Transit

Montgomery Council agrees on 270 widening, debates BRT versus light rail

by David Alpert   •   November 10, 2009 2:06 pm

At this morning's session, the Montgomery County Council expressed a consensus for a scaled-back I-270 widening, and debated whether to build bus rapid transit or light rail on the Corridor Cities Transitway.

Image from I-270 Multimodal Study.

Politically, this was probably the most restrictive option that could pass the Council, and all members who spoke expressed support for this idea. However, it's much less clear when, if ever, Maryland will have money to build this project, since they aren't likely to raise gas taxes and mortgaged many years of future revenue on the ICC. SHA representative Russell Anderson told the Council that they will break the project into as much as 30-40 phases, potentially starting with pieces such as replacing bridges in the City of Frederick. Anderson could not say when a functional reversible-lane segment might actually open.

Councilmembers did not press SHA on tolls, which would need to be fairly high to keep the new lanes moving, especially if carpools can operate for free. Instead, they seemed content with having some free lanes alongside new tolled lanes, apparently predicting that drivers and future elected officials would be okay with high tolls if they only applied to some lanes.

Money also played into the much fiercer debate over Bus Rapid Transit versus light rail for the Corridor Cities Transitway. Andrews endorsed BRT, noting that it costs $23-33 million per mile less. MTA staff argued that there is very little difference in ridership, as most of the difference in the numbers just doesn't count a rider who stays on a bus from Frederick onto the CCT as a "boarder" while light rail numbers count it since that rider has to transfer modes in Clarksburg.

Other Councilmembers argued that the intangible differences between light rail matter. Councilmember Mike Knapp (upcounty) pointed to the studies showing light rail stimulates more development and brings in more riders than BRT compared to the predictions from models. "We may get sexy new buses, that might work, or it might not," he said. "We know people will ride rail."

Andrews responded by showing pictures of BRT and rail vehicles, which are almost identical, and argued that, "If we provide a vehicle that is fast and comfortable, people will not care if it's bus or light rail." Councilmember Marc Elrich (at-large) noted that the US has no real examples of good BRT to point to, with most "BRT" being simply buses with a queue jumper lane or signal priority.

Local opponents of the development at Gaithersburg West have been pushing for BRT instead of light rail, since making the light rail investment "cost effective" will force the County to plan for a higher level of development than they might otherwise choose. But Councilmember George Leventhal (at-large) noted that few people actually argued that they wanted to ride a bus. He said, "I am not hearing from people who say, 'I love to ride the bus, please give us a bus, we are going to ride the bus." For that matter, recommending the light rail might make the project less likely to happen, reducing development more than light rail.

Leventhal seemed to be leaning toward light rail, saying that he predicted a great outcry from area residents if the County Council takes their promised transit line and decides to make it "a bus" while keeping light rail for the Purple Line. As many noted, the two projects differ substantially as buses would not have enough capacity for projected Purple Line riders while the CCT expects far lower ridership, but the optics matter to elected officials, especially ones like Leventhal who weigh political factors most heavily.

Councilmembers Duchy Trachtenberg (at-large), Nancy Floreen (at-large), and Nancy Navarro (east county) spoke in favor of light rail as well, arguing in various ways that light rail is superior and that the county should make the real investment if it can. On the other hand, Councilmember Roger Berliner noted statements by Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson saying that BRT was superior at Gaithersburg West even absent the cost difference, because it can work even before all segments get built and provides more route flexibility as development progresses.

After touring the area and considering the arguments, it seems that while light rail is better, the flexibility of buses wins out. This area is far from linear, as we can see from the contortions required to serve the various planned developments. Debating between a single BRT busway and a single LRT line is probably not the right question. Instead, would a network of buses on dedicated lanes that go beyond just a single line better connect people to the planned jobs?

From the discussion, it looks like Andrews, Berliner, and Elrich favor BRT, while Floreen, Knapp, Navarro, and Trachtenberg favor light rail. Ervin either did not talk, wasn't there, or I just missed her comments. If Leventhal chooses rail, the Council will likely recommend that next week, though as Leventhal noted, it may not really matter what the Council says if Maryland state officials don't think they can get light rail through the FTA. The Council will vote on the CCT and I-270 widening next week.

8 comments — Share	— tags: BRT, Corridor Cities Transitway, Gaithersburg West, light rail, Maryland, Montgomery