Rethink College Park

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.

The East Campus project is located roughly half a mile from the College Park Metrorail station, adjacent ten bus routes, bisected by a bike trail connected to a major regional trail system, and the future home of a Purple Line light rail station.

The project developers have made a guess as to how much less parking will be needed than what is already required under the existing zoning. Included in their parking analysis revealed last night, they’ve provided parking at 90% of the existing zoning for office, 75% for apartments, 90% for restaurant visitors, 90% for retail, 100% required for the hotel and grocery store, and 95% needed for the Birchmere and cinema. At the presentation last night, the developers boasted of the forward-thinking that produced their estimate that the project would require 15% less parking than Prince George’s County zoning requires. Although the traffic study estimated roughly half of the peak trips to and from the site will be not in automobiles, the percentages above represent how much parking will be provided for each use - a much higher amount.

Thanks to these estimates, the developers plan to build roughly 4,000 parking spaces in the first phase, and perhaps 1,500 in the second phase. For the most part, the parking will be concealed at the center of blocks and in two “enormous” (their word) underground parking structures that will span nearly the entire width of the site. (When they are posted, we’ll add the diagram shared with the committee last night.)

However, the biggest news from last night’s East Campus meeting was about the Purple Line. It seems the MTA, Foulger-Pratt, and President Mote have agreed to plan for the Purple Line on Rossborough Lane, one block south of the route anticipated in early project plans.(The farthest south in the illustration to the right.) On campus, only two alignments remain — Campus Drive, and a new, at-grade southern alignment dubbed by the MTA the Preinkert Drive/Chapel Drive Alignment. Over the next month, the MTA will be completing a detailed analysis of the new alignment in order to compare it with Campus Drive.

Also last night, the developers presented their traffic impact study that found the road network would be able to absorb the traffic from the project for the first phase, and for the second phase suggesting several modifications needed including new turn lanes and modifications to traffic lights. As expected, University Park resident Bridget Warren grilled the developer’s traffic consultant over the finer details of the 57-page traffic impact study.

The developers said that now that the Purple Line route has been settled, they will begin to refine and finalize the block structure and architecture of the project. At the next meeting, a committee including the School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Dean Garth Rockcastle will present a “design principles” document they have created, and the committee will discuss the overall development principles for the project.

Over the past four days, over 100 faculty, alumni, staff, students, and neighbors have signed our petition supporting the Campus Drive alignment for the Purple Line on Campus. We have been overwhelmed by this outpouring of support and hope it demonstrates broad-based and diverse support for the alignment preferred by the Maryland Transit Administration’s planners and engineers. We thought we would highlight some of the interesting comments contributed by community members.

“The University made a terrible mistake .. when campus leadership forced Metro off campus. We must not make the same mistake again. Light rail is part of any sane future energy and transportation policy and the University stop should be near the center of things. This will help the campus maximize its oft-boasted strategic advantage of having easy access to the research and internship opportunities of the National Capital area. Campus leadership has talked of closing Campus Drive to regular traffic for more than 20 years, but has done absolutely nothing. The Purple Line will increase safety by getting frustrated private vehicle drivers off Campus Drive, leaving it for the Purple Line, professionally-driven buses, and emergency vehicles.” — Professor Maynard Mack, Jr.

“This is a must to help make the campus more accessible and raise its status as a top-level university.” — Andrew Hallowell, Undergraduate

“I also live near campus. The purple line would make it possible for me to use Metro to travel to many place I regularly visit around the area. As Metro is presently constructed, it is often time consuming and inefficient to travel by Metro instead of car. This would increase my use of Metro. Furthermore, as a resident of a neighborhood close to campus, the Purple Line could enable many sports fans and attendees of other university activities to use public transportation rather than driving.” — Anonymous University Employee

“One of the main reasons I have not considered applying for jobs at the University of Maryland is that I want to live in a more walkable and transit-oriented community. For these things, I’ll stay in Ann Arbor, Michigan.” — Kevin Hawkins, Alumni

“The University should support the Purple Line down Campus Drive!” — Andrew Rose, Former Undergraduate Student Body President

“It is crucial that UMD takes steps to reduce its CO2 output and the number of cars driving on campus. I spent 2 years commuting from Washington DC to the UMD campus. On a daily basis, the shuttle ride up Campus Drive was stalled by the high volume of traffic - mainly personal cars. Bringing the purple line to Campus Drive would make the campus much more attractive for pedestrians and would reduce the need for people to drive to campus.” — Heidi Ruffler, Graduate Student

“Making such a central and visible commitment to public transportation would really transform campus and the College Park community in a dramatic and very positive way!” — Dana Coelho, Alumnae

“It makes no sense to route the Purple Line down Stadium Drive. This route is longer, much less-convenient to the center of campus, and would present a safety hazard before and after football games. If the university is serious about getting people out of cars and into alternative forms of transportation, it should support the Campus Drive alignment.” — Jim Elliot, Graduate Student

“I support the Campus Drive alignment. There is no central gathering place on Stadium drive. Most of the foot traffic getting off at the Stadium Drive location would most assuredly migrate to Campus Drive and further south. Also, there is nothing to greet you at Stadium Drive. There is no central hang out.” — John W. Euill, III, UMUC Student

“This route is ‘straight’ and services two cores, the Stamp Student Union and East Campus since the line passes directly through them as opposed to a diverted route. Direct access is considered a boon to many and it is likely that the two centers will appreciate managed mobile options to attract regional clout. While safety concerns are always a priority in any project, I feel the ones that the president are coming up with are rather ludicrous and unfounded. Walking to Susquehanna every other day, I find that crossing Campus drive is already a chore dodging around cars and trucks and buses, and there are those few rude enough to keep going, but I wait patiently because I know I’M NOT GOING TO GET RUN OVER. … Adding a street train is no different than another bus or truck. Sometimes I think those trucks are more hazardous on campus since they … jump the curve … I feel many stand to benefit from a centralized location that serves the -region- as a whole. I don’t want future generations of passengers and students to suffer, Campus Drive is our best alternative!” — Andrew Newsome, Civil Engineering Undergraduate

> Sign our Purple Line on Campus Drive Petition
> Library Page on Purple Line
> See previous news items about the Purple Line

We have described before why we think the Campus Drive Alignment (purple above) is the best location for the Purple Line in College Park. However, some campus leaders have continued to advocate for an alternative, “Stadium Drive” alignment.

Today we launch a petition in support of the Campus Drive Alignment. Please add your name if you agree.

> iPetitions: Build the Purple Line on Campus Drive

University leaders are now accepting community comments as part of the process to create a new strategic plan for all aspects of the university’s development. In fact, one of the feedback questions directly concerns the East Campus project: “The East Campus redevelopment project will bring dramatic changes to the College Park environment. What other such projects can you suggest that might also have a strongly positive impact on studying, working, and living in the College Park area?” The Diamondback reported today that leaders hope to receive more student comment before the survey closes on Friday.

We invite our readers to participate in this process and share their views about how the university should grow.

> Strategic Plan Feedback

The latest installment in the campus debate about the proper location of the Purple Line on campus comes in the form of two op-eds, one by graduate student Danny Rogers and another by myself today. In mine, I analyze some of the data released by the Maryland Transit Administration last week. It turns out a majority of the people on Campus Drive are already riding public transit. Furthermore, I describe some of the serious drawbacks of President Mote’s proposed location:

No professors on our campus will accept “F” work. In fact, according to university policy, students receiving an “F” in a class receive no academic credit. Unfortunately, university President Dan Mote is failing transportation planning. Between classes, Campus Drive is at what planners describe as an “F” level of service: gridlock. And Mote’s proposed solution - moving all vehicular traffic and the Purple Line to Stadium Drive - fails to maximize access, efficiency and safety on the campus. […]

MTA has proposed closing Campus Drive to private vehicles and reserving it for buses and trains only. Let’s assume the 17 percent of cars just passing through the campus choose different routes and 10 percent of the remaining car commuters choose to ride buses or the Purple Line (which seems reasonable with housing being built nearby and huge increases in bus ridership as it is). The result is a net reduction of 1,391 vehicles from campus during the day on this road alone! Reducing the number of vehicles on the campus is something everyone can support and a goal supported clearly in the Facilities Master Plan.

> Diamondback Op-Ed by Rob Goodspeed (11/9/07): Purple on Campus Drive

And Danny Rogers urges the University to champion the project:

Any visitor to San Diego or Denver knows that light rail and pedestrian traffic are not mutually exclusive, nor is light rail an aesthetic death knell. The point of the rail line is to make the campus more accessible. Right now, the Metro station is inconvenient and dangerous to walk to. Why would we make the same mistake again by placing the Purple Line stop somewhere as inaccessible and inconvenient as Byrd Stadium?

Diamondback Op-Ed 11/6/07 by Danny Rogers (No connection to Rethink College Park): Purple and Green

> Join our “Campaign to End the Madness”

The Maryland Transit Administration will present information this Monday about where the Purple Line could go on campus when the light rail link is constructed between Bethesda and New Carrollton. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 29 in the University Visitor Center. We strongly encourage everyone interested in the future of the Purple Line to attend.

The meeting comes amid increased conversation about the proper location of the train in relation to East Campus and the larger campus. After months of insisting the trains should travel under Campus along Campus Drive as a tunnel, President Dan Mote has come out with a new, forceful position in an article in the Diamondback yesterday: he strongly supports the line at street level (at-grade), but along the university’s newly invented alignment that uses stadium Stadium Drive instead of stopping in front of the Student Union. Readers will remember that together with other student leaders, we pressured the administration last spring to re-think their insistence on an infeasible tunnel and champion the project. While we’re glad Mote has accepted the inevitability of an at-grade alignment, we think Mote’s recent column distorts both the character of Light Rail technology and the campus master plan (which in fact argues Campus Drive should contain public transit). Among the misconceptions and thinly supported opinions the article contains is the allegation it cannot bisect East Campus because it requires a 130-foot right of way.

During a detailed presentation to the East Campus Steering Committee on Monday, I showed how Light Rail technology could fit into streets as narrow as 35 feet. Indeed, Salt Lake City has built a system on streets with four lanes of traffic and two 10-foot sidewalks on a right-of-way just over 100 feet.

President Mote’s strategy of privately determining where he believes the line should go and entering the public forum demanding we support the “right” location makes a mockery of good leadership. The university is a large, complex institution with thousands of people who rely heavily on transit. The “right” location can only be determined through a robust dialogue with engineers based on hard facts about the true width, noise, and trade-offs required by various locations on campus. We will continue to address the full nature of the impact of the project on campus and advocate for solutions that maximize the benefit to the University and the region.