The April LSIA General Membership Board Meeting will be on Wed. April 9th at 7 pm at Lindale Middle School in the media center. The April speakers will be Sen. Pam Beidle and Del. Mark Chang giving a briefing on the 2024-25 MD Session

J.E. Szech

LSIA Supports the Maryland General Assembly Senate Bill 200

LSIA Supports the Maryland General Assembly Senate Bill 200

Speaker: Dan Woomer, Vice President

Linthicum-Shipley Improvement Association (LSIA)

Hearing: Budget and Taxation and Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs

West Miller Senate Building

11 Bladen Street - Room 3

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Summary:

The Linthicum-Shipley Improvement Association (LSIA) joins with Senators Pinsky and Peters to support this session’s Senate Bill 200 – “prohibiting the State and certain units and instrumentalities of the State from using any appropriation for a magnetic levitation transportation system in the State; prohibiting a public or private entity that receives money from the State from authorizing a permit or giving any other form of approval for a magnetic levitation transportation system in the State; prohibiting a proposal for a magnetic levitation transportation system from using certain right–of–way or track owned or operated by certain railroad companies; and generally relating to State appropriations for magnetic levitation transportation systems.”

Testimony:

Good afternoon. My name is Daniel E. Woomer, I’m the Vice President of the Linthicum-Shipley Improvement Association, also known as LSIA. I’ve lived in Linthicum over 39 years. I’m authorized to speak for our community association.

Thank you for scheduling this hearing and for the opportunity to speak with you in support of Senate Bill 200.

Linthicum, comprising the communities of North Linthicum, Linthicum, Crestwood and Linthicum-Shipley is a small town located south of Baltimore City, in Anne Arundel County. Our history dates back to the mid-1600’s as part of a land grant from England which led to the Linthicum and Shipley families establishing some of the earliest agricultural interests in our County. This farming area has evolved over the past centuries into a residential community.

Following the advent of train travel, our community became a place for lawyers, doctors, bankers, and others to move out of the city and into a more open and quiet community. Following WWII, Linthicum evolved into a suburb made up of residences, schools, our own fire station, our own post office, with small, medium and large businesses. Linthicum families typically come to stay, with many families having five or more generations rooted in our community. Of course, the Linthicum and Shipley families have far deeper roots. LSIA represents over 2,700 households and businesses, and has over 500 active household members. LSIA is opposed to the building of the SCMagLev and supports Senate Bill 200.

There are four principal reasons LSIA is opposed to building the SCMagLev: (1) It does not serve Marylanders, yet destroys our communities and green spaces. (2) It will generate Insufficient revenue requiring Government subsidies. (3) It will follow previous world experiences with such systems; many of which have failed or are being maintained with large government subsidies. (4) The need for other far more higher value transportation infrastructure improvements outweigh wasting funds on building the SCMagLev.

(1) SCMagLev Does Not Serve Marylanders, Yet Destroys Our Communities and Green Spaces.

Others will talk at greater depth of the impact of building the underground and elevated sections of the proposed SCMagLev from Baltimore, to BWI on onto Washington, DC. SCMagLev project will result in the:

• The destruction of swaths of homes, businesses, historic sights, and greenspaces through Prince Georges county with the erection of the elevated sections of the SCMagLev.

• The potential disruption of Anne Arundel aquifers.

• The potential release of toxins, carcinogens, and Radon gas into our communities collected in the SCMagLev tunneled sections through their surface ventilation facilities.

• Concerns of our schools’ structures, personal, and students on the impact of a high-speed oscillating magnetic field train running under them.

• Increased traffic with SCMagLev facilities and track maintenance equipment on I-95 and the BWI Parkway.

• One stop in Anne Arundel County, and no stops in Prince Georges County, virtually no benefit to the residents and businesses in our counties, yet we carry the burden of the destruction.

(2) SCMagLev Will Generate Insufficient Revenue Requiring Government Subsidies.

LSIA, as many others having followed the SCMagLev project for about two years, do not see how this system will generate the revenues needed to operate and maintain itself without the need for government subsidies. You all, as we, have received mixed signals for the SCMagLev leadership, one time saying all of the funds needed for maintenance and operation (M&O) will be generated by ridership, and another saying, any system like the one proposed requires a private and public support as in the use of tax dollars to provide financial support.

To date, no major public rail system in the world operates without government subsidy. Amtrak is actually one of the best, generating revenues which do cover the majority of its annual operation and maintenance (M&O) costs, and has shown improvement over the past decade, requiring a smaller percentage of M&O to be subsidized. If ridership is pulled from Amtrak by the SCMagLev, Amtrak revenues will drop requiring represents over 2,700 households and businesses, and has over 500 active household members. LSIA is opposed to the building of the SCMagLev and supports Senate Bill 200. There are four principal reasons LSIA is opposed to building the SCMagLev: (1) It does not serve Marylanders, yet destroys our communities and green spaces. (2) It will generate Insufficient revenue requiring Government subsidies. (3) It will follow previous world experiences with such systems; many of which have failed or are being maintained with large government subsidies. (4) The need for other far more higher value transportation infrastructure improvements outweigh wasting funds on building the SCMagLev. (1) SCMagLev Does Not Serve Marylanders, Yet Destroys Our Communities and Green Spaces. Others will talk at greater depth of the impact of building the underground and elevated sections of the proposed SCMagLev from Baltimore, to BWI on onto Washington, DC. SCMagLev project will result in the: • The destruction of swaths of homes, businesses, historic sights, and greenspaces through Prince Georges county with the erection of the elevated sections of the SCMagLev. • The potential disruption of Anne Arundel aquifers. • The potential release of toxins, carcinogens, and Radon gas into our communities collected in the SCMagLev tunneled sections through their surface ventilation facilities. • Concerns of our schools’ structures, personal, and students on the impact of a high-speed oscillating magnetic field train running under them. • Increased traffic with SCMagLev facilities and track maintenance equipment on I-95 and the BWI Parkway. • One stop in Anne Arundel County, and no stops in Prince Georges County, virtually no benefit to the residents and businesses in our counties, yet we carry the burden of the destruction. (2) SCMagLev Will Generate Insufficient Revenue Requiring Government Subsidies. LSIA, as many others having followed the SCMagLev project for about two years, do not see how this system will generate the revenues needed to operate and maintain itself without the need for government subsidies. You all, as we, have received mixed signals for the SCMagLev leadership, one time saying all of the funds needed for maintenance and operation (M&O) will be generated by ridership, and another saying, any system like the one proposed requires a private and public support as in the use of tax dollars to provide financial support. To date, no major public rail system in the world operates without government subsidy. Amtrak is actually one of the best, generating revenues which do cover the majority of its annual operation and maintenance (M&O) costs, and has shown improvement over the past decade, requiring a smaller percentage of M&O to be subsidized. If ridership is pulled from Amtrak by the SCMagLev, Amtrak revenues will drop requiring additional subsidies to maintain the Northeast corridor. In effect, taxpayers will be forced to subsidizing two competing systems. Such funds will enrich the private SCMagLev investors, negatively impact existing transportation systems, and pull funding from other needed more critical transportation infrastructure projects.

(3) SCMagLev Will Follow Previous World Experiences with Such Systems, Many of Which Have Failed or are Being Maintained with Large Government Subsidies.

I call your attention to a recent report by Ms. Carol Park, an analyst at the Center for Business and Economic Competitiveness at the Maryland Public Policy Institute titled: Lessons from Asia for the Northeast SCMagLev.

To quote Ms. Park - “SCMagLev enthusiasts have been pushing the project despite warnings of significant risks, just like the supporters of the bullet train did in Asia. For instance, the South Korean government built the Seoul-Incheon line despite consistent warnings of inadequate demand. The project was politically, rather than commercially, driven as Korean officials wanted to present a futuristic version of Korea to the international community as part of the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics.” The line was closed in 2018 after just four years of service because 77 percent of seats were unoccupied.

Germany’s experimented with building a MagLev train, and following several years of development and building, with large and growing annual government subsidies and the lack of ridership, the effort was abandoned.

For a current example of over promised and underperformance, look no further than California’s experience with high speed rail system, which has become a financial nightmare. Massive overruns, building delays, homes, businesses and private properties taken, and still no working system.

Ms. Park states: “Supporters of SCMagLev dismiss these concerns. They argue that the success of bullet trains in Japan demonstrate that these hurdles can be overcome. That’s exactly what officials in China, Taiwan and South Korea thought, only to discover that the situation in Japan is unique. Most of Japan’s 128 million inhabitants live in a few densely populated cities. Many of those residents are rich enough to afford expensive train tickets.”

Note, SCMagLev officials have repeated stated that the ticket prices will be similar to Amtrak/Acela.

“Compared to Japan, the situation is the polar opposite in Baltimore, where many of the residents who depend on public transit are low-income workers. If these residents are to commute between Baltimore and D.C., they would need an option that is affordable and easily accessible from their homes.” The SCMagLev is neither. Whereas, MARC provides that reliable and cost-effective transportation system: last year moving well over 8 million passengers into and out of DC.

(4) The Need for Other Far High Value Transportation Infrastructure Improvements Outweigh Wasting Funds on Building the SCMagLev.

Supporters of the SCMagLev state the existing 150-year-old system is out of date and employs obsolete technology. Well, I rode MARC and Amtrak into DC for nearly 30 years, and not once was I on a train that employed a wood fired steam engine. Amtrak and MARC employ modern equipment, running on an upgraded high-speed rail system. Both are purchasing and implementing new, proven, state-of-the-art equipment.

Amtrak has just completed a multi-year Environmental Impact Study (EIS), secured loans totaling $2.7 Billion, and are actively engaged in upgrading rail, equipment and stations all along the Northeast corridor. Note – Maryland’s own BWI Rail Station is currently being replaced with a larger, modern, new tech, and improved comfort building.

Instead of wasting money to build a transportation system that will not serve Marylanders, and take funds needed for transportation infrastructure, LSIA and many others believe it would be far better to invest those funds into Maryland transportation infrastructure.

For example - Look around this room. Everything you see – the structure, paint, electrical, electronics, furniture, the clothes and shoes we are all wearing, all were transported by commercial truck. Maryland commerce requires sound transportation infrastructure to operate efficiently. Such systems draw business to Maryland and improve the economic base of our State. How many Maryland bridges are rated C or lower, and are in need of repair or replacement? Such work would be a far better use of Maryland’s tax dollars than investing in and subsidizing an unnecessary high cost train for the well healed.

AND . . . We haven’t spoken to security concerns associated with having a 300 plus mile an hour train flying down an elevated section of track, or through a tunnel. What catastrophic results would occur if someone manages to get to the track and execute an attack. Who is going to maintain the security envelop, and how much resources will the State and Counties be required to provide? All costing additional tax dollars better used elsewhere.

In conclusion, I agree with the Center for Business and Economic Competitiveness at the Maryland Public Policy Institute report recommendation – “The Northeast Maglev project should be scrapped before it is too late. There are many transportation priorities that are worthier of attention.” Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing. I have provided a printed copy of my testimony for your review and records, with a copy of the Center for Business and Economic Competitiveness at the Maryland Public Policy Institute’s report for your convenience.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing.

Two bills pertaining to MAGLEV have been scheduled for a hearing before the Environment and Transportation Committee in the House of Delegates.

 

The hearings are both scheduled for Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 1 p.m. in the afternoon.   More information can be found at these links:

 

HB637   http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0637&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2018RS

This bill requires counties to hold a public hearing if transferring an asset for use in a high speed transportation system as well as public notification by the transportation entity to all homeowners and businesses within 500 feet of the transferred asset. 

 

And

 

HB638   http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0637&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2018RS

This bill requires municipal agreements if counties choose to sell assets to high-speed transportation systems if such assets fall within municipal lines.  

 

Every Committee Chair sets individual guidelines for that Committee.   Guidelines on written and oral testimony  before the Environment and Transportation Committee can be found at this link:http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs-current/current-env-faqs.pdf

 

If interested attached is a scan of today’s handout from  MDOT at the briefing before the Environment and Transportation Committee.

 

As always, please feel free to email me if you have questions at Geraldine.Valentino@house.state.md.us or call 301-858-3101.  

Share

LSIA Representatives meet with Senator Van Hollen to discuss SCMAGLEV study

By Suzzie Schuyler & Dan Woomer

Important update regarding the LSIA opposition to the BWRR's proposed SCMAGLEV project:

Organized and invited by Dennis Brady, from Prince George's County and lead for Citizens Against SCMagLev (CATS), Suzzie Schuyler (LSIA), Dan Woomer (LSIA) and community leaders with other concerned citizens from Bowie and Greenbelt met with Senator Van Hollen in his Washington, DC, office on Thursday, January 11, 2017.

Working with our partner communities, we express our concerns with the proposed SCMagLev system to the Senator and staff. We were pleased to see that they were prepared, open minded, and attentive. Our concerns were heard, and he was engaging by asking probing questions which were all addressed. His staff will review the information we provided. In addition, the Senator has directed his staff to review the NEPA process and Grant language. They will report back to him with their findings and he will make a determination for the next step.

It is the consensus of the group that the discrepancy and the language difference between NEPA and the EIS scope is in conflict. Our hope is the review will either end the process for the SCMagLev system or force the inclusion of the alternative solutions such as the existing Amtrak services and their (Northeast Corridor) NEC FUTURE Plan. We were pleased the Senator shared our concerns with cost and community impact.

Please visit us at www.lsia.net for more community news and information.

Share

SCMAGLEV Form Letter

The Honorable Maryland Governor Larry Hogan

100 State Circle

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

 

Maryland Department of Transportation
Bradley M. Smith, Director of Office of Freight and Multimodalism
7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover, MD 21076

email: bsmith9@mdot.state.md.us

SCMAGLEV Project, c/o Suhair Al Khatib
Maryland Transit Administration
6 Saint Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21202

email: salkhatib@mta.maryland.gov

 

 

[ENTER DATE]

 

 

Dear Governor Hogan,

 

My name is [ENTER NAME] and I reside at [ENTER ADDRESS]. I am writing to inform you that I oppose the SCMALEV train project for many reasons, including the following:

 

  • There are thousands of people in the path of the SCMAGLEV train who will be adversely impacted by the train either running through or under their homes, by the many years of construction activity and because of the unsightly ventilation facilities that will need to be installed.
  • SCMAGLEV is an unproven technology that has never been profitable or successful in any community, especially in the United States (e.g. California’s MAGLEV project).
  • Based on the history of MAGLEV trains in the United States and in Japan, residents in Maryland are likely to be stuck with a large tax bill for years to come.
  • Maryland already has several train systems that we can use that do not disrupt and destroy the communities along the path that the SCMAGLEV train is proposed to take.
  • The SCMAGLEV train will not save any time in commute from Baltimore to District of Columbia when transit time between my home and the train station is taken into account. It will also be much more expensive than commuting by car or MARC.

 

Thank you for taking the time to review my letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you want to discuss this issue further.

 

 

Very Truly Yours,

 

 

_____________________

[ENTER NAME]

 

 

 

CC:

Additional Addresses and Repreentatives

 

Maryland Department of Transportation
Bradley M. Smith, Director of Office of Freight and Multimodalism
7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover, MD 21076

email: bsmith9@mdot.state.md.us
 

Paul Nissenbaum, Associate Administrator

Office of Railroad Policy & Development

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

email: OfficeofRPD@dot.gov

 

Anne Arundel County Executive

Steven R. Schuh Arundel Center

44 Calvert Street

Annapolis, MD 21404-1831

email: sschuh@aacounty.org

 

Maryland Senator Ben Cardin

509 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

email: https://www.cardin.senate.gov/contact/email-ben

 

Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen

110 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

email: https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/content/contact-senator

 

Congressman John P. Sarbanes (US House District 3)

2444 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

email: md03ima@mail.house.gov

 

State Senator James DeGrange, Sr.

James Senate Office Building, Room 101

11 Bladen St.

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

email: james.degrange@senate.state.md.us

 

Delegate Pamela Beidle

House Office Building, Room 165

6 Bladen St.

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

email: pamela.beidle@house.state.md.us

 

Delegate Mark Chang

House Office Building, Room 160

6 Bladen St.

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

email: mark.chang@house.state.md.us

 

Delegate Theodore Sophocleus

House Office Building, Room 162

6 Bladen St. Annapolis, Maryland 21401

email: ted.sophocleus@house.state.md.us

 

County Council (District 1)

Councilman Peter Smith

44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

email: peter.smith@aacounty.org

 

Administrator Scott Pruitt

USEPA Headquarters

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Mail Code: 1101A

Washington, DC 20460

email: pruitt.scott@epa.gov

 

EPA Acting Regional Administrator Cecil Rodrigues

US EPA Region 3

Environmental Protection Agency

1650 Arch Street

Mail Code: 3RA00

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

email: rodrigues.cecil@epa.gov

 

Chairman Milford Wayne Donaldson

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

401 F Street NW, Suite 308

Washington, DC 20001-2637

email: achp@achp.gov

 

Ms. Mary B. Neumayr

Acting Chief of Staff

Council on Environmental Quality

Executive Office of the President

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500

email: XXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Ms. Elizabeth Hughes

Director/State Historic Preservation Officer

Maryland Historical Trust

100 Community Place, 3rd Floor

Crownsville, MD 21032-2023

email: elizabeth.hughes@maryland.gov