Virginia governor McDonnell signed his controversial transportation omnibus bill this morning. Among other things, the bill:

• Requires comprehensive plans adopted by local jurisdictions to agree with the state’s transportation plans. This means that localities will no longer be able to officially oppose VDOT plans to build or widen highways when adopting their own plans.
• Authorizes the state to require localities that cancel or modify projects to reimburse any money the state has spent on them, even if the locality never supported the project.
• Directs 67% of any future year general fund budget surplus that is not otherwise committed towards the state’s transportation trust fund, or a “subfund” thereof. By specifying that money can go to a “subfund, ” the bill bypasses the normal formulas that distribute funding around the state and allows the governor to pick specific projects.
• Removes up to $500 million from the highways portion of the funding distribution formula and directs it towards various non-formula highway projects, including unspecified “high priority” ones.
• Allows private companies to buy naming rights for highways, bridges, and interchanges.
• Redefines the state’s popular transportation revenue sharing program to put emphasis on funding maintenance rather than capital projects.

The bill does not provide any new authority for Northern Virginia to fund and determine its own transportation goals, which has been a long time request from Northern Virginia jurisdictions.

Streetcar impact on residential development demand.

Will DC’s streetcar system be worth its $1.5 billion expense? A recent study indicates that the answer is a resounding yes.

One of the key differences between buses and streetcars is that streetcars induce land development. That benefits the city from a Smart Growth and urbanist perspective. It also turns out to be a big win for the city’s coffers.

The DC Office of Planning’s Streetcar Land Use Study was commissioned to determine the impact that the city’s planned streetcar network will have on development, and on city tax revenue.

The findings are, to put it mildly, extremely positive.

Positive impacts

According to the study, the great benefit of streetcars will be that they tremendously expand the number of households and business properties that are within walking distance of a rail station. With streetcars, the share of DC residents within a quarter mile of a rail stop will increase from today’s 16% up to 50%.

That will correspond to an increase in the value of properties along streetcar lines by $5-7 billion. Another $5-8 billion in new development can be expected, resulting in a total property value increase of $10-15 billion due to streetcars.

That would result in $238-291 million in new tax revenue for the city each year, after completion of the 37 mile streetcar network. At that rate it would take only 6 years for the city to recuperate the full $1.5 billion cost. After 6 years, the tax revenues would be pure profit.

Tax revenue isn’t the only benefit, of course. The demographic impacts are significant. Compared to a no-streetcars baseline scenario, over a 10 year period the streetcar network is anticipated to induce 6, 300-7, 700 new jobs in the District, up to 12, 000 new households, and up to 1.3 million square feet of new retail development.

That is a big deal.

The study goes on to conclude that these sort of dramatic results are only practical with streetcars.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is often mentioned as a less expensive alternative to streetcars. However, according to the study BRT would require exclusive rights-of-way in order to begin to achieve some of the same benefits as mixed-traffic streetcars. The property acquisitions necessary to provide exclusive bus lanes would more than negate any cost savings achieved by using buses, and the impacts on development would still be less. At the end of the day, BRT would be neither cheaper nor as effective.

Meanwhile, the expense of Metrorail and light rail would make them cost prohibitive to use for such an extensive network. If the District wants 37 miles of new transit, they are not options.

Negative impacts

There are of course some negative impacts. The largest of which is the effect such a tremendous increase in development demand would have on affordable housing.

The study recommends that in order to mitigate that impact, a range of policy prescriptions will be necessary. Recommendations include upzoning certain areas so that supply can keep up with demand, mandating inclusionary zoning in new developments, and greater code flexibility to allow accessory dwelling units such as alley houses.

Another negative impact is that streetcars running on a curbside alignment preclude the possibility of converting parking lanes to travel lanes during the peak period. With curbside streetcars, parking lanes must be either permanent, or absent.

The report also mentions the complications inherent to bicycle-streetcar coexistence. It notes that quality bike infrastructure will be necessary along streetcar corridors in order to minimize conflict.

Funding mechanisms

Although federal funding may become available at some time, any realistic scenario for the funding of this network must include a substantial local contribution.

In addition to DDOT’s normal funding mechanisms, the study identifies potential other sources of streetcar construction funds. Developer contributions and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) appear to be the most promising.

Developer contributions may be possible where very large developments would benefit from streetcar services, such as at Walter Reed or the Southwest Waterfront. The city could negotiate for a contribution of a few million dollars, knowing that the value of the development will increase by a greater amount with the presence of a streetcar.

Tax Increment Financing has even greater potential to fund a very large percentage of the program. TIF is a process in which the city uses bonds to build the initial capital investment, then repays the bonds using the increase in property tax revenue.

The report estimates that using the TIF process, the District could realistically support $600-900 million in bonds. That would approximate to between 40-60% of the total $1.5 billion cost.

These funding strategies will have to be explored in greater detail, and the negatives associated with streetcars will have to be addressed. But if this study proves correct, streetcars are going to be a big, big win. A decade after the system is built the city will be a better and more livable place, construction debt will be repaid, and the tax revenue will be rolling in.

 Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

Image from Marcan Tiger Preserve.

The fourth round of the popular TIGER funding program was announced this morning by USDOT. The program can be used to fund virtually any kind of transportation project, and is extremely competitive nationally. The DC area has been successful in the past, and may put forth another regional application.

Here are the details of the program:

• It provides a total of $500 million, with several sub-categories.
  • Up to $100 million may be used for intercity passenger rail. USDOT says this will be a priority this round.
  • At least $120 million must go to projects located in rural areas.
  • Up to $175 million may be used to leverage loans under the TIFIA program.
  • The remaining $105-280 million (depending on the amount used for TIFIA) will go towards “traditional” TIGER recipients such as ports, transit, roads, cycling, and complete streets projects.
• For projects located in urban areas:
  • There must be a minimum 20% local funding match.
  • The minimum grant award shall be $10 million, meaning the minimum project size (with local match) is $12.5 million.
  • The maximum award is $200 million, but it is unlikely any awards will be larger than $20 million.
• For projects in rural areas:
  • There is no required local match.
  • Projects may be as small as $1 million.
• Pre-applications are due February 20, and final applications on March 19. This is an incredibly short turnaround time.
• Funds received under the program must be obligated no later than September 30, 2013. “Obligation” is a specific federal term. It does not mean projects have to be completed by that time, but rather means they must have passed through the extensive federal planning process. This deadline essentially means that only projects which have already begun planning, or which can be planned unusually quickly, are eligible.
• As is always the case with TIGER grants, regional collaboration is encouraged, and USDOT will strive for equitable geographic distribution of funds around the country.

As Virginia moves forward with private partnerships in order to build and operate HOT lanes, one of the issues that will have to be worked out is how fast traffic in the HOT lanes is designed to move. The state wants HOT lanes to move at totally uncongested speeds, while the private companies that will manage tolls would make more money (and would move more people) allowing the lanes to become somewhat congested, but not as much as the general purpose lanes.

Proposed Virginia Senate Bill 212 is intended to answer that question, and proposes to guarantee that traffic speeds in HOT lanes be protected. That’s all well and good, in theory.

But see if you can spot the problem with the proposed language:

“Any contract for the construction of any additional lanes that include HOT lanes or the conversion of any existing lanes to HOT lanes… shall specify that average vehicle speeds shall be at least as great as the posted speed limits.”

O RLY? “At least” as fast as the legal speed limit?

Traffic courts would have fun with that one.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), this legal paradox will almost surely be caught and corrected. Don’t count on ever actually being able to treat HOT lanes like the autobahn.

Image by M.V. Jantzen on flickr.

Sometimes politicians can delay the construction of otherwise popular projects they don’t support by insisting on more studies before work can begin. In DC, less than one mile of bike lanes were added in 2011. Is this a sign of tepid support for bike lanes from the Mayor or other top officials?

Former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich used a “paralysis by analysis” strategy to stall the Purple Line. To say the Purple Line went nowhere under his leadership would be an understatement. But it was studied a lot. Ehrlich added new routing options, new modes, new timelines… anything to keep it on paper but not moving forward.

Meanwhile, he fast-tracked the ICC through the planning process in record time.

It’s a great solution for politicians. You’re not actually canceling anything and risking re-election. You’re just waiting for more information to come in, so you can make an informed decision. Who could possibly be against that?

Bike lane striping under the Gray administration has ground to a halt. Almost none of the promised 2011 additions to the bike network were delivered. And while DDOT promises to stripe new bike lanes as soon as the weather warms up, they are clearly falling behind.

Meanwhile, the most significant proposed bike projects, the L and M Street cycle tracks, remain mired in study. DDOT has said it won’t commit to building them until it has completed a study of the existing 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue cycle tracks. That’s a little odd, because DDOT already completed a similar study in 2010. Why do we need another one to tell us the same thing? And how long is this study supposed to take? It’s already been six months.

No doubt Mayor Gray hears a lot about bike lanes. It must seem that half of his constituents want more of them, and the other half don’t want them at all. Putting off the decision in order to avoid upsetting anyone must be a tempting solution. It’s hard to know for sure, but the longer these studies drag on, the more likely this possibility seems.

But the delay-by-study strategy can only work for so long. Ultimately voters in Maryland saw through Ehrlich’s Purple Line scheme, and it contributed to his defeat by Martin O’Malley.

When Gray was elected I said we should give him a chance to prove that he really will continue urbanist policies. After one year, the jury is still out. It is still too early to judge him. It is still too early to conclude that he is trying to study the cycle tracks out of existence. But if he hasn’t decided to build them in another six months or so—a year after the study began—then we’ll have our answer.

Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

The federal government’s latest round of TIGER grants have been awarded. The list of winners shows that the only DC-region grantee is VDOT, who received $20 million to leverage a TIFIA loan for HOT lanes on I-95.

The regional request for bike/ped improvements to rail stations was not funded. The reason appears to be that bike and ped projects in general are big losers in this round. Only a single dedicated bike/ped project is on the winner list, a small $1 million project to add a separated pedestrian crossing over a busy state highway in Minnesota. Even it appears to be as much about getting pedestrians out of car’s way as it is about helping peds.

Here is the break down of the award winners, by type:

• Port and freight: 10 grants awarded.
• Highway: 12 grants awarded.
• Transit: 10 grants awarded.
• Complete streets: 6 grants awarded.
• Bridges: 6 grants awarded.
• Signalization project: 1 grant awarded.
• Bike/ped: 1 grant awarded.

Several of the projects that are primarily other modes do contain bike/ped facilities. For example, Chicago received a $20 million grant for track reconstruction of its Blue Line, which included money for expansion of Chicago’s tiny bikesharing system. Another example is Stamford, CT, which received $10.5 million for improvements to its commuter rail station that include some bike/ped facilities. And of course there are 6 complete streets projects.

So while bikes and peds aren’t absent from the grants completely, it does appear that the only way to make improvements for them under this year’s program was to bundle them with bigger projects.

Transit awards

Although the DC area didn’t win any awards for transit, some of those 10 transit grants are pretty exciting. Here they are:

• Stamford, CT: $10.5 million for rail station improvements.
• Charlotte, NC: $18 million for longer platforms at three Lynx light rail stations.
• San Antonio, TX: $15 million for a new downtown transit center.
• Dallas, TX: $5 million to support a TIFIA loan to complete the Orange line light rail extension to DFW Airport.
• Chicago, IL: $20 million for track rehabilitation on the el Blue Line, and for bikesharing.
• Alton, IL (suburban Saint Louis): $14 million for a new downtown rail station.
• Cleveland, OH: $12.5 million to reconstruct the Mayfield Red Line station.
• Cincinnati, OH: $11 million for the Cincinnati streetcar.
• Minneapolis, MN: $10 million for a new platform at the Target Field light rail station.
• Seattle, WA: $10 million to extend Seattle’s airport light rail line to a new terminal station further south.

Gaithersburg can’t develop the area around its train station because of a misguided school capacity ordinance.

A few years ago Gaithersburg adopted an ordinance to ensure that infrastructure keeps up with growth. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, the law turned out to be counterproductive, as it damaged the city’s ability to grow in the right places.

Gaithersburg has a big problem. On one hand, the city is trying very hard to promote smart growth. They’ve adopted beautiful master plans, and worked with developers to design some very strong projects. On the other hand, they have a crippling adequate public facilities ordinance that slaps a complete moratorium on residential development in large swaths of the city.

The city’s two hands are pulling in opposite directions. Mountains of genuinely good planning effort supports smart growth, but this one ordinance requiring excess school capacity throws a wrench into the whole business.

It’s especially maddening because of the way school boundaries are drawn. The most overcrowded schools happen to also cover most of Gaithersburg’s smart growth receiving areas, including its most walkable and transit-connected downtown and new urbanist districts. For the most part it isn’t the smart growth developments that are overcrowding the schools (they tend to attract smaller families), but because they’re within the same school boundary as other neighborhoods that do produce a lot of kids, residential development is outlawed in precisely the areas where it’s most appropriate.

And the really bad news is that the moratorium isn’t effective at saving schools. Because Gaitheresburg is a geographically small jurisdiction within a larger, growing region, the school capacity test merely pushes growth out to other jurisdictions that have even less capacity, and less ability to plan. In fact, the moratorium is doubly damaging because of the type of growth it is pushing away. By including these smart growth receiving zones in the moratorium, Gaithersburg is pushing out high density urban developments that don’t produce many students, but are very effective at reducing sprawl and growth in congestion.

The school capacity test makes sense in a vacuum, but not when all the issues of urban development are considered together. It’s counterproductive, and should be changed.

The good news is that the Gaithersburg City Council, which does seem to sincerely want to do the right thing, realizes there’s a problem and is considering corrective measures. According to a Patch article, the council is looking to add flexibility and leniency to the ordinance. Proposed modifications could allow the council to grant exceptions in certain circumstances, or could allow neighboring schools to share capacity if one is over its limit but another nearby school is not. These are good suggestions.

The city might also consider designating official smart growth receiving zones that are automatically exempted from the ordinance altogether. That would allow the right sort of growth to take place in the right places, while still controlling the sort of growth that is a problem for school capacity.

Gaithersburg deserves credit for acknowledging a difficult problem and moving to solve it. Other jurisdictions with similar ordinances should follow Gaithersburg’s example and carefully consider whether or not their growth controls are accomplishing the right goals.

Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.
 
 
 

The National Park Service doesn’t understand cities, or how parks in cities function. They operate parks in DC the same way they operate Yellowstone, with a focus on rural-style limited access and conservancy rather than urban-style openness.

This is a big problem for DC, since NPS owns the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, most of the circles and squares, and a ton of other properties in the city, almost all of which are mismanaged given their urban context. Corner plazas that should be open all the time close at dusk. Statues that were built for people to sit on are fenced off. The Arboretum thinks too many people visit. Rock Creek Park is under programmed compared to other large city parks like Central Park or Golden Gate Park. The only mode of transportation access allowed on the National Mall is expensive tourist trams. Park Police stomp out any expressions of freedom at the monument for the country’s most libertarian president. And, most recently, we’re told that NPS thinks bikes would “destroy the nature” of the National Mall.

Since the NPS (and in the case of the Arboretum, the Dept. of Agriculture) is a federal agency, neither the city nor its residents can do much of anything to argue in favor of the position that city parks should be available for use by city people. But there is one person who might be in a position to make a difference: DC’s non-voting Congressional representative Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Would it be possible for Eleanor to pressure NPS to treat its urban properties more appropriately? Would legislation be appropriate? Would a Congress that can’t agree on DC voting rights be amenable to loosening inappropriate regulations applied to DC parks?

As a District resident I want Ms. Norton to continue working on full representation for DC as much as anyone, but in the mean time I also wonder if this is the sort of shorter-term problem that we should be asking for her help to solve.

Apparently DC Council Chair Kwame Brown is stripping Tommy Wells of his position heading the Transportation Committee as punishment for Wells blowing the whistle on Brown during the Lincoln Navigator scandal earlier this year. Greater Greater Washington calls it “naked political payback.”

If such allegations are true, they’re really not OK. Putting aside the fact that Tommy Wells is a strong advocate for multimodalism and is the best Councilperson to run the Transportation Committee, for Brown to attack Wells because Wells pointed out that Brown broke the law reeks of exactly the sort of entitlement and pettiness that got Brown in trouble in the first place. It is not the way to run a city, and it shouldn’t be acceptable to city residents whether they like Tommy Wells or not.

Note to Kwame Brown: Your scandals are YOUR fault. Neither Tommy Wells nor anybody else but you is responsible for your poor judgment during the SUV scandal. And now by sending the message that good government will be punished, you’ve created another scandal for yourself.

GGW suggests emailing the Council and telling them not to let Brown get away with punishing good government as retribution for his own mistakes.

The Republican proposal for a six-year federal transportation authorization bill was released yesterday. The key facts are that the proposed bill would:

• Provide about $230 billion in federal transportation spending over 6 years, which would be a reduction of about 1/3 compared to current levels, and about half compared to the $550 billion proposal floated by Democrats last year. Such cuts would severely limit how many new projects would be able to move forward, and would cost almost half a million jobs lost.
• Preserve the current 80/20 ratio of highway/transit funding, but eliminate all designated funds for bicycle and pedestrian programs, as well as high speed rail.
• Eliminate or consolidate about 70 of the 100 various federal spending programs, with the intention that most of the money in the bill not be tied to a specific program. Rather, it would be up to state Departments of Transportation (which are almost always heavily focused on highways) to decide on what to spend federal money.
• Eliminate red tape in some areas so that projects which can be funded are delivered more quickly.

One thing the bill does not do is raise new money for transportation, although it gives more authority to the private sector to engage in funding partnerships. That ignores what has long been a major request of transportation experts on both sides of the aisle. On Wednesday a bipartisan panel of House members sent a letter requesting funding be kept at current levels or raised, and opposing any cuts.

The response has generally been that the bill’s moves to streamline the planning process are probably positive, but that the funding cuts are a disaster, especially to projects that aren’t the sort of highway expansions favored by state DOTs.

Given the backlash both from both parties, it seems unlikely this bill will move forward exactly as it’s currently proposed. There’s plenty of support for cuts from budget-slashing hawks, but there’s also a ton of opposition to starving infrastructure investment. Traditionally the parties have been able to compromise on transportation bills, so it would be fair to expect a compromise one to eventually be produced here.

The complete outline is available here, and a more detailed summary/discussion is available at TheTransportPolitic.