<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I would respectfully disagree with the point that the Council should not have let the project go forward based upon traffic arguments. Assuming that the Council should have voted no based upon a traffic argument presumes traffic is ceteris paribus going forward (all things held the same/equal) which is not the case. Traffic is projected to increase regardless of what decisions were made. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Faramarz Mohktari at MNCPPC had the highest estimates that I saw (although many of his assumptions were debated for the validity) but I think they are a credible ‘worse-case scenario’. Making single anecdotal assumptions and applying them to a development as a whole is counterproductive. Complicated issues and their analysis is best left to experts in the field (in this case Traffic Engineers and Planners) many of whom have PhDs and decades of experience vs. supposing numbers that by their very nature are inherently biased.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>All existing traffic studies took into account the type of uses that were projected to be on the site as their core assumptions; i.e. a grocery store generates different traffic patterns than a movie theater etc. I would be more concerned if there were wide variance between all the studies, especially if any presumed 18k new cars; but none of them did. At a very basic level we can all conjure up ‘what-if’ scenarios that support or undermine our respective positions, but if the experts themselves, (be they from the developer, park and planning, or privately retained), are not supporting those scenarios with hard numbers I tend to not assign a factual basis to them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>According to the Mohktari traffic study:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-2010 CURRENT traffic level: 25,000<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-2040 PROJECTED traffic levels (based upon NO CHANGE IN ZONING): 44,200<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-2040 PROJECTED traffic levels (with mixed-use rezoning and discounted for pass-by and purely internal trips WITHOUT A BRIDGE): 55,500<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-2040 PROJECTED traffic levels (with mixed-use rezoning and discounted for pass-by and purely internal trips WITH A BRIDGE): 50,500<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Using any of the projections is a bit of a straw man argument though. Covenants that are enforceable with the land itself cap new peak trips at 548 AM and 902 PM (maximum increase of 1450/day) which are well south of Mohktari’s 2040 estimates. Keep in mind CURRENT traffic levels @Rt 1 and Paint Branch are already greater than 50,000. With the construction of the East-Campus development those numbers will increase even further. Even at full build-out with rezoning, the projected traffic levels in front of the Cafritz development would be LOWER in 2040 than they are in 2010 @Rt1/Paint Branch. The argument presented that this development will have ‘devastating traffic’ presumes that traffic increases will shut down Route 1 when a mile north those numbers are already seen on a daily basis? This is not to undermine that municipalities have the utmost obligation to do everything possible to mitigate impacts and I think we have done a decent job towards that. If others have additional thoughts and ideas of how to further mitigate I know we would all welcome those thoughts for consideration.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The current maximum number of units allowed on the site is 995 dwelling units. This number may be reduced based upon the results of an Adequate Public Facilities study as required by the next phase of the development (Preliminary Plan of Subdivisions).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The traffic counts from 2000 to 2010 all decreased along Route 1 ranging from 2-13.5% depending on what section of the road. The only section where traffic increased in that same 10 year period was north of the Capital Beltway (I-495). That section saw a 33.6% increase. This is well supported by land-use policy over the last thirty years that encouraged suburban build-out in Prince George’s County.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is the point of why I personally supported the project. We can encourage sprawl and by extension more traffic as people who live outside the Beltway will still use our arteries to commute into DC, OR we can do what smart-growth principles demand by building denser development around employment centers (which both UMD and M2 on River Road are) and in close proximity to public transportation options (of which there is no better site than Cafritz). The East-Campus development site is geographically the same distance from its center to the CP metro/Marc as is Cafritz (albeit the Cafritz site will have many more options about how to get there). The Cafritz site is geographically at a nexus with the CP metro, the PG Plaza Metro, and the RP Marc (and proposed Purple Line stops). It is the only current development which has mandated private shuttles to all three transportation sites (with a 15-minute headway).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Like it or not, more traffic is coming because of the decades-long land-use policies that have encouraged people to move out to the suburbs. Supporting the application gives the town more control over some of these issues as well as extending transportation options, and building upon the economic development successes of EYA and the opening of Town Center Market. <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>