Full speed ahead on the DC Comprehensive Plan revision process

At the Mayor's hearing last night on the DC Comprehensive Plan revision process, there was no indication that there is much interest in adding revision time to the process before submitting the document (as-is) to City Council. The belief was expressed that there are many points in the process where public comments and revisions will be gathered and inputed into the Comprehensive Plan.

The Post covered the daytime hearing, but clearly not the nightime hearing, in this article: "Residents, Interest Groups Comment on Building Blueprint."

A big date is June 23rd. A week from Friday. Get your comments in by then.

Most people who spoke had very specific concerns primarily related to their neighborhoods. Some people spoke about the big picture, but I'd say their vision and viewpoint was somewhat blurry.

E.g., a person prominent in local transportation circles spoke about how great it is that the Comp Plan Transportation Element calls for "transit facilities" (things like bike lockers and showers) for Planned Unit Developments.

Frankly, that was one of the provisions in the Transportation Element that I thought deserved a failing grade: such facilities should be required in all developments, not just developments seeking PUD zoning treatment.

The same goes for Transportation Demand Management. While mentioned throughout the section, the Transportation element did not demand TDM as a matter of course, regardless of whether a building is extant or to be newly constructed. And not just for office buildings, but for multiunit housing as well, etc.

Also see these resources:

-- Arlington County Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for Site Plan Development;
-- Victoria Transport Institute - Online TDM Encyclopedia

For example, there is a housing development proposed that is within 1/8 of a mile of the Brookland subway station, and the developer is calling for spaces for 400 cars! This needs to be addressed through comprehensive TDM. The developer is not seeking a PUD zoning classification. So it wouldn't be subject to "suggested" provisions in the Comprehensive Plan revision. That makes no sense.

It's like the previous blog entry on the baseball stadium, these decisions are too important to let them be screwed up. I just don't understand why there doesn't appear to be a clear and convincing desire to "do it right the first time" rather than to satisfice.

Or as I joke about writing, using the term that originally was used to describe CD-ROM drives--WORM drives--which stood for "write once, read many."

The revitalization resources available to us are not so plentiful that we can continually afford to under-achieve. Or, over-promise and under-deliver.

Index Keywords: comprehensive-plan