Alexandria anxious for Potomac Yard Metro in 2016

Transit

Alexandria anxious for Potomac Yard Metro in 2016

by Nick Partee • January 28, 2011 10:09 am

The Potomac Yard infill station in Alexandria is on track to open in 2016. It had better, because any delays could imperil Alexandria's funding for the project.

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is now underway, as required by law. As governments commonly do with EISes, they have launched a project website to disseminate information to the public.

The EIS process should last through 2013, and the city is closely managing the project against a goal of opening by the end of 2016. Vice Mayor Kerry Donley emphatically reminded staff at a meeting Tuesday that funding for the new Potomac Yard station is dependent upon on-time completion:

Any slippage in time along the way costs more money in one of two ways. Either in expense or inability to gather revenue as quickly as we would like... all of our projections on bonds, all of our projections on repayment of the bond are all predicated on opening in 2016.

The City of Alexandria created a special tax district and tax increment financing (TIF) area to pay for the station. That revenue depends on development around the station, but the development depends on the station. The city has issued bonds to pay for the station and budgeted funds to cover the bond debt service the first few years, but is counting on the TIF for later years. If the station and surrounding development are delayed, the bond repayment costs could cut into other city services or cause other financial complications.

To allay fears, staff informed Council that the city has hired a project manager to keep it on task. Also, WMATA is partially responsible for project oversight, and John Thomas, the project manager for the New York Avenue infill station, is overseeing the station for WMATA.

The EIS process will include refining the Metro station location alternatives. All alternatives are on the table, including not building the station, our preferred option that would better benefit existing neighborhoods, and any other alternatives they might think of during the process. All station configurations—above ground, below ground, center platform, side platform, etc.—are also on the table.

There are two meetings coming up to inform the public about the EIS and the scope of the alternatives, the afternoon and evening of Feburary 10 at Cora Kelly Rec Center in Arlandria, 25 West Reed Ave, Alexandria.

To watch video of the Potomac Yard Metro presentation from Tuesday's city council meeting, click here and go to docket item 21 (this will take you to 49:45 on the video). The oresentation and discussion runs about 18 minutes.

Cross-posted at The Arlandrian.

29 comments

Tags: Alexandria, Metro, Potomac Yard, taxes, Virginia

Potomac Yard Metro: "We can see the finish line" (Feb 10, 2010)
Alexandria weighing Metro station alternatives (Jun 3, 2009)
Alexandria still into Potomac Yards station (Jun 5, 2008)
Potomac Yard group debates Metro location and auto-oriented principles (Feb 18, 2009)
Streetcars getting closer in Alexandria (Mar 2, 2009)

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
Add a comment »

Obviously the above vs. below ground will be determined via some sort of cost/benefit analysis, but how do they determine between the center or side platform?

by Steven Yates on Jan 28, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@Steven Yates
Same criteria, twin platforms stations require twice as many stairs, escalators and elevators as does an island platform station.

There also is the issue of how the stations option within the existing easement will be built.

If no major track realignment is required, then twin platform might be the fastest and cheapest option.

by Sand Box John on Jan 28, 2011 11:01 am • link • report

Speaking about the track between Reagan and Braddock, does anybody know why the acoustics of the tunnel there are so terrible? The noise always overpowers my iPod which means it's damaging to the ear....

by Jasper on Jan 28, 2011 11:16 am • link • report

Jasper,

I hear you (pun intended), I think it is because on that stretch of track the train is going at a pretty good clip, much faster than it does in most other underground sections.

by RJ on Jan 28, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

Speaking of noisy tunnels, the section between Georgia Avenue and Columbia Heights inbound (toward downtown) has one part that's very very loud. It sounds like metal scraping metal honestly.

by Martin on Jan 28, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

@Martin:
There are a pair of curves north of Columbia Heights which are very sharp. What you hear is wheel squeal. And that is indeed the result of metal scraping metal.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 28, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report

I don't take my iPod on the subway, but I've noted the same thing Jasper has--my ears always pop going through that particular tunnel. It also seems to happen more often between Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom (or vice versa). The train seems to move faster there as well, perhaps due to the longer distance than in many other tunnels. Interesting explanation by RJ. I'd never heard that before, but it seems sensible that the train's speed might affect the air displacement?

by Rich on Jan 28, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report

They probably didn't design the tunnel well to deal with the air pressure that comes from a fast train pushing a wall of air through a constricted space. This will probably go away once the Potomac Yard metro station opens as the train won't be going full speed.

by NikolasM on Jan 28, 2011 12:36 pm • link • report

Proper link for alternatives:
http://www.potomacyardmetro.com/alternatives.html

by movement on Jan 28, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report

Sorry, alternative D2 is probably the worst of the available options. It is the furthest away from the residents who are most likely to use the station, those of Potomac Greens and Del Ray. Regardless of where Potomac Yard Metro is built, Arlington residents aren't going to walk to it any more than Del Ray residents walk to Braddock Road Metro today. They are better served by Crystal City and the DCA station.

The station should be built as far south and west as possible. Options A and B1 would best serve the current and future residents and would not be too far to service the commercial users.

by movement on Jan 28, 2011 1:01 pm • link • report

@movement - Thanks! I must have messed it up when cross-posting.

A side-note about putting all the alternatives back on the table: I was at a few of the PY Metro feasibility/planning meetings. I have trouble believing that they're actually putting them all back on the table. They will pay lip service to all of them, but unless there's a big change, the developers would lose their minds if one of the A or B alternatives isn't chosen.

Since the landbays are owned by different developers, they only agreed to contribute as much as they did b/c the walkshed of those alternatives straddled landbays owned by different developers. Also, alternative D was seen as too disruptive to development of the Potomac Yard site, and alternative C was the underground option (read, twice as expensive). The plan for the area focuses office space around the A/B alternatives, as well.

by Nick Partee on Jan 28, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report

Sorry, read the map wrong.
http://www.potomacyardmetro.com/PY%20Map.jpg
Options A and C2 are what I prefer.

by movement on Jan 28, 2011 1:09 pm • link • report

@ Rich:It also seems to happen more often between Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom (or vice versa).

But there's easy physics that explains that. It's a quite long tunnel with quite some elevation change, and little ventilation: a perfect mix for some pressure differences.

by Jasper on Jan 28, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report

@movement - didn't see your second comment before I responded.

I disagree. Alternatives C and D are closer to all the new Potomac Yard Arlington-side development, and are closer to the more densely populated Arlandria neighborhood (townhouses and aparements, with more likely coming by 2016 or so). PY-Arlington is a good mile from the Crystal City station, whereas it would only be between 1/4 and 1/2 mile from the PY station in alternatives C/D. Del Ray is mostly single family homes and is much less dense. If the true goal is making it convenient to the highest number of people and reducing the heavily congested Route 1 corridor, they should ignore the 4 Mile Run boundary between them and Arlington and think more holistically.

by Nick Partee on Jan 28, 2011 1:14 pm • link • report

Okay, so if option C is underground and therefore too expensive, what is not to like about option A or B2/3? I still maintain that northernmost alternatives C1, D1/2, and B1 are the worst.

by movement on Jan 28, 2011 1:17 pm • link • report

PY-Arlington residents can use the DCA station. It is about the same distance as options D1/2 so that's not a good reason to position the station further north and away from the Alexandria residents.

by movement on Jan 28, 2011 1:22 pm • link • report

Not true at all. PY-Arlington is over a mile walking from DCA, but only 1/2 mile from the Alternative D site. That's a big difference. Not to mention the walking route to DCA is awful from there. It's a totally legitimate reason.

It's not that I don't like the A/B alternatives, but they won't have as high a ridership as you'd have at alternatives C/D. It's impossible to prove, but I assume ridership would be a function of density within various walksheds.

by Nick Partee on Jan 28, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report

@movement

The point of adding a Metro station is to enable dense development on the site, not to serve existing residents - serving those residents is a bonus.

Also, your assertion that those residents are currently served by the National Airport station is ludicrous. Not only is it a long distance away, but it's a real pain to get to if you're not already on the train or in a car.

by Alex B. on Jan 28, 2011 1:36 pm • link • report

@Alex B. - The Mayor's Institute on City Design did an assessment of Potomac Yard a couple years ago. Essentially a panel of experts for free. They recommended something like option C and said Alexandria had an opportunity to create a true urban center that would actually be more dense and attractive to business than Crystal City. Since C is in the center of the site, they could have approved twice the density that was actually approved with a that type of option.

Christopher Leinberger did most of the presentation and was a big advocate of this option. The final report is much more generic than the presentation. Existing residents were pretty intimidated by this option, thinking the upzoning they were looking at was already aggressive, and the Mayor's Institute on Design report was never really emphasized during subsequent PY Plan meetings.

by Nick Partee on Jan 28, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report

@Nick

Yes, option C-ish would be ideal for both development potential at the site as well as serving both of the existing residential areas to the southeast and west of the site. A well planned and well executed development could add a ton of density to that site and not have a serious impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Density enables the virtuous cycles, not the vicious ones.

by Alex B. on Jan 28, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report

C2 would be awesome.

by NikolasM on Jan 28, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report

So much for driving on the weekend to eat at Hops or shops at the stores there. No way am I taking the Metro on a weekend.

by JB on Jan 28, 2011 2:42 pm • link • report

Okay, I admit I underestimated the walking distance to DCA Metro (although with Mt. Vernon Trail it really isn't that hard to get to and minor changes to the sidewalks would make it even easier). However, unless they are going to build a pedestrian bridge across Four Mile Run, it is at least a half a mile walk from PY-Arlington to even B1/2. We've already established that a 1/2 mile walk is the outer edge of optimal so those residents are still going to want to take a shuttle bus and it will be much easier to get that shuttle bus to Crystal City Metro than to Potomac Yard. Bending over backwards for those folks is pointless especially when we can bring the station within a half mile of most of Potomac Greens. By the way, if the station isn't being built to support existing residents, why are existing residents forced to pay extra taxes for it?

by movement on Jan 28, 2011 3:04 pm • link • report

@movement

I don't know the financing details of this plan - I can just about guarantee that the real estate development on the Potomac Yard site will be paying for the vast majority of the station.

by Alex B. on Jan 28, 2011 3:15 pm • link • report

@movement

There are currently four bridges that span Four Mile Run between Route 1 and the CSX/WMATA tracks. The one closest to Route 1 is a pedestrian/bike bridge. The remainder are former rail crossing that are leftover from the rail yard.

The easternmost of these is currently being paved to become the new Potomac Avenue that will run through the Yard from Monroe Avenue in Alexandria to Crystal Drive in Arlington and will incorporate a linear park and trail. The road is very much close to completion and folks are already walking across the Run there.

The future of the other two bridges is up in the air, but at least one of them will probably be an urban park with another attractive pedestrian crossing.

by Kevin Beekman on Jan 28, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report

@Alex B.

You are indeed correct. The financing is almost entirely from the new development.

by Kevin Beekman on Jan 28, 2011 4:38 pm • link • report

In order to get approved by the WMATA board, this stop will need a name that's in keeping with Metro's standard operating procedures. "Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens/Jefferson Davis Highway/Glebe Road/Best Buy/Target/Staples/This is the Metro stop near the scrupdillyicious Afghan Restaurant" would be much more appropriate.

by b on Jan 28, 2011 5:42 pm • link • report

Be careful what you wish for. While most of the financing comes from new development, there was a special tax district of .1% set up for Potomac Greens. If you move the site away from those in the tax district, you'd better find someone to pay the difference in order to keep the project on schedule. It isn't going to come from the Tooth Fairy and it isn't going to come from anyone in Alexandria. Are you listening, Arlington?

by movement on Jan 28, 2011 6:51 pm • link • report

That Potomac Greens tax district hasn't been approved yet. They're considering several alternatives, like spreading it at an extremely small rate across the city. The Metro station funding isn't dependent on that, though. I believe that .1% they're talking about is actually add a second entrance so it's a much shorter walk for Potomac Greens residents. The primary entrance if the station is on the East side of the CSX tracks will actually be via a bridge over to the West side, making it a veeeery long walk for Potomac Greens folks without that 2nd entrance.

by Nick Partee on Jan 28, 2011 7:51 pm • link • report