Here It Goes … An Obligatory Post on Amazon’s HQ2 and Transportation
By Josh Linden
Okay, a disclaimer: this post won’t entirely focus on Amazon and its wildly over-covered, over-hyped, year-long HQ2 selection process, which resulted in a split between New York City and Arlington, Virginia. However, HQ2 does provides an interesting jumping off point for a discussion about jobs, land use, and transportation. In light of the expected 25,000 new jobs for each HQ2 location (along with corresponding population growth of 2-3 times that number), many local residents are worried about the impact on transit, congestion, and the cost of living (which in this context, includes the cost of transportation).
These concerns are certainly valid; NYC and the DC area already struggle with all three of the transportation issues listed above. It’s reasonable to fear that a new corporate HQ near the heart of the city will make everything worse -- and to question the wisdom of political leaders who offered billions of dollars in incentives to attract Amazon in the first place. Yet, these concerns are also couched in a reactive posture, assuming a level of stasis in planning and policy that will try (and struggle) to increase overall transportation system capacity within the bounds of the current system design. But is this the only way to think about HQ2 -- or rather, what HQ2 represents? Instead, could local officials leverage incoming demographic/economic forces to, for example, proactively plan for transit-oriented development and a suite of ambitious transportation projects that were previously out of reach (or politically difficult)?
Fundamentally, HQ2 is an acute version of a phenomenon that many cities experience at various points in time, and at various scales: a large infusion of jobs via new or growing industries; a large group of new residents; and a redevelopment of underutilized land. For DC and NYC, this new iteration will include primarily technology jobs, young and largely affluent residents, and the redevelopment of land adjacent to the urban core with high vacancy but good transit and active transportation connections (bus, subway/metrorail, commuter rail, and bike/ped trails). The latter characteristics certainly played a large role in Amazon’s decision-making. But they also provide local planners and officials with a chance to make needed changes to encourage better job-housing-transportation connections -- which, in turn, could produce a number of positive outcomes (more efficient/accessible transit, lower motor vehicle mode share and congestion, more transportation choices and lower transportation costs, etc).
Take DC as an example. Amazon chose the Crystal City area, directly across the river from the District, served by three metro stops and the area’s first (albeit limited) BRT, and characterized by a mix of commercial and dense residential developments -- but also largely surrounded by neighborhoods with detached single-family homes. Arlington County, more broadly, follows a similar pattern -- discrete corridors of dense mixed-use and excellent transit access, sandwiched between larger areas of low-density zoning. Knowing that many of the incoming HQ2 workers will prefer to live within a 30 minute commute (a common preference nationwide), county and regional officials can attempt to expand the number of 30-minute transit options serving Crystal City. Short-term examples could include expanding BRT and commuter rail service, improving transit connections with active transportation options, and increasing Metro service along the corridor (particularly important since Metro has reduced service levels recently). Officials could also create car-free areas within Crystal City to discourage car-commuting and further push new residents to live in or near transit-oriented developments.
Longer-term options are more politically fraught, but perhaps even more consequential. Planners and politicians could choose to upzone areas adjacent to Crystal City and other transit corridors to allow for higher density. This would not only help bring jobs and housing closer together (which helps transit and reduces overall stress on the transportation system), but it would allow for an expansion of bus routes and service to reach newly dense areas. More ambitiously, the regional transit authority (WMATA) could move forward on a much-discussed (and hugely expensive) plan to increase capacity through Metro’s core, which would reduce key bottleneck areas that often lead to delays on one of the lines that serves Crystal City.
Some of these ideas may sound improbable. But there are already signs that DC area officials could take bold steps in the direction of more robust transit-oriented development and larger investments in non-car infrastructure. For example, the state of Virginia offered nearly $200 million toward transportation infrastructure as part of its bid, and another $100 million if Amazon exceeds 25,000 jobs. Much of this money could be allocated toward projects like a pedestrian bridge, metro station expansions, BRT improvements, and -- importantly -- the conversion of a major highway to an “urban boulevard” that would try to retrofit a car-centric neighborhood with more transit-oriented designs to encourage walking/biking and improve transit access. All of these are designed to increase livability and improve the balance of land, housing, and transportation.
Critics will of course claim that these potential projects demonstrate their larger complaint -- that cities act on behalf of businesses and not existing residents. And they are largely right, since advocates have pushed for many of these projects for years without success in securing funding commitments. Whether or not politicians are sufficiently accountable to local residents is a question for another day, and another blog. But it’s possible that those same advocates -- and the larger community of existing residents -- can use an event like HQ2 to make progress on other priorities that struggle to gain traction. For DC and NYC, it could be an opportunity to expand transit-oriented development, significantly de-prioritize motor vehicles, and provide a larger set of expanded, more accessible transportation options to residents.
Edited by Sophie Schmidt
Sources:
Cervero, Robert and John Landis, “The Transportation-Land Use Connection Still Matters” Access, Fall 1995, No. 7, pp. 2-10.
Hess, D. B., & Lombardi, P. A. (2004). Policy support for and barriers to transit-oriented development in the inner city: Literature review. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1887(1), 26-33.
Levine, Jonathan, “Access to Choice,” Access, Spring 1999, pp. 16, 18-19
https://ggwash.org/view/69866/crystal-city-national-landing-virginia-new-infrastructure-get-amazon
https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/gear-prudence/article/21032229/ban-cars-at-national-landing-from-the-outset
https://wamu.org/story/18/11/14/public-money-private-records-parts-of-the-amazon-deal-concern-critics/
https://dcist.com/story/18/11/14/how-will-amazon-impact-traffic-in-the-region/
Okay, a disclaimer: this post won’t entirely focus on Amazon and its wildly over-covered, over-hyped, year-long HQ2 selection process, which resulted in a split between New York City and Arlington, Virginia. However, HQ2 does provides an interesting jumping off point for a discussion about jobs, land use, and transportation. In light of the expected 25,000 new jobs for each HQ2 location (along with corresponding population growth of 2-3 times that number), many local residents are worried about the impact on transit, congestion, and the cost of living (which in this context, includes the cost of transportation).
These concerns are certainly valid; NYC and the DC area already struggle with all three of the transportation issues listed above. It’s reasonable to fear that a new corporate HQ near the heart of the city will make everything worse -- and to question the wisdom of political leaders who offered billions of dollars in incentives to attract Amazon in the first place. Yet, these concerns are also couched in a reactive posture, assuming a level of stasis in planning and policy that will try (and struggle) to increase overall transportation system capacity within the bounds of the current system design. But is this the only way to think about HQ2 -- or rather, what HQ2 represents? Instead, could local officials leverage incoming demographic/economic forces to, for example, proactively plan for transit-oriented development and a suite of ambitious transportation projects that were previously out of reach (or politically difficult)?
Fundamentally, HQ2 is an acute version of a phenomenon that many cities experience at various points in time, and at various scales: a large infusion of jobs via new or growing industries; a large group of new residents; and a redevelopment of underutilized land. For DC and NYC, this new iteration will include primarily technology jobs, young and largely affluent residents, and the redevelopment of land adjacent to the urban core with high vacancy but good transit and active transportation connections (bus, subway/metrorail, commuter rail, and bike/ped trails). The latter characteristics certainly played a large role in Amazon’s decision-making. But they also provide local planners and officials with a chance to make needed changes to encourage better job-housing-transportation connections -- which, in turn, could produce a number of positive outcomes (more efficient/accessible transit, lower motor vehicle mode share and congestion, more transportation choices and lower transportation costs, etc).
Take DC as an example. Amazon chose the Crystal City area, directly across the river from the District, served by three metro stops and the area’s first (albeit limited) BRT, and characterized by a mix of commercial and dense residential developments -- but also largely surrounded by neighborhoods with detached single-family homes. Arlington County, more broadly, follows a similar pattern -- discrete corridors of dense mixed-use and excellent transit access, sandwiched between larger areas of low-density zoning. Knowing that many of the incoming HQ2 workers will prefer to live within a 30 minute commute (a common preference nationwide), county and regional officials can attempt to expand the number of 30-minute transit options serving Crystal City. Short-term examples could include expanding BRT and commuter rail service, improving transit connections with active transportation options, and increasing Metro service along the corridor (particularly important since Metro has reduced service levels recently). Officials could also create car-free areas within Crystal City to discourage car-commuting and further push new residents to live in or near transit-oriented developments.
Longer-term options are more politically fraught, but perhaps even more consequential. Planners and politicians could choose to upzone areas adjacent to Crystal City and other transit corridors to allow for higher density. This would not only help bring jobs and housing closer together (which helps transit and reduces overall stress on the transportation system), but it would allow for an expansion of bus routes and service to reach newly dense areas. More ambitiously, the regional transit authority (WMATA) could move forward on a much-discussed (and hugely expensive) plan to increase capacity through Metro’s core, which would reduce key bottleneck areas that often lead to delays on one of the lines that serves Crystal City.
Some of these ideas may sound improbable. But there are already signs that DC area officials could take bold steps in the direction of more robust transit-oriented development and larger investments in non-car infrastructure. For example, the state of Virginia offered nearly $200 million toward transportation infrastructure as part of its bid, and another $100 million if Amazon exceeds 25,000 jobs. Much of this money could be allocated toward projects like a pedestrian bridge, metro station expansions, BRT improvements, and -- importantly -- the conversion of a major highway to an “urban boulevard” that would try to retrofit a car-centric neighborhood with more transit-oriented designs to encourage walking/biking and improve transit access. All of these are designed to increase livability and improve the balance of land, housing, and transportation.
Critics will of course claim that these potential projects demonstrate their larger complaint -- that cities act on behalf of businesses and not existing residents. And they are largely right, since advocates have pushed for many of these projects for years without success in securing funding commitments. Whether or not politicians are sufficiently accountable to local residents is a question for another day, and another blog. But it’s possible that those same advocates -- and the larger community of existing residents -- can use an event like HQ2 to make progress on other priorities that struggle to gain traction. For DC and NYC, it could be an opportunity to expand transit-oriented development, significantly de-prioritize motor vehicles, and provide a larger set of expanded, more accessible transportation options to residents.
Edited by Sophie Schmidt
Sources:
Cervero, Robert and John Landis, “The Transportation-Land Use Connection Still Matters” Access, Fall 1995, No. 7, pp. 2-10.
Hess, D. B., & Lombardi, P. A. (2004). Policy support for and barriers to transit-oriented development in the inner city: Literature review. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1887(1), 26-33.
Levine, Jonathan, “Access to Choice,” Access, Spring 1999, pp. 16, 18-19
https://ggwash.org/view/69866/crystal-city-national-landing-virginia-new-infrastructure-get-amazon
https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/gear-prudence/article/21032229/ban-cars-at-national-landing-from-the-outset
https://wamu.org/story/18/11/14/public-money-private-records-parts-of-the-amazon-deal-concern-critics/
https://dcist.com/story/18/11/14/how-will-amazon-impact-traffic-in-the-region/
Comments
Post a Comment