Metro West - Urbanity on Hold

It has been heralded by green organizations across the country as "the answer to urban sprawl" - an urban village complete with more than 2200 new residences, fountains, cafes and over 100,000 s.f. of the all-important, ground-floor retail, concentrated around a Metro station as an outlet to relieve pressure for expansion outside of Washington DC.

When Pulte Homes' 56-acre Metro West development is finally completed, it will concentrate residences and offices south of the Vienna-Fairfax-GMU Metro Station, north of Route 29, and usher in a new era of "smart growth." That is, if it ever gets built.

The idea for Metro West first debuted in 2001, but it was March of 2006 before Fairfax County approved plans for up to 2,248 residential units and 300,000 s.f. of office space between Lee Highway and Saintsbury Drive; outside the beltway but still on a metro line.

"It took too many years trying to get it approved," laments Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. In 2003, Schwartz's group began lending support to the project as it passed through Fairfax County's Proffer System. He credits green organizations like the Sierra Club, FairGrowth and his own for spurring a "turning point" with the Board of Supervisors, who began to see "a transit-oriented development as a green solution" that would help to make Fairfax and other Northern Virginia neighborhoods feel more connected to one another.

In light of the 2006 zoning approvals, an announcement appeared on the Metro West web site declaring that construction would begin in 2007. The bulletin still adds that "the first townhouse and condominium units could be ready for occupancy by the middle of 2008."

But three years after making that announcement, Pulte Homes Corporate Communications Manager, Eric Younan, tells DCMud that no sale dates have been set, and his office "doesn't have a date for when they're going to build [Metro West] at this time." There is nothing new to report "that's not on our web site," reiterates Younan.

So, will Metro West ever come to achieve its potential?

Mike Wing from the Fairfax County Department of Planning Zoning is optimistic, assuring that Metro West "is moving forward with the permitting process and working with the VDOT," but that these discussions "take time."

Pulte Homes' former Northern Virginia land acquisitions head, Stan Settle, takes a different perspective. In 2005, Settle battled with everyone from angry neighbors to then-US Congressman Thomas M. Davis of Virginia to win the right to raze 69 single-family homes so that Metro West could be realized.

But Settle says a lot has changed since then. In 2009, Pulte merged with Centex Corporation, becoming the largest home builder in America. Settle was let go from the company after the merger, and has since formed his own land company. Although no longer involved in Metro West decisions, Settle holds fast to the opinion that Pulte "projects like Metro West have gotten shelved until the market improves."

"They have a great land position," but he speculates that Pulte "is just sitting on the land," adding that in this market "it could be a while before Pulte has to worry about high rise construction again."

Despite Settle's foreboding, there have been signs that Metro West is still on Pulte's agenda. Just last June, the company began looking for Fairfax County approval to swap out 700,000 s.f. of residential space for office space, a move green organizations are supportive of because it still translates into increased density near a Virginia Metro station. But building anything close to 2200 housing units seems presently unimaginable, and Stan Settle remains the contact person on Pulte's website, which also lists a timeline that hasn't seen an update since 2004.

Purple Line Vote Affirms Maryland "Rail on the Trail"

The metro area's arbiters of all things transit, the National Capital Transportation Planning Board (NCTPB), today voted unanimously to endorse light-rail as the preferred mode of transport for the 16-mile Purple Line project between Bethesda and New Carrollton. The light-rail option, which has already received the support of both the Montgomery and Prince George's County Executives and County Councils, along with the Coalition for Smart Growth and the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, has faced a long string of criticisms from Bethesda/Chevy Chase area residents who fear that the project will render their three-mile spur of the Capital Crescent Trail system both physically and environmentally unsound.

Trail supporters lobbed various critiques at the Purple Line prior to the vote, including claims that it would make the area unsafe for schoolchildren, lead to the deforestation of Bethesda’s last remaining green space and the system will amount to little more than a “two billion dollar trolley line.” Others reasoned that the planned location of the Purple Line’s Bethesda depot at Woodmont East is too far away from the Metro, the National Institutes of Health and the soon-to-be relocated Walter Reed Army Medical Center to have any impact on traffic in the area. Anti-light rail advocates instead proffered that the NCTPB should endorse rapid bus service from Bethesda to Silver Spring as the Purple Line’s preferred mode of transport.

“Some of my constituents in Chevy Chase will advocate…bus rapid transit on Jones Bridge Road - [an alternative that] is not supported by the residents of Jones Bridge Road,” said Montgomery County Councilmember and Purple Line Now! founder, George Leventhal. “The difficulty that we have in proposing an alternative that is preferred by both counties, and that is likely to be endorsed imminently by Governor O’Malley, is that anywhere you try to move this transitway, you encounter other problems…This alternative, which is included in our master plan and has been endorsed by both counties, is indeed the right transitway for our congested, urban, inside-the-Beltway corridor.”

Leventhal went onto to point out that his county initially acquired the Capital Crescent Trail for the express purpose of having both a “recreational hiker/biker trail” and future transit line at the same site.

“There would not be a trail today had not Montgomery County, back in 1990, acquired that right-of-way for the purpose of building what is now called the Purple Line,” he said.

Though some area organizations- most notably the Bethesda Civic Coalition's Save the Trail campaign, which collected some 18,000 signatures in support of their cause – opposed the plan, the majority of testimony submitted to the NCTPB was overwhelmingly favorable. With an estimated daily ridership of between 42,000 and 46,000, many believe that the “Rail on the Trail” will provide a crucial east-west link between Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, resulting in an economic boom for outlying communities and a more efficient Metro system. Even frequent trail users spoke out in support of the plan, illustrating just how multifaceted the Purple Line debate had become.

“The media, unfortunately, portrays the issue of the Purple Line as black and white. You either support the Capital Crescent Trail or you support the Purple Line, but not both. That’s not the case with WABA,” said the cyclist organization's Executive Director, Eric Gilliand. “When finally constructed, the Purple Line will include a direct bike-ped link with the Silver Spring Transit Center, where it will eventually link with the Metropolitan Branch Trail coming out of DC. This is a critical bike/pedestrian transit project that must move forward.”

With NCTPB approval now in hand, the Purple Line’s next stop is with Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, who is expected to endorse the light-rail option and announce a timetable for construction by year’s end. In the meantime, NIMBYs on the other side of the Potomac can get ready for another Metro-centric debate now that plans for a proposed Silver Line, running from downtown Washington to Dulles Airport, are being openly discussed.

Will Montgomery County Put the Brakes on Bethesda's Parking Garage?

On Tuesday morning, the Montgomery County Council will vote on whether to move forward with a planned $89-million, 1,150-space parking garage in downtown Bethesda. If the vote passes, developers PN Hoffman and Stonebridge Associates would be able to proceed with their mixed-use project planned for the current Bethesda Lot 31, at the intersection of Bethesda and Woodmont Avenues (across from the Barnes and Noble). But the project has some concerned organizations urging the Council to apply the brakes and postpone the vote to allow time to consider alternatives to the garage.

In a press release put out today, the Coalition for Smarter Growth and the Montgomery County Sierra Club did the math: by their calculation, each individual parking space costs close to $80,000. “It’s cheaper to just pay people $45 to park [at a nearby lot] and walk five minutes,” says Cheryl Cort, Policy Director of the Coalition. While Cort praises the overall mixed-use project, she and her organization have concerns about the cost of the garage—and whether there’s really a lack of parking in Bethesda.

To prove her point, Cort went out on a Saturday night several weeks ago during prime dinner hour (between about 9 and 10 p.m.) to investigate Bethesda’s parking availability. According to Cort, while Lot 31 fills at peak hours, Bethesda has plenty of other public parking garages with whole floors of open parking within a five-minute walk of downtown Bethesda. It’s just a matter of people knowing where to look.

The proposed mixed-use project would take the place of the two lots now owned by the county, replacing surface parking with up to 250 residential units in LEED-certified buildings designed by SK&I. Stonebridge-Hoffman would realign the interchange of Bethesda and Woodmont, and add as much as 40,000 s.f. of ground floor retail, all of which is generally supported by smart growth advocates as being transit-oriented.

But rather than add such massive garage space, the Coalition for Smarter Growth recommends that Bethesda consider making use of a “smart parking” system, similar to those used in Rockville Town Center and at the Baltimore/Washington International Airport. A digital readout at the entrance to a garage or floor of parking displays the number of available parking spaces to approaching motorists, reducing the time, traffic, and frustration used in circling for spots. As Cort puts it, “Bethesda was just a suburban outpost 30 years ago…[Now] Bethesda has grown up…The question is, how do we treat automobiles in this context?”

David Hauck, Chair of the Montgomery County Sierra Club, has a suggestion for how to assess this situation. “Step back, take a breath, and think about it,” he advises, “What will Bethesda look like five years from now?” If the pedestrian-, bike-, and Metro- supporting contingent has its way, says Hauck, the proposed parking garage will be a “white elephant.”

The County would fund the initial parking structure, which is designed as below-ground public parking, hence the high cost. The rub, in part, is the financing of the deal. The county would issue a bond to cover the construction costs, part of which would be repaid by the developers as part of the purchase of the land, but that still leaves public money going to support admittedly un-green vehicular traffic.

Hauck credits the county’s commitment to taking steps toward transit-oriented development and more walkable communities, noting that Bethesda could be and has been an ideal testing ground for these changes. He cites the promise of a new south entrance to the Bethesda Metro station and the proposed Purple Line. But when it comes to funding environmentally friendly measures, “Energy efficiency and global warming get crumbs off the table,” says Hauck, “and the parking garage gets the steak.”
Update, May 7: According to a representative from the Montgomery County Council, at its work session today, the full Council tentatively approved the parking garage planned for Bethesda's Lot 31. While a few council members did raise concerns about the project, no one introduced a motion to overturn or alter granting approval. On May 22, the project is expected to receive the final go-ahead when the Council officially votes on the county government's capital budget. Any changes to the plan between now and then are unlikely.