Showing posts with label Montgomery County BRT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Montgomery County BRT. Show all posts

Monday, May 23, 2022

Gaithersburg Mayor & Council to be briefed on MD 355 Flash BRT tonight


The Montgomery County Department of Transportation will deliver a presentation on the MD 355 Flash Bus Rapid Transit line project before Gaithersburg's Mayor and Council tonight, May 23, 2022. MCDOT representatives are expected to tell officials that the project is 25% through the preliminary engineering and design phase. They will also preview a design proposal for a new Lakeforest Mall transit center, which would combine bus, BRT, and parking garage functions, along with retail spaces.

Construction of the BRT system is anticipated to take place between 2025 and 2028. The line would connect Clarksburg to the Bethesda Metro station.

Image via MCDOT

Friday, June 21, 2019

355 Bus Rapid Transit open houses June 26 & 27

What's a $10 billion boondoggle with branding that brings to mind a creepy man wearing a trenchcoat? Montgomery County's proposed $10 billion Bus Rapid Transit network, devised with consulting help from Communist Chinese officials, and branded as "Flash," despite moving only one mile every four minutes. The public will have an opportunity to learn more about the MD 355 BRT route proposed to run between Clarksburg and the Bethesda Metro station at two open houses next week.

Open House #1 will be held Wednesday, June 26, 2019 from 6:00-8:00 PM at the Activity Center at Bohrer Park, located at 506 S. Frederick Avenue in Gaithersburg. The second Open House will be held the next evening, Thursday, June 27 from 6:00-8:00 PM in the Wisconsin Multipurpose Room at the B-CC Regional Services Center, located at 4805 Edgemoor Lane in downtown Bethesda.

You'll notice several key factoids are not emphasized to the public about this particular BRT proposal.

First, if dedicated lanes are utilized, the vehicle capacity of already-jammed MD 355 will be slashed by 33%. If you know that BRT advocates' most-optimistic number for the percent of people who will "get out of their cars" (as the globalists like to say) is only 16% in the best-case scenario, in a "flash" you can quickly calculate that the BRT will have the effect of severely-worsening rush hour traffic - and increasing exhaust emissions from additional idling in traffic jams.

Second, speaking of fumes, these buses run on diesel fuel. Unlike the futuristic subways on wheels depicted in glossy promotional materials you paid for, the buses look just like Metrobuses. That was exposed in one of the most cringeworthy PR disasters of the BRT push, when the actual bus was displayed at the County Fair, and it looked like a junky Metrobus.

Third, the 355 route - like Route 29 and Georgia Avenue BRT lines - will require demolition of thousands of residential and commercial properties between Clarksburg and Bethesda. Watch this very closely, and keep track if all of the same activists who are raging against 37 potential home demolitions for Beltway Express Lanes yell and scream about thousands of demolitions for BRT. I expect to see heartfelt columns from John Kelly denouncing the greedy developers and their puppets on the County Council and Planning Board, and extensive local news coverage of anti-highway folks jumping up and down and lighting their hair on fire to stop BRT! And like the anti-Express Lane and anti-M83-Highway campaigns, shadow-funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, of course.

In the fine print, you'll notice the County is "still studying" the "property impacts" of BRT. LOL.

Fourth, the only thing the Flash does fast is eat up taxpayer money. 355 "Flash" will take a turtle-like 87.2 minutes to travel the 21.8 miles from Clarksburg to the Bethesda Metro station. And then you're not even at work, because you still have to transfer to Metro to reach where the actual jobs are in the District or Northern Virginia. Better pack a Red Bull, my friend.

It's a simple fact that only transit projects that can beat automobile travel times will get ridership, meaning "Flash" is dead-on-arrival. This, of course, is why the War-On-Cars County Council is trying everything to increase auto commuting times, proposing nuclear options ranging from changing the speed limit to 25 MPH along 355, reducing the width of lanes to 10' and seizing one lane in each direction for the bus.

But that still won't create ridership, or "get people out of their cars." Why? Because increasing your auto commute by another 34 minutes still won't take as long as the average one-way transit commute of two hours. So you'll just end up with empty buses running past heavier traffic congestion and thicker clouds of exhaust from idling vehicles. Heckuva job, Brownie!

Why would County officials press ahead anyway, knowing all this? Because BRT isn't meant to improve travel or be a success. It's simply meant to allow urban-density development along all the routes it travels, by magically qualifying them for "transit-oriented development" by being on a "rapid transit line." The Council's developer sugar daddies couldn't be more pleased.

Finally, there's no demand for bus service on 355. I'm the only journalist to conduct spot checks on the $1 million Ride On Extra service between Shady Grove and Medical Center Metro stations. I've yet to find any significant ridership even during rush hour on this line. During peak evening rush hour, I counted one person riding the Ride On Extra in each direction on 355 at Edmonston Drive. During another peak evening rush hour, a Ride On Extra departed Shady Grove Metro station with no passengers on board.

This is a boondoggle of astronomical proportions. For a fraction of the cost of BRT, we could build the M-83 Highway, the long-delayed new Potomac River crossing, the Rockville Freeway between Montrose Road and the ICC, and the equally-long-delayed Georgia Avenue-Norbeck Road interchange. Each one of the aforementioned highways would carry more commuters each day than the entire $10 billion BRT network. And the Potomac River crossing, like I-270 and Beltway Express Lanes, could be built at virtually no cost to taxpayers by private firms that would earn back their investment through tolls on those new lanes and roadways.

In an economically-moribund county where the government's debt - if it were a government department - would be the third-largest department in the County government, highways make the most sense: moving the most people for the lowest cost of any mode of transportation.

Friday, November 18, 2016

MoCo holds naming contest for BRT system...and the names are as lame as BRT

The latest gaffe in the unending quest of the Montgomery County political cartel to build a $5 billion bus rapid transit boondoggle is a naming contest for the system. But it turns out your creativity is not needed - they've already chosen three potential names: "Flash," "Rapid" or "Swift."

Swift?

Flash could help us generate some genuine laughs, as we know the BRT will take 48 minutes to travel only 15 miles. Can you imagine telling someone, "I'm waiting for the Rapid?"

Neither can I.

After the County admitted they were getting consulting advice from the Communist Chinese government on BRT, the implosion of the Independent Transit Authority scam, the realization that BRT will result in the condemnation of thousands of residential and commercial properties countywide, and the revelation that the "futuristic, sleek, train-like vehicles" are actually just going to be old-fashioned diesel buses, these ongoing pratfalls are par for the course for a boondoggle the public opposes - and which could cost taxpayers $500-1000+ a year in additional taxes.

"I am ready to support the infrastructure upgrades [a.k.a. tax increases] that may be necessary in order to provide a higher level of service," County Councilmember and tax-hike specialist Hans Riemer said yesterday.

With Ike Leggett already promising a major tax increase in 2017, which will follow the historic tax hike of 2016 that resulted in the passage of term limits by voters, taxpayers are most definitely not ready to support these taxes...er..."infrastructure upgrades."

Hosting a naming contest in which the public can't even suggest a name? Just more evidence that the cartel swears by Steven Lukes' Power: A Radical View as much as Robert's Rules of Order. Lukes' book fuels most of the ham-fisted government corruption that produces things like the Westbard sector plan and BRT.

In Lukes' concept, when I negotiate with you, the only options on the table for discussion are all acceptable to me. The options that are unacceptable to me are not even up for discussion. Sound familiar?

Taxpayers' goal now should be to continue stalling the creation of BRT until 2018, when we can finally clean house of the remaining stragglers who weren't covered under the 3-term limit this time. Then we can vote in new leaders who will support transportation projects that will actually reduce congestion, and move the largest number of commuters for the lowest cost. These include a new Potomac River crossing, the M-83 Highway upcounty, extension of the Montrose Parkway to the ICC, the Damascus Bypass, widening East-West Highway, upgrading Beach Drive, and building the Northern Parkway.

Naming contest?

The name most high-information voters would give BRT can't be printed in a family newspaper.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Citizens slam Montgomery County independent transit authority (ITA) proposal (Photo)

The same proposal for a Montgomery County Independent Transit Authority was put on the table again last night, and residents didn't like it any more than they did last January. About 50 people turned out to argue for or against the ITA legislation, which - if passed by the Maryland General Assembly - would empower the county to create its own transit agency. That unelected, 5-member ITA, as described in the bill, would have unlimited power of taxation and eminent domain, as well as the authority to issue bonds and carry unlimited debt.

While many Bus Rapid Transit advocates feel the ITA would be the best hope of paying for a BRT plan that would not qualify for federal funding, taxpayers are not so enthusiastic about the idea.

Then again, some on the Transit Task Force, which hosted the public hearing, weren't so enthusiastic about hearing from taxpayers, either. When task force member Jim Zepp tried to ask a follow-up question of a speaker early on, Chair Mark Winston objected. "We can't ask questions?" Zepp asked. "Questions are not in order," Winston replied. "I'm not going to argue with you about it." Eventually, task force members Richard Parsons and Casey Anderson intervened to offer a compromise on the number of questions that could be asked, which Winston found acceptable. However, Anderson grew testy when Zepp later attempted to ask a second question of a panel, shutting that inquiry down abruptly.

Speaking of compromises, there haven't been any by the county yet, despite the overwhelming community opposition. One wonders why they are going forward in the face of some of the loudest resident rage in recent history (Or why the ITA hearings always start at 6:00, rather than the standard 7:30 PM start for most county public hearings).

That controversy isn't based on the misfired rollout of the legislation last winter, South Four Corners Citzens Association Vice President Larry Dickter testified. "Rather, it was and remains the very concept of an unelected, unaccountable entity, with powers of eminent domain and the authority to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, without being required to submit its capital or operating budget to the County for approval that makes the proposed [ITA] a non-starter.

Dickter and other speakers also criticized the tone ITA proponents have taken in responding to citizen and organized labor objections, and their the use of pejorative terms like anti-transit, NIMBY, and "howling unionists". He also noted that under a recent National Labor Relations Board decision, "the ITA could well qualify as a private employer subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB, and bound by federal labor law, not County statute." Dickter argued that a much less expensive alternative to the ITA would be to create a division within MCDOT similar to the Maryland Transit Administration.

Union representatives sought to ensure there would be no privatization of transit services in the county, and that projects overseen by the ITA would require Project Labor Agreements. UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO President Gino Renne said he also had oversight and transparency concerns, and thought homeowners should not pay more taxes to the ITA than developers. Echoing Dickter's question of the need for an authority independent of MCDOT, Renne asked, "is another bureaucracy truly necessary?"

"We agree the transportation infrastructure needs new sources of revenue," Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO President Joslyn Williams said. "What we don't agree on, is that to get a more reliable system, we need to privatize." Williams slammed elected officials' recent praise of Public-Private-Partnerships (often called "P3s" for short). "P3 is a branding of privatization," Williams declared. He asked the task force to examine "the failures of P3 across the world," from London to Los Angeles.

Residents and taxpayers were no more enthusiastic.

"We don't want the ITA, and we don't want the sham, scam bus rapid transit," Silver Spring resident Michael Williamson said. He said the sole purpose of the ITA was to enable BRT, which he predicted would be "a Silver Spring Transit Center on wheels", which elicited raucous laughter and applause from the audience. Williamson argued the few supporters of the ITA are "developers, professional transit lobbyists, or those looking for a job from one or the other." "If you think an ITA is such a great idea, put it on the ballot," he challenged the task force.

Howard Greif, representing the Greater Olney Civic Assocation, said the association continues to oppose the ITA, and the current BRT proposal. He said the association could only support a plan that funds BRT with existing local, state and federal funds, permits "documented citizen input," and which requires voter approval through a ballot referendum.

Richard Parsons said "I don't believe this is the only way, or even the best way" to fund transit projects. He suggested limiting any plan to the Corridor Cities Transitway BRT line initially, with a special taxing district along I-270 or countywide to fund it. Parsons also advocated a regional approach, that would connect with BRT systems in Frederick and Prince George's Counties.

Members of the Montgomery County Civic Federation had a different approach, discussing alternatives to both the ITA and the BRT which they felt could be more effective and less costly.

Jerry Garson suggested offering free Ride On service in the county, which he estimated would cost taxpayers $22 million more per year.

MCCF President Paula Bienenfeld, while expressing the Federation's "absolute opposition" to the ITA, also endorsed the free Ride On concept. She also referred to the successful approach in Houston TX, where - without increasing taxes or creating an ITA - the city boosted transit ridership by using data to analyze existing routes and make changes. They came up with a new route system that placed more of their existing buses "where people use and need them" the most. "No one wants the BRT, and certainly no one wants the ITA," she said in her testimony. "Stick a fork in it."

Nancy Abeles of Bethesda argued that the new tax burden the ITA would place on residents and businesses would "further weaken our ability to compete in the region."

Route 29 resident Harold McDougall said he feels the ITA and tax proposals reflect a growing gap "between the citizens and the people who make decisions that affect their lives."

County Executive Ike Leggett testified and accused ITA detractors of making false statements. Leggett said he never proposed a $1.8 billion BRT plan. Silver Spring resident Harriet Quinn begged to differ, saying Leggett's plan was actually $3 billion.

Strathmore-Bel Pre Civic Association representative Max Bronstein criticized the "vague and elastic language" of the ITA legislation, and argued that self-driving cars would make public transit obsolete.

Steven Poor was more blunt, saying there was "only one way to repair this proposal - throw it away." He noted that using state legislation would, in effect, give other counties a hand in our taxation policies. Poor predicted the ITA would prove as effective and efficient as the WSSC and WMATA, to knowing chuckles from the crowd.

I thought Geri Rosenberg of Communities for Transit (which supports BRT) had a good suggestion - requiring ITA appointees to be transit riders. When the task force was asked by Bienenfeld who among them took transit to the meeting last night, only Del. Marc Korman (D-District 16) raised his hand.

Bonnie Bell of the Greater Goshen Civic Association, and also representing the Clarksburg Civic Association, said the County Council actually does have the power now to exceed the cap on property taxes if it wants. But that requires a politically-risky unanimous, 9-member vote, and "We all know that isn't going to happen," she said. "We do not support taxation without representation," Bell said, holding up a mockup of a license plate similar to the District's "Taxation without Representation" model.

Carole Ann Barth exhorted developers to finance the system if they want it. If they're not willing to do that, "you can't expect the rest of us to get on board."

"If MCDOT can't do their job," resident Cary Lamari said, "put someone in there who can do the job," not an ITA. "Give Gino the job," Lamari advised, pointing to union leader Renne. "I bet you it gets done."

Friday, May 8, 2015

Public forum on controversial MoCo Independent Transit Authority proposal set for June 17

The Montgomery County Transit Task Force has set a public forum on the controversial proposal to create an unelected taxing authority that could raise unlimited taxes on residents to fund Bus Rapid Transit and other projects. Residents and union leaders overwhelmingly rejected the idea at a raucous public hearing earlier this year. Yet County Executive Ike Leggett is bringing the Independent Transit Authority (ITA) proposal for another swing, via his Transit Task Force.

That task force is holding meetings to discuss the new taxing authority in Rockville amongst themselves. But there will be a "Public Forum" on the unpopular proposal on June 17, from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, in the 3rd floor Hearing Room of the County Council office building at 100 Maryland Avenue in Rockville. In the meeting agenda posted online, it says the topics will be the ITA's organization, transfer of functions from existing county agencies (a major point of contention for UFCW Local 400/MCGEO Union President Gino Renne), and - most important to you, the taxpayer - the financial and fiscal implications of the new taxing authority. Questions the task force wants your feedback on will be provided to the public via the Transit Task Force website prior to the forum. However, just what the ability of the public to speak at the forum will be is not specified. Is it a public hearing with a 3 minute speaking time? Or is it a forum where the public will simply be spoken to?

It must be noted that, like the BRT hearing 3 years ago, this forum is being held in the summer. Parents no doubt know that this June 17 meeting will come just after the end of the Montgomery County Public School year. That means many will be leaving for their first summer vacation, which will certainly hold down attendance.

That's probably not an accident. You'd schedule a forum for summer, too, if you were trying to ram through an unelected body that can be handpicked by the County Executive.

An unelected body that can exceed all existing caps and restrictions on tax increases (in fact, the task force is going to be discussing on June 3 the "merits of empowering [the] County to exceed Charter limitations in several respects"). Not the negatives, of course!

Keep in mind that this is the same task force that suggested you should pay a new, 15% property tax increase to fund the BRT system that will primarily benefit real estate developers. You would pay, not the developers, and this was a countywide tax proposal. Do the math.

It's also the same task force whose chairman Mark Winston - as I reported two years ago - could directly benefit financially from the creation of the ITA and a BRT system. Winston, leading the effort to "get you out of your car," memorably admitted "it has been a while" since he rode a bus himself. Something he has in common with the "pro-transit" County Council and Planning Board, as well.

Remember also that this unelected ITA, as described in the legislation the task force is discussing, would not have to show its budget to any elected official. To quote the actual legislation, the ITA would not be required "to submit its capital or its operating budget to the County for approval."

Incredible. Unelected and unaccountable.

Don't forget that the proposal also allows the ITA to take on unlimited debt. It also allows the County Council and Executive to transfer unlimited amounts of debt to the ITA - and then the ITA could use its literally unlimited taxing power to make you pay those unlimited amounts. Unreal.

The ITA would also have unlimited power to seize private property, and sell it at a sweetheart price to developers who contribute to the elected official who appointed them. It would have the power to carry out the demolition of homes and businesses, and not have to answer to the outrage of the landowners at the ballot box.

And speaking of ballots - the legislation would include a provision that would make it impossible for you, the citizens, to put a referendum on the ballot to bring the ITA taxing power under any control or limitation.

This proposal was thoroughly rejected by the citizens and county employees - yet here it comes again, as they do what they do best in the MoCo political machine: ram it through.

Save the date.