The Purple Line’s top planner was featured in a very unusual article in Southern Maryland Online castigating former Governor Bob Ehrlich for his record on the project. We understand that bureaucrats care about their assignments, but should they really get involved in elections?
Lead Purple Line planner Mike Madden had this to say about the Ehrlich and O’Malley administrations’ positions on the project:The Ehrlich administration delayed the project earlier this decade, calling for further studies, Madden said, while current Gov. Martin O'Malley has been more “supportive” -- making a potential upset at the polls a bit worrisome.
Ehrlich’s record on the Purple Line is far worse than the article suggests. In 2003, Ehrlich declared that the route would never follow its planned alignment through the Columbia Country Club’s golf course. (Never mind that the club squats on the publicly-owned right-of-way and has actually fenced off public land for its course.) Ehrlich’s Secretary of Transportation explained that “the Governor happens to love golf.” At the same time, Ehrlich struck a deal with then-District 18 Delegate John Hurson to build the Purple Line as a bus route away from the club and the Town of Chevy Chase in return for Hurson being “open-minded” about slots. Governor O’Malley canceled Ehrlich’s plans and recommended that the Purple Line be built as light rail through the club’s grounds.
“I mean, if the governor was lukewarm or not really supportive of the project, then I would worry, but under this current administration, that's not a problem,” Madden said.
“I don't believe (Ehrlich) was nearly as supportive of the project as our current governor.” Madden said, suggesting that delays and scale-backs could be possible under a second Ehrlich term.
But none of this is Madden’s concern. He is a civil servant whose job is to execute the Governor’s decisions, whoever it is. When state employees go into the newspapers saying one candidate is better than another, that erodes the perception of the civil service as an impartial organization above and apart from politics. This is a particular problem at the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), which is once again blurring the role between state employee and advocate. After all, its lead planner was once paid by the Greater Baltimore Committee to push for a light rail alignment on the Red Line that would be buried under downtown at great expense. Given that fact, it is little surprise that that alignment wound up being recommended despite the necessity of building a dangerous single-track tunnel and coming up with last-minute ridership revisions to justify that decision.
Bob Ehrlich was once accused of politicizing the state workforce by targeting Democrats for firings. Madden’s remarks risk a similar perception of politics mixing with civil service. The bureaucrats should go back to work and stay out of the elections. This is for the voters to decide.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Politics, MTA Style
Friday, October 30, 2009
MDOT Goes Schizo on Gaithersburg West
So would the Planning Board’s proposed Gaithersburg West Master Plan be a bad idea because it would gridlock local roads and require vast sums of money to redo intersections? Or would it be a good idea because it would make a light-rail CCT cost effective? According to the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the answer is both.
In September, we reported that two MDOT subsidiaries, the State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), wrote a letter of concern to the County Council about the Gaithersburg West plan. In language expressed in an unusually strong dialect of bureaucratese, the agencies objected to the $1.3 billion cost of rebuilding interchanges that would be necessitated by the plan. They also stated their belief that the plan’s reliance on commercial space over housing would draw in commuters from other areas, thereby increasing the strain on the regional transportation network. The implication of these arguments is that the plan’s density, currently proposed at 20 million square feet of commercial space, should be reduced.
However, there may be a positive impact of the plan’s density: it could help build the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) as light rail. In July, we reported that Gaithersburg’s current density level generated ridership that would make bus rapid transit (BRT), but not light rail, competitive under federal cost effectiveness criteria. But in a new letter that we reproduce below, MTA believes that if the CCT were re-aligned through the bulked-up Science City proposed by the Gaithersburg West plan, it would gain a 15-40% boost in ridership. Since capital costs would only go up by 11-16%, the CCT might now be viable as rail. The Gazette reported that MTA’s CCT project manager told the council that the new alignment through the dense area of the plan would have a cost effectiveness range of $18-19 per hour of user benefit, which is superior to light rail on the Purple Line. But the density proposed by the Gaithersburg West plan is required to make these numbers work.
This poses an interesting question to the County Council, which will soon decide on the density to be allowed in the Gaithersburg West plan. On the one hand, almost everyone prefers rail to BRT. The County Executive, the business community, many state legislators and Action Committee for Transit are all on the record for rail. And even though the council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee recommended BRT, it reserved the right to change its mind if higher densities permitted the feasibility of rail. The county’s pro-rail mindset does not apply to the CCT alone, but reflects a general sense that BRT cannot handle long-run high ridership capacities and is a “second-class” option compared to trains.
But there is also intense resistance to both the scale and the form of the Gaithersburg West plan from the civic and smart growth communities. The former will fight endlessly against a “city” in their midst while the latter has not yet acknowledged the tradeoff between density and transit mode.
How will this play out at the County Council? Let’s remember that Council Members are not planners. They are unlikely to whip out spreadsheets and plat maps and rewrite the Gaithersburg West plan wholesale. But they will adjust the density levels. The current allowable density in the plan is 20 million square feet of commercial space. The County Executive would like to see 18 million. Some on the council would like to go lower. In these sorts of situations, the natural inclination of politicians is to pick a number that everyone can live with.
But this is not a conventional split-the-difference issue. The problem is that MDOT’s schizophrenic messages reflect the actual facts on the ground. The Gaithersburg West plan would require huge infrastructure costs and it would enable a light-rail CCT. Density reductions would lower costs but might also result in BRT. Council President Phil Andrews, who represents Gaithersburg, sees this tradeoff clearly. Andrews told the Gazette, “I don’t think that light rail can be the tail that wags the dog, or is the Holy Grail here, either. It’s not the end goal. The end goal is to build a better community for everybody and to figure out what that balance is." For Andrews, that means cutting density no matter what the consequences for transit mode.
How will the rest of the council see this? We’ll find out soon enough.
Monday, September 21, 2009
MDOT Raises Concerns on Gaithersburg West
The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and two of its subordinate organizations, the State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), sent a letter of concern to the Montgomery County Council over the pending Gaithersburg West Sector Plan. Their points raise doubt as to whether the plan, which proposes 20 million square feet of commercial space, can pass in its current form.
MDOT’s four-page letter, which we reprint below, raises issues centered around three areas.
1. Sequencing with CCT
MDOT points out that the plan requires realignment of the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) through the Life Sciences Center but MDOT has not yet picked an alignment or mode for the project. MDOT says:The entire sector plan requires some form of the CCT (funding, construction etc.) to be in place. We would like to bring to your attention that neither the determination on the feasibility of the realignment or a selection of the locally preferred alternative or mode have been made. We recommend that the sector plan approval be delayed until these decisions are made. The proper sequencing of plans, one for land use and the other for transportation infrastructure, is especially significant in this sector plan. It would be counter-productive to increase the density in the sector plan area if it was revealed that the realignment is not cost-effective and the transit project could not be realized.
2. Cost of Infrastructure Improvements
MDOT estimates the cost of realigning the CCT through the Life Sciences Center and rebuilding interchanges to be $1.3 billion. Additionally, they say that the county’s requests for state projects currently total $800 million and that the cost of improvements to I-270 and the Beltway could exceed $7 billion. MDOT states, “Given the current economic and fiscal climate, we suggest that a financial feasibility analysis be added as part of this document to fully demonstrate the viability of the proposed development program.”
3. Imbalance of Jobs and Housing
MDOT notes that one version of the plan provides for 47,000 more jobs than households in the area, and that the recommendations of the Planning Board may lead to an even bigger imbalance. That imbalance will result in greater commuting levels to Gaithersburg from across the Washington region, and without additional lanes and I-270 ramp modifications, would mean that “over 21,000 new daily trips will be forced onto the local road network resulting in severe congestion.”
Let’s sum this up in one sentence: the Maryland Department of Transportation believes the state may not be able to afford to build the significant number of infrastructure improvements necessary to prevent this plan in its current form from creating gridlock. That’s a serious blow to the advocates of Science City.
MDOT’s letter appears below.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Red Line Ridership Games, Part Two
Four alternative explanations for MTA’s overnight 28% Red Line ridership hike are worth examining.
1. Baltimore City’s population may be trending younger, and would therefore be more likely to take transit.
Some of the city’s neighborhoods have been gentrifying since the 1990s, especially Federal Hill, Fells Point, Locust Point, Little Italy and other neighborhoods near the Inner Harbor. Has that fundamentally changed Baltimore’s age mix to favor younger transit riders?
The answer is no. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, people under 30 accounted for 45.1% of the city’s population in 1990, 42.8% in 2000 and 43.1% in 2007. In Baltimore County, people under 30 accounted for 40.6% of the population in 1990, 38.4% in 2000 and 38.5% in 2007. Gentrification may be happening in some neighborhoods, but it has not fundamentally changed the age distribution across the area. It may be that while young childless couples are moving in, young couples with children are moving out.
2. The outer suburbs are growing faster and they will drive higher ridership.
It’s certainly true that Anne Arundel, Carroll, Howard and Harford Counties are growing faster than the inner core. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the combined population of these four jurisdictions with Baltimore City and Baltimore County grew from 2,463,805 in 1996 to 2,617,290 in 2007 – a 6.2% increase. That’s positive, but it does not come close to MTA’s 28% ridership jump.
It’s worth recalling the regional geography in looking at the role of the outer suburbs in transit ridership. Anne Arundel residents coming up from the south would have little reason to board an east-west transit line. Carroll and Howard residents would be stuck waiting for opposing trains to pass through the single-tracked Cooks Lane tunnel. Eldersburg, the closest Carroll location, is 13 miles from the western end of the Red Line. Joppatowne, the closest Harford location, is 16 miles from the eastern end of the Red Line. Given these constraints, the VAST majority of riders will probably come from Baltimore City and Baltimore County.
3. Employment, not population, is the driver of ridership.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Baltimore City’s employment dropped from 402,600 in 1996 to 369,800 in 2007 – an 8.1% fall. BEA calculates the combined employment of Baltimore City and Baltimore County at 865,051 in 1996 and 918,311 in 2007 – a 6.2% increase. There’s little support for a big ridership increase here.
4. MTA’s rationale.
Baltimore Sun reporter Mike Dresser obtained this explanation for the ridership boost from MTA Deputy Administrator Henry Kay:On the revised numbers, Kay said the environmental statement relied on 1996 data because those were the most recent available at the time. He said the final plan relied on data from a 2007 on-board ridership survey.
There are four problems with this. First, an on-board ridership survey is inherently unverifiable with corroborating data from impartial third parties. MTA is basically saying, “They’re our internal numbers. Trust us.” Second, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council’s newest forecast estimates a 2010-2030 population increase of 4.3% in Baltimore City, 3.4% in Baltimore County and 3.8% in the two jurisdictions together. These numbers hardly suggest big-time growth to support Red Line ridership. Third, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council is led by the chief executives of the six jurisdictions in and around the city, two of whom (Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith) have been open supporters of the Red Line option picked by MTA. Accepting that organization’s data is akin to letting Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson draft population forecasts to back up the Purple Line. Fourth, all of the above would have to add up to a 28% increase in ridership that, by extraordinarily lucky coincidence, generated a cost effectiveness number that barely squeezed under the federal threshold. This all stretches the boundaries of belief.
Among the changes found in the newer survey, Kay said, were a significant increase in the number of people living in downtown Baltimore and a greater concentration of households without autos than was reflected in the older data. Both findings increased the number of potential riders, he said. Kay further noted that the Baltimore Metropolitan Council has, since 1996, revised its forecast of population and households in the region.
Kay said the MTA has been checking its methodology with the Federal Transit Administration continuously through the process and is confident it will stand up to the agency’s scrutiny.
“It would be very foolish of us to publish numbers and recommend a locally preferred alternative we’ve not (had) vetted by the agency that will actually provide funding,” Kay said.
And so we have scoured the databases of three of the world’s greatest statistical agencies: Census, BLS and BEA. Try as we might, we cannot find any justification for MTA’s last-minute 28% ridership boost for the Red Line. But perhaps we should call on the only information resource that really matters on this subject:
The Greater Baltimore Committee.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Red Line Ridership Games, Part One
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) saved Baltimore’s Red Line project from possible federal disapproval with a last-minute cost-effectiveness improvement of 24%. Part of that improvement was due to a sudden recalculation of daily weekday ridership from 42,100 to 54,000. MTA Deputy Administrator Henry Kay told the Baltimore Sun that the ridership boost was due to replacement of a 1996 dataset with a 2007 dataset. The problem is that given the population trends in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, a huge jump in ridership is the last thing one could expect from updated numbers.
Let’s state the obvious: Baltimore City is coming off decades of population losses. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the city’s population fell from 909,951 in 1969 to 640,150 in 2007 – a 29.7% drop. The city has hovered just above 640,000 since 2002 so it may have stopped shrinking.
But Baltimore City is not the only jurisdiction served by the Red Line. Four of its twenty stations are on the western end of the line located in Baltimore County. Baltimore County’s population has grown from 612,575 in 1969 to 785,830 in 2007, a 28.3% increase. But its growth rate has tapered off lately and may have stopped.
Adding the two jurisdictions together, growth in the county has been offset by decline in the city. The combined population for the two has varied between 1.40 and 1.44 million since 1981 with no clear trend up or down.
What does this have to do with Red Line ridership projections? MTA Deputy Administrator Kay said the agency had been using a 1996 dataset to produce its prior estimate of 42,100 daily weekday riders, but its use of a new 2007 dataset produced its current ridership estimate of 54,000. What happened to the area’s population during those eleven years?
In 1996, the city and county had a combined population of 1,423,523. For several years, the city’s decline was offset by the county’s growth, producing a net trend of no significant change. In 2007, the city and county had a combined population of 1,425,980, a 0.2% rise from 1996. Both the city and county were trending towards no population growth. How can numbers reflecting this data lead to a 28% leap in ridership?
Let’s compare Baltimore City and Baltimore County to an area that has had substantial growth: Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, home to the Purple Line. The latter two counties had a combined population of 1,149,148 in 1969 and 1,766,809 in 2007 – a 53.7% jump. The two counties together grew by 10.5% between 1996 and 2007. If MTA had replaced a 1996 dataset with a 2007 dataset in its analysis on the Purple Line, it would have been justified in finding a significant ridership boost.
It’s hard to say that the two jurisdictions served by the Red Line will benefit from a colossal growth forecast issued after an eleven-year interval when they did not grow – especially when they are coming off forty years of no growth. On its face, that is what MTA wants us to believe. But there may be alternative explanations for the new ridership estimate. We’ll consider four of them in Part Two.
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.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A Single Track to Disaster
In order to make the Red Line viable for federal funding, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) chose to single-track a one-mile tunnel under Cooks Lane in western Baltimore. MTA itself has made the case for why single-track lines compromise service, passenger capacity, future growth and operational and maintenance flexibility. Here’s what they left out: single-track tunnels are not as safe as double-track tunnels. Not by a long shot.
The above picture shows what happened in Chatsworth, California, a Los Angeles suburb, about one year ago. According to the Associated Press, a freight train collided with a passenger train near a single-track tunnel. The passenger train was supposed to wait near a siding outside the tunnel but did not. The collision occurred close to the tunnel entrance.
Wikipedia provides the following account: The 2008 Chatsworth train collision occurred at 16:22 PDT (23:22 UTC) on Friday September 12, 2008, when a Union Pacific freight train and a Metrolink commuter train collided head-on in the Chatsworth district of Los Angeles, California, in the United States. The scene of the accident was a curved section of single track on the Metrolink Ventura County Line just east of Stoney Point.
USA Today reported that the collision was the deadliest in the United States since an Amtrak crash in 1993. The newspaper said this about the accident:
Before the collision, the Metrolink train may have run through a red signal before entering a section of single track where the opposing freight train had been given the right of way by the train dispatcher. The Metrolink train’s engineer was near the end of a work week of long split shifts, making fatigue a subject of the investigation, along with distraction from text messages he was sending while on duty. The accident remains under investigation; meanwhile the basic circumstances have been released to the public, but the official report determining probable cause is expected to take up to a year to complete.
This mass casualty event brought a massive emergency response by both the city and county of Los Angeles, but the nature and extent of physical trauma taxed the available resources. With 25 deaths, this became the deadliest accident in Metrolink’s history. Many survivors remained hospitalized for an extended period. Lawyers quickly began filing claims against Metrolink, and in total, they are expected to exceed a US$200 million liability limit set in 1997, portending the first legal challenges to that law. Issues surrounding this accident have also initiated and reinvigorated public debate on a range of topics including public relations, safety, and emergency management, which has also resulted in regulatory and legislative actions.The collision occurred on a bend in the track just before a tunnel along the Metrolink track in the Chatsworth section of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley.
Chatsworth is far from the only single-track tunnel disaster in recent times. In January 2003, a French passenger train collided with an Italian passenger train in a single-track tunnel near the two countries’ border. Two Italians died. In June 2000, two trains collided at the entrance to a single-track tunnel in Zugspitze, Germany. Fifty-seven people were injured, including one man who “was flown to a hospital by helicopter after rescue workers freed his crushed legs from the wreckage.” In August 1993, twelve people were killed when a passenger train collided with a goods train in a tunnel near Vega de Anzo, Spain. Many more crashes have occurred on single-track lines not involving tunnels, including at Pecrot, Belgium (2001); Glasgow, Scotland (1989); Dahlerau, Germany (1971); Violet Town, Australia (1969); and countless others in decades before.
The line consists of only a single track heading into the narrow tunnel in a residential area.
“Thank God it (the crash) wasn’t in the tunnel — there’d be a lot more killed,” said Lt. Cheryl MacWillie, watch commander for the coroner’s office.
In March 2003, Terje Andersen and Borre Paaske published a study comparing the safety records of single tunnels to double tunnels for international risk manager DNV Consulting. They were specifically interested in smoke levels from fires. Below is their finding for smoke levels in a double tunnel, with red marking the highest smoke levels and blue marking the lowest levels:
Below is their finding for smoke levels in a single tunnel, with red marking the highest smoke levels and blue marking the lowest levels:
When Andersen and Paaske compare the fatality risk of single and double tunnels, single tunnels FAR surpass double tunnels in all scenarios. For the longest tunnels (much longer than the one planned in Baltimore), single tunnels actually have a higher fatality risk than passenger cars.
All of the above information is easily available to transportation planners and railway engineers, not to mention the general public. The Maryland Transit Administration either knew or should have known of the dangers associated with single-track tunnels at the time they proposed one for the Red Line. If they actually construct a single-track tunnel in Baltimore, they risk a disaster that could surpass Chatsworth or WMATA and join the ranks of the deadliest rail accidents in American history.
Is it worth it?
Monday, July 20, 2009
MTA Backs Off Spying (Updated)
The Maryland Transit Administration has told the Baltimore Sun that it has pulled back its audio surveillance proposal. Sun reporter Michael Dresser credits MPW guest blogger Paul Gordon for helping to generate this decision. Thanks, Paul and Mike!
Update: The Washington Post's article on this fails to mention that MPW broke this story and that the Sun's poking around caused MTA to withdraw its proposal. What class they have!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Maryland Transit Administration Wants to Record Our Conversations
By Paul Gordon.
Imagine you’re sitting on the MARC train, having a conversation with someone you’re close to – your husband, maybe, or a close friend. You’re hardly talking about classified material, but you still don’t want people listening in to your private conversation. So you keep your voices down. You look around to make sure you have some space around you and as much privacy as you could reasonably expect in a public area. It’s the sort of thing that happens every day.
Except this time, without your knowledge, someone is listening in. Someone from the government. Because the state is recording your conversation on the train.
Personally, I find the idea of the state recording people’s conversations on public transportation creepy, something I would expect from the old Soviet Union.
But that’s exactly the scenario that came to mind when I read the Maryland Transit Administration’s request for the opinion of the Attorney General. Last Friday, the MTA submitted a letter asking for an opinion of the Attorney General on the following questions:
1. Can MTA lawfully make audio recordings of the conversations of passengers and employees on board public transit vehicles operated by or under contract to the MTA?
2. Does the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act,§§10-401 through 10-403 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, require MTA, when using audio recording devices on board transit vehicles operated by or under contract to it, to obtain the consent of passengers and employees before recording their conversations?
3. If the answer to Question 2, above is in the affirmative, through what means can consent be obtained, e.g. can MTA obtain passengers’ and employees’ consent by posting signage on board its vehicles containing words such as, “This car (or bus) is subject to video and audio surveillance?”
Now I am no expert on Maryland state law in this area. But I am an expert at being an American citizen living in a society where I don’t expect the government to be recording my every word. And from that perspective, I find the MTA letter alarming. The fact that a state agency wants to record passenger conversations – and is even asking if there’s a way to do it without our consent – makes my blood run cold.
Yes, it may help the government detect or prevent crimes. Who knows, it might even stop a terrorist. But that is not the only issue. If it were, we would not need the Bill of Rights. Putting limits on government power has always meant that not every crime will be stopped, and not every guilty person will be punished. That is the price of liberty.
Of course, the Attorney General can only address whether the MTA can record passenger conversations. Whether the MTA should do this is a matter for our elected officials in Annapolis to address.
