DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation 4-1 4.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation August 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation 4-1 4.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation August 2013 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation Chapter 4.0 assesses the impacts of the Preferred Alternative and the No Build Alternative upon the built and natural environment within the Purple Line study area. The No Build Alternative is the future condition of transportation facilities and services in 2040 within the corridor if the Purple Line is not implemented. The Preferred Alternative is the future of transportation facilities and services in 2040 within the corridor if the Purple Line is implemented. The Preferred Alternative and the No Build Alternative assume the implementation of the funded transportation improvement projects, excluding the Purple Line in the No Build Alternative, that are included in the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB) Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for implementation by 2040 within the Purple Line corridor. The No Build Alternative provides the basis against which the Preferred Alternative is compared. A consolidated discussion of the effects of the No Build Alternative is presented in Section 4.1.2. The findings in this discussion are based on the information available about the planned projects at the time of this writing. Detailed assessment of the effects of the No Build Alternative projects will be the responsibility of each project sponsor at the time each project design is developed sufficiently to complete such an assessment. MTA compared the effects of the No Build and Preferred Alternatives where reasonably feasible. Additional discussion of the No Build Alternative is presented in Sections 4.10 and 4.17 in which quantitative comparisons of air quality effects and energy use are made by MTA. 4.1 Overview and Summary of Effects disturbance (LOD). The LOD is the boundary within which construction, materials storage, Chapter 4.0 assesses long-term operational impacts grading, landscaping, and related activities would and short-term construction-related impacts. occur. Sections 4.2 through 4.19 describe these effects to individual resources. Each section identifies the Each section also describes the work the Maryland regulatory context and methodologies for assess- Transit Administration (MTA) has done to avoid or ment of a resource and describes the effects of the minimize impacts, MTA’s commitments to further Preferred Alternative on the resource within a study minimize impacts where possible as the project area appropriate to that resource. advances, and its commitments to mitigate impacts. Definitions of the study area vary according to the Section 4.20 provides a summary of these commit- environmental resource evaluated. For some ments. Section 4.21 describes the irreversible and impacts, the study area extends a specified distance irretrievable commitment of resources, and Sec- from the centerline (e.g., 500 feet), while for others tion 4.22 lists anticipated permits and approvals the study area is confined to the project’s limit of needed to build and operate the Preferred Alternative. Purple Line Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4-1 4.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation August 2013 Transportation The following terms are used frequently in The transportation projects in the No Build this FEIS: Alternative would provide some transportation Adverse: A negative or unfavorable system benefits, including benefits for public transit condition. users from the two transit center projects and the Avoidance: The act of avoiding impacts to, enhanced bus projects. Also, the No Build Alterna- or keeping away from, something or tive would include improvements to the trail system someone. within the corridor; improve traffic operations on Minimization: Measures taken to reduce US 1, Kenilworth Avenue, and Dale Drive; and the severity of adverse impacts. increase the parking inventory in downtown Mitigation: Measures taken to alleviate Bethesda. In the No Build Alternative, however, adverse impacts that remain after MTA determined through quantitative analysis that minimization. overall traffic volumes, roadway congestion, and delays would continue to increase, as would transit travel times (see Chapter 3.0). Therefore, the No 4.1.1 No Build Alternative Build Alternative would not provide faster, more direct and reliable east-west transit service in the The No Build Alternative is the future condition of corridor; it would not connect major activity transportation facilities and services in 2040 within centers, better connect to Metrorail services, or the corridor if the Purple Line is not implemented; improve connectivity to the communities between it provides the basis against which the Preferred the Metrorail lines. Alternative is compared. While the Preferred Alternative assumes the implementation of the Land Use, Public Policy and Zoning, Economics funded transportation improvement projects The projects in the No Build Alternative would included in the National Capital Region Transpor- generate some short-term economic activity. The tation Planning Board’s CLRP for implementation transit center projects would complement transit- by 2040 within the Purple Line corridor, the No oriented development initiatives in downtown Build Alternative assumes all the projects in the Silver Spring and the Takoma Park/Langley Park CLRP except the Purple Line. The list of No Build area. Also, the improvements to US 1 would com- Alternative projects has been updated since the plement the planned development of the East publication of the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Campus of the University of Maryland (UMD). In Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) in the absence of the Preferred Alternative, however, 2008. Section 2.3.1 provides details on the 12 development would not capitalize fully upon the projects included in the No Build Alternative, transportation-land use interrelationships built into including five transit projects, three roadway state, regional, and local plans that were developed projects, three bicycle-pedestrian projects, and a based on an assumption that the Preferred new public parking facility as part of a mixed-use Alternative would be implemented. Furthermore, development project. the corridor and region would not be likely to realize the economic development potential that it 4.1.2 Impacts of No Build Alternative could under the Preferred Alternative. The following is a summary assessment of the Neighborhoods and Community Facilities potential effects of the No Build Alternative projects The No Build Alternative projects are not antici- on the natural and built environment. The sponsors pated to affect neighborhood cohesion and of these projects will be responsible for addressing community facilities as the proposed improvements impacts and providing mitigation as appropriate. to existing transit, roadway and pedestrian facilities are intended to improve access and connectivity. 4-2 Purple Line Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation August 2013 4.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts, and Mitigation Property Acquisition and Displacements Air Quality, Noise and Vibration The sponsors of the No Build Alternative projects MTA determined through quantitative air quality may seek to acquire small strips of land alongside analyses that by 2040, the No Build Alternative is existing transit, roadway and pedestrian facilities to predicted to cause slightly higher mesoscale pollu- implement some planned improvements, such as tant levels compared to the Preferred Alternative sidewalks, trails, and roadway widening if insuf- within the study area. MTA’s microscale analysis of ficient land area occurs within existing public air quality determined that no violations of the rights-of-way. Larger site development projects National Ambient Air Quality Standards are pre- such as Takoma/Langley Transit Center and the dicted for either the Preferred Alternative or the No Bethesda Lot 31 Parking garage may require Build Alternative (see Section 4.10). relocation of existing users of the affected No Build Alternative projects such as the Takoma/ properties. However, where reasonably feasible, Langley Transit Center, the Silver Spring Transit project sponsors would design planned facilities to Center, and the Bethesda Lot 31 Parking Garage, avoid or minimize property acquisition and may affect localized noise and vibration levels by displacements by using existing public rights-of- changing bus and traffic operations on and near way. existing roadways. Parks, Recreational Land, Open Space, Historic and Habitat and Wildlife, Water Resources, Topography, Archeological Properties Geology and Soils Where reasonably feasible, project sponsors of No The No Build Alternative projects are planned Build Alternative projects would design planned primarily on sites already in transportation use, facilities to avoid or minimize acquisition of land thereby minimizing impacts to the natural environ- within parks, recreational land, open space, and ment. Nonetheless, the No Build Alternative historic and archeological properties by using potentially would result in some impacts. Right-of- existing public rights-of-way. When land acquisi- way acquisition, if needed, could remove portions tion cannot be avoided, the sponsors may seek to of existing wildlife habitat and/or encroach upon acquire small strips of land alongside existing wetlands and waterways. Stormwater run-off could transit, roadway and pedestrian facilities to be caused by new impervious surfaces and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Purple Line Sligo Creek Stream Valley Park Crossing
    Executive Director’s Recommendation Commission Meeting: March 1, 2018 PROJECT NCPC FILE NUMBER Purple Line Light Rail Transit Facility 7949 Sligo Creek Stream Valley Park Montgomery County, Maryland NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER 76.45.02(41.23)44678 SUBMITTED BY Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning APPLICANT’S REQUEST Commission Approval of preliminary and final site development plans REVIEW AUTHORITY PROPOSED ACTION Capper Cramton Act Review Approve preliminary and final site per 46 Stat. 482 development plans ACTION ITEM TYPE Consent Calendar PROJECT SUMMARY On behalf of the Maryland Transit Authority, the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission has requested preliminary and final review of site development plans on Sligo Creek Stream Valley Park property to accommodate the new Purple Line light rail transit facility. The new transit line will cross through the park along Wayne Avenue (within its vehicular traffic lanes), across Sligo Creek via a new (widened) bridge and across the Sligo Creek Parkway. The Purple Line is planned as a 16-mile, regionally-significant, transit facility between Bethesda, Maryland (Montgomery County) and New Carrollton, Maryland (Prince George’s County), providing east- west connectivity between the Metrorail’s Red, Orange, and Green Lines. Construction will occur between 2018-2021 within the Sligo Creek Stream Valley Park. KEY INFORMATION • NCPC has approval authority of the project since the site is located on property acquired with federal funding appropriated under the 1930 Capper Cramton Act. The Act was intended to provide for the acquisition of lands in Maryland and Virginia to develop a comprehensive park, parkway, and playground system in the National Capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Bowie Washington Clinton Oxon Hill Camp Springs
    503 Z7 to/from Laurel to/from Columbia 409 Z2 to/from Olney C8 to/from White Flint to/from Elkridge Z11 to/from Laurel Racetrack Burtonsville Park & Ride Montgomery 295 St 302 Main St Z6 Sandy Spring Rd 89M WESTFARM to/from Burtonsville/ RTA provides local service Castle Blvd Z7 Old Sandy 87 Z2 Z7 to/from throughout Central Maryland, Spring Rd Z8 Z6 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit Center to/from Greencastle/Briggs Chaney (Silver Spring m ) Sweitzer Ln including Laurel. 503 COLUMBIA PIKE 302 Gorman Ave 5th St WHITE OAK 409 K6 Industrial Intercounty Connector Van Dusen Rd 87 Pkwy CALVERTON 141 89 89M 89 Laurel Tech Broadbirch Dr 141 to/from Rd Galway Dr Gaithersburg Park & Ride Calverton Blvd Laurel 301 Washington Blvd Van Dusen Rd Fort Meade Rd B30 Z6 Z7 Regional Z7 302 LAUREL Baltimore-Washingtonto/from Pkwy BWI Airport via Arundel Mills Z7 502 Hospital Ashford 4th St LOCKWOOD DR Blvd 502 to/from Arundel Mills Z11 K9 R2 Beltsville Dr 87 C8 FDA Cherry Ln Z2 C8 Red Clay Rd PATUXENT RIVER Plum Orchard Dr Towne Centre 502 Old Z8 Mulberry St Laurel 87 Annapolis Rd Broadbirch Dr Broadbirch R2 Z6 95 301 White Oak Cherry Hill Rd 89 Cherry Ln Adventist St Cypress 302 502 89M Laurel-Bowie Federal Medical Center 87 Z7 Rd Research South Laurel NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE AmmendaleVirginia Rd B30 Muirkirk Park & Ride Center 86 Manor Ritz Way Baltimore Ave COLUMBIA PIKE Rd Rd Z7 Centerpark Powder Mill Rd Laurel-Bowie Rd89M 87 Office Park Contee Rd 301 89 Z2, Z6, Z7, Z8, Z11 to/from Powder Mill Rd Muirkirk Rd 89M Muirkirk Paul S.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Maryland Men's Basketball Media Guides
    >•>--«- H JMl* . T » - •%Jfc» rf*-"'*"' - T r . /% /• #* MARYLAND BASKETBALL 1986-87 1986-87 Schedule . Date Opponent Site Time Dec. 27 Winthrop Home 8 PM 29 Fairleigh Dickinson Home 8 PM 31 Notre Dame Home 7 PM Jan. 3 N.C. State Away 7 PM 5 Towson Home 8 PM 8 North Carolina Away 9 PM 10 Virginia Home 4 PM 14 Duke Home 8 PM 17 Clemson Away 4 PM 19 Buc knell Home 8 PM 21 West Virginia Home 8 PM 24 Old Dominion Away 7:30 PM 28 James Madison Away 7:30 PM Feb. 1 Georgia Tech Away 3 PM 2 Wake Forest Away 8 PM 4 Clemson Home 8 PM 7 Duke Away 4 PM 10 Georgia Tech Home 9 PM 14 North Carolina Home 4 PM 16 Central Florida Home 8 PM 18 Maryland-Baltimore County Home 8 PM 22 Wake Forest Home 4 PM 25 N.C. State Home 8 PM 27 Maryland-Eastern Shore Home 8 PM Mar. 1 Virginia Away 3 PM 6-7-8 ACC Tournament Landover, Maryland 1986-87 BASKETBALL GUIDE Table of Contents Section I: Administration and Coaching Staff 5 Section III: The 1985-86 Season 51 Assistant Coaches 10 ACC Standings and Statistics 58 Athletic Department Biographies 11 Final Statistics, 1985-86 54 Athletic Director — Charles F. Sturtz 7 Game-by-Game Scoring 56 Chancellor — John B. Slaughter 6 Game Highs — Individual and Team 57 Cole Field House 15 Game Leaders and Results 54 Conference Directory 16 Maryland Hoopourri: Past and Present 60 Head Coach — Bob Wade 8 Points Per Possession 58 President — John S.
    [Show full text]
  • Purple Line Functional Plan? 6 Table 9 Stewart Avenue to CSX/WMATA Right-Of-Way 23
    Approved and Adopted September 2010 purple line F u n c t i o n a l P l a n Montgomery County Planning Department The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission P u r p l e L i n e F u n c t i o n a l P l a n I A p p r o v e d a n d A d o p t e d 1 p u r p l e l i n e f u n c t i o n a l p l a n Approved and Adopted a b s t r a c t The Commission is charged with preparing, adopting, and amending or extending The General Plan (On Wedges and Corridors) for the Physical This plan for the Purple Line transit facility through Montgomery County Development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery contains route, mode, and station recommendations. It is a comprehensive and Prince George’s Counties. amendment to the approved and adopted 1990 Georgetown Branch Master Plan Amendment. It also amends The General Plan (On Wedges and The Commission operates in each county through Planning Boards Corridors) for the Physical Development of the Maryland-Washington appointed by the county government. The Boards are responsible for all Regional District in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, as local plans, zoning amendments, subdivision regulations, and amended, the Master Plan of Highways for Montgomery County, the administration of parks. Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan, the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Master Plan, the Bethesda Central Business District Sector Plan, the Silver The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission encourages Spring Central Business District and Vicinity Sector Plan, the North and West the involvement and participation of individuals with disabilities, and its Silver Spring Master Plan, the East Silver Spring Master Plan, and the facilities are accessible.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Metrobus Public Hearing
    Notice of Public Hearing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Docket B20-01: Proposed FY2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program Docket B20-02: Proposed FY2021 Operating Budget and Related Service and Fare Proposals Purpose Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority on the dockets mentioned above as follows: Hearing No. 628 Monday, February 24, 2020 Hilton Arlington 950 N. Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203 Open House at 6:00 p.m. – Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. Hearing No. 629 Tuesday, February 25, 2020 Metro Points Hotel 8500 Annapolis Road New Carrollton, MD 20784 Open House at 6:00 p.m. – Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. Hearing No. 630 Wednesday, February 26, 2020 Metro Headquarters Building 600 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Open House at 4:00 p.m. – Public Hearing at 4:30 p.m. Please note that these dates are subject to each facility’s cancellation policy. In the event of a cancellation, Metro will post information about the new hearings on wmata.com Speaker registration at each hearing is on-site only and closes at the close of the hearing or 9 p.m., whichever comes first. Please note that these dates are subject to WMATA’s inclement weather cancellation policy. In the event of a cancellation, WMATA will post information about a new hearing on wmata.com. For more information please visit www.wmata.com/budget. The locations for all Metro public hearings are wheelchair accessible. Any individual who requires special assistance or additional accommodation to participate in public hearings, or requires these materials in an alternate format, should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 962-2511 or: TTY (202) 962-2033 as soon as possible in order for Metro to make necessary arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • Suburbanization Historic Context and Survey Methodology
    INTRODUCTION The geographical area for this project is Maryland’s 42-mile section of the I-95/I- 495 Capital Beltway. The historic context was developed for applicability in the broad area encompassed within the Beltway. The survey of historic resources was applied to a more limited corridor along I-495, where resources abutting the Beltway ranged from neighborhoods of simple Cape Cods to large-scale Colonial Revival neighborhoods. The process of preparing this Suburbanization Context consisted of: • conducting an initial reconnaissance survey to establish the extant resources in the project area; • developing a history of suburbanization, including a study of community design in the suburbs and building patterns within them; • defining and delineating anticipated suburban property types; • developing a framework for evaluating their significance; • proposing a survey methodology tailored to these property types; • and conducting a survey and National Register evaluation of resources within the limited corridor along I-495. The historic context was planned and executed according to the following goals: • to briefly cover the trends which influenced suburbanization throughout the United States and to illustrate examples which highlight the trends; • to present more detail in statewide trends, which focused on Baltimore as the primary area of earliest and typical suburban growth within the state; • and, to focus at a more detailed level on the local suburbanization development trends in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, particularly the Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince George’s. Although related to transportation routes such as railroad lines, trolley lines, and highways and freeways, the location and layout of Washington’s suburbs were influenced by the special nature of the Capital city and its dependence on a growing bureaucracy and not the typical urban industrial base.
    [Show full text]
  • 66-037-41 Forbes House 4811 Harvard Road College Park, Prince George’S County, Maryland C
    CAPSULE SUMMARY PG: 66-037-41 Forbes House 4811 Harvard Road College Park, Prince George’s County, Maryland c. 1949 Private The Lustron at 4811 Harvard Road, College Park, Maryland, is significant for its architectural and engineering contributions. Closely associated with federally subsidized efforts to alleviate the post World War II housing shortage, the Lustron is integral to the history of housing in the United States. Although not widely implemented, Lustrons contribute to the post war development of the residential landscape funded primarily through government programs. As such, they are part of a long history of federally subsidized housing efforts, although characterized by innovations that seem remarkably daring in the context of federal housing programs—particularly given the strength of the forestry and conventional homebuilding industry. Further, the Lustron is significant for its contributions to prefabricated metal housing technology of the era as the manufacturing techniques utilized assembly line production directly influenced by the automobile industry. Porcelain-enameled steel panels were an innovative advancement for prefabricated housing construction, particularly as utilized in the single-floor modern ranch house plan that provides the Lustron with their unusual appearance. Their failure to capture a viable market is attributable perhaps to a nation that was truly ill-prepared to embrace modernity within the dearly-held institution of the house. The Forbes House retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance as a Lustron house constructed in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. in the post World War II era. Constructed circa 1949, this one-story dwelling is the two-bedroom, Deluxe Westchester model produced by the Lustron Company in Columbus, Ohio.
    [Show full text]
  • Weighing Maryland's Economic Future
    $ $ $ $ $ $ WEIGHING MARYLAND’s ECONOMIC FUTURE $ $ $ $ $ $ ASSESSING THE BENEFITS FROM THE RED AND PURPLE LINES Primary Author: Sarah Kline, SK Solutions, LLC Editor: David Goldberg, Communications Director, Transportation for America Design and Layout: Stephen Davis, Deputy Communications Director, Transportation for America Transportation for America is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in smart, homegrown, locally-driven transportation solutions — because these are the investments that hold the key to our future economic prosperity. Transportation for America is a program of Smart Growth America. t4america.org This report was made possible through the support of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. May 2015 Transportation for America Advisory Board The Hon. John Robert Smith, former Mayor, Meridian MS (Chairman) The Hon. Ben McAdams, Mayor, Salt Lake County (UT) The Hon. Greg Ballard, Mayor, Indianapolis, IN The Hon. William Bell, Mayor, Durham, NC The Hon. Elaine Clegg, Councilmember, Boise, ID The Hon. Chris Koos, Mayor, Normal, IL The Hon. Marc Morial, President & CEO, National Urban League, former Mayor, New Orleans, LA The Hon. Mayor Ken Barr, former Mayor, Fort Worth, TX Councilor Craig Dirksen, Metro District 3, Oregon Metro Maud Daudon, President & CEO, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce (WA) Ralph Schulz, President and CEO, Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce (TN) Mary Leslie, President, Los Angeles
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME ED 125 318 Hr 007 142 TITLE 74-75 Faculty
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 125 318 Hr 007 142 TITLE 74-75 Faculty Handbook. University of Maryland. INSTITUTION. Maryland Univ., College Park. PUB DATE 74 NOTE 45p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Administrative Policy; Ancillary Services; *College Facnity; Faculty Promotion; Fringe Benefits; *Higher Education; Institutional Facilities; Instructional Programs; Job Tenure; *Personnel Policy; Salaries; *State Universities IDENTIFIERS *Faculty Handbooks; University of Maryland ABSTRACT The 1974-75 University of Maryland faculty handbook provides information on the university and its structure including programs of study, research facilities, campus governance,and undergraduate and graduate academic structure. Faculty policies and procedures are detailed including appointments, promotions,salaries, leave policy, benefits, and research policy. A listing offacilities and services available to the faculty is also provided. (JMF) *********************************************************************** Documents acquired by ERIC include many informalunpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERICmakes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available.Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered andthis affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makesavailable * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRSis not * responsible for the quality of the original document.Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made fromthe original.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NFS Form 10-900 (Rev. 11-90) /. OMB No. 10024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 4? NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties or districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NFS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to compete all items. 1. Name of Property_________________________________________ Historic name: CALVERT HILLS HISTORIC DISTRICT Other names/site number: (PG-66-37) 2. Location Street & Number: Roughly bounded by Calvert Road, Bowdoin Avenue, Erskine Road, Calvert Park, Albion Road, and Baltimore Avenue [ 1 Not for Publication City or town: College Park F 1 Vicinity State: Maryland Code: MD County: Prince George's Code: 033 Zip Code: 20740 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this [X] nomination [ ] request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property [X] meets [ ] does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Background and Existing Conditions Takoma/Langley Crossroads
    BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS Takoma/Langley Crossroads Preliminary Sector Plan BACKGROUND Project Description The Takoma/Langley Crossroads (TLC) plan area is a physically aging yet thriving multicultural community located along the border of Montgomery County and Prince George’s County in Maryland. The area was named the Takoma/Langley Crossroads during the 1980s by a group of community business leaders who recognized an opportunity to unite the strengths of the businesses in unincorporated Langley Park in Prince George’s County to those within the City of Takoma Park in Montgomery County. The plan area core is a mixture of low- to medium-density strip commercial centers around which are a variety of housing types with single-family detached dwellings predominant south of University Boulevard and typical post-World War II-style garden apartments predominant to the north. The Takoma/Langley Crossroads is considered Maryland’s International Corridor due to this community’s highly diverse racial and ethnic population and its concentration of businesses that cater to both the multicultural neighborhood and a regional clientele. Maintaining the International Corridor aspects of the TLC is a priority of this sector plan. In addition to sustaining the local residential diversity of the area, the sector plan purpose is to maintain the TLC’s current role as a commercial center for numerous ethnic groups in the region, a market that gives Takoma/Langley Crossroads a unique economic base for the future. The unincorporated community of Langley Park was designated a community center by the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan because of the potential for a Purple Line station at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and University Boulevard.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Trust Maryland Outdoor Spaces - Legislator Favorites 1/21/21
    Chesapeake Bay Trust Maryland Outdoor Spaces - Legislator Favorites 1/21/21 On January 21, 2021, more than 60 legislators attended the Chesapeake Bay Trust’s virtual legislative reception. They were invited to share some of their favorite outdoor spots in their districts and throughout Maryland. Their contributions were so wonderful that we were asked to compile them and send them to attendees. As Senate President Bill Ferguson said, “Our parks are those spaces that bring Marylanders together to get that fundamental belief in love of family, of friends, of each other.” “Our 6,400 parks and green spaces are a great way to boost your mental and overall health” added House Speaker Adrienne Jones.” Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary Jeanne Haddaway-Riccio reminded us all how diverse Maryland is, and we see this in the list of favorite spots below. Below is YOUR list! The sites on the list below are not exhaustive, but were those suggested by legislators and guests present that evening as places they visit to get outdoors and feel refreshed and recharged. The entries include a word or two about the site, at times thoughts from your colleagues, the name of the legislator suggesting the site, and a website for more information. You can visit by yourself or call up your colleagues and ask for a personal tour! Anne Arundel County B&A Trail, great for walking, biking, rollerblading, and more, stretches from Boulters Way in Annapolis to Dorsey Road in Glen Burnie, Maryland. The Earleigh Heights Ranger Station (ca. 1889) is located in Severna Park with parking available on the premises.
    [Show full text]