Ryan Arnold - Greater Greater Washington

A neighborhood is about people, not buildings

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:12:00 EDT

When opponents of redevelopment say they want to protect the character of their neighborhood, what does that mean? A petition, circulated by activists in Arlington's Bluemont neighborhood who oppose a mixed-use Safeway, suggests it's mainly about the height of buildings.

Preliminary rendering of Safeway's proposed new building on Wilson Boulevard.
Image from Silverwood Companies.

The document, entitled, "Keep Safeway Site at 35 Feet High or Less," says, "taller commercial and residential structures would violate the scope, scale and values of the community."

Why are they wrong? Because the character of a neighborhood is not defined by the height of its buildings, but by the spirit of its people. The real question is this: What kind of neighborhood do Bluemont residents want? Do we want to be an inclusive, welcoming community, or do we want to be the kind of place that tries to keep newcomers out?

The Bluemont Safeway is on Wilson Boulevard, about a ¾-mile walk from Ballston Metro. Last year, Safeway announced their intention to redevelop the decades-old store and its large parking lot. Current plans call for the new building to occupy the entire site, with parking underground and 160 predominantly 1-bedroom rental apartments on top, according to developer Mark Silverwood.

The region needs more housing in the right places

The Washington region has folks who commute to DC from as far as West Virginia. Their daily journey illustrates a variety of serious problems we say we care about: affordable housing, suburban sprawl, oil consumption, high emissions, and traffic. When a commercial landowner seeks to add significant housing to a single-use site, they're offering an opportunity to help solve all those problems.

Bluemont residents are pretty close to the center of our region. As such, we use less energy and produce less pollution per person than people farther out in the suburbs. We're closer to a whole array of cultural and economic resources. We can be proud of those advantages. They're a big part of why people want to live here.

If we say "no" to new housing, the people we've kept out will do one of two things. They'll move further out into the suburbs, contributing to the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat, driving and polluting more to get to the center from way out there. Or they'll bid up prices to move into one of our scarce housing units; less affluent residents will be pushed out over time. That's why Arlington neighborhoods like ours need to provide more housing. We have a chance to do that.

The proposal promotes real community values

If we care about widely shared values like land conservation, energy conservation, pollution reduction, and affordable housing, then Bluemont residents should support Safeway's proposal. It's good for the region, and sets a positive example for others to follow.

It's also good for the community itself. Aesthetically, it will be a tremendous improvement. The existing store presents a featureless brick wall to Wilson Boulevard, and its parking lot is a bleak void in the fabric of the neighborhood.

The existing store on Wilson Boulevard, seen from west (left) and east (right). Photos by the author.

The new store will create a superior pedestrian experience, with ample shop windows and no curb cuts along Wilson. The apartments, a housing type new to the neighborhood, will allow long-time residents to remain active in the community as they outgrow the yardwork and stairs of typical 2-story houses.

The proposal isn't perfect, of course. Neighbors have suggested allowing customers of nearby businesses to share the new garage, a move that would help make the area's sidewalks safer and more appealing for foot traffic. Smaller-scale "liner" shops and restaurants along Wilson would also make the place a more vibrant destination for nearby residents.

At a recent public meeting organized by the Bluemont Civic Association, Safeway representative Avis Black explained that the geometry of the rather narrow site precludes additional stores, although outdoor cafe seating appears likely.

Neighborhood group plans to vote this week

This Wednesday, Bluemont Civic Association members will vote, choosing between 3 statements of BCA's position on the redevelopment. The first 2 options oppose Safeway's proposal, essentially on the grounds that it's "excessively tall," according to the group's April newsletter. The third option, revealed in an e-mail over the weekend, states support for Safeway's proposal "under certain conditions."

The Association should work with Safeway in a spirit of cooperation, not conflict. One day, when they write about the character of our neighborhood, let's make sure they say that we recognized a good thing when we saw it, that we found a way to make it even better—and that we were an inclusive, welcoming community.

120 comments

Development aside, Columbia Pike needs streetcars

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:03:00 EDT

by Ryan Arnold

The main argument for streetcars over articulated buses on Arlington's Columbia Pike has been rail's ability to focus redevelopment. While that is true, Arlington is also close to maxing out bus ridership in the Columbia Pike corridor. The only way to draw significantly more riders to transit will be to go beyond buses.

Photo by cliff1066 on Flickr.

Even if a streetcar runs in traffic, it can carry more people than similarly situated buses. Many residents of Columbia Pike who don't ride the bus have said in surveys that they would ride a streetcar.

Bus Rapid Transit might work if it ran in its own lane and didn't have to mix with cars. Unfortunately, Columbia Pike is too narrow to fit a dedicated lane for buses. Short of going to the extreme expense of underground or elevated trains, transit along the pike is destined to operate in mixed traffic, whether on rail or wheels.

Buses have maxed out

Arlington is already capturing most of the riders along Columbia Pike who are willing to ride a bus in mixed traffic.

Combined ridership on the Metrobus and ART routes that serve Columbia Pike climbed rapidly for 5 years after 2003, when Arlington introduced when a set of service enhancements, dubbed "PikeRide." However, since then ridership has stayed flat.

That lack of growth is partly a result of the economic downturn, but that isn't the whole story. The highest ridership year overall was not before the recession but in 2009, at the recession's nadir and when most transit agencies were experiencing steep declines. Meanwhile, ridership in 2010 and 2011, post-recession, remains down slightly from 2009.

WMATA fare increases may be partly to blame as well, but ART fares remain low, and ART ridership has not grown rapidly enough to offset the larger trend.

Market research indicates that the pot of residents willing to ride the bus has maxed out. 35% of Columbia Pike residents report riding the bus at least once per week. Of the 65% who report not riding, relatively few said they are willing to do so.

People say they will ride the streetcar

Contrast that with research on potential streetcar ridership. 59% of the same people surveyed say they would ride a streetcar along the same alignment at least once per week, compared to only 32% who said they would never ride. The last 9% are undecided.

Assuming that none of the undecided responders ride, the potential maximum ridership for streetcars on Columbia Pike is 68% more than the current maximum bus ridership. Thousands of people along the corridor who are not willing to ride the bus say they will ride a streetcar.

Streetcar opponents cite Arlington's Alternatives Analysis (AA), which indicates a mere 5% bonus for rail ridership over bus, as evidence that the rail investment isn't warranted. However, this 5% number was imposed by the Federal Transit Administration as a conservative estimate, and doesn't reflect on-the-ground survey results. Thus, the AA dramatically underestimates likely streetcar ridership.

Streecars can move more people than buses

So far, all these numbers have been based on existing residents. If the anticipated streetcar-induced redevelopment does occur, that will bring in more transit riders. If the development happens without streetcars, the result could be more bus riders. However, in that scenario, Columbia Pike would face a major capacity problem.

Arlington is planning for about 16,000 new residents along Columbia Pike. If the same proportion of new residents ride transit as existing residents, that suggests that after redevelopment Arlington can expect about 5,600 new transit riders.

Buses on Columbia Pike are already running every 2-3 minutes. Running them more frequently would result in buses bunching together into groups so much that service wouldn't actually improve, and might clog traffic more than it helps.

The next best way to substantially increase capacity is to run larger vehicles. While it's true that articulated buses can carry more riders than regular buses, streetcars can carry even more. Depending on the internal configuration, a single streetcar can hold more than twice as many riders as an articulated bus. And streetcars can link into trains, increasing their maximum possible capacity further.

Carrying 5,600 new riders on top of the existing 15,000 using only articulated buses would be difficult, if not impossible. Meanwhile, thousands of other potential transit riders would still be opting not to ride because they just don't like buses.

So, if additional development does not happen, Columbia Pike's existing buses are already capturing most of the potential bus market in the corridor, and a streetcar is necessary to reach the thousands of residents who say they will ride trains but not buses. On the other hand, if additional development does happen, the additional capacity of streetcars over articulated buses will be necessary to accommodate all the new riders.

Either way, the streetcar is necessary.

You can comment on the Alternatives Analysis until Thursday, June 21. Let Arlington know that a streetcar is the right solution.

18 comments

Columbia Pike needs streetcars, not articulated buses (Jun 18, 2012)
Columbia Pike streetcar is a bargain versus new highways (Dec 14, 2011)
Streetcar will revitalize Columbia Pike corridor (May 30, 2012)
Virginia's answer to DC's streetcars (Dec 18, 2009)
Making streetcars work (Feb 3, 2008)

Columbia Pike needs streetcars, not articulated buses

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:41:00 EDT

by Ryan Arnold

Some Arlington residents argue that the planned Columbia Pike streetcar is too expensive, and that cheaper articulated buses would be just as good. But they would not transform Columbia Pike in the way Arlington wants.

Image from Pike Transit Initiative.

Articulated buses are appropriate in many places, but they are not the same as streetcars. They don't accomplish the same goals, and are not merely a less-expensive substitute.

If Arlington wanted only to provide more transit capacity for existing riders, then better buses would make sense. However, Arlington's goal is to transform Columbia Pike from a suburban commercial strip into a dense, walkable, urban mixed-use neighborhood.

Arlington has a long history of using investments in rail to support smart growth goals. It redeveloped the Orange and Blue Line corridors after Metrorail opened, creating national models of transit-oriented development.

Before Metro, those areas looked very much like Columbia Pike does today. Arlington wants to create the same kind of transformation on the pike, and needs a rail investment to do so.

While it is true that the proposed streetcar will not offer the same level of service as Metrorail, Arlington can't pay for a new subway line. Meanwhile, streetcars have proven to produce similar results at a price the county can afford.

In addition to smart growth and economic development benefits, streetcars are more comfortable to ride than buses, last longer than buses, are quieter than buses, don't spew exhaust, need less energy per passenger than buses, attract more riders than buses, and, depending on the situation, can be less expensive to operate and maintain than buses.

More buses didn't cause change in the past

It's true that articulated buses are even more affordable than streetcars, and that Arlington could save a lot of money by abandoning rail and simply running longer buses. However, Arlington already significantly enhanced Columbia Pike's bus service in 2003, so that buses run every 2 to 3 minutes. That was a nice improvement for riders, but didn't spark much, if any, redevelopment.

While there has been a limited amount of development since 2003, it likely had more to do with Columbia Pike's development-friendly "form-based" zoning code. The code also took effect in 2003, at the same time as the bus improvements.

2003's changes were relatively easy to make and did improve the corridor, but the pace of redevelopment over the last decade has been paltry compared to what's expected with a streetcar. The easy changes have already been made. Columbia Pike needs a greater incentive, or it will continue to lag behind other areas. Simply running bigger buses, as streetcar opponents want to do, isn't enough.

Other regional examples can be instructive. DC, for instance, has more experience with articulated buses than any other jurisdiction in the area. It recognizes that streetcars and articulated buses are not equal. The 2 corridors in DC with the most articulated buses, H Street (on the X2 route) and Georgia Avenue (the 70), are some of the top priorities in DC's streetcar plan. DC already has articulated buses, and yet they are adding streetcars to those very corridors precisely because streetcars offer advantages that buses do not.

Arlington is planning a streetcar because of these distinctions. It has been planning the line for the past decade, has been fully transparent, and enjoyed wide support.

Articulated buses are not a substitute for streetcars. Buses do not accomplish the planning goals set out by the county and approved by its voters. The arguments put forth by streetcar opponents neither address nor refute the reasons for building a streetcar on Columbia Pike, and are not convincing.

Arlington is accepting comments on the option to replace the streetcar with articulated buses until June 21. Let them know that longer buses will not cut it. To realize the smart growth vision for Columbia Pike, Arlington needs a streetcar.

61 comments

Development aside, Columbia Pike needs streetcars (Jun 20, 2012)
Columbia Pike streetcar is a bargain versus new highways (Dec 14, 2011)
Streetcar will revitalize Columbia Pike corridor (May 30, 2012)
Virginia's answer to DC's streetcars (Dec 18, 2009)
Streetcars aren't toys, buses aren't about respect (Nov 20, 2010)

Streetcar will revitalize Columbia Pike corridor

Wed, 30 May 2012 11:44:00 EDT

by Ryan Arnold

Columbia Pike's proposed streetcar line will help revitalize one of Arlington county's busiest corridors. Nonetheless, the plan has stirred an unusual amount of controversy, especially with increased cost estimates published last December.

Photo by BeyondDC on Flickr.

The project has the potential to bring a lot of benefits to the Columbia Pike corridor, the county and the region. There are three reasons in particular to look at the project favorably.

First, the project would enrich the area's broader transit network. Second, it will help spur Columbia Pike's ongoing revitalization. And third, it's the latest chapter in the decades-long story of Arlington's coordination of land-use and transit planning to develop successful communities.

Residents can give their input on the project online and at meetings on June 6 and 7.

Columbia Pike is the busiest local bus corridor in Virginia. Buses now come every 3 minutes in peak periods on some parts of the road. Streetcars' higher capacity will help accommodate a projected increase in ridership in the corridor from 16,000 today to 25,000 when the line begins service.

Columbia Pike streetcar will strengthen the existing transit network

Even more importantly, the line's benefits will extend beyond the immediate corridor. The project will connect to the regional Metrorail system, "extending the reach of Metro," as Dennis Leach, Arlington's Director of Transportation, put it in an interview.

Leach added that Metrorail "isn't enough. To really get the full value out of these mixed-use neighborhoods that we're planning, you need a whole range of travel options: local bus, good regional bus, and this high-quality surface rail along with all the other things we're doing: improving sidewalks and crosswalks, building bike lanes and bike trails, putting in Capital Bikeshare, making sure that Zipcar is readily available ... It's all of those things together that make this work."

The streetcar will enrich the current transportation mix, connecting at Pentagon City with the planned Crystal City streetcar line, which will run south into Potomac Yards. Eventually, the streetcar network could extend through Alexandria to the south, and elsewhere in Fairfax to the west.

The system will also connect with bus lines, enhancing the reach of the transit network well beyond the busy corridors that would be served by streetcars.

A recently updated study found that "cities with large, well-established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and annual mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates, lower consumer expenditures on transportation, and higher transit service cost recovery than otherwise comparable cities with less or no rail transit service." Enlarging and enhancing our existing rail system will help Arlington and neighboring communities achieve these benefits.

Streetcars are integral to the long-standing Columbia Pike revitalization plan

The streetcar line is just one piece of the comprehensive effort to improve Columbia Pike, "one of the county's busiest and most run-down corridors" according to the Washington Post.

The streetcar is part of a much bigger effort by Arlington County to revitalize the corridor. Arlington's Transportation Bureau Chief, Stephen Del Giudice, summed it up in an interview: "The county made decisions that go back a decade to convert this auto-oriented strip to a transit-oriented main street. The vision for Columbia Pike is ... to knit the community together around town centers and villages, and to connect them. And that's one of the interesting things about streetcar. They serve not only a commuter, but they have proven to be a very good technology for capturing local tripmaking."

In 1986, local civic representatives, business leaders, landowners, and Arlington County formed the Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization (CPRO) with the vision of "a vibrant and pedestrian-friendly urban corridor," realized through planning along smart growth principles.

Steady progress crystallized in 1998. A revitalization plan called the Columbia Pike Initiative took shape with ample public input at numerous community meetings. The County Board adopted it 2002. The plan called for mixed-use buildings lining the sidewalks, and emphasized walkability and mass transit.

The next year, a voluntary "form-based code" encouraged new construction to follow that vision. Today, the code's influence is clearly visible at large recent developments like Penrose Square and the adjacent Siena Park.

Streetcars strengthened the picture in 1999. WMATA "identified the Columbia Pike corridor as ... well-suited for high-capacity fixed guideway transit service," and a coalition of local governments reached a similar conclusion, according to an Arlington document.

In 2002, WMATA completed a study of rail transit's feasibility on Columbia Pike and Leesburg Pike in Arlington and Fairfax Counties. In 2004, Arlington passed a rule that any future transit service on Columbia Pike must share its lanes with automobile traffic—effectively calling for streetcars.

The next step in the revitalization process, the Columbia Pike Transit Alternatives Analysis, or Pike Transit Initiative, added to the chorus for a streetcar solution. The two counties and WMATA considered various transit options, and in the spring of 2006, they approved what was called the "modified streetcar alternative." Cheaper than the full streetcar option, it called for streetcars with 6-minute headways, using buses to achieve 3-minute headways during peak hours. This video provides an animated view of the route.

The last phase of the Columbia Pike Initiative is a Neighborhoods Plan, focusing on residential areas along the Pike. The County Board will consider adopting it in July. The draft CPNP takes advantage of the future streetcar line, concentrating density and reducing parking requirements near streetcar stops.

Streetcar plans are backed by County's solid expertise

Arlington's history of transit excellence, reflected in both national recognition and local surveys, means we can be confident in the county's committment to the project's success. The county's experience with transit-oriented development goes back several decades.

"I know people are skeptical of big infrastructure investments," said Dennis Leach. "Arlington has done very well by continuing to invest in infrastructure, by almost every measure. Real estate values, household employment, household income, retail sales per square foot, every single indicator is higher here than just about everywhere else in the country."

When Metro was in its early planning stages, county leaders insisted on running the Orange Line under a main street instead of a cheaper route in the I-66 median. They spaced the stations to help create a continuous series of compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, each with its own sector plan, in addition to a corridor-wide land-use plan to guide development toward desired outcomes.

Arlington is a "very good" place to do business, according to 87 percent of business leaders in a 2007 survey. 40 percent cited transportation as the biggest reason. Residents are generally pleased, too: in a 2009 survey, 75 percent were very satisfied with the transportation system, and 95 percent of that group gave the county a high rating for quality of life.

As Del Giudice explained, "where the county made investments in transit that helped shape the community, it shaped people's lifestyles. A lot of people live car-free or car-light, because they can take transit, walk, ride bikes, and they don't need to use their cars. It's an urban lifestyle, similar to what we see in urban cores. That's the experience with the prior investments and decisions that were made."

Rail transit investments have also yielded fiscal benefits for the county. The Metro corridors make up just 11 percent of land in the county, but account for about half of Arlington's assessed land value—and tax revenues.

The county's research shows household auto trips in the Metro corridors averaging 1.1 to 1.4 per day. For comparison, that number can be 6 to 8 in suburban areas of Arlington. Put another way, transit's share of household daily travel is about 20 percent in Arlington's Metro corridors; the regional average is 6 percent. (Columbia Pike is at about 12 percent.) The story is similar for walking and biking.

Arlington's low reliance on cars explains how, as land use expert Chris Leinberger recently wrote, "housing density in the walkable urban areas doubled between 1985 and 2010 ... while the absolute traffic counts on Wilson Boulevard have gone down."

While there are differences between heavy rail like Metro and streetcars like the proposed Columbia Pike line, even a few of the benefits Arlington has seen through its planning around Metro would mean major improvements for the Columbia Pike corridor.

Looking forward, Leach said, "Arlington continues to develop. So we need to continue to invest in transportation options. We have the experience of those last 40 years. We fund extensive research ... to show that these investments really pay off. So we're looking to the next generation of investments: high-quality, high-capacity surface transit as an excellent way to continue the county's progress in terms of travel options and creating high-quality environments."

If you have an opinion about the streetcar line, share your views now. The county is soliciting public comments online and at public meetings on June 6 and 7.

62 comments

Columbia Pike streetcar is a bargain versus new highways (Dec 14, 2011)
Virginia's answer to DC's streetcars (Dec 18, 2009)
On the calendar: Fort Totten, Virginia streetcars, and ballpark performance parking (Nov 17, 2009)
Metro isn't always the best option for transit expansion (Sep 21, 2010)
WMATA should be a leader in transit planning (Oct 26, 2011)

"My way or the highway" bill awaits VA governor's decision

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:37:00 EDT

by Ryan Arnold

Who should decide how an area grows? Local officials and voters, or the government in Richmond? The focus on decisions would shift under Virginia's latest transportation bill, which gives the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) new powers to supersede local planning.

Photo by debcll on Flickr.

The bill, passed on March 10, requires local governments to revise their plans to include projects favored by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a governor-appointed, 17-member body that oversees VDOT.

Localities that don't adjust their plans to confirm state priorities would have their transportation funds taken away and given to other jurisdictions. If they want to significantly alter a project to better suit local needs, like lengthening a proposed bridge to help protect a stream, or re-routing a planned road to protect a neighborhood, they would pay the extra cost.

If a locality rejected a project outright, local taxpayers would have to reimburse VDOT for any money it has spent, even if they've rejected it based on hard data, or if the locality never wanted the project in the first place.

Governor Bob McDonnell has until mid-April to either sign the bill into law or use his line-item veto authority. Local officials and groups such as the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties are asking McDonnell to remove the provisions giving VDOT its new powers, as are smart growth advocates, and many local governments.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG) has an action alert for Virginia residents to ask local governments to challenge the bill, and to contact the governor directly.

Stewart Schwartz of CSG says, "VDOT is notorious for failing to consider a range of alternatives and community impacts, but can now punish local governments and local taxpayers for daring to offer alternative solutions or for recommending cancellation of ill-advised projects based on information about environmental or community impacts. In the end, the state will waste billions of dollars."

Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill, described the legislation as "a modest effort to ... improve the coordination of land use planning and transportation planning."

Critics might substitute "coercion" for "coordination," and "overreaching" for "modest." In editorials, the Roanoke Times observed that the bill "promotes ill will rather than harmony," and the Lynchburg News & Advance raised the specter of VDOT as a "mega-agency with vast powers over local governments." Both alluded to the bill's incompatibility with Governor McDonnell's professed attitude toward mandates.

The McDonnell administration's approach stands in contrast to a bipartisan 2007 law that required localities over a certain size to designate "urban development areas" (UDAs). These are specific areas where zoning would allow future growth and reduce pressure for more sprawl. The law called for siting UDAs near existing infrastructure that could handle the growth.

At the time, Republican Delegate Clay Athey promoted the concept as a cost-saving measure, since the state pays for roads to serve far-flung developments that come from poor local planning. The state would save money on roads, local governments would save on infrastructure and services, and residents would save on transportation.

The UDA rule enjoyed broad support from smart-growth proponents, fiscal conservatives, and the Kaine administration. But this March, Governor McDonnell signed legislation that makes UDAs optional and allows local voters to abolish them. He portrayed UDAs as "burdensome mandates on localities," despite the fact that the state paid to help 32 localities meet the law's requirements, and despite evidence that compact development saves money in many ways.

Why would the state weaken one bill that coordinated land use and transportation planning to the benefit of both state and local governments, only to replace it with another bill that forces coordination at the expense of local voices and priorities?

The reason may be less about coordination or cost, than a simple preference for highways. VDOT and the governor have been pushing contentious highway projects. Here are some examples:

Charlottesville Bypass, widely opposed at the local level. VDOT has largely disregarded the better "Places29" alternative.
Widening most of I-81 to 8 lanes at a long-term cost of $11.4 billion.
The Coalfields Expressway in the far southwest, which could cost $2.1 to $4.2 billion.
A new Potomac River crossing and Outer Beltway, which past Loudoun County Boards have opposed.
Route 460. McDonnell replaced most of the Virginia Port Authority's Board of Commissioners to move the project forward, ignoring regional officials' requests to spend the money on bridge and tunnel bottlenecks.

Schwartz believes that Virginia's Secretary of Transportation and VDOT Chair, Sean Connaughton, "isn't interested in better land use at all, but in the ability to force controversial highway projects through communities. In the process, he is destroying the necessary coordination and discussion between local, regional, and state officials."

The governor should restore 2007's conservative, cost-saving approach to transportation

31 comments

Virginians: Ask your reps to oppose bad highway bills (Jan 20, 2011)
Put your (transportation) money where your mouth is, Governor McDonnell (Apr 26, 2011)
McDonnell transportation plan: Mortgage future, build roads (Dec 10, 2010)
Slow and steady creates Virginia's Urban Development Areas (Jan 22, 2010)
Anti-livability bill passes Virginia House committee (Jan 27, 2011)