Montgomery County planners met a skeptical crowd last night at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, officially launching the Westbard Sector Plan update process. Even before the meeting began, residents were already questioning the
baseline data planners put forward in a "Briefing Book."
Presented as a summary of "existing conditions" in the Westbard Sector Plan area (roughly defined by the borders of Little Falls Parkway, Massachusetts Avenue, Westbard Avenue, Ridgefield Road and River Road), the Briefing Book ostensibly tells us where we stand today in regard to demographics, traffic congestion, transit use, etc. In terms of public perception and media narrative, the data indeed matters. If one has the sense that traffic congestion is light, transit use strong, and a population dominated more by those over 50 than by young families with children, that would certainly bolster developers' desires to jam as many new housing units as possible into the area.
Some of the data in the book seemed a bit too rosy in that regard. Reviewing the document earlier this week, I immediately noted several red flags and questionable statistics.
First, as a railroad buff who grew up around the Georgetown Branch in Bethesda, I can say the bit of history cited in the Briefing Book about that old Baltimore & Ohio line is off-base:
Westbard developed along the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad’s Metro Southern or Georgetown Branch, which was constructed in the 1890s to support what the railroad expected would be several residential communities. The line never carried passengers, but instead transported freight to federal facilities in the District, thus the residential communities that were originally anticipated grew in a different way.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. The area we are now referring to as Westbard actually developed as a result of property and natural boundaries, most notably the Loughborough plantation on the east side of Little Falls Parkway. Long before the railroad was built, and right after Maryland emancipation, the current Westbard industrial area was founded as an African-American residential community, by former slaves of the Loughboroughs. That community continued into the 1950s.
Construction of the railroad began in the 19th century, but the section west of Connecticut Avenue to Georgetown wasn't completed until 1910. The Georgetown Branch was not built "to support what the railroad expected would be several residential communities." It actually was part of a B&O effort to create a new Southern gateway into Virginia. Ultimately, that plan for the route to cross the Potomac River (along a bridge that would have been near today's Dalecarlia water treatment facility off MacArthur Boulevard) was scrapped when a competing railroad finally relented to allow the B&O to use its bridge. The development of the surrounding residential neighborhoods such as Kenwood, Springfield, Sumner, etc. had nothing to do with the railroad.
Alas, the Briefing Book red flags go beyond the historic, and involve current data.
Map 9 in the book suggests that driving on River Road during rush hour is a breeze. Mmm, not quite, as any local commuter can tell you. The book says:
Historic traffic count data collected at intersections around the Sector Plan area perimeter indicate that major intersections are within the congestion standards established by the Local Area Transportation Review/Transportation Policy Area Review (LATR/ TPAR) Guidelines.
That data clearly must be flawed. Just before the meeting began last night, I asked David Anspacher, a transportation planner with the county planning department, when these traffic counts were performed. Were they taken in the summer, when traffic lessens slightly, or in spring or fall? Were they at 7:00 AM, or 10:00 PM? Those and other variables would make a big difference in the totals you would get. Anspacher acknowledged that planners don't know the dates/times the Briefing Book traffic data was collected.
 |
The colored circles mark two of
the longest red lights in Bethesda;
these circles on River Road
should be red, not yellow
and orange |
Planners assured residents that another traffic study would be done as part of the sector plan rewrite. The problem is that the study should have been done beforehand. If we don't know what the traffic is now, how can we begin putting a plan together?
The other big red flag was in the transportation mode data. In 2006, a coalition of civic associations known as the Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights - with the help of a survey professional - distributed a survey to 4600 residents in the Westbard vicinity. About 1600 responded, and the data showed that about 90% of commuters drove automobiles to work. The Briefing Book reports that only 69.1% of Westbard area residents are automobile commuters. Remove carpools, and the solo driver number drops further to 61.5%.
Say what?
That's too low for almost any suburban part of Montgomery County. There has been no shift in driving habits to account for a such a drastic difference. Not to mention the anecdotal evidence of just how few actual residents utilize bus service for commuting purposes.
CCCFH Co-Chair Phyllis Edelman had one possible explanation. Given that the data being used by planners draws from those living within a one-mile radius of the Westbard plan area, Edelman suggested that several high-rises in Friendship Heights - which, unlike Westbard, are within walking distance of a Metro station - were pulled into the survey. Thus the commuting behavior of transit-oriented apartment and condo dwellers is being superimposed onto the suburban Westbard area.
Clearly, planners need to go back to the drawing board on both points. These could be honest mistakes, but the impression they give those who are unaware of the flawed data is that the Westbard area could handle more development than is possible.
Speaking of which, schools remained a hot topic last night. What the county and developers need to accept, is the fact that the type of infill residential they have in mind is just not possible, without building at least one additional school. Multi-family housing jammed into Westbard would require them to either find a school site, or take back the school building currently leased by the Washington Waldorf School. Contrary to the Briefing Book, Wood Acres will remain over capacity even after the addition to the building is completed. It cannot accept an influx of new students. Period.
Residents also mentioned the priority of keeping the independent retail and service tenants in place at the Westwood Shopping Center, with one giving a shout-out to popular dry cleaners Fashion Craft Cleaners. Business owners, employees and residents alike are concerned about the impact of anticipated rent hikes, and the possible demolition of the existing shopping center.
Skeptical as I am personally about how much of this process will be driven by residents (versus developers Equity One and EYA), I give Montgomery County Planning Director Gwen Wright credit for her statement acknowledging the difference between Westbard and an urban area like downtown Bethesda. One citizen said (correctly, in my opinion and experience with not only the Hoyt property decision, but the sector plans in Wheaton, Long Branch, Glenmont, Chevy Chase Lake, etc.) - referring to the planning department - "you have no credibility," in regard to protecting residential areas from inappropriate, urban-style development.
Wright replied, "We acknowledge that Westbard and downtown Bethesda are completely different neighborhoods. And that you have one vision for an area that's right at a transit stop, and another vision for an area that's not at a transit stop, and that's surrounded by single-family houses."
Keeping that as the guiding principle for this sector plan will be critical to its success - and to the planning department regaining some of that lost "credibility" in protecting residents from high-density overdevelopment.
