Bill to Create Regional Transportation Authorities Wins Broad Support, Draws Business and Industry Backing

Delegate Spiegel, sponsor of House Bill 1370, opened the Environment and Transportation Committee hearing by describing the proposal as “a reintroduction of a bill you heard last year that would establish a new model to help select, fund, and construct regional transportation projects.” The bill would create regional transportation authorities for the DC metro, the Baltimore region, and Southern Maryland and give them bonding capacity and a dedicated revenue stream.

The nut graf: Proponents said the model — modeled explicitly on the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority — would generate stable regional revenue, allow authorities to bond for large projects, and direct a prescribed split of funding between regional priorities and local jurisdictions. Opponents focused on the proposed revenue sources and the potential tax impact on the hospitality, real estate and commercial sectors.

Business groups and construction industry representatives testified in support. Jason Stanford, president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, described Northern Virginia’s experience and said the authority there “spends about $260,000,000 per year” and that a regional authority kept money in the region to fund large projects. Michael Cicada, president of the Maryland Transportation Builders and Materials Association, and Tim Smith of the Maryland Asphalt Association also urged a favorable report, telling the committee that year‑to‑year funding volatility had disrupted projects and workforce stability.

Key provisions described by the sponsor include a funding formula that would allocate 70% of revenues to regionally significant projects and 30% to local jurisdictions within each authority’s footprint; a minimum regional investment of 30% on non‑car modes; and financing from small surcharges on sales, hotel and transfer taxes in the region. The sponsor said the bill’s language makes clear the authorities are intended to “supplement and not supplant existing funding from the state.” He also said he was open to amendments on details raised in written testimony.

Opposition testimony focused on the bill’s proposed tax/surcharge revenue sources. The Maryland Building Industry Association, hotel and lodging industry representatives, and lodging operators said a proposed 1% hotel surcharge and increased recording/transfer taxes would amplify a currently weak recovery in their markets and could depress occupancy and commercial real estate activity. The Maryland Hotel Lodging Association submitted data claiming significant drops in occupied rooms versus 2019 in parts of the impacted region and asked the committee to reject the hotel surcharge.

Several local elected officials — including Rockville and Gaithersburg council members — testified virtually in favor, saying the bill would provide new revenue to improve safety and invest in multimodal transportation. The Baltimore Regional Transit Commission’s chair said his commission’s January study recommended discussion of regional authority options and applauded putting governance and funding structures on the agenda.

Committee members asked whether the authorities would operate transit; witnesses said the model copies Northern Virginia where the authority plans and funds projects but does not operate transit systems. Members also asked about collective bargaining protections for affected transit and highway workers; the sponsor said he would be amenable to amendments recognizing those rights.

Ending: The bill drew broad industry support and detailed scrutiny over proposed revenue sources. Sponsors signaled willingness to negotiate amendments on revenue design and governance; opponents asked for changes or for the committee to delay action on tax proposals that businesses described as poorly timed.