Post #450: Audio recording, the 11/7/2019 Town Council work session on the traffic study

The minus one still cracks me up.  See Post #364.

Town Council met last night to have their third briefing from Kimley-Horn on the Maple Avenue Corridor Multimodal Transportation and Land Use Study.  I’m using this post just to get my audio recording up, in case anyone wants to listen to it, at this Google Drive link.  There’s no accompanying “index” file for the recording. Continue reading Post #450: Audio recording, the 11/7/2019 Town Council work session on the traffic study

Post #444: MAC-related public meetings this week

There are several public meetings this week with some relevance to MAC zoning.

Monday, 11/4/2019, at 8:00 PM in Town Hall, Town Council will hold a meeting that includes several MAC-related items. 
1)  They will hold a public hearing on extending the MAC moratorium through June 30 2020.  Citizens are invited to speak.  Three minute time limit.
2)  They will consider a resolution to request grant funding for a three-story parking garage/library to replace the current Patrick Henry library.
3)  They will examine (and likely approve) the modified rear facades of the Marco Polo/Vienna Market MAC project.

The relevant materials can be found here:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=716363&GUID=DC46C9A8-009B-49C0-93BE-A2BB7BFFB61B&Options=info&Search=

Thursday, 11/7/2019, at 7:30 PM in Town Hall, Town Council will hold a work session to obtain their final briefing on the Kimley-Horn “Maple Avenue Corridor Multimodal Transportation and Land Use Study”.

The relevant materials can be found here:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4213345&GUID=7038D400-8A10-4B9D-AE3D-8F5E05930CAB&Options=&Search=

 

Friday, 11/8/2019 at 8:00 AM (AM), the Board of Architectural Review will hold a work session on the new building proposed for 380 Maple West, a Sunrise assisted living facility.

The relevant materials can be found here:
https://vienna-va.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=735324&GUID=CEE00DFC-1728-44FD-B567-C1B14E4BA0D5&Options=info&Search=

The Town reserves the right to change or cancel meetings on short notice, so check the Town’s general calendar before you go, at this URL:
https://www.viennava.gov/Calendar.aspx?NID=1&FID=220


Commentary:

On the Monday Town Council meeting, I would have expected the extension of the MAC moratorium to be cut-and-dried.  Would have, except that it was anything but that at the preceding Planning Commission meeting.  The actual discussion was in fact for more convoluted than I said in my brief writeup (Post #440), and included some legal arguments to block any consideration of an extension of the moratorium

Also, the Town Council is being asked to approve a grant request for funding the largest parking structure option that the Town’s consultant offered them.  I had not realized that the Town had made the affirmative decision to go with that option.  If that’s a done deal, I certainly wish they would reconsider (e.g., Post #367, Post #369, Post #371).

Separately, the Town is also going to ask for about $240K in grant funding for Capital Bikeshare bike racks.  I’ve already expressed the sentiment that this is almost sure a near-total waste of money, given the lack of use of these rental bikes in Tysons and other remote suburban near-Metro locations (Post #387).

On the Thursday Town Council work session, to me the big question is how they’ll deal with the estimated traffic impact of MAC development.  The rest of the items — the proposed projects for the Town to undertake — seemed fairly weak to me.  You can see can see my analysis in Post #358 and subsequent posts to Post #364.  It is worth bearing in mind that the traffic impact analysis does NOT use current traffic as baseline, which is why (e.g.) redevelopment of the currently empty BB&T site was estimated to reduce traffic on Maple in that study.

The Friday BAR session is a bit of a puzzler to me, as it is not clear to citizens that (e.g.) Sunrise has actually signed a contract with the current owner of 380 Maple West, and so on.  This is due, in part, I think, to the fact that this isn’t a MAC application.  Formally, it’s a request for changes to the existing, approved MAC building.  (I.e., new building, new owner, new purpose, new conditional use permit and so on, and yet all done within the context of the land already having been rezoned to MAC instead of standard commercial development.)

Post #416: Vienna’s too bougie for a bus.

This was my college-age daughter’s summary judgement about the potential for public transit in Vienna.

I had to look it up.

Bougie (also spelled bourgie), pronounced BOO-zhee, is a slang shortening of “bourgeoisie”.  The Urban Dictionary offers several definitions.  I’ll stick with “upper middle class” for this posting, although it typically has a more negative connotation when used.

Unprompted, she went on to say “They’d ride a trolley, but they’d never ride a bus.”  Which left me scratching my head a bit, as, mechanically, a trolley is literally the same vehicle as a bus.  It’s just a cute, somewhat dysfunctional bus.

My daughter grew up in modern Vienna, so she has a more intuitive grasp of the culture of Vienna than I do.   But I was a little taken aback because  she didn’t even have to think about it.  I described a couple of my recent posts (i.e., microtransit).

And the response was: Eye roll, followed by two short declarative sentences.

So, just to finish up:

First, maybe the cultural barriers are so strong that no local bus system will be viable in Vienna.  Duly noted, the existing Fairfax Connector buses are a delight (Post #225), but largely empty.

I’ve been thinking about this as an economist.  But maybe we need an anthropologist.  One can plausibly dismiss low Vienna  ridership of the Connector buses to lack of convenience.  (What economists would term the “time cost” of use.)  But would more convenient public transport would lead to greater ridership?  Not if the true barrier is cultural.  If Vienna is too bougie for a bus, you can make public transit as convenient as you want, make it free, heck, make it pay you to ride it (Post #414).  And it will still fail.

Second, this dovetails with what I’ve called the Mcleanification of Vienna (Post #308).  When I moved here in 1993, much of southwest Vienna was “workers’ housing”, for want of a better term.  My immediate neighbors were, by profession:  Nurse, retired military, tile setter, school teacher, insurance salesman.   But with the tear-down boom, the price of admission to Vienna has gone up.  People with those professions may still live here, but it’s a fair bet that they would not be able to move here, given that the median new-house sales price looks to be somewhere around $1.5M.  For sure, I would not have been able to move here, given the (inflation-adjusted level of) my salary at the time.

As with any stereotype, I don’t mean that this applies across-the-board.  I don’t mean to say that every new home buyer in Vienna is “bougie”.  But I would say that it’s a fair bet that with the current high price of admission, Vienna is probably shifting in a “bougie-er” direction.

That certainly seemed apparent in the last election.  Typically — though not universally — the bigger the new house, the less likely you were to get traction on the MAC issue.

Third, and looking inward, maybe I don’t quite get the drive for Maple Avenue redevelopment because I’m insufficiently bougie.  I grew up in a culture where (e.g.) people were prideful about how many miles they had on their car, not how new it was.  And maybe I find the Vienna downtown to be OK as-is because of that.  But that puts me out-of-step with some portion of Vienna, and as the Mcleanification continues, that probably puts me out-of-step with an increasingly large portion of Vienna.

Finally, if that analysis is correct, then we should neither build a downtown that displeases the current majority, nor lock in a downtown that will displease a future, bougie-er majority.  Which argues for one of two types of strategy, if, in fact, the Town is becoming increasing bougie under the relentless pressure of high new home prices.

One, it argues for proceeding slowly, so that more of the open (that is, under-developed) space on Maple is preserved for the next generation to deal with.  You don’t want to set off a land rush, and lock in the preferences of the current generation of residents, if there is a reasonable expectation that this will not be viewed as optimal by future generations.  You don’t want your successors, in Vienna, to look at MAC buildings, shake their heads, and say “what were they thinking”.

Second, it argues for something we have never seen here in Vienna (or possibly elsewhere), an explicit phase-in of redevelopment strategy.  It sounds kind of fringe, but maybe the right thing to say is, for the first generation of MAC, the limit is three floors.  For the second generation, the limit is four.  And for the third generation, the limit is negotiable.  Where, just to pull something out of a hat, each generation might last a biblical seven years.  Or, alternatively, where each successive Town Council would have to vote in the next phase of MAC, based on their perception of average voter sentiment.   At some not-to-exceed pace.  That is, create a phased-in set of increasing opportunities for redevelopment.

You wouldn’t do something like that without a lot of forethought, because a strategy like that could easily prove to be destructive.  It could (e.g.) retard redevelopment as land owners held out for the more lucrative future development rights.  (Which may be happening now, with MAC, for all we know.)  But based on the wake-up call that I got from my daughter yesterday,  maybe this is the best way to reconcile the preferences of the existing and projected future Vienna populations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post #414: Vienna Retail-Oriented Omnibus Microtransit

At the last Town Council meeting, Councilman Majdi asked Town staff to look for grant money to fund startup of a microtransit system in Vienna.

In Post #407, I did my best to explain what microtransit is.  But my discussion missed an important piece of the puzzle.  As Councilman Majdi sees it, Vienna microtransit would be closely tied to Vienna-based businesses.  It’s as much a way to feed customers to Vienna businesses as it is a way to get cars off the road.

That’s a sufficiently different idea that I thought I might update my prior posting.  Here goes.

Continue reading Post #414: Vienna Retail-Oriented Omnibus Microtransit

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 #383: It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future

I’m going to attribute the title of this post to Yogi Berra.  And while my last post was a lament for the things I think the Town ought to ask, this one is my prediction of what they’re actually going to do.

The point of this post is to predict what the zoning will look like for Maple Avenue, once the Town Council’s deliberations are finished five months from now, in February 2020.  (Or at least, scheduled to finish.)  And, by inference, what Maple will look like in the long run.

This post is just a plain statement of what I think we’ll get.  A subsequent post will explain why I think we’re going to get that.

Anyway, let’s face the facts.  Allowing just five months to redo the zoning, within a cumbersome legal and governmental framework, strongly limits what you can do and what you can consider.  Thus, once you’ve set that at the goal, you have a good idea of where this is going to end up.  That’s based on what’s on the table now, recent history, and some understand of the players.

Just as a hint, the original title of my last post was “why I despair”.  So if you expect something chipper and upbeat here, you’ve come to the wrong place.


But first, one more for the obits

I have one more item to add to the obits of the prior post.  Of all the things I could have added to that last posting, but forgot to, I want to mention “produce a drawing of what one whole block of Maple would look like, under MAC redevelopment”.  That came up at one of the recent meetings.  Staff were going to look into doing that.  But some Town Council members didn’t want anyone to do that.  So staff didn’t bother.  And it was forgotten.

The bottom line is that they Town is not going to commission any drawing of what the MAC build-out might look like.  Which is not a surprise, as that is just one more in the list of incredibly reasonable questions the Town might try to answer before plowing ahead.  But won’t.   Most of which I listed in my just-prior “obits” post.

A few pictures of a block-level build-out would be useful, if for no other reason than to see what it will look like when two abutting MAC developments are built  just off the common lot line, as the law allows.  But it’s obvious by now that this request — “may we please have even one image of what Maple might look like” — ain’t gonna happen.

As an economist, I believe in “revealed preference”.  That is, what you do reveals what you actually prefer.   So in this case, I infer that Town Council would rather buy a pig in a poke than let anyone have any image whatsoever of what they are actually voting for.  Fully admitting that (see post title), I just shake my head about that whenever I think about it.  The full extent of our forward-looking planning is going to be, more or less, “oh, just surprise us.”

So, because we won’t hire a professional to try to give you a picture of the future, I figure, what the hey, I might as well give it a shot — let me tell you what I think we’re going to get, to be decided by our Town staff Council over the next five months.  Let me first outline what, then why.

Continue reading Post #383: It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future

Post #380: Sidewalk alignment and avoiding a waste of space

I want to make two simple points in this posting.

First, when I said the MAC sidewalks would not align with existing sidewalks, I was wrong.  They will, because the proposed 6′ buffer between the road and sidewalk, under MAC, is not new.  For almost all of Maple, it just matches what we already have.

Second,  if we are determined to have a 28′ wide sidewalk along Maple, my suggestion is not to waste it on outdoor seating that isn’t going to be used.  Maybe set it up to carry a “shared use trail” (a.k.a., a bike path) and integrate that with an eventual multimodal transit plan.

The upshot of that second point is that instead of ignoring the fact that Maple Avenue is an unpleasant transit corridor now, due to the traffic, it might be more efficient to acknowledge that and run with it.  It’s a traffic corridor.  Rather perfuming the pig, it might make more sense to focus on making it a better traffic corridor.

Continue reading Post #380: Sidewalk alignment and avoiding a waste of space

Post #378: Town Council work session 9/9/2019, Part 1

My wife and I attended last night’s Town Council work session, along with about (best guess) 40 other audience members.  I’m going to break my review of that into two separate posts:  This post will be a timely overview.  Other posts may go into more detail.

It’s almost not worth posting my audio file, because microphone discipline was poor.  FWIW:  Download the audio (.mp3) at this Google Drive link, and download the corresponding .xls index file (my notes at to what was said when) at this Google Drive link.

The work session covered four topics.  You can find the meeting materials at this location.  Click links below to get to a brief writeup of the four topics.

I didn’t stay for the last one, so I have little to say for that one until I listen to the Town’s audio recording.  An overview of the others follows.


Continue reading Post #378: Town Council work session 9/9/2019, Part 1