May 18, 2018

Gregory Slater
Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-3601

Dear Administrator Slater:

We write to request more information about the Maryland Department of Transportation’s

(MDOT) I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study and Governor Hogan’s Traffic Relief Plan. Now
that MDOT is beginning the federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), we request clarifications
regarding the scope of alternatives to be considered during the EIS process and environmental
protections for neighborhoods adjacent to I-495 and I-270. We also seek some clarification
surrounding the recently withdrawn general engineering consultant contract (Consultant
Contract) to direct the purported “Traffic Relief Plan.”

We appreciate that MDOT held open houses in recent weeks for the general public to learn more
about the project, and we look forward to continued transparency from MDOT as this project
progresses. Given the complexity of the managed lanes plan, our constituents have additional
questions.

1. What will be the scope of alternatives considered by the EIS? I-495 and I-270 traverse
large swaths of Montgomery & Prince George’s counties. We would like to be apprised
of the varied types of infrastructure improvements along the Beltway and I-270 corridors
that will be considered part of the EIS, specifically alternate modes to single occupancy
vehicles such as transit enhancements. Similarly, MDOT has been focused on additional
lane capacity; as opposed to the goal that such additional lanes are presumably designed
to serve, which is of course the underlying metric of enhanced mobility. Will the EIS
focus on those actual goals (i.e., volume of people who can be moved through the
corridor), as opposed to only additional lane capacity? Having read the responses to the
Request for Information, it was disappointing that instead of offering innovative solutions
to move more people, respondents simply repeated the lane expansion mantra without
much acknowledgement of geometric limitations, cost, practically, or the induced travel
demand such lanes would generate.
2. Is MDOT committed to adding four new lanes to both I-270 & I-495 with no
alternatives? Elected leaders in Montgomery County have endorsed a previous idea to
add two reversible lanes to I-270 due to the road’s performance during peak hours, with
heavy traffic southbound in the mornings and heavy traffic northbound in the evenings.
Are four new lanes necessary on a road with defined peak-direction traffic flows?
Additionally, I-270 and the I-270 Spur currently have high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes. As MDOT is aware, the FHWA does not allow existing non-tolled capacity on
federal-aid highways (which include I-270 and I-495) to be converted to tolled capacity
outside of select pilot programs. Will HOV drivers be permitted to use the tolled lanes
free of charge, or will an HOV facility be preserved in the non-tolled lanes to maintain
that benefit for motorists who carpool?

3. How will impacts on adjacent neighborhoods be measured? Our constituents living in

proximity to I-495 and I-270 today deal with highway noise and air pollution from
vehicle exhaust. Potential widening threatens to exacerbate those problems and bring
pollution closer to homes. Residents of the Carderock Springs neighborhood in Bethesda
recently saw vegetation removed between their homes and the Capital Beltway. Having
no sound wall separating their homes and a local school from the highway, the vegetation
provided a welcome buffer. The vegetation comprised of invasive species and was
removed by the State Highway Administration, but substitutes were not planted. While
the removal was necessary, MDOT could have been a better neighbor by replacing the
greenery. As this project moves forward, we want to know that MDOT is committed to
taking all prudent steps to protect adjacent neighborhoods from noise and pollution.

4. How will potential right of way acquisitions be identified? Our constituents living
adjacent to the highways are concerned about potential property takings needed to expand
the right of way for the respective roads to make space for the planned express lanes.
How will the topic of right of way acquisition be handled in the EIS? At the conclusion
of the EIS, will any possible property takings be identified and those property owners
informed of the potential displacement? In neighboring Virginia, substantial amounts of
property were acquired to expand the Beltway for the 495 Express Lanes project, a
project which bears similarity to the Traffic Relief Plan proposal. Should our
constituents expect a similar expansion of the footprint of I-495 and I-270 as seen in
Virginia for that project?

5. Can the parties to the Consultant Contract win subsequent contract awards? According to
the description of the Consultant Contract previously submitted to—and subsequently
withdrawn from—the Board of Public Works, the consultant will have far reaching
responsibilities:

…scope of services will include developing and implementing a new and

innovative P3 project delivery strategy driven by continuous market collaboration
and feedback to ensure best value and that the I-495 and I-270 “Traffic Relief
Plan” is delivered at a “net-zero” cost to the Transportation Trust Fund. Other
elements of the scope will include procurement support, tolling development
related services, development of technical engineering performance
 specifications, communication strategies, environmental planning and permitting
oversight, and verification and compliance oversight for the P3 delivery for
design and construction.

What protections are in place to ensure that the Consultant will not inappropriately
benefit from subsequent contracts as part of the overall plan? Are the Consultant and
their consortium companies banned or otherwise limited from bidding on such contracts?

6. Will this project realistically carry no net cost for taxpayers? The Consultant Contract
says one of the goals of the project is a “net-zero cost to the Transportation Trust Fund.”
Does that include the cost of the Consultant Contract itself, which has a listed Fund
Source of the Transportation Trust Fund in the Board of Public Works documents? Do
you expect the Trust Fund to be reimbursed for this contract?

Thank you for your attention to our questions. We appreciate SHA and MDOT’s responsiveness
as the state moves forward with this impactful project.

Sincerely,

Senator Susan C. Lee

District 16

Delegate Bill Frick Delegate Ariana Kelly Delegate Marc Korman

District 16 District 16 District 16

CC: Secretary Pete K. Rahn, Maryland Department of Transportation