Report a Comment

As someone who lives in the neighborhood, regularly commutes on the current trail, & attended the meeting, the best thing we can do to expedite the process is to make sure they listen to community concerns and address real concerns.

I agree that the concept of switching of the trail & tracks from south to north of the yard has pluses & minuses, but comes out fairly even. The challenge is in the details. For example, the southern alignment of the trail was next to trees. The northern alignment is between tracks & a road. There doesn't seem to be any space for trees in the plan. That would result in a 1/2 mile stretch of trail with almost no shade. That's much more unpleasant than a single at grade crossing. This could be addressed by shifting everything south 10 ft for more green space. There's space for that in the area, but the sooner the plan is adjusted the better.

One other option the planners mentioned was the possability of roofing the yard. From the perspective of the Purple line quality, that would mean they cars are less worn down from the elements @ night, wouldn't need to be individually cleared of snow on winter mornings & might make a nicer work environment in bad weather. It would also decrease noise & light pollution in the neighborhood (the yard would need 24h lighting). This also would require early planning & budgeting. The new plan, which doesn't include car roads the length of the yard would be better for this. Wide written support for a roof would allay many neighborhood concerns & improve the line. In an ideal world, that roof could even be a green roof. Based on the heights in the area, it might even be possible to make the roof a community plaza, but I recognize that would significantly increase the cost.

My biggest concern is the parking garage. It didn't exist at all in the original design. That garage is the closest thing to houses & will increase disturbances. Do you want a multistory garage suddenly appearing around 200 feet from your home or apartment?

Did the original design not account for employee parking? With requiring such a large garage, are they assuming that almost all employees will drive to work right next to a mass transit stop? This seems like the classic car-centered county/state blunder that Greater Greater Washington rails against. Moving parking north of Brookville Rd (perhaps sharing one of the existing federal or state lots) would, at least, create a buffer between the relocated maintenance building & homes.

Like I said, I’m in this area frequently. The current business at the proposed garage site isn’t exactly scenic, but it’s very low traffic & I’ve never heard any noise from it. Having 200 cars entering & leaving a garage over 3 shifts will be a real change.

The reason they had an at-grade crossing in the old plan is that the only reason cars crossed that road was to get to a parking lots of a few businesses. With the very low car traffic there now, an at-grade crossing would be absolutely no problem for trains & trail users.

The addition of the garage south of the tracks & the subsequent increase in traffic is the sole cause of the added expensive & computer car bridge over the tracks. Building the garage & bridge over the tracks would also mean cyclists & pedestrians would have to go up a ramp to access the station/trail at this location. The current bridge doesn’t even look wide enough for 2-way car traffic & a pedestrian/bike lane.

While I want to see the purple line running ASAP, I think small changes will make it better for everyone in the long run.

by Dan H on Sep 21, 2011 8:16 pm • link • report