Parking
Can a parking deck be "green"? New Glenmont garage isn't
County Executive Ike Leggett calls the new garage at the Glenmont Metro a "boon to transit and a boon to the environment." A truly "green" garage at a transit station would make room for people, not just cars.
The new Glenmont parking garage. Photo by Ben Schumin.
Last week, Montgomery County officials cut the ribbon on the new parking facility, located on the west side of Georgia Avenue at Glenallan Avenue. A press release notes that the garage, which earned LEED certification, was built from recycled materials and has energy-efficient light fixtures.
Meanwhile, WMATA cut down an acre of trees to build the 1,200 space, 80-foot high garage while violating the county's own plans for transit-oriented development.
Is there such a thing as a "green" parking garage?
Maybe if it's covered in plants, like this one in Miami Beach, Florida. While there's nothing wrong with accommodating drivers who'd otherwise drive all the way to work, just building more parking spaces won't help the environment - or Glenmont, for that matter.
How did this happen?
Site plan of new garage overlaid on the 1998 Glenmont Sector Plan, which proposed townhouses and retail along Georgia Avenue.
In 2006, WMATA proposed building a new parking garage on 10 acres of land they own along the west side of Georgia Avenue. The existing 1,700-space garage fills up often, they claimed. Neighbors didn't want a garage in their backyards, and county planners agreed, suggesting that it be built on the east side next to the old one.
However, WMATA staff estimated that it would cost nearly $23,000 a space to build a garage on the east side, compared to about $16,000 on the west. Seeing the potential for savings, the County Council voted to fund the construction of a garage on the west side of Georgia in 2007.
WMATA's design required tearing down an acre of forest the county wanted to preserve, but the Planning Board reluctantly approved it, arguing that sending them back to the drawing board would be a waste of time and public funds. Nonetheless, then-Chairman Royce Hanson called the garage "both an injury and an insult to the neighborhood."
The county and state of Maryland spent $24.7 million building this garage, or $20,312 a space. Not only did they spend more than originally planned, but they've wasted an opportunity to do the "green" thing: create revenue-generating, neighborhood-compatible development along Georgia Avenue.
What should they have done instead?
This parking garage in Bethesda Row is partially hidden by other buildings.
In a presentation at Rail~Volution last fall, Jason Schrieber, principal at planning firm Nelson\Nygaard, noted that transit stations in town centers often have more riders than those served only by park-and-rides. In addition, placing other uses around transit creates both economic and public safety benefits for the surrounding community.
With about 5,800 riders each weekday in 2010, the Glenmont Metro station actually has more customers than neighboring Wheaton, which is in a town center. But it still pales in comparison to other Red Line stations in downtowns, like Bethesda (10,600) or Silver Spring (13,400). Meanwhile, just 17% of people living within a half-mile of Glenmont take the Metro to work, compared to 35% in Silver Spring. These are people who probably wouldn't drive to the station, so a new parking garage won't encourage them to use transit.
To truly increase transit ridership and help the environment, the new parking garage at Glenmont should have been designed to fit into a larger neighborhood scheme, like the one envisioned in the Glenmont Sector Plan nearly 15 years ago.
This parking garage in Clarendon is part of a neighborhood, not just a place to put cars.
For instance, the new garage could have included ground-floor retail, like this one in Clarendon, providing activity along Georgia Avenue and encouraging commuters to spend time and money in Glenmont. Or the garage could have been designed to allow other buildings around it, like at Bethesda Row, where a county parking garage is located in the center of a city block with housing, shops, and offices.
Though Glenmont struggles with disinvestment, it's one of the few Metro station areas in Montgomery County where private development is happening without public subsidies. After years of delays, local developer JBG is finally moving forward with Glenmont Metrocenter, which will turn a 1960's-era apartment complex into a mixed-use community with 1500 homes and 90,000 square feet of retail without a single dollar of county funds.
WMATA could have made money by selling the land around their new garage for future development from which the county could receive tax revenue. Meanwhile, the neighborhood would have more amenities, more residents or workers who could walk or bike to the Metro, and more "eyes on the street," making the area safer.
County planners are beginning to revise the 1997 plan for Glenmont, but a large chunk of the neighborhood's potential for revitalization is now be gone. There's only so much land next to Metro stations in Montgomery County and Greater Washington as a whole, and we have to use it wisely.
Hopefully, the mistakes made in Glenmont will serve as an example of what not to do elsewhere.
 | A planner and architect by training, Dan Reed is interested in suburban retrofits. Dan works for the Friends of White Flint, writes his own blog, Just Up the Pike, and serves as the Land Use Chair for the Action Committee for Transit. Dan lives in Silver Spring.    |
Comments
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
But regardless of where the parking structure went, Glenmont is the end of the line for the east side of the Red Line - an attribute it shares with other suburban terminal stations: Shady Grove, Vienna, Greenbelt, New Carrollton, Huntington, Branch Avenue, Franconia-Springfield, and Largo Town Center.
What do these stations all have in common?
Lots and lots and lots of parking capacity. And that parking capacity was always intended to provide a major part of Metrorail ridership from the suburbs (especially beyond the Capital Beltway).
And from my prior days of riding the Red Line, I know that parking at Glenmont would fill up (and be full by 7:30 A.M. most weekdays). Now an argument could be made that the existing parking deck was filling up because the price of parking there was too low, but the phrase "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it" probably is relevant here - since presumably we do want motorists to use those parking spaces.
As an aside, did you know that the Maryland Transportation Authority (yes, same MdTA that financed most of the construction of the ICC and now owns and operates it) also used their bonding capacity to finance the construction of several Metrorail parking decks in Prince George's County?
by C. P. Zillliacus on Apr 26, 2012 11:08 am • link • report
I dont read Dan as saying there shouldnt be lots of parking at end of line stops, but that it should be designed to also integrate with high density mixed use TOD. I am familiar with Huntington, Vienna, and Springfield, and all of them now have some of that present or coming - two developments at Huntington, Metrowest at Vienna, and the mall redevelopment at Springfield. I would say they all represent wasted opportunities to some degree. Not that there should not be parking there, but that ease of pedestrian access with the areas outside WMATA property, and TOD on the WMATA property, were neglected.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 26, 2012 11:17 am • link • report
by Redline SOS on Apr 26, 2012 11:51 am • link • report
Lots and lots and lots of parking capacity.
Yes, but building that parking capacity was not necessarily the right decision. The bottom line is that A) WMATA is broke and B) WMATA isn't a real estate development company with expertise in extracting maximum value from its real estate.
WMATA should sell the land at the highest possible price and let developers determine the highest and best use of the land that meets zoning codes. Maybe that's parking or TOD or TOD on top of parking. Whatever is the case, WMATA isn't in the best position to figure that out.
People always complain that transit loses money and requires large subsidies. Part of the reason for that (other than having to compete with heavily subsidized roads) is that much of the benefit of transit is not captured by transit agencies. A lot of the financial benefit of transit is in increasing surrounding property values but instead of realizing those gains, WMATA is turning a gain into a loss by using the land for parking that will cost $20K per space to construct (plus the opportunity cost of not using the land for something else) but likely only return around $900 per year. That's a 4.5% return on the cost of construction, barely covering WMATA's cost of capital.
The garage will return about $1.08M per year before operating costs and maintenance. If WMATA sold the 10 acres for $10M and invested the proceeds plus the $25M in construction costs in Montgomery County bonds, they would get $1.4M per year in revenue. There could get a similar boost in ridership vs. garage building as the TOD that would go on those 10 acres would also bump up ridership.
That's pretty much how they do things in Hong Kong where the transit authority actually turns a profit (although in HK they do the development themselves because they've acquired that expertise over many years):
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/08/our-transit-system-could-be-profitable.html
http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/polis-blog/31211/hong-kong-mtr-sustainable-model-mass-transit
by Falls Church on Apr 26, 2012 11:58 am • link • report
The article does not propose to eliminate parking at Glenmont, but to simply rethink parking in a more intelligent way by integrating it with the rest of the community as in the exemplary garages of Clarendon and Bethesda Row.
The article posits that there is nothing even "minimally" green about the parking structure, and it is true. Simply because a garage is more energy efficient than one around the corner does not mean the former is a "boon" to the environment; at best, it's simply less bad than the other. A structure that was truly a "boon" would put more into the environment than it takes out. This particular garage fails on merit with respect to both the built and the natural environment.
by Scoot on Apr 26, 2012 12:13 pm • link • report
Instead of bashing WMATA/MoCo I'll congratulate them for adding these much needed spaces and seeking LEED certification for something as mundane as a parking garage. Residential and retail development can still be built around the new garage and it won't interfere with the MetroCentre across the street.
by King Terrapin on Apr 26, 2012 12:23 pm • link • report
That's funny. A few decades ago, Bethesda and Clarendon looked just like Glenmont does now -- very suburban.. The Ballston area, so much in particular, that it used to be known as "Parkington" in reference to the Parkington Mall (now Ballston Common Mall) which was the first mall in America to be built around a parking garage.
Intelligent planning turned those communities into the "urban (and high $$$) areas" they are today; nothing is stopping MoCo from following their lead.
by Scoot on Apr 26, 2012 12:48 pm • link • report
Bethesda and Clarendon weren't always so urban. There are many things Glenmont could do to become more like those places and using valuable land near the metro for its highest and best use would be a good start. It would be good for the local community, MoCo in general, and WMATA.
by Falls Church on Apr 26, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report
by MLD on Apr 26, 2012 1:04 pm • link • report
by MoCo Boy on Apr 26, 2012 1:05 pm • link • report
Whose purpose, exactly? WMATA's purpose? MoCo's purpose? The community's purpose? Forgetting for a moment how much actual planning goes into any modern urban area, if you can already predict that Glenmont is destined to be an urban center in the future, why not prepare for that inevitability now? Why build a structure that you know will be ill-suited for the region's growth if you have the capacity and means to build something more sustainable?
Are we really falling into the mindset where building a structure and then tearing it down after a couple decades to build something new is considered an acceptable use of our time, money and resources?
by Scoot on Apr 26, 2012 1:21 pm • link • report
Your final question is exactly my point. Counter to those who think this area will "never" be like Bethesda/Clarendon/etc, we should be thinking more long-term. If they want to build a parking garage they should build it so it fits in with a future vision for the area, not just plopping it in the middle of a tract of land they own.
Of course even by building the garage you'll run into future problems like they are seeing in EFC where people complain about replacing parking with actual development where people do more on transit than just go to work.
by MLD on Apr 26, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Apr 26, 2012 2:09 pm • link • report
Duke University received the first LEED certification for a single-use, stand-along parking garage in 2010. Prior to that, it was unclear if a single-use, stand-alone garage could qualify under LEED program requirements. The earlier LEED certified garages typically had occupied space (retail) on the ground floor.
by Andrew on Apr 26, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report
To be honest, I'm not sure I follow the logic of this piece. Clearly, much of the ridership from Glenmont (on of the highest in the County) comes from people not in walking distance. So, a garage is a worthwhile investment. I'm not clear on what Dan supposes the County and/or WMATA should be doing to increase ridership from those living within a half-mile of the station. Would retail on the street level cause residents to take the Metro to jobs somewhere else? Perhaps retail would be a good idea, but it's completely separate from the idea that locals don't use the station as much as those living close to other stations. Of course, additional retail might some day lead to more residential development around the station, which, in turn, would probably increase pedestrian traffic to the Metro as it changes the character of the neighborhood. That, however, seems a bit too speculative. Right now, it's fair to see this garage will take some cars off the main arterial roads south of Glenmont, because it does provide additional spaces.
As for the future, I'm sure some of the land could be repurposed when there's more demand for retail...as the cake batter starts spreading out to Glenmont. For example, Bethesda did grow massively, and now Rockville is growing and White Flint is catching up. Even with that, there's still no pressure to put in retail around the Grosvenor station between Bethesda and White Flint. I imagine someday there could be, but when that day comes, there will be ways to make that happen. As I look at the plot in Glenmont, I see that could be done in time. Building retail spaces now wouldn't create a demand for them. One can envision that development will come to the area and the demand will be there. That will be the time to do something more. Right now, we're trying to figure out if there's enough demand for a town center in Wheaton. Glenmont's day is still years away.
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 26, 2012 6:12 pm • link • report
Let's see. a couple of decades ago, there was no such thing as LEED certification, and it wasn't even really contemplated. The technologies we're envisioning to make green buildings either wasn't there or it wasn't economically viable. Here's the rub, though: In a couple of decades, we'll probably have some better ideas, more efficient and economical. Heck, if global warming gets much worse, we might have very different requirements.
20 years ago? Car sharing? Not even a glimmer of an idea. Who knows what the needs will be in 20 or 30 years ago? The thing that changes the most quickly in our modern world is the very pace of change. Build what makes sense now. Perhaps in 25 years, there won't even be a need for all those Metro spaces, and it will be time to reconsider the entire structure.
I know there are a lot of people on this site that would love to see DC United with a new stadium. Maybe others would like to see the "skins playing at a new stadium on the RFK site. That's a building that just turned 50, and it's been obsolete for years, unsuited to its use, barely serviceable. Certainly, the potential of the site is being wasted -- but it's not a fair criticism to attack the builders for trying to build a multi-use facility that would suit a baseball team and a football team, at least for the crowds they expected in 1960 and the finances of sports teams 50 years ago. If 50 years is like forever in this world, even 20 or 30 years can be a very long time for planning. If this garage services the needs of the community for 20-25 years until growth creates a need to repurpose some of the land, it will be a rousing success.
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 26, 2012 6:26 pm • link • report
by Fischy (Ed F.) on Apr 26, 2012 6:38 pm • link • report
The point of my post was to say that WMATA should've designed their garage to take the neighborhood's needs into consideration, respect the county's forest conservation laws, AND accommodate potential future development that could make them money.
If a private developer owned 10 acres next to a Metro station in MoCo, they'd be chomping at the bit to do something with it. Why not WMATA, a public agency that could use the extra funds?
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the "four uncomfortable truths" of development in East County." I know that market demand isn't the same in Glenmont as it is in White Flint. But large-scale private development IS occurring here - in addition to Glenmont MetroCentre, there's the Poplar Run community further up Layhill Road. There may be more potential for WMATA's 10 acres on Georgia Avenue than some might think.
by dan reed! on Apr 26, 2012 7:58 pm • link • report
Another great observation here and I agree wholly with your analysis that MC screwed this up (again). Tangential to your observation, I ride the redline daily between SS and downtown and I am beside myself about the parking lots by Takoma and Ft Totten. While I can see some defensible argument for large swaths of parking garages at the Metrorail endpoints, these stations are inside DC and essentially wasted for some unfathomable reason (although I have read a fair number of critiques that Takoma Park residents are to blame there).
Anyone have any wisdom to impart as to these wasted opportunities? Are these stations geologically impractical to develop with underground parking? I don't think parking at these "inner" stations should even be an option, but then I'm a bit anti-car in denser areas.
by TC on Apr 26, 2012 11:02 pm • link • report
This is relevant to the Glenmont site. What you write is true, but the parking garage was built to conform to the plans of today, not to the potential, and frankly pretty likely potential given the future population influx into the region. That's a problem of course. All of the jurisdictions should pass special ordinances allowing for reconsideration of zoning plans at Metro stations if projects come up, because master plans may be behind the times.
by Richard Layman on Apr 27, 2012 3:32 pm • link • report
@ Richard - in Glenmont, the sector plan already called for a mixed use town center type development there, so it would not have been against the local plan to do something more with the site. That said, i defer back to my comments made to TC - the cost would have become an issue again. The County/State/WMATA could of helped fund the parking for a mixed use project possibly, but Glenmont also has a lot of redevelopment potential near by that has not happened, and i'd argue would need to happen before working on their direct property is viable. This is the same problem with Wheaton - the Council feels it's better to redevelop the rest of Wheaton before talking about redeveloping the WAMATA parking lot, because once the available land goes down, the viability of developing that lot goes up.
The land next to the parking garage is slated to become the new location of the local fire station anyway, as the grade separation of Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road is forcing the relocation of the current fire house. That project in itself could probably spark it's own blog post and comment section of dissatisfaction.
by Gull on Apr 27, 2012 4:33 pm • link • report
by TC on Apr 30, 2012 10:06 am • link • report
Add a Comment