Category: Resources

CSG Testimony to regional Transportation Planning Board on Regional Transportation Policy Plan

The Regional Transportation Priorities Plan represents progress in identifying and setting transportation priorities. Particularly noteworthy is public identification and support for fixing the existing system first and the focus of the RTPP priorities on fix-it-first including maintenance, operational performance, transit crowding and improved alternatives to driving for every trip.

However, significant concerns were raised last month by officials on this body, particularly the failure to conform the RTPP to the goals and objectives of Region Forward. The updated letters packet includes a detailed set of recommendations from DC, and I  understand that the Region Forward co-chairs have, or will be, making recommendations.  WMATA and others, including my organization and the business group – Urban Land Institute, have also provided important recommendations.

These recommendations center on the failure of the RTPP to integrate within the Region Forward vision, goals and objectives, the failure to incorporate Momentum, the failure to address climate change, and the focus on toll lanes which lack the proven record of our transit and TOD investments.  I wonder if you are all ready to endorse a vast, costly network of toll lanes.

The newly adopted draft falls short of addressing these concerns and we are concerned about it being released for public comment without additional fixes.  In particular, the Executive Summary doesn’t even mention Region Forward and the Introduction continues to portray this 2010 regional compact as a subset of the now very old 1998 TPB Vision.  Instead of Region Forward, it adds a lot of text regarding the recent Economy Forward forum,  but that one day unscientific poll was hardly as carefully thought out an investigation  of the land use/transportation connections as the effort that went into Region Forward.

While the RTPP now mentions Momentum, it only proposes incorporating the 2025 investments provided funding can be found, while not applying the same standard to its toll and other highway investment proposals.  The RTPP also fails to incorporate Momentum 2040 and other transit expansion in the scenario B, even while it proposes a very costly, and still unproven, network of high occupancy toll lanes.  The RTPP also utterly fails to mention the threat of climate change and the resulting need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation using land use and transit solutions.

In addition, the draft solicitation document for the CLRP fails to mention Region Forward, the climate report, and activity centers, despite the fact that we’ve debated this before, when you adopted an amendment to the solicitation document a few years ago.  The goals of Region Forward, activity centers and climate report can be integrated into the federal planning factors. And, of real concern is that you are being asked to vote on the CLRP solicitation document in November, one month before you vote on a revised RTPP, but your expressed goal of the RTPP is to shape the CLRP.  The solicitation document should say more than that the RTPP “should be considered.”CSG Testimony to regional Transportation Planning Board on Regional Transportation Policy Plan

We are at a crossroads as a region, nation and world.  We must fight climate change.  We must recognize the success of our region’s transit-oriented development in growing our economy, reducing the amount of driving, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.  We must recognize how demographics and the market have changed.  Therefore we urge you to amend the RTPP to conform it to Region Forward, fully incorporate Momentum,  and let it guide the most effective transportation investments for a sustainable and efficient future.

Testimony to Regional Transportation Planning Board on Regional Transportation Policy Plan

The Regional Transportation Priorities Plan represents progress in identifying and setting transportation priorities. Particularly noteworthy is public identification and support for fixing the existing system first and the focus of the RTPP priorities on fix-it-first including maintenance, operational performance, transit crowding and improved alternatives to driving for every trip.

However, significant concerns were raised last month by officials on this body, particularly the failure to conform the RTPP to the goals and objectives of Region Forward. The updated letters packet includes a detailed set of recommendations from DC, and I understand that the Region Forward co-chairs have, or will be, making recommendations. WMATA and others, including my organization and the business group – Urban Land Institute, have also provided important recommendations.

These recommendations center on the failure of the RTPP to integrate within the Region Forward vision, goals and objectives, the failure to incorporate Momentum, the failure to address climate change, and the focus on toll lanes which lack the proven record of our transit and TOD investments. I wonder if you are all ready to endorse a vast, costly network of toll lanes.

The newly adopted draft falls short of addressing these concerns and we are concerned about it being released for public comment without additional fixes. In particular, the Executive Summary doesn’t even mention Region Forward and the Introduction continues to portray this 2010 regional compact as a subset of the now very old 1998 TPB Vision. Instead of Region Forward, it adds a lot of text regarding the recent Economy Forward forum, but that one day unscientific poll was hardly as carefully thought out an investigation of the land use/transportation connections as the effort that went into Region Forward.

While the RTPP now mentions Momentum, it only proposes incorporating the 2025 investments provided funding can be found, while not applying the same standard to its toll and other highway investment proposals. The RTPP also fails to incorporate Momentum 2040 and other transit expansion in the scenario B, even while it proposes a very costly, and still unproven, network of high occupancy toll lanes. The RTPP also utterly fails to mention the threat of climate change and the resulting need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation using land use and transit solutions.

In addition, the draft solicitation document for the CLRP fails to mention Region Forward, the climate report, and activity centers, despite the fact that we’ve debated this before, when you adopted an amendment to the solicitation document a few years ago. The goals of Region Forward, activity centers and climate report can be integrated into the federal planning factors. And, of real concern is that you are being asked to vote on the CLRP solicitation document in November, one month before you vote on a revised RTPP, but your expressed goal of the RTPP is to shape the CLRP. The solicitation document should say more than that the RTPP “should be considered.”

We are at a crossroads as a region, nation and world. We must fight climate change. We must recognize the success of our region’s transit-oriented development in growing our economy, reducing the amount of driving, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We must recognize how demographics and the market have changed. Therefore we urge you to amend the RTPP to conform it to Region Forward, fully incorporate Momentum, and let it guide the most effective transportation investments for a sustainable and efficient future.

Letter to Governor McDonnell from Delegate Hugo regarding Bi-County Parkway

We are writing to respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss the actions of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) regarding the Bi-County/North-South Corridor project. We are further requesting that neither the VDOT nor the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer sign the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Programmatic Agreement until we are able to meet with you.

ANC Smart Growth Summer Camp

ANC Smart Growth Summer Camp

At Smart Growth Summer Camp on August 21, 2013, Matthew Bell of the University of Maryland, School of Architecture and David Fields of Nelson\Nygaard discussed urban design, transportation, and the role ANC Commissioners can play in enacting positive change using smart growth principles. We brought together ANC Commissioners from across the city to meet, learn more, and share their stories.

COMMENTS to MWCOG on Regional Transportation Priorities Plan (RTPP)

We appreciate the work that has gone into the Regional Transportation Priorities Plan (RTPP) and your public outreach efforts. We commend the focus on Near Term and On-Going Strategies, which include a number of important priorities including first and foremost the maintenance of the existing system. We also strongly support and urge the TPB to adopt Scenario B, transit and TOD, as the long-term strategy for the region.

CSG Chat: The Future of Metro – the Momentum Plan

CSG Chat: The Future of Metro – the Momentum Plan

WMATA’s Momentum program could be one of the most important transit initiatives for our region in decades. What does the plan include? How will it help Metro to become more reliable? What obstacles do we need to overcome to succeed? How are we going to pay for it? Watch the full video from this live interactive webchat with WMATA’s Shyam Kannan.

Will Montgomery County Fall Into the Zombie Highway Trap?

There ought to be a statute of limitations on highway plans, because chances are, if a transportation project was conceived of at a time when rotary phones were the norm, it is just as outdated.

But these zombie highway projects from another era still hold a powerful allure over public officials, even in places where they really ought to know better.

Montgomery County, Maryland, has a reputation for being pretty forward thinking on transportation, but an undead highway is clawing its way out of the grave.

At Greater Greater Washington, Kelly Blynn reports that local officials are under the spell of a 1960s vision called the Midcounty Highway Extended, or M83. Worst of all, they seem to be settling on the most costly intervention, fiscally and environmentally:

Last night, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Army Corps of Engineers held a public hearing at Seneca Valley High School in Germantown regarding whether they should grant a joint permit to impact wetlands and streams in the highway’s path. Dozens of highway opponents from the Transit Alternatives to the Midcounty Highway Extended (TAME) Coalition, many of whom have fought the project for years, turned out in force to testify against the project.

MCDOT originally evaluated 11 alternatives, and has since narrowed the field down to just 6, including a no-build option. Alternatives 4, 8, and 9 are the most controversial and involve the most new pavement and right-of-way through environmentally sensitive areas and existing neighborhoods. They also happen to be MCDOT’s preferred alternatives. MCDOT estimates that Alternative 9 would cost $350 million to build, though local activists say it could be double that.

Alternative 2, the cheapest option, would make improvements to Route 355 and use transportation demand management (TDM) to give travelers other ways to get around, while alternative 5 involves widening it. MCDOT did not look at any transit alternatives. Their report contains a footnote saying that the community requested a transit alternative, but says that the county’s Bus Rapid Transit plan is still too nascent to be considered.

The county leaders will decide soon whether to include the money for this project in next year’s budget. Blynn says, “It remains to be seen whether the County leaders will continue their progressive planning tradition by investing scarce local dollars in transit and smart growth, or whether they sink hundreds of millions into a 1960′s-era sprawl highway.”

Elsewhere on the Network today: Mobilizing the Region sheds light on some of the perilous situations faced by pedestrians in south Jersey. Cap’n Transit theorizes that two schools of thought on transit planning emerge from two difference conceptions of the city and suburbs. And I Bike TO criticizes the Toronto police department’s decision to stop tracking “dooring” crashes.

Read the original article at Streetsblog >>

Most of new $1B transportation package for Montgomery is for Purple Line

Montgomery County’s push for transportation investment paid a billion-dollar dividend Monday when the state committed money to eight county road, rail and bus priorities.

The lion’s share of funding — $680 million — will go to the Purple Line, a 16-mile light rail line planned to connect Bethesda and New Carrollton through Silver Spring. That includes $400 million for construction and $280 million already marked to buy land and finish the project’s design.

The state will seek a private company to run the light rail system.

Other projects, such as the Corridor Cities Transitway, Ride On Bus system and road improvements, will see smaller funding commitments from the state.

Standing above the Bethesda Metro station on Monday, Gov. Martin O’Malley announced the investments, saying they will bring needed jobs and traffic relief.

Led by County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), Montgomery pushed for an increase in the statewide gasoline tax in the 2013 legislative session. It sought a cash commitment from the state to the $2.2 billion Purple Line, as well as the Corridors Cities Transitway, a 15-mile bus rapid transit line connecting Clarksburg to the Shady Grove Metro station, estimated to cost $545 million.

Over the “last few decades,” Maryland stopped making necessary investments to build and maintain its transportation infrastructure, O’Malley (D) said Monday.

“The failure to act, the failure to make those better decisions, had a huge cost,” he said.

Time, jobs and the environment were sacrificed, he said.

Not everyone who heard the news on Monday was on board.

Opponents included about two dozen members of Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail, some of whom waved signs while others shouted slogans.

The western portion of the light rail is set to run along the Georgetown Branch section of the Capital Crescent Trail, from downtown Bethesda through the Columbia Country Club and across Connecticut Avenue.

“You couldn’t buy 20 acres inside the Beltway today to build a park. Why would you tear one down?” Ajay Bhatt, president of the group, asked in an email.

Running the Purple Line next to the trail, Bhatt said, would be “turning a serene tree-canopied nature trail through quiet neighborhoods enjoyed by thousands of young and old bikers, walkers and runners weekly into a shade-less ribbon of asphalt alongside twin sets of railroad tracks beneath high-power electrical lines with 250 daily trains passing at 45 mph.”

Deborah Vollmer of Chevy Chase said the rail line will lead to incalculable loss along the hiker-biker trail that, at points, parallels the Purple Line’s planned path. She said she is not opposed to mass transit, but the rail should be buried to avoid damaging the park-like atmosphere of the trail.

Another vocal opponent is Chevy Chase Councilman John Bickerman, who took issue with the announcement that the state would seek a private company to run the system.

“It’s an abomination, farming out this basic government service to the private sector,” Bickerman said. “It shouldn’t be contracted out. What if the revenues come in lower? What if the contractor doesn’t get the return that he’s expecting and the contractor goes belly up? Then what happens?”

Maryland lawmakers this spring passed the Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act — which raised taxes on gasoline and diesel — to bring $4.4 billion in new investment and 57,000 jobs in the next six years, officials said.

Flanked by dozens of state lawmakers, local leaders and members of the building trade, O’Malley said Montgomery’s share of that money will include the following:

• $400 million for construction of the Purple Line, which comes on top of $280 million announced previously to buy land and finish the project’s design.

• $125 million to construct a new interchange along Interstate 270 at Watkins Mill Road.

• $100 million to buy land and design the Corridor Cities Transitway.

• $85 million for Montgomery’s Ride On Bus system.

• $25 million to build and relocate a section of Md. 97 (Georgia Avenue) to bypass the center of Brookeville.

• $7 million to build interchanges at U.S. 29 and Musgrove Road and at U.S. 29 and Fairland Road.

• $3 million to design the widening of Md. 124 (Woodfield Road) from Midcounty Highway to south of Airpark Road.

• $3 million for planning to evaluate possible improvements in the Md. 28/Md. 198 corridor between Md. 97 and Interstate 95.

Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown shepherded a bill through the General Assembly this year that became the state’s new public-private partnership law. He said the state will deliver the Purple Line as its first and largest transit partnership with private industry. The state will seek a private company to build and operate the line.

“It’s a project that is going to connect our communities and grow our economy,” said Brown (D), who is running for governor in 2014, when O’Malley can’t run again because of term limits. “With the additional $400 million the governor just announced, we are showing how serious we are to delivering the Purple Line now.”

Montgomery looks to add 100,000 jobs through its efforts in the Great Seneca Science Corridor, Shady Grove, White Flint and White Oak, Leggett said.

“However, all of that depends on improvement in our transportation infrastructure,” Leggett (D) said. “Without that [investment], those jobs may come to a screeching halt.”

County leaders warned in December that without dedicated funding and clear state commitment to the project, the Purple Line, which is almost completely designed, would stall in its tracks.

“All of this is about better choices,” O’Malley said.

For transit advocates, the state commitment for the Purple Line was tempered by concerns over continued investment in highway projects.

Cheryl Cort, policy director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said investing in highway expansion projects only gives drivers temporary traffic relief and encourages more driving, not the transportation choices residents deserve.

Staff Writers Agnes Blum and Sylvia Carignan contributed to this report.

Click here to read the original story>>