Development
Potomac Yard group debates Metro location and auto-oriented principles
Last night, Alexandria's Potomac Yard Planning Advisory Group discussed the proposed infill Metrorail station at Potomac Yard. The station would anchor a large area of mixed-use development mostly between Jefferson Davis Highway and the GW Parkway. This land used to be filled with railyards, and is now mostly empty space with some big-box retail. The group is only starting their plans, but their discussions illuminated the major issues that will shape future development at Potomac Yard Center.
Rendering of possible future plaza at Potomac Yard.
Last night, the group focused on four main topics:
- Where do we put the Metrorail station?
- How do automobiles fit into our plans?
- How do we distribute the building height throughout the development?
- What do we do about "Landbay L?"
Where do we put the Metrorail station? There's already a "reservation" for an infill station near Potomac Greens, along the existing Metro line. This would probably be the least expensive option to build. However it would place the station near less-dense areas of development.
The feasibility group suggested building a station at the center of the development. This would increase the amount of high density development that could be built within a quarter- to half-mile of the station (the most walkable areas). Unfortunately, this hasn't been studied much, and while this would be a great idea, it's probably prohibitively expensive. It would require moving the existing tracks and putting them underground. The planners don't expect the federal government to pay for much of this cost (up to $150 million for just a station), so the City of Alexandria will probably end up paying for almost the entire cost of a new station.
How do automobiles fit into our plans? The group considered the "Vision Statement and Plan Principles" (PDF) that will guide their future efforts. One principle says, "Pursue a comprehensive multi-modal approach to transportation based on a highly walkable urban environment, minimal automobile use, and a new Metro Station."
Group member Darryl Dugan objected to the phrase "minimal automobile use". He suggested replacing the word "minimal" with "accommodate", which would shift the project's stance toward encouraging cars. Car-centric members worried that a future "czar" would ban all cars from the development, or decree that townhouses should be built without garages (the horror!). Chair Eric Wagner and Doug Sarno, the facilitator, both came to the defense of transit-oriented development. They allayed everyone's fears, saying townhouses would always come with garages. They noted these principles are "more aspirational" and reiterated that Alexandria wants to encourage pedestrian and cyclist-friendly development like that in Arlington's Rosslyn-Ballston corridor.
Group member Bill Hendrickson, from Del Ray, said building more parking will only encourage more car trips (and hence more traffic on his neighborhood streets). Peter Pocock, who had helped write the principles, said this plan will last for decades, and we should focus our "plan around people," who in the future won't want to use cars for getting around. The plan for this development should "organically provide transportation alternatives," he said.
In the interest of moving on, Wagner suggested the group change the principle to read, "minimal automobile impact." This allowed the statement of principle to be vague enough to make everyone happy.
How do we distribute the building height throughout the development? Jonnie Fu (representing architects Cooper Robertson) and Jeff Farner (from the Planning and Zoning Commission) discussed guiding principles for the project's building heights. They advocated for putting taller buildings with appropriate set-backs on wider roads, similar to the broad avenues of DC and Paris, France, and on the edge of parks, such as Central Park in NYC. These locations allow more light to reach the pedestrian level, and create nice views for the tenants of tall buildings.
They recommended a "big tent" shape for Potomac Yard that would put the tallest buildings in the center of the development. Unfortunately, this leaves shorter, less-dense development near parks like the GW Parkway and along wide roads like Jefferson Davis Highway.
What do we do about "Landbay L?" Landbay L is currently a large empty field adjacent to Monroe Avenue on the west side of the railroad tracks. It will be difficult to develop because it's cut off from Jefferson Davis Highway, and because there's a power sub-station nearby.
During an earlier citizen workshop, Alexandria residents suggested (without any prompting) keeping this land mostly undeveloped as park land and recreational sports fields. They suggested swapping the density with an existing large baseball field nearby (near the 'K' on the map above). That field is adjacent to the Braddock Road Metrorail station, where higher density would make sense. George Washington Middle School currently uses that field, and its current property borders Landbay L.
While the group member from the Rosemont area said his neighbors would probably object to dense development, the group agreed to consider the land swap without actually including it in their plans for the Potomac Yard development.
Comments
@ggwash
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
by Squalish on Feb 18, 2009 5:37 pm • link • report
by Tom on Feb 18, 2009 6:00 pm • link • report
Of course, keep area K sufficiently clear (aka nearer to the rr)
by Douglas Willinger on Feb 18, 2009 6:01 pm • link • report
Douglas - You're proposing to put Jefferson Davis Highway underground & run a Metro track alongside? Or are you talking about the GW Parkway, the heavy rail tracks, and the Metro tracks all at once? I think you'd have a little more success with trying to boulevardize JWH while C&C'ing Metro through the center of the development, as they're debating.
by Squalish on Feb 18, 2009 8:04 pm • link • report
There is no excuse not to preserve an easement.
by Douglas Willinger on Feb 18, 2009 9:12 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Feb 18, 2009 10:19 pm • link • report
I wish the street grid of this could be more integrated and rational, but that wound entail opening up some of the Del Ray streets which currently cul-de-sac at Route 1. That won't happen.
by spookiness on Feb 18, 2009 11:00 pm • link • report
I put two in my scheme, one at Del Ray, just south of where they have it, and the other just south of Four Mile Run. Having a station on the other side of Four Mile run instead might work too, like Squalish suggested, but leaving National Gateway unserved seems unwise. The BRT will help, but not nearly as much as a station.
The way they intend to build the station is pretty ingeniously cheap (building two platforms on the side of a straight section of track) so I hope they keep that if only for the cost savings.
by цarьchitect on Feb 19, 2009 8:17 am • link • report
by NikolasM on Feb 19, 2009 11:23 am • link • report
by Ian on Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm • link • report
by resident on Feb 19, 2009 2:26 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 2:34 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Feb 19, 2009 2:38 pm • link • report
See what I mean?
For a real hoot google the Parker Gray Growl. Haven't been there lately, but I bet it's a rip roaring fun time.
by spookiness on Feb 19, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report
No parking lot - it's not needed and Braddock Rd. currently does not have one. Add safe bicycle paths or bicycle lanes in the new streets to the station and to the Mt. Vernon bike trail. Safe bicycle access to Braddock Road staion and the Mt. Vernon bike trail currently do not exist and would be a great thing to have.
by lmdival on Feb 20, 2009 3:24 pm • link • report
One shuttle bus route could be through Arlandria, another though the Del Ray strip, another possibility is a circuit, East Glebe, West Glebe, South Glebe and back to the station.
Hopefully, the designers will learn from the mistakes of Reston, Crystal City, and Tysons. Everything should be scaled to the ground level and visible to cars, pedestrians, and residents.
by tchitc on Feb 21, 2009 6:10 am • link • report
I'm very interested in Landbay L. I used to live by the Braddock Rd. metro and walked past that baseball field every day. It was certainly utilized, but considering the alternative uses, it really should be swapped with Landbay L. I love this idea.
However, yes, the local residents will probably oppose it quite vehemently.
by Paul on Feb 22, 2009 8:23 pm • link • report
Washington-area residents should be particularly suspicious of the current push for “walkable communities,” an idea championed by idealistic English planners in the 1970s who created an extensive network of bucolic garden paths in various new subdivisions, only to have criminals become their design’s main beneficiaries. New Urbanism — a popular planning approach that promotes high-density, mixed-use development and increased pedestrian and bike traffic (especially in Alexandria around the Metro stations...) — also inevitably promotes crime, which is far more prevalent in urban settings than lower-density residential neighborhoods. This is exactly what we are starting to see in the Carlyle neighborhood. Government planners screwed up our Carlyle neighborhood, don't let them screw up yours.
How can one even think that government planners are somehow smarter or more capable of managing the future than market forces. Name a contemporary problem — traffic congestion, homelessness, lack of affordable housing — all can be traced back to past government planning mistakes. Yet despite all evidence to the contrary, many Americans still expect the planners to miraculously get it right the next time around. Better to fire the planners and let free people, free minds and free markets use the genius of their freedom.
by LeeHInAlexandria on Feb 23, 2009 10:56 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2009 2:34 pm
================
Because it is not in walking distance to liveable communities. In fact, the studies that have been done over the years show that if a station is built there, those within walking distance will not take it. This station will be there mainly to serve the Potomac Yard Shopping Center.
by LeeHInAlexandria on Feb 24, 2009 8:09 am • link • report
Market forces? What market forces. Auto-dependent places are only possible because of a tangled web or laws, zoning regulations and subsidies. A "free market" (not that there is such a thing) would build in a way that seeks to mitigate costs due to travel and time.
When it comes to our built environment, it is not possible to have a true free market. We have choices to make as we plan. We do know that if we don't plan, the result will be worse off for everyone.
The fundamental choices we're making at this time deal with building for cars and traffic or building for people and places.
by Cavan on Feb 24, 2009 9:48 am • link • report
The fundamental choices we're making at this time deal with building for cars and traffic or building for people and places.
by Cavan on Feb 24, 2009 9:48 am
====================
I'm not saying don't plan, I'm saying the Government shouldn't be the one's doing the planning. Few people realize that the recent housing bubble, which affected mainly regions with growth-management planning (Alexandria), was caused by planners trying to socially engineer cities. Yet it has done little to protect open space, reduce driving, or do any of the other things promised. Instead it caused inflated housing prices which in turn caused people to lose their homes.
I just don't want Potomac Yards to suffer the way Carlyle is starting to.
by LeeHInAlexandria on Feb 25, 2009 10:24 am • link • report
I would say it was more caused by a lack of planning. A bubble is by definition a euphoria based on asset prices being inflated by speculation. It's all about making short term gains at the expense of the future.
The local governments were all caught off guard by it. They just saw they were getting a lot of property tax and didn't really know why. Their plans were for the economic conditions since World War II, not some for a credit bubble which fueled a housing bubble. Few got the connection until it was too late. Those who got the connection and spoke up were ridiculed and ignored.
All that bubble funny-money was able to go into greenfield car-dependent sprawl because of the lack of a development plan. We need plans that ban car dependent sprawl and instead focus walkable urban development on rail lines. Building parking lots next to rail stations kills your chances of having a walkable urban place. A parking lot just pushes everything farther apart, making it harder to walk and more convenient to walk. It's time to stop bending over backwards to cater to the car-dependent building pattern at the expense of traditional towns and neighborhood building patterns.
by Cavan on Feb 25, 2009 10:42 am • link • report
When Freddie and Fannie pay you to buy a house, most people will respond to that incentive.
by MPC on Feb 25, 2009 11:02 am • link • report
by Cavan on Feb 25, 2009 10:42 am
=============
Far from protecting the environment, most rail transit lines use more energy per passenger mile, and many generate more greenhouse gases, than the average passenger automobile. Rail transit provides no guarantee that a city will save energy or meet greenhouse gas targets.
While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder bus operations. Those feeder buses tend to have low ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile. The result is that, when new rail transit lines open, the transit systems as a whole can end up consuming more energy, per passenger mile, than they did before.
Even where rail transit operations save a little energy, the construction of rail transit lines consumes huge amounts of energy and emits large volumes of greenhouse gases. In most cases, many decades of energy savings would be needed to repay the energy cost of construction.
Rail transit attempts to improve the environment by changing people's behavior so that they drive less. Such behavioral efforts have been far less successful than technical solutions to toxic air pollution and other environmental problems associated with automobiles.
Similarly, technical alternatives to rail transit can do far more to reduce energy use and CO2 outputs than rail transit, at a far lower cost.
by LeeHInAlexandria on Feb 25, 2009 12:25 pm • link • report
Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia have proved that innovative transit alternatives and the transit oriented development that goes with it brings both economic growth and improved quality of life.
Let's not forget the lessons of history: Alexandria and the Del Ray neighborhood specifically grew as a result of the building of the inner-urban streetcar in the first place.
We ARE talking about modifying people's behaviors, modifying them BACK to what they were before various factors (and interests) forced their change to an automobile dependent society. We need the leadership to have Smart Growth and stop wasting valuable space for cars, saving energy in addition.
Yes, I'm sure new technology can reduce tailpipe emissions, but what about the amount of impervious surface, the amount of usable land lost to the car? We are talking about (auto) congestion management by giving people an environment where they don't need to take their cars, the need to build increased road capacity and more importantly parking for those cars. We need to think about moving PEOPLE, not moving people having to carry around an 8x10 foot box with them (the rough footprint of a car). And we don't need to necessarily (or should not) assume a Metro station has to have parking for cars. Again, we're trying to move people, not cars. We're trying to build transit oriented development which ideally should be building neighborhoods. A local circulator would "bind and serve" the neighborhood.
Yes, higher density around Metro stations would be wonderful, but a more logical approach would be to build local circulators (inter-modal) to expand the service area of a Metro station. I know a Busway or streetcar corridor is planned, but why not look at a local circulator to serve the immediate area?
From my standpoint a wiser expenditure of funds for REGIONAL thinking would be to add a single Metro station with a local circulator; people seem to like streetcars better than BRT for some reason, but modern buses with boarding tubes/stations are just as efficient. Invest the money that would be spent on a second or third Metro station in a local service to serve the area with a decent frequency of service. And spend any additional monies available on expanding Metro (or another light or medium rail system) to serve Northern Virginia. A majority of the traffic going through the Route 1 corridor originates far away where people have no access to the Metro system (no offense meant to VRE).
My 2 cents.
by Jess the Geographer on Mar 2, 2009 11:12 pm • link • report
Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia have proved that innovative transit alternatives and the transit oriented development that goes with it brings both economic growth and improved quality of life.
Jess the Geographer
=========================
Portland started using streetcars and a light rail system to move people many years ago only what happened? How successful is light rail in Portland? In 1980, before Portland began building light rail, 9.8 percent of the region's commuters took transit to work. Today, it is 7.6 percent.
Since 1980, Portland has spent more than $2.3 billion, half the region's transportation capital funds, building light rail. Yet light rail carries less than 1 percent of Portland-area travel. That's a success? Also, since the implementation of streetcars in Portland, OR, Portland has seen their greenhouse gas emissions nearly double. That'a a success? I say their are better, cheaper, more technical alternatives streetcars.
So, how can the City justify the expense?
by LeeHInAlexandria on Mar 3, 2009 4:19 am • link • report
by crazyindc on Mar 12, 2009 1:17 pm • link • report
by Friend of Dual Use With Schools on Mar 15, 2009 5:28 pm • link • report
Are all of you young things aware that this is almost exactly the layout in the original Potomac Yard plan ("Alexandria 2020") which was killed by Del Ray in the 1990s? The Yard was envisioned as a major transit hub and there was to be one station on the Arlington side, one in Alexandria.
A visionary plan killed dead by one neighborhood and its then-leader Eric Wagner (rewarded by being placed on Planning Commission for life).
by Parker Gray Growler on Mar 14, 2010 11:54 am • link • report
by Tracy on Jul 29, 2010 7:58 pm • link • report
Add a Comment