Detailed Responses - Maryland State Delegates District 19

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?

Jay Hutchins (D) Yes, I support building the Purple Line adjacent to an improved Capital Crescent Trail at grade along what was the Georgetown Branch railroad right-of-way between Bethesda and Silver Spring.  I do not support undergrounding in this segment as this would be too costly and could put the project at risk of being declared cost-ineffective by the Federal Transit Administration. And as a cyclist, I am confident that the Purple Line can be built in a manner that ensures a safe and accessible pedestrian-bicycle trail. Lastly, yes, I support the at-grade light rail line running along Campus Drive through the University of Maryland. I believe this will be a significant benefit to the campus community and to our larger region.

Ben Kramer (D) Yes.

 

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?

Jay Hutchins (D) I fully support further study of the Action Committee for Transit’s plan for the I-270 Corridor. I think this is a much better option than widening I-270. Continually widening our roads is hardly a long-term solution. In fact, widening I-270 just promotes further sprawl. We need to find better solutions that address long-term concerns about our transportation systems. I support smart growth and smart and sound transportation policies is a key component of this effort. Mixed-use, transit-oriented development is something we need more of. I believe it would be better and more affordable to invest in a vigorous integrated transit network.

Ben Kramer (D) Yes.

 

Question 3

How can we fund WMATA?

Jay Hutchins (D) When looking at our nation’s transit systems, it is my understanding that the systems that are adequately financed are those that have a dedicated funding source. WMATA receives no dedicated stream of revenue each year for capital or operational costs. Instead, WMATA is uniquely dependent on annual operating subsidies from its member jurisdictions as well as revenue it generates internally from passenger fares, advertising, and parking.

A Brookings Institution report noted that this is a major problem and puts funding at risk because jurisdictions can, and on occasion have, threatened to withhold, eliminate, or unilaterally reduce their annual contributions on the grounds of perceived inequities. As a result, concerns that one or more partners may balk at its annual bill are ever-present. In light of these concerns, I believe that a dedicated stream of operating funds (whether single- or multi-sourced) is appropriate and I would support efforts to create one.

Ben Kramer (D) Dedicated funding source ie: 1/4 of 1 cent of sales tax dedicated to mass transit funding.

 

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?

Jay Hutchins (D) I am not a fan of “increasing highway capacity” so my answer is no. I am supporter of greater and diverse mass transit options and developing more walkable communities. I would prefer to see investment in the light rail option; this is a greater priority for me than the Great Seneca Science Corridor Plan.

I understand that County Council on April 13 voted 8-1 to tentatively approve key aspects of the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan. I am encouraged that key agreements reached by the Council include reduction of the maximum allowable buildable space in the plan from the proposed 20 million square feet to 17.5 million square feet and that “critical lane volume” will now be define overcrowded roads as those roads exceeding 1,450 vehicles per lane per hour rather than the previously proposed 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour.

Nevertheless, as a advocate for smart transportation policies, I still would prefer light rail investment over the Great Seneca Science Corridor Plan.

Ben Kramer (D) That is an issue that should be determined by transportation planners involved in the Science City project.