The debate over the future of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Montgomery County transitions, at least for the time being, from individual corridors to the potential structure of the overall network’s financing, construction and operation with the introduction of State legislation enabling the creation of a transit authority by the County. MC 24-15 (a.k.a. HB 104), Montgomery County – Transit Authority provides the County Council with expansive discretion when considering any subsequent implementing legislation for a new Transit Authority. Unless one outright objects to the very idea of a countywide BRT network, extending such discretion by the State is consistent with the County’s home rule status. It does not waive, literally or implicitly, the State’s responsibility to provide direct financial support for such a network, as enhanced mobility here inherently benefits Maryland as a whole. Furthermore, most of the future BRT network is master-planned on State roads. There certainly are those in Annapolis representing communities other than Montgomery County who will find any excuse to neglect Montgomery County, regardless of what occurs in Rockville. However, it is the responsibility of the County’s General Assembly Delegation to vigorously advocate for our fair share of State resources and the flexibility required to address local issues in a timely manner.

It is appropriate for State legislators to insure that the permissible framework for BRT network implementation (and modified Ride-On service) in MC 24-15 is fully consistent with the critical objective of enhanced transit service. For example, MC 24-15 would allow a new local Transit Authority to assume jurisdiction of the County’s public parking facilities. Management of those facilities are important in their own right and have enough issues of their own without incorporating them with unrelated transit operations. The legislation requires County approval of the Transit Authority’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), but not its operating budget. As with the establishment and levying of a special local tax for BRT, Council approval of the Transit Authority’s CIP and its operating budget is essential for public accountability. Without such direct accountability at the Council level, public confidence and support for BRT is drastically compromised while this vital endeavor is still in its infancy.

It is logical to assume that the County will avail itself of the flexibility in MC 24-15, if enacted, since the County Executive requested its consideration by our State legislators. However, exactly what subsequent implementing legislation meets with Council approval is an entirely different matter than the decision now before our State delegation (and ultimately the entire General Assembly). Determining the appropriate financing and management structure for a new BRT network which, by its nature, operates predominately in a fixed-guide way, is complex. That complexity is reflective of the unease and resulting controversy about this entire venture among many residents. Based on my personal experience over 16 years with multiple, equally complex issues before the Council, a comprehensive review process by them of follow-up legislation is inevitable, if the General Assembly approves the pending enabling bill. Of course, no process at any level of government will satisfy those who philosophically object to BRT. However, subsequent Council review of implementing legislation that, unlike MC 24-15, actually creates the financing and management structure for a countywide BRT network is ultimately the logical and prudent way forward. The State should provide the County with the flexibility it needs by approving the enabling authority (without the distraction of managing parking facilities), along with the accountability for how it avails itself of that flexibility (i.e. operating and CIP approval by the Council). Our State legislators must also insist that the Maryland Department of Transportation fully cooperate with County officials at every stage and maximize direct State financial support for this venture, which is critical for Maryland’s future – not just Montgomery County.