|
|
|
May 17, 2001 Dear Chairman Ruppersberger, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the initial analysis and "scoring" of candidate projects for the 2001 Baltimore Regional Transportation Plan (BRTP). As you know, the Baltimore Regional Partnership is a coalition of civic, environmental, and smart growth advocacy organizations that focuses on transportation and land use planning in the Baltimore region. In this letter we offer comments on the BRTP scoring process, on scenarios that BMC staff could run to reach the most effective transportation plan possible, on modeling to evaluate those scenarios, and on relevant recommendations from last fall’s Transportation Opportunities Committee. Overall Scoring of Projects As you may have already heard, we have been critical of relying heavily on the overall "scoring" of projects in setting priorities for the region. If the BRTB leans disproportionately on the individual evaluations of each highway and interchange, it would seem to be a recipe for a piecemeal transportation planning process. We do not believe that the particular proportions of evaluating congestion, safety, and policy priority for each particular project in the scoring yield an overall measure that should be heeded above issues of overall regional mobility and connectivity. We also are not sure that the BRTB's technical evaluation of problems such as safety and congestion necessarily signifies that the candidate project is the appropriate solution to those problems. Still, I do want to mention here that comparing some of the particular technical evaluations of the candidate projects does appear to yield some interesting and useful insights. For example, the proposed widening of MD 32 from MD 108 to I-70 scores strikingly low on cost-effectiveness (5.2 out of 20), but high on travel-time savings (8.26 out of 10). Such scores would seem to bolster our concerns dating back to 1998 that the project would be expensive out of proportion to its benefit, but would still facilitate commuting from more and more remote areas not designated in this region for growth. I do not mean to be too conveniently selective in using this example. It is merely an element of the analysis that stood out to us, and there may well be other similar comparisons that would be useful to the planning process.
Scenarios It is our understanding that in 1998 the Baltimore metropolitan planning organization (MPO) ran two primary scenarios before compiling a preferred scenario. Those two initial scenarios were a "highway-only" scenario comprised of the highest scoring highway projects, and a "transit-heavy" scenario comprised of all the proposed transit projects and the highest scoring highway projects that would fit within fiscal constraints. It is not surprising to us that both scenarios scored poorly and that the MPO was able to compile a middle, but still highway-heavy, scenario that performed better. For the 2001 Plan process, we suggest some ideas for scenarios that we think would be more useful and illustrative than those used in 1998. Following these suggested scenarios, we make some suggestions for the modeling of those scenarios. 1. Land Use and Transit We suggest that, working with local land use planning officials, BMC staff run a few scenarios with varying degrees of land use changes that focus future development near rail transit stations and bus lines. Such scenarios should explore land use changes near both existing and future transit stations (i.e. the current light rail and Metro lines and proposed rail lines). Local officials should be able to identify appropriate sites for future development or redevelopment near those sites, although we do not believe that existing zoning should be a constraint in these scenarios. The point of looking at these alternatives should be that we could help shape land use patterns in certain areas to be different from current trends and plans in order to enhance mobility in the region out to 2025. 2. Variable Pricing We recommend that BMC staff run scenarios that look at variable pricing and additional transit for some of the region's major highways, particularly those that have candidate HOV lanes. The funds raised from the variable pricing should be used to fund bolstered transit in those corridors, giving travelers an alternative to the congestion of single-occupancy vehicles. As we have proposed before, the STEP model is a tool that, used in conjunction with the BMC's current mode choice model, could help evaluate such alternatives, giving the BRTB a sense of what the response of the region's residents would be to such a system. We would be pleased to work with BMC staff and local and state officials to help facilitate the modeling of such scenarios.
3. Demand Management We urge the BRTB to run scenarios that explore the potential of aggressive demand management in the region. In particular, Maryland now has the most aggressive Commuter Choice tax incentives in the nation. We believe it would be a service to the region for the BMC staff to explore how those incentives, marketed and used extensively, could assist the region in providing its citizens alternatives to traffic congestion over the next 25 years. Again, the STEP model should be a useful tool, and we would be happy to help with its use in any way. 4. Bus Rapid TransitWe urge the BRTB to explore the possibility of implementing bus rapid transit in the short term in some of the corridors now slated for rail service. Such service could both help provide transit alternatives to traffic congestion significantly faster than new rail service, and it could also serve as "trial run" for future rail transit, ensuring larger initial ridership for later rail investment. In particular we urge Baltimore City, MTA and Baltimore County to explore the implementation of bus rapid transit in the U.S. 40 corridor from Security Mall to downtown. We have already participated in discussions about this possibility with community members from the Hunting Ridge/Franklintown area of West Baltimore and Baltimore City and MTA planning staff. Such a plan for this corridor could serve as a glimpse at the possibilities for light rail in the corridor and would also help realize the goals of the Baltimore City Westside Multimodal project.
Modeling As we encourage the BRTB to explore the land use and transit scenarios outlined above, we also urge you to look at the sensitivity that the new BMC mode choice model has to those changes. We understand that the new BMC model now does have the capability to consider development density around rail transit stations and bus lines when working to calculate ridership, and that is a step forward from the previous BMC model. Studies in other regions, however, have shown that there are several factors other than population density that determine transit ridership. Several of these measures have to do with the pedestrian friendliness of the area, a measure more refined than density. A dense townhouse development surrounded by a parking lot with no sidewalk and a six-lane arterial between it and a transit stop will not generate the type of transit ridership that an equally dense Bethesda or Annapolis-style development will. In fact, studies in Portland, Oregon in the 1990s found that the latter type of development generates about half the traffic. Portland planners found that the following factors helped predict traffic generation from a neighborhood, and they factored them into their modeling:
It was with this level of sensitivity in modeling that Portland developed its current 2040 plan that closely integrates land use and transportation investments and has stabilized growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) despite rapid population and economic growth in the region. We are concerned that even the current BMC model will likely underestimate the impact of locating walkable communities near transit stations and lines because the model groups dense development in the Baltimore region that is not pedestrian friendly with dense development that is much more walkable. We encourage the BRTB to consider this concern and to evaluate that potential lack of sensitivity in the model.
Transportation Opportunities Committee Recommendations We are concerned that we do not see what seem to us to be key recommendations from the 2000 Transportation Opportunities Committee (TOC) embodied in the set of candidate projects for the 2001 long-range plan. It may be that some of those recommendations would be inserted later in the process, but we thought it bore mentioning here. First, we do not see progress toward establishing a regional Transportation Management Association, as recommended on the first page of the TOC report. Such a TMA, perhaps modeled on the successful work of the BWI Business Partnership, could carry out many of the transportation demand management measures that could be modeled under certain scenarios, as we describe above. Second, we are concerned that widenings of regional highways, such as I-695 and I-95, are unduly prioritized in the list of candidate projects. At the same time, we are not aware of any studies, as recommended in the TOC report, to ensure that the widenings are part of a comprehensive strategy for the corridor. The TOC report gave adding HOV lanes on I-695 its lowest priority (3), and yet the project scoring for the 2001 BRTP gives the project its highest policy score of 60. Similarly, the TOC report gave adding HOV lanes to I-95 south of Baltimore its middle priority (2), and yet the project scoring also gives this project the highest policy score of 60. We are concerned that this scoring sends the message that the region’s priorities are to widen congested highways, rather than thinking through what will be the most effective overall strategies for managing that congestion. With more evidence emerging every day that widening highways does not relieve congestions, we strongly urge the BRTB to de-prioritize these expensive highway widenings and instead to prioritize comprehensive corridor studies to determine the best overall course of action to take. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on the development of the 2001 BRTP. Please contact me at (410) 385-2910 if you have any questions. Sincerely, |
|
Baltimore
Regional Partnership · 512 Orchard Street · Baltimore, MD 21201-1947 |
