Meeting Oct. 20 at the Agricultural Farm Park outside of Rockville, a diverse 33-member task force of Montgomery County citizens, selected by the planning board in May 2000 to draft the future 50 years of transportation and land use in the County, voted 17-14 to support a 2nd Potomac River crossing, commonly called "the Low Techway" because it would not be a new road from I-270 to Virginia, but an upgrade of existing roads.

In a secret electronic vote following nearly 18 months of work -- sometimes, meeting 3 nights a week-- the all-volunteer Transportation Policy Report II Task Force took among the following AFFIRMATIVE votes:

"Low Techway" -- Approved 17-14. This proposal involves widening MD 118 to four lanes and crossing MD 28 to connect with MD 112 (Seneca Road). This road would be widened along with other supporting roads to create an upgrade of existing roads, and new four-lane bridge connecting to Fairfax County Parkway near Algonkian Parkway. This also involves widening parts of MD 28, River Road (MD 190) and Piney Meetinghouse Road to four lanes
Intercounty connector (master planned alignment, from Route 1 in laurel to I-370 in Gaithersburg 20-12
This road, on Montgomery County's master plans since the 1960s, was threatened unless the TPR Task Force supported it.
Widening Muncaster Mill Road (MD 115) to four lanes -- 17-14
Montrose Parkway (from roughly I-270 to Viers Mill Road) 22-8
Beltway HOV -- (Adding one lane in each direction in Montgomery County) 18-13
Corridor Cities Transitway (a master-planned route from Shady Grove Metro to Clarksburg, via Gaithersburg and Germantown) The Busway concept for this was voted on 20-11, but the light rail portion -- endorsed by Council members Phil Andrews and Nancy Dacek in order to justify high-rise densities in Gaithersburg and Germantown -- got an 18-13 vote.
Georgetown Branch Trolley (Bethesda to Silver Spring) 18-12
Inner Purple Line from Bethesda to Silver spring on Georgetown Branch, but then to Langley Park, College Park and New Carrollton -- 24-7

The following were REJECTED:

Inner Purple Line from Bethesda to Tysons Corner, VA, via McLean -- rejected 15-15
Extending Metro from Shady Grove to downtown Gaithersburg at Metropolitan Grove MARC Station (16-14 -- see explanation)
Balanced use of land (BUL) - - putting most new development near transit stations and shifting jobs away from the I-270 corridor to the East County -- was rejected 13-19. Instead, the task force voted to keep the master plans for various regions by a vote of 18-14.
Early on in the process, the TPR and planning board staff elected not to include a new and wider bridge at Point of Rocks, MD, because the bridge did little good for traffic congestion relief in Montgomery County. Hence, the only 2nd crossing Maryland Gov. Glendening and the Montgomery County Council were willing to support was rejected because the facts did not support it.
Under task force rules, a project receiving 22 votes or more - such as Montrose Parkway and the Inner Purple Line -- constitutes a "super majority" in the final report.
A vote of 17 or more means a project is "in play" and must be mentioned in the final report. This means that unless there is a compromise by BUL advocates on the task force, the final report will not support densification around Metro stations and shift housing and development in other parts of the County.
It also means there will be NO recommendation for an inner Purple Line to Tysons Corner as a substitute for the Techway, nor extension of Metro to Gaithersburg since neither got the requisite 17 votes.
The Tysons extension of the Purple Line has been another proposal by the County Council and anti-Techway groups as an "alternative" to a new river crossing to handle cars AND mass transit (Techway).
In April 2000, when the planning board was about to create a task force for TPR Phase II, the mission was to crown BUL and transit-oriented development as the "solution" to our traffic problems. The original work plan for TPR II was drafted by anti-highway, transit-density advocates such as Reed Ewing of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and a host of other consultants who support what Portland, OR, has done.
But Tom Reinheimer of Marylanders for a Second Crossing and Royal Buyer of the ICC Master Plan Advocates rallied citizens to flood the planning board with comments opposing the lack of diversity on the task force and biased nature of the work plan. Along with negative comments from business groups, the planning board was forced to diversify the task force beyond environmental groups, civic groups and lobbyists.

As a result, 36 individuals were picked representing a variety of groups. One person was dismissed for not attending meetings, another resigned in frustration because the planning board staff seemed to be trying to delay decision making, and the third, John Robinson, had to resign because he was chosen to be a member of the planning board last month.
The data gathered by the planning board in three rounds of "modeling" over the past 15 months clearly showed that BUL was, indeed, BULL, from a transportation standpoint. It did nothing to help mobility, nor did the billion-
dollar transit projects on which it was predicated.
For example, recent modeling data shows that The Purple Line, Corridor Cities Light Rail and other transit projects only reduced congestion in the county by 1%, but would cost billions In comparison, a standalone bridge over the Potomac river, and upgrading into existing roads (low techway), cut congestion 3% and cost about $300 million. The ICC cut county-wide congestion another 7% and the cost is about $1.5 billion. Both projects could be toll financed; the transit projects are all tax-subsidized.
At the start of the TPR discussions in June 2000, probably 12 people on the task force supported the ICC and 12 were against. The rest were in the middle. Probably more than 12 opposed another bridge over the Potomac.
After 15 months, the anti-ICC forces could muster only 12 votes against the ICC, but 20 supported it -- just two votes shy of the required 22 to make it a super majority. The Low Techway concept got 17 votes -- enough to make it into the final report to the planning board and Council, which at this point, is still unanimously opposed to a second bridge in Montgomery County.
Previous concepts for a river crossing at Point of Rocks, favored by the Council and Governor Glendening, were eliminated in the first round of modeling.
The votes today represent a rejection of Portland-style/Glendening-desired land use as the panacea for reducing congestion. Today, the TPR Task Force soundly rejected BUL as a solution for traffic problems.
And, now that this diverse task force has rejected a transit crossing as a substitute for the low Techway, now that the ICC, Montrose Parkway and other highways have received such support, one would hope that the environmental extremists and other task force members willing to fall on their swords to stop one more inch of pavement would be willing to compromise, perhaps to get some facets of BUL into the final report.
Densification may be desirable from the standpoint of preserving open space and creating traditional communities that are pedestrian friendly and perhaps give folks an alternative to suburban tract housing. But unless some of the BUL supporters are willing to vote for some road projects, they will NOT succeed in revising Montgomery County's current land use plans. The original intent of the TPR II has been foiled.
Several members of Marylanders for a Second Crossing support the Purple Line, and ICC, while others are opposed. Our group, as a whole, takes no position on any of these proposals except the low Techway.
We would now hope the Montgomery County Council and planning board will now accept the facts -- that we do need roads as well as transit; we do need another crossing in Montgomery County -- not Point of Rocks -- and we cannot expect less congestion by putting every future home-dweller in a high-rise above a Metro station as the environmental extremists would like.

Copy and paste the letter below and send to:

Send to: mcp-movemail@mncppc-mc.org or moving@movemontgomery.org Fax: 301/495-1320


Montgomery County Planning Board
Transportation Policy Report Task Force
8787 Georgia Ave.
Silver Spring, MD, 20910

Dear TPR:

I would like to lend my support for the "roads emphasis scenario" being crafted by the Transportation Policy Report II and thank the members of the task force for supporting the "low Techway" proposal as part of the final report to the County Council.

We need another bridge across the Potomac between Montgomery County and Northern Virginia. We need a backup to the Legion Bridge in case of an accident, or even (God, forbid) a terrorist attack on our one-and-only bridge.

I also think this crossing should carry mass transit, like HOV lanes or bus-only lanes, and maybe Metro rail, if it is found to be cost effective.

It seems from your study that the "low Techway" option by itself will take more traffic off I-270, the Beltway and other roads than the proposals under the "Transit emphasis scenario."

Please encourage the planning board and Montgomery County Council to adopt the "roads emphasis scenario," particularly the option for the river crossing. We cannot let wealthy NIMBYs from Potomac and Darnestown stop us from doing something to alleviate gridlock.


Thank you

(your name, address, city/state/zip)