Author: Emily Maurer

CSG testimony supporting SB 548

Posted on by Emily Maurer

February 12, 2020

Finance Committee

Miller Senate Office Building, 3 East

Annapolis, MD 21401

SB 548, Transportation – I-270 Commuter Bus Route Study (Support) 

Testimony for February 12, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

Thank you, Chair Kelley, Vice Chair Feldman, and Finance Committee members. This testimony on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We support the continuous improvement of Maryland’s commuter bus service as an avenue for a more sustainable, prosperous future. 

SB 548 would require the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) to study and make recommendations on the feasibility of establishing a commuter bus route that connects Maryland residents along the I-270 corridor to job centers in Northern Virginia. Currently, there are no commuter buses or any express bus service that crosses from Maryland into Virginia, despite Northern Virginia emerging as a major employment hub. 

Increased commuter bus service will position Maryland as a competitive location for new jobs and housing as the DC region continues to grow. Although Maryland was not selected for Amazon’s HQ2, we can still take advantage of its proximity in National Landing by providing convenient public transit options from Maryland. 

Along with being a tool for economic development, commuter buses help to relieve congestion and protect the environment by taking single-occupancy vehicles off the road. At a time when the state is considering an $11 billion project to add new express toll lanes in a misguided attempt to decrease congestion, we need to look at our existing strategies for reducing the number of cars on our roads, of which commuter buses is one of our best and most cost effective strategies. 

Therefore, we urge you to support SB 548 so that MDOT will study a more sustainable transportation option that expands Marylander’s job opportunities. Thank you for your time.

MAST testimony supporting MD county consent bill HB 292

Posted on by Emily Maurer

February 10, 2020

Environment and Transportation Committee

House Office Building, Room 251

Annapolis, MD 24101

HB 292, Toll Roads, Highways, and Bridges – County Government Consent Requirement – Expansion (Support) 

Testimony for February 13, 2020 

Thank you, Chair Barve, Vice Chair Stein, and Environment and Transportation Committee members. I am speaking on behalf of the Maryland Advocates for Sustainable Transportation (MAST), a coalition of 25 non-profit and community advocacy organizations committed to collaboration and coordination among local jurisdiction and the state when planning and implementing major transportation projects. We urge you to support HB 292, with amendments. 

HB 292 would extend the requirement that the state receive the consent of a majority of affected Eastern Shore county governments before building a toll road, highway, or bridge in those counties. We strongly believe that this right should be expanded to include all Maryland counties affected by toll projects. We would support an amendment that clarifies the definition of “affected counties.” 

Throughout the process to expand I-495 and I-270, one thing has been clear: the state has not adequately listened to or worked with the local jurisdictions that would bear the brunt of construction, environmental impacts, and toll payments. Even with the Maryland Department of Transportation’s (MDOT’s) recent commitment to improve coordination with counties, nothing guarantees that they must do so. 

Without that guarantee, we’ve seen that the three-person Board of Public Works has the ability to push through massive highway projects without first considering local needs and concerns. Constructing a new toll road is an enormous decision that fundamentally alters the natural landscape by destroying homes, increasing greenhouse gas pollution, disrupting natural habitats, and promoting sprawl. 

Therefore, we urge you to support HB 292 and equitably extend the right of nine counties to the other 15 counties and county-equivalents. Thank you for your consideration. 

MAST Members: Audubon Naturalist Society, Bike Maryland, Central Maryland Transportation Alliance, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Greater Farmland Civic Association, Greater Greater Washington, Howard County Climate Action, Interfaith Power & Light (DC.MD.NoVA) League of Women Voters of Maryland, Maryland Legislative Coalition, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club Maryland, Smart Growth Maryland, Washington Area Bicyclist Association 

MAST Principles Signers: 350 Montgomery, Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition, Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church, Environmental Justice Ministry, Corazón Latino, Friends of Sligo Creek, Neighbors of the Northwest Branch, Northwood-Four Corners Civic Association, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Sunrise Movement Howard County

CSG testimony supporting changes to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act (SB 136)

Posted on by Emily Maurer

February 3, 2020

Budget and Taxation Committee

Miller Senate Office Building, 3 East

Annapolis, MD 21401

SB 136 – Transportation – Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act – Alterations (Support) 

Testimony for February 5, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members of the Budget and Taxation Committee. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We are strongly in favor of SB 136, which makes necessary alterations to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. 

This bill will repeal the requirement that the Secretary of Transportation withhold a portion of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority’s (WMATA’s) operating grant if WMATA’s operating expenditures increase by more than three percent over the prior fiscal year. The current three percent cap is arbitrary and limits WMATA’s ability to provide the level of service its Maryland customers require to get to and from work and other destinations. 

WMATA’s own reports have shown that the best way to increase ridership, and thus increase farebox revenue, is to increase service. The WMATA Board has also recently endorsed the bold Bus Transformation Project, which seeks to make bus the mode of choice in the DC region. These service improvements cannot happen without the necessary funding and support from the State of Maryland. 

Right now, WMATA’s current budget proposal seeks to increase suburban fares and cut vital bus routes in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, which will either require local providers to fill in the gap or, more likely, people will lose the bus service that they depend on to get where they need to go. These fare increases and cuts will disproportionately hurt low-income residents. 

The WMATA Board, on which the Maryland Secretary of Transportation sits, is the proper body for deciding by what percentage WMATA’s operating expenditures should increase from year to year. If Maryland doesn’t want operating expenses to increase by more than three percent, the state can veto WMATA’s budget. Removing the legislative requirement of three percent gives more flexibility to Maryland’s decision makers. Three percent is entirely arbitrary and limits the system’s performance in a time of slow economic growth, high traffic congestion, and a climate crisis. 

We are also supportive of the updated requirements to the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) regarding the development of the Central Maryland Regional Transit Plan. A strong transportation network is key to connecting the DC region to the jobs and opportunities throughout central Maryland, and the plan for that network won’t be strong without regular consultation with those who are most familiar with its challenges. 

This legislation makes vital updates to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. Given the state’s traffic, high cost of living, and the urgent need to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, we should be pouring more resources into our transit services and making those services the best they can be. The contrast between how Maryland speeds ahead with destructive, 12-lane, multi-billion toll road projects while we fight over funding our transit services couldn’t be starker. 

Therefore, we ask you to vote in favor of SB 136. Thank you for your consideration.

CSG testimony supporting Montgomery County CIP amendments

Posted on by Emily Maurer

January 30, 2020

Montgomery County Council Office

Council Office Building

100 Maryland Ave.

Rockville, MD 20850

FY 21 Capital Budget and FY 21-26 CIP (Support with Amendments) 

Testimony for February 5th, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager

President Katz and Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which supports the FY 21-26 CIP with several critical amendments. We are pleased with the support the County Executive’s CIP gives to bicycle and pedestrian safety, the Bethesda station south entrance, and bus stop improvements. These projects are a necessity if we want to end unnecessary tragedies on our streets. 

Missing projects: Given that, I’ll begin with what we believe is missing: funding for the northern entrance for the White Flint Metro station, the Capital Crescent Trail tunnel in Bethesda, and a multi-use path along Dale Drive. These projects will support economic development and increase both Metro and Purple Line ridership. They also both specifically address safety along MD 355, one of the most dangerous and deadly roads in the county, where two people have already been killed in 2020. 

Bus Rapid Transit: Regarding BRT, we are happy that this CIP includes funding for preliminary engineering of BRT on MD 355, Veirs Mill Rd, New Hampshire Ave, and the North Bethesda Transitway. However, given our economic development and climate crises, these projects cannot wait and should be advanced to start even sooner. Likewise, it is disappointing that there is no money included in the CIP for BRT construction. This is especially disappointing when every road project includes costs for both preliminary engineering and construction. Not one BRT project has a construction timeline. I hope the Council will prioritize BRT by actively planning for its implementation. 

Specifically, I hope you will accelerate the preliminary engineering timeline for MD 355 – four years is much longer than needed – and schedule planning for New Hampshire Ave and North Bethesda Transitway to begin much earlier than FY22 and FY24, respectively. At this rate, we can expect that service wouldn’t begin on these lines until at least 2026. Can our economy or climate wait that long? Can transit-dependent residents in Gaithersburg or Germantown wait that long for high quality transit, especially in light of the Corridor Cities Transitway cancellation? 

MCDOT has proposed that MD 355 BRT service be broken into three routes since the full 22 mile route is too long for an ideal level of frequency. This effectively breaks up construction and service commencement into three phases. I recommend that the Council select a design alternative (Alternative B); then when preliminary engineering and design for the first phase is complete, construction could begin on that phase while the second phase undergoes preliminary engineering and design, and so on. 

Finally, we firmly believe that Route 29 BRT will not set a good example without dedicated lanes south of Tech Road. MCDOT’s median lane study was supposed to be released last fall. This report should be shared with the Council immediately so that any construction funding can be included in the CIP. 

Ride On improvements: Given slow progress, most BRT service in the county won’t be operational for five to ten years. We recommend that MCDOT take the success of Ride On extRa and expand express bus service to the other future BRT corridors. Ride On extRa Route 101 increased ridership by 11 percent and reduced travel times by 25 percent. MCDOT should also officially name priority service corridors, similar to WMATA’s Priority Corridor Network, which has helped WMATA to quickly improve service in phases. 

As mentioned, we are pleased with the continued upgrade of Ride On’s 5,400 bus stops. The CIP details a GIS bus stop inventory and condition assessment, criteria for improvements, and prioritization. To the best of our knowledge, that information is not easily available to the public. We request that MCDOT publicly post that information, especially their criteria for improvements and prioritization. 

Additionally, we urge the county to prioritize electric vehicle replacement. Most replacements for the Ride On fleet are set to be hybrids; however, the proposed CIP still details that 80 of the 153 vehicles will be diesel. 

Affordable housing: We are grateful to the County Executive for creating the new Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund to help acquire properties in areas with growing rents. This fund supports the recommendations we crafted as members of the Purple Line Corridor Coalition Housing Action Team. We hope the County Executive and DHCA will continue to work with affordable housing developers to craft a program that best fits their financing needs. 

School capital projects: Finally, we want to support funding for school capital projects, especially those that will relieve clusters in moratorium. However, we should note that the incentive created by the moratorium to fund capacity projects leaves out the vital capital needs of schools that are falling apart but aren’t overcapacity. Through the SSP update process, we hope to revisit the moratorium, and replace it with a policy that better serves the needs of both schools and housing. 

Given the challenge of a shrinking capital budget and so many urgent projects, it’s time for the Council to start considering new funding sources. We will not meet our economic development, climate, and equity goals without significant investments the infrastructure that allows us to thrive. Thank you for your time.

CSG testimony in support of changes to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act (HB 0086)

Posted on by Emily Maurer

January 24, 2020

Appropriations Committee

House Office Building, Room 121

Annapolis, MD 21401

HB0086 – Transportation – Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act – Alterations (Support) 

Testimony for January 28, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members of the Appropriations Committee. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We are strongly in favor of HB 86, which makes necessary alterations to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. 

This bill will repeal the requirement that the Secretary of Transportation withhold a portion of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority’s (WMATA’s) operating grant if WMATA’s operating expenditures increase by more than three percent over the prior fiscal year. The current three percent cap is arbitrary and limits WMATA’s ability to provide the level of service its Maryland customers require to get to and from work and other destinations. 

WMATA’s own reports have shown that the best way to increase ridership, and thus increase farebox revenue, is to increase service. The WMATA Board has also recently endorsed the bold Bus Transformation Project, which seeks to make bus the mode of choice in the DC region. These service improvements cannot happen without the necessary funding and support from the State of Maryland. 

Right now, WMATA’s current budget proposal seeks to increase suburban fares and cut vital bus routes in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, which will either require local providers to fill in the gap or, more likely, people will lose the bus service that they depend on to get where they need to go. These fare increases and cuts will disproportionately hurt low-income residents. 

The WMATA Board, on which the Maryland Secretary of Transportation sits, is the proper body for deciding by what percentage WMATA’s operating expenditures should increase from year to year. If Maryland doesn’t want operating expenses to increase by more than three percent, the state can veto WMATA’s budget. Removing the legislative requirement of three percent gives more flexibility to Maryland’s decision makers. Three percent is entirely arbitrary and limits the system’s performance in a time of slow economic growth, high traffic congestion, and a climate crisis. 

We are also supportive of the updated requirements to the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) regarding the development of the Central Maryland Regional Transit Plan. A strong transportation network is key to connecting the DC region to the jobs and opportunities throughout central Maryland, and the plan for that network won’t be strong without regular consultation with those who are most familiar with its challenges. 

This legislation makes vital updates to the Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act. Given the state’s traffic, high cost of living, and the urgent need to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, we should be pouring more resources into our transit services and making those services the best they can be. The contrast between how Maryland speeds ahead with destructive, 12-lane, multi-billion toll road projects while we fight over funding our transit services couldn’t be starker. 

Therefore, we ask you to vote in favor of HB 86. Thank you for your consideration.

CSG Comments on DC Comp Plan Amendments

Posted on by Emily Maurer
CSG-Cover-Letter-for-comments-on-DC-Comp-Plan-October-2019-Draft-FNLDownload
CSG-comments-on-DC-Comp-Plan-October-2019-Draft_FNL-1Download

January 10, 2020 

Director Andrew Trueblood

DC Office of Planning

1100 4th Street, SW, Suite 650 East

Washington, DC 20024

Via: plandc@dc.gov 

RE: Coalition for Smarter Growth Comments on DC Comp Plan October 2019 Draft 

ENCL: Detailed CSG comments on the Comprehensive Plan October 2019 draft 

Dear Director Trueblood: 

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the Washington, DC 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 and investments needed to make those communities flourish. 

Summary statement: We wish to express our support for the Comprehensive Plan amendments, including the map amendments. We believe that these changes are a major step forward for the District, as it seeks to fulfill its new mandate from the Framework Element to build a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable city. 

We strongly support the housing goals to increase housing opportunities throughout the city and provide more affordable homes, especially in parts of the city where there are few today. We commend the refocusing of defensive language to “enhancing” and “respecting” neighborhoods while ensuring they help address our housing needs. We also support the continued focus on transit-oriented development. We recommend going further in rethinking the role of vehicle parking in our future as parking requirements are a government anachronism in a rapidly changing transportation and environmental context. We recommend eliminating government regulations for minimum parking requirements and focusing on improving multimodal access and transportation demand management. 

A mix of housing types with access to better transit will build a stronger city and better neighborhoods for all. It is also a legal obligation under the Fair Housing Act to affirmatively further fair housing. We applaud the District’s specific production goals to create 36,000 homes, with 12,000 of them affordable by 2025, and we support the allocation of these production goals by planning area. We agree that this is a helpful approach to building a truly equitable city and directly addressing the need to undo a legacy of racial discrimination and segregation. 

We support the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) changes in general. A highlight are FLUM changes for new housing capacity in Rock Creek West, the area with the smallest share of affordable housing, at just one percent today. The next two areas lagging in affordable housing opportunities are Capitol Hill and Near Northwest. We urge the District to designate more housing capacity in these areas to achieve the 

minimum 15 percent affordable homes in each planning area. We value quality affordable homes to meet the needs of DC households in all planning areas, but we especially urge the city to use land use policy to help lagging areas catch up to their affordable housing production goals of 15 percent. 

DC’s many compact, walkable, transit-served neighborhoods make it the most sustainable place to live in the region. We should make it easier for more people, of all incomes to live in the city, which offers lower transportation costs, and helps reduce regional vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. The Comprehensive Plan and the District’s increased housing production goals play a major role in facilitating our region’s increased sustainability and social equity. The District faces many challenges, but our most pressing need as we manage the benefits of rising prosperity is to ensure that our low-income residents, especially people of color, have access to safe and affordable housing and transportation, along with quality nearby schools and services. Therefore, we commend the District’s efforts to ensure equitable access to quality housing and neighborhoods across the city. 

We have enclosed our detailed comments on the Comprehensive Plan and maps. These comments are supplemented by our joint statement with affordable housing groups submitted on December 16, 2019. In addition, we want to associate ourselves with the comments of Ward 3 Vision and the 21st Century School Fund. 

Thank you for the good work of the Office of Planning and sister agencies in putting together this excellent draft. We look forward to supporting the quick adoption of the new plan. 

Sincerely, 

Cheryl Cort, Policy Director

CSG testimony opposing I-270/495 expansion

Posted on by Emily Maurer

January 8, 2020

Maryland Board of Public Works

Maryland State House

100 State Circle

Annapolis, MD 21401

Maryland Department of Transportation Item 23-GM (Oppose) 

Testimony for January 8, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

Governor Hogan and Board members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. I am also a founding member of the Maryland Advocates for Sustainable Transportation coalition, which includes over 20 organizations and continues to grow. 

Financial and process concerns: 

The multi-billion dollar, decades-long decision being made today is being rushed. It is premature and lacks adequate environmental, alternatives, and financial analyses. You have begun with the conclusion – to build private toll lanes – rather than with an objective analysis of alternatives. Critical information has not been shared with the public and other local, state, and federal agencies. This is not how any state should be making multi-billion dollar decisions. 

This project has significant financial uncertainty and risks. Prior to advancing this project and prior to solicitation, you must share the proposed financial terms and risks, including the state’s responsibility to compensate developers and lenders. Prior to taking action, you must request truly independent financial and traffic analyses. The public deserves to know how much they are expected to pay, both in tolls and potentially in taxes. 

Environmental and traffic mitigation concerns: 

We are also concerned about environmental impacts and traffic mitigation. We appreciate the attention given to the American Legion Bridge. However, private toll lanes may not be the answer. To date, MDOT has failed to study a true, comprehensive transit, demand management, and transit-oriented land use alternative to expanding I-495 and I-270, and in the case of the American Legion Bridge, Maryland and Virginia should study Purple Line and Metrorail options. 

Maryland has 26 Metro stations, many of which are not being used to their full potential. Incentivizing residential and commercial development at Maryland’s Metro, Purple Line, and certain MARC stations would do more to reduce driving, long-distance commuting, and traffic than further widening highways. Because of induced demand, newly widened highways in metropolitan areas fill up again in as few as five years, but transit-oriented development provides long-term traffic mitigation. 

Furthermore, the retained alternatives are in direct opposition to state climate and economic development goals. Your focus on moving cars in the west side of the region and your failure to study a transit-oriented development solution leaves Prince George’s, eastern Montgomery, and Baltimore behind. Investing in TOD and jobs in the Prince George’s to Baltimore transit corridors would not only do more to address traffic, it would provide critically needed, more balanced, economic development. Amazon’s HQ2 selection makes clear the high value modern employers place on access to high quality public transit. 

To this, the scope of any transit improvements offered to counties in the P3 agreement needs to be clarified before today’s approval. A single BRT line is not enough to offset the harm of adding miles of new highway lanes. 

For these reasons, we urge the Board to delay further action and steps towards a P3 agreement, and ultimately adopt a more effective and sustainable transit-oriented approach. At a minimum, this project requires a comprehensive alternatives and impact analysis, clarification of the state’s financial obligations, independent financial and traffic analyses, and a better deal for transit. 

Thank you for your time.

Join us for Better Buses, Better Cities: A book talk

Join us for Better Buses, Better Cities: A book talk

Posted on by Emily Maurer

Join author Steven Higashide and local transit to discuss his new book published by Island Press: Better Buses, Better Cities: How to Plan, Run, and Win the Fight for Effective Transit. This event aims to help DC advocates learn from a national expert about how we can win the fight for better buses. This book talk follows Coalition for Smarter Growth’s release of the DC Metrobus report card and the region’s Bus Transformation Project’s recommendations. Sponsored by Smart Growth America, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Island Press and Georgetown University Urban & Regional Planning Program.

Where

Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies 640 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington DC 20001

When

December 12, 2019 from 6 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

About Steven Higashide

Mr. Higashide is one of America’s leading experts on public transportation and the people who use it. As director of research for the national foundation TransitCenter, Higashide has authored groundbreaking reports that have redefined how decision makers and journalists understand transit. He has taken the bus in 28 cities around the US and the world.

Letter to Governor Hogan opposing I-270/495 expansion

Posted on by Emily Maurer

December 3, 2019

The Honorable Larry Hogan

State of Maryland

Governor

100 State Circle

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Re: Capital Beltway and I-270 

Dear Governor Hogan: 

We are writing to share our strong and continuing concerns with your proposals for the Capital Beltway and I-270. We urge you to delay further action at the Board of Public Works and any steps toward a public-private partnership, until you conduct a comprehensive alternatives and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

As we have noted before, MDOT failed to study an integrated transit-oriented development (TOD), transit and demand management alternative to your proposed toll lanes. This is important because your proposal will increase, not decrease driving demand, whereas a transit- oriented development approach that includes buildout of development at Prince George’s 15 Metro stations, Montgomery’s 13 stations, and selected MARC stations will reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled while providing the competitive placemaking environment so much in demand by people and corporations today. Transit components of this alternative include the Purple Line, Metro capacity expansion, MARC expansion, and bus rapid transit (BRT) networks. The Council of Governments recently determined that TOD, BRT, and Metro all performed best in improving the performance of our highways. 

If the Amazon decision to locate in Arlington near two Metro stations tells us anything, it’s that transit-oriented development (TOD) is our future. In fact, the WMATA Connect Greater Washington study shows that build-out of the DC region’s Metro stations would so shift travel modes and trip patterns that we would avoid having to add 1000 lane miles of new roads and thousands of parking spaces. At the same time, Metro would go from needing public operating subsidies to annual operating surpluses because the trains would be full in both directions and all day due to the amount of development at the suburban stations. 

Your proposed toll lanes will fail because of induced demand: the new capacity created by the toll lanes, especially through diversion from the general-purpose lanes, will not last. The general-purpose lanes will fill up again as people decide to live farther away from work to take advantage of the initial time savings or decide to switch to driving from other modes or to drive more often. At the same time, vehicles seeking to reach the new capacity will add to traffic on all connecting roads. Additionally, toll lanes have termini, and the congestion which occurs at these termini, where multiple new lanes merge into the regular lanes, is regularly substantial; the congestion is merely moved “down the line” by some miles. By fueling more long-distance living and commuting, toll lanes add to vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and traffic. Last, but not least, they raise serious equity concerns. 

As the Virginia experience has shown, the 12-lane highways that result from adding four toll lanes to the Beltway and other highways are a massive, generational alteration of our landscape and come at high cost to homes and neighborhoods, people and health, and the environment. You have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland, yet the toll lanes will increase driving and emissions. In contrast, the comprehensive TOD, transit and demand management alternative will reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. 

We have been extremely concerned about the process that has been applied to the toll highway proposals, as have the Comptroller and Treasurer, members of the legislature, the local community and local elected officials, and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The failure to complete the NEPA process including full alternatives and impacts analysis, creates significant risks for the project, both legal and financial. 

The Comptroller promised the project would not be approved by the Board until the EIS is complete. Your proposed timeline assumes an agreement will happen in February of 2021 even though the NEPA process from the upper portion of I-270 has still not begun. Moreover, the Department of Legislative Services recommended that the P3 statute be amended to prohibit the submission of a pre-solicitation report prior to the availability of an environmental impact statement which has not yet been released. 

The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) has twice decided unanimously not to concur with the alternatives for the project. To this date–the public and M- NCPCC still don’t have origin-and-destination data, stormwater management impacts, financial assumptions, toll rates and other critical information that is important for this solicitation proposal to be approved. 

For all of the reasons we outline in this letter, we once again urge you to delay further action at the Board of Public Works and any steps toward a public-private partnership, until you conduct a comprehensive alternatives and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to ultimately adopt the more effective and sustainable transit-oriented approach that we have outlined here. 

Sincerely, 

Denisse Guitarra | Maryland Conservation Advocate | Audubon Naturalist Society 

Brian O’Malley | President & CEO | Central Maryland Transportation Alliance 

Stewart Schwartz | Executive Director | Coalition for Smarter Growth 

Ed Rich | President | Greater Farmland Civic Association 

Lois Hybl and Richard Willson | Co-Presidents | League of Women Voters of Maryland 

Pamela Goddard | Senior Program Director, Mid-Atlantic Region | National Parks Conservation Association 

Josh Tulkin | Director | Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter 

Kimberly Golden Brandt | Director | Smart Growth Maryland

Testimony supporting Maryland Housing Impact Fairness Act

Posted on by Emily Maurer

November 21, 2019

Montgomery County Council

Council Office Building

100 Maryland Ave.

Rockville, MD 20850

Bill 34-19, Taxation – Development Impact Taxes – Affordable Housing – Housing Impact Fairness Act (Support)

Testimony for December 3, 2019

Kimberly Golden Brandt, Director, Smart Growth Maryland

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager, Coalition for Smarter Growth

President Navarro and Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Kim Golden Brandt, Director of Smart Growth Maryland, which advocates for a more environmentally and economically sustainable future that creates opportunities for all Marylanders through better development patterns. I am also speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. 

First, thank you to the Council for your support of affordable housing, shown through your continued investment in the Housing Initiative Fund and recent adoption of the Council of Government’s housing targets. In addition to the legislation before us this evening, we welcome additional proposals that will help get the HIF to the $100 million per year goal and help double housing production to meet the COG targets.

We support the Housing Impact Fairness Act, given the existing and growing need for both affordable housing and school construction funding. This legislation ensures that all new construction contributes for its impact. 

For example, there was a $575,000 home from 1953 on Dickens Avenue in Bethesda. It was torn down and replaced with a 4,891 square foot, $1.425 million home. When this happens again and again in a neighborhood, middle-class households are replaced by wealthier households. Teardowns can lead to neighborhoods becoming more exclusionary over time, especially when “middle” housing types are missing.

On average, the additional impact fees would result in a newly rebuilt home costing $1.8 million instead of $1.75 million. As with all taxes, this is a statement of values. The HIF portion of the impact tax from just this one teardown would go a long way to helping provide affordable housing, for example, more than covering the rent of two very low-income families for over a year. Or it would meaningfully contribute to more room in our schools for students. For homes built after 1986, we’ve already made that value judgement to support these goals.

In addition to our support of the bill, we also offer the following amendments and considerations. First, to ensure that this proposal will be a net gain in revenue over time, we welcome additional economic analysis. The recordation tax and increased property taxes that come from teardowns also go towards affordable housing, school construction, and other investments.

Next, we recognize that some neighborhoods, especially those with older structures, need investment including improved housing stock, and that teardowns can offer that needed investment. Therefore, we welcome an amendment that exempts blighted or condemned properties.

Finally, we ask the PHED committee to strongly consider exempting properties if an additional living unit is provided. This policy could be modeled after Portland’s residential infill project. Replacing one home with another does nothing to address the county’s housing shortage. If we do not build enough homes to address demand, then older homes will just continue to become more and more unaffordable.

Thank you for your time.