"Prince George's County, like many other jurisdictions, requires developers to pay for new roads around new buildings. But it never requires new sidewalks or bike lanes."

Somewhat confusing. County zoning requires sidewalks for new developments on-site. This bill proposes more comprehensive analysis and infrastructure provision to fill gaps between sites.

by David on Apr 18, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report

When I first saw that neighborhood, I laughed at the name since I expected it to be closer to(at) the Metro. I'm not sure I understand how anything would change regarding that neighborhood and investment towards infrastructure though.

by selxic on Apr 18, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report

It's about a quarter to third of a mile to the station. Not a bad walk once you manage to cross Addison Road. The county should have required an upgrade to the pedestrian crossing on Addison Road. This bill would enable this kind of pedestrian improvement in the future. Note that the developer did pay for off-site road capacity.

by Cheryl Cort on Apr 18, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

Hey, can someone throw up links to the development's website?

http://www.ryanhomes.com/find-your-home/our-communities/maryland/capitol-heights/the-park-at-addison-metro1 (townhouses)

http://www.ryanhomes.com/find-your-home/our-communities/maryland/capitol-heights/the-park-at-addison-metro
(single-family homes)

I'm more familiar with New Carrollton and the Route 1 corridor in Prince George's, but it always surprises me how undeveloped even inside-the-Beltway communities are. This development is almost completely surrounded by woods, yet as Cheryl said, it's a short walk to the Metro, a couple of schools, and a shopping center. I'm glad that Ryan Homes is building townhouses (and some single-family homes) on tight lots with back alleys, as it presumably makes it more pleasant to walk around than a typical subdivision with cul-de-sacs and half-acre lots. But we have to make it easy to walk around outside of the development, especially if you're going to market it as a walkable community. I hope the Prince George's Council makes the right decision!

by dan reed! on Apr 18, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report

I have only skimmed the bill (.DOC format), but I'm still uncertain what the bill would do to this neighborhood and the street crossing.

by selxic on Apr 18, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report

From the bill:

Examples of adequate pedestrian and bikeway facilities that a developer/property owner may be required to construct shall include, but not be limited to (in descending order of preference):

(1) installing or improving sidewalks, including curbs and gutters, and increasing safe pedestrian crossing opportunities at all intersections;

by Cheryl Cort on Apr 18, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report

Most of the development in PG is outside of the centers and corridors, and more incentives (not less) are needed. The County has provided little economic support (like infrastructure) in central business districts. The County also needs to provide safety campaigns - but they missed the last several years and now have to formulate real strategies. A road plan like "GO Montgomery" is needed.

by falklands on Apr 18, 2012 3:16 pm • link • report

I suppose I don't know how to phrase it, but I'm asking about specific improvements. Should a sidewalk have been added, a signaled crosswalk, etc.?

by selxic on Apr 18, 2012 3:23 pm • link • report

I took a quick look at the bill, mainly to ensure that it would not run afoul of Dollan v. City of Tigard, which requires localities to undertake a particularized evaluation to ensure that the required sidewalks and bikeways are roughly proportional to the need imposed by a given development.

This bill does not require such a particularized evaluation of rough proportionality, so at first glance I was concerned. But the bill limits the cost to $300/housing unit and 35 cents per square foot of retail or commercial, which is probably about a 10 foot sidewalk for each housing unit. That's probably reasonable, and probably roughly proportional in many cases.

Still, whether it goes in the bill or M-NCPPC just does it on their own, the first 10-20 cases should probably do wha the Supreme Court required of all exactions in Dolan v. City of Tigard: Consider the particular set of side walks at issue, calculate the cost of building the network, calculate the number of people who will use the sidewalks, and the number of people from the particular development that will use the sidewalk. Then make sure that the percentage of people using the sidewalk who come from that development, is about the same as the percentage of cost being borne by the development.

And be really careful not to require a developer to pay for a sidewalk that almost no one from her development will use.

I think it would probably be fairly easy to show that

by Jim T on Apr 18, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report

There is a patchwork of sidewalks and new developments around Metro stations and often poor crossings across busy roads. This bill would help construct missing links of sidewalks, trail connections and enhance crossings. An example of an enhanced crossing would be new crosswalk striping, signage, flashing lights, street lighting and other devises to tell motorists to pay attention and look for pedestrians in the crosswalk. DDOT is installing flashing beacons at uncontrolled intersections. See DDOT's website: http://www.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/About+DDOT/News+Room/DDOT+Installing+More+Pedestrian+Crosswalk+Beacons. A step up from this would be a pedestrian signal that gives the motorist a red light when a pedestrian is crossing. MDOT installed one on New Hampshire Ave. in Langley Park.

by Cheryl Cort on Apr 18, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report

Frankly, I don't really see a Dollan problem with this bill. The bill requires the exact same type of nexus with respect to sidewalks as existing law provides with respect to roads -- and, indeed, spells out that nexus much better than the existing law regarding roads. The basic issue in both cases is adequacy of public transportation facilities. This bill merely provides a modicum of equity regarding sidewalks and pedestrian paths.

Through the master planning process (be it the subregion plan, area plan, or master plan of transportation), the public need for the relevant ped/bike facilities has already been identified - and proposed new development in an area that is already in need of bike/ped facilities, coupled with proximity to destinations (such as Metro stations, schools, parks, and shopping), would seem to provide the requisite nexus required by Dollan and other longstanding constitutional principles.

The APF process, where one evaluates the quality/level of service and level of comfort in a given area, provides the individualized process that the law requires -- both of roads and of ped/bike facilities.

This is very sensible legislation, and it's been a long time coming in this county. It's highly encouraging that the county council seems poised to make this happen.

by Bradley Heard on Apr 18, 2012 6:00 pm • link • report

@Bradley Heard. This issue I am raising is not nexus (which is from Nollan, not Dolan)--that's almost always pretty easy since sidewalks are mitigating the extra pedestrians. Adequacy helps with the nexus required by Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.

The Dolan issue is the need for a particularized determination of rough proportionality. Of course CB-2 will not do that! Tbe question is whether CB-2 should add some language to the effect that the board also needs to make a determination of rough proportionality, given that the Commission may not bother if it is not in the bill.

Recall that the Dollan case was remanded because the City had not done a particularized determinatioon of rough proportionality. The Court bought the idea that a hardware store would generate some additional auto trips which would be mitigated by a bike trail--but it said that the City has to actually estimate how many auto trips will be mitigated by the share of the trail that Ms. Dolan had to build. A more typical rough proportionality analysis is done to make share that a developer is not building more than her fair share of off-site bike-ped accommodations. What is the fair share? The fraction of total users of that bike-ped accommodation coming from the development.

The potential for running afoul of Dolan is greater for a sidewalk that is 1/2 mile away than for a road 1/2 mile away, because of the relative range of pedestrians and autos.

by Jim Titus on Apr 18, 2012 10:45 pm • link • report

PS. See how the Portland, Oregon handles rough proportionality

by Jim Titus on Apr 18, 2012 10:49 pm • link • report

@ Jim: As I said, I think the APF test is the "particularized determination" you're looking for. Just like the APF analysis for roads uses trip generation and LOS data, so too would the new multimodal Q/LOS standards that will be developed under CB-2, relating to bike/ped facilities. The bill rightly leaves it to DPW&T and M-NCPPC to work out those details before June 2013.

by Bradley Heard on Apr 18, 2012 11:00 pm • link • report

That's what I am not following. For the typical road case, where the roads provide a level of service, one can figure out how to expand the roads so as to offset the increased traffic and thus keep the traffic situation about even. So if you already have sidewalks and you are just widening some, then ok, that is analogous.

But if you do not have sidewalks in an area, then you really are not merely offsetting the burden. You are creating a walkable community where one did not exist. That is, if 1000 people have to walk in the street today, and the new development will have 1000 more people, we are not going to build a sidewalk that leaves 1000 people in the street, are we? I should think that we build a sidewalk so that the 2000 people all have a sidewalk. But the fair share (required under Dolan) of the new development is only 50%. So how does the APF test get us there rather than (for example) require that the new development build adequate public faciliteies?

by Jim Titus on Apr 18, 2012 11:58 pm • link • report

I would just amend it to read (insertions in CAPITAL LETTERS)
"The cost of the additional off-site pedestrian or bikeway facilities shall not exceed thirty-five cents ($0.35) per gross square foot of proposed retail or commercial development proposed in the application and Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per unit of residential development proposed in the application, indexed for inflation" OR AN AMOUNT THAT SATISFIES THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY, WHICHEVER IS LESS."

by Jim Titus on Apr 19, 2012 7:38 am • link • report

I don't think that amendment is really necessary. The bill already says "shall not exceed..." and statutes are usually read and applied so that they stay within constitutional limits. So your language is sort of already assumed.

by Bradley Heard on Apr 19, 2012 8:23 am • link • report

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I would infer from your last comment that you were assuming that my reason for adding the text is to ensure that CB-2 is constitutional.

Actually, that is not the reason. Of course I agree that CB-2 is constitutional. The reason to add language to require that the board satisfy the constitutional test for rough proportionality is that CB-2 already has a long list of determinations that must be made and calculations that must be done. The list is so long that one might reasonably assume that if something is not on the list, the Board may not do it. The list already includes the need to find a substantial nexus (requirment from Nollan)--and in fact many people, even lawyers, seemed to mistakenly think that the tests required would satisfy the requirement for a site-specific evaluation of rough proportionality.

So: Given that the APF test does not necessarily evaluate rough proportionality as required by Dolan, and that many people may mistakenly assume that it does and hence not do the analysis that is required, why not add this to the list of things already required.

One could, of course, use more words to avoid referening the constitution, e.g. change my insertion to "or an amount whose portion of the total cost of creating thre adequate facility is in rough proportion to the fraction of people using the facility who also travel to the subdivision being permitted." I prefer the more general reference because the board can figure out how to best implement the constitutional requirement.

But I think that CB-2 needs to direct M-NCPPC to evaluate rough proportionality because, quite frankly, I am not sure that M-NCPPC has been doing so in previous exactions. Lost of exactions for trails in PG Co look alot like the exaction that was remanded in Dolan. A new bill requiring a new exaction seems like a reasonable time to start.

by Jim T on Apr 19, 2012 9:20 am • link • report

I understand your point, Jim. I just don't think the bill requires any modification to accomplish your goal. M-NCPPC and DPW&T can address those issues as it develops the regs to implement the bill.

by Bradley Heard on Apr 19, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

Right. As long as the correct procedures are spelled out in some way that is available to the public, it does not need to be in CB-2. I wish I'd noticed this a few months ago, because it might have been easier to persuade my councilmember to include it in the bill than to persuade the agencies to do another test that is not required by the bill. But if you are thinking that at this late date, the only changes should be correction of total show-stopper errors, I agree that this is not a total show-stopper error.

For me, as an advocate, the problem is that I am willing to nag councilmembers to improve a bill to ensure that hte procedure is constitutional. But I am very unlikely to ever demand a showing of rough proportionality for a particular project because I always favor the projects on which I have any input. Except for one, and that's in Anne Arundel anyway.

by Jim T on Apr 19, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

The cap should be indext to a construction price index, to make sure it's not useless in five years.

by Z. Fechten on Apr 19, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report

The bill has major flaws because it was hatched in a small groupthink tank. Methods for LOS vary widely, so whatever is agree upon (if it iever is) there will be a significant variation in applicability. It also does not address outer subdivisions where the safety is a bigger issue. How does it handle plans that do not require a new record plat?

rodge

by rogerthat on Apr 25, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

Update: the bill passed unanimously by the Prince George's County Council yesterday!

@rogerthat -- The County’s quality/level of service standards for ped/bikes will be based on the updated national standards which have been incorporated into the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. This is the bible of transportation engineers. The bill is limited to centers & corridors where the most demand for walking & bicycling exists. Outer area subdivisions will have fewer offsite destinations that people will be attempting to walk or bicycle to. Also these subdivisions' internal walk/bike facilities and on frontage roads which are already required, might be more likely to address more of the need. Ideally, I agree we should apply this standard to the whole county, but this is a a good start. The bill is not retroactive, so projects already finished with subdivision wouldnt be subject to it. In fact, the Council decided to delay implementation until 2013 to ensure the new performance measures (quality/level of service) are in place.

@Z. Fechten - the cost cap is indexed to CPI.

by Cheryl Cort on Apr 25, 2012 2:28 pm • link • report