[ Home ] [ Up ] [ About the Partnership ] [ Reports ] [ Local Advocacy ] [ News ] [ Resources ] [ Archives ] [ Job Openings ]

August 22, 2001

Roxane Y. Mukai, Planning Manager
Maryland Transportation Authority
300 Authority Drive
Baltimore, MD 21222-2200

RE: I-95 Master Plan Study

Dear Ms. Mukai,

We the undersigned groups are concerned that the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) is not considering options in its I-95 Master Plan Study that hold the most promise for supporting Smart Growth and enhancing our quality of life in the corridor north of Baltimore. With this letter we urge you to explore and pursue these other options.

In particular, we are extremely concerned about the amount of roadway capacity that is added in several of MdTA’s "build" alternatives. Even though MdTA proposes to manage some of the lanes through variable pricing, these alternatives add 2-3 lanes in each direction between MD 543 in Harford County and the northern end of I-895 near the Baltimore City line, increasing capacity by 50-100%, depending on the segment of I-95.

Adding so much capacity on I-95 would place even greater development pressure on the rural areas of Harford County and will attract freight traffic to I-95 that could be accommodated by rail. It would also boost pollution, hampering Maryland’s timely attainment of healthy air quality and subjecting those living close to I-95 to increased cancer risk from added exposure to air toxics from increased traffic, especially trucks.

We are encouraged by your exploration of variable pricing in the I-95 Master Plan Study. Used prudently, such a tool could enhance the transportation choices of the residents of our area. Still, your consideration of variable pricing is too limited. In particular, revenue from variable pricing should be used to enhance transit service in the corridor. MdTA should plan to modify its bond covenants as they are issued to accomplish this goal. In New York/New Jersey and southern California revenue from variable pricing pays for more frequent and affordable transit service in the corridor, enhancing equity of access to jobs for those without cars.

In addition, MdTA’s proposal to add so many more lanes undermines the usefulness of variable pricing as a travel demand management tool. This is most obvious when looking at the MdTA’s modeling for the scenario that simply adds 2-3 lanes of additional capacity without pricing them. The modeling shows no congestion problems in 2020, which would seem to indicate that the optimal price for additional highway capacity for peak efficiency would be close to zero. This modeling is likely faulty in that new traffic attracted by the increased capacity would fill it, but the point is that the capacity increase is excessive.

We urge you to create and model at least one "Partial Build" or "Demand Management" alternative that would contain the following elements:

1. Variably Priced Lanes: Price and manage two lanes including one new managed express lane in the portion of the study area heavily used by commuters on weekdays and one existing general purpose lane, with fully automated pricing, including single-use options to facilitate occasional use by people of all incomes.
2. Express Bus: High frequency and affordable service with revenues from priced lanes dedicated to transit. Give buses priority via express lanes, drop down ramps, traffic signals, queue jumper lanes, and links to Smart Growth centers via nearby roads.
3. Bike/Pedestrian: Provide safe, attractive bike and pedestrian routes within a mile of all corridor transit stops and stations, including guarded, sheltered bicycle parking.
4. Enhanced Rail Freight Capacity: Enhance rail freight capacity, inter-modal facilities, and passenger rail speeds to get more truck freight and passenger traffic diverted to rail. As you know, Maryland is currently exploring this with surrounding states, with results expected this fall.
5. Induced Demand Modeled: Experts estimate that 40-100% on increased traffic on expanded roadways is new traffic induced by the increased capacity. Unless MdTA compares traffic levels with and without expanded capacity on I-95, using best practice analysis tools, it puts its proposals at risk of legal challenge.

We would welcome the opportunity to work with you in developing these new alternatives. Please contact us with any questions. We look forward to hearing from you on this crucial matter for our area.

Sincerely,

Cc: The Honorable Parris N. Glendening
Gene Lynch, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor
John D. Porcari, Chairman, Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA)
Thomas L. Osborne, Executive Secretary, MdTA
Keith Duerling, Director of Engineering, MdTA
Pat Keller, Planning Director, Baltimore County
Joseph Kocy, Planning Director, Harford County
Craig Forrest, Baltimore County Dept. of Public Works
Pete Gutwald, Harford County Planning Dept.

Baltimore Regional Partnership · 512 Orchard Street  · Baltimore, MD 21201-1947
 phone: (410) 523-8150  x249 · fax: (410) 523-4022