To the Editor:
When someone says he or she favors a Metro on Potomac Yard, the next question needs to be, “Which one?” There are four options and also the option of “no build.” Two options, option D and option B-CSX are so much more expensive than the others, neither is viable. The choices are two build options, A and B, and the no build option which is always included for consideration in the Federal environmental impact process.
For many years, since the adoption of the Potomac Yard small area, now being built out, the only option was on the land reserved for a future Metro in that plan, option A. That option is estimated to cost roughly $209 million dollars.
Option B is located only three city blocks north of A, but its costs, and also the expectations for this site, are different. In 2010, City Council approved the Potomac North small area plan. This plan covers the area of the shopping center. It allows option B. If a Metro is built on the option B site, the land’s owners have the right to build seven million square feet of development on the shopping center land. It is envisioned to have more office construction than is in the earlier Potomac Yard plan adopted in the late ’90s. The small area plan states that that amount of new development will increase traffic on Route 1 by 50 percent more than would be there without the addition of all seven million square feet. The current cost estimate for this option is around $268 million.
Many people just assume that a Metro station mops up the traffic that would otherwise be on the roads. In fact it mops up only around 50 percent, even in dense Metro oriented neighborhoods.
Unlike option A which would operate on the existing tracks with a new ground level station, option B requires a different track alignment with the tracks running part way on land over which the U.S. Park Service has a scenic easement. That easement which contributes to the beauty of the George Washington Parkway has great value not only to the Park Service, but to all citizens who enjoy the experience of driving on the parkway as opposed to our other major traffic corridors.
The Park Service appears to be amenable to relinquishing the easement, but it will then require compensation. That could add a considerable amount to the estimated cost of option B, as well as degrading the most attractive stretch of roadway in the city.
Building any Metro on the Yard is a gigantic infrastructure project. It is probable that any station will cost more than current estimates.
The city leaders who want option B rhapsodize about Federal agencies and others coming to occupy the office space because it’s so near to Metro. This ignores the retrenchment of the Federal agencies and the high vacancy rate in existing office space, including the Victory Center which is near the Van Dorn Metro. Option B is seen as a source of revenue to the city that will more than pay for itself. Given the close proximity to option A, B is not a better option for public mass transit.
If option B increases our tax base as predicted, which is questionable, it will improve our city finances.
The basic fact to remember is that if, for any reason, the development does not come or comes very slowly, the city is still in debt for the millions of dollars of construction loans it assumed. Even if it succeeds as predicted, having such a large debt, crowds out opportunities for other necessary spending such as staffing a fire station or building a public school.
Katy Cannady
Alexandria