Rethink College Park

After nearly three weeks of waiting, the University has responded to student concerns about their new position against an at-grade alignment of the Purple Line on campus.

Here is President Mote’s response

Not only does the response completely ignore the basic point of the original student letter (we weren’t simply advocating the benefits of the Purple Line), it maintains the University’s wildly unresponsible position against an at-grade alignment through campus. All we asked is that the University work pro-actively and collaboratively with MTA to ensure that we get the best possible alignment through campus. Instead, Dr. Mote’s letter only reinforces the fact that the University fundamentally misunderstands the Purple Line planning process.

Response to the response:

Dr. Mote,

I appreciate your response to our April 25th letter concerning the University’s position on the Purple Line. I also appreciate the University’s continued support for the project (in the abstract). That being said, I’m extremely disappointed to see that the University is apparently holding to its opposition of an at-grade Purple Line crossing of campus. Our letter was not simply advocating the benefits of the project, but pointing out the fundamental misconceptions about the project’s planning process which reach the highest levels of the University administration.

As has been made abundantly clear by various MTA officials we have spoken with, an underground alignment through College Park has long since been abandoned because of cost constraints. After much study, the only alignment through campus which MTA is considering is an at-grade light rail or bus rapid transit option along Campus Drive. I’m confident that this alignment can be pursued in a safe and effective manner while maintaining and enhancing the aesthetic beauty and pedestrian safety on campus. This ideal can only be accomplished through proactive and collaborative effort with MTA’s Purple Line planning team - an effort which is hindered by the University’s continued opposition to an at-grade alignment. Again, we urge your administration to rescind its at-grade position in order to pursue the best possible options for the Purple Line.

Sincerely,
David Daddio

ICC still a priority for the state, but gas tax increases seem likely if transit projects are to go forward:

Transit is necessary to solve traffic woes, O’Malley says, the Gazette

(We’re not sure what this talk of an underground Purple Line is. Either they’re talking about certain segments and the reporter took it out of context or O’Malley doesn’t know what he’s talking about.)

Check out the article

In an April 25 letter, eight students urged university President C.D. Mote Jr. to “become an outright champion” of the proposed Purple Line, saying the school’s “relative silence on the project is casting an unneeded shadow of uncertainty on the planning process.” Tunneling a train beneath the College Park campus, as administration officials have urged, could make it prohibitively expensive, the students said.

As if we couldn’t be more pleased with the Diamondback’s Finals Edition, two major pieces of our agenda made the front page in the last paper of the school year:

HOUSING: The paper reports on what we’ve all been expecting for weeks - major planned student housing public-private partnerships on-campus and tremendous (private) off-campus projects in the works. We don’t put too much credence in the numbers and the specifics at this point. We know a lot more than what’s been made public, but we’ll hold our guns out of respect for the process. Suffice it to say that students made their point to the Board of Regents last month and the real need for student housing (via every means possible) is the new hot button issue in College Park. It won’t be going away any time soon.

PURPLE LINE: The letter we drafted for student leaders and sent to President Mote also made the front page. While the tone of the article is a little more incendiary than the situation warrants (the University’s position on an at-grade alignment will not kill the project), our point was conveyed and subsequently reinforced by not-so-nuanced responses from administrators quoted in the article. Doug Duncan has been at the University for one month and a handful of days. We don’t blame him for the University’s 7 year neglect/disregard of the project.

After Martin O’Malley and Doug Duncan, but before the College Park bar oligopolists, the Diamondback dubs us a “winner” for the 2006-2007 school year. Priceless:

David Daddio and Rob Goodspeed, RethinkCollegePark.com: In the course of two semesters and through the use of an online blog, David Daddio and Rob Goodspeed have become major players in waking up area officials to what the area needs by ranting and raving on local development and disaster. Their direct, prescient style has won them seats at the table in influencing local legislation and guiding local development toward a bold but insightful completion. What did your LiveJournal do this year?

On March 30th, 2007 Interim University Vice President of Administrative Affairs Frank Brewer sent a letter to the Maryland Transit Administrations stating the University’s opposition to an “at-grade” light rail crossing of campus:

“we stress that the University does not see “at-grade” LRT as an option in the center of our campus.”

On April 25th, RTCP joined with every major student leader in writing a letter to President Mote voicing our strong opposition to this new (and until now not public) position. Simply put: UMD needs to support the Purple Line unconditionally:

“we urge that your administration reconsider its position on the potential for an at-grade alignment and make every effort to assist MTA in the development of the best possible options for the Purple Line. “

For more details on our position read the original University letter and the student response:

—> Student Letter to Dr. Mote

—> Original Frank Brewer Letter

GSG Resolution in Support of the Purple Line

SGA Resolution in Support of the Purple Line

The Northgate Condominum project, a proposed 17-story condo building to be located just north of the University View on Route One, has been stalled thanks to restrictions relating to one of College Park’s proudest attractions - the oldest operating airport in the world.

The city’s April Economic Development Update reported that “Certification of the Detailed Site Plan has been stalled by a finding of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of a presumed hazard to air navigation based on the height of the building” and that “The Mark Vogel Companies, the project applicant, recently sold the property to ‘Mr. Northgate I LLC’ for $4.2 million in December 2006.” We got some additional information directly from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis division. They told us that Monument Reality, the owner of the project, requested termination of the study, and that they expected the application may be resubmitted.

The FAA officials were adamant to assure us their determination alone couldn’t stop a project from being built. However, a quick review of county law indicates it may complicate the project considerably. After conducting a detailed study, in 2002 the county adopted specific regulations around general aviation airports in the county. The law created a host of regulations for property contained within zones around each airports known as “Aviation Policy Areas.” As can be seen in the illustration above, the entire northgate area is contained within an APA-4 or APA-6. The law specifies specific height restrictions for these zones:

Sec. 27-548.42. Height requirements.
(a) Except as necessary and incidental to airport operations, no building, structure, or natural feature shall be constructed, altered, maintained, or allowed to grow so as to project or otherwise penetrate the airspace surfaces defined by Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 or the Code of Maryland, COMAR 11.03.05, Obstructions to Air Navigation.
(b) In APA-4 and APA-6, no building permit may be approved for a structure higher than 50 feet unless the applicant demonstrates compliance with FAR Part 77.

The Northgate building as proposed would be roughly 180 feet tall. What is “FAR Part 77,” you ask? Well, it is nothing more than the FAA’s airspace obstruction analysis process, which determined the building to be a hazard to begin with. As the law is written,the developer may be able to keep the existing proposed height of the building and enact mitigation measures (like the flashing red lights on University View) even if the FAA determines the project is a hazard. In correspondence between RTCP and Monument Realty, they indicated they were “confident the project would go forward” by the end of May.

On a side note, as we perused the FAA website we came across another application for Mark Vogel’s Hilton Hotel proposal, which has been put out for public comment (”circularized,” in FAA lingo) with an attached memo reporting it has been decided it was a “presumed hazard.” If you know more, post a comment, but we’ll make some inquiries and report back what we find.

> For more details, see: Prince George’s County Planning Board Airport Legislation and Regulations

The University of Maryland recently launched a new website detailing environmental stewardship efforts on campus. The website, www.sustainability.umd.edu, outlines Maryland’s approach to sustainability, offers ways to get involved with preserving the local environment, and provides a medium for students to be engaged with sustainable efforts. In addition, the website details a snapshot of eco-friendly events and sustainable initiatives that have occurred on campus. Although some of the links have yet to be completed on the website, we hope is to be a new resource on sustainability for students, faculty, alumni, and others in the university family.

Although this is a positive step, colleges and have long been leading examples of sustainable communities. Schools such as Harvard University, Cornell University, Michigan State University, and the University of British Columbia are all leading successful sustainable initiatives. With any hope, the University of Maryland’s Campus Sustainability website can follow in the footsteps of these precedents and help to foster a local sustainable environment.

At a time when the campus is growing rapidly, talks of sustainability should be at the forefront of new construction and design. According to websites dealing with sustainable architecture, such as www.architecture2030.org, almost 50% of greenhouse gas emissions are emitted from built construction. Although Maryland’s website is a positive step in “talk” of sustainability, the University now has to take action in continuing to make eco-friendly decisions. One of our contributors, Sam Snelling, evaluated some of the claims made by President Mote and offered his own opinion of past University efforts as well as suggestions for the future in a Diamondback column published yesterday.

> Campus Sustainability at UMD
> Diamondback - Sam Snelling Op-Ed: “Focus on the Future”
> Read more about “Student Action on Clean Energy“