Tag: Transportation Planning Board

RELEASE CORRECTED: Removal of 495/270 Toll Lanes from Regional Plan

RELEASE CORRECTED: Removal of 495/270 Toll Lanes from Regional Plan

Posted on by Ayesha Amsa
2021.06.16-RELEASE-CORRECTED-re-TPB-Vote-on-Climate-495-270Download

PRESS RELEASE – CORRECTED (to identify the correct motion maker)

For Immediate Release
June 16, 2021

Contact:
Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director, 703-599-6437

Concern about Climate Change Leads to Historic Vote at the Region’s Transportation Planning Board

Vote removes 495/270 toll lanes from the long-range plan, requires next plan to meet climate goals

Today, in the latest of several significant debates at the Transportation Planning Board, the regional body of local and state officials charged with creating a regional long-range transportation plan Visualize 2045, the body voted to remove the I-495/I-270 toll lanes from the draft plan and to require the development of a climate-friendly plan by 2024.

Gary Ehrenrich, representing Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich made the motion to remove the I-495/I-270 toll lane project from the plan and it passed 16 to 12 with 6 abstentions. Mayor Bridget Newton of Rockville and other Maryland leaders spoke firmly about the reasons for removing the project, with the vote attracting near universal support from local Maryland jurisdictions as well as support from DC and some Virginia jurisdictions. This was followed by a vote on the draft 2022 long-range transportation plan – now minus the toll lane project, and with provisions advanced by Montgomery County Councilmember Evan Glass to commit the TPB to create a new plan by 2024 that significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The TPB voted 26 to 4 with 4 abstentions on the measure.

“The unifying theme in today’s vote was the overwhelming concern of elected officials about climate change. It motivated the vote to remove the toll lane project and to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our region’s transportation sector,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

A number of outer Virginia jurisdictions thought it was too late to change the current draft plan which will move forward into air quality modeling and adoption in the spring of 2022, but they ultimately also joined Maryland and DC in voting to begin work to adopt another more climate-friendly plan by 2024. “We wish the TPB would have acted this cycle to fundamentally reform the current plan because we have no time to waste,” said Schwartz. “Nevertheless, they made an important commitment today to adopt a more climate-friendly plan by 2024.”

  • The scientific consensus is that we must slash our emissions by 2030. The Biden Administration and our regional Council of Governments have each set a goal of cutting CO2 emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030.
  • Transportation is this region’s and the nation’s largest source of CO2 emissions.
  • Recent studies show that electric vehicles will not be enough, therefore the region will need to use transit-oriented development, transit, and demand reduction solutions to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated emissions.
  • The Council of Governments’ recent Voices of the Region Survey found that 84% of the region’s residents want elected officials to prioritize climate change in transportation plans.
  • Public comment on Visualize 2045 has overwhelmingly supported a plan that addresses climate change.

“Removal of the I-495/I270 project from the draft plan means it will not be included in the federally mandated air quality conformity modeling, a huge roadblock for the controversial project,” said Schwartz. “I believe the many flaws in the Hogan Administration’s approach to the project including failure to analyze more sustainable and less destructive alternatives, failure to hear the public outcry or account for the strong opposition of nearly every local jurisdiction, and rush to commit the state to a long-term contract before finishing all of the environmental impact studies, contributed to the resounding rejection of the project today at the TPB.”

“There may also be implications for Virginia’s 495Next HOT lane extension contract with Transurban but that would have to be confirmed with VDOT,” said Schwartz. “Many of us had urged Virginia not to rush into that deal because of the controversy in Maryland and the similar failure in Virginia to consider alternative approaches. We want to see solutions for the American Legion Bridge and 495, and the best solutions lie in addressing the east-west jobs/housing imbalance, focusing jobs and housing near transit, and in the growth in telecommuting.”

###

CSG Testimony Re: Visualize 2045 Climate Commitments

Posted on by Emily Maurer
TPB-Board-Comment-letter-2021-04-21Download

April 21, 2021 

Hon. Charles Allen 

Chair, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board 

Re: Call for a climate-friendly Visualize 2045 update 

Chair Allen and Board members: 

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director

Bill Pugh, Senior Policy Fellow

RELEASE: Historic Climate Win at Transportation Planning Board

Posted on by Emily Maurer
2020.12.16-Release-TPB-votes-to-prioritize-cutting-VMT-GHG-emissions-1Download

Press Release

For immediate release:

December 16, 2020

Contact:

Stewart Schwartz, CSG, 703-599-6437

Historic climate vote took place today at Metropolitan Washington’s Transportation Planning Board (TPB) 

Elected officials agree to prioritize transportation projects and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Today, at the launch of the process to create the Washington DC region’s next multi-billion dollar regional transportation plan, Visualize2045, elected officials on the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) voted to “[require] (emphasis added) its member agencies to prioritize investments on projects, programs, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prioritize the aspirational strategies, and achieve COG’s land use and equity goals as they submit their input for inclusion in the TPB’s [Long-Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program].” The TPB also agreed to prioritize the aspirational initiatives they adopted in early 2018 including linking jobs and housing, a regional bus rapid transit network, Metro, demand management, bike/walk access to transit, and the capital region trail network.

“This is a historic vote. For the first time, regional elected officials committed to prioritizing transportation projects, programs, and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the region’s transportation plan,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG). “They also agreed on the need to reduce vehicle miles traveled to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions we need.”

During the debate, representatives of Prince William and Loudoun counties raised concerns about the challenges of reducing VMT in outer suburbs, and sought to soften the resolution from “requires” to “urges.” Their motion failed, and the vote on the full package of amendments passed 22 to 1 with 7 abstentions and 6 members absent. A full list of elected officials’ votes can be found below.

“In response to the concerns of the outer suburbs,” Schwartz said, “we believe that the outer suburbs can help tackle transportation emission, through better land use including walkable, mixed-use ’15-minute’ neighborhoods, commuter rail, and bus.”

The TPB’s action follows the commitment by the Council of Governments to reduce the region’s total greenhouse gas emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030.

“Our analysis shows that adoption of electric vehicles is essential, but the timeline is uncertain, and we’ll have to do more – which means reducing how much we have to drive, through better land use – walkable, transit-oriented communities; addressing the east-west jobs imbalance; and investing more in transit, walking and biking infrastructure,” said Bill Pugh, Senior Policy Fellow for CSG. Bill’s analysis for CSG is laid out in his recent post in Greater Greater Washington, and in a draft paper – Cutting Transportation Emissions by 2030 and Beyond: Smart Land Use and Travel are Essential submitted to the Transportation Planning Board by CSG.

THE VOTES:

Here is how Transportation Planning Board members voted on amendments to strengthen commitments to reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions (the full Technical Solicitation document can be found at a link here and amendments debated today can be found at Agenda Item 9; official vote tally should be confirmed with TPB staff).

Motion by Loudoun County Supervisor Kristen Umstattd, seconded by Manassas Park Vice-Mayor Pamela Sebesky to “urge” rather than “require” that jurisdictions prioritize projects, programs, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

“Through this technical solicitation input process the TPB urges/requires its member agencies to prioritize investments on projects, programs, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prioritize the aspirational strategies, and achieve COG’s land use and equity goals as they submit their input for inclusion in the TPB’s [Long-Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program].”

Motion failed with 16 no, 14 yes (with 6 members absent)

Voting yes (for “urges”)

1.     DDOT represented by Mark Rawlings

2.     MDOT represented by Asst Secretary Jeffrey Hirsch

3.     Charles County – Jason Groth (staff)

4.     City of Frederick Alderman Kelly Russell (TPB 2020 Chair)

5.     City of Laurel – represented by staff Phil Goddard (?)

6.     Virginia Department of Transportation

7.     Fairfax County Supervisor Walter Alcorn

8.     Fairfax County Supervisor James Walkinshaw

9.     Loudoun County Supervisor Kristen Umstattd

10.  Loudoun County staff representative Bob Brown

11.  City of Manassas Vice-Mayor Pamela Sebesky

12.  City of Manassas Park Mayor Jeanette Rishell

13.  Prince William County Chair Ann Wheeler

14.  Prince William County Board Member Victor Angry

Voting no (favoring “requires”)

1.     DC Office of Planning – Kristin Caulkins

2.     DC Councilmember Charles Allen

3.     College Park Councilmember Denise Mitchell

4.     Frederick County Alderman Kai Hagen

5.     City of Greenbelt – Mayor Emmett Jordan

6.     Montgomery County Executive – represented by Gary Erenrich 

7.     Montgomery County Councilmember Evan Glass

8.     Prince George’s Councilmember Deni Tavares

9.     City of Rockville Mayor Bridget Newton

10.  City of Takoma Park Councilmember Kacey Kostiuk

11.  Maryland Delegate Carol Krimm

12.  City of Alexandria Councilmember Canek Aguirre

13.  Arlington County Board member Christian Dorsey

14.  City of Fairfax Mayor David Meyer 

15.  City of Falls Church Councilmember David Snyder 

16.  WMATA represented by Shyam Kannan

Absent:

1.     DC Councilmember Phil Mendelson

2.     DC Councilmember Brandon Todd

3.     City of Bowie 

4.     City of Gaithersburg

5.     Prince George’s County Executive represented by Victor Weissberg (Dept of Transportation)

6.     Fauquier County

Motion to adopt all six amendments (found at Agenda item 9) first proposed by Falls Church Councilmember David Snyder with final drafting by TPB staff including amendment B with “requires.” Motion made by Mayor Bridget Newton of the City of Rockville and seconded by Councilmember Charles Allen of DC.

Motion passed with 22 yes, 1 no, 7 abstentions (with 6 members absent)

Yes (for the amendments on VMT and greenhouse gas emissions)

1.     DC Office of Planning – Kristin Caulkins

2.     DC Councilmember Charles Allen

3.     MDOT represented by Asst Secretary Jeffrey Hirsch

4.     College Park Councilmember Denise Mitchell

5.     Frederick County Alderman Kai Hagen

6.     City of Frederick Alderman Kelly Russell (TPB 2020 Chair)

7.     City of Greenbelt – Mayor Emmett Jordan

8.     City of Laurel – represented by staff Phil Goddard (?)

9.     Montgomery County Executive – represented by Gary Erenrich 

10.  Montgomery County Councilmember Evan Glass

11.  Prince George’s County Executive represented by Victor Weissberg (Dept of Transportation)

12.  Prince George’s Councilmember Deni Tavares

13.  City of Rockville Mayor Bridget Newton

14.  City of Takoma Park Councilmember Kacey Kostiuk

15.  Maryland Delegate Carol Krimm

16.  City of Alexandria Councilmember Canek Aguirre

17.  Arlington County – Dan Malouff for Board member Christian Dorsey

18.  City of Fairfax Mayor David Meyer 

19.  City of Falls Church Councilmember David Snyder

20.  Fairfax County Board Member Walter Alcorn

21.  Fairfax County Board Member James Walkinshaw

22.  WMATA represented by Shyam Kannan

No

1.     Virginia Department of Transportation

Abstentions

1.     DDOT represented by Mark Rawlings

2.     Loudoun County Supervisor Kristen Umstattd

3.     Loudoun County staff representative Bob Brown

4.     City of Manassas Vice-Mayor Pamela Sebesky

5.     City of Manassas Park Mayor Jeanette Rishell

6.     Prince William County Chair Ann Wheeler

7.     Prince William County Board Member Victor Angry

Absent:

1.     DC Councilmember Phil Mendelson

2.     DC Councilmember Brandon Todd

3.     City of Bowie 

4.     City of Gaithersburg

5.     Fauquier County

6.     Charles County

###

The Coalition for Smarter Growth advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all.

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…

Testimony to the TPB re Climate Change and the CLRP Update

Posted on by Nick Ruiz

Over the past three years and particularly since last summer, the TPB has asked the staff to review CLRP updates for conformance with the goals of Region Forward, the COG Climate Report, Access for All, and the Regional Transportation Priorities Plan. The COG staff, elected officials and a wide range of stakeholders have committed significant time and resources into developing these plans and associated goals.

Letter to TPB Regarding the 2014 CLRP Update

Posted on by Nick Ruiz

Dear Chairman Wojahn and Members of the Transportation Planning Board:
Please accept the following comments on the draft 2014 update to the Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP). The Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG) urges the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) to fundamentally reevaluate the entire Constrained Long Range Plan this year in order to meet the Council of Governments’ (COG) own goals, including addressing climate change and meeting ever-stricter air quality standards for human health. This reevaluation should include the ability to remove projects which do not support your goals, including allowing for shifting funds to transit and the internal connectivity needs of the mixed-use, walkable and transit-oriented activity centers to which you have committed.

TPB Testimony re: the 2015 to 2040 Constrained Long Range Plan

TPB Testimony re: the 2015 to 2040 Constrained Long Range Plan

Posted on by acustis

Thank you. My name is Kelly Blynn, and I am the Next Generation of Transit organizer for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. I came to the Coalition after five years at the climate organization 350.org and several years of youth and student organizing on climate change. Needless to say, I see climate change as the defining issue for my generation, and it motivates me to work for walkable, transit-accessible communities that we know enable people to live lower carbon lifestyles.

Testimony to Regional Transportation Planning Board on Regional Transportation Policy Plan

Posted on by Mitch Margolis

The Regional Transportation Priorities Plan represents progress in identifying and setting transportation priorities. Particularly noteworthy is public identification and support for fixing the existing system first and the focus of the RTPP priorities on fix-it-first including maintenance, operational performance, transit crowding and improved alternatives to driving for every trip.

However, significant concerns were raised last month by officials on this body, particularly the failure to conform the RTPP to the goals and objectives of Region Forward. The updated letters packet includes a detailed set of recommendations from DC, and I understand that the Region Forward co-chairs have, or will be, making recommendations. WMATA and others, including my organization and the business group – Urban Land Institute, have also provided important recommendations.

These recommendations center on the failure of the RTPP to integrate within the Region Forward vision, goals and objectives, the failure to incorporate Momentum, the failure to address climate change, and the focus on toll lanes which lack the proven record of our transit and TOD investments. I wonder if you are all ready to endorse a vast, costly network of toll lanes.

The newly adopted draft falls short of addressing these concerns and we are concerned about it being released for public comment without additional fixes. In particular, the Executive Summary doesn’t even mention Region Forward and the Introduction continues to portray this 2010 regional compact as a subset of the now very old 1998 TPB Vision. Instead of Region Forward, it adds a lot of text regarding the recent Economy Forward forum, but that one day unscientific poll was hardly as carefully thought out an investigation of the land use/transportation connections as the effort that went into Region Forward.

While the RTPP now mentions Momentum, it only proposes incorporating the 2025 investments provided funding can be found, while not applying the same standard to its toll and other highway investment proposals. The RTPP also fails to incorporate Momentum 2040 and other transit expansion in the scenario B, even while it proposes a very costly, and still unproven, network of high occupancy toll lanes. The RTPP also utterly fails to mention the threat of climate change and the resulting need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation using land use and transit solutions.

In addition, the draft solicitation document for the CLRP fails to mention Region Forward, the climate report, and activity centers, despite the fact that we’ve debated this before, when you adopted an amendment to the solicitation document a few years ago. The goals of Region Forward, activity centers and climate report can be integrated into the federal planning factors. And, of real concern is that you are being asked to vote on the CLRP solicitation document in November, one month before you vote on a revised RTPP, but your expressed goal of the RTPP is to shape the CLRP. The solicitation document should say more than that the RTPP “should be considered.”

We are at a crossroads as a region, nation and world. We must fight climate change. We must recognize the success of our region’s transit-oriented development in growing our economy, reducing the amount of driving, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We must recognize how demographics and the market have changed. Therefore we urge you to amend the RTPP to conform it to Region Forward, fully incorporate Momentum, and let it guide the most effective transportation investments for a sustainable and efficient future.