Author: Ted Van Houten

Bumper to Bumper: Transportation groups ally to campaign for state funding

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Transportation interest groups from around the state formed a coalition that they hope will influence state lawmakers’ budget priorities.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth and about 20 other organizations from Bethesda to Baltimore are pushing for the state to increase funding for transportation. They formed “Get Maryland Moving” on Feb. 19, hoping to make a bigger impact on budget decisions.

Leaders of Get Maryland Moving warn that without a source of new revenue, critical projects like the Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway could be delayed for years.

One of the new coalition’s members is Purple Line Now!, a Montgomery County and Prince George’s County alliance of local organizations that support the 16-mile light-rail project.

The Purple Line would connect Metro’s Red Line at the Bethesda station to the Green Line at New Carrollton and is estimated to cost about $2.1 billion. Without state funding, however, the Purple Line will not be built, County Councilmember George L. Leventhal said.

The Maryland Department of Transportation has started designing the light-rail line, but the state has not dedicated funds to build it.

“Our campaign right now is to get transportation funding,” Purple Line Now! President Ralph Bennett said. His organization first started working with the Coalition for Smarter Growth — a Washington, D.C.-based organization dedicated to transit-oriented communities — last year.

“We came to the realization that we couldn’t get very far [by ourselves],” Bennett said. Purple Line Now! sends emails to constituents to encourage them to support their cause and meet with legislators. But, now that they are part of Get Maryland Moving, they can cast a wider net to look for support, he said.

Get Maryland Moving plans to make its case in Annapolis on March 6 by making fake gravestones for a major transportation project in every jurisdiction of the state, according to Bennett.

“If we don’t get funding,” he said, “all of those projects will die.”

The Greater Bethesda Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce is also a member of Get Maryland Moving.

“Transportation has always been a top priority for us, and the Purple Line is it,” said the chamber’s president and CEO, Ginanne Italiano. “Our concern is it’s wasted taxpayer dollars if they don’t finish the job and get the funding going.”

Italiano said transportation funding is at a “critical point,” and Get Maryland Moving is what’s necessary to gain support. The chamber is planning to ask its members to come to Annapolis and talk to legislators about what they want for the Purple Line.

“With the sequester happening, it’s vital,” she said.

Follow the money in Virginia’s transportation bill

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Virginia’s complex transportation funding bill, HB2313, is headed to Governor McDonnell for his signature and potential amendments. The bill is a prime example of political sausage, seeking to satisfy Republican and Democrat, urban and rural, transit and road constituencies.


Photo by jimmywayne on Flickr.It also represents poor public policy by undermining the “user pays” principle, failing to reform VDOT spending, allocating far too little to transit in an urbanizing state, and off-loading responsibility for local roads to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

Some political observers argue that the only way Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads could win rural legislators’ support for new revenues would be to place the burden on themselves. And they have, by increasing local sales taxes, recordation fees and transient occupancy (hotel) tax, and with a higher state sales tax, which derives heavily from the two regions.

Virginia’s smart growth and conservation community expressed concerns with the bill on Saturday.

While Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads will able to raise (tax themselves), keep, and allocate new transportation revenue, VDOT escapes responsibility for meeting the needs of the two most economically important parts of the Commonwealth. The bill frees VDOT to take more of the statewide sales tax revenues for highway construction outside the two regions.

Now that the bill has passed, and presuming the Governor signs it, it will be incumbent upon legislators, local elected officials and the public to watch-dog how the money is spent, starting with the next update of the state’s 6-year transportation plan, due in June. Setting the right priorities with the local money from and for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads will be equally important.

Who voted for and against?

The 25 to 15 vote in the Senate included 17 Democrats and 8 Republicans voting yes, and 3 Democrats and 12 Republicans voting no. Northern Virginia yes votes were Senators George Barker, Charles Colgan Sr., Barbara Favola, Mark Herring, Janett Howell, Dave Marsden, Toddy Puller and Richard Saslaw, all Democrats. No votes were Democratic Senators Adam Ebbin and Chap Peterson, and Republican Senators Richard Black and Jill Holtzman Vogel.

The 60 to 40 vote in the House included 25 Democrats and 35 Republicans voting yes, and 4 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting no. Northern Virginia yes votes were Democratic Delegates Robert Brink, David Bulova, Eileen Filler-Corn, Charniele Herring, Patrick Hope, Mark Keam, Kaye Kory, Robert Krupicka, Alfonso Lopez, Kenneth Plum, James Scott, Mark Sickles, Luke Torian and Vivian Watts; and Republican Delegates David Albo, Mark Dudenhefer, Thomas Greason, James LeMunyon, Joseph May, Randall Minchew, and Thomas Rust.

Northern Virginia no votes came from Democratic Delegate Scott Surovell and Republicans Richard Anderson, Barbara Comstock, Timothy Hugo, Scott Lingamfelter, Robert Marshall, Jackson Miller, and David Ramadan.

The complete bill history can be found here.

Follow the money

The best source for tracking the new taxes and the funding allocations is the HB2313 Transportation Conference Report, but even this requires interpretation.

While the bill no longer eliminates all taxes on gasoline, it still reduces what road users will pay in daily operating costs. It eliminates the 17.5¢ retail gas tax and shifts to a wholesale sales tax on gas. This reduces user fees in 2014 by nearly one-third, and by 20% in 2018 assuming the receipts increase because of a rise in gas prices.

The bill makes up for reducing gas taxes primarily by increasing the sales tax on new car purchases, charging a $100 fee on alternative fuel vehicles like hybrids, and tapping statewide sales taxes on goods and services (but not food).

Day-to-day vehicle user costs will decline, and all taxpayers will pay more even if they drive little or not at all. Meanwhile, transit fares are likely to continue to climb in the absence of adequate state support for transit maintenance and operating costs.

VDOT is free to continue wasting money on unnecessary highway projects

The statewide portion of the bill is truly a highway bill: it directs $538 million (annually by 2018) to the highway maintenance accounts, but this will effectively free up an equal amount in highway construction funds, allowing the current administration to continue a pattern of funding rural highways with little traffic demand.

Just last week, VDOT announced it would allocate another $869 million in federal Garvee bonds to Route 460 and the Coalfields Expressway, two of the most wasteful, unnecessary projects in the history of Virginia. Four questionable projects—Route 460 ($1.4 billion), Coalfields Expressway ($2.8 billion), Charlottesville Bypass ($240 million), and the Outer Beltway in Northern Virginia (estimated $1 billion)—total a potential $5.5 billion in misallocated spending.

Many expect that Secretary Connnaughton intends to divert a substantial portion of the new statewide money to the controversial and sprawl-inducing Outer Beltway, rather than to the critical commuter corridor needs of the metro regions.

Just 21% of the statewide funds go to transit and passenger rail in 2018, although passenger rail advocates are rightly pleased that $44 million in 2014 and $56 million per year by 2018 will go to current Amtrak services for which Virginia is now responsible, and for capital investment in the passenger rail network. An existing funding source supports upgrades for freight rail.

The $84 million for public transit isn’t a lot of money when it must be shared among transit agencies across the state. The bill allocates a separate $300 million to Dulles Rail, but like some of the road money it’s coming from the existing state sales tax at the expense of General Fund needs like education and health care.

The bill fails to address the empty secondary and urban road capital accounts, unless the administration commits to use some of the freed-up road money in the Transportation Trust Fund for this purpose. Instead, the bill implicitly off-loads the cost of local roads to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads through the local sales tax increases in those two regions. Shifting this responsibility allows VDOT to spend more money on rural highways.

Part of the future depends on a bill in Congress

Part of the bill also depends on the federal Marketplace Equity Act, a bill in Congress which would let states charge sales tax on Internet purchases. If that does not pass by January 2015, the sales tax on gas will rise another 1.7 percentage points to make up for the expected revenue from the MEA. This would bring gas taxes back to a level comparable to where they are today, if not a little higher at current per-gallon prices.

The Washington Post also reports that Senator Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) secured another provision that would kick in if the MEA does not pass. In that case, the amount of general fund revenue directed to transportation would drop from $200 million a year to $60 million a year.

More taxes rise in NoVa and Hampton Roads

The bill would raise between $300 and $350 million per year in and for Northern Virginia by 2018. It does so by increasing the sales tax in northern Virginia by 0.7 percentage points on top of the statewide 0.3 point increase, for a new total of 6%.

There’s also a 0.25% recordation tax on recorded deeds and a 3% transient occupancy (hotel) tax. The bill retains the existing local 2.1% tax on fuel. 70% of the funds will go to “regional” projects and 30% to local projects in the locality where the money is raised. The funds can go to roads or transit, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority will decide how to allocate the money.

For Hampton Roads, the bill would raise $219 million in 2018, using a local sales tax increase of 0.7 percentage points and a 2.1% local tax on fuel. However, the legislation directs these funds only for roads, despite the great need for transit and widespread support for light rail in the region.

Following the success of “The Tide” light rail in Norfolk, 62% of voters in Virginia Beach’s referendum last November supported extending light rail to the beach. The Navy has also expressed its strong support for extending light rail to Norfolk Naval Station.

In a final example of VDOT off-loading costs onto the two metro regions, the bill failed to allocate state funds to Hampton Roads’ Midtown/Downtown Tunnel project which local officials want. Instead, the authors of the bill say that localities should use the new regional funding sources if they want to buy down the costs of the tolls, even as VDOT diverts $1.12 billion of state and federal funds to the unnecessary Route 460 over the objections of many in the region.

Photo courtesy of jimmywayne on Flickr

Read the original article here >>

Historic Transportation Bill on its way to Virginia Governor

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

The final hours of the Virginia State Senate session have handed Governor Bob McDonnell the legacy-building legislation he’s been fighting for.

Lawmakers voted for a landmark transportation funding package that will raise $880 million dollars for road construction, maintenance, and transit.

The legislation replaces the per gallon gas tax with a 3.5% tax on gas at the wholesale level and a 6 % wholesale tax on diesel fuel.

The state’s sales tax will increase from 5% to 5.3%.

And the motor vehicle sales tax will rise from 3% to 4.3%.

In a statement, McDonnell called this an historic day.

“We have worked together across party lines to find common ground and pass the first sustainable long-term transportation funding in 27 years,” McDonnell says.

When it’s fully phased in, the reform bill will raise more than $500 million dollars to erase the maintenance budget deficit, and fund new roads, mass transit, and provide more money for Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.

There’s a whole wide range of projects, the key is though they have to reduce congestion and be on a regional plan,” Delegate Vivian Watts (D- Springfield/Anandale) says.

Stewart Schwartz from the Coalition For Smarter Growth is cautiously optimistic.

“We need to ensure that we’re fixing congestion at Tyson’s, I-66, and the Route 1 corridor and investing in transit that Northern Virginia needs.”

Getting this bill through was in jeopardy up until the last few hours on the final day of the session.

Senate Democrats had threatened to block passage of the tax and fee increases, unless the Governor agreed not to block expansion of Medicaid to 400,000 uninsured in Virginia.

Read the original article here >>

Senate Vote Passes $880 Million Highway Reform

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

The state Senate has passed the first long-term reform to Virginia’s floundering 27-year-old system for funding repairs and upkeep of its 58,000-mile network of highways.

The 25-15 vote sends to Gov. Bob McDonnell what would be the defining policy legacy in the fourth and final year of the single, non-renewable term Virginia allows its governors.

It would replace Virginia’s 17 1/2 cents-per-gallon retail gasoline tax with a 3.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline and a 6 percent levy on diesel fuel. It boosts statewide sales taxes from 5 percent to 5.3 percent. It increases the titling tax on car sales and adds a $100 registration fee for fuel-sipping hybrid vehicles. It also rules out proposed tolls on Interstate 95 south of Petersburg.

“Giving localities the responsibility to raise taxes to pay for a limited range of projects, while most existing revenue is diverted to wasteful new highway projects, is not a good deal. Over the long term, it will result in local tax base, not state transportation revenues, covering the cost of the transportation systems that serve the majority of Virginians,” Chris Miller, President of The Piedmont Environmental Council said in a statement.

The Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth said it is now up legislators and local elected officials to watch-dog how the money is spent.

“Where we spend our tax dollars and whether we are supporting more efficient, smarter growth with our transportation investments should be a central topic of this year’s Governors race,” he said.

Photo courtesy of WUSA9

Read the original article here >>

Testimony before the Hon. Muriel Bowser, Chair, Committee on Economic Development and Housing Council of the District of Columbia regarding: DHCD Performance Oversight – Inclusionary Zoning

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. We are a regional organization based in the District of Columbia focused on ensuring transportation and development
decisions are made with genuine community involvement and accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more housing and travel choices, and conserving our natural and historic areas.

We would like to comment on DHCD’s administration of the Inclusionary Zoning program. We have been involved with Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) since its beginning in 2003 and remain committed to ensuring that this important affordable housing program delivers on its promise. We are gratified that IZ is finally becoming a reality on the ground given the delays in issuing regulations, the housing market collapse, and extensive grandfathering. The start up of this program has faced many serious challenges, but we believe all these challenges can be overcome. We first want to remind the Committee of the importance of this affordable housing tool that produces below market rate units in matter of right developments throughout the city with no cash subsidy from the District. Of unique importance, IZ creates below market rate units in neighborhoods where few or no affordable units are likely to be produced in the future. This is a valuable affordable housing tool practiced by hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the country, including Montgomery County. This approach is credited with achieving economic integration is ways that other affordable housing programs are unable to achieve.

Montgomery County’s experience is instructive for looking at D.C.’s pathway to successful implementation. The county has produced over 13,000 IZ units since 1976. Due to short affordability terms, currently only 2,600 units are still affordable at 65 percent area median income (AMI). In addition, another 1,573 IZ units that were purchased by the county’s housing authority are rented to lower income families (this is through a provision in the county’s law that D.C.’s prohibits). The county’s IZ program provides nearly half of its affordable housing production. Among the changes the county has made to its program over the years are: extending the affordability term to 30 years for ownership and 99 years for rental; allowing income targeting to rise from 65 percent AMI to 70 percent AMI for high rise construction, and elimination of a troubled buy-out provision that allowed fees in lieu of on-site construction of units.

Administration of D.C.’s IZ program requires urgent and specific attention to ensure that as the over 900 units come online in the next 5 years, implementation will be smooth for all parties. We now face three key administrative challenges that can be fixed: severe understaffing, FHA rules, and overly rigid administrative regulations. Below are our recommendations for these key challenges.

Administrative problems that must be resolved immediately

1. Severe understaffing –1-2 overworked staff members are struggling to launch a new IZ program and provide oversight for roughly 2,000 affordable dwelling units (ADUs) already built or in process, created by PUDs (in lieu of IZ) and public land dispositions. Staff will be difficult to retain and attract if capacity is way below a realistic workload. Program applicants and developers will also not get the assistance they require.

Recommendation: Budget more staff and contract to a qualified homeownership organization
experienced in permanent affordability:

a. Add 2 additional staff positions;
b. Contract with a nonprofit group experienced in managing the homeownership purchase process and stewarding permanently affordable homes. Given the extra challenges of affordable home purchasing in a post-2008 economy, more assistance to homebuyers is needed to speed up the sales process. A nonprofit experienced in selling and stewarding permanently affordable homes could manage the homebuyer recruitment, preparation, qualification, selection and placement process. This nonprofit can also provide effective relationships with mortgage lenders and developers to secure financing, along with ongoing stewardship, enforcement, and resale assistance. This kind of close working relationship with buyers and owners is likely going to be more effectively created through a nonprofit dedicated to successful affordable homeownership and permanent affordability than a government agency;
c. Sustain housing counseling assistance for IZ applicants.

2. FHA conflict with local covenants regarding foreclosure – The Zoning Commission has revised the regulations to conform with FHA rules, and DHCD is working to get FHA’s final approval. After FHA clarifies its acceptance of the D.C. program, DHCD needs to educate mortgage lenders and recruit them to offer mortgages for IZ units. Bank of America, for example, reviews and approves IZ programs for their mortgage lending. DHCD should ensure that D.C.’s IZ program gets onto Bank of America approved list, along other lenders’ lists.

3. Rigid regulations – The administrative regulations are currently being revised but it is urgent that we expedite these revisions given the many barriers they place to an efficient matching process for applicants and units. Given the difficulty matching qualified and interested applicants to units, we suggest suspending overly prescriptive lottery requirements until a lottery is needed to fairly allocate a unit among a larger pool of qualified applicants.

Policy issues for future consideration

Beyond the immediate administrative issues that should be our top priority, longer term policy issues should be considered to fine tune the program. The robust recovery of the housing market in D.C. over the last few years demonstrates that IZ is not a deterrent to housing production. For example, over 4,500 housing unit permits were issued in 2011. This is 64 percent greater than the last peak in the market in 2005 when over 2,750 permits for housing units were issued. D.C. housing production has gone from a few percent to more than half of the region’s residential output.

The experience to date on the development review and financing phase of IZ is that the economics work. Over 900 IZ units are in the pipeline at various stages of development approvals, and construction, with a handful of completed projects. This development pipeline demonstrates that financing for projects subject to IZ is not a problem. IZ policy standards have also contributed to creating approximately 1,000 affordable dwelling units (ADUs) through PUDs since the mid-2000s.

We flag the following policy issues for further assessment, as we act immediately to fix the administrative problems discussed above.

1. Income targeting: Current income targeting is at 80 and 50 percent AMI. Given that market conditions have changed since 2006, is income targeting still at the right levels? How many 50 percent AMI units can we expect to produce? How effective is the 80 percent AMI income targeting in providing units sufficiently below market?

2. Condo fees – while IZ standards have avoided the problems that early ADUs experienced before IZ policies were developed, unpredictable rises in condo fees could pose a problem in the future.

Recommendations:

a. Require par value assessments for condo fees for IZ and ADUs: Rising condo fees over time are potentially a problem even though IZ incorporates an initial fee based on what is projected to be a realistic fee to ensure that the overall housing payment by the buyer does not exceed a certain percent of her or his income. To avoid future excessive increases in condo fees, we suggest requiring that at least for IZ units and ADUs, par value tied to the affordable price of the unit be the basis for assessing the condo fee rather than a square footage basis. This will allow condo fees to rise as inflation and costs rise without subjecting the owner to a rapid escalation that would make the condo fee too expensive for the affordable unit owner.
b. Initial fee setting: This is already addressed by IZ regulations but could affect a building as a whole if a developer sets fees too low to support ongoing building costs. Given this problem for all condo owners, we recommend strengthening consumer protection against lowballing condo fees. Enabling OP and DHCD to comprehensively collect data on condo fee rates from existing buildings would provide these agencies the information they need to appropriately set condo fee rates as a part of the purchase price of an IZ unit or ADU. Secondly, consumer protection for condo purchasers can be improved by changing how the verification of the initial condo fee is set. Currently a certified third party is paid by the developer to verify the fee. We suggest charging the developer a fee that would have been paid to the third party, and have the city contract with a third party directly to verify the condo fee.

Overall, IZ is a sound policy that requires focused attention to address the administrative hurdles to a smooth-running program. The program promises to provide a substantial new source of below market rate housing throughout the city. While the program faces challenges, it is worth the effort. We thank the D.C. Council for its long-standing support for this innovative affordable housing policy.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Cheryl Cort

Policy Director

Coalition for Smarter Growth Speaks Out on Rapid Transit

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

The Coalition for Smarter Growth has released the following regarding Rapid Transit in Montgomery County:

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 21st, 2013

Contacts:  Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth, (703) 599-6437

 

Montgomery Planners Propose 78-Mile Rapid Transit system 

Today, Montgomery County planning staff present to the Planning Board a 78-mile version of the proposed Rapid Transit System, based on several months of data-driven modeling and analysis.  The Rapid Transit System would be a premium, reliable transit service using dedicated lanes as much as possible to bypass traffic, running frequently throughout the day, and stopping at enhanced stations featuring real time arrival information and efficient boarding like that found on Metro.

“The Rapid Transit System will complement the Purple Line and our Metro system, offering high quality transit to more of Montgomery County and helping to address traffic and future economic development. It is an essential investment, providing residents more affordable transportation and a better option than sitting in traffic,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Facing an additional 200,000 residents, 200,000 new jobs, and a 22% increase in the amount of time residents will spend on roadways by 2040, planners know that the county’s roadways, already overburdened with traffic, will be unable to handle additional vehicles.  Their analysis, forecasting ridership to 2040, demonstrated that dedicating lanes to transit on several corridors could move more people per lane than individual vehicles, while improving traffic countywide.  They are recommending a phased approach based on that data, with a first phase that would include two lanes dedicated to the Rapid Transit System in the center of Rockville Pike and northern US29, and one reversible lane in the direction of rush hour traffic on parts of Georgia Ave, Viers Mill/University Blvd, and New Hampshire Avenue.   Their models show that their recommended network would attract a ridership of approximately 184,000 daily riders by 2040.

Said Lindsay Hoffman of Friends of White Flint, “We’ve come together in our neighborhoods and supported a vision for a walkable community in White Flint where it will be possible to leave the car at home and live a healthier, more affordable lifestyle.  Improved and expanded transit service on Rockville Pike is critical to making that vision possible, and we as residents will need to work together to ensure this proposal meets our communities’ needs and becomes a reality.”

“The planning staff’s network is smaller than the full Transit Task Force proposal but also much larger than the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) proposal.  The staff’s analysis is both rigorous and practical, and results in a network that can be effectively implemented,” concluded Schwartz.

In the planning staff’s brief, they reported, “ITDP did not do any ridership forecasting, whereas our transportation modeling work has shown that the forecast 2040 ridership on MD355 is far higher and we are confident that we should begin planning for a two-lane median busway for most of this corridor.”

The Montgomery County Planning Board will now have a month to review the staff’s recommendations before they release a draft for public hearings to be held in the beginning of May.  After public hearings, the Planning Board will submit their draft proposal to the County Council.

Read the original article here >>

The Smart (Growth) Crowd Weighs In

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

My smart growth buddies have issued a critique of the compromise transportation-funding deal. Among the highlights in the press release issued jointly today by the Coalition for Smarter Growth and the Piedmont Environmental Council:

Cutting gas taxes by up to one-third reduces the tie between transportation use and funding. “Transportation, unlike our schools, is like an electric utility, yet the primary fee—the gas tax—hasn’t been increased in 27 years. Transit users have been paying increased fares, year after year, yet road users would see a reduction in daily travel costs under the bill, leading to a potential shift from transit to driving, more driving and more congestion.”

The proposal feeds wasteful spending.  “The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is squandering most of the $3 billion in borrowed funds authorized by the General Assembly in 2011 and we can expect more of the same.” Hard-to-justify projects include the Charlottesville Bypass, the Coalfields Expressway and the Route 460 Connector. Another $1.25 billion in funds raised by the tax restructuring will be lavished upon a Northern Virginia Outer Beltway.

The proposal offers no statewide funding for local road needs.  “VDOT has zeroed out funding for local roads over the past few years. Instead, the bill will make Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads increase sales taxes and wholesale gas taxes to pay for local roads. This is a major step toward devolution and passing on the cost of local roads to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.”

The compromise pushes all new transit funding — the 0.3 cent addition to the sales tax — into the General Fund, forcing it to compete with schools, health care and other public services.  “Dulles Rail should long ago have been funded through the Transportation Trust Fund. It should not be a bargaining chip to get Northern Virginians to agree to taking General Fund revenues.”

Bacon’s bottom line: I agree with most of this critique — the General Assembly compromise enables a dysfunctional Business As Usual. I do take exception with one point, however. I believe that all modes of transportation should stand on their own two feet, so to speak. I don’t believe in subsidizing rail or mass transit any more than I believe in subsidizing roads. We need to create a level playing field — put each mode on a user-fee basis — and let the most economical mode win.

Would it then be impossible to finance new rail projects? Not necessarily. We could make rail more viable if we could figure out how to tap a portion of the real estate value created by rail projects to help finance the construction. That’s where we need to concentrate our energy, not how to stick non-users with the bill.

Photo courtesy of Bacon’s Rebellion

Read the original article here >>

 

New bus rapid transit proposal centers around Route 355

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Route 355 is the only road in Montgomery County that could support a two-way bus lane, county planners said Thursday as they presented a scaled-back bus rapid system to the county’s Planning Board.

Planners are pitching a 78-mile system that would include eight corridors in the center and downcounty regions. Some would include new lanes in the current medians, one of which is a two-lane system and others that call for a one-lane track, and mixing the buses in with existing traffic.

The new version is about half of the 160-mile system proposed by a task force appointed by County Executive Ike Leggett. A report from the New York-based Institution for Transportation and Development Policy suggested that system would not have enough riders.

The buses in the new system would run down Route 355, Colesville Road/Route 29, Georgia Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue, Randolph Road, Veirs Mill Road, University Boulevard and the proposed North Bethesda Transitway between Old Georgetown Road and Interstate 270.

But Route 355 is the only road that could hold two lanes down the median and provide enough bus riders to make the new construction worth it.

Master Planner Larry Cole pitched building the bus system on Route 355/Rockville Pike and U.S. 29/Colesville Road first because these are the roads predicted to have the most riders and they can stand alone without other corridors feeding into them.

Some commissioners questioned why some corridors were chosen over others and what the methodology was behind determining ridership and congestion. There was also discussion of what was more beneficial for drivers and potential BRT riders: dedicated curb lanes or bus lanes in medians?

Planning commissioner Norman Dreyfuss asked whether Cole had considered creating new median lanes for cars instead of the buses to alleviate congestion on certain corridors and keep buses on the curb for pedestrian safety.

Cole said county staff was still working on the specifics of the system.

Area transportation advocates backed the plan, saying county planners are being realistic about the service they can provide the county.

“The staff’s analysis is both rigorous and practical,” said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “And results in a network that can be effectively implemented.”

A public hearing is scheduled for March 18.

Photo courtesy of Washington Examiner

Read the original article here >>

Planners Say Rockville Pike Could Handle Major Bus Rapid Transit System

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Montgomery County planners think Rockville Pike is the county’s best candidate for a “true” Bus Rapid Transit route, meaning the traffic-clogged artery could support a two-lane median busway similar to major systems that serve millions of riders in other countries.

The finding came today in a briefing from planners in front of the Montgomery County Planning Board and a little more than a week after it was revealed that an outside consultant found a potential 150-mile BRT system in Montgomery County would not have enough riders.

Today, planners presented a modified 87-mile BRT system they said would attract more riders than the outside report from the New York-based Institution for Transportation and Development Policy suggested.

“ITDP’s report’s focus is on which corridors are best suited to high-quality “true” BRT with frequent all day service. The report finds that MD355 is the best candidate for this treatment, but expresses a concern that if future BRT ridership is only double the existing bus ridership, it would be very low compared to other BRT operations nationwide,” reads the Planning Staff’s memo. “ITDP did not do any ridership forecasting however, whereas our transportation modeling work has shown that the forecast 2040 ridership on MD355 is far higher and we are confident that we should begin planning for a two-lane median busway for most of this corridor.”

The Planning Staff briefing also found that the proposed North Bethesda Transitway BRT route (with a previously estimated daily ridership of 8,000 to 10,000 riders) was a corridor that could stand alone, without the benefit of a county-wide network.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, a D.C.-based nonprofit lobbying for smart growth initiatives and transit funding, had supportive words for the latest proposal.

“The planning staff’s network is smaller than the full Transit Task Force proposal but also much larger than the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) proposal.  The staff’s analysis is both rigorous and practical, and results in a network that can be effectively implemented,” Coalition for Smarter Growth Stewart Schwartz said in a statement.

Daily ridership projections by 2040 presented at a Coalition for Smarter Growth meeting last week show between 44,000 and 49,000 riders for a southbound MD 355 system and between 22,000 and 34,000 riders for a northbound MD 355 system. The projections for the North Bethesda Transitway range from 4,000 daily riders to 10,000.

Photo by Juanman 3 via Wikipedia; route map via Montgomery County Planning Department

Read the original article here >>