St. Thomas Lane, a modest, two-lane road that runs for about a mile from Reisterstown Road to Garrison Forest Road in Owings Mills, has become the focus of debate.
As new development springs up along Reisterstown Road, plans are under consideration to create a service road that would cross Reisterstown Road. The proposal would change some traffic patterns in a busy commercial area, and is is being called for by the Baltimore County Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections.
The new roadway would make it possible for drivers to directly cross Reisterstown Road at Painters Mill Road, and go from there onto St. Thomas Lane — rather than turning right on Reisterstown Road and making a U-turn.
But the region’s community associations, the County Councilman responsible for the district, and many of those who live in the area say the new passageway would lead to too much cut-through traffic leading into residential areas. A drive along St. Thomas Lane from Reisterstown Road begins where a Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen sits across from a Krispy Kreme donut establishment, passes new construction, existing apartments and then homes set back from the road and stops at Garrison Forest Road — where the county grows more rural near Garrison Forest school, the Caves Valley country club and the Irvine Nature Center.
The director of the Baltimore County permits department, C. Pete Gutwald, has written a letter to District 3 Councilman Izzy Patoka justifying the need for the service road. Gutwald says in the letter that the service road will “improve traffic circulation along Reisterstown Road.”
Thomas Finnerty, who heads the board of the Greater Greenspring Association. is opposed to the service road, and says most of the community is as well. So too is the Valleys Planning Council, another group that looks at development in this part of Baltimore County. The Valleys Planning Council has drafted a petition to collect signatures of those who are opposed to the planned service road. About 60 people have signed it so far, according to Kathleen Pontone, vice president of the planning council board.
Patoka, who is currently chair of the council, says he is opposed to the service road because it would disrupt existing traffic patterns, inconvenience communities, and reduce parking for new adjacent businesses. Patoka says he has shared his concerns with Gutwald and the county permits department. Those concerns prompted Gutwald’s letter.
The relationship to Foundry Row
The service road project has its roots in construction decisions dating to 2016. That year marked the opening of Foundry Row, a shopping center on the southwest side of Reisterstown Road about three miles outside the Baltimore Beltway. Foundry Row is now home to a Wegmans grocery store, a Chick-fil-A, and more.
When Foundry Row was built, a concrete median strip was installed on Reisterstown Road, making it impossible for drivers to head south from Painters Mill Road onto Reisterstown Road and make a left turn on St. Thomas Lane. Drivers wishing to use St. Thomas Lane—it’s busy for such a small road, serving as an access road to Garrison Forest School, to Caves Road, and to other parts of the Greenspring valley—would have to turn right on Reisterstown Road, drive a quarter mile or so, then make a U-turn to come back to St. Thomas Lane.
Gutwald’s letter to Councilman Patoka references the benefits of eliminating the need for U-turns.
According to Finnerty, the median strip arrangement has proved to be enough of a deterrent to keep traffic manageable on St. Thomas Lane. He says that Foundry Row, which the Greater Greenspring Association supported, for the most part works. “It’s a really positive thing for the community,” he says. “It’s not like we always fight development.”
However, he says, the service road would create “access right onto St. Thomas Lane, which would basically circumvent the whole idea of putting in that median in the middle of the road there.”
Finnerty says he’s talked to neighbors, the representatives for the property owners, and representatives for the new businesses, and nobody wants the new road.
Who would pay for it?
The question of who would pay for and maintain the service road remains unanswered. The neighborhood refers to it as a private service road, which suggests that costs would be borne by some combination of the community and developers. Gutwald deferred requests for information about the service road to the county communications office, and that office has not said who will be financially responsible.
Finnerty thinks the burden of paying for and maintaining the service road would fall to the developers. But he isn’t certain.
A hearing has been set for April 26 at 10:00 am to discuss the project.
Where is the map of planned route?