MEMORANDUM. July 14, 2017

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "MEMORANDUM. July 14, 2017"

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM #3A July 18, 2017 Action MEMORANDUM July 14, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: County Council Roger Berliner, Council President Action - Opposition to a New Potomac River Bridge Crossing Urgent action is needed to dissuade the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) from supporting a study of a new Potomac River bridge. The project, which includes extending Route 28 in Virginia to the Intercounty Connector in Maryland via a new northern bridge of the Potomac, was recommended for study by the TPB's Long-Range Plan Task Force at its July 5 meeting. The issue will come before.the full TPB at its July 19 meeting. This resolution urges the TPB to reject inserting any new Potomac River bridge crossing project into its long-range transportation plan. Montgomery County has long opposed another Potomac River bridge crossing from Northern Virginia to Montgomery County because of the severe negative impacts such a project would have on our environment, our Agricultural Reserve, established residential neighborhoods and for promoting sprawl. This Council has repeatedly asked Maryland and Virginia transportation officials to focus on real solutions - not fantasy- to the unacceptable congestion on I-270 all the way to the Capital Beltway by expanding high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes to the American Legion Bridge and Maryland side of the Capital Beltway. Studies have demonstrated that a vast majority of commuters traveling through this major chokepoint are headed to destinations within or near the Capital Beltway, making an expensive, sprawl-inducing Potomac River outer crossing a serious mistake with scarce transportation dollars available. Based on the unanimous vote last month by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors to direct county staff to identify potential corridors for a bridge route and to include a statement of support for a new Potomac River crossing in the county's Countywide Transportation Plan, the idea of an additional river crossing appears to be gaining momentum. We must once again make it clear that Montgomery County opposes another Potomac River bridge crossing. Attached is information from the July 5 TPB Long-Range Plan Task Force meeting regarding the proposed Potomac River crossing analysis and a July 3 article detailing Loudoun County's planning for a new bridge project. I ask for your support of this important resolution.

2 Resolution No.: Introduced: July 11, 2017 Adopted: COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Lead Sponsor: Council President Berliner Co-Sponsors: Councilmembers Riemer, Eirich, Floreen, and Leventhal SUBJECT: Opposition to a New Potomac River Bridge Crossing Background 1. On July 5, 2017, the Long-Range Plan Task Force of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) recommended that the TPB approve further study of the "Additional Northern Bridge Crossing/Corridor" project. 2. The "Additional Northern Bridge Crossing/Corridor" project would consist of a new northern bridge crossing of the Potomac River as part of a multimodal roadway corridor extended from Virginia Route 28 into Montgomery County to connect to the Intercounty Connector (ICC). 3. On July 19, 2017, the TPB is scheduled to decide whether to accept the recommendation of the Long-Range Plan Task Force to do further study of the "Additional Northern Bridge Crossing/Corridor" project. 4. Montgomery County and the State of Maryland have consistently and repeatedly opposed construction of a "second crossing" of the Potomac River into Montgomery County. The route for such a crossing was removed from the master plan of highways and from the state's highway program in There is no feasible route for such a roadway in Montgomery County, given the establishment of the Montgomery County Agricultural Reserve in 1980 and the amount of land now held in easements in perpetuity primarily for agricultural and limited residential uses. 5. This proposed corridor would significantly degrade the Agricultural Reserve, created by the Montgomery County Council in 1980 to conserve farmland and to protect the environment, as well as established residential neighborhoods in Potomac, Darnestown, North Potomac, Rockville and Gaithersburg. 6. The Agricultural Reserve has helped Montgomery County retain more than 500 farms that contribute more than a quarter billion dollars annually to Montgomery County's economy, employing more than 10,000 residents. It has served as a critical environmental

3 stewardship tool, protecting forests, streams, and the federally-designated Piedmont Sole Source Aquifer through permanent agricultural land preservation easements. 7. Numerous previous studies have been conducted of an additional Potomac River bridge connecting Northern Virginia and Montgomery County, including a 2001 study by the Federal Highway Administration that was cancelled at the request of Congressman Frank Wolf (R) of Northern Virginia because of serious concerns about the negative impact of the project to neighborhoods on both sides of the river, the environment, the C&O Canal National Historical Park, and users of the Canal towpath. Studies have also demonstrated that a vast majority amount of commuters utilizing this corridor travel to destinations within or near the Capital Beltway. 8. As set forth below, the Montgomery County Council has made it clear on numerous occasions that the most important priorities in the I-270 corridor extending all the way to the American Legion Bridge -- a terribly congested corridor that imposes unacceptable travel times on Montgomery County residents and the region - is to provide significant additional high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane capacity during peak periods that would also accommodate transit. These priorities should be implemented before further consideration of an additional crossing that would seriously degrade the environment, promote more sprawl, detract from fixing what is broken, compete for scarce transportation dollars, and create serious jurisdictional tensions. 9. In 2012, the Montgomery County Council and Fairfax County Board of Supervisors requested that the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) include as part of a $6 million study in MDOT's Consolidated Transportation Program the addition of two HOT lanes to the Capital Beltway from the I-270 West Spur to Virginia, consistent with the Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Board's call to extend its Beltway express toll lanes into Maryland. 10. In 2015, the Montgomery County Council and Fairfax County Board of Supervisors reiterated the request to study toll lanes across the American Legion Bridge and asked their state's respective governors and transportation secretaries to focus their attention and resources on proposed improvements to the existing bridge rather than on an additional Potomac River crossing. 11. In 2015, the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board found that based on current and projected future transportation conditions, the most pressing and immediate needs for improved Potomac River crossings included reducing congestion on the American Legion Bridge and expanding Metrorail capacity between Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom in Washington, DC. 12. In June 2017, County Executive Isiah Leggett and the Montgomery County Council requested as one of their top transportation project priorities that MDOT.advance a study of capacity and operational strategies from I-270 and along the Capital Beltway into Virginia that address freeway performance along with transit connections over the Potomac River, including advancement of HOT lanes between the I-270 West Spur and Virginia.

4 Action The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following resolution: The Council urges the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board to oppose further study of the "Additional Northern Bridge Crossing/Corridor" project and to reject inserting a new Potomac River bridge crossing into its long-range transportation plan. This is a correct copy of Council action. Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council

5 (~ National Capital Region ~) Transportation Planning Board MEMORANDUM TO: TPB Long-Range Plan Task Force FROM: Kanti Srikanth, TPB Staff Director Michael Grant, ICF SUBJECT: Proposed Initiatives for Consideration to Recommend for TPB Acceptance DATE: July 5, 2017 JULY 5 MEETING PURPOSE AND PROCESS To maintain the timeline mandated by the enabling resolution, the task force must select for recommendation for TPB's acceptance on July 19 a list of "approximately 6 to 10 projects, programs, and policies for further analysis." 1 To achieve this purpose, task force members will come prepared to open the meeting by voting for their preferred 10 initiatives to recommend for analysis out of the 16 initiatives described in this memo. The COG/ICF team will answer brief clarifying questions on the 16 initiatives to facilitate voting. The outcome of this vote will not be binding, but will form the basis from which the task force will develop its recommendation to the TPB. If there is a clear consensus around carrying forward certain initiatives while dropping others, the task force will do so and engage in a deeper discussion of those that remain. ICF will then facilitate a discussion of the remaining initiatives around which there was no clear consensus. Task force members will have the opportunity to propose adjustments to these initiatives to develop a consensus position. Voting and discussion will continue until the task force has completed its list of approximately 6 to 10 initiatives to recommend for further analysis. INITIATIVES PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION Based on discussions at the June 21 Long-Range Plan Task Force meeting and subsequent written comments received from members, the COG/ICF team staff recrafted the "bundles" previously discussed into a set of 16 "initiatives," which may be considered mega-projects, mega-programs, or mega-policies of a regional scale and which may involve multiple components. Use of the term "initiative" allows the task force to proceed without needing to differentiate between those that are projects, policies, or programs. The initiatives reflect the following principles and points of agreement reached at prior meetings: Each initiative goes beyond the existing CLRP. Because this stage is only moving initiatives on to analysis, considerations of viability (e.g., political, financial, etc.) have been limited. 1 As charged in Resolution R establishing the mission and tasks for Phase II of the Long-Range Plan Task Force. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 777 NORTH CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 300, WASl;I_INGTON, DC MWCOG.ORG/TPB (202) ~J

6 Each initiative has the potential to make substantial improvements to at least some portion of the region in achieving the goals described in TPB and COG's governing documents. Where an initiative requires multiple components to achieve substantial improvements and those components all relate sufficiently to each other, they will be considered one cohesive mega-project/program/policy. Table 1 shows the 16 initiatives under the following categories to enable comparisons among similar initiatives: Highway/Multimodal Projects; Transit Projects; Technology/System Operations; Land Use Policy; and Travel Demand Management and Pricing Policies. Each initiative has one row with separate columns for the name of the initiative; the components of it; and comments to inform the task force's consideration. The components column describes supporting actions for each initiative and includes changes in land use 2 where appropriate. For instance, major transit improvements are assumed to include improved local circulator buses, parkand-ride capacity (as appropriate), bicycle/pedestrian access, and supportive land use. Similarly, roadway improvements are assumed to include operational and multimodal improvements. As requested by the task force, Table 2 shows the COG/ICF team's rough qualitative assessment of how initiatives might perform using a high, medium, low, none, or negative rating; a rough estimate of costs was also included. 3 Table 2 is background information and should not control the task force's decision-making process. 2 Regarding land use, most initiatives would not affect development until at least ; any shifts in households/jobs would be in new development over Much of the analysis will be conducted using sketch planning methods where detailed assumptions and land use, infrastructure alignments (feasibility), etc. will generally not be applied; some results will simply be provided in general order-of-magnitude estimates of impacts. Impacts may continue after 2045 but would not be included in Visualize The team did not perform independent analysis of these initiatives, and these assessments may vary depending on how each initiative and its performance measures are defined for analysis. rr~ ~

7 TABLE 1 - REVISED LIST OF 16 INITIATIVES Initiative Components Comments Highway/Multimodal Projects M1. Regional Express Express toll lanes network (HOV and This initiative is similar to the Travel Network transit free ) with added lanes where previous CLRP Aspirations feasible on all existing limited access scenario and addresses many of [Similar to previous R1] the top congestion hotspots in highways (including remaining the region, including those along portion of the Capital Beltway, 1-270, and the spur. Dulles Toll Road, U.S. 50 and assumes expanded American Legion Ml addresses most of the Bridge) congestion hotspots in M2, plus more. Staff recommends to not New express bus services on select both Ml and M2. network (paid in part through tolls) connecting major Activity Centers. M2. Regional Roadway Address top 5 congestion hotspots Many of these regional Congestion Hotspot all time and top 5 congestion congestion hotspots are Relief addressed by the Ml Regional hotspots peak-only, including Express Travel Network. Staff adjoining connections (1-495 IL recommends to not select both [Component of previous between VA-267 and spur, Ml and M2. R7] IL between MD-355 and MD- 185, OL between and MD-190, OL between MD-193 and 1-95, 1-95 SB at VA-123, DC-295 SB at Benning Rd., SPUR SB between Democracy Blvd. and 1-495) Incorporate enhanced system operations strategies (e.g., ramp metering, active traffic management) as feasible M3. Additional New northern bridge crossing of Assume some shifting of land Northern Bridge Potomac River, as multimodal use to Activity Centers in this Crossing/Corridor corridor (VA Rt. 28 extended across corridor. the Potomac into Maryland to [Component of connect to ICC, with limited previous R7] interchanges) New express bus services connecting Activity Centers in the corridor)

8 Initiative Components Comments Transit Projects T 4. Regional Priority Priority bus service on WMATA's These are the highest WMATA Bus Corridors Priority Corridor Network - Includes bus ridership corridors in the improved operational strategies such region and will include express [Previous component of as transit signal priority/exclusive routes along existing Metrobus R2] bus lanes, increased frequency and routes. span or service, enhanced bus stops, etc. with corridors in DC [e.g., Georgia Ave, Wisconsin Ave], MD [e.g., University Blvd, Veirs Mill Rd, US29], and VA [e.g., Richmond Hwy, Columbia Pike]; Additional DC streetcar line (northsouth) as complement to network T5. Regionwide Bus Bus rapid transit (BRT)/transitway These are often new routes and Rapid Transit and networks in Montgomery County, could represent a higher level of Transitways Prince George's County, Northern transit service than in T4 Virginia (TransAction 2040), DC, and [Previous component of transitway from Branch Ave to R2] Waldorf. T6. Regional Commuter VRE System Plan 2040 and MARC Rail Enhancements Growth and Investment Plan (including run-thru and two-way [Previous R3] service on selected lines, increased frequency and hours of service) Long Bridge corridor improvements including at least 4 tracks and bicycle-pedestrian facilities T7. Metrorail Regional 100% 8-car trains Core capacity Metrorail station improvements at Improvements high-volume stations in system core Second Rosslyn station to reduce [Previous R4: Metrorail interlining and increase frequency Expansion - Stage 1 New Metrorail core line to add plus component of capacity across Potomac River (new previous RS: Metrorail Rosslyn tunnel) between Virginia and Expansion - Stage 2]] DC through Georgetown to Union Station toward Waterfront

9 Initiative Components Comments TB. Metrorail Extensions Metrorail extensions to Cannot choose T8 without Centreville/Gainesville, Hybla choosing T7, since core capacity [Component of previous Valley/Potomac Mills is needed. R5: Metrorail Expansion Can consider an extension in MD, such May want to consider choosing - Stage 2]] as to National Harbor, to make this between this and T5, which more regionally focused (to be defined later) serves some similar functions Assume some shifting of land use to Activity Centers in these corridors. T9. Regional Purple line extension to Tysons Assume some shifting of land Circumferential Light (west) and Eisenhower Avenue use to Activity Centers in this Rail System (east) corridor. [Previous R6] Technology/ System Operations X10. Technology and Expanded regional incident One option might be to combine Operational management this initiative with M2, or instead Improvements utilize these strategies as the Integrated corridor management primary focus of the congestion (includes traveler information hotspot initiative [Previous R12 and systems, and transit signal priority) component of RB] Reversible lanes on key highways and arterials (e.g., concepts applied on Connecticut Avenue in DC) along with improved arterial design such as turn movement treatments (to be identified based on strong directional flows) Demand-responsive services for persons with limited mobility and general population X11. Autonomous/ Vehicle-to-infrastructure CV There is high potential for Connected Vehicles investments AVs/CVs to significantly alter roadway effective capacity, Potential for AV lanes [Previous component of safety, and travel demands, and a lot of uncertainties. This could R8] potentially be explored outside of the initiatives selected.

10 Initiative Components Comments Land Use Policy L12. Optimize Regional Redistributingjobs/housing to This policy would attempt to Land-Use Balance increase jobs on the eastern side maximize land use benefit, and could be synergistic with several Redistributing housing around [Previous R9] other initiatives. For example, underutilized rail stations and this could be paired with Activity Centers with high-capacity infrastructure investments that transit focus on east-west divide Build more housing in the region to projects, such as light rail match employment (about 130,000 connecting Silver Spring to more households) Eisenhower Avenue and DC streetcars (cross-anacostia connection); those are in T4 and T9. Travel Demand Management and Pricing Policies P13. Transit Fare Policy Reduced price Metrorail fare for off- This policy would be Changes peak direction during peak period supportive of transit and and on underutilized segments multimodal improvement [Previous component of initiatives that attempt to Free transit for low-income R2, R4 and RS] draw more riders onto residents transit. P14. Employer-based Employer-based parking cash-out These strategies could be Travel Demand Expanded employer-based implemented through an array Management of different policies (e.g., transitjvanpool benefits employer requirements) and/or Expanded telework and flexible programs (e.g., incentives for [Previous R12] schedule adoption telework). Assumes significant Substantial increase in priced expansion beyond current parking in major Activity Centers robust TOM programs in region. P15. Gas and/or VMT Increase price of all travel in region Revenue generation could be tax/ Full Road Pricing used to fund project investment priorities, such as highway, transit or TOM programs [Previous component of investments, and pricing could R13] maximize impact of those investments. P16. Cordon Pricing Toll to enter urban core Revenue generation could be used to fund project investment [Previous R14] priorities, such as highway, transit or TOM programs investments, and pricing could maximize impact of those investments.

11 Initiative Ml. Regional Express Travel Network M2. Regional Roadway Congestion Hotspot Relief TABLE 2 - ROUGH QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF INITIATIVES C I~~ 3 :c "O 00 ro C 0 0 u er:: 00 C -~ i5 ~,: ~ E I- u ~ :, QJ - - u "'.. "' a. e ~ LL 0 - ~ ::, 1/ ~ ~ :, rr., ~a; 0 "O ~ C Q.I -~ rr :;,- QJ :, "O i:: "O - "O 0 E ~ "' "' ::, <(.:: s C ~ - 00 C ~ ~ a,; ;;; "O C: :, Q. QJ QJ ~ oi ~ ~ QJ > QJ I- ~ -"" I.o er:: "'z a; - 0 ~ 'c "' Q. "' 3.!: :; t s z- V'l i:: ci- :: 0 ~ ~ "O C QJ "O "' ~~ QJ ~ "O "' - "' Q. ~~ QJ QJ "' QJ 0 QJ "O u "' - ~ :, Q. Q).:: z ~ z er:: 0:: er::.:: s ~ <( 0 0 cl: None 'None ~L:::o..::w:..:e:.:.r_~=.::::..-~=== :..i:==-- ' None None..-.,. J 1, ~ u QJ E i i= := VI.;~15 1 C QJ "B ~ ~ a. t;; 0 1- QJ = 0 I- a: l'o u "' $$ M3. Additional Northern Bridge Crossing/Corridor T4. Regional Priority Bus Corridors None,, None None ;:'.;.".':''... None None None Nonear - : " No~e4 $ $$ TS. Regionwide Bus Rapid Transit and Transitways ~,;~~f; None None None, - No nn t Nonel.f: ~ T6. Regional Commuter Rail Enhancements., No'ne '_,' _ $ T7. Metrorail Regional Core Capacity Improvements TS. Metrorail Extensions T9. Regional Circumferential light Rail System Xl0. Technology and Operational Improvements XU. Autonomous/ Connected Vehicles '<! ',C,r~ tt~~-~ ~-~~-?-- -~~-,.,~:_,)I N.,?i~ ~- -,~. ~~~- C $$$ ~$ ~ N~~...,.;1(1, $! Ll2. Optimize Regional Land-Use Balance Pl3. Transit Fare Policy Changes P14. Employer-based Travel Demand Management $ PlS. Gas and/or VMT tax/ Full Road Pricing P16. Cordon Pricing., -~-~'\!.lf'-~..: f.ll>~'. -r;ii".t~-:il' None None None~, N_o'!.ei;;;_f'!"Joneffl ;,r ,._,:::-;"';5., 1.;. -:!"\,"' + +

12 7/10/2017 Loudoun Plans for New Potomac Bridge - Loudoun Now Just le. Saturdays at 6:00pm Tarara Winery CLICK!\IE! Leesburg, VA Loudoun Plans for New Potomac Bridge ti :. Renss Greene - 1 Comment c~ii a dck on this ad today!.j.,. r \ Thl! M.iilhlarnlngCenter MATH MM H NASI u r,r Leesburg, VA As county supervisors gathered to hash out the county's transportation questions, one thing was clear: they feel it's time for a new Potomac River bridge.

13 7/10/2017 Loudoun Plans for New Potomac Bridge - Loudoun Now River crossing. That river crossing would be east of Goose Creek and Leesburg. Supervisors also directed the county staff to identify potential corridors for a bridge route. This year's draft TransAction document from the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority suggests connecting to Rt. 28. Speaking at the board's June 29 transportation summit, David Birtwistle, CEO of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, said "decades of study document a clear need" for a new bridge. He referred back to a raft of studies laying out a plan for more river crossings-back as far as 1950, before any current member of the Board of Supervisors was born. Birtwistle said it's time now to make bridges a regional priority, and start working on finding a route and getting right-of-way. I vunrtamc.rt I., ~it BOULDER CREST RETREAT The Golf Club ct Lansdowne._ ,.~.~ \/A201'1 Monday. July 17, 2017 July 15 :2-8 p.m. Fireman's Field Purchase Tickets Online! Wine Food Music Fun' THE SHOPS AT CRESCENT Although the idea of a new bridge has been studied time and again-birtwistle highlighted nine of those studies-the idea has never gained momentum, attributable in large part to resistance from Montgomery County, MD. But Supervisor Geary M. Higgins (R-Catoctin) said, "I believe that the critical mass of support for this is there." Studies have shown broad support among residents on both sides of the river for a new bridge, with relatively few in opposition. Listen In 0 Mond... Momin... "Looking at some of those maps that have been drawn many, many years ago, if we'd done some of the things that are on there, our traffic situation would be a lot better," Supervisor Koran T. Saines (D-Sterling) said. And County Chairwoman Phyllis J. Randall (D-At Large) said she was concerned about environmental impact, but considering all the time cars spend idling in traffic now: "I have to think that the environmental impact of not having this bridge is probably fa r more harsh than having the 00:00 08:03 m GlliM ~Listenon U Apple Podcasts

14 7/10/2017 Loudoun Plans for New Potomac Bridge - Loudoun Now bridge committee, and the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce. ''This takes political will, and in my view that political will has not been there for the last 40 years," said Vice Chairman Ralph M. Buona (R-Ashburn), who introduced the motion to include a bridge in the Countywide Transportation Plan. "No matter where you put it, there's going to be some people that are upset, but at the same time-i always talk about the greater good. This is the greater good on steroids. This crossing would help hundreds of thousands of people in the region, and that's not exaggeration." Transportation Authority Pinpoints Potential Bridge Location The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, wh ich finances hundreds of millions of dollars in construction projects each year, has unveiled its... Continue Loudoun Now 2 SHARE ON TELL US WHAT YOU THINK C START NOW») Upcoming Events Ju L : 1 9:00 am Drama Kids 10 I ' Mystery Playhouse -~ - _) Leesburg Junction ( timely- 1 rcrtefryp.time.ly/event/ Ju L l drama-kids-mystery playhouse-summer camp/? instance_id=1125) 10:00 am Art Exhibit: Bold and Arts in the Village Gallery ( timely- 1 rcrtefryp.time.ly/event/ bold-and-beautiful/? instance_id=1184) :30 pm Live Music: Rocknoceros ' ( 1rcrtefryp.time.ly/event/1 ive-musicrocknoceros/? 1 instance_id=859) : ' 10:00 am Art Exhibit: I 11! 1 Bold and Beautiful@ I Tue I I Arts in the Village -~ : Gallery ( 1 timely- ' 1 rcrtefryp.time.ly/event/. bold-and-beautiful/? : instance_id=1185) :00 pm Drip n' i Splatter: Paintings by I! Barns of Rose