Category: CSG in the News

I-66 Expansion Is Probably Inevitable, And Decision ‘Will Not Be Vague,’ VDOT Says

Posted on by Will Reckley

Expanding I-66 inside the Beltway eventually will be necessary to meet Virginia’s goal of congestion relief in the corridor, says the commonwealth’s top transportation official.

“There is some traffic management we can do, but eventually there’s going to be expansion needed,” said Virginia Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne in remarks to reporters Thursday at VDOT headquarters in Fairfax.

And by expansion, he essentially means adding a third lane eastbound between I-495 to Fairfax Drive. Adding a third lane on the other side isn’t practical, given constraints within the I-66 corridor.

When might it happen? It will depend on the effectiveness of initial steps designed to move an additional 40,000 people per day along the corridor. They will be a mix of congestion pricing with E-ZPass toll lanes and public transit, biking, and walking options paid for with toll revenues.

If “throughput” doesn’t adequately improve, the state would move toward adding the third eastbound lane.

“It’s both transportation and political realities that are driving this plan,” Layne said. “We agree we should exhaust every other opportunity that we can to move more people through before we [make] capacity changes.”

Data will drive any decision, he said.

“It will not be vague once the metrics are established,” Layne said.

 

Tolls first, another lane years later

Political leaders in jurisdictions inside the Beltway have long opposed expanding I-66 but reached an accord with VDOT on the possibility of building more lanes sometime before 2040. First, toll revenues will be used to pay for multi-modal options within the corridor, which includes Routes 29 and 50.

Starting in 2017 rush hour tolls will be charged during mornings and afternoons in both directions on I-66 inside the Beltway. HOV-2 carpoolers will ride free; the restriction will be tightened to HOV-3 in 2020.

Eastbound tolls during morning rush hour will cost as much as $9; westbound tolls will be $1. In the afternoon rush hour, westbound traffic will be charged tolls as high as $8, with eastbound motorists paying $2. Officials caution that the tolls will be dynamically priced based on traffic flow. Federal law requires that traffic maintain speeds of at least 45 miles per hour.

Drive-alone commuters currently are prohibited from using I-66 inside the Beltway during rush hour, but the Virginia Department of Transportation estimates more than a third of eastbound traffic during mornings and close to 50 percent of westbound traffic in the afternoons is single-occupant vehicles. Not all are HOV violators, however. Some are exempted hybrid vehicles or emergency responders.

Still, the plan to toll the existing lanes would eliminate the majority of the cheaters while also enticing some drive-alone commuters who now avoid I-66 inside the Beltway to pay the toll for a faster ride. Sharp disagreements remain, though, on the issue of adding lane capacity.

 

Congestion pricing

Charging high tolls without adding capacity is a form of congestion pricing designed to stop single-occupant vehicles from flooding downtown D.C. and other destinations, although Layne declined to use that term.

“It’s a dynamic pricing plan that reduces congestion,” he said. “The objective is to move more people, and the way to do that is increasing transit that is available.” More than one-fourth of eastbound vehicles trips on I-66 that begin east of Rt. 267 end in the District of Columbia, according to VDOT data.

“I would say a poll would show that the overwhelming percentage of people in Northern Virginia including Arlington favor widening I-66. It is such an obvious need. Traffic backs up on 66 all the time,” said Bob Chase, the president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, a group that lobbies for major, regional highway improvements.

Additional capacity is necessary for off-peak travel times, too, when tolls would not be charged, Chase said.

“If you just increase tolls during peak periods and add transit, you will totally ignore the congestion that occurs the rest of the day and on weekends,” he said. “If you are serious about reducing congestion on I-66 you have to add new lanes.” Chase noted his position would benefit high-capacity commuter buses in addition to cars.

Opposed to Chase’s view is Stewart Schwartz, the head of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which opposes major highway expansions in favor of transit and transit-oriented real estate development.

“What is ridiculous about the idea of widening I-66 is where do the cars go in Washington, D.C? Where do they go in the neighborhoods of Arlington and so forth? We have got to stop this process of building more [lanes] for more and more cars, and start focusing on moving more people,” he said.

Some congestion experts point to induced demand as the reason to avoid widening highways. In other words, build it and they congestion will come — eventually.

“The smartest solution is pricing,” said Todd Litman, the executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in British Columbia.

“It is foolish to add extra, free capacity. We know that for sure, because it won’t solve the problem that people are concerned about it. It won’t reduce traffic congestion because of the induced travel. There is latent demand,” said Litman, who noted each additional highway lane can accommodate only 2,000 cars per hour before degrading.

“On the one hand, there is a reluctance to expand roads,” Litman added. “On the other hand, motorists are extremely reluctant to pay anything. A lot of people are offended at the very idea that they should have to pay to use a road. Motorists are significantly subsidized and yet they still complain any time anyone wants to charge them more. They are particularly upset about the idea of congestion pricing. That is, any sort of pricing that is intended to change their behavior.”

The tolls drive-alone motorists pay for rush hour access to I-66 inside the Beltway will be used to increase mobility throughout the corridor, and officials said it will not take years for those improvements to be felt.

“We hope to put the multi-modal improvements in place on day one, if not sooner, and we think they will immediately start to make an impact,” said Nick Donohue, Virginia’s deputy secretary of transportation.

“You can expect to see new commuter buses, new carpool assistance, vanpools, and better access to the Metrorail stations,” he said.

Outside the Beltway

Secretary Layne’s remarks followed a major presentation by VDOT of its plans to transform I-66 outside the Beltway, the 25 miles from I-495 to Haymarket.

Construction is supposed to begin in 2017. The highway will be expanded to five lanes in each direction: three regular lanes and two express toll lanes with an HOV-3 exemption. The new lanes are scheduled to open in 2021.

First, however, VDOT must decide who will build it and under what financing mechanism. In December officials are expected to decide whether the project will be a full concession to a private-sector road builder, or publicly financed so the state may keep the toll revenues. In either case, Layne said there will be a public-private partnership.

Under current design plans, eleven homes would be condemned for the expanded right-of-way. Five are in Dunn Loring, where Deanna Heier said she and her neighbors are being penalized despite making the right decisions.

“We need to find a way that people can still live in Northern Virginia without running them over with highways. We picked these houses because they are near the Dunn Loring Metro. We picked it because it is near our work. But we are the ones who have to suffer for people who made a different decision.”

Heier’s home will not be displaced, but a ramp will “tower” over her house, she says, and the property surrounding the neighborhood’s school, Stenwood Elementary, will be impacted. Plus, there are four years of construction to look forward to.

Read this on WAMU >>

Live Chat with Stewart Schwartz

Posted on by Will Reckley

The Washington Post’s Dr. Gridlock, Robert Thomson, will be online to take all your questions about Metro, traffic throughout the region and other transportation issues.

Also taking your questions is today’s special guest Stewart Schwartz, who is a leading advocate for sustainable development in the D.C. region in his role as executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Robert Thomson:
Welcome, travelers. I’m going to begin today’s chat with a set of questions for my guest, Stewart Schwartz, about smart growth issues that relate to local travel.

Please join in with your own questions and comments for Stewart.

[Programming note: I see questions about the pope’s visit and about Metro service issues that I think are meant for me, rather than Stewart. I plan to address them on the Dr. Gridlock blog ASAP.]

 

Stewart Schwartz:

Thank you Dr. Gridlock for having me on today’s chat. I look forward to everyone’s comments and questions.

 

Robert Thomson:
State and local officials in Virginia who have been searching for ways to prioritize transportation projects have been developing formulas that put a premium on congestion relief.

Many commuters say, Duh, of course that should be the measure of a transportation project’s value. Are they right?

 

A: Stewart Schwartz
Actually, the highway lobby has sought to force a simplistic focus on “congestion relief” which they imply to mean road expansion.  Yet, we know that “if you build it they will come.” It’s well documented that new highway lanes in metro areas can fill up in as little as five years due to “induced traffic.” The VA General Assembly recognized that “congestion relief” was too simplistic and that we needed a range of solutions, hence the bi-partisan passage of House Bill 2 in 2014, which requires that we set priorities based upon a balance of factors. Congestion relief is still weighted at 45% for NOVA but other factors include improving access to jobs, better land use that reduces the amount of driving, improved safety and reducing air pollution.

Since expanded roads often open the way for more sprawling development and even longer commutes, my group and most local elected officials have sought to focus on reducing the amount we have to drive by creating mixed-use, walkable and transit-focused communities, expanding transit, and ensuring more homes are available closer to jobs. As we’ve seen, demand for these communities is booming.  Every person who can live and/or work in a transit-oriented community can be part of the regional traffic solution because they either don’t need to drive or will drive much less. The internet has also become an important part of the solution, allowing for telework and on-line shopping. But again, those pushing “congestion reduction” are just looking to expand highway lanes and are only looking at the short term. They are failing to look at the bigger picture of how land use, technology, and transit, walking and biking can reduce the amount of driving for the short, medium and long-term.

Robert Thomson:

On Friday, the coalition released a statement in support of the Virginia government’s plan to create HOT lanes at rush hours inside the Beltway.

Many long-distance commuters fear this plan, because of the variable toll that will be imposed in both directions. According to a VDOT estimate made public this month, the morning peak toll could be $7 eastbound and $9 westbound during the afternoon peak.

Is it fair to raise their commuting costs like this?

A: Stewart Schwartz
Commuters are already paying a high cost in lost time with their families and on the job. Those hours stuck in traffic add up when you look at your salary on an hourly basis. The VDOT proposal will improve conditions for everyone, providing a faster more reliable commute. It will guarantee a peak hour speed of at least 45 mph and probably better, making the commute time more consistent and reliable.  It will keep the revenues in public hands so we can invest it in more transit in the corridor (more buses and more railcars), and it will move more people per hour in cars, carpools and transit.

We looked at the estimated peak of the peak toll cost ($7 to $9) in comparison to parking and riding Metro in the corridor and it’s comparable — $8.95 to park and ride from West Falls Church and $10.30 to park and ride from Vienna. So Metro riders are already paying a similar fare.

This is really the best alternative for I-66 inside-the-Beltway. Widening would require years of construction and traffic delays.  It would be very difficult if not impossible to widen from Ballston to the Roosevelt Bridge, with significant harm to people’s homes and neighborhoods. Widening would cost hundreds of millions of tax dollars instead of the $40 million proposed for the tolling equipment and software.  And in the end, where would all of the additional cars go? We aren’t going to widen Constitution Avenue in DC or neighborhood streets at the exits.

By pricing a road which sees so much demand in the peak hours, we can ensure it flows better giving a faster and more reliable commute, and invest in transit, including commuter buses, which will likely prove the cheapest and most comfortable way to go — allowing you to sleep on the ride to work or on the way home, or get a head start on your email inbox, and probably helping to lower your blood pressure in the process.

Robert Thomson

Many commuters on both sides of the Potomac are begging for relief from the tortuous trip on the west side of the Beltway and across the Legion Bridge.

Virginia transportation officials want to talk to their Maryland counterparts about upgrading the Legion Bridge and possibly adding HOT lanes on its approaches.

Does that make sense to you? Why wouldn’t commuters be better off if the two states cooperated on a new bridge west of the Beltway?

 

A: Stewart Schwartz
 Yes.  It’s good news that VA wants to talk to Md about the American Legion Bridge. My group helped spark the first such discussion between the Fairfax Board of Supervisors and Montgomery  County Council two years ago and we understand they are setting up to talk again,  in addition to VDOT to MDOT discussions. Extending the HOT lanes and adding express bus services in those lanes would allow more people to move in the peak hour to the job centers on each side of the river.

The western bridge would be a waste of a couple of billion dollars. VDOT’s recent bridge study showed just 5% of VA commuters to Md (declining to 4% in 2040) using the Am Legion Bridge are making the so-called U-shaped commute from western Fairfax or Loudoun to upper Montgomery or Frederick.  That means for all others, the Am Legion Bridge is the best route and that traffic fixes need to happen there. Spending $1 to $2 billion upriver would divert scarce taxdollars needed for the Am Legion Bridge.

The VDOT study had some other stunning data in its assessment of all Potomac Bridge crossings from Pt of Rocks in  the NW to the Route 301 Henry Nice Bridge in the south:  during the morning peak, Metro carried 35% of Virginia commuters traveling across the Potomac (26% at the Rosslyn Tunnel and 8% at the Yellow Line bridge).  Another 30% crossed the road bridges into DC. This compares to  14% crossing the Am Legion into Md and just 1% crossing the Pt of Rocks Bridge in northern Loudoun.

So certainly, the Rosslyn Tunnel (going first to 8-car trains and then figuring out the tunnel capacity issue) and the American Legion Bridge should rank light-years ahead of a western Potomac Bridge crossing in our priorities.

Robert Thomson:
Should transit advocates be relieved that Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has said okay to building the Purple Line?
A: Stewart Schwartz
Yes, but the Governor still has to seal the deal. As the Post recently noted, we don’t know yet if the financial package will come together.  We also want to ensure the cuts he’s making to the project don’t hurt the effectiveness of the service, reducing ridership.

The Governor cut the share the state would contribute to the $2.5 billion project from $700 million to just $170 million.  Montgomery has agreed to contribute an additional $40 million and Prince George’s $20 million on top of the other funds they are investing (a few hundred million).  The feds are expected to contribute $900 million and the remainder would come from the private sector which would have to be paid back over a number of years. We need this deal soon to ensure we get the federal funds and before construction costs rise.

It’s frustrating to see the state contribute so little to the project, when highway projects are typically funded 100% by federal and state funds, and when the Purple Line offers such benefits in economic development and revitalization,  connecting people to jobs, and offering an alternative to the heavy congestion on and inside the Beltway.  But we are glad the Governor made the decision to go forward and we are encouraging him to seal the deal.

Robert Thomson:

There’s a back-and-forth in my reader letters that goes like this:

A traveler writes in to complain about the amount of time spent in traffic. A reader responds by saying that the traveler should live closer to where she works. Another traveler writes back to say, How many times do you expect us to move? People change jobs. Also, spouses may have jobs in vary different locations.

Is it realistic to expect that we can ease our transportation problems by having a great many people live close to their workplaces?

A: Stewart Schwartz
 We simply cannot address our traffic problems without addressing where and how we grow as a region. If we keep spreading out where we live and scattering jobs in isolated office parks, we’ll keep adding to congestion.  Living closer to work is one piece of the solution but we know it won’t work for everyone.

We believe that the first keys to reducing the burdens of traffic are the continued revitalization of the city, and a network of transit-oriented centers and communities. The more people who have the opportunity to live and/or work in a mixed-use transit-oriented center, the more who will have the opportunity to drive less or not at all, improving the roads for those whose living or working situation doesn’t allow them to use transit or live closer to work.

In addition, by concentrating offices in locations with transit  we will increase opportunities for people to use transit or carpool and for workers in a household to commute to the same center. In fact, there is powerful of corporations to Metro and other transit station locations.  84% of new office development is within 1/4 mile of Metro, and 92% of office leases over 20,000 square feet have been within 1/2 mile of a Metro station.  Marriott’s CEO says they will move to a Metro station.  Hilton and Choice hotels have both recently moved to Metro, and others are following.

Millenials and downsizing empty nesters are all seeking out more urban, walkable and transit-accessible homes, and among families, we see strong demand for homes closer in — even if the home sizes are smaller.

It’s also important to consider total housing and transportation costs when choosing a home. A pioneering tool called the Housing + Transportation Cost calculator (H+T) shows that the cost of a long commute can make what seems like a more affordable house 25 or 30 miles from DC less affordable when housing and transportation costs are considered together.

Q: Traffic 

The problem with traffic is one of supply and demand but most of the focus is on the supply.

Yes, we supply tons of roads for all of our cars. We’ll never supply enough. In part, that’s because the road network was designed by idiots. The Bethesda side of the Beltway is filled with turns that slow traffic, ending in a downhill to the bridge. That means Virginia traffic is always going uphill into Maryland and trucks will ALWAYS slow up.

So forget supply for a second. Let’s talk demand. Demand is based on traffic. Traffic is based largely on people. People are based on jobs. In DC, jobs are based on one thing — government.

Why the heck is the entire government based in DC? Dept of Agriculture? Sure, there’s lots of manure in DC, but little agriculture. So, let’s put it in Iowa or someplace similar. Dept of Energy? Texas of course. Put HUD in a city that needs more help — like Baltimore. Dept of Interior in some state that has mining, parks and Native American reservations. Move out seven or eight departments (or all of them) and the Beltway bandits that work with them move to. So do the workers.

We boost the economy of those areas and make DC more livable. It will also put our national security in a better position and won’t make DC a target that could decapitate every single government agency. Dan Gainor Columbia

 

A: Stewart Schwartz
 I agree, we need a lot more focus on the demand side.  Reducing the amount we have to drive.  The internet is helping, so does transit, transit-oriented development.  Mixed use, walkable development.  And yes, the fed gov has moved agencies to other regions — ideally those will be downtown or near transit their communities. 

Could wave his magic wand and turn every diesel and gas powered vehicle in the US and Canada into a zero emission vehicles it would have no effect on climate change.

Billions of Chinese and Indians polluting to max are the problem. Vehicle choice should be decided by the buying public and not state and Federal govts. Now I am going out and driving my 1970 BMW 2002 with its detuned F2 engine with 285hp, dual carbs and 3%+ CO. Cry greens cry!

A: Stewart Schwartz
We all need to worry about climate change and all do our part, Indian, Chinese, American.  If you worry about your grandkids, then worry about climate change and help do something about it.
Q: Bike Infrastructure

Given the bike resurgence around the world and with progressive cities competing on it (Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Boulder, etc.), why aren’t local DOTs moving more quickly to add bike infrastructure like protected bikeways and parking to our streets to get the “interested but concerned” masses biking?
A: Stewart Schwartz
DC is doing well, but we can do so much more.  I am convinced that protected cycling lanes will create a boom in cycling including new riders, will provide a good commute option for many, help our health, make the roads safer for everyone including drivers and even help traffic by removing conflicts.  DOT’s need to see biking and walking as part of transportation and access to jobs, schools and services.  It’s access that’s important, not just mobility for mobility’s sake.  The DOT’s are improving but more to be done.
Q: I-66 HOT to DC

 Why does the I-66 Inside the Beltway project end at Route 29 in Rosslyn? It would make more since to have free flow traffic into DC across the Roosevelt Bridge to incentivize HOV3 and express bus riders. All the bridges in the eastbound direction are already at a gridlock state. According to MWCOG, Managed Lanes on I-66 in DC is listed as an “Unfunded Capital Need”. Is VDOT coordinating with DDOT on this project?

 

A: Stewart Schwartz
 I assume VDOT is talking to DDOT.  DDOT is itself studying pricing for the SE/SW freeway and 14th street bridge.  So long as we give better and better transit options, these approaches can make the commuting better — that’s what London and Stockholm have found.
Q: Metro Fail

 Do you believe the Metro system is in a “death spiral“? If so, what does it mean for regional transportation in the coming years?

 A: Stewart Schwartz

 I hope not.  But our elected officials from the Governors and Congress on down need to get unified, get a new General Manager who is also a leader, fix internal structural problems and provide the funding Metro needs.  Failure is not an option.
Q: Demand Management

 Given Arlington’s celebrated success in growing in jobs and residents over the past two decades with no increase in traffic in part because of the success of its TDM program, why do you think the local and State DOTS always reach for the more expensive solutions of infrastructure and technology and adding supply instead of investing in relatively cheap behavior change?
A: Stewart Schwartz
 Like the old adage, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  DOT’s are starting to come along, but still focus too much on highway capacity expansion and don’t give sufficient credit to land use, demand management, local street and bike/ped/transit solutions. 
Q: Smarter Growth

 Mr. Schwartz: In whatever form you could conceive of it, what are your thoughts on a true, mass transit, Circle Line which would provide circumferential travel connecting all of the Metro lines? Thank you, Howard Kaplan
A: Stewart Schwartz
 I think we have to prioritize which segments.  In addition, it might not we one shared circle but different connectors.  For example Tysons to the Red line at the Am Legion Bridge.  Alexandria to National Harbor at the Wilson Bridge.  But perhaps Route 7 from Tysons to Alexandria. 
Q: Silver line

 I’m a DC expat who frequently comes back to the area for business/personal visits. I was really surprised when I traveled out Route 7 along the new Silver line. The road expansion is amazing, I think I counted 6 travel and turn lanes in just one direction at some intersections. It seems like the goals to accommodate drivers and make dense living/commercial areas near the stops are at odds. Are residents really going to enjoy walking across 12 (!) lanes of traffic to go to a restaurant on the other side of Route 7?
A: Stewart Schwartz
The Tysons plan includes a local street network that will be built over time and taming some of the existing roads by removing high speed rights and lefts.  But the big problems are 123 and Route 7 which VDOT and the county have refused to tame.  In fact they widened 7!  This undermines a walkable Tysons.  We have already seen traffic drop 15% on at least one road thanks to the Silver Line.  So they need to commit to turning 7 and 123 into urban boulevards that are safer for all users.

The guy who runs @FixWMATA, Chris Barnes, is attempting to start a riders union. I believe Seattle has one as well, though it’s mainly focused on low-income, student and senior riders. It seems to me to be a necessary step, given the troubles and dangers of Metro. What are your thoughts on an all-inclusive riders union here?

A: Stewart Schwartz
I think transit riders do need to come together.  My organization, CSG, along with Action Committee for Transit and Greater Greater Washington already include many transit riders and supporters.  So we should work together.  There is deep support for better transit in the community.  It consistently polls higher as a transportation solution compared to highway expansion.
Q: I-66 Tolls 24/7?

 Why are they only tolling I-66 inside the beltway during peak hours? It would make more sense to toll 24/7, since the toll is based solely on congestion. If the there is no congestion the toll should be $0.00. If an average speed of 45 mph cannot be maintained, a refund should be issued.
A: Stewart Schwartz
 I think because they were looking for not just a good transportation solution but one that also looked politically.  And ensuring the road remained free outside of peak hours was one of the steps they are recommending. 
Q: Leadership

 Are there truly any visionary elected officials in the D.C. region who get what you are saying Stewart and who push their jurisdictions to do more, more quickly? Other cities like Pittsburg’s Mayor, NYC’s previous Mayor and transportation commissioner? It seems like we have none here that are pushing the envelope.
A: Stewart Schwartz
 We’ve had four DC Mayors in a row who have done and are doing great things. The city is better managed, doing cutting edge transit, bike, pedestrian work, and seeing and extended development boom.  Each Mayor has had a different style but they’ve consistently hired good planners, economic development and transportation officials and are reinvesting in the schools using the growing tax base.  Meanwhile Cong. Connolly when he was Fairfax Chair, his successor Chairman Bulova, County Exec’s Baker and Leggett are all pushing transit-oriented development as their top priority.  Leggett has also pushed forward a plan for an 81 mile BRT system.  We’ve also honored Councilmember Berliner in Montgomery and Board Member Walter Tejada in Arlington for their leadership on smart growth.  But we can always do more and we need unified leadership on Metro

The reality is that for the Washington Metro area, transit accounts for only 15% or so of the overall commuter demand, a figure unlikely to rise in the foreseeable future due to high capital costs and high operating costs – at least at WMATA.

Some 80% of area population and employment growth since the 1980s has occurred outside the Capital Beltway, a trend continuing due to ever higher land costs -resulting in higher housing and office rents in DC and other inner locations.

The Metrorail plan was created in 1960s to serve the then dominant federal workforce then over 90% in DC. Economists have said that the Washington area economy needs to diversify for it to succeed in the future.

Why should taxpayers put funding into a 1960s era Metrorail system when most growth is not occurring in DC and other close in locations?

The office vacancy rate in Crystal City and Rosslyn exceeds 25% and is over 15% in other jurisdictions.

Though advocated by “smart growth” advocates, value capture is not working in reality in most areas. See NY Times article about Hudson Yard redevelopment and tax abatement offered instead of TIF.

What sources of funding do you foresee to build the “Metro Momentum” plan other than an increased sales tax favored by WMATA?

 

A: Stewart Schwartz
 Sound like the Yogi Berra quote — “no one goes there any more, it’s too crowded.”  DC is booming, adding 83,000 people in a decade with most not owning cars and if they do they don’t drive much.  84% of new office development is within 1/4 mile of Metro stations, 92% of office leases over 20,000 sq ft are within 1/2 mile of Metro.  Marriott wants to move to a Metro station. Millenials want urban places, transit. Everyone wants shorter commutes. To be competitive we need our transit investments and to create great places that are walkable, and ideally have transit.  That’s why you are seeing communities like these popping up all over our suburbs.
Q: Columbia Pike Tranist

 What do you think Arlington should do about transit on the Pike going forward?
A: Stewart Schwartz
Do what they are doing to enhance the bus service — better stops, real time information, off board fare collection etc.  It looks like development will continue apace and they will need a higher capacity transit system, so I could see the streetcar coming back at some point.
Q: Really??

Smarter growth? Most young families with one or both employed by the Feds cant afford to live any closer than Manassas. Sorry they don’t want to live in Prince George’s  or Anne Arundel counties because of higher taxes, higher car insurance, crime, crummy schools, and MD ‘s public university and private university is gawd awful in comparison to VAs.

Moving the FBI to Prince George’s will result in massive lost of expertise. A young family with both parents employed as GS9s with the Feds and one kind can’t afford to live in Arlington, Montgomery or close-in Fairfax.

Outer Prince William, Stafford etc is where they can afford to live. They don’t have the disposable income for toll roads. You liberal Dems just dont have a clue.

A: Stewart Schwartz
Smart growth is actually a movement with a strong fiscal conservative streak.  It’s become profoundly expensive to build all of the new infrastructure in outer areas and leave older areas behind to crumble. And the more we spread out the more it costs per person per mile of infrastructure. We are working on more fiscally sustainable solutions like growing where we already have infrastructure.  Prince George’s is now attracting new development at its 15 underutilized Metro stations and UMD is really stepping it up (I say that as a UVA Wahoo!).  We need balanced economic growth and to stop leaving other places behind.  And we need more housing closer in, so people don’t have to have such long commutes.
Q: Potomac Western Crossing

 The study showed the great difference of traffic load between Point of Rocks and the American Legion Bridge.

They are my two options in getting from home to work and back again (I’m not moving; I’m not the only factor in where I live). I could go either way, but the two-lane roads on either side of the river from Point of Rocks makes that way less predictable in time because if there is one accident, the whole road is blocked.

If MD and VA would increase the lanes on Routes 15 and 28, this route would at least be an option for me when there is an accident on the American Legion.

I’ve been living in the area for decades and have worked all around the Beltway. I’ve seen the Intercounty Connector end up miles north of where it was originally designed. I’ve lived through the frustration of having various groups shut down the option of a river crossing between the two bridges.

The farms and open fields have since become neighborhoods and “towns”. The traffic has come even though the bridge was not built! Let’s do something other than HOT lanes on the American Legion!

 

A: Stewart Schwartz
Better than more lanes on 15 would be a roundabout solution like that found at Gilberts Corner at 15 and 50.

Re the upriver bridge idea, the first issue is that the study shows only 5% making the “u-shaped commute” with so much more need at the Am Legion.  The second is the cost $1 to $2 billion -including a 10-15 mile highway to I270 from the river.  We need those $ for the Am Legion and the Metro tunnel.  Third, like what happened with the ICC, folks on the Beltway will see no change.  As we grow, the more people and companies we can offer the option to live near transit — with a network of transit oriented communities — the less total driving we’ll have.  People will have more options. 

Q: Gas taxes

 Should go to the roads and not mass transit. Metro and mass transit is a joke that only benefits elected officials, their cronies, fellow Democrats. union workers, unions, and companies who big donors to Democratic candidates. Those of us who live outside the beltway in NOVA just arent benefitting from you pro Green Dem loving group Mr Schwartz. Even if you could wave your magic wand and make every internal combustion and diesel powered vehicle in the SU and Canada zero emission vehicle it would have no effect on global warming. Lets tax mass transit fares at 15%.
A: Stewart Schwartz
 We couldn’t function in our region without Metro.  1 million trips per day.  35% of peak hour commute trips (I believe) and as much as 50% or higher share of trips on some corridors into DC.  It’s in the peak hours that transit really makes a difference.  VRE takes the place of an entire lane of traffic on I-66 and I-95.
Q: Smart Growth

 Why do you want all of us to live in high-rise apartment buildings?
A: Stewart Schwartz
 Who said that?  Mixed use development includes single family, town houses, garden apts, four and five story multifamily as well.  Transit is scaled to the level of density.  And nobody is making anybody live a particular way.  As a capitalist, I look at the marketplace, and right now prices are high for apartments, condos, TH and homes in urban paces because of demand.  And that demand isn’t abating.
Q: Millenials want urban places, transit.

 They want this until they have families. Then they want a nice house in a safe neighborhood with enough space to breathe and good schools. How do I know this? I’m a millennial who just had a kid last year. We’re not special. We’re just having kids later.
A: Stewart Schwartz
Yes, and many are looking toward communities where they and their children can walk to schools, parks, libraries and the store.  Many are looking in older suburbs that may be closer to work.  Meanwhile, empty nesters are downsizing and as they do they are selling their hopes to young families.  The suburbs are also creating more urban places — in Falls Church on Broad Street, White Flint, Reston Town Center, Hyattsville and downsizing empty nesters are going to these places, not just millenials.
Q: I would support a London-style cordon pricing scheme — I cannot support this.

 It is entirely unfair for only those who gain access to DC on 66 to have to pay a toll when no other drivers are penalized for the congestion they cause by driving in the capital.
A: Stewart Schwartz
I mentioned DC is dong a pilot study on the SE/SW freeway. You are right that it’s a good time to have a larger discussion about a priced “cordon.”  Not sure if at the Beltway or into DC, they would have to study it.  But also only if they invest in a lot of transit at the same time — 8 car trains, bus lanes etc like they did in London and Stockholm.
Q: HOT lanes on 66 outside Beltway

 What does your group think of the planned expansion of lanes and then conversion to HOT lanes on 66 outside the Beltway? What do you see as the pros/cons?
A: Stewart Schwartz
We pushed hard to get two different administrations to look at a transit and land use alternative first — express bus, VRE, Metrorail extension combined with rural land conservation and mixed-use, transit-oriented development.  They didn’t agree. 

But the HOT can work and it’s better than trying to build as many as 9 general purpose lanes with major neighborhood destruction.  Pricing of HOT lanes helps balance out peak hour demand.  But it’s only fair if the net revenues go to transit in the corridor. Express buses and future Metro extension.  That gives more people an affordable option and a good chance to work or sleep while on the commute.  This is why we would prefer public ownership rather than private so we can keep control of the net revenues.

The HOT lanes mean less land will be taken with less impact on neighborhoods, but they need to do some more work in a couple of communities to reduce the impacts.

Q: Equality and Smart Growth

I am very much a subscriber to the ideas behind smart growth and transit-oriented development. I have taken Metro and Metrobus to work for 14 years now, and fairly recently paid a fairly substantial premium to buy property located near transit.

What I have noticed over my time in DC, however, is that the increased focus on development in walkable, transit-oriented communities has resulted in a huge distributive effect.

Places that are “close in” to job centers are very unaffordable in this region. A generation ago, a middle class family (e.g., a government employee) could purchase a house in close-in Arlington.

These days, close-in communities like Arlington and DC and notoriously expensive, while farther-flung areas like Springfield and Manassas are where new immigrants and lower-income people must live. Most newer government employees cannot afford to live much closer to DC.

How can planners continue to push close-in development while, it seems, ignoring the increasing problem that the “commuter tax” in time seems to fall more and more on lower income people?

Is there thought being given to the class divide of smart growth, given the nature of public transit as a good for all of the public?

A: Stewart Schwartz

The high demand to live in cities and near transit has created affordability challenges, even as it has brought investment, revitalization, opportunity and safety to once depressed areas.  We need more supply including at the underdeveloped metro stations we still have.  We need to convert strip shopping corridors into more humane, walkable, mixed use places with new transit and more housing.  We need housing trust funds so the public can partner with the private sector to create affordable units and we need inclusionary zoning where developers get density bonuses in return for providing a percentage of affordable units.

Q: Re: “if you build it they will come.”

 I have heard many used the old, “if you build it they will come” logic as a reason to NOT build new roads or widen existing problem spots.

It seems people fear solving a problem because it may lead to more people wanting to use the road. In my opinion, it really leads to people looking for alternate routes and driving on roads that were NOT designed to handle the volume.

How many people drive into DC and could take I-66 if it was open to all traffic but use US-29, 50, and other roads instead?

A: Stewart Schwartz

I-66 would fill up fast and you would sit in gridlock.  Go to the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute which has good studies on induced traffic.
Q: The cost of a long commute can make what seems like a more affordable house 25 or 30 miles from DC less affordable when housing and transportation costs are considered together.

 It’s comments like this from “smart growth” advocates that drive people with families nuts. So for the sake of argument let’s say you’re right, a long commute might make the 400,000 house not worth it. Your recommended choice is to move to DC (or the urban area where you work) to buy the 800,000 house or shove your family of 4 into a one bedroom for 2800 a month in rent? DC schools aren’t great, so by your logic you must force your kids into A. terrible schools B. mercy of a lottery system. OR you’re suggesting that everyone have 160,000 in a downpayment for an 800,000 house. So in your world everyone is rich. Uunder your ideal world you’re either rich or single/married with no children. Thanks for the realistic advice. Realistic being the word my man.
A: Stewart Schwartz
See books called Metropolitics.  We can’t succeed as a region without balanced economic investment and a mix of incomes in our communities.  We shouldn’t be leaving entire communities behind.  Hence we seek to promote investment and mixed income, mixed-use where we have existing infrastructure.
Q: And we need more housing closer in, so people don’t have to have such long commutes.

 Define housing. If developers build more 500 square foot one bedrooms your dream is dead. We need AFFORDABLE (for the middle class, not just the poor) 3 plus bedrooms. If that happens you have a chance for people to continue to live in condos/townhomes/apartments in the inner suburbs or city. If not, they’ll always move out.
A: Stewart Schwartz
We are starting to see some developers build larger units.  In a capitalist economy I believe that developers will spot the trends and needs and adjust.
Q: The future

 I think we should make no larger investment in transit at this point, just patch up what we have for the next 15-20 years.

Hopefully, in that time frame the technological progress will cause the public transportation will largely shift from buses/trains operating relatively rarely on a schedule to small self-driving electric vans which we will request from our mobile devices according to our needs.

They will be smartly assigned based on common or similar destinations of passengers, thus their use and routes will be optimized, unlike airport vans (which are assigned first-come first-served so an unlucky person visits the entire region before getting to their destination).

Being self-driving, they will be relatively cheap (no driver wage) and will be capable of driving within inches of each other on highways, optimizing road use and aerodynamic efficiency. A solution like that, combined with the inevitable move to more and more telework, will make much of today’s discussion moot.

A: Stewart Schwartz
 And with self driving cars and transit vehicles we won’t need as much road space.
Q: many are looking toward communities where they and their children can walk to schools, parks, libraries and the store

That’s undoubtedly true. However they can’t afford it! I don’t understand why you think such townhomes/condos will be affordable for families.

Not everyone makes 500k a year. We can’t afford to live in such a neighborhood because the homes/condos etc are a million dollars. And no, building high rises are not the answer for affordability.

A: Stewart Schwartz
You have to account for transportation costs as well.  Build a mix of housing types.  Provide transit to more communities.  It’s a range of solutions.  I work non-profit, so my wife and I have a smaller space to live near transit, but much lower car costs.
Q: Why do you hate the free market?

 Is it because you want everyone to live in the middle of the city in high-rise apartments, ride their bike to their government job and then rely on the government to take them to other parts of the city via METRO? Some of us like actually driving a car
A: Stewart Schwartz
 Keep driving then.  Lots of others are looking for other choices.  For too long our government has given us only one choice — especially in other parts of the country.  Transit, zipcar, bikeshare, uber are all about choices for folks.  As are different types of communities — not just single family homes, but having options of apartments, condos etc
Stewart Schwartz:
Thanks everyone.  I typed as fast as I could and got to as many as possible.  Let’s continue the conversations and work on solutions together.  See www.smartergrowth.net and email me at stewart@smartergrowth.net.
Robert Thomson:
Thanks for joining us today. I’ll be back next Monday with a regular show. Meanwhile, look for more discussion about Metro issues, HOT lanes and the pope’s visit on the Dr. Gridlock blog.

Stay safe out there and rejoin me next Monday at noon.

Read this on The Washington Post >>

Estimates on I-66 tolls may shock commuters

Posted on by Will Reckley

HOT lane tolls on Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway could be $7 during the morning rush eastbound and $9 at the peak of the westbound rush in the afternoon, according to the Virginia transportation secretary’s office.

In Virginia’s high-occupancy toll lane systems, the toll varies with the level of traffic. It rises as travel demand increases to ensure that traffic remains free-flowing. At 8:15 a.m. Monday, the toll for using the northbound HOT lanes on the Beltway was $12.85.

But the state’s proposal for creating nearly 10 miles of HOT lanes on I-66 inside the Beltway is a bit different from the systems on the Beltway and on I-95/395. I-66 would not be expanded to add HOT lanes. Instead, the existing lanes would all become HOT lanes in both directions during the peak periods. Drivers who meet the carpool rules would travel free, but other drivers would pay the variable toll.

That proposal, which the state hopes to implement in 2017, has riled up long-distance commuters who would rather see the state widen the highway.

Others back the HOT lanes concept. The Coalition for Smarter Growth, a regional environmental advocacy group, issued a statement Friday in support of the state’s plan, emphasizing that the toll revenue would support transit improvements in the I-66 corridor.

“We believe that the package of solutions proposed by VDOT is the most cost-effective and efficient approach to addressing I-66 congestion as soon as possible, and for maximizing the number of people who can commute through the corridor during rush hour, while also guaranteeing a much more reliable trip for everyone,” said Stewart Schwartz, the coalition’s executive director.

Schwartz was my guest for an online discussion Monday, and we talked about this issue.

Using the toll estimates in a transportation department document (reported by WTOP last week), the coalition made some comparisons.

The cost for a Metrorail trip from Vienna to Metro Center is $10.30, including station parking for $4.85 and the Metrorail peak fare of $5.45. The peak toll reported for the I-95 HOT lanes was $20.90, or 72 cents per mile for 29 miles compared with the state’s estimate of a 94 cents per mile toll on I-66. The maximum reported toll on the Beltway HOT lanes was $15.05 for the full 14-mile trip, or $1.08 per mile. (The coalition drew the maximum HOT lanes tolls from the quarterly reports produced by the operator, Transurban.)

The office of Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne confirmed Monday that the $7 and $9 figures are the Virginia Department of Transportation estimates for the peak tolls. While the carpool standard for a free ride in the HOT lanes will eventually rise to three people per vehicle, VDOT is considering whether to maintain the current two-person carpool standard for the first few years after the HOT lanes open.

These are some of the other highlights.

The system proposed for I-66 is different from the existing HOT lanes systems in that it would be operated and maintained by the state, rather than a private partner. The toll revenue remaining after expenses would support programs encouraging drivers to leave their cars behind for a trip in the I-66 corridor. These programs would be selected by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission board. They are to be implemented within four years of the funding allocation.

Under today’s rules, I-66 inside the Beltway is not open to drivers who don’t meet the carpool rules at peak periods. These HOV restrictions have created a pent-up demand among commuters, and the current outlet is to use other roads in the corridor. State transportation officials say that creating HOT lanes would allow some of that pent-up demand to use I-66, if the drivers are willing to pay the toll, and also ease congestion during the morning rush on the local roads that absorb today’s spill-over traffic.

There would be some bailout traffic from I-66 in the reverse-peak direction. These are drivers unwilling to pay tolls estimated at $1 westbound in the morning and $2 eastbound in the afternoon. Today, those trips are free and without HOV restrictions. Virginia transportation officials estimate the effect of this diversion on local roads will be minor.

Many drivers would not pay the full toll, because they don’t make the entire trip on I-66 inside the Beltway.

By 2022, vehicles with fewer than three occupants would pay an estimated toll of $8 during the morning peak and $1 dollar toll during the evening peak hours traveling eastbound. Traveling westbound, they would pay an estimated $1 during the morning rush and $3 during the evening peak hours, according to the VDOT numbers. By that year, VDOT hopes to have rebuild 25 miles of I-66 outside the Beltway so that it has three regular lanes and two HOT lanes in each direction. The department has not yet released estimates for typical tolls in the HOT lanes outside the Beltway.

Read on The Washington Post >>

HOV switch on I-66 pushed back until 2020

Posted on by Will Reckley

FAIRFAX, Va. — The Virginia Department of Transportation has delayed a move to convert high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) rules on Interstate 66 until 2020, three years after tolls are introduced inside the Capital Beltway.

VDOT has suggested the conversion might happen when tolling began in 2017 during a meeting before the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board in January. Under the Constrained Long-Ranged Transportation Plan, VDOT must convert I-66 from HOV-2 to HOV-3 by 2020.

“It’s part of our air quality commitments and changing it would risk us losing federal transportation dollars,” said Sharon Bulova, chairwoman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

There is a consensus among many across the spectrum that the delay is a good move.

“It’s a smart choice to say they’d start at two and move to three because slugging is a different culture,” said Arlington County Board Chair Mary Hynes. “Both for buses and slugs, you need places for that to happen outside of the corridor. This gives us a chance to get that infrastructure into place.”

Adding tolls and changing the HOV rules would eliminate the clean plate exemption, which allows certain hybrid vehicles to use the HOV lanes even without two people. The Coalition for Smarter Growth backs the delay as well, even though the group aims to get as many cars off the road as possible.

“This decision makes sense,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “Delaying until 2020 puts it in sync with what they’re doing on I-66 outside the Beltway. We’ve recommended that VDOT do some market studies to make sure that HOV-3 is going to be effective and there will be demand for it.”

Even Fairfax County Supervisor Pat Herrity supports the move, although he has serious concerns with the overall plan on I-66 inside the Beltway.

“With HOV-2 and the hybrids — our HOV is just not working,” Herrity said. “We need to get that fixed. We’re going to need to go to HOV-3 in that corridor. It’s very unpopular, but if we want to move people through carpooling, then we need to go to HOV-3.”

Among those opponents are groups like the 66 Alliance.

“For owners of hybrid, electric and other clean fuel vehicles, that could mean you would pay tolls of up to $10,000 per year to continue to drive in the HOV lanes during rush hour,” the group wrote on its website. “HOV-2 carpoolers would be forced to find another carpooler, pick up an unknown passenger [aka “a slug”], or pay similar tolls to enjoy the same HOV privileges you currently take for granted.”

There could be one potential problem from the delay. Drivers will need an E-ZPass Flex transponder in HOV ON mode in order to get a free trip with two passengers, similar to the 495 and 95 Express Lanes.

But since the HOV-rules will not be in sync between 2017 and 2020, vehicles with two people will have to remember to turn on the HOV mode on I-66, then turn it off before entering the 495 or 95 Express Lanes.

If a driver were to forget to turn off the HOV mode when exiting I-66 for the Capital Beltway, he or she could be subject to a ticket for an HOV violation on the Express Lanes. The first violation carries a $125 fine and then it escalates up to $1000 for a fourth offense.

Read on WTOP >>

Ruling could make building projects easier in Prince George’s

Posted on by Will Reckley

A recent appeals court decision could make it significantly easier for developers to build projects in Prince George’s County by limiting the ability of county lawmakers to intervene.

Maryland’s Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the Prince George’s County Council exceeded its authority to review and revise development decisions made by the county planning board.

The ruling involved a proposed retail center in Adelphi that was approved by the planning board but later put on hold by the council, which wanted the developer to make design changes, including the number of trees to be planted on the property.

“The District Council possessed only appellate jurisdiction to review the Planning Board’s decisions,” Judge Glenn T. Harrell wrote. The council “was authorized to reverse the decision . . . only if the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal otherwise.”

Developers and their attorneys say the decision will bring Prince George’s in line with neighboring jurisdictions, putting an end to an era in which county residents could turn to their council representatives to try to stop projects that they didn’t want in their neighborhoods.

Until now, interference by the council has made development in Prince George’s “sort of an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ experience,” said attorney Timothy Maloney, who represented Zimmer Development Company in its bid to build the retail strip.

“The council adds years to the development process,” Maloney said, “and has harmed the [county’s] economic development reputation.”

County-elected leaders requested the unique, quasi-judicial authority from the Maryland General Assembly decades ago, arguing that “the public needed to have a bigger voice in development decisions,” said Council Chair Mel Franklin (D-Upper Marlboro). He said lawmakers are assessing the implications of the appeals court’s ruling.

Citizens can still participate in public hearings held by the planning board. But civic activist Kelly Canavan, who has fought several developments in southern Prince George’s, said that she and other activists often leave those sessions feeling powerless.

“The planning board kind of does what it wants and is extremely developer-friendly,” she said, adding that the council “was one of the few ways a citizen could ask for help when a real awful development was coming to their community.”

Cheryl Cort, policy director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, disagreed, saying that planning board members are professionals who are guided by zoning rules that offer little room for outside influence.

Cort said the court ruling offers the board a chance to invite more citizen participation, because residents no longer have the council to turn to except in certain circumstances. She said she hopes the planning board will schedule more meetings in the evening, so residents can attend more easily, and will publish its public notices more widely.

Longtime observers said one reason the council came to play such a major role in development decisions was that the county’s zoning rules are complicated and antiquated, and in some cases ill-suited to guide modern-day development.

The county is rewriting the nearly half-century-old code to reflect the jurisdiction’s changing needs and improve public participation. Planning officials say their goal is to simplify a code that, over the years, has grown to include more than 50 zones detailed on more than 1,200 pages.

“The zones have not kept up with the modern economy,” Franklin said. “There is not a great deal of confidence in our zones. The rules are not very clear.”

The county wants to require higher-density development around public transit and establish clearer boundaries for its rural and agricultural sector.

Planning and zoning officials are asking for public input and expect the rewrite to be approved by the summer of 2017.

“We should have more robust ways for citizens to get involved in the development review process early,” Franklin said. “Then, when you get to the end stages of the process, it will be much clearer to everybody the direction that the development is going. That’s the ultimate goal: to have stronger rules and more certainty on the front end.”

Read this at The Washington Post >>

Questions remain on bus-rapid transit in Montgomery Co.

Posted on by Will Reckley

SILVER SPRING, Md. — As the Purple Line gets closer to construction next year, transit advocates are pushing for a bus-rapid transit network to relieve congestion in Montgomery County.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth and Communities for Transit have released a guide that examines how other cities have successfully built such networks.

Montgomery County wants to build an 80-mile network; the first phase would be limited to Md. 355 (Wisconsin Avenue and Rockville Pike), U.S. 29 (Colesville Road and Columbia Pike) and Md. 586 (Veirs Mill Road).

The distinguishing characteristic of a bus-rapid transit system is the bus-only lane, where cars are not allowed to travel. Northern Virginia residents are familiar with this concept; the Crystal City-Potomac Yard Transitway provides similar benefits to local bus service.

“It can produce a 25 percent travel savings for commuters,” says Pete Tomao, of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “Without other traffic, it can move much faster and reduce delays.”

Bus-rapid transit systems need a couple things to be successful. First, service needs to be predictable and reliable: Commuters are well aware of the regular delays on Metrorail and Metrobus.

“I think every Metrobus rider has experienced the phantom [ghost] bus on their WMATA app,” Tomao says. “That’s why making sure that you have frequent, reliable service is so important. You need to know buses are coming every five to 10 minutes.”

Second, bus-rapid transit systems should offer amenities to make the buses attractive — such as bike racks, Wi-Fi and outlets to charge smartphones and tablets. If the buses are comfortable and modern, people are more likely to give them a chance, Tomao says.

While some people would rather see new lanes everywhere, the biggest controversy has to do with the locations in Four Corners and Bethesda. In both places, there are proposals to take away a current lane for cars and re-purposing it for buses. The concept doesn’t sit well with many drivers.

The timetable is also unclear. For now, county transportation officials are focused on starting construction for the Purple Line. Once that’s off the ground, Montgomery County must decide what it wants to do with the Corridor Cities Transitway. The bus-rapid transit system is likely third on the county list, since it’s still in the early stages.

Money is another hurdle. Like the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway, the bus-rapid transit system would require state money and state approval, given that the routes would be on state roadways.

Some have privately suggested that while Gov. Larry Hogan supports the Purple Line, he’s unlikely to back any more major transit-based projects in Montgomery County. He prefers road projects to relieve congestion.

Read this at WTOP >>

Bus Rapid Transit Boosters Unveil Wish List for Unfunded Montgomery County System

Posted on by Will Reckley

Two of the groups pushing hard for bus rapid transit in Montgomery County don’t want officials weighing difficult funding questions to forget the features that could make the system a success.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG), a Washington, D.C.-based smart growth advocacy organization, and the Communities for Transit on Tuesday released a 23-page report titled “Best Practices In Rapid Transit System Design,” to guide residents, transit advocates and policymakers in the county.

The CSG argued for the proposed 81-mile bus rapid transit system, officially known as the Rapid Transit System or RTS, back when it was approved in 2013 as part of a countywide roadway master plan.

Now, the group is pushing for dedicated bus lanes, frequent and reliable service, properly spaced stations, boarding areas on the same level as bus entrances and other features it says are hallmarks of successful bus rapid transit projects around the country.

“Those are the devils in the details that we just don’t want to get lost in the conversation about funding,” coalition member Pete Tomao said Tuesday. “This is an equally important task.”

That conversation about funding is now in full swing as a task force organized by County Executive Ike Leggett considers its final recommendations due at the end of the month.

The latest cost estimate from the county for just the first four RTS corridors (state Route 355 north, state Route 355 south, Veirs Mill Road and U.S. Route 29) pegged construction of the system at $1.6 billion and annual operating costs at $51.6 million.

The county’s Transit Task Force is considering recommendations for how to fund that system through an Independent Transit Authority, including the possibility of a countywide property tax increase, special county sales or gas tax and special taxing districts that would tax property owners closest to the RTS stations.

The CSG report examined more than 30 bus rapid transit systems operating across the U.S. and Canada to look for best practices in station design, dedicated lane placement, branding and other operating procedures.

The report didn’t delve quite as deep into funding mechanisms, though it did recommend a dedicated funding source and showed how each system was paid for.

Almost 48 percent of the Los Angeles Orange Line was paid for by state funds. Almost 42 percent came from a voter-approved half-cent sales tax. The City of Los Angeles and the federal government contributed most of the rest of the funding.

That system, which consists of just one line and runs only 18 miles, has seen an average weekday ridership of 29,845 people this year, according to the report.

It also cost $21 million per mile to build, almost half of the $41.1 million per mile projection the county and an engineering consultant made in July about the first four local RTS routes.

Leggett’s first attempt at state legislation to enable an Independent Transit Authority (ITA) failed earlier this year after staunch opposition from civic groups, the main county employee union and some residents wary of a potential tax increase to fund RTS.

Last month, county officials on the Transit Task Force and Gino Renne, president of the county employee union that represents Ride On workers, hammered out an agreement that would mostly keep Ride On employees as government workers and not put them under the control of the ITA.

With many expecting Leggett to make a second attempt at a state bill to authorize the ITA, transit advocates are planning a “Transit Day of Action” Sept. 9 at the Silver Spring, Rockville and Shady Grove Metro stations.

Tomao, who’s helping to organize the effort, said too many people who currently use transit in the  county aren’t aware of what’s being discussed when it comes to bus rapid transit.

The CSG and the Communities for Transit have also been doing advocacy work in other areas. A few weeks ago, Tomao and others were at the Bethesda Central Farm Market, held in the parking lot of Bethesda Elementary School.

“We had a great response from some people who didn’t take transit very much or who only take Metro to go to work,” Tomao said. “When we showed people the proposal, what bus rapid transit does and how it could complement existing systems, people were very receptive.”

Read this at Bethesda Magazine >>

Not everyone thinks D.C. traffic is the worst

Posted on by Will Reckley

WASHINGTON — This week, an annual Texas Transportation Institute report once again found that the D.C. metro region has the worst traffic in the country.

But not everyone agrees with the report’s findings.  Transit advocates point out that the report focuses solely on highways and ignores the role mass transit plays in taking cars off the road.

“The annual report from that Texas group is always great for grabbing headlines, but the report itself is flawed, biased and frankly not helpful for D.C., Maryland and Virginia residents,” said Alex Posorske of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Posorske said the report does not account for potential congestion avoided by hundreds of thousands of residents who commute via transit, bicycle or their feet.

The transit group points out that millennials are moving to areas like D.C., Arlington, Alexandria, and Tysons in Virginia, and Bethesda, Silver Spring, White Flint, Hyattsville in Maryland–locations where they can use public transit, walk or bike around.  Many of these millennials don’t even own cars.

But when you talk about transit, you have to talk about Metro. It is the primary transit option in the region.  Even ardent defenders of Metro agree that the agency has had a tough year, and customers are starting to wonder if the system is reliable.

“As a regular Metro rider, I can tell you that three out of every four trips I take are uneventful and relatively on time.  That’s not a great percentage, by the way.  It’s far short of what a world class system ought to be doing,” said Falls Church Vice Mayor Dave Snyder, who serves on the regional Transportation Planning Board.  “But compare that to being on I-95 or I-66, where you’re guaranteed that every day the congestion will be bad, or if there is an accident on top of it, it’ll be even worse,”

Snyder and Posorske agree that the solution to the transportation problems in this region is to offer options.  Develop a reliable rail system, enhance the bus network, and continue to build and support walkable and bikeable communities.  Snyder said it’s about offering people options and making the alternatives as attractive as possible, then leaving the decision up to the individual.

Read this at WTOP >>

Pro-Transit Group Attacks D.C. Traffic Congestion Report As Deeply Flawed

Posted on by Will Reckley

We’re No. 1 again. But what does it mean?

A study by researchers at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) confirms what most car commuters already think: The D.C. metropolitan region has the worst traffic congestion in the country.

But critics of the institute’s methodology say the report rests on false assumptions and draws misleading conclusions because it ignores region-wide gains in commuting by transit, walking, and biking. In the District itself, city data shows that roughly two-thirds of all work trips are in modes other than single-occupant vehicles, for instance.

“The report’s authors don’t really understand the region. They are telling D.C., Maryland, and Virginia residents that at the end of the day we need to spend billions of dollars on new highway connections, new capacity, for cars,” said Alex Posorske, the managing director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a pro-transit group that lobbies against most highway expansions.

TTI’s Urban Mobility Scorecard, the first issued since 2012, found the average auto commuter in the Washington area spends 82 hours a year sitting in traffic. The region was ranked at the top — or the bottom, if you are sick of gridlock — in the 2012 report, too.

Tim Lomax, one of the report’s authors, said expanding road capacity is only one of their proposed remedies for reducing congestion, which also include additional transit investment combined with denser real estate development.

“I certainly agree with that. I just don’t see that our report should reflect their preferences about what the solutions ought to be,” said Lomax in response to the coalition’s criticisms.

The transit advocates sought to poke holes in TTI’s research, pointing out that the report ranks “the cities with the strongest transit systems the worst on congestion, ignoring the much lower automobile commute mode shares in the transit cities, and therefore the lower per-commuter congestion delays,” a statement said.

Accounting for population increases

In an interview with WAMU 88.5, Posorske said the report ignores long-term trends that demonstrate driving has either declined or leveled off.

“In D.C. we’ve got 83,000 new residents in the last decade. Over that time, commute times for D.C. residents have stayed consistent. We’ve had 83,000 new residents who, by and large, do not own cars, who take transit, walk, or bike to work,” he said.

“If you move over to Arlington, from 1996 to last year we saw significant decreases in total traffic on some major arteries in Arlington,” Posorske added. “And this is at a time when they’ve added millions of square feet of new development and added 50,000 residents.”

In response to the coalition’s criticism, Lomax conceded the report’s methodology does not take into account non-car commuting modes.

“They have some good points,” Lomax said. “And they are points that we have included not only in our proposed solutions, but also in terms of our methodology.”

“We have backed away from trying to make estimates of what is happening on the transit side because we don’t have very good transit data. We don’t have good data about how people are walking. So we concentrated on where we have the data,” he said.

Read this on WAMU >> 

D.C. Has Worst Traffic in U.S., Study Says

Posted on by Will Reckley

More jobs and cheaper gasoline come with a big, honking downside: U.S. roads are more clogged than ever now that the recession is in the rearview mirror.

Commuters in Washington, D.C., suffer the most, losing an average of 82 hours a year to rush-hour slowdowns, a new study finds. Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York come next on the list of urban areas with the longest delays.

But the pain reaches across the nation.

Overall, American motorists are stuck in traffic about 5 percent more than they were in 2007, the pre-recession peak, says the report from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX Inc., which analyzes traffic data.

D.C. Tops US Traffic Rankings

D.C. ranks number one for time spent in traffic, among all U.S. cities. NBC4 reporter Meagan Fitzgerald has the story on how much gas and time commuters are wasting sitting in traffic. (Published Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015)

Four out of five cities have now surpassed their 2007 congestion.

Rounding out the Top 10 worst commuting cities are San Jose, Boston, Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Riverside-San Bernardino.

Cities with fast-growing economies and the most job growth are the most plagued by traffic. Other factors: Urban populations are increasing and lower fuel prices are making driving less expensive, so more people are taking to city roads.

David Alpert, founder of the D.C. transportation website Greater Greater Washington, said transportation in the area is improving.

“Unlike what some people have been seeing or hearing, there’s definitely traffic on the roads, but it actually seems to have stayed about even over the last few years,” he said.

The advocacy group the Coalition for Smarter Growth called the report “deeply flawed.”

“The report exaggerates congestion, underplays the major declines in driving by large demographic groups and ignores the wide ranging economic, social and environmental benefits of smart growth policies and transit, pedestrian and bicycle investments,” Executive Director Stewart Schwartz said in a statement.

Congestion increased in 61 of the nation’s 101 largest cities from 2012 to 2013, the data showed. The following year, nearly all cities – 95 out of 101 – experienced greater congestion.

The findings are based on federal data about how many cars are on the roads and on traffic speed data collected by INRIX on 1.3 million miles of urban streets and highways.

The growth is outpacing the nation’s ability to build the roads, bridges, trains and other infrastructure to handle all these people on the move. Congress has kept federal transportation programs teetering on the edge of insolvency for nearly eight years because lawmakers have been unwilling to raise the federal gas tax and haven’t found a politically palatable alternative to pay for needed improvements.

Frustrated by Washington’s inaction, nearly a third of states have approved measures this year that could collectively raise billions of dollars for transportation through higher fuel taxes, vehicle fees and bonds. But that’s just a down payment on decades of delayed maintenance, repairs and replacements.

“Our growing traffic problem is too massive for any one entity to handle – state and local agencies can’t do it alone,” said Tim Lomax, a co-author of the report. The report recommends a mix of solutions, including making existing road and transit systems more efficient, encouraging more flexible work schedules, adding capacity to high-growth travel corridors, and creating more high-density neighborhoods where homes, offices, stores and other development can be reached through walking, biking or public transit.

Transportation analyst Alan Pisarski said the nation missed a “tremendous opportunity” to catch up on building additional transportation capacity during the recession, when construction costs plummeted. “We didn’t take advantage of it and now we’re back in the soup again,” he said.

The national average time that commuters wasted stuck in traffic last year was 42 hours, about the same as in 2007 and more than twice the delay in 1982, when the transportation institute first began assessing urban mobility. But because there are so many more commuters today and far more congestion in off-peak hours, total delay across the country has increased over 2007.

Overall, Americans experienced 6.9 billion hours of traffic delays in 2014 compared to 6.6 billion in 2007 and 1.8 billion in 1982.

The problem has become so bad in major urban areas that drivers have to plan for more than twice as much travel time as they would normally need to account for the possibility of congestion delays caused by bad weather, collisions, construction zones and other impediments, the report said.

Other findings in the report:

– Trucks account for about 18 percent of urban congestion, although they represent just 7 percent of urban travel.

-The cost of congestion to the average auto commuter was $960 in lost time and fuel in 2014, compared to an inflation-adjusted $400 in 1982.

– About 40 percent of delays occur in midday and overnight hours, making it more difficult to avoid delays by avoiding commuter rush hours.

– Severe or extreme congestion levels affected one of every four trips in 2014, up from one in nine trips in 1982.

The report comes on the heels of other evidence that Americans are embracing driving more than ever. The Department of Transportation said Americans drove more than 3 trillion miles in the last 12 months, surpassing the previous record set in 2007. And the National Safety Council said preliminary data for the first six months of this year shows traffic deaths are up 14 percent, a turnaround after years of fewer fatalities.

If the economy remains strong, congestion will continue to worsen, the report projects. In the next five years, the annual delay per commuter would grow from 42 to 47 hours, the total delay nationwide would grow from 6.9 billion hours to 8.3 billion hours, and the total cost of congestion would jump from $160 billion to $192 billion, researchers estimated.

The following are urban areas ranked by the average annual extra hours commuters spend in their cars due to delay, together with the cost in lost time and fuel.

1. Washington, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland, 82 hours, $1,834

2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, 80 hours, $1,711

3. San Francisco-Oakland, 78 hours, $1,675

4. New York-Newark, New Jersey-Connecticut, 74 hours, $1,739

5. San Jose, California, 67 hours, $1,422

6. Boston-New Hampshire-Rhode Island, 64 hours, $1,388

7. Seattle, 63 hours, $1,491

8. Chicago-Indiana, 61 hours, $1,445

8. Houston, 61 hours, $1,490

10. Riverside-San Bernardino, California, 59 hours, $1,316

11. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, 53 hours, $1,185

12. Atlanta, 52 hours,$1,130

12. Detroit, 52 hours, $1,183

12. Miami, 52 hours, $1,169

12. Austin, Texas, 52 hours, $1,159

12. Portland, Oregon, 52 hours, $1,273

17. Phoenix-Mesa, 51 hours, $1,201

18. Honolulu, 50 hours, $1,125

19. Bridgeport-Stamford, Connecticut, 49 hours, $1,174

19. Denver-Aurora, 49 hours, $1,101

19. Oklahoma City, 49 hours, $1,110

22. Philadelphia, 48 hours, $1,112

23. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 47 hours, $1,262

23. Tucson, Arizona, 47 hours, $1,128

23. Baltimore, 47 hours, $1,115

23. Minneapolis-St. Paul, 47 hours, $1,035

Read this on NBC4 >>