Chapter 3

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Environmental Assessment3-1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESThis chapter summarizes the existing and future environmental conditions and potentialimpacts of the project. Appendix D provides a list of technical reports that are availableseparately and which contain detailed information (DVD attached to inside back cover ofthis document).

3.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

The project would connect with multiple local and regional transportation services. MTAexamined the existing transportation services and facilities in the project corridor, and theplanned and programmed improvements to those transportation networks. MTA analyzedthe No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative to identify any potential effects onregional and local transportation. Since the Build Alternative would introduce no new railservices or uses into the project corridor, there would be no resulting changes to tripgeneration or distribution, trip characteristics or modal splits.

3.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology

The analysis of regional and local transportation services and facilities defined the studyarea as a quarter-mile on either side of the centerline for the rail alignment between GroveInterlocking and Winans Interlocking. Figure 3.1-1 illustrates the regional and localtransportation corridors. MTA identified existing transportation services and facilities, andassessed impacts, based on site visits, as well as information from the various transportationagencies with jurisdiction or operations in the project corridor. MTA also reviewed relevantplanning documents published by these agencies to identify planned and programmedimprovements for all modes of the transportation network.

The project corridor falls within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore Regional TransportationBoard, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) that receives support from the staff ofthe Baltimore Metropolitan Council. MTA reviewed the MPOs current long-rangetransportation plan (LRTP), Transportation Outlook 2035, and its current transportationimprovement program, Baltimore Region Transportation Improvement Program 2014-2017. MTAalso reviewed its own planning documents, as well as those produced by Amtrak and localjurisdictions in the project corridor: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Howard Counties.

3 A F F E C T E D E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S


FIGURE 3.1-1: REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION



The project corridor includes a portion of Baltimore/Washington International ThurgoodMarshall Airport (BWI Airport) property and its airspace. Consequently, this transportationanalysis includes coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inaccordance with federal aviation regulations, 14 CFR Part 77Safe, Efficient Use, andPreservation of the Navigable Airspace.

3.1.2 Affected Environment

This section describes current and proposed transportation services and facilities, within theproject corridor.

Regional Characteristics

The rail line under study is part of the NEC and serves the Washington-Baltimoreconsolidated metropolitan statistical area, connecting these two cities to each other and toother metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States. The corridor serves Amtrak andMARC Penn Line trains. Rail stations within the project corridor provide connections tolocal bus services and BWI Airport. Passenger rail service is electrified and there are no at-grade rail crossings. Outside the project corridor, rail stations along this same line provideconnections to MARCs Camden and Brunswick Lines, MTAs Central Light Rail, andWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritys (WMATA) Metro.

Rail

The rail stations within, or just beyond, the project corridor are Odenton Station, BWI RailStation, and Halethorpe Station:

x Odenton Station. This station is located in the town center of Odenton, MD,approximately a mile south of Grove Interlocking, which is the southern terminus of theproject corridor. MARC serves the Odenton Station with 25 northbound trains and 25southbound trains per weekday (schedules effective March 14, 2011). MARC averaged2,100 riders per day at Odenton Station in fiscal year 2010, the most recent year forwhich there is data.

x BWI Rail Station. This station is located in Linthicum, an unincorporated area of AnneArundel County, and provides direct shuttle bus service to BWI Airport. The BWI RailStation serves both Amtrak and MARC Penn Line trains. According to scheduleseffective June 9, 2013, Amtrak service includes:

o On Fridays, the busiest weekday: 30 northbound Amtrak trains (23 NortheastRegional, six Acela, and one Vermonter) and 32 southbound Amtrak trains (22Northeast Regional, nine Acela, and one Vermonter)

o On Sundays, the busiest weekend day: 27 northbound Amtrak trains (17Northeast Regional, nine Acela, and one Vermonter) and 28 southbound Amtraktrains 18 Northeast Regional, nine Acela, and one Vermonter)



Amtrak had 710,513 boardings and alightings at the BWI Rail Station in fiscal year 2013,making it the second most heavily used Amtrak station in Maryland, after BaltimorePenn Station. Amtrak ridership at BWI Rail Station in fiscal year 2013 was one percenthigher than in fiscal year 2012 (703,604) and 16 percent higher than in fiscal year 2011(662,453).

o According to MARC Penn Line weekday schedules effective December 9, 2013,the service includes 24 northbound MARC trains and 27 southbound MARCtrains stopping at BWI Rail Station.

o According to MARC Penn Line weekend service schedules effective December 7,2013, the service includes 15 northbound trains on (nine on Saturday and six onSunday) and 15 southbound trains (nine on Saturday and six on Sunday). MARChad 1,300 riders per weekday at BWI Rail Station in fiscal year 2010.

o The existing BWI Rail Station has two high-level platforms serving the outsidetracks. The station includes a small building, with a ticket counter, a foodcounter, restrooms, and a waiting area that is adjacent to a large parking garage.

x Halethorpe Station. This station, located in an unincorporated area of Baltimore County,is served only by MARC trains, with 21 northbound trains and 21 southbound trains perweekday (schedules effective December 9, 2013). According to MARC Weekend Serviceschedules, effective December 7, 2013, service includes 15 northbound trains (nine onSaturday and six on Sunday) and 15 southbound trains (nine on Saturday and six onSunday). Unlike BWI Rail Station and Odenton Station, Halethorpe Station has fourtracks. MTA recently completed construction of a new Halethorpe Station that includestwo 700-foot, covered, high-level platforms that will allow passengers to enter and exitfrom any of the train cars instead of the current limited number of train cars. This willimprove on-time performance and scheduling.

Relevant Plans and Projects

MTA reviewed the Comprehensive and General Plans for Anne Arundel, Howard andBaltimore Counties, and other project-specific plans for information on relevanttransportation projects in the project vicinity. Relevant plans and projects include:

Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan

The NEC Master Plan was a joint effort among twelve northeastern states, the District ofColumbia, Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), eight commuter railoperators, three freight rail operators, and other stakeholders. The intent of the plan was toidentify a baseline of infrastructure improvements required to maintain the current systemin a state of good repair and to attain various goals for increased frequency, speed, andreliability over a 20-year period. The NEC Master Plan based its recommendations on afuture service plan envisioned by the stakeholders for commuter, intercity passenger, andfreight operations. Within the project corridor, its proposed service plan would increase the



number of daily intercity passenger train movements from approximately 82 to 110 and thenumber of daily commuter rail train movements from approximately 55 to 135 by 2030.

The NEC Master Plan specifically identifies the lack of island platforms and undersizedstation facilities at BWI Rail Station, as well as the lack of a fourth track, as major issues inachieving these goals. Other projects identified within or adjacent to the project corridorinclude a continuous fourth track between Bridge Interlocking and Landover Interlocking inMaryland (and eventually C Interlocking), various new or rebuilt interlockings, a newBaltimore & Potomac (B&P) Tunnel, and signal upgrades.

MARC Growth and Investment Plan Update 2013 to 2050

The MARC Plan Update (MTA, 2013) is a targeted capital investment program with the goalof incrementally increasing service capacity, frequency, and reliability on all three of theMARC lines. The NEC Master Plan incorporated the goals and recommended projectscontained in the MARC Plan Update. For MARCs Penn Line, the goals included 15-minuteheadways during peak hours and 30-minute headways during off-peak hours, as well asadditional express and limited service, weekend service (not currently offered), andreliability of 95 percent on-time or better.

To achieve these goals, the plan proposes infrastructure upgrades phased in incrementsthrough 2035. These proposed improvements are generally the same as those included inthe NEC Master Plan. In the initial time horizon, the plan proposes rebuilding BWI RailStation to expand the passenger facility and to accommodate an additional platform. Withinthe 2015 timeframe, the plan proposes a continuous fourth track from south of HalethorpeStation (where the fourth track currently terminates) to north of Odenton Station. Thisfourth track would be coordinated with the rebuilt BWI Rail Station to provide platformaccess for all tracks. When paired with other upgrades addressing interlockings, signals,fleet, storage and maintenance facilities, and stations, the ultimate vision is transit-likeservice along a four-tracked railroad corridor between New Carrolton and Aberdeen by2035.

Anne Arundel County General Development Plan

The transportation section of Anne Arundel Countys General Development Plan (AnneArundel County, 2009) calls for a feasibility study of adding an additional MARC station tothe corridor. The General Development Plan places this station in the vicinity of the MD 100crossing of the project corridor and would be coordinated with land use plans for newtransit-oriented development (see Section 3.2.2). Currently, Anne Arundel County has notinitiated any effort to determine the feasibility or potential benefits/impacts of thisproposed station.

x Transit. Several transit providers serve the project corridor with intermodal connectionsat rail stations. Odenton Station has direct connections to Central Maryland RegionalTransit Connect-A-Ride Route K, as well as a National Security Agency (NSA)-operatedshuttle for NSA and Fort Meade employees and visitors. BWI Rail Station has direct



connections to MTA local bus route 17, MTA commuter bus route 201, Howard TransitsSilver Route, a free BWI Airport Shuttle, and BWI Business Partnerships LINK Shuttle(weekdays only). Halethorpe Station has a direct connection to MTA local bus routes 77.Other fixed routes transit lines passing through the project corridor include CentralMaryland Regional Transit Connect-A-Ride Route J; MTA local bus routes 15 and 51;and WMATA express bus route B30.

x Baltimore Central Light Rail Line. The Anne Arundel County General Development Planrecommends further study of extending the existing MTA Central Light Rail Line with anew branch connecting the existing BWI Business District station with the DorseyMARC Station of the Camden Line in Howard County. It could potentially provide aconnection at BWI Rail Station. This project is not currently under study and does notappear in the regions Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).

x Freight. A limited number of freight trains operate within the project corridor. NorfolkSouthern (NS) has operating rights for freight service within the limits of the projectcorridor. CSX has the right to operate overhead (through-freight) traffic but does notcurrently exercise this right. NS operates an average of two trains per day. Bothrailroads have indicated their intent to operate additional traffic through the projectcorridor, increasing freight traffic to approximately eight trains per day. However, CSXand NS have postponed their decisions, indefinitely, due to the current deterioratedconditions of the CSX freight line beyond the limits of the project corridor.

x Roadways. Two major limited access highways roughly parallel the project corridorbetween Baltimore and Washington: the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD 295) andI-95. The Baltimore-Washington Parkway intersects the project corridor just north ofBWI Rail Station and I-95 intersects the project corridor just north of Halethorpe Station.

Other limited access major regional highway facilities intersecting the project corridorinclude:

o Paul Pitcher Memorial Highway (MD 100)o I-195o Harbor Tunnel Throughway (I-895)

Major arterials in the project corridor include:

o Reece Road (MD 174)o Dorsey Road (MD 176)o Telegraph Road/Aviation Boulevard (MD 170)o Washington Boulevard/Southwestern Boulevard (U.S. 1)

One local road, Amtrak Way, provides access to the BWI Rail Station and the 3,187-spaceparking garage. Amtrak Way ties into MD 170 at a signalized intersection.



Most roadways within the project corridor are at Level of Service (LOS) A to C, rangingfrom free-flowing traffic to minimal traffic congestion. The exceptions are MD 295, I-95,and MD 170, which have LOS E, with heavy traffic congestion.

The regions LRTP divides projects into the following categories: Committed (assumedimplemented by 2012), Regionally Significant (of importance to all counties), andPreferred Alternative (all projects programmed by 2035). The only Committed highwayproject within the project corridor is the widening of the Baltimore-WashingtonParkway (MD 295) from four to six lanes between I-695 and I-195. The only RegionallySignificant project within the project corridor is the widening of I-95 from eight to 10lanes from I-695 to the Prince Georges County line.

The regions LRTP includes the following Preferred Alternative projects:

o Widening MD 175 from four to six lanes between MD 295 and MD 170o Widening MD 295 from four to six lanes between I-195 and MD 100o Widening MD 170 from two to four lanes between MD 175 and MD 100o Widening MD 100 from four to six lanes between the Anne Arundel/

Howard County line and I-95

o Capacity improvements to MD 174 between MD 175 and MD 170x Air Transportation. BWI Airport is located in an unincorporated area of Anne Arundel

County, immediately east of the project corridor. A portion of its property falls withinthe project corridor. Rail, transit, and roadway facilities provide ground access to theairport. BWI Rail Station provides rail access from Baltimore, Washington, and pointsbeyond through both MARC and Amtrak service, but access to airport terminalsrequires a transfer to a free shuttle bus. MTAs Central Light Rail Line serves the airportwith a direct terminal connection. MTA local bus route 17, MTA commuter bus route201, and Howard Transits Silver Route provide direct terminal access. WashingtonMetropolitan Area Transit Authority Bus B30 also serves the airport. MD 170 and I-195provide the primary road access and connects the airport to MD 295 and I-95.

Based on passenger volumes, BWI Airport is the largest airport in the Baltimore regionand the second largest airport in the Washington-Baltimore region, behind DullesInternational Airport in northern Virginia. In 2013, the airport served 22.5 millionpassengers (61,639 per day). BWI Airport employs approximately 9,700 individuals. Theairports most recent six year $155.6 million Capital Program (20082013) does notinclude any major plans for airside or landside capacity increases.

x Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities are intermittent within the projectcorridor. The highest quality resources exist in residential neighborhoods adjacent tostations. At Odenton and Halethorpe Stations, contiguous networks of sidewalks andcrosswalks connect some residential areas to the stations. BWI Rail Station has virtuallyno residential development within a half-mile radius, but pedestrian facilities do connectthe station with multimodal transfer points to the east and a growing commercial



district to the west. Halethorpe Station has a large amount of residential developmentwithin a half-mile radius; however, many blocks lack contiguous pedestrian facilities.

The BWI Trail, a multiuse recreational path for both bicycles and pedestrians, follows a12-mile paved route encircling BWI Airport. This trail has direct connections to the BWIRail Station and the MTA Central Light Rail Lines Linthicum Station. It connects to theBaltimore and Annapolis (B&A) Trail, which extends southeast to Annapolis.

The Corporate Center Drive Pedestrian Walkway extends directly from the BWI RailStations pedestrian overpass to an emerging office development to the west, whichincludes the MDOT headquarters.

Near BWI Rail Station, a proposed off-road spur from the BWI Trail would connect toHoward County, crossing the project corridor along the existing bridge at Stoney RunRoad. There are no proposals for major off-road bicycle or pedestrian facilities inportions of the project corridor located within Howard or Baltimore Counties.

3.1.3 Probable Consequences

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would have no direct adverse impacts on local and regionaltransportation services. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the transitoperational goals of reducing scheduling conflicts or improving service capacity, speed,frequency, and reliability on Amtrak and MARC passenger rail services. It would notimprove operational efficiency at the BWI Rail Station. It also would not provide thebenefits associated with improving Amtrak and MARC train operations in the projectcorridor or encourage travelers to use the improved rail services.

Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would have no adverse impacts to the regional or local transportationsystem. The improvements in the Build Alternative are consistent with the regional andlocal transportation plans for all elements and the operating agencies, Amtrak and MTA,within the project corridor. The project affects the following resources:

x Transit. The Build Alternative would facilitate MARC operations and meet the goalscontained in the MARC Plan Update of incrementally improving service capacity,frequency and reliability. The NEC Master Plan integrates these goals and recommendedprojects (including this project), and identifies a baseline of infrastructure improvementsto maintain the current amount of train traffic along the NEC and to meet goals forincreased frequency, speed and reliability over a 20-year period. The impacts of theproject on the regional and local transportation systems would be limited to constructionactivities. During final design, the MTA would minimize these short-term impacts byidentifying the construction staging and sequencing necessary to maintain existingservice and reduce disruption to the passengers of Amtrak and MARC services.



x Freight. The impacts to freight operations would be short-term during construction.Trains may move in either direction on any of the tracks with the flexibility to shift fromtracks where work is underway. Construction activities may take place during intervalsbetween train movements. MTA would accomplish construction activities requiringextended time, at night, with minimal impact to both freight and passenger trainoperations.

x Roadway. The Build Alternative would not have long-term adverse impacts on theregional roadway network. Construction staging that maintains local traffic operationswould minimize the construction impacts of replacing the Reece Road Bridge over therail mainline and new fourth track.

Construction of the fourth track would have short-term impacts to the roadways in theproject corridor, with construction activities and workers using the existingtransportation network. The increased reliability and reduced travel times of theintercity passenger and commuter trains anticipated from the improved operationalconsiderations would encourage long-distance travelers and commuters to use the railservices, and remove vehicles from the roadways.

The Build Alternative will not impact the future roadway transportation improvementsidentified in the planned and programmed improvements and long range transportationplans in the region of the project corridor.

x Air Transportation. The Build Alternative is consistent with the goals of the BWI AirportLayout Plan (February 2011), to provide improved intermodal connectivity betweenairport and rail services.

x Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. The Build Alternative would not impact existingpedestrian and bicycle facilities or the future trail improvements planned in the projectcorridor. The Build Alternative would maintain access to existing pedestrian and bicyclefacilities during the construction phases of the project. The Build Alternative would notimpact future trail improvements planned along existing corridors.

x Summary. The Build Alternative would improve transportation operations while havingno adverse impacts on the local and regional transportation network, including railservices, highways and roadways, air transportation, and bicycle and pedestrianfacilities.

The four-track configuration and additional center platform at BWI Rail Station underthe Build Alternative would allow trains to operate more reliably by minimizing delaysassociated with service deviations and maintenance operations. The addition of a fourthmainline track, as well as the enhanced platforms, would allow northbound Acela trainsto avoid switching tracks to access the northbound BWI Rail Station platform. Thiswould save as much as five minutes of travel time and eliminate the delay currentlyrequired by diverting trains from the middle Track 2 to Track 1 to access the platform.The proposed platform arrangement and station improvements would benefit MARC



commuters and airport passengers using the BWI Rail Station facility, and intercity railpassengers with destinations along the NEC and other national routes.

Best management practices (BMPs) for reducing traffic delays, detours or diversionsfrom the areas of construction will mitigate the temporary, short-term constructionimpacts associated with the Build Alternative. Coordination with emergency serviceswould minimize impacts to the public.

3.2 LAND USE, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

This section identifies the existing and planned land use, land use controls, communities,neighborhoods and community facilities in the project corridor, and describes the potentialimpacts of the project.


The analysis of land use, neighborhoods, and community facilities defined its study area asland within 500 feet on either side of the centerline for the rail alignment between GroveInterlocking and Winans Interlocking. A combination of geographic information system(GIS) data from Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Howard Counties; aerial photographs;Alexandria Drafting Company (ADC) street maps; and field visits helped to identify andassess impacts on existing land uses, neighborhoods, and community facilities adjacent tothe project corridor. The MTA reviewed each jurisdictions comprehensive plan, relevantsmall area plans, and specialized master plans to identify future conditions along the projectcorridor.


This section describes current and proposed land use, neighborhoods, and communityfacilities within the project corridor.

Regional Characteristics

Amtrak and MARC trains serve the Washington-Baltimore Consolidated MetropolitanStatistical Area, connecting these two cities to each other and to other metropolitan areas inthe northeastern United States. The project corridor falls within the jurisdiction of one MPO,the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board.

The portion of the project corridor between Grove Interlocking and Winans Interlocking islargely suburban in character. The southern portion is a patchwork of lower- and middle-density residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and open space. The centralportion comprises open space and commercial uses, many related to BWI Airport, and thenorthern portion of the project corridor near Halethorpe Station is a mix of medium-densityresidential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and open space. Figures 3.2-1A and 3.2-1Billustrate existing land uses in the project corridor. The project corridor spans three localjurisdictions:



x Anne Arundel Countyx Howard Countyx Baltimore CountyLand use characteristics within the three jurisdictions are:

x Anne Arundel County. The land use study area includes a collection of residential uses,commercial uses, industrial uses, and open space. The residential uses range in density,from single-family detached homes on lots of about an acre, to single-family detachedhomes on small lots, to single-family attached homes. Multi-family residential buildingsare rare, although some newer communities such as the Buckingham mixed-usedevelopment in Hanover and the Seven Oaks neighborhood include apartment andtownhouse buildings. Residential neighborhoods also range in age, with severalsubdivisions less than a decade old. Industrial and commercial uses are oftenimmediately adjacent to the rail corridor, with the newest developments in the vicinityof BWI Airport.

x Howard County. The rail corridor, itself, does not pass through Howard Countyalthough a small portion of the land use study area falls within its boundaries. Theeasternmost corner of the county, comprised of state parkland, is the only portion ofHoward County that falls within the project corridor.

x Baltimore County. A short stretch at the northernmost end of the project corridor fallswithin Baltimore County. The project corridor within Baltimore County contains adiversity of land uses, including residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, andopen space. The residential uses in this portion of the project corridor are of mediumdensity, generally consisting of single-family detached homes on small lots.



FIGURE 3.2-1A: EXISTING LAND USE MAP 1 OF 2



FIGURE 3.2-1B: EXISTING LAND USE MAP 2 OF 2



Land Use Controls and Comprehensive Planning

The three local jurisdictions described above have control over land use regulations withintheir boundaries. Local jurisdictions in Maryland are subject to the States EconomicGrowth, Resource Protection and Planning Act (enacted in 1992 and amended in 2000 and2009), which established policies and mandates for growth management and resourceprotection according to a set of statewide Visions. The state enacted a series of legislationsin 1997, known collectively as the Smart Growth and Neighborhood ConservationInitiatives, to direct growth to locally designated priority funding areas (PFAs) forinfrastructure improvement in support of the statewide Visions.

GIS highlighted the percentage of the project length that falls within designated PFAs. Ofthe 9.3-mile project length, all but 0.7 mile falls within designated PFAs. This equates toapproximately 93 percent of the project corridor length occurring within PFAs. Exceptionsare typically required for projects that are not located entirely within the PFAs. TheInteragency Smart Growth Coordinating Committee approved a PFA exception for thisproject on July 18, 2012 (Appendix A).

The following descriptions summarize the land use plans relevant to the project corridor,with a focus on major proposed land use changes. These proposed land use changes wouldoccur with or without the implementation of the Build Alternative.

Anne Arundel County

The Anne Arundel County Council adopted the Anne Arundel County General DevelopmentPlan (Anne Arundel GDP) on October 19, 2009, superseding its previous plan adopted in1997.

The 2009 Anne Arundel GDP forecasts a large amount of growth in the county between 2005and 2035, for both population (12.7 percent) and employment (44.7 percent). The AnneArundel GDP acknowledges the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Initiative asa major driver of change over the next decade, including an estimated 22,000 new jobs and4,500 new households in the county. The Anne Arundel GDPs vision emphasizesredevelopment and revitalization over new development, under the following themes:

x Balanced growth and sustainabilityx Community preservation and enhancementx Environmental stewardshipx Quality public servicesThe Anne Arundel GDP aims to preserve rural lands in the county, in part through theimplementation of targeted growth areas. The vast majority of the project corridor in AnneArundel County is within the countys PFA, but the targeted growth areas are a smaller sizeand have a more explicitly defined role in accommodating higher density development.Targeted growth areas can take the form of locally defined town centers, commercial



revitalization districts, or mixed-use districts. Three such targeted growth areas fall at leastpartially within the project corridor:

x MD 100 Mixed-Use Area. Located just north of where the project corridor crosses MD100, this is proposed as a transit mixed-use area in coordination with implementation ofa new MARC station (see Section 3.1.2 for a discussion on the proposed MARC station).This area, currently an industrial site, requires conceptual development plans beforerezoning, as well as an analysis of infrastructure and environmental impacts.

x MD 176 Industrial Area. This area comprises two industrial areas north of the MD 176crossing of the corridor that the Anne Arundel GDP currently designates as industrialand open space but targets for industrial growth in the future.

x BWI Airport Business District and Vicinity. This area proposes several mixed-usedistricts. The Ridge Road area in Hanover falls within the project corridor boundary atthe BWI Rail Station. The 2004 BWI/Linthicum Small Area Plan previously planned thisarea for industrial uses. More recently, the 2009 Anne Arundel County GDP designatedthe area for transit mixed-use to allow office, retail, and high-density residential uses insupport of transportation opportunities at the airport and BWI Rail Station. Full build-out of this type of development is pending analysis of infrastructure needs andconstraints, as well as environmental impacts. However, some developments, such asthe new MDOT headquarters, have already occurred in this area.

Anne Arundel County also has a collection of sector plans, functional master plans, andsmall area plans (SAPs). Sector plans address critical land use issues in uniqueenvironments, and functional master plans address discrete subjects such a greenways ortransportation on a countywide basis. SAPs divide the county into community planningareas scaled to facilitate land use recommendations at a greater level of detail and with morecommunity input than the Anne Arundel GDP. The recommendations of the previous (1997)Anne Arundel GDP provide the basis for most of the current SAPs. The project corridor fallswithin three community planning areas:

Odenton

Odenton Station does not fall within the land use study area but a small amount of landfrom its relevant SAP does. This SAP proposed no changes to existing land use within theportion of the Odenton community planning area that falls within the land use study area.The Odenton Town Center Master Plan, adopted on March 15, 2010, included transit-orienteddevelopment (TOD) around Odenton Station and proposed a retail development on vacantland near MD 32. This development would be at the farthest southern boundary of the landuse study area.

Severn

The Severn SAP, adopted on July 15, 2002, called for a residential land use change from onedwelling unit per acre, to two dwelling units per acre, in the project corridor near MD 174but did not propose major land use changes for the land use study area. This SAP also did



not propose developing the transit mixed-use area in coordination with a new MARCstation near the MD 100 crossing of the project corridor, which appeared in the 2009 GeneralDevelopment Plan.

BWI/Linthicum

This SAP, adopted on December 25, 2004, proposed transitioning the area west of the BWIRail Station from low-density residential uses to industrial uses. Since that time, plans,including the countys 2009 General Development Plan, have shifted focus to a transit mixed-use area. The construction of Corporate Center Drive has helped spur that development inthe years since adoption of the BWI/Linthicum Small Area Plan.

Howard County

The Howard County Council adopted PlanHoward 2030 in July 2012 and amended it onFebruary 4, 2013. Within Howard County, the land use study area falls solely within thePatapsco Valley State Park. The state of Maryland, which owns this parkland, has noprogrammed land use changes.

Baltimore County

The Baltimore County Council adopted the Baltimore County Master Plan 2020 (BaltimoreCounty Plan) on November 15, 2010. The plan uses the term community enhancement areas(CEAs) to refer to redevelopment opportunity zones intended to absorb new growth in theform of mixed-use, compact communities. Although little more than a mile of the projectcorridor falls within Baltimore County, the land use study area contains some of theseCEAs. The land use study area consists of a combination of T5 Urban Center and T4 GeneralUrban land use categories. Although Baltimore County does not have programmed land usechanges for the residential areas around Halethorpe Station, it designates these areas ascommunity conservation areas (CCAs). The industrial areas south of Halethorpe Station andadjacent to the project corridor are CEAs. The Baltimore County Plan notes that a CEAdesignation does not necessarily mean that a site should convert from its current use, onlythat it could be eligible for such redevelopment.

Communities and Major Activity Centers

The land use study area includes several communities that lie within the three jurisdictionsdescribed above, including formalized United States Census-designated places (CDPs),smaller named communities with informal boundaries, and other major activity centers.Table 3.2-1 identifies the communities and activity centers that fall within the land use studyarea. Figure 3.2-2 shows locations of communities and major activity centers in the projectcorridor.



TABLE 3.2-1: TYPES OF COMMUNITIES/ACTIVITY CENTERS

Community/Activity Center Type

Odenton CDP

Fort Meade CDP and Major activity center (United States Army base)

Severn CDP

Harmans Community

Hanover Community

BWI Major activity center focused on BWI Airport, with related industrial activities

Linthicum CDP

Elkridge CDP

Patapsco Community

Halethorpe Community

Arbutus CDP

Source: United States Census, 2010

Community Facilities

The land use study area contains numerous individual neighborhoods, ranging from largecommercial and mixed-use centers to residential subdivisions. Only two communityfacilities are located within a 500-foot potential impact area for the project. An additionaltwo facilities were located within one-quarter of a mile of the project. All four communityfacilities are located in Anne Arundel County. Table 3.2-2lists these facilities. Figures 3.2-3Aand 3.2-3B show the locations of neighborhoods and community facilities.

TABLE 3.2-2: ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICESMap Key Facility/Service Location

1 Full Gospel Pentecostal Church 1210 Severn Station Road, Severn2 Severn United Methodist Church 1209, 1214 and 1215 Old Camp Meade Road, Severn3 Soccer Dome 7447 Shipley Avenue, Harmans4 MDOT Headquarters 7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover

Sources: Anne Arundel County ADC Map, 2004; Baltimore County ADC Map, 2000; Google maps 2011; field survey 2011.



FIGURE 3.2-2: COMMUNITIES AND MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS



FIGURE 3.2-3A: NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAP 1 OF 2



FIGURE 3.2-3B: NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAP 2 OF 2





The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on existing and future land uses along theproject corridor and no effect on neighborhoods and community facilities. The No-BuildAlternative would have no short-term construction impacts, and no acquisitions orrelocations. It would also not provide the benefits associated with improving Amtrak andMARC operations in the project corridor.

Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would have few, if any, direct impacts on the existing and future landuses within the project corridor. The land use and comprehensive plans of the jurisdictionsalong the project corridor identify PFAs, CEAs and growth promotion areas (GPAs) thatprovide land use planning for both existing and future growth, regardless of the selection ofthe No-Build Alternative or the Build Alternative.

The Build Alternative focuses transportation improvements in the areas designated forfuture land use development. Approximately 93 percent of the project length falls withindesignated PFAs. Through the interagency coordination process, the Maryland Departmentof Planning (MDP) has indicated their support for the project. The Interagency SmartGrowth Coordinating Committee approved a PFA exception on July 18, 2012 (Appendix A).

The Build Alternative would have no short-term impacts on land use, neighborhoods orcommunity facilities due to construction staging activities within the project corridor or atstation sites. Construction activities would not impact the current use of adjacent properties.Any potential long-term or secondary impacts, due to transit or passenger railimprovements such as improved operations and a reduction in delays, would generallyoccur outside of the land use study area. The fourth track improvements would alleviateexisting operational problems and reduce scheduling conflicts between trains passingbetween Grove Interlocking and Winans Interlocking. Since the BWI Rail Stationimprovements are consistent with land use plans envisioned for this site, the BuildAlternative would have no adverse impacts.

Land Acquisitions and Relocations

Relocations result from right-of-way acquisitions that require the use of a property occupiedby a residence or business. Partial acquisitions occur when only a portion of an existingparcel is required and does not result in relocation. Full acquisitions occur when a completeparcel is required and results in either a residential or a business relocation. Federal andstate laws require that property owners receive fair market value for their land, and thatthey have assistance in finding replacement business sites or dwellings. The BuildAlternative requires minimal right-of-way acquisitions, consisting of slivers of landprimarily on the east side of the existing right-of-way, and no full displacements orrelocations of residences or businesses. All land acquisitions and any relocations, if



necessary, will be completed according to the requirements of the Uniform RelocationAssistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended; Title 49, Part 24 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 24); and all applicable Maryland regulationsand policies.

The Build Alternative requires 10.88 acres of new right-of-way including 0.42 acre from thewest side, 9.51 acres from the east side of the project corridor, and 0.95 acre along ReeceRoad. The majority of the new right-of-way would include existing transportation rights-of-way and existing state lands owned by MDOT, the Maryland State HighwayAdministration (SHA), the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA), and the MarylandDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR). Near Reece Road, there are three small right-of-way acquisitions from private properties and one small right-of-way acquisition from theSevern Full Gospel Pentecostal Church.

The right-of-way acquisition from the church property is 852 square feet of land along thesouthern rear portion of the church property. The area is partially wooded and partiallycleared. There are no existing or planned improvements in this portion of the churchproperty. The other proposed right-of-way acquisitions from private properties arescattered along the length of the project. Table 3.2-3 lists the right-of-way acquisitions basedon preliminary design plans.

TABLE 3.2-3: SUMMARY OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS1

Property Ownership

Right-of-WayAcquisition Totals

by Ownership Type(acres)

Number ofParcels RequiringPartial Acquisition

Number ofParcels RequiringFull Acquisition

Maryland Department of Transportation 0.51 2 0Maryland Department of Natural Resources 0.64 2 0Maryland State Highway Administration 1.83 4 0Maryland Aviation Administration 3.47 7 0State of Maryland 0.01 1 0Existing Roadway Rights-of-Way 0.25 7 0Railroad Owned Properties 0.75 4 0County Owned Properties 0.03 2 0Privately Owned Properties 2.31 23 0Religious Facilities 0.02 1 0Other 1.06 6 0Total 10.88 59 0Note: 1 Based on Preliminary Design Plans

Final design activities may further reduce right-of-way acquisitions. For example, easementsmay limit the need to acquire new rights-of-way for some properties. Temporary easementson adjacent properties may allow access to existing rail guideways and rights-of-way duringconstruction activities, and for construction staging and lay-down areas. If necessary, MTAwould obtain these temporary easements for a short time period and return the land to itsoriginal condition prior to easement lease termination.



3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS,ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDRENSENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS

This section identifies the socioeconomic conditions in the project corridor and describes thepotential impacts of the project on residents, environmental justice populations, businessesand communities.


Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations (February 1994), directs federal agencies to promotenondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and theenvironment, and provide access to minority and low-income communities for publicinformation on, and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to humanhealth or the environment. The EO directs agencies to use existing laws to ensure that:

x They do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national originx They identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income communities, and

x They provide opportunities for community input during the NEPA process, includinginput on potential effects and mitigation measures.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and SafetyRisks (April 21, 1997), the FAA recently revised their policies and procedures for compliancewith NEPA (FAA Order 1050.1E) to include the assessment of environmental health andsafety risks. According to FAA Order 1050.1E, airport development projects may posedisproportional risks to children including risks to health and safety that are attributable toproducts or substances that a child is likely to come in contact with or ingest, such as air,food, drinking water, recreational waters, soil, or products they might use or be exposed to(FAA, 2006a).

Definitions of Minority and Low-Income

Revised EJ guidance from the USDOT Order 5610.2(a), Final Environmental Justice Order(USDOT, 2012) defines minority and low income as follows:

x Minority Individual. The United States Census Bureau classifies a minority individual asbelonging to one of the following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, AsianAmerican, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic Origin) andHispanic or Latino.

x Minority Population. Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live ingeographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient



persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affectedby a proposed USDOT program, policy, or activity.

x Low-Income Individual. A person whose household income is at, or below, the UnitedStates Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

x Low-income Population. Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who livein geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographicallydispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who wouldbe similarly affected by a proposed USDOT program, policy, or activity.

Identifying Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Project Corridor

As a tool for evaluating the proportionality of impacts and benefits, this analysis identifiedEJ areas and non-EJ areas within the project corridor. The term non-EJ area does notimply the absence of EJ populations living in the project corridor; rather, a non-EJ area is anarea where there is no potential for disproportionate impacts on EJ populations. An EJarea includes any census block group in which the minority or low-income populationmeets either of the following thresholds:

x The minority or low-income population in the census block group exceeds 50 percent, orx The percentage of a minority or low-income population in the affected area is

meaningfully greater than the percentage of minority population in the generalpopulation

This analysis defined meaningfully greater as a census block group in which thepercentage of minority or low-income residents was at least 10 percentage points or morethan the corresponding percentage in the surrounding jurisdiction (Anne Arundel County,Baltimore County and Howard County, as appropriate) within the project corridor.

This analysis used thresholds for identifying EJ areas based on the CEQ guidance document,Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997). In2010, the United States Census Bureau did not collect income data so MTA used the 2011American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates to determine the presence of low-income populations. The block group level is the smallest available census data levelincluded in the 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates and is the most current income data levelavailable.

A block group is a sub-division of a census tract, and one of the smallest geographic areasfor which the United States Census Bureau tabulates population data. For comparisonpurposes, the analysis used data reported at the block group level to analyze both minorityand low-income populations to provide a comparative data set for analysis. The 2011 ACSFive-Year Estimates determined that 27 percent, 36.6 percent and 39.8 percent of theresidents in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County and Howard County were minoritypopulations. In addition, 5.5 percent, 8.2 percent and 4.5 percent of the total population thatlived in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County and Howard County lived below the



poverty line, respectively. Figure 3.3-1 illustrates the location of the block groups in theproject corridor.

Environmental Justice Study Area

The EJ study area spans Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, and includes a verysmall part of Howard County, all within the state of Maryland. The EJ study area includesall or parts of 20 block groups. Two block groups, 9800.00 block group 1, the BWI Airportproperty and 9802.00 block group 1, site of an industrial park and part of Patapsco ValleyState Park, do not contain any populations. Figure 3.3-1 presents the EJ areas and non-EJareas within the EJ study area, and illustrates the 1,000-foot potential impact area beyondthe projects limits of disturbance. The analysis used this impact area to estimate potentialimpacts on EJ populations.


Socioeconomics

Section 3.2, Land Use, Neighborhoods, and Community Facilities describes the communitiesbordering the project corridor. Land development has increased in the project corridor.Recent suburban development in the southern portion of the project corridor includesdevelopment near Arundel Mills Mall, continued development of the Seven Oaks sub-division and a new sub-division, Buckingham Place, located along MD 170. The vicinity ofWinans Interlocking contains older suburban developments and a less developed areaaround the BWI Rail Station area, characterized by wetlands and other open space.

According to the 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates, block groups in the EJ study area contain30,921 people. This represents 4.1 percent of the Anne Arundel County population, less thanone percent of the Baltimore County population, and less than one percent of the HowardCounty population (see Table 3.3-1).

TABLE 3.3-1: POPULATION

Jurisdiction Total Population Population within theEJ Study Area

Percent of Populationwithin the EJ Study Area

Anne Arundel County 532,369 21,935 4.1%

Baltimore County 802,487 6,712 0.8%

Howard County 283,655 2,274 0.8%

Total 1,618,511 30,921 1.9%

Source: United States Census Bureau 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates

Environmental Justice Populations

The total population in the EJ study area is 30,921 persons, with 14,222 of these persons (46percent) identifying themselves as minorities and 871 persons (7.9 percent) meeting thedefinition of low-income. Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-3 present a summary of population dataincluding the percentages for minority and low-income persons. The percentage of minority



persons (46 percent) in the EJ study area is slightly higher than the countywide average ofBaltimore County (36.6 percent) and Howard County (39.8 percent), and is much higherthan Anne Arundel County (27 percent). The block groups in the EJ study area contained apercentage of low-income persons (7.9 percent), which is higher than the countywideaverage of Anne Arundel (5.5 percent) and Howard County (4.5 percent), and lower thanBaltimore County (8.2 percent). The percentage of low-income persons ranged from 0 to 29.2percent in the EJ study area.

TABLE 3.3-2: BLOCK GROUPS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CRITERIA

JurisdictionTotal Number of

Block Groups withinEJ Study Area

Minority OnlyBlock Groups

Low-Income OnlyBlock Groups

Both Minority &Low-IncomeBlock Groups

Anne Arundel County 13 8 1 0

Baltimore County 6 0 0 0

Howard County 1 0 0 0

Total 20 8 1 0

Source: United States Census Bureau 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates

TABLE 3.3-3: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS

Block Groups within EJ Study Area

TotalBlock GroupPopulation

TotalMinority

Population1

PercentageMinority

Population*

PersonsBelow Poverty

Level

Percentage ofPersonsBelow

Poverty Level7401.03 BG 2 2,746 1,239 45.1% 32 3.7%

7401.04 BG 2 1,856 1,158 62.4% 74 10.1%

7401.04 BG 3 2,376 2,099 88.3% 121 13.0%

7401.05 BG 1 2,999 2,630 87.7% 138 14.8%

7401.05 BG 2 546 469 85.9% 12 5.7%

7403.03 BG 1 2,251 799 35.5% 38 4.4%

7403.03 BG 2 1,888 711 37.7% 19 3.0%

7403.04 BG 1 2,594 1,086 41.9% 94 8.6%

7403.05 BG 4 2,458 1,696 69.0% 9 1.3%

7512.00 BG 3 366 63 17.2% 45 29.2%

7514.00 BG 1 1,013 241 23.8% 0 0.0%

7514.00 BG 2 842 62 7.4% 0 0.0%

9800.00 BG 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

4304.00 BG 2 1,563 269 17.2% 67 11.4%

4304.00 BG 3 2,076 639 30.8% 120 16.4%

4306.00 BG 1 1,574 295 18.7% 18 2.8%

4306.00 BG 2 755 44 5.8% 33 11.8%

4307.00 BG 1 744 75 10.1% 13 4.1%

9802.00 BG 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

6012.01 BG 4 2,274 647 28.5% 38 5.7%

Project Area Totals 30,921 14,222 46.0% 871 7.9%



Block Groups within EJ Study Area

TotalBlock GroupPopulation

TotalMinority

Population1

PercentageMinority

Population*

PersonsBelow Poverty

Level

Percentage ofPersonsBelow

Poverty LevelAnne Arundel CountyTotals 532,369 143,996 27.0% 28,221 5.5%

Baltimore County Totals 802,487 293,966 36.6% 63,950 8.2%

Howard County Totals 283,655 112,773 39.8% 12,624 4.5%

Source: United States Census Bureau 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates (poverty data)

Notes: 1Includes Black Not of Hispanic Origin, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Other Race, andTwo or More Races N/A means Not Applicable

Of the 20 block groups in the EJ study area, five block groups contain minority populationsof 50 percent or more (7401.04 block group 2; 7401.04 block group 3; 7401.05 block group 1;7401.05 block group 2; and 7403.05 block group 4). No block groups contained low-incomepopulations of 50 percent or more. Table 3.3-4 and Figure 3.3-1 present the block groups thatmeet or exceed the EJ thresholds. The analysis identified nine out of 20 block groups in theEJ study area as minority and/or low-income areas using the meaningfully greaterthreshold criteria for the presence of a minority population or a low-income population.MTA considered these nine locations EJ areas for the purposes of the impact analysis.

TABLE 3.3-4: BLOCK GROUPS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE THRESHOLDS

Census Block GroupMinority Poverty

MeetsFirst Threshold1

MeetsSecond Threshold2

MeetsFirst Threshold1

MeetsSecond Threshold2

7401.03 BG 2 No Yes No No

7401.04 BG 2 Yes Yes No No




7403.03 BG 1 No No No No




7512.00 BG 3 No No No Yes



9800.00 BG 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A








Notes: 1Percentage of minority or low-income residents more than 50 percent of block group total population2Percentage of minority or low-income residents more than 10 percentage points of the corresponding jurisdiction totalN/A means Not Applicable



FIGURE 3.3-1: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES




Current and future operations at the BWI Rail Station are not associated with any knownsource that would adversely impact the health or safety of children.

The evaluation of potential impacts on EJ populations conforms to the requirements of EO12898, United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5610.2(a), the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 64CFR 28550. The EJ guidance also informs the design of community outreach activities (referto Chapter 5, Public Involvement, Agency Coordination and Permits Required).


The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on EJ populations. The No-Build Alternativewould have no short-term construction impacts, and no acquisitions or relocations. It wouldalso not provide the benefits associated with improving Amtrak/MARC operations in theproject corridor.

Build Alternative

As described in Chapter 2, Description of Project and Alternatives Considered, and Section3.2 Land Use, Neighborhoods and Community Facilities, the Build Alternative would nothave direct or indirect effects on land use, neighborhoods, or community facilities. TheBuild Alternative would improve rail operations but would not create new jobs. Whileseveral partial acquisitions would be required, no acquisition, relocation, or construction ofresidences or businesses would be required. The Build Alternative would not impactpopulation growth trends.

Executive Order 12898 requires all federal agencies to develop an agency-wideenvironmental justice strategy that identifies and addresses disproportionately high andadverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities onminority populations and low-income populations. The USDOT Order 5610.2(a)incorporates the intent and spirit of EO 12898 and provides the framework for EJ analysis aspart of a NEPA effort.

The USDOT has defined a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority andlow-income populations as an adverse effect that:

x Is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, orx Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will besuffered by the nonminority population and/or non low-income population

The analysis considered two additional Executive Orders for the identification of tools toreach EJ populations and to determine potential adverse effects. These include EO 13166,Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency and EO 13045,



Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks. Executive Order 13166 assists with theidentification of EJ populations and EO 13045 is important when conducting the evaluationof impacts to EJ populations. The EJ analysis included the review of the air quality, noiseand vibration, hazardous materials, visual and traffic and transportation studies for theproject and a determination of the potential for disproportionate and adverse effects on EJpopulations.

For the purposes of the EJ analysis and disproportionate impacts determination, MTAconsidered the potential environmental consequences of the project in order to determinewhether there would be disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations. TheEJ areas are primarily located to the west of the existing project corridor. However, there arethree EJ areas located to the east of the project corridor. The greatest extent of projectactivities (such as installation of new fourth track and relocation of catenary and signaltowers) would occur within the project corridor, along the east side of the existing rail line.

The Build Alternative is not expected to cause adverse noise and vibration, air quality,hazardous materials, visual or traffic and transportation effects to EJ and non-EJpopulations. There would be no adverse effects to any populations in the project corridor,including EJ populations. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not have adisproportionate impact on EJ populations.

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and the Public Involvement Process

Full and fair access to meaningful involvement by low-income and minority populations inproject planning and development is an important aspect of environmental justice.Meaningful involvement means that MTA invited participation from those groups typicallyunder-represented, throughout all the stages of project development. The timely outreach topopulations in the project corridor would legally satisfy the EJ criteria outlined in EO 12898.Section 5-5 (d) of EO 12898 describes how to accomplish this goal by directing federalagencies to:

x Hold public meetings, as appropriate, for the purpose of fact-finding, receiving publiccomments, and conducting inquiries concerning environmental justice; and

x Prepare for public review a summary of the comments and recommendations discussedat the public meetings.

It is important to inform EJ populations of the project development process and listen totheir feedback. The MTA uses this information in the design and evaluation of alternatives,to avoid negative impacts to valued sites, and to support the development of safe, practical,and attractive transportation options that are responsive to the concerns of EJ populations.



3.4 AIR QUALITY

This section summarizes the existing and future air quality conditions in the project corridorand describes the potential impacts of the project.


The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency withprimary responsibility for implementation of the Clean Air Act (CAA). CAA, enacted in1970 and substantially amended in 1990 (EPA, 2010a), serves as the primary framework forfederal air quality regulation, standards and guidance, and related research activities. Forregulatory purposes, air pollutants can be divided into those for which distinct,concentration-based health-based exposure criteria have been developed (criteria airpollutants) and others (often referred to as air toxics) for which exposure is typicallyevaluated relative to units of cancer or non-cancer health risk (EPA, 2010b)(EPA, 2010c).

Health effects of criteria air pollutants most commonly include acute and/or chronicrespiratory and cardiac symptoms, but for some pollutants can also include adverse effectsto kidneys and reproductive, developmental and other physiological systems. The NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are federal standards for criteria air pollutants.Table 3.4-1 lists the current NAAQS for the key criteria air pollutants.

TABLE 3.4-1: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (PRIMARY)

Pollutant Level Averaging Time

Carbon Monoxide (CO)9 ppm 8-hour

35 ppm 1-hour

Lead (Pb) 0.15 /m3 1 Rolling 3-Month Average

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)53 ppb 2 Annual (Arithmetic Average)

100 ppb 1-hour

Ozone (O3) 0.075 ppm 3 8-hour

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)12 g /m3 Annual (Arithmetic Average)

35 g /m3 24-hour

Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 g/m3 24-hour

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 75 ppb 4 1-hour

Source: EPA, 2011a

Notes: 1Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 g/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1year afteran area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 standard remains ineffect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.2This table shows the official level of the annual NO2 standard as 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, for the purpose of clearer comparison tothe 1-hour standard.3 Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration,averaged over three years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm,not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard (anti-backsliding). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly averageconcentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.4Final rule signed June 2, 2010. EPA revoked the 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards in that same rulemaking. However, thesestandards remain in effect until a year after EPA would designate an area for the 2010 standard, except for those areas that EPAdesignated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until EPA approves implementation plans toattain or maintain the 2010 standard.



EPA classifies regions of the country with respect to their attainment, or the extent of theirnonattainment, of the NAAQS. Attainment designations for each pollutant are associatedwith these specifically-defined geographic areas. Table 3.4-2 lists the correspondingdesignations within Maryland.

Figure 3.4-1 (FHWA, 2005) shows the ozone areas within the regions surrounding theproject. Areas previously designated as nonattainment for a given NAAQS, and that EPAre-designated to attainment, are maintenance areas for that pollutant. A plan formaintaining compliance with the NAAQS must accompany the attainment re-designationrequest for 10 years. A second maintenance plan must be prepared within eight years of there-designation demonstrating a further 10 years of attainment.

TABLE 3.4-2: MARYLAND AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT STATUS1

Pollutant Averaging Time StandardConcentration

AttainmentStatus

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour (1985 standard) 9 ppm M

Lead (Pb) Rolling 3-month Average (2008 standard) 0.15 g/m3 U

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual (1985 standard) 53 ppb A

Ozone (O3)1-hour (1997 standard revoked) 0.12 ppm A

8-hour (1997 standard) 0.08 ppm N

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)24-hour (2006 standard) 35 g/m3 A

Annual (1997 standard) 15 g/m3 A

Particulate Matter (PM10)24-hour (1987 standard) 150 g/m3 A

Annual (1997 standard revoked) 50 g/m3 A

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

24-hour (1996 standard) 140 ppb A

Annual (1996 standard) 30 ppb A

3-hour (1996 standard) 500 ppb A

Source: Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), 2012

Notes: 1In many cases, attainment designations have not been finalized with respect to the most recent NAAQS revisions, but have beenestablished (and remain in effect) for previous versions of the NAAQS. This is why values under the Standard Concentration column ofthis table do not always match the corresponding values under the Level column in Table 3.4-1.A = Attainment; M = Maintenance; N = Nonattainment; U = Unclassifiable; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million;mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter; g/m3 = microgram per cubic meter.

States submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA describing how each nonattainmentarea within their boundaries will attain and maintain the NAAQS. Table 3.4-3 lists relevantSIPs that include adopted regional attainment and maintenance plans. New or revisedNAAQS may accompany new ambient air monitoring requirements. EPA typically adoptsNAAQS with specific target dates for rendering attainment designations and for subsequentsubmittal of SIP revisions for states containing nonattainment areas.



FIGURE 3.4-1: NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS WITHIN THE REGION



TABLE 3.4-3: KEY BALTIMORE-AREA AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT/MAINTENANCE PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Pollutant Plan Name NAAQSAddressed In PlanKeyYear

PlanningSignificance

CarbonMonoxide(CO)

Maintenance Plan for the Baltimore CarbonMonoxide Attainment Area (SIP Revision 03-14,December 15, 2003)

9 ppm, 8-hour 2015Maintenance

demonstrated throughindicated year

Ozone (O3) Baltimore Nonattainment Area 8-Hour OzoneState Implementation Plan and Base YearInventory (SIP Number: 07-04, June 15, 2007)

0.08 ppm

(1997 standard)8-hour

2009 Targeted attainmentyear 1

ParticulateMatter (PM2.5)

Baltimore Nonattainment Area PM2.5 StateImplementation Plan and Base Year Inventory(SIP Number: 08-04, March 24, 2008)

15.0 g/m3, Annual

65 g/m3, 24-hour 2009Targeted attainment

year 2

Sources: MDE, 2003; MDE, 2007; MDE, 2008

Notes: 1To date, the Baltimore Nonattainment Area has not attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Submittal of the Baltimore Serious NonattainmentArea 0.08 ppm 8-hour Ozone State Implementation Plan: Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 2008, 2011 and 2012 Revision to 2002 Base YearEmissions; and Serious Area Attainment Demonstration (SIP Number 13-07) on June 17, 2013. 2MDE submitted a Baltimore Nonattainment Area PM2.5Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (SIP Number: 13-10) on May 28, 2013.

At one time, EPA designated an area within the Baltimore City Central Business District (CBD)as nonattainment for the CO NAAQS; however, the CBD is now a CO maintenance area (MDE,2003). For lead, EPA issued final attainment designations for a revised standard in November of2011 (EPA, 2011b). All counties within Maryland were designated as unclassifiable/attainmentwith respect to the revised lead NAAQS. For NO2, EPA intended to render initial attainmentdesignations for the new 1-hour standard by the end of January 2012 (Wicher, 2012) and to re-designate areas, as appropriate, in 2016 and 2017 once the NO2 monitoring network had beenexpanded and data from the network was sufficient to support refined designations (EPA,2011c). Measurement data at the states current NO2 monitoring sites have remained below theapplicable threshold. Accordingly, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)anticipates that all counties in the state will remain in an unclassifiable/attainment statuspending assessment of data collected from the expanded monitoring network (Hug, 2012).

Furthermore, MDE anticipated that the Baltimore ozone nonattainment area (bordered by adotted red line in Figure 3.4-1) will be reclassified from moderate to serious nonattainment withrespect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proceeding with its implementation of a 2008NAAQS revision of the 8-hour ozone standard pending reconsideration of this revisedstandard. In December 2011, EPA concurred with the states recommendation of areas to bedesignated as nonattainment with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (EPA, 2011d). The agreed-upon nonattainment counties are the same as those designated as nonattainment with respect tothe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

On December 16, 2014, EPA published a Final Rule that requested redesignation of theBaltimore Maryland non-attainment area to attainment status for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. TheEPA designated the entire state as attainment with respect to the 2006 revision of the 24-hourPM2.5 NAAQS. All of Maryland is also in attainment for both the 1996 SO2 NAAQS (since



updated) and the 1987 24-hour average PM10 standard (still current). EPA published guidancein April 2014 to assist air agencies with implementing the 2010 1-hour NAAQS for SO2 in areasdesignated as nonattainment for the standard (EPA, 2014).

To address the potential for individual federal actions to interfere with a states plans to meetNAAQS, EPA promulgates conformity rules. The Transportation Conformity Rule applies totransportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and projects funded orapproved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA). The General Conformity Rule (EPA, 2010d) applies to other categories offederal actions, including projects funded or approved by FRA and FAA. For non-exemptfederal actions falling under the General Conformity Rule, the applicable regulations establishemission thresholds (de minimis thresholds), below which conformity determinations are notrequired. For the purposes of general conformity, EPA considers these increases as minimal.Table 3.4-4 shows the applicable thresholds that are consistent with the air quality attainmentstatus for Maryland.

TABLE 3.4-4: DE MINIMIS EMISSION LEVELS FORGENERAL CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY

Pollutant Area Characteristics Emissions Component orPrecursor Pollutant

Threshold(tons/year)

Carbon Monoxide(CO)

Maintenance areas N/A 100

Ozone(O3)

Serious nonattainment areas VOC 50NOx 501

Particulate Matter(PM2.5)

Maintenance areas Direct emissions 100SO2 100NOx (unless determined not to bea major precursor)

100

VOC or ammonia (if determined tobe major precursors)

100

Source: EPA, 2006

Notes: Nitric Oxide (NOx); VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds); SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide)

The state of Maryland administers a number of air pollution control programs. These addressvarious mobile, area-wide, and stationary air pollutant sources. The Maryland Healthy Air Act(HAA), as implemented by the Clean Power Rule (CPR), intended to reduce emissions of NO2and SO2 from the states coal-fired power plants (MDE, 2006).

Air toxics, also referred to as toxic air pollutants, are those pollutants that are known orsuspected to cause cancer and/or other serious health effects (e.g., reproductive effects or birthdefects) or have adverse environmental effects (EPA, 2009). Examples of toxic air pollutantsinclude benzene, present in gasoline, and diesel particulate matter (DPM), a byproduct of dieselexhaust. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g.,cars, trucks, mobile construction equipment and locomotives) and stationary sources (e.g.,factories, refineries, and power plants), as well as indoor sources (e.g., some building materials



and cleaning solvents). Natural sources, such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires, also releaseair toxics. The potential health effects of air toxics can include cancer; chronic eye, lung, or skinirritation; neurological and reproductive disorders; and birth defects.

The most comprehensive federal regulatory framework for control of air toxics is based on thelist of regulated Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) maintained by EPA. The CAA includesnumerous provisions related to HAPs. National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants (NESHAPs) are stationary source standards for hazardous air pollutants. NESHAPsregulate the emissions of seven HAPs, including mercury. Maryland implements NESHAPsthrough Code of Maryland Regulations 26.11.15 (Toxic Air Pollutants). EPA recently adoptedNESHAPs to limit the emissions of mercury compounds and other air toxics from coal- and oil-fired power plants (EPA, 2011e). Marylands HAA and CPR also address mercury emissions.


When air pollutants are emitted, the dispersion of the pollutants, (in some cases) the chemicalreactions that occur after emission, and the exposure of receptors to pollutant concentrationsultimately lead to, and determine, the impacts of those emissions on the surroundingenvironment. These factors are sensitive to specific spatial relationships between pollutants andreceptors; emission quantities by themselves do not capture such information. However, EPAcan evaluate emissions for each of several categories of air pollutant sources separately.

The most recent comprehensive statewide emissions inventory available from EPA is for a baseyear of 2008 (EPA, 2008). In that year, sources in the project vicinity (comprising BaltimoreCounty and Anne Arundel and Howard Counties) accounted for about one-quarter to one-thirdof total statewide emissions of the considered pollutants (selected criteria air pollutants and/ortheir precursors). Statewide, fuel combustion at electrical utility facilities accounted for the vastmajority of estimated emissions of SO2 and for a substantial proportion of NOx and direct PM2.5emissions. On-road motor vehicles represented a major source of CO, NOx and VOC emissions.Non-road diesel-powered vehicles and mobile equipment contributed primarily to emissions ofNOx and PM2.5. Fugitive dust is an important source of PM2.5 emissions, although it isproportionally a larger contributor to total PM10 emissions.

Some criteria air pollutants are of greater concern on a localized rather than regional basis.Carbon monoxide (CO) is such a pollutant. CO is a pollutant directly emitted into theatmosphere from exhausts of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines (e.g., motorvehicles, lawnmowers, etc.). Congested conditions at high-volume roadway intersections resultin locally elevated levels of CO, particularly under certain atmospheric conditions. TheBaltimore area attained the federal CO standard in the 1990s and EPA has subsequentlydesignated it as a maintenance area. In the meantime, CO emission rates for the on-road vehiclefleet have decreased dramatically and, despite increases in motor vehicle travel, monitored COconcentrations have shown a downward trend.



Air pollutant emissions directly or indirectly influence criteria air pollutant concentrations.Table 3.4-5 summarizes concentrations of key criteria air pollutants for the last three years forwhich complete annual data are available. This table shows that the city of Baltimoremaintenance area has not recently exceeded or approached the applicable CO NAAQS. NO2concentration data recently collected at existing monitoring stations within Baltimore City andBaltimore County (the only stations in Maryland for which NO2 data are currently availablefrom EPA) have remained below the most recent 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

However, ozone concentrations measured within Anne Arundel County and elsewhere withinthe Baltimore Serious Ozone Nonattainment Area have exceeded the corresponding 1997 and2008 NAAQS, consistent with the areas continued nonattainment status. Since the Baltimorearea has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS standard, EPA approved Marylands request to re-designate the non-attainment area for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to attainment status onDecember 16, 2014. The Baltimore area includes Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore,Carroll, Harford and Howard counties. PM10 concentrations monitored within Anne ArundelCounty and across the state of Maryland have remained well below applicable attainmentthresholds.



With or without the project, the demand for passenger rail service will continue to grow in thefuture. Construction of physical improvements recommended in the MARC Plan Update,including those associated with the project, would result in temporary, construction-related airpollutant emissions impacts.

The No-Build Alternative would have no short-term construction impacts, and no acquisitionsor relocations. It would also not provide the benefits associated with improving Amtrak orMARC operations in the project corridor.

Build Alternative

Short-Term Construction Impacts

Project construction activities would emit air pollutants leading to temporary impacts at theBWI Rail Station and other locations along the project corridor.

Table 3.4-6 demonstrates that project construction activities would generate criteria air pollutantemissions well below the corresponding general conformity de minimis thresholds. Constructionof the project would be consistent with the SIP. Nevertheless, MTA and FRA will considerreasonable mitigation measures including dust suppression, proper equipment maintenanceand tuning, and appropriate placement of stationary internal-combustion-powered equipment.



TABLE 3.4-5: CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT MONITORING DATA

Pollutant AveragingPeriod

Context ParameterValue

2009 2010 20111

CO 1-hour Oldtown Fire Station,City of Baltimore

Max. Concentration (ppm) forSecond Highest Day

3 2 2

City of BaltimoreMaintenance Area

Max. Concentration (ppm) forSecond Highest Day

3 2 2

> NAAQS (35 ppm) N N N

8-hour Oldtown Fire Station,City of Baltimore

Max. Concentration (ppm) 2 2 2

City of BaltimoreMaintenance Area

Max. Concentration (ppm) 2 2 2

> NAAQS (9 ppm) N N N

NO2 1-hour Oldtown Fire Station,City of Baltimore

98th Percentile Concentration(ppb)

59 61 54

Statewide 98th Percentile Concentration(ppb)

59 61 54

> NAAQS (100 ppb) N N N

Ozone 8-hour DavidsonvilleRecreation Center,Anne Arundel County

Max. Concentration (ppm) forFourth Highest Day

0.070 0.087 0.087

Baltimore OzoneNonattainment Area

Max. Concentration (ppm) forFourth Highest Day

0.083 0.096 0.098

> 1997 NAAQS (0.08 ppm,effectively 0.084 ppm)

N Y Y

> 2008 NAAQS (0.075 ppm) Y Y Y

PM2.5 24-hour Anne Arundel Co.Public Works Bldg.,Glen Burnie

98th Percentile Concentration(g/m3)

25 28 25

Baltimore PM2.5Nonattainment Area

98th Percentile Concentration(g/m3)

31 32 29

> 1997 NAAQS (65 g/m3) N N N

> 2006 NAAQS (35 g/m3) N N N

AnnualMean

Anne Arundel Co.Public Works Bldg.

Concentration (g/m3) 11.1 11.0 10.9

Baltimore PM2.5Nonattainment Area

Concentration (g/m3) 12.1 12.7 12.9

> NAAQS (15 g/m3) N N N

PM10 24-hour Anne Arundel Co.Public Works Bldg.

Concentration (g/m3) forSecond Highest Day

36 45 24

Statewide Concentration (g/m3) forSecond Highest Day

37 46 37

> NAAQS (150 g/m3) N N N

Source: EPA, 2012

Note: 1Annual statistics for 2011 are not final until May 1, 2012



TABLE 3.4-6: PREDICTED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONSRELATED TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Predicted Emissions (tons/year) by Pollutant

AnalysisYear

Project Component VOC NOx CO PM2.5

2012 Station and Fourth Track 0.6 6.4 3.5 0.5

> Threshold No No No No

2013 Station and Fourth Track 2.5 21.4 17.5 1.8

> Threshold No No No No

De Minimis Thresholds (tons/year) 50 100 100 100

Source: Pa

Chapter 3

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 3