San Francisco Sustainable Mobility Agenda presentation

NACTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, is doing a roadshow of presentations in its member cities. They did one in Baltimore in late September (followed by private meetings with government agencies and elected officials) and in Philadelphia on Thursday night.

The Baltimore and Philly presentations had two of the same presentations from NYC and Portland (but with different presenters), and two different ones, in Baltimore one from DC, and in Philadelphia one from San Francisco.

In relation to the blog entry from a few days ago on "Management and capacity building to realize and maintain better public places," the San Francisco presentation was spot on. The Municipal Transportation Agency there has responsibility for a multiplicity of functions, not parks, but almost everything else that is public space transportation related:

- transportation planning
- transit
- taxis
- traffic enforcement (they took on that division of the police department)
- parking and parking enforcement
- transportation related development review of new projects.

It looks like their Deputy Director of transportation planning, Timothy Papandreou, gave roughly the same presentation to APTA, so you can see much of the presentation slides that were given the other night here:

- San Francisco Sustainable Mobility and Climate Action Strategy

Most progressive jurisdictions are linking and positioning transportation (mobility) decision making and planning around sustainability, which makes it easier to deal with what we might call the car culture and automobility lobby.

Although Mr. Papandreou is a helluva presenter, one of the best I've seen in the transportation arena, so you miss out on that.

The Bike Share Philadelphia group used the presentation as an opportunity to demonstrate the Bixi bikesharing system (which is why I went) and there were between 100 and 150 people in the audience, which I thought was very impressive. (The Baltimore presentation had fewer than 40 people in attendance.) Plus, Mayor Nutter came and spoke--very well--on the issues, and the city's deputy mayor for transportation and utilities was the moderator. Sadly, the session went too long, so there was no time for Q&A, and it would have been interesting to hear what was on people's minds.

Add parks to the public realm agenda, and you have a complete package.

Public Realm as an Interconnected system, Slide from presentation, Leadership and the Role of Parks and Recreation in the New Economy, David Barth and Carlos Perez

More on funding subway improvements within DC

There are two good comments to the previous entry, and rather than discuss them in the comments, they deserve a full blown entry.

First, Christopher makes the point that by adding station entries and/or underground walkway connections in places such as between Farragut West and Farragut North, trips can be optimized better and throughput increased. This is addressed in WMATA's Core Capacity Study, but again, a big part of the initiative has to come from the local jurisdiction, in this case, DC, which for the most part is focused on surface transit improvements (bus and creating a streetcar system).

Note also that BeyondDC's point in "Predictions for 2040" about adding railroad stations in Arlington County and DC, comparable to how railroad passenger services are a key element serving cities like London, Paris, and Montreal, and in the U.S., Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City--which is why a connection between the east side and west side of Manhattan by railroad is so important, is also about reducing transferring to the subway system, by getting more people closer to their final destinations without requiring another transit trip.

Montreal transit and passenger railroad station and line map.

Second, TR(2)L writes:

Even if DDOT had a robust plan for developing improvements for Metrorail--as well as every other aspect of our transit infrastructure--the problem is still trying to get these projects paid for. I realize that isn't a good enough reason for many people, and your point that Arlington has found a way to push improvements to the stations within its jurisdiction is well taken.

For better or worse, Arlington is much more willing to pressure private developers to fund infrastructure improvements than the District is. I don't think that putting it on the shoulders of private developers is a sustainable solution--and particularly not in times, like now, when financing for real estate development of any kind is still relatively scarce.

In this case of GW and the Foggy Bottom station, $21MM may not seem like much in comparison to a $275MM project, but, in many cases, increasing project costs by just 1% can be enough to scrap a development--nevermind the damage that 7.5% can do. While I would stand on the side of GW and private developers on the issue, I do also see that every option should be on the table.

Like many others, I think that improvements in the overall transit system should be paid for by the less desirable forms of it, however socialist that may be seen. Although I already don't like carrying around copious amounts of change for parking meters, maybe we need to further increase rates, or take additional fees for parking in public garages.

I think the District, like so many other major cities, should be able to implement a commuter tax for people working but not living in DC, have tolls on roads leading into the District, and consider congestion pricing. Any of this could be used as a dedicated revenue stream for maintenance and improvements to our overall transit infrastructure. Unfortunately, we would need an Act of Congress to be able to implement the best of these options, so we have to find other ways for at least the foreseeable future.

My response is this:

1. You're absolutely right that in this economic climate, getting the go ahead for new real estate developments is extremely problematic and additional costs for projects makes them even less likely.

2. But, the justification for having developers fund transit improvements is that access to transit and access to better transit makes projects worth more, and that more of the value of this access is captured by developers and building owners (through higher rents, sales prices, etc.) than the transit system.

3. In DC, the only area where this has been done is the creation of a special taxing district for the area around the New York Avenue Metro Station. This money provides 1/3 of the funding for the construction of that station (DC paid 1/3 and so did the Federal Government).

4. In Arlington, they have an advantage over DC because buildings can be taller (yes, I am gonna write another piece about the height limit imminently), making the overall project bigger, with more revenue, and more capable of taking on, in part, the cost of providing better transit access.

Not to mention the fact that their land use policy links density bonuses to specific community benefits, focused on transportation enhancements (infrastructure and demand management). That's true along the Orange Line corridor especially, and jointly, Alexandria and Arlington have done something similar with the planning for the Potomac Yards area along Rte. 1--the former Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac railroad switching yard. If developers don't sign off on the transportation improvements, they can't build, because it has been determined that the area is roughly at transportation capacity now, and that adding significant numbers of car trips would overburden the system.

(In 2000, after seeing a presentation by Arlington County planning director Bob Brosnan at the Building Museum, I went up to him and said he should retitle the presentation to "How to Kill DC.")

5. DC may do something like this with regard to streetcar planning, but it should have done this around at least some station areas a long time ago anyway, to fund improvements. E.g., the developments at Washington Circle in DC are being driven by access to transit, yet the additional demand that these developments will generate is expected to be borne by the transit system without any contributions from the developers.

6. But yes, the costs of extending and improving the transit system should be spread around more. Congress won't pass a commuter tax, as you point out. I have suggested for three years imposing a transit withholding tax, as has been done for many years in certain areas in Oregon (Portland and Eugene), and has just been recently enacted in New York State, in the serving area of the Metropolitan Transit Agency.

-- Oregon Transit Withholding Tax
-- Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax, New York State

7. But both taxes exclude federal workers, and for it to work here, it would have to be imposed on federal workers as well in order to generate enough revenue. In my paper, I estimated that such a tax could generate about $200MM annually, which I would use primarily for subway system improvements, with some monies directed to surface transit improvements for bus in particular, but also for the streetcars.

I think it would be politically impossible to get this to happen, especially in the current political climate.

8. And residents don't seem to be too keen on adding taxes to pay for these kinds of improvements either, judging by recent events in Alexandria. See "Alexandria neighborhood protests proposed tax increase" from the Examiner. (Also see "Tax for Potomac Yard station targeted" from the Post.)

From the article:

An Alexandria neighborhood is protesting the creation of the city's first special tax district, designed to fund the $270 million construction of a Potomac Yard Metro station.

The tax plan could create two tiers of additional property taxes in a designated area around the station's future location, west of Jefferson Davis Highway behind the Potomac Yard Shopping Center. Commercial properties in the area would be taxed an additional 20 cents for every $100 of assessed property value, and residential properties would be taxed an additional 10 cents once the station is completed, no sooner than 2016.

The Potomac Greens neighborhood, which falls within the tax district's boundaries, has been distributing hundreds of signs and fliers with the message "Just Say No to Any Special Taxes." They're also planning a morning rush-hour rally on Nov. 1 at the intersection of Slaters Lane and Potomac Greens Drive.

9. Again, this justifies my recommendation of an area-wide transportation-transit planning initiative to rebuild--somewhat anyway--a regional consensus on the value of transit, a commitment to improvement and extension, coming up with a better way for leadership, management, and oversight, and a way to fund the improvements and extensions, while also dealing with the various efforts that focus on extending the system outward--where transit will be much less effective--versus what we would call improvements by intensification of the service network in the core of the region, where transit is much more cost effective.

See "St. Louis regional transit planning process as a model for what needs to be done in the DC Metropolitan region."

It's been more than 40 years since the creation of the regional compact that set up WMATA. It's time for the region to reconnect to the compact and extend and rearticulate the vision.

More proof that the City of Washington needs a real transportation plan (and real neighborhood planning)

Flickr photo by Ultra-K.

Today's Examiner has an article, "GW development passes on a needed second Metro entrance," about the need for a second entrance at the Foggy Bottom Metro, but how there are no plans to bring about a second entrance. From the article:

The Foggy Bottom station is the eighth-busiest one in the system and handles more than 40,800 passengers per day -- more than Baltimore's entire light rail system. Yet it's the only one of those eight that is served by a single entrance, creating problems of safety and efficiency that a Metro study said will only get worse over time. ...

Metro's study in 2007 recommended a second station entrance at the intersection of 22nd and I streets, one block east of the existing entrance. The university plans to break ground on that block next year on a $275 million science and engineering complex. But a new station entrance would cost an estimated $21.2 million -- and the city and school are passing the buck.

Metro spokeswoman Angela Gates said funding a station improvement is typically up to the station's surrounding jurisdiction. A spokesman for the District Department of Transportation said while the agency would likely support a second entrance, it's not footing the bill. "As far as I know, we're not proposing it," said John Lisle. He said it is up to the university or developer Boston Properties to raise the issue.

That's pathetic. This should be covered in a Master Transportation Plan. That's what Arlington County does, which is how they were able to identify the need for a second entrance at Rosslyn, found money to do it (in part through development impact fees), and are now constructing the additional entrance.

The closest DC has to a transportation plan that is distributed to the public is the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, although DDOT has also published an action agenda.

Section T2 of the Transportation Element covers Multi Modal Transportation Choices. T2.1 covers Transit Accessibility, which encourages use of and access to transit.

One of the biggest problems with regard to heavy rail (subway) transit planning in DC is that in 2003, WMATA devolved responsibility for transit expansion planning to the jurisdictions. So that means if DC wants to improve the subway system in the city, it needs to step up and take responsibility for doing so.

The problem is that DC decided it cost too much money to improve the subway system, and instead of stepping up and figuring out that a robust subway system is essential to the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness as a place to live, in paragraph 407.6, they punt about the need to expand the subway, and focus on other strategies such as circulator bus services and streetcars.

I am not knocking either a circulator bus (really a high frequency transit subnetwork) service or streetcars as part of a robust, but hierarchical transit network. But DC hasn't figured out a solid framework for such planning (I offer one here: Metropolitan Transit Planning: Towards a Hierarchical and Conceptual Framework) and certainly isn't giving the fact that the subway system will reach capacity and this could have significant deleterious impact on DC the attention that it deserves.

Goal Number 2 of the DDOT Action Agenda is to "Prioritize expansion and enhancement of transit services." At the text states:

In the District, 37% of households do not have a private automobile and therefore rely on public transportation to meet their daily needs. More people travel by bus rather than Metro rail. Improving transit services will improve not only travel for these residents, but also the overall quality of life for the city community as a whole.

Not one of the 8 actions identified in the report addresses the subway system generally, nor are needs for improvements at specific stations addressed or identified. (Although DC has initiated a big transit improvement project at Union Station, although it has been underway for a number of years.)

Here are the 8 actions:

• Construct the initial two line segments of the streetcar system.
• Identify funding for and design a 37-mile streetcar network.
• Develop a five-year growth plan for increasing Circulator service.
• Work with WMATA to develop improved service plans for high ridership routes in the District, consolidating a minimum of 100 bus stops.
• With stakeholders, finalize engineering design for the K Street Center Way and identify funds for construction.
• Implement improvements and enhanced traveler conveniences at the top 10 bus transfer locations in the city (excluding Metro stations).
• Work with WMATA to improve at least four bus plazas at District Metro stations.
• Elevate the streetcar to “megaproject” with a dedicated team.

Now, I understand the necessity of improving bus services in many ways, and I have advocated for this for years, as well as for improvements in the subway service, including bringing back plans for a separated blue line, which would add a significant amount of capacity and redundancy to the center city, as well as add high frequency service to other areas of the city, and bringing to those areas the kinds of improvements that this type of access usually brings when it is accompanied by the right density and proximity to activity centers.

Proposed changes for the WMATA system, 2001 (separated blue line). These plans were dropped in 2003 due to a local economic downturn and downsizing of the engineering and construction capabilities of WMATA. Washington Post graphic.

Getting back to Foggy Bottom Metro and a second entrance, clearly DC doesn't have an action plan for the subway service in terms of how DC is served, with a set of consensus priority improvements if necessary for all the stations. That should be in a transportation plan, in the transit element.

Furthermore, if we did true neighborhood or community plans, there would be various elements, including, ideally, one on sustainable transportation, with an evaluation and action plan outlining necessary improvements for walking, biking, and transit, with an implementation program to bring them about.

Also, wrt neighborhood plans, when these kinds of needs are identified (second entrance for a Metro Station), when community benefits are negotiated as part of development projects, monies can be directed to fulfilling priority needs that have been previously identified.

Management and capacity building to realize and maintain better public places

-------
note the first sense is edited. I had written that PPS was founded by William H. Whyte, but I misremembered the actual chain of events. It is discussed in the article "Pride of Place,"
which was published in Governing Magazine in 2005. (Which is a great article worthy of reading and re-reading.)
-------

Project for Public Spaces is an organization founded by Fred Kent, who became interested in the quality of public spaces after working for William H. Whyte, the former editor of Fortune Magazine who became interested in urban revitalization and tapped Jane Jacobs to write a piece, "Downtowns are for People" that led to her writing the classic Death and Life of Great American Places.

PPS figured out in the early 1980s that management was key to the revitalization of public spaces, such as Bryant Park, that had been overrun by disorder. Management and programming--providing lots of reasons for people to come to and frequent public spaces--is key to the successful revitalization and ongoing success of public places.

They came up with the public-private partnership model, out of a recognition that many places needed more attention and capacity than a typical government agency was capable of providing. Although, they (like the Main Street program) got a lesson in this from the City of Corning, New York, which in the 1960s figured out that if they wanted their downtown commercial district to remain competitive with privately owned and managed shopping malls opening up in their region, that they would have to buckle down and hire a "downtown manager" as well, and they did so, creating the model for both the Main Street program and business improvement districts, which are other examples of public-private partnerships in local communities.

New York City is also the hotbed of public-private partnerships managing local parks, including Central Park and Prospect Park, and the 32nd Street and Times Square Business Improvement Districts manage parks in their geographic service areas as well (such as Madison Square Park, and other parks along Broadway).

This comes to mind when reading John King's column, "S.F. needs to create permanent public spaces," in the San Francisco Chronicle, about the parklet project there that is getting a lot of attention. King warns that to scale the project up--from 5 to 25 parks--a lot more civic and organizational capacity is necessary for the spaces to stay used and not turn into some other still derelict thing. (Sort of like demolishing a vacant building. One "problem" is corrected, seemingly as there is no longer a vacant building. But then, the problem becomes, what do you do with and how do you maintain vacant lots?)

PPS's placemaking resources are a good place to start for building local capacity, but right now there is no real system for integrating everyday people into this kind of programming in DC.

I think about this in terms of the "local parks" in my neighborhood. In the context of the local Main Street program (for Takoma) I suggested coming up with a common public space plan for a number of triangle parks, including the problematic park at 4th and Blair, which is a flashpoint for what some people call loitering as well as persistent public drinking, and larger parks, such as the combined Coolidge and Takoma recreation centers, four blocks of park on 3rd Street NW behind Coolidge High School, from Sheridan to Whittier.

Just today I was thinking about how aggravating it is that they don't have recycling at the park, and how during team playing seasons, thousands of bottles and cans are discard there, only to end up in the waste stream (I pick up recyclables and put them in recycling bins as I walk along the park), but how there isn't really a system to engage residents in dealing with the parks in their neighborhoods.

There is a great opportunity to change things, but it would require a complete sea change in how parks and recreation spaces are perceived in the city.

Instead of a merry go round of political appointees to serve as the director of the DC Parks and Recreation Department, it would be great if one of the nation's leading parks practitioners or planners would be tapped for the position in the soon-to-be elected Gray Administration.

In the short run, the PPS "How to Turn A Place Around" guidebook/workshop is a good model for creating awareness and building capacity amongst citizens.

I used to encourage DC government employees to go to the workshop, but they could never get approval. Instead, I think we should do the program here every year, as a training exercise for DC Government employees and citizens, while focused each year on a particular neighborhood and project.

Green Festival is today (and was yesterday) in DC

Green Festival

At the convention center. There are many local omissions (no WMATA, no WABA, no DDOT, no other area sustainable transportation or planning organizations) but you are still likely to find something of interest, plus seminars. Anacostia Watershed Society is one of the only local organizations exhibiting.

BicycleSpace, the new bike shop downtown, has a booth, and I have a couple display boards at a corner, promoting BicyclePASS, the "bicycle facilities systems integration" outfit that I am a partner in. Haven't made tons of contacts, but have had some very good ones that could lead to some great opportunities.


Also see this poster.

Diane Ravitch review of "Waiting for Superman" from the New York Review of Books

See "The Myth of Charter Schools."

From the review:

There is a clash of ideas occurring in education right now between those who believe that public education is not only a fundamental right but a vital public service, akin to the public provision of police, fire protection, parks, and public libraries, and those who believe that the private sector is always superior to the public sector. Waiting for “Superman” is a powerful weapon on behalf of those championing the “free market” and privatization. It raises important questions, but all of the answers it offers require a transfer of public funds to the private sector. The stock market crash of 2008 should suffice to remind us that the managers of the private sector do not have a monopoly on success.

A more robust framework for Complete Places planning

My posting yesterday was a bit disjoint, plus Notions Capitol sent me a link to images of the combined recreation center and library in Deanwood. My response is that a single example is happenstance, that we need an integrated and comprehensive set of policies that make such facilities a standard practice.

Earlier this morning I was reflecting on the gaps in the previous entry and what the comprehensive framework for a Complete Places policy should look like.

1. A recognition that maintaining, improving, and extending quality of life/placemaking/livability/urban design should be the primary goal of planning and zoning practice and overall municipal policy. (Resources: Urban Design Compendium, Project for Public Spaces, International Making Cities Livable, David Engwicht, Nashville Community Character Manual, Jan Gehl, Placemaking Chicago)

2. Achieved by focusing on creating, maintaining, and extending an interconnected public realm. (Resources: David Barth)

3. Coordination of public and private investment, facilities planning, land disposition, and capital improvements with the goal of creating, maintaining, and extending an interconnected public realm.

4. Built on a foundation of the achievement of optimal mobility. (Resources: David Engwicht--the father of transportation demand management and traffic calming, Jan Gehl, Arlington County Master Transportation Plan, Seattle Urban Mobility Policy)


5. Complete Street policies (Resources: Complete Streets, Context Sensitive Solutions, Smart Transportation Guidebook) + Multi-Modal Level of Service measurements

6. Focused primary on extant places rather than greenfield development*. The State of Maryland's system of designating "Priority Funding Areas":

The 1997 Priority Funding Areas Act capitalizes on the influence of State expenditures on economic growth and development. This legislation directs State spending to Priority Funding Areas. Priority Funding Areas are existing communities and places where local governments want State investment to support future growth.

is a good example of how to do this. (* Focusing on greenfield development is the biggest problem with the translation of the ideas of New Urbanism into practice.)

7. With the support of the development of plans that include specific plans and consensus priorities for neighborhoods and communities, with a coordination of public and private investment decisionmaking, including design review (Resources: Local Government Commission publications on community planning, Asset Based Community Development Institute, Temali's Community Economic Development Handbook)

Bicycle sharing location decisionmaking in DC

2010 10 02 - 5959 - Washington DC - CaBi
Originally uploaded by thisisbossi

(I hate to write about this, because the firm I am a principal with on selling bicycle sharing systems just lost out to Alta/Bixi in Chattanooga, even though we probably had a superior programmatic proposal. That being said, the Public Bicycle Sharing System group has done a great job in setting up a robust bicycle sharing platform.)



There is an "uproar" about the location of a bicycle sharing station adjacent to "Lincoln Park" (a rectangular square in Eastern Capitol Hill between 11th and 13th Streets, bounded by East Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue). Some residents don't want a station located on the park (right now the National Park Service, which controls the space, doesn't allow it anyway) or on an abutting reservation (what we might call weird interstitial pieces of land created by the intersection of diagonal avenues with the orthogonal nature of the square-based street grid).

Washcycle and Greater Greater Washington have been covering the story, which has also been discussed on local listservs, some of which I am still subscribed to, and on which I wrote this (with some edits):

the thing that is not done very much in planning efforts, and is difficult to do besides, is to articulate simultaneously what we might call citywide concerns/goals/objectives, "neighborhood" concerns/goals/objectives, and immediate resident concerns/goals/objectives and create a process to resolve them.

In social psychology this is called boundary spanning and it is very difficult, because conflict is built into the system and situations at the outset, and it makes planning jobs very very difficult for planners, because they have to make congruent what can be very difficult choices.

Usually what happens is that planning efforts kowtow to residents without adequately differentiating and outlining and prioritizing what I call citywide concerns.

In the case of bikesharing, the "citywide concern" is about creating a _network_ of bicycle stations that serve residents, workers, and visitors simultaneously, by locating stations in places (activity centers) that are in high use/high demand, places like parks and squares, commercial districts, schools, public facilities, transit stations, etc.

This is particularly important because poorly placed stations and gaps in the network significantly reduce the overall usefulness of the system and reduce the likelihood of success. SInce you're spending millions of dollars on such systems and because in an automobile centric culture, there are many people and interest groups waiting in the wings to criticize the system for any and all failures (i.e., this blowhard piece from the Competitive Enterprise Institute fails to acknowledge the importance of vast subsidies to automobility to ensuring the widespread use of automobiles, and the competitive disadvantages this puts on other modes).

By not outlining this criteria and its importance in a very direct and forward fashion, these types of conflicts are preordained.

(It's a similar problem with bus service. Every neighborhood wants a "circulator" but service of that frequency is supposed to meet certain conditions. But because those conditions are not set and clarified and communicated, poor decisions with significant negative financial implications end up being the typical end.)

I agree with concerns about viewsheds but typically there are locations where infrastructure such as a bicycle sharing station can be accommodated. In Montreal, where bikesharing is widely deployed, there are bikesharing installations on the outskirts of parks, and the value and necessity of proximity and proper placement of stations to maximize use isn't questioned. (I am specifically referring to the Old Port and to Park LaFontaine, which I witnessed myself.)

However, most of the Montreal bikestations are placed in the public space, in spaces that had once been used for parking. Certainly, it would be very easy to not take up park space or reservation land in the vicinity of Lincoln Park by instead using any of the many street parking spaces abutting the Lincoln Park rectangle, on East Capitol or Massachusetts Avenue, or within 50 feet of those streets on any of the "side streets" (12th, Kentucky, Tennessee) emanating from the Park.

------
What I did not include in the listserv posting is this. If DC had a master transportation plan comparable to that of Arlington County, where optimal mobility is prioritized as a leading goal of the plan, then space for bikesharing stations would be prioritized over that for motor vehicles, in terms of use of scarce public space.

So in the photo accompanying this blog entry (by thisisbossi), where the bikesharing station is on the sidewalk, instead it would likely be in the street, taking up spaces which would have gone to parking. For the most part, that's how it is done in Montreal.

This bicycle sharing station on Rue Berri at Rene Levesque Boulevard in Montreal uses up space that had been previously dedicated to street parking, not scarce sidewalk space.

Complete Places are more than Complete Streets

Stone paver street between the East and West buildings of the National Gallery of Art.

A press release from DC's Department of Transportation went out, stating that the agency has adopted a Complete Streets policy. Typically, a complete streets policy means that the transportation agency plans for comfortable movement for all modes within the street network. Basically, it means that walking, biking, and public transit are to be accommodated in complementary and equal fashion to how planning typically emphasizes motor vehicle traffic.

While I haven't come up with a better term, sometimes I say "Complete Places," and the Project for Public Spaces has a training workshop on "Streets as Places," there is more than a "complete street" to a complete place.

It has to do with how other government agencies prioritize funding and where they choose to invest scarce public resources, and how capital improvement programs work and whether or not the various agencies coordinate their efforts.

For example, the District of Columbia Government:

1. Doesn't coordinate capital improvement programs according to what we might consider Complete Places practices. E.g., the Gazette has an article about a combined library and recreation center coming to Wheaton ("Officials present plan for combined library and recreation center"), and Montgomery County and Arlington County have a number of such projects, including the Rockville Town Center, which includes a public library, other county facilities, and the VisArts nonprofit visual arts center.

How Arlington County redid the Shirlington Library to include the Signature Theater, which in turn became a key cultural asset for the Shirlington commercial district and extended the viability of the commercial district by increasing the number of visits and ancillary spending, is an example of how to coordinate capital improvements with a complete places program. (See "Savoring the Sunbeams in Shirlington" from the Post.)

Shirlington Library and Signature Theater.

Another example is how the DC Dept. of Housing and Community Development sold a piece of land for a hotel at Michigan Avenue and Irving Street NE, when instead investment in that area should be focused on revitalizing and improving the Brookland commercial district--now on 12th Street NE mostly, but also extending and recentering on Monroe Street and around the subway station.

Another example would be the plans for Walter Reed redevelopment. I know that there is a lot of land and people want to develop it, but by creating yet another area of retail development along Georgia Avenue in addition to the other nine marginal commercial districts along Georgia Avenue (around Howard University, around Park Road, at the Petworth Metro Station, at Upshur, at Kennedy Street, at Missouri Avenue, at Piney Branch Road, north of Walter Reed, at the City-County line) doesn't improve the extant commercial areas. According to the Post article, "D.C. to unveil plans for redevelopment of Walter Reed," 200,000 s.f. of retail will be built on Georgia Avenue on the Walter Reed campus -- in addition to the more than 1,000,000 s.f. that already exists and is mostly marginal.

2. How about an overall complete places policy and initiative? We need a Complete Places/Placemaking Initiative for the entire city, not unlike Placemaking Chicago.

Dan Malouff wrote a really really great piece in Greater Greater Washington last week, "Let's convert Scott Circle into Scott Square," opining about how Scott Circle could be reclaimed and rebuilt into a square, with a much greater sense of place. This extends ideas expressed in the improvement of Thomas Circle by DDOT a few years ago, and how Logan Circle regained its original footprint in the 1970s, after losing parkland to more roadways.

Thomas Circle improvements are shown in the entries on Truxton Circle.

Relatedly, the Tommy Wells blog mentions that DDOT plans to plop some more traffic calming measures around Lincoln Park. See "Details on New Raised Crosswalks at Lincoln Park."

And, there is an initiative to make Connecticut Avenue safer for cars. See "What would make Connecticut Avenue safer for pedestrians" from Greater Greater Washington.

And a couple years back, someone proposed bringing back Truxton Circle in the Bloomingdale neighborhood. See "Before and after: Truxton Circle" and "What a "Complete Places" land use and transportation planning philosophy would mean in practice."

Image by Tim Sloan.

Probably the best thing that could be done to traffic calm the area around Lincoln Park would be to replace all of the pavement with asphalt block. This is comparable to how parts of South Carolina Ave. are paved, Monument Avenue in Richmond, or how more expensive granite pavers are used on 4th Street between the east and west wings of the National Gallery of Art, and in public squares in many European cities.

900 block, South Carolina Avenue SE.

I know it's expensive. But I think, at this time anyway, it's about as close as we can get to woonerfs in the U.S.

The visual, aural, and physical cues would slow motor vehicles down.

The median strip (boulevard) on Monument Avenue, Richmond.

While I have thought this should be done around parks for a long time, discussions over the years with community advocate Andrew Aurbach led me to believe this should be done around all park squares/circles (including Stanton Park), schools and other civic buildings used by the public (libraries), and commercial districts.

Andrew was on the HPRB for a term, and is one of the leaders of the Connecticut Ave. pedestrian initiative.

3. Somehow, a "Complete Streets" and a "Complete Places" policy has to address the centrality of parking as driving neighborhood planning. People's focus on parking makes it really difficult to improve neighborhoods. The ironic thing is that the focus on parking for cars means that people neglect to focus on placemaking and livability overall.

Charging higher prices for parking, and as Christopher suggests in a comment to a previous entry, directing that money to transit and other public realm improvements is the way to go.

4. The way to think about this is in terms of what David Barth of AECOM calls an integrated public realm, in the presentation Leadership and the Role of Parks and Recreation in the New Economy. That's the kind of citywide initiative we need!




The red buildings in this image depict commercial districts. David Barth images.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the DDOT press release:

Complete Streets Policy

I. Policy

a. The District’s transportation network as a whole shall accommodate the safety and convenience of all users, recognizing that certain individual corridors have modal priorities. While these priorities should remain and be encouraged along specific corridors, connectivity throughout the network for users of all modes is essential. Examples of modal priorities include, but are not limited to, residential streets, green streets, school routes, and corridors that are important to transit, freight, commuter traffic, and retail;

b. All transportation projects shall reflect the land-use, transportation, and green space needs of the city-wide transportation network, be sensitive to its various contexts, and should improve, not diminish, network connectivity;

c. All transportation and other public space projects shall accommodate and balance the choice, safety, and convenience of all users of the transportation system including pedestrians, users with disabilities, bicyclists, transit users, motorized vehicles and freight carriers, and users with unique situations that limit their ability to use specific motorized or non-motorized modes to ensure that all users can travel safely, conveniently and efficiently within the right of way;

d. Pedestrian, bike, and transit Level of Service (LOS), in addition to vehicle measurements, shall be evaluated to ensure proposed alternatives balance, as appropriate, the needs of all users of the right of way.

i. The planner or designer shall calculate and design for an appropriate combination of LOS that accommodates all users;

ii. The planner and designer shall also refer to previously established plans to ensure consistency;

e. Wherever possible, projects should help DDOT achieve goals as set by the Action Agenda or subsequent strategic plan;

f. Improvements to the right of way shall consider environmental enhancements including, but not limited to: reducing right-of-way storm water run-off, improving water quality, prioritizing and allocating sustainable tree space and planting areas (both surface and subsurface), reusing materials and/or using recycled materials, and promoting energy conservation and efficiency wherever possible;

II. Procedures

a. The aforementioned policies shall be employed in all transportation planning, design, review, operations, major maintenance projects (such as milling and overlay), new construction and reconstruction projects, except where prohibited by federal and District law (such as interstates, non-motorized trails);

b. Routine daily maintenance and operation activities (such as potholes and cracked ceilings) are specifically exempt from this Policy. Any other exceptions require written justification, documentation, and approval by the DDOT Director or Delegate. Exceptions may be granted based upon documented safety issues, excessive cost, or absence of need.

The real question is far broader than the state of the DC area subway map

As usual, the Housing Complex blog of the Washington City Paper has a good article, "Metrobusted: D.C.’s subway system needs a new map. Is anything worth saving?," this one on how WMATA is looking to redesign the "iconic" subway map.

--------
Note to City Paper: Housing Complex has a much broader coverage area than housing. It is the first worthy successor to the Cityscape column written by Mark Jenkins (and I think Bill Rice) in the 1980s and early 1990s--a column that certainly educated me about urbanism. I recommend changing the title of the column and the beat. If anything, Lydia DePillis should be called the Urban Affairs or Urban Design and Transportation writer.
-------
The article discusses at least three things that capture my interest:

1. wayfinding
2. mapping
3. and what to put on the map

and it doesn't discuss adequately what I think is the most interesting question, that is connecting these elements into a broader framework of information design, branding, identity, and communications.

The people focusing on the map interviewed for the story, Cameron Booth and Larry Bowring, who also did their own versions of what they see as the ideal map didn't really contribute all that much, if you ask me, to the discourse on whether or not the map should be changed, even if they don't like the iconography, which dates back 30+ years. At least, their maps don't do much for me.

One of the things this reminds me of is that WMATA did commission the Project for Public Spaces to do a wayfinding study in the early part of the decade. I had a copy once but I lent it to someone who never returned it.

There is an opportunity to do an overall graphic/identity system of which mapping is a part.

But mapping too should be hierarchical. The overall subway map ought to stick with rail connections (subway and railroad) with parking AND I WOULD ARGUE taxi stands (because that information does matter and people's choice of which station to exit at, e.g., Fort Totten or Silver Spring vs. Takoma, or New York Avenue vs. Metro Center can be dependent on that knowledge, which isn't present on the current maps), with sub-mapping for the other kinds of layers people say they want (circulator buses, yogurt shops, or whatever).

The thing is that the questions being asked still probably aren't broad enough. There are many ways wayfinding could be improved. I have advocated for a few years for the need of a city (but it could be regional) wayfinding conference because there are more than one dozen separate wayfinding systems in place within the City of Washington.

- National Mall "stuff"
- Florida Market proof of concept wayfinding signage and the need for a wayfinding conference

And I have argued for the necessity of having a transit wayfinding system to explain the various transit options, especially at locations likely to be used by new users such as tourists (e.g., Union Station).

-Union Station as a key visitor entry point into Washington

A number of past blog entries might help people begin to think more broadly about the issue:

-Wayfinding with manhole covers
-Bethesda Trolley Trail wayfinding signage
-Signs (wayfinding, etc.) and planning
-New book on Wayfinding looks to be particularly great
-Tourists Travel by Public Transportation
-Design as a tool for rethinking and reconfiguring services (including transit)
- More on Metro and rethinking transit marketing

Recently, the City of Alexandria has developed a master framework for wayfinding signage that likely is the best plan for wayfinding systems in the region at present. The Better Bikeway project offers some food for thought in terms of bikeway wayfinding systems.

The general post about linking the design method, social marketing, integrated program delivery systems wrapped up in a complete identity system built on a foundation of civic engagement and participatory democracy is in this blog entry:

-Social Marketing the Arlington (and Tower Hamlets and Baltimore) way

I could be hopeful for this process, but I guess I am not really, because the first major public planning process that WMATA ought to be engaging in concerns transit overall, the role of the WMATA system within the region's transportation system, and the need to rebuild trust in the system in the face of massive service problems, deaths of customers and workers including in the terrible accident of June 2009, which resulted from systemic failures in management and operations, not to mention massive fare increases in the past 6 months.

I wrote about that about one year ago, in this entry:

-St. Louis regional transit planning process as a model for what needs to be done in the DC Metropolitan region

But I guess in some respects this is a follow on from a 2007 post:

- We need a transit users conference, now!

Also helpful is my presentation on hierarchical metropolitan transportation systems planning which I have been writing about for years and builds on a variety of work including "Updating the mobilityshed / mobility shed concept," as this question is finally making it onto the radar of bloggers at GGW ("How should the region's transit grow?" and "Should DDOT or WMATA control the streetcars?").

When I do plans and proposals elsewhere I joke that they are a form of "gap analysis" of how things are done in the DC area. Such is the case for the metropolitan transportation planning framework. It develops a framework based on what isn't done in the DC metropolitan area:

- true "regional" transportation planning
- differentiating between the transit operator and transportation planning in terms of setting goals and objectives
- laying out networks, subnetworks, and metrics according to goals and objectives for the metropolitan region as a whole as well as the various jurisdictions.

A branding, information systems design and wayfinding planning process really needs to be the second metropolitan transportation planning process, following the overall rethinking, revisioning, and trust building exercise that ought to be first.

1/3 of the story isn't the full story: crossing guard pay and walk to school programs

The Examiner writes a pretty narrow story today concerning school crossing guards, making it out as if the crossing guards are making a mint of money at the public expense. See "Being a Montgomery County crossing guard has its benefits - $40 per hour."

It's a surprisingly complicated issue.

In the last post, I discussed police departments and pedestrian and accident analysis, but I didn't get into the details about some of my learnings about the issue. What I used to say was that "police officers aren't planners, and that's not their fault, but they do need our help."

Because they don't know they aren't planners, without awareness of the need to bring planners and transportation engineers into the equation when it comes to accident analysis and countermeasure selection, that area of expertise tends to not be part of the analytical system and approach towards traffic safety improvement. (Of course, this is an area where guidance from the FHWA in terms of the national traffic safety program and how it could be restructured would be very helpful.)

There is a similar issue with crossing guards. The way it works, crossing guards are paid for and managed by police departments, not the local school system. (This should change, but that's another issue too.) When the police department can't fill the crossing guard position--which is usually the case in most places because the hourly wage is low and the hours are short so most jurisdictions never have enough crossing guards--they are forced to have the shift covered by sworn police officers. While this has some benefits, for the most part, it takes police officers away from other service duties.

So the Examiner article doesn't discuss this, and how, by paying higher wages, Montgomery County is able to fill most of its crossing guard positions and they don't have to use police officers for unfilled shifts.

That isn't the case in Baltimore County.

At one of the planning advisory committee meetings, we were discussing walk to school efforts and how to expand the number of schools promoting and the number of students participating in walk to school efforts, and the police department representative present at the meeting interjected, and explained to us "the problem" from "their perspective," not ours.

This is from the draft plan that I submitted, although the final text in the posted draft may differ slightly:

The plan advisory committee learned that one of the barriers to expanding walk to school efforts concerns the supply of available crossing guards. School crossing guards are managed by the Police Department, not by the School District. Funds to pay school crossing guards come from the Police Department budget. Because it is part-time work (10 hours/week) for relatively low wages, the Department has a difficult time keeping the 273 required positions filled. For each empty position, sworn police officers fill in, diverting officers from patrol and other duties. The Police Department ends up in the position of discouraging walk to school efforts, because it can’t meet current demand for crossing guards let alone additional demand generated by new walk to school efforts, which would mean that even more police officers are needed to cover school crossing guard functions.

(In Baltimore County, they pay under $15/hour.) The Police Department ends up in the position of discouraging walk to school efforts, because it can’t meet current demand for crossing guards let alone additional demand generated by new walk to school efforts, which would mean that even more police officers are needed to cover school crossing guard functions.

I am using the word "discourage" nicely. They actually tell principals to convert walk to school areas to school bus service zones, in order to reduce the demands on the sworn police officers.

This was the related recommendation in my draft (which was excised from the posted draft):

Address the issue of school crossing guard pay and other incentive programs that will strengthen retention of school crossing guards to reduce demands on other Police Department personnel for school crossing guard coverage. Ensure that when additional crossing guard positions are required, funding is provided to cover the increased cost.

We found this out because, unlike in most bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts, I reached out to the police department and got the traffic safety and traffic enforcement divisions to participate in our planning advisory committee. Plus the accident analysis section of the Crime Analysis section of the police department's research division provided us data that we asked for with regard to pedestrian and bicycle accidents across the planning area (actually they provided it for the entire county, but I was tasked with a planning effort for only 1/2 of the urban area of the county, about 110 square miles). Some planning efforts get and analyze this information, many do not.

I am surprised that Baltimore County has demands for more crossing guards than Montgomery County (177 according to the Examiner article) and Fairfax County (64 according to the Examiner article). But it is a big school district (110,000 students), just as Montgomery County (130,000 students) and Fairfax County (175,000 students) are large, but Baltimore County is physically larger than either county (Baltimore County is about 640 square miles).

But I imagine that the Baltimore County Police Department wishes they could pay what Montgomery County is paying. They kept asking for more money to address the issue, but it kept getting denied, and they are always in the position of never having enough crossing guards, and constantly directing police officer details from other duties to serve as crossing guards.

The issue comes down to walking to school vs. being bused to school. Higher wages for crossing guards ensures the success of walk to school programs. Sure this comes at a cost. It means you don't have to buy and operate as many school buses, find school bus drivers (another problem comparable to the problem of finding and retaining school crossing guards), or buy as much diesel fuel.

A new school bus costs about $75,000. Diesel fuel costs close to $3.00/gallon. For a variety of reasons, it makes more financial, health, and transportation sense to direct resources to walk to school programs rather than busing students to school.

In an odd way, the Examiner article, by not telling the whole story, is advocating for buying school buses and diesel fuel and for school bus drivers rather than crossing guards. It's as if they are on the take from a school bus manufacturing company...

And it's very disconcerting that Montgomery County Councilmember Marc Elrich accepts the narrative of the story as stated, rather than digging more deeply into the story. From the article:

Of the millions of dollars devoted to crossing guards, 45 percent of the funding is for group insurance plans.

"Wow, that's incredible," Councilman Marc Elrich, D-at large, said upon learning of the ratio. "If everything is on the table -- as we have been saying with our budget problems -- this certainly has to be in the discussion."

Police say they hire the "most qualified" people for the positions, but current crossing guards admit that job placement is mostly tied to personal connections.

Yes, the how the people get the jobs issue needs to be addressed if it isn't an open and fair process, but in most respects, the issue shouldn't be how much people are paid. It's either that or the school bus and police officer details. The amount of money spent wouldn't necessarily be reduced, if anything, it would increase.

Resources:

-Helping Johnny Walk to School (report)

-National Center for Safe Routes to School

-The Safe Routes to School National Partnership

- The State of Washington guide, School Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students

- White House Task Force on Child Obesity

In a world where automobility is prioritized, it can be difficult to recognize that automobility priority exists and is a factor in pedestrian deaths

Last week, the Post ran an article about an increase in pedestrian deaths, and seemingly an inability to explain the likely cause of this increase. See "Few common links in spate of pedestrian fatalities."

Sarah Yeomans' letter to the editor of the Post, "After I was hit by a car in D.C.," reminds us that people so take for granted the purpose of managing the street network is to prioritize vehicle speed and throughput, making it difficult to acknowledge that high speed traffic and low speed pedestrians often don't mix very well, especially in places where movement of motor vehicles is prioritized over people on foot or on bicycle.

She writes:

As I came to find out, this intersection has been the site of several pedestrian injuries and fatalities as a result of cars striking people while they are crossing legally in the crosswalk. But the city has not taken actions that could make the intersection safe, such as putting in a light or even adding the flags that have been used with some success on Connecticut Avenue.

Here's the problem...

Most jurisdictions do not have a systematic process for evaluating each pedestrian and bicycle accident to determine if there are systematic design or other problems, and a program to address systemic failures.

Child struck by car. 1959 Pulitzer Prize winner for photojournalism.

I know it doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is. Police departments handle the collection and maintenance of traffic accident data. Even though money is provided to police departments as part of the national highway safety program for traffic enforcement to reduce accidents (car on car, car on pedestrian, car on bicyclist, etc.), police departments don't usually work very closely with planning and transportation departments to analyze the data, and they don't usually have transportation engineers and planners on staff either.

This needs to change. We need to link the transportation engineers, planners, and police department personnel (officers and accident and crime analysts) in a systematic fashion to yield substantive improvements and reprioritize safety in ways that favor the most vulnerable (pedestrians and bicyclists are far more vulnerable to accidents compared to motor vehicles).

In the Western Baltimore County Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan, this was one of the recommendations (even though additional explication was excised from the draft).

What I proposed as part of an intra-agency standing committee on bicycle and pedestrian issues was a standing committee on safety, that would bring the county police, transportation (there this department is a unit of the DPW), and planning departments together along with the State Highway Administration, to work on these issues at the county level. (There is analysis of accidents done on state roads in Maryland, but it isn't done in this kind of integrated fashion that I proposed for all roads/accidents.)

Portland, Oregon and San Jose, California do this kind of systematic evaluation. Probably other cities do as well.

The Federal Highway Administration publishes two excellent resources:

- PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System

- BIKESAFE: Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System

which are printed manuals with software programs that address the common accidents and propose particular, systematic responses. The items can be ordered FOR FREE from the FHWA.

This needs to be done locally. I don't think it's done in DC. It probably isn't done in any of the counties, although maybe Arlington does it.

And then there is a large set of land use planning, transportation planning, and traffic management strategies (speed limits) to use to make communities truly pedestrian centric and livable.

School reform daze

For the most part, too much has been going on, and there is too much to try to assimilate to try to write something comprehensive about the state of school reform in DC, over the hand wringing in many quarters over Michelle Rhee.

Mostly, a lot of people have written a lot of stupid stuff, such as Terry Lynch ("The end of school reform in the District" in the Post) and this letter to the editor in the Post, "Rhee's defeat: Sad but no surprise" plus Post editorials.

The fact is, how many of us change positively at the threat of whips, chains, and loss of employment. If you're interested in how successful organizational change works, there are many resources. Maybe some of the best work on why the whips and chains approach doesn't work comes from Chris Argyris.

But there are some good pieces about how urban education reform should work, how the "manifesto" ("How to fix our schools: A manifesto by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and other education leaders") published in last week's Post is pretty much bunk, including:

- "How to fix our schools" by Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute. It focuses on how 1/3 of student achievement is impacted by in-school experiences, and 2/3 has to do with life outside the school setting (home, etc.)

- "It is as simple as that," an opinion piece by Robert Vinson Brannum in the online Examiner, this piece was a shocker, well argued, from someone who I often find to be somewhat inconsistent. The article makes good points about the groundwork laid by then Superintendent Janey, and how much of this groundwork was then discarded.

- Larry Cuban's piece in the Washington Post Answer Sheet blog, "Rhee in D.C.: The myth of the heroic leader." Larry Cuban is a professor at Stanford, with a great deal of classroom and school administration experience.

- Actually, Valerie Strauss' Answer Sheet blog in the Post is excellent. It's too bad her writing rarely makes it into the hard copy edition of the paper. Why is that? It's probably the best education analysis that occurs under the rubric of the Post and it never makes it into the paper--sort of like how the Washington Post Writers Group sells the Neal Peirce column on state and local policy, urban politics and revitalization in particular, an incredibly important topic which is undercovered in the paper and should be included along with Valerie Strauss.

Donald Shoup article in the Los Angeles Times

is pointed out to us -- "He puts parking in its place: UCLA professor Donald Shoup, hailed as the 'prophet of parking,' believes free or inexpensive space for cars is at the root of many an urban ill: congestion, sprawl, wasteful energy use, air pollution -- by Notions Capital.

From the article:

Shoup's 2005 book, "The High Cost of Free Parking," for many the de facto bible on the subject, posits a simple-sounding solution: Charge fair-market prices for curb parking. Use the meter revenue to pay for services and enhancements in the neighborhoods that generate it.

Eliminate off-street parking requirements. Cities are starting to listen. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Redwood City, Glendale, Ventura, Portland, Ore., and the District of Columbia are among those implementing or contemplating changes to hew more closely to Shoup's vision.

My problem with the way DC is "applying" Shoup's proposals is that they are mostly one way. The biggest user of almost free parking from DC are DC residents, who pay under $20/year for residential parking streets on the streets that require them, and nothing to park on the residential streets that don't have residential restrictions--this, for spaces worth upwards of $2,000 or more per year.

Instead, "performance parking" rates are being charged for commercial parking, and increasingly neighborhood street parking privileges are often restricted to residents only.

I know that free parking is the third rail of local politics. But this is a subsidy of massive proportions. And at the same time, DC competes with the suburban jurisdictions, especially Arlington County and Montgomery County, where in various urban centers such as Shirlington, Clarendon, Bethesda, and Silver Spring, weekend and evening parking in municipal parking structures is usually free. So this means that DC commercial districts compete against suburban retail districts unequally.

Note that I don't think that street parking in DC should be free. But somehow we need to balance support for shopping districts with reducing the desire to drive rather than use transit--but since the quality of the transit system is declining and the cost is skyrocketing, that's a conundrum as well.

I haven't done a massive comparison study, but Toronto is the only place I've come across that comes close to charging rates that are significantly higher than typical city prices, with increasing rates for the number of cars per household.

Lions, tigers, bears and lightly clad runners -- "Oh my!"

(With apologies to The Wizard of Oz.)

People in burkas. Image source.

Another funny bit in the Hill Rag comes from the article on the proceedings of ANC6C ("ANC 6C Report") and resident reaction to a fitness facility in a commercial-residential district on the 200 block of M Street NW and the presence of people running around outside in the neighborhood. The reaction is not dissimilar to the reaction in Williamsburg, Brooklyn to a bike lane with lightly clad women. (See "Vigilantes Repaint Bike Lane in Williamsburg" from NBC TV.) Although there are legitimate issues about a certificate of occupancy, and the proper zoning, which is also discussed in the article, and was what the ANC focused on.

From the article:

The two residents also described how Primal Fitness does not have treadmills like most area gyms, relegating members to running around the neighborhood wearing what they describe as skimpy clothing. “This is not acceptable in a residential neighborhood,” Keys said. “We have schools there, we have day care centers, we have churches.”

The commission, however, decided after much discussion not to include the runners in their conditions for approving the gym’s occupancy. “We can’t specify that they can’t run outside,” said Commissioner Anne Phelps.

Since when are schools, day care centers and churches somehow oppositional to physical fitness?

The whole point of "walkability" is what we might think of as "natural or utilitarian" fitness, exercising in the course of normal activities--walking or biking to work or school or on errands, etc. Sure, running is a purposive activity that it is an end in and of itself, but the city is supposed to be for everyone, including runners not wearing burkas.

Running in hijabs. Image source.

While DC's obesity rate is the lowest in the nation compared to other "states" there is no question that within certain demographics, the rate is in fact, high, and the trends are not favorable.

Also see the press release from the DC Department of Health, "District Releases First Ever Obesity Report And Obesity Action Plan" and the report, Obesity in the District of Columbia.

Dupont Circle House Tour Tomorrow (Sunday October 17th)

1734 N Street NW is on the tour. Flickr photo by NCinDC.

I have been remiss in not mentioning the Dupont Circle House Tour, which is tomorrow from noon to 5 pm. (I was asked to by the chair of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association and I just forgot. Note to people who send me email. If I don't respond, please send me a reminder. Sometimes I am not interested, but a lot of the time, I just forget and it gets weighed down in my email box with the other 200,000 messages.)

There are 14 houses on the tour, plus a tea at the Society of Cinncinnati, and a view of the Tabard Inn. It's $25. The tour includes condo apartments, alley dwellings, and houses.

You can buy tickets online still, or tomorrow at the Dupont Circle Farmers Market.

-- Story from the InTowner.

Things have changed over 20 years and the DC Republican Party has a long way to go

I have voted for Republicans in DC. For Carole Schwartz for City Council and when she ran against Marion Barry for Mayor, and for Maurice Turner (maybe not the brightest guy in the world) when he ran against Marion Barry for Mayor, because I couldn't in good faith vote for him (ever).

While it is a good thing to have a more competitive democracy, and in the two party system (more are better but that's another issue) that means two parties, it doesn't work very well when one party is completely obstructive, which is the case nationally.

At the local level, we don't have an active Republican Party, and it shows in the quality of the candidates they have running for Council offices in DC, at least for Ward 6. Yes, I would vote for Tommy Wells if I still lived in Ward 6 and I have donated money to his campaign (even if I try not to make direct endorsements for candidates generally in the blog). So you can take this entry with a grain of salt if you like.

In the October Hill Rag, there is an article on the Republican Candidate for Ward 6 Councilmember, Jim DeMartino, and he says some really uninformed things. See "Republican Hopes: Jim DeMartino."

First, I have lived in the city for 23 years (well, a little less, because for a brief period I lived in PG County) and anyone who has lived in the city over the same period of time knows that it has changed, significantly, for the better--that's with the caveat that we need to do more for the impoverished, and that we still have a long way to go in terms of improving municipal government and the quality of the services provided by local government.

Jim DeMartino didn't live north of H Street NE when 30 people were murdered over an 18 month period in the late 1980s. I did. He probably didn't experience many assaults, burglaries, declining commercial districts, continued outmigration of population, and dysfunctional municipal government. I did.

So for him to say:

Asked about Wells’ incumbency, DeMartino replied: “There is so much opportunity that is not being maximized. The leadership is lacking. I do not see any accomplishment. We are in the same situation as twenty years ago. Homelessness has increased. Juvenile crime has increased. Maybe it’s time for another perspective.”

is completely ludicrous.

I'm the first to say that we have so far to strive, but to say something like this makes this candidate completely uncredible.

Then he says that the city has spent $1.5 billion on streetcars and has nothing to show for it.

Um, it won't cost that much, and we haven't spent much money at all, so far, on streetcars. Again, I have significant issues with the quality of the planning for the streetcar system as I have written about quite a bit, but instead of focusing on the real issues, he spouts a typical Republican-like anti-transit statement that is without accuracy.

And he denigrates the "walkability" agenda of Councilmember Wells, because DeMartino lives in the "Capitol Riverfront" district--a created from the ground up tall building community around the Nationals baseball stadium that will take many many more years to come to fruition--and the constructed from the ground up urban renewal like project in Southeast DC doesn't have the amenities he wants -- right now -- even though it is a 20+ year process to build the right kind of environment there.

From the article:

Addressing “livable, walkable,” DeMartino says: “It’s a nice mantra, but there is no substance to it. There is nowhere in my neighborhood where you can walk. I go to CVS for bread and milk. The amenities are not there in every neighborhood. Where I live there are only four new businesses, all restaurants. Bicycles are great but seniors can’t use them nor the disabled.” The Riverfront does lack the promised amenities principally due to the recession and slowdown in development.

Again, he is right that bicycle planning often underserves seniors and the disabled. But it doesn't have to. Instead, he ought to be focusing on how to realize walkability and livability everywhere, for people of all demographic segments, why there are in fact many gaps in our planning regime and approach, and focus on how to make the city better.

Clearly, the Republican Party has a long way to go in DC before it can be considered in any way competitive.

Another wrong judgement by the Washington Post: an elected Attorney General is a good idea and should be supported

I was pleased to see last year that Councilman Phil Mendelson put forward legislation to have the DC Attorney General (whose role is more circumscribed than the typical position elsewhere, as both local and federal criminal acts in the city are prosecuted by the Federal District Attorney's Office, which is the only instance nationally where this is the case) elected by the people, rather than serve as a position appointed by the Mayor.

From Wikipedia:

In the federal government of the United States, the Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet and as head of the Department of Justice is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. The attorney general may need to be distinguished from the Solicitor General, a high Justice Department official with the responsibility of representing the government before the Supreme Court. In cases of exceptional importance, however, the Attorney General may choose to represent the government himself or herself to the Supreme Court.

The individual U.S. states and territories, as well as the Federal capital of Washington, D.C. also have attorneys general with similar responsibilities. The majority of state attorneys general are chosen by popular election, as opposed to the U.S. Attorney General who is a presidential appointee.

If you read social psychology, there is a research thread on what is called boundary spanning, people whose place/position in life requires them to serve multiple constituencies simultaneously.

As Peter Nickles has proven, serving as Attorney General, it is very easy for the AG to serve the Executive Branch and politics, while underserving the simultaneous role of the Attorney General for representing and serving the people.

See "Bond between D.C. mayor and city's attorney general has grown stronger through the years" from the Post and "Vincent Gray Calls For AG Peter Nickles To Resign" from the Washington City Paper. A quote from Vincent Gray is in the City Paper article:

"'Two years ago, I voted to confirm Peter Nickles as Attorney General, with a belief and trust that he would put the interests of the people first, as required by D.C. law. There is no question about the fact that the Attorney General’s client is the District of Columbia, not the Mayor. That’s what the Office of the General Counsel to the Mayor is for. The Attorney General is supposed to be the people’s lawyer.

Unfortunately, it’s become increasingly clear that Peter Nickles not only sees himself as the Mayor’s lawyer, but also as the Mayor’s political hatchet man, and enabler of the Mayor’s cronyism. His politicization of the office is inappropriate at best, and illegal at worst. And by protecting the Mayor’s cronies, he has put the interest of the Mayor squarely ahead of the interest of his actual client. He has betrayed the public trust too many times to be an effective public advocate. Mayor Fenty should relieve him of his duties immediately.'"

But the Post, for the most part, has been advocating positions that limit and restrict democracy. I have argued before that the reason for this is that the Post has done investigative journalism for years about DC and Prince George's County transgressions and for the most part nothing happens. So they've become fed up and the editorial page promulgates positions that favor democratic authoritarianism.

Such is the case with today's editorial: "A referendum to reject : The case against an elected D.C. attorney general."

The argument is pretty specious, that the people running for office would have to raise a lot of money, and it would make them subject to special interests.

While this is in fact an issue, the reality is that for the most part Attorneys General in other "states" are more activist and involved in representing the people, taking up consumer fraud, the people's interest in nonprofit management of organizations, and other issues.

The AG position is one of the most prestigious in all of government, and it is likely that good people would vie for the job and would balance the sometimes conflicting roles of representing government and representing "the people."

-- National Association of Attorneys General

Once again, the Post is wrong.

Vote in favor of creating an elected Attorney General in the District of Columbia.
-------
Note that for a few years, I have also advocated that the U.S. Attorney General also be elected separately, rather than appointed by the President with confirmation by the Senate. Again, the Department of Justice ought to have two masters, the people, and the Executive Branch.