Read on Twitter
1/ Maryland's I-270/I-495 expansion P3 will lock the state into a 50-year contract.
It's essential that the deal terms strongly support high-quality transit service. Unfortunately, Dec. RFP indicates transit is an afterthought.
Let's look at why contract terms matter.
It's essential that the deal terms strongly support high-quality transit service. Unfortunately, Dec. RFP indicates transit is an afterthought.
Let's look at why contract terms matter.
2/ Managed lanes offer an excellent opportunity to use technology, pricing, and facility design to expand rapid & commuter bus service.
Yet, moving more people - as opposed to more cars - must be a goal *from the start* and run through every aspect of the agreement.
Yet, moving more people - as opposed to more cars - must be a goal *from the start* and run through every aspect of the agreement.
3/ Let's look at some of the key assumptions in the RFP. Exhibit 18 states that the concessionaire doesn't have to carry out any transit improvements on Phase 1 South because MDOT doesn't yet know what service it wants.
But they can just figure that out later... right?
But they can just figure that out later... right?
4/ No. Quality transit service cannot simply be added on to the back end of a highway project structured only to support cars. Why? Because the design, technology base, financing, and operations of the new facility are intertwined with future transit.
5/ Let's start with what's being discussed. VA and MD are considering a continuum of bus service improvements from a baseline to a high scenario that vary by routes, frequency, etc.
Implementing quality transit will include capital & operational costs and design requirements.
Implementing quality transit will include capital & operational costs and design requirements.
6/ Here are is the low & high transit service under consideration. Will P3 agreement require concessionaire to include adjacent park-and-ride lots with direct bus access on/off ramps? Will buses use the managed lanes for free? Will toll revenues subsidize fares? Not small issues.
7/ Another troubling element is this passage from the RFP that says any future transit plans will not prevent "financial viability." Again, this treats sustainable, efficient transit as a tacked-on element that will be scaled down or discarded instead of something non-negotiable.
8/ Moreover, this provision shows the drawback of Gov's push for an agreement that has "no net cost" to taxpayers. Yet, it's WAY better to put in some state grant dollars to achieve a project with robust transit than to push forward a car-only plan.
9/ Moreover, the idea that taxpayers aren't subsidizing this plan is ridiculous. The RFP Exhibit 19 states:
Low-cost TIFIA loans and tax-exempt private activity bonds ARE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES.
Low-cost TIFIA loans and tax-exempt private activity bonds ARE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES.
10/ USDOT @PeteButtigieg should not underwrite a project that fails to set as an explicit goal increasing transit/person throughput along with using variable roadway pricing to reduce per capita VMT and GHG emissions (e.g., using differential pricing for HOV3+ vehicles, etc.).
