A Viable, Sustainable Plan for Langston Boulevard
Level of Effort: 15 minutes, at home in your PJs
Deadline: Sun 7/30 11:59pm

At long last, the Plan Langston Blvd study has released a draft plan & it's got some great things for sustainable mobility - wider sidewalks, safer crossings, some dedicated bus lanes, and protected bike lanes on the majority of Langston Blvd. It's also lacking in some areas - for instance, it fails to meet the targets for affordable housing production for the area that are set in the Affordable Housing Master Plan, fails to protect kids biking to Hamm Middle School, ties improved transit service to increased ridership, and more.

Achieving the plan goals, whether affordable housing production, stormwater infrastructure, more parks, or rebuilding the transportation network to support sustainable mobility options, are all gated by the amount of height and density allowed under the plan.  The more units can be built, the more opportunity for preserving & creating affordable housing units.  The bigger a project can be under the plan, the more likely that project will be built "under the plan" where it will be required to make transportation improvements, devote land to park space & stormwater management, rather than built "by right" where it will not come under those requirements.

The plan needs to be more ambitious, and the potential heights available under the plan MUST be higher so that we can achieve the important goals of the plan, including transforming the corridor into a walkable, bike-able, mixed-income neighborhood where kids can safely walk & bike to parks, schools, and beyond.

Suggested Feedback

We recommend choosing "Comfortable" or "Very Comfortable" for all policies with the exception of the following:

Economic Vitality

VERY UNCOMFORTABLE for "Concentrate development in mixed-use Activity Hubs..."

Explanation Box: Concentrating development into nodes is not compatible with transforming a corridor. This will likely result in pockets of walkability connected by long stretches of continued car dependency, a bad combination.

Building Height and Form

VERY UNCOMFORTABLE for "Establish a maximum base height of seven stories..."

UNCOMFORTABLE for "Transition heights to lower density development..."

UNCOMFORTABLE for "Establish setbacks at a minimum of 10 feet..."

Explanation Box: A maximum base height of seven stories is unlikely to incentivize redevelopment under the plan, as it provides little benefit over by-right development potential while coming with significant community benefit requirements. Given this plan's reliance on redevelopment to achieve community goals, this would result in a failed plan.

Transportation Network

UNCOMFORTABLE for "Through redevelopment, provide new street and pedestrian pathway connections..."

Explanation Box: - 
- Policy should read "Through redevelopment, provide new street and BICYCLE/pedestrian pathway connections..."
- The plan should prioritize safe and sustainable modes of transportation while seeking to minimize more dangerous and less sustainable modes.
- Making LB sustainable will take time; we need to improve & fill gaps in parallel bike routes through neighborhoods ASAP as an interim measure.

Complete Streets, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities

UNCOMFORTABLE for "Improve pedestrian and cyclist crossings of Langston Boulevard with protected crossings where appropriate..."

Explanation Box: 
- Policy should be "ensure pedestrians never need to deviate more than 200’ from their desired travel path to reach a protected crossing"
- Protect Bike Facility by Hamm MS
- PBL needed on Old Dominion between Langston & 23rd
- provide low-stress (not just enhanced) bike facilities
- 2-way cycletrack needed on north side of LB from Lyon Village to Vietch St
- widen Custis east of Vietch

Transit

Explanation Box:The wording in this survey about transit frequency is fine, but does not reflect the actual policy in the document (TC15) which is flawed.  Transit frequencies should increase as land-use shifts and the built environment becomes more supportive of transit, not be tied to ridership. Also, the Plan should also support the ability of older children to get to school and activities via transit.

TAKE ACTION LEARN MORE