Maryland 2023 Regular Session

Maryland House Bill HB1052 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1
2	2
3	3	EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MAT TER ADDED TO EXISTIN G LAW.
4	4	[Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
5	5	hb1052
6	6
7	7	HOUSE BILL 1052
8	8	R1, R2, M3 3lr2684
9	9
10	10	By: Delegate Ruth
11	11	Introduced and read first time: February 10, 2023
12	12	Assigned to: Appropriations
13	13
14	14	A BILL ENTITLED
15	15
16	16	AN ACT concerning 1
17	17
18	18	Transportation – Consolidated Transportation Program – Scoring 2
19	19
20	20	FOR the purpose of requiring that certain goals and measures used to score certain 3
21	21	transportation projects be within certain parameters; altering the goals and 4
22	22	measures of the Consolidated Transportation Program; requiring that certain 5
23	23	calculations used to score transportation projects be posted on the Department’s 6
24	24	website and the appendix of the Consolidated Transportation Program; establishing 7
25	25	the Workgroup on the Maryland Open Transportation Investment Decision Act; and 8
26	26	generally relating to the Consolidated Transportation Program and transportation 9
27	27	scoring. 10
28	28
29	29	BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments, 11
30	30	Article – Transportation 12
31	31	Section 2–103.7 13
32	32	Annotated Code of Maryland 14
33	33	(2020 Replacement Volume and 2022 Supplement) 15
34	34
35	35	SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, 16
36	36	That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 17
37	37
38	38	Article – Transportation 18
39	39
40	40	2–103.7. 19
41	41
42	42	(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. 20
43	43
44	44	(2) “Major capital project” has the meaning stated in § 2–103.1 of this 21
45	45	subtitle. 22
46	46	2 HOUSE BILL 1052
47	47
48	48
49	49	(3) (i) “Major transportation project” means a major capital project in 1
50	50	the State Highway Administration or the Maryland Transit Administration whose total 2
51	51	cost for all phases exceeds $5,000,000 and that: 3
52	52
53	53	1. Increases highway or transit capacity; 4
54	54
55	55	2. Reduces areas of heavy traffic congestion; 5
56	56
57	57	3. Improves commute times in areas of heavy traffic 6
58	58	congestion; 7
59	59
60	60	4. Improves transit stations or station areas; or 8
61	61
62	62	5. Improves highway capacity through the use of intelligent 9
63	63	transportation systems or congestion management systems. 10
64	64
65	65	(ii) “Major transportation project” does not include: 11
66	66
67	67	1. Projects in the Maryland Aviation Administration, the 12
68	68	Maryland Port Administration, or the Maryland Transportation Authority; 13
69	69
70	70	2. Maintenance and storage facilities projects; 14
71	71
72	72	3. Water quality improvement projects; 15
73	73
74	74	4. Projects related to Maryland’s priorities for total 16
75	75	maximum daily load development; 17
76	76
77	77	5. Safety–related projects that do not increase highway or 18
78	78	transit capacity; 19
79	79
80	80	6. Roads within the Appalachian Development Highway 20
81	81	System; or 21
82	82
83	83	7. Projects that are solely for system preservation. 22
84	84
85	85	(b) The Department shall: 23
86	86
87	87	(1) In accordance with federal transportation requirements, develop a 24
88	88	project–based scoring system for major transportation projects using the goals and 25
89	89	measures established under subsection (c) of this section; 26
90	90
91	91	(2) Develop the weighting metrics for each goal and measure established 27
92	92	under subsection (c) of this section, ENSURING THAT : 28
93	93
94	94	(I) NO GOAL RECEIVE S A WEIGHT THAT IS 5% HIGHER THAN 29
95	95	THE LOWEST WEIGHTED GOAL; AND 30 HOUSE BILL 1052 3
96	96
97	97
98	98
99	99	(II) NO MEASURE RECEIVE S A WEIGHT THAT IS 10% HIGHER 1
100	100	THAN THE LOWEST WEIG HTED MEASURE FOR THE SAME GOAL ; 2
101	101
102	102	(3) On or before January 1, [2018] 2024, develop a model consistent with 3
103	103	this section that uses the project–based scoring system developed under this subsection to 4
104	104	rank major transportation projects being considered for inclusion in the draft and final 5
105	105	Consolidated Transportation Program; 6
106	106
107	107	(4) Use the model developed under this subsection to rank major 7
108	108	transportation projects being considered for inclusion in the draft and final Consolidated 8
109	109	Transportation Program; and 9
110	110
111	111	(5) Make the model developed under item (3) of this subsection and any 10
112	112	ranking under item (4) of this subsection available to the public: 11
113	113
114	114	(i) As an appendix to the Consolidated Transportation Program; 12
115	115	and 13
116	116
117	117	(ii) On the Department’s website. 14
118	118
119	119	(c) (1) The State transportation goals are: 15
120	120
121	121	(i) Safety and security; 16
122	122
123	123	(ii) System preservation; 17
124	124
125	125	(iii) Reducing congestion and improving commute times; 18
126	126
127	127	(iv) Environmental stewardship AND CLIMATE CHANGE 19
128	128	MITIGATION; 20
129	129
130	130	(v) Community vitality; 21
131	131
132	132	(vi) Economic prosperity; 22
133	133
134	134	(vii) Equitable access to transportation AND ENVIRONMENTAL 23
135	135	JUSTICE; 24
136	136
137	137	(viii) Cost effectiveness and return on investment; 25
138	138
139	139	(IX) ADHERING TO S MART GROWTH DESIGN PRINCIPLES ; and 26
140	140
141	141	[(ix)] (X) Local priorities. 27
142	142	4 HOUSE BILL 1052
143	143
144	144
145	145	(2) In evaluating whether and to what extent a major transportation 1
146	146	project satisfies the goals established under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the 2
147	147	Department shall assign a score for each goal using the weighting metrics developed by the 3
148	148	Department under subsection (b)(2) of this section and the following measures: 4
149	149
150	150	(i) For safety and security: 5
151	151
152	152	1. The expected reduction in total fatalities and severe 6
153	153	injuries in all modes affected by the project; and 7
154	154
155	155	2. The extent to which the project implements the Maryland 8
156	156	State Highway Administration’s Complete Streets policies. 9
157	157
158	158	(ii) For system preservation: 10
159	159
160	160	1. The degree to which the project increases the lifespan of 11
161	161	the affected facility; 12
162	162
163	163	2. The degree to which the project increases the functionality 13
164	164	of the facility; and 14
165	165
166	166	3. The degree to which the project renders the facility more 15
167	167	resilient. 16
168	168
169	169	(iii) For reducing congestion and improving commute times: 17
170	170
171	171	1. [The expected change in cumulative job accessibility 18
172	172	within an approximately 60–minute commute for highway projects or transit projects; 19
173	173
174	174	2.] The degree to which the project has a positive impact on 20
175	175	travel time reliability [and congestion]; 21
176	176
177	177	2. THE DEGREE TO WHICH T HE PROJECT INCREASES 22
178	178	THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PASSING THROUGH THE CORRIDOR ACROSS ALL MODES OF 23
179	179	TRANSPORTATION ; AND 24
180	180
181	181	3. The degree to which the project supports connections 25
182	182	between different modes of transportation and promotes multiple transportation choices. 26
183	183
184	184	(iv) For environmental stewardship AND CLIMATE CHANGE 27
185	185	MITIGATION: 28
186	186
187	187	1. The potential of the project to [limit or reduce harmful 29
188	188	emissions] IMPROVE AIR QUALITY ; 30
189	189	HOUSE BILL 1052 5
190	190
191	191
192	192	2. THE POTENTIAL OF THE PROJECT TO LIMIT OR 1
193	193	REDUCE GREENHOUSE GA S EMISSIONS; 2
194	194
195	195	[2.] 3. The degree to which the project avoids impacts on 3
196	196	State resources in the project area and adjacent areas; and 4
197	197
198	198	[3.] 4. The degree to which the project advances the State 5
199	199	environmental goals. 6
200	200
201	201	(v) For community vitality: 7
202	202
203	203	1. The degree to which the project is projected to increase the 8
204	204	use of walking, biking, and transit; 9
205	205
206	206	2. The degree to which the project enhances existing 10
207	207	community assets; and 11
208	208
209	209	3. The degree to which the project furthers the affected 12
210	210	community’s and State’s plans for revitalization. 13
211	211
212	212	(vi) For economic prosperity: 14
213	213
214	214	1. The projected increase in the cumulative job accessibility 15
215	215	within an approximately 60–minute commute for HIGHWAY OR TRANSIT projects; 16
216	216
217	217	2. The extent to which the project is projected to enhance 17
218	218	access to critical intermodal locations for the movement of goods and services; and 18
219	219
220	220	3. The projected increase in furthering nonspeculative local 19
221	221	and State economic development strategies in existing communities. 20
222	222
223	223	(vii) For equitable access to transportation AND ENVIRONMENTAL 21
224	224	JUSTICE: 22
225	225
226	226	1. The expected increase in job accessibility for 23
227	227	disadvantaged populations within an approximately 60–minute commute for projects; and 24
228	228
229	229	2. The projected POTENTIAL FOR economic development 25
230	230	[impact on], INCLUDING REDEVELOPM ENT, IN low–income communities; 26
231	231
232	232	3. THE POTENTIAL OF THE PROJECT TO IMPROVE A IR 27
233	233	QUALITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTIC E COMMUNITIES ; AND 28
234	234
235	235	4. THE POTENTIAL OF THE PROJECT TO IMPROVE 29
236	236	ACCESS TO TRANSPORTA TION FOR PERSONS WIT H DISABILITIES. 30
237	237	6 HOUSE BILL 1052
238	238
239	239
240	240	(viii) For cost effectiveness and return on investment: 1
241	241
242	242	1. The estimated travel time savings divided by the project 2
243	243	cost; 3
244	244
245	245	2. The degree to which the project leverages additional 4
246	246	federal, State, local, and private sector transportation investment; and 5
247	247
248	248	3. The degree to which the project wil l increase 6
249	249	transportation alternatives and redundancy. 7
250	250
251	251	(ix) FOR ADHERING TO SMART GR OWTH DESIGN PRINCIPL ES: 8
252	252
253	253	1. THE POTENTIAL OF THE PROJECT TO ATTRACT 9
254	254	MIXED–USE DEVELOPMENT OR R EDEVELOPMENT ; AND 10
255	255
256	256	2. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE P ROJECT EMBRACES 11
257	257	SMART GROWTH DESIGN . 12
258	258
259	259	(X) For local priorities, the degree to which the project supports local 13
260	260	government transportation priorities, as specified in local government priority letters. 14
261	261
262	262	(d) (1) The score of a major transportation project shall be based solely on the 15
263	263	goals and measures established under subsection (c) of this section. 16
264	264
265	265	(2) [The] SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH (3) OF THIS SUBSECTION , THE 17
266	266	Department shall make the scores of all projects evaluated for inclusion in the Consolidated 18
267	267	Transportation Program and assigned a score under the model available to the public: 19
268	268
269	269	(i) As an appendix to the Consolidated Transportation Program; 20
270	270	and 21
271	271
272	272	(ii) On the Department’s website. 22
273	273
274	274	(3) THE SCORES POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARA GRAPH (2)(II) 23
275	275	OF THIS SUBSECTION S HALL INCLUDE THE FUL L VALUES AND CALCULA TIONS USED 24
276	276	TO DETERMINE EACH PROJECT ’S SCORE. 25
277	277
278	278	(e) Nothing in this section may be construed to impede or alter: 26
279	279
280	280	(1) The priority letter process that outlines local transportation priorities 27
281	281	for the Department’s consideration for inclusion in the Consolidated Transportation 28
282	282	Program under § 2–103.1 of this subtitle; 29
283	283
284	284	(2) The Department’s visit to each county under § 2–103.1(e) of this 30
285	285	subtitle; or 31 HOUSE BILL 1052 7
286	286
287	287
288	288
289	289	(3) The inclusion of local transportation priorities in the Consolidated 1
290	290	Transportation Program. 2
291	291
292	292	SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That : 3
293	293
294	294	(a) There is a Workgroup on the Maryland Open Transportation Investment 4
295	295	Decision Act. 5
296	296
297	297	(b) The Workgroup shall consist of the following members: 6
298	298
299	299	(1) three members of the Senate, appointed by the President of the Senate; 7
300	300
301	301	(2) three members of the House, appointed by the Speaker of the House; 8
302	302
303	303	(3) three members appointed by the Governor; and 9
304	304
305	305	(4) the Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary’s designee. 10
306	306
307	307	(c) The Secretary of Transportation shall designate the chair of the Workgroup. 11
308	308
309	309	(d) The Department of Transportation shall provide staff for the Workgroup. 12
310	310
311	311	(e) A member of the Workgroup: 13
312	312
313	313	(1) may not receive compensation as a member of the Workgroup; but 14
314	314
315	315	(2) is entitled to reimbursement for expenses under the Standard State 15
316	316	Travel Regulations, as provided in the State budget. 16
317	317
318	318	(f) The Workgroup shall: 17
319	319
320	320	(1) evaluate the model required under § 2–103.7(b) of the Transportation 18
321	321	Article, as enacted by Section 1 of this Act, and make recommendations on whether there 19
322	322	should be modifications to the model; 20
323	323
324	324	(2) evaluate how prioritizing major transportation projects with higher 21
325	325	scores for inclusion in the Consolidated Transportation Program over major transportation 22
326	326	projects with lower scores impacts the Program; 23
327	327
328	328	(3) evaluate other prioritization processes in the region and in other states, 24
329	329	including Virginia’s SmartScale Program, and the applicability of those processes in 25
330	330	Maryland; and 26
331	331
332	332	(4) make recommendations on what changes or improvements should be 27
333	333	made to the quantitative methods used by the Department of Transportation to calculate 28 8 HOUSE BILL 1052
334	334
335	335
336	336	scores for each of the measures listed in § 2–103.7(c)(2) of the Transportation Article, as 1
337	337	enacted by Section 1 of this Act. 2
338	338
339	339	(g) The Workgroup may evaluate and test alternative models for prioritizing 3
340	340	major transportation projects. 4
341	341
342	342	(h) In the process of conducting the evaluations under subsections (f) and (g) of 5
343	343	this section, the Workgroup shall solicit input from: 6
344	344
345	345	(1) local governments; 7
346	346
347	347	(2) transportation planning organizations; 8
348	348
349	349	(3) the Maryland Transit Administration; 9
350	350
351	351	(4) the Maryland Transportation Authority; and 10
352	352
353	353	(5) other interested parties, including nonprofit organizations and 11
354	354	institutions of higher education with transportation–related expertise. 12
355	355
356	356	(i) On or before September 1, 2025, the Workgroup shall report its findings and 13
357	357	recommendations, in accordance with § 2–1257 of the State Government Article, to the 14
358	358	General Assembly. 15
359	359
360	360	SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect 16
361	361	October 1, 2023. Section 2 of this Act shall remain effective for a period of 2 years and, at 17
362	362	the end of September 30, 2025, Section 2 of this Act, with no further action required by the 18
363	363	General Assembly, shall be abrogated and of no further force and effect. 19