Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Bikeways topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pedestrian and bikeway funding cut about 30%; Forest Glen passageway and Life Sciences loop delayed
Summary
The executive's CIP cuts funding for pedestrian facilities and bikeways by roughly $70 million (about 30%) over six years, largely by pushing the Forest Glen passageway and developer-funded Life Sciences Loop beyond six years; the Capital Crescent Trail got added funding but a related supplemental was tabled after high bids.
The Transportation and Environment Committee reviewed the executive's changes to the Pedestrian Facilities and Bikeways subcategory, where staff said the executive recommends $161 million over six years, a reduction of roughly $70 million (about 30%) from the FY25 to—Y30 approved levels.
S2 said the decrease is largely driven by two factors: moving the Forest Glen grade-separated passageway beyond the six-year window to free GO bond capacity elsewhere in the CIP, and the fact that some Rockville and Gaithersburg projects were programmed in FY26 and are therefore not reflected in the six-year total under review. "The executive is recommending $161,000,000 for this subcategory over the 6 years this is a 70,000,000 or roughly 30% decrease from FY 25 to 30 approved levels," S2 said.
On the Capital Crescent Trail, S2 and MCDOT staff explained a net $8.9 million increase in the CIP for that project to address increased construction costs and to add an Elm Street Park connection, but the committee previously tabled a supplemental appropriation after receiving "astronomically high" bids, according to MCDOT staff. "We received bids that were astronomically high for that work and are looking to see how we can package that work differently and have a different delivery schedule that might bring those bids down," S3 said.
S2 and OMB staff also explained that the Life Sciences Center Loop was originally expected to be 100% funded by developer contributions; those contributions did not materialize and staff recommended delaying the project beyond six years rather than program additional GO bond funding now.
Council members asked questions about specific Purple Line area improvements and requested more detail on which elements in the Planning Board's recommendations are included in the CIP. Staff said short-term improvements are underway in some areas and that planning-level funding and design packages are in place for others.
Committee staff will reconcile supplemental appropriation requests and CIP entries to ensure consistency before the council votes on the CIP in May.
