Category: CSG in the News

Rep. Don Beyer: Gov. McAuliffe’s I-66 Proposal Changes Longstanding Understanding; “I remain dubious about additional asphalt”

Posted on by Veronica Miniello

I’m 100% with Rep. Don Beyer on this one (see his statement below); VERY dubious about additional asphalt, not pleased about forcing a road widening through Arlington County, which should be a regional model for smart growth and transit. I’m also in full agreement with Greater Greater Washington (GGW) that “McAuliffe’s original tolling proposal had already been significantly compromised,” so this is a worse compromise on an already less-than-ideal compromise. I further agree with GGW on this: “This new compromise is a blow to Arlington, which has long supported investments like transit, cycling, and transportation demand management as alternatives to widening I-66. It is also a blow to Virginia’s moves toward a more data-driven transportation decision-making process, as the lawmakers pushing for widening ignore data saying it’s not necessary.” And, as GGW points out, $140 million doesn’t just come from nowhere; where’s that money coming out of exactly?!? On the positive side, “the majority of toll revenue will still be dedicated to transit and other multimodal improvements,” but that should always be done regardless, as building more roads – and de facto encouraging more sprawl, more fossil fuel consumption, more pollution, more global warming, etc. – is exactly the wrong way to go for a whole host of reasons.

Arlington County had a longstanding agreement that I-66 would not be widened inside the Beltway. Today’s announcement by Governor McAuliffe changes that understanding, and with no public input so far.

My initial reaction is one of concern for Northern Virginians who have worked – many of them for decades – for an alternative approach to big highways. But I continue to learn details of the proposal and to listen to constituents on all sides of this issue.

Early conversations with elected officials who represent Arlington County indicate that Arlington is more open to this partial I-66 widening than in the past, and that the potential benefits from I-66 tolls will bring important transit and multi-modal benefits to the surrounding corridor. I remain dubious about additional asphalt, and await input from my Arlington and other constituents about today’s proposal.

P.S. See after the “flip” for the Coalition for Smarter Growth’s – and several environmental groups – critical reaction to this deal.

RICHMOND, VA — Three leading smart growth, conservation, and transportation reform advocacy groups released the following joint statement on the announced agreement between Governor McAuliffe and state legislators on I-66 inside the Beltway:

Our organizations have supported the Governor’s package of transit, HOV, and tolls for I-66 inside the Beltway as a far more effective approach than widening. This package of solutions will move 40,000 more people through the corridor in the peak hours faster and more reliably, and it won the support of Fairfax, Arlington, Falls Church, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission.

Therefore, we are deeply disappointed by legislators of both parties who have pressed to undo this effective demand-management and people-moving package in favor of a widen-first approach. In doing so, the legislators have failed to understand the settled science of induced traffic where widened roads in metropolitan areas quickly fill up again. They also failed to understand the benefits of funding transit through the toll revenues, and the effectiveness of the package in moving more people through the corridor during peak hours.

We’re grateful to the Governor for fighting for the package of solutions he has championed for I-66 inside the Beltway. Although we are very disappointed that the widening is being accelerated before more effective solutions are given the opportunity to work, the agreement reflects a political compromise. That said, we urge the Governor and local governments to accelerate the funding and implementation of transit and supportive ride-matching and transit marketing necessary to ensure we maximize the number of people using transit and carpooling before the widening takes effect in 2019.

We urge legislators to understand that an economically successful region like ours cannot build our way out of congestion through highway expansion. That widening is just a band-aid with an increasing cost to people’s homes, neighborhoods, schools, parks, and health.

We have long made the case that investment in transit and smart growth, which can be coupled with road and parking pricing, is the most effective approach to addressing traffic congestion in the near, medium, and long term. Creating a network of walkable, transit-oriented centers and communities allows us to maximize walking, biking, and transit trips, while minimizing driving. It reduces the sprawling development which is the chief contributor to our traffic congestion, and creates the types of communities so in demand today.

Finally, it is important to recognize that Arlington County’s internationally recognized success in coupling transit-oriented development (TOD) with transit investment has done more to reduce regional traffic congestion than any other jurisdiction or any highway expansion in Northern Virginia, while increasing the region’s economic competitiveness. Arlington’s success is a compelling case for why we should continue to maximize our investment in transit and TOD across Northern Virginia rather than widen highways all the way to DC.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington DC region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Its mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies needed to make those communities flourish. Learn more at smartergrowth.net.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC’s team of over 60 legal experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Learn more at SouthernEnvironment.org.

The Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club is 15,000 members strong. We are your friends and neighbors working to build healthy, livable communities, and to conserve and restore our natural environment. Learn more at sierraclub.org/virginia.

Since 1972, the Piedmont Environmental Council has proudly promoted and protected the natural resources, rural economy, history and beauty of the Virginia Piedmont. Learn more about the Piedmont Environmental Council at pecva.org.

The Arlington Coalition for Sensible Transportation has campaigned for a ‘wiser, not wider’ I-66 inside the Beltway since 1999. Learn more at acstnet.blogspot.com.

Click here to read the original story.

 

McAuliffe Announces I-66 Compromise Deal

Posted on by Veronica Miniello

A deal announced in Virginia on Wednesday could have a big impact on your commute.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced a compromise deal on Interstate 66 that will add an eastbound lane inside the Beltway.

“We are now fixing the most congested road in the most congested region in the nation,” McAuliffe said.

Here’s the plan: by 2017, the HOV rush hour times will become consistent both inside and outside the Beltway — eastbound from 5:30 to 9:30 a.m. and westbound from 3 to 7 p.m. Late next year, tolling will start inside the Beltway. But it will apply only to solo drivers, with no tolls for carpools.

“If you are HOV today, you ride for free, you ride for free after,” McAuliffe said. “All we’re offering here is an option to solo drivers who today are prohibited from going on 66 during rush hour.”

By 2020, drivers will have to have at least three people in the car to use the HOV lanes. Also that year, a third lane will open on I-66 eastbound, stretching from the Dulles Connector to Ballston.

The proposed eastbound lane is the most controversial part of the transportation deal between the Democratic governor and Republican leaders.

“This agreement is a big win for Virginia’s economy and for the commuters who spend too much time on the most congested road in the most congested region in the country,” McAuliffe said.

The proposed new lane would only run from the Beltway to the Fairfax Drive/Glebe Road exit in Arlington. After that point, they don’t have enough right-of-way to add a lane.

However, Arlington lawmakers say they’ve been told that 40 percent of traffic exits at that point, alleviating concerns of creating a traffic bottleneck.

“If we don’t take this deal now, it’s not going to happen for a generation,” State Sen. Barbara Favola said.

Planners reportedly will not have to take over any properties to add the lane.

Back when McAuliffe and transportation officials proposed HOT lane tolling on the highway inside the Beltway, the plan was met with fierce opposition by GOP lawmakers, who said it was unfair to toll drivers and did not add road capacity.

The new compromise is aimed at addressing that criticism by adding another lane.

The deal between McAuliffe and Republicans concerns the entirety of I-66, both inside and outside the Beltway. While the part of the deal concerning I-66 inside the Beltway was the most controversial, the plan for outside the Beltway is essentially what McAuliffe and his transportation secretary had proposed before: two HOT lanes in each direction to Gainesville.

The plan will also create more park-and-ride locations on I-66, similar to I-95 in that regard. It would also add more bus service.

Officials in Fairfax County have applauded the compromise.

“This plan relieves congestion on I-66, maintains regional and local control over toll revenue, does not divert funding from other local and regional priorities,” said Sharon Bulova, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

Work to widen I-66 east will begin this year, the governor said Wednesday. The Arlington County Board says they are disappointed with how soon the widening will take place.

“We will do all we can to mitigate harm from the widening, and we will explore possible improvements to accompany the widening,” said Arlington County Board Chair Libby Garvey.

Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth called on lawmakers to carefully weigh the plan.

“I think it’s incumbent upon the administration and Northern Virginia to invest as much in transit as fast as possible before the widening comes online,” he said.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William County) said he plans to battle the plan.

“It may be a done deal, but I intend to fight it,” he said. As the governor spoke, he and his wife held signs that read “Stop $17 tolls on I-66.”

“You’re going to bankrupt people. People making the minimum wage can’t even use this road. Period,” he said.

All of the revenue from the tolls will be used by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission. The tolls are expected to make $18 million in 2018.

Click here to read the original story.

Metro Considers Eliminating SmarTrip Loading Aboard Buses

Posted on by Veronica Miniello

When the No. 37 bus arrived at Wisconsin Avenue and Porter Street N.W. on Wednesday morning, 10 passengers quickly formed a line to board the bus. The first three entered, tapped the farebox and moved on to their seats. The fourth stopped, SmarTrip and cash in hand. The rider tried to figure out how to add value to his card while those behind him grew impatient in the frigid 20-degree morning.

Reloading SmarTrip cards has in a way become one of the greatest sins aboard a Metrobus– riders and transportation officials blame such transactions for bus delays and unreliability.

At Thursday’s Metro board meeting, officials discussed an idea the transit agency has been flirting with for years:  should Metro eliminate the SmarTrip loading option aboard Metrobuses?

“Each individual transaction may be relatively short, but over the course of an entire bus route the load transactions can lead to increased dwell times and slower average speeds,” Metro’s written presentation to the board says.

Taking the reloading option away could lead to faster bus trips, Metro officials have said. It happened in Alexandria, where the “add value” option was eliminated in April.

“People are getting on the bus quicker, buses are staying on schedule and the riders are happy because they are making their connections and getting to their destination faster,” said Sandy Modell, chief executive and general manager of DASH, the Alexandria transit system. “It’s been an amazing success.”

The change has been so positive, she said, that DASH is revamping some schedules this spring to adjust the time savings. On one route, the AT6 bus connecting the King Street Metro station to Northern Virginia Community College, DASH will eliminate one bus because the buses are making their rounds more quickly and the same service can be provided with one less bus, Modell said.

Metro is looking at the Alexandria experience, but such a change would have larger implications for a system that serves about 465,000 weekday passengers. Taking away the “add value” option could have a significant impact on travel time, especially in speeding travel for buses that are often stuck in traffic and in some of the region’s busy corridors traveling at speeds of under 10 miles per hour. However, it also could impact lower-income riders who only travel by bus and never go through a Metrorail station equipped with fare machines. For them, it would be hard to access locations to load their cards, Metro says.

“In particular, there are sections of the region (primarily in Southeastern DC and Prince George’s County) that are not close to Metrorail stations and that have few retail locations available. While these passengers could still pay their bus fare directly with cash, they would not able to make a bus-to-bus transfer, which is only available with a SmarTrip® card,” Metro’s report said.

Unless Metro adds additional retail availability or other options, including off-board loading kiosks, the change could be a civil right violation.

At Thursday’s meeting, Metro board members said more discussion is needed to make a decision, but some raised concerns.

Board member Malcolm Augustine highlighted the issue of limited locations for riders to reload their SmarTrip cards. In his Prince George’s neighborhood, he said, there is only one retail store where people can add value to their cards and it isn’t an easy process. Widening the network of options would benefit riders even if reloading on board buses continues to be available, he said.

One board member suggested public libraries as possible places where people could reload their cards.

Metro’s chief financial officer, Dennis Anosike, told the board that staff will spend the next few months exploring alternatives and will come back with more details about benefits and impacts.

Some transit advocates think investment in such solutions more off-board loading locations would pay off, if it means it would minimize boarding delays. Cheryl Cort, policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said Metro ought to look at other practices such as moving the reloading machine away from the front of the bus.

“I imagine the answer is cost, but it’s worth considering,” she said. “European systems place machines to validate transit payment in locations other than at the doors.”

Metro may have already found a testing ground for a system that could expedite fare payment. The District is studying an off-board payment system in the 16th Street corridor, one of Metro’s busiest.  The question remains how soon this or any other payment system that keeps buses running instead of parked at the bus stop could be implemented.

At Thursday’s meeting, the idea was up for discussion as part of a budget work session.

Metro officials made the case to the board that “with bus speeds across the region continuing to decline, Metro is looking for ways to improve the customer experience, increase ridership, and reduce costs.”

Eventually the board will need to decide whether to eliminate SmarTrip loading on all routes, test it only on some routes or defer the idea for future consideration.

Meantime, Alexandria doesn’t mind if Metro looks at it as a case study. Modell said the success is clear: buses are spending less time at bus stops and staying on schedule; and the city is spending less on cash handling services. Although riders can’t add money to their SmarTrip card they still have the option to pay cash.

Prior to the change, Alexandria began an aggressive campaign to inform its 14,000 riders what was coming, letting them know about the places where they can load their SmarTrip cards. The plan, said Modell, was to change the habits of about 1,000 riders in the system that used to make those transactions.

By making the change, she said, DASH was trying to fulfill the mission of the SmarTrip, which was supposed to be revolutionary in the industry by significantly reducing the time buses spent at the bus stop while people paid fares with cash. SmarTrip was supposed to improve overall bus performance and reduce the amount of cash fares.

“But the result of allowing people to add money increased that dwell time and added delays that we did not anticipate as part of the program,” she said. “It inconvenienced riders who tap and go.”

It also increased DASH’s operating costs, she said.  More time at the bus stop means more time that the bus needs in the route, so it forced the system to adjust schedules and add buses to do the same amount of work.

If the concern is where to add value, she said, there are multiple ways of doing it: online, at retail stores like Giant and CVS–  and Alexandria is working with 7-Eleven as a future option. If Metro wants to do it, she said, the key is to educate riders about the change, give them plenty of notice, and make sure they have plenty of places where to add value.

“We talked about it as a region for years and finally we got to the point where we said ‘we have to do this.’ We thought it was time to make a change for the system as a whole and for all of the riders,” she said. “There was a lot of concern that once we did it that the sky was going to fall in Alexandria and on April 1st the sky did not fall and in fact we started running a more efficient and on-time bus system.”

Photo courtesy of Linda Davidson. Click here to read the original story.

Va. Lawmakers Differ on Future of I-66 Tolls

Posted on by Veronica Miniello

RICHMOND, Va. — With several bills on the table that would block tolls for solo drivers on Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway, Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne made his case to some skeptical lawmakers Wednesday morning, just before the 2016 General Assembly session began.

“I know there was a lot of rhetoric during the election, and if I contributed to that, I am here to apologize, I know it got very heated in that regard, but the average toll is $6,” Layne says.

Layne says the expanded hours for HOV rules in conjunction with allowing solo drivers a way to use the road during restricted periods for the first time add capacity to the roadway.

But opponents of the HOV changes and toll plans, such as Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax, dispute that.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No. Sorry. That type of doublespeak is not going to work. Again, you can’t just toll an existing facility and take the revenue,” Petersen said in an interview in his Richmond office Wednesday.

“When I was a little boy, we put a man on the moon. We can figure out how to put six lanes through Arlington County,” Petersen says. “I’ve heard the obstacles … we can figure it out.”

Those obstacles include lots of homes and huge retaining walls along I-66 that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars to address.

Under the plan that is moving forward, tolls on I-66 inside the Beltway would only be charged to solo drivers during rush hour. The HOV restrictions would be extended to apply from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. eastbound and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. westbound.

Eventually by the early 2020s, HOV rules for the entire region are scheduled to change to apply only to vehicles with three or more people, rather than the current two or more requirement on I-66.

The money would fund projects selected by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, which is made up of Northern Virginia local and state lawmakers and appointees. Within the next 10 years, some of the money would likely be diverted to fund a new eastbound lane between the Dulles Connector Road and Ballston.

“I think people appreciate the dynamic tolling or congestion-mitigation pricing, and what you’re doing, it’s used around the country, it’s innovative, the concern again is there’s no expansion now,” Del. Tim Hugo, R-Centreville, told Layne at a meeting of the Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability Wednesday.

Hugo says the capacity expansion he is looking for is new lanes for drivers.

Petersen and Sen. Jennifer Wexton, D-Leesburg, have proposed a bill that would ban any tolling on I-66 inside the Beltway unless additional lanes are added.

“If they do decide to go to tolls inside the Beltway, they need to at a minimum add at least an additional lane going either direction inside the Beltway,” Petersen says.

Del. Jim LeMunyon, R-Oak Hill, has proposed a similar bill in the House.

“The concerns are still there. The issue is that the administration just is not as ambitious in fixing the problems on 66 inside the Beltway as they are outside the Beltway, and it’s not that they can’t do it, it’s that for some reason they won’t do it,” he tells WTOP.

“If you think it costs too much, or it’s too complicated, or whatever the concerns are, we need to know them in specific terms,” he says.

“When you look at all they’re doing outside the Beltway, this group looks like a good problem-solving group — not to say that everybody’s happy with the plan for outside the Beltway — they can handle big complex things if they want to, and the point I made is inside the Beltway it’s not because they can’t, but because they won’t,” he adds.

But there are supporters of the plan to extend HOV hours and add tolls for solo drivers who see this as the best option to finally do something for I-66.

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, argues that Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s administration’s plan provides commuters with more options.

“They’re trying to save taxpayers money, for one thing, money that we don’t have. It’s about a billion dollars possibly to widen all the way in, and then where do the cars go when we get into Washington, D.C.? You’re not going to widen Constitution [Avenue] past the Washington Monument and the White House,” he says.

“You have limited road space, and it manages it better and moves more people,” he adds.

The plan would not impact Metro service, but would add more commuter buses to get people through the corridor.

Schwartz warns that opponents of the plan who simply want to widen the road will only make traffic worse in the long term.

“They’re trying to undo what we think is the best solution for I-66 … it moves more people — as many as 40,000 more people — faster and more reliably on I-66. It will help everyone. It will end HOV cheating,” he says.

“If you build it, they will come. New roads will fill up in a metro area in as little as five years … so why would you spend a billion dollars, only to have the traffic return.”

Photo courtesy of Mike Murillo. Click here to read the original story.

Numbers Don’t Always Give Us the Bottom Line for Transportation Plans

Posted on by Veronica Miniello

Dear Dr. Gridlock:

This area will be in gridlock until we use satellite computer technology to analyze, prioritize, subsidize and design our transportation infrastructure. I say this after attending over 100 hours of citizen input sessions on everything from interchanges to tow trucks.

I have worked in road construction on and off for over 40 years. I am also a driver on these same roads. We need a better way to keep people moving.

Gary Nicely,

Sterling, Va.

 The writer wants us to put our money into rational choices, grounded in data. In today’s world, there are more opportunities to do that, but there also are plenty of very rational people who think data-crunching has its limits.

I’m not about to argue for whimsy when investing billions of tax dollars in transportation programs. (Though I am getting a little impatient waiting for my jet pack.)

In fact, I’ve seen the value of aerial photography in tracking congestion hot spots, of computer modeling in anticipating the traffic patterns at new interchanges and of GPS data in creating a world of real-time traffic maps, highway information signs and navigational aids.

I’ve been on the road with a Maryland State Highway Administration crew in a teched-up truck, crammed with cameras and sensors, that gives engineers a data assist in managing infrastructure decisions.

During the fall holiday season, I saw how travelers benefited from traffic data that can predict when and where bottlenecks will develop. That same data can be used to build cases for long-term improvements in the travel system.

Among the region’s governments, Virginia has gone the furthest to tie decisions about the transportation network to measures of greatest need and greatest impact. In response to a law passed by the General Assembly in 2014, Virginia’s transportation officials have been developing a scoring system to evaluate which projects are most worthy of public investment.

Makes sense, right? Scoring takes the politics out of the decision-making.

Well, not so fast. Turns out there’s plenty of room to debate which criteria should get the most weight in a scoring system.

In built-up Northern Virginia, the formula puts a huge emphasis on congestion relief, but there was considerable debate over just how huge that emphasis should be.

With congestion relief counting for 45 percent of a project’s total score, your transportation network could tilt toward big highway programs. The public could wind up pouring money into projects that reproduce some of the same old problems that developed with the 20th-century transportation network.

During one of my online chats, smart-growth advocate Stewart Schwartz described the concern about highway expansion programs: “We know that ‘if you build it, they will come.’ It’s well documented that new highway lanes in metro areas can fill up in as little as five years due to ‘induced traffic.’ ” (If you give drivers more lane space, it won’t be long before they fill it up. Then what?)

“Those pushing ‘congestion reduction’ are just looking to expand highway lanes and are only looking at the short term,” Schwartz said. “They are failing to look at the bigger picture of how land use, technology, and transit, walking and biking can reduce the amount of driving for the short, medium and long term.”

But in the long term, as the far-sighted economist John Maynard Keynes observed, “we are all dead.” Today’s commuters — today’s taxpayers — crave those short-term solutions. Short term as in “Now!” And the vast majority of those commuters/taxpayers are drivers.

Many want scoring systems tilted toward doing the greatest good for the greatest number, and they’re the greatest number.

They’re part of the travel constituency that Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance is hearing when he argues for a new Potomac River crossing, the rapid widening of Interstate 66 inside the Capital Beltway and other high-impact road projects.

No matter how rapidly a project can be built, it’s supposed to last a long time, and that gets us to another challenge for data-driven decision-making.

No matter how good the number-crunching today, the planners are making educated guesses about how the results will apply decades from now, as their projects mature. Many times, changing realities intrude on the trend lines the planners developed.

The economy gets better or worse, areas develop in unanticipated ways, businesses and government offices relocate, commuting habits change, or technology opens up new travel options. Plus, an optimism bias can affect the humans who use the travel data to anticipate the popularity of their projects.

If all these complications leave you confused and frustrated about our ability to design the future, you’ve got the right idea.

Till we’re all dead, you can trust that Nicely’s conclusion will remain relevant: “We need a better way to keep people moving.”

Photo courtesy of Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP. Click here to read the original story.

Coalition for Smarter Growth President “tired of the Arlington bashing,” says proponents of widening I-66 “apparently don’t believe in the science of induced traffic”

Posted on by acustis

Check out the video of Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, speaking in Alexandria at the December 9 meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), and the partial transcript below. Schwartz does a great job, in a short amount of time, of explaining why we need smart growth solutions in the I-66 corridor, and throughout Northern Virginia, NOT more roads and more roads-inducing sprawl development.

The CTB meeting at which Stewart Schwartz spoke covered a number of transportation-related topics, including this mouthful: “Authorization to Impose Tolls on I-66 Inside the Beltway, Advancement/Allocation of Toll Facilities Revolving Account Funds, and Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission Relating to the Transform66: Inside the Beltway Project.” What on earth is that? Well, if you followed the closing weeks of the 2016 Virginia General Assembly elections, or if you simply turned on your TV in those closing weeks, you’re almost certainly aware that the issue of I-66 tolling came up, over and over again, in the most demagogic and misleading fashion. I’d note that, in the end, despite Republicans spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these ads, none of the candidates they attacked (Jennifer Boysko, Kathleen Murphy, etc.) lost. In fact, it’s arguable that the ads backfired, if anything, as candidates like Kathy Smith won by far larger margins than had been expected. So, not sure about the political potency of this line of attack, but it certainly didn’t work in 2015.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the McAuliffe administration is generally on the right course with regard to addressing traffic congestion on I-66 inside and outside the Beltway. As the Coalition for Smarter Growth and many others understand, the LAST thing we should want is pouring more pavement, for a wide variety of reasons, including: a) increasing road capacity simply encourages more sprawl and more traffic (“induced demand”); b) locking in, and even adding to, fossil-fuel-powered transportation infrastructure is the 180-degree wrong way to go, at a time when we need to be rapidly phasing out greenhouse gas emissions if we want to avoid frying our planet; c) building new roads is a ridiculously expensive proposition, and for no good reason (see points “a”and “b”), other than to line the pocket of the road-building folks.

As for the McAuliffe administration’s plan for the I-66 corridor, what it does is basically harness Free Market Economics 101 to address/ameliorate a problem in a cost-effective, market-oriented fashion. Why Republicans of all people would oppose this is kind of mind boggling, until you consider that they also have flip-flopped and now oppose other conservative ideas, such as the “individual mandate,” “cap-and-trade,” etc.

The bottom line, with regard to widening I-66 inside the Beltway, is that Arlington County is absolutely correct: this should be a last-ditch option, after all other options have been tried and ONLY if those other options fail. Frankly, widening I-66 is just as misguided and short-sighted as building new fossil-fuel-fired infrastructure, before we’ve maxed out on energy efficiency. Not smart at all.

With that, here are Stewart Schwartz’s comments at the Dec. 9 meeting of the CTB. Enjoy.

Regarding the previous speakers, they apparently don’t believe in the science of induced traffic, that it is a very real problem. They apparently think we can widen Constitution Avenue in DC. There is no place for these cars to go. If you build it, they WILL come on a wider road. That’s why your combined transportation demand management, transit, HOV solution is the best solution for that corridor.

And I get a little tired of the Arlington bashing. Arlington has probably done more to relieve traffic congestion in Northern Virginia than any other jurisdiction…Their transit-oriented development has sited millions of square feet of development, tens of thousands of housing units, in locations where their vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled are lower than anywhere else in Northern Virginia. And they have, in the process, maximized transit, walking and biking. That IS a regional transit-oriented development…not what I’m hearing, which is a 1950s, can-we-please-build-rings-of-outer-beltways-and-widen-every-road.

We have to change our land use to do so in a more sustainable way…We DO care about the regional economy, we DO care about being competitive. That means we should maximize great placemaking and transit-oriented development to attract these companies, to retain the Millenials and the next-generation creative employees. And we should do our transportation smart, in a demand-management way like we’re talking about…

Virginia Wants To Talk To Maryland About A New Potomac River Bridge — Again

Posted on by Will Reckley

Virginia’s influential Commonwealth Transportation Board wants to open discussions with officials in D.C. and Maryland about improving congested Potomac River crossings, with priority given to expanding the capacity of the American Legion Memorial Bridge and Metro’s Rosslyn tunnel, which is the bottleneck for the Silver, Blue, and Orange lines.

The long-running idea of building a new bridge west of the American Legion — which carries I-495 over the river — also was included in the board’s resolution, although Maryland repeatedly has refused to go along with it. Opponents of adding a bridge west of the American Legion derisively say it would be part of an “outer Beltway.”

“We have had indications from Maryland that they are not opposed to discussion,” said Gary Garczynski, the Northern Virginia representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), which voted Wednesday in favor of opening discussions again.

“There should be dialogue about any one of those crossings or all of them, because in total they would certainly effectuate a much more connected region,” he said.

Studies by the Virginia Department of Transportation have identified the American Legion Bridge as the most important choke point for car commuters. A study of 11 Potomac crossings released in July recommended extending Virginia’s HOT lanes on I-495 across the bridge north to the I-270 spur.

More than 300,000 commuters per day use the bridge, the study said. More than 44,000 people travel through the Rosslyn tunnel on Metrorail into Virginia.

Opponents of an “outer Beltway” say there is relatively light demand for a new bridge upriver.

“There are certain lobbyists who continue to push this. There are certain parts of the business community that keep putting pressure on Gov. McAuliffe and Gov. Hogan. They are totally off base,” said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a long-time foe of building a new bridge between the American Legion and Point of Rocks bridges over the Potomac.

“There is no funding available for upriver bridges and no demand based on VDOT’s own study. So to us it is a waste of time,” he added.

A spokesman for the Maryland Department of Transportation said the agency would continue to talk to Virginia officials about its concerns with a new crossing.

Also on Wednesday, the CTB formally approved VDOT’s plans to toll I-66 inside the Beltway staring in 2017, accepting a deal with the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission to allow local representatives to decide where to spend toll revenues to improve mobility in the I-66 corridor.

Read at WAMU >>

I-66 tolling plan wins Commonwealth Transportation Board approval

Posted on by Will Reckley

The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on Dec. 9 approved the McAuliffe administration’s proposal to allow single-occupant vehicles to use Interstate 66 inside the Beltway during rush hour, so long as they’re willing to pay for the privilege.

State Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne, who chairs the board, called the unanimous vote a victory for both commuters who use I-66 and those who travel on surrounding roadways.

“The data is showing that all people will benefit, all people’s lives will be enhanced,” Layne said at the CTB meeting, held in Alexandria.

But critics kept up their drumbeat that unless I-66 eastbound is widened – sooner rather than later – the latest proposal is merely a stopgap that avoids the bigger questions.

“The issue isn’t tolling or transit, but how soon widening can be achieved,” said Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance. “This proposal kicks the well-documented need for widening down the road.”

Under the proposal OK’d by the state transportation panel, driving on I-66 eastbound during the morning rush and westbound during the evening rush will still be free, so long as there are two or more passengers in the vehicle (a number that eventually will rise to three). Those with one occupant, currently banned during rush hour, will be able to use the road in return for paying tolls whose amounts remain uncertain.

Some of the funds raised through the tolling will go to the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, which will parcel them out for improvements along the corridor.

The proposal has drawn pushback from advocates and lawmakers in the outer suburbs, who say their residents shouldn’t be forced to pay to use the road. But Layne countered that using excess capacity on I-66 will both raise funds and take drivers off surrounding arteries.

Saying that he understood the frustration of the plan’s opponents, and has taken some of their concerns into account, Layne said the Commonwealth Transportation Board and Virginia Department of Transportation do not have magic wands to solve all problems.

“Our role is to deal with the resources we have, and continue moving forward,” he said. “Our charge is to use [resources] as efficiently and as wisely as we can.”

Under the proposal, consideration of widening I-66’s eastbound side from the Dulles Toll Road to Ballston will not be considered until the 2020s, and only will go forward if certain thresholds are met.

Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth said those promoting widening as a panacea are stuck in a 1950s mindset.

“We should do our transportation-management smart,” Schwartz said. He noted that even if that portion of I-66 is widened, “there is no place for the cars to go” because Potomac River bridges and roadways in the District of Columbia can’t be widened to accommodate the increased traffic flow.

State officials say that once the project is up and running in 2017 – the last year of McAuliffe’s term – they will monitor what transpires and make adjustments as needed.

That’s a good idea, said Joung Lee of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. He told CTB members that, based on past experience across the country, they should anticipate teething pains.

“You’re not going to find that sweet spot right away,” Lee said. “It will take some tweaks and some experimentation.”

Read at Inside NOVA >>

Profiting from transit systems?

Posted on by Will Reckley

Employers explore a new route in recruiting millennial workers

A good transit system can do more than move people around, says David Green, CEO of the Richmond-based GRTC Transit System. It can also attract people that companies want to hire.

Richmond is next up in Virginia to find out how far a transit network can go in spurring economic growth. Under GRTC’s leadership, the city is close to breaking ground on a $54 million, 7.6-mile bus rapid-transit line (BRT) that will run from Henrico County in the west, down the city’s Broad Street corridor to Rocketts Landing, a mixed-use development on the James River east of downtown.

The plan is to begin construction next spring on the project, called the GRTC Pulse, and start operation in October 2017. The Pulse will have dedicated lanes and 14 stations, along with synchronized traffic signaling. During peak demand, buses will run every 10 minutes. Green and others want to extend the system eventually nine miles west out to the rapidly growing Short Pump area in western Henrico.

The project has been approved in principle by Richmond City Council and is backed by Mayor Dwight Jones, but it is not a done deal yet. A group representing 11 neighborhoods called the RVA Coalition for Smart Transit is seeking to delay the plan for a year. City council must approve an operating agreement governing The Pulse in coming weeks for construction to begin.

“This is what businesses are going to be looking for,” Green predicts. There’s a generation influence going on, with millennials in particular attracted to mixed-use, transit-oriented places, he says. Employers are noticing. “If you don’t have these things, if we can’t provide it here in Richmond, we’re going to lose all this talent,” he says.

The Marriott move
Arne Sorenson, the CEO of Marriott International Inc., cited those kinds of pressures back in February when he announced the hotel company is looking for a new headquarters location. About 2,000 employees work at its current headquarters in Bethesda, Md. “I think, as with many other things, our younger folks are more inclined to be Metro-accessible and more urban,” he told The Washington Post. Those comments have set off competition for the headquarters among Washington-region localities.

Sorenson was acknowledging a trend well underway in many urban markets as suburban office parks empty out in favor of major transit corridors. But his comments “sent shock waves around the country” because it showed even giant companies were feeling competitive pressures to get and keep the best workers, says John Martin, CEO of Southeastern Institute of Research, a Richmond-based firm with a background in community planning and transportation. “We’ve reached a tipping point in moving to a multimodal society.”

Martin says millennials, in particular, prefer the work, play, live environment that transit systems can support. “Technology has hyper-wired them together,” he says. Community is important, and they “are much more interested in being in activity centers. We’ve found they really can’t have an experience unless they’re sharing it.”

So the quality of the community makes a difference. “We’re seeing sort of emerging millennial hotspots, where some cities are getting a decided advantage,” Martin says. “Companies are saying, ‘Gosh I want to be in those places.’ It’s incumbent upon Virginia’s economic development community … you’ve got to invest in place.”

Developments in technology and in the function of transit systems are part of this change, Martin says. Fare cards are common instead of cash, for example, and there are apps that can tell riders when the next bus or train will arrive. Some transit systems have free WiFi. Traffic lights can be synchronized to let buses move through intersections with fewer delays. Plus, teleworking is more common, as is the rise of a “freelance economy” in which workers are less tied to one employer. “So people are really going to pick a place” based on the quality of life and not necessarily on how close it is to their job, he says.

Martin was to be part of a Dec. 1 event being held in Henrico, called “Transit Means Business,” which had support from transit interests and groups like the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce. A similar event was held in Northern Virginia in May. The Henrico event also was to include a panel moderated by Selena Cuffee-Glenn, Richmond’s chief administrative officer. Scheduled panel members included Ted Ukrop, who opened the Quirk Hotel on Broad Street in September, and an executive from Stone Brewing Co., which is opening a new location near the James. Among others who spoke at the event was Aubrey Layne, the state’s secretary of transportation, and Laura Lafayette, CEO of the Richmond Association of Realtors.

Good timing
Richmond got lucky when it came to funding the BRT project. About $25 million of its funding came from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s TIGER program (which stands for transportation investment generating economic recovery). The state’s Department of Rail and Public Transportation is providing about $17 million; Richmond is contributing $7.6 million; and Henrico will pay $400,000.

Green says “the planets lined up” for the project because a long study on how to do a BRT system in Richmond had just been  completed when the TIGER grant option came along. “We were ecstatic when they announced the opening for applications,” he says. Gov. Terry McAuliffe threw his support behind the project as well.

The Broad Street corridor was chosen for the Pulse system because it has the “highest existing and projected population and employment densities and the most transit supportive land use in the Richmond region,” according to RVA Rapid Transit, an organization that would like one day to see four BRT lines reaching into surrounding counties and intersecting in downtown Richmond. Within a half-mile of the planned BRT line, there are 33,000 people and 77,000 jobs with the potential for more, the group says.

In Virginia, new rapid transit systems have favored rail, which is far more expensive than BRT. The biggest is the D.C. region’s Metrorail system, which last year opened new stations in Tysons Corner and is continuing extension of the new Silver Line to Washington Dulles International Airport. In Norfolk, a light rail project, The 0, opened in August 2011 on a $318 million 7.4-mile corridor. It may be extended to Virginia Beach.

While transit has the power to drive economic growth, it’s still possible for smaller communities who can’t support that kind of investment to create places that will attract people and employers, says Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition for Smarter Growth. Thriving downtowns can have the same kind of success. “It may not be the big employers who come, but it’s still happening with smaller companies, and it doesn’t necessarily require transit,” he says.

But, for bigger regions, “if they’re going to remain competitive, using good transit and transit-oriented development is the key,” Schwartz says.

The Pulse is a major step for the Richmond region and a new test of the appeal transit systems can have, if done well. “Richmond’s never seen anything like this before,” Green says. “We need to make sure we do it right.” As far as expanding into the counties and creating a true regional BRT network, Green thinks the project will sell itself. “Once they experience it, the counties are going to want to expand.”

Read at Virginia Business >> 

Maryland Remains Serious About Maglev, Despite Skeptics

Posted on by Will Reckley

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s dream of building a magnetic levitation train — known as maglev — has taken two key steps, placing Maryland among a small number of states slowly moving toward establishing the first high-speed rail systems in the U.S., a half century after Japan operated its first bullet train.

On Nov. 7, Maryland received a $28 million federal grant to study the engineering and planning of a 40-mile line connecting Baltimore and Washington, a critical part of the federal environmental approval process. And on Nov. 17 the state’s public service commission transferred a passenger railroad franchise to The Northeast Maglev, the private sector firm contributing $7 million to the engineering study.

“This is big news,” said Maryland Secretary of Transportation Pete Rahn. “This goes beyond the feasibility study and goes into its planning and engineering. This is a big step. This is a requirement necessary for a project to actually occur.”

Trying maglev again

Indeed, Maryland is further along than the last time the state considered maglev at the beginning of the last decade. The project failed to secure public support or the necessary funding, and a 2004 state statute blocked further work.

More recently, Pennsylvania gave up on its maglev studies, returning the grant money to the Federal Railroad Administration three years ago. That opened up an opportunity for Maryland to apply for the funds.

Why will this time be different? Sec. Rahn points to the private sector taking the lead with support from Japan.

“If you look around the country, there have been an awful lot of proposed maglev projects that just have fizzled as they moved down the path,” Rahn said. “What is interesting in this case is the pledge of funding coming from Japan.”

The Japan Bank of International Cooperation has pledged — pending the outcome of the federal environmental reviews of the project — a loan to cover half the estimated cost of about $10 billion. The Northeast Maglev (TNM) also has reached a deal with the Central Japan Railway Company to use its super conducting maglev technology, which moves trains well over 300 miles per hour. Central Japan Railway’s maglev is the fastest train in the world.

“We already have an agreement with the [railroad] that they would transfer that technology to us,” said Wayne Rogers, the chief executive of TNM. “We’ve looked over the entire world, and the Japanese technology is the newest, the best, the fastest, and the safest technology for high speed rail transportation.”

Rogers expects the engineering and planning studies to take about three years.

“We are very far along in what is a marathon and not a sprint. We have yet to finish the environmental impact statement work and yet to get all the state and local approvals, and the federal government approvals we need for the safety of the project,” he said.

High-speed rail in the United States

If Maryland and its private sector partners are able to see a Baltimore-to-D.C. maglev line through to completion, they would be among a small but growing number of states progressing on a long-stalled project: high-speed rail in the United States.

As mentioned, Japan has been running bullet trains for 50 years and is building out its maglev line that will eventually connect Tokyo and Nagoya.

China has 10,000 miles of high-speed rail, and started running a maglev in Shanghai in April 2004 at speeds of 267 miles per hour. Its inaugural ride was on New Year’s Eve in 2002, less than two years from the contract signing.

Several other nations — Korea, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and England — have been running trains over 200 miles per hour for years. (The international measurement for high-speed rail generally is considered cruising speeds of at least 150 miles per hour).

In the U.S., Amtrak’s Acela in the Northeast Corridor is the closest thing to high-speed rail, but it barely qualifies. It reaches 150 miles per hour for a few minutes on a single 30-mile stretch of rail in Rhode Island. Between D.C. and New York, Acela’s average speed is about 80 miles per hour, and plans to straighten the right-of-way to improve Acela’s efficiency would take years and many billions of dollars.

“We don’t have a big history of that here in the United States,” said Rob Puentes, a transportation policy expert at the Brookings Institution.

“We are just barely now starting to experiment with high speed rail investments. There are really good projects underway in California, in Texas, and in Florida.”

Construction of the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line started in January. But its budget reportedly will exceed the planned $68 billion because of tunneling issues along earthquake fault lines.

Building maglev — where trains float above a magnetic guideway — would also present physical challenges.

“We know that it certainly works in other parts of the world,” said Puentes, referring to the Japanese and Chinese systems. “The challenge is how do you do it here in the United States? Particularly, how would you do it in a congested corridor between Washington and Baltimore? The challenge with maglev is it has to be straight and it has to be flat, and that usually means tunneling.”

“It is going to happen.”

Former Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who made funding high-speed rail a priority during President Obama’s first term, said maglev’s expense of initial construction has been the biggest obstacle in the U.S.

“But when the Japanese came into the United States and made a huge investment it became clear that now it was incumbent upon maglev advocates to find money to match that,” said LaHood in an interview with WAMU 88.5.

“I think maglev is the next generation of transportation,” LaHood said. “When you have the Japanese willing to invest $5 billion you have to take that seriously because they have the expertise.”

More broadly, LaHood expects high-speed rail (the usual steel-on-steel technology) to take off in the coming decade. At the Obama administration’s urging, Congress appropriated close to $11 billion for the projects.

“For the naysayers and the detractors that want to continue to talk about traditional means of transportation, they are living in the past. They need to look to the future,” LaHood said.

“It is going to happen in California. It is going to happen along the Northeast Corridor with maglev. It is happening in Texas between Dallas and Houston. There are a number of projects that will put the United States on the map.”

The Brookings Institution’s Puentes said the U.S. does not lack opportunities for such projects. High-speed rail makes sense when it connects two major economic hubs that are too far apart for driving but too close for flying.

“High-speed rail is getting caught up in the larger infrastructure challenges we’re having in this country,” he said. “A lot of cities and states would love to have this done.”

But Puentes expects the straightening out of the Acela tracks could be the closest the Northeast Corridor comes to getting high-speed rail for the foreseeable future. A Baltimore-to-Washington maglev line could take ten years to finish, and extending the maglev up to New York could take decades longer.

In the meantime, critics contend Maryland has other, more important transit priorities.

“Certainly there are huge transit needs,” said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, a public transit and environmental advocacy group.

Schwartz calls the maglev project a “distraction.”

“Maryland has done a significant study of MARC commuter rail needs. People would love to have all-day, two-way service between Baltimore and Washington and what better thing to jump start the continued revitalization of Baltimore,” he said.

Read at WAMU >>