By Adam Pagnucco.
Transportation is an eternal issue in MoCo politics and most candidates mail on it. But this has been Delegate Marc Korman’s top priority since his first campaign and he has worked hard on this issue in the General Assembly, notably playing a key role in passing dedicated Metro funding. The only quarrel we have with this mailer is that Korman may not be taking enough credit for his work! Still, your author is a big Korman fan and we look forward to his second term.
By Adam Pagnucco.
Delegate Kirill Reznik (D-39) has written to the Board of Public Works asking them to reject an engineering and management contract awarded by the Maryland Department of Transportation for its planned expansion of the Capital Beltway and I-270. According to the Washington Post, the winning consortium included a former employer of the state’s Secretary of Transportation and was awarded the contract despite finishing second in its written proposal. The Secretary did not vote directly on the contract, but he had dinner with a representative of his former employer and obtained an ethics clearance after the award was made. Post reporter Michael Laris described the bidding process as “expedited and unusual” and wrote:
The winning firms, known collectively as the “general engineering consultant,” would act as something of a shadow government for the Maryland Department of Transportation, which says its plan to hire firms to build, finance and maintain toll lanes is too big and complex to govern itself.
Referring to much of the above, Delegate Reznik said he was “incredibly alarmed” and asked the Board of Public Works to “restart the process in an open, fair, public, and transparent way, without the involvement of potential conflicts, and only after the public has had an opportunity to weigh in.” We reprint his letter below.
By Neil Harris.
Transit is much more expensive to build than highways. It’s politically correct to focus on transit. But is it the best use of our tax dollars? Let’s look at the numbers.
Transportation planners in our region look at many. At the most recent Transportation Planning Board (TPB) meeting, there was a presentation on the ways that transportation plans are measured and approved factors – social equity, air quality, and many more. But when I asked if there was a cost-benefit analysis, it became clear that this did not appear to be on anyone’s list of measures.
By cost-benefit, I mean this: when you build a new transportation project, how much money does it cost to move people?
Over the last few weeks, I went back through some presentations and found the two slides shown below that have the numbers to tell an important story. I spent a lunch hour on the phone with TPB staff to verify that what I was seeing was accurate, and what it might mean. Here is what I learned from TPB’s data:
The DMV region plans to spend $42 billion to expand transportation capacity over the next 25 years, split between $27 billion on highway expansion and $15 billion on transit. This will result in 2.7 million more daily trips by auto and 300 thousand more daily trips in transit. By simple arithmetic, this means that it costs just over $10,000 to add capacity for another auto trip, and more than $53,000 to add another transit trip. Building transit capacity currently costs more than 5 times as much as highway capacity!
If this was the only factor that was important, then decisions would be easy. Any CEO would immediately allocate more money into adding highway capacity. Of course, it’s not the only factor. Not everyone can afford to travel by auto – we want lower-income people to be able to get to their jobs, so we need transit. Transit trips are less polluting than autos, although TPB’s data shows a steady decrease in auto pollutants thanks to greater efficiency and the growing number of electric, zero-emission vehicles.
The other key is that, for parts of our region, building new roads or even expanding existing ones is terribly difficult. Where would you put a new thoroughfare in DC, or in the close-in suburbs?
The costs I focused on so far are the capital costs for new projects. The same TPB information can be used for operating costs – how much it costs for each trip. It turns out that we’re going to spend $130 billion over the next 25 years on transit operations and repairs, about $5.2 billion annually, with capacity growing to 1.5 million daily trips, for a per-trip cost of about $9.50. Each time someone takes a transit trip, the government subsidizes the trip by that amount. We’ll spend $72 billion to maintain roadways during the same period, about $2.9 billion annually, to move up to 16.6 million trips/day. That comes to just under 50 cents per trip.
The operating cost information is useful in a couple of ways. At the same TPB meeting, the Commuter Connections presentation unveiled a new program, piloted in Howard County MD, where auto commuters can receive a $10 stipend for taking a rider along with them. That number is almost exactly right – it is comparable to the cost of putting someone on transit instead, but we don’t need to build more transit lines.
That is the kind of thinking we need. When we look at a new project or a new idea, does it move people more effectively than how we’re doing it now? Is it better for some reason, is it faster, is it cheaper?
For example, the TPB recently recommended that we find ways to encourage employers to let more people work from home. What if the government provided an incentive to the employers? With these numbers, we can make informed judgments about how much of an incentive makes fiscal sense.
The amount of money we have to transport people is limited, so we need to think carefully about optimization strategies to move people cost-effectively as well as focusing on all the other factors.
Neil Harris is a member of the Gaithersburg City Council and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board.
The six graphs – one for each Maryland branch of the Metro – in today’s post reveal the ridership figures for all Maryland Metro stops from 2005 through 2016. They’re not encouraging either for the health of the system or cherished myths around it.
“If you build it, they will come.” Usually not. In Maryland, only three stops have become high traffic urban nodes: Bethesda, Silver Spring and Friendship Heights – the latter is shared with the District. The other 24 stops have not witnessed remotely this level of impressive urban development or Metro ridership. Outside the urban three, the highest ridership occurs mainly at end-of-the-line commuter stops, such as Shady Grove, Greenbelt and New Carrolton.
Transit advocates and developers are both very attached to this myth. The former because they believe fervently in transit. Developers like it because they are permitted to build far more when transit is built, which allows them to make a lot more money even if nobody ever rides it. Proximity to transit also raises the value of their property at somebody else’s expense.
The uncomfortable truth is that no nodes similar to Bethesda or Silver Spring – or Ballston or Rosslyn – have emerged in Prince George’s County. Leaving aside the terminus stops, ridership is not very high and certainly not growing. And the terminus stops have seen more precipitous declines than in Montgomery – 34% at New Carrollton, 21% at Greenbelt, and 20% at Branch Avenue.
Thriving Urbanism Heralds More Transit RidersNot necessarily. Bethesda, Friendship Heights and Silver Spring have continued to grow yet ridership has declined. In 2016, all three served many fewer riders than at their peak – 15% in Bethesda, 17% in Silver Spring, and 20% in Friendship Heights.
Transit is a positive for these areas but it’s only one factor among many. It’s not that smart growth or new urbanism is totally off base. The focus on transit may lead to overestimation of its importance to successful development. Density and the mixture of residential and commercial looks more crucial to their continued success. It’s why places like the Kentlands thrive even though they’re nowhere near Metro.
There is little sign that less intense development around Metro stations other than the big three has increased ridership either. Throughout the Maryland portion of the system, ridership has tended to stay flat or decline. Remember that this has occurred despite population increases in both Prince George’s and Montgomery. 
Two major excuses are given for Metro’s declining ridership: the financial crisis and Metro’s “temporary” maintenance backlog. At this point, the former explains little as the recession is over and the population is now higher, so Metro should have more riders. The latter is belied by the similar decline in Metro’s bus ridership. Moreover, SafeTrack will not bring the system back to tip-top condition but simply prevent its complete collapse, as General Manager Paul Wiedefeld has been at pains to point out.
The wheel of technological change is driving changes in transportation patterns fast. Increasing numbers of jobs can be done via telecommuting. Competition from services like Uber and Lyft are remaking the taxi industry and attracting many new riders. Every price increase in Metro or its parking lots only makes them more competitive – and the price of both is likely to head up.
By Adam Pagnucco.
Back on November 3, David Lublin wrote that the County Council had placed the planned Upcounty highway M-83 “in the freezer.” We agree with that take with one addition: if and when M-83 comes out of that freezer, it will be ready to serve. That’s because instead of killing the road, the resolution passed by the County Council has preserved it for a future county government to build.
To understand what has happened, one has to consider the goals and challenges of road supporters and opponents. The supporters want to fund its construction. That’s tough because the road will cost roughly half a billion dollars and the county is reducing its annual issues of general obligation bonds to trim future debt service. Opponents want to remove the road from the county’s master plans. They believed they had a chance to do that since six Council Members said they opposed M-83 during the 2014 elections. But that has not happened.
The council’s resolution, passed on Halloween, did not implement the agendas of either side. Its action language is worth reading word for word.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following resolution:
The Council supports expanded capacity on I-270, the Corridor Cities Transitway, Bus Rapid Transit on or near MD 355, and improvements on MD 355. These improvements will provide significant, immediate relief for Upcounty residents. These improvements align with our economic development strategies, providing the broadest and most diverse benefits, and minimize impervious surface, stormwater runoff, carbon emissions, and other environmental impacts.
The Council directs the Montgomery County Planning Board not to assume additional road capacity from the northern extension of Midcounty Highway when calculating the land use – transportation balance in future master plans, including but not limited to the upcoming Gaithersburg East Master Plan and the Germantown Plan for Town Sector Zone. This step ensures that any new development allowed under these plans does not rely on the northern extension of Midcounty Highway, while retaining the right-of-way for this extension in these plans.
Road supporters did not like the omission of M-83 from the list of projects supported by the council. They should have no argument with the idea of not including M-83’s capacity in calculating infrastructure needs for future development. That could help prevent the road from filling up immediately after it’s built (if it’s built). But the last sentence referring to “retaining the right-of-way for this extension” is a big win for supporters of M-83.
Why does this matter? A casual perusal of land ownership maps from the State Department of Assessments and Taxation shows massive county land holdings in the vicinity of M-83’s preferred alternative. Identifying every one of the dozens of parcels owned by the county and county-affiliated entities there would be a time-consuming research project.
A sample of county-owned land for M-83 near Watkins Mill Road and Great Seneca Creek.
Instead, we asked the county Department of Transportation’s project manager for M-83 how much of the right-of-way for the road’s preferred alternative was currently owned by the county and state. We received this response.
Dear Mr. Pagnucco:
Thank you for your interest in the Midcounty Corridor Study (M-83) project. Per our preliminary assessment, approximately 60% ROW for M-83 has been dedicated or reserved and another 24% is in parklands owned by the County’s Parks.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Best regards,
Gwo-Ruey (Greg) Hwang, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
That’s right, folks – the county and Park and Planning together control 84% of the right-of-way for M-83 right now.
Why does this matter? Let’s remember the history of the Intercounty Connector. The highway had been in master plans for decades. As of 1997, the county and state owned more than half the right-of-way for the ICC. The following year, Governor Parris Glendening announced he was killing the project and later told the state government to sell part of its right-of-way. But the state did not sell off all its right-of-way and in fact purchased some of it after Glendening’s announcement. Continued state ownership of the ICC’s right-of-way made it much easier for Glendening’s successor, Governor Bob Ehrlich, to reverse his decision and begin construction.
So it may be with M-83. The county’s holdings of right-of-way for the project may be even greater as a percentage of its acreage than the state’s holdings of the ICC were a decade before its construction. The resolution by the council explicitly calls for “retaining the right-of-way” in the master plans, suggesting that the county’s holdings will not be sold. And the road has not been removed from any master plans, a key goal of opponents.
M-83 supporters should have hope. M-83 opponents should beware. Both sides have a lot of work to do in next year’s elections.
The following post by Councilmember Marc Elrich (D-At Large) continues Seventh State’s series on reactions to Gov. Larry Hogan’s road proposal by candidates for county executive. It appeared previously on Maryland Matters.
Recently, Gov. Larry Hogan (R) announced his $9 billion proposal to add toll lanes to I-270, I-495 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. While a number of people have initially enthusiastically supported his proposal, I think it bears a lot more scrutiny.
The best thing about it is that the governor shows a willingness to invest in infrastructure, though how much is state money and how much is user tolls is not known.
One of the problems is that he’s proposing a sledge hammer for a project that needs a scalpel. The scope of the proposed solutions for I-270 and I-495 are overly grandiose and unnecessary. On I-270 a more sensible approach would be two reversible lanes from the county line to the Beltway, which is what the County Council proposed several years ago. There isn’t room for four lanes, and it’s an unnecessary expense, because the congestion on I-270 is directional – meaning from north to south in the morning and the reverse in the evening. (It is also known as peak direction.)
Neither side of the road needs these lanes outside of the peak direction at rush hour. Reversible lanes are the most efficient use of money and space. These lanes should be for express bus and high-occupancy vehicles only.
On I-495 there are serious space constraints, particularly between New Hampshire Avenue and 355. Not only are there many houses close and a major hospital almost immediately adjacent to the highway, but there are also legal constraints regarding encroachments on Rock Creek. Multiple lanes would be an environmental disaster for Rock Creek.
Additionally, large sections of the Montgomery County portion would be astoundingly expensive – remember the overpass bridges don’t have enough room for four lanes of new highway. Instead, a single reversible lane might fit within the existing width of the highway. Engineering data would be needed to confirm this, but there seem to be at least some places wide enough to add a lane now using the inside shoulder service lane. It may be possible to add two lanes past 355 going to Virginia – reversible lanes should be used there as well. Why build what you don’t need?
Gov. Hogan is missing two bigger picture problems: transit in general and Metro in particular. If money is available for highway expansion, then money is available for Metro. Metro cannot fail – in fact, it needs to improve and absorb more riders from the roads. A Metro fail would devolve into a widespread road disaster because most people would use local roads, not the highways, to get around.
Because no highway goes into Washington, D.C., a Metro failure adds thousands of cars on Georgia, Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues. Those additional cars would flood the commute to the city as well as make a mess for those commuters trying to access the job centers along 355.
The second overarching problem is that the governor is not looking at the big picture. The Beltway and I-270 have congestion problems, but what happens when exiting these roads is equally problematic. Even if, for example, cars on the Beltway arrive quickly to Georgia Avenue at rush hour, they would face a long queue simply to exit the Beltway and then a slow slog on Georgia. In other words, the local road network is already overwhelmed and no amount of highway lanes can change that situation. So even if cars spend less time on 495 getting to an exit and then they are stuck on the exit ramp or on the road, where are the savings?
The realities of the commutes necessitate a commitment to local transit. Local transit is the only way to clear enough space off the roads so that people can get to their destinations in a reasonable amount of time.
Because building new local road lanes won’t work, increasing transit usage on the local road network is central to any solution.
The whole point of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network that I proposed was to increase mobility on local roads and take a load off the already overwhelmed road network. (I first proposed the BRT network in 2008 and it is slowly developing.) BRT built right and desirable to use will provide actual congestion relief – just imagine what the roads would function like without a Metro and if those passengers returned to their cars.
Any plan that doesn’t integrate the local roads and the highways is simply not going to work. The governor should look more carefully at what is needed, rather than just declaring the addition of four lanes to the highway at great public expense, whether four lanes are needed or not. A more strategic assessment would free up capital that could go toward a more comprehensive, successful solution.
And, there are two other things to consider. A public private partnership, or P3, may be the most expensive way to fund a project and that is going to reverberate in tolls. Essentially, people with money to spend get a better highway experience and those without the means, remain in a poor experience. If money is the ticket to the new lanes, then you’re disincentivizing car pools, van pools and buses.
We need to get cars off the road, rather than finding extravagant ways to keep them on the road. This is a huge public expenditure with no accompanying analysis of what the state won’t be able to fund as a result – I’m worried about education, transit funding, and other critical infrastructure. Since none of us believes that there’s an infinite well of money, an expenditure like this on three roads may well mean that other critical projects don’t get done.
Another unknown is the impact of increased telecommuting. If we could get 15-20 percent of the workforce telecommuting each work day, we’d be dealing with a far less expensive problem to solve and probably have a much better travel environment.
I know the governor’s announcement makes a great news splash, and it certainly allows Gov. Hogan to say “I’m committed,” but it’s not very well thought out beyond that. I’d like to take the actual state dollars he’s offering and then have a real conversation about a comprehensive solution to the problem that actually makes better connections where trips start and where they end. And transit must be the central part of that conversation.
The following post by Del. Bill Frick (D-16) continues Seventh State’s series on reactions to Gov. Larry Hogan’s road proposal by candidates for county executive:
Traffic congestion is possibly the biggest challenge to Montgomery County’s quality of life and its economy, so I am pleased that Governor Hogan is talking about taking bold steps to deal with this problem. That said, what little we know of Hogan’s strategy raises many questions that must be answered.
Will we really be able to accomplish all he has outlined with private dollars?< Will there be any work to remedy clogged arterial streets and the bottleneck at the American Legion Bridge?
Would an all-toll solution provide enough capacity that it benefits non-toll drivers?
Will Hogan address Metro’s problems with seriousness and collaboration with DC, VA and the Federal Government?
Will Hogan include – and fund- the Corridor Cities Transitway as part of the I-270 strategy?
These are merely some of the policy questions. This doesn’t even scratch the surface of the practical and logistical issues that the proposal presents.
I hope that Governor Hogan is committed to real solutions to a real big problem. Press conferences are not enough. We need leaders to devote serious work, provide adequate resources, and bring stakeholders together across party and jurisdictional lines to get this county moving again.
I had the chance to speak with George Leventhal about Gov. Hogan’s road proposal. He explained that the proposal was a complete surprise to local officials because just days earlier Hogan’s Department of Transportation had presented their proposal to spend $100 million to improve mobility on I-270.
As for Hogan’s new proposal, created without any consultation with Montgomery officials, George said “It isn’t possible to be for it or against it because we don’t really know what it is.” In particular, he he emphasized the lack of any information on whether the proposal would include the American Legion Bridge.
The following is by Councilmember George Leventhal (D-At Large):
We need a lot more information about Governor Hogan’s announcement yesterday, but I am glad to see him paying attention to Montgomery County’s traffic congestion problems. I have been calling for expanded capacity on I-270 and the American Legion Bridge for a long time, and until yesterday, the governor had offered only a good, but insufficient, proposal for I-270, to improve technology and signalization, totaling $100 million. It will be interesting to learn how his new proposal is to be integrated with that earlier proposal.
The County Council has called for two additional reversible lanes on I-270, and it will be worth discussing with the state whether that would be sufficient, and obviate the need for four new lanes. Also, I would like to see a dedicated transitway as part of any plan for I-270 and the American Legion Bridge.
When it comes to I-495 east of the I-270 spur, I don’t understand how lanes could be added without significant adverse consequences to homes, businesses, watersheds, and Rock Creek, Sligo Creek and Northwest Branch Parks.
The governor’s attention to our transportation problems is welcome, but it would have been nice to see closer consultation with local officials before the announcement was made. Fortunately, it’s just a broad outline at this point and I hope that he and his team will now work with local government to figure out the details.
Today, I am pleased to start a series presenting the views of candidates for the Democratic nomination for county executive on Gov. Larry Hogan’s plans to widen I-270, I-495 and the BW Parkway. The following is by Councilmember Roger Berliner (D-1):
I am pleased that the Governor has come in off the sidelines and onto the playing field to address one of our county’s and our region’s greatest challenge: congestion. Congestion robs our residents of their time and diminishes our quality of life and our competitiveness. We need to take strong action.
But we also need to take action that is focused, efficient, and smart, action that comes after consultation with the communities most affected. I deeply regret that the Governor did not engage in any dialogue with our county on his plan. It would have been a better plan if he had. Bigger is not always better. And that is particularly true when the costs are to be paid for by drivers and when you don’t want to create even more demand by promoting more sprawl.
I have four main issues with the Governor’s plan:
Bottom line: the Governor has started a critically important conversation. But it better be just the start, not the end of it.
Gov. Larry Hogan’s plan to add four new toll lanes to I-270, I-495, and the BW Parkway is a political coup. Here’s why:
it doesn’t take a poll to know that concrete proposals to expand capacity on the Washington suburban region’s major highways will be very popular. Though most of the discussion among Democrats has centered on public transit, the great majority of commuters in the Maryland suburbs of DC take a car to work.
According to the 2010 American Community Survey, among those who live and work in the same county, 71% drive alone or in a carpool. Just 11% ride public transit and the remainder get there some other way (e.g. walking, biking).
However, as evidenced by daily traffic snafus, many have to travel to another county or state to get to work—over 40% in Montgomery and Frederick, and over 60% in Prince George’s and Charles. Among those who travel to another county but stay within Maryland, 93% drove alone or as part of a carpool.
At 69%, the share is lower for those who work in another state with the bulk of public transit riders going to DC. Nevertheless, even commuters to DC still tend to drive as opposed to taking public transit—56%-43% in Montgomery, 64%-34% in Prince George’s, 68%-31% in Frederick, and 76%-24% in Charles.
Republican strategists must be enjoying immensely the bind that Hogan’s plan places Democrats. While it will be highly popular among most voters, key core Democratic constituencies will line up to oppose the plan.
Environmentalists will oppose Hogan’s plan for the same reason they intensely fought the Intercounty Connector. Road construction destroys natural habitats and contributes to global warming by feeding our addiction to the fossil fuels needed to power most cars. Montgomery County’s Sierra Club has already announced opposition.
This dovetails nicely will smart growthers’ philosophical opposition due to their firm convictions that roads do nothing to alleviate traffic and that transit-oriented development produces more livable communities. The Coalition for Smarter Growth is already making these arguments.
Democratic politicians will be spending a lot of time either placating voters or members of these core constituencies, who are disproportionately active in politics.
In the Purple Line public-private partnership, we are building the line with the federal money and Maryland will pay its share later. More specifically, late enough that Larry Hogan will be gone from public office before the major costs hit the state. Convenient.
The proposal for a PPP here that will cost the voters “nothing” sounds right out of the same playbook. By the time voters relearn that nothing in this life is free, Larry Hogan will have long moved out of the Governor’s Mansion.
Hogan can take a victory lap claiming that he is building roads that will reduce traffic while Democrats did nothing. In contrast, Democratic opponents will need to explain ideas like induced traffic and their concerns regarding hidden costs.
Good luck with that.
Nuance and complexity are harder to explain than simple solutions. Even thoughtful critiques understandable to non-traffic and non-budget experts–and I have seen several since Hogan made his proposal–take much longer than a soundbite.
Hogan’s support for the Purple Line pleased transit advocates. His new plan will do the same among the even greater number of voters who want new roads. Even though the roads remain a gauzy idea, it is now harder to label the Governor– the king of small, poll-tested ideas–as having done nothing for the region.
