Making Tracks the Case for Building a 21St Century Public Transportation Network in Maryland

Making Tracks The Case for Building a 21st Century Public Transportation Network in Maryland

Maryland PIRG Foundation Making Tracks The Case for Building a 21st Century Public Transportation Network in Maryland

Maryland PIRG Foundation Sarah Payne, Frontier Group Elizabeth Ridlington, Frontier Group Kristi Horvath, Maryland PIRG Foundation Johanna Neumann, Maryland PIRG Foundation

March 2009 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Eric Christensen of the Maryland Transit Administration and Richard Chambers, Esq., board member of the Transit Riders Action Council of Metro- politan Baltimore, for their review of this report. The authors would also like to thank Tony Dutzik, Travis Madsen and Susan Rakov of Frontier Group for their editorial assistance.

The generous financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation, Surdna Foundation, and Wallace Global Foundation made this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Maryland PIRG Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, Maryland PIRG Foundation offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. Maryland PIRG Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organiza- tion, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Maryland residents meaningful opportunities for civic participation.

For more information about Maryland PIRG Foundation or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.MarylandPIRG.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.FrontierGroup.org.

Cover photo: DC metro station, Robert Simon, under license from www.istockphoto.com Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 The Case for More and Better 6 Public Transportation in Maryland Travel Trends 7 The Benefits of Transit in Maryland 8 State Transportation Funding Has Been Focused on Roads and Highways 9

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 11 Goals of Improved Public Transit in Maryland 11 D.C. Metropolitan Area Improvements 12 Baltimore Metro Area Improvements 17 Statewide Improvements 21

From Vision to Reality: 26 A 21st Century Transit System for Maryland Federal Government 27 State Policy 28

Conclusion 29 Notes 30

Executive Summary

ransportation is an urgent problem for • More Marylanders are driving farther Maryland. Heavy automobile traffic is in automobiles than ever before. Since Tstealing time from Maryland families the 1980s, the number of per-capita and businesses, and forcing consumers to miles driven in Maryland has jumped burn more money at the gas pump. Traffic nearly 50 percent. is also making our air less healthy, deepen- ing our oil dependency, and creating more • Marylanders have the second longest global warming pollution. average commute time in the country, Clean, efficient public transportation second only to New York. The aver- already helps millions of Marylanders get age Maryland employee, for example, where they need to go—saving consumers spends 30.2 minutes commuting to time and money, cutting air pollution, re- work each day. This problem has ducing our dependence on oil, and helping worsened drastically in recent decades: to drive economic growth. in 2005, drivers in the Baltimore area To fix its transportation troubles and were wasting 700 percent more time help ensure a healthier, safer and more in traffic than they did in 1982. prosperous future, Maryland must invest in public transportation for the 21st • Between 2002 and 2006, gasoline ex- century. Officials must prioritize a set of penditures rose 81 percent in the state, important and connected transit projects, causing Marylanders to spend over $3 as well as provide the funding to make the billion more to fuel their cars. While vision of a brighter transportation future gasoline prices have fallen recently, a reality. Maryland’s dependence on oil leaves us vulnerable to volatile world markets Maryland’s car-based transportation and dependent on foreign sources of system is in trouble. It is leading the energy. state to more traffic, greater oil dependency, more money spent on gas, and • Transportation-based global warm- more global warming pollution. ing pollution increased 37 percent

Executive Summary 1 between 1990 and 2005 statewide, rose 7.5 percent compared to October jeopardizing Maryland’s efforts to cut of the previous year. global warming emissions. • In 2005, use of Baltimore’s public Despite limited transit options and transit network alone averted nearly falling gas prices, more Marylanders 10 million hours of traffic delays, are using public transportation. By do- saved consumers $200 million, avoiding so, they are delivering important ed burning over 30 million gallons of economic and environmental benefits. gasoline, and kept close to a million metric tons of global warming pollu- • The number of miles that passengers tion out of Maryland’s air. traveled on the state’s public transportation services increased by 50 percent Maryland can reduce traffic, shrink between 1991 and 2007. Ridership per its oil dependency, help clean up its air, capita increased 30 percent between cut global warming pollution, and grow 1991 and 2007. Between January and healthier communities by investing in August 2008 alone, ridership rose 3.7 public transit. Good transit investments percent compared to the same period for Maryland include the following (not in 2007. in order of priority):

• Ridership has continued to grow even • Creating a true regional rail system after gasoline prices began to fall: in for Baltimore by building the pro- October 2008, the number of pas- posed Red Line light rail, extending sengers on Maryland’s MARC system existing light rail and subway service,

Figure ES-1. Year-Over-Year Change in Transit Ridership vs. Vehicle Miles Traveled, January-August 2008 versus January-August 20071

TransitRidership 4% +3.7%

3% ge n 2% cha t CarandTruck VehicleMiles 1%

rcen Traveled e Ͳ 0.8% P 0%

Ͳ1%

Making Tracks and improving connections among state needs a compelling vision for various transit lines and with other change. Unifying a variety of projects transportation facilities. under a single plan will additionally help capture the efficiencies of inte- • Building the Washington Metro grated planning and design. Purple Line to help commuters who travel suburb-to-suburb inside the • Allocate funds to make the vision a real- Capital Beltway to avoid taking the ity. Maryland continues to spend large Metro all the way into the District in sums on expanding highways. While order to get to work or home. crumbling roads and bridges should be repaired, the focus of Maryland’s • Improving MARC commuter rail transportation spending should be options and commuter bus services. providing an investment for the future, not repeating past mistakes. • Building transit to link urban The state should adjust its priori- centers with quickly growing areas, ties for distributing money from the such as construction of the Corridor Transportation Trust Fund to provide Cities Transitway connecting Mont- dedicated and sustained funding for gomery and Frederick counties and good transit investments. a light rail line connecting southern Maryland with the Metro’s Green Line. • Urge Congress to enact a new federal transportation funding law. The new • Taking advantage of transit state- law should prioritize investing new wide by helping counties, smaller capital in public transit; fixing existing cities and towns provide bus, carpool roads and bridges rather than building and bike-friendly services, such as the more highways; and spending tax- TransIT program operating in Fred- payers’ money more wisely by using erick County. federal dollars to invest in high-priority transportation solutions. To fix its transportation problems for the long-haul, Maryland needs a clear • Integrate transit into the state’s long-term vision for 21st century transit and a plan development plan. Focusing BRAC-re- to back up transit projects with dedi- lated development projects and other cated and sustained funding. Maryland new development around principles officials should: of smart growth and transit-oriented development is an excellent strategy • Lay out a clear plan and timeline for more for building healthy communities and better public transit in Maryland. The statewide.

Executive Summary 3 Introduction

n a cold night in mid-February 1827, travel along the B&O right-of-way cleared a group of 25 Baltimore bankers in the 1820s. Oand merchants made a decision that Today, Maryland needs a similar long- would catalyze transportation in America. term vision for transportation in our state. At a time when railroads were barely start- A quick glance at newspaper headlines ing to be tested commercially in Europe reveals the challenges that are in store: and when slow boat transport on the Erie we face a future in which we will struggle Canal was the fastest means of East-West to meet the resource needs of a growing shipping in the United States, this small population—notably, needs for oil, clean group of Marylanders committed to fi- air, and space—and in which global warm- nancing the nation’s first railway. Their ing threatens our geography and economy vision, radical for its time, was a future in alike. The choices Maryland’s leaders make which passengers and goods could move today will help to determine how our state between the East Coast and Midwest with will respond to those challenges for de- efficiency, ease and speed. The resulting cades to come. Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) Railroad opened By investing in a 21st century network in 1830, and ushered in a new transporta- of public transportation, Maryland can tion age not only for Maryland, but for the address some of our most difficult prob- entire country. lems—from traffic congestion to the loss Nearly two centuries later—after a of precious open space to sprawl—while period that included the Civil War, the providing the infrastructure Maryland will harnessing of electricity, the invention need to grow and thrive in the years ahead. of the automobile and countless other Unlike the founders of the B&O, we do not changes—Marylanders still benefit from need to place a bet on risky technology—in the investment made by the founders of fact, commuter rail, light rail, and advanced the B&O. Even today, MARC commuter bus systems are already helping to save oil, trains on the Brunswick and Camden lines cut congestion and meet the transportation

Making Tracks needs of people in Maryland and across that Marylanders living in the year 2189 the country. benefit from the investments we make in To get there, however, Maryland’s lead- today’s transit system in the same ways ers must commit themselves to a vision of a that we continue to benefit from invest- future transportation system in which pub- ments made by the pioneers of the B&O lic transportation plays a leading role—and railroad nearly two centuries ago. But the invest the state’s resources accordingly. transportation choices we make today This report describes many projects de- will have long and deep repercussions serving of that investment. for Maryland’s future. We must choose It may be asking too much to require wisely.

Detail of a Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) Railroad map by Rand McNally & Co., circa 1876. Founded by a visionary group of Baltimore businessmen, the B&O was America’s first commercial and passenger service railroad, and helped catalyze transportation for the nation as a whole. Photo credit: Library of Congress

Introduction The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Maryland

ver the past two decades, Mary- landers have been driving more, Ospending more time every day stuck in traffic, and burning more gasoline, solidifying our dependence on oil. At the same time, more Maryland residents than ever are relying on public transportation to get them where they need to go. This increase in transit use is saving consumers time and money, keeping dangerous pollution out of our air, and helping to curb our addiction to oil. Maryland’s existing transportation system provides an important link between in-state locales and moves thousands of commuters daily to jobs within the District of Columbia. But the network as it now stands is far from meeting the blossoming transportation needs of a growing state— Heavy traffic wastes time and money, increases and even farther from helping Marylanders our oil dependence, generates thousands of tons deal with the massive challenges of success- of global warming pollution—and is on the ful growth in the 21st century. Today, the rise in Maryland. In 2003, Baltimore was state’s transportation infrastructure fails ranked the U.S. city with the highest percent- to deliver the clean, efficient, and energy- age of extreme commuters—with commutes smart solutions that will be essential in the that last 90 minutes or longer. Photo credit: coming decades. Drouu, under license from www.sxc.hu

Making Tracks Figure 1. Per-Capita Vehicle-Miles Traveled in Maryland, 1980-20073

12,000 s 10,000 Mile Ͳ

e 8,000 ehicl eled 6,000 v V

Tra 4,000 pita a C 2,000 Per

hours in traffic congestion in 2005—a more Travel Trends than 700 percent increase since 1982.5 Bad Maryland’s population has grown signifi- congestion extends far beyond Baltimore, cantly in recent years, but our automobile however, impacting commuters statewide. use has grown even faster. The number of Marylanders spend an average of 30.2 miles driven per person in Maryland has minutes commuting to work each day, increased steadily since the early 1980s, ranking the state second only to New York with Marylanders driving close to 50 for longest average commute time.6 percent more than they did roughly 20 The time drivers spend lodged in traffic years ago.2 amounts to dollars sucked out of Mary- With more people driving farther as our land’s economy. The cost of congestion in suburbs sprawl outward, traffic problems the Baltimore area alone nearly doubled are getting worse. In 2003, for example, between 2000 and 2005, costing the area’s Maryland ranked in the top three states economy $1.1 billion in wasted time and for “extreme” commutes—commutes that wasted fuel in 2005.7 This does not include last 90 minutes or longer. Baltimore itself economic opportunities lost due to time claimed the dubious honor of being the spent stuck in traffic, or the lost potential U.S. city with the highest percentage of of businesses and workers who chose not extreme commuters.4 Two years later, the to locate in the Baltimore area rather than average Baltimore peak-period commuter contend with the economic pitfalls and was losing 44 hours a year to traffic, the simple annoyance of bad traffic. equivalent of more than a week’s vacation A significant portion of these dollars time. Overall, drivers in the greater Bal- spent on congestion goes toward buy- timore area wasted more than 56 million ing more fuel. Traffic congestion in the

The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Maryland 7 Figure 2. Inflation-Adjusted Motor Gasoline Expenditures in Maryland’s Transportation Sector, 1980-200610

$7,000

ollars $6,000 d $5,000 $4,000 2006

of $3,000

ns $2,000 o $1,000

Milli $0

Baltimore area wasted more than 40 mil- The Benefits of Transit lion gallons of gasoline in 2005, a year that also saw a major jump in gas expenditure in Maryland in Maryland overall.8 Gasoline spending Faced with the many costs of driving, in the state has been generally on the rise more people in Maryland are using public since the early 1990s, with a steep 81 per- transportation. The number of passenger- cent increase of $3 billion between 2002 miles traveled on the state’s public transit and 2006.9 services, for example, increased 50 percent While gasoline prices have recently between 1991 and 2007.12 This increase declined, our dependence on gasoline for was not just about population growth: transportation leaves Maryland continu- per-capita ridership also increased by 30 ally vulnerable to the whims of the global percent between 1991 and 2007.13 Impor- oil market, and also dependent on foreign tantly, transit ridership has also remained sources for critical energy supplies. strong despite the late 2008 dive in gasoline The same rise in driving that has wors- prices. Not only did transit use continue ened traffic and cost Marylanders more to rise nationally through fall 2008, but money also helped cause a 37 percent jump Maryland’s MARC system reported a 7.5 in global warming pollution from trans- percent jump in ridership compared to portation in Maryland between 1990 and October of the previous year.14 2005.11 This increase threatens Maryland’s As public transportation ridership in efforts to reduce its contribution to global Maryland has been increasing over the past warming, which poses major threats to the year, vehicle travel has been on the decline. future of our state’s most cherished natural The number of vehicle-miles driven on places, including the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland’s roads declined by 0.8 percent

Making Tracks Figure 3. Year-Over-Year Change in Transit Ridership vs. Vehicle Miles Traveled, January-August 2008 versus January-August 2007

TransitRidership 4% +3.7%

3% ge n 2% cha t CarandTruck VehicleMiles 1%

rcen Traveled e Ͳ 0.8% P 0%

Ͳ1%

over the period between January and gallons of gasoline from being burned, August 2008 compared to same period in saving consumers $94 million at the pump, 2007.16 During this same time, total rider- and avoiding 960,000 metric tons of global ship on Maryland’s public transportation warming pollution.19 services rose by 3.7 percent.17 Public transportation also provides A 2007 report by the Texas Transpor- a host of other important, if difficult to tation Institute quantifies the benefits of quantify, benefits. Transit provides a increased transit use in Maryland. Public source of mobility to the poor, elderly, transportation in the Baltimore area alone children and disabled, many of whom saved travelers nearly 10 million hours cannot afford a car or cannot drive. In- of traffic delays in 2005, the equivalent vestments in transit have helped spark the of 4,800 years of work at a 40-hour-per- economic revitalization of areas around week job. The same services helped save transit stations, helping to create vibrant Baltimore’s economy $200 million in communities that are less dependent on wasted time and lost productivity in the the automobile. Transit riders are free same year.18 from the responsibilities of driving, mean- While saving time and money, public ing that they can use their time to read, transit is also helping Maryland reduce chat, catch up on the day’s news or, in an its oil addiction and curb global warming increasing number of transit vehicles, use pollution. In 2006, for example, Baltimore’s wireless Internet to check e-mail or do public transit network kept 36 million important work.

The Case for More and Better Public Transportation in Maryland 9 State Transportation Funding to solve Maryland’s transportation problems. At the same time, Maryland has Has Been Focused on Roads been forced to cut service on increasingly and Highways popular commuter rail and commuter bus Despite the obvious benefits of broader services. transportation options and investing in The construction of vast new highways public transit, Maryland’s focus has been to solve transportation problems is a on building more roads and highways. hold-over from a previous era—an era of The billions of dollars needed for the cheap gasoline, seemingly endless space planned Intercounty Connector (ICC), for development, and ignorance of envi- for example, will pay for 18 miles and 6 ronmental threats like global warming. To lanes of highway to link I-270 and I-95, meet today’s 21st century transportation but will also bring more sprawling de- challenges, Maryland needs a new vision. velopment, greater oil dependence and The projects described in the pages to fol- more air pollution, while doing too little low should be part of that vision.

900

800 s

e 700 600 Mil 500 er ions) l g 400

10 Making Tracks A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland

y investing in a wide variety of transit options—from subway and light rail Goals of Improved Public Bto commuter buses and regional rail— Transit in Maryland Maryland can grow in smarter, cleaner and Any transit investment strategy for Mary- more efficient ways, while providing new land should have a blueprint to guide it—a transportation options to Marylanders. set of goals that the state wishes to achieve. The following projects—many of which The state should set a target of complet- have been under discussion for years—can ing investments, by 2030 at the latest, that help Maryland achieve a 21st century vision would achieve the following goals: for public transportation. The projects included in this section 1) Fix Baltimore’s struggling public are not listed in order of priority. Transit transportation system to adequately investments must be evaluated on a range serve the 2.6 million Marylanders of criteria, from their impact on air qual- who live in the city’s metro area. Build ity and global warming emissions to their more and better local transit options potential to spark economic development using a combination of subway, light and improve quality of life. Investments rail and bus infrastructure. Improve in commuter rail, for example, deliver dif- commuter rail services to connect ferent benefits to different constituencies workers and employers more efficient- than investments in improved bus service ly across a broader area. for inner-city neighborhoods. As part of a transportation network, 2) Develop alternatives to highways on however, new transit projects connect and high-volume commuter corridors. Use add value to one another—and so are more regional rail to connect cities within useful in combination than each one is Maryland, and buses to connect local alone. Together, these projects supply the hubs with each other, in areas such as vision of a new direction for transportation the densely packed corridor between in Maryland, one in which the state would Washington, D.C., and Frederick. be wise to invest.

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 11 Building the Metro Purple Line could provide a new alternative to many Beltway commuters, while connecting important population and employment centers in Maryland’s D.C. suburbs. Photo credit: Robert Simon, under license from www.istockphoto.com

3) Link rapidly growing areas, such as Achieving these goals will create a southern areas of the state, to urban Maryland that is more economically vi- centers like Baltimore and Washing- brant, less dependent on oil, less impacted ton, D.C., using a combination of by traffic on the roadways, and capable of light, commuter, and regional rail. meeting the transportation challenges of the 21st century. 4) Integrate transit and land-use planning wherever transit projects exist, and particularly with regard to the new growth driven by the Base Re- alignment and Closure (BRAC) pro- D.C. Metropolitan Area cess. Use principles of transit-oriented Improvements development to combat sprawl and create a healthier future for Mary- Metro Purple Line land’s communities and economy. Within the Capital Beltway, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties are densely 5) Develop local public transportation developed and roadways are congested. networks in cities and towns across During rush hour, many intersections op- Maryland using a combination of erate well beyond their designed capacity. transit services to provide appealing The Beltway, too, suffers from many hours alternatives to driving. of congestion daily. And these problems

12 Making Tracks Figure 5. Purple Line Corridor21

Map credit: Arturo Ramos will only get worse in coming years as the redevelopment efforts that bring jobs and region’s population grows. residences closer together. Construction of a transit line linking Though the exact routing of the Purple the two counties—known as the Purple Line has not yet been selected, the line Line—could provide a new alternative to would travel through a corridor with many many Beltway commuters, while connect- residential, commercial and institutional ing important population and employment centers. Along its 16-mile route from New centers in Maryland’s D.C. suburbs. Carrollton in Prince George’s County to Though a number of areas that would Bethesda in Montgomery County, the be served by the Purple Line already have Purple Line would link Silver Spring, transit access, that transit service is ori- Langley Park and College Park. ented to a hub-and-spoke model that best It would also provide the beginnings serves travelers seeking to move from the of an “outer ring” for the Metro system, suburbs to the city and back, not those who connecting transit lines at the periphery, need to travel from one suburb to another. rather than through downtown, as well as The only transit between suburbs is by bus, offering connections to MARC commuter which is slow and often unreliable because rail, the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) of traffic congestion. Many residents in the and Amtrak. Thus, a traveler starting a region depend on transit to get around: in trip from New Carrollton could ride the both Silver Spring and Langley Park, for Purple Line directly to Silver Spring in- example, a quarter of households do not stead of having to ride the Orange Line have access to a car.20 into Metro Center and transferring to the The region’s congestion problems Red Line for the outbound trip to Silver are created, in part, by the segregation Spring. That routing involves a one-hour of employment centers from residential trip today, and would take an hour and 20 areas. The Purple Line would not only minutes in 2020 as the result of worsen- address mobility problems within the re- ing traffic.22 On the Purple Line, the trip gion but could also serve as a catalyst for would require 40 minutes.23 The speedier

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 13 travel times possible on the Purple Line to largely separate lanes with extensive would provide a more appealing alternative tunneling and overpasses to allow transit to many commuters who now must travel vehicles to quickly bypass heavy traffic the Beltway. areas. While both options are an improve- Both bus rapid transit (BRT) and light ment over doing nothing, light rail provides rail are under consideration for the Purple a greater mobility benefit than does BRT. Line in configurations ranging from most- Comparing the highest investment options ly shared lanes with traffic (which results for light rail versus BRT, light rail attracts in slower and less reliable transit service) more new riders (21,000 versus 18,000),

Purple Line Regional Connections and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge

he northern arc of the Purple Line from Bethesda to New Carrollton is just one Tpart of a broader vision for a circumferential transit line around Washington, D.C. A second important peripheral transit link would span the Potomac River between Alexandria, Va. and the National Harbor development in Prince George’s County over the span of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Eventually, rail along the bridge could be extended to link to the initial segment of the Purple Line. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River on the south side of Washington, D.C., has been serving the interstate transportation demand in this corridor since opening in 1961—and the combination of its location and its high traffic volume make it a good candidate for the Purple Line’s southern Potomac crossing. Demand on the bridge has long outstripped capacity: designed to carry 75,000 vehicles a day for a period of 20 years, nearly 200,000 vehicles now use it daily. Congestion slows traffic and wastes gas, impeding commuters who shuttle between Alexandria, Va., and southwestern Maryland. As a result, a long-overdue update on the Wilson Bridge has been in the works since 2000.31 The bridge’s recent twin-span reconstruction has, fortunately, been engineered with higher-efficiency transit in mind. In addition to eight automobile lanes and two pedestrian lanes, the bridge also comprises two transit-ready lanes, one in each direction. The use of these lanes has not yet been finalized, though they were designed flexibly so that they could accommodate high-occupancy vehicle (HOV), bus rapid transit, or rail use. The new Wilson Bridge, in other words, is prepared to support a rail line that would create the southern connection between the Maryland and Virginia arcs of the planned Purple Line. A rail line would double the passenger-carrying capacity of the bridge, and provide a cleaner, cheaper, and more pleasant alternative to driving for the 95,000 Prince George’s County residents who commute to Virginia every day.32 Providing continuous rail service in the Purple Line corridor would save time, serve more people, and make sense for commuters, while further connecting Maryland employers and workers with jobs and the labor force in Virginia.

14 Making Tracks carries more riders total (68,000 versus planning departments have begun to pro- 59,000), and provides a faster trip from end- mote TOD by analyzing the potential for to-end (50 minutes versus 59 minutes).24 redevelopment around existing and future Light rail’s ability to provide a faster trip is transit stops. Prince George’s County especially pronounced in the Montgomery has identified major TOD opportunities County portions of the route. around proposed Purple Line stations, The cost of building the Purple Line including New Carrollton.27 At the New ranges from $386 million for the least Carrollton station, which would serve both expensive BRT option, which provides the Orange and Purple lines, the county limited benefits, to $1.64 billion for the envisions a development that could include best light rail option.25 The benefits of 8,000 residences, 8 million square feet of the cheapest BRT option, however, are office space that could draw 30,000 jobs, so small that the cost-effectiveness of the retail and public space, and hotels.28 New system is relatively low. The medium and construction would be centered around a expensive BRT and light rail configura- transit station as a commercial and retail tions are more cost effective.26 The cost hub, and the entire development would would be shared between federal, state be pedestrian friendly, with landscaping, and local sources. street-level amenities, and parking lots Building the Purple Line will help behind buildings. The area in the Ta- to spur development around new transit koma/Langley Crossroads is under study stations. Done right, development can as well.29 reinforce the counties’ plans for compact In addition to assisting with the cost growth and encourage transit use. For of building a transit project, the Fed- decades, transit-oriented development eral Transit Administration will provide (TOD) has been used to create thriving funding for TOD projects that enhance urban and suburban corridors in modern transit.30 County governments in Prince cities. Its basic idea is both simple and George’s and Montgomery counties have sensible: mixed-use zoning around a major endorsed the plan, and through state grants transit station (like a Metro stop) encour- and tax incentives, local funds, and federal ages compact, walkable development that support, Maryland can use the Purple Line is good for people, businesses and the en- to not only improve transit but to help cre- vironment alike. In the TOD corridors of ate vibrant communities. cities like Portland, Oregon, and Arling- ton, Virginia, and around some of Mary- Corridor Cities Transitway land’s existing Metro stops, a combination The I-270 corridor from the Capital Belt- of mixed business and residential buildings, way to Frederick is one of the most con- easy transit and pedestrian access, and at- gested commute routes in Maryland, and tractive public spaces foster growth but the problem is likely to get worse. Large not sprawl—and strengthen community population increases are expected for both identity. TOD around suburban stations Montgomery and Frederick counties. An often includes a larger residential and retail additional 260,000 people may live in the component, whereas urban stations are two counties by 2025, representing a 50 surrounded by more office space. percent increase in Frederick County’s A number of the likely stations for the population compared to 2000 and a 20 per- Purple Line are prime candidates for TOD, cent increase in Montgomery County.33 with a focus on land within a 15-minute Current transit options in the corridor walk of the transit station. The Maryland include a MARC train line that runs well Department of Transportation and county to the west of I-270, local bus service in

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 15 BRAC Expansion, Smart Growth and Transit

y 2011, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process will bring 15,500 new Bmilitary jobs to Maryland.39 In turn, that will spur the creation of as many as 45,000 other jobs and attract tens of thousands of new residents. The biggest growth will occur in central Maryland, especially Harford and Anne Arundel counties.40 This predictable and anticipated growth creates an opportunity for Maryland to improve transit to serve new residents, rather than simply building more roads and following the historical, sprawling development patterns that have characterized much of Maryland’s late 20th century growth. In the new communities built to serve the expansion, and in the old communities that must adapt to the expansion, public transportation could not only move people between and within regional hubs, but could also help spur compact, transit-oriented development. Rather than segregating residential and commercial areas, as is typi- cal in most suburbs, the new town centers could feature denser, mixed-use zoning centered around transit stations that appeal to businesses and families alike. Higher density development would free up land for the parks and green spaces that make this type of community additionally appealing—but would also reduce residents’ dependence on cars. By locating the buildings people want to use—homes, businesses and public spaces like schools and libraries—close together, the new communities would become highly “walkable” and residents would have less need for automobiles. And, in addition to helping spur smarter growth, good transit infrastructure to connect these communities to each other and workers to urban and military centers would further help residents become increasingly independent from the cost, traffic and pollution associated with cars. The state had set aside money to pay for infrastructure upgrades to support anticipated BRAC-related growth, including $900 million for transportation projects.41 Some of this funding would have been used for cost-effective new and extended bus and rail services to move members of BRAC-impacted communities on local and regional routes. Unfortunately, many of these projects have been deferred as a result of a $2.1 billion reduction in the Department of Transportation’s six-year revenue forecast.42

the southern portion of the corridor, and a Corridor Cities Transitway, and have commuter bus service.34 However, the need included transit-oriented development in for better transit in this corridor has long their growth plans for the areas around been recognized. Montgomery County’s likely transit stops.36 master plan for development first included That new transit line would be known a 14-mile transit corridor in the 1970s, and as the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), the county has protected the rights-of-way running from the Red Line Metro station for such a corridor.35 The communities at Shady Grove to Clarksburg.37 Eventually, of Gaithersburg West and Germantown the CCT could be extended all the way to have also anticipated construction of the Frederick. Whether light-rail service or

16 Making Tracks bus rapid transit (BRT) is selected for the 8 percent from 2007 to 2008, and ridership route, transit vehicles would operate on a on a bus route from St. Mary’s County separate right-of-way from other traffic and rose 12 percent.47 A study in the late 1990s would serve a total of 13 stops.38 of a potential light rail line from Charles County linked to the Metro system fore- Light Rail to Charles County cast daily ridership of 25,000 passengers Southern Maryland is growing faster than by 2020.48 any other part of the state. From 1970 With the growth anticipated for south- to 2000, the area’s population increased ern Maryland in coming years, improved by 143 percent. By 2030, population is transit must be on the state’s agenda for projected to increase by an additional 65 the region. percent.43 Much growth has been focused along the Route 301 corridor, the primary north-south route through Charles Coun- ty. Growth has been especially pronounced Baltimore Metro Area in designated growth areas in and around Waldorf. Improvements This growth is reflected in worsening In the late 19th century, Baltimore became traffic conditions. Already, a number of one of the first cities in America to build intersections along Route 301 in Waldorf an extensive streetcar system. Streetcars operate above capacity, causing delays moved workers and shoppers through the during rush hour.44 By 2030, the number city’s districts, and the city was even an of intersections with excessive traffic will early herald of electric trolleys. Baltimore’s more than double. transit network not only provided an im- State and local leaders have been strug- portant public service, but led the country gling to address southern Maryland’s grow- in innovation as well. ing congestion problems. In January 2008, Today, Baltimore has the beginnings of Maryland announced it would spend $12 a modern rail system, but with its limited million to build more park-and-ride lots scope and poor design, existing service and millions more for additional commuter fails to meet the city’s needs. By learning bus service.45 The state also announced from its experience with its current rail plans to consider a light rail or bus rapid lines and building additional lines, Bal- transit line linking southern Maryland to timore can have a functional rail system the D.C. Metro system. that will better fulfill the transportation The potential route of the light rail line needs of city residents and spur economic would be from the Branch Avenue Metro development. stop on the Green Line in Prince George’s With just one light rail line and one County, down Route 5/Route 301, to the subway line, Baltimore’s existing rail White Plains and Waldorf area. The state system serves only a handful of the city’s had planned to begin a feasibility study of neighborhoods. The two lines fail to con- this project in spring 2008. However, in nect, though they do come close enough in September 2008, Maryland cut funding for downtown Baltimore that riders can walk the Southern Maryland Mass Transporta- from one line to the other. The rail lines tion Analysis by $2.4 million.46 were constructed in inexpensive corridors, Southern Maryland commuters are not necessarily where they could provide eager for alternatives to driving. Ridership transit service to the most residents or on a commuter bus line from La Plata to spur the most redevelopment of urban Washington, D.C. via Waldorf increased neighborhoods.

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 17 Figure 6. Complete Baltimore Rail dependence than any city besides New System, as Envisioned in 200253 York City, where residents have access to a robust rail network. In Baltimore City, in Baltimore Regional Rail System Plan contrast, residents must rely on bus service that can be slow and unreliable or on trains that do not serve many locations. Baltimore needs an expanded rail system that will provide improved transit service and support economic development. A complete rail network will enable suburban commuters to reach jobs in the city, and will help connect low-skill workers, who are concentrated in the city, with low-skill jobs, of which 70 percent are located in the suburbs.51 New rail lines and stations can help encourage redevelopment at locations throughout the city. A comprehensive rail system for the Baltimore metropolitan area would have rail lines serving all corners of the city with 109 miles of track and 122 stations.52 Major residential and commercial centers would be linked by the rail system, which would also enable residents to access Amtrak, MARC commuter service, and the airport. Turning this vision into a reality would require construction of four new lines, starting with the Red Line to provide the city’s first east-west rail link. As a result, neither suburban nor city residents are well served. Both contend Red Line Light Rail with heavy traffic, particularly at rush hour, A new Red Line in Baltimore would con- which results in wasted time and gasoline. nect I-70 at the western edge of the city to And the problem is projected to get worse. Canton and Turners Station in the east, As the region’s population and employment running through Charles Center near the increase, 44 percent of interstates serving waterfront and the National Aquarium. the area will experience severe congestion With a diverse range of stops, the line during the morning commute in 2035.49 No would serve commuters as well as daytime matter how frustrated commuters are with travelers and tourists. traffic, most have little choice but to drive. This proposed route is also economi- At the same time, many Baltimore City cally significant for Baltimore City. The residents do not have access to a vehicle Red Line corridor is home to more than and must depend on the region’s limited 200,000 people and hosts 192,000 jobs.54 transit network to get to work, to shop- Baltimore has few major east-west roads, ping centers, and to medical appointments. and thus travelers along the proposed Red More than 200,000 city residents, or 32 Line route must navigate crowded city percent of the city’s population, lack access streets with many intersections. Vehicle to a vehicle.50 That’s a higher rate of transit travel is projected to increase on major

18 Making Tracks east-west streets in coming years.55 would draw as many as 13,300 new riders. Bus service already provides a transit In contrast, a BRT-based line with similar option in the Red Line corridor, but traffic travel times and comparable construction congestion makes the trip by bus slow and cost would draw only 10,600 new riders unreliable. Along Route 40, buses average daily.58 just 11 miles per hour.56 Transit can also spur smarter develop- The 14-mile long route would run from ment, as it has in several areas near existing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid D.C. Metro stations. Mixed development Services outside the Baltimore beltway to of commercial and residential spaces has the west to Johns Hopkins Bayview Medi- grown in the revitalized Downtown Sil- cal Center past I-895 to the east. Major ver Spring shopping district, for example, employment, commercial and residential offering residents a variety of shopping, centers along the way include Security dining and entertainment options within Square Mall, the Social Security Admin- several blocks of the area’s Metro stop. New istration complex, Edmondson Village, light rail transit stations could also help the Inner Harbor, Fells Point, Canton, spur redevelopment in Baltimore, includ- and Highlandtown. The Red Line would ing near the West Baltimore MARC sta- improve access to the University of Mary- tion, other sites along Route 40, Patterson land, Baltimore, the University of Mary- Park and Highlandtown.59 To encourage land Medical Center, and the Veterans development around future rail stops, the Administration Hospital, and would also Maryland Department of Transportation connect with the West Baltimore MARC is providing assistance with redevelopment station, the light rail line, and existing planning. Metro subway. The Red Line could be constructed as a Green Line Extension light rail line or as a bus rapid transit line Baltimore City’s northeast corner is home (BRT), though the light rail option pro- to major academic centers as well as many vides greater benefits to riders. Traveling businesses, yet transit passengers lack rapid from one end of the Red Line to the other connection to MARC services, downtown is faster in almost all light rail scenarios. Baltimore, and other transit lines. Traveling If nothing is done to improve transit in the roughly four miles from Morgan State the Red Line corridor, riding a bus from University to Johns Hopkins Hospital and one end to the other will take 80 minutes. Medical School by today’s MTA bus routes, A light rail line could make the trip 25 to for example, can take close to 50 minutes in 44 minutes faster. In contrast, bus rapid 5 p.m. rush hour traffic—a pace of under transit would cut travel time by 11 to 37 5 miles per hour.60 minutes.57 (And savings of 37 minutes are As part of its long-term plan to improve possible only if a BRT system is built that public transit in Baltimore, the Maryland costs as much as light rail.) Department of Transportation and the Though both BRT and light rail per- MTA are working to extend services on form equally well in serving transit-depen- the city’s only subway line. The proposed dent households—an important fact given Green Line is a lengthened version of that in many of the neighborhoods along the existing metro subway line, from its the Red Line more than half of households current terminus at the Johns Hopkins do not have a car—almost all options for a Medical Campus to Martin State Airport light rail-based line draw more new riders. beyond the beltway in Baltimore County. A light rail line that cut travel times in half Extending the route could involve more (compared to not upgrading transit at all) conventional heavy rail, or other transit

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 19 mode options such as light rail or bus rapid is a step in the right direction, shortening transit. its length for the foreseeable future neglects A study by the Maryland Department many neighborhoods to the northeast—as of Transportation examined four transit well as the congestion savings that could be options for this Green Line extension, achieved by serving suburban commuters including: heavy rail, light rail, BRT, who would otherwise drive in order to get and “enhanced bus” (limited stops on to work on time. normal bus routes). Heavy rail, another term for conventional subway service, has Yellow Line Rail the potential to be the fastest of the four Along with the Red Line, Green Line and options, traveling at 18-35 mph. But, at others laid out in the 2002 Baltimore Re- $50-$250 million per mile, it is also the gional Rail System Plan, the Yellow Line most expensive. Light rail is likely to be has been on Maryland’s drawing board just as fast as heavy rail (20-26 mph) but for some time. Construction of the Yellow costs less,at $20-$60 million per mile. Bus Line would address several shortcomings rapid transit is slower and less expensive, with Baltimore’s existing Central Light with a cost-per-mile range of $4-$40 mil- Rail Line, while also extending service to lion per mile.61 new areas. The line would add 13 new stations to The Yellow Line could share track with the eastern portion of the Green Line, the existing Central Light Rail Line in two running through the neighborhoods of sections: in the north between Lutherville Morgan State University and the Good and Hunt Valley, and in the south between Samaritan Hospital before reaching past Camden Yards and BWI. Between Luther- I-695.The end of proposed extension splits: ville and Camden Yards, the Yellow Line a southern spur connects with MARC would run on a new set of tracks, which service at Martin State Airport, and a spur could be built at-grade or underground. to the north links commuters to an I-95 Among the areas that could be served station several miles beyond the beltway. by the new line are Johns Hopkins and A separate new Green Line stop would also the University of Maryland, Baltimore; connect with MARC at Madison Square. neighborhoods such as Waverly, Govans By offering faster, more frequent, and and Towson; Penn Station; and downtown more dependable services over an expanded Baltimore, particularly the attractions of area, the Green Line would better serve a the Inner Harbor.62 The new line would wide variety of transit users. Students and also include a new station along the north- professors would have easier access to cam- ern section of the Beltway. Coupled with an puses such as Johns Hopkins Medical and accessible park-and-ride lot, this location Morgan State, while residents of northeast could become an important transfer point Baltimore would be directly tied into the for commuters opting to take transit rather city’s rail transit network—a particular than drive into the city for work. boon if other elements of the regional rail In addition to the new section of track plan that would improve connectivity are through the center of Baltimore, the Yel- also completed. low Line could be extended west of BWI Currently, however, the MTA is study- Business District station to access the BWI ing an abridged version of the originally Amtrak station—providing a direct light proposed Green Line route, investigating rail link between BWI airport and MARC costs and feasibility of extending the line and Amtrak service to Washington, D.C. only as far as Morgan State University. Further extension of the Yellow Line While moving forward on the Green Line would provide service to other locations

20 Making Tracks in suburban Howard County, including important project, helping to knit together Columbia. Baltimore’s intermodal transportation Building up subway, bus rapid transit, network and adding high-quality transit or light rail services in this corridor will service to areas currently without it. provide the students, residents, commuters and employees of these areas with direct periphery-to-center transit that is affordable—and fast. The Department of Trans- portation estimates that the eight-mile trip Statewide Improvements from downtown Towson to Charles Center, for example, would take 18 minutes—far Improve and Expand MARC faster than rush-hour travel times. On the Commuter Rail Services southern side of the line, travelers could Commuter rail service provided by the get from BWI to downtown in under half Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) an hour.63 linking Washington, D.C., with Baltimore, The Yellow Line is currently being Aberdeen, Frederick, and Martinsburg, forced to compete with other key transit W.Va., is extremely popular and the system improvements—including the Red and cannot adequately serve ridership demand. Green line proposals—for attention and In the first three quarters of 2008, rider- funding. As part of the region’s long-range ship on the Maryland Commuter Rail transit plan, however, the Yellow Line is an Service (MARC) increased by 6.3 percent

Extending existing Central Line services will provide students, visitors and workers on Baltimore’s perimeter with direct service to downtown and BWI airport. Photo credit: Bonnie Schupp, under license from www.istockphoto.com

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 21 Figure 7. Current MARC Service65

compared to the same time period in 2007. have prompted the MTA to eliminate some Unfortunately, the 33,000 passengers that non-peak service on its MARC commuter ride MARC trains daily exceed the system’s rail system. Cuts include eliminating ser- intended capacity.64 vice on a number of holidays, dropping Passengers are well aware of overcrowd- the 11:00 p.m. train on the Penn Line, and ing on MARC. During the busiest two curtailing service on the Brunswick Line hours each day, the majority of trains by doing away with one evening train per leaving Penn Station do not have enough night, Monday through Thursday.67 seats for all passengers. Parking lots at most Instead of cutting service, the state stations fill early each morning, forcing should focus on implementing the com- commuters to park illegally or to drive prehensive plan for improving MARC instead. Operating beyond the system’s service that the MTA announced in 2007. capacity also impairs the MTA’s ability Changes include operating trains more to provide good service. Repair yards and frequently on weekdays, adding weekend equipment storage areas are full and the service, improving reliability, and upgrad- MTA cannot easily respond to deviations ing infrastructure throughout the system from planned service.66 to make these improvements possible. Despite overcrowding on MARC trains, Weekday service would be improved by commuters find MARC better than the al- running trains as often as every 15 minutes ternative: driving on the region’s extremely during peak hours, versus at best every 25 congested roads. MARC service needs to minutes currently. During off-peak times, be upgraded and expanded to provide more trains would operate every half hour, com- commuters an alternative to driving. pared to no off-peak service on some lines Unfortunately, recent budget shortfalls today.68 Service would be available later in

22 Making Tracks the evening, reducing the risk that a com- Implementing all the upgrades envi- muter misses the last train home. sioned by MTA would cost $200 million in The MTA also aims to increase service the short term and $3.9 billion by 2035. It reliability so that 95 percent of trains are would also require the cooperation of both on time, compared to roughly 90 percent Amtrak and CSX, which own or control today.69 the tracks and stations that MARC uses Some improvements—such as adding and serves. late-night and weekend trains, expanding some parking lots, and offering wireless Expand Commuter Bus Service internet on board—can be implemented Commuter bus service differs from local as soon as funding is available.70 Adding bus service by using a different style of bus, more track and replacing antiquated tun- operating only in peak travel directions, nels; extending service into L’Enfant Plaza and offering limited hours. Commuter and Northern Virginia to the south and bus service uses motor coaches, similar to Newark, Delaware, to the north; building those used by touring companies, to carry new maintenance facilities; and expanding commuters from residential areas to em- parking lots require a longer timeline. ployment centers. Unlike local bus service These improvements would allow that runs at regular intervals through the MARC trains to carry three to four times day and that serves passengers traveling ei- as many commuters as today, with rider- ther direction on a bus line, commuter bus ship increasing on all three rail lines.71 The service caters to those who are traveling at upgrades would also help deal with the peak morning and evening rush hours in influx of residents expected in communities the same direction as the predominant flow surrounding Maryland’s military facilities, of commuters. including Aberdeen Proving Ground and Unfortunately, commuter bus service Fort Meade, which will grow due to the has been targeted for cuts during the recent Base Realignment and Closure process. downturn in state tax revenues. Cuts in

Maximizing Transit Investments

art of MARC’s popularity among people traveling from Baltimore to Wash- Pington, D.C., has to do with what they find at the end of their trip: connections to the extensive D.C. Metro subway system. Similarly, more people use the Metro system because it connects to commuter rail, which serves a large geographic area and other population centers. Public investments in the MARC and Metro systems, in other words, complement each other to help maximize overall benefit. However, this magnifier effect is currently far stronger on the Washington end of MARC lines—and is largely under-utilized in Baltimore. Fewer people are likely to use MARC to get into Baltimore, for example, because the city lacks a comprehensive and convenient rail system for transferring to various destinations. Building an effective subway and light rail system in Baltimore would not only be useful in its own right, but would also boost MARC demand—and maximize Maryland’s investments in both systems.

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 23 service have been implemented from Bel areas to employment centers. Ninety per- Air to Baltimore, as well as on routes from cent of Maryland’s commuter bus service Annapolis and Washington, D.C.72 The is for workers employed in Washington, Route 921 commuter bus line, for example, D.C., and 10 percent is aimed at those who between Annapolis and New Carrollton work in Baltimore.80 Washington-based was eliminated as of mid-January 2009, as workers from Southern Maryland, the was the 412 commuter bus from Bel Air to Eastern Shore, and Frederick and Mont- Baltimore.73 To prevent complete elimina- gomery counties are served by 371 daily tion of commuter bus service from Howard trips. Baltimore employees have access County to Baltimore, Howard County to five routes from Columbia, Laurel, Bel government has agreed to pay $200,000, Air, Havre de Grace and other suburbs to or 25 percent of the cost of bus service, to downtown Baltimore and Johns Hopkins maintain some limited routes.74 Hospital with a total of 42 daily trips.81 Given high demand, however, cutting Bus service could be improved by add- commuter bus services seems counter- ing routes, expanding hours of service, intuitive. At least one-third of Maryland and offering a guaranteed ride home to all workers are employed in a county other commuter bus riders. than the one where they live.75 Tens of Additional bus service is needed for thousands of people commute each day into communities around Maryland. For ex- Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and other ample, no commuter bus service is available major employment centers. They come in Carroll County, though 15,000 county from communities and neighborhoods too residents work in Baltimore County, dispersed to be served by rail lines and too 6,000 work in Baltimore City, and another far away to be served by conventional bus 6,000 work in Howard County.82 Though service, but can be well-served by com- 23,000 people who live in Anne Arundel muter bus lines. County work in Baltimore City, there is Commuters around the state have no commuter bus service in that direc- flocked to commuter bus service in recent tion. Nearly as many residents of Howard years. On Southern Maryland commuter County work in Anne Arundel County bus lines, ridership in March 2007 was 3 as in Baltimore City, yet no bus service is to 12 percent higher than a year earlier.76 offered to them. Because of high ridership demand, Mary- Extending the hours of bus service land added funding for more bus service would make it possible for more commut- in May 2008.77 ers to use transit. Currently, the last bus on Another benefit of commuter bus service many commuter bus lines departs at 5:30 is that it can be deployed relatively quickly p.m. Employees who work even slightly un- in response to an unexpected transit need. conventional hours cannot use commuter As gasoline prices rose over the summer bus service. It also means that an employee and demand for transit increased, Mary- who sometimes needs to stay late unexpect- land added commuter bus service.78 And edly to complete a project is unlikely to be after a collision on the Bay Bridge over the able to rely on a commuter bus. summer forced the closure of one lane for Baltimore-area commuters would ben- emergency repair work, Maryland added efit from creation of a “guaranteed ride six round trips to its commuter bus service home” program, such as is already offered from Kent Island to Washington, D.C., to to commuters who work in the Washing- ease congestion.79 ton area. With a guaranteed ride home Maryland currently operates commuter program, a commuter who rides a bus (or bus service from a number of residential participates in a vanpool or carpool) but

24 Making Tracks who unexpectedly needs to leave work early TransIT also uses carpools and bike or late can take a taxi home for free. Such a racks to help drivers get out of their cars in program is already available to people who smaller county communities. These strate- work in the Washington area and live in gies add value to the system without adding Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery much expense. By connecting people who or Prince George’s counties and who need want to make similar trips, for instance, to go home for a medical emergency or Frederick’s rideshare service facilitates are forced by their employer to stay late.83 carpooling—which saves money as well as However, commuters in Baltimore do not wear-and-tear on family vehicles. To aid have access to such a service. When com- bikers, the buses of the TransIT Connector muters know that they will not be stranded and Shuttle services also are all equipped at work, they are more likely to use transit. with bicycle racks.86 This allows riders to One study of commuters who switched to bike to a TransIT stop, bring their bikes transit found that the availability of a ride onboard for the bus trip, and then con- home in emergencies was an important tinue biking to their final destination. In factor in that decision.84 A guaranteed ride Maryland, where biking is possible for the home program can be funded by the transit majority of every year, this simple addition agency alone or jointly with employers. to buses means that people from a wider geographical area can easily take advantage Improve Transit in Smaller of the bus’ services. Communities Transit systems like Frederick County’s The many benefits of public transporta- are good options in smaller communities tion—including cuts in air pollution, because their vehicles rely on existing road dollars saved and improved traffic—are infrastructure, rather than on installing available to more than Maryland’s big cit- new rail lines. This makes them relatively ies. Residents of smaller cities and towns immediate and inexpensive transportation also have much to gain by public invest- solutions—ones that ought to be used in ment in transit. more small cities and towns throughout Already, a number of communities have Maryland. The state can play a role in started to claim these dividends. In Fred- making this happen by both allocating erick County, for example, the TransIT more transportation funds to transit op- Connector provides fixed-route bus ser- tions statewide, and helping to capture vices convenient to workers and consum- the efficiency of experience by connect- ers Monday through Saturday. Frederick ing administrators in counties that seek to County’s other TransIT services also add transit with administrators of existing include commuter shuttles on five routes. transit services. Three of these link the city of Frederick with other cities and towns, such as Bruns- Buses equipped with wick, Emmitsburg, Thurmont, and several front-end bicycle racks locations in eastern Frederick County. A help individuals from MARC connector shuttle gives Frederick- a wider geographic area residents access to rail transportation area take advantage of into Washington, D.C. A fifth line moves transit services. Photo people along a Route 85-Crestwood Boule- credit: Frederick vard corridor, providing access to multiple County Government business centers.85

A 21st Century Transportation Vision for Maryland 25 From Vision to Reality: A 21st Century Transit System for Maryland

aryland must make sound invest- upgrades, and new rail cars; bus infrastruc- ments in public transportation if it ture; light rail equipment; and system-wide hopes to remain competitive in the transit improvements, Baltimore subway Mst 89 21 century—a time that looks increasingly upgrades, and planning studies. New likely to be one of increased concern about projects, especially the Purple Line and global warming, continued congestion Corridor Cities Transitway, could also be problems, and volatile oil prices. delayed.90 At the same time, however, Maryland The recent federal stimulus package faces a transportation funding shortfall. will provide an injection of much-needed High gas prices and a slowing economy dollars into Maryland’s transit system. In have led Marylanders to drive fewer miles February, for example, Governor O’Malley and purchase fewer cars. While these announced that roughly 40 percent of trends are positive for congestion prob- Maryland’s transportation budget from the lems and global warming emissions, they first wave of stimulus funds will be used to also result in less funding for the state’s support public transit, a move which rep- Transportation Trust Fund, which pays resents an important first step in the right for transit and highway maintenance and direction. However, the stimulus package upgrades. The state projected that 2008 is just the beginning. Far more must be revenues would be $115 million lower than done to plan for and fund the future of estimated because of reduced motor fuel transportation in our state. tax, vehicle titling revenues and vehicle Maryland must solve its transportation registration income.87 Over the next six finance problems in ways that ensure the years, Maryland will have billions less to continued safe operation of the state’s spend on transportation infrastructure.88 roads and transit systems, a commitment Many of the projects that will have to be it has already made. But when it comes to deferred until more funding is available are expansion projects, the lack of readily avail- transit related. They include $165 million able funds should not cause state officials for MARC track improvements, station to throw up their hands. Rather, the state

26 Making Tracks Spending Transit Dollars Effectively with StateStat

hen it comes to using taxpayer dollars, Maryland is taking pains to adopt Wnew accountability and efficiency tools. Under Governor O’Malley, Maryland’s public agencies have begun to use StateStat, an innovative data- tracking system for government. By systematically collecting and examining data on performance outcomes in regular meetings, management is able to identify successes, failures, and areas ripe for improvement across a broad range of administrative domains. Regular TransitStat meetings allow management to identify the source of problems and drive continual performance improvement along basic measures. For instance, since starting TransitStat in 2007, the program helped reduce light rail absen- teeism hours by 9.7 percent and unplanned overtime by 30.8 percent.92 These improvements both save money and improve service for riders.

should develop a long-range, strategic plan highway projects is projected to run out of for transit investments, identify the price money sometime during fiscal year 2009, tag of completing that plan, and then work with the public transit portion of the ac- to obtain the necessary resources to get count scheduled to run out of money soon the job done. thereafter.91America’s aging transportation Many levels of government and other network is increasingly in need of costly institutions have a role to play in achieving repairs. Meanwhile, with the memory of the goal of a 21st century transit system for soaring gas prices still fresh and concerns Maryland. about oil dependence still acute, Americans now perceive the downside of the highway- centered investment policies of the last few decades, which leave too many Americans with few transportation choices. In short, Federal Government the status quo cannot continue. The main federal transportation funding Maryland officials should campaign for law—the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi- a new federal transportation funding law cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy that makes a large investment in needed for Users (SAFETEA-LU)—will sunset in improvements to transit systems and in- the fall of 2009. Congress is being called tercity rail, while focusing federal highway on to create a new transportation funding investment on the need to maintain and bill. It is possible that the coming federal repair existing infrastructure. Federal bill will be the most sweeping reform of money should be used in a targeted and federal transportation policy in nearly strategic way to encourage transportation two decades. The Congressional Budget investments that minimize oil dependence, Office projects that the portion of the congestion, environmental pollution and federal highway trust fund that pays for sprawl, and encourage the development of

From Vision to Reality 27 compact, livable communities where driv- transportation funding crisis—and this ing is an option, not a requirement. can be accomplished by prioritizing public Such a dramatic shift would benefit transit projects and taking steps to improve Maryland by providing additional resourc- the efficiency of existing transportation es for needed transit projects. In addition services. to pushing for new federal transportation When planning investments in the priorities, Maryland should also work state’s transportation network, Maryland aggressively through existing avenues to should first fix what it already has by obtain federal funding for transit infra- mending roads and bridges and improv- structure projects, including new rail lines ing existing transit services. With regard in Baltimore City and in Montgomery and to new projects, the state should prioritize Prince George’s counties. making time- and money-saving investments in public transportation, rather than attempting to meet transportation demand with more highways. By expanding use of programs such as StateStat, Maryland can State Policy also help ensure that the transportation While the federal government has an dollars invested in transit are being spent important role to play in funding public purposefully and efficiently. transportation, Maryland must engage Further, Maryland should align other its own transportation future. Yesterday’s public policies with a 21st century vision systems are failing to cope with today’s for transportation that is less dependent on problems, and fixing the problems will take automobiles and can take full advantage of both time and money. improved public transit. The state should In Maryland, as in many states around require that all proposed transportation the country, the budget crunch is forcing investments be evaluated for their impact government to prioritize spending. Trans- on oil dependence and global warming pol- portation funding as a whole is threatened, lution. State government buildings should public transportation in particular. Yet be located, to the extent possible, in areas backing away from public transit in favor with accessible transit service. And the of highways is counter-intuitive at a critical state should require local governments to moment when consumers are demanding adopt land-use plans and zoning reforms more transportation options, not fewer. that allow for and encourage compact de- Maryland must take steps to solve its velopment in and around transit stations.

28 Making Tracks Conclusion

aryland’s existing transit network the battle—the state also needs a vision- is an asset for the state and it pro- ary, forward-looking plan for invest- Mvides a strong backbone for transit ing that money in ways that create and expansions to help address congestion from sustain a safe, affordable and extensive a growing population, assist the state in transportation system for the 21st century. cutting its global warming pollution, and The projects listed in this report should insulate residents from future increases in make up the core of Maryland’s transit gasoline prices. “to-do” list over the coming years. The There are myriad potential solutions state simply cannot afford to allow these to Maryland’s transportation funding projects to remain undone—for the sake challenges, but obtaining money for of mobility, consumers’ pocketbooks, and transportation improvements is only half environmental concerns.

From Vision to Reality 29 Notes

1 Vehicle-miles traveled figures from Estimates: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 U.S. Federal Highway Administration, to July 1, 1999, 19 December 1999; 2000s Travel Volume Trends: Monthly Reports, population estimates from U.S. Census January 2007 through August 2008 (ad- Bureau, Annual Population Estimates, Esti- justed monthly data). Available at www. mated Components of Population Change and fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.cfm. Rates of the Components of Population Change Ridership figures from National Transit for the United States, Regions, and States, and Database, Monthly Module Adjusted Data Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007, 27 Release: Maryland Unlinked Passenger Trips, December 2007. January 2007 to August 2008, 6 October 3 Ibid. 2008. Available at www.ntdprogram.gov/ ntdprogram/data.htm. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, “Extreme” Commute Rankings, 2003 American Community Survey 2 Percent increase in VMT per capita Tables, 30 March 2005. 1980 to 2007 is 48.4 percent. Vehicle miles traveled from U.S. Department of Trans- 5 David Schrank and Tim Lomax, Texas portation, Federal Highway Administra- Transportation Institute, 2007 Annual Ur- tion, Highway Statistics series of reports, ban Mobility Report: Baltimore Performance Historical Summary to 1995 and annual Measure Summary, September 2007. reports from 1996 to 2006; 2007 vehicle- 6 U.S. Census Bureau, Americans Spend miles traveled estimates from U.S. Depart- More than 100 Hours Commuting to Work ment of Transportation, Federal Highway Each Year, Census Bureau Reports, 30 March Administration, Traffic Volume Trendsseries 2005. of reports, February 2007 to January 2008. 7 See Note 5. 1980s population estimates from U.S. Cen- sus Bureau, Intercensal Estimates of the Total 8 Ibid. Resident Population of States: 1980 to 1990, 9 Based on state gasoline expenditure August 1996; 1990s population estimates data for 1980 through 2006 from U.S. De- from U.S. Census Bureau, State Population partment of Energy, Energy Information

30 Making Tracks Administration, State Energy Data 2006: Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Sector Energy Price and Ex- Transportation Challenges with Modern Public penditure Estimates, Selected Years, 1970- Transit, March 2008, 24. 2006, Maryland, 28 November 2008, 20 U.S. Department of Transportation, adjusted for inflation based on U.S. Federal Transit Administration, and Mary- Department of Commerce, Bureau of land Department of Transportation, Mary- Economic Analysis, National Income and land Transit Administration, Purple Line Product Accounts Table, Table 1.1.9: Implicit Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, Impact Statement, September 2008. 25 November 2008. 21 Map credit: Arturo Ramos, under 10 Ibid. GNU Free Documentation license from 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Wikipedia Commons. State CO Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combus- 2 22 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit tion, 1990-2005, downloaded from www. Authority, Trip Planner, downloaded from epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/down- www.wmata.com/rider_tools/tripplanner/ loads/CO2FFC_2005.pdf, 5 January tripplanner.cfm, 19 December 2008. 2009. 23 See Note 20. 12 Passenger miles traveled increased, per Federal Transportation Administra- 24 Ibid. tion, National Transit Database, TS2.2 25 Ibid. - Service Data and Operating Expenses Time- Series by System, downloaded from www. 26 Ibid. ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm, 5 27 Prince George’s County Planning January 2009. Department, Countywide Master Plan of 13 1990s and 2000s population estimates: Transportation (Power Point), downloaded see Note 2, U.S. Census Bureau. Passenger from www.mncppc.org/county/Transpor- miles traveled: see Note 12. tation_MP/Webpage_Presentation.ppt, 19 December 2008. 14 Lena H. Sun, “As Gas Prices Fall, Transit Still Popular,” Washington Post, 2 28 PB Placemaking for Maryland Depart- December 2008. ment of Planning, Prince George’s County Planning Department, and Washington 15 See Note 12. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, New 16 U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Carrollton Transit-Oriented Development Travel Volume Trends: Monthly Reports, Janu- Strategy Planning Study, September 2004. ary 2007 through August 2008 (adjusted 29 Royce Hanson, Chairman, Montgom- monthly data). Available at www.fhwa.dot. ery County Planning Board, The Chair- gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.cfm. man’s Blog: A New Look for Takoma-Langley 17 National Transit Database, Monthly Crossroads, 15 January 2008, available at Module Adjusted Data Release: Maryland mncppc.typepad.com/chairman/2008/01/ Unlinked Passenger Trips, January 2007 to a-new-look-for.html. , 6 October 2008. Available at August 2008 30 Maryland Department of Transporta- www.ntdprogram.com/ntdprogram/data. tion, About Transit-Oriented Development, htm. downloaded from www.mdot-realestate. 18 See Note 5, page 36. org/tod.asp, 19 December 2008. 19 U.S. PIRG Education Fund, A Better 31 The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project,

Notes 31 Project Overview: Project Rationale, down- 43 Maryland Department of Transporta- loaded from www.wilsonbridge.com/po- tion, US 301 Waldorf Area Transportation projectRationale.htm, 13 February 2009. Improvements Project: Statement of Need and 32 Sierra Club, Rail on the Woodrow Wilson Purpose, 15 December 2006. Bridge: The Region Needs Rail on the Wilson 44 Ibid. Bridge, [factsheet] downloaded from www. 45 Christy Goodman, “Transit Funds sierraclub.org/dc/sprawl/purple-line/rail- Cover Commuter Lots, Light Rail,” Wash- on-the-wilson-bridge.html#facts on 13 ington Post, 20 January 2008. February 2009. 46 John Wagner and Katherine Shaver, 33 260,000: Maryland Department of “MD to Cut Funding of Roads, Transit,” Transportation, I-270 Multi-Modal Study: Washington Post, 11 September 2008. About the Project, downloaded from www. i270multimodalstudy.com/about-the-proj- 47 Nancy Bromley McConaty, “Waldorf- ect, 16 December 2008. Percentage in- to-D.C. Express Bus Route in the Works,” crease: U.S. Department of Transportation Southern Maryland Newspapers, 27 June and Maryland Department of Transporta- 2008. tion, I-270 Multi-Modal Corridor Study, 48 Amit Paley, “Dyson Pushes Light Rail, Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Expansion of Bridge,” Washington Post, 13 Section 4(f) Evaluation, May 2002. February 2005. 34 Maryland Department of Transporta- 49 Baltimore Metropolitan Council, tion, I-270 Multi-Modal Study: Corridor Transportation Outlook 2035, download- Cities Transitway, downloaded from www. ed from www.baltometro.org/content/ i270multimodalstudy.com/corridor-cit- view/811/537/, 17 December 2008. ies-transitway/alternatives, 16 December 2008. 50 The Abell Foundation, The Abell Re- port, Volume 18(4), November/December 35 Maryland Transit Administration, Proj- 2005. ects, downloaded from www.mtamaryland. com/projects/, 16 December 2008. 51 Ibid. 36 Maryland-National Capital Park and 52 Maryland Department of Transporta- Planning Commission, Transportation: tion, Baltimore Region Rail System Plan: The Corridor Cities Transitway, downloaded Report of the Advisory Committee, August from www.mc-mncppc.org/Transporta- 2002. tion/projects/corridor.shtm, 15 December 53 Maryland Department of Transporta- 2008. tion, Maryland Transit Administration, 37 See Note 34. Baltimore Region Rail System Plan: Existing and Proposed Lines Adopted March 2002 by the 38 Ibid. Rail Plan Advisory Committee, August 2002. 39 Subcabinet for Base Realignment and Downloaded from www.baltimorerailplan. Closure, State of Maryland BRAC Action com/pages/map.htm on 29 January 2009. Plan Report, December 2007. 54 Maryland Department of Transpor- 40 Ibid. tation, Red Line Corridor Transit Study: 41 Ibid, page 9. Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, September 2008. 42 Eric Christiansen, Maryland Transit Administration, personal communication 55 Ibid. on 17 February 2009. 56 Ibid.

32 Making Tracks 57 Ibid. 74 Maryland Department of Transporta- 58 Ibid. tion, Governor O’Malley, County Executive Ulman Work Together to Maintain Commuter 59 Ibid. Bus service from Howard County (press re- 60 Assuming “Morgan State University” lease), 5 December 2008. as start point and “Johns Hopkins Medical 75 U.S. Census Bureau, Journey to Work: School” as end point. Maryland Depart- Residence County to Workplace County Flows ment of Transportation, Maryland Transit for Maryland, 6 March 2003. Administration, Trip Planner [powered by GoogleMaps], downloaded from www. 76 Matt Zapotosky, “Gas Prices mtamaryland.com on 29 January 2009. Prompt Bus System Growth,” Washington Post, 29 May 2008. 61 Maryland Department of Transporta- tion, Transit Options Under Consideration, 77 Maryland Department of Transporta- downloaded from www.baltimoregreen- tion, Governor O’Malley, BPW Fuel Expan- line.com/vehicle-options on 26 January sion of Successful Commuter Bus Program: 2009. Governor’s Effort to Expand Transit Receives $3.36 Million for Additional Service (press 62 Maryland Department of Transporta- release), 21 May 2008. tion, Baltimore Regional Rail System Plan, August 2002, 13. 78 See Note 76. 63 Ibid. 79 Maryland Department of Transporta- tion, Governor O’Malley Announces Expan- 64 33,000: American Public Transporta- sion of Commuter Bus Service for Eastern tion Association, APTA Ridership Report: Shore: Added Trips Provide Express Transit Third Quarter 2008, 4 December 2008. Option to Washington During Bay Bridge Designed capacity: Maryland Transit Ad- Construction (press release), 28 August ministration, MARC Growth & Investment 2008. Plan, September 2007. 80 Maryland Transit Administration, 65 Maryland Transit Administration, MTA Commuter Bus: General Information, MARC Train Service, downloaded from downloaded from www.mtamaryland. http://www.mtamaryland.com/services/ com/services/commuterbus/serviceInfor- marc/schedulesSystemMaps/marcTrain- mation/Commuter_Bus_General.cfm, SystemMap.cfm on 26 February 2009. 19 December 2008. Update from Eric 66 Ibid. Christiansen, Maryland Transit Admin- 67 Michael Dresser, “MTA Cuts Service; istration, personal communication on 17 Keeps 10:05 Train from Washington,” February 2009. Baltimore Sun, 31 December 2008. 81 Ibid. 68 See Note 65. 82 See Note 75. 69 Ibid. 83 Commuter Connections, Guaranteed 70 Ibid. Ride Home, downloaded from www.mw- cog.org/commuter2/commuter/grh/index. 71 Ibid. html, 22 December 2008. 72 See Note 67, and Michael Dresser, 84 William Menczer, Program Analysis “MTA to Cut Commuter Bus Routes,” Officer, Office of Policy Performance and Baltimore Sun, 17 October 2008. Management, Federal Transit Administra- 73 See Note 67. tion, Guaranteed Ride Home Programs: A

Notes 33 Study of Program Characteristics, Utilization, 90 See Note 88, John Wagner. and Costs, 19 May 2006. 91 William W. Millar, American Public 85 Frederick County Government, Tran- Transportation Association, On Public sIT’s Service Menu [brochure], downloaded Transportation Funding for Fiscal Year 2009: from www.co.frederick.md.us/documents/ Testimony Before the Subcommittee On Transit/08RideGuide.PDF on 21 January Transportation And Housing And Urban 2009. Development, And Related Agencies Of 86 Ibid. The U.S. House Committee On Appro- priations, 16 April 2008. 87 Maryland Department of Transporta- tion, National Economic Downturn Impacts 92 Maryland Department of Transporta- Maryland Transportation Program (press tion, MTAStat—October, Volume 2, Number release), 10 September 2008. 6, October 2008.Transportation Sector En- ergy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Se- 88 In September, the state estimated a lected Years, 1970-2006, Maryland, 28 six-year shortfall of $1.1 billion. See Note November 2008, adjusted for inflation 87. By November, the projected shortfall based on U.S. Department of Commerce, had risen to $2.5 billion, per John Wagner, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National In- “$2.5 Billion Hit to Maryland Transporta- come and Product Accounts Table, Table 1.1.9: tion Forecast,” Washington Post, 19 Novem- Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic ber 2008. Product, 25 November 2008. 89 See Note 87.

34 Making Tracks