Miriam Schoenbaum - Greater Greater Washington

Small changes can make walking to school safer

Fri, 17 May 2013 11:34:00 EDT

Montgomery County could do a lot to make walking to school safer and more convenient, and at little cost. All it takes is a few changes to the law, signs and paint, and retiming some traffic signals.

Photo by The Tire Zoo on Flickr.

These are the recommendations from the Safe Walk to School campaign, which launched last week. The Action Committee for Transit, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, the mother of a high school student killed while walking to school last October, and others started the campaign because walking to and from school in Montgomery County can be hazardous.

In this school year alone, at least 8 kids and one parent have been struck by cars:

On October 3 (International Walk to School Day), a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old were struck by a car while on the sidewalk on their way to Springbrook High School in Silver Spring.
On October 31, Christina Morris-Ward, age 15, was struck by a car and killed on the way to Seneca Valley High School in Germantown.
On December 11, a 9-year-old was struck by a car while in a crosswalk on the way to Westbrook Elementary School in Bethesda.
On February 27, a 3-month-old baby in a stroller was struck by a car while in a marked crosswalk during the walk signal, next to Bethesda Elementary School in Bethesda.
On March 12, a 16-year-old was struck by a car while in a marked crosswalk next to Watkins Mill High School in Gaithersburg.
Also on March 12, an 8-year-old, a 10-year-old, and their mother were struck by a car while on the sidewalk one block from Gaithersburg Elementary School in Gaithersburg.

Unsafe walks to school cost Montgomery County residents millions of dollars a year. Montgomery County Public Schools must provide "hazard busing" for children who live within walking distance of school but can't walk there safely. Parents driving children to and from school adds meaningfully to traffic congestion. Children who don't walk to school experience decreased physical activity and mental well-being. And the air pollution from school-related car trips contributes to asthma and premature deaths.

To make walking to and from school safer for children in Montgomery County, the Safe Walk to School campaign calls on the Montgomery County Department of Transportion (MCDOT) to take the following low-cost but effective steps:

Expand school zones: Amend the county's criteria for school zones to include all county roads within a half-mile radius of a school. This would allow MCDOT to reduce speed limits and increase fines on roads near schools.

Lower speeds and limit unsafe right turns: Change the following rules in the amended school zones and post new signs to inform drivers:

Establish a maximum speed limit of 20 miles per hour during school hours, including arrival and dismissal. This could decrease the risk of child pedestrian crashes by up to 70%.
Double the fines for speeding violations, to motivate drivers to slow down.
Prohibit right turns on red during school hours to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and drivers at traffic signals.

The engineering cost would be about $350 per sign, including installation. (For comparison, the estimated cost in 2011 of the 1.62-mile Montrose Parkway East project was $120 million. That's equivalent to the cost of roughly 340,000 signs.)

Retime traffic signals: Change traffic signal timing in the amended school zones in the following ways, to make it safer for pedestrians of all ages to cross the street:

Put in leading pedestrian intervals for traffic signals at intersections where at least one of the roads is an arterial, to allow walkers to get a head start crossing busy streets.
Use a walking speed of 2.5 feet per second to calculate the minimum pedestrian clearance interval, to give everyone, including children and adults pushing strollers, sufficient time to cross.
Have the walk signal appear during every signal cycle during school hours at intersections with traffic signals, without pedestrians having to push a button. This can be done either by putting the signals in pedestrian "recall" during school hours (including arrival and dismissal) or by removing the pedestrian pushbuttons altogether.
Shorten traffic signals during school hours (including arrival and dismissal) so kids don't have to wait longer than 40 seconds for a walk signal on any leg of an intersection. This would lead more pedestrians to wait for the walk signal to cross.

The engineering cost for retiming the traffic signals would be about $3,500 per intersection. (For comparison, the estimated $120 million cost to build Montrose Parkway East would be equivalent to the cost of retiming roughly 34,000 signals.)

Change road markings: Add paint to the pavement in school zones in the following ways:

Mark all crosswalks with a "ladder" or "zebra" crosswalk, using material embedded with retroreflective glass beads. This increases the visibility of crosswalks, raising driver awareness and encouraging pedestrians to cross at crosswalks.
Narrow traffic lanes to 10 feet, to reduce vehicle speeds, increase drivers' compliance with the 20 mph speed limits, and reduce the length of pedestrian crossings across traffic lanes.

Ladder crosswalks cost about $300, and lane restriping costs about $1,000 per mile. (For comparison, the estimated $120 million cost of Montrose Parkway East would be equivalent to the cost of roughly 400,000 crosswalks or 120,000 miles of lane restriping.)

Montgomery County says they support safe walks to school. To encourage them to show they mean it, go to SafeWalktoSchool.com and send an e-mail to the Montgomery County Council.

24 comments

MARC makes improvements, plans even more

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:44:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

MARC riders will see a new Halethorpe station on the Penn Line in June and the first of 54 new bi-level train cars by the end of the year.

MARC train at Halethorpe. Photo by Skabat169 on Flickr.

MTA also has a wish list of projects to fund with money from Maryland's recently-passed gas tax increase. David Johnson, chief customer communications officer for the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), briefed the MARC Riders' Advisory Council last Thursday.

MTA would like to overhaul the Penn Line station at West Baltimore, similar to the Halethorpe overhaul. This would be in conjunction with the future Baltimore Red Line. Other items on the wish list include 10 new diesel locomotives and weekend service on the Penn Line.

At Halethorpe, where MTA reported 1,209 boardings on March 13, 2013, the southbound high platform is complete and will open this week, Johnson said. The high platform will reduce the time each train spends at the station (dwell time), because the floor of the train cars will be at the same level as the platform. Passengers will no longer have to use stairs to get on and off the train. In addition, passengers will be able to use all doors of the train to get on and off.

However, Johnson said that MTA does not expect to adjust the Penn Line schedule to account for the reduced dwell time until the northbound high platform and the footbridge connecting the two platforms are completed in June.

When the overhaul is finished, people who use wheelchairs will be able to ride the train from Halethorpe, because of the high platforms and elevators in the new bridge. All stations on the Penn Line between Washington Union Station and Baltimore Penn Station will be wheelchair-accessible, except West Baltimore.

After this, the next step at Halethorpe might be an $18 million parking garage, said Johnson. Many people who drive to the station park their cars on Southwestern Boulevard (US Route 1) and on nearby neighborhood streets.

As for the 54 new bi-level cars, MTA expects the first of the cars to be in service in November. The cars were delayed by a strike at the factory in Quebec and Federal Railroad Administration-required modifications to the brake rotors. They will be certified to run at 90 mph, but MTA would like to get them certified to run at 125 mph.

MTA will use the first cars to replace the 4 40-year-old Pullman gallery cars currently in service on the Brunswick Line. In the meantime, MTA plans a light overhaul of the air conditioning systems on the gallery cars, to get them through one more summer.

47 comments

Upcounty residents call for action on pedestrian safety

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:42:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

"We're all drivers. We're all pedestrians. We all just want to get to where we're going," said one Germantown resident at the Action Committee for Transit's public forum on pedestrian issues in upcounty Montgomery County in Germantown on Saturday.

Photo by Dave in the Triad on Flickr.

The 50 or so participants ranged in age from elementary school children to senior citizens. The lively discussion pointed to road problems that need fixing and road policies that need changing.

Barbara McCann, founder of the National Complete Streets Coalition, spoke to the residents. Complete Streets are streets that "are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities."

According to McCann, Montgomery County has adopted a Complete Streets policy, but with exceptions "big enough to drive a truck through," and a rating of only 46%.

McCann laid out 4 steps for implementing a Complete Streets policy:

Changing procedures.
Educating staff and others.
Re-writing manuals (such as Montgomery County's road code).
Establishing new performance measures (for example, adding level-of-service measures for pedestrians, as well as drivers).

When McCann remarked that implementation also required a champion in the transportation department, Jeff Dunckel, the Pedestrian Safety Coordinator for the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), spoke up to say that this was his job. In addition, he referred to Montgomery County's Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, which meets every other month.

The second presenter was Frances Heilig, a Gaithersburg resident whose neighbor, ">Yessenia Martinez Rivas, was killed at a crosswalk across Muddy Branch Road north of Suffield Drive in Gaithersburg in November, leaving three young daughters. Another pedestrian had been killed at this location in 2009.

Heilig explained that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic at this crosswalk because of the Muddy Branch Square shopping center, but that with a speed limit of 45 mph (and speeding drivers), drivers who stop for pedestrians risk getting hit by other drivers. Another Gaithersburg resident added that southbound drivers focus on the traffic signal further down the hill at Great Seneca Highway, rather than on the crosswalk.

Finally, Clarksburg resident Edward Rothblum talked about how his requests for a marked crosswalk to connect his neighborhood to the elementary school on the other side of Stringtown Road have been repeatedly denied by Montgomery County.

There are curb ramps and a pedestrian refuge here, anticipating a traffic signal one day, perhaps in the far future. In the meantime, though, the county is not willing to put in a crosswalk to help people cross. Catherine Matthews, director of the county government's Upcounty Regional Services Center, said she had spoken with Emil Wolanin, chief of MCDOT's Division of Traffic Engineering and Operations. Matthews said they are now considering a policy of simply not installing any pedestrian features at an intersection until all of the planned road construction is complete.

After the presentations, participants created a list of 5 problematic spots in the county for pedestrian safety, and identified 4 specific actions the county can take to improve pedestrian mobility.

Participants specifically highlighted these problem places, plus all rural upcounty roads, at the meeting for particular pedestrian danger. Image from Google Maps.

Problem places range from rural to fairly urban

The first problem spot is Germantown Road/MD 118 in Germantown, between Wisteria Drive and the I-270 interchange. The stretch of road combines high-speed commuter traffic in up to 9 lanes of traffic with increasing pedestrian (including school) and business activity. Sadly, but not surprisingly, it has been the location of multiple pedestrian deaths recently.

Captain Thomas Didone, director of the Traffic Division of the Montgomery County Department of Police, said that the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) had recently agreed to the county's request to lower the speed limit along this stretch from 50 mph to 40 mph.

A second problem place is the intersection of Dairymaid Drive and Great Seneca Highway in Germantown. As the well-defined goat track shows, people living in the Farmingdale Estates neighborhood use this unmarked crosswalk across Great Seneca Highway to walk to the Kingsview Village shopping center.

Third, at the intersection of Mateny Road and Clopper Road (MD 117) in Germantown, there are (narrow) sidewalks, bus stops, and pedestrian signals, but no pavement markings or signs to alert drivers. Note that there are plans to build 104 townhouses in the former shopping center in the northeast corner of this intersection.

A fourth problem place is the more rural parts of the upcounty, where people do not feel safe walking to playgrounds and parks that are in walking distance. For example, Kings Valley Road in Damascus is a rural two-lane road, but because there are no shoulders or sidewalks, residents feel unsafe walking along the road, especially with children. And crossing Ridge Road/MD 27 on foot, on the way to Damascus Regional Park, is something only a committed pedestrian would dare to attempt.

Finally, participants pointed to the ', '17514')" href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=gaithersburg+city+hall&hl=en&ll=39.140562,-77.193739&spn=0.003166,0.004823&fb=1&gl=us&hq=city+hall&hnear=0x89b62d3624ca13b5:0xe38f5a8180ad7235,Gaithersburg,+MD&cid=0,0,13585902233802464266&t=h&z=18
">crossing in front of Gaithersburg City Hall in Gaithersburg, where drivers do not stop for pedestrians.

The county and state can do better

To make these and many other unsafe spots better for pedestrians, Maryland could change its law to make the use of a non-hands-free cell phone while driving primary offense instead of a secondary offense. Didone said that it is difficult for police officers to issue citations for cell phone use because they must first have another reason to pull the driver over, such as speeding. (Under Maryland law, texting while driving is a primary offense.)

Second, the county could put up signs at every school for lower speed limits during school hours. In Germantown, for example, there are such signs at Northwest High School and Seneca Valley High School. Didone said that enforcing these speed limits is difficult.

A third action would be repainting worn crosswalks. Dunckel commented that budget cuts had affected many maintenance issues, including crosswalk painting. He advised reporting such crosswalks through the county's 311 system, noting the service request number, and then following up a few weeks later if there were no response.

Finally, we must improve driver awareness as well as pedestrian awareness. Montgomery County does conduct such pedestrian safety campaigns. Enforcement, however, is more often aimed at pedestrians rather than drivers, though there are exceptions.

Dunckel and Didone both emphasized that the upcounty was not built for pedestrians and that, with over 5,000 lane miles of county roads, plus state highways, changes to improve pedestrian safety and mobility cannot happen overnight.

But that's all the more reason for the county to design complete streets from the get-go in new development in the upcounty, such as in supposed-to-be transit- and pedestrian-oriented Clarksburg. And it's all the more reason to keep pushing for change in the rest of the county as well.

16 comments

Montgomery DOT tells children: Don't cross the street (Nov 13, 2012)
Gaithersburg police target people in the way of cars (Oct 4, 2010)
Montgomery continues "pedestrian removal" in Wheaton (Mar 21, 2012)
Pedestrian safety slogan exhorts but does not educate (Apr 6, 2012)
Is this pedestrian safety or just pedestrian removal? (Jan 10, 2012)

Clarksburg crosswalk would cost $27 million

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:52:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

Only in Clarksburg would it cost $27 million to get a marked crosswalk so that children can walk to school safely and conveniently. That's because the Montgomery County Department of Transportation refuses to install one until it spends $27 million on road construction.

Clarksburg strip mall. Photo by Mr. T in DC.

Clarksburg, Montgomery County's last master-planned development in the I-270 corridor, is an on-going planning headache. One reason is that the 1993 Master Plan envisoned Clarksburg as a "transit- and pedestrian-oriented town", but there is little to walk to and almost no transit.

12 years after construction began in Clarksburg, the planned shops and supermarket at Clarksburg Town Center are still vacant land. There will be no library in Clarksburg until after fiscal year 2018, if then, according to Montgomery County's Capital Improvement Plan .

While the residential part of Clarksburg's Cabin Branch development is proceeding, the future of the associated 2.4 million square feet of commercial development is uncertain since the Maryland Health Commission ended Adventist HealthCare's plans to open a hospital in Clarksburg.

Clarksburg's transit still consists of 2 weekday-only buses and a tiny MARC station 4-5 miles away.

Although the County Council recently put the next phase of Clarksburg development on hold, this was not because the Clarksburg built to date falls so far short of the 1993 Master Plan's promise. Instead, the County Council worried that construction would degrade the Ten Mile Creek watershed and further reduce water quality in WSSC's Little Seneca reservoir.

And earlier this year, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) turned down a request from Clarksburg parents to mark a crosswalk at Stringtown Road and Observation Drive. Parents in the Gateway Commons development use the unmarked crosswalk to walk their children to the elementary school that is literally within sight of their homes.

The parents persisted, asking Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett to reverse MCDOT's decision. But last week, Leggett instead supported MCDOT's denial. Why?

Because, he explained in an e-mail, the county will not install a marked crosswalk at this intersection until the county has built a 2-mile, multi-lane, divided road (Observation Drive Extended) between Germantown and Clarksburg.

It's bad enough that Stringtown Road did not include a marked crosswalk when the road opened in 2007. After all, the Montgomery County Planning Board approved the site plan for the Gateway Commons development in 2003, and the elementary school has been there since 1909.

Did nobody think that people living on the southeast side of the road might want to walk to the school on the northwest side of the road? Was the road's $8.8 million budget too small to pay for a marked crosswalk?

But Leggett's explanation actually makes it worse. The Stringtown Road construction project did include curb cuts and pedestrian refuges at the intersection with Observation Drive. The parents assumed, reasonably, that the county had included these pedestrian facilities so that pedestrians could use them.

But this assumption was incorrect, Leggett's e-mail explained. Rather, the reason the Stringtown Road project included the pedestrian facilities was "to minimize the expense and operational impacts on the roadway when Observation Drive [Extended] is constructed".

Observation Drive Extended is not on the county's Capital Improvement Plan. But it is possible to get a rough estimate of its construction costs, if the county were to build the road today. The similar 1.2-mile extension of Father Hurley Boulevard in Germantown opened in 2011 and cost $10.9 million, or roughly $9 million per mile. So Observation Drive Extended might cost roughly $18 million.

$8.8 million for Stringtown Road plus $18 million for Observation Drive Extended adds up to $27 million that must be spent before parents and children, in a town planned as pedestrian-oriented, can cross at a marked crosswalk on their safe, convenient walk to school.

At that cost, it's no wonder that, as Leggett's e-mail said, "[t]he County simply does not have the resources to provide crossing guards or other control measures at every potential crossing location to make them as safe as possible for everyone who wishes to use them."

Instead, these parents will have to continue to choose between crossing safely at an inconvenient, marked crosswalk and crossing conveniently at an unsafe, unmarked crosswalk.

As Leggett's e-mail explains, "When in the judgment of our engineers and school transportation professionals it is better to compromise the convenience of a pedestrian...than to potentially compromise their safety, I will back that decision. Like them I believe that installing a marked crosswalk at this location may not improve the safety of those who wish to cross there."

But why must there be this trade-off between pedestrian convenience and pedestrian safety? Surely MCDOT is capable of designing a marked crosswalk at this intersection that would allow pedestrians to cross both conveniently and safely. Such a crosswalk would, however, compromise the convenience of drivers.

The Clarksburg Master Plan says that it will "carefully guide the growth of Clarksburg from a rural settlement into a transit- and pedestrian-oriented town". Ike Leggett says that he supports "mak[ing] our area more pedestrian-friendly". MCDOT says that the county supports improvements to "the walkability of our communities".

Why is it so hard to get Montgomery County to do what it says?

21 comments

Montgomery DOT tells children: Don't cross the street (Nov 13, 2012)
Clarksburg day care stuck in traffic (Mar 29, 2011)
How pedestrians "interfere with traffic" (Feb 28, 2011)
"Transit-oriented" development plans are meaningless without transit (Jul 24, 2012)
Reducing school traffic would help rush hour congestion (Oct 3, 2011)

Montgomery DOT tells children: Don't cross the street

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:05:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

Buster Keaton was being funny when he drove across the street to propose marriage in his 1924 movie The Navigator. But the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) was completely serious last month when they told children in Clarksburg to take a school bus 4 miles out of the way instead of walking across the street.

Stringtown Road at Observation Drive, Clarksburg. Photo by the author.

Many parents in the new Gateway Commons development in Clarksburg walk their children 5 or 6 minutes to Clarksburg Elementary School. They cross Stringtown Road at Observation Drive, the development's main street, and then use a pedestrian path that leads to the back of the school grounds.

The intersection at Observation Drive is the rational place for people from Gateway Commons to cross Stringtown Road on the way to or from school. Unfortunately, however, it is not a safe place. Yet MCDOT denied the parents' request for a crosswalk.

Why is the crossing unsafe?

First, many drivers go faster than the 35-mph speed limit. This is not surprising, given the design and purpose of this section of Stringtown Road. The county built the road, which opened in 2007, to move motor vehicles between Clarksburg and I-270. It's an arterial highway, four lanes wide plus turning lanes and a median, and designed for a posted speed of 40 mph.

Second, the two crosswalks across Stringtown Road at Observation Drive are completely unmarked. There are no signs, either on the side of the road or in the median, to alert drivers to the possibility of schoolchildren crossing. There isn't even paint on the pavement. And though the law requires drivers to stop for pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks, they don't, even when children are standing in the median obviously waiting to finish crossing.

Parents in Gateway Commons wanted the unsafe street crossing to be made safe. So they asked MCDOT at the beginning of this school year to install a pedestrian crosswalk across Stringtown Road at Observation Drive.

But MCDOT said no. They gave four reasons.

First, according to the MCDOT traffic engineer who first denied the request, the crossing at Observation Drive is in "close proximity" to the marked, signalized crosswalks at Frederick Road (MD 355), 550 feet to the northeast, and Gateway Center Drive, 650 feet to the southwest.

From a windshield perspective at 35+ mph, these crosswalks are indeed in close proximity. But they are not so close from the perspective of Gateway Commons parents and children walking to school. For them, crossing at these crosswalks instead of at Observation Drive means an extra ¼ of a mile out of their way and double the travel time.

Second, if MCDOT marked the crosswalk, then people might use it, and that would be unsafe. According to an e-mail from Emil Wolanin, chief of MCDOT's Division of Traffic Engineering and Operations, "inappropriate crosswalk installations" dangerously "encourage pedestrians to cross at a less than optimal location".

This is an odd reason, given that the request for the crosswalk came about specifically because pedestrians are already crossing there, and the crossing is already unsafe.

And for whom is the location less than optimal? Not for pedestrians, or else they wouldn't have asked MCDOT to mark the crosswalk there.

Third, not enough people cross at the crosswalk. MCDOT's study found "little or no pedestrian activity", according to an e-mail from an engineer at MCDOT. And, again according to Mr. Wolanin, "[i]nstalling marked crosswalks at locations with very low pedestrian volumes diminishes their overall effectiveness. When motorists cross [marked crosswalks] rarely if ever seeing a pedestrian they are "trained" to not expect someone to be using them."

The people who asked for the crosswalk installation are walking evidence that there are pedestrians at this crossing. And, by the logic of Mr. Wolanin's previous argument, a marked crosswalk might even increase their numbers.

In addition, it's not as though drivers were currently stopping at the unmarked crosswalks. Is it worse if a driver blows past pedestrians at a marked crosswalk, rather than an unmarked one?

Fourth, the safe way to get across Stringtown Road is to take the school bus that Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) provides to Gateway Commons because crossing Stringtown Road on foot is not safe.

The school bus stops on the south side of Frederick Road, at the entrance to Gateway Commons. It then goes 2 miles southeast on Frederick Road to pick up children from another development, turns around, and goes the same 2 miles back, plus another half a mile, before finally dropping the children off at school. The bus trip takes about 20 minutes. Walking takes about 5.

In short, MCDOT's message to Gateway Commons parents is clear and simple. If they want to get their children safely to a school many can see from their windows, they should either cross the street where it causes the least inconvenience to drivers, or put the children on the bus.

Using a motor vehicle to cross the street is as ridiculous today as it was in 1924. Isn't it time for Montgomery County to join the Complete Streets Coalition and tell MCDOT that streets are for everyone, not just people in cars?

52 comments

Is this pedestrian safety or just pedestrian removal? (Jan 10, 2012)
How pedestrians "interfere with traffic" (Feb 28, 2011)
Montgomery continues "pedestrian removal" in Wheaton (Mar 21, 2012)
Pedestrian safety slogan exhorts but does not educate (Apr 6, 2012)
Short-sighted bus stop placement puts pedestrians at risk (Feb 29, 2012)

"Transit-oriented" development plans are meaningless without transit

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:15:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

In Clarksburg's Master Plan, the Montgomery County town is a transit-oriented community. But in reality, Clarksburg is a transit-lacking community, because the county government has not supported transit.

Photo of Clarksburg by Dan Reed! on Flickr.

Construction has begun in Cabin Branch, Clarksburg's first development west of I-270. Cabin Branch is 535 acres approved for 1,886 houses, 500 senior units, and 2.4 million square feet of commercial space. And Cabin Branch is transit-oriented development.

Or, rather, "transit-oriented" development.

The transit that Cabin Branch is oriented around is the terminal station of the Corridor Cities Transitway at Comsat in Clarksburg, a planning consultant told the Boyds Civic Association last week. The station is located a mile or two east of Cabin Branch, on the other side of I-270. Residents will travel to this station via Newcut Road Extended, a 4-lane divided arterial highway with a separate bike path and an interchange with I-270.

However, the new residents of Cabin Branch may find it hard to actually use this transit, because there is no Corridor Cities Transitway station at Comsat. In fact, there is no Corridor Cities Transitway at all. And the Newcut Road crossing of I-270 does not exist either.

Nonetheless, despite the absence of transit, it is legitimate to refer to Cabin Branch as transit-oriented development. Why? Because the Clarksburg Master Plan says so.

Some background on Clarksburg: Clarksburg is the last corridor city along I-270 in Montgomery County's 1964 land use plan, called On Wedges and Corridors. Roughly 6 miles north of Germantown and 12 miles northwest of the Shady Grove Metro station, Clarksburg is both a historic small town and, since 2000, a neo-traditional new suburb. The 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan governs the town's development.

This Master Plan refers to the transit-orientedness of Clarksburg development at least 24 times. For example, "...the most critical function of this Plan is to establish a strong public commitment to the vision of Clarksburg as a transit- and pedestrian-oriented community...," the plan says on page 1. "Transit is an essential feature of this plan; without it, the Plan's vision cannot be realized," the plan says on page 22.

The plan envisions a transit system consisting of 3 parts:

A "regional transitway," extending from Shady Grove to the City of Frederick, with a stop in Clarksburg Town Center;
An additional "through-transit" system in the form of the existing MARC station at Boyds, 2 miles south of Cabin Branch; and
A "comprehensive" network of local buses linking neighborhoods with the regional transitway and the Boyds MARC station.

For Cabin Branch specifically, the Plan says that "the opportunity to provide a transit-oriented residential neighborhood" is one of the "most important public policy objectives" (p. 64). Also, it says that the "Plan endorses a transit-oriented development pattern�which will place all residents within convenient walking distance (one-quarter mile) of a bus stop," with the "neighborhood core to be located so that bus service will link the area to the transitway to the east, and the MARC station to the southwest" (p. 68).

Fine words.

But the Master Plan does not link these words to deeds. There is nothing in the Master Plan's staging requirements about the transit that, according to the plan, is "essential" for turning the vision of Clarksburg into reality. The staging requirements relate only to water quality reviews; provision of water and sewer service; amount of retail development; number of building permits; and the financing of public facilities. Note that, according to the county's Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, public facilities include roads, but they do not include transit.

As a result, the transit-oriented development in Clarksburg has proceeded without transit.

In 1994, the Master Plan stated that "[a]t present, transit service consists of a limited number of buses on existing roadways and the commuter rail station in Boyds."

18 years and more than 12,000 new Clarksburg residents later, transit service still consists only of a limited number of buses (2) on roadways and the commuter rail station at Boyds.

Of the 2 buses, 1 runs every half hour on weekdays between the county jail in Clarksburg and the Germantown Transit Center. The other runs every half hour during weekday peak hours between Clarksburg and the Shady Grove Metro station, a 45-minute trip by the schedule.

Meanwhile, the Boyds MARC station has limited service, an 18-space parking lot that is already often full, and no bus connections. In fact, there is not even a bike rack.

So when people start moving next year into the "transit-oriented" Cabin Branch development in "transit-oriented" Clarksburg, they will have little choice but to drive. Montgomery County says all the right things about transit. But what Montgomery County actually acts on is cars.

9 comments

Small projects can have a large impact (Jun 29, 2011)
ACT creates Montgomery County transit vision (Feb 16, 2010)
Hopkins lobbies for a slower, cheaper transitway (Mar 6, 2012)
Gaithersbungle: Planning Board staff latest to ignore better way for Gaithersburg (Jun 29, 2009)
Clarksburg day care stuck in traffic (Mar 29, 2011)

MARC listens, improves draft Brunswick Line schedule

Tue, 01 May 2012 13:13:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

MARC proposed a disastrous schedule for its Brunswick Line in December. Fortunately, they've created a new schedule proposal that is a huge improvement over the first one. It adds service to Montgomery County stations, which now account for half of all Brunswick Line riders.

Photo by jpmueller99 on Flickr.

Still, the proposal will not make everybody happy. People who now take the westbound super-express would have longer trips. Many riders would have longer gaps between evening rush-hour trains, due to earlier start and end times for westbound West Virginia service. And late riders from West Virginia would have to transfer to a bus to get home.

Nonetheless, MARC and MTA deserve real praise for their willingness to listen to riders and elected representatives, and to use this information to revise their approach.

Service improvements in the proposal

MARC's proposal increases service to Montgomery County, which not only contributes an increasing share of current riders but will account for still more in the future through transit-oriented developments around MARC stations.

At least one more train would stop at each of the county's stations except Silver Spring and Rockville, where all trains already stop, and Metropolitan Grove. The additional service would also benefit riders who work in Germantown, Gaithersburg, and Kensington. This is a good and needed change, and MARC should make sure it stays in the final schedule.

Also, the proposal adds a PanTran bus connection to West Virginia for the first daily westbound train. This would increase flexibility for riders from West Virginia stations who might need to go home early.

Finally, the proposal adds a third morning train from West Virginia. The train would leave Martinsburg at 6:00 am, between the two current departures.

West Virginia westbound service changes

In this schedule proposal, westbound train service to West Virginia would begin and end earlier. Instead of the 3 West Virginia-bound trains that currently leave Union Station at 4:55 pm, 5:40 pm, and 7:15 pm, there would be 3 trains leaving at 4:15 pm, 5:15 pm, and 6:15 pm. The last westbound Brunswick Line train (the current 7:15 pm departure) would end in Brunswick instead of Martinsburg, and West Virginia riders would transfer to a PanTran bus.

MARC says that West Virginia riders have asked for an earlier departure, so the proposed 4:15 pm train might be an improvement. However, a bus transfer would not be a welcome change for riders who now take the last train.

In addition, riders who are not from West Virginia would have longer gaps between evening rush-hour trains because of the shift to earlier West Virginia service. This is because the 4:55 pm West Virginia train would become a 4:45 pm Brunswick train; the 5:15 pm departure would go to West Virginia instead of Frederick; the 5:40 pm departure for Brunswick would become a 5:35 pm departure for Frederick; and the 6:00 pm Brunswick-bound train would become the last West Virginia train, leaving at 6:15 pm.

For Frederick branch riders, the 85-minute gap between the trains leaving Union Station at 3:50 pm and 5:15 pm would increase to a 110-minute gap between trains leaving at 3:45 pm and 5:35 pm.

For Brunswick and Point of Rocks riders, there would be 2 evening rush trains (leaving at 5:15 pm and 6:15 pm) instead of 3 (leaving at 4:55 pm, 5:40 pm, and 6:00 pm).

And for Montgomery County riders, the 20-minute gap between trains leaving at 5:40 pm and 6:00 pm trains would increase to a 40-minute gap between trains leaving at 5:35 pm and 6:15 pm.

The magnitude of these confusing changes, the extra effort of arranging interstate connecting-bus service to the West Virginia stations, and the fact that the previous schedule proposal also had the last westbound train ending in Brunswick, all combine to suggest that ending the last train in Brunswick instead of Martinsburg is very important to MARC. Why?

Does MARC want to reduce service to the West Virginia stations because West Virginia does not contribute to MARC funding? If so, why do both proposed schedules add a third eastbound train from West Virginia?

Or does CSX want MARC trains off their tracks earlier? The last train now deadheads back to Brunswick after its 9:14 pm stop in Martinsburg. Storing the train in Martinsburg would get it off earlier. But ending the train in Brunswick at 8:58 pm, as MARC now proposes, would get it off earlier still.

Other issues

There are 3 other big issues: the end of the super-express, the absence of new trains, and the non-restoral of daily service for the first westbound train.

First, the proposed schedule would end westbound-service on the historic
super-express, which now leaves Union Station at 4:55 pm and stops only in Silver Spring, Rockville, Point of Rocks, Brunswick, and the 3 West Virginia stations. MARC explains that "with growing ridership in Montgomery County, we can no longer skip these stops when the demand exists."

Second, the proposed schedule does not add to the Brunswick Line's current 18 daily trains. MARC explains that CSX will not allow MARC to add trains until the State of Maryland builds a third track. However, MARC has nonetheless asked CSX for permission to add 1 morning and 1 evening train. CSX might even agree, given federal and state funding of CSX's National Gateway Project.

Third, the proposed schedule does not restore daily service for the first westbound train. This Brunswick-bound train currently leaves Union Station at 1:45 pm on Fridays only. Daily service ended in 2009 when the Maryland Transit Administration cut service due to budget shortfalls.

What now?

MARC has stated that "[t]here is no target date for implementation—we want to first gather further feedback from our customers."

As they did the last time, MARC has set up an on-line survey for people to comment on the proposal.

MARC will also hold "town hall" meetings in Charles Town on Saturday, May 19; Rockville on Tuesday, May 22; and Frederick on Wednesday, May 23.

In addition, MARC staff will be at Brunswick Line stations to gather feedback in the afternoons/evenings between May 1 and May 17. MTA will send out e-mail alerts with specific stations, dates, and times.

9 comments

MARC�s new Brunswick schedule worsens service for many (Dec 5, 2011)
New data show ridership patterns on the Brunswick Line (Apr 27, 2012)
MTA and CSX explain lousy MARC Brunswick performance (Oct 25, 2010)
MARC shares more information including on-time issues (Oct 8, 2010)
CSX troubles lead to MARC delays (Jun 24, 2011)

New data show ridership patterns on the Brunswick Line

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:58:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

MARC is proposing changes to the schedule on its Brunswick Line which significantly improves service to Montgomery County stations. The changes reflect new, recently-released boarding statistics for the line's 19 stations, statistics which can help them better serve commuters.

Photo by Mark Fisher on Flickr.

The data show, among other things, that Montgomery County stations account for roughly half of the line's eastbound riders; Germantown is one of MARC's big stations; riders go to destinations other than Rockville, Silver Spring, and Union Station; and Frederick branch ridership is not meeting projections, probably due to its infrequent service.

In addition, the Brunswick Line is a significant part of MARC's service; Brunswick and Point of Rocks ridership is big but smaller than Montgomery County's; and West Virginia has hundreds of people who ride the train despite infrequent service, long travel times, and ticket surcharges due to lack of state funding.

The Brunswick Line is arguably the most complicated of MARC's 3 lines. It's certainly the longest, running for 73 miles northwest through Montgomery and Frederick Counties and on to Martinsburg, West Virginia, with a 13.5-mile branch line to Frederick.

In addition, like MARC's Camden Line, it runs on tracks owned and controlled by freight carrier CSX. And it is constrained, despite growing ridership, because CSX refuses to allow MARC to add trains until the State of Maryland funds and builds a third track.

On weekday mornings, Brunswick Line trains bring people from Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia to jobs in Montgomery County, the District, and Alexandria and Arlington. On weekday afternoons and evenings, Brunswick Line trains take them home.

Meanwhile, there are big plans for the future along the line. Montgomery County is encouraging transit-oriented development on its part of the Brunswick Line. Frederick County is doing the same in and near Frederick. Even West Virginia is getting in on the act.

But good policy requires good data. So, where do the ridership data come from, and what do they show?

MARC's counting method

The data come from counts conducted on Wednesday, February 8, and Wednesday, March 14. MTA passed out the data at the monthly MARC Riders Advisory Council meeting on April 19.

On count days, conductors are supposed to count everybody who gets on and off their train at each station. The total number of people getting on and off each train is supposed to be equal.

The boarding numbers are misleadingly precise. That is, a count of 123 eastbound boardings on Frederick on March 14 does not mean that exactly 123 people got on. However, the numbers are still useful, as they are probably generally accurate, and anyway, they are the only numbers available.

The Brunswick Line overall

The Brunswick Line accounted for roughly 1/5 of total MARC boardings, while the Penn Line accounted for roughly 2/3, and the Camden Line accounted for the rest. Here is a comparison of Brunswick Line boardings to MARC's other two lines:

MARC Line	Direction/Total	February 8	March 14
Brunswick Line	Eastbound (am)	3,898	4,102
Brunswick Line	Westbound (pm)	3,562	3,844
Brunswick Line	Total	7,460	7,946
Camden Line	Total	4,965	4,711
Penn Line	Total	22,911	26,218

On both days, there were more eastbound than westbound boardings on the Brunswick Line. This may be a precision error, or there may actually have been 300-some people each day who went to work on MARC and home a different way.

Montgomery County

Montgomery County has 11 stations: Silver Spring, Kensington, Garrett Park, Rockville, Washington Grove, Gaithersburg, Metropolitan Grove, Germantown, Boyds, Barnesville, and Dickerson. Rockville and Silver Spring are major destination stations as well as origin stations.

9 daily trains in each direction currently make stops in Montgomery County. 2 eastbound and 4 westbound daily trains currently stop at all of the county stations.

Here are the boardings for Montgomery County:

Direction/Total	Station/Total	February 8	March 14
Eastbound	Total	1,844	2,082
	Germantown	780	837
Westbound	Total	1,170	1,071
	Silver Spring	605	654
	Rockville	419	312
	Other*	146	105
Total		3,014	3,153

*Kensington, Garrett Park, Gaithersburg, Metropolitan Grove, Germantown

The data show three notable facts:

Germantown is a big station, by MARC standards. It's the biggest station in Montgomery County and on the Brunswick Line overall, and it's bigger, in terms of one-way boardings, than all Camden Line stations and all but 4 Penn Line stations (Odenton, Halethorpe, BWI, and Penn Station). (This comparison excludes Union Station.)
Rockville and Silver Spring are not the only destination stations in the county. People also ride MARC to jobs in Germantown, Metropolitan Grove, Gaithersburg, Garrett Park, and Kensington.
On the March 14 count day, there were more eastbound boardings at Montgomery County stations than at all other stations on the Brunswick Line combined.

The Frederick branch

The Frederick branch has 2 stations: Monocacy and Frederick. The trains run on a 13.5-mile line that branches off just east of (and not connecting to) the Point of Rocks station. The State of Maryland built and owns most of the track. Currently, 3 eastbound trains leave from Frederick between 5:12 and 7:10 am, and 3 trains bound west for Frederick leave Union Station between 3:50 and 6:30 pm.

Here are the boarding numbers (all eastbound) on the Frederick Line:

Station	February 8	March 14
Total	442	408
Frederick	150	123
Monocacy	292	285

The Frederick branch opened in 2001 with 3 eastbound and 3 westbound trains. Projected ridership was 1,600 by 2005, with double the number of trains. Obviously, Frederick ridership is still much less; on the other hand, the number of trains is still the same as in 2001. That more frequent trains would increase ridership is a reasonable assumption.

Brunswick and Point of Rocks

There are also 2 stations in Frederick County that are not on the Frederick branch: Point of Rocks and Brunswick. Currently, 6 eastbound trains leave Brunswick between 5:00 and 7:40 am, and 6 daily westbound trains stopping at Brunswick and Point of Rocks leave Union Station between 3:35 and 7:15 pm.

Here are the boarding numbers at Point of Rocks and Brunswick:

Direction/Total	Station/Total	February 8	March 14
Eastbound	Total	1,135	1,162
	Brunswick	687	677
	Point of Rocks	448	485
Westbound	Total	29	17
	Brunswick	28	15
	Point of Rocks	1	2
Total		1,164	1,179

Brunswick is the second-biggest origin station on the Brunswick Line, and Point of Rocks is roughly tied for third with Gaithersburg.

The eastbound boarders include residents of Virginia and West Virginia as well as Maryland. However, there do not seem to be any data on how many.

Some of the westbound boardings may represent West Virginia residents who work in Kensington, Gaithersburg, Metropolitan Grove, or Germantown, and transfer from a Brunswick-bound train to the West Virginia super-express that leaves Union Station at 4:55 pm. In Montgomery County, the super-express stops only in Silver Spring and Rockville.

West Virginia

West Virginia has 3 stations: Harpers Ferry, Duffields, and Martinsburg. Currently, 2 eastbound trains leave Martinsburg at 5:25 and 6:30 am, and 3 trains bound west for Martinsburg leave Union Station between 4:55 and 7:15 pm.

Here are the boarding numbers (all eastbound) at the West Virginia stations:

Station	February 8	March 14
Total	477	450
Martinsburg	199	183
Duffields	173	175
Harpers Ferry	105	92

West Virginia no longer contributes to MARC funding. Eastern Panhandle legislators are trying to do something about this. Meanwhile, since 2009, West Virginia riders have paid a surcharge of $2 per one-way ticket, $20 per weekly ticket, and $80 per monthly ticket.

19 comments

MARC�s new Brunswick schedule worsens service for many (Dec 5, 2011)
MTA and CSX explain lousy MARC Brunswick performance (Oct 25, 2010)
MARC shares more information including on-time issues (Oct 8, 2010)
Mayland will invest in MARC Brunswick Line tracks (Nov 1, 2010)
Gaithersbungle, part 6: What else $3.8 billion could buy, more specifically (Jul 29, 2009)

MARC�s new Brunswick schedule worsens service for many

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:23:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

On Thursday, MARC announced a new schedule on the Brunswick Line, to go into effect on January 30. For riders at the far end of the line, it will mean a faster trip. But for riders in Frederick and closer-in Montgomery County, it will mean fewer trains and longer waits.

Photo by tracktwentynine on Flickr.

MARC says the rationale for the change is the reduction of delays, something every Brunswick Line rider naturally supports. But not only does this schedule fails to address the major causes of the Brunswick Line's many delays, it will actually make things worse for many Brunswick Line riders. The schedule is a failure, and MARC should reconsider it.

As Brunswick Line riders were reminded only last Friday, mechanical problems, communications problems, and CSX responses are major causes of delays. Other causes include trackwork, signal problems, freight train interference, and freight congestion. There are also heat orders when it's hot, and flash flood orders when it rains. And sometimes there are fatalities or other unusual events.

But these delays are not caused by the current schedule, and this new schedule will not solve the problems.

The winners in the new schedule are riders who board at the Brunswick and Point of Rocks stations. They will have more limited-stop trains and comparatively shorter trips. Of the 12 trains that serve Brunswick, 5 will have fewer stops under the plan and just 1 will be making more stops. Even with the schedule's increased time for loading passengers, 5 trains will still have travel times that are up to 10% shorter than in the current schedule.

MARC's Brunswick Line. Map from MTA Maryland.

There are two likely reasons for MARC's decision to benefit these riders. First, Brunswick and Point of Rocks are two of MARC's busiest Brunswick Line stations, with riders from Virginia and West Virginia as well as Maryland. Second, MARC places primary importance on "overall speed of service", i.e., getting the trains from origin to final destination as fast as possible.

Meanwhile, the losers in the new schedule are riders boarding at stations in Montgomery County and at the Monocacy and Frederick stops. They will face reduced train access and longer train rides in return for the improvements at Brunswick and Point of Rocks.

In Montgomery County, Kensington will lose 1 train in each direction. Garrett Park will lose 2 outbound trains. Barnesville will lose 1 inbound train. Metropolitan Grove will lose 2 inbound trains and 1 outbound train. And Boyds and Dickerson will have gaps of 90 minutes between trains.

The most probable reason for this worsening of service is, again, MARC's belief that access to service is less important than speed of service.

Service at most of these stations is already marginal. For many current riders, losing service will mean that taking the train is no longer a viable option. This will lead to a death spiral of lower ridership and reduced service, ending finally in closing the stations altogether.

The decision to reduce service at Metropolitan Grove is especially baffling. Metropolitan Grove is one of the few stations in Montgomery County with a lot of unused parking. And, because the parking lots at Germantown are full, Montgomery County has actually been encouraging riders to board at Metropolitan Grove, the next stop.

As for the Frederick branch, there will be fewer limited-stops trains and longer trips—the opposite of the schedule's effect on Brunswick and Point of Rocks. Of the 6 trains serving Frederick, 4 will have more stops and just 1 will make fewer stops. Travel times on the Frederick trains will be up to 12% longer.

While Frederick and Monocacy currently serve fewer riders than Brunswick and Point of Rocks, this is surely related to the fact that the Frederick service has less than half the number of trains.

In addition, MARC's decision to favor riders from Brunswick and Point of Rocks over riders from Frederick and Monocacy is at odds with state transportation policy. Congestion on I-270 is so bad that in 2009, the state of Maryland proposed spending up to $3.8 billion on highway widening between Germantown and Frederick. Improving MARC service to Frederick is an obvious way of reducing traffic on I-270. But instead, the new MARC schedule worsens it.

Service to West Virginia also has its winners and losers. Earlier commuters will gain a morning train, leaving Martinsburg at 5:00 am, and an extension of the first daily afternoon train to West Virginia. But later commuters are clear losers, with West Virginia service for the last evening train canceled, and departure of West Virginia's new last train delayed from 5:40 pm to 6:15 pm at Union Station.

Do the majority of West Virginia riders want these changes? Who knows? Certainly not MARC, which is only now asking for information from West Virginia riders, after announcing the new schedule.

So what happens next?

MARC has decided not to hold public hearings or to create a public record.

Instead, they will have a series of "Meet-the-MARC-Management" events at selected MARC stations in the afternoon. The first of these meetings will be tonight at the Rockville station.

Meetings will follow at other stations over the next few weeks: Silver Spring on December 7, Monocacy on December 8, Union Station on December 13, Brunswick on December 14, Germantown on December 20, and Barnesville on January 4.

Given that the first event comes only 5 days after MARC's announcement, this is an ambitious timetable.

It also remains to be seen whether MARC commuters on their way home, during the holiday season, will have the time or inclination to stop and tell the MARC managers their opinion of the new schedule. And MARC riders who dislike the schedule may doubt that their feedback will change the minds of the very people who came up with the schedule in the first place.

MARC will hold further "town hall" events in Brunswick on January 3, Kensington on January 5, and Charles Town, West Virginia, on January 7. These meetings are supposed to provide an opportunity for community members, interest groups, government officials, and elected representatives to have their say.

If you can't attend one of these events, there are other ways to provide your feedback. MARC is hosting an online comment form. You can also e-mail comments to the general MARC address of marc@mta.maryland.gov, and CC your local officials.

Yes, the Brunswick Line contends with substantial operational and fiscal constraints. And its true that no public transit schedule can make everybody happy. But this is no excuse for a schedule that's practically guaranteed to make things worse, not better, for large numbers of the riders it's meant to serve. MARC should honor its commitments to all Brunswick Line riders by withdrawing this schedule.

22 comments

MTA and CSX explain lousy MARC Brunswick performance (Oct 25, 2010)
Mayland will invest in MARC Brunswick Line tracks (Nov 1, 2010)
MARC will run more, shorter trains (Jan 25, 2011)
MARC shares more information including on-time issues (Oct 8, 2010)
Small projects can have a large impact (Jun 29, 2011)

Land donors sue JHU to block Science City development

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:22:00 EDT

by Miriam Schoenbaum

The family that donated land in Montgomery County to the Johns Hopkins University for a research campus is now suing to stop development of part of the sprawling "Science City."

Farm buildings at Belward Farm. Photo by jrfinesimages on Flickr.

Science City is Montgomery County's plan for 60,000 jobs in a sprawling suburban development five miles from the Shady Grove Metro stop. It's far from most of the county's population centers. It's near the Agricultural Reserve. One day it is supposed to be transit-oriented around the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). Of course, the CCT is still in the concept stage, and developers aren't waiting for it.

The unlikely location of Science City is primarily due to Elizabeth Banks and two of her siblings. In 1989, they donated their historic 138-acre, $54 million Belward Farm to JHU for use as the "Belward Campus of the Johns Hopkins University", in return for $5 million. If a university campus doesn't sound like a Science City to you, you are not alone. Last month, the donors' heirs filed suit against JHU.

The heirs are asking the Montgomery County Circuit Court for declarative and injunctive relief in order to stop JHU's implementation of development plans for the Belward Farm property, on grounds that the plans violate the donors' intent as shown in both the sales contract and the deed of conveyance.

According to the 1988 contract of sale and 1989 deed of conveyance, provided to me by one of the heirs, Tim Newell, there were no limits for the "use or dispos[al]" of the eastern 30 acres of Belward Farm. However, the proceeds of "any such sale or disposition" were to be "used to create or add to a fund established in the name of Elizabeth B. Banks for the benefit of" JHU.

Use of the western 108 acres of the property was restricted to "agricultural, academic, research and development, delivery of health and medical care and services, or related purposes only, which uses may specifically include but not be limited to development of a research campus in affiliation with one or more divisions" of JHU. This part was to be known as the "Belward Campus of the Johns Hopkins University". JHU was to preserve "an appropriate wooded and fenced buffer area" between the western and eastern parts of the property.

The use restrictions on the western part were "a covenant running with the land". However, if JHU violated the restrictions, the violation would not "result in a forfeiture or reversion of the fee simple title to the land".

And so, in 1989, JHU became the owner of Belward Farm. Then what happened?

In July 1990, Montgomery County approved the Shady Grove Study Area Master Plan, which proposed "expansion of the R&D Village concept west of I-270 to include [JHU's] proposed Belward Research Campus on the Banks Farm".

JHU accordingly applied for and received a rezoning of the property from low-density residential (R-200) to an office/research zone (R&D). According to the lawsuit, the donors "cooperated in [the rezoning] in the expectation that it would facilitate the college campus development of [the western part of the property]".

In March 1997, the Planning Board approved a preliminary plan of subdivision for the property, which JHU now called the "Johns Hopkins Belward Research Campus". The plan proposed a maximum of 1.8 million square feet of gross developed area, described in the lawsuit as representing "about 99.7% of the maximum development allowed under the then-existing R&D zoning [an FAR of 0.3]". Again, the donors did not object to this plan.

But JHU did not apply for final approval of this plan. Instead, according to the lawsuit, JHU and Montgomery County reached an understanding that was recorded on the deed to the eastern part of the property: JHU would donate the eastern part of the property to Montgomery County, in return for the county's support for development of the western part.

According to the lawsuit, this understanding violated the donors' intent in two ways.

First, Elizabeth Banks had told JHU before the sale that she opposed Montgomery County's efforts to control development of Belward Farm—part of which the county now owned, thanks to JHU's donation.

Second, although the sales contract specified that proceeds from the disposition of the land must go to the establishment of an Elizabeth B. Banks Fund, JHU disposed of the land through donation, not a sale. Hence no proceeds, and no fund.

However, JHU did not tell the donors about its transactions with Montgomery County. As a result, the donors had no significant objections to the subsequent commercial development of the eastern part of the property, believing that JHU planned to use the money from the development to pay for building of the campus on the western part. The eastern part was developed into 390,000 square feet of R&D buildings, with associated parking lots. A strip of forest now divides it from the western part.

Elizabeth Banks died in 2005. That same year, according to the Planning Board website, "JHU [began] to rethink their original plans for Belward". Because the 1997 preliminary plan had already proposed the development of the property to the maximum allowed by the R&D zoning of the time, JHU's "rethinking" also required a second round of rezoning.

In 2007, the Planning Department started work on the new area master plan, then known as Gaithersburg West. The final master plan, renamed the Great Seneca Science Corridor, recommended re-rezoning the property from lower-density R&D to higher-density LSC, with a maximum FAR of 1.0, or approximately 4.7 million square feet of development.

The County Council approved the master plan in May 2010 and the rezoning request in July 2010. And in July 2011, the Planning Board approved JHU's request to amend its 1997 preliminary plan.

Due to staging requirements in the master plan, JHU has immediate approval only to build the 1.4 million square feet of development left over from the 1997 plan.

Once the staging requirements are met, however, JHU's concept plans for the "Belward Research Campus" include:

4.6 million square feet of development,
23 buildings up to 150 feet tall,
parking structures for 12,000 cars,
10 acres for the original Belward Farm house and outbuildings,
50% and 40% of floor area, respectively, for R&D/office and life sciences use,
a road with a 150' foot right-of-way, including room for the CCT,
no sign or mention of a wooded and fenced buffer between the commercial land use and the academic land use (if there is any).

JHU has said that its plans are consistent with the deed, because development will be limited to "agricultural, academic, research and development, delivery of health and medical care and services, or related purposes".

And surely JHU does plan to limit development to this wide range of possible uses. But equally surely, JHU's current plans are not at all what Elizabeth Banks and her relatives intended when they signed the sales contract that donated Belward Farm to JHU.

Other universities have also been sued for not using a gift as the donors had intended. In another recent case, Robertson v. Princeton University, the donors eventually settled with Princeton about the university's use of a $900 million endowment to educate students for careers in government. But Tulane University was allowed to merge Newcomb College into the university's arts and sciences college, despite Josephine Newcomb's wish to establish a women's college in honor of her late daughter.

In the meantime, Montgomery County continues with its plans for the creation of a transit-oriented, urban development that will actually be car-dependent sprawl. Sadly, JHU's planned development of Belward Farm into a "research campus" the size of a Tysons Corner Silver Line redevelopment project fits right in to this absurdity.

(Disclosures: I testified against the Science City master plan on behalf of the Action Committee for Transit. Also, I have a graduate degree from JHU.)

18 comments

Sprawl is the only option at the Planning Board (May 27, 2009)
JHU Life Sciences Center: show me the transit! (Jan 27, 2009)
The East County Science Center should be an urban center (Jun 13, 2011)
Hopkins announces Barnesville West "Science Country" plan (Apr 1, 2010)
Gaithersbungle, part 8: They know it's a turkey (Sep 14, 2009)