The map below sums up what’s happening in the neighborhood. Clockwise from the left, the red areas illustrate the neighborhood’s institutional land owners: Boston College, St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center, Harvard University, and at the bottom right Boston University. More than passive neighbors, most of these — especially Harvard through its Allston Initiative — have been expanding. The dots show existing and planned development projects. (For the initiated like myself, ABCPI’s old presentations provide an introduction.)

All this development activity, much of it planned by none other than Harvard has resulted in a climate of antagonism and distrust in the community. Discussing these issues with Harry, I was reminded of the procedural elements to the East Campus Redevelopment Initiative in College Park, Maryland.

When I first arrived on campus in College Park to begin my master’s program in the fall of 2006, the University of Maryland was initiating the process of selecting a private developer to redevelop over 100 acres of their land into a mixed-use project with restaurants, apartments, a hotel, stores, and offices. The site is located just up the road from downtown College Park, strategically between the university’s main campus, and the Metro Station and University research park. (Yellow and green on the map to the right)

The administration had planned a three public forums about the project, complete with large maps and a panel to discuss the projects. Despite the preparation, turnout was abysmal and University staff easily outnumbered attendees. We requested and were granted a meeting with the then-Vice President for Administrative Affairs John Porcari and two other administrators to discuss public outreach about the project. Although they listened politely, the administrators firmly insisted the process of selecting a private developer must remain closed. Once one was selected, however, they pledged a full and public process.

That fall Porcari left the University to become the state Secretary of Transportation, but the next spring we had a meeting with one of the administrators from the original group and an expanded group including student leaders and administrators. At this meeting, we presented our recommendations for what a positive public engagement plan would look like. We argued it should be consensus-based, proactive, candid, and transparent, and provided specific recommendations and a brief summary of how other universities had handled input for facilities planning. The document is no masterwork, but because of it we brought far more substantive input than any other participant.

Shortly after that meeting, former Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan was appointed to the position that would oversee the project planning, Vice President for Administrative Affairs. The veteran of a complex public-private project revitalizing Silver Spring, Maryland, Duncan was no stranger to the politics of urban development. I emailed him to congratulate him on his appointment, and asked for a position on any steering committee created.

During the summer, I received this letter from the University president:

July 20, 2007
Mr. Robert Goodspeed
AGNR-Plant Science & Landscape Architecture
2139 Plant Sciences Building
College Park, MD 20742-4452

Dear Rob:

With the recent Board of Regents approval of the team of Foulger-Pratt/Argo Investment as the developer with whom the University can negotiate a development plan for the East Campus site, I am seeking the input of a Community Review Steering Committee. The Committee will work toward achieving a consensus plan for the development of the University’s east campus site and toward promoting the revitalization of the Route 1 corridor. Planning for this project must provide for current institutional needs, future campus goals and the enhancement of the surrounding community.

The Committee will work in open session, considering issues that have been brought to it by the campus community, area neighborhoods and local businesses. Comment from the public will be solicited at public events and through members of the committee. We look forward to lively dialogue and a collegial exploration of ideas between our Committee members and the development team. Committee members will be charged to work with the Foulger-Pratt/Argo team on the development of the plan. They will be in a position to gain a high level of understanding of the project in order to provide input and to build broad support for it.

You have been recommended for membership on this Committee, and I ask for your participation. I hope that you will consider this opportunity to represent the community in this transformational planning process. I value greatly the input of our diverse community for the east campus development. I am excited by the long-term vision of a vibrant, mixed-use center that will serve the University and the College Park communities. I have attached the schedule of the meetings planned as you consider this invitation. Being optimistic, I would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to serve. Please contact [EXCERPTED] to confirm your availability and interest in helping to make the east campus a truly great contribution to our community.

Yours sincerely,

C. D. Mote, Jr.
President

The following schedule was enclosed.

East Campus Community Review Steering Committee
Tentative Meeting Schedule

Chair of Committee: Mr. Douglas M. Duncan
Vice President for Administrative Affairs
University of Maryland

The following is a tentative schedule for meetings and topics for discussion. All the meetings will be held from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. in the Visitor Center Auditorium located in Turner Hall.

* August 13–Introduction; background on RFP process, developer presentation; committee goals/charge

* August 27–Market dynamics and proposed uses: retail, residential, office, and hotel

* September 12–Economic impact of development and public finance options

* September 24–Transportation planning: Route 1/Paint Branch connections/traffic calming, public transit, and pedestrian/bicycle connections

* October 8–Land use options and concepts: placemaking, street-facing retail, views, plazas, connections, and residential over retail.

* October 22—Concluding meeting

Although the precise timing and topics varied somewhat from this schedule (the meetings didn’t wrap up until January 2008, for example) it generally suggests the approach taken. After every meeting and at other times during the process I wrote detailed blog posts on Rethink College Park, sharing all the technical documentation and information discussed at the meetings. In general, these meetings were very well attended and despite tense moments were generally respectful. During the entire time period, me and the other Rethink College Park contributors wrote a staggering 366 posts about East Campus. The university posted a variety of information to their website about the project.

Chaired personally by Doug Duncan, the meetings were very good at sharing information and providing a venue for community engagement. However, they weren’t perfect. Here’s a few of my concerns:

• The composition of the committee was half university, half community, with a few others (including 3 students) thrown in. If the university is a developer, why should they have such a large representation?
• The format of the meeting was designed for one-way communication, not discussion. The group sat in a “U” facing a presenter. The only structured discussion was during Q&A.
• No designs in more detail than massing and site plans were presented. This was the biggest failure of the process: nobody saw the public plans until after the group stopped meeting.

Last summer, I made one last trip to College Park to see the unveiling of the final plans, which were submitted to the county for approval last summer also. In addition to what’s described here, the project involved dozens of other components I haven’t mentioned, ranging from talking with members of the closed-door campus architectural committee to visiting with administrators to discuss how to make the project website more user-friendly. Needless to say, the true impact of any of this on the project is impossible to say and the final chapter of this project is far from over. Nevertheless, I hope the information here about the public process may prove a useful record.

> U. of Maryland East Campus Redevelopment Initiative (Official site)
> Rethink College Park: East Campus Posts
Rethink College Park: “Engaging the Community in the East Campus Redevelopment”
> See also, “NIMBYism, Urban Development, and the Public Involvement Solution,”

I’m using the data for a larger ridership study that should appear here sometime in the future, but in the meantime I realized it allows us to evaluate the level of transit oriented development in each jurisdiction. For Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, because the stations are spaced sufficiently far apart, we can also estimate the percentage of total jobs within half a mile of a Metro station. This relative measure takes into account the many more jobs in Montgomery County. Because the half mile radii overlap significantly in Arlington, Alexandria, and D.C. I can’t easily say what proportion of all jobs are accessible by transit for those jurisdictions.

Here’s the results after averaging the development for each station in the various jurisdictions.

The analysis confirms what we might expect: D.C. and Arlington have the most jobs near their stations, and the Prince George’s County stations have the fewest in absolute terms. The pattern holds in relative terms for the Maryland counties — according to the WMCOG data, roughly 50% of Montgomery County’s 500,293 jobs were within 1/2 mile of a Metro station, versus only 38.4% of Prince George’s County’s 358,450 jobs. While I agree there’s much Prince George’s should be doing to boost development around their stations, there are a couple important caveats. The county has seen much less real estate investment than other parts of the region, and the Metro stations are much newer. Metro made it all they way out to Shady Grove in 1984 and Glenmont in 1998, versus Greenbelt in 1993, Branch Avenue in 2001, and Largo Town Center in 2004.

For households, on average Arlington County’s stations have slightly more than D.C. stations, likely a reflection of Arlington’s aggressive development of high density housing along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and the low-density residential neighborhoods surrounding many D.C. stations.

Not surprisingly, some of the least-used stations I identified in my popular post on station ridership also have the least development around them. My next step is to use a regression to evaluate the relative role of jobs, housing, parking, bus lines, multi-modal access, and a variety of other variables to explain ridership.

Sec. 59-E-3.7. Schedule of requirements.

Off-street parking space must be provided as follows:

Airport, airpark and airfield. Adequate space for off-street parking for at least 50 vehicles.

Ambulance service or rescue squad. Adequate space to accommodate all motor vehicles operated in connection with such use and 2 additional parking spaces per each such vehicle.

Apartment. Same as multiple-family dwelling.

Apartment, accessory. Normally 2 parking spaces per lot. However, the Board of Appeals may require more or permit less in accordance with the special exception provisions for accessory apartments contained in Section 59-G-2.00(c)(4).

Apartment hotel. One parking space for each transient bedroom; for each apartment or transient suite with no separate bedroom–one space; for each apartment or transient suite with one separate bedroom-1 1/4 spaces; for each apartment or transient suite with 2 bedrooms-1 1/2 spaces; for each apartment or transient suite with 3 or more separate bedrooms-2 spaces, and one parking space for each 2 employees on the major shift; plus 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining rooms and other similar places of assembly.

Auditorium or stadium. One automobile parking space for each 4 seats or similar vantage accommodations provided. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions contained in Section 59-E-3.3.

Automobile filling station. Two parking spaces for each car wash bay, grease bay or similar service area, and one parking space for each employee.

Automobile repair and service station. One parking space for each employee, and 3.3 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area.

Bed-and-breakfast lodging. Except as provided in the special exception provisions of Section 59-G-2.09.2(f), one parking space for each guest room. These spaces are in addition to the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Section 59-E-3.7 for the dwelling unit in which the establishment is located.

Boardinghouse. One parking space for each guest accommodation on new construction. One parking space for each 2 guest accommodations in converted structure.

Charitable or philanthropic institution. See requirement under Section G-2.21(a) and (c)(1).

Child day care facility. For a family day care home or group day care home, one space for every non-resident staff member in addition to the residential parking requirement. The required number of spaces may be allowed on the street abutting the site. For a child day care center, one space for every non-resident staff member in addition to the residential parking requirement if applicable and adequate parking for discharge and pick up of children. In this instance, the average drop off and pick up space required is one space for every six children. Waivers and variances are allowed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.

Church, synagogue or other place of worship. One parking space for each 4 persons for whom seating is provided in the main auditorium; provided, that the number of spaces thus required may be reduced by not more than 30 percent if the church, synagogue or other place of worship is located within 500 feet of any public parking lot or any commercial or industrial parking lot where sufficient spaces are available during the time of services to make up the additional spaces required. This requirement does not apply to any existing building or structure located in a commercial or industrial zone which is used for religious purposes, if the existing parking meets or otherwise exceeds the requirements for any commercial or industrial uses allowed in the zone. This requirement does not apply to any existing building or structure which is used for religious purposes, nor to additions, alterations or enlargements of such existing buildings and structures, nor to new buildings on land now improved by a building in use for religious purposes, or land contiguous to such improved land, as of May 1, 1962; nor to any such building or structure for which a valid building permit has been issued prior to such date.

Any place of worship used by a congregation whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of motor vehicles in traveling to or from religious services conducted on their Sabbath and principal holidays shall only be required to provide one space for each 8 persons for whom seating is provided in the main auditorium; provided further, that the spaces thus required do not have to be provided on the building site if such place of worship is located within 500 feet of any public parking lot or any commercial parking lot where sufficient spaces are available during the time or services or other proposed use of the building to provide the spaces required.

Clinic. See “Medical or dental clinic.”

Community center, library, museum, civic club, private club, lodge or similar use. Two and five-tenths parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area.

Country markets. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of area used for interior and exterior retail display sales.

Day care facility for senior adults and persons with disabilities. One space for every 4 non- resident senior adults or persons with disabilities. The Board of Appeals may reduce the number of spaces required in accordance with the special exception provisions of Section 59-G-2.13.

Domiciliary care home. One parking space for every 4 beds and one space for every 2 employees on largest work shift.

Dwelling, carriage house. One space in addition to the required parking for the main dwelling.

Dwelling, multiple-family. For each dwelling unit with no separate bedroom, one space; for each dwelling unit with one separate bedroom, 1 ¼ spaces; for each dwelling unit with 2 separate bedrooms, 1 ½ spaces; for each dwelling unit with 3 or more separate bedrooms, 2 spaces. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33. Not more than 50 percent of the total area of the minimum required side and rear yards shall be occupied by parking spaces, drives, access roads to, from and between such spaces, turn-arounds or other surfaces designed for vehicular use, and no parking spaces or vehicular uses, except entrance drives, shall be located within the minimum required front yard. (See R-H zone for controlling provisions in that zone on parking in yards.) In the R-10 and R-H zones, TOMX Zones, the TSM and TSR zones, and the CBD zones in Section 59-C-6.2, the requirement for each moderately priced dwelling unit, as defined in Chapter 25A of this Code, shall be one-half the number of spaces indicated above.

Dwelling, one-family. Two parking spaces for each dwelling unit; except, that when the slope between the standard street sidewalk elevation at the front lot line and side lot line adjacent to a street, established in accordance with the county road construction code, and the finally graded lot elevation at the nearest building line exceeds, at every point along the front lot line, a grade of 3 inches per foot, such space shall not be required.

Dwelling, semi-detached or two-family. Same as one-family dwelling.

Educational institution, private. One parking space for each employee, including teachers and administrators, plus sufficient off-street parking space for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of students, plus additional facilities for all student parking.

Farm machinery and supply. For retail sales of farm machinery and supply, 5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of interior and exterior sales area, unless, in the opinion of the Board of Appeals, the required parking spaces can be reduced without adverse impact on adjoining uses; in no instance can the number of required spaces be less than 2 for each 1,000 square feet of interior and exterior sales area. For an establishment devoted solely to storage and service of farm machinery and supply, see “Industrial or manufacturing establishment or warehouse.”

Funeral parlor. One space for every 25 gross square feet of space in the public rooms (chapel, main viewing parlor, visitation rooms, and any flexible space that can be used as viewing rooms when necessary, such as family rooms), plus one parking space for each employee on the major shift, and one parking space for each vehicle used in connection with the business.

Fourplex. A lot or parcel used for the development of dwellings in this zone shall provide at least 2 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33.

Fraternity, sorority and dormitory. One parking space for each 2 students residing on the premises in a fraternity or a sorority and 4 students in a dormitory, plus one additional space for each housemother or manager and each employee.

Furniture store. Two parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for each employee. This requirement does not apply to the furniture section of a department store or furniture store located in a regional shopping center.

Guest rooms in a country inn. One parking space for each guest room.

Health clubs. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use, except that 3.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area is required when located within an office building.

Heliport/helistop (public use). If at ground level, adequate space for off-street parking of at least 15 vehicles. If elevated, reasonable parking space shall be provided or be available for use as required by the Board of Appeals for the convenience of persons using or working at the facility.

Heliport/helistop (private use). Whether at ground level or elevated, reasonable parking space shall be provided or be available for use as required by the Board of Appeals for the convenience of persons using the facility.

Hospice. One space for each bed, plus one space for every two employees on the largest work shift, plus a space large enough to accommodate an ambulance or delivery vehicle that must be designed so as not to impede normal vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Compliance with the minimum parking standards does not presume sufficient parking for this use. The applicant must demonstrate that the parking needs of visitors, staff and volunteers are adequately accommodated. This requirement does not apply to any facility which is used for residential hospice purposes on (date amendment is effective [May 6, 2002]); nor to any hospice care facility for which a building permit was issued before May 6, 2002.

Hospital. One parking space for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area, plus one space for each resident doctor, plus adequate reserved space for visiting staff doctors, plus one space for each 3 employees on the major shift.

Hotel, motel or inn. If located within a central business district or a transit station development area, one-half space for each guest room, plus 10 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining areas, and similar places of assembly. For other locations seven-tenths of a space for each guest room, plus 10 spaces for each 1,000 gross square feet of area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining rooms and similar places of assembly.

Housing and related facilities for senior adults or persons with disabilities. Base parking requirements for housing for senior adults or persons with disabilities must be determined in accordance with the location of the property in relation to the Parking Policy Areas approved by the District Council on June 28, 1984, and maintained by the Planning Board. The base parking requirements vary according to the number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.

Individual living unit in a personal living quarters (PLQ). One space for each individual living unit, provided that parking for any complete dwelling unit in a personal living quarters building must comply with the standards for a dwelling, multiple-family, as required in this section.

Industrial, manufacturing establishment or warehouse. One and one-half parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area and sufficient area to provide for loading and unloading of trucks.

Medical or dental clinic. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of the gross floor area of the building.

Meeting center. Ten (10) parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area used for ballrooms and meeting rooms; and 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area used for foyers and other space.

Mobile home development. Two parking spaces for each mobile home in the development.

Nursing home. One space for every 4 beds and one space for every 2 employees on largest work shift.

Office, general office, and professional buildings or similar uses. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the parking requirements for office developments contained in Section 59-E-3.2. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provision of Section 59-E-3.3. The calculation of building square footage is based on the sum of the gross areas of the several floors of the building, measured from the exterior faces to the exterior walls or from the center line of party walls, which area shall include cellars or basements but shall not include floor area used for off-street parking.

Office, medical practitioner’s. Not less than 4 parking spaces for each practitioner occupying or using such office.

Office, professional, nonresidential. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used by medical practitioners and 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used by all other professionals. The gross floor area calculation shall exclude storage area, and the attic and cellar areas of the building if not occupied by professional personnel.

Office, professional, other than medical practitioner. Two spaces for each professional person occupying or using such office.

Railroad station, bus depot or other passenger terminal facilities. One hundred parking spaces.

Recreational establishment, commercial, other than a theater, auditorium or stadium. Twelve and five-tenths parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, except as to racquetball, squash, and handball courts. As to racquetball, squash, and handball courts there shall be 3 ½ parking spaces per racquetball, squash, or handball court.

Regional shopping centers. Five and one-half parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable square feet as defined herein. In addition, parking requirements for separate standing office and professional buildings shall be as set forth under the category of this subsection pertaining to office buildings, professional buildings or similar uses. As used herein, “gross leasable square feet” is defined as the total floor area designed for commercial tenant occupancy and exclusive uses, including basements, mezzanines and the upper floors if any, expressed in square feet measured from center lines of joint partitions and exteriors of outside walls. This definition does include banks, furniture stores, and other such activities which are part of a regional shopping center. In accordance with the exception provision of Section 59-E-5.8 all storage space that exceeds 35 percent of the total gross leasable area shall be excluded in calculating the number of required parking spaces. Not included in this definition are separate standing office or professional buildings.

Restaurant or similar place dispensing food, drink or refreshments. Twenty-five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use within the establishment and 15 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of ground area devoted to patron use on the property outside the establishment. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provision of Section 59-E-3.3.

Retail establishments, auxiliary. Three and one-half spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable space. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions contained in Section 59-E-3.3. Retail establishments must be classified as auxiliary retail uses when located within an office building that contains at least 100,000 gross square feet, contains less than 15 percent of the building’s overall gross square footage, and contains less than 30,000 leasable square feet. Auxiliary retail uses shall not qualify for reductions for shared parking in mixed-use developments or parking lot district facilities.

Retail, general. Commercial establishments devoted to retail sales, merchandising or other similar use, except furniture stores, 5 parking spaces for each 1,000 gross leasable square feet. In accordance with the exception provision of Section 59-E-5.8 all storage space that exceeds 35 percent of the total gross leasable area shall be excluded in calculating the number of required parking spaces.

Self-storage facility. Three (3) spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area of office space associated with the use plus one (1) space per employee, and two (2) spaces for a resident manager. The width of travel aisles for vehicular access and loading and unloading will be subject to the approval of the Director.

Swimming pool, commercial. One parking space for every 4 persons lawfully permitted in the pool at one time.

Swimming pool, community. One parking space for every 7 persons lawfully permitted in the pool at one time except where such pool is a permitted use pursuant to the provisions of Section 59-C-1.531 or 59-C-1.621, the number and location of parking spaces required shall be determined by the planning board.

Theaters, indoor or legitimate. One parking space for each 4 seats or similar vantage accommodations provided.

Tourist home. One parking space for each guest room or suite.

Townhouse. Two parking spaces for each townhouse. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33.

Editor’s note—In Grand Bel Manor Condominium v. Gancayco, the Court quoted and cited § 59-E-3.7 and analyzed the effect of § 59-G-2.36 in relation to § 59-E-3.7, holding that a waiver of § 59-E-3.7 does not serve as a waiver of § 59-G-2.36.

(Legislative History: Ord. No. 8-55, §§ 10, 11; Ord. No. 8-80, § 2; Ord. No. 8-81, § 16; Ord. No. 9-1, §1; Ord. No. 9-2, § 4; Ord. No. 10-21, § 1; Ord. No. 10-32, § 11; Ord. No. 10-39, § 12; Ord. No. 10-63, § 2; Ord. No. 10-69, § 7; Ord. No. 11-27, § 3; Ord. No. 11-29, § 7; Ord. No. 11-32, § 3; Ord. No. 11-34, § 4; Ord. No. 11-40, § 4; Ord. No. 11-41, § 11; Ord. No. 11-50, § 24; Ord. No. 11-70, § 4; Ord. No. 11-72, §10; Ord. No. 11-73, § 11; Ord. No. 12-1, § 1; Ord. No. 12-8, § 4; Ord. No. 12-49, § 2; Ord. No. 12-50, §2; Ord. No. 12-68, § 4; Ord. No. 77, § 3; Ord. No. 13-12, § 4; Ord. No. 13-21, § 11; Ord. No. 13-46, §8; Ord. No. 13-47, § 11; Ord. No. 13-58, § 4; Ord. No. 13-60, § 2; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 15-56, § 4.)

Editor’s note-Section 4 of Ord. No. 11-70 purported to amend § 59-E-3.4. The amendment was actually to this § 59-E-3.7, changing “roadside farm markets” to “country markets.”

The other winners include WalkScore, Trulia’s fascinating Hindsight tool, and the very slick (and new to me) Ourbania.

For urban observers, it’s a rare opportunity to watch a major urban planning mistake being made before your eyes. We can only wonder “what were they thinking?” years later, when the project is complete and communities are left with the builder’s errors: dead-end highways, blank walls, and train stations far from where commuters need to go.

Although its construction is years away, today a debate is raging in College Park that will determine where the Purple Line light rail link between New Carrollton and Bethesda will run on campus. (Detailed route) For years, state planners with the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) have discussed running the line through the heart of campus, where hundreds of university shuttles and other buses run daily, discharging their passengers in front of the Student Union just steps from the major campus buildings. This Campus Drive alignment maximized access to campus as well as passing through campus efficiently.

High level university administrators, led by University President Dr. Dan Mote, have been less enthusiastic. Just before a MTA briefing in College Park on the project and after months of silence, Mote broke his silence. He declared in an op-ed in the student paper in October that the university would support the project—on the condition it would be routed on an alternate alignment at the north end of campus along a road called Stadium Drive shown in orange above. At the MTA briefing, state officials argued they thought Campus Drive was the best location for the line, presenting these renderings as well as a variety of data about what the effect of the line would be.

Since then, the student paper has published three student editorials, one a half by myself, supporting the Campus Drive alignment as well as a staff editorial critiquing Mote’s proposal. Meanwhile, on Rethink College Park we have broken down the various proposals in gritty detail with over 100 community comments in the past two weeks, and launched a Facebook group dedicated to the issue.

Nonetheless, administrators are pressing on in their quest for a circuitous northern route that gives the transit engineers headaches. Last week Mote spoke to the undergraduate student government about his plan, and this week bringing their case to the university’s Faculty Senate. The debate will continue on campus Friday as the Graduate Student Government will consider a resolution supporting the Campus Drive alignment. State planners will return to College Park in December to present the results of their study of alternate routes for the trains on campus. According to the current project schedule, the state hopes to finalize the route by next spring, to use to apply next year for federal funds for the project.

Will the Purple Line eventually have a stop in front of the student union, as pictured in the MTA image below? For now, it’s unclear, and the conversation continues on campus in advance of the next MTA meeting. Care to join a Facebook group?

I took a trip to the Maryland side of Great Falls for the first time this past weekend. It’s hard to believe you’re just 8 miles from the District.

Less than one mile from the District of Columbia stands acres of vacant land. Wildflowers and grasses have gone to seed on a long-abandoned playing field (above). Weeds sprout in a dry, sun-drenched lot (below). An abandoned warehouse sits on land abutting picturesque parkland. Although large lots of undeveloped land inside the beltway are rare enough, these photos are even more remarkable if one considers the land is surrounding a Metro station.

This curious phenomenon is not due to inadequate zoning or neighborhood resistance. The area has been zoned for transit oriented development since the 1990s, and the Prince George’s County Planning Department recently published a special transit district plan for the area, that would accommodate thousands of housing units, a million square feet of office and retail space, and a system of public parks and open space.

There are a myriad of causes for the lack of development. The suburban jurisdictions most successful at cultivating transit oriented development, Montgomery County and Arlington County, revised their zoning codes early after the advent of Metro and even there it has taken decades to realize transit oriented developments. (Despite decades zoned for high density development, almost all of the buildings near the Ballston Metro Station were built in the last ten years.) Prince George’s County has taken a more piecemeal approach, creating small transit districts instead of revising the entire county’s plans. A recent Washington Post story suggests political leaders and Metro itself may share part of the blame. Furthermore, this area has significantly lower incomes than Arlington or Montgomery, and the county as a whole hasn’t seen the same amount of investment as elsewhere in the region.

Regardless of the precise causes, our region has already spent billions constructing a transit system and suffers some of the worst traffic and sprawl of any city in America. We have a mandate to realize development at sites as well-situated as the West Hyattsville Station.

Of these highways, Washington, D.C.’s Capital Beltway is among the more famous, as a symbolic dividing line between the national capital and the rest of the country. Let’s take a look at some of the interchanges in and around the beltway, to see what they reveal. We will approach the city from the north on Maryland’s I-270. Here, that highway branches in two as we approach the beltway.

If we travel East on the beltway we come across this interchange near College Park where I-95 intersects the beltway. Original plans for Washington’s freeway system included an extensive network of urban freeways that were never built — this interchange was designed to accommodate a never-built leg of I-95 extending to the District. Today, University of Maryland officials are advocating a freeway connecting this interchange to their campus.

As we continue along the beltway we come to this recently rebuilt interchange between the Capital Beltway and Route 50 in Prince George’s County. This photo shows the close relationship between Washington’s freeway and Metrorail system. From the very beginning the systems were designed somewhat in tandem and the train was intended to carry visitors into the city after arriving this far by auto. Here, special onramps connect the beltway to the New Carrollton Metro Station.

Continuing around the beltway we encounter the Springfield Interchange, one of several interchanges around the country known popularly as “The Mixing Bowl.” Here the beltway intersects both I-395 and I-95, and the interchange was long one of the most dangerous stretches of the beltway. In 1999, the Virginia Department of Transportation began an 8-year project to re-design the interchange in a project that is currently estimated to cost in excess of $670 million before it is complete.

As we continue around we come to the last I’ve selected for inclusion — this interchange where the beltway meets Route 50/Arlington Boulevard.

Interchanges Elsewhere

Interestingly, perhaps because of the investment in Metro, the scale and number of the freeway interchanges in the region is not notable from a national perspective. This image of the Big Dig in Boston gives a good idea of the scope of that project.

Unlike Washington, the city of Detroit did actually construct the entire network of urban freeways planned for that city, including some truly massive interchanges like this one, between I-96 and the Southfield Freeway.

Much more is written about interchange design and the Washington region’s freeways elsewhere on the web, so I won’t go into detail here. What am I missing? What is your favorite (or least favorite) interchange in the region?

References

> Scott M. Kozel’s Roads to the Future (Transportation history for VA, MD, DC)
> Kurumi’s Field Guide to Interchanges
> Springfield Interchange Improvement Project
> Google Earth Community: Crazy Highway Interchanges thread

While it’s not as robust as some of the sophisticated GIS systems used by more forward thinking governmental agencies (see the City of Alexandria’s development viewer), since we developed it in a few days at no cost, I’m pretty happy.

> Rethink College Park Development Map

When then-graduate student Brian Carroll defended his thesis on redeveloping the Knox Box area last month, he never expected the debate to travel beyond a committee of professors.

But once the local development blog Rethink College Park got wind of his work, posting Carroll’s drawings and ideas to revamp the aging neighborhood populated with students, the comment section came alive with interest. The attention highlighted the push for student housing development downtown and the propensity online forums have for facilitating discussion, but Carroll expressed surprise at the reaction.

“I think the thing that they did was pull it all together,” Carroll said of the Rethink College Park editors. “I could’ve completed my thesis and put it on the shelf in the library, but that got it some publicity.”[...]

But if the interest in Carroll’s work once posted on the Internet and the exchange of ideas since the blog’s launch are any indication, Internet discussions could be the future of public discourse here. That doesn’t mean city council meetings will ever cease, but council member Bob Catlin said with his constituents becoming increasingly busy, communicating with them electronically has become a major convenience.

> Diamondback: “City officials, students take talks to the Web”

Second, this article co-authored with the site’s other editor, David Daddio, recently appeared on the website Campus Progress. It offers a good overview of the project and the context here on campus.

” … Our single-minded focus on helping transform College Park into a great college town has led to discussions on the site about a host of progressive issues … With many institutions interested in building or expanding college towns near their campuses, students are in a unique role to ensure the development agenda includes what they value, whether it is sustainable design, affordable housing, socio-economic diversity, or the protection of small businesses. We believe students should be actively engaged in the design of their campuses and towns, and a website can be an effective tool to build a group of like-minded students and share knowledge about what is happening in your community. … “

> CampusProgress.org: “From Parking Lot to College Town?“