SB 395, the Transportation and Climate Alignment Act of 2025, would add a new subtitle to Maryland transportation law governing major highway capacity expansion projects. It defines a “major highway capacity expansion project” as a major capital project that adds new or extended highway lanes and costs more than $5 million, while exempting projects already in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or already funded for construction as of June 30, 2025. For covered projects, the Maryland Department of Transportation would have to develop and implement a corresponding multimodal transportation program for the corridor, including investments such as transit, transit-oriented development, transportation demand management, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, land-use changes, and other measures intended to offset added vehicle travel.
The bill also requires the Department, beginning with the Consolidated Transportation Program for fiscal 2027-2032, to evaluate major capital projects for their effects on greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled per capita. If a project increases emissions, the State would need to fund offsetting activities so net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero or below. The Department would also be directed to set annual declining emissions targets aligned with the State’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Plan, consider direct and induced demand from highway and transit capital projects, and use best-available modeling tools to estimate 20-year emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and related impacts.
SB 395 would further require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a capacity expansion impact assessment process and require those assessments to be used in project determinations. The bill directs the Department to develop policies, procedures, technical specifications, and data-reporting requirements, including from local governments, and to fund statewide and regional travel demand modeling in fiscal 2025. It also amends existing Transportation Article § 8-102 to require the Department and the State Highway Administration to issue a report before proceeding to final project planning, documenting evaluation of alternatives or relying on other required planning documents.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-climate and pro-multimodal planning, with the legislation designed to constrain highway expansion unless emissions and induced travel impacts are addressed. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders in the available materials. Still, the structure of the bill suggests likely support from transportation-climate advocates and likely concern from highway expansion proponents, agencies, or local interests worried about added planning requirements, cost, delays, and limits on road capacity projects.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s requirement that highway expansions be paired with offsetting multimodal investments, its mandate to achieve net-zero or negative vehicle miles traveled impacts, and its requirement to account for induced demand and greenhouse gas emissions in project selection. The bill also prioritizes overburdened and underserved communities for offsetting investments, which may be viewed as a benefit by equity advocates but as a constraint on project flexibility by opponents. In practical terms, the bill would significantly expand environmental review and planning obligations for transportation capital projects and could affect how Maryland selects, funds, and sequences highway and transit investments.
SB 395 would add new statutory requirements to the Maryland Transportation Article governing major highway capacity expansion projects and the evaluation of major capital projects. It would require the Department of Transportation to conduct greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled assessments, create multimodal offset programs for certain highway expansions, and issue pre-final-planning reports on alternatives. The bill would also require new modeling, reporting, and planning procedures, and it would tie transportation capital programming more directly to the State’s emissions-reduction goals under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Plan.
No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call evidence to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill’s content, it appears to be driven by climate-alignment and multimodal transportation goals, suggesting likely support from environmental, transit, and equity advocates. At the same time, the bill’s added planning, offset, and reporting requirements would likely draw skepticism from highway expansion supporters and some transportation planners concerned about cost, timing, and implementation complexity.
The most notable likely points of contention are the bill’s limits on highway capacity expansion, the requirement that projects be paired with offsetting multimodal investments, and the mandate that net vehicle miles traveled from a project and its offset program be zero or less. Opponents may object to the use of emissions and induced-demand modeling as a gatekeeper for project approval, while supporters are likely to emphasize climate benefits, reduced driving, and prioritization of overburdened and underserved communities. The requirement to fund offsets concurrently with construction and to meet declining emissions targets may also be controversial because it could increase project costs and affect project delivery schedules.