Post #396: Courthouse traffic trend?

At last night’s Transportation Safety Commission (TSC) meeting, there was a lot of complaint about rising levels of traffic on Courthouse.  And I have to say, that matches my perception.  I see afternoon rush hour backups at the Maple/Nutley light that reach past Meadow Lane playground.  And … I just don’t recall seeing that a few years ago.

Long story short, VDOT data show no upward trend in traffic on Courthouse Road.  This probably comes as a surprise to the people who live on Courthouse.  It certainly goes against my perception of traffic on Courthouse.  But the numbers are what they are.

VDOT traffic counts are available on this page.  Please note that while they show a count for every year, for every monitored street, it looks like they only do an actual measurement (for Courthouse) every third year.  In-between, it looks like they just just gap-fill by trending the data forward.

Here’s the VDOT count of average weekday traffic, every third year from 2003 to 2018, in cars per day:

So I just thought I’d throw that out there.  I have a few ideas of what might be causing this, but it’s hard even to guess as to how to support or refute any proposed explanation.

Just to forestall one possible argument, the peak hour traffic is no more concentrated now than it was back in 2003.  Throughout this period, just under 10% of the daily traffic occurred during the peak hour of the day.

So what’s the explanation? One way to explain it is that everybody is wrong.  Traffic hasn’t picked up.  Traffic was actually worse in 2003, on Courthouse, than it is today.  Perception and memory can be flawed, so you can’t rule that out.

Otherwise, I’m stumped.  I just can’t quite picture a plausible scenario where an increasing number of cars is getting onto that street, but evading the VDOT traffic counter.

Perhaps traffic is more concentrated for very brief periods of time, leading to brief (but extreme) backups.  Those “micro-bursts” of traffic would then make an impression that we would tend to remember.

Could the recent (2016?) re-timing of the Maple Avenue lights have anything to do with this?  Could that have bunched traffic up more effectively on Courthouse?

 Here’s my best guess.  I noted earlier that we really have a large number of tear-downs going on in the Town of Vienna (Post #308).  Could the deep PM backups at the Courthouse/Nutley light be a “quitting time” phenomenon?  In effect, we now have a large local workforce of construction workers.  My vague recollection (from one summer working as a carpenter’s helper) was that, come 5 PM, that’s quitting time.  And everybody knocks off.  So I wonder if we have enough of a local construction labor force now that it is affecting the “peakiness” of traffic on Courthouse.  Not enough to materially raise the daily counts, say.  But just enough, added at around the same time, into the existing PM rush hour, that it materially boosts the length of the backup at the Nutley/Maple light.  And I then  perceive those long (but short-lived) lines of cars as “traffic sure has gotten a lot worse”.

No way to validate that one way or the other.  But for sure, the hard numbers in this case are strongly at odds with the common perception.

 

Post #394: Tonight’s Transportation Safety Commission meeting: Please don’t boil the frog. Update 2

Tuesday, 9/24/2019 at 8:00 PM in Town Hall, Transportation Safety Commission will meet and take public comment on traffic safety issues in the neighborhood bordered by Maple, Nutley, and Courthouse. This includes both current issues and “impact of future development on those issues”.

Citizens are invited to speak, with a time limit of three minutes.

For background, see Post #389.  If you live in the area bounded by Courthouse, Maple, and Nutley, consider attending tonight’s meeting and speaking up.  The meeting starts at 8 PM.


In this post, I want to state what I hope to get out of this meeting.  Likely, I will be adding to this post over the course of the day.

Mainly, I hope that the TSC will consider what can be done to address the future impact that MAC development will have.  To me, that’s what makes this  inherently different from anything the TSC has ever done.

The TSC listens to citizen complaints about current conditions all the time.   There is a process in place for citizens to petition for measures to address existing  problems (the Citizen’s Guide to Traffic Calming in Vienna (.pdf).   The TSC occasionally has a town-wide review of extant problem areas,  most recently in 2008 and 2010.

But the TSC has never been asked to come up with proactive measures to address the expected future fallout from a change in Vienna’s zoning rules.  That’s new.  And to me, given the context, that’s the main point of this exercise.

There is a process in place for dealing with current problems.  For any current problem, if we who live in this neighborhood were sufficiently upset, and someone wanted to go to the trouble of collecting signatures from the required 75%/50% of all affected households, then we could go through the procedures outlined in the Citizen’s Guide (cited above) to deal with any current problems.

Aside:  Sidewalks, however, seem to be a separate issue, and not nearly as transparent as other safety measures.  Although sidewalks are never mentioned in the Citizen’s Guide (cited above), it appears that citizen requests for sidewalks must go through the petition process outlined in the Guide.  A revised version of that Guide (still in draft form) does, in fact, mention sidewalks.

But there is no process within Vienna for dealing with the likely future problems from redevelopment.  And yet (see below), a full build-out of Maple under MAC zoning will surely generate some significant traffic issues.  So, to me, this should be about how best to deal with the traffic impacts that are projected to arise as MAC zoning converts Maple Avenue into a high-density housing district. Continue reading Post #394: Tonight’s Transportation Safety Commission meeting: Please don’t boil the frog. Update 2

Post #392: BAR final review of Marco Polo/Vienna Market

The first item on the 9/19/2019 Board of Architectural Review meeting was a look at the final plans for the Marco Polo/Vienna Market development.   You can see them at this location.  This is a quick summary from the Town’s recording, which you may find on the Town’s Legistar/Granicus calendar.

The BAR took about an hour and fifteen minutes to tweak details of the design.    At the end, with a few caveats, the plans were unanimously approved.  My reading of this is that the only major item yet to be resolved is the exact design of the mural on the front of the building.  Presumably, that will be up to the Vienna Public Art (or Arts) Commission.

These three drawings below show the Maple Avenue view of: What the BAR passed originally; what was then handed back to the BAR as having been passed by Town Council (Marco Pologate); and then the final approved plan.

Weirdly, you can see that a ghost of the original building lives on in the final drawing.  The right side of the building, receding into the distance, remains a view of the original building.  (Plausibly, the right side of the left portion of the building, receding into the distance, is also a remnant of the original drawing.)

Here’s a close-up of the building at the left, in the same sequence:  what the BAR passed originally, what was then handed back to the BAR as having been passed by Town Council (Marco Pologate), and then the final plan.

At any rate, barring any other surprises, the bottom picture is what you will see going up over the next year or so, at the site of the former Marco Polo.

If I had to offer an epitaph for this, it would be the following:

A)  Kudos to the BAR for fixing this as best they could.   Just getting rid of the bricked-in windows was worth their review time, in my opinion.

B)  Did the Town learn anything about the review process here?  And is there any plan, by the Town, to change anything about how they go about this? In short, are they going to learn from their mistakes?  Or are they just going to shrug this one off and keep on doing what they are doing?

I have already made the point that there needs to be more communication between these bodies (BAR, PC, and TC) during the review process.  In particular, I called for the chair of each body to pass along a short written summary of the proceedings, to avoid the sort of internal inconsistency that occurred with the Sunrise assisted living review (Post #301).

But in addition, I would say that this whole affair points out the need for some checks and balances within the Town of Vienna government.  At the minimum, somebody in the Town government, outside of the Department of Planning and Zoning, needs to compare the plans between meetings, to see that they do not change between the time one entity approves them, and the next entity gets to review them.  Otherwise, having demonstrated that staff are willing to change the plans quietly between approvals, there’s nothing to stop that from happening again.

 

 

Post #391: Wade Hampton, Theorem-Proof

Theorem:  Potential parking spots on Wade Hampton = 11 + 1  = 12 (Post #238r)

Proof:  Photo 3:30 PM 9/19/2019

Lemma 1:  7 west

Lemma 2:  5 east

Q.E.D.

Bonus question, points awarded only if you can answer this without using internet search:

Who was Wade Hampton?

What is the connection to Gone With the Wind?

Best answer, courtesy of a reader:

“Wade Hampton was a civil engineer back in the early days of Vienna and designed out some of our roadways. He was known for designing especially tight and blind turns such as the current Wade Hampton/Roland Rd and Walnut Lane. He would often be quoted when people complained about this design as saying, “Frankly, my Dear, I don’t give a damn if you don’t like my roadway designs.”  The phrase was later ripped off by the writer of Gone With the Wind.”

 

 

Post #390, (that’s not a) retail vacancy rate

The Town of Vienna is asking Fairfax County for funds from the Fairfax Economic Support Fund.  They’d like Fairfax to pay for half of a $100,000 economic development study for the Town.  A brief presentation on that was given at the 9/17/2019 County Board of Supervisor’s meeting.  You can see the contents of the presentation at this link (.pdf).

The point of the Fairfax Economic Support Fund is to invest in development around the county, where the expected increase in Fairfax County taxes will cover the cost of the investment.  Fairfax County staff appear to judge that this study will boost tax revenues by more than the $100,000 cost.  So they recommended funding it.

For this posting, the purpose of the proposed study does not much matter.  Based on the bullet points, it sounds like this could be merely finding some justification for MAC zoning.  (“Placemaking” is a giveway there.)  But it might actually be a legitimate market analysis.  If so, I’d applaud that, because, better late than never.  It would be good to have some reasoned analysis of (e.g.) how much more retail space Maple Avenue can be expected to absorb, what types of new retailers are likely to enter that market, and so on.

The only point I want to make here is a technical one.  The Vienna proposal is cited as showing a “15% vacancy rate”.  And that is immediately interpreted as a retail vacancy rate on Maple.

First, that’s not a vacancy rate.  Or, at least, it’s not comparable to the way anyone else calculates a vacancy rate.  Vacancy rates — office, retail, or commercial — are always expressed as a percent of the available space.  (Vacant square footage over total square footage.)  The Town’s number, by contrast, appears to be a count of addresses (“spaces”).  The Town counted 138 vacant “spaces”, of which 68 were on Maple.

So, e.g., Giant Food counts as one space.  The Maple Avenue Market would have counted as one space.  Those two would be weighted equally in a simple count of addresses.

Second, it’s not clear that’s a count of retail spaces only.  That matters materially, because office vacancy rates in Fairfax County are quite high (see below).  My guess is that the Town’s records do not show which spaces are retail and which are office, and that in all likelihood, that’s a count of all commercial addresses in Vienna.

Third, that’s not Maple Avenue in isolation.  The overall fraction of addresses that are empty appear to be for the Town as a whole, not for Vienna.  (I can’t know for sure, because there doesn’t seem to be any copy of this study available on-line on either the Vienna or Fairfax County websites).

This is not a criticism of the number.  A quick-and-dirty throw-away number like that , that’s perfectly fine if it gets the Town the money it was seeking.  The Town took its records, counted addresses, and used that as part of its proposal asking Fairfax to cover half the cost of the study.   I doubt, for example, that the Town’s tax records list the square footage of each establishment.

This is a criticism of how that number is being quoted and used.  My only technical point is that you should NOT compare the Town’s number to any published estimate of retail vacancy rates.  Published estimates will be done properly, based on square footage.  The Town’s number, by contrast, equates (e.g.) a tiny shop space with Giant Food.

FWIW, here are some recent (2014) estimates of actual retail and office vacancy rates, prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) using data from CoStar.  The numbers here will vary modestly from other estimates, based on the exact details of how they went about the calculation.

Source:  MWCOG, CoStar.

Finally, also FWIW, if you want to see how I calculated a ground-floor retail vacancy rate for Maple, showing data and methods, see this post.  Those numbers are a little stale at this point, but they still shouldn’t be too far off.  For further background on the mix of retail on Maple, see Post #201 and Post #208.

Post #388: Time management and the 8 PM Town Council meeting start time

One of the oddest parts of the 9/16/2019 Town Council work session was a discussion about changing Town Council meeting times to 7:30 (or perhaps earlier).  I found it odd for several reasons, but mostly because there was so much importance attributed to starting the meetings earlier.  But no mention of any other sort of time management strategy.  (Which, in my opinion, these Town Council meetings desperately need — see the final section of this posting.)

With this Town government, when I see something like that — seemingly irrational behavior, yet with great emphasis — it raises a red flag.  I have no firm answer for what might be driving this.   Critically important to start earlier, no need to discuss any other aspect of time management.  That’s odd, to say the least.  It set off my nonsense detector.

Let me take a closer look.


Vienna Town Council meetings have started at 8 PM for the last half-century.

I couldn’t find records any older than that.  And, fact is, the current Town charter isn’t much older than that.  But I can document an 8 PM start time back to 1966.  Detail follows.

I can check Town Council agendas, on-line, for about the last decade.  That’s on this page on the Town’s website.  And the start time for the earliest meeting recorded there was, in fact, 8 PM.  Spot checking a few dozen meetings between then and now, it seems like 8 PM has been the start time at least since August 2010.

In the press, here’s mention of an 8 PM Town Council meeting (.pdf) from 2003.  Here’s notice of an 8 PM Town Council meeting in 2002, for the creation of the Vienna dog park.

Heck, because Vienna maintains an archive of all the old town newsletters, you can just search that, on this Town of Vienna webpage.  I see from one issue that the January 1981 Town Council meeting began at … 8 PM.

The Town began monthly publication of the newsletter in January 1969.  The February 1969 issue is particularly interesting, not just for the 8 PM start time, but because of this little item:

Source:  Town of Vienna, VA Newsletter, Volume 69-2, February 1969.

So, apparently, the issue of meetings running late is far from a new one.  And half a century ago, the Town tried meeting four times monthly, instead of twice a month.  

In fact, the 8 PM start time was such a standard for us that it’s actually written into Vienna Town statute.  This is from the Town charter, accessible here:  They can resolve to meet at other times, but the default has been 8 PM since (as I read it, at least) 1969 (emphasis mine).  That’s the last time this section appears to have been updated.

The Town Council shall meet in regular session on the first and third Mondays of each month at 8:00 p.m., or at such other times as may be fixed by resolution; provided that at least one regular meeting per month shall be held as required by section 4.2 of the Charter. When the first or third Monday of a month falls on a legal holiday, the council may by motion postpone or advance the regular meeting scheduled for such a holiday, and notice of such postponement or advancement, together with the substitute date selected, shall be published by such means as the council may select.

(Code 1962, app. 3; Code 1969, § 2-14; Ord. of 9-7-1965)

But because the Town newsletter was quarterly (at best) in the earlier years, the first mention of an 8 PM Town Council meeting is the April 1966 newsletter.  Oddly enough, the Town Council of the day was holding a public hearing on rewriting the Town’s zoning ordinance.

Source:  Town of Vienna, VA Newsletter, Volume 66-2, April 1966.

Upshot:  Looks like 8 PM has been the Town Council meeting start time for at least the past 53 years.   More than half a century.

(As an aside, that archive of Town newsletters beats anything that you could put in a time capsule.  Check the March 1961 Town newsletter, when Vienna was seriously considering dissolving the Town (“surrendering the Town charter”) and returning to being just a part of Fairfax County.   The November 1961 issue reminds citizens to pay the poll tax and register to vote.   It’s definitely a slice of history.)


Hmmm

I was going to put in a trite summary of all the public trauma and tragedy we’ve seen since 1966, but I suspect that most of you can fill that in better yourselves.  And throughout that period, Vienna Town Council meetings started at 8 PM.  And nobody saw fit to change that.

And now, after half a century, some Town Council members want the meetings to start earlier.  But introduce no other time management strategies for Town Council meetings.  I can’t quite make that fit together, logically, on its own.

 


Time management strategies for Town Council and other Vienna public meetings.

Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

I served as staff to a U.S. legislative-branch advisory committee for close to a decade.  I’m going to draw on that experience to suggest a handful of changes, listed in order of my best guess as to time saved.

1  Elocution lessons, or, at least, self-awareness training.

Some members of our elected and appointed boards are good about getting their thoughts together, expressing themselves with a few clear, complete sentences, (subject-verb-object), and then stopping.  But many of them are not.  And those who are not can take up an extraordinary amount of time making even the simplest point.

I am acutely aware of this for two reasons.

First, I have been recording many meetings, often writing up an “index” to what was said.  I have had to listen to some meetings word-for-word.  It’s excruciating.  Not for every speaker, but definitely for some of them.  For some, you just find yourself praying for a full stop — an actual end to what passes for a sentence in their oral presentation.

Second, there’s no saint like a reformed sinner.  One of the low points in my professional career was having to read a literal transcript of what I had said during my public presentations before my committee.  In my mind, I was a model of succinctness.  In fact, my presentations were just so much verbal diarrhea.  A few rounds of that, and eventually it dawns on even the most stubborn person that thinking before you speak is probably a good idea.  And your presentations then use a lot fewer words.

My suggestion is that the Town hire a transcriptionist for a few meetings, and ask Council members to read the literal transcript of what they said in those meetings.  They will be appalled.  I guarantee it.  If they have any sense, just that little bit of feedback will make them think twice about getting to the point, with the fewest words possible.  And this will save considerable meeting time.

2  Add time estimates (i.e., expected start and end times), on the agenda, for individual agenda items.  For major items, couple that with timed opening statements for Town Council members.

And I would add a nominal end time for every meeting, per the agenda, of no later than 11 PM.  Putting estimated times on the meeting agenda, and fitting all the items into that 11 PM deadline (on paper, at least), forces people to understand that time is short.  And for a crowded or disputed agenda, you are forced to realize that you have more on the agenda than can reasonably be discussed in three hours.  You realize you are under time pressure.  It puts some time pressure on the meeting, compared to the present situation where there is no explicit time pressure.  And if running late is the problem, then time pressure is exactly what you want.

Right now, discussion of agenda items proceeds more or less at random.  All the happy stuff (Scouts, sports teams, proclamations) takes however long it takes.  Then, for the business portion of the meeting, the Mayor calls on council members to speak, in turn.  Each member of Town Council speaks, at length, about whatever they want to speak about, relevant to that item.  There is some occasional back-and-forth.  And, in my experience, there typically is little in the way of a defined summary or set of action items, for items tabled for future discussion.  Otherwise, items requiring a vote are then voted on.

That undirected approach may be a pleasant and polite way to do business, but it’s not an efficient way to do business.  For one thing, the same issue will be brought up several different times, by several different Town Council members.  For another, you do not have the full scope of issues relevant to the entire Town Council until after the last Town Council member has spoken.  Finally, Town Council members are under no pressure to make a short, succinct statement of what matters most to them.

An alternative method is to give every Town Council member (say) one minute to state, briefly, their initial position and most significant concerns about the agenda item in question.  Only after that does the individual leading the meeting produce a list that summarizes the N issues that have been brought up.  The meeting leader then walks through those items, summarizing the positions on each item, calling for discussion, and attempting to reach consensus where possible.  This way, discussion only proceeds after the full scope of all relevant issues is on the table, and each item is discussed, all together, at one point in time.

I can already tell you which Town Council members will have no trouble getting to the point in 60 seconds or less (Springsteen).  And which, by contrast, are likely to find this a hardship.

3  Consent agenda.

This item was brought up by Councilman Majdi.  It’s a convenient way to get rid of routine business of the Town Council, rather than take the time to vote individually on each non-controversial item.  All items that all Town Council members believe can be passed without further discussion are packaged into a single item, and (as I understand it) if that item passes unanimously, each individual item is deemed to have passed.

4:  Committee-of-the-whole discussions. 

At some level, I think that working under fairly rigid parliamentary rules makes these meetings last longer when there are major agenda items to be discussed.  Sometimes, to get to the bottom line, what you want is a free flow of ideas.  But instead, what you get is a clean, one-person-at-a-time presentation, because that’s what’s in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order.

My vague understanding is that at least some legislative bodies can temporarily get around the more rigid restrictions of Robert’s Rules of Order by declaring themselves to be acting as a committee of the whole, and working under an agreed-upon less restrictive set of rules applying to committees.  At the end of which time, they then go into regular session and vote, as the legislative body, not as the committee.

Probably seems nuts to most people, I guess.  But it’s just a legal way to dodge the rigid formalism of the rules for the legislative body (the Town Council), get the discussion done expeditiously, and still take legal votes as the Town Council.