Andrew Brown, Author at Coalition For Smarter Growth

Author: Andrew Brown

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

Posted on June 25, 2013March 31, 2022 by Andrew Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read the original story>>

Public weighs in on how to improve NoVa commuting

Posted on June 21, 2013March 31, 2022 by Andrew Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several citizens who testified seemed to agree with this approach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Jeanine Lawson of Prince William County urged caution.

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

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

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

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

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

Two more open houses will be held next week:

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

Photo courtesy of WTOP/Ari Ashe.

Click here to read the original story>>

Public Gets First Input On Transportation Bill Projects

Posted on June 21, 2013March 31, 2022 by Andrew Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of Leesburg Today.

Click here to read the original story>>

Six-Year Improvement Program: a Blueprint for Failure

Posted on June 20, 2013March 31, 2022 by Andrew Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of James Bacon.

Click here to read the original story>>

VDOT to increase spending on deficient bridges

Posted on June 20, 2013March 31, 2022 by Andrew Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not everyone was pleased with the spending plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of P. Kevin Morley.

Click here to read the original story>>

PRESS RELEASE: Route 1 Transit Study — Diverse Groups Support Comprehensive Approach

Posted on June 20, 2013January 16, 2014 by Andrew Brown

For Immediate Release:
June 20, 2013Contact:
Stewart Schwartz, CSG, 703-599-6437

A diverse set of groups working on affordable housing, conservation, transit, smart growth and bicycle pedestrian issues sent the following letter last week to Fairfax and state officials. We have already received a positive response from Supervisor McKay, Fairfax transportation staff, and the lead planner for the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit.

JOINT LETTER REGARDING RICHMOND HIGHWAY TRANSIT STUDY

Coalition for Smarter Growth, Good Shepherd Housing and Family Services, Friends of Dyke Marsh, Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, Community Preservation and Development Corporation, Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling, Sierra Club – Virginia Chapter/Mount Vernon Group, Wesley Housing Development Corporation of Northern Virginia, United Community Ministries, Audubon Naturalist Society, Spring Bank Community Association & Friends of Quander Brook

June 12, 2013

Thelma D. Drake
Director, Department of Rail & Public Transportation
600 East Main Street, Suite 2102
Richmond, VA 23219

Jeff C. McKay
Supervisor, Lee District
Franconia Governmental Center
6121 Franconia Road
Alexandria, VA 22310

Gerald W. Hyland
Supervisor, Mount Vernon District
2511 Parkers Lane
Alexandria, VA 22306

Re: Route 1 Transit Study

Dear Director Drake and Supervisors McKay and Hyland:

We are pleased to hear that a comprehensive $2 million study of transit alternatives for the Richmond Highway Corridor will begin this year. We represent conservation, affordable housing, community development, bicycle, transit, conservation and smart growth organizations that share a commitment to the sustainable, inclusive and economically competitive revitalization of the Richmond Highway Corridor.

Designing the most effective and best-suited transit system for the corridor will require attention to the interaction between land use, transit, housing, market demand, bicycle, pedestrian, and natural resource conservation. The transit mode selected must be tied to the type of land use, levels of density, and service needs of residents. Ridership is profoundly affected by the mix-of-uses, urban design, density, range of housing types and incomes, and safe access to the stations by walking and bicycling.

It is particularly critical that affordable housing be addressed at the earliest stages of study because the mere act of launching a major study of new transit service can create speculative pressures on existing market-rate affordable housing and displacement of lower -income residents. Preservation of existing affordable housing and inclusion of new affordable housing in new development should be included in any comprehensive transit and land use study. The study should also draw from many of the lessons learned from the planning for Tysons Corner, Columbia Pike and Beauregard corridors, in terms of linking transit, land use, and affordable housing.

Therefore, we request that the transit study not only evaluate the various transit modes (Metrorail, light-rail, street car, bus rapid transit and enhanced bus), routing, alignment, service structure and ridership, but that it also include within its scope the following key factors:

Land uses – mix-of-uses, urban design, density
Housing – strategies and plans for preservation of existing affordable housing and inclusion of new affordable housing in mixed-income development
Market Demand – needs of lower income residents, access to jobs, demand for multi-family housing, and growing demand to live and work near high-capacity transit
Bicycle/Pedestrian – safe access to transit including street design, sidewalks and crossings, station location, and bike facilities (bike lanes, cycle tracks, racks/storage and bikeshare)
Natural Resources – preserving, enhancing and expanding parks, native trees and vegetation, biodiversity and streams; retrofitting of improved stormwater management including low-impact approaches, and enhancing water and air quality.

We also request that the study include a very robust public outreach and input process, reaching the full range and diversity of residents of all income levels and ethnicities, partnering with community groups to expand outreach and communicating with people with limited English. Our organizations have much to offer in terms of public outreach and technical expertise, and we request to be included at the earliest stages of scoping for the study and throughout the process.

The study should include establishment of a balanced and inclusive stakeholder task force utilizing regular meetings with government staff and consultants. Some of our groups would like to serve on any task force or other committees set up to help guide the study.

We are very pleased that we will soon see planning for new transit in the Richmond Highway Corridor and look forward to being included in the process. We also look forward to your response to our requests.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Stewart Schwartz
Executive Director
Coalition for Smarter Growth

Shannon Steene
Executive Director
Good Shepherd Housing & Family Services

Rick Keller
Chair
Sierra Club, Virginia Chapter
Mt. Vernon Group

Glenda Booth
President
Friends of Dyke Marsh

Bruce Wright
Chairman
Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling

Shirley Marshall
Executive Director
United Community Ministries

Michelle Krocker
Executive Director
Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance

Shelley Murphy
President/CEO
Wesley Housing Development Corp. of Northern Virginia

Michael Pitchford
President and CEO
Community Preservation and Development Corporation

Conrad Egan
Chairman
Community Preservation and Development Corporation

Martin Tillett
Spring Bank Community Association & Friends of Quander Brook

Stella Koch
Virginia Conservation Associate
Audubon Naturalist Society

About the Coalition for Smarter Growth

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington D.C. region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Our mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies needed to make those communities flourish. To learn more, visit the Coalition’s website at www.smartergrowth.net.

###

Va. transportation board approves study that includes Bi-County Parkway

Posted on June 19, 2013July 19, 2022 by Andrew Brown

RICHMOND — A state transportation board Wednesday advanced plans for a controversial project to build a parkway connecting Prince William and Loudoun counties.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board, in a 15 to 1 vote, endorsed a master-plan study that looked at potential improvements along the state’s North-South Corridor, a 45-mile route connecting the two Northern Virginia counties.

The vote was denounced by opponents of the Bi-County Parkway, who said board’s decision is a sign that the state is moving forward with the 10-mile road, which would skirt Civil War sites to connect I-66 in Prince William with Route 50 in Loudoun.

Board member W. Sheppard Miller III, of Virginia Beach, voted against moving forward, saying the board’s resolution did not adequately rule out toll roads, which he opposes.

A total of 15 people appeared before the board to comment, and several of them urged Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) officials to delay the adoption of the corridor study, saying that the state has not been transparent about its plans.

“This impacts tens of thousands who are unaware,” said Tom Thompson, who lives near the site of the proposed parkway.

Gary Garczynski, who lives in Woodbridge and represents the board’s Northern Virginia district, said the vote was a small step in a years-long process for the parkway.

“It’s not a foregone conclusion, and I regret to say that a lot of people think it is,” Garczynski said. “From my perspective, that’s just not true. We have a long way to go.”

The North-South corridor is one of 12 designated regions in which state transportation funding priorities are established. The improvements, including the Bi-County Parkway, are designed to improve traffic flow, spur economic development and provide better access to Dulles International Airport, supporters say.

Del. Timothy D. Hugo, a Republican Party leader who represents parts of Fairfax and Prince William counties, was among those who attended the meeting to object to the proposed road.

The board has “created a firestorm. . . . The rationale provided by VDOT [for the parkway] changes every time,” Hugo said. “These people deserve a straight answer.”

Residents say they worry about increased traffic and the fact that the parkway would run through a protected rural area with a rich Civil War history.

The board’s vote Wednesday came after a month’s delay. Concerns were raised by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who wrote a letter to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), to say that the state’s process lacked transparency and that more public input was needed. Six Republican state legislators, led by Hugo, have announced that they oppose the road and the state’s handling of the process.

Stewart Schwartz, president of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, has questioned whether a plan for north-south improvements is necessary.

“You started with a conclusion and went backwards,” he said of the adopted study. ““We will look back and realize that we have gained no ground and squandered billions.”

Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle

Posted on June 19, 2013November 3, 2021 by Andrew Brown

38 percent. That’s the growing percentage of District households that are car-free. Countless others are car-lite, relying mostly on transit, walking, and biking.

Too often we lose sight of this fact in local debates on issues like parking, transit improvements, redevelopment, and so on.

Mouse over or click an image to read an individual story.

Basic lifestyle and mobility decisions are fundamentally changing for large segments of DC’s population. Nonetheless, a significant number of District policies and discussions still assume that most residents will own a car and use it for many, if not all, of their daily needs.

The consequences of this misunderstanding impact all of us, ranging from higher housing costs, increased traffic thanks to unintentional subsidy of car ownership, and diverting resources from improving other transportation options.

In the end, what all of that means is a less walkable, less inclusive District.

To raise awareness of this misunderstanding, the Coalition for Smarter Growth has collected first-hand accounts from neighbors across DC, examining the various modes of transportation they use in their everyday lives.

Click for interactive map.

We hope this project will help policy makers and skeptical (but open-minded) residents understand that the District won’t face parking and driving Armageddon if we respond to changing lifestyle choices by getting rid of unnecessary parking mandates for new buildings, or by giving buses more priority on roads to make transit more reliable and convenient.

The District won’t face that Armageddon because so many existing residents and new residents simply don’t drive very much. Tastes and lifestyle choices are in the midst of a dramatic change, and despite what some hyperbolic opponents of transportation havesaid, a majority of our new residents are very likely to be car-free or car-lite and looking to stay that way.

Mouse over or click an image to read an individual story.

Abstract statistics and shouting matches about who is right aren’t what walkable living is all about. Instead, it’s just regular people throughout the city who are leading this quiet but growing sea-change, that’s making much of our 20th century transportation formulas less relevant to how we get around today:

Longtime resident Wanda in Hillbrook notes how many of her neighbors walk to the stores along Minnesota Avenue, and pleads for more investment in pedestrian and bike infrastructure in her neighborhood.
Rebecca in Petworth happily relies on Metro to drop her toddler off at daycare in L’Enfant Plaza, and walks to the grocery store to do her family’s shopping.
In Mt. Vernon Square, Keith says that on the rare occasions when he can’t walk to where he’s going, Car2Go, Bikeshare, or transit is there to fill the gap.

If you have time, please use our story collection form on the Walkable Living Stories campaign webpage to share your own story, and consider tweeting or sharing your favorite story on Facebook.

If you have other ideas to help explain this changing lifestyle preference to policy makers, neighbors, or the press, leave them for us in the comments section, or share them with the Coalition for Smarter Growth directly at action@smartergrowth.net.

Click here to read the original story>>

My walkable living story

Posted on June 19, 2013March 31, 2022 by Andrew Brown

Almost 4 in 10 DC households are car-free, and even more are car-light. That’s not because DC is full of car-hating zealots; it’s because life is simply more convenient that way, when the conditions are right.

When 5 minutes of walking, along a pleasant and safe sidewalk, can get you to most of your daily needs, and cycling or high-frequency transit can get to the rest, driving is more of pain than convenience. Especially when you factor in battling for parking and road rage, not to mention cost.

So when the Coalition for Smarter Growth started putting together Walkable Living Stories, about how and why so many DC residents go car-free or car-light, I wanted to participate. Here’s my story:

“My wife and I hate sitting in traffic and wanted to never have to do it again. So we opted out! When we selected our apartment, we intentionally picked one in the densest part of DC. Within two blocks of our apartment we have a grocery store, convenience mart, dry-cleaner, hardware store, and several cafes. So almost all our daily errands are on foot, or Capital Bikeshare. My commute is on the 16th St. bus line, where buses come every few minutes (more often than Metro trains!), so we never have to wait long. And we never have to look for parking, because we don’t need any! Our apartment costs more than one in the suburbs would, but we don’t have a car payment, nor an insurance payment, nor any gasoline bills. We do occasionally rent cars for out-of-town trips, but that’s much less hassle and cost than car ownership.”

For more about CSG’s Walkable Living Stories project, visit their website, or see today’s big GGW post.

Click here to read the original story in BeyondDC >>
Click here to read the original story in The Washington Post>>

Is Washington D.C. a Walkable and Bikeable City? These People Say It Is

Posted on June 19, 2013March 31, 2022 by Andrew Brown

Ginnie from the Walkable Living Stories campaign.

What a way to kick off summer, with the Coalition for Smarter Growth launch today of Walkable Living Stories.

The campaign shares the stories of dozens of Washington D.C. residents who have chosen a walkable lifestyle. When you get to the site, you find yourself clicking on the interactive map to see where the 38 percent of the car-free or car-lite district households reside and how they do it.

You can click on your community, an individual storyteller, or a neighborhood that interests you. You may even click on someone you know (Editor: Such as Dan Malouff from Dupont Circle, who works with us at Arlington County Commuter Services and is a blogger for Greater Greater Washington). You will, at the least, find that the people are easily recognizable and relatable. They may be your co-worker, friend, neighbor, fellow cyclist, walker, or someone you see daily on the metro on your way to yoga.

I clicked on Ginnie, head librarian at D.C. Public Libraries. She says that Capital Bikeshare has changed her life and uses it to get to work, even on rainy days. Ginny has made sharing (checking out books from the library) part of her work life, so it made perfect sense for her to extend the sharing lifestyle (bikesharing) to her personal life?

And, don’t we already live in a shareable world? Sharing has definitely made my life easier, more fun, healthier, and more affordable. We can already appreciate the benefits of sharing with free wi-fi hot spots, potlucks, clothing swaps, gamification, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia …

It’s human nature to share, and how great it is for the Coalition for Smarter Growth to expose us all to the ways that D.C. residents creatively and enthusiastically pursue this lifestyle.

Let’s hope this campaign makes the District (and the region) more walkable.

Submit your own story here.

Click here to read the original story>>