Montgomery County Council disapproves Transportation Demand Management regulation amid push to repeal law

The Montgomery County Council voted to disapprove Executive Regulation 8-21, the implementing regulation for the county's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) law, and signaled lawmakers will press forward with legislation to repeal or substantially revise the underlying code.

Councilmember Andrew Glass, chair of the Transportation and Environment Committee, moved to disapprove the regulation and said the committee "does not think this regulation fits." The motion carried on a voice vote, with the council president announcing the motion carried.

Council members who backed disapproval and committee members said the regulation, drafted after Bill 36-18 (the 2019 TDM amendments), is not workable in its current form and creates confusion for property owners, employers and the Department of Transportation. Supporters of repeal said Council Bill 24-25, introduced last week, would remove the statute that the regulation implements and allow the council to restart policy discussions.

Director Stephen Conklin of the Montgomery County Department of Transportation told the council that Executive Regulation 8-21 was developed to give more specific guidance for implementing the 2019 law and that, until the council acts, the department has continued operating under the statutory framework and draft guidance. Conklin said the practical difference between disapproving the regulation and extending the council's review period is largely procedural: disapproval removes the draft regulatory text as a guide, while an extension would leave it in a pending status.

Members referenced an Office of the Inspector General review showing low survey response rates for employer and residential TDM surveys. The IG numbers discussed at the meeting showed an average 4% response rate among employers with 100 or more employees and about 27% for employers under 100; one district (White Oak, for employers under 100) reportedly hit a 50% response rate. Council members said those low response rates called into question whether the program was achieving its goals.

Several council members urged clear communication to property owners and employers now participating in the program. Councilmember Tom Hucker and others asked the department to notify affected parties that no enforcement actions are expected while the council considers legislation. The county attorney's office was asked to advise the council and staff on any legal or liability implications of disapproving the regulation while surveying and compliance work are underway.

The council discussion also covered two separate program elements: (1) employer and residential surveying and outreach funded in part by TDM fees, and (2) developer-submitted TDM plans required as part of development review. Conklin noted that development-related TDM plans remain part of project review and argued that having some framework is helpful if the council opts not to repeal the law.

Councilmembers said they expect to take up Bill 24-25 in the fall and that committee work will continue on a replacement or repeal. Several council members asked staff to provide a timeline and recommended notifying the businesses and property owners who have already received survey requests about the council's pending action.

Why this matters: The county's TDM law aims to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and fund outreach and programs that promote alternatives to driving. Council members and DOT staff agreed on the policy goal but differed on whether the current statutory and regulatory structure is the correct way to achieve it.