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
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:
Post a Comment