Post #361: Yet a third cut at MAC-generated traffic

You might wonder how I managed to pick up on the Kimley-Horn traffic result  Post #358.  I mean, they did their best to flash that across the screen.  They provided more-or-less zero discussion.  None of the meeting participants said boo about it.

In fact, until I actually got my hands on the presentation, I thought I must have misread it, as you can see from the struck-out section of Post #357.  How could a result like that have been presented with no discussion?

But I remembered it because I was prepared to see it.   Or something very much like it.  Why?  Because the answer to the question “will MAC development add materially to Maple Avenue traffic” is pretty obviously “yes”.  I had already convinced myself of that more than a year ago.  Different methods will lead to different estimates, surely.  But even now, no matter how I slice it, that’s the answer I still come up with.

In this post I present yet a different calculation to suggest that this is plausible.  Just a rough cut, no real work involved.  I’m going to gin up a crude guess for the number of peak hour Maple Avenue trips you might expect, just from commuters living in all that new MAC housing.

Continue reading Post #361: Yet a third cut at MAC-generated traffic

Post #359: The Town’s multimodal transportation study, Part 1

In Post #358, I discussed what I saw as the single most important finding of the Town’s Joint Maple Avenue Corridor Multimodal Transportation and Land Use Study“.  This post discusses the rest of that study, as presented at the Town Council (and PC and TSC) joint work session on 8/19/2019.

To cut to the chase:  There’s nothing (or almost nothing) useful in the rest of the report.  Not just because much of the detailed analysis was just-plain-wacky. It was, as I hope to discuss in a later post.  (Example:  Let’s let people park on Maple.)  But mostly, the basic approach was fundamentally wrong, in a way that prevents the Town from using the results to make rational decisions about Maple Avenue.  At best, I guess you might call it a place to start.  Or maybe a relatively inexpensive mistake, so that you know how to try to structure a usable study.

This posting is only about big-picture overview issues.  It’s already too long as is.  If I want to talk about the details, I’ll have to do yet another posting.


First, I’m posting my recording of this joint work session.

Why?  See Post #260.  Hope I’m wrong about that, but … just in case, my recording of the 7 PM 8/19/2019 work session is at this Google Drive link.

There’s no index, because it’s only 45 minutes.   Audio is lousy because there was poor microphone discipline, so it’s a mix of amplified and unamplified sound.  That requires a lot of post-processing (amplification, noise removal, compression) just to make it audible.  The heavy post-processing and low original volumes left a lot of artifacts in the recording.

But if you want to know what was said, and you weren’t there — sadly, looks like this is your one and only opportunity to do so.  See Post #260.


 

Continue reading Post #359: The Town’s multimodal transportation study, Part 1

Post #358: A one-third increase in Maple Avenue rush hour traffic.

The Kimley-Horn analysis presented at the 8/19/2019 Town Council work session estimated that even a modest amount of MAC development on Maple would result in (by my calculation) a one-third increase in peak rush hour traffic on Maple. 

I believe that’s the single most important fact to come out of the 8/19/2019 Town Council work session and meeting.  And yet, the contractor (Kimley-Horn) and the combined TC/PC/TSC blew past that so fast, nobody even bothered to discuss it.  So, since they didn’t talk about it, let me walk you through it.  With my usual citations as to sources and methods.

But first, I have to acknowledge a tremendous debt to Councilman Noble, who, as I recall, had to do everything short of pound his fist on the table to get this analysis included in this study.  I’m going to pile on the sarcasm later, but here, I am completely serious. This analysis was not part of the original proposal for this report.  But this is one of the numbers we must have, in order to have any rational discussion of what’s best for the Town of Vienna.  And if he hadn’t persisted, this would never have seen the light of day.  So, we, the citizens of the Town, owe Councilman Noble a debt of gratitude for prodding the Town into taking this step in the direction of having a rational, fact-based discussion of the future of Vienna under MAC.

Rational means discussing the pros and cons of your actions.  But the Town barred any discussion of traffic during the development of MAC.  So this action rights a long-standing error, and starts us down a path toward a rational discussion of the issues.

Detail follows.


Analysis

First you need a tiny bit of context in order to understand what the Kimley-Horn report showed.   That context is this:  How many cars pass down Maple Avenue, now, at the peak rush hour?  Answer:  About 2366 cars.

To be clear, that’s 2366 cars, passing a point on Maple, during that peak hour.  To see how I got that, turn to Virginia Department of Transportation traffic count data.  Download the 2018 Town of Vienna data from this link (.pdf).  Scroll to page 7.  Here it is with full detail.

Here it is again, simplified to just the key numbers.  (Sorry if you have to squint, this is how it looks in the .pdf from VDOT).

This is the street segment from Nutley to Follin.  At the far right is average weekday traffic of 33,000 vehicles per day.  Moving to the left is the “K factor” of 0.072, which is the fraction of daily traffic that was observed during the peak traffic hour.  (In this case we can tell that this number was an actual measurement by VDOT.)  Multiply the two together to arrive at (33000 x 0.072 =) 2366 vehicles during the peak rush hour, as measured by VDOT.

(The scientifically-trained among you will laugh at four significant digits for this number, but let’s just continue.)

OK, now you’re ready to understand the Kimley-Horn analysis.  First, get a copy of the Kimley-Horn 8/19/2019 presentation from the Town’s website, at this link (.pdf).  Turn to slide 10.  Without (yet) commenting on the quality of those numbers, let me just take them at face value. The key number is in boldface near the bottom:  +758 PM peak hour trips.

So, how much does rush hour traffic increase, under this scenario?  Well, that’s (758/2355 =) 32%. 

Or, in round numbers, a one-third increase in rush hour traffic.


A short break for some sarcasm.

Well, who could possibly have guessed that?  Who would have thought that concentrating a bunch of high-density housing projects on the single most congested street in Northern Virginia* might result in — more congestion?  Completely unexpected.

* OK, yeah, I made that up, about the single most congested street.  But if there were such an award, don’t we all think that Maple would be in the running for it?


Proper discussion.

First, the most important thing to realize is that this is only a partial build-out of all the available MAC property. The entire MAC zone contains 106 acres, more or less.  At the time MAC was passed, both Town Council and Town staff were cited as guessing that more than 60% of that acreage would eventually be redeveloped under MAC.

So, by eye, if you combined all the colored blocks on the picture above, what fraction of Maple was assumed to be redeveloped, for the Kimley-Horn estimate?  Knowing what I know about those lots, my guess is 20%.  So, this estimate says that if 20% of the MAC zone gets redeveloped under MAC, you’ll see a one-third increase in peak rush hour traffic.

By extrapolation, then, what the Town originally envisioned as a full build-out of MAC — 60%-ish of the entire MAC zone — would result in a doubling of peak rush-hour traffic.

You know, love MAC or hate MAC, that’s something we really need to think about.  Shame on those who forbade any discussion of traffic as MAC was being developed.  You did your Town no favors by doing that.  And, again, kudos to Councilman Noble for finally getting some numbers on the table.

Second, are there any obvious shortcomings of those Kimley-Horn numbers.  Yes, one leaps off the page:  Giant Food shopping center.  Look at the largest teal box on the picture above.  That’s the Giant Food shopping center.  They are claiming that redevelopment of that lot — all 10 acres of it — would result in just 65 additional rush-hour trips.

Hahahah.  No.  I would love to see the contortions they had to go through to get that number.  If they keep the retail — which you kind of hope they do, if you buy groceries in Vienna — then what you ought to see is the rush-hour trips generated by all the new housing.  So far, these MAC projects are averaging about 100 new Town residents per acre.  That’s a 10-acre lot.  So what you ought to see there is the Maple Avenue rush hour trips generated by maybe 1000 new persons, call that maybe 600 new adults, living on Maple.  I don’t think that just one-tenth of them will have jobs that require them to commute.

So, from a flat-footed common-sense perspective, it sure looks to me like they shaved that Giant shopping center number down.  Quite a lot.  There’s no telling whether that was a one-off, or whether all those projections were systematically shaved down.

Finally, can we “triangulate” this in any way?  That is, compare it to some independent estimate, done by some other method, to assure us that the Kimley-Horn estimate is in the ballpark?

Why do that?  There’s a lot of potential for slack in these traffic analyses.  A lot of potential for judgment calls.  And you’d like to see somebody else’s analysis to be sure there is no large systematic bias in the numbers.

I did my own crude estimate about a year ago, for total traffic (not rush hour), simply by extrapolating the 444 Maple West projections.  That’s my post titled “Traffic and the Ultimate Impact of MAC Zoning“, posted 7/26/2018.  Let me dig that up and compare to the Kimley-Horn estimate.

This is my crude estimate, from one year ago, impact on total (not rush hour) trips on Maple:

A year ago, I crudely estimated that a full build-out of MAC would increase total trips on Maple by 118%.  Extrapolating the Kimley-Horn number to a full build out of Maple implied an increase in total trips on Maple of 100%As these things go, that’s a bullseye.  My crude extrapolation and the Kimley-Horn numbers are definitely in the same ballpark.

I should probably mention other technical details and caveats that might materially matter, such as the treatment of “bypass” trips.  I should equivocate over the Chick-fil-A-car-wash number, because some fraction of those might never make it literally onto the segment of Maple between Nutley and Follin.  I should probably ask about the fraction of trips that might not make it to Maple at all, because I can’t know exactly what the Kimley-Horn analysis did.  (I assume that because this is about Maple, those are estimated Maple trips, but I can’t be sure of that.)  But let me stop here.  I think this is good enough for now.

I’m going end by repeating what I said more than a year ago, in the post cited just above.  If it sounds kind of strident, well, maybe in hindsight that was perfectly justified.

“The bottom line here is that under any reasonable set of assumptions, this is a significant and material issue, and the Town needs to stop avoiding it.  They need to look to the future, see what kind of Maple Avenue they are creating, and act now to avoid the worst impacts.  I can also understand why a pro-growth Town Council would not bother to do this basic calculation.  There is no way to paint a pretty picture here.  But the fact is, if the Town is bent on remaking Maple under MAC, they need to do this calculation properly and restructure MAC to give us something tolerable on Maple.  As it stands, there appear to be no long-term Town estimates of the ultimate impact of MAC.”

But now there are some estimates.  That’s progress.

 

Post #356: INCORRECT, see post #360. In case you’re looking for recordings of Town meetings …

See Post #360.  The important parts of this are wrong.

This text is Town of Vienna policy as posted on this webpage.

The table is from one of the Town’s Granicus web pages.  This is where those recordings used to be posted.  The forlorn little greyed-out right-most column is where Town recordings should be listed.

So, has the Town started slacking off?  Nah.  They just stopped posting them there.  Instead, you can now only access them by clicking links at the bottom of a page on the Town’s website. Continue reading Post #356: INCORRECT, see post #360. In case you’re looking for recordings of Town meetings …

Post #355: MAC-related public meetings this week

There are two public meetings this week relevant to MAC zoning.

Monday 8/19/2019, starting at 7 PM in Town Hall, Vienna Town Council will have a work session followed by a meeting at 8 PM. 

The work session (7 PM) will be a presentation on the “Joint Maple Avenue Corridor Multimodal Transportation and Land Use Study”.

No documents or other materials appear to have been posted for this session.  The web page describing this event can be accessed here:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4086168&GUID=3555C726-7394-4291-A1FA-32D9382ADF93&Options=&Search=

The 8 PM meeting includes three relevant items:
Item 19-1308:  Feasibility study with options for a Patrick Henry Library parking garage.
Item 19-1378:  Rescinding the narrowing of Wade Hampton Drive for 380 Maple West (37 condos plus retail, Wade Hampton and Maple),
Item 19-1394:  Amending the existing standard commercial zoning to provide a streetscape closer to what MAC requires.

Meeting materials can be found at various points on this page:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=684462&GUID=3202EA1F-D3E6-4BCC-84F2-732A3A357BF3&Options=info&Search=

See Post #347 for my writeup of what will be discussed.


Tuesday, 8/20/2019, at 7 PM in Town Hall, the Vienna Public Art(s) Commission agenda includes discussion of public art requirements for MAC projects.

The Town’s calendar announcement for the Public Art Commission is at this link:
https://www.viennava.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=4622&month=8&year=2019&day=20&calType=0

The agenda for the Public Arts Commission (MicroSoft Word) is at this link:
https://www.viennava.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=4346

N.B.:  The website calls this the Public Art Commission, the minutes are labeled Public Arts Commission.  I’m not sure which one is correct.

Post #353: Sunrise lawsuit, the Town of Vienna responds

Courtesy of Dave Patariu and Shelley Ebert, I have a copy of the Town of Vienna’s response to the Sunrise lawsuit (Post #342).  You can access a copy of the Sunrise legal complaint at this Google Drive link.  You can access a copy of the Town’s response at this Google Drive link(LINK FIXED 8:30 AM 8/19/2019 — sorry for the mixup.)

Continue reading Post #353: Sunrise lawsuit, the Town of Vienna responds

Post #352: Town of Vienna Development Activity Page

Hey, is this new?  Or have I just not been paying attention?  The Town has a series of maps summarizing development activity in the Town of Vienna:

https://www.viennava.gov/index.aspx?nid=1346

Or go here for the map itself.

This is the first time I’ve stumbled across it, and certainly the first time I’ve ever seen the associated map.  Kudos to the Town of Vienna, as this how such activity should be tracked, for benefit of the public, in the modern world.

Previously, the Town had a map for MAC projects, but I never could get much use of it.  This current effort seems an order of magnitude better, largely for use of a better map.

That said, be aware that these maps have a few limitations.  Mostly, these maps appeared to show anything requiring Town approval via some public meeting.  So there is construction that does not go through that process, and there are things that go through that process that are not construction.

Omitted construction:  My guess is that any purely by-right construction will be omitted.  Mostly, that omits all of the tear-downs all over Vienna.  Those are handled entirely within Planning and Zoning and Public Works (I think) and so are not subject to any sort of public exposure.  But also notably absent is 901 Glyndon.  I’m not sure whether that’s due to the age, or due to that project having been determined to be by-right (no-public-review) construction.

Omitted construction:  I would also guess that anything done by Town of Vienna Public Works or by Fairfax County would be omitted.  So construction relating to roads, schools, parks, sidewalks, and other public property likely won’t show up here.  In fact, I can see that sidewalk revisions don’t show up, because we’ve had several in the past years and none appear.  Again, that’s probably because those aren’t reviewed and approved in public by the Town of Vienna.

Included but not construction:  This map shows changes in any conditional use permits.  So, e.g., if a restaurant wants to have live music (a conditional use of the property, requiring Town approval due to the potential for annoying the neighbors as Bey Lounge did), that will show up on the map.  But that’s not new construction.  The marker for “Blend 111” is one such case — it’s on the map, but it has nothing to do with construction, just with how the property is used.

This does not give you a link to some document repository for each site, but it does at least link to (e.g.) the documents that were provided during the last available public meeting on the project, if any.

One little quirk is that they didn’t know where to put denied applications, so Sunrise (assisted living, Maple and Center, denied by the Town, currently the subject of a lawsuit) shows up on the “Under Construction/Completed” page.  I understand the logic from Town staff point of view — they are done with it — but I think I’d at least give the denials a different shape or color or something.

All in all, a vast improvement over what was available previously, and particularly relative to the half-baked attempts by private citizens to do the same sort of tracking.  I believe that I will now retire that project tracking page.