# General plan documents — alexandria-virginia Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading. **Contains 4 documents.** OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: area_plan_alexwest, area_plan_arlandria_chirilagua, area_plan_braddock_east, area_plan_braddock_metro_neighborhood, area_plan_braddock_road_metro_station, area_plan_eisenhower_east, area_plan_eisenhower_west, area_plan_fairlington_bradlee, area_plan_four_mile_run_restoration, area_plan_hunting_creek, area_plan_king_street_metro_eisenhower_avenue, area_plan_king_street_retail_strategy, area_plan_landmark_van_dorn, area_plan_landmark_van_dorn_corridor, area_plan_mount_vernon_avenue_business_area, area_plan_north_potomac_yard, area_plan_northeast, area_plan_northridge_rosemont, area_plan_oakville_triangle_route_1_corridor, area_plan_old_town, area_plan_old_town_north, area_plan_potomac_west, area_plan_potomac_yard_potomac_greens, area_plan_seminary_hill_strawberry_hill, area_plan_south_patrick_street_housing_affordability, area_plan_southwest_quadrant, area_plan_taylor_run_duke_street, area_plan_upper_potomac_west, area_plan_waterfront, chesapeake_bay_preservation, circulation, general_plan_demographics, general_plan_goals_and_objectives, green_building, historic_preservation, housing, land_use, open_space, recreation_plan, sanitary_sewer, urban_design, urban_forestry. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-09-14. --- ## Land Use — Land Use (adopted 1992 Master Plan), citywide chapter - Source: https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/CitywideChapters/1992MasterPlanLandUse.pdf - Pages: 16 - Covers: land_use # LAND USE Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 1. Amending the following sentence in the City's Master Plan wherever it occurs, as follows: "Areas of the city currently zoned residential should remain zoned for residential use ~~at no higher than their current density.~~" 2. References to low density will continue to refer to development configuration that limits overall building height and lot coverage compatible with the existing neighborhood. 3. Ensure race and social equity is "incorporated and centered in all planning" per City Council's Resolution 2974 including, but not limited to, all references to preserving and protecting neighborhoods and character. # ADOPTED 1992 MASTER PLAN # ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page # LAND USE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES One of the purposes of the Master Plan is to implement the following land use goals, objectives and policies: ## GOALS 1. To have a harmonious set of land uses that preserves the predominant character of Alexandria as a city of residential neighborhoods with a lively and attractive mix of commercial, institutional and community facilities, and recreational activity, and maintains an appropriate economic base. 2. To preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods. 3. To preserve and enhance the historic aspect of the city. 4. To preserve the residential and commercial diversity which has historically characterized Alexandria. 5. To preserve and increase parkland (for both active and passive uses) and open space throughout the city. ## OBJECTIVES 1. To promote mixed use development in most major development or redevelopment areas. 2. To maintain existing residential areas. 3. To ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent or nearby residential neighbor-hoods. 4. To maintain a mix of uses compatible with existing uses and pedestrian oriented scale. 5. To maintain existing mixed use areas and ensure that nearby development is complementary. 6. To require open space or parkland, particularly in nearby developing areas targeted for dense residential and commercial use. ## POLICIES 1. All new large scale development or redevelopment on parcels of 10 acres or more shall be residential or mixed use, and at densities that may be lower, but in no case higher, than allowed prior to the adoption of this plan, except where a small area plan determines that residential use is inappropriate. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page 2. In areas designated for mixed use development, development of parcels of 2 acres or more shall be residential or mixed use or shall contribute to achieving the mix desired in the area. 3. The dual use of public space shall be promoted, where appropriate, to encourage activity for longer periods each day. 4. Areas of the city currently zoned residential should remain zoned for residential use at no higher than their current density. 5. New development in or near the older areas of the city must be compatible with and provide for a transition in height, density, scale, and design from the old to the new. 6. The mixture of uses in new development must be compatible with nearby existing mixed use areas. 7. Development plans should make effective use of existing parkland and open space by site plan orientation, enhancement of existing stream beds and coordinated plazas. 8. The use of publicly-owned space should be periodically reassessed to determine if such space can be converted to parkland or open space use. 9. Land should be purchased for public use where no other reasonable alternatives exist to provide desirable parkland and open space. 10. Coordinated Development District development must include dedicated and protected parkland and/or open space. 11. Non-residential development adjacent to 1 or 2 family housing areas should be limited to low density, low scale (say 3 1/2 story) uses which are compatible with residential areas. Appropriate uses might include small-scale retail, townhouse office, or service establishments. 12. Non-residential development adjacent to medium density residential areas (townhouses and garden apartments) should be limited to moderately low density, moderate scale (say 50 feet) uses which are compatible with residential areas. Appropriate uses might include moderate scale retail and service establishments, small office buildings, and other with high performance standards. 13. Residential areas should be buffered, where possible, from high impact or potentially incompatible uses such as industry, high-impact retail or eating establishments. 14. Shopping centers and high-intensity commercial activity should be concentrated in a small number of relatively compact commercial areas. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page 15. Large scale and high density office concentrations should be limited to designated development potential areas where high density concentrations are appropriate and where the traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods are relatively limited. These concentrations should be limited to areas served by expressways or arterials and, preferably, by Metrorail. In all such areas, mixed use development should be promoted to limit the adverse impact of office-only development. in medium and high density areas where there is a tenuous balance between residential and office development a concerted effort should be made to maintain that balance and mixed use development will generally be preferred. 16. Industrial, wholesale, distribution and heavy service uses should be concentrated in industrial areas well located with respect to transportation facilities and well buffered from residential areas. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page OVERVIEW The way in which land is developed and used is critical to the quality of life in an urban area and to the local government's fiscal capacity to provide and maintain the infrastructure and services that are needed to support the uses of the land. The last major revision of the city's Master Plan was adopted in 1974. That plan recognized the potential impact of the Metrorail system, the growing problems of traffic congestion, the need for affordable housing, adequate recreational facilities and open space, the growing public concern with good urban design and the need to protect residential neighborhoods, historic areas and the natural environment. The Plan also recognized the need for Alexandria to remain economically competitive within the region and to develop employment opportunities for its residents. In consideration of these diverse needs, the Plan attempted to strike a balance between encouraging growth and development and protecting, stabilizing and improving residential areas. This balance was to be achieved by encouraging development in designated growth areas and by discouraging development in residential areas. To create more vibrant development areas and to lessen traffic impacts associated with new development, the Plan emphasized providing a mix of uses in the designated growth areas. These issues, raised and discussed in the 1974 Master Plan, continue to be of major issues of concern to Alexandrians. The Plan's approach toward addressing these concerns is still valid and provides a solid foundation upon which to base the 1990 Master Plan. However, the 1974 Plan needs to be updated and refined to reflect and respond to ever changing conditions and needs in a dynamic urban environment. This chapter documents some of the key land use and development changes which have affected the City over the past 15 years and discusses how the City might continue to change in the future based on economic and demographic projections. The chapter then discusses the strategies used in the Small Area Plans to implement the Goals, Objectives, and Policies adopted by City Council to guide the City's future development. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page CURRENT LAND USE The current uses of land in Alexandria are summarized in Table 1 on the basis of the geographical units used in the development of Small Area Plans. Table 1 1990 LAND USE BY SUBAREAS OF THE CITY (in acres) | | Res. | Com | Ind. | Inst | Parks | Vacant | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Alexandria West | 487.0 | 67.7 | 7.7 | 109.6 | 67.6 | 170.2 | | Braddock Road Metro | 63.6 | 16.6 | 41.0 | 12.7 | 8.5 | 12.6 | | Fairlington/Bradlee | 5.6 | 28.9 | 7.9 | 3.1 | | | | King Street/Eisenhower | 2.4 | 98.3 | 148.4 | 14.2 | 7.5 | 87.1 | | Landmark/Van Dorn | 273.3 | 189.1 | 304.6 | 178.1 | 4.3 | 74.1 | | Northeast | 43.0 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 5.1 | | North Ridge/Rosemont | 720.4 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 83.4 | 16.8 | 14.0 | | Old Town | 144.2 | 63.8 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 63.5 | 10.0 | | Old Town North | 39.1 | 61.0 | 27.9 | 7.2 | 3.4 | | | Potomac West | 808.9 | 75.5 | 68.0 | 1.2 | 100.4 | 30.0 | | Potomac Yard | 304.4 | 107.0 | | | | | | Seminary/Strawberry | 754.9 | 76.6 | 91.0 | 349.5 | 108.5 | 32.4 | | SW Quadrant | 62.3 | 19.6 | 55.5 | 26.2 | 9.2 | 7.3 | | Taylor Run/Duke St. | 347.7 | 20.6 | 70.7 | 71.1 | 35.4 | 17.6 | | | | | | | | | | Total | 3,752.4 | 727.0 | 1,144 | 867.8 | 537.5 | 466.9 | | | | | | | | | | Percent | 50% | 10% | 15% | 11% | 7% | 6% | Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development This table indicates that although the predominant land use in the City is residential the City and its neighborhoods are quite diverse. The table also shows that the City is mostly built up with only 6% of the land vacant and undeveloped. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SINCE 1974 Office Space In 1974, 390 acres of land were in commercial use. This had nearly doubled by 1990. Most of this growth has been in office buildings. More that 10 million square feet of office space has been built in the city since the early 1970s; over 5 million of this in the past 5 years. During the early part of this period–between 1970 and the mid-1980s--most of the large office buildings were built in or adjacent to the Central Business District or along Eisenhower Avenue. More recently large office buildings and multi-building office parks have been developed near *Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514* *Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page* the Metrorail stations, in close proximity to an 1-395 highway interchange, or on the north waterfront, which provides easy access to National Airport and the District of Columbia. Multi-building projects typically are developed in stages: The Carr-Norfolk Southern project, for example, is expected to take 20 years to reach completion. Table 2 LOCATION OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT 1974-1990 | | Gross Sq. Ft. | | :--- | :--- | | Alexandria West | 2,206,247 | | Braddock Road Metro | 474,054 | | Fairlington/Bradlee | 0 | | King Street/Eisenhower Avenue | 2,390,838 | | Landmark/Van Dom | 654,145 | | Northeast | 35,162 | | North Ridge/Rosemont | 198,280 | | Old Town | 1,533,707 | | Old Town North | 2,230,915 | | Potomac West | 77,488 | | Seminary/Strawberry | 115,835 | | S.W. Quadrant | 29,833 | | Taylor Run/Duke Street | 186,511 | | Total | 10,133,015 | | Note: | Includes all office buildings over 5.000 square feet. | Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development Table 3 MULTI-BUILDING OFFICE PROJECTS | Office | Year Project Completed | Sq. Ft. | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Braddock Center (1)(2) | 1986 | 322,950 | | Transpotomac Canal Center | 1987 | 546,883 | | King Street Station (2) | ongoing | 546,900 | | Roundhouse Square | 1979 | 104,083 | | Duke Street Station | 1986 | 182,345 | | Alexandria Tech Center (1) | ongoing | 346,000 | | Transpotomac Plaza | 1985 | 354,871 | | Mark Center Office Park | 1979 | 317,544 | | Mark Center (1) | ongoing | 715,000 | | Park Center (1) (2) | ongoing | 3,321,325 | | King Street Metroplace(1) | ongoing | 389,157 | | Carlyle(2) | ongoing | 2,800,000 | (1) Includes some planned space not built or under construction Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page (2) Total includes other uses; residential, retail and/or hotel Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development Chart 1 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT 1964-1989 Not available in online version Hotel Rooms The development of office space and the continuing decentralization of activities away from the core city of Washington have created new demands for hotel accommodations in Alexandria. Twelve hotels, with more than 2,200 guest rooms, have been built in the city since 1970. Table 4 NEW HOTELS 1970-1990 | | Rooms | | :--- | :--- | | Old Town Holiday Inn, 480 King Street | 220 | | Ramada Inn, 4641 Kenmore Avenue | 201 | | Executive Club, 500 Bashford Lane | 81 | | Madison Place, North St. Asaph Street | 248 | | Compri, 2700 Eisenhower Avenue | 176 | | Old Colony Inn, North Washington Street | 105 | | Morrison House, 116 South Alfred Street | 47 | | Ramada Inn, 901 North Fairfax Street | 254 | | Raddison Mark Plaza, 500 Seminary Road | 500 | | Rodeway Inn, 6254 Duke Street | 150 | | Days Inn, 110 South Bragg Street | 200 | | Bragg Towers, 99 South Bragg Street | 109 | | Total | 2,282 | Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page Retail Space New offices in Alexandria and the population growth in residential areas adjacent to the city have created a demand for retail space. Over 1 million square feet of new retail space has been built since 1974, including a 694,000 square foot expansion of the city's only regional shopping mall--Landmark Center--and the 147,500 square foot Hechinger Commons on Duke Street. Retail space has also been provided on the ground floor of many of the city's new office buildings, and over 365,000 square feet of retail space is expected to be built as a part of the Carr-Norfolk Southern development. Industrial Uses The use of land for industrial purposes declined by 20% between 1974 and 1990. There were 1,180 acres of industrially-used land in 1974; only 947 in 1990. The industrial uses that dominated the north waterfront have been replaced by office and residential uses. Industrial uses are also disappearing from Cameron Valley as land costs in that area increase and from the areas adjacent to the south end of Potomac Yard that were but up by businesses that required rail-road access. Little new industrial development has occurred in the city since 1974, although some 130 acres have been developed for warehouse uses, principally on Wheeler and Eisenhower Avenues and on the former Fruit Growers Express Company property south of Duke Street. Residential Between the early 1970s and 1990, the number of housing units in the City increased by over 30 percent; 11,400 units have been built since 1974 resulting in an estimated 58,000 units in the housing stock in 1990. Table 5 HOUSING UNITS | 1970 | 1975 | 1980 | 1985 | 1990 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 44,424 | 51,161 | 52,041 | 55,989 | 57,996 | Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Alexandria Dept. of Planning and Community Development Although, on average 712 new units have been added to the stock annually since 1974 housing construction in Alexandria has been highly cyclical. As Chart 2 illustrates, housing booms occurred in the early 1970's, reaching over 3,000 units in one year, and again in the late 1980's, reaching over 1,700 units in one year. Over three-fourths of the housing built in the city since 1974 has been located west of Quaker Lane. Most of the 8,700 new units in that area were mid and highrise apartments/condominiums, with some town-houses. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page Chart 2 RESIDENTIAL PERMITS AUTHORIZED 1970-1989 Not available in online version Although the number of single family homes built each year has remained relatively constant, single family homes have consistently fallen as a percentage of the city's housing stock. While in 1970, 39 percent of the housing stock was single family homes, by 1985, less than a third of the housing in the city was single family units. In the future, given increased land costs. it is likely that an even greater share of the new housing will be multi-family. The character of multi-family residential construction has and will also change. Prior to 1970, two-thirds of all apartments in Alexandria were garden apartments. Increasingly, multi-family residential development has been in midrise or highrise buildings at much higher densities. LAND USE DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 1990 As part of the region's Cooperative Forecasts, each jurisdictional member of the Washington Area Council of Governments (COG) submits to COG growth forecasts for employment, households and population. For Alexandria, these forecasts were based on the amount and zoning of vacant and redevelopable land, announced development plans, and an office market study provided by Hammer, Slier George & Associates. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page Zoning of Vacant and Redevelopable Land About 97 percent of the 1,100 acres of vacant and redevelopable land in the City is zoned for commercial development. Given the existing zoning of these sites, 128 million square feet of commercial development could be built in the City. Most of this land is located in the Alexandria West, Landmark/Van Dorn, King Street / Eisenhower Avenue and Potomac Yard. Table 6 ZONING OF MAJOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VACANT/REDEVELOPABLE SITES Land Area | Zone Class | Vacant (Acres) | Redevelopable (Acres) | Total Vacant and Redevelopable (Acres) | Off.Potential Current Zoning (Millions Sq.Ft.) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | C-2 | 120.3 | 21.0 | 141.3 | 18.4 | | C-2-B' | 12.5 | 2.5 | 15.0 | 1.9 | | C-3 | | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | | C-0 | 67.0 | | 67.0 | 5.8 | | 1-1 | 9.9 | 247.3 | 257.2 | 28.0 | | 1-2 | 56.7 | 448.5 | 505.2 | 65.9 | | M-1 | - | 4.4 | 4.4 | 0.6 | | M-3 | 3.9 | 36.8 | 40.7 | 6.2 | | W-1 | | 7.5 | 7.5 | .8 | | Total | 270.3 | 768.5 | 1,038.8 | 127.7 | Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development The vacant and redevelopable land that is zoned for residential development is less than 40 acres, which at a maximum, could be developed for about 1,700 units. Although residential development could theoretically occur on most of the commercially-zoned parcels, the densities allowed for commercial uses in a commercial zone is far greater than that allowed for residential uses. In effect, Alexandria's zoning and its relationship to vacant and underutilized land subject to redevelopment reveals the enormous bias of the zoning code toward high density office development and the potential to develop office levels which exceed by a factor of two all the office development experienced by the city so far in its history. As will be discussed below, the market demand for even a tenth of this potential office space on developable commercially-zoned land will probably not occur in 20 years or, for that matter, in a century. Employment Forecasts The employment forecasts are largely based on the growth of office employment in the City Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page projected in the Hammer, Siler, George & Associates market analysis. The consultant concluded that the marketplace would absorb from 931,000 to 1,019,000 square feet of office space between 1988 and 1994 and from 611,000 to 749,000 square feet between 1994 and 2005. This is less than the annual rate of 1 million square feet needed in the mid-1980s, and reflects a projected reduction in the total regional demand for this type of space. Alexandria's share of the regional demand is, however, expected to increase from 5% in 1988 to 8% between 1995 and 2005. The projected demand for office space in Alexandria in the period from 1988 to 2005 is 13.6 million square feet. This is, of course, much less than the 128 million square feet possible under the present zoning ordinance. Based on the data developed during the Hammer study. it is concluded that the more restrictive zoning provisions now under consideration will not adversely affect the city's economic base. The bulk of the new office space will be located in identifiable major growth areas. These are: o King Street/Eisenhower Avenue. This area has excellent access to 2 Metrorail stations and the Capital Beltway. Over 2.8 million square feet of office space is planned for the Carlyle mixed use development. Other large development sites include the Hoffman property and Cameron Center. o Potomac Yard. Plans are being developed by the owner of Potomac Yard to curtail railroad operations and build a mixed use project that would contain a substantial proportion of office space. It is, however, unlikely that the city can permit development on the massive scale envisioned by the developers because of the potential traffic impact. o West End of Cameron Valley. Development will occur around the new Van Dorn Metro station, which is scheduled to open in 1991. o Alexandria West. Large potential development sites, with access to 1-395, are located in the West End north of 1-395. These include the Winkler properties, with 100 acres still undeveloped, and the Stone tract. Based on an average office density of 3.5 employees per 1000 square feet of space, the 14 million square feet of projected office development would result in an additional 49,000 office employees in the City by 2010. On the other hand, as commercial development displaces industrial uses , industrial employment will decrease. The table reflects employment projections in five year increments for each major section of the City. Table 7 EMPLOYMENT, 1990-2005 | Area | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | East & South of the RR | 47,300 | 56,600 | 64,600 | 73,100 | | Between RR & Quaker Lane | 10,400 | 10,200 | 10,900 | 11,500 | | West & North of the RR | 39,604 | 40,500 | 46,800 | 50,700 | | Total | 97,300 | 107,300 | 122.300 | 135,300 | Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page Housing The number of housing units in Alexandria is forecasted to increase by 28% between 1990 and 2010. By the later year there could be 74,400 housing units in the City. Table 8 PROJECTED GROWTH IN HOUSING UNITS | | 12922 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | %Change 1990-2010 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | East of RR | 10,100 | 12,900 | 15,600 | 17,400 | 19,200 | 90% | | Between RR/Quaker | 16,900 | 17,400 | 18,100 | 18,200 | 18,300 | 8% | | West of Quaker | 31.000 | 33.100 | 34,000 | 36,300 | 30,900 | 19% | | | | | | | | | | Total | 58,000 | 63,400 | 67,700 | 71,900 | 74,400 | 28% | Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development The area east of the tracks is predicted to have the greatest growth in housing units. The 90% growth in housing units forecasted for this area can be attributed to two mixed use developments, the Carlyle development that is approved for the King Street/Eisenhower Avenue area and the proposed Alexandria 2020 project in the Potomac Yard area. Townhouses and apartments will be typical of new residential development throughout Alexandria. In this mix, apartments will predominate, although a small number of detached houses will be built in areas such as North Ridge/Rosemont and Taylor Run/Duke Street where detached houses are characteristic. Of the approximately 2,300 housing units under construction in 1990, 78% were apartments and nearly all of the rest were townhouses. These medium and high density forms of housing will continue to be the norm in Alexandria as long as land remains expensive and scarce. Population Residential development will increase the City's population. Housing is forecasted to grow by 16,400 units, reaching 74,400 units in 2010. These units could house 72,000 households with an average house-hold size of 1.86 people and a vacancy factor of 3.5% Based on the forecasts the City's population would grow to 135,000 by 2010 or by 22%. The population east of the railroad tracks is projected to grow by 7% between 1990 and 2010. This population increase is based on an estimated 6,200 people residing in the Potomac Yard's 2020 project by 2010 and 5,300 people residing in Cameron Valley's new housing at Mill Race, Carlyle and other sites. Neither the Potomac Yard nor Cameron Valley had any residents in 1990. The Braddock Road area is also an area with new housing and a growing population which is forecasted to increase by 1,900 people. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page In absolute numbers, the area west of Quaker Lane will grow almost as much as the area east of the railroad tracks. Mixed use projects on large sites such as the Stone Tract in Alexandria West and Cameron Station in the Landmark/Van Dorn area will add thousands of housing units and people. Smaller projects such as Breckenridge Place and Skypointe in Alexandria West would also contribute to the West End's growth over the next 20 years. Table 9 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH | Area | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | % Change 1990-2010 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | E. of RR | 18,300 | 23,600 | 27,100 | 29,800 | 32,200 | 76% | | Between RR/Quaker | 35,100 | 35,700 | 36,700 | 36,400 | 36,200 | 3% | | W. of Quaker | 56,100 | 59,300 | 60,400 | 64,000 | 64,900 | 16% | | | | | | | | | | Sub-Total | 109,500 | 118,600 | 124,200 | 130,200 | 133,300 | 22% | | | | | | | | | | Institutional | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1.700 | 1.700 | 0% | | | | | | | | | | Total | 112,200 | 120,300 | 125,900 | 131,900 | 135,000 | 21% | Source: Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development SMALL AREA PLANS The analysis of development trends and the forecasts indicate that the City has grown and changed enormously over the past 15 years and that these trends will continue for the foreseeable future. Some 49,000 additional jobs and some 23,000 additional people are forecasted to live or work in the City by 2010. The analysis also reveals that current zoning of vacant and redevelopable land in the City allows far more commercial development than could ever be absorbed by market demand, ever be accommodated by City facilities and services and ever be tolerated by Alexandria citizens. Clearly, an updated and revised land use plan and new zoning are needed to meet the challenge of economic growth, to guide future development and to implement the City's land use policies, goals and objectives. The City has chosen to use small area planning as an integral part of the Master Plan process to guide the City's future development. The intent of the 14 small area plans is to provide the analytical base for de-tailed land use recommendations affecting each of the City's neighborhoods and development areas. The small area plans also form the basis for changes in the zoning code needed to insure that zoning is consistent with the small area plans and the City's land use policies. To implement the goals, objectives and policies adopted by the City and listed at the beginning of this chapter the small area plans employ the following strategies; Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page 1. Existing residential land uses, in all its forms, and with few exceptions, are to be preserved. 2. Residential neighborhoods are to be protected from major new development by providing transitional uses, heights and densities between low scale residential uses and higher scaled and more intense commercial uses. 3. Regional, community and neighborhood shopping and retail uses vital to serving residential areas are to be preserved, revitalized and protected from higher density office development. 4. Areas designated for parks and recreation are to be preserved and protected from development encroachment. 5. Areas providing public facilities and public utilities are to be preserved and protected from development encroachment. 6. Private institutional uses in residential areas such as places of religion and schools, should be preserved or if not longer viable, should revert to residential uses compatible with adjacent areas. 7. Viable industrial areas that contribute to the City's economic diversity and varied employment base and provide needed services are to be maintained and protected from significant office development and redevelopment. 8. Major development is to be directed away from existing low scaled residential areas and encouraged on areas designated for development. 9. High density office development is to be limited to sites that are located within convenient walking distance to a transit station and to a high capacity roadway system. 10. High density but lower scaled mixed use development is to be permitted within the Old and Historic Alexandria District and central business district consistent with the character of this built-up urban area and subject to review by the city. 11. Mixed use development is to be encouraged in all areas where coordinated development on relatively large tracks of vacant or redevelopable land is desired and on smaller sites where mixed use development can be used to mitigate development impacts on adjacent residential areas. 12. Large tracts of land whose development could have a major impact on adjacent areas are to be designated as Coordinated Development Districts (CDDs). CDD areas are to be developed for a mix of uses in accord with an overall concept plan and subject to urban design guidelines, a comprehensive amenity plan, an affordable housing plan and a transportation management plan. Amended 12/16/23, Ordinance 5514 Please refer to Notes 1, 2, and 3 on title page ZONING To implement the Small Area Plans new zoning tools are needed. The present zoning ordinance, adopted in 1951 and since amended many times, contains 11 residential zones, 3 broad-based commercial zones, 2 industrial zones, and 5 specialized zones related to the Metrorail stations, the waterfront, and recreational uses. It served the city adequately until the demand for large quantities of office space and their supporting facilities, such as hotels, arose in the late 1970s and 1980s. Concurrently with the revision of the policy sections of its Master Plan, the city has been preparing, in close consultation with property owners and civic groups, a series of Small Area Plans that look at specific areas of Alexandria in terms of how those areas should hereafter develop in order to carry out the land use goals, objectives, and policies. As the Small Area Plans have gone through the processes of drafting, meetings with citizens, pubic hearings before the planning commission and city council, and adoption, it has been clearly evident that the zoning classifications and regulations of the past, however much they have been amended, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of the 1990s and beyond. In brief, what is needed is not another series of amendments, but a complete revision of the zoning ordinance. To meet this situation, City Council appointed a citizen task force to prepare a new zoning ordinance designed to implement the City's land use goals, objectives, and policies. The new zoning ordinance must be, and is, based firmly upon this Master Plan. And, as it protects the City's residential areas from intrusions that affect them adversely, directs the growth of non-residential development to the degree that it can be accommodated by the City's infrastructure, and encourages the building of mixed use projects, it must also--and will--protect the legitimate interests of the owners of vacant and redevelopable land to the greatest extent possible. --- ## Circulation — Alexandria Mobility Plan (2021), citywide chapter of the Master Plan - Source: https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/CitywideChapters/AlexandriaMobilityPlanCurrent.pdf - Pages: 289 - Covers: circulation - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # Executive Summary ## Overview The Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP), a strategic update to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, focuses on expanding high-quality transportation choices so transportation in the city continues to serve the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors as the region grows and new technology impacts the ways we get around. The community-driven planning process raised several priorities including reducing congestion, improving transit, cut-through traffic, and making the transportation system safer. This input informed a set of recommendations that will address these needs and improve access to safe and convenient travel choices for all Alexandria. <
> ## Vision **Safe, seamless, and connected mobility options foster a thriving Alexandria for all.** ## Guiding Principles **All components of the AMP will advance the vision and guiding principles, which work together to improve transportation choices and ACCESS in Alexandria.** * **Accessible** * **Connected** * **Convenient** * **Equitable** * **Safe** * **Sustainable** # Plan Chapters * *Transit* * *Smart Mobility* * *Streets* * *Pedestrian and Bicycle* * *Supporting Travel Options* * *Curb Space and Parking* <
> # Why update the AMP? * Accommodate local and regional population and job growth * Prepare for new mobility options and emerging technology * Promote environmental responsibility * Enhance the focus on equity # The AMP will improve access to safe and convenient travel choices. ## The plan commits the City to: * Apply an early and ongoing equity focus to all aspects of City projects, initiatives, programs, and services from conception through implementation * Be proactive and data-driven in decision-making * Make our transportation network flexible and adaptable to factors such as climate change, pandemics, and technological advancements * Develop partnerships that advance shared goals to serve the community # Policies and Strategies The AMP contains policies and strategies that seek to improve and expand access to transportation choices and key destinations throughout Alexandria. In addition to the policies and strategies listed here, the full draft plan includes specific actions that the City will take to advance the implementation of these strategies. <
> ## Transit ### Policies **A. Make transit greener and more useful:** Build out a fast and reliable all-day transit network with frequent service that runs on electric buses and serves the entire city, with a focus on areas that will benefit the most Alexandrians, businesses, employees, customers, and visitors. **B. Make transit easier to use:** Increase transportation choices by reducing or eliminating barriers to taking transit. ### Strategies 1. Implement a citywide transit network with frequent, all-day service. 2. Build out the city's priority transitway corridors and identify improvements on congested, high-ridership corridors to reduce travel times and improve reliability. 3. Transition the City's bus fleet to fully electric, zero-emission vehicles. 4. Improve the rider experience from trip planning, to accessing the stop, riding the bus, and arriving at the destination. 5. Evaluate DASH's fare free service and continue to explore low-income WMATA fares. 6. Support a better connected regional transit network. 7. Modernize the paratransit program for the city's aging population. ## Advancing Transportation Equity The strategies in the AMP will work to review transit fare policy to ensure transit access for people of all means, use data to ensure that resources are distributed equitably, add more frequent, all-day bus service citywide (particularly in the West End), and create curb space policies to ensure greater access for persons with limited mobility. <
> # Smart Mobility ### Policies **A. *Improve safety and efficiency:* ** Use technology to manage congestion for safe and efficient city streets and protect the character of neighborhoods. **B. *Prepare for new technology:* ** Plan proactively and flexibly to ensure cost-effective investment in technology that can improve travel choices. ### Strategies 1. Expand smart signal technology to enable detection and real-time signal adjustments. 2. Strategically invest in partnerships to expand City data, technology, and communications capabilities. 3. Upgrade capabilities of the Traffic Management Center to better manage congestion in real-time. 4. Proactively prepare for connected and autonomous vehicles. 5. Develop a framework for pilot projects to test new modes, infrastructure, or initiatives. <
> ### Promoting Choices The AMP promotes choice through strategies that will: * Make non-auto travel options more efficient and convenient so you can use them for everyday trips * Deploy technology to enable you to make more informed travel choices based on what is fastest or easiest * Provide new travel choices such as ferries # Reducing Congestion and Cut-Through Traffic The strategies in the AMP will work to expand use of smart signals to improve traffic flow, mitigate impacts of cut-through traffic on local streets, promote partnerships to support continued telework and flexible work schedules, support more frequent and efficient bus service to attract ridership and reduce traffic, and much more. <
> ## Streets ### Policies **A. Protect neighborhoods from cut-through traffic:** Reduce cut-through traffic burdening City neighborhoods. **B. Achieve Vision Zero:** Use data to eliminate traffic-related deaths and serious injuries by 2028. **C. Leverage smart mobility:** Recognizing that driving is important in the City, use Smart Mobility to manage congestion and neighborhood safety. ### Strategies **1.** Implement the Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2028. **2.** Develop a comprehensive program to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on local streets. **3.** Ensure new development minimizes negative impacts to the street network. **4.** Work with regional, state, and private sector partners to develop tools to keep traffic on highways and reduce regional cut-through traffic. **5.** Consider the use of speed cameras and other automated tools to improve safety. **6.** Maintain a state of good repair for our streets using a proactive, data-driven, and equitable approach. <
> <
> # Pedestrian and Bicycle ### Policies **A. Prioritize safety:** Focus on vulnerable street user crashes to help achieve Vision Zero. **B. Address network gaps:** Complete pedestrian and bicycle networks equitably and cost-effectively. ### Strategies 1. Create a safe, well-maintained, and comfortable walking and bicycling environment. 2. Build out a continuous, connected, and accessible pedestrian network that enables people of all ages and abilities to move safely and comfortably. 3. Build out a connected bicycle network of both on- and off-street facilities to benefit cyclists of all ages and abilities. 4. Upgrade or install infrastructure that increases the accessibility of City streets and public spaces for people of all ages and abilities. 5. Educate all street users about safety and traffic laws. <
> # Supporting Travel Options **Policies** **A. Enhance choice:** Make it easier for more people to choose an alternative to driving alone. **B. Promote work flexibility:** Encourage continued telework and flexible schedules to reduce congestion and emissions. **C. Focus on all trips:** Shift non-commute trips away from driving alone. **Strategies** **1.** Use information, programs, and encouragement to make it easier for residents and workers to choose options other than driving alone. **2.** Use the Potomac River to expand transportation options. **3.** Create mobility hubs. **4.** Pursue regional approaches to reduce traffic and congestion, particularly during peak times. # Curb Space and Parking **Policies** **A. Connect parking policy to City goals:** Achieve broader City goals related to sustainability, congestion, and housing affordability through parking. **B. Ensure parking availability:** Seek to maintain parking availability in the city’s residential and commercial districts, recognizing that some people may need to walk a short distance to their destination. **C. Promote equitable allocation of curb space:** Treat all curb space as a public asset that should be allocated in an equitable manner for its highest and best use, appropriate for the specific location, time of day, and time of year. **Strategies** **1.** Implement a prioritization framework for making changes to curb space. **2.** Consider pricing, regulation, data, and communications to manage parking availability. **3.** Reconsider parking requirements in new developments. **4.** Promote electric vehicle charging opportunities. # AMP Outcomes Together, the elements of the plan will lead to tangible and measurable progress towards achieving the plan’s vision, guiding principles, and citywide goals to improve not just transportation, but also equity and quality of life. * Increased access to high-quality transportation choices for all Alexandrians * More and easier connections to jobs, opportunities, and community destinations * Better overall experience traveling around the city * Reduced number and severity of crashes * Increase in non single-occupant vehicle travel Equitable outcomes for all Alexandrians, especially neighborhoods and populations that have been historically underserved # How will the AMP help the City? * Serves as a work plan for staff to improve mobility choices in the community * Establishes metrics and targets to promote accountability * Guides transportation decision-making * Promotes flexibility to adapt to new ideas, technologies, and trends * Provides a foundation for securing funding to advance existing plans and new projects <
> # Alexandria Mobility Plan October 2021 <
> # Alexandria Mobility Plan # Acknowledgments The development of the Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP) would not be possible without the contributions from many individuals and organizations. The City thanks you for your dedication to the AMP development process. ### City of Alexandria **Alexandria City Council** Mayor Justin M. Wilson Vice Mayor Elizabeth B. Bennett-Parker Councilman Canek Aguirre Councilman John Taylor Chapman Councilwoman Amy B. Jackson Councilwoman Redella S. “Del” Pepper Councilman Mohamed E. “Mo” Seifeldein **City Manager’s Office** City Manager Mark Jinks Deputy City Manager Emily Baker Jaqueline Tucker, Race and Social Equity Officer **Department of General Services** Bill Eger **Department of Planning and Zoning** Karl Moritz Jeff Farner Carrie Beach Jose C. Ayala Margaret Curran **Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities** Jack Browand Dana Wedeles **Department of Transportation and Environmental Services** Yon Lambert Hillary Orr Christopher Ziemann Jennifer Slesinger, AMP Project Manager William Skrabak Bob Garbacz Katye North Alex Block Christine Mayeur Alex Carroll Thomas Hamed Christie Holland Renee Moore Megan Oleynik Mark Schnauffer Ellen Eggerton Elizabeth Jones Camila Olivares Steve Sindiong Lalit Sharma Brian Dofflemyer **Office of Performance Analytics** Greg Useem Matthew Williams **Alexandria Transit Company (DASH)** Martin Barna Josh Baker **Department of Community and Human Services** Kate Garvey Sadina Vanison **Office of Communications and Public Information** Justin Thompson **Department of Information Technology Services** Vanette Pledger Patrick Eze Steven Chozick James Bryant **Alexandria Fire Department** Michael Cross **Alexandria Police Department** Mike May ### Alexandria Mobility Plan Advisory Committee **Transportation Commission:** Alyia Gaskins Jeffrey Bennett, West of Quaker Lawrence Chambers, DASH Board John Goebel, Planning Commission Oscar Gonzalez, East of Quaker Casey Kane, Traffic and Parking Board Bruce Marsh, East of Quaker Melissa McMahon, Planning Commission William Pugh, Environmental Policy Commission Councilman Canek Aguirre Councilman John Taylor Chapman **Other:** Debby Critchley, West End Business Association Maria Ciarrocchi, Alexandria Chamber of Commerce Bill Rossello, Federation of Civic Associations Jeffrey Poole, Alexandria Commission of Persons with Disabilities ### Community Champions Alexandria Chamber of Commerce Alexandria City Public Schools Alexandria Economic Development Partnership Alexandria Housing Development Corporation Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority Alive! Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Carpenter Shelter Casa Chirilagua Commission on Aging - Transportation Committee Commission on Persons with Disabilities Community Lodgings Del Ray Business Association Eisenhower Partnership Ethiopian Business Association Federation of Civic Associations Homes for America (Brent Place) Hopkins House Tenants and Workers United Volunteer Alexandria West End Business Association West End Coalition YMCA ### Consultant Team Kimley-Horn Toole Design Group NeoNiche Strategies Adam Cohen Susan Shaheen *** # Contents ### Overview **Transit** The Transit chapter focuses on making transit more customer-friendly, reliable, and efficient to better serve existing customers and attract new ones. **Smart Mobility** The Smart Mobility chapter focuses on how the City can incorporate technology into the transportation network to better manage traffic. **Streets** The Streets chapter seeks to identify ways to make City streets function better for all users, with the goal of making the street network more efficient and safer. **Pedestrian and Bicycle** The Pedestrian and Bicycle chapter reflects the integration of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016 into the format of the AMP, while continuing to track progress since 2016 and highlighting the remaining priorities. **Supporting Travel Options** The Supporting Travel Options chapter focuses on how the City can support alternatives to driving alone through information, incentives, partnerships, and policies. **Curb Space and Parking** The Curb Space and Parking chapter focuses on how the City can use parking to help achieve its goals and manage competing demands for limited curb space. ### Moving Forward Appendix I: Implementation Appendix II: Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators Appendix III-A: Civic Engagement Process Summary Appendix III-B: Civic Engagement Findings Summary <
> We are excited to share the draft Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP) with you. As a growing city with a constrained street network, we face difficult challenges when it comes to how we move. The AMP puts Alexandria in a strong position to address our transportation challenges now and into the future by focusing on choice and giving you more and better choices for getting you where you want to go. An intentional effort for consistency between the visions of related plans, such as the City Strategic Plan, City Master Plan, and Environmental Action Plan, ensures we are meaningfully working toward citywide goals to support overall livability, equity, quality of life, and mobility for the community. This plan was developed during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which dramatically changed travel patterns and the way we live our lives. The AMP recognizes that there will always be unknowns and that the City must seek to understand potential scenarios and plan for flexibility, adaptation, and resilience. **Yon Lambert, AICP** Director, Department of Transportation and Environmental Services The process to update and modernize the 2008 Transportation Master Plan led to thousands of interactions with Alexandrians from all backgrounds and neighborhoods, informing and educating us on community experiences, needs, and aspirations for the future of mobility. Overwhelmingly, we heard from you about the need to manage congestion and cut-through traffic, improve public transit, and make streets safe for all users. The AMP includes policies and strategies to mitigate the effects of regional traffic on our streets, make transit more convenient and accessible, consider all types of travelers from all parts of the community when designing our services and our streets—all in a way that promotes access and equity, getting you where you need to go safely and efficiently no matter which mode of transportation you use. The release of the draft AMP does not mark the end of our collaboration. The advancement of the AMP, its policies, and its strategies in the years to come will require continued partnership with the community. With a shared vision and direction, we will work to meet our needs together with strategic decisions that will affect mobility in the city over the next decade. **Melissa McMahon** Chair, Transportation Commission ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Setting the Stage The Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP) is a strategic update to the City’s 2008 Transportation Master Plan. By using the term “mobility,” this update emphasizes the importance of providing useful options to allow people to have the freedom to choose how to get around. The AMP is not a list of specific projects such as the Capital Improvement Plan or mode-specific plans[^p12-1]; instead, it lays out the policies and strategies that will guide transportation decisions for the next 10 years in pursuit of enhanced quality of life, sustainability, and equity, centered around the concept of choice. ## Mobility vs. Transportation On its most basic level, **transportation** is the simple act of moving people or goods from one location to another. Streets, sidewalks, buses, and trains are examples of infrastructure and options that help facilitate transportation, the existence of which alone does not equal mobility. **Mobility** is about freedom of movement and having access to many transportation options that work for you, as well as the quality of those options to give you the ability to get you where you need to go. To have mobility is to be able to safely and affordably get to the resources that enable a fulfilling and healthy life—jobs, school, grocery store, doctors’ office, pharmacy, daycare, community centers, parks, and more. <
> [^p12-1]: https://www.alexandriava.gov/TransportationPlanning. # Accomplishments Since 2008 The City has made great strides in realizing the vision of the 2008 Transportation Master Plan in the years since its adoption.[^p13-2] ### 2008 Transportation Master Plan Actions and Strategies | Transit Concept Plan | Complete | Ongoing | Started | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | T1. Public outreach to educate and determine where the greatest support lies for implementation | ⌾ | | | | T2. Coordination with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure integration with existing transit services and future regional connections | | ⌾ | | | T3. Prioritize transit corridors for investment | ⌾ | | | | T4. Develop corridor-specific plans for dedicated transit lanes, ensuring new developments do not preclude dedicated transit lanes | ⌾ | | | | T5. Identify locations for smart stations that will serve both the new system and existing transportation modes | ⌾ | | | | T6. Ensure that development and redevelopment does not preclude efforts to expand public transit infrastructure | | ⌾ | | | T7. Identify specific transit mode technology and newest techniques best suited for transit corridors and for the system as a whole | ⌾ | | | | T8. Integrate existing DASH bus service with new transit system elements for DASH to serve as a high-frequency feeder system | | ⌾ | | | T9. Incorporate traffic signal priority, traffic circulation changes, pedestrian and other on-street enhancements | | ⌾ | | | T10. Create TMPs, Transit Overlay Zoning Districts, Parking Management Zones, etc. to coordinate efforts to support the system | ⌾ | | | | T11. Investigate potential funding available through existing, new, and innovative revenue sources | | ⌾ | | | T12. Develop extensive public outreach and marketing campaign to energize the citizenry around Alexandria’s transportation future | ⌾ | | | | T13. Coordinate with pertinent Boards and Commissions to ensure that the special transportation needs of all citizens are considered | ⌾ | | | [^p13-2]: The 2008 Transportation Master Plan’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Concept Plans have been superseded by the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016 to reflect changes that have occurred since 2008, including the Complete Streets policy, Capital Bikeshare program, and on-street bicycle facilities. The most recent biennial progress reports of project implementation can be found here. ### 2008 Transportation Master Plan Actions and Strategies | Streets Actions and Strategies | Complete | Ongoing | Started | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | S1. Ensure that streets safely accommodate all users | | | ⌾ | | S2. Formally develop and adopt a “Complete Streets” Policy | ⌾ | | | | S3. Develop new and enhance existing education programs to market and educate the public on travel demand management (TDM) strategies | | | ⌾ | | S4. Improve mobility through development of a comprehensive policy for incorporating technology into transportation infrastructure | | | ⌾ | | S5. Improve safety at signalized intersections | | | ⌾ | | S6. Focus on improvements to natural and human environment, preservation of historic resources, and creation of enjoyable public street spaces | | | ⌾ | | S7. Develop a comprehensive design manual for City streetscape | ⌾ | | | | S8. Explore opportunities to enhance the use of HOV lanes for periods of peak travel demand | | | ⌾ | | Parking Actions and Strategies | Complete | Ongoing | Started | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | P1. Complete a comprehensive study of City parking supply, demand, and parking policies | ⌾ | | | | P2. Develop and implement guidelines and requirements for transit-oriented development (TOD) including max parking ratios, unbundled parking, and parking cash-out programs | | | ⌾ | | P3. Ensure parking availability within the City’s commercial, residential, and tourist districts through the development of a curb space management program | | | ⌾ | | P4. Implement policies to discourage the development of surface parking lots | ⌾ | | | | P5. Increase the use of information technology to provide real-time parking location and availability information | | | ⌾ | | P6. Educate the property development and management community about unbundling parking from building leases | | | ⌾ | | P7. Seek parking and transit solutions to minimize, if not eliminate, tour bus traffic in the residential areas of Old Town Alexandria | ⌾ | | | <
> 1. The Route 1 Metroway between Alexandria and Arlington opened in 2014 and provides bus rapid transit (BRT)-style service with bus-only lanes along much of its route. 2. Alexandria’s Complete Streets Policy was adopted in 2011, and along with subsequent design guidelines and Vision Zero efforts, helps guide street improvements that enhance safety for all users. 3. Construction on the new Potomac Yard Metrorail Station between National Airport and Braddock Road on the Blue and Yellow lines began in 2019. # Shaping the Plan: Trends in Mobility Several major forces are shaping how Alexandria is planning for its mobility needs now and into the next decade. * Among the AMP’s core components is a recognition that not everyone who needs to travel in Alexandria has the same means, ability, or schedule * Population and employment growth both locally and across the region require that the City manage demand on local streets and provide a range of options for getting around to keep Alexandria a desirable place to live, work, and visit * Goals, targets, and actions of the Environmental Action Plan require that the City seek to minimize the carbon footprint of the transportation sector in light of the Climate Emergency declared by City Council * Emerging technology related to monitoring traffic, new ways to get around, and data sharing provides new opportunities for addressing our mobility needs The COVID-19 pandemic, which was a prominent influence during the bulk of the AMP planning process, is likely to have many long-term impacts to transportation and mobility, such as increased rates of telework and more trips that occur outside of the traditional morning and evening rush hour. Despite this, it will continue to be important for cities to provide a wide range of mobility options, especially to ensure equity for their essential workers who do not have the luxury of telework and more often rely on public transit and other non-motorized modes of transportation. By focusing more on all-day trip-making, this plan is preparing the City for a likely “new normal” with less drastic differences between peak and off-peak travel. # Planning for All Alexandria is a diverse community with diverse needs It is important that the City meet the needs of the Alexandria community, with intentional and focused attention to historically under-resourced communities to overcome existing disparities and achieve transportation equity. Of Alexandria’s citywide population: * 16% of households have limited English proficiency * 9% of households have no vehicle available * 11% are aged 65 or older * 7% identify as having a disability * 33% are persons of color * 10% are below the poverty line Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau Much of the transit network in the region—one of the major methods of combating traffic congestion—is centered around serving the commuting needs of 9-to-5 workers bound for the District of Columbia. Alexandria, however, has a significant population of workers with nontraditional work schedules who commute outside of the typical “rush hour.” Alexandria also has a sizeable population that does not have access to a car for work or nonwork trips that occur off-peak, when public transit is running less frequently or not at all. <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # A Growing Region ## Alexandria plans for growth in transit-rich locations In Alexandria and the region, residential population growth has been about 1.5% per year since 2010. This growth rate is expected to continue through 2030. Employment in Alexandria is forecasted to increase 1% per year through 2030. The City routinely updates its Small Area Plans for specific neighborhoods that are anticipating growth and redevelopment. These community-driven plans outline neighborhood visions and provide guidance on levels and types of development. These planning efforts result in a concentration of diverse land uses and development density that will have access to existing and planned high-capacity transit hubs and corridors such as Metrorail stations and bus rapid transit (BRT) lines. This will minimize the impact of new development on the street network, create opportunities for people to move using different travel choices, and improve connections for both drivers and non-drivers. <
> Major employers are choosing Alexandria for their growth and expansion, most notably in Potomac Yard and Oakville Triangle, near both the Route 1 Metroway corridor and the Potomac Yard Metrorail station, and at the former Landmark Mall site near both the Van Dorn Metrorail station and the planned West End Transitway corridor. *Small Area Plans and Planned Development* <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | ↔ | Existing Metroway | Ⓜ Existing Metrorail Station | | ↔ | Proposed BRT Lines | Ⓜ Future Metrorail Station | | — | Metrorail Line | Color-Shaded Areas Indicate Locations of Small Area Plans or Planned Development | # Transportation and the Environment Transportation is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the region, most notably due to the use of private automobiles[^p16-3] Transitioning to an electric vehicle fleet is a major way to reduce the environmental impact of the transportation sector, particularly as the electric energy sector transitions to renewable energy. However, electric vehicles still present many of the adverse effects and risks of traditional vehicles, such as the need for costly, space-intensive, and environmentally unfriendly parking structures, traffic congestion, crashes, non-tailpipe pollution, high personal or household financial costs, and inequitable access. 42% of regional GHG emissions are from transportation and 60% of those are from passenger cars and trucks 0.5% of cars in Alexandria are electric Alexandria residents are adopting electric vehicles at a faster rate than the national average — 5% versus 2% nationally[^p16-4] > The City is updating its **Energy and Climate Change Action Plan** during 2021-2022, which is anticipated to identify further action needed to reduce the climate impacts of transportation in the city to achieve adopted GHG mitigation targets. The City and DASH are working to electrify their fleets and expand adoption of electric vehicles through a variety of measures identified in the Environmental Action Plan and the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Readiness Strategy.[^p16-5] This plan supports those efforts by promoting enabling infrastructure, but focuses attention on improving mobility choices and safety. ## The number of cars in Alexandria is growing, but at a rate that is proportional to population growth While vehicle ownership is increasing in the city, it is on pace with overall population growth, with vehicles per capita holding steady in the past decade (0.60 cars per capita in 2019). The percentage of zero-vehicle households has remained relatively steady since 2010 at between 9 and 10% of all households. <
> *U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2019)* > With more new **development near high-quality transit** and **improved mobility choices**, more people may feel comfortable moving to Alexandria **without a car or with fewer cars per household.** [^p16-3]: City of Alexandria Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/eco-city/Alexandria%202018GHG%20Factsheet_FINALene%20(1).pdf. [^p16-4]: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Readiness Strategy, 2021 - https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/eco-city/info/Alexandria_EVRS_FINAL.pdf. [^p16-5]: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Readiness Strategy, 2021 - https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/eco-city/info/Alexandria_EVRS_FINAL.pdf. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Technology Adoption ### Advancements in technology are contributing to converging trends in mobility innovation and disruption In the past decade, adoption of new technologies has led to significant changes in the ways people travel, navigate, and make choices. The result of these trends is an increasing demand for real-time information and on-demand services, prompting the growth of transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft, map-based and navigation mobile applications like Waze, and micromobility services liked shared bicycles and scooters. Technology also has enabled our transportation infrastructure to be more connected, responsive, and automated with such innovations as adaptive signal technology that reacts to real-time traffic conditions. Future technology, such as connected and autonomous vehicles, will require the City to prepare, respond, and manage impacts to traffic safety, roadway capacity, and general mobility. Between 2011 and 2019, the percentage of adults in the U.S. who own a smartphone increased from 35 percent to 81 percent, with 96 percent of Americans owning a cell phone of any kind.[^p17-6] [^p17-6]: Pew Research Center, Mobile Phone Ownership Over Time, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20Americans%20that,smartphone%20ownership%20conducted%20in%202011. <
> <
> # Related Plans and Policies The AMP does not exist in a vacuum. Many City plans, programs, and initiatives that included robust engagement efforts contain transportation-related policies and goals that have been and will continue to be kept at the forefront of AMP implementation and citywide transportation planning, with AMP guiding principles at the core. The policies and strategies developed for this plan have been designed to support and advance these related policies and goals to achieve a cohesive citywide vision for the future. <
> Note: The plans shown in this example diagram are not an exhaustive list. # Related AMP Chapters | | Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Pedestrian and Bicycle | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | City Strategic Plan | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | ALL Alexandria Resolution | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | Environmental Action Plan | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | Alexandria Master Plan and Small Area Plans | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | Transit Vision Plan | 🗸 | | | | | | | Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines | 🗸 | | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | | Smart Mobility Framework Plan | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | 🗸 | | Vision Zero Action Plan | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | | Housing Master Plan | 🗸 | | | | 🗸 | | | Age-Friendly Plan for a Livable Community | 🗸 | | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # The Plan-Making Process The AMP process began in mid-2019 and occurred over four main phases. Together, this process and the input of the community informed the development of the AMP. * **Phase I:** Community visioning process to identify desired outcomes and help shape the guiding principles that serve as the foundation for the AMP. * **Phase II:** Public outreach and engagement activities to get input on what Alexandrians value and want to prioritize in how they travel. * **Phase III:** Targeted outreach and engagement to develop community-generated ideas for solutions that could achieve the goals of the AMP. Ideas were further refined through community feedback to become policies and strategies. * **Phase IV:** Community review of the draft plan before finalization and formal adoption. <
> In addition to overall public engagement activities, the Alexandria Mobility Plan Advisory Committee (AMPAC) provided continuous input to City staff throughout the entirety of the AMP process. AMPAC membership included representation from the Transportation Commission as well as other citywide organizations. Sentiments heard and lessons learned during the engagement process are included throughout the plan document, and a detailed engagement summary can be found in **Appendix III – Civic Engagement Summary**. # How This Plan Will Be Used The AMP will be used in a variety of ways to achieve its vision and guiding principles. First and foremost, this plan will serve as a workplan for the City to guide decision-making as it relates to transportation planning and design. With its strong ties to related City plans, targets, and policies, this plan also will help foster productive interdepartmental coordination across City agencies as strategies are advanced. Having a strong planning document also makes Alexandria more competitive for a variety of grants and other funding sources and enables the City to advocate for legislative action at the Commonwealth government level. The purpose of the AMP is not to list all transportation projects for the next 10 years, but to establish policies and guidance that City staff will use to prioritize projects for grant applications. A well-thought-out plan and strong linkages to established guiding principles, policies, and strategies increases the City's competitiveness in these funding and legislative policy pursuits, which will be critical to advance transportation planning, policies, and strategies. In keeping with the overarching policy of adaptability and flexibility, it is important to note that the strategies within this plan are not exhaustive. As new initiatives develop, they will be considered compatible with the AMP as long as they are consistent with AMP policies and help to achieve its targets and guiding principles. <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Plan Elements This plan is made up of several key elements that build upon each other. <
> ## Plan Level * **Vision** What we want for Alexandria * **Guiding Principles** Broad outcomes that we hope to achieve * **Key Performance Indicators** Specific measures of our guiding principles * **Overarching Policies** Methods to guide decision-making ## Chapter Specific * **Policies** Method to guide decision-making * **Strategies** Specific and achievable initiative and/or project * **Actions** Trackable step toward implementing a strategy * **Metrics** Specific measures of our strategies ## Vision Safe, seamless, and connected mobility options foster a thriving Alexandria for all. # Guiding Principles and Measuring Progress The City will track key performance indicators (KPIs) for each guiding principle through the life of this plan to understand how Alexandria as a whole is faring with regards to the specific outcomes that this plan seeks to achieve. To holistically track outcomes that address the equitable guiding principle, all KPIs are given an “equity lens” to measure progress in a way that is consistent with the City’s ALL Alexandria resolution and ensures equitable outcomes for all Alexandrians, especially neighborhoods and populations that have been historically underserved. More detail on how the City plans to measure progress toward these principles, as well as chapter-specific metrics, can be found in Appendix II – Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators. **Accessible** Alexandria will work to make its transportation network easily accessible for users of all ages and abilities. * **Key Performance Indicator:** Percent of residents in close proximity to alternatives to driving. * **Equity Lens:** Percent of residents (low income, people of color, seniors, and persons with disabilities) in close proximity to alternatives to driving. **Connected** Alexandria’s transportation system will take you where you want to go seamlessly by leveraging technology and integrating transportation and land use. * **Key Performance Indicator:** Percent of destinations that are connected to alternatives to driving. * **Equity Lens:** Percent of low-wage jobs, Title 1 schools, and public health clinics that are connected to alternatives to driving. **Convenient** Alexandria will provide a transportation system with high-quality mobility options that are reliable, frequent, proximate, and comfortable. * **Key Performance Indicator:** Percent of residents who say it is easy to get around. * **Equity Lens:** Percent of residents (low income, people of color, seniors) who say it’s easy to get around. **Equitable** Alexandria acknowledges that there are disparities in neighborhoods and populations in the city that have been historically underserved. Alexandria will be targeted, inclusive, and intentional in addressing gaps in mobility options available, their quality, and safety. * **Key Performance Indicator:** All guiding principles will be measured for the city both as a whole and with an equity lens that examines how specific communities of greater need are faring with regards to the specific outcomes that this plan seeks to achieve. **Safe** Alexandria will eliminate all traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028. * **Key Performance Indicator:** Number of crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries. * **Equity Lens:** Number of crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries within Equity Emphasis Areas. **Sustainable** Alexandria will prioritize low-carbon mobility options and reduce automobile dependency. * **Key Performance Indicator:** Vehicle miles traveled and percent of commuters using alternative transportation options. * **Equity Lens:** Percent of residents (low income, people of color, seniors, and persons with disabilities) in close proximity to alternatives to driving. ## Why measure “Proximity to Alternatives to Driving?” Driving is currently the most used mode of travel in Alexandria because it is often the only reasonable option available. A priority of the AMP is to give people choices. Every home has access to a street, but there are still many Alexandrians without nearby sidewalks, bike lanes and trails, or frequent transit, meaning they do not have the convenient choice to walk, bike, or take transit. Having choices benefits everyone, from cleaner air, healthier lifestyles, and less congestion. Having choices means that when gas prices rise or if there is a transit shutdown, people can still get around safely and conveniently. # Overarching Policies This plan includes the following overarching policies that will help guide the City's decision-making and implementation efforts across all chapters as it works to advance the vision, guiding principles, and strategies. While the guiding principles are about the outcomes this plan seeks to achieve, these overarching policies speak to core methods for achieving these outcomes. ## Apply An Equity Focus To All City Actions Transportation has historically worked to worsen inequality by physically dividing neighborhoods and through disinvestment in low-income and minority communities. To ensure that transportation decisions in Alexandria not only prevent repeating past mistakes, but are used as a tool to lessen inequality, the City will apply an early and ongoing equity focus to all City projects, initiatives, programs, and services from conception through implementation. The City will use a framework that ensures policy decisions advance racial and social equity for all Alexandria residents. ## Make Our Transportation Network Flexible And Adaptable The City of Alexandria will strive to accommodate unforeseen external disruptions to our city (such as extreme weather events due to climate change, pandemics, and technological advancements) by building flexibility and resiliency into decision-making. The City will consider such uncertainties at the start of all its projects and identify ways to build in flexibility and adaptability through pilot projects, flexible contract mechanisms, and by prioritizing investments that make sense in a broad array of potential future circumstances. ## Be Proactive And Data-Driven The City of Alexandria will be proactive and data-driven in decision-making and when implementing projects and initiatives that advance plans and policies. While community requests and input are an important supplement for decision-making and implementation, time and resources are best—and most equitably—used for proactive decision-making based on data. It also will be important for the City to build and expand its resources and capabilities to process new data sources as they become available into the future. ## Develop Partnerships That Advance Shared Goals The City will develop partnerships with public and private organizations to extend the capabilities of staff and programs to advance shared goals in service of the community. Partnerships of this nature could be formed with regional bodies or neighboring jurisdictions, for example, to foster collaborative data sharing and technology advancement that will improve travel safety, reliability, and mobility for Alexandrians while giving the public more useful tools to make informed travel choices. <
> <
> # Transit How the City supports improvements to bus, paratransit, and rail services by working to enhance transit options and access. # Introduction A robust public transportation system is a key ingredient to a successful community mobility strategy. The 2020 *Alexandria Transit Vision Plan* has provided a road map to achieve a future frequent, all-day bus network in Alexandria. This chapter will outline transit-supportive policies and strategies that will help the City achieve the 2030 vision of making bus service more convenient, customer-friendly, reliable, and efficient and will build upon the three transitway corridors established in the *2008 Transportation Master Plan*. This chapter also considers Metrorail, intercity and commuter rail, and paratransit (transportation for persons who are unable to use traditional bus and rail service) to strengthen critical links between Alexandria and the region. <
> > This [2030 proposed] network provides frequent, all-day transit service to 83 percent of people and 81 percent of jobs in Alexandria. > > – Alexandria Transit Vision Plan # Key Context 12 DASH bus routes, including the King Street Trolley 28 Metrobus routes[^p25-1] 700+ bus stops 4 Metrorail stations* *Alexandria’s fifth Metrorail station, Potomac Yard, is expected to open in 2022. 12,800 average weekday DASH passengers in 2019[^p25-2] 10,100 average weekday Metrobus passengers in 2018[^p25-2] 28% of Alexandria households use public transit at least once a week[^p25-3] This is less than in Washington, DC, and Arlington but above average for the region. 29% of low-income residents and 22% of minority residents are within walking distance of frequent, all-day transit 89% of low-income residents and 87% of minority residents will have access to frequent, all-day transit service with full implementation of the Transit Vision Plan.[^p25-4] *** 1, 2. FY2026 DASH Transit Development Plan. 3. 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 4. Alexandria Transit Vision Plan. 17% of the Alexandria workforce is employed in sectors such as healthcare, food services, and hospitality[^p25-5] Limited midday, evening, and weekend DASH service means that many workers with non-traditional work hours or who are dependent on transit for other needs must find other options. 6 transit signal priority (TSP) corridors King Street, Duke Street, Richmond Highway, Seminary Road, Van Dorn Street, and Beauregard Street.[^p25-6] 3 High-capacity transitway corridors identified in the 2008 Transportation Master Plan Route 1 Metroway with bus rapid transit-style service between Alexandria, Arlington, and the new Potomac Yard Metrorail station; West End Transitway; and Duke Street Transitway. [^p25-5]: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) 2018. Non-traditional work shift figures include "Accomodation and Food Services" and "Healthcare and Social Assistance" categories. [^p25-6]: Transit Vehicle Signal Priority & Emergency Vehicle Preemption, City of Alexandria, https://www.alexandriava.gov/tes/info/default.aspx?id=116073. Planned developments such as Inova’s new hospital at Landmark and ambulatory care center at Oakville Triangle will bring an influx of off-hour employees and visitors that would benefit from an expansion of frequent, all-day transit service. <
> # Existing Programs, Policies, and Initiatives ## DASH Bus System The Alexandria Transit Company (DASH) operates bus service on 11 routes and the King Street Trolley. DASH’s service area covers approximately 15 square miles and generally aligns with the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Alexandria, with select routes providing service along I-395 to the Pentagon during weekday peak hours. The system’s design follows a modified hub-and-spoke network design model with Old Town as the “hub,” and the major east-west arterials (King Street, Seminary Road, Duke Street, and Eisenhower Avenue) as the “spokes.” Several crosstown routes also provide connections between destinations in the West End and northern Alexandria. The map below shows what is proposed for the New DASH Network starting in September 2021[^p26-7] <
> [^p26-7]: www.dashbus.com/newnetwork. ## DOT Paratransit DOT is the City of Alexandria’s specialized, Americans with Disabilities (ADA)-compliant transportation service for Alexandria residents and visitors who are unable or find it difficult to use transit buses or rail. ## Discounted Fare Programs Previously, DASH buses were free for persons with disabilities through the DOT and MetroAccess programs and for all middle school and high school students. As of September 2021, DASH bus service is fare-free for all people using the bus in Alexandria. ## Regional Coordination Through the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Board, the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Operations Board, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, City officials and staff work with neighboring jurisdictions to coordinate and ensure that regional transportation needs are met. Alexandria and DASH staff coordinate with regional partners on topics such as regional corridor studies, seamless transit payments, and communication about regional service changes. <
> # Policies The Transit chapter policies will guide the City's decision-making around investments that will enhance ease of use, improve customer-friendliness, and increase ridership of DASH and WMATA transit services. ## Policy A: Make transit greener and more useful Build out a fast and reliable all-day transit network with frequent service that runs on electric buses and serves the entire city, with a focus on areas that will benefit the most Alexandrians, businesses, employees, customers, and visitors. Per the Transit Vision Plan, the City is prioritizing route improvements in areas that will generate more ridership and better serve transit-dependent populations. The City will continue to prioritize service enhancements and initiatives in these areas, while ensuring that there are transit options citywide. ## Policy B: Make transit easier to use Increase transportation choices by reducing or eliminating barriers to taking transit. To increase transit ridership, the City of Alexandria will be proactive and intentional in working to make transit simpler, less expensive, and more convenient. The City of Alexandria and DASH are in the process of analyzing the use of electric buses and have **committed to having a 100% zero-emissions fleet.** Recently, DASH has made significant progress towards electrification and was awarded $5.1 million for the purchase of six battery-electric buses and associated charging infrastructure in 2019, which have been placed into service. Additional improvements and upgrades at the DASH facility will continue to support the operation of the new electric buses and advancement towards full electrification. *** ### Strategies That support policies 1. Implement a citywide transit network with frequent, all-day service 2. Build out the city's priority transitway corridors and identify improvements on congested, high-ridership corridors to reduce travel times and improve reliability 3. Transition the City's bus fleet to fully electric, zero-emission vehicles 4. Improve the rider experience from trip planning, to accessing the stop, riding the bus, and arriving at the destination 5. Evaluate DASH's fare free service and continue to explore low-income WMATA fares 6. Support a better-connected regional transit network 7. Modernize the paratransit program for the city's aging population **Policies** The City of Alexandria will... <
> A: Make transit greener and more useful B: Make transit easier to use <
> # Strategies # Strategy 1. Implement a citywide transit network with frequent, all-day service ### Actions * Begin implementing the New DASH Network[^p28-8] in Fiscal Year 2022 * Work with DASH’s Advisory Committee and other members of the community to regularly gain input about service changes and implementation * Seek funding for both the operations and capital improvements necessary to incrementally implement the 2030 network and improvements recommended in the Transit Vision Plan <
> [^p28-8]: www.dashbus.com/newnetwork. --- ## Addressing the Need To make the system more useful for everyone and to have the greatest likelihood to increase ridership, a more frequent, all-day network will be important. Service during off-peak hours and weekends can be limited and present a barrier to those choosing to or needing to use transit to access jobs and opportunities. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals ### Alexandria Transit Vision Plan * 2030 Vision Plan Network ### Environvmental Action Plan 2040 * Improve and Expand Low Carbon Options such as Transit, Bikes, and Walking ### City Strategic Plan * Multimodal Component and Goals <
> <
> # Strategy 2. Build out the city’s priority transitway corridors and identify improvements on congested, high-ridership corridors to reduce travel times and improve reliability ## Actions * Collaborate with the community to develop a design for Duke Street that informs the construction of the Duke Street Transitway * Advance the design and construction of the West End Transitway and evaluate its success to determine whether dedicated lanes or other methods to improve speed and reliability are needed * Explore connecting Alexandria’s transitways with high-capacity transit corridors in Fairfax County to help create a more reliable and efficient regional bus network * Extend the dedicated infrastructure for the Route 1 Metroway corridor to connect to the new Potomac Yard Metrorail station and into Arlington * Evaluate transit signal priority, queue jumps, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and other operational or street design improvements/pilot projects on corridors with frequent and congested bus service A transitway (also known as a busway or bus rapid transit) is a high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers **fast, frequent, comfortable, and cost-effective service**. With dedicated lanes or preferential treatment on streets, a transitway can contain features similar to a light rail or metro system with greater reliability and speed, avoiding traffic-related delays that typically slow down regular bus service. <
> ## Addressing the Need The City is planning for future growth around the urban edges of Alexandria, which will increase demand for high-quality, high-capacity transit. Alexandria has made progress on the three transitway corridors, but there is still work to be done. Many people do not use the current transit system because it is often slow and unreliable. Those who take the bus reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway, yet are stuck in the same traffic as everyone else; unlike Metrorail, which operates in its own right-of-way. <
> ### Transitway Corridors * Metroway (Existing) * Duke Street Transitway (Future) * West End Transitway (Future) ## Advancing City Plans and Goals ### Alexandria Transit Vision Plan * 2030 Vision Plan Network ### Environmental Action Plan 2040 * Improve and Expand Low Carbon Options such as Transit, Bikes, and Walking ### City Strategic Plan * Multimodal Component and Goals <
> # Strategy 3. Transition the City's bus fleet to fully electric, zero-emission vehicles ## Actions * Move forward with the recommendations outlined in the DASH Zero-Emission Bus Implementation Plan to continue the transition of the City's fleet to all electric * Make DASH an eligible direct federal grant recipient to broaden the available funding for the transition to zero-emissions buses * Monitor emerging technology benefits and tradeoffs <
> ## Addressing the Need Transportation is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the region. The City Council has declared a climate emergency and efforts like these will help support resiliency. The City has a goal of reducing GHG emissions 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Alexandria Transit Vision Plan** * 2030 Vision Plan Network **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Improve and Expand Alexandria's Public Transit System <
> In 2021, DASH received **six battery-electric buses and fast chargers** through the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust, as well as statewide transit capital funding to test the technology. DASH also has secured grant funding for **20 additional electric buses** and to **expand and upgrade its facility** to accommodate this new fleet of electric buses by 2025. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 4. Improve the rider experience from trip planning, to accessing the stop, riding the bus, and arriving at the destination ## Actions * Upgrade the existing fleet and change fleet specifications on future bus orders to improve the health, safety, and comfort of drivers and passengers during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, including driver partitions, air flow improvements, and real-time rider notifications of bus crowding levels * Build in options for storage of large items such as strollers or groceries and enact rider policies to encourage families to use transit * Promote real-time tracking and bus priority technology to enable easier and more reliable trip planning and vehicle tracking for customers * Ensure all bus stops are fully accessible per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and consider opportunities to improve access to bus stops through improving sidewalk, bicycle, and ramp connections * Expand implementation of bus stop amenities including shelters, real-time signage, seating, lighting, and natural amenities to improve comfort and safety <
> *** ## Addressing the Need The opportunity exists to enhance the transit journey—not just while riding, but during route planning, waiting at bus stops, and transferring between routes. > As indicated during Alexandria Mobility Plan focus group meetings, **integrated mobile applications** and/or signs with **real-time information** are in high demand and would give users confidence in opting for transit. Traveling to and waiting at bus stops is often expressed as a concern, especially among elderly and female riders. Greater investment in bus stop amenities such as shelters and lighting—including sidewalks and bike lanes that connect to bus stops—will help improve the transit journey for existing and future transit riders.[^p31-9] ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Alexandria Transit Vision Plan** * Capital Improvements, Bus Replacement, and Fleet Expansion **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Improve and Expand Alexandria’s Public Transit System **Smart Mobility Framework Plan** * Install Information Displays at Bus Stops **Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community** * Provide Safe, Reliable, and Frequent Transit **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** **Vision Zero Action Plan** <
> [^p31-9]: Who’s on Board: How to Win Back America’s Transit Riders, TransitCenter, 2019. Transit | 17 # Strategy 5. Evaluate DASH’s fare free service and continue to explore low-income WMATA fares ## Actions * Monitor outcomes of implementing free fares on DASH * Identify funding sources for long-term sustainability of a DASH fare free program * Explore low-income fare products for WMATA services The **Transit Ridership Incentive Program**—managed by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation—is a new statewide grant program dedicated to **improving transit’s regional connectivity** in urban areas with a population in excess of 100,000 and **reducing barriers to transit** use by supporting low-income and zero-fare programming. <
> ## Addressing the Need For some, fares present a financial obstacle to using transit. For example, more than 30 percent of Alexandria Metrobus riders have an annual household income of less than $30,000.[^p32-10] This obstacle makes it more expensive to access regional jobs and services. A 2020 grant from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to analyze different fare structures that benefit low-income riders has informed the City’s plans for changes to fare structure. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Alexandria Transit Vision Plan** * Increasing Transit Access for Low-Income Alexandrians **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Improve and Expand Alexandria’s Public Transit System <
> [^p32-10]: Metrobus Ridership Survey, 2018. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 6. Support a better connected regional transit network ## Actions * Support the development of mobile payment and trip planning applications that are compatible between Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Virginia Railway Express (VRE), Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (MARC), and Alexandria Transit Company (DASH) services * Collaborate with WMATA and neighboring jurisdictions to enhance connectivity to major activity centers and develop a more coordinated, useful regional transit system as part of WMATA’s Bus Transformation Project implementation and Bus Network Redesign * Enhance connections to support future rail expansion, water transportation expansion, and future regional bus rapid transit corridors Several ongoing initiatives are examining the possibility of making **expanded commuter and intercity rail options** a reality in the future. The realization of “regional” or “through-running” rail (i.e., trains from Virginia that travel to Maryland without requiring a transfer at Washington Union Station and vice versa) holds the potential to better connect Virginia with Washington, DC, Maryland, and beyond, **unlocking new access to jobs and opportunities across the region.** <
> ## Addressing the Need Demand for travel is not restricted to individual city, county, or state boundaries, especially in the Washington metropolitan region. A better-connected regional transit network will meet the need of travelers to get to more destinations across the region in a seamless, efficient, and convenient manner. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals *Environmental Action Plan 2040* * Improve and Expand Alexandria’s Public Transit System <
> <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 7. Modernize the paratransit program for the city's aging population ## Actions * Develop more customer-friendly service that is scalable for increased demand * Identify opportunities to improve cost-effectiveness for long-term program management for DOT Paratransit and MetroAccess services * Explore partnerships with existing City services, neighboring jurisdictions, and on-demand service providers to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of serving the travel needs of seniors and persons with disabilities <
> ## Addressing the Need Paratransit programs have not changed considerably over the last 10 years. These programs are costly and will only get more expensive as the number of elderly and disabled residents are anticipated to increase. There are opportunities to make the programs more efficient while improving the customer experience. Paratransit provides transportation services under the ADA to individuals with disabilities that prevent them from being able to use traditional transit routes or vehicles. DOT is the City of Alexandria’s specialized paratransit program that provides services to qualified passengers to help them get where they need to go. In an average month, the City’s DOT paratransit program provides about 5,500 rides. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community** * Provide Safe, Reliable, and Frequent Transit * Communication About Programs and Services Available to Older Alexandrians and Adults with Disabilities <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Metrics The strategies and policies in this chapter are intended to move the needle on the following measurable metrics. Additional details on metrics, including applicable targets for future years, can be found in Appendix II - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators. ## Metric | | | :--- | | Percent of residents within ¼ mile of 15 minute or better service
(All residents and low-income, people of color, and senior residents) | | Percent of people taking transit to work (mode share) | | Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation (Resident Survey) * | | Percent of bus stops with shelters | | Percent of bus stops that are accessible for persons with disabilities | <
> * The Alexandria Resident Survey reports results based on race/ethnicity, income, and age in addition to all residents. <
> # Smart Mobility How the City incorporates technology into the transportation system to better manage traffic. <
> # Introduction Smart mobility is a broad term that incorporates the application of technology to streets, traffic signals, vehicles, parking systems, and other transportation infrastructure to make them more efficient and safe, while providing data that can help improve long-term decision-making about where and what changes to make to our streets. In the coming decade, converging innovations and technology are likely to play a transformative role in transportation. Given the limited ability to expand the street network, smart mobility initiatives will be instrumental in improving traffic flow. Alexandria’s 2018 *Smart Mobility Framework Plan* describes a range of efforts that the City is taking to prepare for and incorporate technology into its transportation assets. Through these efforts, the City is working to lay the groundwork for future technology that will help better manage traffic on local streets. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Key Context **250+** traffic signals **200** of which are ‘connected’ for central monitoring and control.[^p38-1] **5** corridors with transit signal priority (TSP) and emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) installed TSP and EVP allows vehicles such as buses, fire trucks, and other emergency vehicles to get through traffic signals quicker, keeping buses on schedule and improving response times for emergency vehicles.[^p38-2] <
> <
> [^p38-1]: Smart Mobility Framework Plan, 2018, https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/info/Smart%20Mobility%20Framework.pdf. [^p38-2]: *Smart Mobility*, City of Alexandria, https://www.alexandriava.gov/SmartMobility.html. # Existing Programs, Policies, and Initiatives ## Smart Mobility Program Alexandria’s Smart Mobility program represents an investment in the future of transportation. The City is actively creating infrastructure for future advancements, such as autonomous and connected vehicles, which will make traveling by car, bus, bike, and foot faster, more efficient, and safer than ever. While the City is laying the foundation for innovations that may be 20 years into the future, some are just 5 to 10 years away—and some, such as real-time travel information collection and technologies that help emergency vehicles reach people faster and buses stay on schedule, are already in place. To date, the City has installed more than 145,000 feet of fiber-optic cable, 27 traffic cameras, and 30 smart traffic sensors. These investments ensure that Alexandria is at the forefront of a global movement to make cities as connected, innovative, and smart as possible. <
> ## Fiber-Optic Cable The laying of fiber-optic cable is a key initiative of the City’s intelligent transportation system (ITS) initiative. The resulting fiber-optics network will become a conduit of real-time communications—linking traffic signals, weather stations, and other devices with the Traffic Management Center. These updates will allow the City to better manage and respond to delays and incidents, plan for special events, share critical alerts and data to better inform the public, and support new mobility technologies as they come online. ## Passive Optical Networks The City of Alexandria recently conducted a pilot project using Passive Optical Networks (PON) for traffic signal control. PON is a technology developed by cable companies to connect fiber-optic networks to homes and is much less expensive and easier to maintain than traditional signal control technology. The PON pilot was a success, and the City is deploying this technology through its ITS Integration Phase III and IV projects. Alexandria is one of the first municipalities in the country to use this technology. <
> # Policies The Smart Mobility chapter policies will guide the City's decision-making around technology improvements that will make streets safer, more efficient, and prepared for the future. ## Policy A: Improve safety and efficiency Use technology to manage congestion for safe and efficient city streets and protect the character of neighborhoods. In the past, cities have relied on physical infrastructure such as pavement markings, curbs, and signage to manage their transportation networks. As transportation moves into a new digital age, it is critical to incorporate technology and data into management practices. The City of Alexandria will apply technology to its streets, traffic signals, transit vehicles, and other transportation infrastructure to help make the best and most efficient use of our streets. ## Policy B: Prepare for new technology Plan proactively and flexibly to ensure cost-effective investment in technology that can improve travel choices. By taking a forward-looking approach, the City of Alexandria will position itself to keep pace with rapidly advancing technology and lay the groundwork for integrating future technologies. Planning flexibly will enable the City to adapt to the latest technologies as they continue to evolve. *** ### Strategies That support policies 1. Expand smart signal technology to enable detection and real-time signal adjustments 2. Strategically invest in partnerships to expand city data, technology, and communications capabilities 3. Upgrade capabilities of the Traffic Management Center to better manage congestion in real-time 4. Proactively prepare for connected and autonomous vehicles 5. Develop a framework for pilot projects to test new modes, infrastructure, or initiatives ### Policies The City of Alexandria will... <
> A: Improve safety and efficiency B: Prepare for new technology ### Managing Congestion: A Multifaceted Approach The policies and strategies outlined in this chapter are part of a **multifaceted approach to addressing the challenge of congestion management** in Alexandria. While all strategies aimed at increasing options—particularly transit—can have a positive impact on congestion, strategies from other chapters that directly aim to reduce and manage traffic include: * Develop a comprehensive program to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on local streets (Streets Chapter) * Ensure new development minimizes negative impacts to the street network (Streets Chapter) * Work with regional, state, and private sector partners to develop tools to keep traffic on highways and reduce regional cut-through traffic (Streets Chapter) * Pursue regional approaches to reduce traffic and congestion, particularly during peak times (Supporting Travel Options Chapter) ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategies ## Strategy 1. Expand smart signal technology to enable detection and real-time signal adjustments ### Actions * Integrate transit signal priority (TSP) and emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) into more of the City’s corridors. This involves upgrading the City’s traffic signals as well as the fleet of transit and emergency vehicles with preemption equipment * Enable the use of vehicle detection at signals for more responsive timing through adaptive signal technology. Duke Street and Van Dorn Street will be the first two corridors to be prioritized for this effort * Improve data collection through new platforms and technologies to better understand how people use the transportation system and improve decision-making <
> *** ### Addressing the Need By installing signal technology that can respond and adapt to real-time vehicle location and movement data, the City can meet the need to manage traffic flow and move more people, transit, and emergency vehicles faster and safer while avoiding costly changes to the roadway network. The City’s **Adaptive Traffic Signal Control project** aims to install smart detection equipment on traffic signals to respond to real-time conditions. This effort will optimize traffic flow, decrease delays, and reduce stops at intersections to help traffic move better on arterial streets and reduce traffic on local streets . ### Advancing City Plans and Goals **Smart Mobility Framework Plan** * Install Intelligent/Adaptive and Traffic Responsive Traffic Signal Systems and Install TSP and EVP Equipment on Signals * Install TSP and EVP Equipment on Buses and Fleet Vehicle **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Improve Data Collection and Evaluation <
> Smart Mobility | 11 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 2. Strategically invest in partnerships to expand city data, technology, and communications capabilities ## Actions * Develop a template for evaluating partnership opportunities and coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions, state agencies, and private companies to improve regional collaboration and safe, protected, and transparent data sharing * Identify potential partnerships to improve information and communication about parking availability, gain a better understanding of how the curb space on City streets is being utilized, obtain anonymized travel pattern data from private mobility operators, and collect and analyze real-time data to inform traffic management and street design * Utilize platforms and engage in regional coalitions to make transportation data more transparent and improve decision-making Alexandria has joined the WAZE for Cities Program, providing the City access to **real-time information** on incidents and slow-downs and providing drivers access to **advance notice on construction, crashes, and road closures.** <
> ## Addressing the Need Partners are often needed to help expand a city's data, technology, and communications capabilities. The key to effective partnerships is to assess how transportation needs align across partners and identify specific opportunities for addressing shared goals that benefit all parties. Potential partners can include non-profits, schools or other institutions, nearby jurisdictions, regional bodies, or private companies. Bringing parties to the table that have similar needs or a different perspective can be beneficial in solving problems. There is an increasingly large amount of data that can be generated from public-private partnerships. Processing and understanding this data requires a shift in thinking, more data analytics capabilities and resources, and increased collaboration. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Smart Mobility Framework Plan** * Facilitate Data Exchange and Integrate Real-Time Data into Decision-Making Model <
> One of the key considerations when gathering and sharing data with private partners is how to ensure the **transparency and privacy** of data sharing processes. People want to know what information about them is being tracked and how it is being used. Keeping data anonymous, developing data management plans and procedures with partners prior to beginning any program, and being clear and deliberate to the user of how their information may or may not be used will benefit all parties involved. Smart Mobility | 13 # Strategy 3. Upgrade capabilities of the Traffic Management Center to better manage congestion in real-time ## Actions * Equip Alexandria’s Traffic Management Center (TMC) to allow it to manage on-street traffic equipment, monitor overall system status including pavement condition during weather events, configure devices remotely, and analyze data * Expand coverage of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and improve traffic visualizations for more efficient management of traffic incidents * Incorporate resiliency and redundancy measures, such as a virtual backups in the event of failures <
> ## Addressing the Need As Alexandria grows and technology changes, the TMC will require greater capabilities to control signal timing and phasing, dispatch and track City vehicles, and monitor real-time conditions and incidents. These increased capabilities will allow the City to better manage and respond to delays and incidents, plan for special events, share critical alerts and data to better inform the public, and support new mobility technologies as they come online. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals *Smart Mobility Framework Plan* * Upgrade TMC, Facilitate Data Exchange, and Create Automated Interactive Maps * Increase Coverage of CCTV * Expand Network of Weather Sensor Stations / Pavement Sensor Technology <
> # Strategy 4. Proactively prepare for connected and autonomous vehicles ## Actions * Consider pilot projects to lay the groundwork for and evaluate the effectiveness of various new technologies * Prepare for connected vehicles by developing maintenance and infrastructure plans to ensure street readiness * Prepare for autonomous or self-driving vehicles by developing policies to manage potentially significant increases in miles driven and traffic volumes within the city, including limiting zero-passenger miles and incentivizing shared use * Ensure that safety is a priority when testing and implementing new technologies <
> ## Addressing the Need Autonomous and connected vehicles have the potential to improve roadway safety, enhance mobility for persons with disabilities, and potentially reduce congestion. Vehicle technology is advancing quickly, and the City needs to be well-positioned to adapt to these changes. It is important to prepare for connected vehicle technology through strategic investments that accommodate vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications, which will help travelers find parking spaces, avoid traffic and crashes, navigate hazardous conditions, and more. Proactive policy making and monitoring will be needed to address potential for increased travel and congestion associated with the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Smart Mobility Program (20-Year Goals)** * Accommodate Self-Driving Vehicles and Connected Vehicles * Accommodate Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Communications * Accommodate Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 5. Develop a framework for pilot projects to test new modes, infrastructure, or initiatives ## Actions * Create standards for appropriate use of pilot projects, including timeframes, public process, evaluation, and opportunities to make adjustments * Build upon lessons learned from the Dockless Mobility Pilot as well as national best practices from peer cities * Promote a framework that ensures transparency in pilot project execution A pilot project is a small-scale, preliminary project or test that is conducted to evaluate feasibility, cost, effects, and improvements prior to the implementation of a full-scale or more expensive, resource-intensive project. To date, transportation and smart mobility pilot projects haven taken many forms in Alexandria, such as Passive Optical Networks (PON) for traffic signal control, testing of shared bicycles and scooters (Dockless Mobility Pilot), conversion of on-street parking to sidewalk extensions (Parklet Pilot Program), and testing zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cell bus technology. <
> ## Addressing the Need Flexible planning and a standard citywide framework are needed as new mobility options and technologies become available to ensure Alexandria is testing them with consistency, transparency, and a focus on equity. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals ### Smart Mobility Framework Plan * Improve Accessibility, Plan for Emerging and Future Transportation Technologies ### Environmental Action Plan 2040 * Adopt Permanent Regulations for Shared Mobility Devices Such as Dockless Bikes, Electric Scooters, and Other Personal Mobility Devices by Fiscal Year 2023 ### Vision Zero Action Plan <
> <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Metrics The strategies and policies in this chapter are intended to move the needle on the following measurable metrics. Additional details on metrics, including applicable targets for future years, can be found in **Appendix II - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators**. ### Metric Number of intersections with smart signal technology Percent of intersections with smart signal technology* in Equity Emphasis Areas Positive rating of traffic flow on major streets (Resident Survey) ** Transit travel times on Duke Street, Van Dorn Street, and upper King Street Equity Emphasis Areas were developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments using tract-level Census data to identify communities that have significant concentrations of low-income and/or minority populations. For more information, see **Appendix I - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators**. * Intersections with “smart signal technology” include those with traffic signals that are equipped with transit signal priority, emergency vehicle preemption, and/or activated adaptive signals. ** The Alexandria Resident Survey reports results based on race/ethnicity, income, and age in addition to all residents. 20 | Smart Mobility <
> Credit: Redmon Group, Inc. <
> # Streets How the City designs and manages its streets. <
> # Introduction The streets of Alexandria are a limited public resource that must support multiple functions and serve many types of users including people who drive, walk, take transit, bike, or ride scooters. While other chapters address walking, biking, transit, and how technology can make our streets safer and improve traffic flow (smart mobility), a major focus of this chapter is on how the City will manage streets to prioritize local travel, improve safety, reduce congestion and cut-through traffic, and ensure that all users are considered in decisions surrounding our streets. Our streets also serve valuable purposes beyond mobility including social interaction, recreation, festivals, commerce, dining, and others that contribute to vibrant life in Alexandria. This chapter incorporates two major existing City policies that recognize that streets serve a variety of users and that all need to be accommodated safely: the Complete Streets policy and Design Guidelines—related to how we design our streets for all users—and the Vision Zero Policy and associated *Vision Zero Action Plan*, which takes a multifaceted, data-driven approach to eliminating serious travel-related injuries and fatalities. This chapter does not duplicate these efforts, but attempts to advance them, while seeking to address concerns related to excessive traffic on local streets. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Key Context **37** average number of people killed or seriously injured each year using Alexandria’s streets[^p49-1] **42%** of traffic on arterial streets in central Alexandria is just passing through During peak travel periods, major streets experience their greatest amount of delay resulting in driver frustration and a diversion of traffic to local streets. **560 miles** of travel lanes **2,300** intersections **320 miles** of sidewalks[^p49-2] **34%** of Alexandrians have a positive view of traffic flow in the city In the 2020 Resident Survey, respondents gave lower marks to traffic flow, car travel, overall ease of travel, public parking, and traffic enforcement compared to 2018. The rating for traffic flow is the lowest ranking since the survey began in 2016.[^p49-3] <
> [^p49-1]: Vision Zero Action Plan, 2017. [^p49-2]: Miles of sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Source: City data. [^p49-3]: Alexandria Resident Survey, 2020. # Existing Programs, Policies, and Initiatives Several of the related City plans and programs introduced in the Overview chapter contain targets and policies that relate to streets. The goals and targets in the City Strategic Plan call for continued emphasis on multimodal street design to improve ease and safety of getting around by all modes. The Complete Streets Policy and the Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan responded to needs identified in the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and are now integrated into the Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP). ## Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines <
> The 2011 Complete Streets Policy directed planners, engineers, and developers to evaluate streets for safety and consider design elements and operational practices to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. In 2016, the Alexandria Complete Streets Design Guidelines were published. The guidelines are a resource for City departments, design professionals, and developers, and communicate expectations regarding the design of the city’s public and private streets. ## Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan Alexandria established a Vision Zero policy in 2017 with the goal of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028. By establishing the policy, the City recognizes that traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable through proper engineering, enforcement, evaluation, and education. The 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan is updated every year and identifies high-crash intersections that are priorities for safety improvements. The Action Plan lists the steps the City will take to improve data collection and evaluation; enhance City processes and collaboration; build safe streets for everyone; and promote a culture of safety. ## Street Maintenance ### Repaving Program City streets are resurfaced based on their physical condition. When streets are planned for resurfacing, City staff work with the community to identify priority locations to improve safety, accessibility, and mobility by making changes such as upgrading curb ramps, adding missing crosswalks, upgrading high-priority crossings, and repairing sidewalks. ### Street Cleaning and Snow Removal Program The City's street cleaning program is responsible for street sweeping, leaf collection, and snow removal. This program maintains clean and accessible streets for all street users based on seasonal changes. <
> # Policies The Streets chapter policies will guide the City's decision-making around programs and improvements that will reduce and mitigate the effects of cut-through traffic, improve safety, and leverage technology on city streets. ## Policy A: Protect neighborhoods from cut-through traffic ### Reduce cut-through traffic burdening City neighborhoods. The City will pursue a multifaceted approach to reduce neighborhood cut-through traffic that burdens Alexandrians who live on, work on, or use local city streets. Through this pursuit, the City will work to balance the needs of local traffic and regional connectivity. ## Policy B: Achieve Vision Zero ### Use data to eliminate traffic-related deaths and serious injuries by 2028. An average of 37 people in Alexandria are killed or seriously injured each year using the City's streets.[^p51-4] These injuries and deaths are preventable. The City will prioritize the use of data—particularly crash, crash risk, and traffic safety data—in decision-making to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities. A proactive, data-driven approach will provide transparency and equity when developing priorities, processes, and making decisions. --- # Policy C: Leverage smart mobility ### Recognizing that driving is important in the City, use smart mobility to manage congestion and neighborhood safety. Through the application of Alexandria's Smart Mobility Framework Plan, the City will apply technology to streets and leverage data to better manage traffic, enhance safety, and increase its understanding of how the street network functions to improve quality of life in Alexandria. ### Strategies That support policies 1. Implement the Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2028 2. Develop a comprehensive program to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on local streets 3. Ensure new development minimizes negative impacts to the street network 4. Work with regional, state, and private sector partners to develop tools to keep traffic on highways and reduce regional cut-through traffic 5. Consider the use of speed cameras and other automated tools to improve safety 6. Maintain a state of good repair for our streets using a proactive, data-driven, and equitable approach ### Policies The City of Alexandria will... <
> [^p51-4]: Vision Zero Action Plan, 2017. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategies ## Strategy 1. Implement the Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2028 ### Actions * Develop annual work plan priorities for promoting a culture of safety, building safer streets, improving data collection, and enhancing City processes and collaboration * Prioritize high crash intersections and corridors for improvements, especially those in Equity Emphasis Areas * Evaluate crash data for each project to enhance data-driven decision-making * Apply national best practices as appropriate <
> ## Addressing the Need Between 2016 and 2020, 21 people were killed and 144 people were seriously injured while traveling on Alexandria’s streets. In addition to the life-altering impacts of these crashes, the perceived danger of being involved in a crash keeps many people from walking and biking, which limits the City’s ability to achieve a wide range of goals including reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. 61% of respondents would ride bikes more and 57% would walk more if they felt safer from traffic.[^p52-6] More broadly, crashes contribute to travel delays and negatively affect the reliability of the transportation system. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Age Friendly Plan for a Livable Community** * Safe Walking, Biking, and Driving **Environmental Action Plan 2040** **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Build Safe Streets for Everyone **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** <
> [^p52-6]: Resident Transportation Needs Survey, 2017. # Strategy 2. Develop a comprehensive program to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on local streets ## Actions * Outline procedures for addressing and monitoring cut-through traffic, traffic congestion, and speeding * Develop criteria and list of data needs tailored to each traffic issue * Identify specific design solutions appropriate for the street type and location to encourage regional traffic to stay on major thoroughfares <
> ## Addressing the Need Congestion and cut-through traffic are significant issues in Alexandria. During outreach conducted in the summer and fall of 2019, 71 percent of respondents cited congestion as the biggest challenge for the future of mobility in Alexandria. Forty-two percent of traffic in central Alexandria consists of trips that start and end outside of Alexandria.[^p53-4] Less regional traffic on local streets may improve safety and the quality of life for residents and can help local traffic move more efficiently. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **City Strategic Plan** * Ease of Getting to Places **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** **Smart Mobility Framework Plan** * Traffic Management **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Build Safe Streets for Everyone <
> [^p53-4]: Central Alexandria Traffic Study, 2017. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 3. Ensure new development minimizes negative impacts to the street network ## Actions * Update guidance for developers to better reflect City goals through traffic impact studies and best practices from around the country * Require improved data collection and reporting after implementation * Ensure proper consideration of all users through improved methods for measuring service levels for all modes and safety impacts on our transportation network * Encourage study methodologies and mitigation measures such as transportation demand management programs and street design changes that place higher priority on local trips rather than regional trips to help reduce cut-through traffic <
> ## Addressing the Need New developments have the potential to improve the areas around them, bringing more transit and safer intersections. However, they also have the potential to add more traffic and congestion. Current traffic study practices for new developments focus on vehicle delay (expressed by “Level of Service”) but fail to fully consider impacts on other street users. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals *Age Friendly Plan for a Livable Community* * Safe Walking, Biking, and Driving *Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines* *Environmental Action Plan 2040* * Reduce VMT, Green Building *Vision Zero Action Plan* * Enhance City Processes and Collaboration * Build Safe Streets for Everyone <
> # Strategy 4. Work with regional, state, and private sector partners to develop tools to keep traffic on highways and reduce regional cut-through traffic ## Actions * Coordinate with other jurisdictions and regional bodies to evaluate pricing strategies and other policies that promote highway travel versus travel on local streets * Explore signal timing as a tool to keep regional traffic on highways * Utilize variable messaging systems to use real-time travel comparisons to promote high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes <
> ## Addressing the Need Congestion and cut-through traffic are significant issues in Alexandria and many jurisdictions in the region. During outreach conducted in the summer and fall of 2019, 71 percent of respondents cited congestion as the biggest challenge for the future of mobility in Alexandria. Forty-two percent of traffic in central Alexandria consists of trips that start and end outside of Alexandria.[^p55-5] Coordination of efforts and resources with regional, state, and private sector partners is needed to address regional cut-through traffic. Alexandria’s transportation network is linked to a complex regional network with multiple jurisdictions, transit operators, and statewide entities, making close coordination critical. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Smart Mobility Framework Plan** * Optimize Traffic Flow, Improve Travel Times, Reduce Congestion **City Strategic Plan** * Distinctive and Vibrant Neighborhoods, Multimodal Transportation <
> [^p55-5]: Central Alexandria Traffic Study, 2017. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 5. Consider the use of speed cameras and other automated tools to improve safety ## Actions * Consider speed cameras in school zones, enabled in 2020 * If data demonstrates a safety benefit with the use of automated enforcement tools, explore legislative measures to expand the City's ability to place speed cameras in areas where they can most improve safety * Partner with the Alexandria Police Department to enforce traffic laws to protect vulnerable street users and promote equity **Automated Enforcement Using Cameras.** Legislation passed in the summer of 2020 allows state and local police in Virginia to use speed cameras near highway construction zones and school zones. Alexandria is currently studying where to implement speed cameras. <
> ## Addressing the Need Decades of unequal transportation investments and exclusionist planning policies mean that vulnerable populations are more likely to live on or near poorly designed roadways where crashes are more likely to occur, increasing their likelihood of being involved in a crash. Human bias in traffic enforcement has resulted in the deaths of Black, Indigenous, and people of color during routine traffic stops. There is a need to balance these safety disparities with a better understanding of human bias in enforcement. Automated enforcement is one strategy to help reduce this human bias. In 2020, the League of American Bicyclists and Safe Routes Partnership, two prominent organizations in the field of traffic safety, removed “enforcement” from their program frameworks. The League found that “enforcement as a stand-alone traffic safety tactic is not particularly effective in achieving long-term safety outcomes,” and supports the use of alternatives to police-led traffic enforcement. Automated enforcement is one alternative, along with street design improvements and educational diversion programs. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **City Strategic Plan** * Inclusive City, Safe and Resilient Community **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Improve Data Collection and Evaluation, Promote a Culture of Safety **ALL Alexandria** * Target equitable enforcement efforts <
> Streets | 19 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 6. Maintain a state of good repair for our streets using a proactive, data-driven, and equitable approach ## Actions * Seek to maintain our transportation assets to achieve a state of good repair in a cost-effective and minimally disruptive manner by coordinating utility work, fiber installation, and other street improvements when possible * Use state and federal required methodologies based on pavement and bridge condition to ensure continued funding and equitable distribution of resources * When local funding is available for additional service requests, ensure they are distributed evenly throughout the city State of good repair refers to the maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of assets. City staff identify priority locations to **improve safety, accessibility, and mobility** by making changes such as **repaving roads, upgrading curb ramps, adding missing crosswalks, and repairing sidewalks.** <
> ## Addressing the Need Streets that are not maintained can be safety hazards, barriers for persons with disabilities, or cause more long-standing damage. It is important to avoid skewing repairs to just where there are requests, but incorporating where data shows it is required. Continuous repair and rehabilitation of city streets and infrastructure will increase safety and accessibility while benefiting the user experience along city streets. The City of Alexandria’s **Street Maintenance and Repair program** aims to repair roads, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and pavement areas in the public right-of-way. The City, with financial support from the Virginia Department of Transportation State of Good Repair program, manages its pavement by **regularly assessing condition, analyzing budget needs, performing routine maintenance, and undertaking minor and major paving projects.** ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **ALL Alexandria** **City Strategic Plan** * Multimodal Transportation * Distinctive and Vibrant Neighborhoods **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Improve Data Collection and Evaluation * Build Safe Streets for Everyone <
> Streets | 21 # Metrics The strategies and policies in this chapter are intended to move the needle on the following measurable metrics. Additional details on metrics, including applicable targets for future years, can be found in **Appendix II - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators**. ## Metric Number of fatal and serious crashes Average Pavement Condition Rating (Pavement Condition Index) Percent of Transportation Management Plans evaluated that meet mode split targets <
> <
> <
> # Pedestrian and Bicycle *How the City is making it easier and safer to walk and bike.* <
> # Introduction Previous investments in sidewalks, on-street bike lanes, trails, and education and encouragement programs have made Alexandria one of a few communities in the region to be recognized as both a Silver-level Walk- and Bicycle-Friendly Community.[^p60-1][^p60-2] Implementing the policies and strategies in this chapter will help the City achieve Gold-level certification and improve the travel experience for everyone in Alexandria. This chapter incorporates the Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016 and subsequent policies and initiatives called for in that effort, namely Vision Zero and the Complete Streets Policy. These policies will continue to shape how the City makes it easier and safer for people walking and biking. [^p60-1]: Walk Friendly Communities - http://walkfriendly.org/communities/. [^p60-2]: Bicycle Friendly Communities - https://bikeleague.org/bfa/awards#community. # Key Context 59% of trips in Alexandria are less than 3 miles Short trips like these are amenable to biking, walking, or transit when safe, convenient, and accessible routes are provided.³ 5% of Alexandria residents walk or bike to work This is higher than the statewide average of 3%, and higher than Arlington’s 4%; however, it is lower than Washington, DC’s 18%.⁴ **Walking is the third most used travel mode on a typical weekday** after personal car use and travel by Metrorail.⁵ **“Safe and comfortable places to walk and bike”** was one of the top four priorities cited during public engagement in fall 2019.⁶ <
> 3. 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 4. American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates 5. 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 6. Alexandria Mobility Plan Priority Feedback, 2020 *** Over 50% Alexandria residents that walked or biked for transportation in the past month An even greater percentage walked, ran, or biked for recreation or fitness.⁷ > **Perceptions of walking vary by community.** Public comments indicated that Old Town “revolves around walking,” while in Arlandria the City “does not do much to support walking.” 320 miles of sidewalks 21 miles of on-street bike lanes 23 miles of paved trails The paved trails provide full separation for motor vehicles and serve transportation and recreational purposes for a wide range of users of all ages and abilities. 37 Capital Bikeshare stations in 2021 with plans to add several more in the next few years. 52 pedestrian-involved crashes in 2020⁸ 10 bicycle-involved crashes in 2020⁸ Safety for people walking and bicycling needs improvement. 7. Alexandria Resident Transportation Needs Assessment Survey, 2017. 8. Vision Zero Performance Dashboard. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Existing Programs, Policies, and Initiatives ## Complete Streets Alexandria's Complete Streets Program works to implement the City's priority pedestrian and bicycle projects as identified in the 2008 Transportation Master Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016 and in accordance with the Vision Zero policy and Action Plan. ## Repaving Program City streets are resurfaced based on their condition rating. When streets are resurfaced, City staff identify areas where planned portions of the pedestrian and bicycle network also can be implemented by upgrading curb ramps, adding missing crosswalks, installing bike lanes, repairing sidewalks, and more to improve conditions for users of all ages and abilities. ## Safe Routes to School Alexandria City Public Schools employs a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Coordinator to facilitate safety programs and organize walking and biking events at all elementary and middle schools. Additionally, the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services has a dedicated SRTS infrastructure planning and construction program as part of the Complete Streets Program. ## Multi-Use Trails Alexandria's trail system features more than20 miles of paved, off-street, multi-use trails throughout the city, offering safe and enjoyable connections to key destinations for users of all ages and abilities. The City continues to expand the trail network by adding new trails and extending existing trails. ## Bicycle Parking The City of Alexandria is working to increase the number of both short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces. Bicycle parking is usually installed at the request of citizens or businesses. Additionally, the City requires bicycle parking as new development occurs in the city. ## Shared Mobility Capital Bikeshare, the regional bikeshare program, is expanding rapidly into the City of Alexandria. With 37 stations in Alexandria and more on the way, Capital Bikeshare is a convenient way of traveling by bike that can be used by residents and visitors alike. The City also has launched a pilot program to allow private companies to operate shared, dockless bicycles and scooters available for rent. Walking and bicycling infrastructure benefit more than just those who walk or bike. For example, new mobility options, such as bikeshare or scooters, benefit from bicycle infrastructure on the road. Sidewalks that are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible—have smooth surfaces, adequate width, and curb ramps on all corners—help not only those using mobility devices such as wheelchairs, but also those using strollers and wheeled luggage. <
> # Policies The Pedestrian and Bicycle chapter policies will guide the City's decision-making around building out a citywide network of safe and connected sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails. ## Policy A: Prioritize Safety Focus on vulnerable street user crashes to help achieve Vision Zero. The City will focus on crashes involving vulnerable street users, including those who walk and bike, as a means of achieving Vision Zero. <
> ## Policy B: Address Network Gaps Complete pedestrian and bicycle networks equitably and cost-effectively. The City will complete the bicycle and pedestrian networks by pursuing funding for priority projects, accelerating work in underserved areas, and taking advantage of opportunities to make improvements through the repaving program. | Strategies | Policies | | :--- | :--- | | That support policies | The City of Alexandria will... | 1. Create a safe, well-maintained, and comfortable walking and bicycling environment 2. Build out a continuous, connected, and accessible pedestrian network that enables people of all ages and abilities to move safely and comfortably 3. Build out a connected bicycle network of both on- and off-street facilities to benefit cyclists of all ages and abilities 4. Upgrade or install infrastructure that increases the accessibility of City streets and public spaces for people of all ages and abilities 5. Educate all street users about safety and traffic laws <
> A: Prioritize safety B: Address network gaps # Strategies # Strategy 1. Create a safe, well-maintained, and comfortable walking and bicycling environment ## Actions * Improve signage and wayfinding for people biking and walking * Invest in ongoing maintenance and repair of the pedestrian and bicycle network * Conduct construction inspections, address priority lighting deficiencies, and ensure timely snow plowing to ensure infrastructure is accessible at all times * Prioritize safe access to transit, schools, senior centers, recreation centers, and improvements at high-crash locations <
> ## Addressing the Need There is an increasing demand for safe and comfortable walking and bicycling facilities, as reflected in the Resident Transportation Needs survey the City conducts every two years. In 2016, 51 percent of the respondents indicated they would walk or bike more if there were more off-street walking, biking, or multi-use paths. In 2018, this increased to 66 percent of respondents.[^p64-9] The safety of people walking and biking is a serious concern. From 2016 to 2019, pedestrian-involved crashes accounted for 30 percent of the serious injury and fatal crashes in the City of Alexandria. Nine pedestrians were killed and eight bicyclists were seriously injured during the same time frame.[^p64-10] Electric shared bikes were introduced in Alexandria in 2019, and can help overcome a primary barrier to biking in the city—its hilly topography. The increasing popularity of e-bikes, both shared and personal, is likely help grow the number of cyclists in Alexandria, making improved facilities even more essential. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community** * Pedestrian-Safe Streets **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Prioritize Low-Carbon Mobility Options * Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Build Safe Streets for Everyone **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** * Accommodate All Modes of Travel <
> [^p64-9]: Alexandria Resident Transportation Needs Assessment Survey, 2017. [^p64-10]: Vision Zero Performance Dashboard. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 2. Build out a continuous, connected, and accessible pedestrian network that enables people of all ages and abilities to move safely and comfortably ## Actions * Make existing sidewalks and intersections safer and more comfortable, with a focus on high-crash locations per the Vision Zero Action Plan * Continue addressing priority sidewalks to ensure sidewalks are present on both sides of all major streets and on at least one side of all other streets * Reduce conflicts between modes by implementing treatments consistent with national best practices that are context appropriate, including increasing the number and quality of off-street connections and intersection improvements * Improve off-street pedestrian access through neighborhoods, new developments, and across major barriers such as freeways or rail corridors <
> ## Addressing the Need While nearly all Alexandria residents have easy access to sidewalks in their neighborhoods, 10 percent live within 330 feet of a sidewalk gap. There are sidewalk gaps present within 330 feet of three Alexandria City Public Schools. Sidewalks are essential for transit access and can support a number of commercial and social activities as well, such as outdoor dining and sidewalk vendors. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community** * Pedestrian-Safe Streets **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Prioritize Low-Carbon Mobility Options * Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Build Safe Streets for Everyone **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** * Accommodate All Modes of Travel <
> Pedestrian and Bicycle | 13 # Strategy 3. Build out a connected bicycle network of both on- and off-street facilities and shared mobility devices to benefit riders of all ages and abilities ## Actions * Expand bikeshare and availability of parking for bikes and micromobility devices such as shared/electric bikes and scooters * Study building upon the planned network of bicycle routes to develop a citywide network of low-stress bicycle routes that are appealing to adults and children who are interested in riding but concerned about safety * Integrate the off-street trail system with the on-street bicycle network by providing wayfinding and well-designed transitions at trail access points * Build out the planned bicycle network with both on- and off-street facilities to provide safe connections within and between neighborhoods and to key destinations <
> ## Addressing the Need Currently, 54 percent of the population lives within 1/8 mile of a bike lane or paved trail; however, the network of these types of facilities is not continuous. For those wanting to bike to work, 62 percent of jobs in the city are within 1/8 mile of a bike lane or paved trail. To improve the bike network for people of all ages and abilities, the City must build more off-street trails and on-street bike lanes with more separation from motor vehicles. There also is a lack of public bike parking in many commercial, mixed-use, and higher-density residential areas. These facilities also can be used by scooters and other types of micromobility vehicles. Shared micromobility (Capital Bikeshare, Lime, Bird, etc.) provides users with on-demand access to bicycles, mopeds, and/or scooters at a variety of pick-up and drop-off locations. More people also are purchasing their own small mobility devices to use on a regular basis, increasing the demand for safe places to ride. About two-thirds of Alexandrians indicated that they would walk and/or bike more if there were more off-street multi-use paths or trails.[^p66-11] ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Prioritize Low-Carbon Mobility Options * Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Build Safe Streets for Everyone **Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community** * Safe Walking, Biking, and Driving **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** * Accommodate All Modes of Travel <
> [^p66-11]: Alexandria Resident Transportation Needs Assessment Survey, 2017. # Strategy 4. Upgrade or install infrastructure that increases the accessibility of City streets and public spaces for people of all ages and abilities ## Actions * When repaving streets, upgrade corners and add high-visibility crosswalks where appropriate with accessible, directional ramps that meet, to the maximum extent possible, current ADA standards * Upgrade or install new audible pedestrian signal push buttons at existing and new pedestrian signals to enhance access and safety for persons with disabilities * Address tripping hazards on sidewalks and pedestrian areas as quickly as possible through routine maintenance projects and in response to service requests * Prioritize safe and accessible access to transit stops, schools, and parks * Install appropriate street lighting for those walking and bicycling, with consideration to areas with more people of color or low income residents <
> ## Addressing the Need According to the U.S. Census, 11 percent of Alexandria’s population is aged 65 and older, 5 percent of the population under the age of 65 lives with a disability, and 17 percent of the population under the age of 16 lives with a disability.[^p67-12] Providing safe, comfortable, and accessible walking and biking routes is particularly important for members of these groups and others who may not or cannot drive a personal vehicle. These routes provide opportunities for physical activity and independent travel. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals *Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community* * Safe Walking, Biking, and Driving *Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines* * Accommodate All Modes of Travel * Health and Safety for All Users *Vision Zero Action Plan* * Build Safe Streets for Everyone <
> [^p67-12]: Demographic and Housing Estimates, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2019. # Strategy 5. Educate all street users about safety and traffic laws ## Actions * Initiate targeted outreach that aims to increase adult and youth knowledge of safe walking, biking, and driving behaviors and traffic laws related to pedestrian, bicycle, and scooter travel * Educate public and private sector design professionals, city groups, and the public who are involved with Alexandria’s transportation system on Complete Streets principles and design * Pursue partnerships to expand the reach of education, outreach, and promotional efforts with GO Alex, the Alexandria Policy Department, Alexandria City Public Schools, MWCOG’s Street Smart Safety Campaign, local advocacy groups, and others Existing education programs commonly focus on a single mode (for example, driver's ed or a "learn to ride" bicycle safety class) and may not fully address how different modes should interact on the street. Virginia law states that drivers must give at least 3 feet of space when passing a person riding a bike. If there is not 3 feet of passing space in the shared travel lane, the driver must change lanes to pass. This can be hard to judge, and bicyclists may often need to ride close to the middle of the lane to avoid opening car doors and other obstacles. One way to address these challenges is through better education for all road users. Frustrated by low attendance at adult bike safety classes, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado rebranded their class for drivers and saw attendance triple in the first year. The 90-minute Bicycle-Friendly Driver class covers: * Why sharing the road is the safest alternative for both drivers and bicyclists * What's legal and what's not legal, for both drivers and bicyclists * Common crashes and how to avoid them * Why bicyclists "take the lane" and what motorists should do in response * How to navigate bicycle-related infrastructure such as sharrows, bike boxes, and green lanes ## Addressing the Need This strategy builds upon Vision Zero recommendations to reduce speed limits, educate all street users on their rights and responsibilities, and create a shared culture of safety to reduce the disproportionate impacts of crashes on pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable street users. An average of 37 people in Alexandria are killed or seriously injured each year using the City's streets.[^p68-13] When pedestrians and bicyclists are involved in crashes, the crashes are more likely to be serious—34 percent of bicyclist or pedestrian crashes are serious versus just 6 percent of all crashes. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Vision Zero Action Plan** * Promote a Culture of Safety **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** * Accommodate All Modes of Travel <
> [^p68-13]: Vision Zero Action Plan, 2017. <
> # Metrics The strategies and policies in this chapter are intended to move the needle on the following measurable metrics. Additional details on metrics, including applicable targets for future years, can be found in Appendix II - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators. ### Metric | | | :--- | | Number of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes | | Percent of people walking or biking to work (mode share) | | Linear feet of new sidewalk installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas) | | Miles of bicycle facilities (on-street and paved off-street trails) installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas) | | Positive rating of ease of walking (Resident Survey) * | | Positive rating of ease of travel by bicycle (Resident Survey)* | | Number of repaired curb ramps per year | | Number of accessible pedestrian signals installed per year | | Annual number of bikeshare trips | | Shared mobility trips to and from equity areas (as defined by the Dockless Mobility Program) | | Number of designated parking areas for bicycles, e-bikes, and scooters citywide and in equity areas (as defined by the Dockless Mobility Program) | * The Alexandria Resident Survey reports results based on race/ethnicity, income, and age in addition to all residents. # Advancing Pedestrian and Bicycle Priority Projects Pedestrian and bicycle projects were identified in the 2016 Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan. The project maps and lists have been updated to reflect the progress made since 2016; completed projects have been removed and replaced by the next highest prioritization score. Prioritization results are based on a data-driven analysis of demand, safety, connectivity, and geography. For the full methodology, please refer to the 2016 Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter update. Project maps are included on the following pages, and project lists can be found here. The City will continue to pursue funding from grants and through the City's budget process and implement pedestrian and bicycle projects through routine street resurfacing, as part of larger capital investments, and in coordination with developers and redevelopment. Therefore, the order of the projects does not necessarily reflect the order in which they will be implemented. <
> # Pedestrian Priority Projects <
> * Tier 1 Priority Sidewalk Gap * Tier 2 Priority Sidewalk Gap * Tier 3 Priority Sidewalk Gap * Tier 4 Priority Sidewalk Gap *Remaining sidewalk gaps as of 2021 and their relative priority identified in the [Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016](http://Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016).* # Bicycle Priority Projects <
> | Existing Facility | Planned Bike Network | | :--- | :--- | | — Dedicated Bike Lanes | •••• Enhanced Bicycle Facility | | — Shared Lane Markings | •••• Shared Lane Markings | | — Trail/Side Path | •••• Trail/Side Path | | Source: City of Alexandria 2021 | Source: 2016 Bicycle and Pedestrain Chapter update | Information contained in this document is for planning purposes. Further analysis and engineering design are necessary prior to implementing any recommended bicycle facilities, including selecting the specific facility type and design for Enhanced Bicycle Facilities. Learn more about facility type definitions on page 49 of the- Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016. <
> # Supporting Travel Options How the City encourages alternatives to driving alone. # Introduction This chapter focuses on how the City can support alternatives to driving alone through information, incentives, partnerships, and policies to reduce congestion on our streets and make our transportation system more sustainable. These practices—often called Transportation Demand Management (TDM)—are not about forcing people out of their cars, but rather making a variety of transportation options (i.e. transit, carpool, telework, cycling, and walking) easy, accessible, and convenient to give more travel choices to more people. The development of this chapter was called for in the *Environmental Action Plan (EAP) 2040* to improve the City's existing programs that support travel and mobility options to help achieve EAP and *City Strategic Plan* goals for reducing vehicle miles traveled in the city and increasing the share of biking, walking, and transit trips. <
> > By FY2023, develop a stand-alone Transportation Demand Management Chapter in the Alexandria Mobility Plan (formerly the Transportation Master Plan) to promote low-carbon modes of transportation. > > — Short-Term Action 7.2.1, Environmental Action Plan 2040 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Key Context 74% of trips in Alexandria are non-work trips[^p74-1] 59% of trips in Alexandria are less than 3 miles[^p74-1] 46% of commute trips in Alexandria are single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips[^p74-1] 36% of carbon emissions in Alexandria are produced by transportation, making transportation the second- largest emissions-producing sector[^p74-2] [^p74-1]: 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. [^p74-2]: City of Alexandria Environmental Action Plan 2040. *** Weekday Trips in Alexandria <
> Source: 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Existing Programs, Policies, and Initiatives ## GO Alex The City’s GO Alex program provides residents, commuters, and employers with resources to help promote mobility options through: * Developing employer-specific plans and resources * Assisting in rideshare matching * Promoting regional incentives to try different transportation options * Providing travel tools and information across Alexandria The policies and strategies in this chapter aim to support GO Alex by improving and expanding the reach of its programming to make more people more aware of Alexandria’s wide range of travel choices it offers such as bus service, commuter and intercity rail, bikeshare, micromobility, paratransit, and more. <
> ## Transportation Management Plans A transportation management plan (TMP) is a site-specific plan to encourage residents and employees to take public transportation, walk, bike, or share a ride as opposed to driving alone to reduce rush hour congestion. Developers of new buildings are required to submit a TMP that outlines how they will reduce drive-alone trips and report back to the City. In 2021, there are approximately 65 active TMPs in the city. TMPs help achieve efficient and sustainable use of transportation facilities by providing bikeshare memberships, transit passes, and information to residents and workers. <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Policies The Supporting Travel Options chapter policies will guide the City's decision-making around increasing availability and encouraging use of flexible and sustainable travel options for all types of trips. ## Policy A: Enhance choice Make it easier for more people to choose an alternative to driving alone. The City of Alexandria will apply evidenced-based practices that have been demonstrated to be the most effective at reducing drive-alone travel to reduce congestion, improve public health, and make the city more sustainable. ## Policy B: Promote work flexibility Encourage continued telework and flexible schedules to reduce congestion and emissions. Teleworking and modified work schedules can help shift travel times and alleviate traffic congestion during peak periods. The City of Alexandria will work to encourage broader telework and flexible schedule practices among employers to reduce demand on the transportation network during peak periods. <
> ## Policy C: Focus on all trips Shift non-commute trips away from driving alone. Outreach and education regarding travel options is traditionally focused on commute-to-work trips, despite that fact that non-commute trips make up three quarters of all trips in Alexandria. The City of Alexandria will work to better understand how to expand mobility options for all travelers, whether they are traveling for school, errands, shopping, recreation, tourism, or other resons. Reducing dependence on driving not only helps manage congestion, but also promotes a healthier and safer Alexandria. With the potential for long-term shifts in travel and commuting patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, considering all types of trips is important. ### Strategies That support policies | | Policies | | :--- | :--- | | 1. Use information, programs, and encouragement to make it easier for residents and workers to choose options other than driving alone | The City of Alexandria will... | | 2. Use the Potomac River to expand transportation options | A: Enhance choice | | 3. Create mobility hubs | B: Promote work flexibility | | 4. Pursue regional approaches to reduce traffic and congestion, particularly during peak times | C: Focus on all trips | Supporting Travel Options | 9 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategies ## Strategy 1. Use information, programs, and encouragement to make it easier for residents and workers to choose options other than driving alone ### Actions * Identify an expanded set of community influencers (such as religious leaders, school principals, and athletic organizations), in addition to employers and residential property managers, to help encourage alternatives to driving alone * Update the Transportation Management Plan program so new developments can better reduce and track congestion * Develop a travel training and commuter assistance program to provide hands-on experience on taking a new (to you) way of traveling * Expand use of real-time information to promote travel choices <
> ## Addressing the Need Only 20 percent of Alexandrians are aware of GO Alex, the City's program that works to encourage the use of public transit, ridesharing, bicycling, and walking as money- and time-saving alternatives that also are more environmentally-friendly.[^p77-3] To increase the use of the variety of travel options available in Alexandria, it is important that people know about the program. It is important that information on travel options—such as transit, bikeshare, car share, and rideshare—is available in one place so travelers can make informed decisions about which they choose. Improved guidelines for developers can produce more and better-quality data on how new developments are impacting travel patterns and promoting multimodal options. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals ### Environmental Action Plan 2040 * Reduce Automobile Dependency and Educate Individuals and Employers on Mobility Options Other Than Single-Occupancy Driving * Increase the Share of All Trips Taken by Public Transit, Walking, and Biking by at Least 15 Percent by 2023 ### City Strategic Plan * Increase the Percentage of Commuters Using Alternative Transportation Options <
> > Travel training refers to the practice of teaching people to travel independently on different modes of transportation, such as public transit. Travel training programs are intended to encourage behavior changes by giving people a level of comfort with and understanding of travel options that are new to them. These programs can be offered in a group setting or one-on-one and also can be specialized for seniors or people who have cognitive or physical mobility challenges. [^p77-3]: AlexMoves – City of Alexandria Mobility Survey, 2019. Supporting Travel Options | 11 # Strategy 2. Use the Potomac River to expand transportation options ## Actions * Partner with other jurisdictions, agencies, and private partners to determine the best ways to utilize the Potomac River as a transportation option * Explore and evaluate new water transportation routes and services for commute and trips, errands, or entertainment * Identify opportunities to integrate with other modes of transportation <
> ## Addressing the Need There is a need to provide enhanced transportation options and transit connections, especially those that do not impact the city’s constrained street network, to make progress toward key environmental priorities such as reducing vehicle miles traveled. > As noted during Alexandria Mobility Plan focus group meetings, the **Potomac River is an underutilized transportation resource** in the region and using it for new travel options could be an effective means of providing alternatives to driving and alleviating congestion. > During the WMATA Platform Improvement Project in the summer of 2019 that shut down Metrorail service in Alexandria, the Potomac Riverboat Company began offering new morning commuter service from Old Town Alexandria to The Wharf in Washington, DC. **This new ferry travel option was well received** among those who opted for it and **did not cause increased traffic or parking challenges at the waterfront.** This strategy will explore ways to build upon the success of that experiment. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 3. Create mobility hubs ## Actions * Identify optimal locations for mobility hubs in strategic locations around the city. These mobility hubs will differ in size and scope based on location type and may incorporate elements to improve navigation for all users of the site through wayfinding and other features * Incorporate charging infrastructure for carshare vehicles, personal vehicles, and micromobility devices (electric bikes, scooters, etc.) * Focus on traditionally underserved communities and strategic locations to address first- and last-mile travel needs citywide <
> ## Addressing the Need There is a need to better serve the city—especially areas with more limited transit service—with smaller-scale and more cost-effective travel options that offer alternatives to driving for getting to transit hubs or other short trips. Mobility hubs also provide convenient choices for which modes to use depending on the length and purpose of your trips > A **mobility hub** is a location that brings multiple modes of transportation together in one physical location and are often clustered near high-frequency transit stations such as a Metrorail station. Typical mobility hub components can support short trips and/or first- and last-mile journeys and include bicycle and scooter parking, electric vehicle chargers, carshare vehicles, and pedestrian wayfinding signage. <
> ## Advancing City Plans and Goals ### Smart Mobility Framework Plan * Improve and Expand Mobility on Demand as a Means to Improve Accessibility * Plan for Emerging and Future Transportation Technologies ### Environmental Action Plan 2040 * Adopt Permanent Regulations for Shared Mobility Devices such as Dockless Bikes, Electric Scooters, and Other Personal Mobility Devices by Fiscal Year 2023 <
> Supporting Travel Options | 15 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategy 4. Pursue regional approaches to reduce traffic and congestion, particularly during peak times ## Actions * Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional entities to explore unifying local TDM programs into a more comprehensive regional effort * Advocate for policies that will help manage congestion, such as telework incentives or a regional congestion pricing program * Continue to support regional transportation initiatives, including Commuter Connections, and targeted TDM initiatives of a regional scale, such as the Northern Virginia Regional Multi-Modal Mobility Program (R3MP) <
> ## Addressing the Need Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)—a measure of how much people are driving—in Alexandria was reduced by 12 percent between 2010 and 2018[^p80-4] mostly due to travel on local streets. However, regional travel has not changed significantly and represents an equal proportion of VMT on City streets. With Alexandria generally bordered on two sides by I-395 and I-495, City streets can be used as cut-through or alternative routes, especially during congested periods. It is important that Alexandria continues to coordinate with regional partners to pursue efforts that will manage transportation demand to further decrease VMT and, thereby, reduce congestion and carbon emissions. The Northern Virginia Regional Multi-Modal Mobility Program (RM3P) leverages “the collaborative use of real-time data by Virginia’s public and private sectors to improve travel safety, reliability, and mobility and to give the public the tools to make more informed travel choices.” The program includes elements such as data-exchange programs, commuter parking information systems, dynamic incentivization, artificial intelligence-based decision support system, and a multi-modal analytical planner. The program advances the use of technology to support jurisdictions and cities to achieve their goals of increasing modal splits and a more dynamic, safe, and efficient transportation system. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Reduce Automobile Dependency and Educate Individuals and Employers on Mobility Options Other Than Single-Occupancy Driving **City Strategic Plan** * Increase the Percentage of Commuters Using Alternative Transportation Options <
> [^p80-4]: Vehicle Miles Travelled - Weekday Trends Modeled Region 2005 to 2018, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. # Metrics The strategies and policies in this chapter are intended to move the needle on the following measurable metrics. Additional details on metrics, including applicable targets for future years, can be found in **Appendix II - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators**. ## Metric Number of community influencers involved with GO Alex Percent of people taking non-single occupancy vehicles to work (mode share) Weekday person hours of delay <
> Credit: Hover Solutions for Visit Alexandria <
> # Curb Space and Parking How the City regulates parking and manages curb use. # Introduction <
> This chapter is focused on how the City will manage competing demands for curb space and efficiently use parking to help achieve City goals. Over the past several years, Alexandria has seen an increase in e-commerce deliveries, rideshare use, and scooter and bikeshare use, all of which have unique demands for space along the curb. During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the City saw increased interest in allowing retail uses and outdoor dining along the curb, which may continue into the future. The evolving nature of the curb and broader mobility trends prompt a need for the City to rethink how it allocates this resource and effectively manages demand to maintain order on our streets and ensure that various needs are being met. To manage curb space, the City also must consider effective management of off-street parking. The policies and strategies set forth in this chapter will help guide the management of curb space and parking resources and concurrently support the City's commitment to sustainability and quality of life. # Key Context 126 unique on-street paid parking zones with space for more than 1,400 vehicles across the City These zones are largely concentrated in Old Town. Street parking generally costs less than parking garages, which disincentives garage use and puts a great strain on street parking. 16 publicly accessible garages and 6 parking lots available for paid parking in Old Town These facilities range in cost, typically featuring flat and hourly rates that cost more than metered street parking. 58% Alexandrians that have a positive experience with “Availability of parking near my home.”[^p84-1] 52% Alexandrians that have a positive experience with “Availability of on-street and garage parking.” Ratings for traffic flow, travel by car, overall ease of travel, and public parking among Alexandrians decreased in 2020 compared to 2018.[^p84-1] <
> [^p84-1]: Alexandria 2020 Resident Survey. # Existing Programs, Policies, and Initiatives ## Residential Parking Permit Program Alexandria’s Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program designates certain areas in the city as residential permit parking districts. As a means to preserve on-street parking in these areas for Alexandria residents, the RPP ordinance prohibits on-street parking for more than 2 or 3 hours during varying time periods. Only persons who maintain their residence within the boundaries of an RPP district are eligible to obtain parking permits, and vehicles that display these permits are exempt from the timed restrictions. <
> Residential Parking Permit Districts ## Electric Vehicle Charging The Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Readiness Strategy will develop a road map to anticipate the electric vehicle charging infrastructure needs of City residents, workforce members, and visitors as electric vehicles become more mainstream. The project includes: * Evaluating projections for current and future electric vehicle charging infrastructure needs * Recommending locations for publicly accessible charging infrastructure with integration into a broader regional network * Reviewing and updating the City’s zoning, codes, permitting, and inspection codes and development processes and requirements * Recommending policies, approaches, and synergies for locating electric vehicle charging infrastructure at businesses, multi-unit dwellings, single-family homes, right-of-way, and other locations along residential and commercial streets ## Residential Pay by Phone Program Certain residential permit blocks within Old Town have been made “pay by phone” for non-residents who choose to park. After a successul pilot, City Council made this permanent in 2019. ## Parking Standards for New Development Study This study, completed in 2018, conducted an assessment of the previous parking standards and established updated standards for new development projects. This update established an Enhanced Transit Area with reduced parking requirements to encourage non-auto travel, and outlined provisions for shared parking. ## Micromobility Corrals In some locations around Alexandria, the City has installed micromobility corrals to maximize curb space and encourage parking of micromobility devices in locations that do not hinder vehicle or pedestrian travel. # Policies The Curb Space and Parking chapter policies will guide the City's decision-making around smart use of curb space and make parking more efficient and available toward the advancement of City goals. ## Policy A: Connect parking policy to City goals Achieve broader City goals related to sustainability, congestion, and housing affordability through parking. Parking facilities are expensive to build and maintain, and when it is easy to park, more people will drive. The goals of the Environmental Action Plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase the use of sustainable travel modes require the City to reimagine the curb space. The City of Alexandria will continue to use policy to right-size parking facilities and unbundle the cost of parking from housing to reduce the cost burden of parking on non-vehicle owners and limit its role in contributing to traffic. ## Policy B: Ensure parking availability Seek to maintain parking availability in the city's residential and commercial districts, recognizing that some people may need to walk a short distance to their destination. The City will seek to ensure a reasonable parking option is available by strategically aligning curb space with its highest and best use and managing on- and off-street parking through technology and pricing. A recent study has demonstrated that in an urban area, more parking led to more car ownership, more driving, more congestion, less transit use, and less walking.[^p86-2] [^p86-2]: More Parking Puts More Cars on the Road, Sightline Institute. https://www.sightline.org/2021/01/28/more-parking-isnt-harmless-it-actually-makes-us-drive-more/ *** ## Policy C: Promote equitable allocation of curb space Treat all curb space as a public asset that should be allocated in an equitable manner for its highest and best use, appropriate for the specific location, time of day, and time of year. Recognizing the competing demands over curb space, the City of Alexandria will work to manage this finite resource in a way that considers a diversity of needs and maximizes community benefits and goals. Local context will drive decision-making to ensure that solutions for the curb space use are tailored to needs. ### Strategies That support policies 1. Implement a prioritization framework for making changes to curb space 2. Consider pricing, regulation, data, and communications to manage parking availability 3. Reconsider parking requirements in new developments 4. Promote electric vehicle charging opportunities <
> **Policies** The City of Alexandria will... * A: Connect parking policy to City goals * B: Ensure parking availability * C: Promote equitable allocation of curb space ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Strategies ## Strategy 1. Implement a prioritization framework for making changes to curb space ### Actions * Implement a framework to prioritize parking, loading, drop-off, bike lanes, and mobility hubs, among other uses, when making curbside changes * Work with the community and the Traffic and Parking Board to apply the framework when a new use is considered on a street The City’s Curb Space Prioritization Framework is included at the end of this chapter. <
> *** ### Addressing the Need Alexandria’s curb space is a valuable commodity and is very much in demand. Many modes of access—pedestrians, parking, transit, bicycles, and commercial and private vehicles—compete for curbside access to shops, restaurants, housing, offices, and community facilities. The City must find a way to balance these needs while encouraging the use of off-street parking and loading when appropriate to reduce the demand for the curb. ### Advancing City Plans and Goals **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Reduce Automobile Dependency and Educate Individuals and Employers on Mobility Options Other Than Single-Occupancy Driving **Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines** * Accommodate All Modes of Travel and for the Health and Safety of All Users * Smart and Efficient Management of the Curbside **Age Friendly Plan for a Livable Community** * Those Who Walk, Drive, and Ride a Bicycle in Alexandria Can Do So Safely **Housing Master Plan** * Preserve the Long-Term Affordability and Physical Condition of the Existing Stock of Publicly Assisted Rental Housing, as well as Market Rental Housing Where Affordability Commitments Can Be Secured <
> Curb Space and Parking | 11 # Strategy 2. Consider pricing, regulation, data, and communications to manage parking availability ## Actions * Consider technology to collect and disseminate more and better data on parking availability and usage * Improve signage and availability of real-time information via technology to guide users to off-street parking, pick-ups, drop-offs, and loading to free up on-street curb space whenever reasonable and practicable * Consider coordinated pricing strategies to encourage more efficient and equitable use of on- and off-street parking spaces * Improve the perception of safety in garages through improved communications, wifi connections, and cellular service <
> ## Addressing the Need The perception that parking is hard to find in certain areas, while not always a reality, can lead to frustration and encourage drivers to circle the block to find available spaces or free parking. By making off-street parking more attractive through pricing or improved information, more people may use it, freeing up on-street spaces and reducing the perception that parking is in limited supply. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals ### Environmental Action Plan 2040 * Reduce Automobile Dependency and Educate Individuals and Employers on Mobility Options Other Than Single-Occupancy Driving <
> # Strategy 3. Reconsider parking requirements in new developments ## Actions * Build upon recent efforts to right-size parking for residential and commercial development, recognizing that increased parking leads to increased traffic * Review shared parking section of the zoning and ordinance to identify opportunities to make shared parking more viable. For example, a bank that closes at 5:00 PM and a restaurant that opens at 5:00 PM may be able to share parking facilities * Leverage the ability of new data sources to regularly evaluate parking uses and trends * Increase the percentage of parking spaces in new developments that can support electric vehicle charging <
> ## Addressing the Need Parking facilities have several adverse effects on the natural and built environments, including increased stormwater run-off and pollution due to their impervious surfaces; reduced density of land development that hinders the use of sustainable travel options such as walking, biking, or public transit; and increased use of vehicles that can lead to more traffic congestion and air pollution. It is important to reconsider parking standards and requirements to reduce the number of parking facilities that may be larger than necessary. > Updating parking standards can yield several positive outcomes for communities. Maximum standards for off-street parking work to limit the construction of parking facilities that are larger than necessary. Recently, cities such as Hartford, CT and Portland, OR recognized the need to limit parking and established parking maximums in their regulations, thus controlling the amount of land and impervious surface associated with parking. In Alexandria’s recent “Parking Standards for New Development Projects Study - Phase 2,” the City also has implemented parking maximums and an Enhanced Transit Area in which requirements are lower. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals ### Housing Master Plan * Preserve the Long-Term Affordability and Physical Condition of the Existing Stock of Publicly Assisted Rental Housing ### Environmental Action Plan 2040 * Reduce Automobile Dependency ### City Strategic Plan * Increase the Percentage of Commuters Using Alternative Transportation Options <
> # Strategy 4. Promote electric vehicle charging opportunities ## Actions * Establish electric vehicle (EV) installation checklists for different uses * Develop a policy for providing public charging infrastructure in public spaces * Coordinate between parties interested in charging stations <
> ## Addressing the Need Transportation accounts for more than a third of Alexandria’s greenhouse gas emissions. Converting more vehicle trips from internal combustion engine vehicle trips to electric vehicle trips can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially as the energy to charge them is anticipated to come from increasingly sustainable and renewable sources. There are a growing number of Alexandrian’s who own or are interested in owning electric vehicles, and the increased numbers of EVs will require additional charging infrastructure to support them. ## Advancing City Plans and Goals **Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Readiness Strategy** * Meet electric vehicle charging demand **Environmental Action Plan 2040** * Implement and support implementation of publicly-accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure that is supported by renewable energy <
> # Curb Space Prioritization Framework This framework sets priorities for curb access based on land uses. Land uses are broadly defined into four categories based on the kinds of curbside activity in different parts of the city. Curb uses are also categorized broadly to enable future mobility options to fit into this framework. For example, previous plans mentioned bus stops, but did not anticipate bikeshare systems, dockless scooters, or ridehail companies like Uber and Lyft. As part of the Alexandria Mobility Plan, the City has begun the work to realize Strategy 1 and develop a curb space prioritization framework. This framework outlines varying priorities for curb uses in areas of the city, depending on their land use. Staff will use this framework to guide future decisions. This framework can be applied to existing streets as well as future streets outlined in small area plans. When evaluating proposals and resident requests that will impact curb space, staff will work through the framework with affected parties to understand the needs and context of the street. This framework helps guide decision-makers when evaluating requests and applications—it is not a proposal for changing the City's streets. * The specific context for each block matters. If a proposal is not feasible on a given street, this framework would not apply. * Not every curb use category will apply to every street. For example, low-density residential streets with available curb space will not need large (or any) changes to provide adequate access for people. * Higher priority uses will not eliminate lower priorities. Providing access for goods, for example, does not mean that all the parking on a street will be eliminated, but instead that a parking space may be considered for removal to introduce improved access for goods. <
> ## Land Use Categories | | Description: | Examples: | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Residential** | Predominantly residential uses, including detached houses, rowhouses, and apartment buildings | • Cameron Station Blvd between Duke St and S. Pickett St
• Taney Ave between N. Jordan St and Van Dorn St | | **Main Streets** | Mixed-use neighborhoods with office, residential, and retail uses as well as neighborhood retail corridors | • Mt Vernon Ave in Del Ray
• King St in Old Town | | **Office & Commercial** | Areas with predominantly office, retail, and other 'Downtown' functions—often high-density and often including residential towers | • Eisenhower Ave between Holland Ln and Telegraph Rd in Carlyle
• Duke St between Holland Ln and Dulany St | | **Warehouse and Industrial** | Areas with mostly industrial and warehouse uses, including redeveloping areas adding retail uses and residential developments | • Wheeler Ave west of S. Early St
• S. Pickett St west of Van Dorn St | ## Curb Use Categories | | Examples: | | :--- | :--- | | **City Plan Priorities** | Safety improvements, bus lanes, bike lanes, green infrastructure, electric vehicle charging, and other items specifically included in City plans | | **Access for Goods** | Loading zones, deliveries, food pick-up/drop-off | | **Access for People** | Bus stops, pick-up/drop-off, bikeshare stations, scooter corrals | | **Parking** | Metered parking, residential parking, bike parking | | **Activation** | Parklets, in-street dining, public art | ## Curb Space Prioritization Framework | Priority: | Residential | Main Streets | Office & Commercial | Warehouse & Industrial | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **1: High** | \multicolumn{4}{c|}{City Plan Priorities} | | **2** | Access for People | Access for People | Access for People | Access for Goods | | **3** | Parking | Access for Goods | Access for Goods | Access for People | | **4** | Access for Goods | Activation | Parking | Parking | | **5: Low** | Activation | Parking | Activation | Activation | # Metrics The strategies and policies in this chapter are intended to move the needle on the following measurable metrics. Additional details on metrics, including applicable targets for future years, can be found in Appendix II - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators. ### Metric Number of curb space changes informed by the Curbspace Prioritization Framework introduced to the Traffic and Parking Board Positive rating of ease of public parking (Resident Survey) * Positive rating of availability of parking near my home (Resident Survey) * Positive rating of availability of on-street and garage parking near shopping (Resident Survey) * Number of publicly accessible level 2 or higher electric vehicle charging plugs per population <
> * The Alexandria Resident Survey reports results based on race/ethnicity, income, and age in addition to all residents. <
> # Moving Forward This plan has outlined a series of ambitious, yet achievable policies, actions, and strategies for Alexandria. It serves as a work plan for staff to improve mobility choices in the community and guides transportation decision-making. It promotes flexibility to adapt to our changing environment and provides a foundation for securing funding to advance existing plans and new projects. # A Shared Responsibility for Implementation and Monitoring Successfully executing the elements of the Alexandria Mobility Plan will take more than the efforts of any one City department. It will take the collective advocacy of citizens, dedication of staff, and leadership from elected officials. In **Appendix I - Implementation** and **Appendix II - Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators**, the specific steps of strategy implementation and process for tracking success is outlined in further detail. <
> # Keeping the Plan Current In keeping with the overarching policy of adaptability and flexibility, it is important to note that the strategies within this plan are not exhaustive. As new initiatives develop, they will be considered compatible with the AMP as long as they are consistent with AMP policies and help to achieve its targets and guiding principles. Many of the initiatives in this plan will require additional targeted outreach and community engagement as more details are developed. The City anticipates providing a progress report to the Transportation Commission on an annual basis and assessing the key performance indicators and chapter metrics in 2024, 2027, and 2030. The City intends to conduct an update of the entire plan beginning in 2028, aligning with the target year to achieve the City’s Vision Zero goal. # AMP Outcomes Together, the elements of the plan will lead to tangible and measurable progress toward achieving the plan’s vision, guiding principles, and citywide goals to improve not just transportation, but also equity and quality of life. * Increased access to high-quality transportation choices for all Alexandrians * More and easier connections to jobs, opportunities, and community destinations * Better overall experience traveling around the city * Reduced number and severity of crashes * Increase in non single-occupant vehicle travel Equitable outcomes for all Alexandrians, especially neighborhoods and populations that have been historically underserved # Appendix I *Implementation* October 2021 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Implementation The chapters in the Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP) highlight specific strategies that advance the AMP vision, other citywide initiatives, and previously developed plans. Each strategy is complemented by implementation actions that move the strategy from an actionable concept in the AMP to an implemented strategy within the city. Implementation actions are specific, detailed, and aligned with a timeline to advance the strategy and help to inform staff workload and direction. The AMP is designed to be flexible. In addition to implementation actions providing direction for staff, the AMP also encourages staff to respond as new opportunities arise and conditions change over time. Therefore, continued tracking of progress on outlined strategies along with integration of new opportunities will help to ensure that staff efforts are aligned with AMP vision and goals. Appendix I – Implementation focuses on the strategies, implementation actions, and tracking progress. # Components of the Implementation Matrix ## Strategies The strategies are organized by AMP chapter. The attributes of each strategy include the applicable policies, guiding principles, and related plans. ## Implementation Actions Each strategy in the AMP has a series of implementation actions that guide the path forward to completion. These actions vary in the required duration, type of effort, collaboration, and many other factors. The implementation actions are aligned with four different timelines: * Short-term (by 2024) * Medium-term (by 2027) * Long-term (by 2030) * Continual The above timelines should be viewed as guides for City staff as they plan future work and projects. ## Metrics Tracking the progress of strategies and implementation actions can be measured through the metrics listed for each strategy, in addition to tracking progress towards completion. More detailed information for each metric, as well as data sources and baseline information can be found in **Appendix II – Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators**. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Plan Policies by Chapter ### Transit Policy A: Make transit greener and more useful Policy B: Make transit easier to use ### Smart Mobility Policy A: Improve safety and efficiency Policy B: Prepare for new technology ### Streets Policy A: Protect neighborhoods from cut-through traffic Policy B: Achieve Vision Zero Policy C: Leverage smart mobility ### Pedestrian and Bicycle Policy A: Prioritize safety Policy B: Address network gaps ### Supporting Travel Options Policy A: Enhance choice Policy B: Promote work flexibility Policy C: Focus on all trips ### Curb Space and Parking Policy A: Connect parking policy to City goals Policy B: Ensure parking availability Policy C: Promote equitable allocation of curb space Implementation | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies | | | Guiding Principles | | | | | | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | A | B | C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | | | | | | | | **Transit** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | Implement a citywide transit network with frequent, all-day service | 🗸 | 🗸 | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | Transit Vision Plan

Environmental Action Plan 2040

City Strategic Plan | • Begin implementing the New DASH Network in Fiscal Year 2022 | | | • Work with DASH's Advisory Committee and other members of the community to regularly gain input about service changes and implementation
• Seek funding for both the operations and capital improvements necessary to incrementally implement the 2030 network and improvements recommended in the Transit Vision Plan | • Percent of residents within ¼ mile of 15 minute or better service
• Percent of people taking transit to work (mode share)
• Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation | | 2 | Build out the city's priority transitway corridors and identify improvements on congested, high-ridership corridors to reduce travel times and improve reliability | 🗸 | 🗸 | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | Transit Vision Plan

Environmental Action Plan 2040

City Strategic Plan | • Collaborate with the community to develop a design for Duke Street that informs the construction of the Duke Street Transitway
• Advance the design and construction of the West End Transitway and evaluate its success to determine whether dedicated lanes or other methods to improve speed and reliability are needed
• Explore connecting Alexandria's transitways with high-capacity transit corridors in Fairfax County to help create a more reliable and efficient regional bus network | • Advance the design and construction of the West End Transitway and evaluate its success to determine whether dedicated lanes or other methods to improve speed and reliability are needed | • Extend the dedicated infrastructure for the Route 1 Metroway corridor to connect to the new Potomac Yard Metrorail station and into Arlington | • Evaluate transit signal priority, queue jumps, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and other operational or street design improvements/pilot projects on corridors with frequent and congested bus service | • Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation
• Percent of people taking transit to work (mode share) | | 3 | Transition the City's bus fleet to fully electric, zero-emission vehicles | 🗸 | | N/A | 🗸 | | | | | 🗸 | Transit Vision Plan

Environmental Action Plan 2040 | | | | • Move forward with the recommendations outlined in the DASH Zero-Emission Bus Implementation Plan to continue the transition of the City's fleet to all electric
• Make DASH an eligible direct federal grant recipient to broaden the available funding for the transition to zero-emissions buses
• Monitor emerging technology benefits and tradeoffs | • Percent of people taking transit to work (mode share)
• Rating of ease of travel by public transportation | Appendix I | 5 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies A | Related Policies B | Related Policies C | Guiding Principles Accessible | Guiding Principles Connected | Guiding Principles Convenient | Guiding Principles Equitable | Guiding Principles Safe | Guiding Principles Sustainable | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Transit** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | Improve the rider experience from trip planning, to accessing the stop, riding the bus, and arriving at the destination | 🗸 | 🗸 | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | Transit Vision Plan

Environmental Action Plan 2040

Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community

Smart Mobility Framework Plan

Complete Streets Policy

Vision Zero Policy | • Upgrade the existing fleet and change fleet specifications on future bus orders to improve the health, safety, and comfort of drivers and passengers during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, including driver partitions, air flow improvements, and real-time rider notifications of bus crowding levels | • Build in options for storage of large items such as strollers or groceries and enact rider policies to encourage families to use transit | | • Promote real-time tracking and bus priority technology to enable easier and more reliable trip planning and vehicle tracking for customers

• Ensure all bus stops are fully accessible per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and consider opportunities to improve access to bus stops through improving sidewalk, bicycle, and ramp connections

• Expand implementation of bus stop amenities including shelters, real-time signage, seating, lighting, and natural amenities to improve comfort and safety | • Percent of bus stops with shelters

• Percent of bus stops that are accessible for persons with disabilities | | 5 | Evaluate DASH’s fare free service and continue to explore low-income WMATA fares | 🗸 | 🗸 | N/A | | | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | Transit Vision Plan

Environmental Action Plan 2040 | • Monitor outcomes of implementing free fares on DASH

• Identify funding sources for long-term sustainability of a DASH fare free program | • Explore low-income fare products for WMATA services | | | • Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation | | 6 | Support a better connected regional transit network | | 🗸 | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | | 🗸 | Environmental Action Plan 2040 | • Support the development of mobile payment and trip planning applications that are compatible between Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Virginia Railway Express (VRE), Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (MARC), and Alexandria Transit Company (DASH) services | • Collaborate with WMATA and neighboring jurisdictions to enhance connectivity to major activity centers and develop a more coordinated, useful regional transit system as part of WMATA’s Bus Transformation Project implementation and Bus Network Redesign | • Enhance connections to support future rail expansion, water transportation expansion, and future regional bus rapid transit corridors | | • Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation

• Percent of residents within ¼ mile of 15 minute or better service | 6 | Appendix I Implementation | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies A | Related Policies B | Related Policies C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Transit** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 7 | Modernize the paratransit program for the city's aging population | | | N/A | | | | | | | Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community | • Develop more customer-friendly service that is scalable for increased demand

• Identify opportunities to improve cost-effectiveness for long-term program management for DOT Paratransit and MetroAccess services | | | | • Explore partnerships with existing City services, neighboring jurisdictions, and on-demand service providers to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of serving the travel needs of seniors and persons with disabilities | • Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation | | **Smart Mobility** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | Expand smart signal technology to enable detection and real-time signal adjustments | | | N/A | | | | | | | Smart Mobility Framework Plan

Vision Zero Action Plan | • Integrate Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) into more of the City's corridors. This involves upgrading the City's traffic signals as well as the fleet of transit and emergency vehicles with preemption equipment | • Enable use of vehicle detection at signals for more responsive timing through adaptive signal technology. Duke Street and Van Dorn Street will be the first two corridors to be prioritized for this effort | | | • Improve data collection through new platforms and technologies to better understand how people use the transportation system and improve decision-making | • Number of intersections with smart signal technology

• Percent of intersections with smart signal technology in Equity Emphasis Areas

• Rating of traffic flow on major streets

• Transit travel times on Duke Street, Van Dorn Street, and upper King Street | | 2 | Strategically invest in partnerships to expand city data, technology, and communications capabilities | | | N/A | | | | | | | Smart Mobility Framework Plan | • Develop a template for evaluating partnership opportunities and coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions, state agencies, and private companies to improve regional collaboration and data sharing | | | | • Identify potential partnerships to improve information and communication about parking availability, gain a better understanding of how the curb space on City streets is being utilized, obtain anonymized travel pattern data from private mobility operators, and collect and analyze real-time data to inform traffic management and street design

• Utilize platforms and engage in regional coalitions to make transportation data more transparent and improve decision-making | • Number of intersections with smart signal technology

• Percent of intersections with smart signal technology in Equity Emphasis Areas | Appendix I | 7 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies | Guiding Principles | | | | | | | Implementation Actions | | | | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | A | B | C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | | | | | | | | **Smart Mobility** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3 | Upgrade capabilities of the Traffic Management Center to better manage congestion in real-time | | 🗸 | | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | | Smart Mobility Framework Plan | | • Equip Alexandria’s Traffic Management Center to allow it to manage on-street traffic equipment, monitor overall system status including pavement condition during weather events, configure devices remotely, and analyze data

• Expand coverage of CCTV cameras and improve traffic visualizations for more efficient management of traffic incidents | | • Incorporate resiliency and redundancy measures, such as a virtual backups in the event of failures | • Number of intersections with smart signal technology
• Percent of intersections with smart signal technology in Equity Emphasis Areas
• Positive rating of traffic flow on major streets
• Transit travel times on Duke Street, Van Dorn Street, and upper King Street | | 4 | Proactively prepare for connected and autonomous vehicles | | 🗸 | | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | 🗸 | Smart Mobility Framework Plan | • Consider pilot projects to lay the groundwork for and evaluate the effectiveness of various new technologies. | • Prepare for connected vehicles by developing maintenance and infrastructure plans to ensure street readiness | • Prepare for autonomous or self-driving vehicles by developing policies to manage potentially significant increases in miles driven and traffic volumes within the city, including limiting zero-passenger miles and incentivizing shared use | • Ensure that safety is a priority when testing and implementing new technologies | • Number of intersections with smart signal technology
• Percent of intersections with smart signal technology in Equity Emphasis Areas | | 5 | Develop a framework for pilot projects to test new modes, infrastructure, or initiatives | | 🗸 | | N/A | 🗸 | | 🗸 | | 🗸 | Smart Mobility Framework Plan

Environmental Action Plan 2040

Vision Zero Action Plan | • Create standards for appropriate use of pilot projects, including timeframes, public process, evaluation, and opportunities to make adjustments

• Build upon lessons learned from the Dockless Mobility Pilot as well as national best practices from peer cities

• Promote a framework that ensures transparency in pilot project execution | | | | | Implementation | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies | | | Guiding Principles | | | | | | Related Plan(s) | Implementation Actions | | | | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | A | B | C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | | | **Streets** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | Implement the Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2028 | | ✅ | | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community Environmental Action Plan 2040 Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines Vision Zero Action Plan | | | | • Develop annual work plan priorities for promoting a culture of safety, building safer streets, improving data collection, and enhancing City processes and collaboration
• Prioritize high crash intersections and corridors for improvements, especially those in Equity Emphasis Areas
• Evaluate crash data for each project to enhance data-driven decision-making
• Apply national best practices as appropriate | Number of fatal and serious crashes | | 2 | Develop a comprehensive program to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on local streets | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | | ✅ | | ✅ | | City Strategic Plan

Smart Mobility Framework Plan

Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines

Vision Zero Action Plan | • Outline procedures for addressing and monitoring cut-through traffic, traffic congestion, and speeding
• Develop criteria and list of data needs tailored to each traffic issue | • Identify specific solutions for local traffic appropriate for the street type and location to encourage regional traffic to stay on major thoroughfares | | | Number of fatal and serious crashes | | 3 | Ensure new development minimizes negative impacts to the street network | ✅ | ✅ | | ✅ | | ✅ | | ✅ | ✅ | Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community

Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines

Environmental Action Plan 2040

Vision Zero Action Plan | • Update guidance for developers to better reflect City goals through traffic impact studies and best practices from around the country
• Require improved data collection and reporting after implementation | | | • Ensure proper consideration of all users through improved methods for measuring service levels for all modes and safety impacts on our transportation network
• Encourage study methodologies and mitigation measures such as TDM programs and street design changes that place higher priority on local trips rather than regional trips to help reduce cut-through traffic | Percent of Transportation Management Plans evaluated that meet mode split targets | | 4 | Work with regional, state, and private sector partners to develop tools to keep traffic on highways and reduce regional cut-through traffic | ✅ | | ✅ | | | ✅ | | ✅ | | Smart Mobility Framework Plan

City Strategic Plan | • Coordinate with other jurisdictions and regional bodies to evaluate pricing strategies and other policies that promote highway travel versus travel on local streets
• Explore signal timing as a tool to keep regional traffic on highways | | | • Utilize variable messaging systems to use real time travel comparisons to promote high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes | Positive rating of traffic flow on major streets | ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies A | Related Policies B | Related Policies C | Guiding Principles Accessible | Guiding Principles Connected | Guiding Principles Convenient | Guiding Principles Equitable | Guiding Principles Safe | Guiding Principles Sustainable | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Streets** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5 | Consider the use of speed cameras and other automated tools to improve safety | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | | | 🗸 | 🗸 | ALL Alexandria Resolution

City Strategic Plan

Vision Zero Action Plan | • Consider speed cameras in school zones, enabled in 2020 | • If data demonstrates a safety benefit with the use of automated enforcement tools, explore legislative measures to expand the City’s ability to place speed cameras in areas where they can most improve safety | | • Partner with the Alexandria Police Department to enforce traffic laws to protect vulnerable street users and promote equity | • Number of fatal and serious crashes | | 6 | Maintain a state of good repair for our streets using a proactive, data-driven, and equitable approach | | 🗸 | | | 🗸 | | | | 🗸 | ALL Alexandria Resolution

City Strategic Plan

Vision Zero Action Plan | | | | • Seek to maintain our transportation assets to achieve a state of good repair in a cost-effective and minimally disruptive manner by coordinating utility work, fiber installation, and other street improvements when possible

• Use state and federal required methodologies based on pavement and bridge condition to ensure continued funding and equitable distribution of resources

• When local funding is available for additional service requests, ensure they are distributed evenly throughout the city | • Average Pavement Condition Rating (Pavement Condition Index) | | **Pedestrian and Bicycle** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | Create a safe, well-maintained, and comfortable walking and bicycling environment | 🗸 | | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community

Environmental Action Plan 2040

Vision Zero Action Plan

Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines | • Improve signage and wayfinding for people biking and walking | | | • Invest in ongoing maintenance and repair of the pedestrian and bicycle network

• Conduct construction inspections, address priority lighting deficiencies, and ensure timely snow plowing to ensure infrastructure is accessible at all times

• Prioritize safe access to transit, schools, senior centers, recreation centers, and improvements at high-crash locations | • Number of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes

• Percent of people walking or biking to work (mode share)

• Annual number of bikeshare trips

• Positive rating of ease of walking

• Positive rating of ease of travel by bicycle

• Number of repaired curb ramps per year | Implementation | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies | | | Guiding Principles | | | | | | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Implementation Actions | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | A | B | C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | | | | | | | | **Pedestrian and Bicycle** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | Build out a continuous, connected, and accessible pedestrian network that enables people of all ages and abilities to move safely and comfortably | 🗸 | 🗸 | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community Environmental Action Plan 2040 Vision Zero Action Plan Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines | | | | • Make existing sidewalks and intersections safer and more comfortable, with a focus on high-crash locations per the Vision Zero Action Plan
• Continue addressing priority sidewalks to ensure sidewalks are present on both sides of all major streets and on at least one side of all other streets
• Reduce conflicts between modes by implementing treatments consistent with national best practices that are context appropriate, including increasing the number and quality of off-street connections and intersection improvements
• Improve off-street pedestrian access through neighborhoods, new developments, and across major barriers such as freeways or rail corridors | • Linear feet of new sidewalk installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas)
• Miles of bike facilities (on-street and paved off-street trails) installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas)
• Positive rating of ease of walking
• Number of repaired curb ramps per year
• Number of accessible pedestrian signals installed per year | | 3 | Build out a connected bicycle network of both on- and off-street facilities and shared mobility devices to benefit riders of all ages and abilities | 🗸 | 🗸 | N/A | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | Environmental Action Plan 2040 Vision Zero Action Plan Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines | • Expand bikeshare and availability of parking for bikes and micromobility devices such as shared/electric bikes and scooters
• Study building upon the planned network of bicycle routes to develop a citywide network of low-stress bicycle routes that are appealing to adults and children who are interested in riding but concerned about safety | | | • Integrate the off-street trail system with the on-street bicycle network by providing wayfinding and well-designed transitions at trail access points
• Build out the planned bicycle network with both on- and off-street facilities to provide safe connections within and between neighborhoods and to key destinations | • Miles of bike facilities (on-street and paved off-street trails) installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas)
• Positive rating of ease of travel by bicycle
• Annual number of bikeshare trips
• Shared mobility trips to and from equity areas (as defined by the Dockless Mobility Program) | Appendix I | 11 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies A | Related Policies B | Related Policies C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Pedestrian and Bicycle** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | Upgrade or install infrastructure that increases the accessibility of City streets and public spaces for people of all ages and abilities |  |  | N/A |  |  |  |  |  |  | Age Friendly Plan For A Livable Community

Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines

Vision Zero Action Plan | | • Install appropriate street lighting for those walking and bicycling, with consideration to areas with more people of color or low income residents | | • When repaving streets, upgrade corners and crosswalks with accessible, directional ramps that meet, to the maximum extent possible, current ADA standards

• Upgrade or install new audible pedestrian signal push buttons at existing and new pedestrian signals to enhance access and safety for persons with disabilities

• Address tripping hazards on sidewalks and pedestrian areas as quickly as possible through routine maintenance projects and in response to service requests

• Prioritize safe and accessible access to transit stops, schools, and parks | • Linear feet of new sidewalk installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas)

• Miles of bike facilities (on-street and paved off-street trails) installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas)

• Positive rating of ease of walking

• Positive rating of ease of travel by bicycle

• Number of repaired curb ramps per year

• Number of accessible pedestrian signals installed per year | | 5 | Educate all street users about safety and traffic laws |  | | N/A | | | |  |  | | Vision Zero Action Plan

Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines | • Initiate targeted outreach that aims to increase adult and youth knowledge of safe walking, biking, and driving behaviors and traffic laws related to pedestrian, bicycle, and scooter travel | | | • Educate public and private sector design professionals, city groups, and the public who are involved with Alexandria's transportation system on Complete Streets principles and design

• Pursue partnerships to expand the reach of education, outreach, and promotional efforts with GO Alex, the Alexandria Policy Department, Alexandria City Public Schools, MWCOG's Street Smart Safety Campaign, local advocacy groups, and others | • Number of pedestrian- and bicycle- involved crashes | Implementation | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies | | | Guiding Principles | | | | | | Related Plan(s) | Implementation Actions | | | | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | A | B | C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | | | **Supporting Travel Options** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | Use information, programs, and encouragement to make it easier for residents and workers to choose options other than driving alone | ✅ | | | ✅ | | ✅ | | | ✅ | Environmental Action Plan 2040

City Strategic Plan | • Identify an expanded set of community influencers (such as religious leaders, school principals, and athletic organizations), in addition to employers and residential property managers, to help encourage alternatives to driving alone

• Update the Transportation Management Plan program so new developments can better reduce and track congestion | • Develop a travel training and commuter assistance program to provide hands-on experience on taking a new (to you) way of traveling | | • Expand use of real-time information to promote travel choices | • Percent of people taking non-single occupancy vehicles to work (mode share)

• Number of community influencers involved with GO Alex | | 2 | Use the Potomac River to expand transportation options | ✅ | | | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | | | ✅ | Environmental Action Plan 2040 | • Partner with other jurisdictions, agencies, and private partners to determine the best ways to utilize the Potomac River as a transportation option | | | • Explore and evaluate new water transportation routes and services for commute and trips, errands, or entertainment

• Identify opportunities to integrate with other modes of transportation | • Percent of people taking non-single occupancy vehicles to work (mode share) | | 3 | Create mobility hubs | ✅ | | | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | | ✅ | Environmental Action Plan 2040

Smart Mobility Framework Plan | | • Identify optimal locations for mobility hubs in strategic locations around the city. These mobility hubs will differ in size and scope based on location type and may incorporate elements to improve navigation for all users of the site through wayfinding and other features

• Incorporate charging infrastructure for carshare vehicles, personal vehicles, and micromobility devices (electric bikes, scooters, etc.) | | • Focus on traditionally underserved communities and strategic locations to address first- and last-mile travel needs citywide | • Percent of people taking non-single occupancy vehicles to work (mode share) | Appendix I | 13 | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies A | Related Policies B | Related Policies C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Supporting Travel Options** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | Pursue regional approaches to reduce traffic and congestion, particularly during peak times | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | | Environmental Action Plan 2040 City Strategic Plan | | • Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional entities to explore unifying local TDM programs into a more comprehensive regional effort | | • Advocate for policies that will reduce congestion, such as telework incentives or a regional congestion pricing program

• Continue to support regional transportation initiatives, including Commuter Connections, and targeted TDM initiatives of a regional scale, such as the Northern Virginia Regional Multi-Modal Mobility Program (R3MP) | • Weekday person hours of delay

• Transit travel times on Duke Street, Van Dorn Street, and upper King Street | | **Curb Space and Parking** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | Implement a prioritization framework for making changes to curb space | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | Environmental Action Plan 2040 Complete Streets Policy and Design Guidelines Age Friendly For A Livable Community Housing Master Plan | • Implement a framework to prioritize parking, loading, drop-off, bike lanes, and mobility hubs, among other uses, when making curbside changes | | | • Work with the community and the Traffic and Parking Board to apply the framework when a new use is considered on a street | • Number of curb space changes informed by the Curbspace Prioritization Framework introduced to the Traffic and Parking Board

• Positive rating of ease of public parking

• Positive rating of availability of parking near my home

• Positive rating of availability of on-street and garage parking near shopping | | 2 | Consider pricing, regulation, data, and communications to manage parking availability | 🗸 | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | 🗸 | Environmental Action Plan 2040 | • Consider technology to collect and disseminate more and better data on parking availability and usage

• Improve signage and availability of real-time information via technology to guide users to off-street parking, pick-ups, drop-offs, and loading to free up on-street curb space whenever reasonable and practicable | • Consider coordinated pricing strategies to encourage more efficient and equitable use of on- and off-street parking spaces | | • Improve the perception of safety in garages through improved communications, wifi connections, and cellular service | • Positive rating of ease of public parking

• Positive rating of availability of parking near my home (Excellent/Good)

• Positive rating of parking availability of on-street and garage parking near shopping (Excellent/ Good) | Implementation | Strategy Number | Strategy | Related Policies A | Related Policies B | Related Policies C | Accessible | Connected | Convenient | Equitable | Safe | Sustainable | Related Plan(s) | Short-Term (by 2024) | Medium-Term (by 2027) | Long-Term (by 2030) | Continual | Related Metric(s) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Curb Space and Parking** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3 | Reconsider parking requirements in new developments | 🗸 | 🗸 | | | 🗸 | | 🗸 | | 🗸 | Housing Master Plan Environmental Action Plan 2040 City Strategic Plan | • Build upon recent efforts to right-size parking for residential and commercial development, recognizing that increased parking leads to increased traffic • Review shared parking section of the zoning and ordinance to identify opportunities to make shared parking more viable. For example, a bank that closes at 5:00 PM and a restaurant that opens at 5:00 PM may be able to share parking facilities | | | • Leverage the ability of new data sources to regularly evaluate parking uses and trends • Increase the percentage of parking spaces in new developments that can support electric vehicle charging | • Positive rating of ease of public parking • Positive rating of availability of parking near my home • Positive rating of availability of on-street and garage parking near shopping | | 4 | Promote electric vehicle charging opportunities | 🗸 | | | | | 🗸 | 🗸 | | 🗸 | Environmental Action Plan 2040 Electric Vehicle Charging Infastructure Readiness Strategy | • Establish electric vehicle (EV) installation checklists for different uses • Deveop a policy for providing public charging infrastrucutre in public spaces | | | • Coordinate between parties interested in charging stations | • Number of publicly accessible level 2 or higher electric vehicle charging plugs per population | # Appendix II ## Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators October 2021 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Measuring Progress The Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP) seeks to expand access to transportation choices, make it easier for people to get around by all modes, reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel, eliminate traffic fatalities and injuries, and more. **The City will track progress of the AMP through two means – overarching key performance indicators (KPIs) that are tied to the plan’s guiding principles, and metrics for each chapter that are chapter-specific with targets established where applicable.** Many chapter-specific metrics are related to and will feed into the plan-level KPIs. <
> Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators # Key Performance Indicators While City actions can help move the needle on the KPIs, it is important to recognize that other external factors may influence them as well. By tracking the KPIs, the City can take the pulse on how residents, visitors, and workers are experiencing mobility and potentially adjust areas of focus accordingly throughout the life of this plan. Each guiding principle is associated with just one or two KPIs to understand mobility in Alexandria at the highest levels. To holistically track outcomes that address the equitable guiding principle, all KPIs are given an “equity lens” to measure progress in a way that is consistent with the City’s ALL Alexandria resolution and ensures equitable outcomes for all Alexandrians, especially neighborhoods and populations that have been historically underserved. Measuring progress toward achieving the guiding principles allows the City to track how transportation projects and initiatives improve and expand choices—and more choices can lead to improved quality of life and other benefits beyond transportation. There are many data challenges associated with measuring these high-level outcomes, so some KPIs may not be the ideal measure for a certain guiding principle. However, these were selected in consultation with City staff, subject matter experts, and the Alexandria Mobility Plan Advisory Committee (AMPAC) to be reflective of measures other plans are targeting and because they provide useful information on the outcomes this plan aims to achieve. As additional data and tools become available, the City may be able to track the guiding principles more effectively. For each KPI, baseline information is provided which represents the most recent data available. The City commits to updating this information regularly following plan adoption, at least every three years, and publishing resulting data in a transparent manner on the City website. # Guiding Principles **KPIs are tied to the guiding principles of the AMP and are used to measure plan-level progress toward achieving City goals and targets through the AMP.** **Accessible** Alexandria will work to make its transportation network easily accessible for users of all ages and abilities. **Connected** Alexandria’s transportation system will take you where you want to go seamlessly by leveraging technology and integrating transportation and land use. **Convenient** Alexandria will provide a transportation system with high-quality mobility options that are reliable, frequent, proximate, and comfortable. **Equitable** Alexandria acknowledges that there are disparities in neighborhoods and populations in the city that have been historically underserved. Alexandria will be targeted, inclusive, and intentional in addressing gaps in mobility options available, their quality, and safety. **Safe** Alexandria will eliminate all traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028. **Sustainable** Alexandria will prioritize low-carbon mobility options and reduce automobile dependency. Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators # Accessible and Connected Definitions The Accessible and Connected indicators are measured using “proximity to alternatives to driving” to understand the choices available. Useful alternatives to driving generally need to be nearby, frequent, and safe. Each component of this measure - transit access, pedestrian access, and bicycle access - have different measurements based on the characteristics of the particular mode. ## Transit Areas of Alexandria that are in close proximity to high-frequency transit service: * **Proximity to Bus** - Areas within ¼ of a mile of a bus stop with midday bus frequencies of every 15 minutes or better. * **Proximity to Rail** - Areas within ¼ of a mile of a Metrorail station with midday train frequencies of every 15 minutes or better. ## Pedestrian Areas of Alexandria that have no gaps in sidewalk coverage: * **Proximity to Sidewalks** - Areas that are not within 330 feet (1/16 of a mile or about one city block) of a sidewalk gap (have sidewalks on both sides). ## Bicycle Areas of Alexandria that are in close proximity to on-street bicycle lanes and off-street paved trails: * **Proximity to Bicycle Lanes** - Areas within 1/8 of a mile of an on-street bicycle lane. * **Proximity to Paved Trails** - Areas within 1/8 of a mile of an off-street paved trail. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Accessible Alexandria will work to make its transportation network easily accessible for users of all ages and abilities In the context of the AMP, “Access” refers to the proximity of residents to alternatives to driving, which include high-frequency bus or rail service, bike lanes and trails, and connected sidewalks as defined on the previous page. Recognizing that everyone has access to a street to drive on, the City is measuring access this way to understand what choices people have close by. ## Equity Lens: * Percent of residents (low-income residents, people of color, seniors, and people with disabilities) in close proximity to alternatives to driving ## Key Performance Indicator: * Percent of residents in close proximity to alternatives to driving ## Why measure “Proximity to Alternatives to Driving?” Driving is a popular way to make many trips in Alexandria, and this will likely continue. A priority of the AMP is to give people choices. Every home has access to a street, but there are still many Alexandrians without nearby sidewalks, bike lanes and trails, or frequent transit, meaning they do not have the convenient choice to walk, bike, or take transit. Having choices benefits everyone, from cleaner air, healthier lifestyles, and less congestion. Having choices means that when gas prices rise or if there is a transit shutdown, people can still get around safely and conveniently. This is what we call “Close Proximity to Alternatives” and this is why the following sections use it as an important metric: it measures high-quality, practical choices. Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators *Baseline Information:* <
> The City’s investments in transit, such as the new Potomac Yard Metrorail station and implementation of the Alexandria Transit Vision Plan, will significantly increase the percentage of Alexandria residents in close proximity to high-frequency transit in the future. When implemented, the Transit Vision Plan will increase the percentage of all residents in close proximity to high-frequency transit from 27% to 83%. Sources: **Baseline Transit Network (Midday):** City data, 2021 (prior to Alexandria Transit Vision Plan implementation) **Baseline Pedestrian Network:** City data, 2021 **Baseline Bicycle Network:** City data, 2021 **All Residents:** Total population counts from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) by Block Group. **Low-Income Residents:** Total households identified in the 2017 ACS as being in poverty according to Federally defined poverty standards. **People of Color:** Count of 2017 ACS estimates of people identifying as non-white. **Seniors:** Count of 2017 ACS estimate of people over 65. **People with Disabilities:** Count of 2017 ACS estimates ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Connected Alexandria’s transportation system will take you where you want to go seamlessly by leveraging technology and integrating transportation and land use “Destinations” are broadly defined as employment, opportunities, or services critical to quality of life and include jobs, schools, parks and recreation centers, grocery stores, and healthcare facilities. Alternatives to driving include high-frequency bus or rail service, bike lanes and trails, and connected sidewalks. ### Equity Lens: * Percent of low-wage jobs, Title 1 schools, and public health clinics that are connected to alternatives to driving ### Baseline Information: Percent of Low-Wage Jobs, Title 1 Schools, and Public Health Clinics That Are Connected to Alternatives to Driving <
> Sources: Low-Wage Jobs: Count of Jobs in each Census Block Group paying less than $1,250 per month from the ACS Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) “OnTheMap” tool. Title 1 Schools: Alexandria City Public Schools; data from the National Center for Education Statistics. Public Health Centers: Clinic locations within the City of Alexandria taken from OpenStreetMap. (Search query: “amenity”=“clinic” and “healthcare”=“clinic”). 8 | Appendix II Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators # Key Performance Indicator: • Percent of destinations that are connected to alternatives to driving # Baseline Information: <
> Sources: **Jobs:** Count of jobs in each Census Block Group taken from the 2017 ACS Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) “OnTheMap” tool. **Schools:** Alexandria City Public Schools; data from the National Center for Education Statistics. **Grocery Stores:** Grocery locations within Alexandria City Boundary, City of Alexandria, December 2020. **Parks and Recreation Centers:** Parks and Recreation Locations with the Alexandria City Boundary, City of Alexandria, December 2020. **Health Care / Hospitals:** Medical Facilities within Alexandria City Boundary, City of Alexandria, December 2020 (Facility types include Urgent Care, Health Care Facilities, and Hospitals). ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Convenient Alexandria will provide a transportation system with high-quality mobility options that are reliable, frequent, proximate, and comfortable. Every year, Alexandrians can share feedback on their experiences with living in the city and factors that shape their quality of life, including transportation, via the Resident Survey. This helps City leadership know more about residents’ expectations for the City government and how well government is performing for the community. The City will also be tracking this via specific metrics within the Transit, Smart Mobility, Streets, Curb Space and Parking, and Pedestrian and Bicycle chapters. ### Equity Lens: * Percent of residents (low-income residents, people of color, and senior residents) who say it is easy to get around. * In 2018 and 2020, there was no statistically significant difference in responses between high income and low income individuals or between white and non-white individuals for overall ease of getting to the places they usually have to visit. Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators # Key Performance Indicator: * Percent of residents who say it is easy to get around # Baseline Information: Percent of Residents with a Positive View of "The Overall Ease of Getting to the Places You Usually Have to Visit" <
> Note: 2016 data by income, race/ethnicity, and age was not available. Sources: Alexandria Resident Survey Low-Income Residents: Survey respondents with an annual household income Less than $50,000. People of Color: Survey respondents that identify as non-white. Seniors: Survey respondents over 55. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Equitable Alexandria acknowledges that there are disparities in neighborhoods and populations in the City that have been historically underserved. Alexandria will be targeted, inclusive, and intentional in addressing gaps in mobility options available, their quality, and safety. Key Performance Indicator: * All guiding principles will be measured for the city as a whole and with an equity lens that examines how specific communities of greater need are faring with regards to the specific outcomes that this plan seeks to achieve. * **Accessible:** Percent of residents (low-income residents, people of color, seniors, and people with disabilities) in close proximity to alternatives to driving. * **Connected:** Percent of low-wage jobs, Title 1 schools, and public health clinics that are connected to alternatives to driving. * **Convenient:** Percent of residents (low-income residents, people of color, and senior residents) who say it is easy to get around. * **Safe:** Number of crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries within Equity Emphasis Areas. * **Sustainable:** Percent of residents (low-income residents, people of color, seniors, and people with disabilities) in close proximity to alternatives to driving. Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators # Safe Alexandria will eliminate all traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028. Through its Vision Zero Action Plan, Alexandria established a goal of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028. The City recognizes that traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable through proper engineering, enforcement, evaluation, and education. The Vision Zero performance dashboard tracks how well the City is performing as part of the overall performance dashboard system. ### Equity Lens: * Number of crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries within Equity Emphasis Areas ### Baseline Information: Percent of Crashes, Fatalities, and Serious Injuries within Equity Emphasis Areas <
> ■ Equity Emphasis Areas ■ Non-Equity Emphasis Areas *For the equity lens of the Safe KPI, the City is measuring against land area of Equity Emphasis Areas, as demographic information is not typically documented in crash reports. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) established Equity Emphasis Areas in Alexandria, which make up 21 percent of the city’s total land area. The percentage of all severe and fatal crashes in Alexandria that occur within these Equity Emphasis Areas, however, is slightly overrepresented at 23 percent. It is important to consider land area to ensure that communities of greater need do not experience disproportionate effects of traffic crashes compared to other areas of the city. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Safe (continued) *Equity Emphasis Areas and Crashes by Severity* <
> **Equity Emphasis Areas** were developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) using tract-level Census data to identify communities that have significant concentrations of low-income and/or minority populations.This is what we call “Close Proximity to Alternatives” and this is why the following sections use it as an important metric: it measures high-quality, practical choices. Sources: **Equity Emphasis Areas:** Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). Includes areas with concentrations of low-income and minority households. **Crashes:** 2016-2019 crash locations, City of Alexandria, Virginia Department of Transportation **City Strategic Plan Key Indicators:** Transportation, City of Alexandria. Vision Zero Performance Dashboard, City of Alexandria. Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators # Key Performance Indicator: * Number of crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries > This KPI is consistent with the City Strategic Plan and Vision Zero initiative, which aims to achieve zero severe injuries and fatalities from crashes. ## Baseline Information: <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN # Sustainable Alexandria will prioritize low-carbon mobility options and reduce automobile dependency. Through its Environmental Action Plan, Alexandria recognized that transportation is a leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions that adversely affect the natural environment and established goals and targets to reduce these effects. ### Key Performance Indicator: * Vehicle miles traveled * Percent of commuters using alternative transportation options ### Baseline Information: Vehicle Miles Traveled <
> Source: Weekday Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Alternative transportation options include riding the bus, Metrorail, and biking. This KPI is consistent with the City Strategic Plan, which set a target of 40% of commuters using alternative transportation modes by 2022. Data is reported every three years by fiscal year (July-June), and comes from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's (MWCOG) State of the Commute Survey. Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators <
> Source: City Strategic Plan Key Indicators: Transportation (via MWCOG State of the Commute Survey) ### Equity Lens: * Percent of residents (low-income residents, people of color, seniors, and people with disabilities) in close proximity to alternatives to driving ### Baseline Information: <
> Source: See “Accessible” KPI in previous section > The City will continue to investigate better data sources for tracking the Sustainability indicator through an equity lens. Until a better data source becomes available, the City will refer to the Accessible indicator to improve access to multiple transportation choices for all population groups. # Chapter Metrics The plan’s metrics are tied to each specific plan chapter and are more focused on individual topics or modes of transportation. These metrics will be regularly measured to track how the plan’s policies and strategies are improving transportation in the city. Many chapter-specific metrics are related to and will feed into the plan-level KPIs. Targets have also been established where applicable to promote accountability, many of which are identified in other City plans or planning efforts. | Metric | Directionality | | :--- | :--- | | **Transit** | | | Percent of residents within ¼ mile of 15 minute or better service (All residents and low-income, people of color, and senior residents) | ⬆ | | Percent of people taking transit to work (mode share) | ⬆ | | Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation (Resident Survey*) | ⬆ | | Percent of bus stops with shelters | ⬆ | | Percent of bus stops that are accessible for persons with disabilities | ⬆ | | **Smart Mobility** | | | Number of intersections with smart signal technology | ⬆ | | Percent of intersections with smart signal technology in Equity Emphasis Areas | ⬆ | | Positive rating of traffic flow on major streets (Resident Survey*) | ⬆ | | Transit travel times on Duke Street, Van Dorn Street, and upper King Street | ⬇ | | **Streets** | | | Number of fatal and serious crashes | ⬇ | | Average Pavement Condition Rating (Pavement Condition Index) | ⬆ | | Percent of Transportation Management Plans evaluated that meet mode split targets | ⬆ | Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators | Metric | Directionality | | :--- | :--- | | **Pedestrian and Bicycle** | | | Number of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes | ⬇ | | Percentage of people walking or biking to work (mode share) | ⬆ | | Linear feet of new sidewalk installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas) | ▬ | | Miles of bike facilities (on-street and paved off-street trails) installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas) | ▬ | | Positive rating of ease of walking (Resident Survey*) | ⬆ | | Positive rating of ease of travel by bicycle (Resident Survey*) | ⬆ | | Number of repaired curb ramps per year | ▬ | | Number of accessible pedestrian signals installed per year | ▬ | | Annual number of bikeshare trips | ⬆ | | Number of accessible pedestrian signals | ⬆ | | Shared mobility trips to and from equity areas (as defined by the Dockless Mobility Program) | ⬆ | ⬆ Increase ⬇ Decrease ▬ Maintain *The Alexandria Resident Survey reports results based on race/ethnicity, income, and age in addition to all residents. ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Metric | Directionality | | :--- | :--- | | **Supporting Travel Options** | | | Number of community influencers involved with GO Alex | ⬆ | | Percent of people taking non-single occupancy vehicles to work (mode share) | ⬆ | | Weekday person hours of delay | ⬇ | | **Curb Space and Parking** | | | Number of curb space changes informed by the Curbspace Prioritization Framework introduced to the Traffic and Parking Board | ⬆ | | Positive rating of ease of public parking (Resident Survey*) | ⬆ | | Positive rating of availability of parking near my home | ⬆ | | Positive rating of availability of on-street and garage parking near shopping | ⬆ | | Number of publicly accessible level 2 or higher electric vehicle charging plugs per population | ⬆ | ⬆ Increase ⬇ Decrease ➖ Maintain *The Alexandria Resident Survey reports results based on race/ethnicity, income, and age in addition to all residents. <
> ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Metric | Equity Lens | Connection to KPI | Related Plan | Source | Related Strategies | Directionality | Baseline | Targets (if applicable) | | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | | | | 2024 | 2027 | 2030 | | **Transit** | | | | | | | | | | | | Percent of residents within ¼ mile of 15 minute or better service (All residents and low-income, people of color, and senior residents) | | ⌾ | Transit Vision Plan | City data, Census Data | 1, 6 | ⬆
Increase | All Residents: 27% (2019)
Low-Income Residents: 29% (2019)
People of Color: 22% (2019)
Senior Residents: 24% (2019)
People with Disabilities: 24% (2019) | 60%
65%
65%
50%
50% | 70%
75%
75%
60%
60% | 85%
90%
90%
75%
75% | | Percent of people taking transit to work (mode share) | | ⌾ | Environmental Action Plan 2040 | MWCOG 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey Update | 1, 3 | ⬆
Increase | Bus: 6.9% (2017-2018)
Rail: 32.3% (2017-2018) | 7%
25% | 9%
30% | 12%
31% | | Positive rating of ease of travel by public transportation | ⌾ | ⌾ | | Resident Survey | 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 | ⬆
Increase | All Residents: 61% (2020) / 64% (2018)
Low-Income Residents: 68% (2020)
People of Color: 60% (2020)
Seniors: 70% (2020) | | | | | Percent of bus stops with shelters | | | | City data | 4 | ⬆
Increase | 13% (2020) | 20% | 25% | 30% | | Percent of bus stops that are accessible for persons with disabilities | ⌾ | | | | | ⬆
Increase | Baseline and targets to be developed by 2022 | 20% | 25% | 30% | Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators | Metric | Equity Lens | Connection to KPI | Related Plan | Source | Related Strategies | Directionality | Baseline | Targets (if applicable) | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | | | | 2024 | 2027 | 2030 | | **Smart Mobility** | | | | | | | | | | | | Number of intersections with smart signal technology | | | Smart Mobility Framework Plan | City inventory data | 1, 2, 3, 4 | ⬆️ Increase | Transit Signal Priority: 28
Emergency Vehicle Preemption: 11
Activated Adaptive Signals: 0 | 50
TBD
40 | TBD
TBD
100 | TBD
TBD
100 | | Percent of intersections with smart signal technology in Equity Emphasis Areas | 🎯 | | | City inventory data, Equity Emphasis Area data | 1, 2, 3, 4 | ⬆️ Increase | Number of All Signals in Equity Emphasis Areas: 57 out of 368 (15%)
Equity Emphasis Areas by % of City Land Area: 21%
Transit Signal Priority: 7 out of 28 (25%)
Emergency Vehicle Preemption: 4 out of 11 (36%)
Activated Adaptive Signals: 0 out of 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 30%
TBD
40% | TBD
TBD
TBD | TBD
TBD
TBD | | Positive rating of traffic flow on major streets | 🎯 | | | Resident Survey | 1, 3 | ⬆️ Increase | All Residents: 34% (2020)
Low-Income Residents: 41% (2020)
People of Color: 38% (2020)
Seniors: 36% (2020) | | | | | Transit travel times on Duke Street, Van Dorn Street, and upper King Street | | | | StreetLight Data | 1, 3 | ⬇️ Decrease | Baseline and targets to be developed by 2022 after introduction of the New DASH Network | TBD | TBD | TBD | Appendix II | 23 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Metric | Equity Lens | Connection to KPI | Related Plan | Source | Related Strategies | Directionality | Baseline | Targets (if applicable) | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | | | | 2024 | 2027 | 2030 | | **Streets** | | | | | | | | | | | | Number of fatal and serious crashes | 🗸 | 🗸 | | Virginia Traffic Records Electronic Data System (TREDS) | 1, 4, 5 | ⬇️ Decrease | 30 (2019) | | | 0 (2028) | | Average Pavement Condition Rating (Pavement Condition Index) | | | | Alexandria Performance Dashboard: City Strategic Plan Transportation Theme Key Indicator Dashboard | 2, 3, 6 | ⬆️ Increase | 55 out of 100 (fair) (2019) | | 71 out of 100 (satisfactory) | | | Percent of Transportation Management Plans evaluated that meet mode split targets | | | | City data | 2 | ⬆️ Increase | N/A (Mode split targets not yet established) Baseline to be developed | | Determine method for measuring by 2024 | | Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators | Metric | Equity Lens | Connection to KPI | Related Plan | Source | Related Strategies | Directionality | Baseline | Targets (if applicable) | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | | | | 2024 | 2027 | 2030 | | **Pedestrian and Bicycle** | | | | | | | | | | | | Number of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes | | 🗸 | Strategic Plan Vision Zero | Virginia Traffic Records Electronic Data System (TREDS) | 1, 5 | ⬇️ Decrease | Pedestrian-involved crashes: 54 (2020) Bicycle-involved crashes: 15 (2020) | | | | | Percentage of people walking or biking to work (mode share) | | 🗸 | Environmental Action Plan 2040 | MWCOG 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey Update | 1 | ⬆️ Increase | Walking Mode Share: 5.0% (2017-2018) Biking Mode Share: 3.8% (2017-2018) | 5.5% 4.5% | 6.0% 5.0% | 6.5% 5.5% | | Linear feet of new sidewalk installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas) | | | | City inventory data | 2, 4 | ➖ Maintain | Linear feet of new sidewalk installed per year: 2,250 linear feet (Average between 2016 and 2020) Equity Emphasis Areas by % of City Land Area: 21% | 2,250 linear feet per year (60% in Equity Emphasis Areas) | | | | Miles of bike facilities (on-street and paved off-street trails) installed per year (Citywide and in Equity Emphasis Areas) | | | Environmental Action Plan 2040 | City inventory data | 3, 4 | ➖ Maintain | On-Street Facilities (Existing): 38.2 lane miles (2021) Off-Street Trails (Existing): 22.8 miles (2021) Equity Emphasis Areas by % of City Land Area: 21% | 3 miles per year (60% in Equity Emphasis Areas) | | | | Positive rating of ease of walking | 🗸 | | | Resident Survey | 1, 2, 4 | ⬆️ Increase | All Residents: 77% (2020) Low-Income Residents: 64% (2020) People of Color: 74% (2020) Seniors: 76% (2020) | | | | | Positive rating of ease of travel by bicycle | 🗸 | | | Resident Survey | 1, 3, 4 | ⬆️ Increase | All Residents: 64% (2020) Low-Income Residents: 50% (2020) People of Color: 60% (2020) Seniors: 59% (2020) | | | | | Number of repaired curb ramps per year | | | | City inventory data | 1,2,4 | ➖ Maintain | 300 (Fiscal Year 2021) | | | 300 per year | | Number of accessible pedestrian signals installed per year | | | | City inventory data | 1,2,4 | ➖ Maintain | Baseline to be developed | | | 8 per year | | Annual number of bikeshare trips | | | | Data from mircromobility providers, City data, Census data | 1 | ⬆️ Increase | 77,000 (2019) 54,000 (2020) | 80,000 | 90,000 | 100,000 | | Shared mobility trips to and from equity areas (as defined by the Dockless Mobility Program) | | | | City inventory data | 1, 3, 4 | ⬆️ Increase | Baseline to be developed | | | By 2022, develop targets for 2024, 2027, 2030 | | Number of designated parking areas for bicycles, e-bikes, and scooters citywide and in equity areas (as defined by the Dockless Mobility Program) | | | | City inventory data | 1, 3, 4 | ⬆️ Increase | Baseline to be developed | | | | Appendix II | 25 ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN | Metric | Equity Lens | Connection to KPI | Related Plan | Source | Related Strategies | Directionality | Baseline | Targets (if applicable) | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | | | | 2024 | 2027 | 2030 | | **Supporting Travel Options** | | | | | | | | | | | | Number of community influencers involved with GO Alex | | | | Data accumulated as partnerships formed | 1 | ⬆ Increase | Employers: 133 (Fiscal Year 2020) Other community influencers: N/A | 150 | 180 | 200 | | Percent of people taking non-single occupancy vehicles to work (mode share) | | Ⓗ | Environmental Action Plan 2040 | MWCOG 2017-2018 Regional Travel Survey Update | 1 | ⬆ Increase | 54% (2018) | 52% | 60.5% | 66% | | Weekday person hours of delay | | | | Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS) | 2, 3 | ⬇ Decrease | 4,720 hours (2019) *
* To be calibrated to include transit by 2022 after introduction of the New DASH Network | 4,696 hours (-0.5%) | 4,673 hours (-0.5%) | 4,650 hours (-0.5%) | Monitoring, Reporting, and Key Performance Indicators | Metric | Equity Lens | Connection to KPI | Related Plan | Source | Related Strategies | Directionality | Baseline | Targets (if applicable) | | | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | | | | | | | 2024 | 2027 | 2030 | | **Curb Space and Parking** | | | | | | | | | | | | Number of curb space changes informed by the Curbspace Prioritization Framework introduced to the Traffic and Parking Board | | | | City inventory data | 1, 3 | ⬆️
Increase | N/A | | | | | Positive rating of ease of public parking | 🎯 | | | Resident Survey | 1, 2, 4 | ⬆️
Increase | All Residents: 31% (2020) / 38% (2018)
Low-Income Residents: 38% (2020)
People of Color: 31% (2020)
Seniors: 24% (2020) | | | | | Positive rating of availability of parking near my home | | | | Resident Survey | 1, 2, 4 | ⬆️
Increase | All Residents: 58% (2020)
Low-Income Residents: 45% (2020)
People of Color: 52% (2020)
Seniors: 57% (2020) | | | | | Positive rating of availability of on-street and garage parking near shopping | | | | Resident Survey | 1, 2, 4 | ⬆️
Increase | All Residents: 52%
Low-Income Residents: 48%
People of Color: 52%
Seniors: 45% | | | | | Number of publicly accessible level 2 or higher electric vehicle charging plugs per population | | | | City inventory data | 4 | ⬆️
Increase | 3.8 plugs per 10,000 people | 7 plugs per 10,000 people | 12.8 plugs per 10,000 people | 23.5 plugs per 10,000 people | Appendix II | 27 # Appendix III-A ## Civic Engagement Process Summary October 2021 Appendix III # Public and Stakeholder Engagement Developing a vision for mobility could not occur without an intentional and inclusive public process—one with a continuous and thoughtful approach to engaging the community and empowering stakeholders. A key principle of the AMP is an understanding of local dynamics, gained through a process of collaboration with and consensus of the community. Through this, the AMP is reflective of the local knowledge and lived experiences of Alexandrians, as well as the issues that they face now and expect to face in the future. <
> * Pop-up events in late 2019 identified a range of community priorities and also helped spark conversation about major community needs. <
> Civic Engagement Summary The planning process included tens of thousands of engagements, many of whom attended meetings, listened to presentations, participated in surveys, or submitted comments. 350 Views at 2 Public Meetings 468 participants at 7 Pop-Up Events 86 participants at 9 Focus Group Meetings 9 Advisory Committee Meetings 24+ Stakeholder Meetings 24 Community Champions 1,100+ Surveys submitted and comments submitted 46,465 Social Media Engagements These key engagement events yielded incredibly insightful public input that was critical in shaping the direction and content of this plan as well as important considerations for staff in plan implementation. The plan was shaped through a compilation of public input, information on trends and best practices, Interdepartmental Work Group and Advisory Committee discussions, and targets, goals, and policies from other City plans. <
> Appendix III # Key Engagement Activities The following sections provide a high-level overview of the AMP engagement activities. More information on the participants and feedback received for these activities can be found in **Appendix III-B: Civic Engagement Findings Summary**. In-person engagement occurred often and early in the planning process and resulted in quality feedback that informed the development of the AMP. Early in-person engagement also provided a strong baseline of information as the COVD-19 pandemic forced a shift to virtual engagement in early 2020 throughout the rest of the AMP process. ## Visioning Process The planning process began in June of 2019 and focused on the development of a vision and guiding principles for mobility in Alexandria that shaped the development and priorities of the AMP. In order to develop the vision and guiding principles, the AMP Team launched a feedback form that received **over 800 responses**. This visioning survey encouraged aspirational planning ideas while recognizing the importance of prioritization. In doing so, the feedback form asked the following questions: * What are three words that come to mind when you think about your ideal vision for mobility in Alexandria? * What are the most important factors in how you choose to get around on a normal day? * What are the most important opportunities for the future of mobility in Alexandria? * What are the biggest challenges to the future of mobility in Alexandria? * When developing a transportation strategy for Alexandria, we should focus most on... * What things do you think Alexandria should invest in the most? Answers and key words from the visioning feedback form informed the development and finalization of the AMP vision and guiding principles, with **safety**, **convenience**, **accessibility**, and **choice** emerging as major desires from the community. Civic Engagement Summary In the summer 2019 visioning survey, we asked Alexandrians “What are three words that come to mind when you think about your ideal vision for mobility in Alexandria?” <
> ## Innovation Forum In October 2019, the AMP team held an Innovation Forum focused on how innovative travel options and technology will influence Alexandria in the context of the development of the AMP. The forum consisted of an open house-format with informational boards and an “Ideas Wall,” an overview presentation by City staff, interactive polling of attendees, and a panel discussion featuring local and national mobility experts. The event was attended in-person by 50 Alexandrians and nearly 250 watched the event recording via Facebook. The “Ideas Wall” prompted participants to think about the definition of innovation, how it should be applied to the Alexandria Mobility Plan, and ideas from other cities that Alexandria should explore. The ideas that emerged at the Innovation Forum were later tested in focus group meetings and draft plan strategies in advance of the draft and final AMP release. <
> <
> Appendix III # Community Champion Meetings The AMP Team hosted meetings with community champions to further solidify the direction of the planning process and partake in discussions with community leaders representing various organizations or constituencies. These meetings were held at various local businesses throughout Alexandria and featured informal, roundtable-like group discussions. Community champions also helped to disseminate information to their constituents throughout the planning process. The community champion meetings helped inform the City’s strategy for engaging and hearing from hard to-reach populations, in addition to better understanding the unique needs of low-income residents and people of color in Alexandria. Some of the key themes expressed were connections to jobs and opportunities, connections between transportation and affordable housing, and safe and reliable transit. <
> Civic Engagement Summary # Stakeholder Group Meetings City staff also met with several local and regional stakeholder groups throughout the planning process to inform them of AMP effort. Meeting attendees included the Alexandria Federation of Civic Associations, the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce, the Eisenhower Partnership, the City of Alexandria's Bi-Weekly COVID-19 Community Response Group, and more. # Interdepartmental Coordination Meetings Three interdepartmental coordination meetings were held at key milestones during the AMP process, including scoping, strategy development, and performance measures development, in addition to ad-hoc smaller coordination meetings on more specific topics. The following departments were involved: * Department of Planning and Zoning * Alexandria Police Department * Alexandria Fire Department * Department of Community and Human Services * Alexandria City Public Schools * Department of Information Technology Services * Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities, * Department of Transportation and Environmental Services City staff from these departments were also given the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft AMP document. These meetings provided an opportunity for staff to share relevant initiatives and policies, helping to ensure that efforts are coordinated across City departments. Appendix III # Advisory Committee Meetings The Alexandria Mobility Plan Advisory Committee (AMPAC) provided continuous input to City staff throughout the AMP process. AMPAC membership included representation from the Transportation Commission as well as the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Civic Associations, the Alexandria Commission on Persons with Disabilities, and the West End Business Association. Among other focuses, the AMPAC was provided with summaries of public and stakeholder feedback and worked collaboratively to ensure the AMP process was responsive and adapted to community feedback and needs. The AMPAC met nine times throughout the course of the plan development process, with emphasis on the following topics: * June 2019 – Visioning * August 2019 – Vision and Guiding Principles * October 2019 – Innovation Forum and Plan Organization * December 2019 – Draft Key Performance Indicators * January 2020 – Strategy Development (Streets and Supporting Travel Options) * March 2020 – Strategy Development (Transit and Curb Space and Parking) * November 2020 – Strategies and Plan Development * December 2020 – Plan Development * January 2021 – Preparation for Draft Plan Release Civic Engagement Summary # Priority Pyramid Activity A ‘Mobility Priorities’ activity was promoted in November and December 2019 via pop-up events, stakeholder meetings, as well as online. The activity prompted Alexandrians to select from a collection of ‘building blocks’ that represented components of the transportation system such as traffic management, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and transit, and rank them in order of personal importance. The activity sought to replicate the real-world choices that must be made in transportation decision-making given constraints such as space, funding, and time. The identification of priorities, as well as the discussions and feedback that emerged from the activity, shaped the major themes of the AMP and helped to identify strategies that would address the top priorities of the community. Neary 700 priority pyramids were completed both in-person at pop-up events and in a digital version available online. These activities identified a range of community priorities and also helped spark conversation about major community needs. <
> <
> Appendix III # Pop-Up Events The AMP team held seven pop-up events in November and December 2019. These events yielded **over 450 unique interactions and conversations** with Alexandrians from across the city. Pop-ups were an effective tool for outreach because it enabled more residents and visitors to participate in the planning process who might not otherwise engage. It is important to hold events and meet people where they are in the city to get a more representative understanding of community sentiments, as opposed to requiring people to take time out of their schedules to attend a formal public meeting that may not be happening in their home neighborhood. Pop-ups were held at the below locations across Alexandria. <
> <
> Civic Engagement Summary # Focus Groups Two rounds of focus group meetings collected community-generated ideas from an engaged audience to inform eventual AMP polices and strategies. The ideas collected were considered in the context of other inputs (such as City staff insights and best practices) and against the AMP vision and guiding principles. These focus groups helped test potential draft strategies in smaller group settings, enabling the City to refine ideas before taking them to the broader public. The ideas heard in the focus group meetings were collected, reviewed, crafted into draft strategies, and shared with the broader community at citywide engagement events for consideration for inclusion in the plan. ## Round 1 The first round of focus groups significantly influenced the **Streets** and **Supporting Travel Options** chapters of the AMP. **Six focus group meetings** were held in February 2020 and included **72 total participants.** **Three additional focus groups** with **43 total participants** were held digitally in March 2020 to enhance participation and accessibility to the planning process. ## Round 2 The second round of focus groups sought to gain input for the development of the **Transit** and **Curb Space and Parking** chapters of the AMP. Three focus group meetings were held in April and May 2020 and included **14 total participants** in **three geographically-based groups.** Due to the continuing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, all Round 2 focus group meetings were held digitally. Appendix III # Virtual Town Hall A live, virtual town hall event was hosted in October 2020 to present and discuss draft strategies for each plan chapter. The event included an overview presentation followed by a question and answer session. While the overview presentation only included a select subset of draft strategies per chapter, a full document of all draft strategies was made available online for public review along with a recording of the presentation. An online feedback form also was launched at this meeting, which was used to collect public input on support for draft strategies in advance of the draft plan release. Based on public feedback on the draft strategies, the City sought to strengthen well-received and popular strategies, simplify language for strategies that were not well understood, and refine or eliminate strategies that were understood but unpopular and not tied to parallel City goals, policies, or plans. More information on process, participants, feedback received, outcomes, and detailed summaries of each of these activities can be found in **Appendix III-B: Civic Engagement Findings Summary**. # Draft Plan Release Public Comment Period ## Feedback Form A public feedback form was launched in conjunction with the release of the draft plan in Spring of 2021. The form was open for approximately one month and available on both mobile and computer platforms in English and Spanish. The development of the plan considered all public input to date received through numerous activities, as noted above. The draft plan feedback form solicited input about which strategies and guiding principles are the most important to the public, which strategies the public wants to see implemented first, if the public’s vision is captured in the plan, and how to make the plan successful. With approximately 545 responses, including **hundreds of open-ended comments**, the public provided insightful and thoughtful feedback on the draft plan. The public feedback was reviewed, summarized, and shared with Department heads, City leaders, and the public via the City’s website. The feedback informed how the plan was finalized. Many project-specific comments will help inform project implementation in the future. More information about specific questions, responses, and themes can be found in **Appendix III-B: Civic Engagement Findings Summary**. Civic Engagement Summary Generally, **most respondents (72 percent felt that the draft plan addressed at least some of their priorities.** Many open-ended responses indicated a desire for improvements that were already included in the draft plan, such as a focus on traffic management or pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Based on this interpretation of the feedback, no major overhaul of the document appeared necessary. The following list highlights the more substantive adjustments that staff made to the plan. These changes largely respond to specific feedback that was received from multiple parties that help align the plan better with the City's Strategic Plan and other related efforts, provide greater clarity, and ensure the City delivers an actionable, comprehensive plan: * Stronger emphasis on traffic management strategies (Smart Mobility chapter) * Recognition of autonomous vehicles as a potential disrupter to ensure that Alexandria will be prepared from a policy perspective (Smart Mobility chapter) * New strategy focused on maintaining our roadways proactively and equitably (Streets chapter) * Inclusion of adopted pedestrian and bicycle network from the the Pedestrian and Bicycle Chapter update in 2016 * New strategy to promote electric vehicle usage based on recommendations in the recent Council-adopted Alexandria Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Readiness Strategy (Parking and Curb Space chapter) * Adjustments to metrics: * Greater clarity and consistency with City Strategic Plan * Additional metrics related to accessibility for persons with disabilities * Addition of baseline information (existing conditions) and stronger connections to metrics and already-established targets from other City plans * Addition of Implementation Appendix to track plan progress and develop timelines for reporting These edits to the plan document were communicated via email to all feedback form respondents who requested to receive updates, as well as the Alexandria Mobility Plan Advisory Committee (AMPAC) and chairpersons of all boards and commissions met with during the draft plan release and comment period. These interested parties were given an opportunity to weigh in further, but no concerns or additional plan edits were received. Appendix III # Promotional Events and Board/Commission Presentations The draft plan was released on March 31, 2021 and included a month-long public comment period. The availability of the draft plan was announced and promoted via City eNews and email blasts, weekly social media posts on City platforms, English and Spanish posters on DASH buses, and in-person pop-up events. <
> City staff also attended several board and commission meetings to present an overview of the draft plan, including the Transportation Commission, Commission on Aging, Commission on Persons with Disabilities, Environmental Policy Commission, and Traffic and Parking Board. An additional presentation was given to the Eco-City Academy. Five pop-up events were held to promote availability of the draft plan and invite community members to review and provide comments. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these pop-up events were held outdoors in a low-touch, Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-compliant manner at the following locations: * Global Foods: April 17, 2021 * West End Farmers Market: April 25, 2021 * Southern Towers: April 29, 2021 * Potomac Yard Vaccine event: April 28, 2021 * George Washington Middle School Vaccine event: May 1, 2021 <
> <
> <
> # Alexandria Mobility Plan # Appendix III-B: Civic Engagement Findings Summary October 2021 # Table of Contents I. Visioning Summary II. Innovation Forum Summary III. Community Champion Meetings Summary IV. Pop-Up Events Summary V. Focus Groups Round 1 Summary VI. Focus Groups Round 2 Summary VII. Draft Strategies Feedback Summary VIII. Draft Plan Release Feedback Summary # Alexandria Mobility Plan # Visioning Summary August 2019 # AMP Visioning Survey Engagement via the HQ Platform Survey Period July 25th, 2019– August 20th, 2019 Total Number of Responses 866 Responses --- ## Alexandria Mobility Plan (AMP) <
> The existing 2008 Transportation Master Plan set the stage for transportation improvements over the last decade and ongoing major initiatives. The AMP will serve as a policy-oriented, strategic update to the Transportation Master Plan. The AMP team is working with the public to update the vision and goals, objectives, and priority strategies to help guide City staff and policy makers on important decisions related to transportation over the next 5 to 10 years. This effort is part of an ongoing process - the AMP will continue to be updated periodically going forward. This site will provide many opportunities for engagement throughout the planning effort. Explore the tabs to participate. Download this fact sheet for more information about the planning process. For inquiries or feedback related to the AMP, please contact MobilityPlan@alexandriava.gov. The City of Alexandria is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. To request a reasonable accommodation, e-mail geralyn.taylor@alexandriava.gov or call 703.746.4084, Virginia Relay 711. | TAKE THE SURVEY | SHARE A PHOTO | DROP A PIN ON OUR MAP | | :--- | :--- | :--- | ## Alexandria Mobility Plan Visioning Survey <
> ### Visioning The strategic update to the existing Transportation Master Plan is called the Mobility Plan purposefully. When people hear transportation, they tend to think about infrastructure – roads, trains, sidewalk, etc. Mobility is more people centric – it’s about having access to transportation that meets your needs and gets you where you need to go. # 1. What are three words that come to mind when you think about your ideal vision for mobility in Alexandria? <
> # 2. Select the ways you most frequently travel <
> # 2. Select the ways you most frequently travel "Other" Responses Included: * Motorcycle * Motorized Scooter * Regular Rental Car * Water Taxi * Work Vehicle # 3. What are the most important factors in how you choose to get around on a normal day? <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | Flexibility/Convenience | 41% | | Travel Time | 36% | | Predictability/Reliability | 22% | | Activity/Fitness | 17% | | Needs of Other Passengers | 13% | | Comfort/Experience | 12% | | Parking | 12% | | Cost | 10% | | Environmental | 10% | | Personal Safety | 10% | | Productivity During Travel | 9% | | Other | 3% | # 3. What are the most important factors in how you choose to get around on a normal day? “Other” Responses Included: * Weather * Destination * Physical Health * Cargo capacity for groceries, dry goods, etc. * Employment Needs # 4. What are the most important opportunities for the future of mobility in Alexandria? <
> | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Transit-oriented development | | 43% | | Reducing dependance on auto | | 40% | | Emerging technology | | 36% | | Implementing planned transit... | | 36% | | Achieving zero traffic fatalities and... | | 34% | | Equity | | 25% | | Other | | 18% | | Innovative funding opportunities | | 14% | | Integrating shared mobility | | 9% | # 4. What are the most important opportunities for the future of mobility in Alexandria? “Other” Responses Included: * Addressing bottlenecks * Better parking choices/Adequate parking * Enforcement of traffic laws * Improved public transportation * Ability for residents to travel within neighborhoods * Convenience of personal vehicle * Reduce congestion/Better flow * Connected bike lanes # 5. What are the biggest challenges to the future of mobility in Alexandria? <
> # 5. What are the biggest challenges to the future of mobility in Alexandria? “Other” Responses Included: * Scooters * Poor Metro performance * Road Diets/Reducing the number of lanes * Equity of transportation for all of City (families, seniors, etc.) * Commitment to pedestrian/cyclist safety * Changing mindset of residents to be less car-centric * Cut-Through traffic in neighborhoods * Aging Population * Lack of enforcement # 6. When developing a transportation strategy for Alexandria, we should focus most on: <
> * Reducing impacts of regional traffic on City streets (travel through Alexandria) * Improving regional connections (travel to or from Alexandria) * Improving local travel options (travel within Alexandria) # 7. What things do you think Alexandria should invest in the most? <
> # 8. What is your home zip code? <
> | Home Residence by Zipcode | | | :--- | :--- | | **Number of Responces** | | | | Less than 10 | 51 - 100 | | | 10 - 50 | 101 - 150 | | | | 151 - 200 | | | | Greater than 200 | *There were 886 total survey responses for 42 different zipcodes* # 8. What is your home zip code? ## Alexandria Responses <
> # 9. What is the zip code of your work, school, or most frequent travel destination? <
> # 9. What is the zip code of your work, school, or most frequent travel destination? ## Alexandria Responses <
> # 10. Select the racial or ethnic group with which you identify <
> * White * Prefer Not to Say * Two or More Races * Asian * Black / African American * Hispanic / Latino # 11. Indicate your age group <
> * 40–65 Years Old * 26–39 Years Old * Over 65 Years Old * Prefer Not to Say * 18–25 Years Old * Under 17 Years Old # 12. How many people live in your household? <
> * ■ Two People * ■ One Person * ■ Three People * ■ Four People * ■ Five or More People * ■ Prefer Not to Say # 13. How many vehicles are available to people in your household? <
> * ■ Two Vehicles * ■ One Vehicle * ■ Three Vehicles or More * ■ Zero Vehicles * ■ Prefer Not to Say # 14. I identify my gender as: <
> * ■ Female * ■ Male * ■ Prefer not to say # 15. Indicate your annual household income: <
> * $100,000 – $199,999 * $200,000 or More * Prefer Not to Say * $75,000 – $99,999 * $50,000–$74,999 * $25,000 – $49,999 * Under $25,000 # Innovation Forum Summary October 2019 # Idea Wall Summary ## How do you define Innovation? * Disruption of the Status Quo * Increased Sustainability and Safety * Utilization of Simple Technology for Creative Solutions ## How should we apply innovation to the Alexandria Mobility Plan Vision? * Reliable Travel Information Technology * Improve Transit * Control Flow of Vehicle Traffic * Equitable Multimodal Solutions * Car Sharing * Broader Bus Schedules * Bike Lanes * Legislation and Plans for Scooter Implementation * Decreased Congestion and Cut-through Traffic * Vision Zero # Idea Wall Summary **What innovative Transportation Solutions have you seen in Alexandria or elsewhere?** * Increased Electric Vehicles and Bikes * Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore * Pedestrian and Bike Solutions * Boston ,MA, Seattle, WA, Reykjavik, Iceland, Netherlands * Transit Payment via Smart Phones * Vancouver ,BC, Seattle ,WA * Speed Management and Congestion Pricing **Other Thoughts or Ideas?** * Prioritize Pedestrian and Bike Lanes and Trails * Ensure Protection of Privacy during Data Collection * Pros and Cons to Scooters # Alexandria Mobility Plan # Community Champion Meetings Summary November 2019 # Community Champion Meetings * 6 meetings * 10 community champions * Organization coverage * Alexandria Housing Development Corporation * Carpenter Shelter * Alexandria Interfaith Association * Home for America (Brent Place) * Rebuilding Together * Hopkins House (Helen Day Preschool) * Alive! * Volunteer Alexandria * Tenants and Workers United * Community Lodgings # Comment Themes * **Accessible**, **reliable**, and **safe transit** is a priority for many residents * **Buses** provide crucial connections to **employment** * The combination of **affordable housing** and **transportation** is key * Provided insight into the best ways to **communicate** information and get **feedback** from residents # Pop-Up Events Summary November and December 2019 # AMP Pop-Up Events * 7 pop-ups * 468 interactions * Citywide coverage * Old Town * West End * Arlandria (x2) * Del Ray * Taylor Run * Alexandria West <
> # Old Town Farmers Market Sunday November 9, 2019 * 61 Priority Activities completed * 18 additional conversations <
> # West End Farmers Market Sunday November 17, 2019 * 75 interactions (72 English/3 Spanish) * 52 Priority Activities completed * 52 fact sheets handed out <
> # Arlandria Community Meeting Thursday November 21, 2019 * 50 interactions (30 English/20 Spanish) * 33 Priority Activities completed (22 English/11 Spanish) * 39 fact sheets handed out * 14 postcards handed out <
> # YMCA Tuesday December 3, 2019 * 113 interactions (111 English/2 Spanish) * 85 Priority Activities completed * 66 fact sheets handed out * 119 postcards handed out <
> # Alexandria City High School Friday December 6, 2019 * Boy's Basketball Game Event * 75 interactions (71 English/4 Spanish) * 48 Priority Activities completed (45 students/3 adults) * 16 fact sheets handed out (14 English/2 Spanish) * 44 postcards handed out <
> # Global Foods Market Sunday December 8, 2019 * 114 interactions (57 English/32 Spanish/25 Amharic) * 36 Priority Activities completed (20 English/16 Spanish) * 46 fact sheets handed out (18 English/13 Spanish/15 Amharic) * 86 postcards handed out <
> # Forest 24 Hour Laundromat Sunday December 8, 2019 * 75 interactions (13 English/62 Spanish) * 27 Priority Activities completed (4 English/23 Spanish) * 44 fact sheets handed out (5 English/39 Spanish) * 58 postcards handed out <
> # Priority Activity ## Mobility Priorities Below are the “building blocks” of a transportation system that provides choice, convenience, and reliability. Unfortunately, we can’t have everything we want – there’s not enough space, money, or time. What things do you think Alexandria should invest in the most? * **Attractive and Active Streets** – Utilizing streets as public spaces to serve different functions—providing places to gather and to program activities. * **Curbside Management** – Allocating space to balance the needs of and limit conflicts between parked cars, delivery trucks, Uber/Lyft, taxis, bicycles, buses, and cars. * **Reliable and Efficient Transit Service**– Providing convenient, affordable, and reliable bus service throughout the day and on all days of the week. Improving access to rail stations and regional bus stops. * **Incentives and Information** – Make it easier and more attractive to choose alternatives to driving alone. * **Mobility on Demand** – Supporting shared mobility (e.g., Capital bikeshare, Zipcar, Uber/Lyft) with policies and infrastructure. * **Parking** – Increasing the physical inventory of on-street parking to taking action to manage the existing space better. * **Safe and Comfortable Places to Walk and Bike** – Allowing you to comfortably walk and bike everywhere in the city and improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. * **Maintaining our Infrastructure** – Keeping streetlights and traffic signals working, filling potholes, repaving streets, maintaining sidewalks, removing snow, and replacing aging bus fleet. * **Traffic Management** – Using technology to make travel in Alexandria safer and more efficient to get around. <
> Please choose your top six building block stickers and place them on your sheet in order of importance, from most important (top) to least important (bottom). Three of the themes will not be represented in the final pyramid. ## My Priorities <
> Email address ___________________________ *(optional)* What is your home zip code? ____________________ *(optional)* # ALXmobility # Priority Activity * **690** activities completed * 342 completed **in person** at pop-up meetings * 348 completed **online** as of December 19, 2019 # Key Takeaways * Equal competing values between **multimodal transportation** and **traffic/maintenance** * Linked priorities * Of those that chose "Safe and Comfortable Places to Walk and Bike" as their *most important* priority: * "Reliable and Efficient Transit" was the most frequently chosen priority in their *more important* row. The inverse is also true. * Of those that chose "Congestion Management" as their *most important* priority: * "Maintaining our Infrastructure" was the most frequently chosen priority in their *more important* row. The inverse is also true. # Top Priorities (Weighted) <
> * top priority categories after assigning weights to each priority level # In Person Priorities (Weighted) <
> * top priority categories after assigning weights to each priority level # Online Priorities (Weighted) <
> * top priority categories after assigning weights to each priority level # Priorities by Category (all submissions) <
> | | Most Important | More Important | Important | Not Selected | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Safe and Comfortable Places to Walk and Bike** | 24% | 28% | 21% | 26% | | **Reliable and Efficient Transit** | 19% | 35% | 31% | 15% | | **Parking** | 4% | 20% | 37% | 39% | | **Mobility on Demand** | 2% | 8% | 26% | 65% | | **Maintaining our Infrastructure** | 12% | 41% | 41% | 5% | | **Incentives and Information** | 2% | 7% | 28% | 64% | | **Congestion Management** | 28% | 30% | 38% | 5% | | **Balancing Demands for Curb Use** | 2% | 9% | 36% | 52% | | **Attractive and Active Streets** | 7% | 19% | 36% | 39% | ■ Most Important ■ More Important ■ Important □ Not Selected # Top Priorities by Location (In Person) <
> * Attractive and Active Streets * Balancing Demands for Curb Use * Congestion Management * Incentive and Information * Maintaining Our Infrastructure * Mobility on Demand * Parking * Reliable and Efficient Transit * Safe and Comfortable Places to Walk and Bike # Top Most Important Priority by Location | Top Priorities | West End Farmers Market | YMCA | Old Town Farmers Market | Alexandria City High School | Arlandria Community Meeting | Global Foods Market | Forest 24 Hour Laundromat | Online | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | FIRST Most Important | | | Safe & Comfortable Places to Walk & Bike | | | | Reliable & Efficient Transit | Congestion Management | | SECOND Most Important | | | Reliable & Efficient Transit | | | | Safe & Comfortable Places to Walk & Bike | Maintaining Our Infrastructure | | THIRD Most Important | Congestion Management | | Attractive & Active Streets | | Maintaining Our Infrastructure | Attractive & Active Streets / Parking | Congestion Management | Safe & Comfortable Places to Walk & Bike | # Top Most Important Priority by Location Online: Congestion Management <
> 51 # Top Priorities (Online) <
> * Attractive and Active Streets * Balancing Demands for Curb Use * Congestion Management * Incentive and Information * Maintaining Our Infrastructure * Mobility on Demand * Parking * Reliable and Efficient Transit * Safe and Comfortable Places to Walk and Bike # Top Comments by Location (In-Person) **Old Town Farmers Market** * Old Town area revolves around walking * Transit service at later hours **West End Farmers Market** * The need to keep Alexandria a walking community * Several requests for more bike lanes/mention of bike lanes ending abruptly * Congestion has been getting worse **Arlandria Community Meeting** * The city does a lot of talking about walking, but "does not do much to support walking" * Importance of public transit in this community * Complaints of slow-moving buses **YMCA** * Safety and walkability are strong values in this community * Concerns about infrastructure failure * Metrorail access # Top Comments by Location (In-Person) ### Alexandria City High School * Concerns about bus routes and frequency * Equitable design * More street lights ### Global Foods * More transit access ### 24 Hour Laundromat * Crime and safety concerns on the streets – need for more street lights * Free parking * Bus service improvement during non-peak hours * Fix potholes # Top Comments (Online) ## Online * Congestion concerns – often centered around Seminary Road * Environmental and sustainability concerns * Better transit around Alexandria # Focus Groups Round 1 Summary January 2020 # Overview of Content * Overview and Context of Focus Groups * Factors Influencing Travel Choices by Groups * Takeaways from Group Discussions by Topic Area * Mobility Options * Streets * Round 1 Lessons Learned # Focus Group Purpose * Community-generated ideas from a diverse audience * Ideas will be considered in context of other inputs and against the AMP Vision and Guiding Principles * Recognition that these are a way to have an in-depth discussion, but may not be fully representative of the community * A subset will be shared in upcoming citywide community engagement events to get broader feedback ## Discussion Topics * Round 1: Streets and Mobility Options *(Completed February/March 2020)* * Round 2: Transit and Parking and Curbside Management *(Spring 2020)* <
> **What mobility strategies will most impact your life for the better?** # AMP Focus Groups – Round 1 January 2020 * AMPAC Meeting February/March 2020 * In-Person meetings grouped by stage of life * 6 Meetings * 9 group discussions * 72 in-person total participants * Online Discussion * 3 Online Groups * 43 Online Participants <
> # AMP Advisory Committee (AMPAC) * Reviewed preliminary material and participated in focus group discussion * Provided feedback in preparation for outreach to community * Key Takeaways * Importance of regional coordination * Ensure that equity is considered in decision making (i.e. paving schedule) * Improving the appeal of transit for professionals * Consider more than just the peak hour congestion * Weave best practices into the plan document chapters * Metro access is major concern for West End communities * How do we address trip chaining and different needs for each trip? * Need to incorporate concerns from the driver perspective that may not be vocal on the AMPAC # Preview of Major Themes * Each age group had slightly different mobility considerations, but many **broader themes were largely consistent** * Widespread concerns about **safety** and **congestion** * Diverging approaches to addressing **cut-through traffic** * Importance of **regional coordination** * Consideration of **equity** and **disparate needs** in different parts of the City * Need for **better transit** * Importance of **networks**: bike, bus, auto * Lack of **awareness** of existing tools and processes # Factors Influencing Travel Choices by Group Participants were asked what factors influenced their travel choices to jumpstart the conversation, help us understand varying mobility needs and priorities, and get a basic understanding of personal mobility in each group # Factors Influencing Travel Choices ## Ages 56-74 * Unsafe brick pavement or lack of sidewalks prevents walking * Drive due to time that transit takes, need to make multiple stops, or carrying a load or shopping bags * Safety concerns getting home late on transit * Avoids peak periods and school bus pick-up/drop off times <
> # Factors Influencing Travel Choices ## Ages 41-55 * Destinations vary throughout region, need car * Buses take too long and not a convenient option ## Ages 18-40 * Chose to live near Metro * Drive due to lengthy transit travel time and reliability of car * Availability of car sharing/ridesharing and micro-transit options <
> # Factors Influencing Travel Choices **Alexandria City High School, Leadership Class - Ages 16-18** * Strong desire for license for independence * Drive and carpool to school with classmates * DASH bus primarily when free * Scooters when available, but can get costly <
> # Factors Influencing Travel Choices (online) **Persons with Disabilities or Limited Mobility** * Choices based on weather, distance * Safety concerns when walking - Related to infrastructure (i.e. brick sidewalks) **Working Parents** * Safe bike routes and bike amenities at destination * Carrying packages or kids - More likely to drive * Walking/Metro - Avoid driving during peak hours * Safety while traveling with younger kids **Community Champions / Business Community - Factors For Individuals They Serve** * Proximity to metro and availability of bus service * Ownership or access to personal vehicle * Rideshare used late at night when transit is less frequent <
> # Factors Influencing Travel Choices ## Alexandria City High School, Liberty Promise (In Spanish) - Ages 18-25 * Overcrowding on school bus makes DASH an appealing choice * Traffic congestion impacts transit reliability * Limited access to personal vehicle * Credit card payment option limits bikeshare usage - Desire alternative payment options <
> # Takeaways From Group Discussions # Mobility Options: Summary of Themes Discussed by Group | Overview of Discussion | Generally Support | Opinions on Both Sides | Generally Did Not Support | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Major Topic of Discussion | ◐ | ◑ | ◒ | | Moderate Topic of Discussion | ◐ | ◑ | ◒ | | Limited Discussion | | ◯ | | | | Alexandria City High School - Leadership Class | Alexandria City High School - Liberty Promise | Ages 20-40 | Working Parents | Ages 40+ | Ages 40+ | 55+ and Persons with Disabilities | 55+ and Persons with Disabilities | Business Community / Community Champions | West End Coalition | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | 21 participants* | 6 participants | 16 participants | 13 participants | 13 participants* | 12 participants* | 9 participants | 9 participants | 7 participants | 15 participants | | | 2/21/2020 | 3/13/2020 | 2-Week Duration | 2-Week Duration | 2/10/2020 | 2/13/2020 | 2/4/2020 | 2/12/2020 | 2-Week Duration | 3/7/2020 | | | In-Person | In-Person | Online | Online | In-Person | In-Person | In-Person | In-Person | Online | In-Person | | **Reoccurring Themes** | | | | | | | | | | | | Support for More/Better Travel Choices | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ◐ | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ◐ | ◑ | | Importance of Public Transit | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ◯ | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ◐ | | Dockless Mobility | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ◯ | ◯ | ◑ | ◑ | ◯ | ◐ | ◒ | | Awareness of Travel Tools and Options | ◐ | ◯ | ◯ | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ◯ | ◯ | | More Technology and Incentives | ◐ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ● | ◐ | ◯ | ◐ | ◒ | ◯ | *Participants were divided into two smaller groups. # Mobility Options - Major Takeaways * Awareness of GO Alex was generally low; participants more aware of WMATA Smart Benefits. (All groups) * Integrated apps or signs with real-time information gives users confidence in using alternative modes. (All Ages); Apps with incentives generated tremendous interest among high school students. (Ages 16-18) * Varying opinions on dockless scooters and how the City should manage through policy such as incentives, more designated corrals, geofencing. (All groups) <
> * Reliable buses that are coordinated would generate more interest in alternatives to driving alone (All groups) * Some interest in encouraging greater utilization of carpooling, but not often used (18+) # Mobility Options - Strategies Discussed * Installation of "transit screens" or other real-time information * On-demand transit for persons with disabilities / seniors * Zero-fare transit pilot * Ferry service expansion * Dockless program improvements * Local app showing mobility options with local incentives * Regional partnerships to manage transportation demand * Encouraging or creating telework opportunities * Mobility hubs to enable seamless use of multiple modes * Pilot A/V demonstration for designated route # Streets: Summary of Themes Discussed by Group | Overview of Discussion | Generally Support | Opinions on Both Sides | Generally Did Not Support | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Major Topic of Discussion | ⬤ | ◑ | ⬤ | | Moderate Topic of Discussion | ◐ | 🟡 | 🔵 | | Limited Discussion | | ⚪ | | | | Alexandria City High School - Leadership Class | Alexandria City High School - Liberty Promise | Ages 20-40 | Working Parents | Ages 40+ | Ages 40+ | 55+ and Persons with Disabilities | 55+ and Persons with Disabilities | Business Community / Community Champions | West End Coalition | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | 21 participants* | 6 participants | 16 participants | 13 participants | 13 participants* | 12 participants* | 9 participants | 9 participants | 7 participants | 15 participants | | | 2/21/2020 | 3/13/2020 | 2-Week Duration | 2-Week Duration | 2/10/2020 | 2/13/2020 | 2/4/2020 | 2/12/2020 | 2-Week Duration | 3/7/2020 | | | In-Person | In-Person | Online | Online | In-Person | In-Person | In-Person | In-Person | Online | In-Person | | **Reoccurring Themes** | | | | | | | | | | | | Congestion | ◐ | ◐ | ⬤ | ⚪ | 🟡 | ⬤ | ⬤ | ⬤ | ⚪ | ⬤ | | Cut-Through Traffic | ◐ | ⚪ | ⬤ | ⚪ | 🟡 | ⬤ | ◑ | ⬤ | ⚪ | ⬤ | | Safety Concerns | ◐ | ◐ | ⬤ | ⬤ | ◐ | ⬤ | ⬤ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | | Bicycle Network Continuity | ⚪ | ◐ | ◑ | ◑ | ◐ | ◐ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ◐ | 🟡 | | Street Design to Address Safety / Cut-Through | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ◐ | ◐ | ⬤ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ⚪ | | Coordination of Maintenance Schedules | ⚪ | ⚪ | ⚪ | ◐ | ◐ | ⬤ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ⚪ | *Participants were divided into two smaller groups. # Streets - Major Takeaways * Robust discussion around the **aggressive driving culture** (speeding, running red lights, not yielding to pedestrians) leading to pedestrian safety concerns. Need for enhanced enforcement and greater use of **physical safety improvements** to address safety concerns and motorists not obeying law (All groups) * Traffic calming and **local cut-through traffic** were a major topics of discussion. Suggested strategies varied from passive measures to reduce speeds to more direct measures to prevent cut-through. Some concerns about inconvenience to locals (Ages 41+) * Support for **prioritizing routes/streets by mode** to help set expectations and ensure there are complete networks (Ages 41+) <
> # Streets - Strategies Discussed * "Low Cost, Tactical Urbanism Solutions / Flexibility(Signs, Pavement Markings, etc.)" * Local Resident Permit Program * Turn Restrictions * Education / Culture of Safety / Signage * Enhanced Enforcement * Evaluate Speed Limit with Street Design * Leading Pedestrian Intervals and RRFBs * Stop Signs / Stop Bars Placed Further Back from Crosswalks * Pedestrian-Scale Street Lighting * Prioritize Different Modes on Different Streets * Smart or Coordinated Traffic Signals * Dedicated Bus Lanes / Transit Priority to Ease Congestion * Green Streets / Green Infrastructure / Low-Impact Design * Coordinated Roadway Maintenance Schedules # Lessons Learned & Next Steps # Lessons Learned from Round 1 Focus Groups In-Person Discussions: * Participants appreciated background presentation and majority of time focused on smaller group discussions * Positive feedback on facilitation and opportunity for everyone to participate * All participants were respectful and felt as if their opinions were heard * Positive feedback on the approach; Helpful having city staff speak to city-initiatives and highlight programs in response to specific questions # Lessons Learned from Round 1 Focus Groups Online Focus Groups: * Participants generally liked the flexibility to participate as their schedule allowed; Facilitator-prompted questions/responses were appreciated * Challenging to get some users to re-engage after initial visit to platform * Designated times for more “chat-like” discussions was suggested; Consider a window of time or “office-hours” to encourage more participation at set time Overall * Challenging balancing demographics across the focus groups # Focus Groups # Round 2 Summary March 2020 # Focus Groups: Round 2 March 2020 * AMP Advisory Committee Online Discussions April-May 2020 * Online Discussions * 3 groups **based on geography** (East/Central/West) * 14 active participants (45 participants invited) --- AlexEngage alexandriava.gov | Danielle-Facilitator ▼ --- | --- Home » AMP East Alexandria Focus Group | ## AMP East Alexandria Focus Group <
> Welcome to the East Alexandria focus group for the Alexandria Mobility Plan! We thank you for offering to participate in these important discussions. The objective of this second round of focus groups is to get specific ideas and suggestions for strategies that the City should pursue related to **Public Transit** and **Parking & Curbside Management**. Previous focus group meetings on other topics (Mobility Options and Streets) were held in February 2020. Please reference the AMP Fact Sheet, linked in the Document Library on the right side of this page, for additional overall aspects of the project. Before beginning participation in our discussion forums, please take a few minutes to review the Overview Presentation, linked in the Document Library on the right side of this page. This presentation provides important information on the AMP plan, schedule, and vision, as well as the ground rules for these online focus group discussions. The ground rules for discussion are simple and include the following: * Treat each other with respect * Listen and comment as an ally, not an adversary. Everyone should feel comfortable expressing their opinion regardless of differences * Ask for clarification, don't assume you know what someone means * Do not characterize other people's views in or outside a group's meetings ### Documents * AMP Fact Sheet (304 KB) (pdf) * Overview Presentation - Round 2 Focus Groups (2.16 MB) (pdf) * Public Transit - Example Strategies (3.68 MB) (pdf) * Parking and Curbside Management - Example Strategies (691 KB) (pdf) # AMP Advisory Committee (AMPAC) * Reviewed preliminary material and participated in focus group discussion platform * Provided feedback in preparation for outreach to community * Key Takeaways * Ensure that **equity** is considered in decision making * Improve parking garage **signage via technology** * A **mobile application for parking** may not be a "game changer" * Prioritize strategies based on **sustainability** * Need for more **short-term parking spaces** in commercial districts * **Fewer – but better – bus stops** may attract transit riders * Consider **occasional transit users** (i.e. pedestrians and cyclists that shift to transit during severe weather) * Consider **Toronto’s King Street Transit Pilot** as an example of how to implement bus priority # Focus Group Discussions: Preview of Major Themes Each geographic group had slightly different mobility considerations, but many broader themes were largely consistent * Widespread concerns about **safety**, **transit reliability**, and **parking availability** * Diverging suggestions to address **transit improvements** * Importance of **transit frequency** and **reliability** * Need for **safe walking routes** to transit, **first- and last-mile** solutions, and **real-time information** * No clear preference of **parking payment** methods (app vs. meter) * Lack of interest in **parking value pricing** or **reservation systems** # Difference in Opinion by Geographic Group # Public Transit – West Alexandria * Lack of sidewalks and crosswalks at bus stops create **safety hazards** * **Infrequency of service** does not make opting for transit easy, timely, or convenient * Most **opt to drive** due to time that transit takes, multiple stops, destinations being outside of Alexandria, or carrying a load (i.e. shopping bags) * **Lack of support for bus priority** on streets – concern that such treatments would negatively impact vehicle operations <
> # Public Transit – Central Alexandria * Mixed opinions on **Vision Zero / Complete Streets improvements** (i.e. Seminary Road) that make bus stops more safe, accessible, and easier to get to and from * **Infrequency of service** during off-peak hours and weekends presents a challenge * Concern for recent **reductions in bus service** (North Ridge) * Support for the **Transit Vision Plan** recommendations <
> # Public Transit – East Alexandria * General support for bus priority on streets * Support for Vision Zero / Complete Streets improvements (i.e. Leading Pedestrian Intervals) that make bus stops more safe, accessible, and easier to get to and from * Support for micromobility devices (shared bikes and scooters) for first-/last-mile trips * Support for Water Taxi service * Desire for the transit system to be less commuter-focused <
> # Parking & Curbside Management – West Alexandria <
> * Parking availability is **not perceived as an issue** in this area * **Garage parking** is generally preferred to street parking * General support for **curbside management** * General opposition to the idea of **shared parking** on a citywide scale # Parking & Curbside Management – Central Alexandria * Some participants **opt for transit, bike, or rideshare** when parking is expected to be limited/difficult at their destination * **Bike parking:** difficult to find in many areas * **Garage parking** is generally preferred to on-street parking <
> # Parking & Curbside Management – East Alexandria * Parking availability is a prominent issue * Concern that employees and visitors/tourists put a **strain on on-street parking** for residents * Support for **incentivizing garage use** for non-residents * **On-street parking** is generally preferred to garage parking by residents * Support for more **residential-only on-street parking** * Support for **allocating curbspace** based on land use <
> # Themes, Major Takeaways, and Ideas # Public Transit – Themes & Major Takeaways * Bus stop improvements (i.e. **shelters, seating, lighting**) would improve the transit experience and **attract new riders** * Integrated apps and/or signs with real-time information are in high demand and would give users confidence in opting for transit * The perceived **lack of on-time performance** of transit deters choice riders * Less service and shorter spans of service during **off-peak hours and weekends** limits use of transit * Support for **mobile/app-based ticketing platform** * Transit trips that require **transfers are a deterrent** for choice riders * Varying opinions on first- and last-mile solutions like **dockless scooters** and how the City should manage them * Concern for effects of **bus stop balancing** on disabled and elderly passengers *** ## Ideas Discussed Better/wider **sidewalks and crosswalks** at or near bus stops **Enhanced bus farebox abilities** * Ability to activate *SmartTrip* card reloads * Acceptance of contactless credit/debit cards Peak-hour **bus lanes** and **electric bus rapid transit** More **off-sidewalk parking for bikes/scooters** near transit stops # Parking & Curbside Management – Themes and Major Takeaways * Preferences for payment methods vary (**mobile/app-based payments vs. traditional parking meters**) * Little-to-no interest in **shared parking, parking reservation systems, or parking value pricing** * Support for **real-time information** * New approaches such as **curbside management** are perceived as less necessary/applicable in western areas – greater interest shown in eastern areas * Availability of **parking is more strained in eastern areas of city** * General interest in alternatives to driving and parking, but **opting for transit can be a challenge** * Concern for **freight/delivery issues and enforcement** *** ## Ideas Discussed Priority curbspace for **wheelchair parking/loading** More **bicycle, moped, and motorcycle parking** Old Town as an appropriate geography for **curbspace prioritization** * Pick-up/drop-off and delivery/loading zones * Expanded pedestrian space and street trees/landscaping **Real-time garage parking** availability information # Lessons Learned # Lessons Learned * Participants generally liked the organization of information and flexibility to participate as their schedule allowed * Facilitator-prompted questions/responses were appreciated * Challenging to get some users to re-engage after initial visit to platform * Greater activity during designated “open forum” times where facilitators were on-hand to provide real-time responses and follow-up questions <
> # Draft Strategies Feedback Form Summary November 2020 # Feedback Form Response Rates <
> * The feedback form was shared on the Alexandria Mobility Plan website and announced during the Virtual Town Hall on October 15, 2020. * The feedback form was open between **October 15 and November 9, 2020** * 76 respondents filled out the first page of the survey and did not provide any opinions through the rest of the form * 179 respondents and their responses were included in the following observations # Demographic Distribution of Participants <
> <
> <
> Demographic questions were optional. Information displayed here only reflects participants who chose to report this information. # Origins and Destinations ### Home Locations * **17** unique zip codes from **178** respondents * Most frequent zip codes: **22314** (Eastern Alexandria) and **22304** (Western Alexandria) <
> ### Most Frequent Travel Destination * **44** unique zip codes from **178** respondents * The most destination: **22314** (Eastern Alexandria) <
> Top Residence Zip Codes Top Work, School, or Most Frequent Travel Destination # Overarching Themes * Reduce **vehicular congestion** * Improve **safety** and **connections** for vulnerable street users * Questions about **how COVID-19 will impact future travel trends** * Curb space should consider **rideshare** and **delivery uses** * Mobility options must consider the **practicality** for all residents * Mixed opinions on **autonomous vehicle** considerations * **Reasonably placed** and **priced parking** "I strongly support smart signal technology to relieve motor vehicle congestion. I do not favor smart technology that causes a stoppage on major streets." "Build a more connected and unified community in Alexandria for pedestrians and bicyclists." "Enforce and stop cut-through traffic." "I prioritize flexibility in schedule, safety, and travel time." "Our built infrastructure must be designed to manage congestion by making transit and micro mobility solutions safe, reliable, and fast." "It is simply not practical to expect us to give up our cars and handle grocery shopping, doctor visits, errands and other activities on public transit, bikes and scooters." "Priorities should be directed to making the bus, bikes, and walking a more appealing choice than getting into any type of car." # Draft Strategies: Feedback by Chapter # Draft Strategies ## Feedback by Chapter For each plan chapter, participants were asked to share their **level of support** for draft strategies along the below scale: | | Strongly Support | Support | Neutral | Do Not Support | Do Not Understan d | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Strategy | ☑ | | | | | | Strategy | | ☑ | | | | | Strategy | | | ☑ | | | | Strategy | | | | | ☑ | | Strategy | ☑ | | | | | Participants were also asked to: * Provide comments on strategies they did not support or did not understand * Share new strategy ideas for consideration in the plan # Transit ## Draft Strategies * **T1.** Implement the City's Priority Transitway Corridors and Alexandria Transit Vision (ATV) * **T2.** Identify speed and reliability improvements on congested and transit-rich corridors. * **T3.** Enhance the rider experience at bus stops. * **T4.** Evaluate fare policy and next generation payment options. * **T5.** Evaluate micro-transit solutions to complement traditional DASH service as a means to expand ridership. * **T6.** Create a more resilient and customer-oriented bus fleet. * **T7.** Prepare for future rail (VRE/MARC) expanded service. * **T8.** Evaluate and streamline paratransit program for increasing needs. Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Transit ## Summary of Feedback Strong support for: * Identify speed and reliability improvements on congested and transit-rich corridors (T2) Difference of opinion on: * Implement the City's Priority Transitway Corridors and Alexandria Transit Vision (ATV) (T1) * Evaluate micro-transit solutions to complement traditional DASH service as a means to expand ridership (T5) A greater number of respondents **did not understand** strategy (T8) to streamline the **paratransit** program "Improve weather protection and visibility at bus stops." "Microtransit can compete with traditional bus and rail transit and risks taking away its riders, which might induce service cuts." "Maximize dedicated transit lanes." "Improve safety and convenience of walking and biking to transit as a means to expand ridership." Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Transit ## New Ideas or Suggestions * Implement **all-door boarding** on DASH buses permanently * Work with adjacent property owners where there is insufficient City-owned right-of-way to provide space for **passenger amenities** * New VRE commuter rail station at Potomac Yard (Innovation Campus) * Integrate **transit passes** with other mobility options like Capital Bikeshare * Move towards **free public transit for all** * Aim for a more **accessible bus and rail system** to compliment paratransit "Requiring smart phones and/or transit cards limits access for low-income and out-of-town riders." Plan Chapter: Transit | **Smart Mobility** | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Smart Mobility ## Draft Strategies * **SM1.** Upgrade capabilities of the Traffic Management Center (TMC) to more effectively manage congestion and traffic incidents in real-time. * **SM2.** Expand implementation of smart signal technology to enable detection and real-time signal adjustments based on travel conditions. * **SM3.** Strategically invest in partnerships to expand City data, technology, and communications capabilities. * **SM4.** Develop protocols and polices to accommodate autonomous vehicles and ensure that their adoption will support City goals. Plan Chapter: Transit | **Smart Mobility** | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Smart Mobility ## Summary of Feedback **Strong support** for: * Upgrade capabilities of the Traffic Management Center (TMC) to more effectively manage congestion and traffic incidents in real-time (SM1) * Expand implementation of smart signal technology to enable detection and real-time signal adjustments based on travel conditions (SM2) **Difference of opinion** on: * Develop protocols and policies to accommodate autonomous vehicles and ensure that their adoption will support City goals (SM4) “Autonomous vehicle policy should not be a priority at this point.” “I do not support public funding of autonomous vehicle infrastructure. More funding and priorities should be directed to making the bus, bikes, and walking a more appealing choice.” “Autonomous vehicles make me nervous, so I am glad Alexandria is starting to prepare for what that might look like.” “Upgrading our system to accommodate new technologies will be key to future success.” Plan Chapter: Transit | **Smart Mobility** | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Smart Mobility ## New Ideas or Suggestions * Data collection and use that prioritizes **privacy** and **safe uses** for residents * Explore and develop **partnerships with other jurisdictions** and partake in **research-based pilot** or demonstration programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation * Use Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to address **real-time needs** "The city should encourage private/public partnerships." "Update mapping apps (i.e. Google Maps) to better reflect traffic changes or improvements." Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | **Streets** | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Streets ## Draft Strategies * **S1.** Implement a criteria-based traffic mitigation program that helps better manage congestion and traffic on local streets. * **S2.** Maximize effectiveness of multimodal transportation impact studies for new developments. * **S3.** Work with regional, state, and private sector partners to develop tools to keep traffic on highways and reduce regional cut-through traffic. * **S4.** Update the City's Street Design Guidelines to incorporate current design practices. * **S5.** Ensure planning initiatives that require enforcement promote more equitable outcomes. Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | **Streets** | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Streets ## Summary of Feedback **Strong support for:** * Work with regional, state, and private sector partners to develop tools to keep traffic on highways and reduce regional cut-through traffic (S3) **Difference of opinion on:** * Update the City Street Design Guidelines to incorporate current design practices (S4) A greater number of respondents **did not understand** details or the how the strategies are actionable. "Unclear what sorts of mitigation are actually feasible for the City to implement." "Maximize the use of traffic cameras where currently allowed. Alexandria has schools all over the city, which enables us to put speed cameras all over the city (they are now legal in school zones)." "Expedite vehicular traffic on major arteries during peak times to reduce commute times for our residents, reduce congestion, enable residents living on congested streets to get to their homes more quickly, and reduce neighborhood traffic." "Reach out to companies like Waze to prevent using neighborhood streets as routes to avoid traffic." Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | **Streets** | Supporting Travel Options | Curb Space and Parking # Streets ## New Ideas or Suggestions * Commit to **annual goals for closing sidewalk gaps** * Consider **‘slow streets’** and **‘open streets’** to **discourage regional traffic** on local streets * Accelerate implementation of **safety initiatives** on local streets * Consider **reversible lanes** during peak hours on certain arteries * Greater consideration for **motorists, roadway capacity,** and **vehicular access** in street design "While other safety-related policies and plans exist, the absence of an overarching safety strategy in the AMP Streets chapter is a major omission that should be addressed." "We need more roads, wider roads, and more parking near Metro." "Note the relation between Transit chapter strategies and Streets chapter strategies (i.e. transit priority on streets for congestion reduction and mobility improvements)." Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | **Supporting Travel Options** | Curb Space and Parking # Supporting Travel Options ## Draft Strategies * 01. Expand programs to identify community influencers to help the City encourage alternatives to driving alone. * 02. Develop a framework for pilots that can be used for testing new modes, infrastructure, or initiatives. * 03. Expand use of real-time information in public and private spaces to raise awareness and improve confidence in different mobility options. * 04. Develop travel training program to provide hands on experience on taking a new (to you) way of traveling. * 05. Support first/last mile travel needs through implementation of mobility hubs. * 06. Utilize our waterways as a resource to expand transportation options. * 07. Improve Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Program by requiring data and incorporating flexibility. * 08. Evaluate benefits and efficiencies of a future regional program to manage congestion. Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | **Supporting Travel Options** | Curb Space and Parking # Supporting Travel Options ## Summary of Feedback **Strong support** for: * Utilize our waterways as a resource to expand transportation options (O6) **Difference of opinion** on: * Expand use of real-time information in public and private spaces to raise awareness and improve confidence in different mobility options (O1) * Develop travel training program to provide hands on experience on taking a new (to you) way of traveling. (O4) In comparison to other chapters, the general level of support is lower for the Supporting Travel Options chapter. "The Potomac River is the single most underutilized transportation resource in the region - it could be an excellent way to alleviate congestion." "Strongly support waterway transit options, but will such options require subsidies to be viable?" "What metrics would be used to determine the program's efficacy?" Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | **Supporting Travel Options** | Curb Space and Parking # Supporting Travel Options ## New Ideas or Suggestions * Consider **incentives for electric bicycles** * Consider **a parking cash-out** option for employees that do not want or need parking benefits > "Different neighborhoods need different options." > "Acknowledge the differences between different areas of the city when determining feasibility of travel options such as scooters." Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | **Curb Space and Parking** # Curb Space and Parking ## Draft Strategies * **P1.** Establish priorities for curb uses based on adjacent land uses and City goals. * **P2.** Leverage pricing policy, data, and communications to better manage on and off-street parking spaces. * **P3.** Reconsider standards for parking requirements in new developments. Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | **Curb Space and Parking** # Curb Space and Parking ## Summary of Feedback **General support for all strategies:** * Establish priorities for curb uses based on adjacent land uses and City goals (P1) * Leverage pricing policy, data, and communications to better manage on and off-street parking spaces (P2) * Reconsider standards for parking requirements in new developments (P3) > "Any efforts to reduce parking must be combined with a better infrastructure for car-less living." > "Require residential parking permits in the entire city and charge market rate for them. On-street parking is far too cheap for residents today, which encourages excess car ownership and use." Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | **Curb Space and Parking** # Curb Space and Parking ## New Ideas or Suggestions * Plan for the increasing use of rideshare and delivery services (i.e. Amazon) * Reconsider or eliminate parking minimums for new development * Plan for electric vehicle charging Additional feedback related to parking was mixed. While most respondents supported strategies to address parking, open-ended comments included varied sentiments, ranging from support for elimination of parking requirements to calls for increased parking supply citywide. “I do like the on-street tables for restaurants on blocks where expeditious travel is not demanded and parking options are available nearby.” “Encourage drivers to use parking garages when available.” “Reconsidering parking minimums should mean eliminating them (developers should add parking if they think there is demand, it should not be required).” “Make sure all new developments have more than adequate parking.” Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | **Curb Space and Parking** # Curb Space Framework ## Priorities | Priority: | Residential | Main Streets | Office and Commercial | Warehouse and Industrial | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **1** | | Support for City Plan Priorities | | | | **2** | Access for People | Access for People | Access for People | Access for Goods | | **3** | Parking | Access for Goods | Access for Goods | Access for People | | **4** | Access for Goods | Activation | Parking | Parking | | **5** | Activation | Parking | Activation | Activation | Participants were presented with the City’s draft Curb Space Framework – it suggests which uses of curb space should be given priority within various land uses contexts. The following slides show how respondents recommended a new priority order for each land use. | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Support for City Plan Priorities | Safety improvements, bus lanes, bike lanes, stormwater management that are specifically included in City plans | Parking | Metered parking, Residential Permit Program, EV Charging, bike parking, scooter corrals | | Access for Goods | Loading zones, deliveries, food pick-up/drop-off | Activation | Parklets, in-street dining, public art | | Access for People | Bus stops, pick-up/drop-off, bikeshare stations | | | Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | **Curb Space and Parking** # Curb Space Framework ## Summary of Feedback Lower Rank ⬅️➡️ Higher Rank | | Item | Overall Rank | Rank Distribution | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Residential** | Access for People | 1 | | | | Parking | 2 | | | | Access for Goods | 3 | | | | Activation | 4 | | | | Support for City Plan Priorities | 5 | | | **Main Streets** | Access for People | 1 | | | | Access for Goods | 2 | | | | Parking | 3 | | | | Activation | 4 | | | | Support for City Plan Priorities | 5 | | Access for People and Parking were frequently top-ranked for residential curbspace. Access for People, Access for Goods, and Parking were frequently top-ranked for main street curbspace. Plan Chapter: Transit | Smart Mobility | Streets | Supporting Travel Options | **Curb Space and Parking** # Curb Space Framework ## Summary of Feedback Lower Rank ⬅️➡️ Higher Rank | | Item | Overall Rank | Rank Distribution | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Office and Commercial** | Access for People | 1 | | | | Access for Goods | 2 | | | | Parking | 3 | | | | Support for City Plan Priorities | 4 | | | | Activation | 5 | | | **Warehouse and Industrial** | Access for Goods | 1 | | | | Access for People | 2 | | | | Support for City Plan Priorities | 3 | | | | Parking | 4 | | | | Activation | 5 | | <
> *Access for People was frequently top-ranked for office/commercial curbspace.* *Access for People and Support for City Plan Priorities were frequently top-ranked for warehouse/industrial curbspace.* # Alexandria Mobility Plan # Draft Plan Release Feedback Summary May 2021 # Draft Plan Release – Outreach Efforts * City eNews and email blasts * Weekly social media posts on City and T&ES platforms * Posters on DASH buses and via Peachjar campaign (English and Spanish) * CDC compliant, low-touch in-person pop-up events * Meetings with boards and commissions * Hearing at Transportation Commission * Feedback form in English and Spanish (545 respondents) <
> <
> # Draft Plan Release – Outreach Efforts ## Bilingual Pop-Up Events * **Global Foods**: April 17th – 411 flyers distributed * **West End Farmers Market**: April 25th – 112 flyers distributed * **Southern Towers**: April 29th – 138 flyers distributed * **Potomac Yard Vaccine event**: April 28th – 712 flyers distributed <
> <
> <
> # How Plan Feedback will be Used <
> Document "What we heard" & post raw comments online Share with Department and City leaders Update plan with specific edits Feedback for future projects (using location-specific feedback) # Feedback Form Quick Facts <
> * The feedback form was open between **March 31, 2021 and May 2, 2021** * The feedback form was available on both mobile and computer platforms * **545** respondents completed the feedback form <
> # How did you hear about AMP? <
> | Source | Count | | :--- | :--- | | Social media | 187 | | Pop-up event, flyer, or other | 135 | | eNews | 133 | | Forwarded email | 106 | # Responses by Zip Code <
> | Response by Zipcode | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Less than 25 | 76 - 100 | | | 26-50 | 101 - 125 | | | 51 - 75 | Greater than 125 | | **17** | Other Virginia Zip Codes | | | **3** | DC Zip Codes | | | | There were 545 total survey responses for 23 different zipcodes | | # Representation by Zip Code | Zip Code | Population | Feedback Received | Delta | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 22301 | 9% | 15% | 6% | | 22302 | 11% | 18% | 7% | | 22304 | 30% | 22% | -8% | | 22305 | 9% | 8% | -1% | | 22311 | 10% | 2% | -8% | | 22312 | 4% | 1% | -3% | | 22314 | 27% | 28% | 1% | <
> # How important do you think transportation is to quality of life in Alexandria? <
> ■ Very Important ■ Important ■ Neutral ■ Not Very Important ■ Not Important at All Each policy or strategy seeks to achieve one or more of ACCESS outcomes for Alexandria. Which of these are most important to you? *(Select up to 2)* <
> All AMP guiding principles received support through the feedback form, with Convenient and Accessible most frequently ranked as "most important." # What would you like to see completed first? ## (Select up to 3) <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Building out the planned pedestrian network** | 18% | | **Expanding technology to better manage traffic flow.** | 17% | | **Improving transit service.** | 14% | | **Making traffic safety improvements to eliminate traffic-related deaths and serious injuries** | 14% | | **Building out the planned bicycle network.** | 12% | | **Other** | 10% | | **Lowering transit fares for low-income riders.** | 8% | | **Supporting new mobility options** | 7% | **Fall Engagement Feedback** **Spring Engagement Feedback** *Prompts for both forms are not synonymous. Fall Data shown where applicable. **"Other" suggestions include:** * Making **driving more efficient** * Alleviating **congestion** * Requesting to **not remove** travel lanes for bike or bus priority lanes * **Pedestrian improvements** * More **multimodal choices** # Which of the following are most important to you? **(Select up to 3)** <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | Making it easier and safer for people to walk and bike through encouragement, education, and traffic safety laws | 264 | | Supporting/advocating for regional efforts to manage congestion | 227 | | Updating efforts to manage traffic levels coming from existing and new developments | 219 | | Better managing parking and curb space on streets and in new developments | 164 | | Managing neighborhood cut-through traffic | 157 | | Encouraging the use of existing travel choices | 136 | | Other | 102 | | Unsure | | **"Other" suggestions include:** * Increase **parking availability** * Update zoning rules and development permits for **parking and bike/ped infrastructure** * **Multimodal infrastructure** * **Transit improvements** (express bus, non-fixed route busses, 11Y) * **Environmentally conscious solutions** * **State of good repair** * Getting to and from **employment centers** * Encourage **teleworking** * **Travel training** resources for transit throughout the region # To what extent do the topics mentioned in this feedback form or in your review of the AMP reflect your priorities? 72% of respondents <
> 0 None 1 2 3 Some 4 5 6 All <
> Alexandria Mobility Plan DRAFT # Priority Alignment and Zip Code (Average by Zip Code) <
> # What would make the AMP more successful? **(select all that apply)** <
> "Other" suggestions include: Balanced and equitable outreach to civic associations and neighborhoods Engagement prior to decision-making Education on how to get involved and leverage items in the AMP Show cost-benefit of mode choices Develop multidisciplinary implementation teams with citizens, experts, and teens Transparency # Board/Commission/Verbal Feedback * Generally positive feedback * Commission on Aging: Pedestrian safety focus * Commission on Persons with Disabilities: Desire for better metrics * Environmental Policy Commission: General support – particularly expanding GoAlex, implementing DASH New Network, integrating new mobility devices * Traffic and Parking Board: General support * Eco-City Citizens Academy: Lots of questions; General support # Transportation Commission Hearing & Discussion * Generally positive feedback * Reconsider certain metrics * Be more careful with language * Include implementation matrix * Include more detail on monitoring and updating the plan (including ped/bike chapter) * Include bike/ped maps * Specific plan edits Staff is continuing to review feedback and will determine best approach for updating the plan to respond to more specific feedback # Comment Topics – Open Ended Responses (270/545) ## Top 10 <
> **Theme 1: Support for pedestrian improvements** **Theme 2: Mobility options** **Theme 3: Vehicle travel** **Theme 4: Concern over outreach approach** **Theme 5: Location specific** *NOTE: Any one comment can align with multiple themes.* # Open-Response Themes from Feedback Form ## Theme 1: Support for pedestrian improvements * Provide wider and well-maintained sidewalks, safer pedestrian crossings, and infrastructure to enhance safety * Provide and maintain infrastructure to support travel for all, including young and elderly * Create enjoyable spaces for pedestrians to increase business, quality of life, and sustainability * Calls for specific sidewalk widening or connections *** **Addressing the Theme:** * *Theme is supported by many current AMP strategies* * *Can prioritize pedestrian improvements in implementation* # Open-Response Themes from Feedback Form ## Theme 2: Desire for improvements to support multi-modalism * Desire to choose any mode of travel depending on purpose and destination including a vehicle * Emphasize safe and efficient spaces for various types of mobility along or off the roadway (priority lanes, trails, etc.) * Push for better options that support full range of environmentally friendly transportation solutions (EV's, electric buses, walking, biking and many more) *** **Addressing the Theme:** * Theme is foundational to the plan **Potential Plan Update** * Add a strategy related to EV charger build out # Open-Response Themes from Feedback Form ## Theme 3: Make traveling via car easier and more convenient * Reducing congestion and cut-through traffic * Requests to not remove travel lanes, and in some cases add lanes * Better and smarter signal timing * Continuously evaluate bike/bus/vehicle routes to assure the greatest efficiency on each route and avoid unused priority lanes * Increase residential parking and requiring parking with new developments --- **Addressing the Theme:** * *Theme is supported by several current AMP strategies and policies* **Potential Plan Updates** * Expanding Smart Mobility chapter to include specific focus on congestion management * Revisit wording of strategies to ensure those who drive are included # Open-Response Themes from Feedback Form ## Theme 4: Concern with Outreach Approach * Desire to see greater engagement with civic groups and neighborhoods * Support for a plan that prioritizes feedback and needs of Alexandrians * Concern that feedback form questions limited opportunities to share input * Wish to see higher levels of input from historically underrepresented groups **Addressing the Theme:** * City will continue to engage with civic groups and neighborhoods to strive for equitable outreach and feedback * As projects move forward there will be additional opportunities for outreach --- ## Housing — Housing 2040 (adopted by Ordinance 5647, July 1, 2026), citywide Housing chapter of the Master Plan - Source: https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/ALXHousing2040FINAL082026.pdf - Pages: 100 - Covers: housing CITY OF ALEXANDRIA # Housing 2040 Plan <
> Approved by City Council on June 13, 2026 Adopted by Ordinance #5647 on July 1, 2026 OFFICE OF HOUSING # What is the purpose of a housing plan? A housing plan establishes a comprehensive policy framework to address a community's housing needs over a designated period of time. This period can extend 10-20+ years due to the complexity of housing challenges and timeframe needed to effectively address them. While individual components can vary by name, such plans typically define goals, policy and programmatic recommendations, actionable implementation strategies, tools, and measurable targets. By identifying housing needs, gaps and opportunities, a housing plan: * Serves as the foundation for housing recommendations in small area plans and informs land use planning * Guides the development of and investments in affordable housing programs, services, and projects * Informs local legislative priorities for landlord-tenant rights, housing quality, regulatory tools, and other housing issues * Evaluates existing and recommends new housing policies * Proposes regulatory, financial, and other tools to incentivize the creation and preservation of affordable housing Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the City Charter, the City Council has authority to adopt a master plan for the physical development of the city to promote health, safety, morals, comfort, prosperity and general welfare. Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2223 requires that comprehensive plans be adopted which include the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all income levels in a locality while considering the current and future needs of the larger planning district within which the locality is located. The City of Alexandria adopted its first Housing Master Plan (HMP) in January 2014. The Housing 2040 Plan replaces the 2014 HMP updating and broadening its principles, goals and recommendations to address current and anticipated housing challenges and opportunities facing Alexandria’s residents and workers over the next 15 years. # Table of Contents Housing 2040 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Plan Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ### CHAPTER 1 ## Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Housing Master Plan Accomplishments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Legislative and Regulatory Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Planning and Policy Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Housing by the Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Alexandrians by the Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ### CHAPTER 2 ## Vision & Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Housing 2040 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Housing 2040 Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ### CHAPTER 3 ## Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Housing 2040 Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ### CHAPTER 4 ## Plan Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Our Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 ### CHAPTER 5 ## Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Implementation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Implementation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 ## Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Reference Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 # Housing 2040 Acknowledgments **CITY COUNCIL** Mayor Alyia Gaskins Vice Mayor Sarah Bagley Councilman Canek Aguirre Councilman John Chapman Councilman Abdel- Rahman Elnoubi Councilwoman Jacinta Greene Councilwoman Sandy Marks Amy Jackson, Former Vice Mayor R. Kirk McPike, Former Councilman Justin Wilson, Former Mayor **PLANNING COMMISSION** Melissa McMahon, Chair Robert Dube Stephen Koenig Susan Harris Holly Lennihan Jody Manor Vivian Ramirez David Brown* Mindy Lyle* Nathan Macek* **ALEXANDRIA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE** Shelley Murphy McCabe, Co-Chair Sean Zielenbach, Co-Chair Aschalew Asabie Carlos Bethencourt Molly Lynn Bivens Michael Butler Unique Coleman Joseph Dammann Rachel Dixon Michael Doyle Betsy Faga Jonathan Frederick Stephon Hill Michael Jackson Janet Macidull Cesar Madison Andrea Ponsor Melissa Sathe Anderson Vereyken Yeshewase Ayele* Annette Bridges* Felicia Brewster* Michelle Krocker* Coss Lumbé* Peter Siderovski Sutherland* **CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE** James F. Parajon, City Manager Emily Baker, Deputy City Manager Dr. Emerald Christopher Ryan Freed Julian Gonsalves **CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE** Cheran Ivery, City Attorney Christina Zechman Brown, Deputy City Attorney **OFFICE OF HOUSING** Helen McIlvaine, Director Emerita Aspasia Xypolia, Acting Director Tamara Jovovic, Housing 2040 Project Manager Kim Cadena Anelva Corcos-Beltran Christopher Do Samuel Gates José González Mary Horner Mayra Jordan Doug Lockard Christina Mattocks Virginia Patton Gypsy Roberts Kadecia Terrell Arthur Thomas Eric Keeler, Former Deputy Director Dominic Ruiz, Former Housing Analyst * Former member # Housing 2040 Acknowledgments **PLANNING AND ZONING** Paul Stoddard, Director Jeffrey Farner, Deputy Director Jared Alves Carrie Beach Christian Brandt Maya Contreras José Delcid Michael D’Orazio Robert Kerns Andra Schmitt Melissa Symmes Kenneth Turscak Karl Moritz, Former Director **HEALTH DEPARTMENT** Sean Curry Natalie Talis **DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES** Kate Garvey, Director Federico Gutierrez, Deputy Director Katrina Ashmore Lesa Gilbert Ashley Johnson Christopher Moore Julie Mullen Alison Coleman Tokarz **OFFICE OF ANALYTICS, INNOVATION, & DATA** Greg Useem, Director Katherine Clardy Key **OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT** Ebony Fleming, Director Meagan Arnold Katie Bishop Nadiah Cooper Jacqueline Cozma Gerry Dineros Justin Thompson Nick Zazulia **OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS** Paul Valenti, Director **DEPARTMENT OF CODE ADMINISTRATION** Gregg Fields, Director **ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENTS** Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities Department of Transportation and Environmental Services Alexandria City Public Schools Department of General Services ### VIRGINIA HOUSING The City appreciates financial support from Virginia Housing for the Housing 2040 Plan. A Community Impact Grant provided funding for outreach, including translation and interpretation services in Dari and Pashto. # Housing 2040 Acknowledgments **WE ALSO GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE FOLLOWING:** **PARTNER AGENCIES** Alexandria Economic Development Partnership Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority **CITY OF ALEXANDRIA BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS** Commission on Aging Commission for Women Commission on Persons with Disabilities Economic Opportunities Commission Environmental Policy Commission Landlord Tenant Relations Board Social Services Advisory Board **COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS** ACT for Alexandria African Communities Together Animal Welfare League Community Lodgings, Inc. Grassroots Alexandria Housing Alexandria Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness Senior Services of Alexandria Tenants and Workers United VOICE Wesley Housing **COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITIES WORK GROUP** Jon Bach Michelle Baldry Christa Brady Dawn Bauman Adrienne Cadik Alex Jevgrafovs Grace LeVally Trisha Lindsey Regina Pinkney Ken Sonner Emebet Taddese Sosina Zewge Pia Trigiani, MercerTrigiani **PRESERVATION STAKEHOLDERS' WORK GROUP** Paul Browne Josh Childs Kristin Clegg Dee Dee George Lily Goldstein Cecilia Gondor Jon Frederick Leah Jones Sarra Mohamed Jill Norcross Silas Pace Sosseh Prom Brian Sobiecki **CONSULTANTS** AVK Design CommunityScale HDAdvisors HR&A Advisors Trilogy Consultants, LLC # Introduction When Alexandria’s Housing Master Plan (HMP) was adopted in January 2014, after a multi-year public engagement process, it created a roadmap to guide City housing policies, programs, developments, and investments through 2025. As the region’s first comprehensive housing plan, the HMP took several bold steps by: * connecting economic competitiveness and growth to the importance of providing an adequate and diversified housing supply for workers (an approach that later served as a blueprint for Alexandria’s successful joint approach with Arlington in 2018 to attract Amazon HQ2 to National Landing); * embracing the mantra of “Housing for All” to reflect its intention to enhance housing affordability, access, and equity for households of all ages, backgrounds, life stages, and abilities across Alexandria’s neighborhoods; and * prioritizing partnerships and investments to produce and preserve committed affordable housing for those with the fewest options, those experiencing housing instability or barriers, and those historically marginalized as a result of past discriminatory zoning, land use, and lending practices within Alexandria’s housing market. Our community can feel proud of the progress we have made together—advancing the HMP's policy and affordability goals, conducting meaningful community engagement with assistance from local partners and Virginia Housing, and working towards housing production targets established for the city in the 2019 Regional Housing Initiative. (Learn more about these collective accomplishments through the 2014-2025 Housing Master Plan Accomplishments.) ### MEETING TARGETS IS A MILESTONE, NOT A FINISH LINE The HMP had a goal of producing new and preserving existing affordability in 2,000 units by 2025. Counting units currently under construction, the City has exceeded this goal. Our work though is not done. As part of its first phase of implementation, Housing 2040 will establish new affordability and preservation targets for the next 15 years. The targets will be informed by current and projected housing needs and opportunities yielded by new tools, partnerships, and development models, as well as the spirit of innovation that is a hallmark of Alexandria's affordable housing development strategy. Aligning housing growth with transportation, public services, open space, and infrastructure is an essential step in this process. Proactive planning and investment will be necessary to ensure new housing strengthens our neighborhoods while responding to city priorities, demographic changes and workforce needs. # Introduction Looking forward, however, housing challenges persist and, in some instances, have been magnified by broader demographic, economic, and industry trends, as well as shifting federal policies. The affordability of rental options, the attainability of homeownership, and the condition of aging buildings continue to jeopardize the city’s economic resilience and residents’ quality of life and necessitated an update to the HMP. (Learn more in Housing by the Numbers and Goals.) Drawing on lessons learned implementing the HMP and navigating the COVID-19 pandemic, empowered by State legislative actions, and informed by the ALL Alexandria Resolution and City plans for Health, Aging, and Green Building, the Housing 2040 Plan (Housing 2040 or the Plan) positions Alexandria to address ongoing challenges and advance new topics. Housing 2040 embraces these topics as opportunities to: * enhance tenant protections and foster pathways to housing stability, wealth building, and economic mobility (reflecting that 58% of households are renters and nearly half are housing cost burdened); * explore new financial tools and pursue broader legislative authority to expand the City's toolkit to create and preserve affordable housing, particularly deeply affordable housing at or below 40% of the area median income; * support housing supply and diversity (responding to escalating housing costs and the out-migration of younger Alexandrians); * address rental housing conditions and strengthen aging condominium communities (recognizing that 34,000+ multifamily units in the city are over 40 years old); * study senior housing + care models (acknowledging that Alexandria's fastest growing population segment is residents aged 65+); and * weave energy efficiency and climate resilience into housing policies (recognizing the link between sustainability and affordability). Housing 2040 translates these opportunities into actionable strategies to guide legislative advocacy, public stewardship of investments, program and policy development, and partnerships through the next fifteen year period. (Learn about how actions are being prioritized in the Implementation Matrix.) Behind Housing 2040’s goals are neighbors who contribute to our economy each day, elders who want to age in the community, and young people who aspire to become homeowners because they loved growing up in Alexandria and want the same for their families. Housing 2040 is a plan for all of us. # Plan Structure **United by Vision** The Housing 2040 vision describes what Alexandria's housing landscape should be by 2040. **Rooted in Values** The Housing 2040 principles convey the City's housing values. Curious about a specific term used in the Plan? Check out the **Definitions** section! **Shaped by Goals** Guided by the principles, the Housing 2040 goals lay out what the City wants to achieve. **Driven by Strategy** Each goal includes recommendations and strategies for implementation. Some recommendations fall under multiple goals reflecting how interconnected the goals are. To learn about how the City developed the recommendations, please see the **Plan Process** section. **Put into Action** The **Implementation Matrix** identifies who is responsible for each action, when the action is anticipated to be undertaken or if it is ongoing, and what potential implications it may have for the City in terms of fiscal impact, legislative authority, policy development or regulatory tools. **Tracked for Progress** Targets and indicators to monitor and evaluate Housing 2040 progress will be selected following the adoption of the Plan and will be posted on a dynamic and accessible online platform. # 01 <
> # Setting the Stage Housing Master Plan Accomplishments Legislative and Regulatory Context Planning and Policy Context Housing by the Numbers Alexandrians by the Numbers # Housing Master Plan Accomplishments The 2014-2025 Housing Master Plan Accomplishments highlight the major actions, tools, and partnerships that proved essential to advancing the City’s commitment to Housing for All and to reaching its goal of new affordability in 2,000 units. * Affordable Housing Projects * Planning and Zoning * City Actions * Partner Actions ### 2014 Housing Master Plan adopted with goal of new affordability in 2,000 units Comprehensive updates to Housing website, publications, and resources spans 2014-2016 City donates land to AHC for Jackson Crossing project ### 2015 Arbelo Apartments Rehab completed; Longview Terrace Rehab completed; Southern Towers Affordable Housing Program established Increase in assisted living developments begins to create new discounted and affordable senior housing + care set-aside units Updates to parking standards approved right-sizing parking regulations for multi-unit residential, including affordable housing Resolution 2876 reaffirms joint commitment between City and ARHA to replace 1,150 units of public housing and provide protections to any displaced tenants ARHA Redevelopment Work Group re-engaged for redevelopment of Andrew Adkins and Ramsey Homes Faith communties respond to need for affordable housing providing land for St. James Plaza, The Spire, and The Waypoint at Fairlington spans 2015-2018 ### 2016 Jackson Crossing opens; Lynhaven Apartments Rehab completed Condominium market revives and begins to create new affordable set-aside for-sale units North Potomac Yard Plan Update adopted Section 7-700 bonus density amendment increases maximum bonus to 30% in exchange for affordable housing 1% increase in meals tax approved as dedicated affordable housing funding Housing development funds moved into Capital Improvement Program (CIP) creating funding flexibility and recognizing affordable housing as infrastructure ### 2017 CLI Notabene Drive Rehab completed Pilot rental subsidy program launched to create deeper affordability and improve competitiveness of affordable housing tax credit projects # HOUSING MASTER PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS Home Rehabilitation Loan Program limits increased and scope expanded to include livability and accessibility issues. First energy efficiency loan issued in FY19. ### 2018 St. James Plaza opens South Patrick Street Housing Affordability Strategy adopted with focus on affordable housing preservation strategies National Landing selected as Amazon HQ2 — City commits to affordable housing with $1M annual allocation to mitigate Amazon impact ### 2019 The Ellsworth Apartments acquired; The Nexus at West Alex opens; Lacy Court Apartments Rehab completed Eisenhower East Small Area Plan adopted Land banking strategy used first in The Ellsworth acquisition, then at Parkstone Inclusionary Zoning Study 2019–2020 conducted to evaluate feasibility of an inclusionary zoning policy Residential Multi-unit Zone (RMF) adopted to incentivize preservation and production of deeply affordable rental housing ### 2020 Parkstone acquisition; The Bloom at Braddock opens COG Regional Housing Initiative establishes regional housing production and affordability goals; in Alexandria, 2,250 new affordable units by 2030 Updates to Affordable Housing Contribution Policy and Procedures approved 2020/2021 address commercial to residential building conversions and senior living communities, and establish affordable housing contribution requirements with certain rezoning applications City hosts Housing Summit: reports on and evaluates HMP progress and explicitly commits City to equity in housing policies, plans, projects, and investments COVID-19 Pandemic 2020–2021: City and State funds emergency rental assistance that keeps 6,000 Alexandria renters housed ### 2021 Landmark Towers Rehab loan issued; The Lineage opens (Ramsey Homes redevelopment); The Spire opens Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Text Amendment approved State Rental Assistance Program (SRAP) for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities launched Quarterly governance trainings, led by MercerTrigiani since 2013 to help owners and condo boards successfully manage their communities, shift to virtual, doubling attendance Housing for persons with special needs expanded and preserved: Friends of Guest House, Bellefonte Apartments, Aspen Street Veterans' Home ### 2022 The Waypoint at Fairlington opens; Parc Square acquired; Square at 511 acquired # HOUSING MASTER PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS Arlandria Chiriligua Small Area Plan adopted with focus on anti-displacement strategies Co-Living Text Amendment approved Affordable Housing Pipeline created as affordable housing projects await funding City donates land to Housing Alexandria for Sanse (mixed-use rental) and Cardinal Path (mixed-tenure and ability) projects Enhanced focus on tenant protections, housing stability, and healthy housing post-pandemic *spans 2022–2026* Amazon Housing Equity Fund investments enable acquisition/preservation of affordability at The Square at 511 (Parc Vue) and Parc Square. Housing Equity Fund also contributes to Sansé and Victory Center (5001 Eisenhower Avenue) ## 2023 Zoning for Housing adopted enabling a range of housing typologies to expand attainability, accessibility, and affordability over time across Alexandria ## 2024 First Healthy Homes Action Plan adopted Alexandria West Small Area Plan adopted with focus on anti-displacement strategies Housing 2040 Plan process kicks off Proactive landlord outreach and collaboration among Code, Health, and Housing to address housing quality issues *| spans 2024–2026* ## 2025-26 Good Shepherd acquired first unit in Alexandria; The Heritage Phase 1 under construction; Cardinal Path Townhomes open; Pendleton Rooming House Rehab completed; Arlandria Chirilagua Housing Cooperative Rehab completed; Sansé Phase 1 opens; Witter Place opens; Samuel Madden Redevelopment under construction; Elbert Avenue Redevelopment approved; Ladrey Rehab approved State Permanent Supportive Housing Program for persons with serious mental illness experiencing homelessness established in Alexandria (Housing-DCHS partnership) 100th ADU approved since 2021 City grants 25-year tax exemption for conversion of Victory Center to residential use, including affordable housing (Amazon Housing Equity Fund later makes project 100% affordable) Arlandria-Chirilagua Anti-Displacement Policy implemented City issues guarantees for Virginia Resources Authority to enable ARHA’s acquisition of The Alate with bonds Housing Master Plan affordability goal reached with units under construction City issues backstop for Housing Alexandria letter of credit for Sansé project ARHA reestablishes its conduit bond funding function and helps finance The Heritage, Sansé and Ladrey # Legislative and Regulatory Context The City of Alexandria’s land use regulations and housing programs, policies, and investments operate within the legal framework of Virginia being a Dillon Rule state. This means that a local government’s authority is limited to those specifically conferred, those necessarily or fairly implied from a specific grant of authority, or those essential and indispensable to the purpose of government. Specifically, the City’s authority derives from the City Charter and the Code of Virginia, and to set local rules and policies regulating land use and housing, the City must have or seek from the Virginia legislature greater authority. The Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2223 requires that jurisdictions prepare and adopt comprehensive plans which include the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all income levels in a locality while considering the current and future needs of the larger planning district within which the locality is located. Under its existing authority, the City has instituted tools to maximize the production and preservation of housing, including: 1. **Zoning Ordinance Section 7-700** grants, through the special use permit process, bonus density and/or height in exchange for affordable housing. This provision has been amended several times to broaden its impact. Recent amendments have codified the level of affordability required; expanded flexibility by allowing the provision of affordable units off-site or a monetary contribution, of equivalent value; and increased the amount of bonus density permitted from 20% to 30%. Rental affordable units created through Section 7-700 are affordable at 60% of the area median income (AMI); for sale units are priced to be generally affordable between 70% and 100% AMI. 2. **The Residential Multi-unit (RMF) Zone**, an overlay zone, was adopted in 2019 as a recommendation of the South Patrick Street Housing Affordability Strategy to encourage the preservation and production of deeper levels of affordability (averaging 40% AMI). 3. **A Housing Contribution Policy Update** was approved in January 2021 to establish new affordability requirements for applications seeking density in excess of density authorized by the underlying small area plan. The Policy shifted the City’s practice of negotiating affordable housing contributions in these types of development cases to instead set contribution requirements to enhance consistency, an outcome mutually # Legislative and Regulatory Context desired by the City and developers. The update also allowed an “off ramp” to provide potential flexibility, if requested, premised on a third-party economic analysis of unanticipated intervening market conditions impacting project feasibility. In response to a growing number of senior housing projects, the Policy also set forth for the first time affordable requirements for such developments, with a focus on assisted living communities providing housing + care. As part of Housing 2040, the City is updating a 2020 feasibility study to determine whether mandatory inclusionary zoning would yield greater and/or more consistent affordable housing contributions. Future enactment would take into consideration whether additional legislative authority is needed. The City’s affordable housing contribution policy on development that is by right or is not subject to the above tools is voluntary. These voluntary contributions are typically offered in the form of monetary contributions to the City’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF); contribution rates are based on established formulas developed and operationalized through a series of housing contribution workgroups comprised of developers, land use counsel, as well as housing stakeholders, beginning in the 1990s. Contributions to the HTF are used to leverage a range of state, federal, and other funding to support mission-driven affordable housing development. Beginning in 2021, City Council approved the City pursuing legislative authority to make these contributions mandatory. Additionally, Alexandria’s authority to enact local rules related to tenant protections is limited under the Code of Virginia. In recent Virginia legislative sessions, the City has joined with other jurisdictions in supporting legislation that would limit rent increases, eliminate excess fees, provide greater flexibility to renters in paying rent, and a host of measures to mitigate, prevent and divert eviction. The City is also pursuing authority to address habitability issues, when necessary, through civil remedies and penalties, as well as protections for residents at risk of displacement. ### 🏛️ WHERE WE ARE HEADED The City has pursued tools available within the Charter and Virginia Code to promote affordable housing. Housing 2040 now sets a course for the City to more proactively consider and pursue expanded legislative authority to increase and make more consistent the contributions yielded from development to meet its housing aspirations while also itself assuming a greater potential role as a partner and investor to leverage more from private development. # Planning and Policy Context City plans were consulted to ensure that Housing 2040 is consistent with and reflective of other City policies. These include: * The 2019 Environmental Action Plan 2040 * The 2023-2028 Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness * The 2024-2025 Community Health Assessment * The 2025 Healthy Homes Action Plan * The 2025 Economic Summit Report * The 2026 Update to the Age Friendly Plan * The 2026 Green Building Plan ## HOUSING AS A STRATEGIC PRIORITY Housing 2040 aligns with the Fiscal Year 2026-2028 Strategic Plan which underscores the importance of affordable housing to the city. The Strategic Plan leads with the goal to “advance housing opportunity by supporting quality options at a range of price points” and sets objectives to preserve affordability and expand engagement with property managers to address housing quality. *** Several recently completed small area plans (SAPs), with significant housing components, also played an important role in informing the Housing 2040 process and the Plan’s understanding of housing need. * The 2018 South Patrick Street Housing Affordability Strategy responded to the need for tools to preserve federal rental subsidy contracts that secured deep affordability in two communities. The tool created—the RMF Zone (discussed in the prior section)—enables sufficient additional density in exchange for the preservation of deeply affordable housing to allow all units, as well as net new affordable units, to return to the communities. * The 2022 Arlandria Chirilagua Small Area Plan was developed to address the impact of market pressures on the Arlandria Chirilagua neighborhood anticipated by the opening of the Amazon HQ2 headquarters in neighboring Crystal City. With recommendations focused on preserving, improving, and expanding housing affordability, as well as strategies to help residents remain in the neighborhood, the SAP prioritized housing as a primary goal in the planning process. * The 2024 Alexandria West Small Area Plan, which replaced the Beauregard SAP, established land use policies that encourage infill development to counterbalance market pressures on existing market-affordable housing and to reduce the risk of displacement. # Housing by the Numbers # ~84,200 Housing units in Alexandria in 2025 Alexandria’s housing stock is evenly split between rental and homeownership units | 49.7% | 24.4% | 25.9% | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Rental units | Condo units | Fee simple units | <
> Alexandria is majority renter # 58% renter occupied <
> owner occupied **42%** <
> Housing costs have far outpaced income growth 2000–2025 Trends in Income and Housing Growth | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Area Median Income | | +98% | | Average Rent + Utilities 1 BD | | +169% | | Average Rent + Utilities 2 BD | | +182% | | Average Assessed Condo | | +319% | | Average Assessed Fee Simple | | +284% | <
> Alexandria’s multi-unit, market-rate housing is aging # 1963 Rental buildings median year built # 1986 Condo buildings median year built <
> What it costs to live in Alexandria <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | 100% AMI (4-person) $164k | | | 100% AMI (1-person) $115k | | | 60% AMI (4-person) $98k | | | 60% AMI (1-person) $69k | | Income needed to afford average rents and assessed values Rental Ownership Sources: HUD 2000 & 2025; ACS 5-Year Estimates 2019-2023; City of Alexandria, 2000, 2010, and 2025 # Housing by the Numbers Housing cost burden hits hardest at lower incomes <
> 11,700 renter households with incomes up to 40% AMI are housing cost burdened 14,600 renter households with incomes up to 50% AMI are housing cost burdened 16,400 renter households with incomes up to 60% AMI are housing cost burdened Percentage of renters with housing cost burden 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% * see Goal 3 to learn more about housing cost burden ■ Severely cost burdened ▨ Cost burdened The cost of housing limits housing choice voucher availability Due to the high cost of housing in Alexandria, some housing choice vouchers (HCV) remained unfunded and could not be issued in 2025. 2,373 HCVs allocated by the federal government 1,794 Average number of HCVs leased A variety of communities offer housing + care In Alexandria, approximately 2,100 units are designed to meet the needs of older adults and persons requiring housing with integrated services (excluding rehabilitation and nursing care). 55% Age restricted independent living 45% Assisted living Memory care <
> The largest share of Alexandria’s rental housing is affordable between 61 and 80% AMI <
> Sources: HUD 2000 & 2025; ACS 5-Year Estimates 2019-2023; City of Alexandria, 2025 Senior Housing Data; Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2025 # Alexandrians by the Numbers ## Demographic Profile | | 2010 | 2023 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Population | 133,647 | 156,788 | | Households | 63,738 | 75,349 | | Families | 29,010 | 34,192 | | Average household size | 2.08 | 2.06 | | Average family size | 2.96 | 2.95 | | Median age | 35.7 | 37.5 | ## Distribution of Households by Income, 2023 <
> Median household income: **$113,638** Average household income: **$159,455** The distribution of incomes in 2023 was largely the same as it was in 2010 with modest increases in the lowest and highest income bands offset by decreases in the 41-50% and 101-120% AMI categories. ## Share of Population by Age Group <
> ## Racial & Ethnic Diversity <
> Sources: ACS 2010 and 2023 5-Year Estimates # 02 # Vision & Principles <
> # Housing 2040 Vision **Alexandria's strength lies in the diversity of its people and housing.** In 2040 residents and workers of all incomes, ages, abilities, and backgrounds have a place in Alexandria—in healthy, safe, and resilient housing that they can afford and that meets their needs now and in the years ahead. By enhancing quality housing options across Alexandria's neighborhoods, Housing 2040 fosters individual wellbeing, strong and inclusive communities, and a thriving economy. Murals by Yulia Avgustinovich celebrate Alexandria's nature, history, and cultural landmarks on Community Housing Partner's Witter Place. # Housing 2040 Principles Five principles guide Housing 2040’s goals and recommendations. The development of the principles was a foundational step in the Housing 2040 process. Staff first reviewed the current HMP principles to evaluate their relevance and alignment with housing needs and trends based on the City's experience implementing the HMP, the 2024 quantitative housing needs analysis, the Housing 2040 survey, and input from community pop ups and listening sessions. Drafts were then shared for public review in September 2025 and February 2026, each building on feedback received starting with the release of the first draft in March 2025. The principles that emerged revolve around the critical role housing plays in advancing our diversity and supporting health; the partnerships and tools necessary to implement the Plan; and the interconnectivity between housing and how we use our land, plan for our infrastructure, protect our environment, and strengthen our economy. Additionally, the principles reflect the need to balance both current and future housing needs as Alexandria grows while remaining flexible to adapt and pivot if housing priorities change through the course of the Plan. <
> ## How did we arrive at the Housing 2040 principles? <
> HOUSING 2040 PRINCIPLES # Alexandria’s housing actions will... 1. Advance the city’s social, economic, cultural, racial, and generational diversity across all neighborhoods through housing stability and anti-displacement initiatives and increased access to housing options and types at a variety of price points. 2. Promote resident wellbeing through the development and maintenance of healthy and safe housing. 3. Leverage City housing resources, including non-financial tools, through creative public-private partnerships, collaboration with anchor institutions, innovative funding approaches, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. 4. Advance City goals related to land use, economic development, transportation, sustainability, climate action and public health. 5. Prepare for the City’s current and future housing needs and changing demographics. <
> # 03 # Goals Housing 2040 Goals Recommendations and Implementation Strategies # Housing 2040 Goals **1. EXPAND** housing supply to meet the city's current and future housing needs. **2. PRESERVE** the affordability, livability, and long-term financial viability of existing committed and naturally occurring affordable housing to minimize displacement of residents from their neighborhoods. **3. STRENGTHEN** tenant protections and **ENHANCE** resources to support tenants and landlords. **4. CREATE** rental housing that prioritizes affordability up to 60% of the area median income to expand opportunities for renters and workers with the fewest housing options. **5. EXPAND** affordable homeownership opportunities to enable more residents and workers to become first-time homebuyers and **ENHANCE** resources to support existing homeowners. **6. STRENGTHEN** existing common interest/ condominium communities to improve governance and build capacity to address deferred maintenance, capital needs, and other challenges common to such communities. **7. EXPAND** resources and options for seniors and persons with disabilities to live and age safely within the city. **8. ENHANCE** housing quality, safety, and livability to support resident health, security, and well-being. **9. EMPOWER** residents to maintain housing stability and pursue economic mobility and **FOSTER** pathways to help them build and sustain wealth. **10. SUPPORT** energy efficiency improvements and weatherization and **ADVANCE** green building practices to lower energy costs, make homes healthier, and build resilience to extreme heat, cold, and weather events. # GOAL 1 ## EXPAND housing supply to meet the city’s current and future housing needs. A complex mix of national, regional, and local factors shapes housing demand in Alexandria. On the national level, these include aging population trends and macroeconomic forces (for example interest rates) and at the regional scale, migration patterns and job trends. Local factors, on the other hand, are strengths and challenges unique to the city, such as Alexandria’s current employment landscape and its economic growth strategy, housing market, and demographics, as well as its quality of life and distinctive amenities. (To learn about Alexandria’s housing and demographic trends and regional migration patterns, see **Housing by the Numbers**, **Alexandria by the Numbers**, and **Migration Patterns.**) The city’s housing stock will need to grow and evolve for Alexandria to be able to respond to local, regional, and national trends and conditions, as well as to maintain economic competitiveness. Absent action, inadequate housing supply and limited housing diversity intensify competition for existing units with cascading impacts. Competition can drive lower-income households and workers out of stable housing into overcrowded or insecure living situations, middle-income households and young professionals into seeking housing options outside the city, and senior households into remaining in unsuitable housing due to the lack of affordable and accessible alternatives. It also discourages existing businesses from remaining in and new businesses from moving to Alexandria. Increasing and diversifying housing supply can help moderate rent and home price growth, broaden housing options, and better position Alexandria to meet the current and future needs of residents and businesses. Goal 1 recommendations outline approaches to supporting housing development, including continuing to evaluate and modernize how the City plans for and reviews development projects, exploring ways to lower housing production costs, and encouraging a wider array of housing typologies (such as quadplexes, stacked condominiums, smaller townhomes, and a range of unit sizes). ### WORKING HAND IN HAND: HOUSING AND ECONOMIC GROWTH The 2025 ALX Forward Strategy sets a framework for the City’s economic growth to ensure Alexandria’s continued competitiveness and economic resilience. The Strategy recognizes that “the characteristics that have made the city a great place to live and work also present long-term challenges for people trying to establish a home base in Alexandria, especially those early in their careers”, and that housing has become increasingly unaffordable and unattainable for many. Housing 2040 assumes responsibility for this challenge: it advances the housing necessary for the workforce that is vital to ALX Forward’s goals of business retention and recruitment, entrepreneurship, and innovation. # The impact of migration patterns A Northern Virginia Regional Commission study revealed that migration patterns between 2018 and 2022 were shaped by two distinct trends in Northern Virginia: larger, higher-income households and middle-aged and older adults were remaining in Northern Virginia while smaller, low- to-middle income households and younger adults were moving out. Of note, the study found that since 2018 there had been a consistent net loss of householders aged 30-44 and a declining share of 18-29 year olds choosing to settle within the region. In Alexandria, this trend has been documented over an even longer period: between 2010 and 2023, the city's 20-34 age group declined by 18% as a percentage of its overall population. ### Two opposing forces are reshaping who lives in Northern Virginia | Staying ↓ | Leaving ↑ | | :--- | :--- | | ■ larger households with higher incomes | ■ smaller households with low and middle incomes | | ■ older adults | ■ householders ages 30-44 | ### Alexandria's employment mix magnifies the affordability challenge | | | | :--- | :--- | | Services & Warehousing | 40% | | Ed. Services & Government | 23% | | Knowledge Sector | 22% | | Health Care & Social Assistance | 11% | | Skilled Trades | 4% | *Source: Virginia Works, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Q1 2025* These migration patterns raise concerns about the region's workforce. Young adults with low and middle incomes are increasingly choosing more affordable housing options outside the region. This trend is driven by a combination of high living costs and limited availability of more affordably-priced housing, including opportunities for first-time homebuyers and those looking for larger homes to raise a family. (A surge of opportunities for remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated this trend.) The study concludes that Northern Virginia is becoming less attractive to young talent and that businesses may face mounting difficulty in attracting and retaining workers. In Alexandria, this challenge is amplified by the city's large service-sector economy, whose lower-wage workers are particularly vulnerable to increasing housing costs. HOUSING DIVERSITY AND SUPPLY ### RECOMMENDATION 1 **Support development of new housing through the City’s small area plan and development review processes.** #### STRATEGIES 1a | Continue to evaluate housing challenges and opportunities through small area planning efforts to meet current and future city housing needs, maximizing housing supply near transit, activity centers, and major employment areas. -- | --- | The Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments’ long-range population and employment forecast serves as an important indicator of future housing demand. Collaboratively developed and updated by all MWCOG member jurisdictions, the forecast helps the City plan for the housing needed to meet forecasted growth. 1b | Continue implementation and evaluation of initiatives that streamline development review and permitting processes. To ensure the process starts with a shared understanding of how policies and tools can be applied to maximize housing production, maintain and publish a consolidated checklist of applicable policies, tools, affordability requirements, and contribution guidelines for use by applicants at project inception. -- | --- | Supporting new housing development requires the City continue to evaluate and modernize how it plans for and reviews projects. Streamlined development review processes with thoughtful and iterative public engagement help reduce delays and uncertainty, lower costs, and encourage timely delivery of housing. 1c | Explore opportunities to colocate housing, in particular affordable housing, with public uses and private development in which the City is a financial participant. 1d | Maximize the use of city-owned land, including remnant parcels, for housing, including affordable housing. 1e | Support conversions of underutilized office and other commercial buildings to housing consistent with City priorities. 1f | Continue to annually track and report on residential development activity, including the City's progress toward local and regional housing production targets (such as the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Regional Housing Initiative). ### IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING AND INVESTMENT Proactive planning ensures new residential development strengthens Alexandria's neighborhoods while responding to population and household changes and workforce needs. The small area planning process aligns land use and transportation, public facility, open space, and other community improvements with anticipated housing growth while the capital improvement planning process identifies the infrastructure investment required to support it. HOUSING DIVERSITY AND SUPPLY RECOMMENDATION 2 Encourage the development of a range of typologies to enhance housing diversity at a variety of price points across the city’s neighborhoods. STRATEGIES 2a | Continue the implementation of Zoning for Housing to facilitate a broader variety of housing typologies and more moderately priced housing across the city, including options for Alexandria’s diverse workforce. 2b | As part of small area plans, support the development of alternative housing models, such as accessory dwelling units, co-living, and dorm-style housing. 2c | As part of small area plans and development projects, support the development of a variety of unit sizes ranging from microunits to family-sized units. 2d | Review and revise mixed-use zoning districts, as needed, to ensure that multi-unit residential development is encouraged. RECOMMENDATION 3 Explore opportunities to lower housing production costs. STRATEGIES 3a | Work with the development community to explore construction models, including alternative processes (for example, modular design) and materials, as well as innovative technologies to help lower material and labor costs. 3b | Review City parking standards to help moderate construction and housing costs while advancing City goals for efficient land use, multimodal transportation, and sustainability. ZONING FOR HOUSING Zoning for Housing is a comprehensive set of zoning reforms adopted in 2023 with the goal of expanding housing production and affordability and addressing past and current barriers to equitable housing access. The initiative built upon the Housing for All program which focused on understanding past discriminatory housing policies in Alexandria and their continued impact, especially on people of color and/or low-income. RECOMMENDATION 4 Strengthen workforce development to build the skilled labor force needed to support housing production and operations. STRATEGIES 4a | Promote and enhance workforce development programs through the City's Workforce Development Center and partners, such as the Northern Virginia Community College and business incubator and apprenticeship programs, that provide training in the building trades and residential property management, maintenance, and operations. Examples of building trades important to the residential construction industry include plumbing, HVAC, welding, carpentry, mechanical and electrical engineering, energy-efficient technology, and construction management. 4b | Connect property owners and housing developers with workforce development programs to address labor shortages and facilitate training and job opportunities. # GOAL 2 **PRESERVE** the affordability, livability, and long-term financial viability of existing committed and naturally occurring affordable housing to minimize displacement of residents from their neighborhoods. Preservation is defined as the act of investing in the affordability, livability, and financial viability of existing housing. ### Affordability There are two main types of affordable housing: | | | | :--- | :--- | | **1** committed affordable housing | **2** market- or naturally-occurring affordable housing | Committed affordable housing remains affordable due to income and/or rent restrictions, commonly through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) or federal housing assistance programs, such as public housing and project based vouchers, or through other forms of financing like City loans or grants. When an affordability commitment reaches its expiration, a property owner must decide whether to raise rents to sustain the property (at which point it ceases to be affordable) or to secure funding to help maintain affordability. *** ### THE DRIVERS AND IMPACTS OF DISPLACEMENT Residential displacement refers to the involuntary relocation of residents from their homes or neighborhoods. When comparable housing options are limited, households may end up moving outside their communities and/or into housing that is less suitable for their needs. This can disrupt established social ties and support networks—including neighborhood schools—as well as access to jobs, or lead residents to accept housing that is smaller or less well maintained. There are several drivers of displacement: <
> **Rising housing costs** When a resident can no longer afford to remain in their home due to rising housing costs, such as large increases in rent and utilities and/or the introduction of new fees. <
> **Building condition** When the condition of a home creates health and safety concerns, including mold, pests, deferred maintenance (for example, deficient heating and cooling), or inadequate security. <
> **Redevelopment or repositioning** When a home is proposed to be redeveloped or renovated to appeal to a higher-income tenant. <
> **Lease termination** When a landlord or property owner decides not to renew a resident’s lease at the end of its term. # GOAL 2 Market- or naturally-occurring affordable housing is housing affordable to households with incomes up to 60% of area median income. The affordability of these properties is attributed to their age, lack of amenities, location, or other conditions that make them less competitive in the rental housing market. Market affordable housing becomes vulnerable when housing demand drives up costs faster than income growth. In Alexandria, this risk is reflected in the decline in market affordable units from approximately 18,000 in 2000 to 6,900 in 2025. The greatest loss occurred in units affordable up to 50% AMI. Market-affordable housing trends, 2000–2025 <
> Source: City of Alexandria ## Livability Livability challenges confront both market and committed affordable properties. As properties age, infrastructure, systems, exteriors, and interiors begin to deteriorate and require costly repairs. Older properties are sometimes forced to defer larger-scale maintenance because it can be difficult to finance with limited resources. ## Financial Viability Affordable property owners earn less in revenue because their rents are lower (for example, a rent affordable at 60% of the area median income can be more than 30% lower than a market-rate rent in a newly constructed building). As a result, affordable properties operate on narrower margins than their market-rate counterparts. Escalating insurance and interest rates, material and equipment prices, and maintenance and property management costs have compounded this challenge since 2020 adding to the financial strain on affordable housing providers. Without strategic action and dedicated investment in affordability, livability, and financial viability, the risk of displacement and loss of affordability will accelerate as affordability commitments expire, livability issues persist, and the viability of market affordable and committed affordable properties becomes more precarious. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATION 1 Work with affordable housing owners to extend affordability commitments. STRATEGIES 1a Foster relationships with committed affordable housing property owners, and provide financial and technical assistance, as available, to support long-term affordability commitments. 1b Maintain inventory of committed affordable properties, including affordability terms and expiration. Federally supported properties typically have options to extend affordability. Project-Based Voucher projects can apply to extend their rental subsidy contracts. Projects with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) can explore re-syndication for rehabilitation or other forms of recapitalization that restructures debt. 1c Explore tax abatement as an incentive to extend affordability commitments. 1d Develop tools to implement a Right of First Refusal policy in committed affordable properties in which the City is not a financial participant, including resources and tools to fund preservation of these properties. 1e Study options to extend affordability periods of expiring rental set-aside units. 2,100 the number of committed affordable units whose affordability restrictions are set to expire by 2040 underscores the urgency of proactive engagement with property owners on preservation ### RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL A Right of First Refusal (ROFR) is commonly used to preserve affordable housing that could otherwise convert to market rate. A ROFR grants a jurisdiction, or a designated partner such as a non-profit developer, the option to purchase an affordable property for sale after all other offers have been made. In 2026, the State adopted legislation that enables jurisdictions, including the City, to exercise ROFRs for existing committed affordable properties. <
> Despite being constructed in the early 1950s, Lacy Court Apartments, a 44-unit rental community in Del Ray, had never undergone substantial renovation. Through a partnership between Housing Alexandria and the City and with LIHTC funding, the 2018-2019 rehabilitation replaced/ upgraded all building systems, including roofs, and renovated unit interiors and common areas. The project deepened affordability to include 40% AMI units, in addition to preserving and extending the affordability of the existing 50-60% AMI units. The image highlights the difference between the new and the old windows whose replacement improved energy efficiency, lowered utility costs, and enhanced resident comfort. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATION 2 Support acquisition of existing rental housing by affordable housing partners consistent with the City’s Strategic Preservation Priorities and Considerations. STRATEGIES 2a Guide City investments and policies using the Strategic Preservation Priorities and Considerations. * Evaluate the priorities and considerations at least every five years or as market conditions or housing needs change 2b Continue to collaborate with affordable housing partners, including non-profit developers and the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to acquire priority preservation properties. 2c Expand partnerships with local anchors, including hospitals, faith-based and educational institutions, and businesses. 2d Explore a preservation fund that mobilizes capital from developers, financial institutions, philanthropic organizations, and regional and state financial partners. 2e Continue to incorporate Rights of First Refusal in rehabilitation projects, acquisition deals, and affordability extensions that receive City investment. <
> The acquisition of the Square at 511, made possible by Amazon’s Housing Equity Fund, and subsequent renovation with federal funding preserved and deepened affordability in 196 units in Arlandria. STRATEGIC PRESERVATION Priorities: The City's preservation efforts will prioritize preserving properties that: * Have units at 30%, 40%, and/or 50% AMI with existing affordability commitments at risk of expiration and/or which can commit to deepening existing affordability to include 30%, 40% and/or 50% AMI units. * Have documented conditions adversely affecting residents' health and well-being, and where preservation efforts can meaningfully address those issues. * Constitute a significant portion of a neighborhood's residential rental housing stock or have been identified as a priority for preservation through a small area plan. Considerations: The City's preservation efforts will also consider properties with: * A large percentage of family-sized units with two or more bedrooms. * Locations in census tracts identified through the City's displacement risk index as high vulnerability areas. * Proximity to planned redevelopment areas, transit, and/or other amenities. * Redevelopment potential that would allow additional affordable units to be built on site in the future. * Amenities such as larger community spaces, child or health care services, and strong resident supports and services. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATION 3 Partner with owners to rehabilitate existing committed and market affordable rental housing to improve livability, health, sustainability, and safety. STRATEGIES 3a Provide technical assistance to properties exploring preservation consistent with the City’s Strategic Preservation Priorities. 3b Solicit requests for a rehabilitation project pipeline that will leverage City funding and financial tools in exchange for affordability commitments and the Right of First Refusal. Rehabilitation may not be the best long-term strategy for all properties, especially if there is greater potential to redevelop the property with additional affordability and/or if building conditions make preservation infeasible. 3c Explore tax abatement as a financial incentive for rehabilitation projects. # HOW TAX ABATEMENTS INCENTIVIZE IMPROVEMENT A tax abatement reduces the taxable value of a property for a prescribed period usually as an incentive to conduct significant repair, rehabilitation, or construction. The taxable amount is locked into a pre-improvement value for a period of time, as established by an ordinance. This temporarily reduces the tax burden, helping the property owner to finance needed upgrades to a structure, or in some cases, a total replacement. 60+ years old the median age of multi-unit rental buildings in Alexandria highlights the need for rehabilitation and investment to ensure livability and maintain affordability 3d Support energy efficiency, accessibility, and sustainability improvements in rehabilitation projects by providing technical assistance and exploring state and federal funding opportunities. This strategy does not require specific sustainability improvements in rehabilitation projects but is intended to explore funding options to lower energy costs for owners and renters. For example, many rehabilitation projects include work, such as modernizing HVAC systems, which naturally results in energy efficiency improvements. Rehabilitation that triggers a development special use permit (DSUP) or detailed site plan (DSP) will be subject to the Green Building Plan and its successor plans. 3e Assess opportunities for projects of historical significance to pursue State and Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits as a funding source for substantial rehabilitation and coordinate interdepartmental resources to support these projects. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATION 4 With the goal of maintaining the City’s committed and market affordable housing stock, maximize replacement of units affordable up to 60% AMI at the time of redevelopment to minimize loss of housing opportunity and permanent displacement of residents. STRATEGIES 4a As part of proactive outreach and during the pre-concept and concept stages of the development review process for projects impacting existing housing, strategize with property owners and applicants to utilize regulatory tools (including bonus density and/or height) to maximize on-site replacement or provision of replacement units at properties within the same neighborhood. The number of existing units that can feasibly be replaced depends on a wide range of factors, including those unique to the site and/or to the small area plan’s recommendations. Examples of these factors include the number and affordability of units impacted, the size and characteristics of the lot, the complexity of demolition, the underlying density, and the availability of regulatory incentives for affordable housing to support replacement. 4b For projects that meet Strategic Preservation Priorities, explore partnership opportunities and financial tools, such as state and federal funding, the City’s Housing Trust Fund, developer fee relief, and tax abatement, to support replacement on a 1-for-1 basis and/or add net new committed affordable units on site or in properties within the same neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION 5 Enhance tenant relocation protections for lower-income tenants displaced due to redevelopment or substantial rehabilitation. STRATEGIES 5a In consultation with community stakeholders, evaluate and update the City’s Housing Relocation Assistance Policies to align with best practices. RECOMMENDATION 6 Strengthen collaboration among property owners to share resources and best practices related to preservation. STRATEGIES 6a Facilitate regular meetings among market affordable housing property owners to discuss shared issues and opportunities related to affordability, livability, and financial viability. 6b Foster relationships among landlords of small properties to promote opportunities for collaboration and cost sharing related to management, operations, and maintenance functions. <
> The RMF Zone and bonus density are enabling the preservation of federal-rental subsidies (project-based vouchers) on 140 deeply affordable units along with the creation of an additional 55 affordable units through the phased redevelopment of the Heritage into a 750-unit mixed-income community at Alexandria’s southern gateway. # GOAL 3 STRENGTHEN tenant protections and ENHANCE resources to support renters and landlords. Alexandria renters face compounding challenges. Market rents continue to outpace what many households and lower-wage workers can reasonably afford. Three quarters of the city’s renters with incomes up to 60% of the area median income are housing cost-burdened with the lowest-income households experiencing the most severe burden. (A high level of housing cost burden jeopardizes a household’s ability to meet other basic needs, such as food, medical expenses, transportation, and childcare. It also leaves no room for unexpected expenses, which can quickly escalate into housing instability.) Eviction risk further compounds these pressures. Alexandria has averaged approximately 4,500 eviction filings annually between 2023 and 2025, with the majority of cases tied to non-payment of rent. Beyond affordability, renters consistently cite building and unit conditions, understanding and enforcement of tenant rights, and access barriers as pressing issues. Alexandria’s rental housing stock is also aging, contributing to ongoing maintenance, accessibility, and quality concerns in some properties. Collectively, these issues disproportionately affect the city’s most vulnerable residents with the most limited housing options, exacerbating existing inequities in housing access and stability. Housing stability is foundational to thriving individuals and families, resilient communities, and a stable workforce. Establishing a comprehensive framework to protect tenant rights, improve housing quality, expand support services, and foster productive relationships between renters and landlords is essential to countering the challenges that threaten to undermine it. ### WHAT THE HOUSING 2040 SURVEY TOLD US ABOUT HOUSING STABILITY <
> # Understanding Housing Cost Burden Housing cost burden measures the share of household income spent on housing. When that share is too high, fewer resources remain for other essentials. ### COST BURDENED **30%+** of gross income on rent or mortgage, including utilities ### SEVERELY COST BURDENED **50%+** of gross income on rent or mortgage, including utilities **HOUSING COST BURDEN DOES NOT FALL EQUALLY.** Households of color face disproportionately high rates of cost burden in Alexandria, compounding existing inequities in income, wealth, and housing access. ### WHEN TOO MUCH GOES TO HOUSING, LESS REMAINS FOR * Food * Healthcare * Childcare * Transportation * Education * Savings * Debt Repayment * Emergencies Unexpected expenses, like a medical bill, a car repair, or a job loss, can quickly escalate into housing instability. *** IN ALEXANDRIA **47%** of renters are cost burdened **3 in 4** renters at or below 60% AMI are cost burdened **58%** of renter households below 40% AMI are severely cost burdened ### LOOKING AHEAD **2x** Utility costs are projected to double over the next 15 years, deepening cost burden, especially for low-income residents in older housing. *Sources: City of Alexandria; ACS 5-Year Estimates 2019–2023* TENANT PROTECTIONS AND LANDLORD-TENANT RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION 1 Expand educational resources for and outreach to tenants and landlords. STRATEGIES 1a Create, update, and distribute multilingual self-help and resource materials, including: * Plain-language guides, Know Your Rights videos, information on new legislation affecting tenants and landlords, and information on City housing services. * Lease explanation materials developed in coordination with the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA) and other property owners to help tenants understand their rights, obligations, and how to raise concerns with property management. * Resources to help tenants understand their rights to collectively organize and form tenant associations. 1b Expand education, training, and outreach efforts, including: * In-person and virtual education programs on tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities. * Landlord and property manager training focused on compliance with the Virginia Residential Tenant Act, fair housing obligations, language access requirements, and trauma-informed and culturally-competent communication with tenants. * Targeted outreach and engagement at properties with elevated eviction filings, code violations, and tenant complaints using a range of communication methods. 30% of Alexandrians (5 and older) speak a language other than English highlighting the value of providing resource materials in other languages VIRGINIA RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT The Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) governs residential rental agreements, setting out the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. As a foundational source of authority related to habitability, lease transparency, security deposits, and the eviction process, understanding of the law, by both tenants and landlords, is essential to preventing disputes and promoting greater housing stability. The enactment of a 2026 law has expanded the City’s authority with respect to the VLRTA bolstering its ability to enforce habitability standards and improve housing quality in Alexandria. The City will be developing policies related to interpretation and practice of its new enforcement powers in the near term. TENANT PROTECTIONS AND LANDLORD-TENANT RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION 2 Advocate for State-level legislative reforms to advance housing stability, housing affordability, and tenant rights. STRATEGIES 2a Support legislation that advances eviction prevention and tenant protections, including: * Strengthening tenant notice and payment flexibility protections * Requiring “good cause” or “just cause” protections for lease nonrenewal * Enabling pre-court diversion opportunities, such as dispute resolution and mediation 2b Support legislation that promotes transparency on fees, cost caps, and fair utility billing, including: * Limitations on fees (for example, application, pet, amenity, administrative, and month-to-month) and authority to cap or eliminate charges * Fair and equitable utility billing practices, including plain-English explanations of how they are applied 2c Support legislation that strengthens tenant protections and promotes fair and equitable housing access, including: * Ensuring tenants can exercise legal rights regardless of rent payment status * Limiting use of eviction records and criminal history in housing decisions * Requiring transparency in application processes and lease terms * Protecting and enabling tenant-organizing rights * Allowing tenants to exit existing leases without penalty when relocating to affordable or accessible housing * Mandating relocation assistance and tenant protections during displacement * Enhancing protections to support tenants with limited English proficiency, disabilities, and other populations at greater risk of housing instability 2d Implement tools that emerge as a result of new legislative authority, including: * Implementing a formal eviction diversion pilot program (authorized under Virginia Code § 55.1-1260) * Developing a local landlord registry or accountability framework if authority is obtained * Adopting additional enforcement mechanisms if authority is obtained Also see Goal 8 for strategies related to supporting legislation that ensures safe, decent, and well-maintained housing. EVICTION DIVERSION: A PATH TO HOUSING STABILITY An Eviction Diversion Program allows tenants facing eviction for unpaid rent to enter into a court-ordered payment plan giving them a chance to catch up on arrears while staying in their homes. By requiring a small portion of what is owed upfront and spreading the remaining balance over several months, the program prevents families from losing housing over temporary financial hardships. Successfully completing the plan results in the eviction case being dismissed helping tenants avoid the long-term consequences of an eviction record. TENANT PROTECTIONS AND LANDLORD-TENANT RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION 3 Promote the implementation of comprehensive eviction prevention, diversion, and legal support programs. STRATEGIES 3a Coordinate and improve access to eviction prevention resources across City departments and community partners, including: * Exploring opportunities for increased funding for emergency rental assistance to support households facing crisis-driven arrears * Creating and sustaining partnerships that allow landlords to access emergency rental assistance on behalf of tenants in arrears, with tenant permission, to avoid eviction filings 3b Expand legal support for residents facing eviction or substandard housing conditions, including: * Supporting right-to-counsel or funded legal representation efforts for residents facing eviction * Partnering with legal aid organizations to expand targeted and pro bono representation for vulnerable populations * Continuing to provide volunteer and administrative support to the courthouse outreach program * Expanding access to legal assistance and support for tenants facing habitability issues RECOMMENDATION 4 Continue to strengthen landlord-tenant communication and relationships. STRATEGIES 4a Continue to administer and expand landlord-tenant assistance and mediation to support early resolution of disputes. 4b Continue engaging and maintaining regular communication with ARHA to strengthen operations and advance a shared commitment to residents. 4c Improve coordinated tracking of property ownership and management transitions, and establish protocols to conduct proactive outreach to new owners and managers. 4d Formalize and strengthen landlord engagement, including owners of small properties. 95% of eviction cases were attributed to non-payment of rent in 2025 amplifying the importance of eviction prevention and legal support programs, as well as affordable housing resources <
> The City's annual Apartment Managers Seminars offer interactive learning opportunities for landlords and property managers on a variety of topics, including customer service and resident interactions and landlord-tenant rights and requirements. TENANT PROTECTIONS AND LANDLORD-TENANT RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION 5 Expand housing affordability protections and anti-displacement strategies. STRATEGIES 5a | While pursuing legislative authority, continue to advance tenant protections by incorporating tenant protections standards as conditions of City financing agreements, loan agreements, and tax abatement, where feasible. ---|--- 5b | Continue to maintain and publish an annual rent increase policy, encouraging voluntary compliance citywide and requiring compliance as a condition for affordable rental set-aside units and projects receiving City financial assistance. 5c | Strengthen data integration to support housing stability and anti-displacement efforts, including: | • Linking data across housing, code administration, court filings, and other data sets to enable holistic risk analysis. | • Developing a displacement risk index or dashboard identifying neighborhoods facing the highest displacement pressure to proactively inform City preservation resources, anti-displacement protections, and outreach to high-risk areas | • Maintaining a publicly accessible platform providing transparency on property-level data including eviction filing rates, code violations, and tenant complaints. Use established thresholds to coordinate outreach and engagement across relevant City offices 5d | To the extent allowed by law and other applicable regulations, develop and implement community or local anti-displacement policies for affordable housing, and expand opportunities to help prepare income-eligible renters to successfully apply for committed affordable housing when it is available. 5e | Explore partnerships and funding opportunities to deepen rental affordability for very low-income households. Also see Recommendation 2 for strategies related to expanded legislative authority. Also see Goal 9, Recommendation 4 for strategies related to wealth building for renters. RECOMMENDATION 6 Strengthen community outreach approaches to center vulnerable populations and tenants in engagement efforts and policy development. STRATEGIES 6a | Establish formal and recurring opportunities for public tenant feedback using culturally-appropriate engagement methods, including popular communication applications, in-person outreach at apartment communities, and partnerships with community-based organizations. ---|--- 6b | Support community organizing and tenant associations and create avenues for resident leadership within community engagement efforts. 6c | Strengthen relationships with community partners and stakeholders, including community groups in neighborhoods directly affected by housing decisions. 6d | Implement trauma-informed and culturally-competent training for staff. TENANT PROTECTIONS AND LANDLORD-TENANT RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION 7 Advance housing stability for vulnerable populations. STRATEGIES 7a Refine and continue providing Fair Housing support, testing, and reasonable accommodation assistance, such as emotional support and service animals. 7b Address emergency shelter and supportive service needs of those experiencing homelessness. * Support the implementation of partnerships and collaborative plans, such as the Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness and its successors. Actions include continuing to monitor emergency and Domestic Violence shelter and service utilization and other indicators of demand, including the annual Point-in-Time count, and exploring opportunities to expand shelter options when needed to meet demand. 7c Explore opportunities and partnerships to expand housing options and supportive services for vulnerable populations at risk of homelessness as identified through City coordinated strategic planning efforts and gaps and needs assessments. Opportunities include: * Building partnerships to enhance and strengthen the safety net for permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing. * Exploring funding options for increased programmatic rental assistance. * Collaborating with ARHA on housing choice voucher access, in particular maximizing additional federal supports such as the Family Unification Program. * Partnering with property owners on leasing arrangements to accommodate youth and others with limited rental and credit history and resources. * Increasing sober living housing options. Vulnerable populations include a range of individuals and households that face high barriers to securing and maintaining housing and are at risk of homelessness. Examples might be youth aging out of foster care, LGBTQIA+ youth and adults, formerly incarcerated individuals, individuals experiencing acute or chronic behavioral or substance use disorders, domestic violence survivors, single-parent households, and recent immigrants and refugees. 7d Explore ways to support housing stability and well-being of households with pets and support animals. Also see Goal 7 for strategies related to housing supports for seniors and persons with disabilities. Also see Goal 10 for strategies related to economic mobility and wealth building. The mission of the Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness (SPPEH) is to plan, coordinate, and implement a continuum of care to prevent and end homelessness in Alexandria. The SPPEH was developed by the Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness, a broad group of homeless service providers, City agencies, and community stakeholders. Objectives of the FY23-28 SPPEH include providing more affordable housing options and supportive services to those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, focusing on those at 40% AMI and below, and increasing economic and health security. # GOAL 4 CREATE rental housing that prioritizes affordability up to 60% of the area median income to expand opportunities for renters and workers with the fewest housing options. Creating new affordable rental housing for households earning up to 60% AMI is essential to maintaining an inclusive and economically resilient city. As housing costs continue to rise, many families, seniors, and workers are at risk of housing insecurity and potential displacement. Expanding the supply of affordable homes helps residents remain in their communities and businesses retain their workforce and remain competitive. Many jobs essential to the local economy do not generate incomes high enough for their employees to live in Alexandria. 30%+ of jobs (assuming full-time, consistent hours which for numerous jobs is not guaranteed) pay less than 60% AMI and struggle to afford the cost of even the average studio in the city. Many workers share housing or have two or more jobs as a result. Maximizing the creation, as well as preservation, of affordable housing through market-rate development is one essential strategy. By leveraging regulatory tools, such as bonus density and height, Alexandria harnesses private investment to deliver affordable units alongside new market-rate housing without direct City investment. This approach also enhances the distribution of affordability across the city, in particular in neighborhoods with strong access to transit, jobs, and services, and helps foster mixed-income communities. Strong public-private partnerships are also critical to aligning the expertise, capital, and innovation of the non-profit sector with goal of expanding affordability. These partnerships create a more predictable pipeline, accelerate production and ensure longer-term affordability while allowing the City to stretch limited public resources, including both its gap investment and city-owned land. ### MEASURING PROGRESS TOWARD HOUSING GOALS As part of Housing 2040’s first phase of implementation, affordable housing production and preservation targets will be developed to guide the allocation of City housing resources, shape the development of effective housing tools and partnerships, and provide measurable benchmarks to track progress toward meeting the City’s housing goals, including the ongoing evaluation of how effectively private development supports these targets. # Rental affordability in Alexandria ## WHO ARE ALEXANDRIA'S RENTERS? <
> Based on ACS 2019–2023 5-Year estimates, there are approximately 43,700 renter households in Alexandria. Half of all renter households have incomes at or below 60% AMI highlighting the importance of housing at a variety of price points, including more deeply affordable rental options. ## ONLY 29% OF ALEXANDRIA'S RENTAL HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE — AND MOST OF THAT IS NOT GUARANTEED. <
> Based on the city's 2025 Rental Housing Analysis, 12% of the city's rental housing stock is committed affordable, and an additional 17% is market affordable. While these figures may appear substantial, their supply is outnumbered by demand for these price points and compounded by fluctuations in market affordable housing. --- ## THE AFFORDABILITY OF COMMITTED AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS RELIES ON A WIDE RANGE OF FUNDING SOURCES. **Committed Affordable Rental Units by Level of Affordability** <
> HUD 80%* In the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area, HUD 80% approximates 65% AMI. * see **Definitions** for more detail **Committed Affordable Rental Units by Source** <
> *Sources: City of Alexandria, 2025; ACS 5-Year Estimates 2019–2023* # AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING ### RECOMMENDATION 1 **Maximize creation of committed affordable rental units and affordable housing resources through the development process.** #### STRATEGIES 1a | Support the use of existing and the development of additional regulatory tools to incentivize the production of committed affordable rental set-aside units, including deeply affordable housing. --|--- 1b | Update and modernize Zoning Ordinance Section 7-700. As part of this process, address emerging and evolving land use trends, including senior housing + care models; explore extending the affordability period of rental set-aside units beyond the current 40-year term; and enable greater flexibility in implementation, including deeper levels of rental affordability (40-50% AMI). 1c | Regularly evaluate and update, as needed, the City's Affordable Housing Contribution Policies and Procedures, including the City's monetary contribution methodology and rates, to align with best practices and market dynamics, including Alexandria's submarkets. 1d | Prioritize pursuing legislative authority for mandatory monetary housing contributions associated with development. 1e | Complete the feasibility study for inclusionary zoning and, based on its findings, pursue, if and when appropriate, necessary legislative authority to enable adoption of a mandatory program. *Also see Goal 1, Recommendation 2.* <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> Market-rate rental communities with affordable set-aside units (from top left): Del Ray Central at Fuse, Parc Meridian at Eisenhower Station, The Landing, The Grayson, Station 650 at Potomac Yard, The Bradley, and Gables Old Town North. AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING RECOMMENDATION 2 Strengthen public-private partnerships to produce new committed affordable housing in the city. STRATEGIES 2a | Develop a shared vision and articulate goals and parameters for public-private partnerships to align with City affordability targets, investment requirements and safeguards for existing tenants, if applicable, including underwriting standards, performance requirements, and ongoing monitoring to ensure accountability. 2b | Provide technical assistance to new and existing affordable housing partners to evaluate (re)development/preservation opportunities, maximize affordability and facilitate access to local, state, federal and other funding resources. 2c | Continue to convene regular affordable housing partner meetings to exchange best practices and address shared development, financing, and operational challenges. 2d | Develop innovative and integrated financial models with financial institutions, mission-driven lenders, and philanthropic partners to distribute risks, leverage capital, and ensure the long-term sustainability of affordable housing developed through public-private partnerships. 2e | Strengthen internal development and finance expertise to enhance underwriting capacity, financial modeling, and negotiation of public-private partnerships as part of the establishment of a new Affordable Housing Policy and Development division. 2f | Continue to explore financing mechanisms (including housing bonds and revolving loan funds), tax abatements, community land trusts, and gap financing tools to support production of housing affordable to households with incomes up to 60% AMI, with an emphasis on projects delivering deeper levels of affordability (40-50% AMI). <
> ~8,700 number of applicants on public housing waitlist ~10,600 numbers of applicants on housing choice voucher waitlist Source: ARHA 2026 WHY DEEPLY AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING IS SO CHALLENGING TO BUILD Indicators such as housing cost burden, public housing and voucher waitlists, eviction trends, and employment in lower-wage service sectors all point to a significant unmet need for rental housing affordable to households at or below 40% AMI. However, creating housing at these deeper levels of affordability presents substantial financial challenges. Rents affordable at 40% AMI and below are typically insufficient to cover operating costs and support conventional debt financing. As a result, these developments often require multiple layered funding sources, including reduced-interest loans, grants, project-based vouchers, significant soft debt (such as City investment), and cross-subsidization from higher-rent units. As construction and land costs continue to rise—and demand for deeply affordable housing grows—the City will need to pursue new financing tools and partnerships, as well as expand subsidy sources to meaningfully address this gap. # AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING **RECOMMENDATION 3** **Support ARHA’s repositioning and redevelopment efforts to preserve and expand deeply affordable housing, including through the development of mixed-income communities.** **STRATEGIES** 3a Support ARHA’s revitalization and through an updated City-ARHA Memorandum of Understanding, collaborate on the development and implementation of a comprehensive repositioning strategy for ARHA’s properties that preserves at least 1,150 publicly assisted units, as called for by Resolution 2876, and creates additional deeply affordable units where feasible. As part of this process, facilitate access to resources and provide technical assistance to meet capital needs, evaluate (re)development/ preservation options, and maximize affordability. ### ARHA: A CRITICAL PARTNER IN PRESERVATION AND OPPORTUNITY The Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority plays an important and challenging role in preserving deeply affordable housing and expanding opportunities for residents through its redevelopment and modernization efforts. It is also uniquely positioned to develop supplemental sources to support its mission, such as its conduit bond function. Continuing to partner with ARHA in these efforts will be a priority task during the first years of Housing 2040. 3b Continue to consult with the City-ARHA Work Group to support the agency’s organizational development, long-term sustainability, and mission to house Alexandria’s most vulnerable. As part of the Work Group, collaborate to: * Streamline redevelopment processes * Enhance communications and collaboration among City, nonprofit, and faith-based bodies working with ARHA * Conduct robust community engagement * Monitor tenant protections to mitigate the impacts associated with displacement and relocation ### ARHA REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS CREATE OPPORTUNITIES TO: * consider optimal staffing levels and the size and programming of common areas as part of the design of new developments to facilitate the provision of services essential to empower and support existing residents with high barriers to securing and maintaining housing * incorporate or colocate with community serving organizations * encourage mixed-income communities when feasible in the case of redevelopment * maximize affordable housing production, in particular in locations with access to transit, jobs, and services # AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING ### RECOMMENDATION 4 **Align City capital investments and funding strategies to support affordable housing production.** #### STRATEGIES **4a** Coordinate and reserve funding for Coordinated Development District (CDD) and/or Small Area Plan (SAP) proposed public-private partnership projects in the Capital Improvement Program budget following CDD or SAP approval to ensure these community-vetted projects can move forward on a timeline consistent with CDD or SAP implementation and independently of “pipeline” projects. **4b** Regularly evaluate City funding sources and investment priorities, and leverage opportunities to ensure resources are aligned with affordable housing goals and targets. <
> <
> <
> <
> Committed affordable rental communities developed through partnerships (from top left): The Lineage (ARHA), The Nexus (Housing Alexandria), The Spire (AHC), The Bloom-Carpenter's Shelter (Housing Alexandria), and The Waypoint at Fairlington (Wesley Housing). # GOAL 5 EXPAND affordable homeownership opportunities to enable more residents and workers to become first-time homebuyers and ENHANCE resources to support existing homeowners. Homeownership represents more than a financial transaction—it can be a form of economic security, a tool for wealth generation, and a foundation for community stability. It was also the most widely cited aspiration in the Housing 2040 Survey. However, homeownership is slipping further out of reach for more and more Alexandrians. Home values, exacerbated by limited new supply, and compounded by homeownership related costs (utilities, insurance, mortgage rates, maintenance costs and HOA/condominium fees), continue to outpace income growth. First-time homebuyers and those seeking family-sized homes are, in particular, increasingly being priced out of the market. 2025 average assessments reflect the strength of the homeownership market in Alexandria. <
> $448K | $730K | $1M --- | --- | --- Average condominium value | Average residential value | Average single-family (fee simple) value Addressing homeownership challenges is complex. It ranges from preparing prospective homebuyers and equipping them to sustain their investment to encouraging and supporting the production of homeownership options at a variety of price points and sizes. HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES REFLECT DECADES OF UNEQUAL ACCESS <
> Source: ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates For generations, owning a home has been the primary mechanism for many families to build assets, invest in their future, and establish deep roots in their neighborhoods. However, nationwide that opportunity has not been afforded to all equally due to discriminatory practices in the housing and lending markets, redlining and reinforced segregation, and disinvestment in communities of color. This history continues to manifest in the acute differences in homeownership rates for households of color in Alexandria, too. # AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP AND HOMEOWNER RESOURCES ### RECOMMENDATION 1 **Assist households overcome barriers to homebuying and sustain homeownership.** STRATEGIES 1a | Offer first-time homebuyer training and financial education, including participation in savings clubs, through established partners to prepare purchasers for homeownership. 1b | Offer post-purchase counseling services through established partners to help purchasers sustain homeownership and build wealth. 1c | Provide homeowners in crisis referrals to default and delinquency counseling and foreclosure prevention services. 1d | Monitor and evaluate the City's shared equity model to ensure it is meeting the goals of long-term affordability and wealth building. 1e | Work collaboratively with ARHA to explore opportunities to expand attainability of homeownership for voucher holders. ### RECOMMENDATION 2 **Provide financial assistance to qualified homebuyers pursuing homeownership opportunities within the city.** STRATEGIES 2a | Continue to offer down payment and closing-cost assistance towards the purchase of affordable homeownership set-aside units and other resale-restricted units to eligible homebuyers with incomes up to 100% AMI. * Increase cap for financial assistance, on an as-needed basis, to maintain affordability of resale-restricted units at time of resale. 2b | Expand attainability of homeownership through state, federal, and other non-City resources. * Continue to evaluate the allocation of Virginia Housing and similar funding to maximize the use and reach of available state mortgage interest reduction resources. * Explore new funding sources and models to expand homeownership assistance to eligible homebuyers with incomes between 101% and 120% AMI. ## HOMEOWNERSHIP THAT STAYS AFFORDABLE Shared-equity homeownership makes homeownership more accessible by offering a reduced purchase price below the home’s appraised market value. In exchange for this discount, the homeowner agrees to share a portion of the home’s future market value with the City when the home is eventually resold to help someone with a similar income purchase the home in the future. Where the City also provides down payment and closing-cost assistance, the homeowner shares an additional portion of the home’s appreciation proportional to the assistance received. The City reinvests both of these proceeds at the time of resale into the home ensuring it remains affordable for the next buyer. AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP AND HOMEOWNER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION 3 Provide financial incentives to City and Alexandria City Public School employees to purchase homes in the city. STRATEGIES 3a Establish a process to evaluate and modify, if needed, the structure and impact of financial incentives for homeownership. 3b Explore opportunities to partner with City-affiliated agencies to administer financial incentives they fund for their employees. RECOMMENDATION 4 Maximize the creation of committed affordable homeownership units and affordable housing resources through the development process. STRATEGIES 4a Support the use of existing and the development of new regulatory tools to incentivize the production of affordable homeownership set-aside units. Also see Goal 4, Recommendation 1. <
> A rezoning, paired with bonus density, created eight affordable condominium units for first-time homebuyers at The Whitley. There were, on average, ten qualified applicants for every unit. RECOMMENDATION 5 Support the creation of long-term committed affordable homeownership opportunities through public-private partnerships. STRATEGIES 5a Evaluate and prioritize opportunities to use City remnant parcels for affordable homeownership development projects. 5b Explore alternative homeownership models (for example, cooperative housing, sweat-equity, and community land trusts) and partnerships based on best practices in comparable housing markets. 5c Evaluate feasibility of rent-to-own housing models, including exploring options for Year 15 conversions of LIHTC-funded housing. RECOMMENDATION 6 Maximize awareness of homeowner resources. STRATEGIES 6a Evaluate and strengthen current approaches to marketing to increase awareness of downpayment and closing cost assistance and training and counseling resources. Also check out Goal 6 for recommendations and strategies related to strengthening the city's common interest communities! # GOAL 6 STRENGTHEN existing common interest/condominium communities to improve governance practices and build capacity to address deferred maintenance, capital needs, and other challenges common to these communities. Condominiums, a type of common interest community in urban areas, are an essential component of Alexandria’s housing stock. Nearly half (48%) of all of the city’s homeownership units are structured as condominiums. Many of these homes, which can range from garden style complexes to high-rises, provide critical entry points to homeownership for first-time buyers, households with fixed incomes, and residents who prefer or require single-level living due to age or disability. Yet, with an average age of 45 years, many condominium communities face mounting deferred maintenance and significant capital repair needs. The very households these units are meant to serve may be priced out by monthly condominium fees (which can range from $400 to $1,000+ a month) and special assessments. Without proactive policies and programs, the aging of these properties threatens long-term affordability as well as quality of life. # 20,600 number of assessed residential condominium units in Alexandria in 2025 Strengthening governance and building the capacity of common interest community boards and members is therefore central to Housing 2040. A continuation of the City’s quarterly Common Interest Communities Education Series, along with the development of accessible educational materials for board members, owners, and managers, can help associations better understand fiduciary responsibilities, reserve planning, and preventive maintenance. Enhanced outreach to connect communities with weatherization and energy efficiency programs can also help reduce operating costs and extend the useful life of aging buildings preserving affordability while improving resilience. At the same time, policy reform, innovative financing tools, and partnerships are needed to address structural challenges. Together, these strategies recognize that well-managed and financially sound condominium communities are indispensable to maintaining Alexandria’s supply of safe, affordable homeownership opportunities. A common interest community (CIC) is defined in Chapter 23.3 of the Code of Virginia. Put simply, a CIC is a community where homeowners jointly share and fund amenities, such as parking lots, laundry rooms, pools, open spaces, and common areas. CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITIES RECOMMENDATION 1 Build capacity among common interest community members and their boards of directors. STRATEGIES 1a Continue the City's Common Interest Communities Education Series. 1b Create free educational materials in a variety of formats for boards, owners, and community managers. 1c Explore opportunities to offer incentives, such as funding for reserve studies or insurance discounts, for communities whose boards undergo certified training and continuing education classes. 1d Enhance outreach to owners about available weatherization, energy efficiency, and repair programs. AFFORDABLE ON PAPER Condominium units by assessed value, 2025 <
> While 15% of condominium units are assessed below $250,000 and another 60% are assessed below $500,000, high condominium fees and special assessments, triggered by the age of properties and deferred maintenance, jeopardize the relative affordability of these units. Source: City of Alexandria RECOMMENDATION 2 Expand state requirements regarding common interest communities. STRATEGIES 2a Advocate for state legislation that: * Requires developers to provide physical and digital copies of as-built plans and maintenance manuals upon turnover of association governance to individual owners along with a matrix of what capital components are the association’s responsibility as compared to the responsibility of individual owners. * Mandates visual inspection of structural components of the community on a regular schedule with clear requirements for the inspections and established compliance procedures. * Requires reserve studies to include all capital components (using industry-wide definitions) with an established baseline of which capital components are maintained by the association and should be included in the study. UNDERSTANDING RESERVE STUDIES A reserve study is an analysis of the reserves required to maintain, repair, and replace capital components in a CIC and of the CIC’s funding capacity to undertake those actions over a specified period of time. The reserve study typically helps informs the amount of monthly fees paid to ensure adequate resources are available. Examples of capital components are major building systems, such as plumbing, HVAC, and structural supports, and common elements which the CIC is obligated to maintain, repair, or replace. CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITIES ### RECOMMENDATION 3 **Explore alternative approaches to supporting common interest communities.** **STRATEGIES** 3a | Partner with state agencies to explore ways to financially support communities undertaking capital repairs, including Commonwealth-backed loans. 3b | Discuss outreach opportunities to promote the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations’ mediation program. --- # 64% of Alexandria condominiums (~13,200 units) were built more than 40 years ago highlighting the value of building partnerships to support capital improvements <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> # GOAL 7 ## EXPAND resources and options for seniors and persons with disabilities to live and age safely within the city. Alexandria experienced marked changes in its age composition between 2010 and 2023. During this period, its population aged 65 or older grew by 60% from approximately 12,300 to 19,800, and Alexandrians' median age increased from 35.7 to 37.5. These trends are reflected in the increase in the number of households with an older adult and in the number of seniors living alone and elevate the demand for senior housing models in the city. Approximately 11,000 Alexandrians identified as having one or more disabilities—hearing or vision impairments, or limitations related to <
> ### AGE FRIENDLY PLAN The Age Friendly Plan, Alexandria’s strategic plan on aging services and policies, was influential in shaping the Goal 7 recommendations and strategies. The Plan’s 2026-2029 Update was developed in coordination with Housing 2040 and the Community Health Improvement Plan, with a specific focus on older Alexandrians and those with disabilities. The Age Friendly Plan’s housing goals advocate for enhanced affordability for assisted living, as well as support for programs and services that support housing stability and aging-in-place. ## AGING IN ALEXANDRIA <
> mobility, cognition, self-care, or independent living; just under half were aged 65 or older. 15% of those aged 16 and over had incomes below the federal poverty line, more than double the poverty rate reported by persons without a disability. Median earnings for Alexandrians with disabilities were also lower by 17% than the earnings of their peers. These characteristics highlight the heightened vulnerability of Alexandrians with disabilities and serve as indicators of potential housing insecurity. Supporting independence, dignity, and quality of life for Alexandria's seniors and persons with disabilities is central to Goal 7's recommendations. Diverse needs, preferences, and income levels mean that no single housing model will work for everyone. A variety of housing options and resources are needed to enable Alexandria's seniors and persons with disabilities to access safe, affordable, and supportive environments that best match their physical abilities, health conditions, financial circumstances, and social preferences. HOUSING RESOURCES FOR SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES RECOMMENDATION 1 Increase access to housing options, programs and services, and legal protections which support older adults, adults with disabilities, and their caregivers. STRATEGIES 1a | Coordinate public education programs, in collaboration with local ambassadors and partners, with the provisions of services and activities to maximize awareness of available resources. ---|--- 1b | Expand outreach and coordinate services through established partnerships to naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) to decrease social isolation and enhance service delivery. 1c | Continue to provide education on Community Service Board (CSB) services, waiver eligibility criteria and available assistance options for persons with developmental disabilities. 1d | Strengthen the tracking of market-rate and committed affordable accessible units. As part of this process, include the anticipated number and type of accessible units in affordable housing plans and other development documents, and track their delivery. 1e | In collaboration with partners, enhance targeted marketing of market-rate and committed affordable accessible units both at time of initial lease up and during subsequent leasing. | • Develop accessible marketing and communication tools to connect residents to housing options available to persons with disabilities. | • Include clear descriptions in marketing materials about where and how to apply for accessible units, including step-by-step instructions, documentation requirements, and timelines. | • Provide access to language services, including American Sign Language interpretation. 1f | Explore State and other alternative funding resources for lower-income households to enhance programs providing assistance with activities of daily living within their homes. 1g | Evaluate the need for increased funding to reduce rent burden for participants enrolled in the Rent Relief Program for Older and Disabled Adults and its successor programs. | • Explore State and other funding resources to meet need. | • Formalize a timeline for ongoing review of the Program to strengthen its responsiveness to potential future changes in the housing market. 1h | Continue to develop the City's state-funded Permanent Supportive Housing Program to provide stable housing and comprehensive supportive services for chronically homeless residents living with serious mental illness. 1i | Explore opportunities to partner with community-based resources dedicated to supporting resident quality of life in mixed-ability communities. | Also see Goal 3 for strategies related to housing stability and legal support programs. ### WHAT IS A NORC? A naturally occurring retirement community (NORC) is a building or community with a growing population of older adults in which the units were not purposefully intended for older adults when they were originally designed and/or built. Due to the concentration of older adults, NORCs create unique opportunities to provide integrated on-site health, wellness and other services to support aging in place through coordinated partnerships. HOUSING RESOURCES FOR SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES RECOMMENDATION 2 Encourage the development of a range of housing typologies, sizes, and price points to support choice, wellbeing, and accessibility for seniors and persons with disabilities. STRATEGIES 2a Update and modernize Zoning Ordinance Section 7-700 to address emerging and evolving land use trends, including senior housing typologies, and to enable greater flexibility in implementation with respect to housing + care. 2b Conduct a study of senior housing + care models, including mixed-income assisted living, that serve a range of income levels. * Develop an implementation strategy following completion of the study to evaluate and prioritize the models and identify potential land, partners, and resources. <
> The Hart House, a partnership among Housing Alexandria, Sheltered Homes of Alexandria, and the City, serves as an innovative model for an inclusive mixed-tenure and mixed-ability community with five affordable condominium units and seven permanent supportive housing units. 2c Support the development of alternative housing typologies. Opportunities include providing technical assistance to: * Senior homeowners to explore development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on their properties to help them afford to remain in the community. * Homeowners to explore development of accessible ADUs on their properties to help expand housing options for adult children with disabilities or to enable parents and other elders to age in place in proximity to family and caregivers. 2d Research and promote best practices in inclusive and sensory-sensitive design and layout of units and common areas in affordable housing developments to create comfortable and functional spaces for persons with disabilities. This may include the size and layout of community rooms including spaces for exercise and retreat; the use of specialized (soft and adjustable) types of lighting; the installation of noise attenuating and low-noise construction materials, systems, and appliances; and the inclusion of additional storage areas or closets for medical equipment. 2e Continue to foster partnerships among Sheltered Homes of Alexandria (SHA) and the Community Services Board with nonprofit development entities to ensure sustainability, modernize and make accessible existing housing resources to meet the needs of their diverse clients, reflect best housing and service practices, and/or to create housing choices for persons with disabilities across the community as they age. 2f Explore opportunities to incorporate Universal Design and similar features, beyond what is already required through the Building Code, into new multi-unit building and site design to support residential spaces usable by all residents regardless of age or disability status. HOUSING RESOURCES FOR SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES RECOMMENDATION 3 Assist homeowners and renters in remaining safely and affordably in their homes. STRATEGIES 3a Provide rehabilitation services prioritizing repairs critical to habitability, health, and safety for income-eligible renters and owners. * Maximize use of state, federal, and other non-City rehabilitation resources. * Continue to partner with organizations that provide rehabilitation and aging-in-place services that complement City programs. 3b Work with property managers of NORCs to identify creative ways to reduce barriers to aging in place. 3c Continue to provide education, training, and awareness of legal obligations and City resources to landlords and property managers to elevate understanding and responsiveness to the special needs of elderly renters and renters with disabilities. A RANGE OF NEEDS REQUIRES A RANGE OF SOLUTIONS The incomes of seniors and persons with disabilities range widely with the greatest concentrations in the lower and higher income bands highlighting the need for a diversity of housing+care options at a variety of price points. Equally important are the partnerships that allow seniors and persons with disabilities to maintain stability and wellbeing in their homes and to access employment. These supports can include home care services, personal support workers, transportation assistance, and access to health and social services within or near their homes. Financial supports, such as rent subsidies or grants for home modifications, also play a critical role in making housing affordable and accessible for lower-income households. By integrating housing options with coordinated supports, communities can reduce institutionalization, promote social inclusion, and ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities are able to live with autonomy and security. <
> <
> Sources: ACS 5-Year Estimates 2019-2023 & 2017-2021 CHAS # GOAL 8 ## ENHANCE housing quality, safety, and livability to support resident health, security, and wellbeing. Housing quality is a public health issue. Residents across Alexandria have raised persistent concerns about mold, rodent infestations, poor HVAC systems, inadequate pest control, third-party smoking, and other conditions that directly threaten health and safety. These issues trigger asthma and respiratory illnesses, exacerbate chronic health conditions, create mental health stressors, and disproportionately affect children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The connection between housing conditions and broader wellbeing extends beyond physical health. Children living in substandard housing face disrupted sleep, increased school absences, and developmental challenges. Families dealing with ongoing maintenance issues experience financial strain, stress from navigating unresponsive systems, and instability that compounds other vulnerabilities. <
> A community health worker demonstrates green cleaning supplies as part of ALX Breathes. This free home-based program by the Alexandria Health Department is focused on improving asthma and COPD by addressing housing conditions such as mold, pests, and clutter. ### HEALTHY HOMES ACTION PLAN A healthy home is dry, ventilated, clean, safe, warm or cool enough, well-maintained, and accessible. The Healthy Homes Network—a coalition of city agencies, nonprofits, advocacy groups, residents, and property managers—was formed because too many Alexandrians were experiencing unhealthy housing. The 2025 Healthy Homes Action Plan is a collection of strategies created by residents to address these ongoing issues. These include using Alex311 data to track hotspots like rodent or no air/no heat complaints, working with tenants to develop guidance on how to deal with mold, coordinating with landlords, City agencies, and tenants on pest management, and creating resources for those with mental health issues to address for hoarding challenges. Because safe, decent, and well-maintained housing is fundamental to individual and community health, establishing a framework to ensure habitability standards are met and enforced, to support both tenants and landlords in maintaining quality housing, and to create accountability systems that protect residents while recognizing responsible property management is essential. Building on existing partnerships, with a focus on the Health Department's Healthy Homes Initiative, Goal 8 recommendations span proactive inspection, collaborative problem-solving, data-driven oversight, landlord support, and legislative advocacy to ensure Alexandrians live in conditions that support their health, security, and dignity. The resulting framework balances tenant protection with landlord support and creates accountability structures that drive improvement while rewarding compliance. # HOUSING QUALITY, SAFETY AND LIVABILITY ### RECOMMENDATION 1 **Support initiatives and programs that enhance housing quality and habitability standards.** #### STRATEGIES 1a | Continue collaboration with the Health Department in implementing the **Healthy Homes Action Plan** to address issues such as hoarding, mold, smoke, and pests. ---|--- 1b | Continue proactive rental inspection programs. 1c | Establish a data-driven housing quality monitoring system, including: | * Leveraging Alex311 and other data sources for strategic decision-making. | * Expanding interdepartmental collaboration focused on enhancing landlord accountability. | * Developing property-level monitoring systems that flag patterns of code violations, tenant complaints, and safety issues to enable proactive, coordinated City response. | * Recognizing responsible landlords who maintain quality housing and fair practices based on data. 1d | Explore opportunities, such as technical assistance, to support landlords of small properties to improve housing conditions. 1e | Support legislation that ensures safe, decent, and well-maintained housing, including: | * Stronger habitability standards and enforcement authority | * Tenant remedies for substandard conditions | * Expanded proactive inspection *Also see Goal 2, Recommendation 6; Goal 3, Recommendations 4 and 5; Goal 7, Recommendations 1-3; Goal 10, Recommendation 1 *** ### WHAT THE HOUSING 2040 SURVEY TOLD US ABOUT HOUSING CONDITIONS: <
> **65%** concerned about building conditions *including issues related to security, water, heating/cooling, and elevator operations* **66%** concerned about unit conditions *including issues related to mold, pests, leaks, smoking, and ventilation* # GOAL 9 ## EMPOWER residents to maintain housing stability and pursue economic mobility, and FOSTER pathways to help them build and sustain wealth. ~23% of Alexandria’s households have incomes below 40% AMI and are among the city’s most vulnerable due to high levels of housing cost burden Housing stability and economic mobility are deeply interconnected: when residents have access to quality jobs, workforce training, and supportive services, they are better positioned to afford and maintain safe housing. Policies and programs that reduce cost burdens—such as access to rental assistance, childcare, transportation, and healthcare—also help vulnerable households weather financial shocks and avoid displacement. Equally important is fostering clear pathways for renters and homeowners to build and sustain wealth. For renters, this can include access to financial education, credit-building tools, savings programs, and pathways to homeownership that are realistic and equitable. For homeowners, wealth-building is strengthened through protections against predatory practices, access to first-time homebuyer opportunities and financial assistance, and counseling that helps families retain their homes during economic hardship. These strategies ensure that housing is not only a place of shelter, but also a platform for long-term financial security. ### DEVELOPING ALEXANDRIA’S WORKFORCE Through the Workforce Development Center, the City collaborates with community-based organizations, local libraries and community shelters to expand access to employment services for residents facing housing instability and other barriers. By embedding job readiness workshops, career counseling, and hiring event outreach within these familiar settings, the City increases awareness of available resources while meeting residents where they are. These partnerships also create opportunities to share effective service delivery models and strengthen coordination across housing, workforce, and supportive service providers. To further advance economic mobility, the City integrates workforce development services such as career coaching, skills training, and job placement assistance. Recognizing that transportation access is essential to employment success, the City continues to promote free DASH transit services and regional mobility discounts for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and lower-income residents. HOUSING STABILITY AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY RECOMMENDATION 1 Support economic mobility initiatives. STRATEGIES 1a Partner with property managers and resident services coordinators, particularly in market-affordable and committed affordable housing communities, to increase access to existing resources and to solicit resident input on services that would help them pursue economic mobility. As part of this process: * Facilitate opportunities for affordable housing partners in Alexandria to showcase and share effective resident service models and best practices. * Consider size, layout, lighting/electrical, furnishings and other requirements associated with the provision of such services when designing common areas, business centers, and community rooms in affordable housing communities. 1b Where feasible, pair workforce development (such as job readiness and career counseling) with rent readiness training and services for those facing housing instability, including households assisted by City rental subsidy programs. 1c Continue to monitor and address transportation needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, and lower-income households to improve multimodal transportation access. * Promote the availability of free DASH transit services as well as regional transit mobility discounts and services like Capital Bikeshare. 1d Explore new partnerships and State and other funding sources to help advance economic mobility initiatives. See also Goal 3 for strategies related to housing stability. ### ECONOMIC MOBILITY INITIATIVES Economic mobility initiatives can range widely from traditional workforce development to written and digital literacy, language, and other targeted services that help individuals and families gain the skills and access the resources they need to advance economically and achieve greater financial sustainability. They are designed to empower a broad spectrum of households that face barriers to upward mobility, such as adults with lower levels of educational attainment, low income families and youth (including those aging out of the foster care system), seniors, persons with disabilities, and formerly incarcerated individuals transitioning back into the workforce. RECOMMENDATION 2 Help households sustain homeownership. STRATEGIES * See Goal 5, Strategy: Offer post-purchase counseling services through established partners to help purchasers sustain homeownership and build wealth. * See Goal 5, Strategy: Provide homeowners in crisis referrals to default and delinquency counseling and foreclosure prevention services. HOUSING STABILITY AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY RECOMMENDATION 3 Create pathways to homeownership for renters. STRATEGIES * See Goal 5, Strategy: Offer first-time homebuyer training and financial education, including participation in savings clubs, through established partners to prepare purchasers for homeownership. * See Goal 5, Strategy: Work collaboratively with ARHA to explore opportunities to expand attainability of homeownership for voucher holders. * See Goal 5, Strategy: Evaluate feasibility of rent-to-own housing models, including exploring options for Year 15 conversions of LIHTC-funded housing. * See Goal 5, Strategy: Continue to offer down payment and closing-cost assistance towards the purchase of affordable homeownership set-aside units and other resale-restricted units to eligible homebuyers with incomes up to 100% AMI. * Increase cap for financial assistance, on an as-needed basis, to maintain affordability of resale-restricted units at time of resale. * See Goal 5, Strategy: Expand attainability of homeownership through the state, federal, and other non-City resources. * Continue to evaluate the allocation of Virginia Housing and similar funding to maximize the use and reach of available state mortgage interest reduction funding. * Explore new funding sources and models to expand homeownership assistance to eligible homebuyers with incomes between 101% and 120% AMI. RECOMMENDATION 4 Support renters in building savings and wealth. STRATEGIES 4a Promote opportunities to participate in financial self-sufficiency counseling, financial and debt management education, and retirement planning tailored to renters' needs and goals, and to access savings and investment platforms. 4b Collaborate with committed affordable housing providers to offer rent reporting to credit agencies to help renters build their credit scores. 4c Help families with young children apply for and maximize participation in federal youth bond/savings programs supporting future education and vocational training. Together housing stability and wealth-building initiatives promote more resilient households and stronger communities. When residents are supported in growing their incomes, protecting their assets, and planning for the future, they are more likely to remain stably housed and invest in their neighborhoods. # GOAL 10 SUPPORT energy efficiency improvements and weatherization and ADVANCE green building practices to lower energy costs, make homes healthier, and build resilience to extreme heat, cold, and weather events. Sustainable housing not only plays a critical role in addressing the global impacts of climate change, but also provides meaningful, everyday benefits for residents. As the City plans for housing over the next 15 years, sustainability will be an important factor in supporting affordability, livability, and health in Alexandria. ### Affordability Just over half of the city’s multi-unit housing stock is more than 40 years old and predates modern energy efficiency codes. Aging residential properties, home to many of Alexandria’s lower-income renters and homeowners on fixed incomes, struggle with high energy and water use due to inefficient and outdated building systems. In addition, utilities are typically not individually controlled or metered in older properties which limits a household's ability to manage --- ### THE CASE FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING <
> energy usage. Resulting high utility bills contribute to worsening levels of housing cost burden for residents (learn about the impact of housing cost burden in **Goal 3**). With energy rates expected to rise significantly over the next 15 years, this challenge will only be further compounded. Utility costs are estimated to double during this period increasingly compelling households to weigh paying their utility bills against their rent or other household expenses. # GOAL 10 Investments in and upgrades to mechanical systems (HVACs), building envelopes (insulation in and around walls, roofs, and windows), lighting controls, elevators, and appliances are common examples of improvements that lower the carbon footprint of a building while improving affordability for residents and preserving the property. (See **Goal 2** to learn more about the importance affordable housing preservation.) ## Livability Climate change is affecting quality of life in Alexandria. The number of days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit is projected to almost triple by 2050, and the City continues to experience increased frequency and intensity of storms. While housing plays an essential role in keeping residents comfortable during extreme temperatures and weather events, sustainably and thoughtfully designed and engineered housing also reduces energy use and strengthens resilience. For example, insulation that improves passive heating and cooling can help maintain safe and consistent indoor temperatures during the peak summer and winter months or during a temporary power outage while simultaneously reducing energy use. ## GREEN BY DESIGN <
> Recently constructed affordable housing projects frequently outperform their market-rate counterparts in terms of energy and water efficiency; due to funder requirements, they achieve higher performance than required by the City's Green Building Plan for market-rate housing. To remain competitive for LIHTC and other funding sources, affordable housing projects incorporate sustainable design and green building practices to qualify for energy and sustainability certifications, such as LEED, Energy Star, and National Green Building Standards. While these features yield tangible health benefits and savings for residents and building operators over time, they come with an upfront cost that can be challenging to finance in affordable housing developments with limited cash flow. As a result, it is important to recognize that these investments that result in market-leading building performance do not typically occur on their own, but rather require external resources, such as grant or lower-cost funding. St. James Plaza, an affordable rental community in Beauregard, achieved EarthCraft Platinum, the highest certification in the EarthCraft sustainable building program. The community was made possible by LIHTC funding through a partnership between AHC and the City. # GOAL 10 ## Health As discussed in Goal 8, healthy housing conditions are fundamental to individual and community wellbeing. Within the context of Goal 10, addressing Alexandria's aging housing conditions can play a critical role in improving health while also delivering environmental benefits. For example, poor indoor air quality can have a range of causes including high-emission finishes, poorly insulated windows or leaking pipes that cultivate mold. Greener finishes, such as low-VOC paint and flooring, and sustainably sourced building materials limit toxins in a unit while contributing to improved air quality. Updated HVAC systems boost ventilation and reduce the incidence of asthma and respiratory illness while lowering energy use. Similarly, new boilers, pipes, and plumbing fixtures prevent leaks and decrease the risk of mold while reducing water consumption. These sample solutions highlight the interconnectivity of sustainability and health in existing housing. ## ALEXANDRIA’S SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK Housing 2040 supports and complements the efforts of the City's Environmental Action Plan (EAP) 2040, Energy & Climate Change Action Plan (ECCAP), and Green Building Plan with respect to new residential development. Adopted in 2019, the EAP is a road map to fulfill Alexandria's commitment to lead by example as a thriving, sustainable community. The plan sets goals for climate, energy, land use and open space, transportation, waste, water use, and air quality. The ECCAP was updated in 2023 to support the implementation of EAP 2040 and identified additional actions the City can pursue to meet EAP 2040 goals. Actions include decarbonizing existing and new buildings and carbon-free electricity generation. Approved in 2026, the Green Building Plan governs most new construction; the Plan moves away from third-party certifications and sets standards for Energy Use Intensification, electrification, and renewable energy. SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE IN HOUSING RECOMMENDATION 1 Support energy efficiency and weatherization retrofits for existing housing. STRATEGIES 1a Use energy benchmarking, such as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, to measure and track energy performance in existing multi-unit residential buildings against national benchmarks by building size and type, to identify underperforming buildings for investment. 1b In collaboration with partners, provide multi-unit residential property owners with technical assistance and financing resources and options, like C-PACE, to improve energy efficiency and indoor air quality. 1c Promote programs that help condominium and other common interest communities to reduce energy costs and meet City climate goals through building upgrades, such as higher-performing HVAC systems, improved insulation, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. 1d Provide support, through technical assistance or purchasing incentives, for the installation of solar and battery backup, when feasible, to provide backup power in times of power outages. 1e Continue partnerships with organizations that complement City efforts and provide rehabilitation, weatherization, and environmental education services. 1f Continue to promote and improve access to existing energy efficiency, water use, and weatherization resources for individual homeowners by coordinating outreach, education, and assistance across City departments. RECOMMENDATION 2 Advance green building practices in new residential development. STRATEGIES 2a Support the implementation and evolution of the Green Building Plan. * Provide technical assistance to affordable housing partners to explore cost-effective ways to incorporate green building and sustainability measures into their projects. * Encourage early planning for renewable energy systems, like geothermal HVAC systems, that have a long service life and significantly lower energy bills and improve comfort. * Partner with state agencies, Community Development Financial Institutions, and others financing entities to explore funding for designs that prioritize extremely high-performance designs, such as Passive House. 2b Explore and promote innovative housing models, emerging materials, and new technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce resource use, including manufactured, prefabricated, and modular housing construction. ### INVESTING IN EFFICIENCY C-PACE (Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy) is a state program administered by the Virginia PACE Authority that provides upfront financing for commercial properties to perform energy efficiency, resiliency, and other qualifying sustainability improvements. C-PACE loans are secured by City property liens. # 04 # Plan Process Our Approach Community Engagement # Our Approach Housing 2040 incorporated community engagement and feedback into all stages of the planning process. Engagement was built on three pillars. | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **1** Education | **2** Listening and Learning | **3** Project Input and Feedback | ## Engagement Metrics * Education Events: 9 * Community Meetings: 7 * Open Houses: 4 * Pop-ups and listening sessions: 32 * Includes 3 youth engagements * Boards and Commissions Meetings: 23 * Meetings with residents and landlords: 7 * Meetings with community groups and organizations: 15 * Project meetings: 9 * Work group meetings: 8 * Other City meetings/events: 5 ## ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE **2024** AUG ● Postcard SEPT ●●● ● Kick-Off Meetings & Housing Needs Assessment OCT ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● Education Month NOV ●●●●● DEC ●●●●●●● Housing Survey **2025** JAN ●●●●● FEB ●● MAR ● ● Community Meeting & Open House APR ●●●●●● MAY ●●●● JUN ●●●● JUL ●●●●●●● AUG ●●●●●●●●● SEPT ●●●●●● ● Community Meeting & Open House OCT ●●●●●●● NOV ●●● ● Virtual Community Meeting DEC ●●● **2026** JAN ●●●●● FEB ●● ● Open House & Draft Recommendations Release MAR ●●●●●● ● Draft Recommendations Comment Period APR ● Draft Recommendations Revisions MAY ● ● Draft Plan Release JUN ● Public Hearing ● Major milestone ● Public engagement # ENGAGEMENT PROCESS <
> **ENGAGEMENT PHASES** * Education * Listening * Project Input # Education Strengthening understanding of affordable housing and housing programs and services, as well as the context within which they operate, was fundamental to empowering participants to engage in Housing 2040. This process started with the release of the 2024 Quantitative Housing Needs Analysis followed by a month-long education series. Each of the weeks in October 2024 was dedicated to a specific theme covering housing and community partnerships, affordable housing development and finance, and renter and homeowner resources. Activities included bilingual webinars and presentations, information on existing programs, links to other housing resources, and open houses at four affordable housing communities. The commitment to education was woven throughout the Plan’s development serving as the starting point for each of the Housing 2040 projects. ### HOW WE USED DATA TO UNDERSTAND HOUSING NEED The 2024 Quantitative Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) grounded Housing 2040 in current demographic, housing, and employment data and an analysis of 2010-2023 trends. It relied on primary and secondary data sources including the City of Alexandria’s Office of Housing, Office of Real Estate Assessment, Department of Planning and Zoning, and Department of Community and Human Services, the United State Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates, CoStar, and the Virginia Department of Workforce Development and Advancement’s 2025 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The HNA’s findings raised the following defining questions for the Housing 2040 process: * Lower and moderate-paying jobs serve as the backbone of our local economy. How do we expand opportunities for our workers to afford to live in the city? * How do we help mitigate increasing levels of housing cost burden among lower-income renter families and among middle-income earners who aspire to homeownership? * How do we address racial inequities in homeownership and wealth acquisition? * How do we support aging condominium and communities, the entry point for first-time buyers? * What housing models and tools help meet the needs of a growing senior population? * 20-34 year olds represent a shrinking proportion of Alexandria’s population. What housing typologies and price points are needed, and how do we produce them? # Listening and Learning The second component focused on soliciting input from the public on the housing issues impacting their communities and developing the Principles and Goals to guide Housing 2040. This phase was initiated by a citywide postcard mailout and two kick-off meetings (one virtual and one in-person) in September 2024 that examined Alexandria's housing needs. Following the kick off, Housing 2040 sought to further understand housing priorities by engaging with residents through pop-ups at ongoing community and City events, listening sessions hosted by community partners, and City Board and Commission meetings. This engagement included events coordinated by the Health Department as part of the Community Health Assessment, DRPCA and APD as part of their annual cookouts and after-school activities, DCHS as part of the Age Friendly Plan Update, and events hosted by community partners. This approach was supplemented with listening sessions with a broad range of stakeholders, including tenant rights organizations, civic associations, including the Federation of Civic Associations, faith-based groups, and older Alexandrians. Staff also worked with ACPS and ACT for Alexandria to engage middle-school and high-school youth to learn about their housing needs and priorities for
### THE VALUE OF EXPERIENCE AND HISTORY Housing 2040 builds on what the City has learned through: * four small are plan processes, each with a prominent housing component * the administration of emergency rental assistances during the COVID-19 pandemic * Zoning for Housing and the *Housing for All* process * the successes and challenges implementing the HMP * research and review of best practices in affordable housing policies and programs * the expertise of City Boards and Commissions * the housing policies and programs of neighboring jurisdictions * ongoing landlord and tenant engagement the future. In addition, the Housing 2040 Survey (see next page) was developed and employed as an engagement tool at these engagements to solicit quantifiable insights on housing concerns. # Housing 2040 Survey | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1,208
responses received | 28
housing issues assessed | 6
language options | ### TOP 10 CONCERNS | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 🪙 | Cost of buying a home | 80% | | 🏢 | Housing options for middle-income residents | 78% | | 🪙 | Cost of renting a home | 77% | | 🏢 | Moderately priced housing for families | 74% | | 🪙 | Moderately priced homebuyer opportunities | 74% | | 🏢 | Housing options for low-income residents | 72% | | 🪙 | Annual rent increases | 71% | | 🏠 | Fear of displacement | 71% | | 🪙 | First-time homebuyer opportunities & assistance | 70% | | 🪙 | Moderately priced housing for young adults | 68% | To supplement in-person engagement and establish a quantitative assessment of current housing concerns, staff conducted the Housing 2040 survey in six languages (English, Spanish, Amharic, Arabic, Dari, and Pashto) between November 2024 and January 2025. More than 1,200 responses were received electronically and in hardcopy. The survey asked respondents to indicate their level of concern on 28 housing issues. Respondents could indicate personal concerns or concerns for their community. The top ten issues that were identified as being a source of high concern or concern are highlighted in the box to the left. However, many other issues beyond housing cost and housing options were also flagged, including housing quality, living conditions, the availability of senior housing + care options, the cost of rental and condominium fees, the cost of utilities, and landlord relations. **KEY FINDINGS** **#1** Cost of housing was the top issue **2x** Renters expressed greater concern than owners across all issues **18–24** Younger residents (18-24) showed the greatest concern over housing costs **↑** Black and Latino residents expressed more concern than White residents across all issues **Key:** 🪙 Cost & affordability 🏢 Housing access & options 🏠 Housing stability % respondents expressing concern # Project input and feedback The third step focused on individual projects with engagement tailored to each project’s scope. To maximize participation, project engagement ranged from interviews, panel discussions with subject matter experts, and consultations with City boards and commissions to stakeholder conversations, focus groups, and virtual and in-person community meetings. The Alexandria Housing Affordability Advisory Committee (AHAAC) played an instrumental role in this process by hosting Housing 2040 presentations on a series of topics, such as financial tools for affordable housing, homeowner resources, and senior housing + care. The insights of City boards and commissions, and their subcommittees, including AHAAC, the Landlord Tenant Relations Board, the Commission on Aging, the Commission on Persons with Disabilities, and the Environmental Policy Commission, further deepened Housing 2040’s understanding of specific housing issues and potential programmatic and policy solutions. Two projects—Affordable Housing Preservation and Strengthening Common Interest Communities—also chose to convene working groups, representing a variety of perspectives, to inform the development of their recommendations. <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> <
> Housing 2040 engagement events Accessibility was a priority during the Housing 2040 process. One of the selection criteria for Housing 2040 community meeting venues was that each space be accessible to participants with disabilities and convenient to access via public transit and by car. In addition, community conversations and focus groups were held in familiar neighborhood spaces and were convened by trusted community partners to facilitate participation. Language services were also fundamental to ensuring engagement was inclusive; interpretation was available at all community meetings, online materials had built-in translation, and the Housing 2040 survey, principles, and goals were provided in six languages. # 05 # Implementation Introduction Matrix # Implementation Plan The Plan establishes a 15-year framework to guide the development and administration of housing tools, policies and programs, prioritization of projects and legislative actions, and allocation of resources, including staffing and funding, to accomplish Housing 2040 goals. The Implementation Matrix outlines which City departments will assume the lead or support identified strategies and provides a framework for tracking and reporting progress over the Plan’s lifespan after adoption. Each strategy (action) includes a proposed implementation timeframe—short-term (1-5 years) and longer-term (6+ years)—and notes if the action is already being undertaken. The Plan recommends the development of an online dashboard and five-year implementation check-ins with City Council to report on progress and to determine if modifications to priorities or targeted actions are needed. <
> Sansé Implementing Housing 2040 will depend on a range of factors—one of them being the commitment to support innovation. Sansé, a 416-unit affordable rental community developed by Housing Alexandria with federal, state, and City investment in the Arlandria neighborhood, showcases how innovation can reduce housing production costs. The project's general contrator, Whiting Turner, successfully implemented two innovative construction methods to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness in the development—a cold formed metal framed (CFMF) structural system and a design-build approach for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection (MEPF) systems. The CFMF system is a prefabricated structural wall system designed and engineered by the installing subcontractor; exterior structural walls are delivered with exterior sheathing already attached. At Sansé, the system allowed for taller vertical construction and reduced mold/ flammability concerns compared to wood framed construction. While not as fast as wood frame or concrete construction, it enabled interior and exterior work to progress more quickly. Sansé used a design-build approach for MEPF systems: subcontractors that installed these systems were brought in during the design phase of the project and designed/engineered these systems in coordination with the architectural team. Benefits of this approach include price certainty (insulating the project from material price increases), early procurement (ensuring that long lead-times or design changes on items ranging from light fixtures to generators did not result in delays), and getting early input from subcontractors on the design and functionality of the building (reducing the need for scope modifications). # Implementation Matrix The numbering in the Matrix reflects the goal number, followed by the recommendation number, and then the strategy letter. For example, 1.1a is the first strategy under Goal 1, Recommendation 1. | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1–5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 1.1a Continue to evaluate housing challenges and opportunities through small area planning efforts | Housing; Planning & Zoning | X | | | | | X | | 1.1b Continue implementation and evaluation of initiatives that streamline the development review and permitting processes | Planning & Zoning | X | | | | | X | | 1.1c Explore opportunities to colocate housing, in particular affordable housing, with public uses and private development in which the City is a financial participant | Housing; Planning & Zoning | X | | | | | | | 1.1d Maximize use of city-owned land for housing, including affordable housing | Housing; Planning & Zoning | X | | | X | | X | | 1.1e Support conversions of underutilized office and other commercial buildings to housing consistent with City priorities | Planning & Zoning | X | | | | | X | | 1.1f Continue to annually track and report on residential development activity, including the City's progress toward local and regional housing production targets | Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | | | | | 1.2a Continue implementation of Zoning for Housing recommendations | Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | | | X | | 1.2b Support development of alternative housing models and designs | Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | | | X | | 1.2c Support development of a variety of residential unit sizes | Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | | | | | 1.2d Review and revise mixed-use zoning districts, as needed, to ensure that multi-unit residential development is encouraged | Planning & Zoning | | | X | | | X | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 1.3a Work with development community to explore construction models and innovative technologies to help lower material and labor costs | Planning & Zoning; Housing | | | X | | | | | 1.3b Review City parking standards to help moderate construction and housing costs | Planning & Zoning; Transportation & Environmental Services | | X | | | | X | | 1.4a Promote and enhance workforce development programs that provide training in the building trades and residential property management, maintenance, and operations | Workforce Development Center; Housing | X | | | X | | | | 1.4b Connect property owners and housing developers with workforce development programs to address labor shortages and facilitate training and job opportunities | Housing; Workforce Development Center | | X | X | | | | | 2.1a Foster relationships with committed affordable housing property owners, and provide financial and technical assistance to support long-term affordability commitments | Housing | X | | | X | | X | | 2.1b Maintain inventory of committed affordable properties | Housing | X | | | | | | | 2.1c Explore tax abatement as an incentive to extend affordability commitments | Housing | | X | | X | | X | | 2.1d Establish and implement a Right of First Refusal policy in committed affordable properties in which the City is not a financial participant | Housing | | X | | X | X | | | 2.1e Study options to extend affordability periods of expiring rental set-aside units | Housing | | X | | | | X | | 2.2a Guide City investments and policies using the Strategic Preservation Priorities and Considerations | Housing | | X | X | X | | X | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 2.2b Continue to collaborate with affordable housing partners to acquire priority preservation properties and maintain deeper levels of affordability | Housing; Affordable housing partners | X | | | X | | X | | 2.2c Expand partnerships with local anchors, including hospitals, faith-based and educational institutions, and businesses | Housing | | X | X | X | | X | | 2.2d Explore a preservation fund that mobilizes capital | Housing | | X | | X | | X | | 2.2e Continue to incorporate Rights of First Refusal in rehabilitation projects, acquisition deals, and affordability extensions that receive City investment | Housing | X | | | | | | | 2.3a Provide technical assistance to properties exploring preservation consistent with the City's Strategic Preservation Priorities | Housing | | X | X | | | X | | 2.3b Solicit requests for a rehabilitation project pipeline | Housing; Finance | | X | | X | | X | | 2.3c Explore tax abatement as a financial incentive for rehabilitation projects | Finance; Housing | | X | | X | | X | | 2.3d Support energy efficiency, accessibility, and sustainability improvements in rehabilitation projects | Housing; Office of Climate Action | X | | | X | | | | 2.3e Assess opportunities for projects of historical significance to pursue State and Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits | Housing; Office of Historic Alexandria | | X | | | | | | 2.4a Strategize with property owners and applicants to utilize regulatory tools to maximize on-site replacement or provision of replacement units at properties within the same neighborhood | Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | X | | X | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 2.4b For projects that meet Strategic Preservation Priorities, explore partnership opportunities and financial tools to support replacement on a 1-for-1 basis and/or add net new affordable units on site or in properties within the same neighborhood | Housing; Finance | | X | X | X | | | | 2.5a Evaluate and update the City's Housing Relocation Assistance Policies | Housing | | X | | X | X | X | | 2.6a Facilitate regular meetings among market affordable housing property owners to discuss shared issues and opportunities | Housing | | X | | | | | | 2.6b Foster relationships among landlords of small properties to promote opportunities for collaboration and cost sharing | Housing | | X | | | | | | 3.1a (1) Create, update and distribute multilingual self-help and resource materials | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 3.1a (2) Create lease explanation documents for ARHA and other large properties to promote transparency and reduce misunderstandings | Housing; ARHA | | X | | | | | | 3.1a (3) Create resources to help tenants understand their rights to collectively organize and form tenant associations | Housing | | X | | | | | | 3.1b (1) Expand education, training, and outreach efforts including in-person and virtual education and training programs on tenant rights | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 3.1b (2) Provide landlord and property manager training focused on VRLTA & fair housing compliance, language access requirements, and trauma-informed and culturally-competent communication | Housing | X | | | | | | | 3.1b (3) Conduct targeted outreach at properties with elevated eviction filings, code violations, and tenant complaints | Housing; Code Administration | X | | | | | | | 3.1b (4) Use multiple communication channels to maximize outreach to tenants and landlords | Housing | X | | | | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 3.2a Support legislation advancing housing stability, eviction prevention, and 'good cause' protections | City Council | X | | | | X | | | 3.2b Support legislation promoting transparency on fees, cost caps, and fair utility billing | City Council | X | | | | X | | | 3.2c Support legislation that strengthens tenant protections and promotes fair and equitable housing access | City Council | X | | | | X | | | 3.2d (1) Support legislation that addresses housing disparities and protects vulnerable populations | City Council | X | | | | X | | | 3.2d (2) Implement tools that emerge as a result of new legislative authority | Housing; Court System | | X | | | | | | 3.3a Coordinate and improve access to eviction prevention resources | Housing; DCHS; Community partners | | X | | | | | | 3.3b Expand legal support for residents facing eviction or substandard housing conditions | Housing; Legal services providers | | X | X | | | | | 3.4a Expand landlord-tenant assistance and mediation programs | Housing | | X | | | | | | 3.4b Continue engaging with ARHA to strengthen operations and advance a shared commitment to residents | Housing; ARHA | X | | | | | | | 3.4c Improve coordinated tracking of property ownership and management transitions citywide, and establish protocols to conduct proactive outreach to new owners and managers | Housing | | X | | | | | | 3.4d Formalize and strengthen landlord engagement, including exploring methods for engaging small landlords | Housing | | X | | | | | | 3.5a While pursuing legislative authority, use existing tools to advance tenant protections where feasible | Housing; Legal services providers | X | | | | | X | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 3.5b Continue to maintain and publish an annual rent increase policy and encourage compliance; condition compliance for set-aside units receiving City financial assistance | Housing | X | | | | | | | 3.5c (1) Strengthen data integration to support housing stability and anti-displacement efforts | Housing; Code Administration; Court System | | X | | | | | | 3.5c (2) Develop and maintain a displacement risk index or dashboard identifying neighborhoods facing the highest displacement pressure | Housing; Office of Analytics, Innovation, & Data; Office on Race and Social Equity | | X | | | | | | 3.5c (3) Develop and maintain a publicly accessible platform providing transparency on property-level data including eviction filing rates, code violations, and tenant complaints | Housing; Code Administration; Office of Analytics, Innovation, & Data | | X | | | | | | 3.5d Build and implement community or local preference policies for affordable housing | Housing | X | | | | | | | 3.5e (1) Expand opportunities to help prepare income-eligible renters to successfully apply for committed affordable housing when it is available | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 3.5e (2) Explore partnerships and funding opportunities to deepen rental affordability for very low-income households | Housing | X | | | | | | | 3.6a Establish formal opportunities for public tenant feedback using culturally appropriate engagement methods | Housing; Office of Communications and Community Engagement | X | | | | | | | 3.6b Support community organizing and tenant associations and create avenues for resident leadership | Housing | | X | X | | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 3.6c Strengthen and sustain relationships with community partners and stakeholders | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 3.6d Implement trauma-informed training for Housing staff | Housing | | X | | | | | | 3.7a Refine and continue providing Fair Housing support, testing, and reasonable accommodation assistance, including for emotional support and service animals | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 3.7b Address emergency shelter and supportive service needs of those experiencing homelessness, including monitoring PIT counts and expanding shelter options as needed | DCHS; Housing | | X | X | | | | | 3.7c Explore opportunities and partnerships to expand housing options and supportive services for vulnerable populations at risk of homelessness | DCHS; Housing | | | X | | | | | 3.7d Explore ways to support housing stability and well-being of households with pets and support animals | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 4.1a Support the use of existing and the development of additional regulatory tools to incentivize the production of committed affordable rental set-aside units, including deeply affordable housing | Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | | | X | | 4.1b Update and modernize Zoning Ordinance Section 7-700 | Housing; Planning & Zoning | | X | | | | X | | 4.1c Regularly evaluate and update the City's Affordable Housing Contribution Policies and Procedures, including the City's monetary contribution methodology and rates | Housing; Planning & Zoning | | X | | | | X | | 4.1d Continue to pursue legislative authority for mandatory monetary housing contributions associated with development | Housing | X | | | | X | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 4.1e Complete the feasibility study for inclusionary zoning and, based on its findings, pursue, if and when appropriate, necessary legislative authority to enable adoption of a mandatory program. | Housing; Planning & Zoning | | X | X | | X | X | | 4.2a Develop a shared vision and articulate goals and parameters for public-private partnerships to align with City affordability targets, investment requirements and safeguards for existing tenants | Housing | | X | | | | X | | 4.2b Provide technical assistance to new and existing affordable housing partners to evaluate (re)development/preservation opportunities, maximize affordability and facilitate access to local, state, federal and other funding resources | Housing | X | | | | | | | 4.2c Continue to convene regular affordable housing partner meetings to exchange best practices and address shared development, financing, and operational challenges | Housing | X | | | | | | | 4.2d Develop innovative and integrated financial models to distribute risks, leverage capital, and ensure the long-term sustainability of affordable housing developed through public-private partnerships | Housing | | | X | | | | | 4.2e Strengthen internal development and finance expertise to enhance underwriting capacity, financial modeling, and negotiation of public-private partnerships | Housing | | X | | | | | | 4.2f Continue to explore financing mechanisms to support production of housing affordable to households with incomes up to 60% AMI, with an emphasis on projects delivering deeper levels of affordability | Housing | X | | | X | | | | 4.3a Through an updated City-ARHA Memorandum of Understanding, support the development and implementation of a comprehensive repositioning strategy for ARHA's properties that preserves at least 1,150 publicly assisted units and creates additional deeply affordable units where feasible | Housing; City Council; ARHA | | X | | | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 4.3b Continue to consult with the City-ARHA Work Group to support the agency's long-term sustainability and mission to house Alexandria's most vulnerable | Housing; ARHA | X | | | | | | | 4.4a Coordinate and reserve funding for Coordinated Development District and/or Small Area Plan-proposed public-private partnership projects in the Capital Improvement Program budget | Housing; Finance/Budget | | X | X | X | | | | 4.4b Regularly evaluate City funding sources and investment priorities, and leverage opportunities to ensure resources are aligned with affordable housing goals and targets | Housing | X | | | X | | | | 5.1a Offer first-time homebuyer training and financial education through established partners to prepare purchasers for homeownership | Housing | X | | | | | | | 5.1b Offer post-purchase counseling services through established partners to help purchasers sustain homeownership and build wealth | Housing | X | | | | | | | 5.1c Provide homeowners in crisis referrals to default and delinquency counseling and foreclosure prevention services | Housing | X | | | | | | | 5.1d Monitor and evaluate the City's shared equity model to ensure it is meeting the goals of long-term affordability and wealth building | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 5.1e Work collaboratively with ARHA to explore opportunities to expand attainability of homeownership for voucher holders | Housing; ARHA | | X | X | | | | | 5.2a Continue to offer down payment and closing-cost assistance towards the purchase of affordable homeownership set-aside units and other resale-restricted units to eligible homebuyers | Housing | X | | | X | | | | 5.2b Expand attainability of homeownership through the state, federal, and other non-City resources | Housing | | X | X | X | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 5.3a Establish a process to evaluate and modify, if needed, the structure and impact of financial incentives for homeownership | Housing | X | X | | | | | | 5.3b Explore opportunities to partner with City-affiliated agencies to administer financial incentives they fund for their employees | Housing; City-affiliated agencies | | | X | | | | | 5.4a Support the use of existing and the development of new regulatory tools to incentivize the production of affordable homeownership set-aside units | Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | | | | | 5.5a Evaluate and prioritize opportunities to use City remnant parcels for affordable homeownership development projects | Housing; General Services | | X | X | | | | | 5.5b Explore alternative homeownership models and partnerships | Housing | | | X | | | | | 5.5c Evaluate feasibility of rent-to-own housing models | Housing | | | X | | | | | 5.6a Evaluate awareness of downpayment and closing cost assistance and training and counseling resources | Housing | | X | | | | | | 6.1a Continue the City's Common Interest Communities Education Series | Housing | X | | | | | | | 6.1b Create educational materials for boards, owners, and community managers | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 6.1c Explore opportunities to offer incentives for communities whose boards undergo certified training and continuing education classes | Housing | | X | X | X | | | | 6.1d Enhance outreach to owners about available weatherization, energy efficiency, and repair programs | Housing; Office of Climate Action | | X | X | | | | | 6.2a Advocate for state legislation requiring as-built plans/ maintenance manuals, mandating structural inspections, and requiring comprehensive reserve studies | City Council | | X | X | | X | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 6.3a Partner with State agencies to explore ways to financially support communities undertaking capital repairs | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 6.3b Discuss outreach opportunities to promote the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations' mediation program | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 7.1a Coordinate public education programs with the provisions of services and activities to maximize awareness of available resources | DCHS; community partners; Housing | | X | X | | | | | 7.1b Expand outreach and coordinate services through established partnerships to naturally occurring retirement communities | DCHS; community partners; Housing | | | X | | | | | 7.1c Continue to provide education on Community Service Board services, waiver eligibility criteria and available assistance options for persons with developmental disabilities | Community Services Board; DCHS | X | | | | | | | 7.1d Strengthen tracking of market-rate and committed affordable accessible units | Housing | | X | | | | | | 7.1e (1) Enhance targeted marketing of market-rate and committed affordable accessible units | Housing | | X | | | | | | 7.1e (2) Develop accessible marketing and outreach communication tools to connect residents to housing options available for persons with disabilities | Housing | | X | | | | | | 7.1e (3) Include clear descriptions in marketing materials about where and how to apply for accessible units, requirements, and timelines | Housing | | X | | | | | | 7.1f Explore State and other alternative funding resources for lower-income households to enhance programs providing assistance with activities of daily living | DCHS | | X | X | | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 7.1g Evaluate the need for increased funding to reduce rent burden for participants enrolled in the Rent Relief Program for Older and Disabled Adults and its successor programs | DCHS | | | X | X | | | | 7.1h Continue to develop the City's state-funded Permanent Supportive Housing Program | Housing; Community Services Board | | X | X | | | | | 7.1i Explore opportunities to partner with community-based resources dedicated to supporting resident quality of life in mixed-ability communities | Housing; DCHS; community partners | | X | X | | | | | 7.2a Update and modernize Zoning Ordinance Section 7-700 to address emerging and evolving land use trends, including senior housing typologies, and to enable greater flexibility in implementation with respect to housing + care | Planning & Zoning; Housing | | X | | | | X | | 7.2b Conduct a study of senior housing + care models that serve a range of income levels and develop an implementation strategy | Housing; DCHS; community partners | | X | X | | | | | 7.2c Support the development of alternative housing typologies | Planning & Zoning; Housing | | | X | | | X | | 7.2d Research and promote best practices in sensory-sensitive and inclusive layout of units and common areas in affordable housing developments to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities | Housing | | | X | | | X | | 7.2e Continue to foster partnerships among Sheltered Homes of Alexandria and the Community Services Board with nonprofit development entities to ensure sustainability and create housing choices for persons with disabilities across the community as they age | Housing; CSB; SHA; affordable housing partners | X | | | | | | | 7.2f Explore opportunities to incorporate Universal Design and similar features into new multi-unit development | Planning & Zoning; Housing | | | X | | | X | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 7.3a Provide rehabilitation services prioritizing repairs critical to habitability, health and safety for income-eligible renters and owners | Housing | | X | X | X | | | | 7.3b Work with property managers of naturally occurring retirement communities to identify creative ways to reduce barriers to aging in place | DCHS; Housing | | | X | | | | | 7.3c Continue to provide education, training, and awareness of legal obligations and City resources to landlords and property managers to elevate understanding and responsiveness to the special needs of elderly renters and renters with disabilities | Housing | X | | | | | | | 8.1a Continue collaboration with the Health Department in implementing the Healthy Homes Action Plan | Housing; Health Department | X | | | | | | | 8.1b Continue proactive rental inspection programs | Code Administration; Housing; Health Department | X | | | | | | | 8.1c Establish a data-driven housing quality monitoring system | Housing; Code Administration; ITS Department | | X | X | | | | | 8.1d Explore opportunities to support landlords of small properties to improve housing conditions | Housing | | X | X | | | | | 8.1e Support legislation that ensures safe, decent, and well-maintained housing | City Council | | X | X | | X | | | 9.1a (1) Partner with property managers to increase access to existing resources and to solicit resident input on services that would help them pursue economic mobility | Housing; DCHS; affordable housing partners | | X | X | | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | 9.1a (2) Facilitate opportunities for affordable housing partners to showcase and share effective resident service models and best practices | Housing; DCHS; affordable housing partners | | X | X | | | | | 9.1b Pair workforce development with rent readiness training and services for those facing housing instability | Workforce Development Center; Housing | | | X | X | | | | 9.1c Continue to monitor transportation needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, and lower-income households and promote availability of transit mobility discounts and services | T&ES; DASH/ Transit; Housing | X | | | X | | | | 9.1d Explore new partnerships and funding sources to help advance economic mobility initiatives | DCHS; Housing; community partners | | X | X | | | | | 9.4a Promote opportunities for renters to participate in financial self-sufficiency counseling, financial and debt management education, and retirement planning and to access savings and investment platforms | DCHS; Housing; community partners; affordable housing partners | | | X | | | | | 9.4b Collaborate with committed affordable housing providers to offer rent reporting to credit agencies | Housing; affordable housing partners | | | X | | | | | 9.4c Help families with young children apply for and maximize participation in future federal youth bond/savings programs | DCHS; Housing; community partners | | X | X | | | | | 10.1a Use energy benchmarking to measure and track energy performance in existing multi-unit residential buildings | Office of Climate Action | | X | X | | | | | 10.1b Provide multi-unit residential property owners with technical assistance and financing resources and options to improve energy efficiency and indoor air quality | Office of Climate Action; Housing | | X | X | | | | | 10.1c Promote programs that help condominium and other common interest communities to reduce energy costs and meet City climate goals | Office of Climate Action; Housing | X | | | | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # Implementation Matrix | Strategy | Lead & Supporting Teams | Timeline* (Years) | | | Impacts | | | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Ongoing | 1-5 | 6+ | Funding / Fiscal | Legislative | Regulatory / Policy | | **10.1d** Provide support for the installation of solar and battery backup | Office of Climate Action | | X | | X | | | | **10.1e** Continue partnerships with organizations that complement City efforts and provide rehabilitation, weatherization, and environmental education services. | Housing; Office of Climate Action | X | | | | | | | **10.1f** Continue to promote and improve access to existing efficiency and weatherization resources for individual homeowners | Housing; Office of Climate Action | X | | | | | | | **10.2a** Support implementation and evolution of the Green Building Plan | Office of Climate Action; Planning & Zoning; Housing | X | | | | | | | **10.2b** Explore and promote innovative housing models, emerging materials, and new technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce resource use | Office of Climate Action; Planning & Zoning; Housing | | | X | | | | *Timelines are subject to change over the mid- to long-term in response to changes in the availability of resources, community priorities, and legislative authority, and other factors. # 06 # Appendix Reference Data Definitions # Reference Data Cost of Market-Rate Rental Housing, July 2025 | Unit Type | Median asking rent + utilities | Average asking rent + utilities | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Studio | $1,900 | $1,860 | | One Bedroom | $2,060 | $2,280 | | Two Bedroom | $2,680 | $2,900 | | Three Bedroom | $3,390 | $3,160 | *** Supportive Housing 175 permanent supportive and transitional housing beds operated by the Department of Community and Human Services with local partners 35 rental subsidies for individuals with serious mental illness at risk of homelessness Shelters 2 shelters (128 beds) 1 domestic violence shelter (20 beds) 1 day shelter 1 winter (hypothermia) shelter *** Unit Mix in Market-Rate Rental Housing, July 2025 <
> 2010–2025 Residential Assessment Trends <
> Sources: City of Alexandria, 2025; CoStar July 2025 # Definitions Some housing terminology is standardized in the housing industry while other terminology varies by jurisdiction. Terminology specific to Alexandria is distinguished with ALX. **Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU):** A dwelling unit that is subordinate to a principal residential use. An ADU can be internal or external to the principal use. > *Why they matter:* ADUs diversify housing choice. They expand housing options for caregivers supporting homeowners to age in place safely, as well as opportunities for elderly parents or adult children with disabilities to reside close to family while maintaining privacy and independence. In addition, by generating rental revenue for homeowners, ADUs can help offset the high cost of homeownership. **Affordable housing:** Rental or ownership housing that costs no more than 30% of a household's gross monthly income (total income before taxes). > *Why it matters:* Affordable housing helps Alexandria families, workers, and seniors meet their housing needs without sacrificing other priorities, such as food, healthcare, childcare, and education. Affordable housing is also important to the city's economic vitality and competitiveness; businesses look for a diverse and stable local workforce when deciding to locate, retain, and expand their operations in the city. **Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA):** State-chartered public housing authority established in 1939 to operate public housing, administer certain federal housing programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher and the Moderate Rehabilitation programs, and operate Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties in Alexandria. As of 2026, ARHA owns and operates 1,254 units across the city. In addition, ARHA serves as a conduit issuer of revenue bonds to help finance affordable housing development projects. While ARHA is not a formal entity of the City government, City Council appoints ARHA's nine-member Board of Commissioners and partners with ARHA in support of its efforts to maintain and modernize its housing stock. **As-built plan:** Detailed set of drawings submitted by a contractor upon project completion reflecting all changes made to the original design during construction. It shows exact, final locations for all building systems serving as an accurate record for future maintenance and renovations. # Area Median Income (AMI) Income levels that are calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for households of different sizes in a region, where half of the households in the region earn more and half earn less. AMI is commonly used in affordable housing to determine rent levels and eligibility for housing programs and services. The AMI (100% AMI) in 2025 and its associated percentages between 30% and 120% for the Washington, DC Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are shown in Table 1. This MSA includes the District of Columbia; Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Warren Counties, and Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Fredericksburg, Manassas, and Manassas Park Cities in Virginia; Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; and Jefferson County in West Virginia. Table 1: 2025 Area Median Income for the Washington, DC Metropolitan Statistical Area | % of AMI | 1 Person | 2 People | 3 People | 4 People | 5 People | 6 People | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 30% | $34,450 | $39,350 | $44,250 | $49,150 | $53,100 | $57,050 | | 40% | $45,920 | $52,480 | $59,040 | $65,560 | $70,840 | $76,080 | | 50% | $57,400 | $65,600 | $73,800 | $81,950 | $88,550 | $95,100 | | 60% | $68,880 | $78,720 | $88,560 | $98,340 | $106,260 | $114,120 | | HUD 80% | $74,800 | $85,450 | $96,150 | $106,800 | $115,350 | $123,900 | | 80% | $91,840 | $104,960 | $118,080 | $131,120 | $141,680 | $152,160 | | 100% | $114,800 | $131,200 | $147,600 | $163,900 | $177,100 | $190,200 | | 120% | $137,760 | $157,440 | $177,120 | $196,680 | $212,520 | $228,240 | # Definitions **Auxiliary Grants:** Financial assistance to help cover the cost of room, board, and care in a licensed assisted living facility, an approved adult foster care home, or a certified supportive housing setting for very low-income aged, blind, and/or disabled individuals. Auxiliary grants are jointly funded by the State (80%) and City (20%). *Why they matter:* Auxiliary grants are a rare source of subsidy for low-income individuals requiring assistance with activities of daily living (such as bathing, dressing, meal preparation, and medication administration). The acceptance of auxiliary grants by licensed facilities is however voluntary; due to the State-designated cap on the grant's reimbursement rate many facilities limit or do not accept auxiliary grants. **Committed Affordable Units (CAUs) ALX**: Housing units that are available to income-eligible households through rent and/or occupancy restrictions imposed as a condition of assistance under federal, state and/or local programs, or through set-aside units secured through the development process. Targeted income levels vary by program. In Alexandria, committed affordable rental units serve households with incomes up to 80% AMI. Rents, based on the number of bedrooms in the unit, are set to be affordable to households at certain AMI consistent with funding and/or programmatic requirements. In Alexandria, committed affordable homeownership units typically serve households with incomes between approximately 70% and 100% AMI (a limited number of legacy units serve households with incomes up to 120% AMI). Sale prices, based on the number of bedrooms in the unit, are set to be affordable to households in this income range. **Community Development Block Grant (CDBG):** Federal grant funding allocated annually by HUD based on an established formula, population size, and housing need. In Alexandria, CDBG funds are used to support attainable housing, maintain housing stability, and enhance community services. **Coordinated Development District (CDD) ALX**: A large and/or complex development area established to promote development consistent with the underlying small area plan. In cases in which there are multiple owners in the CDD, a CDD is intended to encourage land assemblage and/or cooperation and joint planning. It involves a separate review process that sets a framework for individual plan review. **Deeply affordable housing ALX**: Rental housing affordable to households with incomes up to 40% AMI. # Definitions **Eviction:** Legal process by which a landlord removes a tenant from a rental property. In Virginia, a landlord cannot remove a tenant without first filing a lawsuit and obtaining a court order. The eviction process typically begins when a landlord serves a written notice to the tenant, and if the issue is not resolved, the landlord may file an Unlawful Detainer in General District Court. **Fee simple:** A type of ownership of land and any buildings on it. With fee simple ownership, an owner can use, sell, or pass on the land and buildings. Fee simple units comprise single-family detached and some, but not all attached units (some townhomes can be structured as condominiums and are not fee simple). **Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME):** Federal grant funding allocated annually by HUD based on an established formula. HOME funds require a 25% match from the receiving jurisdiction. In Alexandria, HOME funds are used to support downpayment and closing cost assistance for income-qualified, first-time homebuyers and to finance new affordable rental housing. **Housing Choice Voucher (HCV):** Federal housing assistance program (formerly called “Section 8”) that assists very low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities to afford housing in the private market across Alexandria. HCVs provide tenant-based rental assistance where the voucher holders pay 30% of their income toward the rent, and the HCV pays the difference to the landlord up to an established fair market rent, including utility costs. In Alexandria, HCVs are administered by ARHA. ARHA is allocated a set number and annual budget to fund HCVs; due to the high cost of housing in Alexandria, ARHA is not able to fund all allocated vouchers. **Housing Trust Fund (HTF) ALX:** A fund composed of developer contributions and multifamily loan repayments that is used to support affordable housing construction and preservation projects, downpayment assistance, and certain housing programs. Developer contributions are made through the development process consistent with published Affordable Housing Contribution Procedures. Multifamily loan repayments are repayments of gap financing provided by the City to affordable housing partners for the purposes of affordable housing construction and preservation. **Inclusionary zoning (IZ):** Land-use policy requiring or encouraging developers to set aside a percentage of new, market-rate residential development as affordable housing for income-eligible households. The purpose of IZ is to increase affordable housing supply and create mixed-income communities through the private market and without the use of public resources. The specifics of IZ policies vary widely among jurisdictions: they can target different income levels; # Definitions can be voluntary or mandatory; can apply to rental housing, owner-occupied housing, or both; can have different terms of affordability; and can apply to all developments in a jurisdictions or be limited to developments of a certain size or in certain areas or zones. **Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC):** Primary source of equity funding for the preservation and creation of committed affordable rental housing in the country. Created through the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the program is sponsored by the Internal Revenue Service. The LIHTC program induces private investment in affordable housing in exchange for an offset of tax liability. The tax credit allocation process in Virginia is administered by Virginia Housing. Rental units funded through LIHTC primarily serve households with incomes up to 60% AMI. However, changes to the program have enabled affordable housing developers to provide some units at deeper levels of affordability (as low as 40% AMI) through a process referred to as income averaging; income averaging allows developers to provide units up to 80% AMI to offset the costs associated with providing units at deeper levels of affordability. **Market Affordable Housing ALX:** Non-subsidized rental units affordable to households earning up to and including 60% AMI. Rents at these units are not restricted and may cease to be affordable at any time. The affordability of these properties is typically attributed to their age, amenities, or other conditions that make them less competitive in the rental housing market. > *Why it matters:* Also referred to as naturally occurring affordable housing, market-affordable housing preserves diversity and provides housing opportunities for younger families, new residents, and recent graduates, as well as to long-time Alexandrians on restricted incomes. It also helps enable workers important to our economy across a range of sectors (such as education, public health and safety, construction, custodial services, and restaurant and retail) to live more affordably in the city. **Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH):** Form of affordable housing that combines housing with supportive services. Clients pay up to 30% of their income towards rent and are offered case management services to provide a holistic approach to care. > *Why it matters:* PSH typically serves residents with low or otherwise fixed incomes, such as Social Security Disability Insurance. Many PSH residents face challenges such as substance use disorders, serious mental illness, or other chronic health conditions, including developmental disabilities, and may experience homelessness or be at heightened risk of homelessness. PSH integrates housing with targeted services to help maintain housing stability while supporting individual wellbeing. # Definitions **Project Based Voucher (PBV):** Federal housing assistance program that provides deeply affordable housing in Alexandria. PBVs operate similarly to HCVs, but are tied to a specific property rather than a household. Residents pay 30% of their income toward the rent, and the PBV pays the difference up to an established fair market rent, and potentially, some utility costs. While households with incomes up to HUD 80% qualify for PBVs, this voucher type traditionally serves lower-income households. In Alexandria, some PBVs are administered by ARHA while others are administered through Housing Assistance Program (HAP) contracts managed directly by HUD or other funding agencies. PBV contracts typically have a 20-year term of affordability with varying options to renew or extend on a one, five, or more year basis. **Public Housing:** Form of committed affordable housing that is owned and operated by the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA) to serve Alexandria’s lowest-income residents, including seniors and persons with disabilities. Public housing residents pay no more than $50 or 30% of their adjusted gross income (whichever is higher) in rent. HUD provides subsidies to help operate and maintain public housing communities. In Alexandria, ARHA maintains waitlists for public housing. Waitlists are typically closed due to the magnitude of eligible applicants. **Resolution 2876 ALX:** Resolution that reflects the continued joint commitment of the City and ARHA to maintain 1,150 units of public and publicly-assisted housing and provide protections to any tenants displaced during future redevelopment activities. In addition to reaffirming the partners’ joint commitments, Resolution 2876 establishes the blueprint for both parties to work together to provide affordable housing resources to the city’s most vulnerable residents. Resolution 2876 superseded Resolution 830 in 2019. **Set-aside Units ALX:** Type of committed affordable rental or for-sale units provided within market-rate projects through the development process. Set-asides units are produced as a result of bonus density and/or height, rezonings that involve density above what was envisioned by the underlying small area plan, or a conversion of monetary contributions for affordable housing into affordable units. **Universal Design:** Design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. Common universal design features in housing that enable residents and visitors of different abilities and in different lifestages to enjoy and freely use a home include no-step entries, one-story living, wider doorways and hallways, lever door handles, rocker light switches, and floors and bathtubs with non-slip surfaces. # OFFICE OF # HOUSING alexandriava.gov/housing <
> --- ## Open Space — Open Space Plan (2002), citywide chapter of the Master Plan - Source: https://media.alexandriava.gov/content/planning/CitywideChapters/OpenSpaceMasterPlanCurrent.pdf - Pages: 139 - Covers: open_space - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN <
> Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated Economics Research Associates # ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN Prepared by: Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated Economic Research Associates, Inc. Under Contract To: City of Alexandria, Virginia 2002 ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN # ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Successful long-range plans are usually created as the result of a comprehensive, collaborative effort reflecting a wide range of views. The Open Space Plan for the City of Alexandria, Virginia is no exception. As described in detail in this report, the plan had the benefit of input from the community at large, from many of its relevant organizations, and from appropriate City agencies and commissions. However, the Open Space Steering Committee, appointed to guide the development of the plan, was involved most intensively in this effort. This group included: * Judy Noritake and Bruce Dwyer: Alexandria Park and Recreation Commission * Eric Wagner, Larry Robinson, and Rick Leibach: Alexandria Planning Commission * Tom Tyler and Cindy DeGrood, Alexandria Environmental Policy Commission * Mark Fields: Alexandria Archeology Commission * Nancy Hicks: Alexandria Chamber of Commerce * Jay Johnson: Alexandria Public Schools * Staff from the Departments of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities; Planning and Zoning; Transportation and Environmental Services; Office of Historic Alexandria; and the Office of the City Manager This stalwart group met early in the morning, on a monthly basis, for over a year to help define the City’s open space needs and guide the development of the plan. They deserve much thanks and credit for an outstanding effort. They have helped define Alexandria’s open space legacy for many years to come. # TABLE OF CONTENTS **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** | **4** | :--- | :--- | **CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION** | **8** A. The Planning Process | 9 **CHAPTER 2: CURRENT FRAMEWORK** | **11** A. History of Open Space in Alexandria | 11 B. Administration of Alexandria’s Public Open Space | 12 C. Earlier Park and Open Space Planning Efforts | 14 D. Defining and Classifying Open Space | 14 E. Open Space Inventory | 18 F. Park System Inventory | 25 **CHAPTER 3: OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES** | **29** A. Demographic Context | 29 B. Open Space Issues | 33 C. Open Space Need | 39 **CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS** | **40** A. A Strategy for Community Involvement | 40 B. The Preliminary Vision | 41 C. Citywide Open Space Summit | 43 **CHAPTER 5: THE PLAN** | **46** A. Open Space Opportunities | 46 B. Conceptual Framework | 47 C. Goals, Recommendations and Implementation | 50 **CHAPTER 6: PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES** | **81** A. Priority Actions | 81 B. Funding Sources and Strategies | 83 C. Conclusions | 97 **REFERENCES** | **99** **APPENDICES** | Open Space Classification Overview | Summary of Planning District Meetings | Summary of Open Space Summit Comments | ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN # EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <
> Market Square facing Alexandria’s City Hall As one of the most densely populated cities in the nation, Alexandria faces a continuous struggle to provide enough open space for all its residents. With a growing and increasingly diverse population clamoring for open space options in the context of a dwindling supply of potential open spaces areas, the city must develop a strategy to respond to these conflicting pressures. The Open Space Plan presented in this document establishes a framework for addressing Alexandria’s short and longer term open space needs. It defines an approach that maximizes the City’s limited open space opportunities by creating a system that builds upon the City’s dense, urban condition. It begins by acknowledging and protecting the City’s existing open spaces, and goes on to identify additional open space opportunities for the future. <
> Existing park at the Potomac River waterfront There is a clear desire for additional open space for both active and passive purposes. Yet, enormous efforts will be required simply to maintain the existing ratio of open space per capita as Alexandria’s population continues to grow. Between 1990 and 2000, the ratio of open space compared to population stayed constant because the City added 125 acres of open space. Population projections for the year 2012 require that the City add another 100 acres of open space to maintain that ratio. And that number assumes that existing public open space will not be diminished. <
> Four Mile Run Against this backdrop, the City’s need for an Open Space Plan becomes critical. The plan was developed through a collaborative community process that included monthly meetings with an Open Space Steering Committee, three Planning District meetings, and a citywide Open Space Summit. As the result of this process, a series of 15 open space goals were identified. These form the overall framework for the Open Space Plan: **Goal 1. Protect and enrich existing parks** **Goal 2. Develop innovative opportunities for creating additional open space** **Goal 3. Review and complete implementation of the Potomac River Waterfront Plan and include additional parkland where appropriate** **Goal 4. Protect, expand, and connect stream valleys and other environmentally sensitive areas** **Goal 5. Create an open space network in new development areas** <
> Streetscape at King Street **Goal 6. Protect and preserve institutional open space** EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <
> King Street metro and surrounding urban fabric <
> Potomac River waterfront <
> Holmes Run Stream Valley <
> Existing trails <
> Potomac River waterfront Goal 7. Maximize use of public school open space areas Goal 8. Preserve and protect cemeteries Goal 9. Create public open space from vacant land Goal 10. Link and expand pedestrian, bicycle and trail system Goal 11. Enhance streetscapes and gateways Goal 12. Expand citywide street tree program and protect existing trees and woodland areas Goal 13. Encourage the creation of Civic Parks at and adjacent to Metro stations Goal 14. Beautify interchanges and highway corridors Goal 15. Protect privately owned open space The plan presents recommended actions and implementation strategies for each defined goal. It also defines those actions that the City needs to make its first priority in implementing the Open Space Plan. These priority actions include: * Creating an Alexandria Open Space Conservancy * Hiring a full-time, professional grants writer to pursue public and private sector funding. * Beginning completion of the Alexandria Waterfront Plan. * Preparing a Greenway Management Plan for Holmes Run Stream Valley. * Focusing on the protection and enhancement of the City’s Resource Protection Areas. * Beginning to preserve specific properties as open space areas (as defined in the Plan) through easements, acquisition, and other means of protection. * Revising zoning requirements to achieve better open space in new developments. * Considering the creation of additional active recreation opportunities on open spaces located east of Simpson Field. * Developing a workable open space conservation strategy for the City’s major institutional lands. * Rehabilitating Commonwealth Avenue as a significant parkway. * Implementing a system of new path/trail linkages at Holmes Run, at the eastern end of Eisenhower Valley, and from Booth Park to Fairfax County along Backlick Run. * Establishing a streetscape and gateway enhancement program for Route 1. ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <
> Potomac River shoreline <
> Mount Vernon recreational center <
> Historical Old Town, Alexandria * Implementing a CITYgreen analysis to assess the status of tree cover in the City. Because all of the above priorities cannot be tackled simultaneously, it is suggested that the City consider the following timeframe sequence as a guideline for implementing the above actions: **Year 1:** * Create the Alexandria Open Space Conservancy. * Hire the grants writer. * Begin to define a strategy that will allow the City to respond quickly to preserve “at risk” sites as open space as these become available. * Revise zoning requirements for new developments. **Years 2-3:** * Work to achieve settlement on 1 and 2 King Street, and 0 Prince Street in order to begin completion of the Alexandria Waterfront Plan, including additional parkland where appropriate. * Begin preparation of a greenway management plan for Holmes Run. * Initiate a system of monitoring the City’s progress on its protection and enhancement of RPA’s. * Begin a dialogue between the Open Space Conservancy and the City’s major institutional landholders to develop a strategy for conserving such land. **Years 3-5:** * Establish new trail crossing of Holmes Run at Chambliss Street. * Connect the off-street Eisenhower Valley path to Old Town at Payne Street. * Develop a strategy for creating additional active open space near Simpson Field. **Years 5-7:** * Rehabilitate Commonwealth Avenue. * Create a trail along Backlick Run, from Booth Park the Fairfax County line. * Begin a CITYgreen analysis of Alexandria tree cover. * Establish a streetscape and gateway enhancement plan for Route 1 (to be implemented in years 7-10). Finally, the Open Space Plan identifies and describes potential funding sources and strategies. Operational funding strategies, as well as sources of public and institutional grants, are discussed. Funding/strategies include: * Dedicated trusts (including land trusts and conservation/preservation funds, open space funds, and local service districts) ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN 6 # EXECUTIVE SUMMARY * Bonds (e.g., general obligation bonds, revenue bonds) * Taxes and general fund money * Easements * Public and institutional grants * Operational support mechanisms (e.g., corporate support, volunteer programs) # CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION <
> Plan of Alexandria shows original street grid pattern (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections) Since surveyors first laid it out in 1749, Alexandria has been a city that has struggled to provide enough open space for its residents. Because Alexandria originated as a mercantile center, where goods brought in by ship and wagon were bought and sold, it was a place that revolved around commerce. The streets of "Old Town" were laid out in a grid pattern, with every inch of land planned in a manner that would maximize economic interests, with lots intended for residences, stores, warehouses, and taverns. Because open spaces did not contribute to the burgeoning economy of the town, no parks were planned. Indeed, there was only one public place laid out in the entire community – Market Square, then facing Cameron Street – and that was for the conduct of business (Seale, 2000). <
> Goods were brought to Alexandria by ships and wagons (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the William Francis Smith Collection). In the 253 years since its founding, Alexandria has expanded into a city that covers almost 16 square miles, and has grown to a population of more than 128,000 people. The city has one of the densest concentrations of population in the United States, with a mix of residential and commercial uses in both urban and suburban neighborhoods. While Alexandria is now an integral part of the regional economy of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area, the City has maintained its own distinctive heritage. Fortunately, as Alexandria has grown, so have its open spaces. The Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities now owns and maintains 127 parks, ranging in size from large citywide parks such as Fort Ward Park in western Alexandria (41 acres) to small neighborhood parks like Monticello Park in the central part of the City (4.7 acres). Several of these parks, such as Founders’ Park in Old Town, provide the public with access to one of Alexandria’s greatest natural resources: the Potomac River. Others allow residents access to the City’s sensitive stream corridors that run throughout. Still others provide opportunities for both active and passive recreational pursuits in settings that range from completely urban to more suburban neighborhood in context. <
> Market square, 1880 (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from Harper's New Monthly Magazine) The growth of the City’s open space areas, however, has not been enough to overcome the bounds of history. Because Alexandria existed and continued to expand for over 200 years before the establishment of a park system, the City has always, in essence, been playing catch up. Added to that are the pressures of a present day population that has become more diverse and has increased by over 15% between 1990 and 2000, in a city with finite boundaries and an ever-dwindling supply of potential open space areas. Moreover, Alexandrians value open space and use it both heavily and extensively. This has placed enormous pressure on the City’s existing open space areas, and underlines the need both to protect the open spaces that exist as well as to create additional open space opportunities that are equitably distributed throughout Alexandria to serve all of the City’s population. The Plan presented in this report establishes a framework for addressing Alexandria’s short and longer term open space needs. It looks at ways to maximize the City’s limited open space opportunities by creating an open space system that builds upon and responds to the City’s dense, urban context. It is clear that Alexandria has entered the new millennium facing one of # CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION its greatest challenges, that of providing open spaces, recreation areas, and a quality way of life for a citizenry that proudly reflects the diversity of the nation itself. This Open Space Plan offers a blueprint for accomplishing that task. ## THE PLANNING PROCESS The process that was established for developing the Open Space Plan combined the reality of assessing current conditions with the dreams and visions of what could be, and the definition of practical steps for getting there. The process began with the establishment of an Open Space Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from those City commissions and departments with interests in open space issues, including the Parks and Recreation Commission; the Environmental Policy Commission; the Planning Commission; Office of Historic Alexandria; the Department of Recreation, Park and Cultural Activities; the Department of Planning and Zoning; the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services; the Alexandria Schools; and the Office of the City Manager. This group worked closely with the consultant team throughout the process to establish a comprehensive definition of open space, review the existing conditions inventory, help plan community outreach activities, establish the open space framework and plan, and review implementation strategies. The assessment of existing open space areas, as well as the definition of potential open space opportunities, were carried out in several ways. The process began with the analysis of the City's existing open space data regarding parks, other open space areas, environmentally sensitive areas, streets and roads, and public and private vacant land parcels. This data was obtained through aerial photos, the City's GIS mapping system and real estate data, and additional documentation from earlier studies and discussions. In addition, the consultant team carried out a systematic inventory of all of Alexandria's existing open space areas. All of this baseline data was further enriched through a series of outreach efforts that included: interviews with various organizations and individuals with interest in open space issues in Alexandria; three Open Space Planning District meetings, and a citywide Open Space Summit. All of these outreach efforts are described in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this report. This multilevel process of community input provided both the vision and direction for the Open Space Plan. The Open Space Plan report is organized as follows: * It provides an overall picture of the current open space framework, including the history of open space in Alexandria, a definition of open space, and an analysis of current open space conditions. # CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION * It defines Alexandria’s current open space needs and issues. * It describes the results of the community outreach process. * It presents the Open Space Plan in terms of opportunities, overall framework, goals and recommendations. * And, finally, it addresses a strategy for plan implementation. # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK ## A. HISTORY OF OPEN SPACE IN ALEXANDRIA <
> Market Square (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections) <
> Aerial view of old town Alexandria looking up King Street c. 1920 (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections) <
> Plan of Alexandria (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Library of Congress) The only open space originally planned for community use in Alexandria was Market Square. However, a number of informal open spaces were in existence throughout Alexandria in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of these “commons” were used for grazing cows, horses, and other livestock. Other open spaces were strictly for human use, and were known as “pleasure gardens.” The most famous of these was Spring Garden, located on the northwest corner of Wilkes and Payne Streets. Alexandrians gathered here for entertainment and summer theater; George Washington himself attended a reception at Spring Garden in 1799 commemorating the 23rd anniversary of American independence. Much of the open space in the original grid plan for Alexandria was intended for private use. With many of the houses and other structures sited directly on the street, without any setback, open space “dependencies” were located at the rear of these properties. This pattern of development has established the character of Old Town through the present day. Other popular open spaces and pleasure gardens in the early days of Alexandria included Yeates’ Garden (on Franklin between Royal and Pitt Streets), Broomilaw Point (on South Washington Street near the present-day Hunting Towers Apartments), Old Ice House Hill (on the east side of the 700 block of Lee Street), and Battery Rodgers (located on Lee Street between Jefferson and Green Streets). Battery Rodgers was, in fact, a Civil War fort that overlooked the Potomac River. It was used as a gathering place for citizens to watch parades of Union soldiers that occupied Alexandria during the war. One of the most picturesque, and well-known, open spaces in the city was Windmill Hill, which [like the present-day park of the same name] overlooked the Potomac River between Gibbon and Wilkes Streets. Windmill Hill became the scene of many political debates and rallies after the war. In the later days of the 19th century, it became a fashionable place for Alexandrians to promenade during the warm summer months (*Alexandria Gazette*, 7/21/1890). It remained a popular place for festivities into the 20th century. After Charles Lindbergh flew his famous solo flight to Paris in 1927, he returned to the U.S. and made an excursion to Washington aboard the U.S.S. Memphis. On Saturday, June 11th, when the Memphis passed by Alexandria, a presidential 21-gun salute boomed out from Windmill Hill to welcome the American hero. (*Alexandria Gazette*, 6/11/1927). (Windmill Hill was eventually deeded to the city as a park). An effort was also made to establish a city-owned park at Shuter’s Hill in honor of George Washington. This site, at the western end of King Street overlooking Old Town (at the site of the present-day George Washington Masonic Memorial), was used often by the people of Alexandria as a gathering spot and vantagepoint. However, efforts to establish Alexandria’s first public park were unsuccessful, and the site was eventually purchased in 1921 # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK <
> Alexandria, Virginia, 1853 (from "A Guide to Historic Alexandria" by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections) <
> Occupying Yankees outside the Athenaeum (from "A Guide to Historic Alexandria" by William Seale, originally from the Library of Congress) <
> Daily life c. 1890 (from "A Guide to Historic Alexandria" by William Seale, originally from William Francis Smith Collection) by the George Washington Masonic Memorial Committee. The structure itself was completed in 1932. While there were a number of open spaces available to the people of the city, many of these were located outside the immediate boundaries of Alexandria and, therefore, did not provide relief in the daily lives of the city's citizens. In an 1851 editorial that appeared in the *Alexandria Gazette*, a citizen wrote, "... We hope in the improvements that we trust are to take place in town the project of securing some square, as a park or promenade ground for the public, will not be overlooked. Our gardens and river banks are delightful, but they are not enough." (*Alexandria Gazette*, 6/14/1851). A similar sentiment was expressed in an 1882 *Alexandria Gazette* article that had originally appeared in the pages of the *Washington Star*: "... it is on days that draw the whole population out to enjoy the fresh air that the want of open squares, parks, or anything of that kind is felt. The trees and herbage then draw hundreds to the graveyard, not to be buried, but to enjoy the open air and the green grass, and catch a glimpse of the shining creek that flows by. There are no breathing places for children in the town. Fortunately now the edges are easily reached but if the town should grow much this deficiency would become unbearable. Even the court house lot planted with trees would be better than nothing..." (*Alexandria Gazette*, 11/18/1882) It was not until 1948, almost 200 years after the founding of Alexandria that the city recreation department planned to build its first official park. Although by this time there were 15 operating playgrounds in the city, there still were no parks. This new park, which was planned for seven acres running from St. Asaph Street to Fairfax Street and bounded by Montgomery and First Streets, was never constructed, the reasons for which remain elusive. It was, therefore, not until the later half of the 20th century that Alexandria began to establish its system of public parks. While the city now boasts an impressive collection of 127 parks ranging in size from several acres to almost fifty acres, it is still, in many ways, struggling against the history of a city where land was too valuable a commodity to be used as open space. While the City has come a long way in creating a livable, green community for its residents, it must still buck the trends of history to provide enough open space for future generations of Alexandrians. ### B. ADMINISTRATION OF ALEXANDRIA'S PUBLIC OPEN SPACE The vast majority of publicly owned open spaces and parks in the City of Alexandria are planned, maintained, and operated by the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities. The department is responsible for providing these facilities, along with programmed activities, for a broad range of city residents from infants to senior citizens, including those with special needs. The full range of departmental duties includes: maintenance of all # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK parks, ballfields, and publicly-owned flower beds in the City; tree care on public land; right-of-way maintenance; park planning and design; and the provision of organized activities such as games, sports, arts, crafts, hobbies, music, drama, and dancing. The Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities currently maintains 127 parks totaling approximately 840 acres, with a staff of approximately 500 full-time, part-time, and seasonal employees. The department itself is broken down into three functional groups that represent its major program areas: 1) Administration; 2) Program Operations; and 3) Parks, Natural Resources, and Capital Projects. Activities of the Administration division include strategic planning; development and execution of the department’s budget; financial management of the department’s revenue; general contract oversight and cooperation with outside contractors; coordination of personnel actions including hiring, recruitment, and payroll processing; and information technology planning and system maintenance. The Program Operations division is responsible for the operation of all recreation centers, including Chinquapin Park Recreation Center and Dr. Oswald Durant Memorial Center, playgrounds, camps, athletic programs, therapeutic recreation programs, senior programs, special events, park rentals, cultural arts programs, and the Alexandria Commission for the Arts. The Parks, Natural Resources, and Capital Projects division is in charge of many departmental functions. Perhaps the most visible of these functions are the repair and maintenance of all City parks, equipment, and facilities. The division is also responsible for designing park improvements; coordinating playground renovations; implementing the Bike Trails Master Plan (with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services); and designing, planting, and maintaining horticultural sites in street medians and public areas. There is also an arborist staff that oversees the planting and care of street trees. Lastly, a Capital Projects staff plans and coordinates the Department’s capital improvements and oversees the City’s marina. All of the work that is done by the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Affairs is overseen by an eleven-member Alexandria Park and Recreation Commission. The Commission is an advisory committee that was created by the Alexandria City Council in March 1970 to study issues relating to park, recreation, and open space needs. Nine citizens are appointed to the Commission by City Council; they represent the three planning districts in the City. Two members are of high school age and are appointed to the Commission to represent the youth of Alexandria. The Commission provides policy advice to City Council and offers City of Alexandria residents an opportunity to participate in planning activities. In addition to monitoring and making recommendations to improve the function # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK and diversity of existing and future recreation and park programs, the Commission works on issues pertaining to open space and advises City Council on all of these issues. ## C. EARLIER PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING EFFORTS The first parks and recreation master plan for Alexandria was adopted in 1978 as one element of the City's master plan. The master plan was updated in 1992, and contained broad goals and objectives for parks and open space; it did not, however, address a specific open space plan. Thus, the current effort represents the City's first opportunity in 24 years to adopt a comprehensive park and open space plan. The park and open space goals adopted in the 1992 master plan included: * Providing a park and recreation system to serve all population sectors. * Preserving and enhancing the natural and "developed amenities" of existing public open spaces, and adding "publicly accessible open space by creative and innovative ways." * Integrating open space into the fabric of the City. * Protecting remaining City open space and increasing the ratio of open space per capita. * Encouraging the provision in new developments of both active and passive open space and recreational facilities. In addition, the 1992 master plan called for the development of a "park system plan" that would define the types of open spaces to be provided throughout Alexandria, including "a park stream valley system to provide continuous linkage and access to recreational facilities." The current plan acknowledges the framework established by these earlier efforts while, at the same time, recognizing the changing context resulting from the past decade. The overall goal, however, remains the same: to provide Alexandrians with exceptional open spaces and recreation opportunities, while protecting and restoring the natural environment, historic fabric, and sense of community that make Alexandria a special place to live, work and visit. ## D. DEFINING AND CLASSIFYING OPEN SPACE Citizens and policy makers mistakenly assume that the term "open space" clearly communicates an image that is shared by everyone. However, this is likely not the case. Many people, and many jurisdictions, impart a wide range of meanings to this phrase. For some, the term implies any area that does not contain a building or other structure; for others it means a "park" and nothing else; and so on. At the outset of the process of developing an open space plan for the City of Alexandria, the first task was to establish a working definition of "open space" that could help establish a direction for plan development. # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK In the process of defining those “open spaces,” to be included in the plan, the Steering Committee and consultant team concluded that the City has a complex system of significant “open space” areas that include parks, plazas, stream valleys, trails, easements, riverfront areas, streetscapes and so on. The group further decided that all of these areas made significant contributions to the overall character and livability of the City, and that a logical categorization of open spaces would be helpful in developing a plan. The resulting Open Space Classification System is based on factors of purpose or use, overall characteristics, area served, ownership status, and maintenance responsibility. The subcategories that help to differentiate the variety of open spaces in the City are as follows: ### 1. Primary Use * **Active:** Typically encompasses more heavily programmed and organized activities, such as athletic activities, dog parks and other intensive programs. * **Passive:** Primarily consists of less structured and less formal activities. Examples include: tot lots, picnic areas, historic/cultural sites, amphitheaters and natural resource areas. * **Trails:** Open space corridors for conservation, recreation and alternative transportation; linear systems that may occur by streams and rivers, storm water corridors, utility corridors, abandoned rail lines, sidewalks and street medians. Trails are used for hiking, biking, walking, running, transportation, recreation, wildlife corridors, and heritage resource connections. * **Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways:** Can include boulevards, medians, plazas, sidewalks, interchanges, street trees and plantings that contribute significantly to the City of Alexandria’s green space. <
> Trails at Oronoco Bay Park ### 2. Secondary Characteristics * **Cultural / Historical:** Sites of historic, archaeological and/or cultural interest. * **Dog Exercise Area & Dog Park:** Spaces that are primarily dedicated to dog related activities. These include: * ‘Dog Exercise Areas’: Areas of open space set aside for the specific use of dog owners/handlers to allow dogs to be off-lead. The city may provide posted rules, defined boundaries, covered trash receptacles/pick up bags, and shade where possible. * ‘Fenced Dog Parks’: Fenced areas set-aside for dog owners/handlers to allow their dogs to be off-lead. The city may provide covered trash receptacles/pick up bags, posted rules, fencing and gates, water if feasible, and shade where possible. * **Educational:** School sites, other educational facilities, and/or <
> Streetscape on King Street and Saint Asaph # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK interpretive areas. * **Environmentally Sensitive:** Areas with natural resource value that are protected by regulation. Examples include: wetlands, riparian areas, streams, rivers and riverbeds, 100-year floodplains, Resource Protection Areas (RPA’s), slopes of greater than twenty-five percent, critical habitat and areas of endangered species. * **Natural Resource Areas:** Including woodlands, habitat areas, streams, rivers, riparian areas, wetlands, RPA’s and greenways. Activities may encompass passive recreational pursuits such as picnicking, fishing, boating and trail related activities. * **Recreational:** Comprises areas with playing fields, courts, playgrounds, water sports or other active recreational activities. * **Rivers and Streams:** Includes the Potomac River and its shoreline, major streams and streambanks, RPA’s, and floodplains. * **Urban Plaza /Streetscape:** Typically hardscaped/paved spaces that contribute to the open space character in the City. They typically provide for public access, circulation and gathering activities. <
> Potomac river shoreline **3. Service Area** * **Regional:** Natural, cultural or recreational attractions that draw users from beyond the City. Typically these areas are part of a larger open space network which goes beyond the City boundaries. Examples of programs may include athletic fields and courts, natural areas, swimming pools, fishing access, walking and biking trails. Parks included in this category generally have self-contained parking. * **Citywide:** Contain programs that appeal to local interests and draw people from the City as a whole. Uses may include athletic fields, athletic courts, natural areas, pools, recreation centers, walking and biking trails. Recreational facilities included in this category typically have on- and off-site parking. * **Neighborhood:** Multi-use facilities oriented to the surrounding neighborhood. These parks are most likely to include: garden plots, multi-purpose fields, picnic grounds and shelters, playgrounds, dog areas, small natural areas, and school fields and paths which reinforce the connections between the schools and the neighborhoods. These areas typically include a limited amount of on-site parking. * **Block:** Intended to meet the needs of residents within a one or two block area. May include seating areas, landscaping and small-scale play equipment. Typically, these areas do not have on-site parking. **4. Ownership:** * **Public:** Owned by a governmental entity such as the City of Alexandria, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, the Commonwealth <
> Mount Vernon Recreation Center # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK of Virginia or the Federal Government (e.g., National Park Service). Public use and access are assured through public ownership. * **Private with Public Access:** Private ownership with limited or unlimited public access. * **Private with no Public Access:** Significant open spaces, the primary public value of which is to contribute to the visual benefit of the City; with no public access. * **Private with Traditional Public Access:** Including areas of common usage and/or access, though with no guarantee of such. **5. Maintenance:** Includes the entity or individual with the primary responsibility for the upkeep, maintenance and protection of open space areas: * **City of Alexandria:** Maintained by the City. * **NVRPA:** Owned and/or maintained by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. * **Commonwealth of Virginia:** Highway and interchange properties that are maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation. * **Federal Government:** Owned and/or maintained by a Federal Government entity, such as the National Park Service. * **Private:** Owned, operated and maintained privately. Open spaces in the City can be classified according to the above categories. For example, Cameron Run Regional Park would be classified in the following way: primarily active, recreational in character, serving a regional area, publicly owned, and maintained by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. On the other hand, Angel Park, located between Janney's Lane and Duke Street, adjacent to Taylor Run, would be classified as primarily passive, possessing both recreational and natural resource area characteristics, serving a neighborhood area, publicly owned and maintained by the City of Alexandria. By using this classification system to categorize the open space areas in the City, one can begin to comprehend the extent of those that are used for active versus passive use, the acreage that is used for primarily recreational purposes, the extent and location of the City's environmentally sensitive areas, and so on. This type of classification system provides the City with a useful analytical tool for understanding and working with existing open space areas, and defining the kinds of new open space areas that may need to be added to its inventory. It also provides a "snapshot" of the open space areas that may be at risk for future development. A matrix, listing the most significant open space areas in the City of Alexandria, classified according to this system, is provided in the Appendix. A summary table of open space areas, broken down by the "active" and "passive" use classification categories, is included below for each of the City's three Park Planning Districts (see Figure 2 for Park Planning District boundaries). A discussion of the issues related to distribution of open space throughout Alexandria can be found in Chapter 3 *Open Space Needs and Issues*. # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK **Figure 1. Summary Table of Alexandria's Open Spaces by Active and Passive Use Classification Categories** | Category | District 1 | District 2 | District 3 | Citywide | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Primary Use** | **(acres)** | **(acres)** | **(acres)** | **(acres)** | | Active | 121 | 155 | 214 | 490 | | Passive | 183 * | 76 | 183 | 442 | | Totals | 304 | 231 | 397 | 932** | *Includes 107 acres for primarily passive use at Daingerfield Island Park (National Park Service) **Note: This total acreage differs from that calculated by the city in 1998 (964 acres) since the City's data included a private parcel in its calculations. The 932 acres also includes several smaller public open spaces not included in the 1998 list. ## E. OPEN SPACE INVENTORY All of Alexandria's existing open spaces were inventoried, based on the classification system described above. The results of this process are summarized in Figures 3 to 9, and are described briefly below. * **Primary Use Areas** It is evident from Figure 3. *Primary Uses*, that many of the city's open space <
> **Figure 2: Park Planning District boundaries** # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK areas are small. In fact, for public open spaces, the average size of active open space areas is less than seven acres with many sites less than one acre. Alexandria's largest active parks include Four Mile Run Park (55.9 acres, including all active fields, trails and natural resource areas), Ben Brenman Park (50.37 acres, including active facilities and natural resource areas, Jones Point Park (52.3 acres, including active fields, trails, and natural areas; leased from the National Park Service), and Chinqua-pin Park (23 acres of active fields and courts). The City's larger passive open spaces are, in general, environmentally sensitive sites, natural resource areas, or cultural/historic sites. These larger areas include: Daingerfield Island Park (107 acres; owned and maintained by the National Park Service), Holmes Run and Dora Kelly Nature Park (46 acres), and Fort Ward Park (41.4 acres). In addition, Figure 3 also illustrates that the pattern of open space in Alexandria is scattered throughout the City, with few linkages between open space areas. This disconnected quality of the open space in Alexandria, combined with the small overall size of many sites, provides an impression of a City that is not very "green," and does not have a significant amount of usable open space to offer its residents and visitors. While this is would be an incorrect conclusion, the City could do more to maximize the utility and appreciation of its open space areas. <
> **Figure 3: Primary Use** # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK * **Secondary Characteristics** The classification system lists eight possible secondary characteristics for Alexandria's open space areas: sites of cultural and/or historic interest, dog parks and exercise areas, sites that provide educational opportunities, environmentally sensitive areas, natural resource areas, sites dedicated primarily to recreational pursuits, sites along rivers and streams, and urban plazas and/or streetscapes. An open space may represent one or more of these characteristics; in fact, some spaces can be classified as having five or more. An example of this would be Windmill Hill Park, which can be considered cultural/historic, riverfront, urban plaza, environmentally sensitive, and recreational. <
> King Street historical streetscape in Old Town, Alexandria * *Cultural/Historic Sites:* It is not surprising in a City that prides itself on its cultural and historic heritage that Alexandria should contain many open space sites that reflect that legacy. Several of these sites are, in fact, among the City's largest open space areas: for example, Fort Ward Park, Chinquapin Park, Daingerfield Island Park, Jones Point Park, and Dora Kelly Park. For each of these cultural and historic sites, it is important for the City to provide interpretive opportunities so that residents can understand, value, and protect these areas. * *Dog Exercise Areas and Dog Parks:* Alexandria provides two types of <
> Note: Cemeteries are shown of Figure 24. ### Figure 4: Cultural/ Historic Sites # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK <
> Fort Ward amphitheater <
> Fenced dog park dog-related open space areas – dog exercise areas and fenced dog parks. While these are scattered throughout the City, the eastern half of Alexandria contains the greatest number of such facilities – particularly in Old Town. * **Educational Sites:** This category includes school sites – reflecting on the importance of open space in the learning process – and open spaces with interpretive opportunities. The City’s largest open space areas connected to schools include: T.C. Williams High School (16 acres), Polk School (12 acres with its adjacent park), and Ramsey School and Recreation Center (18 acres). However, the average school open space is 4.5 acres; if you eliminate T.C. Williams High School from the calculation, the average school open space is only 3.7 acres. Most of the non-school related open space sites that currently provide some level of interpretation/education are those within either historic or environmental contexts. Many of the City’s open space areas within these categories, however, do not currently offer interpretive/learning opportunities. * **Environmentally Sensitive Sites:** These are areas that are protected through environmental regulations and include wetlands, riparian areas, streams, rivers, 100-year floodplains, RPA’s, significant vegetation, slopes greater than 25 percent, critical habitat and areas of <
> **Figure 5: Dog Exercise Areas and Dog Parks** # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK <
> Holmes Run <
> Cameron Run endangered species. Some of the larger sites included under this category include the Potomac River shoreline, Four Mile Run, Holmes Run, Cameron Run, and the Dora Kelly/Ramsey School sites. There are excellent interpretive opportunities at these sites to make people aware of their sensitive status and possible actions for continued stewardship. * **Natural Resource Areas:** These include areas that, while not under regulatory controls, are still important environmental resources for the City. They include woodlands, streams, wetlands, and greenways. The City contains many important natural resource areas, with some of the largest including Chinquapin Park, Fort Ward Park, Daingerfield Island Park and Jones Point Park. It is a goal of this Plan to encourage the City to strive to continue adding sites to its natural resource areas inventory as they are identified. * **Recreational Sites:** Recreational open space is often thought of simply as athletic fields; however, it includes a much broader range of opportunities. In addition to fields, recreational open space includes: courts, playgrounds, facilities for water sports, and so on. Figure 9 illustrates the wealth of recreational space contained in the City. However, it also indicates that many of these sites are small, and that some areas of Alexandria (e.g., the far west end and the northeastern sector) do not <
> **Figure 6: Educational Sites** # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK <
> Playground <
> Potomac River waterfront contain as many recreational spaces as other parts of the City. * **Rivers and Streams:** Areas included in this category comprise some of the City’s most significant open spaces. One of Alexandria’s major attractions, both for residents and visitors, is its beautiful Potomac River waterfront. Bounding this shoreline, both to the north and south, are several other significant waterbodies – Four Mile Run, Cameron Run and Holmes Run. Other stream valleys include: Taylor Run, Timber Branch, Backlick Run, Strawberry Run, Hooffs Run, Lucky Run, Great Hunting Creek, and Old Cameron Run. * **Urban Plazas and Streetscapes:** In Alexandria, the eleventh densest city in the nation, urban plazas and park- like streets and boulevards represent important open space opportunities. These elements provide excellent venues for community activity, offer a sense of open space relief, provide attractive spaces and corridors, and encourage pedestrian use. Alexandria has not yet maximized its open space opportunities in this category (see Figure 11). The City contains only a few significant urban plazas, such as Market Square and King Street Station. In addition, it has a limited number of streets that could be described as “park-like boulevards.” Examples of the best of these include Commonwealth Avenue, Fort Williams Parkway, Seminary Road, Beauregard Street, Quaker Lane, and Jordan Street. <
> **Figure 7: Environmentally Sensitive Sites** # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK <
> Market Square <
> Streetscape in King Street * Service Areas The service area category describes the general range of users for each open space area. Some open spaces attract users from throughout the region (and often beyond), some primarily attract users from the City as a whole, and some attract mostly neighborhood or smaller block area users. Based on the open space inventory, it is interesting to note that each planning district has its own character with regard to the populations served by its open space areas. For example, Planning District 1 contains perhaps the greatest number of regionally- served open spaces (63 percent of all of the open space in this district); for Planning Districts 2 and 3, only 24 percent and 19 percent of their open space areas respectively are considered regional in scope. For those open spaces serving a citywide population, almost one third of the areas in District 1 fall into this category, as well as 32 percent in Districts 2, and 34 percent in District 3. On the other hand, almost half of the open spaces in Districts 2 and 3 (44 percent and 47 percent respectively) can be categorized as serving primarily neighborhood or block service areas, while only 5 percent of the open spaces in District 1 can be described in this way. On a citywide basis, it appears that Alexandria offers a good mix of different types of open spaces areas intended to serve a variety of populations and purposes, although the focus of who is served varies significantly between areas. <
> ### Figure 8: Natural Resource Areas # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK * **Ownership and Maintenance** Most of the open space areas included for consideration in this planning study are publicly owned and maintained. Of the 22 significant privately-owned open spaces identified, only eight have been classified as "private with no public access." The remaining 222 acres, although privately owned, are typically made accessible to the general public, if even for limited use. There is no guarantee in place, however, for this practice to continue. Of the approximately 932 acres of public open space in Alexandria, more than three quarters of that land is owned and maintained by the City. The remaining quarter comprises land owned and/or maintained by the National Park Service, the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. ## F. PARK SYSTEM INVENTORY The 116 public open space areas included in the Open Space Classification matrix were inventoried as part of the planning process. The inventory provided a more in-depth "picture" of the status and characteristics of each open space area. The inventory included the following specific elements: * **Site Overview:** a general description of the area including its location, <
> **Figure 9: Recreational Sites** # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK site characteristics, and uses * **Cultural and Viewshed Features:** a description of views both into and from the area, view-related issues, cultural elements both within and visible from the area, and social/cultural functions of the site for its community * **Areas of Concern:** observations related to issues such as accessibility, parking availability, the need for fencing/buffering, site conditions, and so on. * **Additional Comments and Observations:** comments vary from the notation of positive features of the site, to suggestions regarding improvements that might strengthen the use, appearance, and connection of the site to its surrounding area. An inventory form was completed for each site, as well as a locational map and site photographs. The completed inventory is contained in a separate volume, *City of Alexandria Open Space Inventory, 2001*, available through the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities. Among other factors, the inventory assessed current site conditions and suitability of the site to meet its programmatic intent. Nearly three quarters of the sites inventoried were evaluated as either "excellent" or "good" at meeting their intended programmed uses. The remaining quarter were assessed either as demonstrating a mismatch between site program and surrounding context <
> **Figure 10: Rivers and Streams** # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK (e.g., a play area for children that requires access from a heavily trafficked street, with no adequate crosswalk to the facility), or a disconnect between existing facilities and intended programmed uses (e.g., a passive park that provided a setting in which to sit and linger but did not provide an adequate number of benches). In terms of overall condition, four general issues emerged as important to consider in improving the status of existing open space – particularly public parks – in the City. These include: 1. **Locational Issues:** many of Alexandria's smaller parks, particularly those in the City's more dense areas, are located close to busy streets. This presents both noise and potential safety issues. New parks, where possible, should be set back or buffered from busy streets. The challenge for existing parks is to buffer them from these adjacent streets while still allowing for visibility into the sites for security. In addition, locations adjacent to busy streets, without adequate crosswalks near the park, often present access problems, particularly for children. Broader locational issues related to the distribution of parks throughout the City are discussed in Chapter 3. Open Space Needs and Issues. 2. **Design Issues:** a number of the City's older parks present problems related to their current designs. For example, one of the traditional <
> Figure 11: Urban Plazas and Streetscapes # CHAPTER 2 CURRENT FRAMEWORK concerns about urban parks is the degree of visibility they afford from surrounding areas in order to minimize crime, vandalism, and the occurrence of illegal activities. In a number of the parks inventoried, visibility problems were noted, related to several factors: location (e.g., in interior areas that do not permit adequate views into the park), elevation level (e.g., parks that are sunken or elevated), areas that are surrounded by dense vegetation without compensating security measures (such as increased lighting), and inadequate lighting in general. The inventory also identified instances where additional amenities would strengthen a park's program, such as improved seating (particularly in shaded locations), fencing, interpretive signage, and facilities that allow for greater accessibility by handicapped persons. Site design issues that were also apparent included: maximizing linkage opportunities for connecting parks to nearby trails and to other community open space areas; clearly defining park entrance locations; and configuring the site so that its programmatic uses are apparent to all and so one use area does not conflict with another. 3. **Environmental Issues:** Several environmental issues were noted during the public open space inventory, including erosion problems along stream banks and on steep slopes, as well as potential water quality and drainage issues. In addition, many of the City's public open spaces contain wonderful natural resources. The general public should be made more aware of these elements through interpretive/educational and preservation programs. 4. **Maintenance Issues:** While many of the City's parks are in outstanding condition, maintenance issues were noted in a number of instances. These included: old and worn play equipment, overused turf areas (particularly on athletic fields), overgrown trails and streambanks, cracked pavement areas and, in more natural areas, the need to remove invasive plants. Overall, the City's parks are in good condition, but an open space plan must begin by maximizing existing resources. Hence, the inventory of public open spaces provides Alexandria with input regarding those aspects of its current open space that could be improved. # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES ## A. DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT ### Population Profile In October of 1998 in a presentation to Agenda Alexandria, Ken Billingsley, Director of Information and Development at the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, traced the fascinating demographic profile of the City. In his remarks, he stated that: *Like the Potomac River at Great Falls, outwardly calm on the surface, there are powerful undercurrents flowing which are about to turn this city inside/out.* Those "currents" included many factors that impact both the need for open space, and types of open space needed, in Alexandria. Mr. Billingsley predicted that the upcoming 2000 census would indicate the following: * A large infusion of jobs, as well as retail and office development * A significant shift in the age composition of the City * A redistribution of the City's population * A recomposition of population along ethnic lines * The replacement of family households by non-family units <
> Major retail and office development along King and Washington Streets attract diverse population groups Ken Billingsley also predicted that the population in the nation's 11th densest city would have grown by approximately 1,000 people per year between 1990 and 2000. In reality, Alexandria's population in the year 2000 far exceeded Mr. Billingsley's prediction, with the census showing a total population of 128,283, a growth of 17,000 persons in ten years. Mr. Billingsley's other predictions have, in large measure, proven to be right on target. While the City's population under the age of 18 years old grew by almost 26 percent, it represents approximately 17 percent of the City's total population. One third of the population, however, is between the ages of 20 and 34, while another third is between 35 and 54 years old. The latter group represents a 27 percent increase in the last decade. The median age in the City of Alexandria was 33.5 in 1990; in the year 2000, it is 34.4. Household composition has also changed significantly. Non-family households comprise 55 percent of all households in the City (a 17 percent growth over 1990). Moreover, there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of householders living alone, so that this population now represents over 43 percent of all households in Alexandria. The City, in fact ranks third in the nation for number of single-person households. Finally, while family households comprise nearly 45 percent of the City's household population (a 15 percent growth rate), the percent of families with children under the age of 18 remained constant at 18.6 percent. Overall, however, households with children under the age of 18 increased # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES by 25 percent in the ten year period. Average household size in Alexandria is 2.04 persons, and average family size is 2.87 persons. While the balance between owners and renters has remained about the same, with City residents renting (60 percent) more often than owning (40 percent), there has been growth in both sectors. Therefore, over the past decade, there has been a 17 percent increase in the number of residents renting their housing units, and a 14.7 percent increase in the number owning their units. The City has also continued to experience major changes in population composition with regard to racial and ethnic diversity. According to the 2000 Census: * The White population, currently comprising 59.9 percent of the City's population, has decreased. In 1990, this population made up 69% of the City's residents (a 0.1 population decrease) * The African American population grew by 18.8 percent, and currently comprises 22.5 percent of the City's total population * The Hispanic population grew by a remarkable 75.2 percent. While, in 1990, this population represented 9.7 percent of the total City population, in 2000 it represents 14.7 percent. * The Asian population, while still relatively small, grew in the decade from 1990 to 2000 by 60.8 percent. Asian residents currently comprise 5.7 percent of the City's population. Many of the City's new residents, reflected in the statistics described above, are part of an influx of newly arrived immigrants who are making Alexandria their American home. This influx has, in fact, resulted in Alexandria being one of the most racially and ethnically diverse locality in Northern Virginia. The area of the City that has experienced the greatest growth as a result of both the population influx and new development has been the west side, generally included within the City's Planning Area 3. Other areas that have undergone significant population growth in the last decade include the area north of Glebe Road comprising Census Tract 12.3 and within Planning Area 2, and the Eisenhower Valley area spanning Planning Areas 2 and 3. Finally, the City overall has one of the highest per capita income rates in the region. With Alexandria's per capita income at $46,290 as of the 2000 Census, the only jurisdiction with a higher per capita rate is Arlington County ($46,677). For the City, this represents a 46 percent growth in the decade since 1990. In addition, Alexandria ranks among the top cities in the nation with regard to the percent of population with college degrees and advanced degrees. # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES What does all of this mean with regard to open space? The changing demographic profile of the City reflects changing expectations and demands for various types of open space opportunities. If one considers, for example, that Alexandria is largely a fairly young "adult city" – that is, a city in which two thirds of the population is between the ages of 20 and 54 – with a large proportion of single residents, it is likely that there will be significant demand for open spaces that can accommodate a full range of adult activities. These will range from active sports, including team sports as well as biking and jogging, to more passive endeavors such as hiking and strolling, picnicking, and sunning. At the same time, the City’s growing population of children under the age of 18 will demand a significant amount of active open space. This is compounded by the fact that many of the rental options in Alexandria, as elsewhere, do not contain usable open space areas. Hence, those families with children living in rental units must rely completely on the City for their open space opportunities. Similarly, the City’s increasing population over the age of 55 will also be seeking a broad range of open space opportunities, both passive and active in nature. Alexandria’s ethnic diversity will also reflect a diversity in expectations and demands regarding the kinds of open spaces needed. This might range from a greater emphasis on specific types of active recreational pursuits – such as soccer – and an increasing need for fields that can accommodate these activities, to open spaces as settings for strolling and gathering, as is more common in some cultures than it may be in the United States. Finally, as assessment of the distribution of open space in the City is critical in order to determine the extent to which this matches and responds to the needs of the current and projected population. The Needs Assessment Study that is currently underway will provide the City with information that will allow for a more precise response regarding the distribution and types of recreational facilities – including open space facilities – required. The current Open Space Plan looks at more general open space needs and opportunities, providing the framework for both active and passive uses. <
> View of King Street metro station and surrounding urban fabric * **Density** In 1990, Alexandria was ranked as the 11th densest city in the United States. Over the last decade, our density has increased from 11.0 persons per acre in 1990 to 12.7 persons per acre in 2000, a 15 percent increase. For comparative purposes, based on 1990 Census figures, Alexandria’s per acre density ranked with other major U.S. cities as follows: * New York: 37.3¹ * Boston: 18.0 * Philadelphia: 17.1 [^p32-1]: # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES * Baltimore: 13.1 * Detroit: 11.3 * Alexandria: 11.0 * Minneapolis: 10.2 * Cleveland: 10.1 * Seattle: 9.8 * Pittsburgh: 9.8 * St. Louis: 8.9 On a regional level, the City of Alexandria at 8,145 persons per square mile is more dense than either of its immediate neighbors: with Arlington County at 7,315 persons per square mile and Fairfax County at a mere 2,385 persons.[^p33-2] It is not surprising, given this density, that open space is a valuable and limited asset in the City of Alexandria. Viewed in another way, the City offers 7.3 acres[^p33-3] of active and passive public open space for every 1,000 persons living within its boundaries. This is the same as in 1990. Yet, how does this compare with other cities? In his book, *Inside City Parks*, Peter Harnik provides a comparison between open space provisions in select high and medium density American cities. (Note that this comparison is based on 1990 Census figures and has not yet been updated ). Some of these comparisons are noted below: ### Figure 12. Open Space Comparison between Select American Cities[^p33-4] | | Persons per Acre | Parks & Open Space per 1,000 Residents | Park Acreage as Percent of City Acreage | Total Population | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Alexandria** | 11.0 | 7.3 | 10.7% | 111,183 | | *High Density Cities:* | | | | | | Baltimore | 13.1 | 7.5 | 9.8 | 675,000 | | Boston | 18.0 | 8.7 | 15.7 | 558,000 | | Chicago | 18.7 | 4.3 | 8.0 | 2,722,000 | | Los Angeles | 11.8 | 8.5 | 10.0 | 3,554,000 | | Miami | 16.0 | 3.6 | 5.8 | 365,000 | | New York | 37.3. | 7.2 | 26.8 | 7,381,000 | | Philadelphia | 17.1 | 7.2 | 12.4 | 1,478,000 | | San Francisco | 24.6 | 10.3 | 25.4 | 735,000 | | **Average, High** | | 7.2 | 14.2 | | | *Medium:* | | | | | | Cincinnati | 7.0 | 21.4 | 15.0 | 346,000 | | Cleveland | 10.1 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 498,000 | | Detroit | 11.3 | 5.9 | 6.6 | 1,000,000 | | Minneapolis | 10.2 | 16.0 | 16.2 | 359,000 | | Pittsburgh | 9.8 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 350,000 | | Portland, OR. | 6.0 | 26.2 | 15.8 | 481,000 | | Seattle | 9.8 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 525,000 | | St. Louis | 8.9 | 9.6 | 8.5 | 352,000 | | **Average, Medium** | | 13.0 | 10.9 | | [^p33-2]: [^p33-3]: [^p33-4]: # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES Once again, Alexandria is " betwixt and between" other American cities — in terms of total population, it is considerably smaller than any of the cities listed while, on the other hand, it is comparable in density to cities such as Los Angeles, Detroit, Minneapolis and Cleveland. In terms of the provision of open space per 1,000 residents, however, Alexandria is generally on par with the "high density cities," while being significantly below the average open space per 1,000 residents provided for "medium density cities." In terms of quality of life indicators, the cities that are generally lauded as "livable" and providing a high quality of life often include: San Francisco, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Portland (OR), and Seattle. All of these cities provide substantially more open space per resident than does the City of Alexandria, and all have a significantly greater percent of overall city acreage devoted to parks than does Alexandria. ## B. OPEN SPACE ISSUES In order for Alexandria to address its future open space needs, it must first assess and confront current issues regarding the City’s existing open space resources. As discussed below, these include: * The lack of open space continuity and connection * The diminishing availability of open space * The uneven distribution of open space * The need for open space stewardship and protection, particularly with regard to natural areas * **Open Space Continuity and Connection** Over the past decade, recreation specialists and urban policy decision-makers have begun to recognize the critical importance of providing connected open spaces within dense urban settings. Not only does the provision of continuous open space opportunities provide more usable and useful open space, but it also strengthens residents' perception of a "green city," a city that offers both a human scale and a desirable quality of life. The current pattern of open space areas within the City of Alexandria is scattered and disconnected (see Figure 3). While these open spaces provide residents with a variety of recreational and visual opportunities, the current dispersed pattern does not maximize the use of these spaces; nor does it enhance the image of Alexandria as a "green city." Given the high density of the City, it is particularly important that existing open space opportunities be maximized to the greatest extent possible by means of a connected, continuous open space system. Many communities across the country have been enhancing their open spaces through the creation of greenways, connected green linkages that wind through a city, tie it together, and allow residents access to, and # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES movement between, a variety of open space experiences. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), in its publication *Conserving Virginia’s Natural and Recreation Resources*, recognizes that each city’s greenway will be unique. In general, however, DCR defines "greenways" as:. ...open space corridors that [typically]... connect recreational, natural, cultural, and/or historic areas. Some of the benefits to be accrued from the creation of greenways, as documented by DCR, include: * Connecting people and communities * Providing important open space resources * Enhancing public awareness of existing parks, as well as natural, cultural and historic resources * Providing attractive alternative transportation routes for bikers and pedestrians * Softening urban landscapes * Enhancing economic development and tourism * Increasing real property values * Improving water quality in adjacent rivers and streams, and providing natural wildlife corridors * Providing close-to-home access to a greater proportion of the population than can be accomplished through traditional, scattered parks * Improving the overall quality of life in the community All of these benefits would likely apply to the development of a strong, clearly defined and linked open space network within the City of Alexandria. The physical connections created as a result of this system would bring together people and open space areas throughout the City. The development of this open space system become, therefore, one of the more critically important strategies in the City's Open Space Plan. * **Open Space Availability** There is an apparent inverse relationship between development and open space since an increase in one results in a decrease in the other. For most urban areas within Northern Virginia, rapid development has dramatically decreased the availability of open space for recreational and other purposes. The paradox is that, as more people move into an area and demand high quality open space amenities, the greater the constraints are to find adequate space to accommodate their needs. This is certainly true in the City of Alexandria where an already dense municipality has accommodated a 15.4 percent increase in population over the decade between 1990 and 2000; and where approximately 4,176 new housing units and approximately 50 to 60 development plans were approved in the two year period from FY ‘98 to FY ‘00. # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES Moreover, the pressure for identifying new sites for public use is divided between those who are seeking opportunities for additional open space and those who must address the need for new and expanded school sites and other public facilities, as well as affordable housing opportunities. At present, these groups often compete with one another to identify and claim right to each new land parcel as it becomes available. These trends indicate the need for several actions with regard to open space in Alexandria: * Making optimal use of all currently existing open space opportunities through the development of the connected open space system, described above, as well as through the careful stewardship and, where needed, renovation and re-design of existing open space areas. * Identifying prime candidate sites as additions to the City's open space system. These might include vacant land parcels, underutilized land, open spaces as part of new residential and commercial developments, and private parcels that become available over time. (The criteria for identifying critical parcels, and the tools that can be used to add these to the City's open space inventory are discussed in Section 6 of this report). * Establishing strategies that will allow for collaboration, rather than competition, between public agencies in their pursuit and development of available opportunity sites. In the on-going competition between development and open space, many jurisdictions have had to address the belief that the economic benefits to be accrued from development outweigh those attributable to open space. It is relatively easy to quickly dismiss open space as "nice to have" but not as important to a city's economic health as new development. Research and empirical evidence indicate, however, that this is not true. All things considered, development is not always the highest and best use for a piece of property. There are important qualitative, as well as documented quantitative, benefits that flow from a community's open space resources. These benefits include: * Retaining population in a city, and attracting new population and businesses to it, based on quality of life judgements, among which open space ranks significantly high. * Increased assessed and actual real estate values for properties located near or adjacent to open space areas. * A lower overall cost to local government for land that is developed as open space rather than for residential use. * Growing public support for open space funding through general obligation bonds and/or increased taxes. On the qualitative side, open space does provide important social and quality of life assets for communities. In studies conducted throughout the # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES United States, open space has been increasingly recognized as a critical element determining residents’ assessments about the quality of life in their communities. For example, in a 1995 poll conducted by the Regional Plan Association and the Quinnipac College Polling Institute, the two major factors named as most important for determining a satisfactory quality of life were low crime and access to open space. Such findings have been repeatedly confirmed in additional studies by other groups.[^p37-5] Moreover, open space resources are typically touted in the economic development, business recruitment, and tourism promotion efforts of many communities. The lack of such resources can place a community at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other communities, in this era of increasingly active population sectors and growing public support for open space preservation. In studies focused on determining the critical factors considered in business relocations, open space and recreational opportunities have been found to rank significantly in defining a “good quality of life” for a locality. For example, in a survey conducted in 1997 by *Fortune* magazine regarding the best cities for business, they asked participants, “If you had virtually identical career opportunities in multiple cities, what would be the most important quality of life factors that would determine your choices.” Education ranked first on the list, followed by recreation, culture, crime and safety. On the quantitative side, reasons to promote open space typically fall under two general categories. The first is the value impact on adjacent properties. The second is the relative “costs” of open space versus development options that might prove to be a fiscal drain on public coffers. Many studies have been undertaken to document the impact of open space on properties that are near, adjacent to, or fronting on such areas (i.e., “proximate properties”).[^p37-6] Based on a significant body of research, it has been found that open space areas tend to enhance the value of such proximate properties. The general rule of thumb is that attractive open space can enhance the value (and hence property tax yield) of adjacent or fronting properties by approximately 20 percent. As distance from the open space resource increases, the value premium declines, but the area of impact is thought to be possibly as great as 500 feet for a smaller park, and up to 2,000 feet from a community park. As with most rules of thumb, there are important limitations and conditions that should be noted: the open space resource must be well kept up and attractive; and, generally, larger open space areas and open spaces devoted to passive uses tend to carry greater value premiums. Proximity to active, rather than passive, recreation areas may actually have negative impact on values for properties that are immediately adjacent due to potential issues such as traffic, congestion, and noise. However, proximity to active open space and park resources can have a positive impact on [^p37-5]: [^p37-6]: # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES values of properties in close proximity to, but not immediately adjacent to, such resources. The second benefit of open space preservation is based on the premise that retention of a piece of property as open space can preempt development that could require the sometimes-costly provision of public services. This situation is particularly relevant when the alternative use is residential development that would require the full spectrum of public services including schools, public safety, etc. These services typically exceed the value of property tax receipts associated with such development. Combined with the value impact on proximate properties, the net fiscal impact can often enhance the overall positive impact of open space retention for a community. Thus, John Crompton, one of the individuals who has researched the economic impacts of open space versus residential development has concluded that: *The evidence clearly indicated that creating parks and preserving open space can be a less expensive alternative to development. A strategy of conserving parks and open space is not contrary to a community's economic health, but rather is an integral part of it (p.75).* Finally, the economic value of open space has recently been underscored through a series of public referenda supporting funding for parks and open space issues. In the year 2000, for example, the Trust for Public Land reported that 40 communities throughout the nation passed measures that generated $3.3 billion to protect parks and open spaces. Similarly, the Land Trust Alliance, also in 2000, stated that a total for 141 out of 165 referenda concerning open space and land conservation issues were passed, providing over $6.9 billion in new funds for these issues. As stated by Ernest Cook, director of the Public Finance Program for the Trust for Public Land: Voters across the country have demonstrated real commitment to preserving open space in their communities. We are seeing strong support for measures that provide financing for parks and open space even in places where tax measures for other purposes have failed.[^p38-7] * **Distribution and Access** Hand in hand with Alexandria's changing demographic picture is its shift in overall population distribution. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the population of Alexandria has been changing both in terms of overall characteristics and where people choose to live. If the City wishes to make its open space resources available to all residents on an equitable basis, it will be important to analyze the current population patterns with regard to existing open space availability. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, population growth has occurred in [^p38-7]: # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES all three of the City's planning districts. However, the growth has been greatest in District 3, the west side of the City (i.e., there was a 21 percent increase in population in District 3 between 1990 and 2000; over the same time period in Districts 1 and 2, growth was 17 percent and 4.6 percent respectively). Viewed in terms of open space acres per thousand residents, District 1 has approximately 12.24 acres per 1,000 persons; District 2 has approximately 6.7 acres; and District 3 offers approximately 6.9 acres. However, many of the open space acres, particularly in District 3, comprise environmentally sensitive sites (such as Holmes Run) that are not suited or intended for active recreational pursuits. In terms of open space available for active recreation, District 1 contains approximately 4.8 acres per 1,000 residents; District 2 comprises 4.5 acres; and District 3 offers 3.0 acres. Given the fact that the greatest growth in children aged 17 and under occurred in District 3 (44 percent, as compared to 14 percent in District 1 and 8 percent in District 2), it is not surprising that the need for additional recreational open space in District 3 has been identified by the City as an issue requiring attention. In response to this issue, the City has undertaken a Recreation Needs Assessment study that will analyze recreational needs in terms of population characteristics and distribution. * **Open Space Stewardship and Protection** As Alexandria continues to grow, and to attract new residents and businesses, the overall need to protect the City's few remaining open space areas becomes even more critical. One need only look at a map of existing vacant lands (see Figure 13) to underscore how little open land remains within Alexandria's boundaries. Therefore, building an open space system that will adequately provide for a growing population requires that we protect and enhance the open spaces we currently have, and maximize opportunities for creating new open spaces when these become available. Perhaps the largest potential for open space resources in Alexandria lies in its natural, environmentally sensitive, and cultural/historic areas. These include the City's riverfront, stream valleys, steep slopes, wooded sites, historic landscapes, and other natural resource areas. Care for, and protection of, such areas will be critical to any open space plan for the City since these areas comprise a major portion of Alexandria's green infrastructure. Moreover, they represent a key opportunity for making those open space connections that are essential to the establishment of a working open space network throughout the City. Those opportunities include: * Connecting Alexandria's residents to both the natural and historic landscapes in their City — areas easily overlooked since many are neither well known nor readily accessible. # CHAPTER 3 OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES * Helping to create a linked, usable open space network within the City that has, at its core, these natural and historic sites. * Educating the public to appreciate and value these sensitive resources through enhanced access and interpretation. ## C. OPEN SPACE NEED A separate *Recreation Needs Assessment Study* has recently been completed by the firm of Leon Younger and PROS. This study has analyzed the City’s current and projected recreational needs, in terms of programs as well as indoor and outdoor facilities, and has recommended specific improvements to the City’s recreational system. The reader is referred to this document for further details. However, in general, the population projections for the next 10 years require the addition of at least 100 acres of additional open space just to maintain the existing ratio of open space per capita. In 1990, Alexandria had 7.3 acres of active and passive open space for each 1,000 residents, based on a population of 111,000. Between 1990 and 2000, the City added 125 acres of open space and 17,000 residents. In 2000, Alexandria remained at 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents, despite adding the 125 acres. In 2012, the projected population of 142,000 will require the City to add 100 acres of open space to maintain 7.3 acres for each 1,000 residents.[^p40-8] [^p40-1]: Based on data from *Inside City Parks* by Peter Harnik. [^p40-2]: Based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census, includes both water and land area. [^p40-3]: Based on 932 acres of public open space, divided by 128,283 persons divided by 1,000. [^p40-4]: Also based on data from *Inside City Parks* by Peter Harnik, using 1990 Census figures. [^p40-5]: See, for example, *The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space* by Steve Lerner and William Poole, which discusses a series of studies related to open space and quality of life issues. [^p40-6]: See, for example, references by John L. Crompton, John Tibbetts, and Elizabeth Brabec. [^p40-7]: The Trust for Public Land: Newsroom: 82 Percent of Referenda Passed. [^p40-8]: The Strategic Plan's ratio of 7.5 acres per thousand people was based on 840 acres of public land that the City currently maintains. The above numbers go beyond City maintained acres and include other areas such as Daingerfield Island. # CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS Open space is a community amenity, and many residents of Alexandria feel passionate about the City's open space areas. They fight to protect the open spaces currently in place and are eager to point out opportunities for improving them. In addition, many residents are often the first to know about new open space opportunities, or potential opportunities that may become available in the future. Moreover, the open space planning process presented the City with an excellent occasion to bring residents together to have a role in planning those areas that contribute significantly to the quality of life in Alexandria. ## A. A STRATEGY FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT <
> Park Planning District 1 meeting The community involvement process was designed to accomplish three general goals: * To engage residents of Alexandria in defining an open space vision for the City * To encourage residents to think about, and express their views regarding, the appropriate role for, and adequate provision of, open space in the City * To educate the community with regard to defining open space, and to thinking about ways in which to maximize open space opportunities A multi-tiered involvement process was used to engage a broad range of key stakeholders, community groups, and residents in the planning process. This process included: * Interviews with key open space stakeholders to understand their views of current conditions and their ideas for the future. Those interviewed included representatives from: * Office of the City Manager * Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities * Department of Planning and Zoning * Transportation and Environmental Services Department * Alexandria School Board * Alexandria Beautification Commission * Alexandria Federation of Civic Associations * Environmental Policy Commission * Alexandria Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission * Historic Alexandria Restoration Commission * Alexandria Soccer Association * Parker Gray Community <
> Park Planning Distrct 1 meeting * Community sessions in each of the three Park Planning Districts to explain the open space planning process, review the existing conditions inventory, and develop preliminary plan goals and visions. These sessions were held in April and May 2001, and were all well attended. # CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS * **A citywide Open Space Summit,** a half-day session to refine the vision and develop a conceptual open space plan. Approximately 150 people participated in the Summit event, held in June 2001. This community involvement strategy allowed the planning team to reach a large and diverse number of residents, and enabled those who participated to have more than one opportunity to express their views on the issues discussed. The ideas to emerge from all of this input have served as the basis for the Open Space Plan. <
> Park Planning District 2 meeting ## B. THE PRELIMINARY VISION Each of the Planning District meetings began with a presentation of the open space categories defined as part of the planning process, and findings of the inventory of existing conditions for each category. The meeting was then turned over to the community participants present, in the form of small group discussions. The purpose of these discussions was to allow opportunities for residents to think about their open space needs, and to develop ideas that would contribute to an open space vision for their communities. While those attending each Planning District session focused specifically on the open space needs within their own district, many also addressed broader citywide needs. What was most remarkable about the input received from these meetings was the similarity of goals expressed by participants from all three districts. The major discussion points noted by participants, comprising the beginning of an open space vision for the City, indicated need for the following (not in any order of priority): * Achieving a continuous public open space along the Potomac River in Alexandria * Maximizing open space connections throughout the City through pedestrian-friendly streets, trails and enhanced streetscape corridors. Tied to this concept is the goal to establish Alexandria as a key link in a regional trail system. * Placing a high priority on protecting, enhancing, and connecting the City's stream valleys and other natural resource areas. This includes the creation of clean stream channels, "less engineered" stream banks ("re-green all streams"), and using parks as buffers along river and stream banks to the greatest extent possible. * Retaining as much usable open space as possible within the most rapidly developing areas of the city. Moreover, within these areas, ensure that established design guidelines and maintenance standards are rigorously enforced. * Maximizing the use and visual quality of all open space parcels — make the most of what we have. * Protecting our existing parkland. # CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS * Acting quickly to "capture" open space opportunities, as they become available; having the mechanisms in place to allow the City to act rapidly. * Securing open space easements on key, privately held and institutional open space areas as these represent some of the largest remaining open space parcels in the City. * Recognizing the value of streets in an urban open space system and enhancing existing streetscapes so they become a secondary park system for the City. * Maximizing vacant lands as open space opportunities, particularly where they provide changes to link to other open space areas. * Preserving areas of significant tree cover. * Seeking opportunities to create additional open space areas in sections of the City where this is most needed (e.g., the west end, and the northeast portion of Old Town) * Identifying and enforcing all existing public easements; these could provide some important trail linkages and, perhaps, small open space areas. * Developing easier and more attractive Metro access for pedestrians. * Minimizing surface parking lots; locating parking underground where possible and using the surface areas as open space opportunities. * Undergrounding utilities to the maximum extent possible. * Defining and developing attractive gateways to the City, along streets, <
> ### Figure 14: Open Space Vision # CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS highways, and trails. * Providing additional multipurpose fields. * Improving the appearance of highway corridors through Alexandria. * Making better use of open space areas around school properties for habitats, gardens, educational and community opportunities. * Creating a new zoning classification: a horticultural zone. * Encouraging scenic easements; identifying valuable properties not currently protected by easements and creating those easements before such sites become developed, or to prevent or limit further development. * In addition, there were numerous comments regarding the kinds of spaces in residential and commercial developments that should and should not be counted as open space (e.g., parking lots, balconies, roof tops). This issue is, however, being addressed by a separate study of zoning requirements for residential and commercial areas, being prepared under the auspices of the Department of Planning and Zoning. This issue is, therefore, not discussed in the Open Space Plan. Based on the input provided as a result of the three Planning District meetings, a conceptual Open Space Vision was compiled (see Figure 14). This vision served as the discussion starting point for the Open Space Summit. ## C. CITYWIDE OPEN SPACE SUMMIT Approximately 150 people gathered together on a Saturday in June 2001 to discuss the future of open space in the City of Alexandria. The agenda for this event is provided in the Appendix. In brief, after greetings from Mayor Donley, and remarks from the chairs of the Park and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Environmental Policy Commission that placed the open space planning effort in the context of other ongoing efforts in the City, the group listened to a presentation by Peter Harnik (author of *Inside City Parks*) regarding the importance of open space for dense urban cities, such as Alexandria. The consultant team presented the results of the planning process up to that point, and described the conceptual Open Space Vision that was developed following the Planning District meetings. Each of the 15 tables in the room was provided with a copy of the Open Space Vision diagram and participants were asked to in small group sessions, led by facilitators, to address the following questions: * The plan presents a wide variety of concepts regarding open space opportunities for Alexandria. Which are the concepts that you feel it will be important for the City to include in its open space plan? * Are there any concepts that you feel should not be included? * Can you think of any additional opportunities that we should consider including? * We have talked about a broad range of open space opportunities. If you were to advise the City on which three to implement first, which would you choose? You have each been given three dots. Please place # CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS <
> Group presentation at the Summit these on the plan on the three opportunities you believe the City should focus on first. All groups were given an hour to complete the questions. At the end of that time, a representative from each of the groups was asked to come forward and present its responses. In general, respondents resoundingly supported the overall concepts shown in the Open Space Vision diagram. They did, however, feel that the Open Space Plan should emphasize the following actions: * Stream valley protection, enhancement, and connection throughout the City, including the restoration of stream banks to their natural state and removal/control of invasive plants; continuous public access within stream valley greenways * Creation of a continuous open space along the Potomac River waterfront * The creation of significant public open space opportunities in the Eisenhower Avenue corridor and other development areas * Acquisition of private vacant land for open space use and as scenic easements * Creation of a linked system of pedestrian and bicycle trails throughout the City to connect parks and neighborhoods, and to link older neighborhoods to new development areas * Creation of significant, usable public open space areas in the Potomac Yards development area * Preservation of institutionally-owned open space areas, and improved public access to those areas where possible * Tree protection and maintenance; possible creation of tree cover protection zones * Creation of new open space opportunities in the west end and the northeast portion of Old Town * Enhancement of streetscapes to encourage a positive pedestrian experience ("think of sidewalks as the connecting fabric between open spaces"); conversion of the City’s major streets into "greenways;" enhancement of Commonwealth Avenue as a model for this * Improvements to the areas around the Metro stations, ideally into civic parks * Research into new major open space opportunities (e.g., the power plant) * Beautification of the highway interchanges through the City; consideration of highway areas for future decking over, to create new open space areas * Definition of the City’s entrances and beautification of these * Emphasis on vacant land around schools as potential open space opportunities; balancing the needs for both open space preservation and school growth <
> Group work was mediated by a landscape architect <
> Community participants at the Summit The groups designated three recommendations as the top priorities for immediate action: protection of the City’s stream valleys, creation of a continuous # CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS public open space corridor along the Potomac River waterfront, and the creation of connected public open space opportunities in the Eisenhower Corridor. The information gained from the Summit was used to develop the goals and strategies for the Open Space Plan. These are described in the next chapter of this report. # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN Unlike many important cities, in the late 19th and early 20th Century, Alexandria did not set aside large swaths of open space or adopt a comprehensive open space plan that would guide the creation of a park system with interconnected linear and stream valley parks, waterfront parks and other open spaces, large and small. Alexandria’s current park system includes a broad range of open space facilities, ranging from neighborhood parks and playgrounds to national parks. Some parks are linear in character, such as those that follow water courses. Others are located along the Potomac River and provide dramatic vistas up river to the U.S. Capitol and down river toward broad views of the Potomac River shoreline. This section of the report describes the current opportunities available to the City to conserve open space; a conceptual planning framework for the plan; and a description of 15 goals and associated plan recommendations. ## A. OPEN SPACE OPPORTUNITIES Numerous open spaces throughout the City have potential to remain as open space through various methods of protection. These open spaces are currently not designated as parks or public open spaces. Some are privately owned, but designated as open space open to the public; for example, the Winkler Botanical Garden in the West End. Others are open spaces on properties owned by institutions such as the Virginia Theological Seminary property at Seminary Road and Quaker Lane. <
> ### Figure 15: Open Space Opportunity Sites # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Alexandria National Cemetery <
> Fort Ward The open space opportunities have been organized into the following categories and are illustrated in the Open Space Opportunities Sites map. * Parks and Public Open Spaces—provide the framework of the existing park system and upon which future open spaces will be added. * School Sites—usually have important open space resources. Numerous school sites are adjacent to parks and public open spaces. * Cemeteries and Botanical Gardens—are valuable open space resources that are generally privately owned. * Institutional Properties—typically have valuable open space and natural resources on a portion of their land holdings. * Large Lot Residential Properties—a number of residential properties have extensive open space, that usually include valuable vegetation or other natural resources. * Undeveloped Areas with Natural Features—are typically located adjacent to stream valleys * Vacant Land Under Development—certain vacant sites are under consideration for open space or recreation uses. * Vacant Land, Public Ownership—these properties typically don't possess natural resources but can be developed into valuable open spaces. * Vacant Land, Private Ownership—these properties also typically don't possess natural resources but can be developed into valuable open spaces. * Open Space to Delineated in Future Development Areas—these areas are usually large and are currently being studied by the City's Department of Planning and Zoning for future development potential including open space uses. * Planned Open Space in Development Areas—these open spaces have either been built or are approved for construction. * Required Common Private Open Space—are sites that have been approved by the City for open space uses. * Streetscapes—these streets have potential to be further enhanced with streetscaping. * Planted Medians—are green islands in the middle of streetscapes. * Wooded Buffers—these areas provide attractive settings or buffers to roads or railroad rights of way. ## B. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Alexandria has numerous opportunities to create a significant network of interconnected and linked open spaces throughout the City in order to create a meaningful and workable green infrastructure. Since the City lacks large undeveloped tracts of vacant or underdeveloped land to target for open space protection or enhancement, this plan has identified a framework for making the most of the small amount of available land for open space use. This framework includes the following: # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> New development areas should support the open space linkages throughout the city 1. The overall objective of the Open Space Plan is that of **making connections**. Alexandria’s current pattern of open space areas primarily consists of isolated parks and open spaces in all sectors of the City. Linking open spaces to each other, expanding open spaces to provide better linkages and creating continuous parks along roadways and waterways will enable the City to finally have a park system built on Olmstedian principles of park planning. Basic to such principles is the concept of a linked system connecting a city’s major open spaces through parkways, greenways, trails, and smaller open areas. One famous example of this is Olmsted’s “Emerald Necklace” open space system in Boston. <
> The Green Crescent connects primary rivers and streams in Alexandria. 2. The creation of a **Green Crescent** of open spaces that follows the alignment of the City’s primary rivers and streams: Potomac River, Four Mile Run, Cameron Run and Holmes Run. The Green Crescent would be created by building upon the existing parks, natural areas and other open spaces, and by adding unprotected key sites to provide greenway and trail linkages and interconnected parkland. Utilizing Holmes Run as a model, the existing open spaces in the Green Crescent would, over time, require environmental remediation and ecological revitalization to restore, rehabilitate or create natural landscapes as well as recreation areas that are compatible with these natural areas. Hiker and biker trails and natural landscapes would be the predominate characteristics of the Green Crescent. <
> Large institutional properties become the Central Open Space Conservation Area 3. A **second segment of the Green Crescent** creates a linear park generally parallel to the existing railroad rights-of-way of WMATA and CSX and extends from Four Mile Run at Route 1 to Ben Brenman Park in the West End. This Crescent builds upon the existing open spaces of Simpson Field, George Washington Middle School, and others with new open spaces and linkages in areas that are currently vacant or underutilized. Dramatic vistas of the U.S. Capitol and the George Washington Masonic Temple will become orientation elements for this Crescent. 4. A **Central Open Space Conservation Area** is established in the heart of the City through the preservation of land owned by Episcopal High School, the Episcopal Theological Seminary and the Second Presbyterian Church. These institutions have protected their woodlands, specimen trees, streams and rolling open fields over many decades. Through a variety of protection mechanisms, these open spaces can be protected in perpetuity and, possibly, certain areas made accessible to the general public for many years to come. <
> Linear parks are a part of the Open Space Corridors 5. **Open Space Corridors** can be created in various neighborhoods of the City. The Open Space Corridors build upon existing stream valley corridors – Hooffs Run, Taylor Run, Timber Branch, etc. – streets and existing parkland (public- and privately – owned) to create linear # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN greenways that link to the Green Crescent and the Central Open Space Conservation Area. These corridors are aligned along the following streets or stream valleys: * Van Dorn Street * Jordan Street * Howard Street * Fort Williams Parkway * Quaker Lane * Taylor Run * King Street * Timber Branch * Hooffs Run * Braddock Road 6. **Major Thoroughfares** in the City can be upgraded to become more pedestrian-friendly and attractive urban open spaces. Many of Alexandria’s streets can become the backbone for improved streetscapes, bikeways and greenways, and can stimulate urban revitalization of adjacent communities and businesses. These thoroughfares include: * East and West Glebe Roads <
> **Figure 16: Open Space Concept Plan** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Beauregard Street * Braddock Road * King Street * Duke Street * Eisenhower Avenue * Beauregard Street * Van Dorn Street * Commonwealth Avenue * Russell Road * U.S. Route 1 * Washington Street ## C. GOALS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION During the planning process for the preparation of this Open Space Plan, 15 goals were formulated. Through discussions at the three Planning District meetings, the Citywide Open Space Summit and Steering Committee meetings, the 15 goals and associated plan recommendations were defined, analyzed and finalized. The 15 goals and associated recommendations provide the overall framework for the plan. These goals include: 1. Protecting and enriching existing parks 2. Developing innovative opportunities for creating additional open space 3. Reviewing implementation of the Potomac River Waterfront Plan, adding parkland where appropriate 4. Protecting, expanding, and connecting stream valleys and other environmentally sensitive areas 5. Creating an open space network, The Green Crescent, in new development areas 6. Protecting and preserving institutional open space. 7. Maximizing use of public school open space areas to satisfy local needs 8. Preserving and protecting cemeteries 9. Creating public open space from vacant land 10. Linking and expanding the pedestrian, bicycle and trail system 11. Enhancing streetscapes and gateways 12. Expanding citywide street tree program and protecting existing trees and woodland areas 13. Encouraging the creation of Civic Parks at Metro Stations 14. Beautifying interchanges and highway corridors 15. Protecting privately-owned open space The next section of this chapter describes each goal, along with its associated plan recommendations and strategies for implementation. ### GOAL 1. PROTECT AND ENRICH EXISTING PARKS Alexandria’s existing public parks are the armature of its open space system. # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Existing park They provide both passive and active recreational amenities for neighborhoods and districts as well as for the City and the region. The existing parks are the focal points of communities and the locations for important civic events. As parks become more intensively used, the need for increased maintenance, management and planning becomes greater. In addition to identifying opportunities, the City should provide a strategy to continually protect the existing park system and identify opportunities to enhance park resources. An important component of this work will be in defining opportunities for park renovation, expansion and linkages to create a comprehensive open space network. Participants in the planning process were unanimous in their concern to protect remaining natural resources in existing parks. The Plan defines opportunities for park renovation, expansion and linkages to create a park/open space network. In addition, the Plan encourages the protection and enhancement of remaining natural resources in existing parks. <
> Existing park by the Potomac River ### Recommendations for Goal 1 * Integrate the findings of the Open Space Inventory with those of the Needs Assessment Study. * Continue the recent emphasis on increased maintenance of the existing park system and other public open spaces. * Carefully assess existing heavily used parklands and recreation facilities in the Needs Assessment and determine methods for minimizing overuse (e.g., reprogramming or planned expansion). * Look to the Needs Assessment to identify program needs (e.g., active recreation, passive activities, educational activities, etc.) and define potential areas for accommodating these. * Inventory cultural and natural resources in the parks to protect existing resources and expand public education and enjoyment. Identify natural resource needs and define potential opportunities for accommodating these. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 1 * Work with Alexandria’s business and residential communities to create an open space conservancy and stewardship program that can: (1) accept financial and property donations, (2) support renovation and expansion of parks and other public open spaces, and (3) create new parks and preserve existing open spaces and natural areas. * Establish an open space endowment for the purchase and development # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN of public open space. (Possible funding sources for this action are discussed in Chapter 6.) * Continue to seek increased City funding and other sources of funding for park maintenance, renovation and expansion, as well as for staff training and professional management to improve use of existing resources. * Develop a master plan for each of the City's existing parks to guide short and long-term needs. * Expand the City's volunteer programs, such as Adopt-a-Park, Adopt-a-Garden and Tree Stewards, to encourage organized groups to help with the maintenance of open space resources. (See Chapter 6 for additional discussion of this issue) * Develop a management/stewardship plan for cultural and natural resources in Alexandria's parks. **GOAL 2. DEVELOP INNOVATIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CREATING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE** The overarching concept for the Alexandria Open Space Plan includes: pro- <
> **Figure 17: Goal 1 - Protect and Enrich Existing Parks** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Innovative parking tecting existing parks, other publicly-owned open spaces and natural areas; linking existing parks and open space areas; creating continuous open space systems along the Potomac River and the City's stream valleys; creating a continuous open space system in a former industrial area, “The Green Crescent;” and creating a series of new small parks in under-served, high density communities. While the creation of additional public open space areas presents a challenge to the City in terms of cost, development trade-offs, and so on, it will be critical for the City to pursue these options in order to accommodate the increasing need for open space for the City's growing population. The Plan recommendations highlighted below identify a number of innovative methods for creating public open spaces. ### Recommendations for Goal 2 * Seize opportunities quickly when land suitable for open space usage becomes available, including developed commercial or industrial land that could be converted to open space uses. * Plan strategically for future opportunities to create, expand, or improve parks and publicly-owned natural areas and open spaces. * Convert channelized stream valleys and other modified natural resource areas into verdant open spaces. * Create parkland as well as recreational facilities atop new below-ground parking structures. * Create new open spaces, and link existing open spaces, by bridging over roads (e.g., open space deck linking Fort Ward Park, NOVA campus, and the Episcopal High School). * Utilize air rights over roadways to create new open space, recreation, habitat, and educational facilities. * Expand sections of existing roadways to create traffic-free bike trails, pedestrian paths, and landscaped medians and sidewalks (e.g., King Street, Duke Street, Commonwealth Avenue and Telegraph Road). * Utilize the following selection criteria for identifying privately-owned land suitable for acquisition by the City for parkland/open space use: * Privately owned land near or adjacent to existing parks and trails * Near or adjacent to existing schools * Near or adjacent to natural resource areas * At street endings to provide neighborhood linkages * Next to institutional properties with extensive open space, valuable natural resources, and/or potential public access * Adjacent to or linking existing / proposed trails or greenways * Small lots in dense urban neighborhoods for pocket parks, gardens, # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN green spaces, and playgrounds (Old Town; Rosemont; western sector of the City; Del Ray; etc.) * Privately owned lands with significant trees, sloping terrain, and other natural resource features * Privately owned properties of known or potential historic or cultural significance * Privately owned land in areas identified in the Needs Assessment as those with a high need for open space * Excess rights-of-way * Open space and trail connections adjacent to or linking open spaces, natural areas, greenways and trails in Arlington and Fairfax Counties ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 2 * Create a City Hall “Action Team” comprised of representatives from the City Manager’s office; the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities; Department of Planning and Zoning; Department of Transportation and Environmental Services; Office of Historic Alexandria; and others as needed to create a coordinated strategy for rapid action on land disposition. * Enhance existing requirements for open space in new development and <
> **Figure 18: Goal 2 - Develop Innovative Opportunities for Creating Additional Public Open** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN make amendments as needed to ensure that new projects will provide sufficient usable open space. * Develop specific plans for strategies for all stream valleys in the City, and target agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA as funding sources for this effort. Build upon the City's on-going environmental efforts regarding these areas. * Develop plans and strategies for natural areas in the City. * Strategically seek and develop additional funding sources that will allow the City to realize the recommended strategies for creating new open space opportunities (see Chapter 6). <
> **GOAL 3. REVIEW AND COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERFRONT PLAN** As identified in public meetings, the Potomac River with its beautiful shoreline is the premier open space for the City of Alexandria. People from across the City, as well as the region, are attracted to the parks along the Potomac River because they are generally linked, are expansive, have great views and, at certain times during the year, offer exciting programs and festivals. Throughout the planning process, participants emphasized the need to establish a strategy for acquiring the "missing links" of the waterfront open space system and seize open space opportunities along the entire waterfront. The Plan urges the City to review and continue to implement the City's earlier Waterfront Plan from Jones Point Park to Four Mile Run, to link with the open spaces of the Mt. Vernon Trail along the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the District of Columbia. **Recommendations for Goal 3** * High priority should be given to protecting and creating continuous public access to and along the Potomac River. The following parcels, if protected for open space use, will fill in the gaps along the Potomac River shoreline: * 501 North Union Street * 1 King Street * 0 Prince Street * 204 Strand Street * 210 Strand Street * 1 Wharf Street * 700-708 Kahn Street * 2 Alexander Street * Provide natural and historical education/awareness of the Potomac River. # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Boats at the Potomac River * Link the Potomac River parks with other stream valley water resource areas (Four Mile Run, Cameron Run, etc.) through both land and water-based trails and open spaces. * At a minimum, continue to require implementation of the existing 25-foot wide easement or zone for open space linkages along the Potomac River waterfront as represented in zoning and settlement agreements, and create new parkland on parcels with title questions. * Strive to restore the 100-foot RPA buffer along the shoreline as opportunities to do so arise. * Require significant open space areas for all new development along the riverfront. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 3 * The City should seek and encourage all available opportunities to add missing parcels to the Potomac River Waterfront Plan. These strategies include: acquisition, gifts of land, easements, purchase of development rights, etc. <
> **Figure 19: Goal 3 - Complete Implementation of the Potomac River Waterfront Plan** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN * The Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities, the Department of Planning and Zoning, and the Office of Historic Alexandria should collaborate to develop an Alexandria Waterfront Education Plan, including interpretive and directional signs, written and electronic materials, and interpretive events. **GOAL 4. PROTECT, EXPAND, AND CONNECT STREAM VALLEYS *AND* OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS** <
> Holmes Run stream valley The City of Alexandria has begun to identify, protect, and connect its stream valleys as important natural resources and significant open space amenities. In the past, these natural resource areas were industrialized, degraded and avoided as places for public use and access. Today, we recognize the important open space benefits to be derived from protecting, conserving and restoring stream valleys in the City. To achieve this goal, the Plan urges the City to establish its existing stream valleys as significant open space resources. In addition, the City should ensure protection of its wetlands, stream buffers, and other natural resources, including those outside the limits of existing RPA’s. **Recommendations for Goal 4** * Protect, conserve, and expand the following stream valleys: * Four Mile Run * Holmes Run * Cameron Run * Taylor Run * Old Cameron Run * Timber Branch * Backlick Run * Strawberry Run * Hooffs Run * Great Hunting Creek * Lucky Run * The stream through Monticello Park * The streams in Chinquapin Park * Potomac River <
> Four Mile Run stream valley * Provide opportunities for environmental and historical education and interpretation. Consider each stream valley as an educational resource. * Coordinate existing stream management programs including: flood control, stormwater management, urban habitat, recreation, etc. * Look for opportunities for stream valley protection and educational programs near school sites. # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN * Upgrade the health of stream valleys by developing a citywide stream protection strategy as part of a Watershed Management Plan that includes maintaining streams, springs and seeps in a natural condition; encouraging cluster development and green infrastructure; prohibiting buildings, structures and impervious surfaces (except for necessary trails) in stream buffers; increasing vegetation and other beneficial watershed features; keeping inappropriate uses away from stream edges (i.e. dog parks, fertilized ball fields, etc.); and promoting effective and innovative methods for stormwater management and erosion control. * Actively explore and implement, as appropriate, current urban stream restoration techniques in order to create more natural stream valleys that contribute to a positive open space character and improved water quality, while still protecting public health and safety. * Develop significant reforestation and forestation programs along stream buffers, emphasizing the planting of appropriate native species and the removal of exotics. This effort will provide increased infiltration and/or uptake of pollutants, nutrients and sediments, thereby increasing wildlife habitat and minimizing temperature impacts on streams. * Encourage wetland creation and protection projects throughout the <
> **Figure 20: Goal 4 - Protect and Expand Stream Valleys and Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN City to help clean our streams and increase wildlife habitat. * Do not allow variances to RPA buffers. * Strive to achieve more than the 100-foot wide buffers for the purpose of protecting natural resource areas. * Improve habitat for birds and other wildlife. ## Implementation Strategies for Goal 4 * Seek funding from State, Federal and other sources for site protection, demonstration projects, and environmental education programs (see Chapter 6). * Curtail or eliminate the granting of encroachments in stream valley RPA’s and adjacent areas. Enhance identified RPA’s with natural area buffers. * Require the restoration of RPA’s when sites are redeveloped. * Establish on-going regional coordination with Arlington and Fairfax Counties for stream valley and natural resource protection, building on the model established for Four Mile Run. * Conduct a detailed survey of the City’s streams and woodlands, threatened and endangered species, and steep slopes in coordination with the Environmental Policy Commission. The survey should include preparation of specific recommendations for the protection of these resources. * Develop financial and other incentives for private property owners within watershed areas to protect the natural resources of those areas (e.g., by reducing impervious surfaces, reusing rainwater on site, etc.) * Continue to set aside City monies for stream valley restoration projects. Where possible, leverage those funds with grants and other monies in order to restore our streams and stream valleys. * Undertake carefully monitored Adopt-a-Stream and/or similar programs to increase implementation resources and educate citizens about the significance of our stream valleys. ## GOAL 5. CREATE AN OPEN SPACE NETWORK IN NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS A broad swath of open, under-utilized land forms a “green crescent,” a crescent-shaped area that generally follows the CSX railroad right-of-way from # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN Four Mile Run to the West End at the Fairfax County border. One of the “last remaining frontiers” for creating and preserving open space in the City, this area is rapidly being lost to development. Newly developing or redeveloping areas present one of the only opportunities for the City to achieve new, large, significant open spaces. Although pressures will be great to maximize development on any remaining sites in the City, there are numerous opportunities to create a meaningful open space system that meets a variety of needs and connects open space areas both within the area represented within the “green crescent” and elsewhere in the City. ### Recommendations for Goal 5 * Plan for potential development and redevelopment sites to include open space areas in overall plans. * Consider both significant large, green areas, as well as smaller parks and visual linkages as part of any development area. * Utilize design guidelines to make the City’s objectives clear and ensure development sites achieve coordination of open space areas among separate developments in adjacent areas. <
> **Figure 21: Goal 5 - Create an Open Space Network in New Development Areas** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> New development areas <
> Potomac Yards, new development areas * Encourage use of conservation easements to the maximum extent appropriate. * Incorporate historical and archeological resources in planning for open space and new development projects, where appropriate. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 5 * The City should consider using all available planning tools to create an open space network in new development areas. Such tools might include: * Developer fees for open space * Conditional zoning (proffers) * Targeted development areas * Master plans for development areas * Transit-oriented development neighborhoods * Conservation and scenic easements * Taxation-incentive programs * Design guidelines * Stream valley setbacks * Require coordination in the planning and design of open space areas for new developments in order to maximize and link spaces in a definable, usable manner. * Evaluate all new development proposals in the context of their impact on Alexandria’s public and private open space. * Review existing zoning and development standards and requirements in order to achieve adequate open space in all developments citywide; make revisions as necessary. Consider the following zoning concepts: * Require that open space serve a public function * Establish that all required open space be at ground level * Require open space for commercial as well as residential developments * Create a fee system as a requirement for small sites inappropriate for open space, and for modifications * Develop an open space component for each planning study area, and require consistency with that open space plan as part of the zoning requirement * Require significant open space areas that are large, connected and green as part of any discretionary approval. In addition, require the creation and maintenance of visual linkages among open spaces and key vistas. * Create requirements for the maintenance of proffered open spaces in # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN new development areas that may include the creation of endowments for such purposes. * Investigate the transfer of density among adjoining or nearby parcels in exchange for open green areas. * Where development has already occurred, consider conservation and scenic easements, taxation programs, and other techniques for the creation, preservation and maintenance of open spaces on these sites. * Coordinate with Arlington and Fairfax Counties to implement the plan to protect and connect open space linkages in new development areas, where applicable. ## GOAL 6. PROTECT AND PRESERVE INSTITUTIONALLY-OWNED OPEN SPACE Some of the most significant open spaces in the City are institutionally owned. The greatest aggregate of these open spaces is located in the geographic center of the City, between Quaker Lane, Seminary Road, N. Howard Street and Braddock Road. These open spaces, as well as others, include significant natural and environmental, as well as historical and archeological, <
> **Figure 22: Goal 6 - Protect and Preserve Institutionally-Owned Open Space** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Institutional open space with large woodland areas <
> Institutional open space <
> Institutional open space <
> Episcopal High School resources. The City, together with these institutions, should collaborate on protecting, in perpetuity, these important open spaces. The Plan should develop strategies to preserve and protect these resources. ### Recommendations for Goal 6 * Preserve and protect all, or significant parts, of the following sites: * Northern Virginia Community College/Alexandria Campus * Episcopal High School * Episcopal Theological Seminary * Second Presbyterian Church * Diocese Church School * First Baptist Church * Bishop Ireton High School * George Washington National Masonic Memorial * Virginia American Water Company * Sts. Agnes and Steven's Schools * Winkler Botanical Preserve * INOVA Alexandria Hospital * Inventory historical and natural resources in these open spaces and assist in writing stewardship plans. Create a mechanism to identify additional properties that should be included in such plans. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 6 * Establish a strategy for working collaboratively with the institutions owning such land in order to establish an appropriate approach to open space preservation and public benefit. * Encourage conservation easements or other similar actions, with benefits to institutional and nonprofit organizations. * Encourage the City to explore additional actions, some of which might include: * Rights of first refusal (should be the City's first line of action when land becomes available) * Gifts of land * Conservation restrictions * Tree cover protection measures * Trail, scenic and/or historic easements * Fee simple acquisition * Purchase of development rights * Consider zoning institutional open space sites with an Open Space Overlay Protection Zone to require significant preservation areas and # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> MacArthur School <
> MacArthur School playground area discretionary review of future development proposals. ## GOAL 7. MAXIMIZE USE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL OPEN SPACE AREAS TO SATISFY LOCAL NEEDS The open spaces associated with the City's elementary, middle and high schools presently serve both students and neighborhood residents. Most of the spaces around schools are utilized for recreation; however, some of the school sites have significant natural resources that are worthy of preservation. The City should partner with the Alexandria School Board to achieve an open space strategy that recognizes the educational, recreational, and environmental purposes of open space areas around school facilities. This strategy needs to define ways to preserve, maintain and, where possible, expand open space and natural areas around schools for both the schools and the community at large, without adversely affecting the school's ability to provide sufficient space for instructional purposes. In addition, school sites are important civic landmarks and should have well-landscaped grounds that contribute to the quality of the built environment. ### Recommendations for Goal 7 * Continue to upgrade school open space properties to serve the local <
> **Figure 23: Goal 7 - Maximize Use of Public School Open Space Areas to Satisfy Local Needs** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN needs of the surrounding communities. * Where appropriate, link school open space areas to the City’s other open space resources. * Recognize the educational qualities provided by well-designed open space areas. * Continue to coordinate the planning of parks and schools with the goal of making efficient use of these important public resources. * Where appropriate, cluster active recreation uses near school properties to serve local needs. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 7 * Establish a team for each school project that is representative of the Alexandria School Board; private institutions; the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities; the Department of Planning and Zoning; and the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services in order to identify innovative and effective solutions for use of school open space areas by neighborhood residents while satisfying outdoor school programs. This working relationship should extend to the planning and design of both new and renovated school properties. <
> Alexandria National Cemetery ## GOAL 8. PRESERVE AND PROTECT CEMETERIES Cemeteries provide important open space, visual and cultural resources. Some communities have collaborated with cemeteries to establish trails and protect natural resources. Arlington National Cemetery is a notable nearby example. The Cemetery staff worked with Arlington County to create a scenic bike trail linking Memorial Bridge with Route 50 and to protect natural and archeological resources. Alexandria’s Plan should recognize that cemeteries are important open space and scenic resources for the neighborhoods in which they are located and for the City as a whole. The cemeteries in Alexandria are in critical locations and can provide outstanding linkages to other open spaces. Figure 24 indicates those cemeteries that contribute most significantly to the open space system in Alexandria. ### Recommendations for Goal 8 * Consider cemeteries as educational resources. Develop interpretive signage and, possibly, tours describing the history and significance of each of the City’s key cemeteries. * Protect natural and cultural resources (e.g., trees and streams) in cemeteries, recognizing that some may be important also as features of the cultural landscape. # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Alexandria National Cemetery * Protect cultural resources that define the character of cemeteries (e.g., gravestones, fences, etc.). * Increase public awareness that behavior in cemeteries should be different than that which is appropriate in other open spaces. * Support the restoration and commemoration efforts at Freedmen's and other historic cemeteries. ## Implementation Strategies for Goal 8 * Work with owners and administrators of the cemeteries within the City to protect the sanctity of these sites while still allowing for visual access, open space linkages, natural resource protection, and interpretation where appropriate. * List, map, and create a guide to Alexandria's cemeteries in order to heighten public awareness of their extent and location. * In cemeteries with unique natural resources, consider developing public/private partnerships for the maintenance of sensitive environmental and cultural resource areas, including use of tools such as historic and scenic easements, where appropriate. <
> **Figure 24: Goal 8 - Preserve and Protect Cemeteries** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN ## GOAL 9. CREATE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE FROM VACANT LAND Vacant properties tend to be small in size (less than three acres). However, some of these sites are situated adjacent to existing parks or other open space sites identified in this study and, therefore, have potential to link to or expand those existing open spaces. Others include modified natural resource areas, such as diverted streams or cleared woodlands. Precedents abound where vacant land has been rehabilitated into parkland through creative planning and design. ### Recommendations for Goal 9 * Preserve, protect and enhance vacant lands as public open space amenities. Priority sites include those meeting the following criteria: * Vacant land near existing parks (e.g., vacant land near Monticello and Four Mile Run Parks) * Next to existing schools * Next to natural resource areas * At street endings to provide neighborhood linkages * Next to institutional properties * Adjacent to or linking existing/proposed trails * Small lots in dense urban neighborhoods for neighborhood parks, gardens, playgrounds (Old Town, Rosemont, the west end of the <
> **Figure 25: Goal 9 - Create Public Open Space from Vacant Land** CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN City, Del Ray, etc.) * Vacant lands with significant trees, sloping terrain, and other natural resources * Land with historical and cultural resources * Underutilized building sites that could be converted to recreational open space uses where open space is limited (i.e., west end of City) * Land with the potential to become easements **Implementation Strategies for Goal 9** * Undertake a detailed survey of all vacant lands, rights-of-way, and alleys/street ends in order to understand the City’s potential open space opportunities for these sources. * For public vacant lands: * Establish a vacant land program to convert underutilized and vacant land into public open space. * Transfer critical vacant land sites to the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities (see criteria established earlier in this chapter for determining critical sites). * For private vacant lands: * Actively identify “key” vacant parcels or portions of larger vacant parcels according to criteria listed earlier in this chapter. * Purchase or otherwise acquire strategic sites for open space purposes. * Actively seek grants and other funding sources to ensure that resources other than those of the City can be used for this purpose. * Work collaboratively with other citywide interests (e.g., schools, and affordable housing advocates) to define a strategy from which everyone stands to gain in the definition/use of vacant properties. * Reference conservation easements and other protection measures as a precursor to acquisition. **GOAL 10. LINK AND EXPAND PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRAIL SYSTEM** <
> Existing trails The City of Alexandria has established a strong initial system of trails through its Bicycle Transportation and Multi-use Trail Master Plan adopted by City Council in 1998. This City needs to fully implement this plan and maximize non-vehicular, City-wide trail linkages connecting neighborhoods, public facilities and parks, retail establishments, and employment centers in order to encourage healthful recreation and non-motorized transportation. Many of the open spaces identified in this study are suitable for inclusion in the bicycle and trail system. This goal is crucial in the framework concept of “making connections,” particularly in the stream valleys, along the Potomac River, and in the # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN Green Crescent areas. ### Recommendations for Goal 10 * Fully integrate the City's multi-use trail system into the City's transportation planning process, thereby recognizing bicycling and walking as important components in addressing Alexandria's transportation needs. Special consideration should be given to those segments of the population without access to personal vehicles, principally children, the economically disadvantaged, and the physically challenged. * Expand the City's multi-use trail system to address the objective of the City's bicycle and trail master transportation plan to "reduce the rate of increase of vehicle trips." * Expand the City's multi-use trail system to address the need to expand recreational opportunities to improve the physical health of the citizens of Alexandria. * Implement the Alexandria Heritage Trail as a component of the multi-use trail plan to promote historical and cultural understanding of the City, thereby promoting educational and tourism opportunities. <
> **Figure 26: Goal 10 - Link and Expand Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail System** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Trail at Oronoco Bay Park <
> Trail at Oronoco Bay Park ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 10 * Work with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services to implement bike trails in public rights-of-ways (e.g., streets) * Work on a site-by-site basis with private property owners to seek easements for trail development and expansion. * Reassess and revise the Alexandria Trails Plan to provide the connections identified in the Open Space Plan. * Alexandria's Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and Department of Transportation and Environmental Services should coordinate regional planning efforts for trail linkages with Fairfax and Arlington Counties, VDOT and the National Park Service. * The City should aggressively seek private, state, and Federal funding for continued trail development (see Chapter 6). * The Departments of Transportation and Environmental Services; Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities; and Office of Historic Alexandria should work together to improve trail signage, provide public education through pamphlets, maps, and web sites, mark historic sites and natural resources, and create events to encourage trail use by both walkers and riders. * Evaluate the City's network of public alleys and define those most appropriate for use as trail and open space connectors. * The Departments of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and Transportation and Environmental Services should collaborate with the School Department to identify "Safe Routes to School" using the trail system and other public streets. Coordinate with the proposed "Safe Routes" national effort and seek funding when it becomes available. * The Department of Transportation and Environmental Services and the Department of Planning and Zoning should encourage developers to include facilities for bicyclists and walkers in their Transportation Management Plans. * The Departments of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and Transportation and Environmental Services should develop a multi-lingual public education campaign to promote bicycling and walking as effective and healthful ways to get around town while reducing traffic congestion. # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> King Street metro functions as a major gateway to the city of Alexandria ## GOAL 11. ENHANCE STREETSCAPES AND GATEWAYS Streets, and their associated streetscapes and gateways, are crucial open space resources for a community. They function as places of trade, play, communication and gathering. They are the front doors for our neighborhoods. King Street, recently improved with brick sidewalks, trees and furnishings, is Alexandria’s main street and a memorable place to gather for important events. Commonwealth Avenue is a desirable address because of its tree-lined median and attractive streetscape. With few opportunities for open space development, we need to look to our streets as places for beautification and linkage. The Plan encourages the City to develop an interconnected network of pedestrian friendly streets. In addition, the City should create entrance gateways that provide a positive image of arrival. ### Recommendations for Goal 11 * Enact comprehensive streetscape enhancements on the following roadways: | Protect: | Enhance: | | :--- | :--- | | • Mt. Vernon Avenue | • Washington Street | | • Commonwealth Avenue | • Route 1 | | • Braddock Road | • Mt. Vernon Avenue | | • King Street | • Braddock Road | | • Quaker Lane | • King Street | | • Jordan Street | • Beauregard Street | | • Howard Street | • Duke Street | | • Beauregard Street | • Eisenhower Avenue | | • Seminary Road | • Van Dorn Street | | • Russell Road | • West Glebe Road | <
> Commonwealth Ave streetscape * Create entranced gateways at the following locations: * **Highway intersections:** * I-395 at: * King Street * Quaker Lane * Seminary Road * Duke Street * I-495 at: * Telegraph Road * Mill Road * Clermont * Route 1 * Washington Street * Van Dorn Street * At Major Street Entry Points: # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN * Van Dorn Street * Telegraph Road * Route 1 at Jefferson Street * Washington Street at Hunting Creek & Memorial Circle * Edsall Road * Beauregard Street at Lincolnia Road * Leesburg Pike at Beauregard Street * Seminary Road at Colfax Avenue * West Glebe Road at Four Mile Run * Mount Vernon Avenue at Four Mile Run * Route 1 at Four Mile Run * Washington Street at north end of City – At entry points along trails: * Trail at Green Crescent and Fairfax County * Holmes Run at Fairfax County * Seminary Road at Fairfax County * Four Mile Run at Mt. Vernon Avenue * Mt. Vernon Trail/Potomac National Heritage Trail * Potomac River Waterfront Walk * Metro pedestrian gateways * King Street at the Potomac River * Alexandria Heritage Trail hubs- Chinquapin Park, Jones Point, Dangerfield Island <
> ### Figure 27: Goal 11 - Enhance Streetscapes and Gateways # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN * Produce a guide to historical buildings and open space features to strengthen the development of a street/gateway enhancement plan. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 11 * Establish an interagency working group with representation from the Departments of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities; Transportation and Environmental Services; and Planning and Zoning as well as from the Office of Historic Alexandria and VDOT, and other relevant commissions and groups to create and implement a comprehensive streetscape program for the City. This should encompass: * Signage * Sidewalks * Intersections/crosswalks * Lighting * Street furniture * Landscaping and street trees * Historical sites * Undergrounding utilities * Median treatment * This interagency group should also consider implementation of a gateway improvement program, to include: * Special planting * Lighting * Signage * Paving * Historic overviews * Irrigation and maintenance * Improvements to highway interchanges within the City’s limits * Establish design guidelines for streetscape elements that recognize and reflect the individual character of each neighborhood or area of the City. These might be derived, in part, from the historical features of each area. * Require adherence to design guidelines for development applications and other approvals affecting streetscape. * Provide adequate levels of infrastructure to support and maintain these streetscape/gateway programs. In addition to City funding, consider calling upon volunteer programs such as Tree Stewards, Adopt-a-Park, and Adopt-a-Marker programs for heritage trail sites in order to support these efforts. CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN GOAL 12. EXPAND CITYWIDE STREET TREE PROGRAM AND PROTECT EXISTING TREES AND WOODLAND AREAS Our City's beauty is created, in part, through its street trees, wooded properties and environmental corridors. The City has an active program to continue planting street trees and protect vegetation in its parks. The City should maximize opportunities to enhance its tree coverage and protect its natural woodland resources. Recommendations for Goal 12 * Protect significant tree-lined arterials, parkways, thoroughfares, and boulevards, including: * Holmes Run Parkway * Taylor Run Parkway * Timber Branch Parkway * North Beauregard Street * Commonwealth Avenue * Ft. Williams Parkway * Identify and address potential tree cover protection areas, including: * Beverly Hills * Episcopal Seminary / High School site <
> Figure 28: Goal 12 - Expand Citywide Street Tree Program and Protect Existing Trees and Woodland Areas # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN <
> Woodland area * Inova Hospital * St. Agnes / St. Steven’s School sites * Rosemont * Del Ray * Park Fairfax * Old Town * Neighborhoods bordered by: * Seminary Road, I-395 and Fairfax County * I-395, King Street, Quaker Land and Seminary Road * Braddock Road, Russell Road, Quaker Lane and Janney’s Lane * Quaker Lane, West Glebe Road, Cameron Mills Road and Crestwood Drive * Address stream valleys protection areas including: * Four Mile Run, Holmes Run, Cameron Run, Taylor Run, Old Cameron Run, Timber Branch, Backlick Run, Strawberry Run, Hooffs Run, Great Hunting Creek, and Lucky Run * [See recommendations for specific streetscape programs below.] **Implementation Strategies for Goal 12** * Establish an aggressive campaign to involve community organizations in protecting existing trees and planting new trees within each neighborhood. Provide incentives for the planting and maintenance of trees on private property. * Strengthen existing tree protection regulations. Establish a City Tree Plan and identify areas for increased forestation. * Support and strengthen the newly established Arlington and Alexandria Tree Steward Program to assist in tree maintenance, planting, and public education. * Request the Department of Planning and Zoning to research the feasibility of establishing a Tree Cover Overlay District. This designation would provide an additional means of protection for trees in areas of the City where these are essential to their quality and character. Distinguish between areas where tree crown cover is provided on private versus public lands. * Amend City’s landscape and streetscape guidelines to improve tree planting areas (e.g., continuous trenches, enlarged planting areas, greater soil volumes, irrigation and drainage) and increase tree coverage requirements for new developments where possible. * Strengthen the City’s ability to maintain its existing tree inventory (e.g., institute a watering program for new trees, etc.). # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN * Evaluate existing City tree crown cover based on current American Forests recommended standards for residential and commercial areas. * Create specific agreements with VDOT for maintenance of wooded areas along highways through the City. <
> **GOAL 13. ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF CIVIC PARKS AT AND ADJACENT TO METRO STATIONS** Open spaces adjacent to Metro Stations can serve as important civic spaces; they should function as welcoming spaces to our community. Currently Metro Station areas consist primarily of roads, parking lots and bus shelters. As these areas become sites for redevelopment, civic parks should be key elements in the development program that can accommodate civic gatherings, events and other formal and informal outdoor uses. ### Recommendations for Goal 13 * Coordinate with WMATA to enhance opportunities at each Metro station area, to create and upgrade civic spaces, and provide safe pedestrian connections. * Provide open space/greenway linkages between Eisenhower Avenue <
> **Figure 29: Goal 13 - Encourage the Creation of Civic Parks at and Adjacent to Metro Stations** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN Metro Station and Cameron Run Stream Valley. * Provide a new, safe open space/greenway linkage between the Parker Gray / Slaters Lane areas and the Braddock Road Metro Station. * Provide a new, safe open space/greenway linkage between the Eisenhower Avenue Metro Station and the Potomac River waterfront. * Develop signs for Metro Stations to mark access to trails and open spaces. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 13 * Establish a collaborative relationship with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to develop a program for upgrading open space at Metro stations. * Establish a working relationship between the appropriate City departments and WMATA to maximize opportunities to create additional civic space in new joint development efforts in and around the City’s four Metro stations. * Seek opportunities to link Metro stations to Alexandria’s trail network. ### GOAL 14. BEAUTIFY INTERCHANGES AND HIGHWAY CORRIDORS <
> Interstate 395 Like civic spaces at Metro Stations, interchanges and highway corridors function as the front doors to our community for the driver. Interstate-395 has a narrow but significant strip of vegetation along its edges and I-95 runs parallel to Cameron Run. The City should work with VDOT to ensure protection of vegetation along Interstate highway corridors that traverse and bound the City, and to upgrade the landscape qualities of all of these highway interchanges and corridors. ### Recommendations for Goal 14 <
> Interstate 395 * Enhance and protect conditions at the following locations: * Interchanges: * I-95 at: * Route 1 * Telegraph Road * Eisenhower Avenue * Van Dorn Street * I-395 at: * Duke Street * Seminary Road * King Street CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN * Quaker Lane * Highway Corridors: * I-95, from Wilson Bridge to Van Dorn Street * I-395, from Quaker Lane to Duke Street * Roadway enhancements should maximize opportunities for forestation and reforestation where appropriate. **Implementation Strategies for Goal 14** * The Departments of Transportation and Environmental Services and Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities should collaborate with VDOT on upgrading maintenance of, and developing design standards for, highway interchanges and corridors throughout Alexandria. * The City should monitor all highway expansion programs proposed by VDOT to ensure protection of existing landscape plans. **GOAL 15. PROTECT PRIVATELY OWNED OPEN SPACE** Most of Alexandria’s open space is privately owned and inaccessible to the general public. Nevertheless, this land provides valuable green space for its <
> **Figure 30: Goal 14 - Beautify Interchanges and Highway Corridors** # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN surrounding community, creates a significant visual amenity, and contributes to the control of microclimatic conditions in the City. Individual property owners, even those with relatively small amounts of open space, can participate in efforts to retain that open space by making careful land use decisions on the need for home additions, for subdivision of large lots to create additional dwellings, on the creative use of easements to provide protection as well as some tax benefit for retaining open space. ### Recommendations for Goal 15 * Educate private landowners on the importance (economic, aesthetic, environmental) of their open spaces, and on available tools for preserving and protecting that space (e.g., easements, etc.). * Explore legal and planning strategies to encourage private landowners to preserve and protect their open space areas. * Request that the Office of Real Estate Assessment undertake a study comparing the values of private properties in Alexandria adjacent to/not adjacent to open space in order to document the quantitative value of open space for the City. ### Implementation Strategies for Goal 15 * In furtherance of the strong conservation policy of the City of Alexandria, preserve privately owned open space that meets any one of the following criteria that have been identified by representatives of the people of Alexandria as yielding significant public benefit and therefore being worthy of preservation or conservation. * Open small areas of privately held open space in already congested and developed areas for passive neighborhood enjoyment, visual relief, scenic value, and screening and buffering pruposes. * Open space that provides relief from urban closeness, especially small lots in dense urban neighborhoods containing neighborhood gardens, trees or other natural features. * Land areas to enhance buffering and screening between uses, such as between a developed area and a park or historic site. * Land adjacent to public parkland, institutional sites, natural areas, water bodies, cemeteries, other land preserved by easement, all in furtherance of the specific Goals of this Open Space Plan. # CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN * Open space that contributes to the scenic enjoyment of the general public if development of the property would impair the scenic character of the urban landscape or would interfere with a scenic panorama that can be enjoyed from a park, nature preserve, road, water body, trail, or historic structure or land area, and such area or transportation way is open to, or utilized by, the public. * Open space containing or adjacent to any designated historical or cultural resource that provides a buffer or context for such resources. * Open space that contains any specimen trees, significant groupings of hardwood or other trees that add to the city's tree canopy, open meadowlands, sloping terrain or other significant natural features;and * Open Space not identified above that meets Goals 1-14 of the Alexandria Open Space Plan * Provide a biannual seminar on easements that are currently available to all residents of the City. Such easements are available through the Alexandria Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission, and through other organizations accepting easements. Individuals owning properties highlighted in or close to those identified in the Open Space Plan, as well as representatives from the real estate and development communities would be specifically invited to attend these sessions. * Actively support the request for an amendment to Article 4 of Chapter 32,Title 58.1 of the Virginia Code, which would decrease to one-quarter acre the minimum acreage required to receive the tax benefit for creation of an easement. * Support an increase to the recordation tax for real property deeds recorded for conveyance of land within the City. If then approved by the General Assembly, this authorization could provide the beginning of an open space purchase fund. * Consider zoning mechanisms to address the problem of infill development and the incremental loss of open space as a result of home additions and individual land use decisions. * Appropriate significant public financial resources and grant real estate tax relief in order to demonstrate a commitment by the City to the protection or privately owned open space through conservation easements and other preservation tools. # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES ## A. PRIORITY ACTIONS It is evident from the list of actions described in Chapter 5, that the implementation of the Open Space Plan will be a long-term effort on the part of the City. However, that effort needs to begin with a few meaningful steps. At the Open Space Summit, participants were asked to identify the three actions that they considered to be top priorities for the City to accomplish in the short-term. The Open Space Steering Committee took these responses into account when developing the list of priority actions for the City to undertake first in its implementation of the Plan. As a result of this process, the following eleven priorities were identified (in no specific order): * Work with the community to create the Alexandria Open Space Conservancy * Employ a full-time, professional grants writer to pursue public and private sector funding for open space and trails related activities. It is possible that this position could be shared between the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services (T&ES). * Work actively to achieve settlement on the following properties in order to begin completion of the Alexandria Waterfront Plan: * 1 and 2 King Street * 0 Prince Street * The Departments of Parks and Recreation, T&ES, and Planning and Zoning should collaborate in the preparation of a Greenway Management Plan for the Holmes Run Stream Valley to serve as a model for other stream valley plans. This should be developed in conjunction with the proposed Watershed Management Plan to be undertaken by T&ES, as well as the planning project for Four Mile Run being carried out in conjunction with Arlington County. * This plan should address the protection and enhancement of open space, as well as issues of acquisition/easements, rehabilitation, and interpretation of the full range of site resources. * Once the Greenway Management Plan model is established, plans should be undertaken for the city's remaining stream valleys, as listed in the Open Space Plan (i.e., Cameron Run, Holmes Run, Taylor Run, etc.). * Focus on RPA protection and enhancement: * Do not allow encroachments in the RPA buffers * Focus on vacant land immediately adjacent to RPA's for protection * Focus on RPA's for environmental restoration * Strongly consider the following properties for easements, acquisition, or other methods of open space preservation within the short term. # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES These sites are critical to achieving the goals of the open space plan: (Note: Specific addresses will be added, where applicable) * Episcopal High School west tract (at Braddock Road and North Howard Street, south to Maple Tree Court and east to approximately Marlboro Drive) * Second Presbyterian Church site (at Janney's and Quaker Lanes) * Series of open spaces east of Seminary Plaza and Library Lane, between Braddock and Seminary Roads * Land in the southwest quadrant at the intersection of North Beauregard and Armistead Streets * Multiple small linear sites on the south side of East and West Glebe Roads, between Route 1 and I-395, that would allow for the creation of a linear park in the Del Ray area * Multiple sites, west of Holmes Run, north of Eisenhower Avenue between Clermont Avenue and Burnside Place (west of Van Dorn Street) * A site to the west of Telegraph Road between Longview Drive and the railroad right-of-way * As much as possible of the power plant site at the north end of Old Town (at Slaters Lane, east of the George Washington Memorial Parkway) as the plant's operations become reconfigured over time * Exxon/Mobil-Freedmen's Cemetery site at South Washington and Church Streets <
> Figure 31: Priority Actions # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES * Revise the City's existing zoning requirements to achieve better open space in new developments. * Consider the open space opportunities east of Simpson Field for the creation of active recreational facilities. * The Open Space Conservancy should, as one of its initial tasks, work with the Episcopal Church, the George Washington Masonic Memorial, and possibly other large institutional landholders, to **develop a workable Open Space Conservation Strategy for institutional land** within the Episcopal High School, the Theological Seminary, St. Agnes and St. Stephens Schools, and Masonic Memorial properties. * Rehabilitate Commonwealth Avenue as a significant parkway and model for future parkways in the City. Rehabilitation tasks would include: * Clearing of dead/diseased vegetation, replacement and infill with new vegetation, replanting of median strips and extension of medians where feasible, and on-going maintenance activities. * Implement the following new path/trail linkages: * A new stream crossing of Holmes Run at Chambliss Street to connect neighborhoods to the north and south of Holmes Run. This route will also provide a safe, non-motorized commuter connection and will link to the proposed Fairfax County path to Columbia Pike as well as the Holmes Run trail. (Note: the City is about to begin a design feasibility study on this trail) * An off-street path through the eastern end of Eisenhower Valley to connect the off-street Eisenhower Valley path (which ends at Telegraph Road) to the streets of Old Town at Payne Street. * A multi-use path from Booth Park (west end of Cameron Station) to the Fairfax County line, along Backlick Run. Also, work with Fairfax County to extend this to the west. This project would allow for the reclamation of Backlick Run. * Establish a streetscape and gateway enhancement program for Route 1 through the City. * Once this program has been completed, carry out a similar program for the Duke Street corridor. * Implement a CITYgreen analysis[^p84-1] to assess the amount of tree cover currently in the City. Define a legally enforceable strategy for protecting existing tree cover, preventing substantial reduction to this tree cover, and enhancing the tree cover throughout the City. ## B. FUNDING SOURCES AND STRATEGIES This section addresses various funding mechanisms related to implementation [^p84-1]: (Note: This footnote is blank in the provided source image). # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES of the Alexandria Open Space Plan. The discussion is organized around four general categories: 1. **Organization for Fundraising and Stewardship** 2. **Funding for Acquisition and Development** 3. **Funding for Operations** 4. **Use of Public and Institutional Grants** It should be noted that while individual approaches to funding are identified in terms of one of these four categories, there is often overlap among categories with regard to specific implementation strategies that the City might wish to adopt. The funding strategies described below can be applied, at different levels, to each of the goals set forth in the Open Space Plan, as presented in Chapter 5 of this report. Therefore, accompanying the discussion of each funding option is a listing of those goals to which these options are most applicable. This arrangement should assist the City of Alexandria in developing an open space strategy that achieves the open space goals that it has defined, within a realistic time frame. The funding strategy is an important element of the open space plan, because it seeks to identify a variety of tools that can provide sustainable, practical funding support for protecting, expanding and promoting Alexandria's open space resources. Currently, the City uses some tools, such as proffers, and in one instance, land use assessment abatement techniques, to fund open space land acquisition. It uses other tools, such as a volunteer program to provide operational support. The tools discussed below will expand these current efforts. * **ORGANIZATION FOR FUNDRAISING AND STEWARDSHIP** **Applicable Goals: 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15** One of the lessons learned from the study of successful open space and land preservation efforts elsewhere is the need for a strong advocacy/support group. Examples abound. At the national level, the Nature Conservancy performs this function, and at the regional level, the Potomac Conservancy is active. Functions can include education, lobbying, funding support to others, direct funding of land and easement acquisitions, holding title to open space properties, as well as operational support. For the Alexandria Open Space Plan, the creation of a locally focused Open Space Conservancy is a key recommendation. Typically such a group is established as a 501(c)(3) not-for profit organization, which enables it to engage in extensive fundraising efforts. In this way, the 501(c)(3) advocacy/support group can act as an intermediary between donors and government. Contributors do not feel that they are giving their # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES money to the government per se, but to a benevolent organization, and they often have a higher level of confidence that their funds will be protected and used in the manner intended. In addition, donations of either land or cash are tax deductible to the donor. While some advocacy/support groups limit themselves to fundraising, education and non-operational activities, other groups, which are typically “friends” groups, take more active roles in operations. Involvement can include input on management and staffing decisions, participation in concessions and programs, and/or management responsibility for specific facilities or services. For the City of Alexandria, the Historic Alexandria Foundation can serve as a model for what can be accomplished by a strong support/advocacy group. The Foundation has been active in protecting and preserving the city’s historic resources. It partners with individual residents and corporate citizens, raises funds, and is a funding source for small grants (typically between $2,000 and $5,000 annually). It educates, facilitates, and coordinates. Elsewhere in Northern Virginia, the private Potomac Conservancy and the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust perform many of the same functions as the Historic Alexandria Foundation. These kinds of functions are critical to the successful implementation of the Open Space Plan and may best be performed by an Alexandria Open Space Conservancy dedicated to open space preservation within the Alexandria community. Such an entity may need to partner, from time to time, with other groups (e.g., the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust) when the need arises. * **FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT** **Applicable Goals: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10** This section outlines funding mechanisms for the expansion of existing open space and developing new open space opportunities. Acquisition and development of open space may involve dedicated funding, other city funding mechanisms, balanced development schemes, and/or the purchase of easements on available property. In addition to their usefulness as tools for acquisition and development, these funding strategies may also be useful for preservation and maintenance purposes. **Dedicated Trusts and Funds** One characteristic of successful programs dealing with open space land acquisition is the presence of a dedicated structure that serves to protect incoming funds and to ensure that monies go for the specified use(s), such as land acquisition, open space recreation, natural resource protection, cultural/historic open space resource protection or other uses identified in this plan. Types of organizational structures include land banks, land trusts, or land preservation funds. Names are less important than the functions they provide, # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES and their (perceived) independence from government. Several local jurisdictions have established dedicated structures for collecting and dispersing funds for open space land acquisition. Based on these successful models and other models within the City and elsewhere, the City of Alexandria should consider the establishment of a dedicated open space fund to support many of the goals set forth in the open space plan. Alexandria-based and other local examples of dedicated structures and funding mechanisms include the following: **Land Trust** – The Fairfax County Park Authority Land Trust is a dedicated fund into which residents and community interests can make voluntary donations intended for the purposes of land acquisition. Initially, the fund received limited promotional support and, consequently, its success was also limited. As of June 2001, the trust fund had received $130,000 in donations. Subsequent to that date, a full time director was hired and the expectations for much stronger fundraising are high. **Conservation Fund** – The Fairfax City Open Space Conservation Fund is a dedicated fund for land acquisition that has been established by the City of Fairfax. It provides for an increase in the local real property tax rate on residential and commercial properties, of up to $.05 per $100 of assessed valuation. There is a five-year term limit. Voter support was high in the non-binding referendum that passed by a 2-1 margin. For the current year, the incremental tax rate has been set at $.03 per $100, and it is anticipated that receipts for the year will total some $1 million. An equivalent tax of $.03 per $100 applied to residential and commercial property in Alexandria could generate almost $5 million. A similar funding model for the open space plan could involve the dedication of a portion of other taxes to the purchase of open space property. An option that was initiated by and endorsed by the Alexandria City Council is the implementation of a local Recordation Tax. This increased tax would require approval from the Virginia General Assembly which, in the past, has been reluctant to pass the necessary legislation. However, for the current year, the assembly has agreed to include this funding mechanism in a study of funding issues. Elsewhere in Northern Virginia, the Town of Vienna has been considering an increase in the local meals (restaurant) tax for a set number of years to fund the purchase of land for a new park. Historic Alexandria Preservation Fund - A precedent for a dedicated fund already exists in Alexandria in the form of the Historic Alexandria Preservation Fund of the Historic Alexandria Foundation. Resources in this fund are generated through the Foundation’s annual antiques sale. A total of $5,000 is used annually to support the successful grants program of the organization. # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES **Local Service District** – The Code of Virginia (15.2-2400) permits localities to establish service districts for the purposes of providing enhanced services and/or facilities. Districts typically focus on transportation services, fire services, or sewer and water services. They are funded by a special property tax surcharge. In Northern Virginia, special service districts are used to support facilities such as the Reston and McLean Community Centers. Legislation was recently passed to allow the establishment of service districts for the purpose of purchasing land and maintaining open space areas. **Open Space Fund (developer fees)** – A program providing for developer fees and contributions can be established that would be dedicated to funding the acquisition and development of additional open space. Many communities have been successful in implementing this source of funding. Individual development sites are often not large enough, or are inappropriately located, to supply valuable open space for public use and enjoyment. Hence, a developer fee, either in lieu of, or in addition to, the provision of on-site open space would add to other funds, and would make purchases and development of desirable sites possible. **Other Funding Mechanisms** **1. Bonds:** * **General Obligation Bonds** – General Obligation bonds are instruments of local government capital finance. The government sells the bonds to raise funds, and then pays back the principal and interest on the bonds after a period of time has elapsed, usually 20 to 30 years. Bonds are often used to fund parks and open space projects. Depending on state or local law, bonds either require voter approval (such as in most Virginia counties) or city council authorization (such as in Alexandria and most Virginia cities.) For example, the 1998 Fairfax County Bond issue, which was supported by over 70 percent of the voters, included some $20 million out of a total of $75 million for land acquisition. Arlington County schedules a bond referendum package every two years and always includes proposals for parks bond funding. Arlington voters have approved these bond issues by substantial margins in all but one instance over the past two decades. * **Revenue Bonds** – Unlike General Obligation bonds, capital improvement bonds (such as revenue bonds) are not subject to levy limits and require only a public hearing, not a referendum. However, revenue bonds are typically used only on projects specifically included in a capital improvement plan, and when a dedicated source of funding is identified as the source of repayment. Dedicated funding sources can include certain taxes, utility fees, and other fees and revenue streams. # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES Examples: * In Virginia, transportation revenue bonds have been issued using part of the existing state recordation tax as a revenue source. * In 1998, Austin (Texas) citizens voted to apportion part of their rising property tax coffers to acquiring more open space. Citizens approved a $40.45 million bond offering to be repaid over 30 years. Thus far, 500 acres of open space have been purchased with the bond money. 2. Taxes and General Fund Money: * Property Taxes – In Virginia, local governing bodies can approve an increase in the local property tax rate to finance a bond issue or to provide cash for open space acquisition, create a community-managed open space trust fund, or pay for a specific open space purchase. Typically, the increases can range from 1 to 2 cents on every $100 of assessed valuation. The City of Fairfax advisory referendum mentioned above and subsequent Fairfax City Council action present a good example of how a community-supported increase in property taxes can be utilized for the acquisition of open space. * Sales Taxes – In some communities, the local sales tax rate has been increased to finance bonds for open space acquisition, create a trust fund, or pay for the acquisition of a specific piece of property. This approach is typically very beneficial for cities. Large sums of money can be generated from a very small tax increase on purchased goods and, in many cases, a large proportion of a city's retail sales typically comes from non-residents and visitors who end up paying for a share of the city's open space acquisition projects. In Virginia, the extension of the sales tax would require approval from the general assembly. In the immediate future, transportation and education capital projects are likely to be the only candidates for sales tax increase; however, if a sales tax increase is approved for education and/or transportation, it will make it easier financially for open space acquisition projects to be included in Alexandria's Capital Improvement Program. * General Fund Support – A community may also choose not to raise tax rates, per se, when financing a bond or providing funds for direct purchase for open space land. In the 1990's, many governments used General Fund surpluses to support such initiatives. The City of Alexandria's large annual contribution to capital reserves from the General Fund ($14 million is proposed in FY 2003) is a good example of this reallocation. Easements A tool that is growing in acceptance by non profit organizations and govern- # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES ments is the conservation easement. A conservation easement is a legally recorded agreement by which landowners may voluntarily restrict the use of their land. Provided that certain conditions are met, donors of easements may be eligible for certain income, estate, and property tax benefits. The income and estate tax benefits can be substantial, while the property tax benefits may or may not be substantial, depending largely on the relinquishment of development rights. To gain preferential tax treatment, the land to be protected must often provide a recognizable public benefit, such as protecting rare species, public water supplies, or scenic vistas visible from roads. Public access is not necessarily a requirement. Although the duration of a conservation easement can vary depending on the desires of the landowner, tax benefits generally are available only for perpetual easements. A landowner that conveys a conservation easement retains all rights to use the land for any purposes that do not interfere with the preservation of the property as stated in the terms of the easement. In 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia enacted new legislation that will allow landowners who provide substantial easements to "sell," or transfer for cash, the value of the resulting tax deduction, provided that their income is too low to benefit from the deduction. This significant legislation will mean that landowners on fixed, or other limited, incomes who could not formerly take advantage of the tax credit incentive would be able to obtain cash in lieu of this credit. The law was also changed to allow a minimum of one-quarter acre (versus the one acre previously required) to be eligible for conservation easement tax credits. **Examples:** * Fairfax County's land acquisition plan involves approaching owners about putting easements on their property. Since 2000, 241 acres have been protected through easements. * The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust has been working with private landowners in Fairfax, Loudoun and Arlington Counties, as well as recently in the City of Alexandria, to secure conservation easements. Successes include a 12-acre residential parcel in Great Falls and a wooded 13-acre parcel near Waterford. * In Alexandria, this approach was recently used to secure Civil War era fortifications and adjacent open space at Battery Heights. The use of conservation easements will be an excellent tool in making the linkages/connections recommended in the Open Space Plan, in order to achieve a continuous open space system within the city, and the use of easements will supplement implementation of the Potomac River Waterfront Plan. Working with landowners and development attorneys to secure conservation easements will be an important part of the overall strategy for preserving # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES Alexandria's open space. Much of the effort here will be locating willing landowners and educating them about the benefits of this action. A key part of the strategy will be to position the City so that it has the Right of First Refusal on large parcels of land and other critical properties, as they become available. The purchase of easements, rather than voluntary conveyances has also been a viable preservation tool in the past. However, this approach is subject to the ups and downs of economic cycles, and in the near term, may be somewhat more difficult given the current economic climate. Availability of funding through private and institutional sources has been adversely impacted by the recent performance of the stock market, and one important source of public funds has been curtailed. In the latter case, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (V.O.F.), the state-sponsored vehicle for the purchase of easements for large expanses of land, was de-funded in 2001. (Also, it should be noted that Alexandria has not established a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, so the V.O.F. reports that the City is unlikely to benefit from V.O.F. programs even when funding is available.) ### Balanced Development Balanced development can be loosely defined as financing the preservation of open space by developing only a portion of the property in question. Normally, balanced development initiatives are undertaken when a desirable tract of land becomes available on the open market. The balanced development approach allows the government to guide the development of the property and ensure the enhanced and continuing value of the property in question, as well as surrounding properties. Often, because of the economic highest and best use valuation, local government cannot financially or technically compete with the private sector when it comes to bidding for new land. The balanced development approach makes competition with the private sector easier for local government, by enlisting a third party entity to purchase the land for it. The third party then resells its land to the different entities involved. It may sell 20 percent of the land to an interested developer and the remaining 80 percent to the government. Because the third party is often a non-profit group or a conglomeration of local business, citizens, and environmental groups, the governmental entity is charged little for its portion of the land. In this way, a large percentage of the open space is preserved at a reduced cost to the public. However, this approach requires a private entity with significant financial capabilities. Within the City of Alexandria, the balanced development approach might be most applicable in areas such as Eisenhower Valley, where substantial new development is likely to occur and where preservation of open space as part of the development planning process will help preserve and enhance the city's "last remaining open space frontier." # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES * **FUNDING FOR OPERATIONS** **Applicable Goals: 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12** This section presents examples of funding mechanisms that can offset the operational costs of parks and open space. Most of the programs below aid in the maintenance/preservation/restoration of open space – a focus of the above goals. ### Volunteer Programs Volunteer programs have been used successfully to reduce budgetary requirements, enhance parks system operations, and generate a base of support for private contributions. Specific examples of volunteer applications include docent living history activities, security, gardening and landscaping, event registrations, and so forth. As a mechanism for preserving, protecting, and expanding open space in Alexandria, volunteer groups can organize as friends groups or be managed by the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities. They can help with environmental clean-up activities, education awareness, administrative work, and other activities. The Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities has already experienced success with the use of volunteers. However, by placing greater emphasis on volunteer programs, the City will likely achieve an even greater level of success. To this end the following actions should be considered: greater attention to volunteer recruitment and training, establishment of well-defined volunteer responsibilities and guidelines, and performance monitoring. It is also important to continue to give feedback and recognition to the volunteers. Based on the experience of other programs, it is estimated that Alexandria could expect to generate some 10,000 to 15,000 volunteer hours, or the equivalent of some five to eight full time employees, by utilizing volunteers. Savings from these volunteer hours could be used for other necessities or the hours could be used to maintain/preserve existing open space. Another benefit of active volunteer programs is the use of volunteer hours to fulfill certain matching requirements on grants. Valued at, say, $15 per hour on average, the potential hours identified above could be worth $150,000 to $225,000 for the purposes of matching grant applications. (Note: depending on the type of service or activity, the value of labor contributions might range from $7 to $50 per hour). ### Corporate Funding Support The use of corporate resources in supporting parks & recreation activities and open space preservation initiatives is a relatively new phenomenon, and there are mixed opinions as to whether tapping corporate support is appropriate, # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES and if so, under what circumstances. Nonetheless, it is a potential funding resource, and one of the early tasks in the implementation of the Open Space Plan should be, in concert with others in City government, to make a final determination regarding its desirability. With this caveat, the subject of corporate funding support is discussed in the paragraphs below. Corporate funding support could apply to both operations and acquisition; however, because of the generally short term nature of the commitment and magnitude of funding that might be generated, it is perhaps most practical to address corporate support under the operational funding heading. Corporate support can also be either direct or indirect. Direct support, which includes sponsorships, advertising and naming rights, is typically done by the corporation itself through its marketing or public affairs functions. Direct support is discussed below. For the purposes of this discussion, indirect support refers to funding through a corporate foundation, which is discussed later. Corporate sponsorship and advertising involve funds paid to a parks agency in return for establishing a linkage between the corporation (or in some cases, institution) and park users. This linkage can be achieved through identification of the corporation as an underwriter of an event, such as a concert. Placement of advertising materials in event brochures or advertising on scoreboards are examples of this identification strategy. The same linkage and corporate exposure can be achieved through identification of the corporate donor as a sponsor of the agency or designation of corporate products as the “official” products of the agency. Examples of the latter could range from exclusive pour rights for a soft drink company to exclusive suntan lotion for aquatic facilities. Ultimately, the value of corporate sponsorship or advertising is a function of exposure, or number of people who will receive the message. For the Alexandria Open Space Plan, a global, comprehensive approach to corporate sponsorship would make sense. By including the total recreational budget of the Recreation and Parks Department, the level of exposure would be maximized, thus maximizing the corporate income potential. Including trails and other open space assets is important to this strategy because of the high levels of utilization that can be achieved in this manner. The second approach to tapping into corporate funding is through the sale of naming rights. Typically, this approach involves funds paid to a public agency/facility owner by a corporation in exchange for the right to affix the company’s name to the facility. This funding approach is most common for large sports venues such as stadiums and arenas; however, it is making its way into other types of facilities, and it appears likely that it is just a matter of time before naming rights reach into the public recreation domain. For example, several public recreation providers have sponsorship agreements with product and service providers, and in a related area, the Fairfax County School Board is actively investigating the issues of naming rights for its facilities. For the Alexandria Open Space Plan, trailhead signage, benches, parks and other recreational facilities could all lend themselves to this approach. # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES * **USE OF PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS** **Applicable Goals: 1 through 15** Public and institutional grants may be used for both acquisition of open space and funding of operations. Historically, grants have ranged in value from as little as $100 to over $1 million. As noted previously, the resources available for grants are subject to normal economic cycles. Currently, the amount of awards and the frequency with which grants are awarded is decreasing. State governments across the country have de-funded many open space-related grants as public coffers shrunk in response to a slowing economy. However, as the economy strengthens, the level of grant funding should bounce back, and as part of a long-term strategy, grants should continue to be useful sources of funding. In the face of shrinking resources and increased competition for grant funding, knowledge of and experience with grants will be increasingly important for success. The retention of a full-time professional grant writer, and perhaps a development consultant, focused on open space and trails grants will be critical since specific experience and skill sets are useful in the grant writing and implementation processes. As well, success in tapping corporate and institutional funding most often involves understanding the donor's requirements and needs, and tailoring a responsive proposal that links these requirements and needs to a specific project or program. With both public and institutional grants, separation of the recipient from government through establishment of an open space conservancy to receive the donations may, at times, also be important. Sources of public and institutional grants that could be pursued in the implementation of the Alexandria Open Space Plan are identified below. **Public Grants** Public grant programs are typically administered at the state level, and include programs that disperse funds coming from the federal government, as well as from programs that originate at the state level. A smaller number of programs are administered directly by the federal agency controlling the funding. *Land and Water Conservation Fund* (Applies to goals: 1, 4, 5, 9, 15) The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund is administered through the Virginia Outdoor Foundation. It is available for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities and requires a 50/50 match from localities. *North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants* (Applies to goals 3 and 4) # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants are disbursed by the federal government through the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grant funds support acquisition, restoration, and enhancement projects involving wetland and wetland associated uplands. Begun in 1989, the program provides matching grants to private or public organizations or to individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Funds for the grant have been increasing gradually almost every year since its inception. In 2001, $40 million was allocated for N.A.W.C.A. grants. Most of this money was matched on a 2:1 basis. A few were matched at 1:1. The N.A.W.C.A. small grant program provides funding up to $50,000. An average small grant amounts to just under $40,000. The N.A.W.C.A. large grant program provides between $50,000 and $1 million. *Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund* (Applies to goals 1, 3 and 4) The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund supports environmental education and action-oriented conservation and restoration projects within Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay watershed. The fund earns revenue by selling license plates with Chesapeake Bay designs on them. It disperses its earning through grants to state and local governments, as well as nonprofit entities. In 2001, the fund awarded more than $450,000 in grants to some 75 different projects. *Recreation Trails Program (Virginia Recreation Trails Fund)* (Applies to goals 5 and 10) This is a small, competitive grant program that distributes monies from the ISTEA/TEA21 program. It is intended to aid the construction and rehabilitation of recreational trails. The funding, which is administered by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), is not restricted to non-motorized trails, but they are its focus. Grant monies cannot be used for planning, or for construction of "incomplete" trails (i.e., those that are designed to be a part of a future system.) Stand-alone trails, as well as connector trails, are the focuses of this funding. This is an 80/20 matching fund grant, with 20 percent of the total project costs required of the local organization. Grants range from $10,000 to $150,000, with typical grants amounting to $50,000 to $60,000. Total funds available in 2001 are $800,000 (2000 funding totaled about $1 million.) The grant is funded at least through 2003 and, if renewed at that time, would be funded for an additional six years. The W&OD trail in Northern Virginia has been a recipient of these funds in the past. The City of Alexandria is also a current recipient of TEA21 funding for the Eisenhower Bike Trail project, and has applied for additional funding under this program. *Virginia Land Conservation Fund* (Applies to Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9) The Virginia Land Conservation Fund (VLCF) has been set up to provide matching grants to localities, public bodies, and nonprofit organizations for purchasing fee simple title to and interest in real property for land conservation purposes. Grant categories are: # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES * Open Spaces and Parks * Natural Area Protection * Historic Area Preservation * Farmlands and Forest Preservation In the past, grants have been used to help the Nature Conservancy acquire 458 acres of land adjacent to the Commonwealth’s Cleveland Barrens Natural Areas Preserve, to help Fairfax County acquire 2.9 acres of easement at three sites in Vienna and Oakton, and to help York County acquire nine easements on the York River beach to provide a continuous pedestrian linkage/trail along the riverfront. Historically, VLCF grants have ranged in value from $30,000 to $1 million, with an average gift of $140,000. However, the Virginia State Assembly appropriated no funding for the VLCF in 2001, and the VLCF does not expect any new funding in 2002. The fund has suspended acceptance of applications for the time being. *Transportation Enhancement Activities* (Applies to goals 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) Transportation enhancement grants are administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation and are available for a wide range of activities defined in 12 categories, some more specific than others. Examples of projects eligible for grant funding include trails, streetscapes (pedestrian amenities), landscaping, preservation of scenic easements, billboard removal, and restoration of historic properties related to transportation (train depot, lighthouse, etc.) This is an 80/20 matching fund grant, and allows for the local 20 percent to be in the form of cash, or donations of land, materials, or in-kind services. There is no minimum, but the agency will only pay up to $1 million annually to a single entity. Total grant funding available in the State of Virginia for 2001 was $18.5 million, and is expected to remain at or above this level. Typical grants total $150,000 to $250,000, but projects as small as $5,000 to $6,000 are frequently funded. *Certified Local Government Grants* (Applies to goals 1, 2, 6, 8) The Certified Local Government(CLG) Grant program establishes a partnership between local governments, the federal historic preservation program, and a state’s Department of Historic Resources (DHR). The program allows state DHR’s, to recommend for certification local governments that have put key elements of a sound local preservation program in place in their communities. Designation as CLGs gives local governments a way to participate more formally in the state and national historic preservation programs. The City of Alexandria qualifies for CLG grants, as it is one of 24 CLG’s in Virginia. Because CLG grants use federally appropriated funds, the de-funding of CLG’s is less likely than the de-funding of grants supported by the state General Assembly. Typically, Virginia’s CLG budget is $85,000. Awards range in size from $5,000 to $25,000, with an average award of $15,000. Generally, there is a match of some sort, but no match is required. CLG grants may # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES be used for surveys of architectural or archaeological resources and historic preservation planning, among other things. *Historic Preservation Project Grant* (Applies to goals 1, 3, 4, 6, 8) In 2001, the General Assembly in the State of Virginia did not appropriate funds for Historic Preservation Project Grants. In the past, these grants were used to preserve/restore local historic sites and natural areas. In a "normal" year, the state legislature would award up to 75 grants ranging in value from $5,000 to $100,000. The Historic Alexandria Foundation received $10,000 in 2001, and $28,500 in 2002 from this source for two sites in the City. *Partners for Fish and Wildlife* (Applies to goals 6, 7, 15) These grants, administered by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, are primarily given for voluntary habitat restoration projects, as they are geared more toward restoration than toward acquisition. Most recipients are private landowners. Projects are extremely varied in nature, but can include restoration, planting, dam removal, outreach, habitat preservation and easements. This agency funds relatively few projects in urban areas. All grants are matching, and the ratio of federal to other funds ranges from 1:3 to 3:1, depending on the project and the number of partners involved. Total annual distributions range from $1 to $1.5 million, and the typical grant is $50,000 to $100,000. Community Development Block Grants (CBDG) *(Applies to goals 1, 7, 9)* Funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered at the local level. Focus is mainly in providing affordable housing for low and moderate-income families. Can be used for the development of recreational facilities and open space; however, since the city is dedicated to affordable housing, its limited funding available through CBDG is unlikely to be utilized for open space initiatives. *Urban and Community Forestry Grants* (Applies to goals 11, 12, 13, 14) These grants are administered by the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. The funds promote improvements to urban areas and communities through the provision of forestry resources. *Other Public Grant Programs*: In addition to the programs identified above, there are several additional programs that could benefit Alexandria's Open Space program. These include: * The National Park Service's Gateway program, which provides funding for trail markers and interpretive signs. * Chesapeake Bay Foundation grants, that provide support for educational programs and materials such as brochures. * Virginia Tourism Corporation matching grants, provide up to $10,000 for the promotion of special events and educational programs. * Urban Park and Recreational Recovery (UPARR) grants from the Fed- # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES eral government to improve recreation facilities in urban areas. * Federal Brownfield/Grayfield grants to help clean up open space areas that were formerly occupied by polluting uses. ### Institutional Grants *The Virginia Land Endowment* (Applies to goals 1, 4, 5, 7, 9) The Virginia Land Endowment is an institutional grantor that uses its capital to encourage pollution prevention, open space conservation, and environmental education. In 2001, the endowment supported The Land Conservation Fund in Arlington, VA with a $100,000 matching grant. *The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust* (Applies to goals 1, 4, 5, 7, 9) The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust was originally established to promote open space preservation in Fairfax County. It has now expanded its geographical coverage and has undertaken projects in the inner and outer suburban counties and cities of Northern Virginia, including the City of Alexandria. Activities include providing grants to support partners in land acquisition and purchase of easements, advocacy and education. *Various Foundations* (Applies to goals 1, 4, 5, 7, 9) There are a number of private foundations that directly and indirectly support objectives of this plan including education, land acquisition and support for general operational and administrative expenses. Some of these foundations are national in scope, but located in the region. This geographical proximity could be advantageous in working to secure funding. Examples of foundations with national coverage based in Washington, DC include: The Moriah Fund and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Examples of funds that focus exclusively or primarily on Virginia include the Virginia Environmental Endowment, and the Mark and Catherine Winkler Foundation. The latter is based in the City of Alexandria and actively supports land acquisition and O&M expense coverage. In addition, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, which has been identified as a potential funding source, is involved in the acquisition of open space lands and conservation easements under its own name. ## C. CONCLUSIONS The implementation of Alexandria's Open Space Plan will result in the creation of a connected open space system that accomplishes several objectives. It maximizes the accessibility of the City's open spaces for all of its residents. In addition, it enhances and protects the City's significant existing open space assets, such as its waterfront, its stream valleys, and its institutional lands. And, through the creation of the Open Space Conservancy, it establishes a mechanism for adding to the City's open space assets as opportunities arise. The provision of an outstanding open space system will serve Alexandria well, for a long time to come. It will attract new residents to the City, it will encourage those living here to remains, and it will illustrate how a dense and diverse # CHAPTER 6 PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES community can be tied together through its varied and beautiful open spaces. [^p99-8]: CITYgreen, a software program developed by American Forests, uses Graphic Information Systems (GIS) technology to assess the changing structure of a landscape over time, with particular emphasis on tree cover issues. # REFERENCES Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development. *Mount Vernon Avenue Urban Design Guidelines*, October 16, 1993. ________________________. *Summary of Small Area Plans*. Adopted 1992. Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities. *Parks and Recreation Master Plan*, 1978. ________________________. *Bicycle Transportation and Multi-use Trail Master Plan*, for Alexandria, Virginia, 1998. ________________________. *Parks and Recreation Master Plan* (not adopted), 1994. American Forests. *Regional Ecosystem Analysis Chesapeake Bay Region and the Baltimore-Washington Corridor: Calculating the Value of Nature*. 1999. Arendt, Randall G. *Conservation Design for Subdivisions*. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 1966. Arlington County, Virginia. *Open Space Master Plan*. Adopted September 10 1994 Billingsley, Ken. “Let’s Talk Demographics,” Speech Presented to Agenda Alexandria, October 19, 1998. Bleam, Gregg. *The City as a Park. A Citizens’ Guide to Charlottesville Parks*. Gregg Bleam Landscape Architects, 1998. Cooper, Robertson & Partners, et al. *Potomac Yards Urban Design Guidelines*. March 12, 1999, reissued April 28, 1999. Amended by Alexandria City Council Sept. 8, 1999. Crompton, John L. *The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Values and the Property Tax Base*. National Recreation and Park Assoc. Ashburn, VA, 2000. ________________________. “The Impact of Parks on Property Values,” *Parks and Recreation Magazine*. National Recreation and Park Association, January 2001. ________________________. “To Keep the Bills Down, should the Community Build Homes or Parks,” *Parks and Recreation Magazine*. National Recreation and Park Association, January 2001. Fairfax County, Virginia. *Policy Plan: The County Wide Policy Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Fairfax County, Virginia*, 1990 , as amended 1997. Flink, Charles A., and Robert M. Searns. *Greenways. A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development*. The Conservation Fund. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 1993. Gaithersburg, Maryland. *Parks, Recreation and Open Space for the 21st Century*, 1999. Garvin, Alexander. Gayle Berens. *Urban Parks and Open Space*. Urban Land Institute. Washington DC, 1997. Harnik, Peter. *Inside City Parks*. Urban Land Institute. Washington D.C., 2000. Historic Alexandria Foundation. Final report from the Task Force on Open Space Easements, June 18, 1987. Jones Point Park Recommendation Chronicles, May 27, 1999. Lerner, Steve, and William Poole. *The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space*. The Trust for Public Land, 1999. *Maryland Atlas of Greenways, Water Trails, and Green Infrastructure*. Prepared by the Maryland Greenways Commission, August 2000. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Annapolis, Maryland. # REFERENCES Mertes, James D. Ph.D., James R. Hall, CLP. *Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines* National Recreation and Park Association and the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, 1996. Land Trust Alliance. *Land Banks* (undated article). Lawrence, Kathleen W. and Ronald L. Hedlund. *Virginia Outdoors Plan*, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Director, 1996. National Capital Planning Commission. *Comprehensive Plan: Parks, Open Space, Natural Features Element.* Draft for Commission Authorization to Circulate, August 15, 2000. Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. *Policy Plan.* Adopted February 20, 1992. Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc. *The Virginia Greenways and Trails Toolbox.* VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Trails Association. Richmond, VA, May 1999. PKF Consulting. *Draft Recreation Master Plan* for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, June, 1998. Prince William County, Office of Planning. *Comprehensive Plan*, 1998, amended 2000. ____________________________. *Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions*, June 1999. *Recreation Facilities and Trails Map.* Alexandria, Virginia: Alexandria Drafting Company, 1997. Rhodeside & Harwell, Inc. and ERA. *Stafford County Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks and Open Space*, 1989. Salem, Oregon. *Comprehensive Park System Master Plan.* April 1999. Tibbetts, John. *Open Space Conservation: Investing in Your Community’s Economic Health.* Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cambridge, 1998. Virginia Beach, Virginia. *Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan*, 2000. *Water Quality Management Supplement.* City of Alexandria Master Plan. Adopted January 13, 2001. *Washingtonian Magazine.* “Who We Are,” April 2001. ## Articles from the Web: Alexandria, Virginia. Recreation, Parks & Cultural Activities. *Recreation Facilities and Parks Location Map.* Last Modified: Wednesday, 09-Aug-2000. http://ci.alexandria.va.us/rpca/rpca_gi_location_map.html Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Green Ribbon Open Space Committee.” March 2000. www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~CDD/commplan/greenribbon/pdfs/gr_ribb_report.pdf *Great Public Spaces, Great Community Places.* http://www.pps.org/GPS_New/index.html Hermosa Beach. “Open Space Zone.” No date given. www.hermosabch.org/1730.htm National Association of Counties. Research Surveys, *Parks Survey.* Web site copyright 1999 by National Association of Counties. www.naco.org/counties/surveys/parks.index.cfm The Trust for Public Land. “Federal Funding, ...”, dates vary. www.tpl.org/tier2_re2.cfm?&folder_id=191 Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. “Greenways: Conserving Virginia’s Natural & Recreational Resources.” http://www.dcr.state.va.us/prr/greenway.htm # REFERENCES Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. "Trails . . .Conserving Virginia’s Natural & Recreational Resources." http://www.dcr.state.va.us/prr/greenway.htm Western Governors’ Association. "The Open Lands Initiative: Economic Benefits of Open Space," April 1998. www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/tpl/ecoben.htm City of Alexandria                                                        Open Space Classification Overview # Planning District #1 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-01 | African American Heritage Park | 500 Holland Lane | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Regional | Public | 7.60 | | 1-02 | Alexandria Schools Rowing Facility (Oronoco Bay Park) | 1 Madison Street | Active | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Educational Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.73 | | 1-03 | "Alley Way" | Pitt St. to St. Asaph St. 200 South Block | Trails Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Block | Public | 0.31 | | 1-04 | Armory Tot-Lot | 200 block of South Royal Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.20 | | 1-05 | Charles Houston Community Center | 901 Wythe Street | Active | Educational Recreational | Citywide | Public | 1.3 open space | | 1-06 | Chetworth Park | 810 Chetworth Place | Active | Dog Park Recreational | Block | Public | 0.28 | | 1-07 | City Property | First and Payne Streets | Passive | Dog Park | Block | Public | 1.37 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview ### Planning District #1 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-08 | Daingerfield Island Park | George Washington Memorial Parkway (1 Marina Drive) | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Regional | Public | 130.03 | | 1-9 | Dr. Oswald Durant Memorial Center | 1605 Cameron Street | Passive | Recreational Educational | Citywide | Public | 1.76 | | 1-10 | Ford's Landing | 99 Franklin Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.59 | | 1-11 | Founder's Park | 351 Union Street | Passive | Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 4.70 | | 1-12 | George Washington Memorial Parkway | Northern Section between 1st Street and Four Mile Run | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Cultural/Historical | Regional | Public | 45.50 | | 1-13 | Helen Miller & Bernard Hunter Park (formerly Fayette & Queen Park) | 224 North Fayette Street | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 0.32 | | 1-14 | Interior Park | 1321 Oronoco Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.30 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview ### Planning District #1 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-15 | Jefferson Houston School | 1501 Cameron Street | Active | Recreational Educational | Citywide | Public | 4.68 open space | | 1-16 | Jones Point Park | 100 Jones Point Drive | Active Passive | Cultural/Historical Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 52.30 | | 1-17 | King Street Gardens | 1806 King Street | Passive Streetscapes/Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape Cultural/Historical | Citywide | Public | 0.15 | | 1-18 | King Street Park | King Street at the Potomac River | Passive | Cultural/Historical Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Citywide | Public | 0.19 | | 1-19 | Lee Center | 1108 Jefferson Street | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 4.10 | | 1-20 | Lloyd House Garden | 220 North Washington Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Citywide | Public | less than 1.0 | | 1-21 | Lyles-Crouch Open Space (adjacent School) | 530 South Saint Asaph Street | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 1.27 open space | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview --- | --- # Planning District #1 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-22 | Market Square | 300 King Street | Passive | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Citywide | Public | 0.75 | | 1-23 | Metro Linear Park | 1607 Suter Street (Buchanan to Braddock) | Passive
Trails | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 1.97 | | 1-24 | Montgomery Park | 901 North Royal Street | Active | Dog Park
Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 2.00 | | 1-25 | Nannie J. Lee Recreation Center and Pool | 1108 Jefferson Street | Active | Educational
Recreational
Cultural/Historical | Citywide | Public | 10.00 | | 1-26 | Old Cameron Run Channel | 2251 Mill Road | Passive | Natural Resource Area
Environmentally Sensitive | Neighborh | Public | 2.70 | | 1-27 | Old Town Pool (includes Buchanan Street Park) | 1609 Cameron Street
(west side of Durrant Center) | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 2.51 | | 1-28 | Oronoco Bay Park
(also contains Alexandria Schools Rowing Facility) | 701 North Lee Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive
Natural Resource Area
Recreational
Riverfront | Regional | Public | 4.50 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview ### Planning District #1 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-29 | Pendelton Park | 1333 Pendelton Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.30 | | 1-30 | Point Lumley | East End of Duke Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.15 | | 1-31 | Portner Park | 1400 Portner Road | Passive | Dog Park | Block | Public | 0.24 | | 1-32 | Potomac Yards (City's open space component only) | Jefferson Davis Highway | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 70.0 | | 1-33 | Powhatan Park | 1009 Douglas Street | Active | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 1.47 | | 1-34 | "Rivergate" Park | 2 Montgomery Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Riverfront Cultural/Historic | Regional | Public | 1.97 | | 1-35 | Roberdeau Park (includes Shipyard Park) | End of Wolfe and Wilkes Streets at Potomac River | Passive Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.86 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview # Planning District #1 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-36 | Tide Lock Park | Canal Center Plaza | Trails | Cultural/Historical Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 6.7 | | 1-37 | Torpedo Plaza | End of King Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Riverfront Urban Plaza / Streetscape Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Natural Resource Area | Regional | Public | 1.50 | | 1-38 | Washington Way | 120 North Pitt Street | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Block | Public | 0.01 | | 1-39 | Waterfront Park | 1 A Prince Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Regional | Public | 1.50 | | 1-40 | West's Point (connected with Founder's Park) | 1 Oronoco Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.07 | | 1-41 | Wilkes Street Tunnel | Wilkes Street (between Royal and Fairfax Streets) | Streetscapes/Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza/Streetscapes | Neighbor | Public | 0.21 | | 1-42 | Windmill Hill Park (includes Potomac View Park and Old Town Yacht Basin) | 501 North Royal Street | Active | Recreational Cultural/Historical Environmentally Sensitive | Neighbor | Public | 3.48 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT # City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1-43 | Wythe Street Plaza | 701 N. Fairfax Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 0.37 | | 2-01 | Angel Park | 201 West Taylor Run Parkway | Active | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 10.34 | | 2-02 | Beach Park (Maury School adjacent) | 201 Rucker Place | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 1.30 | | 2-03 | Beverly Park | 620 North Overlook Drive | Passive | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 1.90 | | 2-04 | Braddock Field (George Washington School adjacent) | 1005 Mount Vernon Avenue | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 6.6 | | 2-05 | Braddock Road Dog Park | 5 East Braddock Road | Passive | Dog Park | Block | Public | 0.22 | | 2-06 | Charles Barrett Open Space (Charles Barrett School adjacent) | 1115 Martha Custis Drive | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighbor | Public | 4.87 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview # Planning District #2 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 2-07 | Charles W. Hill Park | 300-304 East Oxford Avenue | Passive | Dog Park | Neighbor | Public | 0.37 | | 2-08 | Chinquapin Park and Recreation Center (TC Williams HS adjacent) | 3210 King Street | Active | Dog Park
Educational
Environmentally Sensitive
Natural Resource Area
Recreational | Citywide | Public | 22.80 open
space;
0.07 center | | 2-09 | Cora Kelly School and Recreation Center (Four Mile Run noted separately) | 25 West Reed Street | Active | Recreational
Educational | Citywide | Public | 01.41 open
space | | 2-10 | Elbert Triangle | 511 Four Mile Road | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways
Passive | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Neighbor | Public | 0.13 | | 2-12 | Forest Park | 1099 Frances Hammond Parkway | Passive | Natural Resource Area
Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 15.9 | | 2-13 | Four Mile Run Park (Cora Kelly School adjacent) | 3700 Commonwealth Avenue | Trails
Active | Dog Park
Environmentally Sensitive
Natural Resource Area
Recreational | Regional | Public | 55.90 | | 2-14 | Gentry Park | Guthry Avenue and Mosby Street | Passive | Recreational
Streetscapes/Scenic
Roadways | Neighbor | Public | 0.21 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview ### Planning District #2 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 2-15 | George Mason Open Space (George Mason School adjacent) | 2601 Cameron Mills Road | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 8.20 | | 2-16 | George Washington Middle School | 1105 Mt. Vernon Avenue | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 12.90 | | 2-17 | Goat Hill Park | 33 Kennedy Street | Passive | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 1.50 | | 2-18 | Hillside Park | 264 Burgess Avenue | Passive | Dog Park | Neighborh | Public | 0.55 | | 2-19 | Hooff's Run Park and Greenway | 18 A East Linden Street | Trails Passive | Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 2.40 | | 2-20 | Hume Springs Park | 100 Dale Street | Passive | Dog Park Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 0.50 | | 2-21 | Landover Park | 3301 Landover Street | Passive | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 0.80 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 2-22 | Lynhaven Gateway | Lynhaven and Wesmond Drives | Passive Streetscapes/Scenic Roadways | Recreational Urban Plaza/Streetscape | Block | Public | 0.05 | | 2-23 | Lynhaven Park | 5 East Reed Avenue | Passive | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 0.30 | | 2-24 | Mac Arthur School (Forest Park noted separately) | 1101 Janney's Lane | Active | Educational | Neighborh | Public | 3.30 | | 2-25 | Mason Avenue Mini Park | 10 East Monroe Avenue | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.30 | | 2-26 | Maury School (Beach Park noted separately) | 600 Russell Road | Active | Educational | Neighborh | Public | 1.60 open space | | 2-27 | Monticello Park | 320 Beverly Drive | Passive | Cultural/Historical Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 6.20 | | 2-28 | Mt. Jefferson Park and Greenway | 301 Hume Avenue | Trails | Dog Park Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 6.70 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview ## Planning District #2 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 2-29 | Mt. Vernon School and Recreation Center (Colasanto Center noted separately) | 2601 Commonwealth Avenue | Active | Educational Recreational | Citywide | Public | 5.87 open space | | 2-30 | Nicholas Colasanto Center and Pool (Mt. Vernon School adjacent) | 2404 Mount Vernon Avenue | Active | Recreational Cultural/Historical | Citywide | Public | 0.20 | | 2-31 | Robert Leider Park | 3002 Valley Drive | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Block | Public | 1.30 | | 2-32 | Russell Open Space | 10 Russell Road | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | | Neighborh | Public | 0.30 | | 2-33 | Simpson Stadium Park | 426 East Monroe Avenue | Active | Recreational Dog Park | Citywide | Public | 13.70 | | 2-34 | St. Asaph Park | 215 East Ida Avenue | Passive Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Neighborh | Public | 0.44 | | 2-35 | Sunset Mini Park | 4 Sunset Drive | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.20 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria # Planning District #2 Open Space Classification Overview | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 2-36 | T.C. Williams High School (Chinquapin Park noted separately) | 3300 King Street | Active | Educational | Citywide | Public | 15.90 open space | | 2-37 | Taylor Run Park | Between East and West Taylor Run Parkways | Passive | Natural Resource Area Environmentally Sensitive | Block | Public | 10.40 | | 2-38 | Timberbranch Parkway | Island dividing E. and W. Timberbranch Parkway | Passive | Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Block | Public | 5.96 | | 2-39 | Timberland Park | access between #66-68 Kennedy Street | Passive | Dog Park Recreational | Block | Public | 0.25 | | 2-40 | Union Station Historical Marker | 1900 King Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical | Neighborh | Public | n/a | | 2-41 | Warwick Pool | 3301 Landover Street | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 0.25 open space | | 2-42 | Woodbine Park | 1509 Woodbine Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.10 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria # Open Space Classification Overview ## Planning District #3 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 3-01 | 270 South Reynolds Street Open Space | 270 South Reynolds Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Block | Public | 1.0 | | 3-02 | Armistead L. Booth Park/Samuel W. Tucker School | 5500 Edsall Road | Active | Recreational Environmentally Sensitive Educational | Neighborh | Public | 12.52 | | 3-03 | Backlick Run (includes Resource Protection Area) | Adjacent to Eisenhower Avenue | Passive Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | approximately 1.5 | | 3-04 | Ben Brenman Park | 5000 block of Duke Street | Active | Dog Park Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | 50.37 | | 3-05 | Brookvalley Park (part of Holmes Run) | 5599 Holmes Run Parkway | Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 35.90 | | 3-06 | Cameron Run (includes Resource Protection Area) | Eisenhower Corridor | Trails Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | approximately 3.0 | | 3-07 | Cameron Run Regional Park and Great Waves Water Park | 4001 Eisenhower Avenue | Active | Recreational Environmentally Sensitive | Regional | Public | 33.50 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT # City of Alexandria ## Open Space Classification Overview ### Planning District #3 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 3-08 | Chambliss Park (John Adams School adjacent) | 2505 North Chambliss Street | Passive | Dog Park Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 6.00 | | 3-09 | Duke Street Dog Park | 5000 block of Duke St. East of Beatley Library | Passive | Dog Park | Citywide | Public | 1.41 | | 3-10 | Clermont Nature Park | access from Clermont Drive | Passive | Natural Resource Area Environmentally Sensitive | Citywide | Public | 5.49 | | 3-11 | Dora Kelley Nature Park and Buddie Ford Nature Center (William Ramsay School adjacent) | 1525 North Chambliss Street | Passive Trails | Educational Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 34.26 | | 3-12 | Ewald Park and Pool | 4454 Duke Street | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 4.00 | | 3-13 | F.C. Hammond Middle School | 4646 Seminary Road | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 21.50 open space | | 3-14 | Fort Ward Park | 4401 West Braddock Road | Passive Active | Cultural/Historical Dog Park Educational Natural Resource Area Recreational | Regional | Public | 41.40 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview ## Planning District #3 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 3-15 | Fort Williams Park | 501 Fort Williams Parkway | Passive Trails | Cultural/Historical Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighbor | Public | 7.80 | | 3-16 | Hensley Park | 4200 Eisenhower Avenue | Active | Recreational Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 14.80 | | 3-17 | Holmes Run Scenic Easement | 311 North Pickett Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 2.80 | | 3-18 | James Marx All Veterans Park (part of Holmes Run Parkway) | 311 North Pickett Street | Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 9.60 | | 3-19 | James Mulligan Park | 3300 28th Street | Passive | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 3.50 | | 3-20 | John Adams School and Recreation Center (Chambliss Park noted separately) | 5651 Rayburn Avenue | Active | Educational Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 5.35 open space | | 3-21 | Lake Cook | 4001 Eisenhower Avenue | Passive | Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | 7.10 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 3-22 | Luckett Field | Duke Street and Quaker Lane | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 5.60 | | 3-23 | Minnie Howard School & Field | 3801 West Braddock Road | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 9.00 | | 3-24 | Patrick Henry School/ Park and Recreation Center | 4643 Taney Avenue | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighbor | Public | 17.00 | | 3-25 | Polk School and Open Space | 5000 Polk Avenue | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighbor | Public | 11.70 | | 3-26 | Rynex Nature Area | 300 Rynex Drive | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighbor | Public | 8.50 | | 3-27 | Stevenson Park | 300 Stultz Road | Active | Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 9.50 | | 3-28 | Strawberry Run (includes Resource Protection Area) | Adjacent to Fort Williams Parkway | Passive Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Dog Park Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | approximately 1.0 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview ### Planning District #3 | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 3-29 | Taney Avenue Park | 4149 Taney Avenue | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 2.59 | | 3-30 | Tarleton Park | 4420 A Vermont Avenue | Passive
Trails | Dog Park
Environmentally Sensitive
Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 6.03 | | 3-31 | William Ramsay School and Recreation Center
(Dora Kelley Park noted separately) | 5700 Sanger Avenue | Active | Educational
Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 18.30 | | 4-01 | Alexandria Country Day School | 2400 Russell Road | Active | Educational
Recreational | Neighborh | Private with
Public Access | 3.89 | | 4-02 | Alexandria Hospital | 4320 Seminary Road | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with
Public Access | 65.18 open
space;
4.22 buildings | | 4-03 | Alexandria House Park | 400 Madison Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with
Public Access | 0.50 | | 4-04 | Alexandria Water Company | 2223 Duke Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with no
Public Access | 10.02 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT # City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview ## Significant Private Open Spaces | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 4-05 | Bishop Ireton High School | 253 Cambridge Road | Active | Educational Recreational | Citywide | Private with no Public Access | 9.94 open space; 1.89 building | | 4-06 | Carlyle Crescent Park | 2121 Jamieson Ave | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Dog Park | Block | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 | | 4-07 | Carlyle Towers Open Space | 2121 Jamieson Ave | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza/Streetscape | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 | | 4-08 | Christ Church Yard | 121 North Columbus Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 | | 4-09 | Episcopal High School and Virginia Theological Seminary | 1200 North Quaker Lane 4200 Braddock Road 3737/3630 Seminary Road | Active | Educational Natural Resource Area Recreational Cultural/Historical | Regional | Private with no Public Access | 190.34 | | 4-10 | First Baptist Church | 2932 King Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Regional | Private with no Public Access | 16.20 | | 4-11 | George Washington Masonic National Memorial | 101 Callahan Drive | Passive | Cultural/Historical Urban Plaza / Streetscape Educational Recreational | Regional | Private with Public Access | 39.87 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT # City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview ## Significant Private Open Spaces | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 4-12 | Lee Fendall House Garden | 614 Oronoco Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Regional | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 | | 4-13 | Park on Wythe and Payne | Wythe and Payne Streets | Passive | Recreational | Block | Private with no Public Access | less than 1.0 | | 4-14 | Presbyterian Meeting House Yard | 316 South Royal Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Citywide | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 | | 4-15 | Second Presbyterian Church | 1400 Janneys Lane | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Citywide | Private with Public Access | 7.70 | | 4-16 | St. Martin de Porres Senior Center | 4650 Taney Avenue | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 | | 4-17 | St. Mary's School | 400 Green Street | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Private with no Public Access | 1.63 | | 4-18 | St. Stephens & St. Agnes School | 400 Fontaine Street 4401 W Braddock Road 1000 St Stephens Road | Active | Educational Recreational | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | 47.69 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview # Significant Private Open Spaces | Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 4-19 | Temple Beth El | 3830 Seminary Road | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | 3.12 | | 4-20 | Trans Potomac / Canal Center Plaza | 1033 North Fairfax Street | Passive | Recreational Cultural/Historical | Neighborh | Private with no Public Access | 0.84 | | 4-21 | Winkler Botanical Preserve | 5400 Roanoke Avenue | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Educational Recreational | Regional | Private with Public Access | 42.0 | | 4-22 | Woodbine Nursing Home | 2729 King Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Regional | Private with no Public Access | 5.31 | Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT # CITY OF ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN Meeting for Planning District #1 (April 16, 2001) # Public Comments ## A. OPEN SPACE DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS * Look at what should be counted as open space, especially for development purposes * Do not consider parking lots as open space * To extent possible, use current vacant lands as open space * Maximize use and visual quality on all open pieces of land * The use of open space is secondary to the identification of open spaces opportunities * Need to preserve institutional open spaces (e.g., Episcopal Seminary) ## B. SPECIFIC PARCELS, AREAS AND PARKS * Old Town - Retain attraction of Old Town for visitors and residents with more and better quality shops - Balance types of shops * Protect Masonic Temple lands—an open space icon * Carlyle development—open space must be maintained by City - Current open space has maintenance issues - Standards should not be allowed to be “gotten around” * Portner Park— - Not to be a dog park - State owned - Private citizen maintained * Slaters Lane— - Realignment as proposed by Al Cox most desirable - Want a ‘modified T’ street end to maximize open space potential * Vacant Parcels—(Bashford Lane and Powhatan Street) - State owned - Could be unfenced open space - Five-year plan has been established, corporate sponsors obtained for plantings, donations gathered, State Representatives contacted - Kept in poor condition now * Chetworth Park— - Historically a Victory Garden - Move all dog usage out of Chetworth Park to Slaters CAP property * The NE— - Has the lowest percent of open space (2.8%) in the entire City - Needs even the smallest of ‘pocket parks’ - Needs open space areas without dogs and tot lots - Has few streets, is very dense which increases any green or open space value, regardless of size - Town homes too intensely developed ## C. RIVER FRONTS, STREAMS, WETLANDS, AND NATURAL AREAS * Habitat Areas - Open space areas should be viewed as a way to preserve wildlife corridors * Potomac River -- - Continuous open space along river needed—with public access - Create a buffer zone for water quality - Take advantage of all opportunities as they arise * Hooff's Run — - Create a continuous access-way along stream - Need wilderness where children can play **D. STREETSCAPES AND PARKING** * Sidewalks— * Serious encroachment from signage, utility poles combined with a lack of width * Bike lanes encroach onto sidewalk due to narrow streets or poor planning * Create easier Metro access for pedestrians * Pedestrian access (convenient and safe) from NE to Potomac Yards * Implement the Northeast Pedestrian Plan (Al Cox) * Total pedestrian access for the NE * Powhatan Street—do not widen, maintain setbacks, and maintain open space * Commonwealth Avenue to remain single lane, tree-lined boulevard * Parking * Do not consider parking lots as open space * More underground parking garages, with open space over them * Patent and Trademark Office should have had underground parking, with a park above **E. BIKE USE** * Bike lanes encroach onto sidewalk due to narrow streets and/or poor planning * Bikes trespass on non-bike corridors and into parks **F. THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA** * Open space seems to lose out when development money is involved * The City too often sells or develops vacant lands * What is being done with the City’s Open Space funds? * Extensions to existing buildings and the addition of new buildings need to be monitored -- look at zoning ordinances, be more diligent at enforcing codes, and do not allow so many variances * Establish commercial open space regulations * Develop program to buy lands * Find more open space * GIS Mapping * Add BMP’s and RPA’s to GIS layers * Add an impervious surfaces layer **G. DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPERS** * On non-City maintained open space, the City needs to establish and enforce maintenance standards for developers * Stop development until open space plan can be approved * Standards should not be allowed to be “gotten around,” they should be adhered to (e.g., Carlyle) * Better height restrictions needed on all development—need more human-scaled development * Provide a greater number of public easements/access in new developments * Greater level of public/private cooperation for all open space areas, including schools **H. MAINTENANCE** * Emphasis on open space maintenance needed * Some street lights have been out for more than 2 years * BMP’s need to be open space amenities not mosquito breeding grounds **I. ADDITIONAL DESIRES** * Community Spaces * Indoors: meeting rooms with capacity for 50-100 people * Outdoors: picnic areas and recreation programs * Find opportunities for additional Farmers’ Markets - Look for opportunities to create additional Community Gardens—with programmed activities, educational components - Create additional Open Space Recreation Programs— - Parks staffed with recreation leaders, classes, and multi-age appeal - Gateway Market / Sodibar systems (Rt. 1 & Franklin Streets) **J. FAVORITE OPEN SPACES (When asked this Q.)** - Waterfront—including Jones Point - Old Town Yacht Basin - Windmill Hill Park - Masonic Temple # CITY OF ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN Meeting for Planning District #2 (April 23, 2001) # Public Comments ## A. OPEN SPACE DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS * Review City set-back policies - Feeling of being enclosed – buildings too close to sidewalk - Old Town vs West End – create a different design criteria - Narrows perspective * Too many privacy fences * Open space without public access should not count * Establish Alexandria as a place in a regional trails system * Attempting to create a park which is something to everyone may result in a park in which nothing is done well ## B. SPECIFIC PARCELS, AREAS AND PARKS * I-495 –: - Area at Church Street exit could be beautified * Braddock Road Metro — - Preserve current open space; plans to put in a “kiss-n-ride” and carve up what is now open space are a problem - The sense of open space will be jeopardized by selling air-development rights - The neighborhood desperately needs pedestrian access * Commonwealth Avenue — - Should be recognized as a park and maintained as such - It can be Alexandria’s “biggest park” - Could tell history of the electric train/trolley in Alexandria; also the substation at Mason may be one of the first in the area - Maintenance is currently lacking: curbs are broken, utility projects overrun the median, there is poor pedestrian accessibility, and the plants that die are not replaced - Capture opportunities through this boulevard’s connection to *Four Mile Run* - Install signage for recreational distance measurements - It has become a utility conduit and maintenance is spotty - It is evolving into a commuter highway - Needs: re-greening, granite curbs, street tree replacement, streetscape improvements, preservation of median character, re-establishment of bike trails, and installation of traffic-calming measures - Enhance street character with highly articulated connections, and trail accessibility (jogging, walking, and pedestrian) * George Washington School— - Needs commuter pedestrian path to Braddock Metro - Needs lighting for safety - Needs weekend recreational access between parking and sports fields * Mt. Jefferson Parkway— - Connect the total park - Reassure neighbors regarding area safety; improve visual access to adjacent industrial uses; create noise barriers to Route 1 - Problems with inadequate maintenance, crime, and flooding * Potomac Yards— - Provide additional soccer fields * Route 1 - Possible gateway park / open space (at Franklin Street) - Provide boulevard treatments - Transform western side into a boulevard gateway for City - Create a park over Route 1 - Vacant Lot —(W. Masonic and Russell) - Create a pocket park for Garden Club to teach children about gardening - Vacant Lot—(east side of Mt. Vernon, north of Del Rey) - Possible pocket park - Positioned in the heart of Del Rey - Vacant Lot —(corner of Raymond and Mt. Vernon) - Currently a private lot - Large amount of foot traffic on Mt. Vernon; a park would be well used **C. RIVERFRONTS, STREAMS, WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREAS** - Potomac River --- - Connect waterfront for contiguous access - Create parks along remaining waterfront parcels - Articulate the connection with Four Mile Run - Cameron Run— - Enhance aesthetics - Improve habitat - Widen land area for better public use - Improve habitat areas - Daingerfield— - Facility is underutilized by the NPS - Create a visitor’s Center and seaport foundation on Daingerfield Island - Could be shared with other uses/users - Enhance connections to nearby neighborhoods - Four Mile Run— - Coordinate with logical points of interface, such as the schools and Commonwealth Avenue - Offers multiple educational opportunities - Could have active boating - Missed trail opportunities - Connect bike path with other trails (Arlington has plans to do just this) - Improve connections to the Potomac River - Provide facilities for kayaks, fishing, a boathouse, and educational programs - Enhance its natural state - Re-green - Hooff's Run— - Create a continuous open space corridor in this location - Enhance streetscape - Complete connections - Old Cameron Run Channel— - Make more natural, less engineered - Enhance aesthetics overall - Emphasize both Greenway and Blue-way connectivity - Improve wetland areas (mitigation sites) in stream valleys - RPA’s - Should be counted - City was 41% impervious (way over the desired < 20%) - Install other more pervious surfaces in parking lots etc. - City has been bargaining away RPA’s - Non-compatible uses – dog parks, RPA’s, and environmentally sensitive areas can’t all be in the same open space area - Re-green all streams - Maintain parks as water quality buffers along all rivers, streams, and wetland areas **D. STREETSCAPES AND PARKING** * Regulate/limit trees cut by the utility companies or the developers * Improve all sidewalks in need of repair * Underground utilities; undergrounding of utilities should be both more uniform and more equitably done throughout the City * Establish tree planting program for alleys * Limit or eliminate use of Bradford pears as street trees; use more durable species of street trees * Del Rey * Improve quality of streetscape * Save the many large shade trees that we are currently losing * Bump-out sidewalks * Streetscape improvements are needed in southwest quadrant as well * View sidewalks as transportation corridors * Remove signs and posts from the middle of the sidewalks * Improve connectivity * Reconnect and use the alleyways * Enhance street character with highly articulated connections, trail accessibility – jogging, walking, and pedestrian * Slow down the traffic * Emphasize the pedestrian * Create signage for recreational distances **E. BIKE USE** * Connections are needed at: * Route 1 Bridge * Slaters Lane * Beverly Hills / Arlandria * Improve Four Mile Run connections * A network of commuter trails and lanes is needed * Bike lanes are not just recreational * Create a bike network for children to use to navigate the City **F. ROLE OF THE CITY** * Build on public lands only in cases where a very high need can be demonstrated * Preserve existing public land to greatest extent possible * Make better use of school properties * Habitat / nature center * Gardens/educational and community opportunities (Arlington Co. provides good example, e.g. Tuckahoe Elementary School program) * Swap City lands for more desirable lots * For new trails and parks, provide planning for access, funding and maintenance, as well as appropriate safety features such as lighting **G. DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPMENT** * Regulate / limit trees removed by utilities or developers * Ensure green, usable and beautiful open space for Carlyle * Make developers accountable for their park maintenance * Developers should provide open space for employees * Open space should be tied to proffers **H. MAINTENANCE** * Upgrade existing parks * Regulate/limit trees removed by utilities or developers * Plant ‘in-fill’ street trees in older areas, such as Rosemont, etc. * Underground utilities * Provide irrigation for new trees and shrubs * Provide watering trucks for all three planning areas * Improve the maintenance standards of existing trees * Do not mow or weed whack too closely * Emphasize use of native plants * Linear park on railroad right-of-way needs nice trees * Design BMP's to prevent mosquitoes and improve aesthetics * Sidewalks are in need of repair throughout the City * Park maintenance stinks – the City needs to commit more resources and manpower **I. ADDITIONAL DESIRES** * Provide additional multi-use fields * Upgrade existing parks * Provide new equipment * Improve grading and drainage * Provide erosion control * Increase funds for maintenance * Create parks along remaining waterfront parcels * New open space opportunities * Warehouse on Eisenhower * Police station on Eisenhower * PEPCO site * New developments must provide open space * Accept CAP property on Slaters Lane as open space * New open space should be of many types and sizes – not all pocket parks * Meet with Eisenhower Valley Partnership to see their plans * Organize volunteer activities * Create a more active adopt-a-park program * Foster stewardship programs * Provide more tot lots * Parks should be beautiful as well as functional * There are problems and conflicts between age groups * Parks should be used by all age groups and at all times of the year * Create age specific parks **J. FAVORITE OPEN SPACES (When asked Q.)** * Dora Kelley Park * Beautiful and natural * Waterfront * Entire length * Fort Ward * History and variety of uses * Winkler * Well-maintained * Jones Point * Underdeveloped * Wood lot on Chinquapin to Mac Arthur School CITY OF ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN Meeting for Planning District #3 (May 2, 2001) Public Comments A. OPEN SPACE DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS * Create interconnected parks system * Harness opportunities * New zoning classification - Horticultural zone - Land trusts * Protect existing wildlife preserve habitats (fox, deer) * Capture open space which has potential for intensive development * Don't count balconies * Need publicly accessible wild spaces * Traffic calming (Jordan St.) * Refine what open space means. It should be greenspace on the ground. Not rooftops. B. SPECIFIC PARCELS, AREAS AND PARKS * I-395—improve exit at Landmark, needs tree preservation and beautification * West End— - Playscaped areas - Off leash dog parks * Yoakum Parkway— - Median could be fenced dog park - More trees - Acquire the two lots with trees (one on either side of cascade) - Playground * Theological Seminary and Episcopal High School— - Encourage them to allow trail easements - Create benefits of greenspace * Edsall Road— - Playground C. RIVERFRONTS, STREAMS, WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREAS * Cameron Run needs revitalization * Maintain natural stream edges—no concrete, remove existing concrete (Four Mile and Taylor Runs) * More care in drainage and storm water management for those downhill * Stream channel damage - Stabilize erosion and run-off - Control evasive species - Clean-up - Restoration * Educate homeowners about what they can do on their own properties (trees, contiguous open spaces) * Clean up toxic areas D. STREETSCAPES AND PARKING * Traffic calming (Jordan St.) * Underground utilities E. BIKE USE * Backlick Run connection to Fairfax County. It needs a plan/study for a bike/pedestrian trail # F. ROLE OF THE CITY * Special use permits undermine open space and are easy to obtain * The City does not listen to neighbors over special use permits * District 3 underrepresented * Change boundaries * or Make a fourth district * Redistrict * Another Representative on Parks and Rec. Commission * Correct City tax maps with correct park labels * Solicit appropriate public input * Bridge at Holmes Run – not good example of open space * South end of Duke Street – no public input * Advertise fund for acquisition of parkland * Find small home/large lots to acquire and/or preserve * Respect parks in areas of long-term residents, not only new developments * Don’t use open space in Eisenhower Valley for fire station—build a bridge over Cameron Run * Don’t build in existing parkland—for example Ben Brenman Park (revisit this decision) * Identify properties not currently protected by easements and which are developable—create easements on more of these (tax incentives, donation or purchase) * Identify all properties with current easements * Pedestrian trails * Bike trails * Greenways * Small parks * ROW easements (utility and road) * City doesn’t capture opportunities as lands become available * City needs ability to purchase land and hold for future use * Too much on-lot infill * Identify special needs areas that shouldn’t be built upon * Areas of marine clay * Areas of steep topography * Significant tree cover * Encourage scenic easements (Hospital, ravines, St. Stephen’s hillside) * High density development degrades the quality of life * Too many cars * Fewer trees * Degraded aesthetic quality * Traffic gridlock * Monitor overbuilding on Theological Seminary and Episcopal High School lands # G. DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPMENT * Preserve open space over development * Developments are too intense * Special use permits undermine open space * Set design standards * Focus future development in high density areas, major corridors and metros * Protect open space in areas of density * Too large of house allowed on too little land * Not all development is bad # H. MAINTENANCE * Improve maintenance standards (e.g. end of Latham Street on Holmes Run) * Better park signage - Clean up stream channels (tires behind Foxchase) - West fork of Strawberry Run is polluted—needs cleaned - Don’t ruin existing parkland - Plant hard to find native plants - Favorites: weeping willow, osage orange, persimmon, paw paw, chinquapin - Protect I-395 exit at Landmark - Improve paths - Utilize a variety of tree species, not just ornamentals - Place the correct tree in the correct space for its requirements # I. ADDITIONAL DESIRES - Keep area on waterfront at Cameron Run open—connect to Holmes Run and Columbia Pike (through Fairfax County)—all of the way to Jones Point - More active recreation fields—softball - Connect Strawberry Run with Old Mill Run - Protect open spaces between hospital and St. Stephens School - Better attention, maintenance and amenities for Forest Park and Chinquapin Park - Grass, trees, benches, passive space and improved entrance access - Enhanced natural atmosphere - Multi-age play equipment (with shade) - More tree planting - Allow organized youth associations to use parks for camping (in designated areas) - Keep Stevenson Park as a park—not more school lands - Don’t let the land behind Hammond High School become a parking lot - Newton Asphalt site could be the nucleus for a development that has open space - Don’t put Eisenhower connector near the Holmes Run Greenway # J. FAVORITE OPEN SPACES (When asked Q.) - Holmes Run - Pretty - Water - Ducks and beaver - Incredible to explore - Fort Ward - Dora Kelly - Waterfront - Great, but must walk there # OPEN SPACE SUMMIT: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS June 23, 2002 ## 1. Beautify Interchanges * Interchange areas: not so much planting, more natural landscaping, disguise, and hide roads, sound barriers for traffic noise. * Consider places where deck parks can be created over I-495 or 395. * Highway & interchanges issues important but lower priority. * Add deck park over 95/495 behind Carlyle, and over 395 where Holmes Run intersects. * Opportunities for public open space along highway corridors– more need for linkages across corridors. ## 2. Pedestrian & Bike Linkage * Continuous space connecting trails & parks. * Open space development w/ walking access at Landmark * Connectivity of parks for safer pedestrian & bike access between east and west end of town. * Places to walk – connecting through cul-de-sacs, etc. (easements) to parks. * Connecting corridors for people and wildlife. * Tie into existing/proposed parks in Arlington and Fairfax. * Bike & walkways not always compatible, wider is better. * Need pedestrian walkways and connectors between parks & neighborhoods, linking old neighborhoods and parks with development areas. * In general - take into account more bicycle and pedestrian linkages to transit in plan. * Bike trail connecting city E to W then N to S (continuous) with pedestrian linkage/multi-use trail * More bike trails. * Create better bike and pedestrian linkages at Telegraph Road/495 gateway. * Recreate “Dora Kelly” bike development along Cameron Run & Four-Mile Run. * Increase east-west bike and pedestrian linkages between Old Town and the West End. * It is faster for Eisenhower Valley residents to shop in Maryland than to get to Alexandria’s shops. * Mt. Jefferson Park and Greenway - support for increased pedestrian and bike linkages. * Connecting parks: Federal property @ AMC as opportunity, Wilson Bridge staging area, Clermont area behind Cameron Station. * Create connections between Duncan Branch Library, Warwick Pool, and Hillside Park. * Connectivity increases value of park. ## 3. Gateways * Define the City’s entrances & exits, with revitalization of old commercial areas and respect for history. * Gateways do not need to be elaborate but require beautification ## 4. Metro Civic Parks * Open space that is accessible along the railroad right-of-way. * Linking open space and trails along rail corridors. * Metro integration with other forms of transportation and open space. * Connections for Metro stations; Metro is an opportunity. * Lack of transportation taking its toll in Old town. * Improve areas around Metros to make them more truly “civic parks.” * Increase public transportation to recreation centers. * Use Metros as a tool for open space linkages. * Create new Metro stop at Potomac Yards. * Improve underpass at King Street Metro (already a plan). * Add Rail to new Woodrow Wilson Bridge. * Add rail connections to Jones Point Park and the Wilson Bridge. * Add connection across railroad from Ben Brenman Park. * Metrorail/Monorail connections from Alexandria to the west (Dulles/Tysons). * Monorail connection to Fairfax County & South * Limit any rights-of-way that would limit future expansion of transportation to DC (any open space plan that chokes expansion.) ## 5. Vacant Land - Private * Plan city budget to have funds available to purchase private land immediately as it becomes available. * Active acquisition of land in central Alexandria and the west end: under served. areas * Acquire private parcels along Hooff's Run. Connect all of the parcels & convert all vacant & poorly utilized parcels into landscaped passive open space. * Investigate acquisition of private vacant land for public open space. (Identify key parcels now, so that they can be purchased later). * Urgency to acquire available land * Acquire the Washington Post property. * Consider creation of a Conservancy to procure and manage gifts of land for protection within the City. * Get private owners involved in planning process. * Retain private landowner’s rights for best use and development within zoning laws. * Preserve private institutional land as open space( e.g., Episcopal Seminary, Masonic Temple), using easements, open space guarantees, and/or acquisition. * Possibility of allowing public access to Episcopal High School, some is available presently. * Work with private landowners/developers to provide quality new open space and improve existing spaces. * Increase the amount of open space available within private developments through zoning and/or easements. * Target vacant land near schools for new open space. * Make existing vacant private spaces available for use, i.e. community gardens, open space trust, easements, and pocket parks. ## 6. Vacant Lands - Public * Inventory underutilized properties and locate vacant buildings to acquire. * Potomac Yard: Bring Metro to the Yard; needs funding for redevelopment of retail center or possible redevelopment at higher level. * Reinvigorate adopt-a-park and community gardens. * City should promote land gift giving wills, etc. or houses that can be used or sold to raise money for open space. * Bond issue or tax to provide money for open space land acquisition. ## 7. Tree Cover Protection * Tree ordinance plan, apply to city as a whole. * Need to look more closely at tree preservation areas. * New tree cover protection zone for additional areas. * Tree preservation. * Need more trees. Give trees to homeowners. * Preserve and plant more trees (even ones in parking lots). * More trees good for environment (e.g. heat) * Tree ordinance. * Tree protection, extending to areas without as many trees. Ex. Del Ray losing large shade trees due to power lines * Tree protection and enhancement is important - in areas shown on plan as well as in Del Ray/Rosemont. * Consider instituting a site specific or citywide tree ordinance. * Better maintenance of street trees. * Plant more trees and preserve existing mature trees. * Tree protection area in Rosemont and Del Ray needed. # 8. Open Space Preservation / New Parks * City needs to adopt a clear definition of Open Space. * Add more vest pocket parks citywide. * More open space that is passive in neighborhoods. * Encourage multi use of parks & open space. * Need more dog parks. * Build a parking garage (below ground) in Old Town and put a park on top of it. * More parking opportunities under open spaces (especially at Landmark Mall and Old Town) * Below ground parking garages * Make more connected open spaces for wildlife corridors (remove fences, add habitat, etc.). * Consider wetland preservation when determining open space areas (esp. Jones Point). * Old Town– convert as much existing surface parking to underground and replace with surface park above. * More parks in affordable housing areas & better maintenance. * Many small parks – even ½ acre. * Concentrate on small area neighborhood parks. * Activate space within neighborhoods through ideas such as pocket parks * Give as much importance to passive as active use, all interests must be considered (passive aspects of active parks). * New parks should include multi-use: passive, active, dog run, etc. * Create additional parks along Four-Mile Run. * More community gardens and open spaces in west part of Alexandria. * 16-acre opportunity for open space at AMC Building and parking lot (in Eisenhower Valley); also at VDOT Clermont site. * Power Plant - explore opportunities for use as open space. * Add more small pocket parks in Del Ray/Rosemont Area. * Consider acquisition of land for a destination park in the West End - none currently exist. * Passive open space desired in neighborhood behind Minnie Howard School. * Dulaney Gardens should be public open space. * Create open space linkages ---“natural connectivity” * Be watchful of VDOT expansion into open spaces along roadway corridors. * Create spaces for open land and wildlife. * Habitat/redevelopment zones – identify, preserve, expand natural habitat areas. * Identify on map wildlife, bird zones. Identify existing wildlife, & habitat that supports them. * Encourage open space that provides natural “sound proofing”/ environmentally preferable options, such as trees or ivy covered walls. * Green beltway around city * Develop green infrastructure * Plant native species of plants. * Look into creative approaches to parking - potential for multi-use with open space. * Consider closing sewage treatment plant and reservoir and replacing with open space. * Consider a bond issue to provide financing for more open space. * Encourage creation of easements and their use as open space. * Publicize parks better - both locations and programming. * Use all native plants in City planting programs. * Interagency collaboration is important - not just Parks & Rec, but also Transportation & Environmental Services, Planning, Housing, and Human Services. * Need someone to regulate and monitor park maintenance. * Management of existing parks is critical. * Maintain and enhance existing open space. (Increase quality/value). * Keep eye out for “hobo camps” * Use the Pepco Plant as park space. * Improve the level of safety around parks. 9. Slaters Lane Plan * Implement the Slaters Lane Plan -- more open space is needed in the Northeast quadrant. 10. Trails * Maximize the connectivity of the Potomac Heritage Trail. * Create multi-use trails. * For multi-use trails, walking and biking should be separated for safety. * More trail connectivity needed from northeast to southwest across King/Braddock/Seminary/Duke corridors. * Create continuous trail (both bike and pedestrian) along the waterfront. * Lock in trail plan for Eisenhower Valley before it is developed. * Create more connections (walkways, paths, trails, and bike paths) through neighborhoods to provide more access to parks (possibly through easements, cul-de-sacs, or access to private land. * Emphasize connectivity between parks. * Trails on former and soon-to-be-former rail beds and power plant etc. * Sufficient width of trails & sidewalks and hard-pack/gravel alongside paved trail. 11. Stream Valley Protection & Enhancement * Aggressively approach converting Four-Mile Run and Cameron Run into stream valley parks. * Four Mile Run - not utilized or accessible; sewage discharged. * Four Mile Run stream restoration. * Development of Four Mile Run re-naturalization plan and Cameron Run. * Improve and preserve stream valleys (ESP. Four Mile Run and Cameron Run) * Create a holding pond or provide a way to have a natural creek bed at Four Mile Run, Holmes Run, Cameron Run. * Day-light streams to a natural state with habitat restoration. * Differentiation between storm drainage channels & streambeds is important consideration. * Consideration of FEMA issues. * Get rid of invasive plants, enhance quality of open spaces * Stream valley system watershed protection very important (Chesapeake Bay Protection Act) * Linkage for wildlife habitat, continuity of habitat, expand * Increase public access to river both linearly (north to south) and from Old Town (east to west). * Focus efforts on water bodies and making them into parklands. Make these a priority for easements and trail development. * Storm drain day-lighting to increase environmental quality. * Visualize the streambeds as open space. 12. Streetscapes * Create more successful urban plazas. * Underground telephone poles throughout the City. * Put utilities underground as much as possible to improve existing open space. * Traffic calming citywide - enhancement of streetscapes and safety. * Landscape traffic islands and medians. * Better street tree choices along curbs * Enhance streetscape with trees. * Add sidewalks where there are not any to aid pedestrian flow. * Need accessible open space (sidewalks) * Make use of open space linkages – rerouting roads, etc. * Need to go beyond protecting pedestrians when considering linkages. Remove fear elements (cars, bikes, etc.); improve personal safety. * Linkages to traffic calming * Provide for the psychological wellbeing of pedestrians. * Enhance streetscape as it relates to pedestrian experience. * Turn Commonwealth Ave. into a real "Greenway" - enhance the median! Replace trees as they die and add additional trees. Have double row of trees encouraging a canopy over both sides of the street. Walkways down the middle of the median. Extend the medians & reduce the size of the intersections (reduce asphalt). Ramp each end of each median strip. Selectively place benches. Perhaps site specific monuments along the median. * Develop Commonwealth Avenue as a historical connector -- important street with missing pieces. * Commonwealth Avenue as a connector to Arlington. * On Beauregard Street, King Street and Seminary Road - keep an eye on VDOT plans – don't destroy our streetscape opportunities. * Underground Route I, or another solution. * Increase street tree planting programs to enhance connectivity between areas. * Think of sidewalks as connecting fabric between open spaces. * Incorporate transportation issues when looking at streetscapes. * Consider implementing a Route I Streetscape Plan. * Better timing of lights/improving traffic movement. * Safety – lighting, police patrols, increasing connectivity in pocket parks. * Reinvigorate the “Adopt a Park” program and consider establishing a similar “Adopt a Median” program to improve look of medians, strips of land by roads and intersections. * Use Eisenhower Avenue corridor to tie City together. * Plan for the development along Mt. Vernon Avenue in Del Ray. * View sidewalks as open space. ## 13. Highway Corridors * Improve 395/Shirley Highway interchanges – make them pedestrian friendly. ## 14. New Development Areas * Connectivity through the Green Crescent. * Development in Eisenhower corridor is too dense. * Address in-fill development effects and cumulative impact. * Eisenhower Corridor as a connector for the east and west parts of City. * Connected crescent is great idea, but how would it be implemented.? Come up with implementation plans/strategies. * The Crescent - take integrated approach: combination of development, parks, trails, etc. * Need to enforce proffers and keep records of them. * Eisenhower Valley needs pedestrian/bicycle friendly path to shopping & other functions. * Look at proffers for Ford's Landing. * Public access at Ford's Landing is unclear. It needs signage. * Acquire developable land in Cameron Run as public open space park. * Potomac Yards development -- create 'central' park * More parkland / open space in Potomac yards, Braddock area. * Landmark Mall - open space opportunities: consider converting some area to public open space by creative approaches to parking (underground or “green”). * Need to make sure to provide large amount of accessible open space and tree cover in Potomac Yard. Take advantage of this opportunity before it is too late! Consider creating a large central park here. * Do not allow Crescent to encroach too close to Cameron Run - must make sure these areas are kept open as parkland and not developed. * Make sure there are north-south connections through Eisenhower Valley. Currently access is only east-west at ends. * It should not be solely up to developers where money is spent. * The “Crescent” is a good idea in concept. It needs to be put into action. * Sewer system has to be improved. All new development should provide compatible infrastructure that can just be hooked up. - Keep crescent concept, including integrated parks, trails to the commercial and residential developments. - Add affordable housing as part of the crescent concept. - Minimize building on open space, such as subdivision development, by tightening up zoning. - City must follow S.U.P.s – e.g., Delaney Gardens park (if leave dead spaces, no vitality at night) - Noise pollution control. - Green print development. - Opportunity now to designate open space in Eisenhower Valley before developments are in. - Pay attention to neighborhood opportunity area. Build the open space connectivity piece by piece. - Should be more open space requirements for new developments (like Braddock or Carlyle) - Sewage treatment plants – close them in the future. They discourage riverfront parks. - Create bike and pedestrian linkages (multi-use) through crescent (esp. Carlyle, Eisenhower Ave. area) ## 15. Potomac River Waterfront Program - Connect open spaces along Potomac, need for “historic” parkland along Riverfront. - Provide connectivity to waterfront throughout Old Town for both commuters and. leisure biking/walking. - Minimize riverfront development; keep pristine as possible at Waterfront Park, seaport, keep available to public consider all users/uses. - Make sure there is public access to water at Ford’s Landing. - Improve active city access to Potomac waterfront esp. Potomac yacht basin. - Linear parks not the best for wildlife habitat. - Open public waterfront. The waterfront has high value. Connect waterfront with the “crescent.” - Fix up waterfront; take down concrete blocks. - Connect Potomac waterfront - Waterfront as public land - Warehouse district as a connector – to be connected to waterfront. - Water parks / water front - Connect waterfront along the Potomac River - integrate with history. - Increase access to Potomac River, esp. for non-motorized boat usage. - Potomac development should not be part of open space plan if it will interfere with/limit public access to waterfront; caution esp. with Robinson Terminal if it ever is sold. - Connector district from Braddock metro area to river. - Need a public boat launch in City - Maximize access to Potomac River; deal with National Park Service resistance to concept; promote non-motorized activities. ## 16. Cemeteries - Cemeteries – maintain, but clarify as “limited use.” - Cemeteries should not be included in open space calculations. ## 17. Schools * Use open space for schools; additions needed and planned * Make better us of school property. * Target vacant land around schools for potential open space opportunities. * Remove schools from open space definition. * Include schools as shared open space facilities. * Balance the need for open space preservation and school growth (compromise). * School grounds should be shared open space with opportunities for community gardens. * Develop George Washington Middle School into a higher quality open space. * School property at Hammond for local uses – lease as parking. * School areas should be more available for community use after hours. ## 18. Public Open Space * Need a definition of true open space -- include parks streetscape, tree friendly, buffers; do not include public schools. * Do not count balconies and rooftops as open space. * Do not define rooftops as green space. * City needs to establish a percentage goal for open space and work toward that goal. * Take unified approach to open space priorities - include all areas of city and all user groups. * Preserve existing open space. * More community gardens. * Emphasis on “Greening” of public rooftops (not to be included in inventory or in definitions.) * Consider instituting a dog tax to pay for dog parks. * Need additional parking @ parks, rec. areas, and destination open space areas. * Provide adequate parking at both existing and new parks. * Better inter-city coordination. * Regionalism – work w/ Arlington and Fairfax Counties. * Public properties/open space not to be sold to developers. * Beautification of existing parks – native plantings. * Make sure open space plan is integrated with existing feasibility studies, pedestrian plans, upper Potomac plan, etc. with input from other agencies. * Look into a connected linear park along stream valley leading to Winkler Botanical Preserve. * Need to have a separate master plan for dog park development - needs to be examined neighborhood by neighborhood. * Cameron Run -- clean up neighborhood. * Maintain existing natural resource areas such as Dora Kelley Nature Park and Monticello Park. * Rework design of existing Four Mile Run Park - Arlington side is much better and more effective. * Surround city with a green band. * Maintain open vistas/natural estuary at Four-Mile Run. * Increase view sheds through conservation easements (e.g. Monticello Park); makes park more viable for wildlife. * Cameron Run– preserve and restore, but with public use. * Add wetland boardwalk at Four Mile Run. * Extend Four Mile Run Park west into Arlington to create a more continuous linear park. ## 19. Institutional Land * For institutional land, gain public use and rights through easements/ leases. * Preserve and enhance the Masonic Memorial site to serve as a civic anchor for the crescent and the City as a whole. * Army (Tauber) site - recapture parking lots as open space (there may be HAZMAT issues). * Explore possibility for public access to institutional sites such as Episcopal Seminary and School.