 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
An abridged version of this statement was presented by Ethan Goffman at the Maryland Department of Transportation's Public Hearing on the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study at Gaithersburg Middle School on June 16, 2009.
The plans for widening I-270 reflect a business-as-usual philosophy, a throw-back to a 1950s "roads first" approach rather than a forward-looking one that emphasizes transit and traffic relief. We know now that increasing road capacity inevitably leads to greater car use, and then to car-centric residential and commercial construction alongside the new capacity. If we ignore the lessons of the past, and expand I-270 as far away as Frederick, we are dooming ourselves to more and, especially, longer, car trips.
The Montgomery Sierra Club does support a pair set of HOT lanes to Frederick, which is necessary and unavoidable due to current and projected levels of traffic. Widening I-270, however, would cause extra growth where we don't want it, away from DC, our region's major population center, which already provides transit options.
We support building the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) before any additional road widening. Indeed, we urge adoption of a general "transit first" policy, where upgrades to transit get priority over new or improved roads. Too often, transit is considered secondary to car travel. A look at the estimated cost of these projects bears this out: $4.6 billion on highway improvement (2.6 billion for the Montgomery County section) versus $450 million for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) version or $770 million for the light rail version of the CCT.
We believe that now is the time to put transit in the driver's seat. This will help our region realize its Smart Growth goals of adding transit convenient to the city, particularly putting jobs near existing residential development. It follows that we support the current Master Plan and corridor study version of the CCT, rather than a rerouting to serve a projected Life Sciences Center with 60,000 employees. We wish that Biotech jobs could be added where they serve the needs of the community, such as in Langley Park, which has many residents but few jobs and is located on the proposed Purple Line route.
Rerouting the CCT through Belward Farm has the additional disadvantage of delaying a long-planned project by at least a year. Due to the need for a new environmental study, we also support extending the CCT to the heart of Clarksburg, where development is densest and so will boost ridership. Indeed, such transit options will allow families to live with fewer cars. The current need for so many vehicles places an enormous, almost hidden tax on families.
In addition, we support a BRT rather than a light rail option for the CCT since BRT is far more cost effective. This must be a full, complete BRT with priority over cars, raised platforms, and other amenities that will draw passengers who would not take a regular bus. We do support light rail only for the densest, most permanent, Smart Growth friendly areas.
We also support study of the Action Committee for Transit alternative to the CCT, the J-shaped route with two legs—a shorter one to Kentlands or Metropolitan Grove, and a longer, direct route that would better live up to the intent to serve the corridor cities with efficient transit.
A Corridor transit system should become a vital part of a more extensive BRT network of which the CCT would be a leading component. This would be part of a true revisioning of the transportation network needed to support Maryland's—and Montgomery County's—objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
With a growing population, we cannot afford the business-as-usual expansion of roads. We simply will not be sustainable regarding global warming, local pollution, or reduction of runoff to facilitate clean water. We in the Sierra Club request that Maryland and Montgomery County finally take seriously their rhetoric about sustainability and Smart Growth and begin a true rethinking of transportation and its impact on lifestyle and land use.
Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals for I-270. I appreciate hearing from you and apologize for the delay in responding.
As you may know, on November 17, 2009, the County Council voted on the locally preferred alternative for I-270 and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). This recommendation is transmitted to the state Department of Transportation, which will make a recommendation to the Governor, who will make the final decision on this issue.
I supported an alternative for I-270 that would limit widening to two reversible high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes rather than the originally proposed four regular lanes. These HOT lanes would be free for high occupancy vehicles, such as buses and carpools, but other drivers would pay tolls, which would vary depending on the level of congestion. The varying tolls are designed to ensure that the lanes move at a reasonable speed. Drivers not wanting to pay a toll would still be able to use the regular lanes on I-270. This recommendation passed unanimously.
Initially, I was uncertain whether any widening of I-270 was warranted. I reviewed the information with a focus on finding ways to allow transit vehicles to bypass traffic congestion. I concluded that with the projected growth, there was not sufficient existing capacity to allow high occupancy vehicles to move unimpeded on I-270, even with a fully functioning CCT. I strongly support identifying sustainable solutions to gridlock along I-270 and elsewhere. Past projects have demonstrated that while simple addition of general purpose lanes on highways may alleviate traffic congestion for a limited period of time, they do not produce long-term solutions to traffic. That is why I believe two reversible HOT lanes could provide the additional capacity for high occupancy vehicles to move efficiently on the I-270 corridor and encourage people to ride public transportation and leave their cars at home.
That is also why I am a strong supporter of the CCT. The Council voted 6-3 to recommend light rail for the CCT.
I voted for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) because BRT offers all of the positives associated with light rail at much less cost. Both options would have dedicated right-of-way, meaning that tracks or lanes would not be available for other vehicles and permanent stations; however BRT would cost about 40% less to construct—up to $466 million less, depending on the alignment, and it would have lower operating costs. In addition, BRT would not have overhead wires, which are currently needed for light rail.
Some have expressed concern that people who would ride light rail will not ride a bus; however, BRT is not simply a bus. The ride on a BRT vehicle would be virtually indistinguishable from a light rail vehicle. In addition, BRT offers flexibility. For example, if there were neighborhoods with sufficiently high ridership, the BRT vehicle could begin in the neighbhorhood and move on to the CCT dedicated right-of-way, providing a ride without transfers. This flexibility would not alter the permanence, speed or dedicated right-of-way of the CCT, but it would give commuters a faster, easier ride.
Also as part of my commitment to sustainable development, I have developed a proposal for a BRT system throughout the County that would supplement the Metro, CCT and Purple Line. For more information on my BRT proposal, please go to my Web site.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marc
Marc Elrich
Councilmember At-Large
