Did you know that Ride On has been free since March 2020? We’ve successfully advocated for the emergency free fare program to be extended twice, and now the County Council is going to decide whether or not to make it permanent.
Category: Montgomery County
MEMO: CSG Comments on Thrive 2050 Housing Chapter
TO: Montgomery County Council Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee
FROM: Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager, Coalition for Smarter Growth
DATE: Thursday, October 7, 2021
SUBJECT: Coalition for Smarter Growth’s Comments on Thrive 2050 Housing Chapter
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Prior to Monday’s work session on Thrive’s Affordable and Attainable Housing chapter, I wanted to reach out to share CSG’s recommendations:
- Create a stronger vision for economically and racially diverse neighborhoods: While this chapter does discuss this goal, we believe it needs to be more of a priority and included in the text of the goals and policies themselves, rather than just the chapter’s introduction. If economically and racially diverse neighborhoods were a primary goal, the subsequent policies would more deeply discuss targeting higher income areas with more housing, including subsidized housing. Furthermore, Thrive 2050 should recommit the county to subsidized housing being mixed income. This was not always the case in the affordable housing industry and exacerbated segregation.
- Amplify the need for housing those with the lowest incomes: The chapter is called “Affordable & Attainable Housing: More of Everything,” but spends most of the text explaining the need for more market rate housing and diverse housing types. While this is correct and we are grateful for this focus, we would like to see the chapter go into more detail about the housing needs of those who the market is very likely to still leave cost burdened. To serve those of the lowest incomes, the county will need to beef up its existing affordable housing programs and think more boldly and creatively about new programs.
- Don’t leave out tenant rights: Earlier drafts of Thrive 2050 had strong language declaring that housing is a human right — that language has since been deleted. We urge you to add it back in, and the ensuing importance of strong tenant rights and protections. The county must ensure that all households have safe, healthy housing that meets their needs and are not left behind by land use changes that result in higher property values and increased rents.
- Think carefully about incentives: We support public incentives for desirable, transit-oriented development and subsidized, income-restricted housing. However, financial incentives, especially for market-rate development, should be carefully considered. Thus, we recommend the following edit on page 99: “Provide incentives to boost housing production for market rate and affordable housing, especially near transit and in Complete Communities.” Non-financial incentives can include adjustments in the development approval process.
Here is some proposed language to be added, primarily under the third goal of “Promote racial and economic diversity and equity in housing in every neighborhood.”
- “Ensure that every area of the county welcomes an equitable share of income-restricted and social housing, especially in neighborhoods with high incomes, a high concentration of jobs, or high-capacity transit.”
- Add back language from staff working draft: “Continue to promote the policy of mixed-income housing development through the implementation of county policies, programs, regulations, and other tools and incentives.”
- “Identify and allocate additional revenue for the Housing Initiative Fund (HIF), rental assistance program, and other housing programs to meet the needs of low-income households.”
- It was also brought to my attention that the plan does not address the quality and safety of housing. We recommend adding “Enforce and strengthen existing housing code regulations and renter protections to ensure healthy and fair housing.” We’d also support adding back language from the staff draft of the plan: “Protect tenants’ rights, improve living conditions in rental housing, and ensure renters’ contributions to the community are emphasized and valued.”
- Add back language from staff working draft: “Expand housing access through the elimination of fair housing barriers and enforcement of fair housing laws to protect residents from discrimination.”
- Under the first goal regarding production of more housing: “As part of the commitment to the Housing First approach, develop strategies to build deeply affordable housing, provide permanent supportive housing, and legal counsel for evictions.”
- We also concur with JUFJ’s recommendations to add eviction rates and housing cost burden for renters and owners to the metrics section of the chapter. It would be best to see housing cost burden and many of the other currently listed metrics broken down by either planning area or census tract.
Take Action: How should we live in 2050?
Do you want to be able to easily walk, bike, or hop on a bus? Wouldn’t it be great if it were easy to find a great place to live that doesn’t stretch your budget? How can we make sure our neighborhoods are resilient in the face of climate change?
For nearly two years, Montgomery County has been working on a new general plan called Thrive Montgomery 2050, a blueprint for how and where the county will grow over the next 30+ years. Now, it’s up to the County Council whether or not to maintain and strengthen the Planning Board’s bold vision.
Send an email to your councilmembers to support Thrive 2050!
We believe the Planning Board has done a great job embracing smart growth as the most sustainable and equitable way for Montgomery County to grow and provide opportunities for everyone. On its own, Thrive doesn’t change any laws, but it will set the policy agenda for the County Council, influence the Planning Department’s work program, and impact all future master plans. It’s absolutely critical for the future!
Use this form to tell your councilmembers that you support a vision for Montgomery County that is more affordable, equitable, sustainable, inclusive, and prosperous. You can read the Planning Board’s draft of Thrive and learn more about the plan here, and learn about CSG’s Thrive 2050 campaign here.
Take action on Thrive 2050, new Montgomery County’s General Plan
Sustainable, efficient, equitable land use is core to a healthy future and ensuring a high quality of life for everyone. For nearly two years, Montgomery County has been working on a new general land use plan called Thrive 2050, a blueprint for how and where the county will grow over the next 30+ years.
CSG Testimony: Attainable Housing Strategies
We strongly support the direction of the Planning Department’s recommendations for more diverse housing typologies in Montgomery County, especially in places near transit, amenities, and jobs. Inequitable, unsustainable land use patterns are a systemic problem at the root of some of our most difficult social issues. Montgomery County should not be a place where your zip code can predict your future income, health, or other life outcomes.
Middle housing zoning reform will not change neighborhoods overnight or solve all our housing challenges. Rather, smart land use decisions will lay the foundation for a better, more just society where people can find a place to live that fits their needs, their income, and provides access to opportunities. It will help Montgomery County become a place where more people can choose to live car-lite or car-free and drive less; a place where more people can start a family or age-in-place.
CSG Comments: Draft Vision Zero 2030 Plan
We commend Montgomery County for its commitment to ending all traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Vision Zero is important for many reasons, chief among them to make our transportation system one where all users can safely move. We cannot create great places for people to live, work, and play in Montgomery County if people do not feel safe getting there. The county also faces other challenges, such as the county’s rapidly aging population who would like to age-in-place and combating climate change, of which Vision Zero is a critical component of the solution.
CSG Testimony: Thrive 2050 to County Council
We strongly support the Planning Board’s draft of Thrive 2050, although we urge you to further strengthen certain areas. Thrive creates a vital blueprint for a county that is more affordable, walkable, prosperous, resilient, and racially and economically integrated, and recognizes that the best way to achieve that vision is through embracing the principles of inclusive smart growth, urbanism, and equitable transit-oriented development.
The decisions you will make in this document will have generational implications for how we live, work, and play. The world in 2050 will be very different no matter what — the question is whether we allow our communities to evolve in order to preserve what we value the most: diversity, sustainability, affordability, prosperity, equity, and social mobility.
A big step toward ending Montgomery’s housing moratorium!
Yesterday, the Planning Board voted to update the county’s draft growth policy (aka the Subdivision Staging Policy), which seeks to time public infrastructure like schools and transportation with population growth. Among other changes, the Planning Board draft would eliminate the counterproductive housing moratorium throughout most of the county, while adjusting fees and taxes to ensure adequate funding to meet increases in school demand.
This decision is thanks, in large part, to you! CSG’s supporters sent over 50 letters to the Planning Board, and our supporters and allies showed up strong at the Planning Board’s public hearing. Check out CSG’s public testimony for more background.
This isn’t the end though — the County Council has the last say. They will review the Planning Board’s recommendations and vote on a new growth policy by November. We’ll keep you updated on actions you can take!
Until then, please consider making a donation to sustain our work advocating for more housing in Montgomery County!
Other changes proposed by the Planning Board:
- Developers would be required to pay Utilization Premium Payments when a school’s projected utilization three years into the future exceeds 120 percent
- Impact taxes would be lowered from 120 percent of the cost of a seat to 100 percent, and further lowered to 60 percent in certain areas with high-capacity transit and employment centers
- Recordation taxes at the time of home sales, would be progressively increased to the to provide additional funding for school construction and affordable housing
- Any development located in an Opportunity Zone would be exempt from impact taxes
- Multiple updates to transportation tests would prioritize walking and biking as transportation modes and improve safety
- And more! If you’re interested, you can find the most up-to-date information here.
Again, thank you to all those who sent in letters or testified! In September, we’ll update you on the Council’s review and hearing schedule so you can join us again in supporting this progressive update to the county’s growth policy.
Sligo Creek Trail Crossing Safety Improvement Sign-on Letter
Mr. Tim Smith
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Smith,
We, the undersigned, request the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) implement pedestrian and bicyclist crossing improvements at highways MD-212/Riggs Road and MD-410/East West Highway which intersect M-NCPPC Sligo Creek Trail and highway corridors near the park trail.
These popular Sligo Creek Trail crosswalks at state highway intersections present a significant threat to vulnerable pedestrians and bicyclists as a consequence of inadequate signal facilities, excessive driver speed for conditions, substantial crossing distances, several multi-threat travel lanes, exposure from high vehicle volume, lack of shoulders and center median (MD-410), and obstructed crosswalk visibility. In short, these crosswalk systems are compromised.
We request the following suite of Safe System elements be implemented by MDSHA to provide adequate crosswalk safety:
- Narrow Travel Lanes
- Remove Visibility Obstructions and Barriers
- Build a Pedestrian Island Refuge (MD-410)
- Extend Bike Lanes (MD-212)
- Implement a Road Diet (MD-212)
- Implement Context-Driven Safe Speed
- Upgrade the Crosswalk Beacons
These Safe System elements work together as an ensemble to keep vulnerable crosswalk users and drivers safe. These recommended Safe System elements are summarized in Table 1.
This is a major safety issue.
- Vulnerable pedestrians and bicyclists on key trail crossings, which include school children, are currently exposed to high speed, high volume (23,000 vehicles per weekday) traffic, crossing several dangerous multi-threat lanes with inadequate or non-existent shoulders. The crossing systems are also compromised by obstructed sightlines from the presence of blind (sag) curves, utility poles, and bridge wall visibility blockages.
- These compromised trail crossing systems have resulted in numerous documented Maryland State Police crashes resulting in the crossings being identified as medium to high pedestrian and bicyclists crash “crash hot spots” in the MDOT Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2019).
The design ignores equity and land use contexts.
- These highway corridors serve a highly disadvantaged and chronically underserved majority-minority community and included within Maryland Equity Emphasis Area, Priority Funding Area, and Health Outcomes SocioNeeds Area.
- These trail crossings serve a dense urban community (10,000 residents per square mile) with extremely high percent of no-car households (30%) satisfying demand created by numerous nearby (<0.25 mile) amenities including elementary schools, park and recreation centers, and shopping centers.
Sligo Creek Trail is a major part of our transportation system.
- These trail crossings are an integral component of the Anacostia Tributary Trail System (ATTS) serving seven regional and national trail systems thereby helping Maryland promote its rich and diverse cultural, historic, and environmental, and heritage.
- These trail crossings provide 23,000 residents critical links six transit stations from four rail lines (WMATA Purple, Red, Green, Yellow Lines and MVA/MARC Camden Line) meeting growing demand for accessibility within the region’s multi-modal transportation system which include significant Transit/Trail Oriented Development, upgraded nearby bicycle facilities (MD-500, MD-193, Ager Rd), and the 670 bicycle fleet Prince George’s County Bike Share Program.
Our request is consistent with MDOT/MDSHA’s “context driven” engineering guidelines. These MDSHA guidelines include safe speed limits, continental crosswalks, and specialized signals. Similar Safe System elements are being implemented by MDSHA through the MD-500/Queens Chapel Project. Prioritizing Sligo Creek trail crossings is also congruent with MDOT policy goals promulgated by the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2019).
Finally, our Sligo Creek Trail crossing Safe System recommendations are consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) recommendations, MDOT/MDSHA urban mobility-focused streetscape policy, and MDSHA cost-effective pedestrian safety countermeasures currently being undertaken.
Thank you for your urgent attention to making the M-NCPPC Sligo Creek Trail crossings safe.
Sincerely,
Capital Trails Coalition
Coalition for Smarter Growth
Table 1. Crosswalk System Deficiencies, Risks, and Recommended Safe System Elements
| Crossing System Deficiency | Risk | Recommended Safe System Element | MD212 /Riggs Road | MD410 /East West Hwy |
| Excessive Crossing Distance, Pedestrian & Bicyclist Exposure, Streetscape Encourages High Driver Speed | Pedestrian & Bicyclist Exposure, Unsafe Driver Speed especially with presence of blind curves and obstructions | Narrow Travel Lanes, Decrease Exposure, Encourage Drive Safe Speed, Decrease Stopping Distance | X | X |
| Crosswalk Barriers, Utility Poles, Bridges, Walls, and Blind Curves | Drivers and Vulnerable Crosswalk Users fail to see each other, increasing risk of crashes | Remove obstructions and barriers, improving visibility | X | X |
| Speed Limit Excessive for Trail, School, and Shopping Urban Environment | Likelihood of death for Pedestrians and Bicyclists struck by vehicles traveling faster than 30 mph is High | Implement Safe Speeds consistent with Context-Driven multimodal, urban conditions | X | X |
| Multi-Threat Travel Lanes, Excessive Crossing Distance, Streetscape Encourages High Driver Speed | Drivers Vision of Vulnerable Users Blocked, Significant Exposure to Vulnerable Users, Streetscape Encourages High Driver Speed | Build a Pedestrian Island Refuge (24 inch wide) in Median, Reduce Exposure from Multi-Threat Travel Lanes, Encourage Driver Safe Speed | X | |
| Multi-Threat Travel Lanes, Excessive Crossing Distance, Poor Driver/Vulnerable User Vision | Drivers Vision of Vulnerable Users Blocked, Significant Exposure to Vulnerable Users, Streetscape Encourages High Driver Speed | Extend Bike Lanes on MD212 from Sargent to MD410/East-West Highway Intersection, Reduce Exposure from Multi-Threat Travel Lanes, Encourage Driver Safe Speed | X | |
| Multi-Threat Travel Lanes, Excessive Crossing Distance, Poor Driver/Vulnerable User Vision | Drivers Vision of Vulnerable Users Blocked, Significant Exposure to Vulnerable Users, Streetscape Encourages High Driver Speed | Implement Road Diet (6 ->4 Travel Lanes), Extend Crossing Queuing Area using Curb Extensions/Bump-Outs as supported by highway Volume/Capacity, Encourage Driver Safe Speed | X | |
| Crosswalk Width (6ft) does not provide early warning of presence of Vulnerable Users in Crosswalk | Drivers speed and braking distance is excessive for conditions; risk of collisions elevated | Widen Crosswalk width from 6ft to 10ft, an, Encourage Drive Safe Speed | X | |
| Existing Circular Yellow Beacon Provides Inadequate Vulnerable User Crosswalk Safety for Highway Speed, Crossing Distance, Multi-Threat Travel Lanes, High Vehicle Volume and Vulnerable User Demand, Lack of Shoulders and Median, and Obstructed Visibility | Number of Crashes at and near crosswalks is high, risk of serious injuries and fatalities is significant | Upgrade crossing signal to Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon / HAWK or Full Signal (preferred) to provide adequate crosswalk safety for Vulnerable Users | X | |
| Existing Circular Yellow Beacon Provides Inadequate Vulnerable User Crosswalk Safety for Highway Speed, Crossing Distance, Multi-Threat Travel Lanes, High Vehicle Volume and Vulnerable User Demand, Lack of Shoulders, and Obstructed Visibility | Number of Crashes at and near crosswalks is high, risk of serious injuries and fatalities is significant | Upgrade crossing signal to Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon / HAWK (preferred) or Full Signal to provide adequate crosswalk safety for Vulnerable Users | X |