Purple Line Costs Up 28%; Ridership Down 2500; Money Taken from MARC

The Washington Examiner reports that MTA says that cost estimates for the Purple Line have risen 28% since the plan got past the phase of consideration by the public:

It also now has a $1.925 billion price tag, up from $1.5 billion estimates made two years ago.

MTA Executive Director of Transit Development and Delivery Henry blamed the increase on the complexity of the New Starts process and the State's lack of familiarity with it:

The project is delayed because the application for federal funding has been more time-consuming than expected, said Henry Kay, MTA's executive director of transit development and delivery. He said the state hasn't applied for such federal New Starts funding in a long time.

"It got a lot more complicated while we were out of the room," Kay said.

That, in turn, has caused the costs to rise, he said.

They plan to makeup some of the gap by taking funds away from another public transit option: MARC.

State officials are still trying to line up funding for the project -- the federal funding is not guaranteed -- but they said they plan to use $135 million that was previously set aside for MARC commuter trains to pay for a portion of the Purple Line instead.

Meanwhile, projected ridership of the new line has declined:

Ridership was projected to be about 62,500 riders per day.

Now ridership is expected to be slightly lower at 60,000.

No reportage on the impact on Montgomery County's share of the cost, or the impact of these changes on the battle for vital federal funds.

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP: MoCo Should Pay for the Purple Line

The Examiner reports:

Maryland Republican senators say taxpayers in the Washington suburbs should pay for the planned Purple Line instead of sharing the costs with rural counties.

"If people in Montgomery County want a Purple Line, let them pay for it," said state Senate Minority Whip E.J. Pipkin, of the Eastern Shore.

The planned 16-mile light rail, which would connect New Carollton to Bethesda, would cost the state roughly $1.6 billion. A $1.8 billion high-speed rail -- the "Red Line" -- is planned for Baltimore.

Pipkin and Sen. David R. Brinkley, R-Frederick County, are drafting legislation that would create an independent taxing authority to collect revenues for the rails.

The State has yet to specify how it intends to pay for its share of the cost related to either the Purple Line or the Red Line.

Read More...

Summary only...

MTA and UMD Still at Odds Over Purple Line Route

The Diamondback has the story.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Great Squeeze on Transportation

Lost in all the coverage of Maryland’s projected $1.6 billion general fund deficit is another conclusion drawn by state budget analysts: the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) “may not be able to deliver its planned capital program.”

A capital budget is an exercise in balancing. On one side, available revenues – usually from taxes, transfers and bonds – must be calculated on an annual basis for a number of years. Maryland uses a six-year budget. On the other side, a list of projects must be entered that cost no more than the revenues to be realized. But since most of these projects are likely to be multi-year, they have to be inserted in such a way that each year is roughly balanced between spending and revenue. If the budget gets out of balance – usually through a shortfall of revenue – then projects have to be delayed and/or cancelled. That’s exactly what happened in 2008, when deteriorating revenues caused by the recession caused MDOT to “defer” $1.1 billion in capital projects.

In the same Spending Affordability Briefing that projected a $1.6 billion general fund deficit, the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services (DLS) predicted that would happen again. The Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) receives revenues from taxes and fees (like the gas tax, the titling tax and license fees), operating income (like rail and bus fares and airport revenue) and bond sales. Out of those revenues, it must pay for debt service on bonds, operating expenses (like MARC, the airports and snow removal) and capital spending. Since items like debt service, airport operations and snow removal are pretty much mandatory, that means revenue shortfalls will fall disproportionately onto the capital budget. DLS believes MDOT has been optimistic about projecting the amount of money that will be left over for capital spending for three primary reasons:

Less Tax Revenues
DLS states that MDOT has overestimated the amounts the TTF can collect from titling taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes and corporate income taxes, all of which are revenue sources for transportation. MDOT projects that titling tax revenues will increase by 7.6% per year over the next six years. DLS projects an annual 6.8% increase. That disagreement alone produces a $405 million shortfall. DLS believes the combined shortfall in tax revenues for the TTF will be $619 million over six years.

Higher Operating Budget Growth
MDOT projects that its operating budget – which, like its capital budget, depends on TTF revenues – will grow by 4.0% annually over the next six years. DLS notes that the ten-year historic rate of MDOT’s operating budget has been 5.4%. DLS estimates a 5.3% operating budget growth rate over the next six years and that siphons off $395 million that would otherwise go to capital projects.

The State is at its Debt Limit
Maryland has almost run out of bonding capacity. That has been caused by gigantic increases in allowable debt. General obligation bonds outstanding have risen from $3.3 billion in FY 2000 to a projected $8.6 billion in FY 2016 – an increase of 157%. Transportation bonds outstanding have risen from $725 million in FY 2000 to a projected $2.4 billion in FY 2016 – an increase of 238%.

State policy defines its debt limit in two ways. First, the outstanding tax-supported debt should not exceed 4% of state personal income. That ratio is projected to be 3.50% in FY 2013. Second, debt service should not exceed 8% of state revenues. That ratio is 6.87% in FY 2011 and is projected to hit 7.89% in FY 2016. If the state exceeds these levels, it may endanger its AAA bond rating.

This is going to have a direct impact on the TTF. DLS says, “Due to less revenue and higher levels of operating budget spending, bond sales are constrained throughout the six-year period.” The projected loss for the TTF: $1.39 billion.

Here is a graphic comparison of the difference between the MDOT forecast and two DLS forecasts of transportation spending over the next six years. The line at the top represents MDOT’s forecast. The two bars are forecasts from DLS, with the more optimistic forecast showing what would happen if MDOT loosened its bond coverage standards. In the out years, the shortfalls run into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.


What happens to capital spending if DLS is right? DLS estimates that slow increases in revenues, rising debt service payments and rising MDOT operating costs will squeeze out the money available for transportation projects. In FY 2010, the state spent $1.4 billion on transportation projects, of which $794 million came from the federal government. In FY 2016, DLS projects that the state will spend just $748 million on transportation projects, of which $388 million will come from the feds. The state’s own spending on transportation will shrink from $575 million in FY 2010 to $360 million in FY 2016.


So what does this all mean?

No New Projects
As of 2008, MDOT could barely keep up with system preservation. If it has to make another round of project cuts, it may not be able to afford any new projects at all. As it is, MDOT’s Consolidated Transportation Program is packed with projects that are funded for planning but not construction. How large can that backlog grow?

Trouble Funding New Transit
DLS said in its evaluation of MDOT’s budget, “MDOT’s current forecast does not account for the operating or capital impact of large capital projects such as the three different transit lines under consideration.” Translation: the state cannot afford its share of the Red Line, the Purple Line or the CCT. The state government would owe about $800 million each for the Red Line and the Purple Line and between $225 million and $400 million for the CCT. In FY 2016, DLS projects that the state will be spending $360 million of its own money for its entire transportation budget with little or no extra bonding capacity.

So how does the state propose to deal with this problem? No one is saying, but Governor O’Malley and the General Assembly’s presiding officers are united in opposing any revenue increases. If they are serious, that fact combined with the evaporation of federal stimulus funding will pressure the state to divert transportation money to the general fund.

And then all of the above will get worse.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bob Ehrlich: The Anti-MoCo Candidate, Part One

Recently, the Gazette noted how Republican Gubernatorial candidate Bob Ehrlich’s positions were “risking Montgomery County votes.” House Majority Leader Kumar Barve remarked, “I think [Ehrlich has] given up on Montgomery County… I think he’s looked at the numbers, and from a political standpoint giving up on Montgomery County is probably a smart move for him.”

The article understates its point. Ehrlich’s positions are not just unattractive to county residents. In fact, when combined as a whole, they constitute the most blatantly anti-MoCo platform of any statewide candidate in recent memory.

Consider the following items in Ehrlich’s platform.

The Purple Line and Transportation

Ehrlich repeated his long-standing support for bus rapid transit instead of light rail for the Purple Line in May. That support is connected to his alliance with the Columbia Country Club, which opposes the Purple Line because it would cut through its golf course.

Let’s consider the facts in evaluating Ehrlich’s opposition to light rail. In January 2009, we examined the state’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement and found the following:

1. Most light rail options are faster than the bus options.

2. Light rail carries more people per day.

3. Light rail costs more than buses, but relative to users, the cost effectiveness differences are not as large. The most cost effective bus option is the one Ehrlich resists: running buses in county-owned right-of-way through the golf course. That exposes Ehrlich’s support for buses as not being connected to public welfare, but rather to the welfare of the country club. As Ehrlich’s former Secretary of Transportation said in 2003, “The governor happens to love golf.”

So why does Ehrlich say he opposes rail? He told the Post, “You have to be honest with people, and the honesty is the dollars aren’t there.” Why is it that the dollars were there for the ICC, which was started on Ehrlich’s watch, but they are not there for the Purple Line?

To his credit, Governor Martin O’Malley pushed the General Assembly to index the gas tax in 2007. They chose to raise the titling tax and devote part of the sales tax increase to transportation instead, which yielded little new funding for transportation. O’Malley continues to favor indexing the gas tax, an approach that will raise more money when gas prices inevitably go up. Ehrlich has no ideas for new revenue and his sales tax cut would cost the Transportation Trust Fund $48 million per year, a number he calls “manageable.” By cutting transportation money and then saying we cannot afford worthy transportation projects, Ehrlich is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that will doom MoCo to endless congestion.

We have expressed considerable frustration with the Lords of Annapolis for not adequately funding transportation in the past. But there is a big difference between O’Malley and Ehrlich on this issue. O’Malley has tried to increase transportation funding and has set high goals for both the Red Line and the Purple Line. He also has a record of protecting transit funding of all kinds. Ehrlich has thrown up his hands and openly tells us we deserve less. Such a position demonstrates that he does not understand our transportation problems and, in fact, does not care. On this issue, Ehrlich is the anti-MoCo candidate.

But there is more. We continue tomorrow.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hans Riemer, 2006: "I'll Get the Purple Line Built or Die Trying"

Hans Riemer has always been an ardently pro-transit candidate, even at the risk of his own health. In 2006, he ran for the open Council District 5 seat and sent out this mailer in which he vowed, "I'll Get the Purple Line Built or Die Trying." Hans lost the election, but he did survive the mailer. He is headed to Rockville after finishing second in this year's council at-large primary.

Read More...

Summary only...

ACT Compares Ehrlich and O'Malley on the Purple Line

Action Committee for Transit (ACT) has established a new website comparing Bob Ehrlich and Martin O'Malley on the Purple Line. Here's what ACT has to say on the two Governors.

Robert Ehrlich

Former Governor Ehrlich is running as an opponent of the light rail Purple Line.


Governor Ehrlich raising campaign funds at Columbia Country Club - Photo by Patricia Metzger.

In 2003, the newly elected Ehrlich administration came into office after making campaign promises both to Purple Line opponents and to Washington-area commuters who want better transportation. Gov. Ehrlich chose not to kill the Purple Line outright, but instead embarked on a policy that his own appointee to the Metro board later described as “obfuscate, alter, study and delay.” Progress on light rail came to a near standstill while new bus alternatives were considered.

The new option that emerged was a bus line that took the same route as light rail from downtown Silver Spring to Jones Mill Road and then deviated onto existing roads. It followed Jones Bridge Road from Jones Mill to Wisconsin Avenue, and then turned south onto Woodmont Avenue, where it continued as far as the Bethesda Metro.


There was no secret about the reason this alternative was proposed. It wasn't transportation planning – studies quickly showed that this route would be too slow and would attract few riders. The objective was to keep transit away from Columbia Country Club. Governor Ehrlich was quoted in the Gazette as saying “It will not go through the Country Club.” Robert Flanagan, his Secretary of Transportation, offered another reason – to preserve a hiking trail. This trail happens to run through the country club – and as Mr. Flanagan conceded, “The governor happens to love golf.”

In his 2010 campaign, Gov. Ehrlich flatly opposes the light rail Purple Line. He announced in May that he still prefers the bus route, and a month later he chose Potomac resident Mary Kane, a long-time Purple Line opponent, as his running mate. For her part, Ms. Kane, when she first ran for public office in 2000, explained to the Gazette that she opposed light rail between Bethesda and Silver Spring because “I see the need to go from Silver Spring to Bethesda, but I don't see the need to go from Bethesda to Silver Spring.”

Martin O'Malley

Governor O'Malley is running for re-election as a supporter of the light rail Purple Line.


Governor O'Malley announcing the decision to build the Purple Line as light rail - Photo from Washington Post.

In 2006, Governor O'Malley campaigned in favor of the Purple Line and signed the Purple Line Pledge in support of light rail. Upon taking office, he chose John Porcari, a longtime Purple Line supporter who lives in Cheverly, as Secretary of Transportation.

The Purple Line made slow progress in the first months of the new administration, but it gained momentum after bureaucratic hurdles were overcome in August 2007. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement – a key document that evaluates various routes and compares bus and rail alternatives – was completed in October 2008. Public hearings in November showed wide support for light rail, and in January the Montgomery County Council voted unanimously, as the Prince George's Council had earlier, to recommend light rail.


For a more detailed map, click here.

In August 2009, Gov. O'Malley made the official decision that the Purple Line will be light rail and will follow an abandoned railway line through Columbia Country Club. By using this direct route, trains can go from Bethesda to Silver Spring in less than ten minutes.

In the face of a dismal budget situation, Gov. O'Malley repeatedly seized opportunities to move the Purple Line ahead. His newly proposed transportation budget for 2011 through 2017 adds $48 million in new money for the Purple Line – enough, when matched with federal funding, to cover the entire cost of engineering and designing the new rail line.

In his re-election campaign, Gov. O'Malley is outspoken in his support of the Purple Line. Even when challenged by opponents of the project, he does not hesitate to state a clear position.

Read More...

Summary only...

Franchot Responds to Examiner Story on Purple Line

Comptroller Peter Franchot has issued the following statement in response to the Examiner story quoting him as expressing skepticism about the Purple Line.

Statement of Comptroller Peter Franchot Regarding Today’s Washington Examiner Story

September 23, 2010

“In the past three and half years I have never felt the need to respond to an article or column written about me, or positions that I have taken on public policy issues. However, today’s Washington Examiner story is such a gross misrepresentation of my longtime position on Maryland’s Purple Line project that I feel compelled to set the record straight.

Over my career in public life, I have been a strong and consistent advocate for creating accessible mass transit options across the state, none more so than the Purple Line. I publicly advocated on behalf of this project as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from the 20th District, which includes several communities that will be directly served by this vital rail line, and successfully fought to protect project funding as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Transportation and the Environment.

I believe today, as I always have, that the Purple Line will substantially improve transportation mobility in one of the nation’s most congested regions. I believe that the Purple Line will provide reliable and convenient service to communities that are in urgent need of better transit options, and I believe that it will be a catalyst for environmentally sustainable, transit-oriented development that will ultimately enhance our State’s economy and quality of life. It is in that spirit that I restated my longstanding support for the project at yesterday’s Board of Public Works meeting, and expressed appreciation to Governor O’Malley for his support of the project, as well as the proposed Red Line that will serve the Baltimore region, and the Corridor Cities Transitway in the Washington region.

As Comptroller, I take my role as an advocate for the taxpayers very seriously. When items come up for approval before the Board of Public Works, I carefully review them and often ask the presenting agencies questions to ensure that we are managing taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible. At Wednesday’s meeting, I did ask substantive questions about two general engineering consultant contracts with eight-year terms and a total cost of $160 million. Given the magnitude of this investment of taxpayer dollars, particularly at a time when so many other worthy projects around the State have been deferred due to budget constraints, I sought reassurance from Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) officials that these services “are absolutely vital to the goal of getting these projects funded and built” and that the State of Maryland would truly be getting $160 million worth of work from these consultants.

Given the complexity of these contracts and the large number of consulting firms that are included in the contracts, I also sought reassurance that there were proper management controls in place to ensure the work would be completed in accordance with our high standards. I received thoughtful and detailed responses from the MDOT officials at the meeting, and after being satisfied with the answers, I joined Governor O’Malley and Treasurer Kopp in voting for these contracts. At no point in the meeting did I criticize the projects or their projected costs, and at no point did I suggest that they “are a poor use of money.”

In closing, this story grossly misrepresents my longstanding position on a project that I consider very important. More important, this article does a disservice to the Purple Line project, as well as the Red Line and Corridor Cities Transitway projects, by unfairly questioning the unity and resolve of our state’s leaders at a time when the State of Maryland is preparing to compete for federal funding support. In reaffirming my support for the Purple Line, I am also reaffirming my commitment to work with Governor O’Malley, the General Assembly and our congressional delegation to ensure this project is funded and built in a timely manner. I would also invite the Washington Examiner to actually send a reporter to a Board of Public Works meeting in order to ensure accurate and fair coverage.”

###

Read More...

Summary only...

Peter Franchot on the Purple Line: A History

Transit advocates must be dismayed at Comptroller Peter Franchot’s comments casting doubt on the viability of the Purple Line, especially since many considered him a project supporter. But is that perception really true? Consider his statements on the project.

October 5, 2002
Franchot, who was then a District 20 Delegate, is asked this question by the Gazette in its voter guide: “Do you support the construction of the Inner Purple Line? If no, can you suggest alternatives?” Franchot answers, “Yes.”

March 7, 2003
New Governor Bob Ehrlich proposes building the Purple Line as a bus rapid transit route. Franchot calls it “an excellent idea.”

September 3, 2003
Franchot criticizes a proposal by Delegate John Hurson (D-18) to build the Purple Line as a busway on Jones Bridge Road. Franchot accuses Hurson of getting the Ehrlich administration to adopt his position on the Purple Line in return for Hurson flipping his position on slots to match Ehrlich’s stance.

Del. Peter V.R. Franchot (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park has criticized Hurson's stands on the two issues, and the appearance of a connection between them.

"This is a double whammy," Franchot said, "because the Purple Line is a high priority to relieve congestion and help the environment, and slots should be a low priority because it is a hidden tax on the poor, breeds addiction and wreaks havoc on small business. Del. Hurson has managed to combine the two issues."

September 26, 2003
Franchot goes after the Columbia Country Club for opposing light rail on the Purple Line.

Several lawmakers, including Del. Peter V.R. Franchot (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park, blamed the club's political influence with Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) for derailing the Purple Line earlier this year. The Georgetown Branch Trail bisects the country club, and Franchot said club members did not want a light-rail line coming through the golf course.

"What are we sacrificing the public interest for?" Franchot asked. "A number of gentlemen who, with green pants and pink shirts, want to hit a little white ball on Sunday afternoon?"

March 3, 2006
Franchot is asked in a Progressive Maryland questionnaire which transit projects he favors funding. He answers:

As chairman of the Transportation and Environment Subcommittee of Appropriations in the House of Delegates, I have fought hard for transit projects that will ease our abilities to get around as well as reduce our dependencies on cars. I will continue to fight to free up funding to projects like the Inner Purple Line and Inner Purple line in the DC metropolitan area as well as the Red line in Baltimore.

August 15, 2006
Franchot, then running for Comptroller, shows up at a rally for the Purple Line in Langley Park. Franchot proclaims, “This is the renaissance of the Purple Line.”

October 17, 2007
Franchot appears at the kickoff event for Purple Line NOW and says:

“I think we need to roll up our sleeves and say the delay is over. ... We need to get this project done now.”

September 22, 2010
Franchot attacks the Purple Line’s costs, specifically targeting two engineering contracts.

Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot blasted the planned Purple Line on Wednesday, questioning its cost and its ability to win federal funding.

His criticism aligns the Montgomery County Democrat with former Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich against Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley's billion-dollar pet transportation project.

Franchot criticized the costs associated with the 16-mile light rail line that would connect New Carrollton and Bethesda and an expansion of Baltimore's subway system -- projects that aren't due for construction until 2016. He targeted planned contracts with two Baltimore engineering consultants estimated to cost $160 million over eight years.

"It just strikes me that an eight-year, $160 million commitment is an awful lot of money for an awful long time for, frankly, projects that are still -- speculative is probably too harsh a word, but the question of whether they are going to get funded is still up in the air," Franchot said during a Board of Public Works meeting on Wednesday.

So Peter Franchot favored the Inner Purple Line project, an early term used to describe the Bethesda-Silver Spring route. But then he praised Governor Ehrlich’s bus rapid transit alternative. And then he slammed Delegate John Hurson’s bus rapid transit alternative. He later went on the record multiple times in favor of rail on the Bethesda-Silver Spring route, but criticized the relevant engineering contracts – before voting in favor of them.

So has Franchot changed his position on the Purple Line? We can’t say, because looking at his record, we’re not sure what it is.

Franchot for MDOT Secretary, anyone?

Read More...

Summary only...

O'Malley Campaign Mocks Kane Over Purple Line

Martin O'Malley's campaign has released a video mocking a comment about the Purple Line made by Mary Kane, Bob Ehrlich's running mate, that she could see the need to travel from Silver Spring to Bethesda but not vice versa.



Ehrlich devoted a lower percentage of the transportation budget to transit during his term than has O'Malley, conspired with the Columbia Country Club to build the Purple Line as a bus route and is sticking with that position today.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hopkins Attacks Berliner Over Purple Line

In her most pointed attack yet, Council District 1 challenger Ilaya Hopkins is slamming incumbent Roger Berliner over the Purple Line. The district includes Bethesda, the western terminus of the project, and Chevy Chase, where some residents have complained about the line's impact on the Capital Crescent Trail. Following is Hopkins's statement.

#####

NEWS RELEASE

Media Contact: Chris Gill, campaign manager
Email: chris_gill@ilayahopkins.com

Berliner Playing Politics with the Purple Line

BETHESDA, MD – July 20, 2010 – Last month's public hearing on the Purple Line Functional Plan – where many citizens from District 1 expressed continued concerns about the plan – spurred Roger Berliner into action based on politics, not sound policy.

Attempting to appease voters concerned about tree loss on the trail, the Gazette reported that Mr. Berliner called for research into a single track option from Connecticut Avenue to Bethesda.

Fortunately, he didn't have to look far. A report conducted by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) last year, at Mr. Berliner's request, found that single-tracking was not a viable option.

The MTA report concluded, “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.”

The issue of the environmental impact of light rail on the trail has been raised for years by local communities. Yet up until now, Mr. Berliner remained unswayed by those concerns. In January 2009, he voted with his colleagues on the county council in support of the Purple Line light rail transit option along the Georgetown Branch Trail. In his statement on the vote he said, “...no one disputes that building the Purple Line will fundamentally alter the current character of the trail experience.”

Last week, the Examiner reported that Mr. Berliner abandoned his two-week-long effort to save trees along the trail.

“I had hoped to be able to convince you that single-tracking would not compromise the integrity of the system,” Berliner said during a council committee meeting. “I grudgingly will come to the same conclusion [as the MTA].”

If Mr. Berliner believes light rail is the best option for the Purple Line, why would he push an idea which would make it less effective? If he truly cares about tree preservation, why would he push an idea which would have little to no impact on tree clearing? If he was legitimately addressing community concerns, why such a superficial response a year and a half after his vote when he had an opportunity to stand up for the community and impact the decision?

The answer to these questions sadly is - politics. His disingenuous attempt to reopen discussion on the Purple Line and half-hearted effort to research other options smacks of the worst form of election year politics – putting electoral results over legitimate community concerns and sound policy.

That isn't leadership, it's playing politics with our future, the kind of politics Montgomery County can no longer afford.

Ilaya Hopkins has participated in the Purple Line conversation for many years. Through the process she weighed the merits of different arguments and attempted to balance the good of public transit on the one hand with the much beloved and well-utilized green space and hiker/biker trail on the other. In the end, she took a principled stand in support of Bus Rapid Transit over light rail on the trail to minimize environmental impacts, avoid the use of overhead wires and reduce cost.

Ilaya is a strong advocate for robust, flexible and affordable East-West transit options and is committed to finding the best solution for the long-term success of the community. For more information on Ilaya’s position on the Purple Line visit, http://www.ilayahopkins.com/?page=transportation or watch her interview on transportation issues at http://vimeo.com/12007348. You can also read her testimony last year before the Montgomery County Planning Board here and her letter to County Executive Leggett here.

We need strong leadership, to move Montgomery County forward. Vote Ilaya Hopkins for Montgomery County Council District 1 on September 14.

#####

For the record, here are both candidates' responses to a question about the Purple Line on an Action Committee for Transit questionnaire.

Question: Do you support the Locally Preferred Alternative selected by Gov. O'Malley for the Purple Line, including an at-grade light rail line with a trail alongside it on the Georgetown Branch right of way between Bethesda and Silver Spring, as well as the at-grade light rail line running along Campus Drive through the University of Maryland?

Roger Berliner (D): I have been a supporter of the Purple Line and ran on that platform four years ago when I ran successfully for the County Council. I continue to be a supporter of the locally preferred alternative and have tried to work with all parties to see that the very best possible system is developed. If there are mitigation measures that can be taken to help maintain the character of the Trail and develop a successful transit system I want to see MTA embrace those measures.

Ilaya Hopkins (D): I strongly support transit and believe our current transit system needs better East-West connectivity. Our current major transit system – Metrorail – was designed to move people from homes in the suburbs to jobs in the city center. Over the past decades, work patterns have shifted to become suburb to suburb and we have not adjusted our transit systems accordingly.

To fill in this gap, I support a Purple Line between Bethesda and New Carrollton, via Silver Spring and College Park. I am on-record supporting the Master Plan alignment and continue to support it. Given the state and county budget situation, along with the uncertainty of federal funding, the selected medium-investment light rail option, at a cost of $1.6 B, no longer appears affordable. The Maryland Transportation Administration explicitly noted in its alternatives analysis that limited availability of capital funds may require selecting a lower-cost investment, or implementing only a portion of the selected alternative.

MTA estimates the medium-investment bus rapid transit option can be implemented for approximately a third of the cost of the current PLA. I believe it is preferable to investigate this option in more depth and move forward with its implementation, rather than waiting for funds to be available for the full LRT option. By pushing for the high cost option now, I fear we may wind up with no Purple Line at all.

Read More...

Summary only...

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689's Questionnaire on WMATA

The Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689's questionnaire is worth reading. In an election season in which unions have come under fierce attack, especially from the Washington Post, it provides a valuable example of how unions can understand an issue and advocate in the public's in addition to its own interest.

Certainly, ATU Local 689's dissatisfaction with Metro infrastructure maintenance and the need to make it our first transit priority reflects public sentiment. As Jon Weintraub of the Bethesda Civic Coalition has repeatedly pointed out, major bottlenecks occur regularly at Bethesda Metro where the short escalators leading to the platform are under repair for several months. It's also common for the long escalators from the station to the bus terminal to to break down. Frequently, riders have to walk down what were once termed the "longest escalators in the free world" so that the one sole remaining functioning escalator can carry riders to the street.

Questions 1-8 from the ATU Local 689 questionnaire below the fold:

1. Unlike every other major transit system in the nation, WMATA has no dedicated stream of operating funds from the jurisdictions it serves except for a small gasoline tax in Northern Virginia. Instead, it has to request operating funds annually from each jurisdiction. Do you support establishing an adequate ongoing funding formula for WMATA?

2. There is some thought that having annual revenue targets for WMATA capital and operations that included both service expansion and inflation factors makes more sense than a single region-wide tax source (each jurisdiction decides on its source of dedicated revenue). Such an agreement was made for the "Metro Matters" capital funding program. Would revenue agreement(s) for capital & operations make more sense than a single dedicated funding source?

3. WMATA has a backlog of capital needs including repair and preventive maintaenance projects estimated to cost $11 billion over the next ten years. In October 2008, Congress passed Public Law 110-432, providing for $1.5 billion in federal funding for Metro repairs over ten years as long as Virginia, DC, and Maryland each allocated $50 million annually in matching funds and allowed the addition of two voting Federal representatives to the WMATA Board of Directors. Do you support the continued allocation of Maryland's local commitments plus the $50 million annually for ten years to make vital repairs to Metro?

4. The federal government and jurisdictions throughout the region have invested billions of dollars in WMATA capital infrastructure and operational expertise. There are a number of transit expansion projects including the Maryland "Purple Line." Some have argued that a proliferation of different technologies employed is inefficient and that stand-alone systems will result in redundant costs.

(a) Do you favor WMATA coordinating the technology for the different transit investments?

(b) Do you favor utilizing WMATA to operate this proposed systems, using WMATA's existing infrastructure, including heavy track equipment and overhaul facilities, to reduce capital and operating costs?

(c) Do you support paying wage and benefit levels on the "Purple Line" similar to those paid by WMATA?

5. Will you oppose any future proposals to replace Metrobus routes operated by workers who received decent wages and benefits with routes operated by private companies that provide inferior wages and benefits?

6. Both Montgomery & Prince George's Counties are trying to move forward with mixed use transit-oriented development around Metro stations. This often requires increasing density and sometimes requires incentives. Do you generally favor this type of development?

7. As our roads become increasingly clogged, many argue that we cannot keep widening existing roads or building new roads to serve population growth. One proposal to address this situation is to enact a principle known as "bus priority" to utilize existing road capacity more efficiently. The characteristics of bus priority measures include everything from holding signals for a few seconds for a bus to get through the intersection to wholly dedicated bus lanes. Do you support the implementation of bus priority measures on major arteries such as Veirs Mill Road, University Blvd., New Hampshire Ave, Route 1/Rhode Island Ave., Martin Luther King Jr., Branch Ave. and other appropriate corridors?

8. The collective bargaining provisions of the WMATA compact have been in place since the takeover of private bus companies. There has not been a strike since illegal wildcat strikes in 1978. There has been only one arbitration award since 1980 the vast majority of labor agreements have been negotiated settlements. Periodically, there are legislative attempts to change WMATA collective bargaining law. Do you favor keeping the existing system in place?

Read More...

Summary only...

Politics, MTA Style

The Purple Line’s top planner was featured in a very unusual article in Southern Maryland Online castigating former Governor Bob Ehrlich for his record on the project. We understand that bureaucrats care about their assignments, but should they really get involved in elections?

Lead Purple Line planner Mike Madden had this to say about the Ehrlich and O’Malley administrations’ positions on the project:

The Ehrlich administration delayed the project earlier this decade, calling for further studies, Madden said, while current Gov. Martin O'Malley has been more “supportive” -- making a potential upset at the polls a bit worrisome.

“I mean, if the governor was lukewarm or not really supportive of the project, then I would worry, but under this current administration, that's not a problem,” Madden said.

“I don't believe (Ehrlich) was nearly as supportive of the project as our current governor.” Madden said, suggesting that delays and scale-backs could be possible under a second Ehrlich term.

Ehrlich’s record on the Purple Line is far worse than the article suggests. In 2003, Ehrlich declared that the route would never follow its planned alignment through the Columbia Country Club’s golf course. (Never mind that the club squats on the publicly-owned right-of-way and has actually fenced off public land for its course.) Ehrlich’s Secretary of Transportation explained that “the Governor happens to love golf.” At the same time, Ehrlich struck a deal with then-District 18 Delegate John Hurson to build the Purple Line as a bus route away from the club and the Town of Chevy Chase in return for Hurson being “open-minded” about slots. Governor O’Malley canceled Ehrlich’s plans and recommended that the Purple Line be built as light rail through the club’s grounds.

But none of this is Madden’s concern. He is a civil servant whose job is to execute the Governor’s decisions, whoever it is. When state employees go into the newspapers saying one candidate is better than another, that erodes the perception of the civil service as an impartial organization above and apart from politics. This is a particular problem at the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), which is once again blurring the role between state employee and advocate. After all, its lead planner was once paid by the Greater Baltimore Committee to push for a light rail alignment on the Red Line that would be buried under downtown at great expense. Given that fact, it is little surprise that that alignment wound up being recommended despite the necessity of building a dangerous single-track tunnel and coming up with last-minute ridership revisions to justify that decision.

Bob Ehrlich was once accused of politicizing the state workforce by targeting Democrats for firings. Madden’s remarks risk a similar perception of politics mixing with civil service. The bureaucrats should go back to work and stay out of the elections. This is for the voters to decide.

Read More...

Summary only...

Did Rich Madaleno Try to Kill the Purple Line?

Last week, we wrote about a proposal originating in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee that would have recommended that the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) study heavy rail for the Red Line, Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). We characterized the language as a “poison pill for transit” that would have subjected the three projects to waste, delay and increased costs and possibly put them behind competitor projects seeking federal funding. Purple Line supporters in Montgomery County immediately accused Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18), a long-time Purple Line rail opponent, of being behind the language. That prompted us to investigate.

Madaleno represents District 18, which includes Chevy Chase, Kensington, Silver Spring and Wheaton. A group of residents in and near Chevy Chase oppose building the Purple Line as a rail project since it would run along the Capital Crescent Trail, which they believe would be endangered by it. The trail cuts through the golf course owned by the Columbia Country Club, so they too oppose running rail through it and even tried to organize a fake “grass roots campaign” against it. In part because of the influence of residents, many District 18 officials have opposed at-grade rail on the trail, including former House Majority Leader John Hurson, former Delegate Jane Lawton, and current Delegates Jeff Waldstreicher and Al Carr. Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez defiantly supports rail and has been elected to the legislature twice despite that fact.

Madaleno is definitely a rail opponent. In 2003, then-District 18 Delegate John Hurson – a wily strategist who was at that time one of Montgomery County’s most prominent state legislators – cut a deal with new Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich to study the Purple Line as a bus project off the trail. When Hurson introduced a bill to prohibit construction of the Purple Line as a rail project, then-freshman District 18 Delegate Rich Madaleno was its only co-sponsor. Hurson retired from the legislature in 2005, but Madaleno ran uncontested for the District 18 Senate seat in 2006 and has been rising through Annapolis ever since. Madaleno remains a Purple Line rail opponent. Last year, he said the following in his testimony about the project before MTA:

During the course of my 20 years in and around the General Assembly, I have seen and heard all of the arguments for and against the Purple Line. After many years of discussion, planning, and community outreach, I still have very serious reservations about this project, from a fiscal standpoint, from an operational standpoint, and with regards to the effects it will have on the communities in our region…

Quite frankly, the state does not have the resources to pay for any of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT) options. Over the past decade, the only major new construction projects the state has moved forward with have been funded primarily with toll-backed revenue bonds. There are no alternative funding mechanisms available for this project. As a member of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, I feel confident in reporting that no new revenue options appear politically feasible in the foreseeable future.

So when the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee insisted that the three transit projects be studied as heavy rail – a move exposing them to waste, delay and cost increases – Purple Line supporters believed Madaleno was behind it. As the only known Purple Line rail opponent on the committee, he was a logical suspect.

But it’s just not true.

Multiple sources confirm that the language originated with Baltimore City Senator George Della (D-46). Della represents Baltimore’s Canton neighborhood, which opposes the MTA’s chosen Red Line alignment since it runs at-grade rail on one of their main streets. As a result, Della is an open opponent of the current Red Line configuration. On behalf of his constituents, Della asked Senator Ed DeGrange (D-32), who chairs the Capital Budget and Public Safety, Transportation and Environment Subcommittees, to introduce language requiring heavy rail study for the Red Line only. Baltimore City Senator Verna Jones (D-44), who supports the Red Line, told us on the record that she amended the language to include the Purple Line and CCT so that none of the three projects would be disadvantaged relative to the others. Senator Jones also told us on the record that Madaleno had nothing to do with the matter.

Following is the relevant language approved by the Budget and Taxation Committee:

Impact of Federal Changes on New Start Projects: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recently announced major changes to its New Starts justification criteria. The changes in the criteria could have impacts on the major transit lines that the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is currently evaluating. In light of the changes in the criteria, MTA shall do a full study of any and all reasonable heavy rail or automated guide way alternatives, including alternative alignments for the Red Line, the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway. MTA should also consult with various transit rider groups in the preparation of this study.

There’s one more wrinkle here. The language above was not included in the budget bill. If it was, it would have binding force of law. Instead, it is “narrative language” from the committee, meaning that the committee is requesting the studies from MTA. We are told that whether MTA is actually required to complete the studies by this language is an ambiguous question.

In any event, the House has rejected the language at the behest of Prince George’s County Delegate Tawanna Gaines (D-22), a House Appropriations Committee member and solid Purple Line supporter. Whether it survives budget negotiations between the two chambers is anyone’s guess.

Purple Line advocates need to keep the big picture in mind. The Purple Line has to pass three hurdles to become a reality. First, it has to be designed as a cost effective project that makes a significant, long-term contribution to the area’s transit system. Project supporters won that battle when the Governor settled on a light rail configuration using the Capital Crescent Trail. Second, the project has to receive federal funding. That is a matter of bureaucratic negotiation between MTA and the Federal Transit Administration. It is unlikely that either supporters or opponents can influence that process other than by slipping microphones spouting their messages under the bureaucrats’ pillows late at night. Third, the state has to come up with its share of the financing. This is a critical issue. The General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services believes the Transportation Trust Fund is in such dire condition that the state may have to pick just one transit project to fund – assuming it can afford any of them. If the Purple Line makes it past the feds, state funding will be a HUGE issue.

And here is where Madaleno can be an ally. While he has not been supportive of the Purple Line, he has an outstanding record on seeking new money for transportation. The General Assembly has shown a disgraceful unwillingness to raise money for transportation projects. They will never pass a revenue increase without the support of the Montgomery County delegation, and Madaleno is the delegation’s Senate Chair. Furthermore, Madaleno’s budget expertise will be needed to craft a revenue increase that will be both adequate and politically feasible. So whether they like it or not, Purple Line advocates need Madaleno’s help in making sure the state can afford its share of the project costs. That help will be easier to obtain in the absence of unfounded accusations.

Disclosure: The author is the Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team, which includes Senator Madaleno.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poison Pill for Transit (Updated)

The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee has recommended that the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), which is responsible for planning the three major transit projects under consideration by the state, return to the drawing board to study heavy rail options for all three. Whether the Senators asked for this in good faith or bad faith, the proposal is in fact a poison pill that threatens the viability of all three projects.

The reason is cost. In order to receive federal funding, transit projects are evaluated on the basis of cost per hour of user benefit. The lower this ratio is, the more cost effective the project is and the greater the likelihood it will be funded. The Obama administration is re-evaluating federal rules for funding transit projects – and that is probably a good thing – but it is inconceivable that some measure of cost effectiveness will not be included.

In an earlier blog post, we demonstrated that all-surface light rail on Baltimore’s Red Line, BRT on the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and multiple light rail and BRT options for the Purple Line all passed the federal cost effectiveness threshold. Subsequently, the state picked light rail options for both the Red and Purple Lines and began the process of competing for federal funds for those projects. (No option has been picked yet for the CCT.) The Red Line barely passed muster as light rail. MTA insisted on burying it through a large part of Downtown Baltimore and had to use a danger-prone single track tunnel and last-minute ridership “revisions” to squeeze it past federal standards. But the Purple Line is not much below the federal cost effectiveness threshold either. So as light rail projects, the two transit lines are competitive with dozens of other projects from around the country, but neither is a sure thing. Given this cost structure with light rail, MTA head planner Henry Kay is 100% correct when he criticized the feasibility of more expensive heavy rail:

Henry Kay, deputy administrator of the MTA, said he didn’t expect the study to change anything. He said it was “impossible” that the federal government would find a heavy rail alternative suitable for Baltimore. Cohen and others have argued that the MTA didn’t study heavy rail in enough detail.

The budget language originally only included the Red Line, but was extended to the other two transit proposals before a final committee vote.

Kay said it would set the MTA’s planning back years if it had to study heavy rail as comprehensively as it had looked into the light rail plans. He said the agency’s preliminary take was that heavy rail would not make the cut, even in light of the new regulations.

“It was far out of the range of what is being considered nationally,” he said.

The House has not passed such a provision and is currently negotiating the budget with the Senate. If the Senate’s provision holds, it will have three outcomes.

1. Waste
MTA has already spent $47 million to study the Red Line, $43 million to study the Purple Line and $8 million to study the CCT. Each project has tens of millions of dollars in additional spending scheduled over the next several years. This demonstrates a central fact: planning costs lots and LOTS of money. If the three transit projects have to be carefully budgeted to be viable as light rail, why bother to study heavy rail options which are absolutely sure to cost more money and fail federal cost effectiveness tests?

2. Delay
Planning is both expensive and time consuming. Study of heavy rail options will delay all three projects for several years, causing them to fall behind competitors from across the country in the funding queue. And that is not all: they could fail to receive funding entirely. While the Obama administration has expressed an interest in steering more money to transit, there is no assurance that future administrations will share that commitment.

3. Cost Increases
The end product of delay is cost increases. Now is a good time for owners to build because the global recession has dampened demand for both labor and materials. But as years pass and the economy recovers, costs are bound to go up. That means even if the Red Line or the Purple Line wind up getting built after years of delay, they will cost much, much more. And those cost increases will come directly from the pockets of Maryland taxpayers.

And so the Senate is dispensing a poison pill for transit. Will the House swallow it? We’ll see.

Update: The House rejected the proposal. The two chambers still have to reconcile their conflicting budget language.

Read More...

Summary only...

Purple Line NOW Video

Courtesy of Just Up the Pike's Dan Reed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tribute Video for Harry Sanders

Courtesy of Just Up the Pike's Dan Reed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Purple Line NOW Announces Reception, Tribute to Harry Sanders

Following is a press release from Purple Line NOW.

Purple Line NOW! will celebrate the strides made in 2009 to move the Purple Line forward and pay tribute to its former leader, Harry Sanders, who passed away on March 10th at a reception in Silver Spring on Monday, March 22nd. In addition, officials will gear up for this year's push for federal funding of the transit line. Attached is a press release for the event. Text of the release follows below my signature. Please contact me with any questions.

Christine Scott
Executive Director
Purple Line NOW!
865.300.7959

Purple Line NOW! to Celebrate 2009’s Successes and Pay Tribute to its Leader, Harry Sanders, on Monday, March 22nd

Elected Officials and Community leaders to gather to pay tribute to longtime Purple Line activist, Harry Sanders

SILVER SPRING, MD., March 16th, 2010 – Purple Line NOW! will celebrate the strides made in 2009 to move the Purple Line forward and pay tribute to its former leader, Harry Sanders, who passed away on March 10th at a reception in Silver Spring on Monday, March 22nd. In addition, officials will gear up for this year's push for federal funding of the transit line.

“We will all miss Harry's energy and dedication. The best way his admirers can commemorate his life is to carry his spirit in our hearts as we move forward, respectfully and in a principled manner, working for environmental justice and a quality light rail Purple Line and Capital Crescent Trail,” said Webb Smedley, immediate past Chairman of Purple Line NOW!

The celebration will begin at 6pm at the new Performing Arts Center on Montgomery College’s Takoma Park/Silver Spring campus. Hundreds of Harry Sanders’ friends from the civic, environmental and business communities are expected to come and pay tribute to his twenty-five years of advocacy for the Purple Line. Individuals who have not yet bought a ticket are encouraged to do so at the organization’s website if they plan to attend at http://www.purplelinenow.com.

The Purple Line has near unanimous support among state, county and local officials because it will revitalize neighborhoods along the rail line, create thousands of new jobs, reduce carbon emissions and traffic on congested roads and complete the Capital Crescent Trail. The Purple Line has been a top priority for local Chambers of Commerce because of its economic development potential as well as its ability to connect Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.

“The Purple Line is vital to our region’s continued economic success. It will help to connect people to key job centers and take pressure off of our already congested roadways. And, it will be an effective, suburban transit link for riders between the existing Metro lines, which are focused primarily on getting employees to and from the District,” said Gigi Godwin, president of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce.

Purple Line NOW!, a non-profit organization formed in 2002, advocates for the Purple Line on behalf of citizen, business, environmental, civic, minority and labor organizations. Purple Line NOW!’s mission is to expand the mobility choices for the residents of the Washington Metropolitan area. The organization has been instrumental moving the project forward by pressuring elected officials and defending the project against detractors. More than 100 organizations have gone on record in support of the Purple Line through Purple Line NOW!

The Purple Line will be a 16-mile light rail line in suburban Maryland parallel to the Capital Beltway and connect Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Lyttonsville, Downtown Silver Spring, Long Branch, Takoma/Langley Crossroads, the University of Maryland at College Park, M Square Research Park, Riverdale Park and New Carrollton, Maryland. The Purple Line will tie together major Maryland suburban centers in Maryland’s two most populous counties, Montgomery and Prince George’s. The Purple Line is anticipated to carry over 60,000 riders each day by 2030 and will cut the travel time for thousands of area commuters.

For more information about Purple Line NOW!, please visit our website at http://www.purplelinenow.com

# # # #

Read More...

Summary only...

The Great Choir of Happy Talk

Today, we are going to let you in on a little secret. Transportation projects are built with happy talk. Tax revenues are not necessary. What, didn’t you know? All of Annapolis knows this, and now so do you.

Why do we say this? Because this is what we hear from our leaders. We trust them, right? Our Governor announced that he wants to build a light-rail Purple Line at a cost of $1.517 billion. On the same day, the Governor announced that he wants to build a light-rail Red Line at a cost of $1.63 billion.

And of course, let’s not forget the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). The state has made no commitments regarding its mode and alignment, but the CCT’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) estimates a capital cost ranging from $450 million for bus-rapid transit to $778 million for light rail. No one is ruling out the CCT. In fact, our leaders are encouraging us to believe that we can have all three projects!

So how are we going to pay for them? Well, we are going to apply for federal money. But the three projects will have to compete with other transit lines from across the country. And the Federal Transit Administration’s approval process is arduous. But let’s assume that all this Happy Talk is correct and our three projects will beat everybody else from all over the U.S. What about the money?

The Governor said this about the Purple Line in the Gazette: “...We are assuming at least half the projected $1.5 billion cost would come from discretionary federal funds that will otherwise go to another state.” Separately, the Gazette reported that the state would have to pony up $900 million each for its share of the Red Line and the Purple Line. So for the two projects, the state’s share would range from $1.6-$1.8 billion. Half the cost of the CCT would add $225-389 million. What does that mean for taxpayers?

Last year, the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services calculated that a one-cent increase in the gas tax would raise about $30 million per year in revenue. Now none of the three transit lines will be built overnight. Let’s be generous and assume that the cost of any of them would be spread over the entire six-year horizon of the state’s Consolidated Transportation Program. That means the Red Line would cost $136-150 million per year in state money, the Purple Line would cost $126-150 million per year in state money and the CCT would cost $38-65 million per year in state money. Those amounts are not laying around in the state’s already-depleted Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), so they would have to be raised through new revenues. Divide all of the above amounts by $30 million – the state’s estimate of the yield of one-cent of gas tax – and the gas tax would have to go up by 4.5-5 cents for the Red Line, 4.2-5 cents for the Purple Line and 1.3-2.2 cents for the CCT.

But there’s more. The rest of the state will not simply pay more gas taxes for the sole benefit of the four jurisdictions served by these three transit projects (Baltimore City and Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties). If there is any revenue hike, the other jurisdictions will demand money for their priorities. It’s only fair and that is how Annapolis works. The four jurisdictions above account for about half of the state’s population. So if the rest of the state is to benefit equally from a revenue hike, the above figures would have to be doubled. If the money is raised from a gas tax hike, the tax would have to go up by 20-24.3 cents. The present gas tax, which has not changed since 1992, is 23.5 cents. In other words, to pay for the state’s share of all three transit projects plus an equal amount for the rest of the state’s transportation needs, the gas tax would have to DOUBLE.

How likely is that to happen?

During the 2007 special session, the General Assembly turned down the Governor’s proposal to index the gas tax. Instead, the legislature raised a projected $400 million per year by boosting the titling tax and devoting a portion of sales and corporate income taxes to the TTF. These changes were supposed to generate $150 million for new projects and $250 million for system preservation every year. But by November 2008, the changes were only collecting an extra $265 million per year, almost all of which was going to maintenance. In other words, the last great effort to raise more money for transportation has almost completely failed to generate ANY money for new projects.

How many legislators are serious about raising more money for transportation? Very few. Here are the only ones to sponsor or co-sponsor revenue-raising bills since the special session:

Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39) – lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by 10 cents. Also the lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by a half-cent and index it.

Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16) – lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to index the gas tax.

Delegates Sheila Hixson (D-20), Jon Cardin (D-11) and Bill Frick (D-16) – co-sponsored a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by 5 cents.

Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) – lead and only sponsor of a 2009 bill to raise the gas tax by 5 cents and redistribute its proceeds.

That’s right, people – exactly SIX of the 188 state legislators have put their names on bills to raise more money for transportation since the special session. None of them came from Baltimore City (which would get most of the Red Line) or Prince George’s County (which would get part of the Purple Line). And none of these bills would have raised enough money to fund the state’s share of its multiple transit proposals, much less all the other worthy projects in Maryland. Meanwhile, fifteen legislators – including thirteen Republicans – co-sponsored a 2009 bill that would have cut transportation funding. Two of these legislators - Delegates Joseph Boteler (R-8) and William Frank (R-42) - represent Baltimore County, which would get four stations on the Red Line. They swim in the murkiest alligator pit of hypocrisy.

None of this matters, we are told. We can have it all – the Red Line, the Purple Line, the CCT and lots of other nice things too. Maybe there will be a little bit of a revenue hike after the election. But what happens if gas sells for $4+ per gallon in 2011? What happens if Democrats lose state seats over the issue of taxes and the economy? What happens if President Obama’s numbers are down further and Democrats suffer massive losses in Congress? What then? The Lords of Annapolis don’t want us to ask these questions. It’s not real nice of us to do so.

And so in the Great Choir of Happy Talk, nearly all of the state politicians of both parties and all regions are singing along. Happy talk buys what revenue increases will not. Everyone inside Annapolis wins.

Everyone outside Annapolis loses.

Read More...

Summary only...

No Sane on Wayne

Peeved at Purple Line pontification? Why not take a poke at an MTA bureaucrat? That’s what one pugnacious Purple protestor did last night. Perish the thought, people!

Last night, Silver Spring anti-train-on-Wayne activist Jonathan Jay roughed up Purple Line project manager Mike Madden at a meeting of the county’s advisory group for the project. In a widely circulated email, Madden said:

Thanks for your concern, I am fine and not at all hurt. Obviously, Jonathan is not able to control his emotions and I would certainly recommend that members vote him off the advisory group. I simply went over to him after our part, shook his hand and said, “Jonathan, take it easy.” That is when he told me that I could go to hell as he swung my arm back forth as hard as he could. If I was less sturdy or if he did this to a woman, I believe he would have caused harm.

Jay is the Vice-President of the Seven Oaks-Evanswood Citizens Association and favors a Purple Line tunnel under Wayne Avenue. Perhaps when he found out that MTA wouldn’t build a tunnel, Jay decided it would be best to throw Madden into one!

But Jay is about to be thrown overboard himself. Specifically, sentiment is building to toss him off the Purple Line Advisory Group. If that happens, Jay will receive a harsher hit than hiker harasser Isaac Hantman, who was allowed to remain on the Capital Crescent Trail board after strangling a saucy-tongued slur slinger.

Now we know that some anti-Purple people are purring pussycats. You know who you are, you softies! And let’s also recognize that Jay is a Silver Spring resident who has nothing to do with the Chevy Chase rail opponents. The latter prefer to sue rather than slug, a key cultural difference with Silver Spring.

But you all have to be more creative, folks! Will rail antis do a mass mailing of purple Kool-Aid packs to MTA? Will rail supporters park ten buses on blocks in the middle of the Connecticut Avenue – Jones Bridge Road intersection?

Come on, you Purple pooh-poohs. Help a blogger in need!

Read More...

Summary only...