Recycling in Arlington Parks–Too Few Bottle and Can Recycling Containers

Although Arlington County did add more recycling containers in Arlington parks after the Green Party

complained in July 2007In 2008, there are still many park areas that have too few recycling containersArlington County says it increased its overall rate of recycling…but

Letter submitted to the Editor, Arlington Sun-Gazette, on  September 13, 2008–Commenting on Arlington County’s Increased overall Recycling Rate

I was encouraged to see that the recycling rate for Arlington’s commercial businesses and apartments rose to 33 percent, up from 29 percent three years earlier (“Recycling Rate Up at Businesses, Multifamily Properties,” Sept. 4, Arlington Sun Gazette). According to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the county’s combined recycling rate for detached homes, townhouses, apartments/condos, and commercial businesses was nearly 43 percent in 2006, up 3 percent from 2005.

In 2007, there were virtually no recycling containers in any of our public parks. Arlington Green Party members visited four of the county’s 148 parks to rescue recyclables from trashcans. In a matter of hours, we were able to fill up eight large 13-gallon trash bags with recyclables pulled from the garbage. Based upon what we retrieved, we calculated that approximately 3,700 cubic gallons of plastic and metal recyclable containers (the annual equivalent of approximately 5 million one-liter plastic bottles) were being thrown away every day in Arlington’s parks.

The Arlington Green Party asked the County Board to install recycling containers in public parks and recreation areas, and the county did respond positively by adding some recycling containers in some, but not all, parks. Perhaps this simple change accounts for the recent increase in the overall commercial recycling rate.

Despite the good news, however, Arlington still lags behind the City of Falls Church (with a 52 percent recycling rate) and the champion of Virginia recyclers, the City of Vienna, which recycles 55 percent of its solid waste.

According to Arlington’s AIRE program data, only 12 percent of solid waste from apartments is recycled. And 70 percent of Arlington’s solid waste comes from the commercial building and apartment sector (the other 30 percent comes from townhouses and detached homes).

So how can Arlington become the top recycling community in Virginia? Clearly, we need to expand recycling opportunities for office workers and apartment dwellers. Owners of commercial buildings, and multi-family housing must pay private haulers for trash and recycling services that can be less flexible and less convenient than the county’s recycling collection program for single-family homeowners.

In an effort to help find solutions, we asked county staff to meet with us in July to discuss the recycling programs for commercial buildings and apartments. Unfortunately, to date, county staff has refused to meet with us.

If we want a truly environmentally sustainable community, as I believe we all do, then county government must willing to engage all citizens to tackle what is admittedly a difficult problem. I and the members of the Arlington Green Party stand ready to roll up our sleeves and help with this effort—now we just need the county to respond.

The Democratic incumbent Ms. Favola insisted at our candidates’ debate before the Arlington Civic Federation that a new Columbia Pike Trolley would save energy and encourage further development on the Pike.  There have been many technical studies done on the proposed Pike trolley, and it is clear that a trolley will not necessarily speed or ease Arlington commuters ride to/from the Pentagon.

Arlington County Government and Ms. Favola argue that a trolley is more “Green,” i.e. saves carbon based energy over current buses or over using the larger rapid transit buses.  Academic studies have reached different conclusions, depending on how many passengers ride, frequency, and cost  of installing light rail in the ground.  In general, taking into account all the energy used to operate and to install and build a trolley system,  buses are more energy efficient.

It appears that a fully loaded bus uses on average less operating energy (BTUs) per passenger mile than does light rail per passenger mile, and about the same energy as heavy rail like Metrorail.  Source: M.J. Bradley & Associates, May 2007, Comparison of  Energy Use and Emissions from Different Transportation Modes, submitted to American Bus Association, , p. 4.

Moreover, many ART and Metro buses are now burning clean natural  gas (CNG) with very little emissions and higher efficiency than diesel.  Electricity for the trolley will come from the new coal-fired Dominion Electric plant located in Wise, VA, that will use coal mined from mountain tops in VA and WVA.  Coal-fired electricity contributes to significant air pollution and to destruction of natural mountains.  It also adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than CNG.  The VA Green Party opposes the construction of Wise coal-fire electricity plant.

One must also add the amount of energy it will take to build a light rail system on Columbia Pike which will include moving all the underground utility lines under the Pike, resurfacing with asphalt and cement (all of which are very energy intensive). The energy incorporated in the steel rails, and in the cooper overhead power lines that will have to be added.  The energy bulldozers and earth movers will use to relocate utility lines must be included.  The energy it takes to manufacture a trolley car and a bus are probably about the same or might favor the  bus.   Steel, copper wire, cement and asphalt have become very expensive owing to higher commodity and petroleum prices over the past several years.

My understanding is that the estimated $150 million cost of the trolley (including  that portion in Fairfax County up to Skyline) does NOT  include the cost of replacing utility lines under the Pike.

This is technical argument as to energy savings that depends on your assumptions, but Favola’s contention that a trolley obviously uses less energy than buses is dubious. More  importantly, the County has not satisfied the U.S. DOT or they would have received federal funds.  If DOT thinks the trolley is unsound, it probably is.

Ms. Favola did accurately acknowledge that a trolley is really a development booster for land on or just off the Pike.  In other words, public money will be used to increase the value of land around or on the Pike benefitting land owners or developers who own it.  Why should our county government use scarce dollars better spent on a new Wakefield High School or modest apartments for frail elderly  or  the disabled and give it to rich landowners or corporations?

Favola also fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that higher priced land will eliminate the last remaining moderate rental apartments, Fillmore Gardens or Barcroft Apartments, for example.  This is exactly what happened in north Arlington along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor.  Favola and the other county board members want to turn Columbia Pike into another Rosslyn-Ballston high rise luxury housing and upscale living.

Is this fair that county public funds be used to contribute to eviction of moderate rental residents or to much higher rents for these folks?  After all, it is their taxes as well that are being given to developers.  No, it is unfair, and a misuse of scarce public dollars.

At the July 19th Arlington County Board hearing, I opposed to adopting an accessory dwelling ordinance in Arlington at the present time until the isssue of affordable housing has been addressed and ways are found to eliminate the loss of greenspace and tree canopy in neighborhoods.

In place of such dwellings being built in detached houses, I support the creation and funding of an Arlington Housing Authority that will preserve existing rental housing, such as the garden apartments in Buckingham Village that were recently demolished. Keeping historic garden apartments like Buckingham means not only that affordable apartments are kept in Arlington, but the invaluable trees and green space surrounding the buildings are preserved.

John’s full statement against the adoption of the AD ordinance.

(more…)