It seems to me that, if the county limits density and height so much around the station, we're better off not building the Purple Line at all.

by WRD on Jun 14, 2011 4:19 pm • link • report

Both plans would be considerably better than what is there now, for example the Village Park development at the top of the images. I believe the building that's there is something like 14 stories. That kind of mid-rise is nothing new.

Plus, making the stream into a usable, connected park would be a wonderful amenity.

by Neil Flanagan on Jun 14, 2011 5:15 pm • link • report

Neighbors here (and in Kensington) who complain that this would be "out of scale" with the existing neighborhood would do well to head down Connecticut Avenue a few miles, where apartment buildings line the avenue while very nice single-family homes sit right behind them. It's totally possible to create a small, dense node around the transit station here, with amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods, without creating a huge destination and traffic generator.

My big worry is the lack of a street grid, one thing the neighborhoods along Conn Ave in DC have but isn't really available here. This development may have one, but anyone who drives (and many who walk) out of Chevy Chase Lake will end up on Connecticut regardless.

by dan reed! on Jun 14, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report

@Dan

Yeah, not much you can do about that here - however, those kinds of choke points still enable the development itself to be walkable, but create incentives to use transit for other travel. That could be an asset for the Purple Line.

And that's another reason to opt for the denser alternative - more density creates more of a market for the retail to serve the site to be on site - thus enabling trip capture within the site via walking instead of requiring trips outside of the area.

It's also not quite clear to me what the provisions are for crossing the tracks/trail within the site. Since the tracks are elevated, does that mean the local street grid connects underneath? At grade? Or does it not connect the north and south halves of the development at all? The images aren't quite clear.

by Alex B. on Jun 14, 2011 5:56 pm • link • report

@Dan:
Yes, since the tracks and trail are both elevated, the local street grid proposed by CCLC would connect underneath

by Wayne Phyillaier on Jun 14, 2011 6:36 pm • link • report

Existing residents in Chevy Chase, MD/DC and upstream in Kensington will complain about traffic congestion and impacts up and down Connecticut Avenue.

The ideal is to create density in this area as spurred by the Purple Line and expand transit options on Connecticut Avenue in the form of BRT to Wheaton and Friendship Heights (via CT and Western), and in the longer term by streetcar/light rail.

by Andrew on Jun 14, 2011 7:53 pm • link • report

I wasn't familiar with the area until I looked at the map. This is about 1.5 mi from Bethesda metro and downtown Bethesda, 2 mi from NIH/NNMC and Medical Center metro, and 3 mi to downtown Silver Spring. Granted that they're separated by a country club and Rock Creek. But with better transit and trail connections, this seems like an obvious place for development.

by Gavin on Jun 15, 2011 12:36 am • link • report

This area always seemed somewhat odd to me when I biked it, but now I understand why.
This is a perfect area for redevelopment. There will be the purple line, the beltway is not very far away for those that need to drive, and the trail access would be amazing. I would want to live in that area.

by Matt R on Jun 15, 2011 7:42 am • link • report

And wait until the nearby residents see the rapid increase in their home values...check out the R-B Corridor's impacts, for one. As a resident in the heart of that area, I have not seen terrible increases in traffic as a result of the huge increases in density over the last 20 years.

by David V on Jun 15, 2011 9:27 am • link • report

This plus BRAC is why we moved. Already, it is impossible to turn left (south) onto Connecticut from Manor Road in the morning and right (north) in the afternoon. The traffic backs up on Connecticut from Chevy Chase Lake Drive to Manor Road. The light for Manor Road turns green but you can't go anywhere. You have to go across Connecticut into the neighborhood behind the shops, turn left down the residential street, and exit at the Sunoco station, where turning right onto Connecticut is feasible only when someone takes pity on you and lets you in.

I loved living over there, but it was already unbearable and obviously going to get much, much worse.

The trail was the best thing - we could walk or bike to Bethesda.

And you are still believing the lies that the little trail can accomodate two tracks and hikers and bikers safely? I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

by Joan on Jun 15, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

In the future, do you think there will be more people and more cars? Or fewer people and fewer cars? The whole nature of the discussion is around how to develop a built environment that mitigates or minimizes the need for more cars.

by William on Jun 15, 2011 11:27 am • link • report

My other concern for this site is that it's adding a lot more houses, but the schools in the cluster are already beyond capacity. It would be great to see something like the proposed middle school or, perhaps another elementary school at this location. Having a middle school on a mass transit line would bring a lot of people into this area and reduce the need for buses.

by Dan on Jun 15, 2011 11:32 am • link • report

I never really followed the whole trail controversy but what about having train tracks (for light rail which will never be going incredibly fast) would make it any more dangerous for trail users than if it happened to be located a long a road way. Is it seriously just that the mere presence of trains will make it more dangerous? I don't really buy that argument.

by Canaan on Jun 15, 2011 11:35 am • link • report

@Canaan:

I never really followed the whole trail controversy but what about having train tracks (for light rail which will never be going incredibly fast) would make it any more dangerous for trail users than if it happened to be located a long a road way?

Trains are more dangerous because they're so unpredictable. You never know what one of them will do next!

by oboe on Jun 15, 2011 11:41 am • link • report

@oboe

Indeed. Those trains are always causing trouble:

http://www.thomasandfriends.com/Thomas/img/troublesometrucks.jpg

by Alex B. on Jun 15, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

First, one of the main points seems to be that there are already two tall buildings in the area (13 floors and 18 floors), so what's with the limits on height? Well, the 13 story office building is a complete anomaly for the area. The 18 story "residential building" is an old folks home. Believe me,they're not driving around much, clogging up the roads. But a whole bunch of 19 story apartment and office buildings would have that effect (Purple Line or not). So to use those buildings as representative of the area is very misleading. Even with the Purple Line, this area could never handle the amount of density proposed by the Chevy Chase Land Co. The Purple Line may have some benefits and may put a dent in future (not existing)car trips, but it is not going to turn this area (or any other) into a car-less utopia.

Second, you act as if there is some great housing shortage looming on the horizon once Walter Reed moves to Bethesda. Well, last I checked, Walter Reed is located in D.C., not Utah. It's not like there is going to be a great influx of workers into the region that aren't already here to begin with. They already live here. Their commute will change (which is going to cause even more congestion in this area, Purple Line or not), but it's not like we need to create a whole new housing development to accomodate them. BRAC is just some lame justification CCLC likes to use. Credit goes to the Planning Staff for seeing right through this bulls**t. And, even if new housing is needed to accomodate BRAC, to answer Wayne's question ("If we won't allow more residential housing units here, then where else should it go that is better?"), um, have you heard of the White Flint
re-development, which is only two stops away on the red line? Wait until you see how much excess housing capacity that development brings.

Finally, stop acting like a six-story limit on this development is such a bad thing or such a wasted opportunity. The area here is so big (42 acres) that even with such a limitation, this re-development is going to result in an enormous increase in housing and economic activity.

by PDM on Jun 15, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report

@Joan:

"And you are still believing the lies that the little trail can accomodate two tracks and hikers and bikers safely? I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you."

The publicly owned Georgetown Branch right-of-way is 100 ft. wide through the Chevy Chase Lake area. The trail only looks little because it is now only occupying a small fraction of that width - and adjacent property owners are encroaching badly into the right-of-way. This is especially true at the Columbia Country Club, where the trail is pinched between fences into a 16' width in places while the Club uses the remaining 84' for their own private greens and tees.

I agree with Canaan that being alongside light rail will feel safer than being near a roadway near automobile traffic.

by Wayne Phyillaier on Jun 15, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report

Wayne and Cavan, the trains will be going 45 mph in this location. The roads around here are 25 mph. Would you support slowing the trains down for safety reasons, especially where the ROW narrows to 66 feet?

by Pat Burda on Jun 16, 2011 9:32 am • link • report

@Pat Burda

The trails will be slowing to a stop at the transit station at Chevy Chase Lake.

Yes, I accept it that some speed limits may be needed elsewhere for safety - where light rail runs on the street or near any at-grade pedestrian crossings. The Lynn Drive pedestrian crossing at the Town of Chevy Chase may be one of those cases - with the safe speed depending in part on how effective active and passive crossing gate systems can be there.
The train can be safely separated from the trail and the neighborhoods with a buffer and fences within the 66' wide ROW, so the narrowing of the ROW to 66' is not of itself a safety issue.

by Wayne Phyillaier on Jun 16, 2011 9:53 am • link • report

"The trails will be slowing to a stop at the transit station at Chevy Chase Lake."

Of course it is the trains that are stopping at the transit station.

by Wayne Phyillaier on Jun 16, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

If we're going to spend $2 Billion to subsidize development, how about we get the most benefit for that money.
For all the talk about "Smart Growth" wouldn't it be smarter to spend tax money where people actually need it?
There are EXISTING Metro Stations in neighborhoods that are undeveloped/under-developed - let's start there.
There's no shortage of commercial activity in the Bethesda/Chevy Chase/Silver Spring corridor.
Why are we talking about building transit to justify development to justify transit?
Let's identify how we can maximize the the efficiency of existing infrastructure - we'll save money AND reduce pollution.

by Ajay Bhatt on Jun 16, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

@ Ajay Bhatt--

Why not do both? We can improve existing transit utilization without spending a single penny by changing the zoning code. That doesn't mean we shouldn't simultaneously pursue other development and transit priorities.

by WRD on Jun 16, 2011 10:35 am • link • report

But I mean, the trains stick to the rails. You'll likely hear it coming up behind you. and yes, 66' is a lot of room. An interstate highway with 3 lanes and shoulders is just about 66'(12' lanes and 10' shoulders I think is the standard). And maybe not in the area in particular, but there are definitely roadside trails for bikes and peds where the road speed limit is 45mph and above. And its not like you can't predict the movement of said train. Overall I'd feel safer riding next to a train going any speed than a sidewalk along a roadway (and I think the perception also translates to reality).

by Canaan on Jun 16, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

@PDM

Second, you act as if there is some great housing shortage looming on the horizon once Walter Reed moves to Bethesda.

What does the Walter Reed move have to do with this? As noted in the other thread about this, there is demand for housing and office space in this region, period. Apartment vacancy rates are ridiculously low, home prices are still rising here (despite falling almost everywhere else in the country), and the office market is on solid footing compared to other markets as well. There is demand, and supply needs to keep up.

by Alex B. on Jun 16, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

Ben,

I raised the issue of BRAC only because the CC Land Co, during some of its presentations,has tried using it as a justification for it's plan to add 3000 dwelling units (10,000 residents) to the CC Lake Area. I just wanted to expose a flaw in their argument.

You raise a bigger point, though, regarding affordable housing. Like it or not, the county is growing, so more housing is needed. Perhaps it's time to raise the issue of whether rent control measures should taken in conjunction with the redevelopment of various sectors. Otherwise, we we will just keep finding ourselves in this cycle where new areas pop up and quickly become unaffordable.

by PDM on Jun 16, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

The roads around here are 25 mph.

The speed limit on Connecticut Ave. is 30 mph in some places and 35 mph elsewhere. And how many cars do you see that obey the speed limit? The speed cameras are set for 12 mph above the speed limit, so for practical purposes you can assume people are driving 42 to 47 mph.

And, of course, trains are on tracks while cars are free to drive where they will.

by Ben Ross on Jun 16, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

And rent control would just create even more of a shortage. The best way to account for rising housing prices is to increase supply especially if you want to mitigate the effect of the externalities that something like rent control would do.

by Canaan on Jun 16, 2011 11:11 am • link • report

@WRD - Why not do both? We can improve existing transit utilization without spending a single penny by changing the zoning code.

A single penny? $2 BILLION is a lot of pennies.

Yes - We can reduce traffic, achieve greater efficiency from our existing transit, encourage development and reduce pollution without wasting $2 billion plus millions in annual operating and maintenance budget shortfalls on the current Purple Line plan.

There are alternatives.

by Ajay Bhatt on Jun 16, 2011 11:37 am • link • report

Like many others, I did not pay much attention to the original Purple Line debate. The revision of the Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plan has focused my attention on the density bonus which could be awarded to land owners in close proximity to transit stations illustrated by the Chevy Chase Land Company's proposal to develop 4.5 million square feet of space including 3,000 dwelling units. This level of development will have have serious consequences on an already overburdened Connectiuct Avenue. A close examination of the Purple Line reveals that it will not decrease auto traffic and the addition of the number of stations to increase ridership will not decrease travel times. The State's manager of the project clearly states the project is justified by it's impact on economic development and not traffic reduction or acceleration.

The current federal and state budget restraints have indicated that the funding of the project is likely to be delayed. The Planning staff's proposal divides the area in to two parts and for phase one proposes a zoning change to mixed use while retaining existing levels of density. This is an excellent proposal, however, we awaite to see how they will insure that the development will achieve a mixture of uses and precisely the mix of uses they are proposing.

The proposal to increase density in the second phase is associated with the Purple Line. It is not clear how the additional densities will be tied to assurances of completion of the Purple Line. We certainly do not want greater densities without assurance that the Purple Line will ever get to Connecticut Avenue.

The Chevy CHase Land Company proposal will produce greater densities than exist in comparable areas of Bethesda. That is totally incompatable with the neighborhoods adjacent to the Chevy Chase Lake planning area. That is contrary to all smart growth in-fill planning principles.

The estimated cost of the Purple Line is $2 Billion. This money would be better spent on improving the Rockville Pike Road System, including providing North South express lines which would relieve I 270 and facilitate increased development in an area served by METRO.

If it is too late to stop the development of the Purple Line, the staff proposal is something that makes sense with the addition of appropriate details including the limits on coverage, the road grid and park improvements proposed by the Chevy Chase Land Company.

by Howard on Jun 16, 2011 4:31 pm • link • report

I agree with Howard.

Connecticut avenue is already way overcrowded and as an earlier poster pointed out there is insufferable gridlock at Connecticut and Manor. This will only get worse with BRAC as people use Jones Bridge more. For all of the $2Billion cost of the purple line most admit that it will not help with the traffic.

There are a few things we can do in the mean time.

1 start with a police enforcement of traffic at Connecticut and Manor to prevent gridlock.

2 install a "Dupont Circle"-like intersection at East-West Highway and Connecticut Ave to increase the efficiency at that intersection. (i.e. through traffic doesn't need to stop, turns are handled via a traffic circle.)

3. Put reversible lanes on Connecticut from 495 to DC and lengthen the turn lanes (which are often full, blocking straight through traffic)

4. Support the planning board's recommendation to allow CCLC to develop CCL to limited amounts regardless of Purple line construction (they deserve some immediate profits) but tie further increases to the completion of the Purple Line.

by Joe on Jun 16, 2011 11:40 pm • link • report

Joe makes some great suggestions regarding the road improvements that will need to be made to accomodate ANY degree of re-development in this area (not just the degree of re-development proposed by the CCLC). I especially like the idea of making the intersection of E-W highway and Conn Ave a circle. What would be even better is if traffic on Conn Ave were to flow under such a circle, much like traffic does in DC. Of course, since these (I think) are State (not County) roads, I'm not sure who has the ability to make such changes, who would have to pay for it, etc. But such changes sure would help.

by PDM on Jun 17, 2011 10:01 am • link • report