Transportation – Major Highway Capacity Expansion Projects and Impact Assessments (Transportation and Climate Alignment Act of 2025)
HB84, the Transportation and Climate Alignment Act of 2025, requires the Maryland Department of Transportation to evaluate certain major highway capacity expansion projects for their effects on greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. For qualifying projects, the Department must perform an impact assessment and develop a corresponding multimodal transportation program designed to offset the project’s added emissions and travel demand. The bill defines major highway capacity expansion projects as major capital projects that add highway capacity through new lanes, grade separations, or extended lanes and exceed a specified cost threshold, while exempting projects already far along in planning or environmental review as of June 30, 2025.
The bill also changes how the Department plans the State’s broader transportation program. Beginning with the Fiscal Year 2027-2032 Consolidated Transportation Program, the Department must evaluate major capital projects for greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts, publish those evaluations, and, if a project increases emissions, fund offsetting activities to bring net emissions to zero or below. The bill directs the Department to set statewide and regional declining emissions targets, consider induced demand from highway projects, and use best available modeling tools to estimate long-term impacts. It also requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish processes for capacity expansion impact assessments, multimodal offset programs, and related reporting on the Department’s website.
HB84 would amend Maryland Transportation law, especially Title 2 and § 8-102, by adding a new subtitle on major highway capacity expansion projects and by requiring a report before the Department and State Highway Administration may proceed to final project planning. The bill narrows the circumstances under which highway expansion projects can advance without mitigation by requiring consideration of alternatives such as maintenance, minimal-construction highway improvements, and transit options. It also excludes system preservation and state-of-good-repair activities from the emissions-target evaluation, signaling that the bill is aimed at expansion projects rather than routine maintenance.
The general sentiment around the bill appears favorable in the legislature, as reflected by the committee report of “Favorable with amendments,” adoption in the House, and final passage on third reading by a vote of 101-37. The vote suggests substantial support, though not unanimity, indicating that the bill’s climate and transportation-planning requirements were broadly accepted but still controversial for some members.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the bill imposes too much constraint on highway expansion, the cost and feasibility of offsetting emissions, and the administrative burden of new modeling and reporting requirements. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a climate-alignment and equity measure that prioritizes transit, active transportation, and overburdened or underserved communities, while opponents may be concerned about delays to highway projects, added costs, and limits on traditional road-building approaches.
HB84 would significantly expand the Department of Transportation’s planning obligations for major highway capacity expansion projects and major capital projects more generally. It adds new statutory requirements for emissions and vehicle miles traveled analysis, multimodal offset programs, annual target-setting, public reporting, and pre-final-planning documentation. The bill also creates a new framework that can require mitigation funding or delay of highway expansion projects until offsetting measures are in place, while preserving an exemption for projects already funded, underway, or environmentally reviewed by June 30, 2025. In practice, it would shift Maryland transportation policy toward climate-based project evaluation and greater emphasis on transit, demand management, and other non-highway alternatives.
The available legislative history indicates generally positive sentiment toward the bill. It received a favorable committee report with amendments, was adopted in the House, and passed third reading by a wide margin of 101 yeas to 37 nays. That pattern suggests the bill had meaningful support as a climate and transportation policy measure, while also drawing a notable minority of opposition from members skeptical of its approach or consequences.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s restrictions on highway expansion, its requirement that projects be paired with offsetting multimodal investments, and the use of greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled metrics in transportation decision-making. Supporters likely favor the bill’s focus on climate alignment, induced demand, and prioritization of overburdened and underserved communities. Opponents are likely concerned about increased project costs, delays in delivering highway capacity, the complexity of modeling and compliance, and whether the bill could limit local or regional transportation flexibility.