A review of more than 450 written public comments and more than an hour of in-person public comment and board discussion preceded a final vote by the TPB on November 16 to amend the region’s Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP). Regularly updating the plan is one of the TPB’s primary responsibilities as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the region.

This year’s CLRP amendment added five major new projects, including new Express Lanes on I-395, an 11-mile extension of Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail, new bus-only lanes on 16th Street in the District of Columbia, and an expansion of the District’s dedicated bicycle-lane network. The amendment also made changes to four major projects already in the plan and included several other smaller additions and changes.

MORE: See all of the major additions and changes in the 2016 CLRP Amendment

5 key CLRP-related actions at the Nov. 16 TPB meeting

The TPB took five formal actions to finalize this year’s CLRP amendment. The actions together pave the way for the TPB to submit the amendment and an update of the region’s six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for federal review and approval.

• ACTION #1: Accepted public comments and staff and agency responses to comments.The board reviewed and accepted the more than 450 written comments received during a 30-day comment period that ended November 12. The board also reviewed and accepted a set of “responses” developed by staff and sponsoring agencies explaining how the issues raised have been or will be addressed or directing commenters to other appropriate avenues to share their input. Listen to the full presentation and discussion.
• ACTION #2: Approved the results of the Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The federally required analysis demonstrated that future vehicle-related emissions of certain smog-forming pollutants will fall sharply in coming years under the plan and remain below approved regional limits. Most of the reductions will be thanks to tighter federal controls on vehicle technology and fuel formulation. Board member Dave Snyder (Falls Church) reminded the board that the region needs to remain committed to achieving further reductions through measures like transportation demand management, since tougher new air quality standards are expected in coming years. Listen to the discussion and vote.
• ACTION #3: Adopted the 2016 CLRP Amendment. The amendment included five major new projects, changes to four major projects already in the plan, and dozens of other smaller additions and changes. The amendment also reaffirms the hundreds of regionally significant highway, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian projects already in the plan. Four of the 28 board members present voted against the amendment, saying the plan does too little to improve the region’s transportation future. Listen to the discussion and vote or read more analysis below.
• ACTION #4: Approved the FY 2017-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).The TIP identifies amounts and sources of funding for hundreds of projects programmed for planning, engineering, or construction over the next six years. The TPB updates the TIP every two years, usually in conjunction with an update to the long-range plan. Listen to the presentation and vote.
• ACTION #5: Approved a certification of the metropolitan transportation planning process. When it approves the TIP, the TPB must also certify that the metropolitan transportation planning process it carries out meets all relevant federal requirements. Some board members expressed some reservations about the certification but ultimately voted to approve it. Listen to the presentation and vote.

A mix of criticism and praise emerged in the final discussion of the 2016 CLRP Amendment

Extensive public comment and board discussion preceded the TPB’s final votes related to the 2016 CLRP Amendment. Staff summarized and presented the more than 450 written comments submitted during a formal 30-day public comment period. Four people presented in-person comments at the beginning of the meeting. And several board members spoke up to express concerns, ask questions, or to explain their support for this year’s amendment.

In the end, the board approved the 2016 CLRP Amendment with broad support, saying that the projects in this year’s amendment were worthwhile and needed. But there was also a sense that the TPB should work toward developing a plan that will more positively impact future travel behavior and travel conditions in the region.
Public comments focused on two main projects but many addressed a range of other issues

In all, the TPB received more than 450 written comments from individuals, businesses, organizations, and governmental representatives during the 30-day comment period that ended November 12. Most focused on two of the proposed additions in this year’s CLRP amendment:

• I-395 Express Lanes: More than 300 comments addressed the proposed addition of express toll lanes on I-395 in Northern Virginia. All but a few expressed support for the projects, for reasons including improved travel time for all users, the use of private rather than public funding, and that the tolls from the lanes will provide a revenue stream for transit improvements in the corridor. A couple of comments expressed concern about the potential adverse impacts of the lanes on lower-income travelers, while others said that no toll revenue should be used for transit services in the corridor.
• DC dedicated bicycle-lane network: About 160 comments addressed the District’s plan to expand its dedicated bicycle-lane network by removing travel lanes for automobile traffic on certain road segments throughout the city. Specifically, the comments opposed the addition of bicycle lanes on a portion of 6th Street NW, citing impacts on parking for several nearby churches as well as traffic implications for major downtown event venues. Representatives from the United House of Prayer, one of the churches affected by the 6th Street proposal, provided in-person comments at the TPB’s October meeting highlighting their congregation’s concerns. DDOT officials said the agency would work with church leaders to determine the best routing for the new bike lanes.

MORE: Full summary of all comments received on the 2016 CLRP Amendment

The November 16 meeting also featured in-person public comment from representatives of four area organizations. Kevin McNulty (Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce) and Brandon Shaw (Prince William County Chamber of Commerce) both spoke in favor of the projects slated for inclusion in the 2016 CLRP Amendment, citing the impact the projects will have on the region’s economy. Nancy Smith (Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance) applauded the key road projects in Virginia but said that the region needs a more strategic approach to identifying worthwhile projects that will have a truly regional impact.

Stewart Schwartz (Coalition for Smarter Growth) applauded the transit investments slated to be included in the plan but told board members that transportation investment will only get the region so far in solving its transportation problems. He said that more efficient growth patterns and land-use will be necessary to address regional transportation challenges.

Board member Linda Smyth pressed VDOT on allowing commercial trucks to use I-66 Express Lanes

Last year’s CLRP amendment included the addition of a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) plan to add new express toll lanes to I-66 inside and outside the Capital Beltway. The agency has since said that the private concessionaire that will build and operate the lanes has proposed allowing commercial trucks to use the lanes on the portion of the facility outside the Beltway.

At the November 16 meeting, board member Linda Smyth (Fairfax County) reiterated her ongoing concerns about the air quality, noise, and traffic impacts of allowing commercial truck traffic on the new lanes and pressed VDOT for an analysis of potential impacts.

“I understand what VDOT is saying here, except their analysis is not complete. The environmental analysis should include the impacts on neighborhoods and air quality,” Smyth said. “What they’re looking at essentially is the through-movements of trucks on the express lanes, not where they get off on the ramps and what neighborhoods they then drive through. And that should be part of the analysis.”

VDOT’s Rene’e Hamilton told Smyth that the state will study the effects as part of a reevaluation of the environmental analysis of the project.

“We are going to go through a reevaluation and look at those interchanges and potentially the impacts to neighborhoods around there,” Hamilton said. “We will go back in and look at air, noise, and all the traffic related to any changes,” she said.

Hamilton also explained that the results of that analysis would be taken through a public review and comment process, including bringing it back to the TPB, before VDOT makes a final decision.

“I will look forward to a very comprehensive analysis,” Smyth responded.

Four board members voted against CLRP approval, saying the plan falls short

“I understand the importance of why we do this work, keeping the system going. But I do think it’s important that at least some of us register our frustration that we do not have a CLRP that actually reduces congestion and improves performance by whatever related standards we determine are appropriate.”

That was the sentiment of board member Peter Schwartz (Fauquier County), who along with three other board members voted against adoption of the 2016 CLRP Amendment.

Schwartz, along with two of the other opponents, Marc Elrich (Montgomery County) and Neil Harris (Gaithersburg), cited the CLRP’s failure to improve travel conditions in the region despite tens of billions of dollars in capacity-expanding highway and transit projects.

“Some of us need to say more concretely that we don’t think this is where we really need to be,” Elrich said.

Metro’s Shyam Kannan was responsible for the fourth “nay” vote, saying that the transit agency could not support any amendment to the plan that did not include sufficient funding for Metro’s capital needs, including both reinvestment in existing infrastructure and key expansion projects.

The CLRP amendment ultimately passed with broad support—24 of 28 board members who were present voted in favor of the amendment.

Some board members publicly voiced their intention to cast a “yea” vote, including Jay Fisette (Arlington County), who said that the CLRP amendment process had given localities the chance to work with VDOT to refine the I-395 Express Lanes project.

“This project now includes as a base condition a minimum of $15 million annually for multimodal improvements in the corridor to promote transit use and moving more people and fewer vehicles. That was nowhere a part of the plan earlier,” Fisette said.

Board member Martin Nohe (Prince William County) also voiced his support, bringing a dose of reality to the discussion. Nohe said he agreed with the comments that the region needs a better long-range plan, but that the CLRP isn’t that plan.

“I believe we do need a bigger, multijurisdictional, regional plan that says, ‘Here is what we can do if we had the money,’” he said. “But the fact is, [the CLRP] is what we can do with the money that we have, and therefore I think we should go do it.”

Also publicly voicing their support were board members Cathy Hudgins (Fairfax County), Jonathan Way (City of Manassas), R. Earl Lewis, Jr. (MDOT), and TPB Chairman Tim Lovain (Alexandria).

Next steps for the CLRP

The 2016 CLRP Amendment as adopted will now be submitted for federal review and approval. The TPB will forgo a 2017 plan amendment and instead focus on the next major four-year update of the plan as required by federal law. The update will include revised estimates of available revenue and is expected to include a new “unconstrained” element to highlight projects for which funding has not yet been identified but that area leaders might want to rally support around to find new funding.

Other takeaways from the Nov. 16 TPB meeting…

• The TPB’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) endorsed Vision Zero. After a briefing on regional traffic safety data at its November 10 meeting, the committee formally endorsed Vision Zero, an effort to eliminate traffic-related bicycle and pedestrian deaths in the region. Read the full CAC report.
• Recruitment is underway for new CAC members for 2017. Applications to join the CAC for its 2017 term are due December 9. The three incoming TPB officers for 2017 will appoint nine new members to the committee, three from each state-level jurisdiction. Learn more and apply.
• Chairman Tim Lovain recapped the Nov. 2 traffic incident management conference.The conference brought practitioners and regional leaders together to discuss ways to further improve the region’s already robust traffic incident management practices. Read more about the conference.
• The TPB’s Long-Range Plan Task Force presented its Phase 1 report. The group is looking at the region’s unmet funding needs and is hoping to identify a limited set of projects with the greatest potential to improve the future performance of the region’s transportation system. The Task Force met just before the November meeting and expects to meet again soon in the new year. Read the full Phase 1 report.
• COG is leading work on a Metro funding study and establishing a new Metro safety oversight agency. COG Executive Director Chuck Bean updated the board on ongoing work to quantify unmet funding needs for Metro and to facilitate the establishment of the new tristate Metro Safety Commission (MSC). Listen to Bean’s full report.

Picture credit: Elvert Barnes/Flickr

Click here to read the original story.

Montgomery County is considering changing how it measures the transportation impact of proposed development, focusing — for the first time — on how accessible new buildings would be to transit rather than how many vehicles they would add to roads.

In areas around Metro stations — including traffic-clogged Friendship Heights and downtown Silver Spring and Bethesda — developers would no longer be required to complete traffic studies. Montgomery planners say that there’s no room to widen roads in more urban areas and that doing so would only make crossing them harder for pedestrians and cyclists.

Planners propose focusing on how many jobs would be reachable within a one-hour walkable transit trip of a new development, rather than the amount of traffic it would generate. Instead of vehicle trips, a development’s potential impact would be measured in “person trips” — whether by car, transit, foot or bike.

As Montgomery planner Pamela Dunn said, “We’re no longer a county that drives everywhere.”

The debate over how to best measure a new development’s impact on the transportation network comes as the County Council updates its Subdivision Staging Policy to ensure that infrastructure keeps pace with growth. Traditionally, the policy has focused on schools and roads as it specifies how growth’s impact should be measured and guides how developers should pay to mitigate them.

Like many suburbs, Montgomery is planning to accommodate population and job growth without worsening its sprawl-induced traffic by pushing for more high-rise development around transit stations.

Although many residents say they’re all for getting cars off the roads, some worry that the county’s vision ignores reality. Some say it’s impractical to expect transit, walking and biking to absorb the bulk of the growth in a suburb where about 75 percent of residents still commute by vehicle and many don’t live or work near a rail station or reliable bus service.

Critics point to a high-rise proposed for downtown Bethesda that would be adjacent to both a Metro Red Line station and a future light-rail Purple Line stop— and still have an 800-space parking garage.

“You can’t leave out the traffic impacts,” said Barney Rush, a council member for the town of Chevy Chase, where single-family homes in long-established neighborhoods abut downtown Bethesda.

Some people coming to new high-rises will still drive, he said, even if they live atop a Metro station.

“They might take Metro to and from work, but they could still be soccer moms or dads driving their kids,” Rush said. “We don’t expect roads to be empty, but we do expect our infrastructure to support the level of development coming.”

Some residents say the kind of traffic study the county requires, which is no longer considered the industry standard, isn’t sophisticated enough to capture the lengthy backups that occur when saturated intersections close together create near-gridlock. They question whether county officials are considering scrapping traffic tests near Metro stations because more accurate results might make it more difficult or expensive to build the kind of high-rise, transit-oriented development that their long-term growth plans rely on.

Discussions of how to best measure and reduce the burdens that growing communities face as they attempt to move beyond their auto-centric roots are happening across the region.

Across the Potomac River, Fairfax County officials expect that by 2050, traffic-clogged Tysons will get 100,000 new jobs and a fivefold increase in its current residential population of 19,000. Amid the vast parking lots and strip malls that line Routes 123 and 7, new high-rises are quickly sprouting around the area’s two-year-old Metro Silver Line stations. Traffic-mitigation measures required of Tysons developers include reducing the number of single-occupant cars entering or leaving their new buildings, such as by funding vanpools and shuttle services to Metro stations and building mostly smaller roads to create a more urban and walkable street grid.

Even so, some longtime Tysons residents say the new high-rises have already brought significantly more traffic as many of the new residents and workers continue to drive.

Many details of the Montgomery proposal remain up for debate, and the council has until Nov. 15 to approve the growth policy. But several county council members said they appreciate the need for a less car-centric approach.

Accommodating new building by continuing to focus on traffic congestion “isn’t going to get us to the future we need,” said Montgomery County Council member Hans Riemer (D-At Large).

County Council President Nancy Floreen (D-At Large), who also chairs the panel’s planning committee, said improving transportation will mean developers helping to pay for different things in different parts of the county.

“In [downtown] Bethesda, we won’t be building bigger intersections for cars to go through more rapidly,” Floreen said. “But we’ll have a list of what else needs to be done there, like improve sidewalks.”

Montgomery isn’t the only jurisdiction considering a different approach. Pete Tomao, Montgomery advocacy manager for the Coalition For Smarter Growth, a pro-transit group, noted that California recently threw out development-impact standards based on intersection congestion and now considers vehicle miles traveled. California officials have said that measurement better aligns with the state’s environmental goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, rather than helping people drive more.

While developing around transit lines focuses growth and reduces government infrastructure costs, Tomao said, those proposals often become more difficult or costly under traditional traffic-congestion tests. The result: It can become easier and cheaper for developers to build farther out, further adding to unsustainable sprawl.

“The vehicle delay could make a development look bad, but the benefits — people taking transit and walking more — weren’t taken into account,” Tomao said.

Developers say any additional taxes or fees would raise their construction costs. That, they say, could make it harder to secure financing and possibly require them to charge higher rents, which might prompt some businesses and residents to take their jobs and tax dollars elsewhere, such as to Tysons.

“How much can you tax development and still make sure that high-rise apartment buildings or office buildings get built?” said Steve Silverman, a former Montgomery County Council member and economic development director who now consults for developers.

At least one council member said he’s concerned that Montgomery lacks enough frequent and reliable transit service to absorb the amount of high-density growth planned, and there’s little money to provide more.

“If there’s no transit capacity, they’re all drivers,” said Marc Elrich (D-At Large). Traffic “is already horrible. You can’t add more development and not make it worse. It’s just not logical.”

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Image credit: Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post

Click here for the original story. 

Several residents faulted Tuesday night the density and potential traffic that could follow the Montgomery County Council’s passage of the Greater Lyttonsville Sector Plan, a land-use guide for a Silver Spring neighborhood founded by a freed slave in the 1850s.

“I know all this development will stifle my neighborhood’s life,” resident Patricia Tyson told the council during a hearing on the proposed plan, which has been in the works since 2012. The number of new homes proposed for the neighborhood would be far too much for the community to absorb, she said.

“I believe this plan will add intolerable traffic congestion, make the area unaffordable to lower and middle-class residents, and destroy the current character of Lyttonsville,” added Erwin Rose, who has lived in the community since 2001.

The area covered by the plan currently has 499 single-family homes and townhouses planner Melissa Williams told the council in a morning briefing. Under the plan, the maximum number of units would increase to 1,334. Multifamily units would grow from 2,864 to a maximum of 5,577.

However, Williams said the maximum numbers are rarely achieved and a “crude calculation” of looking at acreage and applying zoning. For example, under current zoning, the plan area could have 1,290 single-family and townhouse units, and 3,912 multifamily units, she said.

“The proposed level of development is beyond what my little community can handle,” Rosemary Hills resident Lynn Amano said.

The hearing at the County Council Building also drew many supporters of the sector plan. The community will have two Purple Line stops—on Lyttonsville Road and at Woodside/16th Street—which drew support from representatives from Purple Line Now, the Action Committee for Transit and the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which all support the light-rail line to be built from Bethesda to New Carrollton.

Several people said they supported that the plan maintained a light industrial area north of the Purple Line, the only light industrial area in Montgomery County that remains inside the Beltway. Leonor Chaves, a resident, noted the light industrial area has 475 businesses that employ 2,500.

Others supported the planned walkability of the envisioned community, added parklands, small retail area, and bike lanes. The sector plan also drew support from local developers EYA and Federal Realty Investment Trust. EYA is trying to redevelop three parcels in the community into transit-oriented development. Federal Realty owns an apartment complex on the west side of the plan area.

A second hearing is planned for Thursday night at the Council Office Building, and 17 people have signed up to testify. The council will tour the area Oct. 7.

Since its founding, Lyttonsville has suffered from neglect from the public and private sectors. It lacked paved streets and running water until the 1970s. The county once had a trash heap and incinerator in the neighborhood.

Work on the sector plan began in 2012, and Montgomery County Planning Board Chairman Casey Anderson said the fits and starts of the Purple Line, now planned to start construction later this year, were one reason why the plan took so long to complete.

As the sector plan progressed, the board engaged in an intensive community outreach, including holding numerous meetings with residents and creating a hot line for those who had questions.

Anderson told the council he believed the criticisms of the plan would be directed toward specific details and not the framework that was built on consensus.

Resident Mark Mendez seemed to agree. “No one gets what they want in a master plan. This list checks a lot of boxes for me,” he said.

But resident Abe Schuchman criticized the lack of a full-service grocery store in the plan, which would mean people would still have to get in their cars to shop, despite the plan’s walkability. And Jonathan Foley of the Gwendolyn Coffield Community Center Advisory Board said the plan needed to address specifically how the center on Lyttonsville Road would handle the new residents.

Council President Nancy Floreen said committees are scheduled to take up the plan in November, which could lead to a full committee vote by the end of the year.

Image credit: Montgomery County Planning Board

Click here for the original story. 

People were streaming along the sidewalks and biking down the street – parents with children, couples, retirees, and the full ethnic diversity of our region. Where were they all going? We were leading one of our tours of walkable urban places and were amazed. Our group had just reached Park Avenue after having come up from the East Falls Church Metro. It felt like market day, and in fact it was – with the weekly Farmers Market, the Taste of Falls Church and the Fall Festival all taking place last Saturday.

Mayor Tarter, Vice Mayor Connelly, and Councilmember Hardi were there to meet us and tell us about the Little City. The Mayor talked about the community’s efforts to become an even better place for walking and bicycling, including adding Capital Bikeshare. We learned about the effort to bring new amenities like the Harris Teeter, and investment that will diversify the tax base to reduce pressure on residential property taxes. We learned about the city’s commitment to environmental sustainability and quality of life.

With the help of Falls Church’s planning department, our guides for the morning, we looked at old and new development along Washington and Broad Streets, talking about urban design, sidewalk widths, best designs for ground-floor retail and more. It was easy to feel the difference between walking along a narrow sidewalk next to high-speed traffic and the new wider sidewalks with street trees.

At the Northgate development, we talked about the benefits of redevelopment for dealing with long-standing stormwater problems. Old parking lots fuel torrents of floodwater into creeks like Four Mile Run. New development must meet current stormwater control standards and significantly reduce runoff. The sidewalk retention basins are one tool, although the big clunky ones at Northgate will have to be chalked up as a learning experience!

The Harris Teeter is the big new addition and lies within reach of most city residents, generating a significant number of walking trips to the store. Later, we learned from developer Bob Young about the sustainability features of his Flower Building and the affordable apartments for teachers in the Read Building. Parking needs are being reduced through shared parking at the Hilton Garden Inn. So many people arrive by shuttle from Metro, that they don’t need as much parking as they have.

The two Metro stations that bear the Falls Church name became a big topic of conversation, particularly because neither is as accessible as it could be. The long walk from East Falls Church Metro demonstrated, without a doubt, the need for a western entrance to the Metro at Washington Street. The western entrance would place the Metro much closer to many Falls Church and Arlington residents.

Metro studies show that attracting more riders who walk and bike to the stations is far more cost-effective than building very expensive parking structures. Almost all of Falls Church lies within one mile of one of the two Metro stations. So it’s easy to see why good sidewalks, bike lanes and bikeshare are great ways to connect the community to the two Metro stations.

East Falls Church Metro is already a champion in attracting bike commuters, but the demand is such that a bike station is in progress, designed by the same folks who created that amazing glass bike station at Union Station in DC. Bikeshare will add a whole new level of convenience for the commute to Metro, because you’ll be able to ditch the heavy bike lock. But the city almost didn’t win the funding in the face of opposition from outer suburban legislators and highway lobbyists. So we jumped into the fray, sending an alert to our Falls Church members, who responded in record numbers to send letters of support that helped to win the funding.

We didn’t have time to go to Tinner Hill or the West Falls Church Metro, but we learned about both and plan to come back. West Falls Church Metro is a disjointed place today and many talk about how the big parking lots feel unsafe at night. So it would be a real win to create a walkable urban place, with a new high school, mixed-use development, and a more vibrant Virginia Tech campus.

We wrapped up our tour in the pocket park at the Spectrum development, but people wanted to keep talking, so we adjourned for a great lunch at the Mad Fox.

Falls Church is a wonderful place, and in demand because of its walkability, convenient access to jobs and services, and nearby Metro stations. Carefully planned development in the commercial corridors will provide needed housing, convenient new services, help the tax base, and contribute to a walking and biking friendly community. We look forward to returning to see the next stages in the evolution of the Little City.”

Click here to read the original story.

A political, civic and business coalition launched a campaign Monday to build support for what one leader described as “transformative” change along traffic-choked Interstate 270 in Maryland.

For their campaign kickoff, the group was savvy about picking a backdrop: They positioned themselves atop a slope in Germantown leading down to the highway. Through the wrap-up of their news conference about 9:15 a.m., the southbound traffic remained heavy and slow heading to the Capital Beltway, 16 miles away.

The coalition wants to revive dormant state studies that could lead to the addition of express toll lanes, which could manage traffic and also provide lane space and financial support for a regional rapid bus system. The regional buses would provide a limited stop service between Frederick and Rock Spring Park in the North Bethesda area, offering connections along the way to other transit and bus services. The coalition also supports construction of a local rapid bus system, known as the Corridor Cities Transitway, to link centers of activity between Shady Grove and Clarksburg.

Also part of this long-range plan for the corridor are a variety of other transit, cycling, pedestrian and road upgrades.

The coalition’s leaders outlined a four-part plan for easing travel through Frederick and Montgomery counties. (Suburban Maryland Transportation Alliance)

The costs of this long-range program would be in the billions of dollars. Supporters are looking to the express lane tolling as a key source of revenue. Several advocates pointed to Virginia’s network of high-occupancy toll lanes, partly financed by enlisting private partners to build the HOT lanes in exchange for the right to collect the toll revenue.

“It’s time for us to think of this situation in a transformative manner,” said Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.), the honorary chairman of Fix270NOW. Incremental fixes won’t work for such a big people-moving problem, he said. “We’ve been thinking small-ball for too long.”

Richard Parsons, vice chairman of the Suburban Maryland Transportation Alliance, a business and civic advocacy group with parallel interests, said the new coalition welcomes the plan presented by Gov. Larry Hogan (R) to award $100 million for innovative congestion management programs on I-270. The coalition’s theme is that I-270, the main stem of the suburban technology corridor as well as the key route for thousands of commuters headed to and from the region’s core, needs much more help than that.

In Maryland’s transportation planning system, local government support for projects is a prominent element in state financing decisions. So the Fix270NOW group wants to get a clear statement from the Montgomery and Frederick County governments that the improvement of I-270 is a top transportation priority. Once that status is clear, the group wants the Maryland Department of Transportation to revive work on two studies, now many years old, that looked into travel solutions for I-270 and the west side of the Capital Beltway in Maryland.

“It’s time to finish those studies,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who also spoke in support of the new group.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board, Virginia’s top policymaking panel on transportation, has expressed interest in engaging Maryland in a discussion of cross-Potomac transportation improvements. Some advocates for congestion relief say it would be logical to extend Virginia’s Capital Beltway HOT lanes from the Tysons area across the Legion Bridge and north to I-270.

But the Hogan administration has been cool to this idea. During an online discussion with Dr. Gridlock readers in July, state Transportation Secretary Pete K. Rahn noted that “in Virginia and Maryland, these express toll lanes require substantial upfront state investment into the projects that will typically not be recovered.”

“Congestion-busting solutions” — a term Rahn applied to multi-billion-dollar programs that take many years to complete — can’t be supported by the financial resources available in Maryland, he said.

Maryland has built several express tolling systems in recent years. The Intercounty Connector in Montgomery and Prince George’s features all-electronic tolling at rates that vary with the time of day. Last year, the state opened the I-95 Express Toll Lanes in the middle of I-95 north of Baltimore, using a tolling system similar to that on the ICC.

But Maryland has nothing quite like the Virginia HOT lanes, which vary the tolls based on the level of traffic to maintain steady speeds and offer a free ride to carpoolers using a specialized type of E-ZPass called the Flex.

Parsons said that once the state studies were revived, transportation planners could review what type of express lanes might work best on I-270.

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, was skeptical of the express lanes approach for I-270. “Widened highways in metropolitan areas can fill up again in as little as five years,” he said in a statement Monday.

Instead, Schwartz recommended extending the I-270 HOV lane to the Legion Bridge, expanding MARC commuter train service from Frederick, enhancing commuter bus service in the I-270 corridor and encouraging development around transit centers.

Image courtesy of Robert Thomson.

Click here to view the original article.