Comments on Surprise surprise: "experts" picked by road lobbyists put road building at top of priority list - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Doubledeck 66! (Just kidding, but not really)

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:24:49 EDT

There has to be a happy medium between the highly urbanized yups of the inner beltway and the more suburban yups of the outer beltway. To suggest to people who chose to drop their half a million dollars on a 4 bedroom house with a yard in Ashburn that all they have to do is come live in a 2 bedroom townhouse with no yard in Clarendon for the same price is a failure to understand freedom of choice in a capitalist economy. It is not a mark of how poor public transport is that they are "forced" to live at the end of a hour and half commute each morning, it is a mark of how much they value having more living space both inside and outside their home, and what an awful commute they are willing to put up with to have it. Because of freedom of movement, people "vote with their feet" on where they want to live. Why is there a problem with "the east-west divide" as someone put it? Because law enforcement in Virginia is far more strenuous and aggressive in Northern Virginia, when compared with Prince Georges County. Hence, a comparable house will cost more in Virginia then it would in Maryland. Why does a 3 bedroom starter home built in 1947 cost four times as much in Rosslyn as in Leesburg? Because some people value being in the middle of everything and having access to the metro. There are overall projects that can improve the general welfare of greater DC, but to take as an article of faith that all people have to do is adopt the lifestyle that you think is sustainable or beneficial to ensure their happiness is a fantasy. Decades of trying to coerce people into living and commuting in a certain way have merely caused those who do not wish to go along to vote with their feet and go somewhere where they have their priorities more effectively met. Judging by the explosive growth of Reston, Herndon and points even farther from the core of DC, there are still many people who are not keen on being "reeducated" on how to live by central planners.
The solution is to have major infrastructure projects that serve all peoples ACTUAL needs and priorities, rather then aspirational ones. Build a second Rosslyn tunnel to mitigate the madness of the Orange Crush, but also build another span of the 14th street bridge. Buy faster trains to service MARC and VRE lines, but also widen I-270 and the Beltway between Tysons and I-395. Pragmatism and practicality should be the order of the day.

Comment by Larry Shaeffer

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:28:56 EDT

Hi David,
have you seen the 5-part series from Strong Towns on sprawl?
The Growth Ponzi Scheme (also published at GRIST)
http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/

Its the best I've come across on how we have to rethink this process.
Larry Shaeffer
larryshaeffer@gmail.com

Comment by Larry Shaeffer

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:56:35 EDT

quite often the developers don't "own" the land out on the fringes they have an "option" on it. The land sale will be based on how many units the developer gets to build. But the they lure in the landowners with dollar figures based on by-right housing unit densities that are completely unrealistic preliminary plans. These will have units on steep slopes, wetlands etc. that will never be approved by "responsible" municipalities:-) The farmers dreams of yachts and vacation homes vanish when the total units for the development are drastically reduced in the negotiations with the municipalities. Then payments are only handed out as each unit gets issued an occupancy permit by the muni. Final payments can sometimes take decades.

This process is why it makes so much sense for farmers to go the conservancy route. They usually get a per acre dollar figure with cash on the barrel head or arranged in a tax saving payout.

Have to remember that very few if any new roads (new ROWs)are built for primarily transportation needs (from Rt.95 to any local connector). They are built to add value to land that speculators control. The ROWs are lobbied for decades in advance by these speculators' agents who have been appointed to regional and state boards, committees
Larry Shaeffer
larryshaeffer@gmail.com

Comment by Tina

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:06:36 EDT

@Fitz157-two examples of zoning laws that induce/create sprawl: strict seperation of all commercial and residential that eliminates previously existing (in older neighborhoods)/prevented (in newer neighborhoods) "corner"/neighborhood stores; acreage minimums for new and/or replacement schools.

Comment by Fitz157

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:25:51 EDT

oboe wrote:

The actual anti-sprawl position is that the exurban model is unsustainable, and will collapse under its own weight in a decade or so because of a number of factors we've already covered.
......................

I understand what you mean by this but it seems a bit vague. Have any models been developed for northern Virgina? (And not done by urbanist advocacy groups)

oboe wrote:

"Sucks" according to who? I myself would not prefer to live outside the Beltway, but I work with many individuals who choose that, some even quite far, but I don't recall their choice of housing as "sucking."

oboe wrote:

I'm curious: what's your definition of "limiting the choices where individuals and families can choose to live"?
...........................................

Opposition to an outer Beltway would be a good example.

Oboe wrote:

The urbanist agenda largely consists mostly of tweaking zoning regulations so that it's no longer illegal to build traditional non-sprawl neighborhoods.
.......................................

What's the definition of a "non-sprawl" neighborhood? What type of the zoning regulations are you're referring to?

Comment by oboe

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:45:08 EDT

Sprawl is a description. Anti-sprawl is not a description, it is position that the urbanists have taken.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me: you and ceefer seem to think the anti-sprawl position is that we should dismantle the suburbs and force people to live in dense urban high-rises. The actual anti-sprawl position is that the exurban model is unsustainable, and will collapse under its own weight in a decade or so because of a number of factors we've already covered.

People will still get to live in sprawl a decade or two from now--it's just that the exurban places that don't currently suck will be suckier, and the ones that currently suck will suck even worse. In twenty years, many folks who would otherwise prefer to live in a 4000 square foot house on a cul-de-sac might find themselves living in a 1200 square foot 2 bedroom condo in the city "for the schools".

So how is limiting the choices where individuals and families can choose to live going to help alleviate that?

I'm curious: what's your definition of "limiting the choices where individuals and families can choose to live"?

The urbanist agenda largely consists mostly of tweaking zoning regulations so that it's no longer illegal to build traditional non-sprawl neighborhoods.

Comment by Fitz157

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:41:13 EDT

oboe wrote:

Sprawl is a description. Anti-sprawl is not a description, it is position that the urbanists have taken.

oboe wrote:

With regional population growth, congestion's only going to get worse.
...............................

So how is limiting the choices where individuals and families can choose to live going to help alleviate that? Like ceefer66 pointed out, not everyone in the region commutes to DC for work.

Comment by oboe

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:47:25 EDT

Fact is, most people do not prefer to live in a dense environment and depend on transit to take them wherever they can't walk or ride a bicycle to reach - all claims to the contrary.

I think this is where a lot of folks are confused: The anti-sprawl position isn't a prescriptive one (or proscriptive for that matter) it's a descriptive one. It's not a matter of what you want, it's a matter of what's going to be possible. Say I don't want to take out my trash; I want to just keep bagging it up and leaving it in the corner of my kitchen. If someone tells me that's not sustainable, it doesn't mean they're trying to "take away my freedoms".

With regional population growth, congestion's only going to get worse. With the suburbanization of poverty, the suburbs are only going to get poorer. With rising fuel costs, exurban living will only get more expensive.

The sooner we accept that reality -and plan for it - the better off we'll be.

This is a bit like saying we need to accept the "reality" of pancreatic cancer by accepting it, and planning to live with it. You can make heroic attempts to stave it off, or manage some sort of remission, but acceptance just means throwing in the towel. "Sprawl" may be here to stay, but I guarantee you that in twenty years the demographic profile of folks living in that sprawl is going to be radically different than it is today.

Comment by ceefer66

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:34:34 EDT

"It is one thing to advocate local planning for an urban lifestyle, it is quite another to do so in a manner that limits the choices of others who do not share those same interests."

I couldn't have said better myself.

As for business in the region being centered on Washington, that's not so.

Certainly, most of the Federal Government is centered in DC and it is the region's largest largest employer. However, most of the corporate jobs, including those that serve the Federal Government, are located in the suburbs. Every one of the region's largest private employers (except Fannie Mae) is located outside DC. and for good reason - taxes, traffic, space constraints (brought on largely by the DC height limits), among other reasons. Not to mention the fact that most of their workforce - the very people who need an Outer Beltway - are located in the suburban areas the urbanists despise as "sprawl".

Like it or not, the "sprawl" is here to stay. It's not a new phenomenon, and it's not limited to the US. Fact is, most people do not prefer to live in a dense environment and depend on transit to take them wherever they can't walk or ride a bicycle to reach - all claims to the contrary. The sooner we accept that reality -and plan for it - the better off we'll be.

Comment by Fitz157

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:02:59 EDT

ceefer66 wrote:

@DA,
What evidence do you have that the Outer Beltway is "unpopular", besides your own personal opposition and the negative remarks of a relative handful of fellow bloggers? I would be interested in being directed to a link containg some unbiased statistics.
.............................................

I was wondering that myself. Alpert persistently uses "sprawl" like it is a four-letter word. He is right that business in this region in centered in Washington but that in itself is a specious argument for preventing the building of an outer beltway. Not every family in this region is interested in living in condos or townhomes right next to DC and biking to work or using public transportation as a primary means of getting around. Many families cannot afford it. Not every business is interested in staying in the same location.

It is one thing to advocate local planning for an urban lifestyle, it is quite another to do so in a manner that limits the choices of others who do not share those same interests.

Comment by ceefer66

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:26:38 EDT

"One could make the case that, at the end of a half-century of the most frenetic highway-building the world has ever known, the fact that the Outer Beltway does not exist is evidence of its unpopularity. At least in the absence of evidence to the contrary."
------------------------

That makes about as much sense as claiming the Intercounty Connector - 50 years in the making - took so long to build because it too was "unpopular".

What has kept the Outer Beltway from being built is the same thing that held up the ICC - opposition from a well-organized, well-financed, vocal, and stubborn MINORITY.

The majority in Maryland who wanted the ICC built saw to it by electing a governnor (Bob Erlich) who was committed to getting it built.

In fact, Erlich's election, the first for a Republican in 40 years, was a repudiation of his predecesor's pandering to environmentalists by trying to kill the ICC.

Fact is, road opponents in this region have historically enjoyed a degree of influence on the transportation planning process that is far out of proportion with their numbers. For that reason, most of the planned limited-access highways in this region never got built. That "half-century of the most frenetic highway-building the world has ever known" you're ranting about certainly hasn't happened here.

My money is on the Outer Beltway eventually getting built. All it will take is enough of the MAJORITY standing up and demanding that politicians stop pandering to the vocal minority and act in the interests of the greater good.
As was eventually done with the ICC.

And the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge (the NIMBYs in Alexandria said it was "unpopular" and held it up for years).

And the 11th Street Bridge connecting 295 and 395 (The Barney Circle Connector opponents called joining 295 and 395 "unpopular" for over a decade).

Comment by ceefer66

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:32:40 EDT

Sorry, oboe, but wisgful thinking is not an intelligent answer.

Can't even rate that one a "nice try".

Comment by oboe

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:35:32 EDT

What evidence do you have that the Outer Beltway is "unpopular"...

One could make the case that, at the end of a half-century of the most frenetic highway-building the world has ever known, the fact that the Outer Beltway does not exist is evidence of its unpopularity. At least in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Comment by ceefer66

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:17:42 EDT

@DA,

What evidence do you have that the Outer Beltway is "unpopular", besides your own personal opposition and the negative remarks of a relative handful of fellow bloggers? I would be interested in being directed to a link containg some unbiased statistics.

Comment by Froggie

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:15:39 EDT

@Miriam It's relevant because some entities have a blanket opposition to *ANY* new bridge over the Potomac, regardless of mode. If commenters don't specify otherwise, one has to assume those against new bridges fall under this category.

Comment by HogWash

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:47:25 EDT

I wonder the outcome of the constant fight between various groups supposedly concerned about the same issues.

Group A thinks Group B is this
C thinks E is this.
A thinks they are better "experts" than C, D, and F.
C thinks they're the only group concerned about...

and it continues ad infinitum....

Everybody's a cynic but geez, "'experts'" picked by cycling advocates put biking infrastructure at top of priority list."

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:46:38 EDT

Fritz: First, it was a real poll by a polling firm, not a bunch of people they found personally and asked. And second, everyone does know they are an advocacy group. They weren't claiming that it was some sort of special group of "tax experts."

Comment by Miriam

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:41:43 EDT

Drat. End italics.

Comment by Miriam

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:40:13 EDT

@Froggie: I wonder how many people against more river bridges would change their tune if the bridge in question was for a Purple Line extension between Bethesda and Tysons...

Speaking only for myself, what I'm opposed to is another highway bridge across the Potomac. How is the idea of a bridge for the Purple Line, which Bob Chase and Rich Parsons are not (to my knowledge) proposing, relevant to this opposition?

Comment by Fritz

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:54:55 EDT

Oddly enough, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute's paid-for poll finding massive numbers of DC residents supporting tax increases didn't get a similar sarcastic review.

Comment by Froggie

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:42:12 EDT

I wonder how many people against more river bridges would change their tune if the bridge in question was for a Purple Line extension between Bethesda and Tysons...

Comment by ET

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:34:56 EDT

Am I the only one who laughed at the word groundbreaking for this post?

Comment by Eric Fidler

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:14:05 EDT

What's interesting is that the report is weak on land-use restrictions, as though we live in a world where land use and transportation are separate, dare I say "parochial" worlds.

In fact, rather than asking why we need more bridges and more roads and various far-flung Metro extensions, we should address the very cause: why do we distribute our jobs and housing in a way that causes all this gridlock, distant commutes, and frustration in the first place?

Yet somehow, these unnamed "experts" place new Potomac River bridges as the single most important regional improvement!

Comment by Miriam

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:08:37 EDT

@goldfish: The priority of...increasing the number of bridges across the Potomac [is] reasonable.

Not to me, it isn't.

(Not to these people either: http://mocoalliance.org/wp-content/upload/Bridge-crossing-report.pdf)

Comment by oboe

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:57:52 EDT

Oy. There's not a single dollar figure anywhere in that report. These kinds of reports are what you'd expect from a toddler that wants every toy in the store.

It's also a pretty good illustration of why decoupling the transit priorities of DC proper from that of the suburbs might make sense. There's a case to be made that streetcars/light rail will have *the* greatest positive impact for DC residents. Of course, if we "go forward in the spirit of regional cooperation" that will happen right after the last square inch of asphalt has been laid over the last unpaved square inch of suburbia.

Comment by Steve

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:56:01 EDT

You just sound bitter Dave.

Comment by appreciative

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:53:58 EDT

David, We are lucky to have you. Keep up the good fight.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:48:36 EDT

@DA: you can make of it what you will. Rather than "dictator," I detect reasonable people with a range of reasonable opinions. The priority of improving maintenance of Metro, and increasing the number of bridges across the Potomac, are reasonable. You could point out that the relatively low priority of DC streetcars is a result of having fewer DC experts; but the fact that they are on the list to begin with is something you can use in your favor in your agenda.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:42:08 EDT

Oh, and more transit service with lower rates.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:41:44 EDT

Chase and Parsons call for "performance-based measures" for transportation projects over "parochialism and politics."

This reminds me of the people who say they want "smart growth" but then describe it as more roads and more single-family homes.

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:41:13 EDT

goldfish: Why? If someone decided to claim they are the dictator and take over in a coup, and supported Metro maintenance, should I support them because of it?

Comment by Adam L

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:41:08 EDT

Oy. There's not a single dollar figure anywhere in that report. These kinds of reports are what you'd expect from a toddler that wants every toy in the store.

Comment by oboe

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:38:14 EDT

Oboe-Schiller Index of Inside-the-Beltway Home Values up +.89% on today's news.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:36:21 EDT

@DA: rather than attack the method and anonymity of the survey, you could focus on the parts you agree with. Many of the strongest findings (better WMATA maintenance, for example) are in accord with what you advocate.