Development
In sprawling suburb, car drive you
While last Wednesday's hyped "thundersnow" underdelivered on the snow, it certainly didn't in the chaos department. Storms like these highlight the benefits of compact urban development while underscoring the weaknesses of sprawling suburbia.
Photo by futureatlas.com on Flickr.
Residents of Washington's outer suburbs struggled Wednesday night with horrendous traffic on the city's commuter routes. At the same time, many DC residents were enjoying happy hours, snowball fights and otherwise carrying on with their lives. By the time people in the central city were fast asleep, many suburbanites were still fighting to get home.
People often say they prefer driving over transit because a car allows you to go where you want, when you want. Events like last week's storm or the week-long blizzard last February highlight problems with this strategy.
Even under normal circumstances, though, how many of us drive to work at 6 am "to avoid traffic" or forgo a shopping trip "because the parking lot is too crowded" or take a detour on a trip because "the football game is letting out?" As Carla Saulter, the Seattle Bus Chick, has said, driving a car doesn't necessarily mean being in control.
I grew up and went to college in Lexington, Kentucky, a city of 270,000. Despite having the country's oldest urban growth boundary, it is a sprawling, auto-centric town except for a few central neighborhoods. Before I moved to DC, I lived a relatively car dependent life. I often found myself rearranging my schedule based on the best times to drive where I needed to go.
In my second year of graduate school I moved to an older house in an early twentieth century streetcar suburb. Centrally located, today that neighborhood is often referred to as "downtown." It's a wonderful neighborhood with beautiful housing stock (all with sizable yards!), a small, connected street grid, and several great retail streets with nice local stores, restaurants and bars.
I still had to drive to school several times a week or to visit friends who lived farther out of the city, but I could walk to my job, the grocery, the neighborhood bar, even the hardware store and the bank. I could ride my bike many other places in and around downtown.
When the state was shut down by a debilitating ice storm that winter, I was able to get to work as soon as the office reopened, while many colleagues were still snowed in. My roommates and I enjoyed drinks at our favorite neighborhood watering hole, and we had no trouble availing ourselves of what food remained at the local grocery store.
Upon taking a job in DC, I made an early decision to give up my car. Having lived an increasingly car-light life, I knew I would much rather invest extra money to find housing in a close-in neighborhood that would spare me the traffic, maintenance, time waste and other headaches of dealing with a car.
The result has been much more than just time and money savings. I've found myself far more free and mobile than when I relied on my car to get places. Even without a car, driving is an option: I use ZipCar or a normal rental car when I have to go somewhere that's not transit accessible.
More importantly, in choosing to live in the city by giving up driving as a my primary means of mobility, I gained three other legitimate mobility options, and significantly better access to services and amenities than I ever had before. I can walk, bike or take transit nearly anywhere I want to go.
Photo by jim_darling on Flickr.
These examples underscore the fallacy of our car dependency. Cars give people mobility. But what's more important is accessibility. Sometimes these are the same: if I live 10 miles from a grocery, and I own a car, I have access to the grocery.
But if my car breaks down, it snows a foot and a half, or I'm suddenly unable to drive for another reason, I no longer have access to that grocery. Because I've relied on a single means of mobility, when it is no longer available, both my mobility and accessibility are severely diminished.
Many people often argue that smart growth proponents (like me) are trying to force people of their cars in favor of biking, walking and transit. But, to me, growing smarter really is just providing more legitimate options. I don't necessarily want to live in a place where you can't have a car. Nor do I want to force other people to do so.
I do, though, want to live in a place where you don't need a car, a place where, when driving is no longer an option, we are not imprisoned by our built environment. I don't mind that some people in my apartment building drive their cars across town to work everyday, that's their choice. The important thing is that when traffic brings the region to a grinding halt, I know that my neighbors will still be able to get groceries or go to a restaurant, or visit their parents across town.
This is what disasters like last week's commute can help the smart growth "uninitiated" understand. Where a normal day of traffic often leaves people crying for more lanes on more highways, no level of extra auto capacity would have alleviated the problems that left people stranded in their cars for hours on end.
Walkable, compact development is certainly beneficial because it supports high quality transit service, but at its heart it's beneficially precisely because of its compactness. Transit may be greener than driving alone, but the most sustainable way for us to get around is on our own two feet.
The unsustainability of our development patterns is apparent at every level of analysis. At the micro level, we see the failings of dendritic neighborhoods when a fallen tree blocks the only entrance and exit for the 5,000 families who live in a subdivision. At the macro level, the impossibility of moving 700,000 people out of the city at one time on a dozen major routes highlights the folly of limiting our mobility options.
Improving new development and retrofitting existing areas to improve our options can be expensive. Many argue that we shouldn't spend money to alleviate problems that only arise under the most stressful system conditions. Yet we spend billions of dollars a year preparing for or mitigating against the most unlikely of situations, especially when it comes to security.
Changing our development patterns has major implications on public health, financial health, environmental health and even national security. As many area baseball fans can attest, a sports team rarely is successful when it relies solely on the skills of one or two star players. Why, then, do we insist on development habits that make us dependent on one expensive, polluting, unhealthy, and stressful way to get around?
 | Erik Weber has been living car-free in the District since 2009. Hailing from the home of the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, Erik has been interested in transit since spending summers in Germany as a kid where he rode as many buses, trains and streetcars as he could find. Views expressed here are Erik's alone.    |
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- DC's divide need not be black and white
by Mister Goat on Feb 1, 2011 10:23 am
by Cullen on Feb 1, 2011 10:23 am
Our transit system isn't the greatest, but I'd much rather depend on it than on a car.
by C on Feb 1, 2011 10:26 am
I would sooner drive around going no where in particular in a car than sit in a dark cold house.
by pepco sucks on Feb 1, 2011 10:29 am
And that's one nitpick I have with this article: you rightly point out people plan their commutes around car-related obstacles and events, but how often do things like last Wednesday's commute happen? Granted, on a smaller scale, it's not just "once a year" (Wednesday). People certainly get stuck in bad traffic jams that double or triple their commute on a regular basis. But overall, it's a net gain for peoplethe overwhelming majority of the time.
(BTW, the downed tree article says that 50 homes were cut off, not 5000)
by J on Feb 1, 2011 10:43 am
I find it interesting that a lot of smart growth proponents have had the opportunity to experience both 'worlds,' and thus evaluate their pros and cons, as was Erik's experience. Whereas many who have never lived in a place featuring multiple means of mobility may not realize how the downsides of their local environment (lack of access) would be avoidable had it been developed differently. I am conscience of these differences as I am regularly exposed to people who live in both 'worlds,' working in a rather remote suburban location while living in the city.
by DCster on Feb 1, 2011 10:46 am
I'm not arguing for everyone to live car-free, and I think I make that pretty clear.
I also acknowledged that storms like last Wednesdays are infrequent, and that planning infrastructure solely for major, infrequent events isn't necessarily the best strategy.
I also didn't argue that planning your commute around car-related obstacles and events is a bad thing.
They're all simply examples of how the thinking that having a car puts you in control is really flawed.
The point is that smart growth advocates need to better make this argument and help people understand that it is dangerous to build our lives around one single source of mobility.
I don't want to force anybody to give up their cars, but I want us all to think more about things like why having walking and bike paths that cut through a super bock is important, or why it's beneficial for the strip mall down the street to have sidewalks and crosswalks.
Also, I realize the article refers to 50 homes. It was also only one street. There are many single-entrance subdivisions around the country with upwards of 5,000 homes.
by Erik Weber on Feb 1, 2011 10:57 am
by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 10:58 am
Why do I suspect this is more a generation divide than an urban divide?
by charlie on Feb 1, 2011 10:59 am
Why don't funding decisions ever ask the question: are we forcing people to subsidize the auto industry, Saudi Arabia, and asphalt companies?
Has anyone asked Bob Chase why he wants to limit the freedoms of residents of the suburbs?
by David M. on Feb 1, 2011 11:10 am
by Jay on Feb 1, 2011 11:16 am
I am getting tired of the lie that traffic in DC was prefect while only commuter routes were stuck. Many DC streets were stuck as well, many bike lanes are still stuck. Many DC side walks are still barely passable. Not very good if you want to walk or bike to work.
I am also tired of the underlying suggestion/lie that everybody who drove on Wednesday was someone who worked in DC and lived in the suburb. There are scores of people that rarely get in DC. I'd say the majority of the 5 million we have here, rarely get in DC.
I am also getting tired of this unrealistic idea that everyone can live and work on the same block. I have explained several times last week why this will not happen.
Yes, we need more density, yes we need more transit, yes we need more mixed urban building. But no, DC is not heaven, and no suburbia is not hell.
This image is just as false as the fallacy that everyone wants to live in suburbia.
by Jasper on Feb 1, 2011 11:18 am
I'll be sure to link to this article each and every time the trains shut down and the urbanites can't enjoy their snowball fights.
by TGEoA on Feb 1, 2011 11:18 am
I was lucky enough to be able to walk the mile home but that wasn't an option for people who lived even slightly farther. This isn't a suburb/city difference. It's an issue robust mass-transit and infrastructure which doesn't precisely follow the urban boundaries.
by Dan on Feb 1, 2011 11:22 am
I live on Capitol Hill, and most houses have small lawns, room for one car, good access to transit, and are eminently walkable with great access to transit and bikeable streets.
It's not the cheapest place to live, thanks to its location, but there's no reason that the pattern couldn't be replicated elsewhere at less cost. IMO, single-entrance subdivisions seem to offer the worst of all worlds. People are crammed into big houses on tiny plots without enough parking; nothing's walkable, and it's still expensive! I can never understand Virginia's fetish over this kind of planning.
by andrew on Feb 1, 2011 11:30 am
I did read the article, and I think we largely agree. I don't think you were pushing for everyone to engage in a car-free lifestyle. I don't think the theme of your piece was to say that cars or bad, or that your piece was a result of last week's storm. I probably did misinterpret the 50/5000 issue because of the hyperlink - it's true the number 5000 wasn't part of said link, but it did seem almost implied. Apologies.
But my response meant to get at the fact that although your points were well-received, that same dependence on one form of mobility is frequently something people *will* very frequently decide is worth the risk and trade-offs because they see the "cost" as the occasional extra hour of traffic, but the "benefit" as saving $500/month in rent. Or living close to a Target as a "benefit" and "not going on Sundays because it's too crowded" as a relatively minor "cost". When you tell them the car is giving them a false sense of control, they're going to think of examples like this and not of the time they couldn't go to the grocery store for a day or two because they were snowed in.
Strangely, it's also possible my perspective is somewhat warped.. when I think of people living a unimodal lifestyle, I think of my parents. Who live in Arlington. And who drive to the grocery store ~1km away. But who I know would be okay if "the worst" happened and their cars (yes, plural) were out of commission and there was a blizzard. My father recently complained about a bunch of new sidewalk refurbishment in their neighborhood, saying the stimulus was a sham.. In his defense, he was a lot more accepting when I pointed out they weren't refurbished sidewalks, they were sidewalks where none previously existed before. I think there are lot of places that will be interesting examples to follow in the decades to come.. especially because change can't happen overnight.
by J on Feb 1, 2011 11:32 am
Indeed, we should continue the current practice of encouraging automobiles by requring parking spaces developers don't want to build, and charging below market rates for parking, encouraging people to drive in circles hunting for a good deal.
by Michael Perkins on Feb 1, 2011 11:32 am
More importantly, you miss the point. The storm is just one of many examples why lifestyles in which driving is the only option leaves us vulnerable to major disruptions in our lives. Regardless of where exactly people were leaving from or going to.
And obviously not everyone can live and work on the same block, but we need to stop designing our communities in such a way that actually prevents anyone from doing so.
by Erik Weber on Feb 1, 2011 11:38 am
Who exactly is proposing to do away with all existing DC residential neighborhoods and give matter of right for all uses to all property owners? I would love to see exactly which proposal you are referring to. I have yet to see any proposal, official or otherwise, that gives matter of right for all uses to all property owners in the neighborhoods you list. Perhaps you are using hyperbole to refer to the modest proposals to make better use of vacant and underused land next to Metro stations? Am I to understand, for example, that a developer building a mixed-use project that includes housing on what used to be a parking lot next to the Rhode Island Evenue Metro Station is part of some plot to decrease choices and drive all residential uses out of the District? Because it seems to me that that project and others like it are actually increasing the amount of housing in the District and increasing choices.
Talk about hyperbole.
Plus, if someone were to propose allowing all District property owners matter of right for all uses, wouldn't they technically be proposing something that opens up options? Of course, that is a moot point since no one is making such a proposal outside of the fantasy conspiracy world dreamt up by the Committee of 100, a group of people who oppose any and all change, who want everyone born before 1965 to get the hell out of the District and who pine for that golden decade-and-a-half between the ripping up of the streetcar tracks and the opening of Metro, when the District was bleeding population and a new surface parking lot opened up every other week......
I and anyone else under the age of 50 should just pay our taxes and otherwise just shut the hell up and bow before Lance and the rest of the Committee of 100, whose undying sense of noblesse oblige did such a great job of keeping the District on the right track back in the 70s, 80s and 90s before "young people" such as myself showed up and had the nerve to do so without a car......
BTW Lance, I noticed gas is well over $3.00/gallon. Hope your "choice" to drive to work is treating you well..............
by rg on Feb 1, 2011 11:42 am
dude - there were plenty of us "young people" living here in the city without cars back in the day during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. You're acting like you invented something. You didn't.
Somebody needs a big tablespoon of getoveryourself
by andy on Feb 1, 2011 11:54 am
Sorry, for all the agitated cries of "Liar!", "BS", etc... it's obvious to anyone who was not in a coma that it was the folks commuting from (or to) the suburbs who took the brunt of the storm. We heard stories of people who abandoned their car and walked from Rockville to Gaithersburg rather than sit on Rockville Pike for 9 hours.
Obviously those who live in central DC and work downtown were in the catbird seat. They had it a hell of a lot better than DC residents in places like Chevy Chase and Palisades. They had it as good or better than a lot of folks who live "inside the Beltway". Dan's bus got stuck--so he walked a mile home. And? If he lived in Centerville he would have spent the night on the GW Parkway.
I'm just not sure what the point is of all this denying the most banal observations of what's plainly in front of our face. Urban living is becoming more popular because suburban existence (particularly in exurban Washington) is becoming increasingly hellish.
As has been pointed out over and over again, some people have no choice in the matter. That's all well and good, and they have my pity, but what's the point?
by oboe on Feb 1, 2011 11:59 am
This is one of the major zoning changes being proposed by the Office of Planning. I.e., It's coming out of Tregoning's office. To hear it explained by OP, it's conditional on there not being another business within 500 ft of the proposed commercial use of residentially zoned property. But the devik is in the details. That commericial use must be of essentially the same type that is being proposed. Example ... If there is a Candy Store within 500 feet of your house, your next door neighbor can't rent out their home to someone who wants to open another candy store there. They can however rent it to someone who wants to open a dry cleaners ... provided it's not more than a 2,000 squart foot operation ...
by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 11:59 am
I agree with the main point, that we cannot force people to adopt one particular lifestyle. This is one part of zoning and development policy I struggle with that I will get to in a different paragraph.
BUT I think it's strange you chose "lobbying for eliminating parking minimums" as an example of an interest group trying to force a particular lifestyle. (Does anyone else see the contradiction here?)
My inner Milton Friedman says this is all backwards! The parking minimums themselves are "forcible" restrictions on voluntary behavior. Parking maximums are equally evil and represent a set of "values" imposed on private property that may not align with those of the owners or other "stakeholders" (I hate that word because it means too many different things, but that's almost immaterial to my point here)
Lance, you talk about "opening opportunities" and not closing them. I agree totally! But I'm confused because you seem to support restrictive zoning and regulations that do the opposite.
Lance says "It's about balance. And not about forcing others to act as you do on the mistaken belief that everyone else's circumstances are just like your own." Again, I agree. But I just don't see how prohibiting private businesses from voluntarily building in "Dupont, Logan, Shaw, Columbia Heights, or anywhere else that is close to existing transit," is consistent with the first statement.
"Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date." Leaving aside eminent domain, development in these areas is about existing (private) owners choosing to sell their land to (private) parties, mainly developers, in a voluntary exchange for fair value. But it seems like Lance isn't comfortable with allowing this process.
To be honest, I'm not happy with the pure version of this either. Zoning codes do serve a purpose. I guess I'm trying to ask to what extent is it permissible to interfere with the process of free choice in a land use transaction?
I think we're all OK with SOME level of intervention. No one wants a Meatpacking Plant on the floor above you, or a prison next door. And for every economist who talks of externalities and transaction costs, there's another who talks about Coase Theorem.
For some reason, it's NOT permissible for us to zone you out of Birkenstocks and Ugly Sweaters and into white shirts with red ties. But it IS allowable for us to dictate who can buy what land AND what they can do to it.
The Wheaton Development post is a great example of my personal problem along these lines. I agree that the development there seems to be "better" than alternatives. But what if it wasn't? Should my opinions about how to live control? No.
I can only land at the idea that AT THE MARGIN, we are too interventionist. Our hodgepodge of mandates and subsidies produces BOTH economically inefficient outcomes AND developments I do not value very much. For example, the mortgage interest deduction, subsidized roads, inadequate gasoline taxes, and insufficient highway user fees all contribute to the problem. As does the idea that "community" members should have a strong say in who I sell my house to and what they do with it once it's theirs.
I strongly believe we should role back these interventions, slowly, and see if everything goes to shit. And if anyone read that whole thing, congratulations! I hope it made at least SOME sense and apologies for any typos.
by WRD on Feb 1, 2011 12:13 pm
I walked home, but many people on the same bus didn't. I was sitting next to someone who worked in MD and lived in DC and that was too long a walk home. Even with my ability to walk, my 20 minute commute became an 80 minute commute. I'm not saying there weren't people who had it worse, but Erik Weber is painting a rosy story of an urban utopia and problematic outer suburbs during the storm and that just isn't true.There were a lot of people stuck all over, even on mass transit. Ignoring this is ignoring part of the issues our region has during storms.
The ideal was for people who live and work near metro stops or regularly walk to work (buses were messed up everywhere). This is a fraction of people even in D.C.
by Dan on Feb 1, 2011 12:19 pm
We live near Clarendon Metro, where my husband and I once enjoyed car-free commutes and a car-lite lifestyle (maybe using our car once on the weekend). But when his employer, which was in walking distance from our home, laid off 1/3 of the workforce in one day, he had to look for a job elsewhere, in a poor economy, and in a hurry.
A lot of jobs in our region are way out in the burbs and are not accessible by transit. This seems to be the trend these days.
Some of the land use patterns, road and bridge designs around employment sites in the outer burbs make commuting by bike extremely challenging/dangerous (at least for the final mile or miles of the trip and even for the thickest skinned road bicyclists).
So, of course I agree with the author. But,let's remember to emphasize the employment piece as well. Depending on the field, not everybody can get a job in DC near a Metro station these days, no matter how much they are willing to compromise on salary. So, even if you choose to live near a Metro station and be car lite/car free, there are some forces beyond your control.
And yes, my husband was one of the poor fools in traffic the other day. The only sliver of a silver liner was that our car is a hybrid, so he only used 1/4 tank of gas.
by Penny on Feb 1, 2011 12:26 pm
I don't know that I would describe Dupont, Logan, Shaw, and Columbia Heights as "residential." In any case, you became apoplectic at the idea of a restaurant expanding on a commercial street not too long ago, and in any case, you have consistently been AGAINST giving people the option to open businesses or live near metro stations by refusing to allow builders and retailers to locate there, shutting them out, when that messes up growth patterns and cuts off options for residents and business owners. What Erik is advocating here is more rational planning to give people more options. Your solution is to sit on expensive infrastructure like metro stations and scream "minemineminemine!", forcing people to drive.
by JustMe on Feb 1, 2011 12:36 pm
I am definitely much happier when I don't have to drive to work, but it's an acceptable alternative to have to drive ONLY when going to work and be able to walk or use public transit after I get home. I have to drive to work now, but it's nice to get home at the end of the day and or metro to see friends or do local shopping.
by JustMe on Feb 1, 2011 12:38 pm
Do you not get sarcasm? I am fully aware of the fact that tens of thousands of people lived in the District car-free in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Indeed, I have lived in the District for almost 20 years, so I witnessed it first hand. Yet Lance and the Committee of 100 like to argue that only young, newcomer "hipsters" choose to live car-free and advocate for transit. I lived here in the 90s when Barry was Mayor, but as far as they are concerned, my opinions don't matter. Apparently, after 17 years in the District I am young newcomer who has yet to pay my dues. As far as I am concerned, even if you have lived her 1 month, your opinion matters. As far as they are concerned, you need to have lived in the District 40 years and be a member of an elite, invitation-only organization to have your voice heard.
by rg on Feb 1, 2011 12:50 pm
"I don't know that I would describe Dupont, Logan, Shaw, and Columbia Heights as "residential."
by Sarah on Feb 1, 2011 1:13 pm
This depends which part of Reno you're talking about. The weakness exists because Connecticut Avenue itself isn't even allowed to be a functional commercial corridor (limited to a single commercial strip every mile, separated by single-use residential apartment buildings with large setbacks). I definitely see the need for more mixed use development in that area, though the standard should always be for development within 1/4 mile of the metro: but the fact that in certain areas, a resident on Reno might be more than half a mile from any commercial amenities seems wasteful.
by JustMe on Feb 1, 2011 1:23 pm
So a coffee shop, corner store, or dry cleaners might open up on Reno Road at some point in the future. I fail to see the problem with this.
by Phil on Feb 1, 2011 1:42 pm
by Neil Flanagan on Feb 1, 2011 1:44 pm
by Eric on Feb 1, 2011 1:48 pm
No you did not.
You said: Residents of Washington's outer suburbs struggled Wednesday night with horrendous traffic on the city's commuter routes.
The is a difference between "people" and "Residents of Washington's outer suburbs". The statement that everybody commuting struggled due to inclement weather is true. The suggestion that those people were only "Residents of Washington's outer suburbs" is not.
The bottom line is that after the first few hours, the majority of the roads left terribly congested were ones on which people leave the city.
Incorrect. Everybody commuting was struggling. Not only "Residents of Washington's outer suburbs". Not only people driving from downtown DC to the suburbs. Also people trying to get across town. Also people getting from Mitchelville to Springfield. Also people in transit. People on bikes. People on foot. Everybody.
You are not getting my point. My point is that there are a lot - a lot - more people commuting than just those "Residents of Washington's outer suburbs" who drive from DC to the suburbs. There are people who live in DC, and need to get across town. And then there's the largest group, let's call them "other people who don't live nor work in DC". There were people going from Tysons to Alexandria. From Alexandria to Brandywine, from Andrews to Franconia, from College Park to Bethesda, from Rockville to Frederick. And then there are people like me who work in DC (not downtown) and live in the outer suburbs and don't drive, but walk, metro and bus their asses home. There are many shades of grey.
It may come as a shock to you, but there are people who live and work outside of DC. Millions in fact. You should acknowledge their existence. Currently, these people do not have another option than driving. They can not all move into DC. There is no efficient transit from Tysons to Burke. There is no efficient transit from Annandale to Ft Washington. You should acknowledge that.
We agree that more transit should be built. And that the outer suburbs are poorly designed. But that's the current situation. It is beyond arrogant to laugh at people living their lives there.
The storm is just one of many examples why lifestyles in which driving is the only option leaves us vulnerable to major disruptions in our lives. Regardless of where exactly people were leaving from or going to.
This is a non statement. It is always true that inclement weather causes traffic mayhem. People and goods need to move. And quite frankly, pedestrians and bikers in DC with their urban lifestyle are currently the worst of because bike lanes and side walks are not plowed. Inclement weather hits everybody, not just "Residents of Washington's outer suburbs driving from downtown DC".
And obviously not everyone can live and work on the same block, but we need to stop designing our communities in such a way that actually prevents anyone from doing so.
I agree that urban design can be a lot smarter. And we largely agree on what needs to change. But the goal can not be that everybody should work on their block. That is way too far fetched. And, quite frankly, very limiting.
It will be a long time before my and my wife's employers will sit on a block near each other, in an smart urban surrounding if only because they're both large employers and need more than a single block, leaving little space for ground level stores, and housing. Life is not that simple.
@ oboe: Sorry, for all the agitated cries of "Liar!", "BS", etc... it's obvious to anyone who was not in a coma that it was the folks commuting from (or to) the suburbs who took the brunt of the storm.
That is because the suburbs house more than four out of five of the people in this area. DC only has about 600k residents. Greater Washington has 5 million.
Obviously those who live in central DC and work downtown were in the catbird seat.
Sure they were. As were the people that live and work in Old Alexandria. And the people that live and work in Dulles. And the people that live and work in Laurel. Again, there are people that live and work outside of DC. Not all people that live close to work live in DC. Not all people that live in DC live close to work.
This blog is called Greater Greater Washington. It's stated purpose is not to make the District greater. It's purpose is to make the whole Greater Washington area greater. If so, then you much acknowledge the many people that live and work here.
Last week, I posted a couple of reasons why not everyone can live and work in the same place. School going kids, multi-income families, changing jobs. Penny gives another example today:
We live near Clarendon Metro, where my husband and I once enjoyed car-free commutes and a car-lite lifestyle (maybe using our car once on the weekend). But when his employer, which was in walking distance from our home, laid off 1/3 of the workforce in one day, he had to look for a job elsewhere, in a poor economy, and in a hurry.
You can do two things. You can smugly laugh at Penny's husband for his misery and feel really good about yourself that you are one of the lucky few that does live close to work (in or outside DC). This is what I am reacting against.
Or you can advocate smart urban design so that Penny's husband gets a decent car-free efficient way to get to his new job in (say) Bailey's Crossroad or Reston. If he is so lucky to get a new job this relatively close to his home, and does not end up having to go to Baltimore or Fredericksburg.
If you do that, then we fully agree.
by Jasper on Feb 1, 2011 2:04 pm
by snowpeas on Feb 1, 2011 2:07 pm
@charlie - this is definitely not a generational divide. I know people in their 50s, 60s, and even 70s who would prefer public transit over driving. Or would even prefer walking from one place to another...granted the city's infrastructure provides for it. I think an underlying issue is actually the fact that our society has glamorized vehicles so that we no longer view them as solely a mode of mobility. Cars represent convenience and luxury. I completely agree with Erik that we have come to be dependent on one mode of transportation, but we can't ignore that this type of transportation has come to be more of a status symbol then a way to get from point A to point B.
Thanks for this Erik....smart growth is crucial to sustainable development and ways to open the eyes of skeptics will help its chances of acceptance.
by Lulu on Feb 1, 2011 2:09 pm
I drove from the MD suburbs to downtown DC that night, and while it wasn't easy, it wasn't anything like a multi-hour standstill. If I had to drive in the other direction, it would have been a disaster for me.
by JustMe on Feb 1, 2011 2:12 pm
Just wanted to point out that, at least from second-hand reports of those I know, it most certainly was *not* the case that "the people who live and work in Rockville" were in the catbird seat. They were screwed. One last observation: while it's true that those who live and work in Rockville Town Center may have gone relatively scott-free, there just aren't that many of them. That's because the sprawling suburbs tend to be...well...sprawling.
So, yes, while the roughly 6 people who live and work in downtown Centerville were happy campers, the scale is a bit different.
by oboe on Feb 1, 2011 2:44 pm
Just as the scale between people who live in DC and people who live outside DC is a bit different. 1 to 7, roughly. And those 7 can not live and work where the 1 lives, because the 1 opposes any new building in his neighborhood through his ANC using words like, traffic congestion, multi-generational living (while ignoring mutli-ethnic living), boo-to-low income, etc.
by Jasper on Feb 1, 2011 3:04 pm
by Sarah on Feb 1, 2011 3:20 pm
Lance says "It's about balance. And not about forcing others to act as you do on the mistaken belief that everyone else's circumstances are just like your own." Again, I agree. But I just don't see how prohibiting private businesses from voluntarily building in "Dupont, Logan, Shaw, Columbia Heights, or anywhere else that is close to existing transit," is consistent with the first statement.
These are neighborhoods as we call them in DC ... and not downtown. Each of these neighborhoods has areas within them that are strictly commercial, strictly residential, or a mix of the two (mixed-use.) People who want to live or work in these neighborhoods have ALL options open to them as the zoning code now stands. They can chose to live on a purely residential street of the neighborhood. They can open a business in a purely commericial street/area of the neighborhood, they can chose live and or work in one of the neigbhorhood's mixed use areas. They can even chose to do a 'home occupation' out of a residential part of the neighborhood (with no more than one employee) or open a bed and bedbreakfast (with no more than six rooms) provided they are living in the home. I.e., There are currently lots and lots of options for everyone. But the Office of Planning, is looking to change that. They are looking to effectively get rid of the residential parts of neighborhoods that happen to be close to mass transit. And they are doing this in a fashion that is less than fully transparent. They are still calling those areas 'residential', but they are also saying that a business has a right to open up in it. Now that's exactly what we used to have before the advent of Zoning laws. And that's precisely why you won't find much residential left nowadays in places such as south of Dupont Circle ... which was once absolutely all residential. Once you start allowing commericial establishments to come in to residential areas you have a snowball effect. Residential real estate is cheaper than commercial real estate by a large factor. So, businesses unable to pay the big bucks to operate in the real commercial areas will buy houses ... your neighbors' houses ... to turn them into businesses. And once that starts to happen, it spreads .. because no one wants to live just next door to a commercial business.
I was at that Cleveland Park Meeting and the speaker from OP, Travis Parker, stated flat out that OP's intentions were NOT to change the character of the residential neighborhoods. However, when details got discussed, it became clear that while OP may be saying one thing, they are laying the groundwork for something 180 degrees different. Now it's possible they don't realize what they're doing. But I do have to wonder. At that meeting Travis was asked about the 500 ft rule and he said 'if there's already a commercial establishment closer than 500 ft then another one canNOT come in'. However, what he didn't say ... which I later learned ... was that that business has to be of the same 'type' of business ... i.e., a dry cleaners would not be prevented from turning your neighbor's house into a commercial establishment just because someone down the street already sold their home to someone raising pigs in the back yard. (Yes, believe it or not ... agricultural matter of right is ALSO included in the proposed new rules from OP ...)
We need to protect our neighborhoods ... especially those most near to, and threatened by, commercial development ... including Dupont, Logan, Shaw, and Columbia Heights. And the fact that someone would post on here that they didn't even know that those are residential neighborhoods with commerical establishments in them intended to serve them (and not vice versa) is a good indication of how easily these residential neighborhoods could be decimated through lack of understanding of what the people who actually live there (versus visiting there) want for their neighborhoods.
by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 3:42 pm
To restrict development around metro stations means that the growth of the DC area is going to be quite poorly managed. If someone who objected to this sort of development right near a metro station, I would tell that person, "you should have moved to someplace more... residential." Otherwise, metro stations are just massive subsidies for people who want mass transit access for themselves but not for others who want to live near transit or want to offer or use commercial amenities near transit.
by JustMe on Feb 1, 2011 3:49 pm
Doesn't the fixation on stuck buses emphasize the under-availability of rail?
Isn't it obvious the traffic in DC was snarled largely by car-commuters trying to get out? I don't understand the denial of this.
by Tina on Feb 1, 2011 3:56 pm
The choice lies in selecting a home that is closer to reliable transit...or not. The latter being the choice you apparently made.
by Marian Berry on Feb 1, 2011 4:19 pm
Delays were caused by accidents and stalled cars. The fact that commutes were worse for people leaving D.C. does not remove that existence of many terrible commutes in D.C. and the inner suburbs.
by Dan on Feb 1, 2011 4:21 pm
So, yes, it is about the lack of rail, among other things. And that a half century of bad sprawl-inducing policies have made it nearly impossible for folks with a child or two to live in dense, walkable areas.
We've told ourselves that we'd encourage our workforce to drive one person to a car, in a sprawling exurban environment because that's how people want to live. And we built our environment around that model. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, and all but the luckiest few who can afford to live where they work are screwed every time it rains.
The problem, though, is that we can never address the problem because we keep misdiagnosing the illness. Why are most people's commutes hellish? Damn those inattentive DC drivers! And OPM! And our use of sand instead of salt!
Damn everything but a half-century of myopia, and self-destructive voting habits.
by oboe on Feb 1, 2011 4:40 pm
That's not what's being denied. What I am pointing out is that the world is larger than DC. Much larger. Even within the Greater Washington area.
@ Marian Berry: The choice lies in selecting a home that is closer to reliable transit...or not. The latter being the choice you apparently made.
This is a false choice. Let me repeat myself.
Many people who bought between ~2000-2007 can not sell their home, simply because its under water. Many people have partners that work. Jobs move around, even if your employer stays the same. Regardless of an economy in which people scramble to have a job at all, it is not easy to find two jobs closely together. People have their job move, but do not want to have their kids change schools, or simply like their neighborhood or house.
[from: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8991/thundersnow-traffic-illustrates-eastwest-divide/]
I wrote more, but I can't find it anymore.
by Jasper on Feb 1, 2011 4:41 pm
That was a good explanation. We're no longer as close as I thought, however.
Basically you seem to say the Government should absolutely forbid private development in a way you find desirable.
I don't mean just "you" as in Lance only, but "you" collectively. Don't take it personally.
It seems like you really DON'T want choice so much as you want relatively rigid rules that bind private action. Just as Ford said the Model-T came in whatever color you want so long as it's black, you want property owners to have freedom to do whatever you want on their land so long as it doesn't change the makeup of the neighborhood. Perhaps another way of saying it is you want to make the choices, others should have to live by those choices. That is, if I understand your position correctly.
I will admit this is a valid and consistent argument. How is it fair for unelected zoning bureaucrats to change the rules after people have sunk lots of money into their property? For that mater, how would it be fair if they were elected!?
As I said, I find that philosophy problematic. I think the zoning code is too restrictive as it is. Cutting down the zoning code, or reforming it, would produce net benefits. Note that I think the same is true of the tax code, which contributes to many of the undesirable externalities at issue.
This is an issue of values, at this point. No comment from a random guy on a website will be dispositive. Fundamentally, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the issue.
by WRD on Feb 1, 2011 4:48 pm
This sentence is key to understanding why we are not 'One City' but 'One Metro Area'. However you slice it ... be it for employment purposes or other purposes (e.g., I used to drive my dog to lessons in Old Town) we are 'One Metro Area'. And no means of transportation is going to get us around this "One Metro Area" stretching from the shores of the Chesapeake to the foothills of the Appalachians as cheaply, efficiently, quickly, and with as much flexibility in both terms of schedule and geography as … the automobile. Yes, we’re dependent on the automobile to live a 21st century life which means maybe traveling 100 miles a day in a 100 different directions … but it’s not only the best way to do that … but far far preferable to returning to a 19th century way of life where people become totally dependent for EVERYTHING from food to jobs in either their immediate neighborhoods or where a rail line can be built. It’s not rocket science to understand that the personal vehicle is to geography for us (and our ability to conquer and manage it) that the personal computer (be it a laptop or a smartphone) is to us in terms of managing and benefiting from more information. Yeah, you can always go back to the old ways … Just having access to the information on the books on your shelves or local library, just having access to those opportunities, jobs, and other things within your local neighborhood … OR you can embrace the present and the future … and quit looking back.
by Lance on Feb 1, 2011 4:55 pm
Well. You've convinced me. Let's defund WMATA. At the very least, we should organize one day a year where everyone who regularly commutes by Metro rail or bus takes a private automobile to work. It'll make the traffic during the recent slush storm look like Christmas morning.
"Embrace the present and the future … and quit looking back!"
Where's Westbrook Van Voorhis when you need him?
by oboe on Feb 1, 2011 5:07 pm
By advocating THE AUTOMOBILE! It's the latest early-20th century technology!
You know, Lance, it's nice to have a car around, but, seriously, I can take it or leave it. If I didn't drive to work, my car would be there to get out of town on the weekends or go to my church which isn't located near convenient transit (and definitely not on a Sunday). Living in a neighborhood and planning your life around your car is really a form of slavery. Trying to portray it as "the future" makes you sound like a geezer. We've had cars, we grew up with cars, we use cars. We just have an appreciation for how much they cost and what they're good for rather than seeing them as some "gee-wiz" futuristic gadget.
by JustMe on Feb 1, 2011 5:14 pm
by snowpeas on Feb 1, 2011 5:27 pm
by DuckSoup on Feb 1, 2011 6:32 pm
I live in a walkable, transit oriented inside the beltway suburb, just next to downtown Silver Spring. All that is great, but the biggest hassle I face is Pepco.
If the power goes out, not only is my house cold and dark and my kids freaking out, but the local stores are closed for lack of power, and the traffic lights don't work. Another big factor is that I cannot work from home if the power goes out for more than a few hours, and so I must stay at work longer than would be ideal, and must travel when it would be best to keep people off the road.
While last weeks storm was worse than usual for traffic, the response by Pepco is pretty standard. Power lines down for 5 days, right next to an elementary school. Pepco thought that power was restored. We lose power in every major storm, summer or winter, and also lose power on days without storms. It can be a perfect spring day, and the power goes out.
by SJE on Feb 1, 2011 8:37 pm
by Syrine on Feb 2, 2011 8:09 am
A second point to bring up is that density in suburbia, Rockville, Bethesda, isn't necessarily a cure-all. Bethesda is a great walkable community for those who live in its dense core, but everyone else drives into downtown Bethesda, clogs up its parking garages, and then drives home. We have the basics of good urbanism in Bethesda, but we haven't developed it all the way. These kind of situations make the above discussion more complicated.
by thesixteenwords on Feb 2, 2011 10:07 am
Please spare me your visions of Armagedon. I've been hearing this same claim for the last 40 years. You probably heard it from your parents who probably heard it from the oil companies who made it up to help keep oil prices up. There's no more truth to it than there is to the truth that diamonds are a 'rare' commodity. The date we're supposed to run out of oil is conditioned on 'known reserves' ... And that date keeps moving into the future because (1) we are constantly discovering more reserves (2)technology makes it cheaper and easier to both (3) discover more reserves and (3) to extract it from places where it might not previously been economically viable to do so. And if we do someday run out of oil? So what, we'll have plenty of other technologies around. If we wanted to today, we could power all our vehicles from the power of the sun. We don't simply because oil is nowadays so relatively cheap and plentiful that it's not yet worth investing in the technology to fully harness the power of the sun ... Or to power our cars from nuclear power, coal, or a dozen other sources. Imagine if someone in the mid-19th century had expressed fears at settling the West because 'we'll never have enough horses to get people out there and back' ...
by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 10:54 am
How many of us need to do that? Maybe a few, but designing our region so that everyone has to travel 100 miles/day by car is completely unsustainable and undesirable!
by Matthias on Feb 2, 2011 10:55 am
Great for DC and inside-the-Beltway real estate values, though! (Disclaimer: Lance and I both own houses in DC, so take all of our prescriptions for suburban ailments with a grain of salt.)
by oboe on Feb 2, 2011 11:04 am
by Jasper on Feb 2, 2011 11:06 am
Whatever. You're arguments don't hold up Lance. Just because we happened upon a wealth of easily exploitable energy at one point in history doesn't mean that it will happen again. Whatever it's powered by, oil, solar energy, nuclear, suburbia and car-culture is horribly wasteful from an energy standpoint and needs to be slowly abandoned. This is besides the fact that the suburban growth model eats into farmland, forests, and wreaks environmental havoc with wetlands and the watershed. It's not sustainable. The coming oil price shocks will show this more than anything.
Take your own advice and "Embrace the present and the future … and quit looking back!" :)
by terri g. on Feb 2, 2011 11:06 am
Even assuming we found some new source of fossil fuels, and assuming we managed to continue the suicidal path of unchecked emission of greenhouse gases, you still can't fix the sprawl/congestion problem. If, as most experts predict, oil will become more expensive to extract, and competition from nascent middle-class growth in China and India will drive up the price of existing supplies, the suburbs will become intolerably congested *and* more expensive.
Anyone who regularly drives long-distances in the suburbs, particularly commuters: take a good, long, loving look at your commute this afternoon. Because things are only going to get worse. At least util we get this personal teleportation device thing dialed in.
by oboe on Feb 2, 2011 11:13 am
Lance is right on this one. We use up our oil. So the price goes up. Consumers conserve and companies explore, find more oil and sell it. The price goes down. We use up our oil. The cycle repeats.
Price signals work miracles! We don't actually "run out of oil." The price increases so that alternatives become economically viable.
by WRD on Feb 2, 2011 11:22 am
I think what we are seeing is that once oil gets to $90 a barrel stuff that was prohibitively expensive to extract now is viable, but it also creates a new floor for gas at an ever increasing price. That hurts economically a country like ours that has built its lifestyle on cheap gas and the supposed freedom of cars. $4 gas shocked the system just two years ago. $3-5 gas is going to limit our economy until we adopt a much more efficient lifestyle.
by NikolasM on Feb 2, 2011 11:38 am
by Huh? on Feb 2, 2011 11:40 am
Lance, if that's your future vision for how we should live, then that's going to be a hard sell. That sounds AWFUL. Plus full of traffic jams.
by JustMe on Feb 2, 2011 11:42 am
by skydog on Feb 2, 2011 11:47 am
Yes, of course this is true. Of course, as they say, past performance is not an indicator of future returns. The assumption that supply is infinite may or may not be true--we don't know. We certainly know that globally, the population of the middle-class is exploding.
And as NikolasM pointed out, say the price does go up to 120 per barrel. Consumers conserve and companies explore. Prices go down--to $90 per barrel.
In the "naive" model, there's nothing that makes $20 / bbl magical. Or $30. Or $50.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
At some point, you might just as rephrase "conservation" as "jettisoning the perks of suburban living"--whether that's personal mobility, or living in a massive 70+ degree houses, or what have you. Cheap oil created the suburbia and sprawl; at a certain price-point, slightly less cheap oil will undo it. No need to "run out" of oil, though.
by oboe on Feb 2, 2011 12:01 pm
hmmmm ... Do you realize we're paying far less for gas now at the pump than we did back in say the '60s? A gallon of gas back then went for 33 cents a gallon. Factor in inflation and figure out what that would be today. Hint: Your average 3 - 4 bedroom home in a place like North Arlington went for something like $25,000 .... or less.
by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 12:26 pm
$0.33 in 1965 would be $2.22 today.
by JustMe on Feb 2, 2011 12:37 pm
Factor in inflation and figure out what that would be today.
$0.33 in 1965 would be $2.22 today.
As David desJardins found out in the other thread, math's not my forte, so I usually just crib the answers:
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
by oboe on Feb 2, 2011 12:47 pm
by NikolasM on Feb 2, 2011 1:16 pm
by JustMe on Feb 2, 2011 1:24 pm
by Arnold on Feb 2, 2011 4:31 pm
A lot of unregulated (or less regulated) conduct has a direct effect on other people.
I am trying to make the argument that perhaps we SHOULD regulate land less. Not that we don't have the power or authority to justify current (or stricter) regulation. I'm not saying it's a matter of degree how strictly government should BE ABLE to regulate land.
I don't think that, just because this is a matter of degree, "no one can claim a more justified position than anyone else." EVERY public policy debate is a matter of degree. How much should we fund the Army relative to the Marines? How much to DoD as opposed to Medicare? Should marginal tax rates be 25%, 15%, 35%? 75%, even? Should the Height Act cap be 130 or 230 or 2330 feet? All of those questions are of degree.
I'm sure some pointy haired public policy professor could answer "how we decide" more elegantly than I can. But my proposed solutions are largely based on economic efficiency and cost-benefit analyses. I think we should add in values-based inefficiency incrementally and reluctantly. I guess that last part is what makes me not a Republican (joke).
by WRD on Feb 2, 2011 4:50 pm
by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 9:48 pm
by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 9:49 pm
*$2.22
by Lance on Feb 2, 2011 9:50 pm
by WRD on Feb 3, 2011 10:21 am
by George Romero on Feb 19, 2011 12:22 am
Add a Comment