SCMagLev - MD Appeals Court Sides with SCMaglev Proponents

Edited by: Dan Woomer

By Holden Wilen – Reporter, Baltimore Business Journal

Mar 4, 2022

A high-speed magnetic levitation train line that would run from Baltimore to Washington , D.C. , remains a possibility after the company planning to build the project won an appeal in its case seeking to condemn land in Westport .

Maryland's Court of Special Appeals, the state's second-highest court, ruled Friday that a lower court judge erred in her decision to dismiss a condemnation case that would have put plans for a maglev train line in jeopardy. The case now goes back to the Baltimore City Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Baltimore Washington Rapid Rail (BWRR), the company that wants to build the maglev, filed a lawsuit last year seeking to condemn 43 acres of land in Westport that it claims is needed for the proposed route. Monkton-based Stonewall Capital, which owns the property off Kloman Street , is planning a major redevelopment of the South Baltimore waterfront.

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Kendra Ausby dismissed the case in August, ruling BWRR did not obtain the necessary approval from Baltimore 's mayor and City Council. The Court of Special Appeals ruled Ausby erred in her decision because the case involves only privately owned property and not about accessing property via Baltimore public ways.

"This case is only about whether BWRR has the authority to seek to acquire via condemnation a privately owned parcel of land," according to the opinion authored by Judge Stuart R. Berger. "BWRR sought and obtained the only consent required at this time. We hold, therefore, that the circuit court erred by concluding that BWRR had failed to obtained consent as required...as a matter of law."

Wayne Rogers, CEO of BWRR, praised the court's ruling and said it helps move the maglev closer to reality.

"This ruling supports our continued focus on moving the project forward, bringing significant economic and environmental benefits to the community and the region," Rogers said in a statement. "Since the project’s inception, we’ve been committed to engaging with diverse, vibrant communities to ensure the benefits are shared equitably. We’re pleased that this ruling allows us to expedite our work with communities to develop world class transportation, an inclusive workforce, improve air quality by taking millions of cars off the road and open new education and business opportunities for all."

Representatives of Stonewall could not be reached immediately for comment.

The ruling supports BWRR claim that it obtained condemnation power through a passenger railroad franchise it acquired in 2015, with approval from the Maryland Public Service Commission. The company, as a condition of the PSC's approval, also sought consent from Baltimore 's mayor and City Council to exercise the railroad franchise. The City Council passed a resolution providing consent in February 2017, which was signed by then-Mayor Catherine Pugh in April that year.

Brett Ingerman, managing partner of DLA Piper's Baltimore office representing BWRR, said during oral arguments last month the company only needs to seek additional approval from the city if it wants to acquire public roads or right-of-ways.

Stonewall argued that BWRR only obtained the railroad franchise and needs additional approval from the City Council to exercise the condemnation power. Matthew Sturtz, a partner in the Baltimore office of law firm Nelson Mullins representing Stonewall, said during oral arguments last month that the extra layer of approval is important because when the PSC approved the transfer of a "dormant franchise," it had no information about a proposed route for the maglev or how the project would impact communities.

Attorneys for BWRR had also asked the appeals court to rule on other issues raised by Stonewall, including a question over whether the maglev is even actually a train. Stonewall attorneys argued maglev does not meet the definition of being train, so BWRR should not be able to exercise condemnation power.

Stonewall also argued the transfer of the railroad franchise to BWRR did not include the right to exercise condemnation power and that the company is time-barred under state law from exercising condemnation authority.

The Court of Special Appeals ruled that the PSC's approval of the transfer of the franchise to BWRR included the right to exercise it. The court also did not agree with Stonewall's conclusion that the maglev is not a train. The court said matters related to the statute of limitations question could be considered by the Circuit Court in future proceedings.

Source: Wilen, Holden. “Appeals court rules in favor of maglev builder in Westport condemnation case.” March 4, 2022. Baltimore Business Journal. https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2022/03/04/appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-maglev.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=BN&utm_content=ba&ana=e_ba_BN&j=26917754&senddate=2022-03-04

HOW YOU CAN LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD

MCRT strongly encourages you all to email your City or County Council Members, City Mayor or County Executive, your Maryland State Senator and District Delegates, as well as Maryland’s Governor, to tell all you are opposed to building the SCMaglev - AND - ask them not to spend another penny or seek any additional grants to fund the building and operating of the SCMaglev.

Need More Information? Want to Help?

(1) Share this information with your family, friends, neighbors, and your community.

(2) Join our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/groups/CitizensAgainstSCMaglev.

(3) Contact your elected officials to express your opposition to building the SCMagLev, go to: myreps.datamade.us.

(4) Learn more about the concerns and impacts the SCMagLev will have on our communities and how to comment on the January 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Statement at www.stopthistrain.org and mcrt-action.org.

(5) Contact the Maryland Coalition for Responsible Transit (MCRT) at mcrtaction@gmail.com for questions.

(6) Make a contribution to support the Maryland Coalition for Responsible Transit (MCRT) and Citizens Against the SCMagLev (CATS) at mcrt-action.org. Your donation, in any amount, is appreciated. Thanks for your support!

SC MagLev - Not Good for Linthicum & Not the Solution

SC MagLev - Not the Solution

SC MagLev Biological and Ecological Impact - 02

SC MagLev Biological and Ecological Impact - 01

What Impact Would the SCMagLev Have on Our Communities?

AMTRAK - Next Generation Acela

AMTRAK - the Better Alternative

Is the SCMagLev Safe?

Is the MAGLEV Good for Prince George's County [or Anne Arundel County]?

Virtual Town Hall

Date: January 14, 2021

Time: 7pm - 8:30pm

Please join Council Member Jolene Ivey, Maryland Coalition for Responsible Transit, and me on

Thursday, January 14, at 7:00 p.m. for a discussion about SCMAGLEV (aka BW MAGLEV)

project.

To register to attend this Town Hall, go to:

https://mypgc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAqfumgpzwpG9BDO3aaquVC8udbI5c-vlf-

Find more SCMagLev background info at:

www.StopThisTrain.org

www.facebook.com/groups/CitizensAgainstSCMaglev/

www.mcrt-action.org

Easily submit your comments to the Maryland Transit Administration SCMagLev website:

www.bwmaglev.info/index.php/contact-us.

SCMAGLEV Project Update

Just an update on the SCMaglev EIS process.  As many of you know, the FRA and MTA took several months to "pause" the EIS process so that BWRR could make some adjustments to their proposed paths of the two remaining alignment alternatives.  The two alternatives for paths are on the east and the west side of the BW Parkway.  And, there is also an option for "No Build", which is what our group, and other groups between DC and Baltimore are pushing for.

More information is available on the Citizens Against SCMaglev Train facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/CitizensAgainstSCMaglev/

You can also visit the MTA project site:  bwmaglev.info

Following the pause, BWRR has not only moved their train coming out of the ground back into the Forest Reserve in Greenbelt, but the extent of the infrastructure, if placed there, will destroy that area.  If this train is going to be stopped, we need your support and your voice.  Please write to the FRA, the MTA, and to your elected officials and governing bodies and tell them that you do not want this train built, and tell them why.

California Bullet Train May Be Heading for Subsidies [Just Like the SCMagLev?]

Edited by: Dan Woomer

Original article by Ralph Vartabedian.

When California voters approved bonds in 2008 to build a bullet train across much of the state, a ballot measure promised them future passenger service would not require operating subsidies.

State officials asserted over the next decade their system would attract so many millions of riders it would actually turn a profit.

Now it is debatable whether those promises will be met.

The state rail authority is moving ahead with a plan to issue a massive contract for tracks and an electrical system that would enable bullet train service in the Central Valley.  But when the service starts in 2028, it would lose money the state would absorb, according to consultants for the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Opponents say the state plan is clearly violating promises made to the electorate.

“It defies the ballot measure approved by voters,” said Quentin Kopp, a former judge and state senator who was a key architect of the bullet train program and former chairman of the High-Speed Rail Board of Directors. “Once you establish the concept, the sky is the limit. There will be a lawsuit, and I want to be the lead plaintiff.”

The $80 billion mega-project has confronted an array of challenges in the last decade, but it now faces new political and legal tests about its ability to operate without further taxpayer support.

The Proposition 1A bond act in 2008 contained what looked like an explicit ban on subsidies, saying, “the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy.”

In another passage, it said that if a partial segment or corridor were built, then “the planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state or federal operating subsidy.”

State officials say they are not violating those promises.

Under a plan introduced by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state wants to construct an electrified 171-mile starter system between Bakersfield and Merced by 2028 for $20.4 billion.  Once the construction is completed, the state would turn over operations to a separate entity, most likely the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, which now controls Amtrak service in the Central Valley that goes to Oakland and Sacramento.

Business analyses of the plan by accounting firm KPMG and German rail firm Deutsche Bahn projects the service would lose about $40 million, though the losses could go as high as $90 million a year if expected investments in a new Merced station are not realized.  The plan includes connections with the ACE commuter system, which goes from the Central Valley to San Jose.

Proponents of the plan argue any losses would be incurred by the San Joaquin authority, not the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Brian Annis, the rail authority’s chief financial officer, said the idea is similar to investments the authority made in 2012 in the Caltrain and Metrolink commuter rail lines, which are also subsidized, though they do not operate bullet trains.  Annis noted the plan actually saves the state money because combining high-speed rail service with existing conventional passenger rail operations reduces state subsidies by half.  [Editor’s Note “But there are still taxpayer subsidies required.”]

Stacey Mortensen, executive director of the San Joaquin authority and chief of the ACE commuter line, said the issue of a subsidy should be “run up the flagpole” to get a legal opinion before moving forward. “Let’s ask the state attorney general to see how it relates to Prop 1A,” she said.

To be sure, the rail authority has consistently won the day in the state Legislature and in state courts, turning back past allegations that it was violating taxpayer protections embedded in the Prop 1A bond act.  But the battles have been costly, causing construction delays and higher legal costs for the rail authority.

Authority spokeswoman Annie Parker also defended the plan, saying in a statement, “This model is allowable and consistent with the tenets of Proposition 1A.”

But others take exception to the idea.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan adviser to lawmakers, warned in a March report, “Operating subsidy expected” and asserting a “subsidy of interim service appears inconsistent with the spirit of Proposition 1A.”

Helen Kerstein, the LAO’s expert on the bullet train, said in an interview, “We are not lawyers and in a position to opine on how a court would rule.  The idea of having that language was that on an ongoing basis passenger fares would pay for the service, not taxpayers.”

A number of critics also say privately the $40 million projected subsidy is based on inflated ridership expectations and (the subsidy) could easily balloon out of control.

The plan is already facing more than verbal opposition.

A bill by Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) declares the High-Speed Rail Authority’s plan does not comply with the prohibition of subsidies.  A committee staff analysis said, “This bill clarifies the Legislature’s intent when it wrote the 2008 bond language prohibiting any operating subsidy for high-speed rail service in the state because the most recent HSRA business plan proposes a system with an operating subsidy.”

It was approved by the Transportation Committee by a vote of 12 to 1.  Committee chairman Jim Frazier (D-Discovery Bay), who has grown increasingly critical of the project’s execution, voted in favor of the bill, along with other Democrats.

“This is a signal of why high-speed rail is in such difficulty,” Patterson said. “This is clearly bait-and-switch; this is clearly a shell game.”

A second bill, by Assemblywoman Luz Rivas (D-Arleta), would create other obstacles to the Central Valley plan.  It would set new priorities for the program’s investments: select ones that provide the most overall benefit, increase rail ridership and replace car trips with rail trips.

It would likely help a fight led by Speaker Anthony Rendon to redirect about $5 billion of the Central Valley funding to rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.  The bill was approved by the committee on a 15-0 vote.

Organized labor has strongly objected to the Rivas legislation, sending dozens of letters in opposition and arguing for continued investments in the Central Valley.  The State Building & Construction Trades Council of California has been one of the strongest and most consistent supporters of the high-speed rail authority. [Editor’s Note:  Labor unions supporting the building of the SCMagLev keep talking about long-term job creation.  Sound familiar?]

Patterson’s and Rivas’s bills were sent to the Appropriations Committee, which is under pressure to block them, according to Assembly sources.

The state-appointed peer review committee, led by Amtrak veteran Louis Thompson, also warned in a recent report the cost of operating a high-speed service in the Central Valley could be higher than expected or more than the San Joaquin authority can handle.

“It may be difficult to implement an interim arrangement that does not violate the terms of Proposition 1A,” the report said.

Thompson told The [LA] Times nobody ever defined what constitutes an operating subsidy, so the language in Prop 1A “is imprecise in many ways.”

The subject of subsidies is likely to come up prominently in an Assembly Transportation Committee hearing Wednesday, though no decisions or actions are expected.

If it didn’t have enough trouble with growing political opposition, the high-speed rail is facing another threat, from COVID-19.  The state’s $54 billion financial deficit will bring every state expenditure under closer scrutiny.  In addition, the rail authority depends on its share of fees raised by the state’s cap-and-trade auction system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The declines in car, rail, bus, and air travel, along with less industrial and commercial activity, are reducing energy consumption and will probably decrease, at least in the short term, the need for emission permits.  The results of a quarterly auction for permits last week were disclosed Thursday, indicating a sharp drop in emission permits and revenue.

The Air Resources Board reported the auction raised about $25 million total.  The bullet train project gets a 25% share of that revenue, or about $6 million for this auction.  That is well below the minimum of $125 million for each quarterly auction the agency anticipates.  If the trend continues, it could cause future [financial] problems.

“That absolutely does create some new risks and new uncertainties for our funding stream,” Annis, the rail authority’s chief financial officer, said.

Source: Vartabedian, Ralph. The Los Angeles Times, “California bullet train could end up needing subsidies, despite promises to voters”  Los Angeles Times.  May 27, 2020 (updated May 28, 2020) pp. B1 and B5.  https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-27/california-bullet-train-may-need-subsidies-despite-promises.

California Bullet Train Officials Told to Suppress Bad News & Shut Up

Edited by: Dan Woomer

Original article by Adam Shaw.

Employees at the lead consulting firm for the struggling California bullet train project were told to “shut up” and threatened with termination if they talked about the costly infrastructure project, according to a report this week.

“I was told to shut up and not say anything,” Mark Styles, who worked for WSP, told the Los Angeles Times. “I was told that I didn’t understand the political arena the project was in. I told them I am not going to shut up. This is my job.”

The Los Angeles Times spoke to a half dozen current and former senior officials, who said the culture threatened to punish or terminate employees who didn’t promote the company line explains why the project has gone on for more than 10 years despite warnings about its risks and money issues.

“If I was to give a talk at a construction conference, I would say they were not following generally accepted project management principles,” project controls coordinator Todd Bilstein told the outlet, adding that failures included estimating costs, scheduling construction, and managing change orders.

“Revealing bad news was discouraged,” he added. “I just couldn’t continue to work there. I don’t work that way. American professionals don’t work that way.”

A spokeswoman for WSP told the LA Times: “We always work carefully with our client to evaluate the demands of each project and to prepare realistic and transparent recommendations regarding schedule and budget.”

The project, which aims to establish a high-speed line between Los Angeles and San Francisco, was scaled back by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom last year in favor of a shorter line between the cities of Bakersfield and Merced.  It has also been hit by repeated delays, with estimates suggesting it may not be completed until 2033.

But despite the scaling back, The California High-Speed Rail Authority last month pegged the cost of completing the project at $80.3 billion in its draft 2020 business plan – $1.3 billion more than previously expected.  The project had initially been estimated to cost $33 billion.

[Editor’s Note: The current estimate is $47.3 billion more than the initial estimated.  The cost has more than doubled.]

Bullet train planners had been under increasing pressure to make progress on the system many believe had no plausible way of living up to its goal of getting riders across the state in three hours or less.

But for critics, it has become a symbol of wasteful big government spending.  President Trump has labeled the entire high-speed rail project a “disaster” and called for Sacramento to return the funds given to the state by the federal government.

“California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars,” Trump tweeted in February.  “They owe the Federal Government three and a half-billion dollars.  We want that money back now.  Whole project is a ‘green’ disaster!”

Brian Kelly, chief executive of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, told the Times the agency “takes seriously any claim of wrongdoing by an employee or contractor.  We have procedures in place for any such claim to be raised and reviewed.  We have an expectation that all employees act within the law and that our contractors meet the requirements of state and federal law.”

California Assemblymember Jim Patterson -- an opponent of the project -- told KFBK the [LA] Times report is further evidence of wrongdoing within the rail authority.  "This is something that I think is so serious that it calls into question criminal behavior," he said.

The current and former officials who spoke to the [LA] Times said the current schedule, which requires 119 miles of track and a signal system in place by 2022, is "impossible."  A more likely scenario, they said, would have this construction completed between 2025 and 2028 -- which would force the state to find new money or [further] cut back on the project.

Fox News' Barnini Chakraborty and Andrew O'Reilly contributed to this report.

Source: Shaw, Adam.  “California bullet train project employees told to ‘shut up’ about project woes: report’”  Foxnews.com.  March 12, 2020.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-bullet-train-employees-told-to-shut-up.

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.

LSIA Supports the Maryland General Assembly Senate Bill 200

LSIA Supports the Maryland General Assembly Senate Bill 200

Speaker: Suzzie Schuyler, 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.

Testimony:

Good afternoon. My name is Suzzie Schuyler, I’m the President of the Linthicum-Shipley Improvement Association (LSIA). I’ve lived in Linthicum more than 26 years. I’m authorized to speak for the LSIA.

LSIA represents over 2,700 households and businesses, and has over 500 active household members. LSIA mission is to continually work to improve our community and the quality of life found in our historic part of Anne Arundel County with roots dating back over 350 years.

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

The SCMagLev does not serve Marylanders.

If built, the SCMagLev will:

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

• Potentially disrupt Anne Arundel aquifers.

• Potentially release toxins, carcinogens, and Radon gas into our communities.

• Expose our school structures, personal, and students to constant low-level vibration, and low-level oscillating magnetic fields as the train runs under them.

• Increase traffic with SCMagLev facilities and track maintenance equipment on I-95 and the BWI Parkway, and through our communities.

• Have one stop in Anne Arundel County, and no stops in Prince Georges County, resulting in virtually no benefit to the residents and businesses in our counties.

With 38 years in the Medical field for 38 years. I was licensed in and worked in or with Radiology, Mammography, Nuclear Medicine, CT, MRI, and PET/CT imaging and am knowledgeable about radiation in many forms knowing that any long-term exposure at any level will have lasting negative effects on the human body. Of this list of concerns presented earlier, I want to call out two items.

(1) If built, the SCMagLev will potentially release toxins, carcinogens, and Radon gas into our communities.

As described during the 10/16/2017 BWRR-MTA Open House by the Louis Berger professional engineer, the ventilation facilities primary purpose is to clear smoke in case there is a fire in the tunnel. Located every 3 to 4 miles apart along the underground tunneled route, the ventilation units will be forcing air into the tunnel on one side of the tunnel section with smoke, and the next ventilation facility will be exhausting air from the tunnel. In other words, one ventilation facility will be pressurizing the tunnel ahead of the section of the tunnel with smoke, and the alternate ventilation facility will be de-pressurizing the tunnel to exhaust the smoke to the atmosphere.

Here's our concern. The source of a fire will likely be electrical. Such a fire consumes electrical insulation and lubricants. These fuel sources when burned produce both toxic and carcinogen compounds, which according to the planned use of the ventilation system described, will exhaust these dangerous compounds into the atmosphere, exposing the surrounding communities to these unhealthy chemical compounds. Such carcinogen exposure released in the atmosphere can potentially create damaging respiratory effects possibly leading to life threatening scenarios for the residents living by the vents and inhaling these carcinogens. Our question - What is the short, mid and long-term health effect will this have on the affected community? If nothing else, it will have a negative effect on property values. After all, who wants to raise their family next to a facility that may poison them at any time?

As you all know, Anne Arundel and Price George Counties have naturally occurring Radon gas. Radon gas is a known carcinogen, which is why homes and other building are tested across both Anne Arundel County and Prince Georges County. Infiltrating from the ground, this colorless and odorless gas finds its way into building basements through cracks and seams between the basement walls and concrete floor.

During the discussion with the professional engineer from Louis Berger hired to design the SCMagLev build, we asked about water infiltration, drainage and pumped water removal, as the tunneling under Linthicum will likely intersect the aquifer. Also, the question of monitoring and venting naturally occurring gases leaking into the tunnel through the same openings with which ground water enters, as the tunnel will serve as a large collecting system for ground leaching gases as it transits Anne Arundel County 80 to 150 feet below the surface. When these ventilation facilities exhaust into the atmosphere, anyone near these facilities will also be exposed to any radon gas collected in the tunnel. As with all radioactive materials, depending on the intensity of the exposure and length of exposure time determines the severity of the side effects. With that said any low-level exposure whether to radiation over a long time period is sure to have negative effects on the human body that will result in health issues at some level. And like long term exposure to low level radiation, long term exposure to low levels of electromagnetism may also have cumulative health effects on the human body and needs to be evaluated. Our questions – What long-term cumulative health effect will radon gas and electromagnetic exposure have on the affected community as radioactive radon gas is vented into the atmosphere through the ventilation facilities? What is the long term health impact of exposure to low level oscillating electromagnetic fields as the SCMagLev transit passes under our homes, businesses, schools and their playgrounds?

(2) If built, the SCMagLev will expose our school structures, personal, and students to constant low-level vibration, and low-level oscillating magnetic fields as the train running under them.

As the train passes underground below our schools, homes and businesses, what affect will the resulting vibration have on the structures? As you know, masonry structures do not fare well with constant exposure to vibration. Now given, most of our homes and businesses are built upon concrete foundations and masonry walls, continuous exposure to even low-level vibrations will likely have a cumulative effect, to include cracking and then water penetration, negatively impacting the structural integrality of the building.

In summary, LSIA has provided a list of reasons why the SCMagLev should be stopped now before Maryland is leveraged into a position where it has no choice to but to make use of our needed tax dollars to directly or indirectly fund the SCMagLev building, operation, maintenance and security. Tax dollars better spent to replace, repair and enhance existing transportation infrastructure. LSIA has pointed out the potential of venting toxic, carcinogens and radioactive gas into our communities. LSIA has noted the serious concerns we have with the low-level exposure to radioactive gas and low-level electromagnetic fields and the cumulative health impact these would have on our residents.

And my concluding question – Are you willing to expose our children to find out what the health effects will be?

In conclusion, I support Senate Bill 200, as there are many transportation priorities that are worthier of attention and less likely to create a future property and health impact on our citizens.”

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.

Testimony in Support of Maryland Senate Bill 0200

Testimony in Support of Maryland Senate Bill 0200

Budget and Taxation Committee

February 6, 2019

Dear Chairman,

I am Brian Almquist from Greenbelt. I am speaking on behave of Greenbelt Advocates for Environmental and Social Justice, which was cofounded with Donna Almquist. Greenbelt Advocates is leading a grass-roots campaign to unite residents that oppose the MAGLEV project (“the Project”). We have mailed 317 hand-written letters to the MTA and to elected officials from people that oppose the Project.

We support Maryland Senate Bill 0200 which is co-sponsored by Maryland Senators Paul Pinsky and Doug Peters. The bill would prohibit the State from using any appropriation for a magnetic levitation (MAGLEV) transportation system located or to be located in the State.

The Project is bad for Maryland residents. We believe many residents are still unaware of the Project due to a lack of sufficient notification by the MTA.

The Project, which includes the high-speed trains and a completely new infrastructure to support their operation, has been proposed by Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail (BWRR) to provide 15-minute trip service between Baltimore and Washington D.C. with only one additional stop at BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport. The recently released Final Alternatives Report (“the Alternatives Report”) contains new details about the Project.

The new infrastructure is massive. SB 0200 protects State funds so they can be used to expand current infrastructures (AMTRAK, MARC) – which is a more efficient use of State funds.

According to the Alternatives Report, the Project will require construction of deep tunnels, above-ground viaducts as tall as 140 feet, four power substations, vent plants located above the underground sections of the final route, a 241 acre rolling stock depot, other maintenance and/or ancillary facilities, and ingress/egress roads. According to the Alternatives Report, two to six trains per hour would be needed for the Baltimore to Washington service.

The Project will have no meaningful impact on local vehicle traffic. SB 0200 protects State funds so they can be used to upgrade our current mass transit system – which will reduce congestion.

The Project will not reduce regional automobile traffic or reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. With stops only in Washington D.C., BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, and Baltimore City, it will not serve intra-regional traffic which makes up the majority of automobile trips in the region.

The Project does not support Maryland’s Renewable Energy Guidelines. SB 0200 will prevent the use of State funds on a Project that consumes large amounts of energy to transport a relatively small number of riders.

According to the Alternatives Report, the Project will draw power from the grid. As expected the train will use electricity from conventional power sources, which are the primary sources in Maryland and the rest of the United States. These conventional power sources include coal and natural gas, which do cause pollution. But even before the train begins to transport passengers, the extensive use of concrete and other materials to construct the infrastructure, the transportation of parts and materials in the supply chain, and the generation of electricity for interrelated processes will consume energy and produce pollution.

According to the Alternatives Report the train will consume 30% less energy than other high-speed MAGLEV trains, and 50% less than a commercial airliner. But, the Alternatives Report does not provide estimates of ridership, which are critical to make an accurate comparison of alternative modes of transportation.

SB 0200 will prevent State funds from being used to build a massive and unnecessary infrastructure; and protect Maryland’s natural environment for future generations.

According to the Alternatives Report the above-ground portion of the final route would cross or run on open and forested lands adjacent to the BWP and across wetland areas and other resource areas. Wildlife habitat, open space, and forests, which affect our quality of life, do not need to be sacrificed just to get somewhere a few minutes faster. According to the 2018 World Wildlife Fund Living Planet Report (“the Planet Report”) transportation is one of the common causes of habitat loss and degradation of natural areas. The Planet Report

identifies infrastructure projects as one of the most common pressures causing deforestation and forest degradation.

The Project is not economically feasible. SB 0200 will protect Maryland residents from a future bailout.

We contend the Project is not economically feasible due to low ridership and will end up being a tax burden on Maryland residents. The costs to ride the train will eliminate the average commuter or leisure traveler. The Alternatives Report mentions the Project expanding into Boston and New York City, which may be an early warning that BWRR does not expect the limited service between Washington D.C. and Baltimore City to attract a sufficient number of riders to cover the cost of the Project. There are better alternatives for Maryland.

The Project will be privately-owned and therefore not a form of public transportation and from a social perspective will not serve people from a range of socio-economic backgrounds and will not strive to address the mobility, accessibility, safety, and equity needs of the community.

We would like to see investments in mass transit systems that serve all travelers not just the elite traveler, and that use only existing infrastructure to avoid the destruction of precious wildlife habitat, open space, forested lands, and established communities. We contend the Project will leave a negative legacy for future generations of Maryland residents.

Brian Almquist

Greenbelt Advocates for Environmental and Social Justice

greenbeltadvocates.esj@gmail.com

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.  

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.