A Rhetorical Shotgun Blast

A recent post on the Hometown Columbia blog revealed an email circulating throughout the county. For the sake of discussion, the email is reproduced below:

As many of you know developers like GGP are gaining an
increasingly larger control over development in
Columbia, while Howard County Officials and the County
Council have turned a blind eye.
The County Planning Director and her staff have
recently approved several traffic studies that have
mistakes or are simply inaccurate. And even though
county planning staff admitted in internal documents
that the traffic study for the controversial Wegmans
big-box grocery store on Snowden River Pkwy had errors
in it, they refuse to demand a new study from the
 developer. It is no surprise that the county is
 siding with the developer, since it was GGP that
advocated for changing the zoning at this property.
Now GGP will wants us to accept and believe their
traffic studies for downtown Columbia when they won’t
even stand up and ensure that an accurate traffic
study is used on the Wegmans site. Regardless if you
support the proposed grocery store or not, we must all
demand that the county planning staff require honest 
traffic studies and accurate development plans. They
work for us, not GGP and other developers.
Please email or call - Barbara Nicklas and Gregory
Hamm at GGP and ask them to support accurate traffic
studies for downtown Columbia.
Barbara Nicklas - barbara.nicklas@ggp.com (410)
992-6262
Gregory Hamm - Gregory.Hamm@ggp.com
Be sure to include County Executive Ken Ulman’s Chief
of Staff, Aaron Greenfield, so the County knows that
residents are getting tired of the County putting
developers first.
Aaron Greenfield - agreenfield@howardcountymd.gov
Please to forward this email to your friends and
neighbors who care about over development and the
growing traffic problem in Columbia. We have to speak
up or nothing will ever change.

From the first sentence, there is a demonstrated lack of history. When shareholders of the Rouse Company willingly voted to be acquired by General Growth Properties (GGP), the development of properties in Howard County also transferred. In the months preceding the sale to GGP, the Rouse Company was engaged in a proposal to develop downtown Columbia. As I see it, GGP has continued in the tradition of Columbia development that the Rouse Company started over 40 years ago.

The assertion that the county has turned a blind eye to Columbia development is equally void. Since the turn of the century, the county has been actively engaged in the development process. It was a County Councilperson that initiated the changes in downtown Columbia to encourage mixed use. The county chartered a committee to look at Merriweather Post Pavilion’s viability. The county funded and sponsored the Charrette. The county worked hard to keep big box stores out of downtown. The county brought forth legislation to limit building heights in downtown Columbia. Sounds to me like the county has been pretty involved.

In the second paragraph, there is a reference to “several” traffic studies. Could these be named? Why not stipulate the number of traffic studies that are known to have mistakes? Why hide behind vagaries? In addition, what is the character of these “mistakes” and inaccuracies?” Are these pagination errors? Number transposition errors? What are the specifics? Do these errors amount to real concern? Said a different way, are these errors (in these “several” traffic studies) large enough to change the level of service in the study area?

The last sentence in the second paragraph marks the departure point from reality.

It is no surprise that the county is
 siding with the developer, since it was GGP that
 advocated for changing the zoning at this property.

A little history lesson for the author of the email: It is written in the Howard County Zoning Regulations that the Rouse Company (or its successor) is the only party that can ask the county to change any zoning in the New Town District. Before being acquired by GGP, it became known that the Rouse Company would charge companies money to make the request for a change. In fact, the Rouse Company had created a plan in which it would sell “development units” to future developers if it had gotten the density in Columbia changed.

This left a bad taste in many people’s mouths (myself included). Recently, a task force of Columbians sought to review New Town Zoning and made several recommendations. The chair of this task force was (to the best of my knowledge) Owen Brown resident (and Owen Brown Village Board Chair) Andy Stack. I believe Andy’s participation on the task force was as a resident of Columbia and not in his capacity as OBVB Chair.

Regardless, Andy has been a community leader since (I believe) I was in high school (Hammond, Class of 1984), and this task force recommended that GGP be taken completely out of the New Town process. Now, given the public backlash against the development unit scheme, and the New Town Zoning Task Force recommendation to remove GGP from the process (Executive Summary, Recommendation 3). GGP appears to have taken the position that if someone is looking for a change in a Final Development Plan, they are willing to fulfill their obligation to initiate the process. There is no evidence that GGP receives any benefit from this process and there is no evidence to suggest that GGP played any significant role in bringing Wegmans to Columbia. There is evidence that Wegmans has been talking to the property owner, Science Fiction, for some time.

Moreover, the change sought at the Wegmans sight was not a change in zoning. The land is still zoned for industrial use. The change sought was to amend the FDP such that a permitted use on the industrial land site was to include a large grocery store. These are two distinctly separate actions.

This half-baked logic continues on to the next paragraph in which the email states that:

Now GGP will wants us to accept and believe their 
traffic studies for downtown Columbia when they won’t
even stand up and ensure that an accurate traffic
study is used on the Wegmans site.

Not to belabor the point, but a review of recent history helps to clarify the issue. GGP did a traffic study for downtown Columbia in 2005 (Wells & Associates). The county then commissioned a second traffic study in 2006 (Glatting Jackson), and then commissioned a third traffic study in 2007 (Sabra Wang). So GGP and the county have commissioned three different reports, from three different firms, in three successive years regarding traffic in downtown. I have no supporting evidence, but it may well be that downtown Columbia traffic has been the most studied traffic area in the State of Maryland over the last five years.

I would like to close by saying that for all the flaws, I admire the folks who are sending this email around. That being said, the vagaries, inconsistencies, and lack of knowledge of history greatly diminish the impact of this letter. When it comes to trying to effect change, a lucid, rational argument will carry the day. Banging drums only makes noise. It is my hope that those at the county realize the distinction. If you agree with me, please contact the county and please tell them to ignore the noise.

Traffic Update

Merely a data point, no need to look too deep here; however, I was taking my son to a doctor appointment this morning (about 8:40 AM), and had to drive through downtown Columbia. We were traveling along Little Patuxent Parkway, southbound between Sterrett Place and the Howard County Central Library, and half the lanes were blocked due to road construction.

For a moment I held my breath. Here we were in downtown Columbia, during rush hour, and half the lanes were blocked. Would we make it to the doctor on time? Turns out, there was no delay, traffic flowed without hesitation (even with the 50% lane restriction).

Driving back through the area (in the opposite direction) at about 10:30 AM, the lanes were still closed (one lane through) and there was no backup.

Has anyone else experienced free flowing traffic in downtown Columbia?

More Fish in the Pond

I was pleased to read about a new group in town, Responsible Growth for Columbia (and I would never truncate their lengthy title to Re-Grow Co. No, never). I first heard about them on Hayduke’s blog. I also recently found a group, known as Concerned Citizens of Columbia (Co-Cit-Co?).

Responsible Growth seems to have a broad platform, but is currently focusing on:

The proposed Wegmans, which is going to be 160,000 square feet with a restuarant, at the corner of McGaw Road and Snowden River Parkway. The County's Planning Commission voted recently to allow large scale grocery in Industrial Zones. Wegmans also completed a traffic study for this store and they state that their store, which is 3 times the size of a regular grocery store will have a small impact, which a traffic light will mitigate. WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT! See our sections to see other issues with the traffic study and why this area should be kept for Industrial uses.

It appears that they have not yet uploaded the other issues with the traffic study or the reasons why the area should be kept for industrial uses. Two small problems with their work so far (really just constructive criticism): The County Planning Board (not the Planning Commission) voted. The Planning Board did not vote on all industrial zones, but only the 81-acre plot of land formerly known as the Sieling Industrial Center. This land area is roughly bounded by Oakland Mills Road to the South, Snowden River Parkway to the East, Dobbin Road to the West, and Route 175 (Rouse Parkway) to the North. The plot does not include Dobbin Center. Overall, a great start. I look forward to good things from Responsible Growth.

The Concerned Citizens of Columbia do not seem to be new (their posts date back to the summer, but it is still largely under construction. Like Responsible Growth, the Concerned have a tight focus: a proposed sediment forebay at the North end of Wilde Lake. Welcome to the Club.

My Remarks to the CA Board of Directors – 01NOV07

Last night the CA Board of Directors provided a venue for residents to comment on development in Downtown Columbia. Below are my prepared remarks. Keep in mind that at the podium, I did not strictly adhere to the prepared text, but I think I got my point across.

Good evening, my name if Bill Santos, a resident of Wilde Lake and a 30-year resident of Columbia and Howard County. I am here to say that I support the Howard County framework document, the traffic study, and the proposed county process.

One particular item I wish to address tonight is the issue of traffic. In the last two weeks, CA Board member Evan Coren has twice stated that the reduction of level of service for our downtown road system from level D to E will adversely impact the quality of life of Columbians and others that visit the downtown area. During the Saturday, October 20, 2007 meeting between the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning and the combined CA Board and Village Boards, Mr. Coren went as far to state that increased waits at traffic lights in downtown Columbia is counter to James Rouse’s vision. I stand here tonight in opposition to this line of thinking.

I believe downtown Columbia should not be primarily viewed through a windshield. Downtown, the lakefront, the mall, and Symphony woods should be experienced on two feet. Currently, downtown Columbia is configured for automobile dominance. As development occurs in downtown, I want to see the role of the automobile diminished and the downtown area become a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment. If this means that car travel in downtown becomes slower and less convenient, so be it.

As a group, Howard Countains are addicted to cars. Data from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council of Governments show that although Howard County is 1/3 the population of Baltimore City, we drive more miles per year than Baltimore. Moreover, Howard County has the highest annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per registered vehicle in the entire Baltimore region.

In a self deprecating analogy (I am a little bit north of 250 lbs), future traffic problems in Howard County is a bit like me going to the movies and asking for wider seat. I would imagine the manager would tell me that he would rather see me “push away from the table a little bit sooner” and “take a lap” before he would redesign the theatre. In the same way, our driving habits are horrible, and we need to change our behavior; not just change the roads.

It is my hope that in the future, downtown Columbia will be safe for pedestrians. When my 4-year old son is grown and has kids of his own, I want him to be able to take his kids downtown, and allow them to walk through downtown without fear of being run over in a mall parking lot.

The People of Maryland are at odds with the CA Board Chair

Two stories in last week’s Baltimore Sun demonstrate how out of touch CA Board Chairwoman Barbara Russell is with residents in the State of Maryland. To be fair, Chair Russell’s heart is in the right place.

In an October 14, 2007 article published in the Baltimore Sun (Village says it's tired of subsidized housing) Barbara Russell is quoted as follows:

Russell is advocating what until now has been political heresy in Howard: allowing public water and sewer lines west of the current boundary to permit more townhouses and apartments to be built farther west. The ban on public utilities in the western county was meant to preserve farmland, she said, but instead of doing that, it has merely allowed hundreds of large homes on 3-acre lots.

"I think we should look at where else in the county we can develop housing of any kind," she said.

It is important to know that the last time Barbara Russell spoke about this publicly was while she was campaigning and just prior to her extended vacation in the Hawaiian Islands (I often wonder how many votes she would have gotten if she was upfront with the residents of Oakland Mills and disclosed that she would miss two months of service while on vacation).

On October 18, 2007, the Baltimore Sun published an article that featured a poll conducted by the 1000 Friends of Maryland (Sprawl too much, too fast, poll finds). The poll shows that Marylanders are concerned about the pace of growth in the Freestate:

Overall, respondents said they consider traffic, housing costs, loss of farmland and poorly planned growth as some of the most serious problems facing Maryland.
Traffic ranked near the top of respondents' concerns, with 66 percent calling it an "extremely" or "very serious" problem.

More voters rated traffic as a "very serious" problem than said the same for public education, the cost of health insurance, or taxes. Fifty-six percent rated loss of farmland and poorly planned growth and development as "extremely" or "very serious" problems.

Now, inspection of the survey results shows the remarks of Barbara Russell are in close agreement with those responding to the survey. All parties are concerned about the pace, quality, and effects of growth. It is Russell’s proposed solutions that are at odds.

While Russell would like to see the water and sewer service expanded into the rural western part of Howard County (to allow for construction of townhouses and apartment complexes), 80% of respondents to the 1000 Friends survey stated that the loss of farmland was at least a “somewhat serious” concern.

Moreover, because there are not many jobs or basic shopping needs in the west, nearly all residents of the Russell townhouses and apartments would need a car to meet basic daily needs. This would increase the traffic on the roads. Conversely, 89% of survey respondents felt that traffic congestion is at least a “somewhat serious” problem. It is also important to note that Howard County’s population, with approximately 1/3 the population of Baltimore, logs more vehicle miles on the road annually than the population of Charm City.

Lastly, diverting projects to the west will not, in the long run, solve the problems that face the county today. A westward expansion would just extend a low intensity use of land. Traffic will not abate and the low density settlements will preclude any investment in mass transit. Nothing in the eastern section of the county will change, and because of additional development in the west, the amount of impervious surface will increase, thereby increasing the detrimental effects of stormwater runoff in the Patuxent Watershed. This is in effect poor planning. 83% of survey respondents indicated that poorly planned growth and development was a problem in Maryland.

In closing, page 5 of the poll summary document indicates the amount of support for possible policies to mitigate the problems associated with growth. One policy, the “steering of new development to towns and cities rather than outlying suburbs” received 72% support by respondents.

It is my hope that Chairperson Russell will rethink her position.

Micro Multi-Modal

I have been thinking about the recently released downtown Columbia traffic study, and specifically how to mitigate increased traffic. My focus has been on little things; things that can be done for a moderate cost, in a short term time frame, and would provide at least the promise of a reduction in traffic.

That being said, I believe the volume of people coming into and out of downtown will continue to increase. The key here is to move some from cars to other means of transportation. One way that I believe we can get more cars out of downtown is to install bicycle racks (or even possibly bicycle lockers) adjacent to every bus shelter in the county. This would extend the effective range of people that could easily access bus shelters and the Howard Transit bus routes. Even using my tired old Diamond Back mountain bike, I can reduce a half-hour walk to under ten minutes. If a bus line is within ten minutes of any residence, the convenience of the bus system becomes greater. The greater the convenience, the more potential riders.

This is just one small project that can increase mass transportation use. The cost is relatively small and the program can be implemented fairly quickly. Taking these small steps now will help us transition from being the most car dependent locality (see Total Annual Vehicle Miles) in Maryland to a community that provides a variety of means of travel in the County.

Retail and Transit

OK, I have from time-to-time linked to Richard Layman’s blog “Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space,” and he has two great posts today. Richard, keep up the good work.

The first post deals with some thumbrules of retail and the US Patent and Trade Office (sound familiar, Columbians?). It is certainly a great read and provides some perspective.

The second post deals with transit ridership and is a great compliment to Hayduke’s post today.

Thinking Outside the Box, Carroll County Style

Over the past few days, I have had neither the clarity to write nor strength to type. However, I have had the ability to surf. In my virtual travels, I made my way to the Eldersburg Today blog. A recent post caught my eye, in that it references an article in the Carroll County section of the Baltimore Sun . The article, written by Laura McCandlish, details a proposal from Carroll County Commissioner Michael D. Zimmer:

"Carroll County's newest commissioner proposed an elaborate and expensive project yesterday to bring a federal highway to the rural area by extending U.S. 29 from Howard County and building an artery that would bisect Carroll and include bypasses of Westminster and Taneytown."

"Though Zimmer's new plan would develop U.S. 29 along existing roads, outfitting those routes for high-volume traffic and building bypasses could easily cost billions of dollars, according to state highway engineer David Coyne."

What I get from the article is that if roads are renamed as Route 29, a U.S. highway, federal funds for expansion would be somehow easier to obtain (quick note, check the graphic on the right hand side of the page of the Baltimore Sun article). The following passage from the story is telling:

"The federal government has a wonderful thing called 'earmarking' on transportation bills," Steven D. Powell, the commissioners' chief of staff, said yesterday. "This has incredible potential to open up economic development for us."

Now, I am not sure if this is the best idea with the current mood in Washington, but more to the point, does anyone think this is a good idea?

Transportation Visions

Just a real short post this morning. The sole article in the Baltimore Sun regarding Howard County details a growth and transportation conference held at Turf Valley. Our friend Evan over at HoCo blog dedicated a pretty lengthy post back in July (scroll down to July 12) about possible rail transit in Howard County. Similarly, the Urban Places and Spaces blog posted a Baltimore-Washington regional rail system.

Oddly, the Urban Places and Spaces blog has rail lines pretty much circling Ho Co and nothing through the county. If we could get these two bloggers together and start planning, maybe we could come up with a rail solution.

Petition Update

Last winter, I attended the Liz Bobo downtown meeting and signed a petition. The petition stated the following:

We the undersigned concerned citizens request:
that specific, hard data relating to housing, schools, traffic, roads, water and sewer, environment, fiscal responsibility, as well as phasing and monitoring of the proposed
development be studied and made available to the public BEFORE the Draft Master
Plan for Downtown Columbia is presented to the Planning Board and the County
Council.

I have been to the Howard County Charrette/Focus Group website and it seems the county has authored reports that address most (if not all) of these issues. So are we done? Have the terms of the petition been met? Can we move on? I’m not sure, but I was hoping to get input from y’all on this one. Please comment.

Governor Warfield Pkwy – Myth and Reality

Notice: Full Disclosure

The possible fate of Governor Warfield Parkway came up as an issue last spring when I ran for the Wilde Lake Columbia Council Representative position. Although the issue never came up at the candidates forum, and I was never asked
by any residents I talked to during the campaign season, fliers were circulated throughout Wilde Lake stating “If Phil Kirsch [my opponent] is not elected to the Columbia Council, there goes Governor Warfield Parkway.” In addition, I was confronted by two former Howard County Council members (that own property in Wilde Lake) about the issue. I do not believe the fate of Governor Warfield Parkway was the deciding issue in the election, but I wanted you, the reader, to have full awareness of my involvement in the issue. It is my intent that the majority of this post is fact based and will provide greater understanding. However, as this is a blog, the concluding paragraphs will delve into opinion.

As the discussion of downtown Columbia development has evolved, the fate of the Governor Warfield Parkway median strip has been a persistent concern. Some have voiced concern that as development progresses, the median strip will be paved over to accommodate increased traffic.

History

January 2006

The first concern that I heard about the Governor Warfield Parkway median strip was in January 2006. A Wilde Lake community activist attended a meeting regarding downtown development and asked if there were any plans to widen Governor Warfield Parkway. When told that there were no plans to widen the parkway, she came to the conclusion that the median strip was endangered because if the road was not widened, additional lanes must be placed in the median strip.

March 2006

The issue of Governor Warfield Parkway came up again as part of the Wilde Lake Columbia Council Representative Elections, as stated above.

June 2006

In June 2006, the Glatting-Jackson (PDF file) traffic study was made public. Contained in the report was some interesting data with respect to Governor Warfield Parkway. The piece of data which caused the most stir was the assertion that the Governor Warfield Parkway/Little Patuxent Parkway intersection has no additional capacity for future development. What was not widely reported is on page 4 of the traffic study. It states that if the entire Charrette Master Plan were constructed, traffic flow at all the other intersections on Governor Warfield Parkway would be in compliance with the current Howard County traffic standards. That is not to say traffic at these intersections would remain constant, it would certainly increase; but the traffic levels experienced would not exceed the Howard County threshold of “level of service” (LOS) ‘D.’

A second piece of Governor Warfield Parkway data from the report is a bit more subtle. The Glatting-Jackson report is based on a traffic survey and report commissioned by General Growth Properties (GGP), and is located on their downtown Columbia website. This report, prepared by Wells & Associates (August 12, 2005), provides this interesting piece of information regarding Governor Warfield Parkway:

Little Patuxent Parkway and Governor Warfield Parkway in the Town Center are classified by Howard County as a constrained road facility due to their “unique urban setting”, in accordance with Howard County Council Resolution 21, dated January 6, 1992, adopted February 3, 1992. Capacity-enhancing improvements should be provided only to the extent that they will not negatively affect the physical or right-of-way characteristics, pedestrian movements, and other considerations not related to traffic movement that have caused these roadways to be designated as constrained facilities. No roadway improvements would, therefore, be appropriate at the intersections of Little Patuxent Parkway with Governor Warfield Parkway North and Broken Land Parkway.

The constraint placed on Governor Warfield Parkway and Little Patuxent Parkway is mentioned no fewer than five times in the Wells & Associates report, and the above citation is listed as a conclusion to the report (page 25).

August 2006

During the Kahler Hall County Executive/District 4 Candidates Forum, a question asked by the Harper’s Choice Village Board stated “Would you support designating Governor Warfield Parkway as a scenic road?” All candidates at the forum supported the idea.

Good Intentions, Bad Idea

So, does it make good sense to make Governor Warfield Parkway a scenic road? Regrettably, the answer is no. The intention is honorable, but the execution is problematic and the result could lead to the exact opposite of what is intended. Let’s jump into specifics.

The process for designating a scenic road can be found in the Howard County Code. (Title 16, Subtitle 14)

Governor Warfield Parkway does not meet the definition of a scenic road. Section 16.1402(a) of the Howard County Code lists the following criteria as the definition of a scenic road:

Sec. 16.1402. Characteristics of scenic roads.

(a) Definition. Scenic roads are public roads in the county which have one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Pass through an area of outstanding natural environmental features providing views of scenic elements such as forests, steep topography, and stream or river valleys;
2. Provide outstanding views of rural, agricultural landscapes including scenic elements such as panoramic or distant views, cropland, pastures, fields, streams, ponds, hedgerows, stone or wooden fences, farm buildings and farmsteads;
3. Follow historic road alignments and provide views of historic resources; or
   
4. A large proportion of the road provides frontage for properties that are in a historic district or subject to perpetual or long-term agricultural, environmental or historic easements.

Unless the median strip on Governor Warfield Parkway can meet the legal definition of ‘forest,’ the criteria cannot be applied. For reference, Merriam-Webster defines a forest as follows:

• a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract [of land]

The median strip on Governor Warfield Parkway is certainly not dense, even with leaves on the trees and bushes, it is quite easy to see through the trees to the other side. Moreover, the area of land is (by my estimation) less than an acre in area.

The scenic road criteria are important because Howard County Code, Section 16.1403(b) states that in order for a road to be designated as a scenic road, it must meet one of the four criteria of the definition in Section 16.1402(a).

Sec. 16.1403. Scenic roads inventory.

(b) Road Must Meet Definition. The county council may include a road or road segment in the scenic roads inventory if it finds that the road has one or more of the characteristics listed in section 16.1402(a) above.

A scenic road designation is intended to protect the view from the road, not the road itself. As stated in Section 16.1404(c), “Scenic roads are subject to the requirements of the adequate public facilities ordinance (title 16, subtitle 11),” and “To limit alterations to an intersection involving a scenic road under the provisions of the adequate public facilities ordinance, such an intersection may be designated a “constrained road facility” [emphasis mine] by the county council in accordance with sections 16.1101(f)(4) and 16.1110(e) of this Code”

Therefore, to protect a road (as opposed to the scenic view) from further development, the Howard County Code states that the road should be designated a constrained road facility. In the case of Governor Warfield Parkway, it was designated “constrained” almost 15 years ago. Therefore, this 1992 resolution should be publicized and enforced.

Opinion

I chose to highlight the Governor Warfield Parkway situation for one reason: Concerned residents that perform leaps in logic without the necessary research of the facts can cause a situation to get out of hand. We are now at a point where the Howard County Council may consider introducing legislation to designate a road “scenic” even though the road does not meet the definition of scenic. Moreover, had anyone (including myself) done the research, we would have all come to the conclusion that as a constrained road, Governor Warfield Parkway was not in danger. Instead, we have wasted time, energy, passion, and other resources fanning the flames of fiction, when we could have better applied these resources to doing good.