Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

Technical Appendices

A. Legislative Language

B. Baltimore-Washington Parkway Legislation

C. National Register Nomination

D. Existing Conditions Report

E. Traffic and Travel Demand Technical Report

F. Alternatives Development Technical Report

G. Alternatives Evaluation Technical Report

H. Public Involvement Plan

I. Official Comments to Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

J. Study Team
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

AppendixǦLegislative Language
36–708 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–238 

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008 

JULY 18, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. OLVER, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3074] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2008. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Major challenges facing transportation and housing over the next decade ............................................................................................................

Projects ........................................................................................................

Solvency of highway trust fund ................................................................

The effect of guaranteed spending ............................................................

Operating plan and reprogramming procedures .....................................

Relationship with budget offices ...............................................................

Tabular summary .......................................................................................

Committee hearings ...................................................................................

Program, project, and activity ...................................................................

Title I—Department of Transportation ....................................................

Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ...................

Title III—Related Agencies .......................................................................

Title IV—General Provisions ....................................................................

House of Representatives Report Requirements: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
51 

The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to be 

derived from the FHWA’s public lands highways discretionary program and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service’s 

regions. 

Baltimore Washington Parkway feasibility study.—The Committee directs the FHWA’s Office of Federal Lands Highways to 

work with the National Park Service and the Maryland State Highway Administration to determine the feasibility of adding a third 

northbound and a third southbound lane for Maryland Route 295/ 

Baltimore Washington Parkway from the intersection with Interstate 695 to New York Avenue in the District of Columbia. The 

FHWA shall prepare a report which must be submitted to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than 

one year after the date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility 

of such a widening. The feasibility study shall include an assessment of the impact of the Base Realignment and Closure process 

on traffic throughout the Maryland Route 295 corridor between 

Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC. 

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—SAFETEA–LU reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities and requires that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009 be set aside for marine highway systems 

that are part of the National Highway System for use by the states 

of Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2008, 

SAFETEA–LU provides $65,000,000 for the ferry boat program. 

Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities 

program in fiscal year 2008 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
Maryland Baltimore Washington Parkway Feasibility Study, MD $1,000,000 FLH $1,000,000

Maryland BRAC-Related Improvements, Anne Arundel County, 

MD 

$2,753,200 State $2,753,200.00

Maryland BRAC-Related Improvements, Harford County, MD $2,881,450 State $2,881,450

Maryland BRAC-Related Improvements, Montgomery County, 

MD 

$4,400,000 State $4,400,000

Maryland BRAC-Related Improvements, Prince George's 

County, MD 

$2,496,700 State $2,496,700

Tennessee Stones River National Battlefield Tour Route, TN $1,500,000 FLH $1,500,000

TOTALS $91,990,832 $18,833,110.00 $50,603,972.00 $7,407,750.00 $15,146,000.00

* http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/plhlist.cfm

PLHD FUNDS YET 

TO BE ALLOTTED 

TO FEDERAL 

LANDS HIGHWAY 

(FLH)

(1) - All FY2010 PLHD projects were designated by Congress in the Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division A of Public Law 111-117).

PLHD GRANT 

AMOUNT (1)

(*) - Project receiving additional PLHD discretionary funding above the designated grant amount indicated in the Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2010 (Division A of Public Law 111-117).

FY 2010 Public Lands Highways Discretionary (PLHD) Awards (as of September 20, 2010)*

STATE PROJECT

PROJECT 

ADMIN. 

THRU 

STATE or 

FLH

PLHD FUNDS 

ALLOCATED TO 

STATE

PLHD FUNDS YET 

TO BE 

ALLOCATED TO 

STATE

PLHD FUNDS 

ALLOTTED TO 

FEDERAL LANDS 

HIGHWAY (FLH)
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

AppendixǦBaltimore-Washington Parkway

Legislation


Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

AppendixǦNational Register Nomination
United States Department of the Interior 


National Park Service 


National Register of Historic Places 


Multiple Property Documentation Form 


Thls lorm is for use in dOcument$ng mull~ple propeny groups relallng lo one or several nlmorlc conlexlr See 8nslruct~ons in Gu~dellnss lor 

Complerlng Nartonar Regrrrcr Forms (Nallonal Reglslef Bullelon 16) Complete each llem by marklng x ' ~nlne approorlate box or by enlerlng 

Ine requesled mlormal~on For addlllonal space use conllnuarlon sheets (Form l0.9OD.a) Type all enrrles 

A. Name of Multiple Property Listing 

P.MlJAYS OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL WGION, 1913 - 1965 

*02-7 - 552$ 

0. Associated Historic Contexts 

EYOLUTION OF THE URB.4.V P.ARKlJAY 


3EVELOP:CEST OF THE SATIOYAL CAPITAL P.4.WWr\Y SYSTEY 


The esdmated 75-100 miles of parkways located in the Nadonal Park Service's Nadonal 

Capital Region are found in Washington D.C.; Montgomery, Prince Georges, and he Arundel 

counties in suburban Maryland; and Arlington and Fairfax counaes, and the Ciry of 

Alexandria, in Northern Virginia. The boundaries of the conmbudng arterial thoroughfares 

are corerminus with their rights-of-way, and include the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and 

Suitland Parkway, exrending from the eastern boundaq of the Dismct of Columbia: the Slount 

Vernon Memorial Highway/George Washugton Memorial Parkway along the Potomac River 

shoreline between Mount Vernon and Great Falls; Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway beween 

the East and West Potomac Parks and Rock Creek Park; and numerous suip parks located 

throughout the greater Washington area, including the Sligo Branch Parkway. 

1See continuation sheet 

D. Certification 

AS the designated authority under the Nat~onal Histor~c Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. I nereby cen~ly lhal lnts 

documentation lorm mwls the National Register documentat~on standards and sets lonh requirements lor the lhstlng of 

related propenies consistent with the National Reg~ster criter~a. This submlsslon meets the procedural and protess~onal 

requ~rements set lonh in 36 CFR Pan 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards lor Plann~ng and Evaluation. 

Signalure ol csnllynng olliclal Dale 

Stale or Feaeral agency ana Bureau 

I. hereby, cenity that th~s multlple property documentallon lorm has Been approved by the Nasonal Reg~ster as a basrs 

for evaluating related properties lor listing in the National Register. 

Siqnature of lhe Neeper 01 the National Rep~ster Date 

;

I 


I 

i

I 

,

! 

I 
E. Statement of Historic Contexts 


Discuss each h~storlc context lisled in Sect~on0. 


EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN PARKWAY 

The parkways consmcted in the Greater Washington area range stylistically from nadonally 

significant schemes modeled on the precedent-serdng, picturesque suburban New York system, ro include 

simple nibutary byways and the suaightforward Baltimore-Washington Parkway completed shody 

after mid-century. Connibuting cultural influences include the increased use of the automobile, [he 

City Beautiful movement, and popularity of outdoor recreation. 

A parkways' foremost task k to separate uaffic into two disdnct groups: pleasure motorists and 

heavy commercial users. During the early decades of automobile use, the greatest proportion of use 

was devoted to recreation But in the late 1930s when the emphasis shifted from the pastime of 

"get-ting there" to simply "arriving"--so, too, changed road design. The newly formed Nadonal 

Capital Park & Planning Commission (NCP&PC) in 1927 indicated: 

There are and should be in the development of plans. . . a number of things which may be cailed 

parkways, co serve as lines of pleasure traffic; bur in another sense pan of the thoroughfare sysren: of the 

Dismcr. There is overlapping there of the two rypes of functions. We need to be careful. . .that it does 

nor exrend roo far.' 

NCP&PC landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., cites only two criteria that serve as a 


design guide--"conaolling purposes" and local physical conditions--from which four rypes of 


parkways emerge: an elongated park, a glorified and ornamental sueet, and: 


A thoroughfare, boulevard, or parkway, the prime purpose of which is to enable the public ro navel 

from one pan of its come to another under condirions which are made more enjoyable by almosr any 

means, than those of an ordinary city street.' 

Within this last category are three subtypes: a single road with planted and ornamental flanks. 

which "may be really verdant and justdy the name 'parkway; dual roadways with a central planted 

strip and some flanking ornamentation, much like a boulevard; and a cenaal road flanked by any 

rype of formal or informal landscaping, with or without pedesnian amenities. 

The fourth parkway model is "somewhat intermediate and transitional between the first and the 


third" type, a border treatment that does not attempt to buffer surrounding buildings, and often 


places the roadway to one side of the green space and a waterway. This "border parkway was 


later cited in a Washington-Baltimore regional study that called for "eventual acquisition [ofl 


' Minuta al the NCF'&H: (16-18 September. 1927). 

* Fderick law Olrmrd. "Memorandum to 'brder Roads' for Rrlnap ad Parlrr" (25 Sepmbcr, 19ZS), pp. 1-3. RC 66, 

Box 156. 

X See conrinuanon sheer 
F. Associated Propefiy Types 

I. Name of Propeny Type parkwav 

II. Description 

The Nadonal Capital parkway system is composed of more than 8,761acres of protected arterial 

byways in Washington, D.C.. suburban Maryland, and Northern Virginia, totaling more than 74 

miles. The conmbucing parkways include the Rock Creek and Potomac, Mount Vernon Memorial 

Highway George Washington Memorial, Suirland. Baltimore-Washington, and numerous 

neighborhood snip parks (although this last category is not included in the acreage/miles figures 

given). All are related to provide a "garden system" wirhin a densely developed urban scheme, in 

keeping with a scale and layout that dates to the eighteenth century. The parkways serve as a link 

among the parks, monuments, and suburbs of the nadonal capital region, with features that include 

scenic overlooks, hikinghiking mails, picnic/parking areas, nadve and ornamental plancings, and 

formal monuments--each situated to provide advantageous vistas and accessible day-use recreadon 

Ill. Significance 

The various parkways of the nadonal capital reflect the culminadon of several nadonal mends after 

the turn of the century: the City Beautiful movements' emphasis on integrated urban green space; 

automobility and the rapid development of road systems; and the decline in the quality of city living 

and resulting popularity of outdoor recreadon. In Washington, D.C., the McMillan Commission's 

recommendadon for a series of parks and parkways was coupled with the American lnsdtute of 

Architects's assessment of a cityscape badly in need of formal planning and direction--in keeping 

with the original eighteenth-century urban scheme by Pierre L'Enfant. The four primary parkways 

and numerous small, regional snip parks--developed from 1913 to 1965 through the cooperative 

efforts of Maryland, Virginia, and Dismct authorities--collecdvely represent all major justifications 

IV. Registration Requirements 

A. Landscape architecture 

1. natural terrain and topography 

2. exiscing and enhanced nadve vegetadon 

3. variable-width median and buffer amculadon 

4. vistas 

B. Architecrure/stntctures 

1. dual-lane roadway 

2. culverts and guard rails 

3. bridges 

4. monuments and statuary 

C. Site 

1. limited and well-distanced access 

2. vemcal and horizontal curves 

3. enhancement of natural scenic features 

4. roadside overlooks, parks, parking areas 

See continuation sheet 

See continuation sheet for additional prOpeny types 
G. Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods 

Numerous resources were used to evaluate the significance of Washington, 3.c.'~parkway system 

The general history of the period of signilicance--approximatelythe first half of the twentieth 

cennuy--is historically linked to regional cultural organizations and the comprehensive pla~they 

issued: the McMillan Commission, National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the MarylandNational Capital Park and Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine AN. Each has been 

concerned with the same historic and physical boundaries of the national capital and neighboring 

suburbs in Maryland and Virginia. The integriry of the conmbuting landscape-architectural features 

and structures has remained high because of ongoing ownership and maintenance by the National 

Park Senice, the arbiter of the guiding Secretarv of the Interiors' Standards for Historic Preservation. 

Federal records exist for each parkway in the collection of the National Archives, as well Historic 

Resource Studv: Rock Creek and Potomac Parkwav. Georne Washinaton Memorial Parkwav. Suitland 

Parkwav. Baltimore-Washinmon Parkwaz by Historian Jere Krakow (NPS, 1990). Also, a Rock 

Creek Park adminisuative history documents the development of that parkway. The original section 

of the George Washington Memorial Parkway--the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway--is listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places and is the subject of a historic-resource study being produced by 

EDAW Inc. of Alexandria. The Historic American Buildings Swey/Historic American Engineering 

Record Division, NPS, completed a selective survey of historic bridges in the National Capital 

Region. NPS, including many associated with the parkways discussed here. This material provided 

information on the contexts and themes related to the parkways: conservation. history and 

development of the park and parkway system of the national capital, and the influence of 

automobiles and the development of commuter arteries. 

H. Malor B~bl~ograph~cal References 

GENERAL 

National Archives: 

RG 66, Commission of Fine Arts 

RG 351, Records of the Disaict of Columbia 

RG 328, National Capital Park & Planning Commission 

RG 79, National Park Senice 

RG 30, Bureau of Public Roads 

See cont~nual!onsheel 

Primary location of additional documentallon: 

Slale hlstoric preservation office 

mother State agency aFederal agency 

Local government 

Un~vers~ty 

Other 

~~~~~f~ repos~tory:National Capital Region, NPS; National Capital Planning Commission 

I. Form Prepared By 

namellille Sara Amv Lorganlzatlon -vi re date 15 Se~tember. 1990 

srreel 8 number P.O. Box 37127 telephone 202 141 9607 - - CIIY or town Washington, D.C. stale zip Code 7001 7-71>: 
Unltad States Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkway, of the Nadonal 

Section number Page 2 Capital Region, 1913-1965 

selected sueam valley 'snip parks' [to] be protected by public purchase of scenic easements in all 

parks of the area." While these do not possess exuaordinary scenic qualities, they protect the 

floodplain and "assure provision of open spaces to prevent uninterrupted built-up areas."' 

During the 1930s one application of the term "parkway hinged on use and legal access. Of a 

parkway, highway and freeway, all involve public land; the parkway alone is devoted to recreation 

rather than movement; and only the highway allows adjacent land ownen to retain rights of light. 

air or access.' 

This is supported by the casually synonymous use of "freeway and "parkwaf within the context 

of landscape by itself, rather than the thoroughfare in its enrirety. A freeway, for instance, was 

characterized by one planner as about 100 feet wide with a center pavement "flanked by 20-foot 

snips of parkway, planted with crees, ground coven, shnrbs, and hedges. . .adequate for a landscape 

composition of varied interest."' Shared features include the pleasure derived from planted borders 

instead of billboards and business frontage, a reduced volume of uaffic, improved crave1 he, and 

safety. This type of road was considered panicularly effective in an area where residential and 

business subdivisions were slated, and was destined to reorient uansportation patterns--a serdng 

panicularly relevant to development of the Baltimore-Washington memopolitan corridor. 

Legally, a parkway was designed simply as 'an attenuated park with a road through it," but the 

federal government did not address general parkway guidelines until the "Regulations and Procedure 

to Govern the Acquisition of Rights-of-way for Parkways" was approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior on 8 February 193Sb This was the foundadon for a set of eight characteristics intended to 

differentiate parkways from ordinary highwap, as idendtied by the NPS three years later. It 

represents the culmination of thrrcy years of modem parkway planning--designated. ironically--just as 

the highway needs of the nation were about to shift away from recreational motoring. 

' Geqc D. lid, 7hl 'Frrnnf, A Nor 'Ihought lor Subdinden," hndmce kchincrurr, d.21, no. 2 (January 19311, p 

115.118. 

NCPhFC Yhrnmenn on Rcpon of M~bndSum Planning Commission on Sne R-dona1 &na: ~unpubluhed. 19387). 

cired in Jew Unkow. Wbtoric Raxlrrr Srudy, bldrnorr-Washinlpon Parkway' (198T), p. 20: this and wumnudk on other NPS 

Washinlponrm purkwayl am dMdy publi~hed in Jm L Kmbw, Hutoric Rmum Yudv: Rock Cmk and POtomaC Parhay, 

Geom Washinnon Metnorial Parkwav. Suidmnd F'arkwav. and Baldrnorr-Washinnon Rrlnn~(NPS, Janury 1990). Mmonndum 

lor AE. Lhmny, Appmdu h Minuls d rhe NB6FC (16-17 Mlrch. 1944), p. 2. RG 320. 

??: See con~uarionsheer 
Unlted Stater Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkwayr of the National 

Section number E Page 3 Capiral Region 1913-1965 

These specificadons are: a limit to non-commercial, recreadonal traffic; the avoidance of unsighuy 

roadside developments; a wider-than-average right-of-way to provide a buffer from aburdng 

propeny; no frontage or access rights. to encourage the preservadon of natural scenery; preference 

ior a new site, to avoid already congested and built-up areas; to best access nadve scenery; the 

eliminadon of major grade crossings; well-distanced entrance and exit points to reduce uafic 

interruptions and increase safety.' Collecdvely, they ensured a self-contained, well-presened. and 

safe thoroughfare. 

Despite these in-house Park Service ideals, in 1944 the U.S. Depamnent of Interior complained 

that. "To date. Congress has not defined parkways. Legislation pertaining to parkways is piecemeal 

and lacks ~niforrnity."~ 

In Washington, at least, the definition of a parkway has historically differed according to the 

period of development, site. and tramporradon needs. And although its function as a road can 

never be divorced from its scenic role, parkways have been consistently parrerned as formally or 

~nformally designed connecton within a system of predetermined destinations that include parks and 

monuments--and later, federal reservations. Credit for this belongs to the City Beaunhl movement. 

CXY BEAUTIFUL MOVEMENT 

The City Beaurihl movement that developed around the turn of the cmrury is evidenced in 

pamcular in the urban park system of Boston and New York--a vital element of whch are 

parkways. Using these as modek, plannen and landscape architects assembled in Washington to 

develop a similar program for the nation's capitaL The McMillan Plan of 1902 calls for numerous 

"parkways" linking the Great Falls, Mount Vernon, Potomac River bridges, and existing parks. Like 

New York Ciry's Riverside Drive, Washington had its own token 'rivenide dnve." a muddy carriage 

path built in 1904. It wound around the Tidal Basin and up 26th Sneer in nonhwest, serving as a 

Literal and figurative prologue to the era of parkway consrmcdon. 

The parkway wu a byproduct of the suburbanization movement, born in the late nineteenth 

' Harlan D.Vnnu and G. Fnnk Willin. Mminismdvc Hbcorv: Emmion of the Nadonrl Park Service in chc I936 (Washington 

D.C.: Dcnw Sance Ccntu. 19831, p. 146; ASIA kllow burit D. Cox idmnfied che nmc rundarda in an amcle. 'Apparancc: 

Evcnnal Element in Suprhighway Phu" LandxaDe Alchilmre, d.31 no. 2 (Jmwry 19411. p. Sb. 

X See conrinuarion sheer 
Unltd Stater Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkwap of the Nadonal 

Section number Page 4 Capital Region, 1913-l%S 

century; however, its role accelerated with the increasing sense of city-to-city regionalism and rhe 

rise of motoring characterisdc of the twentieth cenrury,. 

The purpose served by parkways and boulevards IS, roughly, to provlde aueeable routes connecting parks 

wlch each other, the parks wrh the centen or populanon, and the suburbs and counuys~ae w~rhhe 

congested drsmcrs. The fmr two purposes have long been esrabllshed. The last IS a recognition of 

he changed methods of ravel lnroduced w~ththe aurornobrle? 

The car--which gave enormous imperus to the improvement of the American road system in 

general--had a significant impact on parkways and the development of recreational roadways. 

According to Charles W. Eliot [I: "Ir is the informal landscape parks of all sizes, and in the 

parkways, chat the automobile has notably changed the situadon.'"' 

As an added bonus, Eliot felt that if recreadon-seeken took to scenic roads, it might alleviate the 

inevitable and increasing congestion of naaonal and state parks, as well as "atone for the exclusion 

of automobiles from landscape parks except under rigorous conditions.' which he advocated." The 

speed of motorized vehicles, as compared to hone-drawn carriages, also lent itself to new design 

needs: convenient and unobtrusive parking areas, service facilities, and dramatic-but-simple 

landscaping enjoyable from afar at 75 mph, rather than in detail at a meandering pace. 

Although the Dismct of Columbia's Divirion of Trees and Parking (established in 1871 and later 

parr of the cicy's Engineer Depamnent) was 'one of the first public bodies to regard srreet-nee 

plandng as a public function," the city nailed behind othen in the development of urban green 

space. Massachusetts, one of the forerunners in the City Beaum movement, became the first state 

to enact legislation for the caring of shade rrees on public highways in 1890. But it was not undl 

1933 and the Natiod Indusuial Recovery Act that "appropriate landscaping of parkways or roadside 

on a reasonably extensive mileage," was provided at the federal leveLta 

!'Charla W. El@ U 7he lnflumrr d rhc ~uiomobl* on rhc hipof Park Road.." bnduaoe ~nhirmm,vol. 13. no. I 

(OLtober 19221, p. 17. 

" Wilbur H. Si-, T&ide Phdng,' bndaap Alchirecrun, vd. 26, no. 4 (July 1936). p. 167 

X See contimarion sheer 
Unlted Stater Depnrtment of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkwap of the Nanonal 

Section number Page Cap~ul ~egi01-+ 1913-1965 

7 


, /-

>i,-

--, ,;,>',\ c -

comprehensive scheme of urban parks and parkways in Washin@on. "There has been candid 

admission in Congress," reported one newspaper, "that the park system of the National Capital is nct 

what it should be"--for which the poor "economies of the past five years" were blamed." 

.As the desirability for sophisticated roads grew, 'the modification of highway design to conform 

to the principles and technique of landscape architecture" became a direct concern of the American 

Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). This remained me even as the engineering aspects of road 

consrmction improved, because 'the fundamental purpose of roadside planring operations shculd be 

to make the highway smp a mere foreground, or screen against what lies beyond."" As late as 

1940, however, an ASLA editorial reported: 

There is snll a tendency to consider rhe work of rhe landscape architect as a last step after all rhe 

other important decis~ons of design are made and pur into effect." 

Despite the growing acknowledgement that landscape architecture was a mandatory component 

to road design. certain parkway characteristics remained subordinate to one another: Traffic 

provisions, safety, and economical maintenance take precedent over landscape design; while 

landscape-design features including location, alignment, profile, and adaptation to natural 

topography, take precedent over homcultural embellishments. All, however propomoned. are cruci~l 

parkway elements.lb 

And last, the site design of a parkway should appear compositionally natural, with irregular 

groupings of planrings recommended: The purpose was to enhance native vegetation beyond. 

According to one landscape architect: 

In rhe open counayside it u a murake to use exoac plants, or anyching which is nor indigenous ro 

rhat general region and to the particular rype of topography at hand. . . .Naave materials should be 

IJ Bill 'Am NaM Pprt Along the Potomac.' Washinnon lims (10 April. 1921). 

' Si- p. 171. In, ASIA wmminae rrpom 01 19394 outline rhe pmrrdurc lor the mllabondon beween landvap 

architecm and m m 'm dr dsign and -nudon d highway%, lauiaup Dsign in Highway knlapment: 

Architecture, d.32 no. 2 (JUIYPP/1941). p. 72. 

IJ Hakn Jamq Tommmr: Tmdaxy to View hndxap Conmburion a¶ Fi~lSup,' landvape mhirermrc, vol 30, no 

3 (Apnl 1540). p. 117. 

'' Mhw R. Wid.. 7andY.p Daign in Highway Dmlopmen<' hnduaoc Archirermrc, d.30, no. 3 (April 19401, p II5 

X See continuonon sheer 
- - 

Unlted States Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkways of the Nanond 

Section number Page 6 Capital Regon. 1913-1365 

used not only because chey are likely to be more permanent than ochers. . . .but most important of ail. 

because rhe eifect of regional individualiry may be retained." 

Thus, during the hst half of the wendeth century, a recognized set of design criteria evolved 

hat were common to all parkways consuucted. These were initiated with New York's Westchesrer 

County system of the early wendeth cenrury, under the aesthetic direcrion Gilmore Clarke, the 

landscape architect who would greatly influence parkway development in Washington. Also, as 

technology improved and recreational goals changed, new morives altered the appearance and use of 

these roads up to World War 11, when parkway development was--for all pracricai purposes--usurped 

by modem highway consrmction. 

DEVELOPMENT OF 'IHE NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKWAY SrSIEM 

In Washington. Maryland and Virginia, the nadonal capital park system is composed of more 

than 8,761 acres and 74 miles of formal parkways. The major components are: Rock Creek and 

Potomac Parkway, connecting Rock Creek Park in and north of Washington, to the East and West 

Potomac Parks along the river; more than 12.000 acres of neighborhood "snearn valley," or "snip." 

parks that cushion and protect the crucial uibutaries, many adjacent to Rock Creek Park; the Mounr 

Vernon Memorial Highway, connecting the estate and Washington via the Potomac shore and 

Memorial Bridge, and its extension into the George Washington Memorial Parkway, up to Great 

Falls in Maryland and Virginia'" Suitland Parkway, a defense-highway link to Andrews Air Force 

Base; the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, an intercity thoroughfare that serves as a primary 

commuter route and defense road among the nvo cines and several federal reservarions. 

Some elements of Washington's fully idealized parkway system did not come to fruidon. The 

Fon Drive circuit, a proposed connecaon of forty or so Civil War fordficadons, would have encircled 

the city. Two extensive links with the George Washington Memorial Parkway remain unbuilr: a 

parkway along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal route benveen Great Falls and Cumberland. Maryland. 

which would ham saved as a ceremonial entry to the city, and a similar route in Maryland along 

the Potomac Rim south to Fort Washington Only a few fragments of disjunct border parkways 

" Malcolm Dill. Vanring in 5meo. Pahy, Hiawap, and Bywap," Landszap AIchirecrum, wl. ZZ no. 2 (January 1932). 

p. 129-31. 

'' In 1989, rhe 7.7-mile pwdon of rhu parkway in Maryland, horn he Mhur Boulevard in Monrl(orna)r Counry to Canal 

Rmad in rhe Db& d Columbia wu dsigvrcd rhe @.anBanon Pahy rirh rhe cnmenr of Public Law 101-177/101sr 

Congar (Appd Nonmbu a,1989). 

X See conrinuarion sheer 
Unltsd Statw Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkways of the National 

Section number E Page 7 Capital Region, 1913-1965 

exist of the never-realized iuchbold-Glover Parkway in northwest D.C. Despite their absence, a 

system of largely complete parkways does exist in the capital. 

The vision of a Nadonal Capital laid out along wide avenues and ceremonial routes replete with 

parks and formal city enaances, is descended from the design scheme of engineer-rurned-city 

planner Maj. Charles Pierre L'Enfant. His 1791 plan for the Federal City incorporates polidcal. 

residendal, and commercial centers, as well as waterways such as the Potomac and hnacosda (or 

Eastern Branch) liven, nvo canals, and Rock Creek with its mbutaries. 

With the urban schemes of Paris and other world capitals in mind. L'Enfant sweyed the site of 

the funue U.S. capital from all directions, including the north approach from Balrimore, "which 

offered uavelen a synopdc view of the town and its narural serdng from the hills above the 

Bladensburg R~ad."'~ Among the guidelines for his plan are thoroughfares "to not merely conuasr 

with the general regularity, not to provide a greater variety of seau with pleasant prospects. . .but 

principally to connect each pan of the city."= In addidon to "ouuoads" iden!ified on William T. 

Pamidge's 1926 study of plans by L'Enfant and his successor, William Ellicon, a "city enuance" 

occupies a prominent posidon on the Potomac River in the approximate area where the BaltimoreWashingron Parkway exiu the city today?' tide of L'Enfanc's vision was consrmcted during the 

eighteenth- or nineteenth cenruries, however. 

New and extended modes of uansportadon dominated the nineteenth century that--for service 

and speed--superseded those provided by water- and roadways. A rail line operated benveen the 

nvo cines in 1835, bettering the traditional stage coach travel time by half.= The Baldmore & Ohio 

Radroad opened a direct line to Washingron City and encouraged regional development benveen the 

capital and not-insignrficant Maryland port to the north. All rhe while, in Washingron and environs 

a miscellany of crossroads towns and farms steadily grew up within the ten-mile city boundaries. 

One excepdon to such growth was the region along the east bank of the Anacosda River: "An area 

of commanding panoramic views and a hilly t~pography.~ 

X See continuorion shea 
Unlted States Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parloways of the National 

Section number Page 8 Capital Regioq 1913-1965 

The first artempt to cohesively develop L'Enfant's scheme beyond city limits came in the 1890s 

with successive--but equally ineffectual--legisladon. the 1893 and 1898 Highway Acts. .-\uthorizadon 

was inuoduced for a plan emending L'Enfant's sueet plans, taking into account already-established 

subdivisions, but it faded to address funding or offer a dmetable for implementadon. The 

"Permanent System of Highways Plan," however, became the foundadon for the McMillan 

Commission's revival of the original urban scheme in che grand, baroque uadidon. 

Several nadonwide movements contributed to Washington's urban development at chis time: The 

unparalleled success of the 1893 World's Columbian Exposidon in Chicago turned designers on to 

comprehensive and formally integrated city planning that included a generous landscape component, 

the essence of the City Beautiful movement; the increasing popularity and affordability of the 

automobile, which necessitated adequate roadways and senice facilides; and the general decline of 

urban Living conditions duough overcrowding and poveny, which logically resulted in the out-ofdoors as a popular recreadon destinadon 

A trio of local events funher drew the focus to Washington 'A small group of the counuy's 

best-known designers" assembled there to coordinate the centennial cehbradon of the 'removal of 

government" to the city; the American lnsdtute of Architects convened in 1900 to address issues of 

sculprure, landscape and public-building design; and, Senator James McMillan of Michigan 

orchesaated the creadon of the Senate Park Commission. The McMillan Commission--as it is berter 

known--was a highly influential group chat advised the formadon of a team of professionals 

"eminent in cheir professions, who shall consider the subject of the locadon and grouping of public 

bluldings and monuments to be erected in the District of Columbia and the development of the 

entire park system of the Disnict of Colu~nbia."~' 

Commission members included: Charles Moore, assistant to McMUan (who later served on the 

Comrmssion of Fine AN for nventy-seven years); Charles Eliot 11, whose father designed Boston's 

comprehensive park system and worked at the Olmsted brothers' firm, Frederick Law Olmsted. Jr.. a 

principal in that office and head of the nadon's fint landscape-architecrure curriculum at Harvard 

L'nivenity; pre-rminmt architem Charles F. McKim and Daniel Burnham, both of whom worked on 

the Columbian Epxiaon; and sculptor August Saint-Caudens who joined the team later. Moore. 

Olmsted and Eliot would remain key figures in the design of the nadonal capital region during the 

nem duee decades. 

X See conrinuarion sheer 
Unlted Stater Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Section number -= Page 9 

PKhvap of che Nadonal 

Capital Region, 1913-1%5 

In addition to downtown development, the McMillan Commission recommended a series of drives 

and park connections around the city: in Virginia along the Potornac River down to Mount Vernon. 

in Maryland and D.C. up to Great Falls; a Fon Drive to connect fony or so hutoric Civil War sites: 

and to enlarge and embellish Rock Creek Park for intensified recreational use.= in keeping wirh 

L'Enfant's vision: 

The Ciry Beaunful movement in Washrngron was. . . swept along to rnclude city entrances, parkways 

boulevards, monumental bndges, and ennre ~treers.~ 

This was followed by the Commission of Fine Am' (CFA established in 1910) recommendation 

in 1918 for a "permanent system of highways [to] be revised to allow for the new park schemes." 

Crucial to a cirywide network of local and "grand entrance' parkways was the Ohted Brothers' 

urging for protection of the Rock Creek Park propeny. The idea followed up by a U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers' recommendation for the acquisition of 400-foot strips of land along Rock Creek and its 

tributaries in D.C. and neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland." 

ROCK CREU[ 8 POrOMAC PARKWAY: 1913-1935 

The Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway was legislated 1913 as a two and one-half-mile connector 

between the East and West Potomac Parks on the river, and Rock Creek Park and the zoo. Rock 

Creek Park was established in 1890 as a narure preserve, an "open valley of streams and forest to 

which hiking and riding trails were kt- added. A winding two-lane road. Beach Drive, provides 

the primary access through the park which occupies 1,754 acres in the Dismct and Montgomery 

County, Matyland. Access to the park interior is limited to about twenty enny points from small 

neighborhood thoroughfares. 

Distinguishing Mc use through the park was an issue during the 1920s, even as the parkway 

was being developed. Frederick Law Ohted. Jr., believed there should be a distinction between 

the lower and uppa porriohc of the Rock Creek Valley. The bulk of the valley--above the zoo-- 

Ibid.. p. I35 

" Ibid.. p. 145; rhac nigh- psmnn aha pl*d 'snip part.' or 'bon*r rc4+" pmmed the mk's floodplain and 

pded wdwme gcen SpsQ within the urban rpnwl. 

X See continuanon sheer 
Unlted Stater Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkwap of he National 

Section number page 10 Capital Region, 1913-1965 

remains a park, while the parkway to the zoo is the narrowest right-of-way and serves as a 

commuter route. You must be careful not to ruin that valley if it is to be all one. The valley of 

Rock Creek should not be mrned into that kind of thoroughiare and ruin the stream and park 

character,' he warned." 

A parkway linking the zoo and the Potomac parks was first smdied in 1900, when Congress 

allocared $4,000 to employ landscape architect Samuel Parsons, Jr. During the early yean of the 

century--concurrent to the McMlllan Commission's workings--two opdons evolved. The first was ro 

fill the valley and enclose the creek in an underground brick culvert--the fate that earlier befell 

Tiber Creek. This was determined to be a long-term and costly undertaking, and the commission 

pursued the second opdon: to maintain the open-valley plan and bring a road through it, thus 

allowing east-west uaffic to traverse the park on bridges at non-grade level." 

But it was not und President William Howard Taft signed the parkway's enabling legislation in 

March 1913 that any progress was made--for reasons of consemation and uansporradon: 

llat for the purpose of preventing the pollution and obsaucrion of Rock Creek and of connecring 

Potomac Park with the Zoological Park and Rock Creek Park, a commission. . .is authorized and directed 

ro acquire. . .such land and premises. . .lymg on both sides of Rock Creek. . . .That [such] lands. . are 

hereby appropriated to and made a pan of the parbay herein authorized ro be acquired." 

The bill--whose jusdficadon resembled the New York legislation of 1906 that resulted in the 

Westchesrer parkways--included a $1.3 million appropriadon for land acquisition, the cost of which 

was to be shared equally by Ditmct and federal governments. The Rock Creek and Potomac 

Parkway Commission, which included landscape architect James D. Langdon, sought to acquire 

slightly more than 4.1 million square feet of land, assessed at $1.42 million. By 1923, the 

comsion had 82 percent of its goal, but funds ran our while rwelve acres were sdU needed. This 

was midgated through boundary adjustments and land condemnations. Segments of the road were 

under consmction in the middh, bur tide disputes and unacquired land prevented a continuous 

thorougMare. The last leg of the parkway, between K and P streets, opened to uaff~c in October 

1935." 

NWLK minum (1618 ScpPmbs. 192'1). p. IS. 

" hny MacLinrah, godr -q Washin~on.D.C.: NP5 History Division. 19LIS). P 49 

" Can-ional Rd, pp. 4693.94, U116. Pub. 43% 6Znd cnngim, 37 Suc. a. 

" Madintah, p. 61, 63. 

See continuorion sheer 
Unlted States Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Pulonyr of the National 

Section number E Page I I Capid Reglo- 1913-1%5 

BORDER+ SIRIP, AND SIREAM VALLEY PARKS 

Ancillary to Rock Creek, and the Potomac and .hacosda Rivers are a number of "suip" or 

"border" parks that occupy the floodplain of local mburaries or park-related topography. These have 

historically been identified for local importance. 

Suearn valley park form the backbone and major pomon of the Disuict of Columbia and Metropolitan 

Park System. Tneir value as routes .. :passenger car traffic augmenting the city and metropolitan meet 

svstem cannot be overesrimated. Or.?of heir prhary values which is often overlooked is he 

conservation of small vnid life, woodland and water." 

In the Disuict. Maryland and Virginia, a total of 11,552 publicly owned acres were devoted to 

such sueam valley parks by the late 1930s, with nearly 12,000 addidonal acres planned.Y 

Maryland's Sligo Branch Parkway, conceived in the 1920s, is the single-largest suip park in the 

region. It descends about ten miles (northwest to southeast) from the city of Wheaton in 

Montgomery County to Hyamville in Prince George's County, to Link up with parkway extensions of 

the norrheast and northwest branches of rhe Anacostia River, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

and Anacostia Park. The rwo-lane, undivided roadway winds alongside Sligo Creek, where 

numerous picnic and recreadonal spou are provided in a wooded serdng. although access to the 

parkway from adjacent neighborhoods is limited. Right-of-way width varies wichin reladvely narrow 

boundaries, and offen a limited buffer between the road and community development. During the 

late 1930s. Maryland was accepting donations of stream valley lands of 80 to 100 feet wide, with a 

total of forry-six des anticipated upon completion. 

The Piney Branch Parkway (extending east at 16th Street and Arkansas Avenue) was to average 

400 feet wide. as an extension of Rock Geek Park's Beach Drive in 1908, and again in the 1920s." 

Sidarly, Pinehunr Parkway (emending west from the park along Beech Street to the Montgomery 

County line) is a slim green space flanked by residendal streeu that "embraces an important feeder 

s~eam."~The Won of flood control was one important reason to protect these smd waterways. 

j2 Max WcMy, 5mam Vdky Rrb in the Dirnin d tdwnbia and Mnmplion Mu' (12 October. 1939). RG 328. Box 18 

X See connnuanon sheel 
Unlted States Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parlnvayr of the National 

Section number E Page 12 Capid Region. 1913.1965 

Linear parks created between roadways also include Beach Parkway (at the norrhemmost point of 

rhe Disnict boundary) and the nearby North Porral Parkway at Blair Road. A "Norrhern Parkway" 

around Western Avenue and Oregon Avenue-exrended (out to Old Bladensburg Road) was identified 

in 1945 as a priority project for the nexr five yean by the Maryland National Capital Park & 

Planning Commission, as were improvements to the Western Avenue-Dalecarlia Resen.ou area, and 

rhe George Washmgton Memorial Parkway from D.C. to Great Falls. Only the last of these three was 

consrmcted. and it was not completed und 1965." 

The western comer of the Disnict contains the fragments of a minor park and parkway system 

rhat also failed to materialize in its endrety. Glover-Archbold Park in nod Georgetown very nearly 

connects with the Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway. The NCP&PC had long planned for the nearby 

Whirehaven Parkway to exrend from the Palisades Park to Massachuseru Avenue through this park, 

but today it e~ts as a road leading to it, then as a green extension of the park. and picking up 

again as a brief parkway that ends at Wisconsin Avenue. This was sdl a uouble spot in the 1950s 

when the NCP&PC sought to acquire the land between Wisconsin Avenue and Dumbanon Oaks Park 

to link the parkway with Whitehaven Sueet, only to discover that Dumbarcon's dedication deed 

prohibits the incorporation of roadways." In the 1920s, the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds 

sought to build the Klingle Valley Parkway to connect with the Normanstone Parkway, norrh of 

Dumbanon Oaks Park and the Nad Observatory, to serve as a western detour around the zoo; rhe 

development of each continued into the 1950s. but the connection between them never did.* 

Nearby, the Arizona Parkway was slated for development berween Canal Road and Van Ness 

Sueet: In a "portion of the valley of Foundry Branch along the general line of Arizona Avenue. . .of 

a parkway character that will provide facilities as a means of access to the park and to provide for a 

sce~chighway for through aaffic."" Had this been accomplished, it would have completed a link 

with the Dalecarlia Parkway, which occupies the right-of-way buffer along the Dalecarlia R~S~NOU 

grounds, situated at the D.C.-Montgomery County boundary aburcing the Palisades Park. 

Another slenda park exism in the B&0 railroad right of way that rums nod at the Maryland 

" Fd Tuemsls m .Jdm Nolsl(11 W(mh, 1945). RC 328. 

" W.E. Fin*y 10 Mr. ud Mn. Rnkt W& Blh (12 March. 1959) 

" Wemonndum d Agrclmmr kwrm the HPS and rhe Comment d rhe Diruict of Columbh Rdann lo he Denlopmenr 

of the A~WNParkwayL (16 April. 1948) RC 66, Box 8. 

X See continuanon sheet 
Unltd Stater Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkways of the Nadonal 

Section number Page 13 Capital Regior& 1913-1965 

line. and condnues along the west side of the reservoir. Between Massachusetts Avenue and 

Bradley Boulevard, the Lirtle Falls Parkway serves as a limited-access thoroughfare thar leads into 

Chevy Chase, Maryland, park areas. During the 1920s, it was proposed to use this and the 

Dalecarlia propemy as part of "a circuit drive around the Dismct of Columbia beyond Rock Creek 

Park.'"' Between the Dismcr line and Great Falls lies the Cabin John Creek. whose valley "in manv 

respects compares favorably in scenery with the famous valley of Rock Creek.' The NCP&PC sought 

this parkway to connect the city of Rockville with the Poromac River." 

The nvo linear parks thar contain the Anacostia River branches are served by minimal aburdng 

roads, although they are nor idendied as parkways proper. A similar parkway is found in the Cabin 

Branch mburary (between Sheriff Road and Central Avenue), located in Maryland near the Eastern 

Avenue Dismcr boundary. In 1927 the National Capital Parks and Planning Commission 

recommended thar land in the creek's floodplain "be acquired for park purposes to serve the 

growing communities of Capitol Heights and Sear Pleasant." Oxen Run, flanking the Southern 

Avenue D.C. boundary, was also slated to "be developed with a parkway and recreational facilities" 

in the 1920s. Today the upper valley pomon contains a golf course and lands thar connect with 

the Suidand Parkway, and the lower valley consists of a park; neither includes a designated 

parkway.* 

Planning for these parkways had quickly become a regional concern. one taken up by the 

National Capital Parks and Planning Commission (NCP&P, founded 1926) and Maryland National 

Capital Park & Planning Commission (MNCP&PC. 1927). To protect Rock Creek's watershed ro the 

nod, an extension of the park was idealized, but "to inspire the Dismct's neighbors to substantive 

action, the carrot of federal aid was deemed necessary."' 

The vehicle for the expansion of Rock Creek Park into Maryland, the Mount Vernon Memorial 

Highway and other parkways was the Capper-Cramton Act, approved 29 May, 1930. This act 

provided %16 million "for the acquiring of such lands in the Dismcr of Columbia as are necessary 

and desirable for the suitable development of the National Capital park, parkway and playground 

" Chula UPI IJ dN(PLPS Tdhhry Re-: Park Sylrsa for the Nauonal Opiul Wmhinoon Region" (February 1927), 

p. 16. RG 320. 

Uii md NO&% ?ark Syuem. . . .' p. 16. 

Uioc and NCPhK ?ark Syllem. . . .' p. 16. 

" Mackinrah. p. 67. 

X See conrinuanon sheel 
Unlted States Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkwayl of the Nationd 

Section number E Page 14 Capiral Region, 1913-1965 

system. . . .' It provided that the government would grant one-third. and advance two-rhirds. of be 

cost of these consa-ucaons, with a 51.5 rmllion ceiling for the federal conmbuaon and 53 rmllion 

more for the advance." 

MOM VERNON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY: 1928-1932 


GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY: 1930-l%S 


The George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) on the Virginia shore includes the parhay 

from Mount Vernon, about twelve nules south of Washington, to Great Falls, fifteen nules to the 

norrh. The oldest pomon--from the estate to the site of Memorial Bridge--was built as the Mount 

Vernon Memorial Highway (MVMH) from 1928-32; and the norrhem parkway leg, as the GWMP, 

from the 1930s-65. Buffering the Dismct shore, the parkway is composed of Palisades Park. the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal [Naaonal Historical Park], and the B&0 railway right-of-way as far as the 

Montgomery County line. 

The MVMH was legislated on 23 May, 1928, to commemorate the bicentennial of George 

Washingron's birch--an idea dadng to a cidzen's group organized in 1886. In 1930 Congress 

concluded the parkway should emend even farther: norrh to Great Falls on both shores, and down 

to Forr Washington in Maryland. Two years later, all exlsdng and future components were renamed 

the George Washington Memorial Parkway. 

Gilmore Clarke, consuldng landscape architect for the MVMH, attested that the Bronx River 

Parkway (19231, a Meen-mile thoroughfare in New York designed exclusively for pleasure 

motoring, set the precedent for the Virginia parkway: 

I doubt whether the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway would have been built in the manner rn whlch it 

was, had those in charge not seen md profited by the work of the Westchester Counry Park Commrsslon. 

And so Washingcon has one example of the type of motomay that should. . .enend out from every pod 

of the ciry." 

Even before th MVMWGWMP was begun, this New York parkway was cited as a model for a 

Macbincah. p. 6740. 

"Gilmore aark D.C. Need of Modem Rrhny Cited by Fie Arn Chainrun," The Sunday Washinson1 Sur (S June. 1938). 

See conrinuarion sheer 
Unlted Statsr Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkway3 of the Nadond 

Section number E Page 15 Capital Region, 1913-1965 

s~milar thoroughfare leading north from the nation's capital. The proponent was "keenlv interested 

in the subject of trying to work out a parkway between Washington and Baldmore on lines 

somewhat similar to the Bronx Parkway--a parkway which daverage perhaps a thousand feet in 

rvidth, but vary according to local conditions, topography, etc."' 

Clarke was responsible for designing bridges and small architeerural elements of the parkwav, as 

well as heading the design team made up largely of Westchester County Parkway Commission 

alumni: besides himself, engineer Jay Downer, landscape architect Wilbur Simonson. and plantsman 

Henry Nve. Clarke's MVMH bridges are characteristically romantic and rustic, low-slung segmentalarched concrete with rough-faced stone cladding--nearly identical to those he designed for 

Westchester. 

The fifteen and one-half-mile MVMH was built by the federal Bureau of Public Roads and was 

one of the first facilities planned using aerial photography, which afforded much greater detail of 

topography, drainage parrenu, the eldsdng road. and options for the new parkway. These novelties 

generated a more sinuous and irregular roadway dwdid traditional, tangential cwes." 

From Mount Vernon to Alexandria, the four-lane, undivided road clings to the shoreline it 

protects. from thickly wooded sections to open, grassy embankmenu and marsh; occasional 

overlooks and parWparking areas provide points for picnicking and occasional views to Fon 

Washington across the river. In contrast, the route from Alexandria to the bridge is divided bv s 

median, open and manicured. This pomon also contains several formal monuments--the Columbia 

Island Circle at the junction of the bridge, the Navy-Marine Memorial, and the LBJ Memorial Grove 

--the backdrop to which k an ongoing vista of the magnificent Washington skyline. In recent years 

the parkway has been augmented by a bicycle/pedesuian path of complementary winding character. 

Federal acquisition of land northward conhued from the 1930s to 1966: The 9.7-mile nod leg 

of the Vuginia parkway from Memonal Bridge to the interstate Beltway was completed in 1965 at a 

cost of $30 million The 7.7-mile Maryland section on the opposite shore (renamed the Clara 

Banon Parkway in 1989) cost S18 million The encire parkway k composed of 7,146 acres, of 

which 44 percent are developed (road, pavement, lawn) and 42 percent are narural woodlands; 

about 300 acra af scenic easements offer additional protection. 

X See continuarion shrrr 
Unltd Stater Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Padways of the National 

Section number E Page 16 Capital Region. 1913-1965 

SUlTLAND PARKWAY: 1943-1944 

As rhe 1940s approached. highways, expresswavs. and turnpikes rook on new and more exacdng 

connoradons--and were in great demand. The lagging economy and impending war demanded that 

speed. safev, and efficiency rake precedent over aesthedc consideradons. With these ideals gaining 

snengrh, parkways could no longer be developed suictly as pleasure roads. 

By rhe 1930r especially express h~ghways [were promoted] mth a new roward resculng ther clnes. 

Ac urbanlres moved ro the suburbs of detenoranng and congested clues, plannen lnslsted that an 

accelerated road program would hasten aafic flow and boost morale and economic developmenr. 

H~ghway burldrng was a form of social and economic rh~rapy.~ 

Post-Depression unemploymenr was great. and rhroughout the 1930s President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt thought 'principally of highway building as pan of a package aimed at relieving 

unemployment"; yet, by 1939 he still 'simply could not make up his mind about the relationship 

berween road building and economic recovery." Meanwhile, the Bureau of Public Roads began to 

press for a 30,000-mile nanonal expressway systems' 

h highway-needs study of the Baltimore-Washington region reported that parkways are intended 

"for passenger vehicle use only, and to accommodate high-speed vehicles without interference from 

other vehicles which may stop or stan to load or unload passengers or enter or depart from such 

highways"; while freeways are "designed to accommodate passengers and commercial nafii~."~~ And 

wMe the emphasis was clearly moving away from pleasure motoring, it remained an inregral-ifdiminishing component of general road consaucaon, for the Federal Highway Act of 1938 (section 

8) provides: 

For rhe conrmca'on and mainteMnce of parkways, to give access to national parks and nanond 

monurnenu, or rn become connecting recdonr of a nanonal parkway plan. . . .= 

" E.D. MemU lo Thow M.cDoruld (19 Mad. 19451, RC 32J3. 

~ c lormAE. Dauny, Appendix h P. 1 

g See conrinuarion sheer 
Unltd Stater Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

PKhva~of the Nadonal 

Section number E Page 17 Capiral Region. 1913-1965 

With World War I1 came a modem and new jusdfication for a road rype that combines parkway 

principals with freeway efficiency; its model was the sleek, direct, and high-speed orienred German 

autobahen. Beginning in 1941, FDR called for a priority on "roads important to narional defense." 

and later that year he restricted the Federal Works Adminisnation to approving only those road 

projects "essential to national defeme as certified by the appropriate Federal defense agencies."% 

This included access roads to military installations, defense plants, airports, and ports. The Defense 

Highway Act of 1941 appropriated $10 million in federal monies to rhis end, to be matched with 

state funds. 

Suidand Parkway (1943-44) exemplifies such a defeme highway, although its origin lays with the 

McMiUan Commission's plans. The nine and one-half-mile dual-road parkway connects South 

Capital Sueet in the District to Route 4 in Maryland, and Bolling Field with Andrews Air Force Base 

(formerly Camp Springs Army Air Base). The $6 don comaucrion cost was part of the Camp 

Springs development, pushed chrough Congress as a War Depamnent expenditure. Plans to exrend 

it easnvard to the Chesapeake Bay were never fulfilled. 

The parkway remained unfinithed in 1945 when it became the responsibility of the National Park 

Service. and so it remains today. Yet. "it was so designed and comaucdon so executed that the 

roadway system could be uldmately developed into a fully landscaped parkway."" About four miles 

of the "B roadway" in Maryland is unpaved, so uaffic shares a single, undivided 24-foot lane. Five 

major bridges uaverse the parkway, whose right-of-way is composed of nearly eighty-eight acres. 

Other characterisdcs include some at-grade crossings, semi-maintained buffer plandngs, and a 

variable-width median 6 to 200 feet wide. The parkway's unfinithed and uncharacterisdc state must 

have been perceived as an invitadon for improvement, for in 1958 it was proposed to bring it up to 

"freeway standards at several p~intc."~ 

One function of a defense highway was to be impervious to air atrack. Thus, a cypical parkway 

site--fitred to the naturai contoun of the landscape--would provide a detour and scatrer area, while 

plandngs would provide camouflage for vehicles seeking concealment. While the efficient 

autobahen fonnS did enhance the safety and the speed factors, it failed as a defensible avenue 

because, noted om Bureau of Pubtic Roads representative: "I recall how effecdvely these direct and 

highly conspicuou utaies,passing from one important center to another, can be used to guide 

" D.G. White 10 T.S. Serdc (7.2 April IW), RG 328. 

See conrinuanon sheer 
Unlted Stater Depanment of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parhva~of che National 

Section number Page la Capid Region, 1913-1%5 

hostile air attack to its imponant objecaves."" The limited access of parkways and military 


highways also permitted easy closure to non-military uaffic in times of emergency.' This 


application was later confirmed when justifying rhe Baltimore-Washington Parkway. 


While consrmcaon of non-mrlitaq projecrs was stalled until 'September 6. 1945, when Haq S 

Truman dropped wardme conaols [and] normal state and federal road consrmcdon got underway," 

rhe planning process condnued all rhe while.' Congress had approved a naaonal system of 

interstate highways and a sy~tem of secondary and feeder roads in nual areas wirh passage of the 

Federal-Aid Highway Act 1944. In rhe meantime. FDR also created rhe Interregional Highway 

Committee. which included Frederic Delano of rhe NCP&PC (and FDR's uncle), and Rexford 

Tugwell, who worked on the planned ciry of Greenbelt. Road consrmcdon was a high prioriry: 

This deferment of normal consrmcdon program has resulted in a huge backlog of needed highway 

facilities which is most serious m and near clues where traffic congesrion is our counws No. 1 postwar highway pr~blem.~ 

It is not surprising, hen. that "rhe yean after 1945 were especially prosperous for members of 

rhe road nanspon and highway consrmcdon industries." And between 1946-50, state, local, and 

federal officials spent $8.4 billion--more rhan any previous five-year period in history?' 

In chis hurried context, landscape architecrs condnued to assen rhat even rhe most efficient and 

sueamlined road could be improved at no ema cost through preliminary incorporaaon of landscape 

features like grade differendah and plandngs. Characterisacs essential to parkway aesrhedcs also 

benefitted highway desig~ rhough hey were considered unnecessary. "Most of rhese pracnces have 

been dictated. . .by rhe criterion of beauty," asserted one critic. Yet time has proved not only rheu 

" H.S. FlirbL Ifi#IwanR Rmedina of he 2701Mnul Hinhwv Conkens d.43 (July 24. IWI), p. 37. 

Y w. '~si- Ifi#Inpfor Rnml Ddmy' bndws~Anhirccrur~4.32 no.4 Lluly I W).P. 137.39 

J4 nor. p. la 

wilbur Emown.'Mnd Dsim for--War Highway N& -AlchirermR, rd. 33 (July 19431,p. 130. 

X See conrinuanon sheer 
United Statea Department ot the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkways of the National 

Section number E Page 19 Capital Region. 1913-1965 

popularity, but also their promotion of safety, comfort. and speed with respect to uaffic, and 

efficiency with respect to maintenance and ~peration.~' 

These not unfamiliar factors include the elimination of grade crossings, the aesthetic ueannent of 

bridges with material such as rough-faced stone, elimination of access to abutring propemes, and 

separation of directional uaffic by a cenual, planted snip. With the maturation of parkway use and 

design from pleasure motorway to a thoroughfare aimed at speed, safety, and national defense, the 

elements were in place for development of the Baldmore-Washington Parkway. 

BALllMORE-WASHINGON PARKWAY: 1942-1954 

The Baltimore-Washington Parkway (BWP) suetches r. .~ty-nine miles northeastward from the 

capital to Baltimore: the northern ten miles were built and are maintained by the state of Maryland; 

the southern nineteen miles (to Jessup Road) were built by the Bureau of Public Roads and are 

maintained by the National Park Service. Although completed after mid-cenrury, a Baldmore-to 

Washington route was studied and promoted from the 1920s as a proper enuy to the capital, and a 

safer option to the near-parallel U.S. Route 1, unanimously proclaimed one of the deadliest suetches 

of road in the nation. 

Here, era and function are reflected in a design that blends parkway principles with post-war 

austerity. The route accesses Fort Meade, the Agricultural Research Center, and the thenexperimental Greenbelt community, as well as other reservations that abut more than half its course. 

By extending the road to Baltimore, Maryland grabbed the oppormnity to develop an important 

route at relatively small expense. 

The forested flanks and modest natural topography are much-suited to high-speed appreciation. 

This ir; speculatively rhe simple background envisioned by landscape architect T.C. Jeffers, for the 

parkway was never technically completed with a comprehensive planting plan. The bridge designs 

also indicate a concession to economy. The crossings over and visible from the parkway are clad in 

the rough-faced stone associated with smctures of the 1920-30s, while the bridges underneath are 

unadorned concrete arches. 

" Laurie D. Cox, 'Apparanm: Lsendsl Ucment in Suphighway Plans." Landxace kchimre, wl. 32, no. 2 (January 1942). 

p. 55-56, 

X See conrinuarion sheer 
Unltd Stater Department of the lntsrlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuatlon Sheet 

Parlmayr of rhe National 

Section number E Page 20 Capital Region. 1913-1965 

A %2million appropriation in 1942 took the BWP as far as land acquisition and piecemeal 

grading, which was followed by eight years of continued design and discussion over funding and 

purpose. Although the war threat had passed, the thoroughfare was justified Wte Suidand Parkway. 

"This is, in reality, a national-defense road," one congressman testified in 1950 hearings. "If this is 

not a national-defense road From here to Fort Meade and the other Federal reservations, it would be 

difficult to point one out."* The federal pomon of the parkway today retains its scenic qualities 

and characteristics, and serves as a primary intercity and regional route. Stylistically it reflects the 

final gasp of parkway development, as the aesthetics originally intended as park connectors merged 

with high-speed expressway design. 

Thus, as the parkways of the national capital were systematically conceived during the first half 

of the rwentieth century, in the wake of the precedent-setdng parkway nenvork of suburban New 

York. their design and implementation reflect a transponation priority. Recreation, conservation. 

commemoration, and military defense are diminishing--and often overlapping--secondary 

justifications. After World War 11, creative parkway development was--for all practical purposes-- 

eclipsed by modem highway consuuction. 

" Con-ional Record, vol. W, no. 103. 1950, p. 7131, 
Unlted State8 Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuatlon Sheet 

Parlnvayr of the National 

Section number F Page 2 Capid Regron, 1913-1%5 

bv local and visiting citizenry. AU associated architectural and landscape architectural characrerisrics 

ryp~fythe period of parkway development--from rhe early nvendech century to World War :I. For 

each, traffic is Limited to non-commercial motoring; single- and dual-lane roads fit the narural 

ropographic contours, and variable-width medians separate lanes when possible; indigenous 

vegetadon has been preserved, maintained, and encouraged, especially as right-of-way buffer from 

adjacent propeny owners; Limited access and few, if any, at-grade crossings enhance factors cf speed 

and safery; and private access and commercial frontage is banned, as is unsighdy signage. Bridges. 

culvens, walls, and sirmlar snuctures are designed as harmonious complements to rhe natural 

environment. Materials such as msdc rough-cut stone masoruy and concrete are used in eclectic 

and romantic compositions of horizontal, arched designs. AJI propemes remain largely unchanged 

from rheir period of development, and are used today for rheir original purpose of ~ansponadon in 

and around Washington. D.C. 

111. Significance continued 

for a parkway type of rhoroughfare. Consistently intended as a uansponation route, the Rock Creek 

and Potomac Parkway and smp parkc also represent natural-resource conservation effons; the 

Mount Vernon Memorial Highway/George Washington Memorial Parkway, a ceremonial and 

recreational route; Suidand. a defense highway; and the Baleimore-Washington Parkway, a defense 

and interciry highway. After the precedent-sening network of suburban New York parkways--after 

which it was idealized--Washington's system is the most comprehensive and monumental extant in 

the nation. Aesthetically unaltered, the parkways remain vital components of the regional 

uansponation arreries and they continue to conmbute to the historic symbolism and design of the 

nation's capital. 
Unltd State8 Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

PXkWap of he National 

Section number H Page 2 Capital Regio~1913-1965 

Bibliographic refaenca continued: 

Newsuawn and Mamzine Areides 

"A Parkway ro Baltimore." Washinmon Dailv News. 12 November, 1941. 

Child, Stephen. "Repon of the American Sociery of Landscape Archirecrs on Nadonal Forest and 

Regional Plan. Washington. D.C." February 1921. 

Clarke, Gilmore. "D.C. Need of Modem Parkway Cited by Fine Am Chairman." The Sunday 


JWashinmonl Star. 5 June, 1938. 


Cox. Laurie. 'Appearance: Essential Element in Superhighway Plans.' Landscaoe Architecture. Vol. 

32. No. 2. January 1942. 

Dill, Malcolm. "Plandng in Saeets, Parkways, Highways and Byways." Landscaoe Architecture. Vol. 

22,No. 2. January 1932. 

Ellicoa, William M. "A Nadonal Forest." American Forestry. June 1910. Reprint. 

Eliot. Charles W., 11. "The Influence of the Automobile on the Design of Park Roads." Landscape 

Architecture. VoL 13, No. 1. October 1922. 

"For Washington-Baltimore Parkway Boulevard, Washington Wants It (editorial)." Washineon 

m. 17 October, 1925. 

Hall, George D. "The 'Freeway,' A New Thought for Subdividen." Landscave Architecture. Vol. 21. 

No. 2. Januay 1931. 

James. Harlem Tommat: Tendency to View Landscape Conhibudon as Final Step." Landscaoe 

Architecnue. Val 30, No. 3. April 1940. 

"New Washington Road Redicted.' Baltimore SUIL June 1928. 

Nichols, Arrhur R 'Landscape Design in Highway Development" Landscaoe Architecture. Vol. 30. 

No. 3. April 1940. 

X See contitwarion sheer 
Unltbd States Department of the Interlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Continuation Sheet 

Parkways of the National 

Section number Page 3 Capital Region. 1913-1%~ 

Price. Bill. 'A Great National Park Along the Potomac." Washinnon Ties. 18 April. 1922. 

"Poromac Power Dam Report Due Today." The Eveninn rWashinnton1 Star. 13 January 1944. 

Simonson, Wilbur H. "Advanced Designs for Post-War Highway Needs." Landscape Archirecmre. 

Vol. 33, No. 4. July 1943. 

Simonson. Wilbur H. "Roadside Planting." Landscape Architecmre. Vol. 26. No. 4. July 1936. 

Wild, Carl W. "Designing Highways for Peace and Defense.' Landscape Archirecmre. Vol. 32, No. 4. 

July 1942. 

Greene, Jerome A "A Brief Hktory of Parkway Design in the United States." May 1988. Copy. 

Gutheim. Frederick. Wonhv of a Nation: The Hktorv of Planning the National Capiral. 

Washington. D.C.: Smithsonian l~timtion Press, 1977. 

Newton. Norman T. Desim on the Land. Cambridge: Beknap Press of Harvard Universiry, 1971 

Nolen. John, and Hubbard, Henry V. Parkwavs and Land Values, Harvard Ciry Planning Smdies XI. 

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937. 

Rose. Mark H. Interstate: ExDress Hkhwav Politics. 1941-1956. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas. 

1979. 

Tunnard, Christopher, and Pwhkarev, Bork. Man-made America: Chaos or Conuol? New York: 

Harmony Books, 1%3. 

Williamson, Mary Lou, editor. Greenbelt: Hktorv of a Town. 1937-1987. Norfolk, Va.: Donning 

Co.. 1987. 

g See connnUa~nsheer 
Unltod States Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

Contlnuation Sheet 

Pulmp of the Nanonal 

Clpial Regios 1913-1%5 Section number * Page 4 

"Baltimore-Washington Parkway? Hearings before the Comminee on Public Works on HR. 


5990/81st Congress. February 1-2. 1950. 


Capper Cramton Act. (Public-No. 284/71st Congress). May 29, 1930. 

D.C. Depamnent of Highways Planning Survey. 	 *Sectional Maps of the Dismct of Columbia 


Showing Flow of Veiucular Traffic, Average Weekday, 1941 (pre-war)." 1941. (LC) 


Eliot. Charles W.. 11. "Preliminary Repon: Park Sytem for the National Capital Washmgton Region." 

February 1927. 

"Estimates on the Development of Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway: Revised 1928 Estimates and 

Designs for the Development of the Parkway." 1 July, 1929. 

Federal Highway Adminisnation, Eastern Dishict Federal Division "Engineering Srudy Repon for 

the Rehabilitation of Baltimore-Washington Parkway." Apnl 1984. (NCR) 

Federal Highway Adminismuon, Eastern Dishict Federal Division. "Bridge Safety inspection Reports 

(Supplemental Repon)." April 1986. (One per srmcrure, NCR) 

"Improvement of the Park System of the Disaict of Columbia," Senate Repon No. 166 (57th 

Congress, 1st Session) WaShlngton, D.C.: GPO, 1906. 

Krakow, Jere L 

M M y . National Park Service. 

Denver Service Center, 1990. 

Mackintosh Ban]r. Rock Creek Park: An Administrative History. Washington. D.C.: NPS, History 

Division, 1985. 

Maryland National Capital Planning Commission. "Maryland-Washington Regional Repon.' May 

1954. 

Maryland National Capital Planning Commission penional Planning Reoon W--BaltimoreWashinnton-hamlir Area. November 1937. 

X 	See conrirurarion sheer 
Unlted Stater Department of the lnterlor 

National Park Service 

National Register of Hlstorlc Places 

Contlnuation Sheet 

Parkways of the Nadonal 

Section number H Page 5 Capitai Region, 1913-1%5 

National Capital Park & Planning Commission and Charles Eliot. "Park System for National Capital 

Washington Region. Project C, Baltimore--Camp Meade Parkway." February 1927. 

Sysrem Design Concepts Inc., Clarke & Rapuano & Bolt Inc., Beranek & Newman Inc. "BaltimoreWashington Parkway Srudy Repon." April 1981. (NCR) 

L.S. Depamnent of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Division of Eastern Nadonal Forests and 

Parks. "Final Consauction Repon. Vol. 2 (Roadway), Baltimore-Washington Parkway of National 

Capital Parks." 1955. (FHWA Nes, Arlington, VA) 

U.S. Depamnent of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. Division of Easrern National Forests and 

Parks. "Final Consauction Repon, Vol. 1 (Bridges), Baldmore-Washington Parkway of National 

Capital Parks." 1955. (FHWA Nes, Arlington. VA) 

U.S. Depamnent of Transponation, Federal Highway Adminismanon 	 America's Hinhwavs: 1776-

1976. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1976. 

U.S. Depamnent of Transponation, Federal Highway Adminisnation. 	 Scenic Bvwavs '88. April 

1988. Conference Handbook 

Unrau, Harlan, and Willis, G. Frank Administrative Historv: Emansion of the National Park Senice 

in the 1930s. Washington, D.C.: Denver Service Center, 1983. 

Maps and Atlasa 

"Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washingon Including Prince George's County." Philadelphia: 


Griffich Morgan Hopldnr, 1878. (Library of Congress) 


F.W. Beseley. 	 "M.p of Anne Arundel County Showing Forest Areas by Commercial Type.' Maryland 

Board of Foresay, 1913. (LC) 

F.W. Beseley. 	 "Map of Prince George's County Showing Forest Areas by Commercial Type." 


Maryland Board of Foresny, 1912. (LC) 


Plat Book of Prince Geome's Countv. Marvland. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Franklin Swey Co., 1940. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

AppendixǦExisting Conditions Report
B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n P a r k w a y F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y

Photo from NPS website Photo by: Adam Elmquist Photo by: Alex Nitzman

F I N A L | J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 2

Existing Conditions Report

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report January 2012 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 

CHAPTER 2: Existing Transportation System............................................................................................. 4 

2.1 Roadways ...................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2 Transit ........................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.3 Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 5 

CHAPTER 3: Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................. 8 

3.1 Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................................. 8 

3.2 Accident History............................................................................................................................. 9 

Maryland SHA Accident History ........................................................................................................ 9 

3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................ 11 

CHAPTER 4: Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 19 

4.1 Counties Land Use Data ............................................................................................................... 19 

4.2 Development Proposals and Activity Centers ............................................................................... 21 

CHAPTER 5: Utilities............................................................................................................................... 26 

5.1 Electric ......................................................................................................................................... 26 

5.2 Water and Sewer ......................................................................................................................... 26 

CHAPTER 6: Socioeconomic and Community Features ........................................................................... 28 

6.1 Schools ........................................................................................................................................ 28 

6.2 Law Enforcement ......................................................................................................................... 31 

6.3 Fire Safety .................................................................................................................................... 32 

6.4 Libraries ....................................................................................................................................... 33 

6.5 Recreation and Parks ................................................................................................................... 33 

6.6 Airports and Heliports .................................................................................................................. 34 

CHAPTER 7: Demographic Profile ........................................................................................................... 36 

7.1 Population ................................................................................................................................... 36 

7.2 Ethnicity and Income ................................................................................................................... 37 

7.3 Employment ................................................................................................................................ 39 

7.4 Base Realignment and Closure ..................................................................................................... 40 

CHAPTER 8: Environmental Features ..................................................................................................... 45 

8.1 Air and Noise ............................................................................................................................... 45 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report January 2012 

8.2 Habitat......................................................................................................................................... 45 

8.3 Floodplains .................................................................................................................................. 46 

8.4 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 47 

CHAPTER 9: Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................. 50 

9.1 Architectural History Resources ................................................................................................... 50 

9.2 Archeological Resources .............................................................................................................. 52 

CHAPTER 10: Tourism/Visitor Use and Experience ................................................................................. 56 

10.1 Tourism ..................................................................................................................................... 56 

Appendices 

Appendix A 

A-1 Base Year (2005) Model Validation Report 

Appendix B 

B-1 Proposed Land Use – Baltimore County 

B-2 Prince Georges County Planning Areas Map 

B-3 Public and Private Schools 

B-4 Parks and Recreational Facilities 

B-5 Fire and Police Stations 

B-6 Libraries 

B-7 Airports and Heliports 

Appendix C 

C-1 Fort Meade Regional Growth Management Committee, Regional Transportation Committee 

Presentation 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 1 January 2012 

CHAPTER 1: Introduction 

Opened in 1954, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (B-W Parkway) is a 29-mile scenic highway that 

connects Baltimore, Maryland, with Washington, DC. Within the study area the B-W Parkway is divided 

into two distinct sections. The National Park Service (NPS) owns and operates a 19 mile section to the 

south between MD 175 and the New York Ave/U.S. Route 50 split at the Prince George’s County/District 

of Columbia border. This section is located within Prince Georges and Anne Arundel Counties and is 

designated as the B-W Parkway. 

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) owns and operates a 10-mile section of the B-W 

Parkway between I-695 and MD 175. This section is located within Anne Arundel County and is 

designated as MD 295. 

Outside the study area the B-W Parkway continues north of I-695 approximately four miles, through 

sections of Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties and the City of Baltimore until reaching its termination 

at the I-95 Interchange approaching downtown Baltimore. 

Other parkways are the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia along the Potomac River 

shoreline, the George Washington Memorial Parkway’s companion the Clara Barton Parkway along the 

Potomac River in Maryland, the Suitland Parkway extending from the eastern boundary of the District of 

Columbia to Andrews Air Force Base, and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in the District of 

Columbia itself. 

With direction contained in the Congressional legislation for the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Bill 

funding the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FHWA’s Office of Federal Lands Highways is 

working with the NPS and Maryland SHA to determine the feasibility of adding a third northbound and a 

third southbound lane to the B-W Parkway from the interchange with I-695 to the New York 

Avenue/U.S. Route 50 split. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of increasing the 

Parkway’s vehicular carrying capacity within the Parkway’s historic and legislative context. The 

legislation also requests that “...the feasibility study shall include an assessment of the impact of the 

Base Realignment and Closure process on traffic throughout the Maryland Route 295 corridor between 

Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC.”1

For the purposes of regional traffic forecasting, the study area boundaries are generally defined as 

follows: 

x On the north: The interchange of the B-W Parkway with the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) in Anne 

Arundel County, Maryland. 

x On the south: The interchange of the B-W Parkway with New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 at the 

District of Columbia/Prince George’s County, Maryland boundary line. 

x On the west: Along the alignment of I-95 between its interchanges with the Capital Beltway (I495) and I-695. 

x On the east: Along the alignment of Robert Crain Highway (MD 3) from the interchange of MD 3 

with U.S. Route 50 in Prince George’s County north to the MD 3 interchange with MD 32 and I-

 

1

 FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Bill; December 16, 2009. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 2 January 2012 

97 in Anne Arundel County, then along the alignment of I-97 north to its interchange with the I695 in Anne Arundel County. 

Figure 1.1 shows the study area boundary. 

This report is a summary of the relevant physical and socioeconomic data that was assembled to assist 

in the conduct of the B-W Parkway Widening Feasibility Study. Data was collected to define the 

following conditions in the study area: existing modes of transportation and the existing roadway 

network; existing traffic patterns and operational conditions; existing land uses and significant planned 

and proposed development projects; and existing environmental conditions. 

The report is organized into ten chapters. Chapters 1 – 3 describe the history of the B-W Parkway 

Corridor and current transportation and traffic conditions. Chapter 4 describes land uses within the four 

counties which define the study area, key activity centers, and major development projects. Chapter 5 

is a brief description of existing public and private utilities in the study area, followed by Chapters 6 and 

7, which, respectively, describe the socioeconomic and demographics of the study area. The report 

concludes with discussions of environmental conditions, cultural resources, and tourism/visitor activities 

in Chapters 8 - 10. 

The analysis of the potential effects on these features associated with any potential Parkway widening 

option will be presented in subsequent tasks of this initial feasibility study. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 3 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 4 January 2012 

CHAPTER 2: Existing Transportation System 

The B-W Parkway study area is served by a number of different modes of transportation. These include 

an extensive network of regional highways and local roadways, fixed guideway transit lines and bus 

routes, and a variety of designated bicycle routes. Figure 2.1: Major Transportation Routes illustrates 

the principal existing and currently proposed major highway and fixed guideway public transportation 

facilities in the study area. 

2.1 Roadways 

The portion of the B-W Parkway which is the subject of this initial feasibility study extends 29 miles 

between the I-695 Beltway interchange on the north and the New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 

interchange on the south. The existing B-W Parkway mainline is typically two general use travel lanes in 

each direction. Three-lane mainline roadways currently exist in each direction along the following 

sections of the Parkway: from U.S. Route 50 to MD 450, from the Capital Beltway to MD 193, and from 

MD 175 to MD 100. 

Maryland SHA is presently engaged in two roadway improvement projects along its portion of the 

corridor. Construction is currently underway on a project to widen the MD 295 mainline from four to six 

lanes between the I-695 interchange and the I-195 interchange. Maryland SHA is currently planning to 

widen the MD 295 mainline from four to six lanes from the MD 100 interchange to the I-195 

interchange. This project planning study also includes the construction of a new interchange at MD 295 

and Hanover Road. 

Interstate 95 forms the northwest boundary of the study area. It is a major interstate highway and runs 

northeast to southwest parallel to the Parkway. This is one of the most heavily travelled routes in the 

Baltimore and Washington, DC, metropolitan areas. Over the portion of its length between I-695 and the 

Capital Beltway, the I-95 mainline has four general use travel lanes in each direction. U.S. 1 and the B-W 

Parkway run parallel to I-95 and serve as alternative routes connecting the Baltimore and Washington 

urban cores. Over the majority of its length through the defined study area, U.S. 1 is a four-lane divided 

or five-lane cross section arterial roadway. 

Interstate 97 and MD 3 run north to south forming the eastern boundary of the study area. Interstate 97 

typically has a four-lane freeway cross section through the study area, while MD 3 typically has a fourlane major arterial or expressway cross section. 

Interstate 695, I-195, I-895, MD 100, MD 175, MD 32, MD 198, I-495, MD 410, and U.S. Route 50 are the 

other major routes in the study area. The interstate highway routes are typically four to six lane freeway 

facilities, with other principal routes such as U.S. Route 50, MD 32, and MD 100 also being four-lane 

freeways. The other Maryland routes in the study area are typically multi-lane arterial highways with atgrade intersections. 

2.2 Transit 

The northern section of the study area is served by the Central Light Rail line operated by the Maryland 

Transit Administration (MTA). The light rail line connects the B-W International Thurgood Marshall 

Airport and surrounding area to Baltimore City and northern Baltimore County. 

Other regional rail lines that run through the corridor are the Maryland Area Regional Commuter 

(MARC) Train Service, Penn and Camden lines and the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Service. There are six 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 5 January 2012 

Penn Line Stations in the study area serving Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Prince George’s Counties with 

a terminus in Washington, DC. Among those six MARC stations, the ones serving the B-W International 

Thurgood Marshall Airport and New Carrollton Stations are also served by Amtrak. The MARC Camden 

line runs parallel to the B-W Parkway serving Baltimore, Howard, and Prince George’s Counties before 

terminating at Union Station in Washington, DC. There are 10 Camden Line Stations in the study area. 

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)’s Metrorail Green Line (Greenbelt) and 

Orange Line (New Carrollton) serve the southern section of the study area. The Green Line has four 

stations in the study area while the Orange Line has three stations. 

A new high capacity transit line, the Purple Line, which would connect the New Carrollton Station on the 

Metro Orange Line with the Bethesda Station on the Metro Red Line, is currently being studied by MTA. 

This line, when completed and operational, would serve the southern section of the study area. 

2.3 Bicycle Facilities 

Figure 2.2: Bicycle Facilities shows the major bicycle routes in the study area. The darker green lines 

represent Maryland SHA signed bicycle routes and the dotted light green lines represent the off road 

trails. 

Among several off-road trails in the study area, the B-W International Thurgood Marshall Trail circles 

around the B-W International Thurgood Marshall Airport and provides connections to the signed bicycle 

routes on Belle Grove Road to the north, Telegraph Road to the south, and Planet Walk Trail to the east. 

Similarly, the Baltimore, Washington, and Annapolis Trail runs along the former alignment of the 

Baltimore, Washington, and Annapolis Railroad from MD 450 to Odenton. There is a network of off road 

trails towards the southern end of the study area, significant sections of which are part of the National 

Capital Parks – East specifically, the Anacostia Park unit. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 6 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 7 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 8 January 2012 

CHAPTER 3: Traffic Conditions 

The B-W Parkway functions as a north-south arterial, paralleling I-95 between Washington, DC and 

Baltimore, Maryland. Traffic conditions on the Parkway are described in terms of traffic volume, 

accident history, and level of service as detailed in this section. 

3.1 Traffic Volumes

Historically, the average annual daily traffic volume for the B-W Parkway has grown by over 20 percent 

from year 2000 to 2010. According to the Maryland SHA, the average annual daily traffic volume on the 

Parkway near the Baltimore Beltway has grown from 70,000 vehicles per day in year 2000 to 90,000 

vehicles in year 2010. At the Washington, DC-Maryland border, the average annual daily traffic 

remained stable over the ten year period, ranging from 106,000 vehicles per day to 104,000 vehicles per 

day. 

For the purposes of this study, the existing mainline traffic volumes along the B-W Parkway were 

obtained from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) Travel Demand Model, 

Version 2.2, described in the Base Year (2005) Model Validation Report in Appendix A. 

According to the MWCOG model data, the traffic volumes exhibit a directional split favoring southbound 

traffic in the AM Peak Period (Figure 3.1) and favoring northbound traffic in the PM Peak Period (Figure 

3.2). In the AM peak, this directional split is most evident at the northern and southern limits of the 

study area, which are closer to the urban cores of Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, 

respectively. This observation reflects a higher proportion of commuter traffic in the morning 

commuter traffic. In the PM peak, the directional split is balanced in both the northbound and 

southbound directions towards the center of the Parkway between Powder Mill Road and MD 175. 

Figure 3.1 – Directional Split – AM Peak Period 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US 50

MD 202MD 450MD 410

I-495

MD 193

Explorer

Powder Mill

MD 197MD 198

MD 32

Technology

MD 175

Arundel 

Mills

MD 100

I-195

MD 168

I-695

Directional Split

SOUTHBOUND

NORTHBOUND
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 9 January 2012 

Figure 3.2 – Directional Split – PM Peak Period 

3.2 Accident History

Maryland SHA Accident History

A three-year accident history (2008-2010) was obtained from Maryland SHA for the section of the 

Parkway under Maryland SHA’s jurisdiction, from south of the MD 175 interchange to the northern 

limits of the study area. A total of 534 crashes were reported during the three-year period, with 154 in 

2008, 234 in 2009, and 146 in 2010. A breakdown of these crashes is as follows: 

Severity

A total of 321 crashes (60 percent of total) were property-damage-only, while an additional 209 crashes 

(39 percent) involved personal injury. Fatal crashes accounted for less than 1 percent of all crashes, with 

a total of three fatal crashes occurring in 2008, one in 2009, and none in 2010. 

Crash Type

The four most commonly reported crash types are as follows: 

x Rear-end collisions - 173 (32 percent of total) 

x Fixed-Object collisions – 155 (29 percent) 

x Other – 109 (20 percent) 

x Sideswipe – 88 (16 percent) 

Contributing factor

The four most commonly reported primary contributing factors indicated in crash reports are as follows: 

x “Failure to drive in single lane” - 147 (28 percent of total) 

x “Too Fast For Conditions” – 119 (22 percent) 

x “Following Too Closely” – 83 (16 percent) 

x “Improper Lane Change” – 39 (7 percent) 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US 50

MD 202MD 450MD 410

I-495

MD 193

Explorer

Powder Mill

MD 197MD 198

MD 32

Technology

MD 175

Arundel 

Mills

MD 100

I-195

MD 168

I-695

Directional Split

SOUTHBOUND

NORTHBOUND
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 10 January 2012 

In addition to the four highest-frequency causes cited in the report, the remaining 27 percent of 

accidents are distributed between 20 additional causes. Some of the probable causes include “Failure to 

give full attention”; “Exceeded speed limit”; “Wet conditions”; and “Under the influence of alcohol.”

Distribution

Based on reported log-mile locations of crashes obtained from the accident history, crashes in the 

Maryland SHA managed portion of the entire Parkway facility are clustered primarily in the vicinity of 

interchanges as shown in Figure 3.3. This is generally consistent with traffic conditions one might expect 

in the vicinity of interchanges where the influence of ramp traffic can result in sudden slowing of 

vehicles, a higher incidence of lane-changing activity, and an increased demand on driver attention. 

Figure 3.3 – Accident Distribution 2008-2010 

NPS Accident History 

According to a technical memorandum developed for the NPS, the B-W Parkway exceeds both the 

regional and service-wide severe crash percentages2. According to the crash data, from 1990 to 2005, 

the frequency of crashes in the B-W Parkway showed the following results: 

x Fatal Crashes – 112 

x Injury Crashes – 2,894 

x Property Damage Only Crashes – 8,752 

x Total Crashes – 11,758 

x Severe Crashes (percentage) – 25.6 percent 

 

2

 National Capital Region Crash Data Summary, CH2MHill, November 29, 2011 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

# of Accidents per 1/4 mile

LOG MILE (SHA Highway Location Reference - Anne Arundel County)

I-695

MD 175

Arundel Mills Blvd

MD 100

I-195

MD 168

LOG MILE (Maryland SHA Highway Location Reference – Anne Arundel County) 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 11 January 2012 

The B-W Parkway had the highest number of total, fatal, and injury crashes of all the NPS Parkways in 

the National Capital Region during this period. The Parkway had the second highest number of severe 

crashes of all the parkways in the region; second only to the Suitland Parkway. 

The total crash frequencies for the B-W Parkway from 2001 to 2005 are as follows: 

x Fatal Crashes – 36 

x Injury Crashes – 875 

x Property Damage Only Crashes – 2,189 

x Total Crashes – 3,100 

Using a segment length of 18.7 miles and vehicle miles traveled of 669,435, the crash rates per 100 

million vehicles miles traveled were calculated as follows: 

x Total Crash Rate – 92.3 

x Fatal Crash Rate – 1.0 

x Severe Crash Rate – 27.1 

The B-W Parkway had the fourth highest total crash rate, the second highest fatal crash rate, the third 

highest severe crash rate of the four major Parkways in the National Capital Region (George Washington 

Memorial Parkway, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, and Suitland Parkway). 

In comparing the B-W Parkway crash rates to Maryland statewide crash rates of a comparable urban 

four-lane highway, the B-W Parkway had a lower crash rate overall. Maryland statewide comparable 

rates of 143.8 for total crashes and 1.5 for fatal crashes were higher than what was recorded for the BW Parkway. 

3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions

Existing peak hour traffic conditions on B-W Parkway mainline segments were analyzed using the 2010 

version of the Highway Capacity Software Freeway Module. Assumptions pertaining to this analysis 

were developed with the concurrence of the FHWA and include the following: 

x Free-flow speed = 65 miles per hour 

x Percent trucks = 5 percent north of MD 175, 0 percent south of MD 175 (truck traffic prohibited 

within NPS jurisdiction) 

x Peak Hour Factor = 0.90 

x Terrain = Level 

The results of this analysis are included in Table 3.1 which show peak hour mainline segments generally 

operating at conditions between level of service “C” and “F” throughout the corridor. Traffic operations 

in the range of level of service “C” or “D” typically consist of travel at or near the free flow speed, with 

drivers increasingly constrained by surrounding vehicles. Level of service “E” or “F” conditions are 

indicative of operations at or near capacity and where congestion-related delays begin to have 

significant impacts on road users in the form of significantly reduced travel speeds; from 5 miles per 

hour or more below “free flow” speeds down to stop-and-go traffic conditions. Several “hot spot” 

segments were identified where mainline segments were experiencing level of service “E” or “F” and are 

highlighted in Figure 3.4. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 12 January 2012 

Table 3.1 HCS Analysis Results 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 13 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 14 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 15 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 16 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 17 January 2012 

Figure 3.4 Parkway Segments Currently Operating at or Near Capacity 

(Level of Service “E” or “F”) 

Several observations are derived from these results, as it pertains to existing mainline traffic conditions: 

x Traffic conditions are generally worse in the PM peak hour than in the AM peak hour. 

x The distribution of traffic “hot spots” are consistent with directional traffic distribution in the AM 

and PM peak periods as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. 

x The location of the identified congestion “hot spots” is limited to the existing two-lane segments of 

the Parkway. The three-lane mainline segments of the facility (i.e. MD 175 to MD 100) and 

locations where auxiliary lanes between closely spaced interchanges create de-facto three-lane 

mainline sections (between U.S. Route 50 and MD 450 and between the Capital Beltway and MD 

193) were determined to operate at level of service “D” or better according to the Highway 

Capacity Software freeway analysis. 

It is important to note that these Highway Capacity Software results are based on a discrete analysis of 

each mainline segment of the Parkway and do not reflect the effects of weaving or ramp influence areas 

around specific interchanges, or spillover effects of downstream congestion on upstream segments. 

Therefore, these results should be interpreted as a measure of how well each segment along the 

Parkway handles existing mainline traffic in isolation from external influences. As such, these results 

AM PM

Traffic “Hot Spot” 

(Segment operating 

at Level of Service 

“E” or “F”)
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 18 January 2012 

provide a basis for comparison with a similar analysis of the future year traffic conditions as developed 

and described later in the study. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 19 January 2012 

CHAPTER 4: Land Use 

Existing and proposed land use and zoning data was obtained from readily available sources, including 

state, local, county, and regional planning entities, within the study area. The inventory also included a 

review of existing comprehensive plans and future land use plans, such as the Base Realignment and 

Closure proposals as they relate to Fort Meade. This effort was performed so as to assess the land use 

distribution within the study area and the resulting impacts on the B-W Parkway. 

The following section describes the land use and zoning data from counties within the study area. These 

counties include: Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Howard, and Prince George’s Counties. A discussion of the 

development proposals and activity centers within the study area is also included. 

Figure 4.1 represents the exiting land use of the study area. 

4.1 Counties Land Use Data

Baltimore County 

The small portion of Baltimore County in the study area contains a mix of land uses as shown in the 

adopted Baltimore County, Maryland Master Plan 20203, shown in the Appendix B-1. The majority of the 

area is labeled as General Urban, which is mixed-use but predominately residential with a variety of 

housing types in medium size blocks. In the Halethorpe area, along U.S. 1, is a small area classified as an 

Urban Center that is mixed-use with a higher density of retail, offices, townhouses, and apartments with 

setbacks close to the street. Adjacent to the Urban Center areas are small areas of the Sub-Urban Zone 

which includes predominately low-density residential with large blocks. There are also very small tracts 

of the Rural Zone in the study area characterized by sparsely settled land. This area of the county is 

predominately residential with large, single-family housing. 

Howard County 

Interstate 95 in Howard County defines the western boundary of the study area. According to the 

Howard County General Plan 2000, the majority of the County’s land use classifications are represented 

in the corridor with major roadways acting as division lines. 

In the Elkridge area of Howard County north of MD 100, the land use is predominately residential with 

the majority being low density housing. The remaining areas are a mix of medium and high density 

residential areas with some mobile homes. There are also large areas of Office/Service, Institutional, 

Industrial and Undeveloped Industrial land use classifications. Smaller areas of Parks and Open Space 

and Retail land uses are also in the area. 

Between MD 32 and MD 100, the land uses in this portion of the county becomes more industrial and 

commercial in nature. Acting as a dividing line between land uses, U.S. 1 to the east is predominately 

Industrial, Institutional, and Undeveloped Commercial. There are small areas of Low Density Residential, 

Medium Density Residential, Mobile Homes, and Office/Service. West of U.S. 1, there is one large tract 

of Retail land use between MD 32 and MD 175. There are also smaller areas of Low Density Residential, 

Mobile Homes, Office/Service, and Parks and Open Space land uses. 

 

3

 Baltimore County, Maryland, November 15, 2010 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 20 January 2012 

The land uses in Howard County are clearly divided by U.S. 1 south of MD 32. East of U.S. 1, land uses 

are predominately Office/Service and Industrial with small pockets of Retail and Low Density Residential. 

West of U.S. 1 to I-95, the majority of the land is classified as Low Density Residential and Parks and 

Open Space. Other residential land uses include Medium Density Residential and High Density 

Residential. There are also smaller areas of Institutional and Retail land uses. 

Anne Arundel County 

The portion of Anne Arundel County in the study area is generally defined by the Howard and Baltimore 

County Lines to the northwest, I-695 to the northeast, I-97 to the east, and the Prince George’s County 

line/Patuxent River to the southwest. The Anne Arundel County General Development Plan (2009) lists 

the northern portion of this area as the County’s Growth Corridor. This area is along the B-W Parkway 

from Fort Meade to B-W International Thurgood Marshall Airport. The planned development in this 

portion of the county is anticipated to include several new business parks as well as mixed-use 

development to create additional live/work opportunities. 

Land uses in Anne Arundel County vary throughout the study area. The southern portion of the study 

area predominately has a Natural Features land use classification which is the Patuxent Research 

Refuge. The Government land use classification includes two large areas which are Fort Meade and B-W 

International Thurgood Marshall Airport as well as several smaller parcels in the area. Maryland City is 

classified as Mixed Use Commercial, Jessup is predominately classified as Mixed Use Employment or 

Mixed Use Residential, and Odenton has a Town Center land use classification. The B-W International 

Thurgood Marshall MARC/Amtrak station area is classified as Mixed Use Transit. This area also has large 

sections of Industrial land use classification in the Hanover and Patapsco areas with smaller sections 

throughout the study area. Residential land uses are spread throughout the study area. Ferndale and 

Glen Burnie land use classifications consist primarily of Medium Density Residential with some High 

Density Residential. Jessup and Severn are Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Density 

Residential. Pockets of Commercial land use are seen throughout the study area with the largest area 

being the Arundel Mills Mall and surrounding shopping areas. The Rural land use classification is seen in 

both the Gambrills and Woodwardville areas. 

Prince George’s County 

According to the 2002 Prince George's County Approved General Plan, Prince George’s County is divided 

into seven subregions and the City of Laurel. The seven subregions are further divided into 36 smaller 

planning areas, excluding the City of Laurel. The City of Laurel has its own planning authority. 

Subregions and planning areas are shown in Table 4.1 in Appendix B-2. 

Of the subregions, three subregions (1, 2, and 3) and the City of Laurel are all or partially in the study 

area. Subregion 1 is in the northwestern portion of Prince George’s County and is almost entirely in the 

study area. Subregion 2 consists of the western most portion of Prince George’s County inside of the 

Capital Beltway. Subregion 3 is partially in the study area and consists of the central portion of Prince 

George’s County and includes the municipality of Bowie within the study area. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 21 January 2012 

Table 4.1 Subregions and Planning Areas 

Subregion 1 Subregion 2 Subregion 3 

PA 60 - Northwestern Area

PA 61 - Fairland-Beltsville 

PA 62 - South LaurelMontpelier 

PA 64 - Agricultural 

Research Center 

PA 65 - Langley Park & 

Vicinity 

PA 66 - College ParkBerwyn Heights 

PA 67 - Greenbelt & Vicinity

PA 68 - HyattsvilleRiverdale-Mt. RainierBrentwood 

PA 69 - Bladensburg-New 

Carrollton & Vicinity 

PA 70 - Glenn DaleSeabrook-Lanham & 

Vicinity 

PA 71A - Bowie & Vicinity 

PA 71B - City of Bowie 

PA 73 - Largo-Lottsford 

PA 74A - Mitchellville & 

Vicinity 

PA 74B - Collington & 

Vicinity 

The land use of this study area is predominately residential with several large institutional areas which 

include the University of Maryland, National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard 

Space Flight Center and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. There are also large areas of 

commercial and industrial land uses as well as parkland in the area. 

4.2 Development Proposals and Activity Centers

The study area contains significant activity centers that attract vehicular traffic to the B-W Parkway. 

There are also a number of proposed developments in the study area that will have impacts on the 

Parkway in the future. Figure 4.2: Development Projects/ Destinations/Activity Centers shows location 

of the existing activity centers and proposed developments in the study area. Descriptions of these 

activity centers and development proposals are presented below. 

Destinations and Activity Centers 

Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport is an international airport serving the 

B-W Metropolitan Area in the United States. B-W International Thurgood Marshall Airport is a focus 

airport for Southwest Airlines and Cape Air, and a hub for AirTran Airways. A record 21.9 million 

passengers traveled through the airport in 2010, an increase of 4.7 percent over the previous year, with 

July 2010 being the busiest month ever in the airport's history. 

According to B-W International Thurgood Marshall Airport’s official website, there are approximately 

9,717 employees (Part-time and Full-Time) working at the facility. Of this total approximately 470 are 

Maryland Aviation Administration employees. 

Arundel Mills is a regional shopping center located in Hanover, Maryland. It has 1.3 million square feet 

of gross leasable area and is the largest enclosed mall in Maryland. The mall is located at the 

intersection of MD 100 and the B-W Parkway in northwestern Anne Arundel County. Arundel Mills 

opened in November 2000. After Maryland voters approved slot machine gambling in Maryland in 2008, 

a slots parlor was planned next to the mall. The proposal for slots at Arundel Mills was on the ballot as a 

referendum in the November 2010 elections; the referendum passed, and construction began on the 

casino shortly afterward, with construction to be completed by July 2012. The slots parlor is the largest 

gaming facility in Maryland, featuring 4,750 slot and electric table games. The 300,000 square foot 

facility will feature multiple upscale restaurants and live music venues. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 22 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 23 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 24 January 2012 

The National Security Agency (NSA) and Fort Meade are the largest employers in the study area. 

Proposed expansions due to Base Realignment and Closure are described in more detail in Section 7.3. 

Prior to BRAC actions, Fort Meade had an authorized population of 30,204 military and civilian DoD 

positions. As part of Base Realignment and Closure, the DoD is co-locating adjudication activities, media 

activities, and the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) at Fort Meade. It is expected that, as a 

result of Base Realignment and Closure, Fort Meade will gain about 5,700 on-base positions. 

Approximately 1,660 civilian contractors are expected to work in the vicinity of Fort Meade proper. 

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is a unit of the United States Department of Agriculture's 

Agricultural Research Service. It is a 475-acre farm located in Beltsville, Maryland, and is named for 

Henry A. Wallace, former United States Vice President and Secretary of Agriculture. The 6,600 acre 

facility is the largest agricultural research complex in the world with research programs including Air 

Quality; Animal Health; Crop Production; Crop Protection and Quarantine; Food Animal Production; 

Food Safety; Global Change; Human Nutrition; Integrated Farming Systems; Manure and Byproduct 

Utilization; Methyl Bromide Alternatives; Plant Biological and Molecular Processes; Plant Diseases; Plant 

Genetic Resources, Genomics, and Genetic Improvement; Quality and Utilization of Agricultural 

Products; Rangeland, Pasture, and Forages; Soil Resource Management; Veterinary, Medical, and Urban 

Entomology; and Water Quality and Management. According to the Maryland Department of Business 

and Economic Development, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center employs 1,700 persons. 

Goddard Space Flight Center is a major NASA space research laboratory established on May 1, 1959 as 

NASA's first space flight center. Goddard Space Flight Center employs approximately 10,000 civil 

servants and contractors, and is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of Washington, DC, in 

Greenbelt, Maryland. 

Greenbelt Park is situated just within the National Capital Beltway. The park is managed by NPS. The 

Greenbelt Park is a destination for visitors who want to camp and see the District, as well as other 

recreational activities. Additional information for Greenbelt Park is included in Chapter 10 of this report. 

The University of Maryland, College Park is a public research university located in the city of College 

Park, Maryland. Founded in 1856, the University of Maryland is the flagship institution of the University 

System of Maryland. With a fall 2010 enrollment of more than 37,000 students (approximately 26,900 

undergraduate and 10,700 graduate students) and 4,123 full and part time faculty the University of 

Maryland is the largest university in the State and the largest in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. 

Development Projects 

There are several planned developments in the project vicinity. A general description of some of the 

major developments is provided below. 

The Odenton Town Center is a 1,600-acre mixed-use development in the heart of Odenton, Maryland. 

The core of the Odenton Town Center is its transit-oriented development, designed to encourage 

pedestrian-friendly projects close to the Odenton MARC Station, the busiest non-terminal station on the 

Penn Line. Planned projects combine retail, restaurants, office, and residential space, as well as parks, 

plazas, and recreational trails. 

In order to address the aging and signs of neglect along the US 1 corridor, Howard County developed the 

Route 1 Corridor Revitalization Study Phase 1 (2001) and Phase 2 (2002) as well as the Route 1 Corridor 

Revitalization Manual adopted in July 2009. The plans focus on enhancing the appearance of U.S. 1 

through new development and improvements to the existing streetscape. Where possible, the plan 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 25 January 2012 

encourages mixed-use development and transit orientated development. New buildings will be 

constructed closer to roadways with parking on the side and rear to provide pedestrians better direct 

access from the main roadways. Various new zoning classifications have been added for the U.S. 1 

Corridor including Corridor Employment District, Transit Orientated Development District, Corridor 

Activity Center District, and Continuing Light Industrial Overlay District. The first three zones are 

designated for predominately new developments while that latter focuses on maintaining existing land 

uses while allowing new development outside of the original zoning classification. 

The Maryland Department of Transportation and the CSX Corporation (CSX) are working together to 

locate and develop a regional intermodal freight facility. The plan is to relocate CSX’s existing facility—

currently located at the Seagirt Marine Terminal in the city of Baltimore—to a new venue south of 

Baltimore’s Howard Street Tunnel. CSX will continue to provide train service supporting the Port of 

Baltimore international customers at Seagirt Marine Terminal. This project is a key component of the 

National Gateway Rail Freight corridor and will allow a more efficient flow of goods traveling along CSX’s 

emerging double-stack rail network. The goal is to complete construction of the facility and begin 

operations by 2015. The final site selection process will include extensive public outreach, in 

conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Konterra is a $1.75 billion, 2,200-acre, mixed-use proposed development with upscale retail, research, 

and technology campuses according to the developer’s website. It also includes a 200-acre Konterra 

Regional Mall, business campus with 1.4 million square feet of building space, more than 1,000 single 

family homes, and 348 acres reserved for governmental, educational, or corporate facilities. The 

proposed development is located in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, in Maryland straddling 

I-95 just one exit north of the Capital Beltway. When completed, the Konterra development is 

projected to create 30,000 jobs. 

The Muirkirk MARC Station and the New Carrollton Metro Station are two areas identified in the Prince 

George’s County Master Plan for Sector 1 as regional centers with potential for future transit oriented 

development. According to the approved New Carrollton Transit District Development Plan and Transit 

District Overlay Zoning Map Amendment, the vision for New Carrolton Metro Station is to develop 7,000 

housing units; 6,180,000 square feet of office/retail space; an extensive system of civic parks, and the 

Metro station complex, rebuilt as a grand urban transportation center, by 2030. 

The Greenbelt Station Town Center is a $1 billion project located at the Greenbelt Metro station on the 

Capital Beltway. The site will feature mixed-use residential/retail/commercial space with 2,200 upscale 

residential units, 1.1 million square feet of retail space, and an entertainment center. The Prince 

George’s County Council has approved a $160 million tax increment financing package for the Greenbelt 

Metro development. Site plans have also been approved for first phase of development. 

Major redevelopment proposals are moving forward in College Park. Among these are the East Campus 

Project at the University of Maryland, the U.S. 1/Baltimore Avenue Corridor project, and the College 

Park Metro Station Area project. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2012 

CHAPTER 5: Utilities 

The following section provides a general description of existing utility systems in the study area. Existing 

utilities are located either adjacent to or cross the existing right-of-way of the B-W Parkway. The 

inventory includes electric power, water and sewer for both underground and overhead utility systems. 

The inventory does not include utilities such as natural gas, petroleum distribution and transmission, 

and telecommunications. 

5.1 Electric 

The majority of the Baltimore metropolitan area, including Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Howard 

Counties, is served by the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) for electricity and natural gas 

services. 

The Maryland portion of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, including Prince George’s County, is 

served by the Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) for electricity needs. Washington Gas provides 

natural gas service for this region. 

5.2 Water and Sewer

Baltimore County 

Baltimore County provides water and wastewater disposal through public and private systems. Those 

locations closer to Baltimore City within the “Urban Rural Demarcation Line” are served by the public 

water and sewer system. Areas near the Chesapeake Bay are also served by the public water and sewer 

system to protect water quality. Three reservoirs provide water to Baltimore County. 

Howard County 

Howard County supplies public water and sewer service using both Baltimore City and the Washington 

Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) resources. The majority of the County that receives water and 

sewer services from the public system is provided by the Baltimore City Central System. A small eastern 

portion of the County receives its services through WSSC. The western portion of the County does not 

receive public water or sewer service and uses wells and septic systems for these utilities. 

Anne Arundel County 

The Department of Public Works for Anne Arundel County provides water and public sewer services to 

the vast majority of the County. Some of the more low density, rural areas in the southern portion of 

Anne Arundel County rely on individual wells and septic systems. The Anne Arundel County system has 

approximately 107,700 public water connections with an annual average demand of 31.1 million gallons 

per day. 

Prince George’s County 

Water and Sewer Service in Prince George’s County is provided primarily by the WSSC. WSSC is the 8th 

largest water and wastewater utility in the nation, serving nearly 1.8 million residents and 

approximately 460,000 customer accounts in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties over an area of 

nearly 1,000 square miles. They operate and maintain eight water and wastewater plants, more than 

5,500 miles of fresh water pipeline and nearly 5,400 miles of sewer pipeline. Rural areas in the south 

eastern portion of the county rely on individual wells and septic systems. Some areas of the County are 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 27 January 2012 

also served by the City of Bowie, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, and the District of Columbia 

Water and Sewer Authority. 

 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 28 January 2012 

CHAPTER 6: Socioeconomic and Community Features 

There are 151 schools (K-12, public and private), 20 police stations, 34 fire stations, 17 libraries, 131 

parks and recreational facilities, 6 heliports, and 5 airports in the study area. The general locations of 

these community facilities are shown in Figure 6.1 and are listed in Appendices B3-B7. Socioeconomic 

and community features are categorized by county in the following sections. 

6.1 Schools 

Baltimore County 

The Baltimore County Public School system (BCPS) is the third largest in Maryland and the 26th largest 

school system in the U.S. Approximately 104,000 students are enrolled in 173 schools, centers, and 

programs. BCPS employs 17,000 faculty and staff members, including 8,850 classroom teachers. Over 

7,400 students graduate from BCPS each year and 87.5 percent of them immediately pursue higher 

education. There is an average of 17 advanced placement courses at each high school and one-third of 

all high schools offer 20 or more advanced placement courses. 

Baltimore County has over 20 private schools at the K-12 grade levels. Most of these schools are 

operated by religious entities. 

There are four public and private elementary schools in the study area: two BCPS schools, Halethorpe 

Elementary and Relay Elementary; one private Roman Catholic school, Ascension Parish School; and one 

private interdenominational school, Lamb of God School. There are no middle or high schools in 

Baltimore County adjacent to the Parkway. 

Anne Arundel County 

The Anne Arundel County Public School system (AACPS) is the fifth largest in Maryland and among the 

50 largest school systems in the US. Approximately 75,500 students are enrolled in 121 schools, centers, 

and programs. AACPS employs nearly 5,500 teachers. Over 5,000 students graduate from AACPS each 

year and 85 percent of them immediately pursue higher education. All 12 high schools in AACPS offer a 

minimum of 19 advanced placement courses. 

Within the study area, there are 23 elementary schools and 12 middle and high schools including private 

schools. The elementary schools in the study area are: 

x Brock Bridge Elementary x Pershing Hill Elementary 

x Ferndale Early Education Center x Piney Orchard Elementary 

x Four Seasons Elementary x Quarterfield Elementary 

x Harman Elementary at Meade Heights x Ridgeway Elementary 

x Hilltop Elementary x School of Incarnations 

x Jessup Elementary x Seven Oaks Elementary 

x Lindale Elementary x Severn Elementary 

x Linthicum Elementary x St. Philip Neri School 

x Manor View Elementary x Van Bokkelen Elementary 

x Maryland City Elementary x Waugh Chapel Elementary 

x Meade Heights Elementary at Seven x West Meade Elementary 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 29 January 2012 

Oaks 

x Odenton Elementary 

The middle and high schools in the study area are: 

x Archbishop Spaulding High x Lindale Middle 

x Arundel High x MacArthur Middle 

x Arundel Middle x Meade High 

x Calvary Chapel Christian Academy x Meade Middle 

x Center of Applied Technology North x North County High 

x Chesapeake Science Point x Odenton Christian 

Howard County 

The Howard County Public School system (HCPSS) consistently ranks among Maryland’s top school 

districts based on student performance on the Maryland School Assessments. Approximately 50,000 

students are enrolled in a total of 72 public schools. HCPSS employs 4,617 teachers, 62 percent of which 

hold master’s degrees or above. HCPPS has a 94.3 percent graduation rate and more than 90 percent of 

graduates continue their education beyond high school. Approximately 41 percent of students in grades 

9-12 participate in a variety of Gifted and Talented Education Program offerings. 

Five elementary and two middle schools are located within the study area. The elementary schools are 

Elkridge, Bollman Bridge, Forest Ridge, Laurel Woods, and St. Augustine. The middle schools are 

Elkridge Landing and Patuxent Valley. There are no Howard County high schools or private schools 

within the study area. 

Prince George’s County 

Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) is the second largest school system in Maryland and the 

18th largest in the US. Approximately 127,000 students are enrolled in 198 schools. PGCPS employs 

about 18,000 full-time employees, including about 9,000 teachers. PGCPS has an 84.4 percent 

graduation rate with over 8,000 students graduating each year. A little less than half of the graduating 

students attend four-year colleges after graduation. Approximately 27 percent of seniors are enrolled in 

advanced placement courses. 

There are 56 elementary schools, 11 middle schools, 11 high schools, and three Pre K – 12 Schools (New 

Hope Academy, Lantham Christian School, and Al-Huda School) in the study area including private 

schools. The PGCPS elementary schools are: 

x Adelphi Elementary x Langley Park/McCormick Elementary

x Beacon Heights Elementary x Laurel Elementary 

x Beltsville Elementary x Lewisdale Elementary 

x Berwyn Heights Elementary x Magnolia Elementary 

x Bladensburg Elementary x Mary Harris “Mother” Jones Elementary 

x Bond Mill Elementary x Montpelier Elementary 

x Calverton Elementary x Mount Ranier Elementary 

x Carole Highlands Elementary x New Covenant Christian Academy 

x Carrollton Elementary x Oaklands Elementary 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 30 January 2012 

x Catherine T. Reed Elementary x Paint Branch Elementary 

x Cesar Chavez Elementary x Patuxent Montessori School 

x Cherokee Lane Elementary x Perrywood Elementary 

x Chillum Elementary x Port Towns Elementary 

x Cool Spring Elementary x Ridgecrest Elementary 

x Cooper Lane Elementary x Riverdale Elementary 

x Deerfield Run Elementary x Robert Frost Elementary 

x Gaywood Elementary x Rockledge Elementary 

x Gladys N. Spellman Elementary x Rogers Heights Elementary 

x Glenn Dale Elementary x Rosa Parks Elementary 

x Glenridge Elementary x Scotch Town Hills Elementary 

x Greenbelt Elementary x Seabrook Elementary 

x High Bridge Elementary x Springhill Lake Elementary 

x Hollywood Elementary x Templeton Elementary 

x Hyattsville Elementary x Thomas S. Stone Elementary 

x James E. Harrison Elementary x Tulip Grove Elementary 

x James McHenry Elementary x Woodridge Elementary 

x Kenilworth Elementary x Yorktowne Elementary 

x Lamont Elementary

The PGCPS high schools and middle schools in the study area are: 

x Benjamin Tasker Middle x High Point High 

x Bladensburg High x Hyattsville Middle 

x Bowie High x Laurel High 

x Buck Lodge Middle x Martin Luther King Middle 

x Charles Carroll Middle x Nicholas Orem Middle 

x De Martha Catholic High x Northwestern High 

x Duval High x Parkdale High 

x Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle x Samuel Ogle Middle 

x Eleanor Roosevelt High x St. Vincent Pallotti High 

x Elizabeth Seton High x Thomas Johnson Middle 

x Greenbelt Middle x William Wirt Middle 

The Elementary and Middle private schools in the study area are: 

x Ascension Lutheran School x Holy Trinity Episcopal Day School 

x At. Matthias Apostle x Holy Trinity Episcopal Day School 

x Beltsville SDA School x Robert Goddard Montessori and French Immersion 

x Berwyn Baptist School x St Bernard School 

x Bowie Montessori Children’s House x St Pius X School 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 31 January 2012 

x Concordia Lutheran School x St. Ambrose Elementary 

x Cornerstone Christian Academy x St. Hugh’s School 

x Faith Baptist Christian School x St. Jerome’s Catholic School 

x First Baptist School of Laurel x St. Joseph’s School 

x Friends Community School x St. Mark The Evangelist School 

x George Peters Adventist School x St. Mary’s catholic School 

x Grace Christian School x St. Mary’s School 

x Holy Redeemer School 

There are several special schools in the area including the following: 

x Chapel Forge Early Childhood Center x Judith P. Hoyer Early Childhood Center 

x Community Based Classrooms x Margarent Brent Regional Center 

x Excel Academy Charter x Robert Goddard French Immersion 

x Frances Fuchs Early Childhood Center x Robert Goddard Montessori 

x H.B. Owens Science Center x Turning Point Academy 

x James E. Duckworth Regional Center 

6.2 Law Enforcement 

Baltimore County 

The Baltimore County Police Department ranks nationally as one of the 30 largest local government 

police agencies. The Department has approximately 2,480 employees, including 1,918 sworn officers, 

working out of 30 police facilities. The fleet consists of 433 marked vehicles and 434 unmarked vehicles. 

The nearest county police station is on Rolling Road just north of the study area. 

Anne Arundel County 

The Anne Arundel County Police Department employs a workforce of 933 personnel including 686 sworn 

officers, and 247 civilians. There is also a part-time complement of 144 school crossing guards, who 

man 240 school crossings during the school year, and more than 90 volunteers. Nineteen other parttime positions, some funded through grants, are assigned to other special needs throughout the 

Department such as Crime Analysis and the Crime Laboratory. 

The study area is served by the Northern District with a station on Hammonds Lane, and by the Western 

District with a station on Telegraph Road in Odenton. 

Howard County 

The Howard County Police Department employs 441 authorized full-time sworn police officers, as well 

as 183 full-time civilians, 62 contingent employees, 21 part-time crossing guards, 23 auxiliary officers, 

and 36 bike patrol program officers. There are two district stations. The Northern District is located in 

Ellicott City. The Southern District is located in Scaggsville at MD 216 and US 29 just west of the study 

area.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 32 January 2012 

Prince George’s County 

The Prince George’s County Police Department employs 327 sworn officers and 71 civilians divided 

among 22 municipal police departments. The study area is served by three district substations. District I 

serves a 36 square mile area making it the second smallest patrol area in the County. However, with a 

population of approximately 206,500, it is the most densely populated. Its borders include Washington, 

DC, to the east and Montgomery County to the north. There are 16 incorporated municipalities within 

District I including the City of Greenbelt. 

District II is responsible for 134 square miles with a population approximately 172,000, making it the 

second most populated patrol district and the second largest geographical area in the County. It borders 

Anne Arundel County to the east. The City of Bowie and the County seat of Upper Marlboro are within 

its patrol area. 

District VI is located in the northeastern part of the County in an area of approximately 40 square miles 

with a population of approximately 82,300. The district borders Montgomery, Howard, and Anne 

Arundel Counties to the north and has the City of Laurel within its patrol area. 

Additionally, the University of Maryland, Maryland State Police, WMATA, United States Air Force, and 

the NPS all have separate police forces that operate in the County. 

6.3 Fire Safety

Baltimore County 

The Baltimore County Fire Department has 1,052 sworn employees and 45 civilians working out of 25 

career fire stations. There are an additional 33 independent volunteer fire companies, including an 

estimated 3,000 responders, fund raisers and other members of the volunteer service, who also provide 

daily emergency medical services. A fire station is located within the study area on Washington 

Boulevard and Selma Avenue. 

Anne Arundel County 

The Anne Arundel County Fire Department is one of the largest combination fire departments in the 

Nation, operating out of 30 fire stations with 793 career firefighters, 517 certified volunteer firefighters, 

and 36 civilian support personnel. All personnel, both career and volunteer, are certified in accordance 

with the National Fire Protection Association standards. The department is functionally organized into 

three bureaus: Operations, Logistics and Planning, and the Office of Emergency Management. 

Nearly all of the study area is served by Battalion 1, including 13 fire companies and stations strategically 

located throughout the area. 

Howard County 

The Howard County Department of Fire and Rescue Services is a partnership of both volunteers and 

career personnel who operate 11 fire stations throughout the County. Each station has at least one fire 

engine and ambulance. Many of these locations also house a variety of special equipment, such as 

ladder trucks, rescue squads, and brush trucks. Two stations, the Elkridge Station on Old Washington 

Road and the Savage Station are located within the study area. The Scaggsville Station is located just 

west of the study area at the intersection of MD 216 and U.S. 29. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 33 January 2012 

Prince George’s County 

The Prince George’s County Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department is housed in 44 stations 

throughout the County which are staffed by a combination of career and volunteer firefighters. Three 

battalions serve the study area in Prince George’s County. Battalion Two serves communities in the 

general vicinity of New Carrollton, Lanham, Bowie, and Glenn Dale with seven station locations. 

Battalion Four serves all communities in the general vicinity of Langley Park, Chillum, Brentwood, 

College Park, and Riverdale with eight station locations. Battalion Six serves all communities in the 

general vicinity of Laurel, Greenbelt, Beltsville, and Berwyn Heights with seven station locations. 

6.4 Libraries

There are 17 libraries in the study area including county, federal, and municipal libraries. 

Baltimore County 

The Baltimore County Public Library operates 17 branches across the County, serving more than 

5,833,000 visitors. The closest library is located just north of the study area in Arbutus at Selford Road 

and Elm Avenue. 

Anne Arundel County 

The Anne Arundel County Public Library system has three regional libraries and 12 branch libraries 

located throughout the County. There are four branch locations within the study area. They are located 

in Linthicum at Hammonds Ferry Road, near Fort Meade (the Provinces Branch) at the intersection of 

MD 175 and Ridge Road, in Maryland City at Russett, and in Odenton on MD 175. 

Howard County 

The Howard County Library System has six community libraries throughout the County. Two of the 

locations are within the study area. The Elkridge Branch is located on Washington Boulevard. The 

Savage Branch is located on Durness Lane just north of Laurel. 

Prince George’s County 

The Prince George’s County Memorial Library System operates 18 community libraries and one County 

Correctional Center Library within the County. The Library System has 326 salaried employees and 140 

hourly employees. There are eight community libraries within the study area. These facilities are 

located in the communities of Mt. Ranier, Bladensburg, Hyattsville, New Carrollton, Bowie, Greenbelt, 

Beltsville, and Laurel. 

6.5 Recreation and Parks

There are 131 recreation and park facilities in the study area. Names and locations are shown in Figure 

6.1 and in the Appendix. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 34 January 2012 

Baltimore County 

The Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks operates a collection of parks, school 

recreation centers, open spaces, greenways, and other recreational facilities. 

Anne Arundel County 

Anne Arundel County has over 6,000 acres of recreation land, 3,500 acres of natural resource land, and 

over 260 parks under County ownership. These lands are coordinated among several County agencies, 

primarily the Department of Recreation and Parks, but also include parcels managed by the Board of 

Education, the Department of Public Works, the Office of Planning and Zoning, the Department of Aging 

and Disabilities, and others as well as many local community organizations. 

Howard County 

The Howard County Recreation and Parks Department is responsible for the stewardship of 8,800 acres 

of public lands and the maintenance and operation of more than 56 parks. The Recreation and Parks 

Department has a staff of 688 employees. 

Prince George’s County 

The Prince George’s County Department of Parks and Recreation, administered by the MarylandNational Capital Park and Planning Commission, operates and maintains more than 26,000 acres of 

parkland throughout the County. 

6.6 Airports and Heliports

There are a total of five small and large airports and six heliports in the study area. Five airports in the 

study area are Queen Chapel Airport (historic), College Park Airport, Schroon Airport, and Baltimore 

Washington Thurgood Marshal Airport. The airport, located in Anne Arundel County, is the largest 

commercial airport in the study area serving the Baltimore/Washington region. The airport has light rail 

connections to Baltimore City and Baltimore County. It also has MARC commuter rail service that 

connects it to cities in Cecil County, Harford County, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, Howard 

County, Prince George’s County, Baltimore City, and Washington, DC, as well as a rail connection to 

northeast cities through Amtrak. 

Among the small airports, Suburban Airport is an active public-use airport in the study area. Located in 

Anne Arundel County, Maryland, two miles southeast of the central business district of Laurel, this 

airport is privately owned by Suburban Air Park LLC. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 35 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 36 January 2012 

CHAPTER 7: Demographic Profile 

The following section describes the existing demographic data for the four counties in the study area. 

The data was obtained from various local, regional, state, and federal agencies Demographic data 

associated with the Base Realignment and Closure primary and secondary activities at Fort Meade is also 

discussed. 

7.1 Population

Baltimore County 

According to the 2010 Census, Baltimore County’s current population is 805,029 which accounts for 13.9 

percent of the State’s total population. This is a 6.7 percent increase from the county’s 2000 population 

of 754,292. 

Whites account for the majority (64.62 percent) of the County’s total population. African Americans 

account for 26.05 percent and Asians account for 4.98 percent of the total County population. 

The community of Arbutus is within the study area. It has a population (according to the 2009 American 

Community Survey) of 19,548, of which nearly 78 percent are White. In Arbutus, 56.7 percent of the 

households have incomes above $50,000. Only 8.3 percent of the households have incomes below 

$15,000. 

Anne Arundel County

The current population of Anne Arundel County according to the 2010 Census is 537,656 which accounts 

for 9.3 percent of the State’s total population. This is a 9.8 percent increase from the County’s 2000 

population of 489,656. More than three quarters (75.41 percent) of the County population is white. The 

African American population constitutes 15.53 percent of the total population and Asians constitute 

3.41 percent of the total population. The American Community Survey identifies four communities 

within the study area in Anne Arundel County. 

x Linthicum had a population of 7,765 in 2009, of which 91 percent are White. Nearly 71 percent 

of the households in Linthicum have incomes above $50,000. Only 5.7 percent of the 

households have incomes below $15,000. 

x As of 2009, Maryland City has a population of 6,786, of which 49 percent are White and nearly 

40 percent are African American. Over 66 percent of the households in Maryland City have 

incomes above $50,000. Only 3.8 percent have incomes below $15,000. 

x As of 2009, Odenton has a population of 25,530, of which 74.5 percent are White. Almost 80 

percent of the households in Odenton have incomes above $50,000. The number of households 

with incomes under $15,000 is only 3.4 percent. 

x As of 2009, Severn has a population of 38,248, of which 51.3 percent are White and 35.9 

percent are African American. Over 76 percent of the households in Severn have incomes above 

$50,000. The number of households with incomes under $15,000 is only 4.5 percent. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 37 January 2012 

Howard County

The current population of Howard County according to the 2010 Census is 287,085 which accounts for 

approximately 5 percent of the State’s total population. This is a 15.8 percent increase from the 

County’s 2000 population of 247,842. Over 62 percent of the County population is white. The African 

American population constitutes 17.48 percent of the total population and Asians constitute 14.36 

percent of the total population. The American Community Survey identifies two communities within the 

study area in Howard County. 

x As of 2009, Elkridge has a population of 22,925, of which 65.8 percent are African American and 

29.3 percent are White. Over 78 percent of the households in Elkridge have incomes above 

$50,000. The number of households with incomes under $15,000 is only 3.2 percent. 

x As of 2009, Jessup has a population of 11,612, of which 51.3 percent are White and 35.9 percent 

are African American. Over 71 percent of the households in Jessup have incomes above $50,000. 

The number of households with incomes under $15,000 is 5.5 percent. 

Prince George’s County

The current population of Prince George’s County according to the 2010 Census is 863,420 which 

accounts for 17.5 percent of the State’s total population. This is an increase of about 7.7 percent above 

the County’s 2000 population of 801,515. Over 64 percent of the County population is African 

American. The American Community Survey identifies 13 communities within the study area in Prince 

George’s County. 

7.2 Ethnicity and Income 

There are 20 communities in the study area which are listed in Table 7.1. Of these communities 11 

showed a larger population of minorities than the White population, mostly Black or African American, 

with one community showing a large Hispanic or Latino population. Most communities (12) yielded a 

median income between $50,000 and $74,999, with ethnic populations for eight of the 12 being 

predominantly Black or African American. Seven of the communities can be considered affluent, with 

median incomes between $100,000 and $149,999, with ethnic populations for five of the seven being 

predominately White. There were two communities (with large minority populations) with lower 

median incomes: Jessup and Riverdale Park. 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the poverty threshold to be at $15,000 per household for 2010 

(assuming that there is an average of two people per household). Most of the communities in the study 

area had 5 percent or less of their households with recorded income levels below $15,000. If any 

subsequent impact study or assessment of impacts were to be required in association with a potential 

future project to consider widening the B-W Parkway, a more detailed identification of environmental 

justice communities will need to be conducted. For the purposes of this initial feasibility study, Table 7.2 

identifies low income communities with incomes below $15,000. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 38 January 2012 

Table 7.1 Ethnicity and Income with the B-W Parkway Study Area 

Community Largest ethnic population Income range

Arbutus White $50,000 to $74,999 

Elkridge White $50,000 to $74,999 

Linthicum White $100,000 to $149,999 

Jessup Black or African American $35,000 to $49,999 

Severn White $100,000 to $149,999 

Maryland City White $50,000 to $74,999 

Odenton White $100,000 to $149,999 

Laurel Black or African American $50,000 to $74,999 

South Laurel Black or African American $50,000 to $74,999 

Greenbelt Black or African American $50,000 to $74,999 

Goddard Black or African American $50,000 to $74,999 

College Park White $50,000 to $74,999 

Glenn Dale Black or African American $100,000 to $149,999 

Bowie White $100,000 to $149,999 

University Park White $100,000 to $149,999 

Riverdale Park Hispanic or Latino $35,000 to $49,999 

Lanham-Seabrook Black or African American $50,000 to $74,999 

Woodlawn Black or African American $50,000 to $74,999 

Bladensburg Black or African American $50,000 to $74,999 

Cheverly Black or African American $100,000 to $149,999 

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s American FactFinder (http://factfinder.census.gov) 

2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 39 January 2012 

Table 7.2 Low Income Communities within the B-W Parkway Study Area 

Community Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 Total Below $15,000

College Park 10% 4.5% 14.5%* 

Riverdale Park <1% 5.5% ~6.0% 

Bladensburg 7.5% 4.6% 12.1% 

Cheverly 4.0% 5.7% 9.7% 

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s American FactFinder (http://factfinder.census.gov) 

2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

*Likely reflects student population at University of Maryland 

7.3 Employment

Baltimore County 

Within Baltimore County, approximately 66.6 percent of residents 16 years and over are employed; 66.5 

percent in the civilian labor force and 0.1 percent in the Armed Forces. The top civilian job industries in 

the County are educational, health, and social services (22.9 percent); retail trade (11.3 percent); and 

professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (10.5 percent). 

The mean household income is $50,667. 

There are approximately 59,000 federal, State, and local government jobs in Baltimore County. The 

Social Security Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation are among the federal agencies located within the County. Also located within the 

County are National and regional headquarters of leading corporations such as CareFirst BlueCross 

BlueShield, McCormick and Company, Stanley Black and Decker, and Proctor and Gamble. 

Although none of the employers described here are actually in the study area, the presence of large 

employment centers in Baltimore County has impacts on traffic and facility improvement needs in the 

corridor. 

Anne Arundel County 

Within Anne Arundel County, approximately 71.1 percent of residents 16 years and over are employed; 

68.1 percent in the civilian labor force and 3.0 percent in the Armed Forces. The top civilian job 

industries in the County are educational, health, and social services (17.1 percent); professional, 

scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (12.1 percent); and public 

administration (11.9 percent). The mean household income is $61,768. 

Approximately 357,027 workers are employed within Anne Arundel County. The major employers 

within the study area include Fort Meade (see additional information on Base Realignment and Closure 

below), AACPS, Baltimore Washington Thurgood Marshal Airport, and State and local government 

services. Large private sector employers include Northrop Grumman and Southwest Airlines. The Anne 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 40 January 2012 

Arundel Health System and the Baltimore Washington Medical Center are major employers just outside 

of the study area. 

Howard County 

Within Howard County, approximately 75.5 percent of residents 16 years and over are employed; 74.9 

percent in the civilian labor force and 0.6 percent in the Armed Forces. The top civilian jobs industries in 

the County are educational, health, and social services (21.7 percent); professional, scientific, 

management, administrative, and waste management services (16.2 percent); and public administration 

(10.6 percent). The mean household income is $74,167. 

Approximately 196,382 workers are employed in Howard County. The major employers within Howard 

County are HCPSS, and Howard County government. Large private sector employers include Verizon 

Wireless and Giant Food. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Lorien Health Systems, 

and Howard County General Hospital are major employers located just outside the study area. 

Prince George’s County 

Within Prince George’s County, approximately 70.8 percent of residents 16 years and over are 

employed; 69.7 percent in the civilian labor force and 1.1 percent in the Armed Forces. The top civilian 

job industries in the County are educational, health, and social services (20.0 percent); public 

administration (15.9 percent); and professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste 

management services (12.6 percent). The mean household income is $55,256. 

Approximately, 15,600 businesses are located within Prince George’s County which employs more than 

232,000 workers. The major employers within the County are the University System of Maryland, 

Andrews Air Force Base, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Census Bureau and NASA Goddard 

Space Flight Center. Large private employers include the United Parcel Service, Giant Food, Verizon 

Wireless, Dimensions Health Care System, and Safeway. The University System of Maryland, the U.S. 

Internal Revenue Service and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center are located within the study area. 

7.4 Base Realignment and Closure 

The Base Realignment and Closure is the process used by the DoD of closing excess military installations 

in the Country and realigning the total asset inventory, including personnel, to other installations. The 

concept of Base Realignment and Closure is to reduce expenditures of operations and maintenance, and 

thus increase efficiency in the military. The first round of Base Realignment and Closure began in 1989 

and over 350 installations have been closed to date. The most recent round of Base Realignment and 

Closure was completed in November 2005. Fort Meade was one of the installations slated for 

realignment. 

Fort Meade – Employment Positions 

Prior to Base Realignment and Closure actions, Fort Meade had an authorized population of 30,204 

uniformed military, civilian DoD, and embedded contractor positions. As part of Base Realignment and 

Closure, DoD is co-locating adjudication activities, media activities, and the DISA at Fort Meade. The 

Joint Spectrum Center in Annapolis, Maryland, and the Defense Cyber Crime Center in Linthicum, 

Maryland, are also being consolidated to Fort Meade. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 41 January 2012 

It is expected that as a result of Base Realignment and Closure, Fort Meade will gain about 5,700 onbase positions (Table 7.3). Estimates of off-base contractor positions associated with DISA activities 

moving to Fort Meade range from 3,000 to 5,000 additional employees. 

Table 7.3 Base Realignment and Closure -Related Position Increases Affecting Fort Meade 

Activity Military Civilian Embedded 

Contractors Total 

Adjudication Activities 22 816 113 951 

Media Activities 218 314 137 669 

DISA Activities 478 2,209 1,410 4,097 

Total Increase at Fort Meade 718 3,339 1,660 5,717 

(Source: Base Realignment and Closure Activities Affecting Aberdeen Proving Ground, Andrews Air Force Base, 

Bethesda Naval Hospital, and Fort Meade and in the State of Maryland, 2006) 

Organizations included in the adjudication activities and their previous locations are as follows: 

x Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, California, Ohio, Virginia, Arizona, Massachusetts 

x Air Force Central Adjudication Facility (CAF), Washington, DC 

x Navy CAF, Washington, DC 

x National Security Agency CAF, Linthicum, Maryland 

x Washington Headquarters Service CAF, Arlington, Virginia 

x Defense Intelligence Agency CAF, Washington, DC 

x Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, Columbus, Ohio 

x Joint Staff CAF, Washington, DC 

Organizations included in the media activities and their previous locations are as follows: 

x Soldiers Media Center, Alexandria, Fort Belvoir, and Crystal City, Virginia 

x Naval Media Center, Anacostia Annex, DC 

x Air Force News Service, Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas 

x American Forces Information Service, Crystal City, Virginia 

Organizations included in the DISA activities relocations are: 

x DISA, Arlington, Falls Church, and Springfield, Virginia 

x Joint Tactical Radio System Program Office, Arlington, Virginia 

x Deployable Joint Command and Control, Panama City, Florida 

x Joint Spectrum Center, Annapolis, Maryland 

x Joint Network Management System Program Office, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

x DISA Activity at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 42 January 2012 

Pay Grade and Income 

Pay grades for the adjudication activities will range from GS-5 to GS-15/O-6. Approximately 20 positions 

will be in the uppermost category, with the bulk of positions being in the GS-11 to GS-13 range. The 

average salary for the Washington, DC metropolitan area for the GS-11 to GS-13 range is $74,298. 

Applied to all the 838 military and civilian adjudication personnel whose functions are moving to Fort 

Meade, their combined annual pay would be approximately $62 million. 

Total estimated annual pay for military and DoD civilian positions related to media activities is about $34 

million, and the average annual pay for the 535 employees shown is about $63,700. 

Table 7.4 Estimated Average and Total Pay for All Position Increases at Fort Meade 

Activity Number of Positions Estimated Average Pay 

Per Position 

Total Pay for All 

Positions ($ millions) 

Adjudication 951 $74,300 $71 

Media 669 $63,700 $43 

DISA 4,097 $91,600 $375 

Total 5,717 $85,457 $489 

(Source: Base Realignment and Closure Activities Affecting Aberdeen Proving Ground, Andrews Air Force Base, 

Bethesda Naval Hospital, and Fort Meade and in the State of Maryland, 2006) 

Workforce Retention and Building the Workforce 

To retain institutional knowledge and intelligence during the Base Realignment and Closure transition, 

DoD has a goal of having 50% of the employees at Base Realignment and Closure -impacted defense 

organization relocate. Although current projections indicate that DoD will likely meet or exceed this 

goal, there will still be vacant positions created by those who chose not to relocate and due to attrition. 

In an effort to find qualified employees to fill these positions, the Maryland Department of Business and 

Economic Development partnered with the Maryland Higher Education Commission and the Maryland 

Department of Licensing and Regulation (DLLR) developed the Base Realignment and Closure Internship 

Center website, which serves as a resource for students seeking internship opportunities with military 

and defense contractors. To date, several hundred internships have been posted on the site (Source: 

State of Maryland Base Realignment and Closure Action Plan Report). 

The DLLR has also been working to help those seeking employment due to Base Realignment and 

Closure by hosting numerous outreach activities in the region to inform area residents about available 

job opportunities and career training for positions in the Fort Meade area due to Base Realignment and 

Closure. On April 17, 2010, a DISA job fair was held at Fort Meade to connect Maryland jobseekers with 

the Federal civilian and private industry job opportunities resulting from Base Realignment and Closure. 

As a result of this event, over 7,400 positions were filled (Source: State of Maryland Base Realignment 

and Closure Action Plan Report). 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 43 January 2012 

Additionally, DLLR has held two competitive rounds of grant funding to support projects for the Base 

Realignment and Closure -impacted installations. Funding of approximately $1 million has been used to 

develop multiple innovative projects focused on workforce development planning and readiness 

activities associated with Base Realignment and Closure in Maryland. Projects such as security clearance 

education, special facility training for building contractors, education for procurement and logistics 

specialists, and introducing high school students to careers in homeland security, have all been critical to 

building the workforce capacity necessary to sustain these missions as they relocate to Maryland. Over 

630 individuals have been trained for Base Realignment and Closure -related occupations as a result of 

these pilot projects (Source: State of Maryland Base Realignment and Closure Action Plan Report). 

Veterans have been a favored group within the community for Base Realignment and Closure -related 

employment as they have both the technical skills and an understanding of military protocol and 

operations. Many veterans also still have security clearances which are required for various Base 

Realignment and Closure positions. DLLR provides several services to assist veterans in the transition 

from the military to the civilian workforce. 

While the changes to levels of employment and income due to Base Realignment and Closure may not 

affect the feasibility of improvements directly, increases in the number of jobs available and incomes are 

associated with general increases in observed average daily traffic volumes on the highway facilities in 

the vicinity of Fort Meade. Since a substantial number of new jobs in the Fort Meade area are being 

created due to Base Realignment and Closure and the majority of the positions created will have salaries 

higher than the median household incomes of many of the surrounding communities, some increase in 

the total volume of traffic and vehicle miles of travel in general might be anticipated in the B-W Parkway 

corridor. 

Fort Meade Regional Transportation Committee 

According to the Regional Transportation Committee of the Fort Meade Regional Growth Management 

Committee, the Fort Meade workforce has grown from 35,000 to 56,000 since year 2007 as a result of 

the Base Realignment and Closure.4 Base Realignment and Closure has accounted for a total growth of 

the base of less than 30 percent over the six-year period from 2005 to 2011. The current Fort Meade 

workforce consists of an agency employment base of 56,000 supported by a civilian workforce of 

roughly 120,000. More than 95 percent of the 56,000 workforce resides off-site in locations across the 

region, including Northern Virginia. The Committee has estimated that 50 percent of the total is 

concentrated in an area that runs from northeast Anne Arundel County to southern Carroll County. 

Prior to Base Realignment and Closure growth, the Fort Meade workforce generated almost 300 million 

vehicle miles traveled per year. This value has increased since the growth of Base Realignment and 

Closure. 

According to the Committee, most of the workforce access Fort Meade via the B-W Parkway and MD 32, 

with the remaining using local roads. The distribution is shown in Figure 7.1. 

 

4

 Fort Meade Regional Growth Management Committee Regional Transportation Committee Meeting Summary 

12/06/2011 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 44 January 2012 

Figure 7.1 Traffic Distribution of Fort Meade Workforce 

(Source: Fort Meade Regional Growth Management Committee Regional Transportation Committee) 

The Regional Transportation Committee has worked since 2005 to prepare Fort Meade was prepared for 

the increase associated with Base Realignment and Closure. As such, efforts to make Fort Meade 

transportation-ready for Base Realignment and Closure involved a creation of a Transportation 

Management Plan that focused on travel demand management to reduce the vehicle demand to Fort 

Meade. To date, travel demand management efforts have resulted in approximately 5,500 of the 

workforce using alternative means to travel to Fort Meade. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 45 January 2012 

CHAPTER 8: Environmental Features 

The following describes the environmental features in the B-W Parkway study area. First, potential 

environmental justice impacts are described, followed by a discussion of air quality and noise data. 

Distinctive habitats and the animals that reside in these areas are noted in this section. Readily available 

data regarding floodplains and wetlands along the B-W Parkway Corridor is also noted. 

8.1 Air and Noise 

The B-W Parkway is located partially within the area of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (Howard, 

Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties) and partially within the area of the MWCOG (Prince George’s 

County) jurisdictions. For air quality, both of these multi jurisdiction metropolitan areas are designated 

as non-attainment areas for ground-level ozone and PM 2.5 according to federal health standards. 

Currently experienced noise levels along the B-W Parkway are typical of those associated with multilane suburban freeway/expressway type highways. The typically expected vehicle mix of private 

automobiles, buses, and commercial vehicles is observed in the northern portion of the study corridor 

which is owned and operated by the Maryland SHA. However, the NPS maintained section prohibits use 

of the facility by large trucks, therefore reducing noise levels. Individual noise generators in the study 

area include industrial areas with heavy truck traffic and aircraft operations at Baltimore Washington 

Thurgood Marshal Airport and local airports such as and Tipton airfield. 

8.2 Habitat 

Through a review of existing information, the following section discuses distinctive habitats and the 

animals that reside in these areas, including common birds found within the boundaries of the B-W 

Parkway study area. 

Baltimore County 

Baltimore County contains significant forest resources. However, in the small portion of the County 

within the study area, forest resources are limited. Patapsco Valley State Park is the most significant 

protected area of forest land in the vicinity of the study area. Significant forest stands exist along the 

Patapsco Valley just west of the study area. Patapsco Valley State Park extends along 32 miles of the 

Patapsco River, encompassing 16,043 acres and eight developed recreational areas.

Anne Arundel County 

Anne Arundel County has approximately 113,600 acres of woodland, representing 43 percent of the 

total land area of the County. Development has caused the fragmentation of the County’s forested 

lands over the past few decades. Most of the large remaining contiguous areas of woodlands are in the 

central or southern portions of the County along the Patuxent River. Consistent with that pattern there 

are significant areas of forested land associated with Federal ownership in Fort Meade. The B-W 

Parkway itself contributes to this pattern as it winds along the western edge of the Fort Meade area 

between the Patuxent River crossing and MD 32. Outside of Federal control there are significant 

forested areas along the Patuxent and Middle Patuxent watersheds. 

Almost three-quarters of the ecologically significant undeveloped land in Anne Arundel County are 

unprotected and vulnerable to further reduction and fragmentation. As of 2006 (the most recent year 

for which this data is available), a total of 41,350 acres of natural resource lands in the County has been 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 46 January 2012 

protected from development through Federal, State, County, or City of Annapolis ownership, 

conservation easements, Open Space zoning, and land trusts. 

The County has met State requirements to participate in and receive funding through the Program Open 

Space and Rural Legacy Programs. 

Howard County 

Approximately one-third of the total land area of Howard County, or about 52,500 acres, is covered in 

mixed hardwood forest. In the eastern part of the County, forest cover is more limited due to 

development, but can be found along stream valleys, such as those surrounding the Patuxent reservoirs. 

Heavy development in the County over the past several decades has led to increased forest 

fragmentation and a reduction of forest interior habitat. This allows for more invasive species and a loss 

of diversity among plant species. Forests in Howard County are protected under the Howard County 

Forest Conservation Act, passed in 1993, which has attempted to mitigate forest loss caused by 

development. 

Prince George’s County 

Forest lands within Prince George’s County are protected under the Woodland and Wildlife Habitat 

Conservation Ordinance. This ordinance requires the conservation of woodlands for development plans 

and grading permits involving sites that are 40,000 square feet or greater and contain a total of 10,000 

square feet of woodlands. 

Within the study area there are significant forested areas associated with the Patuxent Research Refuge 

and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, both under federal protection. In addition, the Greenbelt 

Park under the ownership of the NPS also contains a significant concentration of protected forest land. 

The B-W Parkway is either adjacent to, or runs through, each of these protected areas. 

8.3 Floodplains 

The following is a discussion of the existing 100-year floodplain for the study area. The geographic area 

of the base floodplain was obtained from Federal Emergency Management Agency maps and studies, 

including Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Hazard Boundary Maps. 

Baltimore County 

The Patapsco River, forming the boundary between Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County, 

contains significant floodplain areas within the study area. Regulations to protect floodplains from land 

development impacts were enacted in the 1990’s by Baltimore County. 

Anne Arundel County 

Anne Arundel County contains 12 watersheds. Within the study area there are floodplains associated 

with the non-tidal Patapsco River watershed, the Severn River watershed, the Little Patuxent River 

Watershed, the Upper Patuxent River watershed, and the Middle Patuxent River watershed. The B-W 

Parkway crosses all three branches of the Patuxent River in Anne Arundel County. 

Three types of flooding are typical in Anne Arundel County: non-tidal flooding from rivers and streams; 

tidal flooding from storm surges and tides; and coastal flooding from winds and heavy rains of tropical 

storms and hurricanes. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 47 January 2012 

Most floodplains within the County are zoned Open Space, which allows protection of the floodplain in 

its natural state. County floodplains are protected under the Floodplain Ordinance, the Subdivision 

Ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance. 

Howard County 

Howard County lies within the Patuxent and Patapsco watersheds, approximately three-quarters in the 

Patuxent watershed and one-quarter in the Patapsco watershed. Numerous tributaries flow off of these 

streams which drain large areas of the County. Much of the land along the main stems and tributaries 

are protected under permanent public ownership, although significant gaps still exist. Floodplains are 

located along these stream valleys and their tributaries. To protect these sensitive areas of the County, 

development in the defined 100-year floodplain area has been prohibited since the 1970’s. 

Within the study area there are floodplains in Howard County associated with the Patuxent River, the 

Middle Patuxent River, and the Little Patuxent River. On the northern end of the study area, MD 295 is 

adjacent to floodplains associated with Deep Run, a tributary of the Patapsco River. 

Prince George’s County 

Prince George’s County lies within both the Patuxent River and the Middle/Lower Potomac River basins. 

Floodplains occur along the streams and tributaries that run throughout the County. New development 

in Prince George’s County must be carefully designed to ensure flooding in Prince George’s County is not 

aggravated. Prince George’s County reviews stormwater plans as part of the land development process 

to ensure new developments preserve the floodplain and do not impact downstream land owners. 

Within the study area in Prince George’s County, the B-W Parkway crosses the floodplain of the 

Patuxent River and the upper reaches of tributaries to the Anacostia River. 

8.4 Wetlands 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a wetland is an area that is inundated or 

saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, 

marshes, bogs and similar areas. Through a review of existing and readily available standard natural 

resource documents specific to the study area, the following is a discussion of the wetlands located in 

the B-W Parkway study area.

Baltimore County 

Within the study area in Baltimore County, there are wetlands in the Patapsco River watershed. 

Regulations were enacted in the 1990’s to help protect wetland resources from draining and filling 

associated with land development. 

Anne Arundel County 

Anne Arundel County has over 500 miles of tidal shoreline and large areas of tidal wetlands. Tidal 

wetlands are important to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, providing protection from sediment and 

nutrient runoff, flooding, and erosion. 

Over half of the wetlands in Anne Arundel County are upland or non-tidal wetlands. Anne Arundel 

County has several bogs along the tidal section of the Patapsco River. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 48 January 2012 

Wetlands within Anne Arundel County are protected through implementation and enforcement of the 

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program. Non-tidal wetlands have additional protection under the 

sensitive areas criteria of the County Grading Ordinance and the County Subdivision Ordinance. 

Wetlands existing along the Patuxent and Middle Patuxent stream valleys in Anne Arundel County are in 

the closest proximity of the B-W Parkway. 

Howard County 

Howard County is bounded by two major rivers, the Patuxent and the Patapsco, which are protected as 

part of a State park system along most of their lengths. Wetlands are found along these stream valleys 

and their tributaries. To protect these sensitive areas of the County, a 25-foot undisturbed buffer is 

required around all non-tidal wetlands. Since most wetlands within the County are located within the 

100-year floodplain, they had additional protection from development. 

Prince George’s County 

Prince George’s County has 22,530 mapped acres of vegetated wetlands. These tidal and non-tidal 

wetlands exist as submerged, forested, ponded, and shrub/scrub wetlands. These wetlands are 

protected by both Tidal and Non-tidal Wetland Protection Acts. The wetlands within closest proximity 

to the B-W Parkway are in areas near the Patuxent River and on lands associated with the Patuxent 

Research Refuge and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 49 January 2012 

Figure 8.1: Environmental Features illustrates the existing environmental features in the study area. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 50 January 2012 

CHAPTER 9: Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources involve physical assets of an architectural, historical, or archaeological nature that 

reveals the past. As noted below, readily available existing data on cultural resources from published 

sources, including the NPS, the Maryland State Historic Preservation Office, and local cultural resource 

agencies shall be discussed. 

9.1 Architectural History Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) requires that historic 

properties be considered while planning and executing any undertaking requiring federal permits or 

funds. Generally, historic properties are those that are more than 50 years of age, and that are 

presently listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

The currently defined general boundaries of the B-W Parkway study area encompasses a large 

geographic area that contains approximately 1,350 previously identified and/or evaluated built 

resources more than 50 years of age according to Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), Maryland State 

Historic Preservation Office, GIS data and files. These built resources may include buildings, structures, 

sites, objects, and districts. Although detailed engineering plans have not been developed and the Area 

of Potential Effects associated with any potential action cannot be defined at this early feasibility study 

phase, the Area of Potential Effects for architectural history resources would likely be much more 

constrained and limited to an area flanking the limits of disturbance. 

In an effort to provide useful information to assess the potential feasibility of adding a third lane in each 

direction along the Parkway, architectural historians studied more closely an area within 500 feet of the 

existing northbound and southbound travel lanes to determine the presence of historic properties. 

Within this more narrowly defined area, there are nineteen properties that were previously identified: 

two historic properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, six historic properties 

that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and 11 resources that have been 

identified but not evaluated. For Section 106 purposes, listed and eligible historic properties are treated 

the same. Those resources that have not been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places 

eligibility would need to be evaluated in any later project development phases. These properties are 

listed in Table 9.1 and also shown on Figure 9.1. 

Of specific note, the B-W Parkway (also known locally as the Gladys Noon Spellman Parkway) is itself 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places for its historic associations with transportation and 

landscape architecture. This historic property encompasses the area from the Washington, DC, border 

to just south of MD 175 and includes the historic right-of-way. Within this area are numerous 

contributing elements such as bridges, culverts, and landscape architecture components that are 

character-defining features of the parkway. 

Additional resources more than 50 years of age may be present within this 500-foot buffer area around 

the parkway and the greater study area. Later phases of work, which will include reconnaissance and 

intensive-level surveys and archival research, will identify these resources, which will then be evaluated 

for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. All historic properties will then be assessed to 

determine if any of the potentially proposed actions will have an adverse effect on them. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 51 January 2012 

Table 9.1 Historic/Potentially Historic Properties within 500 Feet of the B-W Parkway 

Property Name MIHP Number County Status 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway (Gladys 

Noon Spellman Parkway) 

AA-5/PG:61-23 Anne Arundel/Prince 

George’s 

NRHP Listed 

Cronmiller Outbuilding AA-31 Anne Arundel Not Evaluated 

Sachs Residence AA-89 Anne Arundel NRHP Eligible 

Summerfield Benson House AA-111 Anne Arundel Not Evaluated 

Clark/Vogel House AA-760 Anne Arundel NRHP Eligible 

M. Bannon House AA-806 Anne Arundel Not Evaluated 

Matthias Harman House site (The 

Wilderness) 

AA-934 Anne Arundel Not Evaluated 

Jessup Survey District AA-991 Anne Arundel Not Evaluated 

Andrew Harman Cemetery AA-1035 Anne Arundel Not Evaluated 

Race Road House AA-1099 Anne Arundel Not Evaluated 

Patapsco State Park AA-2290/HO-759 Anne Arundel/Howard Not Evaluated 

DC Children's Center-Forest Haven 

District (Facility Closed) 

AA-2364 Anne Arundel NRHP Eligible 

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center PG:62-14 Prince George’s NRHP Eligible 

Greenbelt National Register Historic 

District 

PG:67-4 Prince George’s NRHP Listed 

Beltsville ARC, #510 PG:67-28 Prince George’s NRHP Eligible 

Fort Lincoln Cemetery PG:68-15 Prince George’s NRHP Eligible 

Crawford's Adventure Spring PG:69-14 Prince George’s Not Evaluated 

Cheverly Historic Community PG:69-24 Prince George’s Not Evaluated 

DC Boundary Marker NE #8 (Kenilworth 

Stone) 

PG:72-14 Prince George’s Not Evaluated 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 52 January 2012 

Other historic properties are present within the area directly outside of this 500-foot buffer area 

containing the nineteen historic properties. When more project information is known and an Area of 

Potential Effects is delineated in consultation with the MHT, these historic properties may need to be 

considered as well. However, for the purposes of this initial assessment, architectural historians 

determined that a distance of 500 feet beyond the existing edge of roadway was a logical area on which 

to focus for this initial feasibility study. 

The presence of eligible or listed historic properties does not preclude any potential physical 

improvement activity. Some project impacts may not constitute adverse effects. Other potential 

adverse effects may be avoided or minimized with careful project planning. In some instances, adverse 

effects to historic properties are not avoidable and specific mitigation actions would need to be 

developed to compensate for these adverse effects. 

9.2 Archeological Resources

This preliminary archeological assessment is based on a review of the Geographic Information Systems 

archeological database maintained by MHT. The following section provides: 1) a summary of prior 

archeological surveys within the current study corridor, 2) previously identified archeological sites in 

close proximity to the parkway, and 3) a general consideration of areas of elevated potential for 

unidentified archeological resources. 

Although the B-W Parkway runs close to the Fall Line, the boundary between Maryland’s Piedmont and 

Coast Plain geological provinces, the entire parkway falls within the Coastal Plain Drainages of the 

Patapsco, Patuxent and Potomac Rivers (Maryland Archeological Research Units 7, 8 and 11). The 

parkway’s irregular right-of-way extends out to a width of between 400 and 800 feet, and contains: 1) 

the north and south dual-lane roadways, 2) a variable median with a width of 15 to 200 feet, and 3) a 

flanking buffer with a mix of natural forest and cultivated native vegetation. 

For the purposes of the current assessment, data was analyzed for a corridor extending 500 feet from 

the roadway centerline, although this study corridor was extended out to 1,000 feet at major 

interchanges (in order to accommodate additional construction impacts that might occur in these 

areas). The original construction of the parkway and intersecting roadway interchanges would have 

resulted in the disturbance of many of the landforms the alignment crosses. However, as the Parkway 

design was predicated on the preservation of natural topography and vegetation, the level of 

disturbance will be variable and more intact landforms with well preserved archeological resources may 

still exist. Although it is more likely that potentially significant archeological resources would be found 

along the less disturbed portions of the flanking wooded buffers, given the width of some portions of 

the Parkway median, there is some potential that archeological site areas may be found within the more 

intact portions of the current Parkway median area. 

Baltimore County 

Although the current study area extends into Baltimore County, the overlap is limited to the area 

surrounding the interchange of MD 295 and I-695. There are no records of a systematic archeological 

survey of this area and no previously identified archeological sites have been recorded. The land use in 

this area is characterized by dense commercial/institutional development to the northwest of the 

roadway and dense residential development to the southeast. However, considering the close proximity 

of the Patapsco River floodplain to the north, this area would be considered to have a relatively high 

potential for prehistoric archeological sites; and, therefore, undeveloped areas including the wooded 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 53 January 2012 

margins along both sides of the Parkway may need to be surveyed. There does not appear to have been 

any significant early historic development in this area, so the potential for historic archeological sites 

would be considered low. 

Anne Arundel County 

The central portion of the B-W Parkway corridor is split between Anne Arundel and Prince George’s 

Counties. There is a significantly greater amount of archeological data available for the Anne Arundel 

portion of the alignment. While overlapping survey boundaries make it difficult to identify each survey 

area, there have been approximately 20 previous archeological surveys that include a portion of the 500 

to 1,000 feet corridor under consideration. A total of 35 previously identified archeological sites fall 

within the entire study corridor. Of these sites, a total of 29 are within Anne Arundel County (85 

percent). However, it should be noted that this statistic may have more to do with the greater intensity 

of development in Anne Arundel County (and therefore the number of development related surveys) 

than the actual distribution of archeological sites. The relatively high development in this portion of the 

corridor has also had an effect on the integrity of the identified sites, with many being noted as having 

Total/Major (n=8), Moderate (n=4), and Unknown (n=15) levels of prior disturbance. Only four of the 

identified sites were identified as being considered undisturbed. 

The previously recorded sites are evenly divided between sites associated with prehistoric and historic 

periods of occupation, and there are six sites that contain both components. Prehistoric sites tended to 

represent low density lithic scatters (n=11); although short term resource procurement sites dating to 

the Archaic and Woodland Period were also identified (n=5), as well as one Woodland Period base 

camp. The latter site (18AN264) lies within the currently defined study corridor, northwest of the B-W 

Parkway facility near Race Road. The site is reported to have been disturbed by gravel mining, but the 

actual extent of the disturbance is unknown. As the site has not been formally evaluated for the 

National Register of Historic Places, additional investigations would be required if the proposed 

undertaking would have an impact on the site. 

Historic period sites tend to represent the remains of fairly small mid-nineteenth to twentieth-century 

farms, although three sites with possible eighteenth- century components have been identified. Two of 

the three earlier sites were determined to be disturbed; however, the level of disturbance of the 

remaining site (18AN914) is listed as unknown. Although this potential eighteenth-century farm site is 

located outside the 1,000-foot corridor, given its location directly adjacent to the MD 175 interchange 

for NSA/Fort Meade, additional evaluation may be required. 

Prior disturbance is one of the prime factors as to whether a site is determined eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. A number of previously identified sites have been determined Not Eligible 

(n=7). However, as a formal determination of eligibility was not required on many earlier site records, 

the majority of the sites have not been formally evaluated for the National Register of Historic Places 

(n=21). Only one previously recorded site (18AN596) has been formally determined eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places. This historic German American farmstead is located directly 

adjacent to the B-W Parkway, in a wooded area in the southwest quadrant of the MD 100 interchange 

and potential construction impacts would need to be avoided, minimized or mitigated. 

Although a detailed evaluation of archeological potential is beyond the scope of this preliminary 

analysis, there are portions of the parkway alignment that can be identified as having higher potential 

for archeological sites, based on a variety of environmental and land-use factors. As the north part of 

the Anne Arundel County alignment runs south of the floodplain of the Patapsco River, this area would 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 54 January 2012 

be considered to have an elevated potential for prehistoric sites, particularly in the area between I-195 

and MD 100 where portions of the Patapsco Valley State Park lie directly north and east of the Parkway. 

There are numerous small streams systems south of the Patapsco watershed that would have been 

attractive locations for prehistoric occupation. Other significant areas of elevated prehistoric 

archeological potential would be well drained, elevated landforms in the vicinity of the Patuxent River 

drainage. This is especially true of the portion of the B-W Parkway between MD 32 and MD 175, where 

the roadway is bordered by the extensive Patuxent Research Refuge and a number of other smaller 

wooded areas associated with a series of small local parks. 

An examination of historic mapping for the northern portion of the Anne Arundel County alignment 

suggests that there was little development along the eventual alignment of the B-W Parkway until the 

early twentieth-century. A United States Geological Survey quadrangle map for 1907 shows scatted 

individual farms or other structures along this portion of the alignment; however, few of these are 

located in nucleated communities. The greatest concentration of these scattered properties appears to 

fall between I-195 and MD 100, suggesting that this portion of the alignment would have an elevated 

potential for historic period archeological resources. This dispersed early settlement pattern continues 

along the southern portion of the Anne Arundel County alignment, with early twentieth-century 

mapping showing a loose cluster of structures along the eventual B-W Parkway alignment near 

Annapolis Junction north of MD 32, MD 198 (Laurel-Fort Meade Road), and Brock Bridge Road. 

Additional areas of historic archeological potential could be associated with the historic community of 

Jessup west of the B-W Parkway at the MD 175 interchange. 

Howard County 

Only a small portion of the archeological study corridor extends into Howard County, in the area 

between I-195 and MD 100. There does not appear to have been any systematic archeological survey 

coverage within this limited area. Although there are a number of previously identified Howard County 

archeological sites in the vicinity of the Parkway, none of these falls within the 500- to 1,000-foot 

corridor under evaluation. The land use in this area is characterized by limited modern development. 

Because of the close proximity of the Deep Run floodplain on the north side of the Parkway, this area 

would be considered to have a relatively high potential for prehistoric archeological sites. Undeveloped 

areas, including the wooded margins along northern side of the road, may need to be surveyed. There 

does not appear to have been any significant early historic development in this area, hence the potential 

for historic period sites would be considered low. 

Prince George’s County 

Although there has been significantly less archeological survey work and fewer sites identified along the 

Prince George’s County portion of the Parkway, this may be due to the relative intensity of 

development, rather than actual differences in archeological site distributions. A total of five previously 

identified sites fell within the 500- to 1,000-foot buffer of the current study corridor, none of which has 

had a formal determination of eligibility. Five of these sites date to the prehistoric period, while only 

one was associated with a historic period occupation. The historic site (18PR440) represents the ruins 

of a nineteenth- through early twentieth-century property that lie adjacent to the Parkway west of the 

MD 197 interchange. 

Two of the identified prehistoric sites represent low density lithic scatters with fairly low research 

potential. The other two sites contained sufficient diagnostic artifacts to be dated to the Archaic Period. 

These two sites are located in wooded areas along Beaverdam Creek on the west (18PR83) and east 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 55 January 2012 

(18PR82) sides of the parkway north of NASA Godard Space Flight Center. While the majority of the 

sites fall outside the 500-foot study corridor, they are close enough to the roadway that they may need 

additional investigations should the Parkway widening disturbance extend out this far. 

As noted above, established parklands are likely to have undergone more limited levels of modern soil 

disturbance than more developed areas. As a result, well drained, elevated landforms contained in 

parks in the vicinity of major stream systems are considered to have elevated archeological potential. 

These conditions are found further south in the Prince George’s County portion of the Parkway 

alignment, where the roadway passes through Greenbelt Park. Wooded areas of the park flank both 

sides of the roadway. South of the park, the Parkway passes through an area of more extensive 

residential development; however, the parkway right-of-way is fairly broad through this portion of the 

alignment, so that the wooded buffers on each side of the roadway may include landforms with 

relatively high potential for prehistoric sites. The southern terminus of the current study area, in the 

vicinity of the U.S. Route 50 interchange, extends into the main floodplain of the Anacostia River. As a 

result, the wooded margins along the roadway in this area (particularly south of MD 450) may also 

contain landforms with a higher potential for prehistoric sites. 

Historic development along the Prince George’s portion of the B-W Parkway alignment was even more 

dispersed than in Anne Arundel County. Few historic structures are shown on historic mapping of the 

area until the early twentieth century when sparse scatterings of individual farms or residences start to 

show up along the eventual intersection of B-W Parkway and MD 197 (Laurel-Bowie Road). Additional 

areas of historic archeological potential could be associated with historic communities of Greenbelt 

(north of MD 193) and Cheverly (south of MD 202). 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 56 January 2012 

CHAPTER 10: Tourism/Visitor Use and Experience 

10.1 Tourism 

The B-W Parkway connects the two large tourist destinations of Washington, DC, and Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

The NPS reported a total of approximately 28.5 million visitors to NPS properties in the District of 

Columbia in 2011, a decrease of approximately 2.1 million from 2010 as shown in Table 10.1 below. 

Table 10.1 Annual Visitation to NPS Properties in the District of Columbia 

District of Columbia

Park DEC 2010 DEC 2011 Difference YTD 2010 YTD 2011 Difference

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal NHP 50,133 50,133 0 986,697 932,197 -54,500

Ford's Theatre NHS 31,948 31,948 0 662,298 618,647 -43,651

Franklin Delano Roosevelt MEM 32,075 32,075 0 2,238,052 2,184,364 -53,688

Frederick Douglass NHS 2,058 2,058 0 44,699 47,173 2,474

Korean War Veterans Memorial 74,987 74,986 -1 3,072,716 2,784,177 -288,539

Lincoln Memorial 226,400 226,400 0 6,042,315 5,366,047 -676,268

Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial 0 0 0 0 830,111 830,111

Mary McLeod Bethune Council House NHS 92 92 0 19,520 11,087 -8,433

National Capital Parks Central 18,432 18,432 0 1,363,389 1,240,403 -122,986

National Capital Parks East 58,816 58,816 0 1,063,764 832,889 -230,875

Pennsylvania Avenue NHS 8,933 8,933 0 262,030 233,231 -28,799

President's Park 37,181 124,640 87,459 616,635 786,151 169,516

Rock Creek Park 76,931 76,930 -1 1,883,457 2,014,792 131,335

Thomas Jefferson MEM 47,072 47,072 0 2,305,856 1,907,723 -398,133

Vietnam Veterans MEM 109,013 109,013 0 4,555,371 3,746,227 -809,144

Washington Monument 34,459 34,459 0 628,665 511,082 -117,583

White House 88,449 88,449 0 922,335 523,440 -398,895

World War II Memorial 79,808 79,808 0 3,964,351 3,977,684 13,333

District of Columbia Total 976,787 1,064,244 87,457 30,632,150 28,547,425 -2,084,725

National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office 

National Park Service Visitor Summary Report - Total Recreation Visits for December, 2011 

Source: http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 57 January 2012 

The National Capital Parks East, also referred to as parks Beyond the Capital of Washington, DC, is 13 

park sites, parkways, and statuary covering more than 8,000 acres of historic, cultural, and recreational 

parklands from Capitol Hill to the Maryland suburbs. It includes the B-W Parkway and Greenbelt Park. 

The National Capital Parks East reports a total of 6,101,549 recreational and non-recreational visits 

through September 2011 as shown in Table 10.2. Of this total the B-W Parkway experienced 4,429,802 

of the total visits. 

Baltimore experienced approximately 21.3 million domestic visitors in 2010, a 4.4 percent increase from 

2009 according to the latest research conducted by Longwoods International. Of those visitors, 15 

percent of the trips were for business, 42 percent were for leisure, and 39 percent were for visits to 

family and friends. Baltimore also experienced an additional 900,000 day-trip visitors for leisure 

activities in 2010. 

The corridor also contains many attractions itself. The corridor is home to the Patapsco Valley State 

Park, Patuxent River State Park, Greenbelt Park, and environmental research facilities including Beltsville 

Agricultural Research Center and the Patuxent Research Refuge. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 

provides opportunities for visitors to experience the space program and its history. Bowie State 

University, the University of Maryland – College Park, and the University of Maryland – University 

College are all located within the study area and attract visitors for sporting events, conferences, and 

campus functions throughout the year. The B-W Parkway is also part of the Star-Spangled Banner Scenic 

Byway in Maryland which connects various locations throughout Maryland that were of significance 

during the British Invasion of the Chesapeake Bay during the War of 1812. 

10.2 Visitor Use and Experience 

The B-W Parkway provides a park setting to welcome visitors and locals alike to the Nation’s capital, but 

no real opportunities for visitors to stop and experience the park. Greenbelt Park is divided by the B-W 

Parkway and was part of the land that the NPS acquired for the roadway. The east portion of the park is 

undeveloped except for a fire road. The west section contains all of the park facilities including a 

campground, picnic areas, trail, a park police substation, and offices. The park is open all year long for 

locals and visitors to the area. Greenbelt Park is only 12 miles from Washington, DC, and has the 

distinction of being the closest campground to the White House which is just 13 miles away. The park 

entrance is located off of MD 193 – Greenbelt Road. 

Greenbelt Park experienced approximately 184,505 recreational visits through November 2010 as 

reported by NPS. During the same time in 2010, Greenbelt Park experienced 265,027 recreational visits, 

a 30 percent decline as shown in Table 10.3.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 58 January 2012 

Table 10.2 Reported Visitation at NPS National Capital Parks East Units 

Monthly Public Use Report

National Capital Parks East 09/2011 3500

September 2011

Recreational Non-Recreational Total Calendar

Year-To-Date 

Visits 94,599 131,580 226,179 6,101,549

Visitor Hours 98,398 32,895 131,293 4,323,279

Fiscal YTD

Total Fiscal YTD Visitor Days 667,669

Recreation O/N stays Current Month Year-To-Date

Concessioner Lodging 0 0 NPS Campgrounds

Tents 0

R/V's 0

Total 0

Concessioner Campgrounds 0 0

NPS Campgrounds 0 0

NPS Backcountry 0 0

NPS Miscellaneous 0 0

Non Recreation O/N stays 0 0

Total Overnight stays 0 0

This Month Same Month

Last Year Percent Change 

Total Rec 94,599 130,581 - 27.56 %

Total NonRec 131,580 1,858,740 - 92.92 %

Total Visits 226,179 1,989,321 - 88.63 %

Total YTD 6,101,549 17,452,993 - 65.04 %

Special Use Data This Month Year-To-Date

FORT DUPONT 6,550 42,375

CAPITOL HILLS PARKS 45,400 306,450

KENILWORTH 0 0

SUITLAND PARKWAY 0 1

ANACOSTIA 172,810 1,301,490

BALTIMORE/WASH PARKWAY 0 4,429,802

OXON COVE 1,419 21,432

National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office 

Monthly Public Use Report, National Capital Parks East, September 2011 

Source: http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm

Table 10.2 Reported Visitation at NPS National Capital Parks East Units (continued) 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report 59 January 2012 

Monthly Public Use Report

Greenbelt Park 11/2011 3535

November 2011

Recreational Non-Recreational Total Calendar

Year-To-Date 

Visits 10,534 0 10,534 184,505

Visitor Hours 44,300 0 44,300 819,457

Fiscal YTD

Total Fiscal YTD Visitor Days 10,197

Recreation O/N stays Current Month Year-To-Date

Concessioner Lodging 0 0 NPS Campgrounds

Tents 228

R/V's 828

Total 1,056

Concessioner Campgrounds 0 0

NPS Campgrounds 1,056 21,343

NPS Backcountry 0 0

NPS Miscellaneous 167 2,926

Non Recreation O/N stays 0 0

Total Overnight stays 1,223 24,269

This Month Same Month

Last Year Percent Change 

Total Rec 10,534 10,897 - 3.33 %

Total NonRec 0 0 0.00 %

Total Visits 10,534 10,897 - 3.33 %

Total YTD 184,505 265,027 - 30.38 %

Special Use Data This Month Year-To-Date

TOTAL VEHICLES AT MAIN ENTRANCE 3,178 51,929

TOTAL VISITOR CENTER 1,688 36,321

WALKS, TALKS, HIKES 45 2,023

TOTAL PROGRAMS GIVEN 27 693

CAMPFIRE PROGRAMS 30 215

TOTAL CONTACTS 2,191 44,830

OFF-SITE PROGRAMS 428 6,271

National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office 

Monthly Public Use Report, Greenbelt Park, November 2011 

Source: http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-1 January 2012 

Appendix A 

A-1 Base Year (2005) Model Validation Report 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-2 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-3 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-4 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-5 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-6 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-7 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-8 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-9 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report A-10 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report B-1 January 2012 

Appendix B 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report B-2 January 2012 

B-1 Proposed Land Use – Baltimore County 

Source: Baltimore County 

Baltimore County Master Plan 2020, Map 5, Page 36 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report B-3 January 2012 

B-2 Prince Georges County Planning Areas Map 

Prince George's County 

Planning Areas Map 

Source: Prince Georges County 

http://www.pgplanning.org/Resources/Planning_Areas.htm
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report B-4 January 2012 

B-3 Public and Private Schools 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report B-5 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report B-6 January 2012 

B-4 Parks and Recreational Facilities 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report B-7 January 2012 

B-5 Fire and Police Stations 

B-6 Libraries 

B-7 Airports and Heliports 

Feature Name State County TYPE

Prince Georges Hospital Center Heliport MD Prince George's Heliport

Metroplex Heliport MD Prince George's Heliport

Queen Chapel Airport (historical) MD Prince George's Airport

College Park Airport MD Prince George's Airport

Schrom Airport (historical) MD Prince George's Airport

Suburban Airport MD Anne Arundel Airport

Greater Laurel Beltsville Hospital Heliport MD Prince George's Heliport

Maryland State Police Glen Burnie Barrack Heliport MD Anne Arundel Heliport

Baltimore-Washington International Airport MD Anne Arundel Airport

Maritime Institute Heliport MD Anne Arundel Heliport

Security Ford Heliport MD Baltimore Heliport
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-1 January 2012 

Appendix C 

C-1 Fort Meade Regional Growth Management 

Committee, Regional Transportation Committee 

Presentation 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-2 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-3 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-4 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-5 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-6 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-7 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-8 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-9 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-10 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-11 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-12 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-13 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-14 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-15 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-16 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-17 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-18 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-19 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-20 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-21 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-22 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-23 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-24 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-25 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-26 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-27 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-28 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-29 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-30 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-31 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-32 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-33 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Existing Conditions Report 

Existing Conditions Report C-34 January 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

AppendixǦTraffic and Travel Demand Technical

Report
B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n P a r k w a y F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y

Photo from NPS website Photo by: Adam Elmquist Photo by: Alex Nitzman

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T | J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 2

TASK 4: TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL 

DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Task 4 Technical Report 

Draft Technical Report 1 January 2012 

Definition and Purpose

In recognition of the location of the Baltimore-Washington (B-W) Parkway within a complex and well 

developed area linking the urban areas of the Baltimore and Washington metropolitan regions, a studyarea, corridor-focused travel demand forecasting model was developed and applied to the B-W Parkway 

Widening Feasibility Study. The purpose of this corridor-level travel demand forecasting model was to 

properly assess the effects of the potential for the widening of the B-W Parkway mainline upon the 

traffic operations of the B-W Parkway and its primary connecting roadways. 

The B-W Parkway corridor overlaps the boundaries of the regional travel demand forecasting model 

areas as independently developed by two different entities: the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments’ (MWCOG) Transportation Planning Board (TPB) and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council’s 

(BMC) Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB). These agencies are, respectively, the federally 

designated metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for the Washington and Baltimore regions. Both 

the MWCOG/TPB-developed regional model and the BMC/BRTB-developed regional model estimates 

travel on major facilities within and between Maryland counties such as Montgomery, Prince George’s 

Counties, Howard and Anne Arundel Counties. But each model does not estimate travel patterns along 

a number of important secondary facilities within these counties. For example, the MWCOG/TPBdeveloped regional model does not estimate travel on secondary facilities in Howard and Anne Arundel 

Counties, and the BMC/BRTB-developed regional model does not estimate travel on secondary facilities 

in Montgomery and Prince Georges’ Counties. Although various studies have been initiated to combine 

the models of these two entities, a final combined model for project-level use has yet to be developed. 

For the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study, it was decided that the MWCOG/TPB 

travel demand forecasting model would be the base, with selective enhancements to more accurately 

reflect the structure of the BMC/BRTP model in the northern portions of the Parkway corridor 

associated with Anne Arundel and Howard Counties. The resulting quasi-merger of these two adjacent 

regional scale travel demand forecasting models would allow for more detailed travel estimates to be 

prepared over the entire length of the B-W Parkway, and facilitate a better understanding of the travel 

demands generated by the planned improvements, including the BRAC activities at Fort Meade, on the 

overall operations of the corridor. MWCOG staff agreed to develop and calibrate their regional travel 

demand forecasting model for the purposes of this study to provide the base year (2005) and future 

year (2040) traffic volume estimates to be further examined by the members of the study team. 

In the preparation of the future year (2040) travel demand forecasts, the currently projected population 

and employment forecasts for the two metropolitan areas were used in conjunction with the currently 

adopted, fiscally constrained long-range transportation plans for the two regions. With these factors 

being held constant, the MWCOG regional model’s highway network characteristics were adjusted only 

for consideration of the following geometric changes to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway: 

x The 2040 No-Build Option – continuation of the NPS portion of the Parkway cross section as it 

currently exists today, with a widening assumed for the SHA owned portion of the facility north 

of MD 175 to create a 6-lane mainline cross section. 

x The 2040 Partial Build Option – the addition of a third northbound lane and a third southbound 

lane for the NPS owned portion of the Parkway between the interchange with the Capital 

Beltway (I-495/I-95) and MD 175. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Task 4 Technical Report 

Draft Technical Report 2 January 2012 

x The 2040 Full Build Option – the addition of a third northbound lane and a third southbound 

lane for the entire NPS owned portion of the Parkway between the interchange with US Route 

50 (New York Avenue) and the MD 175 interchange. Combined with the widened SHA portion of 

the Parkway north of MD 175, a consistent 6-lane mainline facility would be created between 

New York Avenue and the Baltimore Beltway. 

The purpose of this report is to document the corridor-level travel demand model development, model 

calibration, and initial application process used by MWCOG staff to develop travel estimates for the 

Baltimore Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study. This information was provided by MWCOG 

staff to Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division on April 22, 2011. The 

following pages, reproduced without change or the additional of any commentary, are the technical 

memorandum and supplemented information provided by MWCOG to FHWA at that time. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Task 4 Technical Report 

Draft Technical Report 3 January 2012 

TASK 4: TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL DEMAND 

MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

ATTACHMENT A 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Base Year 

(2005) Model Validation 
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board 777 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20002-4290 (202) 962-3310 Fax: (202) 962-3202 TDD: (202) 962-3213

M E M O R A N D U M 

To: Files

From: Dusan Vuksan, Feng Xie, Yu Gao

Date: April 21, 2011

Subject: Baltimore-Washington Parkway Base Year (2005) Model Validation

BACKGROUND

Transportation Planning Board (TPB) staff used the Version 2.2 travel demand model 

based on the 2010 CLRP and Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecasts land use as the basis for 

this study. They reflect the latest planning assumptions adopted by the MWCOG/TPB 

Board for Air Quality Conformity Determination (November 2010). The TPB modeled 

area is depicted on Map 1. 

This draft memorandum documents the MWCOG/TPB staff’s validation work efforts for 

this study, which calls for the evaluation of two potential alternatives defined as follows: 

• Alternative A (Full Build): A third through lane in each direction of travel along the 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway between New York Avenue and Baltimore Beltway 

• Alternative B (Partial Build): A third through lane in each direction of travel along the 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway between the Washington Beltway and Baltimore 

Beltway 

Additional direct access interchanges may be considered in build alternatives. 

Preliminary work scopes created by COG / TPB staff and FHWA staff are both attached.

BASE YEAR (2005) MODEL VALIDATION

The basis for the validation network assumptions is the 2005 network based on the 

2010 CLRP. The MWCOG/TPB model network, which was developed for regional travel 

demand forecasting applications, was selectively enhanced in the study area in order to 

add relevant detail and definition for a corridor study application, such as the BaltimoreWashington Parkway study. 

As was originally identified in the MWCOG/TPB Preliminary Scope of Work proposal 

(dated November 18, 2010), parts of this project’s study area are located outside of the 

MWCOG/TPB planning area and near the external stations of our modeled area in Anne 
Arundel and Howard counties. In many of these outlying areas, transportation analysis 

zones are fairly large, a configuration that is acceptable for regional travel demand 

forecasting but may not be ideal for corridor level analyses. In light of the limited 

involvement of MWCOG/TPB in this project, the TAZ structure was not changed. 

Instead, network improvements related to the TAZs in the study area have been 

implemented to improve the model accuracy. These are:

• Centroid Connectors additions for the TAZs in the vicinity of the BaltimoreWashington Parkway, 

• Roadways additions in Anne Arundel and Howard Counties

• Enhanced networks coding in the vicinity of the Fort Meade for better 

representation of local area access restrictions

• Enhanced network coding of local interchanges to account for every turning

movement

• Area Type updates in the area just south of Baltimore Beltway.
Additional network revisions were implemented in the study area to more accurately 

represent the network in the study area. Using aerial photography, MWCOG/TPB staff

added a significant level of network detail in the study area. The networks refinements 

were as follows:

• Updated freeway capacities, number of lanes, location of interchanges, and an

interchange configuration along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway

• Revised link features for the intersecting roadways and other facilities in the study 

area

• Revised interchanges on the intersecting roadways beyond the BaltimoreWashington Parkway

• Additional roadways and centroid connectors

• Revised transit lines for compatibility with added nodes in the revised network.

Map 2 below highlights the links that have been revised/added in the study area. 
While staff made every attempt to make all the necessary adjustments, in the interest of 

time, certain improvements were not implemented. Supplemental revisions that could 

be implemented in the future are:

• Zone boundary modifications

• Addition of all of the roadways in the study area, especially those not in the 

immediate vicinity of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway

• Interchange configuration revisions on all of the links

• Revision of external trips 

VALIDATION RESULTS

Map 3 shows the locations of the five screenlines used for the model validation. 
Table 1 shows the validation results for each of the five screenlines of Map 3. The table 

shows simulated traffic using both the standard CLRP network and the revised validation 

network specifically designed for the study (“Study Sim. Vol.”). Simulated traffic on each 

of the screenlines validates very well against the observed data. The screenline 

validation improves slightly with added level of detail, especially on screenline four. 

 
The link-level validation on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is not quite as good

although it still can be acceptable for a regional model run. 

Table 2 shows simulated volumes and counts for the individual links on the Parkway. 

The key highlights of the table are:

• The best simulated-to-observed matches are found in the Fort Meade area, which is 

outside of the MWCOG/TPB planning area

• Simulated traffic on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is typically under-estimated

relative to the observed data by as much as 25% on one of the links. 

• There is the perception that while the Baltimore-Washington Parkway carries fewer 

vehicles on an average weekday than what is observed, some of the parallel major 

arterials (i.e., MD 704, US 1, MD 450 and US 29) were found to carry more. 

• It may appear that the capacity on the parkway would need to be increased at most 

locations to get a better assignment. It is noteworthy that the model performs best 

when the capacity is set to 1,600 veh/lane/hr in the vicinity of Fort Meade reflecting 

a higher zonal density. Capacity per lane per hour along the corridor is mainly set at 

1,800 veh/lane/hr although freeway capacities fluctuate with changing area 

types/densities with a minimum at 1,600 and a maximum at 2,000 veh/lane/hr.

Link-level capacities on parkway can be manually adjusted, but doing so may lead to 

inconsistencies. Mainly, these capacities would need to be adjusted on some segments

but not on others where the assignment is currently as good as it can possibly get (the

Fort Meade example above). Similarly, making significant changes to freeway capacity 
on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway but not on the other nearby freeways may also 

lead to additional assignment inconsistencies. 

CONCLUSIONS

1. The model validates well for the study area using the official Version 2.2 model

2. The addition of network detail further improved model validation at the screenline 

level. 

3. The refined networks in the study area containing additional roadways and added 

detail should result in more accurate “post-processing” outputs.

4. Upon request by the study team, select input parameters such as freeway capacities 

could be changed and further network revisions could be implemented to 

accommodate specific analyses needs.

Attachments:

Preliminary Scope of Work and Budget by MWCOG/TPB (dated November 18, 2010)

Preliminary Draft Scope of Work by FHWA/EFLHD
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Task 4 Technical Report 

Draft Technical Report 13 January 2012 

TASK 4: TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL DEMAND 

MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

ATTACHMENT B 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Base Year 

(2040) Model Validation 


Map 1. Screenlines for Baltimore Washington Parkway Study

I-95

MD 295

US 50

Screenline 5

Screenline 4

Screenline 3

Screenline 2

Screenline 1

Road Type (Ftype)

0

1

2 - 3

4

5 - 6

3
Table 1. Baltimore Washington Parkway Screenline Volumes; V2.2, 2010 CLRP

1. North of Dorsey Rd. 2005 Sim. Vol. 2040 NB Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference

Baltimore National Pike (US 40) 41 60 19 46.3%

I‐95 216 292 76 35.2%

Montgomery Rd. 7 14 7 100.0%

Baltimore Washington Blvd. (US 1) 15 26 11 73.3%

Hanover Rd. 12 17 5 41.7%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 95 114 19 20.0%

Aviation Blvd. (MD 170) 26 55 29 111.5%

Andover Rd. 18 26 8 44.4%

Baltimore Annapolis Blvd. 12 21 9 75.0%

I‐97 139 145 6 4.3%

Robert Crain Hwy. (MD 3) 0 3 3 N/A

Gov. Ritchie Hwy. (MD 2) 21 36 15 71.4%

Arundel Expressway (MD 10) 65 92 27 41.5%

Total 648 870 222 34.3%

2. South of Patuxent Fwy. (MD 32) 2005 Sim. Vol. 2040 NB Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference

Clarksville Pike (MD 108) 30 33 3 10.0%

Columbia Pike (US 29) 76 115 39 51.3%

I‐95 177 225 48 27.1%

Brooklyn Bridge Rd. 3 6 3 100.0%

Goman Ave. 45 57 12 26.7%

Baltimore Washington Blvd. (US 1) 43 49 6 14.0%

Laurel Bowie Rd. (MD 197) 44 48 4 9.1%

Brock Bridge Rd. 2 4 2 100.0%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 95 99 4 4.2%

Robert Crain Hwy. (MD 3) 59 81 22 37.3%

Total 569 707 138 24.3%

2040 NB Sim. minus 2005 Sim.

2040 NB Sim. minus 2005 Sim.

4
3. North of Capital Beltway 2005 Sim. Vol. 2040 NB Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference

Columbia Pike (US 29) 78 83 5 6.4%

West University Blvd. (MD 193) 73 78 5 6.8%

New Hampshire Ave. (MD 650) 78 67 ‐11 -14.1%

Riggs Rd. 23 27 4 17.4%

I‐95 172 187 15 8.7%

Cherry Hill Rd. 6 30 24 400.0%

Baltimore Ave. (US 1) 65 73 8 12.3%

Rhode Island Ave. 3 6 3 100.0%

Cherrywood Lane 1 2 1 100.0%

Kenilworth Ave. (MD 201) 43 45 2 4.7%

Greenbelt Rd. (MD 193) 48 57 9 18.8%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 103 101 ‐2 -1.9%

Greenbelt Rd. On Ramp 1 1 0 0.0%

Good Luck Rd. 6 10 4 66.7%

Annapolis Rd. (MD 450) 73 77 4 5.5%

Total 734 770 36 4.9%

4. South of East-West Hwy. (MD 410) 2005 Sim. Vol. 2040 NB Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference

Baltimore Ave. (US 1) 44 47 3 6.8%

Kenilworth Ave. (MD 201) 30 30 0 0.0%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 88 89 1 1.1%

Annapolis Rd. (MD 450) 40 47 7 17.5%

Cooper Lane 8 8 0 0.0%

John Hanson Hwy (US 50) 81 87 6 7.4%

Pennsy Dr. 7 7 0 0.0%

Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy (MD 704) 48 56 8 16.7%

Total 331 356 25 7.6%

5. South of Landover Rd. 2005 Sim. Vol. 2040 NB Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference

Rhode Island Ave. 22 28 6 27.3%

Bladensburg Rd. 39 45 6 15.4%

Kenilworth Ave. (MD 201) 37 41 4 10.8%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 95 99 4 4.2%

Cheverly Ave. 15 15 0 0.0%

John Hanson Hwy (US 50) 83 93 10 12.0%

Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy (MD 704) 51 57 6 11.8%

Total 342 378 36 10.5%

2040 NB Sim. minus 2005 Sim.

2040 NB Sim. minus 2005 Sim.

2040 NB Sim. minus 2005 Sim.

5
Table 2. Baltimore Washington Parkway Volumes (000s); V2.2, 2010 CLRP

Location 2005 Sim. Vol. 2040 NB Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference

South of Baltimore Beltway 74 109 35 47.3%

South of Metropolitan Blvd. (I‐195) 95 114 19 20.0%

South of MD 100 101 111 10 9.9%

South of Annapolis Rd. (MD 175) 89 92 3 3.4%

South of MD 32 94 97 3 3.2%

North of MD 197 95 99 4 4.2%

North of Powder Mill Rd. 108 111 3 2.8%

North of Greenbelt Rd. (MD 193) 95 96 1 1.1%

South of Capital Beltway 89 88 ‐1 ‐1.1%

South of East West Hwy. (MD 410) 88 89 1 1.1%

North of Landover Rd. (MD 202) 101 102 1 1.0%

North of New York Ave. (US 50) 95 99 4 4.2%

2040 NB Sim. minus 2005 Sim.

6


Map 1. Screenlines for Baltimore Washington Parkway Study

I-95

MD 295

US 50

Screenline 5

Screenline 4

Screenline 3

Screenline 2

Screenline 1

Road Type (Ftype)

0

1

2 - 3

4

5 - 6

3
Table 1. Baltimore Washington Parkway Screenline Volumes; V2.2, 2010 CLRP

1. North of Dorsey Rd.

2040 No Build 

Sim. Vol.

2040 Partial 

Build Sim. Vol.

2040 Full Build 

Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference Difference % Difference

Baltimore National Pike (US 40) 60 60 60 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

I‐95 292 290 290 ‐2 -0.7% ‐2 -0.7%

2040 Full Build minus 2040 

No Build

2040 Partial Build minus 

2040 No Build

I 95 292 290 290 2 0.7% 2 0.7%

Montgomery Rd.* 14 14 14 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Baltimore Washington Blvd. (US 1) 26 25 25 ‐1 -3.8% ‐1 -3.8%

Hanover Rd.* 17 17 17 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 114 120 120 6 5.3% 6 5.3%

Aviation Blvd. (MD 170) 55 55 55 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Andover Rd. 26 27 27 1 3.8% 1 3.8%

Baltimore Annapolis Blvd. 21 20 20 ‐1 -4.8% ‐1 -4.8%

I‐97 145 144 144 ‐1 ‐0.7% ‐1 ‐0.7%

Rb to er Crain Hwy. (MD 3) 3 3 30 0 0%. 0 0 0%.

Gov. Ritchie Hwy. (MD 2) 36 36 36 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Arundel Expressway (MD 10) 92 92 92 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 870 872 872 2 0.2% 2 0.2%

Note:* Base‐year count unavailable; Sim. Volume excluded from the total

2040 Full Build minus 2040 

No Build

2040 Partial Build minus 

2040 No Build

2. South of Patuxent Fwy. (MD 32)

2040 No Build 

Sim. Vol.

2040 Partial 

Build Sim. Vol.

2040 Full Build 

Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference Difference % Difference

Clarksville Pike (MD 108) 33 32 32 ‐1 ‐3.0% ‐1 ‐3.0%

Columbia Pike (US 29) 115 113 113 ‐2 -1.7% ‐2 -1.7%

I‐95 225 223 223 ‐2 -0.9% ‐2 -0.9%

Brooklyn Bridge Rd.* 6 6 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Goman Ave. 57 57 57 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

2040 No Build No Build

Baltimore Washington Blvd. (US 1) 49 47 47 ‐2 -4.1% ‐2 -4.1%

Laurel Bowie Rd. (MD 197) 48 46 46 ‐2 -4.2% ‐2 -4.2%

Brock Bridge Rd.* 4 4 4 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 99 144 145 45 45.5% 46 46.5%

Robert Crain Hwy. (MD 3) 81 78 78 ‐3 -3.7% ‐3 -3.7%

Total 707 740 741 33 4.7% 34 4.8%

Note:* Base‐year count unavailable; Sim. Volume excluded from the total

4
3. North of Capital Beltway

2040 No Build 

Sim. Vol.

2040 Partial 

Build Sim. Vol.

2040 Full Build 

Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference Difference % Difference

Columbia Pike (US 29) 83 83 83 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

West University Blvd. (MD 193) 78 78 78 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

New Hampshire Ave (MD 650) 67 67 67 0 0 0% 0 0 0%

2040 Full Build minus 2040 

No Build

2040 Partial Build minus 

2040 No Build

New Hampshire Ave. (MD 650) 67 67 67 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Riggs Rd.* 27 27 27 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

I‐95 187 184 185 ‐3 -1.6% ‐2 -1.1%

Cherry Hill Rd.* 30 28 30 ‐2 ‐6.7% 0 0.0%

Baltimore Ave. (US 1) 73 71 72 ‐2 -2.7% ‐1 -1.4%

Rhode Island Ave.* 6 6 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Cherrywood Lane 2 2 20 0.0% 0 0.0%

Kenilworth Ave. (MD 201) 45 43 44 ‐2 -4.4% ‐1 -2.2%

Greenbelt Rd. (MD 193) 57 61 59 4 7.0% 2 3.5%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 101 128 138 27 26.7% 37 36.6%

Greenbelt Rd. On Ramp* 1 1 20 0.0% 1 100.0%

Good Luck Rd.* 10 10 10 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Annapolis Rd. (MD 450) 77 77 77 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 770 794 805 24 3.1% 35 4.5%

Note:* Base‐year count unavailable; Sim. Volume excluded from the total

2040 Partial Build minus 2040 Full Build minus 2040 

4. South of East-West Hwy. (MD 410)

2040 No Build 

Sim. Vol.

2040 Partial 

Build Sim. Vol.

2040 Full Build 

Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference Difference % Difference

Baltimore Ave. (US 1) 47 48 46 1 2.1% ‐1 ‐2.1%

Kenilworth Ave. (MD 201) 30 30 28 0 0.0% ‐2 -6.7%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 89 91 122 2 2.2% 33 37.1%

Annapolis Rd. (MD 450) 47 46 46 ‐1 -2.1% ‐1 -2.1%

Cooper Lane* 8 8 8 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

2040 No Build No Build

Cooper Lane 8 8 8 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

John Hanson Hwy (US 50) 87 87 85 0 0.0% ‐2 -2.3%

Pennsy Dr.* 7 7 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy (MD 704) 56 56 54 0 0.0% ‐2 -3.6%

Total 356 358 381 2 0.6% 25 7.0%

Note:* Base‐year count unavailable; Sim. Volume excluded from the total

2040 Full Build minus 2040 

No Build

2040 Partial Build minus 

2040 No Build

5. South of Landover Rd.

2040 No Build 

Sim. Vol.

2040 Partial 

Build Sim. Vol.

2040 Full Build 

Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference Difference % Difference

Rhode Island Ave. 28 28 28 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Bladensburg Rd. 45 45 46 0 0.0% 1 2.2%

Kenilworth Ave. (MD 201) 41 41 39 0 0.0% ‐2 -4.9%

Baltimore Washington Parkway (MD 295) 99 100 108 1 1.0% 9 9.1%

Cheverly Ave. 15 15 16 0 0.0% 1 6.7%

John Hanson Hwy (US 50) 93 92 92 ‐1 -1 1% ‐1 -1 1%

2040 No Build No Build

John Hanson Hwy (US 50) 93 92 92 ‐1 -1.1% ‐1 -1.1%

Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy (MD 704) 57 57 57 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 378 378 386 0 0.0% 8 2.1%

5
Table 2. Baltimore Washington Parkway Simulated Volumes (000s); V2.2, 2010 CLRP

Location

2040 No Build 

Sim. Vol.

2040 Partial 

Build Sim. Vol.

2040 Full Build 

Sim. Vol. Difference % Difference Difference % Difference

South of Baltimore Beltway 109 110 111 1 0.9% 2 1.8%

South of Metropolitan Blvd. (I‐195) 114 120 120 6 5.3% 6 5.3%

South of MD 100 111 124 124 13 11.7% 13 11.7%

South of Annapolis Rd. (MD 175) 92 131 131 39 42.4% 39 42.4%

South of MD 32 97 142 142 45 46.4% 45 46.4%

North of MD 197 99 144 145 45 45.5% 46 46.5%

North of Powder Mill Rd. 111 157 159 46 41.4% 48 43.2%

North of Greenbelt Rd. (MD 193) 96 138 141 42 43.8% 45 46.9%

South of Capital Beltway 88 91 127 3 3.4% 39 44.3%

South of East West Hwy. (MD 410) 89 91 122 2 2.2% 33 37.1%

North of Landover Rd. (MD 202) 102 104 119 2 2.0% 17 16.7%

North of New York Ave. (US 50) 99 100 108 1 1.0% 9 9.1%

2040 Partial Build minus 

2040 No Build

2040 Full Build minus 2040 

No Build

6
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

Appendix	ǦAlternatives Development Technical

Report
B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n P a r k w a y F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y

Photo from NPS website Photo by: Adam Elmquist Photo by: Alex Nitzman

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T | J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 2

TASK 5: ALTERNATIVES 

DEVELOPMENT 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 2 January 2012 

Contents 

Definition and Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 3 

Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3 

Study Methodology and Key Input...................................................................................................... 5 

Proposed No-Build and Build Alternatives .......................................................................................... 8 

Alternatives Selected for Further Study and Analysis ....................................................................... 11 

Conclusions and Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 12 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 3 January 2012 

Definition and Purpose

The alternatives development process is a critical step in the feasibility study. It involved an interactive 

and interdisciplinary approach for identifying, screening, and evaluating alternatives for the potential 

widening of the B-W Parkway. 

The purpose of this task technical report is to describe the processes used during the initial identification 

and preliminary screening of the widening alternatives. This report opens with a review of the study 

goals and objectives, and includes descriptions of the study area and existing roadway conditions. This 

information is presented to familiarize readers with the environmental and physical layout of the B-W 

Parkway corridor. Also included in the report is a discussion of the potential safety issues and roadway 

deficiencies identified in the corridor, as well as a discussion involving general traffic observations and 

stakeholder input that were used in the alternatives development. This report concludes with the 

preliminary screening of alternatives and a discussion of next steps for the alternatives analyses and 

evaluation being carried forward in Task 6. 

Project Background

Project Goals and Objectives

Based on the direction provided in the House Report 110-238 which accompanied the Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2008, the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Office of Eastern Federal Lands Highways is working with the National Park 

Service and the Maryland State Highway Administration to examine the feasibility of adding a third 

northbound and a third southbound general purpose travel lane for the B-W Parkway from the 

Baltimore Beltway (I-695) to the New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 interchange. 

The primary objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of increasing the Parkway’s vehicular 

carrying capacity within the Parkway’s historic and legislative context. The legislation also requests that 

this feasibility study include an assessment of the impact of the Base Realignment and Closure process 

on traffic throughout the B-W Parkway corridor between Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC. 

Description of Study Area

The study area covers approximately 247 square miles (157,982 acres). Figure 1 shows the generally 

defined study area boundaries of I-695 to the north; New York Ave/U.S. Route 50 to the south; MD 

Route 3 and Interstate 97 to the east; and Interstate 95 to the west. 

Land uses in the study area include a combination of residential, commercial and institutional areas. 

There is a concentration of residential areas located south of MD 193 in the communities of Greenbelt, 

Cheverly and East Riverdale. North of MD 193 there are clusters of residential areas located near the 

interchanges of MD 197, MD 198, and MD 175 in the communities of Laurel, Maryland City, Columbia, 

and Fort Meade. 

The study area includes a diverse mix of large federal and state-owned properties. The Beltsville 

Agricultural Research Center property covers approximately 10 square miles (6,459 acres), while the 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center covers approximately 20 square miles (12,781 acres). Also included 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 4 January 2012 

are NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Fort Meade and the headquarters of the National Security 

Agency. Major state owned properties in the study area include the University of Maryland at College 

Park, Bowie State University, and the Jessup Correctional Institution. 

There are several forest areas located throughout the corridor including the Baltimore-Washington 

Parkway itself, Greenbelt Park and the Anacostia River Park, all of which are owned and administered by 

the National Park Service. Additionally, the USDA’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, The USFWS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center are designated as forest 

areas. 

The study area is considered an environmentally sensitive area. There are three major river crossings 

identified along the Corridor: the Patuxent River, Little Patuxent River, and Patapsco River. Plus, there is 

an abundance of unnamed streams and related floodplains associated with the watersheds of these 

principal rivers. The study area also includes five defined Sensitive Species Areas and 14 wetlands. 

The B-W Parkway and the Greenbelt National Register Historic District are both listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. A total of six sites within the defined study area have been identified as 

being eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. These sites are: Fort Lincoln 

Cemetery; Beltsville Agricultural Research Center; Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (Building #510); 

the DC Children’s Center – Forest Haven District; Clark/Vogel House and Sachs Residence. Finally, there 

are 11 sites listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Places. These sites are listed below. 

• DC Boundary Marker NE #8

• Cheverly Historic Community

• Crawford’s Adventure Spring

• Cronmiller Outbuilding

• Jessup Survey District

• M. Bannon House

• Race Road House

• Matthias Harman House

• Andrew Harman Cemetery

• Patapsco State Park

• Summerfield Benson House

Within the study area, there are 151 public and private schools; 34 fire stations and 20 police stations, 

as well as 17 libraries that serve the various communities. In addition, there are 131 parks and 

recreational facilities in the study area. 

Existing Roadway Configuration

With regards to ownership and maintenance, the National Park Service owns the section of the B-W 

Parkway from New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 to MD 175. The NPS section of the B-W Parkway is 

generally a four-lane, limited access cross section with two general use lanes in each direction, 

separated by a variable width median. A six-lane cross section with three lanes in each direction occurs 

between the U.S. Route 50 and MD 450 interchanges and for a short segment between the Capital 

Beltway (I-95/I-495) and MD 193 interchanges. Commercial vehicles, including trucks, are prohibited 

from use of the NPS section of the B-W Parkway. 

The B-W Parkway is owned and operated by Maryland SHA between the Baltimore City limit and MD 

175. The Maryland SHA-owned section of the Parkway is designated as MD Route 295 and varies 

between a four-lane and a six-lane section between the MD 175 and I-695 interchanges. The section 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 5 January 2012 

between MD 175 and MD 100 is currently three lanes in each direction and no widening improvements 

are proposed at this time. However, a project planning study is underway by SHA for a section of MD 

175 between MD 295 and MD 170. The study will identify traffic flow improvements on MD 175 and is 

likely to include modifications to the interchange at MD 295 and MD 175. 

The Maryland SHA section of the Parkway between MD 100 and I-195 is currently a four lane section. 

However, Maryland SHA recently completed a project planning study which recommended the widening 

of MD 295 from a four-lane roadway to a six-lane roadway with three through lanes in each direction 

from MD 100 to I-195. The additional width would be constructed within the median of MD 295. This 

study also recommended the construction of a new interchange at MD 295 and Hanover Road and 

improvements to Hanover Road from the CSX railroad tracks to MD 170. 

The SHA section of the Parkway between I-195 and I-695 is currently under construction and nearing 

completion. Construction includes widening MD 295 from a four-lane roadway to a six-lane roadway 

with three through lanes in each direction. The additional lane is constructed within the median of MD 

295 in each direction. The new northbound lane has already been opened to traffic. However, the new 

southbound lane will not open until the median work is complete in early 2012. 

Study Methodology and Key Input

The alternatives development process consists of the following steps: 

1) Review of background Information; 

2) Determination of roadway deficiencies; existing and projected traffic operational performance; 

and environmental, transportation, land-use, demographics and community features using 

information from the Existing Conditions report; 

3) Identification of reasonable range of alternatives from stakeholder input; 

4) Preliminary screening of highway alternatives based on criteria that addresses environmental, 

transportation and physical design factors; and 

5) Selection of widening options for further development. 

The Consultant team solicited stakeholder input to identify a reasonable range of highway-oriented 

physical and operational improvement alternatives for B-W Parkway corridor. Alternatives were 

selected based on their ability to address the project goals and objectives for both current and future 

year (2040) conditions. Participants were asked their thoughts on widening options, interchange 

consolidations and reconfigurations and ramp modifications that improve operations. 

Study Limitations 

The scope of work for this study is limited to only an examination of the feasibility of adding a third 

general purpose travel lane in each direction to the Parkway from U.S. Route 50 (New York Avenue) to 

the Baltimore Beltway (I-695). Not under consideration as part of this feasibility study are any analyses 

of the potential for high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus-only lanes or bus rapid transit lanes, electronic toll 

lanes or high occupancy toll lanes, or other fixed guideway transit options. This feasibility study is not a 

part of the National Environmental Policy Act process so a full range of multi-modal improvements are 

not included in this study. However, should a decision be made that the study be carried forward, these 

modes and a variety of other options would need to be evaluated. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 6 January 2012 

Avoidance alternatives are those that entirely avoid the use of Section 4(f) properties. The identification 

and evaluation of avoidance alternatives is not included in this feasibility study. By definition, the use of 

any NPS-owned properties such as the B-W Parkway itself, would require the conduct of a formal 

Section 4(f) assessment. Should the study advance into the formal National Environmental Policy Act 

process, then a Section 4(f) evaluation will be required. The study, however, includes a No-Build 

Alternative, that is used as a comparison with the Build Options as part of the traffic operational 

analysis. 

Stakeholder Input

The methodology used to develop the alternatives involved the collection of input from key 

stakeholders who live, work, travel, and visit in the B-W Parkway corridor. Key stakeholders include: 

x Members of the general public; 

x Community groups and local residents; 

x Daily commuters; 

x Businesses and employees; 

x Technical Advisory Committee members; 

x Maryland State Highway Administration; 

x National Park Service; and 

x Interagency group members. 

During Public Meeting #1 in July 2011, participants were asked to assemble into small groups with aerial 

mapping, tracing paper, and markers and “sketch out” ideas for possible solutions. What resulted from 

the meeting was a list of ideas for consideration that were carried forth in the alternatives development. 

Ideas and input were also collected from TAC members and the consultant team through internal 

meetings. Ideas identified during these meetings included, but were not limited to, the following: 

x Public transportation is a better alternative. 

x Make MD295 look more like a parkway. 

x Consider all multi-modal options (high occupancy vehicle, bus rapid transit, public 

transportation) 

x Minimize impacts on other federal properties. 

x Consider not only vehicle but also person throughput on the Corridor. 

x Maintain limited access nature of the Parkway 

Public input that was used as consideration in the alternatives development included the following: 

x Widen to the inside versus the outside as outside widening has the potential to impact homes 

and more trees. 

x MD 410/Riverdale Road: Improvements at the interchange including longer access lanes. 

x I-495: Better merge and exit lanes. 

x MD 197: More highway width and improve traffic flow at the interchange, mainly in the 

southbound direction. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 7 January 2012 

Potential Safety Issues and Roadway Deficiencies

The scope of this feasibility study did not include a detailed safety analysis or interchange operational 

analysis. However, through a review of as-built roadway plans, stakeholder comments, aerial 

photography, photos and field observations of the study area, the team has identified some potential 

concerns that would require further study if this work advances further in the project development 

process. 

In general, the B-W Parkway corridor meets applicable geometric standards and guidelines for limited 

access highways. The following areas of concern have been identified as potential topics for additional 

examination: 

x Tight radii on loop ramps will present challenges for outside widening. 

x Southbound B-W Parkway On-ramp at MD 197 acceleration area was identified as a concern 

during public meetings. However, the acceleration lane meets standards and this area may 

need further operational analysis in future studies. 

x Northbound B-W Parkway Off-ramp at MD 197 was identified at the public meeting as an area 

where the queuing backs onto the Parkway. This issue will require further operational analysis 

of the intersection in future studies. 

x Northbound B-W Parkway off-ramp at Riverdale Road was identified at the public meeting as an 

area where the queuing backs onto the Parkway. This issue will require further operational 

analysis of the intersection in future studies. 

x Ramps at I-495 are in close proximity to the MD 193 interchange 

A three-year accident history (2008-2010) obtained from the section of the Parkway under Maryland 

SHA’s jurisdiction, revealed that crashes are clustered primarily in the vicinity of interchanges. The top 

three are I-695, MD 100 and MD 175. This is generally consistent with traffic conditions one might 

expect in the vicinity of interchanges where the influence of ramp traffic can result in sudden slowing of 

vehicles, a higher incidence of lane-changing, and an increased demand on driver attention. The same 

conditions are likely along sections on the Parkway in the vicinity of interchanges. 

Existing and Future Traffic Observations

Several general observations were derived from the traffic analysis and used as additional input for the 

identification of alternatives. Detailed traffic evaluation information is reported in the Task 4 and Task 6 

Technical Reports. A summary of the evaluation is as follows: 

x Traffic conditions are generally worse in the PM peak hour than in the AM peak hour. 

x Widening the Parkway as proposed under the Partial Build and Full Build scenarios may provide 

some localized improvement to traffic operations in the near term, but regionally the level of 

traffic congestion anticipated to be observed in the year 2040 changes little from No-Build 

conditions as widened sections are expected to exhibit an increase in traffic volumes. 

x The partial “build” scenario will have the effect of creating traffic bottlenecks at the point where 

widened sections join with non-widened sections, regardless of the number of lanes in the nonwidened sections. This is based on additional traffic accessing the widened sections of the 

facility. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 8 January 2012 

The following statements summarize the results of the traffic evaluation, as it pertains to the feasibility 

of future widening of some portion of the Parkway between now and the study horizon year of 2040: 

x A widened B-W Parkway will carry more trips helping to relieve traffic congestion levels on other 

regional highway facilities. 

x A widened B-W Parkway will have similar levels of congestion in the future as are generally 

observed today because of the additional trips using the facility as a result of projected growth 

in regional population and employment across the Baltimore and Washington, DC, areas. 

x In general, more vehicles can move through the corridor if it is widened, but at similar levels of 

congestion as observed today. 

Proposed No-Build and Build Alternatives

Highway Alternatives

Following the conclusion of stakeholder and team member exercises, a total of five potential highway 

improvement conceptual alternatives were identified. The basic conceptual options are shown below; 

with the “Build” alternatives numbered 2 through 5 below. Each basic concept includes two design 

options for each of the build alternatives. The options apply the use of AASHTO/SHA and NPS design 

standards and guidelines. 

Descriptions of each potential widening concept are included in the next section. 

1) No-Build 

2) Build: Widening of mainline to the inside 

3) Build: Widening of mainline to the outside 

4) Build: Combination of inside and outside mainline widening 

5) Build: Use of existing shoulders for the third lane 

The AASHTO/SHA standard for the widened section includes a 12-foot general use travel lane added to 

the existing inside or outside edge of pavement with a 10-foot paved median and outside shoulders. 

The total width of the section is 56 feet from edge of shoulder to edge of shoulder. 

The NPS standard for the widened section also includes a new 12-foot general use travel lane added to 

the existing inside or outside edge of pavement. However, it includes an 8-foot outside paved shoulder 

with curb and gutter and a 3-foot inside shoulder with curb and gutter for a total width of 47 feet face of 

curb to face of curb. 

Since the NPS owned portion of the B-W Parkway already has a cross section with six lanes (three lanes 

in each direction) between the DC Line and MD 450, and the Maryland SHA owned section between MD 

175 and MD 100 is already six lanes, with six lanes either planned or recently completed between MD 

100 and I-695, the limits of potential widening associated with this feasibility study is between the MD 

450 and MD 175 interchanges. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 9 January 2012 

Screening Criteria 

The preliminary screening of options was conducted to determine if any of the initially identified 

highway improvement alternatives were deemed not feasible from a socioeconomic, environmental, 

transportation service or physical design standpoint. Screening criteria were developed using input from 

TAC members and Public Meeting participants on these key aspects of feasibility; these were: 

x Preserves aesthetic, historic, and natural characteristics of the Parkway; 

x Minimizes community and environmental impacts; 

x Follows a consistent approach for roadway widening; 

x Increases capacity in the corridor; 

x Relieves congestion in the corridor; and 

x Improves safe and efficient vehicular operations. 

Results of Preliminary Screening

Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative 

The future “No-Build” alternative for the study includes the assumed completion of all of the capacity 

expansion, system preservation and maintenance improvements contained in the Draft (September 14, 

2011) Fiscally Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Baltimore Region and the currently 

adopted, Fiscally Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region. 

The No-Build alternative, inclusive of the currently adopted regional long–range transportation plan 

improvements listed below, will, by definition, remain viable alternative concepts beyond this initial 

screening. 

Draft Fiscally Constrained Long-Range 

Transportation Plan for the Baltimore Region 

(September 14, 2011) 

Fiscally Constrained Long-Range Transportation 

Plan for the National Capital Region (2010-2040) 

x MD 295, I-195 to MD 100 

x I-695 (Baltimore Beltway), Inner Loop bridge 

over Benson Avenue and Leeds Boulevard/ 

Southwest Boulevard 

x I-95, Interchange at MD 175 

x MD 100, Howard County Line to I-97 

x MD 175, MD 295 to MD 170 

x MD 198, MD 295 to MD 32 

x MD 3, St. Stephens Church Rd. to MD 32 

x MD 713 (Ridge Road,) MD 175 to MD 176 

x MD 32, MD 26 to Howard County Line 

x Baltimore Washington Parkway, intersection 

at MD 193 

x MD 197, U.S. Route 50 to MD 450 

x MD 3, U.S. Route 50 to MD 450 

x MD 450, MD 704 to MD 424 

x U.S. 1, I-95 to MD 410 

x U.S. Route 50, westbound ramp to Columbia 

Park Road 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 10 January 2012 

Alternative 2: Widening of Mainline to the Inside 

This alternative consists of the addition of a third general use travel lane adjacent to the “inside” edge 

(left side or driver’s side) of the existing pavement by using available space in the existing Parkway 

median. In those areas where there is insufficient space for inside widening, then narrower shoulders 

may be proposed with an understanding that a design exception would be required if the study 

advances further into the formal project development process. 

Some of the potential advantages associated with this option include increasing vehicular capacity of the 

B-W Parkway, and possibly relieving congestion on the secondary roadway system with either the NPS 

and AASHTO/SHA widening options. In addition, the use of such an inside widening concept would likely 

reduce the number and/or scale of potential direct impacts to adjacent properties, communities and 

environmental resources. These reductions would be more anticipated with the NPS option. However, 

minimal impacts are anticipated with the AASHTO/SHA option based on the need for addition of an 

outside shoulder to the proposed cross section. 

Some members of the TAC viewed this alternative as modifying the park-like characteristics of the B-W 

Parkway with the narrowing or elimination of the median as a result of the third lane. 

It was decided that this alternative would be carried forward to the next phase of the feasibility study 

since it could benefit the region by increasing vehicular carrying capacity, thus possibly reducing 

congestion on the secondary roadway system. 

Alternative 3: Widening of Mainline to the Outside 

This alternative consists of the addition of a third general use travel lane adjacent to the “outside” edge 

(right side or passenger side) of the existing pavement. Advantages include increasing vehicular capacity 

with NPS and AASHTO/SHAalternatives as noted in the above alternative and avoiding impacts to the 

Parkway’s existing median, particularly with the NPS design standards alternative. However, 

disadvantages include potential larger scale impacts to adjacent properties, environmental resources 

and sensitive species areas with either the NPS or AASHTO/SHAdesign alternative. In addition, some 

impacts are anticipated in the Parkway median area since a new inside shoulder would need to be 

added to the roadway cross section with the AASHTO/SHAoption. 

It was decided that this alternative would be carried forward to the next phase of the feasibility study 

since it could benefit the region by increasing vehicular carrying capacity, thus possibly reducing 

congestion on the secondary roadway system. With that said, a number of public agency and citizen 

comments expressed concern with consideration of this option, both with respect to possible direct and 

indirect impacts on adjacent communities as well as the potential for a dramatic change in the overall 

character and feel of the existing Parkway. 

Alternative 4: Combination of Inside and Outside Widening of the Mainline 

This alternative was initially identified to address concerns about insufficient room for widening to the 

inside or outside, particularly at bridge overpasses and along those sections of the Parkway with narrow 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 11 January 2012 

medians or the absence of medians. The thought was to shift the alignment to the inside or outside to 

best fit the existing total Parkway cross section creating a hybrid alternative. 

After some discussion, it was agreed that narrow shoulders might be allowed at locations where the 

AASHTO/SHA options above would not fit in lieu of shifting the alignment to either side. This would, 

however, require obtaining a design exception which is routinely granted for this type of condition. 

The team identified a limited number of areas where there is no existing median space due to the 

presence of a barrier wall or bridge abutment. In these cases, any roadway widening would have to be 

to the outside, thus eliminating the need to evaluate a combined inside and outside widening 

alternatives. This generic alternative concept was thus eliminated from further consideration during the 

feasibility study. 

Alternative 5: Use of Existing Inside and Outside Shoulders for the Third Lane 

This option would convert the existing 8-foot outside shoulder in the NPS-owned portion of the Parkway 

into the third travel lane. The idea is to only add enough pavement to provide a total of three 

appropriately sized travel lanes in each direction. This concept would create a curb-to-curb width of 40 

feet (two 3-foot curbs; two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot lane). This would only be about 5 feet wider 

(curb to curb) than the existing NPS cross section consisting of two 12-foot travel lanes and an 8-foot 

shoulder and about 7 feet narrower than the concept of continuing with 12-foot-wide travel lanes and 

retaining the existing 8-foot shoulder to create a widened three lane roadway. 

The key concern with this alternative was the elimination of shoulders. The team felt that removal of 

shoulders was a safety hazard on a high speed facility with varying degrees of curvature. Therefore, this 

concept was dropped from further consideration during the feasibility study. 

Alternatives Selected for Further Study and Analysis

Summarizing the above analysis, two alternative widening concepts were identified to be carried 

forward for further analysis and evaluation in Task 6. They are, respectively, widening of the Parkway 

mainline to the inside and widening of the Parkway mainline to the outside. They are being referred to 

as the following options moving forward to allow for the development of a range of alternative capital 

construction costs and potential adjacent property impacts: 

x NPS Outside Widening Option 

x NPS Inside Widening Option 

x AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option 

x AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening Option 

Typical roadway cross section displays of each option are shown in Figures 2 through 5. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 12 January 2012 

Conclusions and Next Steps

The next steps involved a more detailed analyses and evaluation of the four options on the five aspects 

of feasibility which, are shown below. The results of this exercise are summarized in the Task 6 

Technical Report. 

• Transportation impacts – the influence of additional lane capacity on mainline operations. 

• Physical effects – effects of various approaches to accomplish widening, considering a variety of 

typical sections and/or design standards (i.e. AASHTO/SHA vs. NPS). 

• Environmental impacts – identification of considerations that would have to be addressed in 

the formal National Environmental Policy Act process if the decision were made to proceed 

further with a potential project development analysis 

• Political/Public impacts – implications of widening as it pertains to the interests of various 

stakeholders including agencies with ownership interest, regional planners, and the public 

• Ownership and Management – widening impacts to ownership and management of the 

Parkway. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 13 January 2012 

Figure 1: Study Area Map
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 14 January 2012 

Figure 2: NPS Outside Widening Option

Figure 3: NPS Inside Widening Option
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Task 5 Technical Report 

Task 5 Technical Report 15 January 2012 

Figure 4: AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option

Figure 5: AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening Option
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

Appendix
ǦAlternatives Evaluation Technical Report
B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n P a r k w a y F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y

Photo from NPS website Photo by: Adam Elmquist Photo by: Alex Nitzman

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T | J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 2

TASK 6: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 

January 2012 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 - Report Overview .......................................................................................................................... 3 

1.2 - Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 3 

Chapter 2: Overview Study Alternatives................................................................................................... 5 

2.1 - Study Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 

2.2 - Study Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 5 

2.3 - Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.4 - Highway Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 6 

2.5 – Widening Options ....................................................................................................................... 8 

2.5.1 – AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option ............................................................................... 8 

2.5.2 - NPS Outside Widening Option ............................................................................................... 8 

2.5.3 - AASHTO Inside Widening Option ........................................................................................... 9 

2.5.4 - NPS Inside Widening Option .................................................................................................. 9 

Chapter 3: Physical Constraints.............................................................................................................. 12 

3.1 - Physical Limitations and Impacts by Alternative ......................................................................... 12 

3.1.1 - Outside Widening ............................................................................................................... 13 

3.1.2 - Inside Widening .................................................................................................................. 16 

3.2 - Considerations for Further Study ............................................................................................... 19 

Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................................ 20 

4.1 - Methodology Overview ............................................................................................................. 20 

4.2 - Possible Direct Resource Effects ................................................................................................. 20 

4.2.1 - Parklands and Recreation Areas Effects ............................................................................... 21 

4.2.2 - Wetlands and Water Resources Effects ............................................................................... 21 

4.2.3 - Known Cultural Resources Effects ....................................................................................... 22 

4.2.4 - Forests and Ecology Effects ................................................................................................. 23 

4.2.5 - Potential Property Impacts .................................................................................................. 24 

4.3 - Quality of Life Effects ................................................................................................................. 24 

4.4 - Considerations for Further Study ............................................................................................... 25 

Chapter 5: Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................................... 26 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 

January 2012 

5.1 - Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 26 

5.2 - Future Traffic Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................ 26 

5.2.1 – Future (2040) No Build Scenario ......................................................................................... 27 

5.2.2 – Future (2040) Partial Build Scenario.................................................................................... 27 

5.2.3 – Future (2040) Full Build Scenario ........................................................................................ 27 

5.3 - Traffic Analysis Results ............................................................................................................... 27 

5.3.1 –Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................... 27 

5.3.2 – Operations ......................................................................................................................... 29 

5.3.3 – General Observations ......................................................................................................... 32 

5.4 - Moving Forward ........................................................................................................................ 33 

Chapter 6: Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates ...................................................................................... 34 

6.1 - Methodology and Data Sources ................................................................................................. 34 

6.1.1 - Right of Way Costs .............................................................................................................. 35 

6.1.2 - Operations and Maintenance Costs ..................................................................................... 35 

6.1.3 – Construction Costs for Park Aesthetics ............................................................................... 36 

6.2 - Matrix of Costs by Widening Option ........................................................................................... 36 

Chapter 7: Summary .............................................................................................................................. 37 

7.1 - Physical Constraints ................................................................................................................... 37 

7.2 - Environmental Analysis and Effects ............................................................................................ 37 

7.3 - Traffic and Transportation ......................................................................................................... 37 

7.4 - Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates ............................................................................................. 38 

Appendix A - Traffic Analysis Results ..................................................................................................... 39 

Appendix B – Capital Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................... 48 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 1 January 2012 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Opened in 1954, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a unit of the National Park Service and serves as 

a 29-mile scenic highway that connects Baltimore, Maryland, with Washington, DC. It is part of a system 

of four parkways that welcomes visitors to the Nation’s Capital. The other three parkways are the 

George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia along the Potomac River shoreline, the Suitland 

Parkway extending from the eastern boundary of the District of Columbia to Joint Operations Base 

Andrews (formerly Andrews Air Force Base), and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in the District of 

Columbia. 

The B-W Parkway was legislated by Congress in 1950 as an extension of the park system of the District of 

Columbia, to be managed by the National Park Service. In 1991, in recognition of its historical 

importance and cultural significance as an element of the Parkways of the National Capital Region, the 

B-W Parkway was certified as a Historic District and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

The B-W Parkway is divided into two distinct sections. The NPS owns and operates a 19-mile section to 

the south between MD 175 and the New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 split. It is designated as the 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway and is located within Anne Arundel and Prince Georges Counties. The 

Maryland SHA owns and operates a 10-mile section of the B-W Parkway between I-695 and MD Route 

175. This section is designated as Maryland Route 295 and is located within Anne Arundel County. The 

B-W Parkway continues north of I-695 approximately four miles, through sections of Anne Arundel and 

Baltimore Counties and the City of Baltimore until reaching its termination at the I-95 Interchange 

approaching downtown Baltimore where it’s name becomes Russell Street. 

As directed by the House Report 110-238 which accompanied the Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, the Federal Highway Administration’s 

Eastern Federal Lands Highways Division is working in partnership with the NPS and Maryland SHA to 

determine the feasibility of adding a third northbound and a third southbound lane for the B-W Parkway 

from the interchange with I-695 to New York Avenue in the District of Columbia. The objective of this 

study is to assess the potential of increasing the Parkway’s carrying capacity with the proposed widening 

within the Parkway’s historic and legislative context. The legislation also requests an assessment of the 

impact of the Base Realignment and Closure process on traffic throughout the Maryland Route 295 

corridor between Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC. 

Figure 1.1 shows the study area boundary. For the purposes of this initial feasibility study, the study area 

boundaries are defined as follows: 

x On the north: The interchange of the B-W Parkway with the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) in Anne 

Arundel County, Maryland. 

x On the south: The interchange of the B-W Parkway with New York Avenue (U.S. Route 50) at the 

District of Columbia/Prince George’s County, Maryland boundary line. 

x On the west: Along the alignment of I-95 between its interchanges with the Capital Beltway (I495) and the Baltimore Beltway (I-695). 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 2 January 2012 

x On the east: Along the alignment of Robert Crain Highway (MD 3) from the interchange of MD 3 

with U.S. Route 50 in Prince George’s County north to the MD 3 interchange with MD 32 and I97 in Anne Arundel County, then along the alignment of I-97 north to its interchange with the 

Baltimore Beltway (I-695) in Anne Arundel County. 

Figure 1.1. B-W Parkway Study Area Map 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 3 January 2012 

1.1 - Report Overview 

This report presents an analysis of several study alternatives against five evaluation criteria defined by 

the Study Team in consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of the 

partnering agencies and local governments. Chapter 2 presents the study alternatives, which are 

defined in detail in a separate technical memorandum completed in support of this study. Chapters 3 

through 6 assess the study alternatives against several technical areas of performance, including 

physical constraints, environmental effects, transportation and traffic considerations, and initial 

estimates of cost. Each of these evaluation criteria is described below in Section 1.2. Chapter 7 

presents a summary of the technical analysis in the form of a matrix and presents issues for future 

consideration should the Federal Highway Administration or another entity decide to advance this initial 

feasibility study into a more formal project development process. 

The evaluation information presented reflects the early, conceptual nature of the feasibility study. The 

evaluation used available information and data from existing sources. Limited new data were collected, 

because the study was focused on determining feasibility, costs and benefits at a conceptual level. 

Coordination with regional stakeholders of the study helped to identify appropriate criteria against 

which to evaluate feasibility as well as to provide access to data and information for the evaluation 

regarding factors such as future land use and the location of natural and community resources in the 

area. 

1.2 - Evaluation Criteria 

The Study Team identified several evaluation criteria early on for determining the feasibility of different 

alternatives for widening the B-W Parkway as called for in the authorizing legislation. 

The four principal technical evaluation criteria identified for application to the study include the 

following: 

x Physical Constraints – the physical limitations for widening the B-W Parkway by a third lane in either 

direction. This includes the availability of land for the widening, the impacts to NPS designated land, 

impacts to privately held land, and impacts to existing infrastructure, particularly the bridges and 

interchanges along the Parkway. 

x Environmental Analysis and Effects – the potential for direct impacts to natural resources and 

communities, as well as more indirect impacts to quality-of-life in areas such as noise or aesthetics 

for area residents and the communities that align the Parkway facility. The chapter briefly describes 

the resources contained in the study area and assesses the impacts to them both quantitatively and 

qualitatively as appropriate given the availability of quantitative data on a given resource. 

x Traffic and Transportation – the potential benefits to traffic flow and mobility that might potentially 

be derived from the additional capacity provided by widening the B-W Parkway to three lanes in 

each direction for the full length of the corridor. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 4 January 2012 

x Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates - the potential capital costs of widening the B-W Parkway by 

widening option, including the operation and maintenance costs. 

In addition, the study team identified two additional criteria for determining the feasibility of widening 

the B-W Parkway. These two criteria are more qualitative in nature and drive considerations of how to 

approach a future Parkway improvement project should it be decided to advance further into project 

planning and development. 

x Public and political considerations - the willingness of the public to see a project of this magnitude 

move forward in the region. In particular, this criterion assesses the input of the public as well as 

the perspectives of several major stakeholders of the study including elected officials, regional and 

local government agencies, economic development groups, business representatives and others. 

x Facility Ownership and Management – widening the B-W Parkway could be determined to impair 

the Parkway’s character and function sufficiently to warrant consideration of whether or not the 

facility could still be classified as a unit of the National Park Service. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 5 January 2012 

Chapter 2: Overview Study Alternatives 

Five study alternatives were identified through a comprehensive screening process that considered the 

limitations of the Congressional study, the study objectives, existing conditions in the study area and 

input from study stakeholders. 

2.1 - Study Objective 

The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of increasing the Parkway’s vehicular carrying 

capacity and reduce travel time within the Parkway’s historic and legislative context. The legislation also 

requests that the feasibility study include an assessment of the impact of the Base Realignment and 

Closure process on traffic throughout the B-W Parkway corridor between Baltimore, Maryland, and 

Washington, DC. 

2.2 - Study Limitations 

Early in the study process, the Study Team determined the scope of work would be limited to the 

analysis of adding general purpose vehicular travel lanes, consistent with the narrow direction provided 

in the authorizing legislation. This eliminated further analyses of managed lane options such as high 

occupancy vehicle lanes, bus only lanes or bus rapid transit lanes, electronic toll lanes or high occupancy 

toll lanes. Additionally, this study did not include an assessment of a full-range of multi-modal options 

and avoidance alternatives identified to avoid impacts to either a defined Section 4(f) property or a 

property which is formally listed on the National Register of Historic Places, such as the B-W Parkway 

itself. 

Managed lane options could be addressed through additional feasibility work should a decision by 

Congress warrant such a study. A full range of alternatives including the consideration of avoidance 

alternatives would need to be examined in the context of a project planning study that is completed 

consistent with Federal laws and regulations such as those contained in the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. A feasibility study occurs in order to inform decisions on whether to proceed with 

such a study should funding be identified to carry out the study. 

2.3 - Study Area 

As previously noted, the defined general study area is large covering about 247 square miles. Land uses 

in the study area include a mixture of residential, commercial and institutional areas. Alternatives were 

identified in consideration of these locations with the intent of providing access to them as well as 

avoiding or minimizing impacts to them. A summary of land uses within the general study area includes 

the following: 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 6 January 2012 

x Residential areas are located south of MD 193 in the communities of Greenbelt, Cheverly and 

East Riverdale. North of MD 193 there are clusters of residential areas located near the 

interchanges of MD 197, MD 198 and MD 175 in the communities of Laurel, Maryland City and 

Fort Meade. 

x The study area also includes a diverse mix of large federal and state owned properties. Included 

are the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, the Patuxent Wildlife Research, the Goddard 

Space Flight Center, Fort Meade and the NSA. State-owned properties include two universities, 

the University of Maryland at College Park and Bowie State University, and the Jessup 

Correctional Institution. 

x Natural environmental and cultural resources are found in abundance throughout the study 

area. They include forested areas, several parks including the B-W Parkway which is a 

designated NPS park unit, major stream crossings and wetlands, and a variety of historic 

properties.

2.4 - Highway Alternatives 

Following the conclusion of the initial stakeholder consultation and team member analysis of the study 

area, a total of three basic highway improvement alternatives were identified for the study: a No Build 

alternative; a widening of the facility to the inside; and a widening of the facility to the outside. The No 

Build Alternative represents those multimodal transportation system improvements included in the 

currently adopted Baltimore and Washington, DC, metropolitan area Consolidated Long Range Plans of 

regional significance in the study area. These transportation improvements include completion of 

widening along the Maryland SHA-owned portion of the B-W Parkway to create a six-lane cross section, 

the Purple Line fixed guideway transit facility between Bethesda and New Carrollton, and the InterCounty Connector toll-road between the I-270 and I-95 corridors. 

Two separate design options were also identified for each of the widening alternatives based on the 

different design standards used by NPS and Maryland SHA. These standards were assessed in 

consideration of the analysis of potential impairment to the NPS-owned and managed Parkway facility. 

The purposes of a Parkway are not the same as a traditional freeway. Efforts are made to minimize 

impacts to the environment, follow the natural topography of the landscape and retain the historic 

integrity and aesthetic qualities and infrastructure of the Parkway facility, which is itself a National Park 

unit. Should a determination of sufficient impairment to those basic qualities and purposes be made as 

a result of a widening of the Parkway, the question would then be whether or not the Parkway facility 

should remain under the ownership of the NPS. Both sets of design standards are considered as 

options. 

The NPS uses design standards as noted in their Park Road Standards, published in 1984. The NPS 

standard for the widened section specifies a new 12-foot travel lane added to the inside or outside edge 

of the existing pavement. However, it includes an 8-foot outside paved shoulder with curb and gutter 

and a 3-foot inside shoulder with curb and gutter for a total width of 47 feet face of curb to face of curb. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 7 January 2012 

The Maryland SHA uses design standards provided by the American Association of State Transportation 

Officials published in the AASHTO Green Book - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 

6th Edition. The AASHTO/SHA standard specifies a new 12-foot travel lane added to the inside or 

outside edge of pavement with a 10-foot outside paved shoulder and a 10-foot paved inside shoulder 

for a total width of 56 feet edge to edge of pavement. 

Since the B-W Parkway already has a basic six-lane cross section with three lanes in each direction 

between the District of Columbia city limits at U.S. Route 50 and MD 450, and six lanes are either 

planned, under construction or completed between MD 100 and I-695, the limits of the potential 

widening for this study are between the MD 450 and MD 175 interchanges. 

For the purposes of this feasibility study, all new pavement was assumed to be full depth asphalt 

pavement to facilitate constructability and accommodate maintenance of traffic during construction as 

well as minimize long term maintenance issues that have been observed in other similar facilities that 

have thinner pavement sections in the shoulders. Existing shoulder pavement is assumed to be thinner 

than the existing travel lanes and will be removed and reconstructed with full-depth pavement when 

adjacent to areas of pavement widening. Additional assumptions are: 

x In some cases, additional pavement width beyond that shown in the typical sections was added 

for acceleration, deceleration, or auxiliary lanes. The cross slopes of the existing travel lanes will 

be maintained and extended to set the finished grade of the adjacent new lane. 

x For purposes of setting conservative limits of disturbance widened roadside ditch sections were 

graded on the each side of the existing Parkway, and where possible, an additional 25 feet was 

added to account for stormwater management, using environmental site design, to meet the 

new Maryland Department of the Environment guidelines and erosion and sediment control. 

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the general dimensions of the resulting stormwater 

management/MDE designs for a typical cut or fill section of mainline roadway. 

Figure 2.1. Roadside Grading Typical Section (Cut Slope with Ditch) 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 8 January 2012 

Figure 2.2. Roadside Grading Typical Section (Fill Slope with Ditch) 

2.5 – Widening Options 

2.5.1 – AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option 

The AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option replaces the existing right shoulder and curb with a new 12-

foot lane and a 10-foot shoulder with no curb. Additionally, the existing left shoulder and curb is 

replaced with a 10-foot-wide paved shoulder. The resulting configuration is a 10-foot-wide shoulder on 

the left with three 12-foot-wide travel lanes and a 10-foot-wide shoulder on the right for both the 

northbound and southbound parkway that meets AASHTO design guidelines. See figure below for 

AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Typical Section. 

Figure 2.3. AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening 

2.5.2 - NPS Outside Widening Option 

The NPS Outside Widening Option replaces the existing right shoulder and curb with a new 12-foot lane 

and an 8-foot shoulder to the face of curb and gutter. The existing 3-foot left shoulder with curb and 

gutter is not modified. The resulting configuration is an existing curb and 3-foot shoulder on the left 

with three 12-foot wide travel lanes and an 8-foot-wide shoulder including curb and gutter on the right 

for both the northbound and southbound parkway that meets NPS design guidelines. See figure below 

for NPS Outside Widening Typical Section. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 9 January 2012 

 

Figure 2.4. NPS Outside Widening 

2.5.3 - AASHTO Inside Widening Option 

The AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening Option replaces the existing left shoulder and curb with a new 12-

foot lane and a 10-foot shoulder with no curb. Additionally, the existing right shoulder and curb is 

replaced with a 10-foot-wide shoulder. The resulting configuration is a 10-foot-wide shoulder on the 

left with three 12-foot-wide travel lanes and a 10-foot-wide shoulder on the right for both the 

northbound and southbound parkway that meets AASHTO design guidelines. See figure below for 

AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening Typical Section. 

Figure 2.5. AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening 

2.5.4 - NPS Inside Widening Option 

The NPS Inside Widening Option replaces the existing left shoulder and curb with a new 12-foot lane and 

a 3-foot shoulder with curb and gutter. The existing right shoulder and curb is not modified. The 

resulting configuration is a 3-foot-wide shoulder including curb and gutter on the left with three 12-footwide travel lanes and an existing 8-foot-wide right shoulder including curb and gutter for both the 

northbound and southbound parkway that meets NPS design guidelines. See figure below for NPS 

Inside Widening Typical Section. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 10 January 2012 

Figure 2.6. NPS Inside Widening 

A conceptual level, visual representation of the potential effects of implementing either an outside or an 

inside widening of the existing Parkway to provide a third lane in each direction is presented in Figure 

2.7 and 2.8. The photo perspective in both the “Before” and “After” views is that of a driver in the left 

hand or passing lane of the existing four-lane Parkway. Figure 2.7 illustrates the implications of adding 

the third lane to the outside pavement edge (i.e., to the far right side) of the existing Parkway using the 

typical cross section illustrated on Figure 2.3. In addition to one more travel lane and a widened 

shoulder area, a noticeable amount of existing vegetation would have to be removed to provide the 

necessary stormwater management/environmental site design facilities. 

Figure 2.7. AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option 

Before After 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 11 January 2012 

Figure 2.8. NPS Inside Widening Option

Before After 

Figure 2.8 illustrates the implications of adding the third lane to the inside pavement edge (i.e., to the 

far left side) of the existing Parkway using the typical cross section illustrated on Figure 2.6. As was the 

case with Figure 2.7, the photo perspective in both the “Before” and “After” views for Figure 2.8 is that 

of a driver in the left hand or passing lane of the existing four-lane Parkway In addition to one more 

travel lane being provided to the left side of the pavement, a noticeable amount of the existing Parkway 

median area would have to be removed to provide the necessary space for the third travel lane and its 

associated shoulder and stormwater management/environmental site design facilities. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 12 January 2012 

Chapter 3: Physical Constraints

Applying the typical sections for each of the four study options along the existing B-W Parkway 

alignment revealed several types of impacts and limitations due to the existing conditions. Generally, if 

the parkway traverses over a cross-street, the existing bridges will need to be widened. If the parkway 

traverses under the cross-street, then the entire overpass bridge will typically need to be replaced. 

There are some locations where the generally defined limits of disturbance are anticipated to encroach 

close to or to extend outside of the existing Parkway right-of-way. These impacts were small sliver 

encroachments that did not impact any homes or buildings. No residential or business relocations are 

required. 

The assumption is that through more detailed design at a later stage, should a decision be made to 

advance the study, these impacts could be mitigated such that acquisition of additional right-of-way 

would likely not be required for any of the four options. These mitigation methods could include, but 

not be limited to, such features as geometric alignment alterations, localized reduction of stormwater 

management buffer area, steepening of fill slopes, or even the construction of short sections of 

retaining walls. The latter mitigation action has been employed on some areas of the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway and its companion the Clara Barton Parkway. 

3.1 - Physical Limitations and Impacts by Alternative 

The physical constraints identified in the study are enumerated in the tables below for each option. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 13 January 2012 

3.1.1 - Outside Widening 

3.1.1.1 – AASHTO/SHA – Constraints/Impact Table 

Cross Street 

Bridge 

Widening 

Bridge 

Replacement 

Partial 

Interchange 

Rebuilding 

(Ramp Tie Ins) 

Widening Is 

Constrained At This 

Location 

Limits of 

Disturbance 

Encroaches 

Existing Rightof-Way Comments 

MD 175 JESSUP ROAD / ANNAPOLIS ROAD X X Existing loop ramps

CONNECTOR ROAD (NSA) 

MD 32 PATUXENT FREEWAY X X Existing loop ramps

LITTLE PATUXENT RIVER X

MD 198 LAUREL FORT MEADE ROAD X X Existing loop ramps

PATUXENT RIVER X 

Limit of disturbance goes to right-ofway on both northbound and 

southbound sides at some locations 

between the Patuxent River and MD 

198 Laurel Fort Meade Road. 

MD 197 LAUREL BOWIE ROAD X Existing loop ramps

POWDER MILL ROAD X X X 

Limit of disturbance goes to 

northbound right-of-way at Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center just North of 

Powder Mill Road. 

BEAVER DAM ROAD X X 

Limits of disturbance come close to 

the right-of-way on the southbound 

side adjacent to Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Center between Beaver 

Dam Road and Powder Mill Road. 

EXPLORER ROAD X Existing loop ramps X 

Limits of disturbance come close to 

the right-of-way on both north and 

southbound sides between Greenbelt 

Road and Explorer Road. Limits of 

disturbance encroach upon Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center between 

Explorer Road and Beaver Dam Road 

northbound. 

MD 193 GREENBELT ROAD X X Existing loop ramps

I-95/I-495 (CAPITAL BELTWAY) X X Existing loop ramps
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 14 January 2012 

Cross Street 

Bridge 

Widening 

Bridge 

Replacement 

Partial 

Interchange 

Rebuilding 

(Ramp Tie Ins) 

Widening Is 

Constrained At This 

Location 

Limits of 

Disturbance 

Encroaches 

Existing Rightof-Way Comments 

GOOD LUCK ROAD X X 

Limits of disturbance encroach upon 

Greenbelt Park between Good Luck 

Road and the Capital Beltway 

northbound. 

MD 410 RIVERDALE ROAD X X

MD 450 ANNAPOLIS ROAD X X Existing loop ramps
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 15 January 2012 

3.1.1.2 – NPS Constraints/Impacts Table 

Cross Street 

Bridge 

Widening 

Bridge 

Replacement 

Partial 

Interchange 

Rebuilding 

(Ramp Tie Ins) 

Widening Is 

Constrained At This 

Location 

LOD 

Encroaches 

Exist ROW Comments 

MD 175 JESSUP RD/ANNAPOLIS ROAD X X Existing Loop Ramps

CONNECTOR ROAD (NSA)

MD 32 PATUXENT FREEWAY X X Existing Loop Ramps

LITTLE PATUXENT RIVER X

MD 198 LAUREL FORT MEADE ROAD X X Existing Loop Ramps

PATUXENT RIVER X 

Limit of disturbance goes to right-of-way

on both northbound and southbound sides 

at some locations between the Patuxent 

River and MD 198 Laurel Fort Meade Road. 

MD 197 LAUREL BOWIE ROAD X Existing Loop Ramps

POWDER MILL ROAD X X X 

Limit of disturbance goes to right-of-way

(northbound) at Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center just North of Powder Mill Road. 

BEAVER DAM ROAD X X 

Limit of disturbance comes close to the 

right-of-way on the southbound side 

adjacent to Beltsville Agricultural Research 

Center between Beaver Dam Road and 

Powder Mill Road. 

EXPLORER ROAD X Existing Loop Ramps X 

Limit of disturbance comes close to the 

right-of-way on both north and 

southbound sides between Greenbelt Road 

and Explorer Road. Limit of disturbance 

encroaches upon Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center between Explorer Road 

and Beaver Dam Road (NB RT). 

MD 193 GREENBELT ROAD X X Existing Loop Ramps

I-95/I-495 (CAPITAL BELTWAY) X X Existing Loop Ramps

GOOD LUCK ROAD X X 

Limit of disturbance encroaches upon 

Greenbelt Park between Good Luck Road 

and the Capital Beltway (northbound) 

MD 410 RIVERDALE ROAD X X

MD 450 ANNAPOLIS ROAD X X Existing Loop Ramps
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 16 January 2012 

3.1.2 - Inside Widening 

3.1.2.1 – AASHTO/SHA Constrains/Impact Table 

Cross Street 

Bridge 

Widening

Bridge 

Replacement

Partial 

Interchange 

Rebuilding 

(Ramp Tie 

Ins) 

Widening Is Constrained 

At This Location 

Limits of 

Disturbance

Encroach 

Existing 

Right-ofWay Comments 

MD 175 JESSUP RD/ANNAPOLIS ROAD 

CONNECTOR ROAD (NSA) 

MD 32 PATUXENT FREEWAY X Existing Loop Ramps 

Existing median width will prohibit inside widening, unless left 

shoulders are reduced between MD 32 Patuxent Freeway and 

NSA Connector Road. 

LITTLE PATUXENT RIVER X 

MD 198 LAUREL FORT MEADE ROAD 

PATUXENT RIVER X 

Existing Median Too 

Narrow 

Existing median width will prohibit inside widening from just 

south of the Patuxent River North about half way to MD 198. 

MD 197 LAUREL BOWIE ROAD X 

POWDER MILL ROAD X 

Existing Median Too 

Narrow 

Existing median width will prohibit inside widening, unless left 

shoulders are reduced between Beaver Dam Road and Power 

Mill Road. 

BEAVER DAM ROAD X 

Existing Median Too 

Narrow 

Existing median width will prohibit inside widening, unless left 

shoulders are reduced between Beaver Dam Road and Powder 

Mill Road. 

EXPLORER ROAD X 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 17 January 2012 

Cross Street 

Bridge 

Widening

Bridge 

Replacement

Partial 

Interchange 

Rebuilding 

(Ramp Tie 

Ins) 

Widening Is Constrained 

At This Location 

Limits of 

Disturbance

Encroach 

Existing 

Right-ofWay Comments 

MD 193 GREENBELT ROAD X X 

Existing Loop 

Ramps/Existing Median 

Too Narrow 

Existing median width will prohibit inside widening through the 

Greenbelt Road interchange area. Alternative widening to 

outside would require bridge and partial interchange 

reconstruction. 

I-95/I-495 X 

GOOD LUCK ROAD X 

Existing Median Too 

Narrow 

Existing median width will prohibit inside widening, unless left 

shoulders are reduced. 

MD 410 RIVERDALE ROAD X 

MD 450 ANNAPOLIS ROAD X X 

Existing Loop 

Ramps/Existing Median 

Too Narrow 

Existing median width will prohibit inside widening through the 

MD 450 Annapolis Road interchange area. Alternative widening 

to outside would require bridge and partial interchange 

reconstruction. 

 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 18 January 2012 

3.1.2.2 – NPS Constraints/Impacts Table 

Cross Street 

Bridge 

Widening 

Bridge 

Replacement 

Partial 

Interchange 

Re-building 

(Ramp Tie Ins) 

Widening Is Constrained At 

This Location 

Limits of 

Disturbance 

Encroach 

Existing Rightof-Way Comments 

MD 175 JESSUP ROAD/ANNAPOLIS ROAD

CONNECTOR ROAD (NSA)

MD 32 PATUXENT FREEWAY X

LITTLE PATUXENT RIVER X

MD 198 LAUREL FORT MEADE ROAD

PATUXENT RIVER X

MD 197 LAUREL BOWIE ROAD X

POWDER MILL ROAD X

BEAVER DAM ROAD X

EXPLORER ROAD X

MD 193 GREENBELT ROAD X X Existing Median Too Narrow 

Existing median width will 

prohibit inside widening 

through the Greenbelt Road 

interchange area. Alternative 

widening to outside would 

require bridge and partial 

interchange reconstruction. 

I-95/I-495 (CAPITAL BELTWAY) X

GOOD LUCK ROAD X

MD 410 RIVERDALE ROAD X

MD 450 ANNAPOLIS ROAD X X Existing Loop Ramps 

Existing median width will 

prohibit inside widening 

through the MD 450 Annapolis 

Road interchange area. 

Alternative widening to outside 

would require bridge and partial 

interchange reconstruction. 

Existing Median Too Narrow
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 19 January 2012 

3.2 - Considerations for Further Study 

As noted in Chapters 1 and 2 of this report, the scope of this feasibility study was limited to the 

evaluation of widening the B-W Parkway to result in the provision of a total of three lanes in each 

direction throughout the length of the Corridor. The narrow scope means that a number of potential 

methods of addressing mobility needs in the Corridor were not studied. Additionally, the design of the 

alternatives was limited to a conceptual level of definition. No drainage or stormwater design was 

performed, so a 25-foot area was reserved as the potential limits of disturbance dimension for the 

provision of wider ditches and grading to accommodate environmental site design to meet the new 

MDE guidelines. Furthermore, current interchange types were held and graphically tied into each of the 

various Parkway widening options as best as possible. Many of these potential actions would likely 

require the obtaining of design exceptions in order to avoid complete reconstruction of these 

interchanges given the physical constraints of the corridor. 

Should this study move forward, recommended future analysis would include a more comprehensive 

study area wide examination of the full array of modes and facilities serving the defined study area, and 

consideration of an array of modes and facility operations and management strategies to meet the 

overall mobility needs of the Corridor. Specific recommendations for future consideration could thus 

include, but would not be limited to: 

x A Parkway mainline widening alternative that utilizes a combination of inside and outside widening 

to accommodate differing existing conditions and constraints along the corridor. For example, if the 

existing median is too narrow to accommodate lane and shoulder widening to the inside of the 

northbound and southbound parkway, then a transition to widen to the outside should be 

considered. 

x Refinement of design to attempt to keep limits of disturbance within the existing right-of-way. The 

right-of-way impacts could be mitigated by shifting alignment, widening on the opposite side, 

adjusting grading, or if necessary, adding retaining walls. 

x Analyses of high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus only lanes or bus rapid transit lanes, electronic toll 

lanes or high occupancy toll lanes. 

x Preliminary stormwater management design so that the grading limits can be refined based on 

design rather than the twenty five feet allowance assumed for the feasibility study. 

x Geometrics of existing interchanges should be evaluated with current design criteria to determine 

the extent they may need to be reconstructed (or partially reconstructed) to accommodate the 

future traffic projections and parkway widening. 

x Evaluate feasibility of changing interchange type/configuration to improve future capacity and 

safety. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 20 January 2012 

Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis 

This chapter presents the results of an initial, multi-disciplinary environmental analysis for each of the 

selected study options, including the No Build for the B-W Parkway study corridor. The environmental 

analysis does not constitute a full or even a partial formal National Environmental Policy Act-type 

assessment for any future proposal. Instead, this analysis examines, at a lower level of detail, the social, 

economic, environmental, historic, and cultural resources in the study area and the potential impacts on 

these resources that would be anticipated with implementation of each of the proposed options. Lastly, 

it identifies on a very preliminary basis the potential range of measures that might be considered at 

some future date to mitigate any of these potential impacts. 

4.1 - Methodology Overview 

The areas of investigation included many of the familiar subjects typically studied in NEPA compliance 

documents such as an environmental impact statement. The subject areas included natural resources, 

community resources and socioeconomics, historic resources, physical environment, and National Park 

Service – specific impacts such as visitor experience. Data collected to assist in this assessment was 

obtained primarily from the State of Maryland Geographic Information System clearinghouse, the 

Maryland Historical Trust, county sources, direct resource agency coordination and limited field 

observation. By examining the available existing information along with the details of the four build 

options described in the previous section and the No Build, the study team prepared the following 

feasibility level impact or effects analysis. Where appropriate, impacts or effects were determined by 

documenting the number of potential occurrences of an impact such as how many streams are crossed 

and how many areas with wetlands are affected, rather than attempting to calculate acreages or other 

levels of detail beyond the scope of this effort. 

It is important to note that for many resources, impact assessment and determining significance 

typically requires iterative agency and stakeholder coordination in addition to the required field 

investigations to obtain precise resource delineations and/or uncovering of resources that geographic 

information system-sourced data simply cannot reveal. Therefore, the emphasis of the environmental 

analysis of this feasibility study is on a concise examination of known significant environmental issues. 

Should the study advance beyond the feasibility analysis, then more detailed investigations will have to 

be conducted in support of any subsequent formal environmental impact documentation. 

4.2 - Possible Direct Resource Effects 

In examining the four build options and the No Build, potential direct effects were estimated for seven 

subject areas that are likely to be of interest to decision makers, public stakeholders and resource and 

regulatory agencies should widening studies advance beyond the feasibility study level. These included 

park impacts, private property impacts beyond the NPS property and/or Maryland SHA right-of-way, 

forest/tree buffer impacts, known wetland crossings, major stream/floodplain crossings, sensitive 

species areas, and known historic properties. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 21 January 2012 

4.2.1 - Parklands and Recreation Areas Effects 

Any of the four build options would have direct effects on the NPS-owned B-W Parkway in the form of 

lane and shoulder additions, interchange and ramp modifications, mature tree and landscaping removal 

or alteration, alterations to vistas and overall change in visitor and traveler experience. In addition to 

the effects on the Parkway, both the AASHTO/SHA outside widening and the NPS outside widening 

options would affect Greenbelt Park. The No Build option would have no direct park property impacts; 

however, the B-W Parkway user experience is likely to be affected by worsening traffic conditions. 

Mitigation and minimization of park impacts of the NPS facilities would be a primary focus of any future 

studies and continuing coordination would be needed to determine the range of possibilities. 

4.2.2 - Wetlands and Water Resources Effects 

The environs in and around the B-W Parkway contains significant wetland resources mostly associated 

with Patuxent and Little Patuxent River crossings. Direct impacts to wetlands and their regulated 

buffers would be unavoidable under any of the widening options except for the NPS inside widening 

option as reflected in the table below. The wetland areas are exclusively to the outside of the existing 

Parkway pavement according to GIS data. The NPS inside option requires widening to the inside with no 

additional widening to the outside. However, the AASHTO/SHA inside widening option requires 

widening to the outside for addition of a standard width shoulder that would potentially affect six 

wetland resources. 

Potential Effect AASHTO/SHA NPS 

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside Inside 

Known Wetland Area 

Crossings (each) 

18 6 18 0 

Rivers/streams/floodplain 

Crossings (each) 

6 6 6 6 

Any of the build options would require the same number of rivers, streams and floodplain crossings, 

although the magnitude of the possible direct impact would be greatest for the AASHTO/SHA outside 

widening and least for the NPS inside widening simply based on the size of their respective limit of 

disturbance. The No-Build would not directly affect any known wetlands or water resources. 

In Maryland, stream and wetland mitigation are typically permit conditions related to MDE and/or U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers authorizations or permits. Mitigation requirements will depend on the quality 

and quantity of impacts. The Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (40 

CFR230) governs compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by MDSPGP-3 or Corps Individual 

Permits (i.e., wetland and waterway impacts). The amount of mitigation required is determined by 

functional or condition assessment or a suitable metric (minimum 1:1 acreage or linear feet 

compensation) and should be commensurate with project impacts. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 22 January 2012 

4.2.3 - Known Cultural Resources Effects 

Cultural resources in this planning context are characterized as historic structures, districts, landmarks 

and landscapes as well as archeological (subsurface) artifact sites. Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) requires that historic properties be considered while planning 

and executing an undertaking requiring federal permits or funds. Generally, historic properties are 

those that are more than 50 years of age, and that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

The current study area encompasses a large area that contains approximately 1,350 previously 

identified and/or evaluated built resources more than 50 years of age according to Maryland Historical 

Trust (MHT, the Maryland State Historic Preservation Office) geographic information systemdata and 

files. These built resources may include buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts. The 

preliminary archeological assessment is based on a review of the GIS archeological database maintained 

by the Maryland Historical Trust. 

Of particular note, the B-W Parkway is listed in the National Register of Historic Places for its historic 

associations with transportation and landscape architecture. This historic property designation 

encompasses the area from the Washington, DC, border to just south of MD 175 and includes the 

historic right-of-way. Within this area are numerous contributing elements such as bridges, culverts, 

and landscape architecture components that are recognized as the character-defining features of the 

Parkway. 

Potential direct effects to known historic properties would be unavoidable under any of the widening 

options. As reflected in the table below, the inside widening options encounter fewer known historic 

properties than the outside widening options. 

Potential Effect AASHTO/SHA NPS 

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside Inside 

Known Historic Properties 

(each) 

4 2 4 2 

Any of the four build options would have direct effects on the National Register of Historic Places listed 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway in the form of lane and shoulder additions, interchange and ramp 

modifications, mature tree and landscaping removal or alteration, alterations to vistas and overall 

change in historic character. Similarly, any of the four build options could affect the National Register 

Eligible Beltsville Agricultural Resource Center. The two outside widening options could also directly 

affect the National Register listed Greenbelt Historic District and the National Register eligible DC 

Children’s Center- Forest Haven District (facility closed). 

Although a detailed evaluation of archeological potential is beyond the scope of this preliminary 

analysis, there are portions of the Parkway alignment that can be identified as having higher potential 

for archeological sites, based on a variety of environmental and land-use factors. The original 

construction of the B-W Parkway and intersecting roadway interchanges would have resulted in the 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 23 January 2012 

disturbance of many of the landforms the alignment crosses. However, as the Parkway design was 

predicated on the preservation of natural topography and vegetation, the level of disturbance will be 

variable and more intact landforms with well-preserved archeological resources may still exist along 

portions of the flanking wooded buffers and in wide sections of the Parkway median. 

The No-Build option would not directly affect any known cultural resources. Mitigation of cultural 

resource impacts or effects can vary from preservation in place to resource recordation and is 

negotiated on a resource by resource basis with the Maryland Historical Trust. 

4.2.4 - Forests and Ecology Effects 

The study corridor contains significant forest and ecological resources highlighted by the Patuxent 

Research Refuge, the Beltsville Agricultural Resource Center, and Greenbelt Park. The table below 

presents the approximate acreage of forest that could be affected by any of the potential build options. 

Potential Effect AASHTO/SHA NPS 

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside Inside 

Forest Impacts-inside 

existing ROW (acres and % ) 

240 acres 

(35%) 

175 acres 

(26%) 

170 acres 

(25%) 

58 acres 

(8.5%) 

Sensitive Species Project 

Review Areas (each) 

5 5 5 5 

The total forest area within the existing B-W Parkway right-of-way is approximately 678 acres. As 

reflected in the table any of the build options would require some impacts to forest areas. However, the 

direct impact would be greatest for the AASHTO outside widening option and least for the NPS inside 

widening option simply based on the size of their respective limits of disturbance. 

Compliance with the State of Maryland’s Forest Conservation Act is required for any activity requiring an 

application for a subdivision, grading permit or sediment control permit on areas 40,000 square feet or 

greater and will require a Forest Conservation Plan. The Forest Conservation Act is implemented at the 

county level, and each county may have different implementation guidelines regarding forest retention, 

reforestation and afforestation. In general, planting requirements under the Forest Conservation Act 

are not required if the total area of forest to be retained is at or above the breakeven point (amount of 

forest that must be retained so that no mitigation is required). The breakeven point is determined 

based on Forest Conservation Act required calculations considering net tract area, land use, and existing 

forest cover. Planting requirements (i.e., mitigation) are then based on required worksheet calculations 

outlined in the Forest Conservation Act, and may include areas of available reforestation, afforestation, 

or both. 

Sensitive Species Project Review Areas are delineated by the Maryland Department of the Natural 

Resources (DNR) and are typically areas known to contain or provide critical habitat for protected plants 

or animals or contain a habitat type unique or rare in Maryland such as a bog. All four build options 

would require traversing five Sensitive Species Project Review Areas; however, field specific work would 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 24 January 2012 

be required to evaluate whether any species or feature of concern actually occurs within or near the 

area of possible disturbance. Mitigation requirements would be dependent on the specifics of the 

resource in question (e.g. protected plant or fish) and would be coordinated with the Maryland DNR and 

other stakeholders on a case by case basis. 

The No Build option would not directly affect any forests or ecologically sensitive resources. 

4.2.5 - Potential Property Impacts 

Direct property impacts immediately adjacent to existing NPS property and Maryland SHA right-of-way 

limits occur primarily with the outside widening option, with little difference between the NPS and 

AASHTO/SHA typical section. Due to the requirement for an outside shoulder, the AASHTO/SHA inside 

widening option also could directly affect up to three properties. The NPS inside widening option could 

be constructed without any additional property impacts on adjacent areas. 

Potential Property Impacts AASHTO/SHA NPS 

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside Inside 

Residential (each) 13-14 0-1 13-14 0 

Commercial (each) 2 1 2 0 

Institutional (each) 1-2 0-1 1-2 0 

Direct property impacts associated with either of the outside widening options would most likely occur 

in the residential communities of East Riverdale, Greenbelt and Laurel. As discussed in Chapter 3, 

property impacts were limited to minor encroachments at the park boundary and no relocations were 

identified. Right-of-way impacts can likely be avoided through more detailed design at a later stage of 

study.. 

The No Build option would not directly affect any adjacent properties. 

4.3 - Quality of Life Effects 

During the public outreach process concerns were raised about indirect impacts to communities and 

other land uses abutting the Parkway that could result from possible facility expansion including loss of 

tree buffer to the existing facility, viewsheds, noise, and aesthetics. These subjects would undergo 

rigorous investigation should this study lead to the next step of planning. At this initial feasibility study 

stage, these “quality of life” effects are anticipated to be greatest with either of the two outside 

widening options. The AASHTO/SHA inside widening option also requires the construction of a wider 

outside shoulder so some loss of trees on the outside would be required. The NPS inside widening 

would likely result in the least amount of quality of life effects on neighboring communities but would 

require the removal of some vegetation in the existing Parkway median area and a change in the overall 

image of the facility. The No-Action option would have no direct park property impacts; however, B-W 

Parkway users would likely be affected by worsening traffic conditions over time. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 25 January 2012 

The B-W Parkway provides a park setting to welcome visitors and locals alike to the Nation’s capital, but 

no real opportunities for visitors to stop and experience the park. The B-W Parkway not only connects 

the two large tourist destinations of Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland, but the corridor also 

contains many attractions itself. The corridor is home to the Patapsco Valley State Park, Greenbelt Park, 

and environmental research facilities including Beltsville Agricultural Research Center and the Patuxent 

Research Refuge. None of the four build options under consideration are expected to substantively 

change this transportation role of the Parkway. 

4.4 - Considerations for Further Study 

Should this initial feasibility study result in a decision to proceed into the next step of the planning and 

project development process, it is very likely that a formal environmental impact statement would need 

to be prepared under the guidance of a lead federal agency or co-lead agencies, along with invited 

official cooperating agencies. The FHWA and the NPS would be possible lead agencies, while agencies 

with property along the corridor such as United States Department of Agriculture, United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, NASA, the NSA, and the Maryland SHA would be invited to be cooperating 

agencies. 

One of the first steps in the National Environmental Policy Act compliance process is project scoping, an 

activity which involves both the public as well as agency stakeholders. The results of this initial 

feasibility study would serve as the logical “launching point” for scoping discussions. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 26 January 2012 

Chapter 5: Traffic and Transportation

5.1 - Methodology 

Analysis of traffic operations for the various scenarios on the B-W Parkway consisted of the application 

of the following data sources, assumptions, tools and methods: 

x AM and PM peak hour volume estimates for each mainline Parkway segment were calculated 

from AM and PM peak period volumes derived from the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments regional level travel demand model outputs. Conversion from “peak period” to 

“peak hour” was performed in accordance with the guidance contained in the TPB Travel 

Forecasting Model, Version 2.2 Specification, Validation, and User’s Guide published by the 

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (dated March 1, 2008). This guidance 

indicates that the following factors should be employed for converting AM and PM “peak 

period” volumes to AM and PM “peak hour” volumes: 

o AM Peak Hour = 40 percent x AM Peak Period (AMVOL) 

o PM Peak Hour = 37 percent x PM Peak Period (PMVOL) 

Mainline peak hour volumes for all analysis scenarios are documented in section 5.3. 

x Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010 version Freeway Module was used to calculate operational 

attributes given mainline traffic volume and number of lanes. Assumptions pertaining to this 

analysis were developed with the concurrence of the FHWA and include the following: 

o Free-flow speed = 65 miles per hour 

o Percent trucks = 5 percent north of MD 175, 0 percent south of MD 175 (truck traffic 

prohibited within National Park Service jurisdiction) 

o Peak Hour Factor (PHF) = 0.90 

o Terrain = Level 

x HCS analysis was performed to obtain level of service for each mainline segment (i.e. between 

interchanges) along the Parkway, for each direction, for AM and PM peak hours, for each scenario as 

noted in Section 5.2. 

5.2 - Future Traffic Analysis Scenarios 

Future traffic analysis considered year 2040 No Build and Build conditions in accordance with the April 

21, 2011 validation report provided by MWCOG. The regional scale travel demand models were 

developed and applied by MWCOG for each of the defined future year scenarios to estimate average 

daily and AM and PM peak period traffic volumes. The AM and PM peak period volume estimates were 

subsequently used to obtain AM and PM peak hour volumes for analysis. The three future scenarios are 

discussed below. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 27 January 2012 

5.2.1 – Future (2040) No Build Scenario 

This represents the year 2040 roadway network, transportation facilities and traffic forecasts consistent 

with the currently adopted 2010 Constrained Long Range Plans for both the Baltimore and Washington 

metropolitan areas. This scenario accounts for the planned completion of widening along the Maryland 

SHA-owned portion of the Parkway, which will result in a continuous section of three lanes in each 

direction from the MD 175 interchange to the Baltimore Beltway (I-695). This scenario includes the 

completion of other planned regional transportation network improvements such as the Purple Line 

fixed guideway transit facility between Bethesda and New Carrollton, and the Inter-County Connector 

between I-270 and I-95. This option assumes no physical or operational changes to the existing 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway between New York Avenue and the Baltimore Beltway (I-695). 

5.2.2 – Future (2040) Partial Build Scenario 

The Partial Build Scenario assumes additional widening of the Parkway, relative to the 2040 No Build 

scenario, to provide three general use travel lanes in each direction from the Capital Beltway (I-495/I-95) 

to MD 175. This assumption does not affect the Parkway segment between the Capital Beltway and MD 

193, on which auxiliary lanes provide three lanes in each direction under existing conditions. This 

scenario, therefore, provides three lanes in each direction only between the Capital Beltway and the 

Baltimore Beltway. This option assumes no physical or operational changes to the existing BaltimoreWashington Parkway between New York Avenue and the Capital Beltway (I-495/I-95). 

5.2.3 – Future (2040) Full Build Scenario 

The Full Build Scenario assumes additional widening of the Parkway, relative to the 2040 No Build 

scenario, to provide three general use travel lanes in each direction over the entire length of the 

Parkway from MD 450 to MD 175. With the existing three-lane section south of MD 450 and the 

completion of widening north of MD 175 by Maryland SHA provided in the No Build scenario, the Full 

Build scenario provides three general use travel lanes in each direction through the full length of the 

study area from John Hanson Highway (U.S. Route 50) at the District of Columbia line to the Baltimore 

Beltway (I-695). 

5.3 - Traffic Analysis Results 

This study identified the effect of the various future year widening options, including the No Build 

option, on traffic volumes and level of service on the mainline segments of the Parkway between the 

John Hanson Highway (U.S. Route 50) at the District of Columbia line and the Baltimore Beltway (I-695). 

5.3.1 –Traffic Volumes 

The MWCOG travel demand models incorporate anticipated regional growth in population, 

employment, and related activities across both the Baltimore and Washington metropolitan areas as 

shown in Table 5.1. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 28 January 2012 

Table 5.1. Regional Growth Projections (2005-2040) 

Sources: MWCOG and BMC 

Reflective of these anticipated changes in population and employment across the Baltimore and 

Washington, DC, metropolitan areas, total travel demand is similarly expected to increase significantly 

over the next several decades in the corridor between the Baltimore and Washington urban cores. The 

projected increases in Base Realignment and Closure related employment at Fort Meade will also 

contribute to increased travel demand across the study area. 

A basic characteristic of both the Baltimore and Washington, DC, regional travel demand modeling 

processes is an effort to achieve a reasonable balance between the total estimated travel demand and 

the ability of the highway and transit systems in the two regions to accommodate these demands. 

Accordingly, the traffic volume forecasts along the Parkway corridor associated with each of the future 

year scenarios reflected the tendency for traffic to utilize the additional capacity created in areas where 

the Parkway was being proposed to be widened to three lanes in each direction. Figure 5.1 shows the 

average daily traffic forecasts for mainline segments along the Parkway in the year 2040 associated with 

each of the widening options that were considered during the conduct of this initial feasibility study. 

Comparing the forecast traffic volumes between scenarios, it is evident that there is little change on 

those Parkway segments which are assumed to remain two lanes in each direction but a significant 

increase in volume on those segments which are proposed to be widened from two lanes in one 

scenario to three lanes in another. In essence, the projected travel demand across the study area seeks 

to use any available capacity that might be provided along segments of the Parkway between New York 

Avenue (U.S. Route 50) and the Baltimore Beltway (I-695). Forecast average daily traffic, AM and PM 

peak hour volumes are presented in Appendix A to this task report. 

2005 2040 change

Population 6,262,508 8,613,982 38%

Employment 3,700,075 5,457,004 47%
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 29 January 2012 

Figure 5.1. Mainline Average Daily Traffic Forecasts – All Scenarios 

5.3.2 – Operations 

Results from the HCS analysis were used to develop comparisons between the various scenarios to 

ascertain the impact of widening on individual users. With the intention of limiting this comparison to 

significant differences between the defined analysis scenarios, ignoring minor variations of operational 

characteristics that occur with small changes in traffic volumes, these comparisons focused on a 

segment-by-segment review of where the LOS letter-grade as reported by HCS changed between 

scenarios. A complete summary of all HCS analysis results is included in Appendix A. 

5.3.2.1 - Existing to 2040 No-Build 

A comparison of the HCS results between those for the existing (2005 base year) and the 2040 No Build 

scenarios is shown in Figure 5.2. Those Parkway mainline road segments highlighted in green represent 

segments where the level of service could be expected to improve in the 2040 No-Build scenario relative 

to the existing scenario. Those Parkway segments highlighted in red represent segments that are 

expected to experience a drop or decline in the AM or PM peak hour level of service from 2005 to 2040. 

These results may be partially explained by the following: 

x Improvement in level of service north of MD 100 coincides with the limits of the Parkway 

widening work being undertaken by Maryland SHA which is part of the Constrained Long Range 

Plans for 2040. 

x Drop in levels of service between MD 197 and MD 32 may be related to the projected growth of 

Fort Meade related to Base Realignment and Closure. 

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

US50

MD202MD450MD410

I495

MD193

Explorer

PowderMill

MD197MD198

MD32

Technology

MD175

ArundelMills

MD100

Hanover

I195

MD168

I695

ADT

2005 Existing

2040 No-Build

2040 Partial Build

2040 Full Build
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 30 January 2012 

Figure 5.2. Change in Levels of Service from Existing (2005 Base Year) to 2040 No-Build 

The comparison of the 2040 No Build scenario with the 2005 Existing conditions scenario provided a 

basis for comparing future traffic conditions between the 2040 No Build scenario and the two 2040 Build 

scenarios considered in this feasibility study. 

5.3.2.2 - 2040 No Build to 2040 Partial Build 

Using a similar convention to Figure 5.2, Figure 5.3 documents the anticipated change in the AM and PM 

peak hour levels of service for the 2040 Partial Build scenario relative to the 2040 No Build scenario. Key 

observations associated with this comparison include the following: 

x Level of service improves under the 2040 Partial Build scenario on widened Parkway segments 

south of MD 175, but degrades on the three-lane segments north of MD 175. This reflects 

additional traffic seeking the benefits of a widened north-south commuter link which has an 

adverse effect on operations for segments north of MD 175 where widening has already taken 

place under the 2040 No Build scenario. 

x A reduction in the projected peak hour level of service is also noted for the Parkway segment 

from the Capital Beltway to MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) on which the auxiliary lanes between the 

closely-spaced interchanges provide three lanes in each direction under existing conditions. This 

section of the Parkway is not anticipated to experience any widening under the 2040 Partial 

Build scenario compared to either the 2005 Base or 2040 No Build scenarios. 

x The PM peak hour conditions on those Parkway segments south of the Capital Beltway are 

generally worse as these segments are assumed to remain two lanes in each direction under the 

2040 Partial Build scenario.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 31 January 2012 

Figure 5.3. Change in Levels of Service from 2040 No-Build to 2040 Partial Build 

5.3.2.3 - 2040 No-Build to 2040 Full Build 

Figure 5.4 documents the projected change in the peak hour level of service from 2040 No Build 

scenario to the 2040 Full Build scenario. Key observations include the following: 

x Results are similar to the comparison between 2040 No Build and 2040 Partial Build north of the 

Capital Beltway. Thus, peak hour level of service is anticipated to improve under the 2040 Full 

Build scenario on widened Parkway segments south of MD 175, but degrades on the three-lane 

segments north of MD 175. This reflects additional traffic seeking the benefits of a widened 

north-south commuter link which has an adverse effect on operations for segments north of MD 

175 where widening has already taken place under the 2040 No Build scenario 

x The PM peak hour level of service conditions south of the MD 450 interchange to U.S. Route 50 

are generally worse as these segments are three lanes under existing conditions and will not 

experience any widening under the 2040 Full Build scenario despite experiencing an increase in 

demand resulting from widening elsewhere along the Parkway. The AM peak hour level of 

service conditions are expected to remain essentially unchanged from those observed in the 

2005 Base and the 2040 No Build and 2040 Partial Build scenarios. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 32 January 2012 

Figure 5.4. Change in Levels of Service from 2040 No-Build to 2040 Full Build 

5.3.3 – General Observations 

Several general observations are derived from these results: 

x Traffic conditions are generally worse in the PM peak hour than in the AM peak hour. 

x The distribution of traffic “hot spots” in future years continues to be consistent with directional 

traffic distribution in the AM and PM peak periods. 

x Widening selected sections of the Parkway as proposed under the 2040 Partial Build and 2040 

Full Build scenarios may provide some localized improvement to traffic operations, but 

regionally the level of traffic congestion changes little from the 2040 No Build conditions as 

widened sections exhibit a sharp increase in traffic volumes to utilize the additional capacity 

that is provided. This is a result of the regional travel demand forecasting model’s efforts to 

balance projected traffic demand against available roadway capacity. 

x Both build scenarios have the effect of creating traffic bottlenecks at the point where newly 

widened sections join with previously widened sections on the Maryland SHA-owned area of the 

Parkway, regardless of the number of lanes in the non-widened sections. This is due to 

additional traffic volumes accessing the widened sections of the facility in search of a more 

balanced level of congestion. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 33 January 2012 

In conclusion, the following statements summarize the transportation results of this study, as it pertains 

to the feasibility of future widening: 

x A widened Baltimore-Washington Parkway will carry more traffic. 

x A widened Parkway will not necessarily be less congested than conditions that are observed 

today. 

x In general, more vehicles can move through the corridor if it is widened, but at similar levels of 

congestion as are observed today. 

5.4 - Moving Forward 

This study presents a preview of how the Partial Build and Full Build widening scenarios would affect 

traffic volumes and traffic operations as experienced by users of the Parkway. Further review of 

Parkway improvements should adopt a broader regional context with consideration for the following: 

x More detailed review of traffic interactions at ramps or spillback effects from downstream 

traffic bottlenecks, and distribution of local traffic at cross streets are necessary to validate the 

adequacy of existing interchanges. 

x Future growth of traffic or changes in local demand patterns warrant a review of interchange 

geometry to include auxiliary lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, ramps, and cross street 

typical sections. 

x Consideration of traffic management strategies including demand management and managed 

lanes options (i.e. high occupancy toll or congestion pricing), transit priority, or other measures 

– in combination with or as alternatives to Parkway widening - could affect long-term traffic 

forecasts and impacts. 

Consideration of improvements to parallel highway and transit facilities serving north-south travel 

demand between the Washington, DC, and Baltimore metropolitan areas. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 34 January 2012 

Chapter 6: Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates 1 

In order to address the feasibility of widening the B-W Parkway, the potential benefits need to be 

compared to the estimated capital costs. Below is a summary of the methodologies and assumptions 

that were used to develop the preliminary capital cost estimates for each of the four widening options 

presented in the feasibility study. 

6.1 - Methodology and Data Sources 

Preliminary capital cost estimates for each widening option were developed using the Maryland 

Department of Transportation State Highway Administration 2011 Highway Construction Cost 

Estimating Manual. The recommended format for conceptual or feasibility study planning level project 

cost estimates is a Major Quantities Estimate. Overall, base costs were developed by applying current 

2011 unit costs to measurable quantities of major item categories that included earthwork, paving, 

shoulders (curb, traffic barrier, guardrail, etc) and structures (bridge widening, new, demolition). Other 

categories of costs were estimated by applying recommended percentages of the overall base cost of 

the major items. The percentages used were based primarily from the ranges suggested in the 2011 

Highway Construction Cost Estimating Manual prepared by Maryland SHA. In some cases, where 

additional items within a category could be measured or estimated by lane-mile or length of project, 

they were included and the corresponding percentage adjusted. 

The Maryland SHA 2011 Highway Construction Cost Estimating Manual breaks down the total project 

cost into eight separate cost categories, or groups of similar items. For the purposes of this initial cost 

calculation, only four of the categories (2, 4, 5, and 6) are considered major items and their combined 

category costs are included as the defined major item costs. A brief description of the items considered 

and quantified within each category for this feasibility study or the applicable percentage of the major 

item costs are provided below. 

Category 1 Preliminary: Mobilization, clearing and grubbing, engineer’s office, and maintenance of 

traffic were considered to be 40 percent of the major item cost. 

Category 2 Earthwork: The earthwork volumes were estimated by average end method from cut and fill 

areas computed from preliminary cross sections and Geopak design software. The cross sections 

included a widened roadside ditch section to account for stormwater management, using environmental 

site design, to meet the new MDE guidelines. 

Category 3 Drainage: The drainage (storm drain pipes, inlets, etc.) was estimated as 30% of the major 

item cost. Stormwater management, using environmental site design, to meet the new MDE guidelines 

is accounted for in this percentage. 

 

1

 Preliminary costs estimates were submitted for review and comment. In addition, the study team is waiting for 

operations and maintenance costs information from NPS. Once all these items have been submitted to the study 

team, the team can complete this section. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 35 January 2012 

Category 4 Structures: The areas of bridge removal, bridge widening, and new bridge construction were 

measured from the feasibility study plans. 

Category 5 Pavement: The areas of new pavement for the widening and the areas of existing pavement 

to be milled and overlaid were measured from the feasibility study plans. From these areas, quantities 

of aggregate base, base asphalt and surface asphalt were computed. 

Category 6 Shoulders: This category includes curb, gutter, traffic barriers, guardrail, and appurtenances. 

Though not designed or shown on the plans at a feasibility study level, quantities for these items were 

able to be estimated using engineering judgment and the cross sections dimensions. 

Category 7 Landscaping: This category includes an allowance for normal roadside landscape items 

estimated as 10 percent of the major item cost. It also includes the reforestation of the impacted 

forested areas measured within the limits of disturbance shown on the feasibility study plans. For 

purposes of this estimate, an acre of mitigation or replacement was assumed for every acre of impacted 

forest. This category also includes an estimate for anticipated noise walls. A length of noise walls along 

potential sensitive sound receptors (adjacent residential communities) was approximated and multiplied 

by an average height of fifteen feet. The total cost of these three components comprises the 

Landscaping category. 

Category 8 Traffic: Pavement markings, markers, signs and guide signs were estimated based on project 

lane lengths. No lighting or traffic signal equipment are anticipated or included in this estimate for the 

widening as neither items exist on the current parkway. 

Category 8 Utilities: Utility relocation was estimated as eight percent of the major item cost. 

Due to the preliminary nature of this estimate, a contingency cost of 40 percent was added to the sum 

of the above categories to provide an overall neat cost. Preliminary engineering (10 percent) and 

construction overhead (15.5 percent) costs were also included in the overall capital cost estimate based 

on percentages of the total neat cost. A summary of the capital cost estimate is illustrated in section 6.2 

below. 

6.1.1 - Right of Way Costs 

The right-of-way impacts identified were very narrow sliver encroachments adjacent to the Park 

boundary. It is anticipated that if this study should advance to a more detailed design that these 

impacts could be avoided and therefore no costs for Right of Way acquisition are included in the study 

6.1.2 - Operations and Maintenance Costs 

The widening of the parkway will increase the pavement area by about 35 lane-miles and bridge 

structures will be increased accordingly. As a result, annual operations and maintenance cost budget 

would likely increase by about $300,000 to $400,000. This cost was estimated by applying increased 

lane miles and structure areas to unit prices taken from the 2011 operations and maintenance budget, 

provided by the National Park Service. This cost includes labor and materials for typical parkway 

maintenance items such as mowing grass, applying road salt, and annual bridge maintenance. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 36 January 2012 

6.1.3 – Construction Costs for Park Aesthetics 

Given the context of the parkway, additional costs were included in the estimate for landscaping and 

aesthetic treatment of structures. For the NPS alternatives, the cost of roadside barriers was estimated 

to account for the decorative concrete/stone treatments. For bridges an additional $20 per square foot 

was added to the cost estimate to account for the aesthetic architectural treatments of piers and 

abutments. The estimated landscaping cost was increased to account for plantings indicative of a 

parkway. 

6.2 - Matrix of Costs by Widening Option 

The preliminary capital cost estimate for each of the widening options is summarized in the table below. 

The detailed cost estimate worksheet is included in Appendix B of this task report. 

Table 6.1. Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate 

 

AASHTO/SHA

INSIDE 

AASHTO/SHA

OUTSIDE NPS INSIDE NPS OUTSIDE 

TOTAL CATEGORY 1 - PRELIMINARY $45,886,600.00 $64,685,200.00 $38,633,400.00 $61,904,800.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 2 - EARTHWORK $15,845,000.00 $29,185,000.00 $13,446,000.00 $23,950,000.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 3 - DRAINAGE $40,653,950.00 $54,752,900.00 $32,101,050.00 $49,554,600.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 4 - STRUCTURES $28,897,000.00 $53,662,000.00 $19,572,000.00 $46,742,000.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 5- PAVEMENT $63,830,500.00 $73,993,500.00 $36,828,500.00 $48,833,500.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 6 - SHOULDERS $6,144,000.00 $4,872,500.00 $26,737,000.00 $35,236,500.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 7- LANDSCAPING $20,015,650.00 $24,731,300.00 $18,172,850.00 $24,018,700.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 8- TRAFFIC $1,979,900.00 $1,979,900.00 $1,979,900.00 $1,979,900.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 8- UTILITIES $9,177,320.00 $12,937,040.00 $7,726,680.00 $12,380,960.00

SUBTOTAL - CATEGORIES 2, 4, 5 & 6 $114,716,500.00 $161,713,000.00 $96,583,500.00 $154,762,000.00

SUBTOTAL - ALL CATEGORIES $232,429,920.00 $320,799,340.00 $195,197,380.00 $304,600,960.00

CONTINGENCY (40%) $92,971,968.00 $128,319,736.00 $78,078,952.00 $121,840,384.00

NEAT CONSTRUCTION COSTS $325,401,888.00 $449,119,076.00 $273,276,332.00 $426,441,344.00

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (10%) $32,540,188.80 $44,911,907.60 $27,327,633.20 $42,644,134.40

CONSTRUCTION OVERHEAD (15.5%) $50,437,292.64 $69,613,456.78 $42,357,831.46 $66,098,408.32

TOTAL COST $408,400,000.00 $563,600,000.00 $343,000,000.00 $535,200,000.00

Based on the capital cost calculations, the outside widening options will cost more than the inside 

widening options. The AASHTO/SHA widening options will cost more than the NPS widening options. 

The difference in cost is due mostly to the wider shoulder impacts resulting from the AASHTO standards 

in comparison to the NPS standards. This impact would affect both northbound and southbound 

widening. It should also be noted that these costs shown exclude estimates of potential right-of-way 

acquisition or other cost factors previously noted. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 37 January 2012 

Chapter 7: Summary 

Based on the alternatives evaluation performed as part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening 

Feasibility Study, the following comments can be made with respect to each of the four technical 

evaluation criteria. 

7.1 - Physical Constraints 

In sections where widening might occur, new or re-constructed infrastructure will most likely be 

needed. In locations where the Parkway traverses under a cross street, bridges will need to be replaced. 

In locations where the Parkway traverses over a cross street, bridges will need to be widened. Most of 

the existing Parkway interchanges will need to be modified or replaced. There are some locations, such 

as in the Greenbelt area, where the limits of disturbance appear to encroach close to or outside of the 

existing Parkway right-of-way. There were also several sections noted where an inside widening 

concept is likely not feasible due to the lack of median width available for widening of the travelway. 

Many locations may require design exceptions in order to avoid complete reconstruction given the 

physical constraints of the corridor. 

Should the decision be made that this study move forward, any future analysis should include an 

evaluation of widening options that utilizes a combination of inside and outside widening to 

accommodate differing existing conditions and constraints along the corridor. The future analysis 

should also consider the geometrics of existing interchanges to determine the extent they may need to 

be reconstructed to accommodate the future traffic projections and parkway widening. 

7.2 - Environmental Analysis and Effects 

Each of the four widening options would have direct effects on all evaluated environmental elements: 

parklands and recreation areas, including the B-W Parkway itself; wetlands and water resources; known 

cultural resources, including the B-W Parkway; forest and ecology; and residential, commercial and 

institutional property impacts. quality of life impacts such as view sheds, noise, and aesthetics are 

anticipated to be greatest with either of the two outside widening options that were considered. 

The No Build option would have no direct environmental impacts; however, the B-W Parkway user 

experience is likely to be affected by worsening traffic conditions as increasing travel demands attempt 

to use the existing roadway. 

Mitigation and minimization of environmental impacts of the NPS facilities would be a primary focus of 

any future studies and coordination with environmental stakeholders should continue to determine the 

possible range of possibilities. 

7.3 - Traffic and Transportation 

The traffic and transportation analysis results revealed that the following major findings: 

x Traffic conditions along most sections of the Parkway are generally worse in the PM peak hour 

than in the AM peak hour, both today and in the future; 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 38 January 2012 

x The distribution of traffic hot spots in future years continues to be consistent with directional 

traffic distribution in the AM and PM peak periods; 

x Widening of the Parkway as proposed under the 2040 Partial Build and 2040 Full Build scenarios 

may provide some localized improvement to traffic operations, but regionally the level of traffic 

congestion is anticipated to change little from the 2040 No Build conditions as widened sections 

exhibit a sharp increase in traffic volumes. 

Thus, a widened Baltimore-Washington Parkway, whether inside or outside, will carry more traffic but 

not necessarily be less congested. More vehicles can move through the corridor if it is widened, but at 

similar levels of congestion as observed today. 

Further review of Parkway improvements should adopt a regional context with consideration for a more 

detailed review of traffic interactions at ramps or spillback effects from downstream traffic bottlenecks, 

and distribution of local traffic at cross streets are necessary to validate the adequacy of existing 

interchanges. Future consideration should be given to traffic management strategies including demand 

management and managed lanes options (i.e. high occupancy toll or congestion pricing), transit priority, 

or other measures – in combination with or as alternatives to Parkway widening. Consideration should 

also be given to improvements of parallel facilities serving north-south traffic demand between the 

Washington, DC, and Baltimore metropolitan areas. 

7.4 - Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates 

The preliminary capital cost estimate based on the Maryland SHA 2011 Highway Construction Cost 

Estimating Manual ranged from $343 million to $563 million exclusive of operations and maintenance 

costs. These cost estimates do not include any additional right-of-way acquisition costs. Based on these 

initial capital cost calculations, the outside widening options will cost more than the inside widening 

options. The AASHTO/SHA widening options will cost more than the NPS widening options. The 

difference in cost is due mostly to the wider shoulder impacts resulting from the AASHTO standards in 

comparison to the NPS standards. This impact would affect both northbound and southbound 

widening. 

The preliminary capital costs were developed from a conservative standpoint. Thus, any future studies 

should include consideration of more detailed engineering and construction methodologies as well as 

mitigation and avoidance alternatives so as to develop a more detailed cost estimate. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 39 January 2012 

Appendix A - Traffic Analysis Results 
Baltimore Washington Parkway - Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic Analysis Results

BETWEEN AND LENGTH DIRECTION A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.

N.B. 2 2184 4197 C F 65.0 51.1 65 82

S.B. 2 3811 2491 E C 56.6 65.0 74 65

N.B. 2 2176 3452 C D 65.0 60.5 67 72

S.B. 2 3072 2706 D C 63.3 64.7 69 67

N.B. 2 3331 4494 D F 61.5 46.0 85 114

S.B. 2 4258 3994 F E 50.1 54.2 105 97

N.B. 2 3306 4678 D F 61.5 46.0 84 113

S.B. 2 4022 4681 F E 50.1 54.2 103 96

N.B. 3 3306 4678 C D 65.0 63.0 53 55

S.B. 3 4022 4681 C D 64.8 63.0 53 55

N.B. 3 3156 5074 C D 65.0 61.1 69 73

S.B. 3 4564 4063 D C 63.4 64.7 70 69

N.B. 2 3293 3714 D E 61.8 57.8 103 110

S.B. 2 3468 3526 D D 60.3 59.8 106 107

N.B. 2 2992 3062 D D 63.7 63.3 24 24

S.B. 2 3020 2960 D D 63.5 63.8 24 24

N.B. 2 3651 3935 E E 58.5 55.0 108 115

S.B. 2 3509 3926 D E 59.9 55.1 105 114

N.B. 2 3499 3788 D E 60.0 56.9 201 212

S.B. 2 3578 3793 D E 59.2 56.8 204 212

N.B. 2 3937 4552 E F 56.2 46.9 119 143

S.B. 2 4234 4324 F F 52.1 50.8 129 132

N.B. 2 3219 4036 D E 62.9 54.9 114 131

S.B. 2 3867 3635 E D 57.1 59.6 126 121

N.B. 2 3375 3854 D E 61.8 57.2 75 81

S.B. 2 3786 3681 E D 58.0 59.1 80 79

N.B. 3 3752 4080 C C 65.0 64.8 20 21

S.B. 3 4116 3915 C C 64.8 65.0 21 20

N.B. 2 3099 3719 D E 63.5 58.7 134 145

S.B. 2 3567 3618 D D 60.2 59.7 141 142

N.B. 2 2838 3619 C D 64.6 59.7 93 100

S.B. 2 3502 3575 D D 60.8 60.1 98 99

N.B. 3 2649 4352 B C 65.0 64.4 18 18

S.B. 3 4349 4099 C C 64.4 64.8 18 18

N.B. 3 1924 3986 A C 65.0 64.9 91 92

S.B. 3 5130 3700 D C 61.5 65.0 97 91

N.B. 62.1 55.7 1524 1700

S.B. 58.3 58.8 1623 1609

16 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road)

Powder Mill Road 1.86

11 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) MD 32 0.43

14 MD 100 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) 0.96

13 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) MD 175 1.24

12 MD 175 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) 1.77

MD 100 1.44

TOTAL I-695 US 50 26.29

10 MD 32 MD 198 1.75

9 MD 198 MD 197 3.35

6 Balwash Rd. MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) 1.29

5 MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) I-95 (Capital Beltway) 0.37

8 MD 197

2005 EXISTING

SEGMENT

MD 295 SEGMENTS NO. LANES VOLUME LOS AVG. SPEED TRAVEL TIME

1 MD 202 (Landover Rd) US 50 (John Hanson 

Highway) 1.65

4 I-95 (Capital Beltway) Riverdale Road 2.36

3 Riverdale Road MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) 1.66

7 Powder Mill Road Balwash Rd. 2.00

2 MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) MD 202 (Landover Rd) 0.32

17 I-695 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road) 1.17

I-195 1.21

15B I-195 Hanover Road 1.46

15A Hanover Road

Page 1/5
Baltimore Washington Parkway - Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic Analysis Results

BETWEEN AND LENGTH DIRECTION

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

16 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road)

Powder Mill Road 1.86

11 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) MD 32 0.43

14 MD 100 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) 0.96

13 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) MD 175 1.24

12 MD 175 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) 1.77

MD 100 1.44

TOTAL I-695 US 50 26.29

10 MD 32 MD 198 1.75

9 MD 198 MD 197 3.35

6 Balwash Rd. MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) 1.29

5 MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) I-95 (Capital Beltway) 0.37

8 MD 197

SEGMENT

MD 295 SEGMENTS

1 MD 202 (Landover Rd) US 50 (John Hanson 

Highway) 1.65

4 I-95 (Capital Beltway) Riverdale Road 2.36

3 Riverdale Road MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) 1.66

7 Powder Mill Road Balwash Rd. 2.00

2 MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) MD 202 (Landover Rd) 0.32

17 I-695 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road) 1.17

I-195 1.21

15B I-195 Hanover Road 1.46

15A Hanover Road

A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.

3 3058 7247 B F 65.0 39.1 65 108

3 6274 3876 F C 51.3 64.9 82 65

3 2822 5809 B E 65.0 55.8 67 78

3 4731 3777 D C 62.8 65.0 69 67

3 3599 5405 C D 65.0 59.0 81 89

3 5162 4459 D D 60.6 63.8 87 82

3 4163 5840 C E 64.5 55.5 80 93

3 5470 4971 E D 58.5 61.6 89 84

3 4196 5198 C D 64.5 60.3 54 57

3 4310 5019 C D 64.2 61.4 54 56

3 4135 5783 C E 64.6 56.0 69 80

3 5042 4622 D D 61.3 63.2 73 71

2 3395 3790 D E 61.0 56.9 104 112

2 3638 3760 D D 62.5 62.1 102 103

2 3199 3252 D D 62.5 62.1 25 25

2 3148 3329 D D 62.8 61.5 25 25

2 3752 3969 E E 57.3 54.5 110 116

2 3649 4201 E F 58.5 51.0 108 124

2 3748 3904 E E 57.4 55.4 210 218

2 3559 4117 D E 59.4 52.4 203 230

2 4186 4554 E F 52.8 46.9 127 143

2 4113 4539 E F 53.9 47.1 124 142

2 3246 4048 D E 62.7 54.8 115 131

2 3807 3772 E E 57.8 58.1 125 124

2 3349 3869 D E 62.0 57.0 75 81

2 3780 3737 E E 58.1 58.5 80 79

3 3539 4079 C C 65.0 64.8 20 21

3 4181 3925 C C 64.7 65.0 21 20

2 3080 3670 D D 63.6 59.2 134 144

2 3468 3634 D D 61.1 59.6 139 143

2 2765 3707 C D 64.7 58.8 92 102

2 3544 3646 D D 60.4 59.4 99 101

3 2721 4454 B C 65.0 64.1 18 18

3 4331 4215 C C 64.4 64.6 18 18

3 1995 4218 B C 65.0 64.6 91 92

3 5216 4192 D C 61.0 64.7 97 92

61.6 55.5 1537 1707

59.4 58.2 1593 1626

2040 NO BUILD

NO. LANES VOLUME LOS AVG. SPEED TRAVEL TIME

Page 2/5
Baltimore Washington Parkway - Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic Analysis Results

BETWEEN AND LENGTH DIRECTION

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

16 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road)

Powder Mill Road 1.86

11 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) MD 32 0.43

14 MD 100 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) 0.96

13 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) MD 175 1.24

12 MD 175 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) 1.77

MD 100 1.44

TOTAL I-695 US 50 26.29

10 MD 32 MD 198 1.75

9 MD 198 MD 197 3.35

6 Balwash Rd. MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) 1.29

5 MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) I-95 (Capital Beltway) 0.37

8 MD 197

SEGMENT

MD 295 SEGMENTS

1 MD 202 (Landover Rd) US 50 (John Hanson 

Highway) 1.65

4 I-95 (Capital Beltway) Riverdale Road 2.36

3 Riverdale Road MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) 1.66

7 Powder Mill Road Balwash Rd. 2.00

2 MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) MD 202 (Landover Rd) 0.32

17 I-695 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road) 1.17

I-195 1.21

15B I-195 Hanover Road 1.46

15A Hanover Road

A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.

3 3139 7221 C F 65.0 42.5 65 99

3 6297 3968 F C 51.1 64.8 82 65

3 2915 5811 B E 65.0 55.8 67 78

3 4797 3854 D C 62.5 64.9 70 67

3 3832 5458 C E 65.0 58.6 81 90

3 5218 4560 D D 60.2 63.4 87 83

3 4482 5864 D E 63.7 55.3 81 94

3 5528 5132 E D 58.1 60.7 89 85

3 4598 5250 D D 63.3 60.0 55 58

3 4524 5154 D D 63.6 60.6 54 57

3 4580 6020 D E 63.4 53.9 70 83

3 5344 5173 D D 59.4 60.5 75 74

3 4947 5321 D D 61.8 59.5 103 107

3 5077 5254 D D 62.8 63.5 101 100

3 4728 4551 D D 62.8 63.5 25 24

3 4514 4657 D D 63.6 63.1 24 25

3 5540 5858 E E 58.0 55.4 109 114

3 5313 6141 D E 59.6 52.7 106 120

3 5590 5809 E E 57.6 55.8 209 216

3 5178 6081 D E 60.5 53.3 199 226

3 6041 6603 E F 55.1 49.5 122 135

3 5874 6512 E F 56.5 50.5 119 133

3 4810 5908 D E 62.9 56.2 114 128

3 5444 5566 D E 59.6 58.8 121 122

3 4941 5728 D E 62.4 57.6 74 81

3 5362 5481 D D 60.1 59.4 77 78

3 4284 4992 C D 64.5 62.1 21 21

3 5294 5308 D D 60.5 60.5 22 22

2 3231 3723 D E 62.8 58.7 135 145

2 3516 3717 D E 60.7 58.7 140 145

2 2906 3733 C E 64.4 58.6 93 102

2 3568 3670 D D 60.2 59.2 99 101

3 2782 4504 B D 65.0 64.0 18 18

3 4373 4242 C C 64.3 64.6 18 18

3 2042 4289 B C 65.0 64.5 91 92

3 5226 4204 D C 60.9 64.7 98 92

61.7 56.2 1533 1685

59.8 58.7 1582 1612

2040 PARTIAL BUILD

NO. LANES VOLUME LOS AVG. SPEED TRAVEL TIME

Page 3/5
Baltimore Washington Parkway - Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic Analysis Results

BETWEEN AND LENGTH DIRECTION

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

16 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road)

Powder Mill Road 1.86

11 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) MD 32 0.43

14 MD 100 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) 0.96

13 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) MD 175 1.24

12 MD 175 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) 1.77

MD 100 1.44

TOTAL I-695 US 50 26.29

10 MD 32 MD 198 1.75

9 MD 198 MD 197 3.35

6 Balwash Rd. MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) 1.29

5 MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) I-95 (Capital Beltway) 0.37

8 MD 197

SEGMENT

MD 295 SEGMENTS

1 MD 202 (Landover Rd) US 50 (John Hanson 

Highway) 1.65

4 I-95 (Capital Beltway) Riverdale Road 2.36

3 Riverdale Road MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) 1.66

7 Powder Mill Road Balwash Rd. 2.00

2 MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) MD 202 (Landover Rd) 0.32

17 I-695 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road) 1.17

I-195 1.21

15B I-195 Hanover Road 1.46

15A Hanover Road

A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.

3 3140 7249 C F 65.0 39.1 65 108

3 6279 3954 F C 51.3 64.9 82.1 65

3 2911 5818 B E 65 55.7 67.0 78

3 4781 3860 D C 62.6 64.9 69.6 67

3 3844 5455 C E 65 58.6 80.9 90

3 5228 4561 D D 60.1 63.4 87.5 83

3 4487 5870 D E 63.7 55.3 81.4 94

3 5537 5130 E D 58 60.7 89.4 85

3 4593 5268 D D 63.3 59.9 54.6 58

3 4532 5145 D D 63.5 60.7 54.4 57

3 4576 6037 D E 63.4 53.7 70.4 83

3 5352 5163 D D 59.3 60.6 75.3 74

3 4941 5324 D D 61.8 59.5 103.1 107

3 5087 5244 D D 62.8 63.5 101.5 100

3 4718 4558 D D 62.8 63.5 24.6 24

3 4528 4641 D D 63.6 63.1 24.3 25

3 5537 5867 E E 58 55.3 108.6 114

3 5355 6155 D E 59.3 52.6 106.2 120

3 5594 5814 E E 57.6 55.8 209.4 216

3 5211 6092 D E 60.3 53.2 200.0 227

3 6080 6653 E F 54.7 48.9 122.4 137

3 5973 6586 E F 55.7 49.7 120.2 135

3 4918 5959 D E 62.5 55.8 115.2 129

3 5566 5667 E E 58.8 58.1 122.4 124

3 5037 5798 D E 61.9 57.1 75.0 81

3 5506 5621 D E 59.2 58.4 78.4 80

3 4818 5547 D D 62.9 58.9 21.2 23

3 5566 5590 E E 58.8 58.6 22.7 23

3 4241 5347 C D 64.6 60.2 131.5 141

3 5010 5299 D D 62.1 60.5 136.8 140

3 3674 5226 C D 65 60.9 91.9 98

3 4900 5031 D D 62.6 62.0 95.5 96

3 3145 5267 B D 65 60.7 17.7 19

3 5116 5010 D D 61.5 62.1 18.7 19

3 2269 4630 B D 65 63.6 91.4 93

3 5483 4574 D D 59.4 63.8 100.0 93

61.8 55.9 1531 1693

59.7 58.7 1585 1612

2040 FULL BUILD

AVG. SPEED TRAVEL TIME NO. LANES VOLUME LOS

Page 4/5
Baltimore Washington Parkway - Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic Analysis Results

BETWEEN AND LENGTH DIRECTION

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

N.B.

S.B.

16 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road)

Powder Mill Road 1.86

11 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) MD 32 0.43

14 MD 100 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) 0.96

13 MD 713F (Arundel Mills 

Boulevard) MD 175 1.24

12 MD 175 NSA Entrance 

(Technology Drive) 1.77

MD 100 1.44

TOTAL I-695 US 50 26.29

10 MD 32 MD 198 1.75

9 MD 198 MD 197 3.35

6 Balwash Rd. MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) 1.29

5 MD 193 (Greenbelt Road) I-95 (Capital Beltway) 0.37

8 MD 197

SEGMENT

MD 295 SEGMENTS

1 MD 202 (Landover Rd) US 50 (John Hanson 

Highway) 1.65

4 I-95 (Capital Beltway) Riverdale Road 2.36

3 Riverdale Road MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) 1.66

7 Powder Mill Road Balwash Rd. 2.00

2 MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) MD 202 (Landover Rd) 0.32

17 I-695 MD 168 (West Nursery 

Road) 1.17

I-195 1.21

15B I-195 Hanover Road 1.46

15A Hanover Road

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

1 0 -1 0 -1 0 0.0% 30.7% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0%

-1 0 0 0 0 0 10.3% 0.2% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1 -1 0 0 0 0 0.0% 8.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8% -0.5% -0.5% -0.2% -0.3% -0.2%

1 2 0 -1 0 -1 -5.4% -22.0% 0.0% -0.7% 0.0% -0.7%

2 1 0 0 0 0 -17.3% -15.0% -0.7% -0.6% -0.8% -0.6%

1 1 -1 0 -1 0 -4.7% -17.1% -1.2% -0.4% -1.2% -0.4%

1 1 0 0 0 0 -14.4% -12.0% -0.7% -1.5% -0.9% -1.5%

0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0.8% 4.5% -1.9% -0.5% -1.9% -0.7%

0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0.9% 2.6% -0.9% -1.3% -1.1% -1.1%

0 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0.6% 9.1% -1.9% -3.8% -1.9% -4.1%

0 -1 0 0 0 0 3.4% 2.4% -3.1% -4.3% -3.3% -4.1%

0 0 0 1 0 1 1.3% 1.6% 1.3% 4.6% 1.3% 4.6%

0 0 0 0 0 0 -3.5% -3.7% 0.5% 2.3% 0.5% 2.3%

0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9% 1.9% 0.5% 2.3% 0.5% 2.3%

0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1% 3.7% 1.3% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6%

0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1% 0.9% 1.2% 1.7% 1.2% 1.5%

-1 -1 1 1 1 1 2.4% 8.0% 1.9% 3.3% 1.4% 3.1%

-1 0 0 0 0 0 4.5% 2.7% 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 0.7%

0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.3% 8.4% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5%

0 0 0 0 0 0 6.4% 0.0% 4.4% 5.5% 3.6% 4.3%

1 0 0 0 0 0 -3.3% 7.9% 4.8% 7.2% 3.3% 5.5%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 2.6% -0.3% 1.8%

0 -1 1 0 0 0 -1.2% 2.6% 3.1% 1.2% 1.7% 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 1.1% -0.2% 0.2%

0 -1 1 1 1 0 -0.2% 1.0% 3.4% 1.5% 1.9% -0.2%

0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0.0% 0.0% -0.8% -4.2% -3.2% -9.1%

0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 0.2% 0.0% -6.5% -6.9% -9.1% -9.8%

0 1 0 -1 1 0 -0.2% -0.8% -1.3% -0.8% 1.6% 1.7%

0 0 0 -1 0 0 -1.5% 0.2% -0.7% -1.5% 1.6% 1.5%

0 0 0 -1 0 0 -0.2% 1.5% -0.5% -0.3% 0.5% 3.6%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7% 1.2% -0.3% -0.3% 3.6% 4.4%

0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% -0.2% 0.0% -5.3%

0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0.0% 0.3% -0.2% 0.0% -4.5% -3.9%

-1 0 0 0 0 -1 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% -0.2% 0.0% -1.5%

0 0 0 0 0 -1 0.8% 0.5% -0.2% 0.0% -2.6% -1.4%

Change in LOS % Change in Travel Time

Exist>NB NB>PB NB>FB NB>PB NB>PB NB>FB

Page 5/5
US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

7114

10385

80

10096

17115

959

1349

6745

16494

16147

2862

21265029

11835

18943

2261

8883

9148

7559

7952

1931

8751

14542

8590

Existing (2005)

7493

85741726

4

1

921

13184

12357

8121

12233

3221

7114

1038

13

5

15

5765

37336

80

10096

12804

21412

17115

959

4523

49128 30531 35927

1349

6745

16494

16147

47382 38906 2862

2126

50308

5029

43933 11835

18943

**

**

51043

2261

8883

152

2007

9148

7559

7952

46140 47730 200746864 1931

8751

53683 14542

85907493

8574

13875

33

17261

42651 55835 45746 51865

4921

13184

12357

8121

54756 12233

3221

47630 7114

1038

13

5

15

5765

37336

2083

80

10096

12804

21412

17115

959

4523

49128 30531 35927

1349

6745

16494

16147

47382 38906 2862

2126

50308

5029

43933 11835

18943

**

**

51043

2261

8883

152

2007

9148

7559

7952

46140 47730 200746864 1931

8751

53683 14542

85907493

8574

13875

33

17261

42651 55835 45746 51865

4921

13184

12357

8121

2515

1750

54756 12233

3221

47630

1493

7

4

027

9231

8272

37342

2083

25058

9525

781023

4

4

341

904

13573201

46301 231302 338017 518

**

11778

**

**184551713

40344

120871797

1227

413

51384 50569

4362

44706

**

46527 12157

77701443

1567136931767

42301 7

9

685

15232

813

46601 4

5

46596 267

1135

8

8

53692 930

48118754

43371 155

37743088

10865

2445

220

33722 38642 50974 4

2515

1750

46416 11622

7490

46844

1493

7

4

027

9231

8272

37342

25058

9525

781023

4

4

341

904

13573201

46301 231302 338017 518

**

11778

**

**184551713

40344

120871797

1227

413

51384 50569

4362

44706

**

46527 12157

77701443

1567136931767

42301 7

9

685

15232

813

46601 4

5

46596 267

1135

8

8

53692 930

48118754

43371 155

37743088

10865

2445

220

33722 38642 46416 50974 4

11622

7490

46844

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

Future (2040) No-Build

19305

4718

9387

14237

8907

17420

16943

7038

6398

19251

10465

12734

9546

24863921

10747

65254259

13724

21655

2552

1790

13591

3939

28

18383

2868

2510

1493

7

4

027

9231

8272

37342

25058

9525

781023

4

4

341

904

135732012

7345

46301 31302 338017 518

**

11778

**

**184551713

40344

12087

4743

13217

11533

7413

12604

4784

1797

1227

413

51384 50569

4362

44706

**

46527 12157

77701443

1567136931767

42301 7

9

685

15232

813

46601 4

5

46596 267

1135

8

8

53692 930

48118754

43371 155

37743088

10865

2445

220

33722 38642 46416 50974 4

11622

7490

46844

19305

15174

317922

1202

7922

**

4718

45064 58281 54159 46339 45390 51746 48560 48128 53417 62380 58467 45642 52465

9387

14237

8907

17420

16943

7038

55028 49698 49221

6398

19251

10465

12734

9546

2486

70769

18665

17157

3921

10747

65254259

13724

21655

2552

1790

*

41989 43384 *54179

13591

3939

28

18383

286

23

8

03

22163118

25107345

4743

13217

11533

7413

12604

4784

5806

19305

15174

317922

1202

7922

**

4718

45064 58281 54159 46339 45390 51746 48560 48128 53417 62380 58467 45642 52465

9387

14237

8907

17420

16943

7038

55028 49698 49221

6398

19251

10465

12734

9546

2486

70769

18665

17157

3921

10747

65254259

13724

21655

2552

1790

*

41989 43384 *54179

13591

3939

28

18383

286

23

8

03

22163118

25107345

4743

13217

11533

7413

12604

4784

2368

1938

26278

59630 1917

491

58202 6653

10876

13552

47711 5879

4464

59363020

43384

2598

45980 12629

**

**

14691

**

**

48854

2308

56809 970835

2690218093

254

60373 4273

11

4503

1245

56106 1

8

786

2219

133195632

48855

73475291

5806

35961 40704 3663

10870

47912 10017

5168

43062 7421

1528917972

49214 11309

9184

47091 1987

2415

47518 5130

13180

55567 15241

85297743

43386

52

3194

2368

1938

26278

59630 1917

491

58202 6653

10876

13552

47711 5879

4464

59363020

43384

2598

45980 12629

**

**

14691

**

**

48854

2308

56809 970835

2690218093

254

60373 4273

11

4503

1245

56106 1

8

786

2219

133195632

48855

7347529

35961 40704 1

3663

10870

47912 10017

5168

43062 7421

1528917972

49214 11309

9184

47091 1987

2415

47518 5130

13180

55567 15241

85297743

43386

52

3194

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

9980

2479

1924712526

4124

29

4207

16837

11115

1699419863

2577

325916815

18036

1134

4

3

865

13318

10999

7353

12727

4468

7042

6376

19291

18843

9211

5182

15422

3610

1353

6141

Future (2040) Partial Build

26278

59630 1917

491

58202 6653

10876

13552

47711 5879

4464

59363020

43384

2598

45980 12629

**

**

14691

**

**

48854

2308

56809 970835

2690218093

254

60373 4273

11

4503

1245

56106 1

8

786

2219

133195632

48855

7347529

35961 40704 1

3663

10870

47912 10017

5168

43062 7421

1528917972

49214 11309

9184

47091 1987

2415

47518 5130

13180

55567 15241

8529

13236

1942

11040

7743

43386

52

3194

18265

17518

9980

2479

1924

21

7

04

9390

**

63255 60998 53369

**

12526

4124

29

3212

4207

16837

11115

69010 78106 71778 60462 62318 70888

105

45326 58644 54999 46741 46073 72227 2

19680

22939

16

0

994

19863

2577

3259

65227 61129 46648

3111

68848 16815

18036

11343

66955

4865

13318

10999

7353

12727

4468

7042

6376

19291

18843

9211

5182

15422

3610

1353

6141

13236

1942

11040

18265

17518

9980

2479

1924

21

7

04

9390

**

63255 60998 53369

**

12526

4124

29

3212

4207

16837

11115

69010 78106 62318 70888

2012

21785915

71778 60462

105

45326 58644 54999 46741 46073 72227 2

19680

22939

16

0

994

19863

2577

3259

65227 61129 46648

3111

68848 16815

18036

11343

66955

4865

13318

10999

7353

12727

4468

7042

6376

19291

18843

9211

5182

15422

3610

1353

6141

13236

1942

11040

94453842

62318

3412

65728 20973

18085

55733980

63271

**

**19834

64591

1606

62554 6

1

528

8836

57457

26750

2200

162

48760 4027

1272

4

4

619

19

58668 1736

2034

1048723234

60618 8111

16081

68587 2920

2713

68380 4215

23922400

70953

585515258

79425 18206

10697

71919 18892

**

**17136

70164 8605

6361

54

3275

7808

44648

2012

21785915

36575 41439 3426

10848

48859 9876

5070

44051 7213

94453842

62318

3412

65728 20973

18085

55733980

63271

**

**19834

64591

1606

62554 6

1

528

8836

57457

26750

2200

162

48760 4027

1272

4

4

619

19

58668 1736

2034

1048723234

60618 8111

16081

68587 2920

2713

68380 4215

23922400

70953

585515258

79425 18206

10697

71919 18892

**

**17136

70164 8605

6361

54

3275

780

36575 41439 3

8

44648 426

10848

48859 9876

5070

44051 7213

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

155651211610017

2417

1918712397

4275

27

18740

9552

50574245

1695519982

2466

33963605

1377

5928

94453842

62318

3412

65728 20973

2162

11219

17714

11046

19397

18085

55733980

63271

**

**19834

64591

1606

62554 6

1

528

8836

57457

26750

2200

162

10763

7641

9336

24812

10774

11951

48760 4027

1272

4

4

619

19

58668 1736

2034

1048723234

60618 8111

16081

68587 2920

2713

68380 4215

23922400

70953

Future (2040) Full Build

5255

13774

8645

10399

11130

585515258

79425 18206

10697

71919 18892

**

**17136

70164 8605

6361

54

3275

780

36575 41439 3

8

44648 426

10848

48859 9876

5070

44051 7213

1556

20

5

31

9075

**

*

48893 62667 64421 64053 65747 70540 *

12116

61177

10017

2417

19187

18191

17382

61186 46673 53295

12397

4275

27

72742 72089 60550 70873

873

3089

65430

18740

9552

50574245

16955

62313 63402 19982

2466

3396

298

36

1

05

1377

592

1

8

8875

46

2162

11219

17714

11046

19397

9075

70708 70355 79412

10763

7641

9336

24812

10774

1195

5

1

255

13774

8645

10399

11130

1556

20

5

31

9075

**

*

48893 62667 64421 64053 65747 70540 *

12116

61177

10017

2417

19187

18191

17382

61186 46673 53295

12397

4275

27

70873

2456

21035988

72742 72089 60550

873

3089

65430

18740

9552

50574245

16955

62313 63402 19982

2466

3396

298

36

1

05

1377

592

1

8

8875

46

2162

11219

17714

11046

19397

9075

70708 70355 79412

10763

7641

9336

24812

10774

1195

5

1

255

13774

8645

10399

11130

**

64298823

55373942

63322 4748

2688818055

14

58585 1721

1973

157135850

**

2362242

48975 4

3

70944 042

12659

57591

19710

64563 2157

123

62527

3931

62313

3268

65579 2072780060 18539

10459

71979 18896

**

**17096

70181 8513

6111

9398

3734

1858820900

67288 11867

14151

69570 2871

2750

69451 5270

15879

140

39409 44664 2440

12763

54988 7952

11287

58321 7358

10417

61383

2456

21035988

**

64298823

55373942

63322 4748

2688818055

14

58585 1721

1973

157135850

**

2362242

48975 4

3

70944 042

12659

57591

19710

64563 2157

123

62527

3931

62313

3268

65579 2072780060 18539

10459

71979 18896

**

**17096

70181 8513

6111

9398

3734

1858820900

67288 11867

14151

69570 2871

2750

69451 5270

15879

140

39409 44664 2440

12763

54988 7952

11287

58321 7358

10417

61383

** - MWCOG model structure does not map out separate ramp movements at this interchange ; volumes shown are total on/off at this location

Data Source:

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Model Version 2.2, Land Use Round 8.0

**

64298823

55373942

63322 4748

2688818055

14

58585 1721

1973

157135850

**

23622423

70944

Forecast Daily Traffic

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

48975 4042

12659

57591

19710

64563 2157

123

62527

3931

62313

3268

65579 2072780060 18539

10459

71979 18896

**

**17096

70181 8513

6111

9398

3734

1858820900

67288 11867

14151

69570 2871

2750

69451 5270

15879

140

39409 44664 2440

12763

54988 7952

11287

58321 7358

10417

61383
US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

Existing (2005)

80

1182

1155

373

1009

161

536

602

1407323

690

11321063

2158

542

476

86

32

772

4

1364

448

1352

0

257

1283

1240

1170

674

289860

974

644

80

1182

1155

373

1009

161

536

602

1407323

690

1132

133

30

133

1063

2158

542

**

*

3509 3020 *

476

86

32

772

4

1364

307

1609

1495

448

4564 4022 1352

0

257

1283

10

799

4258 3072 3811 5284 1240

1170

674

289

3786 3867 4234 3578 83948 5130 4349 3502 3567 4116 3468

1104

860

974

644

80

1182

1155

373

1009

161

536

602

1407323

690

1132

133

30

133

1063

2158

542

**

*

3509 3020 *

476

86

32

772

4

1364

307

1609

1495

448

4564 4022 1352

0

257

1283

10

799

5284

156

236387

4258 3072 3811 1240

1170

674

289

3786 3867 4234 3578 83948 5130 4349 3502 3567 4116 3468

1104

860

974

644

156

236387

452564

374

10941375

3752 829

860

**

3375 221

65

3219

90

808

1844 1924

98

823

2649 3762838 468

728

3099

2

3937 1138

700

3499 2992

302

3293 871

**

**1011

3651 670

22

2436**734

3156

0

150

3306 220

668

46037

3331 300

70

101286

2176 500

508

2184 1588

516

171237

2331

452564

374

10941375

3752 829

860

**

3375 221

65

3219

90

808

1844 1924

98

823

2649 3762838 468

728

3099

2

3937 1138

700

3499 2992

302

3293 871

**

**1011

3651 670

22

2436**734

3156

0

150

3306 220

668

46037

3331 300

70

101286

2176 500

508

2184 1588

516

171237

2331

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

452564

374

10941375

3752 829

860

**

3375 221

65

3219

90

808

1844 1924

98

823

2649 3762838 468

728

3099

2

3937 1138

700

3499 2992

302

3293 871

**

**1011

3651 670

22

2436**734

3156

0

150

3306 220

668

46037

3331 300

70

101286

2176 500

508

2184 1588

516

171237

2331

Future (2040) No-Build

183

1145

1262

377

1023

236

546

471

1514

1016

1001

600

322

627

1074

521

2547

312

4

1492

565

75

16181119

1099

2504

740

8

1528561220

1310

570

705490183

1145

1262

377

1023

236

546

471

1514

1016

1001

600

322

627

1074

4113

521

4071 5216 4331 3544 3468 4181 3780

1216

7739

254

2

7

18

312

4

1492

565

75

16181119

26

6274 **

**52

1

4

099

2504

740

8

152

5042 4310 5162 4731 9623

1771

11

8

4

56

3807 3199 5470 1220

1310

570

705490

3559 3649 3148

103

739

183

1145

1262

377

1023

236

546

471

1514

1016

1001

600

322

627

1074

4113

521

4071 5216 4331 3544 3468 4181 3780

1216

7739

254

2

7

18

312

4

1492

565

75

16181119

26

6274 **

**52

1

4

099

2504

740

8

152

5042 4310 9623

210

2381020

5162 4731

1771

11

8

4

56

3807 3199 5470 1220

1310

570

705490

3559 3649 3148

103

739

1812 1995

88

814

2721 453

497

2765 354

668

3080

2

305

12571412

3539 843

210

2381020

652

3349 180

78

3246 120

1060

4186 1172

733

3748 1104

952

4196 377

852

**

**1108

3752 458

322

0

62

2822 413

648

3058 1850

566

3

3599

57

110

31853

3866

123556138

3199

196

3395 947

809

644135

4163

**

**168

1812 1995 74135

88

814

2721 453

497

2765 354

668

3080

2

305

12571412

3539 843

652

3349 180

78

3246 120

1060

4186 1172

733

3748 1104

952

4196 377

852

**

**1108

3752 458

322

0

62

2822 413

648

3058 1850

566

3

3599

57

110

31853

3866

123556138

3199

196

3395 947

809

644135

4163

**

**1687

4135

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

1812 1995

88

814

2721 453

497

2765 354

668

3080

2

305

12571412

3539 843

652

3349 180

78

3246 120

1060

4186 1172

733

3748 1104

952

4196 377

852

**

**1108

3752 458

322

0

62

2822 413

648

3058 1850

566

3

3599

57

110

31853

3866

Future (2040) Partial Build

188

1147

1233

379

1030

123556138

3199

196

3395 947

809

644135

4163

**

**1687

4135

226

538

487

1331

1585

888

955

319

9

329

758

1304

608

1306

1442

835

665562

1485

490

66837

17

203

11041566

830

25681752

150

1

8

88

1147

1233

379

1030

5362 5444 5874

226

538

487

1331

1585

88

1

8

526

4

955

319

1

9

33

84

713

**

**

329

758

1304

608

1306

713

4079 5226 4373 3568 3516 5294 4728 5344 4524 6297

30

5528

1442

835

665562

1485

490

66

43

8

4

37

17

203

1104

5178 5313 4514 9624

1566

830

256

17

8

39

150

1752

1508

5218 4797

188

1147

1233

379

1030

5362 5444 5874

226

538

487

1331

1585

88

1

8

526

4

955

319

1

9

33

84

713

**

**

329

758

1304

608

1306

713

4079 5226 4373 3568 3516 5294 4728 5344 4524 6297

30

5528

1442

835

665562

1485

490

66

43

8

4

37

17

203

1104

9624

178

2621030

5178 5313 4514

1566

830

256

17

8

39

150

1752

1508

5218 4797

1853 2042

85

825

2782 442

1211566

2906 354

678

3231

2

5590 1560

**1509

178

2621030

220

89

4810 105

433643

38458

4482 6572915 397

6227

3832

54

109

115318

*

0

*

4941

18133

3

5

27

9791706

4284 5535540 4580 705

337

667

6041 1375

924

4598

223

4728

219

4947 1301

**

**9352178

3139 1

9

3866 871

81

1

2

1853 2042

85

825

2782 442

1211566

2906 354

678

3231

2

5590 1560

**150

2

9

20

89

4810 105

433643

38458

4482 6572915 397

6227

3832

54

109

115318

*

0

*

4941

18133

3

5

27

9791706

4284 5535540 4580 705

337

667

6041 1375

924

4598

223

4728

219

4947 1301

**

**9352178

3139 1

9

3866 871

81

1

2

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

1853 2042

85

825

2782 442

1211566

2906 354

678

3231

2

5590 1560

**150

2

9

20

89

4810 105

433643

38458

4482 6572915 397

6227

3832

54

109

115318

*

0

*

4941

18

920

860

12

133

3

5

27

9791706

4284 5535540 4580 705

337

667

6041 1375

924

4598

223

4728

219

4947 1301

**

**93521789

3866

Future (2040) Full Build

3139 1871

81

1

2

353

759

1391

629

1310

1454

832

459

79585

696

1947

1056

211

1156

1050

683

962

745

2555

865

669558

1471

17361103

317

6

1528

1577

810196920

860

5506

1459

12724

12

5355 353

759

1391

629

1310

1454

4532 5537 832

**

**

5352

459

79

724

4327 5483 5116 4900 5010 5566 585

696

1947

1056

211

1156

1050

683

962

745

2555

865

669558

1471

17361103

317

6

1528

4528 4718 415

1735

135

1577

810

132

34

5228 4781 6279 196

9

5566 5973 5211 49624 920

860

5506

1459

12724

12

5355 353

759

1391

629

1310

1454

4532 5537 832

**

**

5352

459

79

724

4327 5483 5116 4900 5010 5566 585

696

1947

1056

211

1156

1050

683

962

745

2555

865

669558

1471

17361103

317

6

1528

4528 4718 415

1735

135

1577

810

132

34

5228 4781 6279 196

94

9624

202

2631038

5566 5973 5211

202

2631038

2058 2269

71

946

3145 322

852

3674 354

921

4241

2

382

14251622

4818 794

1013

5037 212

93

4918 179

1340

6080 1375

890

5594 1566

**

**1508

5537 691

338420643

38658

4487

682216

4718

224

4941 1294

**

**9280179

2911 33866 397

626

647

3140 1876

809

5

3844

4996

1152173

4576

2

20

2058 2269 4593

71

946

3145 322

852

3674 354

921

4241

2

382

14251622

4818 794

1013

5037 212

93

4918 179

1340

6080 1375

890

5594 1566

**

**1508

5537 691

338420643

38658

4487

682216

4718

224

4941 1294

**

**9280179

2911 33866 397

626

647

3140 1876

809

5

3844

4996

1152173

4576

2

20

4593

** - MWCOG model structure does not map out separate ramp movements at this interchange ; volumes shown are total on/off at this location

Data Source:

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Model Version 2.2, Land Use Round 8.0

2058 2269

71

946

3145 322

852

3674 354

921

4241

2

382

14251622

4818 794

1013

5037 212

93

4918 179

1340

6080 1375

890

5594 1566

**

**1508

5537 691

338420643

38658

4487

682216

4718

224

4941 1294

**

**92801793

3866

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Forecast AM Peak Hour Traffic

2911 397

626

647

3140 1876

809

5

3844

4996

1152173

4576

2

20

4593
US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

Existing (2005)

640

1037

496

895

978

454

603

646

1637169

858

13021138

1674

168

772

99

469

254

26

700566

125

7

1

87

1097

914

1205

1339

737

329795

1011

777640

1037

496

895

978

454

603

646

1637169

858

1302

570

13

570

1138

1674

168

**

*

3926 2960 *

772

99

469

254

26

700

319

1049

1505

566

4063 4681 125

7

1

87

1097

914

5

508

3994 2706 2491 2709 1205

1339

737

329

3681 3635 4324 3793 22663 3700 4099 3575 3618 3915 3526

1142

795

1011

777640

1037

496

895

978

454

603

646

1637169

858

1302

570

13

570

1138

1674

168

**

*

3926 2960 *

772

99

469

254

26

700

319

1049

1505

566

4063 4681 125

7

1

87

1097

914

5

508

2709

175

130184

3994 2706 2491

735252

1205

1339

737

329

3681 3635 4324 3793 2

227

12001387

4080 961

3526

1113

**

3854 283

466

4036 847

1362

2663 3700 4099 3575 3618 3915

1142

3347 3986 516

882

4352 986

795

1011

777

3619 671

771

3719

53

4552 1513

750

3788 3062

653

3714 1119

**

**1260

3935 878

68

68131**2478

5074 410

14

4678 1252

1490

46948

4494 814

103

891559

3452 215

959

4197 2191

1231

121936

5161

735252

227

12001387

4080 961

1113

**

3854 283

466

4036 847

136

3347 3986 5

2

16

882

4352 9863619 671

771

3719

53

4552 1513

750

3788 3062

653

3714 1119

**

**1260

3935 878

68

68131**2478

5074 410

14

4678 1252

1490

46948

4494 814

103

891559

3452 215

959

4197 2191

1231

121936

5161

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

735252

227

12001387

4080 961

1113

**

3854 283

466

4036 847

136

3347 3986 5

2

16

882

4352 9863619 671

771

3719

53

4552 1513

750

3788 3062

653

3714 1119

**

**1260

3935 878

68

68131**2478

5074 410

14

4678 1252

1490

46948

4494 814

103

891559

3452 215

959

4197 2191

1231

121936

5161

Future (2040) No-Build

527

1019

839

861

1019

450

592

580

1807

875

1049

860

217

985

1429

10061270

518

6

1258

346

829

928

1082

1318

2180

258

655

739681448

1532

854

1012

430527

1019

839

861

1019

450

592

580

1807

875

1049

860

217

985

1429

4539

1006

3173 4192 4215 3646 3634 3925 3737

1227

21053

1270

26

518

6

1258

346

829

928

1082

417

3876 **

**36

1

0

318

2180

258

655

739

4622 5019 4459 3777 5141

1363

130

68

0

3772 3252 4971 1448

1532

854

1012

430

4117 4201 3329 24

1053

527

1019

839

861

1019

450

592

580

1807

875

1049

860

217

985

1429

4539

1006

3173 4192 4215 3646 3634 3925 3737

1227

21053

1270

26

518

6

1258

346

829

928

1082

417

3876 **

**36

1

0

318

2180

258

655

739

4622 5019 5141

135

170591

4459 3777

1363

130

68

0

3772 3252 4971 1448

1532

854

1012

430

4117 4201 3329 24

1053

3692 4218 625

861

4454 1036

289

3707 749

711

3670

14

221

14181619

4079 1044

135

170591

833

3869 312

491

4048 861

1366

4554 1544

895

3904 1326

876

5198 625

1065

**

**1392

3969 565

482709

125

5809 206

1645

7247 2217

436

1

5405 589

506

502678

9928

136268551

3252

538

3790 890

2269

172374

5840

**

**288

3692 4218 35783 625

861

4454 1036

289

3707 749

711

3670

14

221

14181619

4079 1044

833

3869 312

491

4048 861

1366

4554 1544

895

3904 1326

876

5198 625

1065

**

**1392

3969 565

482709

125

5809 206

1645

7247 2217

436

1

5405 589

506

502678

9928

136268551

3252

538

3790 890

2269

172374

5840

**

**2883

5783

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

3692 4218 625

861

4454 1036

289

3707 749

711

3670

14

221

14181619

4079 1044

833

3869 312

491

4048 861

1366

4554 1544

895

3904 1326

876

5198 625

1065

**

**1392

3969 565

482709

125

5809 206

1645

7247 2217

436

1

5405 589

506

502678

9928

Future (2040) Partial Build

563

1035

807

844

1019

136268551

3252

538

3790 890

2269

172374

5840

**

**2883

5783

447

583

630

1544

1652

915

1087

573

2

159

1106

1617

1185

1753

1812

1194

983597

1643

327

760504

485

675

1014

873

51

12361561

132

5

0

63

1035

807

844

1019

5481 5566 6512

447

583

630

1544

1652

91

1

5

486

2

1087

573

2

2128

1301

**

**

159

1106

1617

1185

1753

1301

3169 4204 4242 3670 3717 5308 4551 5173 5154 3968

383

5132

1812

1194

983597

1643

327

760

33

5

2

04

485

675

1014

6081 6141 4657 5141

873

51

123

13

6

60

1372

1561

1320

4560 3854

563

1035

807

844

1019

5481 5566 6512

447

583

630

1544

1652

91

1

5

486

2

1087

573

2

2128

1301

**

**

159

1106

1617

1185

1753

1301

3169 4204 4242 3670 3717 5308 4551 5173 5154 3968

383

5132

1812

1194

983597

1643

327

760

33

5

2

04

485

675

1014

5141

108

194619

6081 6141 4657

873

51

123

13

6

60

1372

1561

1320

4560 3854

3727 4289 623

838

4504 1034

1520263

3733 730

720

3723

14

5809 1840

**1889

108

194619

386

567

5908 914

588

1036

154319

5864 4065811 212

16220

5458 572

452

9311405

**

5728

44160

2

8

85

9111910

4992 7845858 6020 878

696

117

6603 6

1864

1069

5250

51

4551

771

5321 1545

**

**224340265

7221 2

3

9928 201

2296

813

3727 4289 623

838

4504 1034

1520263

3733 730

720

3723

14

5809 1840

**188

3

9

86

567

5908 914

588

1036

154319

5864 4065811 212

16220

5458 572

452

9311405

**

5728

44160

2

8

85

9111910

4992 7845858 6020 878

696

117

6603 6

1864

1069

5250

51

4551

771

5321 1545

**

**224340265

7221 2

3

9928 201

2296

813

US 50 MD 202 MD 450 MD 410 I-495 MD 193 MD 197 MD 198 MD 32 MD 175 MD 100 I-195 MD168 I-695

John Hanson Highway Landover Rd Annapolis Rd Riverdale Rd Capital Beltway Greenbelt Rd Explorer Rd Powder Mill Rd Laurel Bowie Rd Laurel Fort Meade Rd Patuxent Freeway Technology Drive Odenton Rd Arundel Mills Blvd Paul Pitcher Memorial Hwy Hanover Road Metropolitan Blvd Nursery Rd Baltimore Beltway

3727 4289 623

838

4504 1034

1520263

3733 730

720

3723

14

5809 1840

**188

3

9

86

567

5908 914

588

1036

154319

5864 4065811 212

16220

5458 572

452

9311405

**

5728

44

978

1009

499

160

2

8

85

9111910

4992 7845858 6020 878

696

117

6603 6

1864

1069

5250

51

4551

771

5321 1545

**

**2243402653

9928

Future (2040) Full Build

7221 2201

2296

813

175

1095

1701

1207

1751

1813

517

317

773612

880

2224

1019

585

1079

577

1014

898

919

1234

1217

958603

1644

15641006

574

4

1304

867

51672978

1009

5621

1497

31281

499

6155 175

1095

1701

1207

1751

1813

5145 5130 517

**

**

5163

317

773

1281

3495 4574 5010 5031 5299 5590 612

880

2224

1019

585

1079

577

1014

898

919

1234

1217

958603

1644

15641006

574

4

1304

4641 4558 330

1345

1341

867

51

18

367

4561 3860 3954 672

2

5667 6586 6092 75140 978

1009

5621

1497

31281

499

6155 175

1095

1701

1207

1751

1813

5145 5130 517

**

**

5163

317

773

1281

3495 4574 5010 5031 5299 5590 612

880

2224

1019

585

1079

577

1014

898

919

1234

1217

958603

1644

15641006

574

4

1304

4641 4558 330

1345

1341

867

51

18

367

4561 3860 3954 672

27

5140

138

184617

5667 6586 6092

138

184617

4045 4630 390

1027

5267 965

925

5226 754

874

5347

43

300

17641707

5547 1130

1382

5798 420

581

5959 894

1588

6653 1894

1056

5814 1831

**

**1884

5867 878

676583

1036

147296

5870

115851

4558

766

5324 1533

**

**224740265

5818 39930 215

164

4

6

16

7249 2229

2296

1

5455 566

446

925140

6037 7

9

96

27

4045 4630 5268 390

1027

5267 965

925

5226 754

874

5347

43

300

17641707

5547 1130

1382

5798 420

581

5959 894

1588

6653 1894

1056

5814 1831

**

**1884

5867 878

676583

1036

147296

5870

115851

4558

766

5324 1533

**

**224740265

5818 39930 215

164

4

6

16

7249 2229

2296

1

5455 566

446

925140

6037 7

9

96

27

5268

** - MWCOG model structure does not map out separate ramp movements at this interchange ; volumes shown are total on/off at this location

Data Source:

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Model Version 2.2, Land Use Round 8.0

4045 4630 390

1027

5267 965

925

5226 754

874

5347

43

300

17641707

5547 1130

1382

5798 420

581

5959 894

1588

6653 1894

1056

5814 1831

**

**1884

5867 878

676583

1036

147296

5870

115851

4558

766

5324 1533

**

**2247402653

9930

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Forecast PM Peak Hour Traffic

5818 215

164

4

6

16

7249 2229

2296

1

5455 566

446

925140

6037 7

9

96

27

5268
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

 Alternatives Evaluation Report 

Alternatives Evaluation Report 48 January 2012 

Appendix B – Capital Cost Estimates 
BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON PARKWAY WIDENING FEASIBILITY STUDY

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

UNIT

UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT

CATEGORY 1 - PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY (40% CATEGORIES 2, 4, 5 & 6) LS VARIES 1 $ 45,886,600.00 1 $ 64,685,200.00 1 $ 38,633,400.00 1 $ 61,904,800.00

$ 45,886,600.00 $ 64,685,200.00 $ 38,633,400.00 $ 61,904,800.00

CATEGORY 2 - EARTHWORK

Excavation CY $ 15.00 800,000 $ 12,000,000.00 1,339,000 $ 20,085,000.00 343,000 $ 5,145,000.00 1,034,000 $ 15,510,000.00

Borrow CY $ 20.00 137,000 $ 2,740,000.00 390,000 $ 7,800,000.00 391,000 $ 7,820,000.00 383,000 $ 7,660,000.00

Class 1A Excavation CY $ 25.00 17,000 $ 425,000.00 20,000 $ 500,000.00 7,400 $ 185,000.00 12,000 $ 300,000.00

Geosynthetic Stabilized Subgrade Using GAB CY $ 40.00 17,000 $ 680,000.00 20,000 $ 800,000.00 7,400 $ 296,000.00 12,000 $ 480,000.00

$ 15,845,000.00 $ 29,185,000.00 $ 13,446,000.00 $ 23,950,000.00

CATEGORY 3 - DRAINAGE

Drainage (30% CATEGORIES 2, 4, 5 & 6) LS VARIES 1 $ 34,414,950.00 1 $ 48,513,900.00 1 $ 28,975,050.00 1 $ 46,428,600.00

Underdrain, 6" LF $ 13.00 403,000 $ 5,239,000.00 403,000 $ 5,239,000.00 202,000 $ 2,626,000.00 202,000 $ 2,626,000.00

Underdrain Outlets LF $ 20.00 50,000 $ 1,000,000.00 50,000 $ 1,000,000.00 25,000 $ 500,000.00 25,000 $ 500,000.00

$ 40,653,950.00 $ 54,752,900.00 $ 32,101,050.00 $ 49,554,600.00

CATEGORY 4 - STRUCTURES

Bridge Widening SF $ 200.00 47,000 $ 9,400,000.00 60,000 $ 12,000,000.00 24,600 $ 4,920,000.00 42,300 $ 8,460,000.00

Bridge Widening over Water SF $ 220.00 21,000 $ 4,620,000.00 52,000 $ 11,440,000.00 15,000 $ 3,300,000.00 39,000 $ 8,580,000.00

New Bridge SF $ 200.00 64,200 $ 12,840,000.00 129,900 $ 25,980,000.00 49,200 $ 9,840,000.00 127,300 $ 25,460,000.00

Removal of Bridge SF $ 35.00 58,200 $ 2,037,000.00 121,200 $ 4,242,000.00 43,200 $ 1,512,000.00 121,200 $ 4,242,000.00

$ 28,897,000.00 $ 53,662,000.00 $ 19,572,000.00 $ 46,742,000.00

CATEGORY 5 - PAVEMENT

Surface HMA - 2" Ton $ 120.00 136,400 $ 16,368,000.00 145,500 $ 17,460,000.00 113,000 $ 13,560,000.00 112,600 $ 13,512,000.00

Base HMA - 7" Ton $ 100.00 259,300 $ 25,930,000.00 313,400 $ 31,340,000.00 114,900 $ 11,490,000.00 190,100 $ 19,010,000.00

6" Graded Aggregate Base SY $ 15.00 1,259,300 $ 18,889,500.00 1,521,700 $ 22,825,500.00 558,200 $ 8,373,000.00 922,900 $ 13,843,500.00

Grinding/Milling Existing Pavement (0"-2") SY $ 5.00 528,600 $ 2,643,000.00 473,600 $ 2,368,000.00 681,100 $ 3,405,500.00 493,600 $ 2,468,000.00

$ 63,830,500.00 $ 73,993,500.00 $ 36,828,500.00 $ 48,833,500.00

CATEGORY 6 - SHOULDERS

Curb and Gutter LF $ 35.00 0 $ - 0 $ - 181,000 $ 6,335,000.00 196,400 $ 6,874,000.00

Type C End Treatment EA $ 5,000.00 98 $ 490,000.00 131 $ 655,000.00 23 $ 115,000.00 10 $ 50,000.00

Double Face Traffic Barrier End Treatment EA $ 5,000.00 13 $ 65,000.00 5 $ 25,000.00 5 $ 25,000.00 0 $ -

Traffic Barrier W Beam Single Face LF $ 35.00 100,200 $ 3,507,000.00 110,300 $ 3,860,500.00 6,000 $ 210,000.00 5,500 $ 192,500.00

Traffic Barrier W Beam Double Face LF $ 40.00 10,800 $ 432,000.00 8,300 $ 332,000.00 8,300 $ 332,000.00 0 $ -

Concrete Barrier LF $ 220.00 7,500 $ 1,650,000.00 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ -

Parkway Concrete Barrier LF $ 400.00 0 $ - 0 $ - 49,300 $ 19,720,000.00 70,300 $ 28,120,000.00

$ 6,144,000.00 $ 4,872,500.00 $ 26,737,000.00 $ 35,236,500.00

CATEGORY 7 - LANDSCAPING

Landscaping (10% CATEGORIES 2, 4, 5 & 6) LS VARIES 1 $ 11,471,650.00 1 $ 16,171,300.00 1 $ 9,658,350.00 1 $ 15,476,200.00

Noise Walls LF $ 250.00 34,000 $ 8,500,000.00 34,000 $ 8,500,000.00 34,000 $ 8,500,000.00 34,000 $ 8,500,000.00

Reforestation AC $ 8,701.00 176 $ 44,000.00 240 $ 60,000.00 58 $ 14,500.00 170 $ 42,500.00

$ 20,015,650.00 $ 24,731,300.00 $ 18,172,850.00 $ 24,018,700.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 3 - DRAINAGE

TOTAL CATEGORY 4 - STRUCTURES

TOTAL CATEGORY 5 - PAVEMENT

TOTAL CATEGORY 6 - SHOULDERS

TOTAL CATEGORY 7 - LANDSCAPING

AASHTO INSIDE AASHTO OUTSIDE PARKWAY INSIDE PARKWAY OUTSIDE

TOTAL CATEGORY 1 - PRELIMINARY

TOTAL CATEGORY 2 - EARTHWORK

Page 1 of 2
BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON PARKWAY WIDENING FEASIBILITY STUDY

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

UNIT

UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT

AASHTO INSIDE AASHTO OUTSIDE PARKWAY INSIDE PARKWAY OUTSIDE

CATEGORY 8 - TRAFFIC

Pavement Markings LF $ 0.90 496,000 $ 446,400.00 496,000 $ 446,400.00 496,000 $ 446,400.00 496,000 $ 446,400.00

Raised Pavement Markers EA $ 45.00 3,800 $ 171,000.00 3,800 $ 171,000.00 3,800 $ 171,000.00 3,800 $ 171,000.00

Signs EA $ 500.00 425 $ 212,500.00 425 $ 212,500.00 425 $ 212,500.00 425 $ 212,500.00

Guide Signs EA $ 5,000.00 230 $ 1,150,000.00 230 $ 1,150,000.00 230 $ 1,150,000.00 230 $ 1,150,000.00

$ 1,979,900.00 $ 1,979,900.00 $ 1,979,900.00 $ 1,979,900.00

CATEGORY 8 - UTILITIES

Utilities (8% CATEGORIES 2, 4, 5 & 6) LS VARIES 1 $ 9,177,320.00 1 $ 12,937,040.00 1 $ 7,726,680.00 1 $ 12,380,960.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 8 - UTILITIES $ 9,177,320.00 $ 12,937,040.00 $ 7,726,680.00 $ 12,380,960.00

TOTAL CATEGORY 8 - TRAFFIC

Page 2 of 2
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

AppendixǦPublic Involvement Plan
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 1 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN & CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTION PROCESS 

June 3, 2011 

As is often the case with major infrastructure projects, the planning and construction of the BaltimoreWashington (BW) Parkway created great anxieties in several of the communities along the corridor. 

Ultimately the Parkway divided several neighborhoods that still harbor that anxiety today. At a recent 

community meeting in Riverdale on the Purple Line project, many community members brought up the 

language Congressman Ruppersberger added to the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations legislation that 

called for a feasibility study of widening the BW Parkway, raising concerns that the impact widening of the 

Parkway may have on their community. Similarly, concerns have been raised by the City of Greenbelt. 

The Public Involvement Plan for the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study is based 

upon the principles of Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), a process or strategy for highway improvements 

that seeks proactive engagement of project stakeholders in the identification of the issues and priorities 

related to a proposed project that inform the evaluation of alternatives in the feasibility study. The CSS 

approach to project planning and development is inclusive by its very nature. The Public Involvement Plan 

(PIP) articulates the basic components of the proposed CSS approach and identifies the means by which this 

plan will be implemented, using the variety of strategies, tools and products identified in the project Scope 

of Services. 

It is clear that this feasibility study needs to assess not only the environmental, economical, and 

engineering feasibility, but also the feasibility of road widening from a community and ultimately, a political 

perspective. 

Determining feasibility will require a proactive and inclusive process of stakeholder engagement to more 

fully and fairly assess the feasibility of improving the facility. The study team, lead by Parsons Brinckerhoff 

and KCI Technologies, shall be responsible for the implementation of the Public Involvement Plan. A team 

of CSS professionals along with public involvement specialists will manage the public involvement efforts in 

partnership with the technical experts from the study team. FHWA Eastern Federal Highway Lands Division 

(FHWA-EFHLD) and National Park Service National Capital Region (NPS), the study sponsors, shall review 

and approve this public involvement plan as well as all public involvement materials before their 

distribution or use in a public forum. Additionally, FHWA and NPS shall provide guidance to their 

expectations regarding the public involvement process, along with access to key resources to implement 

the public involvement plan, including their websites, existing mailing and stakeholder lists, public relations 

and correspondences commensurate with their internal requirements. 

I. Refining Community Involvement Plan 

The Consultant Team shall meet with FHWA-EFHLD, NPS, and MDSHA to review and refine the 

process as set forth below. Additionally, the tools, techniques and processes will be assessed for 

their effectiveness and modified as appropriate to maximize their effectiveness within the 

constraints of available resources and direction provided by the study sponsors. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 2 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

II. Outreach to the Community 

Successful public involvement in the study will require efforts to proactively seek out and engage 

the stakeholders in the process, particularly in the three public meetings but also as members of a 

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The Consultant Team has identified a series of activities that 

will facilitate effective identification and engagement of project stakeholders. The activities 

described in the body of this document support this important aspect of the Public Involvement 

Plan. 

Demographic and Community Profile 

The Scope of Work includes a task to collect study area data and develop a map of the study 

corridor. The activity includes a task to collect demographic and land use data that identifies the 

location and composition of project stakeholders, including environmental justice communities, 

businesses, residents, institutions and major employers. This will be particularly important given 

that the US Census recently released updated demographic data which suggests a changing 

demographic composition in the State of Maryland. This information will be mapped and 

otherwise documented for use in study outreach activities as articulated in the Scope of Work. 

Stakeholder Identification and Interviews 

The Consultant Team shall identify a list of up to 12 representatives of local and regional units of 

government, neighborhood associations, organizations and other major institutions for one-on-one 

stakeholder interviews with the Public Involvement Team. 

The principal reasons for holding the interviews will be to inform recognized leaders in the study 

area of the purpose and scope of the feasibility study and to identify issues and the priorities for 

the Corridor that reflect the interests of the various stakeholders these leaders represent. 

Additionally, these interviews will be used to finalize the composition of the study’s Technical 

Advisory Committee. And, these interviews will be used to develop partnerships in public outreach 

by individuals and groups that represent environmental justice communities and populations from 

the area with low English language proficiency. 

Study Mailing List 

The Consultant Team shall develop a mailing list for the study that will be used for distributing 

project newsletters and other information as determined appropriate as the study proceeds. The 

Scope of Work calls for a project mailing list of 250 individuals representing different stakeholder 

groups in the corridor. Data collected from various sources, such as the partner agencies, mailing 

lists from previous studies in the corridor, lists provided by elected officials and local agencies, and 

contacts provided by major stakeholder groups will be used to craft a project mailing list comprised 

of individual citizens, representatives of area business groups, environmental groups and other 

interest groups that represent study stakeholders. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 3 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

Opportunities will be provided throughout the study process for people to request being added to 

the mailing list using mail-back forms on the newsletters, comment forms provided at public 

meetings, and other means as determined appropriate in consultation with the study’s agency 

sponsors. The project mailing list will be divided into different stakeholder categories, such as 

elected officials, local agencies, community organizations and institutions, local residents and 

business representatives, and major employers/ institutions to facilitate targeted use as 

appropriate. 

Project Newsletters 

Newsletters will be developed that provide study stakeholders with study news and information to 

facilitate public understanding and participation in the study. Examples of information that may be 

provided include a study area map, summary information developed to support analysis, details 

about the study process and schedule, the proceedings of meetings, and announcements of 

upcoming public meetings and events. 

Three newsletters will be developed in advance of the three scheduled public meetings. Project 

newsletters will vary in length from two-page (a single double-sided sheet) to up to six pages in 

length, depending on the focus and content. Included will be information on project sponsors and 

contact information, the URL information for the websites on which study information will be 

available, information on the TAC and TAC meetings, a cut-out comment form, and information on 

upcoming public meetings. 

Newsletters will be distributed using the mailing list, sponsoring agency websites, and using the 

websites, list serves and other mechanisms made available for posting and distributing project 

information by our stakeholder partners for the study. 

III. Outreach to Political Leaders 

While this feasibility study is in response to legislation initiated by Congressman Ruppersberger, it is 

important to reach out to local, state, and federal level elected officials representing the 

communities along the Parkway as well as the Mayor and City Council of Washington, DC. 

Outreach to political leaders will be initiated by the FHWA-EFHLD. The process will begin with 

submission by PB of a list of potential political leaders (simultaneously with the list for community 

outreach) to FHWA-EFHLD, NPS and MDSHA for review and approval by the partners. Once the 

study team has been notified that FHWA-EFHLD has initiated outreach to the agreed upon political 

leaders, PB and KCI shall then reach out to these leaders, in concert every step of the way with 

approval and involvement of the study sponsors at the following steps: 

A. Interview the elected officials at the initiation of the study; 

B. Suggest participation of elected officials’ staff in public involvement process; and 

C. Brief prior to final public presentation ideally in a setting that includes the study sponsors. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 4 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

All materials will be reviewed and approved by FHWA-EFHLD and NPS prior to meeting with any 

political leaders. 

IV. Public Work Sessions 

Traditional public involvement on studies such as this include public meetings after initial work was 

conducted on alternatives, and a final meeting to present the community with the results of an 

evaluation of alternatives. After decades of a process of announcing and defending work, we’ve 

learned that earlier, transparent and inclusive involvement of stakeholders in defining the issues of 

concern to them, in fashioning alternatives that are sensitive to their issues, and in formulating 

plausible win-win outcomes not only builds credibility and trust but improves the feasibility of a 

project from a grass-roots, community and ultimately, political perspective. We approach public 

involvement in corridor studies using a process geared towards a context sensitive solution as the 

outcome. This means approaching communities with an open mind, listening, and continually 

gaining feedback as the work leads to more plausible outcomes for the study. We propose the 

following as the means to involving the public, and gaining trust as well as gauging the feasibility 

and level of community support. 

A. First Set of Work Sessions – “ A Listening Session” 

The BW Parkway corridor is 29 miles long, covers a lot of terrain and travels through numerous 

communities. National Park Service has jurisdiction over and manages the Parkway from the 

District of Columbia/Prince George’s County, Maryland boundary to the Prince George’s 

County/Anne Arundel County boundary at Fort Meade, Maryland. The Maryland State Highway 

Administration is responsible for managing the remainder of the Parkway north to the 

Baltimore Beltway (I-695) and beyond into the City of Baltimore. To gain adequate feedback 

from the diverse communities along the corridor, we suggest that corridor work sessions begin 

with a general overview/open house format then broken into two concurrent geographic work 

sessions: inside the DC beltway, and from the beltway through Howard County into Baltimore 

County. These meetings will be open to all. 

The first work session set should occur immediately after project kick-off. We will have the 

meeting in one location, inviting the public, business leaders, elected officials and other 

interested parties. The meeting will begin with a general overview of what the study is to 

entail, what its purpose is, and how this will impact or influence future decisions. After a period 

of general questions and answers, the group will be divided by the two geographical areas 

indicated above. 

The purpose of the two geographically-based groups is to gain, in a somewhat organized 

manner, more specific information on concerns, issues and ideas related to the additional lanes

that are more locally-based than corridor-based. It is also intended to be the beginning of 

developing trust and setting the stage for open communication throughout the process. The 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 5 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

two separate groups will participate in a facilitated session where pre-determined questions 

will be asked of the participants to open the discussion and to get the information flowing. We 

suggest a workshop setting where maps can be displayed and used to reference various aspects 

of the corridor, such as housing developments, major activity centers, and recreational and 

culture resources. Comments will be documented and used as input to the development of 

conceptual alternatives for widening the Parkway that are sensitive to contextual factors. 

Comments may also result in input about issues on how the Parkway is used in the future; i.e. 

general- use highway lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, special use lanes, corridor 

access/interchange locations, and surface street improvements, that the public would like to 

see in the Corridor. As these issues are related, but not specific to the scope of the feasibility 

study, the comments will be retained and forwarded to appropriate parties for future use when 

appropriate. 

B. Second Set of Work Sessions - “What We Heard, How We Responded” 

The second public meeting will also be held in a single format combined with a break out of the 

two geographic regions. This set of work sessions will occur in September and will also include 

facilitated discussions. The purpose of this set of meetings is to affirm that we understand their 

ideas and concerns voiced at the first meeting, and have incorporated their comments as 

appropriate into the conceptual designs for the widening. Conceptual alignments will be 

presented to the full group for general presentation and conversations. Then the participants 

will breakup into the geographic-based groups. Participants will be grouped in tables of 10-12, 

with a facilitator/note taker for each table. Each group will be provided with a large aerial map 

of the appropriate geographic area with the initial conceptual alternatives overlaid. Each table 

will be provided with tracing paper and markers. Participants will provide their reactions and 

input to the information presented as well as initial thoughts on the elements to be addressed 

in future development of the alternatives. The input from this meeting will provide local insight 

into the technical work towards determining plausible alternatives. Based on the input at the 

meeting, the team may further refine the conceptual alignments as the final report is 

developed. 

C. Final Public Meeting -– “Are There Plausible Alternatives for Widening/Improving the 

Parkway?” 

This meeting should occur prior to development of the draft report and after the team refines 

the conceptual alternatives into the final alternatives. The purpose of the meeting is to present 

to the public the final alternatives, a discussion of the inclusion of the public input into the 

development of the alternatives, and to ensure the community that the team has captured an 

outstanding number of concerns or issues related to the final alternatives. This final work 

session should be considered more of a “report out” than a detailed work session. This 

meeting will occur in December as one public meeting that begins as an open house and 

extends to a presentation and question/answer session. As in the previous meetings, great 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 6 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

care will be taken to indicate how participants’ input had been considered and used in the 

development of the final alternatives and the analysis conducted. If trust has been built as 

anticipated, participants will leave with the assurance that legitimate public concerns and 

issues raised through the public involvement process were considered and with general 

agreement on the final alternatives that will be included in the final report. 

Public Meeting Notification 

Project newsletters will serve as one form of public meeting notices. Fliers will also be developed 

that announce the purpose, time, date and location of all public meetings. They will be distributed 

by mail; e-mail to stakeholder partner groups for distribution to their internal contacts, and posted 

on appropriate websites at least three weeks in advance of a scheduled public meeting. 

Supplementing this will be well-designed and placed advertising in local newspapers, public service 

announcements and press releases designed to reach out to a broad spectrum of project 

stakeholders and encourage their participation in the process. Particular effort will be made to 

identify forums used by ethnic, minority, and low-income communities for meeting notification. 

As specified in the Scope of Work, the Consultant Team shall develop advertisements for placement 

in local newspapers that provide the public with notice of the purpose, date, time and location of a 

public meeting. Ten newspapers will be identified in consultation with the FHWA-EFHLD and NPS, 

as specified in the Scope of Services, some of which will target specific geographic communities as 

well as demographic groups. 

V. Additional Outreach 

Technical Advisory Committee 

The Scope of Work calls for the Consultant Team to establish and facilitate a Technical Advisory 

Committee (TAC) comprised of Federal agency partners, local and state agency officials, and other 

non-governmental partners representing predominant interests in the Baltimore-Washington 

Parkway Corridor. The consultants shall work with the study sponsors to finalize the list of TAC 

participants. Stakeholder interviews, held early in the study process, will also be a principal means 

of identifying potential participants. 

The TAC will meet up to four times during the study process. Each meeting will occur in conjunction 

with a major event and/or a decision milestone in the study process. The meetings will provide an 

additional forum for stakeholders to discuss the issues surrounding the Corridor and the strategies 

for addressing them through study alternatives. The Consultant Team shall present to the TAC the 

various inputs and outputs of the analysis process. The meetings will at a minimum cover the 

following topics: 

x Project kick-off, scope of work, products, and expected outcomes 

x Public meeting formats, materials and summary of results 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 7 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

x Issues defined through a combination of data collection, field review, conceptual design 

and public involvement 

x Conceptual design of alternatives defined 

x Results of engineering, traffic and environmental analysis of the proposed alternatives. 

x Alternatives evaluation process and results against the eight planning actors defined in 

the Metropolitan Planning regulations, Title 23 USC Part 450 

Each meeting will be facilitated by the Consultant Team Project Manager and Deputy Project 

Manager in partnership with FHWA-EFHLD and NPS. Meetings will be documented with 

proceedings developed and disseminated to participants and uploaded onto the study website 

located on the FHWA-EFHLD website. 

Interagency Coordination Meetings 

It is anticipated that some local government agencies and elected bodies, such as the Prince 

Georges County Council or the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, will request 

briefings or individual one-on-one meetings with the study’s sponsoring agencies and the 

Consultant Team to discuss issues of specific concern to their jurisdictions. Four (4) meetings of this 

type will take place over the life of the project. Each meeting will require a separately developed 

agenda tailored to the study phase and issues specific to the agency requesting the meeting. Fact 

sheets or other briefing documents will be prepared to facilitate these meetings and the 

appropriate FHWA-EFHLD and NPS representatives along with appropriate staff from the 

Consultant Team shall attend these meetings. 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 8 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

VI. Schedule of Public Involvement Activities (subject to FHWA-EFHLD approval) 

Submission of Public Involvement Plan April 25, 2011 

Meeting with FHWA-EFHLD, NPS and SHA to finalize Plan Week of May 2, 2011 

Submission of Revised Public Involvement Plan Week of May 30, 2011 

Submission of Proposed Mailing List, Interview Candidates and TAC members 

 Week of May 30, 2011 

Interviews Conducted Week June 6-June 20, 2011 

First TAC Meeting Week of June 20, 2011

First Public Meeting Week of July 4, 2011 

Second TAC Meeting Week of July 25, 2011 

Second Public Meeting Week of September 12, 2011 

Third TAC Meeting Week of September 26, 2011 

Third Public Meeting Week of December 5, 2011 

Submittal of Draft Feasibility Report January 18, 2012 

Last TAC Meeting Week of January 23, 2012 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Public Involvement Plan & CSS Process 

Over a Century of Page 9 of 9 June 3, 2011 

Engineering Excellence

Parsons 

Brinckerhoff

Attachments 

1) Proposed Mailing List 

2) Proposed Stakeholders Interview List 

3) Proposed TAC members 

4) Draft Advertisement for the Public Meetings 

5) Draft Template for the Newsletter 

6) Draft Agenda for the Public Meeting #1 

7) Draft Study Logo 
TAC Category Name Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email Notes

Federal

Senate

D-MA Benjamin Cardin Senator 509 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-4524

D-MA Barbara Mikulski Senator 509 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-4654

House

District 2 Dutch Ruppersberger Representative 2453 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-3061

X District 2 Deborah J. Haynie Director of Special Projects - Ruppersberger's Office 2453 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC (202) 225-3061 deborah.haynie@mail.house.gov Cell - (410) 628-2701

District 3 John P. Sarbanes Representative 2444 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-4016

District 4 Donna F. Edwards Representative 318 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-8699

District 5 Steny H. Hoyer Representative 1705 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-4131

X District 5 Representative from Hoyer's Office 1705 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20515

District 7 Elijah Cummings Representative 2235 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-4741

District 8 Chris Van Hollen Representative 1707 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-5341

State

Governor Martin O'Malley Governor 100 State Circle Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 974-3901

Lieutenant Governor Anthony G. Brown Lieutenant Governor 100 State Circle Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 974-3901

State Senate

State Senate Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. Senate President State House, H-107 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3700 thomas.v.mike.miller@senate.state.md.us

State Senate Robert J. Garagiola Majority Leader James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 104 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3169 rob.garagiola@senate.state.md.us

State Senate Nancy Jacobs Minority Leader James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 323 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3158 nancy.jacobs@senate.state.md.us

State Senate - District 12 Edward J. Kasemeyer Senator - District 12 Miller Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, 3 West Wing Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3653 edward.kasemeyer@senate.state.md.us Baltimore and Howard Counties

State Senate - District 13 James N. Robey Senator - District 13 James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 120 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3572 james.robey@senate.state.md.us Howard County

State Senate - District 21 James C. Rosapepe Senator - District 21 James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 314 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3141 jim.rosapepe@senate.state.md.us Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties

State Senate - District 22 Paul G. Pinsky Senator - District 22 James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 220 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3155 paul.pinsky@senate.state.md.us Prince George's County

State Senate - District 23 Douglas J. J. Peters Senator - District 23 James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 121 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3631 douglas.peters@senate.state.md.us Prince George's County

State Senate - District 32 James E. DeGrange, Sr. Senator - District 32 James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 101 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3593 james.degrange@senate.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

State Senate - District 33 Edward R. Reilly Senator - District 33 James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 33 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3568 edward.reilly@senate.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

State Senate - District 47 Victor R. Ramirez Senator - District 47 James Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street, Room 303 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3745 victor.ramirez@senate.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates

House of Delegates Michael E. Busch House Speaker, District 30 State House, H-101 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3800 michael.busch@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

House of Delegates Kumar P. Barve Majority Leader House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 361 Annapolis MD 21404 (410) 841-3464 kumar.barve@house.state.md.us

House of Delegates Anthony J. O'Donnell Minority Leader House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 212 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3314 anthony.odonnell@house.state.md.us

House of Delegates - District 12A Steven J. Deboy, Sr. Delegate - District 12A House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 306 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3328 steven.deboy@house.state.md.us Baltimore and Howard Counties

House of Delegates - District 12A James E. Malone, Jr. Delegate - District 12A House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 251 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3378 James.malone@house.state.md.us Baltimore and Howard Counties

House of Delegates - District 13 Shane E. Pendergrass Delegate - District 13 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 241 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3139 shane.pendergrass@house.state.md.us Howard County

House of Delegates - District 13 Guy J. Guzzone Delegate - District 13 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 206 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3471 guy.guzzone@house.state.md.us Howard County

House of Delegates - District 13 Frank S. Turner Delegate - District 13 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 206 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3246 frank.turner@house.state.md.us Howard County

House of Delegates - District 21 Benjamin S. Barnes Delegate - District 21 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 152 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3046 ben.barnes@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties

House of Delegates - District 21 Barbara A. Frush Delegate - District 21 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 160 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3114 barbara.frush@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties

House of Delegates - District 21 Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk Delegate - District 21 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 157 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3502 joseline.pena.melnyk@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties

House of Delegates - District 22 Tawanna P. Gaines Delegate - District 22 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 416 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3058 tawanna.gaines@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates - District 22 Anne Healey Delegate - District 22 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 350 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3961 anne.healey@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates - District 22 Justin D. Ross Delegate - District 22 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 151 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3652 justin.ross@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates - District 23A James W. Hubbard Delegate - District 23A House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 363 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3103 james.hubbard@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates - District 23A Geraldine Valentino-Smith Delegate - District 23A House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 209 Annapolis MD 21401 (410)841-3101 geraldine.valentino@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates - District 32 Pamela G. Beidle Delegate - District 32 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 161 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3370 pamela.beidle@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

House of Delegates - District 32 Mary Ann Love Delegate - District 32 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 165 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3511 maryann.love@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

House of Delegates - District 32 Theodore J. Sophocleus Delegate - District 32 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 162 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3372 ted.sophocleus@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

House of Delegates - District 33 Tony McConkey Delegate - District 33A House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 216 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3406 tony.mcconkey@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

House of Delegates - District 33 Cathleen M. Vitale Delegate - District 33A House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 154 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3510 cathy.vitale@house.state.md.us Anne Arundel County

House of Delegates - District 47 Doyle L. Niemann Delegate - District 47 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 203 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3326 doyle.niemann@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates - District 47 Jolene Ivey Delegate - District 47 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 207 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3478 jolene.ivey@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

House of Delegates - District 47 Michael G. Summers Delegate - District 47 House Office Building, 6 Bladen Street, Room 203 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 841-3340 michael.summers@house.state.md.us Prince George's County

Local

Baltimore County

Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz County Executive Historic Courthouse, 400 Washington Avenue Towson MD 21204 (410) 887-2450 kevin@baltimorecountymd.gov

County Council Tom Quirk Council Member, District 1 754 Frederick Road Catonsville MD 21228 (410) 887-0896 council1@baltimorecountymd.gov

Council Administration Deborah Patchak Administrator 400 Washington Avenue Towson MD 21204 (410) 887-3196 countycouncil@baltimorecountymd.gov

Anne Arundel County

Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold County Executive 44 Calvert Street Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1821 jleopold@aacounty.org

County Council Daryl Jones Council Member, District 1 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 daryl.jones@aacounty.org

County Council John J. Grasso Council Member, District 2 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 John.grasso@aacounty.org

County Council Derek Fink Vice Chair, District 3 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 dfink@aacounty.org

County Council G. James Benoit Council Member, District 4 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 jamie.benoit@aacounty.org

County Council Dick Ladd Chair, District 5 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 dladd@aacounty.org

County Council Chris Trumbauer Council Member, District 6 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 ctrumbauer@aacounty.org

County Council Jerry Walker Council Member, District 7 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 jerry.walker@aacounty.org

County Council Administration Judy C. Holmes Administrative Officer 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 jholmes@aacounty.org

County Council Administration JoAnne Gray Assistant Administrative Officer 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 jgray@aacounty.org

Community and Constituent Services Brenda Reiber Director of Community Services 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1795 EXREIB00@aacounty.org

Public Information Office David Abrams Director of Communications 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1288 dabrams@aacounty.org

Howard County

Howard County Executive Ken Ulman County Executive 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2013

County Council Courtney Watson Council Member, District 1 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 cwatson@howardcountymd.gov

County Council Calvin Ball Chair, District 2 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 cbball@howardcountymd.gov

County Council Jen Terrasa Vice Chair, District 3 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 jterrasa@howardcountymd.gov

County Administration Raymond S. Wacks Administrator 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2077 rwacks@howardcountymd.gov

Office of Public Information Kevin Enright Director Carroll Building, 3450 Court House Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2022 kenright@howardcountymd.gov

Prince George's County

Prince George's County Executive Rushern L. Baker, III County Executive 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-4131 countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us

County Council Mary A. Lehman Council Member, District 1 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3887 MALehman@co.pg.md.us Adelphi, Beltsville, Calverton, College Park, Laurel, Montpelier, South Laurel, Vansville, and West Laurel

County Council Will Campos Council Member, District 2 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-4436 WACampos@co.pg.md.us Brentwood, Hyattsville, Mount Rainier, and North Brentwood

County Council Eric Olson Vice Chair, District 3 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3060 Eolson@co.pg.md.us Beacon Heights, Berwyn Heights, College Park, East Pines, Glenn Dale, Glenridge, Landover Hills, Lanham, New Carrollton, Riverdale Heights and Hills, Riverdale Park, Seabrook, Templeton Knolls, University Park, and Woodlawn 

County Council Ingrid M. Turner, Esquire Chair, District 4 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3094 IMTurner@co.pg.md.us Bowie, Glenn Dale, Greenbelt, Westchester Park, and parts of Lanham-Seabrook and Upper Marlboro

County Council Andrea Harrison Council Member, District 5 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3864 councildistrict5@co.pg.md.us Bladensburg, Cheverly, Edmonston, Fairmount Heights, Glenarden, Landover, Colmar Monor, Cottage City, and Mitchellville

County Council Leslie E. Johnson Council Member, District 6 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3426 councildistrict6@co.pg.md.us South Bowie, Capitol Heights, District Heights, Forestville, Kettering, Largo, Mitchellville, and Upper Marlboro

Council Administration Robert J. Williams Jr. Administrator 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3238

Press Information Office Mark E. Brady Public Relations Manager and Chief Spokesman 9201 Basil Court, Suite 452 Largo MD 20774 (301) 883-7154 mebrady@co.pg.md.us

The City of Bowie

Mayor G. Frederick Robinson Mayor 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 mayor@cityofbowie.org

Mayor Pro Tem James Marcos Mayor Pro Tem and District 1 Councilmember 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 jmarcos@cityofbowie.org

City Council Dennis Brady At-Large Council Member 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 councilman.brady@verizon.net

City Council Henri Gardner At-Large Council Member 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 hgardner@cityofbowie.org

City Council Diane Polangin District 2 Council Member 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 dpolangin@cityofbowie.org

City Council Issac Trouth District 4 Council Member 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 itrouth@cityofbowie.org

City Council Todd Turner District 3 Council Member 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 tmturner@cityofbowie.org

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Elected Officials Page 1
TAC Category Name Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email Notes

City Manager's Office David J. Deutsch City Manager 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 ddeutsch@cityofbowie.org

City Manager's Office John Fitzwater Assistant City Manager 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie MD 20716 (301) 262-6200 jfitzwater@cityofbowie.org

City of Laurel

Mayor Craig A. Moe Mayor 8103 Sandy Spring Road Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-5300 x2124 laurelmayor@laurel.md.us

City Council Michael R. Leszcz Council President, At-Large Member 8103 Sandy Spring Road Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-5300 laurelcouncil@laurel.md.us

City Council Janis L. Robison Ward 1 Council Member 8103 Sandy Spring Road Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-5300 laurelcouncil@laurel.md.us

City Council Gayle W. Snyder Ward 1 Council Member 8103 Sandy Spring Road Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-5300 laurelcouncil@laurel.md.us

City Council Frederick Smalls Ward 2 Council Member 8103 Sandy Spring Road Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-5300 laurelcouncil@laurel.md.us

City Council Donna L. Crary Ward 2 Council Member 8103 Sandy Spring Road Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-5300 laurelcouncil@laurel.md.us

Administration Kristie Mills City Administrator 8103 Sandy Spring Road Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-5300 x2203 CAdmin@laurel.md.us

City of Greenbelt

Mayor Judith F. Davis Mayor 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 jdavis@greenbeltmd.gov

Mayor Pro Tem Emmett V. Jordan Mayor Pro Tem 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 ejordan@greenbeltmd.gov

City Council Konrad Herling Council Member 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 kherling@greenbeltmd.gov

City Council Leta Mach Council Member 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 lmach@greenbeltmd.gov

City Council Silke Pope Council Member 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 spope@greenbeltmd.gov

City Council Edward VJ Putens Council Member 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 eputens@greenbeltmd.gov

City Council Rodney M. Roberts Council Member 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 rroberts@greenbeltmd.gov

Administration Michael McLaughlin City Manager 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 mmclaughlin@greenbeltmd.gov

Administration David Moran City Manager 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 dmoran@greenbeltmd.gov

City of New Carrollton

Mayor Andrew C. Hanko Mayor 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (301) 577-0256 ahanko@new-carrollton.md.us

City Council Duane H. Rosenburg Council Member 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (301) 441-3324 drosenberg@new-carrollton.md.us

City Council James A. Wildoner Council Member 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (301) 577-0992 jwildoner@new-carrollton.md.us

City Council June D. Garrett Council Member 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (301) 459-6100 jgarrett@new-carrollton.md.us

City Council Katrina R. Dodro Council Member 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (301) 513-9239 kdodro@new-carrollton.md.us

City Council Richard Bechtold Council Member 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (240) 770-7581 rbechtold@new-carrollton.md.us

City Administration J. Michael Downes City Administrative Officer 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (301) 459-6100 x1011 jmdownes@new-carrollton.md.us

City Administration Graham Waters Assistant City Administrative Officer 6016 Princess Garden Parkway New Carrollton MD 20784 (301) 459-6100 x1015 gwaters@new-carrollton.md.us

City of College Park

Mayor Andrew M. Fellows Mayor 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (301) 441-8141 afellows@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council Patrick L. Wojahn Council Member, District 1 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (240) 988-7763 pwojahn@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council Christine Nagle Council Member, District 1 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (240) 965-0214 cnagle@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council Robert T. Catlin Council Member, District 2 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (301) 345-0742 rcatlin@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council John E. Perry Council Member, District 2 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (301) 345-7526 jperry@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council Mark Cook Council Member, District 3 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (240) 554-2231 markcook@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council Stephanie E. Stullich Council Member, District 3 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (301) 742-4442 sstullich@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council Denise Mitchell Council Member, District 4 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (240) 413-9911 dmitchell@collegeparkmd.gov

City Council Marcus Afzali Council Member, District 4 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (240) 391-8241 mafzali@collegeparkmd.gov

Administration Joseph L. Nargo City Manager 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (240) 487-3501 jnagro@collegeparkmd.gov

Administration Chnatal Cotton Assistant to the City Manager 4500 Knox Road College Park MD 20740 (240) 487-3507 ccotton@collegeparkmd.gov

Town of Berwyn Heights

Mayor Cheye Calvo Mayor 5700 Berwyn Road Berwyn Heights MD 20740 (301) 474-6350 ccalvo@town.berwyn-heights.md.us

Mayor Pro Tem James Wilkinson Mayor Pro Tem 5700 Berwyn Road Berwyn Heights MD 20740 (301) 982-5152 jwilkinson@town.berwyn-heights.md.us

Town Council Richard Ahrens Council Member 5700 Berwyn Road Berwyn Heights MD 20740 (301) 474-3328 rahrens@town.berwyn-heights.md.us

Town Council Jodie Kulpa-Eddie Council Member 5700 Berwyn Road Berwyn Heights MD 20740 (301) 345-1516 jkulpaeddy@town.berwyn-heights.md.us

Town Council Patricia Dennison Council Member 5700 Berwyn Road Berwyn Heights MD 20740 (301) 404-2759 pdennison@town.berwyn-heights.md.us

Administration Edward J. Murphy Town Administrator 5700 Berwyn Road Berwyn Heights MD 20740 (301) 474-5000 emurphy@town.berwyn-heights.md.us

Town of Riverdale Park

Mayor Vernon Archer Mayor 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 varcher@gmail.com

Town Council Alice Ewen Ward 1 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 aewen@riverdaleparkmd.gov

Town Council Alan Thompson Ward 2 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 akthompson@riverdaleparkmd.gov

Town Council David Lingua Ward 3 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 djlingua@riverdaleparkmd.gov

Town Council Chris Henry Ward 4 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 chenry3240@verizon.net

Town Council Raymond Rivas Ward 5 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 rrivas@riverdaleparkmd.gov

Town Council Keelah Allen-Smith Ward 6 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 kallensmith@riverdaleparkmd.gov

Administration Sara Imhulse Town Administrator 5008 Queensbury Road Riverdale Park MD 20737 (301) 927-6381 simhulse@riverdalparkmd.gov

Town of Bladensburg

Mayor Walter Lee James, Jr. Mayor 4229 Edmonston Road Bladensburg MD 20710 (301) 927-7048 wjames@bladensburg.net

Town Council Cris Mendoza Council Member, Ward I 4229 Edmonston Road Bladensburg MD 20710 (301) 927-7048 cmendoza@bladensburg.net

Town Council Charlina Watson Council Member, Ward I 4229 Edmonston Road Bladensburg MD 20710 (301) 927-7048 cwatson@bladensburg.net

Town Council Walter Ficklin Council Member, Ward II 4229 Edmonston Road Bladensburg MD 20710 (301) 927-7048 wficklin@bladensburg.net

Town Council Walter George Council Member, Ward II 4229 Edmonston Road Bladensburg MD 20710 (301) 927-7048 wgeorge@bladensburg.net

Administration John E. Moss Town Administrator 4229 Edmonston Road Bladensburg MD 20710 (301) 927-7048 jmoss@bladensburg.net

Town of Brentwood

Mayor Xzavier Montgomery-Wright Mayor 4300 39th Place Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 927-3344 town_bwood@hotmail.com

Vice Mayor Jeff Clark Vice Mayor 4300 39th Place Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 927-3344 town_bwood@hotmail.com

Town Council Aneeka Harrison Council Member 4300 39th Place Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 927-3344 town_bwood@hotmail.com

Town Council Marlene Robinson Council Member 4300 39th Place Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 927-3344 town_bwood@hotmail.com

Town Council Nina Young Council Member 4300 39th Place Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 927-3344 town_bwood@hotmail.com

Administration Peter Jones Town Administrator 4300 39th Place Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 927-7395 town_bwood@hotmail.com

Town of Cheverly

Mayor Michael Callahan Mayor 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 mayor@cheverly-md.gov

Town Council Laila Riazi Council Member Ward 1 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 councilmemberward1@cheverly-md.gov

Town Council Micah Watson Council Member Ward 2 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 councilmemberward2@cheverly-md.gov

Town Council Roswell RJ Eldridge Council Member Ward 3 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 councilmemberward3@cheverly-md.gov

Town Council Leon Schachter Council Member Ward 4 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 councilmemberward4@cheverly-md.gov

Town Council Position Vacant Council Member Ward 5 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 councilmemberward5@cheverly-md.gov

Town Council Emily Tevault Council Member Ward 6 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 councilmemberward6@cheverly-md.gov

Administration David Warrington Town Administrator 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 20785 (301) 773-8360 townadministrator@cheverly-md.gov

City of Hyattsville

Mayor William F. Gardiner Mayor 4310 Gallatin Street Hyattsville MD 20781 (301) 985-5009 bgardiner@hyattsville.org

City Council Marc Tartaro President, Ward 1 4911 40th Place Hyattsville MD 20781 (301) 927-6425 mtartaro@hyattsville.org

City Council Douglas S. Dudrow Ward 1 4202 Kennedy Street Hyattsville MD 20781 (301 699-9606 oconnor_one@verizon.net

City Council William F. Tierney II Vice President, Ward 2 5215 42nd Place Hyattsville MD 20781 (301) 227-4620 btierney@hyattsville.org

City Council David Hiles Ward 2 4105 Gallatin Street Hyattsville MD 20781 (240) 381-0050 dhiles@hyattsville.org

City Council Timothy P. Hunt Ward 3 3407 Pennsylvania Avenue Hyattsville MD 20783 (301) 422-2047 thunt@hyattsville.org

City Council Matthew D. McKnight Ward 3 4013 Oglethorpe Street Hyattsville MD 20782 (301) 277-2320 mmcknight@hyattsville.org

City Council Paula J. Perry Ward 4 5704 30th Avenue Hyattsville MD 20782 (301) 853-3194 pjperry@hyattsville.org

City Council Carlos Lizanne Ward 4 5820 Maryhurst Drive Hyattsville MD 20782 (301) 853-2938 clizanne@hyattsville.org

City Council Ruth Ann Frazier Ward 5 5013 37th Avenue Hyattsville MD 20782 (301) 779-5428 rafrazier@hyattsville.org

City Council Nicole Hinds Mofor Ward 5 5015 36th Avenue Hyattsville MD 20782 (240) 533-2166 nhinds@hyattsville.org

Administration Gregory E. Rose City Administrator 4310 Gallatin Street Hyattsville MD 20781 (301) 985-5006 grose@hyattsville.org

Administration Vincent Jones Assistant City Administrator 4310 Gallatin Street Hyattsville MD 20781 (301) 985-5000 vjones@hyattsville.org

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Elected Officials Page 2
TAC Category Name Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email Notes

Takoma Park

Mayor Bruce Williams Mayor 326 Lincoln Avenue Takoma Park MD 20912 (240) 676-6234 BruceW@takomagov.org

Council Member Josh Wright Council Member Ward 1 7500 Maple Avenue Takoma Park MD 20912 (301) 891-7100 JoshW@takomagov.org

Council Member Colleen Clay Council Member Ward 2 7500 Maple Avenue Takoma Park MD 20912 (301) 891-7100 ColleenC@takomagov.org

Council Member Dan Robinson Council Member Ward 3 7500 Maple Avenue Takoma Park MD 20912 (301) 891-7100 Dan.Robinson@homeintakoma.com

Council Member Terry Seamens Council Member Ward 4 7500 Maple Avenue Takoma Park MD 20912 (301) 891-7100 TerryS@takomagov.org

Council Member Reuben Snipper Council Member Ward 5 7500 Maple Avenue Takoma Park MD 20912 (301) 891-7100 ReubenS@takomagov.org

Council Member Fred Schultz Council Member Ward 6 7500 Maple Avenue Takoma Park MD 20912 (301) 891-7100 FredS@takomagov.org

Mount Rainier

Mayor Malinda Miles Mayor City of Mount Rainier City Hall, 1 Municipal Place Mount Rainier MD 20712 (301) 985-6585 mayormiles@gmail.com

Council Member Bill Updike Council Member Ward 1 City of Mount Rainier City Hall, 1 Municipal Place Mount Rainier MD 20712 (301) 367-5649 updikew@yahoo.com

Council Member Jimmy Tarlau Council Member Ward 1 City of Mount Rainier City Hall, 1 Municipal Place Mount Rainier MD 20712 (301) 335-6099 jtarlau@cwa-union.org

Council Member Ivy Thompson Council Member Ward 2 City of Mount Rainier City Hall, 1 Municipal Place Mount Rainier MD 20712 (301) 985-6585 friendsforivy@gmail.com

Council Member Bryan Knedler Council Member Ward 2 City of Mount Rainier City Hall, 1 Municipal Place Mount Rainier MD 20712 (301) 985-6585 bknedler@aol.com

Cottage City

Commissioner Aileen D. McChesney Commission Chair/ Ward 1 3820 40th Avenue Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 779-2161

Commissioner William H. Hall, Sr. Commissioner Ward 2 3820 40th Avenue Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 779-2161

Commissioner Gary Styles Commissioner Ward 3 3820 40th Avenue Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 779-2161

Commissioner Patricia Gross Commissioner Ward 4 3820 40th Avenue Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 779-2161

Commissioner Richard Cote Commissioner At-Large 3820 40th Avenue Brentwood MD 20722 (301) 779-2161

Baltimore

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake Mayor City Hall, 100 N. Holiday Street, Room 250 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 396-3835

Council Member Edward Reisinger Council Vice President/District 10 City Hall, 100 N. Holiday Street, Room 511 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 396-4822 Edward.Reisinger@baltimorecity.gov

Council Member James B. Kraft Council Member, District 1 City Hall, 100 N. Holiday Street, Room 503 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 396-4821 James.Kraft@baltimorecity.gov

Council President Bernard C. Young City Council President City Hall, 100 N. Holiday Street, Room 400 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 396-4804 CouncilPresident@baltimorecity.gov

Linthicum, Anne Arundel

Council Member Daryl Jones Council Member, District 1 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 daryl.jones@aacounty.org

Ferndale, Anne Arundel

Council Member Daryl Jones Council Member, District 1 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 daryl.jones@aacounty.org

South Gate, Anne Arundel

Council Member Daryl Jones Council Member, District 1 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 daryl.jones@aacounty.org

Council Member John J. Grasso Council Member, District 2 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 John.grasso@aacounty.org

Severn, Anne Arundel

Council Member Daryl Jones Council Member, District 1 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 daryl.jones@aacounty.org

Council Member James Benoit Council Member, District 4 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 jamie.benoit@aacounty.org

Odenton, Anne Arundel

Council Member James Benoit Council Member, District 4 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 jamie.benoit@aacounty.org

Maryland City, Anne Arundel

Council Member James Benoit Council Member, District 4 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1401 jamie.benoit@aacounty.org

Elkridge, Howard

Council Member Courtney Watson Council Member, District 1 George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 cwatson@howardcountymd.gov

Council Member Calvin Ball Council Member, District 2 George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 cbball@howardcountymd.gov

Savage Guilford, Howard

Council Member Jennifer Terrasa Council Member, District 3 George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 jterrasa@howardcountymd.gov

Council Member Greg Fox Council Member, District 5 George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 gfox@howardcountymd.gov

Jessup, Howard

Council Member Jennifer Terrasa Council Member, District 3 George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 jterrasa@howardcountymd.gov

Council Member Greg Fox Council Member, District 5 George Howard Building, 3430 Court House Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2001 gfox@howardcountymd.gov

South Laurel, Prince George's

Council Member Mary A. Lehman Council Member, District 1 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3887 MALehman@co.pg.md.us

Beltsville, Prince George's

Council Member Mary A. Lehman Council Member, District 1 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3887 MALehman@co.pg.md.us

Adelphi, Prince George's

Council Member Mary A. Lehman Council Member, District 1 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3887 MALehman@co.pg.md.us

Glenn Dale, Prince George's

Council Member Eric Olson Council Member, District 3 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3060 Eolson@co.pg.md.us

Council Member Ingrid M. Turner Council Member, District 4 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3094 IMTurner@co.pg.md.us

Lanham-Seabrook, Prince George's

Council Member Eric Olson Council Member, District 3 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3060 Eolson@co.pg.md.us

Council Member Ingrid M. Turner Council Member, District 4 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3094 IMTurner@co.pg.md.us

Langley Park, Prince George's

Council Member Will Campos Council Member, District 2 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-4436 WACampos@co.pg.md.us

Chillum, Prince George's

Council Member Will Campos Council Member, District 2 County Council, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, 2nd Floor Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-4436 WACampos@co.pg.md.us

District of Columbia

Mayor Vincent C. Gray Mayor Executive Office of the Mayor, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 316Washington DC 20004 (202) 727-6300 eom@dc.gov

Chairman, DC Council Kwame R. Brown Chairman, DC Council 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 316 Washington DC 20004 (202) 724-8032 kbrown@dccouncil.us

Chief of Staff Nicole Streeter Chief of Staff for Chairman 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 316 Washington DC 20004 (202) 724-8032 nstreeter@dccouncil.us

Council Member Yvette Alexander Council Member, Ward 7 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20004 (202) 724-8068 yalexander@dccouncil.us

Chief of Staff J.R. Meyers Chief of Staff for Council Member, Ward 7 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20004 (202) 724-8068 jrmeyers@dccouncil.us

Council Member Harry Thomas, Jr. Council Member, Ward 5 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 107 Washington DC 20004 (202) 724-8028 hthomas@dccouncil.us

Chief of Staff Ayawna Chase Chief of Staff for Council Member, Ward 5 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 107 Washington DC 20004 (202) 724-8024 achase@dccouncil.us

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Elected Officials Page 3
TAC Group Contact Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email Cell

Federal Agencies

National Park Service - National Capital Region Woody Smeck Acting Regional Director National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW Washington DC 20242 (202) 619-7000

National Park Service - National Capital Region Perry Wheelock Chief of Cultural Resources National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW Washington DC 20242 (202) 619-7088 perry_wheelock@nps.gov

X National Park Service - National Capital Region Charles Borders Branch Chief National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW Washington DC 20242 (202) 619-7455 charles_borders@nps.gov (202) 438-7144

X National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East Alex Romero Superintendent 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Washington DC 20020 (202) 690-5185 alex_romero@nps.gov

National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East Ophelia Grier Acting Deputy Superintendent 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Washington DC 20020 (202) 690-5178 ophilia_grier@nps.gov

National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East Frank Young Chief of Maintenance 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Washington DC 20020 (202) 690-5183 frank_young@nps.gov

National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East Eola Dance Cultural Resources Specialist 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Washington DC 20020 (202) 692-6038 eola_dance@nps.gov

National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East Robert Mocko NEPA Specialist 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Washington DC 20020

X National Park Service - Greenbelt Park - National Capital Parks - East Fred Cunningham Park Manager 6565 Greenbelt Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 344-3948 Fred_Cummingham@nps.gov

X National Park Service - US Park Police Warren Boyer Lieutenant 1100 Ohio Drive Washington DC 20242 (301) 344-3957 warren_boyer@nps.gov

National Park Service - US Park Police Richard Pope Captain 1100 Ohio Drive Washington DC 20242 (202) 438-0413 Richard_Pope@nps.gov

X Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Lewis G. Grimm, P.E. Planning Team Leader 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 (703) 404-6289 Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov

X Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Jack Van Dopp Senior Technical Specialist 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 (703) 404-6282 Jack.Vandopp@dot.gov

X Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Alazar Feleke Highway Design Manager 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 (301) 404-6319 alazar.feleke@dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division Hassan Raza Division Administrator City Crescent Building, 10 South Howard Street, Suite 2450 Baltimore MD 21201 (410) 962-4440 hassan.raza@dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division Anna Price Team Leader 300 South New Street, Suite 2101 Dover DE 199904 (302) 734-2835 anna.price@dot.gov

X Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division Jeanette Mar Environmental Program Manager City Crescent Building, 10 South Howard Street, Suite 2450 Baltimore MD 21201 (410) 779-7152 jeanette.mar@dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration, District of Columbia Federal-Aid Division Christopher Lawson Division Administrator 1990 K Street, NW, Suite 510 Washington DC 20006 (202) 219-3570 christopher.lawson@dot.gov

X Federal Highway Administration, District of Columbia Division Sandra Jackson Planning and Research Program Manager 1990 K Street, NW, Suite 510 Washington DC 20006 (202) 219-3521 sandra.jackson@dot.gov

National Capital Planning Commission Marcel C. Acosta Executive Director 401 9th Street, NW, North Lobby, Suite 500 Washington DC 20004 (202) 482-7272 Marcel.Acosta@ncpc.gov

X National Capital Planning Commission Julia Koster Director, Intergovernmental Affairs 401 9th Street, NW, North Lobby, Suite 500 Washington DC 20004 (202) 482-7211 julia.koster@ncpc.gov 

X Patuxent Research Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service Brad Knudsen Refuge Manager National Wildlife Visitor Center, 10901 Scarlet Tanager Loop Laurel MD 20708 (301) 497-5582 brad_knudsen@fws.gov

X Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, US Department of Agriculture Joseph Spence Area Director 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Rm. 223, Bldg. 003, BARC-West Beltsville MD 20705 (301)504-6078 Joseph.Spence@ars.usda.gov

X Goddard Space Flight Center, National Air and Space Administration Rob Strain Director 8800 Greenbelt Road Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-2000

X Fort George G. Meade, US Army COL Daniel L. Thomas Installation Commander 4409 Llewellyn Avenue Fort George Meade MD 20755 (301) 677-1361 meadepaoweb@conus.army.mil

X National Security Agency GEN Keith B. Alexander Director 9800 Savage Road Fort Meade MD 20735 (301) 688-6524 nsapao@nsa.gov

State and Washington, DC Agencies

Maryland Department of Natural Resources - Office for a Sustainable Future Christine Conn, PhD Green Infrastructure Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 260-8785 CConn@dnr.state.md.us 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources - Office for a Sustainable Future David M. Goshorn, PhD Director Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 260-8119 dgoshorn@dnr.state.md.us

Maryland Department of Transportation - Office of Planning and Capital Programming Keith Bounds Regional Planner 7201 Corporate Center Drive, P.O. Box 548 Hanover MD 21076 (410) 865-1305 Kbounds@mdot.state.md.us

Maryland Department of Transportation - Office of Planning and Capital Programming Mike Nixon Manager 7201 Corporate Center Drive, P.O. Box 548 Hanover MD 21076 (410) 865-1295 mnixon@mdot.state.md.us

Maryland Department of Transportation - Office of Planning and Capital Programming Lyn Erickson Regional Planner 7201 Corporate Center Drive, P.O. Box 548 Hanover MD 21076 (410) 865-1279 lerickson@mdot.state.md.us

X Maryland State Highway Administration Neil J. Pedersen Administrator Office of the Administrator, 707 North Calvert Street, Mail Stop C-400 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-0400 Npedersen@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration Doug Simmons Deputy Administrator/Chief Engineer Office of the Administrator, 707 North Calvert Street, Mail Stop C-400 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-0411 dsimmons@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration - Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering Vaughn Lewis Regional Planner 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-5673 vlewis@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration Moreshwar B. Kulkarni Design Engineer 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-8825 mkulkarni@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration - Travel Forecasting & Analysis Division, Office of Planning and 

Preliminary Engineering Subrat Mahapatra Planner 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 smahapatra@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration - Travel Forecasting & Analysis Division, Office of Planning and 

Preliminary Engineering Lisa Shemer Planner 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-5640 lshemer@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration Roy Gothie Assistant Regional Planner 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-5654 rgothie@sha.state.md.us

X Maryland State Highway Administration - Planning and Highway Development Office Kirk McClelland OHD Director 707 North Calvert Street, C-102 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-8800 kmcclelland@sha.state.md.us

X Maryland State Highway Administration - Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering Greg Slater OPPE Director 707 North Calvert Street, C-411 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-0412 gslater@sha.state.md.us

X Maryland State Highway Administration - Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering Jerry Smith Regional Planner 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-5675 jsmith@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration Lindsay Bobian Project Manager 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545-8765 lbobian@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration - District 4 Eric G. Tombs Transportation Engineer 320 West Warren Road Hunt Valley MD 21030 (410) 229-2386 etombs@sha.state.md.us

Maryland Transit Administration Ralign T. Wells Administrator 6 St. Paul Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 767-3943 rwells@mta.maryland.gov

X Maryland Transit Administration Diane Ratcliff Director of Planning 6 St. Paul Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 767-3787 dratcliff@mta.maryland.gov

X Maryland Aviation Administration / Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport Paul J. Wiedefeld Executive Director P.O. Box 8766, Third Floor Terminal Bldg.. BWI Airport MD 21240 (410) 859-7060 pwiedefeld@bwiairport.com

District of Columbia Department of Transportation Terry Bellamy Director 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington DC 20003 (202) 673-6813 ddot@dc.gov

X District of Columbia Department of Transportation - Infrastructure Project Management Administration Ronaldo Nicholson Chief Engineer 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington DC 20003 (202)-671-4691 ronaldo.nicholson@dc.gov

X District of Columbia Department of Transportation - Planning, Policy and Sustainability Administration Maurice Keys Acting Associate Director 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington DC 20003 (202) 671-0497 maurice.keys@dc.gov

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Richard Sarles General Manager/CEO 600 5th Street, NW Washington DC 20001 (202) 962-1234 metronews@wmata.com

X Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Nat Bottigheimer Associate GM for Planning 600 5th Street, NW Washington DC 20001 (202) 962-2730 nbottigheimer@wmata.com

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) Patricia Colihan Barney Executive Director 6611 Kenilworth Avenue Riverdale MD 20737 (301) 454-1740

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) - Prince George's Planning Tom Masog Transportation Planner 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-5216 tom.masog@ppd.mncppc.org

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) - Prince George's Planning Kierre McCune Planner Coordinator 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3211 Kierre.Mccune@ppd.mncppc.org

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) - Montgomery County Dan Hardy Transportation Planning Chief 8787 Georgia Ave Silver Spring, MD 20910 MD 20910 301-495-4530 dan.hardy@mncppc-mc.org

X Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) - Prince George's Planning Eric Foster Supervisor, Strategic Planning Section/Community Planning Div. 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive  Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3680 eric.foster@ppd.mncppc.org

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) David Robertson Executive Director 777 North Capital Street, NE, Suite 300 Washington DC 20002 (202) 962-3260 drobertson@mwcog.org

X Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) - Transportation Planning Board (TPB) Elena Constantine Department of Transportation Planning 777 North Capital Street, NE, Suite 300 Washington DC 20002 (202) 962-3312 econstantine@mwcog.org

X Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) - Transportation Planning Board (TPB) Dusan Vuksan Department of Transportation Planning 777 North Capital Street, NE, Suite 300 Washington DC 20002 (202) 962-3279 dvuksan@mwcog.org

Baltimore-Washington Partners for Forest Stewardship (BWPFS) Brad Knudsen Manager, Patuxent Wildlife 10901 Scarlet Tanager Loop Laurel MD 20708 (301) 497-5582 brad_knudsen@fws.gov 

Baltimore Metropolitan Council's (BMC) Todd Lang Transportation Director 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore MD 21230 (410) 732-9566 tlang@baltometro.org

X Baltimore Metropolitan Council's (BMC) Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) Regina Aris Deputy Director Transportation Planning 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore MD 21230 (410) 732-9572 raris@baltometro.org

X Amtrak Theodore (Ted) Alves Inspector General P.O. Box 76654 Washington DC 20002 1-800-468-5469

County Agencies

Baltimore County Government Kevin Kamenetz County Executive Historic Courthouse, 400 Washington Avenue Towson MD 21204 (410) 887-2450 kevin@baltimorecountymd.gov

Baltimore County Office of Planning Jeff Mayhew Acting Director 105 W. Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 101 Towson MD 21204 (410) 887-3211 planning@baltimorecountymd.gov

X Baltimore County Office of Planning Andrea Van Arsdale Planning Director 105 W. Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 101 Towson MD 21204 (410) 887-3211 planning@baltimorecountymd.gov

Baltimore County Department of Economic Development TBD TBD 400 Washington Avenue, Mezzanine, Mailstop 2M07 Towson MD 21204 (410) 887-8000 businesshelp@bltimorecountymd.gov

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Agencies Page 4
TAC Group Contact Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email Cell

Anne Arundel County Government John R. Leopold County Executive 44 Calvert Street Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-1821 jleopold@aacounty.org

Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning Larry R. Tom Planning and Zoning Officer 2664 Riva Road Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-7450

X Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning George Cardwell Transportation Planning 44 Calvert Street Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-7440 x7255 pzcard44@aacounty.org

Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation Robert Hannon President/CEO 2660 Riva Road, Suite 300 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-7410 rhannon@aaedc.org

Howard County Government Ken Ulman County Executive 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2013

Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning Marsha McLaughlin Director 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-2350 planning@howardcountymd.gov

X Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning Brian Muldoon Planning Specialist 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313-4363 bmuldoon@howardcountymd.gov

Howard County Economic Development Authority Laura A. Neuman Chief Executive Officer 6751 Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 500 Columbia MD 21046 (410) 313-6500 lneuman@hceda.org

Prince George's County Government Rushern L. Baker, III County Executive County Administration Building, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-4131 countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us

Prince George's County Planning Department Fern Piret Planning Director 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3594 info@ppd.mncppc.org

Prince George's County Economic Development Corporation Gwen S. McCall Interim President/CEO 1100 Mercantile Lane Largo MD 20774 (301) 583-4650 GSMcCall@co.pg.md.us

Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation Elizabeth McKinney District Engineer 9400 Peppercorn Place, Suite 300 Largo MD 20774 (301) 883-5710 emckinney@co.pg.md.us

X Prince George's County Planning Department Tom Masog Planner Coordinator 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-5216 tom.masog@ppd.mncppc.org

Prince George's County Planning Department Kierre McCune Planner Coordinator 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952-3211 kierre.mccune@ppd.mncppc.org

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Agencies Page 5
TAC Group Contact Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email Cell

Chamber of Commerce

Maryland Chamber of Commerce Kathleen T. Snyder President/CEO 60 West Street, Suite 100 Annapolis MD 21404 (410) 269-0642 ksnyder@mdchamber.org

Baltimore Washington Corridor Chamber of Commerce Cathy Barrett Chief Operating Officer 312 Marshall Avenue, Suite 104 Laurel MD 20707 (301) 725-4000 x113 cathy.barrett@bwcc.org

Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce Keith Scott President/CEO 102 West Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 101 Towson MD 21204 (410) 825-6200 kscott@baltcountychamber.com

Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce Bob Burdon President/CEO 49 Old Solomons Road, Suite 204 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 266-3960 rburdon@aaaccc.org

West Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce Claire Louder President/CEO 8385 Piney Orchard Parkway Odenton MD 21113 (410) 672-3422 clouder@westcountychamber.org

Howard County Chamber Pamela J. Klahr President 5560 Sterrett Place, Suite 105 Columbia MD 21044 (410) 730-4111 x107 president@howardchamber.com

Prince George's County Chamber of Commerce Rhonda L. Slade President/CEO 4640 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 130 Lanham MD 20706 (301) 731-5000 x710 rslade@pgcoc.org

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Business Page 6
TAC Group Contact Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email

Community and Home Owner Associations

The Provinces Community Association Chris Salmi President Community Association Management, P.O. Box 579 Stevenson MD 21153

Ferndale Community Club Harry Wolfe President 15 Fifth Avenue North Glen Burnie MD 21061 (410) 766-9727

Greater Elkridge Community Association Carol Bateman Community Contact P.O. Box 8001 Elkridge MD 21075 (410) 796-1030

Seven Oaks Community Association Holly Groves Manager 2210 Charter Oaks Blvd. Odenton MD 21113 (410) 672-2160

Russett Community Association Tim Reyburn President 3500 Russett Common Laurel MD 20724 (301) 498-3897

Warfield Community Association 8440 Pioneer Drive Severn MD 21144 (410) 551-8076

Courts of Four Seasons HOA Rick Bosley President P.O. Box 565 Gambrills MD 21054 board@cofshoa.org

Piney Orchard Community Association Jeff Andrade President 2400 Stream Valley Drive Odenton MD 21113 (410) 672-4273

Saddlebrooke Home Owners Association 1311 Bluegrass Way Gambrills MD 21054 (410) 305-1340

Shelter Cove Community 537 Tranquil Court Odenton MD 21113

Crawfords Ridge Home Owners Association P.O. Box 468 Odenton MD 21113

The Crestwood Improvement Association Dr. Jay Kilchenstein President P.O. Box 114 Linthicum MD 21090

Forks of the Patuxent Improvement Association P.O. Box 477 Odenton MD 21113

Four Seasons Community Association Andrew Pruski President P.O. Box 92 Gambrills MD 21054

Greater Odenton Improvement Association P.O. Box 141 Odenton MD 21113

Citizens Association of South Bowie P.O. Box 1604 Bowie MD 20717

Concerned Citizens of Seabrook Park Estates Civic Association 9227 Alcona Street Lanham MD 20706

Glenn Dale Citizens Association P.O. Box 235 Glenn Dale MD 20769

Good Luck Civic Association 6310 Navel Avenue Lanham MD 20706

Good Luck Community Center 8601 Good Luck Road Lanham MD 20706

Gunpowder Citizens Association P.O. Box 134 Beltsville MD 20705

Long Ridge Citizens Association 12121 Long Ridge Lane Bowie MD 20715

Woodmore Highlands Citizens Association 3312 Dunwood Crossings Drive Bowie MD 20721

Avondale Citizens' Association, Inc. P.O. Box 5891 Hyattsville MD 20782

Beacon Heights Citizens Association P.O. Box 944 Riverdale MD 20738

Calvert Hills Citizens Association Morgan Gale President 7017 Wake Forest Drive College Park MD 20740 (240) 481-7010 morgangale@comcast.net

Brentwood Civic Association 3404 Webster Street Brentwood MD 20722

Cool Springs Terrace Civic Association 8303 Rambler Drive Adelphi MD 20783

Glenridge Citizens Association P.O. Box 2781 Hyattsville MD 20785

Lewisdale Citizens Association P.O. Box 5007 Hyattsville MD 20782

North College Park Citizens Association Mark Shroder President 4912 Nantucket Street College Park MD 20740 (301) 220-1450 ncpcivic@gmail.com

North Brentwood Citizens Association P.O. Box 355 Brentwood MD 20722

West Lanham Hills Citizens Association 7752 Decatur Road Hyattsville MD 20784

Yarrow Citizens Association Mark Cook President 7326 Baylor Avenue College Park MD 20740 (240) 554-2231 yarrow20740@yahoo.com

Ridge Forest HOA Kimberly Simmons President P.O. Box 724 Hanover MD 21076 president@ridgeforest.org

Canbury Woods HOA Tad Johnston President P.O. Box 218 Hanover MD 21076 board@canburywoods.org

Village of Dorchester HOA 7551 Dorchester Road Hanover MD 21076 (410) 799-4430

Cedar Ridge HOA 8602 Wandering Fox Trail Odenton MD 21113 (410) 695-1743

West College Park Citizens Association Suchitra Balachandran President (301) 935-0171 cp_woods@yahoo.com

North Linthicum Improvement Association Darren Borman President P.O. Box 258 Linthicum Heights MD 21090 (410) 636-5543 President@NLIA-Assoc.org

Parke West HOA Keith Schrack President P.O. Box 678 Severn MD 21144 (410) 761-4315 PWHA@angelfire.com

Quail Run Community Association Sue Smith President P.O. Box 431 Severn MD 21144 (410) 551-0520 President@QuailRunHOA.org

Severn Crest HOA Cathy Overmyer President 7808 Truitt Lane Severn MD 21144 cperseghin@hotmail.com

Civic Associations

Greater Ferndale Community Civic Association 594 Packard Avenue Ferndale MD 21061

Boxwood Civic Association 114 Lastner Lane Greenbelt MD 20770

Church Road Civic Association 5104 Church Road Bowie MD 20720

Heather Hills Civic Association 12800 Helm Place Bowie MD 20716

Maryland City Civic Association P.O. Box 191 Laurel MD 20725

Presley Manor Civic Association P.O. Box 507 Lanham MD 20706

Prince George's County Civic Federation 10222 Chautauqua Avenue Lanham MD 20706

Seabrook Civic Association 9440 Worrell Avenue Seabrook MD 20706

Vanville Heights Civic Association P.O. Box 793 Beltsville MD 20704

West Laurel Civic Association P.O. Box 347 Laurel MD 20725

Lakeland Civic Association Monroe Dennis President 5112 Navahoe Street College Park MD 20740 (301) 474-6270 msdennis001@earthlink.net

Terraces Civic Association 7100 Bridle Path Lane Hyattsville MD 20782

University Hills Civic Association 3318 Rosemary Lane Hyattsville MD 20782

Westchester Civic Association 5942 Westchester Park Drive College Park MD 20740

Boxwood Civic Association

Berwyn District Civic Association Kevin Young President P.O. Box 535 College Park MD 20740 (301) 474-3577 kc5018@yahoo.com

College Park Estates Civic Association Robert Day President (301) 982-7894 robwday@gmail.com

Old Town Civic Association Kathy Bryant President kbryant20740@yahoo.com

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Homeowner and Community Groups Page 7
TAC Community Contact Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email

Ridgeview Severn

Harmans Woods Severn

Severn Village Severn

Redbridge Severn

Severn Lea Severn

East Huntington Bowie

West Huntington Bowie

Woodstream East Glenn Dale

Wood Pointe Glenn Dale

Lanham Severn Road Community, Seabrooke Lanham

Whitfield Terrace Lanham

Lanham Station Road Area Lanham

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 EJ Communities Page 8
TAC Group Contact Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email

1000 Friends of Maryland Dru Schmidt-Perkins Executive Director 1209 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 385-2910 friends@friendsofmd.org

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Jamie Alberti Program Coordinator 501 Sixth Street Annapolis MD 21403 (443) 949-0575 jalberti@allianceforthebay.org

Chesapeake Bay Foundation William C. Baker President 6 Herndon Avenue Annapolis MD 21403 (410) 268-8816

Community Transportation Association of America Scott Bogren Communications Director 1341 G Street, NW Washington DC 20005 (202) 247-1921 bogren@ctaa.org

Maryland Environmental Trust Elizabeth Buxton Director 100 Community Place Crownsville MD 21032 (410) 514-7903 ebuxton@dnr.state.md.us

Preservation Maryland Tyler Gearhart Executive Director 24 W. Saratoga Street Baltimore MD 21201 (410) 685-2886 PM@PreservationMaryland.org

Save Our Streams David W. Hoskins Executive Director IWLA National Office, 707 Conservation Lane Gaithersburg MD 20878 (301) 548-0150 executivedirector@iwla.org

Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter Steve Caflisch Transportation Chair 7338 Baltimore Avenue #111 College Park MD 20740 (301) 654-3288 Steve.caflisch@Maryland.Sierraclub.org

The Conservation Fund Jodi R. O'Day Vice President and Regional Counsel 401 Severn Avenue, Suite 204 Annapolis MD 21403 (443) 482-2826

The Nature Conservancy Nat Williams State Director 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100 Bethesda MD 20814 (301) 897-8570 pmarson@tnc.org

Maryland League of Conservation Voters Cindy Schwartz Executive Director 9 State Circle Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 280-9855 info@mdlcv.org

Maryland Municipal League Scott A. Hancock Executive Director 1212 West Street Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 268-5514 scotth@mdmunicipal.org

Abell Foundation Robert C. Embry, Jr. President 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 2300 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 547-1300 abell@abell.org

Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore Tom Sadowski President/CEO 1 East Pratt Street, Suite 200 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 468-0100

Greater Baltimore Committee Donald C. Fry President/CEO 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 727-2820 info@gbc.org

Maryland Highway Contractors Association 2408 Peppermill Drive #F Glen Burnie MD 21061 (410) 760-9505

Baltimore Metropolitan Council Larry Klimovitz Executive Director 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore MD 21230 (410) 732-9563 lklimovitz@baltometro.org

Friends of Laurel's Historic Main Street P.O. Box 1182 Laurel MD 20725 (301) 725-7539

Arbutus Business and Professional Association Patti Sue Nolan Administrator P.O. Box 7357 Arbutus MD 21227 (410) 242-9177

Preservation of Howard County Fred Dorsey President P.O. Box 6512 Ellicot City MD 21042 (410) 531-2460 fdorsey1130@verizon.net

Anacostia Watershed Society Jim Foster President (301) 699-6204

Friends of Still Creek

Patuxent Riverkeeper

BW Parkway Mailing List_June032011 Special Interest Groups Page 9
BW Parkway Widening Feasibiilty Study 

Stakeholder Interviews

Category Name Title Street Address City State Zip Phone Email Notes

US House of Representatives/Bill Author Dutch Ruppersberger Representative 2453 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-3061

Mayor of Greenbelt Judith F. Davis Mayor 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 474-8000 jdavis@greenbeltmd.gov

Greater Baltimore Committee Donald C. Fry President/CEO 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 727-2820 info@gbc.org

Baltimore Metropolitan Council Larry Klimovitz Executive Director 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore MD 21230 (410) 732-9563 lklimovitz@baltometro.org

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Ron Kriby Transportation Director 777 North Capital Street NE Suite 300 Washington DC 20002 (202)962-3200 rkirby@mwcog.org

BWI Business Partnership Linda Green Executive Director 1302 Concourse Drive Suite 105 Linthicum Heights MD 21090 (410) 859-1000 connect@bwipartner.org

Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation Robert Hannon President/CEO 2660 Riva Road, Suite 300 Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222-7410 rhannon@aaedc.org

Howard County Economic Development Authority Laura A. Neuman Chief Executive Officer 6751 Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 500 Columbia MD 21046 (410) 313-6500 lneuman@hceda.org

Prince George's County Economic Development CorporationGwen S. McCall Interim President/CEO 1100 Mercantile Lane Largo MD 20774 (301) 583-4650 GSMcCall@co.pg.md.us

Maryland BRAC Subcabinet Asuntha Chiang-Smith Executive Director 45 Calvert Street Annapolis MD 21401 410-260-6116 achiangsmith@gove.state.md.us
BW Parkway Widening Feasibilty Study

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Members

AGENCY DIVISION NAME PHONE EMAIL

National Park Service National Capital Region Charles Borders 202-619-7455 charles_borders@nps.gov

National Park Service Greenbelt Park - National Capital Parks Fred Cunningham 301-344-3948 fred_Cunningham@nps.gov

National Park Service National Capital Parks-East Alex Romero 202-690-5185 alex_romero@nps.gov

National Park Service US Park Police LT Warren Boyer 301 344-3957 warren-boyer@nps.gov

Federal Highway Administration FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands Lewis Grimm 703 404-6289 lewis.grimm@dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands Jack Van Dopp 703-404-6282 jack.vandopp@dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands Alazar Feleke 301-404-6319 alazar.feleke@dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration Delaware-Maryland (delMar) Federal-Aid Division Jeanette Mar 410-779-7152 Jeanette.mar@dot.gov

Federal Highway Administration District of Columbia Federal-Aid Division Sandra Jackson 202-219-3521 sandra.jackson@dot.gov

National Capital Planning Commission Julia Koster 202-482-7211 julia.foster@ncpc.gov 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Patuxent National Wildlife Research Refuge Brad Knudsen 301-497-5582 brad_knudsen@fws.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture Beltsvile Agricultural Research Center Joseph Spence 301-504-6078 Joseph_spence@ars.usda.gov

National Air and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Rob Strain 301-286-2000

U.S. Army Fort George G. Meade COL Daniel Thomas 301-677-1361 meadepaoweb@CONUS.ARMY.MIL

National Security Administration Director GEN Keith Alexander 301-688-6524 nsapao@nsa.gov

Maryland State Highway Administration Highway Administrator Neil Pederseon 410-545-0400 Npedersen@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration Planning and Highway Development Office Kirk McClelland 410-545-8800 kmcclelland@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering Greg Slater 410-545-0412 gslater@sha.state.md.us

Maryland State Highway Administration Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering Jerry Smith 410-545-5675 jsmith@sha.state.md.us

Maryland Transit Admnistration Director of Planning Diane Ratcliff dratcliff@mta.maryland.gov

Maryland Aviation Administration Executive Director Paul Wiedefeld 410 858-7060 pwiedefled@bwiairport.com

District of Columbia Department of 

Transportation Acting Associate Director of PPSA Maurice Keys 202-671-0497 Maurice.Keys@dc.gov

District of Columbia Department of 

Transportation Chief Engineer Ronaldo Nicholson 202-671-4691 Ronaldo.Nicholson@dc.gov

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority (WMATA) Associate GM for Planning Nat Bottigheimer 202-962-2730 nbottigheimer@wmata.com

Amtrak Inspector General Ted Alves 800-468-5469

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning 

Commission (M-NCPPC) Prince George's County Eric Foster eric.foster@ppd.mncppc.org

Anne Arundel County, Maryland Transportation Planning George Cardwell 410-222-7440 pzcard44@aacounty.org

Baltimore County, Maryland Planning Director Andrea Van Arsdale 410 887-3211 planning@baltimorecountymd.gov

Howard County, Maryland Planning Brian Muldoon 410 313-4363 bmuldoon@howardcountymd.gov

Prince George’s County Maryland Planning Tom Masog 301 952-5216 tom.masog@mncppc.org

Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments (MWCOG) Transportation Planning Elena Constantine 202-962-3312 econstantine@mwcog.org

Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments (MWCOG) Transportation Planning Dusan Vuksan 202-962-3279 dvuksan@mwcog.org

Baltimore Metropolitan Council's (BMC) 

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board 

(BRTB) Deputy Director Transportation Planning Regina Aris 410-732-9572 raris@baltometro.org

Representative Dutch Ruppersberger's Office Director of Special Projects Deborah J. Haynie 202-225-3061 deborah.haynie@mail.house.gov

Representative Steny Hoyer's Office Representative TBD TBD TBD

Page 1 of 1
Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

Widening Feasibility Study

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Invites you to Join Us at the First Public Meeting for the...

We look forward to seeing you there!

This study will examine the feasibility of adding 

a third northbound and a third southbound lane 

to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (Maryland 

Route 295) between its intersection with I-695 in 

the City of Baltimore and New York Avenue in the 

District of Columbia. During this meeting the project team will introduce the study and gather the 

public’s input on study goals and objectives

ATTENTION AREA RESIDENTS, COMMUTERS, 

EMPLOYERS, AND BUSINESS PEOPLE!!

FHWA is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, its projects, programs, and services on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

or on the basis of disability as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need special accommodations or language 

assistance services (translation or interpretation) please contact XXX at XXX.XXX.XXXX or by email at email@website.com 

five (5) days in advance of the meeting. These services will be provided free of charge.

For more information:

Lewis Grimm | lewis.grimm@dot.gov 

703.404.6289 or visit www.fhwa.dot.gov

JUNE XX, 2011

6:30 P.M to 8:30 P.M

Eleanor Roosevelt High School

7601 Hanover Parkway

Greenbelt, MD 20770-2002
Important Updates/Contact Info

1st Public Meeting Coming Up!

Get Involved!

June XX, 2011

6:30 p.m - 8:30 p.m.

Em aut aria autem vendem 

ersperferia peliquia necte volum 

volum volorae optas eria qui cus 

adi unt acerate et incte excepedis 

sectae nis re voluptae. 

Inimporrovid mollo il in excera 

veritas secatur mo optur apiciusa 

entur simagnimolum quam 

quia nobitis 

delendem que 

experro vendips andaepre 

earum, enime eos minciis eosandit omnienempe sum coreressit 

od et por sus doluptatus re vendae maionsequis alibus expedia 

consequi conseque nus sequaspis 

es mod eiciis adis in nobis rest 

laborernam dolorio incto molesci 

doluptatur? Adi beatemquia dolum, cum sus volum exceatusam 

rehentore dempore arum esti 

asperum, ipsamus.

Sapedi dolore re volenderum 

ium que velenihit ut aut ese 

comnihilia vel 

iumenim qui 

volupti orecear 

cillitior repra 

suntinciur?

Ani reptaturia int, nimil eium explab imus dolorem porpores ulpa 

doluptatesti beruntotat.

Pario quam ipsam, tes eruntus, 

sam nulpa velias reium doloreped 

Feasibility Study of Widening the BaltimoreWashington Parkway is Underway

Parkway Chronicle 

For more info - visit www.website.com

B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n

“Pull quote: from the 

main article.” or a 

good place for another 

photo

BWI Airport

Patuxent Wildlife

Research

Fort Meade

BARC

NSA

National Park

Service

Columbia

Coral Hills

Cottage City

Crofton

Elkridge

Ellicott City

Fairland

Fairmount Heights

Ferndale

Forestville

Glen

Burnie

Glenarden

Glenn Dale

Goddard

College Park

Greater

Landover

Greater Upper Marlboro

Greenbelt

Hillandale

Jessup

Kettering

Lake Arbor

Langley Park

Lanham-Seabrook

Largo

Laurel

Linthicum

Maryland City

Mitchellville

Mount Rainier

Odenton

Pumphrey

Riverdale Park

Savage-Guilford

Seat Pleasant

Severn

Silver

Spring

South Gate

South

Laurel

Springdale

Takoma

Park University Park

Walker Mill

Washington

West

Laurel

White Oak

Woodlawn Woodmore

Arbutus

Adelphi

North Laurel

Ashton-Sandy

Spring

Baltimore

Beltsville

Bladensburg

Bowie

Brentwood

Burtonsville

Calverton

Catonsville

Cheverly

Chillum

Cloverly

Colesville

£¤50 £¤495

£¤50 £¤50 £¤301

£¤ £¤50 495

£¤ £¤3

495

£¤ £¤495

495

£¤3

£¤3

£¤32

£¤97

£¤95

£¤32

£¤32

£¤ £¤97

295 £¤100

£¤ £¤295 32

£¤32 £¤97

£¤95

£¤195 £¤695

£¤100

£¤29

£¤ £¤695 100

£¤695

£¤95

Study Area Map
Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

Widening Feasibility Study

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Invites you to Join Us at the First Public Meeting for the...

ATTENTION AREA RESIDENTS, COMMUTERS, 

EMPLOYERS, AND BUSINESS PEOPLE!!

JUNE XX, 2011

6:30 P.M to 8:30 P.M

Eleanor Roosevelt High School

7601 Hanover Parkway

Greenbelt, MD 20770-2002

FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

This study will examine the feasibility of adding 

a third northbound and a third southbound lane 

to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (Maryland 

Route 295) between its intersection with I-695 in 

the City of Baltimore and New York Avenue in the 

District of Columbia. During this meeting the project team will introduce the study and gather the 

public’s input on study goals and objectives

For more information:

Lewis Grimm | lewis.grimm@dot.gov 

703.404.6289 or visit www.fhwa.dot.gov
Public Meeting #1 

DRAFT AGENDA 

Purpose Statement: The purpose of meeting #1 is: 

x To introduce the study to the public and other stakeholders; 

o Provide a clear statement of study scope and intent 

o Provide a clear description of the study process 

x Generate input from stakeholders that would inform the assessment of the feasibility of widening 

of the BW Parkway as described in the authorization legislation, i.e., adding a 3rd lane in either 

direction of the Parkway. 

x Generate input from stakeholders regarding other concerns, interests, and preferences for a 

potential widening project, addressing issues such as aesthetics, modes/vehicular access, places to 

protect, etc.

Part I – Welcome and Presentation. 30 minutes 

Welcome

x Agenda 

PI Task Manager or 

Project Manager 

5 minutes

Study Overview

x Legislation 

x Study Partners 

x Scope /Process/Schedule 

x Where to find more information 

x How to get on Mailing List 

FHWA- EFLHD 5 minutes

BW Parkway History / Context Building NPS 5 minutes

Existing Conditions Overview

x Study Area definition and map 

x Traffic conditions and other information of 

concern 

x Any available projected conditions of the 

above (2035/2040) 

Project Manager 10 minutes

(Boards with same 

information should 

be available for 

review and reference 

during breakout 

sessions). 

Public Involvement Process

x Overview of 3 meetings 

x TAC 

PI Task Manager 5 minutes

x Transition to Next Activity/Instructions 

Part II – Issues Discussion 

BREAK – 10 minutes 
6-8 GROUPS – Everyone is asked to take a name tag when they sign in. Each name tag is identified with 

a different color dot which is used to divide the participants into groups - those inside the beltway, and 

those outside the beltway. As folks sign in they will also be asked to go to an aerial map of the study 

area and asked to put other color dots (ie., blue) where they live, and different color dot (ie., red) on 

where they work or go to school. 

Format - Facilitated structured brainstorming sessions. 45 minutes 

When done right, it works like a charm getting tons of info in a short period of time. When not done, or 

handled poorly, you get very little – lots of cross talk and repetition and many just don’t participate. 

Clear instructions will be given to the groups on how it works and good, effective facilitator will be at 

each table trained in how to do it (and bring back focus if there is drift.) 

Just ask the questions below and go round the group systematically until the subject is exhausted, then 

go on to the next. 

x What concerns do you have about the feasibility of widening the BW Parkway? anything at all 

(use structured brainstorming) 

x What do you like about the parkway that would be important to retain? 

x What don’t you like about the parkway? 

x What changes do you think would improve the parkway? 

Report Out – 40 minutes – 5 minutes per presentation. 

x Facilitator report out summary of results 

x Maps with thematic dots and flip charts with recorded ideas/concepts are used for each group 

x Members of each group are asked if there’s anything else they want to add. 

Next Steps / Adjournment – 2 minutes by PI Task Manager 

x where to look for summary of the meeting; 

x remind people to sign up for mailing list; 

x THANK YOU! 

EFLHD - Eastern Federal Lands Highways: Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

file:///J|/...nal Report/Public Involvement Appendix/EFLHD - Eastern Federal Lands Highways Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study.htm[1/27/2012 12:05:37 PM]

ABOUT PROGRAMS PROJECTS CONTRACTING TECHNOLOGY EMPLOYMENT

Location: Home > Projects > Project Websites > Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Projects

Project List

Project Websites

Environment

Public Notices

Traffic Advisory

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) has

initiated a study to assess the feasibility of widening the Baltimore- Washington Parkway (Maryland

Route 295). Specifically, the study will consider the costs and benefits of adding a third northbound

and a third southbound lane along the Parkway from the interchange with I-695 in Anne Arundel

County, Maryland to New York Avenue in the District of Columbia.

The study is the result of legislative language included in Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations legislation

sponsored by Congressman C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland District 2, directing the FHWA to

work with the National Park Service (NPS) and the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) to

determine the feasibility of such a widening. The study will include an assessment of the impact of

the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process on traffic throughout the Maryland Route 295

corridor between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC.

Feasibility will be assessed against environmental, economic, and engineering factors and

transportation system performance, as well as the specific concerns of Parkway users and other

regional stakeholders. The study team intends to engage communities that surround the Parkway in

the study process to identify their preferences and concerns related to a widening of the roadway

and to share different design and operational concepts with them.

Project background

Legislation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Core Programs

Other Programs

Long Range

Transportation Plans

Transportation

Improvement Program

(TIP)

Recovery Act

Transportation Studies

MOA and MOU
EFLHD - Eastern Federal Lands Highways: Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

file:///J|/...nal Report/Public Involvement Appendix/EFLHD - Eastern Federal Lands Highways Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study.htm[1/27/2012 12:05:37 PM]

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Federal Lands Highway

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle 

Sterling, Virginia 20166

(703) 404-6201

Study schedule

Map of Study Area

Public Involvement

Newsletter

Fact Sheet

Public Comment Form

Site Sections: Home | About | Programs | Projects | Contracting | Technology | Employment

Web Policies: Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility | FOIA | No Fear Act

Agency Links: USDOT | FHWA | FLH | EFL | CFL | WFL

USA.gov | Recovery.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Questions or Comments? Contact the Web Team

Last Certified: January 2012
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Member List

Contact Name Title Organization Street Address City State Zip Phone 

John C. Bennett AVP ‐ Policy Management Amtrak 60 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington DC 20002 (202) 906‐2

Drew Galloway AVP ‐ Policy & Development ‐ Eastern Region Amtrak 2955 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19104 (215) 349‐1George Cardwell Transportation Planning Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning 44 Calvert Street Annapolis MD 21401 (410) 222‐7440 x7

Dennis Wertz Community Planner Baltimore County Office of Planning Courts Building, Mailstop 3402 401 Bosley Avenue Towson MD 21204 410 887‐3

Charles Baber Technical Analyst Baltimore Metropolitan Council's ‐ Baltimore Regional Transportation Board 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore MD 21230 (410) 732‐0500 x1

Joseph Spence Area Director Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, US Department of Agriculture 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Rm. 223, Bldg. 003, BARC‐West Beltsville MD 20705 (301)504‐6

Maurice Keys Chief of Strategic Planning District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington DC 20003 (202) 671‐0

Ronaldo Nicholson Chief Engineer District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington DC 20003 (202) 671‐4Sandra Jackson District of Columbia Federal‐Aid Division Federal Highway Administration 1990 K Street NW, Suite 510 Washington DC 20006 (202) 219‐3Anna Price Team Leader Federal Highway Administration, Delaware‐Maryland

(DelMar) Federal‐Aid Division

300 South New Street, Suite 2101 Dover DE 199904 (302) 734‐2

Jeanette Mar Environmental Program Manager Federal Highway Administration, Delaware‐Maryland (DelMar) Federal‐Aid Division City Crescent Building, 10 South Howard Street, Suite 2450 Baltimore MD 21201 (410) 779‐7

Alazar Feleke Highway Design Manager Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 (301) 404‐6Jack Van Dop Senior Technical Specialist Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 (703) 404‐6Lewis G. Grimm, Planning Team Leader Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 (703) 404‐6COL Daniel L. Thomas Installation Commander Fort George G. Meade, US Army 4409 Llewellyn Avenue Fort George Meade MD 20755 (301) 677‐1Brian Muldoon Planning Specialist Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 (410) 313‐4Alex Ollerman Manager, Division of Airport Landside Planning Maryland Aviation Administration 7062 Elm Rd, P O Box 8766, Third Floor Terminal Bldg, BWI Airport Baltimore MD 21240 (410) 859‐7Derek Gunn Planner Maryland State Highway Administration (410) 545‐5Lindsay Bobian Project Manager Maryland State Highway Administration 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 545‐8Felecia Murphy Asistant District Engineer ‐ Traffic (Prince George's Country) Maryland State Highway Administration ‐ District 3 Office 9300 Kenilworth Ave. Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 513‐7Gerald Cichy Executive Assistant to the Director Maryland Transit Administration Transportation Planning 6 Saint Paul Street Baltimore MD 21202 (410) 767‐8Tom Masog Transportation Planner Maryland‐National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M‐NCPPC) ‐ Prince George's Planning 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 (301) 952‐5Dusan Vuksan Transportation Planning Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) 777 North Capitol Street, NE Suite 300 Washington DC 20002 (202) 962‐3Elena Constantine Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

(MWCOG)

778 North Capitol Street, NE Suite 300 Washington DC 20002 (202) 962‐3

Teresa Spagnuolo Chief of Facilities Management at Goddard National Air and Space Administration 8800 Greenbelt Rd. Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286‐8Michael Weil Urban Planner National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington DC 20004 (202) 482‐7Dan Sealy Deputy Chief, Natural Resource & Science, National Capital Region National Park Service 4598 MacArthur Blvd NW Washington DC 20007 (202) 342‐1David Hayes National Park Service (202) 619‐7Fred Cunningham Park Manager National Park Service ‐ Greenbelt Park ‐ National Capital Parks ‐ East 6565 Greenbelt Road Greenbelt MD 20770 (301) 344‐3Alex Romero Superintendent National Park Service ‐ National Capital Parks‐East 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Washington DC 20020 (202) 690‐5Charles Borders Branch Chief National Park Service ‐ National Capital Region National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW Washington DC 20242 (202) 619‐7Lt. Warren Boyer Lieutenant National Park Service ‐ US Park Police 1100 Ohio Drive Washington DC 20242 (301) 344‐3Tom Diethrich Sergeant National Park Service ‐ US Park Police (301) 344‐4Catherine Hill Director of State and Local Government and

Community Relations

National Security Agency 9800 Savage Road Fort Meade MD 20735 301‐688‐2

Brad Knudsen Refuge Manager Patuxent Research Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Visitor Center, 10901 Scarlet Tanager Loop Laurel MD 20708 (301) 497‐5James Degrange State Senator Deborah J. Haynie Director of Special Projects ‐ District 2 United States House of Representatives, Office of Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger 2453 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225‐3
1

Gillis, Greer

From: Gillis, Greer

Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:23 PM

To: fred_Cunningham@nps.gov; alex_romero@nps.gov; dan_sealy@nps.gov; 

maureen_joseph@nps.gov; warren-boyer@nps.gov; alazar.feleke@dot.gov; 

Jeanette.mar@dot.gov; Anna.Price@dot.gov; sandra.jackson@dot.gov; 

julia.foster@ncpc.gov; brad_knudsen@fws.gov; Joseph_spence@ars.usda.gov; 

meadepaoweb@CONUS.ARMY.MIL; nsapao@nsa.gov; Npedersen@sha.state.md.us; 

dratcliff@mta.maryland.gov; pwiedefled@bwiairport.com; Maurice.Keys@dc.gov; 'Terry 

Bellamy (Terry.Bellamy@dc.gov)'; Ronaldo.Nicholson@dc.gov; nbottigheimer@wmata.com; 

eric.foster@ppd.mncppc.org; pzcard44@aacounty.org; planning@baltimorecountymd.gov; 

bmuldoon@howardcountymd.gov; tom.masog@mncppc.org; econstantine@mwcog.org; 

dvuksan@mwcog.org; tlang@baltometro.org; raris@baltometro.org; 

deborah.haynie@mail.house.gov

Cc: lewis.grimm@dot.gov; Jack.VanDop@dot.gov; Charles_Borders@nps.gov

Subject: BW Parkway Widening Feasibility Study - Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Importance: High

Dear Baltimore-Washington Parkway Stakeholder, 

The Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-EFHLD), in partnership with the 

National Park Service (NPS) and the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA), are pleased to announce the 

initiation of the Baltimore Washington (BW) Parkway Widening Feasibility Study, a study called for in the Fiscal Year 

2010 Appropriations legislation sponsored by Congressman Dutch Ruppersburger of Maryland. 

We respectfully request your participation in the study’s first Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting scheduled 

for Wednesday June 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM and concluding by 12:00 Noon. The meeting will be held at the Greenbelt 

Park Ranger Station located at 6565 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20770. 

We would appreciate if you could choose one representative from your organization to attend. Also please let us know if 

you would like to have members of the project management team (FHWA, NPS, MDSHA) visit you to provide a more indepth briefing of the study. 

The courtesy of a response is requested by June 20, 2011 in order that we know that we will have adequate 

representation from the full TAC. To RSVP or to direct questions or comments, please contact me, Ms. Greer Gillis, the 

Consultant Project Manager at (202) 661-5301 or by email at Gillis@pbworld.com or Mr. Lewis Grimm, Project Manager, 

FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands , (703) 404-6289 or by email at lewis.grimm@dot.gov. 

We look forward to hearing from you. 

Best regards, 

Greer Johnson Gillis, P.E. 

Project Manager – BW Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

******************************************** 

Parsons Brinckerhoff 

1401 K Street, NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.661.5301 (direct) 

202.210.4894 (cell) 
2

202.661.5300 (fax) 

gillis@pbworld.com
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

    

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Date: June 22, 2011 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Number: 1

Meeting Notes

Welcome and Introduction – Lewis Grimm; FHWA‐EFLHD

 Introduced and recognized principal partners in the effort, including Jack Van Dop of FHWA‐EFLHD,

Charles Borders of the NPS National Capital Region Office, Deborah Haynie of U.S. Representative C.A.

Dutch Ruppersberger’s office, and Consultant Study Manager Greer Gillis.  

 The reason for the study: Congressman Ruppersberger requested a study to examine if it would be

possible to add a third lane in each direction on the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway between the New

York Avenue and Baltimore Beltway Interchanges and what the associated impacts and costs might

potentially be.  

o It was clarified and emphasized that this is only a feasibility study and it will not provide any

specific recommendations for future action.

o It will be a fact‐based study, answering the question, “what if” the Baltimore‐Washington

Parkway mainline roadway is to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the

specified corridor limits.

Study Description

 Four elements of feasibility to be considered in the conduct of this study:  

o Potential transportation impacts

o Potential physical and engineering impacts

o Potential environmental impacts

o Potential social and political impacts and the views of stakeholders and communities

 Later, a member of the TAC suggested the addition of a fifth element, which encompassed ownership and

management impacts and the implications of a widening on these additional factors.

Parkway History – Charles Borders; National Capital Parks Regional Office, NPS

 Described the history of development and updates to the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway, starting in the

1920s with its original conception as a new highway corridor to link the Washington and Baltimore urban

centers and on towards the 1970s and 1980s when fairly robust changes were made to accommodate

safety concerns and increasing traffic volumes.  The first sections of the BW Parkway were constructed in

the early 1940s to serve military destinations such as Fort Meade and related government agency

purposes. In the early 1950s, ownership of the corridor was transferred to the National Park Service and

the route was designated as a gateway to the Nation’s Capital.   

Discussion and Questions – Charles Borders and Lewis Grimm

 Considerable discussion ensued during Mr. Border’s presentation following several questions for Mr.

Borders and Mr. Grimm.   
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

    

o Question: Are there different standards and purposes for different Parkways?  Answer: Each

parkway in the Washington Metropolitan Area has a different character and design standards.  Each

was built for different purposes.   

o NPS staff comment: Parkways are more similar than they are different: they follow the landscape

and natural topography of the land, have “meandering” medians, and use original natural materials.  

NPS staff pointed out that there are major differences between parkways and freeways.

o Question:  Will the study address the historic significance of the Parkway?  Answer: Yes.

o Comment: “If you widen the Parkway, it will no longer be a parkway”.   Mr. Borders responded that

this is not a NEPA study.  There has not been the identification of a specific project or action.  This

study is only to identify the issues and potential ramifications of widening the Parkway.  There will

be no preferred alternative or a specific recommendation resulting from this study.   

o Question: How will the four elements of feasibility be reported?  Answer: the report presents data

and information and analysis; no recommendations will be made.  

o Question: What is the reason behind the feasibility study?  Deborah Haynie replied that the purpose

of the study is to identify the feasibility and costs of widening the Parkway.   

o Question:  Is HOV an option?  What about tolls?  Mr. Grimm said that all alternative methods of

managing /operating the roadway would need to be addressed at a subsequent stage should the

study progress beyond a discussion of the basic feasibility and cost.      

o Question:  Will the Parkway still operate as a Parkway?  Answer: this is a question that cannot be

directly answered through the study but will be posed as an issue to be explored in more detail

should the study progress into subsequent phases of project development.

o Question:  Will the TAC have access to the analysis conducted by the study team on the four factors?  

Yes.

o Comment:  The NPS mission requires protection of resources; not their impairment.  Answer: we do

not know yet what the threshold would be of “impairment” of the resource.  The potential for

impairment would be identified as an issue to be examined in more detail by the study.   

o Question:  Would the issue of transferring management and ownership of the facility be considered

as part of this study?  (That was a recommendation of a member of the TAC.) Yes, the study scope

calls for a detailed assessment of the feasibility and costs associated with transferring ownership to

the State of Maryland or other willing non‐NPS entity.

o Comment:  Suggest coordination with SHA on their experience “squeezing” in three lanes on the

section of MD Route 295 between the Baltimore Beltway (I‐695) and the I‐195 interchange.   

Presentation of Scope of Work and Existing Conditions– Greer Gillis, Angela Jones

Greer Gillis described the general study scope including the anticipated deliverables (Existing Conditions, Technical,

Draft and Final Reports), schedule of deliverables, study options, and the existing and projected traffic volumes.  It

was noted that GIS information from all of the local governments, supplemented by other existing information

from a number of federal, state, and local agency sources is being combined into a draft existing conditions report,

which will be submitted to FHWA in July.  

Traffic forecasts and travel demand modeling support for the study team is being provided by the MWCOG. Initial

traffic volume summaries for both future year (2040) build (widen the Parkway) and no‐build (maintain the current

facility without change) options have been prepared and are currently being reviewed.  
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

    

The group was informed that Public Meeting #1 will be held on Wednesday, July 20th from 6:30 to 8:30 P.M. at the

Meade Middle School at Fort Meade.    The TAC/Agency Stakeholders group is currently scheduled to meet three

more times during the study and there will be a total of three public meetings, including the July 20th event.  The

TAC will have an opportunity at their meetings, which will all be held prior to the public meetings, to review the

materials and progress of the consultant team, and to provide comments and input to products that will be

presented to the public.  

Angela Jones followed with a brief description of the study area limits, major known land use developments, other

existing and proposed transportation routes in the area, and potential mainline roadway widening cross‐sections.  

She asked TAC members to provide their comments to FHWA within two weeks so maps can be updated for the

public meeting.   

Other comments and questions raised by meeting attendees during the presentations by Ms. Gillis and Ms. Jones

included the following:

 Question: Can a feasibility study say “YES” in some sections and “NO” in other sections with regard to

possible widening? Answer: Yes, the study can allow for geographic considerations. The final study report

will include and document all TAC member comments.

 Question: With respect to context sensitive solutions (CSS) is the Maryland State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO) involved with this study? Answer: Yes, the Maryland SHPO is a designated member agency

of the TAC but was not able to attend this meeting. While this is not a NEPA/Section 106 specific study,

potential issues in this regard will be noted.

 Question: What are the basic design standards / guidelines to be followed in the examination of the

widening concept – NPS Parkways or SHA/AASHTO freeways? Answer: Both general design concepts will

be considered in order to better illustrate the potential range of costs and physical impacts associated

with each.  These initial concepts will be applied to the entire study corridor, but may be

modified/adjusted at specific locations.

Facilitated Discussion ‐ TAC Members Input

Marsha Kaiser provided information for Pubic Meeting #1, scheduled for July 20th, from 6:30‐8:30 P.M. at the

Meade Middle School in Fort Meade, MD.  It was also noted that a group of approximately a dozen stakeholder

interviews will be scheduled prior to the July 20th public information meeting to solicit the views and comments

from these organizations as to the likely “hot button” issues associated with the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway

corridor.

She continued with facilitated discussion among participants in which she would go around the room and ask all

participants to offer one answer in response to the questions she posed.  She would then go around the room until

all ideas were exhausted before moving on to the next question.  Only one idea would be accepted from each

participant and no discussion or debate would take place.

Question One:  What concerns you about the feasibility of widening the BW Parkway?

Issues and Concerns:

 Accommodation of carpool, vanpools, and buses.

 Impacts to wildlife and refuge lands.
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

    

 Continuing misunderstanding of study.

 Making MWCOG board members happy.

 Impacts to the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway.

 Maintain the NPS Parkway qualities.

 Management impacts.

 Consider all options.

 NPS jobs.

 Complete and utter destruction of the parkway.

 Preservation.

 Coordination with the Purple Line.

 Ownership (SHA).

 Typical section.

 How does it fit and conform to the long range transportation plan?

 Balance between impacts and throughput.

 Ensure the consideration of public and stakeholder inputs.

 Safety.

 The purpose of the parkway is being compromised.

 Minimize bird attraction within 5 miles of BWI Airport.

 Impacts on other federal properties.

 HOV may help keep parkway (a transition between parkway and freeway).

 Stormwater management and TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) requirements.

 Protection of natural resources (trees).

 Loss of integrity of parkway, leading to destruction.

 Honest assessment of cost (true and realistic cost estimates).

 Performance.

 Commercial vehicle as an option.

 Vehicle and person throughput.

 Minimize airspace impacts.

 Quality of life for Prince George’s County communities.

 Flexibility on interchanges (shared uses).

 Improved level‐of‐service and overall travel benefits.

 Limiting noise impacts.

 Provide trails and improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity.

 BRAC impacts.

 New connections to parkway – multimodal facilities (Purple Line and Muirkirk).

 Maintain limited access.

 Responsiveness to legislation.

Question 2: What suggestions do you have for Improvements to the Parkway?

Improvements:

 Access to Route 195.

 Congestion relief.
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

    

 Improved partnership with all stakeholders.

 Improved incident response.

 Improved transportation options in the corridor.

 Improvement to connections with local SHA roads (off‐site).

 More trees (screening).

 Widening and greening the parkway corridor.

 Preservation and conservation of significant resources.

 More green/sustainable infrastructure and technologies.

 Alternate routes and fewer cars.

 Public transportation.

 Greater coordination with transit, carpools, vanpools, etc.

 Wildlife protection; wildlife friendly crossings and features.

 BRT corridor.

 Better trail construction.

 Appropriate mitigation.

 Coordination with other projects (land uses and transportation).

 Improved signage.

 Mill and overlay.

 Restoration of significant parkway elements.

 Fit within “Plan Maryland”.

 Sensitive widening north of Capital Beltway.

 Improved enforcement and safety response.

Next Steps

Greer Gillis thanked the members for their input and stressed it would be used in the development of options as

well as preparing the team for the upcoming public meeting.

Action Item(s)

 TAC members are to review membership list and advise of any corrects or edits to the list

 Consultant team to survey TAC members to determine date of next meeting after the July 20th

public meeting and prior to the end of July.   Meeting notice to be sent out shortly after the 4th

of July

 Review existing conditions and traffic maps and submit comment to FHWA by July 8, 2011.  

Attachments (Materials distributed at meeting)

 Agenda

 Newsletter

 Technical Advisory Committee Members List

 Handouts (study area limits, development projects and major transportation routes maps,

possible typical Parkway widening cross sections, and traffic chart)

 List of Meeting Attendees
AGENDA

Meeting Purpose:  The purpose of this meeting is to introduce the Baltimore‐Washington (BW) Parkway

Widening Feasibility Study and gather initial input from advisory committee members on study goals

and objectives.

I. Welcome and Introductions   

II. Study Overview

III. BW Parkway History  

IV. Study Scope  

V. Study Area Conditions  

VI. Public Involvement Overview  

VII. Discussion  

VIII. Next Steps  

IX. Meeting Adjournment

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #1

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

2:00 – 4:00 PM

Greenbelt Park Ranger Station
Important Updates

1st Public Meeting is Coming Up! Get Involved!

July 20, 2011

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Eastern Federal 

Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) 

has initiated a study to assess the 

feasibility of widening the BaltimoreWashington Parkway (Maryland 

Route 295). Specifically, the study 

will consider the costs and benefits of 

adding a third northbound and a third 

southbound lane along the Parkway 

from the interchange with I-695 in 

Anne Arundel County, Maryland to 

New York Avenue in the District of 

Columbia. 

The study is the result of legislative 

language included in Fiscal Year 

2010 Appropriations legislation sponsored by Congressman C. A. Dutch 

Ruppersberger, Maryland District 2, 

directing the FHWA to work with the 

National Park Service (NPS) and the 

Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) to determine the feasibility of such a widening. The study 

will include an assessment of the 

impact of the Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) process on traffic 

throughout the Maryland Route 295 

corridor between Baltimore, MD and 

Washington, DC. 

Feasibility will be assessed against 

environmental, economic, and 

engineering factors and transportation system performance, as well 

as the specific concerns of Parkway 

users and other regional stakeholders. 

The study team intends to engage 

communities that surround the Parkway in the study process to identify 

their preferences and concerns related 

to a widening of the roadway and to 

share different design and operational 

concepts with them. 

There will be three public meetings over the course of this 9-month 

study, with the first to be held on July 

20, 2011. All interested parties are 

encouraged to attend and participate. 

The study team would like to hear 

from the public how they use the 

Parkway, what they like about the 

current roadway, what they would 

like to change, and their thoughts 

on the appropriateness of widening. 

Please join us!

Feasibility Study of Widening the BaltimoreWashington Parkway is Under Way

Study Area Map

Parkway Chronicle 

B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n

Photo from NPS website

Photo by: Adam Elmquist

Issue No. 1 | June 2011
Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

Widening Feasibility Study

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

invites you to join us at the first public meeting for the...

ATTENTION AREA RESIDENTS, COMMUTERS, 

EMPLOYERS, AND BUSINESS PEOPLE!!

JULY 20, 2011

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Meade Middle School

1103 26th Street

Ft. Meade, MD 20755

FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

This study will examine the feasibility of adding a 

third northbound and a third southbound lane to 

the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD Route 

295) between its interchange with I-695 in Anne 

Arundel County, MD and New York Avenue in the 

District of Columbia. During this meeting, the project team will introduce the study and gather the 

public’s input on study goals and objectives.

For more information:

Lewis Grimm | lewis.grimm@dot.gov 

FHWA – Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

703.404.6289

FHWA is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, its projects, programs, and services on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender, as provided by Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or on the basis of disability as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need special accommodations or language assistance services (translation or interpretation) please contact 

Eduardo Maeyama at (202) 661-5329 or by email at Maeyama@pbworld.com at least five (5) days in advance of the meeting. These services will be provided free of charge.

Photo by: Alex Nitzman
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Member List

Contact Name Title Organization Street Address City State Zip John C. Bennett AVP - Policy Management Amtrak 60 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington DC 20002 Drew Galloway AVP - Policy & Development - Eastern Region Amtrak 2955 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19104 George Cardwell Transportation Planning Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning 44 Calvert Street Annapolis MD 21401 (410) Dennis Wertz Community Planner Baltimore County Office of Planning Courts Building, Mailstop 3402 401 Bosley Avenue Towson MD 21204 Charles Baber Technical Analyst Baltimore Metropolitan Council's - Baltimore Regional Transportation Board 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore MD 21230 (410) Joseph Spence Area Director Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, US Department of Agriculture 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Rm. 223, Bldg. 003, BARC-West Beltsville MD 20705 Maurice Keys Chief of Strategic Planning District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington DC 20003 Ronaldo Nicholson Chief Engineer District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington DC 20003 Sandra Jackson District of Columbia Federal-Aid Division Federal Highway Administration 1990 K Street NW, Suite 510 Washington DC 20006 Anna Price Team Leader Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division 300 South New Street, Suite 2101 Dover DE 199904 Jeanette Mar Environmental Program Manager Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division City Crescent Building, 10 South Howard Street, Suite 2450 Baltimore MD 21201 Alazar Feleke Highway Design Manager Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 Jack Van Dop Senior Technical Specialist Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 Lewis G. Grimm, Planning Team Leader Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling VA 21066 COL Daniel L. Thomas Installation Commander Fort George G. Meade, US Army 4409 Llewellyn Avenue Fort George Meade MD 20755 Brian Muldoon Planning Specialist Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning 3430 Courthouse Drive Ellicott City MD 21043 Alex Ollerman Manager, Division of Airport Landside Planning Maryland Aviation Administration 7062 Elm Rd, P O Box 8766, Third Floor Terminal Bldg, BWI Airport Baltimore MD 21240 Derek Gunn Planner Maryland State Highway Administration Lindsay Bobian Project Manager Maryland State Highway Administration 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore MD 21202 Felecia Murphy Asistant District Engineer - Traffic (Prince George's Country) Maryland State Highway Administration - District 3 Office 9300 Kenilworth Ave. Greenbelt MD 20770 Gerald Cichy Executive Assistant to the Director Maryland Transit Administration Transportation Planning 6 Saint Paul Street Baltimore MD 21202 Tom Masog Transportation Planner Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) - Prince George's Planning 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro MD 20772 Dusan Vuksan Transportation Planning Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) 777 North Capitol Street, NE Suite 300 Washington DC 20002 Teresa Spagnuolo Chief of Facilities Management at Goddard National Air and Space Administration 8800 Greenbelt Rd. Greenbelt MD 20771 Michael Weil Urban Planner National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington DC 20004 Dan Sealy Deputy Chief, Natural Resource & Science, National Capital Region National Park Service 4598 MacArthur Blvd NW Washington DC 20007 Fred Cunningham Park Manager National Park Service - Greenbelt Park - National Capital Parks - East 6565 Greenbelt Road Greenbelt MD 20770 Alex Romero Superintendent National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Washington DC 20020 Charles Borders Branch Chief National Park Service - National Capital Region National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW Washington DC 20242 Lt. Warren Boyer Lieutenant National Park Service - US Park Police 1100 Ohio Drive Washington DC 20242 Tom Diethrich Sergeant National Park Service - US Park Police Catherine Hill Director of State and Local Government and 

Community Relations

National Security Agency 9800 Savage Road Fort Meade MD 20735 

Brad Knudsen Refuge Manager Patuxent Research Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Visitor Center, 10901 Scarlet Tanager Loop Laurel MD 20708 Deborah J. Haynie Director of Special Projects - District 2 United States House of Representatives, Office of Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger 2453 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515 

MTAPurpleLineCorridor
Anne Arundel County

 1. Odenton Town Center

 2. Continuing development at Arundel Mills

Howard County

 3. Redevelopment of the US 1 Corridor

 4. A proposed intermodal freight terminal 

Prince George’s County

 5. The Konterra development at the terminus of the 

 Inter-County Connector south of Laurel

 6. Proposed TOD development at Greenbelt

 7. Town center development in east College Park

 8. New Carrollton TOD

BRAC

 9. Ft. Meade

 10. NSA

1

9 10

3

3

3

5

4

6

7

2

4

4

4

8
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

U

S

5

0

M

D

2

0

2

M

D

4

5

0

M

D

4

1

0

I

-

4

9

5

M

D

1

9

3

E

x

plo

r

e

r

R

d

.

P

o

w

d

e

r

Mill R

d

.

M

D

1

9

7

M

D

1

9

8

M

D

3

2

Te

c

h

n

olo

g

y

D

r

.

M

D

1

7

5

A

r

u

n

d

el Mills

M

D

1

0

0

H

a

n

o

v

e

r

R

d

.

I

-

1

9

5

M

D

1

6

8

I

-

6

9

5

D

aily

Tra

ffic

Volu

m

e

s

Baltimore Washington Parkway

Mainline Traffic Volumes

2005 Existing

2040 No-Build

2040 Partial Build

2040 Full Build

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Model version 2.2, Land Use Round 8.0
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL

TYPICAL SECTIONS

3’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’

PROP. LANE EX. LANE EX. LANE EX. SHLD.

EFL E609-0

PROP. MOUNTABLE

CURB 10" P/R, PGL

PGE

EX. PAVEMENT

2% MATCH EX. SLOPE

3’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 8’

PROP. LANE EX. LANE EX. LANE EX. SHLD.

EFL E609-0

PROP. MOUNTABLE

CURB 10" P/R, PGL

PGE

EX. PAVEMENT

2% MATCH EX. SLOPE

P/R, PGL

PGE

3’ 12’

EX. LANE

12’ 8’

EX. PAVEMENT

MATCH EX. SLOPE MATCH EX. SLOPE 6%

EX. LANE

12’ 12’

P/R, PGL

PGE

EX. PAVEMENT

10’

PROP. LANE PROP. SHLD.

MATCH EX. SLOPE MATCH EX. SLOPE 6%

EX. LANE

12’

PROP. LANE PROP. SHLD.

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

MATCH EX. SLOPE MATCH EX. SLOPE 6%

EX. LANE

12’

PROP. LANE PROP. SHLD.

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

10’

PROP. SHLD.

8’

EX. SHLD.

P/R, PGL

PGE

3’ 12’

EX. LANE

EX. PAVEMENT

EX. LANE

12’

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

OUTSIDE WIDENING

NPS

NOT TO SCALE

EXISTING SECTION

NOT TO SCALE

INSIDE WIDENING

NPS

NOT TO SCALE

EFL E609-1

PROP. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER 

10"

BL

BLBL

BL

EX. LANE

12’

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

OUTSIDE WIDENING

NPS

NOT TO SCALE

EXISTING SECTION

NOT TO SCALE

INSIDE WIDENING

NPS

NOT TO SCALE

EFL E609-1

PROP. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER 

10"

BL

BLBL

BL

8’

EX. SHLD.

P/R, PGL

PGE

3’ 12’

EX. LANE

EX. PAVEMENT

EX. LANE

12’

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EXISTING SECTION

NOT TO SCALE

BL

EX. LANE

12’

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EX. MOUNTABLE

CURB AND GUTTER

EXISTING SECTION

NOT TO SCALE

BL

4%

INSIDE WIDENING

AASHTO / SHA

NOT TO SCALE

OUTSIDE WIDENING

AASHTO / SHA

NOT TO SCALE

NOTES:

1. NPS TYPICAL SECTION BASED OFF OF 1984 NPS PARK AND ROAD STANDARDS AND THE EXISTING 

 TYPICAL SECTION WITH AN ADDITIONAL LANE.

2. ROADSIDE GRADING AND PROVISIONS FOR DRAINAGE AND SWM WILL BE DEVELOPED AT A LATER TIME.

DRAFT

EX. LANE

12’

BL

PROP. LANE

12’ 12’

EX. LANE EX. LANE

12’

PROP. LANE

12’ 12’

EX. LANE EX. LANE

12’

P/R, PGL

PGE

EX. PAVEMENT

4% 2% MATCH EX. SLOPE

10’

PROP. SHLD.

10’

PROP. SHLD.

6%

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

REG STATE PROJECT SHEET NO.

-- DC-MD

"03:51 PM on Tuesday, June 21, 2011"

M:\2011\22110463\drawings\B01-BAWA_typ.dgn

BALTIMORE - WASHINGTON PARKWAY 

WIDENING FEASIBILITY STUDY

BAWA 3RD LANE
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway W

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – Attendee List

Date: June 22, 2011 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Number: 1

NAME ORGANIZATION EMAIL T

Lewis Grimm FHWA, EFLHD lewis.grimm@dot.gov (

Jeanette Mar FHWA, DelMar Div. jeanette.mar@dot.gov (4

Jack Van Dop FHWA, EFLHD jack.j.vandop@dot.gov (

Charles Borders NPS charles_borders@nps.gov (

David Haynes NPS david_hayes@nps.gov (

Maureen Joseph NPS maureen_joseph@nps.gov (

Jim Rosenstock NPS james_rosenstock@nps.gov (

Frank Young NPS frank_young@nps.gov (

Joel Gorder NPS joel_gorder@nps.gov (

Eola Dance NPS eola_dance@nps.gov (

Eric Harris NPS eric_harris@nps.gov (

Catherine Hill NSA cshill1@nsa.gov (

Tom Diethrich US Park Police thomas_diethrich@nps.gov

Deborah J. Haynie Congressman Ruppersberger’s

Office

deborah.haynie@mail.house.gov (

Dusan Vuksan MWCOG dvuksan@mwcog.org (

Charles Baber BMC cbaber@baltometro.org (4

Lindsay Bobian SHA lbobian@sha.state.md.us (4

Felecia Murphy SHA fmurphy@sha.state.md.us (
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway W

Derek Gunn SHA dgunn@sha.state.md.us (4

Gerald Cichy MTA gcichy@mtamaryland.com (4

Steve Hawtof MTA ‐ Purple Line Rep. shawtof@gfnet.com (4

Brad Knudsen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Brad_knudsen@fws.gov (

Alex Ollerman MAA follerman1@bwiairport.com (4

George Cardwell Anne Arundel County pzcard44@aacounty.org (4

Tom Masog Prince George’s County tom.masog@mncppc.org (

Greer Gillis PB gillis@pbworld.com (

Jerry Jannetti PB Jannetti@pbworld.com (4

Marsh Kaiser PB kaiserm@pbworld.com (

Tim Ramey PB ramey@pbworld.com (

Mark Cheskey PB cheskey@pbworld.com (4

Todd Peterson PB petersont@pbworld.com (4

Jennifer Weeks PB weeks@pbworld.com (4

Eduardo Maeyama PB maeyama@pbworld.com (

Angela Jones KCI angela.jones@kci.com (4Ken Briggs KCI ken.briggs@kci.com (4

Steve Drumm KCI Stephen.Drumm@kci.com (4

James Noonan KCI james.noonan@kci.com (4
1

Maeyama, Eduardo

From: Maeyama, Eduardo

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:34 AM

Cc: 'Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov'; 'Jack.J.Vandop@fhwa.dot.gov'; 'alazar.feleke@dot.gov'; 

'charles_borders@nps.gov'; Gillis, Greer; 'Angela Jones'; Kaiser, Marsha

Subject: Invitation to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study Technical 

Advisory Committee Meeting #2

Attachments: SHA_dist3_office_map.pdf

Dear Members of the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study Technical Advisory Committee,

The Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA‐EFHLD) and its consultants, in

partnership with the National Park Service (NPS) and the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA), are

continuing their work on the development of an initial feasibility study for the potential addition of a third lane in each

direction along the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway between New York Avenue (US Route 50) on the south and the

Baltimore Beltway (I‐695) on the north.  

Since the initial Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on June 22nd, the study team has conducted an initial

public information meeting on July 20th, and has continued to work on the existing conditions report, traffic analysis, and

development of alternatives as part of the Baltimore‐Washington (BW) Parkway Widening Feasibility Study.   We are

planning to present much of this information at a second public information meeting in early November 2011 and would

like your advice and input as we prepare for that meeting.    

We respectfully request your participation in the study’s second TAC meeting scheduled for Friday, October 14, 2011 at

10:00 AM and concluding by 1:00 pm.  The meeting will be held at the MDSHA District 3 Office in Greenbelt, MD at 9300

Kenilworth Avenue, Greenbelt, MD 20768.        

We would appreciate if you cannot personally attend, that you choose one representative from your organization to

participate in the October 14th TAC meeting. Your input is very valuable as we continue our work and prepare for the

second public information meeting in early November 2011.   

  

The courtesy of a response to this invitation is requested by October 7, 2011 in order that we know that we will have

adequate representation from the full TAC.   To RSVP or to direct questions or comments, please contact, Ms. Greer

Gillis, the Consultant Project Manager at (202) 661‐5301 or by email at gillis@pbworld.com; Ms. Angela Jones, the

Consultant Deputy Project Manager at (410) 527‐4411 or by email at angela.jones@kci.com; or Mr. Lewis Grimm,

Project Manager, FHWA ‐ Eastern Federal Lands at (703) 404‐6289 or by email at  lewis.grimm@dot.gov.   

Thank you in advance for your continuing interest and participation in this examination of an important transportation

linkage between the Baltimore and Washington metropolitan areas.

Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2

Date: October 14th, 2011

Time: 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM

Location: Auditorium of the MDSHA District 3 Office

9300 Kenilworth Avenue

Greenbelt, MD 20768

Please see the attached document for a location map and directions.

Eduardo S. Maeyama 

Parsons Brinckerhoff 

1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 

Washington, DC, 20005 

202-661-5329 (office)
2

maeyama@pbworld.com

www.pbworld.com
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

     Page 1 of 7

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Date: October 14, 2011 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Number: 2

Location: SHA District 3 Office ‐ Greenbelt, Maryland

Meeting Notes

Welcome and Introductions

 Lewis Grimm, FHWA‐EFLHD project manager of the study, welcomed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

members to the meeting on such a challenging morning for travel as a result of heavy rain and associated

higher than normal levels of traffic congestion.     

 The purpose of the meeting is to share and obtain input on initial analyses and findings, (community

input, environmental, traffic) and alternative design concepts with the group in anticipation of a larger

public meeting to be held on November 17, 2011 at the Greenbelt Community Center.  

 The study team will hold a third TAC meeting in the future.  At that meeting, the direct and “quality of

life” impacts, and cost estimates developed by the study will be shared.

 The general study scope of work, process and schedule was briefly reviewed as was the agenda for this

second meeting of the TAC.

 The members of the study team and the TAC introduced themselves to the meeting group.   

Public Meeting Overview

 Greer Gillis, the consultant project manager, provided an overview of the public meeting that was held

last summer.  About 40 people attended, ranging in composition from citizens to local elected officials and

representatives of stakeholder groups.   

 Greer Gillis described the format, which included a presentation and general Q&A session followed by

breakout group discussions and a workshop around the corridor mapping.

 The consultant team summarized the public comments by general themes, which was presented to the

TAC members.

TAC Comments and Questions were as follows:

1) A representative of the National Park Service (NPS) inquired how the comment themes received at the

July 20th public meeting compared to the comments made during public meetings conducted by SHA for

the Parkway widening north of I‐195 that is currently under construction.  It was emphasized that the SHA

project was much more comprehensive; the project went through a full NEPA and project development

process so the comments would be different in nature.  Derek Gunn, Maryland State Highway

Administration (SHA) representative, agreed to get back to the group on what the themes were in terms

of public comments and concerns for the SHA project.

2) A representative of the NPS commented that the SHA widening project does not impact as many

residential communities as with the NPS section, should it be widened. There was a discussion that the

character of the SHA and NPS owned portions of the total Parkway corridor are very different from each

other.   

3) Question from a member of the TAC: Was the July 20 meeting the only opportunity for persons to

comment?  Response: Other public outreach activities have taken place since the July 20th meeting,

including separate meetings with the mayors and staff of the City of Greenbelt and the Town of Cheverly.

There will be another public meeting held on November 17, in Greenbelt, Maryland.  Also, public

comments have been regularly received and accepted through the project website.

   
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

     Page 2 of 7

Stakeholder Interviews

 Marsha Kaiser, the consultant team Public Involvement Task Manager, provided an overview of the

interviews that were held with other corridor stakeholder group leaders.  She noted that the same set of

questions posed to the members of the general public at the July 20th meeting were asked of the other

stakeholder group representatives. Among the comments received were the following:

o There are concerns expressed by these leaders about the ability of the transportation network in

general and the Parkway in particular to accommodate the anticipated growth in the corridor.

o There were comments regarding the ability of the facility and transportation network to

accommodate the future travel demands to be generated by growing economic engines such as

BWI Airport, Fort Meade, and Arundel Mills.

o Safety is important.

o Environmental protection and stewardship is important, but is considered to be a “secondary”

issue over transportation performance and needs by the leaders of the business community.

o Many people interviewed commented on the narrow scope of the study and wished that a

broader analysis of transportation needs and options were addressed.

o Those contacted were all open minded to learn more about the potential effects of the possible

widening on the corridor.

 There were no further questions or comments on this section of the presentation offered by the TAC

members in attendance.

Existing Conditions and Traffic Summary

 Angela Jones, Mark Cheskey, Todd Peterson and Jeffrey Lawrence, consultant tasks managers, delivered

presentations related to a high‐level environmental assessment and the traffic analysis performed.

 Angela Jones and Mark Cheskey reviewed the existing physical characteristics of the corridor, noting such

factors as: facility ownership and basic physical characteristics and existing land uses (residential,

commercial, institutional, natural resources, historic resources, and other community features).

 Todd Peterson began the traffic analysis portion of the presentation by noting that Slides 30‐32, showing

changes in travel times previously sent to TAC members had been replaced with several new slides

included in the revised presentation.  The revised presentation is provided as an attachment to these

notes.

 Todd Peterson and Jeffrey Lawrence then guided the group through a discussion of the traffic analysis

activities. These included: a discussion of the basic analysis methodology, a comparison of the base year

(2005) and study horizon year (2040) traffic volume estimates, and the 2005 and 2040 travel times and

levels of congestion associated with the assumed Parkway cross section options. It was noted that three

future possible options were examined against the same year 2040 corridor travel demands:

o 2040 No‐Build: the continuation of the existing lane configurations for the NPS portion of the

corridor with the assumption of completion of the planned SHA widening activities.

o 2040 Partial Build: continuation of the existing lane configurations from US 50 to I‐495 with a

mainline Parkway widening to 3‐lanes in each direction between I‐495 and I‐695.

o 2040 Full Build: a mainline Parkway widening to 3‐lanes in each direction all the way between US

Route 50 and I‐695.

Questions and comments offered from the TAC during these presentations were as follows:

1) Question from TAC member: Was the Anacostia Park listed as a cultural resource?  Response: This was

not included in the presentation because it is outside the study area; however, we will add this feature to

the base mapping and note it in the discussion of environmental and cultural resources.

2) Question from TAC member: What methodology was used to measure travel time? Response: The

Highway Capacity Software (HCS) output provided an average travel speed for each freeway segment
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

     Page 3 of 7

from one interchange to the next.  This average travel speed was multiplied by the segment length to

obtain the estimated travel time (in minutes) for each defined roadway segment.  

3) Question/Comment from TAC member: Why is the percent change in average travel time shown as

decreasing in the southbound direction between the 2005 and 2040 No‐Build conditions?  The TAC

members commented that this data suggests that as time goes on traffic conditions get better, which

could lead to the public questioning the necessity for widening. It was suggested that the study team

should consider deleting this slide.

4) Representative from MWCOG suggested that for the same analysis section as comment 6, although the

MWCOG Model did not directly calculate travel times, their model shows that the impedance output

presented an increase for the same geometric conditions between the two analysis years.   

5) TAC members suggested the possibility of considering the addition of available traffic information on

other corridors in the area to see the effects of widening or not widening the Parkway.  The consultant

team suggested that such a more comprehensive regional traffic diversion analysis study is outside the

scope of this study and that it is something that should be performed if this study moves forward to the

next stages of development. It was suggested that the use of a few multiple facility regional screenlines

volume comparisons similar to those initially generated by MWCOG might provide one option for

displaying this information to the general public.

6) Question from TAC member: Was this a freeway segment analysis? Response: Yes, the analysis began

with an assumption of free‐flow travel along a freeway section with an unconstrained speed of 65 mph.   

7) Question from TAC member: Was a merge/diverge analysis performed? Response: No, only the mainline

roadway segments between each interchange were examined.   

8) Question from TAC member: Were HOV lanes included in the analysis? Response: No, all of the Parkway

options assumed a continuation of general use traffic lanes, with no trucks allowed to use the NPS section

of the study corridor.   

9) Question from TAC member: How was travel speed calculated?  Response: The average travel speed is an

output of the HCS analysis.

10) A representative of MWCOG presented their concerns with the data for the other segments and stressed

the need to triple check the traffic results segment to segment.

11) A representative of MWCOG commented that overall message presenting that “travel time gains (traffic

operations) will be a wash” should be highlighted in the presentation at the upcoming public meeting.

12) A representative of MWCOG commented that speed is not visible on the graphic utilized to present speed

and Level of Service (LOS) information. It was suggested to the study team to develop an alternative

presentation format.

13) Question from TAC member: What is the incremental difference in the LOS bars?  Response: LOS is not

scaled along the Y axis of the figure and therefore can be removed from the Speed and LOS slide.

14) It was suggested that the presentation could use an additional introduction slide defining LOS by color

code.  For instance, the color range could be from green (LOS A) to red (LOS F), corresponding to high,

moderate and low speeds. This scheme could be applied graphically via the speed bars.

15) It was also suggested to consider adding a lead slide describing speed ranges associated with the various

freeway LOS grades to help the graphical representation of the traffic information for the general public.

16) Question from TAC member: Are there spot issues (traffic operational) along the corridor?   Response:

The study team recognizes that there are spot issues i.e., weaving at the southbound on‐ramp to B‐W

Parkway from eastbound MD 197 creates a spot issue. But as this study provides analysis at a very high‐

level (feasibility study), evaluating the spot issues with greater detail does not change the overall high‐

level traffic pattern that can be concluded from the available data. Basically, widening the parkway will

only attract further traffic, resulting in a rebalancing of congestion levels and little, if any, noticeable

changes in peak hour travel times.

17) A TAC member commented that more traffic on the parkway will generate more accidents and more

delay.

18) The traffic analysis performed with the available data reflects that the widening of the parkway may save

not much more than a couple of minutes in travel time during peak periods. The study team will take a
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

     Page 4 of 7

closer look at these values for both northbound and southbound directions, recognizing it may vary

directionally.  The study team also commented that it may be preferable to not provide a definitive value

of travel time savings to the public. It was suggested that it may be a better to provide relative travel time

savings among alternatives.

19) It was indicated that some users of the parkway may experience greater travel time savings than others

depending on the location they get on and off in the corridor.

Alternatives Presentation

 Tim Ramey and Ken Briggs, task managers of the consultant team, presented the proposed design

concepts, which included considerations for the provision of an additional general purpose mainline travel

lane in each direction by widening to the inside or to the outside of the existing travel lanes, as well as

considerations for both NPS and AASHTO/SHA standards.   

 The footprints of the two standards were significantly different with the AASHTO standards being more

impactful (wider shoulders on both sides of the travelway, etc.).  

 It was clarified that for purpose of the presentation, for the outside widening, only the AASHTO/SHA

alternative will be graphically depicted as the NPS alternative presented only a two feet difference, which

could not be visually noticed at the scale of the graphical representation.

 The presenters also reviewed the Environmental Site Design – Stormwater Management features that

would be associated with either the inside or outside widening options and the use of either the NPS or

SHA design guidelines. The ESD/SWM features were used to define the approximate “Limits of

Disturbance” (LOD). It was noted that the LOD lines shown on the aerial photography is a very

conservative on the high side assessment of where construction activity might potentially take place.

Based on recent experience in Maryland, these lateral impacts would be significantly reduced in most

locations if the study was advanced further into project development.

 It was noted that while initial quantitative estimates of direct physical impacts will be made, only more

subjective qualitative assessments will be prepared for potential quality of life impacts such as reduced

buffer areas or effects on local aesthetic values.

 Tim Ramey and Ken Briggs then presented a visual description of the potential impacts associated with

Parkway mainline widening to the inside or the outside of the existing travelway pavement between the

US Route 50 interchange on the south and the MD Route 32 interchange on the north. From the MD

Route 32 interchange north to the Baltimore Beltway (I‐695), it was noted that, for this SHA owned

portion of the corridor, widening plans, design, and some construction has already been undertaken.  

 The differing effects of inside versus outside widening of the Parkway mainline were noted in terms of

possible effects on existing interchange structures, watercourse bridges and other grade separations,

defined floodplains and environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and adjacent residential, commercial and

institutional properties.  

Questions and comments from the TAC with regard to the identified potential effects of these actions were as

follows:

1) Question from TAC member: Why change NPS design standards to AASHTO/SHA design standards.  

Response: The use of the AASHTO/SHA design guidelines and standards would show a range of cost on

the high side, while the use of the NPS guidelines would be able to illustrate a somewhat lower capital

cost. It is felt to be important to highlight the differing costs associated with the two different design

concepts. Moreover, if the Parkway was not considered to meet the legal definition of a national park

anymore, i.e. if it was no longer owned by NPS and Maryland SHA took ownership; any major physical

improvements to it would need to meet AASHTO/SHA standards.

2) Question from TAC member: Under what conditions would it no longer be a parkway?  Response: The

study team will address these conditions in the final report as a major factor related to feasibility.
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

     Page 5 of 7

3) Question from TAC member: Is there any additional liability associated with using a NPS as opposed to

AASHTO/SHA standards? Response: Not appreciably since both sets of design guidelines have been

reviewed and accepted by FHWA.

4) It was clarified that the traffic analysis is not affected by whether the section is based on NPS or

AASHTO/SHA standards.  From a traffic analysis standpoint, the two different typical sections make no

difference.  Both typical sections include 12‐foot lanes and the right side lateral clearance is greater than

six feet (the limit of influence on traffic operations).  The left side lateral clearance is greater than two feet

(the limit of influence on traffic operations).  The existing mountable curb in the NPS section of the

corridor is not considered a lateral obstruction.

5) The Environmental Site Design (ESD) strategy is the same for both inside and outside widening options

even though the outside widening option would have to accommodate a higher volume of roadway

pavement runoff.

6) The interchange for National Security Agency (NSA) employees only, located immediately north of the

MD32 interchange, contains a joint access and land use agreement by NSA and NPS.

7) Proposed widening plans should be coordinated with SHA at MD 32.  SHA is proposing widening of the

Parkway mainline in this area to the inside and removal of the existing loop ramps, with their replacement

by a diamond configuration interchange at MD 32.  SHA to provide team proposed drawings.

Comments made during by TAC Members during the Issues Discussion led by Marsha Kaiser:

Marsha Kaiser facilitated an issues discussion in which all participants were asked to provide answers to two

different questions.

Question 1 – What are your initial thoughts about the information you saw today?   

1) Suggestion that the mapping/overlay show the range of other transportation projects occurring in the

study area.

2) Potential Greenbelt Road (MD Route 193) interchange area impacts were cited as a possible “deal killer”.

3) There was nothing of major concern relative to Anne Arundel County.

4) Issues presented and shown are complex, which makes it difficult to “water‐down” for ease of

understanding by the general public.

5) Should we involve the resource agencies, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to a greater

degree than just their involvement on the TAC group?

6) Make sure the line weights on engineering drawings are easy to see.

7) Are we going to have maps at the Public Meeting?

8) Keep it a parkway.  Widening to the inside is preferred option if any action is to be taken.

9) The study team should be prepared to respond to the question, “Is it going to impact me?” at the public

meeting.

10) Information presented was good.  Keep presentation flexible.  Thematic maps may help.

11) Add appendix section to presentation that ensures that you don’t lose the detailed information and

graphics.

12) Overall very well done.

13) Information overload, look at ways to synthesize information.

14) Do not remove any slides from presentation.

15) The potential implications of a potential shifting of responsibility for ownership of the Parkway should not

be understated.  When does NPS let go with being a parkway?  At what point?  The inside lane widening is

generally seen as less impactful than widening to the outside.   
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

     Page 6 of 7

16) The jurisdictions located along the Parkway / MD 295 facilities need to be noted on the maps.  (Angela

responded that they are doing that.  The portion north of MD 175 will be labeled “MD 295/BW Parkway”

and the portion south of MD 175 will be labeled BW Parkway.)  

17) Presentation great for technical advisory committee but seen as much too technical for the typical public

audience.  The focus needs to be on the impacts to people – how the widening would affect those in the

room.

18) Add Anacostia Park to environmental list and historic resources.

19) There are two major impacted communities who currently use this facility, residents and commuters.  

How can we seek to get more input from the commuters?   

20) Add SWM concept to description.

21) Need to quantify tree impacts (general acreage effected, approximate number of major trees, etc.).

Question #2 – What issues should the Study Team focus on in the remainder of the study?

22) AASHTO versus NPS design standards – need to clearly describe the differing implications and costs.

23) Environmental costs and quantitative measures

24) Law enforcement impacts like accidents and safety and operations/maintenance responsibilities.    

25) Operations and Maintenance

26) State vs. NPS ownership implications

27) What factors will drive the decision on shifting ownership of the facility?

28) Add summary of impacts chart for inside and outside widening. Include impacts inside and outside NPS

boundary.   

29) Break down impacts to specific communities.

30) Add viewsheds, flora and fauna, vibration, effects to streams and rivers to the list of environmental

resources examined.  The list of potential mitigation strategies that may be considered at some future

date should be identified.  

31) Bring Google Earth into the analysis.  Personalize the perspective to individual communities.

32) Can the study team consider different mobility options and types of lanes, such as HOV/managed lanes?  

33) Provide a list or a board presenting the next steps and things that will be pursued if the study moves

further than a feasibility study.

34) Be specific on what the underlying network is from the CLRP.  For example, how far into the 2040 horizon

year is the completion of the ICC?   

35) Quantify the impacts inside the NPS boundary and outside the boundary.    

36) There are flooding issues.  NPS had to purchase several residential homes in the town of Cheverly due to

excessive flooding associated with the recent Parkway safety improvements.  (Study team should check

on the location of those areas and be sure they are noted on the mapping.)

37) Reflect on the benefit on widening improvements to local roads.  Can we get traffic volume changes from

regional traffic model?

38) Aesthetics – note the aesthetics of different design features such as the walls and bridges.

39) Growth – show the relationship of the road improvements to projected growth.  Explain the cooperative

forecasts.   

Action Item(s)

 Consultant team to survey TAC members to determine date of next meeting after the November

17, 2011 public meeting.  
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

    Contract No. HFAC‐15

     Page 7 of 7

Attachments (Materials distributed at meeting)

 Revised Power Point Presentation

 List of Meeting Attendees
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway W

Page 1 of 2

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting – Attendee List

Date: October 14, 2011 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Number: 2

NAME ORGANIZATION EMAIL T

Lewis Grimm FHWA, EFLHD lewis.grimm@dot.gov (

Mack Frost FHWA, DelMar Div. mack.frost@dot.gov (4

Frank Young NPS frank_young@nps.gov (

Stephen Syphax NPS stephen_syphax@nps.gov (

Alex Romero NPS alex_romero@nps.gov (Eric Harris NPS eric_harris@nps.gov (

Teresa Spagnuolo NASA Goddard teresa.r.spagnuolo@nasa.gov (Elena Constantine MWCOG econstantine@mwcog.org (

Dusan Vuksan MWCOG dvuksan@mwcog.org (

Lindsay Bobian SHA lbobian@sha.state.md.us (4

Derek Gunn SHA dgunn@sha.state.md.us (4

Gerald Cichy MTA gcichy@mtamaryland.com (4

Ravindra Ganvir DDOT ravindra.ganvir@dc.gov (

Dionne Briggs U.S. Fish and Wildlife dionne_Bbriggs@fws.gov (

Michael Weil NCPC michael.weil@ncpc.gov (

George Cardwell Anne Arundel County pzcard44@aacounty.org (4

Tom Masog Prince George’s County tom.masog@mncppc.org (

Brian Muldoon Howard County bmuldoon@howardcountymd.gov (4
Baltimore‐Washington Parkway W

Page 2 of 2

Greer Gillis PB gillis@pbworld.com (

Marsha Kaiser PB kaiserm@pbworld.com (

Tim Ramey PB ramey@pbworld.com (

Mark Cheskey PB cheskey@pbworld.com (4

Todd Peterson PB petersont@pbworld.com (4

Jennifer Weeks PB weeks@pbworld.com (4

Eduardo Maeyama PB maeyama@pbworld.com (

Angela Jones KCI angela.jones@kci.com (4Ken Briggs KCI ken.briggs@kci.com (4

Jeffrey Lawrence KCI jeffrey.lawrence@kci.com (4
TAC Meeting #2

Friday, October 14, 2011

10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

MDSHA Greenbelt Office

9300 Kenilworth Avenue

Greenbelt, MD 20768
Welcome

Lewis Grimm

FHWA

‐EFHLD

Project Manager
Study Partners

• Study Sponsors• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

– St t a e A i genc es, Fd l e era A i genc es, L l oca G t overnments

• Study Area Residents and Businesses
Scope, Process, and Sched

Sched

• Draft Final Feasibility Feasibility Study Report shall be d

d

to Congress in approximately nine (9) month

inception of project:

April May June July August September October November December Janu

1.0 Study Management2.0 Data Collection

3.0 Public Involvement/Participation

2011 

Task Name

4.0 Travel Demand Model Development

5.0 Alternatives Development

6.0 Alternatives Analysis

7.0 Draft Feasibility Study Final Report

8.0 Final Feasibility Study Reports

• Where we are today: October 14th, 2011
Agenda

• Recap: First Public Meeting Meeting• Summary of Stakeholder Interviews• E i ti x s ng C diti on ons• Existing and Future Traffic Conditions• Alternatives Development• Issues Discussion• Next Steps
Recap: First Public Meeti

Meeti

Greer Gillis

Consultant Team Project Manager
Recap: First Public Meeti

Meeti

• July 20, 2011• Meade Middle School, Fort Meade, MD• Purpose of M ti ee ng:

• Introduce the study to the public and other stake• Generate input and feedback from the public and 

stakeholders.

• A il pproximately 40 people partii d c pated in the 

Public Meeting.
Summary of Comments Comments by Th

• Preservation of the aesthetic, historic, and na

values of the P k ar way

• Community and environmental impacts of a

potential widening

• Direct connectivity connectivity between between Washington Washington and

Baltimore

• Congestion
Summary of Comments Comments by Th

• Maintain the two‐lanes to preserve the Parkw

character; widening will not resolve congestiocorridor

• Lack of alternative mobility options along the

corridor

• Parkway as a barrier to the environment and

community connectivity connectivity along the corridor corridor
Stakeholder Interviews

Update

Marsha Kaiser

Consultant Team Task Lead,

Public Involvement
Stakeholder Interviews

• Elected officials• Business Leaders• C it ommunity L d ea ers
Summary of Interviews Interviews by The

• Economic development and growth furthe

the corridor

• Further congestion constrains constrains economic economic

development opportunities

• S f a ety i li i mp cations of exi i st ng traffic• North/South alternatives are limited and sh

evaluated for implications
Summary of Interviews Interviews by The

• The environment is an important compone

should not be an overriding element

• Multi‐modal options options and a wider study is n• Park (tree) buffer for communities is an im

quality of life element

• Open‐mind to study needed by all
Existing Conditions

Angela Jones, Mark Cheskey Cheskey

Consultant Team Task Managers,

Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions

• Existing Baltimore‐Washington Parkway:

• Corridor ownership• Physical Characteristics

• Existing Corridor Land Uses

• Residential• Institutional• Natural Resources• Historic Resources• Community Features
Existing Baltimore Baltimore‐Washington Pa

Pa

• B‐W Parkway is owned & operated by SHA betwee

of Baltimore and MD 175 and NPS between MD 17

New York Ave/US 50 split.

• NPS Section is 6 lanes from US 50 to MD 450 and 4 

from MD 450 to MD 175.

• SHA is currently wid i en ng MD 295 from 4 to 6 lane

between I‐695 and I‐195.

• SHA is planning planning to widen MD 295 from 4 to 6 lanes 

I‐195 and MD 175.
Residential Areas

• Concentrated North of MD 198

• West of B‐W Parkway

• S th ou of MD 193• South Laurel which is surrounded by the Pa

Wildlife Research Center
Institutional Institutional (Federal (Federal and State Owned Pro

Pro

• Beltsville Agricultural Research Research Center• Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

• Goddard Space Flight Center

• University of Maryland‐College Park• Bowie State University University• Fort Meade• National Security Agency
Forest Areas

• Baltimore‐Washington Parkway

Forest Areas

Baltimore Washington Parkway

• Greenbelt Park• Beltsville Agricultural Research Research Center• Patuxent Wildlife Research Center• Goddard Space Flight Center
Natural Environmental Resou

• Patuxent Wildlife Research Center• Patuxent River, Patapsco River and Little Pa

River

• Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

• B‐W Parkway Parkway crosses crosses over approximately: approximately:

• 8 Rivers and Streams and their Floodplains

• 5 Sensitive Species Project Review Areas ( ) SSPRA

• 14 Wetland areas including Wetlands of Special Sta

Concern (WSSC)
Historic Resources

• National National Register Register of Historic Historic Places – Listed• National Register of Historic Places – Eligib• M ld ary and I t nven ory of Hi t i s or c Places
National National Register Register of Historic Historic Places (NRHP) 

• Baltimore‐Washington Parkway

• Greenbelt National Register Historic Distri
National National Register Register of Historic Historic Places (NRHP) ‐ 

• Fort Lincoln Cemetery• Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

• Beltsville Agricultural Agricultural Research Research Center, Bui

Bui

#510

• D.C Children s Children’s Center – Forest Haven Distr

Distr

• Clark/Vogel House• Sachs Residence
Maryland Maryland Inventory Inventory of Historic Historic Places (

• D.C. Bou da y n r Ma e rk r • Race Road Hou

NE #8

• Cheverly Historic

ace oad ou

• Matthias Harm

• Andrew Harma

Community

• Crawford’s Adventure

S i

Cemetery

• Patapsco State 

Spring

• Cronmiller Outbuilding

• Jessup Survey District

• Summerfield Be

House

• Jessup Survey District• M. Bannon House
Community Features

• Approximately Approximately 78 schools schools within the study ar• 33 Fire Stations (2 stations at BWI)• 17 Libraries• 18 Police Stations• 31 Post Offices Offices
Existing and Future Traff

Conditions

Todd Peterson, Jeff Lawrence Lawrence

Consultant Team Task Leaders,

Traffic Analysis
Traffic Analysis

Summary• Methodology (MWCOG Model Output)• 2005 Base‐year volume• 2040 Forecast year (No‐build and Build)

• 2040 Partial Build• 2040 Full Build

• HCS Analysis for freeway segments• Peak‐hour volumes for other analysis
Lane Widening Alternativ

Lane Widening Alternativ

• 2005 Existing

• Existing lane configurations

• 2040 No Build

• Existing lane configurations

• 2040 Partial Build

• US 50 to I‐495 – existing lane configurations

• I‐495 to I‐695 – widened three

‐lane section

• 2040 Full Build

• US 50 to I‐695

– widened widened three

‐lane section section
Mainline Traffic Volumes
Change in Travel Time
Change in Travel Time
Change in Travel Time
Corridor Travel Time 30.0

Corridor Travel Time ‐ Northbound AM

2005

25.0

2040 No‐Build2040 Partial Build2040 Full Build

100

el Mills

20.0

US 50 (Minutes)

MD

Arunde

MD 175

NSA

MD 32

198

15.0

Travel Time from

M

MD 1

MD 197

der Mill

10.0

Cumulative T

dale

Powd

Goddard

MD 193

I‐495

5.0

US 50

MD 202

MD 450

Riverd

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 

Miles from US 50
30.0

Corridor Travel Time ‐ Northbound PM

2005

25.0

2040 No‐Build2040 Partial Build2040 Full Build

MD 100

Arundel Mills

75

20.0

US 50 (Minutes)

A

MD 17

NSA

MD 32

MD 198

15.0

Travel Time from

MD 197

owder Mill

10.0

Cumulative T

dale

Po

Goddard

MD 193

I‐495

5.0

US 50

MD 202

MD 450

River

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 

Miles from US 50
30.0

Corridor Travel Time ‐ Southbound AM

2005

25.0

2040 No Build2040 Partial Build2040 Full Build

ard D 193 ‐495

20.0

mI‐695 (Minutes)

D 197

Powder Mill

Godd

a

MDI‐

15.0

e Travel Time from

lls MD 32

MD 198

M

10.0

Cumulative

nover

MD 100

Arundel Mi

MD 175

NSAM

5.0

I‐695

MD 168 I‐195

Ha

n

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 

Miles from I‐695
30.0

Corridor Travel Time ‐ Southbound PM

2005

25.0

2040 No Build2040 Partial Build2040 Full Build

ard D 193 ‐495

20.0

mI‐695 (Minutes)

D 197

Powder Mill

Godd

a

MDI‐

15.0

e Travel Time from

lls MD 32

MD 198

M

10.0

Cumulative

nover

MD 100

Arundel Mi

MD 175

NSAM

5.0

I‐695

MD 168 I‐195

Ha

n

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 

Miles from I‐695




Alternatives Developme

Ken Briggs, Tim Ramey

Consultant Team Task Leaders,

Alternatives Development
Alternatives Developme

• Definition of impact types• Widening cross section alternatives• I iti l Initial engi i neer ng assessment
Definition of Impact Typ

• Direct Impacts are full and/or partial takes to:

• Residential, commercial and governmental and institutiona• Natural environmental resources including wetlands, flood

streams

• Parks and interchanges.

• Q lit ua y of Life I t mpac s are di t b s ur ances to:

• A defined buffer area adjacent to properties and communities• Impacts Impacts include include noise, air, visual and aesthetic aesthetic value.• These impacts will not be quantified at this level of study but w

assessed qualitatively.
NPS Alternatives
AASHTO/SHA Alternativ
Environmental Site Design

–

Storm Water Management
Widening Options

Four options were evaluated:

Widening Options

p

• AAHSTO/SHA Outside Widening Option• AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening Option• NPS Outside Widening Widening Option• NPS Inside Widening Option
Graphical Representatio

• Only three options will be presented graphically:

Graphical Representatio

• AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening• NPS Inside Widening• AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening

• The difference between the p p ro osed widths of t

and AASHTO/SHA outside widening options is

approximately two feet, a difference that will not 

vi ibl s e at the scale of the graphi l ca represent ti a on
Widening Options

The next few slides summarize the graphical

Widening Options

g p

displays that are included as separate files awere too large for this presentation.
Outside Widening

• US 50 Interchange ‐ no changes proposed

Outside Widening

• MD 450 (Annapolis Rd) interchange ‐ changes to 

gores

• MD 410 (Ri d l (Riverdale Rd) i h nterc ange ‐ b idr ge wid 

e

changes to ramp gores

• Ri d l ver a e Rd to G d oo L k uc Rd ‐ i t mpac to fl d 

floodp

stream crossing

• Good Luck Rd to I‐495 ‐ impact to Greenbelt Greenbelt Par

side of B‐W Parkway; impact to floodplain at stre

crossing
Outside Widening

• I‐495 (Capital Beltway) Interchange ‐ bridge wide

Outside Widening

changes to ramp gores

• MD 193 (Greenbelt Rd) interchange ‐ potential b

replacement and reconstruction of complex i 

nter

• MD 193 to Explorer Rd ‐ impact to residential pro

east side of B‐W P k ar way

• Explorer Rd ‐ potential bridge replacement

• Explorer Rd to Powder Mill Rd ‐ impacts to enviro

sensitive areas
Outside Widening

MD 193 Bridge (Nort

(Nort

Explorer Rd Bridge (Northbound)
Outside Widening

• Powder Mil Rd Interchange ‐ bridge widening; ch

Outside Widening

ramp gores

• Powder Mill Rd to MD 197 (Laurel Bowie Rd) ‐ im

environmentally sensitive areas

• MD 197 Interchange ‐ bridge widening; changes 

gores

• MD 197 to MD 198 ‐ impacts to environmentally 

areas including including Patuxent Patuxent River crossing crossing and com

com

institutional properties
Outside Widening

• MD 198 interchange ‐ potential for reconstruc

l it h

Outside Widening

complex interchange

• MD 198 to MD 32 ‐ impacts to environmentall

areas including including Little Patuxent Patuxent River crossing crossing

• MD 32 interchange ‐ geometric issues with loo

potential potential impacts impacts to properties properties in northeast northeast q

q

potential for reconstruction of complex interc

• MD 32 to MD 175 ‐ impacts impacts to environmentall

environmentall

areas

• MD 175 interchange interchange ‐ changes changes to ramp gores
Outside Widening

MD 198 Bridge ( 

Northb

MD 32 (Northbound)
Inside Widening

• US 50 Interchange ‐ no changes proposed

Inside Widening

• MD 410 (Riverdale Rd) interchange ‐ bridge wide

• Riverdale Rd to Good Luck Rd ‐ impact to floodp

stream crossing

• Good Luck Rd to I‐495 ‐ impact to floodplain at s

crossing
Inside Widening

• I‐495 (Capital Beltway) Interchange ‐ bridge wide

Inside Widening

• I‐495 to MD 193 ‐ narrow median section*

• MD 193 (Greenbelt Rd) interchange ‐ potential b

replacement and reconstruction of complex inte

• Explorer Rd ‐ potential bridge replacement

• Explorer Rd to Powder Mill Rd ‐ impacts to enviro

sensitive areas; narrow median section*

*Locations with a narrow median for the proposed AASHTO/SHA sec

some outside widening or a design exception for the use of a narrow 

future phases of the study.
Inside Widening

• Powder Mil Rd Interchange ‐ bridge widening

Inside Widening

• Powder Mill Rd to MD 197 (Laurel Bowie Rd) ‐ im

environmentally sensitive areas

• MD 197 Interchange ‐ bridge widening

• MD 197 to MD 198 ‐ impacts to environmentally 

areas including Patuxent River crossing; narrow 

section*

*Locations with a narrow median for the proposed AASHTO/SHA se

require some outside widening or a design exception for the use of 

shoulders in future phases of the study.
Inside Widening

• MD 198 interchange ‐ potential for reconstructio

B W P k

Inside Widening

over B‐W Parkway

• MD 198 to MD 32 ‐ impacts to environmentally s

areas including including Little Patuxent Patuxent River crossing crossing

• MD 32 interchange ‐ narrow median section*

• MD 32 to MD 175 ‐ impacts to environmentally s

areas

*Locations with a narrow median for the proposed AASHTO/SHA sectiosome outside widening or a design exception for the use of a narrow sphases of the study.
Issues Discussion

Marsha Kaiser

Consultant Team Task Lead,

Public Involvement
Next Steps

Greer Gillis

Consultant Team Project Manager
Next Steps

• Public Meeting 2 – City of Greenbelt Community Cen

b Novem th er 17th, 2011; 6:30‐8:30 PM

• Final Existing Conditions Report• Complete Alternatives Analysis

• “Q y ualit of Life” Impact Analysis• Cost Estimates

• TAC M ti ee ng 3 ‐ TBD• Draft Congressional Report
Where to find more informa

informa

• Project Newsletter will sent out shortly.• Website

• Eastern Federal Lands Eastern Federal Lands – http://www efl fhwa dot gov http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov

• Contact Information

Mr. Lewis G. Grimm, P.E. Ms. Greer Gillis, P.E.Planning Team Leader

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration21400 Ridgetop Circle

,

Consultant Project Manag

Parsons Brinckerhoff

1401 K Street, NW, Suite 3

g p Washington, DC 20005

Sterling, Virginia 20166

Tel: 703‐404‐6289 | Fax: 703‐404‐6217

E‐mail: lewis.grimm@dot.gov

g ,

Tel: 202‐661‐5301

Fax: 202.661.5300Email: gillis@pbworld.co
THANK YOU FOR YOUR

PARTICIPATION
1

Maeyama, Eduardo

From: Maeyama, Eduardo

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:35 PM

Cc: Kaiser, Marsha; Gillis, Greer

Subject: Invitation to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study Technical 

Advisory Committee Meeting #3

Attachments: SHA_dist3_office_map.pdf

Dear Members of the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway Technical Advisory Committee

The Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA‐EFHLD) and its consultants, in

partnership with the National Park Service (NPS) and the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA), are

continuing their work on the development of an initial feasibility study for the potential addition of a third lane in each

direction along the Baltimore‐Washington Parkway between New York Avenue (US Route 50) on the south and the

Baltimore Beltway (I‐695) on the north.  

Since the second TAC Meeting on October 14th, 2011, the study team has conducted the second Public Meeting on

November 17, 2011, and has continued to work on finalizing the draft report for the Baltimore Washington (BW)

Parkway Widening Feasibility Study.

We respectfully request your participation in the study’s third Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting scheduled

for Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 2:00 P.M. and concluding by 4:00 P.M.  The meeting will be held at the Maryland State

Highway Administration District 3 offices in Greenbelt, MD at 9300 Kenilworth Avenue, Greenbelt, MD 20768.        

We would appreciate if you cannot personally attend, that you choose one representative from your organization to

participate in the third TAC meeting. Your input is very valuable as we continue our work.   

  

The courtesy of a response to this invitation is requested to ensure adequate representation from the TAC.   To RSVP or

to direct questions or comments, please contact, Ms. Greer Gillis, the Consultant Project Manager at (202) 661‐5301 or

by email at Gillis@pbworld.com ; Ms. Angela Jones, the Consultant Deputy Project Manager at (410) 527‐4411 or by

email at angela.jones@kci.com; or Mr. Lewis Grimm, Project Manager, FHWA ‐ Eastern Federal Lands at (703) 404‐6289

or by email at  lewis.grimm@dot.gov.   

Thank you in advance for your continuing interest and participation in this examination of an important transportation

linkage between the Baltimore and Washington metropolitan areas.

Baltimore Washington Parkway Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #3

Date: January 19th, 2012

Time: 2:00 to 4:00 PM

Location: Auditorium of the MDSHA District 3 offices

9300 Kenilworth Avenue

Greenbelt, MD 20768

Please see attached map and directions

Eduardo S. Maeyama 

Parsons Brinckerhoff 

1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 

Washington, DC, 20005 

202-661-5329 (office)

maeyama@pbworld.com

www.pbworld.com
2
BW Parkway Widening Feasibiilty Study

Stakeholder Interviews

Category Name Title Street Address City State 

US House of Representatives/Bill Author Dutch Ruppersberger Representative 2453 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC Mayor of Greenbelt Judith F. Davis Mayor 25 Crescent Road Greenbelt MD Greater Baltimore Committee Donald C. Fry President/CEO 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore MD Baltimore Metropolitan Council Larry Klimovitz Executive Director 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore MD 

Washington Council of Governments Ron Kriby Transportation Director 777 North Capital Street NE Suite 300 Washington DC BWI Business Partnership Linda Green Executive Director 1302 Concourse Drive Suite 105 Linthicum Heights MD 

Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation Robert Hannon President/CEO 2660 Riva Road, Suite 300 Annapolis MD Howard County Economic Development Authority Laura A. Neuman Chief Executive Officer 6751 Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 500 Columbia MD Prince George's County Economic Development CorporationGwen S. McCall Interim President/CEO 1100 Mercantile Lane Largo MD 

Maryland BRAC Subcabinet Asuntha Chiang‐Smith Executive Director 45 Calvert Street Annapolis MD Mayor of Cheverly Michael Callahan Mayor 6401 Forest Road Cheverly MD 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

Widening Feasibility Study

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Invites you to Join Us at the First Public Meeting for the...

We look forward to seeing you there!

This study will examine the feasibility of adding 

a third northbound and a third southbound lane 

to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD Route 

295) between its intersection with I-695 in the 

Anne Arundel County, MD and New York Avenue in 

the District of Columbia. During this meeting the 

project team will introduce the study and gather 

the public’s input on study goals and objectives.

ATTENTION AREA RESIDENTS, COMMUTERS,

EMPLOYERS, AND BUSINESS PEOPLE!!

-

grams, and services on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

or on the basis of disability as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need special accommodations or language 

assistance services (translation or interpretation) please contact Eduardo Maeyama at (202) 661-5329 or by email at Maeyama@

pbworld.com

For more information:

Lewis Grimm | lewis.grimm@dot.gov 

703.404.6289

JULY 13, 2011

6:30 P.M to 8:30 P.M

Meade Middle School

1103 26th Street

Ft. Meade, MD 20755
Category Contact Name Title Organization 

Chamber of Commerce Bob Burdon President/CEO Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce 49 Old Solomons Road, Sui

Chamber of Commerce Keith Scott President/CEO Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce 102 West Pennsylvania AveChamber of Commerce Cathy Barrett Chief Operating Officer Baltimore Washington Corridor Chamber of Commerce 312 Marshall Avenue, Suite Chamber of Commerce Pamela J. Klahr President Howard County Chamber 5560 Sterrett Place, Suite 10Chamber of Commerce Kathleen T. Snyder President/CEO Maryland Chamber of Commerce 60 West Street, Suite 100 Chamber of Commerce Rhonda L. Slade President/CEO Prince George's County Chamber of Commerce 4640 Forbes Boulevard, SuiChamber of Commerce Claire Louder President/CEO West Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce 8385 Piney Orchard ParkwaCivic Associations Dru Schmidt-Perkins Executive Director 1000 Friends of Maryland 1209 North Calvert Street Civic Associations Robert C. Embry, Jr. President Abell Foundation 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite Civic Associations Jamie Alberti Program Coordinator Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 501 Sixth Street Civic Associations Jim Foster President Anacostia Watershed Society The George Washington HoCivic Associations Patti Sue Nolan Administrator Arbutus Business and Professional Association P.O. Box 7357 

Civic Associations Larry Klimovitz Executive Director Baltimore Metropolitan Council 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 

Civic Associations Kevin Young President Berwyn District Civic Association P.O. Box 535 Civic Associations Ari Goldberg Strassler President Boxwood Civic Association 114 Lastner Lane 

Civic Associations Mary Cooksey President Brentwood Civic Association 3404 Webster Street Civic Associations William C. Baker President Chesapeake Bay Foundation 6 Herndon Avenue 

Civic Associations Church Road Civic Association 5104 Church Road 

Civic Associations Robert Day President College Park Estates Civic Association 

Civic Associations Scott Bogren Communications Director Community Transportation Association of America 1341 G Street, NW Civic Associations Cool Springs Terrace Civic Association 8303 Rambler Drive 

Civic Associations Tom Sadowski President/CEO Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore 1 East Pratt Street, Suite 20Civic Associations Good Luck Civic Association 6310 Navel Avenue 

Civic Associations Donald C. Fry President/CEO Greater Baltimore Committee 111 South Calvert Street, Su

Civic Associations Greater Ferndale Community Civic Association 7205 B & A Blvd 

Civic Associations Dale Grant Chairman Heather Hills Civic Association 12800 Helm Place Civic Associations Jim Trent President Holmehurst Civic Association 4523 Woodgate Way 

Civic Associations Monroe Dennis President Lakeland Civic Association 5112 Navahoe Street 

Civic Associations Ray Longwood Maryland City Civic Association P.O. Box 191 

Civic Associations Elizabeth Buxton Director Maryland Environmental Trust 100 Community Place 

Civic Associations Maryland Highway Contractors Association 2408 Peppermill Drive #F 

Civic Associations Cindy Schwartz Executive Director Maryland League of Conservation Voters 9 State Circle 

Civic Associations Scott A. Hancock Executive Director Maryland Municipal League 1212 West Street Civic Associations Kathy Bryant President Old Town Civic Association Civic Associations Tyler Gearhart Executive Director Preservation Maryland 24 W. Saratoga Street Civic Associations Fred Dorsey President Preservation of Howard County P.O. Box 6512 Civic Associations Presley Manor Civic Association P.O. Box 507 

Civic Associations Prince George's County Civic Federation 10222 Chautauqua Avenue 

Civic Associations David W. Hoskins Executive Director Save Our Streams IWLA National Office, 707 C

Civic Associations Seabrook Civic Association 9440 Worrell Avenue 

Civic Associations Steve Caflisch Transportation Chair Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter 7338 Baltimore Avenue #11

Civic Associations Terraces Civic Association 7100 Bridle Path Lane 

Civic Associations Jodi R. O'Day Vice President and Regional Counsel The Conservation Fund 401 Severn Avenue, Suite 2

Civic Associations Nat Williams State Director The Nature Conservancy 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 

Civic Associations Vanville Heights Civic Association P.O. Box 793 

Civic Associations Melissa Dastin West Laurel Civic Association 

Civic Associations Robert Crecco Westchester Civic Association 5942 Westchester Park Driv

Community and Home Owner ADorothy Pierce Manager Allen Pond Townhouses HOA, c/o Comanco, Inc. P.O. Box 3637 

Community and Home Owner ARobert Al Richardson President Amber Meadows II HOA 16407 Andrea Court Community and Home Owner ABethany Lutskus Manager Archstone at Governors Green HOA 16501 Governor's Bridge Ro

Community and Home Owner ATershia Knight Manager Ashleigh HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court 

Community and Home Owner Associations Avondale Citizens' Association, Inc. P.O. Box 5891 Community and Home Owner Associations Beacon Heights Citizens Association P.O. Box 944 

Community and Home Owner ASteve Carpenter President Belair Greens HOA 14103 Westholme Court 

Community and Home Owner AWanda McCullough Manager Belair Town HOA, c/o Potomac Valley Management Company P.O. Box 4337 Community and Home Owner AMarie Schablein President Belair Town II HOA 6906 Race Track Road 

Community and Home Owner AG. Ron Peake President Bowie Rsponsible Growth Coalition 15742 Ensleigh Lane Community and Home Owner AGerald Seidel President Bowie Station HOA 13104 Bowie Station Court 

Community and Home Owner AMorgan Gale President Calvert Hills Citizens Association 7017 Wake Forest Drive Community and Home Owner ATad Johnston President Canbury Woods HOA P.O. Box 218 Community and Home Owner Associations Cedar Ridge HOA 8602 Wandering Fox Trail Community and Home Owner ARuss Ideo President Citizens Association of South Bowie P.O. Box 1604 Community and Home Owner AIredia Hutchison President Collington Manor HOA 14504 Jones Bridge Road Community and Home Owner AAngelique Reese President Collington Ridge HOA 1134 Pewter Lane 

Community and Home Owner ASid Wise President Collington Station HOA 618 Jennings Mill Drive 

Community and Home Owner Associations Concerned Citizens of Seabrook Park Estates Civic Association 9227 Alcona Street 

Community and Home Owner ARick Bosley President Courts of Four Seasons HOA P.O. Box 565 

Community and Home Owner AHayat Nasser Manager Covington Condos HOA, c/o Simmons Management Group 8911 60th Avenue, 2nd FlooCommunity and Home Owner AJune Johnson-Jackson Manager Covington Knolls HOA, c/o American Community Management 9160 Red Branch Road, Sui

Community and Home Owner AJoann Nasser Manager Covington Manors & Towns HOA, c/o Quiza Management LLC 6915 Laurel-Bowie Road, SuCommunity and Home Owner AGinger Fitzpatrick Manager Covington Recreational Association, c/o Zalco Realty 8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 

Community and Home Owner Associations Crawfords Ridge Home Owners Association P.O. Box 468 Community and Home Owner ARuth Agnell Manager Derbyshire HOA, c/o Comanco, Inc. P.O. Box 3637 

Community and Home Owner AByron Smith President Devonshire (East Hampton) HOA 14816 Dunleigh Drive Community and Home Owner AMatthew Funk President Enfield Chase Townhouse Association 15602 Emery Court Community and Home Owner AG. Ron Peake President Ensleigh HOA 15742 Ensleigh Lane Community and Home Owner ACalvin Street President Enterprise Estates Civic Association 3606 Burleigh Drive 

Community and Home Owner AJim Fausch Manager Essington HOA, c/o Comanco, Inc. P.O. Box 3637 
Category Contact Name Title Organization 

Community and Home Owner ADeborah Blue President Evergreen Estates HOA 3817 Envision Terrace Community and Home Owner ACathy Knight Manager Evergreen Senior Community 3800 Enfield Chase Court Community and Home Owner ARichard Carlson President Fairview HOA 6200 Gabriel Street 

Community and Home Owner AStanley Greenberg Manager Fairwood HOA, c/o Tidewater Property Management 3706 Crondall Lane #105 

Community and Home Owner AHarry Wolfe President Ferndale Community Club 15 Fifth Avenue North 

Community and Home Owner Associations Forks of the Patuxent Improvement Association P.O. Box 477 

Community and Home Owner AAndrew Pruski President Four Seasons Community Association P.O. Box 92 Community and Home Owner AKaren Defazio President Glen Allen HOA 16117 Amethyst Lane 

Community and Home Owner ALillian Becker President Glenn Dale Citizens Association P.O. Box 235 Community and Home Owner Associations Glenridge Citizens Association P.O. Box 2781 

Community and Home Owner Associations Good Luck Community Center 8601 Good Luck Road Community and Home Owner ALinda Maximowicz Manager Graystone HOA, c/o Maximum Property Management 12800 9th Street 

Community and Home Owner AKelly Pierce Executive Director Greater Bowie Chamber of Commerce 6911 Laurel-Bowie Road Community and Home Owner ACarol Bateman Community Contact Greater Elkridge Community Association P.O. Box 8001 

Community and Home Owner Associations Greater Odenton Improvement Association P.O. Box 141 Community and Home Owner AEdward M. Scott President Grovehurst Homes, Inc. HOA 14309 Delcastle Drive Community and Home Owner ARoger Goll President Highbridge Civic Association 13314 Vanessa Avenue 

Community and Home Owner AJeff Gatling Manager Highbridge Park HOA, c/o The Management Group Association 20440 Century Blvd, Suite 1

Community and Home Owner APeggy First President Historic Old Bowie Merchants Association 13015 9th Street 

Community and Home Owner ACarl Whales President Huntington Crest HOA 8301 Triple Crown Road 

Community and Home Owner ABob Rapczynski President Huntington Heritage Society 8706 Maple Avenue Community and Home Owner ANatasha Barbour President Lake Village Manor HOA 2332 Mitchellville Road 

Community and Home Owner AJhanna Levin Laurel Main Street 409 Oak St, Ste 204 

Community and Home Owner ALaVerne Williams President Lewisdale Citizens Association P.O. Box 5007 

Community and Home Owner ABarbara Murphy Secretary/Treasurer Long Ridge Citizens Association 12121 Long Ridge Lane 

Community and Home Owner ALisa Kelly Manager Longleaf HOA, c/o Legum & Norman 1300 Spring Street, Suite 20Community and Home Owner ARudy Duke President Marleigh HOA 4301 Tavern Green Lane 

Community and Home Owner ALetea Williams Manager Meridian at Bowie HOA, c/o Riverstone Residential Group 3631 Elder Oaks Blvd. 

Community and Home Owner AWilliam Snyder President Mill Branch Road HOA 2404 Mill Branch Road 

Community and Home Owner AGina Morris Manager Mount Oak Manor HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner Associations North Brentwood Citizens Association P.O. Box 355 

Community and Home Owner AMark Shroder President North College Park Citizens Association 4912 Nantucket Street 

Community and Home Owner ADarren Borman President North Linthicum Improvement Association P.O. Box 258 

Community and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge Recreation Association, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, S

Community and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge/Darnell's Choice HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge/Evans Overlook, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge/Evans Ridge HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge/Hillmeade HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge/Newsteps' Choice North HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge/Newsteps' Choice South HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner AAnja Taylor Manager Northridge/Newsteps' Choice West HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner ALynda Otte President Oakpond HOA 3060 New Oak Lane 

Community and Home Owner ATerri Troutman President Oakpond HOA (Not PG) 15418 N Platte Court 

Community and Home Owner ADavid Perrotto President Old Stage HOA 4811 Briercrest Court Community and Home Owner AGina Morris Manager Old Stage Knolls South HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court, SCommunity and Home Owner AJune Johnson-Jackson Manager Palisades HOA, c/o American Community Management 9160 Red Branch Road, SuiCommunity and Home Owner AKeith Schrack President Parke West HOA P.O. Box 678 

Community and Home Owner AJohn Piper President Patuxent Riding HOA 5002 Patuxent Riding Lane 

Community and Home Owner AFrederick Tutman President Patuxent River Civic Association 18600 Queen Anne Rd. 

Community and Home Owner AJamie Reed Manager Peach Preserve Homeowners Association, c/o Quiza Management LLC 6915 Laurel-Bowie Road, SuCommunity and Home Owner Associations Manager Pin Oak Village Senior Community 16010 Excalibur Rd Community and Home Owner ADave Ciccarelli Manager Pin Oak Village Townhouse Association, c/o Loudoun Management Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 2070 

Community and Home Owner AJeff Andrade President Piney Orchard Community Association 2400 Stream Valley Drive 

Community and Home Owner AVincent Oliva Manager Princeton Square Townhouse Association, c/o Princeton Square HOA Inc. 3352 Old Washington Road Community and Home Owner ASue Smith President Quail Run Community Association P.O. Box 431 

Community and Home Owner AJacqueline Grasette President Queen Anne West NW HOA 17001 Queen Anne Road 

Community and Home Owner ADawn Wampler President Red Willow HOA P.O. Box 1047 

Community and Home Owner AKimberly Simmons President Ridge Forest HOA P.O. Box 724 Community and Home Owner ADarlene Marsh President Ridgeview Estates HOA 1236 Patriot Lane 

Community and Home Owner AJune Johnson-Jackson Manager Rolling Hills HOA, c/o American Community Management 9160 Red Branch Road, Sui

Community and Home Owner ATim Reyburn President Russett Community Association 3500 Russett Common 

Community and Home Owner AJames Gainor President Saddlebrook East HOA 7917 Orchard Park Way Community and Home Owner AMark Ibrahim President Saddlebrook West HOA 8014 River Field Court 

Community and Home Owner AHolly Groves Manager Seven Oaks Community Association 2210 Charter Oaks Blvd. 

Community and Home Owner ACathy Overmyer President Severn Crest HOA 7808 Truitt Lane 

Community and Home Owner Associations Shelter Cove Community 537 Tranquil Court Community and Home Owner ASari McLeod Manager Somerset Park, c/o Complete Management Services P.O. Box 882 

Community and Home Owner ACynthia Williams President Spring Meadows HOA 13918 Lake Meadows Drive 

Community and Home Owner ACraig B. Clinkscale President Stewart's Landing HOA 13605 Ulysses Court Community and Home Owner ACraig Poma President Summerfield HOA 3767 Eight Penny Lane 

Community and Home Owner ATershia Knight Manager Tall Oaks Crossing HOA, c/o D.H. Bader Management Services 14435 Cherry Lane Court 

Community and Home Owner AJohn Butler President Ternberry HOA 16122 Parklawn Place 

Community and Home Owner ADr. Jay Kilchenstein President The Crestwood Improvement Association P.O. Box 114 

Community and Home Owner AChris Salmi President The Provinces Community Association Community Association Man
Category Contact Name Title Organization 

Community and Home Owner Associations Village of Dorchester HOA 7551 Dorchester Road 

Community and Home Owner AJ. Brockwell President Vistas at Bowie Condominium Association 15661 Easthaven Court 

Community and Home Owner ASuchitra Balachandran President West College Park Citizens Association 

Community and Home Owner ABarry Douglas President Westview HOA 5513 Lake Ridge Terrace Community and Home Owner AMarge Taylor President Woodland Bowie Condominium Association 15610 Everglad Lane, Unit 1Community and Home Owner AHayat Nasser Manager Woodland Lake Condominium, c/o Quiza Management LLC 6915 Laurel-Bowie Road, SuCommunity and Home Owner AShirland Braxton President Woodmore Estates HOA 14700 Dolphin Way 

Community and Home Owner Associations Woodmore Highlands Citizens Association 3312 Dunwood Crossings D

Community and Home Owner ARafael A. Ocasio President Woodmore Highlands HOA 3304 Dunwood Ridge Terra

Community and Home Owner ARick Jordan Manager Woodmore North HOA, c/o Tidewater Property Management 3706 Crondall Lane #105 Community and Home Owner AMark Cook President Yarrow Citizens Association 7326 Baylor Avenue County Agencies George Cardwell Transportation Planning Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning 44 Calvert Street County Agencies Larry R. Tom Planning and Zoning Officer Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning 2664 Riva Road 

County Agencies Harvey Gold Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning 2664 Riva Road 

County Agencies Robert Hannon President/CEO Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation 2660 Riva Road, Suite 300 County Agencies Baltimore County Department of Economic Development 400 Washington Avenue, M

County Agencies Dennis Wertz Baltimore County Office of Planning Courts Building, Mailstop 34

County Agencies Andrea Van Arsdale Baltimore County Office of Planning Courts Building, Mailstop 34County Agencies Jeff Mayhew Acting Director Baltimore County Office of Planning 105 W. Chesapeake AvenueCounty Agencies Brian Muldoon Planning Specialist Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning 3430 Courthouse Drive County Agencies Marsha McLaughlin Director Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning 3430 Courthouse Drive County Agencies Laura A. Neuman Chief Executive Officer Howard County Economic Development Authority 6751 Columbia Gateway DrCounty Agencies Elizabeth McKinney District Engineer Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation 9400 Peppercorn Place, SuiCounty Agencies Dawit Abraham, P.E. Associate Director Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation 9400 Peppercorn Place, SuiCounty Agencies Gwen S. McCall Interim President/CEO Prince George's County Economic Development Corporation 1100 Mercantile Lane County Agencies Fern Piret Planning Director Prince George's County Planning Department 14741 Governor Oden BowiCounty Agencies Victor Weissberg 9400 Peppercorn Pl Elected Official Brenda Reiber Director of Community Services Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official Chris Trumbauer Council Member, District 6 Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official Daryl Jones Council Member, District 1 Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official David Abrams Director of Communications, Public InformAnne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official Derek Fink Vice Chair, District 3 Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official Dick Ladd Chair, District 5 Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official G. James Benoit Council Member, District 4 Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official Jerry Walker Council Member, District 7 Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official JoAnne Gray Assistant Administrative Officer Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official John J. Grasso Council Member, District 2 Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official John R. Leopold County Executive Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street Elected Official Judy C. Holmes Administrative Officer Anne Arundel County 44 Calvert Street, 1st Floor Elected Official Deborah Patchak Administrator Baltimore County 400 Washington Avenue Elected Official Kevin Kamenetz County Executive Baltimore County Historic Courthouse, 400 WaElected Official Tom Quirk Council Member, District 1 Baltimore County 754 Frederick Road Elected Official Bernard C. Young City Council President City of Baltimore City Hall, 100 N. Holiday StrElected Official Edward Reisinger Council Vice President/District 10 City of Baltimore City Hall, 100 N. Holiday StrElected Official James B. Kraft Council Member, District 1 City of Baltimore City Hall, 100 N. Holiday StrElected Official Stephanie Rawlings-Blake Mayor City of Baltimore City Hall, 100 N. Holiday Str

Elected Official David J. Deutsch City Manager City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road 

Elected Official Dennis Brady At-Large Council Member City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official Diane Polangin District 2 Council Member City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official G. Frederick Robinson Mayor City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official Henri Gardner At-Large Council Member City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official Issac Trouth District 4 Council Member City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official James Marcos Mayor Pro Tem and District 1 CouncilmemCity of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official John Fitzwater Assistant City Manager City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official Todd Turner District 3 Council Member City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Elected Official Andrew M. Fellows Mayor City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Chantal Cotton Assistant to the City Manager City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Christine Nagle Council Member, District 1 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Denise Mitchell Council Member, District 4 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official John E. Perry Council Member, District 2 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Joseph L. Nargo City Manager City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Marcus Afzali Council Member, District 4 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Mark Cook Council Member, District 3 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Patrick L. Wojahn Council Member, District 1 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Robert T. Catlin Council Member, District 2 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official Stephanie E. Stullich Council Member, District 3 City of College Park 4500 Knox Road Elected Official David Moran City Manager City of Greenbelt 25 Crescent Road Elected Official Edward VJ Putens Council Member City of Greenbelt 25 Crescent Road Elected Official Emmett V. Jordan Mayor Pro Tem City of Greenbelt 25 Crescent Road Elected Official Judith F. Davis Mayor City of Greenbelt 7728 Hanover Pkwy, #302 Elected Official Konrad Herling Council Member City of Greenbelt 25 Crescent Road Elected Official Leta Mach Council Member City of Greenbelt 25 Crescent Road Elected Official Michael McLaughlin City Manager City of Greenbelt 25 Crescent Road Elected Official Rodney M. Roberts Council Member City of Greenbelt 38-M Ridge Rd Elected Official Silke Pope Council Member City of Greenbelt 25 Crescent Road Elected Official Jaime Fearer Community Planner City of Greenbelt Elected Official Carlos Lizanne Council Member, Ward 4 City of Hyattsville 5820 Maryhurst Drive Elected Official David Hiles Council Member, Ward 2 City of Hyattsville 4105 Gallatin Street Elected Official Douglas S. Dudrow Council Member, Ward 1 City of Hyattsville 4202 Kennedy Street Elected Official Gregory E. Rose City Administrator City of Hyattsville 4310 Gallatin Street 
Category Contact Name Title Organization 

Elected Official Marc Tartaro President, Ward 1 City of Hyattsville 4911 40th Place Elected Official Matthew D. McKnight Council Member, Ward 3 City of Hyattsville 4013 Oglethorpe Street Elected Official Nicole Hinds Mofor Council Member, Ward 5 City of Hyattsville 5015 36th Avenue Elected Official Paula J. Perry Council Member, Ward 4 City of Hyattsville 5704 30th Avenue Elected Official Ruth Ann Frazier Council Member, Ward 5 City of Hyattsville 5013 37th Avenue Elected Official Timothy P. Hunt Council Member, Ward 3 City of Hyattsville 3407 Pennsylvania Avenue Elected Official Vincent Jones Assistant City Administrator City of Hyattsville 4310 Gallatin Street 

Elected Official Marc Tartaro Mayor City of Hyattsville 4310 Gallatin Street Elected Official William F. Tierney II Vice President, Ward 2 City of Hyattsville 5215 42nd Place Elected Official Craig A. Moe Mayor City of Laurel 8103 Sandy Spring Road 

Elected Official Donna L. Crary Ward 2 Council Member City of Laurel 8103 Sandy Spring Road Elected Official Frederick Smalls Ward 2 Council Member City of Laurel 8103 Sandy Spring Road Elected Official Gayle W. Snyder Ward 1 Council Member City of Laurel 8103 Sandy Spring Road Elected Official Janis L. Robison Ward 1 Council Member City of Laurel 8103 Sandy Spring Road Elected Official Kristie Mills City Administrator City of Laurel 8103 Sandy Spring Road Elected Official Michael R. Leszcz Council President, At-Large Member City of Laurel 8103 Sandy Spring Road Elected Official Andrew C. Hanko Mayor City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden ParkwElected Official Duane H. Rosenburg Council Member City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden ParkwElected Official Graham Waters Assistant City Administrative Officer City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden ParkwElected Official J. Michael Downes City Administrative Officer City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden ParkwElected Official James A. Wildoner Council Member City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden ParkwElected Official June D. Garrett Council Member City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden ParkwElected Official Katrina R. Dodro Council Member City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden ParkwElected Official Richard Bechtold Council Member City of New Carrollton 6016 Princess Garden Parkw

Elected Official Aileen D. McChesney Commission Chair/ Ward 1 Cottage City 3820 40th Avenue 

Elected Official Gary Styles Commissioner Ward 3 Cottage City 3820 40th Avenue Elected Official Patricia Gross Commissioner Ward 4 Cottage City 3820 40th Avenue Elected Official Richard Cote Commissioner At-Large Cottage City 3820 40th Avenue Elected Official William H. Hall, Sr. Commissioner Ward 2 Cottage City 3820 40th Avenue Elected Official Matt Dernoga Council Member Mary Lehman's Office 

Elected Official Calvin Ball Council Chair, District 2 Howard County 3430 Courthouse Drive Elected Official Courtney Watson Council Member, District 1 Howard County 3430 Courthouse Drive Elected Official Jen Terrasa Council Vice Chair, District 3 Howard County 3430 Courthouse Drive Elected Official Ken Ulman County Executive Howard County 3430 Courthouse Drive 

Elected Official Kevin Enright Director, Office of Public Information Howard County Carroll Building, 3450 Court 

Elected Official Raymond S. Wacks Administrator Howard County 3430 Courthouse Drive Elected Official Anne Healey Delegate - District 22 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Anthony J. O'Donnell Minority Leader Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Barbara A. Frush Delegate - District 21 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Benjamin S. Barnes Delegate - District 21 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Cathleen M. Vitale Delegate - District 33A Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Doyle L. Niemann Delegate - District 47 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Frank S. Turner Delegate - District 13 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Geraldine Valentino-Smith Delegate - District 23A Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Guy J. Guzzone Delegate - District 13 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official James E. Malone, Jr. Delegate - District 12A Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official James W. Hubbard Delegate - District 23A Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Jolene Ivey Delegate - District 47 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk Delegate - District 21 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Justin D. Ross Delegate - District 22 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Kumar P. Barve Majority Leader Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Mary Ann Love Delegate - District 32 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Michael E. Busch House Speaker, District 30 Maryland House of Delegates State House, H-101 Elected Official Michael G. Summers Delegate - District 47 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Pamela G. Beidle Delegate - District 32 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Shane E. Pendergrass Delegate - District 13 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Steven J. Deboy, Sr. Delegate - District 12A Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Tawanna P. Gaines Delegate - District 22 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Theodore J. Sophocleus Delegate - District 32 Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official Tony McConkey Delegate - District 33A Maryland House of Delegates House Office Building, 6 BlaElected Official James E. DeGrange, Sr. Senator - District 32 Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official Douglas J. J. Peters Senator - District 23 Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official Edward J. Kasemeyer Senator - District 12 Maryland State Senate Miller Senate Office BuildingElected Official Edward R. Reilly Senator - District 33 Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official James C. Rosapepe Senator - District 21 Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official James N. Robey Senator - District 13 Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official Nancy Jacobs Minority Leader Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official Paul G. Pinsky Senator - District 22 Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official Robert J. Garagiola Majority Leader Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. Senate President Maryland State Senate State House, H-107 Elected Official Victor R. Ramirez Senator - District 47 Maryland State Senate James Senate Office BuildinElected Official Bill Updike Council Member Ward 1 Mount Rainier City of Mount Rainier City HElected Official Bryan Knedler Council Member Ward 2 Mount Rainier City of Mount Rainier City HElected Official Ivy Thompson Council Member Ward 2 Mount Rainier City of Mount Rainier City HElected Official Jimmy Tarlau Council Member Ward 1 Mount Rainier City of Mount Rainier City HElected Official Malinda Miles Mayor Mount Rainier City of Mount Rainier City HElected Official Andrea Harrison Council Member, District 5 Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden BowiElected Official Eric Olson Council Vice Chair, District 3 Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden BowiElected Official Ingrid M. Turner, Esquire Council Chair, District 4 Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden BowiElected Official Leslie E. Johnson Council Member, District 6 Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden BowiElected Official Mark E. Brady Public Relations Manager and Chief SpokPrince George's County 9201 Basil Court, Suite 452 Elected Official Mary A. Lehman Council Member, District 1 Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden Bowi
Category Contact Name Title Organization 

Elected Official Robert J. Williams Jr. Administrator Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden Bowi

Elected Official Rushern L. Baker, III County Executive Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden Bowi

Elected Official Will Campos Council Member, District 2 Prince George's County 14741 Governor Oden BowiElected Official Anthony G. Brown Lieutenant Governor State of Maryland 100 State Circle 

Elected Official Martin O'Malley Governor State of Maryland 100 State Circle Elected Official Bruce Williams Mayor Takoma Park 326 Lincoln Avenue 

Elected Official Colleen Clay Council Member Ward 2 Takoma Park 7500 Maple Avenue Elected Official Dan Robinson Council Member Ward 3 Takoma Park 7500 Maple Avenue Elected Official Fred Schultz Council Member Ward 6 Takoma Park 7500 Maple Avenue Elected Official Josh Wright Council Member Ward 1 Takoma Park 7500 Maple Avenue Elected Official Reuben Snipper Council Member Ward 5 Takoma Park 7500 Maple Avenue Elected Official Terry Seamens Council Member Ward 4 Takoma Park 7500 Maple Avenue Elected Official Cheye Calvo Mayor Town of Berwyn Heights 5700 Berwyn Road Elected Official Edward J. Murphy Town Administrator Town of Berwyn Heights 5700 Berwyn Road Elected Official James Wilkinson Mayor Pro Tem Town of Berwyn Heights 5700 Berwyn Road Elected Official Jodie Kulpa-Eddie Council Member Town of Berwyn Heights 6220 Ruatan Street Elected Official Patricia Dennison Council Member Town of Berwyn Heights 5700 Berwyn Road Elected Official Richard Ahrens Council Member Town of Berwyn Heights 5700 Berwyn Road Elected Official Charlina Watson Council Member, Ward I Town of Bladensburg 4229 Edmonston Road Elected Official Cris Mendoza Council Member, Ward I Town of Bladensburg 4229 Edmonston Road Elected Official John E. Moss Town Administrator Town of Bladensburg 4229 Edmonston Road Elected Official Walter Ficklin Council Member, Ward II Town of Bladensburg 4229 Edmonston Road Elected Official Walter George Council Member, Ward II Town of Bladensburg 4229 Edmonston Road Elected Official Walter Lee James, Jr. Mayor Town of Bladensburg 4229 Edmonston Road Elected Official Aneeka Harrison Council Member Town of Brentwood 4300 39th Place Elected Official Jeff Clark Vice Mayor Town of Brentwood 4300 39th Place Elected Official Marlene Robinson Council Member Town of Brentwood 4300 39th Place Elected Official Nina Young Council Member Town of Brentwood 4300 39th Place Elected Official Peter Jones Town Administrator Town of Brentwood 4300 39th Place Elected Official Xavier Montgomery-Wright Mayor Town of Brentwood 4300 39th Place Elected Official David Warrington Town Administrator Town of Cheverly 6401 Forest Road Elected Official Emily Tevault Council Member Ward 6 Town of Cheverly 6401 Forest Road Elected Official Laila Riazi Council Member Ward 1 Town of Cheverly 3406 Belleview Avenue Elected Official Leon Schachter Council Member Ward 4 Town of Cheverly 6401 Forest Road Elected Official Micah Watson Council Member Ward 2 Town of Cheverly 6401 Forest Road Elected Official Michael Callahan Mayor Town of Cheverly 6401 Forest Road Elected Official Roswell RJ Eldridge Council Member Ward 3 Town of Cheverly 6401 Forest Road Elected Official Council Member Ward 5 Town of Cheverly 6401 Forest Road Elected Official Sara Imhulse Town Administrator Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road 

Elected Official Alan Thompson Council Member, Ward 2 Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road 

Elected Official Alice Ewen Council Member, Ward 1 Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road Elected Official Chris Henry Council Member, Ward 4 Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road Elected Official David Lingua Council Member, Ward 3 Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road Elected Official Keelah Allen-Smith Council Member, Ward 6 Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road Elected Official Raymond Rivas Council Member, Ward 5 Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road Elected Official Vernon Archer Mayor Town of Riverdale Park 5008 Queensbury Road Elected Official C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger Representative - District 2 United States House of Representatives 2453 Rayburn House Office 

Elected Official Chris Van Hollen Representative - District 8 United States House of Representatives 1707 Longworth House OfficElected Official Donna F. Edwards Representative - District 4 United States House of Representatives 318 Cannon House Office BElected Official Elijah Cummings Representative - District 7 United States House of Representatives 2235 Rayburn House Office Elected Official John P. Sarbanes Representative - District 3 United States House of Representatives 2444 Rayburn House Office Elected Official Steny H. Hoyer Representative - District 5 United States House of Representatives 1705 Longworth House OfficElected Official Deborah J. Haynie Director of Special Projects - District 2 United States House of Representatives, Office of Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger 2453 Rayburn House Office 

Elected Official Barbara Mikulski Senator United States Senate 509 Hart Senate Office Build

Elected Official Benjamin Cardin Senator United States Senate 509 Hart Senate Office BuildFederal Agencies Joseph Spence Area Director Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, US Department of Agriculture 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Rm

Federal Agencies Sandra Jackson District of Columbia Federal-Aid Division Federal Highway Administration 1990 Street NW, Suite 510 Federal Agencies Anna Price Team Leader Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division 300 South New Street, Suite Federal Agencies Jeanette Mar Environmental Program Manager Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division City Crescent Building, 10 SFederal Agencies Hassan Raza Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland (DelMar) Federal-Aid Division City Crescent Building, 10 SFederal Agencies Christopher Lawson Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, District of Columbia Federal-Aid Division 1990 K Street, NW, Suite 51Federal Agencies Alazar Feleke Highway Design Manager Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Federal Agencies Jack Van Dop Senior Technical Specialist Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Federal Agencies Lewis G. Grimm, P.E. Planning Team Leader Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle Federal Agencies COL Daniel L. Thomas Installation Commander Fort George G. Meade, US Army 4409 Llewellyn Avenue Federal Agencies Rob Strain Director Goddard Space Flight Center, National Air and Space Administration 8800 Greenbelt Road 

Federal Agencies Teresa Spagnuolo Chief of Facilities Management National Air and Space Administration 8800 Greenbelt Rd. 

Federal Agencies Marcel C. Acosta Executive Director National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, North LFederal Agencies Dan Sealy Deputy Chief, Natural Resource & Scienc National Park Service 4598 MacArthur Blvd NW Federal Agencies David Hayes National Park Service Federal Agencies Doug Jacobs National Park Service Federal Agencies Eric Harris National Park Service Federal Agencies James Hemsley National Park Service Federal Agencies Jim Rosenstock National Park Service Federal Agencies Joel Gorder National Park Service Federal Agencies Stephen Syphax National Park Service Federal Agencies Tammy Stidham National Park Service 
Category Contact Name Title Organization 

Federal Agencies Fred Cunningham Park Manager National Park Service - Greenbelt Park - National Capital Parks - East 6565 Greenbelt Road Federal Agencies Alex Romero Superintendent National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Federal Agencies Eola Dance Cultural Resources Specialist National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Federal Agencies Frank Young Chief of Maintenance National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Federal Agencies Ophelia Grier Acting Deputy Superintendent National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Federal Agencies Robert Mocko NEPA Specialist National Park Service - National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive, SE Federal Agencies Charles Borders Branch Chief National Park Service - National Capital Region 1100 Ohio Drive, SW Federal Agencies Maureen Joseph Regional historic landscape architect National Park Service - National Capital Region Federal Agencies Perry Wheelock Chief of Cultural Resources National Park Service - National Capital Region National Park Service, 1100 Federal Agencies Woody Smeck Acting Regional Director National Park Service - National Capital Region National Park Service, 1100 

Federal Agencies Lt. Warren Boyer Lieutenant National Park Service - US Park Police 1100 Ohio Drive, SW 

Federal Agencies Tom Diethrich Sergeant National Park Service - US Park Police Federal Agencies Richard Pope Captain National Park Service - US Park Police 1100 Ohio Drive Federal Agencies Catherine Hill Director of State and Local Governments National Security Agency 9800 Savage Road Federal Agencies GEN Keith B. Alexander Director National Security Agency 9800 Savage Road Federal Agencies Brad Knudsen Refuge Manager Patuxent Research Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Visitor CenFederal Agencies John Porcari Deputy Secretary of Transportation United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SGeneral Public Harry Sinclair, Jr. Realtor Execuhome Realty 7700 Buckingham General Public Jonathan Taylor Greenbelt News Review General Public Jennifer Riggs United States House of Representatives, Office of Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger 375 W. Padonia Rd. General Public Bill Orleans PO Box 292 

General Public Jodie Kulpa-Eddie 6220 Ruatan Street 

General Public Don Rau 8249 Riviera Drive 

General Public Tyson Byrne 2907 Country Lane General Public David Alan Tibbetts 209 Edge Creek Lane General Public David Thorpe 9 Cheverly Circle General Public Harry Sinclair, Jr.General Public Ellen Stodola 8204 Baltimore Avenue General Public R.J. Eldridge 6401 Forest Road General Public Sheila Salo 5607 Greenleaf Road General Public Matt Birchenoya 4231 Guilford Drive, Apt A 

General Public Jean Friedberg 

General Public Christian Obineme 10300 Baltimore Avenue General Public Jim Titus General Public David Rodgers 700 N. Calvert St 

General Public Delores Garrett 6605 Oliver St General Public Ginny Mudrock 107 Plateau Pl 

General Public Terry Benedik 7826 Hanover Pkwy #101 

General Public David Prevar 419 Holly Drive 

General Public Hal Kussell 8786 Endess Ocean Way General Public Patrick Gallaher 6404 45th Pl General Public Darlene Squibb 1 Grenhaus Pl General Public Mara Hemminger 33N Ridge Rd General Public Mary Zimmerman 3302 Tarnton Dr General Public Brian T. Abbong 9133 Edmonston Tr #304 General Public Nicole Dewald 3013 Glenmore Ave General Public John Palmer 5818 26th Ave General Public Celia Craze 15 Crescent Rd Ste 200 General Public Norman Livsey P.O. Box 332 General Public Damien Ossi 14 Hillside Unit L General Public Debbie McKinley 55H Ridge Rd General Public Aaron Fate 13005 Collingwood Terrace 

Project Team Angela Jones KCI 

Project Team Glenda Larson KCI Project Team Jeffrey Lawrence KCI Project Team Ken Briggs KCI Project Team Steve Drumm KCI Project Team Tiffany Winters KCI Project Team Eduardo Maeyama PB Project Team Greer Gillis PB Project Team Jennifer Weeks PB Project Team Jerry Jannetti PB Project Team Mark Cheskey PB Project Team Marsha Kaiser PB Project Team Tim Ramey PB Project Team Todd Peterson PB State and Washington, DC AgeDrew Galloway AVP - Policy & Development - Eastern ReAmtrak 2955 Market Street State and Washington, DC AgeJohn C. Bennett AVP - Policy Management Amtrak 60 Massachusetts Avenue, State and Washington, DC AgeAmrita Hill Policy & Development - Eastern Region Amtrak State and Washington, DC AgeTodd Lang Transportation Director Baltimore Metropolitan Council's (BMC) 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite State and Washington, DC AgeRegina Aris Deputy Director Transportation Planning Baltimore Metropolitan Council's (BMC) Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite State and Washington, DC AgeCharles Baber Baltimore Metropolitan Council's Baltimore Regional Transportation Board 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 
Category Contact Name Title Organization 

State and Washington, DC AgeLinda Greene Executive Director BWI Business Partnership 1302 Concourse Dr, Suite 1State and Washington, DC AgeMaurice Keys Chief of Strategic Planning District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M St, SE, Suite 400 State and Washington, DC AgeRonaldo Nicholson Chief Engineer District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M St, SE, Suite 400 State and Washington, DC AgeChris Delfs District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M St, SE, Suite 400 State and Washington, DC AgeKarina Ricks District of Columbia Department of Transportation State and Washington, DC AgeMark Rawlings District of Columbia Department of Transportation State and Washington, DC AgeTerry Bellamy Interim Director District of Columbia Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 State and Washington, DC AgeAlex Ollerman Manager, Division of Airport Landside PlaMaryland Aviation Administration 7062 Elm Rd, PO Box 8766State and Washington, DC AgePaul J. Wiedefeld Executive Director Maryland Aviation Administration / Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport P.O. Box 8766, Third Floor TState and Washington, DC AgeChristine Conn, PhD Maryland Department of Natural Resources - Office for a Sustainable Future State and Washington, DC AgeKeith Bounds Regional Planner Maryland Department of Transportation - Office of Planning and Capital Programming 7201 Corporate Center DriveState and Washington, DC AgeLyn Erickson Maryland Department of Transportation - Office of Planning and Capital Programming State and Washington, DC AgeMike Nixon Manager Maryland Department of Transportation - Office of Planning and Capital Programming 7201 Corporate Center DrivState and Washington, DC AgeDerek Gunn Planner Maryland State Highway Administration 707 North Calvert Street State and Washington, DC AgeLindsay Bobian Project Manager Maryland State Highway Administration 707 North Calvert Street State and Washington, DC AgeDoug Simmons Deputy Administrator/Chief Engineer Maryland State Highway Administration State and Washington, DC AgeGreg Slater Office of Planning and Preliminary EngineMaryland State Highway Administration State and Washington, DC AgeMoreshwar B. Kulkarni Design Engineer Maryland State Highway Administration 707 North Calvert Street State and Washington, DC AgeNeil J. Pedersen Administrator Maryland State Highway Administration Office of the Administrator, 7State and Washington, DC AgeRoy Gothie Assistant Regional Planner Maryland State Highway Administration 707 North Calvert Street State and Washington, DC AgeBradley M. Smith, AICP Project Manager - Office of Freight and MMaryland State Highway Administration 7201 Corporate Center DrivState and Washington, DC AgeKameel Hall Maryland State Highway Administration State and Washington, DC AgeFelecia Murphy Assistant District Engineer - Traffic (PrinceMaryland State Highway Administration - District 3 Office 9300 Kenilworth Ave. State and Washington, DC AgeEric G. Tombs Transportation Engineer Maryland State Highway Administration - District 4 320 West Warren Road State and Washington, DC AgeJerry Smith Regional Planner Maryland State Highway Administration - Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering 707 North Calvert Street State and Washington, DC AgeVaughn Lewis Regional Planner Maryland State Highway Administration - Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering 707 North Calvert Street State and Washington, DC AgeKirk McClelland Maryland State Highway Administration - Planning and Highway Development Office State and Washington, DC AgeLisa Shemer Maryland State Highway Administration - Travel Forecasting & Analysis Division, Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering State and Washington, DC AgeSubrat Mahapatra Maryland State Highway Administration - Travel Forecasting & Analysis Division, Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering State and Washington, DC AgeDiane Ratcliff Maryland Transit Administration State and Washington, DC AgeMike Madden Maryland Transit Administration State and Washington, DC AgeRalign T. Wells Administrator Maryland Transit Administration 6 St. Paul Street State and Washington, DC AgeSteve Hawtof Purple Line Representative Maryland Transit Administration State and Washington, DC AgeGerald Cichy Executive Assistant to the Director Maryland Transit Administration Transportation Planning 6 Saint Paul Street State and Washington, DC AgeDan Hardy Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) State and Washington, DC AgeEric Foster Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) State and Washington, DC AgePatricia Colihan Barney Executive Director Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) 6611 Kenilworth Avenue 

State and Washington, DC AgeTom Masog Transportation Planner Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) - Prince George's Planning 14741 Governor Oden Bowi

State and Washington, DC AgeKierre McCune Planner Coordinator Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) - Prince George's Planning 14741 Governor Oden BowiState and Washington, DC AgeChad Williams Maryland-National Capitla Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) 14422 Old Mill Rd State and Washington, DC AgeDusan Vuksan Transportation Planning Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) 777 North Capital Street, NEState and Washington, DC AgeDavid Robertson Executive Director Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) 777 North Capital Street, NEState and Washington, DC AgeElena Constantine Department of Transportation Planning Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) - Transportation Planning Board (TPB) 777 North Capital Street, NEState and Washington, DC AgeMichael Weil Urban Planner National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th St, NW, Suite 500 State and Washington, DC AgeJulia Koster National Capital Planning Commission State and Washington, DC AgeNat Bottigheimer Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) State and Washington, DC AgeRichard Sarles General Manager/CEO Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) 600 5th Street, NW 




Comments from Public Meeting Activity: 

General Comments:

- Include any incorporated municipality in TAC

- Include businesses (private sector) in outreach efforts and stakeholders. 

- Include City of Laurel and Sierra Club (other environmental groups) in outreach efforts. 

1. What do you like most about the B-W Parkway? 

- Trees.

- Who it is named for.

- That it is a Parkway. Considered an “endangered species”. Last of its kind.

- Natural Environment.

- Nice Gateway – Impressive .

- No Trucks/limited noise. 

- Inner suburb access.

- Historic significance.

- Local Road.

- Nice alternative to I-95 and US 50.

- Access to BWI.

- Downtown access to both Baltimore and Washington, DC.

- Park setting.

- No trucks. 

- Scenic. 

- Takes you to work. 

- Two-lanes each. 

- Limited access. 

- Stone work. 

- Median greenery. 

- Easy access to DC. 

- Beltway to beltway. 

- Good connectivity. 

- Safety. 

- Less volume. 

- Not overly lit. 

2. What do you like least about the B-W Parkway?

- Divides Greenbelt 

- Divides Cheverly

- Congestion

- No pedestrian connections in Cheverly

- No bike paths along the Parkway. 
- No animal underpasses. 

- NPS has fewer funds to maintain versus SHA.

- Environmental degradation of the surrounding area (water, air). 

- Lack of pervious surface/pavement. 

- Trucks north of MD 175. 

- Too many cars. 

- Traffic back-up (recent). 

- Misbehaving motorcyclists. 

- Merging at US 50 and I-495. 

- Limited pull-off shoulders. 

- Pavement is in bad shape. 

- Not enough mass transit. 

- North of MD 175. 

- Consideration of widening. 

- Dark – lack of lighting. 

- No rest area. 

3. Is there anything about the B-W Parkway that you would like to change? 

- More funds for NPS to maintain. 

- Connectivity. 

- Bike paths. 

- Animal underpasses. 

- Pervious pavement. 

- Ability to handle more capacity while maintaining park-like setting. 

o Perhaps park pull-offs. 

- Modern stormwater facilities. 

- Restore trees that have been removed from the SHA maintained portion. 

- Fix congestion between Laurel and Greenbelt – Existing bottleneck. 

- Interchanges at US 50 and I-495. 

- Improve pavement. 

- Change shoulder width. 

- Bike trails. 

- Improve maintenance. 

- Consider fixing guideways with connections. 

- Encourage increased occupancy per vehicle. 

- Create park and ride along corridor. 

- Managed lanes. 

- Pick up the trash. 

4. Is there anything about the B-W Parkway that you would not like to change?

- Parkway experience. 

- Retail park character. 
- Fix the northern portion maintained by SHA to add park-like elements. 

- Do not increase capacity. 

- Keep to two lanes – do not widen. 

- Keep trees. 

- Keep same traffic flow rate. 

- Two lanes each way. 

- Park-like setting. 

- Trees. 

- Grass medians. 

- Maintain access points. 

- Maintain buffers. 

- Keep it unlit. 

- Wildlife corridors. 

5. What concerns do you have about the feasibility of widening the BW Parkway?

- If the B-W Parkway is widened, it would encourage sprawl. 

- If constructed, resources/funds will not be available for transit. 

- Impacts to trees/environment. 

- If you build it, they will come. More cars on the road. 

- Increase noise and pollution. 

- Public transportation is a better alternative. 

- Widen to the inside versus the outside as outside widening has the potential to impact homes 

and more trees.

- Have a B-W Parkway area Master Plan and committee to include all developments (transit, 

highways, and buildings) proposed for the area. Look at alternatives for larger area which would 

include multimodal transportation. 

- Cumulative transportation and environmental impacts of all projects. 

- Preserve our parkway. 

- The impact on historic status and how to preserve historic status. 

- First step towards actual widening. (Camel’s noise under the tent)

- Environmental factors not considered. 

- Cost. 

- New widening consumed SOV’s. 

- Widening can’t keep up with demand. 

- Insufficient scope, time, and money to do through feasibility study. 

- Not considering all options including transit and HOV. 

- Feasibility study is not in-line with funding timeline. 

- Open up lands for development. 

- Impact on surrounding communities (runoff, noise, air quality, further bifurcating communities) 
6. What, if anything, do you think would improve the BW Parkway?

- Public transit opportunities. 

- Parallel bike lanes/paths. 

- Flex-time for area facilities. 

- Update stormwater facilities. 

- More pedestrian overpasses. 

- NPS emergency management equipment (tow trucks). 

- Pick up litter. 

- Improving US 50, I-495 and MD 410

- Nothing. 

- Fixed guideway east and west of parkway. 

- Maintenance. 

- Emergency shoulders. 

- Make 295 look like a parkway. 

- Widening to the inside. 

- Add more vegetation. 

- Fewer cars. 

- Lower speeds. 

- Turn it into a toll road like the ICC. 

- Address stormwater management. 

- Vegetation maintenance: invasive species. 

- Management of parkland adjacent communities. 

- Improve safety by creating rest area(s). 

- Partnership with communities along corridor. 

- Pavement improvements. 

- Funding for maintenance. 

- Improve hospital access. 

7. Using the map and tissue paper, indicate where you think it may be relatively easy to add an 

additional North and/or South bound lane on the BW Parkway, and explain why.

(Green on tissue paper: Easy or beneficial to widen roadway. Locations listed below)

- Parkway should not be widened. 

- Most of the Parkway is easy to widen due to plenty of right-of-way. 

- At US 50 in MD – Add a third lane. 

- On US 50 – Widen to eliminate a choke point. 

- At MD 410/Riverdale Road: Improvements at the interchange including longer access lanes. 

- At I-495: Better merge and exit lanes. 

- At MD 197: More highway width and improve traffic flow at the interchange, mainly in the 

southbound direction. 

8. Using the map and tissue paper, indicate where you think it may be more difficult to add an 

additional North and/or South bound lane on the BW Parkway, and explain why.

(Blue on tissue paper: Sensitive Areas, Red on tissue paper: Not easy to widen. Locations listed 

below)
Blue:

- Near MD 198 there are wetlands. 

- There is a Nature center near MD 202. 

- US 50 environmental issues. 

- Quincy Run water near MD 202.

- Anacostia watershed. 

- Greenbelt Park. 

- All tree areas.

Red:

- Baseball park at MD 210 – Greenbrier and Spellman

- Forest preserve at Greenbelt across from NASA. 

- Scenic easement with a forest preserve further splitting Cheverly. 

- Widening will increase want for noise barriers which will further disrupt animals and park 

atmosphere. 

- Environmental degradation. 
Comments and Questions from Public Meeting #1

July 20, 2011

For Project File / Record

• Concern expressed about additional impervious surfaces being introduced into the corridor and the 

effects on the environment, stormwater management.

• Would like to see ICC extended to the BW Parkway.

• Would like to see consideration of transit system expansion, in particular the proposed extension of 

the Metrorail Green Line to Fort Meade or the Airport.

• Need complementary comprehensive transit system of services and facilities, not just additional 

lanes on the Parkway.

Q and A during presentation

Q: How would the NPS parkway designation limit or otherwise affect the feasibility of a Parkway 

widening?

A: Marsha Kaiser (MK) Parkways have different design standards and other criteria from traditional 

freeways. Example cited was that no trucks are permitted on the Parkway.

A: Frank Young (FY) If lanes are added to the Parkway, it is no longer a Parkway. It is then a traditional 

freeway or highway.

A: Lewis Grimm (LG) – Each NPS facility, including Parkways, is designated by a distinct act of Congress 

that defines the basic purpose of the facility and its function. 

Q: How is this project identifying and reaching out to stakeholders? 

A: (MK) Interviews are being conducted, we have a TAC. 

Q: Is Fort Meade a stakeholder?

A: (MK) Yes.

Q: Is the Town of Cheverly on the Stakeholder list?

A: (MK) No. It is not scheduled for an interview but is included on the study’s mailing list.

Comment: The Mayor has expressed interest in being on that list.

Q: Are MPOs on the list of Stakeholders? They aren’t listed on the slide.

A: (MK) Yes. They are being interviewed, are on the TAC, and their representative governments such as 

Prince George’s County are participating through the TAC.

Q: Why aren’t there more municipalities on the list of stakeholders? Why is this meeting held so far 

away from Prince George’s County?

A: (MK) We will likely rotate locations of the three public meetings to maximize the accessibility for 

different parts of the corridor. Each meeting location will be a burden for some portion of the corridor. 

Q/Comment – Concern expressed about the environmental implications of a widening and whether this 

study will be looking at those sufficiently. 

A: (LG) – FHWA and NPS debated the appropriate level of detail for the narrowly scoped study 

definition. 
Q: How far is the study team going to look for examples of best practices and experiences around the 

country to help inform this study?

A: (LG) We are keeping the focus of this study narrow for now. It is true that there is a lot to be learned 

from examples around the country, but that kind of research is beyond the scope of our current study.

Q: What happens to this study at the end? What is the product?

A: Submit a draft report to Congress by January 2012 with the final report submitted in Marsh 2012.

Q: What would happen if this study became an actual project?

A: (DH) Right now this isn’t a project. It is only a study. The results of the study will inform what 

happens next. If we find it is too costly to widen the BW Parkway as defined, we won’t do it. 

Q: (Audience) – Wouldn’t the next logical step be a NEPA study that examines the full range of needs 

and potential solutions?

A: Yes.




Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Public Meeting #2 Group Comments

11/17/2011

1. General Comments and Questions

• Prince George’s Hospital bypass (reduce travel length for emergency vehicles trying to

cross the Baltimore-Washington Parkway).

• Need to look at wildlife crossings if study moves forward.

• Are mitigation costs going to be considered?

• Will bridges be replaced in kind (historic look)?

• Are the MDE regulations/ ESD flexible?

• Will a sensitivity analysis be performed on the assumptions?

• For options where the median becomes small, has safety been considered?

• Where BRAC populations are moving have transit/shuttle services been considered?

• Bike path to Fort Meade.

• Do SHA/AASHTO standards include lighting?

• Will the draft Feasibility Study be available for Public comments?

2. Do you think adding a general purpose lane (meaning same restrictions as today apply) to the 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a good idea, and why?

NPS Parkway Standard Inside Widening

• No, use I-95.

• No, adding additional lanes does not reduce congestion (find an alternative to adding 

lanes).

• No, adding lanes won’t make a difference.

• No, because too many bridges will be impacted.

• A “weak” maybe, not sure if extra lane will solve anything.

• No, adding extra lane does not provide improvement in the long-term.

NPS Parkway Standard Outside Widening

• No.

• Yes.

• Yes, with caveats.
• Yes, while providing more space for access (acceleration and deceleration lanes).

AASHTO/SHA Standard Inside Widening

• Maybe – should be a managed lane.

• No, because it would increase demand and congestion.

• No, because it would increase demand, congestion, and environmental impacts.

• Yes, but widen by minimizing impacts.

• No, concerned about environmental impacts and congestion. 

• No, there will be no relief system-wide (even by adding a lane).

AASHTO/SHA Standard Outside Widening

• No, the more you widen, the more expectation there will be that the problem would be 

solved (more expectation that highway widening is the solution to the problem in the 

Parkway).

• No, because it will cost too much money and too much damage to the environment 

while congestion remains the same.

• No, because this would not clean the air –this would encourage more traffic and more 

car use (clean air partners).

• No, building out the highway would beget traffic (build it, they will come).

• Would reconsider if the extra lanes are restricted to HOV or bus only.

• Would like to see the Green Line extended in its current alignment; but not in the 

middle of the parkway.

• Building the pavement is a simplistic solution to our problems. We should look at 21st

century solutions – extend the Green Line.

3. Would adding one-lane be more reasonable to consider if the added lane were restricted to 

buses and carpools?

NPS Parkway Standard Inside Widening

• No, as there aren’t enough people that take the bus or carpool to make a difference.

• No, carpool and bus system are difficult to use and are limited in range and availability 

in the current system.

• No, does not make a difference regardless of use of lane.

• No, carpool and bus systems are not effective in this area.

• No, it will require supplementary facilities (i.e. car park areas).

NPS Parkway Standard Outside Widening

• Yes.
• No.

• No, enjoy scenery.

AASHTO/SHA Standard Inside Widening

• Yes.

• Yes, but dedicated to transit/bus.

• No, pulling funds to look at other options.

• Yes but analyze improvements vs. impacts.

• Don’t do what VA did to their lanes.

• Is this a prelude of connecting ICC to Baltimore-Washington Parkway? 

AASHTO/SHA Standard Outside Widening

• No, because that [buses and carpools] can change at any time.

• It would be more reasonable, but would question other alternatives.

• No, because I don’t think people use bus and carpools as they should. An education 

campaign would be needed, but still wouldn’t feel it would work.

• Probably not. I don’t think you would even create the demand. The solution would be to 

open it up – an eventuality. Nothing says that there will be more buses; a 

comprehensive transportation plan is needed.

• The purpose of this widening is not for congestion but for the connection of the ICC to 

the BW parkway; would the ICC connect to the parkway? 

4. What are your concerns on the physical aspects with this option? 

NPS Parkway Standard Inside Widening

• Historic aspect of aesthetics.

• Safety gap between opposite lanes.

• Safer due to reduced number of lanes, compared to Beltway.

• How close would two inside lanes be? Any safety requirements?

• Not sure.

• Aesthetic aspect of parkway can be affected.

NPS Parkway Standard Outside Widening

• Widening takes trees.

• Aesthetics impact.

• Loss of trees.
AASHTO/SHA Standard Inside Widening

• Less impacts to inside.

• Pedestrian bridge –Spellman –Greenbelt –would it need to be replaced?

• Even though inside widening –outside impacts are a concern. 

AASHTO/SHA Standard Outside Widening

• Causes the physical division of the city – we are already divided physically, makes people 

feel disconnected.

• Spellman Overpass – children still run across parkway playing games, widening would 

not help.

• Tremendous amount of tree cutting on the outside lane.

• Apartment residents already complaining of noise. [Greenbriar]- visibility, would not see 

this.

• The expense, because you have to put up noise barriers.

• Aggravates connectivity within the town. Widening would make it that much worse and 

that much more difficult to solve.

• Sound barriers are a problem. Not pretty and a cost factor.

• Incredible traffic tie-ups that would happen due to construction.

• Quality of lights at night.

• Additional noise.

• Impacts on wildlife –increase the likelihood of deer/bears coming onto parkway.

• Important to have N-S contiguous trees for wildlife and bird migration. More breaks you 

have – more impacts to wildlife.

• Increasing the pavement will have a heat island effect.

• Relook at curb on NPS option. Look at shoulders and no curbs.

5. What are your concerns on the natural aspects with this option?

NPS Parkway Standard Inside Widening

• Impacts on wildlife.

• Impacts on trees which will affect shades, air quality, etc. 

• Impacts on native species (trees); avoid invasive species.

NPS Parkway Standard Outside Widening

• Loss of trees.

• Impacts on wetlands.
• SSPRA.

• Impacts on streams.

• Impacts on natural resources.

AASHTO/SHA Standard Inside Widening

• Loss of trees, less with inside option. 

• If parkway is turned over to state, does border of national park go away?

AASHTO/SHA Standard Outside Widening

• Increases in noise, light, and air pollution.

• Reduction in the tree canopy.

• DC is trying to increase its tree canopy; here we are trying to take it away from them.

• We have this highway mentality, but the real issue is global warming. It will lead to our 

down fall in society.

• We call this a parkway; keep the trees for the park.

• Perpetuates the thought of no global warming. Does make a difference.

• This is short sighted.

• Greenbelt has an easement with NPS in the Greenbelt Forest Preserve. Greenbelt 

cannot build on this easement. NPS should not build on Greenbelt’s easements.

• Effect on wildlife.

• Effect on rare plants.

• No matter how good you are with construction barriers, construction related damage 

will occur.

• Would like to see more native trees planted. Get rid of grass and shrubs.

6. Are there other concerns, issues, or ideas about this option that you feel important to be 

mentioned in the report? 

NPS Parkway Standard Inside Widening

• Concern that the widening that is already happening may affect decision on widening 

NPS sections.

• Concern for existing communities that are close to parkway.

• If forced to, pick one NPS inside widening is least impacting.

• Concern that even if a third lane is added congestion won’t improve.

• Concern that widening is just the beginning of building out parkway corridor.

NPS Parkway Standard Outside Widening
• Lighting – limit lighting to maintain character.

• Consider other models (bike trails especially for BRAC).

• ESD/SWM – less sterile and more environmentally friendly designs.

• Create no-mow areas (meadows).

• Longer acceleration and deceleration lanes (Powder Mills, MD 197 @ 95, 695, 32 NB).

• Permeable shoulders.

AASHTO/SHA Standard Inside Widening

• Due date for public comment?

• BRAC –we should meet with them about project.
Questions and Answers from Public Meeting #2

November 17, 2011

Q: How wide are the shoulders associated with an AASHTO or NPS design? How wide are typical cars 

in relation to that width? Would there be sufficient room to change a tire?

A: AASHTO designs include 10 foot shoulders and NPS designs 8 foot shoulders. The typical car is about 

6 feet wide. Additionally, parkway designs include more pavement than is marked and there is typically 

also a soft shoulder with a mountable curb that would allow for more space as needed to safely change 

a tire. 

Q: Has a study been conducted about the effectiveness of HOV lanes as an alternative?

A: Study scope is restricted by what is in the legislation and therefore did not examine other 

alternatives.

Q: Did the traffic analysis consider telecommuting? 

A: The traffic analysis used the travel forecasting model provided by the Metropolitan Washington 

Council of Governments used for the Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan. It was not adjusted 

with new or different assumptions. 

Q: Why wasn’t a more limited partial build alternative considered that would expand the ramps and 

widen the inside shoulders? 

A: This would be an appropriate alternative to consider if the scope of the study were broader. We will 

identify possible alternatives for future consideration should this study progress into project planning in 

the future.

Q: When will you be able to report on costs? 

A: Costs are not ready yet, but will be part of the final public meeting, which is anticipated for the 

January / February timeframe. 

Q: Will you be accepting comments on the project website? 

A: Yes. There is a form available on the project website for people to use to submit comments.

Q: Please explain the limitations of this study. The traffic analysis shows that three lanes would be 

insufficient. Why not expand the scope of the study?

A: This study is the first step in what might be a fairly extensive process of identifying and addressing 

mobility needs in this corridor. 
Public Comment Form

Thank you for participating in the second public meeting of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening 

Feasibility Study. Public opinion is a critical element of determining the feasibility of widening the BaltimoreWashington Parkway. Please take some time to tell us what you think about tonight’s meeting and this study. 

1. What did you like the most about tonight’s public meeting? 

• Presentations.

• Speakers available for questions.

• Maps and displays.

• A lot of informed and informative speakers.

• Good graphics.

• Good presentation of constraints

 What did you like the least?

• Options Maps were not very different; perhaps the change is too small to capture at this scale. Green lines 

are hard to see.

• The study itself. It is very limited, however, I do understand why.

• On the community/public facilities display, Greenbelt Elementary School isn’t shown and the Schrom Airport 

(shown on Hanover Parkway) hasn’t been in use for 40 years.

2. Please provide your comments and/or feedbacks on the materials presented during tonight’s meeting:

• Handouts are good – concise, informative

• Feasibility study maps are good

• Is it possible to know who is on the Technical Advisory Committee (is this public information)?

• I was initially quite concerned about this project. Our community (Eastpines) was cut in two with the initial 

construction of the Parkway. Nearly half of the front yards along 410 were taken to widen the road. Now 

those houses will be destroyed to build the Purple Line. So now we have the BW Parkway. The way things 

look tonight is encouraging, even though traffic itself will not improve as far as decreased volume on the 

road in 2040.

• This study does not look at all potential options. It does not solve the traffic issues. Adding lanes through all 

the sensitive environmental and historic areas would be a loss of a treasure with no net improvement. This 

would clearly change the intended purpose of it being a “Parkway”. Please do not spend my tax dollars on a 

project of such. As a resident of Greenbelt I value the preservation of the sensitive lands.
3. Would you like to be on the project mailing list? Circle: YES / NO

Jodie Kulpa-Eddy

6220 Ruatan Street

Berwyn Heights, MD 20740-2326

mdmarmot@yahoo.com

Norman Livsey – President, Eastpines Citizens Association

P.O. Box 332 

Riverdale, MD 20738

hlivsey@comcast.net

Jaime Fearer

15 Crescent Road, Suite 200

Greenbelt, MD 20770

JFearer@greenbeltMD.gov
Question Form

Thank you for participating in the second public meeting of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening 

Feasibility Study. In order to facilitate an effective meeting process, we request everyone to hold your 

questions until the General Questions and Answers section that will take place at the end of the presentation. 

Please write down all your questions on this form to remind you of your questions and concerns during the 

General Questions and Answers section. 

• Best to have one agency run the highway. Less chance for stalling blockages, etc. Should have pass-through 

areas for emergency vehicles + landing areas for choppers.

• HOV lanes would defeat the purpose of a 3rd lane.

• Jessup prison is gone?

• With more traffic, what will be done to keep deer from the highway?

• With inside choice, what is the closest both inside lanes will come?

• What sort of trees/plantings will be used? Native trees not invasive.

• Limits of disturbance... is this swale and such?
Important Updates

1st Public Meeting is Coming Up! Get Involved!

July 20, 2011

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Eastern Federal 

Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) 

has initiated a study to assess the 

feasibility of widening the BaltimoreWashington Parkway (Maryland 

Route 295). Specifically, the study 

will consider the costs and benefits of 

adding a third northbound and a third 

southbound lane along the Parkway 

from the interchange with I-695 in 

Anne Arundel County, Maryland to 

New York Avenue in the District of 

Columbia. 

The study is the result of legislative 

language included in Fiscal Year 

2010 Appropriations legislation sponsored by U.S. Congressman 

C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland District 2, directing the FHWA 

to work with the National Park Service and the Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA) to determine 

the feasibility of such a widening. 

The study will include an assessment 

of the impact of the Base Realignment and Closure process on traffic 

throughout the Maryland Route 295 

corridor between Baltimore, MD and 

Washington, DC. 

Feasibility will be assessed against 

environmental, economic, and 

engineering factors and transportation system performance, as well 

as the specific concerns of Parkway 

users and other regional stakeholders. 

The study team intends to engage 

communities that surround the Parkway in the study process to identify 

their preferences and concerns related 

to a widening of the roadway and to 

share different design and operational 

concepts with them. 

There will be three public meetings 

over the course of this 9-month study, 

with the first to be held on July 20, 

2011. All interest parties are encouraged to attend and participate. The 

study team would like to hear from 

the public how they use the Parkway, 

what they like about the current roadway, what they would like to change, 

and their thoughts on the appropriateness of widening. Please join us!

Feasibility Study of Widening the BaltimoreWashington Parkway is Under Way

Study Area Map

Parkway Chronicle 

B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n

Photo from NPS website

Photo by: Adam Elmquist
Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

Widening Feasibility Study

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

invites you to join us at the first public meeting for the...

ATTENTION AREA RESIDENTS, COMMUTERS, 

EMPLOYERS, AND BUSINESS PEOPLE!!

JULY 20, 2011

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Meade Middle School

1103 26th Street

Ft. Meade, MD 20755

FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

This study will examine the feasibility of adding a 

third northbound and a third southbound lane to 

the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD Route 

295) between its interchange with I-695 in Anne 

Arundel County, MD and New York Avenue in the 

District of Columbia. During this meeting, the project team will introduce the study and gather the 

public’s input on study goals and objectives.

For more information:

Lewis Grimm | lewis.grimm@dot.gov 

703.404.6289

FHWA is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, its projects, programs, and services on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender, as provided by Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or on the basis of disability as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need special accommodations or language assistance services (translation or interpretation) please contact 

Eduardo Maeyama at (202) 661-5329 or by email at Maeyama@pbworld.com at least five (5) days in advance of the meeting. These services will be provided free of charge.

Photo by: Alex Nitzman
Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

Widening Feasibility Study

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

invites you to join us at the second public meeting for the...

ATTENTION AREA RESIDENTS, COMMUTERS, 

EMPLOYERS, AND BUSINESS PEOPLE!!

November 17, 2011

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Greenbelt Community Center

15 Crescent Road

Greenbelt, MD 20770

FHWA - Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

For more information:

Lewis Grimm | lewis.grimm@dot.gov 

FHWA – Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

703.404.6289

FHWA is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, its projects, programs, and services on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender, as provided by Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or on the basis of disability as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need special accommodations or language assistance services (translation or interpretation) please contact 

Eduardo Maeyama at (202) 661-5329 or by email at Maeyama@pbworld.com at least five (5) days in advance of the meeting. These services will be provided free of charge.

This study will examine the feasibility of adding 

a third northbound and a third southbound 

lane to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

between its interchange with I-695 in Anne 

Arundel County, MD and New York Avenue in 

the District of Columbia. During this meeting 

the project team will provide an update from 

the first public meeting, present the existing 

conditions summary, traffic analysis summary, 

and alternatives development.

Photo by: Adam Elmquist

In the 1920’s, as automobile ownership became more affordable and 

suburbanization of cities began to occur, there was an increasing 

interest for new types of roadways that emphasized recreational and 

natural values. As a result of this growing demand, the National 

Park Service (NPS) issued the Regulations and Procedures to 

Govern the Acquisition of Rights-of-way for Parkways on February 

8, 1935 by the Secretary of the Interior1. This was the first 

document to define a parkway characterized by the type of roadway 

as one that limits access only to non-commercial and recreational 

traffic. Other guidelines included the following general facility 

characteristics:

It was during this timeframe that the concept of the BaltimoreWashington Parkway was first proposed as an element of a planned 

regional system of parkways providing access to the core of the 

national capital region. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, the lagging 

economy dramatically tempered interest in recreational roadways, 

and the focus shifted to the improvement of roadways that provided 

greater speed, safety, and efficiency for general public and 

commercial users. Consequently, a roadway between Baltimore, 

MD and Washington, DC, based solely on its recreational value 

was deemed unrealistic. While the Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

project was stalled by several obstacles, travel on US Route 1 

between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC, grew dramatically 

resulting in a very crowded, unsafe, and undesirable travel 

experience. Pressures to relieve the traffic conditions on US Route 

1 pushed the Maryland State Road Commission to release an initial 

plan in 1941 for a toll road between Baltimore, MD and Washington, 

DC, which conflicted with the proposed parkway plans2. The plans 

for a State toll road lost support with time, mainly due to Federal 

restrictions on tolling roads that go through federally owned lands, 

but the renewed interest in the Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

stressed the importance of planning to accommodate functionality as 

well as aesthetic and recreational value. 

The 1940’s brought an emphasis on roadway projects important 

to national defense, leading to the Federal Defense Highway Act 

of 1941, which provided funds for infrastructures that addressed 

primarily national defense needs. The Department of Commerce’s 

Federal Works Agency (the agency that oversaw the Bureau 

of Public Roads (BPR), which would later become the Federal 

Highway Administration [FHWA]) restricted approval to road 

projects that were certified by Federal defense agencies as essential 

to national defense. Under these circumstances, the characteristics 

described by a typical parkway provided for a more functional 

defense roadway system connecting to Fort George G. Meade, one 

of the largest military bases in the United States, than the typical 

freeway or highway for the following reasons3: 

1. It would be impermeable to air attack:

• The parkway was designed to hug the natural contours 

of the landscape, which provided areas that would allow 

vehicles to detour and scatter to avoid possible air strikes.

• The parkway provided greater landscape and plantings, 

which provided camouflage for vehicles seeking 

concealment.

2. The limited access designated on a parkway, also permitted 

easy closure to non-military traffic in times of emergency.

•Avoids unsightly roadside 

developments.

•Provides a buffer from abutting 

property through wider-than 

average right-of-way.

•Denies frontage or access 

rights.

•Eliminates major grade 

crossings.

•Encourages preservation of 

and access to natural scenery.

•Prefers construction on 

new sites to avoid already 

congested and built-up areas.

•Limits entrance and exit points 

to reduce traffic interruptions 

and increase safety.

IMPORTANT UPDATES

2nd Public Meeting is Coming Up! Get Involved! (Details on the last page)

November 17, 2011

6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

The Circuitous Route to Building the

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Parkway Chronicle 

B a l t i m o r e - W a s h i n g t o n

Issue No. 2 | November 2011

1 United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places 

Multiple Property Documentation Form, Section E - Statement of Historic Context, p2

2 Historic American Engineering Record, Baltimore-Washington Parkway, HAER No. MD-129, p 50

 3 United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places 

Multiple Property Documentation Form, Section E - Statement of Historic Context, p17
This focus on national defense led to a plan for the BaltimoreWashington Parkway that merged the functionality of modern 

freeways with the scenic parkway characteristics that addressed the 

aesthetic value and national defense needs. In 1945, the plans were 

finalized, which significantly differed from the initial plans. The 

northern section of the corridor, basically between Fort Meade and 

the City of Baltimore, was designated under the jurisdiction of the 

State of Maryland, and the typical public highway design standards 

of the time were applied. Additionally, as a State-owned roadway, 

it was built to accommodate commercial vehicles. The southern 

portion of the planned parkway remained under federal jurisdiction 

as much of the land was owned by Fort Meade and other federal 

agencies. A decision was made to abide by the parkway standards 

of the National Park Service which was granted ownership and 

operational/maintenance responsibilities for this portion of the 

corridor as well as the prohibition on commercial vehicles. The 

northern section of the corridor between Baltimore City and MD 

175, a 12-mile section, began construction in 1946 and was opened 

in 1952. The construction of the southern section (18.8 miles 

between MD 175 and US 50) began in 1950 and was opened in 

1954. 

To ensure that the parkway maintained its primary purpose, 

Congressional legislation was approved in 1950 for the BaltimoreWashington Parkway4

. The legislation states that it “... shall 

be regarded as an extension of the park system of the District of 

Columbia and its environs...” and ”... that it shall be

constructed, developed, administered, and maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service...” in 

accordance with the National Park Service 1916 mission which 

protects natural and nationally significant historic resources by 

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations. Further, it states that “[T]he Parkway shall be 

constructed, developed, operated and administered as a limited 

access road primarily to provide a protected, safe, and suitable 

approach for passenger-vehicle traffic to the National Capital and 

for an additional means of access between the several Federal 

establishments adjacent thereto and the seat of government in 

the District of Columbia.” As one of the National Capital Parks, 

the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is also subject to additional 

legislation that gives direction to preserving the forests and natural 

scenery in and about Washington.

To avoid impairment of the above purposes of the BaltimoreWashington Parkway, the legislation specifically states that the 

Secretary of the Interior, in concurrence with the Secretary of 

Commerce, shall control the location, limit the number of access 

points, and regulate the use of said parkway by various classes or 

types of vehicles or traffic.

Finally, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway was entered onto the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in May, 1991, in the 

category of Transportation and noted for its landscape architecture.

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS STUDY?

Nearly 60 years after the opening of the roadway, the BaltimoreWashington Parkway has become one of the most heavily traveled 

corridors in the Baltimore and Washington Metropolitan areas. 

Present day traffic volumes range between 80,000 and more than 

100,000 vehicles per day. Along this corridor, Fort Meade is 

expected to expand as part of the Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) process. The expansion of Fort Meade is anticipated to 

result in an increase of approximately 5,400 military, Department 

of Defense (DoD) civilians and contractor employees, as well as 

approximately 4,900 family members, all to be located on the Fort 

Meade campus. In addition, the Fort Meade expansion and the 

BRAC process is projected to add approximately 5,800 civilian jobs, 

over 4,000 jobs due to ongoing National Security Agency (NSA) 

expansion, and 1,000 jobs from other Army and DoD decisions, as 

well as over 10,000 jobs from proposed commercial development 

near the Fort Meade area which will incur related growth through 

and beyond the BRAC process (2011). The unanticipated 

expansion, timing, funding, and the unpredictable growth within 

the base parameter have been cited by the Maryland Department of 

Transportation as the main transportation challenges generated by 

BRAC. 

In anticipation of the expected increase in travel demand that 

would be associated with these BRAC related actions in addition 

to other anticipated residential, commercial and industrial growth 

and development in the corridor, the United States Congress has 

requested the conduct of an initial feasibility study to examine 

the effects of adding a third travel lane in each direction along the 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway between US Route 50 at the District 

of Columbia line on the south and the Baltimore Beltway (I-695) 

on the north. As an initial feasibility study, this effort is seeking 

to assess the feasibility of this action from several perspectives. 

These include: potential changes in traffic volume, travel time and 

congestion levels with and without the proposed improvements; the 

capital and operating costs associated with a widened BaltimoreWashington Parkway; the potential impacts of any such action 

on adjacent communities and natural environmental areas; and 

institutional considerations on facility ownership and administration. 

This study was initiated in the spring of 2011 and is scheduled for 

completion within about one year.

One concern of this study is that adding additional lanes is contrary 

to the above parkway purposes and could destroy the characteristics 

that NPS values for the Baltimore-Washington Parkway as well 

as the justification for placement on the NRHP. Also, it raises 

questions of the appropriateness of the parkway remaining under 

NPS stewardship. 

The Circuitous Route to Building the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (Cont’d)

The first Public Meeting for the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening 

Feasibility Study took place on July 20, 2011, at the Meade Middle School in Fort 

Meade, MD. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the study to the general 

public and other stakeholders, and obtain their input and feedback regarding the 

existing conditions and study goals. Approximately 40 people attended this first 

Public Meeting providing valuable feedback for the study. The comments received 

have been summarized into the following major themes:

• Preserve the aesthetic, historic, and natural values of the Parkway

• Determine community and environmental impacts of a potential widening

• Allow direct connectivity between Washington and Baltimore

• Reduce traffic congestion

• Maintain the existing two-lanes in each direction to preserve the Parkway 

character; widening will not resolve congestion in the corridor

• Consider lack of alternative mobility options along the corridor (transit, bicycle, 

and pedestrian)

• Remove the barrier that the Parkway creates to the environment and community 

connectivity along the corridor

After gathering and reviewing the feedback received at the first Public Meeting, the study team has:

• Evaluated existing and future year travel demand conditions in the corridor, including an assessment of traffic 

congestion (levels of service and operational conditions) 

• Identified four potential widening options for the parkway

• Performed a preliminary engineering assessment of the four options

• Conducted additional outreach to local community and business stakeholders

The four widening options under consideration are:

• Inside widening based on the National Park Service park roads and parkway 

design standards and guidelines.

• Outside widening based on the National Park Service standards and guidelines.

• Outside widening based on the highway design standards and guidelines 

developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials and the Maryland State Highway Administration (AASHTO/SHA).

• Inside widening based on the AASHTO/SHA standards and guidelines.

The study team presented an initial description of the major findings from this analysis to the members of the study’s 

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in mid-October for their consideration for their review and comment. A summary 

of these preliminary findings will be presented at the second public meeting on November 17, 2011.

Recap: First Public Meeting

Since the First Public Meeting

4

 Public Law 643 – 81st Congress, Chapter 525 – 2D Session, H.R. 5990
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Page 1 of 3

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Date: January 19, 2012 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Number: 3

Location: SHA District 3 Office - Greenbelt, Maryland

Meeting Notes

Welcome and Introductions

x Lewis Grimm, FHWA-EFLHD project manager of the study, welcomed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 

members to the meeting. 

x The members of the study team and the TAC introduced themselves to the meeting group. 

x The purpose of the meeting is to share and obtain input on the outcomes of Public Meeting #2 held on 

November 17, 2011 at the Greenbelt Community Center, the impact analyses and cost estimates (capital 

and operations & maintenance [O&M]), and the progress and content of the Draft Congressional Report. 

x The general study scope of work, process and schedule was briefly reviewed as was the agenda for this 

third meeting of the TAC. 

Recap: Public Meeting #2

x Marsha Kaiser, the consultant team lead for the public involvement tasks, provided an overview of the 

public meeting that was held on November 17, 2011. Over 40 people attended, ranging in composition 

from citizens to local elected officials and representatives of stakeholder groups. 

x Marsha Kaiser described that the public meeting’s main objective was to present the different widening 

options considered in the study and to obtain feedback on each of the options from the public. 

x The consultant team summarized the public comments by general themes, which was presented to the 

TAC members. 

TAC Comments and Questions were as follows: 

1) Question from a member of the TAC: Was managed lanes or HOV lanes considered in any of the options? 

Response: No, the scope of the legislation, hence the study, does not ask to consider the different 

type/mode of use of the potential additional lanes. But the report will provide a text suggesting that if the 

study does move forward from the feasibility stage, the options must consider different usage of the lanes 

and mobility options. 

Study Area Overview

x Greer Gillis, consultant team Project Manager, provided a recap overview of the study area. 

Transportation Impacts

x Greer Gillis provided a brief summary of the traffic impacts evaluated in this study and provided the 

description that was presented to the public on November 17th. 

2) Question from a member of the TAC: Will the study indicate a major increase in traffic volumes into DC? 

Response: The study shows that there are numerical increases in volume for the 2005-baseline, 2040-No 

Build, and 2040-Partial Build scenarios. There is a greater increase in volume in the 2040-Full Build option. 

But overall, considering the residential and employment growth in the region expected for 2040, the 

increase in traffic volume entering the District is not dramatic and it is an increase that may be attributed 

to the population growth of the area and not completely on the change in capacity of the Parkway.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Page 2 of 3

Physical Effects

x Angela Jones, deputy project manager of the consultant team, provided a brief recap of the different 

widening options considered. 

Environmental and Cultural Resource Impacts

x Ken Briggs, consultant team Engineering Lead, provided a summary of the environmental and cultural 

resource impacts that were attributed to each widening options. 

3) Comment from a member of the TAC: Include the words “Standards” next to the table headings 

“AASHTO” and “NPS” on slides 18-20.

4) Question from a member of the TAC: Would it be important to clarify whether the property/ 

environmental impacts are direct or indirect, and perhaps ensure that the property impacts are put in 

context so that the public understands the extent of the potential impacts? Response: Due to the high 

level of this feasibility study and the extent of unknowns that exist at this level, it is difficult to provide an 

accurate assessment of the direct and indirect impacts. The report provides a description on what the 

study considered as “direct” impacts, which were accounted for differently than the “quality of life” 

(indirect) impacts. The property impacts listed are direct impacts resulting from grading. However, the 

property impacts are narrow sliver takes and there are no relocations. It is anticipated that if more 

detailed studies are conducted these direct impacts can be reduced or eliminated. Also, during the public 

meeting, each of the property impacts were presented with aerial mapping of the location of the impacts, 

to help the public understand that most of the potential land impacts were correlated with minimal slivers 

of land along the Parkway right-of-way, rather than impacts on the property (housing or building). 

5) Comment from a member of the TAC: It is important to emphasize the feasibility nature of this study and 

that due to the high level of the study; the described impacts are not necessarily all or nothing scenarios. 

It may also be useful to add a footnote on the property impact slide of the presentation providing a 

disclaimer that the potential impacts are land-only impacts and not property (buildings or structures).

6) Question from a member of the TAC: For either of the inside widening options, are there considerations 

for any type of structure/barriers between the opposite lanes? Response: Yes, depending on the median 

width and slope grading barriers were included as required.

7) Comment from a member of the TAC: It may be important to include an extra line item to describe the 

need for additional structures (such as the barriers, or retaining walls) as possible impacts (under the 

Constructability Impacts slide). These structures can be significant in impacting not only the functionality 

of the Parkway but also important elements such as the view shed. Response: It was agreed that this 

level of detail would not be included. 

Capital and O&M Cost Estimates

x Ken Briggs provided a summary and explanation of the cost estimates and the procedures followed to 

provide the capital costs of the widening options. 

x It was presented to the TAC members that the report will provide conservative estimates for the O&M 

costs, but that the team is still researching and developing an estimate process through resources from 

the NPS and SHA. 

x The TAC members were also requested to provide feedbacks to the study team on good ways to estimate 

O&M costs. 

8) Comment from a member of the TAC: Include the words “Standards” next to the table headings 

“AASHTO” and “NPS” on slide 21.

9) Comment from a member of the TAC: Include a footnote explaining that there will be additional 

mitigation costs for streams and wetlands that will have to be considered if the study moves forward in 

the future. Forest impacts were the largest impact and mitigation costs for reforestation was included in 

the estimate.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Page 3 of 3

10) Comment from a member of the TAC: Be sure to label the costs in FY 2012 or 2011 (whichever applies) 

dollar values.

11) Comment from a member of the TAC: NPS and the study team are coordinating to provide maintenance 

budget data that could help develop an O&M cost estimate relevant to the NPS.

12) Comment from a member of the TAC: SHA agreed to coordinate with the study team to help develop 

O&M cost estimates for the sections of the study relevant to SHA.

13) Comment from a member of the TAC: It was noted that law-enforcement cost for the corridor is 

approximately USD $ 3.4 million per year.

Draft Congressional Report

x Greer Gillis provided a brief description and summary of the structure and the contents of the draft 

Congressional Report. 

14) Question from a member of the TAC: NCPC representative was unsure if it was appropriate to provide 

their concerns on meeting planning policies at the feasibility level of the study. Response: The team 

stated that they welcomed all comments from the agencies about their concerns of how a potential 

widening of the Parkway could meet or be in conflict with the agency’s policies. It was stated that all 

concerns from the agencies will be documented in the report, and it was requested to all agencies to 

submit their concerns and comments in regards to jurisdictional policies to the study team by email.

15) Comment from a member of the TAC: It was suggested to include the term “Policy” in the title of the 

Draft Congressional Report heading “Ownership and Management”, to remind the importance of Policy 

compliance of different agencies.

16) Comment from a member of the TAC: It was suggested to reconsider the title of the headings used in the 

sections of the Draft Congressional Report. It was commented that the headings did not clearly spell out 

what each section encompassed.

17) Comment from a member of the TAC: It was observed that if the study moved forward and the potential 

widening of the Parkway materialized further, many jurisdictions and agencies needed to reconsider their 

long-range plans. Currently, none of the agencies have the potential widening of the Parkway included in 

their long-range plan.

Attachments (Materials distributed at meeting)

x Agenda 

x PowerPoint Presentation 

x Outline of the Draft Congressional Report 

x List of Meeting Attendees 
AGENDA

I. Welcome and Study Overview (Lewis Grimm, FHWA)

II. Recap: Public Meeting #2 (Marsha Kaiser, Parsons Brinckerhoff)

III. Study Area Overview (Greer Gillis, Parsons Brinckerhoff)

IV. Transportation Impacts (Greer Gillis, Parsons Brinckerhoff)

V. Physical Effects (Angela Jones, KCI)

VI. Environmental and Cultural Resource Impacts (Ken Briggs, KCI)

VII. Capital and O&M Costs Estimates (Ken Briggs, KCI)

VIII. Draft Congressional Report (Greer Gillis, Parsons Brinckerhoff)

IX. General Discussion

X. Next Steps (Lewis Grimm, FHWA)

XI. Meeting Adjournment

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #3

Thursday, January 19, 2012

2:00 – 4:00 PM

SHA District 3 Auditorium






Technical Advisory Committ

(TAC) Meeting #3

Thursday, January 19, 2012

2:00 PM – 4:00 PM

Auditorium of the MDSHA District 3 offices

Greenbelt, MD
Agenda

• Welcome and Study Overview• Recap: Public Meeting #2• Study Area Overview Overview• Transportation Impacts• Physical Effects
Agenda

• Environmental and Cultural Resources Impac• Capital Cost Estimates• Draft Congressional Report• General Discussion• Next Steps
Study Overview

• Enabling Legislation• Study Focus• St du y P t ar ners• Study Scope, Process, and Schedule• Additional Information
Enabling Legislation

“The Committee directs the FHWA’s Office of 

L d an s Hi hg ways to work wi ht the Ni l at onal P k ar 

and the Maryland State Highway Administrat

determine determine determine determine the feasibility feasibility feasibility feasibility of adding a third nort

nort

nort

nort

and a third southbound southbound lane for Maryland R

295/Baltimore Washington Parkway from 

intersection with Interstate 695 to New York Av

the District of Columbia.”

FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Bi

December 16, 2009
Study Focus

• The study focuses on five aspects of feasibility, a

• Transportation impacts – the influence of additional lane capa

mainline operations.

• Physical effects – effects of various approaches to accomplish 

considering a variety of typical sections and/or design standar

NPS).

• Environmental Environmental impacts impacts – identification identification of considerations considerations that 

be dealt with in the NEPA process

• Political / Public impacts – implications of widening as it perta

interests interests of various various stakeholders stakeholders including including agencies agencies with owne

owne

regional planners, and the public

• Ownership and Management – impacts of ownership and ma

the P k ar way and the i li ti mplications of a pot ti l en a wid i en ng on t
Study Partners

• Study Sponsors• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

– St t a e A i genc es, Fd l e era A i genc es, L l oca G t overnments

• Study Area Residents and Businesses
Scope, Process, and Sched

Sched

• Draft Feasibility Feasibility Study Final Report to Congre

Congre

completed this month!

2011 

Task Name April May June July August September October November December Janu

1.0 Study Management2.0 Data Collection

3.0 Public Involvement/Participation4.0 Travel Demand Model Development

5.0 Alternatives Development

Task Name

Where we are today January 19 2012

5.0 Alternatives Development6.0 Alternatives Analysis

7.0 Draft Feasibility Study Final Report

8.0 Final Feasibility Study Reports

• Where we are today: January 19, 2012
Public Meeting #2 Overvi

Overvi

• Public Meeting Meeting #2 ‐ November November 17, 2011

• Greenbelt Community Center, Greenbelt, MD• Over 40 people participated participated in the 2nd Public Me

Me

• Presented the existing conditions and the four wi

options that were considered at last TAC meeting
Summary of Comments Comments by Th

• Widening the Parkway, regardless of the use of the

additional additional lane, does not provide provide a long‐term solu

solu

congestion.

• The addition addition of an extra lane will only increase increase dem

promote greater environmental impacts.

• Alternative Alternative mobility mobility options options along the corridor corridor (e.g

the Green Line alignment) need consideration.

• Widening may have negative safety implications (

possible degradation in safety due to extra lane an

gap/clearance between opposite lanes).
Summary of Comments Comments by Th

• Widening will have negative community impacts (

noise, aggravate barrier within d dd ivi e communiti

• The aesthetic, historic, and natural values of the Pa

need preserved.

• Concerned Concerned for natural natural and environmental environmental impacts impacts 

by widening (e.g. impacts on wildlife, trees, air qua

pollution, heat island effect).
Study Area Boundaries

 Interstate 695 to the north New York Ave/U.S. Route 50

to the south

 MD Route 3 and Interstate

97 to the east

 Interstate 95 to the west

Map Source: B‐W Parkway Widening Feasibility 
Facilitypg Ownership and Manag

• B‐W Parkway owned &

operated by SHA between between

Baltimore City and MD 175

and NPS between MD 175

and New York Ave/US 50 split.

• NPS Section is 6 lanes from

US 50 to MD 450 and 4 lanes

from MD 450 to MD 175.

• SHA is currently widening

MD 295 from 4 to 6 lanes

between I‐195 and I‐695.

• SHA is planning to widen

MD 295 from 4 to 6 lanes

between MD 100 and I‐195.

Map Source: B‐W Parkway Widening Feasibility Study Major ‐ 
Mainline Traffic Volume
Traffic Analysis Summar

• A widened widened Parkway Parkway will carry more traf

traf

• A widened Parkway will not necessarily 

congest de than experi d ence t do ay

• Therefore, we can move more vehicles

through the corridor, but at similar leve

congestion as observed today
AASHTO Options

AASHTO Outside

Widening Option

AAS

Wid
NPS Options

NPS Outside

Widening Option

NPS 

Wideni
Constructability Impact

CONSTRUCTABILITY IMPACTS AASHTO 

Widening Options Outside Inside Out

Major Interchange Interchange Reconstruction* Reconstruction* (Each) 11

2 1

Bridge Replacement Only (Each) 75

** ( )

*Includes Bridge Replacement and Ramp Reconfiguration

** Baltimore Washington Parkway Bridges

Bridge Widening** (Each) 76

Baltimore Washington Parkway Bridges

Note: Direct impacts are approximate based on

a high level engineering analys

study progress beyond this point,

a more detailed determination of direct impac
Potential Property Impac

POTENTIAL PROPERTY PROPERTY IMPACTS IMPACTS AASHTO 

Widening Options Outside Inside Outsid

Residential (Each) 13

‐14 0

‐1 13

‐14 

Commercial (Each) 2 1 2

Institutional (Each)

1

‐2 0

‐1 1

‐2 

Note: Direct impacts are approximate based on

a high level engineering analysis. S

study progress beyond this point,

a more detailed determination of direct impacts ca
Potential Environmental an

Cultural Impacts Cultural Impacts

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND

CULTURAL IMPACTS

AASHTO 

Widening Options Outside Inside Outsid

Forest Impacts, Inside Existing ROW 35% 26% 25% 

(Percent of total acres*) 35% 26% 25% 

Wetland Area Crossings (Each) 18 6 18 

Stream/Rivers/Floodplain Stream/Rivers/Floodplain Areas (Each)

6

6

6

Sensitive Species Areas (Each) 5 55

Potential Historic Properties (Each) 4 24

* Total Forest Area Inside Existing ROW is approximately 678 acres.

Forest Impacts Outside Existing ROW are minimal.

N Di i i b d hi h l l i i l i Sh 

Potential Park Properties (Each) 2 12

Note: Direct impacts are approximate

base

d on a hi

g

h level engineering analysis. Sh

progress beyond this point, a more detailed determination of direct impacts can 
Estimated Capital Costs

COSTS ($ Million) AASHTO N

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside 

Construction Costs

$ 450 $ 326 $ 427 

Preliminary Engineering (10%)

$ 45 $ 33 $ 43 

Construction Support* (15.5%)

$ 70 $ 51 $ 66 

* Construction support covers inspection, field offices, testing and other support costs incurred by the owner d

TOTAL COST

$ 565 $ 410 $ 536 

Note: Capital costs estimates developed using the Maryland Department of Transportation SHA 2011 Highway C

Estimating Manual
Draft Congressional Rep

Draft Congressional Rep

• Study Background• Study Focus• Alternatives Definition• Transportation Impacts• Physical Effects• Environmental Effects• Public and Political Considerations• Ownership and Management• Conclusions
General Discussion
Next Steps

• Finalize O&M Costs• Discuss Ownership and Management• Hold Third Public Meeting

• February 16, 2012, Greenbelt Community Center

• Obtain Final Comments on Feasibility Study• Submit Final Congressional Report
Where to find more informa

informa

• Website

• Eastern Federal Lands –

http://www efl fhwa dot gov http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov

• Contact Information

Mr. Lewis G. Grimm, P.E. Ms. Greer Gillis, P.E.Planning Team Leader

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration21400 Ridgetop Circle

,

Consultant Project Manag

Parsons Brinckerhoff

1401 K Street, NW, Suite 3

g p Washington, DC 20005

Sterling, Virginia 20166

Tel: 703‐404‐6289 | Fax: 703‐404‐6217

E‐mail: lewis.grimm@dot.gov

g ,

Tel: 202‐661‐5301

Fax: 202.661.5300Email: gillis@pbworld.co
THANK YOU FOR YOUR

PARTICIPATION
Outline for Congressional Report

Report Section and Length Content for the Section

Study Background – 1⁄2 page • Summary of Study Purpose

• Description of Legislative Language/Mandate for the Study

• Legislative Purposes and Significance of the Parkway

• Agency Participants 

Study Focus – 1 page • Study Area Description – map and text

• Corridor Characteristics – study area division (management and 

ownership)

• Feasibility Criteria (overview of transportation impacts, physical 

effects, environmental impacts, political/public impacts or 

consideration; ownership and management)

Alternatives Definitions – 2 pages 

(including graphics)

• Typical Sections / Photos / Differentiate the Options

Transportation Impacts - 1 page 

(including graphics)

• Basic discussion on volumes and operations improvements. Discuss 

what the existing base conditions are and then the anticipated 

future conditions. Extract in a summarized fashion from the traffic 

and travel demand modeling report.

Physical Effects –1 page 

(including photos or graphics)

• General discussion of required bridge, interchange and other major 

reconstruction; No need to identify specific locations. Limited 

discussion only. Quantify number of places where major 

reconstruction might be necessary, for example. Concentrate on 

changes to interchange, bridges, roadway. The costs changes will 

also be associated with the physical impacts. Any special type of 

materials needed to be done per NPS standards will be included.

• Capital Costs Summary 

Environmental Effects – 1 page 

(including matrix and photos)

• Very basic discussion of resources that would be affected. 

• Any historic structures that are impacted – its associated historic 

impacts will be discussed.

Public/Political Considerations – 

1 page

• 1-2 paragraphs on approach – what we did to get public input and 

share information; how many people participated.

• Very basic discussion of major issues that arose from the discussions 

and implications of the input moving forward. Include points of 

common ground, general points of concerns that were raised, and 

any degree of agreement or acceptance.

• 1 or 2 photos from our public meetings and at least one of a TAC 

meeting. Display a graphic or text box listing TAC agencies 

represented. 

Ownership and Management – 1⁄2 

page

• From Impairment White Paper – summarize what constitutes a 

Parkway from NPS website and how a transition to a 6 lane roadway 

might impair that basic constitution.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #3

Thursday, January 19, 2012

2:00 – 4:00 PM

SHA District 3 Auditorium
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Page 1 of 2

Public Meeting

Date: February 16, 2012 Public Meeting Number: 3 3

Location: Greenbelt Community Center - Greenbelt, Maryland

Meeting Notes – Comments from Public Meeting Participants

x Historical property inventory needs thorough examination. 

x Parkway widening may not solve congestion as much as the extension of the Metro system or 

other options – yet the impacts of widening are tremendous to the Parkway. 

x Widening not feasible; aesthetics and spirit of the Parkway would be destroyed. 

x Disturbing the Parkway will be a travesty to the recognition of Gladys Spellman or the beauty 

the Parkway provides, especially in the fall. 

x Leadership of policy makers needs to transition towards developing a non-automobile society. 

x The Parkway is a unique feature of the transportation network – money would be better spent if 

it is invested in MARC. 

x Widening of Parkway encourages growth outside developed area. 

x Money invested on highways diverts resources from ability to fund transit. 

x Question: Would a copy of the Power Point presentation be available to the public? 

Response: A copy of the presentation will be uploaded onto the project website for public 

access. 

x Question: Are comments allowed outside of the meeting? 

Response: Yes, they are encouraged. 

x Question: Where is the traffic going if it’s not widened (referring to future traffic conditions)? 

Response: Traffic will travel on already congested parallel facilities such as I-95, and Route 1. 

x Question: Is there anything that was looked at to improve congestion at MD 197? 

Response: Comments related to spot improvements not relevant to the widening of the 

Parkway are not considered in this feasibility study, but are being documented and forwarded to 

the relevant agencies. 

x Question: You project an increase in employment -where does the projection come from? 

Response: They are the best estimates that the local governments developed and have been 

compiled by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and the 

Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC). 

x Question: On the corridor, there are historic resources such as the remnants of the Birmingham 

Manor and Iron Hill, are they included in the historic resource research 

Response: If the properties fall under the study area it will be documented as element of 

historic value. 

x Question: What’s the right-of-way of the Parkway? 

Response: The width of the right-of-way varies quite a bit throughout the corridor. If there is a 
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study 

Contract No. HFAC-15 

Page 2 of 2

specific location of interest, a member the study team can provide further information after the 

public meeting. 

x Metro expansion of then green line will be most appropriate. 

x Baltimore-Washington Parkway widening can turn into a new I-495 or I-95 with no natural and 

historic value. 

x More transportation options to bypass the Baltimore-Washington area are needed. 

x Question: What are the next steps? 

Response: 

o The next steps might not go any further than this study. 

o The subject of the study may be added to state long-range plan, which would require an 

extensive process and additional studies to follow. 

x Question: When and how will the report be available to the public? 

Response: The report will be available after the report has been submitted to Congress in 

March. It will be to the public by: 

o Mailing List 

o Website 

o Press Release 
L

MEETING AGENDA

I. Sign-in and Open House [6:30 – 7:00 PM]

II. Welcome and Presentation [7:00 PM]

• Welcome and Study Overview Lewis Grimm, P.E.

Planning Team Leader

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highways Administration

• Public Involvement Process and 

Comment Themes

Marsha Kaiser

Public Involvement Task Leader

Consultant Team

• Facility Ownership and Management

• Traffic Analysis Summary

• Widening Options

Angela Jones, P.E.

Deputy Project Manager

Consultant Team

• Impact Analysis 

• Cost Estimates

Ken Briggs, P.E.

Engineering Task Leader

Consultant Team

• Feasibility Study Conclusions

• Draft Congressional Report 

Lewis Grimm, P.E.

Planning Team Leader

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highways Administration

• Public Questions & Comment Marsha Kaiser 

Public Involvement Task Leader

Consultant Team

III. Adjournment [8:30 PM]

PLEASE DIRECT COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS TO:

Mr. Lewis G. Grimm, P.E. Ms. Greer Gillis, P.E.

Planning Team Leader Consultant Project Manager 

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Parsons Brinckerhoff

Federal Highway Administration 1401 K Street, NW, Suite 300

21400 Ridgetop Circle Washington, DC 20005

Sterling, Virginia 20166 Tel: 202-661-5301

Tel: 703-404-6289 Fax: 202.661.5300

Fax: 703-404-6217 Email: gillis@pbworld.com

E-mail: lewis.grimm@dot.gov

Public Meeting #3

Thursday, February 16, 2012

6:30 – 8:30 PM

Greenbelt Community Center

15 Crescent Road

Greenbelt, MD 20770
Name Address City, State, Zip Email 

Chad Williams 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD, 20772 chad.williams@ppd.mncppc.org 

Madhusudan Joshi 13722 Engleman Drive Laurel, MD 20708 mcjoshi@gmail.com Mort Friedman 8506 Good Luck Rd Lanham, MD 20706 mortfriedman@msn.com Janea Ortiz 115 Hanover Road Reisterstown, MD 21136 orjan@yahoo.com David Prevar 419 Holly Drive Annapolis, MD 21403 david.prevar@urs.usda.gov Terry Benedik 7826 Hanover Pkwy 101 Greenbelt, MD 20770

Leta Mach 104 Periwinkle Ct Greenbelt, MD 20770 lMach@greenbeltmd.gov

Damien Ossi 14‐L Hillside Road Greenbelt, MD 20770 dossification@yahoo.com 

Gwen Turnbull 45 Ridge Rd Unit G Greenbelt, MD 20770 gwen_t@mac.com Fred Cunningham

Jamie Fearer Greenbelt, MD 20770 jfearer@greenbeltmd.gov 

Nancy Keogh Laurel, MD keoghnj@verizon.net Jane Athey Laurel, MD Ken Skrivseth Laurel, MD kaskal@aol.com Brian Compere bcompere@terpmail.umd.edu Jean Snyder Greenbelt, MD jeanasnyder15@comcast.net

Paul Bartels 2806 Belleview Ave Cheverly, MD 20785 pbartels@ausa.org 

Shera Thompson 7303 Trescott Ave Takoma Park, MD 20912 sherayvonnehiggs@yahoo.com Rodney Roberts City Council

Jon Shao Laurel, MD

Matt Johnson 7929 Mandan Road #102 Greenbelt, MD 20770 mcjohnson85@gmail.com 

Bob Snyder 12‐A Hillside Road Greenbelt, MD 20770

Jonathan Taylor Greenbelt News ReviewBobby Phipps 6605 Patterson St Riverdale, MD 20737 bobby20737@hotmail.com 

Victor Weissberg 9400 Peppercorn Pl Largo, MD 20774 vweissberg@co.pg.md.us Bill Orchams PO BOX 292 Greenbelt, MD 20768 Jeff Lemieux 92 Ridge Road Greenbelt, MD 20770 jlemieux@ahip.org Ben Fischler 14 V4 Ridge Road Greenbelt, MD 20770 

Alan Turnbull 45 Ridge Rd Unit G Greenbelt, MD 20770 aturnbull@mac.com 

Jean Friedberg Howard County 21044 friedberg.jean@gmail.com

Michael McLaughlin 25 Crescent Rd Greenbelt, MD 20770 mmclaughlin@greenbeltmd.govPhil MorningstarEmmett JordanMike Callahan Cheverly, MD MHCallaham@gmail.com

BWP Widening Feasibility Study Public Meeting #3 ‐ Sign In Sheet

Thursday, February 16, 2012
Public Meeting #3

Thursday, February 16, 2012

6:30 – 8:30 PM

Greenbelt Community Center

15 Crescent Road

Greenbelt, MD 20770
Welcome

Lewis Grimm, P.E.

Federal Highway Administration,

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Pjt ro ec Manager
Agenda

• Presentation (7:00PM)

• Welcome• Study Overview

• Public Involvement Process and Comment Themes

• Existing Study Area

• Options Development

• Impacts Analysis

• Cost Estimates• Feasibility Study Conclusions• Draft Congressional Report• Public Questions and Comments

• Adjournment (8:30 PM)
Enabling Legislation

“The Committee directs the FHWA’s Office of 

L d an s Hi hg ways to work wi ht the Ni l at onal P k ar 

and the Maryland State Highway Administrat

determine determine determine determine the feasibility feasibility feasibility feasibility of adding a third nort

nort

nort

nort

and a third southbound southbound lane for Maryland R

295/Baltimore Washington Parkway from 

intersection with Interstate 695 to New York Av

the District of Columbia.”

FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Bill

December 16, 2009
Study Area Boundaries

 Interstate 695 to the north New York Ave/U.S. Route 50

to the south

 MD Route 3 and Interstate 97

to the east

 It tt n erstate 95 to the west

Map Source: B‐W Parkway Widening Feasibility 
Study Focus

• The study focuses on five aspects of feasibility, a

• Transportation impacts – the influence of additional lane capa

mainline operations.

• Physical effects – effects of various approaches to accomplish 

considering a variety of typical sections and/or design standar

NPS).

• Environmental Environmental impacts impacts – identification identification of considerations considerations that 

be dealt with in the NEPA process.

• Political / Public impacts – implications of widening as it perta

interests interests of various various stakeholders stakeholders including including agencies agencies with owne

owne

regional planners, and the public.

• Ownership and Management – impacts of ownership and ma

the P k ar way and the i li ti mplications of a pot ti l en a wid i en ng on t
Study Partners

• Study Sponsors• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

– State Agencies, Federal Agencies, Local Governments

• Study Area Residents Residents and Businesses Businesses
Scope, Process, and Schedu

Schedu

• Draft Feasibility Feasibility Study Final Report to Congre

Congre

developed and under FHWA/NPS review

2011 

Task Name April May June July August September October November December Janu

1.0 Study Management2.0 Data Collection

3.0 Public Involvement/Participation4.0 Travel Demand Model Development

5.0 Alternatives Development

Task Name

Where we are today February 16 2012

5.0 Alternatives Development6.0 Alternatives Analysis

7.0 Draft Feasibility Study Final Report

8.0 Final Feasibility Study Reports

• Where we are today: February 16, 2012
Public Involvement Proces

• Technical Advisory Committee Meetings• Stakeholder Interviews• Three Public Meetings

• Public Meeting #1 – July 20, 2011• Public Meeting #2 – November 17 2011

• Public Meeting #3 – February 16, 2012
Previous Public Meetings

• Pub cli Mee g tin #1 ‐ Ju yl 20, 2011

• Meade Middle School, Fort Meade, MD.

• Introduced the study to the public and other stakeholders.

• Approximately 40 people participated in the 1st Public Meeting.

• Public Meeting Meeting #2 ‐ November November 17, 2011

• Greenbelt Community Center, Greenbelt, MD.

• Over 40 people participated in the 2nd Public Meeting.

• Presented the existing conditions and the four widening options t

considered at the October 14, 2011 TAC Meeting.
Summary of Comments Comments by Th

• Direct connectivity between Washington and Baltim

North‐South alternatives alternatives are limited limited in the area.

• Alternative mobility options along the corridor (e.g. 

the Green Line alignment) alignment) need considerations. considerations.

• An open mind towards the study is needed by all.• Congestion and its impact on economic developmen

opportunities (and vice versa).
Summary of Comments Comments by Th

• The addition of an extra lane will only increase dema

promote greater impacts.

• Widening the Parkway, regardless of the use of the a

lane, does not provide a long‐term sol ti u on to conge

• Widening may have negative safety implications (e.g

degradation in safety due to extra lane and limited

gap/clearance between opposite lanes).

• Widening will have negative community impacts (e.

aggravate barrier within divided communities).
Summary of Comments Comments by Th

• The aesthetic, historic, and natural values of the Park

need to be preserved.

• Concerned for natural and environmental impacts ca

widening (e.g. impacts on wildlife, trees, air quality, pollution, heat island effect).

• The environment is an important component but sho

be an overriding element.
Facility Ownership and Manag

• B‐W Parkway owned & operated by

SHA between between Baltimore Baltimore City and

MD 175 and NPS between MD 175

and New York Ave/US 50 split.

• NPS Section is 6 lanes from US 50 to

MD 450 and 4 lanes from MD 450

to MD 175.

• SHA is currently widening MD 295

from 4 to 6 lanes between I‐195

and I‐695.

• SHA is planning to widen MD 295

from 4 to 6 lanes between MD 100

and I‐195.

Map Source: B‐W Parkway Widening Feasibility Study Major ‐ 
Traffic Considerations Traffic Considerations

• Local Land Use, Population and Employment

Projections

2005 2040 gro

Population 6,262,508 8,613,982 38

Employment 3,700,075 5,457,004 47

• Traffic Forecasts

 From 2005 to 2040, up to 34% increase increase in north

‐s

between Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
Estimated Traffic Volume

Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Model version 2.2, Land Use Ro
Traffic Analysis Summary

• A widened Parkway will carry more traffic.• A widened Parkway will not necessarily be less conge

than experienced today.

• Therefore, we can move more vehicles through the c

but at similar similar levels of congestion congestion as observed observed today
Widening Options

Four options were evaluated: AAS

• AASHTO Outside Widening

Option

AAS

• AASHTO Inside Widening

Option

• NPS Outside Widening

Option

• NPS Inside Widening Option NPS Standards
AASHTO Options

AASHTO Outside

Widening Option

AAS

Wid
AASHTO Outside Widening Op

“Before” and “After” Conditions

“Before” “After”
NPS Options

NPS Outside

Widening Option

NPS 

Wideni
NPS Inside Widening Option

“Before” and “After” Conditions

“Before” “After”
Definition of Impact Type

• Direct Impacts are full and/or partial takes to:

• Residential, commercial and governmental and institutiona

properties.

• Natural Natural environmental environmental resources resources including including wetlands wetlands, flood

flood

streams.

• Parks and interchanges.

• Quality of Life Impacts are disturbances to:

• A defined buffer area adjacent to properties and communities• Impacts Impacts include include noise, air, visual and aesthetic aesthetic value.• These impacts will not be quantified at this level of study but w

assessed qualitatively.
Constructabilit

y Im

pacts

CONSTRUCTABILITY IMPACTS AASHTO Standards NP

Widening Options Outside Inside Out

Majo

r Inte c a ge r

c

h

a

nge

Reco st uct o nst

ruction*

(Each) 11 2 1

Bridge Replacement Only (Each) 7 5 

*Includes Bridge Replacement and Ramp Reconfiguration

** Baltimore Washington Parkway Bridges

Bridge Widening** (Each) 7 6 

Baltimore Washington Parkway Bridges

Note: Direct impacts are approximate based on

a high level engineering analys

study progress beyond this point,

a more detailed determination of direct impa

possible need for additional structures (such as the barriers or retaining walls

assesse

d.
Potential Prop y ert Impact

POTENTIAL POTENTIAL PROPERTY PROPERTY IMPACTS IMPACTS AASHTO St d d an ar s NPS 

Widening Options Outside Inside Outsid

Residential (Each) 13‐14 0‐1 13‐14 

Commercial (Each) 2 1 2

Institutional (Each) 1‐2 0‐1 1‐2 

Note: Direct impacts are approximate based on a high level engineering analysis. S

study progress beyond this point, a more detailed determination of direct impacts ca

These impacts represent minimal slivers of land along the Parkway right‐of‐way, ra

impacts impacts to property property (housing (housing or building). building).
Potential Environmental and

Cultural Impacts

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND

CULTURAL IMPACTS

AASHTO Standards NPS S

CULTURAL IMPACTS

Widening Options Outside Inside Outsid

Forest Impacts, Inside Existing ROW 35% 26% 25% 

(Percent of total acres*) 35% 26% 25% 

Wetland Area Crossings (Each) 18 6 18 

Stream/Rivers/Floodplain Stream/Rivers/Floodplain Areas (Each) 6 6 6 

Sensitive Species Areas (Each) 5 55

Potential Historic Properties (Each) 4 24

* Total Forest Area Inside Existing ROW is approximately 678 acres.

Forest Impacts Outside Existing ROW are minimal.

N Di i i b d hi h l l i i l i Sh 

Potential Park Properties (Each) 2 12

Note: Direct impacts are approximate based on a high level engineering analysis. Sh

progress beyond this point, a more detailed determination of direct impacts can 
Estimated Costs

COSTS (2011 Dollars in Millions) AASHTO Standards NPS Sta

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside 

Construction Costs $ 450 $ 326 $ 427 

Preliminary Engineering (10%) $ 45 $ 33 $ 43 

Construction Support* (15.5%) $ 70 $ 51 $ 66 

* Construction support covers inspection, field offices, testing and other support costs incurred by the owner d

TOTAL COST $ 565 $ 410 $ 536 

Note: Capital costs estimates developed using the Maryland Department of Transportation SHA 2011 Highway 

Estimating Manual. There will be additional mitigation costs that will have to be considered if the study moves fo
Other Estimated Cost Facto

Facto

Right of Way Costs:

• Identified impacts ‐ only potential encroachments 

narrow slivers of land adjacent to the Parkway bou

• Majority, if not all, of the land impacts could be mi

study moves forwards.

• Consequently, no costs for Right of Way acquisition 

in the study.
Other Estimated Cost Facto

Facto

Operations and Maintenance Costs (O & M):

• Would likely increase by approximately $300,000 ‐ 

annually.

• Estimated by applying increased lane miles and str

areas to unit prices taken from the 2011 National National P

Service O&M budget.

• Includes Includes labor and materials materials for typical typical parkway parkway

maintenance items.
Other Estimated Cost Facto

Facto

Construction Costs for Park Aesthetics:

• Additional landscaping and aesthetic treatment of structu

included.

• Decorative concrete/stone treatment costs included for N

options.

• Aesthetic architectural treatments of piers and abutments 

in bridge costs.

• Landscaping cost increased to account for plantings indica

parkway.
Conclusions

• This feasibility study has a limited scope of work:

• Evaluate feasibility of adding a north and a south bound ge

purpose lane for a minimum three‐lanes in each direction.

• Assess tra spo a o nsportation impac st of add o a iti n l capac yit on ma 

operations.

• Examine the physical effects of applicable design approach

• Appraise the environmental considerations to be dealt with 

studies.

• Identify Identify public and political political concerns concerns of various various stakeholde

stakeholde

agencies with ownership interest, regional planners, and th

• Assess impacts on ownership and management of the Park
Conclusions

• If the study moves forward, a more comprehensive evalua

should consider: should consider:

• The transportation needs within the context of the existing and f

network of transportation facilities and services in the entire Bal

Washington travel corridor.

• A wider array of modal and user options addressing traffic and 

transportation needs on the Parkway itself and within the larger 

Corridor.

• A detailed examination of the effects on the natural socio econo

A detailed examination of the effects on the natural, socio econo

cultural, and built environments, through a proactive public and process.

• Incorporation of a context sensitive solutions approach to addre

needs and developing design and engineering recommendationneeds and developing design and engineering recommendation

• Implications of impairment on the status of the B-W Parkway as 

region’s premier National Park resources.
Next Steps

• Summarize Meeting # 3

Comments

• Finalize and Submit Report to

Congress
Content of Report to Congr

Congr

• Study Background and Focus• Alternatives Definition• Transportation Impacts• Physical Effects• Environmental Analysis and Effects• Public and Political Considerations• Ownership and Management Consideration• Conclusions• Appendix of Supporting Technical Information
Public Questions and

Comments
Where to find more informa

informa

• Website

• Eastern Federal Lands –

http://www efl fhwa dot gov http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov

• Contact Information

Mr. Lewis G. Grimm, P.E. Ms. Greer Gillis, P.E.Planning Team Leader

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration21400 Ridgetop Circle

,

Consultant Project Manag

Parsons Brinckerhoff

1401 K Street, NW, Suite 3

g p Washington, DC 20005

Sterling, Virginia 20166

Tel: 703‐404‐6289 | Fax: 703‐404‐6217

E‐mail: lewis.grimm@dot.gov

g ,

Tel: 202‐661‐5301

Fax: 202.661.5300Email: gillis@pbworld.co
THANK YOU FOR YOUR

PARTICIPATION
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

AppendixȂOfficial Comments to

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility

Study
12/23/2011 

comments from fort meade regional transportation commission_nov2011 1 

Fort Meade Regional Growth Management Committee 

Proposal for the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Project 

This proposal calls for the consideration of a managed lane widening solution, and 

describes the benefits that the approach might generate. 

PROPOSAL 

Congressman Ruppersberger has sponsored a feasibility study for the potential 

widening of the National Park Service segment of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. 

The RGMC has attended two public hearings on the study, and has prepared this 

proposal as its contribution to the process. 

The Parkway and MD-32 are the two primary limited access highways carrying Fort 

Meade traffic. The potential widening of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway – one of 

the region's most congested roadways – appears to offer significant benefits for Fort 

Meade and other major employers in the corridor. Unfortunately, such potential benefits 

have not been fully considered. 

The RGMC membership has formally adopted a two-part strategy to address gaps in 

regional roadway capacity: (1) Support improvements in roadway capacity where 

funding is available; (2) Develop, support and promote solutions that reduce the need 

for roadway capacity by allowing for greater system throughput. 

The widening of the Parkway could potentially serve both parts of the RGMC 

transportation strategy - i.e., adding capacity and providing for greater system 

throughput. However, the current study does not address the viability of a managed 

lane option, with the potential for providing transit and high occupancy vehicle priority 

service. Assuming that a decision may ultimately be made to widen the Parkway, the 

RGMC proposes that additional feasibility work be performed to allow consideration of 

the following options: 
12/23/2011 

comments from fort meade regional transportation commission_nov2011 2 

1. New Capacity. The roadway becomes three lanes in both directions for its entire 

length, with current parkway standards applied to retain the parkway character, 

which is valued by local communities and travelers alike. 

2. Managed vs. Open Lane. The inside lane in either direction be constructed and 

operated as either an open lane or a "Managed Lane" with first priority for buses 

and carpools. Managed lane concepts such as this are being applied with great 

success throughout the country and within the region. Following are three 

possible configurations for a managed lane option that might be explored: 

a. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV). Reserved during peak periods for 

vehicles with at least two or three occupants, with increases in minimum 

occupancy over time as required, to ensure free flow in the managed 

lane. 

b. High Occupancy Toll (HOT). Similar in practice to HOV, but imposing a 

toll on all vehicles as a means to pay back the construction costs of the 

third lane. 

c. Express Toll. Allowing access by any vehicle willing to pay the toll; 

setting a market-driven toll to ensure free flow at all times. This approach 

provides an opportunity for single occupant vehicle (SOV) traffic to use 

remaining capacity in the third lane by paying a market-driven toll. 

The remainder of this document outlines the prospective benefits of these optional 

approaches. 

BENEFITS 

The project as defined above appears to offer six main benefits: 

1. New Capacity. It adds regional capacity in an area where additional capacity is 

sorely needed. While the focus of the RGMC is Fort Meade with its workforce of 

56,000, it should be noted that express toll lanes would greatly benefit several 
12/23/2011 

comments from fort meade regional transportation commission_nov2011 3 

other federal installations along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (e.g., NASA 

Goddard). 

2. Job Creation. The Department of Defense at Fort Meade is the State's largest 

employer. The proposal would greatly improve the reach of Fort Meade 

agencies and their personnel acquisition efforts into the highly qualified workforce 

areas of Northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. It 

would improve transportation access for existing and prospective employees of 

NSA, DISA and other Fort Meade agencies. 

3. Higher Throughput Potential. Limiting use of the third lane to sustain speed limit 

performance during peak periods would provide a powerful incentive for the 

expanded use of carpools, vanpools and buses. The typical vanpool serving Fort 

Meade carries 9 persons, and buses carry 40. Compared with a lane-mile of 

highway carrying 1,500 persons per hour in single occupant vehicles, an express 

lane fully loaded with vanpool vehicles could carry 13,500 persons per hour – 

and more with equivalent bus capacity as part of the traffic mix. 

4. Self-Financing. Tolling the new capacity would generate revenue, and could 

thereby enable recovery of a significant share of its cost. The full project, or the 

toll management portion of it, could conceivably be done as a P3. 

5. Side Benefits. The additional roadway capacity, combined with pooling, has the 

potential to improve quality of service on the non-tolled portion of the Parkway 

and on I-95 as well by providing users of the Parkway an option to SOV 

transport, thus relieving the load on area highways. 

6. Quality of Service. The managed lane approach would afford all users a high 

level of service reliability in accessing key points along the Baltimore-Washington 

corridor with no or reduced threat of delay. This benefit would attract customers 

who place value on time and reliability. 

Extending the feasibility analysis as proposed herein could be accomplished at little 

additional cost, and would likely lead to a solution that would garner enthusiastic 
12/23/2011 

comments from fort meade regional transportation commission_nov2011 4 

support from all Baltimore-Washington Parkway stakeholders – users, local residents, 

employers, and taxpayers. 

Point of Contact: 

Jean Friedberg 

Regional Transportation Coordinator 

Fort Meade Regional Growth Management Committee 

410-992-5050 

friedberg.jean@gmail.com 
DRAFT 01/20/2012 

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility and Other Considerations

The following are observations made by Gerald R. Cichy, P.E., AICP, of the Maryland Transit 

Administration (MTA), BRAC Coordinator for MTA, and a MTA participant on the study 

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). These comments do not represent official MTA comments 

at this time, and were updated on January 20, 2012 following the third TAC Meeting on 

January, 19, 2012. 

It is fully recognized the Baltimore-Washington Parkway has been expertly maintained, 

improved and managed by the NPS Units responsible for its operation, and is an asset to the 

Washington Region. 

QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED

1. What is the status, function and significance of the BWP in the NPS National Parkway 

System? 

2. Should the BWP be expanded fully to the six lane cross section from a functional stand 

point? 

3. Is it physically and environmental feasible to expand the number of lanes on the BWP? 

4. Is it best to do the expansion, inside, outside, or a combination? 

5. What will the use of ASSHTO standard do to the character of the BWP? 

6. Will the use of ASSHTO standard, result in full truck use on the BWP? 

7. Would the designation of the new lanes as HOV lanes for ridesharing and buses make 

the expansion more compatible? 

8. What ways can improvements be funded, and would the designation of any new lanes 

or the full facility as a toll a managed facility provide a way to fund both the NSP and 

State sections. 

9. What would be the best way to manage improvements to the facility, NPS/FHWA, joint 

FHWA/SHA/MdTA, Design-Build, Public-Private Partnership (3P), or other? 

10. In addition to the report on feasibility, what key consideration need to addressed and 

decided before proceeding further. 

1. What is the status, function and significance of the BWP in the NPS National Parkway 

System?
Even prior to this study, past discussions have included whether the BWP should remain in the 

NPS National Parkway system, and the possible transfer of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway 

to the State of Maryland. 

Paralleling the development of the Westchester County Parkways between 1913 and the 1930’s 

and subsequently the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, “Congress began to apply the “parkway” 

idea locally in the District of Columbia (Ref: NPS Expansion in the 1930’s). 

The Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway was a first effort in the Washington area, followed by the 

Mount Vernon Memorial Parkway, renamed the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The 

GW Parkway was later extended to I-495, the American Legion Bridge on the Virginia side, and 

from Canal Road in DC to I-495, later named the Clara Barton Parkway. 

The NPS Parkway System added the Suitland Parkway in 1944, and the BWP between 1950 and 

1954. The Shirley Memorial Highway was also initially constructed as a four lane road which 

had parkway appearance, before being designated I-95/I-395 later and becoming a 10 lane 

interstate freeway. 

Prior to World War II and following the WWII, US Route 1 in Maryland was the primary access 

to Washington from the Northeast, and US Route 1 in Virginia from the South. The war related 

growth of traffic to Federal and Military facilities in Washington, DC was instrumental in the 

funding and construction of both the BWP Parkway and Shirley Highway as safer and quicker 

routes to Washington. Continued growth in traffic to Washington and Federal moves to the 

suburbs saw the construction of I-95 in Maryland, and conversion of Shirley Highway to 

Interstate I-95 and later re-designated I-395 in Virginia. 

With the continued growth of traffic on the BWP, there is a question of how does the BWP 

continue to fit into the NPS Washington Area and even National Parkway System. How does the 

BWP rank with the GW Parkway and parkways of such national significance such as the Colonial 

Parkway to Williamsburg, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the Natchez Trace? 

2. Should the BWP be expanded to the full six lane cross section from a functional 

standpoint?

Thus, if the BWP is to remain an important part of the NPS Washington area or National 

Parkway System as a scenic parkway, should it be widened to six lanes while still retaining the 

parkway character? The southern section of the BWP has been widened to six lanes and has 

retained parkway character. The sections of the GW Parkway, between National Airport and 

the 14th Street Bridge, and between Key Bridge and Spout Run, function as six lane sections 
while still retaining parkway character. These examples show that the use of NPS standards can 

ensure retention of the parkway character. 

From a traffic standpoint, the widening to six lane will likely result in diverted and induced 

traffic that will absorb the added capacity. However the widening may allow for some 

compression of the rush period, and provide new capacity between Baltimore and Washington 

into the future, as the area continues to grow, particularly the DoD functions at Fort Meade. 

For through traffic on I-95, the use of the BWP results in at least a 5 mile saving in distance 

verses staying on I-95 between Baltimore and Washington. The BWP will continue to remain an 

attractive alternative to I-95 for buses and passenger vehicles. 

If the BWP is accepted more as a commuter road for increased traffic, is any widening better 

served with ASSHTO standards. Would this make for a safer road, or encourage higher speeds, 

and where the parkway character is lost? 

3. Is it physically and environmental feasible to expand the number of lanes in the NPS 

section of the BWP?

The studies performed by FHWA and consultant team generally looked at four options in 

analyzing the widening of the BWP. The options are; (1) NPS Standards inside; (2) NPS 

Standards outside; (3) ASSHTO Standards inside; and (4) ASSHTO Standards outside. The 

ASSHTO Standards would generally match the improvements completed and open to traffic by 

SHA on state section between I-695 (Baltimore Beltway) and I-195 (BWI Access Road), and 

understudy between I-195 and MD Route 175, the southern end of State ownership and 

operations. 

 In applying ASSHTO standards inside or outside; safety and operations would be the more 

controlling factors, where trucks might be allowed if under Maryland State control. In applying 

NPS standards inside or outside; preservation of the parkway environment and retaining safety 

would be the dominant factors. Historic, environmental and community preservation and 

impacts would remain considerations under all options. It would appear that the study to date 

demonstrates that all options are physically feasible. 

4. Is it best to do the expansion, inside, outside, or as a combination?

 The best option for maintaining the quality parkway environmental may be a combination of 

NPS inside and outside lane additions. Where the parkway right-of-way is wide, an outside 
widening would be feasible while retaining a sustainable wooded buffet, with the existing 

median width. There are places along the parkway where the right-of-way is narrow, with close 

residential and institutional development. Here an inside widening where safely feasible would 

retain as out of the outside wooded buffer as possible. Utilization of existed bridge underpasses 

could determine whether to widen inside or outside, as SHA has done on their northern 

section, consistent with safety. 

5. What will the use of ASSHTO standards do to the parkway character of the BWP?

SHA in its widening project, from I-695 to I-195, at the Arundel Mills Interchange, and as 

proposed to MD175 has tried to preserve some of the parkway qualities with increased 

landscaping and tree preservation. However, would the use of ASSHTO standard minimize or 

totally change the present parkway character? 

6. Will the use of ASSHTO standards, more likely result in full truck use of the BWP?

If ASSHTO standards are applied, by NPS/FHWA or SHA, which would provide a design that 

could more fully and safely accommodate trucks. Would this generate greater pressure to open 

the BWP to trucks, rather than just autos, buses and small trucks/commercial vehicles as may 

be allowed? 

If the NPS section is widened from 4 to 6 lanes with ASSTHO standards, would the southern 

existing six lane section be also modified with ASSHTO standards as may require possible inside 

and outside shoulder improvements? 

With widening to ASSHTO standards, would the “hidden” Maryland Route 295 designation be 

made explicit with MD295 signage being added? 

Previously under Sec. 139, if a road is access controlled and generally met Interstate ASSHTO 

standards (looked and smelled like) if could be added to the Interstate System. Segments that 

did not fully meet those standards could be designated Interstate Travel-Way. Beyond MD 295 

designation, would I-295 designation from I-695 through Maryland and DC to I-95/I-495 at the 

Woodrow Wilson Bridge be possible. 

Knowledgeable I-95 north-south travelers know the that traveling on the BWP is 5 mile shorter 

than staying on I-95 between Baltimore and the I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway North, and an 

additional 5 miles shorter staying on the BWP to Kenilworth Avenue/Anacostia Freeway, than 

going around the Capital Beltway through Prince Georges County. 
The is some understanding that if an acceptable truck alternative is reasonably available, them 

the State of Maryland can prohibit trucks on the a widened NPS section of the BWP. 

Truck access extension to MD32 to serve the NSA special entrance, and/or MD32 serving both 

NSA Main Entrance, the FGGM Mapes and east-west movement, or even to MD198 could be 

logical partial adjustment of truck restrictions. 

7. Would the new lanes as HOV or managed lanes for carpools, vanpools and buses make 

the expansion more compatible?

Proceeding with any widening to six lanes will require meeting various environmental, historic 

and community considerations. Abutting or impacted property owners and residents, real or as 

perceived may express opposition to any proposed widening of the BWP. 

Others will say investment of “limited transportation resources” should be used for recommend 

improvements in bus transit, MARC Commuter Rail service, ridesharing opportunities and 

biking/walking trails, rather than another road widening. With present or planned 

improvements, there would be 24 to 32 freeway or arterial lanes (US29 4/6, I-95 8, US1 4/6, 

BWP 4/6, I-97/MD3/US50 4/6) between Baltimore and Washington, “What will another two 

lanes do?” 

For the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) at Fort George G. Meade (FGGM), a combined 

effort (June 2, 2010 MOU) has been made to develop a TDM Plan (Transportation Management 

Plan). The plan calls for greater carpooling, vanpooling, MTA Commuter Bus, CMRT Local 

transit, CMRT Subscription Bus, tele-commuting, added MARC Rail Service, DoD Shuttles from 

MARC and Metro stations, and BWIP “MeadeRide”. This effort is directed at getting FGGM, 

BRAC Agencies (DISA, DMA, DAA) NSA, DoD Contractors out of their SOVs. 

Thus suggestions have been made that any new BWP lanes be HOV lanes set aside for 

ridesharing and buses. If HOV lanes are placed in the center, HOV ramps to local arterial such as 

MD198 and MD175 could be constructed. 

8. What ways can improvements be funded, and would the designation of new lanes or 

the full facility as a toll-managed facility provide a way to fund both the NSP and SHA 

sections of the BWP?

Given the constraint on the Federal Government, if a decision is made to widen the NSP section 

of BWP, ways to fund it need to be identified and explored. The designation of the HOV lanes or 
toll-managed lanes could be an option that could be jointly used to fund both the NPS section 

and the SHA section south to MD175. HOV ramps to MD175 AND MD198 could also be funded 

under this option. Adjustments in the NSA interchange to serve the National Business Park (SB 

right Turn), and the NASA Interchange to also provide additional access to the City of Greenbelt 

could be included in such a funding package. 

9. What would be the best way to manage improvements to the facility?

With the State initiation and Public acceptance of managed toll lanes on the ICC, this option 

could be applied to the widening of the BWP, perhaps as a joint NPS/FHWA/SHA/MdTA project 

or P3 (Public-Private Partnership) as being done in Virginia. 

In 1972, MDOT conducted the Western Prince Georges Transportation Study, which identified a 

connection between I-95/ICC and the BWP/MD197 area. The MdTA completion of the ICC to 

US1 would connect to Muirkirk MARC Station, and Muirkirk Road to the BWP/MD197 

Interchange. 

10. In addition to the report recommendation on “Is it feasible?”; what key considerations 

need to be addressed and decided before proceeding further?

It is likely that the study feasibility report will state that the widening of the NPS section to six 

lanes is feasible and possible, if simply considering the southern section that is six lanes. 

A decision matrix outlining key considerations could help. A decision flow might be: 

A. Is the BWP an integral and importation part of the Washington area and National 

Parkway System that should be retained? 

B. If so, the case for NPS standards, operation and management is made. 

C. With NSP Parkway Standards, should the NSP section be widened, and what options. 

D. If NPS Parkway standards, how can the project be funded? 

E. If not integral, ASSHTO standards with parkway characteristics could be a consistent 

option with the SHA section and DC connecting roadways. 

F. With HOV/Toll-Managed Lanes can revenue support the NSP/FHWA action or joint 

NPS/FHWA/SHA/MdTA? 

G. Under selected options, define and complete environmental, historic, community 

and transportation planning, analysis and ROD. 

H. Set funding, lead entity, and schedule for improvement. 



1

Gillis, Greer

From: Ken [kaskal@aol.com]

Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:14 PM

To: lewis.grimm@dot.gov; Gillis, Greer

Cc: kskriv@gmail.com; director@laurelhistoricalsociety.org; karenlub@aol.com

Subject: Historical Sites along the Baltimore Washington Parkway

Mr Grimm and Ms Gillis, 

I was at the meeting in Greenbelt last week regarding possible widening of the Baltimore Washington Parkway. I brought up the existence a Snowden family 

historical site along the Baltimore Washington Parkway that I thought should be included in your study for archaeological and historic purposes. This is a followup 

to that meeting in support of your report preparations. 

One of the Snowden families, including at least one of the Richard Snowdens, built and lived in the Birmingham Manor, located on a rise, or high ground about half 

a mile north of the Patuxent River bridge along the parkway. Just east and south of the Manor site is the Snowden family graveyard with several 19th century 

graves at least, including Louisa Snowden Capron, the wife of Horace Capron who in 1835 founded the cotton mill in what became the town of Laurel. The 

graveyard is in Patuxent Research Refuge. But the Birmingham Manor site and its associated slave quarter sites and outbuilding sites may all be on current 

Baltimore Washington Parkway right-of-way. 

The Snowden family had a number of other homes in the area, including Montpelier Mansion, a well known site administered by the National Park Service. For 

further information on the Snowden family, more detailed information can be obtained from the Friends of Montpelier and the associated historical files that they 

have. 

The Birmingham Manor was built in approximately 1688 - 1690, and it was destroyed by fire in 1891. The Baltimore Washington Parkway apparently runs right 

through the site of the Birmingham Manor, and as far as I know there has not been any significant archaeological investigation there. No doubt there are slave 

quarter sites and outbuildings yet to be located in that vicinity. There are loose bricks from the house at ground level, on the top of a rise immediately on the east 

side of the Parkway. There is an old photograph of the manor available but I do not have it to send right now. 

One the west side of the Parkway there is another important site, that of an Iron Works dating to the 18th century plus a grist and saw mill site, adjacent to the 

Patuxent River on the north side of the river. There is stone construction in that vicinity from the Iron Works. The site is evidently close to the Parkway on the west 

side, and just north of the Patuxent River. I have not seen this site personally but a photo of the stone work appeared in the Laurel News Leader newspaper some 

years ago, taken by John Calder Brennan. 

Best regards, 

Ken Skrivseth, volunteer at the Laurel Historical Society 

The Laurel Historical Society has a website at www.laurelhistory.org and the director can be reached by email as well.
Public Comment Form 

Thank you for participating in the first public meeting of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening 

Feasibility Study. Public opinion is a critical element of determining the feasibility of widening the BaltimoreWashington Parkway. Please take a minute or two to tell us what you think about tonight’s meeting and this 

study. 

1. What did you like the most about tonight’s public meeting? 

 What did you like the least? 

2. What are the five most important issues to you with regards to this feasibility study? Please rank these issues from 

1 to 5, with 1 being the most important and 5 being the least importance. 

Aesthetics/ appearance of the Parkway

3 Traffic / transportation network efficiency

1 Reduction in traffic congestion; more reliable travel time

Preserving the park-like character of the Parkway

2 Access to jobs and destinations (including BRAC)

Availability of land / right-of-way

Preservation of natural resources

Preservation of cultural resources

Protecting communities and community resources

Other __________________________________________________

Comments / Explain: 

As a commuter who uses the BW Parkway every workday to get to my job, I think the widening of the road is a brilliant 

and long-overdue idea. Anyone who routinely uses it can attest to the daily traffic jams, which are not only stressful on 

people, but also wasteful thanks to idling engines burning gas and untold thousands of hours of lost time that 

commuters could be spending on more worthwhile pursuits than sitting in their cars. Looking at the ultra-wide median 

strips and expanses of trees on either side of the Parkway, it’s very clear that the road could be widened to three or 

even four lanes without bothering anyone or sacrificing a significant amount of wild space. 

Reality check: 

x The people who are against expanding the BW Parkway will get used to it within a couple months, and soon no 

one will remember what it was like before. 

x Bulldozing some trees on either side of the road to make room for new lanes will destroy only a tiny fraction of 

those forested areas. No one uses those areas anyway since they’re so close to the road—people hike and camp 

much deeper in. 

x If it came down to it, the vast majority of BW Parkway commuters would probably support sacrificing much of 

the road’s “parklike” appearance if doing so meant less congestion and faster travel times. 
3. Would you like to be on the project mailing list? Circle: YES / NO

Name: Eddie Germino 

Street Address: 5001 Quebec St. 

State/Zip: College Park, MD 20740 
Adding a third northbound and southbound lane to the Baltimore Washington Parkway is not feasible. 

The aesthetics and spirit of the parkway will be destroyed. 

As the presenters at the February 16, 2012 public meeting showed, adding these lanes will not reduce 

travel time. 

The area surrounding the BW Parkway is some of the last pristine green space in the State. This area is 

home to the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge and the many beautiful animals that live there. Disturbing the 

surrounding area with construction and impervious surface will have negative effects on these species. 

Adding the extra lanes is not a sustainable growth solution. It will add noise and air pollution. What this 

State needs is additional funding to be put into a variety of mass transit options. We need to encourage 

smart growth, not sprawl. 

Have you ever driven up and down the BWI Parkway during the fall? Its breath-taking beauty makes us 

Marylanders proud to call this our home. This is an area worth saving. The crisp reds, yellows, orange 

and brown leaves are like paint on nature’s canvas. Often you can see many types of birds, including 

hawks and eagles flying above. The current stone walls lining the parkway were especially designed by 

the National Park Service to help maintain the aesthetic beauty of this corridor. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Shao 

 
1

Gillis, Greer

From: Ben Fischler [brf57@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:50 AM

To: lewis.grimm@dot.gov

Cc: Gillis, Greer

Subject: Baltimore-Washington Parkway: Questions from Third Public Meeting

Dear Mr. Grimm: 

Thank you for conducting an informative meeting last week. I would like to provide written 

comments as soon as my work schedule allows, but this morning I have two quick questions: 

1) In the meeting you repeatedly requested more public written comments. What email address 

is best for people to use for submitting comments? When asked at the meeting you pointed to 

the two email addresses I have sent this email to. 

2) Another attendee wrote a thoughful and positive blog about the meeting that can be read 

at: 

http://greenbelt.patch.com/blog_posts/public-meeting-hosted-on-bw-parkway-expansion-study

In this blog, Mr. Lemieux states: 

"The FHA presentation was led by Lewis Grimm, the planning team leader, who explained that 

the parameters of the earmark only allowed a study of adding lanes to the parkway, and that 

the study did not therefore consider other possible means of improving transportation along 

the Baltimore-Washington corridor." 

Is thought you said something different: that Congressman Ruppersburger told you to consider 

all options for the Parkway, but limited consideration of the entire Baltimore-Washington 

corridor. So, please tell me whether I misheard you or Mr. Lemieux misheard you? 

Thanks, 

Ben Fischler 

brf57@yahoo.com

14-V4 Ridge Road, Greenbelt, MD 20770 




CITY OF GREENBELT

25 CRESCENT ROAD, GREENBELT, MD. 20770-1886

Mr. Victor MendeZjAdministrator

Federal Highway Administration

1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

April 10,2012

CITY COUNCIL

Judith F. Davis. Mayor

Emmett V. Jordan, Mayor Pro Tem

Konrad E. Herling

Leta M. Mach

Silke I. Pope

Edward V.J. Putens

Rodney M. Roberts

Dear Administrator Mendez:

Atitsmeeting ofMarch 12, 2012, the Greenbelt City Council voted unanimously to opposeany

wideningof the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.

The Cityappreciates the work that the Federal Highway Administration and its consultants have done

overthe pastyearin conductinga studyof the feasibility ofwidening the Baltimore-Washington

Parkway. Many Greenbelt residents and most of the City Council participated in the three public

meetings.

Based on the study'soutcomes presented at the February 16, 2012, meeting, the Council found that:

1. The projected cost is too high at between $343 and $565 milliondepending on the alternative.

2. The environmental impacts are too great. Again, depending on the alternative, widening could

impact up to 35% of the adjacent 678 acresofwoodland.

3. While widening mayprovide short-term relief, the traffic analysis done as part of the study

indicates congestion will return to current levels in a matter of years.

4. The historic, aesthetic and natural values of the Parkwaywill be destroyed.

In the City Council's view, these impacts are too great. Anyfunds lor such a project would be better

used for enhancing'and developingother forms of public transit to servethe area. These could include

enhanced train service between Baltimore and Washington and the communities in between, extending

the Metrorailsystem north from Greenbelt, expanding bus servicein the corridor, etc.

GREEN

BELT A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK

75th Anniversary — 1937-2012

PHONE: (301) 474-8000 www.greenbeltmd.gov


Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

Appendix
ǦStudy Team
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

November 2012

Study Team

Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

Lewis Grimm, P.E., Planning Team Leader Project Manager

Jack VanDop, Senior Technical Specialist Project Management Team

Alazar Feleke, P.E., PMP, Highway Design Manager Project Management Team

National Park Service, National Capital Region

Charles Borders, Branch Chief, Transportation Project Management Team

David Hayes, Regional Planner and Transportation Liaison Project Management Team

Consultant Team

Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.

Greer Gillis, P.E. Project Manager

Hal Kassoff Principal In Charge

Jerry Jannetti, P.E. Senior Advisor

Tim Ramey, P.E. Alternatives Development Task Lead

Don Ainsworth, P.E. Alternatives Development Team

Romy De La Cruz, P.E. Alternatives Development Team

Marsha Kaiser Public Involvement Task Lead

Jennifer Weeks Public Involvement Team

Eduardo Maeyama, EIT Public Involvement Team

Mark Cheskey Existing Conditions Task Lead

Stephanie Foell Existing Conditions Team

Henry Ward, RPA Existing Conditions Team

Crystal Saunders Hancock Existing Conditions Team

Todd Peterson, P.E., PTOE Traffic and Transportation Task Lead

John Winkel Graphics Designer

KCI Technologies, Inc.

Angela Jones, P.E. Deputy Project Manager

Stephen Drumm, P.E. Senior Advisor

Ken Briggs, P.E. Alternatives Development Task Lead

Jeremy Betz, P.E. Alternatives Development Team

Dion Ho, P.E. Alternatives Development Team

Glenda Larson Public Involvement Task Lead

James Noonan, AICP Existing Conditions Task Lead

Tiffany Winters Existing Conditions Team

Shubha Adhikari Existing Conditions Team

Kristen Goddard, AICP Existing Conditions Team

Lauren Molesworth Existing Conditions Team

Jeff Lawrence, P.E., PTOE, PTP Traffic and Transportation Task Lead