CNU blogs

Breakfast links: Shorter streetcar (for now)

Greater Greater Washington - 2 hours 32 min ago
by Russ Doubleday


Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.A shorter shortlist: DC has picked a three-team shortlist for its contract to build and manage the DC streetcar. But the contract for now only covers 8.2 miles instead of the full 22 that the administration had hoped for earlier this year. (City Paper)

New roads, more cars: Economists have definitively concluded that new roads induce demand for driving. In the short term, congestion pricing can help unclog roads, while investing in public transit is a clear long-term solution. (Vox)

MoCo's first cycle track: Montgomery County began installing its first cycle track yesterday in White Flint. The street used to have curb parking but with the cycle track, the street can still accommodate street parking. (BethesdaNow)

Americans support transit: When it comes to transportation spending, Americans support expanding transit over new roads. A poll finds 54% of Americans want to build more transit, while 41% prefer building new roads. (Streetsblog)

Easy names: As Loudoun searches for a name its coming Silver Line Metro stations, how about just using the most obvious and simple names possible: Sterling and Ashburn? They should be easy for riders to remember and give a sense of place. (BeyondDC)

Real estate concerns: Metro ridership is falling, and commercial real estate companies are taking notice. A stagnant local economy, a declining federal workforce, and telecommuting are driving real estate concerns. (Post)

Jobs drive more mobility: Do people move for jobs or for housing? A new study claims the two are related, but in general, finding a job drives more people to find new housing, while the reverse happens less frequently. (CityLab)

Commercial zoning crash: Companies today require less office space, which hurts suburban counties that rely on commercial real estate for tax revenue. In Loudoun County, the commercial market is shrinking, and the county doesn't want to rezone the land as residential. (Bacon's Rebellion, Loudoun Times)

And...: Maryland's next governor may adjust toll rates on the Intercounty Connector. (Post) ... Building the Potomac Yard Metro stop is the top priority for the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce. (Alexandria Times) ... NYC's new tourism posters encourage residents to visit other parts of the city. (CityLab)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

8 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

"Subway driver" is the most unusually common job in Maryland

Greater Greater Washington - Thu, 2014-10-23 14:00
by Canaan Merchant

Live in Maryland and operate a train? You're not alone. A graphic from Business Insider, which has been going around the web for a few months, shows the job that is most out of proportion in each state.

While it's no surprise the job on the map for DC is political scientists and Texas is petroleum engineers, would you have guessed Maryland's would be "subway drivers"?


Graphic from Business Insider. Click for the full image.

It actually makes sense. In addition to Metro trains, Maryland has the Baltimore Subway, Light Rail, and MARC train. That's a lot more transit per capita than most states.

This map uses a Bureau of Labor Statistics measure called "location quotient." That's how frequent the job is in one area (say, 8.3 people per 10,000 jobs) divided by its frequency nationwide. The map shows the job with at least 1,000 workers in each state with the highest location quotient.

Transportation-related careers stand out in a few other states as well. The careers on the map for Alaska, Louisiana, Maine, and Florida all involve navigating waterways. South Carolina gets tire builders, and Washington has a lot of workers who build airplanes. Finally, Vermont has a lot of people maintaining its highways compared to other states.

12 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

Investing in Denver Real Estate. Tips for first time investors

Denver Real Estate - Thu, 2014-10-23 13:54
Have you ever thought about investing in Denver Real Estate? There has never been a better time to own rental properties in Denver with rental rates at an all time high, vacancy rates at an all time low and interest rates back near an all time low. While investing sounds very tempting, it can also be very intimidating and confusing. Ive owned rental properties for the past 7 years in Denver so thought I might give some tips to help get you started. First, just like every Real Estate transaction, it starts with figuring out where you are going to get the money to buy the property. If you have cash, that certainly makes it a lot easier but it is not always the best financial strategy so I always suggest speaking with a lender to get started. You can figure out how much you will have to put down, count on at least 20, and what monthly payments are going to look like so you can start to understand how much rent you will need to cash flow each month.nbsp; Once you have a firm grasp on the financing, then it is about finding a property that works for you. When I start working with an investor, I always ask what their goal is with the property, to maximize cash flow or appreciation. There are lots of properties out there where you will see strong cash flow forever, but the home may not appreciate more than 10 in the next twenty years. Other properties may break even or slightly cash flow, but see 10 appreciation every year and five years from now you could be sitting on a ton of equity. Maybe you are looking for a combination and that is certainly something that an experienced Realtor can help you search for and find the property and neighborhood that best fits your investing goals. Another question I ask my investor clients is how hands on do they want to be? An older home in the Highlands is going to rent for a lot, appreciate a lot, and probably require a lot more maintenance every year than a condo would. Are you willing to get calls in the middle of the night that the furnace is out or there is a leak? Or would you rather be hands off and rely on a property manager or a condo or town home which is almost maintenance free? I have both types of rentals and I can tell you the town home is much less mental strain than the Highlands bungalow. Because of that, for investors who want to try it out and see if being a landlord is for them, I typically suggest starting with a condo or town home. I have a great little condo for sale right now in Capitol Hill that would make a great rental. It is turn key, ready to be rented and priced very attractively at $117,000 meaning your out of pocket expense to get started wouldnt be too crazy. Lets look at some numbers. Based on comparable units that are leased, I would estimate this would rent for $1,000 a month. With 20 down, your monthly payment including HOA would be around $750 a month. So with an investment of $23,000, you would see a return of around $250 a month. Thats a 13 return on investment from the rents alone. This unit is the heart of Capitol Hill at 1421 Pennsylvania so prices are only going to climb around there along with rents. And since it is a condo with no maintenance, a perfect starter investment property. If you are interested in this condo or the investing process in general, please let me know and we can talk more about it. Click here for the details on this condo.nbsp; nbsp;
Categories: CNU blogs

A move to strengthen affordable housing runs into political obstacles

Greater Greater Washington - Thu, 2014-10-23 12:55
by Abigail Zenner

The Gray Administration has had a poor track record of building affordable housing when selling public land. Kenyan McDuffie is trying to set a higher bar, but Gray is trying to gut the bill by proposing a giant loophole that would render the bill virtually toothless. Will Muriel Bowser hold firm or let the loophole in?
Photo by Travis on Flickr.

What's this bill about?

When DC does a deal to develop public land, it's typically required that the project include affordable housing for low-income residents. Mayor Gray, however, has pushed for much less affordable housing than his predecessors Adrian Fenty or Anthony Williams did.

Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5) wants to enshrine a threshold into law. Under his bill, 20-30% of rental housing (more near transit, less elsewhere) would have to go to people making 30-50% of Area Median Income, or about $30,000-50,000 for a family of three. If the building is condos, they could go to people making 50-80% AMI or approximately $50-78,000 for a family of three.

Sometimes that level of affordability isn't feasible. If a piece of public land isn't worth so much, maybe nobody can afford to build there if they have to provide that much affordable housing. Accordingly, McDuffie's bill allows for DC's independent CFO to evaluate the deal and determine if there needs to be a waiver.

What is the loophole?

Gray, however, is proposing cutting out the CFO. The Gray administration wants the mayor's office to decide when there needs to be a waiver instead of involving the CFO.

But this means that the mayor could essentially ignore the law at will. And if he or she does that, the whole process will be a black box to the public, just like it is today, which is one of the main things the McDuffie bill fixes.

In current land deals, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development gets a number of proposals for developing a piece of public land, then picks one without explaining why. Often that decision goes against the wishes of the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission or other local leaders, and while officials shouldn't have to always go with the ANC's recommendation, it's often a big mystery why they chose something else.

We don't know if one of the proposals yielded more public money than another, or if the mayor's office thinks one's amenities are better than another's. And we don't know if and when the mayor is giving up affordable housing without good cause.

Deputy Mayor Jeffrey Miller says the requirement could lead to less affordable housing, rather than more, if the land value doesn't support the required housing. But this is why the CFO (or the Council, for that matter) can grant a waiver.

Miller also says the requirement could get in the way of providing other amenities like libraries or parks. But this is in some sense the whole point: DC needs to commit to actually building affordable housing. Other amenities are important, too, but if there isn't a way for lower-income residents to live in the neighborhood, then building other amenities only boosts the value of more expensive areas without addressing inequality.

Where's Muriel Bowser?

Bowser, who looks likely to become the next mayor, supported the bill in committee, but suddenly seems open to what she calls "administrative tweaks" to the bill. Advocates fear she is going to opt for this loophole big enough to swallow the whole bill.

Certainly, if she is mayor, she might prefer to have free rein. Gray sounded like he's pushing that idea when he said, "As a mayor, obviously, I would not be ecstatic about having legislation that ties the ability of the executive to function, as a general proposition ... I realize the huge importance of being able to have flexibility to get things done."

But the whole reason councilmembers are voting for this bill is because the mayor hasn't done what they think is necessary or appropriate. Bowser would only appreciate the value of a loophole if she's interested in exploiting it at times the CFO wouldn't let her. If she did that, she'd be breaking promises to create affordable housing.

There's no good reason for her to water down the bill. It would only send a message that maybe the public can't trust her commitments on affordable housing. Since she surely means to follow through on her promises, she should keep the loophole out.

22 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

What would you call Loudoun's Metro stations?

Greater Greater Washington - Thu, 2014-10-23 11:27
by Canaan Merchant

Loudoun County wants your help in picking names for new Metro stations on the Silver Line.
Image from PlanItMetro.

Route 606 and Route 772 have been the placeholder names for the two stations west of Dulles Airport, but they're not going to be the permanent ones. Loudoun wants names that are "relevant, brief, unique, and evocative." Officials have presented some possibilities.

For Route 606, the suggestions include "Broad Run," "Dulles Gateway," and three that all have "Loudoun" in the name ("Loudoun East," "Loudoun Gateway," and "Loudoun Dulles North").

Route 772 just has three options: "Ashburn," "Loudoun," and "Loudoun Gateway West."

Station names are important. They can easily identify an area and even change its identity in some ways, like "Van Ness," which has become the name for the whole area around a station just named for a street nearby.

There was a lot of outcry over the the orginal boring station name proposals for the first phase of the Silver Line ("Tysons-McLean," "Tysons I&II," "Tysons Central," "Tysons-Spring Hill Road," "Reston-Wiehle Avenue," "Reston Town Center," "Herndon-Reston West," and "Herndon-Dulles East.") All four Tysons stations were variants on the word "Tysons," while two contained "Reston" and two "Herndon."

Fairfax changed them to more descriptive, unique names that will eventually help the surrounding areas develop distinct identities.

Loudoun might miss that opportunity if both stations end up the word "Loudoun" in the station names as well, or if there are two stations with the word "Dulles." Also, a name that just refers to a large area (Loudoun) with a word like "East" or "West" also doesn't create a neighborhood-level identity the way a unique name can.

Matt Johnson and David Alpert made this map of what the Metro system might look like if every station had a name that sounded like the now-rejected Fairfax options or some of the more boring Loudoun suggestions:


Image by Matt Johnson and David Alpert. Click to enlarge.

WMATA has also struggled with keeping names short, and now has a policy of limiting them to 19 characters. Some of the names are longer.

You can give your opinions at Loudoun's survey, picking from these or adding your own suggestions. And tell us what you like in the comments.

49 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

The 11th Street Bridge Park gets a brilliant design. Will it succeed?

Greater Greater Washington - Thu, 2014-10-23 10:25
by Neil Flanagan

The organizers behind the 11th Street Bridge Park have picked a design that could be the city's most brilliant piece of architecture in decades. Now comes the hard part: making this vision work in a spot surrounded by water rather than homes and businesses.


The winning proposal concentrates activity on the east side of the Anacostia River. All images from the design team.

From a field of four competitors, the jury picked a design team led by the Office of Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), best known in the United States for the Seattle Public Library, and landscape architect OLIN Studios, which designed Canal Park near the Nationals ballpark and will renovate Franklin Park downtown. Together, they created a design that can do what the bridge park's organizers wanted: reconnect neighborhoods on both sides of the Anacostia to the river and each other.


A diagram of the different activities on the bridge.

In the best case scenario, someone walking along the Anacostia up from Poplar Point in summer 2018 would see the riverbanks rise gently for hundreds of feet, crossing to form an X shape. At first glance, it's simple: almost like two logs falling across a stream, some kind of primitive bridge. But up close, the renderings and plans show a string of spaces that would appeal to people across the city.


A section showing how the park is laid out.

The design creates iconic spaces and helps reconnect Anacostia to the river

From a functional perspective, it's best to look at the design like it's an extension of the ground on either bank. A long bar from Capitol Hill interlocks with a loop from Anacostia, making the bridge feel like an outgrowth of the banks and not a discrete transitional space. Multiple programs fill in the in between space. Some are shady and enclosed, like the amphitheater, while others are open and dramatic, like the overlook.


An outdoor theatre would have multiple levels.

The designers also chose to place the anchor elements, like the environmental education center, the cafe, and the playground, closer to the Historic Anacostia side. One reason is to encourage more people to visit the east bank, which I-295 cuts off from the river.

Anacostia also needs those activities more, especially the play space. They will serve a basic need while also generating the traffic that makes parks feel safe. What's better is that the environmental education center has eyes on both the main deck and the secluded space below it.


A detailed section drawing. Click to enlarge.

As the section above shows, the cafe also sits between levels, so someone sitting on the upper lawn can see through the restaurant and onto the environmental center's boat launch below.


Views extend across different levels, improving visibility and making the site feel safer.

The other elements, like the dramatic overlook, the main plaza, and the amphitheater sit closer to the Navy Yard. These are iconic attractions, for tourists, local bikers passing by, and I suspect even weddings, like at New York's equally dramatic Fort Tryon Park.

Finally, the ecological design is appropriately balanced. Along the main paths are spaces that people can play on. They're visible, but not in the way are the hands-off landscapes, like wetlands, oyster banks, and swales to filter rainwater. OLIN found a way to integrate ecological urbanism into the project without compromising the people habitat. They even proposed a wooded berm to block out traffic noise from I-295.


Section drawing showing the design's ecological features.

The project reflects the sophistication of the designers, who have shown that they can stand up to criticism and push their designs as the demands of money, politics and gravity weigh down their vision.

Public input can help this bridge soar

How will the organizers and their team face down the remaining challenges? Some are design issues, as competition entries are never quite figured out, and designers often fill renderings with aspirational eye candy. I think the public can help in this case by identifying those problems constructively and allowing the design team the room to solve them.

Scott Kratz, the man behind the bridge, has done that. He deserves commendation for the long-running and effective public outreach that formed the foundation of the competition designs. Respecting residents as experts in their own lives and the designers as experts in their fields, he has arrived at something that could work well. More of that is ideal.


Trees could buffer the park from I-295.

The bigger challenge is getting people there. This bridge is in the middle of the river, with the Navy Yard at one end and a highway interchange at the other before reaching nearby neighborhoods. That means there's little of the incidental activity that helps public spaces like this to be busy and safe.

New infill development could help, like the planned Maritime Plaza along the river on the north side. So would the redevelopment of Poplar Point, if it ever happens. Even without those, adding more destination activities to the nearby riverbanks, as in the WRT/NEXT design for the bridge, might have the same effect.

If the city builds the streetcar across the river, including a stop at the bridge park, it would open easy access to the park up beyond the immediate neighbors.

But a growing appeal around the park could cause a rise in rents and influx of expensive retail, displacing the groups the bridge was meant to serve. The four or so years before the park opens could be spent developing strategies to add housing diversity without disrupting lives and preventing the poor from enjoying the benefits of good urbanism and great architecture. The bridge has been an excellent catalyst for design, perhaps it can also be a great catalyst for social policy.

In Washington, some people criticize proposed buildings or developments to kill them and preserve the status quo. Meanwhile, designers criticize something with the hope of refining it. What can we refine with the 11th Street Bridge Park? Now is the time to start talking.

46 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

Breakfast links: Discrimination

Greater Greater Washington - Thu, 2014-10-23 09:04
by Nick Finio


Photo by Sascha Kohlmann on Flickr.Unfair bike-on-sidewalk laws: In New York, bike-on-sidewalk laws are enforced much more strongly in black and Latino neighborhoods. 12 of the 15 neighborhoods with the most tickets were majority black or Latino. (Streetsblog)

150 years of DC: A new owner of a Logan Circle rowhouse researched the house's history and that of the neighborhood through settlement by freed slaves, waves of auto repair shops, the 1968 riots, and more. (City Paper)

16th Street bottleneck: 16th Street's bridge over Military Road will be replaced in February. The street will become two lanes, which will cause up to 30-minute delays and affect the S bus routes. (WAMU)

The voice of Metro: Recording the "doors closing" and other announcements for Metro in 2006 launched Randi Miller's career in voice acting. There's been talk of having her record station name announcements. (GW Hatchet)

What St. E could look like: Here are renderings of the visions from four bidders to redevelop St. Elizabeths East. They variously include mixed-use streets, community farmland, a 500-space garage by the Metro, and more. (WBJ)

Tiny houses, big conflicts: Three "tiny houses" in Brookland Stronghold that started out as a showcase of sustainable, efficient living turned into "a Jerry Springer show in a trailer park." What happened? (City Paper)

DC now more efficient: DC now ranks 21st in the country in energy efficiency, moving up from last year, according to a research group. We excel compared to other states in building energy codes and government-led energy initiatives. (DCist)

Glen Echo trail survey: Do you use the former Glen Echo trolley right-of-way in Palisades and Georgetown? The Palisades Citizens Association wants your input to help guide planning to possibly rebuild the bridges and construct a trail.

And...: DC has the second highest number of toilets per capita in the country. (DCist) ... Want to know the salaries of DC public officials? WBJ has the whole database. ... What can we learn from France about transit design? (CityLab)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

26 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

New to the Plans for Ocean Beach?

October 21, 2014Some Common Questions Answered Play Pause

South Ocean Beach 1993-2012: Erosion will continue and likely worsen. San Francisco must adapt. 

  What is the Ocean Beach Master Plan?  The Ocean Beach Master Plan is a long-term vision for Ocean Beach that addresses public access, infrastructure protection, and ecological function in the context of severe coastal erosion and anticipated sea level rise.   Has there been any public outreach? The Plan was developed through a major public and interagency process, involving (to date) five major public workshops and numerous community and stakeholder meetings along with exhibitions, forums, and online surveys. It was led by SPUR, and emerged from more than a decade of work by two community-led task forces, the Ocean Beach Task Force and the Ocean Beach Vision Council.   What is being proposed for the Great Highway? In the Ocean Beach Master Plan, SPUR recommends gradually (over a decade or more) narrowing and eventually closing the Great Highway between Sloat and Skyline, and rerouting North-South auto traffic behind the Zoo via Sloat and Skyline. Streets and intersections along this route would be upgraded to improve their traffic capacity, improve conditions for all road users and prevent major congestion impacts. New coastal access parking would be provided in a safe location near Skyline Boulevard. South of Sloat, a new trail would link Ocean Beach to the Zoo, Fort Funston, and Lake Merced.   Why does the plan propose the eventual closure of part of the Great Highway? This stretch of roadway is exposed to chronic and worsening coastal erosion and will be increasingly difficult to keep open. In 2010, winter storms resulted in the partial closure of this portion of the road for ten months. Bluffs receded forty feet in some locations, threatening not just the road, but wastewater infrastructure as well. Sea-level rise and increased winter storms are projected to worsen these conditions in the coming decades. Inland circulation routes would be safer from coastal hazards.   The space made available by this closure would be used for coastal protection measures, public recreational access, and environmental restoration.    Can't you just protect the road with a hard structure? In theory, yes. A large seawall or boulder revetment could keep erosion at bay for some time. However, Ocean Beach is a National Park, and connects several important open space and habitat areas. Widespread coastal armoring would likely result in significant beach loss, degrading public access and habitat. The National Park Service and the California Coastal Commission, who issue the permits required  for coastal protection measures at Ocean Beach, are unlikely to approve such measures.   In 2011, the California Coastal Commission unanimously rejected a permit application from the City and County of San Francisco for additional coastal armoring. Local advocates, including Surfrider, Golden Gate Audubon, Save the Waves, and others, have also strongly opposed this kind of coastal armoring and instead favor an approach that includes "managed retreat". The Ocean Beach Master Plan proposes a combination of hard structures, managed retreat, and "beach nourishment" (sand placement).   Won't this cause terrible traffic? No. The roadways near Ocean Beach have lots of unused capacity, but some road segments and many intersections are poorly designed and not performing well. The designs in the SPUR proposal would improve those intersections and roadways, allowing us to squeeze more capacity from existing roads. But to make sure this is true, we are developing a detailed traffic analysis.   Of course, occasional big events and and warm weather already result in frustrating congestion and that would inevitably continue. SPUR is engaged in a careful study of the traffic and circulation impacts of these proposals, working with licensed traffic engineers and city agencies to study the results using the city's 40-year forecasting model. This work will be made available to the public and to city agencies for later use in an environmental review process.    What does the plan propose North of Sloat? The Ocean Beach Master Plan includes a proposal to narrow the Great Highway North of Sloat ("Key Move 3"). However, because of community concerns, SPUR is no longer actively pursuing that recommendation. We are working on designs to improve the connection between Golden Gate Park and Ocean Beach, while preserving beach parking and event capacity in that area.    Who funded the Ocean Beach Master Plan? The OBMP and subsequent studies are funded by the California State Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and the National Park Service.   Why is SPUR involved in this process? A basic challenge at Ocean Beach is the many overlapping jurisdictions of different public agencies, each of which has different responsibilities and priorities. These include the National Park Service, the SF Public Utilities Commission, the CA Coastal Commission, The SF Department of Public Works, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the SF Dept of Recreation and Parks, among many others. In addition, many advocates and community stakeholders are involved. SPUR, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, was asked by the Ocean Beach Vision Council to serve a "convening" role, to bring these many voices and perspectives to the table to take a long-term view.    When might these changes take place? These proposals are intended to be implemented gradually, over a decade or more. Because this is an "adaptive" approach, the timing is driven in part by how -- and how quickly -- erosion occurs. Some actions will respond to "triggers" defined by coastal engineers to ensure safety, others by more conventional processes like funding and permitting.   The earliest change likely to occur (probably in 2-3 years) is the narrowing of the Great Highway south of Sloat Boulevard from three lanes to two. As part of repair and restoration from the 2010 storms, the SF Department of Public Works has funds from Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration to complete this work. SPUR is working closely with the city to ensure that this project is coordinated with the long-term vision.   What is the process for a decision on these proposals? To be implemented, the proposals in the Ocean Beach Master Plan need to be subjected to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which would require additional technical analysis, consideration of project alternatives, and public outreach. San Francisco is also initiating a process to update it's "Local Coastal Program" or LCP, a Coastal Commission-approved elemen of the city's General Plan that covers the Coastal Zone (as defined in the Coastal Act).    Is there a deadline for public comment about these proposals? No! Your thoughts are always welcome, and are always gathered and published as part of the project's record. We occasionally establish deadlines for comments on specific issues or meetings, so that we can gather and publish related comments together.    How can I learn more about the Ocean Beach Master Plan? Visit our project website www.spur.org/oceanbeach There you will find the Plan document, along with related news and information, materials from our public workshops, and public feedback. You can also sign up for our mailing list to be notified of future meetings and news.    You can email the project team at oceanbeach@spur.org
Categories: CNU blogs

Alan Howze wants Arlington to adopt Vision Zero

Greater Greater Washington - Wed, 2014-10-22 14:50
by Chris Slatt

Arlington County Board candidate Alan Howze released a call for Arlington to set a goal of zero pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths from vehicle-related collisions.
Image from Walk San Francisco.

These types of goals have become commonly known as "Vision Zero" after the Swedish campaign of the same name that began in 1997. They represent an important challenge to the belief that casualties from our transportation systems are inevitable and unpreventable.

In the United States, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago have adopted Vision Zero policies. DC mayoral candidates David Catania and Muriel Bowser have pledged to establish a program in the District.

Howze lays out a fairly detailed four-pronged action plan:

In order to "make streets safer for all users," Howze calls for identifying neighborhood safety hotpots and to address them within 12 months. He lays out a plan for accelerating safety improvements at the "Intersection of Doom" in Rosslyn and recommends collecting detailed collision data, expanding sidewalks, increasing traffic enforcement and adjusting signal timing to minimize vehicle and pedestrian interactions in intersections.

To "complete safe routes to all Arlington schools," Howze calls for making a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for each school, creating a coordinated County/APS plan to clear sidewalks and provide safe routes within 24 hours of inclement weather, and designing safe bike infrastructure and policies that accommodate "all bikes, especially those used to transport children". Cyclists who ride regularly with trailers or on cargo bikes know that not all bike infrastructure meets this threshold presently.

Howze wants to "expand the trail and route network" including creating "20 miles of protected bike lanes by 2020," completing bike connectivity along Route 50, working with the National Park Service to "widen the Mt Vernon Trail and separate cyclists and runners and pedestrians," and improve connectivity on the Roosevelt Bridge, Chain Bridge, and Memorial Bridge.

Finally the plan lays out some standard "enhance community involvement" items like "improve county outreach and response processes on street safety issues," "accelerate implementation of neighborhood traffic safety solutions," and "improve opportunities for input by residents on street and safety improvements."

Howze will face incumbent John Vihstadt in the November election. Vihstadt has campaigned primarily on halting Arlington's planned streetcar system.

2 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

Live or Invest in Westminster in this Turnkey End Unit Townhome

Denver Real Estate - Wed, 2014-10-22 14:11
nbsp; 8690 Decatur St 210 Westminster, CO 80031. 2 Bedrooms. 2 Bathrooms. 1012 Square Feet. Listed by Sara Wilhelmnbsp;for Live Urban Real Estate. Please contact Saranbsp;for current pricing and availability. End unit with vaulted ceilings. No neighbors above you or to the east. Turnkey starter home or investment property. Includes detached garage - hard to come by in this complex Balcony overlooks open space and mountain views. nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;
Categories: CNU blogs

MARC will add a bicycle car to some weekend trains

Greater Greater Washington - Wed, 2014-10-22 13:45
by Miriam Schoenbaum

MARC plans to allow bicycles on some weekend trains on the Penn Line before the end of the year, a MARC official said last week.
Photo by Eva the Weaver on Flickr.

Bicycle advocates have long asked MARC to allow passengers to bring ordinary bicycles aboard MARC trains. MARC allows only folding bicycles on regular passenger cars.

However, MARC is now spending $359,000 to convert two single-level passenger cars to passenger/bicycle cars, Chief Mechanical Officer Erich Kolig explained to the MARC Riders Advisory Council on October 16. MARC plans to add one bicycle car to certain weekend Penn Line trains. There will be a bicycle symbol on the Penn Line schedule to denote these trains. The other bicycle car will remain in reserve.

The single-level cars have three seats on one side, and two seats on the other. In the bicycle cars, there will be 29 bicycle racks instead of seats on the three-seat side. The bicycle racks will accommodate full-length bicycles, tires ranging in diameter from 10 inches to 29.5 inches, and most fat tires. They are angled to preserve aisle space.

If the bicycle cars on the Penn Line are successful, MARC will convert two more cars and add bicycle service on Friday afternoons on the Brunswick Line, which will allow people to take their bicycles to Harpers Ferry on the train and then ride back to Washington on the C&O Canal trail.

23 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

David Catania on Metro, economic development, streetcars, affordable housing, bike lanes, building heights, and more

Greater Greater Washington - Wed, 2014-10-22 12:00
by David Alpert

We chatted with David Catania, DC councilmember at large and an independent candidate for mayor of the District of Columbia, today at noon. Here is a transcript of the discussion.


Photo by tedeytan on Flickr.

David Alpert: Welcome to our chat. I'm here in Catania HQ with Aimee Custis, Ashley Robbins, Jonathan Neeley, and Abigail Zenner. We'll get started in just a minute.

I am going to be asking questions verbally to Mr. Catania, who will answer verbally. Aimee, Ashley, and Jonathan will be taking turns typing in his words.

That means that if there are any typos, they are our fault and not Mr. Catania's. We suggested this arrangement to ensure we can get a lot of questions and answers in (it has nothing to do with Mr. Catania's typing ability).

I want to ask as many of your questions as possible. Please tweet them with hashtag #ggwchat and I will be able to post them directly to the chat.

David Alpert: Okay, David Catania is here with us. Let's get started!

Welcome to the chat, Councilmember Catania!

David Catania: Thank you very much! I'm really excited to participate. I've been looking forward to this conversation for a long time and I'm eager to get started!

David Alpert: To get started: What makes you the best candidate for mayor of DC?

David Catania: The District of Columbia has had reversals the last twenty years. When I first joined the council, we had a pretty bad budget shortfall. We've worked very had to reverse this trajectory. I have the vision and the values to make that happen.

It's a combination of record and experience coupled with the items I helped champion in my 17 years, and in our vision statement, which you can find at cataniaplatform.com, people can see the specifics of what I'd like to do to secure our city's future.

David Alpert: What initiatives from other cities do you admire and which you would like to bring to DC?

David Catania: During this campaign I've been talking a lot about what Mayor Bloomberg has done at Roosevelt Island. Specifically, the partnership between the city and Cornell and Israel Institute of Technology. It's a very ambitious $2 billion program to double the number of engineers and people with Ph.Ds in engineering in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg understood that financial services is a sector of the economy that's shrinking in New York. Doubling the number of engineers and individuals with PhDs in engineering is critical.

In 2000, I authored the New Economy Transformation Act, which included a host of incentives to bring tech companies to the city. We've been successful under this program. There were financial incentives, and other incentives. We've brought over 200 companies to the city. These companies, in order to grow, have to have a work force that permits them to grow, and that means more engineers than we are producing here locally.

Engineers are incredible job multipliers. Every engineer produces 4.2 jobs. In our city, our two largest industries are government and legal services, and these are not growing industries, in fact they're shrinking. The next mayor has to be consumed with how we'll continue to grow our economy, and I propose an increase in new economy companies.

I'd like to see this growth located on the St. Elizabeth's campus, the same campus as Homeland Security. Successful innovation is often the function of a partnership between government, education, and private sector. I see the St. Elizabeth's campus as a focal point for opportunity in our city.

David Alpert: OK, let's talk about transit for a bit. Andrew asked: In the several years that I've been a resident of DC, late-night, off-peak, and weekend Metrorail service has slowed to a trickle, while WMATA's much-touted bus investments have had little tangible benefit for riders. What will you do to encourage Metro to provide services that are more useful to DC residents?

David Catania: Many of the issues surrounding late night service with Metro is a function of our underinvestment in maintenance in the past. The system is really under a great deal of duress because of that lack of investment, which means it's often harder for us to keep the system in service.

Some of the ideas that are proposed under the Metro Momentum plan, which include additional pocket tracks and investments, will help with reliability but over the next 25 years will cost quite a bit.

I think there's quite a lot we can do about late night service for public transit across the city. It means greater investments in dedicated bus lanes and extended hours, and it means increasing our maintenance budget for Metro through a dedicated funding service so we're not constantly putting band-aids on a system with a legacy of underinvestment.

David Alpert: You mentioned the streetcar program. Earlier this year, the DC Council diverted much of the funding for the streetcar program to tax cuts. What's your plan to fund the streetcar program, and how soon would you enact it once mayor?

David Catania: I'd like to first explain, I have a long history with the streetcars. It started with Dan Tangherlini in 2002 who was with WMATA and I was a WMATA alternate.

In 2004, the very first streetcar proposed was the Anacostia light rail program. It was budgeted, and shepherded it through not only the Council but also WMATA, and I was there ten years ago for the groundbreaking.

The complications associated with the right of way meant that line was moved to H Street. I think it's important to explain this. When it came time to purchase the first three cars, I was instrumental in identifying the first ten million dollars for the first three cars.

In 2004, Dan Tangherlini and I took a leap of faith and bought the cars before we had a system. I believe that created a momentum for the light rail system that has seen it to fruition.

The council during the six-year capital improvement plan did reduce the nine million dollar investment not by half, but significantly. I'm still dedicated to the entire North-South and East-West lines. It may take a few more years to accomplish than proposed but we have to be flexible with it.

When I'm elected mayor, I'm going to look at ways at capturing increased property values and increased assessments of light rail, so the system can be funded by the virtue of increased property taxes created by the increase in property investment.

At the end of the day, its not about whether we'll build East-West versus North-South. I plan to be a part of completing that commitment.

David Alpert: Years ago, you argued that it was important for the streetcar to start in Ward 8. But a lot of people in Ward 8, including the councilmember, don't support it. Do you still think we should build the streetcar there, and if you're mayor, how will you work with Ward 8 to build support for it?

David Catania: I don't think there was ever any accurate polling to suggest a lot of people don't support it. To the contrary, I think there's a lot of evidence people do support it. And that Ward 8 is one of the most transit-dependent communities in the city.

I stand by that view and I hope we can reengage CSX regarding the right-of-way along the Anacostia. National Harbor is essentially the downtown of Prince George's County and I'd like to be able to connect people to opportunities there.

.@DavidCataniaDC Are you familiar with difference between streetcars and light rail? Will you fight for dedicated rights-of-way? #GGWchat

—Low Headlessways (@LowHeadways) October 22, 2014

David Catania: Absolutely. I think we're going to learn some lessons the hard way with how we're approaching light rail on H Street. I think it would have been smarter for us to have designated rights of way down the street rather than on the sides. I think that's going to create safety traffic, transportation, and delivery issues.

We're expecting 170,000 additional residents over the next 25 years. We have to find a way to efficiently and safely and economically transport individuals around the city. I'm a fan of dedicated bus service as light rail, but when I look at he capacity of light rail cars than buses, light rail has double the capacity of buses. There's a great case for efficiency in dedicated lanes for light rail and for the expansion of the system.

@DavidCataniaDC How do you propose to fund DC's contribution to WMATA's Momentum plan? #ggwchat

—Edward Russell (@e_russell) October 22, 2014

David Catania: This is a more than $20 billion expenditure over the next 25 years. I've been very vocal about themed to have a designated funding source for wmata. For all jurisdictions that participate, I think there's great value in certainty. For some that might mean an additional funding source. Before we talk about funding Momentum, we have to talk about our existing capital improvement plans.

I'm sure your readers appreciate that, for instance, when were purchasing the additional cars to fund a eight car service, because we don't have a dedicated funding source, Metro isn't always able to exercise options on procurements. We have to start from scratch.

That's an incredibly inefficient way to purchase cars or other materials for our system. So a dedicated funding source will rationalize our funding with respect to our existing needs. Going forward, I'd hope that dedicated source would lead to additional resources.

I for one would lead that as the mayor of the District of Columbia. Metro is the tie that binds us, and if we don't take care of it, it will lead to our undoing. I'd look at gas tax, I'd look at regional sales tax, and I'd look at capturing value from the properties that are immediately adjacent to Metro stations that bear the greatest benefit from proximity to Metro.

David Alpert: Let's move to housing and development for a bit.

How will you grow housing supply for residents who cant afford luxury apts but don't qualify for affordable housing? #GGWchat

—Alex Beaton (@AlexBeatonDC) October 22, 2014

David Catania: The city doesn't have a housing plan, period. And I appreciate the often narrow self interest, but as a mayor, you have to house the whole family. That means there's a focus on individuals below 30% AMI—we need to have a focus on them. We have individuals who require partial assistance, and then we have those who make very good livings but there's still a lack of affordability.

We need to look at a couple of things, one, the city owned land that's in our possession and how we make that available. We look at easing and improving the regulatory ability to get licenses issued and plans approved and that means sitting down with planners and developers about what they're facing. I think we have quite a lot of unallocated federal resources—$110 million for affordable housing that went unused.

Simply put, we lack a plan, and it's one of our biggest challenges. We used to have a really robust HPAP program, a housing purchasing plan. In 2008, we spent nearly $30 million helping individuals purchase their own homes, with up to $70,000 per family in down payment and closing cost assistance.

So, NYC provides a great example on how to provide mixed income housing opportunities. They merge federal resources with local support. In New York, they take their tax-exempt bonds, which we presently don't use all of ours, and we marry them with 30-year exemptions on property tax in exchange for 20% of the units in the building being available to low-income individuals.

So it gives you the opportunity to have mixed income in what are otherwise, higher income buildings. The city's been able to produce thousands of units that aren't strictly market based.

David Alpert: You mentioned city-owned land. The council is now debating whether to require a certain amount of affordable housing in any project built on public land. What do you think about such a requirement?

David Catania: On its face, it's very compelling. But having hard and fast percentages can play mischief in advancing housing generally. For example, when we try to do mixed-income development. It's illustrated in our New Communities projects. We try to create mixed income in communities where there's no demand for middle income, so the entire project stalls because we have these artificial expectations.

In theory, I absolutely support the requirement of low and moderate incomes in housing developments. But we have to look project by project and at the end of the day the financials have to work.

One of the things I want to focus on is that we spend a lot of time talking about new construction and at the same time we're ignoring the avalanche we're facing in the world of preserving existing affordable housing. There are more than 50 buildings under affordability covenants that in the next give years will be released from those covenants.

These are buildings that were financed with federal low income housing tax credits and federal tax-exempt bonds. These buildings lose any limitations on increases in rent, we're facing an avalanche of thousands of units that will lose affordability in the next five years.

I appreciate that we should be focused on building new units but as much attention must be focused on preserving existing units. Up until now, I've seen no plan of this. Recently, I was able to intervene and help the residents of Museum Square keep their apartments, but we need a global solution to these affordability challenges.

David Alpert: AC asks: You've talked a little about existing supply, but a lot of affordable housing advocates in the city are curious to hear you on record about Inclusionary Zoning. Can you tell us where you stand on that program?

David Catania: I supported inclusionary zoning in 2006. Inclusionary zoning is a fantastic principle, but it has yet to produce any meaningful supply. In the first five, six, seven years of inclusionary zoning, fewer than 100 units were created, and I think the real number is closer to 50.

We need to understand more deeply why inclusionary zoning is not producing the supply that we were anticipating and hoping for. So often we can have really terrific ideas that fail in execution, and we need to circle back and examine why that is. Sometimes you need mid-stream corrections.

Utilize a provision in the bill that I authored in 2002, which gives the District the opportunity to purchase when Section 8s are coming out. The reality is that individuals who are in building-based Section 8 apartments are not able to purchase the units, so giving those tenants the opportunity to purchase is to give them something that isn't real. That's what lead me to the district opportunity to purchase so that we can, as a city, manage these purchases. I think it's an indispensable tool and one that's never been used in maintaining affordability.

@DavidCataniaDC What is ur position on the height limit? Wud u be for removing it outside the L'Enfant city w/ high-rise clusters? #GGWchat

—Edward Russell (@e_russell) October 22, 2014

David Catania: To be clear, in the old city, I don't favor any change to the height requirement. In the rest of the city, I think these issues should be decided by our local legislature and local mayor with input from the population.

I personally am not keen on the notion of raising the height limit in our city. I believe there's plenty of infill capacity in our city to meet needs, but you can never say never. At this point, I don't support it though.

.@DavidCataniaDC How do you see transit and housing interacting? Lack of former makes it a luxury; how to give everyone access? #ggwchat

—Low Headlessways (@LowHeadways) October 22, 2014

David Alpert: Especially when the height limit restricts the amount of housing near existing transit.

David Catania: One of the things that we can do is expand the quantity of transit. Light rail provides that opportunity. I agree if we were holding steady in our current infrastructure, it does really push greater density around those locations. But if through dedicated bus lanes and an expansion of light rain, we could extend the transit capacity throughout the city, it diminishes the need for intense density around a few locations.

D.C. as a whole invested in the creation of the @DDOTDC MoveDC plan. If mayor, @DavidCataniaDC what will you do with the plan? #ggwchat

—Nelle R Pierson (@NellePierson) October 22, 2014

David Catania: I think the community has done an excellent job in putting together this 25-year plan. One of our biggest challenges, if I'm not mistaken, that it's a nearly $50 billion investment and only half the funds have been procured, so we're going to have to get creative in terms of financing.

Financing aside, I think there are a lot of exciting components. The two-year plan has some elements I'd like to move forward with immediately, from Klingle to Anacostia trails. Sidewalk safety and dedicated bus lanes are important. The continued focus on pedestrian safety is important. There are many elements in the two-year plan and the 25-year plan that are exciting.

The challenge is for us to make the investments today and begin planning today for that transition. I'm eager to get started with this execution. We're going to have 140,000 new residents over the next quarter century.

In terms of an organizing philosophy around transportation, there are issues with ethics, engineering, education, and enforcement. Each of them plays a role in building a balanced, community-centric transportation system.

David Alpert: You mentioned a few elements like buses and sidewalks but we haven't gotten to talk yet about bicycles. ChrisRHamilton asked in the last chat: Progressive mayors across the country have started to compete for businesses and the best and the brightest young folks by making their cities the most bike-friendly. While the District is making good incremental progress on becoming more bike-friendly, largely following the initiatives started under Mayor Fenty, do you envision ramping up the pace of change in installing protected bike lanes, bike parking and bikeshare so that it is more transformative or do you think the current pace of change is good enough?

David Catania: There are many core elements of moveDC that I embrace, including 200 miles of bike lanes. When I go back to the issues of education and enforcement, I think we've done a really terrible job of educating the public on what bikes contribute to our community. Obviously, there are huge environmental benefits from cycling. It also helps dramatically reduce demand for existing roadways—we're up to 14,000 cyclists.

The third area which is rarely talked about is how cycling contributes to the economic development of our city. Many people bike out of economic necessity. But for others—the cost of operating an average medium size sedan in our country is between $8,000 and 9,000 per year. If we can convince more of our residents to forgo that investment and instead use bicycles, they'll spend those thousands of dollars here locally in housing, retail and supporting our local economy. This may be overly simplistic but if you look at 14k cyclists forgoing that 8k a year, there's over $100 million in economic opportunity for our city when we're not buying cars and fighting wars overseas but instead investing in our communities. It's a very powerful economic development tool and we've never communicated that importance to the population.

Long story short, count me in. There are very important tools for our city. The better opportunity is to educate our city as to where they're located.

We can get really into the weeds about how some of our streets are better for bike lanes than others. Our one-way streets that are 30-feet wide provide great opportunities for one lane of traffic, one lane of bikes, and one for parked cars.

I prefer to look at things where we can have win-win instead of zero sum. The bike plan isn't taking anything away from drivers but is in fact is a traffic calming device.

David Alpert: You talked about a win-win and not zero sum, but bike planners have concluded that not everywhere is it possible to build a bike lane without taking away any parking or any travel lane. How do you balance the need to get community input with the fact that at some point, not everyone is going to be on board with everything?

David Catania: It's really a challenge to make generalized answers to hypotheticals. I've made it a practice to cast a wide net and bring people together, and it doesn't mean everyone gets exactly what they want, but that there's a give and take and sometimes you lose in some items and lose in others. I know tough decisions have to be made. But you have to make them.

David Alpert: You've talked in your platform about Vision Zero, the idea that no loss of life or serious injury is acceptable within a given area's transportation system. How, specifically, would you start taking action on Vision Zero?

David Catania: Sweden has figured out how to reduce their deaths by more than 40% by a combination of engineering and values. I commend both the mayors of San Francisco and New York for executing elements of Vision Zero. I think education is an incredibly important element.

One of the things I like about the Swedish model is the emphasis on simple things. When you open the car door, you open it by using your right hand rather than your left. It actually physically forces a person to turn and get accustomed to looking for a cyclist. That's a simple example.

Through engineering roads that are safer, establishing consistent speed limits depending on the likelihood of pedestrian use, issues of concentration at the most dangerous intersections. The use of engineering and evidence and education to lower incidents. There are ways for us to take elements and execute it right away.

So creating an infrastructure that accommodates those with an underpinning of the value of human life is something I don't think we do here, and we should. Respect for human life and understanding human frailties.

It's looking at educating our population, at re-engaging a traffic enforcement division. The enforcement in our own city is a missing component as well as the underlying respect for human life. Educating pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers is critical. And having an enforcement mechanism.

David Alpert: And that's all the time we have. Thank you so much for joining us for the chat!

David Catania: I just really appreciate the five of you coming over and going through this trouble. And I appreciate people weighing in with their questions.

We're a growing, vibrant city. For that to continue, we have to pay attention to the fundamentals of not just transportation and housing, but also issues of crime, economic development education, and at the same time we have to be prepared for crises as they come whether they be Ebola or it be changing economics.

And I really appreciate everyone coming today and the opportunity to share with your readers.

David Alpert: Thank you so much to David Catania, to all of you who submitted questions on Twitter, to our super tweeter Abigail, and to our tireless and lightning-fast typists Aimee, Ashley, and Jonathan.

Please post your thoughts on Mr. Catania's statements in the comments on the post. And thank you all for joining us today!

48 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

Live chat with David Catania

Greater Greater Washington - Wed, 2014-10-22 12:00
by David Alpert

Welcome to our live chat with David Catania, DC councilmember at large and an independent candidate for mayor of the District of Columbia. Suggest your questions on Twitter using the hashtag #ggwchat.

Live Blog Greater Greater Washington Live Chat with David Catania window.cilAsyncInit = function() {cilEmbedManager.init()};(function() {if (window.cilVwRand === undefined) { window.cilVwRand = Math.floor(Math.random()*10000000); }var e = document.createElement('script');e.async = true;var domain = (document.location.protocol == 'http:' || document.location.protocol == 'file:') ? 'http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com' : 'https://cdnslssl.coveritlive.com';e.src = domain + '/vw.js?v=' + window.cilVwRand;e.id = 'cilScript-2299f88deb';document.getElementById('cil-root-2299f88deb').appendChild(e);}());

15 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

Topic of the week: Banning cycling on sidewalks

Greater Greater Washington - Wed, 2014-10-22 10:22
by David Alpert

A bill by councilmember Jim Graham to ban bicycling on sidewalks by adults when there's an available bike lane has gotten a lot of attention. We asked our contributors what they thought about the idea.
Photo by fromcaliw/love on Flickr.

Some contributors, like Dan Malouff, didn't want to outright dismiss the idea of changing the laws around sidewalk cycling, depending on the details:I'm actually OK with making some compromises on where bikes are allowed, but it has to be reasonable. It has to actually take into account the real-life needs of cyclists.Topher Mathews agrees:I do think it's important to develop a strong case for why exactly adults should be allowed to bike on narrow sidewalks. This is a big issue for Georgetowners (particularly senior citizens) who are baffled that it's legal in the first place. So far most of the defense of sidewalk biking has been sort of circular: it's legal so it's OK.There may be some place for selective banning of bikes on sidewalks outside the CBD. This could turn into the camel's nose under the tent, but outright opposing any extension of the ban could engender a even wider ban.Other contributors think it's just a bad idea. Here's Jonathan Krall:With all the nuances and exceptions, this takes a near non-issue and makes it a mess. This almost certainly creates more problems than it solves. Education and design (such as putting bike parking on the street instead of the sidewalk) would help more than this.Canaan Merchant worries about the effect of discouraging cycling:Any time someone considers banning cyclists from doing something, they run the risk of having fewer cyclists overall. While a ban on sidewalk riding can seem reasonable and argued for from a "common sense" perspective, it's critical that the city keep its larger transportation goals in mind, mainly that DC wants more and more people to travel by bicycle in the future.David Cranor notes that sidewalk cycling is already illegal if it creates a hazard, and therefore this law could only have a harmful effect:The kind of behavior that supporters of this ban wish to make illegal is already illegal. The law says that cyclists may use the sidewalk "so long as the person does not create a hazard." So hazardous sidewalk cycling is illegal.

What this law does is make non-hazardous sidewalk cycling illegal. The only reason for this is under the pretense that enforcement would be easier. But the logic behind making non-hazardous sidewalk cycling illegal because it would be easier to enforce is somewhat lacking.

It reminds of the old vaudeville joke, where one man is looking for his wallet and another offers to help. After some time, the second asks "Where did you lose it?" and the first says, "Over there in the woods." "Well then why are we looking over here?" the second asks angrily. "Because the lighting is better." Why are we going to ticket non-hazardous cycling? Because the lighting is better.

Sidewalk cycling is not ideal, but for some cyclists and at some times it is a totally adequate option, and possibly even the best one. Rather than changing behavior by trying to make some less desired kinds of cycling less appealing we should do it by making other types more appealing.

Bans do not get cyclists off the sidewalks, but bike lanes, and to a much larger extent, cycletracks do. That's where efforts should be focused.Steve Seelig also feels that we need better infrastructure—even better than what DDOT is building today:I would be very willing to agree not to ride on sidewalks outside the central business district on streets where the city has decided to construct a safe, PROTECTED bike lane. Sorry, L Street and M Street do not count. I have 30-plus years of DC bike commuting under my belt, so until recently the number of times I have ridden on the sidewalk has been minimal.

Of course, this was until my 5-year-old started to ride. Sounds like he can ride on the sidewalk while I am in the bike lane, at least until he is 12. Shall I not get to ride with him on the sidewalk to teach him proper bike behavior? How about when I have him on the cargo bike—am I consigned to the completely unprotected bike lane? And do we really think that it is safe for a 13-year-old to ride a bike in an unprotected bike lane?

Plus, we have many folks who are new at this, and rightfully terrified of riding in the street because of inattentive drivers, blocked bike lanes, etc. Shall those folks be consigned to not riding at all?Where else has this debate raged?

DC isn't the only jurisdiction in the country that has debated changing laws around bicycling on sidewalks. Some contributors referred to their experiences elsewhere. Jonathan Krall dealt with a similar issue in Alexandria:Alexandria went through this, in reverse, last year. Last year, Alexandria changed the law to allow bicycling on sidewalks, legalizing something that timid adults and children where already doing, largely without injury to anyone. The main effect of the law was the occasional ticket issued to an incredulous citizen.

When sidewalk bicycling was legalized, there was a sizable outcry from the public, along with a morphing of the usual anti-bike "war on cars" language into a "war on pedestrians." Proponents of legalized sidewalk riding replied that the new law would change little, other than to stop the police from issuing tickets to timid cyclists who probably shouldn't be riding in the streets anyway.

A year later, the hullabaloo has died down and not much has changed. Children, their parents, timid cyclists, and cyclists riding from the street to on-sidewalk parking are all still riding on sidewalks and the anti-cycling crowd has gone back to complaining about cyclists not stopping at stop signs.Jaime Fearer is dealing with a similar debate in San Jose, California, which has pitted pedestrian advocates against cyclists:A cyclist did hit and kill a senior earlier this year on a campus path/sidewalk in San Jose, which certainly propelled this proposed legislation.

Having attended a number of meetings on this now, one thing is clear: pedestrians and bicyclists are being divided to fight against each other and for whatever scraps they can get, rather than being encouraged to work together. I see the politicians encourage this through legislation, and I see us (the advocates on "both sides") continue to approach this as though these sides are polar opposites. Whether we're being divided purposefully or not is up for debate, but the fact that we are divided to our detriment is not.Fortunately for us in DC, the main pedestrian advocates here are not interested in starting a pedestrian-cyclist war and don't believe cyclists are the biggest threat to pedestrians. Tracy Hadden Loh, a co-founder of All Walks DC, had this statement:All Walks DC is devoted to improving safety for those who walk in DC. We ask our DC Councilmembers to take an evidence-based approach to improving conditions for pedestrians. Motor vehicles kill or injure hundreds of pedestrians every year in the District. Bicycling, on the other hand, is a low-speed, sustainable transportation that serves as an alternative to car trips.

We believe most cyclists riding on sidewalks do so because they don't feel safe on the street, or even in the existing bike lanes. Where high quality bike infrastructure exists, such as on 15th St NW, L St NW, and 1st St NE, very few people ride on the sidewalk.

We believe Councilmember Graham's proposal to ban bicycles from sidewalks would mostly just discourage people from riding bicycles, which we do not support, while failing to address the underlying problem of streets that are not safe for all users.What about Segways?

While most of the discussion revolved around bicyclists, the bill would also ban Segway riding on sidewalks near bike lanes. But Matt Johnson feels that rather than pushing Segways off sidewalks and onto bike lanes, we need the reverse:I would actually like to see a ban on Segways in bike lanes. Especially when being operated as a part of a tour where they're going to stop and sit in the bike lanes while the tour guide tells them how the French burned down the White House in the War of 1820.Nick Keenan has some historical background to the Segway issue:You may remember when the Segway was introduced that it was supposed to revolutionize transportation forever. That didn't happen. One of the obstacles was that the existing legal framework had no place for the Segway. So the manufacturer went on a lobbying blitz to get Segways recognized as comparable to bicycles.

In 2006 then-councilmember Carol Schwartz introduced the "Motor Vehicle Definition Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device Exemption Amendment Act of 2006." It did two things. First, Segways fit the then-existing definition of motor vehicles, so that definition was changed to exclude "electric personal assistive mobility devices" (the generic term for Segways). Second, everywhere the code mentioned the word "bicycle" it was changed to say "bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device" so that Segway operators would have the same rights and duties as cyclists.

For reasons that aren't clear, the person tasked with making those changes did not use an up-to-date version of the code. They used one that was at least ten years old. There had been significant changes to the code in 1996 and 2004, and they were erased. In effect, what Schwartz (or her staff) did was to accidentally undo all of the changes to the law between 1996 and 2006. Oops.

I think most of those changes have since been reinstated but for a while there confusion reigned.David Cranor takes a different view on Segways:I'm not bothered by Segways being treated like bicycles. What should they be treated like? Pedestrians? Cars? Some other category? It's really the answer that makes the most sense and I think we can graciously share space with them. We should put up with the occasional inconvenience of segways the same as we expect driver to tolerate the occasional inconvenience of cyclists. Besides it creates another constituency for bike facilities and an expanded argument for their need.What do you think?

108 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

Water Infrastructure Funds: An Opportunity To Make Communities More Resilient

New Jersey Future - Wed, 2014-10-22 09:05

The following was written by Ben Chou of the National Resources Defense Council, about New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust‘s draft plan for use of its revolving funds. New Jersey Future and NRDC are submitting comments jointly to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, stressing the improvements needed in order for these funds to be leveraged most effectively to make communities more resilient to extreme weather risks.

With images of flooding, drought, storms, and other extreme weather appearing in the headlines more frequently, it’s clear that the effects of climate change already are being felt in neighborhoods, communities, and cities across the U.S. In recognition of the danger that these events pose, particularly to vital water and wastewater services, states like New Jersey are re-thinking how they can change the way they allocate public funds to help communities better prepare.

One such funding program is the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), which is expected to provide $350 million to a variety of water quality protection projects throughout the state this year. In conjunction with New Jersey Future, we are submitting comments this week to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on how the state can improve the way it allocates these funds in order to make communities more resilient to a variety of extreme weather and climate risks.

Compared to other states, New Jersey has taken laudable steps to better support projects that will help communities become more resilient.

Read the entire post on the National Resources Defense Council’s blog, Switchboard.

Categories: CNU blogs

Breakfast links: More places to bike

Greater Greater Washington - Wed, 2014-10-22 08:51
by David Koch


Photo by Valerie Hinojosa on Flickr.Klingle getting built: A permit has now been issued to build a trail where Klingle Road stood. The road washed out 23 years ago, leading to a long (and now settled) debate over whether to build a new road or a trail. (WBJ)

CaBi expanding in Arlington: Arlington's CaBi membership grew 31% since 2013, and the county plans to add 62 stations by 2020. The number of trips that started in Arlington also increased by 24%. (ArlNow)

Shovel, Montgomery: Montgomery County will now have to create a plan to remove snow from busy sidewalks, bus stops, and in its urban areas, under a bill passed by the county council. A public education campaign will try to persuade property owners to clear their own sidewalks. (BethesdaNow)

Will the stadium community benefit?: Community groups in Southwest want a $5 million package of services for low-income residents as part of the DC United stadium deal. But United officials and City Administrator Allen Lew say that's impossible and existing city services will help residents. (Post)

Belvoir boom burgeons: Fort Belvoir is planning for further expansion. The post's updated master plan will anticipate almost 60,000 workers on the base by 2030. Fairfax County is focused on improving transportation and other services in the area. (WBJ)

Abandoned homes to affordable housing: A Baltimore advocacy group hopes to turn some of the city's many vacant buildings into housing for the homeless. The organization aims to create a community land trust in McElderry Park. (CityLab)

Transportation answers: At a Washington Post transportation conference, Vice President Biden chided the US for its poor infrastructure. Former DOT Secretary Andrew Card thinks millennials are less interested in cars because they value privacy less.

And...: DC's cab drivers complained about competition from upstarts back in 1809. (Post) ... The Post and City Paper skewer the way the New York Times writes about DC's food scene. ... How do DC's mayoral candidates' war chests stack up? (Post)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

41 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

How Often Do Cities Mandate Smart Growth?

Planetizen blogs - Tue, 2014-10-21 17:00
A recent Mercatus Institute paper addresses the frequency of minimum density regulations, maximum parking requirements, and similar regulations.
Categories: CNU blogs

Is Your City (Planning) Working for Families?

by Jeff Vincent and Ratna AminOctober 21, 2014

Photo courtesy of Flickr user David Dugan.

Questions about the family friendliness of cities are bubbling up all over. One way to look at the fate of families in cities is to focus on the needs of students and schools. School-aged kids (ages 5-18) make up about 15 percent of the population in cities across the Bay Area (14.6 percent in Oakland, 17.5 percent in San Jose and 9 percent in San Francisco). About 10 to 14 percent of peak-hour transportation trips are related to getting kids to and from school. The decisions about where to live and where to send children to school are two of the most important — and intertwined — decisions parents make.

At a recent SPUR forumUC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools (CC+S) shared the risks of ignoring kids and schools when planning cities — and the lessons learned about planning for successful family-oriented communities and high-quality schools. This includes thinking about school facilities, access to quality schools, housing, student transportation and, above all, equity. CC+S framed a vision: No matter where a child grows up, he or she should have access to the necessary ingredients for a bright future, including good schools, safe streets, healthy environments, transportation to school and extra-curricular activities, places to play and a broader community to help them succeed at every stage of life.

Children in high-poverty neighborhoods are often cut off from many of the resources needed to support their success. This results in an “opportunity gap,” where many young people don’t have a fair chance at achieving their potential in school, careers and civic life. When seen through this lens, it’s clear what an important role planners play in education.

The built environment can be shaped to work better for families and students. Some things that would help:

Design transit-oriented development to attract families with children. CC+S and the Center for Transit Oriented Development created a guide for cities, illustrating why planning for transit-oriented development that serves families is important for creating truly “complete” communities and how such planning can be achieved in conjunction with school stakeholders.

Expand regional transit accessibility for young people. Access to safe, affordable and convenient transportation shapes the “geography of opportunity” for many children and youth. CC+S worked with the Mile High Connects collaborative in Denver, CO, to look at innovations across the country in increasing transit ridership among school children. The resulting report, Beyond the Yellow Bus, illustrates promising approaches.

CC+S has also designed a way to engage young people in city planning. The center’s Y-PLAN (Youth – Plan, Learn, Act, Now!) program empowers students to make change in their community and teaches them the skills and knowledge to be active citizens. The Y-PLAN model also helps cities see what strong, authentic community engagement in city planning can look like.

Over a decade, Y-PLAN has shown that including young people in planning works. As students critically analyze the places in which they live — from housing redevelopment in the Bayview to transportation planning in the city of Richmond — they learn how places are transformed, and they learn they can play a critical role in that transformation process. The data and insights that emerge from this work contribute local knowledge and fresh insights about the built environment and the act of placemaking.

CC+S has found that  cities and schools can break out of their silos to work together and put the needs and interests of kids at the heart of urban planning. A real “smart city” might be one that addresses key obstacles to ensuring all children can achieve their potential.
 


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jeff Vincent is deputy director of the Center for Cities + Schools

Ratna Amin is SPUR's transportation policy director

Categories: CNU blogs

A new bill would ban cycling or Segway riding on DC sidewalks next to bike lanes

Greater Greater Washington - Tue, 2014-10-21 15:02
by David Alpert

Lame duck councilmember Jim Graham wants to make it illegal to ride a bicycle or ride a Segway on the sidewalk along roads when there is a bike lane going in the same direction, except for children 12 years and under.


A sidewalk cyclist on Barracks Row (often not a great place to bike, but not covered by Graham's bill). Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Graham, who currently represents Ward 1 but was defeated in the Democratic primary by Brianne Nadeau, introduced the bill this morning. His press release says:Graham introduced the bill after receiving many reports of bicyclists who ride on the sidewalk without sufficient regard for the safety of pedestrians, especially the elderly, mothers with young children, and others.

This problem was tragically demonstrated four years ago when while walking in an alley near the Convention Center, a 78 year-old man and his wife were knocked to the ground by a speeding "hit-and-run" bicyclist. The elderly man was killed and his wife was hospitalized.In recent years, the District has emerged as one of the foremost cities for bicycling in the US through the building of dozens of miles of bike lanes, and through its pioneering and successful Capital Bikeshare program. Graham stated "With so many miles of bike lanes now available, I think it's time that rather than riding on sidewalks, bicyclists and others be required to use bike lanes. I think this bill will help to encourage the construction of even more bicycle lanes for the safety of all".People riding bicycles on sidewalks at high speed can be very scary for pedestrians, and they feel legitimately threatened. It's the same as the way cyclists feel threatened on the road. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer because outside rare cycletracks, cyclists don't have their own space and are yelled at both on the road and on the sidewalk (and on multi-use trails).

Just as many drivers think they can safely pass a cyclist with less than 3 feet of space, or nose through a group of pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk, there are cyclists who think they can use their maneuverability to squeeze quickly between pedestrians without hitting them. And 99% of the time they are right, but that doesn't make the more vulnerable road user not feel intimidated.

I've been walking around and had someone on a bike ride by too fast and too close many times. I've been walking with our one-year-old in a stroller, or with my wife when she was pregnant. Just because none of them actually hit any of us doesn't make it right.

Would a ban even work?

However, a bill banning sidewalk cycling near a bike lane is probably not the answer. While people should ride in the road, there are often legitimate reasons to sometimes ride on any given sidewalk at certain times and in certain circumstances. What if the bike lane is blocked, for example? Graham's bill won't deal with many situations where sidewalk cycling is a problem while also making riding illegal at times when it's not a problem.

It's hard have a law that basically says it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk only in a way that intimidates pedestrians. And any legal restriction is only going to have an effect if police ticket, and we don't need police deciding to target cyclists here as they have been in NYC.

It could be worth discussing some measure like a speed limit that applies on sidewalks where there are pedestrians (but not empty sidewalks), or a 2-foot passing buffer distance. When we've discussed this before, commenters seemed open to somehow codifying the idea of "pedestrian pace in a pedestrian space."

Would this bill encourage building bike lanes, or add to acrimony?

The only real way to reduce bicycle-pedestrian conflicts is to make sure cyclists feel safe riding outside the sidewalk, and that's simply not the case right now. Many people say they just aren't comfortable in the road.

Walking around the city, I often see people riding on the sidewalk when there is a good bike lane or low-speed street, and I wonder why they are bothering to ride there. But instead of passing a law, let's find ways to help those people feel safe (and be safe).

Graham says in his press release that he hopes this will lead to more bike lanes being constructed. It's hard to see how a bill limiting cyclists' rights will lead to more bike lanes.

The obstacle to more bike lanes is that whenever one is proposed, people complain about losing travel lanes or losing parking. Graham has often expressed "concerns" about a transportation bill because it might take away parking spaces. That kind of rhetoric tells transportation planners that they should be very hesitant to embark on any project which impacts even a small amount of parking, or at the very least, they have to do many years of studies and outreach.

Maybe Graham is thinking that if this law exists, people worried about sidewalk cycling will turn into advocates for bike lanes. But the bigger danger is that it only further demonizes an activity that already comes under a lot of criticism, against whom some columnists in national newspapers think alluding to the possibility of violence is appropriate.

Graham said he hopes to start a conversation about what to do about this problem. It's not clear that one best starts a conversation about conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians by proposing a restriction on one of the two groups. It's only going to lead to more rancor rather than understanding.

Why this, and why now?

Incidents of cyclists hurting pedestrians are vanishingly rare (while deaths involving cars are quite common). That doesn't mean it's okay to ride at a high speed on a sidewalk near pedestrians in a way that can be scary, but it's hard not to notice a little irony in the fact that Graham's press release cites a case from four years ago which wasn't even a fatality on a sidewalk or a road with a bike lane at all.

What bills has Graham introduced to deal with fatal crashes between drivers and pedestrians or bicyclists that happened since four years ago? In fact, speaking of safety for seniors and children, Graham has long fought a bill to get property owners to shovel sidewalks; icy walks create a real hazard, but not one that he seems to think is important enough to solve with a change in the law.

Anyway, it's almost the end of the session (and Graham's tenure on the council). He knows that there is probably not time to even hold a hearing if transportation chair Mary Cheh wanted to, and she likely does not want to. The bill will almost surely just die with the rest of Graham's actions this year that amount to shaking his fist at his younger, changing ward. But he can go out making a statement that of all the things that threaten seniors on the streets, like icy sidewalks or drivers not yielding in crosswalks, those damn bicyclists are the worst.

104 comments

Categories: CNU blogs

Are Second Homes Driving Up San Francisco Housing Prices?

By Kristy Wang, Community Planning Policy DirectorOctober 21, 2014

Photo courtesy of Sergio Ruiz

One of the ways economic inequality shows itself is that some people have enough money to own more than one house. It’s galling to those of us who struggle to afford one home — or simply to make the rent each month. Why do some have so much while we have so little?

In cities like San Francisco, where housing is expensive and the market is competitive, emotional reactions like this can inform the policy debate. We decided to take an analytic approach to figure out if there’s a policy issue here beyond the feelings. Is San Francisco’s housing supply being taken up by people who own units they don’t live in? Are a significant number of units being kept empty or used by only occasional visitors? Is the city wasting time approving new market-rate units if they’re not housing SF residents?

SPUR convened a group to look at this issue over the last year. Our study, Non-Primary Residences and San Francisco’s Housing Market, looks at numbers from the 2012 American Community Survey. (We chose not to use data from the San Francisco Assessor’s office because it wasn’t complete enough to determine whether units were actually vacant. More on this in a minute.)

The results of the study are underwhelming. There are 9,075 units currently used for “seasonal, occasional and recreational use.” This constitutes just 2.4 percent of the city’s housing stock — not a major driver of housing costs (at least not yet). That’s also a relatively small share when compared to other hot real estate markets. San Francisco comes in behind Miami, Santa Fe, Honolulu, Manhattan and three other cities. Two other discoveries: it doesn’t look like owners are purchasing properties as investments and leaving them totally vacant, and buildings with hotel-level concierge services are likely to have higher levels of pieds-à-terre than other buildings. Read the complete study for details.

Nonetheless, we think this is an important issue to keep tracking. We don’t want the city to “hollow out” (meaning, lose permanent residents) the way some popular cities around the world have.

A few policy considerations:

  1. There are pieds-à-terre in both new and old buildings. The dynamic of people owning units they don’t live in is happening in all the neighborhoods that have amenities like views or neighborhood shopping streets. This issue is not about new buildings specifically; it’s just as much about the existing housing stock—which is why it could be worrisome if it became more widespread.
     
  2. New buildings do not create demand for pieds-à-terre. The demand is there because San Francisco is a nice place. We would argue that new units are part of the solution precisely because they keep some pied-à-terre owners from cannibalizing the existing housing stock. It may not be happy news, but in a market economy, people with money win the competition for scarce housing. Better that they move into a new high-rise condo than out-bid you on your Edwardian flat in the Mission.
     
  3. Recent legislation to limit short-term rentals to units that are someone’s primary residence is going to be important. Again, available data are not complete, but there are indications that this could be a growing trend that would erode our existing supply over time. It’s important to monitor that legislation to see how it’s working and make revisions as necessary.

One thing is clear from our attempt to look at this issue: San Francisco will need to do a better job collecting this data in the future. We and others have found that available data from the U.S. Census, the Assessor’s Office and voter registration are simply not sufficient to understand the full picture. For example, the incentive to properly register one’s home as a primary residence is low (approximately $70 in annual tax savings), and clues like a mismatch between property address and mailing address may or may not indicate actual vacancy. For a variety of reasons, a property owner may use a different address for billing information — including renting the unit to a full-time tenant. That’s a big gap in the data, and we won’t fully understand this issue until we can get better information.

As San Franciscans watch their city change before their eyes — and experience firsthand the financial challenges of living in a globally desirable city — it’s hard to ignore the shiny new high-rises or the rumors of foreign oligarchs and wealthy Silicon Valley techies buying up units and leaving them vacant. It’s difficult not to have an emotional reaction. But we’ll do better to focus our energies where the real issues may lie: Let’s gather the data to truly understand who lives where. Let’s protect existing rental units. Let’s build more affordable housing. And let’s increase the overall housing supply to take some pressure off the housing we already have.

Read our study Non-Primary Residences and San Francisco’s Housing Market >>

Categories: CNU blogs
Syndicate content