Transit
Mikulski fiddles with car tax credits while transit burns
Maryland state lawmakers re-added a $10 million tax break for car purchases at the final stage of their budget negotiations. Legislators had previously decided to remove the credit to help shore up Maryland's finances until Senator Barbara Mikulski pushed to reinstate it. Mikulski inserted a similar provision into the federal stimulus bill earlier this year.
What could Maryland do with $10 million besides further incentivize people to buy new cars that most of them don't need? With just half that money, they could restore transit cuts in the Washington region and Baltimore. Those cuts threaten to cut off vital service to many residents who don't have alternatives, or will drive many Marylanders to commute by car instead of transit, increasing traffic, pollution and parking problems. DC and most Virginia jurisdictions came up with extra money to stave off most of their proposed cuts to Metro service, but Maryland remains $4.8 million behind. The other half of the $10 million could restore previous cuts or improve service in Baltimore.
Instead of preserving this vital transportation choice, Mikulski is intent on propping up an auto industry that has quite simply overproduced cars for the current economy. Americans would do just fine simply keeping their current cars a little longer. Meanwhile, cutting transit service not only destroys jobs, but harms many residents' ability to get to their jobs.
Tonight, Metro will hold the first two of their six hearings on service cuts, in Hyattsville and Vienna. Transit First! is continuing to call on area jurisdictions, especially Maryland, to avoid service cuts. They held a press event this morning at Prince George's Plaza Metro with County Councilmember Eric Olson and PG ACT's Karren Pope-Onwukwe to highlight the impact of the cuts, which hit Prince George's hardest.
Mikulski made an early name for herself in politics by opposing freeways that would have cut through Baltimore and destroyed historic neighborhoods. Sadly, like many freeway warriors of her era, she doesn't realize that the ever-expanding freeways outside Baltimore hurt that city's vitality almost as much as bulldozing a neighborhood, by driving development ever outward and removing jobs from downtown. Nor does she see how other governmental policies, like tax subsidies for car ownership, put cities at a disadvantage by drawing potential riders away from transit and forcing even more service cuts.
The Baltimore-Washington area is one of our nation's greatest metropolitan regions, including some of the best transit systems in the nation and a wide range of walkable, transit-oriented communities in and around two major cities. It's too bad Maryland's senior Senator seems intent on dismantling her state's existing advantages through her policy priorities. Her legacy may well be to bring about the very same form of destruction to Maryland's communities she fought to stop a generation ago.
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Suitland Parkway Trail is a mess. Will leaders seek change?







That being said, you are broadly right that the $10 million would be more effectively spent on Metro. Last time I checked most of Maryland wasn't in Montgomery or PG county, but that is a Maryland issue.
Stimulating new cars sales is an important economic objective. Save your breath for increasing the gas tax -- which has a far more direct effect on reducing the amount of time we spend driving, and increases the value of livable/walkable communities.
by charlie on Apr 13, 2009 9:32 am • link • report
That being said, this policy is a solution that might have made sense between the 1960's and 1980's. Not in the 2000's and 2010's. She's stuck in the past, just like most of our elected officials.
While stimulating new car sales is a worthy economic objective, it is less important for our long term economic health than the mobility of our citizenry. Encouraging car purchasing while cutting transit monies is missing the forest for the trees.
by Cavan on Apr 13, 2009 9:40 am • link • report
Really? I've always wondered what the population distribution looked like in Maryland. You wouldn't happen to have the statistics for Virginia as well, would you?
by Art on Apr 13, 2009 10:16 am • link • report
by Adam L on Apr 13, 2009 10:36 am • link • report
Not sure about the population of Northern Virginia alone.
Adam L, that sounds a lot like Virginia politics - just substitute "Richmond" for "Baltimore" - not sure about the bus funding, though.
by Scott on Apr 13, 2009 10:46 am • link • report
With respect to WMATA, the counties pay for WMATA bus service in their jurisdiction. This is similar to all WMATA jurisdictions. The Prince George's and Montgomery Metro (rail) subsidies are paid directly by the state, though. When appropriating transportation monies, Metro, MARC, and Baltimore Metro Subway, Light Rail, and Baltimore city bus services are appropriated before anything else.
As for a rail system in Baltimore, I don't think it's due to not wanting one. Baltimore has long wished they had a complete Metro comparable to ours. They never had the long series of incredibly fortunate political circumstances fall into place that our region did. They had their streetcars ripped out by the Highway Lobby in the early 1960's just like everyone else. Then, just like Washington, they spent the next couple of decades preventing their neighborhoods from being bulldozed. They were only able to get approval for one heavy rail line in the 1970's. After the Metro, the national attitude towards transit projects shifted from comprehensive systems to single lines. Even still, those single lines had to go through years and years of studies and cost-effectiveness red tape and whatnot. The light rail that opened in the early 1990's is the kind of project that process created. The Purple Line is only such a winner of a project because of the current existence of a comprehensive rail system. Similarly, the Red Line in Baltimore is only a winner because it would connect and improve the effectiveness of the existing Light Rail and Metro Subway.
I'm going to stick with my assertion that the senator is out of touch.
by Cavan on Apr 13, 2009 10:50 am • link • report
by Cavan on Apr 13, 2009 10:52 am • link • report
2007 census estimates had 1.65 million for the Tidewater MSA, 1.2 million for the Richmond MSA, and about 818,000 for the remaining MSAs. IIRC the MSAs cover a lot of land that is exurban or rural though. When I add up the populations for Richmond City and the main suburban counties, for example, I only get about 900,000 people.
by alexandrian on Apr 13, 2009 11:07 am • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 13, 2009 12:11 pm • link • report
Very, very, interesting article! I wonder what people here think about the possibility of NoVA splitting?
by Art on Apr 13, 2009 12:49 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 13, 2009 12:58 pm • link • report
The counties originally paid the cost of Metrobus service when it started in 1974, but that changed a number of years ago.
by kreeggo on Apr 13, 2009 4:33 pm • link • report
You've probably got a point, but still it would be something to imagine, no?
by Art on Apr 13, 2009 4:44 pm • link • report
by Reza on Apr 13, 2009 4:44 pm • link • report
Save the American bike industry? The American sneaker industry?
by Gavin Baker on Apr 13, 2009 7:22 pm • link • report
Washingtonians tend to think the world revolves around them, but you'd be surprised how many Fairfaxians and Gaitherburgians never actually come into the District. I am.
But I will not stop you from dreaming. It's wonderful.
by Jasper on Apr 13, 2009 9:30 pm • link • report
by Greg Cantori on Apr 14, 2009 8:04 am • link • report
Add a Comment