Development
Potomac Yard Metro opponents cite GW Parkway purity
Officials have refined the options for where to place the Potomac Yard Metro station. Neighbors concerned about impacts to the George Washington Parkway are opposing 2 options which place the station closer to planned development, but the Metro station will bring far more long-term traffic relief than just avoiding temporary construction.
Alternatives for the Potomac Yard Metro station.
The project is now in the middle of its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase. Officials have refined a set of 9 alternatives down to 3, plus a 4th no-build scenario. The City of Alexandria is now required by law to evaluate each of the 3 alternatives that made it through the screening phase.
Some residents at a public meeting on April 19 vehemently opposed alternatives B and D, because the project's construction could temporarily affect the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Both of those alternatives place the station farther north than the other alternative, A.
The speakers came primarily from Potomac Greens and Old Town. Some were fine with a station at A, while others opposed the station entirely. For most, the Parkway was the primary reason they cited, though some also feared construction noise and didn't want a station near their homes.
Impact on the GW Parkway
Those opposed to alternatives B and D repeatedly lauded the uniqueness of the parkway among capital cities worldwide. They demanded that officials throw out any build alternative that interferes with the roadway, even for two years or less.
Alternative D, located closest to existing and planned density in the area, probably has the most impact on the GW Parkway. This alternative requires elevating tracks to cross over the existing Metrorail and CSX tracks, passing through an aerial station roughly where the movie theater now stands, and then passing back over the CSX tracks to rejoin existing tracks.
There are construction benefits and drawbacks for this option, but it undoubtedly puts the infill station much closer to existing neighborhoods and the densest portion of future planned development.
Portion of Alternative D station and track. Click for full proposed construction zone.
At least two speakers at the meeting asked for a traffic study, but this study has already been done as part of the Potomac Yard small area plan (chapter 6). One infill Metro station isn't a traffic panacea, but according to the study, traffic will be worse in the Potomac Yards area if the station is not built.
The Potomac Yard small area plan calls for drastically-reduced density without a Metro station. But even in this scenario, traffic will be worse than with higher density and a Metro station. The closer the Metro station is to existing and planned density, the more cars it will take off the road.
Nonetheless, Old Town resident Poul Hertel reached as far back as 1902 to protest impacts on the Parkway, quoting a document from the McKinley Commission referring to the "Mount Vernon Road" as "affording an opportunity for the most refreshing and delightful drive to be had in any direction from Washington and not to be equaled at any great capital of the world."
While historical context is important, the massive back-ups on this main artery into the city mean McKinley's commission surely would have enjoyed the "refreshing and delightful" drive far less today. They probably would have made a temporary trade-off in parkway accessibility to save green space farther out from the city and temper traffic increases long-term.
The EIS process
Alexandria staff explained at the meeting that they are working with the National Park Service, and nothing will go forward without approval by the NPS. There are also other requirements regarding technical and financial viability, among other things.
Officials cannot throw out alternatives during the EIS phase until the city puts forward a locally-preferred alternative. But speakers demanding staff eliminate parkway-disturbing options did not yield, as speaker after speaker stood up to call for the city to change course in a way that is not possible.
David Fromm of Del Ray pointed out that the city could have done a better job explaining the reasons the screening process put forward each alternative. He was right, but it didn't appear that the most vocal in the audience would have been convinced by any option that breached the sanctity of the GW Parkway, regardless of long-term traffic benefits.
City staff periodically referred speakers to the PY website since they could not cover the vast amount of information about the potential development in a single public meeting.
Density, transit and the urban core
One speaker seemed to understand the larger point. Though she is a Potomac Greens resident who surely will be impacted by the construction, she pointed out that without the infill station, future growth in the area will make it so everyone will have plenty of time to admire things along the GW Parkway-turned-parking-lot, as traffic continues to get worse.
Large growth in the DC area is coming, so area municipalities need to responsibly manage that growth with improved infrastructure. Her statement brought sporadic applause, indicating she was not the lone supporter of the station.
For tangible proof of the traffic-reducing impacts of public transit and responsible land use planning, look no further than the Rosslyn-Ballston-Clarendon corridor. In this corridor, with access to public transit, people choose to live closer to jobs, stores, restaurants, etc.
In turn, people use their cars less, if they keep a car at all. This is why traffic volumes in that corridor have stayed relatively flat over the past 30 years despite massive development. Creating these livable communities reduces driving and therefore traffic.
With growth coming to the DC area, we can either clear-cut and pave over more outlying forests, or add more density close to the core. The most responsible action is to create dense, livable communities with good access to multi-modal transportation.
Even if urban living isn't for everyone, real estate pricing and trends indicate there's a shortage of walkable, transit-oriented communities and an over-supply of distant, exurban sprawl.
To be good stewards of our region, we simply must build density near transit near the urban core. If the most feasible option requires disturbing the GW Parkway during construction, that should not be a reason to avoid it. Temporarily interfering with GW Parkway traffic patterns does not outweigh losing acres of land that would have to be built farther out to replace the lost units and transportation capacity in Alexandria.
Audio of the April 19 public meeting is available here, and the presentation itself is available here.
Cross-posted at The Arlandrian.
Nick Partee writes for The Arlandrian about neighborhoods on the north end of Alexandria. He helped start up and still helps run the weekly Four Mile Run Farmers and Artisans Market. His primary interest is making Arlandria and surrounding neighborhoods greater by applying successful urban principles to build a sustainable community. He can be seen spending far too much of his free time running the farmers market, "geurrilla gardening", or coordinating other volunteer efforts to eek out every ounce of potential he can in Arlandria.  |
Comments
@ggwash
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
According to the EIS slideshow, construction for alternative D is the only one that gets close to GW Parkway, and it looks like that's just construction access from the adjoining roadway. It's not like they had to close lanes of I-66 for extended periods to build the new switch and bridges between East and West Falls Church, and there was about half as much open space there.
by Peter K on Apr 24, 2012 11:29 am • link • report
by movement on Apr 24, 2012 11:35 am • link • report
Another note: the City says crossing the CSX and live Metro tracks during construction is a non-starter. They *might* be able to figure out a way to approach from the south and avoid the GW Parkway with option B, but definitely not with D. They won't know until they get further along.
by Nick P on Apr 24, 2012 11:38 am • link • report
First off, the parkway isn't in the capital. It's in Virginia, and if Virginians are regretting the Retrocession of 1847, that's another issue for another time.
More importantly, what's this about no other capital cities having parkways so that people can enjoy the pretty scenery from the comfort of their cars? Parkways are actually a remarkable common feature in capital cities worldwide. Check out:
Rockcliffe Parkway, Ottowa, Canada
Quai de Bercy, Paris, France
Avenue de Flore, Brussels, Belgium
Upper Ridge Road, New Delhi, India
Via Appia Antica, Rome, Italy
pretty much every highway in Seoul, Republic of Korea
and many more!
by tom veil on Apr 24, 2012 11:42 am • link • report
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 24, 2012 11:50 am • link • report
by orulz on Apr 24, 2012 11:53 am • link • report
Can the author please elaborate on this? It would seem like the concept of induced demand replaces former car users (who now take another mode like transit or walking) with new car users, such that congestion increases may slow or congestion may not increase at all ... but congestion actually decreasing? That does not seem particularly likely, nor theoretically consistent.
by Scoot on Apr 24, 2012 11:56 am • link • report
by spookiness on Apr 24, 2012 11:58 am • link • report
Someone may find it before me but the traffic counts of daily vehicles on Wilson Blvd. between 1980 and 2006 I believe actually lowered, If I find the citation I'll post it. All while increasing population. Now other drivers (particularly from fairfax and out jurisdictions) may have replaced some of those trips but it hasn't yet outpaced the amount of people who are choosing not to drive.
by Canaan on Apr 24, 2012 12:17 pm • link • report
by coltrane on Apr 24, 2012 12:25 pm • link • report
Yet the data in that link doesn't actually show traffic reduction -- it actually shows traffic increasing in terms of volume, just not as rapidly as one would predict given how many more people live and work there now. On Arlington Blvd and Clarendon Blvd, traffic increased 4% and 8% respectively from 1996 to 2006. Those are some very modest numbers given the explosion of development there, but not so accurate to merit the statement that traffic has been reduced. Just my 2 cents.
by Scoot on Apr 24, 2012 12:34 pm • link • report
by Ben Ross on Apr 24, 2012 12:34 pm • link • report
Note that in 1902 "drive" was used to refer to what you did with a horse and buggy. It wasn't until the 30s that "drive" took over from "motor" as a way of talking about automobile travel. (fun link:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=drove+to%2C+motored+to&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3 )
by egk on Apr 24, 2012 12:36 pm • link • report
by Kolohe on Apr 24, 2012 1:05 pm • link • report
@Caanan, Scoot
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/transitoriented_development_in_1.html
Traffic on Wilson barely increased in 25 years; on Washington Blvd traffic decreased slightly. Keep in mind also this is with a MASSIVE increase in people living in the area.
Also, I would note that "traffic-reducing benefits of public transportation" does not have to mean that total traffic counts go down. Population is always going to be growing - traffic reduction through transit means absorbing those extra people without creating as much extra traffic. That's traffic per capita going down.
by MLD on Apr 24, 2012 1:06 pm • link • report
http://www.dcroads.net/roads/gw-pkwy/
by jimble on Apr 24, 2012 1:08 pm • link • report
ah, the statistic I remember reading goes back to 1980 and not 1996 and that might account for our differing accounts. This, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/transitoriented_development_in_1.html
Shows a slight increase on Wilson between 1980 and 2004 and a decrease on washington blvd. Unfortunately the pdf that it is citing isn't coming up. Regardless, its does give evidence that adding population doesn't guarantee a similar increase in traffic.
by Canaan on Apr 24, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report
@Fischy, I think the concerns about GW Parkway include spoiling the view (which includes Crystal City and will include a bit of PY redevelopment). I saw a comment by one of the City Council candidates (Boyd Walker) on the Arlandrian that also mentioned some people think if they make a temporary "curb cut" for construction vehicles that it will somehow lead to a permanent new exit over to PY. Seems pretty odd though, since that would require its own flyover of at least the CSX tracks, plus permanently cutting through wetlands.
by Nick P on Apr 24, 2012 1:48 pm • link • report
(I think you mean the McMillan report, not the McKinley report.)
by D. Murphy on Apr 24, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report
by selxic on Apr 24, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report
I don't underestimate the importance of transit modes absorbing travel patterns in regions that experience population growth, but I would just try to stay away from making blanket statements like "transit is proven to reduce traffic" when the reality, in this region at least, is that transit has simply allowed traffic to grow at a slower rate than it would have otherwise, or has allowed traffic to get better on some roads but worse on roads nearby. I hope that in the future, transit will be so prevalent that more people will move in who don't drive than who do drive... and that will actually decrease traffic.
by Scoot on Apr 24, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report
"uniqueness of the parkway among capital cities worldwide"
What does DC being a capital city having to do with anything, especially when the Parkway is across the river in another state? Nationally many dense cities have urban parkways (of questionable safety for motorists driving 70mph), especially other Northeastern cities. New York alone has many parkways.
In addition to the GW there are parkways that are actually located the "capital city" including the Rock Creek, Suitland, and Clara Barton parkways. The latter two are also in Maryland, in addition to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (quite possibly the busiest on Planet Earth) and Cabin John Parkway.
by King Terrapin on Apr 24, 2012 3:40 pm • link • report
OTOH the complaints about TEMPORARY road work arent about the nature of the parkway, but about temporary inconvenience.
And for all the worry about NIMBYISM, it seesm very unlikely Alex will favor the no build option.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 24, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report
by movement on Apr 24, 2012 4:56 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 24, 2012 5:18 pm • link • report
by movement on Apr 24, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report
by Kolohe on Apr 24, 2012 7:09 pm • link • report
by Nick P on Apr 24, 2012 8:03 pm • link • report
After seeing the Potomac Greens folks standing across from Buzz protesting the special tax district, I wish the city would drop access to the station from their neighborhood. I have hard time believing the city won't cave in when the PY residents wave a few signs.
by jd on Apr 24, 2012 9:04 pm • link • report
by Jason on Apr 24, 2012 9:08 pm • link • report
Definitely agree on the bank shot NIMBY - no way Alternative A ever gets accepted due to proximity to PG.
by Bill C on Apr 24, 2012 9:22 pm • link • report
by Jason on Apr 24, 2012 9:37 pm • link • report
by Bill C on Apr 24, 2012 9:41 pm • link • report
by Bill C on Apr 24, 2012 9:48 pm • link • report
It's easy to dismiss the nimbys. And it's easy to think that they won't prevail. But I don't think they should be underestimated. These are exactly the same folks who opposed the waterfront plan. One of them is running to become mayor, which wouldn't mean much except that he's a former vice mayor, meaning he got more votes than any other member of council that year. He's been pushing to spend thiw money to improve Route 1 for vehicular traffic instead of a metro and is pushing not to build the station. Here's what he had to say, as quoted by the Del Ray Patch:
“To cut into the parkway this way makes absolutely no sense,” said Old Town resident Andrew Macdonald, who is running for mayor as an independent. “I love Metro, but this is an ostensibly expensive project. I’d like to see the money spent on other options and in other ways along Route 1.”
http://delray.patch.com/articles/citizens-express-concerns-about-construction-impacts-of-potomac-yard-metro-station
by Kevin Beekman on Apr 24, 2012 9:49 pm • link • report
The red brick stadium design was beautiful. However, the pitchfork environmental crowd from Alexandria went bonkers. They somehow convinced folks that a stadium used 8-to-10 times per year would cause traffic paralysis for Alexandria and Arlington.
So thanks to those short-sighted folks (and the WASH POST Editorial Board) residents now have an enormous and unattractive shopping center and tons of townhouses causing constant traffic headaches along Route 1 and supporting roads. Far too many back then spoke before they thought.
It would be unfortunate to ruin the beauty of the GW Parkway in that area...but after all there is not far from Reagan National and Crystal City, etc. and there is already a crossover METRO bridge. A temporary cut-out from the parkway should not be a problem. However an elevated station seems peculiar at that site.
Of course the real issue is funding...few of us in our lifetimes may witness the opening of the Potomac Yards Metro Station.
by Pelham1861 on Apr 25, 2012 8:52 am • link • report
by movement on Apr 25, 2012 9:05 am • link • report
Alternate D is a disaster waiting to occur and will be cost prohibitive. Several homes in PG are adjacent to the tracks. A few of those homes' structural integtity is based upon the current metro retaining wall.
Option D raises the track once it exits the metro tunnel south of PG. To cross over CSX tracks, the elevated track would be on our third floor level before crossing the tracks. Heavy construction equipment, sheet pilling, lighting at night, (light /noise pollution) cranes would have to be brought in within ~ 50 feet of said homes.
Alexandria would have to raise the concrete retaining wall, map out undergoing utilities, conduct a noise and light study, imment domains purchased, etc etc. This doesnt include the zoning issue of raising the metro that close to existing homes. I asked as a former Corps of Engineer officer why did option D make it out the gate. To my knowledge of riding various metrorail lines does any existing raised lines come this close to any existing homes. Name a point on ANY line folks within ~ 70 feet. Think vibrations, noise etc.
Third point, several in PG stated option B works. Let's take the emotions and "Fox news hype" out of the discussions and talk fromfactual information. The city of Alexandria performed the zoning for PG. Don't blame residents if the Council plans to build a metro station with sft estimates BEFORE a EIS was conducted to even determine with an amount of accuracy and assoicated risks to a project of this size. They didnt perform all thier homework.
Fir example, The Council promised PG residents to build a walking bridge to connect PG to the metro station. Yet when I questioned whethercrheyveould "fence" the miney for the bridge I was informed "We can't obligate future Councils". Regarding the price of said waling bridge bridge I questioned the Council its estimates and the Comptroler agrred thatcthe orice was low. So what did Vice Mayor do, give back the 2 million back to the devrloper. Look up the meeting minutes. Yet even with all that history several of us proposed option B. Where's the NIBYism in that?!
by FHenderson on Apr 25, 2012 11:20 am • link • report
@Scoot: the corridor measurements are for Wilson and Clarendon, not US-50. Some through traffic diverted to I-66 and US-50, and some local traffic was replaced by walking trips (or shorter drives) to now-more-convenient services. This despite the arrival of, oh, five Pentagons worth of development.
by Payton on Apr 25, 2012 11:23 am • link • report
In the linked presentation, the original alternatives for D1 and D2 featured a station more in the midst of the development, opposed to the shown D3 alternative. The two C alternatives were even more central in the site.
I'd have to see some cost numbers, but I would tend to think that if you're going to go to the expense of building that flyover of the CSX tracks, you'd want to at least position the station in a more central location for that development on the Potomac Yard parcel.
If not, and given some of the cost-benefit assumptions (that Alts A and B would be much cheaper) as well as the construction of the streetcar/transitway, I'm not really sure what to think at this point.
by Alex B. on Apr 25, 2012 11:37 am • link • report
In a perfect world, with unlimited resources, the tunneled C alternative would have been the best from a transportation & development perspective. But in this time of austerity, sometimes compromises have to be made to do anything.
by David PY on Apr 25, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report
How does adding this station on lines which terminate at Huntington and Franconia/Springfield impact the real culprit of the "GW Parkway-turned-parking-lot," which is its primary use in rush hour by those living far beyond the Metro terminus as an alternate to Route 1 and I-95 on their long commute home? It doesn’t, and those interested in local traffic improvements need to raise their voice about the 30% reduction of Metro line service to the Arlandria portion of the Blue line when the Tysons and later Dulles portions of Metrorail come online. If our leaders were spending time on mitigating that impact with some creative answers like having some trains double back and forth from the Pentagon to King Street and/or Franconia/Springfield (which the 30% decrease will allow trains to accommodate by turning around just past the Pentagon station before the Arl Cemetary stop), that would have a truly meaningful impact on local traffic rather than a station of dubious import that serves a handful of new townhouse owners while the major issues like the imminent 30% reduction in Blue line service in our neck of the woods remain unaddressed.
by JD on Apr 25, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report
The reduction in traditional blue service will be offset by the increase in service to L'Enfant.
for supplementary local service, the area will soon have the CCPY transitway.
Ultimatly the way to fix the issues resulting from congestion on the crossings is a seperatated blue line with an additional metro tunnel from Rosslyn to Georgetown
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 25, 2012 1:41 pm • link • report
Wow. Crazy. The NIMBYness is totally out of control in this situation.
It's clear--option B. End of story. Deal with it.
And the whole GW Parkway is so lovely bs is ridiculous. Wasn't that just originally a trail along the river that GW used to ride his horse from his farm to the building of the planned capital city?
Did these same people protest when it was paved over and widened? Do they protest when other improvements have been made?
Temporary disruption (both visual and practical/space wise) are a part of new construction and infrastructure projects. Big deal--get over it.
And for anyone who's ever been in the Potomac Greens development...currently, that Metro rail runs RIGHT NEXT to several of those $800K homes that they all overpaid for back during the bubble. I mean, they are ALREADY disrupted by the trains that pass literally about 20 ft. from some of the bldgs (and the community swimming pool if I'm not mistaken?).
These people need to calm down and allow for development.
by LuvDusty on Apr 25, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report
by LuvDusty on Apr 25, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report
I don't think D is going to fly...not with the price tag involved. It'll be either A or B. As for impacts to GW Parkway, those are unfortunate, but necessary given where the Metro tracks are. It's either route construction traffic along the GW Parkway for a stretch or route them all through Potomac Green, and I suspect the residents would like that even less.
by Froggie on Apr 25, 2012 5:07 pm • link • report
I don't see why you want B instead of A. I don't think it's clear that B is better than A, at all. I don't see what is wrong with A, and it's the least expensive, and least intrusive option.
by Jason on Apr 25, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report
by Payton on Apr 25, 2012 9:48 pm • link • report
Options D1 and D2 were rejected for being technically infeasible from an engineering perspective. Something about angles of curvature and incline/decline. They basically went back to the drawing board and said "is there anywhere west of tracks that is technically feasible". They came up with option D3 (which is now simply option D).
Option B is undesirable because it is the furthest from everything else and it would also trash the environmentally sensitive areas between the tracks, GW Parkway, and PG.
Option A is undesirable because it is basically right in PG's backyard.
What's left? Suck it up NIMBYs or no-build.
by movement on Apr 26, 2012 3:56 pm • link • report
After reading the comments associated with Nick Partee’s article in “Greater Greater Washington”, it became very apparent that there is a wide range of public opinion regarding what factors should be used to select the best “locally-preferred alternative” for the Potomac Yards Metrostation. There also appears to be a very strong contingency of citizens that believe that the “no-build” alternative should be the solution of choice given that each of the three “build” alternatives presented at the Potomac Yard Metrorail Station Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) Public Meeting at the Cora Kelly Recreation Center on April 19, 2012 all appeared based on the public comments I heard at the meeting to have significant shortfalls (e.g. cost, environmental, scenic easement concerns, and my personal favorite, “Not In My Back Yard issues).
In my opinion, the construction of a metrostation at Potomac Yards is nowhere near a done deal, froth with issues, and will most likely end up in the courts facing years of litigation. Meanwhile, the Potomac Yard developers continuing to build at a frantic pace and at some point may have to either stop or alter their development efforts if a decision is not made on how to proceed. And as we all know, when the lawyers get involved, only the lawyers win. Litigation costs everyone involved time and money.
My recommendation. We as a individual members of the Alexandria citizenry have to get actively involved. And as far as I am concerned; I have no real faith in the current Alexandria City Council to do the right thing. So for now, I believe the best way we can participate in this process is to send comments and recommendations to the Potomac Yard Metrorail Station EIS Project at comments@potomacyardmetro.com. In reading the comments associated with Nick Partee’s article, I found some very interesting ideas and some not so interesting rhetorical bonehead statements (BS). And for what it’s worth, your comments may actually help the EIS process to bring forward a solid and valid “locally-preferred alternative” recommendation or at a minimum document your concerns of what was known or not known when this issue ends up in court. We all need to get involved or pay the price, the choice is yours.
by JamesOnThePotomac on Apr 26, 2012 4:08 pm • link • report
Similar to what I told Alex B., if option C were technically feasible, it would still be on the table. It isn't a matter of money. It is technically infeasible.
by movement on Apr 26, 2012 4:22 pm • link • report
Isn't there some funding that goes away if the station isn't built by 2016? If that is correct, we'll just have to stick with the process. Right now the process is to allow the EIS to take place to see if any of the three remaining build options must be taken off of the table. We're not really ready for public opinion yet.
I'm still seeing a lot of misinformation such as people pining for options that have been rejected for engineering reasons. I'd like to see the city do a better job of describing the process so that citizens don't spend a lot of time barking up the wrong tree.
by movement on Apr 26, 2012 5:22 pm • link • report
Well, that's not really misinformation.
It isn't a matter of money. It is technically infeasible.
"Engineering reasons" is really just a code word for cost. And that's fine, but it is what it is. If they really needed to make one of those options that has been rejected for engineering reasons work, they could - but it would likely require a lot of money and a broader scope.
It's not like the EIS process is infallible.
This isn't to say such options aren't ridiculously cost-ineffective.
by Alex B. on Apr 26, 2012 5:37 pm • link • report
by movement on Apr 26, 2012 6:28 pm • link • report
And about cost, while I'm sure D is more expensive by a good margin, option A might be more expensive than they thought since they have to work almost entirely nighttime hours, making labor much more expensive and disturbance to neighbors more of an issue.
by Nick P on Apr 26, 2012 11:22 pm • link • report
As for Potomac Green residents, their entire development was built with the understanding that a Potomac Yard Metro station would be built. For them to oppose the station would fly in the face of existing legal agreements and also be the ultimate in NIMBY mentality.
*IF*, by some chance, the station doesn't get built, the only way the city could salvage something out of the Potomac Yard development would be to upgrade the CCPY transitway to a streetcar at the earliest opportunity.
by Froggie on Apr 28, 2012 8:03 pm • link • report
by JamesOnThePotomac on Apr 29, 2012 12:22 am • link • report
Its time to look at the real facts.
Was that nice enough Mr Moderator? (:0)
by JamesOnThePotomac on Apr 29, 2012 1:53 pm • link • report
Adding a new station and riders, at least some of whom will want to take the traditional route to Foggy Bottom, the Farraguts, etc., seems likely to make conditions even more difficult for commuters on this route.
More generally, I wonder if Alexandria authorities, along with those in Arlington and Fairfax with residents who will be affected by this shift, were consulted or bothered to consider the effects.
"Rush Plus" has always struck me as a great inconvenience for anyone at the Pentagon stop or further south who wants to travel into the western half of DC during normal commuting times. It may well push people into driving rather than waiting twice as long for even more crowded Blue Line trains.
I guess we'll find out soon.
by Willow on May 10, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 10, 2012 3:00 pm • link • report
by Willow on May 10, 2012 3:39 pm • link • report
by MLD on May 10, 2012 3:56 pm • link • report
Add a Comment