On Wednesday night, I attended CA's open house on the preliminary finding for
Connecting Columbia, which aims to "to create a more interconnected bicycling and walking circulation system in Columbia for health, recreational, and transportation purposes."
I'll go ahead and say upfront that I'm excited about the findings and recommendations that
Toole Design Group, the
Task Force, and CA staff have come up with. None of it is particularly earth shattering (except for the paragraph below), but the fact that there will be a plan with how to leverage our awesome pathway system into something that can be used more broadly for connectivity and transportation.
Second-- my favorite recommendation about last night! I've written in the past about my concerns with
Bridge Columbia, and one assertion I disagree with is the idea that the bridge would be a connection between East and West Columbia rather than between Oakland Mills and downtown Columbia. Apparently, there is an existing sewer connection that runs between Lake Elkhorn and Lake Kittamaqundi. As part of the recommendations, a 2.5 mile pathway is proposed along that connection, and that's a connection I'm very excited about. Kings Contrivance and Savage have fairly easy access to Lake Elkhorn and I think that would be a more direct path downtown for those areas than through Oakland Mills.
A few other things I applaud-- they are proposing adding 50 miles of pathways to improve connections throughout Columbia. I am really hoping that they post the preliminary findings on the
Connecting Columbia website-- there was only one map posted at the open house and it was crowded for much of the time. It looks like a previous presentation is posted at the Connecting Columbia website here, and there is some good info there, though it's not the presentation that we saw last night. I'm sure it'll be up soon. Pages 5 and 6 of
this presentation from April on CA's Connecting Columbia website were some of the cool stuff presented, focusing on inter-village connectivity and lack thereof, as appropriate (not sure if it's the exact same of if they were updated in the interim).

Jennifer Toole said that other areas would kill for a system like we already have in place. (That's paraphrased.) We are lucky that our houses and neighborhoods were built around the pathways because to retrofit that after the fact is nearly impossible. It's a "great backbone of a system," she said, but it's also forty years old, meaning that while it's been well maintained (and I would agree with that statement), the pathway widths and elevations reflect a time before pathway standards were really in place. Some of those places can't really be improved upon simply because CA doesn't really have any space. For example, think of connections to cul-de-sacs where it's a skinny little pathway between two houses. It's likely that CA only owns the pathway and the two private property owners own the area right up to the pathway zone.
They also talked a lot about signage and the different treatments that could be applied to primary, secondary, and tertiary pathways. One example they used as appropriate signage was signage that the National Park Service uses. My feeling is that if it's good enough for the National Park Service, it's good enough for CA Pathways. They also discussed including embedded signage in the pathways-- things like mileage markers, which would be nice so you have some idea of where you are and how close you are to the next intersection or your destination.
Funding, programmatic recommendations, and prioritization are still in the works. Funding, I think, will be a biggie. I'm glad this planning process is going through, but getting these improvements on the ground is the solid next step that needs to happen once the planning process is complete.
The first comment from the crowd was regarding safety. A gentleman (and I didn't get his name, unfortunately) mentioned safety concerns with regard to the pathways from seniors. When asked if he meant physical safety or concerns with crime, he answered "Mostly crime." Jane Dembner said that according to the Howard County Police Chief, the pathways are actually pretty safe. There is a perception problem that the pathways have, she said. I can see that; they feel remote and can be dark, etc. Another meeting attendee, Sandy Bartolo (I hope I got her name right), said she's been using the pathways for fifteen years and has had no problem. She added that it "bothers [her] when people see these pathways as hallways of crime," which just
so well-said. I've also never had a problem on the pathways, and I've used them in the morning, afternoon, evening, and at night, even, when I've needed a flashlight just to see. Sure, people get robbed on the pathways. And in village/shopping centers, and at the mall. That's not a reason to shun entire areas and stay at home. (Houses get robbed as well, anyhow.)
All of this fits into Howard County in the sense that CA is looking at pathways and the County's Bike Master Plan will be looking at the streets. I'm sure the Howard County plan will be taking the CA Plan into consideration and leveraging the connectivity that CA is looking to make, and hopefully CA and Howard County will continue to partner on projects like the bikeshare feasibility study they'll be doing.
So yay! I am eager to see how the rest of the Connecting Columbia planning process plays out, and I will be excited to see this extensive planning process come to life.