By Mike Spotts
Earlier this month, Arlington County launched the planning and outreach process for the South George Mason Drive Multimodal Transportation Study (read more at: https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Project-Types/Transportation-Projects/S.-George-Mason-Drive-Multimodal-Transportation-Study). This project (literally) hits close to home – my family’s home is directly on S. George Mason Drive. I walk, drive, and/or bike along this corridor daily. So while I am not a disinterested observer and obviously have some personal thoughts on what the County should do, I am trying to also keep the big picture in mind in how this fits into the County’s priorities for growth and development. The following is a series of public comments I recently shared with Arlington County. If you intend to comment, first phase comments must be received before May 1.
Arlington has too few north-south connections that are efficient and safe for any transportation mode other than vehicles. This underscores the importance of this planning effort to improve mobility across the spectrum of modes.
George Mason Drive (both north and south of Arlington Boulevard, and across the County line) has enormous potential as a multimodal corridor. In particular, the potential for improved transit service (preferably bus rapid transit or at a minimum, dedicated lane) is enormous. Consider the existing high-density nodes/developments and major employment centers that already exist – the currently expanding Virginia Hospital Center; the new developments and existing Barcroft Apartments at the intersection with Columbia Pike; the high rental and homeownership density along Four Mile Run Drive; Skyline, which is increasing in density as offices are converted to residential; and the high-rise residential development and medical campuses both north and south of the I395 junction. In addition, a future node may be envisioned along Langston Boulevard. The high density of both jobs and people, as well as the diversity of residents and workers, housing types, levels of affordability, and wages along the corridor makes this an optimal route for increasing the reliability and frequency of bus service. While that type of investment may be outside of the scope of this specific study (requiring study of bus frequency and updating route maps), it can and should set a foundation for additional planning around achieving a new transit vision for the corridor.
My understanding is that George Mason Drive is not a state or federal road. As such, Arlington County has more leeway to be creative outside of the often-restrictive priorities and design priorities imposed by the federal and state DOTs.
Currently, the corridor’s primary priority (by design, even if not current intent) is to move vehicles at a high rate of speed, and the result is less-efficient transit, unsafe intersections for pedestrians, and unsafe conditions throughout for cyclists.
The County should rebalance its modal priorities. While such an approach often gets labeled as anti-car (or a “war on cars”), this is not the case at all. If anything, traffic calming measures paired with a reallocation of a marginal amount of space away from automobiles to other modes can actually improve car commuting by making it safer, as speed is the main determinant in traffic injuries and deaths (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/). While some commuters’ lives may be marginally inconvenienced if it takes longer to traverse the corridor, the lives of drivers who are not injured or killed are dramatically better. As someone who does drive along the corridor frequently, this is a trade-off that is in my interests as a driver as well.
Current anti-speeding measures are not effective. Though some drivers studiously obey traffic laws, there is a natural tendency to drive to the speed of perceived safety. Given that there is relatively minimal traffic (i.e., of a sufficient volume across multiple lanes to create the instinctive inclination to slow down) outside of short periods of the day, traffic flows freely, which encourages speeding. While free-flowing traffic may reduce minor accidents/collisions, this benefit is offset by the severity of the higher speed collisions that do occur. Adding traffic calming measures that force drivers to pay more attention and drive more conscientiously will make the corridor safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Adding traffic calming measures will hopefully curb some of the more intentionally reckless driving that is frequent along the corridor, particularly in portions of the corridor that feature the most foot traffic (in particular, around Barcroft Apartments, the Four Mile Run Drive intersection, and in the Wakefield High School walkshed).
There is considerable scope for space reallocation along the corridor. Peak traffic levels should not be the sole determinant of how much space each mode receives. Just as retail establishments do not maintain “Black Friday” staffing capacity 365 days per year, designing streets for peak traffic leads to waste and creates safety hazards for all users during off-peak periods (by encouraging speeding). In this specific context, it is arguable whether the current 4-lane configuration is even necessary along the full corridor for peak periods. Throughout the rest of the day, the current configuration is excessive. Given the uncertainty of how longer-term work-from-home trends will durably affect commuting patterns, it is imperative that transportation plans facilitate mobility for all modes at all times of day.
It is always easy to say “reprioritize space.” It is much more difficult to actually take space from a current use and dedicate to another. These decisions are not easy and there are always tradeoffs with no solution that makes everyone happy. Given the specific configuration of the corridor (variable widths, different use frontages, median types, etc.), flexibility and incremental improvements will be crucial. Current demand for non-automotive uses is depressed due to the priority given to automobiles. If a basic threshold of cyclist protection (which we are nowhere near today) can be achieved as part of this process, it could create the test-case necessary to see if use increases sufficiently to justify “gold standard” bicycle infrastructure in the future.
More specifically, the County should consider the following ideas for improving multimodal mobility across South George Mason Drive.
Consider reallocating one lane of travel in each direction to a dedicated busway. Interim or “compromise” approaches would be to have a “bus plus” lane that also allows limited traffic to flow through that lane (for example: emergency vehicles, school busses, shuttles, HOV 4+ vehicles and other modes designed to carry multiple passengers), marginally reducing traffic in the remaining open-access lane. This latter approach has two additional benefits:
George Mason Drive is an important emergency vehicle artery, given its proximity to high-crash roads (for example, I395) and the location of Virginia Hospital Center. A dedicated lane could improve emergency response times, particularly during higher volume periods.
It is unclear if there are prospects for WMATA or ART to achieve “blue sky” service concepts such as a new BRT corridor. However, in the absence of (or while awaiting) that level of service, allowing limited types of vehicles to travel the dedicated lanes could make it possible for private shuttles to emerge that can supplement bus service in off-peak times. Such a system should be calibrated to avoid “cannibalizing” existing public transit ridership, and could include fees that are dedicated to improving public transit service.
At a minimum, the County should adopt bus signal priority and improved stops/boarding facilities, and study opportunities for enhanced bus service and ensuring that any improvements do not preclude bus lanes and enhanced routing/service frequency in the future.
This plan should include provisions to “right-size” parking. Many people want to maintain current levels of street parking, which has highly variable utilization across the corridor. Conversely, there have been some suggestions that protected bike lanes and/or transit service can replace current on-street parking. This latter option is probably – on balance – better than the status quo if it results in transit and/or protected bike lanes and should be considered, especially considering that the County currently mandates off-street parking in residential development. However, there are some clear tradeoffs with this approach. Street parking may be useful for some elderly residents and those with mobility impairments. Most importantly, there can be some negative impacts on pedestrian crossing, as people on foot would have to cross six lanes of moving traffic instead of four in most places. For this reason, reallocating a current vehicular lane is a preferable approach. If that cannot be achieved, there are interim steps between “street-parking everywhere” (the least preferred scenario) and fully eliminating street parking:
One lane of street parking could be eliminated, with the other moved from the outer curb to the center curb (there are examples of this approach in cities such as Philadelphia). This would still maintain a large number of on-street spaces and those utilizing the space would not have to cross the full width of South George Mason Drive to get to either side of the street. This could also provide a protective buffer if “greenway bikelanes” are added (see below). The trade-off would be that fewer people could park directly in front of their homes without crossing, though this is less problematic given the abundance of (and ongoing requirements for) off-street parking for each residential unit. Center-loaded parking would need to be accompanied by more frequent, safer crossings, but this is something that should be occurring in any case.
If a single lane of parallel parking is eliminated, the net loss of street parking spots could be reduced below 50% if the remaining space was diagonal instead of parallel parking. The difference in traffic safety is likely marginal – there are hazards with parallel parking given sudden stops and the back-and-forth of the parking process, just as there are with backing into the road out of diagonal parking spaces. If traffic calming measures are successful, it would reduce the potential for crashes in either scenario.
Another approach utilizing diagonal parking would be to include “parking pods” in certain locations on each block (and/or increase parking by adding diagonal slots at the corners of the intersecting streets). These could be strategically placed to boost on-street parking while taking advantage of tactical opportunities (for example, a portion of the road that is slightly wider). If cycling lanes took the place of parking, adding pods periodically could lead to more frequent diversions and/or multi-use sections. However, that would still be an improvement over the status quo (in which there is no truly protected, safe cycling infrastructure along the corridor). The variability in the space allocation created by pods is, in and of itself, a traffic calming measure, and if paired with comprehensive traffic calming interventions, could mitigate conflict between users.
In areas with street parking that is utilized for business/non-residential purposes (such as the Foreign Service/National Guard facility), the County should negotiate replacing street parking with shared parking at nearby properties. There are at least two underutilized surface parking lots adjacent to this site that could serve this process. Though these are privately owned, the County could facilitate and/or incentivize this process.
Maintaining street parking across the entirety of both sides of the corridor is justifiable if – and only if – off-street residential parking mandates are lifted. Given the tight space constraints, there is no need for redundant impervious surface that adds to the cost of housing (which is well-documented in the literature, most notably in The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup), contributes to runoff, and limits our green space.
Whatever the approach to street parking infrastructure is ultimately chosen, the County should revisit its permitting and pricing systems for more efficient and equitable utilization of this public space. To illustrate how the status quo is dysfunctional, permits are required southbound between S. Four Mile Run Drive and the County line, but not northbound. As a result, on most days parking is less than 50% occupied for most of this stretch on the southbound side (again, due to off-street parking availability) but more difficult to find on the northbound side. This imbalance can be rectified via changes to permitting and pricing. As a personal aside, I benefit from the status quo as a resident on the southbound side, but recognize that this is inequitable to our neighbors across the street.
The center median greenspace and trees should be maintained and expanded if possible. At a baseline, it adds to the livability of the adjacent neighborhoods and creates a “refuge” for people crossing the street, as official crosswalks are too infrequent to be practical. On an anecdotal level, I’ve used and frequently observe others using this space for pedestrian purposes during crossings. Since there is already demonstrated demand and utility, this plan should consider formalizing this informal pedestrian infrastructure asset. Specifically, the plan can create a protected pedestrian/cycling “greenway” within this center median, which would provide a degree of grade separation from automobile traffic and would increase the utility of “softer” barriers (such as the plastic reflective bollards or additional trees/plantings). Combined with shifting parking to the median, this could dramatically improve safety within the greenway. This may not be viable through the full length of the corridor due to varying road widths. However, the improvement in utility and safety would be transformational if this truly safe multimodal asset was combined with more incremental safety improvements and/or smooth detours to other, safer paths along the balance of the corridor. Furthermore, this improvement could be achieved at a relatively minimal cost, given that this space already exists and would not have to be purchased or diverted from other uses.