Detailed Responses - Maryland State Delegates District 20

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?

Sheila E. Hixson (D) Yes – I am a long-time supporter of the Purple Line and agree with the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Purple Line plan as selected by Governor O’Malley. This route will provide much needed public transportation for Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties. We are all looking forward to its construction.

Tom Hucker (D) Over ten years ago you and ACT recruited me and Progressive Maryland to support the plan for an at-grade light rail line with a trail alongside it along the Georgetown Branch. You had me at "Hello." I've continued to be an advocate for that plan whether I was running Progressive Maryland or serving as a Delegate from District 20. I lobbied the Governor frequently to support light rail. I am also a vocal supporter of the Campus Drive alignment, as I stated publicly in the Gazette last month. I'm now proud to co-Chair the Purple Line Caucus of the General Assembly, and I represent the Assembly on the board of Purple Line Now!

Heather R. Mizeur (D) Yes. In November 2008, I testified in support of the LPA at Montgomery College, because I believe it offers the best combination of high ridership, capacity for expansion, and sound investment. This vision of the Purple Line will meet Federal Transit Administration guidelines and compete for crucial federal funding.

Chris Stoughton (D) Absolutely on both counts. I am a huge supporter of the Purple Line. Once elected, I will be a champion in the general assembly for expanding mass transit, ensuring that development takes place around transit centers, and making our urban centers more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

 

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?

Sheila E. Hixson (D) Yes, you may recall that I led the effort here together with members of the Montgomery County Delegation to support a study of the plan for the I-270 Corridor. We wrote to Governor O’Malley endorsing this action. Yes, I still support further study and believe that an all-transit alternative is practical, economically and environmentally.

Tom Hucker (D) I support further study and implementation of ACT's plan for the 270 Corridor, rather than the plan to expand I-270.

Heather R. Mizeur (D) Absolutely. Last fall, I joined more than a dozen colleagues in calling on Governor O’Malley and the Department of Transportation to consider transit-only alternatives to improve the I-270 Corridor. Expanded transit options will reduce travel times and protect our environment. Widening I-270 while ignoring transit alternatives will not reduce congestion.

Chris Stoughton (D) I do. But even more, I think we should go ahead with the ACT plan for the I-270 Corridor. We need to stop building and expanding highways and instead use that money to build and expand transit. Once elected I will be a champion on this issue.

 

Question 3

How can we fund WMATA?

Sheila E. Hixson (D) Funding is provided by the Transportation Trust Fund. I am in favor of an increase in gasoline taxes to fund WMATA and anticipate this increase in 2011.

Tom Hucker (D) First and foremost, Congress and the Administration need to treat WMATA like the national security asset that it is. WMATA is the critical path that the federal government relies on not only to get the federal workforce to work, but equally important, WMATA is the tool they rely on to get the work force out of federal facilities in the event of an emergency. The federal government has never taken the responsibility it should for funding WMATA. Additonal federal oversight would be fine as a condition of funding, and it might have the salutary effect of increasing federal buy-in.

Maryland, Virginia, and DC each need to have dedicated formula-based, durable funding streams for WMATA. WMATA remains the only major system in the nation without dedicated funding. Dedicated funding formulas need to take into account both growth and inflation. When I was at Progressive Maryland, I testified and lobbied with ACT, Washington Board of Trade, and other groups in support of this position for years.

Commercial real estate rents near Metro stations have skyrocketed due to the massive public investment taxpayers and riders have made in building, maintaining, and expanding Metro, but commercial real estate interests have never paid their fair share for the windfall they have realized from the public investment in WMATA.

Heather Mizeur (D) We need a consistent and dedicated funding source for WMATA and Maryland must commit itself to being an equal partner, especially when the system needs $11 billion in capital funding over the next ten years to meet demands. This year, Maryland explored deferring capital funds for Metro for the next two years. This is precisely the kind of roller coaster budgeting that makes a dedicated revenue source necessary. Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the federal government must once and for all team up to provide an annual, dedicated funding source to ensure safe, efficient transit options.

Chris Stoughton (D) All three regional governments and the federal government need to fully fund WMATA. Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government all benefit greatly from this vital resource in our area. All four entities need to step up to the plate and dedicate more long term funding for WMATA. We need to keep rider rates down, make necessary safety improvements, and expand the routes further out to Virginia and Maryland suburbs. We need real leadership to ensure long term financial stability for the WMATA. Once elected I will take this issue on as one of my main priorities.

 

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?

Sheila E. Hixson (D) Yes, however, we must have a transit plan prior to construction of highways.

Tom Hucker (D) No. CCT should be fully funded first. We have passed aggressive new Smart Growth goals, aggressive new greenhouse gas reduction goals, and we don't have the plans to meet them. We need to do things differently than we have in the past.

Heather Mizeur (D) No. The County Council made the right decision in approving the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan with the condition that development not proceed until the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) is funded. Transit must be a critical component of any future development in the County, because a roads-only approach is not the way to go.

Chris Stoughton (D) Absolutely not. No more money should be spent on increasing highway capacity anywhere and especially not before the light rail transitway from Shady Grove to Clarksburg is fully funded for construction. We need to fully fund the light rail, which will then reduce congestion in that area.