Category: Testimony & Letters

Maryland: Comments in Support for Senate Bill 623: Transit Review and Evaluation

We would like to express our strong support for SB 623. This bill will help the state and local transit and transportation agencies save limited funds while providing better transit service. By moving buses faster (or light rail vehicles), transit agencies can simultaneously save money, improve service for passengers, and attract new riders and fares. This bill would direct MDOT to establish the tools needed to assess when and where to deploy roadway operational improvements for transit vehicles so that we can take full advantage of efficiencies and make the most of existing transit service. Road-running transit service can realize cost savings, travel time reductions, and reliability improvements through a suite of measures that can be applied incrementally or all at once.

Letter to Secretary Connaughton and the Commonwealth Transportation Board

Letter to Secretary Connaughton and the Commonwealth Transportation Board

Letter expressing concerns about the Tri-County Parkway, as well as the proposed north-south corridor in Northern Virginia as a Corridor of Statewide Significance.

Maryland: Testimony on Transportation Trust Fund

Our position on HB 1001 is derived first from the Transportation for Maryland principles which call for smarter investments of our limited transportation funds. We believe that before we can ask Marylanders to pay more, we must ensure that we know our money will be used wisely. The proposed bill does not address how proposed increased revenues will be used. We need assurance that the new funding will be used to meet the state’s most urgent needs such as maintenance and support smart growth outcomes. Simply putting more towards money the existing list of transportation projects will not achieve this goal, nor will we ever have unlimited money to maintain our existing transportation system and build new facilities to support our community and economic development objectives. We must choose wisely.

DC: Testimony regarding DDOT Oversight Hearing

Over the last few years, DDOT has tremendously progressed as an agency. Beginning with the formation of DDOT under Dan Tangherlini in the Williams Administration, the Department is evolving into a 21st century agency addressing the problems and needs of a growing, multimodal city. Rather than being stuck in an old mindset that focused on speeding cars in and out of downtown and through our neighborhoods, DDOT has worked to build a more robust, multimodal transportation network that includes not only motor vehicles, but better transit, safer walking, innovative bicycle facilities, carsharing, and Capital Bikeshare in all 8 wards of the city. DDOT has also made advances in transportation demand management (TDM) and parking management. Over the last few years, we have made great progress towards a city that offers better and safer transportation choices, and travel options that reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. We applaud this progress and look forward to working with the Gray Administration and this Council to take our transportation system to sustain these gains and advance to the next level.

DC: Comments on the Process of Public Land Dispositions

I have dealt extensively with the office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development in land dispositions and the implemenation of Inclusionary Zoning. I would like to offer a number of comments focused on the process of public land dispositions. I was deeply involved in the process to give a parcel to a private developer in downtown Ward 7 at Minnesota Ave. and Benning Road and have been involved in others to a lesser degree.

DC: Testimony in Support of Inclusionary Zoning

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a regional nonprofit based in DC. I would like to express my support for the good work of the Office of Planning. In addition to diligent work on small area plans and development review, the Office of Planning’s major effort to revise and update our outmoded, 1950s zoning code is coming to completion this year. I have appreciated how DCOP has engaged the public through working groups, and provided us with new research and analysis to support a robust discussion. OP’s detailed assessment and proposed code revisions will help us fulfill the 2006 Comprehensive Plan vision to build a sustainable, inclusive city.

Montgomery County: Testimony Regarding the Falkland Chase Plan

We have weighed the concerns expressed by a variety of residents and groups regarding the best course for the Falkland North site. The decision regarding the historic designation of the south and west parcels, and the redevelopment of the existing buildings and grounds of the north parcel will continue to be one of earnest disagreement among some stakeholders. Opponents of redevelopment of the north parcel point to the distinctive social and architectural history of the site and the loss of numerous mature native trees. We acknowledge that these are indeed significant losses. However, we believe that the benefits of the proposed project for Falkland Chase North outweigh these losses, along with the preservation of the historic south and west parcels. After careful review of plans, reports, a brief site visit, and comments from opponents and proponents, we believe that this project has many local, county and regional benefits.

Testimony before the D.C. Zoning Commission regarding: SUPPORT for Case No. 08-06 (Comprehensive Zoning Regulations Review: Parking)

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, 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.

Overall, we strongly support the proposed regulations in Case Number 08-06 to largely eliminate minimum vehicle parking requirements and establish maximums. We support enabling shared parking to fulfill minimums, carsharing requirements, and bicycle parking and related facilities requirements.

We have been extensively involved in the Zoning Review and the Comprehensive Plan revision. I participated in the parking workgroup and actively engaged in many of the discussions and correspondence around the proposed vehicle parking standards. I’ve submitted extensive testimony, data and analysis regarding the harm of minimum parking requirements, especially in areas with high transit accessibility. I request that tonight’s testimony be viewed in light of the several submissions I have made to the record for this process.

The need to largely eliminate minimum parking requirements: DC Office of Planning has provided a thorough explanation of the need to revise DC’s 1950s zoning regulations for vehicle and bicycle parking and largely eliminate vehicle parking minimums. The costs of oversupply of parking are high, if obscured. We know that parking supply is a key determinate for how many vehicle trips a particular land use will generate. We welcome the resurgence of DC with vacant buildings rehabilitated and vacant lots turned into mixed use buildings, but we agree that this new activity in businesses, employment and housing cannot bring with it a tide of new traffic flowing into new parking spaces. Our street network does not have the capacity to manage these increased volumes. Instead, we need to ensure that alternatives to driving are increasingly attractive, and that living in the city closer to jobs is more affordable. Largely eliminating minimum parking requirements and establishing maximums in transit zones and downtown are critical steps to ensuring our city’s economic growth is sustainable. Eliminating minimums and instituting maximums will also make housing and business space less costly.

Appropriate parking maximums and special exceptions: Regarding the proposed alternatives for parking maximums, we have considered the OP, DDOT original and modified maximums and consulted with businesses contacts. Setting the right limit on where the city needs to intervene to protect the broader public interest from the harms of too much parking is a difficult exercise. We believe that OP’s limits are far too conservative to protect the public interest.

We believe that both DDOT proposals are sound approaches to setting a maximum in a way that does not interfere with attracting quality, responsible and profitable development. DDOT’s main argument for maximums is that the street network cannot function with significant increases in parking due to the added vehicle trips it would generate. While we think that the original proposal from DDOT would work, we accept the modified proposal which increased the number of spaces in a single facility from 250 to 500 in TOD areas, and the ratio for retail to 2.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. Using these parameters, the misguided oversupply of parking at DC USA would have required a reduction or special exception. It should be noted that DC USA had to obtain a variance to reduce its parking ratio.

We concur with the use of special exceptions as a way to provide flexibility to developers to balance competing demands of a project. A special exception to build more parking than allowed under the maximum limit requires a Transportation Demand Management plan (TDM) approved by DDOT. A TDM plan reduces the number of vehicle trips generated through a variety of incentives such as transit passes to employees and residents, carharing memberships, and enhanced bicycle facilities. We believe that offering a special exception with a TDM plan is a reasonable approach to setting an easier standard to meet than a variance. It also creates a predicable process for developers. The requirement for a TDM plan is critical because it establishes the measures to reduce vehicle trips generated from the parking supply of the project. This is a sensible approach that protects the public from excessive vehicle trips on local streets while responding to the need to provide flexibility and predictability to developers.

DDOT should address on-street parking management, which is the real conflict: The zoning code’s mandates for off-street parking supply are a costly and ineffective response to addressing neighbors’ concerns about competition over undervalued on-street parking. We suggest that DDOT better manage on-street parking demand with a more market-based response to residential parking demand, and conflicts with spillover from commercial parking demand in residential neighborhoods. DDOT acknowledges this but needs to do much more. Increased management includes extended hours and weekend days for Residential Parking Permit (RPP) enforcement, elimination of 2 hour free period in high demand RPP zones and replacement with multispace meters for visitor parking; matching the number of RPPs to available curbspace through market pricing in high demand zones (e.g. Adams Morgan, Columbia Heights). We note that DC USA’s 1,000 poorly utilized off-street parking spaces have next to no effect on demand for on-street parking in the Columbia Heights neighborhood. DDOT has piloted some new management measures for on-street parking in this neighborhood, but needs to do more.

Bicycle parking standards are key to expanding bicycling as a significant transportation mode: We want to reiterate our support for the proposed bicycle standards. Bicycling is increasing as the city offers more on-street facilities and trails, and as a growing population chooses to be close to jobs and services. Showers and changing rooms are also important for bicycle commuters and also offer a more general amenity to workers who wish to run during lunch. Encouraging more bicycling is desirable for the city because it is a transportation mode that emits no pollution, requires less space on the street and is low cost. Bicycling and walking also provide health benefits through physical activity.

In conclusion, we urge you to adopt these proposed regulations. We believe this proposal fulfills the intention of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and builds on the strength of our city as we prepare for a future of rising demand to live and work in efficient, convenient, walkable, affordable, and transit- accessible communities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cheryl Cort
Policy Director

Montgomery County: Testimony regarding the White Flint Development Tax District Transportation Infrastructure Improvements

We would like to express our support for the White Flint Sector Plan and urge the Council and County Executive to create a feasible transportation infrastructure financing plan to move this effort forward without delay. We call on the Council to work with the Executive to establish a financing plan that is fair, accelerates redevelopment, and rightfully places this high value Metro-oriented development plan as a top priority for County and state transportation spending. The urgent need to create a workable, timely transportation financing plan requires us to rethink our spending priorities.

Testimony to the COG/BOT Commission on WMATA Governance

As you know I have been very critical of how this panel was established and by its failure to include rider representatives and members of non-business stakeholder groups, therefore my appearance should not be seen as endorsement of the panel. It is a great loss to this panel not to be able to tap into some of the great expertise that we now find among the riders and whose intelligent and creative analysis you can see in outlets such as Greater Greater Washington.