CCT, King Farm, Metro And Montgomery College
Jan 19, 2011 17:15 - 18 Comments
At last night’s Mayor and Council Meeting, people brought forward both concerns and support of the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT).
City staff had a meeting with Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) representatives who committed to working with the City on the number and exact location of the King Farm stations and mitigating noise impacts to the neighborhood from the CCT with traffic signals and “quiet zones”. MTA would work with the City on which intersections would remain open in King Farm and they stated there is flexibility in this regard. When presented with the Coalition for the Preservation of King Farm’s petition (signed by several hundred residents) requesting a study to evaluate alternative alignments that do not use King Farm Boulevard, MTA representatives stated that given the concerns of King Farm residents, they “likely would not move forward to select the locally preferred alternative until the King Farm issues are resolved.”
Craig Simoneau, Director of Public Works, went over the options the Mayor and Council could propose which have not been studied by the MTA. He noted the comment period closes on February 1st.
Currently, because of the King Farm annexation, a shuttle is required to be operated and the three routes have a ridership of 19,200 per month (a rider would be counted both ways). These routes could disappear when the annexation agreement ends.
Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio expressed concern about the growth of Montgomery College because these additional students will be driving through Rockville. She thinks an alternative route including Montgomery College could provide public transportation for the students and should be explored. She stated the City had right-of-ways for a Metro stop at Montgomery College. Councilmember Bridget Newton is also concerned about the traffic to and from Montgomery College and supports alternative routes for the CCT and a Metro stop for Montgomery College.
Councilmember Piotr Gajewski said the CCT alignment gives no benefits to King Farm over what they already have, but it will be incredibly disruptive. He recommends looking at various alignments. The most intriguing is I-370. Looking at the mode, he unequivocally opposes light rail because it is only possible if it goes down the median of King Farm Boulevard.
When Councilmember John Britton asked the staff to explain if the MTA would be flexible in regards to which intersections are closed, Mr. Simoneau said MTA could keep them all open if they were all signalized. Councilmember Britton then observed that this downplays the concern of connectivity that there would be a “wall” in King Farm since connectivity could be exactly the same as it is today. As for noise concern, bells could be used instead of horns and if signalized they could control the signals and create “quiet zones”.
Councilmember Mark Pierzchala spoke as a civic association president who understands that when you look at plans, the details are tough, and in this case it’s not only a Rockville decision because the Governor ultimately makes the decision. The whole idea is to move people over a great distance. He supports bus rapid transit over light rail and thinks I-370 of all the alignments is the one that might work.
Then Councilmember Britton expressed his opinion. He doesn’t find the bus rapid transit option compelling enough to throw out the light rail option. Looking at the bigger picture, this is a planning process that will take 25-30 years and he disagrees that it will give the community zero benefit. Those living in King Farm people will go to jobs in Science Center, Rio, and the developments in Gaithersburg. People will want to move to King Farm and take the CCT to stops north. Metro is still struggling with the north-south corridor and the CCT might succeed more than Metro. The light rail transit provides more of a guaranteed transportation system. Bus rapid transits work but they get manipulated and encroached upon for vehicle traffic by the engineers, as he has seen in Virginia. He’s afraid that if we commit to the bus rapid transit we will lose guaranteed transit-oriented development around stations. Building along the I-370 highway loses this development option. There are light rail in other cities such as in New Orleans, Portland, Camden where they successfully go through residential towns and get people out of their cars. In the past they has recommended light rail transit and he does not think we should make this switch now against their colleagues.
Councilmember Pierzchala made a motion to oppose light rail which was seconded by Councilmember Gajewski but the motion was opposed by Mayor Marcuccio, and Councilmembers Newton and Britton. During the discussion, Councilmember Gajewski said rapid bus is being looked at by County for White Flint and it’s incredibly less expensive and more likely to go forward. Mayor Marcuccio added that if they are going to suggest other routes then we should stay open to both modes of transportation and not take away options. Councilmember Pierzchala added that all the alternatives are for bus rapid transit and right now the most likely route is through King Farm so he’s opposing the light rail and its impact.
Councilmember Pierzchala made a motion that the City recommend the MTA study the alternative I-370 alignment which was seconded by Gajewski and passed 4 to1 with Councilmember Britton opposed.
Councilmember Gajewski made a motion to study Shady Grove alignment which was seconded by Councilmember Pierzchala and passed 4 to1 with Councilmember Britton opposed.
A motion to remain silent on whether it is bus rapid transit or light rail rapid transit passed 4 to1 with Councilmember Britton opposed.
City staff will prepare these recommendations for submittal on behalf of the Mayor and Council.
My understanding is that the broad median on King Farm Road is a “pre-existing condition” — it is that way because a train alignment there was planned from the start. If that is correct, what is the justification for the opposition from King Farm residents?
What a poor decision by the Rockville City Council. I’m sure a few of them were around when King Farm was in the planning stages and it was agreed that King Farm Boulevard would be set aside for transit. Even the Environmental Protection Agency has recognized King Farm for its excellent, walkable design and accommodation of transit:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/case/kingfarm.htm
Routing the CCT along I-370 will provide NO benefits to the city of Rockville. By losing two stops in King Farm, thousands of people who’d otherwise live within walking distance of this service and would potentially use it will drive instead. Perhaps a few would take the King Farm shuttle to the Metro, but they won’t be able to get the full benefits of the CCT - connections to the fast-growing Upcounty.
How is it that people in Kentlands are pushing to have the CCT routed into their community yet people in King Farm don’t want it there? Every single person who bought a house there knew it was on the plans and, I’m sure, many did so for the CCT. The City Council is trying to please a very small minority whom by the looks of their petition (http://kingfarm.epetitions.net/) has just one signature.
I don’t know the full argument from those who oppose but last night there was mention that King Farm developed differently than what was originally proposed. When the CCT was planned, they might not have considered the impact on residents. Throughout the process, there has never been any details about the transitway until now.
Dan, I wrote about the EPA picking King Farm as a national transportation model, in part because of the CCT:
http://rockvillecentral.com/2010/10/epa-declares-king-farm-smart-growth-illustrated.html/
It would certainly be a shame if it wasn’t any more.
One of the big issues for King Farm residents is the division of the neighborhood and the inability to conveniently cross King Farm Blvd. Based on current designs many of the current cross streets along King Farm Blvd would have to be closed making it difficult for someone living on the north side of King Farm Blvd to WALK to the restaurants and stores in the Village.
Another issue that isn’t discussed much is how the trains or buses would get across 355. Currently the road narrows going into the Shady Grove metro station meaning that significant road changes entering the Metro station. If I remember correctly, the receiving point at the Shady Grove metro station would be a new train station-type facility that would replace the parking lot on the west side of the metro station, ultimately resulting in the loss of a large number of parking spaces.
Greater Greater Washington has a post about the CCT situation in Rockville with a broader view and vibrant comment thread.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8894/rockville-city-council-votes-to-reroute-cct-out-of-town/
The Corridor Cities Transitway as proposed would be light rail or bus rapid transit, unlike the Metro, which is heavy rail. On the Metro, tracks have to be separated from everything else (cars, people, etc.) because of the electrified third rail. Light rail or BRT runs in the street and can safely interact with cars, people or other modes of transportation (like bikes). There are plenty of examples of both light rail and BRT in areas with lots of cross streets like King Farm. Visit any city with light rail - like Portland, Boston or Philadelphia, and you won’t see fences or gates running alongside the train. You’ll see some tracks or special paving materials, maybe a wire running overhead for power, and that’s it.
Anyone worried about King Farm being “divided” by transit should look at examples of light rail around the country for proof that, in fact, you’ll be able to cross from one side to the other just as you are today. Here’s a set of photos I took of some light-rail systems around the country to show you what one looks like and how it operates.
Is there a site that has a map of the proposed CCT in its proposed entirety? I’ve found some pdf’s but my computer isn’t formatting them and I’d just as soon view them directly online in enlargeable format, and MTA’s CCT site isn’t accommodating that way.
I’ve also seen light rail that doesn’t divide communities. Not all light rail has a “third rail” like Metro that would make grade-level crossings unsafe. The point about crossing 355 is a good one, but in San Francisco, the street-level transit obeys traffic signals and functions pretty much as buses would, so no real difference to 355 traffic should occur in that scenario.
To the great comments above, I agree and I think more of us should be aware of and examine the effective, unobtrusive and beneficial operation of LRTs in other cities. In our debate the other night, the mayor stated that she was not interested in LRT in other cities but only what is happening with the LRT proposal in our city. But isn’t this a useful way to learn about these systems — study operations in other locations, mimic the strengths, discard the weaknesses and come up with the best configuration and operation for us. Our focus really should be on the quality of the proposed system and mitgation of any untoward effects rather than re-planning it out of existence in our city.
Dan, thanks for the pictures and your pivotal point that light rail (and BRT) can interact SAFELY [my emphasis] with cars, pedestrians and bicyclists — and LRT has proven to be quieter than other modes of transportation.
Cindy, thanks for the link to Greater Greater Washington. Needless to say, I think the substantive views of the commenters (28 at last view) are quite astute! Enough said on that.
Councilmember John Britton
Great points John.
We seem to be experiencing a lot of reactionary voting and behavior on the council these days. First the courthouse (yes a monstrosity, but on the books for YEARS) and now the King Farm transit plan. I’ve seen some absolutely beautiful light rail options that would be a major boost to King Farm - see for example the system in Grenoble, France. Even a bus rapid transit wouldn’t be any worse than the current state - better if it reduces the number of individual cars on the road.
Does the M&C vote have an impact on the regional planning?
Is there any coalition of King Farm residents who will sound off in favor of the plan? If so we’ll have quite the election issue!
Images of Grenoble’s rail system: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&q=grenoble,+france+light+rail&wrapid=tlif129564326904510&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1436&bih=715.
Thank you, Councilman Britton, for using rationale thought and common sense in approaching this issue. I cannot fathom the arguments being used now against a project that was planned for the King Farm community since inception. Additionally, I hope the naysayers concerned about connectivity and noise educate themselves about the realities of light rail-better yet, go use and visit other light rail systems. Whoever pointed out that the “disruption” would be less than buses and cars is bang on the money.
If you think light rail is useful in highway medians….please see the Denver Light Rail project-their ridership, although respectable, is way under what it would be if they had not built it down the median of I-25 and I-225 on the outer Nine Mile line. The other lines in Denver that follow the density in the development patterns along old streets are smashingly successful.
As a major pro-smart growth (which means TOD to me) supporter, I am going to remember this debate and these issues at the ballot box this Spring.
Mr. Reimel:
I bought my house in King Farm in 2004 and am a supporter of the CCT.
At the same time, at least one of the realities is that if CCT is to happen at all, it has to be funded, and some of the funds will have to come from the Federal Government.
BRT is half the price of LRT and yet offers almost all of the same advantages. It has become a sexy alternative to expensive rail. LRT will not happen; BRT might.
With respect to alignment – there are many issues, not the least of which is how does the system traverse Route 355 and I-270? It behooves the State to study the viable options before moving forward.
In the end, King Farm Blvd. may prove to be the right option after all; but there is good reason to proceed with caution.
The traffic issue in Rockville is a regional one and requires State and Federal support. Rockville can not solve its traffic problems without that support.
Cooperation is necessary among all the jurisdiction’s agencies. Rockville will not receive financial support if it wants to have its own way and not discuss and negotiate better.
Look what traffic funding Baltimore got over the years. In the future with less funds Rockville might be on the short end of the list. Citizens will question it and need to know it came out of decisions that Rockville Mayor and Councils made. We have already seen poor past M&C decisions.
From the beginning the King Farm development included a right of way for a transit way station. Now is the time to analyze ALL the traffic needs. King Farm is a planned community as is the Kentlands.
I find it interesting to read that the ”Kentlands are pushing to have the CCT” and King Farm residents are not. How many KF residents really know and understand the entire issue?
“I find it interesting to read that the ‘Kentlands are pushing to have the CCT’ and King Farm residents are not.”
There is a key difference:
King Farm residents already have access to the Metro and the CCT will not improve this access in any way (may actually hinder it, as the King Farm Shuttle, which runs throughout King Farm, not just up and down King Farm Blvd. is planned to be discontinued).
Kentlands residents do not have access to the Metro, so the CCT will provide a major entryway connecting them to the Metro and points south.
None of this speaks to realignment, but there are certainly differences in benefits which account for the different worldviews by residents of the two developments.
Councilman Gajewski,
Thanks for the response. Unforunately I’m not a regular enough reader of blogs to have caught your response until tonight!
At any rate, I find such a blanket statement like “it will not happen” to be unfortunate. When I lived in the Sterling/Herndon/Reston areas of Virginia in the late 90′s, lots of people said the same thing about Metro to Dulles. Well will ya look at that? It’s being built today.
Transit is a chronically underfunded item by government budgets at all levels. Heck any infrastructure at all is underfunded by government at all levels when compared to the needs and planning for future economic growth/needs. However, things change, economies adapt, and funding priorties and investment strategies change in response. Funding is an issue no matter what government expenditure we’re talking about. But making such a statement as “it will never happen” is counter-productive to this particular conversation.
At any rate, I like the notion of BRT, and think that the Rockville Pike (and perhaps CCT) corridors would benefit tremendously by it. I am open to that as well. But as far as the CCT goes, this was a transit system planned a long time ago, and planned for the King Farm neighborhood prior to its construction. If there are good reasons why it shouldn’t be constructed now in the alignment that was planned, in the existing right-of-way that is already set aside, then I’m open to hearing more about them. However, based on what I’ve read to date, the reasons being presented are not good reasons in my estimation, particularly in light of the planning and INVESTMENT already made (i.e. dedicated right of way). Also, BRT will definitely generate more noise, pollution, and disruption in King Farm, however, than would light rail. The “B” stands for bus-they’re louder and dirtier than light rail. I don’t dismiss the concerns that King Farm residents have raised completely, but I think some of them are not based on a solid understanding of light rail, either. Not to mention the fact that they should have been aware of what was going to be built in their community. People need to do their own homework. Some people apparently believed what a realtor told them…..hmmm.
At any rate, for light rail the traversing of a major roadway is usually accomplished by going under or over. The Denver system has lots of nice examples of how this was accomplished. In a dense area like King Farm, however, usually surface crossings work very well.
It seems to me this vote on studying the CCT alignment was carried out in a very reactive way. That concerns me. I’ll be paying close attention to what happens with regard to this transit issue, and how transit issues are handled by the council in the recently released Rockville Pike Plan, as well.
Mr. Reimel:
I accept your criticism of me being dismissive of the LRT option. Perhaps I let my pessimism about the imbalance in the Federal and State (and County) budgets get the better of me. (In the present climate, it is hard for me to see my way clear to a major investment that LRT would require.)
On the issue of BRT, however: I believe that you are mistaken that it would necessarily generate “more noise, pollution and disruption.” The technology of the rapid buses has rendered them indistinguishable from the LRT in terms of pollution and they would actually have a slight edge with respect to noise and disruption (I define “disruption” here as need for street closings and safety barriers).
With respect to the over/under I-270 and 355. One of the potential advantages of the I-370 alignment (and I appreciate the disadvantages) is that much of that problem is already solved. My understanding is that it would be an infinitely cheaper proposition to take the CCT on that route than to build a new tunnel (that is the plan) under 355 at King Farm Blvd., and then a new overpass over I-270.
Crossings of streets within King Farm also present challenges. The speed limit on King Farm Blvd is 25 miles per hour. The BRT (or LRT) would want to travel much faster. Not an insurmountable problem, I hope; but the solutions that have been presented to date involve multiple street closings that could well have the effect of reducing pedestrian connectivity. Note: I presently walk to Safeway; close some streets/crossings that are needed for my travel and I will probably end up driving.
Alas, as a European, I am wired to support public transport, so I look forward to all the creative solutions that will move the CCT forward.
@Councilman Gajewski, as a number of previous posters (including myself) have pointed out, even a rail system doesn’t have to necessitate closures of streets and thoroughfares. You could very likely still walk to Safeway. You might have to wait for a train to pass, as you might have to wait for a bus or for other cars to pass, unless such a system were thoughtlessly built with a third rail on the ground. Intersections get signals the same way railway crossings and in fact any other intersections can be signalized.
When Metro trains approach and depart stations/stops, their speed is appropriately slower. Would this not be the case if the CCT had a station or stations in King Farm proper? A short stretch at the current posted speed limit would not necessarily be that disruptive to the CCT’s overall route and would provide transportation for more people, which is the whole point of the venture. If re-routed to 370, could a shuttle be used to carry riders to the CCT, as shuttles currently carry King Farm residents to Metro?
The arguments about infrastructure like overpasses and underpasses do at least carry more weight and are worth considering. However, an alignment that makes the CCT unappealing to drivers, including King Farm residents who might otherwise have benefited from it, will defeat the purpose, which is to get people out of their cars.
Baltimore has a light rail system which might be studied for ideas and any other lessons that can be learned, and it’s close enough to not require any expensive travel to investigate. Rather than merely talking, how much active investigation has been done? Have we looked at other existing systems, both light rail and BRT, and seen what’s already out there, what’s working and what’s not? Or are meetings and discussions going to be the primary method of working out the details?
Ms. Stahl:
The CCT is a State project; and State planners are working out the project details. When Rockville staff met with the planners, what they reported back did not leave much optimism about the issues that you bring up.
First: only two (or perhaps even one) stops are being planned in King Farm and the intent is for the CCT to quickly reach and maintain very fast speeds (otherwise the trips will become impractically long).
In terms of street closings: what was represented to me was that, at least with the LRT option, all streets with no signals would be closed. Simultaneously, it was represented that adding signals on more than one or two streets that presently do not have them was not a practical option. If the planners have a satisfactory solution to this issue, to date, they have not shared this with me. (Also, please note that one or two streets would right away need to be closed by virtue of the planned tunnel under route 355.) So, the bottom line is that the devil is in the details, but the details have not yet been worked out.
To summarize: it is really impossible to assess the true impact of the CCT in King Farm until some of the details are fleshed out. Meanwhile, I am keeping an open mind on the outcome of fleshing out those details. But as the vacuum created by the lack of this detailed information continues, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to believe that satisfactory solutions are on their way.
@Councilman Gajewski, thanks for your response. That does clarify things for me somewhat.
My reference to the signals was from this part of the article above: “When Councilmember John Britton asked the staff to explain if the MTA would be flexible in regards to which intersections are closed, Mr. Simoneau said MTA could keep them all open if they were all signalized.” The feasibility (or nonfeasibility) of doing so wasn’t addressed in this quote.
I will admit, though, it does seem like overkill to me when I read “I presently walk to Safeway; close some streets/crossings that are needed for my travel and I will probably end up driving. ” It really sounds (to me) as if you’re assuming there WILL be closures, that they WILL affect your route to Safeway, and you’ve already decided that driving and not walking an alternate route (which may not be needed when all is said and done) is already in the cards - when everything is still very much in the air, even if the CCT does indeed take its originally planned route through King Farm. If I lived as close to my supermarket as you live to the KF Safeway, possibly adding a block to my walk really wouldn’t be a dealbreaker for me unless the weather were pretty bad that day.