www.takomadcplan.org
|
Takoma
DC Growth Plans www.takomadcplan.org |
Official Small Area Plan | Media Coverage |
| Developer Plans | Metro. Branch Trail | ||
| Transportation Study | Update Log Links | ||
The following comments on the Takoma Central District Plan, draft report of September 27, 2001, will follow the format of the Comment Form provided by the Office of Planning.
1. Market Economics
Pages 22-23: The data provided on these pages only appear to give empirical support to the conclusion about the amount of retail space that might be supported. Actually, the conclusion stems from unsupported assumptions about "capture Rates." Also, an empirical foundation, which one expects in a section called "market economic," should deal with the sort of shopping that might be done in the neighborhood of Takoma Metro Station as distinct from the sort of shopping that would lead people, for instance, to Rockville Pike. Frances Phipps made this point forcefully in the meeting on September 29. The amount of retail space may be a function of the amount of demand for CERTAIN TYPES OF RETAIL and might exceed 24,000 square feet. The plan needs to include a rational basis for flexibility to adapt over time both here and elsewhere in the report.
Pages 24-25: The amount and rate of population growth are projections but none of the usual caveats and sources of variability associated with projections are provided. The capture rate is just an assumption, and the the household size could well change were new housing built in the central district of Takoma. Oddly, the projected need for housing excludes the Eakin Youngentob and Eichner projects, implying that they are in excess of the housing demand that might stem from projected population growth in the central district. In fact, no empirical base is attempted for those projects EVEN THOUGH THE PLAN IDENTIFIES FIVE PRIORITY REVITALIZATION SITES WHICH INCLUDE THOSE PROJECTS. This gives the impression that this section of the report is just a gesture toward planning when the key development decisions have already been made regardless of the touted community involvement.
Pages 25-26: On page 25 the types of tenants of local office space are listed. On page 26, it is averred that these types of tenants constitute the "office users best suited..." Now really, exactly why are other different users not well suited to this area?
2. Land Use (in relation to transportation)
This section is presented without making the many necessary connections to transportation and traffic issues and requirements over time. As a result it is unworkable. The most glaring example pertains to site B (otherwise termed "site 1"). The density and design of land use depends on the design for parking of buses and cars, on the design of entrance and exit paths for cars, buses, bikes and pedestrians, and on the design of traffic flow withing the metro station area. The report says that transportation comes first and community development second but it does not act on that but places transportation next to last in the sequence of topics (chapters?). The design for buses allows no flexibility for future growth in the need for buses, which already conflicts with the stated needs of Montgomery County. So how can the density of construction of housing be determined and configured. All buses would enter from and exit into Carroll. There are traffic light one block in either direction from that spot. The amount of road space is already easily filled by traffic, but there is no discussion, not even a lick and a promise, of how the buses would get into or leave the traffic flow and how they would affect its flow expecially when turning from Carroll left on to Cedar Avenue or left onto 4th or Blair. How is the flow of pedestrian and bike traffic to move, in relation to eachother and in relation to bus and car movement in the metro station area? The diagram on page 46 and related discussion do not deal with these issues and how they might be related to the density and configuration of housing development. This is not analysis and it is not planning and it certainly does not meet acceptable professional standards.. If this sort of planning is used as a guide for neighborhood planning in DC, then woe unto us.
3. Urban Design (and transportation)
Parking and traffic flow are especially important considerations in urban design because they affect access, convenience, safety and the degree of pleasure associated with the neighborhood. Parking at the metro station is not well understood. Takoma metro has NEVER been seen as providing commuter parking but only parking for those who need access to the metro for less that a full day. Such spaces are rarely filled at the station. The parking garage should also be conceived as a convenience for shoppers and the number of spaces should be related to the number of spaces NORMALLY USED in the current parking area plus allowance for growth in the numberof shoppers or cafe goers. Parkers should have access to Carroll without having to deal with or adding to the congestion of bus entrances and exits.
What is the extent of pedestrian traffic on Blair road that would warrant the construction of a side walk on the west side? I have lived and communted on Blair Road since 1965 and have never observed much pedestrian traffic. Why incur the expense? A wider sidewalk on the east side between Carroll and Piney Branch might be useful and hlep make the area more attractive. If there were to be development on site 2 ( site A) that might mkae a difference. The plan does not show that suggestions have been thought through.
The suggestion that there be no left turn from Piney Branch on to Blair Road (I assume in the morning rush heading west) is offered to derease traffic on Blair Road, ostensibly by funneling it onto Georgia Avenue. But that would not suit those headed toward the area of Union Staton and it is a slower route. So communters would turn left on to Dahlia. Cedar, Butternut, etc., to get to Blair Road. If planners had devoted a bit of thought they would have seen this but, even so, cars could find their way to Laurel and from there to Aspen and so to Blair, causing traffic congestion in those areas which would become part of the urban design.
4. General Comments
It is depressing to be involved in what is called a comunity process and then to be faced with a draft report like this which has pretty well ignored comments. The Office of Planning and its consultants seem likely, as shown in the meeting on September 29, to continue to do so. This is alienating and makes people such as myself, and apparently such as 99% of the other people at that meeting, dig in their heels.
Leonard Rubin
7218 Blair Road, NW
Washington DC 20012
