The Metro board of directors is expected to vote in January on whether to adopt guidelines that would overhaul its cumbersome and ineffective development process for the valuable land surrounding the region’s Metrorail stations.
That land could be used for office, retail and residential projects that would spur two-way and off-peak ridership in those areas, helping Metro’s ailing bottom line. But developers have been crippled by the transit agency’s “broken” process, according to a June report by the Joint Development Task Force, formed in 2006 by former Metro general manager Dan Tangherlini.
Developers have submitted an average of 2.1 proposals for each Metro development area in recent years, the task force said — far fewer bids than the amount other competitive sites generate.
“The hurdles that [Metro] was putting up were so draconian that few in their right mind would respond,” said task force chairman Gus Bauman, a former Montgomery County Planning Commission chairman. “There was no consistency — they’d change constantly. And you get whipsawed back and forth between the local government and Metro.”
Many proposals fell through because of internal disputes in the agency, or because Metro did not initially consult the community and local government, or because the agency failed to give the developer information about the costs associated with maintaining the Metro station.
The new development guidelines, which were prepared by Metro planning staff and provided to the board on Thursday, call for the agency’s chief of staff to serve as a tiebreaker.
“For a long time, there have been different parts of the organization, that if the project wasn’t going the way they wanted to, could hold it up to serve their needs,” said Nat Bottigheimer, Metro’s head of planning and development.
“If you’re a bus operator, you want to make sure the bus bays are closer to the entrance, and if you’re a parking operator, you want the parking to be closest. Everyone wants to be closest. We need someone who’s a tiebreaker.”
Under the guidelines, Metro officials would have to meet with the local government, which ultimately has to approve projects, at the beginning of the process. The agency also would have to prioritize smart-growth, transit-oriented proposals instead of basing its decision on how much short-term cash a project would generate.
