Home  Blog Open letter from Marc Elrich
|
|
Open letter from Marc Elrich |
|
|
|
Mr. Elrich is a candidate for the County Council. He sent us the following comments:
"I welcomed the opportunity to attend the meeting about the development of the Forest Glen Metro site and I wanted to offer some observations. I see at least three major issues.
First, the process used by WMATA is fundamentally flawed. Before they solicit bids for development and select a developer, WMATA needs to reach an agreement with the community about the nature and scope of development. Bringing in the citizens when you're ready to let the development contract is too late in the process - even if the developer has "met" with the community. "Met with" and "listened to" have two very different meanings. In Takoma Park, I have first hand experience with how badly this works. Once WMATA selected EYA as the successful bidder, WMATA became EYA's ally. When EYA came back and said that they couldn't provide the same amount of parking and that they had to reconfigure the bus bays in an inappropriate manner because they couldn't make enough money otherwise, WMATA supported them. They sacrificed the functionality of the station for the interests of the developer. And when the developer gets to credit the cost of replacing the WMATA facilities against the purchase price, WMATA doesn't really get much out of it. This is a horrible way to address systemic funding shortfalls and will rapidly come to an end when there are no more stations to give away. I understand WMATA needs more funds, but this is not the way to get them. I support a permanent and sustainable source of funding for WMATA.
WMATA needs to have the public process first. It needs to work with the community to create a project that has community buy in before it solicits bids. Otherwise, once WMATA has a partner, they become vested in the partner's interest, not the public interest. Moreover, bidders should know what they're bidding on, specifically, what the parameters of a development are. The constraints need to be clear up front, otherwise WMATA's role gets confused.
Second, they need to find the money to provide access to the other side of Georgia. I was handing out leaflets this morning and everything people said was perfectly clear. People crossed Forest Glen mid-block to avoid being clipped by turning vehicles. Almost no one used the crossing at Forest Glen, and that actually surprised me when I saw it. The money is in the County's $4 billion dollar budget. There are a lot of capital projects, and I'll prioritize those projects that focus on addressing existing needs, like pedestrian safety at Georgia.
It's a shame, in a way, that a bridge or tunnel is necessary. As I looked at the intersection it seemed that an all-way walk signal (no right on red) that allocated sufficient time would allow the pedestrians to cross safely - and obviously it would be a fraction of the cost. Urban areas use all-way walk signals, but we won't because the traffic planners' main goal isn't pedestrian safety, but traffic speed. And then when you bring up a pedestrian safety solution like the tunnel, it's deemed too expensive. So the County on the one-hand creates intolerable pedestrian situations, then doesn't want to provide solutions because they're either too expensive, or slow traffic.
Which gets to my third point. Georgia and Forest Glen is one of the worst, if not the worst intersection in the County. A trip from Seminary to Forest Glen can take 20 minutes - I've actually experienced it. So how can you pour more traffic into an already dysfunctional intersection, and a basically dysfunctional road, - unless you've decided that it's so bad that making it worse doesn't matter. If we had a real Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, we wouldn't be talking about this development now. I'm not saying that it should never be possible, nor that it wouldn't be desirable, but under current conditions it's not a good idea. If we want Smart Growth, then we need to embrace the other strategies that go with it, otherwise no community will pay the price necessary to accept higher densities. We need to deal with the traffic mess first, rather than just add to it. Before we set about making things worse, we need to pause and figure out how make things better.
If the County is going to insist on urban levels of congestion and urban density, then we need a real urban transit system. Pedestrians, in an urban environment, are to be expected, and planning must address pedestrian needs. Real urban areas give priority to pedestrian movements. We don't. We should."
|
|