Saul Wilson 1 E. University Pkwy. #1201 Baltimore, MD July Dear Federal Certification Team:

Transcription

1 Saul Wilson 1 E. University Pkwy. #1201 Baltimore, MD July 2008 Dear Federal Certification Team: This letter delineates the failures of the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, in its capacity as the metropolitan planning organization, to comply with the federal regulations governing its conduct. It is not meant in any way to undermine the successes of the Board (such as in the broad notification of the public regarding the first draft of the 2007 long-range transportation plan). 23 CFR (a) (a) Sets forth the national policy that the MPO designated for each urbanized area is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal transportation planning process, including the development of a metropolitan transportation plan and a transportation improvement program (TIP), that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution; and continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal transportation planning process The Board s transportation planning process is continuing and represents cooperation between the majority of the counties on the Board (although much of the cooperation is behind closed doors, as is discussed later). The process is not, however, comprehensive: its focus is upon the implementation of each county s transportation priorities, not upon the implementation of the best transportation policies for the region as a whole. Such policies are not even studied; for the long-range transportation plan, local plans are simply received from each jurisdiction, evaluated using criteria that effectively allow the jurisdiction 60% of the say in whether or not the project is included in the longrange plan (the other 40% is assigned to technical criteria, see Attachment #1), and in slightly pared down form stapled together to form the long-range transportation plan. Even when eliminating projects, such as in Transportation Outlook 2035 s revision in 2007, projects were not eliminated by technical criteria or by regional significance; one was eliminated from each county (Attachment #2). This is not comprehensive transportation planning. the development of a metropolitan transportation plan and a transportation improvement program (TIP), that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to

2 serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution; Transportation Outlook 2035, as the long-range transportation plan, can hardly be considered to promote safe and efficient operation of surface transportation systems, let alone to serve the mobility needs of people and freight. Moreover, it does not seek to minimize transportation-related fuel-consumption. This is clear from even a cursory review of the travel demand model s analysis of the plan (Attachment #3), which shows an increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the 2035 Preferred Alternative compared to the 2035 Existing & Committed Alternative (which will result in an increase in fuel-consumption and more single-occupant vehicle travel, both expressly opposed by the federal regulations) and a nearly threefold increase in the congested VMT when the 2035 Preferred Alternative is compared to the 2005 status quo. Of additional note, 2035 transit ridership increases by a mere 2,200 a day if Transportation Outlook 2035 is implemented according to the model. While one could contend that financial constraints made it impossible to serve the mobility needs of people and freight, this is not an acceptable argument in this case: the Board did not even publicly consider alternatives to the Preferred Alternative, so it is not possible to know if other alternatives would have better served the needs of the region. 23 CFR (a) and (b) (a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive, and provide for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will address the following factors: (1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; (2) Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (3) Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; (4) Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight; (5) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; (6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; (7) Promote efficient system management and operation; and (8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. (b) Consideration of the planning factors in paragraph (a) of this section shall be reflected, as appropriate, in the metropolitan transportation planning process. The degree of consideration and analysis of the factors should be based on the scale and complexity of many issues, including transportation system development, land use, employment, economic development, human and natural environment, and housing and

3 community development. The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive See above. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency See above. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users The added traffic (see above and Attachment #3) will result in an inevitable decline in road safety accidents become substantially more frequent at high traffic flows (Attachment #4, pg. 17). Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation Transportation Outlook 2035 does not protect and enhance the environment or promote energy conservation; rather, it continues the expansion of highways and supports their use by single-occupant vehicles, thus resulting in pollution and construction damage to the environment and additional energy usage. As mentioned above, the Board failed consider alternatives to the Preferred Alternative for Transportation Outlook 2035; it is therefore unknown if other approaches, such as greater investment in transit rather than highways, might have resulted in fewer negative impacts. improve the quality of life As the BMC s own Vision 2030 found, Environmental quality is a key component of quality of life and environmental quality must be supported by reducing and preventing air and water pollution through [ ] coordinated land use and transportation planning [ ] (Attachment #5, pg. 31). As discussed below, the BRTB s Transportation Outlook 2035 certainly does not satisfy that goal, which was set during the broad public process of Vision promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns The state has developed a plan for growth as part of its Smart Growth initiative which consists of Priority Funding Areas (PFA). The state prohibits the construction of new highway projects in PFAs except in exceptional circumstances (see Attachment #6). The BRTB did determine whether projects in Transportation Outlook 2035 were in PFAs or not, but the determination that a project was not in a PFA did not result in the rejection of the project or a higher standard for including the project in the plan (see Attachment #7). This not only failed to promote consistency between the transportation plan and state planned growth areas, but undercut the state s Smart Growth policy. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight While Transportation Outlook 2035 and the other Board planning products may be considered to improve connectivity within the highway system, they certainly do not do so on any large scale for transit or on any level whatsoever for rail freight, which is completely ignored. Promote efficient system management and operation See above. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system One local transportation official estimated that the entire system preservation budget in

4 Transportation Outlook 2035 would be insufficient to bring his or her jurisdiction s roads to a state of good repair. If this is indeed the case, then the system preservation budget for the Baltimore region should be much larger (even at the expense of expansion). However, rather than basing the system preservation budget on forecast need, the Board (through the state Department of Transportation) bases the system preservation budget on historical trends a faulty indicator of the real maintenance and reconstruction needs in the region. The degree of consideration and analysis of the factors should be based on the scale and complexity of many issues The scale and complexity of these issues in the Baltimore region is so great that their inclusion is paramount: traffic congestion is a significant problem for the area and land use planning is a statewide priority. Their exclusion and ineffective treatment by the Board are serious failures to comply with the federal regulations. 23 CFR (a)(1)(ii), (iv), and (v) (a) The MPO shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. (1) The participation plan shall be developed by the MPO in consultation with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum, describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for: (ii) Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes; (iv) Making public information (technical information and meeting notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web; (v) Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times; Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes; [ ] Making public information (technical information and meeting notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web Despite repeated requests (see Attachment #8), the Board refused (see Attachment #9) to release the full draft Transportation Outlook 2035 for public review until after the first draft had already been considered and most of the public comment period for the second draft was already over. This substantially limited the public s ability to comprehend the plan and to comment on it, and it represented a significant violation of federal regulations.

5 Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times Maryland state law (namely, the Open Meetings Act) determines which meetings of state agencies such as the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board and its parent organization, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council are required to be open to the public. All meetings of the Board, the Council, and their respective committees are required to be open to the public. The Board s Executive Committee meets monthly without public notice to set the agenda for the Board, crucial deliberations that should be public. Additionally, the Board and the Council cooperated to use the Management Committee, a committee of the Council that consists of each of the Council members (the County Executives for the region) s chiefs of staff (and those in similar positions), to consider amendments to Transportation Outlook 2035 in closed session. A complaint was filed under the Open Meetings Act with regard to the use closed sessions of the Board to deliberate on Transportation Outlook 2035 (Attachment #10). The Board responded claiming that the Management Committee, not the Board, had met (Attachment #11), and the Open Meetings Compliance Board found in an advisory opinion (Attachment #12) that the Management Committee was not a public body under Maryland law. This finding did not consider that only the Board is permitted to make such decisions regarding the content of the long-range plan under federal regulations, that the members of the Management Committee were all representatives of the members of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, itself a public body, and that the members of the Board were present and participated in the deliberations of the Management Committee. Moreover, the Open Meetings Act (see Attachment #13) provides that a committee is a public body if called by a person under the direction of a county executive (such as the Executive Director of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, who reports to the Chair of the Council, a county executive), and consisting of at least two persons not in the employ of that county or the state (the Management Committee consists of representatives of each county in the region). On a separate matter, the Board also has not met at convenient times: 11 of its meetings each year are at 9 a.m., a time when most citizens cannot attend. Previously, four meetings each year (with elected officials in attendance) were in the early evening; the Board voted recently to reduce this to one meeting each year. Judging by the public attendance at the August 2007 evening meeting as compared to that at the Board s regular morning meetings, the evening time and the attendance of public officials has a dramatic impact on public participation. The 9 a.m. meetings are clearly inconvenient for much of the public and thus in noncompliance with the regulation. 23 CFR (2) (2) When significant written and oral comments are received on the draft metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (including the financial plans) as a result of the participation process in this section or the interagency consultation process required under the EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93), a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments shall be made as part of the final metropolitan transportation plan and TIP.

6 a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments While the Board does prepare a summary and response to some of the comments submitted, it often avoids summarizing certain comments and when it does respond to comments it has frequently used meaningless statements that fail to comply with not only the spirit but the letter of the above regulation, such as The BRTB thanks you for your comment. This phrase can be found peppered across Attachment #14. Additionally, in Attachment #15, a thorough analysis of the BRTB s responses to selected comments can be found. 23 CFR (b) (b) In developing metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, the MPO should consult with agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within the MPA that are affected by transportation (including State and local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport operations, or freight movements) or coordinate its planning process (to the maximum extent practicable) with such planning activities. In addition, metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs shall be developed with due consideration of other related planning activities within the metropolitan area, and the process shall provide for the design and delivery of transportation services within the area that are provided by: (1) Recipients of assistance under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53; (2) Governmental agencies and non- profit organizations (including representatives of the agencies and organizations) that receive Federal assistance from a source other than the U.S. Department of Transportation to provide non-emergency transportation services; and (3) Recipients of assistance under 23 U.S.C metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs shall be developed with due consideration of other related planning activities within the metropolitan area Transportation Outlook 2035 fails to consider at all or even make reference to the very important rail freight study of the Baltimore area currently being undertaken by the federal government. This is likely to result in a project that may require substantial funding to be allocated by the Board. 23 CFR (f)(2), (5), and (10) (f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, include: (2) Existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors) that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions over the period of the transportation plan. In addition, the locally preferred alternative selected from an Alternatives Analysis under the FTA s Capital Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C.

7 5309 and 49 CFR part 611) needs to be adopted as part of the metropolitan transportation plan as a condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309; (5) Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on regional priorities and needs. The metropolitan transportation plan may consider projects and strategies that address areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the efficient functioning of key elements of the metropolitan area s transportation system; (10) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented. giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions over the period of the transportation plan As mentioned above, the long-range transportation plan does not include a rail freight tunnel in Baltimore. This project was not even considered publicly for the plan, although it is crucial to the movement of freight in the entire northeast (the existing Howard Street Tunnel is a single-track on a steep grade, which creates a difficult bottleneck for rail freight up and down the Northeast Corridor). Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on regional priorities and needs See above comment on the budgeting of system preservation funds and the above comment on the inadequacy of the plan to address regional congestion problems (see Attachment #3). A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented While a financial plan does accompany Transportation Outlook 2035, the long-range plan consistently envisions the expenditure of forecast revenue before the revenue is received (see Attachment #16, pg. 7, for an analysis of the first draft of Transportation Outlook 2035 in this regard; the second draft was very similar). 23 CFR (i) and (j) (i) The MPO shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan using the participation plan developed under (a). (j) The metropolitan transportation plan shall be published or otherwise made readily available by the MPO for public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web.

8 The MPO shall provide citizens [ ] with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan [ ]. The metropolitan transportation plan shall be published or otherwise made readily available by the MPO for public review As mentioned above, the text of the long-range transportation plan, Transportation Outlook 2035, and much of the supporting technical information was not made public until very late in the second public comment period. Sincerely, Saul Wilson

9 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical 1 AA County 2015 MD 175 MD 295 to MD 170 AA/County line to MD 295 (widen from 2 to 3 lanes) MD 295 to MD 170 (widen from 4 to $213, lanes) 2 AA County 2015 MD 198 MD 295 to MD 32 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $50, AA County 2015 MD 295 I-195 to MD 100 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes, full interchange at Hanover Rd. $144, AA County 2020 MD 170 MD 175 to MD 100 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $76, AA County 2025 I-97 MD 32 to US 50/301 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $229, AA County 2025 MD 713 MD 175 to MD 176 MD 175 to Arundel Mills Blvd. (widen from 2 to 4 lanes) Arundel Mills Blvd. to MD 176 $55, (widen from 4 to 6 lanes) 7 AA County 2025 MD 100 Howard Co line to I-97 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $317, AA County 2030 MD 2 US 50 to MD 10 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $178, AA County 2030 MD 3 PG Co line to MD 32 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes, new interchange at MD 450 $336, AA County 2030 MD 2 MD 450 to N of South River Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $49, Baltimore City 2013 I-83 at Northern Pkwy. Bridge Northern Pkwy. to N/B I-83 and S/B I-83 to Northern Pkwy. Upgrade ramps $20, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 1 of 13

10 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical Baltimore City Baltimore City Baltimore City Baltimore City Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co 2013 Boston Street Conkling St. to Ponca St. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $80, Russell Street Dundalk Truck Bypass MLK Blvd./I-83 Connector 2013 MD MD 7 MD 145 Relocated Russell St Gateway I-95 to City Line Keith Ave. and Broening Ave. At I-83 Garrison View Rd. to Owings Mills Blvd. Add N/S bound lanes to ramp and intersection upgrades and add a lane from Russell Street Gateway at I-95 to City line Full interchange, new access to Fort Holabird at Keith Ave. 1/3 mile extension and partial interchange at I-83 N/S bound ramps $20, $15, $25, Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $28, MD 45 to Hunters Run Rd. New 2 lane road $26, Rossville Blvd. to Cowentown Ave I-795 Pleasant Hill Rd./Dolfield Rd. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $83, Construct a full interchange and connect accel/decel lanes between nearby interchanges $67, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 2 of 13

11 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical 22 Carroll Co Carroll Co 2020 MD 32 MD 26 (East of MD 32) MD 32 to Liberty Reservoir MD 26 to Carroll/Howard Co line 24 Carroll Co 2020 MD 140 Market St. to Sullivan Rd. Widen to provide continuous right turn lanes (6 lanes, 4 through plus 2 auxiliary) $33, Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $48, Widen from 4/6 to 8 lanes. Full interchange at MD 97 south. Continuous flow intersections at Center and Englar. $212, Carroll Co 2025 MD 26 (West of MD 32) MD 32 to MD 27 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $129, Carroll Co 2030 MD 30, Brodbeck Rd. to north of MD Manchester 86 Bypass New 2 lane road $81, Harford Co 2015 MD 24 Singer Rd. to Business US 1 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $239, Harford Co 2020 MD 22 MD 543 to I-95 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $95, Harford Co 2020 US 1 Bypass Hickory Bypass to MD Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. 147/Business US 1 Interchange improvement. $93, Harford Co 2020 US 1 MD 147/Business US 1 to MD 152 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $88, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 3 of 13

12 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical 31 Harford Co 2020 MD 715 US 40 to MD 22 New 4 lane road $55, Harford Co 2025 Perryman West US 40 at Mitchell Lane to Canning House Rd. New 2 lane road $5, Harford Co 2030 MD 22 I-95 to APG Gate Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $65, Howard Co 2015 US 1 US 1 at MD 175 New full interchange $30, Howard Co 2015 MD 32 MD 108 to I Howard Co Howard Co Howard Co 2015 Marriottsville Rd. Patuxent Range Rd. Sanner Rd. North Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, full interchanges at Dayton Shop, Rosemary Lane, MD 144 with ramps and upgrade at I-70 interchange. $219, MD 99 to US 40 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes $3, US 1 to Dorsey Run Rd. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $ Johns Hopkins Rd. to Pindell School Rd. 39 Howard Co 2015 MD 32 Cedar Lane to AA Co line Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $4, Widen from 6 to 8 lanes, expand capacity of the interchanges. $128, Howard Co 2020 MD 108 MD 104 to MD 175 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $44, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 4 of 13

13 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical 41 Howard Co 2020 MD 175 US 1 to AA Co line Widen from 2 to 5 lanes $62, Howard Co 2020 I-70 US 40 to US Howard Co 2025 US 40 St. Johns Lane to Rogers Ave. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes, including upgrade to full interchange at Marriottsville Rd. Capacity, operational, and safety improvements along US 40 and surrounding local roads; includes ramp improvements at US 40/US 29. $205, $30, Howard Co 2025 MD 108 Trotter Rd. to MD 32 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $7, Howard Co 2030 US 29 I-70 to MD 100 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes $66, Howard Co 2030 MD 32 I-70 to the Carroll Co line Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $96, A AA County 2025 MD 607 MD 100 to MD 173 MD 100 to MD $60, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 5 of 13

14 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical B C D E F G H I J Baltimore City Baltimore City Baltimore City Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co 2013 Northeast Downtown Connnector 2015 I-83 At Madison 2015 I-83 At Saratoga 2017 I-83 Timonium Rd Perry Hall Blvd. Belvidere St.-Greemount Ave. to intersection of Guilford and Biddle Sts. and Greenmount Ave. from Belvidere St. to North Ave. Rossville Rd. to Honeygo Blvd 2020 I-83 Thornton Mill Rd I-83 Padonia Rd US 1 MD 43 to Joppa/Ebenezer Rds. Extension of Belvedere St. widen Greenmount Ave. from 4 to 6 lanes $15, Partial interchange with new N/B ramp to I-83 from Madison St. $15, Convert E. Saratoga St. from St. Paul St. to Gay St. and build a new ramp to N/B I-83 Reconstruct the existing full interchange $15, $49, Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $8, Construct a new partial interchange Reconstruct the existing full interchange $50, $49, Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $83, Klausmier Rd. Gunview Rd. to US 1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $1, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 6 of 13

15 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical K L M Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co 2030 US 1 Joppa/Ebenexer roads to Haford Co line 2030 I-695 I-95 South to I-95 North 2032 Red Run Blvd. N Carroll Co 2020 MD 97 North O Carroll Co 2020 MD 140 From existing Red Run Blvd. to McDonogh Rd. MD 140 to Pleasant Valley Rd. At MD 91 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $17, Widen from 6 to 8 lanes and from 8 to 10 lanes $1,037, Construct 4/5 lanes $4, Widen to 5 lanes with full interchange at New Meadow Branch Rd. Construct a full interchange $82, $30, P Carroll Co 2025 MD 97 South Q Carroll Co 2030 MD 140, Taneytown Bypass South of Main Street to MD 32 Trevanion Rd to Whirlpool Dr. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes New 2 lane road $83, $25, R Harford Co 2025 MD 7 MD 543 to MD 159 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $98, S Harford Co 2025 MD 24 MD 23 to US 1 Bypass Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $42, T Harford Co 2025 MD 543 I-95 to US 40 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $10, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 7 of 13

16 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical U Harford Co 2025 US 1 Harford/Baltimore Co line to MD 152 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $16, V Harford Co 2025 US 40 MD 543 to MD 715 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $61, W Harford Co 2030 MD 152 US 40 to APG Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $19, X Harford Co 2030 MD 7 MD 24 to MD 543 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $98, Y Harford Co 2030 MD 152 Carrs Mill Rd to I-95 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $76, Z Harford Co 2030 MD 155 I-95 to US 40 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $29, AA Harford Co 2030 MD 543 MD 136 to I-95 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $15, AB Harford Co 2030 MD 755 US 40 to APG gate Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $17, AC Harford Co 2035 Business US 1 US 1/US Bypass to Tolgate Rd. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $13, AD Harford Co 2035 Business US 1 (Conowingo Rd) US/US1 Bypass to East Broadway Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $28, AE Harford Co 2035 MD 147 MD 152 to US/US 1 Bypass Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $14, AF Harford Co 2035 MD 147 AG Harford Co 2035 MD 924 Harford/Baltimore Co Line to MD 152 US 1 Bypass to Moores Mill Rd. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $14, Widen from 3 to 4 Roads $16, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 8 of 13

17 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 HIGHWAY (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical AH Harford Co 2035 Robinhood Rd Existing Robinhood Rd. at US 40 to Gilbert Correct alignment and extend $25, AI Harford Co 2020 Snowden River Parkway MD 100 to Broken Land Pkwy Widen from 4 to 6 lanes $55, AJ Harford Co 2015 Sanner Rd. South Johns Hopkins Rd to MD 216 New 4 land Rd $5, AK Harford Co 2020 Gorman Rd. Stephens Rd to 1 Widen from 2 to 3 lanes $2, AL Harford Co 2020 MD 216 Improvement West of 29 to Sanner Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $27, AM Harford Co 2025 MD 100 I95 to Howard/AA County line AN Harford Co 2030 AO Howard Co 2020 US 29 Broken Land Parkway Snowden River Parkway Old Columbia Rd below 216 to Montgomery Co Line Widen from 4/6 to 8 lanes, expand capacity of the interchanges Increase intersection capacity, partial intersection Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (not including bridge) $78, $23, $9, AP Howard Co 2020 I-70 US 29 to the Baltimore Co line Widen from 6 to 8 lanes $53, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 9 of 13

18 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical Baltimore City Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Baltimore Co Establish connections in Bicycle Network Implementation Throughout Baltimore City per Bicycle $5, Master Plan White Marsh Avondale Rd to Bird River Rd Shared Use $4, Run Trail Gwynns Fall Owings Mills Town Center to Shared Use $4, Trail South Caton Loudon Trail 2014 #8 Trolley Line Gwynns Fall Trail North Campbell Boulevard Trail Patapsco Greenway Connector 2014 Red Run Trail Gwynns Falls Loudon Cemetery to Spring Grove Edmondson Ave to Frederick Ave Owings Mills Town Center to Gwynns Falls Rails to Trails $1, Pave existing trail $ Shared Use $2, White Marsh Mall to MD 7 Parallels Campbell Blvd $ Oella to Ilchester Road Bridge Gwynns Falls to Soldier's Delight Completes the connection from Ellicott City to BWI Trail $ Shared Use $1, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 10 of 13

19 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical 17 Carroll Co Carroll Co Carroll Co Carroll Co Carroll Co Carroll Co 2020 North & West Branch Patapsco Trail Wakefield Valley Community Trail Piney Run to Sykesville Trail Patapsco Regional Trail Little Pipe Creek Trail Monocacy River Scenic Greenway Liberty Reservoir to east of Westminster New Windsor MD 31 (Church Street) to Westminster (Furnace Hills Trail) Piney Run Park (Martz Road, east side of reservoir) to Sykesville (Millard Cooper Park) Mt. Airy (Watkins Park) to Sykesville (Main Street) along South Branch Union Bridge (Union Bridge Community Park) to New Windsor (New Windsor Middle School) Confluence with Double Pipe Creek along Monocacy River 8-foot-macadam trail along the north and west branch of the Patapsco River 8-foot-wide macadam trail along MD 31 linking New Windsor and Westminster 8-foot macadam trail along Piney Run 8-foot macadam trail in a greenway corridor along the South Branch of the Patapsco River 8-foot macadam trail along the Little Pipe Creek $4, $1, $2, $2, $2, foot macadam trail $3, # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 11 of 13

20 TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK.,.*Id Prioritization Results Transportation Outlook 2035 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN (continued) MAP # Jurisdiction Year Open Project Name Limits Description Cost Est $ (in thousands) Total Policy Score (60%) Total Technical Score (40%) Total Policy + Total Scaled Technical 28 Harford Co Harford Co 2015 Woodsdale Road/Waldon Road Bikeway Winters Run Greenway 25 Harford Co 2015 MD 24 Bikeway 26 Harford Co Harford Co Harford Co Harford Co Harford Co 2015 Trimble Road Bikeway MD 152 Corridor Bikeway Colonial Joppa Greenway Trail Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Trail Aberdeen Area Bikeway (MD 132) Woodsdale MD 924 to Edgewood Waldon Road Bike/Pedestrian Path $6, Tollgate Road to Winters Run, Along Winters Run, under I-95 Bike/Pedestrian Path $1, to MD 7 US 1 to Bel Air South Parkway Bike/Pedestrian Path $ Edgewood Rec Park to Flying Bike/Pedestrian Path Point Park $ Hess Road to Trimble Road Bike/Pedestrian Path $ Foster Run Stream Valley Corridor - US 40 to Mariner Point Park Conowingo Dam to Havre de Grace along the Susquehanna River Ripken Stadium to Aberdeen MARC Station Bike/Pedestrian Path $3, Bike/Pedestrian Path $1, Bike/Pedestrian Path $ # Numbered projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization and are in the Draft Plan. A Lettered Projects provide reference for projects that underwent prioritization but fell out of the Draft Plan. Page 12 of 13