Cavan Wilk - Greater Greater Washington

Soccer land swap could solve problems for DC and United

Tue, 07 May 2013 10:31:00 EDT

DC United has been trying to build a new stadium using its own funds for years. A proposed land swap for a parcel at Buzzard Point could help them get one while the District grows its tax base, increases its housing supply, and improves city services at little cost to taxpayers.

Buzzard Point today. Photo by Stephen Whiting.

City officials are currently talking with DC United and developer Akridge about swapping some empty parcels of land at Buzzard Point for government-owned properties around the city, like the Reeves Center near 14th & U streets. In return, Akridge would build a new public safety campus elsewhere in the city and DC United would get the land at Buzzard Point for a stadium.

While other uses have been considered for Buzzard Point in the past, putting a new DC United stadium there would be the best use of that land, while opening up other properties around the city that are better suited for housing or commercial activities.

The current Metropolitan Police Department headquarters at Judiciary Square is outdated and needs to be replaced. It's in such poor shape that MPD employees would have to move somewhere else if the building were renovated.

Meanwhile, the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services and the Department of Corrections are temporarily moving from their obsolete facilities on Vermont Avenue to the Reeves Center. All three government agencies are in need of new permanent headquarters, but the catch is that there are currently no funds allocated to building them.

Slate business and economics correspondent Matt Yglesias recently argued that this site should be used for affordable housing instead. While he's right that DC needs more housing, the Buzzard Point site doesn't make sense for housing under current market conditions. Akridge bought the land that currently sits idle as a parking lot in 2005. They hoped to build an office building but the GSA refused to lease space there, saying the 15-minute walk from the Navy Yard Metro was too far.

There was a residential construction boom when Akridge bought the land in 2005, and there's one happening now due to limited supply and high rents. If they thought that they could sell or rent new homes there, they would have already done so. The Buzzard Point site is a vacant parking lot because there simply isn't enough economic incentive to build there.

If DC United moved to Buzzard Point, the land would become more valuable, much like the Capitol Riverfront after Nationals Park opened. The District could gain tax revenue from surrounding vacant properties as they were developed. Now in private hands, the highly valuable properties at Judiciary Square and 14th and U could also raise tax revenue for the city.

This gives DC more funds that could be used for affordable housing programs. Meanwhile, the market rate housing supply would increase due to new residential buildings at 14th and U and Buzzard Point. (The Judiciary Square site would presumably be used for commercial uses.)

The increase in housing supply would help stabilize rents. Individual buildings may not do much to stabilize rising rents, since they are only a small part of the new supply needed to meet demand. However, every little bit counts.

While the District of Columbia needs more market rate and affordable housing, it can accomplish those goals without throwing around money to induce development where there's no demand for it. Perhaps that was the only option available to our forebears in the second half of the 20th century, but the present situation is different with a growing, desirable city and private investors like Akridge and DC United falling all over themselves to invest in the District of Columbia.

It appears that the District government understands the present circumstances and is negotiating to indirectly use this private investment to improve city services, increase its tax base, and increase its housing supply without having to issue debt that would affect its bond rating. That's exactly how a growing city should operate.

Disclosure: I'm a member of the Barra Brava, an iconic independent DC United supporters' group.

75 comments

Costco still hopes for mega-gas station

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:37:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

After the Montgomery County Council passed a law that was intended to prevent Costco from opening a mega gas station adjacent to its new Wheaton store, the Planning Board recommended against the gas station.

Cars line up to get gas at a Costco station in Sacramento. Photo by multimediaimpre on flickr

The next step is a set of 6 hearings before the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings.

In a comments on Wheaton Patch, "ED" says:

I'm happy the hearings are postponed until after the [April 10] Costco opening. I think the residents of Wheaton will be up for a rude awakening when they see the traffic for Costco.
If the Costco will bring in 4,000-5,000 customers per day (per Westfield's estimates a couple of years ago), how many more cars will they bring in if a mega-gas station is offered? I can only hope that someone has a camera when Costco opens and takes the pictures to the hearings.

Just as I previously wrote about the topic, a mega-sized Costco gas station is incompatible with the Wheaton Sector Plan, passed January 2012, that calls for a more walkable urban Wheaton. There are few uses that would impede Wheaton's revitalization and redevelopment than a mega-sized Costco gas station.

Such a use would require extra road infrastructure that would create an unwalkable dead zone. A lot of land that would be better used for more walkable urban formatted amenities would be taken up with bigger multi-lane access roads that will have idling cars lined up at all hours of the day.

The Montgomery County DOT will be especially reluctant to design any roads for pedestrians instead of cars with massive numbers of vehicles constantly traveling to and from the gas station.

Here is an aerial view of a the Woodmore Costco store that has a gas station:

Images from Google Maps.

The Costco store in Gaithersburg does not have a gas station:

Finally, here is the Wheaton site. The Costco is scheduled to open April 10:

The Wheaton site is wholly unlike the Woodmore site, which is extremely car-oriented, and has no Metro station or legacy street grid. It is also much more urban and pedestrian-oriented than the Gaithersburg site. The Wheaton site is comparable to the Pentagon City Costco. Just like in Gaithersburg, that store has no gas pumps.

Costco is a nationally successful business that will clearly make a healthy profit at the Wheaton store. I don't think anyone would dispute that the store will be packed from the day it opens. Costco clearly does good business in neighboring Gaithersburg and Arlington without gas pumps.

The next round of hearings is part of the process for special zoning text amendments. The hearings have been rescheduled for April 26, May 1, May 6, May 14, May 17, May 20, May 23 and June 4. All hearings will be at 9:30 am in the Stella B. Werner Council Office Building, Second Floor Davidson Memorial Hearing Room, at 100 Maryland Avenue in Rockville.

19 comments

Leggett tries again to defund Bethesda Metro entrance

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:13:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

In last year's county budget, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett proposed delaying funding for a new entrance to the Bethesda Metro station. The County Council restored funding in last year's final budget, but the Leggett administration resubmitted a similar misguided proposal for this fiscal year.

The new Bethesda Metro entrance would be an elevator bank that connects with the southern end of the platform. Photo by Gautam Rishi on flickr.

The Bethesda Metro station was originally designed to accommodate a southern entrance. A bank of high-speed elevators would transport passengers to street level, like in Friendship Heights. When built, the Purple Line will also use the new elevators as both an entrance to its station and as a convenient direct transfer to and from the Red Line.

The county has always planned to finance this new entrance on its own, because it will benefit Red Line riders on the day it opens, Purple Line or no.

In addition to offering an alternative when the existing escalators are out of service, it will bring the station up to modern safety standards by providing a second entrance for emergency personnel and a second evacuation route in the event of an emergency.

Sadly, Maryland does not yet have the funds lined up for its portion of the Purple Line costs, and Leggett is citing potential Purple Line delays as a reason to postpone the Metro entrance as well. From the Bethesda Patch:

"Due to the current lack of state construction funding for these projects, this reduction is not likely to cause a delay in the project," read the county release announcing the CIP amendments.

This statement is very puzzling because County Executive Leggett has been an excellent advocate for increasing transportation revenue at the state level, teaming with Prince George's County Executive Rushern Baker, both counties' state delegations, and other counties' delegations.

Governor O'Malley has made it clear that a significant piece of the increased transportation revenues would go towards constructing the Purple Line. One would think that the Leggett Administration would be more publicly optimistic about future state revenues, based on its own hard work.

Further, the Maryland MTA has already stated that construction on the entrance would have to begin by 2016 in order to meet a projected 2020 start of operations for the Purple Line. Last year's budget kept the project on schedule to break ground by 2016. Any delay would put the project too far behind schedule to be open when the Purple Line begins operation, if the Purple Line gets the funding it needs.

This proposal continues the pattern with this administration of trying to defund smart growth-oriented projects while proposing lavish spending on sprawl-oriented road projects.

When the County Council restored the Metro entrance funding during the 2012 budgeting process, it deferred some wasteful new road projects the Leggett administration has proposed. Those include building Montrose Parkway East, and widening Snouffer School Road and Goshen Road in Gaithersburg. It's unclear if the Gaithersburg area road widenings are linked to the M-83 "Zombie Road" proposal that MCDOT continues to study.

The County Executive's office now wants to defer the Metro funding, though for less time than in last year's proposal, and restore many of these same road projects.

Just like last year, the County Council can rein in the county Department of Transportation's least considered road-widening impulses. It's up to us to contact them and let them know that the electorate supports smart growth and economic development projects, such as the new Bethesda Metro entrance.

23 comments

Montgomery Council boosts Purple Line, Bethesda entrance (Mar 14, 2012)
It's not Wheaton vs. Bethesda, but smart growth vs. bad (Feb 24, 2012)
Time to fast-track the southern Bethesda Metro entrance (Nov 2, 2010)
3 questions with Md. delegate candidate Scott Goldberg (May 27, 2010)
No new subsidized parking in Bethesda (Apr 26, 2008)

Costco tries end run around law for Wheaton gas station

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:29:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

The Montgomery County Council passed a law specifically to stop Costco from building a large gas station adjacent to a residential neighborhood in Wheaton. Now, Costco has made another proposal that would simply move it 300 feet to the east.

Photo by J.J. Smith on Flickr.

A gas station is not appropriate for the future Costco site at Westfield Wheaton. Underground gas tanks have a tendency to leak, and the proposed site is adjacent to people swimming at the Kenmont Swim and Tennis Club.

A gas station also contributes to making Wheaton more car-oriented and less walkable, moving it in the wrong direction in the Whirlpool of Induced Demand.

The recently approved Wheaton Sector Plan includes provisions to make Wheaton more walkable. As the surrounding area becomes more vibrant and economically successful, the large Westfield parking lots represent ideal opportunities for urban-formatted housing and amenities right near the Wheaton Metro.

But a new, jumbo-sized Costco gas station would create a large, unwalkable dead zone, add pollution, and bring constant traffic jams, all making redevelopment much more difficult. The Montgomery County DOT will be especially reluctant to design any roads for pedestrians instead of cars with massive numbers of vehicles constantly traveling to and from the gas station.

When the County Council rejected the previous gas station proposal, it passed a bill that bans large gas stations from being within 300 feet of schools or recreation centers. The original bill prohibited gas stations within 1,000 feet of schools or recreation centers, which originally seemed to have the votes to pass until intense lobbying from Costco changed several councilmembers' minds.

Costco's new gas station location proposal is 300 feet to the east of the rejected site.

Top: 2010 proposed Costco gas station location. Bottom: 2012 proposed Costco gas station location. Note that the new location is just to the east of the line that delineates 300 feet to the swimming pool. Diagrams are based on documents from the Kensington Heights Civic Association.

Altering a bad proposal so its location is a few feet to the east doesn't change that it's a bad idea. Costco has also already said that they will open the Wheaton location with or without the large gas station. Montgomery County has already given a $4 million subsidy to Costco. They should respect the spirit of the County Council's decision and drop the gas station rather than cynically trying to exploit a loophole.

50 comments

Proposed Costco gas station is the wrong place, wrong time (May 17, 2010)
Wheaton Costco would exacerbate poor walkability (Jan 20, 2010)
Smart growth with more affordable housing in Wheaton, take 2 (Jul 29, 2009)
Affordable housing clashes with the suburban mindset in Wheaton/Kensington (Dec 1, 2008)
The Wheaton library should be in downtown Wheaton (Apr 20, 2009)

Start Montgomery BRT today with priority corridors

Wed, 02 May 2012 11:50:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

Montgomery County's Bus Rapid Transit task force will soon release its completed report. Montgomery County can immediately start moving toward BRT by setting up limited-stop, express bus service along WMATA's bus priority corridors.

Picture from Montgomery County BRT task force.

The task force envisions building a BRT network in phases. Ultimately the county may build new dedicated busways, but it can start immediately and far more cheaply by dedicating some existing road capacity for buses. And though dedicated transit lanes will make the network far more useful, many shorter-term improvements are possible even without dedicated lanes.

WMATA's recommendations for Bus Priority Corridors include reducing the number of bus stops on a line, extending green lights to let buses through, and designating bus-only lanes on a few short sections of roadway.

The only way to create an effective, affordable rapid bus network is to use existing roadway lanes more efficiently by reserving them for bus-only traffic. Unfortunately, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) refuses to modify any existing roadways that would help buses move faster than cars.

Building a successful system in Montgomery County will present unique challenges. In DC, though progress has been slow, DDOT is working with WMATA to study how to best fit bus priority into its roadways. MCDOT needs to do the same.

If MCDOT started dedicating bus lanes on priority corridors now, engineers would be able to understand the challenges and issues that arise when redesigning one of Montgomery County's roadways. They would gain knowledge and experience that would speed up future phases of BRT, saving time and money.

Outside the Beltway, the BRT task force recommends putting high-speed bus lanes in the center of roadways. This will require limiting left turns and other changes in highway operations. Dedicated lanes on priority corridors now will let MCDOT try out some of the treatments that could ultimately become part of those BRT lines.

The path to making existing streets into a welcoming environment for transit riders and pedestrians will undoubtedly involve a learning curve. The sooner that MCDOT can begin to study and learn from real world experience, the better and more cost-effective the Montgomery County BRT system will be.

10 comments

Montgomery DOT roadblocks thwart popular BRT plan (Jan 30, 2012)
Maryland on priority corridors: Great! Montgomery: Nah! (Feb 19, 2010)
Montgomery councilmembers: Get moving on bus priority (Apr 22, 2011)
What does a highway guy think about priority bus corridors? (Dec 3, 2008)
For buses, faster is cheaper (Aug 12, 2009)

It's not Wheaton vs. Bethesda, but smart growth vs. bad

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:48:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

Montgomery officials say there isn't enough money in the capital budget to pay for both a new Bethesda Metro entrance and redeveloping Wheaton. But there is plenty of money, if only the county deferred some of the new and wasteful highways that will only worsen sprawl and shift the county's growth away from the places that can best accommodate it.

Downtown Wheaton. Image from Montgomery Planning.

Wheaton residents are eager for a redevelopment project which will bring new offices, residences, a hotel and a town square to the area around the Metro station. Meanwhile, to prepare for the Purple Line (and ease crowding today), the county needs to add a second entrance to the Bethesda Metro.

County Executive Ike Leggett's budget eliminated funding for the Bethesda entrance, and general services director David Dise told the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee that the county could probably not fund both the $40 million Wheaton plan and the $80 million Bethesda Metro south entrance.

Actually, it can, easily. And it can afford $12 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail, which Leggett also cut from the current capital budget. All the county has to do is defer some of the $359 million in new highways in the 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). That $359 million is all for new capacity, over and above the necessary cost of maintaining the county's existing roads and bridges.

The projects include widening Goshen Road, which costs $129 million, but the justification in the CIP suggests it's not needed until 2025. Building Montrose Parkway East, for $56 million, will further despoil Rock Creek Park, while the completed western portion has already created a "Berlin Wall" that will hamper a future walkable, mixed-use neighborhood growing north of White Flint.

Widening Snouffer School Road and Snouffer School Road North, 2 projects costing $45 million, would meet "demands of existing and future land uses" in an area which "is experiencing growth with plans for future residential and commercial development."

Why does the County Executive claim that it doesn't have enough money for the Bethesda Metro, a necessary step for the Purple Line in the part of the county that generates the most tax revenue, and Wheaton, a prime spot for new mixed-use growth and an already-thriving community right on top of another Metro station, but can spend money on new roads in car-dependent areas which may grow in the future?

These new road projects would increase traffic congestion through induced demand, offer no economic development, and destroy irreplaceable Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Montgomery County has already agreed, through long public debates, to make the Purple Line, the Metropolitan Branch Trail, and growth in Wheaton top priorities. But Leggett's budget does not reflect this.

This is an unfortunate pattern with this County Executive. The Leggett administration consistently cries poverty when it comes to smart growth-oriented projects like these, or making Rockville Pike a boulevard in White Flint. However, it seems that no sprawl-oriented road project is too expensive to fund.

Whether it's putting up roadblocks to BRT, pushing harmful skybridges and underpasses, or a bizarre focus on resurrecting bad "zombie road" proposals from the 1960s, the County Executive's decisions do not embody Montgomery County's and Maryland's stated smart growth policies.

Fortunately, it appears the County Council does not share the County Executive's misplaced priorities. A council committee has since voted to restore funding for the Bethesda Metro entrance, and the full council will consider it soon. The council should also restore funding for the Metropolitan Branch Trail.

Despite claims to the contrary, these worthy projects need not compete with each other. The council can simply choose the least valuable of the plan's many expensive road projects and use the money to ensure Wheaton, Metro riders at Bethesda, the future Purple Line, and a valuable bicycle connection from Silver Spring to DC get the attention they deserve. Our county, state and region cannot afford more delay.

38 comments

Montgomery Council boosts Purple Line, Bethesda entrance (Mar 14, 2012)
Leggett's growth vision is not smart at all (Oct 13, 2009)
Tunnel vision threatens the Capital Crescent Trail in Bethesda (Nov 4, 2011)
3 questions with Md. delegate candidate Scott Goldberg (May 27, 2010)
Montgomery faces a hard decision with Bethesda tunnel (Feb 27, 2012)

Old buildings are the key to affordability

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:32:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

All other things being equal, old buildings are usually more affordable than new buildings. Without the latest amenities, old buildings have to charge less in order to attract tenants. A healthy supply of old buildings is therefore crucial to long term neighborhood affordability.

The Cameron, a new apartment building in downtown Silver Spring. Photo from Behringer Harvard Residential, LLC.

Local governments are to be commended for adopting inclusionary regulations that require new projects to contain a certain percentage of affordable housing units, but this process has never been able to provide enough affordable housing supply to meet the demand. The only way to stabilize affordable residential rents in the long term is to increase the supply of old buildings.

Luckily, creating more old buildings is easy. We just have to build a lot of new ones and then let them age. Our problem in the short term is that not enough new buildings were built in walkable areas in recent decades, resulting in a dearth of old buildings today.

A friend's recent housing search offers an interesting example of the phenomenon.

Up until a few months ago my friend lived in a brand new, and quite expensive, building in White Flint. When they announced a rent increase, she decided to look elsewhere. I suggested downtown Silver Spring, thinking that the increased supply of housing units there in recent years would result in lower rents. After doing some research, my friend determined that rents in Silver Spring were comparable to what she was seeing in White Flint.

New buildings, it turns out, are expensive even if there are lots of them. Of course, Silver Spring's desirability in general has also greatly increased recent years, which is why there are so many new buildings there in the first place.

There are more people who are interested in paying to live in Silver Spring than there were a decade ago. While there are now more residential units than before, there is simply far more demand than the new buildings can accommodate to keep rents stable.

Just up the Red Line in Wheaton the situation is a little different. Wheaton is still a few years away from revitalization on the scale of Silver Spring. It is a much less desirable location. Therefore, one would suppose that rents there would be less expensive.

Because Wheaton is a less desirable location, it has fewer new buildings than Silver Spring. But it does have a few. If one compares the rents for a new building in Wheaton to those of a similar new building in Silver Spring, the listed rents are comparably expensive.

Despite the location differences, they are both new buildings. And new buildings have high rents.

Older buildings compete with newer buildings by offering lower rents.

In the specific case of downtown Silver Spring, the older buildings can charge almost as much as the new buildings because the area is so desirable that there is a supply shortage. If there were enough supply to meet the demand, the older buildings would be the first to become more affordable.

Buildings in the same location compete with each other for tenants. New buildings offer amenities, and old buildings offer affordability. Previously new buildings eventually become comparatively old, and therefore eventually have to compete more strongly on price.

The key lesson is that we must produce enough new urban buildings today to meet tomorrow's affordable housing needs. Our current affordability problems are due in no small part to a failure in the late 20th Century to produce enough urban buildings that we would today consider "old". We must not repeat that mistake.

43 comments

Housing is more than supply and demand (Sep 21, 2011)
Affordable housing clashes with the suburban mindset in Wheaton/Kensington (Dec 1, 2008)
Wheaton development a good example of urban infill (Jan 31, 2011)
Smart growth with more affordable housing in Wheaton, take 2 (Jul 29, 2009)
Wheaton's butterfly effect (Nov 10, 2008)

Retailers are embracing urbanism with zeal

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:12:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

As enclosed malls continue to decline and close, more and more retailers are opting to locate in pedestrian-friendly urban districts.

Photo by NCinDC on Flickr.

3 years ago, I expressed sentiments that the car-oriented shopping mall was a business model with no future. The events since have offered further proof that retailers and customers now prefer an urban format, at least in our region.

Recent news that Bloomingdale's in White Flint and Macy's in Laurel will close has little to do with the sales performance of those stores, and everything to do with their host malls being unable to survive. Both have been visibly declining for years, and will soon be redeveloped into mixed-use walkable urban places.

The Laurel Macy's has managed to remain open for years despite much of its host mall being shuttered. That store would likely have closed years ago if it wasn't making money, especially in the wake of the Great Recession.

Similarly, if it had not been profitable the White Flint Bloomingdale's would have closed in 2007 when another location of the luxury retailer opened a mere 3 Metro stations away.

Within the Favored Quarter, the most economically competitive and healthy part of our region, only the largest and most dynamic enclosed malls are continuing to thrive. The rest are slowly dying.

In Maryland, Montgomery Mall is the most vibrant, while in Virginia the Tysons cluster reigns supreme.

When the White Flint redevelopment plan was approved in 2010, it provided the owners of White Flint Mall the opportunity to earn a healthier profit by giving the market more of what it wants: walkable urbanism.

Elsewhere in the region the malls are doing as bad or worse. Most have either closed or are in the process of being converted to walkable town centers.

Arlington has had success turning the area around its two enclosed malls into mixed-use towns, first at Ballston and now at Pentagon City, where the process is still under way.

In Fairfax, Springfield Mall is slated for redevelopment, and Fair Oaks Mall is actively considering a mixed-use future.

In Prince George's County, the area around the Mall at Prince George's (formerly Prince George's Plaza) has been undergoing a process similar to Pentagon City. At Bowie Town Center, County officials are looking at adding more entertainment and housing options.

Meanwhile, urban shopping areas that I mentioned three years ago have increased in prominence:

In the District of Columbia, there are four shopping districts that support clusters of national retail chains that are usually mall-based: Downtown (Old Downtown clustered around Metro Center), Connecticut Avenue between Farragut Square and Dupont Circle, Friendship Heights, and Georgetown. Columbia Heights is emerging and has a different mix of retailers.

Urban-format suburban shopping districts also continue to thrive and grow.

Silver Spring's retail is more vibrant than ever. The space vacated by Borders was quickly filled by Smart Toys. Bethesda and Clarendon are continually adding to their mixture of chains and smaller upscale retailers. Wheaton is a work in progress.

Even outside the Beltway, urbanism is catching on. Rockville Town Square and Gaithersburg's Washingtonian Center are growing, and National Harbor is setting the standard for Prince George's County. Two decades ago, all those developments likely would have been enclosed malls.

While purely car-dependent malls aren't going to go completely extinct, they are becoming far more rare. In the future, it is likely the only enclosed malls that remain will be the largest super-regional "winners" inside the Favored Quarter. Meanwhile, no new malls are planned.

As the 21st Century continues, both living and dead mall sites will be either be completely redeveloped or will evolve into mixed-use walkable urban places. Retailers will continue clustering at transit-oriented, walkable urban locations, both downtown and at new suburban "uptowns."

44 comments

2010 wish list for transit (Dec 23, 2009)
Back to the future in commercial real estate (Jan 2, 2009)
White Flint at forefront of urbanism on Rockville Pike (Oct 20, 2008)
The only thing we have to fear is fear of traffic (Jan 13, 2010)
"Mall people" and Montgomery County's downtowns (Jul 2, 2008)

DC United and the University of Maryland: a perfect match

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:26:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

DC United might leave Washington entirely due to lack of a suitable and sustainable stadium. Embedded in the UMD campus plan could be the key: A new stadium which serves both DC United and Maryland soccer.

DC United has been playing at 50-year old RFK stadium since 1996 and the facility is literally crumbling. After numerous agreements with local governments that fell apart at the 11th hour, the trail towards self-funding a new stadium in the region has seemingly gone cold.

When I was a senior at the University of Maryland in 2003, I saw a scale model of the Campus Master Plan. It includes provisions for a soccer stadium (PDF) on top of what is currently a surface parking lot in the back corner of campus. The site is on the south side of the new field hockey/lacrosse stadium and also adjacent to the Comcast Center basketball arena. This could be ideal for DC United.

The site in question would require no new roads or infrastructure to be specially built. That part of campus is tucked away from the academic uses and is currently used for parking and varsity/club athletics. It already has the infrastructure in place for large events. DCU could market using the Green Line, much like the Nats Stadium does, although some fans will want to drive if they're coming from far away.

The site is about a 20 minute walk from the Green Line but will be less than 10 minutes from the future Purple Line stations at East Campus and Campus Center. (The University currently runs free shuttles to and from the Metro all day every day.) It is also right next to the Paint Branch Trail bike path.

There also are some new apartments with ground-floor retail on Route 1 behind the stadium site, which are on the way from the Metro. Those new buildings have restaurants and pubs in them that are certain to enjoy greater patronage from future soccer fans on the way to and from the game.

Attendance for UMD soccer is currently over the capacity of Ludwig Field, its current facility. They now draw up to 8,000 spectators. After multiple expansions to temporary seating structures, Ludwig's capacity is about 7,000. During my time as an undergraduate, I heard about how University of Maryland Athletics was dreaming of having a true soccer facility so they could host games and make revenue from prestigious events such as the ACC championship and the NCAA Final Four. However, those prestigious events require that their host facilities have an enclosed press box and locker rooms. Unfortunately, Ludwig Field has neither.

Currently, University of Maryland Athletics is running a deficit. Therefore, they can't fund new facilities in the Master Plan. University of Maryland Athletics also wants new revenues to fund their operations. Meanwhile, DC United has been offering to fund the construction of a new stadium for over 10 years. They have sought a public-private partnership that involves the local or state government issuing low-interest municipal bonds that the team would be in charge of paying.

The lower municipal interest rate versus the higher private interest rate is the difference between tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the bond. The Maryland Stadium Authority was set up to mange such projects; as result, they bring in revenue to the government and are funded through fees from events at the facility rather than through taxpayer money. (It was also founded in response to Baltimore's heartbreak over losing the Colts in the 1980's because of a situation that was very similar to United's.)

Under such a public-private partnership between DC United and UMD, the University would get a new facility that's on its Campus Master Plan at no cost to their budget. They would get new revenue streams by hosting ACC and NCAA events, along with revenue from DC United events, according to the terms of embracing construction on the University of Maryland campus. Finally, they would have a beautiful new stadium to better attract and accommodate more fans for their own soccer teams than their present facility can hold.

The more events a stadium hosts, the more revenue it brings in for all stakeholders. In addition to more revenue from hosting college sporting events, UMD and DCU would make revenue per the terms of their agreement for 60 additional events a year. As I wrote back in January:

Between its Major League Soccer regular season games, U.S. Open Cup, CONCACAF (North American) Championships, and friendlies, DC United holds approximately 30 games during the season. Other events would want to use the facility too, such as the U.S. National Men's and Women's soccer teams, concerts, college sports, other pro sports, etc. 60 events a year is a reasonable estimate. The schedule for the Los Angeles Galaxy's soccer stadium, the Home Depot Center, illustrates the diversity of events held.

DC United's competitor, the Los Angeles Galaxy has a similar existing arrangement with Cal State-Dominguez Hills as the Home Depot Center is built on the campus. The Home Depot Center represents how a medium-sized professional sports venue built on a college campus can be beneficial for all stakeholders.

The solution to two separate problems often rests with the two parties working together. DC United has been looking to fund building a 20,000 seat soccer stadium for over a decade. The University of Maryland has wanted a new soccer stadium for almost as long, as expressed in the Campus Master Plan, and they currently lack the funds to build it themselves even though their own soccer team has outgrown its present facility.

DC United is in the eleventh hour of getting out of a bad stadium arrangement that threatens their very existence. The land and infrastructure at UMD is already in place. The Maryland Stadium Authority brings professional stadium project management to the table. Both parties have exactly what the other wants and a 20,000 seat soccer stadium will bring in revenue for all at no taxpayer expense. It's also a smart growth project, located close to existing Metro infrastructure, the future Purple Line (boosting ridership projections and making the project even more competitive for Federal funding), existing parking, and existing road infrastructure that already handle accommodate large sporting events.

Bonus: there'd be no argument over the stadium color scheme.

Disclosure: I'm a member of the Barra Brava, an iconic independent DC United supporters' group. I am also a University of Maryland alum and a member of the Alumni Association.

91 comments

A DC United stadium is likely to be truly urban (Jan 24, 2011)
How to create a successful urban stadium (Feb 18, 2009)
DC is better off without Redskins stadium or practice fields (Nov 4, 2011)
Imagine a College Park/University of Maryland arboretum (Feb 24, 2011)
UMD tries another Purple Line route (May 7, 2010)

Zombie road rises from the dead in upcounty Montgomery

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:25:00 EDT

by Cavan Wilk

Montgomery County DOT has resurrected an expensive and environmentally destructive extension of Mid-County Highway in Gaithersburg from a dotted line on a 1960's map.

M-83 threatens Great Seneca Creek tributaries. Photo by Gleb Tulukin on Flickr.

Codenamed M-83, the highway would waste scarce money from the county's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), destroy valuable parkland and wetlands, take people's property, and induce more traffic congestion than it solves.

The proposed highway extension would go all the way to Clarksburg. It would run roughly parallel to MD 355 and I-270.

This area is currently built out with car-dependent subdivisions and strip malls. Consequently, the road wouldn't induce much new tax revenue through greenfield development in the county. It would simply be yet another attempt to make it more convenient for drivers from Clarksburg and points north to drive to Rockville, Bethesda, and DC.

In reality, the existence of another through-road would increase the pressure to open up the county's Agricultural Reserve for more car-dependent sprawl.

M-83 would become congested like every other new road due to induced demand while being very expensive to maintain. More money will be taken out of the county's general funds that could go to transit, police, schools, etc. We'll be paying for environmental destruction yet again.

Just like the zombie outer beltway in Virginia, M-83's route was selected years before planners began taking environmental issues into consideration. Over the years, local residents have killed plans for this road multiple times.

The Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have denied federal funding in the past because many of the alternatives would pave over protected, undeveloped parklands that contain tributaries to Great Seneca Creek.

Because each alternative includes widening existing sections of surface roadway to highway standards, local residents would lose private property. The Coalition for Transit Alternatives to Mid-County Highway Extended (TAME) has arisen to oppose the misguided plans to build M-83. TAME comprises mid-county and upcounty environmental groups, religious organizations, and civic associations.

While presenting to the August 9 Action Committee for Transit meeting, a representative of TAME described how some people attending the public meetings on M-83 originally angled to have someone else's yard taken for the road widenings. The representative noted that once the different stakeholders began talking with each other, they came to a consensus that no one's yard should be taken for a road that is expensive, environmentally destructive, and unnecessary. Stakeholders also agree that M-83 should be eliminated from the county's Master Plan and CIP.

Currently the M-83 project is funded exclusively with county money. Why is there money for M-83 when the county executive's office refuses to add boulevardizing Rockville Pike in White Flint to the CIP? Likewise with adding a second entrance to the White Flint Metro Station or funding the Corridor Cities Transitway?

This current mentality, where the county happily pays for any road project yet requires outside funding sources for transit projects, is selling our future short and must stop.

Just like TAME's vision, I implore Montgomery County to defund the cost-ineffective and environmentally destructive M-83 project in favor of projects like White Flint's urban retrofit, the Corridor Cities Transitway, and possibly the county's BRT vision.

18 comments

ACT creates Montgomery County transit vision (Feb 16, 2010)
On Tuesday, Montgomery Council can avoid "ICC 2.0" (Jul 16, 2009)
TPB staples $3 billion 270 widening into plan, ignores MARC (Nov 16, 2010)
Gaithersbungle, part 6: What else $3.8 billion could buy, more specifically (Jul 29, 2009)
Gaithersbungle: Planning Board staff latest to ignore better way for Gaithersburg (Jun 29, 2009)