Detailed Responses - Maryland State Delegates District 16
Question 1
Do you support the Locally Preferred Alternative selected by Gov. O'Malley for the Purple Line, including an at-grade light rail line with a trail alongside it on the Georgetown Branch right of way between Bethesda and Silver Spring, as well as the at-grade light rail line running along Campus Drive through the University of Maryland?
Charlie Chester (D) As Vice Chair of the Governor's Council on Fitness, I fought hard to have BIK/PED pathways mandated on state roads and to have oversight by a special office within MDOT. In fact, I testified about this component for Smart Growth, along with his Cabinet officers. As a triathlete, you can rest assured I want light rail and a path. Not a bus lines as envisioned by Gov. Ehrlich.
Peter M. Dennis (D) Yes.
Bill Frick (D) I support the Purple Line.
Scott Goldberg (D) Yes. As a resident of downtown Bethesda and former resident of Silver Spring and College Park, the LPA will connect the region and moving forward with this route is the quickest choice to get the Purple Line up and running.
Hrant Jamgochian (D) Yes. We need to move ahead with this project as quickly as possible, which will not only help to improve our traffic and the environment, but will create more jobs and hep to stimulate our economy.
Ariana Kelly (D) Yes.
Susan C. Lee (D) Yes.
Kyle Lierman (D) Yes, I support the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Purple Line.
Mark Winston (D) Yes. I favor completion of the Purle Line at the earliest possible time. Given competing projects, there will be funding issues, particularly in our present fiscal circumstance. however, we should endeavor to appropriate funds to take this project as far as possible as soon as possible so that we are in a position to move to construction as soon as funding is available.
Question 2
Do you support further study of the Action Committee for Transit's plan for the I-270 Corridor as an alternative to the $4 billion plan to widen I-270?
Charlie Chester (D) Yes, I agree with you on this as well. I use I-270 to and from work every week and since it was widened years ago, that has been sufficient. Since then, the real problem is on the beltway between PR Co. and VA in the a.m. and back in the evening. I see this the other mornings when I go to my balto. office. Many voters thought the ICC would solve that. I have my doubts on its impact on THAT portion of the beltway.
Peter M. Dennis (D) Yes. It's a greener, less expensive alternative an encourages the use of public transportation instead of creating an increased dependence on cars and highways.
Bill Frick (D) I support the CCT and transit solutions whenever and wherever possible. That said, I don't think we can afford to delay improvements to the I-270 corridor for ten or fifteen years. The traffic situation on and stemming from I-270 is a daily disaster and we need to get moving on solutions - including bus, rail, and car improvements - immediately.
Scott Goldberg (D) Yes. History has shown us that when we build new roads and make existing ones bigger, traffic is alleviated temporarily until more cars use them and the cycle repeats. Mass transit gives people in more affordable areas of the state access to higher paying jobs further south.
Hrant Jamgochian (D) Yes. More roads only create more traffic. We should start by prioritizing programs like the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) to extend the Red Line.
Ariana Kelly (D) Yes.
Susan C. Lee (D) Yes.
Kyle Lierman (D) Yes, I support further study of ACT’s I-270 Corrider plan, including extension of the Red Line.
Mark Winston (D) Yes. While further study is a necessity to have a detailed understanding of each element of the plan, my view is that we should prefer a transit-oriented solution as precisely the kind of policy judgment that should be at the heart of our transportation solutions and funding priorities. Construction of more highway capacity in this case would be counterproductive. Furthermore, if we commit to a $4 billion highway project it is unlikely that we will be able to get an allocation of transit resources for the transit components contained the Act for Transit Plan.
Question 3
How can we fund WMATA?
Charlie Chester (D) There is no question about this with me. I wanted earmarked and designated contribution from our Transportation Trust Fund for metro rail and support for a regional authority that will integrate local lines like MARC and VRE, along with local bus lines, like Ride On. We are a tri state area with interdependent jurisdictions.
Peter M. Dennis (D) A Green Tax: Maryland, Virginia and DC should increase the tax on gasoline by a minimum of $0.035/gallon, and use the revenues to fund the WMATA. This would not only help WMATA balance its budget, but provide a financial incentive against unnecessary driving.
Bill Frick (D) This is a big problem that goes beyond WMATA. I have supported gas tax increases and am active in conversations about the future of regional transportation planning.
Scott Goldberg (D) We can fund WMATA in two ways: 1) Increasing ridership; and 2) sharing in a dedicated, increased investment. In simple terms, the more fares that pay to use the system, the more money it will have. To do this, safety needs to be addressed. People still do not ride the trains because of the crash over one year ago. Quality also needs to be increased. More reliable and frequent service would increase ridership. The second way is if all the local jurisdictions share in the increased dedicated funding, WMATA will be able to improve upon its current level and quality of service.
Hrant Jamgochian (D) The most logical revenue source would be an increase to the gas tax, which has broad support among the business and environmental communities.
Ariana Kelly (D) Easing the strain of our transportation infrastructure is a priority of mine. It is important that Montgomery County gets its fair share of state and federal transportation funding. It is necessary to create solid funding base for public transportation, as the increased hikes are becoming unobtainable for people. I will also support walkable and bike-friendly communities and transit-oriented development.
Susan C. Lee (D) Over the years, transit ridership has increased significantly. As such, transit capital and operational budgets and funding must reflect and meet the needs and challenges of this increased ridership. the use of transit has not only cut down on congestion, pollution, and improved the quality of lives for countless individuals in the Washington metro area, but has also tremendously benefited the federal government. I and my General Assembly colleagues must work with the Governor, other Maryland, Virginia and District of Columbia elected officials and Congressional members, and federal, state and local government officials to ensure there is a major federal funding commitment for mass transit. In addition, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia must also continue their commitments to transit funding. In setting current and future priorities, transit funding must be one of our highest priorities. Transit advocates and other impacted group advocates who are knowledgeable, understand, and have expertise in transit issues, must be also included in the WMATA Governance Commission.
Kyle Lierman (D) Currently, some funding for WMATA is tied up by the federal government with bureaucratic rules that won’t let money contributed by DC, MD and VA through until it passes a grant approval process. So we need to free up that funding. We should also raise the gas tax. At 50% of its level in 1978 when adjusted for inflation, the gas tax has not been raised in a generation. Meanwhile, Metro fares are increasing as we’re trying to reduce traffic congestion. Raise the gas tax and use revenues to pay for WMATA and encourage more use of Metro.
Mark Winston (D) Finding a dedicated funding source has been a serious problem. While other factors exist, WMATA's management, safety and maintenance issues can be attributed, at least in part, to this. While we need to add transit-oriented infrastructure as discussed in the other questions in this Questionnaire, we also must adequately maintain and preserve our existing infrastructure. A first step in adequate funding for WMATA, as well as other transit initiatives, is protecting the integrity of the State's Transportation Trust Fund. The State must stop treating the Trust Fund as a piggy-bank we can use to avoid making other hard decisions, The Trust Fund must be a source of the dedicated funding for WMATA.
The County's Delegation needs to make it clear to its colleagues that finding a dedicated funding source for WMATA, as well as expanding transit opportunities like the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transit Way, are a sine qua non for Montgomery County cooperation on legislation meaningful to other parts of the State.
Question 4
Should any money be spent on increasing highway capacity associated with the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan before a light rail Corridor Cities Transitway from Shady Grove to Clarksburg is fully funded for construction?
Charlie Chester (D) No. That is moving, literally, literally in the wrong direction. No need to say more. Sorry. ;-)
Peter M. Dennis (D) While I am not opposed to the Great Seneca Corridor Master Plan, I firmly believe funding for public transportation programs such as light rail systems should take priority.
Bill Frick (D) The CCT should be the priority.
Scott Goldberg (D) No. With limited federal, state, and local funds, transit should be the priority. Development near transportation hubs is much more desirable and the growth created by these projects is vital to pulling the entire state out of economic stagnation.
Hrant Jamgochian (D) No. Every time we expand our roadways we just end-up creating more traffic. We need to make public transportation like CCT the priority.
Ariana Kelly (D) While it is important to promote the development of the Great Seneca Science Corridor Plan, it should be a priority to fully fund the light rail plan, as that will be the most beneficial environmentally and economically for the area. The light rail plan needs to have dedicated funding first.
Susan C. Lee (D) No.
Kyle Lierman (D) Montgomery County and Maryland are facing many transportation challenges at the moment, not the least of which is the Purple Line, which has been around for more than a decade. Let’s finish the work we’ve started on other projects and identify new funding sources for new projects before we undertake them.
Mark Winston (D) No. Furthermore, as I understand it, implementatioin of the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan is not possible (or would at least be unwise) in the absence of the funding of the Corridor Cities Transit Way.