tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12817434085568996192024-02-19T01:22:05.078-05:00Prince George's UrbanistPrince George's County, Maryland, needs more high-quality walkable and bikeable urban places, particularly around its 15 Metrorail stations. It also needs a more trustworthy, transparent, and responsible government. How can we encourage these things?Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-25278137193233479952021-09-14T09:28:00.017-04:002021-10-22T09:31:00.530-04:00These “Sensible Communities” Redistricting Plans Provide Better Representation on the County Council for Prince George’s Diverse Population<div style="text-align: left;">By <a href="https://dwrowlands.com" target="_blank">DW Rowlands</a> and <a href="https://bradleyheard.com" target="_blank">Bradley Heard</a></div><div style="text-align: left;">September 14, 2021</div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/d799664a-711a-4ee8-a044-6fedfeafb24b" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="844" data-original-width="790" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCkdSzEe9C1ImMjEn4useXdJCD123CRWookrGNqyPP5k3Jp0uBnD8iDfVF9dSJ-UJbbU1Ey2QiYZ3Es9MBxhiVoSEXkeCFVAJnzsld2XNgLLAEuNkqMmSlcLrBF_Ck_9Ld108H-9eZL0fP/w375-h400/PGC+Alt+1+Cropped+Screenshot+2021-10-22+091754.png" width="375" /></a></div><i><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Proposed
<a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/d799664a-711a-4ee8-a044-6fedfeafb24b" target="_blank">“Sensible Communities” Redistricting Plan Alternative #1</a></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>for the Prince
George's County Council.</i></div></i><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Created with the <a href="https://davesredistricting.org/" target="_blank">Dave’s Redistricting web tool</a>
by Bradley Heard.</i></div></i><p></p><p><i>This article is Part 2 of a <a href="https://pgurbanist.blogspot.com/2021/09/proposed-prince-georges-county-council.html" target="_blank">two-part series</a> to help
demystify the County Council redistricting process in Prince George’s
County and explain the impact it can have on our lives. A version of
this series appeared on <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/82396/prince-georges-redistricting-map-could-pose-challenges-for-some-communities-so-whats-the-alternative" target="_blank">Greater Greater Washington</a>.</i></p><p>On September 1,
the Prince George’s County Redistricting Commission submitted its
proposed 2021 redistricting plan for the County Council. The council
will hold a public hearing later this month to determine whether to
allow this plan to take effect, or whether to enact its own plan. The
Council must make its decision by November 30.</p><p style="text-align: left;">In
<a href="https://pgurbanist.blogspot.com/2021/09/proposed-prince-georges-county-council.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a> of this series, we discussed the Redistricting Commission’s
proposed plan and described how it disadvantages the lower-income and
urbanized residents of the county who live inside the Beltway. We also
showed how the commission failed to make a good-faith effort to equalize
the population across the nine districts.</p><p style="text-align: left;">In
this second part of the series, we discuss two potential alternatives
that the County Council could consider: the <a href="https://redistricting.bradleyheard.com/" target="_blank">“Sensible Communities” redistricting proposals</a> prepared by citizen activist and Prince George’s
Urbanist publisher <a href="https://bradleyheard.com" target="_blank">Bradley Heard</a>.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Alternative #1: Compact, contiguous districts that fairly represent urban and lower-income inner-Beltway communities</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Bradley’s first proposed alternative, shown below, is based on <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w33IBQ3vV6AKeLpWb2tDcm2gxAdiUgjd/view" target="_blank">a different set of criteria</a> than those the commission adopted:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The
sum of the largest and smallest districts’ deviations from an ideal
district (i.e., the “maximum population deviation”) must be less than
3.5% — a significantly stricter criterion than that adopted by the
commission.</li><li>All districts must be compact and contiguous. (Also required by the commission and the county charter.)</li><li>Precincts should not be split between districts. (Also required by the commission.)</li><li>Municipalities
should not be split into multiple districts, and splits of
census-designated places into multiple districts should be minimized.</li><li>The
half-mile walksheds of the Metro stations along any of the county’s
four Metro line segments should not be split into multiple districts.</li><li>Incumbents
eligible for reelection should not be pitted against each other in a
single district. (Not explicitly required by the commission, but their
emphasis on a least-change map ensured it.)</li><li>The plan should not
result in the denial or abridgement of the rights of any racial or
language minority group to participate in the political process. (As
required by the federal Voting Rights Act.) <br /></li></ul><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiREl5LNP5Emjp1uiz0q4qBjKt1ZdGk9h21sKLjD1-muLVqI4sb6i9-creqJa6-kWS2Mwp7srnbPGKoa9kgXrQ0B8z_IjfxJk4b_4bxoGCGNw9K-PnuxEwErPAZqIPQ4RWTHHUs-yNfiYwO/s844/PGC+Alt+1+Cropped+Screenshot+2021-10-22+091754.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="844" data-original-width="790" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiREl5LNP5Emjp1uiz0q4qBjKt1ZdGk9h21sKLjD1-muLVqI4sb6i9-creqJa6-kWS2Mwp7srnbPGKoa9kgXrQ0B8z_IjfxJk4b_4bxoGCGNw9K-PnuxEwErPAZqIPQ4RWTHHUs-yNfiYwO/w375-h400/PGC+Alt+1+Cropped+Screenshot+2021-10-22+091754.png" width="375" /></a></div><br /><i><br /><a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/d799664a-711a-4ee8-a044-6fedfeafb24b" target="_blank">Sensible Communities Redistricting Map Alternative #1</a>,</i><i><br />c</i><i>reated with the <a href="https://davesredistricting.org/" target="_blank">Dave’s Redistricting web tool</a>
by <a href="https://redistricting.bradleyheard.com/" target="_blank">Bradley Heard</a>.</i></div><p style="text-align: center;"><i>(Download <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jHd19PT5fKmGIpC5SxMt6qQ2lYXwhO3I/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">this KMZ file</a> to view this map on Google Earth or Google Maps)</i></p><p style="text-align: left;">Bradley’s
Alternative #1 plan divides the area inside the Beltway and some areas
just outside it into five districts. Bradley’s proposed District 2 is
very similar to the commission’s proposed District 2, and he divides the
rest of the northern area inside the Beltway into District 3 and
District 4. The northern Green Line corridor and the county’s most urban
areas, including nearly all of its former streetcar suburbs, are
divided between districts 2 and 3, while the Orange Line corridor,
Lanham-Seabrook, and Glenarden are in District 5.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The
Alternative #1 plan divides the central and southern portions of the
county inside the Beltway almost entirely between District 6 (containing
the Blue Line corridor, including the area around Largo) and District 7
(containing the southern Green Line corridor and Joint Base Andrews),
except for the town of Forest Heights, which is contained in the
northern tip of District 8.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The
lower-income communities in the central and southern portions of the
county inside the Beltway make up a majority of two districts in
Bradley’s plan — districts 6 and 7 — instead of just one district, as
they do under the commission’s plan. In addition, District 5 would represent a lower-income area than it does today, providing more
representation on the council for the county’s low-income communities.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The
proposed districts in the Sensible Communities Alternative #1 plan also
provide better representation for the denser parts of the county inside
the Beltway. All five of the districts with substantial areas inside
the Beltway have median population densities above the county’s median
value of 4,000 residents per square mile: 11,000 and 8,000 residents per
square mile, respectively, for districts 2 and 3 in the northern
portion of the county, and 5,000 to 5,500 residents per square mile for
the three central/southern districts.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Furthermore,
Bradley’s proposed districts are generally more compact than those
proposed by the Redistricting Commission. Also, because his
inner-Beltway districts largely follow Metro corridors, they represent
areas that have related public transportation and urban planning
concerns. Being linked by Metro would also make it easier for
transit-dependent residents to attend events hosted by councilmembers in
their district.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Alternative #2: A majority-Hispanic district, but with split municipalities and CDPs</h3><p style="text-align: left;">One
issue that Bradley’s Alternative #1 map shares with the commission’s
plan is the absence of a majority-Hispanic district. The district with
the largest Hispanic population, District 2, has a voting-age population
that is 49.5% Hispanic. Bradley’s second proposal, shown below, adjusts
district boundaries, especially in the northern portion of the county,
to allow District 2 to include nearly all of the county’s
majority-Hispanic areas, giving it a voting-age population that is 54.5%
Hispanic.<br /><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/96a5c43b-32d2-4fe7-8420-af3a4e39f3c6" id="docs-internal-guid-73e619d7-7fff-dd3d-7c64-34db75055f37" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span style="-webkit-text-decoration-skip: none; background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 480px; overflow: hidden; width: 288px;"><img height="480" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/P9yp_DkHuaebCupjcIB2EJc7po6n-kANV1HySKbZIiR0CpVI_ZycRFlu53NpS8FVQa_UPlmkhPencikNTqLpLh5lXfDXbKaoaYhzTrF9QAEVn_RzEvsUgM-0q0y14N0xvNQl1But=s0" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="288" /></span></span></a><br /><a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/96a5c43b-32d2-4fe7-8420-af3a4e39f3c6" target="_blank">Sensible Communities Redistricting Map Alternative #2</a>,<br />c</i><i>reated with the <a href="https://davesredistricting.org/" target="_blank">Dave’s Redistricting web tool</a>
by <a href="https://redistricting.bradleyheard.com/">Bradley Heard</a>.</i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>(Download <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/17IyWYebBdUPX6Gvx44Zl6KWpl-sCofQ_/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">this KMZ file</a> to view this map on Google Earth or Google Maps)</i></p><p style="text-align: left;">Unfortunately,
achieving this majority-Hispanic district requires breaking a number of
municipalities into multiple districts, and increasing the number of
splits of census-designated places. It also produces substantially
less-compact districts than the first alternative. Whether these
trade-offs are worthwhile is an open question, but both of these
“Sensible Communities” alternative maps have substantial benefits
compared to the map being proposed by the redistricting commission.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Both Alternatives Comport With “One Person, One Vote”</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Unlike
the Redistricting Commission’s proposed 2021 plan and the County
Council’s current 2011 plan, both of Bradley’s Sensible Communities
proposals make a good-faith effort to create districts with as nearly
equal population as is practicable, in accordance with the mandates of
the U.S. constitution and the county charter. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The
2011 redistricting plan has a maximum population deviation of 7.30%,
and the redistricting commission’s proposed 2021 redistricting plan has a
maximum population deviation of 6.96%. By contrast, the Sensible
Communities Alternative #1 plan has a maximum population deviation of
1.44%, and the Alternative #2 plan has a maximum population deviation of
1.36%.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Bradley’s
two citizen-drawn County Council redistricting plans demonstrate that
it was entirely possible for the Redistricting Commission and the County
Council to have achieved dramatic reductions in population deviation in
the current 2011 plan and the proposed 2021 plan, while still observing
traditional redistricting principles. That they did not do so is strong
evidence that other illegitimate or discriminatory factors were likely
motivating their drawing of district lines.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Show your support for Sensible Communities</h3><p style="text-align: left;">The
County Council has tentatively scheduled the public hearing on the
redistricting commission’s plan to occur on Tuesday, September 28. There
will presumably be an opportunity for the public to submit oral or
written testimony in connection with that hearing. However, you do not
need to (and should not) wait until the public hearing to make your
wishes known to the council. The earlier you can give your input, the
more likely it is that you can actually have an impact on the process. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The
first thing you can do right now is to <a href="https://us6.list-manage.com/survey?u=08eb03fde5c6b004777e4bf64&id=e798e510cd&attribution=false" target="_blank">complete the feedback form</a> on
Bradley’s Sensible Communities page to let him know which plan(s) you
support and to offer any further comments. He will be compiling a list
of supporters and submitting it to the council. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The
second thing you can do, if you’re a Prince George’s County resident,
is to <a href="https://pgccouncil.us/27/The-Council" target="_blank">write to the councilmember for your district and the two at-large councilmembers</a> and urge them to support the Sensible Communities plans. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Finally,
please share your thoughts below in the comments, and share these posts
with your friends to increase public awareness of this important
once-a-decade task. </p>Ultimately, it’s up to all of us to help make our democracy better.<div><br /></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><b>Note:</b> This article was modified to switch the labeling of districts 4 and 5 in the text and the graphics, so that District 4 relates to the Bowie district, as it does under the 2011 plan. </i></div>DW Rowlandshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293036512113621361noreply@blogger.com2Prince George's County, MD, USA38.784921100000012 -76.872096110.474687263821167 -112.0283461 67.095154936178858 -41.715846099999993tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-53130985750689721782021-09-14T09:26:00.000-04:002021-09-14T09:26:00.195-04:00Proposed Prince George’s County Council Redistricting Plan Disadvantages Lower Income and Inner-Beltway Residents<div style="text-align: left;">By <a href="https://dwrowlands.com" target="_blank">DW Rowlands</a> and <a href="https://bradleyheard.com">Bradley Heard</a></div><div style="text-align: left;">September 14, 2021</div><p style="text-align: center;"><i><span id="docs-internal-guid-78cc49af-7fff-ee84-8fe6-21290df7eead" style="background-color: white; color: #9db2a3; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.5pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 384px; overflow: hidden; width: 451px;"><img height="384" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/51rRBPNGWhGtEQQqZC8QgXWOxvi5RB2Q59uWEptHIYmyX1q0cl4ifjRU_yLOqRsxRK420Kdffub5FsZfNtAEagzFRSrtiM44ILsO2dsfBoz5FZn3Xu8vkD1RbB8ed4TUKwMjwonh=s0" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="451" /><br /></span></span><br />Members of the Prince George's County Council.<br /><a href="https://pgccouncil.us/ImageRepository/Document?documentID=3799" target="_blank">Image</a> by Prince George’s County.</i></p><p style="text-align: left;"><i>This article is Part 1 of a <a href="https://pgurbanist.blogspot.com/2021/09/these-sensible-communities.html" target="_blank">two-part series</a> to help demystify the County Council redistricting process in Prince George’s County and explain the impact it can have on our lives. A version of this series appeared on <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/82385/prince-georges-redistricting-proposal-threatens-low-income-and-urban-communities" target="_blank">Greater Greater Washington</a>.</i></p><p style="text-align: left;">On September 1, the Prince George’s County Redistricting Commission submitted its map of <a href="https://pgccouncil.us/DocumentCenter/View/6648/2021-Redistricting-Commission-Report" target="_blank">proposed County Council districts</a> based on 2020 census results to the County Council. Unfortunately, the proposed redistricting plan replicates serious flaws in the current County Council district map that harm lower-income and urban inner-Beltway communities and that increase the political power of the wealthiest, least-dense, and least-urban parts of the county.</p><p style="text-align: left;">As two Prince George’s County residents from north and central/south county with a keen interest in the redistricting process, we thought it would be helpful to do a series of articles that helps clarify and demystify the process; explain the impact it can have on our lives; and suggest viable alternatives. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What is Redistricting?</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative district lines. It takes place every 10 years, following the national census, at the federal, state, and local level. Each jurisdiction has its own unique rules and processes. (For a deeper dive on redistricting, check out the <a href="https://redistricting.lls.edu/" target="_blank">All About Redistricting</a> website maintained by the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.) </p><p style="text-align: left;">The way that district lines are drawn can determine who is eligible to run for office, whether certain neighborhoods or community interests will be adequately represented, and whether some Black, Hispanic, and low-income communities will have a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Maryland’s statewide redistricting has been the subject of a great deal of media and academic attention, largely because of the way <a href="https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021/04/06/maryland-faces-extreme-threat-of-gerrymandering-new-report-says/" target="_blank">state lawmakers have historically drawn heavily gerrymandered congressional districts</a> to ensure that seven of Maryland’s eight US House seats are likely to favor Democratic, rather than Republican, candidates. By contrast, very little attention is being paid to the ways in which county and municipal legislative districts are being drawn in Maryland. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The redistricting process in Prince George’s County</h3><p style="text-align: left;">As <a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIIILEBR_S305REPR" target="_blank">required by the county charter</a>, the County Council must hold a public hearing on the redistricting commission’s proposed plan between September 16 and October 1 (i.e., within 15-30 days of receiving the plan). Then, it has until November 30 to decide whether to allow the commission’s plan to become law, or to draw its own plan.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The county charter requires that council districts be “compact, contiguous, and equal in population.” However, the redistricting commission decided early on that it would be guided by one primary goal: <b>“least change”</b> — i.e., making only the minimum changes necessary to ensure that the population deviation among the existing council districts does not rise to the level where they would be legally presumed to be in violation of the “one person, one vote” principles inherent in the US Constitution. </p><p style="text-align: left;">In the end, the redistricting commission elected to retain the <a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/f2d7e9ef-c583-401a-8b48-6333e9aa91b8" target="_blank">2011 redistricting plan</a>, with the exception of five precincts that it moved to reduce population disparities among the districts. Specifically, two precincts in Adelphi were moved from District 1 to District 2; one precinct in Glenn Dale was moved from District 3 to District 4; and two precincts in District Heights were moved from District 6 to District 7.<br /><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/7b891c31-d8ea-4b29-bdab-3a31cf1b05df" id="docs-internal-guid-84f7c1a4-7fff-77f9-0ded-d7c7d6fcf848" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span style="-webkit-text-decoration-skip: none; background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.5pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 480px; overflow: hidden; width: 334px;"><img height="480" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/nKBINGzoAU6lv9vocLuhnuakL2ScMFwMONLWxIgOSLkiE5ENVppo9dlfNpcxXPE94hQ6MkBsAcM6V3bmcDVX6ysCLFtN-iGE4N2iG4wrd5UYvgWTG0Sp-8-P_KmWIMzNHdWmO6iJ=s0" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="334" /><br /></span></span></a><a href="https://davesredistricting.org/join/7b891c31-d8ea-4b29-bdab-3a31cf1b05df" target="_blank"><br />The redistricting commission’s proposed 2021 county council districts</a>, based on 2020 census data. <br />Map drawn by D.W. Rowlands using the <a href="http://davesredistricting.org" target="_blank">Dave’s Redistricting web tool</a>.</i></p><p style="text-align: left;">Unfortunately, the redistricting commission’s “least change” proposal replicates the problems with the current County Council districts: several districts are quite oddly shaped, and nearby communities that share common interests are not particularly well-represented. Additionally, as discussed below, the proposed 2021 County Council redistricting plan dilutes the voting strength of lower income and urban communities inside the Beltway and fails to provide equally populated council districts as required by the county charter.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The redistricting commission’s proposed 2021 districts disadvantage lower-income populations</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Prince George’s County is <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/67566/prince-georges-county-demographics-vary-a-lot-by-region" target="_blank">incredibly diverse</a>, with both some of the Washington, DC region’s lowest-income census tracts inside the Beltway and some of the <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/79489/prince-georges-countys-belt-of-high-income-majority-black-census-tracts-really-is-unique" target="_blank">nation’s highest-income majority-Black census tracts</a> outside the Beltway. Since the 2020 census redistricting data that was released earlier this month does not include income data, we approximated each of the proposed districts with 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate data.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-c67e89ac-7fff-9994-b2ff-f9be4757df37" style="background-color: transparent; color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 416px; overflow: hidden; width: 606px;"><img height="416" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/kl2AZqNcef4-SfJiQBdY0V8OxOjTSpRjMuK9H-CDgrckoZLmIBGm1mZeXpnQLVoGUAZ6pw-a1o153NHNjfO4hm3v11RG-cK8HRVr58DFePwL0_nf1GtwPWZZPHRDeyOi2xdFimtY=s0" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="606" /></span></span> <br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">The central and southern portions of inner-Beltway Prince George’s County (south of US Route 50) are divided into four districts: Districts 5, 6, 7, and 8, although this area has a population of roughly 215,000 residents — enough to make two ideally-sized districts of 107,500 residents each. The median resident of this area lives in a block group with a median household income of $65,000 per year — well below the county’s median household income of $85,000 and only 63% of the DC metro area’s median household income of $103,750.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Despite the fact that this is an area of concentrated low incomes, only one of the four districts that cover this area — District 7 — has a median block group with a household income below $75,000 per year, while two — District 6 and District 8 — have median block groups with household incomes well above the $85,000 median household income for the county.</p><p style="text-align: left;">This type of blunting of lower-income inner-Beltway populations can be highly problematic, because it can reduce the voice, influence, and perspective of that demographic on the council, which can skew legislative decision-making in a way that does not represent the interests of the whole county.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The proposed districts are also bad for urbanism</h3><p style="text-align: left;">The residents living inside the Beltway comprise about 43% of the county’s population. That is equivalent to almost four ideal districts of 107,500 residents. However, the Redistricting Commission’s proposed plan divides this area into eight districts. (Only District 9 has no extension within the Beltway.) This grouping of districts is bad for urbanism and public transportation, because it does not reflect the true densities of the county’s inner-Beltway urban core.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The median resident inside the Beltway lives in a block group with a density of 7,500 residents per square mile; yet only one inner-Beltway district, District 2, reflects a population with a median resident density of 7,500 or higher. In fact, only three of the county’s nine districts — districts 2, 3 and 7 — have median residents living at population densities higher than the county median population density of 4,000 residents per square mile.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-a180f74c-7fff-2b90-8ec7-4f56ec2892a1" style="background-color: transparent; color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 396px; overflow: hidden; width: 624px;"><img height="396" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/kQyBvtjEeaK_Z3sFW7urF4N8cM-afnR34nlH2q6TXez-MHl_5s8ss0hWP7pP2ip5czmp-2mQTBXz8nSDe-K6pdoinGlxhMKYG53Srb6w79aiwolbX2pB1FHjatsojenxjshKDZBK=s0" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="624" /></span></span><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br />This “<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Cracking" target="_blank">cracking</a>” of high-density areas is particularly notable in the lower-income areas inside the Beltway in Districts 5, 6, 7, and 8, as discussed above. The median resident of these four districts inside the Beltway lives in a block group with a density of 6,000 residents per square mile. Only District 7, with its median density of 7,000 residents per square mile, has a median density higher than the county median of 4,000 residents per square mile.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Likewise, only 45% of central and southern county inner-Beltway residents live in single-family detached housing; yet only one of the four districts — again, District 7 (encompassing Capitol Heights, District Heights, Seat Pleasant, Suitland, and surrounding communities) — has a clear majority of residents not living in single-family detached housing.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The northern portion of the county inside the Beltway has a similar, albeit less severe issue with density cracking. While District 2, which is made up of some of the most-urban parts of the county, has a median density of 11,000 residents per square mile, the other three northern districts that extend inside the Beltway — districts 1, 3, and 4 (encompassing Laurel, Bowie, Hyattsville, College Park, Greenbelt, and surrounding areas) — have median densities of 4,000, 6,500, and 3,000 residents per square mile, respectively. However, the portions of these three districts inside the Beltway, plus the outside-the-Beltway portion of the city of Greenbelt (all of which is in District 4), have the population of an ideal-sized district and a median population density of 8,000 residents per square mile</p><p style="text-align: left;">If the portion of the county inside the Beltway were divided into four more-compact districts instead of the eight districts it is split among now, it is likely that all four seats would represent areas with median densities of at least 6,000 residents per square mile, and that the two northern districts would have median densities of at least 8,000 residents per square mile: a much stronger voice for density and transit than we have today.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The 2021 plan does not equalize population among the districts</h3><p style="text-align: left;">The primary purpose of redistricting after every decennial census is to ensure that legislative districts at the federal, state, and local level all comport with the “one person, one vote” requirements of the US Constitution. That principle requires that districts be equally sized, so that no one person’s voting strength is greater than anyone else’s.</p><p style="text-align: left;">To figure out what the “ideal district population” is, one takes the total population of the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recent census, and divides it by the number of districts in the legislative body. So, for the Prince George’s County Council, based on the county’s 2020 total population of 967,201, the ideal population for each of the nine council districts is 107,467 people.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Of course, it is impossible to achieve mathematical precision when drawing districts. Therefore, the Supreme Court clarified in the 1964 case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/" target="_blank"><i>Reynolds v. Sims</i></a> that lawmakers must “make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts…as nearly of equal population as is practicable.” For congressional districts, the sum of the numeric deviation of the smallest and largest districts (i.e., the “maximum population deviation”) typically has to be under one percent.</p><p style="text-align: left;">However, courts allow more flexibility in drawing state and local districts. Maximum population deviations over 10% are presumptively unconstitutional, but if the maximum deviation is below 10%, the person challenging the plan must show that illegal, discriminatory, or illegitimate factors caused a greater-than-necessary deviation.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The Redistricting Commission’s proposed 2021 plan has a maximum population deviation of 6.96%. That is because they were working from a “least change” perspective in modifying the 2011 plan, which itself had a maximum population deviation of 7.30%. But even the commission’s hired consultant, Stanford Law professor Nate Persily, <a href="https://pgccouncil.us/DocumentCenter/View/6499/Summary---June-21-Presentation-PGC-Redistricting" target="_blank">conceded</a> that a “least change” plan easily could have been drawn with maximum population deviations well under 2% without splitting precincts.</p><p style="text-align: left;">In our next article, we will review a couple of alternative redistricting proposals for the Prince George’s County Council that provide better representation for the lower-income and more densely populated inner-Beltway portion of the county, and that provide more compact, contiguous, and equally populated districts, in keeping with the US Constitution and the Prince George’s County Charter.</p>DW Rowlandshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293036512113621361noreply@blogger.com0Prince George's County, MD, USA38.784921100000012 -76.872096110.474687263821167 -112.0283461 67.095154936178858 -41.715846099999993tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-65757290398819482872021-07-12T10:31:00.000-04:002021-07-12T10:31:47.212-04:00COVID-19 Infects Prince George’s Redistricting Commission<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUnKs0w0hET6jO6FHVc6VzzSx1V_xInzbK-GP7OX6ntLJy8U7Auaetfqan_GRD3X39S5MvswVb2U4aHCpP5dxo3uMFUA_ZBYvBEGNSknqNj02gPss6LWaMHUfcvMMmIk14Pf6Fc7-oeclL/s280/PGC_Redistricting_Commission.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUnKs0w0hET6jO6FHVc6VzzSx1V_xInzbK-GP7OX6ntLJy8U7Auaetfqan_GRD3X39S5MvswVb2U4aHCpP5dxo3uMFUA_ZBYvBEGNSknqNj02gPss6LWaMHUfcvMMmIk14Pf6Fc7-oeclL/s0/PGC_Redistricting_Commission.png" /></a></div><br />The Prince George’s County <a href="https://pgccouncil.us/326/Redistricting-Commission">2021 Redistricting
Commission</a> will hold its first virtual public hearing on Monday, July 19,
2021, at 5:00 pm, to receive public testimony regarding potential changes to
the boundaries of the nine County Council districts. There’s just one problem:
neither the Commission nor the public (nor anyone else) has the Census
population data needed to draw districts. Without court action to extend the
applicable county charter deadlines, the Redistricting Commission will not be
able to do its work.<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Every ten years, following the national census, state and
local jurisdictions must go through the laborious task of redrawing their
district lines to ensure that each congressional, state legislative, local
legislative, or school board district contains roughly the same number of
people. This is because the U.S. Constitution’s “one person, one vote”
principle requires that each person’s voting power in a jurisdiction should be
roughly equivalent to that of any other person living in the same jurisdiction.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In an ordinary census cycle, the U.S. Census Bureau would
deliver state-level <b>reapportionment</b> population data, which details the number of
seats each state gets in Congress,
to the President by December 31 of the year the census was taken (i.e.,
the year ending in “0”). The Bureau would then deliver the decennial <b>redistricting</b>
data—detailing block-level population data for the entire country—to the states
by the first quarter of the year following the census (i.e., the year ending in
“1”). States and localities would then use those data to redraw district lines.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, COVID-19 threw a huge monkey wrench into that
timeline for this cycle. The Census Bureau did not release the congressional
reapportionment data until April 26, 2021, and is currently not expecting to release
complete decennial redistricting data to the states until September 2021. As
the Bureau itself <a href="https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/02/timeline-redistricting-data.html">recognized</a>,
the delayed release of redistricting data may make it impossible for states and
localities to comply with applicable constitutional or statutory deadlines
relating to redistricting.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><b>County’s Redistricting Timeline Can’t Accommodate Census
Delay</b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Prince George’s County’s charter mandates that the Redistricting
Commission must <a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIIILEBR_S305REPR">submit
a redistricting plan</a> to the County Council no later than September 1, 2021.
The Redistricting Commission’s plan becomes law effective November 30, 2021,
unless the County Council takes some action to change the Commission’s plan.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For this census cycle, however, the Redistricting Commission
will not be able to submit a plan to the County Council by September 1, because
the Census Bureau will not release decennial redistricting data to the states
until later that month. In addition, Maryland law requires that the state <a href="https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/search/legislation?target=/2010rs/billfile/sb0400.htm">reallocate
incarcerated citizens</a> to their address of residence prior to incarceration
after receiving the decennial redistricting data from the Census Bureau.
Maryland’s Secretary of Planning estimates that the adjusted redistricting
numbers will not be available until approximately 30 days after the state receives
the redistricting data from the Census Bureau—i.e., sometime in October.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the absence of actual redistricting data for the 2020 census,
the Redistricting Commission’s current plan is to draw its proposed County Council
maps using a dataset compiled by a private data analytics firm, <a href="https://haystaqdna.com/">Haystaq DNA</a>, founded by former Obama presidential
campaign operative Ken Strasma. The Redistricting Commission’s consultant, Stanford
Law professor Nathaniel Persily, says that the Haystaq data is based on the
Census Bureau’s annual <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/">American
Community Survey</a> (ACS) from 2019.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, as Professor Persily and the County’s own
lawyers have recognized, the Haystaq dataset cannot be relied on to draw a legal
redistricting plan, because it is both out of date and not based on an actual
count of the population. In April, a coalition of more than 50 civil rights
organizations <a href="https://redistrictingonline.org/2021/04/30/maldef-civil-rights-and-good-government-groups-experts-decry-attempts-to-use-acs-data-as-the-primary-basis-for-redistricting/">issued
a statement</a> opposing the use of ACS data in the redistricting process and
urging line drawers to await the Census Bureau’s release of the decennial redistricting
data this fall.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus, the Redistricting Commission will need additional time
to prepare and receive public input on a proposed County Council district map.
A revised deadline of <b>November 15, 2021</b>, should allow sufficient time
for the Commission to prepare a map for the Council. Then, the Council should
have until <b>January 15, 2022</b>, to hold hearings and determine whether any
changes are necessary to the districting map.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This timeline would still give candidates who wish to run
for the County Council sufficient time to know which council district they will
reside in prior to the <a href="https://elections.maryland.gov/candidacy/index.html">February 22, 2022,
deadline</a> for filing certificates of candidacy.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><b>Court Action Likely Needed to Extend Deadlines</b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, Prince George’s County did not request and
the Maryland General Assembly did not pass any legislation during its 2021
session to alter local charter deadlines that conflict with the Census Bureau’s
delayed timeline for releasing redistricting data to the states. Therefore, the
County will now have to rely on the judiciary to provide the necessary relief.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County or an
appropriate federal court could order those new deadlines upon the filing of a
proper petition. Ideally, the County itself will take the necessary steps to
ensure that the Redistricting Commission is allowed to carry out its important
governmental function. Alternatively, any citizen and registered voter in the
county could likely make the request.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Either way, any court action should be filed quickly, as the
deadlines are fast approaching.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p>Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-72398468223842259312020-12-04T08:49:00.030-05:002020-12-05T11:56:10.810-05:00County’s Homeless Shelter Expansion Proposal is a Case Study in Mismanagement<div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdrhAQf_ojAHbZF8BMDQDcV7nPGIt0nuBlE2ZzQqyGSqLD0T-qYMUehyz2aniyqnZZwsnoIIc1Jx6mAU-rro4KRNHejDz9BIj92y8Hj_CsRF1LvMxaig6BI0-JpglHHZ4eT3E5YjM1THed/s1296/Existing_Shelter.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="706" data-original-width="1296" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdrhAQf_ojAHbZF8BMDQDcV7nPGIt0nuBlE2ZzQqyGSqLD0T-qYMUehyz2aniyqnZZwsnoIIc1Jx6mAU-rro4KRNHejDz9BIj92y8Hj_CsRF1LvMxaig6BI0-JpglHHZ4eT3E5YjM1THed/w400-h217/Existing_Shelter.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Existing shelter facility. Photo by M-NCPPC.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">A coalition of single-family homeowners near the
Addison Road–Seat Pleasant Metro Station is seething about a proposed $16.8
million reconstruction and expansion of an existing men’s homeless shelter
facility on Addison Road South in Capitol Heights. The Prince George’s County
Planning Board is scheduled to review the proposal in a <a href="http://mncppc.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1593">virtual
public meeting</a> on December 10.</span></div><div><br /></div>The current shelter, Prince George’s House, was constructed
in 1987. It is essentially a bolted together set of prefabricated modular
buildings, comprising 5,700 square feet, with a 36-bed capacity. The shelter is
the only county facility that provides emergency and transitional housing for
single male residents who are experiencing homelessness.<div><p class="MsoNormal">County officials are proposing to construct a one-story,
25,000 SF replacement facility—more than quadruple the size of the existing building—on
the same site. The new facility would be fully ADA-accessible and would include
additional space for existing services such as an onsite clinic, kitchen, and library.
Once the new building is completed, the county proposes to demolish the
existing modular building and replace it with surface parking lots and a
basketball court. Despite the increase in building size, the proposed facility
would add only 20 beds, for a total capacity of 56.</p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYvewB1th2cypGnL1YvX_hgG0QNPEZswACPeM6BSKeWKWuWO8ZvZLyjBReNZicsfM8tzhg2Fzq04fo7urs7FGyzW-__xNhRkqlr0cdbiX93UYkFa6ZGeVSe-4sM-08hJcskQ_qMmYwFhxC/s1644/Proposed_Shelter.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="378" data-original-width="1644" height="93" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYvewB1th2cypGnL1YvX_hgG0QNPEZswACPeM6BSKeWKWuWO8ZvZLyjBReNZicsfM8tzhg2Fzq04fo7urs7FGyzW-__xNhRkqlr0cdbiX93UYkFa6ZGeVSe-4sM-08hJcskQ_qMmYwFhxC/w400-h93/Proposed_Shelter.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Architectural rendering for new shelter. Image by M-NCPPC. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvOI1ci5b9jUVrqYj1jelTcyAxeeu4GLuLCuEkdetaQG004BxSzo4BJZfwQ6vao1bhPme_obR6Yh18loerB0V_fOnMtJJEbfuwiW0tqCdU7DdiHDoY2krSjnifJ5zIv7TkOfMhDgLaCmaE/s587/SitePlan.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="261" data-original-width="587" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvOI1ci5b9jUVrqYj1jelTcyAxeeu4GLuLCuEkdetaQG004BxSzo4BJZfwQ6vao1bhPme_obR6Yh18loerB0V_fOnMtJJEbfuwiW0tqCdU7DdiHDoY2krSjnifJ5zIv7TkOfMhDgLaCmaE/w400-h178/SitePlan.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Site plan for new shelter. Image by M-NCPPC.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="color: #38761d;">Homeowners Allege Foul Play by County</span></b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">The homeowner coalition, “<a href="http://www.oneaddisonunited.org/" target="_blank">One Addison United</a>,” is comprised
mostly of residents of two relatively new subdivisions abutting Prince George’s
House—The Park at Addison Metro and Brighton Place—and two older subdivisions
across Addison Road South: Rolling Ridge and Wilburn Estates. (Full disclosure:
the author resides less than 1,000 feet from Prince George’s House, in another nearby subdivision, and has met with OAU’s organizers; however OAU had no input into this article, which is the exclusive work, analysis, and opinion of the author.)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">According to a flyer that OAU distributed in advance of a
hastily scheduled county webinar presentation on December 1, the group is
dismayed by the “stunning lack of transparency from the County regarding this
project.” They claim county officials intentionally tried to dodge the required
procedures for public outreach and public hearings by the Planning Board and
instead pursued a fast-track, behind-the-scenes administrative review by
planning staff in 2019.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Additionally, OAU makes an economic justice argument that it
is fundamentally unfair of the county to place an expanded homeless shelter
next to some of the area’s newest and most valuable real estate, on one of the
main planned mixed-use corridors for the Addison Road Metro Station area. The
community is already economically distressed—lacking basic amenities such as
grocery stores, banks, and sit-down restaurants within walking distance of the
Metro station—and OAU fears the shelter will bring down neighborhood property
values and further hamper economic development prospects in the area.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="color: #38761d;">The Development Review Process for County Projects</span></b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">In its filing with the Planning Board, the county’s Office
of Central Services—which is responsible for site selection, land acquisition,
construction, design, and maintenance related to county buildings—stated
starkly that the county had made <b>“no outreach”</b> to the community, because its proposed
new and expanded homeless shelter was going to be located on the same site as
the existing Prince George’s House. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The county’s December 1 webinar evinced a similar
unwillingness by county officials to engage meaningfully with the public
concerning the proposed new men’s shelter. In the face of obvious community
outrage at being kept in the dark about this project, County Executive Angela
Alsobrooks’s Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Health, Human Services,
and Education, Dr. George Askew, politely but firmly set the stage at the
outset of the presentation by saying that this project “is moving forward” and “will
happen.” Similarly, the county’s Director of Central Services, Jonathan Butler,
declared that “We are beyond the design phase of this project” and that the
county was ready to begin construction as soon as possible on the existing
site.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately for the county, that is not how the process is
supposed to work.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9gHZnf2Lvj4xFk__Y29hlzJJlms0HsiRaNJTy-4bPo-FlN7AmJLiUno9A2LGMDeI3LUJq5lkcfpkkR12X9-sm0izsl572pfwpKAiImia9Zu1Y5A8kIyBj6VdGRBoIMtXVycleDjwj0OM_/s666/Thats_Not_How_This_Works_Meme.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="666" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9gHZnf2Lvj4xFk__Y29hlzJJlms0HsiRaNJTy-4bPo-FlN7AmJLiUno9A2LGMDeI3LUJq5lkcfpkkR12X9-sm0izsl572pfwpKAiImia9Zu1Y5A8kIyBj6VdGRBoIMtXVycleDjwj0OM_/w320-h240/Thats_Not_How_This_Works_Meme.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal">State law mandates that all governmental entities (federal,
state, and local) must submit plans for “locating, constructing, or
authorizing” any public building or structure to the Planning Board for
“mandatory referral review,” and that the Planning Board must hold public
hearings and make advisory recommendations for approval or disapproval of any
such activity. The Planning Board reviews proposed activities for consistency
with applicable comprehensive plans and zoning requirements; neighborhood
compatibility regarding size, shape, scale, height, arrangement, and design;
safety and efficiency of pedestrian and vehicular access; and other
environmental factors.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Following the Planning Board’s mandatory advisory review, Prince
George’s County’s laws require that the County Council (sitting in its
administrative capacity as the District Council for zoning and land use
matters) specifically review and approve or disapprove any public building,
structure, or use proposed by the county government. The Council must independently
consider the relationship of the project to applicable comprehensive plans; the
impact of the project on the area affected; the availability of other, more appropriate
sites; and the relative need for the facility.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Importantly, the county’s laws also require that county and
municipal government entities (as distinct from federal and state entities)
must adhere to all applicable zoning and development review requirements and administrative
procedures, just like any other private property owner. In this case, that
means the county should follow the same detailed site plan procedures
applicable to private property owners.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The detailed site plan procedures address all of the
standards relevant to the Planning Board’s mandatory review, and also provide
the public with specific notice, comments, and hearing rights. However, unlike
in private development review cases, the Planning Board is not the ultimate
decider. The District Council retains the authority to apply its own judgment and
make its own findings based on the record, because state law provides that the
ultimate decision whether to proceed with a county project must rest with the
county government itself.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As discussed below, the county has flouted many of these legal
requirements.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="color: #38761d;">The County Skipped the First Step: Site Selection</span></b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Planning Board’s procedures make clear that the
mandatory referral process may be multi-staged, such as when a project is
“initially reviewed by the Planning Board at site selection, and later for
approval of the proposed design of buildings and site improvements.” Moreover,
the procedures provide that “All site selections…must be submitted for
Mandatory Referral before they are finalized.”</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here, the county did not bother to submit the issue of site
selection to the Planning Board. Indeed, it did not engage in a site selection process
at all. As the county’s Director of Social Services, Gloria Brown Burnett,
explained at the December 1 webinar, there was never any consideration or
discussion about placing the new homeless shelter anywhere other than the site
of the existing Prince George’s House.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Certainly, the existing 2.63-acre site could accommodate a sprawling
one-story suburban style 25,000 SF building, with significant surface parking, as
the county is proposing. However, the site could also just as easily accommodate
500,000 SF of dense urban multistory mixed-use development—perhaps with a much-needed
grocery store on the ground floor. Thus, one question worth considering is whether
the county’s proposed low-density building, with a <a href="https://www.greenbelt.org/land-use-planning-dictionary/floor-area-ratio/">floor-area
ratio</a> (FAR) of only 0.22, is an appropriate and economically viable use for
an essentially vacant large parcel of land within a half-mile of a Metro
station.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are many other, smaller, vacant or substantially vacant
lots within a half-mile of Metro stations in the county that could accommodate
a more compactly designed 25,000 SF building. Some of these parcels are
doubtless already owned by the county, or could easily and cheaply be acquired.
A proper site selection process requires that the county engage in the appropriate
due diligence to investigate potential alternatives and bring forth several of
them for consideration.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyqmYqsWrXE7wzNF2cyBXI3sxNX2Zojk52Ukhaob3kTfgzL_NX-PBdTsW7dYp5e-0clv-tDPCxvomoKIBJJhW3EY0JCXa8qIlUWlCiliqLM7yVKNu-IylpuApekKGEuLx6m9lu2lo8Uos0/s1046/Abandoned_Surface_Lot.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="1046" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyqmYqsWrXE7wzNF2cyBXI3sxNX2Zojk52Ukhaob3kTfgzL_NX-PBdTsW7dYp5e-0clv-tDPCxvomoKIBJJhW3EY0JCXa8qIlUWlCiliqLM7yVKNu-IylpuApekKGEuLx6m9lu2lo8Uos0/w400-h239/Abandoned_Surface_Lot.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This approximately one-acre decommissioned surface lot, a similarly short<br />walking distance from the Addison Road Metro Station, is one of several sites that <br />could also be suitable for the new shelter. Image from GoogleEarth.</td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal">Another question the county would do well to ponder is whether
a 56-bed men’s facility is adequate to meet the significant need for emergency,
transitional, and permanent supportive housing for people experiencing
homelessness in Prince George’s County. At the December 1 webinar, Assistant
Director of Community Services Renee Ensor-Pope revealed the startling
statistic that of the 618 total requests for emergency shelter that the county
received from single men last year, the county turned away 494 of them (80%) because it
lacked sufficient capacity. Given those figures, it seems unwise and
irresponsible to spend $16.8 million to increase capacity by only 20 beds.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regardless of whether the county ultimately decides to pursue
the 56-bed option or a larger facility, the same site selection principles
apply: one should not simply assume, without any data, due diligence, or public
input, that the existing location of Prince George’s House is the appropriate
location for a new facility to serve homeless populations.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="color: #38761d;">The County Bungled the Second Step: Site Design</span></b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">In addition to its many process-related deficiencies in
connection with this proposed new homeless shelter, the county’s proposed
building design is hopelessly flawed. The county’s comprehensive plans for the
Addison Road Metro Station area call for <a href="https://www.cnu.org/resources/what-new-urbanism">new urbanist</a>
designed multistory, vertical mixed-use urban buildings along Addison Road
South, within walking distance of Metro.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Building façades are supposed to be placed at and should
open up to the sidewalk. Buildings should also occupy most of their lot
frontages along the major street, so that they form a continuous building edge
with a consistent setback, which helps define the public zone of the street. Automobile
parking is generally to be provided on-street, underground, or above street
level in a structured parking facility. However, if surface parking cannot be
avoided, it must be placed behind the building façade, not visible from the
street.
</p><p class="MsoNormal">The county’s proposed building design for the new men’s
shelter ignores all of those comprehensive plan regulations. Its proposed
building is a one-story, suburban styled building that adheres to virtually
none of the principles of new urbanism. The building is set back 25 feet from
the Addison Road South street edge, has no doors or windows on that side of the
building, and does not occupy most of the frontage on that street. Instead, the
county has flanked the building with unsightly and large stormwater management
ponds on either side of the building instead of applying more appropriate urban
stormwater management design techniques.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the Ernie Banks Street frontage, instead of being pulled
up to the sidewalk, the entire building façade is set back far from the street
and blocked either by strip mall-style surface parking lots or stormwater
management ponds. The rear half of the parcel is almost exclusively consumed by
an unsightly amalgamation of pavement (either for surface parking or a
basketball court) and stormwater management ponds.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In short, the county’s proposed site design reflects a waste
of valuable land in every direction, wholly incompatible with urban transit- and
pedestrian-oriented land use principles.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not surprisingly, the county’s uninspired building design also
does not meet the minimum benchmark for <a href="https://www.usgbc.org/leed">LEED
Silver qualification</a> from the U.S. Green Building Council, even though a
2007 executive order mandates that new county buildings achieve that minimum
qualification. And to be clear: it is entirely possible for the county to
construct an economical, new urban designed, LEED Silver certified building for
the homeless that complies with the county’s comprehensive plans for the
Addison Road Metro Station area.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 2004, for example, the City of Austin, Texas, constructed
the similarly sized <a href="http://www.aiatopten.org/node/164">Austin Resource
Center for the Homeless</a> (ARCH) for $5 million (approximately $7 million in
2020 dollars):</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiybCQD6ox6oy2X6zHkXLW484s27JZax-qTk1cbd0xwolrAdtqpiKQfGMYHFXsT6uFTjLDdRNMH-6LFWzUBKZ7mD6cz9jYMHmO-hR5Hgx_q3rIFs4jvjUKbUtE4QDDI3SBuzjGHGMPXZ5Or/s497/06AIACOTEARCHsouthwestwestelevation.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="307" data-original-width="497" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiybCQD6ox6oy2X6zHkXLW484s27JZax-qTk1cbd0xwolrAdtqpiKQfGMYHFXsT6uFTjLDdRNMH-6LFWzUBKZ7mD6cz9jYMHmO-hR5Hgx_q3rIFs4jvjUKbUtE4QDDI3SBuzjGHGMPXZ5Or/w400-h248/06AIACOTEARCHsouthwestwestelevation.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Austin Resource Center for the Homeless (Austin, TX)</td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal">This three-story, 26,800 SF American Institute of Architects
award-winning building accommodates 100 beds, as compared to the 56-bed
facility that Prince George’s proposes. It also includes a large common-use
room, showers and locker rooms, laundry facilities, a computer room, an art
studio, and offices for various community-support agencies, in addition to a
large commercial kitchen and dining room. All that at <b>42% of the cost</b> of
the $16.8 million facility that the county is proposing for the Addison Road
South site. (For additional details on the ARCH development, this <a href="http://designresourcesforhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ARCH_Austin.pdf">helpful
case study</a> is worth a look.)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rather than modeling appropriate compliance with community
plans and county procedures, the Office of Central Services is here
demonstrating some of the worst characteristics of private developers, who all
too often seek to build anything they want, anywhere they want, regardless of
what the law says. This is precisely why public engagement and public notice
are crucial components of the development review process. A proper public
engagement process could have brought all these issues to light at a much
earlier stage.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="color: #38761d;">The County Should Own Its Errors and Do the Right Thing</span></b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Toward the conclusion of the December 1 webinar, as tempers
began flaring increasingly in the chat box, DCAO Askew urged participants to
remember that we are each other’s neighbors and family, and that we should
approach this proposed homeless shelter with that spirit in mind.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was a good sentiment to express, but County Executive Alsobrooks
and Dr. Askew should first ensure that their subordinates take that advice. Tempers
are flaring, after all, because the county mishandled this project. It did so by
not engaging with the public, not exercising due diligence in the site
selection and building design processes, and not following the law. In the spirit
of family, and as responsible public officials, the county should therefore hit
the pause button, withdraw the current mandatory review application, and begin
this process anew—the right way.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is no reason that Prince George’s County cannot
improve vital services and facilities for individuals experiencing homelessness
in a way that also adheres to the applicable law and comprehensive plans, and that respects and honors the public’s right to participate in
good faith in the affairs of government.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p></div>Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-72704498397121346832020-07-04T09:42:00.000-04:002020-07-04T09:42:19.279-04:00"Washington Redfins" is a Non-Racist Football Name We Can Be Proud Of<head><base target="_blank"></base><meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"><meta name="keywords" content="FedEx Field,football,Prince George's,Redskins"><meta name="description" content="Washington Redskins should ditch their racist moniker and rebrand as the Redfins"></head><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGED7dbkV98Q_YD8yK7IIg2J_Tl2JzP4PTWdeEG1fH6skB48pm0PYnQcVFsNDHiWNGCUPpeeg1afwu6ZosBytZS1CEMkuel5QqkUNmTgcdShOLg9HOoQib3DsE4-ul0hAAuS1lZHmUIPRm/s1600/Washington_Redfins_MockUp_Logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGED7dbkV98Q_YD8yK7IIg2J_Tl2JzP4PTWdeEG1fH6skB48pm0PYnQcVFsNDHiWNGCUPpeeg1afwu6ZosBytZS1CEMkuel5QqkUNmTgcdShOLg9HOoQib3DsE4-ul0hAAuS1lZHmUIPRm/s400/Washington_Redfins_MockUp_Logo.png" width="400" height="400" data-original-width="400" data-original-height="400" /></a></div>FedEx Field, located in Prince George’s County, Maryland, is the home stadium of the Washington Redskins football franchise. This weekend, FedEx joined the ever-growing crowd of corporations, civic leaders, and decent human beings in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/business/fedex-washington-redskins/index.html">requesting the team to change its racist moniker</a>. Despite team owner Dan Snyder's years of resisting a name change, the team has now promised to "undergo a thorough review of the team's name." <br />
<br />
In 2013, a similar groundswell of effort from numerous public officials—including former Prince George’s County Executive <a href="http://wapo.st/H4AbJe">Rushern Baker</a>, former U.S. Representative <a href="http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10/redskins-name-maryland-lawmaker-pushes-bill-outlawing-redskins-name-95368.html">Donna Edwards</a>, and <a href="http://wapo.st/1e1H7Ti">President Barack Obama</a>—failed to pursuade Snyder. Many progressive media outlets <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/08/washington_redskins_nickname_why_slate_will_stop_referring_to_the_nfl_team.html">began refusing to refer to the team's official name</a>. Even conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer <a href="http://wapo.st/H6RysY">penned a powerful op-ed</a> declaring that common decency, not mere political correctness, dictated the abandonment of a name that has become “tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.” Still, Snyder refused to budge.<br />
<br />
Although the team's recent promise to "review" the team's name is no guarantee that the name will change, Washington's football team has much more incentive to do so now than it did in 2013. In seven short years, the nation has legalized gay marriage, banned employment discrimination against LGBTQ people, established a near-zero-tolerance approach to harassment of women in the workplace and beyond, torn down Civil War monuments to traitorous Confederate generals, retired state flags containing Confederate battle insignia, and held weeks-long mass demonstrations in the wake of police violence against unarmed Black Americans. <br />
<br />
We have also witnessed four years of negative consequences from a divisive, racist, polarizing president who has focused on building border walls, separating Latino children from their families, denigrating people of color at every opportunity, and even stoking violence against peaceful protesters. As a result, Americans have increasingly become more attuned to—and oposed to—symbols and acts of race- and geneder-based insensitivity and violence.<br />
<br />
Over the years, we have seen <a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/102991/19-non-racist-names-for-the-washington-redskins">no shortage of suggestions</a> for alternate names for Washington’s football team. Krauthammer and others prefer simply shortening the name to the “Skins,” which many people commonly do already. Some local residents mounted an <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2013/10/25/the-legend-of-dan-snyder-and-the-washington-bravehearts/">under-the-radar effort</a> to rename the team the "Washington Bravehearts." Another worthy contender is the "<a href="https://twitter.com/OllieConnolly/status/1278821758053818369?s=20">Washington Redtails</a>," honoring Black Tuskeegee airmen. <br />
<br />
One of the more hilarious (and vegan-friendly) proposals, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/redskins-peta_n_4100570.html">offered by PETA</a>, is to keep the name “Redskins” but change the logo to a potato:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.peta.org/blog/no-need-for-redskins-to-change-name-says-peta/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/redskins-602x639.jpg" width="377" height="400" data-original-width="602" data-original-height="639" /></a></div><br />
But who wants to root for a frigging spud?! We need a mascot that connotes power and might, one that evokes fear and trepidation in opponents—something exotic, yet familiar. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you…the <b><i>Washington Redfins</i></b>!<br />
<br />
As described by the New South Wales government in Australia, “Redfin are a popular sport fish…because of their fighting qualities and taste. However, they are also voracious predators of other fish and invertebrates…and can devastate native fish populations…. For these reasons, redfin are considered a serious pest.”<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/aquatic/freshwater-pests/species/redfin-perch" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0019/182215/redfin-perch.jpg" width="400" height="198" data-original-width="520" data-original-height="258" /></a></div><br />
Talk about a fearsome little fish! Yet, they are sporty, they fight well, and they taste good. What more can we ask in a mascot? We could even keep the same fight song and tune, making only the simplest of modifications in the lyrics:<br />
<blockquote><i>Hail to the Redfins. Hail, victory.</i><br />
<i>Pride of the Nation, [or, “Potomac war fish,”]</i><br />
<i>Fight for old D.C.!</i></blockquote><br />
It's time, Washington football fans, to start swimming with the mighty <i><b>Redfins</b></i>! <br />
Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-20275415307199950652019-12-04T09:02:00.000-05:002019-12-04T09:02:54.374-05:00How Could We Better Use College Park Airport?<head><meta name="keywords" content="airport, aviation, College Park, FAA, M-NCPPC, Maryland, planning, Prince George's, runway, turboprop"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Expanding commercial and general aviation services and facilities at College Park Airport will foster economic development and honor the great historic legacy of the world's oldest airport."><base target="_blank"></head><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMQH2uVH1RTXvP051IRq7M3ipafm-wFVZbahKYG5kB88w2a8qqIC-ZdGVutJ-OxwqXjRLzm3_KtrzbLlQWUczan1TQfRj-64IpSEu6qbeMxKts6YNyU8GEqVLLQNnzd99qRMSxY6V8Bp4z/s1600/CollegeParkAirportLogo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1236" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMQH2uVH1RTXvP051IRq7M3ipafm-wFVZbahKYG5kB88w2a8qqIC-ZdGVutJ-OxwqXjRLzm3_KtrzbLlQWUczan1TQfRj-64IpSEu6qbeMxKts6YNyU8GEqVLLQNnzd99qRMSxY6V8Bp4z/s400/CollegeParkAirportLogo.png" width="308" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image by M–NCPPC.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>College Park Airport in Prince George’s County, Maryland, is the world’s oldest continually operating airport. Sadly, it’s also likely one of the most squandered public assets in the Washington region. Virtually no one uses it, despite its prime location near transit and the University of Maryland. But with a few commonsense upgrades and the proper public focus, we could change that.<br />
<br />
Wilbur Wright originally established <a href="http://collegeparkairport.aero/">College Park Airport</a> in 1909. He used it to train the first United States military officers to fly an airplane. Today, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M–NCPPC), a state agency operating in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, owns and operates the airport and its accompanying <a href="http://www.mncppc.org/1593/College-Park-Aviation-Museum">aviation museum</a>.<br />
<br />
One could not ask for a more ideal location for an airport. It is within a quarter-mile walk of the College Park–University of Maryland rail station, which provides multimodal transit access to WMATA’s Metrorail and Metrobus network, the Maryland Transit Administration’s (MTA) MARC commuter rail, and the future MTA Purple Line light rail. It also sits less than a mile from the University of Maryland’s flagship campus.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsa7E3Wd6Wi1bRYjRJTY3CVazgiIGTZ170Ol42m_hhPg8arpku3TcypLKq0SI1cn4G5I2gSvAyMy-QaGegyKFUU_OOI9iat_cR_GpIIsfxsfSdkJ3P6HM0t7JsMlWO9r3TXG9M1bdG2Q5G/s1600/CollegeParkAirport_Aerial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="818" data-original-width="1375" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsa7E3Wd6Wi1bRYjRJTY3CVazgiIGTZ170Ol42m_hhPg8arpku3TcypLKq0SI1cn4G5I2gSvAyMy-QaGegyKFUU_OOI9iat_cR_GpIIsfxsfSdkJ3P6HM0t7JsMlWO9r3TXG9M1bdG2Q5G/s400/CollegeParkAirport_Aerial.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>College Park Airport. Annotations by Author.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Despite its great legacy and its uber-convenient location, College Park Airport sees only about 3,200 takeoffs and landings annually—less than nine flights per day. By contrast, the <a href="https://montgomerycountyairpark.com/">Montgomery County Airpark</a> in Gaithersburg sees about 48,000 takeoffs and landings annually, or just over 131 flights per day.<br />
<br />
What would it take to transform College Park Airport into a more vibrant economic development and transportation engine for the Prince George’s County and the Washington Metropolitan Area?<br />
<br />
<h3><b>General Aviation vs. Commercial Service</b></h3><br />
Currently, the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/">FAA categorizes</a> College Park Airport as a <b>general aviation</b> airport because it has no common carriers offering passenger service to the public between specific locations according to a published schedule, and it has fewer than 2,500 annual passenger boardings (“enplanements”). <br />
<br />
General aviation airports serve a variety of passenger-carrying flights, such as skydiving or sightseeing tours, medical transport, air taxi services, private and corporate planes, and charter planes. They also serve non-passenger-carrying aircraft such as those used by flight schools, the military, recreational fliers, and cargo transport. <br />
<br />
Airports that have more than 2,500 annual enplanements and have common carrier-scheduled passenger service between specific locations are classified as <b>commercial service</b> airports. Scheduled passenger flights are usually separated from other general aviation services in a separate commercial terminal, because the passengers and baggage on scheduled commercial flights are subject to heightened security screening and safety regulations that do not apply to general aviation flights. <br />
<br />
Both commercial and general aviation services use a variety of aircraft sizes—helicopters, small single-engine piston planes, twin-engine business and commuter turboprops, regional jets, and jumbo jets. However, not all airports have the runway lengths and strengths to accommodate all sizes of aircraft. <br />
<br />
College Park Airport would likely qualify as a <b>“nonhub primary”</b> commercial airport if it began scheduled passenger service. This means that it would generate at least 10,000 annual (or just over 27 daily) enplanements, but less than the threshold for categorization as a “small hub primary” airport, which is currently around 450,000 annual (or 1,232 daily) enplanements. <br />
<br />
At those passenger volumes, College Park Airport would obviously not pose a significant threat to the three nearby large hub commercial airports (Reagan National, BWI-Marshall, and Dulles). However, it would provide some needed additional capacity for short-haul commercial flights at another rail transit-accessible location near downtown Washington, DC.<br />
<br />
<h3><b>Longer Runway and Additional Facilities Needed</b></h3><br />
The airport’s existing 2,600 x 60 feet runway can only accommodate small propeller-powered aircraft such as the <a href="https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-information">Viking Twin Otter</a> or the <a href="https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-12">Pilatus PC-12</a>. To be feasible as a commercial service airport and to enable more options for larger general aviation aircraft, the runway would need to be wider and longer.<br />
<br />
As indicated in the above picture, the likely runway expansion path would be southeastward, across the Northeast Branch tributary, toward Kenilworth Ave, to achieve a dimension of approximately 4,500 x 150 feet. This would require careful civil engineering (e.g., <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/7516037920">construction of a concrete culvert</a> below the runway subgrade) to preserve the water flow in the tributary. <br />
<br />
The runway pavement would also likely need to be strengthened to better accommodate double-wheeled aircraft of up to 100,000 lbs. This would permit a broad range of mid-sized 10-12 seat business jets, such as the <a href="https://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/sovereign">Cesna Sovereign</a>, as well as large 50-90 seat commercial turboprop aircraft, such as the <a href="http://www.atraircraft.com/products/ATR-42-600.html">ATR 42</a>, <a href="http://www.atraircraft.com/products/ATR-72-600.html">ATR 72</a>, and <a href="https://dehavilland.com/en/dash-8-400">Dash 8-400</a>, to service College Park Airport at their maximum takeoff weights.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2l6IC8dtZjvlSBS2Z3drHcTLeL1xOr-l2QrZDv4YMo3DngwAjYMiSFPK-Sk-PNNJ9lSBIT639-dNORrIdSUeQxYMvcE1NnbTwprNYKmkKd3iubJmBJ4_uF33wUE4H4GPzy4GVawJBpXBF/s1600/BillyBishopAirport_Aerial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="800" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2l6IC8dtZjvlSBS2Z3drHcTLeL1xOr-l2QrZDv4YMo3DngwAjYMiSFPK-Sk-PNNJ9lSBIT639-dNORrIdSUeQxYMvcE1NnbTwprNYKmkKd3iubJmBJ4_uF33wUE4H4GPzy4GVawJBpXBF/s400/BillyBishopAirport_Aerial.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Billy Bishop City Airport. Photo by PortsToronto.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Although all four of the major U.S. commercial carriers have <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/07/09/american-ends-turboprop-flying-dash-8-retirement/768834002/">phased out their turboprop fleets</a> in favor of regional jets, there are some <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/05/31/turboprops-set-big-us-comeback/32635771/">signs turboprops could see a resurgence</a>, given their higher fuel efficiency, lower operating costs, and ability to serve airports with shorter runways. <br />
<br />
Even today, smaller U.S. commuter carriers, like <a href="http://www.silverairways.com/destinations/atr42">Silver Airways</a>, and larger Canadian carriers like <a href="https://www.flyporter.com/en-ca/about-porter/our-fleet">Porter Airlines</a>, have significant turboprop operations. Indeed, Porter’s home base, <a href="https://www.billybishopairport.com/">Billy Bishop City Airport</a> in Toronto (pictured above), serves about 2.8 million domestic and international passengers annually—about the volume of an American small hub like Savannah, GA, or Albany, NY. All of those passengers fly on turboprop planes, since Billy Bishop’s longest runway is just under 4,000 x 150 feet.<br />
<br />
<h3><b>Funding and Land Are Available</b></h3><br />
Through the FAA’s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview/">Airport Improvement Program</a> (AIP) and Maryland’s <a href="https://www.marylandregionalaviation.aero/_media/clients/pdf/airportdevassistance/Program%20Guidance%20-%20AIP%20Grant.pdf">Aviation Grant Program</a>, funding for runway and taxiway reconstruction, airfield lighting and signage, apron construction, terminal buildings, and similar improvements (including related planning) at small commercial and general aviation airports is available at up to 95% of the costs.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, M–NCPPC already owns and controls the land adjacent to the airport that would be necessary for the development of commercial and enhanced general aviation services at College Park Airport. The current 70-acre general aviation and museum facility could expand to about 125 acres, to allow sufficient space to construct a commercial passenger terminal and ramp, a control tower, and facilities for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-base_operator">fixed-base operators</a> (FBO), maintenance, fire and rescue services, aircraft hangars, transient aircraft parking, and visitor and rental car parking.<br />
<br />
The State of Maryland and Prince George’s County own some neighboring parcels that could also be dedicated to the airport complex. Other privately owned land adjacent to the airport could be used for hotel construction and other compatible facilities.<br />
<br />
If a new commercial passenger terminal is built, it should have at least six ramp spaces for simultaneous enplaning and deplaning. The terminal should be equipped to process international passengers, most of whom would likely be coming from Canadian ports. Instead of expensive jet bridges, the airport could use simple <a href="https://www.kcigse.com/boarding-ramps/tw3025-passenger-ramp/">accessible boarding ramps</a> at each ramp space.<br />
<br />
<h3><b>Environmental and Security Considerations</b></h3><br />
Former Mount Rainier councilman Brent Bolin, a community and environmental activist, attorney, and nonprofit executive, sees the potential benefits of expanding services at College Park Airport, but also worries about the potential for adverse environmental impacts, such as the elimination of or restriction of access to parkland and recreational facilities around the Northeast Branch in the area of the airport.<br />
<br />
Without question, any major transportation infrastructure project could potentially result in adverse environmental impacts. This is why federally mandated environmental analysis, which evaluates alternatives and considers mitigation options, is part of the process. <br />
<br />
It is certainly true, for example, that the airport expansion would result in the loss of some parkland and recreational areas in the immediate vicinity of the airport. However, ample parkland and recreational facilities would remain in easy walking or biking distance. Rerouting the popular Anacostia Tributary Trail around the extended runway is one easy mitigation measure that could be employed to maintain access to those nearby facilities.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0YsazpveuWk3af-wXMWy5j9LKkAMyg8hbSmbVvW_k_KWRR4rdkOS3UUfgrRHDzuGDB5J86xoqIsR-7vTobjvcVpCgyNuozjO9H6QbeLijC9K1wMlPabdCC0rZFzghivtPAp6vRPl93yN7/s1600/fly_nice_sign_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1200" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0YsazpveuWk3af-wXMWy5j9LKkAMyg8hbSmbVvW_k_KWRR4rdkOS3UUfgrRHDzuGDB5J86xoqIsR-7vTobjvcVpCgyNuozjO9H6QbeLijC9K1wMlPabdCC0rZFzghivtPAp6vRPl93yN7/s320/fly_nice_sign_0.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Photo by MSP Metropolitan Commission.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Similarly, airport noise is always a serious concern for residents of the area surrounding an airport. Indeed, a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437751/">National Institutes of Health study</a> describes airport noise as “one, if not the most detrimental environmental effect of aviation.”<br />
<br />
Obviously, there is no way to eliminate airport noise completely. However, there are many ways to mitigate the impacts of such noise. One such measure, which is already in place at College Park and Reagan National airports, is to restrict the times that aircraft can take off from the airport. At College Park, takeoffs are generally prohibited between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am.<br />
<br />
National security and the potential for terrorism necessarily are priority concerns with airline travel in the National Capital Area. Ever since September 11, 2001, the FAA has established a <a href="https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=24154">Flight Restricted Zone</a> within 15 nautical miles of Reagan National Airport. College Park Airport is within that zone and, accordingly, must adhere to certain enhanced security protocols. Pilots flying into and out of the airport must pass a TSA background check.<br />
<br />
The FAA and TSA would need to determine whether any additional security measures, akin to those in place at Reagan National, would be needed in connection with scheduled commercial air service at College Park Airport.<br />
<br />
<h3><b>How to Make This Happen</b></h3><br />
It seems almost inconceivable that the idea of expanding services at College Park Airport has not come up for serious discussion before. College Park mayor Patrick Wojahn said that he does not recall any discussions of potential commercial services at the airport during his tenure in city government. Nor has independent internet research by the author yielded any information regarding any recent discussions or studies of the issue. Current airport manager Lee Sommer did not respond to requests for comment on this story.<br />
<br />
M–NCPPC completed an <a href="http://mncppcapps.org/planning/publications/BookDetail.cfm?item_id=59&category_id=&name=Brochure&pricemin=&pricemax=&author=&Pubs_year=All&price=&">airport land use compatibility and safety study</a> in 2000 that found no significant issues in connection with College Park Airport. That study highlighted the airport’s significance to aviation history: “Probably no other field in aviation can boast of such a significant clientele or such an amazing list of achievements as College Park Airport.”<br />
<br />
But the airport is more than just a historical artifact. It is a fully operational facility with a prime location near public transit. It is a potential source of jobs and economic development in Prince George’s County. Corporate travelers and tour groups, in particular, would appreciate having a general aviation facility close to DC that can handle larger planes. Likewise, U.S. <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/how-become-commuter-air-carrier">commuter air carriers</a> and Canadian carriers that operate commercial turboprop planes would appreciate the additional commercial capacity and the proximity to DC that College Park Airport could provide.<br />
<br />
Working in consultation with experienced outside aviation planning consultants, the professional planners at M–NCPPC can produce a strong <a href="https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150_5070-6">airport master plan</a> with short-, medium-, and long-term benchmarks that meets the community’s increasing air transportation needs, protects its natural resources, promotes neighborhood safety, and appropriately leverages the distinguished legacy and the huge economic development potential of the world’s oldest airport.<br />
Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-26258208816335862792019-07-15T08:04:00.000-04:002019-07-15T08:04:21.440-04:00Amazon Westphalia: A Case Study in Rogue Zoning<head><meta name="keywords" content="Amazon, county council, county executive, development, M-NCPPC, Maryland, planning, Prince George's, Westphalia, zoning"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Amazon wants to build a behemoth distribution warehouse in Prince George's County's Westphalia Town Center. The County Council is passing potentially unlawful zoning changes to let them do it."><base target="_blank"></head><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr-7Qs6ejuWHzKa89f1x774ZNsOrDzgByFT6wwIn5mhCEN0E-_tELgcOxMsHd0hu8uFBU3BG1LDiRq3SNd9JvPLB3id979OMEm18fqtI_oiyVjBJuTigur6Ehgp4hl2j_Na2aNnZcsx26u/s1600/Amazon_Westphalia_NorthSouth_Elev.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="643" data-original-width="1600" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr-7Qs6ejuWHzKa89f1x774ZNsOrDzgByFT6wwIn5mhCEN0E-_tELgcOxMsHd0hu8uFBU3BG1LDiRq3SNd9JvPLB3id979OMEm18fqtI_oiyVjBJuTigur6Ehgp4hl2j_Na2aNnZcsx26u/s400/Amazon_Westphalia_NorthSouth_Elev.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proposed Amazon Warehouse Building in Westphalia. Image: M-NCPPC.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Rumor has it that <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/07/09/westphalia-fulfillment-center-to-span-4-million.html">Amazon is planning to build</a> a massive four million square foot distribution warehouse in the heart of Westphalia Town Center in southern Prince George’s County, near Joint Base Andrews. This comes as a shock to residents of the developing community, who were promised a walkable, transit-oriented environment with a vibrant mix of offices, stores, and restaurants.<br />
<br />
In recent weeks, the Prince George’s County Council has rammed through a series of significant changes to the zoning ordinance to authorize and justify placing a huge industrial building in the middle of a planned suburban town center. The Council enacted these zoning changes without submitting them to the County Executive for approval and without allowing the standard 45-day period for the public to decide whether to petition the ordinances for a referendum, in violation of the county charter. <br />
<br />
In addition, because these zoning changes apply only to Westphalia and benefit only its owner, Walton International, and the intended purchaser, Duke Realty, they likely violate state laws prohibiting “spot” or “contract” zoning. Sadly, the potential illegality of these ordinances has not deterred the council members in the least. Rather, it is just the latest example of their <a href="https://pgurbanist.blogspot.com/2019/05/is-prince-georges-going-rogue-with.html">rogue method of enacting zoning legislation</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>The Developers' and County Council’s Bait-and-Switch</b><br />
<br />
Amazon’s proposed distribution center is five stories and 85 feet high, with a footprint exceeding 820,000 square feet, for a total of approximately 4.1 million square feet of warehouse space. That equates to a land area of about <b>16 football fields</b> arranged in a 4 x 4 configuration, or about <b>5 contiguous city blocks</b>. By contrast, the length of each of side of the Pentagon is about 300 feet shorter and the height about 14 feet shorter than this proposed warehouse. Surrounding the building on the 78-acre site will be 1,786 automobile parking spaces, 200 truck loading spaces, and 65 loading docks.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHTJG5doJpZzWMHP0rd4oORL7NiCkgC9pQSs_LQEDZ3tH08U2JzpnMN5Tbma720mEZiTHX0ACDIU-j33hHHCPlv7erPjrVUG0BiO8ey8-fVR6oeiGFtOvf85G6y-pxsNOgmRKWfXNB0w3Q/s1600/Amazon_Westphalia_RenderedSitePlan.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1155" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHTJG5doJpZzWMHP0rd4oORL7NiCkgC9pQSs_LQEDZ3tH08U2JzpnMN5Tbma720mEZiTHX0ACDIU-j33hHHCPlv7erPjrVUG0BiO8ey8-fVR6oeiGFtOvf85G6y-pxsNOgmRKWfXNB0w3Q/s400/Amazon_Westphalia_RenderedSitePlan.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proposed Site Plan for Amazon's Westphalia Warehouse. Image: M-NCPPC</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Anyone reading the preceding paragraph can easily see that Amazon’s proposed building is neither walkable, mixed-use, nor transit-oriented. Yet, the developers and the County Council have colluded to shoehorn this project into this legacy “mixed-use transportation-oriented” (“MXT”) zone by theorizing that Westphalia needs a major employment use to catalyze development and that the county could benefit from the projected 1,500 jobs this facility would bring. <br />
<br />
The Council’s zoning amendments create a fancy new term—“merchandise logistics center”—to describe this distribution warehouse, and then allow this industrial use in Westphalia’s MXT zone, despite the land use requirements for this area as set forth in the <a href="http://www.pgparks.com/374/Plan-2035">2014 General Plan</a> and the <a href="https://www.mncppc.org/647/Westphalia-Sector-Plan-Implementation">2007 Westphalia Sector Plan</a>. <br />
<br />
Incidentally, this flurry of zoning activity is all taking place under the current, soon-to-be-expiring zoning ordinance. The Council passed a comprehensive <a href="https://pgccouncil.us/589/Zoning-Ordinance-Rewrite-Portal">zoning ordinance rewrite</a> last year, but it has not taken effect yet. Under the new ordinance, which seeks to implement the county’s general plan, Westphalia is contemplated to be designated as a mixed-use “Town Activity Center” (“TAC”) zone. Warehouse uses and excessive surface parking of the kind in this planned Amazon facility are not permitted in the TAC zone. Additionally, the maximum permitted block length in the core of the TAC zone is 600 feet—less than a third of the length of the proposed Amazon Westphalia facility.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKpy26ZcYfAWz2FwIsFRTmVWGPZVqlZorCxOC1UVShCJmNZPXmUWUk2wtmYMCmj7WQEhPHbRK3A6RZ9CRZjp1o_40N0WqAbgI0P6ENJHdC8gG97zUMMiQzPhGJS4Yw8tikiLPkwm2XDyJ/s1600/Westphalia_Sector_Plan.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="612" data-original-width="1600" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGKpy26ZcYfAWz2FwIsFRTmVWGPZVqlZorCxOC1UVShCJmNZPXmUWUk2wtmYMCmj7WQEhPHbRK3A6RZ9CRZjp1o_40N0WqAbgI0P6ENJHdC8gG97zUMMiQzPhGJS4Yw8tikiLPkwm2XDyJ/s400/Westphalia_Sector_Plan.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The original vision for Westphalia Town Center. Image: M-NCPPC</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Thus, even before the new zoning ordinance can take effect, the County Council is already busy at work poking holes in it. The Council is continuing its practice of passing indiscriminate zoning ordinance text amendments to permit things the original ordinance prohibited—adding extraneous definitions and footnotes that create exceptions that allow particular developers to build something that would otherwise be prohibited, or that allow particular council members to bring pet projects to their districts. None of this bodes well for the new zoning ordinance, or for the overall land use and development policies of the county.<br />
<br />
<b>What Should Happen With Westphalia and Amazon’s Proposed Warehouse</b><br />
<br />
The County Council and the Westphalia developers are correct to point out that the market prospects are bleak for dense mixed-use office and retail development in that area, which is outside of the Beltway and far away from transit. But that reality is not new. The development concept for Westphalia Town Center <a href="http://pgurbanist.blogspot.com/2013/09/westphalia-bad-deal-for-prince-georges.html">has always been a fanciful pipe dream</a>, conceived originally out of developer and county official corruption, then later by developer greed, the parochial interests of multiple District 6 council members, and undisciplined land use policies that facilitate massive suburban greenfield development instead of focusing on developing around Metro stations and in the urbanized inner-Beltway areas of the county. <br />
<br />
Rather than continuing to pursue an ill-advised development concept, the county should commence a comprehensive community planning process to revise and replace the 2007 Westphalia Sector Plan. The new sector plan should seek to preserve or restore the rural character and natural resources of the areas that are currently substantially undeveloped, such as the previously planned town center core where the Amazon warehouse is now being proposed. <br />
<br />
At the same time, the new sector plan should seek to define a more realistic vision for success in the areas of Westphalia that are currently being developed. The focus should be on walkability and recreational facilities within the residential areas and also multi-modal connectivity between residential and designated neighborhood commercial areas. Smaller scale vertical mixed-use development should be encouraged in the neighborhood commercial areas. <br />
<br />
In addiiton, the county should still vigorously pursue the development opportunity for the Amazon distribution center, but instead direct it to a more appropriate location. A prime location (no pun intended) for this facility would be the old Landover Mall site, which is adjacent to the Beltway and has ample transportation infrastructure already in place to support a 24-hour merchandise distribution center. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7fKRtKzI0nzaTh8tOYIbo1dUgWRrSw4RX2-L3jAQieYhY3E_AiAi6aLm6ZU3rs6oUg1NPvq36NXJ1e3ZaxPNaydAu1o6hHRiNRkVow0nMGZe527REDIQrOSQxKXMVh0C0SB1ReZL4lWwv/s1600/Landover_Mall_Site_Aereal.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="845" data-original-width="1554" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7fKRtKzI0nzaTh8tOYIbo1dUgWRrSw4RX2-L3jAQieYhY3E_AiAi6aLm6ZU3rs6oUg1NPvq36NXJ1e3ZaxPNaydAu1o6hHRiNRkVow0nMGZe527REDIQrOSQxKXMVh0C0SB1ReZL4lWwv/s400/Landover_Mall_Site_Aereal.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Aerial view of Landover Mall site, with proposed rail transit station. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>The eastern portion of the site, closest to the Beltway, could be rezoned into the Industrial Employment (IE) zone under the new zoning code. The western portion, closest to Brightseat Road, could be zoned into the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone, which would also permit multifamily residential mixed-use and live-work unit development. A bus or future rail transit facility could be placed in the center of the development. Structured parking for the Amazon warehouse could be provided either in the neighborhood commercial area or the industrial area. Of course, these modifications would require a revision to the <a href="http://mncppcapps.org/planning/publications/BookDetail.cfm?item_id=183&Category_id=1">Landover Gateway Sector Plan</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Weigh In At This Week’s Planning Board Hearing</b><br />
<br />
The Planning Board will meet on Thursday, July 18, at 1:00 pm, in the First Floor Hearing Room at the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro to consider the Detailed Site Plan application for the Westphalia distribution warehouse. You can review or <a href="http://mncppc.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1507&MediaPosition=&ID=5079&CssClass=">download the DSP materials here</a>.<br />
<br />
If you have concerns regarding the way the County Council enacted these zoning changes, or with the substance of the proposal, this is your time to speak up. You first must <a href="http://www.mncppcapps.org/planning/Person_of_Record/default.cfm">register to become a party of record</a> in connection with <b>DSP-19008</b> Snapper (Westphalia). Then you can appear and speak at the hearing or <a href="mailto:Jeremy.Hurlbutt@ppd.mncppc.org?subject=Comments%20on%20DSP-19008%20(Westphalia%20Center/Snapper)">email your written comments</a> <i><b>prior to the hearing</b></i> to Mr. Jeremy Hurlbutt, Master Planner, who is assigned to review this file. You may also mail or fax your comments to him prior to the hearing at: MNCPPC, Urban Design Section, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Dr, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772; fax: 301.952.3749.<br />
<br />
<br />
Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-36373241357040716122019-05-01T09:37:00.000-04:002019-05-01T09:37:06.758-04:00Is Prince George’s going rogue with zoning bills?<head><meta name="keywords" content="county council, county executive, legislation, Maryland, Prince George's, zoning"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="For years, the Prince George's County Council's short-circuited way of passing zoning legislation hasn't complied with the county charter or state law and avoids crucial checks and balances. That needs to change."><base target="_blank"></head><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.sketchport.com/drawing/5365184637960192/i-m-just-a-bill" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="557" data-original-width="1022" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivPmVl657xu1s19ArfMpsLL5Yn1U8-ksU5_hr9OTho9rfo0PEJWEIBnAbj2kJJs-kh78AHqc07OyMy-n7Bg7KWa7GIkdD3CJCrkWzfJDnoLANZMF_qwqWlC-3VgOdMYNXq_KwMqwXggz5u/s400/I%2527m_Just_a_Bill.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by <a href="https://www.sketchport.com/drawing/5365184637960192/i-m-just-a-bill">Shelly</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>For many decades, the Prince George’s County Council has deliberately not followed the same procedures when passing zoning legislation as it does when passing other legislation. Nothing in state or county law authorizes the Council to treat zoning bills differently than other bills. Nevertheless, because it has been doing so for so long, virtually no one seems to notice or complain. Perhaps that should change.<br />
<br />
The Council’s short-circuited zoning procedures allow it to rush through often hugely consequential or controversial bills relating to land use and development in Maryland’s second-largest county without giving the public fair notice of bill amendments. Those procedures also deprive the County Executive of the right to review and approve or disapprove of zoning legislation. Additionally, by allowing most zoning laws to become effective immediately, rather than waiting 45 days as with other legislation, the Council thwarts the ability of citizens to petition zoning laws to referendum.<br />
<br />
In this Trumpian era, where quaint notions like adherence to the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances are being tested almost daily in our federal government, we should also remember to examine how those principles can become frayed at the local level. After all, local laws often impact our daily lives much more than federal laws and policies.<br />
<br />
<b>Council's passage of the new zoning code was one recent example</b><br />
<br />
Last year, for example, the Council enacted a <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/69669/prince-georges-county-has-a-new-zoning-ordinance">comprehensive rewrite of the county’s 70-year-old zoning ordinance</a>. To be sure, the rewrite effort was a massive and worthwhile undertaking, with an unprecedented level of public engagement over many years. Yet, between the formal introduction of the bill on September 25, 2018, and the public hearing when the Council enacted the bill on October 23, 2018 (the last session of the year), there were literally hundreds of pages of substantive amendments to the bill. <br />
<br />
Several citizens urged the Council to hold off on final passage of the bill and to hold future hearings once the Council reconvened in 2019, so that the public could gain greater clarity regarding important changes in the bill. Even the bill’s sponsors acknowledged the breakneck speed with which the Council was moving to enact the zoning rewrite. <br />
<br />
Following its decades-old custom, the Council did not send the enacted zoning bill to the County Executive for approval. Fortunately, the Council wisely included a delayed effective date provision, which will allow it an opportunity to cure any substantive or procedural defects before implementing the new zoning code.<br />
<br />
<b>The county charter governs how local bills become laws</b><br />
<br />
Prince George’s County is a “charter county” under Maryland law, which means its governing authority derives from a specific organizing document adopted by the people of the county. According to Prince George’s Charter, the County Council must <a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIIILEBR_S317ENLE">hold a public hearing</a> not earlier than 14 days after a councilmember formally introduces a bill. However, if councilmembers substantively amend the bill during that hearing, they must re-notice the bill for another public hearing in the same manner as the originally introduced legislation.<br />
<br />
Additionally, the Charter provides for a <a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIVEXBR_S402EXPODU">separately elected County Executive</a>. When the Council passes legislation, it must send the enacted bill to the Executive, who has 10 days to decide whether to <a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIVEXBR_S411EXVE">sign the bill into law or veto it</a>. If the Executive vetoes the bill, the Council can override the veto by a two-thirds vote. <br />
<br />
Ordinarily, a non-emergency bill <a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIIILEBR_S318EFDALA">becomes effective 45 days after the County Executive signs it</a> into law or the Council overrides the Executive’s veto. However, if at least 10,000 voters sign a petition within 45 days of the law’s approval, the law’s effective date is suspended, and the <a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIIILEBR_S319RE">people can vote directly on whether to approve or disapprove of a local law</a>. The referendum election occurs at the next occurring general election, which are in November of every even-numbered year.<br />
<br />
<b>The Regional District Act grants Prince George’s authority to enact local zoning laws</b><br />
<br />
The Maryland General Assembly grants counties (and most municipalities) the authority to enact local planning and zoning laws. In Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, a state law known as the Regional District Act (“RDA”) vests planning and zoning power in a bi-county agency known as the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The Commission is composed of five appointees from each county, and each group of five commissioners is known as the “Planning Board” for their respective county. Similarly, the RDA designates each county’s County Council as the “District Council” for their respective county. <br />
<br />
The RDA provides that each District Council may “<a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=glu&section=22-104&ext=html&session=2019RS&tab=subject5"><b><i>by local law</i></b> adopt and amend the text of the zoning law for that county</a>,” as well as any accompanying zoning map. It <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=glu&section=14-101&ext=html&session=2019RS&tab=subject5">defines “local law”</a> as “an enactment of the legislative body of a local jurisdiction, whether by ordinance, resolution, or otherwise,” and states that the <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=glu&section=14-203&ext=html&session=2019RS&tab=subject5">District Council’s lawmaking authority</a> “is not intended to alter in any way the form or legislative mechanism that the applicable enabling authority requires for the local jurisdiction to enact the local law….” <br />
<br />
In Prince George's County, enacted bills do not "<a href="https://library.municode.com/md/prince_george's_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICHPRGECOMA_CHPRGECOMA_ARTIVEXBR_S411EXVE">become law</a>" until the County Executive approves them or the County Council overrides the Executive's veto. <br />
<br />
<b>Any zoning law enacted in violation of the charter can be invalidated</b><br />
<br />
So it seems clear that any zoning law that Prince George’s enacts must follow the same procedures as any other local law—right? Well, apparently not.<br />
<br />
The Council has previously claimed that a <a href="https://casetext.com/case/pr-georges-co-v-md-natl-cap">1973 ruling from Maryland’s high court</a> means that it does not have to follow the same procedures when passing zoning laws. That case held that no provision of a local charter could override the Regional District Act. However, that case does not apply here, because the Charter is not seeking to override the RDA. Rather, the Charter simply defines how to enact local laws in Prince George’s County.<br />
<br />
Generally, if a legislative body does something that it is not authorized to do, the action is void from the outset and, therefore, of no legal effect. However, the timelines for challenging any particular legislative enactment may be short. Typically, an aggrieved party must file a judicial review action in the Circuit Court within 30 days of the Council’s final action. There may be ways to challenge the invalid law later, but the Council may try to assert that the legal challenge is too late. <br />
<br />
Ultimately, though, the Prince George’s County Council should not wait for a legal challenge to modify its procedures. Instead, it should just follow the requirements of the County Charter when it passes zoning legislation. Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-61830693786095010332018-08-15T08:46:00.000-04:002018-08-16T00:18:44.906-04:00Proposed Housing Caps in Prince George’s New Zoning Code Threaten Mixed-Use Development<head><meta name="keywords" content="county council, density, housing, mixed-use, Prince George's, TOD, transit-oriented, zoning"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="To be successful, Prince George's new mixed-use zones need more housing density."><base target="_blank"></head><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4100/5610615716_40f5897d19_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="428" data-original-width="640" height="214" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4100/5610615716_40f5897d19_z.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/plainurban/5610615716/">Plainurban</a> on Flickr</td></tr>
</tbody></table>As part of its effort to create a new, modern zoning ordinance to replace its bloated and antiquated half-century-old code, Prince George’s County is proposing a series of new mixed-use zones to encourage more development around transit. That’s good news—but if these new zones are going to thrive, they need to include more homes.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://princegeorgescountymd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3482803&GUID=0ABC9FC5-E9D8-4850-A8A5-3C1CDC0D6CE3&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=">current legislative draft</a> proposes five mixed-use “Transit-Oriented/Activity Center” zones, all of which encourage walkable urbanism and transit-oriented development at varying scales. These zones “strongly encourage” mid-rise (generally three to seven stories tall) mixed-use buildings, with apartments or condos located above shops, businesses, or offices.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the county is also proposing restrictive caps on the number of dwelling units allowed in mixed-use zones. If developers are not able to include enough housing in their projects to get a good return on their investment, it will be nearly impossible for them to justify the higher costs and greater hassle of constructing mixed-use buildings in the county. <br />
<br />
<b>The Region is Looking for More Homes, Not More Offices</b><br />
<br />
As a result of prevailing market forces in the Washington region, Prince George’s is not likely to see many mixed-use buildings with multiple stories of office space above retail in the foreseeable future—particularly outside of its three “downtown” Metro station areas at Largo Town Center, New Carrollton, and Prince George’s Plaza. <br />
<br />
The region’s office market is already significantly oversupplied, and its <a href="https://wamu.org/story/18/04/05/d-c-area-ton-vacant-offices-built/">14.2% office vacancy rate</a> is among the highest in the nation. Businesses and organizations are increasingly requiring fewer square feet per worker than they did in the past. Open floor plans, use of electronic data over paper files, and the increasing popularity of telework are all shrinking offices.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfflzPUArUjY_BzDVCfBdpweFl9RGzYVgjFTQ1GFdtHnmWAHUmlLZPUzKU676Hxs6mBsUidoNcGhrdG_DOtfzXvgSJDgOWl0M42CxKhbUnzFofGi-0B7UHvHZutxhTbInKGbeUKG0oWbwq/s1600/Office_Space_Available.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="336" data-original-width="555" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfflzPUArUjY_BzDVCfBdpweFl9RGzYVgjFTQ1GFdtHnmWAHUmlLZPUzKU676Hxs6mBsUidoNcGhrdG_DOtfzXvgSJDgOWl0M42CxKhbUnzFofGi-0B7UHvHZutxhTbInKGbeUKG0oWbwq/s400/Office_Space_Available.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/22711505@N05/16957617821/">Ron Cogswell</a> on Flickr</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
For these reasons, the success of Prince George’s efforts to bring more mixed-use, transit-oriented development into the county will hinge on its ability to encourage developers to focus on building apartments and condominiums over lower-floor retail and office uses. <br />
<br />
Fortunately, there is a <a href="http://cra.gmu.edu/pdfs/studies_reports_presentations/Multifamily%20Housing%20in%20the%20DC%20Region_Final.pdf">significant unmet need</a> in the region for multifamily housing near transit, particularly for millennials and seniors. In addition, a <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/38268/its-about-to-get-easier-to-build-mid-rises-in-dc">recent change in the International Building Code</a> now allows developers to build five- or six-story wood-framed mixed-use buildings over a concrete podium of one or more stories, up to 85 feet high. Using wood framing on the upper levels of mid-rise buildings, rather than steel or concrete, helps to bring down construction costs. The concrete podiums can accommodate ground-floor shops, offices, or parking.<br />
<br />
<b>The Housing Caps in the New Code Could Scare Off Developers</b><br />
<br />
Ironically, although the stated goal of the new zoning ordinance is to facilitate more mixed-use development, the housing caps proposed in the new code are actually more restrictive than the ones in the current code. <br />
<br />
For example, in the Local Transit-Oriented (LTO) zone, where half of the county’s 15 Metro stations will be located, housing densities are capped at 40-60 dwelling units per acre. Essentially that means that in a modest mid-rise building on a one-acre lot, with four stories of apartments over one story of retail, the apartment or condo units could be in excess of 2,500 square feet each! That’s bigger than the median size of newly constructed <a href="https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html">single-family detached homes</a>, which is 2,426 square feet.<br />
<br />
Density caps are a bit larger within a quarter mile of the Regional Transit-Oriented (RTO) zones, where the larger downtown Metro stations will be. But even those densities—ranging from 80-120 dwelling units per acre—are not conducive for the type of high-rise development contemplated for those zones.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrzGGYE-FU4Peu4G-u_XgDcqRFwQTjYDUkM-W-REAQ0uP-TnkZ2zhGpHeHXTQ92UUrremz1wSnb6eeEpUHRRN6kfeHrsDWgnK2hFnRRdwbfpV7uU8NK1Unqo0LGZP8DW2gQI55wkIJb0_J/s1600/Palette_Hyattsville.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="943" data-original-width="1339" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrzGGYE-FU4Peu4G-u_XgDcqRFwQTjYDUkM-W-REAQ0uP-TnkZ2zhGpHeHXTQ92UUrremz1wSnb6eeEpUHRRN6kfeHrsDWgnK2hFnRRdwbfpV7uU8NK1Unqo0LGZP8DW2gQI55wkIJb0_J/s400/Palette_Hyattsville.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Palette at Arts District Hyattsville. Image from Google Earth.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
To give a real-world example, consider <a href="http://www.paletteapts.com/">The Palette</a>, located in Arts District Hyattsville. This mid-rise mixed-use building has four stories of apartments over a multi-story concrete podium containing parking. Its site plan states that there are 198 multifamily units of varying sizes in the building, which sits on a 1.85-acre lot. That creates a residential density of 107 dwelling units per acre. <br />
<br />
Under the newly-proposed mixed use zones, The Palette could neither be built in Arts District Hyattsville nor near most of the county’s non-downtown Metro station areas, because the development would exceed the applicable density caps.<br />
<br />
Remember, even on a one-acre lot, it would be possible to build 200 apartments at 750 square feet each in a mid-rise, four-over-one-story mixed-use building. That is larger than most one-bedroom apartments currently built in this region. Alternatively, a developer could build 125 units at a more generous 1,200 square feet each, which is roughly in between the <a href="https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html">nationwide median square footage</a> for multifamily rental (1,088 SF) and multifamily for-sale (1,494 SF) units.<br />
<br />
Check out <a href="http://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/17NW05-SMITH-Multi-Story-Podiums-WSF-170425.pdf">this PowerPoint</a> by architect Tim Smith to see other examples of attractive mid-rise mixed-use buildings at densities over 100 dwelling units per acre.<br />
<br />
<b>The County Can Easily Fix This</b><br />
<br />
A recent <a href="http://zoningpgc.pgplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Summary-Memorandum-Prince-Georges-County-Developer-Interviews-Report-FINAL-FINAL_3_28_17.pdf">county-commissioned survey of developers</a> found that the county’s comparatively low property values, <a href="https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22472/School-Facilities-Surcharge-and-Public-Safety-Fees-Adjusted-PDF">high development impact fees</a>, and cumbersome development review processes combine to make Prince George’s one of the most expensive places to build in the region. Likewise, even with the recent changes in the International Building Code discussed earlier, mixed-use development is still much more expensive to accomplish than traditional suburban sprawl. Imposing these low housing caps will only make it harder and less economically feasible for developers to build in the county.<br />
<br />
Prince George’s has been working for nearly four years to develop this new zoning ordinance. It will bring a lot of <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/67632/prince-georges-county-could-have-a-brand-new-zoning-code-but-its-off-to-a-r">essential changes to the county</a>, and there is no reason why the county cannot pass this legislation this fall. Before it does so, however, the county should amend these mixed-use zones to allow more housing units to be built in mixed-use developments.<br />
<br />
One solution would be for the county to eliminate the caps altogether in the new mixed-use zones. <a href="https://library.municode.com/nc/charlotte/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_APXAZO_CH9GEDI_PT12TRORDEDI">Charlotte’s mixed-use TOD zones</a> take this approach by imposing minimum, but not maximum, residential density requirements.<br />
<br />
Another approach (one that <a href="http://www.bradleyheard.com/Downloads/TOD/20180618_Ltr_to_PGC_Council_COW_re_CB-13-2018_(Corrected)_Redacted.pdf">I urged the County Council to adopt</a>) would be to calculate both residential and non-residential density limits based on a more flexible <a href="https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report111.htm">floor area ratio (FAR)</a> standard, <a href="https://dcoz.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcoz/publication/attachments/Subtitle%20G_1.pdf">which is what DC does</a>. This allows developers to divvy up the available square footage into the number of homes and shops that makes the most market sense.<br />
<br />
With the housing density caps proposed in the new zoning ordinance, it is reasonable to anticipate that many profit-minded developers may simply choose not to build mixed-use buildings in Prince George’s County. The County Council should fix this.<br />
<br />
<i>The County Council is still taking comments on the proposed zoning ordinance. If you would like to weigh in with your thoughts on this or other issues, you may submit your written comments <a href="http://mailto:ZOR@co.pg.md.us/">by email</a> or via regular mail addressed to the Clerk of Council, CAB - 2nd Floor, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Dr, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ggwash.org/view/68697/prince-georges-new-mixed-use-zones-need-one-thing-more-homes" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="50" data-original-width="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqc-8G2Hjrhm8y0C10GDrkS4T4i3qEof68iSEnBSq_SupfuhyphenhyphenHgY-qkiPQasyo028OTZpTM3WUQhqj2ge1fMftr33Cox9HskDxfBVgwZ7_sT23RM7JrSGGocBTPjyRq9cUUDtYpkdjfHY4/s1600/GGWash_150x150.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<i>A version of this post appeared on <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/68697/prince-georges-new-mixed-use-zones-need-one-thing-more-homes">Greater Greater Washington</a>.</i>Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-4150267555524732402018-06-26T08:20:00.000-04:002018-06-27T21:47:32.158-04:00Residents Want to See Development at Deanwood Metro<head><meta name="keywords" content="Deanwood, development, Metro, parking lot, TOD, transit-oriented, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Residents want to see a grocery-anchord mixed-use development on the Deanwood Metro Station commuter parking lot."><base target="_blank"></head><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSrf_CEh5WAF7tQhryk7UhscGP27iBxt1B4fu2TtFHfVPkR1usYIQbB59EA9rAaV7KQ8zOlw-3V7pM-iijcdgVdkG5hwrCvVjfJY774seXmnXKAAIlpQbt-IgbV36fLQnmE3hjwLvi-5mT/s1600/Deanwood+Metro+Station2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="931" data-original-width="1559" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSrf_CEh5WAF7tQhryk7UhscGP27iBxt1B4fu2TtFHfVPkR1usYIQbB59EA9rAaV7KQ8zOlw-3V7pM-iijcdgVdkG5hwrCvVjfJY774seXmnXKAAIlpQbt-IgbV36fLQnmE3hjwLvi-5mT/s400/Deanwood+Metro+Station2.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Deanwood Metro Station Parking Lot. Image by Google Earth.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
WMATA held a public hearing last week on <a href="https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/projects/deanwood-joint-development-project.cfm">its proposal</a> to eliminate the commuter parking lot at the Deanwood Metro Station and offer the 1.6-acre site for potential joint development. The public’s message to Metro was clear: they want to see mixed-use development on that site, but it needs to be the kind of the development that responds to the needs and desires of the <i>current</i> community, first and foremost.<br />
<br />
As I discussed earlier this month in <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/68005/metro-wants-feedback-on-its-potential-development-by-the-deanwood-station">my post on Greater Greater Washington</a>, the transit agency attempted to market this site twice before, in the late 1990s, but received no interest from developers. Now, nearly 20 years later, Deanwood is getting a lot of developer interest—so much so that residents are complaining about unsolicited knocks at the doors of their homes from speculators looking to buy their property. <br />
<br />
About 75 community members from the District and neighboring Prince George’s County packed the meeting room at the Deanwood Recreation Center to participate in Wednesday’s hearing. WMATA’s <a href="https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/projects/deanwood-joint-development-project.cfm">public hearing docket</a> describes a possible joint development scenario that would contain 160 multifamily dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of retail space. However, the selected developer would ultimately be responsible for proposing the actual type and scale of development and then obtaining the necessary approvals from the District of Columbia government.<br />
<br />
<b>Community’s Vision: Grocery-Anchored Retail and Market-Rate Housing</b><br />
<br />
Based on the residents’ comments at the hearing, WMATA’s initial vision for the redeveloped Deanwood Metro parking lot may be a tad too small. In particular, residents wanted to see a larger retail component than the 10,000 square feet that Metro envisioned. Nearly all of the speakers stated that they wanted to see a full-service grocery store as part of this development, along with other neighborhood-serving commercial uses such as a coffee shop, bank, and perhaps a medical office. Likewise, Ward 7 councilmember and former mayor Vincent Gray has been a fierce advocate for <a href="http://eastoftheriverdcnews.com/2017/09/13/gray-takes-safeway-to-task/">more and better quality grocery stores</a> in the area. According to <a href="https://www.fmi.org/our-research/supermarket-facts/median-total-store-size-square-feet">industry estimates</a>, the median size for a grocery store in 2015 was 42,800 square feet. <br />
<br />
Another longtime Deanwood senior citizen resident said it would be nice for the development to have a neighborhood bar/restaurant where younger professionals could gather for a nice meal or a happy hour. At the same time, residents did not want a retail mix that would encourage excessive noise generation in the neighborhood. Also, while most commenters supported the complete elimination of the Metro commuter lot, as Metro is proposing, many felt that DDOT would need to step up its enforcement of neighborhood parking restrictions, to keep street parking available primarily for the use of area’s existing residents and guests. <br />
<br />
Most commenters stressed that the residential component of the Deanwood mixed-use development should focus on market-rate housing units, rather than income-restricted affordable housing units. They believe that Deanwood already has some of the most inexpensive market-rate housing in the Washington region and that Ward 7 has seen a number of new mixed-used, mixed-income developments constructed near the Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road Metro stations that primarily consisted of affordable housing units. Including more market-rate housing in this development would support the new retail development that the community wishes to see, commenters said.<br />
<br />
<b>My Proposed Development Scenario Largely Parallels the Community’s Vision</b><br />
<br />
As a resident of the demographically similar inner-Beltway portion of Prince George’s County that borders Ward 7, I concur with many of the Deanwood residents’ views and expressed concerns. Accordingly, <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sl6fT9M6n8IqDDT40gSoTQmsozZRQHNS/view">my written comments to WMATA</a> propose a joint development scenario for the Deanwood Metro parking lot that largely incorporates those ideas.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgdn9qfEuIOsQHNm9dskxb8zlvC-I9EgrqLM2RgjNrqaNN-gzp1AAa-VYIPB7PGGSUupiF4cE_BoQBHRNa0i383p9EqbTpcrkn8jBF6p_cf_kacB3VoqqNuI_HsT4c3utxrUOytA0zN9yf/s1600/JenkinsRowDC.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="851" data-original-width="1559" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgdn9qfEuIOsQHNm9dskxb8zlvC-I9EgrqLM2RgjNrqaNN-gzp1AAa-VYIPB7PGGSUupiF4cE_BoQBHRNa0i383p9EqbTpcrkn8jBF6p_cf_kacB3VoqqNuI_HsT4c3utxrUOytA0zN9yf/s400/JenkinsRowDC.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Jenkins Row - A Grocery-Anchored Mixed-Use Development</i></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Near Potomac Ave Metro. Image by Google Earth.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Like WMATA and the Ward 7 Economic Development Advisory Council, I believe the Deanwood Metro site can support “medium-density residential/low-density commercial” development. The District of Columbia’s Comprehensive Plan defines “medium-density residential” as “midrise (typically four- to seven-story) apartment development,” and “low-density commercial” as one- to two-story commercial uses.” WMATA’s proposed development scenario falls on the low-end of that scale; mine falls toward the upper end.<br />
<br />
My proposal would use <a href="http://handbook.dcoz.dc.gov/zones/mixed-use/mu-6/">MU-6 zoning</a>, a medium/high-density mixed-use zone that focuses on residential development but that also allows for up to 139,392 SF of non-residential development on the Deanwood Metro site. That is more than enough room for the 50,000 SF grocery store (with pharmacy, bakery, deli, ready-to-eat foods, beer/wine, and a coffee shop), 17,500 SF of additional retail uses, and 54,000 SF underground parking garage with 150 spaces that I propose.<br />
<br />
With respect to the residential component, I echo the community’s belief that the development should focus on market-rate housing units. Nevertheless, I believe that it is appropriate and <a href="http://handbook.dcoz.dc.gov/zones/mixed-use/mu-6/">consistent with smart growth principles</a> to include some affordable housing units near every transit station. Therefore, my proposal calls for 325 total multifamily units, with 20% of them as affordable units—i.e., 260 market-rate units (284,250 SF) and 65 affordable units (63,750 SF). Even with this number of affordable units, my proposal contains at least 100 more market-rate units than WMATA’s original development concept. <br />
<br />
<b>Let WMATA Know What You Think Before July 2</b><br />
<br />
WMATA is accepting public comments on its Deanwood Metro joint development proposal until 9:00 am Monday, July 2, 2018. It is important that the agency hear your views. <br />
<br />
You can <a href="https://deanwoodcommentform.questionpro.com/">submit public comments online</a>—either in a text box or there is an option to upload a PDF file—or via mail to the Office of the Secretary, WMATA, 600 5th St NW, Washington, DC 20001. Remember to include the docket number (R18-01) in your correspondence. Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-52398266929345222312018-05-14T12:16:00.000-04:002018-05-16T08:44:44.091-04:00Seat Pleasant Plans for a Smart and Excellent Future<head><meta name="keywords" content="development, Eugene Grant, M-NCPPC, Maryland, planning, Prince George's, Seat Pleasant, TOD"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Seat Pleasant, Maryland, is developing an exciting master plan to guide the city's future growth, economic development, and prosperity."><base target="_blank"></head><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB7TNjs1jVKlE8Q0BQipeJSqdSqdUAB2tD30rl1RYtjgVUQRRcUCLfVq4z5adu738ce7Q5U5AhCVtP0YQ2QJzxlTnvORESrb7FdNj-wbPrOtR6XapNO9MFrbHqh5GmLMIWmslIHMt3Mpn4/s1600/Seat+Pleasnt+City+Hall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="210" data-original-width="554" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB7TNjs1jVKlE8Q0BQipeJSqdSqdUAB2tD30rl1RYtjgVUQRRcUCLfVq4z5adu738ce7Q5U5AhCVtP0YQ2QJzxlTnvORESrb7FdNj-wbPrOtR6XapNO9MFrbHqh5GmLMIWmslIHMt3Mpn4/s320/Seat+Pleasnt+City+Hall.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The small-yet-spunky city of Seat Pleasant, Maryland, located on the District of Columbia border in central Prince George’s County, touts itself as a “Smart City of Excellence.” In keeping with that moniker, city officials are embarking on a master planning process designed to help determine how and where the city should grow and develop over the next generation. <br />
<br />
The city recently hosted an impressive community charrette to give stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in with their views on Seat Pleasant’s future. Approximately 60 people came out to the meeting, held on May 9 at the Seat Pleasant Activity Center. About half of the attendees resided outside of the city limits—which isn’t so surprising given the city’s small population (4,700) and small land area (less than 0.75 square miles). There were a mix of older and younger stakeholders present, and everyone seemed invested and engaged in the process. Roger Weber, a senior urban planner in the Washington, DC, office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, facilitated the charrette.<br />
<br />
Notably, this master planning process is being commissioned by the Seat Pleasant municipal government and not by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC), the bi-county state planning agency that operates in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties. Unlike in other counties in Maryland, municipalities in these two counties do not possess independent planning and zoning authority, so official community plans must be developed by MNCPPC and approved by the relevant county council. Nevertheless some of these municipalities still choose to develop their own independent advisory plans, so that they may better help to shape the relevant MNCPPC community plan. Such “ground-up” planning is especially helpful for communities like Seat Pleasant, where MNCPPC has not updated the official small area (or “sector”) plan in more than 18 years.<br />
<br />
<b>A City of Substantial Resources and Daunting Challenges</b><br />
<br />
Founded near the turn of the 20th century as one of the county’s early streetcar suburbs, Seat Pleasant has an enviable array of physical and natural resources. The whole town is within easy walking or biking distance of two Blue/Silver Line Metrorail stations (Addison Road-Seat Pleasant and Capitol Heights). Most of the city’s residential neighborhoods are laid out in a grid, on quiet tree-lined streets with single-family homes. There is a huge park in the center of town and several nearby indoor recreation centers. Two major state highways—Central Avenue (MD 214) and Martin Luther King Jr. Highway (MD 704)—run through the city, and the city’s main commercial corridors are located next to those two highways. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrEgaMaoKVEo-iEa-3-CJaMn6c8hh0oMybD8pezShyphenhyphenWAvMItuTw23cR7TB7SejpyZ9C-DfLVBAoW5I04ypXgjdecpP_MDufQJ-ot7J143z7ZYIAd5LGV61fidTNt_Wf4pooEemdhqZsr_3/s1600/20150502_152827.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrEgaMaoKVEo-iEa-3-CJaMn6c8hh0oMybD8pezShyphenhyphenWAvMItuTw23cR7TB7SejpyZ9C-DfLVBAoW5I04ypXgjdecpP_MDufQJ-ot7J143z7ZYIAd5LGV61fidTNt_Wf4pooEemdhqZsr_3/s400/20150502_152827.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Residents celebrate at Seat Pleasant's Goodwin Park. Image by Author.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Arguably, the city’s most valuable natural resource is its acres upon acres of vacant or underutilized land within proximity of Metro and along the two state highways. This land is ripe for redevelopment and, if properly honed and leveraged, could be the key to the city’s economic prosperity in the years ahead.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Seat Pleasant has a number of challenges. It is currently one of the most racially homogeneous and socioeconomically distressed communities in Prince George’s County and the Washington Metropolitan Area. Its population is 86% African American and 9% White, with 12% of the total population identifying as Hispanic. According to the Census Bureau’s 2012-2016 American Community Survey, the city’s median household income ($51,930) is only 68% of the county’s ($75,925) and 55% of the metropolitan area’s ($93,804). Similarly, the city’s poverty rate (15.7%) is 61.9% higher than the county’s rate (9.7%) and 86.9% higher than the metropolitan area’s (8.4%). Median home values in Seat Pleasant ($175,000) are 67% of the county’s ($261,400) and 45% of the metropolitan area’s ($387,400). Finally, the city’s educational attainment rate, as measured by the percentage of the population who have bachelor’s degrees or higher (15.2%), is only 48% of the county’s (31.5%) and 31% of the metropolitan area’s (49.4%). <br />
<br />
The age and diversity of Seat Pleasant’s housing stock is also at somewhat of a disadvantage relative to Prince George’s County and the Washington metropolitan area. Of the 1,814 housing units in the city, only 159 (8.7%) have been built since 1980, and virtually none since 2009. Additionally, only 71 units (3.9%) are in large multifamily buildings with more than 10 units, whereas such buildings constitute approximately 25% of the housing stock in the county and the region.<br />
<br />
In his introductory remarks at the charrette, Seat Pleasant’s mayor, Eugene W. Grant, identified a couple of other challenges for his city: a lack of new, modern retail and commercial development and an exodus of existing large merchants. It has been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1986/08/07/seat-pleasant-gets-one-stop-shopping/20c7e641-77aa-40ba-8c43-c318e8c4cac1/">more than 30 years</a> since the opening of the city’s most recent and largest commercial development, the Addison Plaza Shopping Center, located just off of Central Avenue about a quarter-mile from the Addison Road Metro Station. Two years ago, that shopping center <a href="https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Amid-Food-Desert-Seat-Pleasant-Loses-Grocery-Store-385265081.html">lost its major anchor tenant</a>, a Safeway grocery store. Although other retailers eventually filled that space, the lack of a convenient grocery store was a huge loss to the Seat Pleasant and Capitol Heights communities.<br />
<br />
Seat Pleasant is not alone in its struggles. Indeed, planners at MNCPPC noted in the 2010 Subregion 4 Master Plan for central inner-Beltway Prince George’s County that current socioeconomic conditions in the area placed it at a tipping point of instability. “Unless the cycle of disinvestment is reversed through an intervention strategy,” the county noted, these communities “will not recover.”<br />
<br />
<b>The Goal: Shared Prosperity and Non-Displacement</b><br />
<br />
The current master planning effort in Seat Pleasant is part of the city’s intervention strategy for reversing the cycle of disinvestment within its borders. Through the plan, the city hopes to define more clearly where and how it would like the city to grow and redevelop. Presumably, this will also help guide city decisionmaking as to where to direct future municipal infrastructure investments.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd6_Ous42HSe4t6AssuNegIvKeDtLJEdrUIJtfMjxQu2f5f6TWYmVbvCZWD4PiPfZc5YEHm2xB3ZhFs7cCSFc5wfsZzl2T5nwndUIwIda2e8wC2ymAVZLvy8Vn2y9r1oiXI-W2KDozdmYl/s1600/20180509_192105.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd6_Ous42HSe4t6AssuNegIvKeDtLJEdrUIJtfMjxQu2f5f6TWYmVbvCZWD4PiPfZc5YEHm2xB3ZhFs7cCSFc5wfsZzl2T5nwndUIwIda2e8wC2ymAVZLvy8Vn2y9r1oiXI-W2KDozdmYl/s400/20180509_192105.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mayor Eugene W. Grant and planner Roger Weber. Image by Author.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Mayor Grant is steadfast in his determination that any future economic prosperity in Seat Pleasant must inure to the benefit of current city residents first and foremost. He noted in his introductory remarks at the charrette that he welcomes the day when a new and demographically diverse group of residents come to call Seat Pleasant home; however, he doesn’t want their arrival to come at the expense of the city’s current inhabitants. In particular, the mayor noted with pride that many of the city’s senior citizens have invested in and contributed to the city for more than 30 years, and that these longtime residents deserve to see a return on their investment.<br />
<br />
To be sure, the influx of more affluent residents (of whatever race) and the resulting increases in property values—what people commonly call “gentrification”—can sometimes be a challenge for communities like Seat Pleasant. The fear is that the increase in wealth will drive existing residents out. But the research shows that such fears <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html">are typically overblown</a>. The greater risk for communities like Seat Pleasant, as MNCPPC and <a href="http://dillonm.io/articles/Cortright_Mahmoudi_2014_Neighborhood-Change.pdf">other researchers</a> have noted, is that the cycle of disinvestment in these communities will continue, and that these communities will eventually wither into intractable concentrations of poverty.<br />
<br />
As the comments in the charrette revealed, current Seat Pleasant residents want what most communities want: well-stocked grocery stores, sit-down restaurants, and other crucial neighborhood-serving retail; safe, well-lit, walkable, and bikeable communities; a variety of housing and employment options; and recreational and cultural amenities. To get these things, the city will need to significantly increase its population, provide more modern multifamily housing close to transit, and improve its overall economic demographic profile. There is no reason the city cannot accomplish these things in a manner that doesn’t displace current residents. Indeed, those current residents will be able to share in the city’s new prosperity—and deservedly so.<br />
<br />
In a future post, I will explore one particular opportunity site near the Addison Road Metro Station that could be a strong catalyst for Seat Pleasant’s future economic development. In the meantime, the city’s planning contractors will continue to hammer out a broader vision for Seat Pleasant’s future. Mayor Grant stated that he would like the planners to present a full report to him and the city council no later than July.<br />
<br />
<b>What are some of your ideas for how Seat Pleasant can best grow and develop in the next several years? What do you think are the best redevelopment opportunity sites in the city? Let us know in the comments!</b><br />
<br />
<i>This post has been updated to fix typos and correct Census data calculations.</i><br />
Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-71434329989694563022017-10-06T08:43:00.000-04:002017-10-06T08:43:07.653-04:00When Will Prince George’s Pull the Plug on Dead Development Projects?<head><meta name="keywords" content="county council, development, Maryland, planning, Prince George's, Smart Growth, sprawl, TOD, transit-oriented"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Prince George's County has a lot of long-ago-approved-but-undeveloped projects in the pipeline. It needs to let them die and instead start planning for transit-oriented development around its Metro stations."><base target="_blank"></head><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEoGiRKYIXz9eW6Fbxkpyt0QQKmsvba3QDeDbsEy0aGd_h0zM8JXHTBlNtiII2guj1gyL5wTfRq5qAYsnqZbHS9vKHFRSwZ0LK_dgaygYV2UH5vbuJac56X16Nk04iHCNTYBhVD7R2CpYY/s1600/I_See_Dead_Development.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="276" data-original-width="450" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEoGiRKYIXz9eW6Fbxkpyt0QQKmsvba3QDeDbsEy0aGd_h0zM8JXHTBlNtiII2guj1gyL5wTfRq5qAYsnqZbHS9vKHFRSwZ0LK_dgaygYV2UH5vbuJac56X16Nk04iHCNTYBhVD7R2CpYY/s320/I_See_Dead_Development.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>If a development project was approved for construction prior to the Great Recession, but it still hasn’t been able to get off of the ground yet, isn’t it time to acknowledge that the project is just…dead? Well, yes, obviously! So why does the Prince George’s County Council have so much trouble letting go of these projects?<br />
<br />
Again this year, as it has since 2009, the council has introduced legislation that would prevent approved-but-unbuilt development projects from expiring until at least December 31, 2018. Ordinarily, under county law, most new subdivision plan approvals are valid for only three years, and most site plan approvals are valid for only two years.<br />
<br />
Most of the county’s backlog of deadwood development projects consists of large single-family detached residential subdivisions located outside of the Beltway and far away from transit. These are exactly the types of suburban sprawl projects that the county’s own planners <a href="http://www.planpgc2035.com/sites/default/files/documents/Where%20and%20How%20We%20Grow%20Policy%20Paper.pdf">have concluded</a> are harmful. <br />
<br />
According to planners, this glut of existing and planned low-density residential development makes it harder for the county to develop at the appropriate densities around its 15 Metro stations. That, in turn, puts the county at a competitive disadvantage with both millennial and older homebuyers who are <a href="http://www.constructiondive.com/news/how-transit-oriented-developments-are-transforming-us-cities/435276/">looking for walkable urban development</a> close to transit and with nearby amenities. <br />
<br />
Additionally, studies show transit-oriented development (TOD) is a <a href="http://washington.uli.org/tod/release-new-report-asserts-transit-oriented-development-provides-fiscal-benefits-local-governments/">more fiscally sustainable</a> form of development. Thus, the county council would do well to encourage new TOD projects around Metro, rather than clinging to far-flung sprawl projects in places that look like this:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/paytonc/21929710380/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="500" height="223" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/683/21929710380_c046baa559.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by Payton Chung</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Moreover, there is no longer any market need for the county to keep extending the expiration dates on these long-stalled projects. The Great Recession has been over for quite some time now, and housing prices continue to rise in Prince George’s County. Indeed, County Executive Rushern Baker <a href="http://www.capitalgazette.com/bowie_bladenews/news/ph-ac-bb-housing-numbers-0518-20170515-story.html">recently celebrated</a> the county’s <i>61 percent increase</i> in property values since 2010.<br />
<br />
Lest you think that there’s no harm in extending the approvals on these dead projects, think again. Keeping old development projects in the pipeline significantly distorts the county’s true development landscape. That’s because the county still has to act as if all of the approved and unexpired development will in fact get built. <br />
<br />
This means the county needs to plan and budget for more roads, water and sewer lines, schools, fire stations, and other public facilities to accommodate planned growth that has little possibility of ever happening. It also means new developers might be required to contribute to that new infrastructure, when it may not even be necessary for their particular projects. That puts an unnecessary burden and expense on new and otherwise viable projects, which ultimately discourages quality developers from building in the county.<br />
<br />
The council will hold a public hearing on the latest extension bills, <a href="https://princegeorgescountymd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3156824&GUID=8887200C-6EC6-4022-89D8-74BE2EA16225&Options=ID|Text|&Search=">CB-97-2017</a> and <a href="https://princegeorgescountymd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3156825&GUID=1D039593-5F37-4AF6-82AF-B59BE1646151&Options=ID|Text|&Search=">CB-98-2017</a>, on Tuesday, November 7, at 10:30 am. Please show up to testify and also <a href="http://pgccouncil.us/27/The-Council">contact the councilmembers</a> to let them know your position on these bills.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-20965003177211871802017-10-02T11:04:00.000-04:002017-10-20T16:21:30.286-04:00Is Bias Tainting Prince George's Amazon HQ2 Bid?<head><meta name="keywords" content="Amazon, bias, College Park, David Iannucci, development, Greenbelt, Maryland, Morgan Boulevard, New Carrollton, Prince George's, Rushern Baker, structural racism, TOD, transit-oriented, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Implicit Bias and Structural Racism appear to taint Prince George's County's Amazon HQ2 Bid."><base target="_blank"></head><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5d7smsmRFcpx4Lj5z9AxR9JScFzFfyZnI2uFnvlXmtZH47V_z-5e7S82RD4Kqiiq-4ejYj8JEchy1AD-x_b9uZYPfwm6bD_9DpFJmV3lH4LLN9q38finO1-gFZ_h6dfE9uRZhTLMgAZSK/s1600/Amazon_NorthPGC_2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="274" data-original-width="500" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5d7smsmRFcpx4Lj5z9AxR9JScFzFfyZnI2uFnvlXmtZH47V_z-5e7S82RD4Kqiiq-4ejYj8JEchy1AD-x_b9uZYPfwm6bD_9DpFJmV3lH4LLN9q38finO1-gFZ_h6dfE9uRZhTLMgAZSK/s320/Amazon_NorthPGC_2.png" width="320" /></a></div>Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker <a href="https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=921">recently identified</a> three Metrorail station areas as potential locations for Amazon’s new “HQ2” headquarters complex. All of them are in the northern part of the county, even though 10 of the county’s 15 Metro stations are located in the less affluent and more heavily African American portions of the county, south of U.S. Route 50. <br />
<br />
One such downcounty site—the Morgan Boulevard Metro station area in central Prince George’s—<a href="http://pgurbanist.blogspot.com/2017/09/bring-amazons-hq2-to-prince-georges.html">seems to meet more of Amazon’s requirements</a>. Yet, it didn’t make the county executive’s list. Could implicit bias and structural racism be clouding county officials’ judgment in these types of economic development and land use decisions?<br />
<br />
Baker proposed the College Park, Greenbelt, and New Carrollton Metro station areas as potential HQ2 locations. David Iannucci, Baker’s assistant deputy administrator for economic development, stated that these three north county sites “offer[ed] Prince George’s County its best chance to compete for Amazon’s headquarters” based on the factors set out in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/AmazonHQ2-RFP">Amazon’s RFP</a>. In particular, Iannucci touted the locations’ proximity to the University of Maryland campus and the presence of interested developers.<br />
<br />
<b>What Does Amazon Want?</b><br />
<br />
As relevant here, Amazon says it needs (1) a huge amount of space (2) with direct access to mass transit and (3) not more than 2 miles from a major highway (4) that is immediately available for development beginning in 2019. The company envisions that its HQ2 site will have 50,000 employees and occupy 8 million square feet of space at full buildout. While the space need not be contiguous, Amazon specifies that recommended sites “should be in proximity to each other to foster a sense of place and be pedestrian-friendly.” <br />
<br />
Although Amazon states that it “may consider” sites with existing buildings that could be retrofitted or expanded, it clearly provides that it “will prioritize certified or shovel-ready greenfield sites and infill opportunities with appropriate infrastructure and ability to meet the Project’s timeline and development demands.” The ideal greenfield site would have approximately 100 acres of developable space, according to the company.<br />
<br />
<b>Do the North County Sites Fit the Bill?</b><br />
<br />
Do Baker’s three selected north county sites best match up to Amazon’s RFP? Let’s take a look.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5xYfICFpnoka2ENRudQSf_CFLHBBiHJkNFbGeNRQNjn_oNCB-5SEyuo5uiqmWIaFcSnGyxw-bwtbBPn8DlJ44CqR70k4aVbLnsHLIVvmV1jU5cy0m2k6RQFJz8fqWrPS5dtgtbJT4O4oS/s1600/HQ2_CollegePark.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="814" data-original-width="628" height="586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5xYfICFpnoka2ENRudQSf_CFLHBBiHJkNFbGeNRQNjn_oNCB-5SEyuo5uiqmWIaFcSnGyxw-bwtbBPn8DlJ44CqR70k4aVbLnsHLIVvmV1jU5cy0m2k6RQFJz8fqWrPS5dtgtbJT4O4oS/s400/HQ2_CollegePark.png" width="450" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">College Park Metro Area. Image by Prince George's County.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
The proposed College Park site, shown above, is an amalgamation of scattered parcels cobbled together to form approximately 128 acres. Most of the parcels already have buildings with active uses on them, which is clearly not the greenfield development scenario Amazon prefers. Additionally, portions of the site, such as the 25-acre Discovery District parcel in the northwest corner of the picture, are nearly a mile away from the Metro station by foot. That’s well outside the half-mile/ten-minute-walk station area. Finally, the site is more than three miles from the Beltway, which exceeds the maximum two-mile distance stated in Amazon’s RFP.<br />
<br />
The Greenbelt Metro station area (not pictured), which the county had recently been marketing for the <a href="http://wapo.st/2tR2M0V">now-stalled new FBI headquarters project</a>, has an approximately 80-acre surface parking lot that could potentially be available for immediate development. However, while the site is adjacent to the Capital Beltway, there is currently no convenient or direct access from there to the southbound inner loop of the Beltway. The Maryland State Highway Administration is <a href="http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/webprojectlifecycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=PG3332116">nearing completion of the design phase</a> for a reconstructed Beltway interchange, but it has not been funded or scheduled for construction and, therefore, won’t be ready by 2019. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqBTpEfAI6Izr-f5ogzbMa1BCD-6sUxFcpqi0QrP9fKQlBZnNvKoXj9pS1fftgP3FizGe0Bn-12-3hXjWavDseM6iQuRIvOBl3Wpkc-p37ets7_b4rmjdQe704ZHD9wIjWw_Uu7h_RBEux/s1600/HQ2_NewCarrollton.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="876" data-original-width="881" height="447" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqBTpEfAI6Izr-f5ogzbMa1BCD-6sUxFcpqi0QrP9fKQlBZnNvKoXj9pS1fftgP3FizGe0Bn-12-3hXjWavDseM6iQuRIvOBl3Wpkc-p37ets7_b4rmjdQe704ZHD9wIjWw_Uu7h_RBEux/s400/HQ2_NewCarrollton.png" width="450" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">New Carrollton Metro Area. Image by Prince George's County.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
The proposed New Carrollton Station area, pictured above, promises Amazon more than 300 acres of developable space around the Metro/MARC/Amtrak/Bus station. The problem: pretty much none of that space is currently available—including an occupied residential condominium complex north of the station, an occupied office park south of the station, and adjacent WMATA and state-owned property on both sides of the station that is already <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" ref="http://pgurbanist.blogspot.com/2015/04/strolling-through-downtown-new.html">promised to another developer</a>. Additionally, because the space at New Carrollton is bisected by the Northeast Corridor rail lines, it would require construction of massive and expensive roadway infrastructure over the rail lines to make the area pedestrian friendly. None of those roads has been designed, engineered, or funded.<br />
<br />
Thus, while each of these north county sites has great transit-oriented development (TOD) potential, none of them quite meets Amazon’s RFP requirements. <br />
<br />
<b>What About Morgan Boulevard?</b><br />
<br />
Now let’s take a look at Morgan Boulevard. According to the county’s own estimate, this area (pictured below) has more than 225 acres of developable land within a 10-minute/half-mile walk of the Metro station.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=19rwc5T78T0VVTms0mIs8YuyvDbQ&usp=sharing" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="856" data-original-width="1298" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEIu0Xc27nVnN8xI2bBJ7jfC9DV-HdLeQqTyBUfXo4CpUgM-7xx1-8eyaxba9DOJhTXSr2kpNOy3HD5fqRdDWILI5bjmoRAit5B_C53WLIgebtaZ7ut30H0dy_isyTWCRQf5xyBraRa6q6/s400/MorganBlvdStationArea.png" width="450" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Morgan Boulevard Metro Area. Interactive Map by Author.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
More than half of that land is currently vacant, appropriately zoned for commercial development, and not otherwise committed to another massive project. Moreover, most of the vacant land closest to the station is owned by WMATA, which is <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2017/09/26/now-metro-is-jumping-into-the-hq2-competition-but.html">actively supporting</a> joint development opportunities with Amazon.<br />
<br />
Additionally, unlike the north county station areas that the county recommended, Morgan Boulevard is connected to <i>two</i> Metrorail lines (Blue and Silver), providing direct transit access to downtown Washington, Reagan National Airport (and eventually Dulles International Airport), the Virginia Railway Express, and most of Northern Virginia. It is also within a mile of the Capital Beltway. <br />
<br />
In other words, Morgan Boulevard appears to meet all of Amazon’s needs—and certainly does so to more of a degree than the three north county sites.<br />
<br />
<b>Is Bias to Blame for the Downcounty Snub?</b><br />
<br />
So why did County Executive Baker not propose Morgan Boulevard for Amazon’s HQ2 site? When first asked, Iannucci simply asserted that the station area “did not rise to the level of” the northern county sites and “did not address enough of the RFP requirements” that Amazon put forth. Those excuses quickly fell apart when Iannucci was asked to identify the specific RFP deficiencies and to give concrete examples of how Morgan Boulevard supposedly did not match up to the north county locations.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, Iannucci settled on the nebulous explanation that while the Morgan Boulevard station area met all of Amazon’s RFP requirements, the county nevertheless declined to recommend it as a potential HQ2 site because the Baker administration did not believe the area possessed a strong enough “potential to be transformed into the type of urban complex that Amazon apparently seeks.”<br />
<br />
In other words, the Baker administration essentially refused to advocate for the centrally located Morgan Boulevard station area, even though it checked all of Amazon’s boxes, and instead chose to support three north county locations that plainly did not match up as well, if at all. <br />
<br />
It’s true that Morgan Boulevard is located in a less affluent part of the county with a larger African American population. But do those socioeconomic and demographic factors trump any specific set of criteria articulated by Amazon and render Morgan Boulevard unworthy of consideration? Apparently so, in the minds of county officials.<br />
<br />
When socioeconomic and demographic factors work to rob an otherwise qualified community of the opportunity to compete on fair and equal terms for a prized transit-oriented economic development opportunity, it’s often because the people making the decision are being negatively impacted by the dual scourges of <a href="http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/">implicit bias</a> and <a href="http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/taylor01.pdf">structural racism</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaKKcIxjNA4MDs3Wr6z0JhlCYe9NyKGfB3RZ9SB25MDsCwlo13On0DZ_vrod9RMoVxeCI9wyTthg-i0fafBee1WoQkRQV-rG6eNSqjJhFCJcTO2UwkuSiPfAVw5lnSN4liH08NTXz2f6GY/s1600/Structural_Racism_Def.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="552" data-original-width="1370" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaKKcIxjNA4MDs3Wr6z0JhlCYe9NyKGfB3RZ9SB25MDsCwlo13On0DZ_vrod9RMoVxeCI9wyTthg-i0fafBee1WoQkRQV-rG6eNSqjJhFCJcTO2UwkuSiPfAVw5lnSN4liH08NTXz2f6GY/s400/Structural_Racism_Def.png" width="450" /></a></div><br />
It matters not that Prince George’s County is a majority African American county, or that County Executive Baker is an African American man. Internalized biases can be pervasive and toxic, even when the decision maker is a member of the affected minority or class group. <br />
<br />
In order to combat implicit bias and structural racism, one first must be willing to acknowledge their existence, and then not be afraid to call them out if they are present. This is true for county administrators and citizens alike. <br />
<br />
We must be willing to question and challenge the bases and motives underlying TOD site selections like these that unfairly exclude two-thirds of the transit station areas in the county, even when many of those stations would objectively meet the applicable site selection criteria.<br />
<br />
<b><u> UPDATE (10/20/2017)</u></b>: According to a press release issued yesterday, County Executive Baker added a fourth north county site in his official Amazon submission. That site, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502481.html">Konterra Town Center East</a>, is a shining example of the county's failed economic development strategy, which often prioritizes outer-Beltway sprawl development over bringing <i>transit-oriented</i> development to the county's 15 Metro stations (again, two-thirds of which are in central and south county). Konterra indeed has the space Amazon may want, but it doesn't have direct access to a Metro station--a major requirement stated in Amazon's RFP for its HQ2 site. That county officials apparently value Konterra over a south county site like Morgan Boulevard, which meets all of Amazon's requirements, demonstrates how strong the north county bias is.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-51705698147810149802017-09-11T13:08:00.000-04:002017-09-11T13:08:09.502-04:00Bring Amazon’s “HQ2” to Prince George’s County<head><meta name="keywords" content="Amazon, DC, economic development, headquarters, HQ2, Maryland, Morgan Boulevard, MWCOG, Prince George's, Washington, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Amazon should pick the Morgan Boulevard Station area in central Prince George's County for its second North American headquarters, HQ2."><base target="_blank"></head><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kiewic/36394484471/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="293" height="250" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4441/36394484471_f3e967cc2b.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Amazon's Seattle HQ. Photo by Kiewic.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Online retail giant Amazon is shopping around for a second headquarters location in North America that is transit-adjacent and has enough land to accommodate up to 50,000 employees. The Morgan Boulevard Metro station area in central Prince George’s County, Maryland, could be a very viable contender in the National Capital Region.<br />
<br />
Amazon’s <a href="http://tinyurl.com/AmazonHQ2-RFP">bombshell solicitation</a> dropped early Thursday morning. The company wants to create a co-equal headquarters—dubbed “HQ2”—in a large metropolitan area with more than a million people and with ample access to a talented technical/professional workforce. The ideal campus site would be adjacent to mass rail transit, within two miles of major highways and arterial roads, within 30 miles of a population center, within 45 minutes of an international airport, and large enough to accommodate 8,000,000 square feet of office space at full buildout. In terms of urban design, Amazon is prioritizing walkability, sustainability, and internet connectivity.<br />
<br />
The company plans to invest over $5 billion in the lucky community over the initial 15 years of the project, and it wants to move quickly. To that end, Amazon is prioritizing sites that are already zoned for commercial and mixed-use development and that have the requisite utility infrastructure in place. They also want the permitting process to be quick. And, of course, they also want to know what incentives the jurisdiction is willing to offer for this huge opportunity.<br />
<br />
<b>Think Regionally, Not Locally</b><br />
<br />
Naturally, large urban areas across the United States and Canada will all be clamoring for Amazon’s attention. Several pundits, <a href="http://brook.gs/2vKx6bK">including Brookings</a>, place the Washington Metropolitan Area high in the rankings of possible contenders. Already, <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2017/09/07/greater-washington-turns-giddy-over-amazon-hq2.html">several area jurisdictions</a> have expressed interest, but the question is whether and how these jurisdictions will be able to put their parochial concerns aside and advocate in the best interests of the Washington region as a whole. <br />
<br />
Amazon has requested that each metropolitan area coordinate with its respective jurisdictions and submit one consolidated RFP response that identifies the best suitable sites that the region has to offer. All proposals are due October 19.<br />
<br />
If there is to be any hope of the region’s jurisdictions acting as a team, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (<a href="http://www.mwcog.org/">MWCOG</a>) and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (<a href="http://www.wmata.com/">WMATA</a>) probably should take the lead in preparing the regional submission to Amazon. These are the bodies usually charged with setting and articulating regional priorities.<br />
<br />
<b>Morgan Boulevard Station Checks All of Amazon’s Boxes</b><br />
<br />
Setting aside all the jurisdictional posturing, there are really precious few locations in the Washington region that have existing rail transit access, land area, and proximity to downtown Washington, DC, that Amazon’s HQ2 proposal requires. The Morgan Boulevard Metro Station area in central Prince George’s County is one of them. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=19rwc5T78T0VVTms0mIs8YuyvDbQ&usp=sharing" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="827" data-original-width="1306" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYx6T0pYrMnGcn9CjRDFu3zS-VI07TLzb1aXyYuk-QicKgur7Yv-RJb-Q3EPKQ-SlHNrEvdAaQ2fBcRE8Bo35F8wvTcDoMZCrgqnWj6cHkzYomZNoSvaeEhhM6yONVmENnf1DVN8FeOgBP/s400/MorganBlvdStationArea.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Morgan Blvd Station Area. Click for Interactive Map.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Morgan Boulevard easily meets all of Amazon’s location criteria. As you can see from the purple and brown shaded areas on the interactive map linked above, the station sits virtually undeveloped on 56 acres of land zoned for mixed-use development. It is adjacent to one of the county’s major arterial roads, Central Avenue (MD-214) and within one mile of the Capital Beltway. Additionally, the station is only 9.5 miles and 20 minutes from downtown Washington via Metrorail’s Blue and Silver lines. <br />
<br />
BWI-Thurgood Marshall International Airport is a short 30-45 minute drive away from Morgan Boulevard. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is even closer, and it is directly accessible via Metrorail. Once construction Metro’s Silver Line is complete, Morgan Boulevard will also directly connect to Dulles International Airport. <br />
<br />
Across Central Avenue, slightly southwest of the station and within its half-mile walkshed, sits a vacant 27-acre parcel of commercially zoned land that may be developed with mixed uses. (This is the red shaded area on the map.) This area could provide additional expansion capacity for Amazon in future phases of HQ2’s development. And if that’s not enough, the yellow shaded area directly across Central Avenue from the station provides another approximately 54 acres of industrially zoned space that the county’s land use plans envision for walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented redevelopment.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tape/1111388168/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="179" data-original-width="240" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1017/1111388168_b791f2e21f_m.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by Tape.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Locally, Prince George’s County has begun to improve its historically labyrinthine permitting process around its 15 Metro stations. Amazon would be able to avail itself of the county’s expedited transit-oriented development procedures. <br />
<br />
In terms of financial benefits, Prince George’s County has some of the lowest property values in the Washington region; thus, Amazon would be able to keep its land acquisition costs to a minimum. Also, much of the Morgan Boulevard site is controlled by WMATA or the county, which significantly lessens the need for property assembly. Finally, there are a host of existing incentives available to Amazon from the state and county for developing around Prince George’s inner-Beltway Metro stations.<br />
<br />
The Washington region would be hard pressed to come up with potential Amzaon HQ2 locations that provide more of an all-around good deal than the Morgan Boulevard Metro Station area. At a minimum, this area should be included among the top three sites in any regional RFP response to Amazon.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-79583072463505788452017-05-31T08:23:00.000-04:002017-05-31T08:23:29.335-04:00The Purple Line is Not What Prince George’s Needs<head><meta name="keywords" content="buses, development, FTA, light rail, Maryland, MTA, Prince George's, Purple Line, revitalization, Smart Growth, sprawl, TOD, transit, transit-oriented, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Prince George's County doesn't need the Purple Line light rail. Instead, the county should dramatically improve its local bus system and invest in its existing Metrorail and MARC stations."><base target="_blank"></head><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiukPVDAEAxX8m4gfSnPF4dSRuuEpa2dgFt90069689ky4v8qtlxRsJq5G25ZnaLdWcvlnKqTkXz0YyuhA2B3f9X5SeWUsNiKhFMXqEjkaEddbLpZ1UQw7x8AMGloTgwrZGpqgC7vYflNKU/s1600/No_Purple_Line.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="328" data-original-width="500" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiukPVDAEAxX8m4gfSnPF4dSRuuEpa2dgFt90069689ky4v8qtlxRsJq5G25ZnaLdWcvlnKqTkXz0YyuhA2B3f9X5SeWUsNiKhFMXqEjkaEddbLpZ1UQw7x8AMGloTgwrZGpqgC7vYflNKU/s320/No_Purple_Line.png" width="275" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image adapted by author; original from MTA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>With 15 Metrorail stations and 8 MARC stations, Prince George’s County already has substantial rail transit infrastructure to facilitate tremendous economic growth, walkable urban development, and regional connectivity. Yet, virtually all of these station areas have remained underdeveloped and poorly utilized for decades. <br />
<br />
The solutions to this predicament are multifold, but they certainly do not include introducing 11 new Purple Line light rail stations to the county mix. Instead, the county should invest in a more robust local bus system and in its exiting rail transit station areas.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.purplelinemd.com/en/">Purple Line</a> is a 16-mile, 21-station light rail project proposed by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) to provide more direct east-west connections between Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park, and New Carrollton. Ten of the stations would be in Montgomery County, and eleven would be in Prince George’s. The light rail system would connect to <a href="https://www.wmata.com/">WMATA</a>’s Red, Green, and Orange Metrorail lines, but would not be owned or operated by Washington’s regional transit authority. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/purple-line-case.pdf">Last August</a> and again <a href="http://savethetrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/PurpleLineNewRuling.pdf">earlier this month</a>, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) could not move forward with awarding federal funds to the Purple Line until the agency conducts the requisite study to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). Senior U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon’s orders provide that the SEIS must address what impacts WMATA’s <a href="http://wamu.org/story/16/09/07/metro_continues_steep_ridership_decline_amid_nationwide_trend_of_transit_losses/">continuing ridership decline</a> (<a href="http://wtop.com/tracking-metro-24-7/2017/02/metro-ridership-drops-12-percent-125-million-revenue-shortfall-projected/">including this year</a>) and <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-safety-oversight-washington-metropolitan-area-transit-authority">ongoing safety issues</a> might have on the Purple Line. <br />
<br />
<b>Move Beyond the “Purple Haze”</b><br />
<br />
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, MTA, and <a href="http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Local-Leaders-Urge-Judge-in-Purple-Line-Case-To-Make-a-Decision/">many public officials and citizens</a> in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties were outraged by the court’s rulings, <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/62128/lets-stand-by-the-purple-line">and they fear</a> that the Purple Line project <a href="http://wapo.st/2qTsn7W">may well be permanently derailed</a> by the delays that an SEIS would cause. <br />
<br />
Yesterday, Maryland appealed Judge Leon's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. No one knows yet how quickly the appellate court will rule or whether the state's appeal will ultimately be successful. <br />
<br />
If the Purple Line is indeed dead, perhaps that is a blessing in disguise for Prince George’s County. The Purple Line has always been more of a “purple haze”—an extravagance and distraction that the county does not need and that diverts essential public resources and attention away from the real solutions to the county’s transit and economic development inadequacies.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhWou-ftj4VYpcQhdAg_8no6GeNBZ_EYhMi5TYWyGUsSkpcvfzEkmvvrtJoWBjgftIcod_4H2dot5Po8IfA9q1O6AN98NSrcw-AkdjL3CYqU4imNEoKHNTTXBWgpvO_FwVawe6Sdo-OOLE/s1600/Purple_Haze_Rail.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="500" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhWou-ftj4VYpcQhdAg_8no6GeNBZ_EYhMi5TYWyGUsSkpcvfzEkmvvrtJoWBjgftIcod_4H2dot5Po8IfA9q1O6AN98NSrcw-AkdjL3CYqU4imNEoKHNTTXBWgpvO_FwVawe6Sdo-OOLE/s400/Purple_Haze_Rail.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image adapted by author; original by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelphams/4078674507/">Michael Phams</a> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>This is not to say that light rail is never an appropriate transit solution. Indeed, I have <a href="https://ggwash.org/view/12267/ride-the-tide-of-light-rail-virginia-beach">previously enthusiastically supported</a> light rail expansion in my childhood hometown region. But adding a multibillion dollar light rail system in this particular area of northern Prince George’s County—which is already quite well served by WMATA heavy rail, MTA commuter rail, and regional and local buses—is an imprudent use of public resources. <br />
<br />
(The nonprofit group <a href="http://savethetrail.org/the-argument/">Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail</a> and others have offered <a href="http://on.mktw.net/2bbQJ2g">many reasons</a> why the Purple Line <a href="http://wapo.st/1QUBEzF">also may not be a good deal</a> for Montgomery County, the bi-county region, and the State of Maryland as a whole; but this post is focused specifically on Prince George’s County.)<br />
<br />
<b>Fund a Better County Bus System</b><br />
<br />
If Prince George’s officials are genuinely concerned with improving transit access in the county, the first thing they should do is improve the county’s anemic local bus system. Local and express buses have the capacity to serve even the most densely populated areas in the county that are not already within a half-mile of an existing Metrorail or MARC station. Indeed, buses are better equipped to reach the county’s current scattered population. <br />
<br />
Currently, Prince George’s “<a href="http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/1120/TheBus">TheBus</a>” system has only 28 routes to serve its 487-square-mile area. It generates a meager 3.7 million trips per year, or 4 trips per capita, and does not operate in the late evenings or on weekends. <br />
<br />
By contrast, in similarly-sized and -populated Montgomery County, the local “<a href="https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dot-transit/">Ride On</a>” bus system has 78 routes serving its 494-square-mile area, and generates an impressive 26 million trips per year (with 86,000 trips on a typical weekday), or 27 trips per capita. Even in tiny Arlington County, the “<a href="http://www.arlingtontransit.com/">ART</a>” local bus system has 17 routes covering its 26-square-mile area, and generates 2.8 million trips annually, or 13 trips per capita. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUjQ6srwFw_O_mBCIOmBXT9YAdPxPETvHcoBGWBwnziqsBI4tQoHVKt5TyGFO2qzm7gGXPwOFMvKF3e_q8EJVk-WV8YzLace4SQRHARiapEPpBjzATWbj4YhYG6A0OoS-lFtLx4xpzEv0l/s1600/Comparison_Local_Bus_Service.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="1062" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUjQ6srwFw_O_mBCIOmBXT9YAdPxPETvHcoBGWBwnziqsBI4tQoHVKt5TyGFO2qzm7gGXPwOFMvKF3e_q8EJVk-WV8YzLace4SQRHARiapEPpBjzATWbj4YhYG6A0OoS-lFtLx4xpzEv0l/s640/Comparison_Local_Bus_Service.png" width="550" /></a></div><br />
Prince George’s annual operating budget for bus transit services is approximately $25 million, as compared to Montgomery’s $125 million. Over the next six years, Prince George’s plans to spend only about $2.1 million in capital expenditures on bus transit, as compared to the $98.2 million that Montgomery plans to spend on buses and bus stops alone over that same period.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Prince George’s has agreed to pay <a href="http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2015/08/will-prince-georges-county-pay-purple-line/">$120 million over the next six years</a> toward the construction of the Purple Line, which will run only in a small sliver of the comparatively affluent northern part of the county. <br />
<br />
Stated another way, over the next six years, Prince George’s County is planning to spend <b><i>less than two percent</i></b> of its planned capital investment in the Purple Line on countywide bus transit. This shocking inequity in transit expenditures should have true transit advocates picketing in droves at the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PG_TheBus_at_Morgan_Boulevard_station.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgpDl7_Deleo95gQn_4tJ5RZGSzf0ZL1CCkS_LFQq5iWwoYfWKhp4NHk6A5xRkp_aQ2SkQE3j8yY2y2DWRKaqs-PvDbBIGvYiHdrDXL-1Bp0smb5ES4PKoyrotc3-t3PE08ublyzRCyD99/s320/TheBus3.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by Ben Schumin</td></tr>
</tbody></table>It’s also worth noting that <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/buses-and-bus-facilities-grants-program-5339">federal funding for buses</a> and related infrastructure is available from FTA, at the same 80% match rate as light rail funding. Thus, if Prince George’s focused more of its attention on developing a robust local bus system, it would likely find a willing partner in the federal government.<br />
<br />
Purple Line supporters may rightly argue, “Why can’t we just do both—have the Purple Line and improve our bus system?” Well…we could, in theory. But there hasn’t been much political will over the years to improve the county’s bus infrastructure, so it is hard to see how that resolve would magically appear after the county shells out $120 million for the Purple Line. The better strategy would be to take care of the longstanding countywide need for more and better buses first and then evaluate whether the Purple Line still makes sense.<br />
<br />
<b>Manage Sprawl and Strategically Invest in Existing Station Areas</b><br />
<br />
Similarly, with so many underdeveloped rail transit stations around the county (including in the Purple Line corridor), it strains credulity for officials to suggest that the county needs light rail in order to spur economic development. In fact, according to the county itself, the opposite is true: the Purple Line could actually <i>harm</i> Prince George’s economic growth prospects.<br />
<br />
The county’s current comprehensive plan, <i><a href="http://planpgc2035.com/approved-plan">Plan Prince George’s 2035</a></i>, discusses the somewhat enviable dilemma the county currently faces by having too many mixed use activity “centers,” most of which are located near existing Metrorail stations. The plan contends that having <i>too many</i> centers can actually “undermine economic growth” by spurring scattered development that will make it difficult “to achieve the density, intensity, and form necessary to support successful mixed-use, walkable communities and economic generators” at any one center.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMuqJtn5clwU5K3oTah8LFH4Oh0vWgoEOrECZABbylttMGyNzgFh6zLUihyw8jl41zbNFg_pNGLaOf86E1JuElhgzlIRcjyY-eEGE47MPQxvLBA1my9m-nCJx2aAqd6SSeSwQss_tQ3yx9/s1600/PlanPGC2035_Cover.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1238" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMuqJtn5clwU5K3oTah8LFH4Oh0vWgoEOrECZABbylttMGyNzgFh6zLUihyw8jl41zbNFg_pNGLaOf86E1JuElhgzlIRcjyY-eEGE47MPQxvLBA1my9m-nCJx2aAqd6SSeSwQss_tQ3yx9/s320/PlanPGC2035_Cover.png" width="247" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by M-NCPPC</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Already, without the Purple Line, the county has 28 designated centers, 19 of which are located at existing Metrorail and MARC stations. The county predicts that it will not have enough projected growth over the next 20 years to develop all of those stations. So logic dictates that building 11 new Purple Line stations is actually contrary to the county’s stated land use and growth policies.<br />
<br />
One thing the county could and should do to improve its ability to grow its exiting transit station areas is to <a href="http://bit.ly/1NXC6OP">reduce its pipeline of dead sprawl projects</a> and redirect some of that projected growth capacity to its existing Metro station areas. The county should also take more of a leading role (including financially) in redeveloping and revitalizing its neighborhood-scaled <a href="http://bit.ly/1Fc3THU">gateway station areas</a> near the District of Columbia border. <br />
<br />
Prince George’s future transit prosperity begins not with light rail, but with more local buses—running frequently, on time, seven days a week, and connecting citizens countywide to important county destinations and to the 23 Metrorail and MARC stations already constructed in the county. Likewise, Prince George’s economic development potential does not depend on new light rail transit stations, but rather lies in its existing Metrorail and MARC stations. So instead of brooding over the possible demise of the Purple Line, let's rise up and fight like hell for the county’s true transit and economic development priorities!Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-34628429086474394392017-01-30T11:44:00.001-05:002017-02-01T08:55:30.979-05:00Prince George’s New Planning Director Is Not Actually a Planner<head><meta name="keywords" content="Andree Green,M-NCPPC,planning director,planning board,Prince George's"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="M-NCPPC has selected someone with no formal training or professional experience in planning to serve as the director of the Prince George’s County Planning Department. Here's why that's a problem."><base target="_blank"></head><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw5PNajO2LvBA585GOAFadflCfXPd45aZt_26OhYL7mB0A0gr8x6Pw7rPrReiU7lem_C_B6uv621Mm8WrGLKZiUEA6vr21ZESbdzSNVVCR-1PX0nGyaA-qZ46KOMHCkdD4YwbO8M3tSC9W/s1600/Andree_Green.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw5PNajO2LvBA585GOAFadflCfXPd45aZt_26OhYL7mB0A0gr8x6Pw7rPrReiU7lem_C_B6uv621Mm8WrGLKZiUEA6vr21ZESbdzSNVVCR-1PX0nGyaA-qZ46KOMHCkdD4YwbO8M3tSC9W/s320/Andree_Green.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">M. Andree Green</td></tr>
</tbody></table>In a curious move, somewhat reminiscent of President Trump’s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trumps-cabinet-is-on-track-to-be-the-least-experienced-in-modern-history_us_5836f133e4b000af95edf18c">recent cabinet appointments</a>, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (<a href="http://www.mncppc.org/">M-NCPPC</a>) has selected someone with no formal training or professional experience in planning to serve as the director of the <a href="http://www.pgplanning.org/">Prince George’s County Planning Department</a>. No other jurisdiction in the Washington region has made such a choice, and for good reason: such a decision defies common sense, and it likely contravenes Maryland law.<br />
<br />
Attorney M. Andree Green (Checkley), of Upper Marlboro, began her tenure as Planning Director on January 18. She replaces Dr. Fern V. Piret, who retired after serving 26 years in that position. For the past six years, Green worked as the County Attorney for Prince George’s. Before that, she worked for approximately eleven years in the legal department of M-NCPPC, the quasi-independent state agency responsible for planning, zoning, parks, and recreation in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. <br />
<br />
Without question, Green is an experienced government lawyer, with nearly two decades of experience working in Prince George’s County. But Green is not a planner. She has never worked as a planner as has no educational background in planning. So how and why is she now being paid <b>$192,000 a year</b> to be the county’s Planning Director?<br />
<br />
<b>Green is Unqualified for the Planning Director Position</b><br />
<br />
The Prince George’s County Planning Director is supposed to be an experienced planning professional. The position description for the job, which we obtained from M-NCPPC, states that the minimum qualifications are “<b>at least 12 years</b> of progressively responsible and broad-ranged planning experience that includes four years of planning experience at the managerial level, preferably five years at the department manager level.” <br />
<br />
Green has <b>zero years</b> of professional planning experience, either at the managerial or non-managerial level. The American Planning Association’s <a href="https://www.planning.org/aicp/">American Institute of Certified Planners</a> (AICP) is the national body that verifies and certifies the professional qualifications of planners. According to <a href="https://www.planning.org/aicp/candidate/criteria/">AICP standards</a>, Green lacks even the minimum level of professional planning experience to be eligible to take the certification exam.<br />
<br />
Thus, Green did not meet the minimum qualifications for the job when she was hired. Indeed, Green does not even meet the minimum qualifications for the currently-posted position for <a href="http://agency.governmentjobs.com/mncppc/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=1001447">Deputy Planning Director</a>, which requires 10 years of professional planning experience and preferably two years at the managerial level.<br />
<br />
By contrast, nearly all of the other planning directors in the Washington metropolitan area had more than <b>15 years</b> of prior management-level experience in planning before assuming their respective positions, and most are AICP-certified. <i>[UPDATE: For a comparison of the qualifications of the region's planning directors, see <a href="http://www.bradleyheard.com/Downloads/TOD/Planning_Directors_in_Washington_Metro_Area.pdf">this chart</a>.]</i><br />
<br />
<b>M-NCPPC Likely Violated State Law By Hiring Green</b><br />
<br />
The state law creating M-NCPPC specifically provides that the Planning Director and Deputy Planning Director in Prince George’s County “shall have education or professional experience in a field relevant to the responsibilities of that department.” As judged by the agency’s own criteria, as set out in the job descriptions, Green does not possess the requisite education or professional experience for either position. Therefore, M-NCPPC’s hiring of Green was arguably arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to Maryland law.<br />
<br />
M-NCPPC spokeswoman Andrea Davey stated that the Planning Director position was posted on a variety of websites for approximately three months, from August 2–October 31, 2016, and that a total of four candidates were selected for interview. The agency would not disclose the identity of the other three candidates, citing confidentiality laws. However, Davey did indicate that the agency “did not deem it necessary to employ an executive search firm” in connection with this position. <br />
<br />
Dorothy Bailey, Vice-Chair of M-NCPPC’s Prince George’s County Planning Board and a member of the selection committee, <a href="http://www.pgplanning.org/News/Press_Releases/Current_Releases/GreenMNCPPCDirector.htm">stated</a> that Green was “second-to-none in her commitment to Prince George’s County, and in her know-how of the critical nuts and bolts involved in the planning process.” Board chairwoman Elizabeth M. Hewlett also cited favorably to Green’s “proven managerial experience and keen legal acumen.” <br />
<br />
Green may well be a committed public servant, and she certainly has relevant legal knowledge and managerial experience. But she lacks any prior professional experience or training in planning—and that makes her selection as Planning Director untenable, and possibly unlawful. <br />
<br />
<b>How Can M-NCPPC Fix This?</b><br />
<br />
Green’s employment contract is for two years, and it contains a “sweetheart” severance provision requiring the agency to pay her 12 full months of salary ($192,000) if it breaks the contract without cause. However, M-NCPPC could likely still void the contract without penalty, since Green did not have the requisite experience for the job to begin with. Additionally, the severance provision could itself be unlawful, since state law requires that the Planning Director and Deputy Planning Director shall “serve at the pleasure of the Prince George's County Planning Board.”<br />
<br />
Ideally, M-NCPPC should consider reopening the Planning Director position and conducting a national search for a truly qualified and experienced professional planner with a proven track record in leading a large urban planning department. If possible, Green could be offered another position within the agency that meets with her actual qualifications and experience (e.g., a position in the legal department or in intergovernmental affairs). <br />
<br />
Perhaps more than any other jurisdiction in the Washington region, Prince George’s County needs an experienced and innovative professional planner to lead its planning department—someone who can advocate effectively against the county’s <a href="http://bit.ly/1oIB26i">overdependence on outer-Beltway sprawl development</a>, help develop a workable plan for transit-oriented development and revitalization around the <a href="http://bit.ly/1Fc3THU">neighborhood gateway Metro stations</a> near DC’s border, and oversee the implementation of a <a href="http://zoningpgc.pgplanning.com/">new 21st century zoning ordinance</a>, among other priorities. Let’s hope M-NCPPC will make that happen.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-55533288249593684572016-10-31T08:40:00.000-04:002016-10-31T08:40:23.982-04:00Prince Georgians Should Vote “No” on Question D<head><meta name="keywords" content="at-large, budget, county council, Maryland, Prince George's, Question D, taxes"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Question D is the wrong way to bring at-large council representatives to Prince George's County. Residents should vote NO on the ballot measure."><base target="_blank"></head><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCc-9kkiSe_GZLHI-ANBnNPlngy_Lf8Ixu3EPVrehhgUZHAMV8Aa53wH-BBiLTT9i_p2nO029zrAgWXcjEOQtCaM0fr9vgR5CEoqJRHS_Rik_g-Spa0yhdtiwmyQwnUEH0m4_KbDAsES9x/s1600/Vote_No_on_D_logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCc-9kkiSe_GZLHI-ANBnNPlngy_Lf8Ixu3EPVrehhgUZHAMV8Aa53wH-BBiLTT9i_p2nO029zrAgWXcjEOQtCaM0fr9vgR5CEoqJRHS_Rik_g-Spa0yhdtiwmyQwnUEH0m4_KbDAsES9x/s320/Vote_No_on_D_logo.png" width="320" /></a></div>The Prince George’s County Council could benefit greatly from having some at-large members who could advocate for the interests of the county as a whole, rather than simply focusing on the parochial and sometimes competing interests of the various council districts. But the council’s currently-proposed ballot measure—Question D—is a highly flawed and somewhat pernicious way of accomplishing that goal. <br />
<br />
County residents should therefore vote <b>“No”</b> on Question D in this election, and then work to craft a more sensible proposal for at-large representatives that can be voted on in 2018.<br />
<br />
Question D (CB-40-2016) would amend the county charter to create two new at-large council positions and increase the overall size of the council from nine to eleven members. It would also allow current and future district-based council members who would otherwise be term-limited to be elected to two additional consecutive four-year terms as an at-large representative. In other words, a single person would be allowed to serve for a grand total of 16 consecutive years on the council.<br />
<br />
Whatever one feels about the propriety of having at-large representation on the council, there are enough red flags surrounding Question D to give anyone who knows anything about Prince George’s politics ample reason not to support it.<br />
<br />
<b>Low Public Engagement and High Public Opposition</b><br />
<br />
First, like far too many pieces of consequential and controversial legislation, the county council rushed this ballot initiative through the process with hardly any public engagement. There were no town hall forums held, no informational brochures mailed, and no opportunity for true collaboration with civic and community associations as to whether and how to include additional at-large members on the council.<br />
<br />
Second, at the one public hearing that the council did have on the bill, nearly every ordinary citizen and civic leader who spoke expressed significant opposition to the bill. One of the only civic leaders to speak in favor of the bill was Dr. Douglas Edwards, a longtime resident of the county and current president of a local civic group. Yet, Dr. Edwards—who was not speaking on behalf of his civic group—failed to mention two affiliations that might color his favorable testimony: he is currently (1) the chairperson of the political action committee that is advocating for the passage of this ballot measure and (2) the chairperson of a local nonprofit that receives nearly all of its revenue from the county and from which he earns an annual salary in excess of $73,000.<br />
<br />
<b>Self-Serving Politicians’ Full-Employment Act</b><br />
<br />
Third, it is clear from the <a href="https://princegeorgescountymd.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4573172&GUID=1165DB84-4136-49C6-95FE-875273F46904">text of the proposed charter amendment</a> that the council members had themselves, not the public interest, in mind when they crafted Question D. Why else would they feel the need to specify that the two-term-limit provision that currently appears in the county charter wouldn’t apply to incumbent district-based council members who want to extend their tour of duty on the council to 16 years? The <i>Washington Post</i> rightly <a href="http://wpo.st/nzn92">panned this measure</a> as a “job-protection program—for Prince George’s County Council members.”<br />
<br />
Worse still, the council is trying to mislead the public by <a href="https://princegeorgescountymd.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4573362&GUID=FD1BF5E7-9048-4F73-9409-D1038A0A1588">suggesting in a FAQ</a> that Question D will not change the current two-term limit provision in the county charter. <br />
<br />
Just two years ago, voters <a href="http://fw.to/kURYkEk">rejected</a> another council-proposed ballot measure that would have amended the county charter to allow council members to serve a maximum of three terms instead of two. Why would the council believe there is now public support for a maximum of four terms?<br />
<br />
<b>Funded Almost Exclusively By Developers</b><br />
<br />
Fourth, <a href="http://fw.to/mnkoWGe">like the failed ballot measure in 2014</a>, this year’s Question D is being funded almost exclusively by developer interests. Dr. Edwards’ PAC, the “Committee for Recharge At-Large,” <a href="https://campaignfinancemd.us/Public/CommitteeFiledReports?FileName=CampaignFinanceReport_Public_6e692b2c-1c58-4cc7-b242-4f0e93f07859.pdf&memberID=4734039&memVersID=2&cTypeCode=04">recently reported</a> a total of $35,000 in contributions, all but $500 of which are from major real estate developers in Prince George’s County.<br />
<br />
Those developer contributions were used to fund a <a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/e42f63_b60412fb17784070a1106b2fd3bd08dd.pdf">misleading “2016 Democratic Sample Ballot” mailer</a>—complete with the Democratic Party donkey logo—which suggests that loyal Democrats should vote in favor of Question D. In fact, the Prince George’s County Democratic Central Committee <a href="http://wpo.st/UQo92">expressly declined to endorse Question D</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Million-Dollar Boondoggle</b><br />
<br />
Finally, county officials have determined that the addition of two additional council members and staff would <a href="https://princegeorgescountymd.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4561066&GUID=E4E8F454-398F-471E-A4FA-0FD9A9D4FE74">increase the county’s budget</a> by $1.14 million each year. While this may seem like a relatively inconsequential amount to some, keep in mind that in 2015, the council convened a “<a href="http://pgccouncil.us/487/Blue-Ribbon-Commission">blue ribbon commission</a>” to address Prince George’s County’s projected structural budget deficits. According to that commission’s <a href="http://pgccouncil.us/DocumentCenter/View/1635">preliminary report</a>, the County will already have an annual budget shortfall of between $65 and $250 million beginning in Fiscal Year 2017. Do we really need to add to that looming deficit by creating two additional seats on the county council?<br />
<br />
<b>A More Sensible Approach</b><br />
<br />
Last year, I suggested that <a href="http://bit.ly/1GDLkO8">restructuring the current nine-member county council</a> to include four at-large representatives and five district representatives was a good idea. I still believe that. That is the structure that the <a href="http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/about/index.html">Montgomery County Council</a> currently has, and it has worked well there. <br />
<br />
Several of the citizens who spoke at the public hearing on Question D also stated that they could support the inclusion of at-large council members if they could be accommodated in a revenue-neutral manner, within the existing nine-member framework. District 1 council member Mary Lehman, who voted against authorizing Question D, also would have favored this approach.<br />
<br />
Rather than settling for Question D, Prince George’s residents should instead work to craft a new ballot measure for the 2018 general election that incorporates at-large council members within the existing nine-member framework. If that measure passes, county residents and candidates would have plenty of time to adjust to the new structure, since the next council election would not occur until 2022.<br />
<br />
For now, though, the choice is clear: <b>Vote No on Question D</b>.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-55930433921355087482016-06-18T08:40:00.000-04:002016-06-19T16:10:27.337-04:00Commuters Need More Public Transit Alternatives to Survive SafeTrack Surge #2<head><meta name="keywords" content="commuter, county executive, DDOT, DPW&T, Maryland, MTA, Muriel Bowser, Prince George's, Rushern Baker, SafeTrack, transit, transportation, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="As SafeTrack Surge No. 2 begins, commuters look to local officials to provide needed public transit alternatives."><base target="_blank"></head><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpCWoZPPyufa9Bh_zPzPIYsJsFVwDFwgrqZHeX6OgmeDipjD_j4rPwJPs5zLHASOqmvLmCUQsk51BEwgrNtP3Vxo6pY2a77qcKvjGmtZG0vYcy-0Sc9hXcVPPk6ipqMGpoBqnZldGc0K9e/s1600/SafeTrack_Surge2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpCWoZPPyufa9Bh_zPzPIYsJsFVwDFwgrqZHeX6OgmeDipjD_j4rPwJPs5zLHASOqmvLmCUQsk51BEwgrNtP3Vxo6pY2a77qcKvjGmtZG0vYcy-0Sc9hXcVPPk6ipqMGpoBqnZldGc0K9e/s400/SafeTrack_Surge2.png" width="350" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by WMATA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>As WMATA begins its 16-day shutdown of all Metrorail service across the Anacostia River, it is hoping that 60-70 percent of its ordinary ridership east of the river will simply abandon the rail transit system in favor of alternative modes of transportation. <br />
<br />
That’s not likely to happen, though, unless officials provide more realistic public transit alternatives, such as additional bus shuttles to the Green Line and designated HOV lanes. <br />
<br />
This second safety surge of Metro’s yearlong SafeTrack program of major repairs will run through July 3. During that time, Potomac Avenue and Stadium Armory stations on the Orange, Blue, and Silver (OR/BL/SV) lines will be completely closed. That means the approximately 25,000 commuters in Prince George’s County and in DC’s Ward 7 who normally ride those lines will need to find some other way to get to and from downtown Washington and Northern Virginia.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wmata.com/rider_tools/metro_service_status/advisories.cfm?AID=5582">Metro’s website has compiled a detailed list</a> of the current mitigation plans that WMATA, District, and Prince George’s officials have developed. The plans include 40 shuttle buses from Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road to Eastern Market and expanded Metrobus service on several key routes into the District.<br />
<br />
That's a great start. However, officials readily acknowledge that the current mitigation plans are not sufficient to meet existing demands. They have stressed that <a href="http://wpo.st/5qZg1">commuters should avoid the Metrorail system</a> if they can, particularly during peak periods. They suggest telecommuting, carpooling, and bicycling as potential alternatives, in addition to Metrobus.<br />
<br />
But not everyone can telecommute or change their work schedules, and it’s unreasonable for officials to expect that employers will allow their workers to stay home for two full work weeks. Similarly, biking and carpooling are often not realistic options for many commuters. <br />
<br />
<b>Local Government is Ultimately Responsible for Providing Effective Transit Solutions</b><br />
<br />
Fundamentally, SafeTrack is a <i>public transportation</i> crisis, and it needs a public transportation solution. A mitigation plan that relies on 60-70 percent of the relevant population disappearing from the public transit system for more than two weeks is simply not an adequate or effective plan.<br />
<br />
On Thursday, Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker rightly <a href="http://wtop.com/prince-georges-county/2016/06/hogan-baker-trade-barbs-transportation-priorities-metro/slide/1/">chastised the State of Maryland</a> for not doing enough to help mitigate SafeTrack. Maryland Transportation Secretary Pete Rahn has been noncommittal on what, if any, services and funds the state will offer its DC metro-area counties in connection with these Metro repairs. To be sure, the state’s aloofness in the face of this crisis is troubling. Nevertheless, it can’t absolve the county from taking primary responsibility for providing workable transit solutions. <br />
<br />
For its part, WMATA has consistently stressed that it needs the local jurisdictions to share in the pain of SafeTrack by providing additional resources and coordination—including bus support and traffic controls such as HOV lanes. WMATA is already significantly underfunded by the region; therefore, it is not surprising that it has only limited additional resources of its own to provide.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: County Executive Baker, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, and their respective transportation departments are principally accountable for ensuring that SafeTrack will not cripple their residents. This is a quintessential local public safety and welfare issue that cannot be delegated to anyone else, including WMATA or the State of Maryland. <br />
<br />
<b>We Need Designated HOV/Bus Lanes</b><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/3130185816/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3241/3130185816_7e5a3785a2.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by Oran Viriyincy on Flickr</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Thus far, Mayor Bowser and District Department of Transportation (DDOT) Director Leif Dormsjo <a href="https://wamu.org/news/16/06/16/find_other_ways_to_get_around_monday_metro_and_other_officials_say">have rejected</a> the idea of establishing temporary bus lanes to facilitate bus bridges across the Anacostia River. They claim that such lanes would require more study and might adversely limit lane capacity for other motorists. <br />
<br />
Prince George’s Department of Public Works & Transportation (DPW&T) and the Maryland State Highway Administration are <a href="http://bit.ly/1sLmQO8">similarly leery of HOV lanes</a> along the county's arterial roads, according to DPW&T spokesperson Paulette Jones.<br />
<br />
This is a transportation emergency that calls for transportation officials to make quick and effective decisions, using the best information they have at the time. There is simply no time to do lengthy transportation studies. <br />
<br />
Common sense dictates that the county and the District will need to rely heavily on buses to bridge people around closed Metrorail stations during this safety surge. Accordingly, transportation officials should establish quick ways to move those buses over the roads. The priority should go to buses and carpools, rather than single-occupancy vehicles. Saying that buses will have to wait in traffic is ignoring a problem, not creating a solution.<br />
<br />
<b>We Need Better Green Line Connections</b><br />
<br />
Because Prince George’s County’s seven Green Line stations will remain open and running on a normal schedule during this OR/BL/SV line segment shutdown, it makes sense for the county to leverage those stations to the greatest extent possible. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkYQUP-HjWS0xVqAaqigo6urFzW0TiekELXQBLowzJJPidqRZtTskWV71jj0dr75KbLrb7dONM7xLAfgER0ZMvkN5f1PFHKPQGggyXzsyO1BUI3A2wRWPZUroTG0gbmmgroRX40AcMirhE/s1600/Suitland_Station.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkYQUP-HjWS0xVqAaqigo6urFzW0TiekELXQBLowzJJPidqRZtTskWV71jj0dr75KbLrb7dONM7xLAfgER0ZMvkN5f1PFHKPQGggyXzsyO1BUI3A2wRWPZUroTG0gbmmgroRX40AcMirhE/s320/Suitland_Station.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by WMATA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Right now, DPW&T has no plans to provide bus shuttle service between the Blue and Green lines in the less affluent central part of the county (e.g., from Addison Road to Suitland). <br />
<br />
Yet, on the wealthier northern end of the county, DPW&T has secured 10 charter buses to provide a free shuttle between New Carrollton and Greenbelt. This is a striking inequity that can and should be corrected immediately. <br />
<br />
Similarly, the county should be prepared to establish additional satellite commuter parking and bus shuttles at available locations near Green Line stations if existing station lots fill up. <br />
<br />
All of these measures will empower commuters to make alternative transportation decisions that they otherwise would not be able to. <br />
<br />
County Executive Baker has repeatedly assured the public that the county will do everything it can to assist its commuters during SafeTrack. Now is the time for the county to make good on that promise.<br />
<br />
<center><b>* * * * *</b></center><br />
<b>UPDATE (06/19/2016, 3:55 pm)</b>: Good news! Prince George's County has now decided to add a new, <i>free</i> bus shuttle connecting the Blue and Green lines. The shuttle will run between Largo Town Center and Suitland stations. Ten buses will run during peak hours, and five buses will be used during non-peak hours. See the press release issued earlier this afternoon:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitvE8lK1WbYWiQIcKuIn6cgLzZTV7UqLEQPrpZGO6L6rG0N7cqzH2Ohb-xnqvpzSgX_kNPgegCBpO4MgTYtEc2tf3Fn8MchiXbHSQ_jGv5GSkpzc9o4mV07n-a_ICZZPesby3Zuqv7264_/s1600/20160619_DPWT_Release.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitvE8lK1WbYWiQIcKuIn6cgLzZTV7UqLEQPrpZGO6L6rG0N7cqzH2Ohb-xnqvpzSgX_kNPgegCBpO4MgTYtEc2tf3Fn8MchiXbHSQ_jGv5GSkpzc9o4mV07n-a_ICZZPesby3Zuqv7264_/s400/20160619_DPWT_Release.png" /></a></div><br />
It's unclear why DPW&T chose to run the shuttle from Largo station instead of the much-closer Addison Road station; however, one possible advantage to Largo is that the adjacent and nearly-empty shopping center, the <a href="http://www.shopcapcentre.com/">Boulevard at the Capital Centre</a>, provides the possibility for overflow commuter parking in the event the Largo parking deck fills up. Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-91563509981842751082016-06-13T08:36:00.000-04:002016-06-14T18:33:51.581-04:00Take Two: Prince George’s Develops a SafeTrack Plan After All<head><meta name="keywords" content="commuter, county executive, DPW&T, Maryland, MTA, Prince George's, Rushern Baker, SafeTrack, transit, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Prince George's County finally develops an action plan in response to Metro's SafeTrack repair program."><base target="_blank"></head><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOmJ_ZretaUst5LDG_P8wHclT9Cc3kwsPL-M09i5nqMCnlV0w9BxaE5cLEdbXy7ai4byGjDtXEnCPklUagnaf-R0DgRbZFeqBzYzx1ZnvcrDBTewQJ2Ti-NzPdZ_-EbCOVMb2inzl5qJSv/s1600/Rushern_Baker_SafeTrack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOmJ_ZretaUst5LDG_P8wHclT9Cc3kwsPL-M09i5nqMCnlV0w9BxaE5cLEdbXy7ai4byGjDtXEnCPklUagnaf-R0DgRbZFeqBzYzx1ZnvcrDBTewQJ2Ti-NzPdZ_-EbCOVMb2inzl5qJSv/s320/Rushern_Baker_SafeTrack.jpg" width="250" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">County Executive Rushern Baker. Photo by Author.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>In a welcome reversal of course last week, Prince George’s County officials announced that they had developed a <a href="http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/PublicWorks/Transit/AlternativeCommuting/Documents/DPWT_SafeTrack_Action%20PlanFinal%206%207%2016.pdf">comprehensive action plan</a> to help the county’s public transit riders navigate around the upcoming shutdowns and disruptions of Metrorail service during <a href="http://www.wmata.com/safetrack/">SafeTrack</a>, WMATA’s yearlong plan of major infrastructure repairs.<br />
<br />
Two of Metro’s fifteen planned “safety surges” will most directly impact Prince George’s County commuters. The first will occur on June 18-July 3, when all Metrorail service across the Anacostia River on the Orange, Blue, and Silver lines will be shut down due to the closure of Stadium-Armory and Potomac Avenue stations. The second will occur on November 12-December 6, when there will be continuous single-tracking on the Green and Yellow lines between Greenbelt and College Park stations.<br />
<br />
Earlier, the county’s Department of Public Works & Transportation (DPW&T) stated that it was not able to provide any additional services during SafeTrack and that county commuters would need to <a href="http://bit.ly/1sLmQO8">take it upon themselves</a> to make alternative transportation arrangements. After <i>Prince George’s Urbanist</i> and others decried the county’s initial response and <a href="http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Riders-Concerned-About-Lack-of-Plan-to-Accommodate-SafeTrack-in-Prince-George_s-County_Washington-DC-381828311.html">local media outlets</a> began asking hard questions about the county’s plans, officials began to rethink their approach to this looming transportation crisis. <br />
<br />
“We’re taking this very seriously,” County Executive Rushern Baker declared at last week’s press conference. “We’re going to do everything we can” to help commuters survive SafeTrack safely. Here are some of the particular elements of the county’s mitigation plan, as laid out by DPW&T Director Darrell Mobley:<br />
<br />
<ul><li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Prince George’s will increase local rush hour express bus service on TheBus route 15X, which connects New Carrollton and Greenbelt stations.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">WMATA will have 40 shuttle buses that will operate every 5-10 minutes during peak periods from Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road stations to Eastern Market, with interim stops at Stadium-Armory and Potomac Avenue.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">WMATA will double its rush hour bus service on Metrobus routes 97 (Capitol Heights to Union Station, U Street, Woodley Park, and Tenlytown) and T18 (New Carrollton to Rhode Island Avenue).</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">WMATA will run the Metro Extra express bus route X9 (Capitol Heights to Metro Center via Gallery Place) all day, instead of just during rush hour.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has agreed to provide additional railcars on MARC’s Camden Line.</li>
</ul><br />
In addition to those mitigation efforts, the county is planning a robust public outreach program, including the deployment of “street teams” of DPW&T employees at affected Metro Stations. These teams will directly engage with transit riders and provide them with information on alternative transportation options. <br />
<br />
The county stressed that its mitigation efforts “will not remove inconvenience” related to SafeTrack and are being provided primarily for those who have no choice but to take public transit. DPW&T is urging everyone who can telework, bike, or carpool to work to do so.<br />
<br />
<b>More Mitigation May Be Necessary</b><br />
<br />
County Executive Baker stressed that this initial action plan may need to be adjusted in response to evolving traffic conditions: “We’re going to look at how the situation is unfolding, and we’re going to make the best decision for the residents of Prince George’s County to get back and forth…We’re going to make the adjustments we need to make to make people’s commutes as easy as possible.”<br />
<br />
In the event the county’s mitigation efforts need to be enhanced, officials would do well to consider these specific proposals:<br />
<br />
<ul><li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">The county should run a free shuttle bus between Addison Road and either Suitland or Naylor Road, to provide a safe and reliable connection between the impacted Blue and Silver Line stations and the Green Line.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">The county should establish HOV/bus lanes along selected arterial streets, to facilitate the quick movement of bus shuttles and carpools.</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;">The county may need to arrange for additional satellite commuter parking lots and bus shuttles near southern Green Line stations, in case the parking lots at those stations fill up. Usually, there is excess parking capacity at several of the stations, but that may not be the case during the upcoming safety surge, when Orange, Blue, and Silver line riders may flock to the Green Line as an alternate.</li>
</ul><br />
Without question, the upcoming SafeTrack repairs will be a hassle for all concerned. However, the pain should be a little easier to bear now that Prince George’s County officials are thinking seriously about mitigation efforts. <br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE (06/14/2016 @ 6:20 pm)</b>: DPW&T issued <a href="http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=284">an alert</a> earlier this evening stating that WMATA is calling for a 60-70% reduction in Metrorail transit riders on the OR/BL/SV lines during SafeTrack Surge #2. If that is true, it seems even more likely that Prince George's will need to employ additional mitigation efforts to avoid perpetual gridlock.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-44062036618564564212016-06-01T08:48:00.000-04:002016-06-04T11:11:18.046-04:00Prince George’s Tells Commuters to Fend for Themselves During SafeTrack<head><meta name="keywords" content="Arlington, commuter, DPW&T, Fairfax, Maryland, Paul Wiedefeld, Prince George's, Rushern Baker, SafeTrack, transit, transportation, Virginia, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Prince George's County has no plan for helping its commuters survive Metro's SafeTrack repair program."><base target="_blank"></head><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/russelljsmith/6937010826/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7040/6937010826_5930869908_o.jpg" width="250" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by russelljsmith on Flickr</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Metrorail’s yearlong program of major infrastructure repairs and service disruptions, called <a href="http://www.wmata.com/rail/safetrack.cfm?">SafeTrack</a>, begins June 4. Many area localities have announced details for how they plan to assist their residents with mitigating the impact of this impending transit calamity. But not Prince George’s County.<br />
<br />
The county with the largest number of Metro stations outside of the District of Columbia has told its residents that they should not expect any serious help when WMATA shuts down or curtails its rail services. That decision reflects a colossal failure of leadership and crisis management on the part of County Executive Rushern Baker and the leaders of the county’s Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T). <br />
<br />
“One of the true tests of leadership,” according to the late American businessman and humorist Arnold H. Glasow, “is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.” <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU52RwUS3rfYb_AsFXGRFX55wSpa1JwLbf_4oZc_3Rk8AZJbPi53oLc2lvf_K1dW30lrnydlabVNrcyozjDv4oGLk6WwFduGNoo_cwmsfNUU3pO95nQkCoW0SyhOUOpOYLe_Ez9JEfW8Ie/s1600/WMATA_SafeTrack_Surge_Schedule_Final.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU52RwUS3rfYb_AsFXGRFX55wSpa1JwLbf_4oZc_3Rk8AZJbPi53oLc2lvf_K1dW30lrnydlabVNrcyozjDv4oGLk6WwFduGNoo_cwmsfNUU3pO95nQkCoW0SyhOUOpOYLe_Ez9JEfW8Ie/s640/WMATA_SafeTrack_Surge_Schedule_Final.png" width="500" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from WMATA</td></tr>
</tbody></table>It is readily apparent from even the most cursory review of Metro's SafeTrack surge schedule that the planned repairs to the Metrorail system will cause huge problems for the region’s commuters over the next year. The pain will be particularly acute for Prince George’s commuters between June 18 and July 3, when all Metrorail service across the Anacostia River on the Orange, Blue, and Silver lines will be shut down due to the 16-day closure of the Potomac Avenue and Stadium-Armory stations. <br />
<br />
More than 25,000 riders a day who commute by Metrorail from Prince George’s County and DC’s Ward 7 on those lines will be completely cut off from downtown Washington and northern Virginia during that period.<br />
<br />
<b>County Ignores Metro’s Calls for Additional Help</b><br />
<br />
Metro General Manager Paul Wiedefeld stressed that SafeTrack “will require regional coordination, <b>resources</b>, communication, and <b>shared pain</b>.” Specifically, Wiedefeld requested that local jurisdictions provide additional support and input in the form of “<b>traffic control, parking restrictions, bus support, HOV restrictions, etc.</b>”<br />
<br />
Fairfax and Arlington counties heeded Metro’s call by pledging to provide additional support and resources. Specifically, in response to the first scheduled SafeTrack surge, <a href="http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/safetrack/safetysurgeinfo.htm">Fairfax County</a> will provide supplemental express buses from Reston and Vienna to the Pentagon. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://newsroom.arlingtonva.us/release/arlingtons-response-to-safetrack-surge-1/">Arlington County</a> will use higher-capacity buses on selected routes. Additionally, to facilitate increased Metro and regional buses traveling through the corridor, Arlington will convert some streets to bus-only, eliminate some street parking, and adjust traffic signal operations as needed.<br />
<br />
In stark contrast to its sister jurisdictions, Prince George’s County is doing virtually nothing that Metro has asked it to do. It is making almost no effort to address the very foreseeable problems created by the SafeTrack surges before they become an emergency. <br />
<br />
In effect, the Prince George’s County government is signaling that it doesn’t plan to share in Metro’s pain, or in the pain of the county’s commuters.<br />
<br />
<b>County Doesn’t Appear to Understand Mitigation</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2vWbr0uwesWP00-mNZWekYYgYEh4_5FJiS1Avsy2EIjiuHI3xhF0sX5h0UoNid3AdzBK8W7ErtPuSa0d5zaEIBl9G6P7FnvewditlKOB5twgO4H5lIexBzV1FiJ-QYZ7eJtDiX33HRBM2/s1600/secret_crisis_management_2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2vWbr0uwesWP00-mNZWekYYgYEh4_5FJiS1Avsy2EIjiuHI3xhF0sX5h0UoNid3AdzBK8W7ErtPuSa0d5zaEIBl9G6P7FnvewditlKOB5twgO4H5lIexBzV1FiJ-QYZ7eJtDiX33HRBM2/s200/secret_crisis_management_2.png" width="225" /></a></div><br />
In response to our inquiries regarding the county’s plans for SafeTrack, DPW&T spokeswoman Paulette Jones stated that “Metrorail plays an unparalleled role in regional mobility” and that “Prince George’s County cannot replicate or significantly supplement [Metrorail’s] function” without making dramatic, costly, and inconvenient changes to the county’s current transportation system.<br />
<br />
DPW&T’s Associate Director of Transportation, D'Andrea Walker, added that Prince George's County does not have the same resources as Fairfax and Arlington and that DPW&T cannot afford to do anything other than try to inform residents of alternative transportation options such as ride sharing, teleworking, and working during off-peak hours.<br />
<br />
Sadly, DPW&T is missing the point. No one is suggesting that Prince George’s County can instantaneously <i>replicate</i> Metrorail’s service, even if it had unlimited resources. But it can and should do a better job of <i>mitigating</i> the impact of Metro's service disruptions. And the county can do so without breaking its piggy bank. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy_images/PGCPS/2013/01/147716/155320/pgcps-bus-bill-board_original_crop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="118" src="https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy_images/PGCPS/2013/01/147716/155320/pgcps-bus-bill-board_original_crop.jpg" width="275" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by PGCPS</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
For example, <a href="http://bit.ly/25bTLcU">as suggested earlier</a>, the county could use school buses to provide supplemental shuttle service during the 16-day shutdown period. The Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) Transportation Department maintains a fleet of 1,247 school buses and employs 2,006 drivers and attendants. Those buses will be idle, since school won't be in session. Why can't DPW&T work with PGCPS to place some of those buses, drivers, and attendants into service to assist with SafeTrack mitigation? <br />
<br />
Sure, the county will need to spend some money to run these buses and do the other things required to provide effective mitigation. That's what government has to do when responding to any crisis. We seem to understand that intrinsically when it comes to things like <a href="http://www.gazette.net/gazettecms/story.php?id=2478">snow removal</a>. Well, this is just a different kind of transportation crisis. <br />
<br />
<b>County Argues That HOV Lanes Threaten the Public</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhotzH7PfQ-bHkVKZcnDrlpbzaxkkeO7QX4u1ImE-1O_TUnFZUf_ffM9heBFZ7n_sO6O14uh_0vSRxN0gJIAhcAH3PTkRFe960hkF9zV55XRkE9pyBWz78zDFN5woelsYqkUuvP-Yaibj_v/s1600/HOV3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhotzH7PfQ-bHkVKZcnDrlpbzaxkkeO7QX4u1ImE-1O_TUnFZUf_ffM9heBFZ7n_sO6O14uh_0vSRxN0gJIAhcAH3PTkRFe960hkF9zV55XRkE9pyBWz78zDFN5woelsYqkUuvP-Yaibj_v/s200/HOV3.png" width="200" /></a></div>Incredibly, DPW&T states that it has not explored the option of creating bus lanes on certain arterial roads because it believes such lanes “would dramatically increase congestion, idling time, and pollution within [those] corridors.” That’s nonsense, and DPW&T could not come up with any legitimate facts or studies to support its contention when asked.<br />
<br />
As the graphic below shows, buses transport people much more efficiently than single-occupancy vehicles. And while some have questioned the environmental benefits of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, most <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/High-Occupancy-Vehicle-Lanes">serious studies</a> show that they result in reduced emissions and better air quality.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/facilitybikeclub/8748210426/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="334" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7306/8748210426_6e509cbf48_o.jpg" width="500" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image by Jeff Moser on flickr</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<b>Tell County Leaders We Need a Real Plan</b><br />
<br />
Prince George's County's response to SafeTrack thus far has been abysmal. DPW&T has not even begun to think seriously about how it could actually help solve this transportation dilemma. They have essentially thrown their collective hands in the air and told county residents, "Good luck with that." <br />
<br />
And instead of holding his administrative heads accountable and demanding more from DPW&T, County Executive Baker has been equally dismissive and unhelpful, telling residents they should "be proactive in seeking alternative transportation solutions," all while taking no responsibility for providing any real assistance to the constituents he is charged with leading.<br />
<br />
There is still time for County Executive Baker and DPW&T to come up with real and workable solutions to avoid this looming transportation crisis. The public should make every effort to encourage them to do so. You can help by <b><u><a href="mailto:CountyExecutive@co.pg.md.us?cc=dbmobley@co.pg.md.us,dlwalker@co.pg.md.us&subject=We Need Real SafeTrack Solutions">emailing them directly</a></u></b> with your concerns and/or participating in the Coalition for Smarter Growth's <a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/2041/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18956">SafeTrack email action alert</a>.<br />
<br />
► <b>UPDATE (6/4/2016):</b> After receiving some pointed inquiries from the media in the wake of this post, Prince George's officials are beginning to rethink their original (non-)response to SafeTrack. Take a look at <a href="http://tinyurl.com/glnpod9">this report</a> from NBC Washington's Prince George's Bureau Chief Tracee Wilkins.<br />
Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-62988355074170897532016-05-23T12:18:00.000-04:002016-05-28T13:15:43.479-04:00Metro Shutdowns Will Come Sooner for Prince Georgians<head><meta name="keywords" content="Amtrak, commuter, CSX, DDOT, Deanwood, L'Enfant, MARC, Maryland, Prince George's, Safe Track, SafeTrack, transit, transportation, DPW&T, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Time is running out for local officials to plan for the 16-day planned SafeTrack shutdown of Metro's Orange, Blue, and Silver line service east of the Anacostia River."><base target="_blank"></head><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Vh2_Ud_mXygz0Fh1AKom90nZRY0puwcZiVldx6f-nEnF4p7s_P0Dg2xAoPfTCY6WBFb_p97cV8ubgcLBemMzBrvBNrQ6yPQUQbPzPvD6q75AMtl6hjxeuJjm_HNK-sgmJycx7SAMiJ_x/s1600/SafeTrack_WMATA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Vh2_Ud_mXygz0Fh1AKom90nZRY0puwcZiVldx6f-nEnF4p7s_P0Dg2xAoPfTCY6WBFb_p97cV8ubgcLBemMzBrvBNrQ6yPQUQbPzPvD6q75AMtl6hjxeuJjm_HNK-sgmJycx7SAMiJ_x/s400/SafeTrack_WMATA.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by WMATA.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Under WMATA’s <a href="http://www.wmata.com/Images/Mrel/MF_Uploads/SafeTrack_Public.pdf?">revised SafeTrack schedule</a> issued last week, the 16-day planned shutdown of Metrorail service across the Anacostia River on the Orange, Blue, and Silver (OR/BL/SV) lines will now occur two months earlier—from June 18 to July 3. <br />
<br />
This shutdown, one of 15 planned “safety surges” of major Metrorail infrastructure repairs set to occur over the next year, will cause the greatest disruption to Prince George’s County riders. More than 20,000 people commute daily between Prince George’s County and downtown Washington, DC, or northern Virginia on the OR/BL/SV lines. About 5,000 additional commuters east of the Anacostia River (EOTR) in the District’s Ward 7 also rely on these lines. Thus far, however, county and District officials have not yet communicated any concrete plans for how they will assist these impacted individuals.<br />
<br />
Metro had originally scheduled this shutdown for mid-August. But the agency had to move up this project in response to a <a href="http://wpo.st/6mab1">May 11 directive</a> from the Federal Transit Administration, which told Metro to prioritize certain repairs, including at a junction point on the elevated tracks east of the Stadium-Armory station.<br />
<br />
<b>County and District Officials Must Develop Mitigation Plans Now</b><br />
<br />
With less than a month left before this major shutdown, local officials are running out of time to come up with plans to avoid a major commuter disaster for EOTR residents. We need a strategy, and we need it now.<br />
<br />
Earlier this month, <i>Prince George’s Urbanist</i> strongly urged Metro to work with MARC, CSX, and/or Amtrak to develop a <a href="http://bit.ly/1TxVscL">temporary commuter rail shuttle</a> between Deanwood and L’Enfant Plaza along the old Baltimore & Potomac Railroad lines that parallel parts of the Orange Line. WMATA’s alternate board member for Prince George’s County, Malcom Augustine, <a href="https://twitter.com/AugustineMLA/status/730019536045494273">indicated</a> Metro was exploring this option; however, we have not received any further updates from Metro or MARC officials. Given the newly truncated timeline for this OR/BL/SV segment shutdown, it is unclear whether that shuttle could even be established in time. <br />
<br />
In response to inquiries late last week by <i>Prince George’s Urbanist</i>, a spokeswoman for the county’s Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T), Paulette Jones, indicated that the agency was still reviewing the revised SafeTrack plan but expected to have additional information to share in the coming days. Specifically, we asked DPW&T the following questions (among others):<br />
<br />
<ul><li style="margin-bottom: 10px;"> Has DPW&T been in discussions with the DC Department of Transportation (DDOT) and Maryland’s State Highway Administration (SHA) about coordinating the dedication of bus lanes (e.g., along Central Ave and East Capitol St, Addison Rd and Silver Hill Rd, and Pennsylvania Ave)?</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;"> What is the current capacity of the county’s local bus system (“TheBus”) to provide mitigation during SafeTrack, and has DPW&T explored expanding current capacity?</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 10px;"> Who specifically at DPW&T is coordinating the mitigation efforts?</li>
</ul><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifmuth/5953394016/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6128/5953394016_346f28b3b5.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by ifumth on Flickr.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<b>To Spur Things Along, We Should Also Suggest Ideas</b><br />
<br />
Hopefully, we will have additional information to report from DPW&T soon. In the meantime, perhaps we should help crowdsource some ideas for them. Here are some ideas that immediately come to mind:<br />
<br />
<i>►Direct (Nonstop) Bus Shuttles to Eastern Market Along Dedicated Lanes:</i> DPW&T should urge Metro to alter its current shuttle bus plan so that it provides free direct shuttle service for EOTR commuters between Benning Road or Minnesota Ave stations and Eastern Market station. Currently, Metro is proposing a shuttle that would make intervening stops at Stadium-Armory and Potomac Avenue, which will both be closed for rail service during the shutdown. <br />
<br />
Given the high number of EOTR commuters who will be depending on these shuttle buses, it is highly unlikely that there will be additional space to pick up additional riders at Statium-Armory or Potomac Avenue. Additionally, stopping at these stations will only further delay EOTR commuters from reaching a working Metrorail station. Besides, there are already ample Metrobus routes that can connect riders at those two stations to downtown Washington. And the Potomac Avenue station is also in easy walking or biking distance to the Eastern Market station.<br />
<br />
To facilitate the journey, these buses should travel in dedicated lanes along East Capitol Street, 14th Street, and South Carolina Avenue.<br />
<br />
<i>►Direct Bus Shuttle Between Addison Road and Suitland:</i> In addition to the OR/BL/SV shuttles provided from Minnesota Avenue and Benning Road stations, Metro and DPW&T should establish a free shuttle bus service from Addison Road station to Suitland station. The shuttle should run in dedicated lanes, where possible, along Addison Road South, Walker Mill Road, and Silver Hill Road.<br />
<br />
<i>►Nonpeak Fares For Any Impacted Rail Line</i>: To encourage continued ridership and goodwill, WMATA should waive peak fares for any segment of the Metrorail system that is projected to experience a greater than 20 percent reduction in peak service due to SafeTrack.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/2526693274/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="166" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3024/2526693274_9a8f7b8b16_n.jpg" width="250" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by Chris Devers on Flickr</td></tr>
</tbody></table><i>►Rent School Buses to Increase Capacity:</i> It's not glamorous, but school buses are actually a cheap and effective way of safely transporting people of all ages. They seat as many adults as traditional commuter buses—sometimes more—and are perfectly appropriate for short-distance trips. Many companies have large fleets of charter school buses available for rental. For example, a simple Google search uncovered <a href="http://www.durhamcharterservices.com/">this company</a>, which boasts a fleet of 17,000 buses. If DPW&T and DDOT could rent, say, 100 of these school buses for use during the 16-day shutdown, to augment WMATA's planned 40 additional shuttle buses, EOTR commuters might realistically be able to continue relying on public transit to get to and from their jobs.<br />
<br />
<b><i>What other ideas do you have? Please leave them in the comments.</i></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>(This article was modified on 05/24/2016 to include additional suggestions.)</i></span><b><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></i></b>Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-21328329123380437672016-05-09T08:32:00.000-04:002016-05-28T13:16:20.986-04:00Here's How MARC and CSX Could Help Lessen the Burden of Metro Shutdowns<head><meta name="keywords" content="Amtrak, commuter, CSX, DDOT, Deanwood, Landover Subdivision, L'Enfant, MARC, Maryland, MTA, Paul Wiedefeld, rail, SafeTrack, transit, VRE, WMATA"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="As Metro prepares for massive repairs of its rail system, Maryland and DC officials should seriously consider establishing a temporary MARC commuter rail shuttle route between Deanwood and L’Enfant Plaza via the CSX freight rail lines."><base target="_blank"></head><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/MARC_train_at_Odenton_2.jpg/800px-MARC_train_at_Odenton_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/MARC_train_at_Odenton_2.jpg/800px-MARC_train_at_Odenton_2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by Ryan Stavely on Wikipedia</td></tr>
</tbody></table>The entire Washington metropolitan region let out a collective groan on Friday, when WMATA's new general manager, Paul Wiedefeld, <a href="http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=6103">announced</a> his ambitious plan to repair Metrorail’s aging and <a href="http://wpo.st/RDcY1">increasingly unreliable</a> system over the next year. Deep down, we all know that these repairs absolutely need to happen and that we’ve put them off for far too long. <br />
<br />
But as we begin the hard work of restoring our Metrorail system to its former glory, we also need to make sure that the region’s commuters can continue to rely on other modes of public transit to get them where they need to go reliably and speedily. To that end, one strategy that Maryland and DC officials should seriously consider is establishing a temporary MARC commuter rail shuttle route between Deanwood and L’Enfant Plaza via the CSX freight rail lines. Such a route could greatly alleviate the congestion that Metro riders on the Orange, Blue, and Silver (OR/BL/SV) lines east of the Anacostia River (EOTR) would otherwise experience during the next year.<br />
<br />
<b>Metro’s repairs will significantly impact Prince George’s riders</b><br />
<br />
WMATA’s <a href="http://www.wmata.com/Images/Mrel/MF_Uploads/SAFETRACK-PUBLIC.pdf">“SafeTrack” plan</a> will require complete shutdowns of certain segments of Metro’s 118-mile rail system for weeks at a time. Even when stations aren’t shut down, many will have extended periods of single-tracking or will experience significantly reduced train service levels. Beginning in June and continuing for nearly a year, Metro will carry out 15 of these long-term “safety surge” projects.<br />
<br />
In Prince George’s County, the most significant impact of SafeTrack will occur late this summer, between August 20 and September 6, when Metro plans to shut down OR/BL/SV service between Eastern Market and Benning Road (BL/SV) / Minnesota Avenue (OR). This will sever the Metrorail connection to downtown Washington for nearly half of Prince George’s Metro stations and three of the four Metrorail lines in the county. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMOG4RlvoRNVgnK0oly1hZ56cjEpA6P9QOYqYsmHdz1j1JJDKXF412bxM3ZKdy5_FWXuepR8V8E2wUnVE_QjDNzvbcaBFQdlY-J0pWY8E_oBpnAN_Cg6BDFpgCPmEoJyhg4qoYj1jZCxVN/s1600/Metro_SafeTrack_Shutdown.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMOG4RlvoRNVgnK0oly1hZ56cjEpA6P9QOYqYsmHdz1j1JJDKXF412bxM3ZKdy5_FWXuepR8V8E2wUnVE_QjDNzvbcaBFQdlY-J0pWY8E_oBpnAN_Cg6BDFpgCPmEoJyhg4qoYj1jZCxVN/s400/Metro_SafeTrack_Shutdown.jpg" width="500" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image from WMATA</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Similarly, in November and December of this year and March of next year, Metrorail service on the OR/BL/SV lines EOTR will be significantly reduced because of single tracking and closures on other segments of those lines.<br />
<br />
To help mitigate the impact of the track work and shutdowns, WMATA plans to have 40-50 additional buses on hand to provide alternate service. It will also run more eight-car trains, since service will be less frequent. Finally, Metro has requested the support of the affected jurisdictions (Maryland, Virginia, the District, and the counties and cities where Metro operates) to implement the necessary traffic control measures to facilitate increased bus and private automobile traffic. But is that enough?<br />
<br />
For the types of large-scale, long-term repairs that WMATA is envisioning over the next year, it is going to take more than a few extra buses, dedicated bus and HOV lanes, and traffic cops to avert a commuter crisis. The Chicago Transit Authority, for example, marshaled over 400 buses and had a months-long public outreach campaign before embarking on its <a href="http://wpo.st/_6eY1">five-month shutdown</a> of part of its rail network in 2013. <br />
<br />
Similarly, it may not be realistic to ask governmental and private employers to allow significant chunks of their workforce to work remotely for weeks at a time. Those measures may work for a short-term shutdown, such as the <a href="http://wpo.st/b5eY1">29-hour emergency repair</a> that Metro did in March, but they are not a long-term strategy.<br />
<br />
<b>A temporary MARC shuttle could ease a lot of the pain</b><br />
<br />
Fortunately, the <a href="https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/state-information/washington-d-c/">CSX-owned freight rail lines</a> that parallel the WMATA Orange line tracks EOTR may provide a workable solution. The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), which runs the <a href="http://mta.maryland.gov/marc-train">MARC commuter rail system</a>, could work with CSX, Amtrak, and DDOT to establish a temporary MARC shuttle between <a href="http://www.wmata.com/rail/station_detail.cfm?station_id=65">Deanwood</a> and <a href="http://www.vre.org/service/stations/lenfant/">L’Enfant Plaza</a> from at least August 2016 through April 2017. <br />
<br />
The L’Enfant commuter rail station is currently used by Virginia Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak. A separate branch of CSX railway connects the L'Enfant station to Washington’s Union Station from the south. <br />
<br />
MARC currently serves Union Station via three other routes from the north, including its most popular Penn Line service via Baltimore and New Carrollton, on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. But that existing service is already oversaturated and would not be able to accommodate the masses of additional OR/BL/SV line Metrorail passengers in Prince George's County that will be impacted by the SafeTrack shutdowns.<br />
<br />
Currently, there is no MARC station or platform at Deanwood, but as the pictures below show, there are three CSX freight rail tracks directly adjacent to the northern (inbound) track of the Deanwood Metro station:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicW8PlaPVOMQDHuLTx-06X2ffzSnjsfbLcn20IIAbBlPOvdgcYyNRVlLSIBrMOvwFZB4iqjKxQO3PFc2GH3DDtKqXUSu6PsvgQ6VuI5r_xqnJb1w3cOD4WJUCIPkv52BTGGWO3m6PQdTn0/s1600/Deanwood+Metro+Station.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicW8PlaPVOMQDHuLTx-06X2ffzSnjsfbLcn20IIAbBlPOvdgcYyNRVlLSIBrMOvwFZB4iqjKxQO3PFc2GH3DDtKqXUSu6PsvgQ6VuI5r_xqnJb1w3cOD4WJUCIPkv52BTGGWO3m6PQdTn0/s400/Deanwood+Metro+Station.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Deanwood Metro Station. Image from Google Earth.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAje2sR0AQBhpIxTE2WTqGPU9Gb124pUmVFzqhhyphenhyphenYehTgy5QOo7quWHQubwqAG0w5BYhlTT8vEeZcI2qtO999buHxo5kfGq6iwqqMUKN7dPSHiljL6V2saKxL9L_RwfLFpTgDlks4sipOD/s1600/Deanwood_Metro_3_20160510.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAje2sR0AQBhpIxTE2WTqGPU9Gb124pUmVFzqhhyphenhyphenYehTgy5QOo7quWHQubwqAG0w5BYhlTT8vEeZcI2qtO999buHxo5kfGq6iwqqMUKN7dPSHiljL6V2saKxL9L_RwfLFpTgDlks4sipOD/s400/Deanwood_Metro_3_20160510.jpg" /></a><br />
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Deanwood Metro Station Platform. Photo by author.</td></tr><br />
<br />
</tbody></div><br />
That segment of the CSX freight rail network, called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Subdivision">Landover Subdivision</a>, is not currently used for passenger service, although it was originally the main <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_and_Potomac_Railroad">Baltimore & Potomac Railroad</a> passenger route between Baltimore and Washington, DC. CSX has at times been reluctant to allow passenger service on its freight lines. But in light of the impending regional transportation crisis resulting from WMATA's planned SafeTrack initiative, we should not assume that CSX would not be willing to make the necessary accommodations to allow for passenger service along the Landover Subdivision. <br />
<br />
CSX is a good corporate citizen and has worked with District, Maryland, and federal officials to allow passenger service on its other rail lines in the region. Additionally, under federal law, Amtrak has the ability to prioritize passenger service over any freight rail line, and it could be called in to work with MTA and CSX to establish such temporary regional service in this situation if necessary.<br />
<br />
<b>Establishing temporary MARC service can happen quickly</b><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.compositeadvantage.com/gallery/rail-platform-new-lenox" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/457166/file-2264573055-jpg/gallery/New_Lenox_Station/08-Finished-platform.jpg?t=1462325729441" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This modular platform at a Chicago Metra rail station</td><td class="tr-caption" td=""></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> was erected in three days. Photo by Composite Advantage.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Within a matter of days, MTA could quickly erect a modular platform (like <a href="http://crouchwaterfall.co.uk/2011/praise-from-network-rail/">this</a>, <a href="https://dtjoyce.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/kimg1352.jpg">this</a>, or <a href="http://www.compositeadvantage.com/gallery/rail-platform-new-lenox">this</a>), <a href="http://www.matelmetaal.com/en/portfolio/constructing-temporary-stairs-presikhaaf-station-in-arnhem/">stairway</a>, and ADA-compliant ramp on the northern side of the CSX tracks, <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/XrPtsW5rZW22">at Polk St NE</a>, which is connected to the Deanwood Metro station via an existing underpass. <br />
<br />
Similarly, with a little additional effort, a second elevated platform with stairs and even a <a href="http://reco-lift.eu/en/housing-corporations/reco-lift-pp-5/">temporary elevator</a> could be erected at the southern end of the CSX tracks at the L’Enfant station, <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/SmhemiTBNMs">along Virginia Ave SW</a>, between 6th and 7th Streets, to provide additional capacity for passenger boarding and alighting there. (As an example, look at these great photos of a temporary elevated platform at <a href="http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/pulaski-40th_term.html#temp">Chicago's Pulaski Station</a>.)<br />
<br />
The MARC shuttle could run every 15-40 minutes between Deanwood and L’Enfant, depending on the time of day. Orange line customers could ride the Metro from New Carrollton, Landover, or Cheverly to Deanwood and then transfer to MARC. Blue and Silver line customers could ride Metro to the Addison Road station and then take a free express shuttle bus to the nearby Deanwood station. <br />
<br />
Each of the OR/BL/SV Metro stations in Prince George's has ample commuter parking, which should be free or heavily discounted during this emergency period to encourage commuters not to drive into the District. Similarly, those commuters transferring back into the Metrorail system at Deanwood or L'Enfant from the MARC shuttle should receive a credit for the Prince George's portion of their Metro fare.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://gotrains.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/vre331lenfantbetw12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://gotrains.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/vre331lenfantbetw12.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">L'Enfant VRE Station. Photo by VRE.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
This temporary MARC shuttle could effectively transport thousands of impacted Prince George’s OR/BL/SV line riders per day to and from downtown, and it would do so much more efficiently than 50 additional Metro buses could ever hope to do. <br />
<br />
To encourage ridership, the cost of the MARC shuttle should be minimal (e.g., not more than $2.50 each way, and with eligibility for the $0.50 SmarTrip discount for inter-modal transfers from Metrorail or Metrobus). Conductors should use handheld on-board fare collection devices that allow for customers to pay with their SmarTrip, debit, or credit cards.<br />
<br />
Over an extended period of repairs, such as those we will face during the SafeTrack program, this temporary MARC shuttle could provide a realistic rail alternative that would keep the region’s commuters out of their cars and committed to transit. WMATA and governmental officials owe it to the public to consider these kinds of creative options.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-26287202588777685222016-02-12T01:26:00.000-05:002016-02-23T08:11:38.773-05:00BREAKING: Prince George’s Council Wants Its “Call-Up” Authority Back<head><meta name="keywords" content="call-up, corruption, county council, county executive, Court of Appeals, development, M-NCPPC, Maryland, planning board, Prince George's, Rushern Baker, legislature, zoning"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="Prince George's County Council is seeking to regain discretionary 'call-up' authority over development projects. That's a horrible idea."><base target="_blank"></head><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.freestockphotos.biz/stockphoto/14328" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://res.freestockphotos.biz/pictures/14/14328-illustration-of-a-telephone-pv.png" height="312" width="320" /></a></div>The Prince George’s County Council is asking the local county delegation of the Maryland House of Delegates to pass <a href="http://www.princegeorgeshousedelegation.com/legislation/bill-history?local=PG/MC%20111-16">a bill</a> that would allow the council to resume its destructive practice of interfering with the county Planning Board’s decisions on individual development projects. A subcommittee is <a href="http://www.princegeorgeshousedelegation.com/calendar/agenda?a_id=485">holding <strike>a</strike> another hearing</a> on the bill <b><strike>tomorrow, February 12, at 4:00 pm</strike> on February 18 at 9:00 am</b> in Annapolis, to consider the bill and possibly move it forward for the full delegation’s consideration.<br />
<br />
This bill seeks to overturn a recent <a href="http://bit.ly/1IyCWuH">unanimous decision by Maryland’s highest court</a>, which held that the County Council is only permitted to overturn Planning Board decisions if they lack evidentiary support or are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise illegal. <br />
<br />
The court held that the Planning Board—part of a bi-county planning and zoning agency formally known as the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC)—has the legal authority and responsibility to render final decisions on individual development projects. The County Council, on the other hand, is responsible for appointing the Planning Board members and setting the general zoning and land use regulations that the Planning Board must interpret and apply.<br />
<br />
Prior to last summer’s decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, county council members would routinely use a discretionary “call-up” procedure to force a review of the Planning Board’s rulings on individual development projects, even when no one else complained about them, or even if there was nothing legally wrong with how the Planning Board decided the case. During these reviews, council members would often impose additional conditions on developers, even if those decisions were not required by the Zoning Ordinance, and even if those conditions contradicted the Planning Board’s analysis.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Sometimes council members used the “call-up” procedure in response to complaints from constituents or citizen groups who were dissatisfied with the Planning Board’s decisions. Other times, council members would unilaterally call projects up if they didn’t like them, for whatever reason. And all too often, corrupt council members have historically used this power to exact campaign contributions, political favors, and even under-the-table cash payments from developers, as part of an insidious “pay-to-play” scheme.<br />
<br />
<b>Council “Call-Up” is Bad for County's Development Prospects</b><br />
<br />
Whatever the reasons for its use, the “call-up” procedure renders the county’s development review process arbitrary, uncertain, and usually more expensive—which is the exact opposite of what should be happening if the county wants to attract quality development, particularly around its Metro stations. Many respected developers have refused to consider development opportunities in Prince George’s County because they don't want to be subjected to the political whims of individual council members. And why would they, when they can just go to the adjoining county and have a much more certain understanding of how a development application will be processed?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrAjpmLe9lnAwne40jfvZ39xJy8AoNyritiaMqP72EA2bQImrWFZz7qvAeLueTPRXOoUDavJ4U8Nm8qefRvMNeDFth38ZxKidmWktTiMiAGbIjC-J-56xbAhJyA8rslU0JBG8IMnQ8Zgz0/s1600/PGC_Council_2015.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrAjpmLe9lnAwne40jfvZ39xJy8AoNyritiaMqP72EA2bQImrWFZz7qvAeLueTPRXOoUDavJ4U8Nm8qefRvMNeDFth38ZxKidmWktTiMiAGbIjC-J-56xbAhJyA8rslU0JBG8IMnQ8Zgz0/s1600/PGC_Council_2015.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Prince George's County Council</td></tr>
</tbody></table>The only people who win under the old “call-up” regime are the greedy and power-hungry County Council members, who unfortunately cannot seem to look beyond themselves and make decisions that are in the best interests of moving Prince George’s County forward. Even if the council were motivated solely by a desire to respond to constituents’ concerns about particular developments (which is totally not the case), it’s still a bad idea to reinstate the “call-up” procedure, because of the politicization and arbitrariness it brings to the development process. <br />
<br />
If council members really want to help out constituents and developers alike, they should focus on making the zoning rules clearer, simpler, and easier for the Planning Board and the county permitting office to administer. (This, by the way, is the goal of the <a href="http://zoningpgc.pgplanning.com/">Zoning Rewrite Project</a> that M-NCPPC is currently engaged in.)<br />
<br />
Hopefully Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker will speak out on this and urge the county delegation and/or the legislature to kill this awful bill. Bringing back “call-up” review certainly won’t help his efforts to bring more transit-oriented development to the county’s largest Metro stations, or anywhere else for that matter.<br />
<br />
The county delegation needs to hear from you if you oppose this bill—and you should definitely oppose it! Please reach out to the <a href="http://www.princegeorgeshousedelegation.com/committees/bi-county">subcommittee members</a> and the <a href="http://www.princegeorgeshousedelegation.com/delegates">full county delegation</a> and tell them to <b>reject Local Bill No. PG/MC 111-16 (HB 1025)</b>.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-22112500683991409652016-01-30T09:05:00.000-05:002016-01-30T09:05:01.753-05:00WMATA Gives Pedestrians a Serious Snow Job<head><meta name="keywords" content="Prince George's, Rushern Baker, WMATA, snow, sidewalk"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="As a transit authority, WMATA should know better than most the importance of clearing sidewalks after a snowstorm."><base target="_blank"></head><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIOtmpX3Amr9nPkRBJBh-ow5duOlE9ZcN2QvPcALdOO2YpSxeu6cZwqj22I9BLVoioXfOrP-BQjEYVvOAhS3fiQYtq298V-dwe_-300AdakHJo6nhZ-HvJZRKVWXf3MYUM_0CWkcqH4Jh_/s1600/Addison+Road+Metro+Station.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIOtmpX3Amr9nPkRBJBh-ow5duOlE9ZcN2QvPcALdOO2YpSxeu6cZwqj22I9BLVoioXfOrP-BQjEYVvOAhS3fiQYtq298V-dwe_-300AdakHJo6nhZ-HvJZRKVWXf3MYUM_0CWkcqH4Jh_/s320/Addison+Road+Metro+Station.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Addison Road Metro Station</td></tr>
</tbody></table>If anyone should know the importance of providing safe pedestrian paths to transit stations, it’s a transit authority. But apparently, WMATA can’t be bothered with all that.<br />
<br />
Metro’s Addison Road Station, a Blue and Silver line stop in Prince George’s County, has about a quarter-mile of street frontage on one of the county’s main arterial roads, Central Avenue (MD-214). <br />
<br />
On Friday, January 29—5 days after the last snowflake fell from #Snowmageddon2016—the sidewalks abutting Metro’s property along Central Avenue were still slicked over with snow, slush, and ice. Metro knew it, and customers had complained about it, but the transit agency just didn’t seem to care.<br />
<br />
<b>A Two-Day Quest to Clear Snow from Metro's Sidewalks</b><br />
<br />
I first encountered the problem the day before, on Thursday, January 28, as I was heading back to my office in DC for the first time in nearly a week. As I left my house, which is about a 10-minute walk to the Metro station, I approached Central Avenue with a healthy sense of trepidation about getting to the station safely. That’s with good reason, since <a href="http://ggwash.org/4982">people have been struck by cars and killed</a> in Prince George’s while walking in the roadway to get to a Metro station after a snowstorm, because the sidewalks were blocked with snow. <br />
<br />
When I got to Metro’s property, I expected to be able finally to have a relatively peaceful walk for the rest of my trip, because I just knew the transit authority’s sidewalks would be clear, right? Wrong! The sidewalks were in atrocious condition.<br />
<br />
I alerted the station manager to the situation, and she first told me that it wasn’t Metro’s responsibility to clear the sidewalks. I told her that wasn’t true, that those sidewalks were along Metro’s property line, and that Metro had to clear its walkways just like everybody else. With a somewhat skeptical facial expression, she told me she’d follow up on it.<br />
<br />
Just to be sure, I also went online to Metro’s website and reported the problem myself. And even though I reported it as a safety issue, the automated response I got back from Metro said they would get back to me in 5-7 business days. Because…you know…why would Metro ever need to address a safety problem right away?<br />
<br />
I didn’t return home via Metro that Thursday evening, so my next trip to the Addison Road Station was on Friday morning. To my shock, the sidewalks along Metro’s property were still a mess. The poor lady walking ahead of me in this photo was slipping and sliding all over the place, and I wasn’t doing much better:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGf3uswd9GFYfI3zLSHkHzrIrWYzLZcEpTijmTl2p7m9MwEw2AyY-eCGKsJawL71BZ8m6Z5rk_fKQqLP5JIi6tRFAe7rL02X5_nEaCTb1KVcHwDKXB58EIavIYCOEOTn1EYCbkEjfWoG39/s1600/20160129_114523.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGf3uswd9GFYfI3zLSHkHzrIrWYzLZcEpTijmTl2p7m9MwEw2AyY-eCGKsJawL71BZ8m6Z5rk_fKQqLP5JIi6tRFAe7rL02X5_nEaCTb1KVcHwDKXB58EIavIYCOEOTn1EYCbkEjfWoG39/s320/20160129_114523.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>Once I finally got to the station, I approached the same station manager I had spoken to the previous day and asked her, somewhat incredulously this time, whether she had followed up as she said she would. She said she had, and that it was her understanding that the county or the state was supposed clear the sidewalks. <br />
Seeing that I was getting nowhere with the station manager, <a href="https://twitter.com/BradleyHeard/status/693116224679645184">I tweeted the above picture</a> and tagged Metro, Prince George’s County Executive, Rushern Baker, and a Washington Post reporter.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/Metrobusinfo/status/693118379935297536">Metro replied to the tweet</a> a few minutes later, told me it wasn’t their responsibility to clean the sidewalk, and forwarded me an article about who’s responsibility it was to clean bus stops.<br />
<br />
After clarifying that I wasn’t talking about a bus stop, but rather Metro’s own property, the Metro rep thanked me and tweeted that he would report the problem. <br />
<br />
So when I got back to Addison Road nine hours later, the sidewalk was definitely all clear, right? Wrong! Here’s how it looked on my return trip:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en" style="text-align: center;">And 9 hours later, <a href="https://twitter.com/wmata">@WMATA</a> still hasn't cleaned the sidewalk on its property. Shameful! <a href="https://twitter.com/arelisrhdz">@arelisrhdz</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CountyExecBaker">@CountyExecBaker</a> <a href="https://t.co/PWbzbqoOLj">pic.twitter.com/PWbzbqoOLj</a></div><div style="text-align: center;">— Bradley Heard (@BradleyHeard) <a href="https://twitter.com/BradleyHeard/status/693261140705542144">January 30, 2016</a></div></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wmata.com/getting_around/snow.cfmhttp://www.wmata.com/getting_around/snow.cfm">Metro boasts on its website</a> that it has all the equipment and personnel it needs to handle snowy weather:<br />
<blockquote><i>Metro has nearly 600 pieces of snow equipment available to tackle snow and ice accumulation at stations, rail yards, parking garages, and bus facilities. Hundreds of employees and contractors can be called upon to respond to snow conditions.</i></blockquote>And in fact, there is plenty snow removal equipment at Addison Road Metro Station. I’ve seen it. I saw it yesterday, even. And I know it’s being used, because the parking decks, bus loops, and surrounding vehicle infrastructure at the station are never snowy or icy. Also, the area directly in front of the station entrance is usually well plowed and salted. So why the disconnect with the sidewalks? <br />
<br />
Late Friday evening, County Executive Baker replied to the series of tweets and asked one of Metro’s Maryland board representatives, Malcolm Augustine, to follow up on this matter. Mr. Augustine promptly replied, apologized, and promised to follow up:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><div dir="ltr" lang="en" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://twitter.com/CountyExecBaker">@CountyExecBaker</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/BradleyHeard">@BradleyHeard</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/wmata">@wmata</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/arelisrhdz">@arelisrhdz</a> Thanks for bringing to my attention and I apologize. I will follow up.</div><div style="text-align: center;">— Malcolm Augustine (@AugustineMLA) <a href="https://twitter.com/AugustineMLA/status/693291326184517632">January 30, 2016</a></div></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
I very much appreciate County Executive Baker’s stepping in to address this matter, and likewise appreciate the prompt response of Metro’s board member, Mr. Augustine. But seriously, it should not take the county’s chief executive and a Metro board member’s personal involvement to clear a sidewalk after a snowstorm.<br />
<br />
Metro is required under its interstate compact to comply with local laws, including sidewalk clearing laws. But setting that aside: Metro’s whole <i>raison d’être</i> is to provide and facilitate safe, convenient transit ridership in the region. It should be a community leader when it comes to ensuring that pedestrians can come and go safely to and from their facilities. <br />
<br />
Just as Metro is <a href="http://www.wmata.com/getting_around/safety_security/">recommitting itself to improve safety</a> in its rail and bus network, it must also do a better job in the future to ensure that its stations and surrounding areas, including sidewalks, are safe and accessible to all of its customers.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281743408556899619.post-26986999400584610752015-09-28T13:23:00.001-04:002015-09-29T12:35:10.448-04:00Prince George’s Should Allow Dead Sprawl Projects to Rest in Peace<head><meta name="keywords" content="county council, development, Maryland, Prince George's, planning, PZED, Smart Growth, TOD, transit-oriented"> <meta name="author" content="Bradley Heard"> <meta name="description" content="It's time for Prince George's to clear the pipeline of outer-Beltway sprawl projects and start planning for transit-oriented mixed-use development inside the Beltway."><base target="_blank"></head><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/seamoor/397121016/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/161/397121016_1cdd19dbee.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo by Seamoor on Flickr</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Ever since 2009, the Prince George’s County Council has continually extended the approval periods for unbuilt development projects, mostly consisting of single-family residential subdivisions located outside of the Beltway and away from transit. <br />
<br />
Now, council members are considering legislation that would give these long-dead projects yet another two-year extension, through the end of 2017. It’s time for the council to give up the ghost on these projects.<br />
<br />
Originally, the council granted these extensions to provide temporary relief to distressed developers in the wake of the Great Recession. But the recession is over. And while housing prices <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2015/06/23/heres-how-housing-prices-are-rebounding-in-prince.html">continue to rebound</a> in Prince George’s, there is no current market demand for massive new single-family subdivisions outside of the Beltway. Indeed, buyers are still able to garner great deals on many spacious suburban homes that <a href="http://wapo.st/15CF2hC">went into foreclosure</a> during the housing bust.<br />
<br />
<b>These Zombie Projects Are Clogging the County's Pipeline</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://bit.ly/GzLNUA">As I noted in 2013</a>, it makes no sense for the council to extend the approval windows for these types of scattered sprawl projects. County planners <a href="http://www.planpgc2035.com/sites/default/files/documents/Where%20and%20How%20We%20Grow%20Policy%20Paper.pdf">have already concluded</a> that such development is unhelpful for the county because it makes it “difficult to establish a critical mass of high-density development around any existing Metro station, as envisioned by the General Plan.” <br />
<br />
More importantly, planners note that the county’s continuing lack of focus on high-quality mixed-use transit-oriented development puts it “at a continued disadvantage relative to its neighbors when it comes to attracting residents and employers who value the connectivity and amenities that other such communities provide.”<br />
<br />
Despite those exhortations against sprawl development, the existing pipeline of approved-but-unbuilt projects outside of the Beltway led planners and the council to conclude in its <a href="http://www.planpgc2035.org/approved-plan">current General Plan</a> that the county actually has “too many” Metro stations, even before taking into account the future Purple Line light rail stations, and that developing all of them would “undermine economic growth.” <br />
<br />
But if the council would instead just allow these old projects to die a natural death, the projected pipeline of residential development would dramatically decrease, and the county could readjust its long-term growth projections to include more transit-oriented development inside the Beltway. In particular, the county could decide to direct some much-needed attention toward its <a href="http://bit.ly/1Fc3THU">gateway neighborhoods and Metro stations</a> near the D.C. border.<br />
<br />
<b><u>TAKE ACTION</u></b>: The council’s Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development (PZED) Committee will consider the latest extension bills, <a href="http://lis.princegeorgescountymd.gov/docPopUp.asp?File=CB-080-2015&Type=BILLRES&Action=undefined">CB-80-2015</a> and <a href="http://lis.princegeorgescountymd.gov/docPopUp.asp?File=CB-081-2015&Type=BILLRES&Action=undefined">CB-81-2015</a>, on Wednesday, September 30, at 1:30 pm in Room 2027 of the County Administration Building. You can <a href="mailto:acharrison@co.pg.md.us?cc=jwbrown@co.pg.md.us,bjstone@co.pg.md.us&subject=Comments%20on%20CB-80-2015%20and%20CB-81-2015">use this link</a> to address your comments to PZED Chair Andrea Harrison, with copies to committee director Jackie Brown and committee administrative aide Barbara Stone.Bradley Heardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18178996211570069450noreply@blogger.com7