Roman
E. Ratych, M.D., President Beth
Scheir, Vice-President Greg
Solak, Secretary Colleen
Craven, Treasurer
GREATER FALLSTON
ASSOCIATION, INC.
GFA, INC. Comments on the “Regional Transportation Outlook Plan 2035” Harford County
The
Regional Transportation Outlook Plan 2035 not only lacks the breadth and depth
required to address the 25+ year future transportation issues of Harford County
but is inadequate to address existing transportation needs. According to the Census 2000, Aberdeen-Havre
de Grace-Bel Air is now classified as its own “Urbanized Area”.1
Population growth in Harford County in 2000 was nearly twice that
recorded for the State of Maryland (20.02% versus 10.77%) and even
assuming a declining population growth (despite BRAC) will exceed
300,000 in the next 25 years.2 Harford
County requires a comprehensive intermediate and long-range multimodal
intra-county transportation plan that incorporates both corrective action to
address existing capacity requirements and addresses future needs and
transportation modalities.
Transportation,
like school capacity, provides an indirect squeeze or belt on development. The GFA respects the elements of the County
approved 2004 Master Plan and Land Use Element Plan, “to foster continuation
of existing agricultural, residential and commercial development activity in
its current configuration. The intent of the Rural Residential areas is to
encourage orderly residential development in areas not serviced by public water
and sewer. These areas are planned to help protect the rural character of
Fallston by providing a transition from the Development Envelope to the rural
areas. Based on this concept, the Plan
does not support the expansion of the Rural Residential areas.” 3
Since
US Route 1 in Fallston is included in the Development Envelope, the GFA raises
no objection to the proposal to convert US Route 1 to a six-lane divided
highway for the purpose of providing land use redevelopment options and road
network safety. We concur with the proposal
in terms of redevelopment and safety provided the expansion adheres to items
listed in the Master Plan namely providing a tree-lined boulevard with a
pedestrian network and captured-interior site parking screened by either
landscaping or buildings.3 However, there is concern regarding the
impact of the 6-lane divided highway on network capacity. As noted in the Master Plan, one defining
route for the Fallston area is MD 152.
MD 152 is a major feed to and from I-95 Exit 74. MD 152 also provides an
alternative cross-county route to MD146 (Jarrettsville Pike) leading south
to Towson and North to I-83. MD
152 is predominately a one-lane highway North and South (with the exception
of the small portion of the 2 lane feed from US 1 heading South and the 2 lane
feed from US 1 to 147 to the North).
Traffic on a 3 lane Southbound US 1 would converge onto a 2 lane US 1
heading Southwestward and essentially a one lane MD 152 heading North and
South. If the intent of the proposal
regarding network capacity is to ease turn lane capacity onto MD 152 and/or
ingress and egress to development along the US 1 commercial corridor, and not
as a prelude to the expansion of MD 152 outside the Development Envelope, then
no objection is raised.
Road
widening is a temporary fix as it eventually encourages increased capacity.
Inter-town, intra-county and inter-county mass transit systems in our newly
urbanized area are clearly transportation choices that should have been placed
on the table in a 25+ year proposal.
Individual areas causing traffic congestion outside the Development
Envelope should be addressed in a multimodal fashion (e.g. comments by the
Friends of Harford regarding the MD 22 expansion).4
Signal timing, lane modification, planning and zoning changes that reduce
ingress and egress to commercial areas near major intersections as well as
programs that encourage multiple vehicle occupancy are just a few that should
be considered.
Clearly,
the above named improvements are short sighted in terms of the overall
transportation requirements of Harford County now and in the future and should
be revisited.
1 US Census 2000 Urbanized Area and Urban Cluster Information
|
Population, 1960-2000 Harford County |
|||||
|
|
1960 |
1970 |
1980 |
1990 |
2000 |
|
Total |
76,722 |
115,378 |
145,930 |
182,132 |
218,590 |
|
Change |
|
38,656 |
30,552 |
36,202 |
36,458 |
|
Percent Change |
|
50.38% |
26.48% |
24.81% |
20.02% |
|
Population, 1960-2000
Maryland |
|||||
|
|
1960 |
1970 |
1980 |
1990 |
2000 |
|
Total |
3,100,689 |
3,923,897 |
4,216,975 |
4,781,468 |
5,296,486 |
|
Change |
|
823,208 |
293,078 |
564,493 |
515,018 |
|
Percent Change |
|
26.55% |
7.47% |
13.39% |
10.77% |
Source: Census 2000 analyzed by the Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN)
4 FOH Baltimore Regional Transportation Outlook Plan 2035 Comments
Submitted by Roman E. Ratych, M.D.
President, Greater Fallston Association, Inc.