Category: Resources

State earmarks $1 billion in transportation money for Montgomery

Posted on by Andrew Brown

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

Standing above the Bethesda Metro Station Monday, Gov. Martin O’Malley announced the investments, saying that 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 that will connect 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.

Maryland lawmakers passed the Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act this spring to bring $4.4 billion in new investment and 57,000 jobs in the next six years.

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

— $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 I-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 relocate a section of Md. 97 (Georgia Avenue) to bypass the Town 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 I-95.

Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, who shepherded a bill through the General Assembly this year that became the state’s new public-private partnership law, said the state will deliver the Purple Line as the state 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,” Brown (D) said. “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.”

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

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

But not everyone gathered on the Metro plaza supported the projects, namely the Purple Line.

Shouting “Bury the rail, save the trail,” opponents of the Purple Line frequently voiced their position over those who spoke.

Deborah Vollmer of Chevy Chase said the rail line will lead to incalculable loss along the Capital Crescent Trail, a hiker-biker trail that, at points, parallels the Purple Line’s planned path. Not opposed to mass transit, she said the rail should be buried to avoid impacting the park-like atmosphere of the trail.

Ajay Bhatt, president of Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail, said the announcement was bad news for the county’s green spaces.

“They talked a lot about development and a lot about growth in Maryland, but where are the parks going to come into play?” he said.

His organization is concerned that the Purple Line will take away the trail’s ambiance by placing parts of it next to the planned light rail.

After the announcement in Bethesda, Bhatt argued the Capital Crescent Trail is a valuable resource for downcounty residents.

“If you go on the Capital Crescent Trail between here and Georgia Avenue, it’s packed,” he 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. It does not give resident the transportation choices they deserves, Cort said.

Click here to read the original story>>

Bi-County Parkway Means Traffic Solution or Fresh Mess

Posted on by Andrew Brown

outer beltway 3A new route through some of Prince William County’s rural north is pitched as pro-business and part of the area’s transportation solution, but critics have lined up to push back on a new run of pavement through a part of the region happy to be away from gridlock.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board recently approved a master-plan study for what’s become known as the “Bi-County Parkway,” a 10-mile road that would connect I-66 in Prince William County with Route 50 in Loudon County.

“This parkway would make people’s lives better,” said Bob Chase, president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance. “It provides faster, safer transportation, and takes people off local roads.”

The road’s purpose is to ease the horrendous traffic that currently plagues the area, while also providing easier access to the Washington Dulles International Airport for residents of these counties. The Virginia Department of Transportation estimates that the road could carry nearly 42,000 vehicles a day by 2020 to combat the area’s exploding population.

“We see this as a vital north-south link for Prince William and Loudon,” Chase said. “It’s a common sense solution that makes employment centers accessible and takes traffic off existing roads.”

The parkway is also seen as an economic boon for the region.

“Not only will the road reduce traffic congestion between the counties, but it will also help the region connect with the airport,” said Leo Schefer, president of the Washington Airports Task Force. “The airport’s an economic engine for the area, and better access to it helps encourage businesses to locate nearby.”

The road also has the potential to benefit the airport itself by increasing the number of passengers and encouraging more cargo to pass through Dulles.

“It would allow for a better flow of passengers and information through the airport, and cargo is a part of that,” said Christopher Paolino, media relations manager for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. “That would be a net positive for everyone, since as the airport grows, the region grows, and vice versa.”

But critics of the parkway are worried that road may harm the nearby Manassas Battlefield and Prince William’s Rural Crescent.

“This road could forever harm the landscape and the acres of historic sites it would cut through,” said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “Residents have real concerns about the damage that this could cause to the community.”

Schwartz’s coalition has worked with other groups in developing a study finding that the parkway will only add traffic to the area, not ease it.

“If you build it, people will try to use it, and that creates congestion,” Schwartz said. “It’s also likely that this will bring pressure from developers to convert the Rural Crescent, and that will bring even more traffic.”

The group has also developed an alternative plan aimed at dispersing traffic by improving the interchange between Route 28 and I-66 and extending Metrorail service to Centreville, avoiding the need for the parkway.

“Our best hope is to improve our existing transit options and to build compact, walkable neighborhoods with public transportation,” Schwartz said.

Some local politicians echo the road rage, particularly Del. Tim Hugo (R-Centreville).

Transportation officials were trying to get the road done quietly, Hugo said. “But people woke up.”

The fight over the road has sent longtime political allies in Prince William County to opposing corners. Hugo argues support for the project is developer-driven.

“This is the wrong project at the wrong time, and the response from the people has been overwhelmingly in opposition,” Hugo said. “This road could create a commuter crisis from Fauquier to Fairfax.”

Proponents argue the goal is to get cars from one end of this rural area to the other, not increasing development within these communities. Shefer said the parkway can include easements around the road and limits on the number of exits to restrict development.

“If it’s designed the right way, then the parkway won’t harm the rural presence, but preserve it,” Schefer said.

Some changes have already been made to resolve some concerns about access and impacts on historical sites. As the project continues to take shape, Schefer and others are hopeful that the final product is controversy-free.

“The key is for everyone to work together, in order to help improve connectivity and save people time,” Schefer said. “There’s no reason this can’t be a win-win for everyone.”

Photo courtesy of VDOT.

Click here to read the original story>>

Advocates urge Gov. O’Malley to target funds to transportation projects supporting smart growth; Gov. O’Malley to announce transportation spending on Monday in Bethesda

Posted on by Andrew Brown

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, August 2, 2013

Contact:

Kelly Blynn, Coalition for Smarter Growth, 202-675-0016 x 127

Ben Ross, Action Committee for Transit, 301-706-6826

Advocates urge Gov. O’Malley to target funds to transportation projects supporting smart growth

Gov. O’Malley to announce transportation spending on Monday in Bethesda

In advance of Governor O’Malley’s visit to Bethesda on Monday, several advocacy groups working in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties released a letter Friday applauding funding pledged so far for transit, bicycling, and pedestrian infrastructure, while expressing concern over costly new highway capacity projects.

“All of our groups worked hard to build grassroots support for the transportation funding bill so we could have the ability to help realize Maryland’s smart growth and climate protection goals,” said Cheryl Cort, Policy Director at Coalition for Smarter Growth. “Now we’re concerned about how much of the money will go to projects that undermine those efforts.”

The concerns stem from the long list of costly highway capacity projects identified by each County as high priorities, and a state selection process that is done behind closed doors.  A few weeks ago, those fears were confirmed when O’Malley announced his list of projects for Prince George’s that included two major new road capacity projects for $250 million

“$150 million for an interchange at MD 4 and the Suitland Parkway is a massive public investment to support sprawling development,” said Karren Pope-Onwukwe, co-chair of Prince George’s Advocates for Community-based Transit. “This new interchange project will draw activity away from Metro stations and inside the Beltway communities, where we should be focusing development.”

In Montgomery, concerns center around four new road widening and interchange projects within the Route 28/198 corridor. These would cost half a billion dollars to duplicate the ICC, drawing away commuters and toll revenue.

“We have already wasted more than $2 billion on the ICC, which continues to be underutilized,” said Ethan Goffman of the Montgomery County Sierra Club. “Our investments should be in reducing carbon emissions and sprawl, not simply adding more and more capacity for cars.”

In addition, previous announcements indicate that Maryland may use a public-private partnership, effectively borrowing against future revenues, to help pay for Montgomery and Prince George’s top priority transportation project, the Purple Line.

“While we’re thrilled with the Purple Line’s continued progress, we’re concerned about the state’s desire to provide the local share of construction funding via a public-private partnership,” said Ben Ross, vice president of the Action Committee for Transit which has worked for the Purple Line for more than 25 years.  “We need the full $1.1 billion to open the line by 2020.  State funds that may be needed for that purpose should not be committed to lower-priority projects until we are certain that alternative financing is a good deal for taxpayers and riders.”

Advocates listed their top priorities for the suburban Washington region as building the Purple Line, funding the MARC Growth and Investment Plan, and funding Maryland’s share for WMATA’s reinvestment plan, Momentum. They also urged the state to expand investment in local road improvements to create new options for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, such as a multimodal redesign of MD 355 (Rockville Pike) in the White Flint area.

Following on the heels of O’Malley’s announcement of his ambitious goals for addressing climate change last week, including doubling transit ridership, advocates hope his transportation announcements will remain consistent. “We want to see the Governor ensure that all transportation projects funded by the state support the excellent smart growth and climate goals his administration has set,” said Kelly Blynn, Coalition for Smarter Growth.

The transportation advocates’ letter can be found here and is signed by the Action Committee for Transit, Bike Maryland, Clean Water Action, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Prince George’s Advocates for Community-based Transit,  Montgomery County Sierra Club, Montgomery County Young Democrats, Montgomery Countryside Alliance, Prince George’s County Young Democrats, and the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA).

About the Coalition for Smarter Growth

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington D.C. region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Our mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies needed to make those communities flourish. To learn more, visit the Coalition’s website at www.smartergrowth.net.

###

Testimony before the Hon. Andrea Harrison, Chair, Prince George’s County Council Re: Prince George’s CB 27-2013: Rental Conversion First Refusal

Posted on by Andrew Brown

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Our organization works to ensure that transportation and development decisions in the Washington, D.C. region, including the Maryland suburbs, accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more housing and travel choices, and conserving our natural and historic areas.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth would like to express its support for CB 27, with the amendment that “Sec. 13-1120. Designation” be deleted. We are concerned that this designation by resolution provision is unnecessary and inhibits the function of this tool. Overall, we support this bill as a careful tool to assist with the preservation of quality rental housing to better meet the needs of many Prince George’s residents who struggle to find decent housing they can afford.

It is a measured tool to allow the county to help preserve affordable rental housing either through direct purchase, or through assigning the right to a third party. It also allows for waivers if certain conditions are met. This approach offers the county the opportunity to protect affordable rental housing without unduly burdening the building owner. Thus this tool is likely to be used where there is institutional and community capacity to purchase and rehabilitate rental housing. We welcome this useful tool to help Prince George’s residents secure quality, affordable rental housing.

Like all Washington, D.C. area jurisdictions, a significant share of residents find housing costs too high for their incomes. Building a toolbox of policies that help more Prince George’s working families find suitable housing that they can afford is a critical task for public officials. CB 27 is one of the tools that the county should have to assist renters with the opportunity to preserve their homes as affordable. This should be one of many tools. In 2010, we published a policy paper examining Prince George’s housing needs and initiatives (summary attached). This effort followed extensive work we have done in other jurisdictions on affordable housing policy. Through our research, we found that Prince George’s uses few local policy tools, both in absolute terms and compared to surrounding jurisdictions (see attached Table 5). Thus we welcome CB 27 as an important contribution to a local housing toolbox we hope to grow over time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cheryl Cort, Policy Director

Leesburg Council Passes Resolution Against Bi-County Parkway

Posted on by Andrew Brown

The Leesburg Town Council voted 5-2 Tuesday night to pass a resolution opposing the North-South Corridor and its components, despite firm requests – some have called them threats – from Loudoun Board of Supervisors Chairman Scott K. York and Loudoun Chamber President Tony Howard not to do so.

The resolution opposes construction of the Bi-County Parkway (formerly the Tri-County Parkway until shifted west several years back), which is a component related to the North-South Corridor aimed at improving connectivity between Prince William County and Dulles International Airport and the surrounding area. The corridor itself actually refers to an area, not a specific road; however, the construction of the Bi-County Parkway would complete a new direct four-lane path from I-95 in Prince William County to Route 50 in Loudoun. In its entirely, it would link I-95 all the way to Route 7. All segments of that connection are planned for at least four lanes of traffic, with few interchanges and plenty of traffic lights.outer beltway 2

The Loudoun Chamber and Board of Supervisors as well as the state have put their support behind project, but a majority of the Leesburg Town Council believes the road would spark denser development in Loudoun’s Transition Policy Area and dump traffic on Route 7 that would overflow onto town streets.

“The problem I have with the North-South corridor is that … as with Prince William County, they’re concerned about protecting the Rural Crescent; in Loudoun we’re concerned about protecting the low-density transition area,” said Mayor Kristen Umstattd.

Umstattd and at least one other councilmember also pointed out that Interstates 95 and 81 were only four lanes in sections.

“I don’t want to see another I-95 or Interstate 81 coming up from 95 and dumping onto Route 7,” Umstattd said.

The Chamber’s Howard called that point “a completely misunderstood representation of what this project is proposed to be.”

Howard said the four-lane road, which would have traffic signal primarily instead of interchanges, would in no way resemble those interstates.

“I’m very disappointed in the vote,” Howard said. “The actions they took yesterday weren’t necessary. It’s not reasonable that Leesburg will see any increase in traffic, because the Bi-County Parkway is 15 miles away.”

Councilmember Marty Martinez said the council could not look only at the Bi-County portion of the corridor because the roads will all connect, and drivers will find them.

“They’re all going to connect eventually,” he said. “It is going to impact Leesburg and I have to be concerned about that.”

Councilwoman Kelly Burk said the chamber was putting business interests over those of residents.

“Economic development gets higher consideration than anything else – the environment, the community,” she said.

The council’s resolution included a list of projects it would prefer to see funded instead of the Bi-County Parkway, which the council requests undergo further environmental study.

Council members Kevin Wright and Tom Dunn voted against the resolution.

Opponents of the road held a conference call last week to offer an alternative plan that they said would keep 45,000 vehicles off of Loudoun’s roads. While those vehicles trips, the group acknowledged, would still exist somewhere in the region, they would have fewer impacts on the Manassas National Battlefield Park.

“The Bi-County Parkway makes conditions worse and doesn’t address some important needs,” said Stewart Schwartz, of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, one member of the group of opponents.

Opponents of the road have also argued that it primarily serves business needs, but forecasts show commuters would be the primary users, using the road to escape other congested routes. That would lengthen routes for commuters and prove a minimal benefit and other users crowd the new route, according to opponents.

Fin the full report with executive summary and appendices here.

The group offering the alternative vision for the parkway includes the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks Conservation Association.

Virginia Sec. of Transportation Sean Connaughton, who is the former chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, previously presented his case for the road in an editorial letter; read the letter here.

Howard said the disagreement would not harm the relationship between the town and chamber.

“We’re still friends,” he said. “The chamber’s going to continue to advocate for the town’s projects.”

The council’s resolution included a list of favored projects, including interchanges at the Route 15 Bypass and Edwards Road, Battlefield Parkway and Route 7 and Battlefield and the Leesburg Bypass. In addition, the resolution urges support for construction of Crosstrail Boulevard between Route 7 and Sycolin Road.

Photo courtesy of VDOT.

Click here to read the original story>>

Bi-County Parkway in Virginia will add congestion, groups argue

Posted on by Andrew Brown

A coalition of groups critical of the proposed Bi-County Parkway has released a report it says bolsters its case that the roadway could worsen traffic congestion in Loudoun and Prince William counties.

Norman L. Marshall, president of Smart Mobility, which conducted the analysis using data from the Virginia Department of Transportation, said the north-south roadway would create new bottlenecks.

“Building the [Bi-County Parkway] would generate more overall traffic — and more north-south travel — in the study area than would be the case if the [Bi-County Parkway] is not built,” the report said.

The study, released last week, is the latest in the back-and-forth battle over the proposed parkway, which would provide a north-south connection between Loudoun and Prince William counties. Supporters of the roadway say it is needed to accommodate future population growth and promote economic development.

“We’re not just talking about the present, we’re talking about the future,” said Bob Chase, head of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which backs the road. “The best way to ensure that more people in this region have shorter commutes is to provide more jobs closer to where people live and have a grid that gives them a chance to move north, south, east and west.”

But opponents argue that state officials need to focus on improving existing roadways — particularly east-west connections, such as Interstate 66 — before investing in new roads.

“We believe that their case just doesn’t hold up, from speculative cargo claims, to congestion, to impact on the historic resource and Rural Crescent, to their failure to invest in the many critical projects residents and commuters need today,’’ said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, one of the groups that commissioned the $12,000 study.

In a conference call with reporters, leaders of those groups said Marshall’s analysis found that a package of alternative roadway improvements they have proposed would do more to relieve congestion and preserve the historic Manassas Civil War battlefield than the Bi-County Parkway.

The coalition’s plan “addresses a broader set of goals and better protects a historic resource,” Schwartz said.

The Piedmont Environmental Council, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Parks Conservation Association also sponsored the study.

Earlier this year, VDOT conducted its own analysis of the proposed parkway and the list of projects proposed by the coalition. That study showed that if the parkway is built, traffic at many key points along the north-south route would improve.

VDOT’s “thorough” analysis indicates that the Bi-County Parkway is needed, said Tom Fahrney, the department’s project director for the parkway. The study recognizes that traditional commuting patterns have changed in Northern Virginia, he said.

“The jobs are starting to be located outside of the Beltway, and there’s a need for facilities like the Bi-County Parkway to get folks from Prince William to Loudoun,” Fahrney said. “If this road is not implemented, rural roads that are not safe will carry much more traffic than they are today, and we’ll have congestion and safety problems.”

Virginia transportation officials said the coalition’s study assumed that less development would take place in the area — a major difference between the two reports.

VDOT’s study also looked at the project alternatives proposed by the advocacy groups. Transportation officials said those proposals, which include improvements to the Route 28 and I-66 interchange, building interchanges on the Route 234 Bypass south of I-66 and extending Metrorail service from Vienna to Centreville, would cost more than $6 billion and take decades to complete. Coalition groups argue that VDOT’s analysis is misleading because their approach is far more comprehensive.

The coalition’s report comes at a time when some senior elected officials, including Del. Tim Hugo (R-Centreville) and Rep. Frank Wolf (D-Va.), say additional study is needed before the project moves forward.

In June, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a state body, voted to advance plans tobuild the parkway. But an additional agreement in principle to build the road must be signed by VDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, the state Historic Resources Department and the National Park Service before the project can more forward. State transportation officials hope that will be completed by this fall.

Click here to read the original story>>

REPORT: Rethinking the Bi-County Parkway

REPORT: Rethinking the Bi-County Parkway

Posted on by acustis

The Virginia Department of Transportation’s (“VDOT”) own traffic modeling data reveal that the proposed Bi-County Parkway (“BCP”) would worsen, not relieve, traffic congestion. The same model shows that the comprehensive alternative offered by our coalition (termed the “Substitute Vision” by VDOT) will better address congestion in the study area, and better serve the dominant need for east-west traffic capacity—now and in the future.

New bus rapid transit plan won’t require more property along Md. 355

Posted on by Andrew Brown

West Chevy Chase residents no longer have to worry about a “Green Mile” marred by bus lanes down its middle, which would have meant widening the road, and possibly acquiring land through eminent domain.

That idea has been removed from the latest draft of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, which the Montgomery County Planning Board approved on Thursday.

In April, when the planning board OK’d dedicated bus lanes on Md. 355, stretching from Friendship Heights up to the Rockville Metro, some residents of West Chevy Chase protested loudly.

The planning board listened and the new plan represents that, said Larry Cole, the Montgomery County Planning Department’s lead planner.

The proposed rapid transit bus lanes are part of the comprehensive Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan that is meant to improve transportation options, be more environmentally friendly, and support local businesses, according to county planners.

The plan to use median bus lanes has been moved from Phase Two into the appendix. The County Council, if and when it adopts the plan, will not be adopting the appendix, Cole said. It is there for background and guidance for future decisions.

There will still be dedicated bus lanes on Md. 355, but they will run along curbed lanes. The county can create a curb lane without having to acquire anyone’s property.

Another change is the lanes on Md. 355 will now run as dedicated bus lanes from the Friendship Heights Metro up to Shakespeare Boulevard in Germantown, and then as mixed-traffic lanes up to Redgrave Place in Clarksburg. Most of what had been in Phase Two has been moved into the appendix, Cole said. Exceptions were made for corridors and jurisdictions with their own planning authorities.

Alex Posorske, the managing director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, called the plan “groundbreaking.”

“No other suburban region in the D.C. area is putting out something like this,” Posorske said.

The county is expected to add more than 200,000 residents in the coming decade and traffic will only get worse, Posorske said.

He called rapid transit bus lanes one leg in a three-legged stool. The other two legs, he said, were the Purple Line and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

“The trend is clear, people are driving less and less,” Posorske said. “There’s a real sea change in how people look at this.”

An interim copy of the plan should be available online by the end of the week, and the County Council is scheduled to take it up sometime in September.

Click here to read the original story>>

BRT Supporters Have Different Views As Plan Heads To Council

Posted on by Andrew Brown

mocorts

Bus Rapid Transit supporters are split on the Master Plan the county’s Planning Department will likely send to the County Council next week on the new transportation system.

Some are still worried language inserted into the plan that would require “a thorough traffic analysis” before any BRT system is implemented severely waters down the plan and contradicts the basic point of making roads move more people instead of more cars.

Meanwhile, the Coalition For Smarter Growth, which is lobbying for a BRT network that would include a controversial transitway on Rockville Pike/MD 355, praised the Planning Board for taking “a major step forward.”

“This plan is one of the most extensive and progressive transportation plans of any suburban community in our region, and is in keeping with Montgomery County’s record of innovation in land use transportation and housing policy,” CSG Executive Director Stewart Schwartz said in a statement.

The Action Committee for Transit wrote a letter to the Planning Board before a worksession on the plan last Thursday urging it to reconsider the “thorough traffic analysis” language.

ACT is concerned a traffic study from county transportation planners at time of facility planning would make it more difficult to dedicate existing lanes to the buses in the BRT network, thus reducing the amount of all-traffic lanes.

At the Thursday worksession, the Planning Board amended the language by saying the thorough traffic analysis “should be performed” instead of “must be performed,” and only “where lane repurposing is recommended.”

Planning Board Chair Francoise Carrier advocated a plan that would ease concerns from drivers worried about how fewer lanes would affect their commutes. On Thursday, Carrier said the Board should consider how the repurposing lanes debate would play out before the County Council, which is expected to take up Bus Rapid Transit in September.

“There is a tension between sending up a plan that’s easier to adopt or sending up the plan thats bolder,” Carrier said.

Planning Commissioner Casey Anderson made it clear throughout the process he’s in favor of a bolder option that would include repurposed lanes where needed. Planning staff has said a lane each way on MD 355 would need to be repurposed through downtown Bethesda and Chevy Chase because there is no room to build an additional lane.

There has already been much opposition to the idea of repurposing lanes from neighborhood groups in Silver Spring and Chevy Chase and residents in Bethesda.

“It’s almost like you’re a dog that’s been beat too much and you’re afraid you’re going to get hit again when you start talking about, ‘Oh, don’t worry. We’re not going to do [lane repurposing] everywhere,’ before you even get started,” Anderson said.

Kelly Blynn, an organizer for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said while the plan is a break from thinking that often shortchanged transit in favor of single-occupancy vehicles, the group is still concerned about new language from the State Highway Administration.

“However, Blynn expressed concern that other new language in the plan, pressed by the State Highway Administration, would place too high of a standard on moving cars through without considering a more proper standard of what approach would move the most people,” read the group’s press release.

Photo courtesy of Montgomery County Planning Department.

Click here to read the original story>>