How Our Parks Are Really Being Used – Friends of Aurora Highlands Parks

March 2018

Highlights of this newsletter:

How Arlington’s Parks Are Really Being Used: A Look at the Department of Parks & Recreation’s Drive For More Recreational Fields.

When Arlington’s Department of Parks and Recreation made recommendations in the draft of the Public Spaces Master Plan (PSMP) to increase the number of recreational fields or intensify them with synthetic turf and lights, residents began wondering why all these assertions contained no real numbers (supply & demand) associated with them. Information obtained via a FOIA request revealed that DPR had in fact estimated these capacity numbers, but they were never made public. A review of these documents, crossed with reservation data, showed a different picture of how our recreational facilities are actually being used than many of the assertions and the recommendations in the draft PSMP report.

This is the second newsletter installment reviewing the Plan Our Public Spaces (POPS) process for the update to the Public Spaces Master Plan (PSMP). The first newsletter installment reviewing POPS discussed total park land comparisons

If you have any questions about these findings, please email us atinfo@friendsofahparks.org

Review of:
Plan Our Public Spaces Process & Dept Parks and Rec

“Arlington’s fields are heavily used, and demand is growing.”
“There is currently a lack of facility capacity to accommodate everyone interested in some of the most rapidly expanding athletic programs.”
“Many of Arlington’s youth and adult sports programs are steadily growing in registrations for sports programs since 2013…”

– The Arlington County’s draft Public Spaces Master Plan (PSMP)

The draft PSMP document contains numerous assertions regarding demand, but every assertion is made with no supporting evidence or reference to any real supply or demand (capacity) numbers.

So when it was stated, “Level of service standards show Arlington will need an additional 16 rectangular fields and 6 diamond fields by 2045 (pg 215)” it was unclear how DPR calculated these recommendations based on vague and incomplete metrics of national and peer averages coupled with resident priorities and why real capacity numbers weren’t used as well.

So where are the calculations to support the expense of multi-million dollar recreational facilities that also occupy many acres of our public land?

We took a deeper look.

FoAHP asked these questions:

How, in fact, are Arlington’s existing fields being overused or underused and does it match the PSMP recommendations?
Is it typical to use capacity information to determine future facilities in park systems?

Arlington’s Park System
Field Capacity

Analysis of Capacity of Facilities

Despite the PSMP draft’s lack of real numbers to support the assertion of too little field supply for the demand, documents showed that DPR had already, in fact, calculated the capacity for rectangular and diamond fields as part of the POPS process. But this information was never made public.

A document titled “POPS Field Estimatev3” was obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by residents. The estimates made by DPR in this spreadsheet were not based on actual usage or reservation numbers, but on estimates for “ideal scenarios” based on general “participation” numbers combined with assumptions. This methodology using scenarios, participation and assumptions was also used when Alexandria estimated their capacity of fields guided by the same consultants, PROS Consulting, hired by Arlington for the POPS process.

A review of DPR’s diamond field estimates in this spreadsheet crossed with actual DPR reservation data showed that the internal estimates proved to be inflated, and faulty, in fact. But even overstated, the diamond field capacity estimates showed that;

In 2016, ~11,000 prime playable hours were unused, which is equivalent to more than 10 grass lit diamond fields.
For 2045 projected estimates, the estimates show only one notable supply deficiency, for only one of the four types of fields (Youth Field Type A) in Spring. A calculation from POPS Field Estimatev3 shows that DPR calculated either 4 grass fields or 3.75 lit grass fields or 2 lit synthetic turf fields to compensate for this single deficit.
In the Fall 2045 season, DPR predicted an excess of over 2,800 hours for that same Youth Field Type A.
The 2045 Adult Fall deficit of 141 hours was found to be a spreadsheet error. When corrected, it showed a surplus of hours.

With only one notable deficit in 2045, it would be hard to justify even 1, much less 6, entirely new diamond fields (2 in 2035 and 4 more in 2045), which would use acres of natural parkland or millions of dollars to convert grass fields to synthetic turf to simply compensate for this single deficit without ever evaluating other possible measures to accommodate it.

Is Capacity Analysis Typical for Facility Recommendations?

Processes for assessing facility needs are typically associated with detailed reports of actual numbers. For example when siting new schools or making boundary adjustments, knowing which schools have too few seats or too many seats in order to make sound capacity decisions for county facilities is typical. So is it typical to use capacity data for multi-million dollar recreational facilities?

Experts (Source 1, Source 2) and even the same PROS Consulting group used for the Arlington’s POPS process have noted that capacity is one of the important variables for park facility analysis.

For example, a Durango, Colorado park report written by PROS Consulting consists of much of the same methodology in their report for Arlington. But what is not included in the Arlington report is this following paragraph;

“The purpose of establishing level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities is to ensure adequate provision of facilities and equal opportunity for residents. Although measuring equal opportunity will never be an exact science, five measures can help provide a reasonable assessment: (1) Amount of park land in acreage; (2) Distance or travel time to access; (3) Capacity of facilities; (4) Quality of experience; (5) Availability of programs and activities.”

Strangely, (1) Amount of park land in acreage and (3) Capacity of facilities are not reflected in the draft Arlington PSMP.

As shown in the last FoAHP newsletter, when residents calculated the amount of park land in acreage, it showed that Arlington has a disproportionate ratio of park land dedicated to fields than to the many other need and uses compared to national averages and peer cities.

The capacity of facilities estimates that DPR conducted would also have greatly expanded the conversation about our facilities’ usage and put them into context with the many other resident priorities such as natural parkland, open spaces and other park and community needs.

Conclusion

The recommendations to both increase and intensify our fields are already being implemented. DPR is converting limited and needed community open green spaces to programmed, restricted fields without community processes, such as the newest Virginia Highlands Park grass soccer field. Relying on the recommendation by DPR, the County Board also approved synthetic turf to intensify some of our fields, including the Gunston diamond field for 880 more playable hours. And requests by communities to consider other park needs outside of organized recreation, echoed in large numbers by residents in the POPS statistically valid survey are being rejected or diminished by DPR and other groups in favor of retaining underutilized recreational facilities. Apparently all this is being done without disclosing any real capacity numbers to support DPR’s initiatives or recommendations.

These actions are costly and greatly affect our limited financial and land resources.

By not including information in the POPS process based on standard methods of estimating supply and demand for park facilities, a huge opportunity was missed for a truly transparent public process. In fact, had this information been made public early on, the recommendations very likely would have been different. The process itself would have consisted of an enhanced public discussion likely resulting in more reflective recommendations of resident priorities.

Why DPR didn’t disclose information it had during the POPS process, including parkland totals, capacity information and more, is unknown and unfortunate.

Anecdotal stories exist of groups claiming that there are not enough fields. But based on all available evidence, the question should be asked, Is this really due only because of capacity issues or something else? The next newsletter will show more insights into the FOIA results and other documents.

http://mailchi.mp/aaf5548e237c/march2018