“The days where we’re just building sprawl forever, those days are over. I think that Republicans, Democrats, everybody… recognizes that’s not a smart way to design communities.”

– Barack Obama in Florida, Tuesday

Another marvelous sound bite from our new President. It’s really, really great that a national figure is talking about this stuff.

Please mean it, Mr. President. When the upcoming TEA reathorization hits Congress, we’ll need your leadership to make sure America invests in the right future.

Even the highway engineers know better these days.

AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, is the main professional association for traffic engineers. It will soon present to Congress and the USDOT its suggestions for federal transportation planning in the years to come. The suggestions come in the form a 4 page pdf document.

The pattern that emerges from the document is one advocating for more spending on safety projects, transit projects, and other intermodal projects, rather than a bunch of highway widenings. They want to raise the gas tax, make cycling safer, reduce emissions, encourage smart growth, and change regulatory formulas to level the playing field between cars and other modes. They don’t go so far as to suggest that LOS-based planning has been wrong (as many urbanists would argue), but nor do they advocate for a vastly expanded highway network. Their rhetoric, if more moderate, essentially matches ours.

This from a bunch of traffic engineers.

Good show, guys.

Over the weekend I fixed the broken links in the menu and relaunched the Newsfeed. The Newsfeed, for those who don’t remember or weren’t around when it was a regular part of the site months ago, is a simple listing of the day’s local urbanism-related news stories. No commentary, just a headline, short description, and link to the original source.

The feed is available for syndication, or can be viewed at the top left of the BeyondDC home page, and at the Newsfeed home page.

If you see a pertinent news story that’s not in the feed, please feel free to submit a tip.

Earlier this week I wrote that fare increases would be preferable to service cuts on Metro. That is still true.

According to GGW (via WaPo), suggested cuts to Metro include ending late night service, opening later, increasing train headways, suspending the Yellow line in off-peak hours and running a shuttle from Huntington to King Street, closing some entrances at stations with multiple portals, and eliminating or consolidating some bus routes.

All this at a time when more people than ever need the system.

The reason? WMATA’s $1.3 billion operating budget is $154 million short. To cover the shortfall the agency will cut $81 million from the back-office, including hundreds of eliminated jobs. To cover the remaining $73 million difference, they either need more money or fewer expenses. Since the agency promised last year not to raise fares again so soon, service cuts are on the table. They shouldn’t be, but they are.

It’s worth asking though, are there other sources of money out there?

The federal stimulus would be a great place for cash, but its focus isn’t on operating existing systems, and what money it contains for transit is under constant attack. It’s an unlikely source.

Another option would be to ask the local governments that help fund Metro every year. Unfortunately, all the counties and cities surrounding Washington are as broke as WMATA itself. They have no money to send.

The states likewise have their own problems, although $73 million split three ways isn’t outside the realm of the possible.

But the thing is, there’s been a WMATA bailout in the works for some time now. Remember that federal bill that authorizes $150 million per year for WMATA on the condition that DC, MD and VA match it with a dedicated funding source? That would be $300 million per year. Oh yeah. Problem is, of course, that money isn’t ready. The states and District are working on it, but to get that money requires all three governments to adopt identical bills amending the WMATA compact agreement. It takes time, and while the process is moving forward in good faith, it may not happen soon enough to save Metro this year.

But it occurs to BeyondDC that the federal government is clearly willing to pony up to invest in the agency that keeps the federal city alive. If Congress is willing pay out $150 million per year on the condition that dedicated local funding be provided, might Congress agree to $73 million of that money now, given that the locals are moving forward on their matches in good faith? I’m not even talking about new money here, just an advance on the $150 million already authorized.

The only reason this strikes me as a bad idea is if WMATA has already assumed it will have that money in its budget. I don’t think that’s true (it would be a pretty egregious case of counting chickens before they hatch), but even if so, a second bailout should be on the table. $73 million is chump change at the federal level, but even that could be halved if the feds paid 50% of it ($36.5 million) and asked the states to each pay 1/3 of the rest. The states have got their own problems, of course, but 1/3 of 50% of $73 million is only a little over $12 million. $12 million is doable. Virginia could pay its entire share just by reallocating money currently programmed for the widening of I-66 in Arlington that nobody in Arlington supports anyway.

So while there is probably no money to be found from the localities, the feds could step in and help, or strike a deal with the states. Those scenarios seem completely reasonable, and not budget-busting in the least.

How about it, Congress? A $73 million bailout to keep the capital of the United States running. We don’t even have to call it a bailout. We’ll call it a cash advance on the $150 million to which you’ve already agreed.

Four Mac store concepts for Georgetown

Apple has been trying to open a Mac Store in Georgetown for months, and for months they’ve been frustrated by Georgetown’s pesky standards of architectural quality control.

Three times Apple has gone before the Georgetown architectural review board and had turned down its plans to demolish an existing three story brick building and replace it with a new structure. Each time, Apple has ignored the suggestions of the board and come back with a proposal worse than the one before. When the initial design (top right) was rejected because of concerns about the glassiness of the ground floor, Apple returned with an all-glass design (second from top). When that was rejected, Apple abandoned architecture completely and returned a third time with what could better be described as a billboard than a building (third).

The first design was OK. Permeability, after all, is desirable along the sidewalk. A clear glass storefront allows the interior of the store to double as visual interest, and presents very clear “eyes on the street”. These are good things. In BeyondDC’s opinion the first submittal should have been accepted. If it’s true that the original design could have used some minor tweaking (more ornament, for example), a deferment or approval contingent on certain changes would have been more appropriate than an outright rejection. In any event, that ship having sailed, the Georgetown board was absolutely correct to deny the second and third designs, which are awful and which seem intentionally mean-spirited on the part of Mac.

Now, round four. Apple returns to the board with the bottom design, which is virtually identical to the first, and a reasonable concept for a place like Georgetown. Since I’m on record supporting the first design, I can support this one too. The board probably will also. They don’t have much choice. With a reasonable design now in hand, public outcry demands that four reviews is enough.

To keep up, elsewhere in the interwebs, WaPo focuses on the Georgetown business community’s response, DCist commenters just want a store somewhere, GGW speculates that the two intermediate designs were tossed in by Apple as a negotiating tactic to get the original approved (that strikes me as a stretch – why delay the building so much when the board wanted relatively minor changes to begin with?), Layman points out that Georgetown’s competitive advantage rests in part on its historic (rather than shopping mall-esque) architecture, and Georgetown Metropolitan has a bunch of additional renderings.

Anyway, hopefully we can put this mess behind us and approve an acceptable design. And hopefully both parties have learned to work with their counterparts across the table rather than against them. Had the Georgetown Board been more subtle with its initial comments, or had Apple not designed alternatives that seemed to actively antagonize the board, this all could have been over with a long time ago.

Update 2/6/09: The Georgetown board denied Apple’s submission again. While I don’t think the current incarnation is awful, I can also understand the board’s position. According to board member David Cox “We’re frustrated a little bit because we haven’t gotten a response to our fairly consistent request” (for detailing consistent with other properties in the area). As I mentioned yesterday, Apple does seem to be purposefully antagonizing the board. Neil Albert of the District’s economic development office says he will “move quickly to convene separate meetings … to reach a consensus design”. That consensus design should be easy to develop, if Apple would grow up and actually respond in some way to the board’s comments, rather than ignore them a 5th time.

I’ve had a particularly busy past 6 or 7 days and haven’t had much opportunity to blog. That will probably continue at least another couple of days, so apologies for the lack of content.

In the mean time, rage at this hilarious example of… I don’t even know what to call it:

Bonus points if you can identify the city this picture is from based on the bus livery.
Photo by J. Mancuso.

“If service levels are to be maintained, additional revenue will have to be found”

That’s the sad truth, according to regional transportation guru Chris Zimmerman (on the Boards of WMATA, NVTC, NVTA, TPB, VRE, and Arlington), who laments that the Federal stimulus will focus on creating new jobs while not working to save jobs that transit agencies all over the country are being forced to slash as their budgets collapse due to the recession (900 from WMATA alone). Furthermore, history shows that transit agencies hurt themselves when they cut service, since lower service often leads to fewer riders. Raise fares, and customers complain but stick around. Cut service, and more of them leave.

Unfortunately, this probably means that Metro will have to raise fares. If the alternative is infrequent trains and shuttered entrances, I hope they do.