Category: CSG in the News

BRT Supporters Have Different Views As Plan Heads To Council

Posted on by Andrew Brown

mocorts

Bus Rapid Transit supporters are split on the Master Plan the county’s Planning Department will likely send to the County Council next week on the new transportation system.

Some are still worried language inserted into the plan that would require “a thorough traffic analysis” before any BRT system is implemented severely waters down the plan and contradicts the basic point of making roads move more people instead of more cars.

Meanwhile, the Coalition For Smarter Growth, which is lobbying for a BRT network that would include a controversial transitway on Rockville Pike/MD 355, praised the Planning Board for taking “a major step forward.”

“This plan is one of the most extensive and progressive transportation plans of any suburban community in our region, and is in keeping with Montgomery County’s record of innovation in land use transportation and housing policy,” CSG Executive Director Stewart Schwartz said in a statement.

The Action Committee for Transit wrote a letter to the Planning Board before a worksession on the plan last Thursday urging it to reconsider the “thorough traffic analysis” language.

ACT is concerned a traffic study from county transportation planners at time of facility planning would make it more difficult to dedicate existing lanes to the buses in the BRT network, thus reducing the amount of all-traffic lanes.

At the Thursday worksession, the Planning Board amended the language by saying the thorough traffic analysis “should be performed” instead of “must be performed,” and only “where lane repurposing is recommended.”

Planning Board Chair Francoise Carrier advocated a plan that would ease concerns from drivers worried about how fewer lanes would affect their commutes. On Thursday, Carrier said the Board should consider how the repurposing lanes debate would play out before the County Council, which is expected to take up Bus Rapid Transit in September.

“There is a tension between sending up a plan that’s easier to adopt or sending up the plan thats bolder,” Carrier said.

Planning Commissioner Casey Anderson made it clear throughout the process he’s in favor of a bolder option that would include repurposed lanes where needed. Planning staff has said a lane each way on MD 355 would need to be repurposed through downtown Bethesda and Chevy Chase because there is no room to build an additional lane.

There has already been much opposition to the idea of repurposing lanes from neighborhood groups in Silver Spring and Chevy Chase and residents in Bethesda.

“It’s almost like you’re a dog that’s been beat too much and you’re afraid you’re going to get hit again when you start talking about, ‘Oh, don’t worry. We’re not going to do [lane repurposing] everywhere,’ before you even get started,” Anderson said.

Kelly Blynn, an organizer for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said while the plan is a break from thinking that often shortchanged transit in favor of single-occupancy vehicles, the group is still concerned about new language from the State Highway Administration.

“However, Blynn expressed concern that other new language in the plan, pressed by the State Highway Administration, would place too high of a standard on moving cars through without considering a more proper standard of what approach would move the most people,” read the group’s press release.

Photo courtesy of Montgomery County Planning Department.

Click here to read the original story>>

D.C. planners drop proposal to end minimum parking rule for developers

Posted on by Andrew Brown

Bowing to vocal opposition, District planners have backed off a controversial proposal to eliminate long-standing requirements that developers in some areas include parking spaces in their projects.

The decision not to wholly abandon “parking minimums” in outlying neighborhoods served by Metrorail and high-frequency bus lines comes as planners prepare to submit a wholesale rewrite of the city’s zoning code for approval by the Zoning Commission and shortly after opponents repeated their concerns at a council hearing.

The elimination of parking requirements in “transit zones” had been promoted zealously by Harriet Tregoning, director of the Office of Planning, and her deputies as a necessary response to a city growing more populous and less car-dependent. But residents in some neighborhoods viewed the proposal skeptically, claiming it was based on unfounded assumptions and would only worsen the scarcity of curbside parking.

Tregoning disclosed the change during an interview Friday on WAMU-FM, where she acknowledged she had got “a lot of feedback” about the parking changes. “It’s certainly in response to what we’ve heard from a lot of people,” she said.

In a subsequent interview, Tregoning said the planning office still intended to pursue elimination of parking minimums downtown and in fast-growing, close-in neighborhoods such as the Southwest Waterfront and NoMa. But in other areas eyed for the change, she said, the minimums would be “substantially” reduced rather than eliminated entirely.

“A lot of people were very, very concerned with the concept of no parking minimums,” she said. “I wanted to take that out of the discussion so we could focus on what is reasonable.”

Opponents “seemed to be really hung up by what they perceived as an ideological position,” she added. “I’m not an ideologue. I’m very practical. The practical effect is not very different.”

For a multi-unit residential building under the new proposal, Tregoning said, developers would have to create one parking space for every three units in most areas. They could also apply to the Board of Zoning Adjustment for a “special exception” to the minimum. Under current rules, the minimums vary but often require one space for every two units.

The zoning rewrite is nearing the end of a five-year process that has included discussions about liberalizing rules for “accessory” apartments and corner stores in residential neighborhoods. But the parking debate emerged over the past several months as by far the most contentious point of discussion, generating push-back from several neighborhood groups and AAA Mid-Atlantic.

The decision to back off the elimination of parking minimums vexed a group of activists who view it as a cornerstone of efforts to make the city denser and more transit-oriented.

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which had rallied support for the measure, said Sunday it was “disappointing” to see Tregoning ease off a measure that could have helped make housing more affordable by lowering development costs.

“I think it would have been much simpler and effective” to eliminate the minimums and allow the market to dictate how much parking developers provide, he said, adding that “we’ll still call for the cleaner, market-based approach” at the Zoning Commission.

Some leading skeptics of the original proposal said it was too soon to tell if the revised parking-minimum measures would prove acceptable.

“It’s fine, but I’m not sure it goes far enough,” said Alma Gates, who has monitored the zoning rewrite for the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, a group of civic activists with a special interest in planning matters. “I’m waiting to see it in writing. . . . We’re talking about a big issue here. It affects everyone who has a car or [is] thinking about a car or coming to Washington.”

Juliet Six, a Tenleytown resident who has been vocal in opposing the parking measures, voiced extremely cautious optimism about Tregoning’s comments. She suggested that the announcement was calibrated to create an illusion of consensus as the debate moves to the Zoning Commission. “This is one way to take the heat off,” she said.

Tregoning acknowledged the change would “make it easier” for the zoning revision to gain the commission’s approval. The planning office is expected to submit the rewritten zoning code, totaling more than 700 pages, to the commission July 29. It is unclear when the body will hold hearings and give its final approval.

Click here to read the original story>>

Zoning Rewrite Will Keep Parking Minimums Intact Throughout Much of D.C., But Not Downtown

Posted on by Andrew Brown

zrr2Harriet Tregoning, the director of D.C.’s Office of Planning, just made some big news as far as the city’s developers, smart-growth advocates, and car owners are concerned. The long-overdue update to D.C.’s 55-year-old zoning code, which the office is currently working on, will preserve mandatory parking minimums in transit zones for new residential and commercial developments.

Tregoning made the announcement during a segment on WAMU’s The Politics Hour. While D.C. has quite a large car-free population—38.5 percent of households, according to the U.S. Census Bureau—car owners have worried that the end of parking minimums at new developments would tighten the availability of on-street parking.

Developers that construct new buildings in transit zones—within a half-mile of a Metro station or quarter-mile of a busy bus stop—are required to outfit those projects with a certain number of parking spaces. Critics of the policy say the requirements drive up costs of new housing units by an average of 12.5 percent, WAMU reported earlier this month.

Instead of allowing developers to install as many or as few parking spots as they like, Tregoning said the minimums will be reduced. The Office of Planning will submit its code overhaul to the city’s Zoning Commission later this month.

UPDATE, 5 p.m.: Tregoning adds that the elimination of parking minimums will still apply to downtown D.C., the definition of which is being expanded according to a map she sent to DCist. The area colored in orange is what current zoning laws consider to be “downtown,” but when Tregoning’s office submits its report to the zoning commission, downtown will be expanded outward to include the entire shaded area, which stretches from Dupont Circle to NoMa. The map also includes a southern swath of the city encompassing Southwest Waterfront and Navy Yard.

zrr3

Even though the areas the Office of Planning include many of D.C.’s construction sites, Tregoning told Housing Complex she expects some backlash from the smart-growth advocates who would have preferred the entire city to lose its parking requirements. And sure enough, the backlash came quickly in the form of the Coalition for Smart Growth.

“We are disappointed that the opposition to progressive reforms has caused the city to back down on the important reform of removing minimum parking requirements,” Stewart Schwartz, the group’s executive director said in a statement. “The costs of too much parking are being passed on to all residents even if they want to save money by living car free. Moreover, parking requirements will still be lowered in the city’s transit zones. That’s as it should be. With the expanded transit, walking, biking, and carsharing options that DC now offers, we shouldn’t be mandating more parking than we need or than people will use.”

Photo Courtesy of Kerrin Nishimura, DCist.

Click here to read the original story>>

In Arlington, state wants to develop and build over I-66 in Rosslyn, East Falls Church Metro

Posted on by Andrew Brown

Ross66

The proposed area in Rosslyn where Virginia is asking for possible development suggestions. The area in pink is the main area, the areas in light green are secondary possibilities.

Air rights are rapidly becoming a hot topic in Northern Virginia. Some heavy-hitters in Fairfax are pushing for development over the Silver Line stations on the Dulles Toll Road. And on Wednesday, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) announced that the state is seeking ideas from private developers about building over Interstate 66 in Rosslyn, and over the tracks leading to the East Falls Church Metro station, both in Arlington County.

The “Request for Information” by the state suggests the area of I-66 immediately adjacent to Arlington Gateway Park, or the “Rosslyn tunnel” as the radio traffic reporters call it, might be a good place to develop, and that the stretches of I-66 to the east of that area, and to the west of the park/tunnel, would also be possibilities. This would appear to be about three blocks from the Rosslyn Metro station, which the Request calls “the northern and eastern edges of the Rosslyn metro area.” In East Falls Church, which Arlington did an extensive plan for in 2011, the Request suggests building directly over the tracks on the east side of the Metro station, and then also in the south parking lot immediately adjacent.

“By leasing airspace above certain transportation facilities owned by the Commonwealth,” McDonnell said in a press release, “we can better utilize our existing infrastructure to generate additional revenues to fund future transportation improvements, while at the same time attracting new jobs and economic development.”

In addition to devising a comprehensive plan for East Falls Church, Arlington has also begun working on a plan for Rosslyn. County Board Chairman Walter Tejada said in the governor’s press release that “We will ensure that any potential transit-orientated development using these air rights in Arlington County is consistent with our community’s vision and is consistent with the county’s land use and transportation plans.”

EFC66


The proposed redevelopment area for the East Falls Church Metro station, with the prime area in pink, and the secondary proposed area in light blue.

Fairfax Supervisor Pat Herrity (R-Springfield), one of the big supporters of air rights along the Metro stations being built in Fairfax, applauded the move by the state’s Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships, in conjunction with the state Department of Transportation and Metro.

“Governor McDonnell, Secretary of Transportation Connaughton, and the partners responsible for this RFI,” Herrity said, “obviously see the value in air rights with their statement today, and see their feasibility in Northern Virginia. We should be exploring similar options along the Dulles Toll Road corridor.”

One problem that has been raised with sale of air rights, and likely becomes relevant again, is that there is no shortage of existing office space in Northern Virginia, and the cost of building over an existing Metro station or busy highway is, well, high.

Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth raised the question for Rosslyn about “whether they are getting close enough to buildout that air rights development might not have the effect of undermining existing plans and development being proposed.” At East Falls Church, he wondered how air rights would fit with Arlington’s new plan for the area, and whether it would again raise the issue of widening I-66, which Arlington has fought fiercely, and successfully, for many years.

There’s also the question of what this potential opportunity might do to the market for Tysons Corner. Developers are being recruited there on the premise they’ll be near Metro stations. Might this give those developers another option, without the tax burden imposed on businesses around the Silver Line, and hurt Tysons’ future growth? The future is wide open.

Bob Brosnan, Arlington’s director of community planning, housing and development, said that the state has promised to work with Arlington and abide by the plans the county has established for Rosslyn and East Falls Church. “Rosslyn does have a lot of development potential,” he said, but added, “we had never thought of doing development over the highway. Who knows what might develop?” Similarly, at East Falls Church, “the idea of going over 66 is nothing we had talked about before. If developers think there is a market, then we would be willing to entertain whatever proposals they have.” He thought development around either station could lead to better connections with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Sean Connaughton, the secretary of transportation, told me, “these two sites came up as maybe perfect projects for us in pursuing air rights. And if we’re successful here, we would for other places not only in Northern Virginia but throughout the Commonwealth, use air rights to spark development and use the money to defray the cost of transportation.” He did not think the development possibilities would take away from Tysons because they are different types of areas, Tysons already having two large existing shopping malls (and no parking around the new stations), Arlington being more commercial at Rosslyn and residential at East Falls Church.

Photos courtesy of the Office of Transportation Public Private Partnerships.

Click here to read the original story>>

 

D.C. Defends Proposal to Change Mandatory Parking Minimums

Posted on by Andrew Brown

After six years of work, the first major rewrite of Washington, D.C.’s zoning code since 1958 is inching closer to approval. But it’s facing fierce opposition from some residents who worry it will shrink parking.


A parking garage in D.C.

On Tuesday, the District’s top planning official defended her office’s ideas at a D.C. Council hearing, part of the ongoing Zoning Regulations Review that has involved nearly 50 public hearings and meetings since 2008. The Office of Planning is expected to hand its voluminous proposals to the Zoning Commission by the end of the month, triggering another lengthy public process.

Under the new proposal, developers would no longer be required to construct a minimum number of parking spaces in new apartment housing, office, and retail space in downtown D.C., near Metro rail stations, and in busy bus corridors. Office of Planning Director Harriet Tregoning told council members that the current rules are outdated, prescribing a one-size-fits-all approach that does not reflect driving and parking demand in individual neighborhoods.

“The current code can’t look at the household rate of car ownership in a neighborhood. It can’t look at the type of people who are being marketed to for a particular building,” said Tregoning. “It is one-size-fits-all now, so the proposed changes are to make it possible for the parking in a given building to more closely resemble the anticipated demand in that place, in that building, in that neighborhood.”

Eliminating mandatory parking minimums would not mean developers would cease building any parking spaces at all, Tregoning said.

“Should the Zoning Commission approve changes to parking requirements the projects are likely to deliver more than what is minimally required and explicitly be sensitive to market demand,” she said.

Tregoning pointed to Census data that show 38.5 percent of D.C. households are car-free, and roughly half of all trips are taken with transit, on foot, or by bicycle. In her view, mandatory parking minimums often lead to the construction of excessive, unused spaces. The Coalition for Smarter Growth, a group that supports the changes, contends that the construction of parking spaces drives up housing costs an average 12.5 percent per unit.

Data under dispute

Opponents testified that the elimination of parking minimums would force drivers to circle their neighborhoods looking for spaces. Despite efforts to reduce car dependency, the number of vehicles in the District is increasing, they said.

“There were 267,000 vehicles in D.C. in 2009. 285,000 registered in 2012. So we have a very significant question. What is D.C.’s comprehensive approach to parking? Is this our plan?” said Judy Chesser, one of several residents who testified against the parking proposals. “[The Office of Planning] has demonstrated their lack of data by insisting for many months that car ownership was being reduced in D.C. while it was increasing.”

Lobbyists for AAA Mid-Atlantic, whose officials have accused Washington of waging war on cars, told council members the proposed overhaul of parking rules threatens the District’s future because visitors will choose to stay away if they can’t find parking.

“This situation will worsen if new apartment buildings, stores and offices are built without garages or parking spaces,” said AAA’s Lon Anderson. “The Office of Planning’s logic is that if parking is scarce and driving difficult we will attract fewer cars. But that also means we will attract fewer people.”

Developers near transit stations and in downtown D.C. may favor a change in current policy because of the enormous cost of constructing underground parking, estimated at $40,000 to $70,000 per space, according to Tregoning’s office.

Learning lessons from out west

In Portland, Oregon, officials in April reversed changes to the city’s parking rules after eliminating mandatory minimums, a development frequently cited during the hearing by Tregoning’s critics. Portland reinstated minimums for apartment dwellings with more than 30 units, although developers may reduce by half the parking requirement by providing more bicycle parking and spaces for bike- and car-sharing services.

In 2012 Portland commissioned a study that found “that 64 percent of residents are getting to work via a non-single-occupant vehicle. Almost a third (28 percent) of those surveyed belonged to car-free households; however, cars are still the preferred mode of travel for many of the survey respondents.”

About two-thirds of the vehicle owners surveyed in Portland’s inner neighborhoods “park on the street without a permit and have to walk less than two minutes to reach their place of residence, and they spend only five minutes or less searching for a parking spot,” the study found.

The Office of Planning is targeting July 29 to hand its proposed zoning changes to the Zoning Commission.

Photo courtesy of AlbinoFlea on flickr.

Click here to read the original story>>

Elrich Thinks Parts Of BRT Will Get Built In Next 4 Years

Posted on by Andrew Brown

The Montgomery County Councilmember who is credited with first proposing a Bus Rapid Transit network for the county is optimistic parts of a BRT system will start being built in the next four years.

Councilmember March Elrich (D-At large) also said he thinks ridership projections in the Master Plan for BRT before the Planning Board might actually be too low. Many opponents of a plan to include Rockville Pike/Wisconsin Avenue as a BRT corridor have claimed the ridership numbers in a study by Planning Department staff are inflated.

Elrich talked about where BRT stands on a County Cable Montgomery interview show earlier this month.

“You really can’t predict what ridership will be in the future if you replace the non-choice system with a system might choose to use,” Elrich said, comparing existing Ride On bus service to a potential BRT network. “They might make different choices if a bus ran every six minutes in rush hour and didn’t stop for lights because they had a greenway to go through.”

The “rapid” component of BRT is that the buses in the system would move faster than typical buses because the buses would have exclusive lanes.

That has caused a stir with communities and residents in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where some don’t want to lose a lane of regular traffic to a bus-only lane. The Master Plan for BRT projects between 44,000 and 49,000 daily riders for a southbound MD 355 system and between 22,000 and 34,000 daily riders for a northbound MD 355 system by 2040.

It is projected to be the busiest of the 10 proposed corridors.

The Planning Board is working through its Master Plan on the system with the hopes of transmitting it to the County Council on July 22. The fourth and final planned worksession is July 11.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a D.C.-based advocacy group is pushing for signatures on a pro-BRT petition. The Coalition’s executive director testified in favor of the BRT Master Plan at the Planning Board’s public hearing on it.

Click here to read the original story>>

Public weighs in on how to improve NoVa commuting

Posted on by Andrew Brown

wtopFAIRFAX, Va. – At the first of two Northern Virginia Transportation Authority public hearings Thursday, about 100 people showed up at Fairfax City’s city hall to discuss the best way to improve commutes.

Specifically, the NVTA wanted to get advice on how to spend about $192.5 million that will come from new taxes in Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s transportation package, which takes effect July 1.

“While we want to work quickly, we also want to make sure we spend these dollars wisely,” said NVTA Chairman Martin Nohe, who also serves on the Prince William County Board of Supervisors.

The authority released a long list of projects, broken down into six corridors, with detailed descriptions of costs and congestion relief projections.

Delegate Jim LeMunyon, a Republican who represents part of Fairfax and Loudoun counties, handed out maps to NVTA members with red, yellow and green lines to describe congestion in Northern Virginia.

“In my view, the priority of the authority is to get the red off the map. It’s as simple as that,” he said.

But Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, testified that LeMunyon’s approach is too focused on cars and not enough on transit.

“The misguided approach of just trying to get the red out by widening roads and adding interchanges is only going to squander our tax dollars,” he said.

Schwartz advocates policies that promote sustainable communities where people can eat, work and play in one spot. He urged NVTA members to fund mass transit options that will solve congestion problems in the long term.

Several citizens who testified seemed to agree with this approach.

“Move the rail projects to the top of the list. Give them the highest priority because they’ll do the most good for the most people,” said Alexandria resident Gail Parker.

“When you’re looking at projects that are efficient, an automobile that’s only carrying one person is not a very efficient mode of transportation,” said Fairfax City resident Douglas Stewart.

Schwartz says constantly widening roads also could convince drivers to abandon carpools and go back to single-occupancy vehicles, which he says is a bad idea.

However, several residents also pointed to Route 28 projects as a good use of transportation dollars.

“Route 28 connects western Prince William to Fairfax and Loudoun and there are several shovel-ready projects that are just awaiting money and could help with congestion relief,” said Nohe.

Kerry O’Brien of Fairfax County is familiar with traffic on the roadway.

“Route 28 is severely congested during the rush hours now. Relief is needed now. It’s not needed in 2035, it’s needed now,” he said.

Jeff Fairfield of the Route 28 Station – South Study Working Group applauded the efforts.

“These projects are shovel-ready. The final designs are ready. The right-of-way has been secured. The construction contracts are ready to go,” he said.

But Jeanine Lawson of Prince William County urged caution.

“I ask you to closely scrutinize the project for widening Route 28 from Linton Hall Road to Fitzwater Drive. That road is on the border of Fauquier County, which isn’t covered in this tax, so I question why you’d do it. The money would be better spent in the Yorkshire section,” she said.

Lawson was referring to a particularly congested stretch of Route 28 on the Prince William County and Fairfax County border between Manassas and Centreville.

Nohe believes both the Linton Hall Road and Yorkshire projects could get money this year.

Currently, the list contains 12 road and 21 transit projects. LeMunyon wants NVTA members to reduce the list to three or four, but Nohe tells WTOP he thinks the final approval list will have 10 to 15 projects.

The NVTA will hold a second public hearing on July 24 at 6 p.m. at Fairfax City’s city hall, then hold a meeting where a few projects could get the green light.

Two more open houses will be held next week:

  • Fairfax County
    Date: June 26th
    Time: 7:00 p.m.
    Location: Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Rooms 4/5, Fairfax, Virginia.
  • Arlington County
    Date: June 27, 2013
    Time: 6:00 pm
    Location: Arlington County Board Room 300, 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22201

Photo courtesy of WTOP/Ari Ashe.

Click here to read the original story>>

Public Gets First Input On Transportation Bill Projects

Posted on by Andrew Brown

nvtaMembers of the public from Loudoun, Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties got their first chance to speak to the full board of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority Thursday night in a public hearing discussing the projects that could receive funding from the General Assembly’s transportation bill that passed earlier this year.

Twenty-two people, including legislators, representatives of local advocacy groups and individuals giving their opinions, went before the board, and dozens more reviewed the almost 50 projects the NVTA is considering. The NVTA’s priority is finalizing a list of projects that will receive funding for FY14, when there is expected to be $190 million available.

NVTA Chairman Martin Nohe, the Coles District Supervisor in Prince William County, gave a 30-minute presentation before anyone spoke, explaining what the NVTA is and how board members plan to implement the funding. $1.6 billion is expect to come to Northern Virginia over the next six years from HB2313, 70 percent of which will be dispersed by the NVTA and 30 percent going directly to each locality: the four counties and the cities of Manassas, Manassas Park, Falls Church and Alexandria.

The money is intended, essentially, to relieve the high levels of congestion that have plagued the area for years, and only figure to get worse. The main bone of contention among those who spoke was the best way to go about doing that.

“There’s a lack of quantitative information right now to evaluate projects with different modes and different types,” Del. Jim LeMunyon (R-67) who was the first to speak, said. “For every million dollars we spend, how many hours are we putting back into the lives of Northern Virginians? We need to know that.”

Residents in Prince William and Loudoun counties almost unanimously applauded the NVTA’s to fund the widening of several segments of Rt. 28 in Loudoun, Fairfax and Prince William counties.

The projects proposed for FY14 funding are “hot spot” improvements between Sterling Boulevard and the Dulles Toll Road in Loudoun, expanding from two lanes to a four-lane divided roadway from Linton Hall to Fitzwater Drive in Prince William, and widening from three to four lanes southbound between the Dulles Toll Road and Rt. 50 and northbound from McLearen Road to the Dulles Toll Road in Fairfax County.

“I’m here to commend your decision to include the Rt. 28 hot spot improvements,” Jeff Fairfield, speaking on behalf of the Rt. 28 Tax District Landowners Advisory Board, said. “These improvements will alleviate congestion. There’s been a tremendous improvement on removing traffic lights, yet we now experience congestion due to a lack of lane capacity.”

“Rt. 28 relief is needed now,” Gary O’Brien of Manassas said. “There are currently several disconnected projects. What it needs is more transportation capacity, right through the system. Try to consolidate the little plans into a larger system.”

Arlington County Supervisor Chris Zimmerman, the chairman of the Project Implementation working group, said the list of projects proposed for funding was built from existing transportation plans, such as the NVTA’s TransAction 2040, and are closest to “shovel-ready.”

“Our aim has been to, No. 1, follow the law” Zimmerman said. “We began by reviewing what the statutes require of us. In developing criteria, that was first and foremost. It has been our intention to use objective criteria and quantifiable criteria to the greatest degree possible. That is what we have been trying to accomplish.

“Many of the projects, by their nature, will take multiple years to do and have multiple parts. It’s a very complex network; there isn’t a silver bullet. It will take a lot of fixing in different places.”

Many Prince William County residents spoke against potential funding of the Bi-County Parkway, a controversial transportation project stretching from I-95 to Rt. 50 in Loudoun, but the project is not among those included for FY14 funding or on the Six-Year Plan.

Perhaps the most scrutinized debate will be how many funds are devoted to transit projects, pedestrian or bicycle projects, and how much will simply be devoted to increasing capacity on the roads network.

“In a great metropolitan area, you cannot ‘get the red out,’” Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said about relieving intense traffic jams. “We have to account for induced traffic. For the peak-hour commute, there’s nothing better than high-capacity transit. I urge you to resist a return to the old approach, which didn’t work, and focused on a transit-oriented, walkable bikeable future that we need to have.”

The NVTA will hold another public hearing July 24 before deciding upon the final FY14 list at 6 p.m. Wednesday, July 24, at Fairfax City Hall. The public comment period before the Project Implementation’s next working group will close next week. The form, and submittal information, can be found here.

Photo courtesy of Leesburg Today.

Click here to read the original story>>

Six-Year Improvement Program: a Blueprint for Failure

Posted on by Andrew Brown

bacon

 

With the adoption of the new Six-Year Improvement Program, the details of Governor Bob McDonnell’s transportation priorities plan are coming into clearer focus. There are some worthy elements to the plan but glaring deficiencies guarantee that Virginia will see minimal benefit from the billions of dollars dedicated to new construction.

On the positive side of the ledger, it is heartening to see that Virginia will get serious about meeting its statutory maintenance obligations. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will spend an estimated $2.3 billion over the next six years to rehabilitate aging bridges. Roughly one in eleven bridges in the state is rated “structurally deficient.” (See “Bad Bridges” for details). VDOT also will dedicate 25% of its formula revenues to repairing deteriorating pavement on state interstates and primary roads. (It’s not clear from published reports, however, whether this work will address the aging sub-structure of these roads, which account for much of the deterioration.)

Second, VDOT will apply 5% of formula revenue to “smart roadway” projects, which will utilize sensors, video, wireless communication, artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies to do a better job of synchronizing traffic signals, clearing accidents and communicating information to drivers. If executed properly, these investments can increase the capacity of existing traffic arteries at significantly lower cost than constructing more lanes.

On the other hand…. Stewart Schwartz, executive director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, sums up the negatives in a press release issued yesterday after the Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting:

“We are shocked by the lack of discussion of the spending priorities in the Six-Year Plan, by the failure to tie the program to specific policy goals, and the assumption that simply adding road capacity will solve our transportation problems.  The plan includes a number of wasteful mega-projects that have been strongly criticized as unnecessary including Route 460 ($1.4 billion), the Coalfields Expressway ($2.8 billion), Charlottesville Bypass ($244 million), N-S Corridor ($1 billion plus), and a long range $11.4 billion plan for I-81.

The CTB doesn’t understand the benefits of more efficient land use – of cities, towns, and compact transit-oriented development –  along with transportation demand management programs (carpooling, telecommuting etc), that reduce driving demand.  They don’t understand changing demographics and market demand that have led to big declines in vehicle miles traveled.  The plan includes just 9% of the total for transit even though 69% of the state population lives in the Urban Crescent.

In short, we believe this program will be remembered for squandering billions of tax dollars while making Virginia’s patterns of development less efficient, more oil dependent and less competitive.”

I couldn’t have said it better. My only point of difference with Stewart is that I have no faith that the extra $500 million allocated to rail and public transportation (bringing the total to $2.9 billion) will be spent any more effectively than the money dedicated to roads. When funding decisions are based upon politics rather than objective Return on Investment analysis, the potential exists for rail and public transit projects to be every bit as wasteful as road projects.

Virginia’s decision-making process for allocating transportation dollars is a mess. It is bureaucratic, cumbersome and lengthy. Once projects make it into the pipeline, they rarely get re-evaluated in the light of changing travel trends or market conditions. The CTB exercises no independent review over the priorities handed down by the McDonnell administration. Functioning as regional advocates and conduits of information to the administration, CTB representatives do their most important  work behind the scenes. By the time projects are formally reviewed during CTB meetings, the decisions have already been made. Additionally, there are major transparency issues associated with Public Private Partnership mega-projects. The need for confidentiality when the state negotiates with private-sector partners conflicts with the need for public disclosure before the final deal has been struck.

The McDonnell administration has made no effort whatsoever to address these process issues. It has made no effort to re-evaluate projects in the funding pipeline in the light of new demographic, travel and development trends. And it has made no effort to better align transportation planning and land-use planning. The entire approach has been marked by spending as much money as possible to build as many projects as possible. Bottom line: The McDonnell administration has borrowed billions of dollars and raised our taxes in order to pour more money into a broken system.

Photo courtesy of James Bacon.

Click here to read the original story>>

VDOT to increase spending on deficient bridges

Posted on by Andrew Brown

richmond

VDOT will spend nearly $2.3 billion to upgrade the state’s bridges over the next six years.

“We’re going to spend $564 million in additional state money on bridge reconstruction and rehabilitation,” said state Transportation Secretary Sean T. Connaughton. “This isn’t just about infrastructure. This is about ensuring the public safety.”

The goal is to make sure the percentage of structurally deficient bridges remains less than 8 percent of the state’s nearly 21,000 bridges and culverts.

“There’s a large backlog of bridge maintenance projects that we’re now going to be able to get to,” Connaughton said at the Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting Wednesday in Richmond.

This year, 7.5 percent of Virginia bridges were rated structurally deficient, the Virginia Department of Transportation said.

Nationally, 11 percent of 607,000 road bridges were considered in poor repair, according to figures from the Federal Highway Administration. The average U.S. bridge is 42 years old.

VDOT says that bridges slated to be replaced as structurally deficient in the Richmond region include those carrying Interstate 64 over Airport Drive in Henrico County, Interstate 195 over the Powhite Parkway in Richmond, U.S. 1 over railroad tracks at Bellwood in Chesterfield County, and state Route 13 over Sallee Creek in Powhatan County.

The funds for accelerated bridge work are part of the state’s $17.6 billion allocation for transportation programs for the fiscal year that begins July 1 and continues through the fiscal year that ends June 2019.

The six-year transportation program, including new funding sources for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, is $6.2 billion larger than last year’s approved plan, a 54 percent increase. The state Transportation Board approved the new six-year program Wednesday.

The funding increase largely springs from revenue the General Assembly provided this year, the first significant infusion of money into the state’s cash-strapped transportation system since 1986.

Not everyone was pleased with the spending plan.

“This program will be remembered for squandering billions of tax dollars while making Virginia’s patterns of development less efficient, more oil dependent and less competitive,” said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

The plan includes a number of “wasteful mega-projects that have been strongly criticized as unnecessary,” Schwartz said, citing $1.4 billion for the new U.S. 460; $244 million for the Charlottesville Bypass project; the $1 billion-plus North-South Corridor highway in Northern Virginia; and the $2.8 billion Coalfields Expressway in Southwest Virginia.

“We are shocked by the lack of discussion of the spending priorities in the six-year plan, by the failure to tie the program to specific policy goals, and the assumption that simply adding road capacity will solve our transportation problems,” Schwartz said.

The May 23 collapse of an Interstate 5 bridge in Mount Vernon, Wash., has drawn national attention on the issue of bridge safety. In the I-5 incident, a 160-foot span of the four-lane bridge collapsed into the Skagit River after a tractor-trailer with an oversized semitrailer struck the span’s overhead truss structure.

To eliminate the nation’s deficient bridge backlog by 2028, the U.S. needs to invest $20.5 billion annually, though only $12.8 billion is being spent currently, the American Society of Civil Engineers said in its 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.

According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, being classified as structurally deficient does not mean a bridge is unsafe.

If a Virginia bridge’s structural rating sinks too low, state highway officials post a lower weight limit on it and increase its frequency of inspections. In the worst case, VDOT closes bridges in poor condition.

Photo courtesy of P. Kevin Morley.

Click here to read the original story>>