Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

November 2012

This page is intentionally left blank
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

i November 2012

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1

Study Background ................................................................................................................................ 1

Study Participants ................................................................................................................................ 2

Study Focus ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Feasibility Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 3

Alternatives Definition ......................................................................................................................... 4

Traffic and Transportation ................................................................................................................... 6

Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 6

Impacts on Parkway Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 7

Forecasting Scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 8

Impacts on B-W Parkway Traffic Operations ........................................................................................ 8

Physical Constraints ............................................................................................................................. 9

Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................... 10

Environmental Analysis and Effects.................................................................................................... 11

Public and Political Considerations..................................................................................................... 12

Facility Ownership and Management ................................................................................................. 13

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 14

1.0 Study Background ............................................................................................................................ 16

1.1 Summary of Study Purpose .......................................................................................................... 16

1.2 Description of Legislative Language.............................................................................................. 16

1.3 Legislative Purposes and Significance of the Parkway ................................................................... 17

1.4 Agency Participants ..................................................................................................................... 19

2.0 Study Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 20

2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 20

2.2 Facility Management and Ownership ........................................................................................... 24

2.3 Feasibility Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 24

2.3.1 Definition of Feasibility.......................................................................................................... 24
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

ii November 2012

2.3.2 Criteria Overview .................................................................................................................. 25

2.3 Limiting Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 26

3.0 Alternatives Definition ..................................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 27

3.1.1 Background Information ....................................................................................................... 27

3.1.2 Potential Safety Issues and Roadway Deficiencies ................................................................. 27

3.1.3 Stakeholder Input.................................................................................................................. 28

3.2 Parkway Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 29

3.2.1 Screening Criteria .................................................................................................................. 30

3.2.2 Results of Preliminary Screening ........................................................................................... 30

3.3.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Study and Analysis ............................................................. 32

3.2 Widening Options ........................................................................................................................ 33

3.2.1 Outside Widening ................................................................................................................. 34

3.2.2 Inside Widening .................................................................................................................... 35

4.0 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 37

4.1 Overview of the Context-Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Approach to the Feasibility Study ................... 37

4.2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ............................................................................................ 37

4.2.1 TAC Member Agencies .......................................................................................................... 37

4.2.2 TAC Meetings ........................................................................................................................ 38

4.3 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 39

4.3.1 Overview of Public Meetings ................................................................................................. 39

4.4 Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................................................ 41

4.5 Public Access to Study Information .............................................................................................. 41

4.5.1 Mailing List and Email Contacts ............................................................................................. 41

4.5.2 Newsletters ........................................................................................................................... 42

4.5.3 Public Meeting Advertisements ............................................................................................. 42

4.5.4 Webpage on the FHWA Web site .......................................................................................... 42

4.6 Major Issues or Concerns Emerging from Public Involvement....................................................... 42

5.0 Traffic and Transportation Impacts .................................................................................................. 43

5.1 Definition and Purpose ................................................................................................................ 43
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

iii November 2012

5.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 43

5.2.1 Limitations of the Transportation Analysis ............................................................................. 43

5.2.2 Travel Demand Modeling ...................................................................................................... 44

5.2.3 Constrained Long Range Plan Projects ................................................................................... 44

5.3 Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................................................... 45

5.3.1 Existing Conditions Scenario .................................................................................................. 45

5.3.2 2040 No-Build Scenario ......................................................................................................... 46

5.3.3 2040 Partial-Build Scenario ................................................................................................... 46

5.3.4 2040 Full-Build Scenario ........................................................................................................ 47

5.4 Analysis Results............................................................................................................................ 47

5.4.1 Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 47

5.4.2 Operations ............................................................................................................................ 49

6.0 Physical Constraints ......................................................................................................................... 54

6.1 Approaches to Widening .............................................................................................................. 54

6.2 Potential Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 54

6.3 Preliminary Costs ......................................................................................................................... 57

6.3.1 Capital Costs ......................................................................................................................... 57

6.3.2 Right of Way Costs ................................................................................................................ 59

6.3.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs ....................................................................................... 59

6.3.4 Construction Costs for Park Aesthetics .................................................................................. 59

7.0 Environmental Effects ...................................................................................................................... 60

7.1 Environmental Resources............................................................................................................. 60

7.1.2 Land Uses .............................................................................................................................. 60

7.1.3 Forest Areas .......................................................................................................................... 61

7.1.4 Natural Environmental Resources ......................................................................................... 61

7.1.5 Cultural and Historic Resources ............................................................................................. 62

7.1.6 Communities and Community Features ................................................................................. 63

7.1.7 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 63

7.2 Impacts ........................................................................................................................................ 63

7.2.1. Parklands and Recreation Areas Impacts .............................................................................. 64
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

iv November 2012

7.2.2 Wetlands and Water Resources Impacts ............................................................................... 64

7.2.3 Known Cultural Resources Effects ......................................................................................... 65

7.2.4 Forests and Ecology Effects ................................................................................................... 66

7.2.5 Potential Property Impacts .................................................................................................... 67

7.3 Quality of Life Effects ................................................................................................................... 67

8.0 Ownership and Management........................................................................................................... 69

8.1 Potential Transfer of Ownership .................................................................................................. 69

8.2 Impairment .................................................................................................................................. 69

9.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 72

9.1 Feasibility Criteria #1 - Physical Constraints .................................................................................. 72

9.2 Feasibility Criteria #2 - Environmental Analysis and Effects .......................................................... 72

9.3 Feasibility Criteria #3 - Traffic and Transportation ........................................................................ 72

9.4 Feasibility Criteria #4 - Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates............................................................ 73

9.5 Feasibility Criteria #5 – Public and Political Considerations ........................................................... 73

9.6 Feasibility Criteria #6 – Ownership and Management ................................................................... 73

9.7 Additional Considerations ............................................................................................................ 74

Technical Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 75
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

1 November 2012

Executive Summary

Study Background

House Report 110-238 which

accompanied the Transportation,

Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

2008, directed the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) Office of

Federal Lands Highways to work with

the National Park Service (NPS) and

the Maryland State Highway

Administration (SHA) to examine the

feasibility of “adding a third

northbound and a third southbound travel lane for Maryland Route 295/Baltimore Washington Parkway

from the intersection with Interstate 695 to New York Avenue in the District of Columbia.” The FY 2008

House Report also directed that the study “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, D.C.” Funding for the conduct of this feasibility study was identified in House

Report 111-366, which accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117)

which included the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010.

Opened in 1954, the Baltimore-Washington (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 NPS owns and operates a 19-mile section to the south between MD 175 and the

New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 split at the Prince George’s County/District of Columbia border. The

Maryland SHA owns and operates a 10-mile section of the B-W Parkway between I-695 and MD 175.

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 NPS. Additionally,

this protected parkway was to link key

regional defense facilities including Fort

George G. Meade. 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

designated as an Historic District and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

2 November 2012

Study Participants

This study was completed as a partnership between the FHWA’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

(EFLHD), the NPS, and the Maryland SHA. Additional agencies and institutional stakeholders provided

guidance to the study team as members of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which included the

following agencies:

x Amtrak

x Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and

Zoning

x Baltimore County Office of Planning

x Baltimore Metropolitan Council's Baltimore

Regional Transportation Board

x Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, U.S.

Department of Agriculture

x District of Columbia Department of Transportation

x Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland Federal-aid Division

x Federal Highway Administration, District of Columbia Federal-aid Division

x Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

x Fort George G. Meade, U.S. Army

x Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning

x Maryland Aviation Administration

x Maryland State Highway Administration

x Maryland Transit Administration

x Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission - Prince George’s County Planning

Department

x Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments - Transportation Planning Board

x National Aeronautics and Space Administration

x National Capital Planning Commission

x National Park Service - Greenbelt Park (A unit of National

Capital Parks - East)

x National Park Service - National Capital Parks - East

x National Park Service - National Capital Region

x National Security Agency

x Patuxent Research Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

x United States House of Representatives, Office of

Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger

x U.S. Park Police

x Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

A public involvement process provided additional input from residents, municipalities, and community

organizations along the Corridor.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

3 November 2012

Study Focus

Study Area

The study area was defined in the

legislation - the portion of the B-W

Parkway that falls between I-695

in Anne Arundel County,

Maryland, to the District of

Columbia boundary with the State

of Maryland at New York Avenue.

Management and ownership of

the B-W Parkway is divided and

displayed graphically in the project

map on this page. The Maryland

SHA owns and operates the

northern 10-mile section of the

B-W Parkway between I-695 and

MD 175. This section is designated

as Maryland 295. The NPS owns

and operates the southern 19-mile

stretch of the Parkway between

MD 175 and the boundary with

the District of Columbia at New

York Avenue/U.S. Route 50. It is

designated as the BaltimoreWashington Parkway.

Feasibility Criteria

To help determine the feasibility of widening the Parkway, the following factors were assessed: traffic

and transportation, physical constraints, preliminary capital cost estimates, environmental analysis and

effects, public and political considerations, and facility ownership and management. Additionally, the

study considered the potential impairment of the B-W Parkway, as impairment of the Parkway could

change the ownership and management of the facility.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

4 November 2012

Alternatives Definition

Two conceptual highway improvement alternatives were identified for the study: widening of the

existing B-W Parkway facility to the inside median area and widening of the facility to the outside rightof-way. Additionally, two separate design options were examined for each of the widening alternatives

based on the different design standards and guidelines used by the NPS and the Maryland SHA for

highway facilities of this nature.

The NPS uses design standards and guidelines as noted in its Park Road Standards, published in 1984.

The NPS standard for the widened road specifies a new 12-foot lane added to the inside or outside edge

of pavement, 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. The use of these standards helps to preserve the nature and

characteristics of a Parkway facility. 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, while

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.

FEASIBILITY CRITERIA

x Traffic and Transportation – the potential benefits to traffic flow and mobility that can be

derived from the additional capacity provided by widening the B-W Parkway.

x Physical Constraints – the physical limitations for widening the B-W Parkway by a third lane in

either direction including the availability of land and impacts to existing infrastructure,

particularly the bridges and interchanges along the Parkway.

x Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates – the potential capital costs of widening the B-W Parkway

by widening option.

x Environmental Analysis and Effects – the potential for impacts to natural resources,

communities, and quality-of-life in areas such as noise or aesthetics.

x Public and Political Considerations – the willingness of the public to see a project of this

magnitude move forward.

x Facility Ownership and Management – widening the B-W Parkway could impair the Parkway’s

character and function sufficiently to drive a shift in ownership and management from the NPS

to the Maryland SHA.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

5 November 2012

The Maryland SHA uses the design standards and guidelines as adopted by the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and as 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 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. The AASHTO/SHA Outside

Widening Option replaces the existing B-W Parkway’s narrow right shoulder and curb with a new

12-foot lane and a 10-foot shoulder with no curb. The AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening Option replaces

the existing parkway’s narrow left shoulder and curb with a new 12-foot lane and a 10-foot shoulder

with no curb.

NPS Outside

Widening Option

NPS Inside

Widening Option

Drawings not

to scale
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

6 November 2012

Traffic and Transportation

Existing Conditions

Growth along the corridor has occurred over time with the increased interdependence of the Baltimore

and Washington, DC, economies and the ease of transportation between the two cities provided by

facilities such as the B-W Parkway. Development – residential, commercial, and industrial – adds more

trips to the B-W Parkway and thus contributes to congestion, particularly at peak travel hours.

Today the B-W Parkway is a limited-access, divided highway consisting primarily of two general-use

travel lanes in each direction from the interchange with I-695 in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, to

New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 and the boundary with the District of Columbia. Specifically, three

locations along the existing roadway – U.S. Route 50 to MD 450, I-495/I-95 to MD 193 and MD 175 to

MD 100 already provide three lanes in each direction. The table below presents the recently observed

average daily traffic volumes at representative locations along the Parkway between U.S. Route 50 and

the I-695 interchanges.

AASHTO/SHA

Outside

Widening Option

Drawings not

to scale

AASHTO/SHA

Inside Widening

Option
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

7 November 2012

Traffic Volumes along the B-W Parkway

Location 2010 2009 2008

MD 295/I-695 89,963 89,422 89,421

MD 295/MD 100 96,470 88,600 87,810

B-W Parkway/MD 32 85,053 84,542 84,541

B-W Parkway/I-95/I-495 110,542 109,881 109,880

B-W Parkway/U.S. Route 50 104,492 103,871 103,870

Source: Maryland State Highway Administration

Impacts on Parkway Traffic Volumes

Existing and forecasted future traffic volumes estimates were compiled using the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) regional travel demand forecasting model. The model

includes data that estimates future conditions, such as growth in population, jobs, and households

anticipated from general economic development as well as the BRAC process. The model also includes

consideration of all transportation improvement projects planned for development by 2040, the

project’s future timeframe horizon. These projects are found in the currently adopted, fiscally

constrained Baltimore and Washington, DC, regional long-range transportation plans. They include the

completion of all sections of the InterCounty Connector highway between Prince George’s and

Montgomery counties, the Purple Line light rail project in operation, and all projects identified to

support BRAC development in the Fort Meade area. As shown in the table below, projections reveal a

growth rate of 38 percent in population and 47 percent in employment between 2005 and 2040.

Projected Growth in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Region

2005 2040 Growth

Population 6,262,508 8,613,982 38%

Employment 3,700,075 5,457,004 47%

Sources: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council

The model output indicates that, from 2005 to 2040, the number of north-south trips in the study

corridor between Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, is projected to increase by about 34

percent.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

8 November 2012

Forecasting Scenarios

For the feasibility study’s travel demand modeling effort, four potential scenarios were assessed:

x Existing: current conditions in the base year of 2005.

x Future No-Build: no change occurs to the existing roadway conditions on the B-W Parkway

beyond those recently constructed or currently planned by the Maryland SHA.

x Future Partial Build: the B-W Parkway is widened to three lanes in each direction only from the

Capital Beltway (I-495/I-95) to the Baltimore Beltway (I-695).

x Future Full Build: the B-W Parkway is widened to three lanes in each direction for the entire

length of the study corridor from U.S. Route 50 to I-695.

Comparison of average daily traffic on specific segments of the B-W Parkway, as shown below, indicates

that traffic volumes are projected to increase in the areas where widening is planned; specifically, those

areas south of MD 450 toward U.S. Route 50 and those areas north of the planned Hanover Road

Hanover/Parkway interchange to I-695. This would reflect the tendency for motorists to choose to use

the widened Parkway who otherwise might not choose to use it today.

Average Daily Traffic on the B-W Parkway

Impacts on B-W Parkway Traffic Operations

Based on the results of the traffic operations analysis, the time it takes to travel between points along

the Parkway and peak-period congestion levels will be similar in 2040 to what is being experienced

today with any of the options studied. The overall facility performance is slightly better with the fully

widened option from U.S. Route 50 to I-695 as opposed to a partially built option from the Capital
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

9 November 2012

Beltway (I-495/I-95) to I-695. However, in both cases, those areas that are currently served by three

lanes of traffic show declining performance as a result of the additional vehicles expected to use these

segments of the Parkway.

Change in Level of Service from 2040 No-Build to 2040 Full Build in the

Morning (AM) and Evening (PM) Peak Hours

The effect of mainline widening on traffic operations on the B-W Parkway can be summarized as follows:

x Widened sections will attract more traffic; traffic volumes are projected to increase.

x Widened sections will not necessarily be less congested than conditions being experienced

today.

x From the perspective of the average driver, levels of congestion on a widened B-W Parkway in

2040 would be similar to what is being experienced today.

Physical Constraints

The addition of another travel lane in each direction may require the widening of existing B-W Parkway

bridges over cross streets or the complete reconstruction or replacement of cross-street bridges over

the Parkway. In addition, the existing interchange connections to the B-W Parkway may need varying

degrees of improvement or, in some cases, total reconstruction. The table below summarizes the levels

of reconstruction anticipated for each widening option.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

10 November 2012

Expected Infrastructure Impacts per Widening Option

Interchange Reconstruction Bridge Widening Bridge Reconstruction

NPS AASHTO/SHA NPS AASHTO/SHA NPS AASHTO/SHA

Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside

11 2 11 2 7 6 7 6 7 4 7 5

Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates

Preliminary capital cost estimates for each widening option were developed for major elements of

highway construction based on conceptual engineering designs for the widening, including earthwork,

paving, shoulders (curb, traffic barrier, guardrail, etc.) and structures (bridge widening, new

construction, and demolition). Other categories of cost estimates included the service costs involved in

project development and design. Lastly, an estimate of administrative costs for construction were

added to yield a total estimated capital cost, as summarized in the table below.

Estimated Capital Costs for Each Widening Option ($ Millions)*

Cost Elements AASHTO/SHA NPS

Inside Outside Inside Outside

Construction Costs $ 326 $ 450 $ 274 $ 427

Preliminary Engineering $ 33 $ 45 $ 27 $ 43

Construction Administration $ 51 $ 70 $ 42 $ 66

Total Costs $ 410 $ 565 $ 343 $ 536

*2011 Dollars

Although this feasibility study indicated that the potential exists for some minor encroachments onto

property beyond the existing B-W Parkway right-of-way, it is assumed that through more detailed

design, these impacts could be mitigated and the acquisition of little, if any, additional land would be

required for any of the four options studied. Therefore, cost estimates do not include the costs of land.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

11 November 2012

Environmental Analysis and Effects

The B-W Parkway Corridor is rich and diverse in natural and

cultural resources, community features, and open space. The

parkway itself is a legislatively-defined unit of the NPS and is

listed on the NRHP. This presents unique challenges to the

planning of transportation infrastructure expansion or

improvements to the parkway. Large government properties

within proximity to the corridor include the USDA’s Beltsville

Agricultural Research Center (BARC), the NASA Goddard Space

Flight Center, headquarters of the NSA, Fort George G. Meade,

Patuxent Research Refuge, Anacostia Park, and Greenbelt Park. These properties possess significant

natural and cultural resources that contribute to the overall experience and aesthetic features of the

Parkway.

Other eligible historic resources such as the Greenbelt National Register Historic District lie within the

corridor. Growing and vibrant communities lie adjacent to and within the viewshed of the B-W Parkway,

typically near the Parkway’s interchanges with MD 197, MD 198, and MD 175.

Potential Environmental and Cultural Impacts

AASHTO/SHA NPS

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside Inside

Forest Impacts, Inside Existing ROW

(Percent of total acres)

35% 26% 25% 9%

Wetland Area Crossings (Each) 18 6 18 0

Stream/Rivers/Floodplain Areas (Each) 6 6 6 6

Sensitive Species Areas (Each) 5 5 5 5

Potential Historic Properties (Each) 4 2 4 2

Potential Park Properties (Each) 2 1 2 1

The possible highway expansion options were examined with respect to the possible effects (positive

and negative) on the known environmental resources and communities. Analyzed at a conceptual level

using available information, a range of unavoidable direct impacts are anticipated with parkway

widening. Should the study progress into an actual project planning and design process, the magnitude

of these impacts would be measured using acceptable methods and procedures.

Photo by Tom Fuchs, February 18, 2006
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

12 November 2012

Any of the studied widening options would impact forests, streams, rivers, and sensitive species review

areas. The magnitude of the possible direct impact is estimated to be the greatest for the AASHTO/SHA

outside widening and least for the NPS inside widening option. The NPS inside widening option would

not affect known wetlands, while the two outside widening options would affect 18 wetlands areas.

Direct impacts to communities could include noise, visual and viewshed changes, and loss or reduction

in tree buffer areas located adjacent to the B-W Parkway. The outside widening options would also

potentially require the use of additional property from abutting residential, commercial, and

institutional properties.

Any of the four build options would result in physical changes to the B-W Parkway – a designated

Historic District with distinct landscape, topographical, and design features – with lane and shoulder

additions, interchange and ramp modifications, impacts to mature trees and landscaping, alterations to

vistas, and overall change in visitor and traveler experience. In addition to the effects on the B-W

Parkway, there are expected impacts to Greenbelt Park.

Public and Political Considerations

Public and stakeholder engagement was used to define

the context in which the B-W Parkway operates – as a

neighbor, a park, and a transportation facility – and to

test public reaction to, and acceptance of, a proposed

widening from its largely four-lane design to a six-lane

divided highway from Washington, DC, to Baltimore,

Maryland.

Three levels of public and stakeholder engagement were

used to engage affected agencies, business interests,

community groups, B-W Parkway users, and residents in

the feasibility planning process:

x Stakeholder Leadership Interviews engaged about

a dozen leaders representing stakeholders and

stakeholder groups in a conversation with

representatives of the study team. The leaders

were asked to identify specific concerns and

interests related to the use, location, design, and

character of the B-W Parkway as well as their

reactions to a proposed widening of the facility.

Public and Stakeholder Perspectives

Stakeholders provided dozens of comments to

the study team. A sample of the comments

received is provided below.

x Economic development and growth could

further constrain the corridor.

x Further congestion could constrain

economic development opportunities.

x Safety implications of existing traffic.

x North/south alternatives are limited and

should be evaluated for implications.

x The environment is an important

component but should not be an overriding

element.

x Multimodal options and a wider study are

needed.

x Park (tree) buffer for communities is an

important quality-of-life element.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

13 November 2012

x A Technical Advisory Committee representing a range of local government, State transportation

agencies, Federal Government agencies, and institutional and business organizations located

along or with jurisdiction over the B-W Parkway. This group provided technical guidance on the

methods used in conducting the feasibility study, provided access to data and information, and

oversight of the results presented by the study team.

x Interactive Public Meetings provided a platform for the general public to interact with the study

team regarding potential benefits and costs of a widened B-W Parkway as well as the specific

options that were studied.

Public interests and concerns about the B-W Parkway varied considerably. Stakeholders representing

business interests, economic development, and transportation agencies were concerned about

congestion and the limited benefits of the narrowly defined potential project of a six-lane divided

highway. Residents of communities abutting the Parkway were concerned about impacts to their

communities and quality of life, particularly the potential for additional noise, bifurcation of their

communities, impacts to trees and waterways, as well as the potential for a visually intrusive highway.

Lastly, some groups and individuals expressed concerns about preserving the character and functions of

the B-W Parkway as a national park, a distinctive transportation facility designed to enhance the traveler

experience, not just provide a means to get from “Point A to Point B.”

Facility Ownership and Management

Management and ownership of the B-W Parkway is divided between the NPS and the Maryland SHA.

Maryland SHA owns and operates the northern 10-mile section between I-695 and MD 175. The NPS

owns and operates the southern 19-mile section between MD 175 and New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50

and the boundary with the District of Columbia. If it is determined that the B-W Parkway can be

widened to three lanes in each direction along the entire corridor, would ownership and management

continue to be divided between NPS and Maryland SHA? Or should one agency assume ownership and

management of the entire facility?

According to the National Park Service Directors Order-12 (DO-12) and its Management Policies of 2006,

the issue of impairment would arise. According to Section 1.4.5 of the Management Policies of 2006,

impairment is described as being “an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS

manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that

otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.” The NPS would need to

make a determination if the potential widening of the B-W Parkway would impair the park’s resources

and values.

According to the 2006 Policies, the park resources and values that are subject to the determination of

impairment would include some of the following:
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

14 November 2012

x “the park’s scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife and the processes and conditions

that sustain them, including to the extent present in the park: the ecological, biological, and

physical processes that created the park and continue to act upon it; scenic features; natural

visibility, natural landscapes; natural soundscapes and smells; water and air resources; soils;

geological resources; archaeological resources; cultural landscapes; historic and prehistoric sites,

structures, and objects; and native plants and animals;”

x “the park’s role in contributing to the national dignity, the high public value and integrity, and

the superlative environmental quality of the national park system, and the benefit and

inspiration provided to the American people by the national park system.”

Any impact would not necessarily be considered impairment. As such, an official determination must be

made. The 2006 policies state that the determination of impairment must be made by the responsible

NPS park manager. The NPS is required to complete this non-impairment determination for any action

selected prior to the signing of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD)

associated with the appropriate environmental document.

Thus, for the feasibility of widening of the B-W Parkway, a determination of impairment cannot be made

at this time. However, if this feasibility study progresses and an environmental document according to

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is prepared, then the NPS is required to complete a

determination of non-impairment prior to the signing of a FONSI or a ROD. If, under such assessment, a

determination of impairment is made, this determination, which will be appended to the FONSI or ROD,

could result in the B-W Parkway being removed from the NRHP and reverse the enabling legislation.

Thus, the B-W Parkway could no longer be under the jurisdiction of the NPS. The possibility that the

entire parkway could come under the management and ownership of the Maryland SHA might then

have to be considered.

Conclusions

Congress directed the FHWA, NPS and Maryland SHA to undertake a study with a very narrow study

focus: to determine the feasibility of widening the B-W Parkway to a consistent six-lane divided facility

from Washington, DC, to Baltimore, Maryland.

Some of the principal conclusions identified during the conduct of this study were as follows:

x While a widened B-W Parkway will accommodate greater traffic volumes, the magnitude of

increased travel demand on the facility generated by continuing anticipated regional population

and employment growth will likely result in levels of traffic congestion similar to those

experienced today.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Executive Summary

15 November 2012

x The estimated capital costs of adding a third northbound lane and a third southbound lane to

the B-W Parkway range from approximately $343 million for the least expensive inside widening

option to approximately $565 million for the most expensive outside widening option.

x No general public consensus was identified on either the need or the desirability of undertaking

any potential widening option, with views regularly being expressed to both retain the existing

facility as a true Parkway and to advance the widening concept.

x The potential magnitude of physical change associated with the widening of the B-W Parkway

mainline would require that a determination of potential impairment of the facility be made by

the NPS. This assessment would have to be undertaken in association with any future NEPA

evaluation.

Moreover, several other issues were identified that will merit closer attention if funding is identified for

the more comprehensive studies that would be required prior to the initiation of any formal design or

actual construction activities. These issues include, but are not limited to, the following:

x Consideration of the traffic needs of the B-W Parkway within the context of the existing and

future network of transportation facilities and services in the entire Baltimore to Washington,

DC, travel corridor. How the Parkway interacts with traffic from these other facilities is

important to fully understand the best way to accommodate these expected future demands.

x Consideration of a wider array of options for addressing traffic and transportation needs on the

B-W Parkway itself and within the larger study corridor, including examining additional widening

options for the Parkway and other highway facilities, traffic management options, and options

for the use of multiple travel modes such as high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus-only lanes or bus

rapid transit, fixed guideway transit facilities, and managed lanes.

x Examination in much greater detail of the effects of all options on the natural, socioeconomic,

cultural, and built environments. A proactive public and agency process will ensure proper

identification of critical resources as well as strategies for minimizing, avoiding, and mitigating

potential impacts.

x Incorporation of designs that will address the need for reconstruction or replacement of the

many bridges and interchanges along the corridor in a context-sensitive manner, respectful of

the B-W Parkway’s documented history and established character.

x A careful examination of the implications of impairment on the status of the B-W Parkway as

one of the region’s premier NPS resources.

This initial feasibility study makes no definitive recommendations for any further examination of the

potential widening of the B-W Parkway. Rather, it identifies the major factors that would need to be

examined in substantially more detail if the decision were made to pursue any such changes to the

existing facility at some future date.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Background

16 November 2012

1.0 Study Background

1.1 Summary of Study Purpose

Opened in 1954, the B-W Parkway is a 29-mile scenic highway that connects Baltimore, Maryland, with

Washington, DC. The Parkway is divided into two distinct sections. The NPS owns and operates a 19-

mile section to the south between Maryland Route (MD) 175 and the New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50

split at the Prince George’s County/District of Columbia border. This section of the Parkway is located

within Prince George’s and Anne Arundel Counties and is designated as the B-W Parkway. The Maryland

SHA owns and operates a 14-mile

section of the Parkway beginning at

MD 175 and continuing north of

I-695 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. This section is

designated as Maryland 295.

With direction contained in the

House Report 110-238 which accompanied the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, the FHWA, along with the NPS and the Maryland SHA,

assessed the feasibility of adding a third northbound and a third southbound lane to the B-W Parkway

from the interchange with I-695 to New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 and the boundary with the District

of Columbia. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of increasing the B-W 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.” Funding for the conduct of this feasibility study was identified in House

Report 111-366 that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117)

which included the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010.

1.2 Description of Legislative Language

This study is the result of language contained in House Report 110-238 and contains background

regarding its intended purpose.

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
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Background

17 November 2012

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.

1.3 Legislative Purposes and Significance of the Parkway

The B-W Parkway is part of a system of four parkways that welcomes visitors and integrates a contextsensitive design to convey to citizens the importance of Washington, DC. There is the George

Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) in Virginia running along the Potomac River shoreline from the

Capital Beltway into Alexandria to George Washington’s home at Mount Vernon. There is the GWMP’s

parallel companion Parkway, the Clara Barton Parkway, which runs along the Potomac River in Maryland

from the MacArthur Boulevard to Chain Bridge. There is also the Suitland Parkway, extending from the

eastern boundary of the District of Columbia to Andrews Air Force Base. Lastly, there is the Rock Creek

and Potomac Parkway in the District of Columbia itself that runs from the Lincoln Memorial to just south

of the National Zoo.

The concept of the B-W Parkway was first proposed as an element of a planned regional system of

parkways providing access to the core of the National Capital Region in 1935, when the 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.

Unfortunately, due to various reasons, including economic and political, the plans for the B-W Parkway

stalled until the early 1940s. Over the previous decades, travel on U.S. Route 1 between Baltimore,

Maryland, and Washington, DC, grew dramatically resulting in a very crowded, unsafe, and undesirable

travel experience. Pressures to relieve the traffic conditions on U.S. Route 1 pushed the Maryland State

Road Commission to release an initial plan in 1941 for a toll road between Baltimore, and Washington,

DC, which conflicted with the proposed parkway plans2. However, 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 B-W Parkway stressed the importance of planning a facility with a

vehicular as well as aesthetic and recreational value.

1

United States Department of the 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
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Background

18 November 2012

The 1940s 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, which would later become the FHWA),

restricted approval to road projects that were

considered 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 because the

B-W Parkway would be impermeable to an air attack due to its context-sensitive design, and the

parkway would have limited access which permitted easy closure to non-military traffic in times of

emergency3.

This focus on national defense led to a plan for the B-W 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 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 NPS, which was granted ownership and

maintenance responsibilities for this portion of the corridor. This portion of the corridor would also

enact a prohibition on commercial vehicles. Construction began in 1946 on the 12-mile section of the

northern portion of the corridor between Baltimore and MD 175, and the parkway was opened in 1952.

The construction of the 19-mile segment between MD 175 and New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 and the

boundary with the District of Columbia 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 B-W 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

3

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property

Documentation Form, Section E - Statement of Historic Context, p17

4

Public Law 643 – 81st Congress, Chapter 525 – 2D Session, H.R. 5990
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Background

19 November 2012

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 B-W Parkway is also subject to additional

legislation that gives direction to preserving the forests and natural scenery in and about Washington,

DC.

To avoid impairment of the above purposes of the B-W 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 the parkway by various classes or types of

vehicles or traffic.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 authorized $65 million for upgrading the parkway to six lanes in

compliance with Interstate standards. Implementation was contingent on completion of an agreement

with the State of Maryland to accept the upgraded parkway as part of its Federal-aid primary highway

system. When agreement with the State could not be reached, the Surface Transportation Assistance

Act of 1978 amended the law to maintain the existing four lanes and preserve the parkway

characteristics as agreed upon by the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary and the Maryland

Secretary of Transportation.

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 NRHP in the category of Transportation and noted for its landscape architecture.

1.4 Agency Participants

The legislative language in the Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations mandated the FHWA to work with the

Federal and State agencies to determine the feasibility of widening. As a result, the FHWA-EFLHD

partnered with the National Capital Region Office of the NPS and the Maryland SHA to administer this

study. The FHWA-EFLHD was designated as the study lead and was responsible for the technical

direction of this study. The NPS and Maryland SHA provided technical guidance and support throughout

the duration of the study.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Purpose

20 November 2012

2.0 Study Purpose

This section of the report provides a description of the study area, and the existing management and

operations of the B-W Parkway. A definition of feasibility for the purposes of this study is given along

with a description of the feasibility criteria which were used.

2.1 Study Area

For the purposes of this discussion, the general boundaries of the study area for this effort 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 Interstate Route 95 between its interchanges with the

Capital Beltway (I-495) and the Baltimore Beltway (I-695).

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

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

with MD Route 32 and I-97 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.

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

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

the District of Columbia 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 Route 450, from the Capital Beltway to MD

Route 193, and from MD Route 175 to MD Route 100.

The 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 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. Route 1 and

the B-W Parkway run parallel to I-95 and serve as alternative routes connecting the Baltimore and
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Purpose

21 November 2012

Washington, D.C., urban cores. Over the majority of its length through the defined study area, U.S.

Route 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 fourlane freeways. The other MD routes in the study area are typically multilane arterial highways with atgrade intersections.

The study area covers approximately 247 square miles or 157,982 acres. Figure 2.1 shows the generally

defined study area boundaries of I-695 to the north; New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 to the south; MD

Route 3 and I-97 to the east; and I-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 USDA Beltsville

Agricultural Research Center property covers approximately 10-square miles, while the Patuxent

Research Refuge of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service covers approximately 20-square miles. Also

included are NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Fort George G. Meade, and the headquarters of the

NSA. 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 B-W Parkway itself,

Greenbelt Park, and the Anacostia River Park, all of which are owned and administered by the NPS.

Additionally, the BARC, the Patuxent Research Refuge, and 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 NRHP. A

total of six sites within the defined study area have been identified as being eligible for listing on the

NRHP. These sites are:
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Purpose

22 November 2012

x Fort Lincoln Cemetery

x Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, USDA

x Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Building #510, USDA

x D.C. Children’s Center – Forest Haven District

x Clark/Vogel House

x Sachs Residence

The following properties are listed in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Places (MIHP):

x D.C. Boundary Marker NE #8

x Cheverly Historic Community

x Crawford’s Adventure Spring

x Cronmiller Outbuilding

x Jessup Survey District

x M. Bannon House

x Race Road House

x Matthias Harman House

x Andrew Harman Cemetery

x Patapsco State Park

x 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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Purpose

23 November 2012

Figure 2.1. Study Area Map
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Purpose

24 November 2012

2.2 Facility Management and Ownership

Within the study area, 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 New

York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 and the boundary with the

District of Columbia. This section is located within

Prince George’s and Anne Arundel Counties and is

designated as the B-W Parkway. The NPS is responsible

for maintaining this portion of the Parkway, including

roadway and bridge maintenance, landscaping, trash

removal, and snow/ice removal. The United States Park

Police patrol the B-W Parkway and enforce traffic laws.

Along this section of the parkway, commercial vehicles

such as trucks are prohibited; however, buses and

limousines are allowed. This section of the Parkway was

named in honor of Gladys Noon Spellman, a

congresswoman who represented Maryland's 5th

congressional district from 1975 to 1981.

The Maryland SHA owns and operates a 10-mile section of the Parkway between I-695 and MD 175.

This section is located within Anne Arundel County and is designated as Maryland 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. The Maryland SHA is responsible for maintaining this

portion of the Parkway, including roadway and bridge maintenance, landscaping, trash removal, and

snow/ice removal. Commercial vehicles are allowed in this section of the B-W Parkway.

2.3 Feasibility Criteria

To help determine the feasibility of widening the B-W Parkway, the word feasibility needed to be

defined for the context of the study. In addition, specific factors related to the feasibility of widening

the Parkway needed to be determined and assessed. The following presents these items as relating to

this study.

2.3.1 Definition of Feasibility

According to FHWA’s procedural guidelines for highway feasibility studies, the definition of “feasibility”

as given by Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1966) provides the basis for determining the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Purpose

25 November 2012

definition of “feasibility” for a highway study. Within the context of FHWA’s guidelines, the meaning of

“feasibility” has the following parts5:

x The degree to which a given alternative mode, management strategy, design, or location is

economically justified.

x The degree to which such an alternative is considered preferable from an environmental or

social perspective.

x The degree to which eventual construction and operation of such an alternative can be financed

and managed.

For the purposes of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study, the feasibility of

widening the Parkway would involve an assessment of costs, environmental impacts, social

responsibilities, and overall operations and management. Several aspects would need to be evaluated

in order to determine the true feasibility of widening the Parkway beyond its current capacity.

2.3.2 Criteria Overview

The study focused on five aspects of feasibility: traffic and transportation, physical constraints,

environmental analysis and effects, preliminary capital cost estimates, public and political

considerations and facility ownership and management. A description of each of these aspects is

discussed below.

2.3.2.1 Traffic and Transportation

This aspect evaluates the influence of additional lane capacity on mainline traffic operations. The

potential benefits to the 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 were assessed. This was done by a review of the historical traffic volumes, an evaluation of the

future traffic forecasts, and an analysis of future traffic operations.

2.3.2.2 Physical Constraints

This aspect evaluates 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. This was performed by assigning design standards of both the

Maryland SHA and the NPS to the parkway widening and determining the results.

5

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/corbor/feastudy.html#top
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Study Purpose

26 November 2012

2.3.2.3 Environmental Analysis and Effects

This aspect examines 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 environmental resources contained in the study area

were inventoried and their impacts were assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively as appropriate

given the availability of quantitative data on a given resource. Resources were identified as

considerations that would have to be dealt with in a future NEPA process should this study move

forward.

2.3.2.4 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates

This aspect looks at the potential capital costs of widening the B-W Parkway, including operation and

maintenance costs, as the costs of such a widening must be justified.

2.3.2.5 Public and Political Considerations

This aspect examines the willingness of the public to see a study 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.

2.3.2.6 Ownership and Management

This aspect assesses the impacts of ownership and management of the Parkway and the implications of

a potential widening on these factors. The widening of 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 NPS.

2.3 Limiting Conditions

Sticking closely to the language of the congressional legislation, this study would be limited to the

analysis of adding general purpose vehicular travel lanes. 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 NEPA process, so a full range of multimodal

improvements are not included in this study.

Avoidance alternatives are those that entirely avoid the use of Section 4(f) properties. Section 4(f)

prohibits the U.S. Department of Transportation from using land from publicly owned parks, wildlife and

waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites for a federally funded project unless there is no

feasible and prudent alternative to use of the land and all possible planning to minimize harm to the

property has been included in the project. The identification and evaluation of avoidance alternatives is

not included in this feasibility study. The use of any NPS-owned properties, such as the B-W Parkway

itself, may require the conduct of a formal Section 4(f) evaluation.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

27 November 2012

3.0 Alternatives Definition

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. This section describes the processes used during the initial identification

and preliminary screening of the widening alternatives.

3.1 Methodology

The alternatives development process consisted 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.

3. Identification of a reasonable range of alternatives from stakeholder input.

4. Preliminary screening of highway alternatives based on criteria that addresses environmental,

transportation, and physical design factors.

5. Selection of widening options for further development.

Using this methodology, a reasonable range of highway-oriented physical and operational improvement

widening alternatives for the B-W Parkway corridor was developed. Options were selected based on

their ability to address the study’s goals and objectives for both current and future year conditions.

3.1.1 Background Information

Background information was taken from existing pertinent legislation, reports, plans, studies, maps, and

other available information pertaining to transportation, land use, and environmental conditions in the

study area from the study’s stakeholders, including the NPS, Maryland SHA, the District of Columbia

Department of Transportation, the MWCOG, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC), the MarylandNational Capital Park and Planning Commission, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and other sources as

necessary. This data was inventoried and documented in the Existing Conditions Technical Report,

which is included as an appendix to this document.

3.1.2 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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

28 November 2012

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 current roadway design

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 3-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.

3.1.3 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.

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. The results from the

meeting were a list of ideas for consideration that were carried forth in the alternatives development.

These ideas included, but were not limited to, the following:

x Public transportation is a better alternative.

x Make MD 295 look more like a parkway.

x Consider all multimodal options (high occupancy vehicle, bus rapid transit, public

transportation).
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

29 November 2012

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.

3.2 Parkway Alternatives

As a result of the stakeholder input, a total of five potential parkway improvement conceptual

alternatives were identified. The descriptions of each potential widening concept are as follows.

1. No-Build: No widening of the Parkway.

2. Build 1: Widening of the mainline to the inside right-of-way.

3. Build 2: Widening of mainline to the outside right-of-way.

4. Build 3: Combination of inside and outside mainline widening.

5. Build 4: Use of existing shoulders for the third lane.

The No-Build Alternative represents those multimodal transportation system improvements included in

the currently adopted Baltimore and Washington 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 B-W 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 B-W 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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

30 November 2012

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–ofcurb.

The Maryland SHA uses design standards provided by AASHTO 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 NPS-owned portion of the B-W Parkway already has a cross section with six lanes - three lanes

in each direction - between the Maryland/District of Columbia boundary 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 limit of potential widening associated

with this feasibility study is between the MD 450 and MD 175 interchanges.

3.2.1 Screening Criteria

The preliminary screening of widening alternatives was conducted to determine if any of the initially

identified parkway improvement alternatives were deemed not feasible from a socioeconomic,

environmental, transportation service or physical design standpoint. Screening criteria were developed

using input from Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members and public meeting participants on

these key aspects of feasibility, which are as follows:

x Preserves the aesthetic, historic, and natural characteristics of the B-W 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.

x Improves safe and efficient vehicular operations.

3.2.2 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 September 14, 2011,

Draft of the 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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

31 November 2012

Alternative 2: Widening of Mainline to the Inside Right-of-Way

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 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 Right-of-Way

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 the NPS and AASHTO/SHA options 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 the NPS or AASHTO/SHA design option. 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/SHA option.

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. 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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

32 November 2012

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 B-W Parkway with

narrow 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 discussed 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

alternative. 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. This would only be about 5 feet wider than the existing NPS cross section.

The key concern with this alternative was the elimination of shoulders. The team felt that removal of

shoulders could become a potential safety hazard on a high-speed facility such as the B-W Parkway, with

varying degrees of curvature. Therefore, this concept was dropped from further consideration during

the feasibility study.

3.3.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Study and Analysis

In summary, two alternative widening concepts were carried forward for further analysis and

evaluation. They are, respectively, widening of the B-W Parkway mainline to the inside right-of-way and

widening of the B-W Parkway mainline to the outside right-of-way.

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:
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

33 November 2012

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 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 (MDE) guidelines on erosion and sediment

control. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the general dimensions of the resulting stormwater

management/MDE designs for a typical cut or fill section of mainline roadway.

Figure 3.1. Roadside Grading Typical Section (Cut Slope with Ditch)

Figure 3.2. Roadside Grading Typical Section (Fill Slope with Ditch)

3.2 Widening Options

The following options were developed from the two widening alternatives evaluated:

x NPS Outside Widening Option.

x AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option.

x NPS Inside Widening Option.

x AASHTO/SHA Inside Widening Option.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

34 November 2012

3.2.1 Outside Widening

3.2.1.1 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. The resulting total

roadway width would be 47 feet from face-of-curb to face-of-curb.

Figure 3.3. NPS Outside Widening

3.2.1.2 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/SHA design guidelines. The resulting total

roadway width would be 56 feet from edge of pavement to edge of pavement.

Figure 3.4. AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

35 November 2012

3.2.2 Inside Widening

3.2.2.1 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-foot-wide 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. The resulting total

roadway width would be 47 feet from face-of-curb to face-of-curb.

Figure 3.5. NPS Inside Widening

3.2.2.2 AASHTO/SHA 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/SHA design guidelines. The resulting total

roadway width would be 56 feet from edge of pavement to edge of pavement.

Figure 3.6. AASHTO / SHA Inside Widening
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Alternatives Definition

36 November 2012

A conceptual-level visual representation of the potential effects of implementing either an outside or an

inside widening of the existing B-W Parkway to provide a third lane in each direction is presented in the

figures below. The photo perspective in both the “before” and “after” views is that of a driver in the left

or passing lane of the existing four-lane parkway. Figure 3.7 illustrates the implications of adding the

third lane to the outside pavement edge (i.e., to the far right side) of the existing B-W Parkway using the

typical cross section illustrated on Figure 3.4. 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 site design facilities.

Before After

Figure 3.7. AASHTO/SHA Outside Widening Option

Figure 3.8 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 3.5. As was the

case with Figure 3.7, the photo perspective in both the “before” and “after” views for Figure 3.8 is that

of a driver in the left 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 site design facilities.

Before After

Figure 3.8. NPS Inside Widening Option
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Public Involvement

37 November 2012

4.0 Public Involvement

4.1 Overview of the Context-Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Approach to the

Feasibility Study

As is often the case with major infrastructure projects, the original planning and construction of the

existing B-W Parkway created great anxieties in several of the communities along the corridor.

Ultimately, the B-W Parkway divided several neighborhoods that still harbor that anxiety today.

It is clear that any study investigating the feasibility of widening such a symbolic corridor needs to

assess not only environmental, economical, and engineering feasibility, but also the feasibility of

community, and ultimately, political acceptance. Given the contentious history involving the B-W

Parkway, it would be impossible to fully and fairly assess the feasibility of widening the facility without

fully engaging the community and providing the opportunity to create and evaluate contextually

sensitive alternatives. With this in mind, a CSS approach to public involvement was implemented. The

CSS process is a strategy that seeks proactive engagement of project stakeholders in the identification of

the issues and priorities related to a proposed project that informs the evaluation of analysis and

options. This meant approaching communities with an open mind, listening, and continually gaining

feedback as the work leads to more plausible outcomes for the study.

The CSS public involvement approach was multipronged, including community residents and employees

in the corridor, business and political leaders, and representatives of various governmental agencies.

The residents and employees were reached through newsletters and involved in public meetings.

Business and political leaders were reached through a set of stakeholder interviews, and local, State,

and Federal Governmental agencies comprised a Technical Advisory Committee.

4.2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

The TAC was comprised of the Federal agency partners, local and State agency officials and other

governmental partners representing the predominant interests in the B-W Parkway corridor. The three

meetings they attended served as forums for discussions of the issues surrounding the corridor and

strategies for addressing them through the study options. They also served as sounding boards for

materials to be presented to, and inputs received from, the public meetings, and advised on the public

presentations to ensure the material was easily understandable to the public. A total of three sessions

were spent presenting to and receiving very valuable and insightful advice from the TAC.

4.2.1 TAC Member Agencies

The TAC included the following agencies:

x Amtrak

x Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning

x Baltimore County Office of Planning

x Baltimore Metropolitan Council's Baltimore Regional Transportation Board
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Public Involvement

38 November 2012

x Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture

x District of Columbia Department of Transportation

x Federal Highway Administration, Delaware-Maryland Federal-aid Division

x Federal Highway Administration, District of Columbia Federal-aid Division

x Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

x Fort George G. Meade, U.S. Army

x Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning

x Maryland Aviation Administration

x Maryland State Highway Administration

x Maryland Transit Administration

x Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission - - Prince George’s County Planning

Department

x Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments - Transportation Planning Board

x National Aeronautics and Space Administration

x National Capital Planning Commission

x National Park Service - Greenbelt Park (A Unit of National Capital Parks – East)

x National Park Service - National Capital Parks - East

x National Park Service - National Capital Region

x National Security Agency

x Patuxent Research Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

x United States House of Representatives, Office of Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger

x U.S. Park Police

x Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

A list of the full TAC membership is included the appendix material.

4.2.2 TAC Meetings

TAC Meeting #1 was held on

June 22, 2011, at the Greenbelt

Park Ranger Station in

Greenbelt, Maryland. The

agenda included a discussion of

the purpose of the study, the

approach and timeline as well as

an initial discussion of the

existing condition. The meeting

ended with a facilitated participatory session. Participants individually answered several rounds of

questions designed to inform the study team on concerns and issues on the study from the viewpoint of

the various agencies represented on the TAC. There was no debating or discussion of individual

statements as the purpose was to gain all input and not to determine whose position or opinion was

more valid.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Public Involvement

39 November 2012

TAC Meeting #2 was held on October 14, 2011, at the Auditorium of the Maryland SHA District 3 Office

in Greenbelt, Maryland. The agenda included a detailed presentation on the existing conditions, traffic

projections, and AASHTO versus NPS roadway design standards and the application of those standards

to the four widening options. A very valuable outcome of this meeting was the strong direction of the

TAC to simplify the complex engineering information so the public would have a better understanding of

the physical implications of the various widening options being examined.

TAC Meeting #3 was held on January 19, 2012, at the Auditorium of the Maryland SHA District 3 Offices

in Greenbelt, Maryland. A detailed discussion of the cost estimates for the four options and a review of

the content of the Report to Congress comprised this agenda.

4.3 Public Meetings

The residents and employees with an interest in the outcome of the feasibility study were invited to

participate in a set of three CSS-based public work sessions. A total of three of these public meetings

were held during the feasibility study. Each meeting began with an overview of the purpose of the

study, presented a brief summary and the updated status of the study, and engaged the public in an

interactive process designed to gain balanced input. The team implemented the following set of public

meetings as the means to involve the public, gaining trust, as well as gauging the feasibility and level of

community support should this effort go beyond a feasibility study.

4.3.1 Overview of Public Meetings

Three public meetings were held throughout the study. A summary of each public meeting is provided

below. Details are provided in Appendix H of this report.

4.3.1.1 Public Meeting #1ȂJuly 20, 2011

This meeting was held on July 20, 2011, at Meade Middle

School and was set up as a listening session. The purpose of

the meeting was to gain information on concerns, issues, and

ideas related to the addition of a northbound and

southbound lane to the B-W Parkway. It was deliberately

held before any engineering analysis was conducted to begin

developing trust and setting the stage for open

communication throughout the process. The meeting began

with an overview of the study purpose followed by a breakout

session. A set of questions were asked at the breakout tables; each participant was allowed time to

answer. Debate or discussions of the various comments and/or another person’s position were not

encouraged as everyone’s input is as valuable as the next. A summary of the major comment themes

include:
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Public Involvement

40 November 2012

x Preservation of the aesthetic, historic, and natural values of the B-W Parkway.

x Community and environmental impacts of a potential widening.

x Direct connectivity needed between Washington, DC, and Baltimore.

x Congestion clogs the corridor today.

x Maintain the two-lanes to preserve the B-W Parkway’s character.

x Alternative mobility options should be considered along the corridor.

x The B-W Parkway is viewed as a barrier to the environment and community connectivity along

the corridor.

4.3.1.2 Public Meeting #2ȂNovember 17, 2011

Public Meeting #2 was held on November 17, 2011,

at the Greenbelt Community Center in Greenbelt,

Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to affirm

that the team understood the comments received

during and after Public Meeting #1, and to

demonstrate how their comments informed the

approach of the study. In addition, this public

meeting was used to present the four potential

parkway widening options that were going to be

evaluated. Breakout sessions were organized to

receive comments and feedback on each of the

options. Major themes from the second public

meeting included:

x Widening the B-W Parkway, regardless of the use of the additional lane, does not provide a

long-term solution to congestion.

x The addition of an extra lane will only increase demand and promote greater environmental

impacts.

x Alternative mobility options along the corridor (e.g. extend the Metrorail Green Line alignment)

need consideration.

x Widening may have negative safety implications (e.g. possible degradation in safety due to extra

lane and limited gap/clearance between opposite lanes).

x Widening will have negative community impacts (e.g. noise, aggravate barrier within divided

communities).

x The aesthetic, historic, and natural values of the B-W Parkway need to be preserved.

x Concern for natural and environmental impacts caused by widening (e.g. impacts on wildlife,

trees, air quality, light pollution, heat island effect).
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Public Involvement

41 November 2012

4.3.1.3 Public Meeting #3ȂFebruary 16, 2012

Public Meeting #3 was held on February 16, 2012, at the Greenbelt Community Center in Greenbelt,

Maryland. The purpose of this third public meeting was to present and discuss the final findings of the

study, including conceptual cost estimates, the draft Report to Congress, and answer any questions or

concerns related to the report prior to finalizing it.

In addition, the meeting informed the public on when and how they will have access to the final report

of the feasibility study and provided recommendations on the requirements that will need to be further

evaluated if the study is to move forward.

Over 30 participants were present in the meeting providing comments and concerns that reflected the

same themes of those inputs received in the past Public Meetings and throughout the study.

4.4 Stakeholder Interviews

In order to engage the political leaders that could be affected by a potential widening of the B-W

Parkway, the team arranged a series of stakeholder interviews between May 2011 and September 2011.

These interviews involved local- and State-level elected officials, as well as business and community

leaders. The following themes were extracted from the comments and inputs received during these

interviews:

x Economic development and growth could further constrain the corridor.

x Further congestion could constrain economic development opportunities.

x Safety implications of existing traffic.

x North/south alternatives are limited and should be evaluated for implications.

x The environment is an important component but should not be an overriding element.

x Multimodal options and a wider study are needed.

x Park (tree) buffer for communities is an important quality-of-life element.

x An open mind to the study is needed by all.

4.5 Public Access to Study Information

The public was informed of the study through several means including a mailing list, newsletters, and a

Webpage on the FHWA Web site.

4.5.1 Mailing List and Email Contacts

A mailing list of over 45,000 residents, employers, governmental agencies and political leaders in the

study area was developed and maintained throughout the study. This list was used for invitations to the

public meetings and for distributing newsletters. Meeting reminder blasts were also sent through email

to those on the mailing list.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Public Involvement

42 November 2012

4.5.2 Newsletters

Three newsletters were developed and distributed by email and

standard mail delivery to the TAC and those on the mailing list. The

first newsletter described the purpose of the study, the second

reported on the status of the study as well as provided a history of

the B-W Parkway, and the third discussed the options and the

feasibility of each. Each newsletter included a notice of an

upcoming public meeting.

4.5.3 Public Meeting Advertisements

Paid media advertising was placed in several prominent newspapers

in the corridor including the Washington Post and the local Gazette

newspapers to make the public aware of the study and to invite

participation in the public meetings.

4.5.4 Webpage on the FHWA Web site

The study process as it progressed comprised the content of the Webpage on the FHWA-EFLHD public

access Web site at http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/. Materials presented to the public were uploaded, as

well as summaries of the public meetings.

4.6 Major Issues or Concerns Emerging from Public Involvement

From the interaction of the public, the input of the stakeholders and the TAC, it is clear that there are

strong concerns over congestion on the B-W Parkway. Equally important is the concern that the

character of the Parkway be maintained for the historic, aesthetic, and natural values embodied in the

Parkway. The limited focus of the feasibility study was very troubling to public and TAC participants

alike. Widening without considering other modal options or managed lanes seems to result in feasible

options that handle more traffic but do little to relieve congestion. That feeds into the concern that

widening, at such a significant cost, seems to result more in negative impacts to safety, environment,

noise level, and aesthetics, than to the purpose of moving more people in a more efficient fashion.

Should this feasibility study move forward to another phase, it will be much more acceptable if the

options include considerations for transit, managed lanes, and other alternatives, as well as expand the

study area to include the potential of capacity enhancements to I-95 and other corridors near the

current study area.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

43 November 2012

5.0 Traffic and Transportation Impacts

Because the objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of increasing vehicular carrying capacity

and reducing travel time for users of the B-W Parkway facility within its historic and legislative context, a

discussion of the transportation operation impacts resulting from widening is necessary.

5.1 Definition and Purpose

For the purposes of this feasibility study, traffic and transportation impacts were determined by

performing an operations analysis of the future traffic conditions of the Parkway. Future traffic volume

forecasts of the Parkway were used to determine the traffic demand throughout the corridor. The

operational analysis results were used to assess the potential benefits in terms of reduced congestion or

improved travel time associated with capacity improvement. The future traffic volume forecasts

included growth related to BRAC activities within and around Fort George G. Meade on the Parkway so

that any resulting impacts could also be assessed.

5.2 Methodology

The methodology used in this feasibility study to assess the transportation impacts of the widening

options on the B-W Parkway consisted of the application of the following data sources, assumptions,

tools, and methods:

x Existing (2005) and future (2040) forecasted traffic volumes estimates were obtained from the

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regional travel demand model. Estimates of AM

and PM peak period demands were converted to estimates of AM and PM peak 1-hour volumes.

x An operational analysis was performed using the Freeway Module of the Highway Capacity Software

(HCS) 2010 version. This module was used to calculate operational attributes for the B-W Parkway

given mainline traffic volumes and number of lanes.

x An HCS analysis was performed to obtain level-of-service for each mainline segment (i.e.

interchange-to-interchange) along the Parkway for the AM and PM peak hours.

5.2.1 Limitations of the Transportation Analysis

In harmony with the language mandated in the congressional legislation for this study, the

transportation analysis included a basic review of the mainline traffic volumes for the B-W Parkway. The

analysis did not include the following:

x A review of interchange geometry including auxiliary lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes,

ramps, and cross street typical sections.

x A review of traffic operations at existing interchanges and ramps.

x A review of the queuing effects from downstream traffic bottlenecks.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

44 November 2012

x Traffic management strategies such as high occupancy toll or congestion pricing, bus-only lanes

or bus rapid transit lanes, managed lanes, or other alternative travel means.

x Consideration of improvements to parallel highway and transit facilities serving north-south

travel demand between the Washington, DC, and Baltimore metropolitan areas.

x Changes to future land use or employment beyond what is assumed in the long-range plan.

5.2.2 Travel Demand Modeling

The B-W Parkway corridor overlaps the boundaries of the regional forecasting areas developed by two

different entities: the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) Transportation

Planning Board and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council’s Baltimore Regional Transportation Board.

Both the MWCOG/Transportation Planning Board (TPB)-developed regional model and the

BMC/Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB)-developed regional model estimates travel on

major facilities within and between the Maryland counties of Montgomery, Prince George’s, Howard

and Anne Arundel. But each model does not estimate travel patterns along a number of important

secondary facilities within these counties. For example, the regional model developed by the MWCOG/

TPB does not estimate travel on secondary facilities in Howard and Anne Arundel Counties, and the

regional model developed by BMC/BRTB 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. The merger of these two 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 Base Realignment and Closure activities at Fort Meade, on the overall

operations of the corridor. The MWCOG staff agreed to develop and calibrate their regional travel

demand forecasting model for the purposes of this study to provide base year and future year traffic

volume estimates.

For this study, the MWCOG staff used the MWCOG Version 2.2 regional travel demand model based on

the 2010 Constrained Long Range Plan and Round 8.0 Cooperative Land use Forecasts. These forecasts

reflect the latest planning assumptions adopted by the MWCOG/TPB Board for Air Quality Conformity

Determination in November 2010.

5.2.3 Constrained Long Range Plan Projects

The following is a list of the transportation improvements projects listed in the current regional longrange transportation plans that were assumed as completed projects in the modeling analysis.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

45 November 2012

Transportation Improvement Projects in Current Long Range Transportation Plans

Draft Long-Range Transportation Plan

Baltimore Region (September 14, 2011)

Long-Range Transportation Plan

National Capital Region

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

5.3 Alternatives Analysis

The traffic and transportation analysis considered an existing base year of 2005 and a future forecast

year of 2040. Both the No-Build and Build conditions were evaluated. The following future scenarios

are discussed below:

x Existing Conditions Scenario.

x 2040 No-Build Scenario.

x 2040 Partial-Build Scenario.

x 2040 Full-Build Scenario.

5.3.1 Existing Conditions Scenario

The existing conditions scenario represents the current

lane configuration of the B-W Parkway. The existing BW Parkway mainline is typically two general-use travel

lanes in each direction. The existing three-lane mainline

sections in each direction are along the following

sections of the parkway: from U.S. Route 50 to MD

Route 450, from the Capital Beltway to MD Route 193,

and from MD Route 175 to MD Route 100.

2 lanes each direction

3 lanes each direction

Intersecting route

Lane Configuration

Figure 5.1. Existing Conditions Scenario

Lane Configuration
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

46 November 2012

5.3.2 2040 No-Build Scenario

The No-Build Scenario represents the 2040

roadway network, transportation facilities, and

traffic forecasts consistent with the currently

adopted 2010 Consolidated Long Range Plans for

both the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington,

DC, metropolitan areas. This scenario accounts

for the planned completion of widening along

the Maryland SHA-owned portion of the B-W

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 option assumes no other physical

or operational changes to the existing B-W

Parkway between New York Avenue and the

Baltimore Beltway.

5.3.3 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 NPS-owned portion of

the B-W Parkway between New York Avenue

and the Capital Beltway.

Figure 5.3. Partial Build Scenario Lane Configuration

Figure 5.2. No-Build Scenario Lane Configuration
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

47 November 2012

5.3.4 2040 Full-Build Scenario

The Full-Build scenario assumes additional

widening of the B-W 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 threelane 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 boundary to

the Baltimore Beltway.

5.4 Analysis Results

This study identified the effect of the various future year widening options on traffic volumes and levelof-service on the mainline segments of the B-W Parkway.

5.4.1 Traffic Volumes

The MWCOG travel demand models incorporate anticipated regional growth in population,

employment, and related activities across both the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC,

metropolitan areas as shown in the table below.

Projected Growth in the Baltimore-Washington, DC Metropolitan Region

2005 2040 Growth

Population 6,262,508 8,613,982 38%

Employment 3,700,075 5,457,004 47%

Sources: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council

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

Figure 5.4. Full Build Scenario Lane Configuration
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

48 November 2012

projected increases in Base Realignment and Closure-related employment at Fort Meade will also

contribute to increased travel demand across the study area. The regional travel demand model

forecasts indicate that from 2005 to 2040, the number of north-south oriented trips in the study

corridor between Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, is projected to increase by about 34

percent.

A basic characteristic of both the Baltimore and Washington 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 5.5 shows the average daily

traffic forecasts for mainline segments along the B-W Parkway in 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. The projected travel demand across the study area seeks to use any

available capacity that might be provided along segments of the B-W Parkway between the Baltimore

Beltway (I-695) and New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 and the boundary with the District of Columbia.

Figure 5.5. Mainline Average Daily Traffic Forecasts – All Scenarios

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

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

49 November 2012

5.4.2 Operations

Results from the Highway Capacity Software (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 level-of-service letter-grade as

reported by HCS changed between scenarios.

5.4.2.1 Existing Conditions

The results of this analysis 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-ofservice “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 5.6.

Figure 5.6. Parkway Segments Currently Operating at or Near Capacity

(Level-of-Service “E” or “F”)
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

50 November 2012

5.4.2.2 Existing to 2040 No-Build

A comparison of the HCS results between those for the Existing and the 2040 No-Build scenarios is

shown in Figure 5.7. Those 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

Conditions scenario. Those B-W Parkway segments highlighted in red represent segments that are

expected to experience a decline in the AM or PM peak hour levels-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 B-W Parkway

widening work being undertaken by Maryland SHA which is part of the Constrained Long Range

Plans for 2040.

x Decline in level-of-service between MD 197 and MD 32 may be related to the projected growth

of Fort Meade related to Base Realignment and Closure.

Figure 5.7. Change in Level-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 2040 Build

scenarios.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

51 November 2012

5.4.2.3Ǧ2040 No-Build to 2040 Partial Build

Figure 5.8 documents the anticipated change in the AM and PM peak hour level-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 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 B-W Parkway

segment from the Capital Beltway to MD 193 on which the auxiliary lanes between the closelyspaced 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 PartialBuild scenario compared to either the 2005 Existing Conditions 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.

Figure 5.8. Change in Level-of-Service from 2040 No-Build to 2040 Partial Build
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

52 November 2012

5.4.2.42040 No-Build to 2040 Full-Build

Figure 5.9 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 the 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 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-ofservice conditions are expected to remain essentially unchanged from those observed in the

2005 Existing Conditions and the 2040 No-Build and 2040 Partial-Build scenarios.

Figure 5.9. Change in Level-of-Service from 2040 No-Build to 2040 Full-Build
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Traffic and Transportation Impacts

53 November 2012

5.4.2.5 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 B-W 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 scenario 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

B-W 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.

The following statements summarize the transportation results of this study, as it pertains to the

feasibility of future widening:

x Widened sections will attract more traffic; traffic volumes are projected to increase.

x Widened sections will not necessarily be less congested than conditions being experienced

today.

x From the perspective of the average driver, levels of congestion on a widened B-W Parkway in

2040 would be similar to what is being experienced today.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Physical Constraints

54 November 2012

6.0 Physical Constraints

The physical constraints for widening the B-W Parkway by adding a third lane in either direction are

discussed in this section. These constraints include the availability of land for the widening, the impacts

to NPS-designated land, impacts to privately owned land, and impacts to existing infrastructure along

the Parkway.

6.1 Approaches to Widening

Applying the typical sections for each of the four widening options along the existing B-W Parkway

alignment revealed several types of impacts and limitations due to the existing conditions. Generally, if

the Parkway passes over a cross-street, the existing bridges will need to be widened. If the Parkway

passes 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 B-W Parkway right-of-way.

If the study advances, the assumption is that through more detailed design at a later stage, potential

impacts could be mitigated such that relatively modest amounts of additional right-of-way would likely

be required for any of the four options. These mitigation methods could include, but not be limited to,

such features as minor geometric alignment alterations, localized reduction of a 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 GWMP, and its

companion the Clara Barton Parkway.

6.2 Potential Impacts

The table below summarizes the levels of reconstruction anticipated for each widening option.

Expected Infrastructure Impacts Per Widening Option

Interchange Reconstruction Bridge Widening Bridge Reconstruction

NPS AASHTO/SHA NPS AASHTO/SHA NPS AASHTO/SHA

Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside

11 2 11 2 7 6 7 6 7 4 7 5

With all four widening options, bridge widening would be required at Little Patuxent River, Patuxent

River, MD 197, Powder Mill Road, Beaver Dam Road, Capital Beltway, and MD 410. Under both outside

widening options, bridge reconstruction would be required at MD 175, MD 32, MD 198, Explorer Road,

MD 193, Good Luck Road, and MD 450. Under the inside widening options, only the bridges at MD 32,

Explorer Road, MD 193, Good Luck Road, and MD 450 would need total reconstruction. Partial
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Physical Constraints

55 November 2012

interchange reconstruction involving a

readjustment of the ramp gore areas, under

the outside widening options, would be

required at MD 175, MD 32, MD 198,

Powder Mill Road, MD 193, Capital Beltway,

MD 410 and MD 450. Under the inside

widening options, only the interchanges at

MD 193 and MD 450 would require

reconstruction.

Widening is constrained at several locations

involving the existing ramp configurations.

Widening to the outside Parkway right-ofway will impact several existing loop ramps,

such as at MD 175, MD 32, MD 198,

MD 197, Explorer Road, MD 193 Capital

Beltway, MD 410, and MD 450. So as not to impact the turn radii on the loop ramps, these ramps would

need to be reconstructed if outside widening occurs.

The limits of disturbance for the outside

widening option will encroach upon the

existing B-W Parkway property rights-of-way

on both the northbound and southbound

directions at some locations between the

Patuxent River and MD 198. The limits of

disturbance encroaches upon the

northbound right-of-way at the Patuxent

Research Refuge just north of Powder Mill

Road, and between Explorer Road and

Beaver Dam Road. The limits of disturbance

encroach upon the southbound right-of-way

adjacent to BARC between Beaver Dam Road

and Powder Mill Road. The limits of disturbance also encroach upon the right-of-way on both

northbound and southbound sides between Greenbelt Road and Explorer Road. The limits of

disturbance encroach upon Greenbelt Park between Good Luck Road and the Capital Beltway.

Under the NPS inside widening option, the MD 175 Bridge

would require widening.

MD 450 Bridge would require reconstruction
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Physical Constraints

56 November 2012

MD 193 Bridge Would Require Reconstruction

Good Luck Road Bridge Would Require Reconstruction

Potential Property Impacts in Greenbelt, Maryland
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Physical Constraints

57 November 2012

6.3 Preliminary Costs

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.

6.3.1 Capital Costs

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 construction,

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 on 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:

x 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.

x 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.

x Category 3 Drainage: the drainage (storm drain pipes, inlets, etc.) was estimated as 30 percent

of the major item cost. Stormwater management, using environmental site design, to meet the

new MDE guidelines is accounted for in this percentage.

x Category 4 Structures: the areas of bridge removal, bridge widening, and new bridge

construction were measured from the feasibility study plans.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Physical Constraints

58 November 2012

x 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.

x 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 estimated using engineering judgment and the cross sections’

dimensions.

x 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 15 feet. The total cost

of these three components comprises the landscaping category.

x 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.

x Category 9 Utilities: utility relocation was estimated as 8 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 below.

Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate (2011 Dollars)

6

(in millions of dollars)

Cost Elements AASHTO/SHA NPS

Inside Outside Inside Outside

Construction Costs $ 326 $ 450 $ 274 $ 427

Preliminary Engineering $ 33 $ 45 $ 27 $ 43

Construction Administration $ 51 $ 70 $ 42 $ 66

Total Costs $ 410 $ 565 $ 343 $ 536

6

 For additional cost estimate details, see Appendix G
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Physical Constraints

59 November 2012

Based on the capital cost calculations, the outside widening options will cost more than the inside

widening options. The AASHTO 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 use of the AASHTO

design standards in comparison to the NPS standards. This impact would affect both northbound and

southbound widening. It should also be noted that these costs exclude estimates of potential right-ofway acquisition or other cost factors previously noted.

6.3.2 Right of Way Costs

The potential right-of-way impacts identified were very narrow sliver encroachments adjacent to the

B-W Parkway 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.

6.3.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs

The widening of the parkway will increase the pavement area by about 35 lane-miles and the surface

area of associated bridge structures will be increased accordingly. As a result, the annual operations and

maintenance cost budget for the Parkway would likely increase by about $300,000 to $400,000. This

cost was estimated by applying the increased number of lane miles and structure areas to unit prices

taken from the 2011 operations and maintenance budget, provided by the NPS. This cost includes labor

and materials for typical parkway maintenance items such as mowing grass, applying road salt and

annual bridge maintenance.

6.3.4 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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

60 November 2012

7.0 Environmental Effects

The following presents the results of an initial, multidisciplinary environmental analysis for each of the

widening options, including the No-Build scenario for the B-W Parkway corridor. The environmental

analysis does not constitute a formal environmental evaluation according to NEPA, since there is no

proposed Federal action at this time. This analysis, however, is a basic examination of 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 widening

options.

7.1 Environmental Resources

The following describes the environmental resources in the B-W Parkway study area. 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.

7.1.2 Land Uses

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:

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 USDA/BARC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Patuxent Research Refuge, the

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Fort George G. Meade, and the headquarters of the NSA.

State-owned properties include two universities, the University of Maryland at College Park,

Bowie State University, and the Jessup Correctional Institution.

x Development proposals and locally identified activity centers in the study area include

Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI Airport), Arundel Mills,

Odenton Town Center, Greenbelt Station Town Center, and several development projects in

College Park.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

61 November 2012

7.1.3 Forest Areas

The study area contains several forest resources. Patapsco Valley State Park is the most significant

protected area of forest land in the vicinity 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. In

Anne Arundel County, most of the woodlands areas are in the central or southern portions of the county

along the Patuxent River, near Fort Meade, and the B-W Parkway itself. There are also significant

forested areas along the Patuxent and Middle Patuxent watersheds. In the eastern part of Howard

County, the forest cover is more limited due to development, but can be found along stream valleys,

such as those surrounding the Patuxent reservoirs.

Within the study area there are significant forested areas associated with the Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center and BARC, 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. Also, the B-W Parkway itself, along with

Anacostia River Park, USDA’s BARC, and the Goddard Space Flight Center are all designated as forest

areas.

7.1.4 Natural Environmental Resources

The B-W Parkway is located partially within the area of the BMC (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-jurisdictional metropolitan areas are designated as non-attainment areas for

ground-level ozone and PM 2.5 according to EPA’s Clean Air Act 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 BWI Airport and local

airports such as Tipton Airfield.

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.

For the existing 100-year floodplain for the study area, the Patapsco River, forming the boundary

between Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County, contains significant floodplain areas within the

study area. 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
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

62 November 2012

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.

Howard County lies within the Patuxent and Patapsco watersheds, and numerous tributaries flow off of

these streams which drain large areas of the County. There are floodplains in Howard County associated

with the Patuxent River, the Middle Patuxent River, the Little Patuxent River, and Deep Run, a tributary

of the Patapsco River. In Prince George’s County, floodplains occur along the streams and tributaries

that run throughout the county, including the floodplain of the Patuxent River and the upper reaches of

tributaries to the Anacostia River.

7.1.5 Cultural and Historic 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 will be discussed.

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 system (GIS) data 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 MHT.

Of particular note, the B-W Parkway is listed in the NRHP 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.

Also listed in the NRHP is the city of Greenbelt National Register Historic District. The eligible properties

for the NRHP include the following:

x Fort Lincoln Cemetery

x Beltsville Agricultural Research Center,

USDA

x Beltsville Agricultural Research Center,

Building #510, USDA

x D.C. Children’s Center – Forest Haven

District

x Clark/Vogel House

x Sachs Residence
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

63 November 2012

The following properties are listed in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Places:

x D.C. Boundary Marker NE #8

x Cheverly Historic Community

x Crawford’s Adventure Spring

x Cronmiller Outbuilding

x Jessup Survey District

x M. Bannon House

x Race Road House

x Matthias Harman House

x Andrew Harman Cemetery

x Patapsco State Park

x Summerfield Benson House

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. The floodplain of the Patapsco River is 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 no

records of a systematic archeological survey in Baltimore or Howard Counties and no previously

identified archeological sites have been recorded. Historic development along the Prince George’s

portion of the B-W Parkway alignment includes sparse scatterings of individual farms or residences

along the eventual intersection of the 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).

7.1.6 Communities 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, 33 post offices, six heliports, and five airports in the study area. The

general locations of these community facilities are in the appendices. Socioeconomic and community

features are categorized by county in the following sections. A complete listing of each community

feature is provided in the Existing Conditions Report for this study, located in the appendices.

7.1.7 Wetlands

The B-W Parkway crosses five Sensitive Species Project Review Areas, and 14 Wetland Clusters, including

Wetlands of Special State Concern. Within the study area, there are wetlands in the Patapsco River

watershed, including stream valleys and tributaries. Wetlands existing along the Patuxent and Middle

Patuxent stream valleys and tributaries in Anne Arundel County are in the closest proximity of the

B-W Parkway.

7.2 Impacts

In examining the four widening options and the No-Build, potential direct impacts were estimated for

the 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
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

64 November 2012

included park impacts, private property impacts beyond the NPS property and/or Maryland SHA rightof-way, forest/tree buffer impacts, known wetland crossings, major stream/floodplain crossings,

sensitive species areas, and known historic properties.

7.2.1. Parklands and Recreation Areas Impacts

Any of the four widening 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 AASHTO/SHA and 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.

7.2.2 Wetlands and Water Resources Impacts

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 additions of a standard width shoulder that would potentially affect six

wetland resources.

Potential Wetland Impacts

Potential Effect AASHTO/SHA NPS

Widening Options Outside Inside Outside Inside

Known Wetland Area

Crossings (each)

18 6 18 0

Rivers/Streams/Floodplains

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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

65 November 2012

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

CFR 230) 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.

7.2.3 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 NRHP.

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 Cultural Resources Impacts

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 NRHP-listed 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 historic character. Similarly, any of the four

build options could affect the National Register-eligible BARC. The two outside widening options could

also directly affect the National Register-listed Greenbelt Historic District and the National Registereligible D.C. 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 B-W 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 Parkway and intersecting roadway interchanges would have resulted in the

disturbance of many of the landforms the alignment crosses. However, as the design was predicated on

the preservation of natural topography and vegetation, the level of disturbance will be variable and
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

66 November 2012

more intact landforms with well-preserved archeological resources may still exist along portions of the

flanking wooded buffers and in wide sections of the 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.

7.2.4 Forests and Ecology Effects

The study corridor contains significant forest and ecological resources highlighted by the Patuxent

Research Refuge, BARC, and Greenbelt Park. The table below presents the approximate acreage of

forest that could be affected by any of the potential build options.

Potential Forest and Ecology Impacts

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/SHA 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 break-even 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 Natural

Resources and are typically areas known to contain or provide critical habitat for protected plants or
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

67 November 2012

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 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 DNR and other stakeholders

on a case by case basis.

The No-Build option would not directly affect any forests or ecologically sensitive resources.

7.2.5 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 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

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.

The No-Build option would not directly affect any adjacent properties.

7.3 Quality of Life Effects

During the public outreach process concerns were raised about indirect impacts to communities and

other land uses abutting the B-W 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 median area, and a change in the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Environmental Effects

68 November 2012

overall image of the facility. The No-Build scenario would have no direct park property impacts.

However, B-W Parkway users would likely be affected by worsening traffic conditions over time.

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, the corridor also

contains many attractions itself. The corridor is home to the Patapsco Valley State Park, Greenbelt Park,

and environmental research facilities including BARC and the Patuxent Research Refuge. None of the

four build options under consideration are expected to substantively change the transportation role of

the B-W Parkway.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Ownership and Management

69 November 2012

8.0 Ownership and Management

Management and ownership of the B-W Parkway is divided between the NPS and the Maryland SHA.

The Maryland SHA owns and operates the northern 10-mile section of the Parkway between I-695 and

MD 175. The NPS owns and operates the southern 19-mile stretch of the Parkway between MD 175 and

New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 and the boundary with the District of Columbia. If it is determined that

the B-W Parkway can be widened to three lanes in each direction along the entire corridor, then a

question of ownership and management of the parkway would arise. An issue of impairment would

need to be determined by the NPS in order to establish resulting ownership and management.

8.1 Potential Transfer of Ownership

There are implications associated with adding a third lane in each direction to the B-W Parkway that

may affect the ability of the NPS to operate and maintain the corridor within its current legislated

mandate. According to the NPS legislation, critical resources must be conserved “...in such manner and

by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”7

 The potential impact of such a major change in the physical and aesthetic characteristics, and historical,

and cultural integrity of the B-W Parkway due to widening requires an impairments analysis to be

conducted by the NPS. If a determination of impairment is made, this would prevent the NPS from

implementing any widening proposals. If the National Park Service was directed to move forward, then a

federally legislated transfer of ownership and management of the NPS section of the Parkway would

need to be pursued. Currently, the NPS does not have an agreement in place with any State or Federal

agency other than the District of Columbia that would dictate the process by which a transfer, or an

exchange, of park land would be undertaken. There would thus be additional time needed for the

development of such an agreement. Congressional oversight may not be needed for the actual transfer

but may be needed to remove the B-W Parkway from the National Park System. As such, this effort

would involve planning and development from the Director of the National Park Service and the

Secretary of the Interior prior to any discussion of transfer or exchange of this magnitude. However,

considering the short-term and long-term costs of widening the Parkway, the State of Maryland would

need to appropriately assess their willingness to assume ownership and maintenance of the NPS section

of the B-W Parkway.

8.2 Impairment

According to the NPS Directors Order-12 (DO-12) and their Management Policies of 2006, the issue of

impairment would arise. The NPS would need to make a determination if the potential widening of the

B-W Parkway would impair the park’s resources and values. The Management Policies of 2006 provides

the following definition of impairment.

7

Public Law 643 – 81st Congress, Chapter 525 – 2D Session, H.R. 5990
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Ownership and Management

70 November 2012

Section 1.4.5

An impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the

integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present

for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

An impact to any park resource or value may, but does not necessarily, constitute an

impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it

affects a resource or value whose conservation is:

x Necessary to fulfill a specific purpose identified in the establishing legislation or

proclamation of the park or

x Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of

the park

x Identified in the park NPS Planning document as being of “significance”.

According to Section 1.4.5 of the Management Policies of 2006, a determination of impairment is based

on the impacts to park resources and value. This determination is left to the professional judgment of

the responsible NPS manager of the park unit, which in this case would be the Park Superintendent of

the B-W Parkway.

According to Section 1.4.6 of the 2006 Policies, the park resources and values that are subject to the

determination of impairment would include some of the following:

x “the park’s scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife and the processes and conditions

that sustain them, including to the extent present in the park: the ecological, biological, and

physical processes that created the park and continue to act upon it; scenic features; natural

visibility, both in daytime and in night; natural landscapes; natural soundscapes and smells;

water and air resources; soils; geological resources; archaeological resources; cultural

landscapes; paleontological resources; archaeological resources; cultural landscapes;

ethnographic resources; historic and prehistoric sites, structures, and objects; museum

collections; and native plants and animals;”

x “appropriate opportunities to experience enjoyment of the above resources, to the extent that

can be done without impairing them;”

x “the park’s role in contributing to the national dignity, the high public value and integrity, and

the superlative environmental quality of the national park system, and the benefit and

inspiration provided to the American people by the national park system;”

x “any additional attributes encompassed by the specific values and purposes for which the park

was established.”
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Ownership and Management

71 November 2012

Any impact would not necessarily be considered impairment. As such, an official determination must be

made. The NPS is required to complete this non-impairment determination for any action selected prior

to the signing of a FONSI or ROD associated with the appropriate NEPA document.

Thus, for the feasibility of widening of the B-W Parkway, a determination of impairment cannot be made

at this time. However, if this feasibility study progresses and an environmental document according to

NEPA is prepared, then the NPS is required to complete a determination of non-impairment prior to the

signing of a FONSI or a ROD. If under such assessment, a determination of impairment is made, this

determination, which will be appended to the FONSI or ROD, could result in the B-W Parkway being

removed as a listed property from the NRHP and the enabling legislation granting the Parkway status

can be reversed. Thus, the B-W Parkway would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the NPS. The

possibility that the entire parkway could come under the management and ownership of the Maryland

SHA will then have to be considered.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Conclusions

72 November 2012

9.0 Conclusions

Congress provided the FHWA, NPS, and Maryland SHA with a very narrow study focus: to determine the

feasibility of widening the B-W Parkway to a six-lane divided facility from Washington, DC, to Baltimore,

Maryland. The following is a summary of the findings.

9.1 Feasibility Criteria #1ǦPhysical Constraints

In sections where widening might occur, new or re-constructed infrastructure will most likely be

needed. In locations where the Parkway passes under a cross street, bridges will need to be replaced.

In locations where the Parkway passes over a cross street, bridges will need to be widened. Most of the

existing B-W 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 Parkway. Many locations may require design exceptions in order to avoid complete

reconstruction given the physical constraints of the corridor.

9.2 Feasibility Criteria #2ǦEnvironmental 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 more travelers attempt to use the

existing roadway.

9.3 Feasibility Criteria #3ǦTraffic and Transportation

The traffic and transportation analysis results revealed the following major findings:

x Traffic conditions along most sections of the B-W Parkway are generally worse in the PM peak

hour than in the AM peak hour, both today and in the future;.

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 B-W 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.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Conclusions

73 November 2012

Thus, a widened B-W Parkway, whether inside or outside, will be able to carry more traffic but not

necessarily be less congested. More vehicles can move through the corridor if it is widened, but will

likely operate at similar levels of congestion as observed today.

9.4 Feasibility Criteria #4ǦPreliminary Capital Cost Estimates

The preliminary capital cost estimate based on the Maryland SHA 2011 Highway Construction Cost

Estimating Manual ranged from $333 million to $537 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 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 options.

9.5 Feasibility Criteria #5ȂPublic and Political Considerations

There were strong concerns voiced by the stakeholders regarding the congestion on the B-W Parkway.

Also of major concern to the public was maintaining the character of the Parkway for the historic,

aesthetic, and natural values embodied in the National Park. The limited focus of the feasibility study

was very troubling to public and TAC participants alike. Widening without considering other modal

options or managed lanes seems to result in feasible options that handle more traffic but do little to

relieve congestion. That feeds into the concern that widening, at such a significant cost, seems to result

more in negative impacts to safety, environment, noise level, and aesthetics than to the purpose of

moving more people in a more efficient fashion.

9.6 Feasibility Criteria #6ȂOwnership and Management

The implications associated with adding a third lane in each direction to the B-W Parkway may affect the

ability of the NPS to operate and maintain the corridor within its current legislated mandate. Thus, an

impairments analysis would need to be conducted by the NPS. If a determination of impairment is

made, this would prevent the NPS from implementing any widening proposals. If the National Park

Service was directed to move forward, then a federally legislated transfer of ownership and

management of the NPS section of the Parkway would need to be pursued. Currently, the NPS does not

have an agreement in place with any state or federal agency other than the District of Columbia that

would dictate the process by which a transfer, or an exchange, of park land would be undertaken. There

would thus be additional time needed for the development of such an agreement. Congressional

oversight may not be needed for the actual transfer but may be needed to remove the B-W Parkway

from the National Park System. As such, this effort would involve planning and development from the

Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of Interior prior to any discussion of transfer or

exchange of this magnitude. However, considering the short-term and long-term costs of widening the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Conclusions

74 November 2012

Parkway, the State of Maryland would need to appropriately assess their willingness to assume

ownership and maintenance of the NPS section of the B-W Parkway.

9.7 Additional Considerations

This study demonstrates the potential feasibility of widening the B-W Parkway to a six-lane divided

facility from a purely physical or engineering perspective. However, there are several other issues

identified that would merit closer attention if funding is identified for the more comprehensive studies

that would be required prior to the initiation of any formal design or actual construction activities.

These issues include, but are not limited to, the following:

x Consideration of the traffic needs of the B-W Parkway within the context of the existing and

future network of transportation facilities and services in the entire Baltimore to Washington,

DC, travel corridor. How the Parkway interacts with, feeds, and takes traffic from these other

facilities is important to fully understanding the best way to accommodate these expected

future demands.

x Consideration of a wider array of options for addressing traffic and transportation needs on the

B-W Parkway itself and within the larger study corridor, including examining additional widening

options for the Parkway and other highway facilities, traffic management options, and options

for the use of multiple travel modes such as high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus-only lanes or bus

rapid transit, fixed guideway transit facilities, and managed lanes.

x Examination in much greater details the effects of all options on the natural, socioeconomic,

cultural, and built environments. A proactive public and agency process will ensure proper

identification of critical resources, as well as strategies for minimizing, avoiding, and mitigating

potential impacts.

x Incorporation of designs that will address the need for reconstruction or replacement of the

many bridges and interchanges along the corridor in a context-sensitive manner, respectful of

the B-W Parkway’s documented history and established character.

x A careful examination of the implications of impairment on the status of the B-W Parkway as

one of the region’s premier NPS resources.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Technical Appendices

75 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

This page is intentionally left blank