Committee backs removing northern M‑83 from county highways plan, adds study on Clarksburg–Germantown corridor

The Montgomery County Council Transportation and Environment Committee on July 21 recommended that the full Council concur with the Planning Board’s technical update to the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways, including removing the northern section of the long‑planned Mid County Highway Extended (M83) and adopting a package of technical updates reflecting the county’s Complete Streets policies.

The committee’s action endorses the Planning Board recommendation to remove the northern M83 alignment — a planned, unbuilt roadway that would have extended roughly 5.7 miles from Montgomery Village Avenue through Great Seneca Park and the North Germantown Greenway to Ridge Road (MD‑27) in Clarksburg — while retaining the southern portion of Mid County Highway that connects toward the Intercounty Connector (ICC). Committee members also approved an amendment, offered by Councilmember Balcom, to require a comprehensive study of travel needs for the Clarksburg–Germantown corridor that includes the feasibility and timeline for implementing planned and existing master‑plan transportation improvements; the amendment removed a specific fiscal‑year reference after committee discussion about budgeting logistics.

Why it matters: M83 has been on county master plans for decades and was the subject of multiple corridor studies dating back to the 1960s and facility planning begun in 2004. The corridor has drawn sustained public testimony for and against the roadway because of projected environmental impacts, right‑of‑way concerns and traffic‑capacity arguments. Planning staff told the committee the technical update is intended to bring the master plan into alignment with the county’s Complete Streets design approach, recently codified in county bills and guidance adopted over the last several years.

Planning staff described the background and findings for the recommendation. David Anspacher, chief of the transportation planning division, said the Planning Board and planning staff held extra outreach after public testimony concentrated on M83. "We had extensive public testimony on the plan, and 95% of that testimony was on something M83 that the plan had nothing to do with," he said, explaining why staff revisited the alignment.

Planning staff summarized earlier studies: a 2015 Mid County Corridor study had selected the master‑plan alignment (Alternative 9A) as the best performer for travel time and intersection congestion relief and estimated a 2015 construction cost of about $357,000,000 (2015 dollars). Planning staff also told the committee that building the northern section would have added impervious surface and impacted forested and wetland areas identified in the 2015 analysis. Council staff noted a County Executive fiscal impact statement posted after the staff report that estimated roughly $655,000,000 in savings if the northern section were removed from the master plan; that fiscal statement attributes the savings primarily to an updated construction‑cost estimate for the northern section (that statement is included in the staff packet).

The Planning Board recommended removal of the northern segment while retaining the southern segment and recommended a comprehensive study of travel needs along the corridor. Council staff advised that, given multiple prior rounds of study, the comprehensive study language could be limited to an updated implementation timeline for roadway and transit improvements already identified in the 2017 supplemental Mid County Corridor study; Councilmember Balcom successfully amended the study language to add feasibility and timeline analysis and to remove a specific fiscal‑year target so that the budgetary logistics could be worked out before full Council action.

Committee members and Planning Board representatives also discussed operational and technical implications. Planning staff noted that approximately 25% of the M83 right‑of‑way is privately owned, 29% was dedicated through prior development and 47% is publicly owned (parks or existing roadway), and that removing the alignment from the master plan would open associated right‑of‑way to abandonment processes that require landowner initiation and further review. Planning staff emphasized that removal from the master plan does not legally prohibit construction in the future but makes it more difficult because of potential abandonment of right‑of‑way.

The technical update contains several additional noncontroversial but substantive changes the committee recommended forwarding to full Council, including: - Adding target speed recommendations and updating street classifications countywide to implement the Complete Streets design guide and new county street classification law (staff said the update adds target speeds for about 47% of street segments, representing 56% of county street mileage). - Reducing planned cross‑section and setting lower target speeds for two Germantown segments (Wisteria Drive and Waring Station Road) from four lanes to two lanes and assigning a 25 mph target speed; staff said those segments lack master‑plan right‑of‑way for four lanes and function well in their current alignment. - Introducing a Growth Corridor Boulevard street type as a tool for future master plans to provide lower target speeds and closer protected crossing spacing on corridors anticipated for denser development. - Updating transitway and station recommendations to reflect ongoing Montgomery County DOT BRT planning (for example, changes to the Maryland‑355 BRT station set and corridor alignments) and removing or reclassifying certain parkways in the plan for consistency with previous Council actions.

Montgomery County Department of Transportation deputy director Haley Peckett told the committee MCDOT is conceptually comfortable with the technical classification changes and will do a brief follow‑up review on specific parkway reclassifications before full Council. Planning staff and committee members agreed to coordinate with MCDOT on those map and classification edits before final adoption.

Statements from participants: Planning Board Chair Harris said the board recommended removal of the northern portion for environmental reasons and based on prior Council direction. "We recommended removing the northern portion, but keep the southern portion because it ... would be helpful in transportation routing," Harris said. Councilmember Balcom, representing the area that would be most affected, urged a stronger study requirement and pressed for clarity on what transit alternatives exist in the near term, saying, "At this point, we don't know when that's gonna happen," when referring to proposed regional transit projects.

Next steps: The committee forwarded its recommended technical update, including the Planning Board’s M83 recommendation and the amended study language, to the full Council for consideration. Council staff will coordinate with Planning and MCDOT staff to finalize technical edits and to clarify budgetary timing for the corridor study before the matter goes to full Council.

Votes at a glance - Committee recommended concurrence with the Planning Board recommendation to remove the northern section of Mid County Highway Extended (M83) from the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways; outcome: approved by the committee (vote tally not specified in transcript). - Committee approved Councilmember Balcom’s amendment to require a comprehensive study of travel needs in the Clarksburg–Germantown corridor that includes feasibility and implementation timeline and removed a fiscal‑year reference from the amendment language; outcome: approved (vote tally not specified in transcript). - Committee approved the broader technical update (target speeds, street classification changes, Wisteria/Waring lane reduction, transitway and station updates, growth corridor boulevard tool, and map corrections) and asked for coordination with MCDOT on parkway reclassifications before full Council; outcome: approved (vote tallies not specified).

Ending: Committee members said they will continue to press for transit and roadway investments for Upcounty residents through the capital budgeting and regional advocacy processes. The update now moves to the full Council with the committee’s recommendations and requested technical clarifications.