Steve Offutt, Environmental Consulting. Transform to Sustainability

Guaranteed Ride Home: A Real-Life Experience

Not everyone who reads this blog may be familiar with the Commuter Connections' Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program. I had occasion to use it on Friday, and no one else in my office was aware of it--even though they all bus or Metrorail to work (except one driver). I was happy to pass along the info (which you can get here).

Unfortunately, it was an unhappy situation that created my need for it. I was biking to work on my usual bike commute from Arlington to Silver Spring. About 1/2 of my commute is along the Capital Crescent Trail (CCT). The CCT is a well used bike commuting route, but after the latest snowstorm, it received no attention whatsoever. There are still sections--particularly east of Bethesda--that are dangerously icy. I went down on an icy patch and injured my thumb. I continued to my office. At first my thumb didn't hurt too much, but it continued to swell and the pain increased, so I decided it would be best to get it x-rayed (10 years ago I broke my thumb in a bike wreck, and this seemed very similar). Since it wasn't life threatening, I decided to go home first and see my local doctor rather than go to a Silver Spring-area emergency room.
I called GRH, and they ordered a minivan cab for me (to carry me and my bike both). It was there in less than 10 minutes and took me all the way home to Arlington for free.

Thankfully, the thumb isn't broken--just sprained. Now what can we do to get local jurisdictions to do something about ice and snow on the multi-use trails? It's been well more than a week since the snow, and there are still unpassable sections on the CCT.

HOT Lanes Won't Siphon Off Riders

I noticed an article in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star reporting on a VDOT report about future commuting behavior along I-95 when HOT lanes are completed. I was unable to find the report results on VDOT's site, so I have to depend on the Free Lance-Star for what details I could glean.

The gist of the survey results is that the vast majority of vanpoolers, carpoolers, sluggers and train riders will continue to use their same mode to commute along the I-95/I-395 corridor after HOT lanes are built and implemented. In fact, the type of commuter most likely to change their behavior is the SOV driver, presumably to another, more congestion- and environment-friendly mode. For people who are concerned that the construction of HOT lanes would siphon a lot of riders out of HOV modes into their SOV vehicles, this is a heartening result.

The survey polled 3,289 commuters. Here's how many said they would will stick with their current method of commuting:

95 percent of vanpoolers
91 percent of bus riders
86 percent of train riders
82 percent slugs
81 percent of carpoolers
53 percent of solo drivers

Car Free in Milwaukee!?

A couple of weeks ago I was riding the Metro and overheard an interesting interaction. A newbie rider got on, and a conversation ensued between her and a couple of other riders, who seemed to be regulars. She mentioned that she was from Milwaukee, and one of her interlocutors mentioned that he had gone to college there a decade or so ago. So, as people will, they chatted about various places they knew in common and were having quite a pleasant little talk. Then out of nowhere the gentleman who had gone to college there said, ". . .and it's easy to live there without a car."
What a surprise!--for a couple of reasons.

First, the whole idea of relating to a stranger that living without a car is an advantage in our car-culture society was quite unusual. And second, Milwaukee is not a city that immediately comes to mind when one thinks of places to live without owning cars.

So if they can do it in Milwaukee, then the Car-Free diet in Arlington should be even easier. Those of you who read Chris Balish's How to Live Well Without a Car may recall that the author started out in St. Louis, which is probably not that dissimilar from Milwaukee for living car-free.

Mars and Venus (Earth Loses)

I'm often amazed at how really smart people can't seem to put 2&2 together. This last Sunday's Washington Post had a long, in-depth article about the BRAC relocations. It included a great graphic shown here (click on it for a larger view). At the same time, virtually every day brings additional news about the need to take immediate and significant actions to battle global warming. Most of the nations of the world met in Bali recently for the yearly Conference of the Parties that guides the international dialog on climate change. Europe, for one, was pushing for 25-40% reductions in greenhouse gases by 2020 (the U. S. 'succeeded' in watering down much of the language).

If you look at the map you will see that the jobs are primarily moving away from places where transportation options are more plentiful to places where they are not. There is no question that the number of miles driven in the DC area will go up with this realignment. The article points out the need for hundreds of millions of dollars of additional transportation infrastructure just to accommodate the additional traffic. All of it is more roads. Does the BRAC commission read the news about global warming? Are they living on another planet?

What you might hear from them is, "Our job was to blah...blah...blah. Once we met those objectives, then global warming might be a secondary issue, but it wasn't our job." I once attended a presentation in which the presenter posed the question, "Who is in charge of climate change?" The answer is, well, no one really. Which means that we all are. Including the BRAC.

It's probably too late to change the relocations, but it's not too late to make opportunities out of them. Knowing that all these jobs are moving, what changes can be made that will reduce the traffic and greenhouse gases at the same time? The most obvious is to look at which jobs can be done without needing the people to actually be there. Having workers telecommute 2-3 days per week (or full time) would reduce driving and congestion tremendously and also reduce terrorism risk by spreading out the workforce. Comprehensive additional planning should take place immediately, including starting work on extending rail (VRE and Metrorail to the Proving Ground and Fort Belvoir and MARC direct to Fort Meade). Other land use planning needs to be much smarter, both on the bases themselves and in areas that will attract workers. The forts themselves should make themselves examples of places that people can get around without needing a personal car. That way those who come by the train or bus or carpool can get where they want and need to be. One way might be to put in PRT (personal rapid transit), which I'll cover another day.

In any case, it would be great to see the Defense Department take the lead on being forward thinking and progressive on how to achieve their realignment goals without exacerbating global warming.

Intersection of Transportation and Demographics

The issue of the elderly and transportation has been a topic of news articles around the country lately (USA Today 12/2, W. Post 12/7, Appleton Post-Crescent 12/9, San Diego Union Tribune 12/8). Most of these focus on providing volunteer or low-cost rides to old or infirm people to help them get where they need to go.

My sense is that transportation planners do not typically take future demographics into consideration very well. In particular, when planning is made for transportation infrastructure that will be in service for 40-50 years, there will always be statistics on future traffic demands on that infrastructure, usually used to help justify and plan the project. My experience with my own aging relatives is that long before they need to stop driving altogether, they find driving on expressways and freeways at high speeds very uncomfortable. All those 40-somethings who are using the Springfield interchange and Woodrow Wilson Bridge now will be 70-somethings in 30 years. Are we designing the long-term infrastructure in a way that will accommodate the demographics not as they are now, but the demographics as they will be decades in the future? I have never read anything in the planning for transportation projects like these that expressly discusses that issue. If you have, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

The PATH to Energy Savings

The Saturday, October 27, Washington Post Real Estate section had an excellent article that includes 10 tips to consider when remodeling. It highlights the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's PATH program (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing). The article touches on many of the items that have been discussed on this blog, such as efficient lighting and right-sizing heating and cooling systems.

PATH is primarily a partnership with the housing trades (builders, remodelers, financers, etc.) but has done a thorough job of pulling together comprensive information and tools that will help improve our nation's housing stock going forward. For instance, their web site includes a Tip of the Month.

This month's is very timely with winter coming on: Air Seal and Insulate.

If you are considering remodeling (or even if not--you just want to know more about how your home uses energy efficiently or inefficiently), I'd like to remind you of my post from a few months back recommending the book No-Regrets Remodeling, an excellent resource to use prior to undertaking any remodeling project.

Battle in Bethesda (Trail users unite to fend off developer)

Many of the people who enjoy the trails in this area: bicyclists, runners, bladers, walkers, etc. have really come to appreciate the Capital Crescent Trail that connects Georgetown to Bethesda, passes under Wisconsin Avenue through a terrific old railway tunnel, and then continues as a gravel interim trail all the way to Silver Spring (someday it will loop all the way to Union Station, but that's another story). In fact, sections of the trail see more than 20,000 users per week.

In July a developer submitted plans to Montgomery County to develop the parcel of land at the corner of Woodmont Avenue and Bethesda Avenue where the trail enters the tunnel. As part of their plan they were proposing to close the tunnel for more than two years.

When I heard about this, my initial reaction was that there was no way Montgomery County would allow that to happen. But then I had a second thought that if people weren't paying attention, then the ball might not bounce the right way. Well, it didn't take long for trail users and other interested parties to take note. Montgomery County Councilman Roger Berliner (in whose district the tunnel is located) held a public meeting on September 15 to discuss the development (the tunnel closing was a key issue, but not the only one, aired at the meeting). I attended this meeting, and it was packed; well over 100 people were there. So was the developer, who had been invited to discuss the project.

The developer clearly got the message that the community was not going to accept the tunnel closing. Last week, the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail reported on its web site that the developer has informed the Montgomery County Planning Board that it will keep the tunnel open during construction. This was clearly a victory for everyone. The trail and tunnel are key commuting routes as well as a wonderful recreational trail for thousands of users. In an area like Bethesda, where traffic is a constant issue, providing as many other choices as possible is an imperative for quality of life.

Investments, Efficiency, VA Tech, and the DC Area

Last Tuesday's Washington Post featured a great article about the confluence of economic value and actions to reduce energy use and climate change. Virginia Tech and investor Hannan Armstrong along with other partners, including PEPCO Energy Services, are investing $500 million to improve the efficiency of at least 100 buildings in the DC area. The initiative is called the Energy Efficiency Partnership of Greater Washington.

It's important to note that Mr. Armstrong is not doing this because he is an environmentalist. He's doing it because he can make money at it. Opportunities to improve efficiency in buildings are enormous and profits can be made. The concept is pretty simple: invest money in energy performance improvements and then share the savings that come out of the utility bills. The building owner pays nothing up front and enjoys same or lower utility bills. The investor creates a stream of income from the utility savings that yields a good or excellent return on the initial capital investment. Both parties win . . .and so does our environment. The expectation is that the buildings they are investing in will reduce their energy use by 20% - 50%.

You can do this yourself, too, actually. In the short term, investing $200 in changing out the lighting in your house can yield up to $100 per year in investment returns--a fabulous return rate. If you have a home equity line of credit you can create your own positive cash flow--it's like printing money. By investing in efficiency improvements that have rates of return higher than the interest you pay on your loan, you can create a cash cow right in your house. Here's an example: $3000 wisely invested in improvements could save you $30-$40 month or more on your utility bills. A 15-year home equity loan payment is $27.81 at 7.5%. So every month you essentially print yourself a $5 or even a $20 bill (because you save more on your utility bill than you pay on your loan). As utility rates rise your savings go up, too, but your payment stays the same. Many improvements will also add to the value of your home, so if you move your house will sell for more--recouping your investment again.

I've always thought that investment resources like Money Magazine and Kiplinger's should recommend these investments to their readers. They can create better returns at lower risk than a lot of the other investment recommendations they make. The environmental benefits are just gravy.

Bikes and HOT Lanes

Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section published an op-ed piece by Bruce Wright, chairman of Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling that was spot on. His key point being that as Virginia moves forward with $1.7 billion of investment to move cars better (the new HOT Lanes), the state absolutely needs to think comprehensively about other modes--in particular cycling. Currently it is difficult or impossible to cross the beltway on a bicycle along most routes. Although I have heard of people doing it, it's pretty terrifying for me to imagine riding on Route 50 where it crosses I-495. Most of the other crossings are no better. There are undoubtedly thousands of people who live only a few miles from their jobs or from other places they want to go, but the Beltway is in between, forcing them to drive those short distances.

In fact, VDOT's Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations makes this statement: "The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will initiate all highway construction projects with the presumption that the projects shall accommodate bicycling and walking." Here's a golden opportunity for VDOT to demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service and--in contrast to its performance as reported in a previous post on a VDOT missed opportunity--really understands the value of bicycling and walking as viable travel choices.

Thanks, Bruce, for getting this key issue into the Post where our policy makers are more likely to see it.

Smarter than a 5th-Grader?

The Friday, October 19, Washington Post ran an article by Juliet Eilperin in which she reported that the administration's Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John H. Marburger III, said that the target of preventing Earth from warming more than two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, "is going to be a very difficult
one to achieve and is not actually linked to regional events that affect people's lives."

I agree with the first part: it will be difficult to achieve. However, the second part of that statement is undeniably false and, in fact, regional events are already affecting people's lives and are only going to get more severe. The 2003 European heat waves resulted in more than 20,000 excess lives lost and has been linked by scientists to global warming. If that is not a 'regional event that affects people's lives,' I don't know what is. Storm scientists have documented increased storm intensities of tropical storms, including storms like Katrina, which strike me as significant regional events (note of caution here: it is impossible to know if Katrina or any particular storm is more severe due to global warming; what we do know is that the tendency for storms to be stronger is going up.)

It is frustrating to see high-powered officials in the federal government with their heads so deeply buried in the sand. I was recently in the library with my son and browsing in the young adult section. I noticed a book called "Global Warming," and was of course interested in seeing what teenagers might be reading on the subject. Glancing through I noted that the science was solid but a good deal of the information seemed out of date, so I checked the publication date: 1988!! Yes, twenty years ago the basic science on climate change was already pretty much settled and here we are twenty years later with powerful political figures who are--to steal from a popular TV show--dumber than a 5th grader.

We're #2. Do we do it to ourselves?

Today's Washington Post reported on the annual congestion rankings put out by the Texas Transportation Institute, and the DC area tied for 2nd with an average of 60 hours of congestion for peak period commuters.

What caught my eye, though was this tidbit:

"You feel helpless," an Arlington resident was quoted, who drives between Rosslyn and his job in downtown Washington.

Huh? Helpless?!? He DRIVES from Rosslyn to his office on 15th St. NW! I guess that's his prerogative (maybe), but then he has no right to whine about the traffic and claim that he's "helpless." He could freaking WALK to his office in 45 minutes or less. It's at most a 15-minute bike ride--maybe less. He could squeeze on a metro train for 6-7 minutes from Rosslyn to McPherson Square. He could also get a Metrobus to Farragut Square and walk a couple of blocks.

He complains, but he is also actually part of the problem. Remember, when you are sitting in traffic, you ARE the traffic, too. He's doing both himself and everyone else a disservice by not figuring out all his choices, which are many.

What more can we do? Here's a guy with half a dozen options who still chooses to sit in traffic for a 3-mile commute. No one's going to build a new bridge between Rosslyn and DC, nor add any more roads between the river and his office. Widening I-66 won't make any difference to him. The only thing that would improve his drive is if fewer people were driving. But if he's unwilling to get out of his own car, how can he expect everyone else to stop driving, too? He's his own enemy.

Bikes and Road Capacity

About a month ago VDOT repaved a section of North Glebe Rd. in Arlington. According to Charlie Denney, Arlington's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator, VDOT's guidelines require them to make accommodations for bicycles when doing work like this on state highways. For this project that meant that they should restripe the road to allow for bike lanes--or at least narrow the inside lane and widen the outside lane to make more space for cars and bikes to share.

Charlie was in touch with VDOT on the day they were doing the lane painting to remind them of their own guidelines. However, he was unsuccessful in getting them to make any bike-friendly changes to the standard lane widths--a missed opportunity.

According to Charlie, one VDOT official said that before they could make any changes to the plan there would have to be a new road capacity engineering study undertaken. This is, of course, ridiculous, since there would be no actual changes to the lane configurations, intersections or anything--the paint on the road would be moved over a foot or two: no change in capacity. When I hear things like that I often wonder if VDOT includes in their job postings the statement, "Common sense not required," or "Do not expect to be empowered to make intelligent decisions on your own."

Coincidentally, I ride my bike on that section of Glebe Road 2-3 times per week, and I have been paying attention to how the cars and I interact. My experience is that by not narrowing the inside lane to make the outside lane wider, VDOT has actually REDUCED the capacity of the road.
Here's why: I have observed that cars in the outside lane do not feel comfortable passing me in the space provided, so they move over into the middle lane. If there are cars traveling in that lane, then they need to slow and wait for an opening. My presence makes the road effectively one lane (for cars) in my direction rather than two--decreasing the capacity. If there were a bike lane, both the cars and the bike rider (me) would have a defined space to travel in, and both safety and capacity would be improved.

So here's a case where the attitude that roads are for cars only has created a disservice for all road users--a lose-lose.

HOT Lanes Getting Started Up

Today's Washington Post article announcing that work on the N. Virginia HOT lanes will start up early next year is bound to create a lot of "traffic" here, on other blogs and in forums of all types. I think it's great that so many people are really thinking about how to deal with the undeniable problem of traffic congestion in the DC area. And clearly there are differing opinions, which--at least here on the CommuterPage blog--I hope we can express with mutual respect and thoughtfulness.

Problems with traffic congestion are not unique to Washington. One of the great things about our big ol' US of A is that we are big; we have 50 states; we have scores of metropolitan areas. What that means is that we can try different things in different places and learn from those experiences. I'm sure that other metro areas will be watching to see what happens here. "But I don't wanna be the guinea pig," I can hear from some. That's NIMBYism writ large: put it somewhere else; let someone else try it first; make them pay for it. . . .Take that attitude universal and nothing ever happens anywhere at all.

Is this model perfect? I doubt it. Should we allow private ownership of a public good? There's definitely some validity to that point. Will the new HOT lanes be completely fair for all users? It's impossible to be completely fair (and definitions of fair are not even consistent). Will the money get inappropriately used, politicized or even wasted somehow? Um. . .this is DC. Do we need to do something? Absolutely.

I'm excited to see our leaders taking action on something innovative and even controversial with the potential for some real gains. If only they would take a similar attitude towards the tunnel in Tyson's corner--bold and innovative instead of trapped in a bureaucratic morass. Maybe that's the real lesson of these HOT lanes. Look how fast they went from crazy idea to implementation. And how long have we been pursuing that rail line?

More Why People Don't Use Transit

My brother-in-law, who lives in Boulder, comes to the DC area three or four times a year on business, so we like to get together for dinner while he is in town. Today's the day. He's teaching a course in the Springfield area, and we decided to meet him in Shirlington at 6:30 this evening and choose one of the many fine restaurants once we are there.

My wife is attending a seminar today at 2400 N Street NW in DC, which she traveled to by Metrorail. I suggested to her that rather than come home first at the end of the day, she go directly to Shirlington and just meet us there. Neither of us has used transit to get to Shirlington from DC, but I'm savvy, so I know I could use the Metro trip planner to get her there.

So I did, and as usual it gave me three options:
1) Foggy Bottom Metro at 5:51 (Blue line); transfer at Crystal City to the 23A; arrive Shirlington 6:27 (36 minutes)
2) Foggy Bottom Metro at 5:49 (Orange line); transfer at Ballston to the 23A; arrive Shirlington 6:26 (37 minutes)
3) Foggy Bottom Metro at 5:46 (Blue line); transfer at Crystal City to the 23A; arrive Shirlington 6:27 (41 minutes). This one's not another option! It's the same bus as #1, just an earlier train.

None of these is the best choice, though. Being familiar with the area and our transit system, I was pretty certain that there are buses from the Pentagon to Shirlington. Lo and behold, there are. In fact,

I learned that she could catch a bus direct from the Pentagon to Shirlington at 5:59, 6:02, 6:07, 6:15 (2 choices of bus) or 6:25. This is clearly the preferred choice--for two reasons. First, it's fastest (how come the metro planner failed to find this choice?). She can catch the train at Foggy Bottom at 6:03 and arrive in Shirlington at 6:27 (24 minutes). Second--and more importantly, it's way more flexible--if she misses her bus, it's a short wait for the next one. With the Metro Planner, if she misses the 6:10 at Crystal City, it's a 30-minute wait for the next bus.

All of this took me a good 10-15 minutes and a high-speed Internet connection to figure out. I'm not even sure if there might be some other good options that I missed (the Way to Go Interactive Shirlington map does not even show the 7E or 7C routes stopping in Shirlington Village). The larger point being that if we want people to use transit, it has to be way, way simpler. If people have to be an expert before they even get started, then they will just hop in their cars.

Let me assure you that if I had given her the Metro Planner options (or she had done it herself and not known to look for a Pentagon option) and she missed the bus by a minute or two, I would never get her to do it again. She would either drive or take a taxi. Or more likely, she would leave her seminar early, come home first and then drive with us to Shirlington, an hour-long exercise rather than 24 minutes.

So I instructed her to go the Pentagon and catch the 7C or the 7E. I had to write it down, though, because the 7A, 7B, 7D, 7F, 7H, 7P, 7W and 7X don't go there or aren't running or something. Why are there 10 different 7's? Just to make it harder on passengers? I'll rant on that on a different post (click here).

Transform to Sustainability