Local Reaction to Road Bill Debate
The “disastrous” road bill that Gov. Larry Hogan wants to squash like so much roadkill doesn’t deserve the hyperbole, according to local Democrats.
The transportation bill in question went into effect July 1, 2016, surviving a veto from Hogan. Supporters say the legislation aims to make the distribution of state transportation dollars transparent and apolitical. The bill does allow the Governor the final decisions on major transportation project funding.
“The people of Maryland want a transparent government where they understand how politicians are spending their money,” said Del. Karen Lewis Young, D, District 3-A. “The law requires the Governor to simply explain his spending decisions, not hide behind them.”
Del. Carol Krimm, D, District 3-A, serves on the transportation subcommittee as a member of the appropriations committee. She called the bill “good policy.”
“This is not only good policy, but clearly defines how you prioritize limited funds,” Krimm said. “It’s also transparent to the public how dollars are spent.”
The bill requires the state’s Department of Transportation to evaluate instrastructure projects for adhering to a set of scoring criteria that include the project’s safety and security; system preservation; quality of service; environmental stewardship; community vitality; economic prosperity; equitable access to transportation; cost effectiveness and return on investment; and local priorities and planning.
According to the fiscal and policy note on House Bill 1013, ten goals and measures must be the sole basis for scoring each major transportation project. The note also indicates that the goals for prioritizing road projects are similar to those MDOT used before H.B. 1013 went into effect, and incorporated into the Maryland Transportation Plan. The plan was last updated in 2014.
But Gov. Hogan said the current bill and past scoring practices are not the same. Rather, he said, the [new] law “is a poor attempt to fix a problem that didn’t exist,” he said through a spokesperson. “The system that has been in place in Maryland for 34 years is both transparent and effective - this was a thinly-veiled power grab to severely limit local jurisdictions’ ability to determine which of transportation projects should be funded.”
Hogan called for emergency legislation Wed., Dec. 15 in a press release to kill the bill. The govenor called the bill “hyper-partisan” and “catastrophic.”
In the release, Hogan said the bill “will absolutely be responsible for the elimination of nearly all of the most important transportation priorities in every single jurisdiction all across the state,” said Governor Hogan.
Projects in Frederick that Hogan said have “lost pivotal funding” because of the bill include: Capacity improvements on MD 180 & MD 351; improvements to U.S. 15 between I-70 and MD 26; widening of MD 85 from English Muffin Way to Grove Road,; widening of MD 85 from Crestwood to Spectrum Drive, and widening of I-70 to six lanes between Mount Phillip Road and I-270.
The list is misleading, according to Krimm because the funding for any road project is never guaranteed, and these projects, may not have been funded.
Young said the governor is playing politics and targeting Democratic legislators. She also accuses Hogan of deflecting from a nonpartisan analyst’s report issued last month “that show his promises are $1.6 billion overbudget. So, he needs a scapegoat to explain away his inability to deliver,” Young said.
To detractors who say Hogan is politicizing the new law to draw support from Democratic legislators, the governor said the members of the legislature are the only ones politicizing the law. “This legislation was heavily influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups and forced through the legislative process without any public input on the final bill,” he said through a spokesperson.
The debate over the controversial road bill, said Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner, “creates uncertainty and unpredictability for our business community and our residents alike.”
Still, she is hopeful for a good resolution, and vowed to watch the debate closely. “I am optimistic that the Administration and State Legislature will work out their differences because addressing transportation congestion is such an important issue to our citizens and businesses,” she said.
