Following are the percentages gained by Republican candidates in Baltimore City, Montgomery County and Prince George's County since 2002. Races with no GOP candidate or with incomplete tickets are not included. Together, these three jurisdictions accounted for 42% of Maryland's registered voters in 2010.
Montgomery County: The great GOP tidal wave of 2010 caused an average Republican gain of 2.9 points in MoCo. No Republicans were elected in 2006. No Republicans were elected in 2010. (The county does have six precincts in Congressional District 6 that vote for Republican Roscoe Bartlett.)
Prince George's County: The Republicans' vote percentage has declined steadily since 2002. They did not bother to contest the majority of elections in the county in 2010.
Baltimore City: Just as in Prince George's, the GOP's performance is so poor that they often do not bother running candidates in Baltimore City. And the chart below does not include the Republicans' losses in city government races, which are held in odd-numbered years.
Here is the GOP's record in the three Democratic strongholds together.
How are the Republicans supposed to compete statewide if they cede these three jurisdictions to the Democrats?
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Republican Performance in the Democratic Big Three
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Baltimore Mayor Condemns Robocalls Intended to Suppress Turnout (Updated)
The following news release from the Maryland Democrats quotes Baltimore City Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake as denouncing robocalls made in the city that were intended to suppress voter turnout.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 2, 2010 7:00PM
RAWLINGS-BLAKE DENOUNCES MISLEADING ROBO CALLS INTENDED TO SUPRESS VOTER TURNOUT IN BALTIMORE CITY
BALTIMORE - Tonight, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake denounced a serious of misleading automated phone calls intended to suppress democratic voter turnout by targeting Baltimore City residents. The call urges voters to “relax” and stay home because “President Obama and Governor O’Malley have been successful” even before the polls officially close at 8:00pm.
“I was deeply troubled to hear this misleading robo call targeting Baltimore City residents urging them to relax and stay home as if the the election was over and the polls have been closed,” Rawlings-Blake said. “Sadly, this kind of gutter politics that we have come to expect from Bob Ehrlich and the Republican Party. In 2006, Bob Ehrlich’s campaign distributed intentionally false and misleading fliers intended to confuse minority voters and today they’ve reached a new low.”
TRANSCRIPT OF AUTOMATED CALL
Woman’s Voice: “I’m calling to let everyone know that Governor O’Malley and President Obama have been successful. Our Goals have been met. The Polls were correct… and we’re ok. Relax, everything is fine. They only thing left is to watch on TV tonight.
Congratulations and Thank you.”
###
Update: WBAL-TV has more.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Baltimore on the Block
A recent Sun article indicates that the General Assembly is considering cuts to Baltimore’s highway aid from the state. We are not in the habit of defending aid to Baltimore, but we believe these legislators are barking up the wrong tree.
The state aid program under scrutiny is Highway User Revenues (HUR), which is a portion of the Transportation Trust Fund sent out to the counties and the City of Baltimore to pay for street maintenance and other transportation-related expenditures. The Governor’s original FY 2010 budget contained $480 million in HUR distributions, including $194 million for the City of Baltimore. But the General Assembly and the Board of Public Works both cut HUR sharply by transferring much of it to the general fund to plug deficits. (Ironically, the Democrats had once criticized former Governor Bob Ehrlich for “raiding” transportation spending.) Proposed HUR is now down to $140 million for FY 2010-2012, with Baltimore due to receive $130 million. General Assembly budget analysts are advocating that $30 million of that money go to other jurisdictions instead.
Why does Baltimore get so much HUR money? The reason is because the State Highway Administration (SHA) does not own or maintain any roads in city limits. In the rest of the state, nearly all of the arterials are maintained by SHA. In Montgomery County, SHA roads include Wisconsin Avenue/Rockville Pike, US-29, Georgia Avenue, Connecticut Avenue and even secondary streets like Piney Branch Road and Bradley Boulevard plus many, many more. SHA spends hundreds of millions of dollars maintaining its street network every year. The City of Baltimore gets none of that money. So if the city’s HUR proceeds are distributed elsewhere, city residents will have to pay for their own pothole repairs while other Marylanders will see their arterials kept up by the state. Even such a MoCo partisan as your author would hesitate to do that to Baltimore.
But that does not mean the city should go untouched. In fact, Baltimore is the beneficiary of three special deals that no other jurisdiction gets: the state has assumed responsibility for its community college, detention center and central booking facility. In FY 2011, those costs are projected to total $182 million.
There is absolutely no reason why every other jurisdiction should have to bear responsibility for its own community college and jail while Baltimore gets a free ride. The city should be treated the same way as everyone else. And since the state sends aid to subordinate jurisdictions on the basis of wealth formulas, the city would likely get a big chunk of its college and jail costs from the state anyway.
The General Assembly should treat all of Maryland fairly. That means letting Baltimore keep its street maintenance money but also ending its illegitimate freebies once and for all.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Rawlings-Blake Taps Super-Lobbyist as Transition Team Counsel
Incoming Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who is proposing broad changes in the city’s ethics laws to “strengthen public trust,” has picked an ultra-connected super-lobbyist to advise her transition team. Is this real change for Baltimore?
Meet Eric Bryant, a partner with Maryland powerhouse law firm Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver. According to Rifkin’s press release announcing the incoming Mayor’s selection of Bryant as transition team counsel, “In preparing to take office, Council President Rawlings-Blake appointed a five-member leadership team to work with her over the next six weeks to prepare to take over the reins of city government. There are four co-chairs to the leadership with Eric serving as counsel to the effort.” That puts Bryant in the pilot’s seat for determining the early configuration of the new administration.
Bryant’s client list includes a staggering 45 entities, more than even legendary lobbyist Bruce Bereano, who has 30. Bryant represents power companies (including EDF, which owns a minority share of Constellation Energy), realtor associations, trade associations, the Maryland Jockey Club and many, many more. Twenty-one of his clients are headquartered outside of Maryland. How many of them do business with the city? Bryant has made 113 political contributions to state and local candidates worth $20,349 over the last ten years, including $1,280 to Rawlings-Blake.
Let’s remember how the scandal that brought down Mayor Sheila Dixon started: the mayor got too close to connected developer Ronald Lipscomb, who sprayed political contributions everywhere, plied her with gifts and eventually took her down. Bryant’s corporate connections far exceed Lipscomb’s. Will Bryant’s good fortune also be the good fortune of his clients?
But hey, this is Baltimore. The crab cakes are always good. The Orioles are almost always bad. And as for the politics, well… the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Prosecutor Slams Dixon
Following is the brutal sentencing memo written by State Prosecutor Richard Rohrbaugh about soon-to-be-former Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon as described by the Sun. Hide the children, folks, because this prosecutor is not holding back!
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
STATE OF MARYLAND *
V. *
SHEILA ANN DIXON *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * *
CASE NOS: 109210015, 109210016
STATE’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The recent pronouncements by Ms. Dixon to the press only reinforce the need for this Court to impose the agreed upon sentence. It seems Ms. Dixon’s unrepentant position is that the people of Baltimore should be willing to tolerate some corruption from their political leaders. Such defiant arrogance by a political leader is simply unacceptable.
While it has been difficult for everyone, including the prosecution team, to swallow the fact that this defendant will receive a substantial, life-long pension from the people of Baltimore, the alternative to accepting the plea agreement was equally, or more, unattractive. Continued litigation would have cost the taxpayers substantial sums. Ms. Dixon would have been only a suspended mayor while lengthy appeals dragged through the court system, possibly for years. If, in the future, some appellate court reversed the jury finding, Ms. Dixon might have had to be re-instated as mayor, receiving not only her pension, but her position and back pay as well. And, if she later prevailed, the people of Baltimore may have had to pay for her stable of seven (7) lawyers – a bill that might well exceed a million dollars. This plea agreement and sentence forecloses those possibilities.
In recent articles, Ms. Dixon purportedly has confessed that “[s]he should have reported the gifts she received from Lipscomb, but said they didn’t amount to much.” (Ex. 1) If, as the press has reported, Ms. Dixon made this and other statements, it suggests that she has lost touch with reality, is in a state of total denial and/or is trying to re-write history. It matters not which, or all, may be correct.
Ms. Dixon had already succeeded in making Baltimore fodder for the late-night comedians. But, even after the jury finding, Ms. Dixon has insisted upon not only bringing further disgrace to herself, but to the City by outrageously exclaiming the gifts she received “didn’t amount to much.” Could the citizens of Baltimore have continued to accept a mayor who somehow has talked herself in to believing gift certificates for fur coats, lavish trips and expensive dinners “don’t amount to much”? That taking a few gift cards meant for the needy is no big deal? Such an arrogant attitude can only be described as shameful.
The incredible claim by Ms. Dixon’s lawyers that she was not required to report gifts from Mr. Lipscomb was little short of laughable. Although Ms. Dixon has finally admitted the obvious -- that she knew Ronald Lipscomb was doing business with Baltimore – she has continued to tarnish the Office of Mayor of Baltimore. While the people of Baltimore are owed a full, complete and truthful explanation from their former mayor, it is probably too much to expect. Even in the face of Mr. Lipscomb’s sworn grand jury testimony that he gave Ms. Dixon cash to help her pay for her extravagant shopping spree, Ms. Dixon denies anything of the sort happened. But, if Lipscomb did not give her the cash, what is the source of the almost $9,800 in cash that was magically deposited into her account in 2004? (Ex. 2) And, at the same time, what was the source for the additional $4,000 in cash that Ms. Dixon gave to her driver, Howard Dixon, to launder through his account? Was it just a coincidence that the cash was deposited at the exact moment she needed to pay for her extravagant purchases, including those Jimmy Choo shoes? Was the $13,800 the only cash she received or was there more? Most importantly, why was the then president of the City Council dealing in cash in the first place? And, the gift cards – what is Ms. Dixon’s explanation of how they were received? Did she receive gift cards from others? Why were two unused Safeway gift cards which had been purchased for the Bea Gaddy Day celebration found in the defendant’s purse along with the used Giant gift card purchased by Doracon for the needy families? (Ex. 3) This defendant needs to answer these, and many other, questions. The people of Baltimore are owed the truth -- finally.
Sadly, Ms. Dixon is seemingly unwilling, or unable, to deal with the truth. If the people of Baltimore aren’t going to get the truth from their disgraced Mayor, at least they are entitled to finality, stability, and the chance to move forward. Accordingly, it is absolutely essential that this Court sentence the defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. In doing so, this defendant will finally become yesterday’s news.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Rohrbaugh
State Prosecutor
Thomas M. McDonough
Deputy State Prosecutor
Shelly S. Glenn
Senior Assistant State Prosecutor
Tamara M. Gustave
Assistant State Prosecutor
Suite 410, Hampton Plaza
300 East Joppa Road
Towson, Maryland 21286
(410) 321-4067
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Pew Study Examines Baltimore Media “Ecosystem”
The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism has released a new study examining the relationship of new and old media in Baltimore. Their findings: new and old media are extremely interdependent, but the old media’s role remains critical to original reporting in the city.
Pew looked at all media - including newspapers, radio, TV, blogs and more - producing news content in the Baltimore area in the week of July 19-25, 2009. They then studied six stories in depth, tracing their origins, spread and development – in some cases, as they moved across the nation. Pew’s basic conclusions include:
1. Nearly 95% of the stories that contained original information came from old media, mostly from newspapers. Those stories “tended to set the narrative agenda for most other media outlets.”
2. But the old media are producing less than they used to:For all of 2009, for instance, the Sun produced 32% fewer stories on any subject than it did in 1999, and 73% fewer stories than in 1991, when the company still published an evening and morning paper with competing newsrooms. And a comparison of one major story during the week studied—about state budget cuts—found newspapers in the area produced only one-third as many stories in 2009 as they did the last time the state made a similar round of budget cuts in 1991, and the Baltimore Sun one seventh as many.
3. New media are not compensating for the decline of the old media. Pew describes most new media, including blogs and Twitter, as “mainly an alert system and a way to disseminate stories from other places.” They are not filling the gap of creating the original content that was once provided by the old media in greater volume years ago.
4. Rapid cyber-spread of stories has a cost:As news is posted faster, often with little enterprise reporting added, the official version of events is becoming more important. We found official press releases often appear word for word in first accounts of events, though often not noted as such. In the growing echo chamber online, formal procedures for citing and crediting can get lost. We found numerous examples of websites carrying sections of other people’s work without attribution and often suggesting original reporting was added when none was. We found elements of this in several major stories we traced. And sometimes old stories that were already obsolete were posted or linked to after events had changed and the original news site had updated them.
Of the six stories Pew studied in depth, only two were broken by new media. One was a police shooting originally reported by a Twitter feed. The other was MPW contributor Paul Gordon’s scoop on a spying proposal by the Maryland Transit Administration. Sun reporter Mike Dresser followed up with MTA right away, causing them to drop the plan. Pew tracks that story across the U.S., noting the failure of other media outlets to credit either MPW or Dresser.
We have criticized the mainstream media (MSM) plenty on this blog, but we do it for a reason: true democracy cannot exist without an informed citizenry, and the latter is dependent on paid, professional and objective journalism. Amateur bloggers as a group have not yet shown the ability to produce enough original reporting to compensate for the cutbacks at major outlets like the Post and the Sun. Unless the old media finds a way to make a profit again, the information sphere of the future will likely consist of a relative handful of stories amplified by innumerable outlets that add few if any new facts or follow-up other than spin. We deserve better than that.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Sheila Dixon's Plea Agreement
Below, we reprint all seven pages of Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's plea agreement. According to the agreement, Dixon pleads guilty to one count of perjury; withdraws any post-trial motions related to her previous conviction of misappropriating gift cards; resigns as Mayor on the date of her sentencing; gives up the X-Box, camcorder, mink coat and lamb coat purchased with the gift cards; and agrees to perform 500 hours of community service, pay $45,000 to charity and be subject to probation for four years during which she cannot hold a city or state job. In return, she gets to keep her government pension.
Mayor Dixon Resigns (Updated)
The Marc Steiner Show is reporting that Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon has resigned her office.
Update: Baltimore City Delegate Jill Carter has confirmed the story on her Facebook page.
Update 2: Now the Sun has it.
Update 3: The Post has Dixon's statement.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
How Far Will Baltimore’s Corruption Scandal Go?
Developer Ronald Holt Lipscomb, whose alleged showering of gifts on Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon led to her indictment, is now cooperating with State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh. That’s not just bad news for Dixon. It’s also potentially bad news for many other politicians too.
The state’s case against Dixon revolves around the provision by Lipscomb and fellow developer Patrick Turner of gift cards that were supposed to be used for needy city residents, but were instead used by Dixon for herself while she was City Council President. The state issued a twelve count indictment in January alleging that Dixon had committed perjury, theft, fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary and misconduct in office. After Lipscomb agreed to squeal in June, the state withdrew the original indictment and issued a new seven count indictment in July alleging theft, fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary and misconduct in office.
Whatever happens to Dixon, the state scored a coup by flipping Ronald Lipscomb. The 53-year-old owner of Doracon Contracting Inc. was one of the most influential minority contractors in the state at his peak. The best thing about cooperating witnesses is that they do not get to pick and choose which matters they discuss with prosecutors. Remember how the Jack Abramoff investigation eventually led to Congressman Bob Ney?
Lipscomb has many, many relationships other than his connection to Mayor Dixon. Prosecutors claim to know of 57 Lipscomb-connected LLCs. We have not been able to locate that many, but we have traced fifteen business entities and five individuals to Lipscomb’s residential and business addresses. They are:
301 E. Lombard Street LLC
6th Street LLC
Arizona Crossings LLC
Dart Consulting LLC
Doracon Contracting
Doracon Contracting of D.C.
Doracon Development
Doracon Development of Puerto Rico
Lambda Development LLC
RHL Arizona Crossings LLC
RHL Development LLC
RHL Strathdale LLC
RHL Waterview Avenue LLC
RT Ventures LLC
Street LLC
Dennis Cullop (a Doracon Vice-President)
Sharon R. Grinnell
Michael E. Herndon
Ronald H. Lipscomb
Zaiafanice J. Lipscomb
The above businesses and individuals contributed a combined $500,988 to state politicians. Here are all candidates and political funds that received at least $5,000.
A few notes. Helen Holton is a Baltimore City Council Member who was also indicted in connection with Lipscomb. Bernard Young is another Baltimore City Council Member. Talmadge Branch is a Baltimore City Delegate who is the Majority Whip in the House. Verna Jones and Nathaniel McFadden are Senators from Baltimore City. Delegate Pete Rawlings of Baltimore City chaired the House Appropriations Committee before passing away in 2003. The other list members should be familiar to our readers.
Branch’s presence on this list is interesting. In July 2008, the Baltimore City Paper wrote about his participation in two 2007 meetings at a Catonsville Diner with Lipscomb, Mayor Dixon and two businessmen who were the subject of state and federal investigations. Both of these businessmen – Brian D. Morris and Owen M. Tonkins – served as former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley’s minority-business chiefs. Lipscomb was playing an ancient game popular in both Baltimore City and his resident county, Prince George’s, of seeding state and local politicians with money, plugging into networks of current and former bureaucrats and keeping the kettle warm for public contracts. In Lipscomb’s case, the kettle was VERY warm due to his $205,000 in contributions to the state Democratic Party.
The core of the Dixon indictment is that the Mayor became too close to her contributor, in many more ways than just the financial ones. Anyone who contributes tens of thousands of dollars to state and local politicians, and possibly raises tens of thousands more, has plenty of opportunity to get close to them. Who else was Lipscomb close to and how far did it go? Prosecutors will find out by asking questions about every name on the above list. One person not on the list, Delegate Jill Carter (D-41), may already have a Lipscomb-related problem.
As bad as Lipscomb’s cooperation is, there is something even worse on the horizon. Lipscomb is helping prosecutors in their indictment of Baltimore City Council Member Helen Holton, whom they allege accepted an off-the-books election poll financed by Lipscomb and John Paterakis. Paterakis, who was also indicted, is a MUCH more powerful figure than Lipscomb. He is the developer of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor East project, the largest private project in the city’s history, and has been described by the Sun as former Mayor William Donald Schaefer’s “go-to guy.” He was also linked to the massive Bromwell scandal. Paterakis just pleaded guilty to two counts of violating campaign finance rules and agreed to pay $26,000 in fines. Is he now also cooperating with prosecutors?
Only three people may know where as many bodies are buried in Baltimore as does Paterakis: Sheila Dixon, Martin O’Malley and God. So far, only one of them has been indicted.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Red Line Ridership Games, Part Two
Four alternative explanations for MTA’s overnight 28% Red Line ridership hike are worth examining.
1. Baltimore City’s population may be trending younger, and would therefore be more likely to take transit.
Some of the city’s neighborhoods have been gentrifying since the 1990s, especially Federal Hill, Fells Point, Locust Point, Little Italy and other neighborhoods near the Inner Harbor. Has that fundamentally changed Baltimore’s age mix to favor younger transit riders?
The answer is no. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, people under 30 accounted for 45.1% of the city’s population in 1990, 42.8% in 2000 and 43.1% in 2007. In Baltimore County, people under 30 accounted for 40.6% of the population in 1990, 38.4% in 2000 and 38.5% in 2007. Gentrification may be happening in some neighborhoods, but it has not fundamentally changed the age distribution across the area. It may be that while young childless couples are moving in, young couples with children are moving out.
2. The outer suburbs are growing faster and they will drive higher ridership.
It’s certainly true that Anne Arundel, Carroll, Howard and Harford Counties are growing faster than the inner core. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the combined population of these four jurisdictions with Baltimore City and Baltimore County grew from 2,463,805 in 1996 to 2,617,290 in 2007 – a 6.2% increase. That’s positive, but it does not come close to MTA’s 28% ridership jump.
It’s worth recalling the regional geography in looking at the role of the outer suburbs in transit ridership. Anne Arundel residents coming up from the south would have little reason to board an east-west transit line. Carroll and Howard residents would be stuck waiting for opposing trains to pass through the single-tracked Cooks Lane tunnel. Eldersburg, the closest Carroll location, is 13 miles from the western end of the Red Line. Joppatowne, the closest Harford location, is 16 miles from the eastern end of the Red Line. Given these constraints, the VAST majority of riders will probably come from Baltimore City and Baltimore County.
3. Employment, not population, is the driver of ridership.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Baltimore City’s employment dropped from 402,600 in 1996 to 369,800 in 2007 – an 8.1% fall. BEA calculates the combined employment of Baltimore City and Baltimore County at 865,051 in 1996 and 918,311 in 2007 – a 6.2% increase. There’s little support for a big ridership increase here.
4. MTA’s rationale.
Baltimore Sun reporter Mike Dresser obtained this explanation for the ridership boost from MTA Deputy Administrator Henry Kay:On the revised numbers, Kay said the environmental statement relied on 1996 data because those were the most recent available at the time. He said the final plan relied on data from a 2007 on-board ridership survey.
There are four problems with this. First, an on-board ridership survey is inherently unverifiable with corroborating data from impartial third parties. MTA is basically saying, “They’re our internal numbers. Trust us.” Second, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council’s newest forecast estimates a 2010-2030 population increase of 4.3% in Baltimore City, 3.4% in Baltimore County and 3.8% in the two jurisdictions together. These numbers hardly suggest big-time growth to support Red Line ridership. Third, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council is led by the chief executives of the six jurisdictions in and around the city, two of whom (Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith) have been open supporters of the Red Line option picked by MTA. Accepting that organization’s data is akin to letting Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson draft population forecasts to back up the Purple Line. Fourth, all of the above would have to add up to a 28% increase in ridership that, by extraordinarily lucky coincidence, generated a cost effectiveness number that barely squeezed under the federal threshold. This all stretches the boundaries of belief.
Among the changes found in the newer survey, Kay said, were a significant increase in the number of people living in downtown Baltimore and a greater concentration of households without autos than was reflected in the older data. Both findings increased the number of potential riders, he said. Kay further noted that the Baltimore Metropolitan Council has, since 1996, revised its forecast of population and households in the region.
Kay said the MTA has been checking its methodology with the Federal Transit Administration continuously through the process and is confident it will stand up to the agency’s scrutiny.
“It would be very foolish of us to publish numbers and recommend a locally preferred alternative we’ve not (had) vetted by the agency that will actually provide funding,” Kay said.
And so we have scoured the databases of three of the world’s greatest statistical agencies: Census, BLS and BEA. Try as we might, we cannot find any justification for MTA’s last-minute 28% ridership boost for the Red Line. But perhaps we should call on the only information resource that really matters on this subject:
The Greater Baltimore Committee.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Red Line Ridership Games, Part One
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) saved Baltimore’s Red Line project from possible federal disapproval with a last-minute cost-effectiveness improvement of 24%. Part of that improvement was due to a sudden recalculation of daily weekday ridership from 42,100 to 54,000. MTA Deputy Administrator Henry Kay told the Baltimore Sun that the ridership boost was due to replacement of a 1996 dataset with a 2007 dataset. The problem is that given the population trends in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, a huge jump in ridership is the last thing one could expect from updated numbers.
Let’s state the obvious: Baltimore City is coming off decades of population losses. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the city’s population fell from 909,951 in 1969 to 640,150 in 2007 – a 29.7% drop. The city has hovered just above 640,000 since 2002 so it may have stopped shrinking.
But Baltimore City is not the only jurisdiction served by the Red Line. Four of its twenty stations are on the western end of the line located in Baltimore County. Baltimore County’s population has grown from 612,575 in 1969 to 785,830 in 2007, a 28.3% increase. But its growth rate has tapered off lately and may have stopped.
Adding the two jurisdictions together, growth in the county has been offset by decline in the city. The combined population for the two has varied between 1.40 and 1.44 million since 1981 with no clear trend up or down.
What does this have to do with Red Line ridership projections? MTA Deputy Administrator Kay said the agency had been using a 1996 dataset to produce its prior estimate of 42,100 daily weekday riders, but its use of a new 2007 dataset produced its current ridership estimate of 54,000. What happened to the area’s population during those eleven years?
In 1996, the city and county had a combined population of 1,423,523. For several years, the city’s decline was offset by the county’s growth, producing a net trend of no significant change. In 2007, the city and county had a combined population of 1,425,980, a 0.2% rise from 1996. Both the city and county were trending towards no population growth. How can numbers reflecting this data lead to a 28% leap in ridership?
Let’s compare Baltimore City and Baltimore County to an area that has had substantial growth: Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, home to the Purple Line. The latter two counties had a combined population of 1,149,148 in 1969 and 1,766,809 in 2007 – a 53.7% jump. The two counties together grew by 10.5% between 1996 and 2007. If MTA had replaced a 1996 dataset with a 2007 dataset in its analysis on the Purple Line, it would have been justified in finding a significant ridership boost.
It’s hard to say that the two jurisdictions served by the Red Line will benefit from a colossal growth forecast issued after an eleven-year interval when they did not grow – especially when they are coming off forty years of no growth. On its face, that is what MTA wants us to believe. But there may be alternative explanations for the new ridership estimate. We’ll consider four of them in Part Two.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Three Local Aid Questions
Here's three questions about the Governor's local aid cuts that should interest everyone who lives outside the City of Baltimore and Prince George's County.
1. Why was police aid cut by 17% in Prince George's County and by 35% everywhere else?
2. Why were highway user revenues cut by 19% in Baltimore City and by 90% everywhere else?
3. Community college aid was cut by 5% in every jurisdiction except for Baltimore City. Baltimore City Community College's costs are entirely covered by the state, an amount originally set at $42.6 million in the Governor's proposed FY 2010 budget. Was this funding also cut by 5%?
Local health aid was cut by 35% for every jurisdiction, the only category in which an equal percentage was applied everywhere.
Yesterday, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett said that the Governor had been "fair in his distribution of cuts." Did his staff review this information first?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A Single Track to Disaster
In order to make the Red Line viable for federal funding, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) chose to single-track a one-mile tunnel under Cooks Lane in western Baltimore. MTA itself has made the case for why single-track lines compromise service, passenger capacity, future growth and operational and maintenance flexibility. Here’s what they left out: single-track tunnels are not as safe as double-track tunnels. Not by a long shot.
The above picture shows what happened in Chatsworth, California, a Los Angeles suburb, about one year ago. According to the Associated Press, a freight train collided with a passenger train near a single-track tunnel. The passenger train was supposed to wait near a siding outside the tunnel but did not. The collision occurred close to the tunnel entrance.
Wikipedia provides the following account: The 2008 Chatsworth train collision occurred at 16:22 PDT (23:22 UTC) on Friday September 12, 2008, when a Union Pacific freight train and a Metrolink commuter train collided head-on in the Chatsworth district of Los Angeles, California, in the United States. The scene of the accident was a curved section of single track on the Metrolink Ventura County Line just east of Stoney Point.
USA Today reported that the collision was the deadliest in the United States since an Amtrak crash in 1993. The newspaper said this about the accident:
Before the collision, the Metrolink train may have run through a red signal before entering a section of single track where the opposing freight train had been given the right of way by the train dispatcher. The Metrolink train’s engineer was near the end of a work week of long split shifts, making fatigue a subject of the investigation, along with distraction from text messages he was sending while on duty. The accident remains under investigation; meanwhile the basic circumstances have been released to the public, but the official report determining probable cause is expected to take up to a year to complete.
This mass casualty event brought a massive emergency response by both the city and county of Los Angeles, but the nature and extent of physical trauma taxed the available resources. With 25 deaths, this became the deadliest accident in Metrolink’s history. Many survivors remained hospitalized for an extended period. Lawyers quickly began filing claims against Metrolink, and in total, they are expected to exceed a US$200 million liability limit set in 1997, portending the first legal challenges to that law. Issues surrounding this accident have also initiated and reinvigorated public debate on a range of topics including public relations, safety, and emergency management, which has also resulted in regulatory and legislative actions.The collision occurred on a bend in the track just before a tunnel along the Metrolink track in the Chatsworth section of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley.
Chatsworth is far from the only single-track tunnel disaster in recent times. In January 2003, a French passenger train collided with an Italian passenger train in a single-track tunnel near the two countries’ border. Two Italians died. In June 2000, two trains collided at the entrance to a single-track tunnel in Zugspitze, Germany. Fifty-seven people were injured, including one man who “was flown to a hospital by helicopter after rescue workers freed his crushed legs from the wreckage.” In August 1993, twelve people were killed when a passenger train collided with a goods train in a tunnel near Vega de Anzo, Spain. Many more crashes have occurred on single-track lines not involving tunnels, including at Pecrot, Belgium (2001); Glasgow, Scotland (1989); Dahlerau, Germany (1971); Violet Town, Australia (1969); and countless others in decades before.
The line consists of only a single track heading into the narrow tunnel in a residential area.
“Thank God it (the crash) wasn’t in the tunnel — there’d be a lot more killed,” said Lt. Cheryl MacWillie, watch commander for the coroner’s office.
In March 2003, Terje Andersen and Borre Paaske published a study comparing the safety records of single tunnels to double tunnels for international risk manager DNV Consulting. They were specifically interested in smoke levels from fires. Below is their finding for smoke levels in a double tunnel, with red marking the highest smoke levels and blue marking the lowest levels:
Below is their finding for smoke levels in a single tunnel, with red marking the highest smoke levels and blue marking the lowest levels:
When Andersen and Paaske compare the fatality risk of single and double tunnels, single tunnels FAR surpass double tunnels in all scenarios. For the longest tunnels (much longer than the one planned in Baltimore), single tunnels actually have a higher fatality risk than passenger cars.
All of the above information is easily available to transportation planners and railway engineers, not to mention the general public. The Maryland Transit Administration either knew or should have known of the dangers associated with single-track tunnels at the time they proposed one for the Red Line. If they actually construct a single-track tunnel in Baltimore, they risk a disaster that could surpass Chatsworth or WMATA and join the ranks of the deadliest rail accidents in American history.
Is it worth it?
Friday, August 07, 2009
Blair Lee Takes on Baltimore Guy
“Baltimore Guy” Mike Dresser has accomplished the impossible – producing substantial agreement between me and the notorious Blair Lee. I have only one thing to add to Lee’s description of MoCo’s willingness to turn its tender cheek to other jurisdictions’ parochialism: our county has already committed more than $120 million in local funds to the Purple Line. How much has the City of Baltimore spent on the Red Line, Mr. Dresser?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Single-Tracking is a Terrible Idea – Except When it’s a Good One
Governor O’Malley has recommended light rail for both the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line and Baltimore’s Red Line. The option he picked for the Purple Line closely resembles the medium-investment option preferred by the Planning Board and the County Council, which uses the Georgetown Branch right-of-way and elevates the trains over Connecticut Avenue. The option he picked for the Red Line tunnels underneath Downtown Baltimore and Cooks Lane. In a prior post, we noted that Red Line tunnels were not cost-effective under federal criteria. Yet, that problem has apparently been solved. How did the state do that?
One of the criteria applied by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its funding evaluation process is cost effectiveness, which it defines as “the incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefits in the forecast year.” Ideally, this figure should be as low as possible, with either high user benefits (in other words, ridership) or low costs. FTA encourages projects to have at least a “medium” cost effectiveness ranking according to these ranges:
The bottom line is that a cost per hour of user benefit over $23.99 endangers a project’s chances of getting federal approval, and a cost per hour over $29.99 really endangers them. The Governor picked a modified version of Red Line option 4C, which according to the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has a cost per hour of $31.98. Yet the state now claims it has a cost per hour of $24.24 – a 24% drop. The state arranged for that drop by doing three things:
1. Estimating more ridership
The DEIS estimates option 4C’s daily weekday ridership at 42,100. The state’s new estimate is 54,000. The press release offers no explanation for the 28% increase.
2. Dropping an underground station downtown
The DEIS shows six underground stations downtown. The press release now lists five.
3. Single-tracking under Cooks Lane
The press release makes no mention of this, but our sources agree with the Baltimore Sun’s reporting and confirm that the state will use a one-mile, single-track tunnel under Cooks Lane just inside the city’s western border with Baltimore County. That means two trains cannot head in opposing directions in the tunnel at the same time. This will cut down on construction costs and help the state get close to FTA cost effectiveness guidelines.
The irony here is that the state rejected single-tracking for the Purple Line.
Earlier this year, Montgomery County Council Members Roger Berliner and Marc Elrich asked the state to consider single-tracking the Purple Line along the Georgetown Branch in Chevy Chase to reduce tree destruction. The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) rejected that idea in a four-page statement sent to the council. MTA said the following about single-tracking:Four cities in the United States, San Diego, Portland, Sacramento, and Baltimore, constructed their original LRT lines with single-track segments. This was done to save construction funds because of then-existing budgetary limits. In each of these cases, the headways originally operated were in the range of 15 minutes. Indeed, the operating limitations of its multiple single-track sections required Baltimore to lengthen its headways to 17 minutes to accommodate them. In all four cases, however, the operational and service limitations of single-track were recognized early.
MTA concluded in its statement to the council:
Longer travel times – this is due to the need to wait for trains in the opposing direction,
Less frequent service – resulting in a less convenient, attractive service,
Lower passenger capacity due to less frequent service, not allowing for future ridership growth,
and overall operational and maintenance flexibility.
Eventually, funding was provided for adding the second track for most of their route mileage. The additional cost required to double track those portions was greater than the amount saved initially. In addition, the service disruption had significant adverse impacts to passengers.
In the case of Baltimore, the decision was made to close the entire line to allow for faster reconstruction despite the inconvenience to passengers. Because of additional neighborhood impacts along the alignment as the new tracks were closer to residences, the project created strong community opposition. New environmental analysis was required, further adding to the time and the expense. The closing of the service resulted in substantial loss of ridership that was not recovered for several years. The closing of the service created a perception of unreliability that was hard for the MTA to dispel. The additional cost was far higher due to the escalation of costs, including the not insubstantial mobilization cost. During the closing of the service the MTA still had infrastructure maintenance costs for the tracks and overhead wire system despite the fact the project generated no revenue.In sum, introducing a single-track segment between Bethesda and Connecticut Avenue would significantly compromise travel time savings, service frequency, passenger carrying capacity, and the maintenance and operating reliability of the Purple Line, thereby reducing the effectiveness, efficiency, and the return on a $1.3 billion investment. The reduction in the amount of tree clearance hoped for from building a trail and single-track segment would not likely be achieved. For the many reasons stated above the MTA strongly recommends against single-tracking any portion of the Purple Line.
If MTA truly believes its arguments against single-tracking, then why is MTA using it on Baltimore’s Red Line? The explanation probably lies not in engineering, but in politics. If the Washington suburbs are due to receive light rail, Baltimore must get it too. But the Red Line is a very challenging project, especially if it involves constructing a three-mile tunnel under downtown as the Baltimore Mayor and the Baltimore County Executive prefer. The expenses associated with that length of tunnel are so massive that they fail federal cost effectiveness criteria without some sort of adjustment. And so the state has chosen to bottleneck the system’s west end and recreate the problems stemming from their single-tracking Baltimore’s first light rail project.
You heard it here first: if the Red Line is built as the Governor is now recommending, MTA will soon return with a multi-hundred-million dollar request to widen the Cooks Lane tunnel. The feds will never pay for it. That means the rest of the state will be on the hook.
We reprint the entire MTA statement on single-tracking below.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Mike Knapp Takes on Baltimore Guy
Montgomery County Council Member Mike Knapp has commented on the long-running debate between your author and Baltimore Sun reporter Michael Dresser, aka "Baltimore Guy." Following is the letter to the Sun written by the Gentle Giant of Germantown.
August 3, 2009
"Baltimore Guy" Off Base
I applaud Michael Dresser's "Baltimore Guy" for taking the interests of his home town to heart ("Getting There -- $4.6 billion to keep Montgomery 'vibrant' seems a bit much," July 27) -- but I'm afraid that after a closer look at reality, he will see that with his handwringing over the proposal to widen the I-270 corridor in Montgomery County rather than spending that money in Baltimore ... well, he really does protest too much.
Dresser bases much of his argument on an extremely short-sighted and rather spurious premise: Why should the state spend money "on a project few Baltimoreans are likely to use?" With that logic, Baltimore Guy might well ask why the state of Maryland would want to spend tax dollars maintaining parks in Cumberland, funding schools in Waldorf or repairing roads in St. Mary's County. Frankly, the idea of setting up a Montgomery County versus Baltimore dichotomy -- or, worse yet, Montgomery County versus The Rest of Maryland -- reeks of the playground. We can do better.
In fact, I absolutely agree that Montgomery County -- indeed, all of Maryland -- would benefit by having a vibrant Baltimore. Mr. Dresser suggests investing more funds in Baltimore -- and I'm pleased to announce that we in Montgomery County have done our part. Indeed, Montgomery County taxpayers not only send more funding to Annapolis each year than any other jurisdiction in Maryland -- about $2.1 billion comes from Montgomery County, as opposed to $629 million from Baltimore City -- but most of that money actually stays outside the borders of our county.
Under next year's budget, for instance, Baltimore City residents would receive $1,879 per capita in state aid, while Montgomery County residents would receive $768. If Baltimore Guy wants to pit one county against another, he better be darn sure he knows which way the money in Maryland is actually flowing -- because Montgomery County and others are definitely investing in Baltimore. But using Mr. Dresser's logic, our residents should be asking if it is really worth investing in Baltimore's schools, since none of our students in Montgomery County are attending them.
Further, I-270 serves as the western gateway to the nation's capital -- and every year, it is driven on not only by the Montgomery County residents Mr. Dresser finds so unworthy, but by hundreds of thousands of tourists who make their way to this region, bringing millions of dollars to the greater Washington, D.C./Baltimore region. If widening I-270 reduces congestion and makes it easier and less time-consuming to make it into D.C., well, I hope Dresser won't begrudge Ohioians, West Virginians and Kansans from using it.
Finally, I would point out to Baltimore Guy that a major expansion of I-95, reconstructing the highway from Interstate-895 to White Marsh Boulevard by adding two express toll lanes and four general-purpose lanes in each direction, is currently underway. Will Montgomery County residents use this road? Maybe. Does the fact that our residents may not use this improved road mean that it is not good for Montgomery County? Absolutely not. Such improvements are good not only for Baltimore and Montgomery County but for all of Maryland, period.
Mike Knapp, Rockville
The writer is a Montgomery County councilman.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Sectarian Conflict, Maryland Style
We like arguing with Baltimore Sun transportation reporter Michael Dresser. He’s an honest, vigorous advocate for his city and his region. Posing as his alter-ego, “Baltimore Guy,” Dresser wrote a column blasting the I-270 widening project. After we pointed out all the things Baltimore received from the state, Dresser offered this response: Adam:
We love honesty and Dresser gave us a big dose of it. This is far better than listening to another awful “we’re all in it together” speech!
I showed Baltimore Guy your article, and he wasn't at all pleased. I think you hurt his feelings. -- Mike Dresser
“What is this Montgomery tofu-head trying to put over on me, anyway? Has all that brie rotted his brain? Does he think Baltimore wants to keep feeding on crumbs from Montgomery’s table? Shove that! We want more of the feast. We can take all the growth that comes our way without whining about traffic.
“And if we don’t get high-tech jobs in Baltimore, we want them a lot closer than freaking Montgomery County. My kid, who just graduated from UM with a computer sciences degree, doesn't want to commute to Gaithersburg even with the ICC because the tolls will cost an arm and a leg. He’d rather get a job somewhere on Interstate 95 where people won’t look down on him because he drinks Natty Boh instead of Cos-mo-pol-i-tans.
“And why does this guy keep going on about Baltimore city? Doesn’t he realize he’s up against Baltimore County and Howard County and Harford and Anne Arundel too? None of us get squat from new jobs along I-270. We want them on the eastern end of their precious ICC. And it just so happens we have pals in Prince George’s and Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore who feel the same way.
“So why don’t we all have a meeting in Annapolis and let those Montgomery County liberals explain to us all again how much we owe them and how only Montgomery is worthy to be a job creator and how they’re generously offering to absorb more traffic for the good of the state? We’ll show them gratitude.”
OK, Baltimore Guy, back in your box. We want to keep it civil here.
Sorry, Adam, Baltimore Guy’s been a little touchy since his industrial base went away.
For all the sound and fury surrounding the I-270 project, it will not be the near-term battlefield for Free State sectarianism. The real conflict will take place over the FY 2011 and FY 2012 state budgets. We have blogged several times about Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller’s intention to send teacher pensions down to the counties, a move that would disproportionately devastate MoCo. The state’s never-ending budget disaster makes that much more likely next year or the year after. But for all the talk about ending the one state program that may actually benefit MoCo in net terms, no one is discussing ending the state’s 100% subsidy for Baltimore’s Community College, Detention Center and Central Booking Facility. Let’s view once again the state’s $185 million handout from the Governor’s FY 2010 budget – a special deal that no one else in Maryland can ever hope to get.
What would happen if that aid ever wound up on the chopping block? The Baltimore delegation would fight like hell and the Sun would have their backs. Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s clueless Boy King has already asked the Governor to send teacher pensions down to the counties.
We hope our state delegation understands what they’re up against.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Why Baltimore Should Support I-270 Widening
Baltimore Guy (and Sun reporter) Mike Dresser feels cranky about the I-270 widening proposal. Well, we have news for you, Baltimore – the I-270 project may be a better deal for you than for us!
First of all, we can see where Baltimore Guy is coming from. The view around the state is that MoCo bullied its way into getting one giant road project – the ICC – and now we want to bully our way to getting another giant project to widen I-270. The problem with that view is that it gives us too much credit. The history of the ICC does not showcase MoCo’s ambition, but rather its schizophrenia when it comes to big road projects. Longtime County Executive Doug Duncan supported the ICC, but our County Council voted to oppose it by 6-2 in April 1999, 5-3 in March 2002 and 5-3 in July 2002. In 1999, the Council tried to rezone ICC-intended property as parkland, provoking a confrontation with the General Assembly. After the 2002 election, the Council voted 6-3 in favor of the ICC in December 2002 and 6-3 in favor in March 2005. The road finally began construction under Governor Bob Ehrlich, a Republican whom MoCo voted against twice. The County Council’s newest member, Nancy Navarro, won a tight special election in part because she opposed the ICC and ran against a pro-ICC state legislator. Does all of the above really lead you to believe that MoCo waged a relentless campaign to get the ICC?
The proponents of the I-270 project say it’s about creating jobs, jobs, jobs. Let’s look at that argument. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MoCo had more jobs than any other jurisdiction in Maryland in 2008. But that’s not all – MoCo’s jobs pay 23% better than the state average. And since MoCo’s income tax is a flat 3.2% and the state has had a progressive income tax since 2007, the state is the real beneficiary of those high-paying jobs.
Now let’s find out who is paying the state’s bills. In FY 2007, MoCo paid $1.6 billion in income taxes and $453 million in sales taxes to the state government for a combined total of $2.1 billion. Baltimore City paid $342 million in income taxes and $287 million in sales taxes for a combined total of $629 million – less than one-third of MoCo’s payout.
What happens when the money gets to Annapolis? Much of it comes back out in the form of state aid, but it doesn’t come out evenly. The aid formulas are largely driven by property values. Let’s set aside the fact that high property values mostly mean unaffordable mortgages for residents like your author – MoCo is supposed to be rich, right? So “rich” counties get less and “poor” counties get more. Here’s how that works out in the Governor’s most recent budget proposal: 
Baltimore City residents would have received $1,879 per capita in aid next year under the Governor’s proposal. MoCo residents would receive $768. If William Donald Schaefer and an army of Pratt Street accountants dreamed up a state aid system, it could hardly be more generous to Baltimore than the one we have now!
But wait, it gets better. The state gives three times as much school aid per pupil to Baltimore as it does to MoCo.
And the state has completely assumed funding responsibility for Baltimore’s Community College, Detention Center and Central Booking Facility.
And Baltimore Guy is complaining about anything we get?
All of the above points to a cardinal truth: every job created in MoCo because of the I-270 project means more state aid for the City of Baltimore. And Baltimore can roll up that cash without having to deal with all the extra traffic that will impact us if the project is built. Traffic is a huge issue here – 58% of our residents picked it is as our top long-term challenge in a recent Council of Governments poll. It is the primary reason that we sometimes vote politicians out of office for letting in too many jobs. Yeah, we’re funny that way. And we still think we’re smarter than everyone else!
So do you really want to help us, Baltimore? Forget about I-270. Just loosen your development regulations, build a giant superhighway and double your population and employment. Then send a big chunk of those extra tax revenues to the state so they can pay for the majority of our school budget and take over funding responsibility for huge swaths of our local government.
What did you say? You don’t like the sound of that?
Hey, it worked for MoCo, right?
