According
to the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the Maryland
Transportation Trust Fund was established in 1971 and is funded through a
number of sources. These include corporate income taxes, vehicle titling taxes,
transit fares, MVA fees, and of course the gas tax (which interestingly enough only
makes up about 20% of trust fund revenue). According to MDOT, pooling all
transportation revenue into a single fund gives the state a great deal of
flexibility as to what it spends its transportation dollars on. The Maryland
Transportation Trust Fund is viewed as a national model for how to fund
transportation.
In
a sense, this flexibility is a good thing as there is an argument to be made
that policymakers should be able to spend the money as they wish. But there is
also a downside. Many transit agencies have their own dedicated source of money
that they can draw from. But both the MTA and WMATA must go to the legislature
each year for funding. Such a situation most likely creates uncertainty for
both organizations and may make long term budget planning difficult.
Furthermore, with such flexibility there is nothing to stop policymakers from
completely gutting transit funding and spending the money on wasteful highway
projects.
This
isn't just a theoretical situation. During the Ehrlich administration there was
a plan to redesign the bus system. This was known as the Greater Baltimore Bus
Initiative. While the need for a bus system redesign was (and still is) long
overdue, the Initiative was more about cutting the MTA's funding than it was
about creating a system that works for everyone. Eventually the Legislature had
to step in and prevent further changes to the MTA's route structure.
Having
the Trust Fund serve as the end all be all for transportation financing may
also make it difficult to raise revenue. Since the Trust Fund relies on revenue
throughout the state it must fund projects throughout the state. This means
that transportation projects have their futures intertwined with each other. Some
of these projects have more support and are of greater use than others.
There
are three components that increased revenue from the Transportation Trust Fund
will be spent on. The first component is the Purple Line. The Purple Line is a
light rail line through the DC suburbs that is projected to carry about
69,000 people a day by 2030. The only organized opposition to this project
comes from a country club in Chevy Chase worried about the effect it will have
on their precious golf course. Elected officials in Montgomery and Prince
George's County's are so determined to get the line built they have even
considered instituting a regional gas tax should the legislature fail to
shore up the Trust Fund.
The
second component consists of the Baltimore Red Line. Since the beginning of Red
Line planning, ridership projections have fluctuated around a bit but the line
is currently projected to have about 50,000 passengers a day by 2030. There
has been considerable opposition to the Red Line. While much of this opposition
has come from those more concerned about car lanes than anything else, many of
those opposed to the Red Line are true transit advocates. The reasons
pro-transit advocates oppose the Red Line are complex and are better discussed
at another time. Unlike in the DC suburbs, Baltimore's political leaders do not
have the same enthusiasm for the Red Line. The project is little
more than a footnote when it come's to the city's agenda for this year's state
General Assembly and Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz does
not even name the Red Line as a top transportation priority.
The
third component is made up of highway expansions. This component is just plain
stupid. Due to the
phenomenon of induced traffic, more highway lanes only lead to more traffic. For
some reason policymakers have yet to understand this proven concept.
All
of the above projects will rise and fall together even though they have varying
levels of merit and support. While the state should pay for a significant
portion of all transit projects, having it be the only source of funding may be
a mistake. If policymakers are serious about getting major transit projects it
may be time to consider regional sources of funding. These may include things
like regional payroll, income, sales, or property taxes.
More
regional funding could potentially mean more local control over the system. The
MTA is currently a state agency with local officials having no say in how the
system is run. Most other systems are independent authorities with their own
board of directors (which are often in part appointed by local officials). Such
an arrangement harms the ability of the MTA to do its mission. For example, the
MTA must follow state procurement procedures. This means that when the MTA is
making major investments they must first be approved by the MTA's own
procurement office, then MDOT headquarters, then the state Department of Budget
and Management, and finally the Board of Public Works. This is part of the
reason why it has taken the MTA six or seven years (and counting) to put in a
real-time arrival system.
Changing
the funding and governance structure transit in Baltimore will not be an easy
task. It will require strong efforts from both grassroots activists and more
establishment organizations like big business and large nonprofit
organizations. However, I do believe the benefits of such an arrangement could
be worthwhile.
- Gregory Friedman
NOTE: Shortly after I finished writing the draft for this blog post. Maryland Senate President Thomas V. “Mike Miller” proposed a funding plan similar to what I discuss below. These are potentially exciting times for transit in the Baltimore region.
Strange how the Red Line gets short shrift in these discussions. Can you say nothing positive about the project, Mr. Friedman? Maybe you could have mentioned that the Greater Baltimore Committee and the area's business leaders have been vocal supporters of this project since day one? You may have also pointed out the rather large difference in income of the residents in these two corridors (i.e. who REALLY needs transit more - Baltimore or MoCo?) Yes, the DC area's political class is more "on board" with the Purple Line. But why not explain the race and class related issues that have driven the lack of enthusiasm for the project among politicians in Baltimore's suburbs? Well, here's my two cents - While the Purple Line is little more than an "add on" to a rail transit system that is already one of the finest in the world, the Red Line is absolutely essential to making Baltimore's sub par transit network effective on a very basic level. When seen in light of the Baltimore area's transit needs, the Purple Line is an extravagance - period. Consider this - the Red Line will serve a corridor that is filled with high-density, low income populations with no access to cars. Meanwhile, the Purple Line will serve a moderate to high income population with many quality transit options and high levels of car ownership. The mentioning of the golf course is instructive - these are the wealthy DC burbs, here. I wish Baltimore area advocates had made the argument that the Purple Line corridor has already seen enormous Maryland taxpayer expenditure towards remedying their traffic problems through the construction of the ICC. Hence, an argument could have been made to drop the Purple Line if - for no other reason - as a sop to basic fairness between the two regions. Instead, it seems that both projects are tied at the hip, regardless of the fact that they are fundamentally different and serve very different populations. By failing to show the Red Line's unique qualities and obvious advantages for a population dying for good basic transit, a real opportunity may have been lost.
ReplyDelete