More News

Duncan, O’Malley agree on Purple Line, but make no promises

Friday, June 16, 2006

The topic was the Purple Line, and the response was tempered disappointment after the Democrats’ two gubernatorial rivals outlined their priorities before a group of Washington-area business leaders on Wednesday.

Although Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley and Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan said they support a long-debated Purple Line project linking Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, advocates wanted to hear a solid commitment to building the 14-mile light-rail line at the Greater Washington Board of Trade forum in Bethesda.

Advocates questioned O’Malley’s understanding of the project, Duncan’s overall commitment and whether either was prepared to make it a top priority if elected.

‘‘I wish they were less ambiguous,” said Montgomery County Council President George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park. ‘‘What I’m hearing is that the people of Chevy Chase have gotten to O’Malley and have gotten to Duncan over many, many years.”

The Purple Line, which would connect Bethesda, Silver Spring, Langley Park, College Park and New Carrollton, is politically unique, said Bethesda pollster G. Keith Haller: On the one hand, key interest groups important in a Democratic primary support the project, but influential campaign donors in Chevy Chase and at the Columbia Country Club oppose it.

‘‘No one is willing to provide the leadership and say it’s a top priority,” Haller said.

O’Malley said he supported a ‘‘below-grade Purple Line,” an underground option that has been panned as too expensive and unworkable. Duncan said he supported the Inner Purple Line so long as a ‘‘cut-and-cover” plan supported by U.S. Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Dist. 8) of Kensington is used. As recently as 2003, Duncan had been skeptical about the Inner Purple Line alignment, preferring instead ‘‘the Purple Line loop,” a below-ground route following the Capital Beltway, or the ‘‘Outer Purple Line,” which would connect through Grosvenor and Wheaton Metro stations and eventually link to Tysons Corner in Virginia.

O’Malley broadened his position on the Purple Line after Duncan spoke and O’Malley consulted with an aide: He favors Van Hollen’s approach and said the project should be built with a combination of above- and below-ground rail lines in a way that preserves green space.

The Inner Purple Line remains a top priority for business leaders, said Andrew J. Scott, director of government relations for the Board of Trade and former head of Washington-area transit for the Maryland Department of Transportation.

This year’s gubernatorial election is crucial because the winner will decide if the $1.4 billion project will move to the construction phase, Scott said.

‘‘It sounds like the candidates are coalescing around the alignment, and that’s a positive step,” he said. ‘‘What would be good to hear from the candidates is a commitment to build the project within the next four years.”

Business leaders were skittish after O’Malley said it was ‘‘premature” to identify specific projects he would prioritize if elected, Scott said. ‘‘Washington business leaders are looking for deliverables.”

O’Malley said later that it was premature to discuss specific projects because the state’s transportation trust fund has been depleted.

While Duncan and O’Malley support the light-rail approach for the Purple Line, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) favors building what is now dubbed the Bi-County Transitway, which would use express bus lanes.

Duncan used the forum to question whether O’Malley really supports the $2.4 billion Intercounty Connector, a signature issue for Duncan. He accused O’Malley of playing both sides of the issue.

O’Malley said he supports the ICC, an 18-mile tollway linking Gaithersburg and Laurel, but the tolling provisions raise concerns.

Duncan said O’Malley testified against the state’s financing package for the ICC in 2003. O’Malley’s campaign accused Duncan of a ‘‘blatant misrepresentation” of the mayor’s position on the ICC: O’Malley testified in 2003 that the ICC was a good project, but said the financing plan, which borrows against future federal aid, could hurt other projects around the state — namely ones in Baltimore city.

Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce President Richard N. Parsons, a former Duncan campaign manager, accused O’Malley of using ‘‘code words” that reminded him of Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D), who said in 1998 that he supported the ICC only to pull the plug a year or so later.

O’Malley questioned Parsons’ objectivity.

Parsons ‘‘has long been a cheerleader for Doug Duncan in the governor’s race and that’s his right as an American,” O’Malley said in an Annapolis interview Wednesday night as he waited for the General Assembly to pass its electricity reform bill.

He reiterated his support for ICC: ‘‘I support the ICC and am committed to funding it.”

Wednesday’s tussle over transportation came as O’Malley was riding a political high. His campaign leaked an internal poll last week showing that he was still beating Duncan by double digits.

This week, new data showed that crime in Baltimore had dropped and city first-graders’ performance on tests was on the rise — both areas where Duncan has hit O’Malley hard over the past few months.

Add to that the accolades O’Malley received from legislators this week for his suit against the Maryland Public Service Commission, which provided impetus for the special session to address the 72 percent electricity rate hike for more than 1 million Baltimore Gas and Electric customers.

On Thursday, the O’Malley campaign was set to launch its second television ad of the summer. The 30-second spot in the Baltimore region is titled ‘‘Goals” and focuses on O’Malley’s vision as governor. The ad makes no mention of Duncan.