Clarifying the clarification on I-270
It was gratifying, upon returning from a vacation at wonderful Deep Creek Lake, to learn that the esteemed heads of the State Highway Administration and Maryland Transit Administration have been reading the Getting There columns about Maryland's planning for the Interstate 270 corridor. The two worthy gentlemen actually got together to write a letter to The Sun seeking to "clarify" some matters about I-270.
What's also gratifying is that nowhere in the letter did SHA chief Neil J. Pedersen or MTA top dog Paul J. Wiedefeld point to anything that was incorrect about the columns. It's very clear that they are uncomfortable with the emphasis on the most expensive of the options under consideration -- so uncomfortable that they avoid actually mentioning the $4.6 billion price tag.
Unfortunately for state bureaucrats who would like to study their options at leisure, the Montgomery County Planning Board has jumped the gun and endorsed the gold-plated plan to add two express toll lanes in each direction. It wasn't Getting There that put the issue in play.
Here, for reference, is the officials' letter:
The study of transit and highway improvements to the I-270 corridor has recently attracted some media attention. However, the coverage demands clarification. The state is conducting a long-range planning study that includes a variety of transportation options for the I-270 corridor; we haven't reached the point where a specific proposal will advance and others will retreat. With any comprehensive technical study, some options may prove viable in the future, while others may not. This exercise is comparable to other highway, transit and rail studies under way in regions throughout Maryland. It is important to put a range of planning concepts on the table for consideration, if we aim to address the state's serious transportation challenges.
Unfortunately, certain reports have suggested the state is simply proposing to widen the highway lanes along I-270. This suggestion does not serve the public well when, in fact, there are actually a variety of transit and highway options being examined. Transit alternatives include the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), a rapid bus or light rail system between Shady Grove and Clarksburg. The cost of the CCT ranges from $450 million to $777 million. Park and Ride improvements and improved bus service also are under study. Highway alternatives range from interchange improvements costing up to $500 million to construction of Express Toll Lanes that could potentially reach into the billions of dollars.
Contrary to the premise promoted by some, there is no multibillion-dollar decision pending. The displacement of residents is not imminent, inevitable or desired. Decisions whether to actually construct any of the alternatives are years, if not decades, away. Implementation of any alternatives would require the approval of local and regional governmental authorities and a full environmental review by regulatory agencies.
The reality is that, given the current economic environment, the state must concentrate on funding its existing transportation projects with the scarce resources available. However, while we may be financially constrained today, we must continue to plan so that every region of the state is prepared for tomorrow.
Paul J. Wiedefeld and Neil J. Pedersen
The writers are administrators of, respectively, the Maryland Transit Administration and the State Highway Administration.
Good letter, guys, but folks should note what it doesn't say.
It doesn't take any of the options off the table, even those that are the most expensive and environmentally destructive. It doesn't say that 251 families won't be displaced -- only that they could be kicked out of their homes with great regret sometime in the future.
For those who question the wisdom of the $4.6 billion plan, the time to speak up is not sometime way down the road. That time is now -- before it can gain traction. Opponents should put Montgomery County leaders on notice now that their grandiose plans can't be financed and won't win the support of other jurisdictions. That way, their leaders can start thinking outside their 20th Century asphalt box and arrive at more economical, less destuctive solutions with a greater degree of regional equity.
Readers who object to this proposal for the most expensive transportation in Maryland history have no reason to be deterred from protesting by this "we're still studying it" argument. Believe me, the proponents aren't waiting to weigh in.
