Category: Testimony & Letters

CSG Testimony Re: Virginia 6 Year Plan

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

CSG Testimony Re: Visualize 2045 Climate Commitments

April 21, 2021 

Hon. Charles Allen 

Chair, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board 

Re: Call for a climate-friendly Visualize 2045 update 

Chair Allen and Board members: 

Tomorrow is the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and 2030 is just 9 years away. By which time we  must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Transportation is our largest emitter and electric vehicles will not be enough. We must reduce VMT by 15 to 25%, and increase non-auto mode  share by 15 to 20%. 

You voted 22 to 0 with 8 abstentions (VDOT changed from No to Abstain) to require that  members “prioritize investments on projects, programs, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas  emissions, prioritize the aspirational strategies, and achieve COG’s land use and equity goals.” 

But in response, your DOT staffs are arguing their road projects reduce VMT and emissions, and without showing how. Building new highways and widening highways and arterials does not reduce VMT or GHG emissions. Nor do HOT lanes. This is because induced demand is a proven  fact. New capacity fills up in just a few years with more vehicle trips and VMT, and sparks more  auto-dependent sprawl. Not to mention the impact of highways in loss of thousands of acres of  forests, more impervious surface and stormwater, and the negative health and equity issues. 

You are the leaders who can and must break us out of business-as-usual and craft a plan that  focuses on TOD and proximity, correcting the E-W jobs divide, transit-first, and local connected  street grids with safe bike/ped networks. 

The DC region can and must be a leader in smart growth and sustainable transportation — starting with a new climate-friendly CLRP. 

Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director

Bill Pugh, Senior Policy Fellow

Best Smart Growth Plan for ALB & Beltway

Best Smart Growth Plan for the American Legion Bridge and Capital Beltway

This is a 100-Year Decision – Let’s Take Time to Create the Most Sustainable, Equitable, and Effective Solution

Introduction:

As our metro area continues to grow, we must address the transportation issues at the American Legion Bridge and the Capital Beltway. Contrary to road booster’s hopes, however, an upper Potomac Bridge is not the answer, as demonstrated by previous studies. Further, while Maryland and Virginia are right to be focused on improving the American Legion Bridge and the Capital Beltway corridor, they have been rushing to implement a pre-ordained conclusion as to the best approach,and the resulting proposal–adding four toll lanes with massive connecting (double) interchange ramps and doubling the size of the American Legion Bridge — will harm adjacent communities and the environment. The two states have so far refused to study a comprehensive, integrated land use (transit-oriented development), transit, and demand management alternative, and they have failed to develop a sustainable, equitable, and effective solution.

As leading conservation organizations, we have come together to bring clarity to the issues at stake, and to make the case once again for a more sustainable, equitable, and effective approach. This is a multi-billion dollar, 100-year + decision, and we face a climate emergency, so officials must take a second look.

Why an upriver Potomac River bridge crossing is not the answer:

  1. The VDOT 2015 Potomac River Crossings Study showed that less than 4% of trips that currently use the American Legion Bridge might benefit from a potential upriver bridge.
  2. The 2003-2004 VDOT/TPB origin-destination study showed similar results.
  3. A 2001 proposal for an upriver bridge prompted outcry on both sides of the river because of impact on neighborhoods, environmental and historic resources, prompting cancellation of the study.

Why the American Legion Bridge crossing should be addressed:

  1. The VDOT 2015 Potomac River Crossing Study showed that the American Legion Bridge is the most important crossing in need of investment outside of the Rosslyn Metro tunnel crossing into DC.
  2. Reportedly due to age, the American Legion Bridge needs significant rehabilitation or replacement by 15 years from now.

Why there should be analysis of a comprehensive, sustainable and equitable land use, transit, and demand management alternative to the public-private toll lane proposal:

  1. There is time to conduct a thoughtful analysis of alternatives since MDOT has confirmed that we have 15 years before the bridge structure needs replacement.
  2. Virginia and Maryland have used a conclusions-first focus on high-occupancy (HOT) toll lanes via public-private partnerships, without full alternatives analysis or completion of all environmental studies. In Maryland, a series of very limited, isolated transit alternatives were assessed, but not a comprehensive, integrated land use (transit-oriented development), transit, demand management alternative.
  3. There are environmental and historic resources that must be considered at the American Legion Bridge crossing including the Potomac River, and National Park sites at Plummer’s Island research center, the C&O Canal, Potomac Heritage Trail, and GW Memorial Parkway.
  4. With just 10 years to dramatically reduce the emissions that cause climate change, highway expansion is exactly the wrong way to go, as studies show that metropolitan regions must significantly reduce vehicle miles traveled in addition to achieving a dramatic increase in electric vehicle use by 2030.
  5. The significant increase in telecommuting expected post-pandemic by those who work in offices will lead to a significant drop in peak hour demand for road space.
  6. A strategy of buildout of transit-oriented development at our Metro, Purple Line and Bus Rapid Transit corridors, especially on the east side of the region, would be more equitable and would reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions compared to high-priced private high-occupancy toll lanes.
  7. The increase in flooding and stormwater runoff from highway expansion — adding more pavement, even treated to current standards, will degrade the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, preventing the region from meeting its water pollution reductions by 2025, as required by the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load.

Summary of our Alternative for the American Legion Bridge and Capital Beltway:

  1. We support appropriate investment at the American Legion Bridge crossing.
  2. We oppose any efforts to revive proposals for an upriver bridge.
  3. We urge all efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled and single-occupant vehicle trips in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from surface transportation by at least 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, and 100% by 2050.
  4. We urge an immediate pause in pursuit of the 495Next HOV extension and American Legion Bridge/495/270 toll lane proposals and P3 contracting until evaluation of a comprehensive land use/transit/demand management alternative, and we urge adoption of a less destructive and more sustainable and equitable solution.
  5. We request evaluation and adoption of a land use, transit, and demand management alternative to include:
    1. Buildout of transit-oriented development at Metro stations, Purple Line stations, and BRT corridors. The WMATA Connect Greater Washington Study shows that TOD buildout – particularly in Prince George’s – would help correct the east-west jobs/housing imbalance, increasing transit trips, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and reducing demand on the Beltway in both Maryland and Virginia.
    2. Prioritization of a dedicated “Purple Line” transit connection across the river including Metrorail or light rail connecting between the Silver Line and Red Line and Maryland Purple Line, along with dedicated bus-only or bus-HOV3 lanes.
    3. Demand management tools:  parking pricing, employer transit benefits and parking cashout, telecommuting, and (potentially) pricing existing lanes rather than expansion with priced lanes.
    4. Inclusion of well-designed bicycle and pedestrian connections to and across a rehabilitated or new American Legion Bridge.
    5. We seek clear environmental justice considerations to be brought into the highway expansion planning.
  6. Should officials proceed with the HOT proposal for the American Legion Bridge and connections at each end, AFTER full and objective consideration of our comprehensive alternative, then the project must:
    1. Include bike/pedestrian connections.
    2. Provide significant funding for transit operating and capital needs to ensure frequent, high-capacity transit.
    3. Incorporate a bridge design that supports Metrorail.
    4. Incorporate a bridge design that minimizes impacts to the sensitive natural and historic assets in the Potomac Gorge including water quality, forests, native species, National Park sites like Plummer’s Island, and historic assets. In contrast to the significant widening required by four HOT lanes (as much as 80 feet or more), other alternatives such as pricing existing lanes, converting existing lanes to bus-only or bus/HOV3-only lanes, and vertically separated rail could result in less impact.
    5. Furthermore, while we do not recommend private tolled HOT lanes, if new lanes are added, they should be added to the upriver side of the bridge so as not to require use of Plummers Island for the construction, and additional mitigation measures should also be taken to protect this historically important site of ongoing, long-term research.

CSG Sign-on letter in support of SB361

March 24, 2021


Please Support SB 361, P3 Reform


Dear Members of the Budget and Taxation Committee:


Our organizations urge you to vote to give a favorable recommendation to SB 361, which would reform the process for establishing future public-private partnerships (P3s).

The need to reform the P3 process has become more evident with the challenges related to the Purple Line P3. The withdrawal of the construction contractor, the $250 million in added costs and the lengthy delays make clear that the existing P3 process does not protect the State and its taxpayers from the substantial risks inherent in public-private partnerships.


The establishment of a review board under SB 361 would provide the General Assembly with oversight of future P3 projects. The requirement for a risk analysis and independent assessment of a project’s impact on the State’s credit rating would protect taxpayers. The revised non-compete clause would prohibit P3 developers from blocking transit or road improvements initiated by local governments, similar to an existing prohibition for State transportation projects.


For P3s estimated at over $500 million, SB 361 would require that a presolicitation report include a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This provision would ensure that we have the best understanding of the fiscal, environmental and social impacts of a proposed P3 before any contracts with a developer are signed. We urge the Committee to retain this critical provision.


Unfortunately, the I-495/I-270 P3 exemplifies the need for the FEIS requirement. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the I-495/I-270 project had numerous deficiencies. For example, while it estimated that the project could require a subsidy of up to $482 million to the developer, it does not account for the cost of moving water/sewer and other utility infrastructure. The DEIS failed to analyze transit alternatives or smaller scale road improvements. It failed to assess whether the project’s adverse impacts would be disproportionately borne by communities of color and low-income communities. Yet, MDOT plans to sign a predevelopment agreement months before the FEIS is completed and before these important questions are addressed.


On Friday, the House Environment and Transportation Committee added a provision requiring MDOT to submit an analysis of the impact of recent increases in telework to the Board of Public Works. The Committee also made its bill an emergency bill to accommodate the added study. The addition of this study is a smart improvement to the bill and we urge the Budget and Taxation Committee to adopt it.


Given the experience with the Purple Line and the I-495/I-270 P3, it is clear that the process must be reformed for future P3 projects to protect the State and its residents. We urge you to vote for SB 361 with the addition of the traffic study and change in effective date.
Sincerely,

AFSCME Council 3, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens Against Beltway Expansion, Climate Change Task Force, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of Maryland, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Don’tWiden270.org, DoTheMostGood, Glen Echo Heights Mobilization, Greater Farmland Civic Association, Greenbelt Climate Action Network, Howard County Climate Action, League of Women Voters of Maryland, Maryland Campaign for Environmental Human Rights, Maryland Conservation Council, Maryland Sierra Club, National Parks Conversation Association, SaveOur Seminary at Forest Glen Inc., Sligo Creek Golf Association (SCGA), Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Woodside Forrest Civic Association