The Montgomery County Council has signaled a consensus in favor of Council President Phil Andrews’ proposal to add two reversible lanes on I-270. But this issue is nowhere close to a resolution.
The Washington Post reported that the council unanimously agreed on adding reversible lanes that would be subject to tolls for single drivers. This broad agreement is noteworthy considering the prior positions of some of the Council Members. Andrews and Marc Elrich were vehement opponents of the ICC. Nancy Floreen, Mike Knapp and George Leventhal were first elected in 2002 as part of Doug Duncan’s pro-ICC End Gridlock slate. Andrews and Elrich have usually favored limiting growth, while Floreen, Knapp and Leventhal supported most elements of the 2003 Annual Growth Policy, which temporarily abolished project area traffic tests. Yet, all of the above Council Members favor widening I-270. That level of agreement far surpasses their differing views on many issues, including the best mode for the CCT and other matters unrelated to transportation.
Relatively little political opposition to the project has surfaced in the areas that will contain it. That fact is obvious from the support of Council Members Andrews (who represents Rockville and Gaithersburg) and Knapp (who represents Germantown north to the Frederick County border) and every member of the Frederick Board of County Commissioners. The four Senators who represent those areas – Rob Garagiola (D-15), Jennie Forehand (D-17), Nancy King (D-39) and Alex Mooney (R-3) – all favor widening. Most Delegates from those areas do too, although some of them have sent mixed messages. The loudest opposition has come from bloggers in D.C. and Baltimore, a fact that was not lost on Montgomery County Council Members and was one reason for the failure of their opposing email campaigns.
The financial obstacles to the I-270 project may wind up being more serious than the political obstacles. Half of the ICC’s $2.4 billion in funding came from toll-backed bonds. The enormous levels of the tolls being charged to pay back those bonds are creating sticker shock for some ICC supporters and are giving fresh ammo to opponents. Even a modest version of I-270 widening akin to the one proposed by Andrews will cost more than the ICC. How much higher will the I-270 tolls have to be to pay off its bonds? On top of all that, the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA), which administers the state’s toll facilities, has significant financial problems and will have difficulty paying just for its system preservation. It cannot afford another bond issue without a General Assembly vote increasing its statutory debt limit.
Another possible source for I-270 funding is the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), but it has even bigger problems than MdTA. The current Consolidated Transportation Program is scheduled to spend less over the coming six years than was spent nine years ago. A new state Spending Affordability Briefing shows no expected improvement, saying:Future levels of federal funding are uncertain due to federal revenues not being able to sustain prior levels of spending without an increase in the gas tax or other revenues. The current Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) does not provide funding for the construction of the Purple or Red Line or the Corridor Cities Transitway even though the department continues to move forward to obtain federal approval of these three major mass transit initiatives. The current capital program already assumes an economic recovery, leaving little capacity for new projects to be added.
And so the real impediment to the I-270 project is the same barrier to all the other major projects around the state: no money and no political will in Annapolis to raise any. County Executive Ike Leggett, the Montgomery County Council, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Baltimore Committee have all called for hikes in the gas tax to pay for transportation. When Council President Andrews repeated that call, a representative of the Governor said this: “It’s certainly not something we’re considering right now,” said Gov. Martin O’Malley’s spokesman Shaun Adamec, who added that there was little “appetite or desire” to raise taxes in the current economic climate.
Finally, here is something I-270 supporters and opponents have in common. No matter what project(s) they want, they won’t be getting any of them any time soon.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
I-270 Issue Far From Over
Monday, November 09, 2009
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.
Monday, November 02, 2009
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.
Monday, October 26, 2009
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.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Business and Labor Agree on I-270
In an unusual statement of agreement between business and labor, Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce President Gigi Godwin and MCGEO President Gino Renne submitted a joint statement of support for the CCT and widening of I-270 to the Gazette. Whether one agrees with their position or not, this is an interesting display of coordination between a prominent business organization and a large public employee union. Is this the beginning of broader labor-management cooperation in Montgomery County?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Widening Projects Abound
I-270 is not the only road widening project under consideration by the state. The Maryland Department of Transportation is proposing to widen I-97 between Baltimore and Annapolis and to widen part of the Baltimore Beltway. Howard County Executive Ken Ulman wants the state to widen US-29 near Columbia. And the state is spending $830 million to install Express Toll Lanes on I-95 northeast of Baltimore.
So where are the protests from the Baltimore Sun against these projects? Where is the opposing petition drive from D.C. blogs? And where is the money-raising campaign from Action Committee for Transit?
Could it be that only MoCo road widening projects are evil?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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 DumaisWith 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 RiceI 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 ReznikIn 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.
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.
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.
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?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Support Inclusion of an All-Transit Alternative
By Marc Korman.
Earlier in the summer, the Action Committee for Transit (ACT), an organization I am a member of, released an all-transit alternative to the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor project, popularly known as the widening of I-270 and construction of the Corridor Cities Transitway. The proposal has helped spur the debate as to whether we need to expand the highway and how much emphasis the county and state should put on transit.
As Adam wrote last month, Senator Brian Frosh sent a letter to the Governor encouraging him to add the study of the all-transit alternative to the Maryland Department of Transportation’s work on the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Project project. Senator Frosh was joined on the letter by Senators Madaleno, Lenett, and Raskin. Members of the House of Delegates agreed with ACT and Senator Frosh and sent their own letter promoting an all-transit alternative earlier in September, as Adam posted.
No one is better at crunching the numbers than Adam, but in my view his characterization of the Senate letter as “daft” was a poor adjective to use. I suspect all of the elected officials who signed the all-transit alternative letter agree with Adam that the county should be careful about suggesting they are not interested in transportation funding. That is why it is a good thing, not a bad thing, that these letters were sent when they were. Any action on the I-270 corridor study is years away and no decisions have been made yet. If elements of the all-transit alternative are going to be included, those considerations need to be taken into account now.
Adam also raised some concerns about ACT’s methods in promoting an all-transit alternative. As best I can tell, most of Adam’s specific objections could be satisfied if the state would study ACT’s proposal. Whether the transit options could pass the Federal Transit Administration’s Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) is a question that the study could help answer and I do not believe we should assume the answer is no without further examination. As a side note, the feds’ current overreliance on the CEI could be changed at any time by the Obama Administration and remain consistent with the current law, which includes other factors when considering transit funding. Congress could also reform the law in support of the Administration’s focus on transit.
The question of how much the projects within the all-transit alternative would cost are also ones the state study could answer. ACT’s current numbers are based on work done by the 2001 Transportation Policy Task Force, but updated and more detailed costs could be determined by a state study. Adam rightly points out that Purple Line opponents invested in a third party study, but that was only after trying to convince the state to study their preferred option first.
Adam’s final assessment that ACT should use the downsides to I-270 expansion such as increased pollution and adverse effects to forests and wetlands is a bit baffling to me. First, ACT’s goal is not to simply torpedo the I-270 project. Their goal is to promote transit in the county. Second, we should want opponents of projects to offer meaningful alternatives and not just negative pronouncements of proposals.
If Adam is serious about his concerns, he should support the effort to add an all-transit alternative to the I-270 study. In fact, anyone interested in finding the best solution for I-270 traffic should embrace the study this early in the process.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Battle of I-270, Part Five
By the time the I-270 dispute is finally settled, dozens of politicians and thousands of residents will have their say. But we are particularly interested in the position of one individual:
County Council President Phil Andrews.
Andrews is a compelling figure to watch in this debate for several reasons:
1. His district includes Rockville and Gaithersburg and therefore includes part of the I-270 route. Some of his constituents will benefit from the project while others will be displaced.
2. He has been a long-time opponent of the ICC, running against it during his political races and voting against it numerous times. Andrews once told Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher, “The ICC is enormously expensive because it’s so environmentally destructive that they have to spend hundreds of millions to try to mitigate that damage... There are cost-effective alternatives.” And in 2005, Andrews criticized developers for trying to buy support for the ICC.
3. He has always refused developer contributions and PAC contributions. He has been consistently endorsed by the Sierra Club, the home base of ICC opposition in Montgomery County, as well as the now-defunct slow-growth group Neighborspac.
4. He is a famed door-knocker and stays closer to his constituents than the vast majority of county politicians.
5. He is unusually straight-forward in his public statements. He does not hedge or waver after he takes a position.
Given his history, many observers would expect Andrews to be an I-270 widening opponent. But so far, that has not been the case. In the July 21 County Council work session, Andrews said this: I would just say, I can only speak for myself on this, but I haven't come to a conclusion yet on which option makes the most sense. I'm keeping an open mind on it because I want to hear what the arguments are on it, and that's why we're going through this. So that's where I am on this right now.
The Baltimore Sun stated this about Andrews: One person who finds himself on the opposite side of where he stood in the ICC debate is Council President Phil Andrews. To this day, he insists the ICC is a waste of money, but sees "a lot more merit" in the I-270 project.
When Council Members Nancy Floreen and Roger Berliner voted to support widening in committee, I-270 opponent blog Greater Greater Washington said they voted to “continue the cycle of sprawl and pollution.” That would not be a credible charge against anti-ICC, anti-development-contribution, Sierra Club-endorsed Phil Andrews. If someone like Andrews came out in favor of any widening proposal for I-270, it would greatly complicate the efforts of opponents to characterize supportive politicians as “pro-sprawl” or “pro-pollution.”
"We have to do something to address the unacceptable level of congestion on I-270," he said. "The argument will be made that the I-270 corridor is the economic engine of the state and the state has an interest in continuing to see that's the case."
But Andrews said he and other council members may not be wedded to the planning board's preferred plan and could choose a less expensive option.
Why should we care about the position of any single County Council Member? After all, the state will make the ultimate decision on I-270, just as it decided the ICC. That is true, but the ICC was a defining issue at the county level for many years. Multiple constituencies made it a litmus test issue. The business community and the Washington Post editorial board favored candidates who supported the project. Environmentalists, slow-growthers and many progressives favored candidates who opposed it. The ICC merged with the development issue to swing county politics like a great pendulum in election after election. But I-270 widening may not have that same political potential if it attracts support from people like Phil Andrews.
The County Council’s vote in a few weeks may be the first of many. The council voted on the ICC five times between 1999 and 2005. But we believe that Andrews’ decision may direct the momentum one way or the other and help to shape the early stages of the Battle of I-270.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Montgomery Delegates Call for Study of All-Transit Option in I-270 Corridor
Following is the letter organized by Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20). Interestingly, Delegates Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Craig Rice (D-15), James Gilchrist (D-17), Charles Barkley (D-39) and Kirill Reznik (D-39) also signed a different letter supporting Express Toll Lanes on I-270.
September 8, 2009
The Honorable Martin O’Malley
The State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Dear Governor O'Malley:
Your administration identified an important priority for Maryland by setting the goal of a substantial increase in transit ridership. New transit opportunities can provide important benefits such as improved travel times, revitalized communities and a healthier environment. The Department of Transportation's current I-270 Corridor Study may offer a valuable opportunity for progress toward the objective of more effective transit.
The I-270 corridor has been a center of both economic growth and traffic congestion, and MDOT is evaluating options for relieving the congestion. To date, all options evaluated in this study have devoted well over two-thirds of projected construction funding to road capacity expansion. A coalition of environmental groups has developed an interesting transit-only alternative, comparable in cost to the proposals studied thus far. It is described in the enclosed letter from the Action Committee for Transit.
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.
Sincerely,
Sheila E. Hixson
Chair, Ways and Means Committee
District 20
Anne R. Kaiser
Herman L. Taylor, Jr.
District 14
Kathleen Dumais
Craig Rice
District 15
William A. Bronrott
Susan C. Lee
District 16
James W. Gilchrist
Luiz R. S. Simmons
District 17
Alfred C. Carr, Jr.
Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher
District 18
Henry B. Heller
Roger Manno
District 19
Tom Hucker
Heather R. Mizeur
District 20
Saqib Ali
Charles E. Barkley
Kirill Reznik
District 39
The Battle of I-270, Part Four
How do you justify a giant road project in an area where transit is popular? Try this: call the road project a transit project.
County Council staffer Glenn Orlin, who is so influential in Rockville that he is sometimes called “the tenth Council Member,” wrote this statement in his analysis of the I-270 project:The cost of the 1-270 improvements dwarfs the cost of the CCT; it constitutes 83-90% of the total cost. Of the $4.58 billion cost of the highway improvements, $2.64 billion are in Montgomery County and $1.94 billion are in Frederick County or City. But the fact that the improvements in Montgomery County would be managed lanes - and, preferably, HOT lanes that would extend onto the current HOV lanes and ultimately to the HOT lanes under construction on the Virginia portion of the Capital Beltway - arguably would provide an even larger transit and ridesharing benefit than the CCT itself, as well as providing some congestion relief for those paying a toll and even modest relief for low-occupancy vehicles not opting to pay the toll. The managed lanes should be thought as primarily transit and ride sharing priority lanes, providing the ability for buses, vanpools and carpools to bypass congestion entirely. With an extension onto the existing managed lanes south of Shady Grove on I-270 and the planned managed lanes on 1-495 connecting to the HOT lanes under construction on the Virginia portion of the Beltway, one can envision a regional bus/ridesharing system that would obviate the need for another Potomac River crossing.
Council Member George Leventhal (who happens to be an ardent Purple Line supporter) picked up on that point during the council’s discussion of I-270:...I am gonna go ahead and take on the argument that's been promoted by my friends at the Coalition for Smarter Growth and the Sierra Club and the Greater Greater Washington blog because what I understand them to be saying is, "There is no transit alternative. Don't do anything until you have a transit alternative so you don't have to build roads," and what I'm hearing loudly and clearly from the state and from Glenn and from Gary is, widening 270 is the transit alternative. It is the transit alternative, and there isn't another transit alternative, and the reason is precisely because we don't want to foster sprawl, so the density that would be required to build a mass-transit system, either a busway or a trolley, all the way to Frederick would require greater density in Frederick than current planning allows. So, you cannot simultaneously say, "We don't want sprawl," and then say, "I don't want roads. Let's build transit all the way to Frederick other than on I-270," because that requires sprawl. It requires density, you know, in Urbana and Frederick. It requires riders. You can't support a transit line unless you have riders, unless you have development, everything that these very prestigious groups that I respect claim to oppose, so what they really don't want is any more lane miles.
Leventhal continued:So, I know that we're all feeling some political pressure here, and I know that, hey, I'm getting the e-mails, too, and, you know, my neighbors in Takoma Park are gonna get all jacked up about this. You know, the Greater Greater Washington blog is threatening me. They're saying this is the next ICC. Well, you know, I've got the scars from the ICC battle, and maybe some in the community enjoy that battle. I don't enjoy it, and maybe some in the community want to make this the next ICC, but, in fact, it sounds to me--and I'm gonna pause for a question now--that the additional lanes on 270 are indeed the transit alternative and there isn't another transit alternative. There isn't a way to extend the snaky, circuitous--whether it's a trolley or a busway--CCT beyond Clarksburg. The density just won't justify it.
It’s a novel argument to sell a giant road project as also being a transit project. But it’s not unprecedented. Council Member Marc Elrich, a bitter foe of the ICC, now wants to run a BRT route on it. Baltimore Sun reporter and I-270 opponent Mike Dresser agrees with that strategy. In its current form, the CCT does not extend to Frederick but rapid buses running on Express Toll Lanes could. I-270 opponents have not taken on this argument yet and they should before it builds traction.
In Part Five, we’ll tell you which person we are watching to see where the politics of I-270 are headed.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Just the Facts, Please
If you had a choice of fighting a horrible project using facts or fantasy, you would pick the former option, right? Not if you’re Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and your target is the widening of I-270.
Here’s their new flyer illustrating a handful of transit projects that they say could be built instead of the $4+ billion road project.
There are three problems with this argument, all of which are known to ACT’s leadership. First, transit and road projects are financed by two different federal agencies using two different approval procedures. Canceling a road project does not automatically free up money for transit, an argument conceded even by I-270 opponent and Baltimore Sun reporter Mike Dresser.
Second, if highway proponents must deal with the difficulty of paying for I-270, transit proponents must also deal with the difficulty faced by their projects in making it through the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts procedure. One of ACT’s recommended projects, the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), does not currently pass the federal cost effectiveness threshold as a rail project. If the CCT cannot pass, how about the much more expensive Red Line extension to Germantown that ACT is promoting? Or how about the MARC trains to Hagerstown that ACT also wants, which would pass through areas with much lower ridership potential than Montgomery County? ACT cannot prove that any of these projects will receive federal approval.
Third, neither ACT nor anyone else has any idea how much each of the transit projects other than the CCT will actually cost. That is because the state has not recently prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) on those projects required to produce those estimates. Even the Purple Line rail opponents in Chevy Chase paid for a third-party study to back up their arguments in favor of BRT. ACT’s claims are much bolder and have no comparable supporting documentation.
We are baffled why ACT would choose to market an unproven utopia rather than merely use the factual arguments against I-270 present in the state’s own data. The state admits that widening I-270 would increase vehicle miles traveled, raise pollutant levels, displace homes and adversely impact historic properties, wetlands and forest. Those are honest grounds for opposition that never made it onto ACT’s flyer.
When an organization chooses fantasy over fact in its communications to the public, that calls into question the accuracy of everything it claims. ACT has rendered valuable public service in promoting transit in the past that would not have been possible unless it met some basic threshold of credibility. We hope that ACT will abandon its propaganda, stick to the facts and get back on track.
The Battle of I-270, Part Three
Yesterday, we looked at the significant challenges faced by I-270 widening supporters in realizing their goal. Today, we look at the equally significant problems faced by opponents.
Widening opponents consist of smart growth advocates, environmentalists, anti-growth activists and a smattering of residents who will be adversely impacted by the project. They have been stoked by the D.C.-based pro-transit blog Greater Greater Washington, which has waged a relentless campaign against the project and politicians who support it. Opponents scored a victory in getting the Montgomery County Council to delay a vote on the project. That demonstrated their potential. But they have challenges too.
1. Leadership
At the height of the ICC battle, some of the most prominent politicians in Montgomery County fought the project, including County Council Members Blair Ewing, Phil Andrews, Marilyn Praisner, Derick Berlage, Nancy Dacek and Betty Ann Krahnke, Senator Idamae Garrott (D-19) and numerous Delegates. Former County Executive Neal Potter changed his position from support to oppose. The Prince George’s County Council voted to oppose the ICC in 2003 and 2007. Governor Parris Glendening tried unsuccessfully to kill the project. At the moment, Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) and Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39) are the only avowed opponents of I-270 widening. That’s not enough.
2. Non-indigenous
The anti-ICC coalition included residents who lived near the road aided by smart growth and environmentalist sympathizers who lived elsewhere. So far, the anti-I-270 coalition does not have comparable strength among residents who actually live near its alignment.
When Greater Greater Washington launched its petition drive to block the project, our sources informed us that about sixty emails were received by the County Council. (That’s a tiny number by MoCo standards. Consider that the Purple Line dispute has repeatedly attracted many hundreds of emails from both sides.) Some of the anti-I-270 emails were from D.C., most of them were from Downcounty (Bethesda, Silver Spring and Takoma Park) and only about ten were from north of Rockville, where the project is located. Council Member Mike Knapp noted the geographic distribution of the emails in the July 21 council work session:I understand once the committee took its action last week, that there was a flurry of emails, many of which came from the District of Columbia, which I was intrigued by, with concerns about the road widening of -- clearly a road that not many of them actually do anything on.
As long as the opposition to the I-270 project comes mainly from D.C., Downcounty and Baltimore, the politicians who represent constituents impacted by the project will have little reason to oppose it. In fact, most of them already support widening. And politicians from other parts of the state will be too busy lobbying for their own priorities to devote much political capital to killing another area’s priorities. The opposition must find a way to thrive in the very areas affected by the project itself or it will fade into irrelevance over time.
The I-270 conflict took an interesting turn in July that escaped the attention of almost everyone. We’ll examine that in Part Four.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
The Battle of I-270, Part Two
The I-270 widening project has both supporters and opponents. Today, we’ll look at the supporters.
So far, the most prominent non-governmental supporter of I-270 widening has been the local business community. On July 20, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce wrote the County Council in favor of both I-270 and a light rail CCT. Of the fourteen state legislators representing the districts along the project’s route (3B, 15, 17 and 39), twelve signed a letter supporting widening. Montgomery County Council Members Nancy Floreen and Roger Berliner cast a committee vote in favor of widening. The County Executive favors HOV lanes. And the tens of thousands of drivers stuck on the hopelessly congested interstate are desperately craving relief.
That coalition looks good on paper, but it will have problems winning the project. Here are three challenges they will need to confront.
1. Opponents are louder
The loose group of smart growth advocates, environmentalists and blog readers on Greater Greater Washington have been far louder in opposition than the supporters. There is simply no organized group to put out a pro-I-270 message, at least not yet. That fact helped the opponents ward off a July vote on the County Council. Unless supporters get organized and active, the opponents will be able to pull off more short-term victories in the future.
2. Montgomery is disadvantaged in Annapolis
Even if Senator Brian Frosh’s anti-I-270 letter fails, the Montgomery Delegation faces an uphill fight at the statehouse if they truly want this project.
For starters, the project’s discussion comes too soon after the initiation of the ICC. Many politicians and residents in other parts of the state will say, “They’re getting the ICC, they want the Purple Line and the CCT and now they want even more. When will big, arrogant Montgomery County stop throwing its weight around?” Whether that feeling is justified or not, it exists and manifests itself in many ways. For example, the Baltimore Sun uses MoCo-bashing to boost its readership. Politicians as diverse as Republican Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36) and Democratic District 30 Delegate candidate Judd Legum denounce Montgomery transportation projects because it plays well with their constituents. And while I-270 draws broad ire, no one complains about the Express Toll Lanes planned for northeast of Baltimore.
The Montgomery delegation is ill-equipped to fight back. Despite its size, the delegation has only one committee chair in the House and one in the Senate. (The Senate chair belongs to none other than I-270 opponent Brian Frosh.) The most parochial members of the delegation tend to be the most isolated from leadership and their colleagues. Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) and Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39) have both been demoted for tangling with leadership and Delegate Ben Kramer (D-14) tried to leave Annapolis altogether for a County Council seat. The delegation has yet to unite to win a big parochial battle in Annapolis and if they do, I-270 is not likely to be the issue to make that happen.
3. Project cost
Widening I-270 will cost at least $4 billion in today’s dollars. That is much higher than the cost of the $2.4 billion ICC. About half the ICC’s cost was paid for by toll-backed bonds, one-third was paid for by GARVEE bonds (which are paid back by future federal aid) and less than one-fifth was paid for by state general fund and Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) money. If that same model were applied to the I-270 project, at least $700 million would be due from the general fund and the TTF that could be spent on other projects.
That is a very tall order considering that the state is planning three major transit projects that will require some state financing; the state is far behind on BRAC-related work; and the TTF is in such bad shape that it can barely keep up with system preservation needs. On top of all that, some state legislators are openly talking about raiding the TTF to plug general fund deficits. While it is not true that the state would bear anywhere close to the full $4 billion cost of the I-270 project, it certainly is true that the state will owe a significant amount of money at a time when it has little or none of it. That is an unpleasant truth faced by the advocates of any transportation project (like the transit lines), and the bigger the project, the uglier that truth becomes.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at I-270 opponents.
Monday, September 07, 2009
The Battle of I-270, Part One
The transportation problems in the I-270 corridor have been under study by the Maryland Department of Transportation since 1998. But it was not until this summer that a proposal to widen the road came up for consideration in the Montgomery County Council and was targeted by opponents for defeat. Whatever the outcome, this controversy will rage on for many years. In this five-part series, we examine the current order of battle.
First, a bit of background. The state’s I-270/US-15 Multi-Modal Study includes both an assessment of I-270 and an examination of the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). The state suggests seven alternatives for I-270:
1. No Build
2. Transportation System Management (minor improvements with no capacity additions)
3. HOV Lanes with CCT
4. General Purpose Lanes with CCT
5. HOV + General Purpose Lanes with CCT/Premium Bus
6. Express Toll Lanes (ETLs) and one General Purpose Lane with CCT
7. Express Toll Lanes (ETLs) and two General Purpose Lanes with CCT
The state released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the project in 2002 and followed up with an update including Alternatives 6 and 7 last May. The state estimated that in 2030, 43.2 miles of the corridor’s 64.2 miles (both directions) would be at Level of Service F (failing) if nothing were done. Under Alternative 6, 31.3 miles would be rated as F and under Alternative 7, 17.3 miles would be rated as F. The state also found that the project could displace up to 251 residences and 11 businesses and adversely impact 8 historic properties, 15.6 acres of wetlands and 269 acres of forest land. The state estimated the project would boost vehicle miles traveled above the no-build alternative in 2030 by 0.97%-1.14% and would raise most pollutants by 1% or less.
The state estimates the cost of Alternatives 6 and 7 as $3.9 billion. With the CCT, the cost rises to a range of $4.3-4.7 billion.
On July 17, the Montgomery County Council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee, then comprising Chair Nancy Floreen and Roger Berliner, recommended Alternative 7 (ETLs). Committee member George Leventhal was absent. On July 21, the entire council discussed the I-270 issue but deferred a vote on it until the fall. During this time, the D.C.-based Greater Greater Washington blog launched a petition drive to rally opposition against the project and smart growth groups and the Sierra Club sent letters of protest. Many Montgomery County and Frederick County politicians wrote in support of widening along with County Executive Ike Leggett while Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) tried to organize a letter against it. The Montgomery County Council will take a position in the fall and the state will eventually pick a locally-preferred alternative, possibly after the next election.
This fight is going to drag on for a long time. Like all big transportation projects, this one has supporters and opponents. Each side has strengths, weaknesses and obstacles. We’ll start looking at the combatants in Part Two.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Brian Frosh and Rich Parsons Debate I-270
As we previously reported, Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) is attempting to organize a Montgomery County Senate Delegation letter opposing the I-270 project. That prompted an email exchange with former Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce CEO Rich Parsons, a project supporter, that was distributed to all of the county's Senators. We reproduce the emails in their entirety below.
From: Rich Parsons
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Subject: I 270 transit options - letter request from Senator Frosh
To: Forehand, Jennie Senator; Garagiola, Rob Senator; King, Nancy
Senator; Kramer, Rona Senator; Lenett, Mike Senator; Madaleno, Richard
Senator; Raskin, Jamie Senator
A quick personal plea:
I understand Senator Frosh is sending around a letter to the Governor for his colleagues to sign on the pending I-270 study. I am writing to ask that you please hold off on signing onto this letter, at least until we have a chance to talk. The letter is way off-base for a couple of key reasons. The main problem is that what he is asking for – reasonable as it may sound on the surface -- has already been done many times: namely studying non-road alternatives to reduce traffic in the 270 corridor. Been there, done that, folks, more than once too. The current study, in fact, has identified the most effective transit alternatives, which are highly effective indeed. Following the course this letter advocates would be a big step backwards, and the letter displays a lack of basic familiarity with the issue with which I am not sure you want to be associated.
This effort comes across to many of us who have been involved in these studies as yet another delay tactic on a major corridor study that is more than a decade in the making. Now that we are nearing the Final Environmental Impact Study stage, further delays could be very costly indeed. Haven’t we learned this lesson enough?
I would strongly urge you not to sign on, or at least do your own independent fact checking into this issue first. The so-called alternatives ACT is pushing here are wildly unrealistic and have already been studied and rejected both by the State and by the Montgomery County Planning Board in its TPR report in 2002. And ACT has shown itself previously not to be a reliable source for information on transportation issues. This is just more of the same. I know what they are pushing here may sound attractive on the surface, at least to the uninformed, but not all is as it seems. In short, please look before you leap on this one.
If you want more detail, I am out of town now but will be back next week. In the meantime, I am available by cell phone if you have questions.
Thanks. I hope you are enjoying your summer.
Warm regards,
Rich Parsons
*****
From: Frosh, Brian Senator
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Forehand, Jennie Senator; Garagiola, Rob Senator; King, Nancy
Senator; Kramer, Rona Senator; Lenett, Mike Senator; Madaleno, Richard
Senator; Raskin, Jamie Senator
Subject: More on I-270
Dear Colleague,
I understand you've received an email from Rich Parsons urging you not to endorse the letter relating to I-270 that I circulated last week. Rich is right about one thing: People have been analyzing ways to improve transportation in the for I-270 corridor for years.
What's different now is a proposal for an aggressive, expensive expansion of I-270 that's been added to the SHA's corridor study. SHA estimates the option's cost at over $4 billion. The price tag alone should have killed it.
If we're seriously thinking about spending that kind of money, we need a study of all-transit alternatives, not just roads. Options previously rejected because of their cost become viable--Metro to Germantown, for instance, 15-minute rush-hour MARC service, commuter service to Hagerstown, a range of possibilities that could spell a permanent cure to the I-270 mess instead of a temporary fix.
Will analyzing those alternatives slow down the process? Not likely. Some of the work has already been done, as Rich pointed out. A $4 billion project--road or otherwise--won't be leaping out of the starting blocks any time soon. And even if the money is there, the folks who support the build option know that a lot more research is needed: the County Planning Board identified a page-full of items that need to be analyzed in connection with the build option.
So talk to Rich if he calls; he's a good lobbyist for his client. But don't let him fool you into thinking that all-transit alternatives have been analyzed to death. Or that there's not enough time to do this right.
Regards,
Brian
*****
From: Rich Parsons
Sent: 8/25/2009 3:18:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
To: Forehand, Jennie Senator; Garagiola, Rob Senator; King, Nancy
Senator; Kramer, Rona Senator; Lenett, Mike Senator; Madaleno, Richard
Senator; Raskin, Jamie Senator
Subj: RE: More on I-270
I would like to respond to Senator Frosh's recent email regarding I-270.
First, I appreciate Senator Frosh's response to my email last week urging you not to sign the letter he is distributing on the I-270 project. This is a subject that is of such critical importance to our future that it needs and deserves exactly this kind of dialog before anyone makes any hasty decisions that might lock you in to a position you might later regret, or that is not supported by the available study data, so his comments are welcome.
To Brian's points (his message is attached below):
1. He is incorrect in asserting that the expansion of I-270 is anything new in this corridor study. Both expanded lane capacity and transit options have always been included, for over a decade. In fact, widening I-270 north of Shady Grove Road is already part of Montgomery County's officially adopted 10-year transportation plan (and has been for many years, since around 2002, I believe). It was one of the most effective and important traffic-relief measures found in the 2002 TPR Report and was endorsed by both the Montgomery County Planning Board and the County Council.
2. As to the cost, please keep in mind that the highway portion of this project is likely to be paid for largely with the added toll revenues that the new managed toll lanes will generate. This is "new money" that would not be there if the lanes are not added. In the case of the ICC, tolls provided well more than half the total project cost and 270 could be even more. Also, if you look at this corridor study from a regional perspective, it is a good candidate for private-sector investment, which would not cost taxpayers much if anything (Dulles Greenway was built with private-sector funds). Especially if it is looked at in conjunction with the ongoing SHA study on adding managed toll lanes between lower I-270 and the Western end of the Beltway at the American Legion Bridge (to connect with Virginia's HOT lanes already in construction), its potential for public-private or full private-sector funding is much greater and very much worth exploring. This is why the cost alone should not be any reason to kill this project. The dramatic traffic relief it provides -- 61% reduction in congestion, 60% reduction in travel times, and up to 84% improvement in peak-hour speeds -- and the lack of any effective alternatives, which is well documented – are among the other reasons we cannot afford to kill it. Finally, keep in mind, this corridor study is meant to lay out the long-term vision for this corridor over the next many decades. I would expect the project would be broken up into smaller segments that would be manageable within any given capital budget cycle for whatever public funding may be needed. But the guiding vision needs to be there to ensure a coherent, well-designed, multi-modal system in this corridor -- which remains MD's and Montgomery County's number-one job creation engine -- and this is exactly what the current study is doing.
3. As to the claim that transit options have not been studied, or that this study looked at "just roads," this simply isn't true. One needs only to check the I-270 corridor study or the Planning Board's TPR study documents to see who is right on this one.
4. I have serious doubts whether any of the specific transit options Brian mentioned, most of which have been previously studied and rejected, would ever be viable. For example, Metro to Germantown (already studied and rejected) is not viable for a host of reasons, including that it will never have sufficient ridership to qualify for federal funding. The TPR study looked at Metro extension in detail, all the way out to 2050, and still we were not even close to hitting the minimum thresholds required from Shady Grove to Metropolitan Grove, let alone Germantown (the TPR Task Force, which included many of the County's leading transit advocates, dropped this proposal by consensus -- which was a rare commodity in that task force). As for 15-minute rush-hour MARC service, studies do not indicate enough ridership to justify the cost, and there continue to be significant issues with competing freight traffic on the CSX lines (which may require adding a third track through a big part of the County, taking out homes and businesses in places like Kensington, Garrett Park Silver Spring, Rockville and Gaithersburg). Besides, last time I looked at the current MARC ridership, it was underperforming estimates and the current rush hour service was underutilized. This may still be the case and needs checking. As for commuter rail service to Hagerstown, this is not something many transit experts would take very seriously. The distance, travel times, and lack of density along the route -- along with far more cost-effective express bus options using the new lanes on I-270 -- are all serious issues that I do not think can ever be overcome. This is a non-starter. To say that any of these, or even a combination of all, would offer "a permanent cure to the I-270 mess" flies in the face of every transit study ever done in this corridor. All previous studies have found that even the most ambitious rail transit options will have a minimal impact on 270 traffic (we are talking less than 1% reductions typically).
There are reasons for this that no amount of wishful thinking can change: (a) the vast majority of trips on 270 are NOT commuting trips, and rail transit does absolutely nothing to accommodate the movement of freight, or interstate auto travel through our region, and virtually nothing for the majority of local trips that are non-commuting; (b) This is a key interstate highway segment that connects the nation's capital to most of the Midwest, in addition to serving as the lifeblood of our local employment base, so the projected "Level F" congestion we know we will face here without the widening is something we have to address, and no amount of rail transit has ever been shown to change this by itself; and (c) Heavy rail transit options like Brian is suggesting (i.e. extension of Metro service) tend to serve commuters in urban areas very well, where high densities of jobs, housing, and high-rise urban streetscapes allow for high ridership and lots of walkable destinations on either end of the trip. However, heavy rail transit is generally not cost-effective in any suburban setting once the level of density falls below say a Bethesda, Silver Spring, or Rockville; so light-rail and Bus-Rapid-Transit systems are really the only viable options for mass transit in the 270 corridor. Once you get north of Clarksburg, studies consistently show the only viable transit option is Bus-Rapid-Transit using I-270, although light rail could be viable from Shady Grove to Clarksburg in the future if the densities are there but certainly not heavy rail. Given all of this, no matter what we do on the transit side, we will need to add new capacity to I-270 to have any measurable impact on congestion and to allow for the one viable mode of mass transit that previous studies have found in the northern part of this corridor, which is express-bus. All of this is right there in the study data.
5. As Brian indicated, there is more research needed, and as this project moves to the Final Environmental Impact Statement stage, that is exactly what will happen. If there are any truly viable alternatives out there, beyond what the professionals at MTA and SHA have already analyzed, they should be considered -- but I haven't seen any yet. The latest PR fluff from ACT certainly doesn't meet that standard. Anyone can draw a bunch of lines on the back of napkin and call it a plan, but that doesn't make it worth our tax dollars to study. The last thing we need is to do is repeat the past mistakes of the ICC study, which was halted twice due to blatant political interference in the study process. The result: A project that could have been delivered in 20 years was delivered some 30 years late, during which time the total costs escalated from around $400 million to around $2.4 billion, if I recall. Delaying the already glacial EIS process any further is probably the single most expensive and least effective approach you could possibly take to transportation policy. I thought maybe we'd learned that.
This is why I thought Brian's letter was a little off base and asked you not to sign on. No offense to Senator Frosh, who I think is sincere in his efforts though we obviously disagree.
Finally, and just to clarify a point of disclosure Brian raised, I am communicating with you on this on my own behalf, as a citizen of this County who has participated in most of the major transportation studies done here over the last dozen years or so, not on behalf of any client, just to set the record straight. As you all know, I was a lobbyist on transportation issues with the Greater Washington Board of Trade many years ago, and as CEO of the County Chamber we worked with you on those issues too, both major transit projects and roads, but I have not been a lobbyist for some time now. I currently run a public relations firm and am not being compensated at all for this by anyone.
I simply care about finding real solutions to our transportation crisis that work, and am not convinced that any amount of politically correct wishful thinking, no matter how desirable it may seem, will get us where we need to be. I do not care if those solutions are roads or transit, but the data need to demonstrate they will work, as clearly is the case for the CCT, the Purple Line, the widening of 270 and addition of express bus service to Frederick, and the Western Beltway connection to Virginia's HOT lanes – all of which ought to be among your top priorities over the next decade as you work in Annapolis to secure the dedicated funding we will need to do any of this. This last point, I would humbly suggest, is where we really need your leadership the most. If you want to get serious about congestion relief, we have all the data we need to make a real difference, right now, just act on it. Anything else is just posturing.
Thanks for listening. I am always available if you need any more information on this.
Richard Parsons
President
Parsons & Associates
Monday, August 31, 2009
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.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Senator Frosh Proposes Anti-I-270 Letter
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) is circulating a proposed Montgomery Senate Delegation letter calling for alternatives to the I-270 project.
Senator Frosh is not a member of the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee. If he was, he might understand that transit and highway projects are financed by different federal agencies and that money does not transfer dollar-for-dollar from one mode to the other. Furthermore, let's put aside the merits - or demerits - of the I-270 project for a moment. Why would we be daft enough to even hint to the state that we don't want a big transportation project?
Following is the text of the letter. We do not yet know who, if anyone, has agreed to sign it.
The Honorable Martin O’Malley
The State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Dear Gov. O'Malley:
Your administration identified an important priority for Maryland by setting the goal of a substantial increase in transit ridership. New transit lines will remove traffic from our congested highways, improving the environment while they give harried commuters more time with their families. Transit also opens the door for economic progress; existing stations are rare bright spots in the current collapse of construction activity, and in the future transit lines can help revitalize our older urban centers.
The Department of Transportation's current I-270 Corridor Study may offer a valuable opportunity for progress toward the objective of more effective transit. The I-270 corridor has been a center of both economic growth and traffic congestion, and MDOT is evaluating options for relieving the congestion. To date, all options evaluated in this study have devoted well over two-thirds of projected construction funding to road capacity expansion. The Action Committee for Transit has developed the attached alternative, comparable in cost, that consists entirely of transit improvements.
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 the 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.
Sincerely,
Friday, August 07, 2009
Blair Lee Takes on Baltimore Guy
“Baltimore Guy” Mike Dresser has accomplished the impossible – producing substantial agreement between me and the notorious Blair Lee. I have only one thing to add to Lee’s description of MoCo’s willingness to turn its tender cheek to other jurisdictions’ parochialism: our county has already committed more than $120 million in local funds to the Purple Line. How much has the City of Baltimore spent on the Red Line, Mr. Dresser?
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Mike Knapp Takes on Baltimore Guy
Montgomery County Council Member Mike Knapp has commented on the long-running debate between your author and Baltimore Sun reporter Michael Dresser, aka "Baltimore Guy." Following is the letter to the Sun written by the Gentle Giant of Germantown.
August 3, 2009
"Baltimore Guy" Off Base
I applaud Michael Dresser's "Baltimore Guy" for taking the interests of his home town to heart ("Getting There -- $4.6 billion to keep Montgomery 'vibrant' seems a bit much," July 27) -- but I'm afraid that after a closer look at reality, he will see that with his handwringing over the proposal to widen the I-270 corridor in Montgomery County rather than spending that money in Baltimore ... well, he really does protest too much.
Dresser bases much of his argument on an extremely short-sighted and rather spurious premise: Why should the state spend money "on a project few Baltimoreans are likely to use?" With that logic, Baltimore Guy might well ask why the state of Maryland would want to spend tax dollars maintaining parks in Cumberland, funding schools in Waldorf or repairing roads in St. Mary's County. Frankly, the idea of setting up a Montgomery County versus Baltimore dichotomy -- or, worse yet, Montgomery County versus The Rest of Maryland -- reeks of the playground. We can do better.
In fact, I absolutely agree that Montgomery County -- indeed, all of Maryland -- would benefit by having a vibrant Baltimore. Mr. Dresser suggests investing more funds in Baltimore -- and I'm pleased to announce that we in Montgomery County have done our part. Indeed, Montgomery County taxpayers not only send more funding to Annapolis each year than any other jurisdiction in Maryland -- about $2.1 billion comes from Montgomery County, as opposed to $629 million from Baltimore City -- but most of that money actually stays outside the borders of our county.
Under next year's budget, for instance, Baltimore City residents would receive $1,879 per capita in state aid, while Montgomery County residents would receive $768. If Baltimore Guy wants to pit one county against another, he better be darn sure he knows which way the money in Maryland is actually flowing -- because Montgomery County and others are definitely investing in Baltimore. But using Mr. Dresser's logic, our residents should be asking if it is really worth investing in Baltimore's schools, since none of our students in Montgomery County are attending them.
Further, I-270 serves as the western gateway to the nation's capital -- and every year, it is driven on not only by the Montgomery County residents Mr. Dresser finds so unworthy, but by hundreds of thousands of tourists who make their way to this region, bringing millions of dollars to the greater Washington, D.C./Baltimore region. If widening I-270 reduces congestion and makes it easier and less time-consuming to make it into D.C., well, I hope Dresser won't begrudge Ohioians, West Virginians and Kansans from using it.
Finally, I would point out to Baltimore Guy that a major expansion of I-95, reconstructing the highway from Interstate-895 to White Marsh Boulevard by adding two express toll lanes and four general-purpose lanes in each direction, is currently underway. Will Montgomery County residents use this road? Maybe. Does the fact that our residents may not use this improved road mean that it is not good for Montgomery County? Absolutely not. Such improvements are good not only for Baltimore and Montgomery County but for all of Maryland, period.
Mike Knapp, Rockville
The writer is a Montgomery County councilman.
