The Washington, DC region is great >> and it can be greater.

Posts about Government


DC’s libraries have far fewer books and way more e-books and audio and visual resources than they used to

Our reading habits are evolving with technology. Want proof? DC's public library system's book collection is a lot smaller than it used to be, but it's got far more e-books and audio and visual resources.

Photo by Let Ideas Compete on Flickr.

"Curling up to a book" means something a little different than it used to. It could mean an actual physical book, but it can also mean scrolling down your smartphone or listening to a book being read through headphones. With a limited collections budget, how has the DC Public Library balanced traditional physical books with newer mediums?

This graph gives us a snapshot of how the numbers of books, e-books, and audio and visual resources have changed since 2006:

Graphs by the author.

The DC Public Library's collection has hardly been stable over the past eight years, with the number of books dropping sharply between 2009 and 2012. Collections are largely driven by a budget that fell from from $4.27 million in 2009 to $1.67 million in 2012 and then bounced back to $3.85 million in 2013.

Renovations in public libraries across DC also led the library to better catalog its resources and reassess its physical collection and cull books considered outdated or in bad shape.

A constant across the period, however, is the declining proportion of books in the overall library collection. Books went from being 94% of the system's physical collection to just 81% in 2014. The library system has far more e-books, audio, and video materials than it used to.

While books still dominate the library's collection, audio and video have been on a swift rise. Audio resources, like e-audiobooks and CDs, have grown over 50%; video, like DVDs and streaming, has doubled.

While DC Public Library's initial uptake of e-books was slow, its collection has increased tenfold since 2011. Books are the only medium which have been on the decline, falling 16%, in large part due to the removal of outdated or worn books during library renovations. This isn't to say the DCPL has stopped acquiring books, as you can see at @booksfordc, which tweets whenever new books come into the DC Public Library catalog.

DC residents seem to be fans of the library's changes, with circulation and library visits both doubling since 2006.

There was a decline in library visits from 2009 to 2013, and this makes sense given the decline of books and rise of e-resources. But new strategies and renovated neighborhood libraries means the decline is likely not permanent.

According to DCPL Executive Director Richard Reyes-Gavilan, the decline in books has the side benefit of freeing up space for programs, like yoga, Memory Lab (a place where library members can digitize home movies and photos), and tech and financial literacy training. Indeed, library programs increased 75%. In other words, there are more and more options bringing people into libraries beyond just books.

The data I used for this post is available through the Institute of Library and Museum Services (IMLS) Public Libraries Survey. DCPL considers data from prior to 2006 to be unreliable. Also, the data I used excludes resources available through third-party providers, like Freegal, which likely means the proportion of books is even lower. You can find complete code for this on my Github page.


The Wizards practice facility deal should be more transparent

Publicly-funded stadiums are a controversial issue in the District. There were public debates and long, contentious hearings about Nationals Park and the DC United stadium, and public speculation is now turning toward RFK and the future home of the Washington football team. But our latest sports project, a $50 million-plus practice facility for the Wizards, has largely flown under the radar.

Photo by Keith Allison on Flickr.

I introduced legislation called the Wizards Practice Facility Cost Containment Act of 2016 earlier this month to fix that, and to set basic limits on spending. There's a hearing on that bill this Thursday, March 24 starting at 3 pm in the John A. Wilson Building.

Here are the project's details

Events DC, our taxpayer-funded convention and sports authority, has been tasked with building the new practice facility, and is contributing $27 million to the construction. The District government itself is contributing $23 million, and Monumental Sports, which owns the Wizards, will put in $5 million in upfront rent payments.

The project will include a practice facility for the Wizards, which will have all the modern bells and whistles the team feels it needs to attract the top talent in the league, from cryosaunas to hydrotherapy pools. The facility will also have a 5,000 seat arena that will be the new home of the Washington Mystics of the WNBA for their 17 home games each year, and that Events DC promises will host smaller concerts and entertainment events.

There's one more detail: Under the current funding agreement, the District, through Events DC, will be on the hook for any and all cost overruns.

Too much would fall on taxpayers

I don't think that is right, given that the primary beneficiary of this facility will be the Wizards franchise, and its owner, Ted Leonsis. I have concerns that taxpayers are funding something that Monumental Sports and Leonsis can do themselves—and teams in other cities have done without taxpayer help—but I am especially focused on the cost overrun issue.

The District has a poor track record delivering capital projects on time and on budget. I don't need to remind Greater Greater Washington readers about the streetcar saga. Our school modernization program routinely goes over budget. Nationals Park was originally presented as a $435 million project, and even conservative estimates today put the final cost for the stadium at almost $700 million. (And that's before we learned last month the stadium will need another $160 million in repairs and upgrades over the next 10 to 15 years.)

If we don't bring a basic level of transparency and accountability to the Wizards project, it could easily grow far beyond our original $50 million investment. I've gotten pushback that given the project is in Ward 8, which has not experienced the private investment and economic renaissance neighborhoods west of the Anacostia River have had in recent years, we should spend whatever it takes. A reckless approach to budgeting will not bring more permanent jobs and development to Ward 8, and, in fact, it could impact the money Events DC has available for important promises it has made in terms of workforce development and community programming.

Because of the funding sources used to finance the project, the project not only doesn't need Council approval in the first place, but its costs could also go above $100 million before Events DC would need to ask the Council for additional funds. I find that troubling, which is why I introduced legislation to limit the District's total contribution to $50 million, including both the city government and Events DC.

Let the DC Council weigh in

My legislation isn't about killing the deal, or about taking investment out of Ward 8. Ward 8 is long overdue for investment, and it's shameful our East of the River communities have been historically left out when it comes to large public projects.

But the District's $23 million contribution for the practice facility comes from the more than $120 million the Council already allocated to rebuild the infrastructure at the St. Elizabeths redevelopment, a project which I wholeheartedly support. It is critical that these funds go toward a plan that will provide the maximum possible benefit to the Ward 8 community.

We usually use our legislative process to iron out big questions of how to spend tens of millions of dollars. We hold hearings, have committee markups, and vote on projects and programs. We also vote every year on our city's budget.

But this project has almost completely avoided the normal legislative process, and was set to be approved without the Council ever voting on it. There's been no meaningful feasibility study, no cost breakdowns to justify the estimates, and only one public roundtable, held in December before most of the details of the deal had been released.

Contrast that with the process surrounding the DC United stadium, which the Council exhaustively studied through multiple hearings and votes. And, I would point out, Mayor Bowser rightly insisted on a cost-sharing arrangement with DC United in case of overruns.

The legislation I introduced several weeks ago, along with a resolution on the funding agreement, will allow the Council to vote on the project, and will require a conversation about the District's priorities should the project go over budget. This is a basic level of accountability and transparency we should expect of all of our projects, but especially of taxpayer-funded stadiums like this.

Again, those who are interested can attend the hearing this week, on Thursday, March 24 in Room 500 in the John A. Wilson Building. To sign up to testify, contact the Committee of the Whole at (202) 724-8196 or by 5:00 p.m on March 22.


Here's a Spanish satire of the downsides of driving

The Spanish government wants its residents to consider cycling as a viable mode of transportation. So much so that it made a video to point out the humor in the frustrations that driving a car can bring.

El mismo día. DGT Campaña de movilidad 2015

Sean felices :D ¡Buen Lunes!¿Les gusta su trayecto al trabajo? Pueden cambiarlo si les es posible, usar la bicicleta contamina menos al medio ambiente y a ti :D

Posted by Vida Sobre Ruedas on Monday, November 30, 2015

Called "The same day", the video is part of a campaign by Spain's Ministry of the Interior called "#Muevateconconciencia," which basically means "get around consciously."

"Same thing, different day," the narrator says at the end. "It's time for a change. Get around by biking, walking or taking public transit and use a car only when you have to."

Do you know of other government campaigns that promote riding a bike over driving?


Prince George's County could move its government closer to more residents

Rushern Baker, the County Executive of Prince George's County, has plans to move the county's headquarters to Largo, a commercial hub. Moving the government away from distant Upper Marlboro would be a win for Prince George's residents.

Where Maryland's county seats are, relative to their geographic and population centroids. Map by the author. Click for a larger version.

A few years ago, I wrote about how the location of the Prince George's county seat in Upper Marlboro is harmful to residents and makes the government less responsive to citizens.

Upper Marlboro is one of the most uncentralized county seats in Maryland. It is neither near the geographic center of the county nor the population centroid. And to make it worse, Prince George's is an urbanized county with a significant transit-dependent population, while Upper Marlboro lacks all but the most basic of transit connections to the outside world.

Bus service to Upper Marlboro connects riders to Largo. But the last bus leaves Upper Marlboro at around 6 pm, which makes it impossible for carless residents to testify at evening Council or Planning Board hearings.

Largo makes a lot of sense

Largo, on the other hand, is much more centrally located. It's very close to the county's geographic center, and the center of population is in nearby Landover.

Largo is also served by Metro's Blue and Silver Lines, and is a fairly large bus hub for the county. And the county is already taking steps to bring investment to the area, including with a new regional medical center.

Baker and his predecessors have already taken steps to move workers to Largo. Agencies like the Department of Public Works and Transportation are already using office space in Largo, and Baker himself meets constituents there. He only keeps a ceremonial office in the county seat.

Moving the county government to Largo lock-stock-and-barrel could be a huge boon to efforts to invest in and build a more urban Largo.

Right now, the area is very suburban in nature, with major arterials splitting the area and discouraging walking and biking. Office parks and strip malls are far more common than walkable spaces.

With a good plan, the county could help reshape Largo into something with better urban fabric, as is happening in Tysons now and as happened in Arlington three decades ago.

Even without considering the impact on the urban form, moving the government, especially the decision-makers on the Council to Largo would be a huge win because it would allow more people to participate in local government.

Today, the only citizens who are able to participate in person are those who drive or those who devote unbelievable amounts of time to taking public transit to the sleepy county seat.

Largo Town Center Metro station. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

A remote location means more car-centric policies

Upper Marlboro's setting also affects decisions. It's easy to forget that Prince George's is urbanized at all when the county seat, with a population of just 900, is surrounded by miles of rural farms and forests.

Another impact, though one that's less studied, how a remote county seat affects the the workforce. Millenials and other progressive professionals who want to live car-free or car-lite in urban areas are discouraged from taking jobs in places where they can't easily commute. And having an overly car-dependent workforce deepens the divide between the decision makers and the carless citizens in the county's urban areas.

Moving the seat to Largo would position Prince George's for having a more accessible and urban government center, like her peers in Montgomery, Arlington, Alexandria, and the District.


Cheh's DDOT reorganization: Who makes the plans and sets the priorities for transportation?

Councilmember Mary Cheh wants to split up the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) and reorganize transportation-related functions in the government. Is this a good idea? Many of you responded positively to her proposals around taxis and parking, but worried about splitting transit away from the rest of transportation.

Photo by JK Keller on Flickr.

Would such a split create turf battles around how to use each road? Who decides what gets priority for scarce road space and limited funding? These are questions that the plan will have to answer as it evolves, if it's to improve transportation in DC.

Taxi, parking proposals preliminarily popular

The Taxicab Commission seems to serve two roles: deciding policy around how taxis work, and licensing and monitoring taxis. Cheh wants to move the policy and regulatory role into the new District Transit Agency, and move licensing into the Department of Motor Vehicles. Most of you thought that was smart.

For parking, most of our commenters felt it made sense to consolidate the three parking-related functions into one place. Right now, DDOT sets parking policy and rules, DPW writes the tickets, and DMV enforces them. A few people worried about one agency being "judge, jury, and executioner" (according to Cheh, that fear is a reason the functions were split in the past), but most of you feel that with parking functions all in one place, DC will be able to manage parking more adeptly.

But who defines the priorities and plans?

One area that caused the most concern was also an area Cheh's proposal hasn't thoroughly fleshed out: Who decides the purpose of each street, and how to prioritize projects? In short, who plans our transportation network?

Right now, even a unified DDOT does not have a good answer to this question. It has a planning group, which can make lots of long-term and short-term plans, but those planners then have to hand plans over to the engineers, who primarily control the capital budgets and the projects themselves. The engineering group often decides to change or ignore a plan, even one that has gone through a lot of community input.

Also, the bicycle and pedestrian programs are part of planning. You'd think that the bike planners could plan for where a bike facility goes and what type to use, hand it to the engineers. Then they would design the specific details of that project and build it. But as Shane Farthing has documented, that doesn't happen.

Farthing wrote, "In theory, PPSA [the planning group] plans and IMPA [the engineerng group] implements. That, however, assumes that PPSA also has the authority to set the order of priority for IPMA's implementation. It does not." Instead, the planners actually manage most bicycle projects from start to finish.

It's not just bikes. There are no project managers working on implementing bus lanes right now. Meanwhile, there is a whole group of people in IPMA (the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative) dedicated to building bridges and roads around the Anacostia River, so those projects keep happening, even if (as with the Southeast Boulevard) what they design doesn't fit with community desire or the mayor's sustainability plans.

Who decides under Cheh's plan?

A lot of you worried about how this would work in Cheh's new organization. There would now be a "transit" authority that has control over transit, taxi policy, and Capital Bikeshare. Cheh's diagram places "multimodal planning" in this bucket as well.

Would the District Transit Agency decide which streets get a streetcar, a bus lane, a bike lane, a truck route, wider sidewalks, and so on? How does that agency then ensure that the rump DDOT carries out its requests? Which agency prioritizes capital projects, the DTA or DDOT?

If DDOT, then wouldn't DDOT just keep picking and choosing its own priorities and largely ignoring the DTA? If the DTA, is that still really a transit agency, or is it now more of a Transportation Commission and DDOT just a construction department? And then, why not just make DDOT part of DPW or the Department of General Services once more?

If the DTA is still just transit, would you get turf wars between the two about whether to put a transit line or something else on a road? Already, a big obstacle to projects like bus lanes is that WMATA wants to speed up buses, but DDOT might have other ideas for the same roadway, or want to put dollars elsewhere. Will this continue?

Plus, DDOT is an official state Department of Transportation. Every state has to have one, and that's the agency which receives federal money and works with the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. One agency has to define what goes into the regional Comprehensive Long-Range Plan. If DDOT plays this role, then DDOT is still in the driver's seat about overall transportation priorities, but with less responsibility for "multimodal planning."

Here's what you said

A lot of you worried about this issue.

Abigail Zenner wrote, "I worry about more siloing, turf wars, and not treating all street users equally."

MLD wrote:

Splitting off transit, bikeshare and multimodal planning and making that a separate agency on the level with DDOT could lead to problems. First, it can make each side more entrenched—DDOT will now be "roads and highways." You'll have one agency making the plans and another agency tasked with putting those plans in place. Which plans will get priority—DDOT's or the "multimodal" plans?

There is also a big benefit to be gained from having the agency that controls the streets and the agency that plans for transit be the same thing. Especially with how transit-focused the city should be, the transit agency shouldn't have to go begging to the roads people to get plans implemented.

Also, if you are going to create an independent board, go whole-hog and just make it a transportation board in charge of the whole thing.

fonfong echoed the same concern.
Having the bike/transit stuff in a place different than roadway stuff seems to be a recipe to repeat the same dynamic. I'd prefer that it not take an act of Congress, or in this case the new Authority's board, to force the road folks to implement new infrastructure changes.
jeff said, "Given how difficult it has been for the multimodal planners to coordinate their efforts with other divisions within DDOT I imagine that moving them to a different agency is going to simply make that worse."

Jasper wrote, "The problem with breaking up a large institution is that you break up the complexity of scale with walls that people will hide behind, causing conflicts between the different agencies. See the issues with parking. "

BTA said, "Separating cars from "everything else transportation" is only going to further the disconnect in planning for multimodal systems."

What could work?

A lot of you were skeptical about splitting up transportation, but it's not a foregone conclusion that a transit agency wouldn't work. However, at the very least, there needs to be a very clear answer about who sets priorities.

Another possibility, Cheh's staff say, is putting planning into the Office of Planning. That could strengthen that agency, or it could create even more seams between agencies. One obstacle: OP is right now under economic development, making its planning still subordinate to other objectives. Fixing that is possible and even desirable, but would require a larger-scale reorganization (and multiple council committees).

Cheh's staff say that they are hoping the public input process and working group meetings deal with these kinds of questions. That's fine, as long as there is a clear answer by the end, or they are willing to lengthen the process until this is firmly resolved. If transit splits off but this problem isn't fixed, then transportation planning in DC could get much worse, not better.

This is an issue that needs fixing, regardless. A conversation about reorganization can present a great chance to solve this problem. Maybe reorganization would also spur actual change in a way that wouldn't otherwise. But this part of the reorganization can only be worthwhile if we know the new structure will create a clearer chain of command from plans to action.


DDOT director and chief engineer are leaving

A source in the DC government just passed along the news that District Department of Transportation (DDOT) Director Terry Bellamy and Chief Engineer Ronaldo "Nick" Nicholson are leaving the agency.

Bellamy and Nicholson are the two men in ties. Photo by DDOT DC on Flickr.

We don't yet have information on exactly when they will leave, or where they are going. This is another step in what is likely to be a long string of high-profile departures. Nicholas Majett, head of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs which enforces regulations, is also stepping down.

Under Bellamy's leadership, DDOT has not made progress on a lot of important initiatives—cycletracks, bus priority, residential parking, trails, and much more. Still, will this mean DDOT will achieve even less for the remaining nine months of Mayor Gray's term?

A lot will depend on who Gray picks to run the agency in the interim. He chose former planning director Ellen McCarthy to run the Office of Planning after Harriet Tregoning. McCarthy has had the job before, and knows the lay of the land (literally and figuratively). She did a good job under the Williams administration.

Planning will at the very least keep moving along in a positive way for the rest of 2014, and maybe McCarthy can spearhead some important initiatives that wouldn't have gotten as much attention otherwise or which are more politically palatable in a lame duck administration.

Is there a similar figure for DDOT?

Overall, having the primary on April 1 was a bad idea, and not just because of low turnout, which Gray cited in his concession speech. Despite Gray's statements that he will keep working hard to improve the District for the rest of his term, many of his political appointees are already looking for new jobs.


Mary Cheh wants to break up DC's transportation agency

The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) has gotten too large and unwieldy to carry out all facets of its mission, says DC Councilmember Mary Cheh. Cheh has introduced a bill to reorganize transportation-related functions, create some new agencies, and abolish one.

Cheh's proposed reorganization. Image from Councilmember Cheh's office.

Cheh, who chairs the council committee that oversees DDOT, says there is precedent for slicing large agencies into smaller ones. Before 1998, all transportation-related functions were part of the Department of Public Works (DPW).

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was formed that year by splitting off driver and car licensing-related functions. Then, in 2002, DDOT was created. Finally, the District Department of the Environment split from DPW in 2006.

Cheh feels that it's time again for a too-large District agency to split into several. She has proposed a possible set of changes, below. But her staff emphasize that this isn't the only possible approach. More than the specifics, they want to put out one option for discussion, and foster a broad conversation about what to do.

The current version of the bill would make a few significant changes.

Centralize parking functions in one place. Today, three separate agencies handle parking issues. DDOT determines parking rules and posts signs. But officers who work for DPW are the ones who actually write tickets. If someone contests a ticket, it's the DMV that reviews the case.

This creates significant confusion when DDOT policymakers want to solve one problem, but information can get lost when trying to get DPW ticket-writers to focus in that area, and DMV hearing officers might interpret rules entirely differently. The bill would form a new agency, the Department of Parking Management, to handle all of these matters: policy, enforcement, and adjudication.

Establish a new transit authority. Cheh says that DDOT seems unable to really manage transit planning amid all of its other responsibilities, and groups like the Downtown BID have been complaining that DDOT does a poor job of with and coordinating with them about transit.

In many cities, the transit system is its own authority with a separate board. Cheh's bill would create such an authority for DC. That authority would supervise the Circulator and DC Streetcar, and be the point of contact between the District government and WMATA. It would also handle taxicab policy (see below) and "multimodal planning," but Cheh's proposal is not clear on what exactly that means.

To govern this authority, the mayor would appoint four members to a board, including a chair. The directors of DDOT and the Office of Planning, the DC Chief Financial Officer, and the councilmember who oversees transportation would each serve on the board or designate staff members to represent them.

The board would also include the head of DC Surface Transit, a private nonprofit made up of various local Business Improvement Districts, the convention authority Events DC. DC Surface Transit was involved in pushing to launch the original Circulator. The organization now helps market the Circulator, advises DDOT on operations and routes, and is advocating for the streetcar program.

Cheh's staff say that a transit authority, versus just an agency, could also be more transparent about transit planning than DDOT has been, by having a public board with open meetings. Furthermore, they say they have heard feedback that a separate authority could attract higher-caliber people than a mere government agency.

Abolish the Taxicab Commission. The DC Taxicab Commission has an unusual and, many say, dysfunctional structure. It has a board whose members the mayor appoints and the council confirms, but the chairman of the board also manages all of the agency's staff. Under Mayor Fenty, the Taxicab Commission chairman sometimes just ignored the board entirely. The agency has had problems with transparency and more.

Besides, does it make sense for one agency to only consider issues about taxis completely in a vacuum? Taxis are one of many transportation modes. People often choose between taxis, Metro, buses, driving, bicycling, and more. But having a separate agency make taxi policy means there's usually no overarching thought about how to help taxis fill a void other transportation modes leave, or vice versa.

Cheh's proposal would dissolve the Taxicab Commission. Instead, the District Transit Authority would make taxi policy and set taxi regulations, while the DMV would actually handle the day-to-day of registering, inspecting, and licensing the drivers and vehicles, just as it does for other drivers and vehicles now.

Move trees to DDOE. DDOT's Urban Forestry Administration handles street tree issues. Cheh's proposal would make this part of the District Department of the Environment, an agency that split off from DPW in 2006 to handle environmental protection, energy, and similar issues.

Cheh says there isn't a good reason for tree management to be part of DDOT. It's originally there because tree boxes are part of the roadway area, but there's also good sense in putting trees with the agency primarily focused on the District's environmental quality.

With these changes, DDOT would continue to have:

  • Its engineering arm, the Infrastructure Project Management Administration (IPMA) that builds and maintains roads, bridges, sidewalks, alleys, and other infrastructure;
  • The Traffic Operations Administration (TOA), which handles traffic lights, streetlights, crossing guards, and road safety;
  • The Public Space Regulation Administration (PSRA), with oversight over sidewalk cafés and other private uses in public space; and
  • Some or all of the Transportation Policy, Planning, and Sustainability Administration (PPSA) which devises long-term and short-term transportation plans, and works with communities to devise proposals to improve transportation. The pedestrian and bicycle programs are part of PPSA today, and PPSA is also handling the moveDC citywide transportation plan.
PPSA encompasses what Cheh probably means by "multimodal transportation planning." According to Cheh's transportation committee director, Drew Newman, they are considering a number options for transportation planning, including keeping it in DDOT, moving it to the new transit agency, or moving it to the Office of Planning.


Cheh and her staff want to have a series of conversations on the various proposals, through some combination of public forums and a smaller working group. Based on that, hey might decide to change their recommendation, maybe reallocate which functions go to which agencies, or even decide that something shouldn't get split out and should stay where it is.

The forums will take place in June and July. Cheh hopes to then have final hearings in September, mark up the bill, and pass it at council sessions in late September and early October so that it can take effect by January. That would mean that the next mayor, whoever it is, would appoint new agency heads under this new system.

Is this a good idea?

What do you think about Cheh's plan? Tomorrow, I'll give some of my own thoughts.

Support Us
DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City