East Falls Church - Greater Greater Washington

Metro lots fill up

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:56:00 EDT

East Falls Church is the most crowded Metro parking lot, and when the Silver Line means fewer Orange trains west of there, even more people will likely try to park. (Examiner) ... How about pricing the lots based on demand?

Comment

Four Mile Run getting new pedestrian and bike bridge

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:39:00 EDT

by Steve Offutt

Arlington County is replacing the footbridge across Four Mile Run that connects the W&OD and Custis trails east of Sycamore Street with the East Falls Church Metro station. Replacing the is necessary to improve safety.

Existing footbridge. Photo by the author.

The current footbridge is very narrow, very old, and has become obsolete. The new bridge will meet ADA standards, will be wider, and is in a better location for reducing confusion among trail users.

Input from the Arlington County pedestrian and bicycle advisory committees was helpful in determining the location of the replacement bridge in order to reduce confusion and improve utility. Unfortunately, signage is not included in the current project budget.

This map shows the locations of both the original bridge and the new bridge, which is planned for a mid-March completion, as well as the estimated placement of the new trail connector.

The old bridge is at the yellow marker, the new bridge at the pink marker. Image from Google Maps. Click for interactive version.

A significant area of asphalt will be removed and replaced with landscaping. The total amount of permeable surface is likely to be increased even though the new bridge and trail connector will be wider than the original.

The new bridge has an estimated lifespan of 75 years and will be 50 feet long and 14 feet wide with a concrete deck (the existing bridge has a wooden deck). Half of the $240,000 cost is covered by Arlington's bridge replacement funding, while the other half comes from the pedestrian improvements budget.

16 comments

New Carlin Springs Bridge design better serves non-motorists (Dec 12, 2011)
Trail signs should work like street signs (Jun 18, 2009)
Arlington County installs new bike signal on Custis Trail (May 21, 2011)
Redesign could improve dangerous Rosslyn intersection (Oct 4, 2011)
Cyclists, officials inspect dangerous Rosslyn intersection (Sep 13, 2011)

East Falls Church plan a go

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:31:00 EDT

by Erik Weber

The Arlington County Board unanimously approved the East Falls Church station area plan that will bring mixed-use TOD to the Metro, and add better bike and pedestrian access. (ARLnow)

Comment

Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
Great East Falls Church plan approaching the finish line (Apr 15, 2011)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)

Great East Falls Church plan approaching the finish line

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:40:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz and Laura DeSantis

The Arlington County Board will be voting tomorrow on whether to adopt the East Falls Church area plan. They should enthusiastically support this great proposal.

Image from the East Falls Church Plan.

Today, too much of the environment around the East Falls Church Metro station is dominated by wide roads and fast traffic which makes walking and bicycling and access to the station difficult and unsafe. I-66 has divided the neighborhoods and the area lacks the neighborhood services and activity that are possible in a Metro station community.

This plan represents a modest level of development. This level of development—- 600,000 square feet—is essential for the community to gain a range of benefits including neighborhood retail services and redesign of the streets to be safer for all users, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit-users, drivers and people of all abilities. Additional development capacity may be needed to meet the county's affordable housing goals, and could be provided without undermining the plan or detracting from the community.

Why is this plan so great?

It's particularly friendly to pedestrians and cyclists by incorporating wider sidewalks, on-street parking and bike lanes, as well as narrower streets to reduce car speeds.
It includes a proposed platform extension with connection to a park and bicycle/pedestrian access to the Falls Church side of the station. Combined with the pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements to Washington Boulevard, Lee Highway and Sycamore Street, the two sides of the community will be knitted back together.
The overall design is appropriate, including the redevelopment of the Metro Station parcel with a mix of uses, and with heights that are appropriate and step back to the highest heights next to the highway. This approach will transform the Metro station parking lot into a vibrant community with residences, neighborhood retail services, and a public square.
The analysis of the transportation performance shows that this approach to development will not add measurably to future traffic and will in fact offer more non-auto options for local and regional travel.
The plan will contribute to the revitalization of the area around the Metro station by improving safety on surrounding roadways and adding neighborhood retail and a mix of housing.

The plan includes provisions for affordable housing, offering options for a diversity of households (but see our testimony (PDF) for additional recommendations).
It manages traffic well and offers balanced parking solutions to serve current and future residents and businesses.

In addition, the extensive process that has gone into the development of a sustainable, walkable vision for the future has incorporated input from a citizen task force that included representatives of neighborhood associations and other stakeholders, as well as additional analysis and refinement by county staff based on feedback from the community. Clearly, there is great support for this plan.

With the coming of the Silver Line to Tysons Corner and beyond we have the opportunity to expand our region's network of transit-oriented communities and the transportation performance must be seen in this light. We know the plan isn't perfect and have made suggestions to the County Board, including a recommendation that careful consideration be given to the design of the Metro station parcel to ensure that retail is located on the right frontages and that the public green is in the best place to ensure active use and its potential role as a center of the community. In addition, we'd like to see the addition of more affordable housing.

Nonetheless, we've reviewed dozens of mixed-use transit-station plans, and we see this as an excellent and appropriately scaled plan that offers a range of community benefits. The plan offers the opportunity to make the streets and access to Metro safer, to reduce medium and long-term traffic, provide convenient neighborhood services, and to enhance the desirability of surrounding neighborhoods.

If you are interested in showing support for the plan, you can testify tomorrow morning or email the County Board. Here's how:

How to testify: The County Board meeting will be held tomorrow, Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 8:30 am in the County Board Room at 2100 Clarendon Blvd (Near Courthouse Metro station), 3rd Floor. You can find out about speaking procedures and download a speaker form on the Arlington County website.

While the Board meeting begins at 8:30 am, there are a number of consent items for the Board to work through. This means the East Falls Church Plan discussion (Agenda Item #33) would likely not come up before 9:30 am. If you live close by, you can monitor the hearing online or on Comcast Channel 74 to see how it's progressing.

Provide feedback online: If you can't make it out Saturday morning, you can still make a difference. Show your support for the East Falls Church Area Plan by emailing the County Board. It only takes a few minutes.

12 comments

East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)

East Falls Church planning enters final stages

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:45:00 EDT

by Erik Weber

Arlington has updated the East Falls Church plan and will have a forum in February. VDOT still opposes removing any parking spaces as the area becomes a more walkable neighborhood. (TBD)

Comment

East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)

East Falls Church needs more bike racks

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:47:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

The East Falls Church Metro station is popular among bicyclists. Next to the W&OD trail as well as a network of on-street bike routes and bike lanes, its 126 bicycle racks (PDF) fill quickly in the morning, and the station's bicycle lockers are among the busiest among any Metro station.

Photo by Padraic on Flickr.

According to the bicycle and pedestrian improvement study materials produced by consulting firm Toole Design, East Falls Church has one of the highest rates of bicycle access in the system.

Its overcrowded parking lot also fills up quickly, and according to the study, a high fraction of drivers travel less than 1 mile (about 22%) or less than two miles (about half) to access the station, compared to other park and rides.

If Metro provides more bicycle lockers or racks at East Falls Church, it's possible that some of these drivers might switch to bicycling. It's possible that some more people might decide to bike to Metro instead of driving all the way.

Metro said that there isn't a good place to put additional racks or lockers outside the station, and I agree. However, the inside of the station is relatively empty, and the rear corners of the mezzanine (ground) level have ample space to place inexpensive bike racks to test whether more bike racks could attract more cyclists.

Bikes parked at Eastern Market. Photo by the author.

A good example of bike racks attracting more cyclists is at the Eastern Market metro station. There was a large empty brick area next to the bike lockers for a long time. When Metro installed two 20-place bike racks at the station, they immediately started filling up daily. As far as I can tell, there weren't this many bikes locked to poles, streetlights and trees before the new racks went in, so these are new users riding to the Metro station.

There are spaces next to the northern bus stops that are under cover and are marked as bicycle parking, but the racks have been removed. Metro should install more bicycle racks there. East Falls Church could also increase its bike capacity by adding racks at the rear corners of the mezzanine.

Possible locations for more bike racks. Photos by the author.

Metro or Arlington could purchase racks similar to the ones placed at Eastern Market for little cost and no permanent change to the station would be required. Bike racks inside transit stations? BART does it. Why not Metro?

17 comments

Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
More people walking, biking, riding the bus to Metro stations (Jun 5, 2009)
East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
Metro proposes quintupling bicycle access mode share (Dec 6, 2010)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)

EFC plan analyzed

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:16:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Arlington County Manager Michael Brown (different from DC's two Michael Browns) has released his analysis of the East Falls Church plan, including estimates of the development necessary to increase Metro ridership, the value of community benefits the county could get, and how much retail the area could support.

Comment

Underpriced Metro parking doesn't justify more parking

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:30:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

According to an article in the Sun Gazette, VDOT is pushing back on Arlington's and Falls Church's plans to evolve the East Falls Church Metro station from primarily a park-and-ride to one surrounded by apartments and stores.

Photo by Compujeramey on Flickr.

VDOT planner Thomas VanPoole told reporter Scott Mcaffrey that Arlington needs to retain all the existing parking spaces at the station. Plus, planning should take into account any additional demand for parking in the future.

The support of VDOT is important, because the state-level agency controls the land closest to the Metro station which was built in the median of I-66.

VDOT cites the early fill time for the parking lot as justification for considering more parking than already exists. The lot regularly fills before 7:30 am, and data obtained from Metro cites the lot as one of the region's most crowded.

However, no matter how crowded the parking lot, having residents or jobs directly adjacent to the station brings more riders to Metro and a better use of the scarce land. Plus, the parking lot is crowded because it's underpriced.

More crowded parking lots should have higher prices to encourage drivers to use alternate means of access like cycling, walking, or bus, or to choose another, less crowded lot. The additional revenue could be devoted to improving sidewalks and trails locally, increase the amount of parking for bicycles, or to improve feeder bus service.

During the last budget season, Metro parking fees were held constant. The representatives of the outer counties (Fairfax and Montgomery, primarily) opposed any change to parking fees, stating that long-distance riders had already seen large fare increases.

But charging more for parking at already full lots is a good way for Metro to gain revenue without losing riders. Lots that fill up at 7:30 am either need more spaces, as VDOT might suggest, or they need to have higher prices, as I have recommended before.

At East Falls Church, the local government preference and the preference of many residents is to retain or reduce the number of parking spaces, using the land near the station for retail or residential purposes, not storing cars. The high parking demand just reflects a price that is being held too low.

In 2009, Metro hired a contractor to conduct a real-time parking occupancy study of the Vienna, Van Dorn, West Falls Church, and Franconia stations. All stations reach 100% capacity during the day, with Van Dorn Street station reaching 93% capacity of unrestricted spaces by 7 am. For Van Dorn Street, the peak of entering traffic is around 6:30 am, well before the system is at peak capacity and well before Metro can charge "peak of the peak" fares. By increasing the price of parking, Metro can retain some spaces until later in the morning, when customers are willing to pay the higher peak surcharge rates.

While this seems like gouging, underpricing of a scarce resource like parking can actually make traffic worse. If Metro lots fill up by 7 am, when traffic is relatively light, that takes spaces away from people that might want to take transit during the heaviest traffic periods from 7:30 to 8:30 am. By pricing the spaces so they don't fill up, people can choose to take Metro regardless of when they would like to travel, reducing traffic when it's at its peak.

VDOT cites the early time East Falls Church parking fills up as evidence that the parking spaces should be retained or even expanded. I say it's more evidence that Metro should revisit the way the parking rates are set.

30 comments

Metro parking prices should reflect crowding (May 13, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
A better strategy for Orange Line shuttle buses? (May 25, 2010)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)

VDOT chooses parking and riding over TOD

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:49:00 EDT

by Stephen Miller

In a familiar VDOT vs. Arlington County scenario, the state agency pushes for keeping and increasing the number of parking spaces at East Falls Church Metro station, while the county pursues a vision more focused on transit-oriented development. The tussle is important since VDOT controls crucial rights-of-way involved in the redevelopment plan. (Sun Gazette, charlie)

Comment

And...

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:44:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A class-action lawsuit against Montgomery County speed cameras has been dismissed (Hayley Peterson/Examiner) ... Farmers should stop opposing curbs on chemicals that pollute the Chesapeake (Bob McCartney/Post) ... Another good article on the East Falls Church debate includes mention of VDOT's objections to the plan. (Nicholas Benton/FC News-Press, Michael P.)

Comment

EFC debate underway

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:26:00 EDT

by David Alpert

East Falls Church plan supporters and opponents faced off last night for the first of many debates at the Arlington County Board. (Also, here's a good example of a balanced article on a development debate.) (Scott McCaffrey/Sun Gazette)

Comment

OMG buildings!

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:42:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The Post's article on the East Falls Church Metro plan gives most of the ink to neighbor opposition, quoting 3 opposing neighbors and framing the piece as "[some say it] will destroy their bucolic neighborhood" with scant attention to the plan's benefits or supporters. (Christy Goodman/Post) ... Sign the petition to support the plan.

Comment

Should East Falls Church have a waterfront?

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:19:00 EDT

by Dan Malouff

As Arlington County prepares a redevelopment plan for East Falls Church, the City of Falls Church is considering its own options. One is to use Four Mile Run as the centerpiece of an East Falls Church Waterfront District.

Yes that's right, a waterfront district. Falls Church may be 6 miles from the Potomac, but why let that stop them?

The waterfront plan was prepared by Virginia Tech students as an academic exercise, but the idea so intrigued Falls Church city leaders that they are seriously considering it as a vision for future planning.

>
Rendering of a possible East Falls Church waterfront at Four Mile Run.

The idea is to redevelop the low-density industrial block between West Jefferson Street and Four Mile Run (see map) as a series of mid-rise mixed-use buildings, with a park along the side of the creek.

In truth, it will take years for the City of agree to a plan, convince the landowners, find a developer, get financing, and construct the project. This is an idea, not an action proposal. But it's a really good idea that seems to have legs. It meshes well with other likely redevelopment around the East Falls Church Metro, and could in the long term be a real winner.

It's definitely something to keep an eye on.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

9 comments

Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
A better strategy for Orange Line shuttle buses? (May 25, 2010)

East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:30:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Last night, the East Falls Church Planning Task Force overwhelmingly endorsed the draft plan to transform the East Falls Church Metro area into a mixed-use, pedestrian, bicycle and transit-oriented community.

It won't look like this, and actually.. yes.

Next, the plan will go to the Arlington County Board. If you support the plan, sign CSG's new petition to the Board.

It's particularly friendly to pedestrians and cyclists through wider sidewalks, on-street parking and bike lanes, as well as narrower streets to reduce car speeds. It will improve bicycle and pedestrian connections across I-66, creating better connections from the west. And the Metro station itself will get residential units, neighborhood retail services and a public square.

However, a local group opposed to the East Falls Church Area plan has been distributing flyers encouraging local residents to show their opposition. The flyers contain misleading information and statements that spread uncertainty about the project and its impact on the community.

Since the proponents of the development plan bear more of the burden of proof when it comes to advocating change, it is often enough for opponents to raise vague concerns about issues, rather than actually prove that there will be a problem.

The flyers exaggerate the impact this development will have on our community and dismiss the benefits we will get in return. This exaggeration misleads the local residents about the benefits of the plan. We'll get some retail we can walk to, and improvements in pedestrian and bicycle conditions. The traffic racing through our community will be calmed, proceeding at a much more reasonable pace.

We'll return a little bit to what we had before the highway was built, with a walkable community centered on its train station, with local amenities within a short walking distance, not a mile away at Westover or Seven Corners.

One flyer has a picture of a boxy tower with the caption, "Do you want a 9-story neighbor?" It states that the plan would allow "buildings" up to nine stories. The truth is that the plan would allow one building of up to 9 stories, but only far from houses and in exchange for a significant community benefit.

According to my discussions with a task force member, the task force was unhappy with the blocky look of a 6-story building, and agreed to allow some height farthest from Washington Blvd to allow the project to be shorter in areas closer to single family homes.

In exchange for the added height, the developer would construct a second Metro entrance on the west side of the station, estimated to cost $50-60 million. Without this increase in height, a developer could not afford such a project.

The flyer states that the task force has been working for several years, but that the process has recently accelerated. I suppose the perception of acceleration is because the process is now moving from the task force toward official approval. In the timeline put out by the task force in 2007 and 2008, the plan is years behind schedule.

In 2007, the report was scheduled to be before the Board in December 2008, and in 2008, it was expected in March of 2009. Even the schedule on the task force's current website has the plan slated to be before the board for approval last summer.

The flyer states that the actions would mean "Major changes to the character of the neighborhood." Building an interstate highway through the neighborhood also significantly altered the character of the neighborhood. There used to be a small commercial district surrounding the train station here. The plan would help restore some of what was lost when our neighborhood became centered not around a train station, but a freeway exit and a parking lot.

The flyer warns of "increased traffic congestion and spillover," but according to the transportation impact study produced as part of the planning process, that's what we're going to have even if we do nothing. According to the report, traffic conditions will continue to get worse through 2030, with more intersections and streets experiencing delays and congestion related problems. The study says the development would add very little to this traffic, and the local street and transit improvements are expected to reduce the effects of this addition.

The flyer warns of an impact on neighborhood parking. But we already have an issue with neighborhood parking where people might be tempted to park and use the Metro. This is already being managed by the resident permit program, and should continue. If the new development brings new challenges to parking in residential neighborhoods, the resident permit parking program has flexibility to allow the hours of enforcement, time limits, or other variations to handle site-specific conditions.

The plan adds quite a bit of on-street parking, which will provide some additional spaces for short-term use. On-street parking is also an important element of traffic calming, because it tends to visually narrow the streets and provide psychological clues to drivers to "slow down."

The flyer mentions pressure on local schools. However, the schools impact study stated that most students in the Arlington Public Schools system come from single family homes (57%) and "garden" apartments (21%). The new development units anticipated by the plan are mostly elevator apartments and townhouses, which have very low student occupancy rates.

According to the study, it's expected that the new development would likely bring between 34 and 38 new students, spread out among the various local elementary, middle and high schools, and would be mitigated somewhat by transfers into specialty, private or other choice schools. While I agree that the impact is not zero, I would argue that the number is surprisingly small.

The flyer states that the upcoming County Board meeting "is the only chance for the public to be heard," and "only a limited number may speak for two minutes," but the schedule posted on the county website provides many opportunities for public input. The Board will advertised the plan on Saturday June 12, or at the recessed hearing on Tuesday the 15th. Then it is reviewed by various citizen commissions, including a public hearing before the planning commission in late June. Final Board consideration comes mid-July. There have also been many chances at all public meetings of the task force since 2007, at the public meetings about the plan in April or May 2010, and there will be four more chances between now and adoption.

The flyer warns that we might "become another Clarendon or Ballston," but the densities in the plan are nowhere near that level. I was just in Ballston and Virginia Square last night and counted 18 stories at least for many buildings. Nowhere in the plan is there anything close to 18 stories. When I was in Virginia Square, I noted how much better the traffic was compared to where we live. It's not the tall buildings that bring traffic. It's the fact that we live inside a freeway interchange.

Overall, there are significant community benefits to be gained, and when you look at the effect this development will have on traffic, schools or parking, the issues brought up by local opponents turn out to be not as bad as one might fear.

88 comments

Great East Falls Church plan approaching the finish line (Apr 15, 2011)
Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)

Support buildings at East Falls Church

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:33:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The Arlington/Falls Church task force on East Falls Church will be voting on the excellent plan for the area on June 9, and the Arlington County Board will first hear it June 12, then hold public hearings June 28 and vote July 10. Opponents are mobilizing to fight the plan.

Comment

Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment

Wed, 05 May 2010 11:30:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Arlington residents voiced familiar opinions for and against parking, traffic calming, and development at last week's meeting on the East Falls Church plan. That plan calls for redeveloping low-density commercial properties and the Metro park and ride lot, as well as improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and major streetscapes.

Photo by Will Mitchell.

Most commenters supported the general idea of the plan, but a few residents opposed it entirely. They cited an expectation, possibly a 1970s-era promise, that Arlington's famous transit-oriented development would not come to East Falls Church.

The most frequently stated concern was the loss of parking from the Metro lot. Some residents that live nearby but farther than walking distance talked about how they use the parking lot for recreational travel to DC for sporting events. Other residents expressed a concern that the loss of the park and ride would result in increased spillover parking in local neighborhoods.

On the other hand, many residents were excited about the prospect of growth and density in the area. There were murmurs of approval at the mention of a possible grocery store. Resident Dennis (I didn't catch his last name), a resident of Arlington since 1952, felt most of the changes he's seen in the county have been good, including the development of walkable transit corridors in the north and south of the county.

Dennis turned the table on parking lot supporters, asking what their reaction would be if there were no parking lot or gas station and the task force had proposed building them. "This meeting would be full of people complaining about all the traffic problems it would cause." Some other commenters cited their expectation when moving here that the area would be redeveloped, and said that they were looking forward to the changes.

Some others belittled traffic calming tools like bulb-outs, narrower lanes or similar measures. Max Jensen, who lives near Westover and commutes westward on Washington Boulevard, that in Arlington traffic had been calmed so much that, as he put it, it will be at a dead stop soon. He also asked whether it would make more sense to run feeder shuttles every 5 minutes rather than buses every 15 or 20.

Some residents were concerned about the impact of new residential buildings on already crowded schools. The local elementary school and middle school are already over capacity, and the school board has struggled with changing the neighborhood school boundaries for years.

Overall, there was not strong opposition to building on the commercial sites. There appeared to be a consensus that 6-story buildings near other large buildings and the Metro station were acceptable, with more support if the street fronts on Washington Boulevard and Sycamore were limited to 4 stories.

17 comments

Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
Underpriced Metro parking doesn't justify more parking (Sep 9, 2010)

Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:52:00 EDT

by Michael Perkins

Arlington County is seeking public input for a plan to redevelop the East Falls Church area, embracing the mixed-use development that is the standard at other Metro stations in the county, and connecting the station area with better bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The overall vision is to guide redevelopment of the Metro station parking lot and other likely nearby sites in a transit-oriented manner.

The East Falls Church Planning Task Force, a joint committee with representatives from local Arlington and Falls Church neighborhood groups, as well as WMATA, VDOT and local staff representatives, will host forums at Tuckahoe Elementary School from 7-9 pm on April 29 (tonight) and Tuesday, May 4.

Likely redevelopment sites include the Metro parking lots, a Verizon switching station parking lot (currently unused), a gas station, two banks with surface parking lots, a used car lot, a home heating oil storage and transfer facility, and poorly used open space.

Development sites in the central sections of the East Falls Church plan.

The East Falls Church area had historically been a railroad commuter town, named after its train station on the Washington and Old Dominion line. Three rail systems, the W&OD, the Arlington and Falls Church trolley and the Southern Railway served the area, with the last system added in 1895. In 1951, passenger service at the station shut down, and in 1982, the core of what was a small downtown area was removed to make way for Interstate 66.

In 1986, rail service was restored when the East Falls Church Metro station opened. What remains is a grid-pattern residential community with 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s brick homes on a grid pattern oriented toward the freeway. Some of the larger parcels have been redeveloped into townhomes or medium-density condos. I live in a townhome built in 1976 inside the study area.

The plan incorporates many features that are common throughout Arlington. Wider sidewalks, on-street parking, bike lanes and bulb-outs are planned, making intersections more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists. Travel lanes for cars will be narrowed from 13 feet to 10 feet in many places, which has a psychological effect on drivers and reduces their average travel speed.

New bicycle and pedestrian connections will be built across I-66, which divides the formerly cohesive community in two. The Metro station will get a new entrance at the opposite end of the platform, connecting the northwest and southwest in addition to the existing eastern entrance.

Pedestrian (left) and bicycle (right) improvements in the plan.

The Metro station north parking lot will host a new two-building mixed-use development with a plaza and direct access to the Metrorail platform, and retail along Washington Boulevard and Sycamore Street. The south kiss-and-ride parking lot will have a smaller residential building and a plaza. Building heights will be 5-6 stories closest to the Metro station, tapering off to 3-4 stories nearest the single-family home areas.

The existing 5 acres of Metrorail parking (about 450 spaces) will be reduced to 200 spaces. Bus facilities will continue operation. Bike lanes will replace former on-street bike routes.

My overall conclusion for this project is that if you live in the area and wish you had something worth walking to other than the parks, bike trails, and Metro station, you'll be happy. If you live in the area expecting it to continue to be a sleepy, low-density residential area for decades to come, big changes are planned. I'm looking forward to having a lot more neighbors and amenities.

21 comments

Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)
Underpriced Metro parking doesn't justify more parking (Sep 9, 2010)