Posts about Martin O'Malley

For example, in Montgomery County, the state will build a $63 million interchange at Georgia Avenue (MD 97) and Randolph Road, to speed up traffic near the Glenmont Metro station. With ramps and longer crossings, the interchange will further degrade pedestrian access to nearby shopping from residences.

For the amount spent on this project, the county could build much of the long-discussed Georgia Avenue bus rapid transit project from Wheaton to Olney instead.

Montgomery County is pushing another grade-separated interchange at the Veirs Mill Road (MD 586) and Randolph Road. Based on past experience, we can expect that the planned Veirs Mill bus rapid transit project (the county's largest bus route) will continue to lose out to the expensive interchange for priority.

The interchange would not only compete for funds with this proposed rapid bus corridor, it would also make conditions much worse for the many pedestrians who cross these roads to stores and bus stops at the intersection. Read the whole list of the county's priority transportation projects here.

In Prince George's, despite numerous setbacks, the 6,000-acre greenfield Westphalia development project outside the Capital Beltway and miles from the nearest Metro station still maintains a top ranking on the list from local elected officials. The price tag for the road infrastructure to serve this massive tract of largely undeveloped land is $460 million.

The transportation projects would convert Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4) into a freeway from the Capitol Beltway to Woodyard Road (MD 223), and add 4 interchanges along the way. The Westphalia plan calls for adding 14,000-15,300 new residential units and up 6 million square feet of commercial space.

The county transportation lists also contain important transit, bike, and pedestrian projects, but often these proposals languish while road projects advance. Other important transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and complete streets solutions never even make the list. We need to fund projects that meet the growing demand for more transportation choices that save time, energy, and money.

If Marylanders are asked to pay more, each dollar must be invested wisely. Residents need better and more affordable transportation choices. So where should this money go?

First, let's fix Maryland's existing infrastructure, like our aging roads, bridges and transit systems. Then, let's build modern transit to move more people efficiently and competitively, while providing alternatives to congested highways like the Beltway, I-95, and I-270. It's long past time for critical rail investments like the Purple Line, Baltimore Red Line and MARC expansion, and better bus service.

At the local level, state revenue to local governments should go to fix and maintain local street connections, sidewalks, and bikeways for existing communities.

Moreover, given high unemployment, smart growth transit options can help the economy. Public transportation and road maintenance are the biggest job creators. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, investments in road maintenance projects create 9% more jobs than spending on new highway capacity; increasing transit capacity creates 19% more jobs than new highway capacity.

If Marylanders are going to pay more, we deserve to know what the money will buy. We need a bill that that specifies smart, fix-it-first policies for the state. Otherwise, we're just throwing our money into the dark.

Maryland's gas tax goes into the state's Transportation Trust Fund, along with the sales tax on car sales, fares paid on MARC trains and MTA buses, and revenues from BWI Marshall Airport and the Port of Baltimore. When the gas tax was last raised in 1992, the 23½¢ state tax was 33% of the pretax price of gasoline. The sales tax on other pur­chases was 5%. The heavy tax on gas could be described as a user fee paid by drivers.

Today, though, the state gas tax is a little more than 7% of the price of gasoline. When drivers buy gas, they pay 7% into the transportation trust fund and get 6% back from the state's general fund through the exemption of gasoline from the sales tax.

Ending the exemption would convert the gas tax back into a true user fee. Drivers would then pay a share of the cost of maintaining roads, just as transit riders pay a share of the cost of transit operations through their fares.

Many myths surround the subject of transportation funding, in Maryland as in other states. Transit advocates need to be vigilant as the legislature debates this issue to make sure that new funding builds transit lines and walkable grid streets rather than repeating the mistakes of the past. The better the public understands the realities of the state budget, the easier this will be.

The state would be picking up a large portion of the inflated tab. Will the Governor merely provide funds to enable local decision-making at its worst, or will he lead these counties to build the better, lower-cost trail that, for a variety of institutional reasons, they are unable to pursue on their own?

The Washington, Baltimore, and Annapolis Trail runs along the right of way of the old railroad of the same name from Lanham to the Patuxent River in Prince George's County, a distance of about 6 miles. One mile northeast of the Patuxent, the trail picks up again and continues for 4 miles to Odenton. From there, you can take mostly local streets to connect to the BWI Airport and Trail.

Anne Arundel County is preparing to build a trail along the South Shore Line of the old WB&A railroad from the eastern end of the WB&A trail to Annapolis. Meanwhile, Prince George's County plans to build a trail from the western end of the WB&A Trail to Bladensburg and the Anacostia River Trail. Building the connection over the Patuxent River to connect the two segments of the WB&A Trail is thus the highest priority in the Missing Links Program at the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Anne Arundel's detour and the direct alignment.

The land between the two trail segments is undeveloped. A single developer owns the old railbed for about half the distance, and the land next to the railroad right of way for the other half. As part of the permit process for the planned Preserve at Two Rivers, Anne Arundel County could easily extend the trail in a straight line to the water's edge.

Instead, the County wants the developer to build a winding detour that would reach the Patuxent River on the Anne Arundel side about a mile north of where the trail currently reaches the river on the Prince George's side. Under the proposed site plan, the development will also place homes atop the old right of way, and thereby ensure that a straight trail is never built.

Railroads were always good at finding the route with the most favorable topography. Thus, the old railbed would provide a gradual slope down to the river. The detour would send the trail first up a small hill, then down a steep incline toward the river.

The route down to the river is so steep it requires several switchbacks. According to officials who attended a meeting on the subject in September, the turns are so sharp that the maximum safe speed is 7 mph, and the steep slopes do not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Then, at the bottom of the hill, the detour trail would have to cross several hundred feet of floodplain wetlands before reaching the river.

Why does Anne Arundel County prefer a costly detour that seriously degrades the quality of the trail? I have been unable to find any official willing to offer a clear rationale.

According to Ken Alban, Chief of Capital Projects for the parks department, the county is pursuing the detour because a decision was made to pursue the detour years ago, before he took his position. "I have many projects and I cannot be continually revisiting the rationale behind each one, or nothing would ever get built," he says.

The detour alignment was originally proposed at the turn of the century by Buz Meyer, who owned the land along the Patuxent River immediately southeast of the railbed. Both the County and Meyer claimed ownership of the railbed itself.

Several officials who were with the county ten years ago told me that the decision to pursue the detour was made around 2001 by then-County Executive Janet Owens. Until then, the County had planned to run the trail on the right of way, but it eventually conceded that the right-of-way within about 1000 feet of the river was owned by Meyer.

Why didn't the county simply move the trail alignment by about 50 feet from the old roadbed to the adjacent parcel to the northwest? Three county officials told me that Meyer did not want the trail near his land because of the risk of stray bullets from his property, which was used for hunting and firearms training.

Apparently the detour was the only alternative in 2001. But circumstances have changed. A developer now owns the land northwest of the railbed. And Buz Meyer died recently. His son, Andrew Meyer, told me that he opposes the trail being on his property, but that he does not care if a trail is on the adjacent parcel, as long as people do not trespass on his land.

A fence could easily be built. In fact, a high wall was built to stop bullets and trespassing where the WB&A Trail runs along the grounds of the Berwyn Rod and Gun Club in Bowie.

Mr. Alban asked me why cyclists would want this more direct route. I told him it would allow people to arrive at their destination 10 minutes sooner. He told me he was surprised: "No one has ever suggested to me that this trail will be used for transportation," he said. "I doubt that people will use this trail for commuting."

Prince George's County has consistently favored the direct trail and opposed the detour since 2001, when then-county executive Wayne Curry sent Owens a letter explaining the the County's position.

A few years ago, Prince George's added a ½-mile segment extending the trail to the water's edge, which would be superfluous if the detour trail was built. County park and planning staff continue to favor the direct connection. But after a decade, they have also become pessimistic about whether it will ever be completed. So they are building a short trail along another old rail spur that would facilitate the detour, should it become the only option.

State officials almost universally are skeptical about the detour, but feel that there is nothing they can do even though the prospect of state funds is driving the process. Steve Carr of the Department of Natural Resources told Maryland's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee that because the detour runs through wetlands in a floodplain, the permit process could take years.

I asked whether the state can do a complete alternatives analysis and pick the optimal route in a public process. "If and when the state conducts a design study, it can conduct an alternatives analysis," said Dustin Kuzan, the state's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator.

"But what if Anne Arundel County and the planned development make the direct route far more costly before that study begins," I asked. "We may not fund the best option, but the state can not make local land use decisions," he said.

Maryland is thinking of funding a wasteful detour bridge that makes no sense today, because the detour was the only practical alternative ten years ago. Middle management apparently lacks authority or incentive to pursue the more valuable and lower-cost alignment. MDOT needs leadership from Governor O'Malley to ensure the state doesn't waste money building an inferior trail.

Rather than keep pushing legislative sledgehammer solutions, McDonnell could try to work constructively with Northern Virginia leaders. He could have some of his staff work with them more closely to devise solutions and policies. He could make some recommendations on his own and publicize them, to lead by espousing ideas.

But that's not McDonnell's approach. Instead, he just says, "give me power because I should have it." Northern Virginians have been skeptical of this claim, knowing that McDonnell doesn't consider them his political base and that he has already sought to weight transportation spending away from the Washington region.

Now, he's submitted his list of budget amendments, including one (#50, on page 23) to seize the Board seat. The legislature should reject this budget amendment, as they did the earlier attempts.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, senators paid attention to advocates' concerns about a bill to set criteria for WMATA Board appointments. Transit groups praised provisions that would require appointees to be regular riders and disclose how many meetings they attend, but wanted to strip out rules that elected officials couldn't serve and that set up professional qualifications.

The Senate committee didn't reach consensus on how to fix the bill before "crossover day," the deadline to send bills to the House of Delegates. That makes the bill almost certainly dead for this year. There were some good ideas in there, so Governor O'Malley should resubmit it next year without the objectionable elements.

That's a bad step, but Benjamin and Hewlett already weren't elected officials who did usually attend meetings.

In the debate over WMATA governance, there are two competing views of the role of the Board. The Riders' Advisory Council and most advocacy groups feel that the Board should include public elected officials who represent their constituents, many of whom are riders, and are responsive to rider needs and concerns.

The Board of Trade instead wants to minimize the role of elected officials and create a Board composed of "experts," who make transit decisions without "politics." The danger of this view is that a bunch of experts are likely to make decisions around what's best for the trains and buses, not the people. "Politics" is just another term for people's concerns being heard.

Local officials also have greater power to advocate for WMATA funding with their home jurisdictions. Since they also make land use decisions, local officials who also participate in the board can better bring transit issues to local deliberations around planning near transit facilities.

WMATA has to make many technical decisions, but the solution is not to put a bunch of technical people on the Board. Instead, the technical people should work for the agency, and the board leave technical decisions to the CEO while reviewing them for policy implications. Elected officials are the right people to make policy decisions.

Despite Maryland officials insisting they planned to listen to public input before making governance decisions, O'Malley has submitted this legislation which codifies the "let experts run it" worldview.

The legislation would require the following from the governor's Maryland appointees:

1. Writes into the law the existing unofficial practice of letting the governor pick the two voting members.
   
2. Forbids elected officials from serving on the board.
   
3. Forbids people from serving who worked for WMATA within the last year.
   
4. Requires members to have experience in transportation and land use planning, transportation or other public sector management, engineering, finance, public safety, homeland security or law.
   
5. Requires members to be regular passengers of bus or rail.
   
6. Requires members to submit reports twice a year showing their attendance at board meetings.

Items 3, 5, and 6 are fine, and generally good ideas.

Item 5 should also list MetroAccess along with bus and rail. No current board members ride paratransit regularly, but those who do should be just as qualified to be board members. Item 6 should also stipulate that the attendance reports be publicly released, such as by posting online.

Item 1 codifies existing practice, but a practice that shouldn't be written into law. Formerly, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties appointed the voting members. Then, the state government took over all the funding responsibility for Metro, and in exchange got those appointments.

But what if a future governor decides not to keep funding Metro? The law doesn't require that, so why should it require he get to appoint the voting members?

Item 2 moves in the wrong direction. Maryland should have more elected officials, not fewer. Maryland officials who spoke to the RAC said they already believe the Maryland Contitution's prohibition on elected officials holding "offices of profit" forbids elected officials from serving on the board.

However, elected officials do sit on the Transportation Planning Board, so clearly they can serve on some kinds of boards. The RAC argued in its report for considering the WMATA Board similarly.

Item 4 is wrong-headed. Board members should be chosen for their ability to effectively decide policy issues and represent Maryland, not for specific professional experience. This is so broadly written that it will limit few people, such as allowing anyone with experience in law. But why limit at all?

It's also not clear what "experience" means. Does riding Metro count as transportation experience? If so, then certainly someone should have some transportation experience. But most likely they mean professional experience. Does serving on the TPB or other boards count?

Montgomery alternate Kathy Porter, for example, seems to be a great member so far. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School, but had she not gotten that specific degree but still served as Mayor of Takoma Park and served on other transportation boards, would she be qualified?

Tommy Wells has a JD degree, but before that his professional background was in social work and running social service organizations. If he hadn't taken a few years to go to law school, would he somehow be unqualified to serve on the board? The general counsel answers detailed legal questions, not board members.

Cathy Hudgins, the current board chair, originally studied math education. Does her subsequent MPA degree really mean the difference between being an unqualified board member and a qualified one?

The Maryland legislature should strip these provisions from the proposed bill entirely.

Meanwhile, none of this explains why O'Malley wanted to replace Benjamin, who would have had no trouble with any of the standards. Observers will be waiting with bated breath to see who O'Malley chooses to replace Benjamin and Hewlett, and what that says about his views on Metro.

1. Approval of the Tysons Corner plan: After seven years in the making, the plan will transform the infamous "Edge City" into a sustainable urban community. It's a real first for the nation, and people around the country are watching to see how it turns out.

Change doesn't happen in a vacuum, and this is no exception. It took countless phone calls, letters to elected officials and testimony by the residents of Fairfax and others throughout the region. It must have been the astoundingly frustrating traffic that kept everyone motivated to make change happen.

While the plan will take years to implement, development applications are already moving forward and the approval is the catalyst for making Tysons Corner a walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented community with a vibrant mix of homes, jobs, retail, parks and entertainment.

2. Passage of the White Flint Sector Plan: If you hang around White Flint or joined us for our walking tour, you know that White Flint, like Tysons Corner, isn't exactly a model of walkability. But with the unanimous passage of this plan (PDF), we can look forward to a vibrant, walkable center for North Bethesda anchored by the White Flint Metro station.

The plans include adding new parks and public spaces, an improved local street network, a boulevard conversion for Rockville Pike, a vibrant mix of uses, more housing choices, and better pedestrian/bicyclist access.

3. Pedestrian victories across the District: The Washington Area Bicyclist Association and Greater Greater Washington have led the way in making DC a lot more bike-friendly. But this year saw a lot of progress for pedestrians too. The DC Council passed the Sidewalk Assurance Act, ensuring that DDOT adds or completes sidewalks while they perform scheduled reconstruction of streets that have missing sidewalks. Simple, common sense.

We joined forces with Connecticut Avenue Pedestrian Action to improve walking conditions along a major dangerous roadway in the District. This grassroots-led effort, that started with volunteers in safety vests taking notes along Connecticut Avenue, concluded with the community presenting a professional pedestrian safety audit and research report (PDF) to DDOT.

Progress continued near the Minnesota Avenue Metro station with the launching of the Nannie Helen Burroughs Great Streets project. We also pushed for fixing the narrow sidewalks at the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station as part of the new development project.

4. Saving Metro service: It's been an ongoing struggle to sustain Metro service through these tough economic times, and devastating cuts were closer than ever to becoming a reality. A coalition of transit advocacy organizations, including CSG, Sierra Club, Action Committee for Transit, and Greater Greater Washington, led the way to preservation of this region's most vital asset.

Thousands of signatures sent to elected officials and the WMATA board won increased funding from the jurisdictions and avoided massive service cuts. The cuts would have hurt businesses and workers who rely on Metro every day, delivering a blow to our region's economic vitality.

Speaking of Metro, did you send your email to defend the $230 monthly transit benefit?

5. Capital Bikeshare: Strength lies in numbers, and we're thrilled with the 1,100 Capital Bikeshare bikes and 114 stations throughout D.C. and Arlington. The day the program launched, we saw tons of people on the shiny red bikes. Ridership hit nearly 37,000 trips in the first month.

Leave your bike and lock at home. Hop on a CaBi, ride to a meeting and deposit the bike at a nearby station. No worries. Combined with all the new bike lanes, it's clear that residents are increasingly choosing cycling as a mode of transportation. Just remember to wear a helmet!

Honorable mentions:

• COG reports (both PDFs) called "What Would it Take?" and "Aspirations" (the land use portion of the scenario, NOT the $52 billion in toll roads) confirmed what we've long said: transit-oriented, walkable communities are effective in reducing driving and traffic.
  
• Adoption of our recommendations in the Envision Prince George's report.
  
• Passage of the Alexandria Potomac Yard Plan.
  
• Passage of Arlington's Crystal City Plan.
  
• Governor O'Malley making transit-oriented development a priority in Maryland.
  
• Prince George's winning a HUD Challenge Grant for the Green Line, while the District won a large grant for affordable housing.

Wonder what else happened this year? Check out our year-end highlights.

Stewart Schwartz is Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.