The only thing we have to fear is fear of traffic

Development

The only thing we have to fear is fear of traffic

by David Alpert • January 13, 2010 11:51 am

Has a civil engineer ever looked up at the Golden Gate Bridge and thought, "Nah, a suspension bridge could never work?" How many elected officials say, "our city could never be like San Francisco, so let's not try to bridge our similar strait?"

Impossible! Photo by Thomas Hawk.

We have plenty of working examples of bridges, and therefore we know we can build more. But when it comes to cities, the science of traffic engineering seems to deny their very existence.

The math seems simple. If you build new houses, stores or offices, they will generate a certain number of trips. Roads have set capacities. The added trips will therefore increase congestion and decrease Level of Service (LOS). To avoid congestion, many areas have Adequate Public Facilities ordinances requiring developers to widen the roads.

That's a straightforward formula for adding suburban sprawl. It's the system that built Tysons Corner. But strangely, when a plan comes up for building a real city, people balk. It could never work. It'd generate way too much traffic.

Yet the bridge is right in front of us. Downtown Washington, DC has that density. Somehow it does work. So do all the other similarly-sized cities, and the smaller cities. We used to build cities without worrying so much about adequate public facilities, and here they are. If your bridge model says that the Golden Gate would fall down, but it doesn't, there's something wrong with the model. If a traffic model says that a growing part of the region can never have densities like DC, it's just as flawed.

And when elected officials balk at a proposal because of the flawed model, that's a failure of imagination and a failure of leadership. Every time they say, "we're not DC," "we're not Bethesda," or "we're not Reston," it's their vision that's lacking. Where would we be today if Pierre L'Enfant said, "Washington could never be like Philadelphia," and insisted on laying out a pattern of farms instead of a city? Why could we design cities in 1791 but not 2010?

The Montgomery County Council recently rejected a Planning Department proposal to relax the County's Adequate Public Facilities law. The proposal would have let traffic models project a LOS of E instead of D as long as transit had LOS B — in other words, you don't have to obsess quite as much over traffic if transit provides an adequate alternative. Yet they turned down the change, and did so unanimously.

Ben Ross of ACT criticized the APFO in a recent Gazette op-ed. Friends of White Flint point out some of the flaws: the White Flint plan adds more parallel roads next to Rockville Pike, creating a grid and moving more cars outside of the Pike; but if it slows down traffic on the Pike even while moving cars in other ways, it fails the AFPO traffic test. That forces County planners to widen intersections while still keeping the intersections pedestrian-friendly as the White Flint plan demands.

This plan still pales in comparison to the size of, say, NoMA, yet the builders of NoMA aren't being forced to widen North Capitol Street to six lanes each way. Even though there is a whole city full of examples just to the south, Montgomery's leaders can't bring themselves to see past the restrictive rules.

Montgomery isn't the only place missing a little vision. In Herndon, the Connection quoted Councilmember Connie Hutchinson preferring a lower-density vision for the town because she wanted streets widened. Plans suggested more housing, but she said, "Our traffic studies will show whether that's feasible."

If more housing isn't feasible in Herndon, how could it have been feasible in Old Town Fairfax when that was built, or Arlington when Rosslyn-Ballston was built, or Washington, DC throughout its history? If the traffic studies say that all of these places with more housing aren't "feasible," then there's got to be something wrong with the study methodology, not with the area itself.

Leaders across the region are grappling with growth. The suburban pattern of development is conservative and seemingly safe, it's extremely expensive in infrastructure, harmful to water quality, tree canopy, and more, and most of all, increasingly less popular than walkable urban patterns.

Most leaders now agree that creating at least some new urban places in areas with existing infrastructure, like White Flint, Prince George's Metro stations, or along the future Silver Line, is desirable. But fear and uncertainty from traffic modeling holds them back. Arlington didn't let it stop them and now they're a model for growth. DC became what it is today because we didn't have those models at the time. It's time for our leaders to trust their eyes instead of their computers and take the leap.

21 comments Share	— tags: adequate public facilities, density, development, Fairfax, Maryland, Montgomery, traffic, Tysons Corner, Virginia, White Flint

2010 wish list for transit (Dec 23, 2009)
Do "we have to do something" about traffic but not transit? (Oct 26, 2009)
Tysons planners: Making a city is hard, so never mind (Sep 15, 2009)
Gaithersbungle, part 4: Why emulate Tysons' existing road network? (Jul 14, 2009)
For Montgomery's future, look to Arlington (May 6, 2009)

Comments

The Montgomery County Council is way too stuck in the old ways of doing things to even consider a "modern" approach to development such as relying equally on transit and auto for transportation. They preach that they are all about smart growth and creating new urban villages, but when push comes to shove when they actually have to make a real decision on subject they automatically back down, and choose to rely on the status quo instead of trying to be forward thinking. The entire council needs a breath of fresh air because this current one still views moco as if it's the 1970's & 1980's, both economically and in terms of growth. Jesus is it really that difficult to follow a path towards smart growth already laid out before you by Arlington???

by diplomat74 on Jan 13, 2010 12:17 pm

Great article. It's difficult because of out-moded perceptions of density and transit. Yet, the density of many townhouse developments in the (way out)burbs rivals some in-town neighborhoods.

The difference is their physical form makes it easy to live in annonimity. No sidewalks, integral garages, and no connective/walkable streets makes being suspicious of eachother much easier. Add to that the time we spend in front of TV's, computers, and video games, the incentives to check-out of society and fear the masses has only increased. It dosen't matter that density has arrived even in the far out suburbs, the perception of density will continue to inform the physical form until.

As educational as venues such as GGW can be, I fear only $5.00 a gallon gas and 3-hour commutes will force us to do right by eachother and build more communities rather than developments.

by Thayer-D on Jan 13, 2010 12:37 pm

Great article...The great misconception that "building more roads equals less congestion" stems greatly in part to the misunderstanding of the basic properties of traffic growth itself.

You see, in terms of expansion, traffic shares the same properties as a gas. When a gas is put into a container, it immediately expands to fill the entire volume of that container. We have all witnessed expensive roadway "improvement projects" that were designed to alleviate traffic congestion ultimately fail because sooner than later more drivers decide to drive, and developers decide to develop along the "improved" roadway.

Solution? You all know it... multi-modal transportation, mixed-use communities, built up and in (not sideways and out), educate our public (and our public officials) about the benefits of density.

I think that Thayer-D is right on by saying we will only finally get it when gas is $5.00 and it takes 3 hours to get anywhere by car...we don't have much longer to wait.

by urbanizeit75 on Jan 13, 2010 1:58 pm

More people choosing to drive is somewhat of an effect, but the bigger impact has been new development. It's moreso a failure of land use/zoning than it is a failure of highway widening.

by Froggie on Jan 13, 2010 2:19 pm

The council will catch up to the Planning Department soon enough. Unfortunately, even though they're supposed to listen to the planners to form their opinions and on which to base their votes, it doesn't always happen that way. MoCo is progressive, but the council is definitely not always such.

by Eric Wrigley on Jan 13, 2010 2:39 pm

Then MoCo needs a progressive council that is on the same page as the planning board

by diplomat74 on Jan 13, 2010 2:44 pm

The problem with what everyone here is preaching here is that to criticize Montgomery County is to Also Criticize most of Northern Virginia which most are not doing.

Although Northern Virginia became the catalyst for MASS Development over the past 35 years they have been fortunate to produce more High Paying Jobs than Suburban Maryland which explains the Heavy Migration traffic from Maryland to Virginia in the mornings.

If Suburban Maryland can promote more Office tower and upscale retail growth instead of residential growth then the traffic on Maryland Highways would not be as Congested.

And widening Highways is not All Bad. Its bad when Virginia continues to allow Highway Widening but Maryland gets Discriminated against Highway Widening which continues to create Bottle Neck Traffic on Maryland Highways feeding into/from Northern Virginia.........

by Mark on Jan 14, 2010 2:01 am

Great explanation! Fairfax is going to level of service E for its transit centers including Tysons Corner and Springfield, recognizing that these walkable, mixed-use communities will have more congestion, but will also have a range of travel options. Many on the Montgomery Council consider themselves environmentalists -- if so, then it is time to throw their support to the transit-oriented communities that reduce land consumption, the amount of driving, energy use and pollution. Moreover, it is the sprawling suburban communities that generate far more auto trips and traffic per capita, not the mixed-use centers.

by Stewart Schwartz on Jan 14, 2010 7:30 am

Great stuff! I couldn't live anywhere but an urban location and don't own a car. Isn't it true to urban centers like dc hold political and financial capital the low density places don't? Density can also be an economic strategy.

by Abo on Jan 14, 2010 9:09 am

The biggest problem with city planning is public involvement. The reason we can't build cities anymore is because every decision has to be vetted by the public. If we lived in a country where enlightened urbanist dictators could lay out plans, marshall resources, and build cities, our landscape would look quite different. Sorry to say but democracy is not very compatible with good urbanism. Most European countries, while democratic have a very statist approach to urban development. This is anathema to most Americans as it requires much more centralized decision making about land use, density, and transportation. The automobile and low density development are a natural consequence of democratic institutions attempting to build cities.

by BC on Jan 14, 2010 10:10 am

BC - Great comments and you are so right. There are so many good transit and development plans that continually get delayed or scaled down because of the local community input. In DC, if the local ANC boards would butt out of development plans and stop their "not in my back yard" scare tactics we would have a great, very European city feeling here.

by SKNDC on Jan 14, 2010 10:30 am

BC, SKNDC: It's true that democratic involvement often scales down projects, but urbanists can do more to organize and influence those processes. For example, the ANC in Tenleytown is pushing for a more street-friendly, more mixed-use Safeway than Safeway proposed. That's because people there who wanted a more walkable neighborhood with more amenities got involved in the process, educated their neighbors, and ran for the ANC. There are a lot of people who do want these plans; it's just that sometimes they do not organize and do not wield the power they have.

by David Alpert on Jan 14, 2010 10:38 am

...often because the loudest/most vocal voices are the ones that are heard and followed...

by Froggie on Jan 14, 2010 10:54 am

@David:

While I agree in principle that it is possible to achieve urbanist outcomes by having urbanist representation at the local level, my argument is that the system itself will on balance produce many more non-urbanist outcomes. Basically, I'm making the argument that the problem is not really solvable by getting more urban minded folks involved in the process. The problem is the process itself. The reason why is pretty simple. Too many local governments with too much local control and also exacerbated by the fact that most local governments represent constituencies that are hostile to urbanism. It's a systemic problem. There is some talk of starting to push the decision making process farther up the ladder to regional authorities but for the most part this is still very much pie in the sky talk.

by BC on Jan 14, 2010 11:10 am

@ Froggie, re the new development near the road producing more car traffic - it doesn't have to spur more driving. It only does when the new development itself is car dependent. Develpments with access to transit and to destinations that can be walked/biked to don't create the same car traffic volume.

by Bianchi on Jan 14, 2010 11:10 am

@BC - When the system is set up in a way that lets a small minority frustrate the will of the majority, that is not democracy at work.

by Ben Ross on Jan 14, 2010 11:19 am

Bianchi: which falls right into my comment that it's more a failure of land use/zoning. Even within areas that have little or no transit, going with more mixed use developments instead of the vast separation of land use types would have reduced overall traffic.

Again, it's a failure of land use/zoning/development why highway widenings fail to reduce congestion. Not the widening itself.

by Froggie on Jan 14, 2010 11:21 am

Bianchi .... Thats exactly what smart growth is and that is exactly what the county council doesn't seem to get

by diplomat74a on Jan 14, 2010 11:50 am

@ BC: If not for public involvement, Robert Moses would have driven a highway right through the East Village of lower Manhattan, and DC DOT would have built a freeway loop through the heart of many vibrant, walkable D.C. neighborhoods.

That is not to say that the NIMBY crowd should win. Rather, development plans should elicit public input and act on what's best for the community at-large.

by CI on Jan 14, 2010 12:49 pm

Stewart Schwartz- Fairfax is going to level of service E for its transit centers including Tysons Corner and Springfield, recognizing that these walkable, mixed-use communities will have more congestion, but will also have a range of travel options. Many on the Montgomery Council consider themselves environmentalists -- if so, then it is time to throw their support to the transit-oriented communities that reduce land consumption, the amount of driving, energy use and pollution. Moreover, it is the sprawling suburban communities that generate far more auto trips and traffic per capita, not the mixed-use centers.
____________________________________________________________

Sorry but you are not really not addressing the issue here. Sure they can build more mixed-use projects in Montgomery County. Fairfax County is also building mix-use projects near metro stations but at the same time they are still building and widening Highways where Suburban Maryland is totally lacking which means that the traffic in Maryland will still exist because alot of Suburban Maryland Tax Payers work in Virginia which means that I-270, MD I-95, and I-495 will continue to suffer from Bottle Neck Traffic due to Several Virginia Highways(I-66, I-495, and I-395/95) being widen with toll lanes.

Discriminating Against Building and Widening Roads and Highways in Suburban Maryland will Never reduce Car Dependency no matter how much the anti-highway groups "claim" that Mass Transit being the better alternative when now they are talking about Raising the Price on Bus and Rail which continues to make Transit no where near 100% dependable.

by Mark on Jan 18, 2010 8:23 pm

I don't buy the claim that "the people" oppose a more urban pattern of development -- the proof that there is popular demand for more compact, dense, mixed use development accessible to transit is that whenever this kind of development is built, it generally sells quickly. In fact, some of the same people who claim that Americans (or at least the people who live in Montgomery County) don't want to give up their cars and their cul de sacs also complain that redeveloping the neighborhoods around Metro stations along walkable urbanist lines is bad because it will cause gentrification. Think about this for a minute -- if this kind of development lacks appeal, then it certainly would not displace any poor people. Even post-economic meltdown, the Orange Line corridor, downtown Silver Spring, etc., have held up nicely while real estate values in the outer suburbs have taken a haircut.

by Casey Anderson on Jan 19, 2010 3:45 pm