Thursday, July 02, 2009

Is This Smart Growth? Part Four

In Part Two of this series, we detailed how the Planning Department staff recommendation for a new growth policy relaxed standards on mitigating traffic congestion. In Part Three, we explained how the staff proposal would cut impact tax rates on projects in areas that were far from transit, including Clarksburg, Damascus and Olney. But all of that pales beside what you are about to read.

Under Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR), developers of projects in local areas with both road congestion and slow transit are required to install trip mitigation measures, all of which cost money. The new staff recommendation would allow developers to use an “Alternative Review Procedure” to offset all or part of their mitigation cost requirements. This procedure could be used for projects that have a minimum 50% residential use, achieve at least 75% of the maximum density allowed by the zoning, meet certain energy efficiency standards and provide additional below-market housing above county requirements. The procedure would only be available in two types of areas:

1. Projects within a half-mile of an existing or planned transit station or “high-quality transit corridor.” The latter term is defined as “a corridor with fixed route bus service where service intervals are no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.” These projects would be eligible for a 100% mitigation offset.

This category is more inclusive than it may first appear. Montgomery County has two bus services: WMATA and Ride On. Between the two of them, they have a rather high frequency of service on some major roads during rush hour. Consider the stretch of Georgia Avenue between Randolph Road and Norbeck Road. It is covered by four WMATA routes (Y5, Y7, Y8, Y9) and one Ride On route (51). Between 6 AM and 9 AM on weekdays, southbound WMATA buses come down Georgia Road every 11-17 minutes. The Ride On bus comes through every 20-30 minutes. The two of them together meet the standard of “high-quality transit corridor.” That means developers along this stretch of road would have no mitigation requirement even though there is no Metro station other than Glenmont, which is near the southern point of the route. Other major corridors without Metro stations but with at least four WMATA bus routes include US-29 from Four Corners through Burtonsville, Randolph Road from Rockville to US-29, New Hampshire Avenue from Takoma Park to US-29 and Veirs Mill Road from University Boulevard to Randolph Road. Projects in all of these corridors may just escape any PAMR traffic mitigation requirements under the staff proposal.

2. Projects within a half-mile of ten “basic services.” These services “include but are not limited to: bank, place of worship, convenience grocery, day care, cleaners, fire station, beauty, hardware, laundry, library, medical/dental, senior care facility, park, pharmacy, post office, restaurant, school, supermarket, theater, community center, fitness center or museum.” These projects would be eligible for a 50% mitigation offset.

Where are the locations in which these basic services are clustered? Many are in the county’s four downtowns (Bethesda, Silver Spring, Rockville and Wheaton) or are around Metro stations, but those areas are already covered by the transit offset category. The rest are strip malls. The staff proposal explicitly acknowledges this:

This category recognizes that not all development in the County will be near a major transit corridor. Many of the 106 strip malls in the County do not qualify. However, they should be redeveloped in a more sustainable manner.

A strip mall on Route 29 could offer amenities that would reduce vehicle trips through mixed uses and a minimum of stores that provide services and products that residents and workers use on a daily basis, or what LEED for New Construction and Major Renovation defines as “basic services.”

Basic services include grocery stores, dry cleaners, fire stations, medical office, and fitness centers. People who live near these services frequently walk to them, reducing car trips. For projects that qualify, the PAMR requirement would be offset by 50 percent.
Since the staff refers to US-29, let’s consider one area that might be eligible for an offset under their proposal: Four Corners. This is the intersection of US-29 and University Boulevard, the gateway to East County. It has a school (Blair High School), a church, a pharmacy, a supermarket, a bank, a dry cleaner, several restaurants and many other retail services, so projects there may qualify for a 50% mitigation offset. It also has four WMATA bus routes (Z9, Z11, Z13, Z29) and three Ride On routes (9, 19 and 22), so projects there may even qualify for a 100% mitigation offset.

But let’s be honest: encouraging dense development at a place like Four Corners is not smart, it’s madness. The intersection was explicitly designed to move cars by splitting University into opposing segments. Yet, it is still congested, acquiring special infamy at rush hour. It is near two Beltway intersections (US-29 and University). Some of the retail resides in the Woodmoor Shopping Center, a strip mall on the eastern corner. Pedestrian travel is difficult at best, dangerous at worst. There is no Metro stop and no plans to build one. Why should developers receive a traffic mitigation offset of any kind here? And how many other strip malls will be eligible for those offsets?


This proposal for traffic mitigation offsets is the worst single element of the staff recommendation. It would reward dense development of at least 75% of zoning along several corridors far from transit stations, as well as many of the county’s strip malls. This is NOT smart growth. In fact, it is a prescription for endless traffic congestion with no way out.

In Part Five, we’ll offer a few ideas for improvement.

3 comments:

Dan Reed said...

I'm going to have to disagree completely. The draft Growth Policy acknowledges that not everyone lives around Metro, and not everyone relies on centers where Metro currently exists to work/shop/eat and so on. For every Wheaton or Silver Spring there are ten strip malls that serve as community shopping centers and gathering places, where bus service is frequent, and where large amounts of people already reach them by foot or transit.

I think a better example of what the Growth Policy is referring to would be White Oak Shopping Center or Briggs Chaney Plaza, both strip malls that offer all those basic amenities in addition to public facilities like schools and libraries. There absolutely should be more development at these places - office and retail, and some housing - so that those who already rely on bus or foot have access to more amenities. And those who still choose to drive no longer have to travel as far to reach the services they need.

If I want to buy clothes, have a nice meal, or even sit in a town square, I have to drive from my house in Calverton to Rockville or Columbia or Downtown Silver Spring, distances of anywhere from six to twenty miles. Only if I go to Silver Spring do I have the choice of taking a bus; otherwise, I'm an additional car trip on Randolph Road, Route 29, Rockville Pike, or the Beltway. If I had these amenities at a redeveloped White Oak Shopping Center, I'd have a five-minute trip or bus ride. And there wouldn't be additional traffic in Four Corners because someone isn't driving from Calverton to Silver Spring.

Major intersections like Four Corners, or Georgia and 28, aren't congested because of the stuff that's already there. It's congested because of through traffic from people going from one far-flung place to another. Giving people more amenities in their own backyard will reduce long-haul trips for shopping, school or errands - the bulk of most car trips.

-Dan Reed

disclosure: I am on the staff of Councilmember George Leventhal, and all opinions expressed are solely my own.

Adam Pagnucco said...

Dan, you should read the links I am putting up. They are not talking about merely upgrading existing shopping centers with better amenities. If they were, I would have no problem with it. Instead, they are talking about building projects with a minimum 50% housing and at least 75% of maximum density next to strip malls all over the county. If you do that away from transit, you will get more auto use and more congestion. After all, people still have to get to work.

David Moon said...

Adam & Dan -- Without commenting specifically on the draft growth policy (I haven't yet read it), I think we need to be mindful that there is an environmental context to what Dan is saying. See a short article about this at: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884756,00.html

There is a scarcity of land that could be developed in the County, and it is not clear that you would want to develop it all anyway. That being said, underperforming asphalt is an obvious place to look in a region addicted to strip malls, parking lots and cars.

The point is not the density, it is the repurposing of the land, especially as you can add amenities and reduce vehicle miles, all without gashing into more green space.

The reason why this is important is because it is clear that, as Dan points out, traffic is not going to be tied solely to density or transit-access, per se, but density as it relates to what the land is being used for and why people are getting into cars, where they are going, what they are doing, etc.

Obviously, this is not about putting high-density Chinatown-style (or even White Flint style) developments in every strip mall. But some are beginning to make it sound like redeveloping any strip mall means putting Bethesda CBD levels of density in White Oak or other places - but that seems like a silly comparison, or even a political or rhetorical sleight of hand. I'm not sure what the motive for that type of fear-mongering is, but it doesn't lead to a rational policy discussion.

Good policy should (hopefully) be about balancing out the uses of land, to create a more even geographic distribution of jobs, amenities, housing, etc. The goal ought to be mini-nodes of activity with punctuated high-density nodes near mass transit, so that we can reduce auto-dependence and create a more environmentally efficient and aesthetically pleasing way of life.

Let's be honest, the strip mall plus dense downtown model of living is neither working, nor is it the model for the future: either for neighborhood preservation, smart growth, new urbanism, etc. Not everyone can afford to live near metro, and it is not the case that residents near every metro station are willing to entertain density (witness Tenleytown and other recent anti-density activism near metro stations). So looking solely at metro stations for repurposing land/redevelopment is interesting, but it may just compound the creation of sprawl development. This logic is what I think has allowed the rise of the ex-urbs. If all the jobs and high-end amenities are downtown, not every downtown wants more people, and not everyone who wants to live downtown can afford to do so, I think you'll have an unfortunate class-bias in who gets access to amenities and a high quality of life. Even if you could force everything near metro, I'm not convinced that's the most environmentally friendly solution, anyway.

Time to rethink this equation.

I was just traveling in Lancaster, PA and noticed what appeared to be a construction boom in the area, but it all seems a bit schizophrenic. They have got some mixed use stuff, some purely residential sprawl-style development, a revitalizing downtown, etc. Hopefully, Montgomery can be a little bit more cohesive and visionary for how it chooses to manage its growth.

I look forward to reading the draft AGP to see if it accomplishes these goals.

NOTE: I AM WRITING SOLELY AS AN INDIVIDUAL WITH THESE COMMENTS.

-David Moon