Roads
TPB staples $3 billion 270 widening into plan, ignores MARC
With little notice and virtually no public input, the staff of the Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board have slipped the controversial, $3.4 billion I-270 widening into the region's long-term plan while ignoring other alternatives and more pressing transportation needs, like MARC.
Photo by dougtone on Flickr.
The TPB is the official Metropolitan Plannning Organization (MPO) for our region. Federal law tasks MPOs with the job of assembling a "constrained" plan for transportation that allocates federal and local transportation revenues to various projects. That plan has to fit within available revenue, comply with (fairly weak) air quality rules and some other requirements.
But who decides which projects go into the long-range plans?
Recently, something new suddenly appeared in the plan: MDOT's very expensive idea to spend $3.4 billion to widen I-270 and create more traffic in Montgomery County and more sprawl in Frederick County. We debated the wisdom of this project last year, and the Montgomery County Council scaled it back a bit, but MDOT had stacked the deck to basically force them to choose among highway widening options.
Technically, the TPB is supposed to conduct a public input process to formulate this plan, but in reality they simply "staple" together the requests from DDOT, MDOT, and VDOT. There is a brief public comment period which has now come and gone, but the TPB buried the announcement of this item in fine print, meaning almost nobody knew it was under debate until this very late date.
There are a lot of other projects that would be nice to build, too. There's the Purple Line. The Corridor Cities Transitway. Marc Elrich's Bus Rapid Transit ideas. Governor O'Malley published a plan to expand MARC service in the 270 corridor and the Baltimore-Washington corridor.
However, the common refrain for many of these projects is: they're very expensive, and we can't afford them right now. They are expensive, but so is the 270 widening. It's even more expensive. Yet somehow that one pops into the long-range plans while the others don't.
Ultimately, Maryland has no money. They bonded the next few decades' worth of federal revenues for the ICC. Eventually, they will be able to scrape together some more. By putting this project into the plan, it biases the future decisions about this money toward building it, even though residents of the region never got to discuss if they'd rather have this project or MARC, plus the Corridor Cities Transitway, plus a Red Line extension, plus streetcars, plus even more.
Why doesn't the plan call for MARC? What about other transit improvements around 270? Or building the Purple Line with federal transportation formula money, the guaranteed money that would be used for the highway but which Maryland could use for transit instead, instead of waiting for a very competitive and uncertain New Starts grant?
This is the process by which state "highway departments," those folks in the transportation bureaucracy who still see their mandate as finishing old 1960s highway plans, get the highway projects done despite public support for transit over roads.
First, they put them into a long-range plan despite the fact that there is no money. Then, over time, people start to argue that the project "has been on the books forever" and we just have to complete it. Since it costs so much, there isn't room to fit any other really big projects in there for a long time. Eventually, it happens, and suddenly another really big, really unaffordable road project appears in the long-range plan.
TPB director Ron Kirby and Maryland transportation secretary Beverley Swaim-Staley say including this doesn't commit the state to building it, but does designate it "something we want to do." Meanwhile, all the other, better transportation ideas apparently aren't "something we want to do."
The TPB shouldn't be making decisions today about what major projects to build in 2030, at least not without a real public input process instead of the sham one they use today. If the board is going to put expensive transportation projects into the plan, there should be some long-term transit expansions, not just whatever big highway MDOT wants to build today. In the meantime, the TPB should take this project out of the plan and open up a more genuine comment period on what long-term projects Maryland residents would really like to see.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. 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
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- DC's divide need not be black and white
I also would suggest you pay attention to the dog that didn't bark: No Potomac River Crossing. Perhaps an ever widening I-270 is a price we should pay for (a) no new Potomac Crossings and (b) making MD-355 bike/ped friendly.
by Jim on Nov 16, 2010 1:33 pm
IMO, the Achilles' Heel in future planning for MARC Brunswick Line isn't funding. It's CSX.
by Froggie on Nov 16, 2010 1:33 pm
Widening 270 won't supplant the Potomac River Crossing, though I guess blowing all the money for decades on one freeway might make it harder to pay for another. But what will happen is that 270 will drive lots of sprawl far to the north and travel demand way up and down, leading to even stronger calls for a freeway from Gaithersburg to Dulles.
The more auto infrastructure we build, the more auto-dependent development we get, and therefore the more people (perhaps rightly) say that there are a lot of people who have to drive. And the more scattered those people are, the more freeways in very outer areas become "necessary."
by David Alpert on Nov 16, 2010 1:40 pm
by Tina on Nov 16, 2010 1:48 pm
by dht on Nov 16, 2010 1:48 pm
by R. Myers on Nov 16, 2010 1:50 pm
by Froggie on Nov 16, 2010 2:06 pm
by Lance on Nov 16, 2010 2:08 pm
by Lance on Nov 16, 2010 2:09 pm
by Miriam on Nov 16, 2010 2:09 pm
by David Alpert on Nov 16, 2010 2:09 pm
by Ben Ross on Nov 16, 2010 2:11 pm
Does ACT have price tags for their other items? It would be really nice to see exactly how much the Red Line extension, CCT, and Rockville Pike light rail would cost respectively.
by EJ on Nov 16, 2010 2:12 pm
The CCT to Comcast has been priced by MDOT - we used a per-mile cost to extend to Clarksburg. The price estimate for the Rockville Pike light rail (including rebuilding of the road as a boulevard) is based on the per-mile cost of the rebuilding with bus lanes in the White Flint Master Plan. (Light rail is somewhat more expensive than bus lanes, but on the other hand the rest of the corridor need not get the same degree of beautification as planned for White Flint.)
The cost estimate is admittedly very rough - that's why we need the state to study this option.
by Ben Ross on Nov 16, 2010 2:20 pm
by Ben Ross on Nov 16, 2010 2:22 pm
Excuse me, but.. AHAHAHAHAHA.
Are you kidding, or have you simply just lived in Northern Virginia for your entire life? Virginia is home to the "every suburban access road needs to be 4-lanes wide" mentality. NoVA has 4-6 lane roads with 4-way stop signs....and quite a few of them! How on earth can you defend that sort of planning decision? The way that Virginia plans and builds its roads is embarrassingly wasteful.
Transit doesn't even necessarily have to be the answer either. As long as you can guarantee good connectivity on existing roads, you can easily handle the sort of densities that exist in Northern VA without more/wider roads. (Case in point: The entire state of New Jersey)
by andrew on Nov 16, 2010 2:48 pm
Be angry, but be angry at MDOT. They're the ones pushing this as a priority.
by BeyondDC on Nov 16, 2010 4:10 pm
There's a board set up with votes. They are supposed to be setting priorities. Just because MDOT wants something doesn't mean they have to vote for it.
by David Alpert on Nov 16, 2010 4:17 pm
That's crazy the red line during the peak is already above capacity, extending it would only make this capacity issue worse.
May be wrong but from what I have seen in Rockville it does not appear that the existing Brunswick line service is being fully utilized at the moment...
by anonymous on Nov 16, 2010 4:38 pm
by Nancy Floreen on Nov 16, 2010 5:41 pm
by steve on Nov 16, 2010 6:46 pm
As a long-term rider, the pattern is all too familiar. Once again MARC is left off the list when the plans are being drawn up. Funny how it always seems to be first line when the money gets tight and budgets need to be trimmed.
When the Chicago gallery cars became available it took no time at all to fill them. We could carry even more people if only we had enough equipment, crews and rail corridor capacity -- and the sense to plan for making those necessary elements available.
@anonymous,
what have you seen in Rockville? The trains regularly carry standees W of there (I am in a position to know as I'm often one of them).
by intermodal commuter on Nov 16, 2010 7:46 pm
Thanks for joining us. Isn't the Montgomery County Council also in favor of the MARC plan? Why is this on the CLRP and not the MARC expansion, then?
by David Alpert on Nov 16, 2010 7:55 pm
by David C on Nov 16, 2010 8:43 pm
But I often get the feeling that 75% of the problem is drivers who don't know how to merge into two lanes. The backups otherwise don't make sense.
Also, people drive way too fast on the 6 lane portions of 270, which I think causes even more of slowdown when they get down to two lanes.
by charlie on Nov 16, 2010 9:22 pm
by Dan S on Nov 16, 2010 9:28 pm
In early 2008, the TPB used a cost figure for the Intercounty Connector that pre-dated the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and for the ICC's status, stated that the DEIS was in development. This was nearly two years after Bush's Federal Highway Administration had issued its absolutely expected pro-ICC record of decision.
We saw no evidence that the TPB was accounting for the sharp increase in highway construction costs from 2005 to 2008, or for recessions, or for rescissions of federal transportation funds, or for increasing oil prices and decreasing oil supplies.
If these kinds of errors were or are systemic to the TIP and the CLRP, then "planning" is a gross misnomer, the "Constrained" Long Range Plan is not, and the TIP and CLRP arguably are illegal.
For how many years have we been told that the region has a "conforming" plan that will lead to timely attainment of federal air quality standards?
And for how many years have we failed to meet those same standards?
And as a by the way, the true cost of the ICC easily exceeds $3 billion because MDOT and its media mouthpieces have always chosen not to account for the $1.5 billion in interest that Maryland must pay on the $2 billion worth of debt that O'Malley is issuing for that boondoggle.
Rather than blow billions on the ICC, O'Malley could have used Maryland funds to attract a federal match for the Purple Line.... or rail out the 270 corridor.... the Red Line in Balmer.
Instead, he's wasting more than $3 billion on 18 miles of asphalt that was rejected by the Reagan and Clinton administrations then fast-tracked by Dubyah for Bob (What Robocalls) Ehrlich, and the finances in the ICC toll (rhymes with black hole) road already are unraveling.
So much for our detail-oriented "green" governor.
by Greg on Nov 17, 2010 8:43 am
If so, why?
And you do you propose to cut greenhouse gas emissions deeply enough and quickly enough to stabilize Earth's climate at 350ppm or even 450ppm if "we" keep building the highways you so dearly love?
by Greg on Nov 17, 2010 8:47 am
Honestly, I think extending Metro further is a mistake. It is a hybrid urban system. We continue to pretend it's a commuter system, assuming that the additional distance we add makes it more efficient. That simply is not the case, it's near capacity now, what makes people think adding length to the system will change that?
The same argument can be made for adding highway lanes, as soon as it's built, it will be filled since at adds more cars (because it provides the false impression that an additional lane means faster travel).
Now is the time as a region to look realistically at the future and either add to the existing non-automotive network or do something revolutionary like create a new system or expand modes that are under capacity. I'm thinking of the RER in Paris as an example. It works as an express system in Paris and an true commuter system outside of the city. I think expanding MARC and making it a true commuter alternative that provides a fast-one seat trip to the District will provide greater time-saving benefits for as well as provide an alternative transportation option for future residents.
by R. Myers on Nov 17, 2010 11:47 am
by Greg on Nov 17, 2010 12:06 pm
by intermodal commuter on Nov 17, 2010 12:32 pm
But I do worry about the authorities then ruining it by approving more and more townless townhouse developments, and not implimenting the transit ideas proposed in this blog as well.
The Feds have no credibility if they insist that we can not afford both expanded highways and transit.
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 17, 2010 3:06 pm
by Captain Hilts on Nov 17, 2010 9:37 pm
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 17, 2010 11:30 pm
Peak oil.
Climate chaos.
Destruction of farm land.
Destruction of habitat and species.
Air pollution, disease and premature death.
Bankrupt economy.
Ring a few bells?
by Greg on Nov 18, 2010 7:06 am
by Greg on Nov 18, 2010 7:09 am
climate chaos- the lie (see above) appended with the supposed infeasibility of alternative fuels and electic/hyrdeds (why nothing on preparation for global warming?
destruction of farm land- you mean greater farm land produce access to markets, or the developement of townless townhouses which escape new urbainist hold you finger up to see what the elities want types.
Destruction of habitat and species- such as? Perhaps sewer rats displced by the I-66 K Strete Tunnel- but not office buildings or anything else?
Bankrupt economy- yes, roads are inadequate so business moves elsewhere; government imposes 55 NMSL, automobile engineering goes to sh*t for Detroit, German and Janapnese manufctaurers take larger market share.
Greg, are the ringing bells in your head? Freeways and automobiles are quite sustainable owing to human ingeniuty.
You need to park this jesuitical nonsense back in Fordham University. Freeways are the proverbial 'white van' scapegoat of the intellectually challenged.
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 18, 2010 12:55 pm
"climate chaos - the lie"
What is the lie? Which of these are you asserting is untrue:
- the earth is not warming
- humans are not the major cause?
The fact that the earth has warmed by about 1 degree F over the last 100 years is a well documented fact. Even if you subscribe to "Climate-gate," you don't need a thermometer to tell you. There are thousands upon thousands of studies of how nature is responding: migrations, timing of seasons, retreating ice, melting glaciers, timing of ice-over and thaw of lakes & rivers, increasing intensity of tropical storms, range of insects, range of flora, albedo of the earth, thermal coral bleaching and dozens of other variables. Although one could cherry pick a few that don't support warming, the overwhelming preponderance of them do and are consistent with an increase of about 0.7 degrees C. Fact. Not opinion. Fact. (If you like, here's the NASA data, but--as I said--you don't need thermometers.)
So we know the earth is warming. Why? There has to be a mechanism (forcing) driving it. Paleo-climatic changes were typically driven by changes in solar intensity and then increased or reduced with atmospheric and other feedbacks. Either that or volcanic activity (or giant meteorites! Sorry, dinosaurs.)
No climate skeptic has yet proposed an alternative mechanism to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that accounts for the warming over the past century that stands up to scientific scrutiny. Might there be some unknown forcing that we haven't discovered causing the warming? Perhaps, but I don't think it's wise to go along with those who religiously "believe" that our cookies will be saved by some magic.
This "lie" has been accepted by every single respected scientific body on the planet. Every. Single. One.
Look here for a list. Including the Royal Society, AAAS, National Academies of dozens of nations, American Meteorological Society, etc. If you don't want to look at the link, here's the key statement:
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.
Zero.
What is it that you know that these literally scores of established and respected scientific organizations do not?
Oh, I know. It's actually an enormous international conspiracy, with which GGW is complicit, that seeks to make everyone ride buses, live in high-rise apartments, sweat in the summer and wear scratchy sweaters in the winter. And it's masterminded by that evil genius, Al Gore. Bwa-ha-ha!! He was even behind this 1959 article in Scientific American. Even at the age of 11, he was plotting his evil plan.
Even more nefarious is how he went back in time to 1896 to help Arrhenius predict how excess CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to rising temperatures. In fact, I have noted that never has anyone reported seing Al Gore and Svante Arrhenius in the same room at the same time. Coincidence, you say?
Sorry, Mr. Willinger, there is no lie about global warming no matter how loudly and many times you'd like to assert it.
Okay, everybody. Enough of this. Back to the debate about highways. Sorry for the distraction.
by Steve O on Nov 18, 2010 8:46 pm
the lie is not climate change per se, rather the lie is that it cannot be avoided while maintaining our current lifestyles (a hypothesis reliant upn static technology), and that we should not prepare for it, in case that is wrong.
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 19, 2010 12:15 am
When you get a chance, please share exactly which alternatives fuels and hard technologies you believe will fill the coming energy gap as global conventional oil production goes into decline.
Please share when you think those fuels and technologies will come on line, and at what rates, and at what costs.
Then please share what social and economic impacts are likely to result when (okay, if) those fuels and technologies cannot be brought on line soon enough and at low enough costs to fill the gap with major environmental and economic damage.
Likewise, please share which technologies you believe can be bought on right now to cut emissions quickly enough and deeply enough to avoid a temperature increase of 2 degrees C, never mind 1.5 degrees C.
All of this drives at the question of whether major highway expansions make sense or are even remotely sustainable.
by Greg on Nov 19, 2010 9:26 am
You have not heard of biomass, not corn but hemp and algea fuel. You are aware of the concpet of biofuels in general- are not you- which is subverted by the MERCANTILST sytem thta favors corn (or alcohol and pharm regarding drugs)
It is pretty obvious that the dogma pushed at GGW is founded on a selective ignorance that plcaes existing technologys and markets above all- and if that mindset had been allowed to reign, we would be breathing dried horse feceses.
It is all about protecting markets in petro, as done by the idiotic 1970s cancellation of the K Street Tunnel and other needed trafficways owing to a wierd idea thta petro is simply not replaceable- which what MERCANTILISM is all about (yet ignored by the impressonable college students).
If you all were truely concenrned about global warmming, then why nothing to address that?
I say take that played out docgma back to the monastary.
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 19, 2010 11:23 am
There's obviously a chance some of the peak-oil doomsday scenarios may be overblown, but "Don't worry, we'll think of something" hardly seems more responsible.
by oboe on Nov 19, 2010 11:31 am
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb20090415_376954.htm
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/october/160767/Could-algae-be-used-to-fuel-airplanes
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 19, 2010 11:36 am
When you get a chance, please type that last note in English.
Then get thee to a nunnery!
by Greg on Nov 19, 2010 4:32 pm
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 19, 2010 4:48 pm
I use the word "bacon" here figuratively, of course, being the tree-hugging, granola-crunching vegetarian that I am.
But I'll address a few of your points later, when I have a little more free time.
'til then....
by Greg on Nov 19, 2010 5:11 pm
Tell your superior general that his dogmans are absurdities and that you are really sick of pushing this mercantilist line to guilt pepole out to disregard innovation, as did LiZ Rowe bawck during the mid 1970s.
by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 19, 2010 8:51 pm
Add a Comment