maryland Archives - Transportation For America

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of October 27th

Stories You May Have Missed

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes news articles to inform your work. Check out a list of stories you may have missed last week.

“White House eyes 7-cent gas tax hike for infrastructure plan.” (The Hill)
National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn discussed with the Bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus last week a potential timeline of an infrastructure package and the possibility of a gas tax raise. Mr. Cohn said that an infrastructure package could happen in the early part of 2018 and that a gas tax increase could be voted on as part of an infrastructure plan. (Politico Morning Transportation)
House Republicans are scheduled to release their tax reform plan on Wednesday. Details are scarce right now but many tax credits could be at risk including potentially the parking and transit benefit, to help pay for the expected reduction in corporate and individual tax rates. (CNN)
16 State DOT’s gave back their biking and walking money from the Federal Highways Administration rather than investing in bike and pedestrian projects. (Safe Routes To School)
A new report from MIT looks at the potential future effect of Automated Vehicles on real estate and how communities will develop. (The Drive)
The Utah Legislature and Salt Lake City are currently examining and debating potential governance reforms to the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) structure. (Deseret News)
A new business group, the Washington Partnership is pushing to overcome political differences and get Virginia, D.C. and Maryland to agree on how to reform Metro. The Washington Partnership is concerned that the problems at Metro will harm the Washington D.C. metro economy. (Washington Post)

Maryland’s governor is fighting a more objective process for choosing transportation projects

While other states and regions across the country are using new tools to evaluate potential transportation projects and pick the ones that offer the best return for taxpayer money, Maryland Governor Hogan and his administration are staunchly opposing similar new policies that add accountability and transparency to that process.

Many Americans find the byzantine nature of transportation decisions confusing, making them less willing to hand over more of their hard-earned tax dollars to increase investments in transportation — but who can blame them?

The public wants to know the answers to questions like: “Will these dollars give us better, safe, reliable, affordable access to necessities like jobs, education, health care, and groceries?” Measuring what transportation dollars are buying, in a clear way that matters to the public, is critical for restoring this trust — as well as for getting the most bang for the buck.

This was why Maryland legislators in 2016 crafted a new law to measure and score transportation projects based on state goals, helping to program (i.e. spend) scarce transportation dollars more objectively. The legislation in question requires the state department of transportation to objectively evaluate potential projects based on their impacts in categories like economic development, safety, community vitality, and accessibility.

The Governor vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode that veto and passed it in 2016. And now, as Maryland starts their 2017 legislative session, Governor Larry Hogan (R) has declared his number one legislative priority to be the repeal of this legislation. Last week a repeal bill was introduced.

Marylanders: Tell your state reps to defend transparency and accountability in transportation projects.

The governor is demanding a repeal of the law that created this new objective scoring system so he can preserve the opaque, politically driven process where projects are picked based on horse trades and political influence, not on need or expected benefits.

TAKE ACTION

In attacking what he calls the “road kill bill” and warning of “catastrophic” consequences, Gov. Hogan has exaggerated and incorrectly stated the provisions of the law. While the Governor said the law would “absolutely be responsible for the elimination of nearly all of the most important transportation priorities in every single jurisdiction all across the state,” the law explicitly gives the administration the power to fund any necessary project.

Del. Brooke Lierman (D-Baltimore, pictured below), who championed the project scoring legislation last year, was astonished by the Governor’s sweeping opposition.“It’s just a score, and that shows to us, the taxpayers, how we’re spending our money in a transparent way,” she told the Baltimore Sun. “I don’t know why the governor is so opposed to transparency in transportation funding.”

Delegate Brooke Lierman, right, one of the sponsors of the original legislation, explaining the mechanics of the bill to others at our Capital Ideas conference.

In recent years, several other states under Democrat or Republican control alike, have adopted similar scoring systems to clearly evaluate projects and communicate to taxpayers that the state is making sound investments. For example, in the past year Virginia and Massachusetts have each employed new project scores to build their state transportation plans.

Yet rather than follow these well-functioning models, the administration released a clumsy set of measures to implement the legislation.

Virginia’s DOT went all-in on the new process their legislature created, producing a new website and a 90-page step-by step guide to their process. In contrast, the Maryland DOT’s regulations run just a page and a half and offer no explanation for the basis for scores and weights. While Gov. Hogan has erroneously claimed that the new law would require that state to cancel dozens of planned projects, under the law the scoring process is only advisory — it just provides a new way for lawmakers and citizens alike to see which projects are being advanced and compare the relative merits of each.

Maryland’s taxpayers deserve transparent and objective scores that would let them understand state spending and need. Instead they have gotten a cynical, straw man argument, in which the governor has painted a sensible, good-governance reform as the “road kill bill.”

The Maryland General Assembly should not repeal this important new policy and the administration should use the flexibility in the law to develop a scoring process that matches the state’s need. We’ll be keeping our eyes on the developments down the road in Annapolis.

While other cities try to replicate Houston’s successful bus network overhaul, Maryland’s plan for Baltimore falls short

At a time when other cities are redesigning their bus transit service and aggressively investing overall in public transportation to provide more consistent, predictable service to serve residents and employers, Baltimore — thanks to the state of Maryland — is attempting to get the most out of its bus system with only marginal new investment and changes in service that won’t do much to improve access to jobs, schools, or opportunity.

04.CathedralStreet.BaltimoreMD.30August2016

MTA Route 3 bus on Cathedral at West Franklin Street in Baltimore. Flickr photo by Elvert Barnes.

One of the most widely read transportation stories of the past few years is the dramatic transformation of Houston’s public transportation system, made possible by completely rebuilding their bus network and re-launching in 2015. As CityLab’s Laura Bliss wrote earlier this year:

The old hub-and-spoke system that had for decades funneled commuters downtown was straightened into a grid that cross-cuts the sprawling city, with fewer redundancies, more frequent service, and all-day, all-week service on heavily used lines.

For no substantial increases in operational costs, Houston was able to redesign their system to connect one million people and jobs with high-frequency all-day service. Paired with an expansion of light rail, it’s brought a significant increase in both ridership and the access that their residents have to jobs and opportunity.

The map of Houston’s frequent bus service, before (and after) their 2015 network redesign.

Meanwhile, halfway across the country in the summer of 2015, another story was unfolding.

That summer, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan canceled Baltimore’s long anticipated Red Line rail project that would have created a powerful new high-capacity transit line through the city. It would have connected jobs at Bayview (Johns Hopkins Bayview, National Institutes of Health), Woodlawn (Social Security Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and the downtown office core with scores of residential neighborhoods all along the line — including some of the West Baltimore neighborhoods that would benefit the most from the investment and connection to opportunity that a new transit line provides.

A rendering of a station on the proposed Red Line in Baltimore, canceled in 2015 by Governor Hogan.

With many in Baltimore still reeling, just a few months later, Gov. Hogan’s administration released BaltimoreLink, “a transformative new vision for the future of transit in Baltimore City.” It was billed as a $135 million investment to rework Baltimore’s transit service, but those numbers are a little deceiving, as you’ll see.

The city and region’s transit is planned and operated by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), a state agency. No Baltimore agencies are in the driver’s seat of their own transit system, and have surprisingly few avenues for oversight and accountability of the MTA-run system.

Assessing the state’s proposal

Back in the fall, T4America helped the Central Maryland Transportation Alliance (Transportation Alliance), a coalition that supports improving and expanding transportation options in the Baltimore region, perform a quantitative analysis on the plan to see if the numbers would bear out on the benefits the state was claiming. Would the plan improve access to jobs, schools, and healthy food?

After all, in principle, a major reworking of the bus system map to improve service was a goal long-sought by the advocates in Baltimore. Once the MTA launched the BaltimoreLink effort it became the goal of advocates to challenge the MTA to produce measurable improvements on key indicators.

On behalf of the Transportation Alliance, we performed an analysis of the change in accessibility under the new plan. Using Citilabs’ Sugar Access tool, we measured the change in access at the individual block level, looking at access to all jobs, as well as access to high-opportunity jobs and access from low-opportunity neighborhoods. We also looked at access to public middle and high schools and grocery stores.

So would it be truly transformative? Would it increase the number of jobs that are accessible to everyday Baltimore residents? Would it provide increased connections to opportunity for a wider range of people?

The short answer is no.

01a.MTA.Bus3.NB.BaltimoreMD.19October2016

A man studying while on on MTA Route 3 bus on North Charles at Centre Street in Baltimore. Flickr photo by Elvert Barnes

The long answer is that the plan “represents a missed opportunity to address regional goals in connecting households to jobs, schools, and essential services through transit,” according to the Transportation Alliance’s terrific summary of the findings. The bottom line is that BaltimoreLink does not deliver the promised transformational improvements and in contrast to MTA’s claims, we found a sharp decrease in accessibility on weekends (Sunday morning peak) and a marginal increase on weekdays. Read more about the detailed findings in the Transportation Alliance’s executive summary. (pdf)

In response, the administration initially attacked the empirical study, the Transportation Alliance and other local transit supporters. MTA recently released a revised plan which the Transportation Alliance and other stakeholders are reviewing. The MTA will hold public hearings in January, finalize the plan in March and implement the changes in June 2017.

Redeploying routes more effectively would be only one part of any proper solution. The region also needs local oversight in transit planning and an ironclad pledge for coordination between the state and the city to get anywhere near the kinds of benefit that Houston was able to realize. As the Transportation Alliance’s summary goes on to note:

Unlike Houston, Baltimore is an older, dense city where right-of-way is much more limited. Much of BaltimoreLink’s success in terms of speed and reliability hinges on coordination of road space and traffic signals between MTA and the City of Baltimore’s Department of Transportation. [But] without dedicated bus lanes and traffic signal prioritization, the potential benefits of this project may not be realized. It is inaccurate to anticipate reliable, rapid, transit going through downtown without dedicated right-of-way.

Looking ahead

While Baltimore stands to benefit immensely from redesigning its network, the benefits will be limited if the MTA merely reallocates its current resources — the state of Maryland needs to increase their investment in transit to improve service and accessibility for residents.

Click tor read our 2015 report analyzing the proposed economic benefits of the Red Line in Baltimore (and the approved Purple Line in the Washington, DC suburbs.)

In 2015, the city was on the cusp of going ahead with the Red Line, a brand new high-capacity rail transit line, which would have resulted in 83,000 more people living near high quality, frequent transit. Now, without that sizable (state and federal) investment represented by the Red Line, they’re on the receiving end of an alternate plan that represents just a 1.5 percent increase in MTA’s annual operating budget — about $70 million over six years; a plan that does little to separate transit riders from traffic congestion or tangibly improve access to jobs and opportunity.

That’s small potatoes, and the state needs to do better.

Maryland’s economic future is tied directly to the performance of their major metropolitan areas. Making smart investments that can increase access to opportunity for more people can help those places prosper, boosting the state’s overall economy in the meantime.

Houston it’s definitely not, but this story isn’t over yet.

A look at progress around the country on improving state transportation policy & raising new funding

Scores of state legislatures are still in session or nearing the end of their sessions. With transportation funding and policy on the docket in scores of states, here’s a roundup of the progress being made in states working to create more transparency, build more public trust in transportation spending, and even raise new money.

Many state legislatures are in the crunch time of crossover days and committee deadlines. Many more are already taking the long view and looking ahead to big policy changes later this year or after the next election. Here’s a roundup of the top stories:

Our refreshed state policy bill tracker is the best way to keep tabs on the most current information about these states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy — all tracked in three separate searchable, sortable tables of that information.

In addition, our hub for state policy and funding related resources includes all past and current reports, bill trackers, and other state-focused resources.

LOCAL FUNDING

After an up-and-down last few years when it comes to transportation funding, the Georgia state legislature successfully passed a pared-back bill last week that will allow voters in the City of Atlanta to decide the question of raising new funds for expanded transit service throughout the city, in addition to other transportation investments in the city.

A similar bill (SB 313) earlier this year would have allowed all counties served by MARTA to raise sales taxes for transit, but that one stalled due to opposition from outside the city. We wrote about the new alternative compromise package last week after its passage:

The legislation (SB 369) enables three new local funding sources, each dependent on approval through voter referenda. 1) The City of Atlanta can request voter approval for an additional half-cent sales tax through 2057 explicitly for transit, bringing in an estimated $2.5 billion for MARTA transit. 2) Through a separate ballot question the city could ask for another half-cent for road projects. 3) And in Fulton County outside the city, mayors will need to agree to a package of road and transit projects and ask voters to approve up to a ¾-cent sales tax to fund the projects.

The bill passed the House 159-4 on March 16 and passed the Senate last week, on the last day of the session.

While empowering local voters to raise new local funds is a step forward, the Georgia legislature also took a step back last week, passing a bill that requires a successful voter referendum before any county can spend money on fixed-guideway transit projects. Georgia doesn’t require a similar hurdle for highway projects. This bill (SB 420) exempts current MARTA service areas, the Beltline and the Atlanta streetcar, but it would slow down planned bus rapid transit projects in Cobb County in suburban Atlanta.

Support is building in Massachusetts for a proposal introduced by Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham), a START network member, to enable cities and towns to raise local taxes to fund transportation projects with approval through voter referenda. See some of the supportive arguments for Massachusetts’ bill here and here. T4America provided a national perspective and supported the bill at legislative briefing earlier this month at the capitol. Also briefing legislators was Mayor Greg Ballard, former mayor of Indianapolis, a region that recently gained legislative approval to raise local taxes for transit projects. Ballard provided lessons learned from his efforts at the state capitol and preparation for an expected ballot question this fall.

What’s the START Network?

We support efforts to produce and pass state legislation to increase transportation funding, advance innovation and policy reform, empower local leaders and ensure accountability and transparency through our State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training (START) Network of state and local elected officials, advocates and civic leaders. Join the START network today.

STATE FUNDING

Louisiana legislators just ended a special session on the budget without a comprehensive or long-term plan to fully close the state’s structural budget deficit. With more red ink looming in the state’s general budget, efforts to raise new revenue for the transportation fund face long odds.

Looking past the budget deficit, new Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) identified new Baton Rouge-to-New Orleans rail service as a priority, vowing to do “everything he could” to get new trains rolling.

Connecticut’s transportation committee advanced a “lockbox” provision (HJ 1) to dedicate certain revenue only for transportation projects. Republicans warn they will still oppose the measure unless the wording is tightened to prevent any diversion of money from the state’s special transportation fund. Constitutionally dedicating revenue from fuel taxes, vehicle fees, and a portion of the gas tax is seen as a necessary prerequisite to raising these taxes to bring in new money for transportation. While there is bipartisan support, at least in principle, a measure earlier this year failed to reach the necessary supermajority when a bloc of Republican House members said the measure would not go far enough in dedicating transportation dollars.

Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) called for big investments in all modes across the state in the 30-year, Let’s Go CT plan. But adding a new lane in each direction on I-95 across the state, one of the biggest and most expensive projects on the list, is drawing substantial opposition. Opponents note that a new lane will do little to ease traffic or advance the state’s 21st century knowledge economy. The state DOT counters that their plan for new capacity coupled with dynamic management through new electronic tolling would cut down on “induced demand” by making it more expensive, and so less desirable, for new drivers to fill new space on the roads.

A proposal in the Mississippi Senate to raise transportation taxes or issue bonds to fund road projects (SB 2921) was kept alive, but just barely. A procedural move allows negotiations to continue and may allow a last-minute agreement on the issue later in the session.

Minnesota’s legislature is in the fourth week of a short session that must conclude May 23. In that time, legislators will need to find $135 million for the next phase of the Twin Cities’ light rail system — or risk losing $895 million in federal funding and drastically setting back the planned project. Twin Cities local governments are expecting the state to do its part — they’ve already directed $118 million in local funding into the project. Transportation funding was a top issue in last year’s legislative session and members are again looking for a compromise to get more state funding— possibly including new revenue — to roads, bridges, and transit.

STATE REFORM

The Maryland House passed two bills to add objective scoring to the way the state DOT selects projects (HB 1013) and to create a new board to give local oversight over the state transit agency (HB 1010). Both measures are still being revised in the Senate; they must pass both chambers by the time the session ends on April 11th.

MOVING BACKWARD

Tennessee’s bill that would restrict gas tax receipts for any bicycle or pedestrian projects may be losing steam. The bill (HB 1650/SB 1716) was slowly making progress in the House, but this week the House delayed a hearing and the Senate scheduled a hearing for the bill on the last day of the session – a common way to signal the bill will not be passing this year.

FUNDING & POLICY TRACKER

You can access the full list of funding bills being considered and policies we are tracking throughout the country at our tracker here. As always, get in touch if there are bills you are working on that we should have our eyes on.

Maryland attempting to bring accountability & transparency into process for selecting transportation projects

Maryland is attempting to join the growing movement of states trying to ensure that transportation projects are selected and built on their merits in a more transparent process. T4America testified today in favor of a Maryland bill that would move the needle in that direction.

The Maryland Open Transportation Investment Decision Act (HB 1013/S 0908) would define state goals and measures to score and choose transportation projects, helping to program scarce transportation dollars more objectively. The bill is similar to a new process approved by Maryland’s neighbors in Virginia several years ago, which we covered recently in detail here: “Virginia launches program to remove politics from transportation investment decisions.”

T4America was invited by several START network members in Maryland to offer a national perspective on the bill, and policy director Joe McAndrew testified in support earlier this afternoon. (Note: START is T4America’s State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training Network for state elected leaders and advocates working on these issues. Find out more here. -Ed.)

Many Americans find the byzantine nature of their transportation system confusing, reducing their trust and inclination toward increasing investments for a 21st century transportation system. Who can blame them? …The public wants to know that transportation funds are being invested to provide not just movement but safe, reliable, affordable access to necessities like jobs, education, health care, and groceries. Measuring our limited investments in a way that matters to the public is critical going forward.

One thing was clear in today’s House Appropriations Committee hearing as local & state officials, delegates, and other citizens had a lively back and forth: Few people look at how the Maryland Department of Transportation chooses projects and feels like they have any clarity on how decisions are made.

Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Rahn, though testifying in opposition to the bill, isn’t opposed to bringing more transparency into that process, but he was reticent about this bill as the right solution.

“We are willing to study this concept to try and find a process that fits Maryland,” Rahn said. “That, I believe, is something that we can certainly agree to. But what’s come out of this process…is not Maryland. Rather than jumping into this to implement this now, should be a study so we can find something that’s more appropriate to Maryland.”

START Network members in Maryland, like Delegate Brooke Lierman (D-Baltimore), are hopeful and eager to work with Secretary Rahn (and other Delegates in the House and Senate) to amend and improve the bill, helping Maryland take this essential step.

Del. Lierman, while responding to MDOT director Pete Rahn’s testimony, questioned the impossibly opaque current system, holding up thousands of pages of project requests from counties where simple binary check marks were the only scores and suggesting that there was no way to know how projects were chosen.

What she and countless other Maryland taxpayers, local leaders or businesses really want to know after the state spends hundreds of millions more in transportation dollars over the coming few years, is: Will my commute get better? Will I end up with more options to get where I need to go each day? Are transportation projects being picked because they have political connections or because they make fiscal sense?

Projects in Maryland (and elsewhere) are rarely, if ever, justified through tangible, measured answers to these questions. And as a result, taxpayers understandably may have little confidence in handing over any more of their hard-earned money to invest in the system.

Even the Baltimore Sun knows that the current system is far from transparent, though coming down in favor of Maryland’s status quo in this fairly surprising recent editorial where they called politically motivated transportation spending an “unfortunate necessity” and “the grease that lubricates the squeaky political wheel.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds for transportation are far more important than political or partisan favors to be used to grease the skids. Taxpayers expect and deserve far more.

Maryland legislators should be applauded for this attempt to remove politics from the process of choosing which transportation projects to build — bringing some much needed transparency and accountability to a process that the public feels is murky, mysterious, and wholly political.

Stay up to date on the latest with state transportation policy & funding with our new resource for bill tracking.

ICYMI: T4A Members-Only Transit ROI Webinar; Materials Included

Today, T4A hosted a members-only webinar on Transit Return on Investment and how to assess impacts in your region.

As a T4A member, you can access the webinar anytime through this page.

Given the number of regions across the country contemplating similar transit investments, T4A created a rubric for understanding the full range of economic impacts that transit projects have in a region. As detailed by the report’s lead author, Sarah Kline, this methodology includes both near term and long-term economic impacts, including: Employment, Business Attraction, Real Estate Development, Impact on Disposable Income, Fiscal Impacts.

Access the webinar powerpoint here.

View the complete Weighing Maryland’s Economic Future report as a guide to help assess economic impacts of proposed projects and what this can mean for your region.
Also check out The Benefits of Transit in the United States: A Review and Analysis of Benefit-Cost Studies by the Mineta Transportation Institute.

Please don’t hesitate to contact Alicia Orosco at alicia.orosco@t4america.org with questions on this members-only webinar.

The Baltimore Sun agrees: Baltimore needs the Red Line

Yesterday, The Baltimore Sun editorial board heartily affirmed the necessity of the Red Line for Baltimore’s future, calling it “the economic shot in the arm” that the city needs and urging Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan to approve both it and the Purple Line project in the DC suburbs.

The editorial talks about the benefits of building the light rail line through west Baltimore — cleaner air, less cars on the road, access to jobs for the city’s low-income residents — and asks Gov. Hogan the question: “Why worsen the outlook for Baltimore area business growth by canceling the Red Line?”

Baltimore residents have already made considerable sacrifice to pave the way for the Red Line, the 14.1-mile-long east-west line that would connect Woodlawn with Johns Hopkins Bayview by way of downtown Baltimore. City lawmakers agreed to a higher gas tax, local governments have committed to $280 million in combined contributions, and soon, Maryland Transit Administration systems will be charging higher fares as required by the state legislature.

This city needs the economic shot in the arm that would come from the addition of the Red Line. West Baltimore, ground zero for the recent protests and unrest that arose after Freddie Gray’s death, would stand to benefit from the multi-billion-dollar investment in transportation infrastructure. Thousands of jobs would be created. What a vast improvement over the yawning “road to nowhere” canyon that continues to haunt that side of the city, the result of a failed freeway project.

The editorial mentions the success of the MARC commuter rail service as an example of the potential benefits that can come from expanded transit service. The MARC trains used to operate only on weekdays between DC and Baltimore, but the rail line recently started running trains on weekends, taking cars off the busy Baltimore-Washington Parkway and Interstate 95 during the weekends and providing another travel option.

The editorial closes with some figures from T4America’s Maryland transit report released last week, as well as an overall reason why the Red Line is so important to Baltimore:

But don’t take our word for it, ask the business community. The Greater Baltimore Committee and others have been leading the charge for the Red Line for years. They don’t want a handout, they want a level playing field. …What would the Red Line do for Baltimore? A recent Transportation for America report estimates 15,000 jobs and $2.1 billion in increased economic activity. The Purple Line exceeds that with 20,000 jobs and $7 billion in economic activity, according to the non-profit organization of business, elected and civic leaders. The timing could hardly be better. For a city at risk of drowning in despair, Mr. Hogan’s approval of the Red Line looks like a real life preserver.

Read the rest of the Sun editorial here, and if you missed it, download the full Maryland report.

The Red & Purple transit lines in Maryland would position Maryland for long-term economic success

Drawing from experience across the nation, a new Transportation for America report attempts to assess the full range of potential economic benefits from the planned Red and Purple transit lines in Maryland. The key finding: With benefits that far outweigh the costs, these two lines would help position Maryland for economic success in ways that few other investments are likely to do.

Send a message to Governor Hogan urging him to approve the two projects.

Send A Message

At a time when competitor regions are moving forward with their own ambitious transit plans and companies and workers alike are being drawn in increasing numbers to walkable locations with high-quality transit, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan will soon be deciding the fate of two long-awaited transit projects in Baltimore and the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Much ink has been spilled on the costs of the projects, but what about the potential benefits?

There are the short-term benefits as construction starts, workers are hired, materials are produced and sourced, and these large multi-year investments get underway; and there are the long-term benefits like the tens of thousands of additional jobs newly accessible by transit, the tens of thousands of people that have access to high-quality rail transit that did not before, and the development made possible by the dozens of stations on these new lines.The benefits to both the Washington and Baltimore regions are significant:

Building the projects would give 174,000 additional Maryland residents access to frequent, high-quality transit.
These two lines will help dramatically expand the labor and customer base for Maryland businesses. 540,000 jobs will be accessible via high-quality rail transit following construction.
The two new transit lines would generate 35,440 direct & indirect jobs and make a total $9 billion economic impact.

Gov. Hogan has stated his commitment to making Maryland “open for business” and prioritizing economic development around the state. How better to do that than by taking strong steps to keep the two largest regions in the state competitive for decades to come?

In March, the CEO of Marriott International, currently headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland in Montgomery County, shared the news with the Washington Post that they would be looking to relocate when their current lease is up.What’s their primary prerequisite for their new location? “I think it’s essential we be accessible to Metro, and that limits the options,” said CEO Arne Sorenson. If the Purple line gets built as planned, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties would see their total number of Metro stations nearly double, from 26 to 47. Wouldn’t it be smart for Maryland to double the options to retain employers like Marriott?

This is a recurring theme we’ve heard in meetings with mayors, chamber officials, and other civic leaders across the country. Making smart investments in transportation, and especially in transit, is a crucial part of their strategy to stay competitive and attract the talented workforce that is increasingly seeking out jobs and homes in walkable, connected cities and neighborhoods.

In Baltimore, the east-west Red Line would help turn a disconnected pair of existing transit lines into a proper system, connecting the hub of jobs at Johns Hopkins, the University of Maryland Baltimore County, the downtown office core, and the residential neighborhoods all along the line — including some of the West Baltimore neighborhoods that could use the investment and connection to opportunity that a new transit line provides.

There’s nothing else in the plans in Maryland’s future that could bring the kind of long-term economic benefits to the state as these two transit projects could. Yes, both are expensive, but the benefits of each will far outweigh the costs — to say nothing of the heavy costs of inaction.

Several years ago, with the Purple line delayed once again, the Washington Post ran these ads in D.C.

: Thanks to Richard Layman for the use of this photo. http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com

It would be a shame to see ads like these again in ten or 20 years as we regret these missed opportunities. Tell Governor Hogan that you support both of these projects by sending him a letter.

Economic analysis shows Red and Purple lines could be major boon for Maryland, the city of Baltimore and suburban Washington, DC

Report puts the two lines in national context as governor weighs whether to fund them

The two rail transit lines being considered by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and his advisers could help leverage billions of dollars in income, increased productivity and expanded tax base, according to a new analysis from Transportation for a America.

The report is the first attempt to assess the full range of potential economic benefits from construction of the Purple Line, connecting Maryland’s Washington, D.C. suburbs, and the Red line, providing east-west connections between Baltimore and its suburbs.

“Given the number of regions across the country contemplating similar investments, we wanted to offer this report as a template for how to make a comprehensive assessment of economic impacts,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “We found that the Red and Purple lines would have a payoff many times their cost and would yield economic results like few other investments being contemplated in Maryland.”

Among the findings:

The two lines would generate more than 35,000 direct and indirect jobs, increasing household income by over $1 billion;
Associated productivity increases from more reliable commutes and better access would raise incomes by another estimated $2.2 billion;
Increased real estate development potential would raise the tax base of the affected jurisdictions by billions of dollars — $12.8 billion for the Purple Line alone.
Families can save more than $900 a month if they can get by with one or fewer cars thanks to high-quality transit service;
Nearly 250,000 jobs will be accessible via rail transit in the Baltimore region, and 290,000 in the D.C. suburbs.

Additional benefits explored in the report include time savings for future commuters versus driving in traffic; the potential to retain employers who would have access to a larger pool of workers with reasonable commute options; and the long-term payoff of training local workers for higher-skill jobs.

“The Purple Line connects our region and makes Maryland relevant in the competition for talent and employers,” said Ilaya Hopkins, vice president for public affairs at the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. “It provides greater access to opportunity for students, residents and employers in our state’s two most populous counties and connects major centers such as the University of Maryland College Park with multiple employment hubs. This report, published by a national organization, highlights the positive impact of the Purple Line for the state and the region.”

“Baltimore’s Red Line will transform the city’s rail transit into a connected, comprehensive system,” said Donald C. Fry, president and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee. “In doing so, it will attract businesses, generate jobs and have a significant long-term beneficial impact on the economy of the city and region.”

The report’s conclusions may have special relevance for Baltimore as the city attempts to address the economic struggles that helped fuel the recent unrest, Corless noted.

“Older cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore don’t turn around without bold — but smart — investment in the future,” said former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, who helped lead the city’s comeback in the 1990s and early 2000s. “Like Pittsburgh before it’s recent turn-around, Baltimore has the precursors for success in its medical and educational assets. Investing in an excellent transit system will help tip the scales toward economic development while helping residents of all income levels get to the jobs that will follow.”

The full report is available online at https://t4america.org/maps-tools/maryland-transit-report/

View the Report

Voters in two states consider measures to restrict funding to transportation uses

Facing the uncertainty of stable federal transportation funding and often unwilling to raise their own taxes to fund transportation, some states have seized upon the idea of protecting their transportation revenues for transportation uses. On Nov. 4, Maryland and Wisconsin voters will be deciding on similar measures that would put transportation funds into protected accounts that can’t be appropriated for non-transportation uses.

Unlike the protected federal trust fund for transportation, the revenues gathered from the systems’ users in many states (gas taxes, fees and other sources) can be appropriated for other non-transportation needs. In Maryland, more than $1.3 billion intended for transportation has been appropriated to other items in the budget over the last few years, according to Greater Greater Washington’s detailed look at the measure.

Currently, the various transportation taxes in Maryland go into a state trust fund for improving safety, reducing congestion, and improving mass transit, air travel, and port facilities — but those funds can be easily moved by legislators each year to fill other gaps in the budget.

Maryland’s Question 1 would require the governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency and get a three-fifths vote from both houses of the General Assembly before any funds could be taken out of the transportation trust fund.

Supporters of Question 1 argue that by placing revenues in a “lockbox” it will ensure stable funding for long-term projects, improve accountability, and help restore the confidence of voters and those paying into the system. After all, if Maryland wanted to increase their gas tax some day in the future, it certainly becomes easier to convince voters of the need when they can also guarantee that any new revenues would be spent on transportation needs.

Proponents include a range of business groups, AAA, transit advocates in the Baltimore and Washington, DC regions, and real estate professionals; with little organized opposition to the measure.

Wisconsin is considering a similar measure. With a conservative governor, Scott Walker, and a legislature resistant to raising the gas tax or registration fees, Wisconsin’s referendum would amend the state constitution to require any revenues derived from the transportation system to be spent on transportation projects and making them non-transferable to other needs. To date, $1.3 billion has been transferred out of the transportation fund, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

The Wisconsin proposal actually had its genesis several years ago and has only now reached the ballot because state law requires two consecutive legislatures to approve a joint resolution before it can be placed on the ballot.

Supporters under the banner of “Vote Yes for Transportation” include chambers of commerce, corporations, and labor unions. While some advocates, such as Forward Lookout and Bus, Bike, Walk Wisconsin have expressed concern that this could be the first step toward restricting the use of transportation user fees for transit or other multimodal projects, nothing in this legislation appears to do anything like that, and according to Vote Yes for Transportation, “Wisconsin’s segregated transportation fund is the sole source of state funding for the entire transportation system – highways, air, rail, transit, harbors, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.”

There is no organized opposition, though some state legislators question the need for such a lockbox. Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) expressed concerns about special interests groups, saying, “It guarantees the highway lobby a lock on certain funds. To give one special-interest group a constitutional lock on a hunk of money, I do not think is good public policy. “

According to most of the data we’ve seen, both measures are likely to pass, but we’ll be keeping an eye on the results, and posting them on Transportation Vote 2014 after the election, so check back. You can keep track of the other state and local transportation ballot measures we’re following there as well.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s elections. If you have been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed. Join us there.

Follow-Up: Maryland pols raise their gas tax, voters respond supportively

While the conventional wisdom is that voting for a tax increase spells doom for a politician, recent evidence from Maryland continues to show that state politicians rarely lose their seats when they vote for a gas tax hike.

Maryland is one of five states that recently raised or modified their gas tax to raise more money to fund transportation and infrastructure projects. (Be sure to read our first post focusing on election returns in Pennsylvania and Virginia following gas tax hikes/changes.) While zero Maryland Republicans voted “yes” for the increase, we found that out of the 80 Democrats who voted yes and ran for re-election, 94% kept their seat in the June 24th primary.

On the other side of the aisle, 12.5% of Republicans lost their seat in the primaries.

Maryland follows the pattern set by Virginia and Pennsylvania that state legislators who vote for a tax increase – especially one specifically to raise money to invest in transportation – don’t face penalties at the polls from voters.

The five incumbents who lost primaries were all Democrats: Shawn Tarrant (D-Baltimore City), Darren Swain (D-Prince George’s County), Keiffer Mitchell Jr. (D-Woodlawn, Catonsville), Melvin Stukes (D-Woodlawn, Catonsville), and Michael Summers (D-Prince George’s County).

While a majority of those losses were theorized to be due to Maryland’s law of redistricting every ten years, some were also due to misconduct allegations, according to news articles about the races. A quick scan of the postmortems on each race doesn’t include any mentions about voting for the gas tax increase.

The Republicans had their own problems of redistricting and misconduct as well; in fact, the gas tax seemed to be a complete non-issue for this primary.

As primaries unfold in states taking up transportation funding, we will continue to update this story with more primary and general election results as they become available. As it stands right now, three states have proven that a state legislator can vote for a gas tax increase for transportation funding without fear of losing his or her job.

In state elections, voters decline to punish pols for raising transportation taxes

UPDATED: July 14, 2014

Raising the gas tax is a political death sentence, right? Well, not necessarily. In at least two states where legislators raised gas taxes or other fees in the last two years, voters have responded by sending almost all of the supportive members of both parties back to their state houses. Could it be that voters are more supportive of raising revenue than we think?

States are finding it more and more difficult to find funding for transportation and other infrastructure. The 2012 MAP-21 law kept federal funding essentially flat, even as the lingering effects of the long recession have left states in desperate need of infrastructure repair and renovation. Meanwhile, gas taxes are not yielding what they once did, thanks to rising construction costs, growing fuel efficiency and a drop in miles driven per person. With no other solution in sight, some states have concluded they have little choice but to increase gas taxes to maintain and build a 21st century transportation system.

In the last two years, at least seven states have done the “unthinkable” and either increased their gas tax or otherwise changed their revenue model to raise transportation funding: Maryland, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. (For a complete run-down of state revenue moves, see our tracker here.)

With expected insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund occurring as soon as next month, its important that Members of Congress take a scan of what is happening in their states and districts. Of the seven states that raised taxes for transportation, Pennsylvania and Virginia have had primary or general elections since passing those bills. We took a look at how legislators who voted in favor fared in those contests to see if the mantra that gas tax votes lead to an early end to political careers is true.

In 2012, before the legislation passed, Pennsylvania was faced with transportation cuts creating worries of an increase of structurally deficient bridges under weight restrictions, road mileage rated in “poor” condition, and a decrease in transit service throughout the Keystone State. At the time, it led the nation in the number of structurally deficient bridges with 4,700.

Pennsylvania’s changes to fuel-related taxes and fees gave the Department of Transportation $2.3 billion to repair and maintain the state’s roads, bridges and mass transit system. The revenue package amounted to a 40 percent increase in the department’s budget, and created an annual $20 million statewide multimodal competitive transportation fund accessible to local governments and businesses. The measure passed 113-85 in the House and 43-7 in the Senate.

Of the 156 aye votes, 90 of the favorable votes were Republicans and 66 were Democrats. Thirty-two of the members that voted “yes” were not on the ballot for reasons such as retirement, seeking different elected office or term not yet expiring, leaving 124 “yes” vote members on the primary ballot on May 20, 2014. Of the members on the ballot, just 5 lost their primary, meaning that 96 percent of those who voted for the transportation revenue won their election. Just one Republican lost his primary Republican Representative Michael Fleck (R-Huntingdon) — but he won the Democratic primary through a write-in campaign. Fleck will be on the November general election ballot, but doesn’t have plans to switch parties. Four House Democrats did lose their seats: Leanna Washington (D-Montgomery) and J.P Miranda (D-Philadelphia), who were both indicted for misusing campaign funds; Erin Molchany (D-Alleghany County) who was re-districted and lost her seat to a Democrat who had voted No on the legislation; and James Clay (D-Philadelphia).

“Pennsylvania legislators showed political courage in voting for the transportation revenue package in 2013 to guarantee the state’s economy and overall mobility of the population would continue to prosper,” said Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Department of Transportation, Barry Schoch. “In return, Pennsylvania’s voters supported those that stepped up to the plate and took this crucial vote by supporting them in our primary election.”

In Virginia, legislators last year replaced the state’s 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline — which had not been changed since 1987 — with a new 3.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline (6 percent on diesel) that will keep pace with economic growth and inflation. It also raised the state’s general sales tax and gave the increment to transportation, and created a regional funding mechanism that boosted the sales tax to six percent in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads and required those funds to be spent only on transportation projects in those areas. The measure passed 64-35 in the House and 26-12 in the Senate.

The commonwealth’s 100 House Delegates were on last November’s general election ballot, while the 40 Senate seats, whose elections are not staggered, will have their election next fall. Of the 64 House Delegates that voted for the transportation revenue package, 31 were Republicans and 33 were Democrats. Five of the “yes” vote members weren’t on last fall’s ballot due to retirement or seeking different elected office. No Democrats lost their seats and just four Republicans were on the losing end in their elections, including: Joe T. May (R-Clarke), Mark Dudenhefer (R-Prince William), Beverly Sherwood (R-Frederick), and Michael Watson (R-James City). Of the 183 elected officials who showed the courage to support necessary infrastructure in Virginia and Pennsylvania, just 9 lost their general or primary elections representing less than 5 percent of those who voted “yes” in these states.

As Wyoming, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Hampshire have their primaries throughout the summer, we will be keeping tabs and will let you know if this trend holds true. But to this point, all indications are that a Congress facing a deadline to salvage our nation’s transportation program can safely follow state legislators’ lead on transportation revenue. In return, they are more likely to earn gratitude than ire from constituents eager to ensure a sound transportation infrastructure.

We recently published the results from Mayland’s primaries and the results following their gas tax legislation.

In 2013, 20-plus states took up transportation funding: Here’s the final tally

Welcome to 2014! With a large number of state legislatures convening as the new year gets underway, it’s worth a look back at an important trend from 2013: States stepping forward to raise additional money for transportation. With federal funding remaining flat in 2012′s transportation bill (MAP-21) and after years of deferred action during the long recession, a large number of states, metro areas and local communities moved to supplement federal dollars with new revenues of their own.

In April, we reported that 19 states were looking at ways to increase their own funding for transportation. Some needed the funds just to make ends meet after years of flat or declining state revenues, while others also were looking for funds to match those available from MAP-21 new and updated loan and grant programs (like TIFIA or TIGER).

Here’s how they fared:

Key Successes

We covered Maryland’s ambitious plan on this blog, as well as Massachusetts.

Both of those states’ plans indexed the state gas tax to keep pace with inflation — something the federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993 — does not do. In Maryland, the state also added a sales tax on gasoline, while in Massachusetts, the package included an increase in cigarette taxes and certain business taxes. The good news was that in making the changes, both states recognized the importance of all modes of transportation and the revenues will fund important transit and road projects around the states.

In Virginia, Governor McDonnell began the debate with a proposal to abolish the per-gallon gasoline tax entirely and replace it with sales and wholesale taxes on fuel. That brought together legislators from both parties, who developed an innovative package of revenue increases to put transportation funding on a long-term, stable footing.

New legislation raised vehicle fees, along with local taxes in two of the states’ most heavily populated areas, Northern Virginia (near Washington, DC) and Hampton Roads (near Norfolk/Virginia Beach on the coast). Recognizing that businesses, residents, and visitors to Virginia depend on many types of transportation to move around the state, the new law directs funding to all modes of surface transportation, including transit, passenger rail, roads, and bridges. The package is projected to have more than $9.5 billion in economic impact in the state. As the Gov. McDonnell said in signing the bill: “This legislation will ensure that Virginia’s economy can grow in the years ahead, and that businesses will have the infrastructure they need to create the good-paying jobs Virginians deserve.”

Most recently, legislators in Pennsylvania reached agreement on a package of tax and fee changes that will raise $2.3 billion annually for the state’s transportation infrastructure – $1.65 billion for roads and bridges and $475 million for transit. The debate went down to the wire with agreement finally reached in a special legislative session just before Thanksgiving, allowing the governor to sign the bill on a cold day in late November.

AP photo by Nabil Mark – Gov. Tom Corbett, center, signs into law a bill that will provide $2.3 billion a year for improvements to Pennsylvania’s highways, bridges and mass-transit systems.

The PA legislation eliminates the retail tax on gasoline and a state cap on gas tax paid at the wholesale level and raises various vehicles and driver fees over the next five years. The new funding will help to advance projects like the rehabilitation of the structurally deficient Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh and of outdated equipment used by SEPTA.

Not all states that raised money recognized the value of investing across the board in all types of transportation to keep their economies moving. Ohio, Wyoming, and Vermont enacted tax increases intended for highway projects only. In Wisconsin, new bonding authority was enacted, with bond funds directed almost entirely to highways.

One positive outcome in Wisconsin: While the governor had proposed kicking transit out of the state transportation fund (similar to what the House of Representatives proposed in 2012), the legislature rejected that proposal and instead transferred general fund money into the fund (much as the federal government has done for its highway trust fund) to keep funding public transportation.

Try again next year!

Some states explicitly punted the issue to next year by creating commissions to report back to the legislature on transportation revenue options.

In Indiana, where a bill had been moving forward to allow the central Indiana region (which includes Indianapolis) to raise their own regional taxes to pay for transit, legislators instead commissioned a study on how to fund transit in the region. In November, the transit study commission voted in favor of allowing counties in the Indianapolis region to impose an income tax or business tax increase, if approved by a voter referendum, to fund regional transit. Reports like these help reinforce the notion — which we agree with — that regions should always have the ability, especially with the blessing of voters, to raise their own revenues to invest in regional transportation needs. We will definitely be keeping Indiana on our “watch list” for 2014.

Another state to watch in 2014 is Washington, where legislators negotiated on transportation funding through mid-December before calling it quits for the year. They promise to resume when the next legislative session begins in January. The current discussion is about increasing the state gas tax, with legislators debating items such as stormwater treatment, how to use the sales taxes collected from transportation projects, and funding for public transportation.

The need is urgent in Washington. Without any increase in state revenue, for example, the bus systems in the Seattle region are facing severe cuts in service that employers and employees depend on, along with fare increases.

A state we also hope will try again is Missouri, where a plan to raise $7.9 billion over 10 years through a penny sales tax passed both the Missouri House and Senate, but was then filibustered at the 11th hour when the Senate took up the package for a final vote. The fact that it was a sales tax was notable because in Missouri, as in many other states, while gas taxes are limited to only funding highway projects, a sales tax can be used for any mode of transportation, giving the state much more flexibility to invest.

Looking back

This movement we saw in 2013 is just the beginning. More and more states are increasingly looking for ways to bring more of their own dollars to the table, as well as making plans to invest in a range of transportation options. For a complete list see our state funding tracker.

The folks on the ground in these towns, cities, and metro areas know how important transportation is to their economic success. And keeping those local economies humming is key to our national economic prosperity.

Other states – and the federal government – need to take a page from their playbook and find a way to invest more money in transportation – it’s vital for our economy. One good place to start the discussion would be with our proposal to raise more revenue for transportation for the price of a weekly coffee and doughnut per commuter.

Ambitious Maryland plan moves forward to index gas tax, add sales tax for transportation

When Maryland’s Intercounty Connector (ICC) highway opened in 2011, it did more than create a new east-west toll road between I-270 and I-95 in the northern suburbs of Washington, DC: It also severely hampered Maryland’s ability to build other large-scale transportation projects for years to come. But now there’s significant momentum to raise new state revenues for transportation to ensure that the state won’t have to shelve their plans for a 21st century transportation system.

Update 4/3/12: The Senate passed the House bill (HB515) last Friday, heading to Gov. O’Malley for his signature. The separate “lockbox” bill will require a conference to reconcile the differences in House and Senate versions.

With MAP-21 out the door, attention has shifted from Washington to the states. In many cases, states are deciding that they need more money for transportation and are embarking on ambitious and often groundbreaking plans to raise additional revenues for transportation. This post is part of a longer series we’ll be doing in 2013 examining how states are addressing the need for more transportation dollars, along with key policy changes. Visit the home for state plans here, where we’re tracking all of the news. – Ed.

While half of the ICC’s almost $2.6 billion cost was paid for with future tolls that don’t really impact the state’s transportation budget year to year, the other half ($1.3 billion) was covered by sources that have huge impacts on Maryland’s ability to build any other significant large transit or road projects.

The state spent $265 million in general funds and though the $180 million from the state’s Transportation Trust Fund represents only about 10 percent of what the state gas tax and vehicle fees bring in each year, Maryland is also devoting $750 million in future federal funds they haven’t yet received to the project — or almost 130 percent of what the state receives from the feds each year for all of their state highway needs. ($580 million in FY12.)

That means that a large share of Maryland’s future federal transportation dollars under MAP-21 — which itself represents a loss in real dollars over previous transportation bills — are already spoken for by this mammoth project.

The ICC under construction in 2011, Creative Commons Flickr photo by Dougtone.

Even without building the ICC, like a lot of states, Maryland would certainly have to make some tough decisions. But with it, it’s easy to understand how state and independent analysts have been saying that by 2018, Maryland will only have enough money to cover maintenance and repair, making it nearly impossible to fund any new highway projects or any of the long-awaited and much needed public transportation projects, including the new Red Line subway in Baltimore, the Purple Line rail link for Metro and the innovative Corridor Cities Transitway rapid bus line in the DC region.

Get Maryland Moving, a new coalition of advocates of all stripes from across the state, coalesced around the urgent need to keep these worthy projects (and many others) from being relegated to a perpetual “wouldn’t that be nice” wish list, providing Marylanders with other options for getting around, and ensuring that Maryland doesn’t have to cease all investment in their transportation network.

Since the (state) gas tax was set at its current level of 23.5¢ in 1992, construction costs have doubled, according to this report from the CA DOT. Simply put, just like the federal gas tax that was last increased in 1993, inflation has far outpaced the value of the gas tax, and with Americans driving fewer and fewer miles each year in more fuel efficient vehicles, they each bring in less revenue.

A rally in Annapolis at the State House organized by Get Maryland Moving in March 2013.

Urged along by the diverse Get Maryland Moving coalition, the current proposal started from a plan put forward by Governor Martin O’Malley, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, though it has been modified as it has moved through the state legislature. The House passed the bill (HB1515) just last week, and the Senate is due to debate and vote on it soon.

You can view the Governor’s initial plan on our page of state transportation funding plans, but here is the deal as it currently stands in the Maryland legislature. The plan would:

Index the gas tax to inflation starting immediately (with a ceiling of 5 cents maximum increase in any given year.)
Add a three percent sales tax at the gasoline pump, phasing that in over a period of three years starting this summer.
There are other provisions that could change the sales tax rate on gasoline that have to do with internet sales tax. In short, if Congress allows states to tax internet sales, Maryland will devote that revenue to transportation. If not, they’ll raise the sales tax on gas to five percent.-=
Raise $4.4 billion for transportation over six years (including the ability to borrow against increased future revenues.)

A popular argument against the tax has been the supposed increase that residents will see at the pump — 13-20 cents per gallon as reported by state analysts and trumpeted loudly above the fold by the Washington Post and other outlets. But gas prices fluctuate wildly even within submarkets — many places may see gas prices go up by 20 cents a gallon in just a few weeks at certain times of year.

Along those lines, the Get Maryland Moving coalition visited a bunch of Maryland gas stations on one particular day to show the wild variety in prices, sometimes at locations within sight of one another, and produced this terrific graphic.

The Get Maryland Moving coalition consists of some of T4 America’s core local partners in the region as well as strong representation from local elected officials and business groups that don’t want to see Maryland drop the ball on projects like the Purple Line that would create a vital (and decades overdue, many would argue) east-west transit connection in the region that would also eliminate long rides through the core of the Metro system to reach the opposite end of the Red line.

Most of the leaders of the suburban counties in the DC metro region have been strong advocates for the plan in the legislature. From The Washington Post:

“This is a big problem, and we need a big solution,” Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) testified at a hearing of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. “My view is go big or go home.”

Leggett appeared on the same panel with Prince George’s County Executive Rushern L. Baker III (D) and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D). All three praised a bill introduced by Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) but said they remain open to alternative methods to raise more money for transportation.

The moment of truth is coming soon for Maryland’s transportation future. The 90-day legislative session ends in just a few weeks in early April.

Planning for the future: Washington’s new Woodrow Wilson Bridge

A New Trail Originally uploaded by M.V. Jantzen.
A bicyclist cruises along I-495/95 on the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge “active transportation lane,” leading to the rare sight of someone not in a car using the Capital Beltway. View more photos of the opening on Flickr from Eric Gilliland, director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (a T4 partner.)

Two weekends ago, the 12-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian lane of the Woodrow Wilson interstate bridge over the Potomac River held its grand opening in Washington DC, filling with bikers and walkers who can now join the thousands of cars that cross the bridge each day.

The bridge, which connects Virginia and Maryland on the southern part of the Capital Beltway, is a vital transportation link in the region, where Interstate 95 (and the large majority of truck traffic) bypasses Washington, continuing north or south along the eastern seaboard.

Hundreds of bicyclists enjoyed a ride across the bridge for the first time ever last weekend, and the renovations to the bridge also added dedicated space for a future transit line — not something you see everyday on an interstate bridge in the United States.

Building a new bridge to replace the 1961 bridge had been discussed for decades, but the planning kicked into high gear in the 1990’s, with Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government all engaged in the process (DC relinquished control to the states.)

The King Street (Virginia) and Branch Avenue (Maryland) Metro stops are separated by just a few miles and the Potomac River, but require a long ride into DC to travel between the two on the Metrorail system. One day, Metro might cross the Wilson Bridge instead.

Looking at a map of the Metrorail public transportation system, one can see that only a few miles separate the end of the green line in Maryland and the yellow and blue lines in Virginia. There was no active work to connect the two lines, but a handful of people in the planning process wondered about dedicating some space on the bridge for a future, useful Metro connection.

Parris Glendening, Governor of Maryland from 1995-2003, said that planning for a future transit connection was just common sense.

“Those stations are just a few miles apart as the crow flies, but no one in Maryland who has a choice is going to ride all the way up into DC to switch trains and ride all the way back out to Virginia — and end up only a few miles from where they started,” he said. (more…)