Is the District waging a “war on cars?” The available evidence suggests the answer is absolutely. Drivers are struggling with fewer parking spaces, more speed cameras and the creation of bus-only lanes.
But the important question is not whether a war on cars exists. It’s whether such a battle is a good idea. And there, the answer is also absolutely, according to officials and private analysts.
No one wants to call it a war, of course. That’s divisive and seems to blame people for using cars, especially when it’s the only practical choice.
But there’s broad agreement that government policies in urban centers should discourage people from driving, both to reduce congestion and dependence on fossil fuels. The challenge is to do so while increasing availability of reliable and efficient alternatives, especially buses.
“Our view on private vehicles is changing,” said Andrew Trueblood, director of the D.C. Office of Planning. “There’s not a war against them, but there is a recognition that they have a cost to the environment, to congestion, for people and buses to move around, for more efficient modes of transportation.”
There’s also a cost in land use, he said. Valuable urban space might be devoted better to housing than parking.
Even those who defend the automobile acknowledge the need to reduce its use in the District.
John B. Townsend II, spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, said car owners are too often ignored — including in the Union Station debate — and are “increasingly not wanted . . . in an urban setting.”
But then, after noting the District has nearly 2 million automobile trips a day, he said: “We should do all in our power to encourage people to reduce that number, not only for quality of life but for environmental reasons.”
The issue is less clear-cut in the suburbs. Decades of car-oriented development have made it necessary for a large share of the population to depend on automobiles. That’s why Northern Virginia has added scores of miles of tolled highway lanes, and suburban Maryland is moving to do the same.
Even there, however, drivers feel beleaguered. The tolls in Northern Virginia can be steep, and four new Metro stations on the Silver Line were built without parking garages. In Maryland, environmentalists and their allies may yet block the plan to widen Interstate 270 and part of the Capital Beltway, and to replace the American Legion Bridge.
The controversy over how much to shrink the parking garage at Union Station is a good illustration of the pressures to wean people away from the automobile.
The existing garage will be rebuilt as part of an ambitious, $8 billion plan to enlarge and update the rail yard, concourses and other facilities. The project will make possible a significant increase in both intercity rail traffic on Amtrak, and commuter service on MARC and VRE.
Union Station effectively serves as the region’s fourth airport, in terms of the numbers of passengers served. But space is too valuable in the middle of the city to allow for the acres of parking spaces seen at Reagan National, Dulles International and Baltimore-Washington International Marshall airports.
Neighbors also don’t want to see the site surrounded by a snarl of cars, isolating it from the community and spoiling the iconic view of the U.S. Capitol for people exiting the historic station.
Given those concerns, the Federal Railroad Administration’s initial proposal called for reducing the parking garage by 625 spaces — 28 percent — to 1,575. The projected need is for 900 spaces for rail and intercity bus passengers using the station, 600 for retail customers at the station’s mall, and 75 for rental cars.
In a significant change, the plan assumed none of the spaces would be used for monthly parking contracts for federal and private employees who work near the station. At present, such users account for more than half of the spaces in the garage. Those people would have to start commuting by transit or find parking elsewhere in the neighborhood.
But even with those changes, city officials and neighboring businesses and residents said the garage would be too large.
D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), whose district includes the station, helped lead the criticism. He wrote the National Capital Planning Commission to say the garage should be smaller and the station better integrated in the neighborhood.
“I’m picking a fight on this one because I think it sets a tone and will shape how our city will grow over the next 100 years,” Allen said in an interview.
Trueblood, who will play a leading role in crafting the city’s recommendation, said the District will be seeking a smaller garage.
“I do think the parking is very problematic,” Trueblood said. “This is a multimodal transit hub in the middle of a city. The primary way that people get around is not via private automobile.”
Admittedly, it’s hard to predict parking needs decades ahead. Nobody knows what the future will bring for autonomous vehicles, ride-hailing options and the quality of transit service.
“There’s not a more challenging time to predict the future than right now . . . regarding transportation,” said Beverley Swaim-Staley, president and chief executive of the Union Station Redevelopment Corp.
“We want to be sure we don’t preclude what’s needed” for parking, she said. But she added that the number of spaces “can be refined and reduced as we go through the design process.”
So even if you don’t call it a “war on cars,” it’s going to be harder to find a parking spot.