Last year, I wrote a series called “Crisis in Transportation” contrasting Maryland’s inability to finance its transportation infrastructure with Oregon’s plan to boost spending by a half-billion dollars per year. Months later, those two states have continued to diverge.
Maryland has happily accepted transportation money from the federal government (most of which is going to the Baltimore area) but has done little else. Delegate Bill Bronrott’s (D-16) bill to index the gas tax has attracted zero co-sponsors and is in limbo. Senator Rich Madaleno’s (D-18) bill to raise the gas tax by five cents has also attracted zero co-sponsors and has joined Bronrott’s bill in the abyss. Oregon jumpstarted its transportation plan by convening a large stakeholder taskforce (including many representatives from the business community) which issued a report outlining the state’s needs. Maryland has done no such thing. Instead, the state cut its transportation budget by $1.1 billion last fall (including double-digit cuts to the Purple Line and CCT), is cutting MARC service and is projecting another $2.5 billion in cuts. The state has no plan for financing its BRAC needs or finding money for its share of one of its three proposed transit lines. Montgomery County is now spending county money on state projects and other counties could well follow suit.
In Oregon, Governor Ted Kulongoski sent his Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 to the state legislature. The act, based on the earlier stakeholder report, would raise a half-billion dollars every year for transportation, create a dedicated fund for transit and implement a pilot congestion fee project and other measures. It is projected to create 2,100 construction jobs annually. The Governor is also asking the legislature to consider a “mileage tax” as an eventual replacement for the gas tax. Under this tax, a GPS device installed in cars would calculate in-state miles traveled and charge a fee based on those miles at the gas pump. Representative Terry Beyer (D-12), Chair of the House Transportation Committee, predicted the legislature would pass an even larger gas tax increase than the Governor’s proposal of two cents.
Oregon’s efforts could yet fail. The legislature could disagree on both the financing composition and the amounts. But even Republicans acknowledge the need; House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna said, “I’m not absolutely saying no.” In Oregon, the Democrats have an 18-12 advantage in the Senate and a 36-24 advantage in the House. These are tighter margins than in Maryland (33-14 in the Senate and 104-36 in the House).
The point is that Oregon’s leadership recognizes their transportation problems and is trying hard to come up with a solution. Can anyone say the same of the state leadership in Maryland?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Oregon Schools Maryland on Transportation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
There is a bill hearing before the Budget and Taxation Committee tomorrow on a bill I introduced entitled, "Maryland Transportation Infrastructure Funding Task Force" (SB 853), which would establish a Task Force with stakeholders from state government, transportation, business, environmental, etc... to look at: (1) sustainable, long-term transportation funding revenue sources and options for funding; (2) public/private partnership funding options; (3) consider economic development impact; and (4) transit, highway, and bridge maintenance needs. Many have contacted me about including other stakeholders as well. We know that reliance on the gas tax, which I have supported in the past with bills to increase, is not sustainable into the future to meet our ever increasing needs. New approaches are needed and I introduced the bill with hope of getting wide stakeholder involvement to examine short-, but as or even more importantly, long-term transportation funnding solutions.
The key to which you allude, Adam, is the "large stakeholder taskforce (including many representatives from the business community)" and I would add the unions to that as well. Oregon is not the first state to re-engineer its budget priorities, and it won't be the last. It is far easier, psychologically, to bring in the people (who ultimately bear the price and many of whom will vote), have them decide what is important and the outcome they desire, and then craft a program with the experts with which the executive and legislative branches can work. Better to build up than cut down.
There as yet seems to be little interest in doing such here.
Adam -- this is Mike Dresser over at The Baltimore Sun. Care to share your math that supports the premise that Baltimore's getting a disproportionate share of the Stim money?
Are you including Maryland's share of WMATA spending in your calculation? Attributing all Howard and Arundel money in the Baltimore total? I'd be interested in your reasoning. Email me at michael.dresser@baltsun.com.
Except for the excursion into BlairLee-ism, it's a most thoughtful posting. Good work.
Mr. Dresser, here's my prior post about the stimulus. As you see, I rely on the Governor's own data. For whatever reason, he is not including WMATA, perhaps because it is in a different funding package.
I take your point on WMATA, but this is a sore issue for MoCo. We are now spending county money on state projects.
Adam:
From the perspective of a barstool in Montgomery (a lovely place for perspective by the way), that $73 million in county spending on road projects may seem like an imposition.
From any other perspective in the state, jurisdictions would lament that they don't have the luxury of tapping into a liquor monopoly to do the same.
It is admirable that the county is jump-starting these projects, but it is a matter of local priorities and choices. Is there also an expectation of eventual recovery from the state once the revenue picture improves?
Your original Montgomery's-getting-screwed comment seems to have been nased on a first tranche of announcements that was heavily geared toward directly operated state transit systems -- which by definition means the Baltimore-centered MTA.
The second part of the Phase 1 announcement seems heavy on Montgomery County road projects. And Phase 2, at least to my cursory examination, seemed reasonably well-balanced around the state.
And certainly no analysis of the relative fairness of the distribution is possible without attributing Maryland's share of WMATA costs to the Washington region.
One would also want to know hoe the two metropolitan regions are being defined. Do you include Frederick and Charles in the DC-area totals? Do you put all Howard and Anne Arundel spending in the Baltimore column despite the fact that the two jurisdictions are in some respects bedroom communities for both regions?
With those considerations in mind, and with both Phases of the Stim plan announced, is there any remaining evidence for the proposition that the DC area in general and Montgomery in particular are being treated unfairly in the distribution of projects?
I won't be so petty as to ask you to include the ICC in your calculations because I understand it's financing is separate from other transportation projects. But if I were a Baltimore politician, I'd sure look forward to scoring that cheap point.
Sliante mhor!
Michael Dresser
Baltimore Sun
Post a Comment