Route 29 Flash BRT station progress in Silver Spring (Video+Photos)

Here's a look at some of the Route 29 Flash Bus Rapid Transit stations being constructed along the future route in Silver Spring. In these photos, you can see electronic information kiosks and even seating have been installed at the Burnt Mills and Four Corners stations, for example. The BRT line will run between downtown Silver Spring and Burtonsville.

The Shoppes of Burnt Mills can be seen in the
background from the Burnt Mills BRT station

U.S. 29 Flash update from Burtonsville (Photos)

Dateline: Burtonsville, March 17, 2020

Montgomery County Department of Transportation contractors raised the steel framework for the U.S. 29 Flash Burtonsville station's marker, at the Burtonsville Park & Ride lot. This is the first station marker to be installed on the future bus rapid transit route, the first to operate in Montgomery County.

Photos via MCDOT

MoCo selecting vendor for Route 29 BRT digital information kiosks

Smart City Media digital kiosk
at Kansas City, Missouri
Streetcar station

Montgomery County is nearing a contract with a New York "internet of things" firm in the bidding for who will provide "digital information kiosks" for the future Route 29 Bus Rapid Transit stations. According to County documents, the potential winning bid is from Smart City Media, LLC.

If chosen, SCM will provide an Interactive Digital Information Kiosk at each station along the U.S. 29 "Flash" BRT stations. Under the contract offer, Montgomery County would receive 25% of the net revenues from advertising and information shown by the kiosks. It would be a 5-year contract, with two options for additional 5-year extensions, if approved by SCM and the County Council.

SCM says it has around 30 similar contracts with cities, towns and transit agencies across the country, including Kansas City, Missouri; Harrisburg; Dallas' DART system; and Memphis. In Kansas City, for example, kiosks feature large screens with touchscreen capability. Montgomery County is set to make a decision on the contract after the close of business on February 10, 2020.

Photo courtesy Smart City Media, LLC

Route 29 BRT platforms taking shape (Photos)

Bus Rapid Transit station platforms are beginning to appear along the route of the future Route 29 BRT line. Concrete platforms have been poured for four of the stations so far, including Burtonsville, Briggs Chaney and Tech Road. Asphalt has also been poured for a shared-use path at the Castle Boulevard station.

An earlier stage of concrete pouring at
the Burtonsville Park & Ride station site

Photos courtesy Montgomery County Department of Transportation's Division of Traffic Engineering 

Construction begins on $10 billion BRT boondoggle

Construction on Montgomery County's $10 billion Bus Rapid Transit boondoggle is officially underway at the Briggs Chaney Park & Ride station. Hopefully you had a chance to hug the trees that will begin being cut down today on Lockwood Drive and Tech Road. Nothing boosts the cleanliness of our air like cutting down trees to make way for diesel buses, after all.

Take careful note that your cartel-controlled representatives in Annapolis are not introducing legislation to restrict home and business demolitions for the Route 29, Veirs Mill, Georgia Avenue and Route 355 BRT lines. While serving their developer sugar daddies well with BRT that will allow massive urban density along the entire stretch of each route, they are trying to stop Gov. Larry Hogan's plan to reduce congestion on I-270 and the Beltway, for which the state has made clear no home demolitions will occur. Why the hypocrisy, when their BRT plan actually will destroy homes and businesses along each route? Because the widening of the Beltway and I-270 not only doesn't allow for new urban-style development, but any reduction in traffic congestion only undercuts the fake arguments for high-density, transit-oriented development.

Photos via Montgomery County Department of Transportation

MoCo Council bill would steal money from disabled, seniors for BRT slush fund

After voting to tax Uber rides to subsidize failing Barwood Cab, which ended with Barwood filing for bankruptcy anyway, now the Montgomery County Council is trying to convert funds the tax earmarked for seniors and the disabled into a slush fund it can use for the $10 billion Bus Rapid Transit boondoggle. Bill 13-18, sponsored by Council President Helpless Hans Riemer, would strip all language from the Uber tax that directed funds to transportation for the disabled, elderly and poor, and "instead allow use of the fund for any transportation purpose in the County."

We already knew that the Uber tax, as I warned in my testimony opposing it, would hurt County residents and Uber drivers alike. Exactly as I predicted, Uber rides became more expensive, Uber drivers are being paid less than they were a few years ago, and no new ride-sharing competitor has entered the Montgomery County market since the tax was imposed.

This also made the County less appealing to the young professionals the Council has tried to publicly claim they wanted to attract, as millennials overwhelmingly use Uber rather than taxicabs. To our stuck-in-the-60s Council, diesel buses and Barwood Cab are still considered state-of-the-art transportation.

But now the Council is adding insult to severe economic injury to the County. When passing the Uber tax, the bleeding-heart language related to improving transportation for the disabled and elderly was used by the Council in the media as a fig leaf, to cover the anti-progress, fight-the-future nature of the Uber tax.

Now the Council is cravenly plotting to steal the money out of the hands of the disabled and elderly, and use it to fund their struggling $10 billion BRT boondoggle. The County, currently facing a $208,000,000 budget shortfall, has been unable to find enough funds for the BRT scheme. They failed to create an independent transit authority twice, which would have had unlimited power to tax and spend with no oversight by any elected official. Recently, they tried and failed to have their allies in Annapolis give them "quick-take" land seizure authority, which would have allowed them to seize homes and businesses - not only for the demolitions BRT will require along each route, but which could also have been sold to generate more money for the unfunded BRT boondoggle.

Desperate for money, the greedy Council will now try to pry it from the hands of disabled, poor and elderly residents, and put it into the pockets of themselves and their developer sugar daddies, whom the whole BRT scheme was dreamed up to profit.

It's outrageous.

It's bad enough Uber and Lyft riders have had to pay more, and via the tax pay Barwood Cab even if they weren't using their services. But to then find out the Council used the disabled and seniors to actually gain a new revenue source for their BRT boondoggle, this is a new low for even this corrupt Council.

MoCo holds naming contest for BRT system...and the names are as lame as BRT

The latest gaffe in the unending quest of the Montgomery County political cartel to build a $5 billion bus rapid transit boondoggle is a naming contest for the system. But it turns out your creativity is not needed - they've already chosen three potential names: "Flash," "Rapid" or "Swift."

Swift?

Flash could help us generate some genuine laughs, as we know the BRT will take 48 minutes to travel only 15 miles. Can you imagine telling someone, "I'm waiting for the Rapid?"

Neither can I.

After the County admitted they were getting consulting advice from the Communist Chinese government on BRT, the implosion of the Independent Transit Authority scam, the realization that BRT will result in the condemnation of thousands of residential and commercial properties countywide, and the revelation that the "futuristic, sleek, train-like vehicles" are actually just going to be old-fashioned diesel buses, these ongoing pratfalls are par for the course for a boondoggle the public opposes - and which could cost taxpayers $500-1000+ a year in additional taxes.

"I am ready to support the infrastructure upgrades [a.k.a. tax increases] that may be necessary in order to provide a higher level of service," County Councilmember and tax-hike specialist Hans Riemer said yesterday.

With Ike Leggett already promising a major tax increase in 2017, which will follow the historic tax hike of 2016 that resulted in the passage of term limits by voters, taxpayers are most definitely not ready to support these taxes...er..."infrastructure upgrades."

Hosting a naming contest in which the public can't even suggest a name? Just more evidence that the cartel swears by Steven Lukes' Power: A Radical View as much as Robert's Rules of Order. Lukes' book fuels most of the ham-fisted government corruption that produces things like the Westbard sector plan and BRT.

In Lukes' concept, when I negotiate with you, the only options on the table for discussion are all acceptable to me. The options that are unacceptable to me are not even up for discussion. Sound familiar?

Taxpayers' goal now should be to continue stalling the creation of BRT until 2018, when we can finally clean house of the remaining stragglers who weren't covered under the 3-term limit this time. Then we can vote in new leaders who will support transportation projects that will actually reduce congestion, and move the largest number of commuters for the lowest cost. These include a new Potomac River crossing, the M-83 Highway upcounty, extension of the Montrose Parkway to the ICC, the Damascus Bypass, widening East-West Highway, upgrading Beach Drive, and building the Northern Parkway.

Naming contest?

The name most high-information voters would give BRT can't be printed in a family newspaper.

Veirs Mill BRT would seize property, cripple traffic in Rockville and Wheaton (Photos)

Don't tell BRT proponents, but
parts of Veirs Mill Road actually
do have 3 lanes; in those
spots, one lane would be
seized for BRT and closed
to automobiles except at right
turns

Rockville's Mayor and Council were briefed on the Maryland State Highway Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study study for the Veirs Mill Road corridor last night. All of the options most likely to be considered for final selection by the SHA will have impacts on private property, and could end up worsening traffic congestion rather than easing it.

The driving force behind the BRT push? Certain (not all) commercial property owners along Veirs Mill, who would be able to redevelop their land into mixed-use town centers with transit-oriented height and density. Ironically, most of the future "growth" cited as justification for BRT will only be possible with the addition of BRT. And, like the placeholder schools that never get built, BRT will be counted under ever-more-laughable MoCo traffic studies as phantom capacity to reduce fees and restrictions on developers. In fact, the County Council is on the verge of weakening traffic standards yet again. Under a system that allows an empty bus to count as though there is now capacity for 50 additional cars, God help us.

While the main route is between the Rockville and Wheaton Metro stations, consideration is also being given to extending the BRT to Montgomery College. The SHA will hold a public meeting on the study on September 28, at 6:30 PM, in the Montgomery County Executive Office Building cafeteria at 101 Monroe Street in Rockville. Feedback from residents at that meeting will factor into the final SHA recommendations, which will be presented to the Mayor and Council at their October 10 meeting.

Beyond the no-build Alternative 1, the first option is Alternative 2, which would not provide dedicated lanes for BRT, but would give the buses signal and position priority at certain intersections.

Dedicated queue jump lanes that would be added at some intersections "may require additional right of way with impacts to property in Rockville," according to the report. With queue lanes, Metrobus Route Q9 would get signal priority at those intersections, but otherwise operate in mixed-traffic along the entire route. The report does not give a detailed explanation of how lights can be properly synchronized (already a weakness in Montgomery County) if buses are forcing the lights to change at random intervals.

For Alternative 3, the third through or turning lane of each side of Veirs Mill (where they currently exist) would be seized from automobiles, and turned into a dedicated lane for buses only. The report is deceptive about this fact. It shows Veirs Mill as a two-lane-per-side road only, and purports that "a lane is added" for BRT use. That is simply not true for the entirety of Veirs Mill Road. Yes, they will add a BRT lane where there are only two lanes. But on parts of Veirs Mill, they will be seizing a lane. Eastbound, a through or turning lane would be seized "in the vicinity of Atlantic Drive and the Twinbrook Shopping Center and continue...all the way to Wheaton." A significant portion of the last stretch between Connecticut Avenue and Wheaton currently has three through lanes open to cars in one or both directions today.

Traffic congestion caused by reduced capacity in those spots would have a referred impact up and down the road, as any traffic jam does, worsening congestion in the corridor. Add in the new high-density development BRT would permit, and the thousands of new cars that would bring, and you have a recipe for disaster.

It is also unclear how a third lane - and a bike lane, and a multi-use path, based on the diagrams shown here - could be added on the outside of two-lane stretches where access roads today exist for residential homes on Veirs Mill. The report doesn't detail what will happen in those cases, which are numerous along the road.

Loss of a third lane will reduce vehicular capacity on the affected parts of Veirs Mill by 33%. The highest, rosiest claim for how many drivers would "get out of their cars" and switch to BRT was 16%. When you simply do the math, you find that BRT will not only not improve traffic flow (other than getting oft-stopping buses out of the second lane where Veirs Mill is only two lanes), but will actually leave drivers with a net loss in total road capacity.

A Cadillac option, Alternative 5b, would mostly solve the problem of reduced capacity by creating new, separate lanes for BRT in the center of Veirs Mill, rather than taking existing traffic lanes. The dedicated center lanes would have to drop to a single lane between First Street and Atlantic Avenue. Not solved with this option is the eminent domain threat to private property. Rebuilding the entire length of Veirs Mill Road and adding bus lanes would require condemnation of property along the corridor. The report also ignores the potential need to relocate utility poles along Veirs Mill, a very costly proposition.

At the high price and low ridership forecasts for BRT, there appears to be no sensible argument in favor of it.

Staten Island experience shows Montgomery County BRT will "create a horrific situation" for drivers

Dedicated bus lane on Richmond Ave.
on Staten Island

Montgomery County is bulling ahead with plans for Bus Rapid Transit despite widespread public opposition. Officials might want to consider the disastrous implementation of a similar express Select Bus Service plan on Staten Island.

Stretches of dedicated lanes were added to Hyland Boulevard and Richmond Avenue, roads similar to those where BRT is being proposed in Montgomery County.

Remember what I've been saying for about four years now about losing 33% of vehicle capacity where lanes are taken from cars for BRT? And how that will make congestion worse, not better?

Now listen to New York State Senator Andrew Lanza (R - Staten Island) report on the "success" of BRT there, in these remarks at a Subcommittee on Transportation hearing on June 20, 2013:

"The City came in and painted. We had so few lanes for traffic, and so we have, you know, so few roads for the number of cars. So in order to facilitate, uh, this new service, uh, we took one lane out of service, we painted it red. 

So we told people in cars - who need to be in cars because they don’t have service - that, you know, a third of the road space on the major roads is now not available to them. And by the way, um, buses often go in [one of the remaining automobile lanes] anyway. They need to, it’s not the driver’s fault, because cars are making turns in front of them. So cars can no longer travel in those lanes, and yet buses are still traveling in those other lanes anyway.

We talk about the fact that we save people seven minutes [on express buses]. That’s only if you go end-to-end. The majority of people don’t go end-to-end. We spent millions of dollars painting roads to save seven minutes. We don’t talk about the thousands of people in their cars who have had 10, 20, 30 minutes added to their shuffle because now they’re a choke points, uh, because where there was once a lane for them, it is no longer there. It’s just a parking lot now. And because there’s this red lane, that…and by the way, there’s hardly ever a bus coming through. Hardly ever.

We can’t just talk to the people on the buses. You can find that one person who now has the express stop in front of their house that now saves seven minutes. They’re gonna like it. People stuck in cars, it’s really created a horrific situation."

MoCo residents on ITA at public hearing: "This is a lunatic idea"

Residents opposing the proposed Independent Transit Authority at last night's Transit Task Force public hearing again heavily outnumbered proponents of the unelected taxing authority, and Bus Rapid Transit.

What stands out is how the Montgomery County political machine is starting to sound more desperate as the ITA battle rages on. As Silver Spring resident Larry Dickter noted in his testimony, the ITA has "little if any public support." Even County Council President George Leventhal has suggested that the ITA bill not be submitted to the state legislature at this time. It's unclear what support the ITA has on the County Council or among Montgomery County legislators at this point, following 3 public hearings at which said public has overwhelmingly slammed the idea.

How desperate are ITA proponents? They're criticizing opponents for being white. You can't make this stuff up folks. Tom Liderto of Takoma Park, an ITA and BRT proponent, said that whites now make up less than half of the population in the county, but were the vast majority of the citizens testifying. He advised the task force that they might be hearing "a lot of loud voices from a minority."

A sure sign of desperation is when you have to pull out the race card. Your initiative has no public support, and a majority turns out to oppose it? Start attacking the crowd on the basis of race, age, etc. "I wanted to testify. But I'm white. So, I'd better do the right thing and stay home."

Likewise, it's intriguing to hear a particular faction of the County's Democratic Party adopt the talking points of Richard Nixon and Donald Trump. The so-called silent majority Liderto was referring to is gaining popularity as a talking point among that group. County Planning Board Chairman Casey Anderson and former Leventhal staff member and blogger Dan Reed are among those who have cited a silent majority, who they say fervently favor the urban density, urbanization of the suburbs and war-on-cars transportation policies Anderson and Reed are advocating for.

Perhaps in the same county where Councilmember Hans Riemer takes a $500 campaign check from Mitt Romney's Bain Capital and $4000 from Mitch Rales, two Wall Street pioneers in outsourcing American jobs to China, this shouldn't be all that surprising, I guess.

Does a millennial telling older residents in the room that they should stop opposing BRT because he'll be alive in the coming decades and they won't sound kind of desperate? Yep. Cold, but desperate.

You'd be pretty desperate, too, if you were in their position.

The hearing wasn't all that far along, when task force Chair Mark Winston felt compelled to engage Montgomery County Civic Federation President Paula Bienenfeld in a back-and-forth exchange over how she should testify. Bienenfeld had already shown up the task force for its hypocrisy when asking who among them took transit to the hearing. Only Delegate Marc Korman (D-District 16) raised his hand. Do as we say, not as we do.

"We're not here to respond to questions," Winston advised Bienenfeld. "I believe you can answer questions," Bienenfeld responded, noting that taxpayers are funding the task force.

Do as we say, not as we do. It was a bit of a theme last night. Another proponent of BRT recalled that he and wife quit working at Montgomery College's Rockville campus "twenty years ago," because the drive from Takoma Park each morning was too stressful. Wait a minute. The Red Line runs from Takoma Park to Rockville. Even in 1995. If they didn't use transit then, why would they use an even-slower kind of transit now?

A very expensive kind of transit, in fact, especially when you break the cost down per rider and there's no indication there will be many.

Resident Kevin Harris, who is also a former planner with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, said there has been "no data presented to show that BRT would solve the problems we're facing. We still have not been presented with the most basic traffic data" to justify BRT. The economic development numbers cited by Sage Consulting were "completely implausible," Harris said, terming Sage's work "wildly irresponsible modeling."

Harris questioned the task force's objectivity and and accuracy, "if you've already made your recommendations without data." "Performance metrics have never been established," Michael Pfetsch of Pinewood said.

Jerry Garson, resident and MCCF Treasurer, also questioned the task force's numbers. "I'm a CPA," Garson marveled, and "I can't figure it out." He pointed out that the task force calculations show "no administrative costs in the first five years of operation," an impossibility.

Silver Spring resident Carole Ann Barth took a creative approach in skewering the ITA's political and developer allies, casting them as "greedy piggies" in a fable-style tale, whose grand plan for pulling one over on residents doesn't end well.

Another resident, Harold McDougall, said he and his neighbors are "afraid of losing our homes" to an eminent domain grab by a future ITA for BRT. "We're tired. We're just depressed," he said. He noted that BRT was ginned up by a small interest group of developers and "Rockefeller-funded advocacy groups. There's big shots on one side, and little people on the other."

Many felt the task force has failed to consider any other solution but BRT and the ITA. Harriet Quinn of Silver Spring said the task force approach "excludes a comprehensive look at our overall transportation needs." Dickter argued the County would be better off improving existing roads and Ride On, "instead of obsessing over [BRT]."

A large number of speakers promoted similar alternatives: free Ride On service (which would cost a fraction of what is proposed to be spent on BRT, has none of the administrative or personnel costs BRT and the ITA would add, and has proven successful on Metro, where diehard riders are those who receive free or heavily-subsized fare on the system), completing unbuilt master plan highways like the M-83 Midcounty Highway Extended (and shamefully tabled recently by the Leggett administration), car sharing services like Uber and Lyft, Bridj, Express Metrobus and RideOn Plus services (these are existing proposals), autonomous vehicles (in the future), and using technology to make roads and transit systems more efficient as Houston has done successfully, without spending billions or even millions.

Robert Nelson of the Goshen area said, "I see very little benefit to our area" in the Upcounty, noting that the M-83 would be far faster for Goshen residents trying to reach the Shady Grove Metro station than the BRT system.

Jean Cavanaugh of Silver Spring was one of many who cited residents' "rapidly-rising tax burden." That burden is increasingly a regressive one, and four of the five task force report's revenue proposals would tax residents.

Do we need four new taxes to pay?

The League of Women Voters thinks we need five. Barbara Ditzler, representing the LWV, argued for new income, property, vehicle, development and fuel taxes.

This, on top of an already-looming property tax increase warned of by Leggett for next year.

Putting the ITA on the ballot to be decided by voters was suggested by several speakers, including James Williamson of Silver Spring. "Doesn't he trust the voters," Williamson asked of Leggett.

Eric Hensal termed the ITA debacle "red light district politics" by developer-funded elected officials who "cannot build a parking deck in Silver Spring." The ultimate goal of the ITA scheme, Hensal predicted, is to "socialize cost and privatize gains for the developer community."

Cherrywood HOA President Paul Jarosinski similarly described the ITA and BRT as a "bonanza for developers." The ITA sounds like "a good script for a crime movie," Jarosinski observed. "A parallel shadow government agency where you handpick five stooges."

Robin Ficker of Boyds, the man most responsible for the successful passage of the charter limit on property taxes approved by voters on the 2008 ballot, testified as well. "The Council is made up of a group of scaredy cats," Ficker said, delivering his remarks standing at the table as he does in court as a prominent attorney. "They're scaredy cats, because they know they can unanimously vote to exceed the charter limit," Ficker said, and would prefer an elected ITA take the heat from taxpayers instead. "They can never get enough money. That's all this is about."

Ficker also ripped the county's delegation to the state legislature for their failure to return sufficient transportation dollars to the County. "They're not doing their job in Annapolis," Ficker declared.

Stephen Poor summed up the feelings of most in the room, telling the task force, "You should just stop."

Pinning the future on BRT ignores the reality that cars are, and will continue to be, the dominant mode of transportation well into the future. Todd Solomon, who actually favors BRT, noted that - according to the Federal Highway Administration - a record number of vehicle miles were traveled by Americans in the first 6 months of 2015. And that a monthly record was just set this summer.

It doesn't sound like mass numbers of Americans will be "getting out of their cars" anytime soon. But will Montgomery County's elected officials be getting their hands out of our wallets?

Same answer.

The next move by the task force will be to begin their final review of the public draft report at their October 7 meeting.

D.C. Council punks MoCo's Transit Task Force with 10 hour public hearing

Bus Rapid Transit - are you
ready to pay 5 new taxes for
...this?

Yesterday I reported on the Montgomery County Task Force shutting off sign-ups for its September 30 public hearing after only a few hours Wednesday. Apparently, some on the task force are incapable of sitting and listening to more than 50 speakers.

A supporter of the task force posted a comment on my article, saying the task force shouldn't be expected to listen to citizens until 3:00 AM. But Wednesday night, the D.C. Council did just that.

BRT will have its own lane,
and take a car lane away
from you on some of
MoCo's most-congested
roads, reducing automobile
capacity by 33% on those
routes

District of Columbia elected officials held a public hearing from 5:00 PM Wednesday until 3:00 AM Thursday morning, listening to 70 speakers and additional city officials beyond that number.

Now, of course, the sensible thing to do in either jurisdiction would be to hold a second hearing, to accommodate the number of residents who wish to comment.

But what a great contrast. On the same day the task force shut off the phone lines, and shut out citizens to ensure a short evening for themselves (and let's be realistic, to limit the number of negative citizen comments, and make the opposition to the Independent Transit Authority and Bus Rapid Transit appear to be smaller than it is), the D.C. Council put in an all-nighter.

Embarrassing.

Public shut out of MoCo Transit Task Force "public" hearing

Task Force

report suggests

5 new taxes on

County residents

to pay for BRT

The Montgomery County Transit Task Force is at it again, attempting to shut an angry public out of a so-called "public hearing" September 30 at 6:00 PM. To be held once again in the 3rd floor hearing room at the County Council Building at 100 Maryland Avenue in Rockville, the hearing is ostensibly for the public to comment on a Public Draft of the "Report of the Task Force".

This document was supposed to be posted on the Transit Task Force website "on or about" September 16, 2015. Then the public was supposed to have a chance to sign up to comment on it. A set of arbitrary rules were imposed prior to the sign-up "window" opening.

To quote the Task Force hearing announcement (which I have not seen in either of the two newspapers widely-circulated in the County so far):

Members of the public wishing to speak at the forum must sign up between Wednesday, September 16 at 9 a.m. and Wednesday, September 30 at 10 a.m. To register to speak, call 240-777-7165, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.; TTY users call Maryland Relay. People signing up must provide their name, address and contact information. Those registered to speak may not substitute or cede time to others.

A maximum of 50 people will be able to present their views during the public forum. Speakers will have three minutes to make their comments and are encouraged to submit written remarks – which may include additional information and materials. If 50 people sign up before September 30, no additional names will be accepted and there will not be a waiting list.

These ground rules were unacceptable and unorthodox in themselves, as is the 6 PM start time, when most citizens are stuck in traffic trying to commute home.

Seriously - 50 people can speak, in a county of 1,000,000, on a ton of new taxes that will be paid by residents countywide?

Then things went from bad to ridiculous on Wednesday.

When I called only a few hours after the phone lines opened, I was told all 50 speaking slots had already been filled. And that my name was being put on a contingency list.

A county public hearing filled and closed to the public after just a few hours on the first day of signups? Outrageous.

First, I'd like to see the list of these 50 people, and find out how many of them are from the MoCo political machine, developers and organizations overtly or covertly funded by development interests.

But secondly, this arbitrary decision should not be permitted to stand.

The taxpayers should demand to be heard at this "public" hearing.

If any member of the Transit Task Force is incapable or unwilling to sit and listen to public testimony for as long as it takes, he or she should resign immediately. They are clearly not up to the task the County Executive has charged them with, if that's the case.

Even if some on the task force are too lazy to sit in a chair for a few hours to listen to the public, they should at least be scheduling a second hearing, so that those of us citizens who have more energy than they do can testify.

Now, about that report.

The TTF writes that it considered alternative ideas to replace the proposed ITA, and like Bill Clinton's famous "I've worked harder on this than anything I've ever done in my life," reached the shocking, surprising conclusion that what it (and the developers behind the curtain) want - the ITA - remains the only solution.

Page 12 contains a laughable argument for Bus Rapid Transit (one of the major reasons the County needs the ITA, as BRT won't qualify for federal funds, and the $5 billion BRT system couldn't be funded without exceeding the Ficker amendment cap on property taxes), claiming it is needed to keep all of the jobs that supposedly will be coming to MoCo from going to other jurisdictions.

This argument is preposterous on two fronts. First, the County has failed to attract a single major corporate headquarters in over decade. So, under the current moribund business climate, there aren't any jobs coming. But BRT will allow urban redevelopment of suburban areas like Rock Spring, Wildwood, Georgetown Square, Aspen Hill, etc. Those mixed-use developments will only create jobs for baristas and jeans-folding boutique salespeople. Only a moron would spend $5 billion to attract low-wage retail/restaurant jobs.

Finally, the TTF has proposed changes to the ITA bill that will again go to the state legislature in Annapolis in the coming months.

It has recommended staggered, 4 year terms for a 7-member governing board for the ITA. Interestingly, it suggests the possibility of term limits, which the County's political machine has fought against for decades for other offices. Is this an acknowledgement that term limits work? Interesting.

The ITA would be required to submit its Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget to the Council for review and approval, as well as the operating budget for the ITA itself, and the transit projects it oversees and operates.

Amending the ITA budgets would follow the same process as amending those of County agencies, the report states.

Eminent domain seizures would have to be reviewed and approved by the Council, as well.

The report also suggests "that any tax rate set by the authority shall be subject to disapproval by the Council."

It should be noted, however, that this current language does not impose the same political disincentive to the Council as the Ficker Amendment cap does for property taxes. Therefore, it would be far less likely that a majority of members would vote to disapprove of the ITA tax rate. The Ficker cap requires all 9 members of the Council to vote for a tax increase over the charter limit.

There is also a provision for an "excise tax" "not to exceed 30 cents per gross rentable square foot of leased commercial space, subject to disapproval by the Council."

Speaking of the Ficker charter limit cap on property taxes, the TTF says that provision is now outdated, since the state legislature passed the Maintenance of Effort law which requires education funding to be maintained at an equal or higher level each year. It therefore says it favors allowing taxes to exceed the charter limit, but with some restrictions on the amount. It also suggests other sources of revenue that could be substituted for property taxes.

Those proposed revenue sources include the aforementioned excise tax, a local-option sales tax, an employment withholding tax, and a congestion tax. Heard enough yet?

The report veers back into laughable territory in discussing the serious issue of the higher interest rates the ITA would have to pay for revenue bonds, compared to the lower rate the County could get. Dismissing these concerns, the report says, "if there is such a premium it is likely to be insignificant."

Say what?

Several funding scenarios laid out seem to overestimate federal and state contributions, and lowball construction and operating costs.

And all of the taxes suggested are regressive, flat taxes, that would hit lower-income residents the hardest.

They want you to pay; they just don't want to hear your response.

Citizens slam Montgomery County independent transit authority (ITA) proposal (Photo)

The same proposal for a Montgomery County Independent Transit Authority was put on the table again last night, and residents didn't like it any more than they did last January. About 50 people turned out to argue for or against the ITA legislation, which - if passed by the Maryland General Assembly - would empower the county to create its own transit agency. That unelected, 5-member ITA, as described in the bill, would have unlimited power of taxation and eminent domain, as well as the authority to issue bonds and carry unlimited debt.

While many Bus Rapid Transit advocates feel the ITA would be the best hope of paying for a BRT plan that would not qualify for federal funding, taxpayers are not so enthusiastic about the idea.

Then again, some on the Transit Task Force, which hosted the public hearing, weren't so enthusiastic about hearing from taxpayers, either. When task force member Jim Zepp tried to ask a follow-up question of a speaker early on, Chair Mark Winston objected. "We can't ask questions?" Zepp asked. "Questions are not in order," Winston replied. "I'm not going to argue with you about it." Eventually, task force members Richard Parsons and Casey Anderson intervened to offer a compromise on the number of questions that could be asked, which Winston found acceptable. However, Anderson grew testy when Zepp later attempted to ask a second question of a panel, shutting that inquiry down abruptly.

Speaking of compromises, there haven't been any by the county yet, despite the overwhelming community opposition. One wonders why they are going forward in the face of some of the loudest resident rage in recent history (Or why the ITA hearings always start at 6:00, rather than the standard 7:30 PM start for most county public hearings).

That controversy isn't based on the misfired rollout of the legislation last winter, South Four Corners Citzens Association Vice President Larry Dickter testified. "Rather, it was and remains the very concept of an unelected, unaccountable entity, with powers of eminent domain and the authority to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, without being required to submit its capital or operating budget to the County for approval that makes the proposed [ITA] a non-starter.

Dickter and other speakers also criticized the tone ITA proponents have taken in responding to citizen and organized labor objections, and their the use of pejorative terms like anti-transit, NIMBY, and "howling unionists". He also noted that under a recent National Labor Relations Board decision, "the ITA could well qualify as a private employer subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB, and bound by federal labor law, not County statute." Dickter argued that a much less expensive alternative to the ITA would be to create a division within MCDOT similar to the Maryland Transit Administration.

Union representatives sought to ensure there would be no privatization of transit services in the county, and that projects overseen by the ITA would require Project Labor Agreements. UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO President Gino Renne said he also had oversight and transparency concerns, and thought homeowners should not pay more taxes to the ITA than developers. Echoing Dickter's question of the need for an authority independent of MCDOT, Renne asked, "is another bureaucracy truly necessary?"

"We agree the transportation infrastructure needs new sources of revenue," Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO President Joslyn Williams said. "What we don't agree on, is that to get a more reliable system, we need to privatize." Williams slammed elected officials' recent praise of Public-Private-Partnerships (often called "P3s" for short). "P3 is a branding of privatization," Williams declared. He asked the task force to examine "the failures of P3 across the world," from London to Los Angeles.

Residents and taxpayers were no more enthusiastic.

"We don't want the ITA, and we don't want the sham, scam bus rapid transit," Silver Spring resident Michael Williamson said. He said the sole purpose of the ITA was to enable BRT, which he predicted would be "a Silver Spring Transit Center on wheels", which elicited raucous laughter and applause from the audience. Williamson argued the few supporters of the ITA are "developers, professional transit lobbyists, or those looking for a job from one or the other." "If you think an ITA is such a great idea, put it on the ballot," he challenged the task force.

Howard Greif, representing the Greater Olney Civic Assocation, said the association continues to oppose the ITA, and the current BRT proposal. He said the association could only support a plan that funds BRT with existing local, state and federal funds, permits "documented citizen input," and which requires voter approval through a ballot referendum.

Richard Parsons said "I don't believe this is the only way, or even the best way" to fund transit projects. He suggested limiting any plan to the Corridor Cities Transitway BRT line initially, with a special taxing district along I-270 or countywide to fund it. Parsons also advocated a regional approach, that would connect with BRT systems in Frederick and Prince George's Counties.

Members of the Montgomery County Civic Federation had a different approach, discussing alternatives to both the ITA and the BRT which they felt could be more effective and less costly.

Jerry Garson suggested offering free Ride On service in the county, which he estimated would cost taxpayers $22 million more per year.

MCCF President Paula Bienenfeld, while expressing the Federation's "absolute opposition" to the ITA, also endorsed the free Ride On concept. She also referred to the successful approach in Houston TX, where - without increasing taxes or creating an ITA - the city boosted transit ridership by using data to analyze existing routes and make changes. They came up with a new route system that placed more of their existing buses "where people use and need them" the most. "No one wants the BRT, and certainly no one wants the ITA," she said in her testimony. "Stick a fork in it."

Nancy Abeles of Bethesda argued that the new tax burden the ITA would place on residents and businesses would "further weaken our ability to compete in the region."

Route 29 resident Harold McDougall said he feels the ITA and tax proposals reflect a growing gap "between the citizens and the people who make decisions that affect their lives."

County Executive Ike Leggett testified and accused ITA detractors of making false statements. Leggett said he never proposed a $1.8 billion BRT plan. Silver Spring resident Harriet Quinn begged to differ, saying Leggett's plan was actually $3 billion.

Strathmore-Bel Pre Civic Association representative Max Bronstein criticized the "vague and elastic language" of the ITA legislation, and argued that self-driving cars would make public transit obsolete.

Steven Poor was more blunt, saying there was "only one way to repair this proposal - throw it away." He noted that using state legislation would, in effect, give other counties a hand in our taxation policies. Poor predicted the ITA would prove as effective and efficient as the WSSC and WMATA, to knowing chuckles from the crowd.

I thought Geri Rosenberg of Communities for Transit (which supports BRT) had a good suggestion - requiring ITA appointees to be transit riders. When the task force was asked by Bienenfeld who among them took transit to the meeting last night, only Del. Marc Korman (D-District 16) raised his hand.

Bonnie Bell of the Greater Goshen Civic Association, and also representing the Clarksburg Civic Association, said the County Council actually does have the power now to exceed the cap on property taxes if it wants. But that requires a politically-risky unanimous, 9-member vote, and "We all know that isn't going to happen," she said. "We do not support taxation without representation," Bell said, holding up a mockup of a license plate similar to the District's "Taxation without Representation" model.

Carole Ann Barth exhorted developers to finance the system if they want it. If they're not willing to do that, "you can't expect the rest of us to get on board."

"If MCDOT can't do their job," resident Cary Lamari said, "put someone in there who can do the job," not an ITA. "Give Gino the job," Lamari advised, pointing to union leader Renne. "I bet you it gets done."

ANGRY VOICES, SMUG POLITICIANS AT MONTGOMERY COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY PUBLIC HEARING

Using transit, 

"you lose an enormous amount of 

your productive hours waiting"

Tell me about it.

The disrespect of the citizens of Montgomery County in the Independent Transit Authority scandal continued Friday night, as the Montgomery County Delegation to the Maryland state legislature held a public hearing on bill MC 24-15 at the County Council Building in Rockville. After all the deception and dirty tricks of the previous 6 days, the shenanigans extended to the hearing itself.

Despite promises that the hearing would present a balance between those for, and opposed to, the bill that would create an unelected transit authority with unlimited taxing and eminent domain power, the deck was stacked in favor of the bill. Citizens already forced to race home from work to Rockville for a 6:00 PM start time arrived to find County politicians and developer-backed advocates for the bill ensconced at the top of the speakers list. That was just the beginning.

Not only did citizens and Ride On employees have to sit through a whopping 15 supporters of the bill before even getting a chance to speak, but those speakers and their allies in the delegation dragged out their testimony to around 90 long minutes. 90 minutes of mostly hot air. At one point, the delegation's chair, Shane Robinson (D-District 39) even spent time giving shout-outs to former delegates. Why they were even there makes no sense, but how about a "shout-out" to your constituents - the people who pay your salaries?

Earlier, Robinson tucked away the First Amendment, admonishing the crowd to forgo applause, "booing, and hissing." God forbid we'd have to hear any expression of the anger of the public after the outrageous deception that brought forth this ITA proposal.

Speakers for the proposed legislation were given extra time, and more extra time beyond that to fully flesh out ideas, cover all the bases, and complete actual thoughts. The taxpayers who paid for the hearing and the microphones? Two minutes, a full 60-seconds less than the 3-minute standard for public hearings at every other level of government. "I am John Smith, and I oppose the bill because...." [beep beep] "Wrap it up!"

The chair of the County Rapid Transit Task Force, Mark Winston, who was previously found to be in a position to benefit financially from the approval of a Bus Rapid Transit system and the development that would follow, had the laugher statement of the evening: "There is nothing sinister being proposed in this bill." Winston said the formation of the transit authority would "increase the sense of urgency" regarding construction of new transit projects in the county. But all of the urgency is really coming from the developers who will benefit from passage of MC 24-15.

Delegate Ben Kramer (D-District 19), one of the few outspoken critics of the bill (and one of the few who wisely voted Nay on the late filing of it in Annapolis) on the panel, asked Winston "are we perhaps putting the cart before the horse?" Kramer compared the idea of granting an unlimited funding mechanism before the details of the authority and the projects are even known to a kid demanding college tuition from his parents. That kid has no specific plans about college, Kramer said, but is simply "lookin' for you to pay for it," an allusion that drew raucous laughter from the packed hearing room.

Another Nay-vote, Delegate Eric Luedtke (District 14) was similarly skeptical of the bill, and the process that brought it to a sudden public surfacing last Friday. He mused aloud whether or not it might be sensible to simply have a public process and discussion on this at the county level through 2015, and then put forward a better bill in the 2016 session 12 months from now.

Luedtke's on-point questions also brought out a very significant aspect of the proposed authority I had never even considered. Because the ITA would not be backed by the "full faith and credit" of Montgomery County, it would therefore have to pay markedly higher interest rates - at taxpayer expense.

A common-sense idea from Delegate Aruna Miller (D-District 15) - who did vote for the bill, by the way - was to have the transit authority issue be put to a voter referendum in 2016.

But voters were still waiting to have their say last night. And waiting. And waiting.

Amy Ginsburg, Executive Director of Friends of White Flint, enthusiastically endorsed the bill, saying her group "looks very favorably" upon it. She claimed "the community rallied around" it, but strangely, none of those feverish fans ever showed up at the hearing last night to provide evidence of her statement.

Finally, a few detractors got a turn at the mic. One of them, Town of Chevy Chase Councilmember John Bickerman, scored several blows on the authority, and his testimony was referred to and seconded by many speakers through the long hours that would follow. He noted that the actual language in the bill "doesn't sound at all like what" its proponents testified at the hearing. The bill is actually a "backdoor property tax, an effort to circumvent the cap on property tax," he argued. One of Bickerman's comments which got a favorable response from the crowd, was his astonishment that "you have a public hearing on Friday night at 6:00."

Paula Bienenfeld, representing the Montgomery County Civic Federation, asked the delegation which of them traveled to the meeting by transit. No one raised their hand. The Montgomery County Council has famously had the same response when previously asked. Yet both bodies are asking the public to "get out of their cars." Winston, the Rapid Transit Task Force Chair once said "it has been a while" since he rode the bus. Hypocrisy at its best in all 3 cases.

Finally, someone pointed out the elephant in the room - the dirty tricks speakers list.

Twinbrook Civic Association representative Christina Ginsburg criticized the way the delegation "stacked this hearing" with supporters in the early, favorable slots (several reporters left early, and did not hear [and therefore will not quote] the later speakers). The crowd cheered, and one voice in the crowd bellowed toward Del. Robinson, "You said it would be pros and cons!!" That promise, of course, turned out to be hogwash.

Attacking the decidedly-unusual process by which this bill has been brought forth, Ginsburg said, "I'm appalled that you're lending your names and reputations to this kind of chicanery." She added that none of the jurisdictions cited as models in the county report allow what's in this bill.

"Kill this bill," county resident James Williamson said. He was skeptical of claims that the county should be trusted on this legislation. "Just look at the great work we did with the Silver Spring Transit Center," he noted sarcastically. County resident Tanzi Strafford concurred, citing the county's "history of incompetent transportation management." Williamson seconded Miller's suggestion of putting the matter to the public via referendum.

Joan Fidler of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League called the bill "a solution in search of a problem," and then went on to slice and dice it - and its proponents' arguments - to the delight of the crowd.

Jean Cavanaugh was one of several civic leaders to note that the short notice of the bill and public hearing did not permit enough time to engage membership on the proposal. Her Seven Oaks Evanswood Citizens Association's Executive Board is opposing the bill.

The Greater Four Corners Alliance is also in opposition to the ITA bill, and its representative Kevin Harris referred to the "undemocratic process" it has been rushed through.

Eileen Finnegan said Hillandale residents question the need for such a transit authority, and its Executive Board is likewise opposed.

Allen Myers, representing the Maplewood Citizens Association in Bethesda, said that a similar ITA proposal was only approved in the state of Florida after two voter referendums.

The Cherrywood Homeowners Association was also opposed. Their representative, Paul Jarosinski, said resident opposition was "almost unanimous." Jarosinski called the county's BRT plan "a forced redevelopment plan, rather than a transit plan."

Cherrywood's neighbors, the Greater Olney Civic Association, is equally opposed, particularly in light of the ITA's "unspecified borrowing and eminent domain powers." GOCA is also concerned that ITA debt would ultimately become the responsibility of the County, and its taxpayers.

Union leader Gino Renne expressed several reservations about the bill, including the open question of what would happen to current labor contracts under the ITA, and the fear of privatization. The room and hallway were packed with union members wearing yellow shirts. Some carried signs protesting the bill.

Even supporters of the bill thought it could use some significant changes.

Jay Corbalis, development associate at Federal Realty, argued "we need to offer more than sitting in traffic" as transportation options for young professionals. But he added that the development firm doesn't "support a blank check" such as the bill's language currently implies. Corbalis also said Federal Realty wants checks on the ITA's powers, and a cap on the amount taxes can rise.

Author, transit advocate and Bethesda resident Ben Ross (Action Committee for Transit) said he is concerned that the ITA proposed is not restricted to transit. Ross was particularly concerned that ITA funds could end up going to garage construction. He argued parking districts should not be placed under ITA control, and said the "bill as currently drafted won't provide that."

A spillover crowd, angry constituents, and the first sunlight to hit the ITA proposal since it was drawn up behind closed doors almost certainly will result in some changes to this bill. It could even be delayed a year for more public feedback, if politicians don't want to end up like their ousted counterparts in Arlington County. 

But don't expect the ITA to disappear, with so much developer profit at stake.

CITIZENS: WHO KNEW WHAT, WHEN ABOUT MOCO TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROPOSAL? (PHOTOS)

Document as reuploaded January 28, 2015

A Powerpoint presentation reportedly delivered by Montgomery County officials to as-yet-unidentified groups - prior to public announcement of legislation that would permit creation of an unelected Transit Authority with taxing powers last Friday - has been taken down, and reuploaded to the County website with a January 2015 date added.

While there is nothing necessarily nefarious about the change, it certainly plays into the existing controversy over the timeline of to whom the plan was disclosed to and when, prior to last Friday. There is a dispute between County officials, and citizens who oppose the plan, as to whether development interests had more notice of the plan details than residents. The latter only got their first look at the specifics of the proposal 6 days ago.

The change was reported by the Stop the Backroom Montco Transit Authority Deal Facebook page, operated by citizens organizing to fight the proposed new transit agency and taxing authority.

Previously, the document was dated "December 2014," a date prior to the January 23, 2015 public announcement of the Independent Transit Authority legislation and details.

Original date stamp

Patrick Lacefield, Montgomery County Director of Public Information responded to the blog prior to yesterday's date stamp change. He asserted that the Powerpoint presentation had been delivered to "a whole range of community organizations" since County Executive Ike Leggett's Inaugural Address December 1, 2014.

The County has not yet published a list of the "community organizations" to which the presentation was made. If your civic association, organization or business group received the presentation, please comment below or confidentially via email. I personally never heard any public announcement of a presentation that could either be attended, or requested to be delivered to a civic association or group, during the time period in question.

A public hearing on the state legislation that would permit creation of the Transit Authority will be held Friday, January 30, at 6:00 PM in the 3rd Floor hearing room of the County Council building at 100 Maryland Avenue. Those interested in testifying can sign up online by 12 PM on Friday.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BRT BACKFIRE AT COUNTY FAIR

The latest gaffe in the effort to sell a skeptical public on Bus Rapid Transit was a photo op that backfired at the Montgomery County Fair. After several years of claiming BRT vehicles would be futuristic, and more like railcars than buses, a BRT vehicle presented to media at the fair looked...exactly like a bus! Inside and out, the vehicle resembled the Metro buses we ride all over the DC area today. Just how this would help overcome the lower ridership potential of buses versus rail was not explained.

I'm also curious - who paid to transport this vehicle to the fair, and for all of the display materials and signage? It would be very costly to do so. Was this lobbying by a company for the theoretical fleet contract? An organization (financially backed by whom?)? Or was it paid for by the taxpayers?

The media blitz contained no mention of the 155 homes and businesses that would be condemned between Olney and Wheaton alone to build the BRT line along Georgia Avenue. What would be condemned in Rockville and Bethesda for a line that duplicates the Red Line, and dumps downtown DC-bound commuters short of the DC-MD line?

Signage promoted "Rapid Transit" (note they dropped the "bus" part), but the vehicle screamed "bus."  At a speed of 12 miles in 50 minutes, they may want to consider dropping the "Rapid" term, as well. While there was no indication of who paid for the BRT vehicle, there was also no indication of how the BRT system will be paid for.

Overall, there seems to be a much more compelling need to finance 8-car trains for Metro with some of the $5 billion that would be spent on BRT. We know Metro - as with rail transit in general - would have higher ridership than BRT. Increased capacity on the Red Line would be far more effective in accommodating current and future development in downtown Bethesda, and along Rockville Pike. It would also avoid the currently-planned seizure of automobile lanes for BRT, which would reduce auto capacity on that congested corridor by 33%.

Rail transit, and a new Potomac River crossing, would have far greater impact on economic development and job creation than BRT.