Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan

Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan Makeover Montgomery II May 10, 2014

Master Plan Status Begun: August 2011 Planning Board Approved Draft Plan: July 2013 Council Approved Final Plan: November 2013 Commission Adoption of Final Plan: December 2013

Master Plan Purpose To designate dedicated transit lanes to facilitate the development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to: Provide faster, more reliable alternative to single occupant vehicles and congested roadways Bridge rail transit and local bus service Enhance transit service for existing patrons Intercept long distance commuters, allowing roadway capacity to better serve planned development within the County

Master Plan Focus Determine where rights of way should be reserved for transit corridors, including: BRT only facilities Dedicated bus lanes shared by BRT and local buses Accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists Not in Master Plan Operational issues: BRT routes and rerouting of local bus system Span of service and BRT headways Land use changes

Montgomery County Demographic and Travel Forecast Summary based on 2012 Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) Population Employment 2013 2040 Difference Percent Difference 998k 1.2M 206k 21% 529k 737k 208k 39% Vehicle Miles Traveled 22.0m 26.8m 4.8m 22% Lane Miles* 2,592 2,721 129 5% Lane Miles of Congestion 376 639 263 70% *Note: Modeled lane miles include freeways, arterials, & many collectors, but few local roads

Outreach

Stakeholder Agencies Maryland State Highway Administration MoCo Dept of Transportation, including Ride On Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) Cities of Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Takoma Park Frederick, Howard, Prince George s, and Fairfax Counties District of Columbia Public utilities General Public Over two dozen presentations to community groups and other venues open to the public Plan webpage links to staff memos, presentations, and resources, as well as a blog for comments Two segments on the Montgomery Plans cable show Ten Planning Board meetings, plus one public hearing with testimony from 273 individuals and groups Two County Council public hearings

Analysis

approximately 150 miles of corridors from MCDOT BRT Feasibility Study, plus additional segments recommended by Transit Task Force

4 Transportation Modeling Runs Initial modeling included all median busways treated the same as Light Rail Transit (LRT) to determine maximum potential ridership in 2040 forecast year. No Build: ex. transportation network + Constrained Long Range Plan Build 1: 152 mile network of median busways Build 2: 152 mile network with some dedicated curb lanes achieved via lane repurposing* Build 2A: 87 mile network with a mix of treatments Treatment Build 1 Build 2 Build 2A Two Way Median 152 140 29 Curb Lanes 12 41 Mixed Traffic 17 Total (miles) 152 152 87

Definition: Designating an existing or planned travel lane for transit use only, whether during peak periods or all day Recommended where: *Lane Repurposing Forecast transit ridership was greater than the general trafficcarrying capacity of the lane, and Expanding the roadway was determined to be infeasible Consistent with 1993 General Plan Refinement which: Moved away from accommodating travel demand and toward managing travel demand Promoted more efficient use of our rights of way Recommended favoring transit over automobile use

Activity Center Corridor Corridor Typology multiple activity centers along its length all day, night and weekend activity and transit demand in both directions variable trip length example: MD355 Express Corridor highly peaked directional split in travel mostly long trips example: US29 north of New Hampshire Avenue Commuter Corridor characteristics that are intermediate between the above two types example: Georgia Avenue

Treatment Thresholds Treatment thresholds were lowered to account for: high level of analysis long time frame (beyond 2040 forecast to consider master plan build out) model attributes that could increase ridership up to 30% Transit Capacity and Quality Service Manual (TCQSM) vs. Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan (CTCFMP) Treatment TCQSM CTCFMP Mixed Traffic <1,200 pphpd <1,000 pphpd Curb Lanes 1,200 to 2,400 pphpd 1,000 1,600 pphpd Median Busway >2,400 pphpd >1,600 pphpd pphpd= passengers per peak hour in the peak direction

Corridor Function Network & Treatment Considerations activity center corridor express corridor commuter corridor Forecast Peak Hour Ridership >1,600* = busway 1,000-1,600* = curb lanes <1,000* = mixed traffic *passengers in the peak hour in the peak direction Corridor Treatment 1 or 2-lane median busway or side busway curb lanes mixed traffic

2040 Forecast Daily BRT Ridership Corridor Build 1 Build 2 Build 2A MD 355 South 49k 46k 44k MD 355 North 34k 32k 22k Veirs Mill Rd & University Blvd 27k 27k 18k Georgia Avenue (North & South) 24k 24k 12k New Hampshire Avenue 22k 21k 10k US 29 18k 16k 16k Randolph Road 16k 16k 11k Rockville Life Sciences Center 14k 14k 7k Old Georgetown Road South 11k 11k Old Georgetown Road North 8k 8k Muddy Branch Road 8k 8k Connecticut Avenue 6k 7k InterCounty Connector 6k 6k Norbeck Road 6k 5k North Bethesda Transitway 4k 4k 10k University Blvd Grosvenor 2k 2k Total 254k 247k 150k

~150k Forecast Daily Ridership

Decrease in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Decrease in Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) Daily Benefits Summary No Build Build 1 Build 2 Build 2A 193,800 miles 230,600 miles 143,100 miles 69,600 hours 58,700 hours 28,600 hours Transit User Benefits* 84,333 hours 80,789 hours 39,856 hours *Benefits to all users of the regional transportation network attributable to MC-BRT include a time conversion of other factors including costs, span of service, reliability, passenger amenities, ride quality, number of transfers, and personal safety.

Where is Additional ROW Needed?

Network & Treatment Considerations BRT Demand Bus Speed Impacts on Other Traffic Transit Corridor Network Property Impacts Local Bus Demand Network Integrity

Determining Corridor Treatment Recommended rights of way reflect higher level of treatment in some cases to maintain network integrity Final plan states only whether or not dedicated transit lanes should be provided Implementing agency has flexibility to determine final treatment based on: more detailed ridership forecasts and traffic analysis service planning decisions further refinement of property and environmental impacts and costs

Plan Recommendations Ten Transit Corridors plus Corridor Cities Transitway 102 mile network, 80% dedicated lanes Additional ROW recommended where needed to accommodate dedicated lanes and pedestrian & bike facilities Corridor treatments to be determined during Project Planning 125 BRT stations located by nearest intersection

Recommended Transit Corridor Network Corridors 1. Georgia Ave North 2. Georgia Ave South 3. MD355 North 4. MD355 South 5. NH Avenue 6. N. Bethesda Twy 7. Randolph Road 8. University Blvd 9. US29 10.Veirs Mill Road CCT. Corridor Cities Transitway

Recommended Transit Corridor Network Corridors Dedicated Lanes Mixed Traffic Total Corridor Cities Transitway 20.1 20.1 Georgia Avenue North 8.6 1.0 9.6 Georgia Avenue South 1.7 2.2 3.9 MD 355 North 11.8 3.5 15.3 MD 355 South 7.8 7.8 New Hampshire Avenue 5.7 2.8 8.5 North Bethesda Transitway 2.4 2.6 0.3 2.6 2.7 Randolph Road 1.4 8.7 10.1 10.1 University Boulevard 5.0 0.5 5.5 US 29 10.4 1.9 12.3 Veirs Mill Road 6.2 6.2 Grand Total 81.1 81.3 20.4 22.3 101.9 102.0

Randolph Road & MD355 North

25% 30% 50% 30% 37% 39% 50% 25%* *per White Oak Science Gateway draft Master Plan Recommended Transit Corridor Network w/ Non Auto Driver Mode Share goals

Changes by Planning Board and County Council Following Public Input Discussion of potential future expansion of BRT deleted Recommendations for specific transitway treatments deleted in favor of recommending dedicated lanes only Dedicated lanes added on US29 through Four Corners Extension of MD355 transitway south of Bethesda Metro Station made contingent on DC having a similar recommendation Extension of MD355 transitway from Germantown to Clarksburg added as a mixed traffic corridor Additional spurs added on two corridors Alternative alignments added for consideration on two corridors Additional stations recommended

Network Length MCDOT Feasibility Study = 150 miles Transit Task Force = 162 miles Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan = 82 miles Dedicated Lanes Network Comparisons (not incl. Corridor Cities Transitway) Transit Task Force = 162 miles Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan = 61 miles

BRT Corridors in Planning and Design

BRT Corridors currently in Planning and Design 1: Georgia Avenue North 2: Georgia Avenue South 3: MD 355 North 4: MD 355 South 5: New Hampshire Ave 6: North Bethesda Twy 7: Randolph Road 8: University Boulevard 9: US 29 10: Veirs Mill Road CCT: Corridor Cities Twy 1

Contact info: Larry Cole M NCPPC (lead planner) larry.cole@montgomeryplanning.org 301 495 4528 Monique Ellis Parsons Brinckerhoff (consultant) EllisMo@pbworld.com (410) 385 4176

Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan Makeover Montgomery II May 10, 2014

BRT CORRIDORS IN PLANNING AND DESIGN 1& 10: Georgia Avenue North (Olney to Wheaton Metro) and Veirs Mill Road (Rockville Metro to Wheaton Metro): MD State Highway Administration (SHA) is planning w/county funding 3, 4, & 9: MD 355 North (Clarksburg to Rockville Metro), MD355 South (Rockville Metro to Bethesda Metro/Purple Line), and US29 (Burtonsville to Silver Spring Transit Center): SHA will begin planning shortly w/$10m in State funding and $0.5M in County funding Corridor Cities Transitway (Clarksburg to Shady Grove Metro): MD Transit Administration (MTA) in Preliminary Design for Phase I w/state funding

Households Recommended Transit Corridor Network vs. 2040 Jobs and Households Forecasts Jobs

Duplication of Metrorail Most concerns about duplicating Metrorail were about MD355 South but Georgia Avenue South was also referenced. These corridors serve the same area as the two legs of the Red Line but provide a different service that is intermediate between Metrorail and local buses, with a closer stop spacing and less of a time penalty to access the system for moderate length trips. MD 355 and Georgia Ave BRT ridership coming from Red Line ridership Corridor Build 1 Build 2 Build 2A A MD 355 South BRT ridership 48,700 46,000 43,900 B Georgia Avenue North/South BRT ridership 24,300 23,700 12,300 C total ridership coming from Red Line 23,100 21,700 13,900 D % ridership coming from the Red Line 32% 31% 25%

Duplication of Metrorail On a network wide basis, the BRT ridership would come from the following sources: 2040 Forecast BRT Network Trips Build 1 Build 2 Build 2A New Transit Trips 58% 57% 50% From Metrobus 12% 12% 15% From Metrorail 9% 9% 10% From Ride On 17% 18% 20% From Other Services 4% 4% 5% Total 100% 100% 100%

Existing Daily Bus Ridership Based on data rec d from Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)

What is BRT?

What is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)? Dedicated Lanes Stylish Vehicles Branded Service Bus Rapid Transit Advanced Technologies Faster Fare Collection Enhanced Stations

Enhanced Stations

Level boarding areas

Off vehicle fare collection

Real Time Transit Information

Eugene (OR) EmX (from LTD) Branded vehicles Kansas City MAX (from KCATA) Cleveland Silver Line (from GCRTA) Los Angeles Orange Line (from flickr.com)

Two lane median Curb lane One lane median Dedicated lanes & corridor treatment types

ITDP Demand and Service Planning Report to MCDOT (Dec 2012) The report stated that US29 is not a good candidate for BRT: The main cause of delay was normal congestion which can be resolved with simple dedicated bus lanes in the peak direction, so full BRT on Route 29 does not seem warranted at this time. The report fairly off handedly recommends dedicated lanes as a simple solution, but gaining the space for such lanes is a critical master plan issue. The report is narrowly focused on what constitutes true BRT, whereas the CTCFMP is focused on what ROWs are needed to accommodate both BRT as we see it and other bus services.

Gaithersburg Rockville

Georgia Avenue North & South

MD355 North & South

NH Ave & N Bethesda Transitway

Randolph Road & University Boulevard

US29 & Veirs Mill Road

WMATA Priority Corridor Network

Recommended Transit Corridor Network vs. WMATA Priority Corridor Network

Bicycle Pedestrian Priority Areas Designation around station areas will promote better pedestrian/bike accommodation in: design construction operations

BPPA Example: Silver Spring CBD West

MARC Brunswick Line Expansion Addition of a third track west of Metropolitan Grove will reduce conflicts with freight to increase: capacity flexibility reliability and to enable: more frequent service all day service weekend service

2040 Forecast Daily BRT Ridership per Mile Corridor Build 2A MD 355 South 4,700 MD 355 North 2,050 Veirs Mill Rd & University Blvd 1,400 Georgia Avenue (North & South) 900 New Hampshire Avenue 1,150 US 29 1,150 Randolph Road 1,100 North Bethesda Transitway 3,750