Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Taken for a Ride on the ICC
Imagine that you bring an item marked at $100 up to a store counter. The cashier takes your credit card, rings it up and says, “That will be $200.” Surprised, you ask, “What happened to the price?” The cashier replies, “We had a last-minute adjustment and since I am holding your credit card, I know you will pay for it.”
What was that? You say that has never happened to you? But it will, dear reader, as soon as you drive on the ICC.
Recently approved toll rates for the ICC are among the highest in the country, maxing out at 25-35 cents per mile during peak hours. Those rates are higher than stated by the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which assumed a baseline peak rate of 17 cents per mile and did not study any peak rates above 25 cents. Seven state legislators, most of whom ran on anti-ICC platforms in 2006, picked up on that fact and asked the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) to extend the comment period, but to no avail.
Why did the peak toll rate double in three years? It’s not because the project cost doubled. When contract costs increased a year ago, the state reacted by indefinitely postponing service road work near I-95. That kept the project on budget. Instead, the state is relying on a consultant’s report stating that the high tolls will result in “near maximum toll revenue potential.” That’s a change in course from the FEIS, which acknowledged the need to raise money but stated that in setting tolls “consideration would also be given to the desire to maximize use of the ICC so as to decrease traffic on alternative routes.”
Perhaps even worse than the tolls themselves is all the political demagoguery surrounding them. It is one thing for anti-ICC politicians like Council Member Phil Andrews to criticize the tolls. Andrews has opposed the ICC for many years on multiple grounds and his slamming of the tolls is perfectly consistent with his past positions. But the entire County Council, which has several ICC supporters, opposes the tolls too. Nancy Floreen, perhaps the county’s biggest ICC backer, calls the tolls “highway robbery.” We are not inclined to give ICC-boosting politicians a pass on the tolls. How can a politician be pro-ICC and anti-toll when it has been known since at least 1997 that the multi-billion dollar project would be financed with tolls? And is it really a surprise that a very expensive road project paid for by tolls would charge very high tolls?
Then there are state legislators like House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-17) and former Delegate Cheryl Kagan (D-17), who backed the ICC but now protest the tolls. Both of them were in office in 1997, when Delegates Dana Dembrow (D-20), Henry Heller (D-19), Adrienne Mandel (D-19), Patricia Faulkner (R-14B) and Raymond Beck (R-39) introduced a local bill prohibiting the ICC from becoming a toll road without the permission of the county’s state legislators. That bill would have given the delegation leverage to block onerous tolls. But neither Barve nor Kagan supported it and the bill died. Now both of them are shocked, shocked by the tolls! Other current state legislators who were in office at the time but did not co-sponsor this bill include Senators Brian Frosh (D-16) and Jennie Forehand (D-17) and Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20).
Finally, all of these politicians are missing a key point. MdTA has sole authority to set toll rates. It does not answer to the General Assembly and does whatever it wants. It unilaterally decided to charge fees for E-ZPasses last winter, claims it is not subject to state laws like the Public Information Act and now ignores its own FEIS by doubling the peak toll rate. While the politicians are quick to condemn the tolls, none of them present a plan to make this agency accountable to the public.
And what are the results of the agency’s unaccountability? MdTA’s rationale for high tolls is that they are needed to avoid diverting lots of toll revenue from the rest of the state and/or Transportation Trust Fund money to pay off the ICC’s bonds. But the ICC tolls that they have approved are so unreasonably high that drivers may avoid the road altogether. Then MdTA would have to jack up tolls from the rest of the state or seek trust fund money to pay the bonds – which is exactly what they say they are trying to avoid. And the General Assembly has little power to review their actions or stop them.
Where is the outrage over that?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Phil Andrews Asks Governor to Lower ICC Tolls
Council Member Phil Andrews has written Governor Martin O'Malley to ask him to lower the tolls planned for the ICC. Andrews has been an ICC opponent throughout his political career and protested ICC tolls back in 2005, when they were to be set at 17 cents per mile at peak hours. Now they are planned for 25-35 cents. The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) does not report directly to the Governor, but he does appoint its nine-member board, which his chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, to three year staggered terms. Following is the Council Member's letter.
December 18, 2009
Honorable Martin O’Malley
Governor, State of Maryland
Annapolis MD 21401
Dear Governor O’Malley,
Yesterday, the Maryland Transportation Authority, whose members you appointed, approved unaffordably high tolls for the Inter-County Connector (ICC). These tolls will cost $3,000 per year for ICC commuters who travel daily end-to-end during peak hours. For many workers who earn $50,000 per year, that will be six percent of their pre-tax salary. Even if the economy were healthy, six percent of someone’s salary is too much to ask.
I am writing to request that you use the full power of your office to reverse this decision. If unchanged, the high tolls will prohibit drivers from using the road, thereby ensuring that the $3 billion ICC fails to take significant traffic off local roads.
During the 2002 election, the ICC was sold to the public as the best way to provide widespread traffic relief. No one mentioned high tolls that make the road unaffordable to many people with limited incomes. I don’t recall you mentioning them in your 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Asking the public to finance a road that many can’t afford to use amounts to a “bait and switch.”
You alone among state officials had the power to stop the ICC, and you have been noticeably silent on the now-approved ICC tolls. Whether the ICC becomes an historic boondoggle because of chronic under use is up to you. Whether the ICC becomes the embodiment of regressive public policy is up to you. The ICC will be your legacy.
Please apprise me of your views on the approved ICC tolls and what you intend to do if you disagree with the high tolls approved by the Maryland Transportation Authority.
Sincerely,
Phil Andrews
Montgomery County Council
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Maryland Transportation Authority in Trouble
At a recent meeting of Montgomery and Prince George’s County state legislators, the state’s Department of Legislative Services (DLS) made a detailed presentation on the state’s transportation prospects. We have already covered the state’s problems with the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). But the condition of the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA), which controls the state’s toll roads, is a major revelation that points to a disturbing fact: Marylanders will soon pay higher tolls just to pay for the services they already have. And that’s just the beginning.
On October 9, a team of Montgomery and Prince George’s state legislators met to consider their significant regional transportation needs. DLS updated the group on the state’s challenges in financing transportation, a regular topic on this blog. Their analysis agreed with our reporting on the TTF: namely, that the state was having increasing problems keeping up with transportation needs. But it was their focus on MdTA that really caught our attention.
MdTA is a semi-independent agency that controls the state’s toll facilities, including I-95 northeast of Baltimore, the Bay Bridge and the Intercounty Connector (ICC). It does not depend on tax revenues, but instead pays for its operating, maintenance and new construction budgets out of tolls. The agency directly controls toll levels and E-ZPass charges, all of which are set to support its budget. The state’s problems in financing its transportation needs almost guarantee that any major new road projects, including the proposed widening of I-270, will require tolls to pay for construction.
MdTA told the legislators that it is under increasing financial pressure. First, its toll revenues – the lifeblood of the agency – have dropped in year-over-year terms for 12 of the last 14 months.
This is despite the fact that the agency has tried hard to raise new revenues.
The ICC, which is being financed primarily by toll-backed bonds, is drawing on the majority of MdTA’s funding at the moment.
MdTA’s current statutory debt limit is $3.0 billion. Primarily because of the bond issues used to build the ICC, the agency will come close to its limit by 2015. Any increase will require a vote by the state legislature.
MdTA is already projecting toll increases to support its operations.
MdTA says it has “significant capital needs in the future with no clear indication of how it will pay for them.”
Those needs primarily concern bridge replacements and Express Toll Lane construction on I-95 northeast of Baltimore. The agency’s analysis does not address any widening of I-270 or any other toll-based road projects.
This data reveals an awful truth: it is not merely the Transportation Trust Fund that is in trouble. It is also the case that the state’s toll road network is on the verge of being unable to pay for its own system preservation needs – even with toll increases in recent and coming years – much less for any new road construction.
Do the Lords of Annapolis need any more evidence of the impending transportation crisis that could soon cripple the state’s economy?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
SHA Announces ICC Meeting on Environmental Issues
Following is an email from the State Highway Administration announcing this meeting. Would anyone be willing to attend and write a guest blog?
On Fri Aug 14 14:59:18 CDT 2009, SHA ICC Project
The State Highway Administration (SHA) is holding an open house for the Intercounty Connector’s (ICC) Environmental Stewardship and Compensatory Mitigation (ES/CM) program. Information on the ICC’s mainline environmental features, such as the box turtle relocation, and erosion and sediment control efforts also will be presented at the open house.
The ES/CM program includes an unprecedented level of mitigation to offset environmental impacts associated with the ICC. Above and beyond that mitigation, the package also includes Environmental Stewardship projects that were developed to specifically address degraded environmental conditions in the project area that existed prior to, and not as a result of, the ICC construction. The Environmental Stewardship and Compensatory Mitigation projects include stream restoration, wetlands creation and enhancement, and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices (BMP). The majority of the BMP projects are proposed within the Upper Paint Branch watershed because it contains the most sensitive aquatic resources within the project area.
The details are: Saturday, August 29 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., The National Capital Trolley Museum 1313 Bonifant Road, Silver Spring MD.
This forum will provide an update for interested parties, including an overview of the ES/CM program and progress to date on the proposed stewardship and mitigation efforts throughout the project area. There will be no formal presentations, but members of the project team will be available to answer any questions on the material showcased. We will also post an announcement of this meeting on the project website, www.iccproject.com; SHA encourages you to share this information with your staff.
SHA hopes that you also will take advantage of the opportunity to learn more about the proposed environmental projects. In addition, please share this email with your staff members so that they may attend as well. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. John Sales, Community Liaison, Office of the ICC, toll-free at 866-462-0020 or via email at iccproject@sha.state.md.us.
Sincerely, Melinda B. Peters, Director, Office of the ICC
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Why Baltimore Should Support I-270 Widening
Baltimore Guy (and Sun reporter) Mike Dresser feels cranky about the I-270 widening proposal. Well, we have news for you, Baltimore – the I-270 project may be a better deal for you than for us!
First of all, we can see where Baltimore Guy is coming from. The view around the state is that MoCo bullied its way into getting one giant road project – the ICC – and now we want to bully our way to getting another giant project to widen I-270. The problem with that view is that it gives us too much credit. The history of the ICC does not showcase MoCo’s ambition, but rather its schizophrenia when it comes to big road projects. Longtime County Executive Doug Duncan supported the ICC, but our County Council voted to oppose it by 6-2 in April 1999, 5-3 in March 2002 and 5-3 in July 2002. In 1999, the Council tried to rezone ICC-intended property as parkland, provoking a confrontation with the General Assembly. After the 2002 election, the Council voted 6-3 in favor of the ICC in December 2002 and 6-3 in favor in March 2005. The road finally began construction under Governor Bob Ehrlich, a Republican whom MoCo voted against twice. The County Council’s newest member, Nancy Navarro, won a tight special election in part because she opposed the ICC and ran against a pro-ICC state legislator. Does all of the above really lead you to believe that MoCo waged a relentless campaign to get the ICC?
The proponents of the I-270 project say it’s about creating jobs, jobs, jobs. Let’s look at that argument. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MoCo had more jobs than any other jurisdiction in Maryland in 2008. But that’s not all – MoCo’s jobs pay 23% better than the state average. And since MoCo’s income tax is a flat 3.2% and the state has had a progressive income tax since 2007, the state is the real beneficiary of those high-paying jobs.
Now let’s find out who is paying the state’s bills. In FY 2007, MoCo paid $1.6 billion in income taxes and $453 million in sales taxes to the state government for a combined total of $2.1 billion. Baltimore City paid $342 million in income taxes and $287 million in sales taxes for a combined total of $629 million – less than one-third of MoCo’s payout.
What happens when the money gets to Annapolis? Much of it comes back out in the form of state aid, but it doesn’t come out evenly. The aid formulas are largely driven by property values. Let’s set aside the fact that high property values mostly mean unaffordable mortgages for residents like your author – MoCo is supposed to be rich, right? So “rich” counties get less and “poor” counties get more. Here’s how that works out in the Governor’s most recent budget proposal: 
Baltimore City residents would have received $1,879 per capita in aid next year under the Governor’s proposal. MoCo residents would receive $768. If William Donald Schaefer and an army of Pratt Street accountants dreamed up a state aid system, it could hardly be more generous to Baltimore than the one we have now!
But wait, it gets better. The state gives three times as much school aid per pupil to Baltimore as it does to MoCo.
And the state has completely assumed funding responsibility for Baltimore’s Community College, Detention Center and Central Booking Facility.
And Baltimore Guy is complaining about anything we get?
All of the above points to a cardinal truth: every job created in MoCo because of the I-270 project means more state aid for the City of Baltimore. And Baltimore can roll up that cash without having to deal with all the extra traffic that will impact us if the project is built. Traffic is a huge issue here – 58% of our residents picked it is as our top long-term challenge in a recent Council of Governments poll. It is the primary reason that we sometimes vote politicians out of office for letting in too many jobs. Yeah, we’re funny that way. And we still think we’re smarter than everyone else!
So do you really want to help us, Baltimore? Forget about I-270. Just loosen your development regulations, build a giant superhighway and double your population and employment. Then send a big chunk of those extra tax revenues to the state so they can pay for the majority of our school budget and take over funding responsibility for huge swaths of our local government.
What did you say? You don’t like the sound of that?
Hey, it worked for MoCo, right?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Agriculture, Environment and Open Space Co-exist in the County – For Now
By Sharon Dooley.
This is the weekend of the Montgomery County Farm Tour and Harvest Sale. Several farms are open for tours, produce picking, sales or demonstrations. Take advantage of the opportunity to visit working farms and orchards and further the efforts of the buy local experiences. Yesterday one of the sites I visited was Butlers Orchards near Germantown. There one can find field fruits for picking such as blackberries or just picked vegetables from the fields for sale in the farm stand. Families unloaded from cars and children hurried to pick their choice of fruit. Let’s all hope that our elected and appointed officials ensure that this experience continues for residents of our county.
To get to this farm one must wander through a tucked away and beautiful area along truly rustic roads that traverse dense forests following meandering waterways with the occasional one lane bridge spanning the streams. Here, only moments from 270 and 355, the din from those bustling roads is not evident as the dominant sounds are those of birds, flowing waters and rustling branches. A youngster was spotting hopping across rocks in one stream as the sun glistened through the trees and the waters sparkled. Occasionally a meadow or farm field is spotted up from the narrow lanes that join the routes sometimes-steep inclines, where trees line the edge of the shoulder less roads. These roads have descriptive names such as Wild Cat or Davis Mill and all are urged to explore these quiet places while we can. Unfortunately, also noted, was a small cluster of luxury homes being built along Davis Mill – how long will it be before these homeowners will demand wider roads and straighter exits from their wooded hide-a-ways? How inappropriately sited this development seemed.
Yet, I was reminded that some of this forested area is being considered for yet another highway – one that would carry the traffic from the mid-county highway (soon to be linked to the ICC) from its current terminus in Montgomery Village up through the Brink Road areas to near Clarksburg. It would go again through stream valleys and Seneca Park, while some routes would continue this passage through some of the virgin forests just described. Areas in the Dayspring retreat center, where meadow habitats and lively flowing waters are now protected, would be threatened with destruction. The county has placed signs at spots along Blount Road and other places noting the potential for this highway. Some potential routes would cross waterways in a dozen or more areas and would change the natural resources, degrade water quality and destroy plant and animal life in large measures. This is not stewardship of the environment – a phrase too often tossed around in political circles these days, but given lip service frequently.
Recently I was among those requesting that the Maryland National Capitol Parks and Planning Board delay planned construction in the western area of Clarksburg near 270 because of the potential damage to the Seneca Creek watershed generally (because of impervious surface runoff among other concerns) and the Ten Mile Creek area specifically. Ten Mile Creek – to those of you who are down county – is an actual ford – where the stream waters are often flowing over the road surface. The testimony from Diane Cameron of Storm water partners can be read here and is representative of comments submitted.
The decision was taken to indeed delay this construction; environmentalists throughout the area applauded this action.
The county has spent millions of dollars to restore and reclaim some of our down county creeks and waterways, so it is a real positive note to see that the planning board took this proactive stand. Now – it is hoped that the council will continue to approve this delay despite demands by builders to the contrary. However we cannot just stop there and applaud; the community must remain vigilant and stop allowing channeling of streams as has happened with negative effects in Clarksburg already along with other sensitive areas in the county. Affected communities need to question claims that this actually protects the streams. It has been demonstrated many times that the straight stream is not the most effective way to direct water flow.
In previous County Council testimony, contractors have noted that they are not always following the county water standards. Recent storms have sent mud and water flowing out from the construction sites along the ICC. Large tracts along the path of this monster highway have been cleared and are now clear-cut with no remaining undergrowth to hold storm waters. A recent article in the Washington Post noted the huge culverts and massive bridges that are being built over sensitive areas of the upper Rock Creek and Lake Need wood Park areas. The environment was supposedly protected with a runway for deer and other small animals. These structures were created which keep the traffic flow above the natural beauty below - supposedly minimizing the negative effects of this three Billion dollar highway. How much nicer could it have been if these natural areas had not been disturbed at all?
Now back to the Farms and the upper county areas of beauty and quiet reflection. Is there will in this county to keep these forests, vistas, and farms and nearby crops? Is there a critical mass of those who would speak up for protecting what we have and keeping the Buy Local movement alive? Are the powers of those who would work to build highways at the cost of life quality and protection of the environment and our heritage greater than those who would protect our current choices for moderate growth? This question gives the county a clear choice and whatever choice is made can provide a critical tipping point for county residents, not just for ensuing decades but also maybe for the entire metro area. Can we – should we ever have to – sustain our growth and provide for food, energy, education, employment, transit and shelter for those who will live here?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
D.C. Blog Misleads MoCo Residents on I-270
DuPont Circle resident Dave Alpert, founder of the pro-transit blog Greater Greater Washington, has launched a campaign against the widening of I-270. We usually agree with smart-growth advocates like Alpert and we admire much of his past work. But this time, he is basing the bulk of his case on misinformation. And as much as we dislike congestion and sprawl, we dislike misleading arguments even more.
Alpert’s fundamental premise is that the $3.8 billion cost of widening I-270 could be used instead for transit. The problem with this reasoning is that the extra lanes under consideration for most of the road’s length will probably charge tolls. Under the option preferred by the Montgomery County Council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee, those lanes would be express toll lanes, which require vehicles to pay tolls that increase in times of great highway demand. Free-flowing toll lanes attract drivers who pay tolls until the speeds in those lanes fall to the same level as the speeds in general purpose lanes. Those tolls can be used to pay off toll-backed bonds, which can fund at least part of the cost of the project.
Greater Greater Washington calls the I-270 proposal “ICC 2.0.” In a prior post, we described how the ICC was financed:The project’s total cost is budgeted at $2.4 billion. Of that amount, $1.23 billion is from toll-backed revenue bonds, $750 million is from GARVEE bonds (which are backed by future federal aid), $264.9 million is from Maryland’s general fund, $180 million is from Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) and $18.5 million is from direct federal aid. That means that just $463.4 million, or 19% of the project’s cost, is coming from direct expenditures. The remainder consists of borrowed money (though some of that will draw from future federal aid).
So in the case of the ICC, over 80% of the money could not have been used for transit projects. While no one has yet proposed a financing plan for I-270, there is little reason to believe that it will not also include toll-backed bonds and highway GARVEE bonds – neither of which can be put towards transit.
Even more specious is the argument that the I-270 funding can be used to build a light-rail Corridor Cities Transitway. As we have previously explained, light rail on the CCT currently fails the federal cost-effectiveness test, thereby greatly reducing the project’s chances of obtaining federal funding. The only chance for improving the CCT’s cost effectiveness lies in accounting for increased density from the new Gaithersburg West master plan, but Alpert opposes that plan.
So Greater Greater Washington would have us believe that I-270’s toll-based funding – which after all, would not exist without a toll project – can be diverted to a rail project which probably cannot gain federal approval without increased density that they oppose. That is at best a failure of logic. At worst, it is misinformation. In either case, it is a poor basis to oppose the project.
The best arguments against the ICC were that it would lead to environmental damage, neighborhood destruction and auto-centric development. Whether they were right or wrong, those arguments were at least intellectually honest and they can be used fairly against the widening of I-270. The worst argument against the ICC was that its funding could be spent dollar-for-dollar on other projects. That claim was false as applied to the vast majority of the road’s financing, but opponents used it anyway. Greater Greater Washington’s campaign against I-270 follows that tradition.
So if you are inclined to oppose toll lanes on I-270, stand against them for honest reasons. Don’t assume that blocking road projects will help us get more transit, or that Montgomery County will turn into one big DuPont Circle as a result.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Nancy Navarro Calls for District 4 Parkland Acquisition (Updated)
Following is the press release from the Council Member's office.
Update: The resolution was endorsed by the Audubon Naturalist Society and the Montgomery Countryside Alliance and passed on a 7-0 vote.
Councilmember Nancy Navarro Calls for District 4 Parkland Acquisition
Proposed Parkland Purchase Would Mitigate ICC Impact & Protect Environment
Contact: David Moon (240) 777-7953 or david.moon@montgomerycountymd.gov
ROCKVILLE, MD – As part of her ongoing desire to mitigate environmental impacts from the ICC, Nancy Navarro announced her staunch support for a County Council resolution to approve the purchase of 52 acres of land for Burtonsville’s Fairland Park. The parcel contains old growth forest over 100-years-old, as well as wetlands and bogs that would serve as a buffer for the ICC, which is located only 1.5 miles away. Groups ranging from the Sierra Club of Montgomery County to the East County Citizens Advisory Board endorsed the purchase.
Navarro noted: “The ICC cuts aggressively through District 4, and as a result, the residents of my community are shouldering many of the highway’s negative impacts. But by saving this delicate land from development, the County would be taking a step forward to demonstrate basic fairness. We transferred so much land to the State for ICC construction, that it only makes sense to take advantage of these rare opportunities to preserve replacement land.”
The land would be sold to Montgomery County by Fairland Development LLC, at a cost of $8,750,000, which has been negotiated down from the original asking price of $11,550,000. If the County Council rejects the purchase, this sensitive land will undoubtedly be developed into 109 housing units. Navarro highlighted the fact that this acquisition would not have been possible were it not for the weakened financial conditions in the development and housing industry. “The housing crash has presented Montgomery County with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect and preserve land at a steep discount.”
The County Council will vote on this resolution during its July 14th session today.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
ICC Battle Impacts District 4 Race
The battle over whether the Intercounty Connector (ICC) should be built has been decided. But a battle over how to rout traffic along Georgia Avenue has been raging for more than a year and it just might impact the District 4 race - and perhaps more contests beyond.
The $2.6 billion ICC is being built in five phases. Phase A, which began construction in November 2007, connects I-370 to Georgia Avenue. Phase C, which began construction in April 2008, connects US-29 to I-95. Phase B, which will connect Phases A and C, started construction in January. At the moment, Phase A is 40% complete, Phase C is 30% complete and Phase B is 5% complete.
Phase A is due to be completed in the fall of 2010, at least a full year before Phase B’s completion. During that period of time, ICC traffic would empty onto Georgia Avenue just north of its congested intersection with Norbeck Road, a fact that was revealed in 2007. According to the Gazette, Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) and his sister, Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) presented a plan by SHA to mitigate the interim impact on the Georgia-Norbeck intersection by constructing a bypass spur around its northeast corner to the Greater Olney Civic Association (GOCA) in September 2007. The SHA plan would allow ICC-related traffic to get onto Norbeck Road without going through the Georgia-Norbeck intersection. But the spur would have dumped the ICC traffic very close to the northern entrance of Leisure World. That prompted both GOCA and the Leisure World Board of Directors to oppose SHA’s plan, with many in both communities arguing that the ICC should not be opened until it was entirely complete.
The interim traffic routing posed a difficult problem for the Kramers, both of whom were longtime ICC supporters. Senator Rona Kramer initially defended SHA’s bypass plan to GOCA according to the Gazette:“The new road doesn’t affect any homes or businesses, as the majority of the area is SHA-controlled property,” Kramer said. ‘‘This will allow traffic to avoid the Georgia Avenue⁄Norbeck Road intersection and doesn’t impact Georgia Avenue traffic, which was our goal.”
But after intense pressure from the community, the Kramers wrote the letter below to MDOT Secretary John Porcari calling SHA’s bypass proposal “convoluted” and requesting that the ICC not open until it was completed in its entirety.
A portion of Norbeck Road will be widened from the access point of the new road to as far east as SHA owns the property.
“This should all be completed by the time that the ICC opens,” Kramer said. “I’ve asked SHA to see if it could be done sooner, because we could use it now. They said they would try, but it involves moving a lot of utilities, which takes time.”
Kramer said she presented the plan to GOCA members for their feedback, saying this is not the end of the discussion, but the beginning.
“This affects both my and Ben’s districts, him on the west and me on the east of Georgia Avenue,” she said. “We are very concerned about traffic, especially if there is any gap at all between phases one and two. We don’t want this to impact our community, and it’s our job to see that it doesn’t.”
She added that SHA has been “very responsive.”
“I was impressed that we didn’t have to fight with them,” she said.
SHA ultimately ditched its bypass proposal in favor of a plan to open temporary ramps from the ICC onto Norbeck Road about a half-mile east of the Leisure World entrance. GOCA President Sharon Dooley said:“It appears we got half a loaf,” Greater Olney Civic Association President Sharon Dooley said. “We wanted them to keep the road closed until it was all completed, but we did get these improvements, which should help Georgia Avenue, and that was our intent.”
But others were displeased.
“I think our voices were heard, and we appreciate all the work of our elected officials on this issue,” she added.Harry Cohen, a Leisure World resident and vice president of INFORCE, a group that was formed by six Leisure World residents concerned about the ICC’s proximity to their homes, called the decision “the lesser of two evils.”
Some of Ben Kramer’s opponents argue that he and County Executive Ike Leggett were the “joint architects” of SHA’s now-rejected bypass plan. I find that hard to believe. As a civic activist near the awful Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen Road intersection, I have found SHA to be resistant to control by any politician. SHA’s planners and engineers do as they will at the pace they prefer. While state and county politicians have supported a new Metro entrance at the Intersection of Death, SHA still has not implemented ANY interim improvements there from a plan they proposed in late 2007. The Kramers can complain endlessly about ICC traffic mitigation but no one should have any illusions that SHA serves at their beck and call.
“We’re very disappointed,” he said. “While this plan is better than the spur road because the traffic enters Norbeck Road east of the Leisure World gate, it’s not going to be good. Norbeck Road can’t handle the 12,000 cars a day. It is already clogged.”
Cohen said INFORCE’s preference was to keep the first segment of the ICC closed until the other segments were completed.
“We don’t like this at all,” he said. “The governor and the SHA have heard our pleas, but have not responded in any way.”
But there is a larger question at issue here. While the Kramers cannot dictate to SHA, both of them have supported the ICC throughout their political careers. If SHA is now running amok during its construction, they are doing so because of the approval of a project the Kramers both desired.
In this life, sometimes you get what you want – and then you regret it!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Pipkin’s ICC Gambit
Why is Republican Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36) sponsoring a bill to stop further spending on the Intercounty Connnector, a high-profile project that is a top priority of the business community? We can think of several reasons, all relevant to the next Congressional District 1 race – a contest in which Pipkin may very well run again.
1. Opposition to “Government Waste”
Like ICC opponents in Montgomery County, Pipkin can claim that the ICC is a “wasteful” expenditure given the state’s recent cutbacks in transportation projects. Many Montgomery ICC enemies say that the project’s money should be spent on transit instead, but Pipkin would have a different goal in mind.
2. Against Montgomery County, for the Eastern Shore
Pipkin can make an argument that many outside Montgomery County embrace: Montgomery gets too much transportation money. It is getting the $2.4 billion ICC, plus two out of three of the state’s major new transit lines, plus a large annual subsidy to WMATA. Pipkin can say that other projects in the “neglected” Eastern Shore are due for financing. This will be a popular argument in District 1. It also adds a touch of populism to go against the state’s biggest, and supposedly wealthiest, jurisdiction.
3. Pro-environment
If Pipkin makes it out of the Republican primary, his anti-ICC bill will form part of a nice pitch to the environmental movement. Maryland environmentalists are convinced that the ICC will promote global warming and increase stormwater runoff. In fact, Governor O’Malley’s support for the ICC was the biggest black mark on his mid-term evaluation by the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. This fits with Pipkin’s past efforts to depict himself as a pro-environment, pro-Bay Republican and will make him more competitive against Frank Kratovil in a general election.
The bill’s co-sponsor list is interesting. It includes Democrats James Brochin (D-42), George Della (D-46), Brian Frosh (D-16), David Harrington (D-47), Paul Pinsky (D-22), and Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Republicans Richard Colburn (R-37) and Nancy Jacobs (R-34). Frosh, Pinsky and Raskin are three of the most liberal Senators in Maryland and Jacobs is one of the most conservative Senators. Democratic Delegate Barbara Frush (D-21) is the sponsor of the House version of the bill.
Regardless of the policy implications of stopping the ICC, this bill is a very astute move for Senator Pipkin. Have the Democratic co-sponsors considered whether they should be helping Pipkin - and perhaps even strengthening him - for a possible 2010 showdown against Frank Kratovil?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Show Us the Money!
Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Secretary John Porcari held his annual Road Show event in Rockville last Thursday. Its purpose is to brief Montgomery lawmakers and constituents on what the state is building in the county. But of course, lots of attention is also directed at what the state is not building. And that means – surprise, surprise – it all comes down to money.
From left to right: SHA's Darryl Mobley and Neil Pedersen, Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18), Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15) and MDOT Secretary John Porcari.
John Porcari is a considerably more skilled man than his predecessor, Ehrlich Transportation Secretary Bob Flanagan. Flanagan was notorious for saying in barely veiled terms, “You guys are getting the ICC. Isn’t that enough?” Porcari is facing a far more constrained budget situation than Flanagan ever did. Yet, his style is to lay out the budget realities in plain terms, have his aides drone on for very long periods about every state project line by line and artfully deflect the darts thrown by unhappy politicians.
And there were a lot of politicians present. We saw County Council Members Nancy Floreen, Mike Knapp, Don Praisner and Phil Andrews; Delegates Sheila Hixson, Susan Lee, Jim Gilchrist, Charles Barkley, Brian Feldman, Kumar Barve, Kirill Reznik, Karen Montgomery, Al Carr, Kathleen Dumais, Bill Bronrott, Jeff Waldstreicher, Bill Frick and Roger Manno; and Senators Jennie Forehand, Brian Frosh, Jamie Raskin, and new Senate Delegation Chair Rich Madaleno. All were on hand to hear the following:
1. There Are Only THREE Road Projects Under Construction by the State in MoCo.
You read that correctly: THREE road projects under construction. They are the ever-popular ICC, a 1.1 mile 6-lane highway along MD 124 (Woodfield Road) near Montgomery Village, and the Randolph Road/Montrose Parkway interchange in Rockville. A dozen more projects are in various stages of planning with no construction money scheduled.
John Porcari (center) has better political skills than most politicians.
2. The ICC is a Done Deal
The ICC consists of five contracts. Contract A, linking I-370 to Georgia Avenue, is now under construction. Contract C, linking US-29 to I-95, is also under construction. Contract B, linking Georgia Avenue to US-29, has just had a notice to proceed issued. Construction will start in early 2009. Contract E, linking I-95 to US-1 in Prince George’s County, is scheduled to have a notice to proceed issued by the summer of 2009. Contract D, which would build a network of feeder roads around I-95, has been “indefinitely deferred” due to cost overruns on other phases of the project. Just to hammer the point home, State Highway Administrator Neil Pedersen stated “it is not our intention” to replace Contract B with local road work. At this point, 92% of the construction funding has already been awarded.
3. No Worries About the Purple Line or the CCT – Right?
Porcari and his staff were adamant that Baltimore’s Red Line, the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) are on parallel tracks for the federal approval process. When challenged by Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39), Porcari said that the recent planning cuts ($25 million for the Purple Line and $43 million for the CCT) would not affect the readiness of those projects for federal review. No one asked the obvious question: if those amounts were unnecessary, what were they doing in the budget in the first place?
Nancy Floreen calls the question - again.
But County Council Member Nancy Floreen asked the question of the night. When would Montgomery County be told of its expected “local contribution” for either of the two transit projects? This pulls the pants down on a dirty secret not commonly reported in the press. When the federal government and the state decide how much funding they will channel to any of the state’s three competing transit projects (assuming that any are federally approved), the local jurisdiction will be expected to make up any difference with project cost. Porcari’s staff could not provide an answer on when those costs would be known, but estimated they might be available in two years.
The discussion of the two major transit projects has always assumed they would be mostly paid by the federal government and the state. But what if a large bill is headed to the county? How much will county taxpayers be willing to pay for the Purple Line or the CCT? What if the property tax limit has to be broken, thus triggering the anti-tax Ficker Amendment? There are many issues awaiting the County Council and the voters in years to come.
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) asks about BRAC.
4. Not Enough Money is Available to Complete BRAC Work
The Medical Center north of Bethesda is scheduled to add 2,500 new jobs and more than double its outpatient visits to nearly 1 million annually by September 2011. That necessitates reconstructing at least four major intersections near the facility as well as perhaps a larger corridor study between Bethesda and Randolph Road. That work could easily add up to more than a hundred million dollars. Yet, after cutting $16 million, the state has now scheduled just $31 million for the project, of which only $8 million is for construction. Senator Frosh and Delegates Bronrott, Lee and Carr all asked Porcari about this. Porcari answered, “We know we will need additional construction funding” but he also cautioned, “We know we have to live within our means.”
The Road Show was well attended by the Montgomery Delegation and many of them questioned Porcari and his staff. But the bottom line still comes down to money. During the special session, the General Assembly raised enough transportation funding to pay for $150 million in new projects and $250 million in additional system preservation. But the economic collapse and the diversion of $50 million to pay for repealing the computer tax have depressed revenues to the point that the state is only receiving $265 million in new money – almost all of which is scheduled for maintenance. Had the legislature listened to the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce and raised $600 million for transportation, projects such as BRAC might be better funded.
If the county’s state legislators are truly interested in moving these projects along, complaints to Secretary Porcari will not suffice. The only way to make progress is to raise more transportation funding. Show us the money!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
District 18 Town Hall Meeting, Part Two
Senator Madaleno and Delegates Gutierrez, Waldstreicher and Carr finish responding to constituent questions as read by moderator Charles Duffy. There is news here, so read on!
What is your position on the ICC?
Delegate Carr, who argued against cuts to MARC in the Gazette, said, “Something is wrong when mass transit is cut and something like the ICC is protected.” None of the Delegates defended the road.
Throughout his political career, Senator Madaleno – a former member of the Duncan administration – has been an ICC supporter. But Madaleno is changing his mind on the issue. In September, he told the Gazette: It seems, in transportation, we are infatuated with the mega-project, whether it be the ICC or the Purple Line, when it may be time to be rethinking the giant projects in favor of a much larger number of smaller projects that can be just as beneficial but don't lend themselves to ribbon-cuttings or groundbreakings.
In the Town Hall meeting, Madaleno went a bit further. He said that if the section of the ICC currently under construction between I-270 and Georgia Avenue was canceled, the state could face $100 million or more in contractor penalties. But if the rest of the road went unfinished, at least part of the ICC’s financing that is not tied to toll-backed bonds could be directed to other projects. (We outlined the ICC’s funding structure here.) Madaleno even said he was “in talks” with County Council Member Marc Elrich, who was present in the audience, about using ICC money to finance bus-rapid-transit throughout the county.
A combination of ICC supporter Madaleno and vehement ICC foe Elrich would be one of the strangest oddball alliances in MoCo politics. All parties on both sides of the issue should pay attention to this development.
Which Purple Line route do you prefer?
In District 18, the alignment of the Purple Line is a very sensitive issue. Most supporters of the project favor a light-rail line along the Capital Crescent Trail, but many residents of the Town of Chevy Chase prefer a bus-rapid-transit line on Jones Bridge Road, which is outside their town limits. The common perception of most political observers in this district is that few politicians challenge the wishes of Chevy Chase and survive to take their oath of office.
Senator Madaleno and Delegate Gutierrez answered the question directly, with opposite points of view. Madaleno said flatly that he “does not support” the Inner Purple Line alignment and favors more transit options outside the Beltway instead. He claimed that 80% of the Purple Line’s riders would be diverted from buses rather than cars. Gutierrez said she supports the original alignment, which would take the line on the trail, and stated, “There are so many pluses for the Purple Line. For me, it’s a no-brainer. I think it’s a model for how urban areas should be thinking.” Delegate Carr expressed concern that the planning process be inclusive but expressed no opinion on the proper alignment. Delegate Waldstreicher did not speak on the question.
Soon enough, the state will pick both an alignment and a mode for the Purple Line. At that point, every politician will have to say flatly whether they support or oppose the state’s plan. District 18 politicians will not be an exception.
Editor's Note: The green-shirted individual above is an awful sight for any MoCo politician at a public event.
What is your single biggest accomplishment in Annapolis?
Delegate Waldstreicher said he was proudest of his work in the House Judiciary Committee on a bill sponsored by late District 18 Delegate Jane Lawton that criminalized sex slavery. Prostitution is of course illegal, but the bill’s intent was to punish human traffickers who smuggle women into the state for paid (and often coerced) sex. Waldstreicher said the bill took three months of intense work to pass.
Delegate Gutierrez said she was proudest of her effort to pass a law requiring school districts to abide by a graduation rate formula established by the National Governors Association. Prior to the law, school districts were free to use their own calculations and thereby overstate their real graduation rates. Gutierrez said the State Department of Education has never implemented the law and was working to undermine it, so the fight goes on.
Senator Madaleno, a man who may very well read budget documents to his young daughter at bedtime, said he was proudest of his work to raise Maryland’s earned income tax credit. He described it as “the most successful program to help the poor pay their bills.” And he may be right about that.
Al Carr has only been in the General Assembly for one session. So how did he answer this question? “Just surviving my first session was a great accomplishment!”
Who says there are no honest politicians anymore?
Disclosure: The author is the Treasurer of the District 18 slate campaign fund.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The State Delegation and the Politics of the ICC
MPW friend and staffer for Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) Patrick T. Metz left this comment on our recent post on transportation funding:
Re: “One sentiment united every person in the meeting: an absolute disdain for the county’s statehouse delegation. NO ONE credited them for bringing back adequate infrastructure funding from the state.” [This is a quote from our previous post.]Patrick’s point is a logical one and deserves some analysis. The ICC is indeed a very large project. Shouldn’t our state delegation receive credit for it from the standpoint of bringing back transportation dollars to the county?
Without speaking to the wisdom (or lack thereof) of building the ICC, it seems to me that it's a pretty substantial percentage of state transportation spending over the next decade.
First, let’s understand the ICC’s funding structure. The project’s total cost is budgeted at $2.4 billion. Of that amount, $1.23 billion is from toll-backed revenue bonds, $750 million is from GARVEE bonds (which are backed by future federal aid), $264.9 million is from Maryland’s general fund, $180 million is from Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) and $18.5 million is from direct federal aid. That means that just $463.4 million, or 19% of the project’s cost, is coming from direct expenditures. The remainder consists of borrowed money (though some of that will draw from future federal aid).
How much of the state’s total transportation budget is taken up by the ICC? That depends on how you calculate the numbers. In the aftermath of its recent cuts, the state is spending $9.4 billion on transportation projects over the next six years. In terms of raw percentage, the ICC accounts for 26% of all state transportation spending. But remember that 81% of the project’s cost is paid for by toll and GARVEE bonds. If bond financing is set aside and only TTF, general fund and direct federal aid are counted, then the ICC’s $463.4 million would account for 6% of the state’s transportation spending.
Regardless of its percentage of state spending, it is unlikely that any of the county’s constituencies will point to the ICC as a parochial triumph of MoCo’s needs over the rest of the state. Let’s examine two contrasting points of view.
Much of the county’s business community has been supportive of the ICC. Under its former leadership, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce made the project one of its top goals. However, business does not see the ICC as merely a Montgomery project, but one that conveys economic benefits to the state as a whole. By connecting western Montgomery to Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore and its suburbs, their argument holds that the ICC creates more mobility of goods, services and labor all across Maryland. An analogy might be a hypothetical terminal expansion at BWI Airport. Should such a project be judged as only conveying localized benefits to northern Anne Arundel County or as an infrastructure project with broad statewide benefits? So while business may continue to support the ICC, they will not see it strictly in terms of fulfilling a narrow county-focused priority.
The civic and environmental communities increasingly view the ICC as a disaster. Destruction of homes, encouragement of greenhouse gases, damage to greenspace, increased traffic, incentives for more sprawl – all of these arguments and more combine to produce a seething stew of unrest. Silliness such as the MoCo Planning Board’s characterization of a parallel bike path as harmful to parkland only fuels the opposition. The ICC may be the least-appreciated large transportation project in the history of Maryland.
So let’s suppose a state legislator uses Patrick’s argument on skeptical constituents: you may not think we’ve received enough on transportation funding, but at least we brought you the ICC. Business will say it’s a good start, but not enough by itself. Civic and environmental activists will react like a starving man who is thrown a bucket of rotten eggs. Don’t you pity our delegation, even just a little bit?
But those who support and oppose the ICC agree on one thing: no one project will solve all of Montgomery’s transportation woes. The differing geographies of the county (especially with regard to Metro access), different levels of density and commuter pattern pressures from both inside and outside the county demand a combination of projects – and a reliable funding source for them. Who is going to step up?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
ICC Opponents Lose Lawsuit
A federal judge ruled in favor of the government and ruled that construction of the ICC can go ahead:
The lawsuit was the last realistic hope of ICC opponents. Even the lawsuit was a long shot as the government usually wins these cases. Gov. Martin O'Malley has expressed strong support for the ICC so I think we can expect the State to move quickly to construct it.He wrote that government agencies abided by federal law outlining how highway projects' environmental impacts must be analyzed before they are approved. The judge noted the "extensive record and the agencies' level of technical expertise and experience."
"Although [the government agencies'] actions in some instances may not have been a paragon of perfection, the court, nonetheless, cannot find anything that rises to the level of a meaningful violation" of federal requirements, Williams wrote in a 106-page opinion issued this afternoon. "For all of these reasons, the court concludes that there is no legal or equitable basis to prevent the Inter-County Connector from moving forward."
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Gillogly on Council Town Meeting
Kevin Gillogly, a local activist who campaigned tirelessly for newly elected Councilman Marc Elrich, kindly shared this report on the County Council Town Meeting:
Wednesday, February 28 at Francis Scott Key MS in the White Oak/Hillandale section of Silver Spring, the Montgomery County Council had its first Town Meeting since the November elections brought four new members to the nine person Council.Kevin, thanks for the update! Keep 'em coming!
Chaired by Council President, Marilyn Praisner (District 4 -- East County) and hosted by the local Council member, Valerie Ervin (District 5 -- Takoma Park, Silver Spring and Wheaton), there were a total seven of the nine members in attendance: Praisner, Ervin, Phil Andrews (District 4 -- Rockville / Gaithersburg), Duchy Trachtenberg (At Large), George Leventhal (At Large), Nancy Floreen (At Large) and Marc Elrich (At Large).
It was an hour long question and answer with local residents. It was taped by County Cable Channel 6 and it will be edited next week and shown for a month afterwords. To see the complete schedule go here.
The crowd of 90-100 was pumped full of sugar -- if one came to the reception a half hour before the meeting. I made full use of the cookies and soda.
Moderator Susan Kennedy asked prior to the taping how folks heard of the meeting: it was a split between local listservs and the postcard to local residents. The crowd was significantly older than the Van Hollen Town Meeting on Monday and clearly more interested in local issues.
The anti-ICC folks were present and handing out a flyer. No other issue groups were there.
After introductions by President Praisner and an acknowledgment of former State Senator Ida Ruben and her husband Judge Ruben, the bulk of the questions were on transportation, public safety and yes the ICC.
Key points that came out of the meeting:
Budget Deadlines
County Executive Ike Leggett has to submit his budget on March 15 and the County has to be completed by June 1 for the start of the County Fiscal Year (July 1);
Increase in Police Officers
Public Safety question on robberies in the area elicited from Public Safety Chair Phil Andrews that the County funded for 90 new police officers in the past few years at a cost of around $30-35 million and that these officers are to be deployed on robberies and the like. Police Chief Tom Manger is to bring up his Five Year Plan to the Council in the coming months;
Council Saves the Children of Forest GlenCrossing Georgia Advcoate Adam Pagnucco humorously said regarding his group's effort to solve the dangerous crossing at Georgia Ave.: "We've been asking the government to build a new Metro entrance for quite awhile. We pleaded with them to build it. We complained. And finally, we revolted. Old ladies raised their canes to the sky in fury. And little kids refused to sit in their strollers to be wheeled across the street. The whole neighborhood went on strike!""This council heard us. They listened to us and understood our problems. And for the first time, they asked the state government to start development and evaluation on our project. That's the first step among many steps to build the new Metro entrance. And we are grateful for it."
Valerie Ervin and Marilyn Praisner both made comments supportive of the proposed tunnel;
Golden Shoveling It
The lack of snow removal around the Glenmont Metro elicited an apology from Nancy Floreen who agreed that public areas need to shoveled too. She also made her pitch for the Golden Shovel Award and for folks to nominate citizens who has really pitched in (my pun);
Birchmere
The status Birchmere in downtown Silver Spring seems to be "on track" according to Ervin and Praisner. State budget has $2 million for the project; County proposal comes out on March 14 and plans by the developer for the rest of the site are still to be determined;
The Never Ending Discussion
The interesting exchange started with a question on ... you guessed it ... the ICC. Where Praisner mentioned her opposition to the state road but that most of the plans are coming from the state where pro-ICC Gov O'Malley sits. Praisner favors four lanes at some places -- in lieu of the norm of six lanes. Floreen favors the road.
Marc Elrich is his only time speaking mentioned that only 4% of the traffic would go the full length of the road and they would only save 4 minutes (this according to the County and the State's own study). Marc mentioned the greatest use would be in the area between Shady Grove and Georgia Avenue and is this the best use of the money? Floreen believes if we don't use the money another part of the state will get the money instead of us.
Council Punts on Sending Their Transportation Priorities to the State
In light of the limited funds all elected officials mention, Marc pointed out that he asked his colleagues to sign a letter outlining the County's Transportation Policies with the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) at the top of the list and the ICC not on it. Needing five signatories, Marc got four: his, Duchy's, Andrews and Praisner. So it died.
Leventhal and Elrich Exchange on Growth Policy
George Leventhal questioned Marc on what about the out of county residents. Marc fired back that the previous Council approved 110,000 in jobs and only 29,000 housing units and if you use the 1.5 workers per unit that there is a serious housing shortage that the previous Council did not address. This would have continued but Praisner interrupted them and got the questions back to the audience.
Future Events
Go to the County Web site for upcoming events, Executive Leggett will be at Ritchie ES in Rockville on March 23 (was originally in Feb but canceled due to snow) and at Holiday Park in Wheaton on March 29.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Transportation Blues
Traffic remains a top issue in Montgomery County. However, the lead story in today's Washington Post highlights why none of the County's many proposed projects won't do anything to solve the County's leading traffic jam. Fairfax County has now emerged as the region's leading job growth center. The largest traffic jam in Montgomery is caused by people trying to get from here to their jobs in Fairfax or elsewhere in northern Virginia. Traffic south on I-270 and westbound on the Beltway is a nightmare in the morning. Rush hour in the reverse direction begins around 3PM.
None of the proposed big-ticket transportation projects will do a jot to address this problem. Neither the Purple Line nor the ICC nor the Corridor Cities Transitway will get a single more person over the Potomac. And Maryland should want to facilitate cross-border commutes because it makes it easier for people in Montgomery to access the jobs and benefit from the growth in northern Virginia. Meanwhile, the new Metro line out from Tysons that will eventually reach Dulles will make it easier for District residents to get there, thus rendering us less transit competitive than our southern neighbor.
While Montgomery may engage in some handwringing over the business climate in Maryland v. Virginia, the proximity to Dulles and National Airports seems far more important in propelling Fairfax to the top of the heap. In contrast, the closest airport in Maryland is at BWI which is farther away from many in Montgomery than either Dulles or National. Ironically, all of the debates about transportation in Montgomery center on projects that ignore our largest transportation problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
