Dear Governor-Elect McAuliffe: Congratulations on your victory and thank you for your support for so many of our conservation and smart growth priorities. With regard to transportation, we are particularly pleased with your support for building sustainable communities, seeking the least intrusive solutions, adapting infrastructure to serve community needs, and commitment to “pulling the plug” on transportation projects that fail to meet these standards. In keeping with those priorities…
Author: Elena Sorokina
Testimony to DC Zoning Commission on Zoning Update (ZC 08-06A Subtitle C – Parking & IZ FNL)
We are here to express support for the proposed reductions and removal of parking minimums in Subtitle C. The current proposal is a compromise that has been considered and revised repeatedly since 2008 due to extensive public input. While we disagree that parking minimums serve a compelling public purpose and believe that they can be harmful, however, we support the compromise proposed in Subtitle C as a greatly improved policy over the status quo.
Testimony Re: Pulling the Plug on the Bi-County Parkway and North-South Corridor
In keeping with those priorities, we are writing this joint letter to you to urge you to reject the McDonnell administration’s proposed Bi-County Parkway and associated North-South Corridor. The Bi-County Parkway is not just a road project — it is the project in Northern Virginia that would have the largest negative impact on the environment.
Leave the 1950s Behind: Curtailing the Harm of Minimum Parking Requirements
One of the most effective ways to reduce traffic, pollution, and housing costs is to encourage a shift to more sustainable transportation modes through reforming parking requirements. Through smarter management and reduced subsidies and requirements for parking, people can better choose if they want to drive and park, or opt for a more sustainable mode of transportation. For over fifty years, the D.C. zoning code has required almost all new construction in the city to include off-street parking even when unnecessary. The 1958 zoning code’s automobile-oriented vision of the city’s needs is no longer appropriate in today’s world of high costs for housing and car ownership, congested roads, and global warming. In contrast to the 1950s view of the future where riding transit would be replaced by driving, and car ownership would be nearly universal, we live in a different reality today. Since the 2000s, the country and D.C. have experienced a pronounced drop in the amount that people drive, after decades of increase. While low car ownership rates are associated with lower incomes, car-less by choice is also increasing among households who could afford a car. Today, 38% of D.C. households are car free. Car free living by necessity or choice offers a more affordable option for a large share of D.C. households. Our zoning regulations should recognize this.
Demand for urban living is being reshaped by the desire of the largest American generation, Millennials (born 1983-2000), who are seeking to live in more urban and less automobile dependent places. The revolution in mobile Internet-connected technologies and social networking are making transportation alternatives to not owning a personal vehicle more convenient, allowing a larger share of households to adopt for car free and car-light lifestyles with dramatically reduced rates of driving and individual car ownership. Baby boomers too are seeking more convenient, urbane places as empty nesters and retirees downsize. D.C. has benefited from these trends as our population has grown since 2000, and shot up in the last two years when we added over 30,000 new residents, more than the total added over the last decade. D.C. can accommodate more people living and working in the city, but if they all brought cars, our streets would not be able handle the added traffic.
Evidence of long term trends show declining demand for driving and car ownership, and accelerated demand for living and working in transit-rich, walkable, bikable urban neighborhoods and business districts. To ensure that D.C. successfully manages its turnaround from a shrinking to growing city, it needs to build on the strengths that are retaining and attracting residents. At the heart of D.C.’s success is its acclaimed walkability, supported by an extensive transit system. Neighborhoods with the greatest walkability and accessibility are attracting most of D.C.’s new residents. Updating the zoning code to better accommodate this demand, will help make housing more affordable, and foster the trend away from individual car ownership and its associated driving and traffic congestion.
Testimony to DC Zoning Commission on Zoning Update (ZC 08-06A Subtitle I – Downtown Parking)
Good evening Chairman Hood and Commissioners:
We wish to express our support for the proposed reforms to the 1958 zoning code which would eliminate
minimum parking requirements from the downtown. We agree with this proposal is particularly
appropriate given the dynamics of the Downtown zone. The area has the highest level of transit service (a
near perfect score of 99 for its transit score, and a 97 Walk Score) in the city, along with high densities
and low rates of car ownership. Thus not artificially increasing the parking supply through minimum
parking requirements builds on the strengths of downtown. We cannot continue significantly grow the
population and number of jobs downtown if we rely on personal vehicles as a leading means of access
and mobility. The streets simply do not have the capacity. Encouraging or requiring parking for
individual vehicles works against optimizing the limited roadway capacity with more efficient travel
modes such as high capacity transit service. It also consumes valuable space.
While the proposed revisions to Subtitle I’s parking regulations allow for the personal vehicle to remain
an important transportation choice for many residents and visitors, the reforms also recognize that a large
share of DC residents do not depend on getting around by owning a personal vehicle. Roughly half of
downtown residents do not own a car, according to the Census. For renters it’s significantly higher (see
attachment).
Rather than the zoning code attempting to predict how much parking a specific development might need,
we think it best to leave this prediction up to the developer who has a vested interest in the project
succeeding. The justification for the creation of parking minimums in the first place was to prevent
spillover parking demand on public streets. Given that on-street parking for residents is highly limited in
downtown, the case is even clearer for removing parking mandates. Even where there are pockets of RPP
zones, if a new residential development is marketing to a car-owning household, it will build the parking
required to secure the lease or sale since on-street parking would be highly unreliable. The government is
not in a good position to predict how much parking a particular development might need, but retaining a
minimum requirement runs the risk of building too much parking. The harm in building more parking
than people want to buy, rent or use is that it wastes space, increases costs, and subsidizes car ownership
since the full cost of constructing a parking space is often not paid by the user.
Encouraging alternatives to driving and car ownership have many public benefits, thus it’s something that
public policy should support. In addition to the harms of pollution and crashes generated by driving,
traffic congestion downtown calls for a more efficient use of limited public space to provide access to an
2
increasing number of people traveling into and around downtown. There is only so much room for
vehicles on existing roadways. This limited space should be available to those who need a personal
vehicle for a specific kind of trip or mobility need, or for more efficient modes like transit, walking and
bicycling. For those how do not need to drive a personal car, we should encourage attractive alternatives.
Part of this encouragement means supporting better transit, walking and bicycling. It also means
supporting convenient options like carsharing. Mandating minimum levels of personal vehicle parking
works against these encouragements and adds unnecessary traffic. Parking supply, especially when the
user does not pay the full cost, will generate additional vehicle trips. Thus by limiting and managing the
supply of parking, traffic can be reduced and the efficiency of the transportation system enhanced.
Drivers who need to drive also benefit from this because they will compete for space with fewer
motorists.
Years of research and experience show that eliminating parking minimums and effectively managing on-
street parking, especially downtown, are appropriate approaches to reducing traffic congestion while
fostering growth and increasing access and travel choices. Many cities have removed parking minimums
from their downtowns. We should recognize that we already have a partial elimination of parking
minimums downtown in that office space is not required to build parking. Despite no minimums,
developers continue to build parking for office workers. We can see that this policy alone does not either
prevent the market from adding to the parking supply. Nor does it adequately address the negative
impacts of encouraging single occupancy vehicle travel in downtown when many drivers could be
encouraged to opt for alternative modes of transportation.
Not only is removing parking requirements a sound approach, we also ask that the Zoning Commission
revisit setting maximums. We appreciate and support the proposal to require modest mitigation measures
if the level of parking supply excessively exceeds the minimum (or what it would be for the zone if the
requirement is removed as for downtown). We agree that the threshold should be twice the base zone
parking requirement, not 1.5 times, and not adding in the transit proximity reduction as part of the
minimum floor.
1956 Lewis report, which formed the basis of the 1958 zoning code, cites the upward trends in car
ownership, increased fuel consumption, and declining transit ridership as reasons for off-street parking
requirements. Today, we see the other end of those trends – declining rates of driving, a downward trend
in fuel consumption, a larger share of young adults not obtaining drivers licenses. i We also see increased
use of transit by DC residents, and bicycle commuting increasing by 2.5 times in recent years. The
percent of car-less households is stable and declining. In 2000, just under 37% of DC households did not
own a car. Despite a huge influx of 60,000 new and more affluent residents, this number remained stable
and inched to 38%. Thus the potential to grow without adding a corresponding number of cars is
happening.
Today in DC not owning a car has never been easier. In downtown, transportation choices are many.
Eliminating and reducing parking minimums will help support these choices. Walking to nearby stores is
increasingly an option for more residents in more downtown neighborhoods. Bicycling is better
accommodated on streets enabling more people to take advantage of the opportunity, especially with
bikesharing, and smart phone technology makes transit and taxi services more usable. A variety of
carsharing services offer a driving option when one is needed. Online shopping and home delivery also
offer convenience. I’d recommend buying your baby’s diapers online and have them delivered to your
front door – whether or not you own a car.
A more walkable neighborhood means that more trips can be taken by walking. Shopping trips tend to be
3
more frequent and the amount purchased each time less than a car-oriented suburban lifestyle where
driving to and from the store can be an unpleasant experience and not feel particularly convenient.
When a trip is best taken by car, there are many options that the 38% of DC households use to get
around. We should seek to help all DC neighborhoods offer the right mix of stores, services, transit
options, carsharing vehicles to allow more DC residents the choice to shed the cost and hassle of personal
car ownership. Downtown is becoming a better place to live. It offers more stores and services than just a
few years ago, and has experienced tremendous growth. We build on the strength of downtown by
seeking to enhance walkability. New vehicle parking will be built in new developments, and existing
excess parking will be better shared, especially with the help of the proposed reforms to the zoning code.
All these positive changes and existing conditions demonstrate that a minimum parking requirement is
unnecessary and potentially harmful.
Thank you for your consideration.
CSG Letter in Support of EYA Takoma Metro Joint Development Agreement
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington, D.C. region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Our mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make those communities flourish.
Testimony to DC Council Committee on Finance and Revenue: Support for the Truth in Affordability Reporting Act of 2013
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. We are a regional organization based in the District of Columbia focused on ensuring transportation and development decisions are made with genuine community involvement and accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more housing and travel choices, and conserving our natural and historic areas.
Testimony to DC Zoning Commission on Zoning Update (ZC 08-06A Subtitles X, Y and Z, General Processes and BZA/ZC Procedures)
Dear Chairman Hood and members of the Commission: Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington, D.C. region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Our mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make those communities flourish.
Will Terry McCauliffe Sign Off on a Notorious Sprawl Project in NoVa?
With Terry McAuliffe about to move in to the Virginia governor’s mansion, it’s unclear what will become of one of the state’s most contested transportation proposals — the Bi-County Parkway, a $440 million highway in the outer D.C. suburbs.
Though it seems likely the current administration of Republican Governor Bob McDonnell will make a forceful push to get approvals sealed before the end of the year, the timeline is tight. Then there’s the big question of how McAuliffe, a Democrat, will manage the controversial proposal.
As planned, the four-lane divided highway would run 10.4 miles north-south between Route 50 and Route 66, two notoriously clogged commuter roads into D.C.
Critics of the Bi-County Parkway — who have been varied and outspoken — warn that the new highway would do little to ease congestion, and would in fact create even more traffic in this mixed region of farmland, cul-de-sacs, and Civil War landmarks. Smart growth advocates see the developers salivating over the project and predict that the road will simply perpetuate the trend of isolating housing from jobs.
“From what we see, all it’s going to encourage is more residential development in an area that lacks sufficient infrastructure,” said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “It’s putting more cars on top of the funnel.”
The proposal is at a critical juncture now, with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) aiming to submit a final environmental impact statement to the feds by the end of the year — before McDonnell leaves.
McDonnell has aggressively pushed the Bi-County Parkway, even going so far as to hire a public relations firm to pitch the project.
“He has fast-tracked the planning and approvals and all that,” said James Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion, a Virginia public policy blog. “He clearly made it a priority.”
And though several aspects of the project are still tied up in negotiation — particularly due to the government shutdown — many believe McDonnell will make an all-out effort to get Federal Highway Administration sign-off before 2014.
“The McDonnell Administration is flooring the gas pedal… hoping to get final approval before their time runs out,” wrote Morgan Butler, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an email. “The administration has downplayed (or ignored outright) major community and environmental impacts and given short shrift to alternatives, as they try to get their pet projects to a point of no return before they leave office.”
A study published by SELC and other smart growth and environmental groups this summer, “Rethinking the Bi-County Parkway,” argues that the project won’t help the region’s biggest transportation problem — east-west travel — and will undermine preservation goals for Manassas National Battlefield Park. Instead of the highway, the report recommends transit improvements like extensions for Metro and VRE and an express bus on Route 50. VDOT has not formally analyzed any of those other options.
Critics of the Bi-County Parkway have also worried the project will help resurrect old plans for other roads, like a 45-mile “north-south corridor of significance,” and even a larger “Outer Beltway,” which VDOT has denied.
VDOT’s pitch is that the new highway will ease congestion by increasing connectivity between Loudon and Prince William counties and replacing a route through the battlefield park. Supporters have also said the highway will spur more air cargo activity at Dulles Airport, though a researcher at George Mason University disputed that claim.
So far there’s no definitive indication of how the next administration will deal with the Bi-County Parkway. When the topic came up during election debates, McAuliffe avoided taking a firm stand, saying he needed more facts. McAuliffe’s Republican opponent, Ken Cuccinelli, was more forthright in opposing the proposal, though he expressed support for some type of north-south connector.
For some voters, the issue was enough to bring them over to the “Democrats for Cuccinelli” camp, said Charlie Grymes, chair of the Prince William Conservation Alliance. Even more interesting, he said, was the way it forced some Virginia delegates to mark their positions. Bacon’s Rebellion also noted the unusual camaraderie the issue forged between populist conservatives and liberal smart-growth advocates.
While Cuccinelli’s stance stemmed from his fiscal conservatism, McAuliffe has made it clear that he intends to pour big bucks into transportation. As Politico notes, his campaign played up his support for Virginia’s new law to raise $1.4 billion for infrastructure through increased sales taxes and other fees.
To Bacon, that may make McAuliffe more inclined to support wasteful projects like the Bi-County Parkway.
But The Washington Post also notes that McAuliffe’s platform highlighted “elements that appeal to advocates of livable, walkable communities.”
Schwartz sees the new administration as a fresh opportunity to examine alternatives. With McAuliffe “walking into a transportation agency which enjoys significantly higher levels of funding,” he said, it’s going to be “incumbent to look at how we can spend funds more wisely.”
Also critical will be McAuliffe’s decisions about transportation leadership. Many view the Bi-County Parkway as a pet project of Sean Connaughton, the current transportation secretary.
“Once he’s gone, the project’s going to lose a big backer,” said Bacon. “On the other hand, the political constellation around it won’t disappear.”
BRT Advocates Urge Council to Make Friendship Heights Connection
The Coalition for Smarter Growth says the County Council needs to extend a bus rapid transit route planned for Wisconsin Avenue south to Friendship Heights.
The proposal took a big hit on Friday, when the Planning Department, which included the BRT line all the way to the D.C. line in its master plan, reversed course and agreed with Council staff that it should stop at a planned Bethesda Metro entrance on Elm Street.
The three-member Transportation Committee was split, producing a 1-1-1 vote for keeping the section of BRT to Friendship Heights, getting rid of it entirely and drawing it as a dotted line to indicate the county would study it if and when D.C. looked at transit of its own for Wisconsin Avenue.
The Coalition, a D.C. based nonprofit advocating for bus rapid transit, put out a press release on Monday urging the full Council to reconsider:
Stopping the route at Bethesda, instead of connecting it an additional 1.5 miles to the D.C. border could shortchange the area and the county in several ways, supporters said.
“With traffic congestion rising and the possibility of local Metro stations shut down for extensive repairs, residents in our area are seeking more options for getting north to Bethesda and beyond, or to Friendship Heights and D.C.” said Chevy Chase resident Ronit Dancis. “BRT would be a great new option for our neighborhoods.”
Residents in the Chevy Chase West neighborhood are opposed to BRT south of Bradley Lane because of safety issues and because they think it would make it more difficult to turn in and out of the neighborhood. Council staff analyst Glenn Orlin dismissed those fears, but said he was against extending BRT into Chevy Chase because he didn’t see who would use it.
The Coalition for Smarter Growth’s release cites developers JBG and the Chevy Chase Land Company as supporters of extending BRT south. Both developers have properties in downtown Bethesda and Friendship Heights. Other supporters include the Friendship Heights Transportation Management District Advisory Committee, the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce and Ward 3 Vision, a partner group of the Coalition for Smarter Growth that operates in D.C.
“Cutting short this key route would sever an important transit connection between Montgomery County and D.C., putting more cars on the road and make both Bethesda and Friendship Heights less competitive locations for business,” the Coalition of Smarter Growth’s Kelly Blynn said in the release. “Extending the route has few downsides. The plan proposes wider sidewalks and an improved pedestrian environment, while recommending no changes to the median or street width.
“Connecting the Montgomery Rapid Transit to Friendship Heights will enhance transit connections with D.C and its extensive bus network and the city’s own growing express network. The BRT link on 355 between Bethesda and Friendship Heights is a critical connection that needs to be made,” Blynn said.
The Transportation Committee will host two more worksessions on BRT on Tuesday.