Author: chogan@directresearch.com

Any post that starts with “Toward” isn’t going to get you to your destination.  So you are forewarned:  This is just the first of two posts.

Based on everything I’ve seen so far, it’s difficult and expensive to get cars off of Maple Avenue.  That’s really the genesis of this post.  If you don’t believe that, you could start with Post #331, no magic bullets for Maple Avenue traffic.  You could skim my various analyses of the Town’s recent traffic study (search “multimodal”).  Read my idea about behavioral modification to keep cars off the road.  Maybe toss in analysis of Capital Bikeshare, and end with analysis of microtransit.  See how hard it will be to use rental electric scooters effectively in Vienna.  Or you could just re-read the first sentence of this paragraph and say, yeah, sounds about right.

I’m using this post to organize my thinking before the Town Council’s next round of discussions about Maple Avenue.  But this ended up being too long, so I’m splitting it into two posts.

The point of this first post is that, ideally, the Town should come up with a way fully to offset the additional traffic that Maple Avenue redevelopment will cause.  That should be part of the overall MAC plan.  My next post will belabor that by talking about putting all the options into a single “cost effectiveness” framework.  Continue reading Post #408: Toward a cost per car-trip avoided and cost per traffic-minute avoided.

This was discussed for about an hour, at the end the 9/30/2019 Town Council meeting.  This is my brief review, based on watching the video recording.  There was a presentation, with materials provided to Town Council members, but those materials are not posted on the Town website.

The Director of Public Works provided a brief presentation on mictrotransit.  More or less, microtransit is an Uber-like service using small buses or vans.

As with Uber, you would use a smartphone app to call up a ride.

Unlike Uber, though:

• This would not be one-passenger-at-a-time transport.  It’s more akin to Uberpool.
• It would not come directly to your door.
• Software would aggregate calls for transport, for all individuals near you who requested a ride around the time you did.
• You would be given a pickup time at a “virtual bus stop” (a street corner a block or two from your house)
• All the people who wanted rides would meet at that “virtual bus stop”.
• In theory, this provides for greater efficiency.
• Origin and destination of your trip would be in and around Vienna (e.g., as far as the Metro station).
• The transport vehicle would likely be a van or small bus.
• It should be cheaper than Uber, possibly a few dollars, possibly free.
• It would be subsidized by tax dollars, just like other forms of public transit.

Because this is a new concept, there is not much data yet to assess how well microtransit works, or in what situations it works.  The Director of Public Works mentioned pilot projects that are starting in targeted areas of Washington DC, Montgomery County, MD, and Fredericksburg, VA.

Several tax- or toll-funded organizations were mentioned as possible sources of (most of) the money needed to do this, at least initially.   Possible funding sources included the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC), Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (DRPT), and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG).

Eventually, Vienna would have to pay the cost of running this.  The very approximate estimate for having a third party provide turn-key operation of a system like this, for an area the size of Vienna, was given as $200,000 to $400,000 per year.  (It was not clear if that was gross cost, or net cost after offsetting revenues from fares).  Councilman Majdi noted that the cost would depend strongly on what you ask for — 24/7 on-demand service anywhere in Town, say, versus a few limited routes offered for a more limited time period.

There was a lengthy comment period, and a motion (subsequently withdrawn) to get staff started on applying for grants.  Comments were mostly about how to go about getting seed money (grant funding), and putting this in the context of the other transportation recommendations from the Town’s multimodal transportation study (see Post #359, Post #362, Post #358 ).

In the end, Councilman Noble’s view won out that it would make more sense to see what Kimley-Horn recommends in terms of the overall transit picture, and then (if warranted) pursue a package of options, rather than begin to look at this option in isolation.  At some point in the near future, Kimley-Horn will present the findings of the Town’s “multimodal” transportation study in front of Town Council.

A few comments and one calculation.

In a nutshell, microtransit is a cheaper version of Uberpool, using a few vans instead of many cars, without door-to-door service, subsidized by taxes or tolls. 

Councilmember Noble pointed out that the key to any of this is demand.  Will people demand (use) this service, enough to justify the expense?  Could this take away demand for the existing bus service in and around Vienna (Post #225)?  I think that’s the key issue, and one where Town Council would be well-advised to get their hands on whatever hard data is available before making a commitment.  (See Uber/Lyft suggestion below.)  I have already noted that the stunningly nice local Connector bus service goes largely unused (Post #225).

I will take issue with a statement by Councilmember Patel, that this would reduce our carbon footprint.  I think that’s plausible, but not proven, and would certainly depend on the demand.  A typical vehicle for this type of service (Sprinter van) gets around 17 MPG.  And as I learned with my analysis of electric scooters, a lot of things can affect carbon footprint that would surprise you (last section, Post #338).  In particular, short-range transport may function more as a faster substitute for walking and biking, rather than passenger car trips.  The substitution of motorized transport for walking or biking will increase carbon footprint.

It’s also worthwhile to note that traditional citybus service is only modestly better than the average new car, due to generally low load factors.  For example, US city buses on average emit 300 grams C02 per passenger mile, not hugely different from the average 360 grams emitted by the average new US passenger car (Wikipedia reference is here).  Both of those are worse than a solo driver in an efficient vehicle.  For example, a solo driver in a new Prius (at 54 mpg) emits about 165 grams per mile.  (These figures are for fuel only and are not life-cycle energy costs for the vehicles.)  For a Sprinter van, you’d need three passengers at all times to get the same fuel efficient per passenger mile as a solo driver in a Prius.

Now I’m going to do some simple calculations.  If this service will actually cost $400,000 per year, how many Uber trips could that buy, in and around the Town of Vienna?

Here’s what it costs to go from the center of Vienna to the Vienna Metro.  This probably longer than the median trip within the Town of Vienna.  So, at $7 per trip, that’s likely an over-estimate of the typical Uber fare within the proposed mictrotransit service area.

The answer is ($400,000/$7 =) ~57,000 Uber trips. 

If the microtransit runs 365 days per year, 8 hours per day, then at what point will microtransit make more than 57,000 trips per year.  Answer:  about 20 trips per hour, every hour, 8 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Finally, just for fun, how does that 57,000 trips compare to the number of trips on Maple Avenue?  (Fully realizing that a) not every microtransit trip would involve Maple, and b) the van itself would be a vehicle on Maple, so the reduction in vehicles on Maple would be less than 57,000 in any case.)  Total annual transports on Maple amount to (33,000 cars/day x 365 days = ) about 12 million vehicle trips per year.  So the theoretical break-even-vs-Uber 57,000 would amount to 0.4% of Maple Avenue traffic.

(Just to emphasize that I have not run this into the ground, note that the  calculation above assumes that the Town would pay the full Uber fare for you.  But if the Town just goes halfsies with you, then that $400K cost of microtransit would subsidize 114,000 half-price Uber rides.  And yeah, the money isn’t the only thing at issue here.  And Uber likely increases traffic congestion.  But still, that’s a lot of cheap rides.)

None of this is to say “don’t do this”.  All of this is to say, do some arithmetic and think hard before committing the Town to do this.  Even if, at first, we’re going to spending Somebody Else’s Money.

Fully acknowledging that we are spending Somebody Else’s Money, what we’re talking about is a service that is, for all intents and purposes, an inconvenient form of Uberpool.  (Albeit cheaper).  By far, the first thing I would want to know is how many transports Uber and Lyft provide annually, in and around Vienna.  (Uber does make such data available to city governments, but Vienna is just outside the zone for which data are publicly available for the DC area.)  If it isn’t on-order-of 57,000 and up, … the Town really needs to think hard about this.

Finally, just by way of illustration of what can happen if ridership does not materialize, I’ll point you to the Tyson’s Capital Bikeshare racks.  The extremely low ridership results in a $25 per-one-mile-bike-trip average cost.  See this post for calculation.

Finally (and I really mean it this time), if you think I’m kidding about high average cost if ridership does not materialize, read this, and find this line:  ” … for a jaw-dropping subsidy of more than $1,000 per ride.”

But who am I kidding?  Some days, I just get tired of talking to myself.  As long as it’s Somebody Else’s Money, I doubt that stories of even truly spectacular failures, as above, will dissuade anyone.

 

I was reminded that I need to write this topic up, based on the most recent Town Council meeting.  So here goes.  This post announces that there will (may?  might?) be a community meeting, sometime soon, for discussion of the proposed assisted living facility at 380 Maple West (Maple and Wade Hampton).  Neighbors of that facility will (most likely) be invited to attend and talk to the assisted living provider.  If you weren’t aware that this was (maybe?) going to be an assisted living facility instead of condos (as passed by Town Council), read Post #378.

I admit that writing these posts has become a chore.  This one more than most.  Continue reading Post #406: Forthcoming community meeting on the 380 Maple West assisted living facility

I’m sure you all marked October 3rd on your calendars (Post #366).  Or not.

The initial scheduling hearing for the Sunrise lawsuit was supposed to occur today.  But it will not.

They were given a continuance until 11/4/2019.  That’s via per Shelley Ebert, who has diligently continued to track this.

That’s all I know.  Check back in a month.

 

Time flies.

The Town of Vienna is now in the process of modifying the MAC zoning rules.  And, in addition, it has chosen to rewrite its entire commercial zoning code at the same time.  Presumably, all of that will be done by the time the MAC moratorium is lifted, which (if all goes correctly) will now occur in June 2020.  (For background, see the writeup of the Town Council’s most recent discussion of  rewriting of the zoning rules,  the third item in Post #378).

Two weeks ago I wrote down my prediction for what the revised Town of Vienna commercial zoning will look like (Post #383).  Best guess, when the dust has settled, there won’t be much change to MAC, the Town will apply MAC to most-but-not-all of Maple, and the Town will formalize a policy of allowing commercial buildings to be mostly housing.

In this post, I explain why I think it’s headed in that direction. Continue reading Post #402: It’s tough to make predictions, part 2

In keeping with my last post, I have to correct something I said about structures built “by right” under our existing commercial zoning, in Post #346.

I pointed to 901 Glyndon and a proposed building across from the US Post Office (145 Church) as examples of by-right commercial buildings that were mostly housing.  Both 901 (already built) and the proposed 145 Church consist of two floors of housing over some retail.  They would not meet (what I thought was) the “primarily commercial” standard written into the zoning rules — that commercial buildings have to be primarily (51%) occupied for commercial use.

I have since been told that neither of these buildings were (or are) being built under the standard zoning rules for commercial property along Maple Avenue in Vienna (zones C1, C1A, C2).

The parcel at 901 Glyndon was zoned commercial prior to the annexation of that land by the Town of Vienna.  So the story there is that, despite being shown as commercial (C1) zoning on the Town’s zoning map, and by Fairfax County’s tax map, apparently it’s not.   Apparently, the zoning is something else, and that something else allowed the construction of a building that is primarily housing, as a commercial building.

The story for the proposed  145 Church building is that in the Church Street zone (C-1B), two floors of housing over some retail is OK.  I tried to pin that down by reading the regulations, but failed.  I have to take that as a matter of faith.

Assuming that’s all correct, the upshot is that neither of these buildings establishes any precedent under the standard commercial zoning that applies on Maple (C1, C1A, C2).

I needed to set that straight before proceeding to my next post.

“When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do?”  When seemingly knowledgeable readers offer corrections … I make corrections.

1: The Transportation Safety Commission (TSC) has never been asked to act proactively to prevent a problem.  Implied in Post #394 and Post #395.

False:  An informed reader tells me that the TSC proposed pro-active traffic control measures in at least one situation:  Attempting to limit cut-through traffic in the area around John Marshall Dr NE/MacArthur Ave NE/McKinley St NE (and Talisman Rd.) in anticipation of the road closure and construction improvements of Beulah Rd.  Vienna and Fairfax added speed tables to the area prospectively.

It’s worth putting a pin in this one for several reasons.  First, it shows that TSC can act prospectively, and is not strictly bound by the rules of the Vienna Citizen’s Guide.  Second, you can’t find any trace of this, on-line, on the Town’s website or elsewhere.  (Or, at least, I could not, after considerable searching).  On-line minutes for the TSC only go back to 2017.  This came to light purely by chance, as somebody who knew the facts happened to read my post and was motivated enough to set me straight.  Absent an easily-accessed written record, Vienna’s institutional memory is slowly erased as citizens move onto and off of various boards and commissions.  I think that’s inefficient and unfortunate.

2: There’s no plausible explanation for the contradiction between a) the perceived increase in the length of backups at the Maple/Courthouse light and b) VDOT data that show no increase in traffic on that road.  Implied in Post #396.

False:  A reader sent me one possible explanation.  The white lane striping on Kingsley effectively prevents cars from forming two lines at the Nutley/Kingsley intersection, encouraging traffic to filter through the side streets up to Tapawingo or Courthouse.

In the past, two lines would form, for left turns and right turns.  Now, those turning right (north) on Nutley have to wait in line with those making the much-more-difficult left (south) onto Nutley.  And, in general, the length of the queue at that intersection increased for all individuals.

In the case of my correspondent, he no longer takes Kingsley to get to Nutley northbound in the morning.  Instead, he heads up (north) to Tapawingo or Courthouse, and then to Nutley. If enough people did that, it would increase the traffic entering those roads via the neighborhood streets.

Depending on where VDOT habitually sets up its traffic counter(s) on Courthouse, that traffic filtering up the residential streets, from the south, could plausibly slip onto Courthouse without being counted by VDOT.  At any rate, so far, that’s the only explanation I’ve stumbled across that would explain how the apparent backups at the light appear longer, but the objectively counted traffic has not increased.

3. Stop signs are a cheap and effective means for slowing down traffic and improving pedestrian safety.  This was more or less implied in Post #395.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  For the first time, I heard an explicit contrary view that stop signs control speed:  “People notoriously blow through unwarranted stop signs.”

I have always thought of myself as a fairly mainstream kind of guy, but this shows what a sheltered life I have led.  It never even occurred to me that a significant number of people would simply ignore a stop sign.  I mean, what kind of a person drives through a stop sign?  I’m such a nerd, I stop at stop signs even when I’m bicycling.  Which is hardly the norm for adult bicyclists.  (I use a common motorcyclists’ rule:  one foot must be placed flat on the ground.)

The bottom line is that some stop signs may have little effect without active police enforcement.  And that significantly limits their effective use, and makes them a far more costly control measure as well.  As I calculate it, we have about one police officer, per shift, for every 32 acres of Vienna, assuming all they do is traffic enforcement 24/7.  Given our low crime rate, I wouldn’t exactly say they are spread thin, but clearly they can’t provide much enforcement at the typical stop sign.

That said, while some people will blow through stop signs on neighborhood roads (as was reported on Roland Road in my neighborhood), I bet people would think twice before doing so when there routinely are witnesses.  Which means, in practice, on an arterial roadway.  So while stop signs may not be fully effective in the depths of the neighborhood, when traffic is sparse, I would not ignore their potential along a major thoroughfare like Courthouse.  Certainly, I’ve never seen a car blow through the three-way stop at Courthouse and Locust.  Based on that, I’d bet a stop at (e.g.) Courthouse and Ware would be routinely obeyed.

4:  A double-yellow line indicates a major road, or maybe gets painted as a standard safety measure to “narrow the lanes” visually.  That was in Post #395, in the discussion of traffic on Kingsley.

False:  I have now been told that the Town paints a double-yellow line as a matter of course on all the wider roads.  Because Kingsley is 35′ wide, presumably, it got a double-yellow line without regard to any safety consequences.