The Alexandria City Council approved the city's FY 2012 budget today. The Transportation Add-on tax, discussed often on this blog and in the city's Transportation Commission meetings in the past, was not approved. In its place, City Council approved the equivalent of 2.2 cents of the overall real estate tax rate paid by all property owners be reserved for transportation, with 2 cents of that representing a real increase over FY 2011. It's estimated that this will bring in $13.5 million for FY 2012 and $110 million over a 10 year period. These figures are roughly comparable (within 4%) to what the add-on tax was estimated to bring in.
This situation should not be very surprising. The Alexandria Chamber of Commerce has been very vocal in its opposition to the add-on tax, to the point of running a "Vote No Add-on Tax" campaign and collecting close to 500 signatures in an online petition, dwarfing a similar online petition promoted by tax supporters. One of the complaints often heard amongst the business community against the tax is that it would place an unfair, undue burden on one sector of the community to fund projects that benefit the community as a whole.
This viewpoint was apparently prominent amongst the City Council's deliberations. The property tax they approved for transportation affects ALL property owners, not just commercial property owners like the add-on tax does.
Detailed budget documents are not yet available for viewing online. But given that the property tax dedication to transportation improvements is similar in dollar figures to what was estimated for the add-on tax, there shouldn't be any significant changes to the projects and priorities proposed for funding. Even with the change in source, this tax revenue still allows the city to make targeted transportation improvements that will improve travel in Alexandria.
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
May 02, 2011
February 28, 2011
Lots of bike stuff at this week's meeting
WashCycle beat me to the punch here, but there's a lot of bike stuff that will be discussed at this Wednesday's Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting.
First, and likely foremost, will be Complete Streets. During the meeting two months ago, staff had raised concerns about the then-proposed Complete Streets ordinance, and recommended a resolution and checklist instead. After a good bit of debate, the Commission tabled the subject and appointed a sub-committee to further study Complete Streets and the staff-proposed resolution, after which it would be reintroduced at a future meeting. This week's meeting is that "future meeting".
A few key highhlights of the revised Complete Streets resolution:
Also, Barbara McCann, executive director of the National Complete Streets Coalition has been invited to speak at a Transportation Commission workshop on Complete Streets that will preceed Wednesday's meeting.
First reported by the Post's Dr. Gridlock last week, but also mentioned yesterday by the Examiner, Alexandria is considering placing roughly 6 (and perhaps up to 10) bikeshare (likely Capital Bikeshare) stations total in the Old Town, King St Metro/Carlyle (between King St and Eisenhower Ave), and Del Ray areas (Del Ray was not mentioned in the news articles, but is in the city's Transportation Commission documentation). The stations would be funded from the city's annual allocation of Federal CMAQ and RSTP funding for Fiscal Year 2013. Which means, if this goes through, it would still be at least the summer of 2012 before we see them. Until then, the closest CaBi station is on Arlington's side of Potomac Yard.
Another CMAQ/RSTP request regards bicycle parking at Metro stations. The city is requesting $250K in FY2016 for additional bicycle parking at the city's Metro stations...likely focusing on King Street and Braddock Rd.
A third CMAQ/RSTP request is to rebuild the city's "Alternative Mount Vernon Trail" where it parallels the railroad spur between Abingdon Drive (the GW Pkwy frontage road) and Royal Street. Speaking from experience, the existing trail is very rutted and narrow, and this reconstruction aims to improve both of those situations. The city's requesting $500K in FY2013 dollars to do this.
Lastly, there's an item for consideration of a city Long Range Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, which may have a future impact on bicycling and walking in the city as both modes are conducive to the goals of TDM...increasing transportation efficiency and reducing congestion.
First, and likely foremost, will be Complete Streets. During the meeting two months ago, staff had raised concerns about the then-proposed Complete Streets ordinance, and recommended a resolution and checklist instead. After a good bit of debate, the Commission tabled the subject and appointed a sub-committee to further study Complete Streets and the staff-proposed resolution, after which it would be reintroduced at a future meeting. This week's meeting is that "future meeting".
A few key highhlights of the revised Complete Streets resolution:
- Replaced "should" with "shall", which theoretically gives it at little more sticking-power with regards to how the city implements Complete Streets on a given project.
- Directs city staff to create a "Complete Streets Checklist" to be used for all development and city road projects.
- Requires the director of the ciy's Transportation and Environmental Services (T&ES) department to state, in writing, why Complete Streets would not be used on a given project.
- Directs city staff to prepare an annual "Complete Streets report" for the Transportation Commission, including where Complete Streets was not incorporated into a given project and why.
Also, Barbara McCann, executive director of the National Complete Streets Coalition has been invited to speak at a Transportation Commission workshop on Complete Streets that will preceed Wednesday's meeting.
First reported by the Post's Dr. Gridlock last week, but also mentioned yesterday by the Examiner, Alexandria is considering placing roughly 6 (and perhaps up to 10) bikeshare (likely Capital Bikeshare) stations total in the Old Town, King St Metro/Carlyle (between King St and Eisenhower Ave), and Del Ray areas (Del Ray was not mentioned in the news articles, but is in the city's Transportation Commission documentation). The stations would be funded from the city's annual allocation of Federal CMAQ and RSTP funding for Fiscal Year 2013. Which means, if this goes through, it would still be at least the summer of 2012 before we see them. Until then, the closest CaBi station is on Arlington's side of Potomac Yard.
Another CMAQ/RSTP request regards bicycle parking at Metro stations. The city is requesting $250K in FY2016 for additional bicycle parking at the city's Metro stations...likely focusing on King Street and Braddock Rd.
A third CMAQ/RSTP request is to rebuild the city's "Alternative Mount Vernon Trail" where it parallels the railroad spur between Abingdon Drive (the GW Pkwy frontage road) and Royal Street. Speaking from experience, the existing trail is very rutted and narrow, and this reconstruction aims to improve both of those situations. The city's requesting $500K in FY2013 dollars to do this.
Lastly, there's an item for consideration of a city Long Range Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, which may have a future impact on bicycling and walking in the city as both modes are conducive to the goals of TDM...increasing transportation efficiency and reducing congestion.
November 02, 2010
Meetings galore...
Not one but two transportation-related meetings for me last night. With two more later in the week.
First up was a quick in-and-out at the Alexandria Pedestrian and Bicycle Citizens Group meeting (out quickly because I had to leave early for meeting #2), where I learned a few interesting tidbits:
After that, it was a quick trip to the transportation committee meeting for the Mount Vernon Council of Citizen's Associations. Recently, I became the alternate member on the committee for the Huntington Community Assocation, my neighborhood civic association. This represents my first real foray into the Fairfax County side of the house. While I'm officially a county resident, I've been attending the various Alexandria transportation-related meetings since I transferred here...something which I intend to continue.
This meeting started off with a recap by the committee chair of a forum she recently attended. On October 14, there apparently was a "Transportation and Traffic Solutions Forum" in DC, with guest speaker Ian Lockwood, a nationally known expert on traffic calming whose resume includes traffic calming projects on Route 50 in western Loudoun County and a stint as head of the West Palm Beach, FL Transportation Planning Division. The chair was quite impressed with some of the topics discussed at the forum by Mr. Lockwood, namely that widening of arterials may result in death of a business district (as apparently happened in West Palm Beach). Other items of interest included walkability and a roadway grid network.
This sparked a good bit of discussion at the meeting. Meeting attendees were mostly receptive to the walkability aspects, with several complaints about how Route 1/Richmond Hwy *ISN'T* pedestrian friendly. Discussion got less consensual when it came to the other aspects like road narrowing or a parallel grid. Many of the meeting attendees have been supporting (if not outright fighting for) a long-promised widening of Route 1 to 6 lanes, especially recently in light of BRAC changes at Ft. Belvoir and the expected congestion that will result from all the jobs moving to Ft. Belvoir and the Engineering Proving Ground. At the same time, it appears that both businesses along Route 1 and the neighborhoods immediately adjoining Route 1 are opposed to a wider corridor footprint. How to widen Route 1 while minimizing the footprint/impact has long been debated in this part of the county, with some residents and meeting members complaining that corridor businesses and even elected officials have been playing obstructionist to Route 1 improvements.
While a parallel grid was generally supported (from my viewpoint), there were concerns about right-of-way and redevelopment needs/impacts in order to shoehorn such a grid in along the Route 1 corridor.
During the meeting, a resolution was passed requesting the county, CTB, VDOT, and area officials secure funding for something else long-promised: a transit study along the Route 1/Richmond Hwy corridor. There was a definitive preference among committee members that the study be on RAIL transit. I took this as meaning that area residents (as represented by committee members...all from area neighborhood associations) are supported of rail transit along Richmond Hwy but would be opposed to bus lanes or some sort of BRT.
Concerns were also raised about the Fairfax County Trnasportation Bond Referendum (presumably on today's ballot). The question to voters was whether the county should raise $120 million in bonds to pay for transportation improvements. While the fact sheet associated with the referendum points out that the county's intent is to use this bond money for the county's share of WMATA's capital program, the main concern was with the wording of the referendum, which didn't specify this...leading some to speculate that the money would be used elsewhere if other money "was found" to cover the WMATA obligation.
Lastly, there's another forum featuring Ian Lockwood on the calendar. The Coalition for Smarter Growth is sponsoring a Future of Fairfax Forum, with Mr. Lockwood as one of the guest speakers. The forum will be on Wednesday evening, the 17th, in Mclean. Click on the link for more info and to RSVP.
More meetings later in the week, including the Alexandria Transportation Commission. Stay tuned.
First up was a quick in-and-out at the Alexandria Pedestrian and Bicycle Citizens Group meeting (out quickly because I had to leave early for meeting #2), where I learned a few interesting tidbits:
- A planning study for the Holmes Run Trail tunnels near I-395 has begun.
- The Royal Netherlands Embassy will be hosting a 2-day bike workshop, titled the ThinkBike Workshops, on November 15-16. The workshop, in partnership with DDOT and MWCOG, will discuss all sorts of issues related to bicycle travel, discuss Dutch bicycle infrastructure and "best practices", and will include recommendations for improving bicycling in the DC area. The public is invited to the "closing session" on the evening of the 16th at Union Station. For more info, click on the links.
- MWCOG has shared some info from the Census American Community Survey, namely a comparison of bike commuting share for member jurisdictions from 1994 to 2007/08. Of note is Alexandria's bike commuting share during those 14 years, which skyrocketed from 0.7% in 1994 to 2.7% in 2007/08. While DC's share is larger overall (3.5% in 2007/08), Alexandria by far had the biggest percentage increase during the timeframe in question. Surprisingly, Arlington only posted a 0.3% increase, to 1.4% in 2007/08...though this might be explained in part due to development patterns. Much of Arlington's growth over the past 15 years has been along the Rosslyn-Ballson corridor, and it's reasonable to assume that those residents are commuting via Metro instead of by bike. Not surprisingly, Prince William County remained flat...zero percent. Most other area jurisdictions had modest increases.
- Thought the region didn't win the TIGER 2 grant to expand Capitol Bikeshare, the city of Alexandria is looking at a smaller grant application (through MWCOG) that would allow for a limited expansion of CaBi into the city....enough to put a few stations in the Potomac Yards area (where the city would concentrate first).
After that, it was a quick trip to the transportation committee meeting for the Mount Vernon Council of Citizen's Associations. Recently, I became the alternate member on the committee for the Huntington Community Assocation, my neighborhood civic association. This represents my first real foray into the Fairfax County side of the house. While I'm officially a county resident, I've been attending the various Alexandria transportation-related meetings since I transferred here...something which I intend to continue.
This meeting started off with a recap by the committee chair of a forum she recently attended. On October 14, there apparently was a "Transportation and Traffic Solutions Forum" in DC, with guest speaker Ian Lockwood, a nationally known expert on traffic calming whose resume includes traffic calming projects on Route 50 in western Loudoun County and a stint as head of the West Palm Beach, FL Transportation Planning Division. The chair was quite impressed with some of the topics discussed at the forum by Mr. Lockwood, namely that widening of arterials may result in death of a business district (as apparently happened in West Palm Beach). Other items of interest included walkability and a roadway grid network.
This sparked a good bit of discussion at the meeting. Meeting attendees were mostly receptive to the walkability aspects, with several complaints about how Route 1/Richmond Hwy *ISN'T* pedestrian friendly. Discussion got less consensual when it came to the other aspects like road narrowing or a parallel grid. Many of the meeting attendees have been supporting (if not outright fighting for) a long-promised widening of Route 1 to 6 lanes, especially recently in light of BRAC changes at Ft. Belvoir and the expected congestion that will result from all the jobs moving to Ft. Belvoir and the Engineering Proving Ground. At the same time, it appears that both businesses along Route 1 and the neighborhoods immediately adjoining Route 1 are opposed to a wider corridor footprint. How to widen Route 1 while minimizing the footprint/impact has long been debated in this part of the county, with some residents and meeting members complaining that corridor businesses and even elected officials have been playing obstructionist to Route 1 improvements.
While a parallel grid was generally supported (from my viewpoint), there were concerns about right-of-way and redevelopment needs/impacts in order to shoehorn such a grid in along the Route 1 corridor.
During the meeting, a resolution was passed requesting the county, CTB, VDOT, and area officials secure funding for something else long-promised: a transit study along the Route 1/Richmond Hwy corridor. There was a definitive preference among committee members that the study be on RAIL transit. I took this as meaning that area residents (as represented by committee members...all from area neighborhood associations) are supported of rail transit along Richmond Hwy but would be opposed to bus lanes or some sort of BRT.
Concerns were also raised about the Fairfax County Trnasportation Bond Referendum (presumably on today's ballot). The question to voters was whether the county should raise $120 million in bonds to pay for transportation improvements. While the fact sheet associated with the referendum points out that the county's intent is to use this bond money for the county's share of WMATA's capital program, the main concern was with the wording of the referendum, which didn't specify this...leading some to speculate that the money would be used elsewhere if other money "was found" to cover the WMATA obligation.
Lastly, there's another forum featuring Ian Lockwood on the calendar. The Coalition for Smarter Growth is sponsoring a Future of Fairfax Forum, with Mr. Lockwood as one of the guest speakers. The forum will be on Wednesday evening, the 17th, in Mclean. Click on the link for more info and to RSVP.
More meetings later in the week, including the Alexandria Transportation Commission. Stay tuned.
October 07, 2010
Density and traffic in the Beauregard corridor
Been lax in posting lately (yeah, yeah)...so I'll try to make up for it here with some happenings from last night's Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting.
A good chunk of the discussion centered on the Beauregard corridor plan. There's a general feeling from basically all parties involved (city staff, local residents, elected officials, etc etc) that transportation solutions for the corridor need to be found, funded, and built before the plan (and it's associated rezoning and redevelopment...up to 7.5 million square feet in some scenarios) can be implemented. The traffic issues with BRAC-133 at Mark Center are further complicating the matter. One commission member mentioned repeatedly that the upcoming traffic situation around Marc Center has reached "crisis level". Another commission member commented that the city can't ignore what's going on in adjacent jurisdictions, noting that development plans at Bailey's Crossroads, Skyline, and Shirlington, and specifically mentioning BRAC-related expansion at Ft. Belvoir, will all have an impact on traffic in the Beauregard corridor.
City staff will respond in part by studying lower levels of density and modeling traffic at the lower densities. But the whole matter has reached a point where two City Councilmembers have written a letter to the city asking city officials to delay plans for higher density in the Beauregard corridor until a "workable and viable transportation plan" can be devised and implemented.
What's interesting about this is that the previous topic at the meeting was focused on funding, and the generally dismal funding situation. Even if the city implements the Commercial Real Estate Tax to pay for transportation projects, the revenue from that wouldn't be enough to fully implement Beauregard area improvements, let alone needed improvements elsewhere in the city.
Getting more money is not looking good. VDOT has effectively said to not count on them. Thanks in part to Congress' inaction, the Federal spigot is running dry. And thanks in part to how the state of Virginia works (and the General Assembly in particular), the only avenues the city has available are the Commercial Real Estate Tax and regular property taxes.
The funding situation hasn't stopped the city from pressing on with planning, though. City staff have developed a preliminary list of "priority transportation projects" for discussion and input...projects that could be funded from the real-estate tax, and have separated them into two tiers. Tier One is all transit-related and focuses on the three proposed "high-capacity transit corridors" from the city's transportation master plan. It also includes the Landmark Transit Center and what has often been called the city's top transit priority: an extension of the Eisenhower Ave Metro platform and new station access on the north side of Eisenhower.
Tier Two includes additional transit projects, namely trolley service to Del Ray and expansion of DASH (with the goal of providing 15-minute headways). Also included are some Complete Streets projects and three bike-related projects: improvements to Holmes Run between Beauregard and Ripley St, a trail extension along Backlick Run continuing to the Fairfax County line, and a new trail between Eisenhower Ave/Mill Rd and South Payne St running along the old Cameron Run channel.
The city has also hired a consultant to study the three high-capacity transit corridors and and develop both more-refined corridors and recommend a specific mode (i.e. bus, BRT, streetcar, etc) for each corridor. The study has just kicked off, but some preliminary concepts are expected by the end of the year with the final report sometime next spring. Several commission members inquired about the public input process for the study. The response suggests that some workshops and public meetings at various points in the schedule were planned, but suggested to me that the public input part needs further thought.
The meeting rounded out with Kevin Posey being elected the new chairman. After the meeting, I discovered just how small of a world it is: one of the commission members has been reading my road posts on a Usenet group for over 10 years. Small world, indeed.
A good chunk of the discussion centered on the Beauregard corridor plan. There's a general feeling from basically all parties involved (city staff, local residents, elected officials, etc etc) that transportation solutions for the corridor need to be found, funded, and built before the plan (and it's associated rezoning and redevelopment...up to 7.5 million square feet in some scenarios) can be implemented. The traffic issues with BRAC-133 at Mark Center are further complicating the matter. One commission member mentioned repeatedly that the upcoming traffic situation around Marc Center has reached "crisis level". Another commission member commented that the city can't ignore what's going on in adjacent jurisdictions, noting that development plans at Bailey's Crossroads, Skyline, and Shirlington, and specifically mentioning BRAC-related expansion at Ft. Belvoir, will all have an impact on traffic in the Beauregard corridor.
City staff will respond in part by studying lower levels of density and modeling traffic at the lower densities. But the whole matter has reached a point where two City Councilmembers have written a letter to the city asking city officials to delay plans for higher density in the Beauregard corridor until a "workable and viable transportation plan" can be devised and implemented.
What's interesting about this is that the previous topic at the meeting was focused on funding, and the generally dismal funding situation. Even if the city implements the Commercial Real Estate Tax to pay for transportation projects, the revenue from that wouldn't be enough to fully implement Beauregard area improvements, let alone needed improvements elsewhere in the city.
Getting more money is not looking good. VDOT has effectively said to not count on them. Thanks in part to Congress' inaction, the Federal spigot is running dry. And thanks in part to how the state of Virginia works (and the General Assembly in particular), the only avenues the city has available are the Commercial Real Estate Tax and regular property taxes.
The funding situation hasn't stopped the city from pressing on with planning, though. City staff have developed a preliminary list of "priority transportation projects" for discussion and input...projects that could be funded from the real-estate tax, and have separated them into two tiers. Tier One is all transit-related and focuses on the three proposed "high-capacity transit corridors" from the city's transportation master plan. It also includes the Landmark Transit Center and what has often been called the city's top transit priority: an extension of the Eisenhower Ave Metro platform and new station access on the north side of Eisenhower.
Tier Two includes additional transit projects, namely trolley service to Del Ray and expansion of DASH (with the goal of providing 15-minute headways). Also included are some Complete Streets projects and three bike-related projects: improvements to Holmes Run between Beauregard and Ripley St, a trail extension along Backlick Run continuing to the Fairfax County line, and a new trail between Eisenhower Ave/Mill Rd and South Payne St running along the old Cameron Run channel.
The city has also hired a consultant to study the three high-capacity transit corridors and and develop both more-refined corridors and recommend a specific mode (i.e. bus, BRT, streetcar, etc) for each corridor. The study has just kicked off, but some preliminary concepts are expected by the end of the year with the final report sometime next spring. Several commission members inquired about the public input process for the study. The response suggests that some workshops and public meetings at various points in the schedule were planned, but suggested to me that the public input part needs further thought.
The meeting rounded out with Kevin Posey being elected the new chairman. After the meeting, I discovered just how small of a world it is: one of the commission members has been reading my road posts on a Usenet group for over 10 years. Small world, indeed.
June 03, 2010
Complete streets, incomplete BRAC
First off, an apology on the lack of posting lately. I was either sick or out-of-town during last month's meetings, and I spent most of my free time in May on roadtrips or working on some of my other projects (one or two of which I may post to the blog here later).
Two main highlights out of last night's Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting: Complete Streets, and a brief preview of the BRAC-133 TMP.
The draft Complete Streets ordinance is now out on the street. A draft Commission resolution was also created, though I missed the reasoning behind why there's both an ordinance and a resolution. Language in the draft ordinance is borrowed heavily from the National Complete Streets Coalition Policy Elements.
City staff are accepting public comments on the draft ordinance until June 23, after which the ordinance will be considered by the Transportation Commission at their July meeting. The goal is to have the proposed ordinance to City Council for consideration in the September/October timeframe. Mayor Euille does not anticipate any issues preventing passage by the City Council, so there's a good chance this will be a "done deal" before the end of the year.
The other big item at the meeting was a quick preview of the Transportation Management Plan for BRAC-133/Mark Center. Although the preview was a bit short on plan details, it did include some interesting numbers. For the origin study, the consultant was able to obtain and utilize home zip code data for ALL the federal employees who will be moving their workplaces to Mark Center, a number which comprises some 70% of the total building population...a *VERY* impressive percentage for an origin/destination study. That number was then scaled up to represent the total 6400 employees.
The biggest number: over a quarter (28%) of employees are coming from within Fairfax County, with most of those along the 95/395 corridor or along Fairfax County Parkway between Newington and Fair Lakes. 23% are coming from Maryland, with about half of those being within Prince George's County. Arlington and Alexandria house 10% and 7% respectively...numbers that some Commission members think will increase as workers try to move in closer to Mark Center. 6% commute from within D.C.
Though much of the transportation focus to Mark Center has been on the 95/395 corridor, and the zip code data preview was hard to read, a rough estimate based on the zip code data is that only about a quarter of workers are commuting along the 95/395 corridor. 1/4 of 6400 is 1600, still a large number, and a number that represents workers already along that corridor and not newcomers after the move to Mark Center. But it's a lot less than some people were expecting.
Some interesting mode split numbers as well, based on a survey of workers made last October. Roughly 2 out of 5 drive alone today, a number that is expected to increase given Mark Center's more-car-dependant location. 18% use transit as their primary mode, but 45% utilize transit either sometimes or for part of their commute (yes, there's some overlap within these numbers). However, only 31% are expected to continue using transit in some form after relocation. One of the talking points and an eventual goal of the TMP is to figure out a way to raise that number back up to the existing 45%.
Unfortunately, the only mode talked about in any detail during the TMP preview was the proposed shuttle service. Currently, the consultants are studying shuttle service (free for workers, at 10 minute headways during peak hours, and occasional service mid-day, though at least every 30 minutes all day to/from the Pentagon) from 5 locations: West Falls Church, East Falls Church, and Ballston along the Orange Line, from the Pentagon, and from the King Street Metro station in Alexandria. Of course, these preliminary locations are all subject to further study/refinement/consolidation (one problem noted with Ballston and EFC is the apparent lack of locations to facilitate the shuttle pick-up/drop-off/loitering). Also, the city has requested that Van Dorn St and Franconia-Springfield be included in the list for study. The consultant is hesitant with Van Dorn St, given that it only serves the Blue Line and expect limited ridership, but they're more receptive to considering Franconia-Springfield as you have both the Blue Line terminus and a stop on the VRE Fredericksburg line there. They still prefer shuttle service from King St due to the multiple modes converging there...Blue and Yellow Lines for Metro, both VRE lines, and potentially commuters crossing over the Wilson Bridge from Prince George's County.
Although we didn't get to see it at the meeting, the draft TMP was given to the city of Alexandria for review last night...I have assurances from city staff that it will be made available/promulgated to the public in some form. The schedule for city/BRAC Advisory Group comments on the draft TMP is to have them to the TMP study team by 20 July to be incorporated into a later draft version of the TMP that is due to NCPC by 30 July.
A few other notes from the meeting:
- The Eisenhower Ave Widening project is being considerably rescoped/scaled back in order to redirect funds to other projects within the city. To cut down costs, and also due to the unlikelihood of getting Right-Of-Way proffers from adjacent developers, the rescoping will be to 4 lanes with a narrower median, narrower sidewalks (narrower from the original plan, but still at least as wide as today), and narrower lane widths in order to keep the project within the existing ROW. Even with the rescoping, it's still expected to provide pedestrian and traffic improvements. The redirected money will be used to buy 8 new buses for DASH, construct the bike/ped improvements between Holmes Run and Eisenhower Ave (the planned bike/ped underpass under Eisenhower), and provide $1.3 million for improvements to the Eisenhower Ave Metro station (the city wants to add a station entrance on the north side of the street...very needed IMO).
- The Commercial Real Estate Tax (mentioned in a blog post a few months ago) was not approved by City Council for the FY2011 budget. However, the Transporation Commission is still looking into the idea and created a subcommittee to examine how the city might be able to utilize it and build public support for the tax to expand transportation options, with the goal being to have tangible public support and a tangible list of potential projects to present to City Council in time for the FY 2012 budget process.
- A last note, relating to parking meters. Unlike what I'd reported in April, the city is significantly increasing parking meter rates...up to $1.75/hr citywide. They're also implementing an "All may park, all must pay" policy, but I'm not sure what that entails except that handicapped parkers will also have to pay.
Two main highlights out of last night's Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting: Complete Streets, and a brief preview of the BRAC-133 TMP.
The draft Complete Streets ordinance is now out on the street. A draft Commission resolution was also created, though I missed the reasoning behind why there's both an ordinance and a resolution. Language in the draft ordinance is borrowed heavily from the National Complete Streets Coalition Policy Elements.
City staff are accepting public comments on the draft ordinance until June 23, after which the ordinance will be considered by the Transportation Commission at their July meeting. The goal is to have the proposed ordinance to City Council for consideration in the September/October timeframe. Mayor Euille does not anticipate any issues preventing passage by the City Council, so there's a good chance this will be a "done deal" before the end of the year.
The other big item at the meeting was a quick preview of the Transportation Management Plan for BRAC-133/Mark Center. Although the preview was a bit short on plan details, it did include some interesting numbers. For the origin study, the consultant was able to obtain and utilize home zip code data for ALL the federal employees who will be moving their workplaces to Mark Center, a number which comprises some 70% of the total building population...a *VERY* impressive percentage for an origin/destination study. That number was then scaled up to represent the total 6400 employees.
The biggest number: over a quarter (28%) of employees are coming from within Fairfax County, with most of those along the 95/395 corridor or along Fairfax County Parkway between Newington and Fair Lakes. 23% are coming from Maryland, with about half of those being within Prince George's County. Arlington and Alexandria house 10% and 7% respectively...numbers that some Commission members think will increase as workers try to move in closer to Mark Center. 6% commute from within D.C.
Though much of the transportation focus to Mark Center has been on the 95/395 corridor, and the zip code data preview was hard to read, a rough estimate based on the zip code data is that only about a quarter of workers are commuting along the 95/395 corridor. 1/4 of 6400 is 1600, still a large number, and a number that represents workers already along that corridor and not newcomers after the move to Mark Center. But it's a lot less than some people were expecting.
Some interesting mode split numbers as well, based on a survey of workers made last October. Roughly 2 out of 5 drive alone today, a number that is expected to increase given Mark Center's more-car-dependant location. 18% use transit as their primary mode, but 45% utilize transit either sometimes or for part of their commute (yes, there's some overlap within these numbers). However, only 31% are expected to continue using transit in some form after relocation. One of the talking points and an eventual goal of the TMP is to figure out a way to raise that number back up to the existing 45%.
Unfortunately, the only mode talked about in any detail during the TMP preview was the proposed shuttle service. Currently, the consultants are studying shuttle service (free for workers, at 10 minute headways during peak hours, and occasional service mid-day, though at least every 30 minutes all day to/from the Pentagon) from 5 locations: West Falls Church, East Falls Church, and Ballston along the Orange Line, from the Pentagon, and from the King Street Metro station in Alexandria. Of course, these preliminary locations are all subject to further study/refinement/consolidation (one problem noted with Ballston and EFC is the apparent lack of locations to facilitate the shuttle pick-up/drop-off/loitering). Also, the city has requested that Van Dorn St and Franconia-Springfield be included in the list for study. The consultant is hesitant with Van Dorn St, given that it only serves the Blue Line and expect limited ridership, but they're more receptive to considering Franconia-Springfield as you have both the Blue Line terminus and a stop on the VRE Fredericksburg line there. They still prefer shuttle service from King St due to the multiple modes converging there...Blue and Yellow Lines for Metro, both VRE lines, and potentially commuters crossing over the Wilson Bridge from Prince George's County.
Although we didn't get to see it at the meeting, the draft TMP was given to the city of Alexandria for review last night...I have assurances from city staff that it will be made available/promulgated to the public in some form. The schedule for city/BRAC Advisory Group comments on the draft TMP is to have them to the TMP study team by 20 July to be incorporated into a later draft version of the TMP that is due to NCPC by 30 July.
A few other notes from the meeting:
- The Eisenhower Ave Widening project is being considerably rescoped/scaled back in order to redirect funds to other projects within the city. To cut down costs, and also due to the unlikelihood of getting Right-Of-Way proffers from adjacent developers, the rescoping will be to 4 lanes with a narrower median, narrower sidewalks (narrower from the original plan, but still at least as wide as today), and narrower lane widths in order to keep the project within the existing ROW. Even with the rescoping, it's still expected to provide pedestrian and traffic improvements. The redirected money will be used to buy 8 new buses for DASH, construct the bike/ped improvements between Holmes Run and Eisenhower Ave (the planned bike/ped underpass under Eisenhower), and provide $1.3 million for improvements to the Eisenhower Ave Metro station (the city wants to add a station entrance on the north side of the street...very needed IMO).
- The Commercial Real Estate Tax (mentioned in a blog post a few months ago) was not approved by City Council for the FY2011 budget. However, the Transporation Commission is still looking into the idea and created a subcommittee to examine how the city might be able to utilize it and build public support for the tax to expand transportation options, with the goal being to have tangible public support and a tangible list of potential projects to present to City Council in time for the FY 2012 budget process.
- A last note, relating to parking meters. Unlike what I'd reported in April, the city is significantly increasing parking meter rates...up to $1.75/hr citywide. They're also implementing an "All may park, all must pay" policy, but I'm not sure what that entails except that handicapped parkers will also have to pay.
April 08, 2010
Street Smart and Street Complete
The bulk of last night's Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting was about two street items: Street Smart, and Complete Streets. The Complete Streets item in particular has been long-awaited.
A subcommittee of the Commission met last month to evaluate the 10 elements that comprise Complete Streets (on page 2), and also drafted up a proposed ordinance...some members of the Commission think a Complete Streets policy would "have more teeth" if it was codified into the city code, and I'm inclined to agree. There's the thought that many various plans (including the city's Master Plan and the various Small Area Plans) make mention of Complete Streets elements, but there's nothing that "brings it all together". It's also thought that a Complete Streets ordinance would have more permanence. The draft ordinance is available online (pages 3-4), and the goal is to have the ordinance before City Council by September (give or take a month).
There's a few reason for the delay. The Commission wants to bounce it off the city's attorneys to make sure everything lines up all legal-like before it goes to Council (small steps early will save the need for bigger steps later). There's also the relation to the city's new Strategic Plan, which is expected to be approved this summer and makes specific mention of Complete Streets. And there have been a few questions already brought up, mostly related to definitions, about Complete Streets.
For example, Jonathan Krall (who posts occasionally on area blogs) sent the city a letter that questions what the definition of "appropriate accommodation" is, and suggests that it be defined as "one that is everywhere visible, accessible, and connected". His concern mainly relates to connectivity for bikes and pedestrians...namely that they could come to the end of a facility and "perceive no safe way to proceed other than to turn around and return from whence they came".
Jon's wasn't the only concern about definitions. A Commission member voiced concern about the general lack of definitions in Complete Streets policy. Another made mention of a public question about the definition of "accessible transportation".
A member of an area citizen's health group (I missed both her name and the group she represented) thanked the Commission for its pursuance of a Complete Streets policy, and also requested that the ordinance includes mention of the public health benefits of Complete Streets.
The meeting then moved on from streets that are complete to streets that are smart. City staff gave a brief update on the Street Smart Campaign which is currently ongoing. This is a regional collaborative on both sides of the Potomac to raise awareness of traffic safety and laws for all modes. It includes driver/bike/pedestrian education (including a TV ad that is running on area cable stations) and increased enforcement of all modes (not just ticketing drivers, but pedestrians and bicyclists who don't follow traffic laws).
There was a question of how this ties in to the US DOT and Ray LaHood's recent focus on distracted driving. There apparently is no direct connection, but there is certainly some correlation between the two since they serve similar purposes.
Relating to Alexandria specifically, members of the Commission requested a brief on bike/pedestrian crash hotspots within the city. City staff had two maps posted at the meeting of bike/ped crashes within the city (the ones on pages 15-16 of this document), and the request is for further elaboration on those crash hotspots.
The program in Gainesville, FL mentioned earlier in the week by GreaterGreaterWashington was also mentioned at the meeting...posting signs showing traffic compliance statistics to "guilt-trip" drivers into obeying traffic laws.
My one concern with the Street Smart Campaign: if you truly want it to be effective, you can't just do a one-month enforcement blitz twice a year. You need continuous enforcement of the traffic laws. And even though this Spring campaign has been going on for 3 weeks, I have yet to see any traffic enforcement in Prince George's County. Time to get with the program, PGC.
Wrap-up note...a few items related to the proposed city budget were mentioned. The city's still looking for ways to reduce expenditures to help address the $44 million budget gap for FY11. Current proposals related to transportation are for reductions in sidewalk clearing (which mainly involves Old Town and Mt. Vernon Ave) and maintenance, parking meter maintenance (concern that this could backfire and cost the city parking meter revenue), bus shelter cleaning, development review, and traffic calming (mainly maintenance of traffic calming fixtures). The city also proposes raising the parking meter rates in Old Town from $1/hr to $1.25/hr (makes it comparable to Eisenhower Ave) and increasing rates for DOT Paratransit for those trips that go more than 6 miles outside the city.
Although the WMATA subsidy is currently being held flat, there's enough flexibility in the proposed tax rate to accommodate a $1.6 million subsidy icnrease if that goes through. Unfortunately, the city's budget process wraps up before WMATA's budget process, so there's a bit of a time disparity mucking up the waters here.
Lastly, after last month's meeting, I had explained the Add-on Commercial Property Tax, which is an additional property tax on commercial property (approved by the General Assembly a few years ago) that the city can levy to expand transportation options. It's probably not going to happen this year. The general feeling amongst City Council (as explained last night) is that the city needs a clear, articulated, and expanded project list that includes the project impacts on and benefits to the businesses that would be paying the tax. The existing project list (explained last month) is a start, but is apparently not good enough. It can't be ruled out entirely for this year, but it's not looking likely either.
A subcommittee of the Commission met last month to evaluate the 10 elements that comprise Complete Streets (on page 2), and also drafted up a proposed ordinance...some members of the Commission think a Complete Streets policy would "have more teeth" if it was codified into the city code, and I'm inclined to agree. There's the thought that many various plans (including the city's Master Plan and the various Small Area Plans) make mention of Complete Streets elements, but there's nothing that "brings it all together". It's also thought that a Complete Streets ordinance would have more permanence. The draft ordinance is available online (pages 3-4), and the goal is to have the ordinance before City Council by September (give or take a month).
There's a few reason for the delay. The Commission wants to bounce it off the city's attorneys to make sure everything lines up all legal-like before it goes to Council (small steps early will save the need for bigger steps later). There's also the relation to the city's new Strategic Plan, which is expected to be approved this summer and makes specific mention of Complete Streets. And there have been a few questions already brought up, mostly related to definitions, about Complete Streets.
For example, Jonathan Krall (who posts occasionally on area blogs) sent the city a letter that questions what the definition of "appropriate accommodation" is, and suggests that it be defined as "one that is everywhere visible, accessible, and connected". His concern mainly relates to connectivity for bikes and pedestrians...namely that they could come to the end of a facility and "perceive no safe way to proceed other than to turn around and return from whence they came".
Jon's wasn't the only concern about definitions. A Commission member voiced concern about the general lack of definitions in Complete Streets policy. Another made mention of a public question about the definition of "accessible transportation".
A member of an area citizen's health group (I missed both her name and the group she represented) thanked the Commission for its pursuance of a Complete Streets policy, and also requested that the ordinance includes mention of the public health benefits of Complete Streets.
The meeting then moved on from streets that are complete to streets that are smart. City staff gave a brief update on the Street Smart Campaign which is currently ongoing. This is a regional collaborative on both sides of the Potomac to raise awareness of traffic safety and laws for all modes. It includes driver/bike/pedestrian education (including a TV ad that is running on area cable stations) and increased enforcement of all modes (not just ticketing drivers, but pedestrians and bicyclists who don't follow traffic laws).
There was a question of how this ties in to the US DOT and Ray LaHood's recent focus on distracted driving. There apparently is no direct connection, but there is certainly some correlation between the two since they serve similar purposes.
Relating to Alexandria specifically, members of the Commission requested a brief on bike/pedestrian crash hotspots within the city. City staff had two maps posted at the meeting of bike/ped crashes within the city (the ones on pages 15-16 of this document), and the request is for further elaboration on those crash hotspots.
The program in Gainesville, FL mentioned earlier in the week by GreaterGreaterWashington was also mentioned at the meeting...posting signs showing traffic compliance statistics to "guilt-trip" drivers into obeying traffic laws.
My one concern with the Street Smart Campaign: if you truly want it to be effective, you can't just do a one-month enforcement blitz twice a year. You need continuous enforcement of the traffic laws. And even though this Spring campaign has been going on for 3 weeks, I have yet to see any traffic enforcement in Prince George's County. Time to get with the program, PGC.
Wrap-up note...a few items related to the proposed city budget were mentioned. The city's still looking for ways to reduce expenditures to help address the $44 million budget gap for FY11. Current proposals related to transportation are for reductions in sidewalk clearing (which mainly involves Old Town and Mt. Vernon Ave) and maintenance, parking meter maintenance (concern that this could backfire and cost the city parking meter revenue), bus shelter cleaning, development review, and traffic calming (mainly maintenance of traffic calming fixtures). The city also proposes raising the parking meter rates in Old Town from $1/hr to $1.25/hr (makes it comparable to Eisenhower Ave) and increasing rates for DOT Paratransit for those trips that go more than 6 miles outside the city.
Although the WMATA subsidy is currently being held flat, there's enough flexibility in the proposed tax rate to accommodate a $1.6 million subsidy icnrease if that goes through. Unfortunately, the city's budget process wraps up before WMATA's budget process, so there's a bit of a time disparity mucking up the waters here.
Lastly, after last month's meeting, I had explained the Add-on Commercial Property Tax, which is an additional property tax on commercial property (approved by the General Assembly a few years ago) that the city can levy to expand transportation options. It's probably not going to happen this year. The general feeling amongst City Council (as explained last night) is that the city needs a clear, articulated, and expanded project list that includes the project impacts on and benefits to the businesses that would be paying the tax. The existing project list (explained last month) is a start, but is apparently not good enough. It can't be ruled out entirely for this year, but it's not looking likely either.
March 29, 2010
WMATA and its "Budget Meetings"
WMATA is in the process of having six budget meetings to gather public input on how to address its $190 million shortfall for FY 2011.
And it just dawned on me that, except for ONE meeting in Anacostia (which has already happened), they're having *NO* meetings south of a line along US Route 50.
One could attempt to make an argument that those in southwestern Prince George's County could have attended the meeting last Wednesday in Anacostia, and some may have. Though according to tweets from fellow blogger Matt Johnson (at tonight's meeting in Lanham), at least one person is taking Metro to task for not having a meeting in southern PG County.
And either way, it leaves those of us in Alexandria or southeastern Fairfax County left twisting in the wind. Thanks a lot, WMATA...
Meanwhile, there's an online petition going around wanting WMATA to avoid service cuts on the Yellow Line. I've been saying from the get-go that if they "effectively kill" the Yellow Line (which the current budget proposal will do outside of weekday rush hours), it will effectively kill my patronage of Metro (yes, pun intended). This is significant for me since I live right off the Yellow Line.
And it just dawned on me that, except for ONE meeting in Anacostia (which has already happened), they're having *NO* meetings south of a line along US Route 50.
One could attempt to make an argument that those in southwestern Prince George's County could have attended the meeting last Wednesday in Anacostia, and some may have. Though according to tweets from fellow blogger Matt Johnson (at tonight's meeting in Lanham), at least one person is taking Metro to task for not having a meeting in southern PG County.
And either way, it leaves those of us in Alexandria or southeastern Fairfax County left twisting in the wind. Thanks a lot, WMATA...
Meanwhile, there's an online petition going around wanting WMATA to avoid service cuts on the Yellow Line. I've been saying from the get-go that if they "effectively kill" the Yellow Line (which the current budget proposal will do outside of weekday rush hours), it will effectively kill my patronage of Metro (yes, pun intended). This is significant for me since I live right off the Yellow Line.
March 09, 2010
The budget/BRAC bonanza...
Last night's Alexandria Transportation Commission meeting can be summed up in two words: budget, and BRAC.
The budget was the main topic of discussion for most of the meeting, focused on an update from city staff on the city manager's proposed Capital Improvement Program budget for FY 2011 thru FY 2020. In a nutshell, it doesn't look very good. As currently proposed, there is no money for DASH system expansion, the DASH bike racks won't happen until FY 2018, and due to VDOT cutting Urban System funding, very little in the way of street reconstruction outside of already-programmed projects (mainly just the Eisenhower Ave Complete Streets project and the King/Beauregard intersection).
One odd comment is that FY 2011 is the "last year" for CMAQ funds. Which is odd since that is a FHWA funding category, albeit subject to the ongoing debate over the Federal transportation reauthorization. Either way, this ball is in Congress's court.
A clarification on the TIGER grant: previously overlooked by some, there's $670K for capital improvements in the Van Dorn St corridor, previously identified by the city as a priority corridor for improving transit. Also, the $8.5 million for the Potomac Yard transitway, combined with $4 million in previously-secured Federal money, will only build the transitway between Monroe Ave and E. Glebe Rd. It's presumed that south of Monroe Ave (to the Braddock Rd Metro station) will run in mixed traffic, but the city is still searching for the roughly $16 million it will take to get the transitway up to Four Mile Run. One option being discussed is requesting a proffer from the Potomac Yard developer.
Not all hope is lost, however. One of the remaining remnants of the General Assembly's attempts at transportation funding a few years ago (before most of it was struck down in the courts....remember the $2000 speeding tickets for out-of-state drivers?) is an option for the city. Northern Virginia (and Hampton Roads) localities are allowed to levy up to 12.5 cents per $100 of value on non-residential commercial/industrial real estate, which can then be used for transportation purposes.
Some caveats, though. If it's residential property (to include apartment buildings), it cannot be taxed this way. The money MUST be used for transportation, and new transportation capital projects in particular (though operating expenses related to that new capital is also covered), and cannot be used for existing transportation expenses (so the city can't use this levy to substitute for existing DASH funding).
Arlington adopted it at the full 12.5 cents, while Fairfax County adopted it at a 11.5 cent level. Prince William County is apparently considering it.
Though the city hasn't announced what level it will proposed (it must announce a "max rate" by Saturday, though), preliminary indications are that it will propose a 3 cent level. The current proposal would use this money to expand the DASH bus fleet (3 new buses in FY11 and a fourth in FY12), purchase and operate an additional trolley for the King St Trolley service (to reduce headways), install bicycle wayfinding signage, and finally add bike racks to the DASH fleet (instead of waiting until FY18 as the proposed CIP budget does).
The other main topic was BRAC, namely the proposed interchange improvements at Seminary Road to service BRAC-133 at Mark Center. The city received a letter from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, who again asked the city to support a modification of Alt D (mostly Alt D with a few elements of Alt E added). Of course, the city is opposed to both Alt D and Alt E due to its impacts on the Winkler Preserve, and the mayor fired off a return letter to the county.
Meanwhile, the BRAC Advisory Group is recommending that BOTH Alt A1 (which the city favors) and Alt D (which Fairfax County favors, as noted above and previously) be dropped, and instead is leaning towards an odd option. A map of it isn't online yet, but here's the option in a nutshell:
- The current Seminary Rd overpass over the interchange would be removed, and Seminary Rd through traffic would go through the interchange. To mitigate this, the revised Seminary Rd would be expanded to allow for 3 through lanes in each direction.
- Replacing that top level would be a new HOV (or HO/T if that ever happens) ramp, connecting between the HOV lanes to/from the south and Seminary Rd to/from the north. This effectively provides the direct HOV lane access to the area without impacting the Winkler Preserve.
- Direct access to/from the BRAC parking garage via the southbound 395 ramp remains as an option.
- Where the revised Seminary Rd meets the I-395 ramps could either remain as the quad-set of signalized intersections that currently exists, or could be replaced by a large traffic circle.
VDOT has also released some new documentation on the interchange proposal, to which city staff feel they "missed the boat" by failing to mention impacts to the Winkler Preserve.
VDOT plans a public meeting on the interchange and their new documentation this Thursday (3/11) at Minnie Howard, while the city is planning another community meeting on April 10th at Landmark Mall.
The budget was the main topic of discussion for most of the meeting, focused on an update from city staff on the city manager's proposed Capital Improvement Program budget for FY 2011 thru FY 2020. In a nutshell, it doesn't look very good. As currently proposed, there is no money for DASH system expansion, the DASH bike racks won't happen until FY 2018, and due to VDOT cutting Urban System funding, very little in the way of street reconstruction outside of already-programmed projects (mainly just the Eisenhower Ave Complete Streets project and the King/Beauregard intersection).
One odd comment is that FY 2011 is the "last year" for CMAQ funds. Which is odd since that is a FHWA funding category, albeit subject to the ongoing debate over the Federal transportation reauthorization. Either way, this ball is in Congress's court.
A clarification on the TIGER grant: previously overlooked by some, there's $670K for capital improvements in the Van Dorn St corridor, previously identified by the city as a priority corridor for improving transit. Also, the $8.5 million for the Potomac Yard transitway, combined with $4 million in previously-secured Federal money, will only build the transitway between Monroe Ave and E. Glebe Rd. It's presumed that south of Monroe Ave (to the Braddock Rd Metro station) will run in mixed traffic, but the city is still searching for the roughly $16 million it will take to get the transitway up to Four Mile Run. One option being discussed is requesting a proffer from the Potomac Yard developer.
Not all hope is lost, however. One of the remaining remnants of the General Assembly's attempts at transportation funding a few years ago (before most of it was struck down in the courts....remember the $2000 speeding tickets for out-of-state drivers?) is an option for the city. Northern Virginia (and Hampton Roads) localities are allowed to levy up to 12.5 cents per $100 of value on non-residential commercial/industrial real estate, which can then be used for transportation purposes.
Some caveats, though. If it's residential property (to include apartment buildings), it cannot be taxed this way. The money MUST be used for transportation, and new transportation capital projects in particular (though operating expenses related to that new capital is also covered), and cannot be used for existing transportation expenses (so the city can't use this levy to substitute for existing DASH funding).
Arlington adopted it at the full 12.5 cents, while Fairfax County adopted it at a 11.5 cent level. Prince William County is apparently considering it.
Though the city hasn't announced what level it will proposed (it must announce a "max rate" by Saturday, though), preliminary indications are that it will propose a 3 cent level. The current proposal would use this money to expand the DASH bus fleet (3 new buses in FY11 and a fourth in FY12), purchase and operate an additional trolley for the King St Trolley service (to reduce headways), install bicycle wayfinding signage, and finally add bike racks to the DASH fleet (instead of waiting until FY18 as the proposed CIP budget does).
The other main topic was BRAC, namely the proposed interchange improvements at Seminary Road to service BRAC-133 at Mark Center. The city received a letter from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, who again asked the city to support a modification of Alt D (mostly Alt D with a few elements of Alt E added). Of course, the city is opposed to both Alt D and Alt E due to its impacts on the Winkler Preserve, and the mayor fired off a return letter to the county.
Meanwhile, the BRAC Advisory Group is recommending that BOTH Alt A1 (which the city favors) and Alt D (which Fairfax County favors, as noted above and previously) be dropped, and instead is leaning towards an odd option. A map of it isn't online yet, but here's the option in a nutshell:
- The current Seminary Rd overpass over the interchange would be removed, and Seminary Rd through traffic would go through the interchange. To mitigate this, the revised Seminary Rd would be expanded to allow for 3 through lanes in each direction.
- Replacing that top level would be a new HOV (or HO/T if that ever happens) ramp, connecting between the HOV lanes to/from the south and Seminary Rd to/from the north. This effectively provides the direct HOV lane access to the area without impacting the Winkler Preserve.
- Direct access to/from the BRAC parking garage via the southbound 395 ramp remains as an option.
- Where the revised Seminary Rd meets the I-395 ramps could either remain as the quad-set of signalized intersections that currently exists, or could be replaced by a large traffic circle.
VDOT has also released some new documentation on the interchange proposal, to which city staff feel they "missed the boat" by failing to mention impacts to the Winkler Preserve.
VDOT plans a public meeting on the interchange and their new documentation this Thursday (3/11) at Minnie Howard, while the city is planning another community meeting on April 10th at Landmark Mall.
March 04, 2010
There's jus' snow money...
A few days late, but better late than never.
Coincidentally, on the same day that WashCycle posts a Snowmageddon After Action Report, the Alexandria Ped/Bike Citizens Group has their bi-monthly meeting and discusses just that...snow removal.
The basic gist from Yon Lambert's viewpoint (he spent 10 days straight at the city's EOC, plus a couple nights of snowplowing) is that Alexandria (like the rest of the region) was "utterly overwhelmed". Not surprising, since we got a trio of 6+ inch snowfalls inside a 2 week period, with a 3-inch snowfall mixed in (this all per the daily climo summaries at Nat'l Airport). The city's snow removal budget is typically around $650K. They were through that after the December storm, let alone what we've had since then. Normally after a snowstorm, the city has 36 trucks out on the street. During and after the big February storms, they had over 70 trucks out...so double the normal, and were still overwhelmed.
This situation is likely echoed through the other jurisdictions throughout the region. In short, this region just doesn't have the resources to effectively and quickly clear out the snow after such major events.
Yon also pointed out a recent change in city snow removal policy: during larger storms like this, the new policy is to plow every street once, but not down to bare pavement, to facilitate emergency vehicle access, then they go back to the prioritizing of streets. This explains why people (including myself) saw plows all over the place during the snowstorms. The general policy is on the city's snow/ice control webpage, which also has maps showing the properties and sidewalks where the city has responsibility for snow removal.
Besides the above note, the general city policy is to prioritize the major streets (Route 1, Duke St, King St, etc) first. Then the secondary streets and streets that are hilly. City-owned/responsible sidewalks and paths are included at the secondary level, as are curb cuts along King St and Mt. Vernon Ave...a change implemented a couple years ago since these two streets are the primary commercial streets in the city. Residential streets are third in priority.
The big question, as it has been everywhere else, is why the plows were plowing snow onto the sidewalks. The short answer is that there was nowhere else to put it. The longer answer is that, for normal plowing, it's pretty much impossible to do effective plowing without having snow pile up along the curb, and since virtually every sidewalk is right up against the curb (we don't have this problem in Minneapolis), it affects the sidewalk as well. True, there were frontloaders loading snow onto dump trucks, which were dumping the snow at Potomac Yards and another location (I didn't catch the location), but frontloading is a time-consuming process, especially when you have literally hundreds of miles of street to clear.
The other big complaint from the roundtable (how the room was set up) was the lack of enforcement on sidewalk clearing, both in residential areas and the commercial areas. The city does have an ordinance regarding sidewalk clearing...within 24 hours. But we learned that this was waived for several days after the snowstorms. That said, there still were some tickets issued after the waive period was lifted. But there were several comments about residences and shops that still had not shoveled their sidewalks a week after the storm.
One thing we all pretty much agreed on is that everyone needs to have realistic expectations regarding snow removal after such huge storms as this. It's not a case where everything, including sidewalks, is going to be cleared within 72 hours, let alone after 24 or 48. Proper snow removal takes time, and that's something that the general public needs to understand.
Also coincidentally, Fairfax County is going to host a "2010 Snow Summit" on March 16, addressing what worked and what didn't. There's also a spot on the page for county citizens to offer their suggestions on how to improve snow removal.
Snow removal wasn't the only thing discussed at the meeting. The proposed city budget was discussed at-length, including the impact on bike/ped travel within the city. This is important since the city is facing a $44 million budget deficit for this year, though that's peanuts compared to other jurisdictions (Fairfax) and organizations (WMATA).
One bit of good news within the budget: the transportaion operating budget was not reduced. Problem is, trail maintenance is not included within that part of the budget.
Capital-wise, the transportation side (named "Street, Bridge, Non-motorized Transportation & Shared-use Paths:) is basically broken down into three categories: Bridge Repairs, Non-motorized Transportation/Shared-Use Paths, and Street Improvements. This is a change from previous years in that shared-use paths are now part of this category instead of being under Parks and Recreation as in previous years. The Non-motorized category is further subdivided into Shared-Use Paths specifically, a Safety category, and a Mobility category.
The budget also projects out 10 years, the first time the city's done this.
The Shared-Use Path category, formerly under Parks and Rec, is basically seed money for matching grants for paths, but can also be used for trail maintenance. That said, there isn't much going into this category. After the Eisenhower Ave underpass and a couple of trail studies, there's only $118K/yr expected to go into this category.
The Safety category pretty much morphed from the former Traffic Calming category, which will no longer exist. Nor will there be a lot of money for traffic calming. The Safety category is intended to address bike/ped safety issues. It will also address bike lane and sharrow markings.
The third category is Mobility, which addresses mobility enhancements, including access to transit. One project included in this that I was previously unaware of is a "Wilkes Street Bikeway", which will effectively create a bicycle boulevard along Wilkes St from Royal St (where the bike/ped tunnel is) to west of Route 1.
In addition, a partial copy of the city's memo to Congressman Moran was discussed, as it relates to transportation. This memo highlights the city's main transportation priorities. Of note:
- The Potomac Yard transitway, recently awared a TIGER grant and also one of the city's top two transportation priorities.
- An extension of the Eisenhower Ave Metro station platform...basically creating an entrance on the north side of Eisenhower and the city's top heavy rail request
- A Bicycle Initiative to install bike parking stations at the city's Metrorail stops, establish a bike-sharing program, and add bike racks to all DASH buses (Metro bike parking being the top bicycle priority).
- A feasibility study to extend the Columbia Pike Streetcar to the BRAC-133 location.
- Funding for the Potomac Yard Metro station.
- Funding for the Four Mile Run Bike/Ped Bridge (which will connect Commonwealth Ave to Eads St).
A few final notes...Bike-to-Work day is May 21, and BikeDC has apparently changed dates...it's now on May 23 (changed from May 9). The Eisenhower Ave Underpass (building a bike/ped path under the street at Cameron Run) has gone to bid. And lastly, "Complete Streets" is expected to go to the Transportation Commission in April.
Coincidentally, on the same day that WashCycle posts a Snowmageddon After Action Report, the Alexandria Ped/Bike Citizens Group has their bi-monthly meeting and discusses just that...snow removal.
The basic gist from Yon Lambert's viewpoint (he spent 10 days straight at the city's EOC, plus a couple nights of snowplowing) is that Alexandria (like the rest of the region) was "utterly overwhelmed". Not surprising, since we got a trio of 6+ inch snowfalls inside a 2 week period, with a 3-inch snowfall mixed in (this all per the daily climo summaries at Nat'l Airport). The city's snow removal budget is typically around $650K. They were through that after the December storm, let alone what we've had since then. Normally after a snowstorm, the city has 36 trucks out on the street. During and after the big February storms, they had over 70 trucks out...so double the normal, and were still overwhelmed.
This situation is likely echoed through the other jurisdictions throughout the region. In short, this region just doesn't have the resources to effectively and quickly clear out the snow after such major events.
Yon also pointed out a recent change in city snow removal policy: during larger storms like this, the new policy is to plow every street once, but not down to bare pavement, to facilitate emergency vehicle access, then they go back to the prioritizing of streets. This explains why people (including myself) saw plows all over the place during the snowstorms. The general policy is on the city's snow/ice control webpage, which also has maps showing the properties and sidewalks where the city has responsibility for snow removal.
Besides the above note, the general city policy is to prioritize the major streets (Route 1, Duke St, King St, etc) first. Then the secondary streets and streets that are hilly. City-owned/responsible sidewalks and paths are included at the secondary level, as are curb cuts along King St and Mt. Vernon Ave...a change implemented a couple years ago since these two streets are the primary commercial streets in the city. Residential streets are third in priority.
The big question, as it has been everywhere else, is why the plows were plowing snow onto the sidewalks. The short answer is that there was nowhere else to put it. The longer answer is that, for normal plowing, it's pretty much impossible to do effective plowing without having snow pile up along the curb, and since virtually every sidewalk is right up against the curb (we don't have this problem in Minneapolis), it affects the sidewalk as well. True, there were frontloaders loading snow onto dump trucks, which were dumping the snow at Potomac Yards and another location (I didn't catch the location), but frontloading is a time-consuming process, especially when you have literally hundreds of miles of street to clear.
The other big complaint from the roundtable (how the room was set up) was the lack of enforcement on sidewalk clearing, both in residential areas and the commercial areas. The city does have an ordinance regarding sidewalk clearing...within 24 hours. But we learned that this was waived for several days after the snowstorms. That said, there still were some tickets issued after the waive period was lifted. But there were several comments about residences and shops that still had not shoveled their sidewalks a week after the storm.
One thing we all pretty much agreed on is that everyone needs to have realistic expectations regarding snow removal after such huge storms as this. It's not a case where everything, including sidewalks, is going to be cleared within 72 hours, let alone after 24 or 48. Proper snow removal takes time, and that's something that the general public needs to understand.
Also coincidentally, Fairfax County is going to host a "2010 Snow Summit" on March 16, addressing what worked and what didn't. There's also a spot on the page for county citizens to offer their suggestions on how to improve snow removal.
Snow removal wasn't the only thing discussed at the meeting. The proposed city budget was discussed at-length, including the impact on bike/ped travel within the city. This is important since the city is facing a $44 million budget deficit for this year, though that's peanuts compared to other jurisdictions (Fairfax) and organizations (WMATA).
One bit of good news within the budget: the transportaion operating budget was not reduced. Problem is, trail maintenance is not included within that part of the budget.
Capital-wise, the transportation side (named "Street, Bridge, Non-motorized Transportation & Shared-use Paths:) is basically broken down into three categories: Bridge Repairs, Non-motorized Transportation/Shared-Use Paths, and Street Improvements. This is a change from previous years in that shared-use paths are now part of this category instead of being under Parks and Recreation as in previous years. The Non-motorized category is further subdivided into Shared-Use Paths specifically, a Safety category, and a Mobility category.
The budget also projects out 10 years, the first time the city's done this.
The Shared-Use Path category, formerly under Parks and Rec, is basically seed money for matching grants for paths, but can also be used for trail maintenance. That said, there isn't much going into this category. After the Eisenhower Ave underpass and a couple of trail studies, there's only $118K/yr expected to go into this category.
The Safety category pretty much morphed from the former Traffic Calming category, which will no longer exist. Nor will there be a lot of money for traffic calming. The Safety category is intended to address bike/ped safety issues. It will also address bike lane and sharrow markings.
The third category is Mobility, which addresses mobility enhancements, including access to transit. One project included in this that I was previously unaware of is a "Wilkes Street Bikeway", which will effectively create a bicycle boulevard along Wilkes St from Royal St (where the bike/ped tunnel is) to west of Route 1.
In addition, a partial copy of the city's memo to Congressman Moran was discussed, as it relates to transportation. This memo highlights the city's main transportation priorities. Of note:
- The Potomac Yard transitway, recently awared a TIGER grant and also one of the city's top two transportation priorities.
- An extension of the Eisenhower Ave Metro station platform...basically creating an entrance on the north side of Eisenhower and the city's top heavy rail request
- A Bicycle Initiative to install bike parking stations at the city's Metrorail stops, establish a bike-sharing program, and add bike racks to all DASH buses (Metro bike parking being the top bicycle priority).
- A feasibility study to extend the Columbia Pike Streetcar to the BRAC-133 location.
- Funding for the Potomac Yard Metro station.
- Funding for the Four Mile Run Bike/Ped Bridge (which will connect Commonwealth Ave to Eads St).
A few final notes...Bike-to-Work day is May 21, and BikeDC has apparently changed dates...it's now on May 23 (changed from May 9). The Eisenhower Ave Underpass (building a bike/ped path under the street at Cameron Run) has gone to bid. And lastly, "Complete Streets" is expected to go to the Transportation Commission in April.
August 19, 2008
Meanwhile, back on the home front...
More MnDOT controversy this time....or moreso silence.
There's been a lot of talk and articles lately on the transportation funding bill passed (actually veto-overridden) by the Legislature early this spring, and on one Republican representative in particular.
Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) is one of six Republicans who voted to override Pawlenty's veto of the transportation funding bill, giving MnDOT its first major cash infusion (MVST phase-in notwithstanding...and that has problems of its own as it is) in years.
So you'd think everything was fine and dandy, and MnDOT now has funding...plus a means to pay back bonds...to get some much-needed and delayed projects running. And to an extent, it has...the 169 "Devil's Triangle" near Osseo had repeatedly been delayed...lastly by its funding being shifted to keep the Crosstown Commons on track. And it's now under construction. Some needed bridge replacements, including I-90 at Dresbach, US 52 Lafayette Bridge, and the US 61 Hastings bridge, are now funded and scheduled.
Stop the presses.
It seems there's a minor blurb in the funding bill that directs MnDOT to "finish Highway 60".
And indeed there is. Article 2, Section 3, Subdivision 2(e). It directs MnDOT to spend bond funds in District 7 to "accelerate all projects" that meet certain criteria...namely IRC projects that have an EIS completed, are included in the long-range plan, and add capacity. Interestingly, only Highway 60 meets this criteria.
The section between the Iowa line and Worthington is slated, but the section between Windom and St. James is still unscheduled, much to the dismay of local residents.
So a lot of the attention lately has been on this lack of scheduling, articles written by both Rep. Hamilton and other Legislative members, and this otherwise-obscure line in the transportation funding bill.
Now don't get me wrong...Hwy 60 needs to be improved. The back-and-forth between 2 lanes and 4 lanes is confusing to motorists, and the highway has had its share of accidents.
But there's a few things to consider here. First, there are numerous other roadways across the state that have the same accident problems, and have much more traffic on them. Yet they aren't scheduled.
Second is another part of the transportation funding bill that most people seem to have either forgotten or ignored.
I wrote up a letter that sums it up, and sent it to the StarTribune, the Mankato Free Press, the Worthington Daily Globe, and the Mountain Lake Observer. The version to the Worthington paper is slightly different than the other three as I was replying directly to a letter by Rep. Hamilton there. Below is the letter in italics:
-------------------
MnDOT in a Catch-22
A lot has been said lately about Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) and this year's transportation funding bill, not to mention the mandate put in for MnDOT to first expend funds on certain projects in southwestern Minnesota that meet certain criteria, and that only Highway 60 meets the criteria.
While this is true...it's in Article 2, Section 3, Subdivision 2(e) of the transportation bill...it also represents somewhat of a dilemma for MnDOT. Because Article 6, Section 5, Subdivision 4 (and its various components) requires all state highway bridges that are fracture-critical or have a sufficiency rating below 80 to be under contract by mid-2018. And as we've all seen, bridges are expensive. Also, because of the ongoing escalation in material costs (steel, cement, oil, etc), MnDOT just doesn't have the funding to maintain the existing system, build Highway 60, and meet the bridge repair/replacement requirements, even with the funding bill. So something has to give. And unless we're all willing to live with less road maintenance and worse pavement, MnDOT will have to go against one of the legislative requirements, whether it be the bridge requirements or Highway 60.
A catch-22, if you will.
-------------
Will be interesting to see if anyone publishes it...nevermind what MnDOT plans to do to address the controversy. Stay tuned.
There's been a lot of talk and articles lately on the transportation funding bill passed (actually veto-overridden) by the Legislature early this spring, and on one Republican representative in particular.
Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) is one of six Republicans who voted to override Pawlenty's veto of the transportation funding bill, giving MnDOT its first major cash infusion (MVST phase-in notwithstanding...and that has problems of its own as it is) in years.
So you'd think everything was fine and dandy, and MnDOT now has funding...plus a means to pay back bonds...to get some much-needed and delayed projects running. And to an extent, it has...the 169 "Devil's Triangle" near Osseo had repeatedly been delayed...lastly by its funding being shifted to keep the Crosstown Commons on track. And it's now under construction. Some needed bridge replacements, including I-90 at Dresbach, US 52 Lafayette Bridge, and the US 61 Hastings bridge, are now funded and scheduled.
Stop the presses.
It seems there's a minor blurb in the funding bill that directs MnDOT to "finish Highway 60".
And indeed there is. Article 2, Section 3, Subdivision 2(e). It directs MnDOT to spend bond funds in District 7 to "accelerate all projects" that meet certain criteria...namely IRC projects that have an EIS completed, are included in the long-range plan, and add capacity. Interestingly, only Highway 60 meets this criteria.
The section between the Iowa line and Worthington is slated, but the section between Windom and St. James is still unscheduled, much to the dismay of local residents.
So a lot of the attention lately has been on this lack of scheduling, articles written by both Rep. Hamilton and other Legislative members, and this otherwise-obscure line in the transportation funding bill.
Now don't get me wrong...Hwy 60 needs to be improved. The back-and-forth between 2 lanes and 4 lanes is confusing to motorists, and the highway has had its share of accidents.
But there's a few things to consider here. First, there are numerous other roadways across the state that have the same accident problems, and have much more traffic on them. Yet they aren't scheduled.
Second is another part of the transportation funding bill that most people seem to have either forgotten or ignored.
I wrote up a letter that sums it up, and sent it to the StarTribune, the Mankato Free Press, the Worthington Daily Globe, and the Mountain Lake Observer. The version to the Worthington paper is slightly different than the other three as I was replying directly to a letter by Rep. Hamilton there. Below is the letter in italics:
-------------------
MnDOT in a Catch-22
A lot has been said lately about Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) and this year's transportation funding bill, not to mention the mandate put in for MnDOT to first expend funds on certain projects in southwestern Minnesota that meet certain criteria, and that only Highway 60 meets the criteria.
While this is true...it's in Article 2, Section 3, Subdivision 2(e) of the transportation bill...it also represents somewhat of a dilemma for MnDOT. Because Article 6, Section 5, Subdivision 4 (and its various components) requires all state highway bridges that are fracture-critical or have a sufficiency rating below 80 to be under contract by mid-2018. And as we've all seen, bridges are expensive. Also, because of the ongoing escalation in material costs (steel, cement, oil, etc), MnDOT just doesn't have the funding to maintain the existing system, build Highway 60, and meet the bridge repair/replacement requirements, even with the funding bill. So something has to give. And unless we're all willing to live with less road maintenance and worse pavement, MnDOT will have to go against one of the legislative requirements, whether it be the bridge requirements or Highway 60.
A catch-22, if you will.
-------------
Will be interesting to see if anyone publishes it...nevermind what MnDOT plans to do to address the controversy. Stay tuned.
July 01, 2008
More fuel for the fire...
As if the article from 2 weeks ago wasn't enough, there's been a spate of new articles lately reflecting on MDOT's funding woes, including this SunHerald article, also published today by the ClarionLedger), and even picked up by Forbes. There's also this article from a week ago (originally published by the ClarionLedger). Then there's a letter from Wayne Brown, the Southern District Commissioner.
Two items I found of interest. First is that MDOT's annual construction budget has stayed relatively even for the past several years. And we all know what inflation has done over that timeframe.
Second is that this is just now hitting the mainstream media in Mississippi, when it has long been noted as a problem in other states. I'm thinking, as I noted in my previous blog entry, that this is a result of MDOT's "Katrina money" running out...most of the post-Katrina reconstruction having run its course...and now they're feeling the pinch.
And solving the problem won't be easy. This is a state that has long had an aversion to high taxes. Plus you have a population that is very rural and drives a lot as a result who would be hit even worse by higher gas prices, and so is well opposed to a gas tax increase, even though that gas tax money would go back to the roads and is thus far the fairest way to pay for them. Then to top it off, you have a lot of people mad at MDOT for the way they run business...and their "elected transportation commission" in particular, as exemplified in this ClarionLedger editorial from last week. So you'd have opposition to increased funding for MDOT on the simple basis of the people running the MDOT show.
Bottom line: it's going to be a rough ride for awhile (pun intended).
Two items I found of interest. First is that MDOT's annual construction budget has stayed relatively even for the past several years. And we all know what inflation has done over that timeframe.
Second is that this is just now hitting the mainstream media in Mississippi, when it has long been noted as a problem in other states. I'm thinking, as I noted in my previous blog entry, that this is a result of MDOT's "Katrina money" running out...most of the post-Katrina reconstruction having run its course...and now they're feeling the pinch.
And solving the problem won't be easy. This is a state that has long had an aversion to high taxes. Plus you have a population that is very rural and drives a lot as a result who would be hit even worse by higher gas prices, and so is well opposed to a gas tax increase, even though that gas tax money would go back to the roads and is thus far the fairest way to pay for them. Then to top it off, you have a lot of people mad at MDOT for the way they run business...and their "elected transportation commission" in particular, as exemplified in this ClarionLedger editorial from last week. So you'd have opposition to increased funding for MDOT on the simple basis of the people running the MDOT show.
Bottom line: it's going to be a rough ride for awhile (pun intended).
June 20, 2008
Road-building hitting a dead-end in Mississippi?
I'd skimmed over this article from the SunHerald earlier this week, but it wasn't until I A) discovered Taralyn's blog (she goes by Darkangel on MTR), and B) that she'd commented about it that I decided to pipe up.
So, for the first time in what seems like ages, MDOT has cancelled or delayed road projects. The reason? It's not community opposition (which they usually plow through anyway), or the Mississippi Legislature finally getting a clue and reigning MDOT in (which will never happen, no matter how much it needs to).
Nope. As some would put it, it's the economy, stupid. Other DOTs across the country have long been feeling the pinch from the run-up in oil, steel, and cement prices. And now that Katrina money has mostly run its course, MDOT is starting to feel the same.
Which is unfortunate, because there's a lot of projects out there that will be left wallowing in the wind now that inflation has hit the roof in addition to already being left out because MDOT likes doing the "big projects". Like the first phase of what some call MS 601, some call "I-310", and yet others call the "Gulfport Port Connector". Of course, that one survived, because it's "already funded". So did the planned MS 57 bypass of Vancleve.
But several projects ready to go weren't so lucky. Among them: a Kiln bypass, which has been needed since God-knows-when. The article also mentioned improvements to US 11 and MS 43 in Picayune that were put on hold. It's funny in a way...because MDOT has been talking about widening US 11 through Picayune for ages now, and all we've seen from them is a center left-turn-lane for about a mile north of MS 43...and it took Katrina money and traffic just to get that done. And MS 43 has been screaming 4 lanes! and left turn lanes! for awhile now too...but that isn't happening either.
So much for a better route for me over to Gulfport.
So, for the first time in what seems like ages, MDOT has cancelled or delayed road projects. The reason? It's not community opposition (which they usually plow through anyway), or the Mississippi Legislature finally getting a clue and reigning MDOT in (which will never happen, no matter how much it needs to).
Nope. As some would put it, it's the economy, stupid. Other DOTs across the country have long been feeling the pinch from the run-up in oil, steel, and cement prices. And now that Katrina money has mostly run its course, MDOT is starting to feel the same.
Which is unfortunate, because there's a lot of projects out there that will be left wallowing in the wind now that inflation has hit the roof in addition to already being left out because MDOT likes doing the "big projects". Like the first phase of what some call MS 601, some call "I-310", and yet others call the "Gulfport Port Connector". Of course, that one survived, because it's "already funded". So did the planned MS 57 bypass of Vancleve.
But several projects ready to go weren't so lucky. Among them: a Kiln bypass, which has been needed since God-knows-when. The article also mentioned improvements to US 11 and MS 43 in Picayune that were put on hold. It's funny in a way...because MDOT has been talking about widening US 11 through Picayune for ages now, and all we've seen from them is a center left-turn-lane for about a mile north of MS 43...and it took Katrina money and traffic just to get that done. And MS 43 has been screaming 4 lanes! and left turn lanes! for awhile now too...but that isn't happening either.
So much for a better route for me over to Gulfport.
May 26, 2008
Taking down freeway spurs, and some possible Minneapolis examples
First off, a quick update, as I've been out to sea for 3 months. The Minnesota Legislature DID pass a transportation funding bill, which was promptly vetoed by the Governor. However, when the veto override vote came up, six House Republicans chose to break ranks and vote for the bill, and so both MnDOT and regional transit finally have their first real surge in funding in years. Afterwards, and somewhat in keeping with requirements in the bill, MnDOT announced accelerated timetables for several bridge replacements, including the US 52 Lafayette Bridge, the US 61 Hastings Bridge, and the MN 23 DeSoto Bridge in St. Cloud...which has been closed for the past month after an inspection brought up concerns about the gusset plates.
----------
Moving on to more recent events, about a week ago was the first of some articles around the country (mainly the same article/story appearing in different locations on different days) on removing freeways from urban areas, especially blighted elevated freeways, and highlighting Oklahoma City's removal of I-40 through downtown.
What some of these articles barely mention, however, is that I-40 is not being eliminated. It's being relocated to a covered-over trench along an old railroad line a few blocks to the south. While this will allow the city to build a park along the existing I-40 right-of-way, to say that the freeway is being torn down to make room for a park, without discussing the relocation, is misleading.
Supporters are quick to point out real-life examples of freeway removal as a talking point for further projects. It should be pointed out that most of these removals were spur routes, not major through routes. They were also done either due to structural damage (i.e. the Embarcadero in San Francisco after the '89 earthquake) or because the route was underutilized (i.e. the Park East in Milwaukee).
That said, the story has opened up discussion nationwide about removing or relocating freeways from undesirable locations, either for aesthetic reasons (i.e. along a waterfront), or to open up areas of the central city for redevelopment. Minneapolis is no exception, and there's been some discussion on the StarTribune Roadguy blog about doing the same thing in Minneapolis. Two of the more popular suggestions involve downgrading the 3rd St spur east of the Metrodome that feeds into the U of M campus, and downgrading the 3rd/4th St spur from 2nd Ave N to I-94.
Removing the spur east of the Metrodome to the "U" has several issues related to it, between it being the primary route into and through campus, the proposed Central LRT line, and elevation/grade differences between Cedar Ave and the spur. I'll save this for a future discussion.
Below are some points on the other freeway spur...along 3rd/4th St between I-94 and 2nd Ave N:
- Average traffic volumes on the spur are about 20K daily. Combined with the existing 3rd St/4th St, it’s a total of about 23K. This is on par with many of the one-way pairs around downtown.
- With that in mind, it’s within the realm of possibility to take down the freeway spur and create a 3rd/4th St “boulevard” in between I-94 and 2nd Ave N.
- To maintain traffic flow, though, two main recommendations, if not outright requirements, would be A) traffic signal progression, and B) three lanes on each street. I don’t remember street widths offhand, but I think it’s possible to maintain 3 traffic lanes and still have enough street width for parking and a bike lane, especially inbound along 4th St (which has the wider width available due to the overpass).
- One of two areas of concern is bridging over the BNSF rail tracks. I don’t remember the elevation difference between the BNSF trench and old 3rd St/4th St, but if there’s enough of an elevation difference, you should be able to bridge over the rail tracks without having to bridge over 5th Ave N as well.
- The other area of concern is connecting to the I-94 ramps, especially outbound on 3rd St. The inbound connection to 4th St shouldn’t be much of a problem, but the outbound connection currently has a large building in the way…this building is what causes the break in 3rd St between 10th Ave N and 12th Ave N. It’s not insurmountable, but it may require some tight curviture and will definately impact the parking lots at the building.
So, in a nutshell, I think one's doable, but the other has too many issues that need to be sorted out first.
----------
Moving on to more recent events, about a week ago was the first of some articles around the country (mainly the same article/story appearing in different locations on different days) on removing freeways from urban areas, especially blighted elevated freeways, and highlighting Oklahoma City's removal of I-40 through downtown.
What some of these articles barely mention, however, is that I-40 is not being eliminated. It's being relocated to a covered-over trench along an old railroad line a few blocks to the south. While this will allow the city to build a park along the existing I-40 right-of-way, to say that the freeway is being torn down to make room for a park, without discussing the relocation, is misleading.
Supporters are quick to point out real-life examples of freeway removal as a talking point for further projects. It should be pointed out that most of these removals were spur routes, not major through routes. They were also done either due to structural damage (i.e. the Embarcadero in San Francisco after the '89 earthquake) or because the route was underutilized (i.e. the Park East in Milwaukee).
That said, the story has opened up discussion nationwide about removing or relocating freeways from undesirable locations, either for aesthetic reasons (i.e. along a waterfront), or to open up areas of the central city for redevelopment. Minneapolis is no exception, and there's been some discussion on the StarTribune Roadguy blog about doing the same thing in Minneapolis. Two of the more popular suggestions involve downgrading the 3rd St spur east of the Metrodome that feeds into the U of M campus, and downgrading the 3rd/4th St spur from 2nd Ave N to I-94.
Removing the spur east of the Metrodome to the "U" has several issues related to it, between it being the primary route into and through campus, the proposed Central LRT line, and elevation/grade differences between Cedar Ave and the spur. I'll save this for a future discussion.
Below are some points on the other freeway spur...along 3rd/4th St between I-94 and 2nd Ave N:
- Average traffic volumes on the spur are about 20K daily. Combined with the existing 3rd St/4th St, it’s a total of about 23K. This is on par with many of the one-way pairs around downtown.
- With that in mind, it’s within the realm of possibility to take down the freeway spur and create a 3rd/4th St “boulevard” in between I-94 and 2nd Ave N.
- To maintain traffic flow, though, two main recommendations, if not outright requirements, would be A) traffic signal progression, and B) three lanes on each street. I don’t remember street widths offhand, but I think it’s possible to maintain 3 traffic lanes and still have enough street width for parking and a bike lane, especially inbound along 4th St (which has the wider width available due to the overpass).
- One of two areas of concern is bridging over the BNSF rail tracks. I don’t remember the elevation difference between the BNSF trench and old 3rd St/4th St, but if there’s enough of an elevation difference, you should be able to bridge over the rail tracks without having to bridge over 5th Ave N as well.
- The other area of concern is connecting to the I-94 ramps, especially outbound on 3rd St. The inbound connection to 4th St shouldn’t be much of a problem, but the outbound connection currently has a large building in the way…this building is what causes the break in 3rd St between 10th Ave N and 12th Ave N. It’s not insurmountable, but it may require some tight curviture and will definately impact the parking lots at the building.
So, in a nutshell, I think one's doable, but the other has too many issues that need to be sorted out first.
February 18, 2008
Transportation at the Minnesota Legislature
As expected, the transportation situation in Minnesota is at the forefront of the state Legislature.
The DFL has already introduced a major transportation spending bill similar to last year's...several billion dollars worth. Unfortunately for them, many Republicans are aghast at the large number of 'tax increases' contained in the bill, and the Governor has already put out that he will oppose any tax increases that do not include a corresponding 'tax decrease' elsewhere.
With the state facing a budget deficit, I doubt that'll happen. Unless some major compromise occurs, it'll probably come down to a situation similar to last year: Governor vetoes a transportation bill, the Senate overrides, but the House sustains the veto.
I'm on the mailing list for one state Senator (who shall remain nameless here). The following is part of a legislative update this Senator E-mailed out today:
------------
The $8.4 billion transportation plan introduced last week is very
similar to the bill vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty last spring. It includes a
new 5-cent gas tax with inflationary increases, as much as a 2-1/2 cent
fuel surcharge, a new car registration tax and a half-cent metro sales
tax for transit which is not subject to voter approval.
The bill would undoubtedly provide a large infusion of needed funding
for congested roads and ailing bridges across the state, as well as
funding new state patrol officers and giving transit users more options.
Unfortunately, the bill relies too heavily on new taxes and fees that
would cost all of us directly and indirectly by adding to the cost of
goods brought to market. An additional provision borrows $2.2 billion
for bonding over 10 years. Although the governor has promised a veto of
any bill that does not have a corresponding tax cut, a veto override
attempt could be close.
The House and Senate bills both have a few more committee hearings
before being brought to the respective floors for full debate. At those
stops, it is possible that significant changes will be made, so I will
try to keep you updated on this important bill's status.
----------------------------
Following is my reply:
We're not going to improve the transportation situation by bonding alone, contrary to what the Governor may think. And given the budget deficit that you've already cited, we can't exactly pull money out of the general fund either.
Some sort of revenue increase will be needed. If it takes the DFL and enough Republicans to compromise on a transportation bill that would be veto-proof, then so be it. I'd rather have something than nothing. And if the Legislature ends this session with nothing, you and the Governor will have a lot of angry voters to contend with.
A lot of people are complaining that the tax increases for transportation proposed would "hurt the working poor". Do any of them (yourself included) realize that the working poor are hurt just as much, if not more, by traffic congestion in the metro, poor roadways, and poor transit service? Sure, nobody likes paying more to drive or travel, but if the result is a better transportation system, one that saves TIME as well as the hidden monetary costs of congestion, then it will be worth it.
But the gas tax is still part and parcel of it. Already has Constitutional protection, and is more a "user fee" than most people think.
Nevermind that history shows infrastructure improvements to be economic builders as
well...an important thing to remember in this near-recession economic time.
Lastly, on the subject of tax reform and transportation, it's been long established by the scientific community that heavier vehicles both A) damage roads more than lighter vehicles, and B) require much heavier road construction for the road to support them. Given those in mind, perhaps the state should change vehicle registration fees to be based on vehicle weight instead of based on market value/age depreciation.
----------------------
Will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully Minnesotans won't be disappointed in the end.
The DFL has already introduced a major transportation spending bill similar to last year's...several billion dollars worth. Unfortunately for them, many Republicans are aghast at the large number of 'tax increases' contained in the bill, and the Governor has already put out that he will oppose any tax increases that do not include a corresponding 'tax decrease' elsewhere.
With the state facing a budget deficit, I doubt that'll happen. Unless some major compromise occurs, it'll probably come down to a situation similar to last year: Governor vetoes a transportation bill, the Senate overrides, but the House sustains the veto.
I'm on the mailing list for one state Senator (who shall remain nameless here). The following is part of a legislative update this Senator E-mailed out today:
------------
The $8.4 billion transportation plan introduced last week is very
similar to the bill vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty last spring. It includes a
new 5-cent gas tax with inflationary increases, as much as a 2-1/2 cent
fuel surcharge, a new car registration tax and a half-cent metro sales
tax for transit which is not subject to voter approval.
The bill would undoubtedly provide a large infusion of needed funding
for congested roads and ailing bridges across the state, as well as
funding new state patrol officers and giving transit users more options.
Unfortunately, the bill relies too heavily on new taxes and fees that
would cost all of us directly and indirectly by adding to the cost of
goods brought to market. An additional provision borrows $2.2 billion
for bonding over 10 years. Although the governor has promised a veto of
any bill that does not have a corresponding tax cut, a veto override
attempt could be close.
The House and Senate bills both have a few more committee hearings
before being brought to the respective floors for full debate. At those
stops, it is possible that significant changes will be made, so I will
try to keep you updated on this important bill's status.
----------------------------
Following is my reply:
We're not going to improve the transportation situation by bonding alone, contrary to what the Governor may think. And given the budget deficit that you've already cited, we can't exactly pull money out of the general fund either.
Some sort of revenue increase will be needed. If it takes the DFL and enough Republicans to compromise on a transportation bill that would be veto-proof, then so be it. I'd rather have something than nothing. And if the Legislature ends this session with nothing, you and the Governor will have a lot of angry voters to contend with.
A lot of people are complaining that the tax increases for transportation proposed would "hurt the working poor". Do any of them (yourself included) realize that the working poor are hurt just as much, if not more, by traffic congestion in the metro, poor roadways, and poor transit service? Sure, nobody likes paying more to drive or travel, but if the result is a better transportation system, one that saves TIME as well as the hidden monetary costs of congestion, then it will be worth it.
But the gas tax is still part and parcel of it. Already has Constitutional protection, and is more a "user fee" than most people think.
Nevermind that history shows infrastructure improvements to be economic builders as
well...an important thing to remember in this near-recession economic time.
Lastly, on the subject of tax reform and transportation, it's been long established by the scientific community that heavier vehicles both A) damage roads more than lighter vehicles, and B) require much heavier road construction for the road to support them. Given those in mind, perhaps the state should change vehicle registration fees to be based on vehicle weight instead of based on market value/age depreciation.
----------------------
Will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully Minnesotans won't be disappointed in the end.
February 17, 2008
A *REAL* economic stimulus package
So Congress, worried about the economy, passes a $168 billion "economic stimulus package" that the President signs, giving tax breaks to businesses and rebates to taxpayers in an effort to stimulate spending and conversely the now-faltering economy.
Perhaps if Congress had done their homework, they'd have realized that there are far better areas they could have put that money that would do much more to jump-start the economy. With history to back it up.
Tax breaks to some businesses, especially small businesses (which are the lifeblood of the economy to begin with) may be beneficial. And while every taxpayer enjoys getting money back from the government, polls are already showing that a vast majority will be using the rebates to pay down debt or put into savings, instead of spending it as Congress intended. Sorry, Congress/Mr. President, but a much better location to target that $168 billion would have been infrastructure.
Take a look around you. Our public infrastructure is crumbling. Electric grids are overloaded. Water and sewage facilities are old and in need of replacement, as is thousands upon thousands of bridges and miles of pavement. People are sitting in traffic congestion due to lack of capacity and lack of other options.
Even using just 1/3 of that $168 billion figure for infrastructure would have given astounding results. History has long shown that investment in public infrastructure pays hefty dividends down the road (pun intended). Not only would it create construction jobs (with several ancillary economic benefits as a result), but investing in the transportation infrastructure would give motorists and travelers time and money benefits....less time on the road (meaning more time with family), less gas wasted (meaning less money spent on gas...money that they can then spend elsewhere), and better ability to move goods and services (meaning money savings for businesses).
It's a win-win situation. And it's completely UNSAT that Congress failed to consider it.
Perhaps if Congress had done their homework, they'd have realized that there are far better areas they could have put that money that would do much more to jump-start the economy. With history to back it up.
Tax breaks to some businesses, especially small businesses (which are the lifeblood of the economy to begin with) may be beneficial. And while every taxpayer enjoys getting money back from the government, polls are already showing that a vast majority will be using the rebates to pay down debt or put into savings, instead of spending it as Congress intended. Sorry, Congress/Mr. President, but a much better location to target that $168 billion would have been infrastructure.
Take a look around you. Our public infrastructure is crumbling. Electric grids are overloaded. Water and sewage facilities are old and in need of replacement, as is thousands upon thousands of bridges and miles of pavement. People are sitting in traffic congestion due to lack of capacity and lack of other options.
Even using just 1/3 of that $168 billion figure for infrastructure would have given astounding results. History has long shown that investment in public infrastructure pays hefty dividends down the road (pun intended). Not only would it create construction jobs (with several ancillary economic benefits as a result), but investing in the transportation infrastructure would give motorists and travelers time and money benefits....less time on the road (meaning more time with family), less gas wasted (meaning less money spent on gas...money that they can then spend elsewhere), and better ability to move goods and services (meaning money savings for businesses).
It's a win-win situation. And it's completely UNSAT that Congress failed to consider it.
May 09, 2007
And now, a word from our compromiser...
So the Minnesota House and Senate have come to some sort of compromise on a transportation funding bill.
Looks like a 5 cent gas tax increase (vice the previously planned 10-cent), $1.5 billion in bonding (to be repaid via a 2.5-cent gas tax instead of the MVST transfer), and a rescinding of the second-year-and-beyond caps on vehicle registration fees for NEW vehicles (existing vehicles will apparently still have the caps on tab fees). The Strib article suggests that they're still working out other details.
That's nice. Fine and dandy. Though given that the Governor has vowed to veto *ANYTHING* involving a tax increase this year, it will be even better if this thing has enough votes to override a veto. I sure as hell hope the Republicans in the Legislature have the balls to go with what's best for Minnesota...BETTER TRANSPORTATION FUNDING...and not stick with their head-in-the-sand leader.
I know at least one who will (and Rep. Erhardt, you get kudos, as you did from me two years ago). Alas, I know at least three who won't have the balls (Seifert, Sviggum, and Day...you're on notice).
'Course, maybe someone could convince the Governor that the gas tax is like a "health impact fee"...
Looks like a 5 cent gas tax increase (vice the previously planned 10-cent), $1.5 billion in bonding (to be repaid via a 2.5-cent gas tax instead of the MVST transfer), and a rescinding of the second-year-and-beyond caps on vehicle registration fees for NEW vehicles (existing vehicles will apparently still have the caps on tab fees). The Strib article suggests that they're still working out other details.
That's nice. Fine and dandy. Though given that the Governor has vowed to veto *ANYTHING* involving a tax increase this year, it will be even better if this thing has enough votes to override a veto. I sure as hell hope the Republicans in the Legislature have the balls to go with what's best for Minnesota...BETTER TRANSPORTATION FUNDING...and not stick with their head-in-the-sand leader.
I know at least one who will (and Rep. Erhardt, you get kudos, as you did from me two years ago). Alas, I know at least three who won't have the balls (Seifert, Sviggum, and Day...you're on notice).
'Course, maybe someone could convince the Governor that the gas tax is like a "health impact fee"...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)