Thursday, May 21, 2009

is the ICC enough to justify high-density development?

Winchester Homes recently finished these townhouses at Fairland View, adjacent to the InterCounty Connector and Route 29.

What we could call the first "InterCounty Connector-Oriented Development" goes before the Planning Board today as Winchester Homes submits a preliminary plan (warning! PDF file.) for a 262-home neighborhood where the new toll road will meet Georgia Avenue and Norbeck Road. While the project's size has been decreased significantly, concerns remain about its layout and proposed traffic patterns, especially now that the planned widening of Norbeck (Route 28) is being put on hold to fund the Purple Line.

The development, called Greenbriar at Norbeck Crossing, will include twenty-three single-family homes, ninety-five townhomes and 144 condominiums centered around a "village green." Fifteen percent of the subdivision, or roughly forty homes, will be Moderately Priced Dwelling Units. While the entire project is connected with a loose street grid - including two existing streets, Bradford Road and Coolidge Avenue - each housing type occupies its own area.

Site plan of Greenbriar at Norbeck Crossing. Norbeck Road is at the bottom, Georgia Avenue at the left and the ICC on-ramp at top left.

Residents of Leisure World, directly across Norbeck Road, say Winchester's proposal negatively impacts their community because the four-story condo buildings are closest to their homes and are "segregat[ed]" from the rest of the development. The plan "does not seem to integrate or embrace the various housing types," writes lawyer Rebecca Walker, whose firm Miles and Stockbridge represents Leisure World, in a letter to the Planning Board.

Also at issue is how the new community would be accessed. Winchester proposes blocking left turns into or out of the subdivision, potentially confusing drivers and snarling traffic a block away from Norbeck Road and Georgia Avenue, one of Montgomery County's most notoriously congested intersections. The thirty-one-acre site is just one portion of the Golden Bear Triangle, an area designated (warning! PDF file.) by the Olney Master Plan for housing at "higher densities" because of its proximity to the ICC and Norbeck Park-and-Ride, meaning that this project's streets will one day have to handle traffic from future development as well.

By creating high-density housing adjacent to an ICC interchange, Greenbriar at Norbeck Crossing sets a precedent for future development along the highway. At nearly nine homes an acre, the project would have a higher gross density than King Farm (at right), a New Urban neighborhood in Rockville with roughly eight homes to the acre. Like King Farm, Greenbriar will have a mix of housing types; a pedestrian-friendly street grid; and a central gathering space. But it'll lack King Farm's stores and offices; its community facilities; and its proximity to the Shady Grove Metro station - meaning that future Greenbriar residents will be in their cars, joining the traffic at Norbeck and Georgia.

Is the ICC enough to justify high-density housing? Or should there be a stronger attempt to create complete communities along the highway?

29 comments:

C. P. Zilliacus said...

My community was built in the
early 1980's, and zoned RT12.5
(and is actually more dense
than what you discuss, thanks
(in part) to MPDU bonuses
awarded back then), and happens
to be right next to the ICC.

Thomas Hardman said...

Goodness gracious. That intersection is already classified as "failed" and the traffic backups there are monumental at rush-hour.

That being said, there are very ample shopping facilities less than a half-mile south on Georgia Avenue in the Leisure World shopping center. The Giant is huge, and has a pharmacy inside. There are the usual things such as a post office and a Starbuck's, etc etc. And right across Georgia Avenue, right behind White's Hardware, there are about ten restaurants, a convenience store and nail/beauty salon, etc.

Still, I see no need whatsoever for any more housing in the area.

Cary Lamari said...

Dan,
I do not support this project at this time. This new neighborhood will be isolated from any other neighborhood in the area. Three major roadways will isolate these residents from any pedestrian interconnection of other neighborhoods, shopping, or anything else, there is a park and Ride however should Norbeck ever be widened it will be bifurcated from the Park and Ride as well by a 4 lane roadway. I also do not believe Norbeck with its failing Roadway and failing intersection can accommodate this project at this time and as the governor and Council member Floreen has said not in the foreseeable future and as I wrote in Maryland Politics Blog:
“In the Washington Post Newspaper. The Governor said he would postpone widening of Norbeck Road east of Georgia Avenue for 20 more years so he could use the money targeted for Norbeck to help fund the Purple Line.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051903557.html

It is unconscionable to leave this antiquated country road with no shoulders and only two lanes as it is for yet another two decades. The Governor has little regard for the residents of Norbeck Road as he is planning to open up and terminate the ICC a six lane major highway onto this two lane failing roadway without considering the health safety and welfare of the residents living along Norbeck Road.

Norbeck Road has been held hostage by The ICC for the last 30 years. Politicians refused to support widening it so they could use congestion demand to support the ICC, All studies on the ICC stated whether the ICC were to be built or not Norbeck and the intersection with Georgia Avenue would be further congested. I was a huge supporter of Martin O’Malley when Doug Duncan was running for governor. I question now whether I was mistaken seeing how he has ignored the concerns for the residents of Norbeck that includes Leisure World”

Without having a quantifiable and measurable Growth Policy The quality of life in Montgomery County will decline. There are many dynamics that constitute good planning and creating a Vehicular and transit network that provides for good pedestrian access and includes reasonable access to shopping, parks, libraries and schools that are all part of those dynamics. I do not believe the Greenbriar projects satisfy those criteria.
Just as the new Councilmember takes office Traffic projects in District 4 come under fire, what will our new Council member Navarro do about this?
Thank You,
Cary Lamari

Thomas Hardman said...

On just the 2.5 mile length of Aspen Hill Road, there are about 15 vacant foreclosed properties. These are all nice homes in the 1000-1500 square-foot range, all with basements and probably with all of those basements being finished. These are all situated on a road with excellent bus-service which passes by at least two major shopping hubs and terminates a short walk away from another major shopping hub along Rockville Pike.

These homes all have 1/4-acre yards. They are available for low-low prices.

And that's just on Aspen Hill. Connecting streets such as Arctic Avenue have their own share of foreclosed homes.

How can anyone think that it makes sense to build new homes in "splendid isolation" from everything else, at the conjunction of no less than three major highways, at an intersection characterized by massive congestion? There are all sorts of homes not far away. The only excuse that anyone could have for not moving into those eminently-available and really potentially very nice foreclosed homes is that Aspen Hill is considered so ghetto that it makes more sense to build new properties rather than wait for people to get desperate enough to move into a foreign-language ghetto.

And what, I wonder, will Nancy Navarro do to cure Aspen Hill's growing reputation as a slum?

The only thing that can cure that would be to get more "gentrifying" influences to move here.

I'm waiting to see how she can promote that.

Dan Reed said...

I'm not clear when this development would be allowed to go forward, and if it would be reliant on improvements to Norbeck and the Norbeck-Georgia intersection, which it really should be. But, you know, road and highway improvements generate a very different kind of community than what Winchester proposes. It's density without the benefits of density - pedestrian and transit accessibility. This kind of project belongs in the middle of Aspen Hill, where residents could walk to the two shopping centers, or in Olney Town Center.

At the edge of both communities, it'll really just be a traffic generator, which is disappointing.

Cary Lamari said...

Dan,
I would love to sit and talk to you about the supportive reasons for a comprehensive growth policy. A quantifiable and measurable growth policy could have elements that not only encourage transit but also require significantly higher impact fees for areas where transit is not feasible, and I do not just mean a Park and Ride unless it is found to be utilized. I should say though, all of Norbeck Road is on the State Designated Smart Growth Plan even though it is a two-lane antiquated road that allows certain benefits for developers.

Dan I would like to get you a PowerPoint that Rogers and Associate used in a Las Vegas home show that demonstrated to developer’s across the country what tactics developers should use to promote new development projects. According to my recollection It stated first the development industry must control elections and local zoning authorities. Rogers used Montgomery County as its example on how you take over the decision-making authorities though elections and then create Market Niches to promote new and different types of projects. This is why we need a comprehensive growth policy to promote good development in a pattern that enhances the livability of communities not support projects that could be more deleterious to neighborhoods than promote good. It’s a Balancing act. If I could get this Power Point could you post it online?

As an aside, you being an African American should take particular interest in this location for its historical significance to the African American community in Montgomery County. Mrs. Bailey of Baileys Lane still lives on Bradford Road She and her husband owned Baileys Park one of two professional African American baseball fields in Montgomery County and the only one that used electric lights. It is now a senior housing project at the corner of Baileys Lane and Norbeck Road. Mrs. Bailey is an outstanding lady she also built and housed the first African American assisted living facility in Montgomery County in her home till the County closed her down in the early to mid 60s The Rooms are still on Bradford Road. Mrs. Bailey was also a nurse worked at Dr. Sewards office also African American during the 50s and 60s where he lived and worked at the end of Coolidge Ave which is part of the Greenbrier project. I might have Dr Sewards name wrong. Someone should interview Mrs. Bailey before she passes away, all that history.

Thomas Hardman said...

Cary, I would be extremely pleased to mount a copy of that powerpoint presentation. Or, you can find a place on the District 4 Organization website and put it there yourself. I could probably convert it from a powerpoint to a web presentation without much trouble, and I'd be happy to take the trouble.

Was that you who asked me if I'd ever seen the movie "Chinatown"?

Dan, I was skirting around an issue at the end of this last primary campaign, having to do with the Alternative 7 plan for the Norbeck and Georgia crossing. Ben Kramer, as you may recall, owns a strip mall that would be in easy walking distance from this proposed development, and another strip mall is right there as well. For healthy adults and for kids, it might be a bit far to go to the Giant down the street and pack back a full load of groceries. However for basic walkability, this is not a terrible idea. Yet my reservations remain, there are so many available properties due to foreclosures that one must wonder why anyone would move forward with development, if available housing in walkable areas with good mass-transit exists, in numbers so high as to almost constitute "plethora".

Dan Reed said...

I've read and written about the presentation before. It's called "Where's the Land?" and you can download and read it here.

Rodgers Consulting, which did the presentation, has worked on some of the region's most sought-after communities, including Kentlands in Gaithersburg and Bancroft in Sandy Spring, which won awards for its environmentally-friendly design.

(They also worked on the redevelopment of Good Counsel High before the plan was tossed out in favor of, IMO, a much, much worse one.)

Yes, the presentation does refer to "control[ling] elections" (see page 10) but it also stresses the need to "respect and understand your neighbors' issues" and "credibility" (9), "build coalitions" with local residents and businesspeople (12), and "sponsor 3rd party, independent studies and audits" (11). The stated goal is to be "pro-solution," not "pro-growth."

I have NO problem with developers seeking some level of influence in local politics because they, too, are a stakeholder in the community. It's as if you had a steakhouse, but you weren't allowed to advertise it yourself, and the only people who were allowed to publicize it were vegetarians. If you're going to question development, developers should be present to give answers.

IMO, the biggest reason why Georgia and Norbeck is congested isn't because of development alone - it's because the development around it is all self-contained little pods that force any and every trip to pass through that intersection. If there was a grid of streets, the traffic at the major intersection wouldn't be nearly as bad, no matter what the level of development around it was.

Rodgers Consulting doesn't produce your everyday suburban development, either. Their products are generally a cut above the rest - so they shouldn't necessarily be targeted as "the bad guys."

Thomas Hardman said...

Dan, thanks for the link. I shall have to give that as unbiased a critical reading as I can manage.

In case you never understood this, please understand this now. Montgomery does not have a street grid, and probably never will, for reasons you will come to understand.

I once had a job doing construction with a crew where my co-workers weren't all exactly Boy Scouts. While I myself manage to keep out of trouble with the law, not all my neighbors and associates can say the same.

Evidently this one guy had tried to go on the lam from having a warrant served, and they discovered something and were not shy in talking about it.

"You know, there are really only a very limited number of ways to get in and out of Montgomery County," this person said.

I got to thinking about this, and this was about 30 years ago so I have had a lot of time to think about it.

Thomas Hardman said...

For a while there I was involving myself in programs that were trying to implement "crime prevention through environmental design" ("CPTED") but that is a more finely granularized version of something that has long been a macroscale planning element here in MoCo.

Concentrate all development into what amounts to a huge collection of cul-de-sacs and you concentrate control at the access points. If there is a fairly large community, with few or only one access point, police interceptions -- or interceptions by groups other than police, but hopefully on comparable missions -- become far easier. For example, there are communities along Norbeck Road between Georgia Avenue and Layhill Road which are fairly sizable but which are all effectively cul-de-sac; if a criminal in flight turns into one of those, they will be effectively penned with only one cruiser needed to block one entrance, and with perhaps no more than one to canvass the area the locate the suspect.

This "penning effect" within the county combines with the dearth of
vehicular crossings of the County line to add additional layers of
"security" or at least of control. There's simply no other explanation for the nearly total lack of grid overlay, and even the near total lack of neighborhood-connecting pedestrian bridges over small streams.

Thomas Hardman said...

Comparably, exclusion of the possibility of mixed-use zoning of the sort that puts a small store or two on almost every corner, means that all
commercial activity -- and presumably all crime preying on commercial activity -- is concentrated at large facilities that are easy to observe. Under the current system, there's also no way to mistake pedestrian activity in the non-commercial areas for commercial activity; people are either
commuting, coming or going from shopping at their homes, etc., and not running in and out of small dispersed stores. Stop and go traffic is thus easily characterized as illegal activity. Customer-like behavior at
residences is easily characterized as illegal, either prostitution or drug
sales or something comparable.

Really, the more you think about it, the more clear it becomes. All of the
evidence you will ever need for this is a good look at googlemaps, and a
history of developments here. Even in Aspen Hill, it was "pulling hen's
teeth" so to speak to get connections between Bel Pre Woods west and east sections, and between Bel Pre Woods and Sycamore Creek. And there is still almost nothing resembling an actual "grid". The sections are basically a hodgepodge of maze elements with a few crossovers at their perimeters.

As infill development progresses, watch to see this pattern deepen even as it elaborates. This community plan under discussion right now is about as much of a case-in-point, supporting my thesis, as you could ask for; at the very epicenter of a triple connection of major arterials, it is designed as an island isolated from everything else around it.

If you would like to test my hypothesis -- summarized as "street
connectivity and land-use/development planning in Montgomery is utterly constrained by law-enforcement needs to be able to control movement, and a political need to isolate communities to divide-and-conquer and control
community-associations" -- all you need to do is to identify extremely
sensible and useful points for grid interconnection, especially across small streams.

Then start a small citizen movement to push this, and see how large a pile of political bricks falls on top of you. And good luck trying to break open the ends of back-to-back cul-de-sacs.

Even in some place that so desperately needs back-end and grid connections as Ashton and the surrounding new developments, this is going to happen when pigs fly backwards faster than the speed of light and quote Shakespeare as
they do.

Cary Lamari said...

Dan,
I believe the presentation can be whatever the person who views it believe it to be.Thank You for posting it by the way. You must remember this PowerPoint was developed after the 2002 election supporting the end gridlock council. It demonstrated how a group of developers who could forge coalitions with other groups such as transit advocates, affordable housing advocates, Unions and others may manipulate the decision making of a jurisdiction for self serving goals. It happened here and the result in 2003 the Council dismantled the Growth Policy, which opened up every location in the County for uncontrolled growth not supported by adequate infrastructure. You can massage it all you like however no matter how good the product Rodgers Consulting puts out, if there are no standards, guidelines as to what level of growth in a particular area and what level of infrastructure is appropriate and necessary than the end effect is a declining quality of life, (not enough schools, parks, roads, transit and funding for basic operating costs).
This is where we find ourselves today.

With respect to Norbeck, You are both right and wrong, without a grid system of roads in a section of roadway like Norbeck from Georgia to Layhill I agree, in planning you compromise safety and a certain degree of community interaction of neighborhoods. I wish they thought about that when they did develop the Norbeck area however you must realize there is a long history for the Norbeck Area that predates comprehensive planning and much of the parcels were divided up before the regional district act. For an example the Holland family that I knew and lived next to owned most of leisure world property throughout out the early 1900s it was an African American family farm. There is a rich history here of old African American family's. The Coopers, Mr. and Mrs. Baileys Dr. Seawards, even Bill Cosby's in-laws live along Norbeck Road and It is believed Mr. Cosby still owns land on Bradford Road adjacent to ICC right of way.
Having said all this, these neighborhoods do little in the way of the overall congestion on Norbeck Road. Norbeck grew from a little Country Road to a major East West County Artery without the support of County Politicians. The Norbeck area has received many development projects although never the infrastructure to support them. Many Politicians for the last 30 years used congestion along Norbeck to support the need for the ICC, in fact Sid Kramer postponed the 198/28 connector because of the ICC, Ben Kramer argued that the ICC will offset the need to improve the Intersection. Duncan argued for the ICC because of Norbeck congestion. What I find unconscionable is these politicians know the potential consequences yet for the last 30 years they have used Norbeck as a political football for their political gains, All the while people have had tragic accidents one after another. One such occasion was the accident at Norbeck Blvd where a Mr. Abner Cohen was hit trying to negotiate Norbeck leaving Leisure World without a traffic Light. I had promoted 3 separate studies by SHA for a traffic light at this location and each request was found to not satisfy all necessary warrants the last denial was the day before the accident. It wasn’t till Mr. Cohen’s death and the outrage of residents of Leisure World that the light was installed at that location.

Politics should not be part of compressive transportation planning. And the tradeoff of Norbeck for the Purple line funding is Politics in its worse form.

Thomas Hardman said...

Cary, I can tell you that the bridge over Batchellor's Run, on Norbeck Road just west of Layhill Road, has been a worry at least since I was in 6th grade. We who were riding the schoolbus on that route tended to pray every time we went around that curve and across that bridge. I hear there have been some pretty significant wrecks there. My apprehensions are not lessened by the recent addition of a lot of 18-wheeler traffic to that stretch of Norbeck since the new section was completed -- inexplicably with only 2 lanes and limited to 45 MPH -- between Layhill Road and New Hampshire Avenue.

I figured it's about time to have a discussion with more dedication to the issue of Norbeck/"South Olney" grid connection issues over at my own blog. Not too much there yet but more will be coming.

For example, there's a great opportunity to provide some backroads connectivity and grid interconnections, north of Norbeck and east of the ICC route, before too much infill development turns it all into a hodgepodge of cul-de-sac communities.

And to again quote the trashman from the classic film "the 'Burbs":

"I hate cul-de-sacs. There's only one way in or out, and people get really weird."

C. P. Zilliacus said...

Cary Lamari wrote:

> I believe the presentation
> can be whatever the person
> who views it believe it
> to be.Thank You for posting
> it by the way. You must
> remember this PowerPoint
> was developed after the
> 2002 election supporting
> the end gridlock council.

What has the current membership
of the Montgomery County Council
done to ease gridlock?

Not a whole heck of a lot, at
least not that I can see.

> It demonstrated how a group
> of developers who could
> forge coalitions with
> other groups such as
> transit advocates,
> affordable housing
> advocates, Unions and
> others may manipulate
> the decision making of
> a jurisdiction for self
> serving goals.

A pretty large cross-section
of groups and people
"mainpulating" the process for
their "self serving goals."

In fact, it sounded to me
like a coalition, and
yes, I cast my vote for that
slate in the 2002 elections,
and I even voted for
Bob Ehrlich for Governor for
one reason and one reason
only - his unconditional
support for getting the ICC
Study back under way.

> It happened here and the
> result in 2003 the
> Council dismantled the
> Growth Policy, which opened
> up every location in the
> County for uncontrolled
> growth not supported by
> adequate infrastructure.

No, large and fortunate areas
of Montgomery County were (and
are) exempt from growth in
resident population.

> You can massage it all you
> like however no matter how
> good the product Rodgers
> Consulting puts out, if
> there are no standards,
> guidelines as to what
> level of growth in a
> particular area and what
> level of infrastructure
> is appropriate and
> necessary than the end
> effect is a declining
> quality of life, (not
> enough schools, parks,
> roads, transit and funding
> for basic operating costs).

Cary, been there, done that,
at least along U.S. 29 in
Montgomery County, without
(or, more to the point
with) an elaborate
AGP and APFO).

Growth in Montgomery County is
not driven by the Civic
Federation or even the County
Council, no matter how much
no-growth/slow growth rhetoric
is churned up. It's largely
driven by employment in the
entire Washington
region (yes, including the
federal government and
Northern Virginia), and though
the county has worked hard
(in some ways) to discourage
growth in housing and in
employment, that has not
been the case with our
neighbors.

Cary Lamari said...

Mr. Zilliacus,

You sound a little angry. I hope not, in fact I agree this Council has not had a majority of members in support of a Comprehensive Annual Growth Policy that is measurable and quantifiable. The current system with the transportation review known as PAMR does not work. As you know I am not a supporter of the ICC never have been. You and I have spoken about that before but we each are entitled to our opinion. I just happen to believe investing in a comprehensive group of projects both transit and roads would have been more beneficial in reducing the congestion on the roads across the county than one major investment in a road that primarily goes from Shady Grove to White Oak.

I felt it was better to deal with congestion in a countywide approach, I would have approved the Purple line 6 years ago with the Corridor City Transit-way, the Georgia Avenue Bus way, widening Norbeck east of Georgia and other roads and transit projects such as studying a transit facility down 29. I believe funding those projects years ago would have been a far better, more affordable and a more effective investment; apparently you feel the ICC will address our congestion problem. We shall see.

As for the Civic Federation, you are right yet again they do not control growth they are a wonderful group of County residents from across the County that review proposals that the County Council are considering and offer their perspectives in a respectful manor. I am proud of my involvement with them throughout the years. As far as growth is concerned, It can and should be managed, There should be a balance between how much we grow and what infrastructure is needed and who pays for it in Montgomery County otherwise Montgomery County will not be the lovely community it has traditionally been and those jobs you talk about will locate to other places.

It is apparent that our Budget has suffered as a result of growth beyond our ability to sustain that growth, and the fact there is no reliable funding source for basic operating costs. This County has relied on growth factors such as transfer taxes, recordation fees and capitol gain revenue to fund our basic operating budget and has traditionally fallen short as we can never meet the demands of current growth needs no less needs of new growth. This is why we never have enough police, fire/safety, parks and athletic fields, schools and roads.

As I said its all a balancing act and we start by working together and promoting a policy that protects the health, safety and welfare of our neighborhoods and provides for a quality of life that enhances the livability of our residents and promotes a healthy business environment.

Thank You,
Cary Lamari

C. P. Zilliacus said...

Cary Lamari wrote:

> You sound a little angry.

I am angry about some things,
such as misplaced priorities,
political correctness and its
impact on the middle class of
Montgomery County, and the
resulting negative impact on
our county.

See the excellent article by
Joel Kotkin about California's
problems and its potential for
recovery here. Much of what he
has written is directly
applicable to Montgomery County.

[snipped]

> measurable and quantifiable.

Umm, that is (in my opinion)
a good thing.

[snipped]

> you know I am not a supporter
> of the ICC never have been.

I made a home purchase decision
in 1985 after looking
at the master plan at the
time, and presuming
(as I had every right to
presume) that it would get
built. So I am pleased
that construction is finally
under way.

[snipped]

> road that primarily goes
> from Shady Grove to
> White Oak.

In TPR II, according to
the county's model, the ICC
was one of the most
effective things at
reducing future congestion.

[snipped]

> Norbeck east of Georgia
> and other roads and
> transit projects such
> as studying a transit
> facility down 29.

When has transit everdecongested any road in
Montgomery County, Maryland
or even the United States?

As for a transit line along
U.S. 29, there's no "middle"
to build such a thing south
of Md. 650, and were such
a project to get built, it
would only increase calls by
an assortment of activists
not resident in Fairland
or White Oak for more garden
apartments near such a line.

Thanks but no thanks.

> I believe funding those
> projects years ago would
> have been a far better,
> more affordable and a
> more effective investment;
> apparently you feel the ICC
> will address our
> congestion problem.

More affordable? Have
you ever heard of transit
operating deficits? Which
come after the capital
cost overruns?

[snipped]

> community it has
> traditionally been and
> those jobs you talk about
> will locate to other
> places.

I will keep my opinions about the
Civic Fed to myself.

As for jobs, ever looked at
economic activity in the
Washington region? And how
little of it is in the
Maryland suburbs of D.C.?

Population growth on the
Maryland side, combined with
anemic job growth, is a
prescription for increased
Beltway congestion at the
Potomac River crossing, as
well as along U.S. 29 and
other radials outside the
Beltway.

[snipped]

> growth needs no less needs
> of new growth. This is why
> we never have enough
> police, fire/safety, parks
> and athletic fields, schools
> and roads.

You don't think that the
nature of the growth that
has taken place has anything
to do with that?

And how would you fund all of
those new mass transit lines
that you endorse? Includingthe operating deficits?

[snipped]

> provides for a quality of
> life that enhances
> the livability of our
> residents and promotes a
> healthy business
> environment.

I realize you are not running
for office right now, but the
above sounds like political
sloganeering.

Why is it so hard to accept
that Montgomery County is
(and always will be) a
suburban community?

Cary Lamari said...

Mr. Zilliacus,

There is no reason and it serves no purpose to get angry, rather than expend that kind of negative energy, I suggest you get others more involved as I try to do and effect change. I too believe Montgomery County has misplaced many of its overarching priorities. The only way to refocus priorities however is to get involved which is why I brought up the Power Point in the first place. To me it is an eye opener and allows people to see what can happen when such coalitions are forged. I do think that forging coalitions is the only way you can successfully effect change. Remember that PowerPoint was developed for a Home Show in Las Vegas Nevada and used Montgomery County as its example. In context with what has occurred since the 2002 election, I believe my perspective on what has occurred is correct. The Development Community has changed Montgomery County from Suburban Communities to a Semi Urban to Urban County

I wish we were a suburban community and when I was running for political office my emphasis was to protect and preserve the few remaining suburban, semi rural and rural elements of Montgomery County that were left. With the emergence of TOD's there will be little left of a suburban lifestyle and the fact there is little support to widen existing roads but rather build more transit and TOD development to promote the density which Transit funding is predicated on. You will have to get used to the new Montgomery County, look at what is being proposed White Flint Master Plan with an additional 17,000 new dwelling units, and 5 million more square feet of commercial, Twinbrook which has just approved an additional 6000 units, Derwood which is in the process of an additional 6000 units, Gaithersburg West with 5000 more development units and 5 million square feet of commercial and Germantown which is looking at a potential for about 16000 more residential units and more commercial space and finally lets not forget White Oak which is being pushed now for a new Master Plan to mirror that of White flint. This is only a partial list.

As I said its all a balancing act and we start by working together and promoting overarching policies including jobs and where jobs make sense these polices must protects the health, safety and welfare of our neighborhoods and provides for a quality of life that enhances the livability of our residents and promotes a healthy business environment. This isn’t political rhetoric either it is what I believe.

I wish you were right. Montgomery County has moved from the suburban lifestyle and is merging with urban and semi urban living. Mr. Zilliacus anytime you would like to meet for lunch and talk I would be right there, I think we could have an interesting conversation. I believe the best way to address these issues is to be involved and I would love to talk to you about District 4 and your vision for it.

Dan Reed said...

Montgomery County may not be the center city in the region, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily still a suburb. We have some of the largest job centers in the region - Silver Spring, Bethesda, the I-270 corridor, and the Greenbelt-White Oak area (recognized by the Council of Governments). People no longer have to commute into the District for work.

There are suburban neighborhoods and, like Cary Lamari said, it's important to preserve them from encroaching development. That's what Arlington did by focusing 95% of their growth over the past three decades onto the compact Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. You can still go six blocks from a Metro station and end up in a quiet residential neighborhood. I think we can do the same here.

And, BTW, I would like to see transit going up Route 29 because it would justify more development here - offices, retail and housing, but I wouldn't call them garden apartments. And I live here, too. I'm sure there are plenty of people over here who would like to see a Kentlands or a King Farm or a Rockville Town Square over here - a real town center, a gathering place, not just another strip mall or cul-de-sac. I'm tired of having to go to Rockville or Columbia to shop or find work, and we're not going to create the jobs we want here without encouraging a denser scale of development.

The point of this post, originally, was to ask whether or not development was appropriate around a highway interchange. If we're moving to whether or not it would be appropriate around transit, I think the answer is a resounding "yes."

C. P. Zilliacus said...

Cary Lamari wrote:

> There is no reason and it
> serves no purpose to get
> angry, rather than expend
> that kind of negative energy,
> I suggest you get others
> more involved as I try to do
> and effect change.

I have been involved in East
County matters for decades
(having lived close to U.S. 29
in the county since 1960).

I have chosen not to be too
loudly involved in countywide
policy issues, except when
they pose (what I perceive
to be) a threat to the
East County. Advocacy for
more affordable housing and
garden apartments along
U.S. 29 being such a
threat.

Getting back to the ICC,
which was what Dan started
this discussion about, you have
stated your support for the
county's use of tools like the
AGP and APFO. Fine.
Have you ever stopped
to consider that land use
planning (including
development approvals for
things like Longmead Crossing)
have presumed that the ICC
would be constructed?

You mention anger. When I
think of anger and rage in
Montgomery County, I think
of loud and angry speeches
from the likes of Idamae
Garrott, Frank Vrataric and
Barney Evans (all now
deceased), and some of
their allies from the
Sierra Club and the City
of Takoma Park. All
involved in frantic efforts
to scuttle even any project
planning for the ICC, in some
case dating back to the
1970's.

C. P. Zilliacus said...

Dan Reed wrote:

> Montgomery County may not be
> the center city in the
> region, but that doesn't
> mean we're necessarily still
> a suburb.

Are you proposing that we
densify large sections of
the county where
single-family homes
have always predominated?

> We have some of the largest
> job centers in the region -
> Silver Spring, Bethesda,
> the I-270 corridor, and
> the Greenbelt-White Oak
> area (recognized by the
> Council of Governments).

I am quite familiar with COG's
process.

But Montgomery County
does not have anything
as dynamic as Tysons Corner
and the entire Va. 267
(Dulles Toll Road) Corridor
when it comes to jobs. In
part because ground access
to airports (and
especially to Dulles,
the predominant long-haul
and international airport in
the region) is poor by
deliberate county
policy.

> People no longer have to
> commute into the District
> for work.

D.C. is in many ways not
a good neighbor. So not
working there is (in my
opinion) not such a bad thing.

> There are suburban
> neighborhoods and, like
> Cary Lamari said, it's
> important to preserve them
> from encroaching
> development.

Do we also preserve them by
preventing
densification? Even when the
densification is supposed to
increase transit patronage?

> That's what Arlington did
> by focusing 95% of their
> growth over the past
> three decades onto the
> compact Rosslyn-Ballston
> corridor. You can still go
> six blocks from a Metro
> station and end up in a
> quiet residential
> neighborhood. I think we
> can do the same here.

I disagree. Strongly.

Montgomery County is not
Arlington County, nor will
it ever be. Geography
assures that. And you neglect
to mention what is probably
the biggest reason for the
success of that part of
Arlington. Not the
Orange Line. But I-66,
which gives that area great
highway access to downtown
D.C. (far superior to
anything in Montgomery County)
and to Dulles and National
Airports, and to all of that
employment at Tysons Corner
and along the Toll Road.

> And, BTW, I would like to
> see transit going up
> Route 29 because it
> would justify more
> development here -
> offices, retail and housing,
> but I wouldn't call them
> garden apartments.

I hope that you would oppose
more garden apartments.

> And I live here, too. I'm
> sure there are plenty of
> people over here who would
> like to see a Kentlands or
> a King Farm or a Rockville
> Town Square over here - a
> real town center, a
> gathering place, not
> just another strip mall
> or cul-de-sac. I'm tired
> of having to go to Rockville
> or Columbia to shop or
> find work, and we're not
> going to create the jobs we
> want here without encouraging
> a denser scale of development.

What about the FDA? And what
is going on near the new
Washington Adventist Hospital
site?

> The point of this post,
> originally, was to ask
> whether or not development
> was appropriate around a
> highway interchange. If
> we're moving to whether or
> not it would be
> appropriate around transit,
> I think the answer is
> a resounding "yes."

I think more density around
the ICC interchanges (where
it is not already present, as
it is at the ICC and U.S. 29)
could be appropriate.
Recall that the ICC will also
carry transit buses.

But consider also this -
densities do not ride
transit
. Have you ever
watched the stream of
single-occupant vehicles
pouring out of Castle Boulevard
during the A.M. peak period?

I have.

Cary Lamari said...

Longmead was never predicated on the ICC, IF you remember correctly Longmead Crossing is a planned retirement community, non-age restricted. It was part of Leisure World then removed during a time of economic downturn similar to the one we are experiencing. This was another tool for developers to promote additional density by use of ZTA and zoning manipulation. Longmead Crossing was initially zoned R-200 till Leisure World acquired it then it became a multi family zoning category age restricted then when the economy turned and The developers of leisure world needed to liquidate part of their development they applied for a ZTA and created the non age restricted option for this particular parcel. And with respect to Ida Mae Garrott, Frank Vrataric and Barney Evans, No one is ever 100% right all of the time, however I knew each of those individuals respected each and I know they gave more to improve the quality of life in this County than most. They reflect the best this County has to offer and should be given the respect that they each have individually in their own way earned in the course of their lifetime. I hope I live up to their standards. Each of us is entitled to our opinion however we should keep our criticism to the living. I have learned however many people express anger when they become frustrated in their attempt to present their view. I again extend a offer to meet with you and discuss your view of District 4 and how we may work together on areas which we agree, and there seems like there are many.
Thank You,
Cary Lamari

Dan Reed said...

But consider also this - densities do not ride
transit. Have you ever watched the stream of
single-occupant vehicles pouring out of Castle Boulevard during the A.M. peak period?
I have. But have you ever ridden any of the Z-line Metrobuses down Route 29? It's one of the heaviest-ridden routes in the entire region. "Densities" can and do ride transit, if the means are provided for them, not just a concentration of apartments.

Have you been down Castle Boulevard? It's a giant cul-de-sac, lined with other cul-de-sacs. It's a set-up that encourages driving - because the roads are too disconnected to make walking (to transit, to the shopping and amenities that the community already has) easy and the easiest way to get around, for those who have one, is in the car.

The new generation of urban places being built in this region - in formerly "suburban" locales like Downtown Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Arlington - is predicated on proximity to transit, not just highways. These are dense places in which walking and transit use is encouraged, not just an afterthought. THAT is the difference between yesterday's "transit serviceability" and today's "transit-oriented development."

There are large populations of people in all three places who don't drive because a car is not necessary. The BeyondDC blog is written by someone who lived in Ballston and didn't have a car.

What about the development around FDA? I'm looking forward to it, but only as part of a larger plan that recognizes the east side needs to restructure itself if it's going to preserve suburban communities AND accommodate new development AND deal with congestion.

Cary Lamari said...

Just one last comment,
Dan, with respect to density governing rider ship, my wife works in Tysons Corner, for her to use transit she would have to make no less than 5 transfers and still walk quite a bit. Transit does not access all the employment centers. Policies that require significant large densities to support transit funding is wrong. It almost requires jurisdictions to go into gridlock before that congestion may be addressed. Also, TOD's have almost become cookie cutter developments. I actually like the kentlands and feel some of that type of development would be nice around FDA and around white Oak however you and I both know as soon as they designate this new sector plan as a Transit area development, the emphasis will be for Rockville Pike high-rises and densities. I believe Montgomery County should have diversity in development types and that it’s the Community that should have the say in what development patterns and types are acceptable.
Thank You,
Cary Lamari

C. P. Zilliacus said...

Cary Lamari wrote:

> Longmead was never predicated
> on the ICC, IF you
> remember correctly Longmead
> Crossing is a planned
> retirement community,
> non-age restricted. It was
> part of Leisure World
> then removed during a time
> of economic downturn similar
> to the one we are
> experiencing.

The above is consistent with
my memory, but see below.

> This was another tool for
> developers to promote
> additional density by use of
> ZTA and zoning manipulation.
> Longmead Crossing was
> initially zoned R-200
> till Leisure World acquired
> it then it became a multi
> family zoning category
> age restricted then when
> the economy turned and
> The developers of leisure
> world needed to liquidate
> part of their development
> they applied for a ZTA
> and created the non age
> restricted option for
> this particular parcel.

But when (what is now) Longmead
Crossing came in for approval
in the 1980's before the
Montgomery County Planning
Board of the M-NCP&PC, one of
the conditions was that
the developers set-aside
and dedicate to the Maryland
Department of Transportation
the land that was designated
in the 1960's as the Outer
Beltway (and is now the ICC).

C. P. Zilliacus said...

Cary Lamari wrote:

> Dan, with respect to density
> governing rider ship, my wife
> works in Tysons Corner, for
> her to use transit she
> would have to make no less
> than 5 transfers and still
> walk quite a bit.

I can assure you that she
is not the only resident of
Montgomery County that
works in Tysons Corner, in
spite of what some people
(especially those opposed to
new highway crossings of
the Potomac River between
the American Legion Bridge
and White's Ferry) claim.

And Dulles Rail has notravel time benefit for
residents of Montgomery County
that work at Tysons Corner or
in the Toll Road corridor.

> Transit does not access all
> the employment centers.

Correct!

> Policies that require
> significant large densities
> to support transit funding
> is wrong.

There are two ways to boost
density for transit - with
high-density residential
development, or with large
park-and-ride lots and decks
(think the Shady Grove or
Greenbelt Metrorail stations).

> It almost
> requires jurisdictions to go
> into gridlock before that
> congestion may be addressed.

And I am not aware of any
transit line that has
ever provided highway
congestion relief.

In fact, highway congestion
is often considered a prequisite
to investing in transit.

> Also, TOD's have almost
> become cookie cutter
> developments. I actually
> like the kentlands and feel
> some of that type of
> development would be nice
> around FDA and around
> white Oak however you and
> I both know as soon as
> they designate this new
> sector plan as a Transit
> area development, the
> emphasis will be for
> Rockville Pike high-rises
> and densities.

And low-income housing.

> I believe Montgomery
> County should have diversity
> in development types and
> that it’s the Community
> that should have the say
> in what development patterns
> and types are acceptable.

That is why Fairland was so
emphatic in rejecting the
so-called "concept of transit
servicability" from the 1981
Eastern Montgomery County
master plan!

C. P. Zilliacus said...

Dan Reed wrote:

> But have you ever ridden any
> of the Z-line Metrobuses
> down Route 29?

Yes, rode them for years,
though not recently because
my job is not compatible with
taking transit.

> It's one of the heaviest-ridden
> routes in the entire region.

Agreed. But is that putting
the cart before the horse?
Increased transit ridership
should not be a goal in and
of itself, especially for
a community many miles beyond
the Beltway, as Fairland is, and
without preferential treatment
for the buses (e.g. HOV or bus
lanes).

> "Densities" can and do ride
> transit, if the means
> are provided for them, not
> just a concentration
> of apartments.

See above.

> Have you been down Castle
> Boulevard?

Yes.

> It's a giant cul-de-sac,
> lined with other cul-de-sacs.

Correct. One way in and
one way out.

> It's a set-up that encourages
> driving - because the roads
> are too disconnected to
> make walking (to transit,
> to the shopping and
> amenities that the
> community already has) easy
> and the easiest way to
> get around, for those who
> have one, is in the car.

And those Z buses only connect
Castle Boulevard to the Silver
Spring Metrorail station and the
CBD, and White Oak. Everything
else means one or more
transfers (and transfers
kill transit ridership).

The only other service to
the Briggs Chaney area is the
39 Ride-on line to Glenmont.

With the coming of the ICC, it
should be possible to get to
Shady Grove on a bus quickly.

> The new generation of
> urban places being built in
> this region - in
> formerly "suburban" locales
> like Downtown Silver Spring,
> Bethesda, and Arlington -
> is predicated on proximity
> to transit, not just
> highways.

Downtown Silver Spring and
Bethesda have long had dense
development - dating back in
my memory to the 1960's. And
Arlington County, unlikeMontgomery, is entirely inside
the Beltway and entirely
inside the 10-mile square.

> These are dense places in
> which walking and transit
> use is encouraged, not just
> an afterthought. THAT is
> the difference between
> yesterday's "transit
> serviceability" and
> today's "transit-oriented
> development."

I happen to endorse (strongly)
improvements for bike riders
and pedestrians. The MCDOT
and SHA did a good job with
Briggs Chaney Road between
Old Columbia Pike and the ICC,
for example.

> There are large populations
> of people in all three
> places who don't drive
> because a car is not
> necessary. The BeyondDC
> blog is written by someone
> who lived in Ballston and
> didn't have a car.

That's fine. But just because
being without a motor vehicle
works for someone inside that
10-mile square does not mean
that it will work on a large
scale in Fairland or most
of Montgomery or Prince
George's Counties.

> What about the development
> around FDA?

Not that much vacant land
available!

> I'm looking forward to it,
> but only as part of a
> larger plan that recognizes
> the east side needs
> to restructure itself if
> it's going to preserve
> suburban communities AND
> accommodate new development
> AND deal with congestion.

Land use changes are notgoing to do much either way
when it comes to congestion.

Dan Reed said...

Also, TOD's have almost become cookie cutter developments.

You're right, Cary, but that's an issue of style and programming - what the buildings look like, and what kind of tenants occupy them - not land use or building form. Developers think traditional buildings sell (which they do) which is why Rockville and Bethesda and Silver Spring are all built in a similar style.

> Policies that require
> significant large densities
> to support transit funding
> is wrong.
But that's the point. Transit and density go together, because if the goal is to get people out of their cars, you have to put people where the transit is. Shady Grove and Greenbelt are both going to be the sites of TOD because park-and-ride lots only go so far to reduce traffic since, duh, people still have to drive to get there. If you look at the Metro stations with the highest ridership - it's those where people are around the station, not parking lots. The same goes for transit systems around the country.

Look, this conversation's getting kind of ridiculous, and we might have to agree to disagree. This kind of talk makes me look forward to the next Fairland Master Plan update . . .

Cary Lamari said...

Mr. Zilliacus,
We are in agreement on a lot, this is why I proposed and supported a comprehensive measurable and quantifiable Growth Policy and balanced vehicular and transit transportation options. Washington is no longer and has not been the main employment center it once was in the Metro Region. There must be options for transportation and there must also be balance in land-use and housing types in Montgomery County. We must also work with surrounding jurisdictions, as the Growth issue is a regional issue.

We probably will never be able to relieve congestion in Montgomery County however we may be able to maintain a reasonable transportation network but not if we continue down the path we are heading, massive uncontrolled growth without options. Montgomery County is moving away from suburbia to urban and semi urban development. The fact that many people cannot utilize transit as a reasonable option also suggests that the scale of TOD’s as proposed by Chairman Hanson and Rollin Stanley should not be the norm for development in Montgomery County but rather intermixed where appropriate as Dan has stated. In fact Mr. Hanson has stated that the land that will make up TOD’s is extremely expensive and will not be conducive for places of worship and other such community uses to locate in these projects. Which brings up even more challenges, where will they go and how will people get to them, Drive?

I believe protecting the quality of life of our existing neighborhoods should still be our principle goal. We must endeavor to achieve a balance of transit and vehicular options and housing types
.
Decisions such as the one Governor O'Malley made holding the widening of Norbeck hostage for another 2 decades will overwhelm the quality of life in Montgomery County especially the east county and creating little and dense neighborhoods with no pedestrian options and no community interaction like the Greenbriar development may not be the solution.

By the way, the Aspen Hill Master Plan was predicated on a ICC, the Master Plan committee wanted to have the option to remove it but that was nixed by Park and Planning, therefore all land that was in the ROW for the ICC had to be dedicated.

Note, Master Plans are a guide and are subject to change conditioned on factors like the environment and historical resources and other factors. Governor Glendening killed the ICC, It just didn’t stay dead and the final consequences are yet to be seen. I have spoken about the many transportation options that could have been implemented with the money.

Thomas Hardman said...

If you can think of other projects, get a "Garvey" instrument bond for them, too.

Oh, that's right, "Garvey" instruments have to actually demonstrate that they can, and will, repay.

I want to question the underlying assumption I see unspoken, but glaring, in the arguments of both Dan and Cary. I do not understand why it isn't directly stated and why it seems to be avoided at all costs.

Why do you folks want to have endless population increase, and to have it here in Montgomery?