Rethink College Park

Yeah that is great. What is a Bike Box?

No, not this kind of box.

The newly released campus bike plan calls for the installation of several “Bike Boxes” at busy intersections such as Campus Drive and Preinkert Drive. Well the folks at Street Films have a great little video to fill you in on the details. See below the fold for the video. 

(more…)

Since it is Bike To Work day it might be a great time to download and read The Campus Bike Study we posted about a few weeks ago. The Department of Transportation Services and the University of Maryland Bicycle Advisory Group solicited the study from the Toole Design Group, LLC based out of Hyattsville. (more…)

You see anyplace for a bike? I've lost track of how many times I've been squeezed into that curb going to work or a game. Where is the love for our carbon-free friends?

The Campus Department of Transportation solicited a eight month study to determine the best way to improve bike ridership on campus. This Gazette Article reports the details.

A university survey found that 5 percent of respondents rode their bikes on campus. J. David Allen, director of the university’s Department of Transportation Services, said he’d like to get that number up to 9 percent.

The campaign would address the many obstacles — too few curb ramps and marked bike lanes, narrow trails and a lack of parking — that hinder on-campus riders.

“There are these little things that will discourage people from biking,” Allen said. “We want to eliminate as many of these things as possible.”

I can tell you from years of personal experience that UMCP is certainly not the most bike-friendly campus and DOTS should be applauded for taking steps to improve. 9 percent is still a dismal number but it is a step in the right direction.

Another contributor to RTCP says.

“I think you’re not casting your net wide enough,” said Councilman Robert Catlin (Dist. 2).

Preach on Brother Bob, preach on.

Md. approves $80M for new dorm

The Maryland Board of Public Works approved the $80 million for Oakland Hall on Wednesday. Construction is scheduled to start August 2009 and be completed by April 2011.  Some of us at RTCP have wondered why Foulger-Pratt/Argo Investments (the developer of East Campus)  is not paying for this new dorm since it is slated to replace the beds lost from Leonardtown.

University View expansion passed with condition

On Tuesday the College Park City Council approved a preliminary plan for expanding University View to include the 13-story building called the Freshman Connection. On the bright side this expansion will cover the hideous parking garage currently fronting University View.

The DIAMONDBACK reports today that the Board of Public Works has postponed the vote for Oakland Hall for two weeks. The state is expecting a $1 billion deficit next year and there is concern about spending $88 million for this dorm. The Board would prefer the Public/Private partnership model whereby a private developer fronts the construction costs. However this model doesn’t work as well when trying to add a freshman dorm to an existing quad. The Board is scheduled to vote on the matter on October 15th. If approved construction would begin this summer, otherwise it would be delayed by at least one semester.

Oakland Hall is set to replace the beds lost from Leonardtown due to East Campus development.

See our previous post regarding Oakland Hall

The DIAMONDBACK reports today that a new dorm in North Campus called Oakland Hall is to be built for $88 Million providing 650 beds. This is to replace some of the beds that will be lost in the Leonardtown community due to East Campus construction. The expected completion date is Fall 2011. The University has had difficulty obtaining the backing from the Board of Regents for new resident hall construction which prefers public-private partnership projects. The logjam was evidently broken when Regents agreed to pay for the new dorm if the University continued to push for private housing.

As many are well aware, RTCP is in semi-hibernation mode at the moment. We’re planning on a kickoff meeting to discuss the future of the site sometime in May. Until then there are a couple tid-bits to report despite the dampened state of the real estate market. Thanks to everyone who continues to email and post comments about all the great changes coming to the city….

-> Starview Plaza - The Diamondback reports that Starview Plaza is progressing through the early stages of the approval process. The project, which sits just north of College Park Carwash, has languished for years (at least 5?) and the underlying land is owned jointly by the City and University. Originally planned as a hotel, the developer now plans a 500-bed mixed use student housing project with an impressive LEED Silver rating. As the Diamondback reports, there has been much debate over exactly what materials should be used on the facade. The Sector Plan requires 75% brick and as the Mazza Grandmarc debate showed us, the city and the county in particular hold tightly to that standard regardless of how visible certain parts of the building are. The choice is between hardyplank - a composite of recycled materials which helps a buildings LEED rating - and brick (an energy-intensive material) on the least visible parts of the building. Let’s hope the county council departs from its absolutist ways by avoiding unneccessary delays…

-> Campus Construction - The University has released an updated campus construction map, which shows progress on several different projects we’ve blogged about over time. The new journalism building is progressing, the Tyser Tower expansion at Byrd Stadium is underway, and improvements to the Southwest quad and in front of the business school are coming to a close. Also, North Gate Park, a project mired in bureaucracy, funding constraints, and development SNAFUS for the better part of four years is scheduled to start construction this summer. North Gate Park is a joint venture between the city and university and was designed by undergraduate students. 

-> Parking - Recognizing the serious burden that parking requirement place on private developers of student housing, UMD-DOTS via the university’s strategic plan has agreed that students at select off-campus housing complexes can park on-campus. This is a smart move that we think could pay serious dividends by encouraging more student housing. Building lots on Route 1 are small and shallow, thus making the provision of suburban-style parking ratios extremely difficult for dense mixed-use projects. Hopefully the city/county can capitalize on this new policy to implement their Transportation Demand Management plans.

-> Purple Line - There are signs that Campus Drive advocates are making serious inroads. More to come shortly.

The UMD administration has completed an “update” to the Facilities Master Plan that reflects changes since the original plan was approved nearly seven years ago. It includes a re-affirmation of many of the original plan’s goals, changes to construction timelines, and tables summarizing changes to campus facilities that have taken place since the 2000 Master Plan. The update also includes updates on the progress of the East Campus Redevelopment Initiative.

The only specific mention the update contains relating to the Purple Line is this text:

“Maximize use of alternatives to driving to campus.”

“Support Purple Line stations on or adjacent to campus consistent with providing central pedestrian movement.”

However, attendees at the recent East Campus Community Review Steering Committee received much different information relating to the Purple Line. Last week, Associate Vice President for Facilities Management J. Frank Brewer gave this presentation containing this illustration overlaying the administration’s preferred Purple Line alignment over the Master Plan map.

We have several reactions:

1. Is this part of the Master Plan update? If so, it should be included on the official version on the Facilities Master Plan website. If it is not, it should not be presented as such to the public.
2. The map omits the two other alignments under official consideration, making it not a planning document but an argument for one option.
3. The plan presents incomplete and inaccurate information annotated on top of the official master plan map. It includes “2,000 units” at the Knox Box area despite the fact the property remains fragmented in different owners and no specific proposal has been made. Even if the owner of much of the land wants to redevelop it, acquisition, design, and approvals would take perhaps a decade. There is a similar situation for a parcel labeled “600″ across from the Architecture Building, no specific proposal has actually been made. It also only includes numbers for housing, not the extensive office and classroom space planned by the university along a new mall.
4. Despite the distortions and omissions above, the irony is the illustration still seems to support a campus drive alignment anyway! If you imagine a Stamp Union station, the 10-minute walking circles would encompass not only the proposed new housing, but also the substantial amount of existing housing on North Campus and excellent access to planned construction there and elsewhere. The university’s plan presents a walking radius that spills over into low density cul-de-sacs to the south.