Author: Mitch Margolis

Fight Over Virginia Transportation Priorities Takes on New Importance

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

The Commonwealth Transportation Board, Virginia’s decision-making panel on roads, rails and other mobility efforts, is ready to spend money. Now that the governor and General Assembly have given the board more revenue to work with, a lull that set in over the past few years may yield to a more active phase of transportation projects.

Many Northern Virginians are aware of this changing dynamic, so they came to a public meeting sponsored by the board Tuesday night in Fairfax County to argue for or against particular projects. The most frequently mentioned were the rebuilding of the interchange at Interstate 66 and Route 28 — everybody’s for that one — and the proposed Bi-County Parkway, which has generated strong opposition in the neighborhood bordering the north-south corridor on the western edge of the Manassas National Battlefield Park.

The broader issues at play emerged when two people spoke: Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth and Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance.

Schwartz urged the transportation officials to pursue a “fix it first” strategy in setting priorities. Rather than focusing new spending on expansion of the roads network, rebuild the deteriorating parts of the existing system to make it easier for people to get around.

Schwartz doesn’t equate road building with congestion relief, which puts him at odds with many of the people who supported Virginia’s new transportation revenue law. New lanes, he said, “can generate more traffic than you relieve.”

Land use policy that focus development near transit “is a regional traffic solution” and does a lot more to address congestion than new lanes, Schwartz said. This may be the way of the future as empty-nesters who no longer need their big houses but want to stay in Northern Virginia seek new housing positioned to let them stay mobile as they age.

Schwartz opposes the Bi-County Parkway as, among many other things, a traffic-inducer. But it’s an unfair shorthand to characterize him as anti-road. Of the plan to rebuild the I-66/Route 28 interchange, he said, “We agree it should be fully funded.” But planners deciding how to ease the awful congestion all along the I-66 corridor need to address the public’s desire for better transit service, Schwartz added.

He also noted that Virginia state officials who are contemplating the new transportation revenue need to get interested in Metro’s long range plan, called “Momentum,” to expand the transit system’s capacity, including the purchase of enough rail cars to make all trains eight-cars long.

The shorthand for Chase would have him be the road-building guy, but that’s also unfair. Chase backs construction of Metro’s Silver Line. Key elements in his vision are that transportation projects can solve congestion problems, but we need to think big, and the projects selected need to have regional impact.

Chase praised state leaders for approving new transportation revenue that can refill budgets for maintenance and construction. “After many years, we finally are talking about additions, rather than subtractions,” he said.

In this new environment, Chase said, a “big picture perspective is more important than ever.” Planners must target “regionally significant transportation investments that will reduce congestion,” and he looks to the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation to provide the leadership that will support such projects, including the Bi-County Parkway. People who say they don’t want a parkway in their yard have a right to oppose it, he said, but to say that the region doesn’t need a north-south route in that area isn’t factual. The state must base it’s decisions on regional needs, Chase said.

Chase and Schwartz have been fighting it out along this line for years. The key difference in 2013 is that they’re now talking to officials who have money to spend.

Photo courtesy of  Karen Bleier. Click here to read the original story.

CSG Testimony to regional Transportation Planning Board on Regional Transportation Policy Plan

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

The Regional Transportation Priorities Plan represents progress in identifying and setting transportation priorities. Particularly noteworthy is public identification and support for fixing the existing system first and the focus of the RTPP priorities on fix-it-first including maintenance, operational performance, transit crowding and improved alternatives to driving for every trip.

However, significant concerns were raised last month by officials on this body, particularly the failure to conform the RTPP to the goals and objectives of Region Forward. The updated letters packet includes a detailed set of recommendations from DC, and I  understand that the Region Forward co-chairs have, or will be, making recommendations.  WMATA and others, including my organization and the business group – Urban Land Institute, have also provided important recommendations.

These recommendations center on the failure of the RTPP to integrate within the Region Forward vision, goals and objectives, the failure to incorporate Momentum, the failure to address climate change, and the focus on toll lanes which lack the proven record of our transit and TOD investments.  I wonder if you are all ready to endorse a vast, costly network of toll lanes.

The newly adopted draft falls short of addressing these concerns and we are concerned about it being released for public comment without additional fixes.  In particular, the Executive Summary doesn’t even mention Region Forward and the Introduction continues to portray this 2010 regional compact as a subset of the now very old 1998 TPB Vision.  Instead of Region Forward, it adds a lot of text regarding the recent Economy Forward forum,  but that one day unscientific poll was hardly as carefully thought out an investigation  of the land use/transportation connections as the effort that went into Region Forward.

While the RTPP now mentions Momentum, it only proposes incorporating the 2025 investments provided funding can be found, while not applying the same standard to its toll and other highway investment proposals.  The RTPP also fails to incorporate Momentum 2040 and other transit expansion in the scenario B, even while it proposes a very costly, and still unproven, network of high occupancy toll lanes.  The RTPP also utterly fails to mention the threat of climate change and the resulting need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation using land use and transit solutions.

In addition, the draft solicitation document for the CLRP fails to mention Region Forward, the climate report, and activity centers, despite the fact that we’ve debated this before, when you adopted an amendment to the solicitation document a few years ago.  The goals of Region Forward, activity centers and climate report can be integrated into the federal planning factors. And, of real concern is that you are being asked to vote on the CLRP solicitation document in November, one month before you vote on a revised RTPP, but your expressed goal of the RTPP is to shape the CLRP.  The solicitation document should say more than that the RTPP “should be considered.”CSG Testimony to regional Transportation Planning Board on Regional Transportation Policy Plan

We are at a crossroads as a region, nation and world.  We must fight climate change.  We must recognize the success of our region’s transit-oriented development in growing our economy, reducing the amount of driving, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.  We must recognize how demographics and the market have changed.  Therefore we urge you to amend the RTPP to conform it to Region Forward, fully incorporate Momentum,  and let it guide the most effective transportation investments for a sustainable and efficient future.

Testimony to Regional Transportation Planning Board on Regional Transportation Policy Plan

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

The Regional Transportation Priorities Plan represents progress in identifying and setting transportation priorities. Particularly noteworthy is public identification and support for fixing the existing system first and the focus of the RTPP priorities on fix-it-first including maintenance, operational performance, transit crowding and improved alternatives to driving for every trip.

However, significant concerns were raised last month by officials on this body, particularly the failure to conform the RTPP to the goals and objectives of Region Forward. The updated letters packet includes a detailed set of recommendations from DC, and I understand that the Region Forward co-chairs have, or will be, making recommendations. WMATA and others, including my organization and the business group – Urban Land Institute, have also provided important recommendations.

These recommendations center on the failure of the RTPP to integrate within the Region Forward vision, goals and objectives, the failure to incorporate Momentum, the failure to address climate change, and the focus on toll lanes which lack the proven record of our transit and TOD investments. I wonder if you are all ready to endorse a vast, costly network of toll lanes.

The newly adopted draft falls short of addressing these concerns and we are concerned about it being released for public comment without additional fixes. In particular, the Executive Summary doesn’t even mention Region Forward and the Introduction continues to portray this 2010 regional compact as a subset of the now very old 1998 TPB Vision. Instead of Region Forward, it adds a lot of text regarding the recent Economy Forward forum, but that one day unscientific poll was hardly as carefully thought out an investigation of the land use/transportation connections as the effort that went into Region Forward.

While the RTPP now mentions Momentum, it only proposes incorporating the 2025 investments provided funding can be found, while not applying the same standard to its toll and other highway investment proposals. The RTPP also fails to incorporate Momentum 2040 and other transit expansion in the scenario B, even while it proposes a very costly, and still unproven, network of high occupancy toll lanes. The RTPP also utterly fails to mention the threat of climate change and the resulting need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation using land use and transit solutions.

In addition, the draft solicitation document for the CLRP fails to mention Region Forward, the climate report, and activity centers, despite the fact that we’ve debated this before, when you adopted an amendment to the solicitation document a few years ago. The goals of Region Forward, activity centers and climate report can be integrated into the federal planning factors. And, of real concern is that you are being asked to vote on the CLRP solicitation document in November, one month before you vote on a revised RTPP, but your expressed goal of the RTPP is to shape the CLRP. The solicitation document should say more than that the RTPP “should be considered.”

We are at a crossroads as a region, nation and world. We must fight climate change. We must recognize the success of our region’s transit-oriented development in growing our economy, reducing the amount of driving, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We must recognize how demographics and the market have changed. Therefore we urge you to amend the RTPP to conform it to Region Forward, fully incorporate Momentum, and let it guide the most effective transportation investments for a sustainable and efficient future.

Montgomery County Debates Bus-Only Traffic Lanes For New Transit Network

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

Montgomery County lawmakers are considering plans for an 80-mile express bus network that is raising a divisive issue: how many car lanes should be turned into bus-only lanes?

About 80 percent of the lanes in the proposed bus rapid transit—or BRT—network would be new lanes, adding capacity to the existing corridors. About 20 percent would be “repurposed.” That’s the technical term for changing a lane now used by all traffic into “bus-only.” And AAA-MidAtlantic is asking Montgomery County to scrap that plan.

“The last thing we need to be doing is taking capacity away from traffic,” says AAA spokesman Lon Anderson. He says studies show “repurposing” lanes for buses makes traffic worse, and he calls the BRT plan lawmakers are now considering a recipe for gridlock.

Supporters say Anderson is cherry-picking his studies. Kelly Blynn at the Coalition for Smarter Growth—a major proponent of the BRT plan—says many studies have shown taking away lanes from cars actually reduces congestion.

The planning department actually hasn’t looked at each corridor yet to determine how things will change precisely because they are still at this 30,000-foot planning level. But when they ran their modeling with this proposed network, overall traffic congestion went down and traffic speeds went up.

How many lanes to “repurpose” is one of the most controversial aspects on the county’s plan, along with the potential cost and effectiveness.

Anderson says a study by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy found only two corridors in Montgomery County currently have enough population density to support BRT.

“Those two corridors are Route 355 and I-270. ITDP indicated the other proposed routes in the county did not have sufficient density to make it work. Therefore, if you don’t have enough people to ride it, you’ll be spending a lot of money and taking lanes away from general purpose traffic, and you will wind up with worse traffic.”

The Coalition’s Blynn says projected job and population growth will provide plenty of future BRT riders.

“A lot of the places around the United States that have successful BRT systems have very similar densities to Montgomery County. Already a lot of the bus lines in the county have higher ridership than some of the successful BRT lines in places like Cleveland and Eugene, Oregon,” she says.

The ITDP study is great in many ways, but it didn’t do any modeling into the future. It looked at current bus ridership. It did not forecast out what things will look like in 2040, which the Montgomery County planning department has done.”

Click here to read the original story.

Bus Rapid Transit Supporters Fire Back At AAA Mid-Atlantic

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

A group of bus rapid transit supporters say AAA Mid-Atlantic’s opposition to bus-only lanes is rooted in a “fatally flawed,” traffic-solving approach of building more roads and more lanes.

Next Generation of Transit, a project of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, on Thursday issued a response to AAA Mid-Atlantic’s testimony from Monday.

The Coalition is lobbying for the Planning Board’sCountywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, which establishes the framework for a 10-corridor, 81-mile bus rapid transit network in the county. The plan is now in front of the County Council’s Transportation Committee.

In May, AAA spokesperson Lon Anderson said proponents’ claims that drivers would flock to bus rapid transit, “makes one wonder if they’re smoking something funny.” AAA is against dedicated bus rapid transit lanes where it would mean the loss of a regular mixed traffic lane.

Next Generation of Transit said dedicated lanes will mean a better chance to solve traffic issues at a cheaper cost than building new lanes and roads. The group also said AAA Mid-Atlantic “misused and took out of context,” a report from an outside consultant that concluded Rockville Pike/Wisconsin Avenue was the only road in Montgomery that could support a gold standard bus rapid transit system:

AAA’s approach of continuing to solve our traffic problems by building ever more and wider roads is fatally flawed.  Solving our traffic challenges means focusing on moving people, not just cars, and that means using our existing infrastructure most efficiently.  By making it attractive to walk, bicycle, and take a high quality bus rapid transit service, we can provide more choices and make the transportation system work better for everyone – especially those who need to or choose to use a car.

Dedicating travel lanes to transit will provide a better chance for our road network to function more effectively – and will do so at far less cost to our communities than the other major option – increasing the size of our major arterial roads. Many jurisdictions that have dedicated roadspace to transit or bicyclists have seen no impact or even an improvement in traffic.  Even LA has dedicated lanes to buses this year on their congested Wilshire Boulevard, knowing that the only way forward is to focus on providing options to move people, not just cars.

The bus rapid transit proposal before the County Council right now is a great opportunity for Montgomery County to provide new transportation choices along major roads like Rockville Pike where new construction is bringing thousands of new residents. Experts like the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (whose report AAA misused and took out of context) say that the 355 corridor, in addition to US29, Veirs Mill, and Georgia Avenue are all good candidates to start upgrades to transit service to achieve a BRT network.  Montgomery’s own planning department who conducted much more detailed modeling indicates a similar prioritization of corridors.

To solve our transportation challenges, we must look to the future, not an auto-oriented past.  That’s why a diverse coalition of over 36 business, civic, environmental, and social justice organizations have come together to call for a future that includes a robust bus rapid transit network for Montgomery County.

The Council’s Transportation Committee will hold a worksession on the proposed east county BRT corridors on Monday morning.

Click here to read the original story.

Opponents: VDOT’s PR Effort is to Push Bi-County Parkway, Not Seek Alternatives

Posted on by Mitch Margolis
The recent disclosure of a nearly $300,000 contract for a public relations firm to tout a controversial road that would connect Prince William and Loudoun counties has galvanized the parkway’s opponents.

Opponents of the Bi-County Parkway, a 10-mile road to link the fast-growing counties, say the Virginia Department of Transportation’s contract with Stratacomm, a District PR firm, shows that the agency is not seriously considering other alternatives.

Although the contract mentions “education” efforts, Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), an opponent of the road, said that VDOT has been presenting only one side of the story. Marshall obtained and released the contract.

“They’re running a political operation,” Marshall said. “They say nothing bad about this road. This is a political campaign, nothing else.”

Stratacomm was hired in recent months to work on issues related to the Bi-County Parkway, according to the August contract.

The document shows that VDOT wanted Stratacomm to build relationships with local media, as well as engage elected officials, businesses and environmental interest groups on the parkway. The bills tallied reach $299,725, according to the contract. Much of that was Stratacomm’s staff time, including a senior vice president who billed 500 hours at $250 per hour.

Stratacomm Vice President John Undeland has been a fixture on the project for months. The firm’s Web site said the company seeks “to create and run winning communications campaigns.”

Undeland did not return calls seeking comment.

Elected officials and others have criticized VDOT, saying the agency has not been transparent about its plans for the parkway. Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton said in an e-mail that VDOT was trying to respond to such criticism by hiring Stratacomm. Many have faulted the agency for failing to explain why the controversial north-south road, which would pass near protected Civil War parkland and would be adjacent to long-established neighborhoods, is necessary.

In the past, Stratacomm has been hired to work on communications efforts for other government projects, including the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, the Interstate 66 study and the Route 1 study, Connaughton said.

“It is disappointing that we are being criticized for doing too much public outreach in response to complaints that we were not doing enough,” Connaughton said. “Our intent is to inform and educate the public about the Bi-County Parkway — to get the facts out so the public can ask questions, provide comment and come to their own conclusions about the project and its potential impacts.”

Marshall said that it is too soon for VDOT to stop considering alternatives to the project. Preliminary designs for the parkway have not been completed. And VDOT and other state and federal agencies haven’t issued the necessary approvals.

Stewart Schwartz, president of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which opposes the project, said VDOT has refused to study alternatives to the road.

“It’s one thing to provide information to the public,” he said. “It’s another to try to basically sell the project.”

Click here to read the original story. 

Study: Extend Metro or build light-rail to Ft. Belvoir?

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – It’s a 25-mile stretch connecting Quantico, Ft. Belvoir and the Capital Beltway. Now a study is under way to look at U.S. Route 1 from Virginia 123 north to the Beltway.

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit is leading the analysis of the 14-mile stretch in Prince William and Fairfax Counties.

“The congestion is the number one issue on Route 1,” says Amy Inman, Planning and Mobility Programs Administrator at DRPT.

“We’ll look at how many cars are utilizing this roadway. What is it today? What is it anticipated to be out to 2040? We’ll be assessing the various transit alternatives and what the impact of those investments will be on the road,” she says.

According to the Virginia Department of Transportation, between 50,000 and 70,000 vehicles travel the stretch between Quantico Marine Corps Base and Ft. Belvoir each weekday, a figure that has grown since the Base Realignment and Closure plan a few years ago. For example, Ft. Belvoir has more than 30,000 people living or working at the Belvoir Main Post on Route 1/Richmond Hwy. While base officials provide a shuttle bus from the Springfield VRE and Metro stations, some commuters would rather drive on I-395/95 or Route 1 from Woodbridge or Dumfries than deal with the transfer.

“Ft. Belvoir today employs more people than the United States Pentagon. It has on average 64,000 vehicles that goes on and off base everyday. We don’t have a road network to support that,” says State Del. Scott Surovell, D-District 44.

State Senator Toddy Puller, D-District 36, helped get the funding for the study.

“I want to see this study work and come up with several alternatives that we can look at and pick the one that fits our needs,” she says.

Among the options being considered are extending Metro’s Yellow Line from Huntington south, improving VRE, light-rail, bus-rapid transit in bus-only lanes and better pedestrian and bicycle access. The original Metrorail plans in the 1970s included extending the subway to Woodbridge.

Surovell favors the option to extend the Yellow Line.

“Metro has been transformative everywhere it’s been introduced in the DC metro area. And I think it would be transformative here too. I think one of the big lessons learned from the Silver Line is how are you going to pay for it. That is definitely an issue we’re going to have to confront, no matter what we do here,” he says.

Puller doesn’t think Metro would be the best choice.

“I don’t like going in with my mind made up. But I want to know how much Metro will cost. At least at this point, I don’t think we have the density to support Metro,” she says.

Inman says there may not be a one-size fits all approach for the entire stretch from the Capital Beltway to Virginia 123 in Woodbridge. She says there could be a combination of several options on the list, although she understands that the more transfers that commuters have to make, the less appealing transit becomes.

“Modern transit, high-capacity, frequent transit on its own dedicated right-of-way is the key to the revitalization of the Route 1 corridor. It’s a green solution, it’s a smart growth solution and it’s a pro-economic growth solution for the corridor,” says Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

“This is the study we’ve needed for a long time. So credit has to go Senator Puller, Delegate Surovell and the folks at DRPT for making this happen,” he says.

The Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis, as it’s formally called, will also explore whether road widening can also help solve the traffic problem.

“The Route 1 corridor (in Fairfax County) has received very little transportation investment in my entire lifetime. I think the last time it was actually widened was in 1971, the year I was born,” says Surovell.

As WTOP has reported, a project to widen Route 1 from Pohick Road to Mt. Vernon Memorial Highway will begin next spring. The Department of Defense is funding the $180 million project that will take three years to complete. The project will include extra right-of-way to implement whichever mass transit option ultimately becomes the preferred option.

DRPT held a public meeting earlier this week and will hold another one in February with residents. A final recommendation could come next summer. Then the question becomes: Will the report collect dust, or will Fairfax and Prince William officials act on the recommendations? If they act, how will they pay for a mass transit option?

Photo courtesy of Ari Ashe. Click here to read the original story.

VDOT Takes Heat For Big PR Bill In Support Of Bi-County Parkway

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

The Virginia Department of Transportation agreed to pay the D.C.-based public relations firm Stratacomm nearly $300,000 to help the agency build public support for a controversial highway plan in Northern Virginia, according to documents obtained by a state legislator through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

State Del. Bob Marshall (R-13th), a vocal opponent of the Bi-County Parkway, a ten-mile highway that would connect Loudoun and Prince William Counties west of Dulles Airport and the Manassas battlefield, obtained the contract agreement that shows VDOT agreed to pay Stratacomm $289,228 for an array of services.

Although studied for a decade, VDOT has heavily promoted the project for only the past year, with a series of public meetings, presentations, and interviews with the news media. The public relations campaign has coincided with negotiations with the National Park Service to allow VDOT to pave over part of the western fringe of the Civil War battlefield in exchange for closing congested Rt. 234 through the battlefield. Those negotiations are nearing an end, but the partial shutdown of the federal government is delaying a final agreement.

“VDOT is saying in its scope of work that the effort will increase the credibility and trust of the Virginia Department of Transportation in the eyes of the public,” said Marshall. “If trust is lacking in VDOT, it is because of their own words and conflicting statements which they have made time and time again.”

Marshall, who is part of a group of conservative Republicans in the General Assembly fighting the Bi-County Parkway, blasted Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton for the decision to retain Stratacomm. The state is in effect using tax dollars to lobby public officials and sway residents, he said.

“They are misrepresenting to the public what they are doing. That is unacceptable public policy,” said Marshall. “Sean Connaughton should be ashamed of himself. This is, in fact, stealing from the public.”

Sec. Connaughton defended the move to hire Stratacomm as a response to critics like Marshall who claimed VDOT was not performing enough public outreach.

“As a consequence, we have turned to a consultant like we do with most communications efforts to meet with stakeholders, meet with elected officials, homeowners’ associations, to help organize a communications effort,” Connaughton said.

“The whole purpose is to educate the public on what this project is, what it is not, to dispel a lot of the myths and misinformation, so we can get the public to know what we’ve been working on for the last 12 years,” he added. “This is in direct response to complaints of Delegate Marshall and others in the General Assembly… they did not think we did enough public outreach regarding this effort.”

VDOT’s internal staffing has dropped from 8,500 to 7,100 in recent years, Connaughton said, so the agency does not have adequate staff to undertake large-scale public outreach efforts. Moreover, the transportation secretary said VDOT hires outside consultants for most large projects.

Opponents seized on the contract disclosure to criticize VDOT.

“It’s one thing to do outreach to encourage the public to participate in the study process and offer their input.  That’s a legitimate use of tax dollars, but to use tax dollars to fund what amounts to a propaganda campaign is another matter entirely,” said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which opposes large highway construction projects.

Once a final agreement is reached with the National Park Service and other signatories determining the Bi-County Parkway’s precise corridor, Virginia officials anticipate final environmental approval a few weeks later. The government shutdown is delaying the process.

Photo courtesy of Shawn Honnick. Click here to read the original story.

With New Apps, D.C. Millennials Help Fuel an Evolution away from Sitting behind the Wheel

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

Car sharing?

Got that.

Transit apps?

Have them.

Bike sharing?

It’s here.

A report out Tuesday that foreshadows the future of urban transportation in the United States also serves to underscore that the District is on the cutting edge of the technology-driven evolution in how people get where they want to go.

The futuristic vision, in a study by the Public Interest Research Group, already is happening in the District. In addition to car and bike sharing and real-time transit information available on mobile devices, the report cites ride sharing and apps that connect taxis or limousine service as harbingers of a transition away from the car-centric culture that developed in the 20th century.

“Places like Washington, New York and San Francisco are certainly ahead,” said Phineas Baxandall of PIRG, “but it isn’t only the big cities. There are other places like Madison [Wis.], which are taking off. There are hundreds of university towns which have really made enormous headway. University of Maryland introduced real-time information on its transit system and saw ridership increase by a quarter really quickly.”

It is all seen as a significant shift in lifestyle and transportation made possible by technological advances and driven by a millennial generation that came of age at the dawn of the Internet era.

It is a generation that makes no move without mobile phone in hand, and mastery of that device has opened an unprecedented array of transportation options.

In Washington, for example, your smartphone can indicate when the next bus is coming, how many bikes are available at the nearest Capital Bikeshare station, and whether a Zipcar or Car2Go is waiting just around the corner. It can summon a taxi or the Uber car service in an instant.

A Washington Post poll of District residents this summer found that 13 percent of those surveyed said they had used a smartphone app to call a taxi or limousine. Nineteen percent said they had used car sharing, almost double the number of three years earlier, and 21 percent of those who had not used it said they were likely to in the future.

“The new technology puts car sharing and access to car sharing at your fingertips,” said Karina Ricks, and urban planner and former associate director at the District Department of Transportation. “It’s transportation where you want it when you want it.”

The number of District households that don’t have a car has risen to 38.5 percent. According to the PIRG report, each car-sharing vehicle removes nine to 13 privately owned vehicles from the street because car-share members sell off unneeded vehicles or simply don’t buy them.

“What you’re going to see is a demographic shift about what’s important to the new generation,” Cheryl Cort of the Coalition for Smarter Growth said recently. “It’s not centered around a prestigious car or car ownership.”

Baxandall said that shift is exactly what his new research showed.

“What we found was that millennials were reducing their driving by 23 percent just between 2001 and 2009, a huge drop-off in driving,” he said.

Their decision to live in or closer to the urban hubs that many of their parents and grandparents abandoned has been central to an overall decline in American driving, he said.

“Now, it’s been eight years in a row that Americans are driving less on a per-person basis,” Baxandall said. “That hasn’t happened in almost 60 years.”

The District and Arlington County were early entries into the bike-sharing market, and the numbers of bikes and stations have expanded along with the network of dedicated bike lanes on city streets. The program launched in Montgomery County last week. The report says there now are similar programs in 30 other cities and at hundreds of universities. Car-sharing companies now have 800,000 members nationwide, the report says.

“Millennials generally want a broader array of transportation options,” said Peter Varga, chairman of the American Public Transportation Association. “As we look to our future, transportation systems — particularly public transit — will be built around the smartphone. Smartphone charging stations on vehicles, fare collection via smartphones, WiFi, 4G access, apps that connect public transit.”

When Amtrak installed WiFi on a California train line, ridership rose by almost 3 percent, the report says.

“Part of why younger people aren’t as interested in driving is the relationships that mobile communication provides,” Baxandall said. “Millennials and the new ways that they use transportation may alter the ways that Americans travel as much as the baby boomers did at the outset of the driving boom.”

Photo courtesy of Sarah L. Voisin. Click here to read the original story.