ACT produces District 4 scorecard

Government

by David Alpert • April 15, 2009 11:31 am

Voters in Montgomery County's District 4 will choose Democratic and Republican nominees for County Council on Tuesday. On the Democratic side, Nancy Navarro and Ben Kramer are considered the front-runners, and are also the candidates most in favor of transit and transit-oriented growth in Montgomery County. Navarro pulls slightly ahead of Kramer on our issues. All Republicans oppose the Purple Line, but Andrew Padula favors transit in the County more than his opponents.

Ben Kramer and Nancy Navarro. Photos from the candidates' sites.

This morning, the Action Committee for Transit released their scorecard based on questionnaires and candidates' public statements. It rates candidates on five major issues:

Purple Line: Do they support the light rail link from New Carrollton to Bethesda?
Rail on Route 29: Would they study light rail in the median of Route 29 up to Burtonsville?
Metro communities: Do they believe in focusing development around Metro stations in designs that favor walkers and bikers instead of just cars?
Green growth: Would they insist that new "transit-oriented development", like that in Germantown and Gaithersburg West, actually include the transit link?
ICC: Do they feel that building the Intercounty Connector was a mistake, especially given Maryland's dire fiscal situation?

Navarro is the only candidate to get a perfect score, supporting the transit-oriented viewpoint on five of five issues. Kramer supports the Purple Line, Route 29 light rail, and Metro-centered development, but also supports the ICC and, in ACT's judgment, would move forward with large projects far from transit even if the promised transit never materialized. All other Democratic candidates support the Purple Line and Route 29 light rail, but ACT dubs all unknown or against the transit-centered viewpoint on development. Cary Lamari, the homeowner's association candidate, also opposes the ICC, but supports widening many local roads while opposing most any development.

Transportation is a frequent hot-button issue in District 4, especially around the ICC. Despite his ICC support, Kramer doesn't share the SHA's enthusiasm for ramps and bypasses everywhere. He opposed a plan to grade-separate Georgia Avenue and Norbeck Road into a "Los Angeles-looking freeway intersection", which Cary Lamari supported. Kramer also fought (though supported at first) a another Georgia-Norbeck bypass plan SHA was once promoting to temporarily handle ICC traffic while the freeway temporarily ends at Georgia.

The most significant differences between Navarro and Kramer involve wider political issues beyond transportation. Navarro is more of a classic progressive, while Kramer is a fiscal conservative. The County Council is currently divided into two four-member factions, primarily around budget issues and union relations, though both include members formerly considered "pro-union" or "pro-business". One Council faction, comprising Valerie Ervin, Nancy Floreen, Mike Knapp and George Leventhal, has endorsed Navarro, along with Congresswoman Donna Edwards and Delegate Anna Sol Gutierrez, while County Executive Ike Leggett and Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg have endorsed Kramer.

As Maryland Politics Watch pointed out, these factions don't correspond clearly with development issues, whether growth policy, the ICC, or whom to elect to the Planning Board. Ervin and Trachtenberg have been the Council's strongest advocates for transit and transit-oriented issues in the past, and we've worked with Floreen and Leventhal on several issues.

Just Up the Pike's Dan Reed is voting for Navarro, primarily based on her background and her desire for change. Kramer sees no "demand or need for directional change," which Dan consideres "really scary." It's little surprise, therefore, that the editorially conservative Washington Post endorsed Kramer, primarily because he's anti-union, like the Post, and supports the ICC, for which the Post has relentlessly cheered, calling all ICC opponents "anti-growth zealots".

All of the Republicans support studying Route 29 light rail but oppose the Purple Line. Padula comes out ahead of his opponent Robin Ficker on whether to allow "fake" transit-oriented development. Green Party candidate George Gluck agrees with ACT on all issues, though they're unsure of his position on Metro-focused communities.

For much more on the race, read Maryland Politics Watch. What other information should transit- and smart growth-oriented District 4 voters weigh in their decisions?

8 comments Share	— tags: ICC, labor, light rail, Maryland, Montgomery, politics, Purple Line, SHA, Smart Growth

ICC opposition put Navarro over the top (May 4, 2009)
Hear from the District 4 candidates (Mar 16, 2009)
Who's our candidate for Montgomery District 4? (Mar 4, 2009)
Tell Maryland MTA you support the light rail Purple Line (Dec 12, 2008)
MoCoCo picks developer over transit-oriented activist (Jun 26, 2008)

Comments

Rail on 29? First I've heard of that, could someone post a link to more information about this topic?

by Art on Apr 15, 2009 11:44 am

Heh, what does Robin Ficker not run for these days?

by Adam on Apr 15, 2009 12:28 pm

For Art: Much of the US 29 corridor's development past MD 650 was actually spurred on as transit-oriented development for a proposed light rail transit (LRT) system, but the transit never materialised. So it's TOD without the T.

As much a rail supporter as I am, I have difficulty envisioning LRT along the US 29 corridor as it exists today. Given the expressway nature it has since acquired, the developments are now a bit too spread apart to really support the densities for an LRT system.

BRT tends to be a dirty word in light of the Purple Line, but dare I say it: the US 29 corridor would be a far better fit (in my opinion) for a BRT system than an LRT system. Granted, with the permitted shoulder use for transit vehicles -- it's at least a step in the right direction, and I'd even wager that the costs associated with constructing a true BRT system may not justify potential benefits, considering US 29 isn't particularly horrendous (as compared to other arterials in the Washington area) and that buses already make use of the shoulders.

As for the ICC, I'd be curious to see how responses broke down for an "Opposed ICC" item and a "Still Oppose ICC" item. I didn't support the ICC before, but now it's too far along that it's just too costly, in my opinion, to put it on hold once again.

If it's the potential for sprawl development that we fear, than I believe efforts should now be refocused on land use plans: keeping growth targeted to transit-oriented areas and leaving the ICC solely as the connector of existing developments (apart from developments otherwise served by transit).

...Somehow I have a feeling I just opened myself up for a lot of angry responses. :)

by Bossi on Apr 15, 2009 1:19 pm

Not from me. I agree with much of what you said...

by Froggie on Apr 15, 2009 1:48 pm

I personally interviewed eight of the ten candidates (two did not respond to my request) running in the election. If you want MORE information about the District 4 race, check out Just Up The Pike.

by dan reed on Apr 15, 2009 1:50 pm

And about light rail on Route 29: It was included in the Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan as late as 1981 - and, as Bossi said, was the justification for building thousands of apartments and townhomes in White Oak and Briggs Chaney.

If you're familiar with the area, you know Route 29 is basically a limited-access highway north of New Hampshire Avenue with a large median that was basically set aside for transit. From New Hampshire to Downtown Silver Spring, there isn't a median. Neighborhood groups vehemently opposed building it at-grade, and the cost of tunneling it was prohibitively expensive.

The county instead proposed a line starting at the Wheaton Metro that would have followed University Boulevard east towards Four Corners, then following a "Route 29 Spur" (never built) that was supposed to connect University to 29 before continuing on 29 north to Burtonsville.

As the Route 29 spur was never built, the main connection that would have made the line possible was missing - and, of course, the high price tag (I heard upwards of $350m just to take it to White Oak) and lack of political will made the entire project a non-starter. The line and the concept of "transit serviceability" that allowed development to take place was removed in the 1997 Fairland Master Plan by an advisory board composed of local residents who still remain largely active in East County politics.

Not surprisingly, the east side has a lot of traffic issues because infrastructure never caught up to development - and a lot of demographic shifts that resulted from the construction of so much affordable housing - and the wounds from it have been a big force in District 4 politics.

I think I'm going to write a post about this, David, if you're interested.

by dan reed on Apr 15, 2009 1:59 pm

As a candidate for County Council, I am very concerned about the Action Committee for Transit "survey." I never received a questionnaire, telephone inquiry or anything else from ACT requesting my positions on transportation. Instead, they identified that I was "Uncommitted or Unclear" on every issue. That is irresponsible and undemocratic as it gives a false impression to voters. Worse yet, ACT is handing these surveys out at Metro stations.

To set the record straight, here are my positions as they pertain to this survey:

Purple Line - Y

Rail for Rt 29 - Y

Metro Communities - Y

Green Growth - Y

Opposed ICC - Y

I guess that means a Republican also gets a "Perfect Score."

- Lou August, Candidate, County Council

www.louaugust.com

by Lou August on Apr 16, 2009 10:10 pm

Out of curiosity how does one conclude that I oppose most any development? It is obvious you just hadn't been listening or reading what I have said or wrote the last 8 weeks. I specifically said I support measured growth that requires the development community to pay for their impacts. I can only conclude by the rants of people who simply attribute that statement to opposing most any development that, these individuals must support growth no matter what impacts are created. You see such generalizations do nothing to promote reasoned decision-making especially in the realm of Growth Policy unless one has an agenda. I understand blogs are subjective rather than objective however it would be nice to read a subjective piece that didn't try and distort the truth into something its not.

I also would like to point out another major factor that should be considered in conversations of growth. According to planning commission studies each new residential unit cost the county $36,000 in services and infrastructure, we only collect between $8,000 and 16,000 depending if it is a transit oriented project or not. That equates to more police, teachers, firefighters, and apparatus as well as schools, roads and transit infrastructure. I challenge you and your readers to render a reasonable solution to this increased cost to County Taxpayers? Growth has many aspects that must be considered including the green element. My whole position has been to try and impress the need for overarching policies that attempt to bring a complete solution to the issues of growth.

Thank You,

Cary Lamari

by Cary Lamari on Apr 27, 2009 8:55 am