The Maryland TransitFunding StudySteering Committee
Committee Report
January 2007
1.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................2
The “Davis Bill”.................................................................................3Meeting the Challenge: Study Approach...............................................3Purpose and Contents of Report..........................................................5
TRANSIT IN MARYLAND – AN OVERVIEW..........................................5
Heavy Rail........................................................................................6Light Rail.........................................................................................7Local and Commuter Bus....................................................................8Paratransit.....................................................................................11Other Transit Services and Programs.................................................12Maryland Commuter Rail Service (MARC)............................................12Transit Funding In Maryland.............................................................13
LEARNING FROM OTHERS................................................................21
WMATA Compact Peers....................................................................21Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation........................21Fairfax County Department of Transportation...................................22District of Columbia DOT...............................................................23Overview of Transit Funding in the United States.................................23Selected Peer Transit Systems..........................................................26Pennsylvania Transit.....................................................................26New Jersey Transit.......................................................................27Chicago......................................................................................28Denver.......................................................................................29St. Louis Metro............................................................................29Public Private Partnerships: Three Case Studies...................................32TriMet (Portland, Oregon), Airport MAX project.................................32New York Avenue-Gallaudet University Metro Station........................34Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project.....................................................35Public Testimony.............................................................................38
UNDERSTANDING OUR NEEDS.........................................................40
Transit Funding Context...................................................................40Twenty-year Unconstrained Transit Costs...........................................42Transportation Trust Fund Revenue Trends......................................42Transit Funding Trends.................................................................43Projected Transit Operating and System Preservation Costs...............44Projected Transit Enhancement and Expansion Costs.........................47Other Major Initiatives..................................................................49Potential Alternatives for Addressing Transit Funding Needs..................50Menu of Revenue Sources.............................................................52Funding Scenarios........................................................................54
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................57
The Transit Context.........................................................................57Learning From Others......................................................................60Understanding Our Needs.................................................................63
2.
INTRODUCTION
Facing mounting pressures to provide additional capacity and othercapital investments to the major public transportation systems servingthe State’s major metropolitan areas, the General Assembly createdSenate Bill 850 which directs the State to undertake a studydocumenting the transit investment and funding needs over a twentyyear time horizon.Specifically, SB 850 calls for the study to include the following:
•
An analysis of operating and capital funding needs for transit inMaryland over a twenty year time horizon. This is to be anunconstrained and comprehensive analysis addressing allaspects of preserving, enhancing, operating, and maintaining thestate’s transit system.
•
A review of how transit services are funded throughout theUnited States, focusing on cities with large transit systems.
•
Identify potential State funding strategies that would enhanceresources as needed.Further, the bill provides for the formation of the Transit FundingStudy Steering Committee to provide direction on the study processand any recommendations. The Transit Funding Study SteeringCommittee was to include the following representatives
•
Three members of the Senate of Maryland, appointed by thePresident of the Senate;
•
Three members of the House of Delegate, appointed by theSpeaker of the House;
•
The Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary’s designee
•
The Secretary of Budget and Management, or the Secretary’sdesignee.A final report is to be submitted to the General Assembly. SB 850directs that the report to be submitted on December 15, 2006.However, the Steering Committee approved the submission of anInterim Report in December, with the Final Report to be submitted bymid January. This report serves as that document.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Other Transit Services and Programs for null
1.7K
Reads
0
Readcasts
26
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
