Dear Friends and Neighbors:
I wanted you to be aware of progress on my proposal for a countywide Bus Rapid Transit system. I will be part of a Transit Task Force, appointed by County Executive Ike Leggett, tasked with the mission of making a countywide transit system a reality. The Task Force will look at implementation and financing issues for a countywide system.
The significance of this newly-appointed Task Force is that we will go beyond studying traffic and transportation problems in our County. We already know there is a problem. We know that we sit in traffic too long and that we need better transit to travel around the County. This task force is designed to help solve the problem.
As you may know, for the past four years, I have been exploring the idea of a countywide rapid transit system to address our congested roads and reduce pollution. After numerous conversations with transportation and planning experts, visits to similar systems and reviewing countless pages of transportation manuals, I developed a proposal for a 120-mile system that would take people from where they live to where they work, study and play. My proposal is currently being studied by county transportation planners and outside consultants and that report should be due out in the coming months.
The transit vehicles would travel in their own dedicated guideways in existing right-of-way; this means that the transit vehicles will not be stuck in traffic. Transit that uses guideways is relatively inexpensive to build. Additionally, the guideways use minimal paving because the center areas of the guideways can be grass and used to handle stormwater.
This proposal is a win-win-win for residents, environmentalists and developers. It’s the only solution that allows our County to grow in a sustainable way: it provides reliable and efficient public transportation that will convince people to leave their cars at home, thereby reducing air pollution, and it allows reasonable development near established neighborhoods without flooding the surrounding communities in traffic.
This BRT system has been recognized as a critical transit solution by the Montgomery County Planning Board and by the County Council in their recent letters regarding state transportation priorities for our county.
I thank the County Executive for recognizing the need to move this proposal forward via this Task Force. I look forward to working with the members of the Task Force and residents of this County on this important issue. My staff and I are always willing to come to your civic organization or other group to further discuss this proposal with you. Please contact us via e-mail, councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov or phone 240-777-7966, to schedule a time to meet or for additional information. You may also visit my website for more information about this proposal.
Sincerely,
Marc Elrich
Councilmember At-Large
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Marc Elrich's Rapid Transit Update
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Five (Updated)
County Council Member Marc Elrich’s ambitious Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Where on Earth can we get that kind of money?
First of all, no new money is coming from the state. State money was difficult enough to get for Montgomery transportation projects even prior to the O’Malley Administration’s $1.1 billion cut, a decision forced by declining revenues. Second, Montgomery County’s revenue problems will probably prevent the county from spending more than its current $900 million on local transportation projects. The county’s spending also does not apply to state roads, although it has made an exception to this rule recently. The county could apply development impact taxes to transportation, but those amounts are currently less than $10 million per year. And the ongoing tax revolt will likely prevent any increase in the gas tax until at least the next term. The Obama Administration may spend more money on public works, but it remains to be seen how much (or whether) any of that money would be available for Elrich’s BRT plan.
In short, sufficient new resources will probably not be there, certainly not in the short term. Given that fact, perhaps the only way to finance Elrich’s BRT network is to reallocate some existing transportation spending from road projects to transit. That is going to meet resistance. Far more people currently drive than use transit. And transit projects have traditionally benefitted Downcounty residents while Upcounty residents have needed road improvements. But two factors make at least some reallocation potentially beneficial for both groups.
1. Elrich’s BRT routes would service Upcounty and East County destinations that would otherwise lack transit such as Burtonsville, Colesville, Norbeck and Olney.
2. The traditional method of relieving road congestion is to build more lanes and/or widen intersections – an approach which some believe is ineffective. Another approach is to build parallel transit options, as the Elrich proposal would do. If the real objective is to reduce congestion, isn’t taking cars off the road at least as legitimate as adding auto capacity?
Steady population and employment growth. Rising CO2 emissions. Limited transportation funding. Different locations of jobs and housing. Congested Central Business Districts. And expensive costs for rail. Marc Elrich’s plan is an honest attempt to deal with all of these problems at once. It’s expensive, ambitious and maybe even utopian. It would take a very long time to implement even with broad support.
But if there are any better ideas out there, I’d sure like to hear them.
Update: Delegate Al Carr (D-18) recently rode the BRT line in Cleveland and posted about his experience here.
Update 2: Miranda Spivack of the Post is now up with an article on the Elrich Plan. We hope Ms. Spivack appreciated our research, which is of course provided free of charge!
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Four
In Parts Two and Three, we revealed Council Member Marc Elrich’s intention to build Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes across the county. But just because people have the option of using transit does not mean they actually will. After all, part of the county’s official development policy is to force developers to build parking spaces in new projects, thereby encouraging auto use.
Yes, you read that right. Division 59-E-3 of the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance requires developers to build minimum numbers of parking spaces for new buildings. The requirements vary depending on location, proximity to Metro stations and land use. Requirements for office buildings, for example, vary from 1.9 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (GSF) of building space for a project in the county’s southern area that is within 800 feet of a Metro station to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 GSF for a project in the county’s northern area more than 1,600 feet from a Metro station. The requirement for retail buildings is 5 parking spaces per 1,000 GSF. Restaurants require 25 parking spaces per 1,000 GSF. There are many, many other categories. Developers are permitted to build fewer spaces if they enter into share-a-ride agreements, build near Metro stations, provide shuttle buses or carpooling incentives, or engage in other measures to reduce traffic.
These requirements not only encourage auto use in the age of global warming, they also guarantee that new developments will cause new traffic. And they impose tremendously expensive burdens on developers. Parking spaces cost a lot of money to construct, sometimes running close to $100,000 per space when built underground. And that space is not as profitable for building owners as actual leaseable space for office or retail uses. Minimum parking requirements might make sense for suburban areas in the 1960s, but their primary effect now is to increase auto congestion and greenhouse gas emissions and to increase the cost of project construction.
Elrich would augment these minimums with parking caps, especially in the county’s Central Business Districts (CBDs). If residential areas and CBDs are connected with BRT routes, why do we need large numbers of parking spaces? Elrich does not favor reducing parking spaces for visitors, customers or shoppers, but he would restrict spaces available for employees. Doing so would relieve CBDs of congestion and decrease building costs for developers. This would enable more construction in CBDs – a key goal of smart growth advocates.
But Elrich would not stop there. If new development is unchained from parking requirements, there is less need for the county’s burdensome traffic tests. We explored this issue in last summer’s Traffic Measurement series. Briefly, the Planning Department uses Critical Lane Volume, a measurement that it knows is terminally flawed, to measure congestion at county intersections. If a new development causes traffic to exceed congestion thresholds that are set for each area of the county, developers are required to install a variety of mitigation measures designed to compensate. But these mitigation measures – things like widening sidewalks, building bus shelters, setting up bike lockers, establishing “information kiosks” and the like – usually have nothing to do with reducing real live car traffic. Decades of such policies are responsible for our current traffic nightmare. And developers who pay for these tests and mitigation measures are required to spend millions of dollars in exercises that have little, if any, impact on traffic reduction.
So once BRT routes are in place and parking caps are established, Elrich would phase out these tests. No one would be happier to see them go than the developers!
Tomorrow, we’ll conclude with the most difficult issue facing this plan: financing.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Three
In Part Two, we discussed Council Member Marc Elrich’s choice of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a transit mode for most of the county. Where would he locate the routes?
Elrich’s routes are intended to connect residential areas to commercial destinations. Their primary purpose is to facilitate work-related commutes. Here is his route list:
1. US-29/Columbia Pike
Connects Burtonsville to Downtown Silver Spring. Also has a loop through the developing centers around Cherry Hill and White Oak. Offers connection to Silver Spring Metro Station. Can be augmented by garages in Burtonsville for Howard County commuters, further reducing traffic on Columbia Pike.
2. New Hampshire Avenue
Connects Colesville to the Langley Transit Center, which will have a Purple Line stop. Also connects to the US-29 route and its Cherry Hill/White Oak loop.
3. ICC
Elrich has opposed the ICC since Moses crossed the Red Sea. If he had his way, it would be stopped yesterday. But if it is built, Elrich would use it to run BRT between Fairland and the Rockville and Shady Grove Metro stations.
4. Purple Line
The state is currently considering whether the Purple Line should be BRT or rail. Elrich is agnostic on the mode. Whatever the Purple Line is, it will connect Prince George’s County to Bethesda through Silver Spring. It will also serve as a connection for some of Elrich’s BRT routes.
5. University Boulevard
Connects the Langley Transit Center to Wheaton. The Wheaton connection provides access to a Metro station as well as other BRT routes. This route also provides Four Corners with a transit option, something that is badly needed considering the horrendous US-29/University Boulevard intersection.
6. Georgia Avenue
Connects Olney to the Glenmont Metro station. Offers a transit option to Aspen Hill. May provide relief to the awful Georgia Avenue/Randolph Road intersection, which is scheduled for an expensive grade separation project. This route is already a priority for the county in its project request list for the state.
7. Georgia and Connecticut Avenues
A spur off the Olney route, separating at the Georgia/Connecticut intersection. Connects Olney to Chevy Chase and the Purple Line.
8. Veirs Mill Road
Connects Wheaton to Rockville. This route is another county priority for state projects.
9. Route 28
Connects Norbeck to Rockville.
10. Route 355
Parallels the western branch of the Red Line from Shady Grove to Bethesda. Includes an option to run as far north as Clarksburg. Also has a spur to Montgomery Mall.
11. Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)
This is a state project, although not one for which the state is scheduling a lot of money. If the CCT is a BRT line, it can have an express route from Clarksburg to Shady Grove as well as a local route through Montgomery College to the west.
Each of the BRT routes would rely on one dedicated bus lane, perhaps with occasional tunnels under particularly difficult intersections. Why only one lane? One of the consequences of Montgomery County’s sprawl is that weekday traffic is often unidirectional. In the morning, traffic heads south (or sometimes west) from residential communities to commercial centers. In the evening, traffic reverses. Auto progress is slow when in the direction of most of the traffic, so the dedicated lane would be used in that direction (such as south in the morning). Buses could make a return trip in the regular traffic lanes, which are relatively clear when going against the flow of traffic. The reversible lanes on parts of Georgia Avenue and US-29 operate on a similar premise.
Another aspect of the BRT routes is their operation as a feeder network. Buses can go into residential neighborhoods and use their street networks. When entering the main roads (like US-29), they can enter the dedicated lanes and travel at higher speeds. Some routes can also operate as express routes. By cycling the buses through their routes faster, the same amount of bus stock can carry more passengers. That reduces per-passenger capital and labor costs.
By using existing rights-of-way, including in some cases medians, BRT can be a lot cheaper than rail. The Purple Line is estimated to cost $75-102 million per mile if built as rail, and that does not include the purchase of the Capital Crescent Trail decades ago. Cleveland is building a BRT line on Euclid Avenue for roughly $20 million per mile. Rail can still be justified in very dense areas like Bethesda and Silver Spring where high ridership is worth the cost. But BRT can be a more cost-effective option in lower-density areas.
Best of all, this system offers real transit options to parts of the county that have never had them before: Colesville, Olney, Burtonsville, Norbeck and other places far from Metro. These are places that are probably never going to get rail.
But the Elrich plan does not end here. We’ll continue in Part Four.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Two
Steady population and employment growth. Rising CO2 emissions. Limited transportation funding. Different locations of jobs and housing. Congested Central Business Districts. And expensive costs for rail. How do you deal with all of these problems over the long-term?
First, let’s recognize the opposition of many Montgomery County residents to “overdevelopment,” a potent issue in the 2006 elections. Much of the opposition to development is really opposition to traffic. No one in the county believes that our transportation network is adequate to handle the current needs to move people. And the county is growing faster than its infrastructure. If there was a way to facilitate population or employment growth without additional traffic, a lot of the opposition to development would fade.
Smart-growth proponents agree and are pushing for new development to be located near Metro stations. But there are limits to this strategy. First, the Metro system is primarily a north-south network designed in the 1970s to channel commuter traffic bound for the District. Locating developments on top of Metro stations leaves open a substantial possibility for increasing east-west traffic, as well as Virginia-bound traffic. Second, redesign proposals such as the ideas under consideration for Rockville Pike address traffic management for new communities. Even if no additional developments are constructed, the traffic conditions for existing communities are intolerable. And third, Montgomery County – home to nearly a million people and over a half-million jobs – is too big for a comprehensive redesign. Traffic relief must be designed for how the county currently functions. Traffic relief gained through redesigning stretches of the county over the next fifty years is unlikely to be valued by citizens who desire improvements in their lifetimes.
Increased transit availability is the only way to allow more development without creating excessive traffic and more carbon dioxide emissions. In densely urbanized areas, rail is a worthwhile option despite its expense. But Montgomery County is not universally dense. In many parts of the county, projected riderships would not justify expenses of $75-102 million per mile (as with rail on the Purple Line). The county has a bus network but that has proven inadequate to deal with its transportation issues by itself. That is why County Council Member Marc Elrich would rely on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
Conventional wisdom holds that people prefer to ride trains over buses. Why?
1. Trains run faster than buses.
2. Trains are serviced by stations while bus riders must wait at inadequate stops.
3. Trains appear more frequently than buses.
4. As a result of irregular frequency, buses are often crowded.
BRT attempts to address the shortcomings of buses by simulating the positive attributes of trains. BRT routes often feature dedicated lanes for buses and even tunnels or bridges. They sometimes prioritize buses at traffic lights, allowing a light to remain green when a bus approaches when it would otherwise turn red. BRT buses can operate out of small stations that are a decided improvement over the small, pitiful shelters (or even simple poles) that accompany regular bus stops. Unlike rail, BRT buses can enter residential neighborhoods and use local street networks before entering dedicated lanes on main roads. By operating partially on existing traffic lanes, BRT routes demand much less right-of-way acquisition than rail routes. And because BRT is cheaper than rail, it can be more cost-effective in lower-density communities such as the ones found in Montgomery away from the Beltway. By combining the lower costs and greater flexibility of buses with higher performance approaching (but perhaps not equaling) the levels of rail, BRT is a realistic alternative for expanding the county’s transportation network far from its existing Metro stations.
Where would Elrich locate his BRT routes? We’ll find out in Part Three.
Monday, December 01, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part One
At-large County Council Member Marc Elrich has introduced a sweeping new transportation proposal. It is ambitious. It is comprehensive. It violates several taboos. But will it work?
In assessing the effectiveness of any long-term transportation plan, we must consider the real-world constraints faced by the county. And there are many problems to overcome. Here are a few relevant facts that any transportation plan must face:
1. Growing Population and Employment
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) projects that Montgomery’s population will grow from 938,000 in 2005 to 1,145,000 in 2030, an increase of 22%. Over the same period, the county’s employment will grow from 500,000 in 2005 to 670,000 in 2030, an increase of 34%. The Washington region as a whole will see population growth of 32% and employment growth of 38% over the same time period.
2. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Increasing
Population and job growth will push up CO2 emissions, thereby fueling global warming. COG estimates that CO2 emissions will increase in the Washington region by 33% between 2005 and 2030, and 43% between 2005 and 2050. Roughly one-third of those emissions are caused by vehicles. COG has told Elrich that an 8.3% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is necessary to reduce emissions to 2002 levels in Montgomery County. A reduction of 15-20% in VMT is necessary to reduce emissions to 1990 levels. COG estimates that Montgomery County will be at “high risk” for drought and thunderstorms and at “medium-high risk” for flash flooding and snow or ice-storms because of climate change.
3. Funding is Limited
Regular readers remember the state’s $1.1 billion transportation cut. Part of the reason for that cut is the General Assembly’s failure to heed the Governor’s proposal to index the gas tax for inflation during the Special Session. While the state still plans on spending $9.4 billion on transportation projects over the next six years (for now), the vast majority of Montgomery’s portion of that spending is accounted for by the $2.4 billion InterCounty Connector. Montgomery County plans on spending roughly $900 million on transportation over the next six years. But very large portions of both state and county spending go to system maintenance, not new projects. At existing rates of spending, it is very doubtful that either the state or the county can adequately prepare their transportation infrastructures to handle the demands of a 20-30% population growth occurring through 2030.
4. Residences Are Not Located Near Jobs
Prior to World War II, Montgomery County was primarily a bedroom community for the District. From the 1950s on, it has evolved into an employment center. But jobs and residences are concentrated in different places. The county’s employment centers are located in the I-270 corridor, especially from Bethesda to Gaithersburg, as well as in Silver Spring. Many people commute to the District and Virginia. Residences are more evenly distributed throughout the county. Many areas, like East County, northern Silver Spring, Potomac, Olney and the rural areas are dominated by residential uses. The fact that most jobs are not located near most residences stresses the transportation network.
5. Central Business Districts (CBDs) are Highly Congested
Smart growth advocates favor concentrating both employment and new residential development near Metro stations, especially in the county’s downtowns. One challenge to this approach is that the roads in these CBDs tend to be very congested. Longtime readers will recall our lengthy criticism of the county’s reliance on Critical Lane Volume to measure traffic. When using average speeds to measure corridor performance, the slowest stretches of road in the county include Rockville Pike in Rockville, Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda, Georgia Avenue north of Wheaton, and Georgia Avenue and Colesville Road in Downtown Silver Spring. If new development in these CBDs is accompanied by new traffic, those roads will be overloaded. And the geographic constraints of all these CBDs will prevent the roads from being widened.
6. Rail Limitations
Rail is expensive. According to the Purple Line’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, rail on that route will cost in a range of $75-102 million per mile. That may be justified by the high density in the Montgomery and Prince George’s inner suburbs. But it is harder to make that case in lower-density areas. Furthermore, much of the right-of-way for the Purple Line is already publicly owned (such as the Capital Crescent Trail). Assembling the right-of-way for a new rail line further north in the county would require huge amounts of money and perhaps significant destruction of housing. This decreases the likelihood that rail by itself is a feasible solution for the county’s transportation challenges.
How does Elrich intend to deal with these problems? We’ll find out in Part Two.
