MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

MCPB Item No. 2 Date: 12-15-11 Network and Methodology Report - Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan
Larry .Cole
Digitally signed by Larry.Cole DN: cn=Larry.Cole Reason: I am the author of this document Date: 2011.12.08 09:49:36 -05'00'

Larry Cole, Master Planner, [email protected], 301-495-4528 Mary Dolan, Acting Chief, mary/[email protected], 301-495-4552

Completed: 12/08/11 Description This report documents the evaluation of the 16 corridors in the MCDOT Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study and recommends modifications to that network. It also recommends a methodology for determining bus treatments that will be used to define where additional public right-of-way will be needed. This Functional Plan is intended to facilitate the development of a countywide bus rapid transit (BRT) system and supersedes the Master Plan of Highways Bus Rapid Transit Amendment effort. This Functional Master Plan will amend the General Plan, of which the Master Plan of Highways is a part, as well as all the affected area Master and Sector Plans. As part of this Amendment to the General Plan, the name of the Master Plan of Highways will change to the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways. Summary The Boards action today is to decide what BRT network should be evaluated further for inclusion in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan. The Board is also to decide whether the recommended methodology should be used to determine when dedicated bus lanes are desirable and when those lanes should be achieved by repurposing existing travel lanes. The Planning Boards recommendations will be forwarded to the County Council for approval. Recommendations for transmittal to the County Council Transit Corridor Network: 1. The corridors recommended by the MCDOT Feasibility Study should be carried forward for further evaluation as part of this Functional Plan, with the exception of the ICC and Midcounty Highway corridors. 2. The following corridors are recommended to be added to the scope of work for this Functional Plan, which will require additional resources and time to complete:

a. Two corridors should be added to the scope of work for this Functional Plan to provide better coordination with the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan effort: i. New Hampshire Avenue from US29 to Randolph Road, and ii. Randolph Road from Georgia Avenue to US29 b. Three corridors should be added to the scope of work for this Functional Plan to provide better east-west connections in the BRT network: i. A connection between the Rockville Metrorail Station and the Georgia Avenue interchange for the ICC, by way of MD 28/Norbeck Road ii. A connection between NIH and Wheaton, by way of the following roads: Cedar Lane, Summit Avenue, Knowles Avenue, Connecticut Avenue, and University Boulevard iii. A connection between Aspen Hill and White Flint, by way of Parklawn Drive and Montrose Parkway c. Seven corridors have been recommended by the Executive to be added to our scope of work for this Functional Plan: i. An extension of Old Georgetown Road from Tuckerman Lane north to White Flint ii. An extension of Wisconsin Avenue (MD355) south from the Bethesda Metrorail Station to the District of Columbia Line iii. An extension of MD355 from the terminus of the CCT in Clarksburg to the Frederick County Line iv. An extension of US29 from the Burtonsville park-and-ride to the Howard County Line v. Cherry Hill Road from US29 to the Prince Georges County Line vi. Georgia Avenue from the Silver Spring Transit Center to the District of Columbia Line vii. A corridor from the Montgomery Mall Transit center to the American Legion Bridge via I-270 and I-495. 3. Within the limits of the Cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville, we are retaining BRT corridor segments for further study to the same level of detail as the rest of the proposed network. Should they desire changes in the network, the Cities should communicate their request to the County Council for consideration in conjunction with your review of this report. 4. This Functional Plan will include recommendations only for those transit corridors where dedicated transitways and intersection improvements are warranted and can be achieved, as well as those with enhanced stations that require additional right-of-way. Corridors where only operational improvements are needed (no additional right-of-way and no change in the number of travel lanes) will not be included.

Proposed Methodology: 5. The methodology shown in Chapter 4 of the Network and Methodology report should be used to determine the preferred treatment, and the right-of-way for that treatment, for the final transit corridor network to be included in the Functional Plan. 6. A tiered approach will be used to identify the level of investment appropriate for each corridor, based on its ridership forecasts. This approach is illustrated on page 23 of the report. a. Tier 1 Corridors: Exclusive Transitway Treatments Corridors with peak hour passenger volumes in 2040 exceeding 800 in urban areas and 1,200 in suburban areas would be evaluated for exclusive transitway treatments. Changes to the master plan would include modifications to the number of general purpose lanes, and the provision of bus lanes, and requirements for additional right-of-way for exclusive transit lanes, some intersections, and stations. b. Tier 2 Corridors: Bus Priority with Spot Right-of-Way Requirements Corridors with peak hour passenger volumes in 2040 between 500 and 800 in urban areas and 700 and 1,200 in suburban areas would operate in mixed traffic and would be evaluated for bus priority, including queue jumps and transit signal priority. Changes to the master plan would include additional right-of-way at some intersections and stations. c. Tier 3 Corridors: Bus Priority Corridors with peak hour passenger volumes in 2040 less than 500 in urban areas and 700 in suburban areas would operate in mixed traffic and would be evaluated for bus priority, including transit signal priority. Changes to the master plan would include additional right-of-way at stations only. 7. The conversion of an existing travel lane to a bus lane is preferred to constructing an additional lane for corridors where passenger volumes exceed single lane personthroughput in automobiles, as long as the volume-to-capacity ratio on the remaining travel lanes is less than 1.0 under 2040 conditions. 8. The corridor typology will be used to determine the preferred number of exclusive lanes for each corridor, rather than assuming that a two-lane transitway is appropriate for all corridors. Activity Center Connector corridors would be evaluated for two-way busways and Commuter/Express corridors would be evaluated for one-way busways. Additional Analysis: 9. Additional funds and resources should be allocated to provide greater certainty about potential BRT ridership and a better understanding of the traffic impacts associated with BRT implementation. 3

a. Additional travel demand forecasting is needed to add more specific technical detail to the model effort conducted for the MCDOT feasibility study and improve our findings. This modeling includes the following: i. Updating the model to reflect local bus network improvements underway for the Corridor Cities Transitway project ii. Reflecting refined station locations iii. Updating land use assumptions to reflect recently approved and ongoing master planning efforts iv. Updating assumptions for transitway design treatments v. Updating assumptions based on the anticipated level of local bus service after implementation of the BRT network. vi. Updating MARC future ridership based on MTAs proposed facility improvements and the planned White Flint MARC station b. Additional technical analysis would also contribute to policy discussions associated with this Functional Plan. That analysis includes the following: i. Conducting analysis to determine impacts of a lane repurposing policy on the roadway network ii. Understanding the mode choice implications of a lane repurposing policy to estimate how many people would be expected to shift to transit if roadway conditions were to become more congested iii. Conducting forecasts on additional corridors identified by the Rapid Transit Task Force for an expanded network and by Planning Board to improve eastwest travel options iv. Developing a final network, which incorporates all final policy recommendations to determine new ridership estimates for the transit corridor network MARC 10. As part of a broader response to the question of what modifications should be made to the Countys transit network, we recommend that you consider adding an evaluation of the Maryland Transit Administration's MARC Growth and Investment Plans recommendation for a third track along the CSX line between Kensington and the Montgomery County/Frederick County line to our work program as a separate master plan amendment. Overview of Analysis This memo summarizes the highlights of the attached Network and Methodology Report prepared by Planning staff and PB Engineering, our consultant in this effort. This report helps frame key decisions and includes the background and context of the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan. The Plan will recommend adequate rights-of-way in the Master Plan to facilitate the development of a countywide Bus Rapid Transit system. This includes identifying: corridors where dedicated bus lanes are needed intersections where queue jumpers are needed station locations 4

The Network and Methodology Report is an important step in developing the Functional Plan as it: establishes the network to be evaluated identifies the decision-making process that will recommend appropriate treatments for each corridor. This effort was originally entitled the BRT Amendment to the Master Plan of Highways, but it become clear early in our work that the majority of elements that make a BRT system a success are operational issues that are beyond the scope of the Master Plan. For example, the Master Plan cant require that buses come every 10 minutes for 14 hours a day, an important characteristic of a high-level BRT service. Transit Corridor Network Recommendation #1: The corridors recommended by the MCDOT Feasibility Study should be carried forward for further evaluation as part of this Functional Plan, with the exception of the ICC and Midcounty Highway corridors. The ICC corridor should be removed because it would function as express service rather than BRT service. Additionally, bus service would operate along a tolled, high-capacity facility whose toll rates are intended to keep the facility congestion-free, negating the need for dedicated bus lanes. The Maryland Transit Administration already operates two commuter express bus routes along the ICC and will expand this service to five routes in January 2012. The Mid-County Highway corridor should be removed because it appears to compete with both the Corridor Cities Transitway and Corridor 10b/MD355 North. If built in the master planned alignment, it would function as express service similar to the ICC. The fourteen remaining corridors will be carried forward for further evaluation. Recommendation #2: The following corridors are recommended to be added to the scope of work for this Functional Plan, which will require additional resources and time to complete. Outlined below are a number of potential additions to our approved scope of work that would expand the BRT network to be studied, in part to provide a better coordination with our Master Plan program. All of these items would require additional time and would require additional personnel and consultant resources to complete this Functional Plan. If the Board concurs that this additional work is needed, we will prepare a cost estimate and revised schedule for the Councils consideration. If approved, these corridors would be added for evaluation. White Oak Science Gateway (WOSG) Master Plan: The Functional Plan is currently on essentially the same schedule as this WOSG Master Plan effort. It is anticipated that the WOSG plan will consider a much higher level of density than the current Master Plan and its modeling will include BRT as a way to serve this development. The modeling for these corridors is not in our current scope for the Functional Plan however. We recommend that the Board endorse adding these corridors to our scope of work: Randolph Road: an extension from its current terminus in Glenmont to White Oak New Hampshire Avenue: from its current terminus at US29 to Randolph Road 5

Improving East-West Connectivity: The General Plan recommends that priority be given to improving east-west travel in the development of "an interconnected transportation system that provides choices in the modes and routes of travel." Most of the 16 corridors in the MCDOT study are north-south routes. While that is the predominant pattern of travel, creating a BRT network that allows transit riders to get between any two points with few seat changes and with reliable service is a prerequisite for being perceived by the public as a coherent system rather than a group of bus routes. We recommend that three corridors, in addition to those recommended to be pursued in conjunction with the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan, be studied in the next phase in an effort to create that system: A connection between Rockville and the Georgia Avenue interchange for the ICC, by way of MD 28/Norbeck Road A connection between NIH and Wheaton, by way of the following roads: Cedar Lane, Summit Avenue, Knowles Avenue, Connecticut Avenue, and University Boulevard A connection between Aspen Hill and White Flint, by way of Parklawn Drive and Montrose Parkway Rapid Transit Task Force: On December 5, 2011, the County Executive forwarded the task forces recommendations for an expanded network of BRT corridors beyond what was proposed by the MCDOT study. The corridors that would be added beyond what has been identified above, and which we recommend be added to our scope of work, are as follows: An extension of Old Georgetown Road from Tuckerman Lane north to White Flint An extension of Wisconsin Avenue (MD355) south from the Bethesda Metrorail Station to the District of Columbia Line An extension of MD355 from the terminus of the CCT in Clarksburg to the Frederick County Line An extension of US29 from the Burtonsville park-and-ride to the Howard County Line Cherry Hill Road from US29 to the Prince Georges County Line Georgia Avenue from the Silver Spring Transit Center to the District of Columbia Line (This segment was the subject of a November 16, 2011 letter from Councilmembers Nancy Floreen and Hans Riemer to County Executive Isiah Leggett and to Mayor Vincent Gray requesting consideration of a change in the terminus of the proposed Georgia Avenue streetcar from Takoma Park to Silver Spring.) A corridor from the Montgomery Mall Transit center to the American Legion Bridge via I-270 and I-495 (The Master Plan calls for HOV lanes along these roads that could be used to accommodate BRT.) The total length of the network recommended to be evaluated in the next phase is approximately 139 miles, a reduction from the current 150 miles. It is likely that some of these corridors would merit only operational improvements and would not be included in the Functional Plan. Therefore, the corridor length of the final network is likely to be less than 139 miles. The additional corridors, however, will require more work to bring them to an equivalent level of development as with the original corridors.

It is our understanding that the Executive will be submitting a request to the County Council for additional funds to add the corridors recommended by the task force to our Functional Plan work. We will work with the Executive to include the Boards recommendations in that request. In addition, the Board would need to work with the Council to extend our schedule to provide additional time to bring these corridors up to the same level of development as the corridors now being considered. Recommendation #3: This Functional Plan will include recommendations only for those transit corridors where dedicated transitways and intersection improvements are warranted and can be achieved, as well as those with enhanced stations that require additional right-of-way. Corridors where only operational improvements are needed (no additional right-of-way and no change in the number of travel lanes) will not be included. Only those corridors requiring a change to the Master Plan right-of-way or number of lanes would be included in this Functional Plan. This would not prohibit or restrict transit improvements on other corridors, but we will encumber in the Master Plan only those adjacent properties where we can demonstrate the need to do so for the greater public benefit. Recommendation #4: Within the limits of the Cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville, we are retaining BRT corridor segments for further study to the same level of detail as the rest of the proposed network. Should they desire changes in the network, the Cities should communicate their request to the County Council for consideration in conjunction with your review of this report. Proposed Methodology Recommendation #5: The methodology shown in Chapter 4 of the Network and Methodology report should be used to determine the preferred treatment, and the right-of-way for that treatment, for the final transit corridor network to be included in the Functional Plan. Recommendation #6: A tiered approach will be used to identify the level of investment appropriate for each corridor, based on its ridership forecasts. This approach is illustrated on page 23 of the report. Ridership forecasts from the MCDOT BRT Study and an analysis of corridor typologies highlight the need to differentiate the level of investment in the corridors retained for further evaluation. Some corridors merit exclusive treatments throughout the day and in both directions. Other corridors merit exclusive lanes only during peak periods in the peak directions. Still other corridors only merit queue jumpers or transit signal priority. We therefore recommend using a tiered approach that matches each corridor with a level of investment appropriate for the volume of users and travel patterns. The three tiers are defined by 2040 peak hour passenger volumes. Tier 1: Exclusive Transitway Treatments Corridor segments with peak hour passenger volumes in 2040 exceeding 800 in urban areas and 1,200 in suburban areas would be evaluated for exclusive transitway treatments, which could include one or two exclusive lanes, either in the median or adjacent to the curb.

For corridor segments that fall within this tier, the Functional Plan could recommend: Modifications to the number of general purpose lanes and bus lanes Additional right-of-way requirements for exclusive transit lanes, some intersections, and stations. Tier 2: Bus Priority with Spot Right-of-Way Requirements Corridors segments with peak hour passenger volumes in 2040 between 500 and 800 in urban areas and 700 and 1,200 in suburban areas would operate in mixed traffic and would be evaluated for bus priority, including queue jumps and transit signal priority. They do not have sufficient passenger volumes to merit an exclusive transitway treatment. Therefore, changes to the master plan could include additional right-of-way at some intersections for queue jumpers and stations. Tier 3: Bus Priority Corridors segments with peak hour passenger volumes in 2040 less than 500 in urban areas and 700 in suburban areas would operate in mixed traffic and would be evaluated for bus priority, including transit signal priority. Changes to the master plan could include additional right-of-way at stations. The following table summarizes the potential master plan recommendations for each corridor segment tier based on their peak hour passenger volumes.
Peak Hour Passenger Volumes by Segment Tier Urban Tier 1: Exclusive Transitway Treatments Tier 2: Bus Priority with Spot ROW Requirements Tier 3: Bus Priority Suburban Modifications to # of Lanes General Purpose Lanes X Bus Only Lanes Additional Right-of-Way Exclusive Transitways Some Intersections Stations

800+ 500-800 <500

1,200+ 700-1,200 <700

X X

X X X

This Functional Plan will identify and protect the rights-of-way needed to accommodate the most appropriate treatment, based on current analysis, but not prescribe that treatment. For example, a median transitway may appear to be the most appropriate treatment to accommodate dedicated bus lanes in a specific corridor. We will therefore recommend the greater right-of-way associated with that treatment, but during the implementation phase, curb lanes may prove to be more feasible or desirable in urban areas. This Functional Plan is intended to provide flexibility in the choice of treatment at the time of implementation. Recommendation #7: The conversion of an existing travel lane to a bus lane is preferred to constructing an additional lane for corridors where passenger volumes exceed single lane personthroughput in automobiles, as long as the volume-to-capacity ratio on the remaining travel lanes is less than 1.0 under 2040 conditions.

Before recommending that additional right-of-way be protected to accommodate a transit corridor, we will first consider whether existing travel lanes can be designated as bus-only lanes. This repurposing would occur if the remaining lanes have the capacity to handle the 2040 traffic forecasts. This is a conservative approach that is not likely to result in many repurposed lanes. However, since the State is developing a person-throughput policy that will specify when a lane repurposing can occur, and since the majority of roads considered as BRT corridors are State roads, this appears to be the most appropriate approach. We believe a progressive person-throughput approach should be considered by the State, since looking first to maximize use of existing transportation facilities before expanding them is more fiscally prudent, limits impacts to adjacent property, and supports the Countys goal to increase transit usage as part of a long-term solution to our transportation needs. These corridors would also be able to be implemented more quickly. However, if repurposing is recommended when the remaining lanes do not have the capacity to handle the 2040 traffic forecasts, some drivers may decide to use transit, but may cut through neighborhoods. More detailed analysis would need to be done to determine these potential impacts. Recommendation #8: The corridor typology will be used to determine the number of exclusive lanes for each corridor, rather than assuming that a two-lane transitway is appropriate for all corridors. Activity Center Connector corridors would be evaluated for two-way busways and Commuter/Express corridors would be evaluated for one-way busways. The Network and Methodology Report describes these corridor typologies: Activity Center Connector corridors are characterized by high ridership distributed among multiple activity centers located throughout corridor, are typically implemented along major highways, or major or minor arterials, and have a moderate to high percentage of the corridor meeting BRT-supportive population or employment densities. Commuter/Express corridors are characterized by high ridership directed toward a CBD or transfer to regional transit services, are typically implemented along freeways, highways, or arterials, and have a low to moderate percentage of the corridor meeting BRT-supportive population or employment densities. In addition, they have a higher average ratio of peak hour travel to daily ridership than do Activity Center Connector corridors. Since Activity Center Connector corridors are characterized by travel in both directions throughout the day, they would be evaluated for two-way busways. Since Commuter corridors are characterized by high traffic volumes in the peak direction, they would be evaluated for one-way busways; travel in the offpeak direction does not merit an exclusive lane, since it is typically uncongested. Additional Analysis Recommendation #9: Additional funds and resources should be allocated to provide greater certainty about potential BRT ridership and a better understanding of the traffic impacts associated with BRT implementation. Outlined below are a number of potential additions to our approved scope of work that would provide a higher level of confidence in the ridership forecasts that were performed for the MCDOT feasibility 9

study, or provide information concerning the potential traffic impacts caused by the implementation of a BRT network. All of these items would require additional time and would require additional personnel and consultant resources to complete this Functional Plan. If the Board concurs that this additional work is needed, we will prepare a cost estimate and work with the Executive to include this in his additional funding request to the Council, as well as creating a revised schedule for the Boards discussion with the Council. Additional travel demand forecasting is needed to add more specific technical detail to the model effort conducted for the MCDOT feasibility study and improve our findings. This work effort is being conducted based on analysis performed as part of the MCDOT feasibility study. While we believe we have enough information from the feasibility study to warrant preserving additional right-of-way, our current scope does not include refining the ridership forecasts in line with the revised network nor the specific treatment that will be recommended in the next phase of our work. In addition, it appears that some adjustment to the assumptions for local bus service following BRT implementation is needed and could increase BRT ridership forecasts, potentially justifying a higher level of treatment. Findings would be improved by adding more specific technical detail to the demand forecasting model effort conducted for the MCDOT study. This additional effort would include the following: Updating the model to reflect local bus network improvements underway for the Corridor Cities Transitway project Reflecting refined station location edits as identified by M-NCPPC staff Updating land use assumptions to reflect ongoing master planning efforts Updating assumptions for modal decision-making based on a finalized list of expected design treatments Updating assumptions based on the anticipated level of local bus service after implementation of the BRT network Updating MARC future ridership based on MTAs proposed facility improvements and the planned White Flint MARC station (see discussion below) Additional technical analysis would also contribute to policy discussions associated with this Functional Plan. That analysis includes the following: Conducting analysis to determine impacts of a lane repurposing policy on the larger transportation network Understanding the mode choice implications of a lane repurposing policy to estimate how many people would be expected to shift to transit if roadway conditions were to become more congested Conducting forecasting on additional corridors identified by the Rapid Transit Task Force for an expanded network and by Planning Board to improve east-west travel options Developing a final network, which incorporates all final policy recommendations to determine new ridership estimates for the transit corridor network 10

MARC Recommendation #10: As part of a broader response to the question of what modifications should be made to the Countys transit network, we recommend that you consider adding an evaluation of the Maryland Transit Administration's MARC Growth and Investment Plans recommendation for a third track along the CSX line between Kensington and the Montgomery County/Frederick County line to our work program as a separate master plan amendment. In 2007, the Maryland Transit Administration created a Growth and Investment Plan (GIP) that includes staged investments through 2035 to provide faster and more reliable service on the MARC system, providing a better transportation choice for commuters and regional travelers. In addition to addressing equipment and storage needs, the plan identifies where additional tracks are needed. On the Brunswick Line, the GIP includes a third track from Kensington to Point of Rocks. Point of Rocks is the first station north of the Frederick County line and the junction for MARC service from Washington, DC to the City of Frederick via Montgomery County, which started in 2001. The addition of a third track would provide CSX more flexibility in scheduling freight trains and therefore would create the opportunity to provide more passenger service, as has been done with the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) trains in Northern Virginia on the CSX tracks. By contrast, on December 1, 2011, MTA announced a revised schedule that reduces MARC service at several stations in Montgomery County: Kensington will lose one inbound and one outbound stop; Garrett Park will lose two outbound stops; Metropolitan Grove will lose two inbound stops and one outbound stop; and Barnesville will lose one inbound stop. These changes are being made to avoid scheduling problems with freight trains, problems that could be avoided or reduced by the addition of a third track. Better MARC service on the Brunswick Line would not provide the same function as the entire BRT system, but MARC could become a more significant part of the solution to our transportation challenge the GIPs 2035 projected ridership figures are almost quadruple current ridership. We recommend that the Board consider adding a study of the right-of-way needs for the MARC expansion to our work program as a separate master plan amendment, subject to approval by the County Council. The third track is not yet in the regions Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP). However, for the purposes of this Functional Plan, we recommend adding a scenario in our forecasting that includes implementation of MTAs plan for a third track, as well as include the planned White Flint MARC Station to determine the benefits of an integrated transit system. Conclusion In the preparation of this report, we have addressed what we believe to be the Countys broader goal of increasing transit ridership as an important travel option. We have recommended both a network of transit corridors and a methodology for determining ridership-supported treatments for those corridors. Rather than assuming that all desirable BRT attributes are the appropriate solution for each corridor, we recommend that these treatments be individually tailored according to what the transit ridership would warrant, what the resulting traffic impacts would be, and what major obstacles are identified to 11

acquiring needed right-of-way. The details of those treatments will be determined in our next phase of work. The resulting network to be included in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan will likely include fewer corridors once the evaluation is complete. Only those corridors needing additional right-of-way or changed number of lanes will need to be adopted as part of the plan. This Functional Plan will provide flexibility for the County to determine the most desirable treatment at the time of implementation within the corridors we recommend, and will not restrict improvements to corridors that are not in the Plan. We are recommending further modeling and analysis to refine our ridership forecasts for the revised transit network, to reflect likely changes in local bus service after BRT implementation, to determine the effects of MTAs proposed investment in MARCs Brunswick Line, and to determine what the impacts on the transportation network would be if travel lanes are repurposed as bus lanes. We ask that the Planning Board forward these recommendations, with any revisions they recommend, to the County Council for approval, and that you work with the Council and the Executive on appropriate funding and schedule changes necessary to complete the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan.

12

Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan

Network and Methodology Report

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

Prepared by

For

December 2011

Table of contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... v About this report................................................................................................................................................ vii

Section 1 .......................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1.............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1 Context .........................................................................................................................................................2 History of the Master Plan of Highways ..................................................................................................2 Overview of recent and current master plan and section plans .............................................................4 Immediate history of this master plan effort ..........................................................................................5 Chapter 2.............................................................................................................................................................. 7 General framework ......................................................................................................................................7 Characteristics of a transit corridor network in Montgomery County ....................................................7 Integration with the Red Line, Purple Line, and Corridor Cities Transitway............................................7 Corridor functions ....................................................................................................................................8 Intersection treatments ...........................................................................................................................9 Station types, locations, and access ..................................................................................................... 10 Assessing right-of-way impacts............................................................................................................. 10 Guided vs. unguided transitway ........................................................................................................... 10 Comparison of median transitway and curbside lane treatments ....................................................... 12 Contra-flow BRT operation ................................................................................................................... 14 Reversible lane BRT operation .............................................................................................................. 14 Chapter 3............................................................................................................................................................ 14 Draft network and potential changes ....................................................................................................... 14 Corridor removals ................................................................................................................................. 15 BRT corridors within the cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville ............................................................. 17 Corridor realignments ........................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7 shows the proposed network modifications for this Functional Plan. ................................... 18 Additional Corridors .............................................................................................................................. 18

Section 2 ....................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4............................................................................................................................................................ 21 Initial network analyses ............................................................................................................................ 21 Methodology for defining right-of-way needs.......................................................................................... 21 December 2011 i Table of Contents

Bus priority ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Bus priority with spot right-of-way requirements................................................................................. 24 Preferential or exclusive transit lane treatment ................................................................................... 25

Section 3 ...................................................................................................................... 26
Chapter 5 ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 Outcome of the Functional Master Plan ................................................................................................... 26 Recommended additional analysis ........................................................................................................ 26 Chapter 6 ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 Public outreach .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 7 ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 Proposed project timeline ......................................................................................................................... 27

Figures
Figure 1. BRT network proposed in the MCDOT Feasibility Study ...................................................................... 3 Figure 2. 1955 map of Master Plan of Highways ................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3: Councilmember Elrichs System Concept ............................................................................................. 6 Figure 4: Representation of defined corridor functions...................................................................................... 9 Figure 5. Guided transitway using mechanical guidance (Leeds, UK) ............................................................... 12 Figure 6. Guided transitway without vehicle guidance (Eugene, OR) ............................................................... 12 Figure 7. Modified functional plan network with potential east-west corridors .............................................. 20 Figure 8. Decision framework for identifying right-of-way along BRT corridor segments................................ 23 Figure 9. Countywide transit corridors functional master plan schedule ......................................................... 29

Tables
Table 1. Attributes of Guided vs. Unguided Busways ....................................................................................... 12 Table 2: Proposed Network Changes ................................................................................................................ 18 Table 3: Proposed Corridors for Right-of-Way Needs Assessment ................................................................... 24

Appendices
Appendix ATransportation goals, objectives, and strategies, Montgomery County General Plan (1993) Appendix BRelevant planning activities within Montgomery County Appendix CRecommended additions to the BRT network: Letter from County Executive Isiah Leggett forwarding the Rapid Transit Task Forces recommendations to Montgomery County Planning Board Appendix DDetailed description of initial corridor and station analyses ii

December 2011

Acronyms and abbreviations

Appendix E Request to modify Georgia Avenue streetcar line: Letter from Councilmembers Nancy Floreen and Hans Riemer to County Executive Isiah Leggett and to Mayor Vincent Gray Appendix FComments received at Public Meetings on BRT Network

December 2011

iii

Table of Contents

Acronyms and abbreviations

BRT CBD CLRP ECSC FDA Functional Plan LRT MCDOT MPOH MRO MTA MWCOG PCN RRFMP RTTF SHA WMATA WSSC bus rapid transit Central Business District Regional Constrained Long-Range Plan East County Science Center US Food and Drug Administration Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan light rail transit Montgomery County Department of Transportation Master Plan of Highways Montgomery Regional Office Maryland Transit Administration Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Regional Bus Study: Evaluation of the Metrobus Priority Corridor Networks Rustic Roads Functional Master Plan Rapid Transit Task Force Maryland State Highway Administration Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

December 2011

Acronyms and abbreviations

About this report

This network and methodology report provides the rationale for determining the bus rapid transit (BRT) network to be adopted into the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan (Functional Plan). It also presents a decision framework by which to assess rights-of-way for each potential BRT corridor for future inclusion in the Functional Plan. The report is arranged in three sections and includes appendices.

Appendices
Six appendices attached to this report. Appendix A provides information on the language of Montgomery Countys General Plan. Appendix B outlines planning efforts countywide that support BRT development. Appendix C provides a copy of the Rapid Transit Task Forces recommended additions to the BRT network Appendix D presents the result of technical analyses conducted to date on this project to define corridor functions and station typologies. Appendix E provides a copy of a letter from County Council requesting a change to the Georgia Avenue streetcar line Appendix F presents comments received during two public meetings held to date related to the proposed BRT network presented in the MCDOT feasibility study.

Section 1
Section 1 presents an overview of the need for a transit corridor network to meet the Countys growing transportation needs, and sets the context for the transit corridor network relative to other planning activities within the County. It also conveys the key assumptions for and characteristics of the transit corridor network within Montgomery County that will govern the assessment of each corridor.

Section 2
Section 2 proposes modifications to the 16corridor BRT network proposed in the August 2011 Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Countywide BRT study. It identifies those corridors where ridership forecasts may justify requiring additional right-ofway or repurposing existing travel lanes primarily for transit use. Additional corridors are recommended to be added to our scope of work for study in the next phase. Additionally, this section gives an overview of the decision framework for right-of-way assessment along each corridor in the modified network.

Section 3
Section 3 outlines the deliverables, the public outreach efforts, and the schedule for the Functional Plan. vii

December 2011

About this report

Section 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Washington, DC region is rated the most congested in the nation by the Texas Transportation Institute with average commute times exceeding 40 minutes. Congestion is expected to continue to increase, driven by a growing population, as well as a growing economy. By 2040, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) projects the regions population to increase by 30 percent and employment to grow by 39 percent.1 Within Montgomery County, MWCOG projects a 22- and 42-percent growth in population and employment, respectively. Significant changes at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, White Flint, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Life Sciences Center and other commercial and employment centers are expected to impact travel conditions for many. Transit in the County is currently provided by the high capacity Metrorail system, local bus service, and regional services such as MARC and MTA commuter bus. While plans are underway to create two high-capacity transit corridors in the Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway, much of the County will still lack reliable, high-speed, high-capacity transit service that provides a reliable alternative to driving an automobile and that provides connectivity among various County activity centers. The current local bus service provides County residents access from their neighborhoods to supporting commercial centers or feeds into regional transit services such as Metrorail and MARC commuter rail and bus. Buses operate in mixed traffic and generally have several stops for every mile they operate. Thus, their speeds and reliability are governed by the variable conditions of the roadways on which they operate, which often adversely affect service reliability. A transit corridor network would provide improved accessibility and mobility to serve the development envisioned by the Countys adopted land use plans. Implementing this Functional Plan will help further Montgomery Countys General Plans transportation goal, which is to Enhance mobility by providing a safe and efficient transportation system offering a wide range of alternatives that serve the environmental, economic, social, and land use needs of the County and provide a framework for development (p. 63). 2 BRT service could provide improved transit service through the following enhancements: Implementing treatments such as exclusive transit facilities or transit signal priority to improve the vehicles operating speeds Providing limited stop service to key destinations spaced a half-mile or mile apart Providing level boarding and off-board fare collection to reduce the time it takes passengers to enter and exit a bus Montgomery County is largely built out, with most new growth expected to occur through redevelopment, so options for building new roads or expanding existing ones are limited. High capacity rail projects are feasible only in the most densely populated areas with major employers. Preliminary design has just begun on the Purple Line as a Light Rail Transit (LRT) project. The Locally Preferred Alternative for the Corridor Cities Transitway (rail or bus) has not yet been chosen, but a decision is expected shortly. The Secretary of MDOT recently provided an
2

Growth Trends to 2040: Cooperative Forecasting in the Washington Region, 2010

The transportation goals, objectives, and strategies from the General Plan can be found in Appendix A.

December 2011

Chapter 1

Section 1
economic analysis of the two alternatives for the Corridor Cities Transitway in response to a request from County Executive Isiah Leggett. That analysis showed the BRT alternative as having a larger economic benefit than LRT. Montgomery County is focusing future development in compact, mixed-use areas that reduce the need for driving and enhance its pedestrian, bicycle, and transit network with sustainable, cost-effective solutions. As an example of developing policy direction, a changing focus on how to measure transportation success would be appropriate. Rather than emphasize how many cars can go through an intersection, a typical transportation system performance assessment, the County will need to focus on providing as many people as possible with reliable travel options along its transportation corridors, or perhaps provide a greater travel advantage to those who use modes of travel with a smaller carbon footprint. There are components of BRT systems nationwide that have proved to be beneficial for transit travelers, reducing travel time and increasing service reliability. We will use that experience to evaluate the 16-corridor, 150-mile transit network (see Figure 1) proposed in the MCDOT feasibility study and to determine where additional right-of-way should be secured for future transitways and transit stations. This report recommends removing two of those corridors from the proposed network. Other corridors have been modified, and some additional alterations and refinements are likely to be recommended before we complete our work next year. After this report is finalized, the next phase will recommend specific corridor alignments and station locations to reserve sufficient rights-of-way for implementing transit priority facilities such as exclusive transitways, queue jump lanes, and stations.3

Context
History of the Master Plan of Highways The first Master Plan of Highways (MPOH) was approved and adopted in 1931, shortly after the creation of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission in 1927. The last comprehensive update to the MPOH was approved and adopted in 1955. It covered Montgomery Countys portion of the MarylandWashington Region District as it existed at the time, which was about one-third of the Countys current areaeast of Georgia Avenue, east and south of the City of Rockville, and the southeast portion of Potomac (see Figure 2). Area Master Plans were revised in the 1970s to include the Metrorail Red Line, but the MPOH map was not revised to include transitways until 1986. Additional transitways now included in the MPOH include: Purple Line Transitway Corridor Cities Transitway North Bethesda Transitway, and Georgia Avenue Busway Over the past 56 years, there have been updates and amendments to the MPOH through various approved and adopted functional, master and sector plans, but there has been no comprehensive update. The most significant countywide update since 1955 was the creation of the Rustic Roads Functional Master Plan (RRFMP) in 1996.

Queue jump lanes facilitate a BRT vehicle advancing through an intersection ahead of general-purpose traffic.

December 2011

Chapter 1

Section 1

Figure 1. BRT network proposed in the MCDOT Feasibility Study

December 2011

Chapter 1

Section 1
The Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan is a complementary effort to that plan. The RRFMP sought to preserve many of the roads in the rural area of the county to reflect and further the goals of the 1980 Functional Master Plan for the Preservation of Agricultural and Rural Open Space. In contrast, this Functional Master Plan reflects the growing urbanization of the I-270 corridor and the down-county area and will provide the mobility needed to accommodate that growth without adversely affecting the quality of life for those who live, work, and patronize the businesses along our major roadways. Overview of recent and current master plan and section plans All of the master and sector plans reviewed for the Functional Plan emphasize the importance of transit; some specifically mention a proposed BRT corridor and its potential benefits to that community. The plans and related reports reviewed for this report include the following: Takoma/Langley Crossroads Sector Plan New Hampshire Avenue Corridor Concept Plan Kensington Sector Plan Wheaton CBD and Vicinity Sector Plan Long Branch Sector Plan Comprehensive Amendment to the Bethesda/Chevy Chase Master Plan US 29/Cherry Hill Transit-Oriented Development Scenario Planning Report Figure 2. 1955 map of Master Plan of Highways

Bus Rapid Transit Update, East County Science Center Master Plan, Citizens Advisory Committee, September 20, 2011 Clarksburg Master Plan & Hyattstown Special Study Area 2002 Comprehensive Master Plan and Rockville Pike Plan 2010 (Draft) City of Gaithersburg 2009 Master Plan Update

Review efforts also included other related transit projects and planning efforts in the County; those documents include the following: Regional Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP) Wheaton Station Bus Transit & Access Needs Assessment and Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan

December 2011

Chapter 1

Section 1
A summary of these reports is located in Appendix B. Immediate history of this master plan effort In 2008, following approval of a network report and implementation strategy by its Board of Directors, the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) evaluated a regional Priority Corridor Network (PCN)consisting of systemwide corridor improvements within the Washington, DC Metropolitan area and under different investment scenarios. The system, consisting of 24 bus routes serving 100 miles, would have easy-to-understand route layouts, fewer stops, more frequent service, and a system that gives buses priority at signalized intersections. It was proposed to operate generally in mixed traffic on existing roads with traffic signal priority and queue jumpers, but it also identified a couple of corridors where exclusive bus lanes would be desirable. A comparison of the PCN and the network proposed in this report can be found in Appendix B. In 2008, Montgomery County Councilmember Marc Elrich proposed a 120-mile BRT network. His network focused on providing commuters a faster, more convenient alternative to driving alone, as well as opportunities for improved air quality and improved quality of life for County residents. To provide a cost-effective premium transit service, Councilmember Elrich has proposed operating existing buses in reversible BRT guideways that would serve the peaked demand found along most of the Countys roadways. Councilmember Elrichs system concept can be found in Figure 3. In August 2011, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation evaluated a 16corridor, 150-mile BRT network. The networks ridership potential was evaluated for the year 2040 based on a network that required no additional right-of-way on County and State roads. The study determined that such a network 5 was feasible and identified actions for enhancing the speed, reliability, rider comfort, and convenience of the BRT system. This year, County Executive Isiah Leggett also established the Rapid Transit Task Force (RTTF) to provide advice on how to make comprehensive rapid transit in Montgomery County a reality. The Task Forces approach is to gather, analyze and discuss information on BRT; discuss viable alternatives and their sustainability; and consider specific proposals to plan, finance, construct, and operate a BRT system. On December 5, 2011, the Executive endorsed and forwarded to the Planning Board an updated set of corridor recommendations by the RTTF (see Appendix C). Those recommendations reconfirmed the 16-corridor, 150-mile network proposed in MCDOTs feasibility study, and added several corridors.

December 2011

Chapter 1

Section 1

Figure 3: Councilmember Elrichs System Concept 6

December 2011

Chapter 1

Section 1

Chapter 2
General framework
Characteristics of a transit corridor network in Montgomery County The report refines the proposed transit corridor network to identify those corridors that could operate with the following characteristics: Exclusive lanes or dedicated transitways where possible Stops every half-mile to one mile Queue jump lanes where appropriate Enhanced stations with greater passenger amenities Transit signal priority where appropriate All-day service Higher service frequencies than traditional bus service (i.e., minimum of 10-minute headways during the peak period and 15minute headways during the off-peak period) Real-time passenger information Potential for off-board fare collection Level boarding and alighting The BRT system would emulate light rail operations in terms of the features provided, but would operate on the arterial roadway system in the County using the lower costs of bus technology. Instead of investing in trains and tracks, BRT invests in dedicated transitways and exclusive lanes, intersection priority treatments, and low-floor vehicles to speed up its transit service. The intent is to create a high-capacity transit system that will be appropriate for the forecasted ridership. The following four items are the focus of this Functional Plan: BRT activities corridors that would benefit from exclusive two-lane runningway enhancements for all-day service Non-BRT express and commuter corridors that would benefit from single-lane peakperiod weekday runningway improvements 7

Link corridors that would benefit from runningway enhancements Transit station areas

Integration with the Red Line, Purple Line, and Corridor Cities Transitway The transit corridor network needs to be coordinated with existing and planned rapid transit projects to ensure a fully integrated transit network, while not adversely affecting the ridership of these major transit facilities. Some of the major issues that need to be considered are as follows: Red and Purple Lines Bethesda Metrorail stationcoordinate on BRT station locations to facilitate transfer opportunities to both the Red and Purple Lines for Corridor 10b: MD 355 South and Corridor 12:Montgomery Mall/Old Georgetown Road Silver Spring Metrorail stationcoordinate on BRT station locations within the Silver Spring Transit Center (expected completion dateApril 2012) to facilitate transfer opportunities to both the Red and Purple Lines with Corridor 4b: Georgia Avenue South and Corridor 19: US 29 Takoma/Langley Park Transit Center coordinate with MTA on the potential for shared station opportunities with the Purple Line for Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue, and Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard University BoulevardBoth the Purple Line and the BRT system will operate along University Boulevard between Piney Branch Road and the Takoma/Langley Park Transit Center. MTA is designed a median transitway for the Purple Line. Coordination is needed to decide whether BRT should share the median transitway with the Purple Line, operate in its own exclusive right-of-way, or operate in

December 2011

Chapter 2

Section 1
mixed traffic.

Shared operation with Purple LineWhile permitting BRT to operate in the Purple Line transitway for a short segment would maximize the use of the right-of-way, it is not currently understood whether this could present operational challenges for the Purple Line and impact its ability to maintain a six-minute headway. Exclusive transitway for BRTProviding an exclusive transitway for BRT would require either converting a general traffic lane to BRT use or require acquiring additional right-of-way. However, accommodating six lanes of general traffic, two lanes for the Purple Line, two lanes for BRT, and two bicycle lanes would create a wide crossing for pedestrians, in addition to requiring a much wider right-of-way. Operating in mixed trafficBRT would not benefit from travel time savings. This recommendation should be developed in coordination with MTA and SHA and should evaluate the travel time reduction for Purple Line passengers compared to the travel time savings for BRT passengers.

These corridors serve some or all of the same markets as the Corridor Cities Transitway. Further evaluations of ridership changes along the relevant BRT and Corridor Cities Transitway corridors would need to be assessed to understand the degree to which there could be negative impacts.

Background information
The following sections in the remainder of this chapter provide background information for the Functional Plan, but are not critical to the decisions needed to transmit this network and methodology report to County Council.

Issues Affecting Right-of-Way Decisions The issues addressed in the remainder of this chapter have various trade-offs in regard to operation of a BRT facility. Some are operational issues that require closer coordination with agency stakeholders in the next phase of the development of this Functional Plan to determine how BRT should operate in Montgomery County. Other issues are dependent on further analysis to determine how the network and stations would best accommodate BRT trip patterns and volumes. They are presented as considerations for the work to be conducted, but no decision by the Board is required on these issues at this time. Corridor functions4 The following corridor functions were defined to summarize the types of trips expected along proposed the corridors and to identify the necessary supportive facilities within those corridors.

Corridor Cities Transitway

Life Sciences Centercoordinate with MTA on BRT station locations to facilitate transfer opportunities among the Corridor Cities Transitway, Corridor 5: Rockville-Life Sciences Center, Corridor 7: MD 124/Muddy Branch Road, and Corridor 20: ICC

A few of the proposed BRT corridors could negatively impact the ridership of the Corridor Cities Transitway, potentially hurting its costeffectiveness measure in the FTA New Starts program. These include Corridor 5, Corridor 10a, and Corridor 23.

Refer to Appendix D for additional information on assessing the function of each BRT corridor in this Functional Plan.

December 2011

Chapter 2

Section 1
Activity center connector High ridership distributed among multiple activity centers located throughout corridor and at termini Typically implemented along major highways, or major or minor arterials Moderate to high percentage of corridor meets BRT-supportive population or employment densities

Link High ridership distributed between activity centers located at termini Typically implemented along major or minor arterials Moderate percentage of corridor meets BRTsupportive population or employment densities

Figure 4: Representation of defined corridor functions Existing transit service will be identified for each corridor to assist in the determination as to where dedicated bus lanes are needed and where they should be located (median or curbside). Further discussion on corridor functions is found in Appendix D. Intersection treatments A conceptual understanding of intersection and midblock configurations, along with the addition of BRT facilities, is key to determining the right-ofway needed along the proposed BRT corridors. The master planning effort will apply typical crosssections to each intersection and midblock location to determine the net right-of-way impact of implementing the transit corridor network. There are four types of typical sections considered with BRT operations, listed as follows: In the curb lanes In a single busway lane within the median area Within one of two different dual-lane median busway configurations

Commuter/Express5 High ridership directed toward CBD or transfer to regional transit service, typically located at terminus Typically implemented along freeways, highways, or arterials Low to moderate percentage of corridor meets BRT-supportive population or employment densities Much higher than average ratio of peak hour travel to daily ridership volume

The corridor function types will aid discussions of the degree of right-of-way investment needed in the County relative to ridership potential, given specific land-use types, and roadway classifications within each potential BRT corridor. The initial analysis shows that some corridor types are more conducive to the needs for additional parking; however, such considerations would be more appropriate for detailed individual development of BRT corridors in Montgomery County.

Stations along an express corridor are generally separated by several miles, as compared to a commuter corridor.

Open conceptallows BRT and maintenance vehicles to easily enter and exit the busway, while maintaining separation from general traffic Closed conceptmaintains strict separation between busway and general travel lanes Chapter 2

December 2011

Section 1
The typical sections are being developed using guidance from Montgomery Countys 2009 revision of the Road Code, which incorporates context-sensitive design options to help realize more multimodal thoroughfares within the County, as well as roadway design policies developed by Maryland State Highway Administration. Design treatments affecting minor and midblock left-turn provisions, queue jump lanes, and similar specific implementation guidelines will be developed further during preliminary and final engineering phases for each BRT corridor. Station types, locations, and access6 Station types will be assigned to each of the proposed BRT station in the network. The classification process will aid in identifying: The influence of land uses surrounding a station The means by which to access a station and the need for parking and bus transfer facilities to serve a station Station locations (off-street or on-street) The relationship of on-street stations to the median or curb and placement along the street (pending the particular BRT alignment and operation) The level of passenger amenities and degree of shelter needed, given the estimated ridership patterns at a station Six typologies were defined for classifying stations within the proposed transit corridor network. Transit Center Central Business District (CBD) Park-n-Ride Lot Major Activity Center High-Density Residential Low-Density Residential Further work will include applying the station typologies to the station locations identified in
6

the feasibility study. The work will also assess the level of station access (by auto, bicycle, walking, or other transit modes) and specific station locations (on- or off-street; near-side, far-side, or midblock) to determine the proposed station footprint and thus necessary right-of-way for BRT stations. Assessing right-of-way impacts Available right-of-way The BRT feasibility study conducted a conceptual assessment of locations where rights-of-way could be reserved for BRT busways. These were primarily within the existing right-of-way along each corridor. In contrast, this Functional Plan uses the right-of-way recommendations listed in approved and adopted master and sector plan as our baseline. We will then identify where additional rights-of way are needed for dedicated bus lanes, queue jumpers, and stations. Additional right-of-way requirements Using guidance from typical cross sections and station typology definitions developed for this effort, the new right-of-way needs beyond those in the approved and adopted master and sector plans will be assessed for each corridor, depending on the treatments appropriate for a particular transit corridor (to be further discussed in the Methodology section of this report). This assessment will not identify right-of-way needs at the individual parcel level, an effort that is most appropriate during detailed corridor planning. Guided vs. unguided transitway An important consideration in determining the overall right-of-way width for a transit corridor will be the type of busway that could be implemented: guided or unguided. Guided systems provide infrastructure (often optical or mechanical) which helps keep the transit vehicle within a specific travel space to improve system performance and provide for accurate docking at stations. Unguided transitways provide space and rely on driver training to maintain the vehicle 10 Chapter 2

Refer to Appendix D for further discussion of station typologies defined for this Functional Plan.

December 2011

Section 1
location along the corridor. In general, a guided busway requires less right-of-way than does an unguided busway. This is a key factor, as the Functional Plan and the initial BRT feasibility study both recognize the limited opportunities to widen roadway cross-sections within Montgomery County. Guided transitway There are multiple benefits to implementing a guided transitway, which is up to 12-13 feet narrower at the midblock cross-section along the length of a BRT corridor7 than an unguided transitway. This is beneficial in terms of savings on construction costs, needed right-of-way, and maintenance. BRT vehicles operating within a guided environment can use mechanical (in combination with curbed concrete rails, shown in Figure 5), optical, or magnetic guidance to ensure they travel safely in opposing directions within closer distances of one another in dual guideways. They can thus operate at higher speeds compared to driving in either an unguided environment or a guided environment without a guiding mechanism (shown in Figure 6)8 where drivers naturally tend to slow down and steer away from the opposing BRT vehicles they are passing. The guiding mechanism used in a guided transitway can also greatly improve precision docking at station and thus improve level boarding onto vehicles. Additionally, there is greater opportunity to provide wider grass strip for stormwater management, as a guiding mechanism limits the drivers tendency to sway within the transitway. The concerns to implementing a guided transitway affect maintenance. In general,
7

because of the enclosed environment, it would be more difficult to serve disabled BRT vehicles at any point along the transitway. Additionally, other approaching vehicles would find it difficult or impossible to bypass a disabled BRT vehicle. In terms of snow removal, maintenance vehicles would find it challenging to plow transitways particularly to remove snow without pushing the snow onto another transit lane (in the case of dual-lane transitways) or general traffic, or potentially damaging raised curbs hidden beneath the snow. Unguided transitway There are also various benefits to implementing an unguided transitway. Maintenance vehicles could service disabled vehicles much more easily and approaching BRT vehicles would find it easier to bypass disabled vehicles. Snow removal would less challenging, as the physical separation between the transitway and general traffic lane would not exist. BRT vehicles could also operate at higher speeds without the need for any guiding mechanism. The concerns to implementing an unguided transitway concern right-of-way requirements, precision docking, and stormwater impacts. Because of its generally higher right-of-way needs, an unguided transitway would likely result in increased construction and maintenance costs. Without a guiding mechanism, precision docking would be limited for BRT vehicles operating in an unguided transitway. Lastly, because drivers would tend to sway while operating within an unguided transitway, there would be less width available for a grass strip for stormwater management. In general, a guided transitway would be the preferred operating environment because it requires less right-of-way than does an unguided transitway. Table 1 summarizes the attributes of guided and unguided transitways.

At intersections where there are breaks in a continuous transitway, BRT vehicles may travel at reduced speeds to allow proper re-entry into a guided environment. 8 A transit operator may choose to operate vehicles without a guidance mechanism for a number of reasons, a couple of which include initiating guideway operations while finalizing the guidance technology and remaining flexible in the types of transit modes allowed to use the guideway.

December 2011

11

Chapter 2

Section 1

Figure 5. Guided transitway using mechanical guidance (Leeds, UK)

Figure 6. Guided transitway without vehicle guidance (Eugene, OR)

Table 1. Attributes of Guided vs. Unguided Busways

Attributes Right-of-way requirements Guided Transitway 15 feet (one-way reversible busway) 24-25 feet (dual-lane busway) Unguided Transitway 25 feet (one-way reversible busway) 24-30 feet (dual-lane open concept busway) 36 feet (dual-lane closed concept busway) Greater pavement construction cost Greater pavement maintenance cost Limited without use of guiding mechanism Higher speed without needing guiding mechanism (due to less constrained transitway) Easier to serve disabled vehicle Easier for vehicle to get around vehicle in busway Snow removal could be easier Limited filtration area for stormwater management

Pavement cost Precision docking

Reduced pavement construction cost Less pavement maintenance cost Significantly improved at stations/level boarding, with reduced dwell time (based on use of guiding mechanism) Higher speed with formal guiding mechanism (ex., Leeds, UK) Slower speed with no formal guiding mechanism (ex, Eugene, OR) More difficult to serve disabled vehicle More difficult or impossible for vehicle to get around obstacle in busway Snow removal more difficult Ability to provide grass strip for stormwater management

Speed characteristics

General maintenance/ hazard removal

Stormwater impacts

Comparison of median transitway and

curbside lane treatments9

9

This comparison was motivated in part by a need to reach consensus on a transitway treatment along Rockville Pike, but is also useful for all routes being evaluated. The City of

December 2011

12

Chapter 2

Section 1
There are two types of transitway treatments that are intended solely for transit vehicles: median transitways, which operate in the middle of the roadway, and curbside lanes, which operate on the right side of the roadway, against the curb.10 Each type of facility treatment will be discussed in the sections that follow. Median transitway Median transitways are preferable to curbside treatments because they provide the highest BRT speeds and capacity with the least conflict with other motor vehicles and bicycles. This is because other vehicles are only permitted to cross the transitway at signalized intersection. Special consideration must therefore be given to accommodating left turns, facilitating pedestrian crossings, and restricting local access.
Facilitating pedestrian crossings

see and properly interpret bus movements along the transitway.

Accommodating left turns

Left turn lanes would be provided at signalized intersections to the right of the transitway under protective signal control to reduce potential conflicts with transit vehicles traveling through the intersection. Due to the reduced access at driveways and unsignalized intersections, many signalized intersections would need to accommodate u-turns, increasing demand for left-turn storage. In addition, many now unsignalized intersections may need to be signalized to both accommodate these movements and avoid overloading currently signalized intersections. Additional right-of-way may be needed at these minor intersections to accommodate additional turn bays. Curbside lanes Curbside lanes are not preferred for BRT because they reduce BRT operating speeds and increase opportunities for conflicts with other motor vehicles. This is because other vehicles are allowed to enter the transitway to make right turns and because they are available for use by local transit vehicles that make more frequent and longer stops. Curbside lanes are located to the right of general travel lanes and to left of a parking lane, if they are maintained along BRT corridors. Other considerations with curbside lanes are: EnforcementCurbside lanes are more difficult to enforce (i.e., it is hard to know whether a general traffic vehicle is using the lane for local access, making a turn, or violating the lane access) On-street parkingParking maneuvers temporarily block the lane. These factors reduce BRT operating speeds and increase opportunities for conflicts with other motor vehicles.

With a median transitway, all transit riders would cross some portion of the street to access a station. In addition to providing an adequate area for patrons to wait for the transit vehicle, an adequate pedestrian waiting area is also needed at the end of the platforms to accommodate transit riders waiting for a pedestrian signal to cross the street.
Restricted local access

A major impact of median transitways is the restriction of local access at unsignalized intersections and driveways. The median transitway acts as a raised median, and it would require restricting vehicles wanting to make left turns into and out of local driveways and intersections. Vehicles should not cross a transitway facility at-grade except at signalized intersections, as it would be difficult for drivers to
Rockville envisions the roadway as being reconfigured as a six-lane boulevard, with premium transit operating in the adjacent service lanes or median lanes with a decision still to be made. 10 Side-of-road transitways (both bus lanes on one side of the roadway) are not being assessed in this effort (other than for the master-planned North Bethesda Transitway) due to local access impacts.

December 2011

13

Chapter 2

Section 1

Improving other transit serviceCurbside lanes could be made available for use by buses other than BRT, increasing the latters operating speed and perhaps offsetting the reduction in BRT operating speeds. Having numerous transit routes present within a curbside lane could provide the passive enforcement needed to deter lane violators and thus increase operating speeds (and perhaps offsetting the reduction in BRT operating speeds).

having to go out and move the physical separation devices placed to provide clearer separation of the contra-flow lane operation. In addition, it is still possible to have collisions amongst all movements during the transition period when the direction of the contra-flow lane operation changes from one direction of the street to the other. Finally, contra-flow operations require increased use of overhead lane-use control structures and signage and signals or blank-out signs so that drivers have adequate information about lane usage. This can create added capital costs, as the location of the contra-flow lane in the middle of the roadway will require a support mechanism for such an overhead information system , at a minimum a span wire (such as on MD 97 and US 29) or sign bridge. This would also degrade the visual aesthetics of a corridor. Reversible lane BRT operation Reversible lanes for use by general traffic already exist on segments of the Georgia Avenue and Colesville Road corridors. Because no medians exist in these segments, the potential problems identified above for contra-flow operation are not applicable. A peak-flow direction lane in these segments could be repurposed, either in the leftmost lane for BRT use only or in the curbside lane for use by all buses. The decision on which travel lane to repurpose will need to be considered along with the placement BRT stations to ensure safe pedestrian access and effective BRT operations.

Given these insightsas well as (1) the high traffic volume found along many of the major and minor arterials within the County, and (2) the opportunity to integrate a bus bypass lanea median transitway treatment would be the preferred treatment option for those corridors that can support frequent BRT service. It would provide for both the highest BRT speeds and overall capacity for the corridor and the least conflict with other motor vehicles and bicycles. Contra-flow BRT operation While it may be tempting to consider using an offpeak travel lane for a peak direction BRT busway, this is not a recommended solution where the travel lanes are separated by a raised median. There is an increased potential for motor vehicle/bus and pedestrian/bus collisions because the buses would travel in the opposite direction of expected travel, and the raised median only heightens the expectation of same-direction travel. There is also an increased potential for collisions to occur at intersections when vehicles cross a contra-flow lane to make a left turn. Past applications have inserted flexible bollards into the pavement to provide separation between the travel lanes and the contra-flow lane and reduce the potential for conflict in a contra-flow situation. However, this raises other difficulties. Midblock left turns would be prohibited, and there are added operations costs (and potential safety issues) associated with maintenance crews 14

Chapter 3
Draft network and potential changes
Initial analyses11 of MCDOTs proposed 16corridor BRT network led to the proposed removal of two BRT corridors for right of way

11

Refer to Appendix D of this report for discussions of the initial analyses that have been conducted on the proposed BRT corridors.

December 2011

Chapter 3

Section 1
assessments as well as realignments to additional corridors. The following sections identify the affected corridors and outline the reasons for these potential changes, and discuss options for addressing corridors in the Cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg. Corridor removals The characteristics of two corridors provide insufficient justification for allocating right-of-way to provide high-quality premium transit service. These corridors are recommended to be removed from further consideration for the following reasons: Corridor 20: ICCat 22.9 miles in length with an average station spacing of 11.5 miles, this corridor would function as express service rather than BRT service. Additionally, bus service would operate along a tolled, highcapacity facility whose toll rates are intended to keep the facility congestion-free, negating the need for dedicated bus lanes. The Maryland Transit Administration already operates two commuter express bus routes along the ICC and will expand this service to five routes in January 2012.

December 2011

15

Chapter 3

Section 1

Key network policy issues

The 150-mile network studied by MCDOT and expanded to 164 miles by the additional corridors recommended by the County Executive and Rapid Transit Task Force (RTTF) is quite large. If built completely as two-way dedicated median transitways for BRT, it would be the worlds largest such system. If this is done without repurposing any existing travel lanes, or without a mix of transitway treatments including some segments with mixed-traffic operation, it would require significant additional right-of-way along these corridors. More work still needs to be done in the next phase of work to determine which corridor segments would warrant dual lane treatment. However, it seems clear that the 2040 ridership forecasts conducted as part of the MCDOT feasibility study for most of the corridors being considered do not meet industry standards for bi-directional, 14-hour BRT service. Building dual lanes only where merited by ridership forecasts would avoid unnecessary right-of-way impacts and capital costs. It is recommended that a Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan effort be pursued to address the Countys goal of improving transit alternatives across a wide spectrum of servicessuch as median transitways, dedicated curb bus lanes on both sides of the road, single lanes for peak-hour use, and queue jumpers to get buses out ahead of mixed traffic at intersections. Provisions for these corridors would be recommended where service would require additional rights-of-way or would affect the number of Master Plan travel lanes. This approach to the Functional Plan would provide a broader transit improvement than designating transit corridors only where BRT ridership forecasts would merit bi-directional, 14-hour service. Issues for the Board to consider are as follows:

Deciding whether a bi-directional BRT system is appropriate in all corridors, given their rightof-way constraints as well as the trip patterns and volumes present on these corridors Deciding whether this Functional Plan effort should make recommendations for all evaluated transit corridors where improvements are needed or only for those where dedicated transitways and intersection improvements are warranted and can be achieved Choosing to pursue the General Plan goal of improving east-west transportation as part of this effort and considering additional corridors toward that end Adding corridor segments along New Hampshire Avenue and Randolph Road to support additional development now being considered as part of the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan Adding corridor segments as recommended by the County Executive and the Rapid Transit Task Force Deciding whether this Functional Plan should recommend the specific exclusive transit facility treatment (i.e., single or dual lanes, median or curb lanes) or leave such decisions to the Executive Branch at the time of implementation

December 2011

16

Chapter 3

Section 1

Corridor 23: Midcounty Highwaythis 13.4mile-long corridor would provide upcounty residents with access to the Red Line Metrorail line and destinations it serves, but appears to compete with both the Corridor Cities Transitway and Corridor 10b/MD355 North. This Functional Plan would recommend that most of this corridor be removed from the network to avoid this conflict. In the next phase though, it is recommended that the segment of Corridor 23 along Snowden Farm Parkway north of Ridge Road be combined with the segment of Corridor 10a: MD 355 North that is south of Ridge Road to create a single transit corridor east of I-270. This corridor would provide service to Clarksburg Town Center while avoiding impacts to the Clarksburg Historic District along MD355.

Gaithersburg Corridor 7: MD 124/Muddy Branch Road (between Life Sciences Center and Lakeforest Mall)Segment north of Sam Eig Highway Route 10a: MD 355 NorthSegment from Game Preserve Road to Shady Grove Road

Rockville Route 3: MD 586/Veirs Mill RoadSegment from Rockville Metrorail Station to Twinbrook Parkway Corridor 5: Rockville Metrorail Station -Life Sciences CenterSegment east of Shady Grove Road Route 10a: MD 355 NorthSegment from 600 feet north of Ridgemont Avenue to Church Street/Rockville Metrorail station Route 10b: MD 355 SouthSegment from Church Street/Rockville Metrorail station to Bou Avenue

Additional corridors may also be removed in the final Functional Plan because their ridership would indicate that lesser transit treatments would be warranted, rather than requiring additional right-of-way for dedicated lanes or queue jumpers. Recommendations on these justifications will be made during our next phase of work. BRT corridors within the cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville Several of the potential BRT corridors being evaluated are located at least partially within the boundaries of Gaithersburg and Rockville, which are municipalities that have their own planning authority. Gaithersburg recently updated its master plan with recommendations to increase transit use and language that is supportive of BRT. Rockville is updating its master plan and specifically supports BRT along MD355. The corridor segments within these municipalities are as follows:

Because these corridor segments are outside the jurisdiction of the Functional Plan, the Plans final recommendations in these municipalities will not carry the same weight, and therefore a decision needs to be made as to the level of detail that should be pursued in these areas. This is particularly true for more urbanized corridor segments and station areas that will require more attention than the norm because of limited rightof-way. In addition, this Plan has a timeframe that is likely much shorter than the Cities would desire for coordination with their mayors, Councils, and citizens. One alternative would be to forego detailed recommendations in these municipalities, retaining the routes we believe are viable but not making specific recommendations as to right-ofway. M-NCPPC would continue to coordinate with the Cities staff and provide them with any information and methodology developed for the Functional Plan, which they could use in their more detailed planning. In discussions with the Cities staffs, however, they indicated they would 17

December 2011

Chapter 3

Section 1
appreciate more detailed guidance in the Functional Plan as to how the network should be accommodated in their jurisdictions. It is recommended, therefore, that these corridor segments be retained for continued study, and that they be developed to the same level of detail as the rest of the network. If the Cities would like any corridor changes to be evaluated, they should transmit those comments to the County Council. Guidance on any desired changes is needed from the Cities following the Boards review of this report for two reasons: The County Council should have this information available so that they can consider any potential expansion in our scope of work, including the additional corridors recommended by the Rapid Transit Task Force as forwarded by the County Executive As noted above, the timeframe is quite short for this Functional Plan effort and tasks will quickly need to be initiated once the Council has finished their review and given its direction on any changes to the Functional Plans scope of work. Corridor realignments The proposed realignments are intended to provide more efficient BRT service along certain corridors and improve connectivity to other transit modes or intermodal opportunities. The following changes are proposed and summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Proposed Network Changes
Corridor 4a: Georgia Avenue North Route northern end of corridor to directly access planned transit center at Montgomery General Hospital Corridor 4b: Georgia Avenue South Explore alternative alignment for southern segment terminating in Silver Spring, by way of Colesville Road (adjacent to Silver Spring Transit Center) to Georgia Avenue Corridor 10a: MD 355 North Explore alternative alignment for northern segment terminating in Clarksburg, by way of M83 to Ridge Road, and then to MD 355 (former northern section of Corridor 23: Midcounty Highway) Corridor 14: Randolph Road Realign corridors western end to terminate at White Flint Metrorail station by way of Parklawn Drive and Nicholson Lane, instead of Nebel Street and Marinelli Road, in order to serve the planned White Flint MARC station at Nicholson Court Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard Realign corridors western end to terminate at Wheaton Metrorail station by way of University Boulevard to Veirs Mill Road Corridor 19: US 29 Explore alternative alignment to bypass Paint Branch section of US 29 by way of Old Columbia Pike Bridge over Paint Branch

Figure 7 shows the proposed network modifications for this Functional Plan. Additional Corridors The General Plan recommends improving eastwest connectivity; therefore, the Functional Plan recommends three additional corridors be assessed for viability as part of the BRT network. In addition, two corridorsRandolph Road east of Georgia Avenue and New Hampshire Avenue north of US 29were evaluated during the preliminary phase of the feasibility study but not carried forward due to limited future surrounding development based on current zoning. This Functional Plan recommends that these corridors be re-evaluated based on staffs current 18

December 2011

Chapter 3

Section 1
recommendation for increased density in the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan area. These corridor additions are proposed to be evaluated as part of a potential future phase. They are also shown in Figure 712 and described as follows:

A connection between Rockville and the Georgia Avenue interchange for the ICC (Corridor A), by way of MD 28/Norbeck Road A connection between NIH and Wheaton (Corridor B), by way of the following roads: Cedar Lane Summit Avenue Knowles Avenue Connecticut Avenue University Boulevard An extension of Corridor 14: Randolph Road from Glenmont Metro Station to US 29 (Corridor C), to provide connectivity to the planned White Oak Science Gateway An extension of Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue from US29 to Randolph Road (Corridor D), to provide connectivity to the planned White Oak Science Gateway A connection between Aspen Hill and White Flint (Corridor E), by way of Parklawn Drive and Montrose Parkway

An extension of MD355 from the terminus of the CCT in Clarksburg to the Frederick County Line An extension of US29 from the Burtonsville park-and-ride to the Frederick County Line Cherry Hill from US29 to the Prince Georges County Line Georgia Avenue from the Silver Spring Transit Center to the District of Columbia Line A corridor from the Montgomery Mall Transit center to the American Legion Bridge via I270 and I-495.

It is recommended that these corridors be added to the scope of work for consideration in the next phase of this Functional Plan. The Georgia Avenue segment (noted in the previous set of bullets) duplicates the alignment of a potential streetcar line that was the subject of a November 16, 2011 letter from Councilmembers Nancy Floreen and Hans Riemer to County Executive Isiah Leggett and to Mayor Vincent Gray (sees Appendix E). The total length of the network recommended to be evaluated in the next phase is approximately 139 miles, a reduction from the current 150 miles. It is likely that some of these corridors would merit only operational improvements and would not be included in the Functional Plan. Therefore, the corridor length of the final network is likely to be less than 139 miles. The additional corridors, however, will require more work to bring them to an equivalent level of development as the original corridors.

As stated in Chapter 1, on December 5, 2011, the RTTF forwarded recommendations for an expanded network of BRT corridors beyond what was proposed by the MCDOT study. The corridors that would be added beyond what has been identified above are as follows: An extension of Old Georgetown Road from Tuckerman Lane north to White Flint An extension of Wisconsin Avenue (MD 355) south from the Bethesda Metrorail Station to the District of Columbia Line

12

An assessment of the proposed east-west corridors is subject to funding for an additional phase of the Functional Plan.

December 2011

19

Chapter 3

Section 1

Figure 7. Modified functional plan network with potential east-west corridors

December 2011

20

Chapter 3

Section 2
Chapter 4
Initial network analyses
This section summarizes the initial analyses conducted on the BRT network from the feasibility study. The information gained from these analyses contributed to the network modifications outlined in Chapter 4. Detailed discussions of these efforts are located in Appendix E. The MCDOT feasibility study serves as a starting point for identifying the types of preferential treatments that are possible within the existing rights-of-way of the transit networks corridors. Our goal is to determine the highest level of treatment warranted to serve the forecast BRT ridership given best practices in transit planning. A methodology has been developed that provides the corridors with the greatest BRT passenger throughput receive recommendations for dedicated transitways. This Functional Plan is intended to identify and protect the rights-of-way needed to accommodate the most appropriate treatment based on current analysis, not to prescribe that treatment. However, it will also maintain flexibility for the recommended treatment to be made for each corridor. For example, a median transitway may appear to be the most appropriate treatment to accommodate dedicated bus lanes in a specific corridor. We will therefore recommend the greater right-of-way associated with that treatment, but during the implementation phase, curb lanes or intersection-based priority may prove to be more feasible or desirable.

Methodology for defining right-of-way needs

This Functional Plan presents a decision framework by which to assess right-of-way needs along segments of each transit corridor within the modified network. The right-of way needs would be based on factors such as the following: AM and PM peak-hour BRT passenger volume along a corridor segment Area type of a corridor segment (i.e., urban vs. suburban) The level of traffic volume relative to the capacity of a corridor segment (also referred to as the v/c ratio) Each corridors function, as defined in the Functional Plan The existing Master Plan right-of-way within the cross-section of a corridor segment

Key methodology policy issue

For corridors where passenger volumes exceed single lane person-throughput in automobiles, converting an existing travel lane to a bus lane is preferred to constructing an additional lane as long as the volume-to-capacity ratio on the remaining travel lanes is less than 1.0 under 2040 conditions.

December 2011

21

Chapter 4

Section 2
These data, in conjunction with other policy guidance, will provide the guidance for identifying the most reasonable and cost-effective treatments and rights-of-way needed to support highquality transit within a given corridor segment. To this end, a decision framework, illustrated in Figure 8, was developed to be applied to the modified network for this Functional Plan. The framework gives three thresholds of peak-hour passenger volumes by which to identify the type of treatment or begin determining right-of-way needs along a BRT segment. One of the following treatment options could be recommended, depending on whether a segment is within an urban or a suburban environment: Assessing the roadway capacity to decide whether a preferential or exclusive transit lane treatment should be provided by either Converting an existing roadway lane to a preferred transit lane, either during the peak period or the entire day13, or Converting existing median space (with additional space if necessary) to an exclusive transitway (either in the center or in curb lanes) and providing supportive facilitiessuch as stations and shelters within the existing rights-of-way. Providing BRT priority with spot right-of-way requirements at intersections to implement new or extended queue jumps Implementing BRT priority without crosssection modification, such as transit signal priority

roadway travelers. BRT service operating along corridors that pass through multiple activity centers where various trips are taken among those centers throughout the daymay warrant exclusive busway treatments at all times. On the other hand, transit service operating though primarily residential communities to connect passengers to a single major activity center or transit center may warrant exclusive transit lanes during the peak hours only. The proposed framework relates the type of BRT facilities and, therefore, right-of-way needs to the following factors: A minimum volume of transit passenger, based on corridor segment in urban or suburban area

While the feasibility study made every effort to identify corridors that could provide the level of high-capacity premium transit service desirable within Montgomery County, the benefits of implementing most or all of the characteristics of BRT must be weighed against both the financial investment and the potential impact to all
13

Depending on corridor conditions, it may be possible for a preferred transit lane to share its facility with non-transit vehicles, such as right-turning vehicles.

December 2011

22

Chapter 4

Section 2

Figure 8. Decision framework for identifying right-of-way along BRT corridor segments

December 2011

23

Chapter 4

Section 2
BRT corridor functions Commuter corridors can have high-frequency service, but would typically operate only during the peak period to make efficient and effective use of exclusive transit facilities. These lanes could then be made available to general traffic during the off-peak hours.

Bus priority with spot right-of-way requirements Corridors with between 500 and 800 passengers per peak hour per peak direction in urban areas and between 700 and 1,200 passengers per peak hour per peak direction in suburban environments would operate within a mixedtraffic environment. However, they would benefit from an added lane dedicated to queue jump operations or extended existing auxiliary lane to advance vehicles ahead of the through general traffic queue and increase operating speeds. A new lane would be constructed from any available right-of-way within the cross-section of the corridor segment or through right-of-way dedication. Signal priority would also be recommended for corridor segments meeting this threshold. The requirement for additional right-

Activity center connector corridors are best able to meet FTA Small Starts requirements for all-day, high-frequency service within Montgomery County, having stops located every half-mile to mile among major activity centers and the ridership potential for implementing exclusive busways. Link corridors, with lower ridership potential during the peak hours, could operate effectively with the benefit of intersection priorities such as queue jump lanes and signal priority. Based on this understanding, 14 corridors from the modified transit corridor network will be advanced for assessing right-of-way needs. Table 3 lists the activity center connector and commuter corridors that would carry forward. Bus priority Corridors with fewer than 500 passengers per peak hour per peak direction in urban areas and fewer than 700 passengers per peak hour per peak direction in suburban Link environments would operate within a mixed-traffic environment, but benefit from signal priority to help increase operating speeds. Because no additional right-of-way would be needed to make the operational change, corridor segments requiring only this low level of treatment do not need to be included in this Functional Plan.

Table 3: Proposed Corridors for Right-of-Way Needs Assessment

Corridor Function Activity Center Connector Proposed BRT Corridors Corridor 10a: MD 355 North Corridor 10b: MD 355 South Corridor 12: MD 187/Old Georgetown Road Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard Corridor 3: MD 586/Veirs Mill Road Corridor 4a: MD 97/Georgia Avenue North Corridor 4b: MD 97/Georgia Avenue South Corridor 8: MD 185/Connecticut Avenue Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue Corridor 14: Randolph Road Corridor 19: US 29 Corridor 5: Rockville-Life Sciences Center Corridor 7: MD 124/Muddy Branch Road Corridor 21: North Bethesda Transitway

Commuter

of-way for the recommended queue jumpers warrants the corridors inclusion in this Functional Plan, but queue jumpers alone do not meet the definition of a true transitway or busway. For example, because of the low forecast ridership, Corridor 8: MD 185/Connecticut Avenue would appear to be in that category.

December 2011

24

Chapter 4

Section 2
Preferential or exclusive transit lane treatment Corridors with more than 800 passengers per peak hour per peak direction in urban areas and more than 1,200 passengers14 per peak hour per peak direction in suburban environments would benefit from and would warrant exclusive transitway lane(s). The exclusive lane(s) would come from either converting an existing traffic lane to an exclusive transit lane, or identifying available right-of-way for constructing an exclusive median busway. The justification for converting a traffic lane would be that, during the peak hour, BRT vehicles could carry at least as many people within a lane along a corridor segment as could automobiles carrying the same amount of people. This would only be considered if the bus lane was expected to carry more people than a general-purpose lane would or if the v/c ratio for the other travel lanes did not exceed 1.0. If these criteria are not met, the availability of right-of-way to implement a one-lane or two-lane median busway would be determined. If no rightof-way was available due to significant physical constraints, BRT vehicles would need to operate in mixed traffic. This methodology has been developed to determine what the appropriate level of personthroughput should be to justify recommending dedicated bus lanes as part of this Functional Plan. However, both MCDOT and the Maryland State Highway Administration are currently working to develop policies on this issue. We will incorporate these policies to the extent possible within the timeframe of this Functional Plan.

14

TCRP Synthesis 83: Bus and Rail Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic (2010)

December 2011

25

Chapter 4

Section 3
Chapter 5
Outcome of the Functional Master Plan
Up to this stage of the Functional Plan, the following have been completed: Defined and assigned functions to each corridor in the proposed transit corridor network Defined station typologies for proposed BRT station locations Developed typical cross sections to determine right-of-way needs along proposed BRT corridors Conducted stakeholder meetings with MCDOT; SHA; MTA; Cities of Takoma Park, Gaithersburg, and Rockville; and WMATA to gather input on issues that could affect the proposed BRT corridors Revised corridor alignments for the modified BRT network The next steps of the Functional Plan will assess the right-of-way needs for the corridors listed in Chapter 3 of this report, using the decision framework outlined in Figure 8. The study will further apply the typical cross sections to each corridor and identify the net right-of-way needs based on the existing Master Plan right-of-way. The process will also identify BRT station footprints using the defined station typologies as guidance. Additional work on the Functional Plan will provide general guidance on stormwater management needs along each corridor and determine how to accommodate those needs within the identified rights-of-way. Once right-of-way needs are determined for the BRT corridors proposed for inclusion in Functional Plan, the results will be presented to the Planning Board and at public hearings throughout the County. Comments received during these outreach efforts will be incorporated into a final draft document, which will then be reviewed by December 2011 26 Planning Board before being presented to County Council for approval and adoption. The Functional Plan will also include the following deliverables: Identifying areas where additional rights-ofway will be required or locations where travel lanes will be repurposed Recommendations for designating BicyclePedestrian Priority Areas around BRT stations Recommended additional analysis This work effort is being conducted based on analysis performed as part of the study for the MCDOT. This prior analysis was conducted at a countywide feasibility level. Findings would be improved by adding more specific technical detail to the demand forecasting model effort conducted for that study. This additional effort would include the following: Updating the model to reflect local bus network improvements underway for the Corridor Cities Transitway project Reflect refined station location edits as identified by M-NCPPC staff Updating land use assumptions to reflect ongoing master planning efforts Updating assumptions for modal decisionmaking based on a finalized list of expected design treatments Updated assumptions based on the anticipated level of local bus service after implementation of the BRT network. There is also additional technical analysis that could contribute to policy discussions associated with this Functional Plan. That analysis includes the following: Conducting analysis to determine impacts of a lane repurposing policy on the larger transportation network Understanding the mode choice implications of a lane repurposing policy to estimate how Chapter 5

Section 3
many people would be expected to shift to transit if roadway conditions were to become more congested Conducting forecasting on additional corridors identified by the Rapid Transit Task Force for an expanded network and by Planning Board to improve east-west travel options Developing a final network, which incorporates all final policy recommendations to determine new ridership estimates for the transit corridor network progress and to solicit their further comments. In addition, invitations will be extended to meet with representatives of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), PEPCO, and Frederick, Howard, and Prince Georges Counties, as well as the District of Columbia. Public meetings: Two public meetings were held at the Montgomery Regional Office (MRO) on October 24, 2011 and another on November 29, 2011 at the Upcounty Regional Services Center. Comments received at these meetings are shown in Appendix F. Future meetings to present the draft recommendations and solicit feedback will be conducted at MRO and at regional service centers. Additional meetings could also be conducted for specific corridors. Planning Board public hearing: The public will have the opportunity to provide testimony on the Public Hearing Draft Plan and to submit comments for a period after the public hearing.

Chapter 6
Public outreach
The focus of the outreach effort thus far has been to share information about our Scope of Work and collect reactions and comments from the public, community leaders, agency representatives, and elected officials about the proposed network. The outreach effort includes the following components: Project website: A website was established during the first phase of the project where members of the public can provide comments. As the information becomes available the website will include depictions of areas where additional right-of-way is likely to be needed. Stakeholder Outreach: Briefings were provided to staff of the Executive, County Council, Maryland Department of Transportation; WMATA; and the Cities of Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Takoma Park. Their comments and concerns have been requested; and information on projects, policies, and plans that could be affected by the implementation of the draft transit corridor network have been received. Technical working group: There will be continued meetings with the above stakeholders to keep them apprised of our December 2011 27

Chapter 7
Proposed project timeline
Figure 9 shows the proposed project timeline. While every effort will be made to adhere to the schedule, other decisions may affect project analysis and delivery, including direction from the County Council on the Planning Boards approved Network and Methodology Report. Namely, the following items could significantly affect the project: Possible analysis of additional BRT corridors proposed for the transit corridor network Additional modeling to determine impacts of BRT implementation on traffic based on the revised network, including the impact on other roadways Additional modeling to refine ridership forecasts based on the revised network

Chapter 6

Section 3
An assessment of the impact of the implementation of BRT service on existing transit service County and/or State decisions on personthroughput policies

December 2011

28

Chapter 7

Section 3

Figure 9. Countywide transit corridors functional master plan schedule

December 2011

29

Chapter 7

Appendix ATransportation goals, objectives, and strategies, Montgomery County General Plan (1993)

December 2011

A-1

Appendix A

December 2011

A-2

Appendix A

December 2011

A-3

Appendix A

December 2011

A-4

Appendix A

December 2011

A-5

Appendix A

December 2011

A-6

Appendix BRelevant planning activities within Montgomery County

Overview of recent and current master and sector plans Master plans provide the strategic or overall guidance for a planning area, while sector plans provide details for how the growth and/or development will occur for a smaller subarea. Many of the areas discussed below have recently completed plans that recommend increased transit. In the following pages are a summary of some of the recommendations. Takoma/Langley Crossroads Sector PlanThe vision described in the Planning Board Draft from May 2010, while not directly referring to BRT, is supportive of additional transit in the area. The vision is for Takoma/Langley Crossroads to be a transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly community (p. 13) with an effective and efficient multimodal transportation system that accommodates development near the proposed Purple Line and Takoma/Langley Park Transit Center and provides for regional mobility (p. 7). An element of the plan that specifically supports proposed BRT Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue is one of the five public transit recommendations: Study the feasibility of a Purple Line spur that will connect the Transit Center with the White Oak Transit Center serving FDAs Headquarters site via New Hampshire Avenue (p. 36). The plan also calls for reconfiguring New Hampshire Avenue as a 150-foot multi-way boulevard that would accommodate on-street bicycle lanes (shown in Figure B-1), as well as a 120-foot cross section for University Boulevard that accommodates on-street bicycle facilities and the Purple Line operating in the median (shown in Figure B-2). Any rights-of-way for BRT would need to be coordinated with each of these recommendations. New Hampshire Avenue Corridor Concept PlanAs with the Takoma/Langley Park Crossroads Sector Plan, this Plan envisions a multi-way boulevard that would provide a safer environment for pedestrians and a stronger pedestrian-oriented retail experience (p. 35) in the City of Takoma Park. Within the 150-foot cross section shown in Figure B-3 would be two through travel lanes in each direction, with the inside travel lane facilitating transit vehicles and bus pullouts to serve passengers from side medians. Kensington Sector PlanThe emphasis of the Planning Board Draft, June 2011 is creating an active town center, and there is limited discussion of transit. However, the Sector Plan does mention that Montgomery County is studying the feasibility of BRT and that Connecticut Avenue is one of the corridors being studied. The sector plan goes on to say Bus rapid transit planning results completed to date indicate that the *Sector+ Plans recommended typical section is appropriate, although additional right-of-way needs may be identified for bus priority treatments at specific locations in the Plan area during subsequent design studies (p. 9). Figure B-4 illustrates the proposed cross section along Connecticut Avenue.

December 2011

B-1

Appendix B

Figure B-1: Multi-way boulevard concept for New Hampshire Avenue December 2011 B-2

Appendix B

Figure B-2. Proposed cross section for University Boulevard December 2011 B-3

Appendix B

Figure B-3: Proposed multi-way boulevard concept and cross section along New Hampshire Avenue

December 2011

B-4

Appendix B

Figure B-4: Proposed cross section for Connecticut Avenue Wheaton CBD and Vicinity Sector PlanOne of Wheatons strengths identified in the June 2010 Public Hearing Draft is its excellent access to public transit and its multi-modal transportation capacity (p. 13). The proposed inclusion of four BRT lines in Wheaton continues and supports this strength. Potential conflicts between the Sector Plan and the proposed BRT routes relate to how the community would want Georgia Avenue, University Boulevard, and Veirs Mill Road to interact with the surrounding areas. The Plans mobility recommendations propose redesigning Georgia Avenue, University Boulevard, and Veirs Mill Road as urban boulevards with enhanced medians and crosswalks, street trees, and street-oriented retail where appropriate (p. 41). Cross sections for the following four corridors would need to be reconciled with the plans proposed redesign of these major thoroughfares: Corridor 3: MD 586/Veirs Mill Road Corridor 4a: MD 97/Georgia Avenue North Corridor 4b: MD 97/Georgia Avenue South Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard

December 2011

B-5

Appendix B
Long Branch Sector PlanPreliminary recommendations on the Plan made to the Planning Board in December, 2010 indicate that key wish list items generated through a public outreach exercise include access to transit and intersections that work. The document also indicates a desire to turn University Boulevard into a complete street. While BRT is not mentioned in the document, proposed BRT Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard can help achieve these objectives. Comprehensive Amendment to the Bethesda/Chevy Chase Master PlanOne of the goals of the approved and adopted 1990 Plan is Achieve a significant shift of new travel from auto to transit and other mobility alternatives (p. 2). The Plans transportation goal is to achieve a significant shift of new travel from auto use to transit and other mobility alternatives and the first objective is to provide an expanded and vigorous program of expanded transit and other mobility services and facilities (p. 19). These statements would suggest that expanding transit services in the study area would be consistent with the proposed BRT plan. One potential area of conflict is the Plans Green Corridors Policy, which calls for a policy of maintenance and enhancement of Green Corridors along the major highways of the Planning Area. Balancing the desire for increased transit, maintaining traffic operations at an acceptable level of service, minimizing impacts to adjacent properties, and maintaining a good aesthetic character is most difficult in densely developed areas of the downcounty. US 29 / Cherry Hill Transit-Oriented Development Scenario Planning ReportThe report prepared in June 2011 finds that BRT and light rail transit (LRT) are promising in that ridership goals seem achievable (p. iii) for the level of higher-density investment envisioned with East County Science Center. It also states, An extension to Konterra and Muirkirk is likely more cost-effective (as it will capture more ridership) than to Briggs-Chaney (p. iii). Bus Rapid Transit Update, White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan, Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), September 20, 2011In a presentation to the CAC, the committee was shown an early concept for a BRT network in the ECSC (see Figure B-5). Three of the five stops shown are on proposed Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue. The other two stops are not served by a BRT route currently being studied as part of this Functional Plan, but are recommended to be added to our scope of work for the next phase. Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study AreaThe 1994 Plan emphasizes the need for transit and states the importance of transit to the future development of the Clarksburg/Hyattstown area cannot be underestimated. The plan includes a regional transitway which will be part of a larger transit network extending south to Germantown and Shady Grove and will ultimately extend north to the City of Frederick (p. 22). The study identifies a proposed roadway cross section that accommodates a median BRT transitway, shown in Figure B-6. 2002 Comprehensive Master Plan and Rockville Pike Plan 2010 (Draft)The City of Rockville is currently updating its 2002 Comprehensive Master Plan. The implementation of its review (conducted from 2008 to 2009) will be phased. The first phase, which expected to be completed by 2012, includes creating and adopting its plan for Rockville Pike. Throughout the City of Rockville, about 75% of the land use is zoned as residential. Commercial land uses primarily focused along Rockville Pike and within the Citys designated Town Center planning areaoccupy less than five percent of the land use in the City. Rockville Pike currently carries over 54,000 vehicles daily, with 3,000 vehicles per hour driving along it during each peak direction of travel. Development patterns

December 2011

B-6

Appendix B
along the Pikeprimarily consisting of retail with extensive surface parkingcause multiple vehicle trips to complete errands.

Figure B-5. Proposed BRT stations within the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan Area

Figure B-6. Proposed Cross Section with Median Transitway along Observation Drive in Clarksburg The City sees the Red Line, coupled with local bus, as having outstanding potential as a means of mobility for people traveling to and from the Pike corridor (p. ii). It also would like to increase the Pikes viability, attractiveness, and friendliness of its pedestrian environment. Thus, the Rockville Pike Plan provides a number of key recommendations that would directly affect Corridor 10b: MD 355 South. At the core of its recommendations is the redevelopment of Rockville Pike as a multiway boulevard that accommodates both visitors and residents. This could help facilitate a mode shift from December 2011 B-7

Appendix B
a high degree of reliance on the private automobile to more diverse transportation choices (p. vi). The plan would prefer maintaining the existing 84-foot curb-to-curb right-of-way as six travel lanes for through vehicular movements and add two-lane access roads in each direction, provided for buses, bicycles, and local land-use access. However, discussions with City staff indicate the consideration of two alternative cross-sections that could accommodate BRT vehicles within the existing 120-foot state right-of-way. The first alternative would provide a 50-foot median transitway for BRT vehicles and maintain local bus service in the curb lanes of the expanded cross-section for travel lanes. The overall cross-section would be 236 feet. This is shown in Figure B-7. The second alternative would reduce the overall cross-section to 227 feet by having all transit vehicles operate in outside travel lanes within an expanded cross-section for travel lanes. This is shown in Figure B-8. Additional recommendations that will affect proposed the BRT corridor along Rockville Pike include the following: Integrating Twinbrook Metrorail station into the Rockville Pike corridor to increase access to and use of the station Applying development principles to provide for mixed-use development, modifying building height standards, and reducing building setbacks to improve the pedestrian environment Implementing mechanisms that would affect development capacity in the area Increasing traffic capacity through roadway and intersection redesigns Increasing the Critical Lane Volume standard together with adopting a more flexible system of capacity allocation to reduce the number of intersections along the Pike that exceed the Comprehensive Transportation Review threshold, thereby permitting more development (p. viii). City of Gaithersburg 2009 Master Plan Update The City of Gaithersburg is currently in the process of updating it 2003 master plan. It has already adopted an updated transportation element (September 2010). The current rail and bus transit mode share for City commuters is about 16 percent. Gaithersburg is served directly by Ride On, MARCs Brunswick Line, and Metrobus; and has two park-and ride lots adjacent to I-270. Express bus provides access to the Lakeforest Mall Transit Center and Shady Grove Metrorail station. The City would like to increase connectivity within its boundaries and opportunities for alternatives to travel by single-occupant motorists. To this end, it supports the development of the Corridor Cities Transitway to connect residents to Clarksburg and Shady Grove Metrorail station. However, it recognizes the need to supplement the Corridor Cities Transitway with additional transit service and sees the transit corridor network proposed by MCDOT as a major contributor toward this solution. The City proposes that continued progress on the network provide recommendations on right-of-way needs along BRT corridors identified within the City: MD 355 and Muddy Branch Road. Gaithersburg has areas of special transportation concern. One of these areas is the Frederick Avenue (MD 355) corridor, along which the BRT feasibility study identified two corridors. Corridor 7: MD 124/Muddy Branch Road Corridor 10a: MD 355 North

December 2011

B-8

Appendix B

Figure B-7. Alternative cross-section along Rockville Pikemedian BRT travelway

Figure B-8. Alternative cross-section along Rockville PikeTransit vehicles in outside travel lanes

December 2011

B-9

Appendix B
Currently, average daily traffic along MD 355 is between 31,000 and 35,000 vehicles. To alleviate the congestion experienced along this roadway, the City recommended two solutions that would affect this Functional Plan. Reinstate Ride On service between Travis and Montgomery Village Avenues to support alternative means of travel to the numerous employment sites along this section of the corridor. (The two proposed BRT corridors could also support this initiative.) Encourage the consolidation of access curb cuts along the corridor. One of the challenges that the efforts during this Functional Plan will face during its right-of-way assessment will be along MD 355 between Montgomery Village and Summit Avenues. The existing minimum right-ofway along the corridor is 120 feet. Historic sites and commercial development built close to the roadway edge will present physical challenges to any right-of-way recommendations. Future tasks undertaken during this Functional Plan will require continued coordination with City of Gaithersburg and Maryland State Highway Administration (the agency responsible for maintaining MD 355) to identify viable recommendations for BRT operating along that corridor (for example, reconfiguring the roadway crosssection to accommodate BRT travel lanes or operating in mixed traffic with intersection priority). Other Related Transit Projects and Planning Efforts in the County Regional Constrained Long-range Plan (CLRP): The plan is updated annually by Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments (MWCOG), outlines several transit projects within Montgomery County that are planned and will be federally funded. The largest of these projects are the Purple Line, a light-rail line (LRT) running between Bethesda and New Carrollton via Silver Spring and Takoma-Langley Park, and the Corridor Cities Transitway (Corridor Cities Transitway) between the Shady Grove Metrorail Station and Comsat, for which the mode has not yet been chosen (LRT or BRT). (The Master Plan also recommends an extension of the Corridor Cities Transitway from Comsat to Clarksburg, but this segment is not included in the CLRP.) In addition to the Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway, the CLRP also includes design and construction of the Silver Spring Transit Center (expected completion: April 2012) and Takoma/Langley Park Transit Center. The Silver Spring Transit Center will contain over 30 bus bays, six of which will accommodate articulated buses and could provide a station terminus for proposed BRT Corridors 4b: Georgia Avenue South and Corridor 19: US 29. It will also serve as an intermodal center connecting to MARC, taxis, intercity bus, kiss-and-ride, and a hiker/biker trail.

Rendering of Silver Spring Transit Center

December 2011

B-10

Appendix B
The Takoma/Langley Park Transit Center would be an intermodal, non-Metrorail transfer point served by Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue and Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard. Potential BRT operations would coordinate space for boarding and other supportive BRT facilities such as ticketing and station signing. Regional Bus Study: This 2003 study is one of the foundational studies influencing WMATAs strategic vision for a variety of significant new services or service improvements within Montgomery County. They include the following: Serving high-growth areas Building ridership along priority corridors Rendering of Takoma/Langley Park Transit Center and Improving cross-county and circumferential Purple Line Station connections Implementing facility improvementssignal prioritization, improved modal transfers, and constructing transit centers Implementing new or improved services, such as RapidBus Many of the plans recommended new or improved services that have been planned or implemented in the County could potentially influence of the majority of the proposed transit corridor network. As such, efforts for the Functional Plan will involve coordinating with transit planners at WMATA. Evaluation of the Metrobus Priority Corridor Networks (PCN): The proposed transit corridor network evaluated and incorporated some of the Montgomery County-based corridors listed in WMATAs 2010 (PCN) study. The BRT corridors and corresponding PCN corridors retained from the evaluation are shown in Table B-1 and illustrated in Figure B-9. Comparison to WMATAs Priority Corridor Network The network recommended in this report covers most of the corridors identified in WMATAs 2010 final report, An Evaluation of Metrobus Priority Corridor Networks, with the exceptions being West Cedar Lane between Old Georgetown Road and Rockville Pike and East-West Highway between Bethesda and Silver Spring. Both of these corridors were considered in the feasibility study but were not carried forward as part of the 16-corridor network for the following reasons: The West Cedar Lane segment would have brought the Old Georgetown Road corridor along MD 355, which was already a proposed BRT corridor. The East-West Highway segment would compete directly with the Purple Line.

December 2011

B-11

Appendix B
Table B-1. Comparison of PCN Corridors within Montgomery County and Affected BRT Corridors
PCN Corridor 7University Boulevard/East-West Highway (MD-193/MD410) Corridor 10b: MD 355 South Corridor 12: MD 187/Old Georgetown Road Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard PCN Corridor 10Veirs Mill Road (MD-586) Corridor 3: MD 586/Veirs Mill Road Corridor 4b: Georgia Avenue South Corridor 10a: MD 355 North PCN Corridor 11New Hampshire Avenue Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue PCN Corridor 13: Georgia Avenue (MD 97) Corridor 4a: Georgia Avenue North PCN Corridor 14Greenbelt-Twinbrook Corridor 3: MD 586/Veirs Mill Road Corridor 14: Randolph Road Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard PCN Corridor 22Colesville Road/Columbia Pike Maryland (US-29) Corridor 19: US 29

Comparison to Councilmember Marc Elrichs 2008 transit corridor network map Most of the BRT corridors recommended by Councilmember Elrich in 2008 are reflected in the network recommended by this study to be retained for future evaluation. The exception is Norbeck Road from MD355 to Georgia Avenue, which was not included in the MCDOT network but which we recommend be added for study in the next phase of our work. Councilmember Elrichs network (shown in Figure B-10) also included some optional routes of which oneRandolph Road between MD355 and Georgia Avenueis recommended by this study to be retained for future evaluation. Councilmember Elrichs network did not include the two corridors recommended by this report to be deleted from further study, the ICC and Midcounty Highway.

December 2011

B-12

Appendix B

Figure B-9. Comparison of PCN and Montgomery County BRT study corridors B-13

December 2011

Appendix B

Figure B-10. Comparison of Elrich system concept and proposed transit corridor network

December 2011

B-14

Appendix B
Wheaton Station Bus Transit & Access Needs Assessment: This 2010 study recommends the addition of two bus bays to accommodate future BRT routes operating along Georgia Avenue and Veirs Mill Road, with the assumption that the BRT vehicles exit their respective routes to enter the station facility. These recommendations will affect the following BRT corridors: Corridor 3: MD 586/Veirs Mill Road Corridor 4a: Georgia Avenue North Corridor 4b: Georgia Avenue South Corridor 18: MD 193/University Boulevard Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan: This 2004 Ride On plan recommends a number of service enhancements to be implemented. All corridors identified by Ride On for BRT service were incorporated into the Countys feasibility study. The plan recommendations identify potential sites for transit centers (see Table B-2) and corridors that would benefit from park-and-ride lots (see Table B-3) to facilitate transfers and improve intermodal connectivity. The following tables list the potential facilities as they relate to the transit corridor network. A 2008 update to the status of the strategic transit plan identified four locations for transit center studies or design/construction projects as part of the Countys Capital Improvements Program. Montgomery Mall Montgomery Village-Lakeforest Mall Hillandale White Oak (completed as of 2010) Future efforts by the agency will finalize other transit center locations for the County, as well as specifying locations for park-and-ride lots.

Table B-2. Potential Transit Center Locations within Montgomery County

Corridor Veirs Mill Road US 29 Georgia Avenue Randolph Road Connecticut Avenue Intersection at Connecticut Avenue at Randolph Road at ICC at MD 108 at Connecticut Avenue at University Boulevard

Table B-3. Potential Corridors for Park-andRide Lots

Potential Corridor Veirs Mill Road US 29 Georgia Avenue Randolph Road New Hampshire University Boulevard Proposed Spaces 400-800 300-500 200-400 200-300 400-700 400-700

December 2011

B-15

Appendix C - Recommended additions to BRT network: Letter from County Executive Leggett forwarding the Rapid Transit Task Forces recommendations to Montgomery County Planning Board

December 2011

C-1

Appendix C

December 2011

C-2

Appendix C

December 2011

C-3

Appendix C

December 2011

C-4

Appendix C

December 2011

C-5

Appendix C

December 2011

C-6

Appendix C

December 2011

C-7

Appendix C

December 2011

C-8

Appendix C

December 2011

C-9

Appendix C

December 2011

C-10

Appendix C

December 2011

C-11

Appendix C

December 2011

C-12

Appendix C

December 2011

C-13

Appendix C

December 2011

C-14

Appendix C

December 2011

C-15

Appendix C

December 2011

C-16

Appendix C

December 2011

C-17

Appendix C

December 2011

C-18

Appendix DDetailed description of initial corridor and station analyses

Corridor functions Three key types of corridor functions were defined that summarize the types of trips expected along proposed BRT corridors and identify the facilities needed to support specific corridor types. The corridor function types will aide discussions of the degree of right-of-way investment necessary relative to ridership potential, given specific land-use types and roadway classifications within each potential BRT corridor. The key attributes of these corridor types are summarized as follows:
Commuter/Express*

High ridership directed toward CBD or transfer to regional transit service, typically located at terminus Typically implemented along freeways, highways, or arterials Low to moderate percentage of corridor meets BRT-supportive population or employment densities

*Stations along an express corridor are generally separated by several miles, as compared to a commuter corridor.
Activity center connector

High ridership distributed among multiple activity centers located throughout corridor and at termini Typically implemented along major highways, or major or minor arterials Moderate to high percentage of corridor meets BRT-supportive population or employment densities

Link

High ridership distributed between activity centers located at termini Typically implemented along major or minor arterials Moderate percentage of corridor meets BRT-supportive population or employment densities

Figure D-1 illustrates the data used to assess a corridors particular function. The corridor function types will aid discussions of the degree of right-of-way investment needed in the County relative to ridership potential, given specific land-use types, and roadway classifications within each potential BRT corridor. The initial analysis shows that some corridor types are more conducive to the needs for additional parking; however, this will be the consideration of future studies related to BRT development in Montgomery County. Table D-1 summarizes the corridor function types for each proposed BRT corridor, as well as recommended supporting facilities. As shown, some corridor types are more conducive to the needs for additional parking; however, the identification of parking needs that could enhance transit service will be the consideration of future studies related to BRT development in Montgomery County.

December 2011

D-1

Appendix D

Figure D-1. Illustrative Assessment of Commuter Corridor

December 2011

D-2

Appendix D
Table D-1. Summary of BRT Corridor Functions and Supportive Facilities
Corridor 3: Veirs Mill Road Typology Commuter Proposed Supportive Facility Shared Parking lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Shared Parking lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Shared Parking lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Shared Parking lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Corridor 11: MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue Typology Commuter Proposed Supportive Facility Shared Parking lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Shared Parking lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Shared Parking lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Park-and-ride lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Park-and-ride lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access Park-and-ride lots Feeder bus bays Increased bicycle access Bicycle storage Increase pedestrian access

4a: Georgia Avenue North

Commuter

12: Montgomery Mall/Old Georgetown Road

Activity Center Connector

4b: Georgia Avenue South

Commuter

14: Randolph Road

Commuter

5: Rockville-LSC (formerly Rockville Loop)

Link

18: MD 193/University Boulevard

Activity Center Connector

7: MD 124/Muddy Branch Road

Link

19: US 29

Commuter

8: Connecticut Avenue

Commuter

20: ICC

Express

10a: MD 355 North

Activity Center Connector Activity Center Connector

21: North Bethesda Transitway 23: Midcounty Highway

Link

10b: MD 355 South

Commuter

December 2011

D-3

Appendix D
Station types, locations, and access Station types will be assigned to each of the proposed BRT station in the network. The classification process will aid in identifying the following: The basic function of land uses surrounding a station The means by which to access a station and the need for parking and bus transfer facilities to serve a station Locating stations off-street or on-street If stations are on-street, their relationship to the median or curb and placement along the street (pending the particular BRT alignment and operation) The level of passenger amenities and degree of shelter to be provided, given the estimated ridership patterns at a station Table D-2. Attributes of BRT station typologies Table D-2 outlines six Station Typologies typologies that were defined Transit Center for classifying stations within Provides major transfer opportunities to other transit modes the proposed transit corridor Kiss-and-ride, bicycle storage, some park-and-ride network. These typologies Variety of surrounding land-use types and densities identify the basic attributes Potential to share boarding facilities with existing transit at station at the different BRT station Central Business District (CBD) areas, as related to the Typically on-street station directly adjacent to CBD development Focus on pedestrian access; provide exclusive bicycle facilities as possible surrounding types of land Station shelters could be integrated with adjacent buildings uses. Examples of some of Park-and-Ride Lot the station typologies are At park-and-ride facility, typically at terminus found in Figures D-2 and D-3. Further work will include applying the station typologies to the station locations identified in the feasibility study. The work will also assess the level of station access (by auto, bicycle, walking, or other transit modes) and specific station locations (on- or offstreet; near-side, far-side, or midblock) to determine the proposed station footprint and thus necessary right-ofway for BRT stations.
Surrounding land use densities typically lower than in other areas Passenger amenities relative to number of parking spaces and level of transit service Typically limited bicycle/pedestrian connections between surrounding area High-Density Residential One or multiple apartment/condo residential complexes Typically surrounded by lower-density single-family housing Good pedestrian access, given level of sidewalk development; bicycle facilities could focus on major access roadways Greater shelter provision Major Activity Center Within single- or mixed-use activity center outside of CBD, with transitsupportive density Pedestrian/bicycle connections (direct or circuitous) dependent on form and location of development On- or off-street stations with sizable shelters Low-Density Residential Typically on-street station serving low-density residences Smaller station amenities due to likelihood of lower ridership Pedestrian/bicycle connections (direct or circuitous) dependent on form and location of development

December 2011

D-4

Appendix D

Figure D-2. Example of station typologyPark-and Ride Lot (Briggs Chaney) D-5

December 2011

Appendix D

Figure D-3. Example of station typologyTransit Center (Rockville Metrorail Station)

December 2011

D-6

Appendix E

Appendix E Request to modify Georgia Avenue streetcar line: Letter from Councilmembers Nancy Floreen and Hans Riemer to County Executive Isiah Leggett and to Mayor Vincent Gray

December 2011

E-1

Appendix F

Appendix FComments received at Public Meetings on BRT Network

Thirty-five people attended the first public meeting held on October 24, 2011. The following concerns were expressed. The proposed BRT system will promote sprawl by encouraging people to move farther out because of the shorter travel time. The proposed BRT system will disadvantage transit riders who live closer in who use local bus service that will be stuck in traffic while the BRT uses dedicated lanes. The Randolph Road corridor should be extended to FDA/White Oak and beyond to Prince Georges County destinations. The New Hampshire Avenue corridor should be extended from University Boulevard to FDA/White Oak. The transit corridor network does not have enough east-west connections. The MD355 and Midcounty Highway BRT corridors combined with the ICC would obviate the need to widen I-270. Also, BRT from Clarksburg should be a high priority to avoid the need to build Midcounty Highway. Clarksburg route should be extended to Hyattstown and a park-and-ride lot should be provided in Clarksburg. If the current bus system cannot afford to print schedules, buses cant keep on schedule, and if the current electronic schedules dont work, how can we afford a new system and why do we believe it will work better? Will bikes be accommodated on the BRT vehicles and will there be a conflict with bikes when buses switch lanes? The network should be presented in an easily understandable format similar to Metro that can be easily remembered. Thirty-three people attended the second public meeting held on November 29, 2011. The following concerns were expressed. The network is too focused on downcounty areas. No service is shown to Darnestown, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Damascus, Hyattstown, and Montgomery Village. More connections need to be shown outside Montgomery County, especially Frederick. Need better access to Montgomery Colleges Germantown campus and area shopping malls. Better connections are needed to the ICC and BWI. Would like to see BRT implemented as soon as possible. Concern that queue jump lanes would be used by cars to jump the queue the same way that existing right turn lanes are improperly used. MD355 South corridor duplicates Metrorail service from Rockville to Bethesda. Drivers will benefit by having other people use BRT. Need express service from Germantown to Shady Grove via MD28 in addition to the Germantown loop. Network needs to show better connections to Ride On. Inputs for modeling and forecasting should be made available to the public for review.

December 2011

F-1