Links
Breakfast links: Drugs and gambling
Photo by ragingwire on Flickr.
Pot dispensaries inch forward: 4 medical marijuana dispensaries can now seek building permits, but no approved cultivators have yet begun growing sanctioned marijuana in the District. (Post) 
National Harbor gambling will rake it in: A study of the National Harbor development estimates that the proposed casino would be Maryland's most profitable. Any casino construction must pass a referendum. (Examiner)
Council will go with Mendelson: The DC Council appears set to elect the detail-oriented Phil Mendelson as interim chairman. Mendelson plans to run for the permanent post in the fall, as will Vincent Orange and likely others. (Post)
ANC supports Hine; ZC is next: ANC 6B voted to support the Hine project last night. Commissioner Norm Metzger explains his support: preserving what he values about Capitol Hill actually requires change. The Zoning Commission will hear the project tomorrow and, if needed, continue next Thursday. (@CHNorm)
Sharrows point to nowhere: Sharrows, which remind road users that both drivers and cyclists can share a lane, don't increase bike usage. Bike lanes and cycle tracks do, though. (Bike San Diego)
Arlington, Alexandria to join on streetcars: Arlington will vote on an agreement with Alexandria to develop a shared streetcar line. The streetcar would begin in Arlington while Alexandria develops the Potomac Yard Metro station. (ARLnow)
GU students want right to live where they wish: Georgetown students dislike the agreement between the university and neighbors, calling it segregationist. They want the right to live off-campus if they choose. (City Paper)
Detroit goes for cheap: With a office vacancy rate of more than 25%, Detroit has ridiculously cheap buildings. Detroit's third highest building sold for $5 per square foot, very minimal compared to DC rates. (RPUS)
And...: The US Secretary of Commerce was charged with felony hit-and-run; he had a seizure. (Huffington Post) ... People who don't live in Virginia find slugging totally foreign. (Potomac Local) ... Some people on the Internet are jerks, including some cyclists. (Post)
Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
Comments
Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
Maybe this will remind students that they have a seat at the table in the ANC, and that they should use that seat more. This is not a note against the representative, but against the lack of support he has. Students need to come more to ANC meetings and blast their fellow ANC members.
Also, I'd love to see students sue GU over the new rules with GU giving a weak defense only to be ordered to scrap the rules by a judge. That would solve the problem. Nice project for a few law students.
by Jasper on Jun 13, 2012 9:08 am • link • report
by Jacques on Jun 13, 2012 9:32 am • link • report
by MDE on Jun 13, 2012 9:50 am • link • report
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2012/06/11/best-spots-to-watch-tall-ships-sail.html
The Hines project will move forward or not depending on whether they've secured enough of a consensus with opponents to avoid an appeal to the DC Court of Appeals.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 13, 2012 9:56 am • link • report
I can't fault Georgetown for wanting to imitate its more prestigious peers by becoming a primarily residential school with the focus being primarily on on-campus housing.
by JustMe on Jun 13, 2012 10:10 am • link • report
by Shipsa01 on Jun 13, 2012 10:23 am • link • report
That said, I think they're a great addition for filling in on blocks where a cycletrack or bike lane isn't feasible due to road geometry but they don't make a difference if real speeds of motor vehicles aren't slowed with medians, bump-outs, chicanes, speed bumps, etc.
by thump on Jun 13, 2012 10:28 am • link • report
I can't fault Georgetown for wanting to imitate its more prestigious peers by becoming a primarily residential school with the focus being primarily on on-campus housing.
Georgetown is already a primarily residential school. Using the IPEDS definition of "traditional undergraduate," here's a comparison of GU to some of its peers:
Columbia 94%
Dartmouth 90%
Duke 85%
Notre Dame 80%
Brown 79%
Georgetown 76%
Northwestern 70%
Johns Hopkins 56%
Chicago 55%
Pennsylvania 53%
Cornell 45%
MIT is probably somewhere between 70% and 75%.
The definition GU uses is a bit more restrictive, so the number it gives for current on-campus is 85%. I think GU's definition makes more sense within its context.
by Dizzy on Jun 13, 2012 10:42 am • link • report
I've always argued that the prevalence of "slugging" is the canary in th canary in the coalmine telling us just how close to collapse the regional transportation network is. When the system is so bad that middle-class Americans are driven to hitchhike, we're in the n-stage.
Nothing to do with peak oil, or crisis in the middle east. Car commuting is just falling victim to population growth.
by oboe on Jun 13, 2012 11:31 am • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 11:36 am • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 11:38 am • link • report
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/13853/anc-boundaries-still-not-final-shift-in-secret/
by Jacques on Jun 13, 2012 12:39 pm • link • report
Slugging is a time-tested alternative transportation method that works across the country. Its the nexus of good urban planning (i.e., HOV lanes) and the creative American spirit. The quoted statement is akin to saying "when the system is so bad that middle-class Americans are driven to BIKE, we know we're close to a collapse." Slugging is to "hitchiking" what bikeshare is to communism (as described in the Examiner opinion piece).
Any solution that doesn't fit in traditional paradigms doesn't necessarily spell doom for civilization as we know it.
by Falls Church on Jun 13, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report
In the SF-Bay area, they just call it "casual car pooling." I think "slugging"'s biggest problem is the name.
by JustMe on Jun 13, 2012 12:47 pm • link • report
Creative spirit, sure.
Good urban planning? The point is that HOV lanes are slightly higher capacity than SOV lanes, but that hardly qualifies as 'good planning'. Dense development around a rail station that has a much larger capacity than a HOV lane - now that's good planning.
by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report
I have not ever slugged. Oboe, have you? And/or have you asked people who actually do slug whether they think of slugging as hitchhiking?
by Miriam on Jun 13, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Jun 13, 2012 12:56 pm • link • report
Thanks for mentioning the Alex city council primary. The results by precinct are telling. City Hall was the only precinct that went for the no-growth candidates, and the only one where a certain candidate who shall not be named broke into double-digits. On the other hand, the smart-growth advocating transportation planner won the most votes, and had consistent support city-wide.
by spookiness on Jun 13, 2012 1:05 pm • link • report
I've always thought it was more due to failures in land use planning.
by spookiness on Jun 13, 2012 1:12 pm • link • report
So, "good planning" requires that we have no roads at all even if they are HOV? Only rail qualifies as "good planning"?
Slugging can only exist because urban transportation planning failed. There are quite some requirements for slugging to work. You need a corridor with a common end that has HOV restrictions due to heavy congestion. What's the normal solution for that? Rail!
This is like saying biking can only exist because the transportation system has failed. There are quite some requirements for biking to work -- lack of parking, congested roads, etc. What's the "normal" solution for those problems? Why, of course, build more roads!*
*satirical analogy
by Falls Church on Jun 13, 2012 1:21 pm • link • report
So, "good planning" requires that we have no roads at all even if they are HOV? Only rail qualifies as "good planning"?
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there are severe capacity limits to cars. They're a low capacity mode of transportation, even when you load them up with multiple occupants. HOV lanes are putting lipstick on the pig, when what really was needed in those kinds of corridors was more transit investment.
Slugging isn't about carpooling, really. Slugging is a sort of proto-transit service.
The larger point is about priorities - to the extent that HOV lanes are just there to milk capacity out of unsustainable highways, then they're just rationalizations for more auto-centric planning - doubling down on something we know has limits. Ergo, HOV lanes is an awfully low bar for 'good planning.'
by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report
but we HAVE rail to that end point (which is normally the Pentagon) The yellow and blue lines. We do not have rail along the corridor to landmark/annandale/burke etc. Are you saying that we should have rail there, and NO highway inside the beltway? Or that we should have a highway inside the beltway, and also rail, and that with rail there would be no demand for slugging.
The former seems like, to be justified, you need to take some of the anti-highway positions to the extreme (all roads get 100% induced traffic, all induced traffic is zero net marginal utility trips, etc) The latter seems like a high investment in commuter transport overall.
You are correct that slugging is actually an intermediate step between carpooling and transit. It works particularly well where ONE end is concentrated, and the other is low density. The way to make rail work instead is either to A have the residential end also be high density or B. use large scale park and ride
A, I think, might not have been feasible at the time i395 was built, given both preferences and legacy development. I mean planning has to mean more than "if i were king". B, would have been much more feasible - but there are certainly advantages to a highway with HOV vs heavy rail with a mostly park and ride trip base (at least if there are also other corridors which ARE heavy rail instead, which is the case here)
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report
by David C on Jun 13, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report
but we HAVE rail to that end point (which is normally the Pentagon) The yellow and blue lines. We do not have rail along the corridor to landmark/annandale/burke etc. Are you saying that we should have rail there, and NO highway inside the beltway? Or that we should have a highway inside the beltway, and also rail, and that with rail there would be no demand for slugging.
My impression is that most slugs are coming from points further south than the end of the Metro. VRE would be an option to DC, but it's a) not nearly as frequent as Metro, and b) doesn't go directly to the Pentagon. So no, the transit service isn't as good of a direct substitute as you imply.
If there were a Metro line directly along 95/395, just as you see along 66 in VA, I doubt you'd see nearly as much slug traffic.
I mean planning has to mean more than "if i were king". B, would have been much more feasible - but there are certainly advantages to a highway with HOV vs heavy rail with a mostly park and ride trip base (at least if there are also other corridors which ARE heavy rail instead, which is the case here)
The point about planning failure is that the advantages to the auto-centric approach (e.g. highways) completely fails at a certain point. Highways just aren't nearly as high capacity as rail rapid transit is, period. Likewise, the auto-centric land development around those highways isn't some fait accompli either.
by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report
The point is that HOV lanes are slightly higher capacity than SOV lanes, but that hardly qualifies as 'good planning'.
HOV lanes are putting lipstick on the pig, when what really was needed in those kinds of corridors was more transit investment.
Can you provide an example of where roads (whether SOV or HOV) would represent good planning? Seems like there should be some examples since you are saying that "good planning" and "roads" are not paradoxical. What criteria would roads have to meet to be "good planning" and why don't the 395 HOV lanes qualify?
Slugging basically poaches bus riders...Now maybe by shifting bus riders to slugging, we create room for new bus riders, but they won't all be replaced
And buses poach slugging. Why exactly would it be a bad thing if bus riders became slugs even if those bus riders weren't replaced with new riders? In fact, the advantage of bus riders becoming slugs is that there is zero incremental cost to government for each additional slug but there is some incremental cost for each additional bus rider.
If not for slugging people would have to actually create carpools, instead of gaming the system.
Why are traditional car pools better than slugging? Don't traditional car pools also siphon off people who may use transit?
Now maybe by shifting bus riders to slugging, we create room for new bus riders, but they won't all be replaced. Yes, this is the exact same argument I make for bike sharing, but bike sharing has a unique benefit (health) that riding in someone's passenger seat doesn't.
So, if there was no health benefit to bike sharing, would you oppose it?
The bottom line is that a variety of transportation options is ideal and slugging is one (small) part of the transportation menu.
by Falls Church on Jun 13, 2012 2:18 pm • link • report
Can you provide an example of where roads (whether SOV or HOV) would represent good planning? Seems like there should be some examples since you are saying that "good planning" and "roads" are not paradoxical. What criteria would roads have to meet to be "good planning" and why don't the 395 HOV lanes qualify?
Sure. Roads are fine. Roads can also be streets, can serve multiple purposes, fit into a grid, support surrounding development, etc. Large highways, not so much.
HOV lanes are just highway widening efforts. Reversible lanes like on 395/95 are not cheap, and represent only a marginal increase in capacity. In short, it's just not cost-effective.
Slugging works because of the HOV lanes, the HOV lanes are there because of the inherent capacity shortcomings of even a massive highway.
by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report
I should have clarified. So can highways ever qualify as good planning? If so, what are some examples of highways that represent good planning and what criteria would they have to meet that 395 HOV lanes do not? Or are you saying the entire Eisenhower highway system was a big mistake?
by Falls Church on Jun 13, 2012 2:35 pm • link • report
Do you define the existence of ANY limited access highways as "autocentric"? I think giving the needs of A. Freight( yes, I know rail, but there are distance, commodities, etc that make no sense on rail, aside from which there is not TOFC/COFC facility inside the beltway) B. Off hours C. folks whose preference/need for auto is high, etc, etc - I think having a few (though I395 is the highest capacity inside the beltway in NoVa) highways towards the core of the metro area is useful.
BTW, the HOV lanes were oringally planned as bus only lanes, but converted because they were underutilized.
"Reversible lanes like on 395/95 are not cheap, and represent only a marginal increase in capacity"
relative to a conventional lane, or relative to a smaller highway?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report
It wouldn't do anything to reduce congestion, which is the stated goal of HOV lanes.
Why are traditional car pools better than slugging?
Because it replaces two or more SOVs with one
Don't traditional car pools also siphon off people who may use transit?
Not ideally. I suspect it does, but not to the extent that slugging does.
if there was no health benefit to bike sharing, would you oppose it?
No. Because it has other positive externalities as well.
by David C on Jun 13, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report
Compared to the $5B it takes to build a new metro line, it is lot cheaper! Sure rail has much higher capacity, but it also costs so much more. So regarding the cost-effectiveness, you must also consider how much it will get used -- i.e., are you getting enough bang for the taxpayer's buck? You have not shown this.
by goldfish on Jun 13, 2012 2:47 pm • link • report
I should have clarified. So can highways ever qualify as good planning? If so, what are some examples of highways that represent good planning and what criteria would they have to meet that 395 HOV lanes do not? Or are you saying the entire Eisenhower highway system was a big mistake?
We're clearly talking about urban highways here, yes?
Of course the entire interstate system wasn't a mistake. But building interstates through cities doesn't make much sense, just like building subways across the great plains doesn't make much sense...
@AWalker:
Do you define the existence of ANY limited access highways as "autocentric"? I think giving the needs of A. Freight( yes, I know rail, but there are distance, commodities, etc that make no sense on rail, aside from which there is not TOFC/COFC facility inside the beltway) B. Off hours C. folks whose preference/need for auto is high, etc, etc - I think having a few (though I395 is the highest capacity inside the beltway in NoVa) highways towards the core of the metro area is useful.
Yes, pretty much.
For folks who need a car, that's really the result of auto-centric planning as well - you can't separate the transportation infrastructure planning from the land development planning.
relative to a conventional lane, or relative to a smaller highway?
Relative to both.
@goldfish
Compared to the $5B it takes to build a new metro line, it is lot cheaper! Sure rail has much higher capacity, but it also costs so much more. So regarding the cost-effectiveness, you must also consider how much it will get used -- i.e., are you getting enough bang for the taxpayer's buck? You have not shown this.
Shown what? I'm not suggesting we build Metro down to Fredricksburg. I was merely challenging the idea that slugging was the result of 'good planning.' That's not how it appears to me at all. Slugging is taking lemons and making lemonade; the HOV lanes are the juicer that makes it possible.
Of course rail is far more expensive - it's also far more beneficial.
by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report
by Miriam on Jun 13, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report
...what you wrote at 2:26PM:
HOV lanes are just highway widening efforts. Reversible lanes like on 395/95 are not cheap, and represent only a marginal increase in capacity. In short, it's just not cost-effective.
You have claimed that the reversible HOV lanes are not cost effective, compared to rail. You have not shown this.
by goldfish on Jun 13, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report
I am talking about I395 from Springfield to the Pentagon (and NOT about its continuation into DC as the SE-SW freeway). the areas surrounding it are a mix of urban/suburban even now, and were more suburban when I395 and its "shirley busway" lines were built.
"For folks who need a car, that's really the result of auto-centric planning as well - you can't separate the transportation infrastructure planning from the land development planning."
A. Some degree of "need" for a car is based on personal transportation preferences/patterns which go beyond land use - as see the non trivial numbers of people who live in high density, work in high density, and still drive, at least occasionally (and sometimes regularly) B.while I am all supportive of coordinating transport and land use planning, that was far from the state of practice when I395 was built. Once again, I think you are setting the bar too high - at that time, the more common approach would have been to build I395 as wide as it was, AND to build it all conventional lanes.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report
You have claimed that the reversible HOV lanes are not cost effective, compared to rail. You have not shown this.
Where did I compare directly to rail?
Look, the facts are these: highways are low capacity arteries. You get a free-flow throughput of about 1,800 vehicles per lane per direction. With the HOV lanes in your direction that gives you 5 lanes inbound or outbound on most of 395. 5 lanes*1,800vph*1.2persons per car = a throughput of just under 11,000 persons per hour, per direction. Even if slugging raised the average occupancy to, say, 1.5 (which is a huge increase) you're talking about a capacity of ~13,500 pphpd (persons per hour, per direction).
Now, take Metro. Metro considers a car with 125 people to be full (even though you could squeeze more on), thus an 8 car train's capacity is about 1,000 people. Running a modest 10 trains per hour (a train every 6 minutes) yields you a capacity of 10,000 pphpd. Run the trains at the max capacity of most subway systems (more like a train every two minutes) and you're talking about max capacities of 30,000 pphpd.
See this PDF - Page 3 - for a nice comparison:
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/11/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Europe%20Transport%20Conference/local_public_transport/public_transport_m1679.pdf
Once you get to a certain point on a highway, you're just not going top squeeze any more juice from the orange. Adding things like HOV lanes are relatively high cost investments that add little to the overall capacity when compared against rapid transit.
by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
actually its different inbound vs outbound. Outbound they could be equivalent. However inbound they are NOT - because you dont wait by your house for someone to come by and pick you up - you have to go to a central location, like a park and ride (formal or informal). Once you do that, its more like a park and ride by bus. Whereas a conventional carpool WILL pick you up at your house, so it has advantages over bus usage, and so is more likely to divert SOV users.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
It wouldn't do anything to reduce congestion, which is the stated goal of HOV lanes.
And if slugs became bus riders it would also not do anything to reduce congestion.
Why are traditional car pools better than slugging?
Because it replaces two or more SOVs with one
Disagree. Slugging has its origins in 1971 as a mode of transportation between Springfield Plaza and the Pentagon. While I'm sure there is a way to travel by bus between those locations, it's likely that slugs were previously SOV drivers, not bus riders, prior to the creation of slugging. Busing from Springfield Plaza to the Pentagon would take a lot longer (and cost a little more) than slugging, so they're not good substitutes. It just so happens that the slug lines were near bus stops but it's not because drivers were looking to pickup people who were otherwise riding the bus.
if there was no health benefit to bike sharing, would you oppose it?
No. Because it has other positive externalities as well.
So, if the positive externalities were taken away, would you oppose bike sharing simply on the grounds that it siphons off transit users? Even if bike sharing was positive externality neutral, wouldn't there be value in it simply as an alternative form of transportation?
by Falls Church on Jun 13, 2012 3:21 pm • link • report
you are assuming that HOV only draws slugs, or slugs and other carpools. The actual HOV lanes on I395 are heavily used by buses and vanpools.
Have you ever been to the Pentagon bus transfer station at rush hour? Most of those buses run on I395. They cover annandale, burke, springfield, and other nearby areas. They are a mass transit system themselves. I would venture that the HOV lanes would be worthwhile even if they were HOV-8, and only open to buses and vanpools during rush hour. That they have capacity left over for the carpools, and are useful off rush hour (when there is often congestion on I395 but when transit is less competive for choice users) are bonuses. Probably justify the incremental cost of the lanes.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report
I am not disputing your capacity numbers. But you did not look at the COST side of the issue.
Subway cost effectiveness are far easier to claim than to actually demonstrate. The wisdom has it that they are only cost-effectiveness in high density cities. That is why they don't build them in the hinterlands, and conversely, why they don't build many roads in dense cities. I395 is in between these scenarios, and cost-effectiveness of the metro of the HOV lanes is a open and interesting question.
by goldfish on Jun 13, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report
Of course the entire interstate system wasn't a mistake. But building interstates through cities doesn't make much sense, just like building subways across the great plains doesn't make much sense...
We're talking about Virginia 395 (that's where the HOV lanes exist) not DC 395. I'd agree that urban highways like DC 395 are bad but wouldn't consider Virginia 395 to be an urban highway. That area of Virginia is mostly your typical suburban environment.
I'd also agree that expanding 395 or 66 inside the beltway would be a bad idea. But, there's little evidence that 395/66 inside the beltway as they're currently built, have impeded transit oriented development (see: rossyln-ballston corridor) the way that urban highways scar cities and impede their development.
by Falls Church on Jun 13, 2012 3:29 pm • link • report
A conventional carpool WILL pick you up at your house? So the people I know, in carpools, who get picked up from parking lots that they drove to, aren't actually in carpools?
(Full disclosure -- I'm calling their transportation arrangement a "carpool". But they mostly call it "getting a ride in (or a ride home) with [so-and-so]".)
by Miriam on Jun 13, 2012 3:36 pm • link • report
.while I am all supportive of coordinating transport and land use planning, that was far from the state of practice when I395 was built. Once again, I think you are setting the bar too high - at that time, the more common approach would have been to build I395 as wide as it was, AND to build it all conventional lanes.
No doubt, that was the mindset at the time.
However, I don't think I'm setting the bar too high - it's not like HOV lanes on 395 are some magical planning success. They represent a marginal increase in capacity, a marginal shift away from the standard auto-centric transportation and land use planning of the era.
Some of the Metro development in the DC region - now that's noteworthy.
by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report
heavy rail can help to support higher density development in such areas, relieving congestion generally, so its worthwhile building SOME heavy rail in such areas. Which we did in inside the beltway NoVa - the orange line, and blue/yellow line. The amount of demand for that kind of development was limited in the decades from 1970 to 2000 - so there were quite enough metro stations to absorb it. At this point in time, when we have a greater demand for it, it MAY be cost benefit justified to add a new heavy rail line in between the orange and blue/yellow lines - but I am leaning to strongly to that not having been the case when I395 was built.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report
tl;dr 66 and 395 (in va) may not have been intended as urban highways but that's what they became, and not long after each was built.
by drumz on Jun 13, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report
Well I don't car pool, but it sure seems to me like driving to a parking lot for pick up misses some of the benefits of carpooling vs slugging.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 3:41 pm • link • report
I dont think anyone has used the word magical. They were one incremental forward step in the change in mindset. And yes, they were a smaller increase in capacity than heavy rail (light rail is also a smaller increase than heavy rail) but not as much smaller as they are if you assume they are used only be car pools and not by transit buses, and they are of course cheaper than heavy rail.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 3:44 pm • link • report
The reconstruction/widening of I395 took place from 1965 to 1974, and the hi rises along it range from 1970 or so to the 1980s (though there is at least one post 2000 one near LRT). Most of them are tower in the park style hirises, and are fairly auto centric by millenial urbanist standards. If you posit a possible commitment to high density, and to types of walkable development that were almost never done in the suburbs even when high density was chosen (and was not always chosen in urban downtowns either) for another 2 to 3 decades, then the HOV lanes can look like a mistake, I suppose.
I mean clipper ships don't look like an advance when you compare them to steam ships, now do they?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 3:50 pm • link • report
I mean Tyson's Corner just recently got its own postal designation but in a blind taste test I'd bet 10 out 10 people would call it a city before they call it a suburb.
Which goes back to Alex's point that when you talk about highways in an urban area to marginal benefits to adding lanes (HOV or otherwise) doesn't do nearly enough to justify the increase in costs.
And yes, hindsight is 20/20 but that should mean that these arguments of highway vs. rail in central cities should be less strenuous if we can somehow surmount peoples impressions about how a jursdictions label doesn't prescribe its actual form.
by drumz on Jun 13, 2012 4:05 pm • link • report
The other part that seems to be missed here is that the existence of Metro plays a huge part in slugging. There are plenty of "casual carpoolers" who take transit some days, and plenty who carpool to a spot and then finish their trip on Metro.
by MLD on Jun 13, 2012 4:25 pm • link • report
The "etc." you left off is really important: biking b/c you want to get some time outdoors, get exercise and save money. These are the 3 and only reasons why i bike. NOT being able to bike for these reasons b/c the infrastructure doesn't allow it is a failure of planning.
by Tina on Jun 13, 2012 4:31 pm • link • report
His usual genial the suburbs are falling apart any day now post - got us a response about slugging being related to good urban planning (an HOV lane). Which got to somehow discussing whether slugging was good urban planning or whether HOV lanes were good urban planning, but with the implicit assumption that slugging was their dominant use.
I think its clear
A. the suburbs where slugging is widespread are not in danger of a suburban death spiral anytime soon (or at least most of them are not - woodbridge, Im not sure).
B. There has to be some residential density level thats high enough to justify highways with carpooling and express bus, not heavy rail
C. whether building such residential areas is a good idea, is debatable
D. But its likely that barring the use of zoning to ban such areas (generally not the GGW approach), they would have been created in the market conditions prevailing from 1965 to 1980 in the areas under discussion (and to some degree already existed in 1965).
E. Given the existence of I395 in its current width, its good two lanes are HOV
F. Given the existence of the HOV lanes, its good they are used by buses and carpoolers
G. There may be some incremental benefit to having a carpooler switch to bus
H. Its not clear how many carpoolers would switch to bus if carpooling were discouraged
I. Its not clear how much difference there is between the sluggers and conventional car poolers
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 4:45 pm • link • report
I would say that it misses the benefits of being picked up from home for carpooling vs. getting picked up at a parking lot for carpooling. Which gets me back to not understanding the difference between slugging and carpooling.
by Miriam on Jun 13, 2012 4:48 pm • link • report
I agree that the case for preferring highway with HOV in this corridor over heavy rail is not the open and shut case it might be in say, Stafford County.
But I also think that the damage to communities, and general inappropriateness is not what it is for an urban highway like, say, I395 in DC. There are places where 395 is a problem, discouraging walkability and dense URBANIST development but larger areas along it where that would not have taken place anyway.
and yes, design matters. As we have discussed often, density alone does not determine transit use vs auto use. Layout, mix of uses, parking, quality of walking, etc matter. Even if the corridor along I395 had the same residential density that the RBC corridor has (which it does NOT) it would have higher auto mode share, if that density followed the 1970s design styles predominant in the corridor.
Now maybe we can blame the planners of the 1970s for not insisting on urbanist layout - yes, hindsight is 20-20.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 4:52 pm • link • report
you mean the definition? well carpooling is arranged in advance, and slugging is not. That of course makes carpooling doable to more employment centers since you only need three people going to the employment center, but slugging to work needs a fair number (though I guess if you have the bus as a back up, maybe not). But in terms of what we have been discussing, I guess theres no difference - I think most of us were assuming car pooling to mean pick up at home (I know I was thinking that)
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 13, 2012 4:55 pm • link • report
Slugging is a type of carpooling, but not all carpooling is slugging.
I would say the way most people have been using the terms here, carpooling is arranged in advance among a small group, and slugging is not. Slugging is only "arranged" in the social sense that people know that picking up will happen at a certain location.
by MLD on Jun 13, 2012 5:08 pm • link • report
But the Yellow and Blue lines don't go where sluggers come from. Sluggers come from Burke, Lorton, Woodbridge, Potomac Mills, and Fredericksburg.
Let me know if you know any Blue or Yellow Line stations there. Yes, there are VRE stations there, but there is no VRE station at the Pentagon.
Also, many sluggers go to the State Dept, which has no Yellow Line, no VRE and a shuttle from the Blue Line.
@ Alex B:Now, take Metro.
Exactly. The Orange Line moves more people along I-66 than I-66 does.
I'd love to see a Pink Line from the Pentagon to Franconia-Springfield and beyond on top of the HOT-lanes. It should have stops at the Air Force, Shirlington, VA-7, Mark Center, Landmark, Edsall, the Springfield Mall, Newington Lorton, Woodbridge and perhaps even further.
by Jasper on Jun 13, 2012 5:23 pm • link • report
The "benefits" of carpooling are actually drawbacks, because they require arrangements made in advance and social commitments, whereas slugging is a form of carpooling that doesn't rely on these things: instead, everyone just meets at a designated spot and the arrangements are made in an ad-hoc manner. Far superior to carpooling, IMHO.
by Tyro on Jun 13, 2012 9:20 pm • link • report
Only to the extent that getting to the designated spot is easy and efficient. If it is difficult (like you have to drive there anyway) or out of the way, then it is not a drawback.
by David C on Jun 13, 2012 9:46 pm • link • report
Correction: the late 50s and early 60s.
The "hindsight is 20-20" saying is to remind us of our present shortcomings: What mistakes are we making now, that people will be fretting over 50 years hence?
by goldfish on Jun 14, 2012 9:05 am • link • report
Add a Comment