An impressive environmental movement has been building lately concerned about the warming of earth’s climate and what we should do about it. A major force in it has been the passions of activists, especially college students. The recent Powershift 2007 conference at our campus brought together students from around the country to consider what should be done about climate change.

What has been primarily discussed is the adoption of cleaner, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar-thermal panels, photovoltaic solar cells, or hydroelectric power. Or, they stress the need to develop alternative fuel technologies that reduce our demand for finite fossil fuels such as hydrogen or biofuels. However, I would like to bring attention to another major factor in the climate change debate: the carbon emissions brought about by Americans who continue to support wasteful, unsustainable lifestyle habits that lead to greater sprawl, greater congestion, and greater pollution.

Recently, the study “Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change” was released by the Urban Land Institute and Smart Growth America, in conjunction with the National Center for Smart Growth on the University of Maryland campus. The study found that vehicle-miles traveled (Or, “VMT”) in America are steadily increasing at a startling rate, three times the rate of population growth and at a faster rate than carbon emissions. VMT is scheduled to continue rising 60% over the next 30 years; all the while CO₂ emissions would be 40% above 1990 levels even under a best case scenario with new Senate CAFE standards. Transportation CO₂ emissions account for a third of total emissions in the US, and while policy initiatives have striven to improving fuel efficiency and carbon fuel content, precious little has been done to reduce the amount of driving that is being done.

Our communities have principally been designed for automobiles, where multi-lane freeways, spread-out subdivisions and expansive strip malls are the norm. Our attitudes have been cultivated from this way of living, with an increased prevalence in people moving farther away from work and eschewing public transit for time spent alone in their cars. These unplanned subdivisions encourage low-density zoning in areas that receive little to no benefit from mass transit, thus forcing everyone to drive to get around anywhere.

Most frustrating has been the lack of attention from environmental activists, especially students, on this topic. While policy initiatives on emissions caps are necessary and welcome, it takes a concerted emphasis on persuading the general public that global warming is real and is impacted by the decisions we make every day. Collective pressure on planning policymaking could bring about real change to the problem. While many “activists” are in tune with the more glamorous topics, such as the headline-grabbing “gloomsday” scenarios, they may be overlooking other aspects of the problem.

So here are the solutions. The best way to discourage driving is to reduce urban sprawl, which pushes communities further out from cities and increases vehicle travel distances that increase fossil fuel consumption and emissions released. These conditions lead to greater traffic congestion, which directly threatens the livelihood of our cities. Higher-density, mixed-use development around transportation centers (termed as “smart growth”), extensively implementing “green” building design features and promoting rural conservation efforts to control sprawl can have a pronounced effect on development patterns.

Environmental activist Mike Tidwell believes that it’ll be “very hard” to wean Americans off their unsustainable suburban existence, but it must happen eventually. We can start by giving citizens realistic alternative options to commuting in automobiles. Currently, the Federal Transit Administration appropriates 30 times less funding towards public transit projects than highway projects yearly, which reflects severe lack of foresight by this administration. The 2009 surface transportation bill (Transportation Equity Act) will decide the allocation of federal funding for the following 5 years and can set a tremendous precedent in reducing the amount of transportation greenhouse gases emitted. Further, cheap gasoline makes driving more financially viable to many compared to transit. Let’s fix that by instituting dramatically higher gas and displacement taxes that not only encourage people to drive less frivolously and carpool, but to use the extra proceeds to fund mass transit projects such as the Purple Line and reintroducing streetcar services. Antiquated zoning codes that worked to separate residential, commercial and retail spaces now work against achieving smart growth and must be reformed to encourage mixed-use development that puts everything within walkable distances. Local governments should also refuse to give sweetheart deals to private developers whose objective is to build over every last inch of open space.

And it’s important to note that I don’t believe that mass transit is the panacea to solve all of our traffic problems. Road improvements are long-overdue and even more necessary than before due to exploding population growth that has overburdened our transportation infrastructure networks. But diminishing the need for long travel distances by conveying changes in public attitudes and the way we plan cities is the vision that we need to start embracing. Promoting responsible planning and development is necessary to foster compact communities that can support lifestyles in the new age of conservation and sustainability. Curbing global warming takes more than just a signature. It requires a real, fundamental revolution in the way we live.

Note: The following opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Rethink College Park, nor the views of other RCP contributors. Rethink College Park is always interested in contributed articles from community members.

With Purple Line’s cost-effectiveness as well as location on the University of Maryland campus being debated, perhaps we should take a look back on the history of the Purple Line route and how we got to where we are today.

The idea of a route connecting the two spokes of the Red Line surfaced not long after the initial construction of Metro, but it was not until the 1990s under then-Governor Parris Glendening that the line established steam and was expanded to include the line between Silver Spring and New Carrollton. At the time, there were two competing movements. Gov. Glendening championed a light-rail, Inner Line because that would do better to serve depressed, inner communities that could be well-served with more transit-oriented development. On the other hand, then-Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan supported a heavy-rail, outer Purple Line that more closely mirrored the route of the Beltway, under the notion that a Beltway line would better serve high-growth areas. At around the same time Gov. Glendening announced the Intercounty Connector project “dead”, the Inner Line won favor from politicians as the preferred route to connect the existing spokes of Metro in Suburban Maryland. When Robert Ehrlich became the next governor, he decided to rename the project the “Bi-County Transitway” to reflect the alternative proposal of bus rapid transit (BRT) that was being considered in addition to light rail.

Fast-forward to 2007, and two Governors and $2,400,000,000 later, the Intercounty Connector is now on the fast-track to construction after languishing for 50 years on state master plans and it is the Purple Line project that sits on the sidelines. Due to federal government polices that allocates 30 times more funding to highway projects versus mass transit, the competition for federal funding from projects nationwide is fierce. To convince the Federal Transit Administration that a project is “cost-effective”, state governments must show through statistical analysis that ridership figures for any new line would offset the cost of construction, and there is a complex formula that the FTA uses in its calculations.

This year, the Maryland Transit Administration was concerned that the Purple Line currently planned would not pass the cost-effective standards that the FTA uses to award funds for mass transit projects using Erlich-era ridership numbers, deciding to revise the estimates. Thus, the MTA must now go back and rework the figures to reflect an increase in ridership that will be suitable to meet the cost-effectiveness standards of the FTA.

But I am not optimistic. Even without the feasibility concerns that threaten the fate of the entire project, there are too many nagging concerns that have yet to be addressed with the Inner Line. Mainly, the opposition voiced by the Columbia Country Club and other residents of Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and Silver Spring over the route of the Purple Line. Their Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) mentality has been ever-present since serious consideration of a Purple Line began, and it promises to hamper any effort to move the line from the planning to the construction phase. Furthermore, there is a serious fight brewing on the University of Maryland campus over the route of any Purple Line, with the university administration preferring a Stadium Drive alignment to preserve the area in front of the Stamp Student Union as well as mitigate any impacts that a light-rail line on Campus Drive might have on pedestrians. Therefore, it is clear that public sentiment on a Inner Purple Line is anything but united.

Also, there are questions regarding a light rail Purple Line’s effectiveness in improving mass transit over existing bus systems. Right-of-way issues in particular are of major concern, especially in Silver Spring where several at-grade crossings are planned and tracks are to be placed on narrow neighborhood streets, potentially mixed with vehicular traffic. Headway times between Bethesda and New Carrollton will also be impacted the number of stops, and having too many stations close together might negate the benefit that a light rail line could provide if it slows down the commute time too greatly. Simply put, the Purple Line must be seen as an attractive option to commuters who would otherwise take their cars or other form of transportation; otherwise, it will not be a success either today, or more realistically, 10, 20, maybe 30 years from now.

Therefore, I implore the state to consider other options. At this time of crossroads, it’s time to look at other alternatives. Most notably, the Outer Purple Line (Beltway) line that was previously on the table, but with one important addition: the addition of a link between Grosvenor-Strathmore on the Red Line in Montgomery County to Dunn Loring-Merrifield on the Orange Line in Fairfax County via Tysons Corner. The inclusion of another state in Beltway Line planning will definitely make the project more complex, but I believe that it is the only way for any Purple Line to be seen as “cost-effective” under current FTA standards in terms of projected ridership.

Consider that a Beltway heavy-rail line would more closely follow existing major commuter patterns in the DC metro area. Twice a day, thousands of cars travel between Virginia and Maryland to get to work and back home again. One of the most congested corridors in the country is located on Interstate 495 between Dulles Toll Road (VA 267) and Connecticut Avenue (MD 185). A heavy-rail Beltway line would directly follow that route, giving commuters another option to sitting in traffic for hours at a time. A Beltway alignment is practically the only location that would make heavy-rail construction a feasible option due to easier construction of the line. The Beltway line could be constructed as an elevated line, or more preferably, tunneled beneath the roadway. As a plus, NIMBYism would be sharply curtailed because this line would be located primarily in the right-of-way of an 8-lane expressway. And while the cost of a heavy-rail Beltway line is sure to be much more expensive than the current Purple Line proposal, the ridership estimates also promise to be much, much higher than the Purple Line, potentially high enough to make this project cost-effective under FTA standards. And while the Purple Line promises to do little to solve our region’s congestion woes, an Outer Line would work to directly take cars off our aging, outmoded infrastructure.

The Beltway line thus promises to provide a much more regional, widespread solution to our transportation deficiencies. Between the current Purple Line and the Beltway Line, which line do you line do you see taking the most cars off the road during rush hour, improving our quality of life? A Beltway line would link up existing Metro lines at Dunn Loring-Merrifield, Grosvenor-Strathmore, Forest Glen, (West) Greenbelt and New Carrollton for improved suburb-suburb access, while providing desperately needed transit to the edge-megacity of Tysons Corner. Tysons is a major center for jobs in the metropolitan area, with over 50,000 people commuting there daily without the help of a mass-transit presence in the area. This would alleviate the traffic off beleaguered Interstates 495 and 270, while ensuring that we won’t have to rebuild the American Legion bridge anytime soon. And…we wouldn’t require an ill-conceived, sprawl-friendly Silver Line to Dulles Airport to make Metro to Tysons a reality.

The Beltway Line could provide improved access to the Naval Medical Center, which is scheduled to receive an influx of employees due to the BRAC realignment. It could also provide opportunity to foster transit-oriented redevelopment in the communities of Tysons Corner, Westlake/Rockledge, Four Corners, Hillandale, Cherry Hill, and Greenbelt. In addition, existing underutilized stations such as Rockville, Twinbrook, White Flint, Wheaton, and Glenmont would also see a surge of redevelopment due to construction of the Outer Purple Line and the increased patronage that accompanies it.

Finally, is it any coincidence that the Metro lines with the highest peak ridership are the ones that directly mirror existing commute patterns? The Red Line spokes from Shady Grove and Glenmont, as well as the Orange Line from Vienna are consistently the most congested routes in the Metro system because they provide the best opportunity for commuters to drive from their homes in outlying exurbs and park at commuter lots and take the Metro to DC for the remainder of their commute. I believe that the Beltway Line would provide the same opportunity for commuters coming down from Interstate 95 and Route 50 in Maryland and Route 267 in Virginia to park at the commuter lots and use the Beltway Line for the remainder of their commute. While the end goal should be to have these commuters live in more sustainable communities better served by mass transit, the Beltway Line would serve well in providing mass transit to those individuals that did not have the option of using it before.

So perhaps it’s time to switch gears on the Purple Line. Now that the ICC is almost a guarantee, we should focus on regional solutions that will take cars off the road and help expand our rapid-transit system and make it more effective to people who commute between suburbs. It’s time to reconsider a Beltway Line alignment. With the lack of funds in place for any Purple Line construction, we have nothing but time on our hands at this point.

In case you missed it, I wrote an opinion column that was published in last Wednesday’s Diamondback student newspaper entitled “Wawa, good riddance”. To read it, go here.

In summary, I celebrated the demise of the College Park Wawa and how it symbolized the less than desirable conditions of College Park. And while Wawa wasn’t the sole cause of College Park’s decline, it was perhaps the face of it due to routine weekend vandalizing from drunken bar-goers. I hoped that Wawa’s closing could catalyze future fundamental changes in downtown College Park to improve its sustainability and become more pedestrian-friendly. I called on JBG Rosenfeld Retail, the landlord of College Park Shopping Center where Wawa is located, to follow the East Campus Initiative’s lead and recognize the market and need for more attractive options for retail and housing in downtown College Park.

The College Park Shopping Center was built in 1949, where a society dominated by car culture called for a strip mall with easily accessible surface parking at the expense of pedestrians. There are several long-term leases on the property, including CVS/pharmacy and Bank of America. JBGR owns this main L-shaped center, as well as the lot one block to the south, which encompasses FedEx Kinko’s and Applebee’s. The official profile of the shopping center can be found here.

Following publication, I received a lot of attention and feedback. However, almost none of it was from undergraduate students, which was my original intention. Even though the scope of my editorial went far beyond Wawa, I hoped that using it as a scapegoat would draw attention from those lamenting the loss of a late-night hangout. Instead, the bulk of feedback came from professionals and alums, most of whom praised my column and agreed with the principle that change was needed in College Park. One individual noted that it was a shame that downtown College Park did not more accurately reflect the presence of a nationally-recognized planning program, as well as the innovative National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education center on campus.

This week, I was surprised to learn that the principal of JBG Rosenfeld Retail, Robert Rosenfeld, teaches a class in Real Estate Finance in the Real Estate Development graduate program on campus. He had read my column and had assigned it to his students in preparation for class discussion. This past Monday, I introduced myself to Mr. Rosenfeld and sat in on his class discussion. While the reaction to my column was overwhelmingly positive, insightful questions such as the perceived lack of financial incentive for JBGR to redevelop the property were brought up. Mr. Rosenfeld responded that long-term leases that give an unusual amount of clout to tenants such as CVS make a revisionary effort in downtown more cumbersome.

However, Mr. Rosenfeld said that his company would observe the progress of East Campus very closely to see what impacts it has on the retail and development climate of downtown College Park. Finally, he offered a tentative plan to redevelop the southern lot with Applebee’s into a mixed-use, multi-story building with retail on the bottom floor and housing for rent on the upper floors. The plan is four years away, he says, but it would go towards transforming College Park from its present state.

In conclusion, I have welcomed all the feedback that I have received from the column and I look forward to yours. The question I grapple with everyday is how to ensure students get a seat at the table when their general apathy towards these issues persists. In the coming weeks, I hope to come up with ideas to encourage active student participation in a time of hope and transition for College Park. Stay tuned.

Rethink College Park will have their own booth at the First Look Fair this Thursday, September 20, from 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. on McKeldin Mall at the University of Maryland campus. Come meet the contributors, learn more about what we do, and find out how you can get more involved. We will be located in the Community Service section of the fair. We look forward to seeing you there!

With the public input process well under way, more and more information is being released about the East Campus project.

On a mild weekday afternoon this past August, I decided to take some pictures to capture “before” images to contrast with the rough renderings that Foulger-Pratt released last spring to the general public. I parked my car in Lot OO by the Shuttle-UM bus depot and walked down currently existing Greenhouse Road where it intersects Campus Drive. From there I walked to the intersection of Route 1/Baltimore Ave and Paint Branch Parkway where a planned 12-story hotel would anchor the new development and provide a gateway to the East Campus for those traveling southbound on Route 1. The current view of this corner includes the campus mail facility.

Compare that to this image from the conceptual drawings released by Foulger-Pratt/Argo Investment of the same location.

Click read more for more before and after comparisons.

From there I walked south on Route 1 to the intersection of a service driveway just past Harrison Lab. This nondescript alley is scheduled to be a major pedestrian traffic node, located across the Engineering Fields and perhaps the future location of the Purple Line.

Planners of the new development have envisioned the intersection of Route 1 and “Terrapin Place” to be the main campus gateway for those on foot, bike, or train. In their presentations to the campus community, the developers have talked up the idea of this majestic view of campus from this area of the new development. This is what they may have in mind:

There is no existing pedestrian access across Route 1 between the intersections of Paint Branch Parkway and Rossborough Lane. Some form of traffic-calming device would be placed at this new intersection (tentatively named Terrapin Place) of either a traffic signal or a roundabout to slow Route 1 traffic to encourage pedestrian traffic.

A short walk down Route 1 leads to the intersection of Rossborough Lane near the Visitor’s Center, where a new office building would replace the existing Service Building, located just across the renovated Richie Coliseum. Here’s the before and after.

Crossing Route 1 at this intersection right now requires a 2-minute wait to get right-of-way. This will need to be redesigned accordingly to facilitate better access from the main campus into the new East Campus. Along Rossborough Lane, one sees Lot K to the right behind Fraternity Row, which would be replaced by new restaurants and specialty stores. Upon taking a left at the Greenhouse Drive intersection, one enters the “heart” of the future development, with a plaza designed in a triangular wedge between the existing power plant and the planned north-south thoroughfare. Lot K and the Plant Operations and Maintenance Complex is on the right.

Walking through this area, the steady hum of the power plant comes to immediate attention, and therefore “white noise” such as splash fountains are planned. The power plant will continue to be a major point of interest in the redeveloped East Campus, as any new retail and storefronts will have to coexist with the power plant. Here is a conceptual illustration of the same intersection.

Greenhouse Drive intersects with the aforementioned service driveway (future Terrapin Place). Past the existing Building Services Operation building and an additional Plant Operations and Maintenance building, the street comes to a terminus at the UM-shuttle bus depot at Campus Drive, just a few feet from Paint Branch Parkway.

Here is the revamped intersection facing northeast with Terrapin Place running with overhead wires to accommodate a new light-rail line.

There is a gas pipe that runs underneath the entire length of the street. The developers’ choice to keep the line intact influenced their decision to maintain much of the location of the current street and to locate the new plaza at its particular location in order to keep the line underneath existing right-of-way.

Overall, the redesigned East Campus area will undergo a massive upheaval where only the power plant will be the only recognized feature of today’s East Campus. Compared to the barrenness that exists presently, the new East Campus should be a welcome rejuvenation and a much better use of the provided space.

For more photos, check out here.