District 16 Delegation Slams SHA on Snow Removal, Pepco on Power

Senator Brian Frosh and Delegates Bill Bronrott, Susan Lee and Bill Frick sent the following sharply worded letters to the State Highway Administration on snow plowing and Pepco on power restoration. Additionally, Delegate Frick appeared on WTOP this afternoon calling for better coordination between state and county authorities on snow plowing.

Read More...

Summary only...

SHA Answers Council’s Questions on I-270

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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

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

August 31, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

Update: Baltimore Sun reporter Mike Dresser responds.

Read More...

Summary only...