|
Join Us
Join Us
0 Comments
Original Article from: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/tag/Maryland/ by • June 7, 2013 12:27 pm The 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan envisioned a "transit- and pedestrian-oriented community" in upper Montgomery County with comprehensive transit service, a bustling town center, and phased development to protect the environment. 20 years later, many residents feel the promises have been broken. Instead, Clarksburg has little transit, no town center, and children who are bused across the street to school. Residents have formed a new organization, the Liveable Clarksburg Coalition, to influence the process for the final stage of development, which they call "our last chance to get it right." Their first meeting on May 26 drew a standing-room only crowd of 250 people.The Liveable Clarksburg Coalition wants to halt further development until the plan's promises are fulfilled. And they warn against any development that might put pristine, environmentally-sensitive Ten Mile Creek at risk. A town without a center, TOD without the T The Master Plan called for 4 stages of development. Property owners in some areas could not build until adequate sewer infrastructure, some roads, and parts of the town center were in place. Meanwhile, safeguards tried to protect the health of Ten Mile Creek, called the county's "last, best creek." Map of Clarksburg showing each of the 4 stages along with existing and proposed transit. Click on the image to see an interactive map. In 2004, residents discovered hundreds of site plan violations, a scandal that led to the resignation of the Planning Board chairman. The town center that was supposed to come first never got built; instead of stores, a supermarket, and a library, there are 17 acres of vacant land. For Clarksburg to get its first supermarket, set to open in Clarksburg Village this year, the County Council had to pass a limited amendment waiving the master plan's requirement that commercial development happen in the town center first. Meanwhile, the promised "comprehensive transit system" has turned out to mean 2 Ride On routes: the 75, which runs every 30 minutes on weekdays between the Germantown Transit Center and the Montgomery County Correctional Facility, and the 79, which runs non-express every 30 minutes during rush hour between Clarksburg and Shady Grove. The Corridor Cities Transitway was supposed to stop in Clarksburg at Comsat, 2 miles south of Town Center and across I-270 from Cabin Branch. Now, the Maryland Transit Administration plans for the still-unfunded line to end at Metropolitan Grove in Gaithersburg, 9 miles south. And as for pedestrian-friendly roads: children in the Gateway Commons neighborhood take the bus to a school across the street because it's unsafe for them to cross on foot. There will be a crosswalk and traffic signal after a bypass of Route 355 is built, as the master plan calls for. However, the bypass would go through the school. Plan requires more evaluation before developing around Ten Mile Creek The fourth and final stage of Clarksburg development is on the east side of Ten Mile Creek. Because the creek is environmentally sensitive, the master plan requires the County Council to evaluate its water quality before Stage 4 can begin. If the water quality is worse, they must decide whether to require property owners in Stage 4 to take extra measures to improve the creek, study the water quality further, make changes to Stage 4 to prevent additional deterioration, or just let Stage 4 go forward anyway. In 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection completed the required evaluation and found that construction in Town Center had degraded the water quality in the Ten Mile Creek watershed. The Planning Board recommended that the County Council amend the master plan to change Stage 4. Instead, the council appointed a water quality working group to study whether planned development could occur without harming the watershed. The working group's recommendations split along predictable lines. Consultants felt that development could continue without problems thanks to more stringent requirements for stormwater management and sediment control. However, the majority of the group, including county government staff, a Clarksburg resident, and a member of an environmental group, felt that the planned development could not happen without harming the Ten Mile Creek watershed. They cited studies that show urbanization at any level degrades water quality, as well as the way construction at Town Center had already degraded one Ten Mile Creek subwatershed. This majority recommended changing the master plan for Stage 4, and last October, the County Council asked the Planning Department to prepare a limited amendment to the plan. The stakes are high On June 20, the Planning Board will hold a worksession to present and discuss the proposed amendment. A public hearing will follow in September. If the Planning Board votes to endorse the amendment, it will then go to the County Council for a final vote that will determine how Stage 4 development will proceed. Groups including the Sierra Club, Audubon Naturalist Society, and the Liveable Clarksburg Coalition are calling for changes to the Clarksburg Master Plan to protect Ten Mile Creek and support the vision of Clarksburg as a transit- and pedestrian-oriented town. However, the two major developers in the watershed are pressuring the county to let Stage 4 proceed without major changes. Pulte Homes owns 538 acres in the Ten Mile Creek watershed and says they've spent $70 million preparing for the 1,000-unit development they're already advertising. And the Peterson Companies want to build a Tanger Outlet Center on a 98-acre property in the creek's watershed east of I-270. Councilmember Craig Rice, whose district includes Clarksburg, has introduced 2 bills that would let projects with pervious pavers include more paved surface area than the Master Plan's limits would otherwise allow. Planners say that these bills "propose a solution to a problem that does not exist, and would create new problems." For nearly a generation, development in Clarksburg has been a history of missteps, mistakes, empty words, and broken promises. Instead of a transit- and pedestrian-oriented town, the first 3 stages of the Clarksburg Master Plan have produced a car-dependent, transit-less sprawl. With the master plan amendment on Ten Mile Creek, Montgomery County has one last chance to get development in Clarksburg right.
Join Us by adding your voice to our community effort to eliminate M-83 from the Master Plan of Highways! We hope to see you on a "NO M-83" Walk. "The comprehensive rapid transit system will provide improved mobility for its riders, will improve the county's quality of life, will stimulate economic development in the County, and will improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gases, and reduce energy consumption." -- The Montgomery County Transit Task Force http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/cex/transit/index.asp TAME Coalition stands behind these aims of the Montgomery County Transit Task Force. Developing our county's mass transit system will do more to ensure sustainable quality of life for our ecosystem, and its inhabitants, than building another road designed for car travel will ever do. The Bus Rapid Transit Amendment to the Montgomery Co. Master Plan of Highways includes the following goals:
Proposed BRT Route Map http://montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/highways/brt.shtm The Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan will recommend rights-of-way for individual transit corridors to accommodate bus lanes and station locations for the proposed transit network. Join Us by adding your voice to our community effort to eliminate M-83 from the Master Plan of Highways! Support implementing Bus Rapid Transit as one of multiple transportation systems to replace M-83. To Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commissioners: The Coalition for Transit Alternatives to Mid-County Highway Extended (TAME) is a unified coalition of 44 organizations made up of HOAs, elected officials, faith communities, environmental groups and political action groups. We want Montgomery County to restore balance to our transportation systems, making public transit a priority by developing the CCT, BRT, Purple Line and full service MARC Train. We petition to accelerate road improvements and proposed transit projects rather than building new highways. McDOT just finished a nine-year study on the Mid-county Corridor Study and their 250+ page Draft Environmental Effects Report has only 1 1/3 pages (p.228-229) addressing transit as a transportation alternative. If the County is going to study a road to Clarksburg, there should be an equally in-depth study on transit alternatives to Clarksburg, the upper county, and the eastern side of the county. Montgomery County absolutely must study and include BRT as an extension to Clarksburg: traveling along Rt. 355, through Clarksburg's neighborhoods, and along existing roads east of Germantown. Since the county is spending millions studying a road to Clarksburg, we need to study transit to Clarksburg NOW in anticipation of ridership in 2020 and 2030. Transit can no longer be simply an "add-on" after Master Plans are sealed, if we are to have good smart growth for our county's future. Prioritize transit alternatives over roads and start demanding that transit studies be as extensive in scope as the out-dated and environmentally destructive Mid-County Highway Extended (M-83). It's time for transit to serve the upper county, Clarksburg and the I-270 Tech Corridor in 21st-century Bus Rapid Transit systems. We strongly encourage you to lead in this monumental transportation transition for the future of MoCo by choosing BRT over more roads. TAME Coalition Join Us Dear Midcounty Corridor Study Community: This email is to notify you and your community of the latest milestone for the Midcounty Corridor Study. Available on our website, for your review, is the May 2013 DRAFT Environmental Effects Report (EER). The subject report has been submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for their review. The May 2013 DRAFT EER is part of a permit application requirement. It documents the results of the detailed study for each retained alternative. It will also be the subject of discussion for the pending USACE/MDE Joint Public Hearing, anticipated Summer 2013. In the coming weeks, a Newsletter/Public Notice will be mailed with the details of the upcoming Joint Public Hearing. In anticipation of the hearing, there are several ways in which you may access and review the May 2013 DRAFT EER: 1. Download report at the following link: 2. Purchase a hard copy of the report for $123.00. Make a written request to the project manager, Mr. Greg Hwang. 3. Review hard copy report onsite (to be available by Friday, May 10, 2013) at the following locations:
We encourage you to share this information with your community. Should you have any questions of concerns, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Gwo-Ruey (Greg) Hwang, P.E. Midcounty Corridor Study Project Manager Phone: 240-777-7279 Fax: 240-777-7277 *** Midcounty Corridor Study website: www.montgomerycountymd.gov/midcountycorridorstudy *** TAME Coalition has received a copy of the Midcounty Corridor Study map for Alternatives #4, #8 and #9. It shows detailed layouts of the proposed six-lane M-83 highway routes which will cut through established neighborhoods in Montgomery Village, Gaithersburg and Germantown. These routes promise to destroy pristine forest and wetlands in Montgomery County's Seneca Creek Watershed, North Germantown-Greenway Parkland, Whetstone Run and South Valley Park. Zoom in on your home address to see how this road will damage your property values and devastate your neighborhood's surrounding ecosystem. In 2013, there are multiple transportation systems already in place that offer viable alternatives to McDOT's obsolete six-lane highway design called M-83. Forward-looking, sustainable alternatives include widening existing roads (without converting them to highways), improving intersections, creating reverse lanes on Rt. 355 in the upcounty region, designating bus lanes on I-270, building the CCT, and expanding access to full MARC Train service. The TAME Coalition advocates these progressive alternatives to M-83. Join Us George Leventhal is a man of conviction. He has a vision for the economic sustainability of Montgomery County and the well-being of its citizens. Currently a leader of the County Council in environmental matters, Leventhal was awarded the Maryland Climate Hero Award by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network in 2009. His commitment to the environment includes advocating transportation alternatives to the automobile.
In a statement made to the TAME Coalition and Action Committee for Transit in December, Leventhal promised: "I will not support funding one more dollar towards building Mid-County Highway Extended. Montgomery County should be focusing their transportation dollars on building transit to accommodate our growing economy and population. We are now in the business of moving people, not cars, to their destination." With great respect, TAME Coalition welcomes the support of Councilmember George Leventhal in its mission to restore balance to the County's transportation system: supporting rapid transit, accelerating road improvements and transit projects, and eliminating M-83 from the Master Plan of Highways. Join Us M-83 Extension still in Study Phase Writer for Conservation Montgomery A recent Montgomery County Council vote may shape transportation patterns in the county from this time forward, including the contentious plans to extend the Midcounty Highway (M83). The Transportation Policy Area Review(TPAR) is a new ordinance that has been added as a revision to the county’s 2012 Subdivision Staging Policy, originally called the Policy Element of the Annual Growth Policy. On November 13, the Council approved the policy with an 8-1 vote. Reviewed by the Montgomery County Planning Board every four years, the Subdivision Staging Policy sets parameters for growth in the county’s transportation and school systems with the aim to ensure that county infrastructure will be able to support new development projects. In order to determine whether projected development of a transportation system is adequate and meets capacity limits for land use, planners need to run tests on their transportation models. TPAR sets the standards and methodologies for these transportation tests, determining adequacy of road and transit options separately. If a projected model is assessed to be inadequate, the Planning Board may still allow the project to proceed if the developer pays a fee that will be used to implement improvements to help a proposed transportation system meet standards of adequacy. In addition, the Planning Board’s synopsis of TPAR states, that unlike analyses done using PAMR, “...the starting point of the analysis [using TPAR] is shifted from the capacity of established transportation projects to determining what projects are needed to accommodate master planned growth. This shift focuses on implementing master plan goals and allows timely responses to market opportunities, rather than limiting growth to what can be accommodated by transportation capacity.” However, a number of community advocates have had a different take on TPAR. They believe the new parameters will not effectively ensure the adequacy and sustainability of a transportation system because of what they see as a loose standard for what constitutes “adequate transit.” Furthermore, opponents of the M83 extension say TPAR would allow the revenue from fees to be used to build transportation projects that would ultimately lead to more congestion as well as limit transit options in a given area. At issue is the potential extension of M83 through northern Montgomery County, which has been under consideration by the county for the last 50 years and formally studied for the last 9 years. The M83 study has examined the potential impact of the original plans for a 4-6 lane highway running from Montgomery Village Avenue in Gaithersburg to Ridge Road in Clarksburg, in addition to five other alternatives. M83 remains a question mark on the county master plan with an undetermined date set for final review by the county because of complications surrounding its objective and design. The complications include practical questions stemming from following through with an outdated master plan that reflects the infrastructure needs of the county from more than 50 years ago rather than today. Also under discussion are concerns about the environmental impact the highway would have on the Great Seneca Creek watershed area. Moreover, there is the sheer cost of building the highway extension over a small segment of the county. The County has stated this cost would be one-third the cost of a county-wide public transit system. For these reasons, the original master plan design for M83 has been deemed infeasible by a number of county legislators, particularly Councilmember George Leventhal, as well as advocates of smart growth. Among them are Margaret Schoap, a steward of the Dayspring Church Farm in Germantown, a 210-acre retreat center and conservation area that would be spliced by the M83 master plan alignment. Schoap has been leading the county’s most organized community campaign to stop M83 from being built, Transit Alternatives to Midcounty Highway Extended (TAME). “We need to think of alternatives to a six-lane highway,”Schoap says. “Our intent is to replace it with multiple transitsystems being worked on by many good people in our county,”[such as the county’s proposed Purple Line light rail system and bus rapid transit]. Nevertheless, the TPAR final report discusses parts of Midcounty Highway Extended as potential projects for future consideration. In light of TPAR’s provisions for transit adequacy, this has alarmed community members who stress that the revised Subdivision Staging Policy “shifts control of transportation spending priorities away from the voters and you, their elected representatives,” as expressed by Tina Slater, President of the civic group Action Committee for Transit in an October 21 letter to the County Council. “Even with the flexibility added by the committee,” Slater wrote, “..tax revenues would have to be spent on reducing road congestion in and around the policy area where development occurs. This still favors investment in sprawl-inducing roads like M83 -- the computer models will insist on it, whatever the real- world effects.” Meanwhile, Schoap contends that, “No TPAR funds can be assigned to M83 at this time because it is not a project being built, it is a project being studied.” In an interview after the recent Council vote, Glenn Orlin, Deputy Staff Director of the County Council, confirmed that Schoap is correct because no more money has been selected for M83 at present. “The Council approved TPAR, but not in the same way the Planning Board recommended,” Orlin explained, noting that analyses of transportation tests will not be forecasted over the long-term, but instead will be modeled over a 6-10 year time frame. “The Council doesn’t have to put money to a specific project. It has the flexibility to see what the options are,” he said. Orlin emphasized that M83 is one such project that is still in the study and planning phase. He declined to speculate as to whether that the project would ultimately be approved, but he stated that no more money would be dedicated to the highway at this time. Councilmember Leventhal cast the lone dissenting vote against TPAR. Before the vote, he explained his opposition. “[TPAR] imposes three different levels of taxation, none of which raise enough revenue to build any real infrastructure,” said Leventhal. “I understand we need to have something in place, we need to provide some stability and certainty to the development community, so I understand the context in which I anticipate a majority of my colleagues will be voting for this. I hope in the very near term we will engage in a real conversation about paying for transportation infrastructure . . . I think we’re dealing with the constraints of a prior system and it’s time to think anew.” Join Us We must connect our urban centers by rapid bus and rail transit systems and accelerate construction of the Corridor Cities Transitway and the Purple Line. We can convert the major arterial roads that now divide our centers into tree-lined boulevards that unify them. And let's connect our built environment to the natural environment by the hiking and biking trails in our stream valley parks. Achieving connectivity in great places also means increasing the productivity of an integrated transportation system. Royce Hanson, PhD, JD Visionary of Montgomery County's Agricultural Reserve Former Chairman of Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission Author Join Us |