Category: Testimony & Letters

Joint Letter: Comments in Support of PA 2018-II-1M WFC TSA

Joint Letter: Comments in Support of PA 2018-II-1M WFC TSA

Posted on by Ayesha Amsa

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the Audubon  Naturalist Society, the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, the Sierra Club Great Falls  Group, Friends of Holmes Run, and Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions. We write to express  our support for the redevelopment of the West Falls Church Transit Station Area and urge you  to consider our recommendations below and vote in favor of the comprehensive plan  amendment (CPA) (2018-II-1M). 

The proposed plan amendment will help realize Fairfax County’s vision of providing a network of  transit-oriented development (TOD) along its transit corridors. This vision is outlined in the  County’s Comprehensive Plan guidance, which calls for development close to transit stations to  focus on reducing dependence on driving and increasing transit ridership. 

CSG Testimony: Thrive 2050 to County Council

CSG Testimony: Thrive 2050 to County Council

Posted on by Ayesha Amsa

We strongly support the Planning Board’s draft of Thrive 2050, although we urge you to further strengthen certain areas. Thrive creates a vital blueprint for a county that is more affordable, walkable, prosperous, resilient, and racially and economically integrated, and recognizes that the best way to achieve that vision is through embracing the principles of inclusive smart growth, urbanism, and equitable transit-oriented development. 

The decisions you will make in this document will have generational implications for how we live, work, and play. The world in 2050 will be very different no matter what — the question is whether we allow our communities to evolve in order to preserve what we value the most: diversity, sustainability, affordability, prosperity, equity, and social mobility. 

CSG Testimony in Support of the FY22 Budget for DDOT

CSG Testimony in Support of the FY22 Budget for DDOT

Posted on by Ayesha Amsa

Re: Testimony in Support of the FY22 Budget for DDOT

Dear Chair Cheh and members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading non-profit organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all.

Major Investment Bus Priority:

We wish to express our enthusiastic support for the FY22 budget for DDOT, especially the $63 million for bus priority programs. This is a tremendous step in making the commitment we need to the bus service we should have. This budget makes a major commitment to building out the city’s bus priority network. Over the last decade, we have advocated for better bus service and urged the city to give buses priority on District streets. We are gratified to see such a bold proposal to advance bus service. This major commitment to better buses helps address racial and economic disparities, and build a more sustainable city for everyone.

We commend the proposed budget to both support operating costs for the Bus Priority Program and the $63 million of capital investments for “Bus-Only Lanes and other initiatives to improve bus speeds and reliability on 50+ priority bus corridors throughout the city.” While this investment is most of what we need, we ask that the funding for this program be sustained to ensure its completion in the out years.

We also support $116 million for the K Street Transitway, which is a necessary reconstruction of a central downtown thoroughfare. This project will improve speed and reliability for bus passengers benefiting travel both in downtown and throughout the District. It will benefit residents from all parts of the city as they travel through the corridor to jobs, services, or via bus on their way to another destination. We are excited that the transitway will also accommodate people bicycling, and improve the walking environment.

Pedestrian/Bicycle investments:

We support the $375 million for streetscapes, trails, bicycle lanes, Open Streets, and Vision Zero safety improvements. We also are thrilled by the $19 million expansion of Capital Bikeshare. These investments are critical to the city’s ability to make education, jobs, and services more accessible to residents and visitors. To accelerate these investments and get us back on track to achieving Vision Zero, we need to ensure that DDOT has the staffing to plan and guide these projects through to delivery. In the past year, our city has experienced far too many tragic deaths of people walking and bicycling. We need to do more to accelerate implementation of safety improvements and redesigns of unsafe streets and intersections. We ask that the budget add staff positions to the pedestrian/bicycle team to ensure that DDOT can deliver on these critical facilities.

We also want to express our support the FY22 budget’s transfer of the Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) program to DDOT. DDOT’s management of ATE will better ensure that safety and compliance are tightly linked to the design and management of our streets to support walk and bicycle access and safety, and effective bus lanes.

This is a set of major investments that will make our city more sustainable, equitable, accessible and vibrant. These investments give people healthier, more sustainable, and more affordable transportation choices. We urge the DC Council to support these investments.

Lastly, we wanted to inquire about the regulations for the Transportation Benefits Equity Act (B23-148). This new law will enable an employee who is offered a parking benefit by their employer to use the equivalent value of the parking subsidy for a transit, walk, or bike commute. We understand that the administration has been working on regulations, but it has gone on for months. As the District begins to reopen, we should have the regulations for the law in place to provide better guidance to employers as they consider any changes to their commuter benefits policies. We ask the Committee to follow up with the administration on the status of the regulations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort
Policy Director

MetroNow Coalition re: WMATA Service and Fare Opportunities

MetroNow Coalition re: WMATA Service and Fare Opportunities

Posted on by Ayesha Amsa

The MetroNow Coalition is made up of regional leaders who believe that transit is essential to the economic health and vitality of our region. WMATA, especially our Metrobus and Metrorail operators, have kept this region moving and our economy alive throughout the pandemic.

On Thursday, June 10, the WMATA Board will have an opportunity to define the role WMATA, and transit writ-large, will play in the regional economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. We area asking WMATA Board members to consider a more targeted list of two principles and specific actions around service and fare opportunities, outline below.

Testimony to TPB re Climate & Visualize 2045

Posted on by Emily Maurer
2021.05.19-Testimony-to-TPB-re-Climate-Visualize2045Download

May 19, 2021 

Dear Chair Allen and TPB Board members: 

You have the opportunity to create a better Visualize 2045, not next time, but now. The region’s  residents and future generations are counting on you, and climate science says that we can’t delay  anymore. At last week’s COG Board meeting, TPB Director Kanti Srikanth said in regard to climate  change and Visualize 2045 that “Every option needs to be pursued as expeditiously as possible to  attain our 2030 goal.” We agree.  

193 of the 199 public comments submitted to TPB ask for sustainable and equitable transportation  investments that prioritize non-auto modes, including land use and demand management strategies.  This is consistent with the COG Voices of the Region survey. 

Please note these two key findings in today’s presentation on TPB’s Climate Change Study Phase 1  Report: 

– “At the regional and local levels, the studies show that land use policies that bring housing  and jobs closer together and closer to transit reduce both GHG emissions and vehicle travel.  Travel demand policies such as teleworking are also effective at reducing GHG emissions and  vehicle travel and are also cost-effective.” and that “In contrast to most of the vehicle-related  strategies, many of these policy actions can be implemented in a shorter timeframe  contributing to critical near-term GHG reductions.”  

– The memo notes the promise of the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), and we agree.  However, the TCI Program will only reduce on-road emissions by 7% by 2032. TCI clearly states  that substantial reductions depend on jurisdictions, including MPO’s like TPB, adopting  “complementary policies.”  

Given Director Srikanth’s statement that every option needs to be expeditiously pursued, we are  stunned by the staff response to the public comments — that the proposed project list with $40 billion in  highway and road expansion projects is generally consistent with and advances TPB’s climate and equity  goals, and that it is not as relevant to regional climate efforts. 

That is simply not possible. Road expansion fuels more driving and spread out development and diverts  billions of dollars from investing in transit and TOD to reduce emissions and address the region’s racial  and economic inequity. 

TPB’s own studies show we can avoid much proposed highway expansion if the region adopts effective  travel and greenhouse gas reduction strategies, which are travel demand and land use policies that  focus jobs and housing in walkable areas near transit, and expanding transit investments. 

Thank you. 

Stewart Schwartz Bill Pugh 

Executive Director Senior Policy Fellow

CSG Testimony Re: DC-Baltimore Maglev

Posted on by Emily Maurer
CSG-Testimony-to-House-Subcommittee-on-Railroads-Pipelines-and-Hazardous-Materials-on-SCMAGLEVDownload

May 4, 2021 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building 

45 Independence Ave SW 

Washington, DC 20515 

Hearing: “When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies” 

Testimony for May 5, 2021 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the Washington, DC region advocating for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way to grow and provide opportunities for all. We have strong partnerships with business, conservation, and affordable housing organizations, and received the 2017 Regional Partnership Award from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 

We have been strong supporters of major rail improvements in the Northeast corridor, but are convinced that the proposed Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Magnetic Levitation (SCMAGLEV) project is the wrong technology and design for the Washington-Baltimore corridor and the NE Corridor as a whole. Therefore, we urge you to not provide federal financial support to this project. Instead, we urge significant investments in both the Amtrak and commuter rail improvement programs. 

The project would have a negative impact on racial and social equity. Construction would plow through majority Black Prince George’s County, but the residents of Prince George’s County would not be able to take advantage of the project, since the technology and design speed are such that there will only be stops in DC, at BWI Airport, and at Penn Station in Baltimore. Environmental Justice (EJ) communities would be disproportionately impacted, with 80 percent of impacted parcels located in EJ communities. 

Furthermore, the high projected cost of a one-way ticket sends a signal that this project is for the wealthiest white-collar commuters, not those who will suffer from the damage wrought by the project or those who need more accessible, frequent, and affordable transit. A $60 ticket for the SCMAGLEV would be about seven times more than an existing MARC commuter rail ticket for the same trip ($8) or existing Amtrak Acela ticket ($46). 

We are also concerned about the project’s negative effect on existing taxpayer investments in transit. The project is already diverting attention from repairing and improving our existing MARC and Amtrak infrastructure. If public funding is required for the Maglev, it could divert hundreds of millions of dollars in addition to fare revenue lost due to reduced ridership on Amtrak and MARC. 

The Maglev is a potential public-private partnership, and recent experience with P3s in Maryland and other states suggests that public funding will be required. Given that Maglev is a multi-billion dollar technology yet to be implemented anywhere in the U.S., this project could require significant public funding. 

The limited time savings is also not worth the cost and risk. The Acela Express between DC and Baltimore currently takes 30 minutes. While Maglev would cut time spent on the train in half, it doesn’t account for time spent getting to the station. The average total trip would go from 90 minutes to 75 minutes, which is not worth the risk, nor the costs to equity and environmental quality. 

Investing in the Maryland MARC and Amtrak NE Corridor expansion plans would more effectively serve the transit needs of our region and the NE Corridor. Upgrades to the existing rail system could also more easily be extended to other destinations like New York and Boston, than would be the case with Maglev which would need entirely new right-of-way through the very densely developed Northeast. Existing rail stations are located in more central and well-established transit hubs, like DC’s Union Station. A much more cost-effective solution would be to invest in improving our existing infrastructure and upgrade over time to high-speed rail standards. 

In conclusion, we urge you to pursue upgrades to the nation’s existing rail infrastructure, including high-speed rail, in lieu of the SCMAGLEV. Thank you for your time.

CSG Testimony Re: Virginia 6 Year Plan

Posted on by Emily Maurer
2021.05.04-Testimony-re-VA-6-Year-PlanDownload

May 4, 2021 

Testimony re Virginia 6-Year Plan 2022 – 2027 

For this evening I will focus on the big picture. We will submit more detailed comments by the deadline. 

First, thank you for your leadership in supporting transit in Virginia including funding reduced  fare and free fare initiatives for bus service. Transit is now receiving more funding than it has in  the past, however we believe it should receive far more – as much as 50% of future state  transportation funding in order to support economic opportunity and equity, more efficient  land use and state competitiveness, and fight climate change. 

Second, thank you for your great leadership on Virginia intercity rail. Your analysis showed that  adding another lane the length of I-95 would be both costly and a failure due to induced  demand. Since our Reconnecting Virginia project in 2005, we’ve shown that intercity rail,  transit, and transit-oriented development in the state’s urban crescent should be a top priority. Third, thank you for adoption and implementation of SmartScale which in general is resulting in more effective projects and spending.  

However, we urge you to do more, in light of the existential threat of climate change. Virginia will be heavily impacted by sea level rise and we must limit that rise if we are going to save our  coastal communities including Hampton Roads and the Naval facilities. In addition, we will be  faced with more flooding events, washed out roads and transit facilities, as well as longer  droughts and significant heat events.  

This means you must scale back the extensive road expansion in state plans. New and wider  roads in metro areas fill up in as few as five years and they fuel more auto-dependent  development, more vehicle miles traveled, and more greenhouse gas emissions. “Congestion  relief” is not possible. The science shows electrical vehicles will not be enough. We need to  reduce VMT by at least 20% statewide, and because rural residents have fewer options and  must drive more miles, our metro areas need to reduce VMT even more. We know how to do  this – by focusing development in our cities and towns, and creating transit-oriented  communities (TOCs) in our suburbs. This must be combined with focusing our transportation $  on transit, on local street networks for TOCs and on bike/walk investments. It also means  pricing solutions like parking pricing, and employer transit benefits, and zero transit fares. 

As usual, we strongly disagree with the Northern VA Transportation Alliance whose focus on  the failed metric congestion reduction has done great damage to planning in NOVA. 

Our suburban elected officials must recognize that the auto-dependent land use approvals that  they are granting and the efforts to widen so many roads (even if they have bike/ped paths)  creates more traffic and less than ideal experiences for pedestrians and cyclists. 

For today, I will just mention two items of concern:

495Next – we and our partners urge you to delay action because VA and Md have not studied a  TOC/transit/demand management alternative. The P3 process continues to override fair and  objective alternatives analysis. As it is, the proposal to date has far too little funding for transit,  and extends the provision limiting transit and HOV to 24% of HOT traffic after which the  taxpayers must pay fees to Transurban. 

State of good repair – We appreciate the increased attention to maintenance. But it appears  that you are including capacity expansion, at least for bridges, in your state of good repair  program. If that means additional vehicle lanes, we ask that the relevant portion of the cost due  to capacity expansion not be charged in the SGR category but to the capital funding spent on  road expansion. 

Route 1: We are concerned that the widening of most of Route 1 will create a barrier and make  the road far more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. So could the proposed  123 and Route 1 interchange.  

Thank you, 

Stewart Schwartz 

Executive Director