Planning - Greater Greater Washington

Georgetown 2028

Fri, 17 May 2013 08:29:00 EDT

The Georgetown BID is beginning a several month planning charette to discuss the direction the neighborhood should take in the next 15 years. (Georgetown Metropolitan)

Comment

Height limit heats up

Thu, 16 May 2013 08:25:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The first of the NCPC/Office of Planning meetings on possibly changing DC's height limit brought out skeptics whose worries ranged from abandoned sky scrapers to less sunlight to danger from earthquakes. (City Paper)

Comment

Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?

Mon, 13 May 2013 14:58:00 EDT

by Canaan Merchant

For years, Loudoun County was one of the nation's fastest growing counties and an instructive example of the downsides of sprawl. Meanwhile, it's a nationally recognized center for horse breeding and for its wineries. How can the county manage ongoing growth without losing its rural areas?

The Loudoun County courthouse in Leesburg. Photo by lokeswari on Flickr.

Running north-south from Point of Rocks to Aldie, US 15 bisects the county into developed and rural halves. Loudoun's eastern half is a rapidly developing area that made it the nation's wealthiest county and one of its fastest growing counties.

This area contains Dulles Airport, a large number of technology businesses, and increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity. Soon, Metro's Silver Line will extend to Loudoun County, taking workers to job centers like Reston and Tysons Corner.

New developments line Loudoun County Parkway in 2007. Photo by Dan Reed on Flickr.

In Loudoun's western half, small towns and villages like Purcellville and Waterford dot the landscape among miles of rolling countryside. However, extreme development pressures put this land essential to the agricultural economy at risk.

How can the county continue to grow in a more sustainable manner and reverse existing planning mistakes? This two-part series will look at what Loudoun General Plan recommends for the county's Suburban Policy Area, or SPA, in the east and the Rural Policy Area, or RPA, in the west.

Both halves of Loudoun face unique challenges and risks, but they must play to their strengths. Each half has a specific role to play in the county, but they can complement one another. Despite tension between the two areas, Loudoun's success stems from being able to successfully plan and manage both suburban and rural places.

Where growth is happening

Brambleton, one of many new planned communities in Loudoun County's eastern half. Photo by Dan Reed on Flickr.

The Suburban Policy Area (PDF) is predicted to absorb seventy five percent of all of Loudoun's growth in the near future. By 2020, the SPA will have a population density of about 2200 people per square mile, which is close to Fairfax's current county-wide density of around 2300 people per square mile.

Sprawl has blurred many of the borders between Loudoun neighborhoods. Shopping centers blend together and there's a distinct lack of a center in many of the communities. Recognizing this, the SPA plan recommends creating four distinct "towns" in the county's eastern half: Ashburn, Sterling, Potomac and Dulles.

The towns would be compact and have a mix of uses, allowing them to have distinct centers and a strong sense of community identity. Schools and community centers would go in places where they can be easily reached by foot or bicycle. A greenbelt would wrap around each town, providing physical separation between communities and creating a network of open space and trails. The county could use Transfers of Development Rights, or TDRs, to allow greater density at other sites to preserve the open spaces.

For decades, Loudoun has planned only for cars while ignoring all other transportation modes. It will be relatively easy to add "complete streets" to new developments, but it will take a lot of work to make current roads safer and more attractive for walking and biking, especially ones like Route 7 that are over 100 feet wide and have grade-separated interchanges.

Where is the transit?

Loudoun Station, a TOD being built next to a future Silver Line station. Photo from Comstock.

These are all good ideas, but in order to make them happen, Loudoun will have to find a way to deal with both existing and future traffic congestion. This must include more comprehensive intra-county transit.

The county's general plan devotes a lot of space to widening roads and adding interchanges. However, there's hardly any mention of any sort of public transportation, outside of vague references to future Silver Line stations and the desire to build transit-oriented developments around them.

Right now, Loudoun County Transit runs commuter buses from park and ride lots in the county to downtown DC or Metro stations elsewhere in Northern Virginia. Virginia Regional Transit operates shuttles between neighborhoods and shopping centers, but only every forty-five minutes. Transfers between lines are few and far between.

Now that the county is committed to building the Silver Line, it must create a true transit network that not only connects communities to Metro but to each other. This would relieve congestion on many of Loudoun's roads and head off the desire to continually widen arterial roads. Loudoun needs transit sooner rather than later to handle what's already here and for future infill development.

Make it denser and give Loudoun an identity

Many people would say that what Loudoun needs to do is stop growing. That wouldn't help the county improve its communities or its traffic.

The county is urbanizing rapidly and must be able to pay for the costs of new services that more citizens require. Loudoun already has higher property taxes than Fairfax or Arlington, and the improvements to the transportation network will need to rely on carefully planned growth to maximize the county's investment. In order for Loudoun to hold on to its agricultural heritage, it must ensure that its developed areas are planned with excellence.

In part two, we'll talk about the Rural Policy Area.

72 comments

1941 DC plan shows east Mall, no I-395

Thu, 09 May 2013 12:16:00 EDT

by Dan Malouff

DC's 1941 master plan is available through the Library of Congress. Published just months before Pearl Harbor, the plan is a fascinating look at the future pre-war planners envisioned.

Image from the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

The National Mall extends eastward to the bank of the Anacostia and dominates the plan. "Semi-public buildings," parking garages, and much more highway-like Constitution and Independence Avenues line the new Mall. On the other hand, Southwest retains its historic street grid, and isn't cut off by I-395.

What else jumps out?

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

42 comments

KIPP will have to wait for Randall

Fri, 03 May 2013 08:54:00 EDT

by David Alpert

DC will continue with a deliberative process to create a Small Area Plan in Southwest, instead of letting KIPP build a campus there. (Southwest TLQTC) ... The Post editorial board is very disappointed.

Comment

Height study starts with meetings

Thu, 02 May 2013 08:58:00 EDT

by Peter James

The upcoming federal/local study on possibly maybe changing the height limit announced 2 public meetings, Monday May 13 at the Petworth library and Saturday May 18 at the MLK library.

Comment

WaWa = poor suburban planning?

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:41:00 EDT

by Jereme Altendorf

WaWa wants to build a 5,330 square foot store in Loudoun County, near the Fairfax line, but Herndon objects to "piecemeal strip development" not far from future Silver Line stations. (WBJ)

Comment

Gray aims high with sustainability plan; can agencies deliver?

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:46:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Last week, the Gray administration unveiled its sustainability plan, which sets some very ambitious, yet very important objectives for 2032, like attracting 250,000 new residents and making 75% of trips happen by walking, biking, and transit, along with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, more access to healthy food, cleaner water, and much more.

This plan is perhaps the boldest statement yet by a mayor about the city's future. Some plans equivocate and promise everyone what they want. The sustainability plan does not. Our future is more walking, biking, and transit, and many new residents who aren't driving, says the mayor. Period.

To achieve these goals, agencies will have to push forward not just on their existing laudable initiatives, but go beyond. To shift the numbers of transit, walking, and bicycle trips, DC must do more than just build the streetcar and incrementally grow bicycle infrastructure. The administration also should set intermediate goals to push agencies to make significant progress each and every year.

Many specific actions are important steps forward

Strong policy statements like this make a big impact. When agency heads and employees look at a potential action, they'll know they should consider it through the lens of these policies. That doesn't mean people won't keep doing other things that confound the goals at times, but one group inside one agency can use these statements as ammunition to argue for policies that support the goals.

The plan also lists a number of specific actions agencies can take in a number of areas, from waste to building energy efficiency to parks and trees. The land use section includes the most significant (and controversial) parts of the zoning update, reducing parking minimums and allowing more accessory dwellings.

In the transportation section, there are a few promising new steps. Most are things DC already plans, such as streetcars, more bike lanes, and expanding performance parking.

Notably, the plan also suggests exploring a regional congestion pricing system. That's entirely speculative at this point, and the plan says that unless Maryland and Virginia agree, it'd be almost impossible to set up any sort of congestion pricing system. But just putting it in the plan is a meaningful step.

Another significant policy statement calls on DC to "Program crosswalks and traffic lights for improved safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists." That's right, it says that pedestrian and cyclist safety should take precedence over vehicle speed. It also suggests timing lights along major corridors for traffic, as groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Trade repeatedly ask, but notably recommends timing such lights for motor vehicles and bicycles, not just the former.

To reach goals, agencies will have to do even more

Many of these statements commit DC agencies to go beyond what they have done to date. But is it enough to achieve the even more ambitious goals, like 75% of trips by transit, walk or biking, 250,00 new residents, and cutting in half citywide unemployment, obesity, and energy use?

Transportation goals from the plan (page 12). Click for full plan (PDF).

On land use, the zoning update takes a significant step, but still an incremental one. There are many conditions that will limit accessory dwellings. Reducing parking minimums may make some housing cheaper and make some buildings feasible around the margin, but it does not add to the total amount of potential housing.

According to Planning director Harriet Tregoning, DC could add enough housing for 250,000 more residents just under existing zoning, but that assumes building up to the zoning limit across most of the city. Wholesale redevelopment of neighborhoods is not what anyone really wants.

Rather, it would be better to focus more new housing near Metro stations, streetcars, and high-frequency bus corridors. To do that, though, some administration will have to modify the Comprehensive Plan and zoning to create denser areas somewhere, or even revisit the height limit in some parts of the city.

The Office of Planning also backed away from earlier proposals to also set thresholds where a new development has to set up a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. That now only applies to parking lots over 100,000 square feet, not large garages in many buildings which will contribute to more traffic and inhibit reaching some of the mode share goals.

Can DC reach 75% non-auto mode share?

The transportation section aims to increase public transit's share of trips ("mode share") to 50%, and walking and biking to 25%. There isn't actually data on total trips today, but the plan shows a breakdown of commute trips (which the Census asks about). There, transit had 38% share in 2010, walking 12%, and "other means" (since bicycling isn't a specific category) 4%.

Image from the plan, page 80. Click for full plan (PDF).

That means if we use commute data and count all "other" in the walking and bicycling group (since it's probably fine to also count rollerbladers and Razor scooter riders), transit has to gain 12 percentage points and walking plus biking 9.

Implementation steps include DDOT's current plans to add some more bike lanes and Capital Bikeshare stations, build out the streetcar system, plus recommendations to improve transit connections such as better service for low-income riders and later hours, set up a dedicated source of funding for transit, and make transit systems "resilient" to intense heat and storms that we'll see more often thanks to climate change.

Will this get 12% of commuters to switch to transit, though? Especially while the vast bulk of DDOT spending is still going to projects like big racetracks on South Capitol Street, which will add more car capacity to Saint Elizabeths rather than boosting transit connectivity.

If congestion pricing actually comes about, that could drive the mode shift, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Meanwhile, though, DDOT could meaningfully improve transit by building a network of dedicated bus lanes that make the bus truly an appealing alternative for residents from Glover Park to Fairfax Village to Woodridge.

DC won TIGER grants for bus priority projects from 2009, but those still haven't yielded anything on the ground. Last year, Mary Cheh set up a fund for DDOT to pay for bus projects, but it hasn't done any. H and I street bus lanes are on the long-term regional transportation plan, but if DDOT is making any concrete progress, it's pretty covert, and most of all isn't anywhere in the plan.

DDOT also needs to step it up on bicycle infrastructure. The plan laudably calls for 200 more Capital Bikeshare stations (so far, DC has committed to 87, and 100 miles of "connected" bicycle lanes, compared to about 50 (and not all connected) today, "prioritizing" ones east of the Anacostia.

But as WABA noted in its action alert at the end of 2011 about anemic progress in bike lanes, DC had installed 4-8 lanes per year from 2006-2010, which if continued should put the District at 130-210 by 2032 rather than just 100. Gabe Klein's Action Agenda set a target of 80 miles by 2012, so only 25% more than that 20 years later seems a bit underwhelming.

MoveDC is key

Tregoning, who spearheaded the overall plan while working with individual agencies on the specific proposals, said that these sets of actions aren't supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything to do in the next 20 years. Among other reasons, they wanted to actually publish the plan, not spend endless years tinkering with the lists—a worthy impulse indeed.

On transportation, in particular, the MoveDC citywide transportation plan is the opportunity to create a more detailed list of everything DC has to do. Gray's 50%-25%-25% targets provide a perfect frame for that plan. If a proposed piece of MoveDC moves us toward the targets, it should go in; if it pushes the other way, it should come out.

The 50%-25%-25% also gives MoveDC a high bar to hit. We'll all need to ensure MoveDC is more like the sustainability plan, with clear and aggressive goals, and less like some other plans which try to give everybody what they want and end up meaning little.

Intermediate goals are also necessary

How can we avoid getting to 2032, looking back on this plan, and seeing these great targets but having only moved imperceptibly toward them? The administration could set intermediate goals and really hold agency heads' feet to the fire to reach them.

What can we do to boost transit at least 0.6 percentage points in 2013 (1/20th of the way to the 12 point growth in the plan) and walking and bicycling 0.45 (1/20th of 6 points)? What can we do to get recycling up, obesity down, more buildings retrofitted for energy efficiency, and more parks not just by 2032, but by 2014 and then 2018?

To really hit these goals or at least come close, a next step needs to be a set of intermediate targets, perhaps one for the end of Mayor Gray's current term, and for every 4-year mayoral term thereafter. We should also ask mayoral candidates, in the 2014 race and future races, if they are willing to commit to these targets, both the long-term and intermediate ones, and ask their agency heads to do the same.

At the press conference, Gray noted that this plan's 20-year horizon certainly extends beyond his administration, whether or not he runs for or wins reelection. But, he said, this is a product not just from him but from his agency employees, many of whom still may be around that long. They can reach these targets as long as this and future mayors continue to send clear messages that the objectives in the plan are not just nice words on a paper but a real vision for the future of DC.

16 comments

Move to moveDC Saturday, and more on the calendar

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:09:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Are you going to moveDC? This Saturday is the moveDC Idea Exchange, the big kickoff to DDOT's big effort to create a comprehensive transportation plan. Plus, there are 2 forums on the future of transportation in Montgomery County next week.

Photo by Read G on Flickr.

The Idea Exchange includes an open "transportation fair" all day, from 9:30 am to 3 pm at the MLK Library at 9th and G, NW. The booths, open all day, include family-friendly activities as well as more serious transportation discussion.

Mayor Vincent Gray, Councilmember Mary Cheh, and DDOT Director Terry Bellamy will talk at 10:30, and then there will be a panel with Anita Hairston of PolicyLink, author Chris Leinberger, and Slate's Matthew Yglesias at 11.

If you take Metro, be aware of track work on the Red and Orange Lines north/west of Grosvenor and Ballston and north/east of NoMA and Stadium-Armory. DDOT is also setting up more temporary bike racks to handle the extra bike parking demand. Finally, Anacostia Waterfront Initiative officials and consultant CH2M Hill have set up a 25-lane racetrack oval. No, not really that last one.

For Montgomery County residents, there are 2 great opportunities to talk about transportation's future next week (and in the same spot!) The Action Committee for Transit's monthly meeting features WMATA planning head Shyam Kannan talking about the Metro "Momentum" strategic plan. That's Tuesday, February 12, 7:30 pm at the Silver Spring Civic Center, One Veterans Place.

Wednesday, The Coalition for Smarter Growth is holding a forum on the "next generation of transit." How can the county accommodate 200,000 new residents and 100,000 jobs in the next 20 years? It will take investments in Metro, the Purple Line, and bus rapid transit.

Geoff Anderson, head of Smart Growth America, and Councilmember Roger Berliner will speak about the future of Montgomery County, and there will be presentations on transit projects in the pipeline. The forum is Wednesday, February 13, 6-8 pm at the Silver Spring Civic Center, still One Veterans Plaza. RSVP here.

Meanwhile, in Virginia, the Piedmont Environmental Council is holding a public meeting to talk about the McDonnell Administration's push for an Outer Beltway through Loudoun and Prince William. It's Monday, February 11, 6:30-9 pm at John Champe High School, 41535 Sacred Mountain Street, Aldie, VA.

Also, a film about plastic bags is screening Sunday in Hyattsville; John Muller is giving another tour of Frederick Douglass's Anacostia February 23; and the Anacostia Watershed Society is holding a "Green Roof Networking Happy Hour on Tuesday, February 26.

Comment

Unless cities risk failure, nothing will change

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:13:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Government officials need to be willing to take risks to bring change to their cities. And residents need to support them when they do. Jarrett Walker called attention to video of DC planning director Harriet Tregoning addressing an Urban Land Institute event in October:

She says:

Planning directors, if they don't push to change anything, they might have job security, but literally nothing changes in their city. They look behind them and there's nobody behind them. In the job you're constantly out there pushing, but not so hard that no one is willing to support what you're trying to do.
Government is risk averse, right? I mean, really risk averse, and fearful of failure, because you might end up on the front page of the Washington Post.
But I think more and more cities are coming to recognize that not only is it important that they have innovators in their cities but that they be innovators, and be willing to try new things. And if they fail, fail fast.

She then talks about how Capital Bikeshare is actually DC's second bike sharing system, which we put in after the first, SmartBike, wasn't a success. She concludes, "Innovation is about failing. You have to fail sometimes, otherwise you're not trying hard enough to do something interesting, and there has to be some tolerance for it."

One clear prerequisite for a government official to be pushing for change is having a boss who understands this. An official is going to take action and some people will be upset. Does the boss (whether a mid-level manager, agency director, or mayor) just rebuke the employee simply because his or her actions generated angry emails? Or does he or she look more deeply at the issue to determine whether the employee is actually doing something good?

This tolerance also has to apply to the public. When we look at a project like a new bike lane, very soon after it opens you see blog comments and press articles about whether it's a success or failure. But the 15th Street bike lane started out as one-way, and DDOT then switched it to 2-way. Pennsylvania Avenue still needs fixes to stop U-turns.

Certainly, at some point we do have to look back at programs and decide if they worked or not. There has to be a point where we judge a pilot program, or else we can't learn from the experience. But, as Tregoning is saying, if some of the programs are failures, that's not a sign of mismanagement or waste. We can't respond to everything not being perfect by calling for "heads to roll" or something of that nature.

"Fail fast" is a hot concept in technology startups. The idea is to try a lot of things, but quickly decide whether they are working or not. Many startups have gone through 2, 3, 5, or 10 different products before they hit on a good one. Twitter arose when its founders were building a podcasting service.

A startup is not the same as the government, though. The startup can squander investors' money and it's only the investors who lose out. A government program uses taxpayer money, and people hold that to a higher standard.

The problem is that it doesn't actually save money to do everything extremely slowly. Take procurement, which Mayor Gray promised to fix in last night's State of the District address. We have enormous layers upon layers of controls and approvals to make sure that government contracts aren't being given out based on bribes, or frivolously, or at unreasonably high rates.

We do need to guard against this, but the effect is a system so ponderous that important initiatives can sit around for a year just waiting to go ahead. A simple study of the H and I Street bus lanes took about 9 months to go through procurement at WMATA. I was hearing about moveDC for a long, long time before it happened, because of procurement delays. There are some exciting things folks in DDOT have told me about that I'd love to see move ahead yesterday, except they have to sit around for an indeterminate length of time.

Some things you can't easily redo if you do them wrong. Design a building with poor architecture and you're stuck with its flaws for a long, long time. What governments need to get better about doing is distinguishing those projects where you have to get everything right the first time, like building a bridge, from the ones you can scrap or modify much more easily, like a bike lane or CaBi, or an education initiative, or even a lot of zoning changes.

Meanwhile, we're fortunate to have a planning director who would say this. A lot of great officials have nonetheless decided to prioritize job security over boldness, maybe with good reason. We need to particularly value the ones who still want so badly to make the city better that they are willing to take risks.

32 comments

And...

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:28:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The BBC will air a documentary on urban planning. (Next City) ... Prince Charles and Camilla take the Tube in celebration of its 150 years. (Independent, Steve S.) ... What people in 1967 thought the future would be like. (US News)

Comment

DC leads in transit planning

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:22:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

The Washington area is winning the "Transit Space Race," with 45 projects under construction or in planning. The list includes projects far from completion, such as the NoVa extension to the unbuilt Purple Line. (Streetsblog)

Comment

What's the status of our major transit projects? (Jun 29, 2011)
Transit starts show we're making progress (Jan 4, 2012)
WMATA should be a leader in transit planning (Oct 26, 2011)
Maryland worried about new transit-hostile FTA (Feb 8, 2008)
The federally tilted playing field on transportation (Sep 10, 2007)

And...

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:07:00 EDT

by David Alpert

One of the few pro-bicycle Republicans will chair a key House transportation subcommittee. (Streetsblog) ... Glenn Beck really hates central planning, except when he centrally plans his own city. (Streetsblog) ... Bethesda's bus bays might have to close for 2 years for renovations. (BethesdaNow)

Comment

House GOP would wipe out local control over bike/ped funds (Jun 8, 2012)
House GOP moves to decimate transit funding (Feb 2, 2012)
GOP transportation bill's new direction is the same old one (Jul 11, 2011)
House bill delayed, but transit, walking, biking aren't safe yet (Feb 23, 2012)
Transportation in Congress roundup: Leaders agree on extension, GOP would kill Amtrak, & Obama proposal (Sep 12, 2011)

DC tries for a citywide transportation plan. Will it be good?

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:29:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Today, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) took the cover off a new initiative called Move DC, a year-long process to build a comprehensive transportation plan. They have a big event planned for February 9, a rudimentary online poll, and promise more to come.

The District has many smaller transportation plans, like the Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, a plan for the Anacostia waterfront, individual neighborhood Livability Studies, and more, but they don't all fit together.

That means that when planners or engineers are looking at changing one roadway or intersection, there often aren't clear objectives about how to make tradeoffs.

Downtown, for instance, at one point bicycle planners were thinking about cycle tracks on I Street and bus planners wanted bus lanes there. On 16th Street in Columbia Heights there are dueling ideas for a median, to enhance pedestrian safety, or a bus lane, to speed transit. The 14th Street plaza, meanwhile, grew the public space but slowed down cars and buses.

Should Connecticut Avenue get a median? Wisconsin Avenue get bus and/or bike lanes? Is it possible to do all of these without creating too much traffic? If streetcars go on some corridors, will there be parallel cycle tracks so cyclists don't get caught in the rails? And should M Street SE/SW be for cars, transit, bicycles, or pedestrians if it's not possible to give all modes what they want?

Will this plan have an impact?

Many plans end up as long documents with a lot of general policy statements, some of which are vague and some of which conflict. The Office of Planning is basing the zoning update on the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, but for every policy statement it cites in support of its recommendations, opponents cite other policy statements that they say counsel against change. Many plans don't really turn into much more than long documents on a shelf that quickly become out of date.

Other times, plans have a major impact. They might not dictate specific projects, but a good plan can give officials inside an agency ammunition to convince others. A transportation plan that sets clear objectives could cut through much of the arguing over one mode versus another. It could guide engineers toward what kinds of transportation facilities the District wants.

However, setting most any objective also means some other, competing objective loses out, especially in transportation where many decisions involve allocating limited road space. A plan could define which corridors are bus lane corridors versus bike lane corridors versus candidates for road diets or medians, but right now they're all car corridors, and any change to the contrary inconveniences some drivers.

Is it worthwhile to participate?

Therefore, residents who support improving transit, walking, and bicycling will have to speak up. We'll have to participate at the February 9 meeting and at future events in person and online. DDOT will have to balance competing imperatives to involve residents as much as possible, but not to just wear everyone down with endless events. The zoning update, which has dragged on for almost 5 years and still has the most important hearings yet to come, has forced advocates to show up to meeting after meeting where the real final decisions still aren't being made.

There are a lot of residents who can't attend many meetings, which is why it's good to see DDOT plans online engagement. In some other processes, despite social media participation, decision-makers ultimately end up weighing the volume of comments at public meetings, or behind-the-scenes meetings with influential groups, more strongly.

The good news is that the people I've spoken with involved in the project, from DDOT planning head Sam Zimbabwe to GGW contributor Veronica Davis who is part of the public engagement team, seem to really want public input and come with a good set of overall values about the importance of sustainable modes of travel.

This effort has good promise to truly move the District forward. It's also possible many of us will spend countless hours contributing to something with little effect. If we don't participate, it's also very possible DC will end up with a plan that entrenches bad policies of the past. I hope many of you will advocate for better transportation choices throughout the process.

4 comments

Pennsylvania Avenue cycle track slated for May (Mar 10, 2010)
DDOT moves planned I Street cycle track to M Street (May 4, 2010)
Doubts about cycle track, concerns about process (Nov 10, 2008)
DDOT supporters feeling burned by Penn. Ave. lanes (Jun 9, 2010)
Amid exciting innovations, DDOT neglecting bus priority (Mar 23, 2010)

Where to grow

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:33:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Regional planners have identified 139 "activity centers" mainly around Metro stations where job and housing growth should be concentrated. (WAMU)

Comment

Epic Ward 3 zoning update meeting Tuesday night

Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:22:00 EDT

by David Alpert

This Tuesday is a very important day! It's my birthday. (And Kojo Nnamdi's.) Also, it's the zoning update meeting in Ward 3, a ward which houses many of the most strident opponents, but where a great many residents also support growing and more walkable neighborhoods.

Photo by Patrick Haney on Flickr.

Can you go to the meeting? You don't need to know much about the zoning update; it's a great chance to learn. It would also help a lot to say something. Many opponents will be there and not shy. The meeting is 6:30 pm at Wilson High School.

Reader Steve asked, "Do you have specific talking points that we should try to convey?" You can say whatever you want, of course, and make up your own mind, but below are a few themes you might want to mention.

In addition, there are many ways OP has backed off earlier plans based on either resident pressure or internal OP decisions to push for a less significant change than they had originally planned. Or there are ways the zoning update could go beyond the original proposals. Therefore, for each policy area, there are a few changes you could request, if you feel they match your own views.

Code organization

What's happening: The zoning update will restructure the zoning code (while keeping almost all provisions the same). Instead of having to look in up to 3 places for conflicting rules that all apply to your property, the key information will be in one place.

Main positive point: The zoning code is too hard to understand right now. It needs reorganizing into a form that better helps property owners understand what is and isn't legal on their property.

Parking minimums

What's happening: The zoning update removes minimum parking rules for buildings downtown, residential buildings under 10 units, and buildings in mixed-use and higher-density residential areas near Metro and frequent bus lines.

Main positive point: Current rules force many buildings to include more parking than their residents or workers need. It's really important to remove many of the parking minimums, especially downtown and near transit.

Ways OP could go further:

Fill in the "holes" in places like Logan Circle and Columbia Heights by making transit zones apply to non-residential uses in R-4 row house zones near transit.
Go even farther and have no minimum parking requirements at all, citywide.
Add parking maximums as well, in addition to one on 100,000-square foot parking lots. These would not have been absolute caps, but would just make developers do a Transportation Demand Management plan if they want to put in more parking than a set threshold.

Accessory dwellings

What's happening: In low- and moderate-density residential areas, people can't rent out a basement or existing garage without going through complex approvals. The proposal would allow this in most lower-density areas for interior units or existing external buildings, but still require a hearing for new or expanded external buildings.

Main positive point: Accessory dwellings help young people afford places to live and seniors age in place. They make housing more affordable and accommodate more residents without fundamentally changing the character of buildings in a neighborhood. They just let neighborhoods house the numbers of people they did 50 years ago.

Ways OP could go further:

Allow ADUs by right in new external structures as well (as long as the new external structure conforms to the other zoning rules).
Impose fewer restrictions such as on size, balconies, whether an artist can live above a studio, and more.
Include ADUs by right in Georgetown as well—the current proposal requires a special exception for them (more on that later).

Corner stores

What's happening: Retail can locate in moderate density residential row house areas (not low-density or the higher density areas), as long as it's pretty far from other retail, in a corner building or historically commercial building, and satisfies many more restrictions.

Main positive point: People want to be able to walk to neighborhood-serving retail, and if they live in an area without a neighborhood commercial strip right nearby, they should be able to have a corner store to serve their needs.

Ways OP could go further:

Allow stores on properties besides literal "corners" and historically commercial buildings.
Allow corner stores even within 500 feet of mixed-use zones.
Let corner stores locate in row house and apartment zones (now R-5) as well; now they do not count.
Let the Board of Zoning Adjustment waive more of the conditions in a special exception hearing.

Green Area Ratio

What's happening: New or substantially changed buildings will need to get a certain score of environmental sustainability features, such as grass, green roof, stormwater management, or green walls, based on the property's size.

This will help reduce stormwater runoff and the urban heat island effect and potentially make DC a more pleasant place to live even as it grows. Some fear it will also further disadvantage urban development versus exurban greenfields.

Other changes

There are many other small tweaks in the zoning update, mostly good.

Some top positive changes:

The new code requires more bicycle parking for buildings. There would be "long-term" spaces, such as in a locked room inside the building for employees or residents, and "short-term" outdoor racks for visitors or shoppers.
Larger garages will have to have a number of car sharing spaces. Surface parking lots need canopy trees to shade some of the lot.
Rules for building homes on alley lots become a little bit more permissive.

Proposals OP dropped:

The previous proposal had the same limits on the actual size of a house but did not prescribe how many stories you can have inside (except as the fire code limits). In low-density zones, OP reinstated a limit of 3 stories.
The original proposal let homeowners build a house of similar size to others nearby even if their lot has an extra-short rear yard. The Zoning Commission approved this idea but OP removed it.

The meeting is at Wilson High School, 3950 Chesapeake St NW by the Tenleytown Metro. It starts at 6:30 with a presentation by Harriet Tregoning, an "open house" format where you can ask OP staff questions, and then a "town hall" where people can speak to the entire group about their views.

9 comments

What's in the zoning update: Fewer parking minimums (Dec 11, 2012)
What's in the zoning update: Corner stores (Dec 4, 2012)
In Ward 2, residents ask for lower parking minimums (Dec 13, 2012)
Is DC's zoning update "too timid"? (Feb 9, 2012)
Go to a zoning update meeting, ask OP to fill in the holes (Jan 3, 2013)

In Ward 2, residents ask for lower parking minimums

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:21:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Dupont ANC commissioner Kevin O'Connor summed up the tenor of Tuesday's Penn Quarter meeting on the zoning update simply: "Consensus of Ward 2 zoning meeting seems to be that [reducing the] parking minimums need[s] to go even further than proposed."

People milling around during the "open house" portion of the meeting. Photo by the author.

During the question and answer session, the dominant theme was that the update is moving in the right direction, but could do even more. Many residents attended this meeting beyond the usual faces in civic involvement, as well; one attendee told me this was his first ever public civic meeting in DC.

Tonight (Thursday), ANC 3B (Glover Park and Cathedral Heights) will discuss the zoning update at their regular meeting, and the Office of Planning will present at its third public meeting, this time in Ward 8.

Tomorrow (Friday), OP will come online, with a Twitter Town Hall at noon. Submit your questions with the hashtag #ZRR. I will also embed a feed of the town hall here.

At the new AIA center in the Penn Quarter, speaker after speaker thanked the Office of Planning for all their hard work on the zoning update, including many meaningful improvements, but also expressed hope that the update could do a little more. A few people asked about opportunities to adjust the height limit. One lamented new rules that limit a rooming house to 8 unrelated people.

The greatest number voiced disappointment at the giant "hole" in the likely transit zones around northern Logan Circle on the map:

Potential "Transit zones" in Ward 2. Click for full map.

The amount of development this "hole" and other exclusions affect is actually fairly small, since the excluded areas all have 1-2 family row houses and the zoning doesn't allow apartment buildings; it's also almost entirely built out today. Mainly, it means that any new non-residential use would have minimum parking requirements, even right next to a Metro station.

OP has very narrowly drawn the rules in this and many other ways to minimize the scope of each change. The zoning update allows corner stores, but subject to so many rules that there might be only a bare handful of corner stores that open in the entire city as a result. Accessory dwellings are allowed, but with strict limits on size, numbers of people, balconies, and a special exception requirement if it's in a new external building to ensure people don't build new garages just to house an accessory unit.

They did this to accommodate pushback from some neighborhoods, especially in Ward 3, for all the good that did them; emails from a few people in Chevy Chase haven't stopped claiming that this is all a nefarious plot to radically remake the District and force a car-free lifestyle upon everyone.

If anything, this update bends over too far to limit the scope of each change. The risk is that Zoning Commission members, hearing opponents, will decide to "split the baby" and find a "compromise" between OP's proposal and no change at all, when in fact, OP's proposal is also a major compromise from early drafts and even from what the Zoning Commission approved in principle in 2010.

The Zoning Commission agreed to a rule that if you have an unusually short lot, such as on a triangular block near a diagonal avenue, you could still build a house of typical depth even though that might break the required rear setback. OP abandoned that idea.

The Zoning Commission also approved parking maximums, but except for a rule that developers will need a special exception and Transportation Demand Management plan for surface lots over 100,000 square feet, OP removed maximums; the 2010 hearing report shows that OP was trying to decide between requiring the special exception and TDM plan for garages over 1,000 spaces, or a DDOT suggestion to require it for garages over 500 spaces away from transit and 250 spaces near transit. Ultimately, they chose neither.

The zoning update is still a meaningful step forward in making the District more affordable, better accommodating the many car-free new residents, and enhancing neighborhood amenities, but it's a small step that doesn't warrant the level of anger it's engendered in upper Northwest and which shouldn't become any smaller of a step than it already is.

If you live or work or even often visit Ward 8, come to the meeting tonight at Savoy Elementary, 2400 Shannon Place from 6:30-8:30. If you're near Glover Park or Cathedral Heights, please stop by the ANC meeting, 7 pm at Stoddert Elementary; they'll also be talking about residential parking. And if you're on Twitter, head online at noon tomorrow for the town hall.

5 comments

What's in the zoning update: Fewer parking minimums (Dec 11, 2012)
New parking recommendations released (Jun 4, 2008)
Parking countdown #6: Parking minimums undermine neighborhood retail (Jul 24, 2008)
Early draft of parking zoning rules reduces some minimums (but not enough) (Apr 7, 2008)
What's in the zoning update: Corner stores (Dec 4, 2012)

What's in the zoning update: Fewer parking minimums

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:49:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Tonight is the second public meeting for the DC Zoning Update, at 421 7th St. NW in the Penn Quarter. Let us know if you can come to this one, or one of the others in December and January.

Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Steven Yates attended the first meeting, Saturday in Southwest. He reported:

Parking seemed like the most contentious issue. There were some people concerned with the elimination of some parking minimums (particularly in the transit zones). They were particularly concerned with spillover into the neighborhoods, which sounded [solvable] with resident-only parking.
There was also a sizable group (I'd guess roughly equal in size to those concerned with parking) that were vocally supportive of what OP [the Office of Planning] is trying to do in regards to parking. The biggest (really only) applause for comments were those who were OK with less parking. Many people there seemed genuinely curious about what the update meant and had some fairly wonky and specific questions.

Let's talk about what's in there about parking.

Minimums

The 1958 zoning code mandated parking for new buildings on the assumption that everyone would be driving in the future. Like adequate public facilities ordinances in the suburbs, this subordinates development to automotive infrastructure. If there isn't enough room for cars, build nothing until there is.

Predictions that there would be only one mode of transportation, driving, in the future turned out to be wrong. We have Metro, buses, biking, walking, and more. Rather than accommodating demand, requirements to build parking instead create strong incentives for people to drive who wouldn't have otherwise, pushing the mode share in one unsustainable direction and making traffic worse for existing drivers.

Early working groups for the zoning update considered eliminating almost all or even all parking minimums, but facing pressure from some neighborhood groups, OP backed off and only now propose eliminating minimums for a few categories:

Small residential buildings of up to 9 units
Higher-density areas (today's R-5) and mixed-use/commercial zones near Metro or high-frequency bus lines ("transit zones")
Production, Distribution and Repair (industrial) land
Downtown

The final set of "transit zones" isn't set, but OP created this preliminary map showing where they probably will be:

Image from the Office of Planning. Click to enlarge (PDF).

Note that any low-density land, even right next to a Metro station, doesn't count, even most row house neighborhoods (designated R-4 today). An individual townhouse will be exempt under the small residential building requirement, but any non-residential building like a school, even next to a Metro station, will have to have as much parking as if it were nowhere near the Metro.

Property owners won't have to consult a transit timetable to decide if they are in a transit zone. Instead, the actual zoning category will differ. An apartment building area near transit would be an AT zone, while one far from transit would be an A. Likewise, commercial and mixed-use corridors are M zones without transit and MT zones in areas near transit.

Maximums

The Zoning Commission approved a general proposal to have some as-yet-undetermined parking maximums as well, but the Office of Planning has dropped this from the update.

One proposal had been to allow buildings to build a lot of parking if they want, but require that parking beyond a certain limit use a design that makes it possible to convert the space to other uses, like below-grade retail, offices, or even storage. However, developers said that this would add considerably to the cost of that below-grade space with no immediate benefit, and OP dropped this requirement.

One maximum remains in the draft code: surface parking lots can't exceed 100,000 square feet, or about 2.3 acres, as of right. By comparison, the surface parking lot for the Home Depot and other stores near Rhode Island Avenue Metro is about 350,000 square feet, or 8 acres.

However, anyone can ask for a special exception to exceed this limit if they create a Transportation Demand Management plan which DDOT approves. The BZA also has the ability to require screening and landscaping, or put requirements on where the curb cuts to enter and exit are.

While it's better for the zoning code to err on the side of less regulation rather than more, a requirement to have a TDM plan for very large parking facilities, and to go through some review process for the design, makes sense. The special exception process does not present an extremely high bar to getting things approved, but it does force people to go through a legal process.

For the individual homeowner wanting to rent out a garage, a special exception is a large burden, but for anyone building a 2.3-acre or larger parking lot, it's not likely to be. In fact, this would argue for a lower threshold above which the special exception and TDM process kicks in.

Design

A number of rules guide how a parking lot or structure can be designed. Parking lots over a certain size will have to have trees to create shade and reduce the urban heat island effect. Drive-through queueing lanes have to be a certain length. And so on.

You can read all about that stuff in Subtitle C, chapters 2106-2112.

One of the rules in the zoning update, which prohibits parking between buildings and the street in most areas, already became law in 2011, after the Office of Planning brought that particular chapter forward ahead of time as a text amendment.

It's great that many supporters of reducing burdensome parking minimums made it on Saturday, but we'll need to keep that up at the other meetings, especially Ward 3 on January 8 but also many other wards. Please let us know which meeting you can make!

13 comments

In Ward 2, residents ask for lower parking minimums (Dec 13, 2012)
Epic Ward 3 zoning update meeting Tuesday night (Jan 7, 2013)
Early draft of parking zoning rules reduces some minimums (but not enough) (Apr 7, 2008)
What's in the zoning update: Corner stores (Dec 4, 2012)
Testify on car and bike parking rules Monday (Nov 10, 2010)