Greater Greater Washington

Transit


Maryland on priority corridors: Great! Montgomery: Nah!

The Maryland State Highway Administration responded with positive and encouraging language to the WMATA Riders' Advisory Council's recent letter encouraging jurisdictions to work with WMATA on bus priority corridors. Montgomery County, meanwhile, sent a dismissive response to a similar letter from the Action Committee for Transit.


Photo by Richard Drdul.

State Highway Administrator Neil Pedersen, who previously endorsed the concept of bus priority corridors, said this in his letter to the RAC:

Along with Governor Martin O'Malley and [MDOT] Secretary Beverley Swaim-Staley, [SHA] is committed to a multi-modal approach to reduce congestion. We share your belief that transit is a vital component for our region's economy and mobility.

The SHA is coordinating with WMATA to identify potential transit treatment locations under our system preservation and maintenance program. This ongoing effort will support WMATA's Priority Corridor Network by identifying opportunities for quick and low cost solutions, such as signal-phasing enhancements, bus stop/shelter placement, curb repairs, and queue jumps.

Pedersen goes on to talk about the TIGER grant, which we won subsequent to Pedersen sending his letter, and studies on Georgia Avenue and Viers Mill Road in Montgomery County where SHA would like to add bus priority treatment.

It'd be great if Montgomery County's DOT were so enthusiastic about bus priority corridors. MCDOT Director Arthur Holmes sent ACT a letter that's far less enthusiastic about priority corridors:

Allow me to begin by emphatically stating that the County Executive and the Department of Transportation (MCDOT) are committed to transit services in the County that achieve the intent of our growth policies and master plans. This includes continually improving upon the transit services and programs we currently provide based on budgetary allocations ...

As stewards of the County's transportation system, we have a responsibility to serve all users, not only transit patrons, but also for motorists who depend on personalized transportation and convenience, pedestrians and cyclists, as well as the freight industry who rely on the transportation system to deliver their goods and services. Our charge is to provide a balanced, safe, effective and efficient transportation system that satisfies the needs of all users. The goals and objectives of each mode often compete or are in conflict with one another, and it is for that very reason that we attempt to provide a balanced set of policies and operational strategies to equitably serve all of our customers. I, and this Department, would not be faithfully serving our residents by discounting the transportation needs of one mode at the expense of another.

There's nothing false about what Mr. Holmes is saying on its face. But the subtext is clear. Holmes believes that designing any roadway in any way other than to move vehicles equally isn't "balanced." However, buses carry far more people than cars. As Pedersen said, sometimes you move more people by designing the roadway to give buses a bit of priority. That's no less balanced.

Later in the letter, Holmes dismisses the idea of synchronizing signals in ways that might move more people but fewer vehicles, such as timing signals around major transit centers so that buses can more quickly exit the station and move along the road. For the rest of ACT's ideas, Holmes either gives specific technical reasons why they are infeasible, agrees to look into them, or passes the buck to SHA for state roads.

Sure, some bus priority measures wouldn't work in certain areas. But the two letters are night and day in their tone. Pedersen isn't saying that he's going to ban cars from state roadways, and Holmes isn't saying he doesn't care about buses. But Pedersen says that transit is important, and SHA is going to work with WMATA to try to figure out how to make priority corridors work. Holmes says that he's fine with running transit if the County's master plans and budget contain transit, but he's not going to do anything to inconvenience cars.

When it turned Bethesda and Silver Spring into what they are today, Montgomery County was one of the region's most progressive in its views on development and transportation. Ike Leggett is letting his motorhead, autochauvinistic DOT head Arthur Holmes drag Montgomery County down an opposite and harmful path.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Ike Leggett is out of touch with this community.

Tell you what Ike, why don't you meet me at the Colesville/E-W Highway bus stop Monday morning when I take the J line over to physical therapy at 6:45AM and you can experience why priority corridors are needed, especially on E-W Highway (yes I realize it's not even planned).

Or maybe then you'll get the plows over there to clear out the still snow blocked lanes.

by Redline SOS on Feb 19, 2010 11:35 am • linkreport

I belive "Stewarts" were a family of Royals, wheras "Stewards" take care of stuff, no? Nice to see that our fine elected officials in MoCo can't spell.

by local on Feb 19, 2010 11:54 am • linkreport

maybe Holmes thinks of himself as a Stewart of the county's transportation system...

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2010 12:04 pm • linkreport

Letter actually says 'Stewards'. The typo is in the post. I thought that was rich too.

by HM on Feb 19, 2010 12:19 pm • linkreport

Why then will it be near impossible to get Ike Leggett out of office come November if he's so out of touch with the community?

Might the needs and wants of Montgomery people inside the Beltway and those outside the Beltway be totally different?

by Jason on Feb 19, 2010 12:20 pm • linkreport

I have corrected stewarts/stewards. He did make some other, more minor grammatical errors, but my apologies to Mr. Holmes for any implication that he didn't know the difference between the words. (The letter is a scan, so it's not possible to copy and paste.)

by David Alpert on Feb 19, 2010 12:25 pm • linkreport

I wonder if the difference in opinion is related to the fact that Montgomery County doesn't pay WMATA's subsidy bill, but Maryland does?

by Michael Perkins on Feb 19, 2010 1:51 pm • linkreport

This makes me mad. I live in Bethesda now and I have to cross Wisconsin Avenue everyday to get to work. It is a very dangerous street because everyone drives so fast and they won't stop if you are in the marked crosswalk area, or stop just shy of actually running you over.

Just from that experience alone over the last month I think way too much consideration is giving to car drivers.

I've also noticed walking around Bethesda that pedestrians are very hesitant at crossing intersections, even when they have the walk signal. I've gotten dirty looks from motorists for crossing when I have the walk signal.

These people should just wait until the summer when I start demanding, and using, my share of the road on my bicycle.

by James on Feb 19, 2010 2:02 pm • linkreport

Again, Holmes forgot that roads are for moving people, not automobiles.

by Neil Flanagan on Feb 19, 2010 4:15 pm • linkreport

Apparently I won the contest to coin the word for anti-bike-ism. Woo-hoo! Oh, wait. There was no prize. Boo-hoo!

by Stanton Park on Feb 19, 2010 7:32 pm • linkreport

I agree with many of the comments posted... however- I think the analysis is a bit unfair- the SHA received a general letter, asking to endorse the concept of priority bus treatment (a great idea that few would argue with) and MC received a letter addressing very specific intersection/timing issues, which they asked staff to specifically research. If MC were to receive a general letter asking for conceptual agreement,the response might have been similar to the SHA response. Likewise, if ACT had asked SHA for specific intersection changes, the response would possibly have been similar to the MC response. Just a thought...

by Lib on Feb 19, 2010 9:35 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