Back in February, my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly and I put up back-to-back posts on how MoCo was not getting a fair share of state appointments. Trying to be helpful, I promoted beloved Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman for the Secretary of State vacancy. After all, the mayor was a rare and very early supporter of Martin O'Malley over then-Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.
But illustrating once again that the Governor does not read our blog [sigh...], the administration has decided that the new Secretary of State will be Prince George's County lawyer John McDonough, whose daughter works for Senate President Mike Miller. This is a wasted opportunity because the Governor could use a bit more good will in MoCo at the moment and Mayor Fosselman has many friends here.
Showing posts with label Montgomery County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Montgomery County. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Trying to Get it Right on Traffic
Remember our description of Montgomery County’s screwed-up system for measuring traffic congestion? Remember our proposal for accurately measuring congestion through massive usage of GPS devices? Well, it turns out that the country’s largest traffic measurement company agrees with us.
INRIX is a traffic measurement firm based outside Seattle that was founded by two former Microsoft executives in 2004. The company just released a report ranking traffic congestion all over the United States. (The Washington area ranks fourth-worst after Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.) How does the company gather its data? The company states:
Is INRIX’s congestion formula the right one? Maybe yes, maybe no. But more importantly, their calculations are based on billions of actual trips recorded by GPS devices in commercial vehicles all over the U.S. Unlike Montgomery County, INRIX does not base its statistics on fluky critical lane volume measurements that are taken once every four years or so and, according to Park and Planning’s own research, do not actually measure congestion.
Folks, we have to be able to measure traffic congestion accurately in order to plan successful mitigations, including road improvements and transit. Here’s a private sector company that is getting a ton of real-world data and giving it their best shot. So if INRIX is doing it, why can’t we?
INRIX is a traffic measurement firm based outside Seattle that was founded by two former Microsoft executives in 2004. The company just released a report ranking traffic congestion all over the United States. (The Washington area ranks fourth-worst after Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.) How does the company gather its data? The company states:
The raw data comes from the historical traffic data warehouse of the INRIX Smart Dust Network. Since 2006, INRIX has acquired billions of discrete “GPS-enabled probe vehicle” reports from commercial fleet vehicles – including taxis, airport shuttles, service delivery vans, long haul trucks – and cellular probe data. Each data report from these GPS-equipped vehicles includes at minimum the speed, location and heading of a particular vehicle at a reported date and time.How do they measure congestion? The company calculates a “reference speed” based on how fast GPS-equipped vehicles travel on a road in the middle of the night. Presumably, that reflects driving time in non-congested conditions. Then the company draws on more GPS data to calculate average speeds in each hour of the day for every day of the week. Then the company divides the reference speed (representing free flow) by the average peak-hour driving speed to calculate a Travel Time Index. The higher the index, the greater the congestion. For example, an index value of 1.3 indicates that a peak-hour trip will take 30% longer than a free-flow trip because of congestion.
INRIX has developed efficient methods for interpreting probe vehicle reports that are provided in real-time to establish a current estimate of travel patterns in all major cities in the United States. These same methods can aggregate data over periods of time (annually in this report) to provide reliable information on speeds and congestion levels for segments of roads. With the nation’s largest probe vehicle network, INRIX has the ability to generate the most comprehensive congestion analysis to date, covering the nation’s largest 100 metropolitan areas.
Is INRIX’s congestion formula the right one? Maybe yes, maybe no. But more importantly, their calculations are based on billions of actual trips recorded by GPS devices in commercial vehicles all over the U.S. Unlike Montgomery County, INRIX does not base its statistics on fluky critical lane volume measurements that are taken once every four years or so and, according to Park and Planning’s own research, do not actually measure congestion.
Folks, we have to be able to measure traffic congestion accurately in order to plan successful mitigations, including road improvements and transit. Here’s a private sector company that is getting a ton of real-world data and giving it their best shot. So if INRIX is doing it, why can’t we?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Planning Department Knew About Traffic Measurement Flaws, Part Two
Ten years ago, the Planning Board considered whether to raise the county’s Critical Lane Volume (CLV) standards by up to 100 points. This would have allowed developers to escape traffic mitigation requirements near some intersections exceeding the CLV standards in their policy areas. But citizen activists questioned whether allowing CLV standards to rise would result in more congestion since higher CLVs are thought to indicate more congestion. The surprising answer from the Planning Department’s staff was no. Why? The staff found that CLVs were unrelated to real-world traffic delays.
In a 1998 study entitled, “Measuring Congestion and Delay: The Critical Lane Volume Method,” Planning Department staffers Richard C. Hawthorne and Ronald C. Welke looked at how CLVs compared to other measures of congestion. The authors stated:
If the two measures were directly related, the observations would cluster tightly around a line rising from zero on both axes. Instead, the observations form an amorphous blob. The authors found that the coefficient of determination between delay and CLV, also known as R-squared, was only 14%. That means that only 14% of the variation in one measure is explained by changes in the other. The authors concluded, “There is little relationship between delay and CLV.”
So if CLV is such a poor predictor of “the best [congestion] measure as perceived by the roadway user,” why not stop using it? The authors said, “The problem is that delay data is difficult and expensive to gather and thus not readily available.” So because CLVs were shown to be unrelated to delay, the Planning Board raised the allowable CLV standards – a move that was opposed two years later by then-Council Member Ike Leggett. And rather than search for a better data source that truly measured actual traffic congestion, the Planning Department has continued to rely on CLVs. The situation is compounded by the fact that Richard C. Hawthorne, one of the study’s authors, was then and still is now the department’s Chief of Transportation Planning.
This has potentially severe consequences for traffic management in Montgomery County. CLVs are used by Planning staff to form recommendations on traffic mitigation for new developments. Under Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), if an intersection near a new development exceeds the CLV standard for its policy area, a developer is required to pay for traffic mitigation measures. But what if, as the above study holds, CLV is not a reliable predictor of congestion? That means there is a possibility that mitigation measures have been installed at intersections that do not need them, and have not been installed at intersections that desperately require them. And this has been going on for at least ten years even though the Planning Department KNEW that CLVs by themselves were a flawed measure of actual congestion.
Planning’s knowing reliance on a defective congestion measure is difficult to understand and impossible to excuse. But it can be fixed. Perhaps delay was expensive to collect ten years ago, but that was prior to GPS units being available for rent at $5 per day.
Our Planning Department was once the best in the country. It is important to every one of us that it produce the highest-quality information on traffic and development that is humanly possible. We do not deserve the cheapest traffic measurement system, or the quickest and dirtiest, or the one we have been using for a long time merely because the bureaucracy wants to avoid change. We deserve the best. We put our alternative on the table and now it’s the Planning Department’s turn.
The long-forgotten CLV study is not available online, but we reproduce it in its entirety below.
In a 1998 study entitled, “Measuring Congestion and Delay: The Critical Lane Volume Method,” Planning Department staffers Richard C. Hawthorne and Ronald C. Welke looked at how CLVs compared to other measures of congestion. The authors stated:
In researching how to measure congestion, the study group selected actual delay as the best measure as perceived by the roadway user. The average stopped delay per vehicle in the peak hour is the measure used in the operational analysis of intersections in the 1994 HCM [Highway Capacity Manual], and therefore provided a quantifiable standard.The authors then gathered data on CLVs and actual delays from 27 observations taken at 15 highly-congested intersections to see if the two measures correlated. They plotted each of these observations against each other on the chart below:
If the two measures were directly related, the observations would cluster tightly around a line rising from zero on both axes. Instead, the observations form an amorphous blob. The authors found that the coefficient of determination between delay and CLV, also known as R-squared, was only 14%. That means that only 14% of the variation in one measure is explained by changes in the other. The authors concluded, “There is little relationship between delay and CLV.”
So if CLV is such a poor predictor of “the best [congestion] measure as perceived by the roadway user,” why not stop using it? The authors said, “The problem is that delay data is difficult and expensive to gather and thus not readily available.” So because CLVs were shown to be unrelated to delay, the Planning Board raised the allowable CLV standards – a move that was opposed two years later by then-Council Member Ike Leggett. And rather than search for a better data source that truly measured actual traffic congestion, the Planning Department has continued to rely on CLVs. The situation is compounded by the fact that Richard C. Hawthorne, one of the study’s authors, was then and still is now the department’s Chief of Transportation Planning.
This has potentially severe consequences for traffic management in Montgomery County. CLVs are used by Planning staff to form recommendations on traffic mitigation for new developments. Under Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), if an intersection near a new development exceeds the CLV standard for its policy area, a developer is required to pay for traffic mitigation measures. But what if, as the above study holds, CLV is not a reliable predictor of congestion? That means there is a possibility that mitigation measures have been installed at intersections that do not need them, and have not been installed at intersections that desperately require them. And this has been going on for at least ten years even though the Planning Department KNEW that CLVs by themselves were a flawed measure of actual congestion.
Planning’s knowing reliance on a defective congestion measure is difficult to understand and impossible to excuse. But it can be fixed. Perhaps delay was expensive to collect ten years ago, but that was prior to GPS units being available for rent at $5 per day.
Our Planning Department was once the best in the country. It is important to every one of us that it produce the highest-quality information on traffic and development that is humanly possible. We do not deserve the cheapest traffic measurement system, or the quickest and dirtiest, or the one we have been using for a long time merely because the bureaucracy wants to avoid change. We deserve the best. We put our alternative on the table and now it’s the Planning Department’s turn.
The long-forgotten CLV study is not available online, but we reproduce it in its entirety below.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Planning Department Knew About Traffic Measurement Flaws, Part One
After last week’s marathon five-part series on traffic measurement, I was prepared to move on to other things. But an anonymous friend of the blog sent me proof that the issues I have been discussing have been known to the Planning Department for at least a decade. An internal study prepared by Planning staff back in 1998 found that Critical Lane Volume (CLV), the measure they use to estimate traffic congestion, has “little relationship” to actual delays. This revelation throws into question the entire system of traffic mitigation used by Montgomery County.
To understand the magnitude of this statistical debacle, we must first review the role played by CLVs in the county’s planning procedures. As I detailed last week, CLVs are hourly sums of conflicting movements (both through and turns) of cars through an intersection. They reflect volume: the more cars pass through an intersection, the more a CLV count will increase. But some of the county’s most congested road corridors have low CLVs because they are too gridlocked for large numbers of cars to get through. Nevertheless, the Planning Department uses CLVs to construct their regular lists of the county’s most-congested intersections and make recommendations for capital improvements.
CLVs play an even more important role when the Planning staff assesses traffic impacts of new developments. One of the review procedures that a new development must pass is Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), an analysis that explores the development’s traffic impact on a handful of nearby intersections. Under LATR, the developer is required to submit a traffic study to the Planning staff estimating the number of new trips that will be created at peak travel hours. The staff then obtains the CLV estimate for the affected intersection(s) and compares it to the standard set for the development’s policy area. If the CLV exceeds the relevant policy area standard, the developer will be required to pay for traffic mitigation measures to offset that impact. These measures might include purchasing Ride-On buses, building bus shelters, installing turn lanes, widening an intersection or other remedies.
The county’s policy area standards provide for acceptable CLVs to be relatively low in rural areas and higher in dense areas. The rationale is that dense areas are likely to have more transit options, especially when they are near Metro stations. As established in last year’s growth policy, the CLV standards by policy area are:
1350: Rural East, Rural West
1400: Damascus
1425: Clarksburg, Gaithersburg, Germantown East, Germantown West, Montgomery Village/Airpark
1450: Cloverly, North Potomac, Olney, Potomac, R&D Village
1475: Aspen Hill, Derwood, Fairland/White Oak
1500: Rockville City
1550: North Bethesda
1600: Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Kensington/Wheaton, Germantown Town Center, Silver Spring/Takoma Park
1800: Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights CBD, Glenmont, Grosvenor, Rockville Town Center, Shady Grove, Silver Spring CBD, Twinbrook, Wheaton CBD, White Flint
Here’s an example of how this review procedure might work. Suppose a developer wanted to build a commercial project near the corner of Connecticut Avenue and Jones Bridge Road in North Chevy Chase. The Planning Department estimates CLVs for three nearby intersections: Jones Bridge at Manor Road (679 AM, 676 PM), Jones Bridge at Platt Ridge Drive (773 AM, 963 PM) and Jones Bridge at Connecticut (1731 AM, 2017 PM). The policy area standard for Bethesda/Chevy Chase is 1600. While two intersections fall below that standard, Jones Bridge at Connecticut exceeds it in both the morning and evening. This developer would have to agree to a package of mitigation measures to offset the traffic impact on Jones Bridge at Connecticut.
Now suppose the developer wanted to build the same project near the corner of Connecticut Avenue and Knowles Avenue in Kensington. The Planning Department estimates CLVs for three nearby intersections: Plyers Mill Road at Metropolitan Avenue (687 AM, 866 PM), Connecticut at University Boulevard (1335 AM, 974 PM) and Connecticut at Knowles (1433 AM, 1274 PM). The policy area standard for Kensington/Wheaton is 1600. Since none of the intersections exceed the standard, this developer would not be required to pay for mitigation (at least not under LATR).
The county’s traffic mitigation system under LATR is thus based on the premise that CLVs are reliable measures of congestion. When intersections “fail” – that is, they exceed their policy area standard CLV – traffic mitigation is required for new developments. When intersections “pass” – in other words, fall below their standard – traffic mitigation is deemed unnecessary.
But we called into question whether CLVs truly measure congestion all last week. We even revealed a list of four heavily-congested corridors with low CLVs using the Planning Department's own data.
And now we learn that the Planning Department’s own staff confirmed our suspicions ten years ago. More on their long-forgotten findings tomorrow.
To understand the magnitude of this statistical debacle, we must first review the role played by CLVs in the county’s planning procedures. As I detailed last week, CLVs are hourly sums of conflicting movements (both through and turns) of cars through an intersection. They reflect volume: the more cars pass through an intersection, the more a CLV count will increase. But some of the county’s most congested road corridors have low CLVs because they are too gridlocked for large numbers of cars to get through. Nevertheless, the Planning Department uses CLVs to construct their regular lists of the county’s most-congested intersections and make recommendations for capital improvements.
CLVs play an even more important role when the Planning staff assesses traffic impacts of new developments. One of the review procedures that a new development must pass is Local Area Transportation Review (LATR), an analysis that explores the development’s traffic impact on a handful of nearby intersections. Under LATR, the developer is required to submit a traffic study to the Planning staff estimating the number of new trips that will be created at peak travel hours. The staff then obtains the CLV estimate for the affected intersection(s) and compares it to the standard set for the development’s policy area. If the CLV exceeds the relevant policy area standard, the developer will be required to pay for traffic mitigation measures to offset that impact. These measures might include purchasing Ride-On buses, building bus shelters, installing turn lanes, widening an intersection or other remedies.
The county’s policy area standards provide for acceptable CLVs to be relatively low in rural areas and higher in dense areas. The rationale is that dense areas are likely to have more transit options, especially when they are near Metro stations. As established in last year’s growth policy, the CLV standards by policy area are:
1350: Rural East, Rural West
1400: Damascus
1425: Clarksburg, Gaithersburg, Germantown East, Germantown West, Montgomery Village/Airpark
1450: Cloverly, North Potomac, Olney, Potomac, R&D Village
1475: Aspen Hill, Derwood, Fairland/White Oak
1500: Rockville City
1550: North Bethesda
1600: Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Kensington/Wheaton, Germantown Town Center, Silver Spring/Takoma Park
1800: Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights CBD, Glenmont, Grosvenor, Rockville Town Center, Shady Grove, Silver Spring CBD, Twinbrook, Wheaton CBD, White Flint
Here’s an example of how this review procedure might work. Suppose a developer wanted to build a commercial project near the corner of Connecticut Avenue and Jones Bridge Road in North Chevy Chase. The Planning Department estimates CLVs for three nearby intersections: Jones Bridge at Manor Road (679 AM, 676 PM), Jones Bridge at Platt Ridge Drive (773 AM, 963 PM) and Jones Bridge at Connecticut (1731 AM, 2017 PM). The policy area standard for Bethesda/Chevy Chase is 1600. While two intersections fall below that standard, Jones Bridge at Connecticut exceeds it in both the morning and evening. This developer would have to agree to a package of mitigation measures to offset the traffic impact on Jones Bridge at Connecticut.
Now suppose the developer wanted to build the same project near the corner of Connecticut Avenue and Knowles Avenue in Kensington. The Planning Department estimates CLVs for three nearby intersections: Plyers Mill Road at Metropolitan Avenue (687 AM, 866 PM), Connecticut at University Boulevard (1335 AM, 974 PM) and Connecticut at Knowles (1433 AM, 1274 PM). The policy area standard for Kensington/Wheaton is 1600. Since none of the intersections exceed the standard, this developer would not be required to pay for mitigation (at least not under LATR).
The county’s traffic mitigation system under LATR is thus based on the premise that CLVs are reliable measures of congestion. When intersections “fail” – that is, they exceed their policy area standard CLV – traffic mitigation is required for new developments. When intersections “pass” – in other words, fall below their standard – traffic mitigation is deemed unnecessary.
But we called into question whether CLVs truly measure congestion all last week. We even revealed a list of four heavily-congested corridors with low CLVs using the Planning Department's own data.
And now we learn that the Planning Department’s own staff confirmed our suspicions ten years ago. More on their long-forgotten findings tomorrow.
Friday, May 30, 2008
A Better Way to Measure Traffic, Part Three
In Part Two, we listed four corridors with high volumes and low speeds. Today, we list four corridors with modest volumes and low speeds. While these corridors perform differently than the ones we listed yesterday, they may be even more clogged. Several of these roadways contain chains of gridlocked intersections that collectively cut down on auto movement.
The Worst Modest Volume, Low Speed Corridors
These corridors have very low speeds but do not have critical lane volumes that exceed policy area standards (at least not in the evening). The relatively modest volumes combined with the crawling speeds suggest that cars have an extremely difficult time squeezing through these gridlocked areas.
Colesville Road, 16th Street to Spring Street
Test Run #1
5/23/07 at 5:06 PM, Eastbound
0.77 Miles in 7.87 Minutes, 5.9 MPH
Test Run #2
5/23/07 at 7:34 PM, Eastbound
0.66 Miles in 5.57 Minutes, 7.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Colesville at East-West Highway: 1061 (Recorded on 6/2/04)
Colesville at Georgia: 1049 (Recorded on 9/26/06)
Colesville at Spring: 1248 (Recorded on 9/20/06)
Notes: This corridor is located in Downtown Silver Spring and runs past the Metro Station.
Frederick Road, Chestnut Street to Montgomery Village Avenue
Test Run #1
5/15/07 at 5:47 PM, Northbound
0.54 Miles in 4.97 Minutes, 6.5 MPH
Test Run #2
5/15/07 at 6:15 PM, Northbound
0.67 Miles in 5.85 Minutes, 7.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Frederick at Chestnut: 1204 (Recorded on 9/30/04)
Frederick at Odenhal: 1372 (Recorded on 11/10/04)
Frederick at Perry: 974 (Recorded on 3/10/04)
Frederick at Montgomery Village: 1427 (Recorded on 5/2/05)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1450
Notes: This corridor runs near Lake Forest Mall and the I-270/Quince Orchard Road interchange.
Georgia Avenue, Prince Phillip Drive to Olney-Sandy Spring Road
Test Run
5/30/07 at 5:32 PM, Northbound
0.97 Miles in 5.17 Minutes, 11.3 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Prince Phillip: 1145 (Recorded on 3/6/07)
Georgia at King William: 1095 (Recorded on 12/9/03)
Georgia at Olney-Sandy Spring: 1251 (Recorded on 3/15/07)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1450
Notes: This corridor is just south of the Olney commercial district.
Georgia Avenue, Spring Street to Dennis Avenue
Test Run #1
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
0.46 Miles in 8.32 Minutes, 3.3 MPH
Test Run #2
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
1.46 Miles in 6.67 Minutes, 13.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Spring: 1080 (Recorded on 11/17/05)
Georgia at Seminary: 1374 (Recorded on 4/7/05)
Georgia at Beltway: 1206 (Recorded on 11/20/03)
Georgia at Forest Glen: 1377 (Recorded on 6/6/07) http://www.crossinggeorgia.org/
Georgia at Dennis: 1437 (Recorded on 6/7/07)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: This corridor includes Montgomery Hills, the Beltway/Georgia Avenue interchange and the Intersection of Death. The Planning Department’s staff witnesses this congestion every day because their headquarters is at the southern tip of the corridor. A redesign of Georgia Avenue between 16th Street and Forest Glen Road is the top county priority for state projects requiring planning. The state announced it would undertake planning for this corridor back in January.
These four corridors, as well as the four listed yesterday, present the most urgent and intractable traffic problems in Montgomery County. The Planning Department should be able to dig into these corridors in great detail if they adopt the measurement system that I recommended in Part One. Some of the questions that need to be answered are:
1. Is some level of congestion actually desirable? Heavily populated down-county areas like Bethesda and Silver Spring have large numbers of pedestrians. Policies that speed cars may cause increases in pedestrian accidents.
2. Are there any transit improvements that could ease the congestion? Five of the eight corridors (Wisconsin, Rockville Pike, Colesville, and two on Georgia) are already near Metro stations. Could some of the traffic be headed to areas beyond Metro’s reach? If it is, Metro extensions (including bus rapid transit) may be warranted. US-29 would be a particularly good candidate.
3. What does this information mean for the Purple Line? Four of the eight corridors (Wisconsin, Connecticut, Colesville and Georgia) would be along or close to the route for the Purple Line. But the congestion measurements we have now apply to north-south traffic during evening rush. Would the Purple Line really be effective in alleviating north-south traffic? Perhaps a GPS test drive should be held on East-West Highway, which is the major auto connection between Bethesda and Silver Spring. If its congestion level matches that found in these eight bad corridors, that would strengthen the case for a direct transit connection.
Dear readers, never in the history of Maryland blogdom (or as far as I know, the mainstream media) has anyone suggested such a radical redesign of our traffic measurement system as I have. The Planning Department’s over-reliance on critical lane volumes without context has produced an incoherent, unreliable measurement system that is plagued with bad data. If we cannot correctly diagnose our problems, we will never arrive at a solution. Our current economic downturn will not last forever. When it ends, development will resume and traffic will get even worse. High gas prices will increase our cost of sitting in congestion. The time to re-evaluate, improve and plan for the inevitable is now.
The Worst Modest Volume, Low Speed Corridors
These corridors have very low speeds but do not have critical lane volumes that exceed policy area standards (at least not in the evening). The relatively modest volumes combined with the crawling speeds suggest that cars have an extremely difficult time squeezing through these gridlocked areas.
Colesville Road, 16th Street to Spring Street
Test Run #1
5/23/07 at 5:06 PM, Eastbound
0.77 Miles in 7.87 Minutes, 5.9 MPH
Test Run #2
5/23/07 at 7:34 PM, Eastbound
0.66 Miles in 5.57 Minutes, 7.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Colesville at East-West Highway: 1061 (Recorded on 6/2/04)
Colesville at Georgia: 1049 (Recorded on 9/26/06)
Colesville at Spring: 1248 (Recorded on 9/20/06)
Notes: This corridor is located in Downtown Silver Spring and runs past the Metro Station.
Frederick Road, Chestnut Street to Montgomery Village Avenue
Test Run #1
5/15/07 at 5:47 PM, Northbound
0.54 Miles in 4.97 Minutes, 6.5 MPH
Test Run #2
5/15/07 at 6:15 PM, Northbound
0.67 Miles in 5.85 Minutes, 7.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Frederick at Chestnut: 1204 (Recorded on 9/30/04)
Frederick at Odenhal: 1372 (Recorded on 11/10/04)
Frederick at Perry: 974 (Recorded on 3/10/04)
Frederick at Montgomery Village: 1427 (Recorded on 5/2/05)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1450
Notes: This corridor runs near Lake Forest Mall and the I-270/Quince Orchard Road interchange.
Georgia Avenue, Prince Phillip Drive to Olney-Sandy Spring Road
Test Run
5/30/07 at 5:32 PM, Northbound
0.97 Miles in 5.17 Minutes, 11.3 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Prince Phillip: 1145 (Recorded on 3/6/07)
Georgia at King William: 1095 (Recorded on 12/9/03)
Georgia at Olney-Sandy Spring: 1251 (Recorded on 3/15/07)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1450
Notes: This corridor is just south of the Olney commercial district.
Georgia Avenue, Spring Street to Dennis Avenue
Test Run #1
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
0.46 Miles in 8.32 Minutes, 3.3 MPH
Test Run #2
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
1.46 Miles in 6.67 Minutes, 13.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Spring: 1080 (Recorded on 11/17/05)
Georgia at Seminary: 1374 (Recorded on 4/7/05)
Georgia at Beltway: 1206 (Recorded on 11/20/03)
Georgia at Forest Glen: 1377 (Recorded on 6/6/07) http://www.crossinggeorgia.org/
Georgia at Dennis: 1437 (Recorded on 6/7/07)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: This corridor includes Montgomery Hills, the Beltway/Georgia Avenue interchange and the Intersection of Death. The Planning Department’s staff witnesses this congestion every day because their headquarters is at the southern tip of the corridor. A redesign of Georgia Avenue between 16th Street and Forest Glen Road is the top county priority for state projects requiring planning. The state announced it would undertake planning for this corridor back in January.
These four corridors, as well as the four listed yesterday, present the most urgent and intractable traffic problems in Montgomery County. The Planning Department should be able to dig into these corridors in great detail if they adopt the measurement system that I recommended in Part One. Some of the questions that need to be answered are:
1. Is some level of congestion actually desirable? Heavily populated down-county areas like Bethesda and Silver Spring have large numbers of pedestrians. Policies that speed cars may cause increases in pedestrian accidents.
2. Are there any transit improvements that could ease the congestion? Five of the eight corridors (Wisconsin, Rockville Pike, Colesville, and two on Georgia) are already near Metro stations. Could some of the traffic be headed to areas beyond Metro’s reach? If it is, Metro extensions (including bus rapid transit) may be warranted. US-29 would be a particularly good candidate.
3. What does this information mean for the Purple Line? Four of the eight corridors (Wisconsin, Connecticut, Colesville and Georgia) would be along or close to the route for the Purple Line. But the congestion measurements we have now apply to north-south traffic during evening rush. Would the Purple Line really be effective in alleviating north-south traffic? Perhaps a GPS test drive should be held on East-West Highway, which is the major auto connection between Bethesda and Silver Spring. If its congestion level matches that found in these eight bad corridors, that would strengthen the case for a direct transit connection.
Dear readers, never in the history of Maryland blogdom (or as far as I know, the mainstream media) has anyone suggested such a radical redesign of our traffic measurement system as I have. The Planning Department’s over-reliance on critical lane volumes without context has produced an incoherent, unreliable measurement system that is plagued with bad data. If we cannot correctly diagnose our problems, we will never arrive at a solution. Our current economic downturn will not last forever. When it ends, development will resume and traffic will get even worse. High gas prices will increase our cost of sitting in congestion. The time to re-evaluate, improve and plan for the inevitable is now.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
A Better Way to Measure Traffic, Part Two
In Part One, we discussed how GPS-based traffic measurement could work on a county-wide basis. The Planning Department has already done test drives on several corridors, plotting out distances, times and speeds in evening rush hour. When combined with critical lane volume (CLV) measurements, we can get a sense of which corridors are really the worst rush hour drives in Montgomery County.
In general, there are two types of problematic corridors. First, there are stretches of major roads characterized by high volumes and low speeds. Second, there are stretches characterized by modest volumes and low speeds. The modest-volume corridors are no less troubled than the high-volume corridors. In fact, some corridors may record lower volumes because chains of clogged intersections prevent large numbers of cars from getting through.
Using Planning’s preliminary data, we have identified four high-volume and four modest-volume corridors that all recorded low travel speeds. These are the true problem areas in Montgomery County, not the “most-congested intersection” list that is based on flawed, one-day CLV estimates.
Today, we report the worst high-volume corridors and tomorrow we report the worse modest-volume corridors. Unlike the Planning staff, we do not rank them; I am sure Wisconsin Avenue drivers are just as miserable as Georgia Avenue drivers like myself. For each corridor, we report the date, time and results for the test drives as well as any CLV measurements taken in its component intersections. We also report the policy area standard CLV. Any intersections with CLVs measured above their policy area standard are rated as “failing” by the Planning Department.
The Worst High Volume, Low Speed Corridors
The following four corridors are characterized by high auto volume (often exceeding allowable policy area standards) and low speeds. Lots of cars can and do get through these areas, but the experience is agonizing.
Connecticut Avenue, Bradley Lane to the Beltway
Test Run
6/4/07 at 6:20 PM, Northbound
2.01 Miles in 19.6 Minutes, 6.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Connecticut at Bradley: 1577 (Recorded on 3/17/04)
Connecticut at East-West Highway: 1829 (Recorded on 3/29/06), Exceeds Standard
Connecticut at Jones Bridge: 2017 (Recorded on 6/6/07), Exceeds Standard
Connecticut at Beltway: 1245 North, 1100 South (Recorded on 3/9-3/10/04)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: This is the major commuter route between Chevy Chase, Kensington and Downtown D.C.
Georgia Avenue, Arcola Avenue to Randolph Road
Test Run
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
0.69 Miles in 8.03 Minutes, 5.2 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Arcola: 1471 (Recorded on 2/23/06)
Georgia at Randolph: 1910 (Recorded on 2/23/06), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: Georgia at Randolph had the second-highest AM CLV in the county. A grade-separated interchange at this intersection is the county’s top priority among state construction projects. The state announced it would fund the project in January 2008. The Glenmont Metro Station is just to the north.
Rockville Pike, Congressional Lane to Edmonston Drive
Test Run #1
6/7/07 at 5:42 PM, Northbound
0.69 Miles in 4.62 Minutes, 9.0 MPH
Test Run #2
6/7/07 at 6:02 PM, Northbound
0.46 Miles in 2.93 Minutes, 9.4 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Rockville Pike at Congressional: 1538 (Recorded on 6/3/04), Exceeds Standard
Rockville Pike at Edmonston: 1590 (Recorded on 10/13/04), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1500
Notes: This corridor is just north of the Twinbrook Metro Station and is adjacent to the Woodmont Country Club.
Wisconsin Avenue, Battery Lane to Cedar Lane
Test Run
5/12/05 at 4:52 PM, Northbound
1.24 Miles in 11.0 Minutes, 6.8 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Wisconsin at Battery: 1745 (Recorded on 2/8/07)
Wisconsin at Jones Bridge: 1536 (Recorded on 12/22/05)
Wisconsin at Cedar: 1996 (Recorded on 9/7/06), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600 (1800 at Battery)
Notes: This corridor extends from the northern edge of Downtown Bethesda through the National Naval Medical Center and is just south of the Beltway interchange. The extremely-congested, high-volume traffic provides a strong justification for BRAC-related transportation work.
Tomorrow, we will look at corridors with modest Critical Lane Volumes and slow speeds.
In general, there are two types of problematic corridors. First, there are stretches of major roads characterized by high volumes and low speeds. Second, there are stretches characterized by modest volumes and low speeds. The modest-volume corridors are no less troubled than the high-volume corridors. In fact, some corridors may record lower volumes because chains of clogged intersections prevent large numbers of cars from getting through.
Using Planning’s preliminary data, we have identified four high-volume and four modest-volume corridors that all recorded low travel speeds. These are the true problem areas in Montgomery County, not the “most-congested intersection” list that is based on flawed, one-day CLV estimates.
Today, we report the worst high-volume corridors and tomorrow we report the worse modest-volume corridors. Unlike the Planning staff, we do not rank them; I am sure Wisconsin Avenue drivers are just as miserable as Georgia Avenue drivers like myself. For each corridor, we report the date, time and results for the test drives as well as any CLV measurements taken in its component intersections. We also report the policy area standard CLV. Any intersections with CLVs measured above their policy area standard are rated as “failing” by the Planning Department.
The Worst High Volume, Low Speed Corridors
The following four corridors are characterized by high auto volume (often exceeding allowable policy area standards) and low speeds. Lots of cars can and do get through these areas, but the experience is agonizing.
Connecticut Avenue, Bradley Lane to the Beltway
Test Run
6/4/07 at 6:20 PM, Northbound
2.01 Miles in 19.6 Minutes, 6.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Connecticut at Bradley: 1577 (Recorded on 3/17/04)
Connecticut at East-West Highway: 1829 (Recorded on 3/29/06), Exceeds Standard
Connecticut at Jones Bridge: 2017 (Recorded on 6/6/07), Exceeds Standard
Connecticut at Beltway: 1245 North, 1100 South (Recorded on 3/9-3/10/04)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: This is the major commuter route between Chevy Chase, Kensington and Downtown D.C.
Georgia Avenue, Arcola Avenue to Randolph Road
Test Run
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
0.69 Miles in 8.03 Minutes, 5.2 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Arcola: 1471 (Recorded on 2/23/06)
Georgia at Randolph: 1910 (Recorded on 2/23/06), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: Georgia at Randolph had the second-highest AM CLV in the county. A grade-separated interchange at this intersection is the county’s top priority among state construction projects. The state announced it would fund the project in January 2008. The Glenmont Metro Station is just to the north.
Rockville Pike, Congressional Lane to Edmonston Drive
Test Run #1
6/7/07 at 5:42 PM, Northbound
0.69 Miles in 4.62 Minutes, 9.0 MPH
Test Run #2
6/7/07 at 6:02 PM, Northbound
0.46 Miles in 2.93 Minutes, 9.4 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Rockville Pike at Congressional: 1538 (Recorded on 6/3/04), Exceeds Standard
Rockville Pike at Edmonston: 1590 (Recorded on 10/13/04), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1500
Notes: This corridor is just north of the Twinbrook Metro Station and is adjacent to the Woodmont Country Club.
Wisconsin Avenue, Battery Lane to Cedar Lane
Test Run
5/12/05 at 4:52 PM, Northbound
1.24 Miles in 11.0 Minutes, 6.8 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Wisconsin at Battery: 1745 (Recorded on 2/8/07)
Wisconsin at Jones Bridge: 1536 (Recorded on 12/22/05)
Wisconsin at Cedar: 1996 (Recorded on 9/7/06), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600 (1800 at Battery)
Notes: This corridor extends from the northern edge of Downtown Bethesda through the National Naval Medical Center and is just south of the Beltway interchange. The extremely-congested, high-volume traffic provides a strong justification for BRAC-related transportation work.
Tomorrow, we will look at corridors with modest Critical Lane Volumes and slow speeds.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
A Better Way to Measure Traffic, Part One
In our previous two posts, we outlined the county’s reliance on Critical Lane Volume (CLV) to measure traffic and identify problem intersections. We identified two problems with this system. First, the county’s measurement of CLV at each intersection only once every four years or so guaranteed the proliferation of fluky measurements. Second, CLV has different meanings under different circumstances. A low CLV could mean few cars or it could mean that few cars are able to move through an intersection due to excessive congestion.
There is a better way to measure traffic than this.
Any longitudinal data system must accomplish three things. First, the users must have reality-based data that actually measure what the users intend to measure. Second, there must be large numbers of observations to build an adequate sample size. Third, identical procedures must be applied over and over again in different conditions to isolate out their effects. The Planning Department’s current traffic measurement system has none of these characteristics.
But there is hope for something better that is buried deep within the planners’ own documents. In the appendix to the 2008 Highway Mobility Report, the staff has added something new: actual test runs by cars equipped with GPS devices on major corridors in rush hour. On pages 69-82, the staff shows the results of rush hour test drives on Wisconsin Avenue, Rockville Pike, Frederick Road, Georgia Avenue, Norbeck Road, Colesville Road, Columbia Pike, Connecticut Avenue, Clopper Road and Great Seneca Highway. Yes, these drives were only taken on one day each in May 2005, May 2007 or June 2007. But the results are very informative – you can actually see which intersections cause low speeds, and which stretches of these corridors have free flow.
Here is the kind of simulation that reflects reality. People do not drive through problem intersections once every four years, as the CLVs measure. They drive through long, clogged corridors every day, often during rush hour. The challenge is how to collect more of this data so it is not subject to outlier results determined by bad weather, accidents or other unusual conditions.
The solution is to draw on the hundreds of thousands of real live drivers who navigate this county every day. The Planning Department should offer county residents temporary GPS units for their cars in return for a payment of $100 per month. (That is the equivalent of one to two weeks of free gas!) These units would record all driving information and store them in internal memory for download upon return to the staff. Planning could rotate the units among different residents, perhaps 50-100 different people every month. After one year, Planning would have an unrivaled database of tens of thousands of actual drives under every condition imaginable. Planning would be able to judge the performance of any major roadway in the county under any weather condition, on any day, at any time of the day or night. Additionally, matching this traffic data with the police department’s online traffic accident database would enable planners to see the impact of auto collisions on roadway performance for every major route in the county.
How much would all of this cost? GPS units rent for as little as $5 per day and Planning could negotiate a better deal for lots of them. If Planning allocated them to 50 different residents each month and paid them $100 per month, the total rental and payment cost would be $151,250 per year. If Planning allocated them to 100 residents, the cost would be $302,500. Add on the cost of one full-time employee to monitor the program and the cost would be roughly $300,000 to $450,000 per year. The Planning Department’s total budget is approximately $19 million and it is currently suffering from cuts.
But Planning does not necessarily have to request lots of extra money. Why not pay for this, at least in part, by cutting back on CLV measurement? As we have seen, critical lane volume estimates taken in isolation do not by themselves provide reliable measurements of traffic. Do we really need 422 fluky, seldom-updated CLVs, many of which are taken at tertiary intersections with low volume? Why not reduce the number of intersections measured by CLVs and use the money for reality-based GPS measures instead?
Until the Planning Department moves to this sort of system, its existing test drive data provides a tantalizing peek at how a real traffic measurement system could work. In Part Two, we will begin looking at some of the new data Planning has already gathered.
There is a better way to measure traffic than this.
Any longitudinal data system must accomplish three things. First, the users must have reality-based data that actually measure what the users intend to measure. Second, there must be large numbers of observations to build an adequate sample size. Third, identical procedures must be applied over and over again in different conditions to isolate out their effects. The Planning Department’s current traffic measurement system has none of these characteristics.
But there is hope for something better that is buried deep within the planners’ own documents. In the appendix to the 2008 Highway Mobility Report, the staff has added something new: actual test runs by cars equipped with GPS devices on major corridors in rush hour. On pages 69-82, the staff shows the results of rush hour test drives on Wisconsin Avenue, Rockville Pike, Frederick Road, Georgia Avenue, Norbeck Road, Colesville Road, Columbia Pike, Connecticut Avenue, Clopper Road and Great Seneca Highway. Yes, these drives were only taken on one day each in May 2005, May 2007 or June 2007. But the results are very informative – you can actually see which intersections cause low speeds, and which stretches of these corridors have free flow.
Here is the kind of simulation that reflects reality. People do not drive through problem intersections once every four years, as the CLVs measure. They drive through long, clogged corridors every day, often during rush hour. The challenge is how to collect more of this data so it is not subject to outlier results determined by bad weather, accidents or other unusual conditions.
The solution is to draw on the hundreds of thousands of real live drivers who navigate this county every day. The Planning Department should offer county residents temporary GPS units for their cars in return for a payment of $100 per month. (That is the equivalent of one to two weeks of free gas!) These units would record all driving information and store them in internal memory for download upon return to the staff. Planning could rotate the units among different residents, perhaps 50-100 different people every month. After one year, Planning would have an unrivaled database of tens of thousands of actual drives under every condition imaginable. Planning would be able to judge the performance of any major roadway in the county under any weather condition, on any day, at any time of the day or night. Additionally, matching this traffic data with the police department’s online traffic accident database would enable planners to see the impact of auto collisions on roadway performance for every major route in the county.
How much would all of this cost? GPS units rent for as little as $5 per day and Planning could negotiate a better deal for lots of them. If Planning allocated them to 50 different residents each month and paid them $100 per month, the total rental and payment cost would be $151,250 per year. If Planning allocated them to 100 residents, the cost would be $302,500. Add on the cost of one full-time employee to monitor the program and the cost would be roughly $300,000 to $450,000 per year. The Planning Department’s total budget is approximately $19 million and it is currently suffering from cuts.
But Planning does not necessarily have to request lots of extra money. Why not pay for this, at least in part, by cutting back on CLV measurement? As we have seen, critical lane volume estimates taken in isolation do not by themselves provide reliable measurements of traffic. Do we really need 422 fluky, seldom-updated CLVs, many of which are taken at tertiary intersections with low volume? Why not reduce the number of intersections measured by CLVs and use the money for reality-based GPS measures instead?
Until the Planning Department moves to this sort of system, its existing test drive data provides a tantalizing peek at how a real traffic measurement system could work. In Part Two, we will begin looking at some of the new data Planning has already gathered.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Defining Deviancy Down at the Intersection of Death, Part Two
In Part One, we described how Montgomery County’s Planning Department relies on Critical Lane Volume (CLV) to estimate congestion at intersections across the county. Any statistical system that relies on just one measure, taken very infrequently, with little collaborating information is prone to fluky data. And that has happened at the Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen Road intersection, lovingly referred to by its neighbors as the Intersection of Death.
According to the Planning Department, this intersection went from being the most congested in the county to falling below the county’s allowable congestion standard for its policy area. Why? Because its morning CLV declined by 26% between surveys taken on 8/28/03 and 6/6/07. They would like us to believe that one-quarter of our traffic congestion has magically disappeared even though there have been no major engineering changes at the intersection. Similarly, only four of the ten most-congested intersections reported in 2006 have returned to the current 2008 list. Have the six intersections that fell off the list been “fixed,” surpassed by others that have become worse or simply fallen victim to bad CLV measurements?
While the Gazette covered our objections to traffic measurement at Georgia and Forest Glen, they spent a bit more time discussing the intersection’s infamous nickname than exploring the underlying data issues. I presented the following case study of the intersection to the Planning Board two weeks ago. Just looking at this one intersection calls into question the statistical validity of how traffic is measured in this county.
*****
Testimony of Adam Pagnucco
Montgomery County Planning Board, 5/15/08
Item 8: Highway Mobility Report 2008
Good morning. My name is Adam Pagnucco. I am Chairman of the Forest Estates Community Association's Crossing Georgia Committee as well as my civic association's incoming county government liaison. Today I offer my observations on the planning staff's new Critical Lane Volume (CLV) estimates for the Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen Road intersection.
In the 2006 Highway Mobility Report, the Georgia-Forest Glen intersection was ranked as the most congested in the county with an AM CLV of 2106 and a PM CLV of 1643. Those counts were taken on 8/28/03. No one in the surrounding area was surprised. What was surprising were the new CLV counts taken on 6/6/07: an AM CLV of 1553 and a PM CLV of 1377. If those counts are to be believed, then congestion has decreased at this intersection by 26% in the morning and 16% in the evening in just four years.
Now let's remember the location of Georgia at Forest Glen. It is adjacent to the Forest Glen Metro station, one block away from the Beltway interchange and three blocks away from Holy Cross Hospital, the second-biggest hospital in the state. Any car coming from the north to the Beltway must pass through it. Most vehicles heading to Holy Cross, and all of them coming from the Beltway, must pass through it. And hundreds of pedestrians cross the street every day to use Metro. No other intersection in the county, and possibly the state, has this combination of characteristics.
The principal change in recent traffic conditions around the intersection was the 2005 expansion of Holy Cross Hospital. That expansion, the biggest in the hospital's history, added 210,000 square feet of new space to the facility. The hospital reports that it had 128,591 visitors in 2003 and 157,573 visitors in 2007, a 23% increase after the expansion was finished. But now the hospital claims that it is bursting at the seams and it intends to expand again. Its plan calls for a new parking garage that would hold 500-700 more cars, which the hospital says it needs because cars are stacking up in its existing garage. Given the phenomenal increases in patient visits and the hospital's need for another expansion so soon after its last one, how can anyone believe that traffic congestion at Georgia and Forest Glen has really declined by double digits in just four years?
But there is more. In 1995, the planning staff estimated CLV at Georgia and Forest Glen at 1511 in the morning and 1530 in the afternoon. If the 2007 CLV is to be believed, then current traffic congestion is only 3% worse in the morning and is actually 10% less in the evening than it was in 1995. That's right, we are told that evening rush has actually improved by 10% over the last 12 years. Considering the dramatic redevelopment of Downtown Silver Spring and the residential construction upcounty in that period of time, that is extremely difficult to believe.
Last December, I showed you our video of conditions at the intersection. Remember the sight of cars stacked up towards Wheaton as far as the eye can see? Remember the constant illegal left turns? Remember how the pedestrians had to maneuver past cars stopped in the crosswalk? Of course you remember and there is no need to show you that chaos again. As I recall, that video provoked quite a reaction in this room. Many things were said at the time, but I do not remember anyone saying, "Hmmm… now that intersection has great traffic flow!"
Perhaps the issue here is how CLVs are used for purposes of analysis. Critical Lane Volume is after all a volume measure. As the number of cars proceeding through an intersection goes up, the CLV goes up. Now imagine a perfectly gridlocked intersection. No cars can move. What would its CLV be? Exactly zero. After all, no cars would be able to get through. Is it possible that the Georgia-Forest Glen intersection's declining CLV indicates more congestion and not less?
Members of the Planning Board, it is highly unlikely that you will find anyone in my neighborhood who believes that the biggest expansion in the history of the state's second-biggest hospital has led to less traffic congestion over the last four years. It is equally unlikely that you will find anyone who believes that afternoon traffic flow on Georgia Avenue has actually improved since the mid-1990's. I hope that you will ask your staff to explain how their data contradicts the facts I have cited today along with plain common sense. I for one would like to hear their answer.
*****
Tomorrow, we will show you a better way to measure traffic.
According to the Planning Department, this intersection went from being the most congested in the county to falling below the county’s allowable congestion standard for its policy area. Why? Because its morning CLV declined by 26% between surveys taken on 8/28/03 and 6/6/07. They would like us to believe that one-quarter of our traffic congestion has magically disappeared even though there have been no major engineering changes at the intersection. Similarly, only four of the ten most-congested intersections reported in 2006 have returned to the current 2008 list. Have the six intersections that fell off the list been “fixed,” surpassed by others that have become worse or simply fallen victim to bad CLV measurements?
While the Gazette covered our objections to traffic measurement at Georgia and Forest Glen, they spent a bit more time discussing the intersection’s infamous nickname than exploring the underlying data issues. I presented the following case study of the intersection to the Planning Board two weeks ago. Just looking at this one intersection calls into question the statistical validity of how traffic is measured in this county.
*****
Testimony of Adam Pagnucco
Montgomery County Planning Board, 5/15/08
Item 8: Highway Mobility Report 2008
Good morning. My name is Adam Pagnucco. I am Chairman of the Forest Estates Community Association's Crossing Georgia Committee as well as my civic association's incoming county government liaison. Today I offer my observations on the planning staff's new Critical Lane Volume (CLV) estimates for the Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen Road intersection.
In the 2006 Highway Mobility Report, the Georgia-Forest Glen intersection was ranked as the most congested in the county with an AM CLV of 2106 and a PM CLV of 1643. Those counts were taken on 8/28/03. No one in the surrounding area was surprised. What was surprising were the new CLV counts taken on 6/6/07: an AM CLV of 1553 and a PM CLV of 1377. If those counts are to be believed, then congestion has decreased at this intersection by 26% in the morning and 16% in the evening in just four years.
Now let's remember the location of Georgia at Forest Glen. It is adjacent to the Forest Glen Metro station, one block away from the Beltway interchange and three blocks away from Holy Cross Hospital, the second-biggest hospital in the state. Any car coming from the north to the Beltway must pass through it. Most vehicles heading to Holy Cross, and all of them coming from the Beltway, must pass through it. And hundreds of pedestrians cross the street every day to use Metro. No other intersection in the county, and possibly the state, has this combination of characteristics.
The principal change in recent traffic conditions around the intersection was the 2005 expansion of Holy Cross Hospital. That expansion, the biggest in the hospital's history, added 210,000 square feet of new space to the facility. The hospital reports that it had 128,591 visitors in 2003 and 157,573 visitors in 2007, a 23% increase after the expansion was finished. But now the hospital claims that it is bursting at the seams and it intends to expand again. Its plan calls for a new parking garage that would hold 500-700 more cars, which the hospital says it needs because cars are stacking up in its existing garage. Given the phenomenal increases in patient visits and the hospital's need for another expansion so soon after its last one, how can anyone believe that traffic congestion at Georgia and Forest Glen has really declined by double digits in just four years?
But there is more. In 1995, the planning staff estimated CLV at Georgia and Forest Glen at 1511 in the morning and 1530 in the afternoon. If the 2007 CLV is to be believed, then current traffic congestion is only 3% worse in the morning and is actually 10% less in the evening than it was in 1995. That's right, we are told that evening rush has actually improved by 10% over the last 12 years. Considering the dramatic redevelopment of Downtown Silver Spring and the residential construction upcounty in that period of time, that is extremely difficult to believe.
Last December, I showed you our video of conditions at the intersection. Remember the sight of cars stacked up towards Wheaton as far as the eye can see? Remember the constant illegal left turns? Remember how the pedestrians had to maneuver past cars stopped in the crosswalk? Of course you remember and there is no need to show you that chaos again. As I recall, that video provoked quite a reaction in this room. Many things were said at the time, but I do not remember anyone saying, "Hmmm… now that intersection has great traffic flow!"
Perhaps the issue here is how CLVs are used for purposes of analysis. Critical Lane Volume is after all a volume measure. As the number of cars proceeding through an intersection goes up, the CLV goes up. Now imagine a perfectly gridlocked intersection. No cars can move. What would its CLV be? Exactly zero. After all, no cars would be able to get through. Is it possible that the Georgia-Forest Glen intersection's declining CLV indicates more congestion and not less?
Members of the Planning Board, it is highly unlikely that you will find anyone in my neighborhood who believes that the biggest expansion in the history of the state's second-biggest hospital has led to less traffic congestion over the last four years. It is equally unlikely that you will find anyone who believes that afternoon traffic flow on Georgia Avenue has actually improved since the mid-1990's. I hope that you will ask your staff to explain how their data contradicts the facts I have cited today along with plain common sense. I for one would like to hear their answer.
*****
Tomorrow, we will show you a better way to measure traffic.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Defining Deviancy Down at the Intersection of Death, Part One
Imagine if we measured the American economy by estimating Gross Domestic Product once every four years. Forget about measuring other things like employment, unemployment and inflation. And forget about taking monthly or quarterly measurements.
“That’s ridiculous!” you would yell. “How would we understand the different trends in the components of the economy? How would we track the ups and downs? How would we get a complete picture of what’s going on?”
And you’d be right. But guess what: that is how we measure traffic in Montgomery County.
Montgomery County’s Planning Department measures traffic by calculating Critical Lane Volume (CLV) at each of 422 intersections in the county. CLV is the maximum hourly sum of conflicting auto movements, both through traffic and turns, proceeding through an intersection. (You can see how the measurement is constructed on page 6-26 of the 2006 Edition of the Mass Highway Manual.) CLV is dependent on volume. An intersection without cars would have a CLV of zero. As traffic picks up, CLV rises. But in a perfectly gridlocked intersection, no cars would be able to move and CLV would go back down to zero.
The Planning Department measures CLVs at each intersection by sending out traffic surveyors to count cars in both the morning and evening rush. But since Planning has limited resources, the surveyors can only appear at each of the intersections every four years or so. What if the weather is bad? What if there’s an accident nearby? Too bad, the survey results are in. Whatever happened on that one day is assumed to be the case on every day for at least the next four years.
Some of these measurement days are a bit unusual. Of the 422 reported CLVs in the 2008 Highway Mobility Report, 22 were taken in December, 23 were taken in January, 30 were taken in February and 3 were taken in August. Are these representative months of the year for driving conditions? Also, 29 of the CLVs were taken in 2003, 14 were taken in 2002 and 6 were taken in 2001. Can these measurements really be compared to estimates made in 2006 and 2007?
Moreover, the Planning Department assumes that a high CLV means high congestion. In fact, a high CLV means an intersection is carrying a lot of traffic. Remember – it rises with volume. An extremely congested intersection is one where it takes a long time to get through. In that case, the CLV may actually be quite low. How about measuring average delay times or average speeds? The Planning Department reports average speeds in travel runs taken on MD-355, Georgia Avenue, US-29, Norbeck Road, Connecticut Avenue, Clopper Road and Great Seneca Highway in 2005 and 2007, but those runs were one-day spot-checks covering only a fraction of the county’s intersections. Nevertheless, these travel runs provided valuable data and we will cover them in more detail later this week.
So why should you care whether Planning measures traffic badly? For one thing, an intersection’s CLV plays a role in determining whether developers building nearby will have to pay for traffic mitigation measures. If your CLV was measured on a day in which traffic was abnormally low, it might fall below the allowable traffic standard in that policy area. That would make it easier for a developer to escape responsibility for mitigating the effects of any new traffic generated by additional construction.
In Part Two, we’ll look at how the county’s faulty traffic measures have played out at the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road, also known as the Intersection of Death.
“That’s ridiculous!” you would yell. “How would we understand the different trends in the components of the economy? How would we track the ups and downs? How would we get a complete picture of what’s going on?”
And you’d be right. But guess what: that is how we measure traffic in Montgomery County.
Montgomery County’s Planning Department measures traffic by calculating Critical Lane Volume (CLV) at each of 422 intersections in the county. CLV is the maximum hourly sum of conflicting auto movements, both through traffic and turns, proceeding through an intersection. (You can see how the measurement is constructed on page 6-26 of the 2006 Edition of the Mass Highway Manual.) CLV is dependent on volume. An intersection without cars would have a CLV of zero. As traffic picks up, CLV rises. But in a perfectly gridlocked intersection, no cars would be able to move and CLV would go back down to zero.
The Planning Department measures CLVs at each intersection by sending out traffic surveyors to count cars in both the morning and evening rush. But since Planning has limited resources, the surveyors can only appear at each of the intersections every four years or so. What if the weather is bad? What if there’s an accident nearby? Too bad, the survey results are in. Whatever happened on that one day is assumed to be the case on every day for at least the next four years.
Some of these measurement days are a bit unusual. Of the 422 reported CLVs in the 2008 Highway Mobility Report, 22 were taken in December, 23 were taken in January, 30 were taken in February and 3 were taken in August. Are these representative months of the year for driving conditions? Also, 29 of the CLVs were taken in 2003, 14 were taken in 2002 and 6 were taken in 2001. Can these measurements really be compared to estimates made in 2006 and 2007?
Moreover, the Planning Department assumes that a high CLV means high congestion. In fact, a high CLV means an intersection is carrying a lot of traffic. Remember – it rises with volume. An extremely congested intersection is one where it takes a long time to get through. In that case, the CLV may actually be quite low. How about measuring average delay times or average speeds? The Planning Department reports average speeds in travel runs taken on MD-355, Georgia Avenue, US-29, Norbeck Road, Connecticut Avenue, Clopper Road and Great Seneca Highway in 2005 and 2007, but those runs were one-day spot-checks covering only a fraction of the county’s intersections. Nevertheless, these travel runs provided valuable data and we will cover them in more detail later this week.
So why should you care whether Planning measures traffic badly? For one thing, an intersection’s CLV plays a role in determining whether developers building nearby will have to pay for traffic mitigation measures. If your CLV was measured on a day in which traffic was abnormally low, it might fall below the allowable traffic standard in that policy area. That would make it easier for a developer to escape responsibility for mitigating the effects of any new traffic generated by additional construction.
In Part Two, we’ll look at how the county’s faulty traffic measures have played out at the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road, also known as the Intersection of Death.
Traffic Week on Maryland Politics Watch
Dear readers, I am going to tell you something you already know: traffic congestion has reached catastrophic levels in Montgomery County. We measure it badly. We do not plan around it very well. But we can do better.
In a special five-part series, MPW offers an unprecedented look at our county's traffic measurement system. Today and tomorrow, we look at how we currently measure traffic and why we come up short. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday we propose an alternative measurement system and preview its results. Our recommendations are radical. They are sure to be resisted by the county's Planning Department. But radical problems demand radical solutions. Our plight is truly dire. Let the timid flee, let the entrenched bureaucracy fossilize and let the naysayers be bound and gagged! None of them will be spared from Traffic Week on Maryland Politics Watch.
In a special five-part series, MPW offers an unprecedented look at our county's traffic measurement system. Today and tomorrow, we look at how we currently measure traffic and why we come up short. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday we propose an alternative measurement system and preview its results. Our recommendations are radical. They are sure to be resisted by the county's Planning Department. But radical problems demand radical solutions. Our plight is truly dire. Let the timid flee, let the entrenched bureaucracy fossilize and let the naysayers be bound and gagged! None of them will be spared from Traffic Week on Maryland Politics Watch.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Income Inequality in Montgomery County
In Part One of our two-part series on income inequality, we reported that growing labor market inequality was fueling rising income disparities in Maryland. Today, we look at what is happening in Montgomery County.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Survey produces data at the metropolitan area level, including a series combining Montgomery and Frederick Counties. But small sample sizes at this geographic level handicap some of the individual occupational observations with unacceptably large standard errors. So we turned to a rich source of locality data that is less burdened with sample size issues: the decennial census.
The Census Bureau reports detailed demographic, economic and real estate data down to the census tract level (and even further) every ten years. We identified the five wealthiest neighborhoods and the five poorest neighborhoods, defined as census tracts and using per capita income, in Montgomery County in 2000. We then compared real per capita income, measured in 2007 dollars, in each of these census tracts between 1989 and 1999. We also looked up black and Hispanic population percentages for each census tract. In Potomac, we had to merge two census tracts to obtain comparable data for 1989 and 1999 because of changes in the area’s census tract definitions in the 1990s. We report our results below.
Measured by per capita income, the five wealthiest neighborhoods in Montgomery County are Chevy Chase Village, Potomac, the section of Bethesda west of its Central Business District, the Bethesda neighborhoods on either side of Democracy Boulevard and the Martin’s Addition and Rollingwood sections of Chevy Chase. The five poorest neighborhoods are Langley Park (separated into two census tracts), the section of Rockville east of the CSX tracks, the section of Wheaton west of Veirs Mill Road reaching up to Rockville, and the Oakview neighborhood in Silver Spring (southwest of the intersection of the Beltway and New Hampshire Avenue). On average, the percentage of black and Hispanic people living in the poorest neighborhoods is ten times their percentage in the richest neighborhoods.
Between 1989 and 1999, four of the five richest neighborhoods saw double-digit gains in real per capita income. Over the same period, every one of the poorest neighborhoods saw real losses. Together, the richest neighborhoods enjoyed a 15% real per capita income gain while the poorest neighborhoods suffered a 12% drop. The county as a whole saw a 4% real per capita income increase over this decade.
The 1990s was a relatively decent decade for America’s middle and working classes. Real wages ceased their two-decade drop and rose a little bit in many occupations. If Montgomery County’s poorest neighborhoods saw a double-digit real income drop in the 1990s, what is happening to them now?
Rising income inequality is a national, indeed a global, trend. Can Maryland’s state or county policymakers truly reverse it? Measures that might help thwart inequality include:
1. Encouraging unionization.
2. Funding public employee contracts, especially for the lowest-paid workers.
3. Investing in public education, the state university system, vocational training, apprenticeship programs and ESOL instruction.
4. Supporting minimum wage, living wage and prevailing wage laws as well as other worker protections (like Montgomery County’s domestic worker bill).
5. Cracking down on unscrupulous employers who cheat workers.
Will all of the above, if implemented with gusto, really make a difference? Possibly. But one thing is certain:
Every state legislator who voted to pass the regressive special session tax package and then opposed the millionaire tax effectively voted to make Maryland’s – and Montgomery County’s – income inequality worse.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Survey produces data at the metropolitan area level, including a series combining Montgomery and Frederick Counties. But small sample sizes at this geographic level handicap some of the individual occupational observations with unacceptably large standard errors. So we turned to a rich source of locality data that is less burdened with sample size issues: the decennial census.
The Census Bureau reports detailed demographic, economic and real estate data down to the census tract level (and even further) every ten years. We identified the five wealthiest neighborhoods and the five poorest neighborhoods, defined as census tracts and using per capita income, in Montgomery County in 2000. We then compared real per capita income, measured in 2007 dollars, in each of these census tracts between 1989 and 1999. We also looked up black and Hispanic population percentages for each census tract. In Potomac, we had to merge two census tracts to obtain comparable data for 1989 and 1999 because of changes in the area’s census tract definitions in the 1990s. We report our results below.
Measured by per capita income, the five wealthiest neighborhoods in Montgomery County are Chevy Chase Village, Potomac, the section of Bethesda west of its Central Business District, the Bethesda neighborhoods on either side of Democracy Boulevard and the Martin’s Addition and Rollingwood sections of Chevy Chase. The five poorest neighborhoods are Langley Park (separated into two census tracts), the section of Rockville east of the CSX tracks, the section of Wheaton west of Veirs Mill Road reaching up to Rockville, and the Oakview neighborhood in Silver Spring (southwest of the intersection of the Beltway and New Hampshire Avenue). On average, the percentage of black and Hispanic people living in the poorest neighborhoods is ten times their percentage in the richest neighborhoods.
Between 1989 and 1999, four of the five richest neighborhoods saw double-digit gains in real per capita income. Over the same period, every one of the poorest neighborhoods saw real losses. Together, the richest neighborhoods enjoyed a 15% real per capita income gain while the poorest neighborhoods suffered a 12% drop. The county as a whole saw a 4% real per capita income increase over this decade.
The 1990s was a relatively decent decade for America’s middle and working classes. Real wages ceased their two-decade drop and rose a little bit in many occupations. If Montgomery County’s poorest neighborhoods saw a double-digit real income drop in the 1990s, what is happening to them now?
Rising income inequality is a national, indeed a global, trend. Can Maryland’s state or county policymakers truly reverse it? Measures that might help thwart inequality include:
1. Encouraging unionization.
2. Funding public employee contracts, especially for the lowest-paid workers.
3. Investing in public education, the state university system, vocational training, apprenticeship programs and ESOL instruction.
4. Supporting minimum wage, living wage and prevailing wage laws as well as other worker protections (like Montgomery County’s domestic worker bill).
5. Cracking down on unscrupulous employers who cheat workers.
Will all of the above, if implemented with gusto, really make a difference? Possibly. But one thing is certain:
Every state legislator who voted to pass the regressive special session tax package and then opposed the millionaire tax effectively voted to make Maryland’s – and Montgomery County’s – income inequality worse.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Governor to MoCo: Build Your Own Schools! (Updated)
The Post is reporting that the O’Malley administration plans to allocate $46.3 million in school construction aid to Montgomery County, less than the $55 million he promised in last year’s special session. The amount of money in dispute is small. But the symbolic value of the Governor’s action is huge.
Simply put, the Governor needs Montgomery County. He needs our tax revenues. He needs our 32 votes in the legislature. He needs our votes and campaign contributions at election time. Without any of the above, his administration will fail.
But the county is not in terrible need of the Governor. No one remembers the last time the state had a governor from Montgomery County. (If you know, report it in the comments!) In administration after administration, Montgomery has received far, far less in tax dollars from the state than it has contributed. That has remained the case under Governors Ehrlich (who came from the Baltimore suburbs), Glendening (from Prince George’s), Schaefer (Baltimore City), Hughes (Eastern Shore), Mandel (Baltimore City) and possibly every other governor in the 20th Century. We would fare just as badly under another non-MoCo Democratic governor as we are under O’Malley – in truth, it would make little difference.
Our state legislators delivered tough, agonizing votes on taxes and slots in the special session for the good of the state, the good of the party and the good of Governor O’Malley. Many of them were pilloried for the tax hikes and the slots votes. Many of them are still getting hammered, one way or the other, about the millionaire tax. And as payment we are left to haggle over pennies.
For those who do not know us, we are a diverse lot in Montgomery County. Our ranks include entrepreneurs, tree huggers, union members, government employees, immigrants, the working poor and many, many more. But every single one of us agrees on one thing: WE DEMAND TO BE TREATED FAIRLY BY OUR STATE.
Governor, if you want an all-out torch-burning, pitchfork-waving revolt in this county, you are well on your way to getting one.
Update:
The Gazette is now carrying the story as well. When reading the two articles, it's important to keep in mind the sources of quotes from Montgomery County officials. County Executive Ike Leggett, County Council President Mike Knapp, Senators Rona Kramer, Rich Madaleno and Nancy King, Delegate Brian Feldman and MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast's Chief of Staff do not universally agree on many things, but they are all frustrated with the Governor. While few would dare say it in the way I did, I will bet that the vast majority of Montgomery County's politicians are saying privately what I said publicly.
Simply put, the Governor needs Montgomery County. He needs our tax revenues. He needs our 32 votes in the legislature. He needs our votes and campaign contributions at election time. Without any of the above, his administration will fail.
But the county is not in terrible need of the Governor. No one remembers the last time the state had a governor from Montgomery County. (If you know, report it in the comments!) In administration after administration, Montgomery has received far, far less in tax dollars from the state than it has contributed. That has remained the case under Governors Ehrlich (who came from the Baltimore suburbs), Glendening (from Prince George’s), Schaefer (Baltimore City), Hughes (Eastern Shore), Mandel (Baltimore City) and possibly every other governor in the 20th Century. We would fare just as badly under another non-MoCo Democratic governor as we are under O’Malley – in truth, it would make little difference.
Our state legislators delivered tough, agonizing votes on taxes and slots in the special session for the good of the state, the good of the party and the good of Governor O’Malley. Many of them were pilloried for the tax hikes and the slots votes. Many of them are still getting hammered, one way or the other, about the millionaire tax. And as payment we are left to haggle over pennies.
For those who do not know us, we are a diverse lot in Montgomery County. Our ranks include entrepreneurs, tree huggers, union members, government employees, immigrants, the working poor and many, many more. But every single one of us agrees on one thing: WE DEMAND TO BE TREATED FAIRLY BY OUR STATE.
Governor, if you want an all-out torch-burning, pitchfork-waving revolt in this county, you are well on your way to getting one.
Update:
The Gazette is now carrying the story as well. When reading the two articles, it's important to keep in mind the sources of quotes from Montgomery County officials. County Executive Ike Leggett, County Council President Mike Knapp, Senators Rona Kramer, Rich Madaleno and Nancy King, Delegate Brian Feldman and MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast's Chief of Staff do not universally agree on many things, but they are all frustrated with the Governor. While few would dare say it in the way I did, I will bet that the vast majority of Montgomery County's politicians are saying privately what I said publicly.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Are MoCo Public Employees Overpaid?
Yesterday, the Post reported on growing disagreements between Montgomery County leaders over compensation paid to county employees. Labor costs account for 80% of the county’s $4.3 billion budget and the county is facing a $297 million deficit. As a result, some county officials are scrutinizing employee contracts.
Council Member Phil Andrews told the Post that the county’s collective bargaining agreements were “unsustainable, unnecessary and unrelated to real-world economic conditions,” and said they should be rejected. Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg wants to know exactly what the county’s future obligations are under the contracts so the council can figure out how to pay for them. And the Post reported this tense exchange between Council President Mike Knapp and County Executive Ike Leggett:
Wages
The Post points out that many wage increases in the county’s contracts are actually intended to catch up to higher pay levels in other jurisdictions. As an example, the Post looks at fire fighters:
WABE also reports the starting salary of a step 1 teacher with a bachelors degree in Montgomery as $44,200. The average sale price of an existing townhouse in the county was $364,000 a year ago. A simple analysis with a mortgage calculator and a spreadsheet generates some interesting revelations. If this starting teacher put down 10% of the townhouse’s value, took out a 30-year mortgage at a 6% fixed rate and paid $2,500 per year in property taxes, he or she would owe 59% of pre-tax salary per month to make the payments. A step 9 teacher with a masters degree makes $64,498 and would owe 40% of his or her pretax monthly salary for the mortgage and property tax payments on the same townhouse.
How can this be considered excessive pay?
You can view a breakdown of county salary schedules here.
Pensions
Government jobs used to be known for having modest salaries but great retirement benefits. This is not the case in Montgomery County. Since 1994, the county’s Employees’ Retirement System, its defined benefit plan, has been closed to new employees other than public safety workers. Currently only 5,294 of the county’s workers have county-funded defined benefit pensions. The county’s 11,486 teachers are covered by Maryland’s State Retirement and Pension System. This means that half of the county’s total workforce of 38,000 must rely only on a defined contribution pension plan for retirement. Most of Montgomery’s neighbors continue to grant their employees defined benefits.
Health Care
The county is projecting payments of $80.7 million for group health insurance premiums for its workforce next year (and that does not include school employees). It also projects $2.6 billion in future liabilities for retiree health benefits and is phasing in annual contributions towards those liabilities which will rise to $259 million after the next five years. Montgomery is not the only county facing a large liability for retiree health care: Howard reports a $477 million liability, Anne Arundel reports a $1.3 billion liability and Prince George’s reports a $2.7 billion liability. None of them approach Los Angeles County, California, which will have to deal with a $20 billion liability. This is clearly a lot of money so why not cut health coverage for county employees?
There are two problems with that. First, county employees already pay 20% of their health costs. Raising that percentage would be effectively a wage cut. Second, cutting health benefits will not decrease illness among public employees. They will continue to seek care in local hospitals. And in Maryland, state law provides that hospitals are reimbursed for their cost of uncompensated care (which totaled $734 million in 2006). Where does this money come from? About 90% is covered by allowing hospitals to charge higher rates that are determined partially by their uncompensated care experience. The remaining 10% comes from an assessment imposed on hospitals equaling 0.75% of their net patient revenues. Virtually all of this money comes back to taxpayers because government entities (like Medicare and Medicaid), premium-charging insurance companies and patients wind up ultimately paying the higher rates charged by the hospitals. In the end, if county employees get less health coverage, we will all pay for their health costs anyway. The only difference is that, with less coverage, county employees would be less likely to seek preventative care and more likely to use emergency rooms, thus driving up health care costs for everyone.
Recruitment and Retention
Consider the view of a talented prospective job applicant pondering whether to accept employment with the Montgomery County government. Unless that applicant is seeking a public safety or teacher job, he or she will not get a defined benefit pension. Unless the person is qualified for a top management job, he or she will be unlikely to afford a home in the county without assistance. He or she will be able to make more money in the District, Arlington County, Fairfax County or perhaps even Prince George’s County. For this applicant to commit to Montgomery, he or she will have to believe that Montgomery will one day pay at least as much as its neighbors and the applicant will someday be able to afford in-county housing. Otherwise, it makes little financial sense to work for Montgomery County and the best applicants will go elsewhere.
Competitiveness
Finally, an important part of the economic bedrock of Montgomery County is its superior level of government services – especially its public schools. When the county invests in its schools, it provides a powerful reason for businesses and residents to want to live here and create jobs here. Without top-grade public services, we will increasingly be seen as merely a high-cost jurisdiction in the metropolitan Washington area – and what happens to our economic competitiveness then?
It’s in the best interest of county taxpayers to attract and retain the best public employees to work for them. We do have to figure out how to pay for them. But spreading the mythology that county employees are overpaid will not get us there.
Council Member Phil Andrews told the Post that the county’s collective bargaining agreements were “unsustainable, unnecessary and unrelated to real-world economic conditions,” and said they should be rejected. Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg wants to know exactly what the county’s future obligations are under the contracts so the council can figure out how to pay for them. And the Post reported this tense exchange between Council President Mike Knapp and County Executive Ike Leggett:
Council President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) said Leggett's approval of the contracts appears to run counter to his message about the need to slow down spending.So are Montgomery County’s public employees overpaid? Let’s examine a range of issues connected to their compensation.
“One would have thought that a more conservative approach would have been taken,” Knapp said. “It looks like we're trying to play both sides. Do we have bad economic times, or do we need to have generous increases in our contracts?”
In a prepared statement, Leggett called the contracts “consistent with agreements throughout the region” and said Knapp does not fully understand collective bargaining. Leggett said he has limited flexibility because of past decisions by the council and the school system and because of the possibility of binding arbitration in the event of an impasse. He cited the council's approval in 2006 of a $13 million enhancement to pensions for school system employees.
“I believe the Council President voted in favor of additional pension enhancements and every collective bargaining agreement that has ever been placed before him, thereby establishing less than favorable conditions in which future executives must negotiate,” he said in the statement.
Wages
The Post points out that many wage increases in the county’s contracts are actually intended to catch up to higher pay levels in other jurisdictions. As an example, the Post looks at fire fighters:
John Sparks, president of the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association, said the county is playing catch-up for its 1,050 firefighters and paramedics. Rookie firefighters are paid $39,997, compared with $44,301 in the District, $40,784 in Prince George's County and $47,472 in Fairfax County. Among jurisdictions such as Montgomery with more than 500,000 people, the average salary nationally is $44,275 for starting firefighters.Consider the county’s teachers. The Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) estimates the total compensation cost of a teacher paid $60,000 in salary in nine of the metro area’s jurisdictions. Montgomery compensates such a teacher $81,792, above only Prince George’s County ($78,720). Montgomery trails Arlington County, the leader, by 7.1%.
WABE also reports the starting salary of a step 1 teacher with a bachelors degree in Montgomery as $44,200. The average sale price of an existing townhouse in the county was $364,000 a year ago. A simple analysis with a mortgage calculator and a spreadsheet generates some interesting revelations. If this starting teacher put down 10% of the townhouse’s value, took out a 30-year mortgage at a 6% fixed rate and paid $2,500 per year in property taxes, he or she would owe 59% of pre-tax salary per month to make the payments. A step 9 teacher with a masters degree makes $64,498 and would owe 40% of his or her pretax monthly salary for the mortgage and property tax payments on the same townhouse.
How can this be considered excessive pay?
You can view a breakdown of county salary schedules here.
Pensions
Government jobs used to be known for having modest salaries but great retirement benefits. This is not the case in Montgomery County. Since 1994, the county’s Employees’ Retirement System, its defined benefit plan, has been closed to new employees other than public safety workers. Currently only 5,294 of the county’s workers have county-funded defined benefit pensions. The county’s 11,486 teachers are covered by Maryland’s State Retirement and Pension System. This means that half of the county’s total workforce of 38,000 must rely only on a defined contribution pension plan for retirement. Most of Montgomery’s neighbors continue to grant their employees defined benefits.
Health Care
The county is projecting payments of $80.7 million for group health insurance premiums for its workforce next year (and that does not include school employees). It also projects $2.6 billion in future liabilities for retiree health benefits and is phasing in annual contributions towards those liabilities which will rise to $259 million after the next five years. Montgomery is not the only county facing a large liability for retiree health care: Howard reports a $477 million liability, Anne Arundel reports a $1.3 billion liability and Prince George’s reports a $2.7 billion liability. None of them approach Los Angeles County, California, which will have to deal with a $20 billion liability. This is clearly a lot of money so why not cut health coverage for county employees?
There are two problems with that. First, county employees already pay 20% of their health costs. Raising that percentage would be effectively a wage cut. Second, cutting health benefits will not decrease illness among public employees. They will continue to seek care in local hospitals. And in Maryland, state law provides that hospitals are reimbursed for their cost of uncompensated care (which totaled $734 million in 2006). Where does this money come from? About 90% is covered by allowing hospitals to charge higher rates that are determined partially by their uncompensated care experience. The remaining 10% comes from an assessment imposed on hospitals equaling 0.75% of their net patient revenues. Virtually all of this money comes back to taxpayers because government entities (like Medicare and Medicaid), premium-charging insurance companies and patients wind up ultimately paying the higher rates charged by the hospitals. In the end, if county employees get less health coverage, we will all pay for their health costs anyway. The only difference is that, with less coverage, county employees would be less likely to seek preventative care and more likely to use emergency rooms, thus driving up health care costs for everyone.
Recruitment and Retention
Consider the view of a talented prospective job applicant pondering whether to accept employment with the Montgomery County government. Unless that applicant is seeking a public safety or teacher job, he or she will not get a defined benefit pension. Unless the person is qualified for a top management job, he or she will be unlikely to afford a home in the county without assistance. He or she will be able to make more money in the District, Arlington County, Fairfax County or perhaps even Prince George’s County. For this applicant to commit to Montgomery, he or she will have to believe that Montgomery will one day pay at least as much as its neighbors and the applicant will someday be able to afford in-county housing. Otherwise, it makes little financial sense to work for Montgomery County and the best applicants will go elsewhere.
Competitiveness
Finally, an important part of the economic bedrock of Montgomery County is its superior level of government services – especially its public schools. When the county invests in its schools, it provides a powerful reason for businesses and residents to want to live here and create jobs here. Without top-grade public services, we will increasingly be seen as merely a high-cost jurisdiction in the metropolitan Washington area – and what happens to our economic competitiveness then?
It’s in the best interest of county taxpayers to attract and retain the best public employees to work for them. We do have to figure out how to pay for them. But spreading the mythology that county employees are overpaid will not get us there.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
New State Budget Projections Sure to Frighten Counties
Maryland's Board of Revenue Estimates projected today that the state would take in $330 million less in revenue than originally forecasted. This is sure to trigger alarm bells in every county government in Maryland.
The Post and the Sun reported that the Board of Revenue Estimates, a panel comprised of Comptroller Peter Franchot, Treasurer Nancy Kopp and Budget Secretary Eloise Foster, said that the state's weakening economy was causing shortfalls in income and sales taxes. According to the Sun:
Anxiety in county governments was high prior to this announcement. MoCo faces a $297 million deficit. Prince George's County is projecting a $100 million deficit. Several counties expressed their worries to the Sun last week about possible cuts to state aid. MoCo's union leaders are becoming uneasy about whether the county will honor employee contracts. And these issues are sure to affect MoCo's County Council District 4 race, which is already contentious.
The only people who can take comfort from this situation are the politicians who lost back in 2006. They don't have to deal with these problems. As a matter of fact, many will probably blame the incumbents for them when they run again in 2010.
The Post and the Sun reported that the Board of Revenue Estimates, a panel comprised of Comptroller Peter Franchot, Treasurer Nancy Kopp and Budget Secretary Eloise Foster, said that the state's weakening economy was causing shortfalls in income and sales taxes. According to the Sun:
"The hard numbers that have been presented here today speak for themselves," state Comptroller Peter Franchot, who sits on the state's Board of Revenue Estimates, which reviews revenue forecasts, said Thursday.The Senate has already approved cuts of $280 million to the Governor's budget but the House has yet to act. Furthermore, no one is yet taking account of the Keynesian effect of spending cuts: their tendency to cause additional reductions of aggregate demand in the state's economy. Montgomery County's economy, for example, is already close to recession.
"They merely confirm that the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage industry has taken a profound toll on consumer confidence and, for that matter, virtually every aspect of our nation's economy, and that the state of Maryland is not immune to these trends."
Franchot warned that the "storm clouds" were not receding: "The conditions are likely to get worse before they improve."
Anxiety in county governments was high prior to this announcement. MoCo faces a $297 million deficit. Prince George's County is projecting a $100 million deficit. Several counties expressed their worries to the Sun last week about possible cuts to state aid. MoCo's union leaders are becoming uneasy about whether the county will honor employee contracts. And these issues are sure to affect MoCo's County Council District 4 race, which is already contentious.
The only people who can take comfort from this situation are the politicians who lost back in 2006. They don't have to deal with these problems. As a matter of fact, many will probably blame the incumbents for them when they run again in 2010.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Is MoCo in a Recession?
Recent attention to Montgomery County’s reduced, but still substantial budget deficit (now projected at $297 million) has caused many to pay closer attention to the state of the county’s economy. Simply put, is MoCo in a recession?
The classic definition of a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth in gross domestic product (GDP). At the national level, there are an excruciatingly large number of measures used to predict and track business cycle changes, many of which are tracked by the National Bureau of Economic Research. At the local level, fewer statistics are available. Survey sample sizes shrink, employer non-disclosure requirements become a problem and data in general are more scarce. But there is enough information to know, or at least speculate about on an informed basis, two questions: is the county’s economy growing now and will it grow in the near future?
Montgomery County’s Department of Finance is a good resource to start. It has a number of coincident indicators, or data that measure the state of the county’s economy right now. Through November 2007, the county’s labor force (the total number of civilians employed or looking for work) was 506,884, an increase of 0.5% from the year before. As a matter of fact, the county’s labor force has increased every year since 1997. Total payroll employment through June 2007 was 458,964, a drop of 0.7% from the year before. The local unemployment rate was 2.8% through November 2007, down only 0.1 from the year before. Sales taxes collected through October 2007 were up only 0.3% over the prior year, below the local rate of inflation (3.5%).
All of these figures point to a stagnant, but not shrinking economy. Jobs are stable, inflation is creeping up but unemployment is still low. (MoCo’s unemployment rate has not risen above 4% since at least 1992.) The Washington region’s employment base grew by 1.5% last year, faster than MoCo’s, which helped the county. MoCo’s tax collections are not growing as fast as government expenditures, but the private sector is not currently contracting.
However, there is more. To answer the question of whether the county’s economy will grow in the future, we have to examine leading indicators – data that correlate with future growth. At the local level, most leading indicators are related to the construction and real estate industries. These industries serve an important function because they channel economic growth from a handful of industries into a much broader range of industries. For example, in the Washington region, up to one-third of the local economy is associated with federal spending. When federal employees or contractors receive increases in compensation, they often spend them on new housing, housing upgrades or associated real estate. Those payments multiply through real estate agents, construction contractors and material supply industries, which then distribute them more widely through the economy. The construction and real estate industries therefore absorb current growth, magnify it and create future growth throughout the economy. When construction and real estate stop growing, it means that the future growth they promulgate throughout the economy will dissipate.
According to MoCo’s Department of Finance, residential construction starts totaled $485.9 million through November 2007, down 30% from the year before. Non-residential starts totaled $526.3 million, down 9% from the year before. Non-residential volume has declined every single year since 2004. Home sales through November 2007 totaled 9,348 – down 28% from the year before and 43% from 2004. And while the median price of a single-family home increased by 0.7% last year, average days on market has jumped from 26 in 2005 to 84 in 2007.
MoCo’s commercial office market is tight but beginning to slacken. According to Transwestern, the county’s office vacancy rate was 7.1% in the third quarter of 2007, a very low rate. But look at absorption – the amount of square footage newly leased minus the square footage vacated. That figure fell from 2.2 million SF in 2004 to 150,000 SF through the third quarter of 2007. That means the rate of demand for MoCo office space is rapidly cooling and may even turn negative.
So what’s the bottom line? Current economic growth throughout the county is flat. But the commercial real estate industry is slowing down, the commercial construction industry is contracting and the residential real estate and construction markets are in a steep downturn. MoCo is not in a recession right now. But if its real estate and construction industries do not bottom out this year, a recession later in 2008 or 2009 is not out of the question.
The classic definition of a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth in gross domestic product (GDP). At the national level, there are an excruciatingly large number of measures used to predict and track business cycle changes, many of which are tracked by the National Bureau of Economic Research. At the local level, fewer statistics are available. Survey sample sizes shrink, employer non-disclosure requirements become a problem and data in general are more scarce. But there is enough information to know, or at least speculate about on an informed basis, two questions: is the county’s economy growing now and will it grow in the near future?
Montgomery County’s Department of Finance is a good resource to start. It has a number of coincident indicators, or data that measure the state of the county’s economy right now. Through November 2007, the county’s labor force (the total number of civilians employed or looking for work) was 506,884, an increase of 0.5% from the year before. As a matter of fact, the county’s labor force has increased every year since 1997. Total payroll employment through June 2007 was 458,964, a drop of 0.7% from the year before. The local unemployment rate was 2.8% through November 2007, down only 0.1 from the year before. Sales taxes collected through October 2007 were up only 0.3% over the prior year, below the local rate of inflation (3.5%).
All of these figures point to a stagnant, but not shrinking economy. Jobs are stable, inflation is creeping up but unemployment is still low. (MoCo’s unemployment rate has not risen above 4% since at least 1992.) The Washington region’s employment base grew by 1.5% last year, faster than MoCo’s, which helped the county. MoCo’s tax collections are not growing as fast as government expenditures, but the private sector is not currently contracting.
However, there is more. To answer the question of whether the county’s economy will grow in the future, we have to examine leading indicators – data that correlate with future growth. At the local level, most leading indicators are related to the construction and real estate industries. These industries serve an important function because they channel economic growth from a handful of industries into a much broader range of industries. For example, in the Washington region, up to one-third of the local economy is associated with federal spending. When federal employees or contractors receive increases in compensation, they often spend them on new housing, housing upgrades or associated real estate. Those payments multiply through real estate agents, construction contractors and material supply industries, which then distribute them more widely through the economy. The construction and real estate industries therefore absorb current growth, magnify it and create future growth throughout the economy. When construction and real estate stop growing, it means that the future growth they promulgate throughout the economy will dissipate.
According to MoCo’s Department of Finance, residential construction starts totaled $485.9 million through November 2007, down 30% from the year before. Non-residential starts totaled $526.3 million, down 9% from the year before. Non-residential volume has declined every single year since 2004. Home sales through November 2007 totaled 9,348 – down 28% from the year before and 43% from 2004. And while the median price of a single-family home increased by 0.7% last year, average days on market has jumped from 26 in 2005 to 84 in 2007.
MoCo’s commercial office market is tight but beginning to slacken. According to Transwestern, the county’s office vacancy rate was 7.1% in the third quarter of 2007, a very low rate. But look at absorption – the amount of square footage newly leased minus the square footage vacated. That figure fell from 2.2 million SF in 2004 to 150,000 SF through the third quarter of 2007. That means the rate of demand for MoCo office space is rapidly cooling and may even turn negative.
So what’s the bottom line? Current economic growth throughout the county is flat. But the commercial real estate industry is slowing down, the commercial construction industry is contracting and the residential real estate and construction markets are in a steep downturn. MoCo is not in a recession right now. But if its real estate and construction industries do not bottom out this year, a recession later in 2008 or 2009 is not out of the question.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Pass the CARR Bill
Montgomery County faces a $297 million budget deficit. Prince George’s County is projecting a $100 million budget deficit. Baltimore City is seeing a 20-30% drop in recordation receipts and transfer taxes. So there is lots of talk in these jurisdictions and others of raising taxes and fees, freezing hiring and perhaps even delaying compensation increases for employees, all traditional methods of dealing with budget deficits. But new District 18 Delegate Al Carr has a better idea.
Carr points out that state law allows Baltimore City and the counties to set just one property tax rate that applies equally to all categories of real property. So in Baltimore County, for example, the county levies $1.10 per 100 dollars of assessed value regardless of whether the property is a house or a giant office building. Baltimore City’s rate is $2.27, again applied equally to housing or commercial properties. No county government is allowed to establish different rates for different property types.
Over the long run this can cause problems. Take Montgomery County. According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential property (including condominiums) accounted for 69.6% of the county’s total assessed value of real property in 1991. By 2007, that percentage had climbed to 76.8%. On the other hand, commercial property’s percentage of total assessed value fell from 30.4% to 23.2% over the same period of time. The state’s homestead tax credit limits tax increases on owner-occupied homes to 10% per year, but that merely delays tax increases rather than eliminates them. The bottom line is that, at least in Montgomery, the property tax burden has been slowly shifting from commercial owners to residents.
Maryland’s municipal governments, unlike the counties, are free to set different rates on different classes of property. The District of Columbia charges 85 cents per 100 assessed dollars for residential property and $1.85 per 100 assessed dollars for commercial property. A new Virginia law allows counties and cities in Northern Virginia to establish different property tax rates and Arlington County is considering doing so. Carr’s bill, HB 676 – cosponsored by Delegates Barkley, Bobo, Feldman, Gilchrist, Hucker, Kaiser, Lafferty, Manno, McIntosh, Montgomery, Tarrant, Taylor and Waldstreicher – would give Maryland’s counties and Baltimore City the same ability to establish different property tax rates that these other jurisdictions have. (District 18 Senator Rich Madaleno is sponsoring the companion bill in the Senate.) Hereinafter, this bill shall be designated the Commercial Assessment Rate Review (CARR) bill by the authority vested in me as the author of this blog post!
Won’t raising commercial property tax rates cause real estate and job losses? Not necessarily. Consider the District, which charges a commercial property tax rate more than double the residential rate. Commercial property manager Transwestern estimates the District’s office vacancy rate at 5.8%, one of the lowest rates in the country. Transwestern proclaims, “The District remains one of the top-performing areas in the nation with a strong tenant base, low vacancy rate and high barriers to entry.” Sounds like that higher commercial rate is really killing their economy.
And the CARR bill would even enable counties to lower commercial property tax rates below residential rates. Consider a county seeking to revitalize a run-down commercial center. Right now it could not do it through cutting the commercial property tax rate. With the CARR bill, it could.
The point is that this bill gives county governments new options for changing their revenue mix in good times and bad. And at this moment, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Baltimore and other jurisdictions need those options. Otherwise residential taxpayers and public employees could pay the price. So what are you waiting for guys? Pass the CARR bill!
Carr points out that state law allows Baltimore City and the counties to set just one property tax rate that applies equally to all categories of real property. So in Baltimore County, for example, the county levies $1.10 per 100 dollars of assessed value regardless of whether the property is a house or a giant office building. Baltimore City’s rate is $2.27, again applied equally to housing or commercial properties. No county government is allowed to establish different rates for different property types.
Over the long run this can cause problems. Take Montgomery County. According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential property (including condominiums) accounted for 69.6% of the county’s total assessed value of real property in 1991. By 2007, that percentage had climbed to 76.8%. On the other hand, commercial property’s percentage of total assessed value fell from 30.4% to 23.2% over the same period of time. The state’s homestead tax credit limits tax increases on owner-occupied homes to 10% per year, but that merely delays tax increases rather than eliminates them. The bottom line is that, at least in Montgomery, the property tax burden has been slowly shifting from commercial owners to residents.
Maryland’s municipal governments, unlike the counties, are free to set different rates on different classes of property. The District of Columbia charges 85 cents per 100 assessed dollars for residential property and $1.85 per 100 assessed dollars for commercial property. A new Virginia law allows counties and cities in Northern Virginia to establish different property tax rates and Arlington County is considering doing so. Carr’s bill, HB 676 – cosponsored by Delegates Barkley, Bobo, Feldman, Gilchrist, Hucker, Kaiser, Lafferty, Manno, McIntosh, Montgomery, Tarrant, Taylor and Waldstreicher – would give Maryland’s counties and Baltimore City the same ability to establish different property tax rates that these other jurisdictions have. (District 18 Senator Rich Madaleno is sponsoring the companion bill in the Senate.) Hereinafter, this bill shall be designated the Commercial Assessment Rate Review (CARR) bill by the authority vested in me as the author of this blog post!
Won’t raising commercial property tax rates cause real estate and job losses? Not necessarily. Consider the District, which charges a commercial property tax rate more than double the residential rate. Commercial property manager Transwestern estimates the District’s office vacancy rate at 5.8%, one of the lowest rates in the country. Transwestern proclaims, “The District remains one of the top-performing areas in the nation with a strong tenant base, low vacancy rate and high barriers to entry.” Sounds like that higher commercial rate is really killing their economy.
And the CARR bill would even enable counties to lower commercial property tax rates below residential rates. Consider a county seeking to revitalize a run-down commercial center. Right now it could not do it through cutting the commercial property tax rate. With the CARR bill, it could.
The point is that this bill gives county governments new options for changing their revenue mix in good times and bad. And at this moment, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Baltimore and other jurisdictions need those options. Otherwise residential taxpayers and public employees could pay the price. So what are you waiting for guys? Pass the CARR bill!
Monday, February 18, 2008
Is MoCo Getting its Share of the Spoils?
Believe it or not, there are a few people in MoCo who believe that we are getting the short end of the gubernatorial stick from our ex-Mayor of Baltimore. The latest list of the Governor’s appointments will give them a bit of ammo.
Last Friday, Governor O’Malley released this year’s “green bag” nominations, a list of appointments to many of the state’s boards and commissions that require Senate approval. There are 165 nominees on the list, which you can view here. Obsessed as we are with numbers, we counted the nominees by county of residence. The leaders were Baltimore County (35), Baltimore City (26), Prince George’s County (18), Anne Arundel County (15), Montgomery County (15) and Howard County (11). No other county had more than five appointees. Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Somerset Counties, all of which are located on the Eastern Shore, had no nominees. Mysteriously, two "non-residents" appear on the list instead.
Let’s consider the populations in these counties. Baltimore County accounted for 14% of the state’s population in 2006. It accounted for 21% of the Governor’s green bag list. Baltimore City accounted for 11% of the state’s population and 16% of the nominees. MoCo, on the other hand, accounted for 17% of the state’s population and 9% of the nominees. Prince George’s fared a bit better than MoCo (15% of population, 11% of nominees).
Now we are all good Democrats on this blog and big supporters of Governor O’Malley. So I have an idea for how the Governor could rectify this unfortunate appointment deficit. How about appointing Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman as our next Secretary of State? He would be a nice D18 counterbalance to all of the people from Takoma Park who seem to be taking over the state government these days.
Just a suggestion from a blogger who’s trying to be helpful, Governor!
Last Friday, Governor O’Malley released this year’s “green bag” nominations, a list of appointments to many of the state’s boards and commissions that require Senate approval. There are 165 nominees on the list, which you can view here. Obsessed as we are with numbers, we counted the nominees by county of residence. The leaders were Baltimore County (35), Baltimore City (26), Prince George’s County (18), Anne Arundel County (15), Montgomery County (15) and Howard County (11). No other county had more than five appointees. Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Somerset Counties, all of which are located on the Eastern Shore, had no nominees. Mysteriously, two "non-residents" appear on the list instead.
Let’s consider the populations in these counties. Baltimore County accounted for 14% of the state’s population in 2006. It accounted for 21% of the Governor’s green bag list. Baltimore City accounted for 11% of the state’s population and 16% of the nominees. MoCo, on the other hand, accounted for 17% of the state’s population and 9% of the nominees. Prince George’s fared a bit better than MoCo (15% of population, 11% of nominees).
Now we are all good Democrats on this blog and big supporters of Governor O’Malley. So I have an idea for how the Governor could rectify this unfortunate appointment deficit. How about appointing Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman as our next Secretary of State? He would be a nice D18 counterbalance to all of the people from Takoma Park who seem to be taking over the state government these days.
Just a suggestion from a blogger who’s trying to be helpful, Governor!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Reflecting on Wheaton
Could Wheaton look like this someday?
So why have we been talking about Wheaton? After all, this blog is called Maryland Politics Watch, not Wheaton Watch. There are two reasons.
First, Holly Olson, author of the prior three postings, is my long-suffering wife. To get a sense of that suffering, imagine having to hear maximum-volume rantings about such things as the Baroness of Montgomery 24-7. One reason I blog is because she ordered me to “get it out of your system.” The least I can do is return the favor and give her a conduit for expressing her thoughts, which are infinitely better-formed than mine.
But second, and much more importantly, Wheaton represents the future of Montgomery County, the state of Maryland and the United States. Its bustling, chaotic streets, its teeming masses of every language and color and its combination of private-sector optimism and skepticism of government hearken back to our roots of a century ago. If we can bring Wheaton to its full potential, we will have a formula that could be applied broadly to every main street in America.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Wheaton, it lies at the junction of three of Montgomery County’s great avenues: Georgia Avenue, University Boulevard and Veirs Mill Road. Along with Silver Spring and Takoma Park, it is one of the county’s three truly diverse urban centers.
Wheaton does not have the prosperity or sheer population size of Silver Spring. It does not have the municipal government of Takoma Park. But it does have a friendly, welcoming spirit along with astounding diversity. In one small shopping center along University Boulevard, two Jewish food establishments co-exist with a Thai grocery, a Chinese restaurant and a Pho kitchen. Right across the street are a couple Latino restaurants. An Italian pizza joint is on the next block up and a Korean restaurant is around the corner. At several Wheaton businesses, when the owner hears I have walked in, he comes out, slaps me on the back and asks if my wife (who is invariably present) has gotten rid of me yet. (She usually answers, “First he buys me lunch.”) Unfortunately, Sabang was one of those places.
But Wheaton has its problems. Holly discussed the economic ones. In addition, I see a more basic one: the difficulty of communication and building relationships within the community. I worked with Holly and the Latino Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) on the inspiring parking meter revolt of last summer. One of our strategies was distributing 3,000 handbills to business owners protesting the new hours, which they could then give to their customers. Now I’ve spent many years in the labor movement, so cold calls are no big deal to me. But Wheaton was a different experience. In some of these businesses, the music was blaring and bodies were flying. Others were barren and empty. Many, many languages were spoken. Many workers looked at me with a stare that said, “Are you here from the government to mess with us?” In some places, I could not identify the manager or owner. All of this causes me to have immense sympathy for the employees of the county’s Mid-County Regional Services Center who have to deal with all of these establishments.
This polyglot of polysyllables extends to the organizations in Wheaton. There are three county advisory committees with jurisdiction in Wheaton. There are several civic associations who are inside and nearby. There is both a Wheaton-Kensington Chamber of Commerce and a new association for local, small businesses being created by LEDC. There is also the management of Westfield Wheaton, the giant mall just outside the central business district. There is one county services center, but its brave, overworked staff faces the daunting task of dealing with all of the above as well as similar issues in many other areas outside Wheaton. The central communication challenge for politicians and outsiders is that while many people speak for a part of Wheaton, no one speaks for all of Wheaton.
But we are going to have to resolve that problem because Wheaton is changing, and not necessarily for the better. Holly discussed the continuing exodus of many long-time businesses due to rising rents. Many believe that redevelopment is necessary, and the county has long recognized its need. In 2006, County Council Members Marilyn Praisner and Tom Perez championed a new zoning text amendment that raised allowable building heights and relaxed obstacles to building improvements in the central business district, all while encouraging small square footages in new retail spaces. To date, not a single new development has taken advantage of the opportunities in this new amendment.
Instead, the market seems to be creating two Wheatons. On the outskirts of the CBD, high-end housing projects have been sprouting like gilded mushrooms, including a new one above the eastern Metro entrance. Until the recent housing crash, some of the new townhouses were selling for over $600,000. But inside the CBD, there’s not much going on. One low-rise project is under construction at Georgia and University, but it has failed to maximize its location’s potential and will have little impact on the district’s retail capacity. And as Holly has said, businesses are leaving. It seems that Wheaton has two possible paths before it: continued bifurcation or a general decline along the lines of Langley Park.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Wheaton is the last great opportunity for revitalization among the county’s four downtowns. It has Metro access and bus access. It has one of the area’s most diverse stocks of retail and restaurants. A few years ago, local residents worked with the county government to produce a vision of what a revitalized CBD could look like, and that concept appears at the beginning of this post. Here’s another view:
The left edge of the “V” is Veirs Mill Road. The right edge is Georgia Avenue. Tucked into the middle is a broad swath of green space. On all sides is a mix of retail and residential, anchored by a parking garage topped by residences just north of the central green. Here is a central community space that’s greener than Silver Spring, friendly to pedestrians and features a built-in customer base for business through integrated residential in the core.What about the existing businesses? Preventing further exodus is a high priority for both Wheaton’s business community and its devoted customers (including this author). How about getting the developers to build retail condos, grandfathering the existing businesses as owners and subsidizing their condo mortgages? Come on, guys, this is MoCo. We’re smart, we care and we’ve got resources, so we can get this done.
But somehow, the above vision has been lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and Wheaton is starting over – again. Just as in the past, resources are being directed elsewhere, a situation exacerbated by a tight budget. Businesses continue to feel disconnected from the government and some are leaving. Residents continue to wonder what, if anything, is happening. And rumor has it that the county is coming up with a new “theme” for Wheaton. Why does it have to be re-invented again? When will we stop planning and start doing? What are we waiting for?
The future of Wheaton, and the future of America, await.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Power to the People
Part Three of a Three-Part Series by Holly Olson. (View Parts One and Two.)
In Part Two of my post on Wheaton, I was perhaps a little hard on our County Executive. It is not my intent to make him out to be the bad guy, but I do believe that we all need a little tough love every so often to get our butts in gear. And since I am an equal opportunity distributor of tough love, I feel that I must now turn my attention to the Wheaton community.
If there is one truth in politics, it is this: politicians pay attention to you if you make some noise. What do I mean by noise? Noise can take a lot of forms. It can be subtle (political contributions), it can be loud (letters, emails, public testimony), or it can be electoral (voting for candidates based on whether they support your issue).
Wheaton does many things well, but the one thing that the community does not do so well is MAKE SOME NOISE. Does this mean that there are no activists? No civic associations? No business groups? Absolutely not. In fact, many of them are vocal in sharing their concerns about Wheaton. But too often this takes place on a singular level. They do not speak with a united voice, and therefore they lack power. But when Wheaton does speak with a unified voice, the impact can be significant. I offer the following story to illustrate my point.
This past summer, the County was going to extend parking meter hours in the urban district parking lots. Businesses in all the affected urban districts were understandably upset. Downtown Silver Spring launched a massive campaign to get this reversed. And, lo and behold, Ike Leggett was listening. In fact, he listened so well to Silver Spring that he was going to reverse the hours for Silver Spring but not for Wheaton.
Given how precarious the businesses climate was for many of our restaurants, a group of us in Wheaton realized that we could not let this happen. We could not, and should not, be at a competitive disadvantage with other areas in the county. So, at the urging of County Council Member Valerie Ervin and with the help of the non-profit group LEDC, we created our own anti-parking meter campaign. Together, we launched an on-line petition. We canvassed business owners and encouraged them to write to the politicians. We gave them 3,000 flyers to give to their customers so that they could write as well. We solicited letters from community associations. We had a block of people testify before the county council: business owners, non-profits, citizen associations, and activists alike. In short, we ran a multi-faceted campaign to let the politicians know that we were not going to take this.
When we first launched the campaign, there was a sense of resignation among the business community. They had been so used to just taking whatever the County dished out that they felt like there was nothing that they could do that would make a difference. But gradually, that changed. And for the first time since I have been active in the Wheaton community, I saw hope in the faces of business owners. They began to realize that their actions did matter, and that they could make a difference. Why? Because they were united, they spoke with one voice, and they mounted an aggressive campaign to fight back. I share this story because I truly believe that more of this type of action needs to take place in Wheaton. Not just within the business community, but all facets of the community.
As we speak, there are efforts underway to do just that. The Latino Economic Development Corporation (LEDC), a non-profit that provides technical assistance, training, and financing in the area is working with Wheaton business owners to launch a Wheaton Small Business Alliance. The goal of this group is to advocate and support local businesses while promoting the principles of diversity and economic and environmental sustainability. This is an important first step because it seeks to unite the business community, which has long been fragmented. If this is successful, I believe it will serve as a catalyst for other such efforts to give a voice to Wheaton.
In the end, the bottom line is this. If the Wheaton community wants to be a political priority in Montgomery County, they must unite and pursue their interests more aggressively. There must be constant pressure. They must demand to be treated with the same respect as other urban districts such as Bethesda and Silver Spring, and they must hold their politicians accountable when they do not. The only ones that can fight for Wheaton are the community itself — therein lies the power of the people.
Holly Olson is the former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
In Part Two of my post on Wheaton, I was perhaps a little hard on our County Executive. It is not my intent to make him out to be the bad guy, but I do believe that we all need a little tough love every so often to get our butts in gear. And since I am an equal opportunity distributor of tough love, I feel that I must now turn my attention to the Wheaton community.
If there is one truth in politics, it is this: politicians pay attention to you if you make some noise. What do I mean by noise? Noise can take a lot of forms. It can be subtle (political contributions), it can be loud (letters, emails, public testimony), or it can be electoral (voting for candidates based on whether they support your issue).
Wheaton does many things well, but the one thing that the community does not do so well is MAKE SOME NOISE. Does this mean that there are no activists? No civic associations? No business groups? Absolutely not. In fact, many of them are vocal in sharing their concerns about Wheaton. But too often this takes place on a singular level. They do not speak with a united voice, and therefore they lack power. But when Wheaton does speak with a unified voice, the impact can be significant. I offer the following story to illustrate my point.
This past summer, the County was going to extend parking meter hours in the urban district parking lots. Businesses in all the affected urban districts were understandably upset. Downtown Silver Spring launched a massive campaign to get this reversed. And, lo and behold, Ike Leggett was listening. In fact, he listened so well to Silver Spring that he was going to reverse the hours for Silver Spring but not for Wheaton.
Given how precarious the businesses climate was for many of our restaurants, a group of us in Wheaton realized that we could not let this happen. We could not, and should not, be at a competitive disadvantage with other areas in the county. So, at the urging of County Council Member Valerie Ervin and with the help of the non-profit group LEDC, we created our own anti-parking meter campaign. Together, we launched an on-line petition. We canvassed business owners and encouraged them to write to the politicians. We gave them 3,000 flyers to give to their customers so that they could write as well. We solicited letters from community associations. We had a block of people testify before the county council: business owners, non-profits, citizen associations, and activists alike. In short, we ran a multi-faceted campaign to let the politicians know that we were not going to take this.
When we first launched the campaign, there was a sense of resignation among the business community. They had been so used to just taking whatever the County dished out that they felt like there was nothing that they could do that would make a difference. But gradually, that changed. And for the first time since I have been active in the Wheaton community, I saw hope in the faces of business owners. They began to realize that their actions did matter, and that they could make a difference. Why? Because they were united, they spoke with one voice, and they mounted an aggressive campaign to fight back. I share this story because I truly believe that more of this type of action needs to take place in Wheaton. Not just within the business community, but all facets of the community.
As we speak, there are efforts underway to do just that. The Latino Economic Development Corporation (LEDC), a non-profit that provides technical assistance, training, and financing in the area is working with Wheaton business owners to launch a Wheaton Small Business Alliance. The goal of this group is to advocate and support local businesses while promoting the principles of diversity and economic and environmental sustainability. This is an important first step because it seeks to unite the business community, which has long been fragmented. If this is successful, I believe it will serve as a catalyst for other such efforts to give a voice to Wheaton.
In the end, the bottom line is this. If the Wheaton community wants to be a political priority in Montgomery County, they must unite and pursue their interests more aggressively. There must be constant pressure. They must demand to be treated with the same respect as other urban districts such as Bethesda and Silver Spring, and they must hold their politicians accountable when they do not. The only ones that can fight for Wheaton are the community itself — therein lies the power of the people.
Holly Olson is the former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Where is the Love for Wheaton?
Part Two of a Three-Part Series by Holly Olson. (View Part One here.)
While serving on the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee for three years, I had the opportunity to talk to a number of residents and business owners about redevelopment issues. A typical conversation would usually begin with me relaying the recent news about redevelopment and discussing some of the options we saw for the future.
It was at this point, that if I happened to be talking with someone who was a long-time resident, the following would inevitably happen. Their eyes would kind of take on this soft, pitying look that seemed to say, you seem like a nice girl, and we appreciate you telling us this, but we’ve been around for awhile. And then they would say, “Yes, but they have been telling us Wheaton would redevelop for the last 10+ years, and it hasn’t happened yet.” It was never said with meanness, simply resignation.
This reaction was so prevalent that I took to calling it the F squared factor: fatigue and frustration. Fatigue comes from having been told for many years that redevelopment is right around the corner. “Just be patient,” the community is told. “Redevelopment is coming. Things will get better.” They have heard this for so long and seen so few results that it no longer means anything to them. It is simply an empty promise. Frustration comes from the fact that they are seeing millions of dollars being pumped into the revitalization efforts of other communities in the County, while Wheaton considers itself lucky to get a few crumbs.
In many ways, Wheaton is an oxymoron. It is an urban center located on a metro stop. It is a diverse community with tremendous spirit. By all accounts Wheaton should be serving as a national model for redevelopment — incorporating the principles of smart growth, economic and environmental sustainability, and demographic diversity. And yet it doesn’t. Instead it just sits.
Ok, you say — but it hasn’t been all gloom and doom. There has been some progress. True enough. But given the economy over the last 10 years, the demand for housing, and the increased energy directed towards revitalizing older urban centers, the pace of redevelopment has been snail-like. Wheaton has faced an uphill battle in many ways including an outdated sector plan, and up until recently, zoning within the urban core that was less than conducive for development.
Development hang-ups due to technical issues such as zoning and sector plans are important and should not be underestimated. However, one of the major factors I see in the lack of redevelopment is that Wheaton is simply not a priority for many of our politicians. In particular, Wheaton seems to have gotten little play with our County Executive. On occasion, I hear statements indicating that the County Executive is committed to Wheaton. But I don’t see that in his actions. Instead, what I see is that he continues to pump millions of dollars into Silver Spring (most recently evident in his deal to bring in Live Nation) while Wheaton continues to receive very little.
As the County faces a looming budget crisis, it is naïve to think that Wheaton will be getting any deals of its own this year. But what I do hope is that the County Executive will make some concrete and tangible efforts towards helping the Wheaton redevelopment effort. Perhaps even that is too much to ask in this environment. But the community needs hope. They need to know that their County Council and the County Executive care about them and are committed to the future of Wheaton.
So, I ask you, County Executive Leggett, “Do you have love for Wheaton?”
Holly Olson is the former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
While serving on the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee for three years, I had the opportunity to talk to a number of residents and business owners about redevelopment issues. A typical conversation would usually begin with me relaying the recent news about redevelopment and discussing some of the options we saw for the future.
It was at this point, that if I happened to be talking with someone who was a long-time resident, the following would inevitably happen. Their eyes would kind of take on this soft, pitying look that seemed to say, you seem like a nice girl, and we appreciate you telling us this, but we’ve been around for awhile. And then they would say, “Yes, but they have been telling us Wheaton would redevelop for the last 10+ years, and it hasn’t happened yet.” It was never said with meanness, simply resignation.
This reaction was so prevalent that I took to calling it the F squared factor: fatigue and frustration. Fatigue comes from having been told for many years that redevelopment is right around the corner. “Just be patient,” the community is told. “Redevelopment is coming. Things will get better.” They have heard this for so long and seen so few results that it no longer means anything to them. It is simply an empty promise. Frustration comes from the fact that they are seeing millions of dollars being pumped into the revitalization efforts of other communities in the County, while Wheaton considers itself lucky to get a few crumbs.
In many ways, Wheaton is an oxymoron. It is an urban center located on a metro stop. It is a diverse community with tremendous spirit. By all accounts Wheaton should be serving as a national model for redevelopment — incorporating the principles of smart growth, economic and environmental sustainability, and demographic diversity. And yet it doesn’t. Instead it just sits.
Ok, you say — but it hasn’t been all gloom and doom. There has been some progress. True enough. But given the economy over the last 10 years, the demand for housing, and the increased energy directed towards revitalizing older urban centers, the pace of redevelopment has been snail-like. Wheaton has faced an uphill battle in many ways including an outdated sector plan, and up until recently, zoning within the urban core that was less than conducive for development.
Development hang-ups due to technical issues such as zoning and sector plans are important and should not be underestimated. However, one of the major factors I see in the lack of redevelopment is that Wheaton is simply not a priority for many of our politicians. In particular, Wheaton seems to have gotten little play with our County Executive. On occasion, I hear statements indicating that the County Executive is committed to Wheaton. But I don’t see that in his actions. Instead, what I see is that he continues to pump millions of dollars into Silver Spring (most recently evident in his deal to bring in Live Nation) while Wheaton continues to receive very little.
As the County faces a looming budget crisis, it is naïve to think that Wheaton will be getting any deals of its own this year. But what I do hope is that the County Executive will make some concrete and tangible efforts towards helping the Wheaton redevelopment effort. Perhaps even that is too much to ask in this environment. But the community needs hope. They need to know that their County Council and the County Executive care about them and are committed to the future of Wheaton.
So, I ask you, County Executive Leggett, “Do you have love for Wheaton?”
Holly Olson is the former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
