Traffic Fuels Contrasts in Montgomery Race

By Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006

From cozy house parties in Chevy Chase to town halls in Olney, residents invariably ask the same questions of the Democratic candidates for Montgomery County executive: What are you going to do to ease the county's commuting headaches?

How can we travel from east to west to buy groceries during rush hour or safely cross the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road?

In the first competitive contest for Montgomery's top elected job in 12 years, the two leading contenders -- Isiah "Ike" Leggett and Steven A. Silverman -- have at times struggled to give voters a distinct choice on the defining issues. But their approach to the traffic problem highlights a clear divide.

Leggett says traffic is bad because the county is growing too fast. Silverman says the county hasn't built roads and mass transit fast enough.

To Silverman, an at-large County Council member, the answer lies in leveraging millions in county money to tackle neglected projects rather than "waiting another 20 years for the state to step up to the plate."

Leggett, a former council member, emphasizes the need to slow development so road and transit construction can catch up. Or else, he said, "the level of growth has consumed you, and you're back where you started -- or worse."

The man they hope to succeed -- three-term County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) -- swept into office on a promise to encourage development and economic growth. That philosophy helped enrich the already prosperous county government but fueled grumbling about clogged roads.

A recent Washington Post poll found a level of frustration distinct among Montgomery residents. Twenty percent of voters ranked transportation as the biggest problem facing Maryland, a response three times as high as in any other part of the state. An additional 13 percent put growth and development first, compared with single-digit percentages in all other jurisdictions.

In debates and interviews, the candidates in the Sept. 12 primary have attacked these concerns from opposite ends. Silverman's steady support for building a light-rail link, known as the Purple Line, between Bethesda and New Carrollton has appealed to groups such as the county Chamber of Commerce and the Action Committee for Transit, a group that advocates for mass transit. It could attract voters in the most densely populated parts of the county, where residents complain about the difficulty driving from east to west.

Leggett's focus on growth and decision to limit his campaign contributions from developers have won him the backing of the Sierra Club and Neighbors for a Better Montgomery, which tracks developer donations. His slower-growth platform could appeal to voters who want to protect the county's Agricultural Reserve, even though both candidates have promised to limit development there.

It's hard to miss Silverman's billboard-size message at some of the county's busiest intersections: "Sick of Traffic? Vote Silverman." His glossy mailer features an enraged female driver with the words: "Traffic so snarled you're seeing purple?"

On the council, Silverman has helped identify $160 million in county money that could be offered as matching dollars to the state for transportation projects. Traditionally, it has fallen to the governor and legislature to pay for state roads.

Residents want the perks of development, such as a new gourmet market in the neighborhood, Silverman said. "What they don't want is the traffic that comes with it."

"If we'd just build the roads and transit promised," Silverman said, "we'd have less of a focus on the next housing project."

The challenge of offering more local money is that the needs -- and the price tags -- are vast. Duncan and the council have identified $7 billion in road and mass transit projects for the next 10 years. The blueprint relies on $6 billion in state money. And Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. (R), for instance, has been noncommittal on Silverman's top transportation priority: the Purple Line.

Leggett takes issue with his opponent's approach to funding, saying it furthers the statewide impression that Montgomery is a wealthy uncle who can afford to go it alone. He considers Silverman's projections for state money unrealistic.

"We're leading with our chin by telling the state we're wealthy enough to do it," he said. "These are state roads and state projects. Why should the citizens of Montgomery County be burdened with these costs?"

County partnerships with the state have had varied degrees of success. State Highway Administrator Neil J. Pedersen said the state looks favorably on such offers and typically has provided a 50 percent match. Timing can be tricky because of state budgeting, but within a year or two of a proposal, the state has come through for counties, including Howard and Frederick.

"It obviously provides an incentive," Pedersen said, "giving us $2 of project for every $1 we're investing."

For his part, Leggett said he would be more selective in investing the county's money. He prefers to address traffic problems by focusing on curbing growth.

One of his ideas is to overturn the county's growth management policy -- fashioned by Silverman -- and reinstate building restrictions in the most congested areas. As is the case with Silverman, Leggett's ability to deliver one of his top priorities will depend on the balance of power after this fall's elections. If the council's pro-growth majority remains after November, it could block Leggett's efforts.

The 2003 policy that Leggett seeks to change imposed Maryland's highest tax on development and got rid of a traffic-review standard that restrained construction. The changes effectively lifted a moratorium on building homes in neighborhoods such as Fairland-White Oak and Aspen Hill.

At the time, the county Planning Board estimated that the new taxes would, on average, raise one-third to one-half of what was required for transportation needs under the old approach. The development taxes were projected to raise about $44 million a year to pay for transportation and school construction. But revenue has fallen short, with $16 million in fiscal 2005 and $13 million in the past budget year.

Silverman rejects the assertion from Leggett and other critics that the new policy has led to a flood of development. In fiscal 2005, 838 homes -- or 19 percent of the 4,388 total -- were approved beyond restrictions of the old policy, according to a county planning department analysis.

He points out that the county's average annual housing growth rate of 1.5 percent in recent years pales in comparison with the 3.1 percent rate in the 1980s.

In November, the council revisited the growth policy, and Silverman pressed for more restrictions. His efforts were blocked by an unlikely coalition, which included slow-growth advocates on the council, in part because the changes did not restore the earlier traffic-related tests.

Beyond their philosophical differences, the two candidates have clashed over how to pay for transportation needs. In a Washington Post Radio interview, Leggett suggested raising Maryland's 23.5-cent gas tax by 10 to 12 cents to boost funding for roads and transit.

Silverman pounced on his pronouncement, sending out a news release. "Raising the gas tax at a time when gas is at an all time high would impose a regressive tax on the poor," the release said, and give Maryland the highest gas tax in the United States. Silverman said he would dedicate a portion of the existing state sales tax to pay for projects such as the proposed east-west light-rail link.

Silverman said his own proposal in 2001 to increase the gas tax by 3 cents was appropriate at the time because gas was not much more than $1 a gallon.

In a subsequent interview, Leggett backed away from a double-digit gas tax increase, citing its dubious chances in the General Assembly. He said he would instead press for a combination of the gas tax increase and a bump in the vehicle registration fee.

"You need to say, 'Here's the problem. Here's what it requires,' " he said, "or these projects aren't going to get built anytime soon."

Silverman has challenged Leggett's commitment to transportation. He tells voters that in the 12 years Leggett led the transportation committee on the council, spending declined by more than $70 million, when adjusted for inflation.

Looking back at his tenure, from 1990 to 2002, Leggett said that money was tight and that the council and county executive favored investment in schools over roads. "There was no debate about it," he said.

In the four years that the two candidates overlapped on the council, Silverman did not lobby to change Leggett's mind. At the time, Silverman did not take the view that the county should share the cost of state roads. Now, he said, "I certainly do."