|
From: Douglas B. Farquhar Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006
22:51:57 -0400 We had a very productive meeting today with the State Highway Administration. I have been delegated the task of summarizing the meeting; other attendees will chime in with emails adding, subtracting, or pontificating, if they want. Highlights: the SHA strongly opposed putting a roundabout in the intersection, but designed plans that showed one; the SHA does not favor on-street parking, but it may be open to incorporating on-street parking if it can be convinced of the utility; the SHA has modified its plans to omit some of the most objectionable pavement widening that they had proposed; the SHA is willing to put in decorative crosswalks that will change the texture and color of the pavement at the crosswalks; the SHA is willing to pay for trees along the street as long as property owners agree to let them be planted on their property and to maintain them, and they don't obstruct sight-lines; the SHA is seriously considering not advertising the project for bids on September 12, as they had planned, because they now realize that the project may not be approved as proposed. Decision: Stu was pushing at the meeting for the SHA to continue designing a rotary in the intersection. Those who attended the steering committee meeting tonight achieved a consensus (with some reservations) that we should give Stu a chance to convince us otherwise, but that we generally do not want to pursue a roundabout at the intersection. If others disagree with that strategy, they should let us know soon. Details: attending the meeting were Stu Sirota, Paul, Barry, Robin, myself, Karen Montgomery; from the SHA, Ken Briggs, David Philips, Melissa Hess, Jeff Weintz (?), Keith ?, and a couple of others; and Bob Simpson from the Montgomery County Department of Transportation or Public Works. Ken started the meeting, but Dave did almost all the talking (he was the guy who presented at the AMP-sponsored meeting at Ross Boddy). Dave went down the letter that Stu had sent incorporating all our suggestions and objections to the current plan. He started out by saying that SHA does not believe that their intersection improvements will increase speed of traffic along Routes 108 or 650, because traffic is already free-flowing through the intersection at off-peak times (so the improvements would not improve their ability to speed), and that traffic will always be congested, even with their improvements, during peak hours. He said that what the plan really does is to alleviate increased congestion from future growth so that, in 25 years, the intersection will be a grade D instead of grade F intersection. Barry asked about traffic counts. Dave said they had performed traffic counts, and found that, in morning rush hours, there were an average of about 295 cars every 15 minutes eastbound, 665 cars westbound, 100 cars northbound, and 370 cars southbound. He said the projected volume through the intersection in 2030 is 18,700 cars per day. He then talked about modifications they had made in response to our complaints about the expanse of asphalt. He said that the intersection needed dedicated left and right turn lanes in each direction, with one through lane, to alleviate congestion. But SHA had eliminated some of the acceleration lanes in response to our concerns, and they had revised the right turn onto northbound New Hampshire from westbound Route 108. Specifically, the original plan called for an acceleration lane all the way from the northern entrance of AMP along New Hampshire to the intersection (as it approached the intersection , it turned into a dedicated right turn lane). He said that they agreed that the acceleration lane is not needed, eliminating the area of pavement except for the last 120 feet as one approaches the intersection, where the dedicated right turn lane is needed. The acceleration lane has also been eliminated on northbound New Hampshire from the back entrance to the Kimballs Service Station through the Ashton Knolls subdivision. Finally, instead of having a gently curving, fully separated right turn lane on eastbound Route 108, with an island, they agreed that they could squeeze the right turn lane up against the through lane, causing traffic to have to make a much sharper right turn, removing the island, slowing traffic down, and reducing the expanse of pavement for pedestrians crossing the street there. Dave then addressed on-street parking. He said that SHA has serious concerns about on-street parking on major arterial roads like New Hampshire and Route 108. He said that on-street parking in Ellicott City has led to serious safety issues, because it promotes "people not going to crosswalks" and trying to cross streets between cars, where oncoming traffic cannot see people until the last minute. He said that SHA has allowed on-street parking in some areas, but only where it was needed because sufficient parking was not available on-site. He also said that on-street parking did not seem appropriate because none of the buildings fronted on either road. They also said that they did not have sufficient right-of-way along Route 108 to accommodate on-street parking because there is only one eastbound lane, anyway. We had a lengthy discussion about this issue. We tried to convince them that no one would want to cross the street anyway, in this area; that the developer could be forced to give up right of way along Route 108 for on-street parking (the now-omitted acceleration lane, Ken admitted, could be used for on-street parking if SHA was convinced it was appropriate), and that the need for on-street parking should not be limited to capacity requirements, but that SHA should also be looking at design and aesthetic requirements. Stu said that on-street parking is really essential to the sense of place he is trying to achieve with street-facing buildings. Ultimately, we think that SHA is more open-minded on this issue than we expected. Dave said that SHA is agreeable to changing the texture from the roadway in the pedestrian walkways, and trumpeted a product called Imprint, a textured, colored polymer that can be made to resemble pavers, bricks, or cobblestones. We then talked about so-called "beauty strips" where trees could be planted along the road (not much to add to summary above) and about "pedestrian lighting," streetlights that would be placed alongside sidewalks on Route 108 and New Hampshire. Ideally, there would need to be 138 poles, 14 feet high, placed at intervals of 60 feet. Each streetlight costs about $5,500 to buy and install, and the SHA is willing to pay $2,500 of that cost. In other words, the developer, or the county, would have to come up with roughly $414,000 to fund the streetlights, which would extend from the intersection to the end of the properties composing the AMP site. On the roundabout, Dave showed us a quite detailed plan of a roundabout they had designed in response to our request. He said that it presented problems: there would be a need to acquire much more right of way from the northeast and southeast corner property owners, there would be a lot more pavement, roundabouts present huge issues of pedestrian safety (because there are no signals to stop traffic), and the necessary islands at each quadrant (separating traffic coming into the circle from traffic coming out of the circle) would block access for left-turning vehicles into existing commercial establishments. Dave said there would have to be two lanes around the roundabout or even existing traffic could not be accommodated. Ken asked why we wanted a roundabout, because it did increase the pavement so dramatically, and he thought we were trying to cut it down. Stu talked about the sense of place. Dave shrugged and said that he likes roundabouts because they move traffic so much more efficiently, but did not think it would make the area more inviting for pedestrians. Melissa Hess added later that, from a historical perspective, roundabouts really do not fit in with the history of Montgomery County, although Robin reminded her that there was a small roundabout at this intersection many years ago. SHA said they had agreed to install audio pedestrian signals at the crosswalks so those with limited vision would know when it is safe to cross. On several occasions, the SHA folks deferred to us, with phrases like "if that is acceptable to you folks." We believe that they really have made an effort to accommodate many of our requests, and they want to hear from us if we disapprove of something. Stu started our portion of the session by thanking SHA for listening, and for the accommodations they had made. The rest of our group agreed. He then said that he thinks SHA really has to set aside some of its policies to allow a sense of place to be designed into this crossroads. He addressed the on-street parking issue, and said that any problem with people crossing the street other than at crosswalks was not a design issue, but rather an enforcement issue. We were informed that the county does not have an anti-jaywalking ordinance. Stu mentioned that there is on-street parking on Georgia north of Route 108. Dave and Ken were not familiar with that. Stu pressed for the dedicated right turn lane on westbound Route 108 to be eliminated and for off-street parking to be put in the right of way that would have taken up that portion of the right of way, but SHA was not buying that: they said that having a dedicated right turn lane at that point was absolutely essential to preventing excessive congestion in that direction. We then pushed on two issues. We asked why they were assuming that the development would be built as proposed by AMP, without street-facing stores. Dave said that he had talked with Fred Nichols and with Larry Kohl (Cole?) of Park and Planning and had been told that the project would probably be approved as submitted. We then stressed that we think we have very good arguments about why the plan as proposed does not comply with the Master Plan, and that SHA should not engage in the design and contract process assuming that it would be approved as submitted. There was quite a lengthy discussion about this. In the end, Ken said that they would be meeting with the Administrator on Monday, and he would raise the subject of whether they should stick to their September 12 schedule. He also said, though, that changes could be made after the project had been advertised, and that the on-street parking would not be hard to redesign into the project, provided that they could get sufficient land on the north side of the project along Route 108. Stu pushed for SHA to continue the design of the roundabout. We told Stu that we needed to talk as a committee about whether we wanted to continue pushing for that. We closed with further thanks to SHA for meeting with us, listening to us, and making some of the changes we had requested. |