution bowl in DC is much, much worse than other cities. Without taking into account that peculiar problem there's no way to do competent planning and we could end up with a central core that's borderline uninhabitable, extremely higher health costs, and enormous bills for artificial water treatment plants to replace the natural ground filtration system. While ozone pollution may be invisible and health bills may seem intangible, and therefore easy to ignore for PR purposes, that last point is staring us in the face right now as rain water is illegally carrying pollutants into the Potomac making it an environmental dead zone.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 7, 2009 5:28 pm  

A good visual argument for the smart-growth benefits of attracting jobs/building more office space in DC.

The map clearly shows that most do people try to live relatively close to their jobs(under 45 minutes?). The more jobs there are in DC, the more demand there will be for housing in DC and other nearby dense, walkable & transit-accessible areas.

Additionally having more people living & working in DC will allow us to justify a more extensive (and frequent!) transit system.

IMO we need to avoid excessive regulations, complicated rules and other policies that drive people away(commuter tax anyone?). I know that pro-businesses policies are not a natural fit to many on this blog politically, but in this case I think benefits far out-way the disadvantages.

by Daniel on Jul 7, 2009 5:38 pm  

I don't think anyone is necessarily pro or anti business on this blog. It's all about the details, as with most policy.

I think we can agree on centralizing job growth for environmental reasons.

by Cavan on Jul 7, 2009 5:58 pm  

and it's certainly not long-term anti-business to want to avoid a central core that's unfit for humans. such a place ultimately wouldn't be attractive for business either. it's more how we structure growth to make it environmentally at least neutral, even for the central core.

personally i still prefer the European planning of somewhat equal development at all rail sites. in our case that means the 83 Metro stops and works to take some pressure off our pollution bowl.

but yes, it's about considering all the important details and very careful planning. one size does not usually fit all.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 7, 2009 6:11 pm  

@ Tom
"Unfit for humans" seems to more than a little dramatic. DC is the least polluted place I've lived in a long time.

@ Cavan
Yes, maybe you're right. A practical approach such as the one you describe would be truly useful for planning purposes.

I have no ideological problem with regulations and rules. I just think that we should keep in mind that they add to the cost of doing business in DC. Many people in DC do not seem to think about the distortions and extra costs caused by such seemingly beneficial policies as rent control and local hiring requirements.

On a similar note, I have trouble with the multiple layers of planning bureaucracy. Doesn't mean we should be Houston, but simplification and streamlining would make the process more transparent and predictable. I hope the result would be lower costs.

by Daniel on Jul 7, 2009 6:51 pm  

@Jasper:
I had the same thought about split commuting couples. My wife is a school teacher inside the Beltway (we live in the R-BC) and I have worked in Tysons, Dulles (reverse commute), and Baltimore (reverse commute).

I think that to say job centers should be closer is more than a bit flip. There are areas that are very job-specific such as Belvoir, NIH, Meade, various Fed labs in Chantilly/Centreville, and elsewhere.

What I can't tell from these fantastic maps is the absolute number of employees commuting to one area or another. I assume this data was taken in part from IRS statistics, so it would be interesting to learn more about salaries and overlay that with home prices to see what types of employees are living where. I also don't see any time-series data, so you can't tell how/if this is changing.

What these maps tell me more than anything is how vital multi-modal transport is to commuting and land use. For Tysons and Reston, if you have to drive anyway, why not live some place you like? To BDC's point about jobs in the burbs not working, I'd point out that Metro allows jurisdictions to increase density. When Metro comes to Tysons, isn't density expected to increase? Won't that remake this map? Doesn't that suggest that the problem is the infrastructure, not the burbs?

by Bill on Jul 7, 2009 7:58 pm  

@Tom:

I don't see the effects of a "pollution bowl" in DC that mirrors your examples of LA and Denver. LA certainly sits in a geographical depression surrounded on 3 sides by mountains, but DC simply sits on the edge of the Piedmont/Atlantic coastal plain. The air doesn't sit here for days like it does in LA. That being said, there is a heat island effect because it's a city and things are paved here. There's also a noticeable amount of point source pollution because of cars driving into the city. But to call this a "crisis" unique severe in DC isn't true. I'd actually say that this problem is less severe in DC because of our urban forestry efforts and the large collection of parks in the city. Places like Shaw or Capitol Hill or Penn Quarter are actually pretty livable because of the tree canopy. Like Daniel said, DC is the cleanest most unpolluted city I've lived in.
As far as European development goes, from my own observations cities there are much more centralized. You also have to remember that European metro systems like Paris' are confined to the city center, while ours extends much deeper out into the suburbs.

by merarch on Jul 7, 2009 9:33 pm  

David, do you have any maps for military and DOD employees? A mashup of living quarters, current job sites, and post-BRAC sites would be pretty interesting.

by цarьchitect on Jul 7, 2009 9:44 pm  

@Bill These maps are from census surveys, the CTPP or census transportation planning package. Some of the maps have one dot equals one trip, some of them are one map equaling five trips.

An interesting map that would be a useful corollary to these is the inverse -- showing the destinations people head to from a specific residential area. So, for example, it would be interesting to see graphically in a dot map where residents in the RB corridor go for work...that map would convey how a transit-served setting affects employment destinations.

by jnb on Jul 7, 2009 9:47 pm  

Alex, maybe you and I read maps differently but what I see is that the Bethesda-NIH corridor's density runs north/south not east/west. I think the Purple Line misses the most significant portion of the population. Maybe we should be turning our transit dollars and attention to Corridor Cities after all . . .

Pat

by Pat on Jul 7, 2009 9:53 pm  

unlike LA and Denver or cities surrounded by mountains in a valley, central DC sits in a humid depression that traps pollution. of the hundreds of metro areas in the US the survey by the American Lung Association which was highly researched and widely published, listed us as the 14th most polluted metro area. and that doesn't even account for the "pollution bowl" effect.

When I was in school in San Francisco I came to agree with Mark Twain's assessment that the coldest winter he had ever experienced was a summer in San Francisco. the sea winds that cross cities like that are the exact opposite of what we have. they hardly have any heat island.

the tree canopy problem in DC is acute now and I keep harping on that because in spite of the DC Re-Forestation Act that we have spent much money on, new trees are now having trouble reaching the ground water level that they require as they reach a certain size in three or four years and too many of them are dying. as the tree canopy in central DC above Mass and below the escarpment falls below the critical 25% level, the decline to virtually zero will come very fast.

but i do agree that the perception lately is we don't have a peculiar problem and that until drastic measures are required by current laws, as is happening with the Potomac now, nothing will be done. and the reaction is always "how did that happen? i thought we didn't have much of a problem!"

ozone pollution may be invisible but it is a deadly killer.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 7, 2009 9:59 pm  

Tom, I'm not sure what you're talking about. LA and Denver have problems because they'll frequently get a temperature inversion that traps pollution at lower altitudes, an effect that's exacerbated by their mountains.

DC's highest point is a mere 409 feet above sea level. Los Angeles, by comparison, is surrounded by mountains thousands of feet in elevation. The highest point in LA County is just over 5,000 feet.

Your point about SF and the heat island effect is off base, too. The heat island is simply the sun heating up dark surfaces, which warms the surrounding area faster than normal earth would. That effect is the same (all else being equal) in any city. It's not a direct air quality concern.

Anyway, your point about SF's mitigation of the heat via the winds is noteworthy, since DC gets plenty of wind, too.

Fact is that DC's air pollution isn't particularly bad amongst big cities - and assessing any cause of that has to do with the auto congestion, not the transit using workers downtown.

by Alex B. on Jul 7, 2009 10:24 pm  

14th worst air among hundreds of metro areas in last month's survey is noting to be exactly proud of.

our ozone pollution is almost all auto traffic as the heat photo in Baumann's article shows because it extends beyond the central core to Columbia Heights and up 16th Street all the way to Silver Spring and they are both above the escarpment.

i'm not opposed to much greater density in our core. i just want it to be carefully planned out so we don't reach a crisis (unlikely in DC). protection of the 25% tree canopy and 25% exposed ground surface in central DC, along with diminishing auto traffic is the vehicle to avoid crisis and isn't THAT hard. coming up with the money to build an artificial rain water filtering system is going to be very hard and will take money from much-needed transit improvements.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 7, 2009 10:48 pm  

Has anybody noticed that the first map implies that there are hoards of people living on the National Mall and in the U.S. Capitol? Can somebody explain that?

by Monumentality on Jul 8, 2009 12:16 am  

^
The data is probably only census tract deep, and those areas are probably within larger census tracts.

by BeyondDC on Jul 8, 2009 12:21 am  

The census captures people where it finds them. For example, in the last census it had something like 20 people living in Dupont Circle (the park). They've probably listed many of the government workers as 'living' in the mall. The census has quirks, no doubt about it.

by Lance on Jul 8, 2009 7:46 am  

These kinds of maps should be required as part of any region's Major Transportation Investment Analysis (a precursor for federal funding). The next step is how to link land use / transportation patterns to appropriate transit modes and alignments.

by Matt on Jul 8, 2009 12:23 pm