What Polygons are Closest to HS 13?

 One inequity of school redistricting in Howard County that irritates me the most is the bias in favor of those who live closer to their school. Where I live in Elkridge, the nearest high school is 6 miles away. And yet, if there is proposal to move someone say 2 miles from their school to a different school 3 or four miles away, there will be howls of outrage. "Move someone else! You want to send us to a school that is twice as far away!" The someone else whom they want to move instead is typically unstated, but likely someone who already lives much farther away from their school than the outraged person.

It is wrong for redistricting to move those furthest from their current school to a school that is further away yet. The basic principle of equity requires that travel times for all students should be more similar than more different, so that all students and families have more similar opportunities to engage in school activities.

So with these thoughts in mind, I started wondering what polygons are closest to the quarry site for HS 13? And what is the high school population of those polygons? Will it be necessary to populate HS 13 with students who currently attend a closer school? How much could the utilization of other schools be reduced when HS 13 is populated with the students for whom it is closest?

Here are some answers as best as I can determine.

            

The high school attendance areas may be found here.

Will it be necessary to populate HS 13  with students who live closer to another school?

No. This table shows the student population by year of the polygons closest to HS 13.

	Capacity	22-23	23-24	24-25
HS 13	1658	2518	2608	2659

HS 13 has a capacity of 1658, and there are many more students than that who live closest to HS 13, now and in the future.

There is no need to send a polygon that is closer to a different school to HS 13 for HS 13 to reach full capacity.

How much can other schools' utilization be reduced by sending the closest polygons to HS 13?

This table shows the enrollment and utilization of HCPSS high schools under the current attendance areas.

	Capacity	Enrollment				Utilization
School		22-23	23-24	24-25		22-23	23-24	24-25
Howard HS	1,420	1683	1699	1700		118.52%	119.65%	119.72%
Long Reach	1,488	1810	1881	1925		121.64%	126.41%	129.37%
Mt Hebron HS	1,400	1572	1589	1637		112.29%	113.50%	116.93%
Centennial HS	1,360	1536	1546	1562		112.94%	113.68%	114.85%
Oakland Mills HS	1,400	1449	1445	1441		103.50%	103.21%	102.93%
Hammond HS	1,420	1322	1390	1437		93.10%	97.89%	101.20%
Wilde Lake HS	1,424	1294	1318	1290		90.87%	92.56%	90.59%
Atholton HS	1,460	1562	1597	1601		106.99%	109.38%	109.66%
Reservoir HS	1,551	1896	1966	1992		122.24%	126.76%	128.43%
River Hill HS	1,488	1393	1447	1406		93.62%	97.24%	94.49%
Marriotts Ridge HS	1,615	1793	1810	1854		111.02%	112.07%	114.80%
Glenelg HS	1,420	1331	1347	1346		93.73%	94.86%	94.79%
* includes 200 seat Hammond expansion to open with HS 13

This table shows the enrollment from those polygons that are not closer to HS13.

	Capacity					Utilization
School		22-23	23-24	24-25		22-23	23-24	24-25
Howard HS	1420	1652	1669	1670		116.34%	117.54%	117.61%
Long Reach	1488	1402	1453	1484		94.22%	97.65%	99.73%
Mt Hebron HS	1400	1572	1589	1637		112.29%	113.50%	116.93%
Centennial HS	1360	1536	1546	1562		112.94%	113.68%	114.85%
Oakland Mills HS	1400	1094	1073	1056		78.14%	76.64%	75.43%
Hammond HS	1420	557	593	618		39.23%	41.76%	43.52%
Wilde Lake HS	1424	1294	1318	1290		90.87%	92.56%	90.59%
Atholton HS	1460	1562	1597	1601		106.99%	109.38%	109.66%
Reservoir HS	1551	937	985	1008		60.41%	63.51%	64.99%
River Hill HS	1488	1393	1447	1406		93.62%	97.24%	94.49%
Marriotts Ridge HS	1615	1793	1810	1854		111.02%	112.07%	114.80%
Glenelg HS	1420	1331	1347	1346		93.73%	94.86%	94.79%
* includes 200 seat Hammond expansion to open with HS 13

Notes on My Approach

I measured the distance from polygons to schools by using Google Maps to route driving distance. I used the point in the polygon that I estimated to be central to the population of polygon. I assume that the entrance to HS 13 is from Route 1, and not from Mission Road.

The number of students per polygon comes from here. This data is from 2019. As near as I can determine, this is the most recent data available.

For privacy concerns, polygons with fewer than 5 students have the number of students shown as a '*'. For my calculations, I changed this to 2.

The polygon enrollment data has obvious bad data. For example, polygon 3023, next to the Savage MARC Station, contains a giant Transit Oriented Development, The Residences At Annapolis Junction. This development has over 400 units, it opened in 2017, and it's polygon shows less than 5 students at each school level in 2019 and forever after. 

My working spreadsheet to derive this information is here.

Howard County Complete Streets are for Columbia and not Elkridge

 Howard County just released the draft Complete Streets Design Manual.

Complete Streets are great!

I ride my bike all over. I love the idea of Complete Streets. I would love to have Complete Streets in Elkridge, where there is no bicycle infrastructure beyond some sharrows and Share the Road signs.

Before I retired, I was a daily bike commuter for several years between my home in Lawyers Hill in Elkridge and my workplace in the Village of Kings Contrivance in Columbia. The Elkridge part of my commute was pretty harrowing. The only way to cross I-95 is Montgomery Road, which you have to ride for 2 1/2 miles with no little or no shoulder and heavy traffic driving too fast. But once I got to Columbia, to the Long Reach Village Center, I could ride on the Columbia trail network, along Lake Elkhorn, to the Patuxent River Trail to MacGill's Commons, right by my office. This part of my bike commute was safe, easy, and wonderful.

The community meetings on the county bike infrastructure have repeatedly stated that the Complete Streets policy will be focused on Equity. When people say "Equity" I think of this cartoon.

The Process for Prioritizing Complete Streets Projects is Biased and Unfair.

I had high hoped that an equitable Complete Streets policy would result in all parts of the county having good bike infrastructure. Just like everyone can see over the fence in the cartoon.

That's not what's going to happen.

The reason that's not going to happen is the prioritization criteria for Complete Streets projects are heavily biased in favor of Columbia, and the prioritization criteria do not include any consideration whatsoever of where bike infrastructure and complete streets already exist and where they do not.

In other words, the prioritization criteria are biased in favor of the kid who can already see over the wall, and the criteria don't even consider who can see over the wall and who can't.

And what about the tall guy on the left? I'm pretty sure that this guy does not exist in regards to Howard County bike infrastructure. But you would not know it from the Complete Streets manual and the Complete Streets law, which says this:

"Equity scores are driven by the Vulnerable Population Index and map developed in response to concerns that wealth and access to decision makers has played an overly significant role in transportation decisions over the years. Greater investment is needed in traditionally underserved communities." (Appendix B page 1)

This is based on a false premise that there is some wealthy part of the county with privileged access to decision makers that has received a disproportionate amount of investment in bike infrastructure. I don't know what that part of the county is. The part of the county with privileged access to decision makers is Columbia, due to the influence of Howard Hughes Corporation and its predecessors. As a result, Columbia already has by far the best bike infrastructure. However, Columbia also has the most census tracts with the greatest Vulnerable Population Index scores. The areas with high VPI scores in Columbia are not in reality underserved in terms of bike infrastructure.

Now I know who the tall guy is on the left side of Equity cartoon.

It's Strawman Guy, an artificial invention to make it look like Columbia Kid is disadvantaged.

It's pretty ridiculous that when the Complete Streets policy says a community is "underserved" it has nothing to do with whether that community has any Complete Streets. 

A Deep Dive into the Prioritization Criteria

Let's take a look at some of the Complete Streets project prioritization criteria from Appendix B in the design manual. 

EQUITY (10 possible) If a project is located in more than one census tract, the higher VPI will be used. 

• Project is in a census tract with a VPI of 6 or higher: 10 points 

• Project is in a census tract with a VPI between 3 and 5: 5 points 

• Project is in a census tract with a VPI of 2 or less: 0 points

Columbia has the most census tracts with the highest VPI scores. And no matter how many complete streets projects are built in Columbia, they will continue to have the highest VPI scores, and will therefore have priority for all future complete street projects. Another issue with the VPI scores is the weighting doubles when the score goes from 5 to 6. It would be more fair to have a smoother mapping. Perhaps the priority points awarded should just be equal to the VPI score.

Columbia Kid: "I'm in a census tract with a high VPI! I'm first in line for another box! Yippee!"
Elkridge Kid: "My census tract has a moderate VPI, so I guess it must be more important for Columbia kid to get another box than it is for me to be able to see over the fence."

Transit access
• Project provides new or improved bus stops, enhancements to existing bus service, and/or improved access to bus stops: 4 points
• Project does not improve bus stops or access to bus stops: 0 points

Columbia has far more bus stops and more bus lines that any other part of the county. One would think that areas with relatively poor or no bus service would get a preference for complete streets projects to compensate for the lack of transportation alternatives. Instead, those with more transportation alternatives are favored. 

Also, why is only bus service considered? Why is there no priority for complete streets projects that provide access to MARC stations, like the Dorsey, Savage, and Laurel stations?

Columbia Kid: "I have great bus service! I get another box! Yippee!"
Elkridge Kid:  "I don't live near a bus stop. I'm close to the Dorsey MARC Station, but I have no safe way to cross MD 100 to get there." 

SYSTEM PRESERVATION/MAINTENANCE (10 possible)
• Project is principally focused on maintaining existing infrastructure and/or is expected to create no (or minimal) additional maintenance needs: 10 points
• Project is principally focused on maintaining existing infrastructure and/or is expected to create modest additional maintenance needs: 5 points
• Project is principally focused on creating new infrastructure and/or will create additional maintenance needs: 0 points

This runs totally counter to the notion of providing access to everyone, and it is another example of unambigous bias in favor of Columbia, where most of the existing bike infrastructure is located.

Columbia Kid: "This is great! My box will always be well maintained and I will always be able to see over the fence."
Elkridge Kid: "I guess it's not worth it for me to see over the fence, because it would cost too much to maintain a box for me.

BONUS POINTS FOR COST SHARING (10 points) 

• Project leverages at least 75 percent non-County funds (Federal, State, and/or private) to reduce cost to County taxpayers: 10 points 

• Project leverages at least 50 percent (but less than 75 percent) non-County funds: 7 points 

• Project leverages at least 25 percent (but less than 50 percent) non-County funds: 4 points 

• Project leverages some non-County funds, but less than 25 percent: 1 point • Project uses only County funds: 0 points

There are many parties who are willing to share the cost of new bike infrastructure for projects in Columbia, from the Columbia Association to the Howard Hughes Corporation to the Horizon Foundation. For other parts of the county, not so much. This is another example of bias in favor of Columbia projects. Furthermore, in Elkridge, nearby projects paid for by third parties are used as an excuse for Howard County not to propose projects at all! (Examples are the Patapsco Heritage Greenway connector to Guinness, and the Grist Mill Trail in Patapsco State Park.) 

Columbia Kid: "I have a rich uncle, Howard Horizon, who looks after me. He will pay part for the cost for another box for me. Yippee!"
Elkridge Kid: "I don't have a rich uncle. I guess I will never see over the fence."

Motor vehicle access
• Project addresses a documented traffic congestion concern based on the results of a traffic study: 4 points
• Project is expected to improve traffic congestion, but a traffic study has not been conducted: 2 points
• Project is not expected to address traffic congestion: 0 points

I remember one day I was riding home near Lake Elkhorn and I came upon some people doing a survey of people using the Columbia multi-purpose path. They said they were doing a traffic survey to justify widening the path. I asked them who was doing the survey, and it was someone like the Horizon Foundation or the Columbia Association. This made me sad, because there is nobody who is going to do surveys like this in Elkridge.

Columbia Kid: "Did you know my rich uncle also does traffic surveys! Everyone will know I need another box!"
Elkridge Kid: "I don't have a rich uncle. Nobody knows I can't see over the fence."

You get the picture here. The bias in the project scoring is pervasive. Any project in Columbia is going to score better than a project elsewhere, no matter how bad the bike infrastructure is elsewhere compared with what is already built in Columbia.

How to Fix the Problem

Here are some suggestions on how to improve the project scoring.

1. First, define the level of service that the county intends to provide to all residents, and document where this service exists and where it does not. Examples of services might include:

* Safe access to schools

* Safe access to parks
* Safe access to shopping centers with groceries
* Safe access to transit hubs
* Connections across barriers like limited access freeways and railroad tracks

Then prioritize these services, and weight the scoring to favor providing high priority service to areas which don't have it, over providing lower priority services to areas that already receive the high priority services. It would be perfectly appropriate to apply the VPI score within a category of service. The service priorities and implemented baseline should be part of the annual reporting requirements.

2. Explicitly require fair geographic distribution by both council district and planning region of some portion of the county complete streets budget. To date, Columbia has received an overwhelming share of the capital investment, even though it already has the best infrastructure in the county. This is not fair. It makes a mockery of the notion of equity. There are vulnerable populations all over the county, but Columbia gets an overwhelming share of the improvements because they have the highest VPI census tracts. Everyone should get a share. All Howard County taxpayers contribute to the complete streets budget and all parts of the county should have some complete streets projects.

3. Expand the reporting requirements in the Complete Streets policy to break out each reporting item by council district and planning region. That should include both the number of projects, outcome metrics, and dollars spent by both the county and by third parties.