Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.

Allowing voters to veto transportation projects won't change anything

ElectionsExecutive BranchWilliam Donald SchaeferChesapeake Bay Bridge

Former Gov. Parris N. Glendening's proposal to let voters decide whether to build transportation projects ignores the long history of disconnect between the state's plans and outcomes, which cannot be resolved by a simple yes or no by voters ("Voters will support transportation projects," April 22).

This goes back at least as far as the 1960s, when voters rejected a second parallel span for the Bay Bridge — and the state built it anyway.

In the 1990s, even Gov. William Donald Schaefer got conned by his own Department of Transportation's promises regarding light rail. Massive hidden cost overruns led to a disastrous single track scheme, a costly disruptive reconstruction, and low ridership from which the entire system, especially Howard Street, has never recovered. Mr. Schaefer ultimately had to fire Metropolitan Transit Authority administrator Ron Hartman.

In 2002, voters implicitly vetoed Mr. Glendening's attempt to kill the InterCounty Connector (ICC) when they elected Gov.Robert L. Ehrlich replace him. But the bureaucrats ultimately fooled everyone when massive toll increases throughout the state became necessary to pay for it. Then they sold us a billion dollar "express toll" lane plan for I-95, which will not attract sufficient users to cover its costs for decades, if ever.

Now Mr. Glendening wants a 50/50 allocation to transit expansions and road repair projects, even though history shows that most of the money ultimately goes to sprawl-feeding highway expansions (like the ICC) and burgeoning transit operating deficits by the chronically underperforming MTA.

The fundamental problem with putting the ultimate decision about transportation projects in the hands of voters is that the plans themselves will still be formulated by insiders and their cronies, and even if voters say "nay," those interests will simply come up with another "take it or leave it" scheme.

That's not voter empowerment or rational planning; it's just a recipe for more backroom dealing and buck-passing.

That's why the only rational response is to do what the General Assembly is already doing: Starve the transportation beast by refusing to impose increased gas taxes on Maryland's fed-up citizens.

Gerald Neily, Baltimore

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
ElectionsExecutive BranchWilliam Donald SchaeferChesapeake Bay Bridge
  • The BMA turns 100
    The BMA turns 100

    The Baltimore Museum of Art owes its existence to the work of civic-minded citizens a century ago who believed that a great city was incomplete without a great art museum. And from the beginning their vision of the purpose of a great museum was to provide a place for people of every station...

  • The bogus 'rain tax' repeal
    The bogus 'rain tax' repeal

    Despite facing a bigger-than-expected budget shortfall, and although he promised a policy blackout until he takes office, Governor-elect Larry Hogan last week publicly reiterated his support for repealing Maryland's "rain tax" while meeting with fellow Republican governors in Florida. He told...

  • Obamacare: Beyond the website
    Obamacare: Beyond the website

    While it's too early to declare the new Maryland health insurance exchange website a complete success, its largely smooth launch this week offers the prospect that this open enrollment period will be focused less on the technology and more on ensuring Marylanders are getting access to high...

  • Closing the achievement gap would bolster U.S. economy
    Closing the achievement gap would bolster U.S. economy

    As an American, I am proud that our country leads the world in innovation and job creation. I am also aware that our success is leveraged on decisions we made more than a half century ago to invest in high-quality public education for all our children.

  • Obamacare is a 'varsity stinker'
    Obamacare is a 'varsity stinker'

    OK, I can't help myself. Over the past three years, I have written at least a dozen columns critical of Obamacare (a.k.a. The "Affordable Care Act") in this space and devoted an entire chapter to the topic in my book "America: Hope for Change."

  • The growing wealth and clout of the richest .01 percent
    The growing wealth and clout of the richest .01 percent

    Political spending of the nations wealthiest has been growing faster than their spending on anything else