Comments on: Big Moves at the Purple Line Meeting Last Night http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/ Helping imagine a great college town for a great university Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:30:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ah, Route 1 on the Riviera « Route 1 Growth http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/comment-page-1/#comment-57223 Ah, Route 1 on the Riviera « Route 1 Growth Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:49:24 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/#comment-57223 [...] Purple Line excitement. At the MTA Purple Line focus group meeting, UMD Athletic Director Debbie Yow came out in favor of the Purple Line in a big way. But she insists it be on Stadium Dr. because of the 60-70 special events each year, rather than on Campus Dr. which is MTA’s preferred alignment. But students need to get to class everyday. This seems to be a point that she and Dan Mote, an alleged supporter of the Purple Line, have yet to grasp. The UMD administrators parroting the party line angered local residents at the meeting. [...] [...] Purple Line excitement. At the MTA Purple Line focus group meeting, UMD Athletic Director Debbie Yow came out in favor of the Purple Line in a big way. But she insists it be on Stadium Dr. because of the 60-70 special events each year, rather than on Campus Dr. which is MTA’s preferred alignment. But students need to get to class everyday. This seems to be a point that she and Dan Mote, an alleged supporter of the Purple Line, have yet to grasp. The UMD administrators parroting the party line angered local residents at the meeting. [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: John Payne http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/comment-page-1/#comment-52740 John Payne Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:52:38 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/#comment-52740 In response to Kevin Fallon: The post on October 18 "East Campus Update" quoted individuals representing College Park as saying that they thought streets should be closed between Old Town and East Campus. As a resident of College Park, I responded to that (Oct 19) by saying those individuals were not speaking for all the residents. Many of us beleive the street grid should be maintained (and even restored) between East Campus and Old Town. I further stated that the city council should show leadership on the issue of traffic study to help find solutions to any potential cut-through commuter traffic--the issue that I believe is driving some to suggest the easy answer of street closure. It is particularly important that the elderly and handicapped be able to drive to the gocery store. In response to Kevin Fallon: The post on October 18 “East Campus Update” quoted individuals representing College Park as saying that they thought streets should be closed between Old Town and East Campus. As a resident of College Park, I responded to that (Oct 19) by saying those individuals were not speaking for all the residents. Many of us beleive the street grid should be maintained (and even restored) between East Campus and Old Town. I further stated that the city council should show leadership on the issue of traffic study to help find solutions to any potential cut-through commuter traffic–the issue that I believe is driving some to suggest the easy answer of street closure. It is particularly important that the elderly and handicapped be able to drive to the gocery store.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: joe dexter http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/comment-page-1/#comment-52724 joe dexter Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:41:49 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/#comment-52724 Thanks for posting the MTA handouts. The renderings of the three lane profile are far better than those of the earlier four lane concept which would be too wide for the center of campus. Most of the perceived problems with Campus Drive are true for Stadium Drive, except there are more of them because it is 1/2 mile longer. While $30 million (minimum) may not be a huge amount - it is enough to build some of the new buildings on the university's wish list. Not chump change, by any definition. The real problem with Stadium Drive is that it prevents the university from doing what the master plan (and Dr. Mote) call for - make Campus Drive more pedestrian friendly. Cars would be discouraged (or prevented) from using Stadium Drive - so more would be forced onto Campus Drive. Limitations of that traffic would be impossible since there are so few alternative (Fieldhouse Drive is little more than an alley). The end result would be a degraded center of campus as well as a slower transit line because of its more circuitous route. One participant in the focus group meeting said most people exit the stadium from the south. This is not true. At least 10,000 people - probably more - pour out of the stadium onto Stadium Drive to the north. While the administration does not seem to believe Greg Benz, the planner who addressed this at the meeting and said that there is a need for space between major venues and transit stops, this has been documented across the country so FTA is more likely to listen to the planners than the UM administration on this one. The issue could be addressed if the road were moved but there are constraints on that - Ellicott Hall and others. There is also a parking garage for which access needs to be retained. It is also demonstrated that people will walk further from transit or parking to a sports event than to their offices. That is why transit ridership drops drammatically with every five minute wall from the stop. This will be a major issue with the proposed relocation of the east campus stop away from Rt 1. It will no longer serve the core of East Campus, downtown College Park or the engineering/science area of campus. All of these issues will come on when the side by side comparison is presented. Let's hope that cooler heads will prevail than some that have been articulating the administration's position over the past month. The bottom line should become apparent when the university considers the number of riders that might actually use this to get to campus. If it will have a dramatic impact on the current miserable modal split, the attitude towards it may shift. Let's hope so, because east campus without the purple line will result in total gridlock on area roads. Thanks for posting the MTA handouts. The renderings of the three lane profile are far better than those of the earlier four lane concept which would be too wide for the center of campus.

Most of the perceived problems with Campus Drive are true for Stadium Drive, except there are more of them because it is 1/2 mile longer. While $30 million (minimum) may not be a huge amount – it is enough to build some of the new buildings on the university’s wish list. Not chump change, by any definition.

The real problem with Stadium Drive is that it prevents the university from doing what the master plan (and Dr. Mote) call for – make Campus Drive more pedestrian friendly. Cars would be discouraged (or prevented) from using Stadium Drive – so more would be forced onto Campus Drive. Limitations of that traffic would be impossible since there are so few alternative (Fieldhouse Drive is little more than an alley). The end result would be a degraded center of campus as well as a slower transit line because of its more circuitous route.

One participant in the focus group meeting said most people exit the stadium from the south. This is not true. At least 10,000 people – probably more – pour out of the stadium onto Stadium Drive to the north. While the administration does not seem to believe Greg Benz, the planner who addressed this at the meeting and said that there is a need for space between major venues and transit stops, this has been documented across the country so FTA is more likely to listen to the planners than the UM administration on this one. The issue could be addressed if the road were moved but there are constraints on that – Ellicott Hall and others. There is also a parking garage for which access needs to be retained.

It is also demonstrated that people will walk further from transit or parking to a sports event than to their offices. That is why transit ridership drops drammatically with every five minute wall from the stop. This will be a major issue with the proposed relocation of the east campus stop away from Rt 1. It will no longer serve the core of East Campus, downtown College Park or the engineering/science area of campus.

All of these issues will come on when the side by side comparison is presented. Let’s hope that cooler heads will prevail than some that have been articulating the administration’s position over the past month. The bottom line should become apparent when the university considers the number of riders that might actually use this to get to campus. If it will have a dramatic impact on the current miserable modal split, the attitude towards it may shift. Let’s hope so, because east campus without the purple line will result in total gridlock on area roads.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Kevin Fallon UM 93 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/comment-page-1/#comment-52656 Kevin Fallon UM 93 Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:06:25 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/#comment-52656 David: "my trees" would not remain in the ideal redevelopment of the Knox Box district anyway because I think the only way we can get anything down down in there would be to win over the environmentalists by using Guilford Run to create a water feature (canal or long rectangular pond with aerators to improve the water quality of this fragile Anacostia tributary) so the days are numbered for those trees In regards to John Payne's post: I find it particularly interesting that the residents are now talking integration w/ East Campus. Didnt we just have a thread going about how the residents want to be shut off (road closures) from East Campus? I feel like it was just a week or two ago. It seems contradictory to me. I think fully integrated to create a thriving vibrant community is the way to go but I thought the Old Town residents were adamantly opposed. David: “my trees” would not remain in the ideal redevelopment of the Knox Box district anyway because I think the only way we can get anything down down in there would be to win over the environmentalists by using Guilford Run to create a water feature (canal or long rectangular pond with aerators to improve the water quality of this fragile Anacostia tributary) so the days are numbered for those trees

In regards to John Payne’s post: I find it particularly interesting that the residents are now talking integration w/ East Campus. Didnt we just have a thread going about how the residents want to be shut off (road closures) from East Campus? I feel like it was just a week or two ago. It seems contradictory to me. I think fully integrated to create a thriving vibrant community is the way to go but I thought the Old Town residents were adamantly opposed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: John Payne http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/comment-page-1/#comment-52638 John Payne Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:57:48 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/497/#comment-52638 Those in attendance at the meeting who kept parroting the University talking points advocating for a Stadium Drive alignment seemed willing to completely ignore the very negative impacts of realignment on the residents of College Park and ridership on the Purple Line. The Stadium Drive alignment would apparently require the line to continue along Paint Branch Parkway rather than through the new East Campus development. That Northern alignment would negatively impact Old Town College Park by moving the transit stop from the planned location near Rossborough Lane and Route 1 to somewhere up on Paint Branch Parkway away from the neighborhood. One of the major selling points for East Campus was that is was supposed to be a transit-integrated development that would not have a large impact on automobile traffic, but this realignment would disintegrating the transit component from East Campus. Taken together the lack of convenience to College Park residents and the lack of integration with East Campus would negatively impact the Purple Line by reducing ridership. Those in attendance at the meeting who kept parroting the University talking points advocating for a Stadium Drive alignment seemed willing to completely ignore the very negative impacts of realignment on the residents of College Park and ridership on the Purple Line.

The Stadium Drive alignment would apparently require the line to continue along Paint Branch Parkway rather than through the new East Campus development. That Northern alignment would negatively impact Old Town College Park by moving the transit stop from the planned location near Rossborough Lane and Route 1 to somewhere up on Paint Branch Parkway away from the neighborhood.

One of the major selling points for East Campus was that is was supposed to be a transit-integrated development that would not have a large impact on automobile traffic, but this realignment would disintegrating the transit component from East Campus.

Taken together the lack of convenience to College Park residents and the lack of integration with East Campus would negatively impact the Purple Line by reducing ridership.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>