Here are three items for consideration, including one you tasked me to do at our last meeting.

1. With regard to the "City of Rockville Pedestrian Policies" draft, I would like to see some stronger language regarding connectivity.  I am sure all of you saw the Washington Post's recent series on proposed traffic solutions for our area.  The lead-off article made the case for pedestrian connections to Metro Stations.  The draft bullet on page 5 now reads:

The City shall identify impediments, obstacles, and unsafe conditions in connectivity of neighborhoods and activity centers and shall consider appropriate improvements to the sidewalk system.  

I recommend the following changes:  

The City shall identify impediments, obstacles, and unsafe conditions that impede connectivity between neighborhoods, activity centers, and transportation facilities and shall consider appropriate improvements to sidewalks, lighting, signage, crosswalks, and other systems that enhance pedestrian mobility and safety.  The City shall work with other governments and jurisdictions to improve pedestrian connectivity from Rockville to adjacent areas, especially as a part of overall traffic mitigation efforts and in conjunction with Transit-Oriented developments. 

If you read the Post series, you will see that governments and developers have progressed to the point of putting sidewalks in developments, but not to the point of connecting the developments.  Too often, the sidewalks end where the development ends.  This is the case in King Farm (and Falls Grove, I suspect), where we have no good pedestrian connections to Metro, to voting, to schools, to off-development shopping and entertainment.  Large office buildings are going up in King Farm literally across the street from major retail and entertainment centers, but the only way to get to them will be by car, driving two miles to travel two hundred yards.  That can be remedied if governments and developers start to think more about inter-development  connectivity, across jurisdictional lines. 

2. Thanks to those responsible for getting the pedestrian fatality reports.  I would like to see us go over them in some detail to see how the investigations are conducted and if they take into account such factors as where the pedestrians started their journeys and their intended destinations. 

3. As indicated in the last meeting's minutes, I was asked by the Commission to draft a letter to Ride-On to see if they would coordinate bus schedules better on Wootton Parkway, in order to reduce auto traffic.  That draft follows.  Suggestions welcome.

The Rockville Traffic and Transportation Commission has discussed the traffic situation on Wootton Parkway at several of our meetings.  The Commission has a suggestion to make it more feasible for individuals to use Ride-On buses in this area rather than traveling by car.

Ride-On Routes 45 and 56 overlap on Wootton Parkway in the heavily populated Glenora Hills, Flint Ledge, and Rockshire areas.  In the mornings, both buses are often scheduled to come through these areas at approximately the same time, both headed for Rockville Metro, so if a person is waiting at a bus stop there are two bus choices.  However, if a person is late, he or she misses both and must wait up to thirty minutes for the next bus.  Moreover, the Route 45 bus, which takes a circuitous, longer route to Rockville Metro, is usually scheduled to appear shortly before the faster Route 56 bus, but the latter is often late due to the fact it starts many miles away at Lakeforest and can be delayed.  Bus riders are therefore in the frustrating position of either taking the first, slow 45 bus – and adding considerable time to their commute -- or guessing that the faster 56 bus will be on time, which it often is not.  If riders guess incorrectly they may be stranded for long waits.  When this happens repeatedly, riders give up on buses and opt for their cars, clogging Wootton Parkway and, if their destination is a Metro parking space, clogging Montrose Road as well, enroute to White Flint or Twinbrook Metro.

The Commission suggests that the Route 56 and Route 45 schedules along Wootton Parkway be coordinated so that one bus or the other comes approximately 15 minutes apart during the morning rush hours, giving potential riders four times a hour to catch a bus to Rockville Metro, rather than twice an hour.  The same should be done for the afternoon rush hours.  The Commission also recommends that the starting point for Route 45 be moved closer to the heavily populated Falls Grove area, rather than starting at Dundee.

The Commission wishes to use this opportunity to suggest that all Ride-On routes be reviewed with the goal of providing potential riders with maximum choices and minimum waits through coordinated scheduling. The Commission believes there may be other situations similar to the one described above, including situations where bus routes are in close proximity and could be coordinated, even if not traveling on exactly the same streets.

The Commission also has noted that other jurisdictions in the Washington area have increased their bus ridership by posting bus schedules at bus stops, and requests information from Ride-On as to the feasibility of doing so in the Rockville area.

Attachment 2: Memo From Planning Commission to Mayor and Council re: APFO

 City of Rockville
M E M O R A N D U M

December 11, 2003

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Planning Commission

SUBJECT: Recommedation on Text Amendment Application TXT2003-00202, Adequate Public Facilities, Mayor and Council, applicants; Recommendation on proposed Adequate Public Facilities standards.

At its meeting of December 10, 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed the above referenced text amendment and proposed Adequate Public Facilities standards to implement the text amendment.  The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a negative recommendation to the Mayor and Council on both items.

The Commission is troubled by the Adequate Public Facilities standards as proposed in the staff recommendation.  While a majority of the Commission supports the APFO concept, the details of how the ordinance would be administered raise serious concerns about the City tying its own hands when considering new development or redevelopment. 

The Commission heard from several spokespeople who continued to raise concerns regarding the proposed regulations.  Some raised the issue of regulating previously-approved projects.  In general, they contend that the approvals are essentially contracts, and the any modifications could be construed as a breach of those contracts.  Others noted that the rigid nature of the regulations as proposed would adversely affect sites in the City that might deserve to move forward in order to advance other City priorities. 

Commissioner Hilton is concerned about how to address the previously-approved developments in view of the potential legal issues involved.  He also would like to see further information on how the Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) will be tied into the APFO process.  He is also concerned about having a test for public schools when the City has no control over them.  He is concerned that the difference between the County’s schools test and the City’s test will hurt the City.  Although he believed that the time limits on previously approved special development procedures are reasonable he is concerned that the City previously agreed to no further restrictions.

Commissioner Ostell strongly supports the APFO concept, but shares Commissioner Hilton’s concerns regarding the schools test.  She notes the legal concerns regarding the regulation of the approved projects, but feels that the time frame proposed is reasonable in the context of the future of the City.  She does have a concern that there are not exception provisions to address unique circumstances such as the proposed annexation of the WINX property.  She stated that there should be some give-and-take for exceptionally beneficial projects but that there needs to be strict criteria.  There should also be some added flexibility in the transportation test since the proposed CTR is still a work in progress. 

Commissioner Johnson also supports the concept of an APFO, but believes that as drafted there will be too many competing interests pressuring for waivers or exceptions.  While generally against waivers, he found the requests compelling.  He doesn’t support a test for schools, as he believes it could hurt the City with no real mitigation possible.  There definitely needs to be a queue list established to properly administer the process.  He is generally supportive of the program if the schools test is deleted.

Commissioner Mullican recommends eliminating the schools test for the same reasons noted previously.  She also expresses concern about the message this proposal sends about doing business with the City.  The process should be slowed down and re-examined in more detail.

Commissioner Britton concurs on the need for greater public dialog before this goes forward.  The CTR seems to be an excellent mechanism.  The tests for water, sewer and fire protection are really “no-brainers” that we already do.  He cannot support the proposal in its current format.  The schools test should be excluded, and there needs to be flexibility to allow exceptions for historic preservation, neighborhood enhancement, and previously-approved projects.  However, the time frames proposed for the PDP’s and CPD’s do seem reasonable.

Commissioner Holtz concurs with Commissioner Britton.  He is concerned about using hard criteria for the APFO test, even though many of the input numbers themselves are “soft”.  With schools, the student numbers change from day to day.  For the approved development projects, the time frames proposed may be reasonable, but it sends the wrong message.  The City shouldn’t be changing its mind.  Finally, there needs to be added flexibility with regard to sites such as WINX and Chestnut Lodge.  We don’t need the APFO to be an on-off switch; we need it to be a “dimmer switch”.

Commissioner Metzger supported the comments of Commissioners Britton, Holtz, and Johnson.  As proposed, we may not have the flexibility we want and need to allow good projects to go forward.  She can’t understand why we need an APFO; the Mayor and Council already have the power and ability to get what the City needs when approving development.  The APFO really ties the hands of the Mayor and Council and the Planning Commission and will limit our ability to achieve the City’s goals.