0405slides

Slide1: 

Why Traffic Stinks... And What We Can Do About it Richard Parsons President & CEO Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce

Regional Mass Transit System Planned in the 1960s: Built as Planned: 

Regional Mass Transit System Planned in the 1960s: Built as Planned Result: Washington Region Ranks Second in the Nation in Transit Ridership (after New York City)

Many of Region’s Master-Planned Highways Were Never Built [Red lines indicate the 1,500 lane-miles of major highways deleted or incomplete]: 

Many of Region’s Master-Planned Highways Were Never Built [Red lines indicate the 1,500 lane-miles of major highways deleted or incomplete] Result: Washington Region is 3rd Most Congested in the Nation

Slide4: 

Maryland has Dropped from 11th to 48th in the Nation in Per Capita Highway Capital Expenditures

Montgomery County Has Not Received Equitable Funding for Major State Road Projects: 

Montgomery County Has Not Received Equitable Funding for Major State Road Projects

The Washington Region Faces a Huge Travel-Demand-to-Capacity Gap by 2020: 

The Washington Region Faces a Huge Travel-Demand-to-Capacity Gap by 2020 Source: M-NCPPC (Vehicle Miles Traveled)

Slide10: 

Our Transportation Policy (Pre-2002): Doing the Same Thing Over and Over, Expecting Different Results... Falling for the myth of “Demand Reduction” as a substitute for investing in road and transit infrastructure (focus on mass transit, land-use, other alternatives to auto travel, instead of attempting to meet any part of the predicted growth in auto travel through capacity expansion). Ignoring findings of every major transportation study showing this approach would not work (Regional plans have always called for balanced investments in roads and transit, in addition to demand reduction). Blaming “Growth” rather than the incompetence of public officials in planning for and accommodating the modest growth we have seen (The growth rate in Montgomery County has been slowly declining ever since 1990, from 1.5% to 1.4% per year, by far, the slowest growth rate of any suburban jurisdiction in our region, according to the U.S. Census Bureau). Inventing the term “Paralysis by Analysis” (e.g., the best approach to any problem is to study it to death and see if it goes away on its own).

Slide11: 

Daily Travel Realities 25% of all trips are commuting trips 75% of all daily trips are non-commuting trips 15% of work trips use mass transit 5.5% of all trips use mass transit Roughly 90% of all daily trips are made on our roads and highways (and we rank #2 in transit ridership in the U.S.) 100% of busses, emergency vehicles, delivery vans and service vehicles, taxis, interstate “through-traffic” on our highways, and large trucks must use our road network for every trip they make. There is no “transit” or “teleworking” solution to moving freight or delivering a pizza.

Slide12: 

Montgomery County’s New Transportation Policy: Listen to the Experts, Planners and Voters; Implement Approved Plans; and Demand Results -- Real Traffic Relief in Our Lifetimes In 2002, voters elected a new County Council majority committed to a more realistic and balanced approach that includes: Continued emphasis on demand-reduction, including some of the nation’s highest impact taxes and most restrictive “slow-growth” land-use policies, Improved transit service, More Concentrated “Smart Growth” development around existing Metro Stations, plus Building key road improvements in our Master Plans.

Slide13: 

Montgomery County’s New Transportation Plans: Expand Road & Transit Network, Address Major Bottlenecks With $1 Billion in New Capital Projects* * This Plan Reduces Congestion by 26% between Now and 2015 “Go Montgomery!” Plan: 53% of funding goes to transit 47% to road improvements

Slide14: 

The Single Most Important Project in this Plan, from a Purely Transportation Standpoint, is the ICC. The ICC has been found (in every previous study) to deliver substantial traffic relief, lasting reductions in road and intersection congestion, reduced travel times, and improved access to jobs and affordable housing. Even after 40 years of study and debate, NOT ONE viable non-road alternative to the ICC has ever been documented or proposed.

Slide15: 

Source: Maryland State Highway Administration and Federal Highway Administration, 2004 DEIS. ICC Delivers: Major Reductions in Traffic on Local Roads Traffic on All the Green Segments Drops by More Than 10%

ICC Delivers: Shrinks Duration of “Rush Hour” Conditions at Local Intersections Each Day by 27% : 

ICC Delivers: Shrinks Duration of “Rush Hour” Conditions at Local Intersections Each Day by 27% Source: Maryland SHA and Federal highway Admin, 2004 DEIS, Page IV-343

Slide18: 

ICC: Is Consistent with MD “Smart Growth” Laws

Slide19: 

Key Findings from the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): Dozens of Non-ICC “Alternatives” for this Corridor Have Already Been Exhaustively Studied AND REJECTED by State and Federal Agencies. All of them were found to be Ineffective. Alternatives Rejected as Ineffective or Unrealistic: Transit Alternatives “Smart-Growth” Land-Use/“LUTRAQ” Approach Upgrade Existing Local Roads Alternatives None were found to significantly reduce congestion on the Beltway or on local roads in the study area North of the Beltway. None of these options have even been carried forward for further study.

Slide20: 

Upgrade Existing Roads Alternative (UERA): Widening approximately 34 miles of east-west and north-south roadways to or beyond the number of lanes specified in the counties’ master plans, and improving 26 intersections. These include MD 355, MD 115, MD 28, MD 198, Norwood Rd., Briggs Chaney Rd., Fairland Rd., Cherry Hill Rd., Old Gunpowder Rd., and Contee Rd., among others. 2004 DEIS Findings: “Places more traffic on local roads and arterials that, even with the improvements, would remain heavily congested” “Motorists would be subject to frequent signalized intersections, entrances and driveways” “Transit trips between Laurel and Gaithersburg would take nearly twice as long than with an access-controlled highway. Likewise, auto trips would take nearly twice as long…” “Substantially more accidents on the arterial routes than on an access-controlled highway” “Significant pressures for strip development and undesirable intense commercial development would be generated…” * Source: Draft Intercounty Connector (ICC) Alternative Screening Matrix, Maryland State Highway Administration, Nov.2003. Already Rejected Alternatives (I):

Slide21: 

Transit-Only Alternatives: Include transit systems such as new light rail or commuter rail system on a dedicated transitway to connect origins and destinations in the I-270 and I-95 corridors. No new roadways or improvements to existing roadways would be included. Transitways along the Master-Plan Alignment for the ICC, Randolph Rd., and the White Oak Transitway were tested. 2004 DEIS Findings: “Transit Only Alternatives would only minimally reduce the number of automobiles and trucks using the already congested system of roadways” “would have a negligible effect on congestion” “The highest projected ridership on any of the three 1997 DEIS transit alternatives provided only a 1% reduction in travel by auto” “Transit-only measures would not provide a reliable alternative east-west route for emergency response situations” * Source: Draft Intercounty Connector (ICC) Alternative Screening Matrix, Maryland State Highway Administration, Nov.2003. Already Rejected Alternatives (II):

Slide22: 

Balanced Land-Use (LUTRAQ-type Alternative): Alternative land-use plan provides more transit-oriented development, revitalization of existing communities, and a better balance of housing and jobs (i.e. more housing in I-270 corridor, and more jobs in eastern Montgomery County/northern Prince George’s County), and 20,000 fewer jobs and 2,000 fewer households overall than current forecasts. Variations of this alternative were studied in the 1997 DEIS and by the Montgomery Planning Board in its 2002 Transportation Policy Report, and were found to have minimal impact on traffic levels in both cases. 2004 DEIS Findings: “With substantial congestion in the Study Area today that is largely related to existing development, future changes in land use could not appreciably affect existing development and travel” “Shifts in land use would not provide new highway capacity that is efficient and reliable” “The ICC Study Area is already substantially developed, as noted in the M-NCPPC records, with nearly 80 percent of the households and employment planned at build-out in place in 2003” * Source: Draft Intercounty Connector (ICC) Alternative Screening Matrix, Maryland State Highway Administration, Nov.2003. Already Rejected Alternatives (III):

Slide23: 

Conclusions: I. Why Our Traffic Stinks (a). We have not Made Significant Investments in Transportation Infrastructure - Especially Our Roads and Highways. (b). We have not Followed Our Own Transportation Plans to Support Existing Communities. (c). We have continued to follow policies that our own studies showed would not work.

Slide24: 

Conclusions: II. What We Can Do About It (a). Follow Our Own Approved Plans: Focus on implementation of ALL major road and transit facilities in those plans, target worst traffic bottlenecks, make new capacity in these areas our top priority. (b). Continue to Focus on Transit, Land-use and other Demand-reduction Policies: But understand that all the most effective solutions involve Adding Significant New Capacity to our road network and this takes revenues. (c). Face the Facts: There are effective solutions that significantly improve travel conditions, but it will take many years to catch up with decades of under-investment and see any real results.

Slide25: 

Get Involved in Your Transportation Future Contact: The Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce 51 Monroe Street, Ste. 1609 Rockville, MD 20850 (301) 738-0015 www.montgomerycountychamber.com Join our Grassroots Network for Real Traffic Relief.