APS - First Career Center Concept

[Anonymous]

I hope everyone who wants parking at the CC is emailing the School Board to SUPPORT the school moves proposal.

The No Moves folks want APS to keep Key where it is and use limited APS bond funding the build a new school in Rosslyn. Which will mean less money for the Pike.

The no moves keep Key on Key people care not a whit for the needs of the Pike or S Arlington or parking at the CC or anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who wants parking at the CC is emailing the School Board to SUPPORT the school moves proposal.

The No Moves folks want APS to keep Key where it is and use limited APS bond funding the build a new school in Rosslyn. Which will mean less money for the Pike.

The no moves keep Key on Key people care not a whit for the needs of the Pike or S Arlington or parking at the CC or anything else.

Yes, we know. We saw their proposed maps that further segregate the schools and make neighborhood school transportation more burdensome, and have heard their “solutions” to our transportation and parking problems (aka, bicycle bootstraps, you’ll get nothing from us).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is just a little thought experiment. Suppose APS decides they do not want to build a below grade garage. That leaves $30 million for some other APS venture. Why don't they just buy the Highland Holdings property south of 9th St and north of Columbia Pike? That economic unit includes 3045 Columbia Pike and 901 S Highland St shown in red below.

Of course they have to make a good offer but looking at the recent tax assessment of that economic unit (https://propertysearch.arlingtonva.us/Home/Assessments?lrsn=42094&sequence=2) it is approximately $8 million. Suppose that assessment is off and APS pays $13 million for everything. That gives us what appears to be ~240 parking deck spots and lots of room for future school expansion. (I guessed the number of parking spots by counting the ones visible on the top and multiplying by 3.) The cost for one level of below grade parking is $15.5-16.9 million (see slide 18 of https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/191203-BLPCPFRC-Meeting_6_Final.pdf) so if APS decides in the future to put in parking under the field, they at least "saved" some money for it. Or maybe they could build on top of the existing garage for possibly half as much money?

This is not a unique idea as it was presented during the Career Center Working Group (see slides 18-25 of https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Long-term-Site-Optimization.pdf). Of course this all hinges on the business owners wanting to sell, but at least the Ethiopian Community Development Council has already signaled an interest in selling to the county (https://www.arlnow.com/2018/09/11/working-group-to-aps-career-center-should-open-as-an-option-school/).

He does want to sell. Arlington County simply doesn’t want to buy it. Doesn’t matter how much those of us close to the project ask for reason. End of story.

County wants to tax that property, not own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who wants parking at the CC is emailing the School Board to SUPPORT the school moves proposal.

The No Moves folks want APS to keep Key where it is and use limited APS bond funding the build a new school in Rosslyn. Which will mean less money for the Pike.

The no moves keep Key on Key people care not a whit for the needs of the Pike or S Arlington or parking at the CC or anything else.

Yes, we know. We saw their proposed maps that further segregate the schools and make neighborhood school transportation more burdensome, and have heard their “solutions” to our transportation and parking problems (aka, bicycle bootstraps, you’ll get nothing from us).

I think all the schools should ban students driving except for certain situations. Those parking lots are wasted space. And I live in S Arlington. I don't want another reason for people to drive on the Pike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone who wants parking at the CC is emailing the School Board to SUPPORT the school moves proposal.

The No Moves folks want APS to keep Key where it is and use limited APS bond funding the build a new school in Rosslyn. Which will mean less money for the Pike.

The no moves keep Key on Key people care not a whit for the needs of the Pike or S Arlington or parking at the CC or anything else.

Yes, we know. We saw their proposed maps that further segregate the schools and make neighborhood school transportation more burdensome, and have heard their “solutions” to our transportation and parking problems (aka, bicycle bootstraps, you’ll get nothing from us).

I think all the schools should ban students driving except for certain situations. Those parking lots are wasted space. And I live in S Arlington. I don't want another reason for people to drive on the Pike.

How do you want students to get home from after school activities and practices? Things don’t end at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Parking is primarily for staff, not students.

[Anonymous]

I actually think that for a facility that is specifically designed around the idea of kids going back and forth to all day long between classes and extra curricular activities at that site and at other buildings all over the county, there should be student parking.

If students on site didn't have to schlep all over the county then sure, don't build parking. But they do so plan around that. Or change the concept of the site. But you can't deny it all (no parking and no facilities and no full curriculum).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think that for a facility that is specifically designed around the idea of kids going back and forth to all day long between classes and extra curricular activities at that site and at other buildings all over the county, there should be student parking.

If students on site didn't have to schlep all over the county then sure, don't build parking. But they do so plan around that. Or change the concept of the site. But you can't deny it all (no parking and no facilities and no full curriculum).

Transportation is provided, the students don’t need individual cars. The site needs underground parking for staff, some ADA spaces at grade, and a couple short-term visitor spaces at grade (picking up a sick kid from the clinic, going to an IEP meeting or the like).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I actually think that for a facility that is specifically designed around the idea of kids going back and forth to all day long between classes and extra curricular activities at that site and at other buildings all over the county, there should be student parking.

If students on site didn't have to schlep all over the county then sure, don't build parking. But they do so plan around that. Or change the concept of the site. But you can't deny it all (no parking and no facilities and no full curriculum).




Transportation is provided, the students don’t need individual cars. The site needs underground parking for staff, some ADA spaces at grade, and a couple short-term visitor spaces at grade (picking up a sick kid from the clinic, going to an IEP meeting or the like).

I understand. I also think that additional parking for students wouldn't be a bad thing. There are all kinds of accounts of kids dropping out of Arlington Tech and going back to their home schools because the provided transportation was unable to actually get them back to their home schools in time to participate in extra-curriculars or sports. Also kids not doing CTE cause the bus schedules did mesh and would make them perpetually 5 minutes late or something. Anything that make this school actually desirable so that it does what it is supposed to and relieves the crowding burden is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think that for a facility that is specifically designed around the idea of kids going back and forth to all day long between classes and extra curricular activities at that site and at other buildings all over the county, there should be student parking.

If students on site didn't have to schlep all over the county then sure, don't build parking. But they do so plan around that. Or change the concept of the site. But you can't deny it all (no parking and no facilities and no full curriculum).

This would also require more student parking at the other schools they're going back and forth between.
APS could instead invest in shuttles.
Arl Co could instead invest in ART schedules and routes that accommodate the back-and-forthing.
Students could learn to wait 15 to 30 minutes for a ride home after practice or club meeting, rather than having to immediately hop into a car and drive home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I actually think that for a facility that is specifically designed around the idea of kids going back and forth to all day long between classes and extra curricular activities at that site and at other buildings all over the county, there should be student parking.

If students on site didn't have to schlep all over the county then sure, don't build parking. But they do so plan around that. Or change the concept of the site. But you can't deny it all (no parking and no facilities and no full curriculum).




This would also require more student parking at the other schools they're going back and forth between.
APS could instead invest in shuttles.
Arl Co could instead invest in ART schedules and routes that accommodate the back-and-forthing.
Students could learn to wait 15 to 30 minutes for a ride home after practice or club meeting, rather than having to immediately hop into a car and drive home.

the point is the 15 to 30 minute wait keeps them from getting from the Career center back to their home school in time to participate in their club or practice. Its not about waits after the practice is over, its about never even getting to be on the team. So they can't do the club or sport. So then they drop out of Arlington Tech and go back to their home school full time because they care about participating in these things. And then Arlington Tech is half empty and all the regular high schools are overcrowded. And we've spent a ton of money on a school no one want to go to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I actually think that for a facility that is specifically designed around the idea of kids going back and forth to all day long between classes and extra curricular activities at that site and at other buildings all over the county, there should be student parking.

If students on site didn't have to schlep all over the county then sure, don't build parking. But they do so plan around that. Or change the concept of the site. But you can't deny it all (no parking and no facilities and no full curriculum).




This would also require more student parking at the other schools they're going back and forth between.
APS could instead invest in shuttles.
Arl Co could instead invest in ART schedules and routes that accommodate the back-and-forthing.
Students could learn to wait 15 to 30 minutes for a ride home after practice or club meeting, rather than having to immediately hop into a car and drive home.

the point is the 15 to 30 minute wait keeps them from getting from the Career center back to their home school in time to participate in their club or practice. Its not about waits after the practice is over, its about never even getting to be on the team. So they can't do the club or sport. So then they drop out of Arlington Tech and go back to their home school full time because they care about participating in these things. And then Arlington Tech is half empty and all the regular high schools are overcrowded. And we've spent a ton of money on a school no one want to go to.

Any numbers on ArlTech and if transportation is a problem? I’m not skeptical, just want to know more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I actually think that for a facility that is specifically designed around the idea of kids going back and forth to all day long between classes and extra curricular activities at that site and at other buildings all over the county, there should be student parking.

If students on site didn't have to schlep all over the county then sure, don't build parking. But they do so plan around that. Or change the concept of the site. But you can't deny it all (no parking and no facilities and no full curriculum).




This would also require more student parking at the other schools they're going back and forth between.
APS could instead invest in shuttles.
Arl Co could instead invest in ART schedules and routes that accommodate the back-and-forthing.
Students could learn to wait 15 to 30 minutes for a ride home after practice or club meeting, rather than having to immediately hop into a car and drive home.

the point is the 15 to 30 minute wait keeps them from getting from the Career center back to their home school in time to participate in their club or practice. Its not about waits after the practice is over, its about never even getting to be on the team. So they can't do the club or sport. So then they drop out of Arlington Tech and go back to their home school full time because they care about participating in these things. And then Arlington Tech is half empty and all the regular high schools are overcrowded. And we've spent a ton of money on a school no one want to go to.

Got that. That can be addressed with the other points and better coordinating schedules - which is very tough to do. But extra-curriculars could try adjusting their start times a few minutes, too to help. Part of the problem is that AT/CC dismisses at 3:10; whereas the other high schools dismiss at 3. There's ten minutes right there.

[Anonymous]

Good idea but I don't see APS doing something that logical. Instead they will just continue with their PR blitz for Arlington Tech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posting from AEM and a variety of emails going around the neighborhood. Here is the full email from Erik Gutshall:

You may receive a formal reply from Chair Garvey on behalf of the entire Board, but because this is an issue I care deeply about and recognizing that I may have a different take than my colleagues, I wanted to clarify my approach:

NEED FOR PARKING: I think it's safe to say that not one Board Member wants the CC to be under-parked, which I will define as an insuffucient number of spaces that drivers find themselves with no other viable option than driving (see TDM below), but no access to a reasonably available space. "reasonably available" does not mean free, or within a 1-block radius. It includes market rate fees, whether incorporated as a compensation benefit or not, and walkable distance can include up to 1/2 mile and certainly within 1/4 mile. Need for parking is not the same as demand for parking. Drivers will always gobble up free and convenient parking, as was the model for APS until relatively recently.

AVAILABLE PARKING (on-street): I support the notion that every household should have access to parking within walking distance of their home. Sometimes parking is free (or very low-cost) and sometimes it has a cost, usually depending on how the housing was developed, with space limitations per household increasingly more common. Some amount of parking for staff, faculty, students and visitors should be accommodated on neighborhood streets. Just as I would expect neighbors to reject the notion that all parking can be accommodated in the neighborhood, I reject the notion that the neighborhood can't support any of the needed parking.

AVAILABLE PARKING (nearby garages): Consistent with #1 above, nearby available parking in existing garages can and should be used to satisfy parking needs for CC.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Arlington has had great success with using TDMs to lower the demand for parking throughout the County, despite constant protests that "it'll never work." I respect that staff/faculty may have different habits than a typical office commuter, but I have not seen any analysis that demonstrates barriers that can not be overcome. Guaranteed Ride Home was created to address one common barrier for all commuters. I support further exploring the efficacy of APS TDM measures to encourage walking, biking, transit use and carpooling for commuting.

NEW PARKING (on-street): I do not support "wishful planning" to hope that parking just takes care of itself. To the extent that items 1-4 still leave a deficit of needed parking, I support exploring adding on-street parking with measures that could include angled parking on surrounding streets, esp Walter Reed Dr, 9th St S, and Highland St (convert to one-way).

NEW PARKING (on-site): The very last option that I could support would be constructing very expensive, permanent parking underground at the CC. However, if all of the above failed to accommodate truly needed parking, I would be compelled to support structured parking. Frankly, I think this is unlikely to come to pass, but my mind is open, provided all the other options are fully explored.

My hope is that the only "machine" driving our decisions will be sound policy. I appreciate you feel worn down. I think that speaks to your passion and commitment, in honor of which, I have taken this time to share with you my thinking.

Thank you,

Erik Gutshall (he/him)
Vice Chair, Arlington County Board

Let’s all go and park in front of Eric’s house. He is a nut if he thinks a bunch of arlington boomers are going to agree “reasonable” parking is up to 1/2 mile from your house.

You’d better have a zone 6 parking permit to park in front of Gutshall’s house during school and working hours. The rules are different for those who make them.