Forging a Consensus on Local Transportation Policy in Maryland

Two days ago, a forum about transportation in Upper Montgomery County was held at Montgomery College’s Germantown campus. The event was spearheaded by District 15 Delegate Fraser-Hidalgo. It was well-attended by residents and elected officials alike. Along with the officials specifically representing the area, Delegate Jared Solomon from the “down county,” was present. In addition, two Delegates from Frederick County, plus Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner were in attendance. As Delegate Fraser-Hidalgo noted in his opening remarks, one-third of Montgomery County is considered the “Up County.” That point underscored alone why the Up County is important to the well-being of Montgomery County overall. Adding in the significance of Montgomery County and the (literal and figurative) linkage with Frederick County, the significance of the entire I-270 corridor to Maryland is self-evident.

It’s worth noting that the forum wasn’t about a single project. It wasn’t about the State versus the County. Furthermore, no one questioned the major challenges along the corridor or the sincerity by all parties in trying to improve conditions. Certainly, senior representatives from the Montgomery County Department of Transportation, the State Highway Administration and the Maryland Transit Administration placed their initiatives in the best light. Written questions selected by the moderator – world-class public servant and Up County Regional Services Director Cathy Matthews – illustrated the frustration by residents with both the State and County. Yet, the forum wasn’t a debate about M-83 or the Governor’s P3 toll proposal for I-270 (and the Beltway), per se. All the “hot buttons” were hit.

It’s especially important to note that maintenance and multi-modal safety was brought up. This occurred more than once, by the presenters, elected officials and residents alike. Maintenance is all too often neglected during transportation policy discussions. It’s an easy target for budget cuts. Yet, whether one is talking about a redecking project on the Bay bridge or huge cracks in the sidewalk, there is an obvious connection between infrastructure maintenance and safety. Without safety, existing multi-modal capacity is worsened. Compromising the current multi-modal network dilutes the benefit of any capacity enhancements; for cars, for transit, for walkers and for bikers.

Resources are finite. Prioritizing their expenditure along any timeframe is simply prudent. This point applies to maintenance and enhancements for all modes. Notwithstanding the observations above about maintenance, it’s not possible to resurface every road, rehabilitate every rail car or fill in every sidewalk crack at the same time, in every location. Also, anyone who suggests that it’s feasible to study, let alone implement every conceivable capacity enhancement project is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. It doesn’t matter if one talks about one mode or another, let alone projects within a mode. Even in the face of horrendous challenges, deluding oneself is counterproductive.

The most significant result of last night’s forum was reassuring Up County residents that the “powers-that-be” do think beyond the Capital Beltway. I-270 and I-495 literally and figuratively link Frederick, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. Again, this dynamic applies among all modes, for maintenance and new capacity alike. On the “negative” side, the forum did play into the “we must do everything” mentality. Sustainable transportation policy not only requires planning for the future, but concentrating on what future is best. Do we truly believe it’s possible to enhance capacity while neglecting maintenance, broadly speaking? Is it realistic to enhance multi-modal capacity directly for all modes? What are the land use implications for transportation policy Up County – for that area and the three county region overall? Is the State and the applicable localities truly cooperating as well as possible?

Again, the forum was a reminder that the Up County does matter. However, it was also a warning against building up false expectations. Giving up in the face of adversity isn’t an option, but neither is panicking. Prioritizing objectives and due diligence doesn’t deny the urgency of the problem. Instead, it’s the honest route to a “solution.”