Posts about Richard Madaleno

Transit

Madaleno opposes Jones Bridge BRT in public, supports it in private

by Cavan Wilk   •   June 17, 2009 8:49 am

Last week, I wrote about how Maryland State Senator Richard Madaleno's (D-District 18, Montgomery) position against transit funding and in favor of HOT lanes was "penny-wise and pound-foolish." More recently, he has been opposing a BRT Purple Line on Jones Bridge Road in public, while accompanying pro-BRT on Jones Bridge representatives from the Town of Chevy Chase to meet with Governor O'Malley (D) in private, according to the Action Committee for Transit (PDF).

In testimony and public statements, Sen. Madaleno has opposed the plan to convert two lanes of Jones Bridge Road into a Bus Rapid Transit line....

But ACT has learned that Sen. Madaleno recently accompanied Town of Chevy Chase officials on an unpublicized visit to Governor Martin O'Malley to lobby in favor of the busway. The town strongly favors the Jones Bridge Road busway, which it has spent more than $400,000 to promote.

Meanwhile Town of Chevy Chase residents have raised questions on a local listserv about whether the Madaleno meeting violated open meeting rules. A listserv contributor cited reports that three of the town's five council members had attended the meeting and asked whether what might amount to a council meeting had complied with open meeting laws.

The Town of Chevy Chase has opposed the Purple Line for 20 years. When the political calculus appeared to start to favor the construction of the Purple Line, a proposal for "Bus Rapid Transit" on Jones Bridge Road appeared as part of the Purple Line study.

Since then, the Prince George's and Montgomery County councils both unanimously voted in favor of a Light Rail Purple Line. Both County Executives have signed off on those council resolutions. It is most likely that Governor O'Malley would select the locally preferred alternative. In the New Starts process, a governor's decision that is contrary to the locally preferred alternative is not regarded favorably. The Purple Line will be competing for scarce federal funds and needs to conform to FTA metrics as much as possible in order to be successful.

Why would Mr. Madaleno say one thing in public and another in private? His district encompasses Chevy Chase, Kensington, western Silver Spring (Woodside), and Wheaton. (Disclosure: I reside in District 18.) Support for the Purple Line is high within District 18. The few pockets of opposition come from the Town of Chevy Chase. Why would an elected official say something in public that pleases a majority of his constituents while doing something in private that pleases less than 100 at the expense of thousands?

Also, why would a state level representative of Montgomery County privately lobby for things that are contrary to the will of the duly elected county government of his district? Both Montgomery and Prince George's counties have been working for many decades to make the Purple Line a reality. Bus Rapid Transit on Jones Bridge Road would not work because the buses would be stuck in heavy rush hour automobile traffic and is a bad idea for many other reasons. Being penny-wise and pound-foolish is one thing. Representing the will of a handful of constituents against the wishes of thousands of others is a whole other can of worms.

Mr. Madaleno should cut out the back-door lobbying on behalf of a small constituency of anti-neighbors and work hard in Annapolis to make sure that the will of the majority of the citizens of District 18, Montgomery County, and the Montgomery and Prince George's County Councils come to fruition. The Washington region, including District and Virginia residents, Maryland as a whole, and our daily lives will become more economically vibrant and ecologically sustainable with a rail Purple Line.

Roads

Madaleno's anti-transit stance penny wise, pound foolish

by Cavan Wilk   •   June 11, 2009 10:00 am

Maryland State Senator Richard Madaleno (D-District 18, Montgomery) has been opposing new transit projects for fiscal reasons while supporting irresponsible freeway expansions. Madaleno's stances are counterproductive to planning a sustainable future for Montgomery County, our region, and the State of Maryland, according to the Action Committee for Transit.

At a November 19, 2008 Purple Line hearing, he said:

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

While everyone agrees on the obvious positives of fiscal prudence, Madeleno also supported spending $800 million on new HOT lanes. These new toll lanes on I-95 northeast of Baltimore will be subsidized by the whole state, yet only a few will use them because of their high tolls.

While the Washington Metro cost $10 billion to construct, it has returned uncountable billions in economic returns for all WMATA jurisdictions. Those returns will continue in perpetuity as long as the system remains in operation. Other American cities as diverse as New York, Portland, and Charlotte have experienced similar economic returns, proportional to the comprehensiveness of their respective intra-urban rail systems.

With each addition to an existing transit system, the system as a whole becomes more effective and convenient. For example, our Metro became more comprehensive and more convenient for multiple more trips and riders when the Green line was completed in 1999 (Columbia Heights, Petworth) and 2001 (Anacostia to Branch Avenue). The completion of the Purple Line, Silver Line, and DC streetcars will have similar proportional multipliers on the ridership and economic benefit of the whole system. If planned properly, the Corridor Cities Transitway would exhibit comparable effects. (Sadly, early indicators from one project, JHU "Science City" have not been good.)

On the other hand, adding HOT lanes to I-95 northeast of Baltimore is a completely different situation. I-95 was completed and dedicated on November 14, 1963 and is mature infrastructure. Spending $800 million on new lanes won't increase the number of transportation options for any additional people. The HOT lanes would only serve motorists who already drive on the highway. However, the few who decide to pay more for a HOT lane will take a separate, expensive lane. If Maryland is lucky, the project will break even, fiscally. There will be no economic multipliers from improved mobility options for more people, or from changes in land use like in the Rosslyn-Ballson Corridor.

Opposing transit projects due to fiscal arguments is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Opposing transit projects while supporting HOT lane construction just implies a lack of comprehension about why societies construct infrastructure. Spending $800 million on HOT lanes to benefit a few wealthy motorists at the expense of transit riders (of all economic classes) is misguided at best, cynical at worst.

This kind of auto-centric thinking is at odds with the rest of the Montgomery County delegation in Annapolis. Funding HOT lanes with potential transit monies is a policy that won't do anything for anyone, except a handful of wealthy motorists twice a day on weekdays. Meanwhile, the opportunity costs of not building transit will be huge: stunted economic growth, increased CO2 emissions from automobiles, and more arable land paved over for suburban arterials, strip malls, and McMansions.