Transit
Hopkins lobbies for a slower, cheaper transitway
The Corridor Cities Transitway once promised a rapid transit ride north of Shady Grove, but Johns Hopkins University and other Montgomery County developers want to delete the "rapid." That's because development in the area is tied to the transitway. The cheaper the transitway can get, the sooner their plans can move forward.
Six weeks ago, following intense lobbying by real estate interests, the Montgomery County Council voted to build the Corridor Cities Transitway, a proposed transit line extending north of Shady Grove as "bus rapid transit" rather than light rail.
The decision rested on an analysis that assumed that a BRT line, like light rail, "would operate entirely on exclusive guideway; two curbed travel lanes separated from general purpose traffic, pedestrians and bicycles."
But the developers were already preparing to renege on this promise.
Even before the vote, they had hired transportation consultants to study how to build the transitway on the cheap. Within days of the council vote, the developers pulled the plan out of their back pockets and began lobbying county and state officials for it.
The public has not been allowed to see the developers' plan. But reports are that it would delete overpasses from the transitway. Buses would get their own lanes only where the price is low. At intersections Why would anyone want to spend tens of millions of dollars to build bus lanes where they won't do much good? The reason is that sprawl development in "Science City," on the west side of Gaithersburg, can't move forward until the CCT, or at least some version of the CCT, gets built. Johns Hopkins is the biggest landowner in the area.
Under a Master Plan approved in 2010, there can be no more development in Science City until certain requirements are fulfilled. The key hurdle is a requirement to "fully fund construction of the CCT from the Shady Grove Metro station to Metropolitan Grove within the first six years of the county's CIP or the state CIP." A transitway with overpasses left out wouldn't seem to be "fully funded," but Hopkins and its allies may have enough political pull to convince the county that it is.
Sometime in the future, after the dumbed-down transitway is built, the missing bridges could show up. But there's little chance of that happening if Hopkins can get a go-ahead for its real estate schemes. The developers are the main force pushing this transitway forward, and they are sure to lose interest once they have their approvals.
Meanwhile, the county Bus Rapid Transit task force has found itself in a pickle. Unless it abandons its commitment to "gold standard" BRT, it has discovered, it must choose between taking lanes away from cars and road widenings that would involve wholesale demolition of homes and churches. If Hopkins gets away with its bait-and-switch on the Corridor Cities Transitway, we can expect bus projects to suffer the same fate in the rest of the county.
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name






by dc denizen on Mar 6, 2012 12:51 pm • link • report
What this region lacks is a BRT facility that is superior to that however. Maryland may not be the place for it. The Crystal City transitway is on its way, and while its exclusive for its entire length, I think it stands a great chance of being very successful. There simply isn't the funding for rail everywhere that we need dedicated transit facilities.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 6, 2012 1:34 pm • link • report
It's why I'm a bit more friendly to HOV lanes than BRT in general, even though BRT is technically quite superior: it gives carpools a chance to use their extra seats and the dedicated lanes drivers feel they have a right to.
by OctaviusIII on Mar 6, 2012 1:56 pm • link • report
by Sam on Mar 6, 2012 2:19 pm • link • report
by Bradley Heard on Mar 6, 2012 2:49 pm • link • report
by thm on Mar 6, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report
by Miriam on Mar 6, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report
by kinverson on Mar 6, 2012 3:22 pm • link • report
Crystal City Transitway is supposed to done before 2014 - anything else new thats equally as far along? Not K Street transitway, right?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 6, 2012 3:35 pm • link • report
This is why I oppose BRT and wish they had done light rail instead.
by Alec on Mar 6, 2012 4:30 pm • link • report
How do you propose paying for that light rail?
by sam on Mar 6, 2012 4:50 pm • link • report
Light rail and BRT can be paid for in the same way you are being paid for: by the developers.
by Adam L on Mar 6, 2012 6:45 pm • link • report
by Transport. on Mar 6, 2012 7:18 pm • link • report
The MAX in Portland has the same issue downtown.
And San Francisco MUNI runs incredibly slow light rail trains both because they share lanes above ground, and because they all funnel into the same tunnel below ground.
by Mark on Mar 7, 2012 2:12 am • link • report
by Eli Rabett on Mar 7, 2012 4:00 am • link • report
Increased taxes on developers/businesses? Thats been working out so well for suburban maryland so far. Thats why Maryland is so far ahead of Northern Virginia when it comes to commercial development and jobs. (Sarcasm)
by Sam on Mar 7, 2012 7:28 am • link • report
by Greg Smith on Mar 7, 2012 9:35 am • link • report
by Jerome Rosenfeld on Mar 8, 2012 9:40 am • link • report
I would suggest that you review the project website:
http://www.ctrapidtransit.com/Busway_Home.htm
You can find helpful facts and maps there. Construction is to start soon, and the New Britain - Hartford Busway is to open in 2014.
by Matt Johnson on Mar 8, 2012 10:16 am • link • report
Add a Comment