current info

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.


"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil—he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good—he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you—and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

First People - The Legends. Cherokee Legend of Two Wolves. November 16, 2004. [accessed April 7, 2012].

Thursday, January 12, 2012

PGMC 109-12, sponsored by Senator Peters of Bowie would create a fee in lieu of transportation infrastructure adequacy


             PGMC 109-12, sponsored by Senator Peters of Bowie would create a fee in lieu of transportation infrastructure adequacy option for developers. Applying to only certain corridors and centers found in the current version of the Prince George's County Master Plan.  The legislation allows a developer whose project would raise the amount of traffic on roads nearby to make a onetime payment instead of addressing the future congestion brought by the project. The fee according to the language in the bill shall be based upon a fair and equitable assessment of the cost of increasing the traffic capacity of the existing road system.[1]

               Senator Peter's testimony in December explains that "these funds would then be used to pay for the design and construction of roadway or intersection improvements or to offset the impact of the increase in traffic caused by the development.  If interim improvements are needed, the Planning Board could require that the developer construct those, so long as they are deducted from the escrow contribution. PG/MC 109-12 is modeled after successful policies and statutes used by neighboring Howard and Montgomery Counties.  It is an excellent tool to build quality developments while still having adequate road and intersection improvements."[2]

               Several questions occur to me right off the bat. Why do we need this bill? Specifically, what part of the current process obstructs development? How will this legislation ensure capacity is in place by completion of the project? A perception of the traffic mitigation process  inadequacy is clearly expressed by a posting on the Prince George's Politics blog: "The County Adequate Public Facility ordinance does nothing to solve this problem. Either developers just add an acceleration lane in front of their property, or they do “mitigation” (which usually means adding another turn lane at a congested intersection). They only have to “mitigate” the supposed traffic that they add to the failing system, not actually fix the problem."[3]  The perception is fuelled the understanding that the current version of the bill, according to a Gazette story, "would effectively negate a resolution introduced by Prince George's County Councilman Mel Franklin (D-Dist. 9) of Upper Marlboro and passed by the council to restrict the use of a similar escrow fund, the Brandywine Road Club, in the Brandywine area because of the fund's ineffectiveness, producing no measurable improvements to roads in the area in its existence."[4]

               Development that creates an adverse transportation-system impact is required to mitigate those effects. The cost of the enhancements can be externalized onto the community by increased traffic and more frequent repairs to roadways (and corresponding tax increases) or it can be borne by the project developer who can either pass the traffic mitigation costs onto the buyers or can reduce the size of its profits. It is interesting to note that the legislation has not provision for future valuation of construction planning and costs. In other words how will we know what those cost might be in ten years when we finally get around to doing the transpiration improvements, and who will pay for the difference if not enough money was set aside in the first place?

               There is an additional questions raised by a research report from Montgomery County: "How can new development best contribute to a sustainable network?"[5] Any development that externalizes its transportation costs onto the public is by definition not sustainable. Sustainable development occurs when the desires of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.  It recognizes the fundamental inseparable interdependence among the economy, the environment, and social equity which works to enhance each to the benefit of all.[6]  Put directly, the lingering question is: How would mitigating improvements by paying a fee support sustainable development and enhance traffic flow in the county? 
              



[1] Legislation - Bill History. PG/MC 109-12              Prince George's County - Proposed Subdivisions - Escrow Funds for Traffic Mitigation. [accessed January 9, 2012] http://www.princegeorgeshousedelegation.com/legislation/bill-history?local=PG/MC%20109-12

PG/MC 109-12
Prince George's County - Proposed Subdivisions - Escrow Funds for Traffic Mitigation
Sponsor
Senator Douglas J.J. Peters
Synopsis
For the purpose of authorizing the Prince George's County Planning Board, if it makes certain findings, to allow a developer of a proposed subdivision that would increase traffic in a certain roadway or intersection beyond a certain level to pay a certain fee into a certain escrow fund instead of making certain necessary improvements to the roadway or intersection; requiring the Prince Georges County Department of Public Works and Transportation to maintain an escrow fund established under this Act; specify the permissible uses for an escrow fund established under this Act; providing for the calculation of the fee to be paid into an escrow fund by a developer of a subdivision; authorizing the Board to require a subdivision to construct certain improvements under certain circumstances; providing for a certain fee deduction or reimbursement if certain improvements are made; providing that this Act applies only in certain areas; defining certain terms; and generally relating to proposed subdivisions and escrow funds for traffic mitigation in Prince Georges County.
Related
Bill Text

[2] email communication from Lori F. Morris, Chief of Staff, Senator Douglas J. J. Peters January 10, 2012

Statement of Senator Douglas J. J. Peters Before the Prince George’s County House Delegation  December 3, 2011 PG/MC 109-12 Prince George’s County – Proposed Subdivisions – Escrow Funds for Traffic Mitigation
Good Morning Chair and Members of the Delegation.
                    I appreciate your time this morning to speak about PG/MC 109-12. This legislation will provide the Prince George’s County Planning Board a tool to use when a development consisting of several projects is proposed along a major arterial roadway that is already at a failing level of service due to existing flow-through traffic volume.  Instead of requiring each developer to make the necessary road improvements, which can cause overlapping and/or insufficient construction, PG/MC 109 authorizes the creation of an escrow fund, to be maintained by the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation, where each developer would be required to contribute at a rate of 150% of  its impact upon traffic.
                    These funds would then be used to pay for the design and construction of roadway or intersection improvements or to offset the impact of the increase in traffic caused by the development.  If interim improvements are needed, the Planning Board could require that the developer construct those, so long as they are deducted from the escrow contribution.
                    PG/MC 109-12 is modeled after successful policies and statutes used by neighboring Howard and Montgomery Counties.  It is an excellent tool to build quality developments while still having adequate road and intersection improvements.
                    Thank you for your consideration of PG/MC 109-12, and I urge your favorable recommendation.

[3] Goose Sain. Fwd: PG/MC 109-12 - Sen Peters proposes more sprawl and traffic cong. December 1, 2011. [accessed January 10, 2012] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PG-Politics/message/14903
[4] Erich Wagner. Developers could pay fee to avoid county road upgrades; Some Prince George's residents, officials nervous about proposed bill. Gazette.Net. December 15, 2011. [accessed January 10, 2012] http://www.gazette.net/article/20111215/NEWS/712159916/developers-could-pay-fee-to-fix-grey-area-of-county-road-upgrades&template=gazette
[5] Hardy D., Graye E., & Hanson R. 2011. Are we there yet? Smart growth, travel forecasting, and transportation adequacy in Montgomery County, Maryland. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 7(2):43-59. Published online Nov 04, 2011. http://www.google.com/archives/vol7iss2/1004-021.hardy.html  [accessed January 10, 2012] http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol7iss2/1004-021.hardy.html
[6] World Commission on Environment and Development’s (the Brundtland Commission) report Our Common Future. What is Sustainable Development. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) [accessed January 10, 2012] http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/sd.html

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

No comments: