Maryland delegate seeks to bar maglev rail from eminent‑domain powers; project backers, unions clash
Loading...
Summary
Delegate Ann Healey introduced legislation to clarify that magnetic‑levitation rail companies may not use railroad condemnation authority, prompting sharp testimony both for and against the measure during a lengthy committee hearing.
Delegate Ann Healy told the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Jan. 30 that House Bill 48 would prevent any company operating a magnetic‑levitation (maglev) propulsion system from exercising railroad condemnation authority, including eminent domain powers historically granted to railroads.
Healy said the change is intended to protect homeowners along potential alignments and to draw a bright legal line between 19th‑century railroad powers and modern maglev technology. Supporters of the maglev project, unions and industry groups argued the bill would derail a major economic and infrastructure opportunity for Maryland.
"The bill specifies that the general authority given to a railroad company does not apply to a company that's powered by a magnetic levitation propulsion system," Healy said. She recounted the long history of maglev proposals along the Baltimore‑Washington corridor and said residents remain wary of potential tunneling, property impacts and the use of eminent domain.
Opponents said the measure would single out one technology and one franchisee, undermining a Public Service Commission review process that granted a franchise to Baltimore Washington Rapid Rail (BWRR) in 2015. "The commission found that the construction and operation of the Maglev between Baltimore and Washington DC will result in substantial economic and social benefits to the state," Ian Rainey, senior vice president of BWRR, told the committee, quoting the PSC finding.
Labor groups were sharply divided. The Baltimore‑DC Building Trades Council urged an unfavorable report, saying HB 48 jeopardizes construction and long‑term jobs. Ray Baker, the building trades’ Maryland director, said the project would generate work for local union members. Several building‑trades and transportation industry witnesses described potential for thousands of construction and maintenance jobs and cited pledges of MBE/WBE contracting opportunities from BWRR. Opponents of the project, including SMART union representatives, said maglev is unnecessary and risky.
The committee heard competing testimony from community advocates: Darren and other community witnesses said the project could bring jobs and billions in private investment; residents and local groups testified about property‑value risks, tunnel impacts and long legal fights over takings in other contexts.
Legal and procedural context: BWRR acquired the franchise through a public process administered by the Maryland Public Service Commission. The PSC’s 2015 order concluded the project would be consistent with environmental policy and provide regional benefits; supporters said the existing administrative review provides public hearings and safeguards. HB 48 would change state law for technologies using magnetic levitation and would remove access to condemnation authority for those operators.
What’s next: The bill drew a broad and at times heated record of opposition and support. Committee members did not act on final passage during the hearing; testimony indicates the issue will require further analysis of franchise law, eminent‑domain practice and local property protections.
Ending: The hearing revealed a deep split between those who view the maglev as a high‑tech investment with jobs and climate benefits and those who view the proposal as a special‑purpose private franchise that should not be allowed to seize private land. The committee asked questions about route impacts, stops, and how the project would affect communities along potential alignments.
