Greater Greater Washington

Will Montgomery County study a transit alternative to M-83?

M-83, also known as Midcounty Highway Extended, is an environmental calamity that will cost hundreds of millions. Yet Montgomery County continues to pursue its construction. Will county leaders consider a transit alternative to a new highway?


Seneca Creek Greenway Trail. Photo by Vickiís Pics on Flickr.

When Montgomery County planners put M-83 on the master plan of highways in the early 1960s, the county's population was 340,000. DC's streetcars had recently gone away. And highways were the future of transportation. Today, the county population is one million, DC is about to bring back the streetcar, and highway removal is common. But M-83, the county's zombie highway, is still around.

This Thursday, the Planning Board will review alternatives for the proposed highway between Gaithersburg and Clarksburg. But planning staff recommends that they ask the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) to study a transit alternative as well, and remove the alternative with the most property takings.

Highway laid out according to 1960s standards

Midcounty Highway was supposed to be an 8.7-mile, limited access, four to six lane highway east of Route 355, connecting the planned corridor cities of Gaithersburg, Germantown, and Clarksburg. The county has built the southern end, a 3-mile divided highway between Shady Grove Road and Montgomery Village Avenue in Gaithersburg. And developers recently built the northern end, called Snowden Farm Parkway, in Clarksburg.

The Planning Board last reviewed the remaining middle part of M-83 in 1992, but for over a decade, not much happened due to a lack of money. In 2003, MCDOT began to study building the rest of M-83 along the master plan route. But that route dates from before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), when planners thought it was a good idea to put highways in stream valleys.

So the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) got involved. And MCDOT had to follow NEPA's requirement to identify alternatives and evaluate the environmental effects.

In May 2013, MCDOT issued its draft report on the environmental effects. The Army Corps of Engineers and MDE then held a public hearing in August about MCDOT's application for a permit to build M-83. They have yet to publish their findings.

Planning staff recommend studying a transit alternative

But this week, the Planning Board will nonetheless review the master plan route and its alternatives. In a report issued last week, planning staff say that MCDOT should evaluate a transit alternative, including the planned bus rapid transit (BRT) route along 355, and that MCDOT's transportation systems management/transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) alternative should also include BRT along 355.

Their analysis suggests that the area can meet its transportation needs through 2040 without M-83. They also note that the 355 BRT corridor would have the second-highest daily ridership of the 10 proposed transit corridors in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan.

MCDOT says they didn't look at a transit alternative because Montgomery County has not adopted any plans for BRT. They also did not consider transit in their TSM/TDM alternative, even though TSM/TDM usually includes transit.

The staff report's recommendation will please M-83's opponents, including Transit Alternatives to Mid-County Highway Extended (TAME) and the Action Committee for Transit, who have been calling for years for MCDOT to study a transit alternative.

County planners also recommend asking MCDOT to eliminate the alternative route through Goshen, which would involve widening existing two- and four-lane roads. The Planning Board already recommended eliminating the route in 1992. Some community groups have strongly opposed this alternative in favor of the master plan route so that M-83 wouldn't go through their neighborhoods. If the threat from this alternative route goes away, some of the support for M-83 along the master plan route will probably go away as well.

MCDOT's report underestimates environmental and property impacts

In addition, the staff report points out problems with MCDOT's evaluation of environmental effects. For example, MCDOT reports that if M-83 isn't built, 16 intersections will exceed traffic congestion standards. But the staff report notes that at least 6 of these intersections are south of M-83 and would also exceed the standard under all of the alternative routes, including the master plan route.

Similarly, MCDOT's traffic modeling estimates a 55% reduction in travel time for the master plan route and a 37% reduction for Alternative 5, compared to not doing anything at all. (Alternative 5 proposes widening Route 355 and adding service roads.) The staff report notes that the 37% reduction represents a trip that is 3 minutes shorter.

The staff report also points out that MCDOT used a roadway width of less than 150 feet to estimate how many properties each alternative route would disturb or displace. However, 150 feet is the standard roadway width in the current county road code. In addition, MCDOT did not estimate how many properties stormwater management and noise abatement measures might affect. Thus, MCDOT's estimates of the number of affected properties are probably too low.

As for the cost of building M-83, MCDOT estimates for the build alternatives range from $41 million for the TSM/TDM alternative to $357 million for the master plan route. But these estimates are probably too low as well.

According to the staff report, MCDOT's estimates of environmental impacts do not account for stormwater management and the effects of retaining walls. For example, the master plan route would require a retaining wall 400 feet long along Great Seneca Creek, most of which would be in the flood plain within 20-30 feet of the stream channel.

Along Whetstone Run, the master plan route would have to be built on fill, with a retaining wall next to the stream channel. And while the smaller stream reaches may not have delineated flood plains, they have wetlands that function much like flood plains.

What's more, much of the master plan route goes through parkland, including Great Seneca Creek Park and the North Germantown Greenway Stream Valley Park. According to the staff report, the master plan route would have "calamitous" effects on 3 of the largest biodiversity areas in the county, far beyond the official limits of disturbance. And the staff report recommends mitigating impacts on parkland through a combination of trails, environmental projects, and replacement of parkland with land of equal or greater value.

So how much would it cost to build M-83, including parkland mitigation and the environmental requirements of building across streams and along stream valleys? Presumably more than MCDOT estimates.

For now, asking MCDOT to evaluate a transit alternative is a good idea, and so is repeating the Planning Board's 20-year-old request to remove the alternative route through Goshen. But ultimately, it's time for Montgomery County to say no at last to this environment-destroying, obsolete, expensive highway.

Perhaps in the early 1960s, transportation meant moving cars, and the environment was supposed to make way for progress. But it's 2013. Shouldn't we know better by now?

The Planning Board will review the alternatives for Midcounty Highway in Silver Spring on Thursday, November 21, beginning at 6 pm. If you want the Planning Board review to include your thoughts about this project, you can send written comments by e-mail through Wednesday.

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Miriam Schoenbaum lives in Montgomery County's Agricultural Reserve. She serves on the MARC Riders' Advisory Council and is a member of the Action Committee for Transit

Comments

Add a comment »

Awesome! Glad to see such a great writeup of M83. They're one of my favorite bands!

by JDS32 on Nov 19, 2013 2:43 pm • linkreport

So MCDOT wants to spend half a billion dollars so that Clarksburg drivers can avoid a five-minute delay during rush hour, but is unwilling to pay for a traffic light to save pedestrians in Clarksburg five minutes.

by Ben Ross on Nov 19, 2013 2:53 pm • linkreport

My cousin blew his fingers off with an M83.

by Crickey7 on Nov 19, 2013 3:05 pm • linkreport

Great analysis, Miriam! Also, if anyone is in Silver Spring on Thursday evening, we're going to do a short press conference before the hearing at 5:15pm at the Planning Department - 8787 Georgia Avenue.

by Kelly Blynn on Nov 19, 2013 3:07 pm • linkreport

I went through and looked at the area on Google Maps. It's amazing how much sprawl construction is happening up that way. I didn't realize how much greenfield growth there still is in northern Montgomery County.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 19, 2013 4:35 pm • linkreport

transit doesn't work well in sprawl conditions. The issue is probably (1) is the road needed at all versus (2) transit as an alternative. Better to invest in transit (and bike infrastructure) in denser areas of the county.

by Richard Layman on Nov 19, 2013 5:32 pm • linkreport

Will Montgomery County study a transit alternative to M-83?

The better question is will NOVA study a transit alternative to the Tri-County Parkway???????????

by Rick on Nov 19, 2013 7:41 pm • linkreport

JDS32 your comment made me smile
ben ross, sounds like the traffic planners ought to talk to you. I think the ones currently working for the County are sometimes blind to inexpensive, efficient solutions

by asffa on Nov 19, 2013 8:53 pm • linkreport

asffa, inexpensive solutions is short term like placing a band aid on a busted water pipe....

by Rick on Nov 19, 2013 9:39 pm • linkreport

Maps would have been nice for this article.

by JJJJ on Nov 20, 2013 1:41 am • linkreport

Great article, Miriam. It's hard to believe that a road designed decades ago, before the advent of modern environmental legislation, is still on the books and must now be reckoned with.

by Ronit on Nov 20, 2013 8:42 am • linkreport

@Rick

Sometimes true. But oftentimes, an inexpensive solution, is just that. A solution. That doesn't involve billions of dollars.

by Kyle-w on Nov 20, 2013 10:47 am • linkreport

Richard, the only way to kill a road is repurpose the money to transit. Otherwise, that road just keeps rising from the grave like a zombie.

With transit, you've improved transit for at least commuters even though it's doubtful that most people who live in car-dependent subdivisions will use it for fun or errands in addition to commuting. That's still an improvement over the status quo.

by Cavan on Nov 20, 2013 11:27 am • linkreport

Kyle-w, when you have a county that is nearly a million in population and all you can say is build a traffic light and a trolly as a solution for improving traffic flow with the population that is continuing to increase then you don't seem to have the best interest in improving traffic flow in Montgomery county.

by Rick on Nov 20, 2013 12:45 pm • linkreport

Cavan, wishful thinking but will not work. Because if they cannot transfer funding from highways in Georgia to Mass Transit then it will not be anymore successful in Montgomery County....

by Rick on Nov 20, 2013 12:55 pm • linkreport

I held a neutral position on this project...until I saw where the right-of-way would actually go. The environmental damage would be ridiculously high. The planning staff conclusion wasn't really surprising.

I don't think any county in the state could take this project seriously given the environmental consequences, much less Montgomery County. The county should focus on providing funding for the CCT, BRT system, 3rd MARC/CSX track, White Flint street grid, and maybe even grade-separating Great Seneca Highway to relieve congestion on I-270.

by King Terrapin on Nov 20, 2013 1:41 pm • linkreport

@Rick

Of course that isn't the only solution, but there are piecemeal things that can be done to help.

Where did I say trolley? I am a big proponent of BRT, and think that will be a big help for Montgomery County.

Also, to compare the vote in Georgia to Montgomery County, not really sure how that makes any sense. The make-up of the voters in Georgia that didn't pass that referendum could hardly be more different than Montgomery. I don't see any similarities whatsoever.

by Kyle-w on Nov 20, 2013 2:20 pm • linkreport

I think it is not really accurate to say that highway removal is "common" when the link cites ten very urban examples that are in no way similar to the proposed roadway at all. And in several cases a roadway bypass is being built to replace the lost capacity. This is hyperbole not really relevant to the discussion of this project.

by Reston Peace on Nov 20, 2013 2:42 pm • linkreport

King Terrapin, its very hard to believe that you have a neutral position to any highway project in the state of Maryland. No matter how much a few dislike MD roads and highways will continue to build no matter what.....

by Rick on Nov 20, 2013 3:30 pm • linkreport

Kyle-w, the way the brt is being made up is not going to help Montgomery county but make driving difficult which further tells me that you do not support realistic transportation options that will benefit the Montgomery county tax payers.

by Rick on Nov 20, 2013 7:35 pm • linkreport

@Rick

Thats simply not factual. BRT may make driving difficult in some circumstances for single occupancy vehicles, but BRT will move significantly more people. I guess if a preference to moving people, and not cars, makes me not support realistic transportation options, than perhaps you are right.

I would say I am supporting the only realistic option to move PEOPLE in Montgomery county over the next several decades, and that you are simply valuing the single occupancy commutter, which is not a realistic option given the constraints we are working under.

by Kyle-w on Nov 21, 2013 12:31 pm • linkreport

Kyle-w, your way of saying "moving people" is like s hidden agenda of moving business and population growth out of the major corridors in Montgomery County in hopes that they will relocate and spend money in NoVa.

by Rick on Nov 22, 2013 1:18 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or