Discussion of Maryland’s public policy problems often begins prematurely with an appeal to spend more money - well before a meaningful debate can occur about how more funds should be spent.

Maryland transportation spending is a case in point for how poor spending decisions can make matters worse. Voters, who are overwhelmingly motorists, are promised traffic congestion relief through more spending. However, instead of investing in projects that will actually reduce travel times, planners divert money to public transit. They push a strategy of planned gridlock that is intended to drive motorists from their cars.

If alleging planned gridlock seems harsh, consider current Montgomery County Council legislation to slow traffic flow by significantly narrowing travel lane widths on some busy roads and cutting speed limits. This plan is intended to “prioritize moving people, not cars,” as though cars do not contain people. In smart growth jargon, “transit-oriented development” reflects plans to restrict new development to high density in order to ‘nudge’ more public transit use. 

Nearly half of Maryland’s transportation spending is devoted to mass transit, despite the fact that cars account for approximately 97 percent of all travel. Transportation planners justify the imbalance by promising motorists that travelers will be diverted away from the roads to transit. 

After spending billions over the past two decades on public transit, Maryland mass transit’s increase of 52,000 daily commuters has been more than offset by a 62,000 loss in carpool commuters. According to U.S. Census data between 1990 and 2008, 93 percent (400,000) of all additional commutes were by single-occupant automobiles. In fact, almost as many commuters have been ‘diverted’ from the roads by working at home (47,000), as were by mass transit.

In short, promised travel diversion to public transit has not materialized. Nevertheless, Maryland’s transportation and planning experts are not prepared to give up.

Exhibit A for Maryland’s misplaced transportation priorities is the proposed new Washington Metro Purple Line. The most recent capital cost estimates for the project are $2.2 billion. In just over two years estimates for the 16-mile line between New Carrollton and Bethesda transit line have grown by 50 percent.   

Ridership forecasts for 2040 exceed 74,000 for a typical weekday, yet according to its advocates’ own forecasts, over 80 percent of the Purple Line’s riders are expected to come from existing mass transit. The Purple Line’s lack of impact on mass transit travel is not surprising. Already the J4 bus from College Park to Bethesda takes 49 minutes and costs $1.60. Existing Metro rail service between Bethesda and New Carrolton takes about the same travel time and costs up to $6.70.  

Even under its promoters’ own rosy assumptions, the Purple Line’s projected spending of $149,000 for each “new” additional mass transit rider only covers the capital cost, since fare box revenues only fund  a portion of operating costs.

Transit planners have failed to make good on their promise of less crowded roads in exchange for more mass transit spending. This outcome is no surprise considering geography and distribution of jobs and homes. A century ago, centralized job locations could be fed by convenient trolley lines within a 10-mile radius. Today our metropolitan areas now span thousands of square miles with population densities that cannot support widespread mass transit usage. 

Worse, when Maryland does build transportation projects, it does so expensively.

Compare the state-built Inter-County Connector with Virginia’s private Dulles Greenway. Both are about the same distance in length - the ICC is 14 miles and the Dulles Greenway 13 miles. Both were built through largely undeveloped parts of the Washington exurban area. Yet the privately-financed Greenway cost $315 million to build in the 1990s, while the ICC cost $2.5 billion. Meanwhile, in Montgomery County, the Sliver Spring Transit Center was supposed to open in 2009 at a cost of $30 million. The price tag is now over $120 million and the transit center is still not open.

Drivers in single-occupant cars make rational economic choices by trading the higher commuting costs of a car for less time spent commuting. In effect, even a 6-minute reduction in commuting time can be worth the equivalent of 2 percent of income. Conversely, by not making road improvements and thereby delaying commutes, Maryland’s transportation strategy of planned gridlock adds yet another cost of living in the state.

Mark Uncapher is an attorney living in Bethesda Maryland. He can be reached at Mark@uncapher.net or followed on twitter @Mark_Uncapher