Google Transit – Unofficial Transit Feeds Clearinghouse

There’s an active Google Transit development community, both professional and amateur.  I just read this announcement on the “Transit Developers” Google Group:

I'm happy to share with this list details about a project I have been
working on to help facilitate sharing of GTFS (Google Transit Feed Specification) Data.

http://www.gtfs-data-exchange.com/

The site will collect as much transit scheduling information as it can, including both official and non-official feeds.  The idea is that as GTFS becomes more of a standard for presenting schedule information, developers can write schedule presentation software (hopefully open-source) and this site would be a place consumers or software developers could go for schedule information for their transit agency, in an open format.

Thanks to Jehiah Czebotar, who announced this website.

Manly bike for sale

This guy is willing to sell you his bike.

Thanks, “It’s Just a Ride”.

The Grass is Always Greener

Subway Blogger from NYC loves Metro's cleanliness and aesthetic appeal.

I like NYC's express trains, fixed, simple fares, monthly passes, 24 hour service, and stations that don't take 5 minutes to get to the platform because they're 35 stories underground (escalator length 500 feet, assumed 45 degree angle?).  Also, I like trains that only break down a fourth as often.  Walking transfers and free transfers between bus and rail are nice too.

Can we trade?  Not the whole system, but just a little bit of our architecture and cleanliness for a bit of your low fares and convenient service?

NYC and Derelict Vehicles

I recently wrote a post about abandoned vehicles, comparing DC’s requirements for abandoned cars to other jurisdictions.  I got a response from the NYC Department of Transportation stating that it’s actually Department of Sanitation that handles burnt out or damaged cars, or in NYC terms, a “derelict vehicle”.

NYC’s regulations for derelict vehicles are even more complicated and permissive than DC’s.  In general, there are 10 categories (they’re more like “attributes”) for determining whether a vehicle is derelict, such as a damaged front end or fire damage, and newer vehicles (less than five years old) need to meet more of the categories (up to four required) than older vehicles.  It’s interesting that an eight-year-old vehicle that meets only one category (such as front end damage) is considered derelict, unless it’s one of the statutory “Luxury Vehicles”: Rolls Royce, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Jaguar, Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari and Lexus.  Suck it, Maserati.  You’re not a luxury vehicle.  Same for you, Bentley.  Not a chance, Infiniti.  And Cadillac?  Nice try.

If your vehicle is a "luxury vehicle", the Department of Sanitation must handle the vehicle differently according to the "special handling instructions". Not a scratch! (I wasn’t able to find these online.)

It’s not clear how a car would be allowed to sit long enough in New York City to become a derelict vehicle (at least on public streets), because state law considers a vehicle abandoned after it has been parked illegally for more than 48 hours.  Are there any locations in the city where parking for longer than 48 hours is actually allowed?  I thought there were alternate parking requirements or something like that.

So NYC will possibly remove your car if it’s been parked illegally for more than 48 hours.  Six, if there are no plates.  They don’t mess around in the Big Apple.

The Economics of Gift Giving

Do you hate getting fruitcake, tacky Santa figurines or socks for Christmas? A not-so-recent economics paper by Joel Waldfogel in the American Economic Review analyzes the "deadweight loss of Christmas", all that economic value where the gift you receive is worth far less to you than the giver spent on it. He estimates the total deadweight loss of Christmas (and other gift giving holidays) to be about one tenth of the amount of deadweight loss due to income taxation, and is about 10-30% of the value of all gifts.  He estimates the total holiday deadweight loss for 1992 at between $5.8 billion and $19 billion (dollars inflated to 2007).

This paper really is a gem.  If you liked reading "Freakonomics" or any of the other "Pop Economics" books that are out there now, you will like this paper.

Some of the interesting conclusions:

• On average, friends (98%) do "better" than significant others (92%) at picking gifts.
• Aunts and Uncles typically suck at giving non-cash gifts.  On average, gifts received from Aunts/Uncles are only worth 65% of their cash price, and get regifted or exchanged at double the average rate.
• Grandparents give cash or gift cards.  They're more than four times as likely than average to do so.  Which is great, because the average noncash gift received from a grandparent is only worth 63% of its retail price to the recipient.
• The closer the giver is to the recipient, the more efficient the gift.  Parents are actually more efficient than friends after adjusting for this effect.
• Givers generally know when they don't usually choose efficient gifts, and opt for giving cash instead to compensate.

This analysis ignores the possibility that the gift you received is actually worth more to you than it cost the recipient, due to sentimental value (survey participants were told to ignore that), an inability of the recipient to purchase the article at any price (such as handmade or personalized art, as given by children to their parents), and the value to a recipient of receiving something they love but didn't know existed.  It also only surveyed college students, so unfortunately there are no data for gifts from children to parents. 

For me, sometimes the value of a gift is that I don't have to pick it out.  I had been wanting a digital photo frame for about a year, but every time I got online I spent about an hour looking at all the options just to give up in a bout of extreme indecision (this happens a lot to me).  Last Christmas, I got a digital photo frame as a surprise from my mom.  It may not have been the one I would eventually have gotten, but I was so happy to get it because that meant I could have one without ever having to try to figure out which one I wanted, which was starting to waste a lot of my time.  I have it in my office and it's great!  Thanks, Mom.

Hat tip to the Freakonomics Calendar, which my wife got me last year. 

Raise the Gas Tax Now?

According to Gasbuddy’s graphing tool, the average retail price of unleaded regular gasoline has dropped from $4.08 per gallon to $2.57 per gallon. A big part of it is the slowdown in the economy, and it’s generally bad to raise regressive taxes in a slowdown, but I think this represents an opportunity to raise the gas tax and rebate the revenue on a per capita basis, or start building already proposed light rail/streetcar lines. When the price is already declining, an increase in the gas tax is less likely to be objectionable to consumers.

My proposal is that for every ten cents the price of gasoline declines from a local maximum, raise the gas tax by one cent. In this case, since the price of gas dropped by $1.50 per gallon over the past five months, then over the next twelve months raise the price by fifteen cents.

The Highway Fund, which receives the lion’s share of the 18.5-cent federal gas tax, recently needed an $8B infusion of cash to remain solvent and continue funding construction projects. According to the LA Times, President Bush originally opposed transferring general funds to support highway construction, but eventually decided not to veto a bill in September. The fund is quickly depleting because of a reduction in driving, higher fuel efficiency leading to fewer gallons purchased, and escalating highway construction costs. Additionally, the tax is not indexed to inflation or the price of gas.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the US supplied 3.4 billion barrels (105 billion gallons) of finished motor gasoline in 2007, the latest data available. My proposed 15 cent tax would collect $15.8 billion per year. Sending $8 billion of that to the Highway Fund would avoid a transfer of general revenues, and the remaining $7.8 billion could be turned into a $30 tax credit per person (or reduce federal payroll taxes of 7% on the first $1000 per year or so of wages). Alternatively you could fund almost every proposed urban rail project out there with a grant. There are 18 cities listed at The Overhead Wire as “transit space race participants”, each of which could get $400 million. Or there are 66 listed on Lightrailnow.org as “Planned/Under Development”, which would reduce the grant to $100 million per city. $400 million is about half of the federal grant for the Dulles Rail project, and $100M is enough to fund one four-mile starter streetcar/light rail line with no frills.

That’s per year. What could you do the following year? Find three dozen additional cities that want a new light rail line and build them? If you keep doing this, how long until our downtown light rail networks start being so good that car-free or minimal-car living is a reality for the vast majority of urban dwellers in the US? What do you think that would do for the price of gas? Do you think it could drop the price somewhere around fifteen cents? Isn’t that where we started?

You’d be getting gas that was nine cents cheaper instead of ten, or $1.35 cheaper instead of $1.50, and in exchange you don’t go into debt to build highways, and dozens of new transit lines get built, thus dropping the price of gas even lower. Combine it with land use changes, plug in hybrids, market-based parking pricing, and better cycling/pedestrian infrastructure, and you’re looking at a policy that has the potential to cut oil usage drastically year-over-year.

World Electoral College Map

Going back to my “Infosnack” roots, here’s an interesting map by The Economist magazine that shows an electoral college map of the world, if such a thing existed.  Apparently the world heavily leans toward Obama, though I think the polling is just based on online polling as opposed to any sort of real non-biased polling.  Still, it’s fun, and it presents data, so snack away.

Hat tip to “The Bellows” by Ryan Avent

Location-based parking pricing

Summary: Having one price for on-street ballpark pricing causes the price conscious and the convenience seekers to want the same parking spaces. Varying the price by as little as 50 cents per hour for every additional block away from the ballpark would tend to cancel these effects out. The resulting prices are remarkably consistent with theoretical considerations and existing off-street parking lot prices.

View Larger Map

Discussion:

One of the big flaws in the ballpark performance parking district is that the pricing is the same for the entire ballpark district. North of the freeway, meters are $1.50 per hour with a two hour limit, south of the freeway they’re $1.00 for the first hour, and $1.50 for each additional hour with a three hour total limit. On stadium event days, the meters south of the freeway are $2.00 for the first hour, then $8.00 per hour for the next two hours, then two dollars for an additional hour with a four hour limit. Parking north of the freeway for a ball game wouldn’t make sense because the time limits are shorter than most events, and the walking distances are very long.

The problem with this is that demand for different parking spaces varies considerably by location. Here’s a model for differences in curb parking pricing based on distance from a single point parking demand generator. In this model, there is a base price for parking (per hour) next to the destination. Parking spaces more distant from the destination should be cheaper because they require the passengers to walk further to the destination. This model is based on the similar model in Don Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking” in Appendix D.

We’re going to assume that vehicle operating costs over the short distances between potential parking spaces are negligible (less than 25 cents per mile over a maximum 1 mile radius). For a ballpark visit, the average duration of stay is assumed to be 4 hours, there are on average n=2 people in each car, people walk at w=2.5 miles per hour, and that each person values his time at v=$8.00¹ per hour (walking to and from the ballpark is neither particularly pleasant nor unpleasant, this is a lower bound). According to the model, the monetary cost of walking an additional d=1 mile is:

2*n*v*d/w = 2*2*8*1/2.5 = $12.80 per mile.

Considering that blocks in the ballpark are about 350 feet (0.06 of a mile) long, this means that for every block of distance people have to walk to a particular parking generator, they would be indifferent between walking or paying an additional $0.75-1.00. This is for the average case. Some people come in a larger group, and their time cost would be higher, some people value their time more, and some walk faster or slower than others. These variations will sort people by their preferences, with the people that have a high walking cost (people that value their time greatly, hate walking, come in large groups, or walk slowly) parking closer to the stadium, while people who have a low walking cost (don’t put a particularly high value on their time, like to walk, come alone or in pairs, walk quickly, etc.) would end up parking further away and saving money.

The way the stadium parking is set up now, with no difference in price, means that both the high cost and the low cost groups desire the same spaces close by, because there is no difference in price between the close, convenient spaces and the further away spaces. In other words, DC hasn’t given people an incentive to park further away.

For the off-street lots, that’s certainly the case, as the furthest away lot (HH) is only $15 per game, while closer lots are $20 (W or T) or $40 (the “Red Zone”) per game. Based on the three data points available ($15.00 at 3500 feet, $20.00 at 2500 and 3000 feet, and $40 at 1000 feet [home plate distances as the crow flies]), the distance-based parking rate difference for Nationals games is around $50.00 per mile, indicating that whoever came up with the prices believes either that people place a higher value on their walking time, that more than two people will typically come per car, or that people walk slower than 2.5 miles per hour. We can split the difference between their estimate and mine and say that $30.00 a mile is an appropriate walking cost.

Let’s take the price of curb parking immediately adjacent to the ballpark as the same as the adjacent lot ($40.00 per hour), and divide it evenly among four hours. That’s $10.00 per hour. There aren’t any curb parking spaces that close, so we’re going to have to adjust the rates at the closest meters based on their distance from the ballpark. At a rate of $30.00 per mile, the price should change by $1.50 per hour for each 1000 feet of distance we travel.

The closest meters are 1200 feet away, on Half Street just north of M. These meters should be at $8.00 per hour, just about what they are now (ignoring the discounted first and last hour).

Other example block face prices are shown on the Google Map above. Red is the most expensive at $8.00 per hour, and purple is the least at $5.00 per hour. The price that I selected ends up with similar prices between the meters and the cash lots with similar walking distances (with actual routes as opposed to straight line distances. For example, the meter price at 2nd and Canal per the formula is $4.00 per hour, which is close to the $20.00 per game in the lot. In order to discourage cruising, DDOT would likely want to boost the meter price slightly above the cash lot, or if the cash lot is going empty, reduce the price at the cash lot. Another example is the HH lot near South Capitol Street at the freeway, where the curb price should be $4.00 per hour and the whole game price in the adjacent off-street lot is $15.00. Because this is intended to be a “Performance Based” district, these prices should be confirmed by occupancy surveys during ballgames and adjusted as needed to make sure that people find a space where they want one and are willing to pay.

I have not been to the ballpark district during a game to take a look at the parking occupancy. Does anyone have any experience with what the streets look like at that time?

1: According to this abstract, walking costs are estimated between $4.00 per hour for low-wage employees to over $30.00 for high-wage earners (D. Harmatuck, Transportation Research Record 2007)

Metro Customer Service: No More Direct Emails

WMATA has been pretty good about responding to emails sent directly to their customer service email address, csvc@wmata.com.  However, based on a recent response I got, everyone is going to have to start using their customer response form on the web:

This address is no longer active for direct email communication to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro).  We regret any inconvenience.
If you wish to send a customer comment, suggestion, or complaint, please log on to the Metro Web site at www.wmata.com and click on the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the Home Page, then use the "Customer Comment Form" link.

Having more people use the form will probably improve the quality of responses, since it prompts you for information that you might leave out, like the train route, direction and time of day.  For people who might submit more than one question occasionally, knowing what information is helpful to WMATA will guide what information they write down at the scene (like bus vehicle number or route) and will also improve the quality of responses.  I know that if I had a problem with a train, it’s easiest for them if you get the railcar number (located at each end of the vehicle on the inside and outside).

On the other hand, for people who use blackberries or mobile devices, using a web form on a site that wasn’t designed for mobile devices is pretty inconvenient.  That was one of the advantages of being able to email the customer service address directly.

Fortunately, the Board of Directors still receives email directly at boardofdirectors (at) wmata (dot) com.

Fake State Board of Elections Flyer: Vote on November 5th if you’re a Democrat

How dumb do Republican supporters think people are?  Take a look at this:

“All Republican party supporters and independent voters supporting Republican candidates shall vote on November 4th as prescribed by law”

“All Democratic party supporters and independent voters supporting Democratic candidates shall vote on November 5th as adopted by emergency regulation of the Virginia General Assembly”

The flyer, passed out this week in Hampton Roads, uses official-looking State Board of Elections logos and apologizes “for any inconvenience this might cause”.

Yeah, like the inconvenience of being disenfranchised.  Sorry about that.

Connect Barracks Row: New study of Barracks Row

The urban planning students at the University of Maryland want your opinion on how you see the southern part of 8th St SE, between M Street and the freeway. I work right near there and go to Chicken Tortilla or Quizno’s for lunch occasionally. There are a couple of properties there that are nice development opportunities, so check out their webpage here.

Courtesy Connect Barracks Row

They’re having a community meeting this week, on Wednesday, October 29th from 7:30 to 8:30pm at Friendship House, 619 D Street SE. They have a resident/visitor survey as well as a business survey.

Last Day for Virginia Absentee Ballot Applications

If you’re a Virginia voter, the registrar must receive your application by 5pm Tuesday if you want your absentee ballot mailed to you.  Arlington’s registrar accepted my application by fax, so that’s a quick option for those with access to a fax machine.

After that, if you find out that you’re going to be busy all day on election day, you can vote in person until Saturday before election day.  For Arlington the early voting location is open until 5pm on Saturday.

Remember, the absentee voting rules are very lax; common valid excuses include “I’m going to the next county over for a walk”, “I work in DC”, “I go to school outside the county”.  Also, if you only care to vote for President/Vice President, you don’t have to have an excuse at all (If you live in Arlington, how hard can it be to arrange to be across the border at some point during the day?).  Don’t get stuck in a long line on November 4th.  Get it done early.

8th Street parking lot will open to the public

The 8th Street Under-freeway Parking Lot was discussed at the ANC 6B meeting last week.

View Larger Map

DDOT parking manager Damon Harvey was there to discuss the lot's future. My friend Lance was in attendance and gave me the scoop.

The lot is currently occupied by the Marines residing at the 8th and I Marine Corps Barracks, under a memorandum of understanding with the District. According to Mr. Harvey, the memorandum is expiring and the Marines are not interested in renegotiation. The ANC discussed what to do with the parking lot once the Marines are no longer parking there.

Mr. Harvey proposed leaving the fence around the lot, because (1) the fence was of a higher quality than he would be able to build if the fence were removed and then the community later wanted to fence the lot off, and (2) he believed that a fenced lot would be more secure than an unfenced lot.

In the end, the ANC resolved to take the fence down. Some of the arguments were that the fence is detrimental to the appearance of the community, that people inside the fence might feel trapped, and that a fence to protect cars makes the neighborhood look more dangerous than it actually is.

Mr. Damon stated that the proposed use of the lot is market-based pricing using either adjustable stick meters or multi-space meters.  In response to a question from a community member about whether the time limits would be longer than on the 8th Street retail corridor, Mr. Damon stated that the time limit would be at least 2 hours and at most 4 hours because "he doesn't want commuters parking there".

I disagree.  I think that time limits shorter than 24 hours are inappropriate for this lot. That way, employees of the 8th Street restaurants would be encouraged to park there as opposed to trying to constantly shift cars around in the local resident permit areas or on 8th Street itself. Redwood City actually sells permits for employees to park at meters in their garages in order to entice them out of the convenient curb spaces.  As long as the District is getting a fair price for the use of a parking space, why not allow all-day parking?

The fate of the adjacent lot off of 7th Street wasn't clear.  Mr. Harvey mentioned that this would be done one piece at a time, because "people fear big changes". I think people would have little to fear from a change from no parking to paid parking. It's more options for people working at, visiting or living in the Barracks Row area.

WMATA is Apparently Satisfied With No Customer Satisfaction Improvement

WMATA issued a press release late last month.  Apparently they take a survey of 200 Metro riders to determine the relative level of customer satisfaction.

Metro’s Customer Satisfaction Measure (CSM) finds the vast majority riders like Metrorail and Metrobus, and almost all would recommend Metro to a friend or relative.
The CSM finds that 85 percent of Metrorail riders and 78 percent of Metrobus riders are satisfied with Metro service. The numbers have remained consistent since 2004 when Metro started the customer satisfaction survey. In addition, 95 percent of Metrobus riders and 98 percent of Metrorail riders said they would recommend Metro to a friend or relative.
The CSM, an ongoing survey of Metrobus and Metrorail riders, measures the satisfaction of riders. Two hundred Metro riders each month are surveyed by telephone.
The survey also found that 54 percent of customers go to Metro’s Web site for information and 76 percent are satisfied with communications from Metro.
The CSM also collects demographic data about Metro riders. The data shows that 60 percent of Metrobus and 53 percent of Metrorail riders are female, 56 percent of Metrobus and 83 percent of Metrorail riders have college degrees, and about 80 percent of both bus and rail riders are employed. Also, most Metro riders have access to automobiles—81 percent of bus riders and 98 percent of rail riders have one or more cars in their households.

I have requested the data from this survey to see if they even ask the 22% of bus riders what they’re not satisfied with, or the 24% of customers that are not satisfied with communications from Metro what they would do differently.

I think the worst part is that the numbers have “remained consistent since 2004”.  Should I infer that there has been no progress made in WMATA customer satisfaction?  Does WMATA obtain any actionable information from this survey on how to make the service better?  Or do they just get the data, make a press release saying “more than half our customers surveyed are satisfied” and rest on their laurels?

WMATA: You Can Add Fare to Smartrip at a Giant Now, So Stop Complaining About Delayed Upgrades

On Thursday, I provided public comment to the WMATA board. 

Here's a summary:

"WMATA should embrace new technology for presenting schedule and routefinding information.  Google Transit is one such technology already used by major transit agencies around the US, for example, New York, Chicago, San Francisco's BART, Portland.  The June 2008 Lunch Talk with John Catoe mentioned that WMATA was working on presenting schedule information with Google Transit.  This is similar to what WMATA has been telling riders about upgrades to Smartrip since at least 2003.  It was recently reported that Smartrip program upgrades are now delayed until 2010.  I think I speak for a lot of riders when I say with respect to WMATA's effort on Google Transit, "We don't believe you".

I submitted a PARP request about Google Transit, it's been delayed mostly due to staffing levels.  The staffing levels for responding to PARP requests should be increased so WMATA can respond to requests within the 20 day PARP requirement.  Additionally, WMATA should post more information in the PARP "documents of presumed public interest" section of the webpage to reduce the information that requires a PARP request to obtain."

I'm not the best public speaker, and I drafted my comments mostly on the bike ride over.  I probably should have (a) toned down the "we don't believe you" part, since that was somewhat offensive, and (b) done a better job splitting off the Smartrip upgrades that I know will be completed this year from the ones that will be delayed until 2009-2010 (PDF).  The Board Chair (Chris Zimmerman of Arlington) immediately corrected me, stating that I had the story on Smartrip wrong.  I disagree in part.  The upgrades the Chair was talking about are ones that should have been taken care of long ago and are not generally what people are thinking about when they hear the phrase "Smartrip upgrades".  WMATA offered to send me more information on Smartrip upgrades, I will present it to you when I get it.  They also mentioned that there will be an information presentation at next month's Customer Service, Operations and Safety committee meeting.

Let's take a look at the Smartrip upgrades that will be completed and the proposed schedule:

Complete this year, before end of 2008:

Metro cardholders will be able to add money to their cards at area commuter stores, bus garages that have sales offices, and a select number of Giant stores beginning this fall.

These were the only near-term upgrades mentioned by WMATA's Office of Media Relations in response to my questions about Smartrip upgrades.  Nice, but not really the "high technology" I was talking about in my testimony.  WMATA purchased some new machines for adding value, and they're installing them in some retail locations.  This probably should have been done when Smartrip was rolled out on Metrobus in 2004, not over four years later.

Here's what was in the original 2003 contract (PDF) for delivery in 2005 2008:

· Pass functionality (up to 256 types of passes such as unlimited bus or rail passes)

· Autoload (replenish your account automatically when it drops below a certain level, similar to EZ Pass)

· Hot Card List (automatically adds cards to a list of deactivated stolen or invalid cards, currently a manual process).

These features are what the riders are expecting when it comes to Smartrip upgrades.  When WMATA tells us "we're working on it (Google Transit)", we don't want to hear three years later that Google Maps will finally know where the actual locations of the escalators are, we want to have full Google Transit functionality.

The audio for my public comment is here, from 0:00 to 4:10 including WMATA's response.

Rider’s Advisory Council Chair: “Comments are welcome (but only at meetings)”

I attended yesterday’s WMATA Board meeting and provided public comment.  It was my first WMATA Board meeting, and I knew it would be likely that I could speak to some of the other people involved with WMATA.

I spoke with Nancy Iacomini, Chair of the Rider’s Advisory Council, about the need for the RAC to have some sort of email address or other method to receive comments from the public, and asked her about what the model for understanding the RAC’s role should be.

She did not see taking comments by email as something the RAC should do.  She said that the members of the RAC are all private citizens and this isn’t their full-time job.  They take time out of their busy schedule to attend RAC meetings, and if the public wants to provide comments, then the right place for that to happen is at the public meetings.

She said that it’s not really the RAC’s job to receive and respond to the kinds of emails that would be expected, i.e., “There’s too much trash in this station”, or “This bus driver was rude to me”.  That would be more appropriate to provide to WMATA staff through the customer service email address, csvc@wmata.com.  She did say that they talk to people in their community and when they ride Metro, and they get good customer feedback through those channels.  They look for patterns that indicate more attention needs to be paid in certain areas, like station cleanliness is degrading system-wide, for example.

She seemed concerned that receiving comments via email or other online channels would be “out of the public view”, and that providing public comment at a meeting would be a better avenue for those comments.

Here’s what WMATA has to say about the RAC:  “On December 15, 2005, the Metro Board appointed a Riders' Advisory Council. This group allows Metro customers an unprecedented level of input on bus, rail and MetroAccess service.”

And part of the RAC bylaws:  “The mission of the RAC is to actively seek input from a broad range of riders on operational and budgetary issues that affect Metrorail, Metrobus, and
MetroAccess riders and organizations with an expressed interest in public transit”

The RAC is appointed by the WMATA Board, and is intended to represent a broad range of riders, from all modes of transit, from all jurisdictions, workers, students, retired people, etc.  Even so, I think that taking public comments only at public meetings doesn’t really fit my model of “actively seeking input” or providing the regular customers an “unprecedented level of input”.  I think if the Chair is concerned about receiving comments out of the public view, then an appropriate alternative would be to have a (moderated) comment box on the WMATA webpage for people to post their thoughts in public.

We discussed what the model for understanding the RAC should be.  Is the RAC supposed to be the rider’s representatives, or are members supposed to be representative riders?  She said instead that the best way to understand the RAC is that they’re an advisory group to WMATA, similar to Arlington’s citizen commissions.  Those commissions function almost like subcommittees of the Arlington County Board, have a staff member to help with administration, don’t have a public email address except to contact the staff member.  The commissions take public comment at meetings, publish agendae and minutes, and report to the Board.  That seems consistent with the way the RAC has been doing business.

So, if you have something to say about RAC business or WMATA and you want it heard by the RAC, don’t try to send it by email, go to a meeting.

Coalition for Smarter Growth Needs Election Help

Coalition for Smarter Growth called me to ask for help on election day.  I'll be out of town on a work trip, but I did offer to help them get the word out about their volunteer opportunity.  Feel free to contact them for more information.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is planning on having a strong presence at the polls in Fairfax County this year as voters turn out for Election Day. We want to talk to voters about community issues that affect them, such as the redesign of Tysons Corner, public transportation and making our suburban communities more walkable.  In order to make this day a success, we are going to need hundreds of volunteers at the polls.  And your participation can have a huge impact, whether it is for a few hours, a half day or a full day.  This is the single most effective outreach event we do all year and even a few hours volunteering can really help us build a strong grassroots base of supporters in Fairfax County.

Our volunteers will be working in pairs at polls that we have specifically targeted for outreach.  You will be trained and don’t have to be an expert on smart growth issues.  You’ll be seated at a table with a large poster or other visual, and will have brochures to hand out.  But the main purpose will be to get Fairfax residents to sign up for our Action Alert emails, which will keep them informed of important land use decisions that are coming up in their communities so they can participate in the process by writing letters, testifying at hearings and submitting public comment on various development proposals.  With this strong base of citizen support, we can really shape how growth happens in Fairfax County and how it impacts the entire region.

If you are interested in volunteering, please contact:

Chris Orvin

Work Phone: (202) 244-4408 (Extension 126)

Email: chris @smartergrowth.net

How I started working out (and stuck with it)

I don’t particularly enjoy exercising.  I know it’s good for me for all sorts of reasons, but there was always some excuse, too busy, wanting to do other stuff like reading or going out with friends to lunch, you name it.

With the exception of some urban cycling and the occasional hour-long recreational bike ride, I’ve basically not been in a gym to exercise in years.

I figured out what works to get me to exercise.  Enter my sister.  My sister, we’ll call her “Jane”, also knew she wanted to work out but couldn’t get up the will to go regularly.  She had her reasons for wanting to work out, and her standard excuses.

Jane and I bet each other $20 that we wouldn’t work out once per week.  After a brief trial period, we upped the workouts to twice per week.  That may not seem like much to those who are regular gym patrons, but it’s a big step up for each of us.

It works.  Neither of us has lost the bet after 8 weeks, and neither of us shows any signs of stopping.  I actually enjoy downloading a paper to read (mostly from TCRP) or bringing a book and just chugging away at a stationary bike, or playing basketball with friends, something I haven’t done in years (I found a group that’s willing to deal with the fact that I’m super terrible at basketball)

Here are the basic rules:

Workouts must be a reasonable length and activity level (35 minutes on a stationary bike works for me) – remember, you’re doing this for your own health, so make it count.

Check in by email when you work out – the new week starts on Saturday.

That’s it.  My sister and I are pretty honest so it’s worked well so far.  We even invited my best friend from college to join in.  Now that there’s three people, if you miss a workout, you owe $20 and the ones who did get to split it (i.e., if you work out and the others are slackers – you get $40!). 

So, if you’ve wanted to work out and have a buddy that feels the same (and that you trust not to cheat you for $20), I suggest a little wager.  It just might do the trick.

This idea is similar to stickk.com, by the way.  The best part of that site is that if you lose your bet, an option is that your money could go to fund the charity you hate the most.  You can choose from these options, one on each side of the abortion, environmental protection, gay marriage, and gun control debates, as well as two polarizing presidents:

• Americans United for Life
• NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation
• Nature Conservancy
• The National Center for Public Policy Research
• Freedom to Marry
• Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
• Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
• NRA Foundation
• George W. Bush Presidential Library
• William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library

Free Parking Even at Meters

I took a tour last week in the performance parking district (PDF). I was looking for blocks where the street signs posted do not match the proposed pilot area map (PDF). I’ll be putting up observations on a map as I go on. Green is free or unenforced parking, blue is paid parking.

View Larger Map

The thing that really struck me was that there is basically no enforcement at meters in this parking district. All along K Street SE from South Capitol Street to First Street SE, as well as on Half Street from K to I Street, and on first from I to L Streets SE, there are performance parking meters, which are supposed to be charging a price based on occupancy. The only problem is, not a single one of the cars observed there was showing a pay-and-display receipt to prove that the fee had been paid. The few cars I did see with a receipt were displaying a receipt that had expired by days. To ensure that this was not because the meter was broken, I purchased a quarter’s worth of parking from meter 011001SE and got a receipt. This was the only area I specifically was looking to see if P&D receipts were being shown. If I looked elsewhere it's likely that I'd see the same thing.

I could have written tickets all day long, at least 30 or 40 in the short time I was there. I think that if DC wanted to start writing tickets right now, it would be more humane to give warnings for a week, but on the other hand, people know what parking meters are and that you generally have to pay for parking at a meter. I’m guessing that since no one had a receipt at all, the word had gotten out over a period of at least a few weeks with no enforcement.

Based on 100% occupancy at meters on K St SE, you would think that the price is too low and should be raised in order to reach the 80-90% target occupancy goal. However, with absolutely no enforcement, it’s hard to make that conclusion.

DDOT has told me that a contractor will be helping with an occupancy study to set meter rates appropriately. If DC wants accurate data for the performance parking district, then meter and parking restriction enforcement have to be made more consistent. Otherwise the data collected is not going to be worth much.

Parking Efficiency and Abandoned Cars

In areas where parking space is at a premium, every space counts. That's why it's important that every vehicle parked there needs to be a vehicle that's actually being used by its owner, and not just being stored there indefinitely.

Most cities, including DC, have abandoned vehicle provisions as part of their vehicle codes, to discourage people from storing their vehicles indefinitely, and to remove damaged or disabled vehicles, or ones that pose a hazard to public safety.

DC’s abandoned vehicle law (DC Code 50-2421.02) defines an abandoned vehicle on public property as one that has been parked or stored for 48 hours or more and meets at least two of the following:

1. The vehicle is extensively damaged, including fire damage;
2. The vehicle is apparently inoperable, including a vehicle missing its transmission, motor, or one or more tires, and which is not undergoing emergency repair;
3. The vehicle serves as harborage for rats, vermin, and other pests; or
4. The vehicle does not display valid tags or a valid registration sticker.

I’ve called the Mayor’s Call Center (311 within the district) to report some apparently abandoned vehicles. 

One I reported last year had a flat tire and hadn’t moved in months.  Initially, the DC employees went out and did nothing.  When pressed, they determined that the vehicle served as a harborage for vermin and eventually put a notice on the car.  Within a couple days, the car’s tires had been refilled, though the car had not moved.  About a week later, the car was gone and I haven’t seen it since.

Another is parked on the 1000 block of 7th Street SE.  The car has a broken mirror and a flat tire.  I called, but the parking enforcement employees were only able to cite the vehicle for failure to secure DC tags.  The car has been there at least 5 weeks, unmoved and unrepaired.

The last car I called about is a pickup truck on the same block.  It has a broken front bumper and two flat tires.  I don’t have a response from parking enforcement yet, but I expect the result to be the same:  the vehicle does not meet the definition of an abandoned vehicle.

I think this experience reflects a deficiency in DC’s abandoned vehicle law.  A car that is obviously damaged and hasn’t moved in a week is taking up space that a person with a functioning car should be able to use.

A review of other jurisdictions’ laws agrees with me.  For local jurisdictions, Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax consider your vehicle abandoned if it’s been “unattended” for more than 10 days, or if it’s been apparently inoperable for more than 48 hours.  Montgomery County will place a notice of tow on your car if it’s been unattended or inoperable for more than 48 hours.  Prince George’s County requires that your vehicle be inoperative, parked illegally, or unregistered for more than 48 hours.

Around the US, San Francisco only requires that the vehicle be unattended for more than 72 hours, the same as LA.  Philadelphia requires that the car be in an inoperative condition for more than 48 hours.  Chicago considers it abandoned if it’s been there for more than 7 days, it’s inoperable, it’s not registered OR it’s a “hazardous dilapidated” vehicle.  I tried to look up Boston or New York, but their code interfaces were so terrible I gave up after a couple of hours.  I sent emails to the relevant departments; if their laws are more similar to DC’s then I will update.

None of these jurisdictions would allow a vehicle that has two flat tires to remain unattended for weeks.  We can argue about how many hours is sufficient, or whether a car that’s been merely unattended for two days should be towed (as in Montgomery County), but I think we can all agree that DC residents should not have to wait for an unattended, obviously damaged car to become infested with rats or for the registration stickers to expire before the government takes action to reclaim that parking place.

PG County's "The Bus" Finally Accepts Smartrip

According to this announcement, Prince George's County bus system, "The Bus", will finally accept Smartrip as a form of payment starting October 13, 2008. 

Parking Minimums Strike Again

I saw this over on JDLand:

According to the presentation, the new office building would use the same design as the condo building, with a few tweaks (they appear to be wanting to get rid of the turret in the original design). But because of the switch to office space, the number of parking spaces required goes up to 30, far more than the 13 in the condo design. According to the architects, groundwater and possible soil contamination issues (since a gas station used to be located there) would make digging two extra levels of parking prohibitively expensive, and so they are seeking relief from the 30-space requirement. (And, for those wondering, the garage entrance would be on L Street, not Eighth or Virginia).

Here's a project where if the developer doesn't get relief from a minimum off-street parking requirement, the project is in serious jeopardy of not being built.  The additional 17 spaces are the difference between a new office building with street-level retail in a walkable district, and an empty lot as it is now.  This is in a neighborhood where some streets have no RPP and no parking restrictions at all, and others have performance meters.  Installing performance meters on the remaining uncontrolled blocks will control any spillover effects and provide revenue for the district.

Anybody want to argue now that parking minimums don't have any costs?

Arlington Election Information

I updated my Arlington Election Information Post with a PDF from Arlington County explaining the bond referenda.

The Arlington GOP has produced a sample ballot, but did not make a recommendation on how to vote for voting for County Board, School Board, or bonds.

Arlington Democrats have a new elections page, explaining the recommendations for your ballot as well as information on absentee voting.

Principles of Journalism

Sometimes on Infosnack, I post trivial things.  Stuff like the humorous bracket of bank and finance corporation mergers that makes lighthearted fun of the recent credit crisis.  Stuff like what words I'm going to drink to for political speeches.  I hope at least some of my readers enjoy or at least tolerate that.  It's fun for me and that's half of the reason I write this blog.  I enjoy it and don't take it too seriously.  Find a link, write some comments, and post.

Not so for the large, researched articles on Infosnack.  These are the kinds of articles that get picked up or linked to on other sites.  For those, it's all business.  I consider myself a journalist.  I call the media relations office, file FOIA requests, interview people both for the record and "on background", and perform original research.  I try to present the information fairly and accurately, and make sure it's clear when I'm stating my opinion rather than fact.

WMATA recently responded to my PARP (like FOIA) request for reduced fees by arguing that because I am not in the business of actually disseminating the information as opposed to merely making it available, then I am not a member of the media. 

In this case the question is very important because if I am a member of the media, I get reduced or eliminated fees for information requests.  I can also request expedited treatment if a story is breaking or urgent in nature.

I think their distinction is not the proper frame of mind for determining whether I am a member of the media.  Who cares whether I own a worldwide network of wires that carry data to a broad audience of readers?  That's not the way information is distributed nowadays.  I make the information available, and then try to disseminate the idea of where that information is available.  I do this through having an RSS feed, sending links to like-minded bloggers, and posting comments on other sites or mailing lists.  I also receive a lot of readers through search engines like Google.

I think the proper frame of mind is whether I am following or making a serious effort to follow the principles of journalism.  I found a list on the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism:

1. Journalism's First Obligation is to the Truth
2. Its First Loyalty is to the Citizens
3. Its Essence is a Discipline of Verification
4. Its Practitioners Must Maintain an Independence from Those They Cover
5. It Must Serve as an Independent Monitor Of Power
6. It Must Provide a Forum for Public Criticism and Compromise
7. It Must Strive to Make the Significant Interesting and Relevant
8. It Must Keep the News Comprehensive and Proportional
9. Its Practitioners Must be Allowed to Exercise Their Personal Conscience

What do you think?  Am I living up to the principles?  What makes a blogger a journalist?  Are all bloggers journalists?  Are none of them?  Can you do journalism as a hobby, or must it be your full-time job?

Parking Reform Experience: Redwood City, California

Redwood City, California was expecting big parking problems when it started revitalizing its downtown recently.  The revitalization was expected to add a lot of parking demand, especially in the evening.  Fox Theater, Little Fox Theater and Century Theaters formed the nexus of a burgeoning entertainment district, billed to be the "Entertainment Capital of the San Francisco Peninsula".

Redwood City realized that most of these new visitors and patrons would bring spending cash for new restaurants, shops and the theaters, but they would also likely be bringing their cars.  Dan Zack is the downtown development coordinator for Redwood City.  I had a chance to interview him by e-mail about the parking changes Redwood City put in place. 

The parking changes got started when a traffic engineer for the city brought an article by Dr. Shoup, author of the groundbreaking book, The High Cost of Free Parking, to Zack's attention.  The city went through a public workshop process to determine needs and discuss potential solutions.  In the end, the city decided to enact five recommendations (PDF), almost all of which are recommended in Dr. Shoup's book:

1. Remove all time limits on parking downtown
2. Establish market parking prices to achieve an 85% occupancy target rate
3. Use new pay-by-space meter technology
4. Dedicate meter revenue to downtown parking and other improvements
5. Modify the parking permit program

Remove Time Limits

Before the changes, most of downtown's parking was managed by a hodgepodge of time limits, ranging from sporadic blocks of 36-minute limits, to some 10-hour limits on spaces near the edge of downtown.  Most of the spaces were 2-hour limit.  The time limits encouraged employees and visitors to move their cars periodically to avoid ticketing, and caused frustration among downtown's patrons. 

Redwood City realized that time limits were a fairly blunt tool to use to encourage turnover.  Furthermore, aggressive enforcement of time limits to encourage turnover hit customers as well as employees.  Enforcement was difficult and time-consuming. 

The new parking ordinance eliminated time limits completely.  Redwood City acknowledged that this was a bold step that was not used in many other locations.  The planning staff was confident that excessive parking could be controlled by market prices.

Market Based Prices

Before the study and new policies were implemented, Redwood City had very high demand for prime parking spaces on Broadway (the main retail street), and low occupancy on side streets.  Broadway had free curb parking, and occupancy ratios were consistently very high, above 95%.  Meanwhile, side streets offered plenty of available parking for 25 cents per hour or even 12.5 cents per hour just a couple blocks away.  This combination of free, convenient parking and more expensive, less convenient parking caused two groups to compete for the same spaces: those who were looking for cheap parking, and those who were looking for maximum convenience.

The new policy could be summarized like this:  Look at how many people are parked, and adjust the price to make sure that 1 space out of 7 are empty. 

Dan told me that for the initial guess, they surveyed other downtown areas in the San Francisco Bay Area.  "The initial price ranges were based on what we found to be the going rate for similar cities in our market area, with higher prices going to parts of the downtown that were typically crowded, and lower prices going to areas that were underutilized.  From there we adjust them up or down based on our 85% target occupancy rate."  How close did that initial guess come?  "Very close. We overestimated nighttime and Sunday activity, and had to scale back the prices at those times due to lower than expected demand. So far, we have made two rounds of adjustments. In most areas, though, the initial prices worked very well."  The city staff are required to survey and adjust rates annually, but can do so as often as four times per year.  "We survey each hour of the day (10am to 8pm) for a whole week. It is pretty labor intensive, but parking patterns can vary quite a bit throughout the day."

The parking meter rates were 50 cents per hour for daytime directly on the main street, and 25 cents per hour down to free elsewhere; and in the evenings, 75 cents per hour for the most convenient spaces, down to free elsewhere.  This price that varies by location does a good job of charging for convenience and balances the parking demand between the closest spots and those a short walk away.

Pay-by-space meter technology

This has been previously discussed here.  Major differences between Redwood City's meters and Arlington's are the ability to buy additional time from any meter in downtown using your space number, as well as to buy additional time by cell phone.

Dedicate Meter Revenue to Downtown

This is one of the keys of Dr. Shoup's book.  The market-based parking fees are not meant to be a tax or a source of revenue, but a tool for balancing supply and demand.  However, rather than puttting it in the general fund, by dedicating the revenue to improving downtown, the city can make its downtown area a wonderful place to visit, rather than just a place that offers free parking.  In this way, the downtown can compete with suburban regional retail centers that offer free parking but fewer amenities.

Modify the Permit Parking Program

The overall effect of this change was to allow employees and frequent long-term visitors to purchase permits allowing them to park in municipal garages and leave the convenient on-street spaces for customers.

Results

According to Dan Zack, "Parking is now easier to find in prime areas, and parking in lots, garages and side streets is better utilized.  Traffic is higher, primarily due to the opening of a 20-screen cinema and an aggressive schedule of events in our town square".  He says that there haven't been many ill effects (congestion, illegal parking, increased spillover) outside of the district: "I’ve only received one complaint of that, which is remarkable."  Some businesses and nearby residents have praised the new system, but not all: "Some people have thanked us and really enjoy [it], others wish we would have left things alone.  Most . . . are ambivalent."  Overall, a success?  "I think it was a change for the better.  Overall, downtown activity is up due to the cinema, other new businesses, and downtown events, but we have managed to keep occupancies right where we want them.  Thanks to the new system our prime parking areas are less crowded despite the presence of more people and cars.  So, while some folks might not like having to adapt, we would have been worse off had we done nothing."

Comment/Applicability to the Ward 6 Performance Parking Pilot

First, I want to thank Dan Zack for the interview and the information.  He provided some more about the city's innovative approach to reducing minimum off-street parking requirements, which I'll have to leave to a future post. 

I think the important take-aways from Redwood City with respect to the Ballpark Performance Parking Pilot are:

1. Time limits are unnecessary.  Once you've found the right price, turnover will happen as encouraged by the price rather than as enforced by time limits
2. Prices need to be managed by time of day but also by specific location.  Right now, the prices are fairly uniform across each of the three zones within the ballpark area.  Some of these areas (like the Barracks row strip) see a lot of traffic at $1.50 per hour, and the meter prices are probably correct.  However, there are some other areas (like the 1300 block of NJ Ave SE) that are completely empty during the day even though the meter charges $1.00 for the first hour and $1.50 thereafter.  DDOT should use the information they get from the upcoming occupancy study to make block-by-block adjustments to the parking price, even eliminating any charge if necessary to maintain an 85% occupancy target as approved by the DC Council.  For some block faces, the market price might be free except on game days, and that's OK.  Some areas don't have a lot of development, or don't have major traffic generators close by
3. As long as there are a lot of people parking all day for commuting to offices in the area, DDOT should consider implementing a permit parking system, to remove the inconvenience of paying for your parking each day at a meter.  The permits could be block specific (or groups of blocks) and reflect the meter price for that block.  For example, if a block face sells for $0.25 per hour, then a reasonable permit for one month on the same block might cost $40 per month and would be good for unlimited parking except on game days.  I believe this is a reasonable permit price compared to the commercial lot at 7th and L which charges around $150-180 per month.  I would not propose selling permits for block faces that are retail in nature, though for sake of argument the permit price might be $240 per month based on $1.50 per hour, and it's not likely that anyone would want to pay that price for a commute

WMATA Proposes New Line Color - Brown!

WMATA's Rider's Advisory Council's Rail subcommittee will hear a presentation (PDF) on realigning the Blue/Yellow line trains this Wednesday at 6:30 p.m (PDF).  This similar to the same idea circulated earlier this year about diverting some of the eastbound Blue line trains toward the Yellow line to relieve capacity at the Rosslyn tunnel.  They're proposing calling the new service (from Franconia/Springfield to Greenbelt) the "Brown Line" (see page 7 of the presentation).

This change may result in blue line service reduction to every 12 minutes during rush hour, and an increase in the number of orange line trains leaving Vienna during rush hour.  See the presentation for more details.

I-66 Spot Improvements Update

Executive Summary

At an upcoming public meeting in Arlington, the Virginia Department of Transportation will be presenting environmental review documents to justify widening I-66 from two lanes to three lanes for significant portions between Rosslyn and West Falls Church.  The environmental review documents are in the form of a Categorical Exclusion, which under NEPA means that the widening would not have a significant effect on the environment, significantly reducing public involvement in the environmental review process.  I believe that this exclusion is based on a misapplication of a FHWA regulation, treating an extended third lane of the interstate the same as a much shorter "weave lane" that is used to bridge between an entrance lane and an exit lane.  I encourage interested people to attend the public meeting and object to the project on these grounds.

The public meeting is Monday, October 27 at 7pm at Washington and Lee High School in Arlington, VA.

Federal Environmental Policy and the I-66 Project

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) controls environmental review for Federal projects.  It's what causes agencies to have to produce Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and to seek public comment on such projects.  A much abbreviated environmental review is available for projects that meet certain criteria.  This is called a Categorical Exemption, defined as follows:

“Categorical exclusion” means a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and which have been found to have no such effect
in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of
these regulations (Sec. 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement
is required (emphasis added).

And "effects" is defined as follows:

(a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and
occur at the same time and place.
(b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and
are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are
still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include
growth inducing effects and other effects related to
induced changes in the pattern of land use, population
density or growth rate, and related effects on air and
water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (emphasis added).

I heard back from the District Environmental Manager from VDOT concerning the use of a Categorical Exemption (CE) for the I-66 spot improvements project:

For federally funded transportation projects in Virginia, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) makes the formal decision about the type and final approval of environmental documents prepared on their behalf by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff.  With preliminary environmental impact information compiled through the State Environmental Review Process, VDOT coordinated the project scope with FHWA for concurrence on the appropriate level of environmental documentation required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (PDF Citizen's Guide).  Under its authority promulgated by 23 CFR, Part 771 – Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, FHWA determined and approved a CE under Section 771.117 category d(1).  For your convenience, I am attaching a link to FHWA’s regulation for implementing NEPA:   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/23cfr771.htm.  Please note that a CE-level of NEPA documentation does not exempt a project from further environmental review; the same level of analysis is employed in the preparation of any environmental document during the NEPA process. 

I'll include the relevant part of the regulation cited above:

Additional actions which meet the criteria for a CE in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and paragraph (a) of this section may be designated as CEs only after Administration approval. The applicant shall submit documentation which demonstrates that the specific conditions or criteria for these CEs are satisfied and that significant environmental effects will not result. Examples of such actions include but are not limited to:

1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).

The I-66 project doesn't seem to fit any of those except possibly adding an auxiliary lane.  If it were a shorter project, this might be considered a "weaving lane", which is a lane between an entrance and an exit ramp that allows oncoming and outgoing traffic to merge across each other.  However, the three spot improvement sections are 1.06, 1.4 and 1.6 miles long each, much more than enough length for any weaving lane that I'm familiar with.  I'm going to ask my friend who's a traffic engineer.  

I recommend that anyone attending the public meeting to concentrate their comments on the idea that the environmental review appears to be cut short by inappropriately considering these to be short, limited improvements as opposed to a third lane construction for an interstate highway.

New Look

I'm experimenting with a new look to give me some more space.  I need more than 400 pixels wide sometimes so I picked a different layout.

That's My Kind of Bracket

Greg Mankiw's Blog has a bracket for those that don't really follow the NCAA Playoffs.

Vice Presidential Debate Drink Words

Tonight's Vice Presidential Debate Drinking Words are:

Sarah Palin: "Experience" and related words

Joe Biden:  Any sentence or phrase that compares Wall Street to Main Street

I-66 "Spot Improvements" Public Meeting

A friend from work left me an ad for the latest public meeting to discuss the spot improvements for I-66 within Arlington.

Here's the information for the public meeting, which is not listed on the website linked above:

Date:  Monday, October 27, 2008 from 7-9 p.m, presentation begins at 7:15. 

Location:  Washington-Lee High School (Cafeteria) - 1300 N Quincy Street Arlington. 

Parking available in the parking deck to the north, and the nearest Metro is Ballston-MU.

Phone information line: 1-888-643-3266

View Larger Map

There will be an opportunity to provide written comment, leave oral comments with court reporters, and ask questions of the design team.  The design features as well as environmental documentation will be available at the public hearing. 

It's important to note that the environmental documentation is a proposed Categorical Exclusion, which means that under NEPA, there will not be any Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Assessment or associated public hearing periods.  This significantly reduces the review process, and is defined by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality as:

Categorical Exclusion: 1. A class of actions which either individually or cumulatively would not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore would not require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. (definition 2 deleted because it is not applicable)

I have a concern that the parallel bike path along the highway will be affected by this widening, but I have received assurances from the project engineer that where there is a conflict between the highway project and the bike trail, the lanes and shoulders will be narrowed in order to maintain the trail

I also have a concern with the spin put on the project as being "spot improvements".  Go ahead and scroll out on the map above.  The highlighted sections are where VDOT proposes to add another travel lane to I-66.  The length of the added lane is around half the total length of I-66 within Arlington.  This doesn't constitute "spot improvements" in my book.  I don't personally have a problem with building the third lane, but VDOT should not try to hide the truth by calling it a "spot improvement".