Maryland residents are being given their first opportunity to provide public comment on Governor Hogan's $7.5billion plan to build new toll lanes on I-270, the Capital Beltway, and across the American Legion Bridge.
Last September Governor Hogan announced his plan to build a 40 mile network of express toll lanes along I-270 and I-495. The plan's stated purpose is to reduce traffic congestion. However the lanes would likely be "congestion priced", meaning tolls would be variable and could rise arbitrarily high, and other congestion priced projects such as the I-66 toll lanes in Virginia have recently drawn criticism for allowing tolls to routinely rise above $40 for 10 mile trip.
More information about the plan is available on the I-495 and I-270 P3 Program Website. Four "open houses" on the project have been scheduled in which the public will be given the opportunity to provide in-person comment:
Tuesday, April 17, 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Dr. Henry Wise Jr. High School
12650 Brook Lane
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Wednesday, April 18, 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Clarksburg High School
22500 Wims Road
Clarksburg, MD 20871
Thursday, April 19, 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Bethesda Chevy Chase High School
4301 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Tuesday, April 24, 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Eleanor Roosevelt High School
7601 Hanover Parkway
Greenbelt, MD 20770
The public can also send written comments to:
The I-495 & I-270 Project Office
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore MD 21202
or by email to: 495-270-P3@sha.state.md.us
OUR TAKE:
Toll roads have their place, and this project has the potential to alleviate the region's crushing traffic congestion. However express toll lanes are not without costs for the public. They constitute an enormous use of eminent domain and public resources that could have been used for other purposes. The purpose of toll roads should be to reduce regional traffic congestion, not to spare only the extremely wealthy from the tax on their time which a lack of investment in our roads creates. The purpose of such roads must certainly not be to simply enrich private companies. In the best case these roads could ease travel for many motorists, but there is also the potential that an improperly implemented express lane plan would create a financial incentive for public officials to ignore worsening traffic congestion on the non-tolled roads in order to force people into paying excessive tolls.
Drivers in Maryland were recently treated to a significant increase in the state gas tax, and we are entitled to see public funds spent building more non-tolled roads and road improvements.
If new express toll lanes are to be built, it must be with the intention of reducing congestion on ALL roads, not just to maintain an arbitrary speed within the toll lanes. Ideally congestion pricing should NOT be used. Congestion pricing is generally a bad deal for motorists, because its purpose is literally to tax them off the road. Instead tolls should be set at a rate deemed reasonable for average motorists motorists so that commuters can plan their daily trip with full knowledge of the cost in advance.
If "congestion priced" tolls will nevertheless be used, then it should be set at a level which maximizes total traffic flow, not just flow within the toll lanes. Motorists should insist that if congestion priced tolls are used they must always be CAPPED at a reasonable price per mile, such that motorists won't be charged prices ordinary people cannot afford for a short trip. Elected officials must be the ones accountable to voters for setting toll rates, not an un-elected board or a private company. Elected officials should specifically be accountable if the maximum price per mile is one the average voter cannot afford: if members of the state legislature are unwilling to put their name next to a toll rate then it is too high. And motorists should receive a guarantee, written into law, that the revenue from any express toll project will be invested exclusively into ROADS, including improvements in non-tolled roads, not siphoned off to other projects.
Additional Information:
Official Public Notice from FHWA
I-495 and I-270 P3 Program official website
WTOP: Public gets chance to weigh in on Md. toll lane plans
Maryland Drivers Alliance
Defending Motorist Rights in the "Free" State
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Bills Aim to Address Speed Camera Concerns
Two bills which aim to remedy longstanding complaints about photo enforcement and are currently before the Maryland General Assembly.
House Bill 1151 would require that speed camera citations "provide an accurate visual record of a motor vehicle" and "an accurate representation of the distance traveled by the motor vehicle between each time-stamped image". This is intended to address a long standing concern that many citations do not provide sufficient information to verify the speed of a vehicle. This is in response to numerous complaints of erroneous citations, including systematic speed camera errors in Baltimore City, as well as other documented cases such as the City of Rockville and College Park where speed cameras have been documented to have recorded incorrect speeds for vehicles.
In addition, HB1151 would clarify the calibration requirements for speed cameras, including stating that calibration tests must include "A CHECK OF ALL KEY SYSTEMS RELEVANT TO THE ACCURACY OF THE SYSTEM". This is in response to the fact that current law basically does not state what a speed camera must actually be tested for. In one example in the City of Rockville, an erroneous citation was issued to a school bus by a speed camera which passed all their calibration tests perfectly. The calibration records did not in fact state that the device had been certified for any specific purpose or that they had actually been tested to verify they could accurately record speed, only the device was only tested according to unidentified "manufacturer specifications". Had the complaint about the violation been raised by a private citizen rather than local school board, the error would likely have been denied. Yet despite the gaping shortcoming of providing no idea what devices are being tested for, under current law such calibration records are still considered almost absolute proof of guilt by the District Court.
House Bill 1151 also requires that if an individual contests a speed camera citation, and requests the "operator" of the device appear, the actual individual who signed the camera logs or the actual officer who signed the citation must appear. Under current law, many cases jurisdictions substitute a "representative" to appear in court in place of the person that signed the camera logs. In many cases such a representative has no first hand knowledge of how the device was calibrated and is free to respond to any questions from the defendant with shrugs, "I don't know", or canned responses regarding what the operator is supposed to do rather than personal knowledge of what the operator actually did. This effectively denies defendants their constitutional right to face their accuser and allows hearsay evidence to be used against them.
The bipartisan sponsors of the bill are Delegates Hill, Fisher, Jalisi, R. Lewis, McCray, Parrott, Pena-Melnyk, Reilly, Rey, Wivell, and K. Young. HB 1151 will be heard by the House Environment and Transportation Committee on March 1. The members of the House Environment and Transportation Committee are:
kumar.barve@house.state.md.us
dana.stein@house.state.md.us
carl.anderton@house.state.md.us
pamela.beidle@house.state.md.us
alfred.carr@house.state.md.us
andrew.cassilly@house.state.md.us
jerry.clark@house.state.md.us
bob.flanagan@house.state.md.us
william.folden@house.state.md.us
david.fraser.hidalgo@house.state.md.us
barbara.frush@house.state.md.us
jim.gilchrist@house.state.md.us
anne.healey@house.state.md.us
marvin.holmes@house.state.md.us
jay.jacobs@house.state.md.us
jay.jalisi@house.state.md.us
tony.knotts@house.state.md.us
stephen.lafferty@house.state.md.us
robbyn.lewis@house.state.md.us
cory.mccray@house.state.md.us
herb.mcmillan@house.state.md.us
charles.otto@house.state.md.us
shane.robinson@house.state.md.us
william.wivell@house.state.md.us
The Maryland Drivers Alliance has been calling for changes such as this to state law for years, because this would make speed cameras less unfair to the accused. Citizens who wish to support House Bill 1151 can contact the Environment and Transportation Committee at the addresses above, or contact the bill sponsor to find out how you can provide formal written testimony in support.
A second bill, HB1365, would require that anywhere a speed camera is in use in a school zone, "A DEVICE THAT DISPLAYS A REAL TIME POSTING OF THE SPEED AT WHICH A DRIVER IS TRAVELING" also be installed. Such devices are referred to as "Radar Speed Display Signs" or "Your Speed" signs. Numerous studies have shown that the presence of "Your Speed" signs are effective at reducing speeding in school zones. A study by the Maryland SHA found that radar speed signs reduced average traffic speeds by 2-7mph, increasing voluntary compliance without the need for citations to be issued. HB1365 is likely to be opposed by jurisdictions which profit from speed cameras, despite the fact that radar speed display signs have been proven highly effective at reducing speeding and improving safety, and despite the fact that existing speed camera revenues could cover the cost of installing such safety devices.
House Bill 1151 would require that speed camera citations "provide an accurate visual record of a motor vehicle" and "an accurate representation of the distance traveled by the motor vehicle between each time-stamped image". This is intended to address a long standing concern that many citations do not provide sufficient information to verify the speed of a vehicle. This is in response to numerous complaints of erroneous citations, including systematic speed camera errors in Baltimore City, as well as other documented cases such as the City of Rockville and College Park where speed cameras have been documented to have recorded incorrect speeds for vehicles.
In addition, HB1151 would clarify the calibration requirements for speed cameras, including stating that calibration tests must include "A CHECK OF ALL KEY SYSTEMS RELEVANT TO THE ACCURACY OF THE SYSTEM". This is in response to the fact that current law basically does not state what a speed camera must actually be tested for. In one example in the City of Rockville, an erroneous citation was issued to a school bus by a speed camera which passed all their calibration tests perfectly. The calibration records did not in fact state that the device had been certified for any specific purpose or that they had actually been tested to verify they could accurately record speed, only the device was only tested according to unidentified "manufacturer specifications". Had the complaint about the violation been raised by a private citizen rather than local school board, the error would likely have been denied. Yet despite the gaping shortcoming of providing no idea what devices are being tested for, under current law such calibration records are still considered almost absolute proof of guilt by the District Court.
House Bill 1151 also requires that if an individual contests a speed camera citation, and requests the "operator" of the device appear, the actual individual who signed the camera logs or the actual officer who signed the citation must appear. Under current law, many cases jurisdictions substitute a "representative" to appear in court in place of the person that signed the camera logs. In many cases such a representative has no first hand knowledge of how the device was calibrated and is free to respond to any questions from the defendant with shrugs, "I don't know", or canned responses regarding what the operator is supposed to do rather than personal knowledge of what the operator actually did. This effectively denies defendants their constitutional right to face their accuser and allows hearsay evidence to be used against them.
The bipartisan sponsors of the bill are Delegates Hill, Fisher, Jalisi, R. Lewis, McCray, Parrott, Pena-Melnyk, Reilly, Rey, Wivell, and K. Young. HB 1151 will be heard by the House Environment and Transportation Committee on March 1. The members of the House Environment and Transportation Committee are:
kumar.barve@house.state.md.us
dana.stein@house.state.md.us
carl.anderton@house.state.md.us
pamela.beidle@house.state.md.us
alfred.carr@house.state.md.us
andrew.cassilly@house.state.md.us
jerry.clark@house.state.md.us
bob.flanagan@house.state.md.us
william.folden@house.state.md.us
david.fraser.hidalgo@house.state.md.us
barbara.frush@house.state.md.us
jim.gilchrist@house.state.md.us
anne.healey@house.state.md.us
marvin.holmes@house.state.md.us
jay.jacobs@house.state.md.us
jay.jalisi@house.state.md.us
tony.knotts@house.state.md.us
stephen.lafferty@house.state.md.us
robbyn.lewis@house.state.md.us
cory.mccray@house.state.md.us
herb.mcmillan@house.state.md.us
charles.otto@house.state.md.us
shane.robinson@house.state.md.us
william.wivell@house.state.md.us
The Maryland Drivers Alliance has been calling for changes such as this to state law for years, because this would make speed cameras less unfair to the accused. Citizens who wish to support House Bill 1151 can contact the Environment and Transportation Committee at the addresses above, or contact the bill sponsor to find out how you can provide formal written testimony in support.
A second bill, HB1365, would require that anywhere a speed camera is in use in a school zone, "A DEVICE THAT DISPLAYS A REAL TIME POSTING OF THE SPEED AT WHICH A DRIVER IS TRAVELING" also be installed. Such devices are referred to as "Radar Speed Display Signs" or "Your Speed" signs. Numerous studies have shown that the presence of "Your Speed" signs are effective at reducing speeding in school zones. A study by the Maryland SHA found that radar speed signs reduced average traffic speeds by 2-7mph, increasing voluntary compliance without the need for citations to be issued. HB1365 is likely to be opposed by jurisdictions which profit from speed cameras, despite the fact that radar speed display signs have been proven highly effective at reducing speeding and improving safety, and despite the fact that existing speed camera revenues could cover the cost of installing such safety devices.
Reactions: |
Lawmakers Propose New Type of Photo Enforcement
The state legislature is considering creating an entirely new form of photo enforcement in Maryland.
The bill identified as HB0749 in the House and SB0551 in the Senate would create "Bus Lane Monitoring Cameras" that would issue automated tickets to vehicles which enter lanes reserved for buses.
The bill sponsors are Senator Joan Carter Conway (D, Baltimore City) , and Delegates Robbyn Lewis (D, Baltimore City), Angela Angel (D, Prince George's County), and Delegate Brooke Lierman (D, Baltimore City).
The fines under the bill would be issued to the vehicle owner, not the driver, and would carry a fine of $100 (more than twice the amount of a Maryland speed camera ticket). The fiscal policy notes for the bill state :"Because fine revenues are paid to the jurisdiction in an uncontested case, local revenues increase." Bus lane cameras are not used in many other jurisdictions, however New York City was able to collect $17million in revenues from bus lane cameras in 2016.
The hearing for the bill in the House Environment and Transportation Committee took place on February 22. Proponents of photo enforcement have generally claimed that photo enforcement is necessary for safety. However in this case the bills sponsor in the house cited the desire to move buses more quickly rather than a safety purpose, and did not present any evidence showing a safety benefit from such cameras. It is possible the passage of such a new form of photo enforcement could open the door to other kinds of mass surveillance for non-safety related purposes. The bill was praised by Montgomery County delegate Al Carr (D, Montgomery County), an anti motorist lawmaker who has promoted other new types of non-safety related photo enforcement last year which would ticket for the mere presence of certain types of vehicles, and he stated that he wanted to see bus lane camera in Montgomery County as well.
Two citizens appeared to support the bill in the house committee, both were speaking on behalf of groups representing cyclists, a form of transportation which is completely immune to photo enforcement systems since bikes do not have license plates.
The cameras would likely be used first in Baltimore City. Baltimore has a troubled history with photo enforcement. The city's speed camera program needed to be shut down in 2012 after it was discovered that erroneous speed camera citations had been systematically issued to innocent motorists. As a further demonstration of the city's competence, on the first day the Baltimore City speed camera program was restarted, the city issued hundreds of erroneous duplicate citations. In another case of gross incompetence, the city of Baltimore issued 2000 citations which had been "signed" by a deceased police officer, and these citations were never refunded. The city has also been struggling with a recent scandal where Baltimore City Police Officers allegedly faked body camera footage to ensure convictions of defendants.
The Hearing for Senate Bill 551 in the Judicial Proceedings Committee will take place February 27. The members of the Judicial Proceedings Committee are:
bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us
delores.kelley@senate.state.md.us
jim.brochin@senate.state.md.us
bob.cassilly@senate.state.md.us
michael.hough@senate.state.md.us
susan.lee@senate.state.md.us
anthony.muse@senate.state.md.us
wayne.norman@senate.state.md.us
victor.ramirez@senate.state.md.us
justin.ready@senate.state.md.us
will.smith@senate.state.md.us
The bill identified as HB0749 in the House and SB0551 in the Senate would create "Bus Lane Monitoring Cameras" that would issue automated tickets to vehicles which enter lanes reserved for buses.
The bill sponsors are Senator Joan Carter Conway (D, Baltimore City) , and Delegates Robbyn Lewis (D, Baltimore City), Angela Angel (D, Prince George's County), and Delegate Brooke Lierman (D, Baltimore City).
The fines under the bill would be issued to the vehicle owner, not the driver, and would carry a fine of $100 (more than twice the amount of a Maryland speed camera ticket). The fiscal policy notes for the bill state :"Because fine revenues are paid to the jurisdiction in an uncontested case, local revenues increase." Bus lane cameras are not used in many other jurisdictions, however New York City was able to collect $17million in revenues from bus lane cameras in 2016.
The hearing for the bill in the House Environment and Transportation Committee took place on February 22. Proponents of photo enforcement have generally claimed that photo enforcement is necessary for safety. However in this case the bills sponsor in the house cited the desire to move buses more quickly rather than a safety purpose, and did not present any evidence showing a safety benefit from such cameras. It is possible the passage of such a new form of photo enforcement could open the door to other kinds of mass surveillance for non-safety related purposes. The bill was praised by Montgomery County delegate Al Carr (D, Montgomery County), an anti motorist lawmaker who has promoted other new types of non-safety related photo enforcement last year which would ticket for the mere presence of certain types of vehicles, and he stated that he wanted to see bus lane camera in Montgomery County as well.
Two citizens appeared to support the bill in the house committee, both were speaking on behalf of groups representing cyclists, a form of transportation which is completely immune to photo enforcement systems since bikes do not have license plates.
The cameras would likely be used first in Baltimore City. Baltimore has a troubled history with photo enforcement. The city's speed camera program needed to be shut down in 2012 after it was discovered that erroneous speed camera citations had been systematically issued to innocent motorists. As a further demonstration of the city's competence, on the first day the Baltimore City speed camera program was restarted, the city issued hundreds of erroneous duplicate citations. In another case of gross incompetence, the city of Baltimore issued 2000 citations which had been "signed" by a deceased police officer, and these citations were never refunded. The city has also been struggling with a recent scandal where Baltimore City Police Officers allegedly faked body camera footage to ensure convictions of defendants.
The Hearing for Senate Bill 551 in the Judicial Proceedings Committee will take place February 27. The members of the Judicial Proceedings Committee are:
bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us
delores.kelley@senate.state.md.us
jim.brochin@senate.state.md.us
bob.cassilly@senate.state.md.us
michael.hough@senate.state.md.us
susan.lee@senate.state.md.us
anthony.muse@senate.state.md.us
wayne.norman@senate.state.md.us
victor.ramirez@senate.state.md.us
justin.ready@senate.state.md.us
will.smith@senate.state.md.us
Reactions: |
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Guardrails Blamed for Fatalities In Use on Maryland Roads
The Maryland SHA has stated that it will no longer install a model of guardrail blamed for causing traffic fatalities in several states, but has yet to remove them from existing roadways.
Ten states have ordered the Lindsay X-Lite guardrail pulled from roads and replaced with models which meet the newest crash safety standards set by the Federal Highway Administration. The Maryland SHA has stated that it will not install more X-LITES on roads, but approximately 980 units remain on Maryland roads.
Retired SHA traffic engineer Gene Simmers believes Maryland should replace the existing guardrails with ones that meet the latest federal safety standards “You know there’s a problem. You know that there are other states that have removed them for safety reasons,” stated Mr Simmers.
According to an article in USA Today, the X-LITE was located at the site of six crashes involving fatalities in Tennessee, Missouri, and Virginia. In five of those crashes the guardrails effectively impaled the vehicle. In two fatal crashes in Tennessee — the guardrails "did not perform as they were intended to," stated B.J. Doughty, the department's communications director.
The devices are the subject of several lawsuits involving traffic fatalities in other states. The guardrails had been tested by a lab owned by the manufacturer, which some claimed was a conflict of interest. In April of last year, the Tennessee Department of Transportation send a letter to the Federal Highway Administration, calling on the agency to revoke their approval for the use of the devices, stating "I believe it appropriate to notify Federal Highway Administration of our inability to receive satisfactory installation information from the manufacturer and that in-service performance of this device is resulting in unacceptable safety levels for the department" and noting that the FHWA has the authority to revoke the acceptance of devices to be eligible for federal funding.
Maryland pulled the devices from their approved product list last year, but many remain in use.
Most state DOTs did not independently test the devices themselves before using them. But when Virginia ran their own tests they found that the devices failed, prompting the Virginia to remove it from the state's product list and VDOT is replacing it on roads where the speed limit exceeds 55mph.
The manufacturer defends the devices and claims they save lives, "For decades, Lindsay Transportation Solutions has made safety our No. 1 priority. ... It is widely recognized that there are impact conditions that exceed the performance expectations of all safety equipment, and equipment’s inability to singly prevent every tragedy does not indicate a flaw or defect." stated the president of the company's infrastructure division.
Sources:
USA Today: Controversial guardrails linked to deaths get replaced
Fox 5: Dad on a Mission, Federal Oversight in Question
Knox News: More lawsuits accuse guardrail manufacturers of negligence
Knox News: Guardrails only tested by lab owned by creators
Ten states have ordered the Lindsay X-Lite guardrail pulled from roads and replaced with models which meet the newest crash safety standards set by the Federal Highway Administration. The Maryland SHA has stated that it will not install more X-LITES on roads, but approximately 980 units remain on Maryland roads.
Retired SHA traffic engineer Gene Simmers believes Maryland should replace the existing guardrails with ones that meet the latest federal safety standards “You know there’s a problem. You know that there are other states that have removed them for safety reasons,” stated Mr Simmers.
According to an article in USA Today, the X-LITE was located at the site of six crashes involving fatalities in Tennessee, Missouri, and Virginia. In five of those crashes the guardrails effectively impaled the vehicle. In two fatal crashes in Tennessee — the guardrails "did not perform as they were intended to," stated B.J. Doughty, the department's communications director.
The devices are the subject of several lawsuits involving traffic fatalities in other states. The guardrails had been tested by a lab owned by the manufacturer, which some claimed was a conflict of interest. In April of last year, the Tennessee Department of Transportation send a letter to the Federal Highway Administration, calling on the agency to revoke their approval for the use of the devices, stating "I believe it appropriate to notify Federal Highway Administration of our inability to receive satisfactory installation information from the manufacturer and that in-service performance of this device is resulting in unacceptable safety levels for the department" and noting that the FHWA has the authority to revoke the acceptance of devices to be eligible for federal funding.
Maryland pulled the devices from their approved product list last year, but many remain in use.
Most state DOTs did not independently test the devices themselves before using them. But when Virginia ran their own tests they found that the devices failed, prompting the Virginia to remove it from the state's product list and VDOT is replacing it on roads where the speed limit exceeds 55mph.
The manufacturer defends the devices and claims they save lives, "For decades, Lindsay Transportation Solutions has made safety our No. 1 priority. ... It is widely recognized that there are impact conditions that exceed the performance expectations of all safety equipment, and equipment’s inability to singly prevent every tragedy does not indicate a flaw or defect." stated the president of the company's infrastructure division.
Sources:
USA Today: Controversial guardrails linked to deaths get replaced
Fox 5: Dad on a Mission, Federal Oversight in Question
Knox News: More lawsuits accuse guardrail manufacturers of negligence
Knox News: Guardrails only tested by lab owned by creators
Monday, February 12, 2018
Legislation Would Require Longer Yellow Light Times
The Maryland Legislature is considering a bill which would increase the minimum amount of time which yellow lights are required to display at locations where red light cameras are in use.
House Bill 204 was sponsored by State Delegate Marc Korman (D, Montgomery County), and would raise the minimum time which a yellow light is required to display to 4 seconds. Current law is complicated. A federal rule requires yellow lights to be "between 3 and 6 seconds. A separate state regulation also requires a calculation to be performed in a specific manner, notably that a formula using "the greater of the speed limit or the 85th percentile speed be used", and a separate SHA policy adopted in 2003 requires that yellow lights be no less than 3.5 seconds regardless of this calculation. The bill was written in response to a preliminary investigation by the Office of Inspector General which found that the SHA policy had not been consistently applied.
The bill would require that yellow times be more generous, and would explicitly require that yellow lights be no less than 4 seconds regardless of the calculations wherever red light cameras are in use.
The hearing for the bill was heard before the Environment and Transportation Committee on February 8th. AAA Mid Atlantic testified for the bill, and argued that the bill would reduce red light running and improve safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. The bill was also supported by the Maryland Drivers Alliance, and we noted that study after study has shown that longer yellow lights reduce rates of red light running and improve safety. We noted in our testimony that it is currently virtually impossible for a defendant to have yellow light timing formulas admitted in defense of a citation without an expert witness, noting that we have observed district court judges who have been assigned over 100 cases in a single two hour session who refused to even look at math calculations for yellow light times, and we proposed an amendment that would have required mathematical calculations to be considered as evidence.
A specific case of an intersection at Georgia Avenue at Seminary Road, where a marked decline in red light running occurred after a yellow light was lengthened by just half a second, was cited as an example. Prior to December 2016, the intersection had a left turn signal which was configured with a 3 second yellow light, which did not comply with the SHA adopted policy requiring a 3.5 second minimum. The light had furthermore been timed using a calculation using "the average of the posted speed limit and 20mph" RATHER THAN the requirement spelled out in state regulation COMAR 11.04.14 (Montgomery County does this at NUMEROUS locations, despite guidance to the contrary in the SHA signal timing manual). After an investigation by the Maryland Drivers Alliance, the left turn yellow was increased to 3.5s in December of 2016. Data obtained by the Maryland Drivers Alliance showed that a marked decline in violations took place after the light was retimed.
We have been working since 2016 to obtain data from Montgomery County which would show the detailed yellow times, red times, and lane for violations at this location. The county had initially denied the request, and then demanded a $19,000 fee which the MPIA compliance board deemed excessive. The County finally agreed to produce the data in return for a $990 fee. The data appeared to show that prior to the light being re-timed, out of the four lanes being monitored, more than 55% were assigned to the left turn lane. After the 0.5second increase, the number of violations assigned to the left lane appeared to have declined approximately 67%. While correlation does not prove causality, if even a fraction of this reduction were attributable to the yellow light increase that would appear to be a significant safety benefit. The data further showed that up to another 40% of the remaining left turn red light running violations were within 0.5s of the light turning red, meaning up to another 40% of the left turn violations might also disappear if the left turn yellow was increased another half second to match the 4.0s time on the straight through approach.
Montgomery County has repeatedly asserted there was "no public interest" in the disclosure of this data. No refunds were issued for citations at Georgia Avenue where the signal was non-compliant with SHA policy, despite the fact that the county had been reminded of this policy by an SHA memo in May of 2015.
No local government officials appeared in person to oppose HB 204. However the Maryland Association of Counties (MACO), a lobbying organization which represents county governments including the six counties which run red light camera programs, and which often opposes bills which local governments officials are afraid to oppose in person. When asked by a committee member whether MACO's opposition to the bill was due to possible loss of revenue, MACO responded it was not. The Fiscal policy notes for HB 204 state "Potentially, then, the duration of some yellow lights could increase by as much as one second. Accordingly, the number of violations captured by red light cameras at those intersections may decrease significantly and result in fewer citations." and also stated "Local government revenues for jurisdictions operating red light camera systems decrease, potentially significantly, beginning in FY 2019." The observed reduction in left lane violations at Georgia Ave at Seminary Road would work out to about $100,000 per year in revenue for just one lane at one camera location.
The bill is currently before the Environment and Transportation Committee.
Additional Information:
Text Of HB204
Fiscal Policy Notes for HB204
WTOP: MD Bill wants drivers seeing more yellow, not red, at traffic lights
Fox5 News: Proposed Bill Would Increase the Length of Yellow Signals at Red Light Camera Intersections in Maryland
House Bill 204 was sponsored by State Delegate Marc Korman (D, Montgomery County), and would raise the minimum time which a yellow light is required to display to 4 seconds. Current law is complicated. A federal rule requires yellow lights to be "between 3 and 6 seconds. A separate state regulation also requires a calculation to be performed in a specific manner, notably that a formula using "the greater of the speed limit or the 85th percentile speed be used", and a separate SHA policy adopted in 2003 requires that yellow lights be no less than 3.5 seconds regardless of this calculation. The bill was written in response to a preliminary investigation by the Office of Inspector General which found that the SHA policy had not been consistently applied.
The bill would require that yellow times be more generous, and would explicitly require that yellow lights be no less than 4 seconds regardless of the calculations wherever red light cameras are in use.
The hearing for the bill was heard before the Environment and Transportation Committee on February 8th. AAA Mid Atlantic testified for the bill, and argued that the bill would reduce red light running and improve safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. The bill was also supported by the Maryland Drivers Alliance, and we noted that study after study has shown that longer yellow lights reduce rates of red light running and improve safety. We noted in our testimony that it is currently virtually impossible for a defendant to have yellow light timing formulas admitted in defense of a citation without an expert witness, noting that we have observed district court judges who have been assigned over 100 cases in a single two hour session who refused to even look at math calculations for yellow light times, and we proposed an amendment that would have required mathematical calculations to be considered as evidence.
A specific case of an intersection at Georgia Avenue at Seminary Road, where a marked decline in red light running occurred after a yellow light was lengthened by just half a second, was cited as an example. Prior to December 2016, the intersection had a left turn signal which was configured with a 3 second yellow light, which did not comply with the SHA adopted policy requiring a 3.5 second minimum. The light had furthermore been timed using a calculation using "the average of the posted speed limit and 20mph" RATHER THAN the requirement spelled out in state regulation COMAR 11.04.14 (Montgomery County does this at NUMEROUS locations, despite guidance to the contrary in the SHA signal timing manual). After an investigation by the Maryland Drivers Alliance, the left turn yellow was increased to 3.5s in December of 2016. Data obtained by the Maryland Drivers Alliance showed that a marked decline in violations took place after the light was retimed.
Left Lane RLC Violations at Georgia Avenue at Seminary Road |
Montgomery County has repeatedly asserted there was "no public interest" in the disclosure of this data. No refunds were issued for citations at Georgia Avenue where the signal was non-compliant with SHA policy, despite the fact that the county had been reminded of this policy by an SHA memo in May of 2015.
No local government officials appeared in person to oppose HB 204. However the Maryland Association of Counties (MACO), a lobbying organization which represents county governments including the six counties which run red light camera programs, and which often opposes bills which local governments officials are afraid to oppose in person. When asked by a committee member whether MACO's opposition to the bill was due to possible loss of revenue, MACO responded it was not. The Fiscal policy notes for HB 204 state "Potentially, then, the duration of some yellow lights could increase by as much as one second. Accordingly, the number of violations captured by red light cameras at those intersections may decrease significantly and result in fewer citations." and also stated "Local government revenues for jurisdictions operating red light camera systems decrease, potentially significantly, beginning in FY 2019." The observed reduction in left lane violations at Georgia Ave at Seminary Road would work out to about $100,000 per year in revenue for just one lane at one camera location.
The bill is currently before the Environment and Transportation Committee.
Additional Information:
Text Of HB204
Fiscal Policy Notes for HB204
WTOP: MD Bill wants drivers seeing more yellow, not red, at traffic lights
Fox5 News: Proposed Bill Would Increase the Length of Yellow Signals at Red Light Camera Intersections in Maryland
Reactions: |
Monday, January 8, 2018
Attorney General References Photo Enforcement Cases in Public Information Act Report
A recent report on the Implementation of the Maryland Public Information Act by the Maryland office of Attorney General references two pubic records disputes raised by the Maryland Drivers Alliance, demonstrating how matters pertaining to photo enforcement are are having an influence on the understanding of government transparency affecting a broader range of issues.
The report references cases pertain to the matter of "NonGovernment Custodians", documenting that records maintained by a non-government custodian are considered public records if they pertain to a function that would normally be carried out by the government. Page 30 of the report states:
It is notable that the manner of Morningside's denial was that the town completely refused to acknowledge the existence of the public records of these records, attempting to create a "legal fiction" that because the records were not physically in their possession they did not exist at all, even though they knew the vendor was maintaining them on their behalf. The town even went so far as to assert that they did not operate a speed camera program at all, presumably on the grounds that the contractor ran almost the entire program. This highlights how local governments have at times attempted to use the existence of a non-government custodian as a way of creating confusion and avoid directly responding to a request or complaint, attempting to conceal records by misdirection rather than an an outright denial. Fortunately, in this case, the circuit court did not permit itself to be misled in that way.
The OAG report also states on page 31:
However the MPIA Compliance Board was granted extremely limited authority by the legislature, and has no authority to consider "public interest fee waivers" or denials of records such as the denial our first request. Therefore the denial of the first request and the county's denial of the Public Interest fee waiver have since been brought to the circuit court and is now pending trial. Montgomery County has thus far attempted to confuse the issues in the court case by avoid responding to the allegation that they outright denied the first request, even though the custodian put this denial in writing twice.
The Maryland Drivers Alliance has worked tirelessly, with the support of organizations such as the nonprofit National Motorist Association Foundation, to ensure the transparency of automated traffic enforcement programs. We realized some time ago that photo enforcement programs were just one example of a situation where records pertaining to the function of government relevant to matters of significant public concern were being kept in the hands of non-government custodians, and that existing case law in Maryland left the question of access to such records ill-defined. More and more, governments are utilizing private contractors to carry out functions traditionally performed by government, and we now live in a time when records might be stored on a database run by a contractor or in a private cloud server operated by Microsoft of Amazon rather than a machine physically located in a government office. The Maryland Drivers Alliance is pleased that our efforts have helped to further the understanding of public records law generally and we hope that media organizations and activist organizations involved in other issues will benefit from efforts to ensure that public records cannot be concealed or placed behind excessive fee barriers simply by outsourcing the storage and maintenance of records to a private contractor.
The report references cases pertain to the matter of "NonGovernment Custodians", documenting that records maintained by a non-government custodian are considered public records if they pertain to a function that would normally be carried out by the government. Page 30 of the report states:
Lying at the public end of the spectrum are speed camera vendors, which essentially perform a governmental function—enforcement of speed limits. In much the same way that the government cannot avoid the PIA by storing its public records with a private vendor, there is some force to the argument that the government should not be able to avoid the PIA by delegating its public responsibilities to a private vendor. Although there are no reported appellate decisions on the topic here in Maryland, we are aware of one circuit court decision in which the court appears to have concluded that the government violated the PIA by not disclosing records maintained by its third-party speed camera vendor. See Ely v. Town of Morningside, Order, CAL12-23425 (Pr. G. Cir. Ct., May 29, 2014); see also, e.g., Ark. Op. Atty. Gen. 2008-154 (Nov. 12, 2008) (concluding that state public records law applied to private company Final Report of the Office of the Attorney General on the Implementation of the Public Information Act 31 hired to operate school bus system because that was “a task that would otherwise be conducted by the [government]”).The case "Ely vs Morningside" was brought to the court by the editor of the Maryland Drivers Alliance website, after the Town of Morningside refused a request for speed calibration records that were legally required to be kept. Judge Albert Northrop argued this was inappropriate: "Respondent argued that the records were not in its possession because they were held by a contractor. To allow public records held by a contractor to be exempt from the Public Information Act would render the entire act ineffective."
It is notable that the manner of Morningside's denial was that the town completely refused to acknowledge the existence of the public records of these records, attempting to create a "legal fiction" that because the records were not physically in their possession they did not exist at all, even though they knew the vendor was maintaining them on their behalf. The town even went so far as to assert that they did not operate a speed camera program at all, presumably on the grounds that the contractor ran almost the entire program. This highlights how local governments have at times attempted to use the existence of a non-government custodian as a way of creating confusion and avoid directly responding to a request or complaint, attempting to conceal records by misdirection rather than an an outright denial. Fortunately, in this case, the circuit court did not permit itself to be misled in that way.
The OAG report also states on page 31:
"Since our Interim Report was issued, the PIA Compliance Board issued an opinion that touches upon this issue. The Board concluded that, under the facts presented to the Board, a municipal government was obligated to seek records from its third-party speed camera vendor if doing so would provide a less expensive means of responding to a PIA request. See PIACB-17-07 (Feb. 28, 2017)."The aforementioned MPIA Compliance Board opinion involved a request from the Maryland Drivers Alliance website, after the Montgomery County government attempted to charge over $19,000 for access to records pertaining to the details of red light camera violations collected at a location where a yellow light had a time shorter than the minimum time specified by a State Highway Administration policy. In the aforementioned case, the Montgomery County Government first outright denied access to a small sample of "yellow time" "red time" and other data pertaining to red light running violations on three separate instances. After a second request for a larger set of electronic data was submitted, the MCPD instead of denying this separate request instead attempted to charge a fee of over $19,000, and also denied a request for a "public interest fee waiver". The fee for the second request (and only the second request) was brought to the MPIA Compliance board. The county repeatedly asserted that a manual retrieval process requiring printing thousands of individual paper citations was the only means of satisfying the request, while ignoring the fact that the physical custodian of the records was the red light camera vendor and that the vendor would likely have another source of data in an electronic format and the capacity to retrieve the information far more cheaply. Even after it was proven that the vendor did in fact have another source of this data, and the vendor confirmed they could retrieve the data at 1/10th the cost, the county continued to assert that they need not use the vendor to pull this data. The board determined that it is reasonable for the county to utilize their vendor to retrieve records, and stated on that basis that that $1980 was the maximum "estimated fee" that the county could charge, although indicated that the fee still needed to be further refined.
However the MPIA Compliance Board was granted extremely limited authority by the legislature, and has no authority to consider "public interest fee waivers" or denials of records such as the denial our first request. Therefore the denial of the first request and the county's denial of the Public Interest fee waiver have since been brought to the circuit court and is now pending trial. Montgomery County has thus far attempted to confuse the issues in the court case by avoid responding to the allegation that they outright denied the first request, even though the custodian put this denial in writing twice.
The Maryland Drivers Alliance has worked tirelessly, with the support of organizations such as the nonprofit National Motorist Association Foundation, to ensure the transparency of automated traffic enforcement programs. We realized some time ago that photo enforcement programs were just one example of a situation where records pertaining to the function of government relevant to matters of significant public concern were being kept in the hands of non-government custodians, and that existing case law in Maryland left the question of access to such records ill-defined. More and more, governments are utilizing private contractors to carry out functions traditionally performed by government, and we now live in a time when records might be stored on a database run by a contractor or in a private cloud server operated by Microsoft of Amazon rather than a machine physically located in a government office. The Maryland Drivers Alliance is pleased that our efforts have helped to further the understanding of public records law generally and we hope that media organizations and activist organizations involved in other issues will benefit from efforts to ensure that public records cannot be concealed or placed behind excessive fee barriers simply by outsourcing the storage and maintenance of records to a private contractor.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Montgomery County Public Information officer Says Council Needs to Listen, Discusses Transporations Issues
A former spokesperson for the Montgomery County Council who announced his candidacy for his bosses' job says the council is not listening to their voters. Neil Greenberger was the legislative information officer for the county council for 11 years, and more recently the public information officer for the office of the county executive, and he is now running for an at-large county council seat. Greenberger minced no words about his feelings about his former bosses openness to listening to their constituents “There’s been too much of telling people what they need and a lot less of listening to what voters want."
Greenberger questioned the county's approach to development and roads, asserting that the county has approved plans for new development without first addressing the need for new roads, parking, and schools. “In Bethesda, they approved a plan for 20- and 30-story buildings with no new roads and reduced parking places,” Greenberger said. “Where are the people going to park? There are still people who still love their car. Nine people voting cannot change the culture of Montgomery County that has been built up for generations.” Greenberger was critical of the county's approach to roads, specifically including the county's decision not to proceed with plans to build the M-83 MidCounty Corridor, stating "Completing the M-83 highway to relieve congestion on I-270 and throughout the Upper County needs to be a priority, not a continuation of a 50-year plan. We must take steps to build M-83 NOW." He noted that only one-quarter of road resurfacing projects suggested by the County Department of Transportation ended up in the approved County budget of last year.
Greenberger says some aspects of the county speed camera program need to be considered. Although he states he supports speed camera, but argues that some speed cameras have been placed in unfair locations simply to raise income and server little purpose. "We need to look at how these cameras are placed. Montgomery County should be above having speed cameras hidden behind bushes, on downhill slopes and in places designed simply to trap unsuspecting drivers." and "This County does not need to trick its drivers to raise money".
Unfortunately any calls for reconsideration in speed camera locations are likely to hit a brick wall in the Montgomery County bureaucracy. Montgomery County ATEU states that speed camera locations are selected by a "Citizens Advisory Board on Traffic Issues". However in fact "citizens" are not permitted to attend the meetings of this "citizens advisory board" where speed camera locations and pending speed camera legislation are discussed. The group has operated in total secrecy, has members who were chosen by the MCPD based on their support for the cameras, is closed to the public and press, and does not keep minutes for any of their meetings. Calls for more openness in this process by the Maryland Drivers Alliance and the Greater Olney Area Civics Association were rebuffed by the county government.
Sources:
Greenberger questioned the county's approach to development and roads, asserting that the county has approved plans for new development without first addressing the need for new roads, parking, and schools. “In Bethesda, they approved a plan for 20- and 30-story buildings with no new roads and reduced parking places,” Greenberger said. “Where are the people going to park? There are still people who still love their car. Nine people voting cannot change the culture of Montgomery County that has been built up for generations.” Greenberger was critical of the county's approach to roads, specifically including the county's decision not to proceed with plans to build the M-83 MidCounty Corridor, stating "Completing the M-83 highway to relieve congestion on I-270 and throughout the Upper County needs to be a priority, not a continuation of a 50-year plan. We must take steps to build M-83 NOW." He noted that only one-quarter of road resurfacing projects suggested by the County Department of Transportation ended up in the approved County budget of last year.
Greenberger says some aspects of the county speed camera program need to be considered. Although he states he supports speed camera, but argues that some speed cameras have been placed in unfair locations simply to raise income and server little purpose. "We need to look at how these cameras are placed. Montgomery County should be above having speed cameras hidden behind bushes, on downhill slopes and in places designed simply to trap unsuspecting drivers." and "This County does not need to trick its drivers to raise money".
Unfortunately any calls for reconsideration in speed camera locations are likely to hit a brick wall in the Montgomery County bureaucracy. Montgomery County ATEU states that speed camera locations are selected by a "Citizens Advisory Board on Traffic Issues". However in fact "citizens" are not permitted to attend the meetings of this "citizens advisory board" where speed camera locations and pending speed camera legislation are discussed. The group has operated in total secrecy, has members who were chosen by the MCPD based on their support for the cameras, is closed to the public and press, and does not keep minutes for any of their meetings. Calls for more openness in this process by the Maryland Drivers Alliance and the Greater Olney Area Civics Association were rebuffed by the county government.
Sources:
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Opinion: First Day of I-66 Tolls Provides Cautionary Tale On Congestion Pricing
On the first day in which "congestion priced" tolls were charged on I-66 inside the beltway, many motorists were surprised to see morning tolls spike at over $34, according to a report by WTOP news.
The new tolls fluctuated wildly during the day, with some morning commuters paying over $34 one way to travel just ten miles, and others paying just $8 for the same distance.
Some motorists believed they had been misled about what toll rates would be, given that previous reports claimed that "the high end of tolls on a typical day at around $9 at the busiest times". WTOP reported that a local advocacy group, "The 66 Alliance", to claim Northern Virginia commuters had been sold a bill of goods: "The 66 Alliance calls on VDOT to suspend the I-66 toll program
immediately and for the Virginia General Assembly to investigate VDOT,
Secretary Layne and the I-66 toll program before the program is
permitted to be re-launched" stated the group's press release.
Authorities in VDOT asserted the system was working as designed, stating "Overall, we were pleased, and things ran smoothly".
The tolls on I-66 follow a model of "Congestion pricing", in which tolls are raised or lowered based on the volume of traffic. Congestion pricing is widely supported by the tolling industry, and by some quasi-government organizations who see it as a solution to obtaining funds without the need for legislators to be held accountable for raising gas taxes.
However, as this and other instances show what can happen if motorists are given no say on what toll rates are set at and if lawmakers are shielded from responsibility for toll rates. This is not the first time Virginia motorists have balked at fees which mysterious and fickle congestion pricing models have produced. This past winter some motorists using the 495 express lanes near Vienna were stunned to learn that they had been charged $30 for a single trip due to the effects of a snow storm.
Motorists will likely not be given a seat at the table to determine whether congestion pricing will be used or whether another solution should be found. Pilot studies into congestion pricing and the even more ambition idea of "vehicle mile traveled" (VMT) fees and have been conducted in the DC area. Yet these pilots have revolved around how to SELL the idea to the public and how to go about introducing such fees, rather than taking seriously the concerns raised about them -- concerns not just about the fairness in the amount of fees, but also the enormous privacy concerns involved which broad ideas like the VMT fees raise. Maryland is certainly going to see more congestion priced systems introduced in the future. The ICC already uses a form of congestion priced model, and the new regional toll lanes recently proposed by Governor Hogan are likely to be congestion priced. And unlike gas taxes, toll rates are not set by the legislature so lawmakers need never have their votes on the amount of tolls recorded for the people to review. In the past two years, legislation was introduced which would forbid the creation of a VMT tax in Maryland, a fee that would amount to creating congestion pricing on ALL roads, and the bill died in committee: Apparently some lawmakers in the Maryland House of Delegates wish to reserve the possibility of imposing congestion pricing on ALL existing roads in their back pocket for the future even if they don't want to talk about this openly.
Many believe congestion pricing is a good solution to solving a nearly unsolvable problem of traffic congestion, allowing people to decide the value of their own time spent sitting in traffic. But there is a down side in that it actually provides a financial incentive for local and state governments NOT to spend our gas tax dollars or toll dollars providing pursuing other traffic congestion solutions and ensuring that those who cannot afford high tolls have an alternative, since Tolling companies and agencies will actually bring in more money the worse traffic gets.
A WTOP poll of I-66 commuters seemed to show that most commuters did not believe the tolls had made their commutes better. 62% of respondents who used I-66 believed their commute had gotten "worse" or "significantly worse" since the tolling began, and only 25% thought it had made things better. Only 11% of users stated they would consider using HOV, ostensibly the reason for having tolls for non-hov users, and 65% stated they would still drive but take other routes. Some frustrated commuters have complained about a false narrative being presented by some officials that I-66 was previously HOV-only in order to paint those unhappy with the toll rates as "HOV cheaters" in order to deflect attention from claims of price gouging. In fact I-66 was previously HOV-only during a very limited window of hours and a great many motorists were legally using this road outside the HOV-only window, which was greatly expanded when tolling began forcing motorists who could not afford the tolls onto already overcrowded arterial roads. In fact plans are also on the books to tighten the screws on HOV-2 users by changing I-66 to HOV-3, possibly as soon as 2020, forcing many current carpoolers to either pay the tolls or find other routes.
Free market solutions are really good at solving many problems. But diehard libertarians should bear in mind that toll roads are NOT free market solutions, they are government sanctioned monopolies. An entrepreneur or fortune 500 company cannot simply come in and built their own road which offers a better rate. As such, it is elected officials who should be responsible for ensuring that the maximum cost per mile is not allowed to be set too high, and held responsible if that is not done. Left unchecked, massively high tolls provide an alternative fast route only for the very very wealthy, rather than funding new travel routes which actually provide some relief to taxpayer-financed commuter roads as some thought they were promised would happen. Motorists with less extravagant budgets would be well advised to not wait to demand a bigger seat at the table in setting limits on tolls, if for no other reason than to ensure the wealthy have some actual skin in the game of solving traffic problems just like everyone else does.
A WTOP poll of I-66 commuters seemed to show that most commuters did not believe the tolls had made their commutes better. 62% of respondents who used I-66 believed their commute had gotten "worse" or "significantly worse" since the tolling began, and only 25% thought it had made things better. Only 11% of users stated they would consider using HOV, ostensibly the reason for having tolls for non-hov users, and 65% stated they would still drive but take other routes. Some frustrated commuters have complained about a false narrative being presented by some officials that I-66 was previously HOV-only in order to paint those unhappy with the toll rates as "HOV cheaters" in order to deflect attention from claims of price gouging. In fact I-66 was previously HOV-only during a very limited window of hours and a great many motorists were legally using this road outside the HOV-only window, which was greatly expanded when tolling began forcing motorists who could not afford the tolls onto already overcrowded arterial roads. In fact plans are also on the books to tighten the screws on HOV-2 users by changing I-66 to HOV-3, possibly as soon as 2020, forcing many current carpoolers to either pay the tolls or find other routes.
Free market solutions are really good at solving many problems. But diehard libertarians should bear in mind that toll roads are NOT free market solutions, they are government sanctioned monopolies. An entrepreneur or fortune 500 company cannot simply come in and built their own road which offers a better rate. As such, it is elected officials who should be responsible for ensuring that the maximum cost per mile is not allowed to be set too high, and held responsible if that is not done. Left unchecked, massively high tolls provide an alternative fast route only for the very very wealthy, rather than funding new travel routes which actually provide some relief to taxpayer-financed commuter roads as some thought they were promised would happen. Motorists with less extravagant budgets would be well advised to not wait to demand a bigger seat at the table in setting limits on tolls, if for no other reason than to ensure the wealthy have some actual skin in the game of solving traffic problems just like everyone else does.
Additional Coverage:
TheNewsPaper.com: $44 Tolls are Just The Beginning for Virginia Roads
Reactions: |
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Have You Gotten a Ticket for a LEFT Turn?
The Maryland Drivers Alliance is looking for individuals who have received red light camera citations for making a LEFT turn on red. We are particularly interested in contacting individuals who have received such citations from Montgomery County or the City of Rockville, but are seeking such data from other locations in the state as well.
If you have received such a citation and wish to help an important investigation that will benefit motorists and traffic safety, we ask that you please contact us at mddriversalliance@gmail.com, and provide us with the location, speed limit, "Yellow Time", "Red Time", and date shown on your violation if that information was provided to you. Your personal information will be kept confidential. Thank you.
If you have received such a citation and wish to help an important investigation that will benefit motorists and traffic safety, we ask that you please contact us at mddriversalliance@gmail.com, and provide us with the location, speed limit, "Yellow Time", "Red Time", and date shown on your violation if that information was provided to you. Your personal information will be kept confidential. Thank you.
Reactions: |
Friday, September 22, 2017
Hogan Calls for New Network of Express Toll Lanes
Governor Larry Hogan has unveiled a $9billion plan to widen I-270, I-495, and the Baltimore Washington Parkway with a network of express toll lanes. The plan would involve adding approximately 100 miles of new lanes to the Beltway, I-270, and the Baltimore Washington Parkway. Private companies would begin submitting bids to build the new lanes within six months. The model would be similar to the express toll lanes used on the Virginia side of I-495.
The plan has drawn praise from tolling Companies and from AAA, but has been harshly criticized by "smart growth advocates" who favor transit, and from some members of the state legislature.
The plan will likely face numerous challenges before it proceeds. An environmental impact study would need to be performed, a vendor selected, and there will likely be court challenges before the plan can proceed.
=========== Governor's Press Release ===============
$9 Billion Traffic Relief Plan, Largest Highway P3 in North America RFI Released Today
ANNAPOLIS, MD – Delivering on his commitment to provide innovative transportation solutions for Maryland, Governor Larry Hogan today announced the administration’s plans to add four new lanes to I-270, the Capital Beltway (I-495), and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD 295). The $9 billion Traffic Relief Plan for these three major state highways will reduce congestion for millions of drivers and mark the beginning of a historic and transformative effort to significantly improve the traffic conditions on some of Maryland’s most traveled roads and highways for years to come.
“These three massive, unprecedented projects to widen I-495, I-270, and MD 295 will be absolutely transformative, and they will help Maryland citizens go about their daily lives in a more efficient and safer manner,” said Governor Hogan. “Today, we are turning Maryland’s celebrated innovation into real action. These projects will substantially and dramatically improve our state highway system and traffic in the region.”
Joining the governor were Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Secretary Pete K. Rahn, MDOT State Highway Administrator Greg Slater, Maryland Transportation Authority Executive Director Kevin Reigrut, as well as elected officials and community and business representatives from throughout the Baltimore-Washington region.
Today’s announcement officially begins the process to solicit the Public-Private Partnership (P3) industry for input and solutions to provide major congestion relief to these key transportation routes. With the total project estimated value at $9 billion, the P3 portion to add four new lanes on both I-495 and I-270 is the largest proposed P3 highway project in North America. The P3 will be seeking private developers to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain new lanes on I-495 between the American Legion Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and on I-270 between I-495 and I-70. Once completed, the Traffic Relief Plan will deliver new express toll lanes, in addition to existing lanes, on I-495, I-270, and MD 295.
“Using innovation and partnering with some of the greatest minds in the world, Maryland is going to finally get some congestion relief by investing $9 billion in three of the most congested highways in the state,” said Secretary Rahn.
The first step to build new express toll lanes on MD 295 will begin with the transfer of MD 295 from the U.S. Department of the Interior to the Maryland Transportation Authority. Governor Hogan has already personally started this process during a recent meeting with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and has directed MDOT officials to move forward with the transfer negotiations. Following the transfer, the Maryland Transportation Authority would then build, operate, and maintain the new lanes and maintain existing lanes between Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
The Traffic Relief Plan announced today is critical to spurring increased economic development and restoring quality of life for countless Marylanders who have been negatively affected by years of traffic congestion. Maryland has the second-longest commuting times in the country, and the National Capital Region is the most congested region in the nation based on annual delay and congestion cost per auto-commuter. The statewide cost of congestion based on auto delay, truck delay, and wasted fuel and emissions was estimated at $2 billion in 2015. This is an increase of 22 percent from the $1.7 billion estimated cost of congestion in 2013. More than 98 percent of the weekday congestion cost was incurred in the Baltimore/Washington region.
In making this announcement today, Governor Hogan has directed MDOT to issue the Request for Information to the P3 industry and continue the transfer process with the U.S. Department of the Interior
=================================
=================================
References:
Baltimore Sun: $9 billion highway project would widen 3 major Maryland roadways with toll lanes
WTOP: Hogan proposes $9B plan to add new lanes to Beltway, 270 and BW Parkway
The plan has drawn praise from tolling Companies and from AAA, but has been harshly criticized by "smart growth advocates" who favor transit, and from some members of the state legislature.
The plan will likely face numerous challenges before it proceeds. An environmental impact study would need to be performed, a vendor selected, and there will likely be court challenges before the plan can proceed.
=========== Governor's Press Release ===============
$9 Billion Traffic Relief Plan, Largest Highway P3 in North America RFI Released Today
ANNAPOLIS, MD – Delivering on his commitment to provide innovative transportation solutions for Maryland, Governor Larry Hogan today announced the administration’s plans to add four new lanes to I-270, the Capital Beltway (I-495), and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD 295). The $9 billion Traffic Relief Plan for these three major state highways will reduce congestion for millions of drivers and mark the beginning of a historic and transformative effort to significantly improve the traffic conditions on some of Maryland’s most traveled roads and highways for years to come.
“These three massive, unprecedented projects to widen I-495, I-270, and MD 295 will be absolutely transformative, and they will help Maryland citizens go about their daily lives in a more efficient and safer manner,” said Governor Hogan. “Today, we are turning Maryland’s celebrated innovation into real action. These projects will substantially and dramatically improve our state highway system and traffic in the region.”
Joining the governor were Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Secretary Pete K. Rahn, MDOT State Highway Administrator Greg Slater, Maryland Transportation Authority Executive Director Kevin Reigrut, as well as elected officials and community and business representatives from throughout the Baltimore-Washington region.
Today’s announcement officially begins the process to solicit the Public-Private Partnership (P3) industry for input and solutions to provide major congestion relief to these key transportation routes. With the total project estimated value at $9 billion, the P3 portion to add four new lanes on both I-495 and I-270 is the largest proposed P3 highway project in North America. The P3 will be seeking private developers to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain new lanes on I-495 between the American Legion Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and on I-270 between I-495 and I-70. Once completed, the Traffic Relief Plan will deliver new express toll lanes, in addition to existing lanes, on I-495, I-270, and MD 295.
“Using innovation and partnering with some of the greatest minds in the world, Maryland is going to finally get some congestion relief by investing $9 billion in three of the most congested highways in the state,” said Secretary Rahn.
The first step to build new express toll lanes on MD 295 will begin with the transfer of MD 295 from the U.S. Department of the Interior to the Maryland Transportation Authority. Governor Hogan has already personally started this process during a recent meeting with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and has directed MDOT officials to move forward with the transfer negotiations. Following the transfer, the Maryland Transportation Authority would then build, operate, and maintain the new lanes and maintain existing lanes between Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
The Traffic Relief Plan announced today is critical to spurring increased economic development and restoring quality of life for countless Marylanders who have been negatively affected by years of traffic congestion. Maryland has the second-longest commuting times in the country, and the National Capital Region is the most congested region in the nation based on annual delay and congestion cost per auto-commuter. The statewide cost of congestion based on auto delay, truck delay, and wasted fuel and emissions was estimated at $2 billion in 2015. This is an increase of 22 percent from the $1.7 billion estimated cost of congestion in 2013. More than 98 percent of the weekday congestion cost was incurred in the Baltimore/Washington region.
In making this announcement today, Governor Hogan has directed MDOT to issue the Request for Information to the P3 industry and continue the transfer process with the U.S. Department of the Interior
=================================
Do you agree with Governor Hogan's new Express Toll Lane plan?
(poll results may take a few moments to update)=================================
References:
Baltimore Sun: $9 billion highway project would widen 3 major Maryland roadways with toll lanes
WTOP: Hogan proposes $9B plan to add new lanes to Beltway, 270 and BW Parkway
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2018
(7)
- ► February 2018 (4)
- ► January 2018 (2)
-
►
2017
(20)
- ► December 2017 (1)
- ► September 2017 (2)
- ► August 2017 (4)
- ► March 2017 (2)
- ► February 2017 (5)
- ► January 2017 (5)
-
►
2016
(21)
- ► December 2016 (4)
- ► November 2016 (3)
- ► October 2016 (1)
- ► April 2016 (2)
- ► March 2016 (2)
- ► February 2016 (4)
- ► January 2016 (3)
-
►
2015
(39)
- ► December 2015 (2)
- ► October 2015 (1)
- ► September 2015 (5)
- ► August 2015 (3)
- ► April 2015 (1)
- ► March 2015 (5)
- ► February 2015 (5)
- ► January 2015 (5)
-
►
2014
(82)
- ► December 2014 (4)
- ► November 2014 (3)
- ► October 2014 (3)
- ► September 2014 (9)
- ► August 2014 (6)
- ► April 2014 (4)
- ► March 2014 (10)
- ► February 2014 (14)
- ► January 2014 (12)
-
►
2013
(102)
- ► December 2013 (11)
- ► November 2013 (10)
- ► October 2013 (9)
- ► September 2013 (5)
- ► August 2013 (7)
- ► April 2013 (7)
- ► March 2013 (14)
- ► February 2013 (6)
- ► January 2013 (8)
-
►
2012
(66)
- ► December 2012 (6)
- ► November 2012 (4)
- ► October 2012 (9)
- ► September 2012 (8)
- ► August 2012 (8)
- ► April 2012 (2)
- ► March 2012 (8)
- ► February 2012 (7)
- ► January 2012 (7)
-
►
2011
(88)
- ► December 2011 (3)
- ► November 2011 (4)
- ► October 2011 (7)
- ► September 2011 (5)
- ► August 2011 (7)
- ► April 2011 (6)
- ► March 2011 (9)
- ► February 2011 (10)
- ► January 2011 (10)
-
►
2010
(69)
- ► December 2010 (6)
- ► November 2010 (4)
- ► October 2010 (10)
- ► September 2010 (9)
- ► August 2010 (4)
- ► April 2010 (4)
- ► March 2010 (6)
- ► February 2010 (4)
- ► January 2010 (6)
-
►
2009
(58)
- ► December 2009 (4)
- ► November 2009 (6)
- ► October 2009 (9)
- ► September 2009 (6)
- ► August 2009 (1)
- ► April 2009 (5)
- ► March 2009 (6)
- ► February 2009 (6)
- ► January 2009 (7)
-
►
2008
(17)
- ► December 2008 (4)
- ► November 2008 (4)
- ► October 2008 (1)
- ► September 2008 (1)
- ► August 2008 (2)
- ► March 2008 (2)

Our Top Stories
- Rockville Falsely Accuses School Bus of Speeding
- Montgomery County Has Secret Speed Camera Committee -- Press and Critics Not Welcome
- Montgomery Speed Camera "OmBudsman" Won't Answer Questions
- Montgomery County Issues Erroneous Tickets
- College Park Cited Stationary Bus for Speeding
- Montgomery County ATEU Defends Culture of Secrecy
- How Two-Faced Triple-A Gave Maryland Speed Cameras
- "Secret" Baltimore Speed Camera Audit Found 10% Error Rate
- Speed Camera Reform Act Just a Big Fat Lie
- Court Rules Against Morningside on Public Records Access
- Speed Camera Company Celebrates "Bounty System" Loophole
- Montgomery County Steals Lanes for Expensive Bus Program
- Wicomico County Teachers Say Camera is Not Accurate
- Montgomery Council President Rice Racked Up Tickets
- Circuit Court Rules Innocence is a Defense, Rejects "Snitch" Requirement
- Baltimore Ends Camera Contract, Moves to Hides Records
- Montgomery Scamera Boss Lies About Red Light Camera "Warning Flashes"
- Montgomery County Camera Boss Blocks Public From Secret Meeting
- Salisbury Records Show Calibration Lapses, Sorry No Refunds!!
- Speed Camera Accuracy Questioned in Morningside
- Attorny General Gansler Depicted as "Reckless Passenger"
- Morningside Deployed Cameras Despite County Denial
- Morningside Admits Maintaining No Calibration Records, Doesn't Operate Own Cameras
- ACLU Documents Mass Tracking of Motorists By License Plate Scannrs
- Brekford Demands Tribute to See Calibration Records
- Access To Brekford Calibration Records Stalled in Salisbury, Morningside
- Public and Private Lobbyists Worked to Kill Speed Camera Reform
- Montgomery County Speed Camera Transforms Toyota into Dodge
- Montgomery County Boasts Error Rate "Under Ten Percent"
- Speed Camera Company Collects Dirt on Competitors
- Woman Gets 3 Tickets from DC Without Going There
- Legislature Raises Gas Tax
- Laurel, Hagerstown Circumvent Calibration Requirement
- Speed Camera Calibration Fails To Ensure Accuracy
- Speed Camera Programs Flout Sunshine Law
- Xerox Admits 5% Error Rate For Speed Camera Tickets
- Baltimore Cites Motionless Car For Speeding
- O'Malley Says Speed Camera Bounties Are Illegal
- Baltimore Ticketed Innocent Delivery Vehicle: Documents Prove Speed Camera Error
- Rockville Sees Huge Surge in Red Light Violations
- Trucking Company Challenges Accuracy of Baltimore Citations: Videos Prove Speed Camera Errors
- Speed Camera Salesman Caught Speeding AGAIN
- Riverdale Park Defends Forgery of Police Signatures
- High Court Rules Local Governments Above the Law
- Riverdale Park Allowed Civilians to Forge Police Approvals
- Baltimore Speed Camera Issues Ticket to the Dead
- Statewide Speed Cameras Now a $77Million Per Year Industry
- PG County Court Presumes All Defendants Guilty
- Town Releases Documents Proving Errors With Optotraffic Cameras
- Man arrested for asserting innocence in speed camera hearing
- Optotraffic Representative Caught Speeding
- Driver Uses Carchip to Challenge Optotraffic Camera
- Deceased Baltimore Cop Signs 2000 Citations
- Montgomery County Denies Right To Face Camera Operator In Court
- ACS Buys Steak Dinners For Lawmakers
- Baltimore City Issues Hundreds of Tickets in Error
- Baltimore Writes Speed Camera Revenues Into Budget Before Cameras Approved
- Camera Mistakenly Accuses Driver of 100mph Rampage
- Montgomery County Scamera Contract Includes Massive PR Campaign
- Optotraffic Investigates Possible Speed Camera Errors
- Speed Camera Legislation Attracts Lobbyists
- Sykesville Voters Overturn Speed Cameras in Referendum
- Traffic Engineering Techniques Out-perform Speed Cameras
- Transportation Planning Board Unveils Plan to Track and Tax Drivers
