More Construction, More Jobs,
More Tax Revenue, and Less Traffic
A joke come-on for a beer ad? A traffic consultant's "analysis" performed on behalf of a big developer? An oxymoron? None of the above?
The correct answer is: none of the above. As a citizen activist who has found himself supporting the integrity of the suburban neighborhoods against plans to permit massive development in adjoining business districts, I actually believe that the goal of more construction, more jobs, increased tax revenue is attainable without destroying suburban communities. And I believe that it can be accomplished in a way that all of us can win - citizen activists protecting their communities, developers recognizing the economic potential, and even environmentalists. What's more, the solution needn't be terribly expensive.
Let me start by saying that the government push to turn close in suburbs into cities by cramming vast amounts of development into highly constrained spaces with limited road access is something that those communities have every right to protest. Despite government rhetoric about the logic of this approach due to accessibility to Metro, the reality is that government permits development that relies predominantly and overwhelmingly on the car. The result is that the suburban road network is overwhelmed leading to not only the famous interminable commutes, but also to the loss of the ability of residents of these suburban communities to move around their own neighborhoods, run errands and utilize local services.
Suburban communities do not have the kind of road patterns that can tolerate traffic jams on the main arteries. Because they are not built on grids, main arteries double as both commuter routes and local access roads. Without parallel means of travel, the clogged arteries spell death to both kinds of trips and seriously impact on the quality of life in these communities. When County officials pronounce such conditions as typical for urban areas, they forget that suburbs are not urban by their very design.
Not a Lost Cause
Still, there is a way to accommodate substantial development in these locations. The way to get the development without the cars is simply to limit the number of cars that can be used to commute to these business districts. And the easiest way to do that is to constrain parking, not a very difficult thing to do. Its really no more difficult than limiting the number of parking spaces that can exist in a development district.
There are mathematical formulas that support the model, but the idea works like this. First, establish what the road networks capacity is to handle cars at a reasonable level of service. This will give you the maximum numbers that could flow through the streets without causing gridlock. Next, determine how many cars represent pass through traffic (for example, commuters headed to downtown DC who are passing through the Friendship Heights area), subtract that from the capacity of the roads and you're left with the number of vehicles, during rush hour, that can use the business district you're trying to develop. Working from this number you can calculate the number of parking spaces you will need to handle cars entering the business district as a destination. Build, or permit to be built, only that number of spaces (other spaces can be built for retail and service businesses because those consumer trips tend to be short-term and usually commence after the morning rush-hour and taper off during the evening rush hour).
This approach is used in places like San Francisco and Boston which have chosen to try to foster development without worsening already bad road conditions. It can be done and it absolutely works - no spaces, no point in driving in. In the movie, The Field of Dreams, the hero was exhorted to build it with the certainty that they would come. That same certainty applies to development - build the lanes, provide the spaces and the cars will come, eschewing any other way of getting there until the spaces are gone.
A Win - Win Approach
The Metro area has the basic infrastructure in place to make alternatives to the car a viable option, but the system is not adequately developed. Fortunately, adopting the front end of the approach by limiting parking provides the ability to fund the back end need to enhance mass transit.
Consider that right now jurisdictions in the Metro area spend millions to provide the infrastructure to accommodate development. In addition, developers are forced to contribute more millions to help fund these infrastructure improvements. At the same time it costs a developer $20-30,000 to construct each parking space in a hi-rise project - space that is totally non productive save that it accommodates the commuting employees. Think of it as building an additional 10x20 office for every worker driving to the site. If parking were constrained and brought under control of the jurisdiction (and much of it already is), then developers would save millions on the construction of their buildings (or be able to fit more usable space within the height limits). So if the government stopped building road improvements needed to accommodate more development, and developers contributed to transit improvements instead of road improvements and added to that some of the money they'd save by not building parking, then suddenly there is a lot of money available for improving the transit system.
All of this improves the economics of mass transit. To start with, it doesn't require any subsidy to get people out of their cars and onto the train or bus. Full routes are more efficient and cost-effective than marginal ones. Plus, transit gets to be funded much as roads currently are during the development process. The money that government and developers normally spend on road improvements would now be channeled into the transit system.
It is truly a case where everyone wins. Its low-tech and doable with technology that exists today. It reduces pollution while fostering growth. It permits growth and increased economic activity without burying residential neighborhoods in traffic. It saves developers money and would let them build in areas that are ideally located but currently undevelopable because the infrastructure is already overburdened. What more could anyone want?
It's Time for True Regionalism
I've raised this solution with planners, politicians and developers. The planners understand it as technically feasible. Unfortunately, the politicians declare it politically infeasible and the developers say that if one jurisdiction does it, they'll just move their activity to a jurisdiction that doesn't limit auto access. We should not be naive about the connection between developer objections and things that are "politically infeasible."
While I believe that Montgomery County should embark on this path because there are more than enough reasons to develop here, and because the Counties ability to control parking means that no development is truly without parking, the real way to deal with this approach is as a region. There is not a single jurisdiction that is not straining under the weight of new development both financially and in terms of a deteriorating quality of life as commutes lengthen in time and road ways approach gridlock. All future scenarios project even greater gridlock that, despite what the Board of Trade says, will be unmitigated regardless of what is built. The fact is we don't have the places to build, or the money to build, every road that might conceivably be constructed in the next 20 years and even if we did, those roads would be almost instantly filled. And if we did attempt to build the roads, we would have to forego a host of other infrastructure needs. As a region, we need to shift modes. What this would entail is adopting common standards for acceptable levels of development, and then channel money we would have spent on roads into transit. We need a level playing field so that developers can't say, "Do that here and I'll take my project there."
All of us have better uses for our tax dollars than to consider this road building madness. There are many local road problems (caused by the last and current waves of development) that need to be addressed. We all have serious school construction and rehabilitation needs. By taking a common stand, we can make better choices over where we spend our money.
The Metro area shares a highly educated, skilled population with substantial consumer potential. We have location. We have, in most places, basically good school systems and a quality of life that attracts people here. If all of us adopted a common approach to development, we would be able to continue to attract new projects, but on better terms than we do now. We, and the developers, would spend less, while we would increase our tax yields which in turn will allow us to maintain the quality of life that makes this area so attractive in the first place. And we would provide relief to our citizens in the form of a more livable environment.
Back to the Issues