MDOT pushes data-driven scoring for capacity projects; stakeholders urge more testing and protections for preservation and rural areas
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 230 would require MDOT to use a transparent, quantitative scoring system for new-capacity transportation projects and publish draft rankings with the Consolidated Transportation Program. MDOT and local governments supported the reform; industry groups urged more pilot results and cautioned about effects on system preservation and rural jurisdictions.
Maryland Department of Transportation officials described House Bill 230 as a statutory modernization of the state’s project prioritization process that would make new-capacity decisions more transparent and objective.
"This act introduces changes to the consolidated transportation program to make the process for selecting new surface transportation capacity projects more transparent, objective, predictable and effective," Joe McAndrew, MDOT assistant secretary for planning and project development, told the committee.
MDOT’s proposal would add an explicit feasibility‑study pathway for local requests, require MDOT to publicize funds available for expansion projects every other year, apply quantitative scoring tied to statutory goals when funding new capacity, and publish scoring and proposed funding with the draft Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP). The bill also revamps the Maryland Transportation Commission as a public forum for reviewing scoring and funding decisions.
The department emphasized that system preservation funding would remain separate from the new‑capacity pot and that the scoring framework was tested in a no‑funding pilot. Local governments and planning agencies largely supported those reforms, saying the bill provides needed predictability and clearer timelines for submission and sequencing of projects.
Industry groups and associations urged caution. The Maryland Asphalt Association and the Maryland Transportation Builders and Materials Association asked for mode‑neutral scoring, clearer protections for preservation projects that include capacity elements, and public release of pilot data comparing new scoring to the prior Chapter 30 process. Critics warned that relative scoring can favor lower‑cost, high‑score small projects over larger, higher‑cost capacity projects unless the scoring and funding pots guard against such outcomes.
MDOT officials said they will publish the scoring methodology and present results to the Transportation Commission and stakeholders; they defended the pilot results, noting a mix of road, transit and bike/ped projects scored highly in the trial round.
Committee members pressed MDOT on whether the legislation forecloses legislative oversight of scoring changes; MDOT said scoring details would be administrative but would be published and reviewed annually.
The hearing concluded with requests from the committee for more detail on scoring mechanics, appointee qualifications for the reconstituted commission, and pilot data.