------------------------------------------------------------------------

Council, Duncan have different ideas for transit remedy

by Steven T. Dennis
The Gazette Staff Writer
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2000

Nobody seems to agree on how to solve the county's biggest problem: traffic.

County Council members told the Planning Board on Tuesday they want the $600,000 Transportation Policy Report that will be developed over the next year to be action-oriented and aimed at generating compromise on contentious issues.

But they disagreed among themselves on the scope and focus of the report.

Meanwhile, County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) has proposed his own $150,000 study, the Mobility Action Program, complete with three-dimensional graphics animation and a top 10 list of feasible projects -- sure to include the Intercounty Connector.

"They are talking process," Duncan said. "We are going to be talking about getting things done."

The questions are whether disputes within the council and with Duncan over projects ranging from the ICC to the Bethesda-Silver Spring light rail will render these reports moot, or whether a compromise can be reached that can lead to real progress.

No one disputes the problem. The first phase of the Transportation Policy Report predicted traffic would get much worse over the next 20 years, even if spending on new transportation projects tripled.

But at the council's insistence, that report did not include the ICC, which would connect Interstate 270 in Gaithersburg to I-95 in Laurel.

"I don't see how you can do any kind of transportation plan in this county without addressing the Intercounty Connector," Duncan said. "That's a fatal flaw right from the beginning."

The discussion of the Planning Board's proposed Transportation Policy Report task force quickly became a forum for council members to air their different approaches to transportation solutions.

Councilman Derick Berlage (D-Dist. 5) of Silver Spring said he was not sure a 30-member task force was needed or that $600,000 needed to be spent on it. He suggested that the Planning Board simply give the council a list of the projects it thinks should be built, and urged the board to not spend too much time considering revolutionary changes in land use planning -- a major focus of the proposal.

"It's just not going to happen," he said. "The good news is you came to brief us today before this got any farther.

"Go back to the drawing board," Berlage told the planners.

But Councilman Blair G. Ewing (D-At large) of Silver Spring took the opposite view, saying he was "immensely enthusiastic" about the direction of the report, and that land use changes needed to be at the top of the list.

"It ought to be ambitious," he said.

And Councilman Philip M. Andrews (D-Dist. 3) of Gaithersburg proposed his own plan: free Ride On bus service and half-price Metro.

"We need to take dramatic action soon," he said. "We need to get people off the road in rush hours."

Eliminating Ride On fares would cost the county about $11 million a year in lost revenue. But Andrews said the increased usage of buses would reduce traffic and the demand for new roads. He said other cities that have reduced or eliminated fares have seen increases in ridership.

Councilman Steven A. Silverman (D-At large) of Silver Spring questioned Duncan's plan, saying it could effectively preempt the Planning Board's report. The council could end up with its plan and Duncan would have his, instead of making one unified plan for transportation, he said.

Albert Genetti, director of public works and transportation for the county, said Duncan's proposal would complement the Planning Board plan.

At a news conference after the briefing, Council President Michael L. Subin (D-At large) of Gaithersburg papered over the differences.

"Despite some differences in approach, we all are committed to moving ahead," he said. "We've got to bring everybody to the table" to make the report "a bold blueprint for where we want to go. ...

"The public interest is best served by working together. To focus on the differences just wouldn't be productive. We're not out to do battle with anybody."

Council members agreed that they wanted more residents who are not activists to be included in the process and not just the "usual suspects."

Councilwoman Marilyn J. Praisner (D-Dist. 4) of Silver Spring said she had "grave concerns" about the plan, saying it had unrealistic expectations and characterizing the goals as overly broad and the public participation portion as not broad enough.

The report should focus on substantive issues rather than spending time on "visioning," Praisner said.

Silverman noted that Gov. Parris N. Glendening's Transportation Solutions Group was attacked from the moment it formed as stacked in favor of an ICC. He said average residents never seem to get a seat at the table.

Council members also agreed that they do not want the Planning Board to try to reach a consensus.

If planners do seek consensus, Silverman argued, the report would end up just saying that mass transit is the solution because that is the only thing everyone can agree on.

"To try to create political consensus is a mistake," added Berlage. "That's not your job."

Council members also said they are taking action now to deal with traffic congestion.

Berlage rattled off the network of improvements that the County Council adopted two years ago as an alternative to the ICC, including light rail and dozens of traffic improvements already approved for construction in the next two years.

Duncan said he expected there would be many areas of agreement, but described the council's network as merely "tinkering at the edges" of the problem.

"They have already preordained the results of the study," he said. "The Planning Board is going to say [the council's plan] all works wonderfully."

The Planning Board reports to the council, not to the county executive.

Council spokesman Patrick Lacefield disputed Duncan's claim, saying the ICC is not excluded from consideration.

And the ICC was the one project council members did not want to discuss Tuesday.

"I don't want this to come down to an argument about the ICC," said Councilwoman Nancy H. Dacek (R-Dist. 2) of Darnestown.

But that may prove fruitless.

Richard Parsons, a lobbyist with the Greater Washington Board of Trade, said if the report does not seriously study the beneficial effects of the Intercounty Connector, then it is toilet paper. He challenged the council and the Planning Board to make an objective study of the Board of Trade's proposed regional network, which includes another bridge over the Potomac River.

The council did not order any ideas off the table.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------