The Purple and Red Lines will benefit all of Maryland

Transit

The Purple and Red Lines will benefit all of Maryland

by Cavan Wilk • February 9, 2011 12:38 pm

Maryland state senator E.J. Pipkin of Cecil County is drafting legislation to require counties to pay for constructing mass transit projects by themselves without state help. They would still be required to contribute to the state's transportation trust fund as they do now.

Image from Maryland MTA.

While there is something to be said for paying one's own way, the legislation being cosponsored by Frederick County's David Brinkley would be like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Pipkin's misguided legislation neglects the fact that the Purple Line and the Baltimore Red Line will bring economic development and therefore more tax revenue to the state. Maryland should make investments that increase its tax revenues, not shrink its tax base because of parochial concerns.

From the article:

"If you live—as I do—in a rural area, you don't share those hopes and dreams of mass transit as you have in the urban areas," Pipkin said Monday during a panel discussion on Maryland's economy and infrastructure.
He said the state's rural counties have dire transportation needs that aren't being met by the dwindling pot of state transportation dollars allocated to road and bridge repair.

The solution to having too little transportation money isn't to cut off infrastructure investment in the parts of the state that contribute the most tax revenue. The wealthy urban parts of Maryland never complain about subsidizing rural road projects. The rural parts can't afford to do it on their own. Since we are one state, it has never been an issue whether or not to contribute to the infrastructure and standard of living of the less affluent counties.

Then, why does Pipkin want to punish the parts of the state that have benefitted his constituents for so many decades? Demonizing the wealthy parts of the state who aren't represented by members of his political party is political red meat to a large group of his constituents.

I grew up in Cecil County and my parents live in Senator Pipkin's district. Many people from the Upper Eastern Shore think of Baltimore and Washington as far away places that are alien. His legislation would message well to people who view mass transit as an unfamiliar big-city amenity.

However, it's Pipkin's job to represent his district's monetary interests, not to appeal to their misinformed views about the urban parts of Maryland. His constituents will benefit from the tax revenue generated by the economic development from the Purple and Red Lines.

It is also logically inconsistent that Pipkin is targeting light rail projects but not the ICC. Because of the sticker shock from the ICC, the state is considering raising tolls to cross the Baltimore Harbor, the Susquehanna River, and the Chesapeake Bay. Why isn't Pipkin decrying the huge chunk of the Maryland transportation budget that is going to constructing the ICC?

Transportation funding in Maryland should not be a parochial argument about roads vs. rails. It's about building infrastructure that is appropriate to the communities it serves as they envision themselves in the future. Senator Pipkin's constituents deserve far-sighted representation that will generate economic development in all of Maryland, benefiting his constituents through increased tax revenue to fund more state services.

24 comments

Tags: Baltimore Red Line, Maryland, Maryland legislature, Purple Line, roads, transit, transportation financing

Madaleno's anti-transit stance penny wise, pound foolish (Jun 11, 2009)
Martin O'Malley for Maryland Governor (Oct 22, 2010)
Maryland transportation "lockbox" has a big hole (Feb 8, 2011)
Maryland worried about new transit-hostile FTA (Feb 8, 2008)
New Partners: Frustrating Transit Administrators (Feb 8, 2008)

Cavan Wilk became interested in the physical layout and economic systems of modern human settlements while working on his Master's in Financial Economics. His writing often focuses on the interactions between a place's form, its economic systems, and the experiences of those who live in them. He lives in downtown Silver Spring.

Comments
Add a comment »

Since you mention they live in his district, how do your parents feel on this issue?

by Froggie on Feb 9, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report

I don't know much about the MD legislature, but the urban/suburban areas more or less control it, so I have to assume this silly bill is DOA.

by BeyondDC on Feb 9, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report

I would expect him to oppose the tolls on the Susquehanna Bridge to pay for the ICC. That would be a more logical position. And more justified.

Furthermore, I would assume that the DC and Baltimore representatives are reminding him at the moment how much they spent in his district.

Did Cecil county pay for the 3 car and 2 rail bridges across the Susquehanna? Did Queen Anne's and Anne Arrundel pay themselves for the Bay Bridge and the bridges to Kent Island?

by Jasper on Feb 9, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report

Froggie,

My parents both signed the GGW Purple Line petition and sent email to their state representatives and the governor. They have no problem driving on roads that are paid for by Baltimore and Greater Washington.

They were also in favor of shifting over from being a commissioner county (handful of commissioners perform both legislative and executive duties; most money and decisions come from the delegation in Annapolis) to the charter system (what the populous counties have; county council and executive; very strong local control over funds and appropriations). My mom was annoyed because the upper shore delegation has a history of turning down money for schools and to lower property taxes so they could claim that they were saving the state money for political points while catering to parochial special interests.

by Cavan on Feb 9, 2011 1:28 pm • link • report

The obvious response to this bill is for someone else to draft competing legislation creating two separate trust funds for urban and rural areas. Each would be supplied with funds collected in their respective areas be be spent in those areas how their residents/representatives wish. I bet suddenly you'd hear rural legislators like Pipkin arguing that "Hey, we're all in this together!"

by RichardatCourthouse on Feb 9, 2011 1:31 pm • link • report

They need to be careful about putting tolls on a through route such as I-95, as it could very easily lead to shunpiking.

The tolls from DC to NYC are approaching $30. When I go visit my family in NJ, I'm increasingly detouring through PA to avoid the excessive tolls (I must say that Delaware is by far the worst offender, charging $4 to drive through their poorly-maintained 23-mile portion of the road).

(Case in point regarding shunpiking: When the Scottish Government removed the toll on the Forth Road Bridge, traffic through downtown Edinburgh dropped dramatically, as commuters no longer traveled through the city center toward the toll-free Kincardine bridge in an attempt to avoid the toll. The significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled through the region arguably more than offset the revenues generated by the toll plazas)

by andrew on Feb 9, 2011 1:38 pm • link • report

Dear Sen. Pipkin,

You are right, locals should pay their own way. Not only on transportation, but also on services and schools. Please return the state money collected in Montgomery, Howard, and Baltimore counties that were given to Cecil county for your schools, road, hospitals, firefighters and other services. It is outrageous that you suckle at the teat of neighboring counties when we don't get to share in the hopes and dreams of rural counties.

Sincerely,

Future Purple Line Rider (FPLR)

P.S. We would also like back the money that was and is spent on building and maintaining I-95 through your county as well as all tax revenue generated in the shops and stores in your county from it.

by DAJ on Feb 9, 2011 1:40 pm • link • report

I think the flaw in this approach to funding is that folks from Howard, Baltimore and Frederick Counties are clogging the local Montgomery and PG County road surfaces making them *unusable* for the local residents. They're using these regions as a way of subsidizing their own lower housing costs further out. If these out-of-area residents weren't clogging the local roads, there would be no need to increase local public transportation.

One of course could create isolated thru traffic toll roads that transverse Montgomery and PG County entirely paid for and dedicated to these outer suburbs, but that creates a host of other problems.

by Dmo on Feb 9, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report

@ andrew: To avoid the first toll in DE, take the last exit in MD, turn left, and take the first serious right. It leads you straight back to I-95. Barely costs time. I don't know how much time it costs extra to take I-95 through Philly and then I-276, I-295, I-195 back to the Jersey Turnpike. It would save some money.

by Jasper on Feb 9, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report

@DMO

Ask D.C. about maintaining an entire downtown transportation infrastructure that is only used efficiently during a few hours of the work week when the over 400,000 non-resident, non-taxpaying commuters flow into the city. Many streets and Metrorail stations are woefully underutilized during non-business hours and weekends, yet still cost money the District to operate and maintain.

by Adam L on Feb 9, 2011 2:24 pm • link • report

If this bill passes the Senate, there will be two people squarely responsible: Senate President Miller and Majority Leader Garagiola. And if it becomes law, O'Malley is at fault. Really, it's just not going to pass.

I'm much more concerned that Democrats in the legislature won't pass good bills than I am that they will pass this bill, which is more of a stunt anyway. What is their transportation policy, anyway? How are they raising money and what are their spending priorities?

by WRD on Feb 9, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report

Adam,

The only problem with your argument is that in reality, the suburbs are the ones subsidizing rail infrastructure that district residents get to use on the nights and weekends at a highly subsidized rate. Although only 55% of metro is funded by ridership, the vast majority of that funding is provided by suburban commuter's huge 2x a day fares and their high parking fees.

The in-town, off peak rides that most district residents make generate a very low return vs the cost of operation.

I'm not trying to pick a fight (I'm a district resident), that's just the reality of the costs of operation.

Regards.

by Dmo on Feb 9, 2011 2:56 pm • link • report

Don't worry. Those bills will die on the Senate floor, if they do manage to get out of the Senate chamber. Way too many state senators from Baltimore and here have far too much of a vested interest to let Pipkin have any kinds of success. And, no matter what, O-Malley isn't going to sign anything like that into law, risking political suicide in one of the bluest states in the country (not if he wants to be Mikulski's successor, anyways).

The biggest thing holding up the process with the Purple Line is that there is no consensus of alignment for the Purple Line. Once that is quelled, then we'd be able to get everything put together and present the full package to the FTA. The FTA's representative at the Purple Line forum said as much last night, and even the most competitive projects aren't immune to lack of consensus.

By the way, does anyone know of a more reliable site than MTA's Purple Line page to find information about community hearings and forums? Their site is horribly outdated.

by C. R. on Feb 9, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

Re: ICC

People from rural might not object to peripheral highways like the ICC because they can use these highways to get around. But they wouldn't make much use of Baltimore's Red Line or the Purple Line.

@C.R - http://www.purplelinenow.com/

by EJ on Feb 9, 2011 4:29 pm • link • report

@DMO

True on the fares, but it goes both ways: D.C. residents make up 25% of the passengers on the Metro, yet the District pays a full third of the Metrorail subsidy. In any event, it still doesn't change the fact that a city of 600,000 people is essentially forced to maintain infrastructure to handle over 1 million people (think roads, police, fire and EMS, etc.) In other cities with large non-resident commuter populations (e.g. New York), they at least collect income tax revenue at its source to help pay for all the additional expense.

by Adam L on Feb 9, 2011 4:39 pm • link • report

@EJ

Thank you for the website. I promptly registered.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second: why wouldn't the support then be for the ICC to traverse from Frederick City east through Carroll County, then terminate somewhere in relatively conserative and somewhat rural upper Baltimore County?

This last bit is completely unrelated to the post, but I'd like to know if there's any guidance on re-designating transit stations when there are multiple modes of transportation that can provide transfers from one system to another.

(ex. - New Carrolton Metro Station.
Add the Purple Line terminus: New Carrolton Transit Station.
Factor in the MARC station: New Carrolton Transit Center.)

Thoughts?

by C. R. on Feb 9, 2011 6:55 pm • link • report

@ Adam L: In other cities with large non-resident commuter populations (e.g. New York), they at least collect income tax revenue at its source to help pay for all the additional expense.

Does NY tax the NJ crowd that works there? Does PA tax the NJ crowd that works in Philly? Does IL tax the IN and WI folks that work in (greater) Chicago? Does OH tax the KY workers in Cincinnati?

I think not.

Furthermore, being DC also has benefits. You get pretty monuments. For free. You get fantastic Museums. For free. DC has more National Parks than any other state, while having the smallest area.

Just sayin'. Stop whining. You're way better of that some rural county in the empty planes.

by Jasper on Feb 9, 2011 7:49 pm • link • report

@Jasper
I can answer one of those. Philadelphia has a wage tax. Residents pay approximately 4%; non-residents pay about 3.5%

by Matvey on Feb 9, 2011 8:43 pm • link • report

I can answeer the NY/NJ one: yes. If you live in NJ and work in NY, you pay taxes to both NJ and NY. You get to claim NY taxes as a NJ credit, so you end up just paying the maximum of both taxes. NYC also has an income tax, which you pay as well (even if you live in NJ).

It seems clear that at least some of the opposition to a "commuter tax" is that most people have no idea this is common practice in most places in the country where people live in one state and work in another.

by David Alpert on Feb 9, 2011 8:58 pm • link • report

@Jasper

I think the reason that DC does not have a "commuter tax" (an income tax on non-residents who primarily work in a given locale) is a prohibition was written into the DC government charter when it passed Congress.

@ Adam L

Jasper has a real point, DC receives many federal resources that a city in a State would not. One example is many of the stations in the downtown/mall did not count towards the DC share of the overall system cost back in the 70's. Since those stations would principally serve federal purposes (employees or visitors) they were part of the federal share of the metro construction budget. However, overall I don't know if all of the services provided to and revenues from non-resident commuters equal out.

by Adam G on Feb 9, 2011 10:18 pm • link • report

Does NY tax the NJ crowd that works there? Does PA tax the NJ crowd that works in Philly? Does IL tax the IN and WI folks that work in (greater) Chicago? Does OH tax the KY workers in Cincinnati?

I think not.

Damn! I wanted to hit Jasper with the clue-stick!

http://www.payroll-taxes.com/articles/reciprocals.html

I kid! I kid!

by oboe on Feb 10, 2011 8:44 am • link • report

@ Matvey, David, and oboe: I had no clue. Thanks for the info. I thought the US had this big thing about taxation with representation and that DC was the only exception. Apparently, there is plenty of taxation without representation.

oboe, you can beat me - as long as it's with a fact stick. I don't mind. One can get smarter only be learning. And based on your link, IL does charge IN residents. But I was right on one at least! OH and KY do no charge each other's residents!

by Jasper on Feb 10, 2011 9:10 am • link • report

@Jasper

This isn't a matter of taxation without representation. Every state has the ability to tax income at the source. What we're talking about is commuter taxes, which is largely a result of anachronistic political boundaries.

Nevertheless, it's not like those being taxed in NY while living in NJ have no say whatsoever in the policy decisions of each - their duly elected representatives from NJ have connections to the NY reps as well.

by Alex B. on Feb 10, 2011 9:37 am • link • report

@ Alex B: This isn't a matter of taxation without representation.

How do NJ residents that get taxed by NY and NYC have a vote on how that money is spent? They don't. They get taxed without representation.

their duly elected representatives from NJ have connections to the NY reps as well.

Yeah... And the DC city council has connection on the Hill... I am sure that's enough.

by Jasper on Feb 10, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report