A very interesting Planning Commission meeting last night (4/15/2015). The agenda item of interest to me was R-33-14, allowing access to a new development via the “highway” portion of Aris T. Allen Boulevard. This is a multifaceted issue dealing with prior annexation agreements from over ten years ago, transportation, development patterns and the wishes of existing residents.
My focus on this issue is not so much the effect on Aris T. Allen from a strict transportation point of view, rather that it is an unsatisfying solution to a much larger development pattern problem outside the core of downtown and existing older neighborhoods. The underlying issue is that new development is done as auto centric “islands” that are unconnected by design. This development model has the underlying assumption that people drive everywhere. While that may be unfortunately true to a certain extent, it results in a bad experience for anyone outside a car. It is also bad for drivers because that model promotes excessive driving and auto congestion, which everyone rails about, and as a result, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. One aspect to the proposed resolution is that if it is passed, access to the existing neighborhood would explicitly not be allowed. The only way in and out would be via Aris T. Allen. To their credit, the Oxford Landing association has said there would be pedestrian and bicycle access.
As you will see in my written testimony below, this lack of connectivity is endemic throughout the City. With few exceptions, developments over that last 10-20 years and planned developments (where I have had access to site plans) also show this development pattern. For example, the Hayes property now called “Annapolis Townes at Neal Farm” (location map, site plans), Crystal Springs, Reserve at Quiet Waters, and upcoming Enclave at Spa (map location) all demonstrate this issue. This unconnected development pattern is incompatible with a city and is not sustainable on any level.
Thankfully, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council not pass this resolution. Most of the members felt as I do that this is just not the right solution to the problem at hand brought forth by the residents of the existing Oxford Landing neighborhood. Ultimately, this will go to the City Council for a vote. Stay tuned…
I submitted the following written testimony in addition to making a few comments in person:
As proposed, allowing additional ingress/egress to the section of Aris T. Allen Boulevard between the MD 2 interchange and Chinquapin Round Road will be extremely dangerous. Vehicles travel 50-60, even 70 mph down this section as it is a limited access highway. Allowing vehicular access from the proposed development will result in slow speed turning movements mixed with highway speed through traffic. High differentials in speed are the cause of many auto collisions and with speed differentials of 50 mph, they will likely be severe resulting in serious injury.
Additionally, slow speed turning and merging vehicles will degrade the motorist experience because it will very much interrupt the flow of traffic. The fundamental purpose of Aris T. Allen Boulevard is to move vehicles quickly from US 50 to Forest Drive. Allowing a turning traffic with high speed differentials will reduce its effectiveness for the majority of people who use this corridor for the sake of a few in a small development. Furthermore, closing off access to the existing Oxford Landing development and requiring all ingress/egress via Aris T. Allen Boulevard is even more egregious because it will be impractical at best or unsafe at worst to get in and out of the new development unless you are in a car. Forcing pedestrians and cyclists onto Aris T. Allen Boulevard will be extremely unsafe and unpleasant.
For sure, I am sympathetic to the concerns of the Oxford Landing residents about having the new development ingress/egress via Yawl Road. It is a heavily settled area and a fairly narrow street. That said, while this issue appears at first view to be just a “transportation” issue, it is important to view it in a broader land use, development and transportation context because they are intimately linked. In this particular case, it is not just an issue of access to a new subdivision, i.e. where do you route the streets, it is an issue of how the development(s) is designed and built including the mix (or lack thereof) of uses, the types of housing units and the local transportation network which have to be viewed holistically. We have made development choices in the City of Annapolis that have had very negative livability consequences over the last 30 years because of our tendency to silo these issues and address them independently.
The newer development on the fringe of the City, specifically along the Aris T. Allen/Forest corridor has been done in a distinctly suburban pattern. By this I mean unconnected subdivisions with a hierarchical auto-centric road network. Cul de Sacs are most emblematic of this development pattern. I have written an extensive article on this development pattern (“Traditional Street Grids are the Answer For Future Growth In Annapolis”), which is attached to this testimony. To summarize it, we have allowed – and continue to allow – this auto-centric development pattern that has become de rigueur for developers since suburban boom of the 60s. It is this development pattern that is significantly contributing to auto congestion, unsafe streets and inconvenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists.
This suburban development pattern is highly inappropriate for a city. People who live in a city want to walk and bike places because with the density of a city, driving everywhere is inefficient and impractical. In fact if you flip this around, the City needs people to be able to easily and safely walk and bike to function effectively in a vibrant way. The last thing we need is more auto dependence, as this is not sustainable emotionally, physically or fiscally. This means having neighborhoods with traditional connected street grids that provide direct access for people walking and riding bikes as well as driving cars. Our older traditional neighborhoods in the City – Eastport, West Annapolis, Homewood – were all built this way and all transportation modes coexist more or less. We did it this way for a hundreds of years prior to the suburban building boom of the 60s. There is a reason we did it this way: it works.
What is proposed in R-33-14 is essentially short-term solution to the larger problems created by this suburban development pattern. I realize there is a lot of water under this bridge since there is existing development there, but we have to start addressing this issue now before it gets worse. The more band aids added on top of the fundamental problem, the worse the problem will get. Practically, there may be some things that can be done by a developer to provide additional access beyond Yawl Road that do not include Aris T. Allen Boulevard. These are things the Planning Commission and the Office of Planning and Zoning can address during the review of this project. It may be more than a developer wants to do but if there is truly market demand then these accommodations can be made. The City should not let bad development happen in order to chase tax revenue from new development when it contributes to a long-term underlying problem.
In summary, R-33-14 should be voted down and alternative solutions should be sought for access to the planned development.