The Great Squeeze on Transportation

Lost in all the coverage of Maryland’s projected $1.6 billion general fund deficit is another conclusion drawn by state budget analysts: the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) “may not be able to deliver its planned capital program.”

A capital budget is an exercise in balancing. On one side, available revenues – usually from taxes, transfers and bonds – must be calculated on an annual basis for a number of years. Maryland uses a six-year budget. On the other side, a list of projects must be entered that cost no more than the revenues to be realized. But since most of these projects are likely to be multi-year, they have to be inserted in such a way that each year is roughly balanced between spending and revenue. If the budget gets out of balance – usually through a shortfall of revenue – then projects have to be delayed and/or cancelled. That’s exactly what happened in 2008, when deteriorating revenues caused by the recession caused MDOT to “defer” $1.1 billion in capital projects.

In the same Spending Affordability Briefing that projected a $1.6 billion general fund deficit, the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services (DLS) predicted that would happen again. The Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) receives revenues from taxes and fees (like the gas tax, the titling tax and license fees), operating income (like rail and bus fares and airport revenue) and bond sales. Out of those revenues, it must pay for debt service on bonds, operating expenses (like MARC, the airports and snow removal) and capital spending. Since items like debt service, airport operations and snow removal are pretty much mandatory, that means revenue shortfalls will fall disproportionately onto the capital budget. DLS believes MDOT has been optimistic about projecting the amount of money that will be left over for capital spending for three primary reasons:

Less Tax Revenues
DLS states that MDOT has overestimated the amounts the TTF can collect from titling taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes and corporate income taxes, all of which are revenue sources for transportation. MDOT projects that titling tax revenues will increase by 7.6% per year over the next six years. DLS projects an annual 6.8% increase. That disagreement alone produces a $405 million shortfall. DLS believes the combined shortfall in tax revenues for the TTF will be $619 million over six years.

Higher Operating Budget Growth
MDOT projects that its operating budget – which, like its capital budget, depends on TTF revenues – will grow by 4.0% annually over the next six years. DLS notes that the ten-year historic rate of MDOT’s operating budget has been 5.4%. DLS estimates a 5.3% operating budget growth rate over the next six years and that siphons off $395 million that would otherwise go to capital projects.

The State is at its Debt Limit
Maryland has almost run out of bonding capacity. That has been caused by gigantic increases in allowable debt. General obligation bonds outstanding have risen from $3.3 billion in FY 2000 to a projected $8.6 billion in FY 2016 – an increase of 157%. Transportation bonds outstanding have risen from $725 million in FY 2000 to a projected $2.4 billion in FY 2016 – an increase of 238%.

State policy defines its debt limit in two ways. First, the outstanding tax-supported debt should not exceed 4% of state personal income. That ratio is projected to be 3.50% in FY 2013. Second, debt service should not exceed 8% of state revenues. That ratio is 6.87% in FY 2011 and is projected to hit 7.89% in FY 2016. If the state exceeds these levels, it may endanger its AAA bond rating.

This is going to have a direct impact on the TTF. DLS says, “Due to less revenue and higher levels of operating budget spending, bond sales are constrained throughout the six-year period.” The projected loss for the TTF: $1.39 billion.

Here is a graphic comparison of the difference between the MDOT forecast and two DLS forecasts of transportation spending over the next six years. The line at the top represents MDOT’s forecast. The two bars are forecasts from DLS, with the more optimistic forecast showing what would happen if MDOT loosened its bond coverage standards. In the out years, the shortfalls run into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.


What happens to capital spending if DLS is right? DLS estimates that slow increases in revenues, rising debt service payments and rising MDOT operating costs will squeeze out the money available for transportation projects. In FY 2010, the state spent $1.4 billion on transportation projects, of which $794 million came from the federal government. In FY 2016, DLS projects that the state will spend just $748 million on transportation projects, of which $388 million will come from the feds. The state’s own spending on transportation will shrink from $575 million in FY 2010 to $360 million in FY 2016.


So what does this all mean?

No New Projects
As of 2008, MDOT could barely keep up with system preservation. If it has to make another round of project cuts, it may not be able to afford any new projects at all. As it is, MDOT’s Consolidated Transportation Program is packed with projects that are funded for planning but not construction. How large can that backlog grow?

Trouble Funding New Transit
DLS said in its evaluation of MDOT’s budget, “MDOT’s current forecast does not account for the operating or capital impact of large capital projects such as the three different transit lines under consideration.” Translation: the state cannot afford its share of the Red Line, the Purple Line or the CCT. The state government would owe about $800 million each for the Red Line and the Purple Line and between $225 million and $400 million for the CCT. In FY 2016, DLS projects that the state will be spending $360 million of its own money for its entire transportation budget with little or no extra bonding capacity.

So how does the state propose to deal with this problem? No one is saying, but Governor O’Malley and the General Assembly’s presiding officers are united in opposing any revenue increases. If they are serious, that fact combined with the evaporation of federal stimulus funding will pressure the state to divert transportation money to the general fund.

And then all of the above will get worse.

Read More...

Summary only...

Did Rich Madaleno Try to Kill the Purple Line?

Last week, we wrote about a proposal originating in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee that would have recommended that the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) study heavy rail for the Red Line, Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). We characterized the language as a “poison pill for transit” that would have subjected the three projects to waste, delay and increased costs and possibly put them behind competitor projects seeking federal funding. Purple Line supporters in Montgomery County immediately accused Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18), a long-time Purple Line rail opponent, of being behind the language. That prompted us to investigate.

Madaleno represents District 18, which includes Chevy Chase, Kensington, Silver Spring and Wheaton. A group of residents in and near Chevy Chase oppose building the Purple Line as a rail project since it would run along the Capital Crescent Trail, which they believe would be endangered by it. The trail cuts through the golf course owned by the Columbia Country Club, so they too oppose running rail through it and even tried to organize a fake “grass roots campaign” against it. In part because of the influence of residents, many District 18 officials have opposed at-grade rail on the trail, including former House Majority Leader John Hurson, former Delegate Jane Lawton, and current Delegates Jeff Waldstreicher and Al Carr. Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez defiantly supports rail and has been elected to the legislature twice despite that fact.

Madaleno is definitely a rail opponent. In 2003, then-District 18 Delegate John Hurson – a wily strategist who was at that time one of Montgomery County’s most prominent state legislators – cut a deal with new Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich to study the Purple Line as a bus project off the trail. When Hurson introduced a bill to prohibit construction of the Purple Line as a rail project, then-freshman District 18 Delegate Rich Madaleno was its only co-sponsor. Hurson retired from the legislature in 2005, but Madaleno ran uncontested for the District 18 Senate seat in 2006 and has been rising through Annapolis ever since. Madaleno remains a Purple Line rail opponent. Last year, he said the following in his testimony about the project before MTA:

During the course of my 20 years in and around the General Assembly, I have seen and heard all of the arguments for and against the Purple Line. After many years of discussion, planning, and community outreach, I still have very serious reservations about this project, from a fiscal standpoint, from an operational standpoint, and with regards to the effects it will have on the communities in our region…

Quite frankly, the state does not have the resources to pay for any of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT) options. Over the past decade, the only major new construction projects the state has moved forward with have been funded primarily with toll-backed revenue bonds. There are no alternative funding mechanisms available for this project. As a member of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, I feel confident in reporting that no new revenue options appear politically feasible in the foreseeable future.

So when the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee insisted that the three transit projects be studied as heavy rail – a move exposing them to waste, delay and cost increases – Purple Line supporters believed Madaleno was behind it. As the only known Purple Line rail opponent on the committee, he was a logical suspect.

But it’s just not true.

Multiple sources confirm that the language originated with Baltimore City Senator George Della (D-46). Della represents Baltimore’s Canton neighborhood, which opposes the MTA’s chosen Red Line alignment since it runs at-grade rail on one of their main streets. As a result, Della is an open opponent of the current Red Line configuration. On behalf of his constituents, Della asked Senator Ed DeGrange (D-32), who chairs the Capital Budget and Public Safety, Transportation and Environment Subcommittees, to introduce language requiring heavy rail study for the Red Line only. Baltimore City Senator Verna Jones (D-44), who supports the Red Line, told us on the record that she amended the language to include the Purple Line and CCT so that none of the three projects would be disadvantaged relative to the others. Senator Jones also told us on the record that Madaleno had nothing to do with the matter.

Following is the relevant language approved by the Budget and Taxation Committee:

Impact of Federal Changes on New Start Projects: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recently announced major changes to its New Starts justification criteria. The changes in the criteria could have impacts on the major transit lines that the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is currently evaluating. In light of the changes in the criteria, MTA shall do a full study of any and all reasonable heavy rail or automated guide way alternatives, including alternative alignments for the Red Line, the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway. MTA should also consult with various transit rider groups in the preparation of this study.

There’s one more wrinkle here. The language above was not included in the budget bill. If it was, it would have binding force of law. Instead, it is “narrative language” from the committee, meaning that the committee is requesting the studies from MTA. We are told that whether MTA is actually required to complete the studies by this language is an ambiguous question.

In any event, the House has rejected the language at the behest of Prince George’s County Delegate Tawanna Gaines (D-22), a House Appropriations Committee member and solid Purple Line supporter. Whether it survives budget negotiations between the two chambers is anyone’s guess.

Purple Line advocates need to keep the big picture in mind. The Purple Line has to pass three hurdles to become a reality. First, it has to be designed as a cost effective project that makes a significant, long-term contribution to the area’s transit system. Project supporters won that battle when the Governor settled on a light rail configuration using the Capital Crescent Trail. Second, the project has to receive federal funding. That is a matter of bureaucratic negotiation between MTA and the Federal Transit Administration. It is unlikely that either supporters or opponents can influence that process other than by slipping microphones spouting their messages under the bureaucrats’ pillows late at night. Third, the state has to come up with its share of the financing. This is a critical issue. The General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services believes the Transportation Trust Fund is in such dire condition that the state may have to pick just one transit project to fund – assuming it can afford any of them. If the Purple Line makes it past the feds, state funding will be a HUGE issue.

And here is where Madaleno can be an ally. While he has not been supportive of the Purple Line, he has an outstanding record on seeking new money for transportation. The General Assembly has shown a disgraceful unwillingness to raise money for transportation projects. They will never pass a revenue increase without the support of the Montgomery County delegation, and Madaleno is the delegation’s Senate Chair. Furthermore, Madaleno’s budget expertise will be needed to craft a revenue increase that will be both adequate and politically feasible. So whether they like it or not, Purple Line advocates need Madaleno’s help in making sure the state can afford its share of the project costs. That help will be easier to obtain in the absence of unfounded accusations.

Disclosure: The author is the Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team, which includes Senator Madaleno.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poison Pill for Transit (Updated)

The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee has recommended that the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), which is responsible for planning the three major transit projects under consideration by the state, return to the drawing board to study heavy rail options for all three. Whether the Senators asked for this in good faith or bad faith, the proposal is in fact a poison pill that threatens the viability of all three projects.

The reason is cost. In order to receive federal funding, transit projects are evaluated on the basis of cost per hour of user benefit. The lower this ratio is, the more cost effective the project is and the greater the likelihood it will be funded. The Obama administration is re-evaluating federal rules for funding transit projects – and that is probably a good thing – but it is inconceivable that some measure of cost effectiveness will not be included.

In an earlier blog post, we demonstrated that all-surface light rail on Baltimore’s Red Line, BRT on the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and multiple light rail and BRT options for the Purple Line all passed the federal cost effectiveness threshold. Subsequently, the state picked light rail options for both the Red and Purple Lines and began the process of competing for federal funds for those projects. (No option has been picked yet for the CCT.) The Red Line barely passed muster as light rail. MTA insisted on burying it through a large part of Downtown Baltimore and had to use a danger-prone single track tunnel and last-minute ridership “revisions” to squeeze it past federal standards. But the Purple Line is not much below the federal cost effectiveness threshold either. So as light rail projects, the two transit lines are competitive with dozens of other projects from around the country, but neither is a sure thing. Given this cost structure with light rail, MTA head planner Henry Kay is 100% correct when he criticized the feasibility of more expensive heavy rail:

Henry Kay, deputy administrator of the MTA, said he didn’t expect the study to change anything. He said it was “impossible” that the federal government would find a heavy rail alternative suitable for Baltimore. Cohen and others have argued that the MTA didn’t study heavy rail in enough detail.

The budget language originally only included the Red Line, but was extended to the other two transit proposals before a final committee vote.

Kay said it would set the MTA’s planning back years if it had to study heavy rail as comprehensively as it had looked into the light rail plans. He said the agency’s preliminary take was that heavy rail would not make the cut, even in light of the new regulations.

“It was far out of the range of what is being considered nationally,” he said.

The House has not passed such a provision and is currently negotiating the budget with the Senate. If the Senate’s provision holds, it will have three outcomes.

1. Waste
MTA has already spent $47 million to study the Red Line, $43 million to study the Purple Line and $8 million to study the CCT. Each project has tens of millions of dollars in additional spending scheduled over the next several years. This demonstrates a central fact: planning costs lots and LOTS of money. If the three transit projects have to be carefully budgeted to be viable as light rail, why bother to study heavy rail options which are absolutely sure to cost more money and fail federal cost effectiveness tests?

2. Delay
Planning is both expensive and time consuming. Study of heavy rail options will delay all three projects for several years, causing them to fall behind competitors from across the country in the funding queue. And that is not all: they could fail to receive funding entirely. While the Obama administration has expressed an interest in steering more money to transit, there is no assurance that future administrations will share that commitment.

3. Cost Increases
The end product of delay is cost increases. Now is a good time for owners to build because the global recession has dampened demand for both labor and materials. But as years pass and the economy recovers, costs are bound to go up. That means even if the Red Line or the Purple Line wind up getting built after years of delay, they will cost much, much more. And those cost increases will come directly from the pockets of Maryland taxpayers.

And so the Senate is dispensing a poison pill for transit. Will the House swallow it? We’ll see.

Update: The House rejected the proposal. The two chambers still have to reconcile their conflicting budget language.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Great Choir of Happy Talk

Today, we are going to let you in on a little secret. Transportation projects are built with happy talk. Tax revenues are not necessary. What, didn’t you know? All of Annapolis knows this, and now so do you.

Why do we say this? Because this is what we hear from our leaders. We trust them, right? Our Governor announced that he wants to build a light-rail Purple Line at a cost of $1.517 billion. On the same day, the Governor announced that he wants to build a light-rail Red Line at a cost of $1.63 billion.

And of course, let’s not forget the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). The state has made no commitments regarding its mode and alignment, but the CCT’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) estimates a capital cost ranging from $450 million for bus-rapid transit to $778 million for light rail. No one is ruling out the CCT. In fact, our leaders are encouraging us to believe that we can have all three projects!

So how are we going to pay for them? Well, we are going to apply for federal money. But the three projects will have to compete with other transit lines from across the country. And the Federal Transit Administration’s approval process is arduous. But let’s assume that all this Happy Talk is correct and our three projects will beat everybody else from all over the U.S. What about the money?

The Governor said this about the Purple Line in the Gazette: “...We are assuming at least half the projected $1.5 billion cost would come from discretionary federal funds that will otherwise go to another state.” Separately, the Gazette reported that the state would have to pony up $900 million each for its share of the Red Line and the Purple Line. So for the two projects, the state’s share would range from $1.6-$1.8 billion. Half the cost of the CCT would add $225-389 million. What does that mean for taxpayers?

Last year, the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services calculated that a one-cent increase in the gas tax would raise about $30 million per year in revenue. Now none of the three transit lines will be built overnight. Let’s be generous and assume that the cost of any of them would be spread over the entire six-year horizon of the state’s Consolidated Transportation Program. That means the Red Line would cost $136-150 million per year in state money, the Purple Line would cost $126-150 million per year in state money and the CCT would cost $38-65 million per year in state money. Those amounts are not laying around in the state’s already-depleted Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), so they would have to be raised through new revenues. Divide all of the above amounts by $30 million – the state’s estimate of the yield of one-cent of gas tax – and the gas tax would have to go up by 4.5-5 cents for the Red Line, 4.2-5 cents for the Purple Line and 1.3-2.2 cents for the CCT.

But there’s more. The rest of the state will not simply pay more gas taxes for the sole benefit of the four jurisdictions served by these three transit projects (Baltimore City and Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties). If there is any revenue hike, the other jurisdictions will demand money for their priorities. It’s only fair and that is how Annapolis works. The four jurisdictions above account for about half of the state’s population. So if the rest of the state is to benefit equally from a revenue hike, the above figures would have to be doubled. If the money is raised from a gas tax hike, the tax would have to go up by 20-24.3 cents. The present gas tax, which has not changed since 1992, is 23.5 cents. In other words, to pay for the state’s share of all three transit projects plus an equal amount for the rest of the state’s transportation needs, the gas tax would have to DOUBLE.

How likely is that to happen?

During the 2007 special session, the General Assembly turned down the Governor’s proposal to index the gas tax. Instead, the legislature raised a projected $400 million per year by boosting the titling tax and devoting a portion of sales and corporate income taxes to the TTF. These changes were supposed to generate $150 million for new projects and $250 million for system preservation every year. But by November 2008, the changes were only collecting an extra $265 million per year, almost all of which was going to maintenance. In other words, the last great effort to raise more money for transportation has almost completely failed to generate ANY money for new projects.

How many legislators are serious about raising more money for transportation? Very few. Here are the only ones to sponsor or co-sponsor revenue-raising bills since the special session:

Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39) – lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by 10 cents. Also the lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by a half-cent and index it.

Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16) – lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to index the gas tax.

Delegates Sheila Hixson (D-20), Jon Cardin (D-11) and Bill Frick (D-16) – co-sponsored a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by 5 cents.

Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) – lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by 5 cents and redistribute its proceeds.

That’s right, people – exactly SIX of the 188 state legislators have put their names on bills to raise more money for transportation since the special session. None of them came from Baltimore City (which would get most of the Red Line) or Prince George’s County (which would get part of the Purple Line). And none of these bills would have raised enough money to fund the state’s share of its multiple transit proposals, much less all the other worthy projects in Maryland. Meanwhile, fifteen legislators – including thirteen Republicans – co-sponsored a 2009 bill that would have cut transportation funding. Two of these legislators - Delegates Joseph Boteler (R-8) and William Frank (R-42) - represent Baltimore County, which would get four stations on the Red Line. They swim in the murkiest alligator pit of hypocrisy.

None of this matters, we are told. We can have it all – the Red Line, the Purple Line, the CCT and lots of other nice things too. Maybe there will be a little bit of a revenue hike after the election. But what happens if gas sells for $4+ per gallon in 2011? What happens if Democrats lose state seats over the issue of taxes and the economy? What happens if President Obama’s numbers are down further and Democrats suffer massive losses in Congress? What then? The Lords of Annapolis don’t want us to ask these questions. It’s not real nice of us to do so.

And so in the Great Choir of Happy Talk, nearly all of the state politicians of both parties and all regions are singing along. Happy talk buys what revenue increases will not. Everyone inside Annapolis wins.

Everyone outside Annapolis loses.

Read More...

Summary only...

State Legislators Advocate for Light Rail on CCT

A group of thirteen Montgomery County state legislators has written to the Governor asking him to select light rail for the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). The group includes every legislator from Districts 15, 17 and 39 - which account for the entire alignment of the project - except for Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17). Additionally, District 14 Delegate Karen Montgomery and District 14 Senator Rona Kramer signed on. Kramer, along with District 39 Senator Nancy King, is a member of the Senate's critical Budget and Taxation Committee. The County Council voted 6-3 to support light rail, with Council Members Phil Andrews, Marc Elrich and Roger Berliner supporting bus rapid transit instead.

Following is the joint letter.

Read More...

Summary only...

Andrews: Widen I-270, BRT for CCT

County Council President Phil Andrews, who represents Rockville and Gaithersburg, has issued a memo explaining his support for adding two reversible lanes to I-270 and constructing the CCT as bus rapid transit.

Andrews favors adding two reversible lanes to I-270 that would be restricted to carpools, buses, motorcycles and drivers paying a congestion-priced toll. His rationale is that adding two lanes rather than four would save hundreds of millions of dollars and reduce adverse impacts of the project. He favors BRT on the CCT because of lower cost, greater federal competitiveness and the fact that high density in Gaithersburg West, which he opposes, would be necessary to make light rail cost effective.

Two months ago, we identified Andrews as the key voice on the I-270 debate. The fact that he represents a district that is home to much of the I-270 project, the CCT and the Gaithersburg West master plan combined with his previous opposition to the ICC and refusal to take developer contributions makes him difficult for road opponents to target. Now that Andrews has come out in favor of a build option for I-270, the County Council seems likely to debate competing build options rather than arguing over build vs. no-build. The council is scheduled to vote on a recommendation for both I-270 and the CCT tomorrow.

We reprint Andrews' memo to the rest of the council below.

Read More...

Summary only...

Reznik and Barkley: Build CCT Now, Study More Transit Later

Here's an interesting take on the CCT/all-transit debate from District 39 Delegates Kirill Reznik and Charles Barkley: they want to build the CCT now and study the other transit options named by Action Committee for Transit later. We reprint their letter to the County Council below.

Read More...

Summary only...

State Legislators Urge Council to Back Rail CCT, Question ACT All-Transit Option

A letter organized by Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15) and signed by seven other state legislators representing areas along the CCT's alignment urges the County Council to support rail for the project and expresses skepticism about Action Committee for Transit's (ACT) all-transit option for the corridor.

The County Council will soon make a recommendation to MDOT about its preferred option for the I-270 widening project as well as the CCT. In July, the council's Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee recommended adding express toll lanes to I-270 and using bus rapid transit (BRT) for the CCT. But the committee said it might change its mind about the CCT if higher density numbers from the pending Gaithersburg West Master Plan made rail feasible. That same month, a group of state legislators wrote MDOT in support of adding toll lanes as well as a light rail CCT. But ACT opposes widening I-270 and proposed an all-transit plan for the corridor instead. Another group of state legislators wrote MDOT to urge them to study the all-transit plan. Five legislators inexplicably signed both letters - one favoring extra lanes and the other opposing them.

Now MDOT has complicated the matter by insisting that ACT's all-transit option would delay the CCT for years because it would re-start the planning process for the corridor. That did not sit well with Senator Garagiola and seven of his colleagues, all of whom represent the area in which the CCT would be built and support light rail for the project. In the letter below, they urge the County Council to back a light rail CCT and they criticize ACT's proposal because - according to MDOT - it would delay the CCT "well over a decade."

Interestingly, two Delegates - Kathleen Dumais (D-15) and Jim Gilchrist (D-17) - signed all three letters. Those letters, respectively, called for widening I-270, studying ACT's all-transit plan and rejecting ACT's all-transit plan (below). Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) signed the latter two letters.

We reprint the newest letter below.

Read More...

Summary only...

MDOT Goes Schizo on Gaithersburg West

So would the Planning Board’s proposed Gaithersburg West Master Plan be a bad idea because it would gridlock local roads and require vast sums of money to redo intersections? Or would it be a good idea because it would make a light-rail CCT cost effective? According to the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the answer is both.

In September, we reported that two MDOT subsidiaries, the State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), wrote a letter of concern to the County Council about the Gaithersburg West plan. In language expressed in an unusually strong dialect of bureaucratese, the agencies objected to the $1.3 billion cost of rebuilding interchanges that would be necessitated by the plan. They also stated their belief that the plan’s reliance on commercial space over housing would draw in commuters from other areas, thereby increasing the strain on the regional transportation network. The implication of these arguments is that the plan’s density, currently proposed at 20 million square feet of commercial space, should be reduced.

However, there may be a positive impact of the plan’s density: it could help build the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) as light rail. In July, we reported that Gaithersburg’s current density level generated ridership that would make bus rapid transit (BRT), but not light rail, competitive under federal cost effectiveness criteria. But in a new letter that we reproduce below, MTA believes that if the CCT were re-aligned through the bulked-up Science City proposed by the Gaithersburg West plan, it would gain a 15-40% boost in ridership. Since capital costs would only go up by 11-16%, the CCT might now be viable as rail. The Gazette reported that MTA’s CCT project manager told the council that the new alignment through the dense area of the plan would have a cost effectiveness range of $18-19 per hour of user benefit, which is superior to light rail on the Purple Line. But the density proposed by the Gaithersburg West plan is required to make these numbers work.



This poses an interesting question to the County Council, which will soon decide on the density to be allowed in the Gaithersburg West plan. On the one hand, almost everyone prefers rail to BRT. The County Executive, the business community, many state legislators and Action Committee for Transit are all on the record for rail. And even though the council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee recommended BRT, it reserved the right to change its mind if higher densities permitted the feasibility of rail. The county’s pro-rail mindset does not apply to the CCT alone, but reflects a general sense that BRT cannot handle long-run high ridership capacities and is a “second-class” option compared to trains.

But there is also intense resistance to both the scale and the form of the Gaithersburg West plan from the civic and smart growth communities. The former will fight endlessly against a “city” in their midst while the latter has not yet acknowledged the tradeoff between density and transit mode.

How will this play out at the County Council? Let’s remember that Council Members are not planners. They are unlikely to whip out spreadsheets and plat maps and rewrite the Gaithersburg West plan wholesale. But they will adjust the density levels. The current allowable density in the plan is 20 million square feet of commercial space. The County Executive would like to see 18 million. Some on the council would like to go lower. In these sorts of situations, the natural inclination of politicians is to pick a number that everyone can live with.

But this is not a conventional split-the-difference issue. The problem is that MDOT’s schizophrenic messages reflect the actual facts on the ground. The Gaithersburg West plan would require huge infrastructure costs and it would enable a light-rail CCT. Density reductions would lower costs but might also result in BRT. Council President Phil Andrews, who represents Gaithersburg, sees this tradeoff clearly. Andrews told the Gazette, “I don’t think that light rail can be the tail that wags the dog, or is the Holy Grail here, either. It’s not the end goal. The end goal is to build a better community for everybody and to figure out what that balance is." For Andrews, that means cutting density no matter what the consequences for transit mode.

How will the rest of the council see this? We’ll find out soon enough.

Read More...

Summary only...

SHA Answers Council’s Questions on I-270

The County Council sent a list of questions to the State Highway Administration (SHA) about the I-270 project and SHA has responded. Here are the questions and answers that caught our attention.

Question:
The Alternative Analysis/Environmental Assessment stipulates that the funding strategy for the I2-70 widening would be a combination of Federal highway funds, State transportation funds, and toll revenue. What are the anticipated funding amounts from each of these revenue sources? (An estimated range for each would suffice.)

Answer:
There are insufficient future federal allocations to the State of Maryland to accommodate a project of the magnitude of the entire I-270 improvements. As the CCT is funded through the next phase and the highway portion is not, the highway portion will be slightly different and proceed at a different pace. The highway portion of this multi-modal study will progress as several breakout projects once we are in a position to look at allocating funding for future phases of the project. At that time, MDOT will assess the appropriate funding sources (Federal, State, bonds, etc.) that are available to fund the various types of breakout projects, including the transit portion.

Our Take:
MDOT does not know how it would fund I-270 widening, but it plans on breaking the project up into smaller pieces. That might make it easier to schedule financing, but it will delay completion of the entire project by years.

Question:
Please identify the Federal aid programs from which funding the I-270 widening is anticipated. Which of these programs currently allow funding to be “flexed” from highways to transit and which do not?

Answer:
The majority of federal highway funds can be flexed either between specific highway programs or from highway to transit. To provide one example, up to 50 percent of the National Highway System (NHS) funds can be transferred to the Surface Transportation Program (STP) category. Up to 100 percent can be transferred to the STP category if approved by the Secretary of USDOT to be in the public interest. NHS funds cannot be flexed directly to transit; however, any amount of STP funds can be flexed from highways to transit. Because of the insufficient future of funding allocations, it would be premature for MDOT to specify the programs from which funding for the project is anticipated.

Question:
Are these statements about the Transportation Trust Fund, from MDOT’s web site, still true? “All funds dedicated to the Department are deposited in the Trust Fund and disbursements for all programs and projects are made from the Trust Fund. Revenues are not earmarked for specific programs…” “The Transportation Trust Fund permits the State tremendous flexibility to meet the needs of a diverse transportation system.”

Answer:
This comment is true for the State funds. Federal funds, however, are disbursed through the FHWA and FTA, independently. On the State level, while the flexibility is there, there is a limit to the funds available for highway and transit projects and how they will be distributed throughout the state. FHWA funds can be used for bus/HOV lanes where they are feasible, or for creating park and ride lots, or other Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) measures. FHWA funds cannot be directly used for transit-only capital improvements on new alignments; they come under the purview of the FTA, and funds would need to be shifted at the federal level.

Our Take:
This addresses a key question: can highway money be moved dollar-for-dollar to transit projects? The answer is yes for state money. But there are restrictions on how the state can spend federal money that can only be resolved by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation.

Question:
If toll-backed bonds (i.e. GARVEE bonds) are used for this project, what is the anticipated debt service/interest obligation that the State will incur (expressed either as a range or absolute dollars or as a % of the total principal financed)? Will bond-financing for this project limit the ability of the State to bond-finance transit projects, and if not, what would be the impact on its bond-rating?

Answer:
GARVEE bonds are backed by future federal-aid allocations to the State. State law currently caps the amount of GARVEE bonds that can be issued in Maryland to the $750 million committed to the ICC project. Because of the insufficient future of funding allocations, it would be premature for MDOT to specify the financing from which funding for the project is anticipated.

Our Take:
The General Assembly normally has no control over which transportation projects get built. But if toll-backed bonds are used to finance I-270 – a virtual certainty if the project goes forward – the legislature will have to approve a hike in the state’s debt limit. That guarantees some interesting politicking down the road.

Question:
What is your initial analysis of the cost and benefits of the all-transit alternative offered by the Action Committee for Transit (attached)?

Answer:
The proposal set forth by Action Committee for Transit (ACT) is of such a magnitude as to require considerable time and effort to fully analyze costs and benefits. Our initial preliminary analysis of the all-transit alternative proposed by ACT is such that it would not benefit the full range of transportation-system users within the I-270 Multi-Modal Study project area, such as freight carriers and through route long distance travelers. It also appears that the Vision 270 plan has not been analyzed using a recent transportation and land use model that reflects future conditions, whereas the corridor alternatives in the I-270 study were analyzed using the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) land use and transportation models which do take into consideration future conditions.

Question:
What would be the time-delay and cost of studying this or other all-transit alternatives in comparison to the I-270 widening options?

Answer:
The study team already performed a preliminary study of an all-transit alternative prior to the issuance of the DEIS. Based on capital costs and proposed ridership, none of the all-transit alternatives, other than the use of express bus on an improved I-270 linked with the Corridor Cities Transitway, provided user benefits that would meet both the cost effectiveness criteria established by the FTA and the purpose and need for the Multi-Modal Study. The results of the all-transit alternatives that were dropped from further study prior to the DEIS only provided a modest decrease in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on I-270.

Essentially, this would re-start the NEPA process for each project, including the CCT. These projects would need to go through NEPA and each be independently developed using the FTA New Starts project planning and development process in order to receive federal transit funds. The process is time consuming to complete and can require well over a decade to get a project through planning and design, construction and initiation of operation, and would cost several millions of dollars.

Our Take:
MDOT believes ACT’s all-transit plan could not meet federal cost effectiveness criteria. Further, MDOT claims that studying that plan would delay the CCT by restarting the planning process for the entire I-270 corridor. Did anyone tell the state legislators who signed the letter advocating for the all-transit option about this?

This response gives ammunition to both supporters and opponents of the I-270 project. We reprint it in full below.

Read More...

Summary only...

Two-Seventy Two-Step

Some people favor widening I-270 as one component of dealing with the corridor’s infamous state of gridlock. Other people oppose widening and would like to see an all-transit solution. Those would seem to be diametrically opposed views, right?

Not if you’re in politics!

On July 29, a group of state legislators signed a letter to the State Highway Administration calling for both I-270 widening and a light rail Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). On I-270, the letter said:

Additionally, we support two Express Toll Lanes (ETLs), as a component of this project, to help reduce congestion on I-270. We also think that the Montgomery County Planning Board's recommendation of reversible lanes is worth further exploration, as it could alleviate traffic congestion while mitigating negative environmental impacts. These ETLs should be combined with general-purpose lanes without tolls, so that these new transportation facilities will be financed in large part by private investments.

On September 8, a group of state legislators signed a different letter calling for study of an all-transit alternative to road widening. The letter said in part:

The large transportation investments proposed along I-270 will take years to implement, and they will shape the development of the corridor for decades. There is time to decide carefully and wisely. We request that you ask MDOT to add an all-transit alternative to this study. After a complete range of options is evaluated, policy-makers and the public will be able to choose the solutions that are best for our communities, our economy, and our environment.

Five Delegates signed both letters: Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Craig Rice (D-15), Jim Gilchrist (D-17), Charles Barkley (D-39) and Kirill Reznik (D-39). We asked them how they could call for road widening plus transit and then – just two months later – call for nothing but transit. Here are the responses we received:

Delegate Kathleen Dumais

With reference to your specific question, I do not think that the two letters I signed are inconsistent. All options should be explored. I strongly support the CCT and studying Express Toll Lanes for I-270.

In a second email, Delegate Dumais stated:

As I indicated in my previous E-mail, I do not think the letters are inconsistent. I believe all options should be reviewed -- without excluding one or the other. The truth of the matter is that a solution to the congestion should include both road improvements and transit.

Delegate Craig Rice

I went back and read both letters again and don’t believe they contradict each other. In Senator Garagiola’s letter the point was clear that the CCT was our top priority and in Chairman Hixson's letter it says we want them to look at a transit alternative. I have always been of the position that the CCT is our number one priority and as far as other transit needs, everything needs to be considered.

Delegate Kirill Reznik

In response to the concern over my having signed two letters to the Governor, one from Senator Garagiola and one from Delegate Hixson, I wanted to provide a response.

I do not believe that signing onto both letters was a contradiction. I have always advocated for and will continue to advocate for the Corridor Cities Transitway. It is imperative that mass transit is extended into Germantown and points north and long term, sustainable solutions are found to our ever growing need to travel and commute between Washington, DC, Montgomery and Frederick counties, and beyond.

That being said, I do not believe that any single solution will be satisfactory in dealing with traffic, and all reasonable options need to be explored. I also do not believe that a continued effort to explore other options should be an excuse for delay and inaction on the Multi-Modal Corridor Study.

First, let’s credit Delegates Dumais, Rice and Reznik for being willing to discuss this issue on the record. They have not joined Delegates Barkley and Gilchrist in whatever undisclosed location they are hiding.

But there is a real failure of logic here. The I-270 letter was an unambiguous statement of support for road widening as well as a light rail CCT. In their responses, Delegates Rice and Reznik omit any reference to their previous support of extra road lanes and proclaim only their fealty to transit. It is as if they never signed the first letter, which called for both. (Delegate Saqib Ali, on the other hand, withdrew his signature from the widening letter when he realized that it indeed called for widening.) Delegate Dumais reiterates her support of road widening while saying “all options should be reviewed.”

The problem is that review is costly. In planning money alone, the state has allocated $38 million for Baltimore’s Red Line, $36 million for the Purple Line, $9 million for the CCT and $17 million for I-270. Every additional project sent to study will cost millions – and probably tens of millions – more from a Transportation Trust Fund that is nearly broke. For a person who has never wanted more road lanes like Senator Brian Frosh (D-16), advocating use of that funding for extra transit projects is a logical and consistent position. But why would anyone who has already declared their support for road widening – as have the five Delegates above – advocate for spending tens of millions of dollars to study an all-transit plan that explicitly excludes the option that they have already picked?

Saying that you want both road widening and all-transit is like saying that you root for the NFL team that wears Redskins helmets and Cowboys uniforms. If football fans know better, shouldn’t our elected leaders?

Read More...

Summary only...

MTA, SHA "Clarify" Coverage of I-270 (Update)

The heads of the Maryland Transit Administration and the State Highway Administration wrote the following letter to the Baltimore Sun "clarifying" coverage of I-270. What will Baltimore Guy have to say about this?

August 31, 2009

The study of transit and highway improvements to the I-270 corridor has recently attracted some media attention. However, the coverage demands clarification. The state is conducting a long-range planning study that includes a variety of transportation options for the I-270 corridor; we haven't reached the point where a specific proposal will advance and others will retreat. With any comprehensive technical study, some options may prove viable in the future, while others may not. This exercise is comparable to other highway, transit and rail studies under way in regions throughout Maryland. It is important to put a range of planning concepts on the table for consideration, if we aim to address the state's serious transportation challenges.

Unfortunately, certain reports have suggested the state is simply proposing to widen the highway lanes along I-270. This suggestion does not serve the public well when, in fact, there are actually a variety of transit and highway options being examined. Transit alternatives include the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), a rapid bus or light rail system between Shady Grove and Clarksburg. The cost of the CCT ranges from $450 million to $777 million. Park and Ride improvements and improved bus service also are under study. Highway alternatives range from interchange improvements costing up to $500 million to construction of Express Toll Lanes that could potentially reach into the billions of dollars.

Contrary to the premise promoted by some, there is no multibillion-dollar decision pending. The displacement of residents is not imminent, inevitable or desired. Decisions whether to actually construct any of the alternatives are years, if not decades, away. Implementation of any alternatives would require the approval of local and regional governmental authorities and a full environmental review by regulatory agencies.

The reality is that, given the current economic environment, the state must concentrate on funding its existing transportation projects with the scarce resources available. However, while we may be financially constrained today, we must continue to plan so that every region of the state is prepared for tomorrow.

Paul J. Wiedefeld and Neil J. Pedersen
The writers are administrators of, respectively, the Maryland Transit Administration and the State Highway Administration.

Update: Baltimore Sun reporter Mike Dresser responds.

Read More...

Summary only...

MoCo and Frederick State Legislators Support Light Rail CCT, I-270 Toll Lanes

Eleven state legislators from Montgomery County and two state legislators from Frederick County signed a joint letter yesterday calling for light rail on the CCT and toll lanes on I-270. All of the legislators are Democrats except Frederick Senator Alex Mooney (R-3), who is a Republican, and Frederick Delegate Richard Weldon (I-3B), who is a former Republican and current Independent.

July 29, 2009

Mr. Russell Anderson, Project Manager
Maryland State Highway Administration
Project Management Division
707 North Calvert Street, Mail Stop C-301
Baltimore, MD 21202

Dear Mr. Anderson:

We are writing to express our fervent support for the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), which is our number one transportation priority, to stay on track for construction in 2012.

This project is shovel-ready with the right-of-way largely set aside. There is little or no opposition in the community with strong local business and government support. Compared to other mass transit projects, the overall costs are very modest. We urge creativity in financing, including a public/private partnership and a combination of federal, state, and local aid.

By providing a link between many communities - Clarksburg, Germantown, Gaithersburg, and Rockville - to the Shady Grove Metro Station, this project will benefit commuters in some of the fastest growing communities in both Montgomery and Frederick Counties and alleviate traffic congestion in the I-270 corridor. In addition, the CCT will play a vital role in the continued economic development of Montgomery and Frederick Counties and the state.

We believe that light rail should be the mode choice for the portion of the route from Shady Grove to Clarksburg. Economic development is more likely near light rail transit, and light rail promotes a more high quality transit-oriented development in burgeoning town centers. Studies have shown that more people choose to get out of their cars for light rail, as opposed to bus-rapid-transit (BRT). Light rail would have lower operational costs than BRT because, as demand increases, more rail cars can be added at no additional personnel cost. However, if BRT is the necessary choice due to Federal Transit Administration cost effectiveness requirements, then we urge that such BRT truly be a “rail on wheels” system, without compromising the advertised service level, speed, and quality.

Additionally, we support two Express Toll Lanes (ETLs), as a component of this project, to help reduce congestion on I-270. We also think that the Montgomery County Planning Board's recommendation of reversible lanes is worth further exploration, as it could alleviate traffic congestion while mitigating negative environmental impacts. These ETLs should be combined with general-purpose lanes without tolls, so that these new transportation facilities will be financed in large part by private investments.

We thank you in advance for your attention to these important matters.

Sincerely,

Rob Garagiola
State Senator – District 15

Saqib Ali
Delegate – District 39

Charles E. Barkley
Delegate – District 39

Kumar P. Barve
Delegate – District 17

Kathleen Dumais
Delegate – District 15

Brian J. Feldman
Delegate – District 15

Jennie M. Forehand
Senator – District 17

James W. Gilchrist
Delegate – District 17

Nancy J. King
Senator – District 39

Alexander X. Mooney
Senator – District 3

Kirill Reznik
Delegate – District 39

Craig L. Rice
Delegate – District 15

Richard B. Weldon Jr.
Delegate – District 3B

cc: The Honorable Martin J. O’Malley, Governor
The Honorable Beverly Swaim-Staley, Maryland Department of Transportation, Acting Secretary

Read More...

Summary only...

Red Line Opposition is Good News for MoCo Transit Supporters

The Baltimore Sun’s Michael Dresser reports on a new website established by neighbors of one of the Red Line routes in Baltimore. The aim of the neighbors is to fight surface rail on the Red Line and they have drawn support from their state delegation. If the O’Malley administration heeds their concerns and picks an underground option, MoCo transit advocates should celebrate a huge victory.

The arguments made by the Red Line’s neighbors against surface rail are familiar to Purple Line combatants from both sides: neighborhood destruction, pedestrian problems and inadequate infrastructure capacity for light rail. Their coalition may be as large as the group opposing light rail for the Purple Line. And they draw our compliments for their design choices on their website.


Just as Purple Line rail opponents have done, they have obtained the sympathy of three-quarters of their state delegation: District 46 Senator George Della and District 46 Delegates Peter Hammen and Brian McHale. We reproduce their letter to the Governor below.





But here is their problem. As we explained in a prior post, the Red Line fails federal cost effectiveness guidelines as an underground project. A transit project must cost no more than $23.99 per hour of user benefit to be awarded a “medium” cost effectiveness ranking or better. Anything less will endanger a project’s chances of federal approval. Only two Red Line options meet that standard: surface BRT ($18.10) and surface rail ($22.17). The underground options range from $30.42 to $63.93, all having “low” cost effectiveness by federal criteria.



Now here’s where MoCo transit advocates should cheer. The Purple Line has five options with medium cost effectiveness or better: three for BRT and two for rail. (One rail option comes in at $26.51.) The Corridor Cities Transitway has two options with medium cost effectiveness or better, both using BRT. If the state picks any underground option for the Red Line, it will be greatly handicapped against MoCo’s two transit lines in competing for federal funds.

So the O’Malley administration has an interesting choice. Most Montgomery observers believe the Governor has prioritized the Red Line over the MoCo projects by disproportionately targeting the latter for cuts last fall. But the Governor could prove everyone wrong by giving Red Line surface rail opponents what they want: an underground proposal to the feds. Martin O’Malley would be a hero to the Baltimore civic associations. He would also be a hero in the Washington suburbs if either the Purple Line or the CCT won federal approval over the now-hamstrung Red Line.

That would be a rare win-win-win for the Governor, for Montgomery County and for Red Line neighbors in Baltimore!

Read More...

Summary only...

Chamber: Delay Vote on CCT, Support Toll Lanes on I-270

Following is the letter from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce to the County Council.

July 20, 2009

Phil Andrews
President, Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850

Re: Corridor Cities Transitway and I-270 Recommendations

Dear President Andrews and Councilmembers:

As you prepare to make your recommendation to the Governor regarding the preferred alternatives for the I-270 Multimodal corridor study, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce would like to take this opportunity to urge you to act in the best interest for the future economic development and vibrancy of this community. We must make wise investments in our infrastructure that will provide adequate support for our future generations of businesses and residents to thrive.

Corridor Cities Transitway Mode Selection: As we have emphasized in our previous testimony, light rail transit along the CCT alignment provides the strongest opportunity for economic development, and a permanent sense of transit commitment to the I-270 corridor. While we understand that Bus Rapid Transit may be the option that ultimately meets FTA standards for cost effectiveness, we do not believe this decision can adequately be made today without the benefit of approved master plans in Germantown and Gaithersburg West. The Maryland Transit Administration will study the impact of these increased densities on ridership regardless of the Council’s recommendation, which will delay the project 9 to 12 months. Therefore, no urgency exists for the Council to make a recommendation to the Governor until that data is presented. The Council should postpone making a recommendation on mode choice to the Governor until the ridership data includes critical master plans that could change the ridership dramatically. If the Council feels a recommendation must be made at this time, it should be a recommendation for light rail, demonstrating a commitment to making transit work in this very important growth center of the County.

I-270: We continue to urge the Council to select highway option 7, which provides for two additional express toll lanes in each direction on interstate 270. As you know, I-270 is a corridor planned for major job growth, and is already one of the most congested roads in the region. Companies cannot be expected to want to continue to locate in the I-270 Corridor as it simply grows more congested every day, and their employees are forced to sit in traffic. As the State Highway Administration informed the Council’s T&E Committee, widening I-270 will not only positively impact mobility, but will also positively impact the environment, contributing to a net improvement in air quality when cars aren’t spending time idling in congestion. The express toll lanes as provided in option 7 are not only needed for our future, they are long overdue. We urge you to move forward with option 7 so that future companies will select a vibrant I-270 corridor to be a part of, rather than avoid Montgomery County because of our traffic congestion challenges that negatively impact our quality of life.

Sincerely,

Georgette Godwin
President and CEO
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce

Read More...

Summary only...

I-270 Opponents Risk Traffic Nightmare

By Richard Parsons.

The Montgomery County Council will soon have another opportunity to comment on long-standing regional transportation plans to add new HOV or managed-toll lanes along heavily congested sections of I-270 in Montgomery County. This is part of a region-wide effort to create a coherent HOV/express-toll lane network to help move interstate and regional through-traffic more efficiently on our major highways and to free up more capacity for local trips. The Council is now considering what comments to submit on the Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA), the latest phase of the ongoing “I-270/US 15 Multimodal Corridor Study.” This study, which has been going on for over a decade, is examining the impact of adding up to two new lanes on I-270, from Shady Grove Road to Frederick, and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), as either a light-rail or bus-rapid transit line from the Shady Grove Metro station north to Clarksburg.

The results of the AA/EA study clearly show the need for both the CCT and the new lanes on I-270. Together, they bring about a dramatic reduction in traffic congestion and the improvements, even compared to current conditions, will last all the way out to 2030 and beyond. The results also provide an alarming look at just how bad traffic conditions on I-270 would be without the new lanes (whether mass transit service is expanded or not).

The bottom line: Traffic conditions on I-270 under the “no-build” scenario would range from “horrific” to a full-blown “traffic nightmare” during both rush-hours. However, with a combination of new managed lanes and better transit service from a light-rail CCT, we can avoid this. These findings are not new: The Planning Board’s TPR Report reached exactly the same conclusions back in 2002, which is why this project was added to the County’s 10-year Transportation Plan at that time. This latest AA/EA document, on which the Council is now being asked to comment, confirms why the widening of I-270 was adopted by the Council without much controversy. All you need to do is look at the numbers from the table below to understand why:


Dramatic Traffic Relief

What jumps out of this table is the dramatic traffic relief these improvements deliver: A 61% reduction in congestion, and several segments that move from stop-and-go conditions at 5-10 mph (without the widening) to freeway speeds of 55 mph and above (with the new lanes). Overall, travel time is cut by 55% to 60% and travel speed increases by 70% to 87%. When travel speeds improve this significantly, not only do you help people get where they are going much faster (a good thing, last I checked), but you also save tons of wasted fuel and unnecessary auto emissions from over 200,000 cars per day stuck idling in stop-and-go conditions, which is the worst possible outcome for the environment (and exactly what the no-build Alternative produces).

State officials who testified before the T&E Committee indicated that most of these positive traffic relief impacts are due to the added capacity on I-270, but the addition of a dedicated alignment for the CCT, which is also included in both build-alternatives, also helps to a smaller degree. The CCT provides a valuable alternative to being stuck in traffic on I-270, but by itself, it does not deliver anything like these dramatic reductions in traffic or even keep things from getting dramatically worse over time. The best solution is clearly doing both, based on the study data.

How Bad it will Get Without the New Lanes

To drive home the point about just how bad conditions would be in 2030 under the No-build Alternative, and how much better travel conditions would be in 2030 with either Alternatives 7A or 7B, Table 2 breaks out the data on “Levels of Service” (LOS) and “Volume to Capacity” ratios (V/C). V/C ratios over 1.0 generally mean traffic is severely congested with actual volumes that exceed the design capacity of the roadway. The “No-build” shows several segments in the range of 1.31 to 1.57 in Montgomery County, which essentially means stop-and-go conditions and long delays. In fact, as you can see below, without the widening, the entire length of I-270 in Montgomery County would be either at LOS “E” or “F” and some segments are very deep into “F.” You can see the difference that adding two new lanes and the CCT will make very clearly in this table:


Adding new lanes makes a lot of these red segments turn green. A similar change happens in the PM rush-hour.

New Lanes Provide Enhanced Transit Service that Complements the CCT

A key point missing from this discussion has to do with transit service, both through the length of the CCT alignment from Shady Grove to Clarksburg, and from Clarksburg north to Frederick. The new lane capacity, especially in Alternative 7A, which provides barrier-separated express lanes, allows you to vastly improve transit service throughout the corridor. With that new capacity, you can run fast express busses from Frederick all the way down to key points like Clarksburg, Germantown, Metropolitan Grove and Shady Grove. With this plus the more local service provided along the dedicated CCT alignment, between Shady Grove and Clarksburg, you have a very robust, effective and efficient transit system offering both local and express service. Transit travel times from Clarksburg to Shady Grove drop by 40% under this scenario. But without the extra lanes on 270, you can forget about transit to Frederick, and you make "express bus" on 270 an oxymoron. And for those who have not been paying attention to the last two decades of studies on this point, rail to Frederick is not a viable option. Not now, not 20 years from now, not 40 years from now, maybe not ever. The numbers could not be clearer.

If the County Council wants to be serious about expanding transit service in this key smart-growth corridor, the plan the Council’s T&E Committee approved is the right approach, with one exception: They should have stood their ground for a light-rail CCT instead of Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT). The state is going to have new numbers this Fall which may boost the cost-effectiveness data enough to win federal approval for light-rail, and the full Council should hold firm for light rail.

270 is Critical to a Sustainable Economic Future

The difference this project will make to Montgomery County employers located in the I-270 corridor is hard to overstate. It literally will make or break the I-270 corridor and its ability to attract and retain knowledge workers. The kind of traffic conditions shown in Table 2 for the no-build alternative will be the death-knell of our leading employment corridor. Those conditions are simply not sustainable, environmentally or economically. Without these new lanes, we will literally choke the life out of Maryland’s leading job creation engine, the I-270 Technology Corridor.

This would be the opposite of smart growth. Maryland’s landmark 1997 Smart Growth Act specifically calls for transportation improvements to be focused on limited-access highways and transit facilities that link smart growth centers together in existing, already developed corridors like this one. Both the CCT and the new managed lanes on I-270 would clearly fall within the letter and the intent of Maryland’s Smart Growth Act, as every one of the major job and population centers that would be served by this project has already been designated as a “Priority Funding Area” (the technical term for smart growth centers in Maryland).

THE REAL CHOICE HERE:

We all know travel conditions on most of I-270 will become virtually impassable without this project. The study results clearly show that both the new lanes and the CCT are needed. This is why Roger Berliner (hardly a pro-highway kind of guy) and Nancy Floreen (a huge supporter of the CCT) voted to support both the 270 widening and the CCT on the T&E Committee – a vote that was driven by some very compelling data.

The only real question before the Council is which “build-alternative” to support. Alternative 3 is recommended by the County Executive. Alternative 7A provides the most traffic relief and the greatest transit service in the corridor. The “no-build” scenario is simply not an option. Alternative 7A appears to be the best option based on the traffic relief it provides and the superior local and express transit service it provides for the entire corridor.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan and the Magic Carpet

By Donna Baron.

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan is by all accounts unique among master plan nightmares. Not only has the Montgomery County Planning Board proposed to bury a large portion of the county in traffic, it is also permitting Johns Hopkins Real Estate to destroy one of the most beautiful Civil War-era farms left in the county, Belward Farm. In order to create a “Science City”, this plan will bring 40,000 more workers plus the residents of 5,000 multi-family housing units to an area that is less than two square miles, is already highly congested and is located five miles from the nearest Metro station.

Belward Farm


To justify these phenomenal numbers, the County and Johns Hopkins Real Estate announced that our established residential suburban community would become an urban “transit oriented development”. To effect this abrupt change, the County has rolled out 45-year-old plans for the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), a rapid-bus that will meander through the area. Granted, the CCT would be a nice addition to our transit options, but the County, the developers and the politicians portray it as the magic carpet that will solve all of our transportation problems while allowing unlimited increases in density.

However, many areas of Montgomery County offer special challenges to those who would seek to increase transit ridership. The Planning Board and the developers have spent the past 50 years creating auto-dependant subdivisions filled with cul-de-sacs and limited access to secondary roads. Residents cannot get out of their subdivisions without their cars, so in order to go anywhere they have to think about where they will park their cars.

Curly Streets and Cul-de-Sacs


To make matters worse, the Planning Board, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to limit parking near the CCT stations. If residents cannot get out of their subdivisions without their cars and then must drive to the CCT, where will they put their cars once they get there? My guess is that they will drive to their destination rather than to the CCT.

Another troubling aspect of the proposal for the CCT is that the County has said it will be necessary to propose the addition of approximately 50,000 people to the “Science City” in order to secure funding for the CCT. However, the CCT is only expected to carry 15% of the population leaving 85% of the added population in their cars. This works out to be about 42,500 additional cars destined for the already congested roads in Gaithersburg, North Potomac, Rockville and Potomac.

To handle the 42,500 extra cars, the Planning Board has proposed six- and eight-lane highways around and through the “Science City”, complete with multi-level highway interchanges. And the state is examining options for I-270 north of I-370. However, these super highways will do little to mitigate the traffic on the other roads throughout the area. There is no assurance that the two-lane roads and the rural roads won’t be hopelessly clogged with traffic. Further, there is no assurance that those who live in the many subdivisions will even be able to get out of their subdivisions given the greatly increased level of traffic on the secondary roads.

And to make matters even worse, Johns Hopkins Real Estate is using the “Science City” and the CCT to justify building monstrous high-rises for 15,000 people on the pristine 107-acre Belward Farm despite their promises to the former owner, and despite the deed restrictions they accepted in order to purchase the farm for a fraction of its value. Even though Belward Farm is immediately adjacent to three established residential neighborhoods, JHU’s proposed high-rise commercial complex will have the density of a downtown area near a Metro station complete with 150-foot buildings.

In a suburban area where it is highly unlikely that most of the residents will be able to stop driving their cars, how can the addition of 42,500 cars on six- and eight-lane highways, with multi-level highway interchanges, be called a transit oriented development even if there is access to a rapid-bus?

It is easy to get lost in the circular reasoning used to justify the various and seemingly veiled objectives of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan. But it is clear that this plan needs to be rewritten in an honest, straight-forward manner with development that is in scale with our community, infrastructure that is appropriate for a suburban setting, and plans for Belward Farm that will respect and maintain the character of the farm. The opposition to this master plan is so widespread a website called www.scale-it-back.com has been created by civic and community organizations to voice our objections and offer alternatives.

Finally, to quote Royce Hanson, Chairman of the Planning Board, “Development of great centers need not occur at the expense of existing communities.” If only he and his Planning Board colleagues supported these words in deed.

Belward Farm and the "Science City" from a Presentation by Johns Hopkins Real Estate


Donna H. Baron, Coordinator
The Gaithersburg - North Potomac - Rockville Coalition
www.scale-it-back.com

Read More...

Summary only...