Daily Record Reports MTA Inflates Transit Ridership by 18 Million

The Daily Record reported that the Department of Legislative Services has found that MTA inflated bus ridership estimates by 18 million, or 26 percent, in 2009:

The MTA told the state it carried 69.8 million riders on its core bus routes in the year ended June 30, 2009. The number sent to the Federal Transit Database maintained by the Federal Transit Administration, however, was 87.8 million, or 26 percent more than the state figure.

If anything, the Department of Legislative Services may have been conservative in the size of the discrepancy in MTA's figures:

The state audit that outlined the reporting discrepancies said MTA collected $2.6 million in fares in fiscal 2009 for which no corresponding passengers were recorded. Owens said that is due to overpayments, because fare boxes cannot make change for riders.

The problems aren't limited to just bus counts:

Auditors also raised issues with passenger counts on the Metro line and MARC. They found 184,000 more passengers entered Metro stations than left them. MTA attributed that to times when the administration cannot staff stations, forcing them to open all fare gates to ensure that disabled riders can leave the station.

Daily passenger counts on MARC did not match totals for 24 of 40 days, according to the audit.

Transit advocates expressed concern that these problems may undermine efforts to bring the Purple Line, Red Line, and Corridor Cities Transitway to Maryland:

Michele Whelley, president and CEO of the Central Maryland Transportation Alliance, said undercounting riders could take away from advocates’ efforts to spur investment in mass transit, where bus routes play a crucial role in linking modes like MARC, light rail and the Metro.

“Accurate ridership counts are important in terms of transportation planning in terms of schedules, frequency of service and the opportunity to expand service based on demand,” Whelley said. “If the ridership numbers can justify increased service so that those connections are made, we should be reporting every rider who gets on a bus.”

MTA has justified the difference in the counts by stating that there are differences in the federal and state methodology. Except that FTA refuses to comment thus far. And MTA has categorically refused requests to explain how it calculates ridership estimates for submissions in the Environmental Impact Statements for the three big new big transit projects as it described the methodology as "proprietary."

Read More...

Summary only...

ACT Compares Ehrlich and O'Malley on the Purple Line

Action Committee for Transit (ACT) has established a new website comparing Bob Ehrlich and Martin O'Malley on the Purple Line. Here's what ACT has to say on the two Governors.

Robert Ehrlich

Former Governor Ehrlich is running as an opponent of the light rail Purple Line.


Governor Ehrlich raising campaign funds at Columbia Country Club - Photo by Patricia Metzger.

In 2003, the newly elected Ehrlich administration came into office after making campaign promises both to Purple Line opponents and to Washington-area commuters who want better transportation. Gov. Ehrlich chose not to kill the Purple Line outright, but instead embarked on a policy that his own appointee to the Metro board later described as “obfuscate, alter, study and delay.” Progress on light rail came to a near standstill while new bus alternatives were considered.

The new option that emerged was a bus line that took the same route as light rail from downtown Silver Spring to Jones Mill Road and then deviated onto existing roads. It followed Jones Bridge Road from Jones Mill to Wisconsin Avenue, and then turned south onto Woodmont Avenue, where it continued as far as the Bethesda Metro.


There was no secret about the reason this alternative was proposed. It wasn't transportation planning – studies quickly showed that this route would be too slow and would attract few riders. The objective was to keep transit away from Columbia Country Club. Governor Ehrlich was quoted in the Gazette as saying “It will not go through the Country Club.” Robert Flanagan, his Secretary of Transportation, offered another reason – to preserve a hiking trail. This trail happens to run through the country club – and as Mr. Flanagan conceded, “The governor happens to love golf.”

In his 2010 campaign, Gov. Ehrlich flatly opposes the light rail Purple Line. He announced in May that he still prefers the bus route, and a month later he chose Potomac resident Mary Kane, a long-time Purple Line opponent, as his running mate. For her part, Ms. Kane, when she first ran for public office in 2000, explained to the Gazette that she opposed light rail between Bethesda and Silver Spring because “I see the need to go from Silver Spring to Bethesda, but I don't see the need to go from Bethesda to Silver Spring.”

Martin O'Malley

Governor O'Malley is running for re-election as a supporter of the light rail Purple Line.


Governor O'Malley announcing the decision to build the Purple Line as light rail - Photo from Washington Post.

In 2006, Governor O'Malley campaigned in favor of the Purple Line and signed the Purple Line Pledge in support of light rail. Upon taking office, he chose John Porcari, a longtime Purple Line supporter who lives in Cheverly, as Secretary of Transportation.

The Purple Line made slow progress in the first months of the new administration, but it gained momentum after bureaucratic hurdles were overcome in August 2007. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement – a key document that evaluates various routes and compares bus and rail alternatives – was completed in October 2008. Public hearings in November showed wide support for light rail, and in January the Montgomery County Council voted unanimously, as the Prince George's Council had earlier, to recommend light rail.


For a more detailed map, click here.

In August 2009, Gov. O'Malley made the official decision that the Purple Line will be light rail and will follow an abandoned railway line through Columbia Country Club. By using this direct route, trains can go from Bethesda to Silver Spring in less than ten minutes.

In the face of a dismal budget situation, Gov. O'Malley repeatedly seized opportunities to move the Purple Line ahead. His newly proposed transportation budget for 2011 through 2017 adds $48 million in new money for the Purple Line – enough, when matched with federal funding, to cover the entire cost of engineering and designing the new rail line.

In his re-election campaign, Gov. O'Malley is outspoken in his support of the Purple Line. Even when challenged by opponents of the project, he does not hesitate to state a clear position.

Read More...

Summary only...

Action Committee for Transit Posts Scorecards

Action Committee for Transit (ACT) has posted their scorecards on their website. While ACT is not making endorsements, they do intend to publicize their view of the candidates' positions on transit-related issues.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hopkins Attacks Berliner Over Purple Line

In her most pointed attack yet, Council District 1 challenger Ilaya Hopkins is slamming incumbent Roger Berliner over the Purple Line. The district includes Bethesda, the western terminus of the project, and Chevy Chase, where some residents have complained about the line's impact on the Capital Crescent Trail. Following is Hopkins's statement.

#####

NEWS RELEASE

Media Contact: Chris Gill, campaign manager
Email: chris_gill@ilayahopkins.com

Berliner Playing Politics with the Purple Line

BETHESDA, MD – July 20, 2010 – Last month's public hearing on the Purple Line Functional Plan – where many citizens from District 1 expressed continued concerns about the plan – spurred Roger Berliner into action based on politics, not sound policy.

Attempting to appease voters concerned about tree loss on the trail, the Gazette reported that Mr. Berliner called for research into a single track option from Connecticut Avenue to Bethesda.

Fortunately, he didn't have to look far. A report conducted by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) last year, at Mr. Berliner's request, found that single-tracking was not a viable option.

The MTA report concluded, “introducing a single-track segment between Bethesda and Connecticut Avenue would significantly compromise travel time savings, service frequency, passenger carrying capacity, and the maintenance and operating reliability of the Purple Line, thereby reducing the effectiveness, efficiency, and the return on a $1.3 billion investment. The reduction in the amount of tree clearance hoped for from building a trail and single track segment would not likely be achieved.”

The issue of the environmental impact of light rail on the trail has been raised for years by local communities. Yet up until now, Mr. Berliner remained unswayed by those concerns. In January 2009, he voted with his colleagues on the county council in support of the Purple Line light rail transit option along the Georgetown Branch Trail. In his statement on the vote he said, “...no one disputes that building the Purple Line will fundamentally alter the current character of the trail experience.”

Last week, the Examiner reported that Mr. Berliner abandoned his two-week-long effort to save trees along the trail.

“I had hoped to be able to convince you that single-tracking would not compromise the integrity of the system,” Berliner said during a council committee meeting. “I grudgingly will come to the same conclusion [as the MTA].”

If Mr. Berliner believes light rail is the best option for the Purple Line, why would he push an idea which would make it less effective? If he truly cares about tree preservation, why would he push an idea which would have little to no impact on tree clearing? If he was legitimately addressing community concerns, why such a superficial response a year and a half after his vote when he had an opportunity to stand up for the community and impact the decision?

The answer to these questions sadly is - politics. His disingenuous attempt to reopen discussion on the Purple Line and half-hearted effort to research other options smacks of the worst form of election year politics – putting electoral results over legitimate community concerns and sound policy.

That isn't leadership, it's playing politics with our future, the kind of politics Montgomery County can no longer afford.

Ilaya Hopkins has participated in the Purple Line conversation for many years. Through the process she weighed the merits of different arguments and attempted to balance the good of public transit on the one hand with the much beloved and well-utilized green space and hiker/biker trail on the other. In the end, she took a principled stand in support of Bus Rapid Transit over light rail on the trail to minimize environmental impacts, avoid the use of overhead wires and reduce cost.

Ilaya is a strong advocate for robust, flexible and affordable East-West transit options and is committed to finding the best solution for the long-term success of the community. For more information on Ilaya’s position on the Purple Line visit, http://www.ilayahopkins.com/?page=transportation or watch her interview on transportation issues at http://vimeo.com/12007348. You can also read her testimony last year before the Montgomery County Planning Board here and her letter to County Executive Leggett here.

We need strong leadership, to move Montgomery County forward. Vote Ilaya Hopkins for Montgomery County Council District 1 on September 14.

#####

For the record, here are both candidates' responses to a question about the Purple Line on an Action Committee for Transit questionnaire.

Question: Do you support the Locally Preferred Alternative selected by Gov. O'Malley for the Purple Line, including an at-grade light rail line with a trail alongside it on the Georgetown Branch right of way between Bethesda and Silver Spring, as well as the at-grade light rail line running along Campus Drive through the University of Maryland?

Roger Berliner (D): I have been a supporter of the Purple Line and ran on that platform four years ago when I ran successfully for the County Council. I continue to be a supporter of the locally preferred alternative and have tried to work with all parties to see that the very best possible system is developed. If there are mitigation measures that can be taken to help maintain the character of the Trail and develop a successful transit system I want to see MTA embrace those measures.

Ilaya Hopkins (D): I strongly support transit and believe our current transit system needs better East-West connectivity. Our current major transit system – Metrorail – was designed to move people from homes in the suburbs to jobs in the city center. Over the past decades, work patterns have shifted to become suburb to suburb and we have not adjusted our transit systems accordingly.

To fill in this gap, I support a Purple Line between Bethesda and New Carrollton, via Silver Spring and College Park. I am on-record supporting the Master Plan alignment and continue to support it. Given the state and county budget situation, along with the uncertainty of federal funding, the selected medium-investment light rail option, at a cost of $1.6 B, no longer appears affordable. The Maryland Transportation Administration explicitly noted in its alternatives analysis that limited availability of capital funds may require selecting a lower-cost investment, or implementing only a portion of the selected alternative.

MTA estimates the medium-investment bus rapid transit option can be implemented for approximately a third of the cost of the current PLA. I believe it is preferable to investigate this option in more depth and move forward with its implementation, rather than waiting for funds to be available for the full LRT option. By pushing for the high cost option now, I fear we may wind up with no Purple Line at all.

Read More...

Summary only...

Planning Board Chair Candidates Answer ACT Questionnaire

You can see their answers here.

Read More...

Summary only...

ACT Sends Questionnaire to Planning Board Chair Candidates

Following are the questions Action Committee for Transit (ACT) has for Planning Board Chair candidates. ACT is asking for responses by May 4. The County Council will pick the new Chair next month.

ACT Questionnaire for Candidates for Planning Board Chair

1) Do you support the Locally Preferred Alternative selected by Gov. O'Malley for the Purple Line, including an at-grade light rail line with a trail alongside it on the Georgetown Branch right of way between Bethesda and Silver Spring?

2) Would you support further study of alternatives to the Locally Preferred Alternative, such as heavy rail or single-tracking, which might delay the building of the Purple Line?

3) Do you support the current growth policy which ties development to the movement of motor vehicles, or would you replace the "PAMR" and "LATR" tests with a growth policy that gives transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel equal weight with automobiles?

4) Are minimum parking requirements, which make transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists pay for parking they don't use and thereby subsidize drivers, wise policy in places with good transit service?

5) The Parks Department's current policy is to clear snow only from roadways used by motor vehicles and not from roadways used exclusively by bicycles and pedestrians, even when the roadway used by bicycles and pedestrians carries far more people. Will you reverse this policy?

6) Will you end the Planning Department's use of biased language that treats only automobile travel as the norm, such as referring to an intersection widening that worsens pedestrian travel conditions as an "improvement" and describing non-automobile travel as "alternative" transportation?

Responses were requested by May 4 and will be posted here after that date.

Read More...

Summary only...

Montgomery County Pays Tribute to Harry Sanders (Updated)

We received the following comments on the passing of Action Committee for Transit co-founder Harry Sanders.

Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16)
Harry Sanders was a sincere, honest and decent man who was a selfless and relentless advocate for transit and most especially the Purple Line. I think Harry was the epitome of what Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter spoke to when he said: “In a democracy, the highest office is the office of citizen.” The truly honorable Harry Sanders will be terribly missed. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Barbara at this difficult time, as well as my thanks to her for letting us have so much of Harry’s time and talents over the years to better our community and region.

Delegate Al Carr (D-18)
I will miss Harry, who was my constituent and supporter. I had the good fortune of crossing his path many times over the last few years. He was a passionate and effective advocate for the causes in which he believed and a darn nice guy.

County Council Member Phil Andrews
Harry Sanders was a class act, thoughtful, civil, and remarkably persevering. He did the most work - and very effective work at that - to advance the Purple Line, which was his primary civic passion. Harry gave me a walking tour of the proposed Purple Line route in 1994, and it influenced my support for it. I am sure he did the same and had the same impact on many others. Many people don't know that he was a leader in the early days - the late 70s and early 80s - of Common Cause/Maryland, which is how we first met. Harry was a special guy, and his passing is not only a terrible loss to his family but to our community.

County Council President Nancy Floreen
Harry was famous for his strong, yet low key and unassuming commitment to community. We will miss him sorely.

Delegate Bill Frick (D-16)
Maryland lost a terrific advocate and a special person in Harry Sanders. He was devoted to the Purple Line because of what the project could do for our communities, and perhaps more important, because he felt it was the right thing to do. But this was not a vanity project for Harry. He wasn’t looking for acclaim or headlines, and often took hours out of his day just to be there to hold the banner in the background at a press conference where politicians took to the cameras. I liked and respected Harry and am so very sorry to lose him.

Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20)
Gentle giant. The transit conscience of the County.

County Council Member Roger Berliner
I did not know him as well as some, but what I did know was this: he was an extraordinarily decent man.

Hans Riemer, Vice-President, Action Committee for Transit
Harry and his lovely wife and soul-mate Barbara are two of the most inspiring people I know. I was very lucky to get my start in the County’s civic life under Harry’s tutelage. My own neighborhood was a flashpoint of opposition on the Purple Line and I found a perfect way to get involved in the issue through Harry’s Action Committee for Transit. As I learned and navigated in my advocacy, Harry always had the answer at every layer of questioning, from handling personal politics to campaign strategy to the finest details of policy. I always got a little bounce in my step when I saw Harry at a community event or out for an early morning of flyering at the Metro. Harry was a Northstar for me and whenever I needed to find my way I could look for him.

Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18)
Harry Sanders was an unparalleled advocate. He was passionately civil and zealously reasonable. It was a privilege to call him a supporter, and an honor to have him as a friend.

Gus Bauman, Former Chairman, Montgomery County Planning Board
I met Harry 25 years ago as we were gearing up in Silver Spring to build support for the vision of the Silver Spring-Bethesda Transitway. Five years later, the County Master Plan for that vision, now a “project,” had been studied, drafted, fought over, and, at a highly charged moment, adopted. Twenty years after 1990, that vision and that project have since been expanded to the full-fledged Purple Line. We’ve been through many battles over the transitway, and we’re almost there; and Harry, from day one, was one of the handful of visionaries and leaders for what should be, and will be.

Phil Alperson, Montgomery County BRAC Coordinator
Harry Sanders represented the best in community activism. I couldn’t attend a community meeting without running into him or Barbara. He was passionate about the issues that were important to him, but was able to advocate his positions in a mature and thoughtful way that commanded attention and respect. In my years of working on Montgomery County matters, Harry was the “go to guy” if we had questions relating to all manner of transportation policy matters. And he was a genuinely nice guy.

Lisa Fadden, Vice-President, Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
I can’t imagine advocating for the Purple Line without Harry. He was the heart and soul that made this advocacy group tick. He had been there from the beginning, and those of us who came after just sat back and learned from him. He will be incredibly missed.

Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18)
Harry Sanders was a constant and stable force for good in our community, a man of quiet strength and passion for what he believed was worth fighting for. He envisioned a future for our transportation systems that went well beyond master plans, alignments, and budgets; it was about the kind of world we could aspire to live in. Advocacy was never about ego or power for Harry. The strength and power of his advocacy came from his heart, his knowledge, his integrity. He genuinely cared about people and communities. For me, the Purple Line will always be the “Harry Line!” I will indeed miss my good friend Harry. “Que en Paz Descanse.”

Ben Ross, President, Action Committee for Transit
What Harry believed in even more than the Purple Line was good citizenship. Harry dedicated his life to that belief and he was an inspiration to all of us.

Jon Gerson, Director of Community Outreach, MCEA
If those who knew Harry were to honor his memory by reflecting on his character and genuinely trying to embody his values, thereby ensuring his continued presence, that would be a wonderful tribute.

Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20)
Harry was a gentleman, a citizen and a fighter of surpassing commitment to public infrastructure and civic things. I don’t think you can name whole transportation projects after one individual but when we finally build the Purple Line - and we will, Harry should at least have a stop named after him. Like Harry, it will be filled with dignity, decency and a deep respect for people and their needs.

Barbara came to visit me in Annapolis week as she was lobbying on democracy issues; Harry’s optimism and integrity and passion for our community live on through her work. My deepest sympathies to the whole family.

Sean Dobson, Executive Director, Progressive Maryland
Harry was one of the greatest citizen activists I have ever had the privilege to know. He was effective, determined, and a great leader. He was also a great guy. Progressive Maryland will miss him. And I personally will miss him very much.

Webb Smedley, Chair, Purple Line Now
Harry was a mild mannered stand-up guy who was tenacious but gentle. No one deserves more credit than he for getting the Purple Line to the point it is, but his efforts were always principled and his arguments were always rational and based on careful analysis. Still, transit for Harry was not just about moving people. It was one part of a broader equation to give more people, especially less advantaged people, the opportunity to live well without needing to depend on the private automobile.

County Council Member George Leventhal
Montgomery County has lost another champion. As founder and leader of Action Committee for Transit and Purple Line NOW, Harry Sanders was the model of the citizen-activist. He cared passionately about creating livable communities, but he never let his enthusiasm interfere with his kind and gentlemanly nature or his excellent relationships with elected officials across the political spectrum.

On March 22, Purple Line NOW! will gather for a mobilization and public tribute to our leader Harry Sanders. Harry will be present on film and in spirit. My sympathy goes out to his loyal wife Barbara; their son Greg; and Harry’s thousands of friends. Although Harry won’t be present for the groundbreaking or ribbon cutting, I know the Purple Line will be built because of Harry’s leadership.

Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20)
Whoever said that one person can’t make a difference never met Harry Sanders.

Harry was a giant of citizen activism who personified the best of Montgomery County’s legendary civic tradition. He was prepared, smart and thorough, full of insight and foresight. He made prescient arguments decades ago that people would increasingly value dense, walkable, transit-friendly communities – a vision that seems obvious now but ran counter to the prevailing wisdom then.

Harry made persuasive argument seem effortless. His voice was clear, thoughtful, and credible. He was deeply passionate but unfailingly levelheaded. He wrapped his relentless determination in a reasonable, gentlemanly baritone that made his arguments seem irresistible. When Harry spoke sometimes you could feel the whole room nod.

Montgomery County is much poorer because of his loss. A few years from now, tens of thousands of commuters will ride a quiet, efficient Purple Line. They will marvel over its speed and convenience. They won’t know it happened because of Harry Sanders. And the modest Harry who inspired us all would be fine with that.

Glenn Orlin, Deputy Council Staff Director, County Council
Harry was simply the best civic activist I have known in my 30 years working in Montgomery County, and one of the most effective.

Among the members of the County's Georgetown Branch Task Force (1986-1989) he consistently contributed the best ideas in developing the Bethesda-Silver Spring Trolley/Trail project that was, in the eventful year of 1990, adopted into the County's master plan, programmed for construction by the State, and then de-funded when the revenues in the State's Transportation Trust Fund cratered.

During the 1990s the project was deep in the political and bureaucratic wilderness. But rather than wallowing in bitterness for a missed opportunity, he and his sidekicks (Ben Ross, Webb Smedley, among others) used this time to develop an even bigger idea, the Purple Line, and to grow the Action Committee for Transit from a small cadre of “trolley jollies” into the County's largest and most effective advocacy group for transit, pedestrianism, and smart growth.

Over the years I’ve encountered countless activists who are well prepared with facts and arguments and dogged in pursuit of their issues. But I have never known anyone who combined these attributes with such an optimistic outlook and a positive presentation. Sure, Harry would get angry and frustrated in the many times we spoke over the years; until recently we talked at length at least once a month, trading news, ideas, and opinions about our shared purple passion. But outwardly, in his scores of trips to Annapolis and Rockville, he always tried to find a positive way to move the Purple Line forward, even if only by the proverbial inch at a time.

Finally, it is hard to think of Harry without thinking of Barbara, too. (I am SO glad you showed the picture of the two them at the Governor’s announcement.) They were by each other’s side through every promotional event and trolleyman’s holiday over the years. Here’s hoping she continues her advocacy for the two of them.

Harry was, in short, the person I’ve most admired in my 30 years of public service. That’s why it’s so deeply disappointing that the Purple Line - or at least the section from Bethesda to Silver Spring - is still not under construction after a quarter-century. But when it finally opens all should recognize it for what it is: the legacy of Harry and Barbara Sanders.

Update: Just Up the Pike author Dan Reed has written his own tribute to Harry.

Update 2: The Post has now profiled Harry.

Update 3: Fellow Purple Line and trail activist Wayne Phyillaier remembers Harry here.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Best We Had

If I had to pick our best activist – sunny in personality, noble in intention, steadfast in purpose and in it for the long haul – I would pick Harry Sanders. And now he is gone.


MoCo activists come in many models. Some of them are angry. Some are intense. Some are egotistical. There are the ones who know more than you do and want you to know that. There are the wanna-be politicians. There are the players. There are the ones who have been fighting so long that they may have forgotten what they were fighting about.

Harry was none of the above. He was a man who cared about transit. That’s it. That’s why he co-founded Action Committee for Transit back in 1986 and never stopped working. Harry and a small band of stalwarts stayed true to their vision in good times and bad. Their toil has produced one of the great civic organizations in our state and its work will go on.

Harry’s passion was the Purple Line. He wore purple constantly and probably bled the color. But Harry actually served a higher cause: good government through civic engagement. He really believed that organized citizens could make our elected leadership better than what they were and produce superior outcomes. Harry showed up at all kinds of events and never criticized people who did not. He loved young people and wanted them to be involved in shaping their world – a better world. He succeeded because Maryland’s smart growth movement is full of young people and they are going to create the kind of society Harry spent twenty years fighting for. Few other people in this county, elected or not, will ever be able to make such a claim. And Harry did it all with a warm smile, a gravelly laugh and a standing invitation to join and help. Lots of people did just that.

Most activists fight against things that are bad. Harry Sanders spent decades fighting for something that is good. There’s a big difference.

My son shares Harry’s birthday: June 1. If he ever asks how to live a good life, I’m going to tell him about a man I knew who was the best we had.

Read More...

Summary only...

ACT: Use Costco Subsidy to Prevent Bus Cuts

Action Committee for Transit (ACT) has written the County Council urging them to use money intended to subsidize Costco in Wheaton to support the Ride-On bus system instead.

County Executive Ike Leggett has proposed reducing or eliminating 27 Ride-On bus routes as part of a mid-year $70 million budget reduction package, a move that would wipe out 52 bus driver positions. That idea has encountered significant resistance inside the County Council, with Valerie Ervin calling it "a mess of epic proportions." ACT President Ben Ross is now asking the council to use money intended for Costco to prevent those cuts:

The $4 million subsidy for a Costco store near the Wheaton Metro is ill-advised, and the money would be far better spent on Ride-On service. Furthermore, building the Costco store as designed would undercut the county's economic development strategy. The Washington area, like the rest of the United States, has a surplus of regional shopping malls and an undersupply of housing in mixed-use areas near mass transit. The construction business can only be restarted by encouraging the supply of product for which there is unmet demand. That is transit-oriented development, especially housing. We need to propel the county economy forward by encouraging the transformation of Wheaton Plaza into a lively urban center that will enhance its surroundings and stimulate more economic growth... We should not waste money trying to prop up an obsolete and economically unsustainable form of land use that is incompatible with its urban surroundings.

ACT joins MPW contributor (and your author's wife) Holly Olson and smart-growth blog Greater Greater Washington in arguing against the subsidy on the grounds that it is incompatible with transit-oriented development in Wheaton. Now the Costco subsidy was intended to be disbursed in FY 2012, so it is not directly related to the current Ride-On cuts. But we hear FY 2012 is projected to be worse than FY 2011 so those bus routes are definitely in danger next year - which also happens to be the year after the next election.

Readers may ask why a county that is full of politicians who proclaim allegiance to "smart growth" would want to subsidize a Bigbox near a Metro station. No, dear readers, we don't understand that either!

We reprint ACT's letter below.

Read More...

Summary only...

ACT Slams MoCo Department of Transportation as "Anti-Transit" (Updated)

There's nothing unusual about Action Committee for Transit (ACT) protesting the policies set by the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) as "anti-transit." The organization has discussed each of its specific complaints before. What is unusual is that ACT's press release quotes both veteran leader Ben Ross as well as potential County Council candidate Hans Riemer. Following is the press release.

For Immediate Release, Monday, Dec. 28, 2009
Source: Action Committee for Transit

ACT Slams Montgomery County DOT's Anti-Transit Policies

The Montgomery County Dept. of Transportation has become systematically hostile to transit riders and pedestrians, charges a front-page article in the January 2010 issue of the Action Committee for Transit's quarterly newsletter, Transit Times. "The county's traffic engineering philosophy," commented ACT president Ben Ross, "is to push pedestrians, bicycles, and buses out of the way so that there are more cars on the road.”

The 600-member advocacy group backed its charge with a five-point bill of particulars:

MCDOT forced a four-month halt in the Maryland Transit Administration's work to design a new Metro entrance in Bethesda which will also serve as the future Red Line - Purple Line connection.

MCDOT opposes provisions of the White Flint master plan that would make Rockville Pike more friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. It insists that the road's overriding function is to carry high-speed traffic into D.C.

MCDOT is trying to divert $40 million that has been designated for improved pedestrian access to the Medical Center Metro station and use the money to build an automobile underpass. The underpass is part of a larger highway-building scheme whose full extent is being kept secret from the public.

MCDOT plans to waste $80 million by building an overpriced $80,000-per-space garage in Bethesda, even though the garage across the street isn't full.

More than a year has gone by since ACT made specific suggestions of cost-free ways to speed up bus movement, and the county still has not responded.

"That's not even the end of it," added ACT vice-president Hans Riemer. He pointed out that the county DOT has stalled completion of the Metropolitan Branch bicycle trail through Silver Spring and insists that local streets should be built with wide lanes that encourage cars to move at unsafe speeds.

Riemer observed that MCDOT's policies undermine the county's efforts to promote smart growth and non-automobile transportation. "Our Transportation Department is years behind the times," he said. "The kinds of places their policies create--like today's Rockville Pike--are often the most difficult and unpleasant places for people to live, to visit, to commute. These policies destroy community life, and they are less and less effective at promoting economic growth. The path we are on is unsustainable."

-end-

Update: A MCDOT official sent this reply acknowledging delay at the Bethesda South Entrance but denying it is deliberate.

There has been no deliberate call for a delay in the project by DOT or anybody. According to our project manager, there have been coordination issues that needed to be resolved concerning the number of elevators (4 or5), the configuration of the same and the effect of such configuration on the Elm Street right of way, and therefore, the impact on the futuretraffic flow on Elm Street (two-way or one-way).

Mr. Erenrich also points out that the final design of the elevators need to be closely coordinated with the design of the Purple Line Station. Construction of the elevators will be an integral part of the construction of the station. Like with many other projects coordination of the different elements anddifferent interests make for a slower process than many of us desire.

But certainly, there are not any efforts on DOT's part to delay this or anyother project associated with the Purple Line, one of the two highest state transit priorities in the County.

Read More...

Summary only...

State Legislators Urge Council to Back Rail CCT, Question ACT All-Transit Option

A letter organized by Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15) and signed by seven other state legislators representing areas along the CCT's alignment urges the County Council to support rail for the project and expresses skepticism about Action Committee for Transit's (ACT) all-transit option for the corridor.

The County Council will soon make a recommendation to MDOT about its preferred option for the I-270 widening project as well as the CCT. In July, the council's Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee recommended adding express toll lanes to I-270 and using bus rapid transit (BRT) for the CCT. But the committee said it might change its mind about the CCT if higher density numbers from the pending Gaithersburg West Master Plan made rail feasible. That same month, a group of state legislators wrote MDOT in support of adding toll lanes as well as a light rail CCT. But ACT opposes widening I-270 and proposed an all-transit plan for the corridor instead. Another group of state legislators wrote MDOT to urge them to study the all-transit plan. Five legislators inexplicably signed both letters - one favoring extra lanes and the other opposing them.

Now MDOT has complicated the matter by insisting that ACT's all-transit option would delay the CCT for years because it would re-start the planning process for the corridor. That did not sit well with Senator Garagiola and seven of his colleagues, all of whom represent the area in which the CCT would be built and support light rail for the project. In the letter below, they urge the County Council to back a light rail CCT and they criticize ACT's proposal because - according to MDOT - it would delay the CCT "well over a decade."

Interestingly, two Delegates - Kathleen Dumais (D-15) and Jim Gilchrist (D-17) - signed all three letters. Those letters, respectively, called for widening I-270, studying ACT's all-transit plan and rejecting ACT's all-transit plan (below). Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) signed the latter two letters.

We reprint the newest letter below.

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...

Lacefield, Ross Spar Over BRAC Tunnel

Earlier today, Action Committee for Transit (ACT) alleged that the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) changed the scope of a pedestrian tunnel intended to facilitate Metro access to the Medical Center to a multi-modal tunnel allowing cars. Further, ACT alleged that MCDOT changed the project in secret. We called on the Leggett administration to release details on the project and County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield replied rapidly. ACT President Ben Ross then responded. We reprint both comments below.

Patrick Lacefield:

ACT’s assertion that the County Executive and the Department of Transportation are operating in secrecy on this issue is unfortunate and misinformed.

There is no secret tunnel or secret meeting as either of the two MSM reporters that were in attendance at yesterday’s meeting could attest to. The concept of a multimodal tunnel has been openly and publicly discussed both yesterday and three weeks ago at a BRAC Implementation Committee meeting attended by many members representing surrounding communities. The exact drawings depicted in Mr. Ross’s press release belong to Clark Construction and, unfortunately, the County is not at liberty to release them. However, it is important to understand that these drawings do not necessarily depict what will be constructed. The design and construction for any multi-modal tunnel would be bid through our careful and legal procurement process. All construction firms would have an equal opportunity to compete for the project.

There are no diverted funds. In fact, no funds have been allocated by any entity for any improved Metro access that we are aware of. Funds have been requested, including the TIGER grant request that we briefed the community on both yesterday and three weeks ago at a BRAC Implementation Committee meeting. But there are no existing funds to be diverted and the grant programs that may fund this proposal are not in any way, shape or form limited to transit programs or the proposal favored by ACT.

Indeed, the TIGER grant specifically favors multi-modal proposals, which the County Executive’s proposal clearly is. Had we submitted the proposal favored by ACT (a more expensive, single-mode proposal, with long-term operating costs), we would almost assuredly not receive any funding under the TIGER grant. The total dollar value of proposals submitted for the TIGER grants nationwide is $57 billion -- for a pot totaling only $1.5 billion. Given those odds, a multi-modal proposal is clearly our only shot.

How ACT can possibly interpret the proposal as “secret” when the concept has been publicly discussed on at least two separate occasions is perplexing. How ACT can assert that this concept is detrimental to transit riders when it provides clear pedestrian access to Metro riders, as well as bicyclists and potentially inter-campus vehicular traffic, is also perplexing. How ACT can oppose a concept that has a significantly better shot of being funded and therefore, a better shot at serving transit riders, than any of the previous proposals is even more perplexing. This concept also links more seamlessly to the more comprehensive network of sidewalks and bikeways that the County and State are funding as part of our efforts to reduce the influx of traffic. This is a goal that we believe ACT shares.

The County Executive is committed to working with the community, the State and the Federal Government to try to minimize the inevitable disruption from the move of Walter Reed to Bethesda. He has worked tirelessly getting input from the community and communicating our needs to the State and Federal Government, including the Navy. Clearly part of the effort to meet the community’s needs includes improving the ability of pedestrians and transit riders to reach both NIH and the Navy installation. The Executive’s proposal would accomplish this goal in a cost effective manner that maximizes the ability to receive very scarce Federal funding. ACT understandably has transit as their single issue. While Mr. Leggett agrees with the importance of transit as a mode of transportation, there are a variety of other factors that he must also consider.

Patrick Lacefield
Director
Montgomery County Office of Public Information

We should note that the project's "multi-modal" nature was not secret, as the Gazette reported the following on 9/23/09:

In the future, the passageway could also be modified to allow emergency vehicles to pass quickly between NIH and Navy Med under the Pike, an idea that both facilities have discussed.

Ben Ross, President of ACT, responded:

If the secret drawings "do not necessarily depict what will be constructed," why did DOT include them in its grant application?

What is "multimodal" about this project? As best we can understand it from the information that has been released, it is a roadway with a sidewalk next to it. Yes, this accomodates several modes of transportation (walking, bicycling, and driving), but is it such an innovation that it will give us an advantage in seeking federal funding?

Other issues here would best be resolved by the county making all relevant documentation public, including a description of what it was that Clark Construction proposed to the county and how the drawings now under discussion fit in. In the meantime, I encourage readers to follow links in our press release for documentation of what we say.

Here's the problem: if Clark's designs are proprietary and not subject to release by the county, that prevents the public from providing informed input on the project. The designs will be available to any construction contractor once the project is put out for bid, but by then, public input will be too late to have any effect. MCDOT must take that into account before considering using any "proprietary" designs on this or any other project.

Read More...

Summary only...

ACT Alleges Transit Funding Diverted to Secret Auto Tunnel

Action Committee for Transit (ACT) is making a bombshell allegation: that the Montgomery County Department of Transportation is diverting millions of dollars intended for a transit access tunnel near the Bethesda Medical Center to an auto traffic tunnel under Wisconsin Avenue. Most disturbing is ACT's contention that details of the new project were "withheld from public disclosure as confidential business information." There should be nothing "confidential" about any transportation project proposed by the county or the state.

We call on the Leggett administration to respond to ACT's allegations and release all details on the project, as well as to document how it changed from a pedestrian tunnel to an auto tunnel. They would have to release the information in response to a public information request - which, trust me, is inevitable - so they may as well get it out there now.

Following is ACT's press release.

For Immediate Release, Tuesday morning, October 6, 2009
Source: Action Committee for Transit

Montgomery County Hides the Ball (and the Money) in Tunnel Project - Secret Maps Reveal Plan to Divert Transit Funds

Design drawings disclosed yesterday at a by-invitation briefing show that the Montgomery County Department of Transportation plans to divert tens of millions of dollars in transit funding to a secret project that would build a tunnel for auto traffic under Rockville Pike near Bethesda Naval Hospital, the Action Committee for Transit has learned.

Diagrams of the tunnel routing, which county bureaucrats have refused to make public, were shown to a small pre-selected group of community residents at a meeting Monday morning. No representatives of transit riders were invited to the meeting. An ACT member, who was in the audience because he had heard about the meeting second-hand, used a cell phone camera to photograph the plans. The secret maps are shown below.

MCDOT officials said at the briefing that they want to use funds designated to improve transit riders' access from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the Metro at Medical Center to build a tunnel for auto traffic beneath Rockville Pike. Metro riders would no longer be allowed to cross the street at surface level. Instead, they would be forced to take a lengthy zigzag route through the tunnel on an underground sidewalk squeezed next to cars, trucks, and buses.

The county DOT asserts that all information about the design of the tunnel is confidential and may not legally be disclosed, leaving riders ignorant of how personal safety would be protected and even whether the tunnel would be lit. Plans for ventilation and protective railings, if any, have also been kept secret. ACT today called on the county to immediately release all information about the plan.

Funding Intended for Metro Riders

Improved access to Metro has long been identified as an important means of solving the transportation problems that will be created by the relocation of Walter Reed Hospital to the Bethesda Naval campus. Through the efforts of the Maryland congressional delegation, the current year's Defense Department budget includes $20 million to build a new Metro entrance on the east side of Rockville Pike, in front of the Navy Hospital.

In July, a study by the Washington Metro (WMATA) was released. This study compared the costs and benefits of several pedestrian access options: (a) new elevators directly down to the Metro station; (b) a pedestrian tunnel going directly under the road to the existing escalators; and (c) a pedestrian bridge directly across the road. In ACT's view, the elevator option was clearly best for transit riders, because even a bridge or tunnel directly across the road would save little time compared to waiting for the traffic light to change. The new elevators would also reduce the time needed to evacuate the station in an emergency; the station falls short of current emergency evacuation requirements and is allowed to operate under a “grandfather clause.”

County Executive Isiah Leggett issued a public statement endorsing the Metro study findings. “There is a solution,” Mr. Leggett said on August 3, “and we can get it done before the BRAC expansion takes effect in September 2011. We can improve pedestrian access between the Metro station and Navy Med by constructing a new east-side entrance to the Metro station.... What we need now is for the Defense Department to use the WMATA report to make its determination to apply the DAR program to this essential project...”

The Metro study found that the cost of all options would exceed $20 million, and the county sought additional funding from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation under the economic stimulus program. In a presentation to the regional Transportation Planning Board (whose signoff is required for the grant) on July 15, the project was described as a pedestrian tunnel. The TPB told the county to leave the elevator option open.

But when the county submitted its proposal to USDOT on September 15, the project was suddenly neither a Metro entrance nor a pedestrian tunnel. Instead, it was something described as a “multimodal tunnel.” What does this mean? According to the county's proposal, it's a secret. All specifics of the plan - even the location and dimensions of the tunnel - were withheld from public disclosure as “confidential business information.” ACT immediately challenged the secrecy in a Freedom of Information request, but under USDOT procedures a long delay is likely before improperly withheld information is made public.

“It is becoming increasingly obvious that MCDOT wants to use money set aside for transit access improvements to fund more road-building, and they know their plan cannot withstand public scrutiny,” said ACT President Ben Ross. “They have been hiding this design as long as possible in the hopes that by the time anyone figures out what they are up to and how much it will cost, it will be too late to do anything about it.”

The Real Plan Revealed

The county has a two-stage plan. As described in the grant application, the tunnel would first be opened to pedestrians and bicycles only. But the first secret map shows that the tunnel's routing links the internal street network from the NIH and Medical Center campuses, an alignment that serves to provide drivers a connection under Route 355 but takes pedestrians and cyclists well out of their way:


Transit riders would be required, for no apparent reason, to walk north more than 100 feet after leaving the Metro entrance. They would then turn south into the tunnel cross Rockville Pike at an angle, and then double back to the north toward the Navy Hospital.

The reason for this alignment is made clear by the second secret map:


The plan is clear: to divert money intended for transit, pedestrians, and cyclists to build yet another roadway.

Why the Secrecy?

Regardless of legal issues, the secrecy of this project is an affront to Montgomery County's tradition of open and honest government. The very existence of this alternative was kept secret for months, while citizens were wasting long hours of volunteer work in meetings about the Metro study. The citizenry is unable to judge many vital questions about this project:

What will this project really do to access to the Metro?

What is the true cost of this project?

Why is it being kept secret?

Will the environmental analysis of this project comply with the law which forbids “segmentation” of a project and partial analyses?

Will this road design undermine the White Flint and Bethesda master plans, which aim to make Rockville Pike and Wisconsin Avenue more pedestrian-friendly?

-end-

Read More...

Summary only...

Support Inclusion of an All-Transit Alternative

By Marc Korman.

Earlier in the summer, the Action Committee for Transit (ACT), an organization I am a member of, released an all-transit alternative to the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor project, popularly known as the widening of I-270 and construction of the Corridor Cities Transitway. The proposal has helped spur the debate as to whether we need to expand the highway and how much emphasis the county and state should put on transit.

As Adam wrote last month, Senator Brian Frosh sent a letter to the Governor encouraging him to add the study of the all-transit alternative to the Maryland Department of Transportation’s work on the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Project project. Senator Frosh was joined on the letter by Senators Madaleno, Lenett, and Raskin. Members of the House of Delegates agreed with ACT and Senator Frosh and sent their own letter promoting an all-transit alternative earlier in September, as Adam posted.

No one is better at crunching the numbers than Adam, but in my view his characterization of the Senate letter as “daft” was a poor adjective to use. I suspect all of the elected officials who signed the all-transit alternative letter agree with Adam that the county should be careful about suggesting they are not interested in transportation funding. That is why it is a good thing, not a bad thing, that these letters were sent when they were. Any action on the I-270 corridor study is years away and no decisions have been made yet. If elements of the all-transit alternative are going to be included, those considerations need to be taken into account now.

Adam also raised some concerns about ACT’s methods in promoting an all-transit alternative. As best I can tell, most of Adam’s specific objections could be satisfied if the state would study ACT’s proposal. Whether the transit options could pass the Federal Transit Administration’s Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) is a question that the study could help answer and I do not believe we should assume the answer is no without further examination. As a side note, the feds’ current overreliance on the CEI could be changed at any time by the Obama Administration and remain consistent with the current law, which includes other factors when considering transit funding. Congress could also reform the law in support of the Administration’s focus on transit.

The question of how much the projects within the all-transit alternative would cost are also ones the state study could answer. ACT’s current numbers are based on work done by the 2001 Transportation Policy Task Force, but updated and more detailed costs could be determined by a state study. Adam rightly points out that Purple Line opponents invested in a third party study, but that was only after trying to convince the state to study their preferred option first.

Adam’s final assessment that ACT should use the downsides to I-270 expansion such as increased pollution and adverse effects to forests and wetlands is a bit baffling to me. First, ACT’s goal is not to simply torpedo the I-270 project. Their goal is to promote transit in the county. Second, we should want opponents of projects to offer meaningful alternatives and not just negative pronouncements of proposals.

If Adam is serious about his concerns, he should support the effort to add an all-transit alternative to the I-270 study. In fact, anyone interested in finding the best solution for I-270 traffic should embrace the study this early in the process.

Read More...

Summary only...

Just the Facts, Please

If you had a choice of fighting a horrible project using facts or fantasy, you would pick the former option, right? Not if you’re Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and your target is the widening of I-270.

Here’s their new flyer illustrating a handful of transit projects that they say could be built instead of the $4+ billion road project.



There are three problems with this argument, all of which are known to ACT’s leadership. First, transit and road projects are financed by two different federal agencies using two different approval procedures. Canceling a road project does not automatically free up money for transit, an argument conceded even by I-270 opponent and Baltimore Sun reporter Mike Dresser.

Second, if highway proponents must deal with the difficulty of paying for I-270, transit proponents must also deal with the difficulty faced by their projects in making it through the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts procedure. One of ACT’s recommended projects, the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), does not currently pass the federal cost effectiveness threshold as a rail project. If the CCT cannot pass, how about the much more expensive Red Line extension to Germantown that ACT is promoting? Or how about the MARC trains to Hagerstown that ACT also wants, which would pass through areas with much lower ridership potential than Montgomery County? ACT cannot prove that any of these projects will receive federal approval.

Third, neither ACT nor anyone else has any idea how much each of the transit projects other than the CCT will actually cost. That is because the state has not recently prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) on those projects required to produce those estimates. Even the Purple Line rail opponents in Chevy Chase paid for a third-party study to back up their arguments in favor of BRT. ACT’s claims are much bolder and have no comparable supporting documentation.

We are baffled why ACT would choose to market an unproven utopia rather than merely use the factual arguments against I-270 present in the state’s own data. The state admits that widening I-270 would increase vehicle miles traveled, raise pollutant levels, displace homes and adversely impact historic properties, wetlands and forest. Those are honest grounds for opposition that never made it onto ACT’s flyer.

When an organization chooses fantasy over fact in its communications to the public, that calls into question the accuracy of everything it claims. ACT has rendered valuable public service in promoting transit in the past that would not have been possible unless it met some basic threshold of credibility. We hope that ACT will abandon its propaganda, stick to the facts and get back on track.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senator Frosh Proposes Anti-I-270 Letter

Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) is circulating a proposed Montgomery Senate Delegation letter calling for alternatives to the I-270 project.

Senator Frosh is not a member of the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee. If he was, he might understand that transit and highway projects are financed by different federal agencies and that money does not transfer dollar-for-dollar from one mode to the other. Furthermore, let's put aside the merits - or demerits - of the I-270 project for a moment. Why would we be daft enough to even hint to the state that we don't want a big transportation project?

Following is the text of the letter. We do not yet know who, if anyone, has agreed to sign it.

The Honorable Martin O’Malley
The State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Gov. O'Malley:

Your administration identified an important priority for Maryland by setting the goal of a substantial increase in transit ridership. New transit lines will remove traffic from our congested highways, improving the environment while they give harried commuters more time with their families. Transit also opens the door for economic progress; existing stations are rare bright spots in the current collapse of construction activity, and in the future transit lines can help revitalize our older urban centers.

The Department of Transportation's current I-270 Corridor Study may offer a valuable opportunity for progress toward the objective of more effective transit. The I-270 corridor has been a center of both economic growth and traffic congestion, and MDOT is evaluating options for relieving the congestion. To date, all options evaluated in this study have devoted well over two-thirds of projected construction funding to road capacity expansion. The Action Committee for Transit has developed the attached alternative, comparable in cost, that consists entirely of transit improvements.

The large transportation investments proposed along I-270 will take years to implement, and they will shape the development of the corridor for decades. There is time to decide carefully and wisely. We request that you ask MDOT to add the all-transit alternative to this study. After a complete range of options is evaluated, policy-makers and the public will be able to choose the solutions that are best for our communities, our economy, and our environment.

Sincerely,

Read More...

Summary only...

Smart Growth Groups Oppose I-270 Widening

Following is the press release from Action Committee for Transit, the Audubon Naturalist Society, the Coalition for Smarter Growth and 1000 Friends of Maryland.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 20, 2009

Ben Ross, President
Action Committee for Transit
ben@disposalsafety.com

Dolores Milmoe, Conservation Associate
Audubon Naturalist Society
dmilmoe@audubonnaturalist.org

Cheryl Cort, Policy Director
Coalition for Smarter Growth
cheryl@smartergrowth.net

Dru Schmidt-Perkins, Executive Director
1000 Friends of Maryland
dru@friendsofmd.org

Proposed $4 Billion I-270 Expansion at Odds with Montgomery County’s Smart Growth and Climate Goals

The Montgomery County Planning Board recently recommended that taxpayers spend $4 billion on widening I-270 while it voted to deny public funding to a $70 million plan to rebuild Rockville Pike near White Flint Mall that would turn the highway into a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly boulevard with center bus lanes, and would support a compact, sustainable redevelopment plan.

“We urge the County Council to reject the Planning Board’s misguided transportation recommendations, the result of which would be more cars on the highways and more traffic jams,” said Ben Ross, President of Action Committee for Transit, a Montgomery County citizens group. “The council should ask the State to evaluate some of the many possible transportation improvements for the corridor that don't involve more highway lanes. We cannot pave our way out of traffic congestion.”

Dolores Milmoe, Conservation Associate for the Audubon Naturalist Society, agrees. “Rather than waste $4 billion widening I-270,” said Milmoe, “the county should invest in light rail from Shady Grove to Kentlands; a fast, direct rail connection from Shady Grove to Germantown and Clarksburg; and all-day, two-way MARC service from Union Station to Frederick and Harper's Ferry.” (The latter is already in the state's plans, but remains unfunded.)

The groups, joined by other transportation activists in our area also prefer that part of the money go toward rebuilding Route 355.

“We support turning Rockville Pike into a walkable urban boulevard, beginning in the White Flint area and stretching to Rockville and Gaithersburg,” said Ross. “The people-first approach that has been designed for White Flint would serve as a model to improve accessibility along the rest of Route 355 in the future.”

“At what point in our history would the widening ever stop?” asked Cheryl Cort, Policy Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, about the Planning Board’s I-270 recommendation. “Meeting the county and state smart growth goals, and reducing traffic, energy use and climate emissions, demands a very different and comprehensive approach -- making transit and walkable streets the top priority.”

"We urge the County Council to reject the Planning Board's misguided transportation recommendations and to ask the County and State to instead evaluate and adopt a comprehensive set of transportation and land use solutions for the corridor that don't involve never-ending highway widening,” said Milmoe. “We want the Council to make a statement against lanes as the solution to the corridor's needs and to adopt transportation solutions in keeping with their expressed commitments to fight climate change, reduce energy use, and implement smarter growth.”

The groups also endorsed the Sierra Club’s recent letter to the Montgomery County Council. The letter provides additional detail as to why all of the groups request a more comprehensive examination of alternatives.

Read More...

Summary only...

What ACT is Not Telling You About Rich Madaleno

Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and a blogger who sits on its board have launched a double-barreled attack on Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) alleging that he is anti-transit and only wants to build toll lanes for the wealthy. Are they right?

On June 5, ACT released a statement accusing Madaleno of “opposition to new bus rapid transit and light rail lines.” Greater Greater Washington blogger Cavan Wilk followed with a post mimicking the statement on which he failed to disclose that he is an ACT Board Member. In addition, ACT and Wilk accuse Madaleno of supporting $800 million high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on I-95 north of Baltimore “to subsidize rich people’s commutes.”

ACT’s antipathy for Senator Madaleno is understandable given that he opposes the Purple Line. Your author disagrees with Madaleno’s position on that project. We believe light rail is the best option for the Purple Line and that the O’Malley administration will select it. If ACT and Wilk merely said that Madaleno opposes the Purple Line (as they did today), we would have no argument with them.

But they went further, saying he opposes all BRT and light rail projects and supports HOT lanes on I-95. Let’s deal with the latter issue first. The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) controls all toll facilities in the state. MdTA and MDOT decide which, if any, toll projects are built. The legislature rarely votes on any individual projects and has not voted on HOT lanes for I-95. Madaleno has not introduced any legislation on the subject. ACT and Wilk have no evidence from Madaleno’s record as a legislator to support their allegation. Furthermore, even if Madaleno did support HOT lanes, that would not make him an enemy of transit. To the extent that HOT lanes are financed by the tolls they generate, they do not threaten other transportation projects.

The evidence cited by ACT and Wilk that Madaleno opposes all BRT and light rail projects is this excerpt from his testimony on the Purple Line last fall:

Quite frankly, the state does not have the resources to pay for any of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT) options. Over the past decade, the only major new construction projects the state has moved forward with have been funded primarily with toll-backed revenue bonds. There are no alternative funding mechanisms available for this project. As a member of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, I feel confident in reporting that no new revenue options appear politically feasible in the foreseeable future.

Senator Madaleno never said that he opposes all BRT or light rail projects. He merely said the state does not currently have the money for them. That is a fact. Senator Ed DeGrange (D-32), Chairman of the Senate Capital Budget Subcommittee, told Maryland Commons this week, “I do not see any growth in revenue for transportation in the near future and we may see further declines and budget reductions.” Your author has bludgeoned the Lords of Annapolis for not sufficiently funding transportation again and again and again and again and again with NO aid from ACT or Cavan Wilk. Where were they when the O’Malley administration cut transportation funding by $1.1 billion last fall? This blog criticized the administration twice for it while ACT and Wilk did not utter a peep. Instead, Wilk actually praised the Governor for supporting the Purple Line six weeks after his administration cut the project’s financing by 19% (and cut money for the Corridor Cities Transitway by nearly half). Why do ACT and Wilk leave O’Malley alone while slamming Senator Madaleno, who had nothing to do with these cuts?

ACT is essentially criticizing Madaleno for telling the truth about the state’s sorry performance on transportation funding. If we bash our politicians for telling the truth, they will only be encouraged to lie.

Let’s examine Senator Madaleno’s actual record on transportation. Following is a list of the pro-transit and pro-transportation bills Rich Madaleno has sponsored over his years in the General Assembly. For whatever reason, ACT and Cavan Wilk have either not compiled or not released this record.

HB 1157 2003: Constitutional amendment to prevent raids on the Transportation Trust Fund.

HB 981 2006: Creates a mass transit account within the Transportation Trust Fund.

HB 1345 2006: Requires MDOT to study operating and capital funding needs for transit.

SB 31 2007 Special session: Raises the gas tax by 5 cents.

SB 461 2007: Requires MDOT to issue transit passes to training organizations for low-income people. Became law.

SB 444 2009: Requires the Maryland Transit Administration to study adding a new MARC station near the Walter Reed annex in Forest Glen. Lead sponsor.

SB 722 2009: Raises the gas tax by 5 cents. Lead and only sponsor.

SB 273 2009, SB 276 2009 and SB 280 2009: Governor O’Malley’s smart growth package. Became law.

SB 539 2009: Sets goal for reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2036.

Senator Madaleno also wrote a blog post on gas tax indexing and said this after his election as Chairman of the Montgomery Senate Delegation:

Finally, I plan to lead the delegation in a discussion concerning the future of transportation funding in our state and region. The last year has highlighted the growing volatility in the revenue sources that support the transportation trust fund. While we may not agree on every project, we need to explore new ways to provide financial stability to the trust fund and to ensure that we have the resources to meet our significant transportation infrastructure needs.

So let’s see. If Senator Madaleno had his way, the state would have a constitutional amendment to protect the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) from raids. The TTF would have a separate account reserved for mass transit and MDOT would have a solid cost estimate for transit needs across the state. The gas tax would be raised and indexed for inflation, thus providing more funds for all manner of transportation projects. Forest Glen Seminary would have a new MARC station and the state would set a goal for reducing VMT by 2036. Few state legislators, if any, can match this record. But Action Committee for Transit and Cavan Wilk do not reveal any of this and would have us believe that Madaleno is anti-transit. Good grief!

Here’s a tip for starry-eyed transit advocates: pragmatism pays. Senator Madaleno disagrees with us on the Purple Line. He won’t change his mind and we won’t change ours. But he is the Chairman of Montgomery’s Senate Delegation and he can be a powerful ally on transportation funding.

ACT and its followers have a choice. They can work with legislators like Madaleno on raising more money for transportation, without which the Purple Line will never be built. Or they can post sloppy propaganda, engage in fruitless battles and watch transit projects sink into penniless oblivion. We hope they choose the former option.

Disclosure: The author is Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team, which includes Senator Rich Madaleno.

Read More...

Summary only...