Development
Smart growth milestones of 2011: Steps forward and back
For smart growth, 2011 has been a year of continued progress. But it has also seen a few steps in the wrong direction. What are the top 5 milestones of 2011?
Photo by jaxxon on Flickr.
This year, we saw DC host Rail~Volution and saw forward-thinking planning in the region's largest suburbs. But we also felt the pain from poor office location decisions from the Department of Defense and the Virginia DOT's return to 1950's-era planning decisions.
The Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG) hopes that you'll join us in continuing the work that needs to be done to implement smart transportation and land use solutions in the capital region, through your personal involvement and by making a contribution to our 2012 efforts.
We'd also like to hear your own thoughts about the smart growth milestones and issues of 2011.
"This is DC?" Rail~Volution arrives
Every year hundreds of the country's leading transit experts, architects, planners, civic activists, and decision makers gather at the Rail~Volution conference. This year Washington, DC hosted and we learned from our guests that we have a lot to celebrate about the progress of our home region.
More than a few attendees exclaimed: "This is DC?" They were blown-away by our walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods, by the city's revitalization, by our suburban transit renaissance, by Capital Bikeshare, and more (and yes, they still have Metro envy). The hard work of an army of volunteers, staff from DC and other local jurisdictions, the DC business improvement districts, and our team at CSG resulted in a great conference. Attendees participated in eye-opening tours, forums on the latest in transit communities, a special set of local sessions, and a jam-packed film festival.
Transit communities advance in Prince George's
Prince George's made big strides toward tapping the vast potential of its 15 Metro stations. The CSG has long campaigned for investing in this remarkable asset to take further advantage of the multi-billion Metro investment, to address unbalanced commuting patterns, and to revitalize older, inner suburbs.
In his first year in office, County Executive Rushern Baker championed transit-oriented development and a new Economic Development Incentive fund. As unanimously passed by the Council, the record $50 million fund will support investment in transit-oriented development and inside-the-Beltway communities, serving as a catalyst for sustainable, long-term economic development.
The county and state also announced a major mixed-use development at New Carrollton Metro Station and the move of the state's housing agency to the station.
Fairfax County commits to a transit future
One year ago we held a "Future of Fairfax" summit for elected officials, local planners, business leaders, and civic activists. At the summit, Chair Sharon Bulova declared her support for transit and transit-oriented development as the future of the county and essential for both economic development and protecting the environment. In the year since, Fairfax County has led the way in advancing Phase 2 of Metrorail to Dulles, seeking cost savings, and a commitment of funding from the state.
The county also made progress on Tysons Corner, approving the first of 12 large mixed-used developments proposed under the new plan. In updating its planning policies and standards for its biggest urban center, the county is creating policies that can be extended to its revitalizing commercial corridors. These include a strong plan for bicycle and pedestrian access from surrounding communities to the Metro stations, the first application of stronger urban stormwater management standards, and steps toward achieving affordable housing goals.
With continued population growth, the county's commercial corridors with their acres of parking lots offer the best opportunity to absorb new homes, offices and retail, while creating mixed-use, walkable, bikeable, and transit-accessible neighborhoods that generate less traffic and help protect remaining forested green spaces. The Coalition for Smarter Growth continues to press for revitalization in these commercial corridors, places like the Richmond Highway (Route 1) Corridor, and Bailey's Crossroads.
The Purple Line advances and Montgomery commits to a transit future
Big news came in October when the Federal Transit Administration approved the Bethesda-Silver Spring-New Carrollton Purple Line light-rail project for "preliminary engineering." This is the critical stage when construction plans are developed and the alignments and stations are more clearly defined.
The Purple Line will provide thousands of people a traffic-free alternative for traveling to work and contribute to the revitalization and economic success of inside-the-Beltway communities in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, and it is only one part of the transit future that Montgomery County now envisions.
County Executive Ike Leggett launched a Rapid Transit Task Force to study and advance a 150 mile network of rapid transit long proposed by Councilmember Marc Elrich. The network is seen as critical for enhancing the economic competitiveness of the county, supporting economic growth while providing high-speed alternatives to sitting in traffic. The county hopes to create a national model with the system and attracted a $260,000 seed grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Stepping backwards: BRAC and the return of zombie highways
The scope of the traffic problems resulting from the Department of Defense's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) moves started to become apparent in 2011. DOD's decision to move over 20,000 jobs away from locations with Metro and commuter rail service ignored the huge transportation impact and left local and state governments with a multi-billion dollar bill for infrastructure. There is no better illustration of the impact of poor location decisions on transportation and the importance of transit-oriented development for our future than the BRAC moves.
DOD's return to a 1950's suburban office campus model was paralleled in 2011 by Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton's revival of a 1950's and 1960's idea for an Outer Beltway and up to two Potomac River bridge crossings. We call it the Zombie Highway for its eerie ability to come back from the dead, with various studies in 1989, 1997, 2001, and 2004.
The project would divert scarce transportation funds from fixing critical commuter corridors, do nothing to relieve traffic on existing roads, and fuel scattered development in rural areas in Stafford, Prince William, and Loudoun counties in Virginia, and Montgomery and Frederick counties in Maryland. The Secretary designated the proposed highway as a "Corridor of Statewide Significance" and lobbying groups began a renewed push for bridges from Great Falls and Loudoun into Potomac and the Montgomery Agricultural Reserve. One group and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell reportedly pushed the issue in a closed door meeting with Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and DC Mayor Vince Gray.
The push for the Outer Beltway has been part of an overall shift in Virginia away from supporting transit and the core traffic issues of Virginia's metropolitan areas in order to fund questionable rural highways. Hundreds of Virginians have signed our petition against the Outer Beltway and historic preservation groups have joined the fight because the first phase of the highway would run through hallowed ground at the historic Manassas National Battlefield.
If you care about smart transportation solutions and sustainable growth for our region, then we hope you will join the Coalition for Smarter Growth and our partners in what promises to be a tough fight in 2012 to stop this project.
So what's next? Keep an eye out for our next post, which will look ahead to 2012. CSG will work to continue the progress we saw in 2011, and you can count on us to continue fighting the Zombie Highway and proposing more sustainable transportation solutions. We hope you'll join us as we move the region forward, whether you attend one of our events, testify at a local hearing, or become an official sponsor of our work with a donation of $100, $64, or $32.
Have any honorable mentions for the top five smart growth moments of the year? Post in the comments!
 | Laura DeSantis is the Online Advocacy and Outreach Specialist for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Prior to joining CSG, Laura worked at Fleishman-Hillard Communications, where she worked on digital and social media strategy for clients. Laura is a 2009 graduate of Penn State University and holds bachelor's degrees in Public Relations and History.   |
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Live chat: Matt Yglesias, Wednesday at noon
- Half-hour Metro headways are not acceptable
- "Degree density" maps show region's east-west divide
by Matthew on Dec 14, 2011 3:23 pm
Call me an economist, but I'm beginning to think the lack of road capacity over the Potomac will restrict regional growth (not to mention national trade in the 95 corridor). I-97 should be re-routed onto an upgraded MD-301 (from fredericksburg across the bays up to Wilmington and provide a north-south alternate around the DC region). This is something the federal government should do, not D-M-V.
by Stimulus on Dec 14, 2011 3:45 pm
The highest returning new potomac crossing would be a separated blue line that crosses the potomac via its own bridge/tunnel. The rosslyn tinnel is already at max capacity so another crossing is needed to expand downtown and increase train frequency for reverse commuters to tysons. High paying job growth is expected to happen dowtown, arlington and tysons but it will be limited by the number of people you can get to those spots during rush hour.
by Falls Church on Dec 14, 2011 3:56 pm
Also, while I think there might be some plausible merit to an I-97 type of crossing, the utility of it would be almost purely for trucking, so if anything, it would make sense as a purely toll-funded road.
As to the west, there just aren't major points to be connected, unless you're picturing some major demand for a Herndon-Frederick super-highway.
by Jacques on Dec 14, 2011 4:00 pm
My reasons for the I-97 crossing: 95 between DC and baltimore functions as a commuter route. 95 is cosigned with DC's beltway in MD, which is also a commuter route. The eastern seaboard needs an alternative to this chokepoint (although the springfield interchange and WW bridge projects significantly alleviated this problem). And to the west, I agree, there aren't a lot of major points to connect, but I'm fairly sure the Legion Bridge is way over design capacity.
@Falls Church - I completely agree. The unfortunate thing is, the current political situation will never get either of these things built. The additional metro tunnel would be great for D-M-V, but the region doesn't have the money or the backbone for it. I-97/outer beltway would be great for the greater region and the eastern seaboard, but congress would NEVER fund a new highway.
by Stimulus on Dec 14, 2011 4:22 pm
by Matthew on Dec 14, 2011 5:01 pm
I'm not a fan of more roads, because of the environmental impact -- but all those cars sitting in traffic jams are pretty disastrous for the economy and the environment. If there was a way to keep Marylanders from commuting to Virginia (and vice versa, I guess)), the problem might take care of itself, but that's hard to imagine.
The alternative is either a purple line like the one originally envisioned, in a circle outside the Beltway, or anther, outer belt road with another bridge crossing. I think the road and bridge option is necessary for another reason -- redundancy. If the American Legion has to be closed for some reason -- heaven help us. Those discussing other crossing from inside the District are missing the point. The problem areas are north of the city and to the south, where 95 and 395 are pretty darn awful, too. An outer belt could provide a speedy alternative for traffic transiting around the region, which would take a lot of the stress of of the existing Beltway. It doesn't need to be a destination road to be worthwhile. Even it is only for 30 or 40 years while a more comprehensive rail network is built, it would be worth doing.
I get that there are limited funds for transportation, but I promise you this is a road that could pay for itself. By connecting to the ICC, it would make far better use of that investment and alleviate the traffic problems all across the north side of the Beltway. From what I've read, the real impediment to the road isn't a lack of utility -- it's quite the opposite. Maryland and Virginia each fear the road would be so successful that it will take airport traffic away from either Dulles or BWI and so the airport authorities have successfully squelched the idea.
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Dec 14, 2011 5:15 pm
Findings from other studies: The ICC study showed that it would not relieve traffic on the Beltway, I-270 and I-95. The Wilson Bridge studies showed that the overwhelming majority of peak hour congestion trips were local commuters and that a southern bridge wouldn't help. The 1997 Western Transportation Corridor study showed minimal changes in trips on I-95 and I-66. Induced traffic would probably fill any temporary reductions.
So, providing more direct fixes to bottlenecks and providing a transit alternative along or near existing congested corridors would be more effective than a new facility farther out. Those new facilities would probably also induce development, shifting some development from inner areas, and adding a whole new set of problems.
by Stewart Schwartz on Dec 14, 2011 7:04 pm
With respect to the Beltway commuters from Bethesda and Georgia Ave, etc., I wonder how much time a direct rail link between Bethesda and Tyson's would save as compared to riding into the city and changing at Metro Center. It would save some, I'm sure, but then you've got to wonder how the workers will get from the Metro to these far-flung office parks -- well, not really far-flung, if you're driving, since they're all near the Beltway.
Would a train help? Sure. There wil be some who could commute by train -- because they're near a park-n-ride in Montgomery County with available parking (hah!!! There's no such thing) or because they can walk to the Metro, and have a workplace that is convenient to the Metro. In all, though, I'd say it's only a small percentage of the drivers that would switch. Would it be more than the 10% of vehicles that would take an alternate route because they're just passing through? Maybe. But suppose there's an alignment with this outer highway that takes it near Tyson's and Rte 50. There will be commuters then that would benefit from that and would gladly pay a toll to take a bridge and a faster highway.
As for the ICC -- as it is, it's a rotten alternative to the Beltway, unless you happen to coming from the northern Montgomery suburbs and headed to Columbia, Laurel or points south. Going the other way, it's almost useless because it exits too far north on I-270, which is just as bad as the Beltway at rush hour. Plus, if you're headed to Virginia, you still have to get on the Beltway. I wouldn't take the ICC in this direction unless I knew there was a big back-up on the Beltway. If, however, it didn't end at I-270 -- if it continued across the river and provided a real alternative to the mess on 495, that would be a game-changer for a lot of people. All of a sudden this highway from nowhere to nowhere would actually take commuters to somewhere...and faster. The ICC was a waste of money. However, if it linked to another Potomac crossing, I think it would suddenly be very useful. I admit I haven't studied the lay of the land, so I can't say exactly where such a road might be best sited, but I think the concept is a good one.
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Dec 14, 2011 7:28 pm
Odd, given that that's been where the growth is at AND the current urbanization growth pattern up through the current day. It's like the writer here lives in an isolated 'downtown' world and doesn't realize that 9/10ths (or more) of this metro area don't live the downtown experience and, more importantly has no desire to. And THEY have a need for the things she thinks of as '1950s'.
Our challenges are to learn to adapt the best of the suburban model to our downtown experience, so that we can be competitive with these subsurbs which have eclipsed the mother city, Washington, and will continue to grow and evolve way past us ... Unless we take their successes and make them our successes too ... while still retaining our urban uniquenes. It's all a matter of balance.
by Lance on Dec 15, 2011 1:47 am
Can you cite any study saying 90% of people don't want to live the downtown experience. Don't just say where based on where they currently live because their obvious demand for more "downtown expereince" living as the prices are highest in the core, and demand is still there.
by nathaniel on Dec 15, 2011 6:58 am
With continued population growth and a desire to preserve single family home neighborhoods, these corridors offer the best option for locating growth in mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods with a range of housing options. And instead of single use office "parks," mixed use centers will work better. Smaller scale solutions for existing neighborhoods can include simple things like better sidewalks, bike lanes and trails connecting neighborhoods to schools, libraries and nearby stores.
Changing demographics make the baby boomers and millenials our two largest population groups. Many baby boomers are looking to downsize their homes and millenials are increasingly drawn to cities and the urban parts of our suburbs. These two demographic cohorts mean significant demand for vibrant, walkable, transit accessible places. We are even seeing more families seek out these neighborhoods, perhaps living in a smaller and older home in return for living closer to work and transit and where it's possible to walk to schools and stores.
Combining a range of solutions that offer many opportunities to drive less often and for shorter distances will help us to reduce the travel demand on our suburban highways and arterials.
by Stewart Schwartz on Dec 15, 2011 7:54 am
If we want to build a new road to accommodate traffic bypassing DC, it would make more sense to construct an interstate along the approximate route of US-301.
Can we please remove this from our list of reasons to build new roads through Northern Virginia?
by andrew on Dec 15, 2011 12:52 pm
Has the Coalition For Smarter Growth EVER met a highway proposal that it didn't hate?
From what I've seen, the Coalition is against ALL regional roads, not just the so-called Outer Beltway.
Is it your position that no road proposal ever has any merit and we should therefor never build another major highway in this region?
by ceefer66 on Dec 15, 2011 4:44 pm
in Montgomery County to the (soon-to-be) Silver Line at/near Tyson's Corner.
Sadly, we can't afford that, just as we can't afford to add lanes to the American Legion bridge.
While another writer is correct that there is a long-term need to separate the Blue and Orange lines underneath the Potomac River, we can't afford that either -- and that separation would not help commuters who live in Montgomery County but work in Fairfax County.
In the long term, Metro Rail needs a "Circle Line" that crosses the Potomac between Fairfax & Montgomery counties and again between Fairfax County & Prince George's County. Forcing people to transit downtown in order to get from the end of one rail line to the far end of another rail line is a large part of the congestion in the existing Blue/Orange tunnel under the Potomac.
Sadly that "Circle Line" also is not affordable anytime soon.
by Anonymous Coward on Dec 16, 2011 5:21 am
This might be the most terrifying, ignorant thing I've ever read in the comments here. Statements like this is what the leadership of the city uses to justify things like big-box stores with acres of parking lots, making sure streets prioritize automobile traffic above all else, and ensuring the creation of dead-zones that are single use (like office only or residential only). I shudder...
by Geoffrey Hatchard on Dec 19, 2011 1:27 pm
Add a Comment