Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Climate Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transportation and Climate Alignment Act draws wide support and pointed opposition in Appropriations hearing
Summary
HB 437 would require MDOT to assess greenhouse gas impacts of major highway capacity projects and pair large expansions with mitigation or multimodal investments; environmental groups, public-health advocates and some transit unions backed the bill, while business groups warned of high costs and practical challenges.
Delegate Mark Edelson presented HB 437, the Transportation and Climate Alignment Act (TCA), which would require MDOT to evaluate the greenhouse‑gas impacts of major transportation projects and to design large highway expansions (projects costing more than $100 million) with offset or multimodal measures to avoid net increases in emissions. Sponsors said the bill is forward‑looking and would not apply to projects already funded for construction or with NEPA records of decision.
Environmental groups, the League of Women Voters, public‑health advocates and many local activists testified in support. Lindsey Mendelson of the Maryland Sierra Club and other witnesses emphasized the lack of an existing statewide assessment of the transportation portfolio’s pollution impacts and cited a DMV Moves task force recommendation for additional capital funding for multimodal investments. Supporters argued the policy could yield substantial net savings and improve access and public health over time.
MDOT’s assistant secretary for planning and project development, Joe McAndrew, testified the department supports the legislation with implementation amendments to allow phased adoption, and that updating models to account for induced demand would carry an estimated cost (testimony referenced about $1.5 million) that MDOT would need to program. MDOT noted it was already piloting components of the bill.
Business and real estate groups — including the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and NAIOP Maryland — opposed the bill as drafted, saying it could require multimodal mitigation without new funding and thereby slow or prevent needed capacity, safety or freight projects. They argued the bill is more prescriptive than comparable policy examples and could impose high mitigation costs that are not funded in the fiscal note.
A lengthy committee exchange clarified scope and exemptions: sponsors said the bill targets future major expansion projects, not routine maintenance or MDTA projects (the Maryland Transportation Authority), and that assessments are intended to inform design choices rather than to halt projects. Delegates expressed concerns about measurement, offsets and cost impacts for large projects (sponsors noted some high-profile projects already are exempt because they are far advanced in planning). MDOT and advocates said many implementation details would be worked out during drafting and through proposed amendments.
No committee votes were taken during the hearing; bill proponents and opponents asked the committee for favorable and unfavorable reports respectively.
