Keep University Park Connected

More than a minor inconvenience, diverters push real, measurable costs onto many residents.

Some may argue that it is neighborly to spend “a couple of extra minutes” on a driving route. But for people who commute on these routes every day, those extra minutes add up to unacceptable negative impacts.

We drove the route. Diverting traffic at the Clagett-Pineway intersection to eliminate the straight-line commute between Queens Chapel and Adelphi adds approximately 2.5–3 minutes one way, or 5–6 minutes round trip, based on the route tested.

Over a five-day work week, that is roughly a half-hour of additional commuting time. Over a month, it can approach two hours. Over a year of weekday commuting, the cumulative cost can become an entire day of life spent driving around our town.

And that is for one person making one daily round trip. Multiply that by the number of family members who use the route, and the costs become very clear—and unacceptable.

Time estimates above use the stated 2.5–3 minute one-way route increase and a 260-workday year. Actual impacts will vary by driver, time of day, route, and traffic conditions.

People should drive on the roads that were designed to handle the traffic.

Clagett Road was designed to handle the traffic that flows from Adelphi to Queens Chapel. If you have ever gotten the impression that Woodberry is a narrower road than Clagett, you were right.

We measured. Clagett Road is approximately 1/2 foot wider than Woodberry. Moreover, Clagett only has parking on one side of the road. Both factors allow traffic in both directions to move more smoothly through Clagett.

Diverters are a reactive, long-term solution to yesterday's temporary problem.

We all felt the pain of Purple Line construction at the intersection of Adelphi Road and Route 193. During construction, more cars than usual came through town.

But with that construction completed, even residents who live near the exits to Route 1 acknowledge that traffic coming through town has lessened.

Why pursue a dramatic redesign of town roads, with inconvenience and unintended consequences for many residents, to solve a problem that has already changed with the end of construction?

Moving forward with diverters can become a sunk-cost fallacy.

The Town invested considerable money and time studying traffic from the end of 2024 into 2025. That money has been spent—and it cannot be recovered.

It is human nature to want something to come out of money already spent. But past spending should not determine today's decision if circumstances have materially changed.

The right question is not, “How do we make use of the study we already paid for?” The right question is, “Given what we know today, what solution best serves University Park?”

Past Town Councils and Mayors have also studied traffic and transportation issues in University Park. That history is useful context, but it should not create an obligation to pursue a solution simply because the issue has been studied before.

Is it really cheaper?

A traffic diverter may look inexpensive when its price is compared only with the construction cost of another traffic-calming project. But the full cost of a transportation decision is broader.

Residents also bear the cost of additional driving time, additional fuel consumption, changed routes, potential congestion on neighboring streets, and the inconvenience of navigating around barriers every day.

Those costs deserve to be included when alternatives are compared.

Diverters have different impacts depending on where you live.

A town-wide discussion should not treat every resident's travel experience as identical. A diverter at one connection can have very different consequences for residents in different parts of town.

Residents should be able to see how proposed changes affect common trips such as:

• Getting from Queens Chapel toward Adelphi and Route 1.
• Traveling between the northern and southern parts of town.
• Getting to schools, churches, groceries, and other destinations.
• Reaching Route 1 without being redirected onto narrower streets.
• Returning home from work or errands during peak traffic.

We are not a gated community. Why are we trying to become a de facto one?

One of the stated goals of the traffic subcommittee is to “improve the atmosphere” of the Town.

We think a good atmosphere is a welcoming atmosphere—not one that sets up barriers to our neighbors in College Heights Estates, Calvert Hills, and beyond.

University Park is not a community of elitists. We welcome others. People from outside town come through University Park for many reasons: to attend University Park Elementary and Northwestern High, to worship, to shop for their families at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods, and to visit family and friends.

We do not actually know how the mapping algorithms will respond.

One of the main arguments for diverters is that adding time to the route through town will cause Waze, Google Maps, and other navigation apps to stop routing people through University Park.

That is an assumption. We do not control the algorithms, and we cannot force private mapping companies to stop routing drivers over public streets.

If adding a couple of minutes to a route through town still makes it shorter than alternatives—such as traveling from Adelphi to Route 410 and then up to Route 1—drivers may continue to use the route.

In other words, diverters may depend in part on a prediction about how navigation systems will behave. What is not a prediction is that residents forced to take longer routes will spend more time driving.

Ironically, making residents drive longer may increase traffic within town by putting more resident trips onto longer and potentially more complicated routes.

Traffic volume is not the same as unsafe driving.

Speeding, blowing through stop signs, tailgating, and other unsafe driver behaviors should be addressed with measures that target those behaviors.

Trying to keep “outsiders” out will not necessarily stop dangerous driving. It may, however, make residents spend longer on the roads.

It may also encourage drivers to choose less safe routes. For example, accessing Adelphi Road from Tennyson Road—where there is a curve and no traffic light—could become more attractive than using the safer exit at the light at Wells Parkway.

The Town's materials identify several traffic-calming approaches. Residents should be allowed to weigh their costs, safety benefits, and unintended impacts.

Diverters divide our town—in more ways than one.

We have heard a “fairness” argument: because Queens Chapel was closed, residents at other exit points in town should be allowed to limit access to their own roads as well.

But Queens Chapel Road bisects the town. Closing it had the effect of allowing residents to cross from one side of town to the other more easily and more safely.

Diverters do the opposite. They can turn straightforward daily routes into complicated trips around barriers.

Residents deserve clear opportunities to understand proposals and share their perspectives.

Recent listserv discussions do not tell the whole story, but they provide a picture of significant concern about proposed diverters. We have seen an underlying theme of surprise and dismay at the proposals, along with a clear desire to give input.

A circulating petition against diverters has already gathered several hundred signatures.

Residents should not have to search through old meeting minutes or learn about major proposals by chance. We call on elected representatives to proactively solicit constituent feedback and make decisions in response to what the community wants.