Category: Analysis

Anything that I have tested empirically, or explain with detailed calculations, or just generally bother to get all the facts straight.

Post #505: Revisiting #2: Let’s move the Noah’s Ark meeting into the 21st century.

Read Post #480 for the definition, and Post #495 for how this applies to Town’s decision to establish the rules for rewriting all the zoning in Vienna in private, out of the public view.

In a nutshell:

  • Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), any time three* or more members of a public body gather to discuss public business, that’s a public meeting.
  • All public meetings have to be open to the public, unless there’s some well-defined reason for having a closed meeting.  The statute identifies a specific list of such reasons (e.g., personnel actions).
  • A meeting of two members of a public body is not a public meeting.  It has to be three or more.

* Or, if a quorum is fewer than three.  So if there’s a two-person subcommittee, if those two people meet to discuss public business, that’s a public meeting.

OK, now think like a bureaucrat.  How do you dodge the clear intent of the Virginia FOIA, and manage to hold a meeting of (e.g.) seven members of the Town Council, but bar the public?

Simple:  You break your meeting up into little pieces, where each piece only has two Town Council members present.  Let me term each such piece of the overall meeting a “meetinglet”.

A single meetinglet, by itself, is more-or-less useless.  But now, instead of one meeting with all seven present, you hold a coordinated series of meetinglets, one after the other, with Town Staff providing information on what has been said in all prior discussions.  For legal purposes, instead of that being treated as one meeting of seven people that has been broken up into meetinglets, the law treats each meetinglet separately.

Hence, “Noah’s Ark” meeting, because you bring in the Town Council two-by-two.  You break the seven-person meeting into a series of two-person meetinglets, and presto, it’s legal.

Continue reading Post #505: Revisiting #2: Let’s move the Noah’s Ark meeting into the 21st century.

Post #488: A followup and correction on the 2020 bond issue

For the record, I need to correct what I said about the 2020 bond issue (Post #485).  It’s the part where I summarized it as: “Can they really pay that back?  I think the answer is a qualified yes.”

I believe that’s not true if they borrow the full $35M that they have been authorized to borrow.  I don’t think they can do that without violating their stated minimum reserve requirements for their capital fund, based on their current economic model.  And I didn’t realize that until I saw all the details presented at last night’s Town Council meeting.

I realize it’s too late to do anything, as the Town Council approved the bond issue.  But I think it’s worth stating this for the record.  Just on the off chance that anybody in Town government cares about it.  Presumably, Town staff will redo the reserves calculation just prior to the time of bond issuance using updated information.

Continue reading Post #488: A followup and correction on the 2020 bond issue

Post #473: No standards for pedestrian sight lines

This post is a courtesy for the Vienna Transportation Safety Commission (TSC).

The first point is to provide a convenient reference to Post #424, which is my summary of the Chick-fil-A drive-through exit hazard.  In a nutshell, I think that the obstructed view of the sidewalk there constitutes a clear hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists, on what is now a walk-to-school route thanks to the Madison HAWK light.

At tonight’s (11/25/2019) TSC meeting, I’m going to ask the Town to do something about that.

My second point is that there does not seem to be any technical guidance on this issue whatsoever, from either the Virginia Department of Transportation or from Federal sources.  The issue being, specifically, when a driveway meets a sidewalk next to a public road, what constitutes adequate sight lines between drivers in the driveway, and pedestrians on the sidewalk.   (So, not an issue of driver-to-driver sight lines, but driver-to-sidewalk-pedestrian sight lines.)

Best I’ve seen, so far, from VDOT or federal sources, is a vague statement that one should have adequate sight lines.  And that’s in the context of roadway intersections, not driveways entering a roadway.

After considerable searching, I found a handful of municipalities that addressed this exact issue.  Near as I can tell, all of them ask for the area to be kept clear of visual obstructions 10 feet or more back from the sidewalk, when a driveway enters a roadway.  This should be contrasted with the 1-foot distances between the sidewalk and the obstruction (a 5′ tall transformer box) at the Chick-fil-A drive-through exit. 

So, if you were looking for solid evidence that the situation at the Chick-fil-A drive-through exit is hazardous, here are four cities that would have banned it.  These are all standards for vehicle-pedestrian sight lines.

Lincoln, NE (.pdf) says you can have no obstructions with 10 feet of the sidewalk where a driveway enters a street.  Like so:

City of Kirkland, WA requires a 22′ setback, as measured along the sidewalk, but they assume that cars will be moving 10 MPH down a driveway.  Not sure this is relevant.

Bellevue, WA says 14′ from the back edge of the sidewalk must be kept clear, but that’s measured in the middle of the travel lane.

City of Albuquerque requires 11′ be kept clear around residential driveways.

I think this is enough to show that where this issue of pedestrian visibility at driveways is explicitly addressed, the required setbacks from the sidewalk that must be clear of visual obstruction vastly exceed what we have at the Chick-fil-A drive through exit.

Post #462: On mail-based surveys and other methods to gather public opinion

The proximate issue is Councilmember Patel’s proposal to have a short survey routinely included in the Vienna Voice, the Town’s monthly newsletter.  I judge that Town staff’s response to that proposal was not an even-handed discussion of the issues (Post #461).

In fact, I was so flabbergasted by Town staff’s response that I’m having a hard time figuring out what to write about it.  And not just because some of it was wrong on the facts.  (Or some of the straw-man assertions.  I thought “Is Council setting an expectation that all decisions will be made by referendum” was particularly over-the-line.)

What really astonished me is that virtually everything they said, to knock the idea of a newsletter-based survey, goes double and then some for every alternative that they suggested.

From the standpoint of statistics, more-or-less all the things that they thought were wrong about a newsletter-based survey are even more wrong about the alternatives they proposed.  And upon reflection, I think they genuinely don’t understand that.  There’s no reason they should.  They weren’t hired to be survey experts.

And I’m guessing they are trying so hard to quash this idea because they think it’s vastly inferior to various alternatives.  But it’s not.  And that’s what I’m going to concentrate on here.

As a means for:

  • determining what the average Vienna voter thinks,
  • in a way that is transparent, and
  • in a way that can be audited, where
  • the results are not the product of staff’s subjective interpretation of data,
  • using methods that we can afford …

It’s hard to beat a mail-based survey.  And the two large advantages of using the Vienna Voice for that are that we’ve already paid for the postage, and (probably) people will at least glance through it before they throw it out.

In case anyone cares, I have considerable bona fides in this area, having conducted surveys as a Federal employee and in other contexts.  Including, oddly enough, actually having used a newsletter to perform what was, and may still be, the largest-ever survey of Medicare beneficiaries’ difficulties in finding a primary care physician.

Continue reading Post #462: On mail-based surveys and other methods to gather public opinion

Post #461: Patel proposal to survey Town residents: I’ll let the staff response speak for itself.

There’s a Town Council work session tonight.  On the agenda is an idea from Councilwoman Patel.  The idea is that the Town might routinely include a brief survey in the Vienna Voice monthly newsletter.

This would be a way for the Town to gauge where the average citizen stood on the issues of the day.

The unsigned, un-attributed Town staff response is quite a piece of work.

Maybe my take on this is just my own bias, as I have done surveys as part of my job.  But I think not.  So I’ll ask you just to read the rest of this, and see if you can get a sense for whether this is a fair and even-handed discussion of this proposal.  Assess how much it strives to present an accurate assessment of the pros and cons of this approach.  (Hint:  See if you can find any pros.)

I’m not going to comment other than to make a single technical point.  Mailing a survey to 100% of residents is, by definition, a random-sample survey.  It’s just that the sample rate is 100%.

Here it is, in its entirety.  Literally cut-and-paste.  Here’s the Town staff response, to the idea of asking you what you think, on a routine basis, as part of the Vienna Voice mailing.  You can find it in its original format on this Town of Vienna page.

Councilmembers Want to Know… survey initiative
Staff questions/concerns
• Unlike the National Citizen Survey, which uses random sampling, this type of survey is not statistically valid. (However, over time, data from survey may be quoted/used as if it is statistically valid – people tend to forget that part.)

• Crafting survey questions is a science. It’s very easy to accidentally inject bias into the question or to shape the question to generate the response desired.

• Is Council setting an expectation that all decisions will be made by referendum?

• Issues and decisions that must be made are often complex. Despite educational efforts, some residents will not be aware of all of the intertwined considerations that factor into decision-making.

• The timeline of utilizing the newsletter for monthly surveys is awkward, and data may not be available in timely enough matter to impact some Council decisions. Newsletter deadline is the 10th of the month preceding publication.

Example of how process might work:
o Councilmember questions due to editor December 10.
o Survey published in January newsletter around January 1.
o Deadline for responses? If January 10, could publish results in February issue; if later than that, would have to be in March issue.

• Who will “vet” questions posed? Editor, individual Councilmember, all of Council?

• Who will be responsible for analyzing and reporting data?

• Sets up unrealistic expectations? What if Council chooses to go in a direction that is different from survey results?

• Limited response, especially as time goes on.

• Will survey responses be anonymous or identified? No way to know that hearing from a representative set of voices.

• How will surveys be returned to the Town? Will people make the effort to drop off or mail to Town Hall?

Engagement best practices – “Meeting People Where They Are,” Sept. 1, 2019 ICMA article
• Conducting outreach and surveying using only one communications channel almost guarantees biased results.

• Need to use all outreach methods at our disposal, traditional and virtual, to provide more residents an opportunity to engage.

• Need to meet residents where they are. E.g., pop-up opportunities at events where people can respond to a survey on their phones or provided iPads; outreach at community events.

• Keeping the barrier to participation low means being able to instantly engage: no usernames or passwords, no creating an account.

• Being mobile-minded is one of the best ways to increase engagement.

• Messaging is best when it shows the value that public input will have on the decision-making process. For example: “Your input will help set priorities for our 2040 Transportation Plan.

• While a boots on the ground approach does build relationships, it’s difficult to scale, especially given time and staff constraints.

• The best way to optimize engagement and increase equity is to combine traditional and online outreach into a cohesive process and build a public participation database so you can analyze input, report findings, and make strategic decisions.

• Selectively leverage technology, budget, and staff time.

 

 

Post #453: Noise abatement, addendum: Plantings don’t reduce noise.

Today I have the joy of doing a posting that nobody is going to believe.  To the best of my understanding, the following statements are true.

With one possible exception, plantings of any sort, of a scale that can be included in the MAC streetscape, will have no material effect on traffic noise as heard at the sidewalk.  There are psychological advantages, and certainly aesthetic advantages, and possibly some modest health advantages to greenery adjacent to a city street.  But noise reduction is not one of them.

As far as I can tell, this is something that most experts on noise abatement agree with.  And that every expert on landscaping disagrees with.

The one exception is the type of green wall where the entire wall is covered with a sound-absorbing medium, on which plants may grow.  And even there, the noise reduction is due to the sound-absorbing growing medium, and only trivially to the plants. Continue reading Post #453: Noise abatement, addendum: Plantings don’t reduce noise.

Post #443: Field trip to Whole Foods

I think everyone in Vienna is familiar with Whole Foods.  Whether you shop there or not, you recognize it as yet another one of our 1960s era commercial buildings.  Built in 1965, it’s a single-story brick building surrounded by surface parking.

We could reasonably disagree over the aesthetics of the building.  MAC advocates seem to scorn this low-rise-plus-open-parking-lot arrangement as “ugly 60’s-era shopping centers”.  But to me, buildings like this are inoffensive — well away from the street, not blocking the view of the sky, and small enough to allow the trees behind them to be seen.  The sky view and greenery are what mark this as a small-town scene, in my mind.  Despite the tacky power lines and ubiquitous cars.

But this post isn’t about aesthetics.  It’s about functionality.

We probably don’t fully appreciate how ridiculously easy it is to shop there.   As long as the parking lot isn’t full, you can typically park within 150′ of the door.  The parking lot has two entrances/two exits, so if you don’t want to hassle with Maple, you can use Park.  And it’s probably the most bicycle-friendly establishment in Town, with ample, convenient rack space.

We don’t appreciate it because we think it’s normal.  With few exceptions, the entire south side of Maple is built to that standard.  It was built from scratch to be automobile friendly.  Drive up.  Walk in.  Shop.  Leave.  No choke points, no hassle.

The new normal

This is why I suggest you take a field trip to the next-nearest Whole Foods, on Westpark Drive in Tyson’s Corner.  This is a new, modern Whole Foods, occupying the first floor of a mixed-use building.  Getting into and out of that Whole Foods is a different experience entirely.  And it’s one you’re going to have to get used to, as MAC converts Maple to mixed-use buildings.

Start by lining up at the sole entrance to the underground parking garage.   With the predictable result that, when the store is busy, you wait in line just to enter the parking garage.

The line moves slowly because you have to get your ticket.  Because of course you need a ticket.  This is a densely-built mixed-used building, so parking is tight, and precious enough to be careful about. And you’ll need to have this ticket validated in Whole Foods.  But if you stay more than 90 minutes, you’ll have to pay for your parking.

After parking in the underground garage, you need to locate and walk to the entrance.  Obviously you can’t see the entrance from where you parked, because your view is obstructed by the typical concrete pillars.  So you follow the signage.

Once you find the entrance, you take the escalator up to the store.  And commence shopping.  The interior of the store is everything you’d expect from Whole Foods.  Then schlep your groceries to your car, find the exit to the underground parking, and leave.

Structured Parking

Parking garages are a central feature of the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of Maple Avenue under the current MAC statute.  You can’t cover the lot with a building unless you put the parking under the building.  (But “parking garage” is apparently too tacky, so you have to refer to it as “structured parking”.) And MAC provides numerous “incentives” allowing developers to skimp on parking, relative to our existing standard for what constitutes adequate parking for retail businesses.  The plausible result will be that barely-adequate garage parking will be the new normal for Vienna.

If you want to see what the new normal is going to look and feel like, I suggest you take a field trip to that new Tyson’s Corner whole foods.  On some sunny Saturday afternoon, say.  If you’re agoraphobic, I suppose it’s a plus, because you can do your entire shopping trip without ever being exposed to the open air.

To be honest, I hate parking garages.  I particularly hate closed-sided underground garages.  I find them claustrophobic, ugly, noisy, and inconvenient.  To me, it’s just another unpleasant bit if urban life that you have to put up with.

When MAC advocates talk about how ugly our parking lots are, all I can think of is, yeah, sure, but they aren’t half as ugly as the parking garages that will replace them.  But the parking garage interiors are tucked away out-of-sight.  So as long as you don’t actually use the building, the ugliness and inconvenience of “structured parking” is somebody else’s problem.  It’s only if I actually shop in a place with garage parking that I end up muttering “if I’d wanted to live like this, I’d have moved to DC”.

Parking garages are certainly efficient, in terms of using scarce land area.  If you want to cram a lot of additional development onto the same amount of land, that’s what you have to do.   And if you judge them purely on how they look, from the outside, they are just dandy.

But if you actually have to use them, I’d say that parking garages reduce your quality-of-life, relative to the open surface parking that is currently the norm in Vienna.  Particularly underground and enclosed structures.  They take more time, and they definitely inject an extra bit of urban ugliness into your shopping experience.  But you’d better get used to it.  Skimpy enclosed parking garages are the future of Vienna under the current MAC statute.

Post #415: Survey

The Town would like to survey Vienna residents to get their opinion about key aspects of Maple Avenue development.   See the relevant section of Post #413 for the writeup of that.  I applaud the fact that the Town is going to do such a survey.

But the Town is just asking for trouble in how they have chosen to go about that.  It’s a real drag to have to say that.  But what I’m going to say here needs to be said, by somebody.  Even though people are not going to like it, and I will be accused of being a mean person for saying it.

Well, tough.

Continue reading Post #415: Survey

Post #403: When will the last small house in Vienna be torn down?

Approximately 2050, at the current tear-down rate.

Calculation follows.

  • Years of housing stock remaining =
  • Current housing stock
  • Times % amenable to tear-down
  • Times % not already torn down
  • Divided by new houses being built per year.
  • Years of housing stock remaining =
  • 4,626 (Source:  2019-2020 Town budget, page 24)
  • 80% (total guess)
  • 90% (total guess)
  • 100 (Source: 2019-2020 Town budget, page 277)

= 33 years.

2019 + 33 = 2050, rounded to the nearest ten.

Not sure that the calculation is worth much.  But to me, the interesting fact is the number of building permits in the typical year.  In any given year, the Town only issues about 100 permits for new detached homes.  (And since Vienna is nearly fully built-up, I interpret that as about 100 tear-downs per year).

So, while it seems like tear-downs are everywhere, and it seemed to me that the pace of the tear-down boom has been accelerating, the Town’s data on building permits says otherwise.  It’s about 100/year now, and it was about 100/year in (say) 2014.

It’s probably true that you can’t actually buy a small house in Vienna, to live in, because the lot is worth more as a tear-down than the structure is worth as a residence.  And it’s certainly true that the houses being offered for sale in Vienna appear heavily weighted toward new construction (see Post #308).

But in terms of small houses going extinct in Vienna, nope.  At the current rate, it does not appear that will happen any time soon.

 

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.