Prince George's County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 (MPOT 2035) Current Conditions Report by Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

Prince George's County

Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Current Conditions Report August 2022

Abstract Date

August 2022

Title

Prince George's County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 (MPOT 2035) Current Conditions Report

Author

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

Source of copies

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Series number 978222405

Number of pages

84 (excluding appendix)

Subject

Master Plan of Transportation 2035 (MPOT 2035) supports Plan Prince George's 2035, the County's approved general plan, by setting a guiding vision, supporting goals, and measurable actions to achieve a more equitable transportation system for all people who travel in the County, regardless of which travel mode they choose. MPOT 2035 will update and replace the 2009 MPOT and the transportation recommendations from active area and sector master plans. This Current Conditions Report summarizes transportation conditions in the County as they exist today. It addresses: 1. Unbuilt master plan rights-of-way 2. High-congestion/low-transit corridors 3. Special roadways 4. Existing transportation system 5. US 301/MD 3 assessment 6. Transportation equity practices 7. Large-scale transit corridors 8. Bus transit corridors 9. Performance measures 10. Vision Zero 11. Sustainability 12. Multimodal transportation 13. CIP and CTP 14. Bikeways 15. TransForM model 16. Transit-oriented development 17. Existing plans and policies A technical appendix provides additional details on the subjects above.

Current Conditions Report

Prince George's County

Master Plan of Transportation 2035 We call it "MPOT 2035"

14 COLLEGE PARK

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 iii

MPOT 2035

Table of Contents

1 1. Unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way

11 4. Existing Transportation System

3 2. High-Congestion/ Low-Transit Corridors

17 5. US 301/MD 3 Assessment

7 3. Special Roadways

23 6. Transportation Equity Practices

27 33 37 7. Large-Scale Transit Corridors

iv Current Conditions Report

8. Bus Transit Corridors

9. Performance Measures

39 51

10. Vision Zero

12. Multimodal Transportation

11. Sustainability

65 67 73 13. CIP and CTP

77 16. Transit-Oriented Development

14. Bikeways

15. TransForM Model

17. Existing Plans and Policies

Appendices

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

01. UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY

There are 80 new road projects that have been planned since the 2009 MPOT but have yet to be built.

For MPOT 2035, we re-examined all roads that were planned for in the 2009 MPOT that have not yet been built or expanded to the ultimate planned width and cross section.

Source: Google 2022

We cross-examined some 60 plans dating as far back as 1989 as well as active road improvement projects. We created a master list of all the planned new roads or road expansions in the 2009 MPOT, plus those that have been proposed in other plans since then.

Unbuilt continuation of I-95 in Adelphi, MD.

Current Conditions Report

As the County focuses new development in the growth centers identified in Plan 2035, and as the County strives to shift to more

trips by walking, biking, and transit for improved health and environment, some of these planned roads may not need to be widened, or even built at all. At the same time, we may need different new roads or infrastructure improvements for walking, biking, and transit to support the objectives of Plan 2035. This review will therefore inform the final road recommendations in MPOT 2035.

Existing Unbuilt master plan rights-of-way Master P Rights-o

¡ 1

Legend

Rights-of-Way Area

495

¡ 50

* 495

301

5 mile

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 2

02. HIGH-CONGESTION/LOW-TRANSIT CORRIDORS

What is a high-congestion/ low-transit corridor? These corridors are major arterial streets, expressways, and freeways in Prince George’s County with the characteristics shown at right.

High-congestion/low-transit corridor characteristics 1. The corridor has a high level of congestion. Congestion is defined as a road segment carrying more traffic than the road was designed to accommodate.

2. The corridor has little, or no, transit service. The corridor either does not have any existing transit service, or transit operates along the corridor, but does not stop. An example of this is long-distance commuter buses, which might traverse a corridor, but either do not stop at all, or do not stop frequently enough to provide local service along the corridor.

3. The corridor has little potential for enhanced future transit service. The corridor is not identified as having potential for a high-capacity transit investment, nor is it identified as having potential as a future medium-capacity transit corridor. Future transit investments are described more in sections 7 and 8 of this Current Conditions report.

Identifying high-congestion/low-transit corridors We identified 16 highcongestion/low-transit corridors by examining existing transit routes and stops, potential large-scale transit corridors, potential future bus corridors, and traffic congestion on arterials, expressways, and freeways based on the worst-performing period among AM and PM rush hour, both in 2020 and as modeled for 2045. Brandywine, MD

3 Current Conditions Report

Many of the identified corridors have no transit, and adjacent street networks and land uses are not conducive to walking or biking to transit or other destinations. Other identified corridors carry transit routes for part or all of their length, but do not have more than a few local-serving transit stops.

High-congestion/low-transit corridors Number

Name

From

Transit service

MD 198

Montgomery County line

9th Street

Few or no stops

I-95

Howard County line

I-495

Few or no stops

I-495

Montgomery County line

Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge

Few or no stops

MD 197

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Jericho Park Road (Bowie State University)

No transit service

MD 193

MD 564

MD 214

No transit service

US 301 and MD 3

Anne Arundel County line

Charles County line

Few or no stops

US 50

District of Columbia line

Anne Arundel County line

Few or no stops

Lottsford Road

MD 202

MD 193

Few or no stops

MD 214

US 301

Anne Arundel County line

No transit service

White House Road

I-495

MD 202

Few or no stops

MD 210

I-495

Charles County line

Few or no stops

MD 223

Dangerfield Road

Dower House Road

No transit service

MD 223

Farmington Road

Temple Hill Road

No transit service

MD 373

Bealle Hill Rd

McKendree Rd

No transit service

MD 381

US 301

N Keys Rd

No transit service

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 4

02. HIGH-CONGESTION/LOW-TRANSIT CORRIDORS

Figure 5:

High-congestion/low-transit corridors HIGH-CONG

ø 1

ø 2

LOW-TRAN CORRIDOR

¡ 1

Legend

High-Congestion/ Low

495

ø 5

ø¡ * ø 7

ø 9

ø 10

495

ø 12

¡ 301

ø 13

ø 11

ø 15

5 mile 5 Current Conditions Report

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

We know congestion is just one of the challenges people experience on these corridors. Strategies for addressing challenges on high-congestion/low-transit corridors Understand corridor users, and clarify corridor priorities.

In public meetings conducted as part of MPOT 2035, attendees expressed transportation concerns related to safety across many travel modes: • Lack of safe, comfortable, and continuous biking and walking networks • Lack of safe road crossings, especially near transit stops • Safety for all road users • Roads with high design speeds in dynamic areas filled with pedestrians • Consideration of development on already crowded roads • Better connections to transit, like flexible or on-demand service in lower-density areas • Less auto-focused performance measures on neighborhood streets

Applying a Transportation Systems Management and Operations approach Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) makes the infrastructure we already have more effective for people traveling in Prince George's County. Improving operations on the current system reduces the need to build new or larger roads. Examples of TSMO include enhanced operations in special circumstances like work zones, special events, or inclement weather; traffic signal coordination, ramp management, traveler information, and eventually autonomous vehicle management; and traveler incentive programs or congestion pricing. Providing travelers with incentives and alternatives to driving alone can reduce the demand for travel or shift travel from single-occupant vehicle trips, which result in corridor-level congestion, to other modes, times, and routes.

Big data can help identify where people are traveling to and from along high-congestion/low-transit corridors, which can reveal whether the corridor serves local travelers or is a through-route for origins and destinations beyond Prince George’s County. Knowing these patterns can help identify potential management and investment strategies. Identifying the primary use of each corridor, the vision for its surrounding land use context, and the performance measures that will guide its planning are prerequisites to designing appropriate solutions. A limited-access freeway will likely emphasize longer-distance travel, while a corridor through a dense and vibrant community may prioritize multimodal access and quality of place.

Expand network connectivity. Better connections between existing roads allow travelers to vary their routes. This spreads demand more evenly across the existing network.

Take advantage of land use solutions. Denser, mixed-use communities can reduce congestion by serving some needs locally without the need for a private automobile. When driving is necessary, these communities make it possible to meet their travel needs quickly and within a shorter travel distance.

Manage access. Access management by spacing or removing access points and driveways can increase road capacity, reduce crashes, and reduce travel times on a particular facility. However, these considerations are most appropriate for corridors emphasizing the through-movement of vehicles and can result in less-direct travel paths to destinations by limiting the connectivity of the network.

Don’t count transit out. Completing a big data study of origins and destinations may present new opportunities for transit service, carpooling, or park and ride lots. Alternatives to conventional transit—such as partnerships with ridesourcing companies and ondemand transit like Call-A-Bus—can provide point-to-point connections for travelers or close gaps in the transit system. Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 6

03. SPECIAL ROADWAYS

Over the past four decades, Prince George’s County has inventoried, designated, and managed nearly 400 miles of scenic and historic roads, which we call Special Roadways.

Brandywine, MD

What makes a road scenic?

Cedarville, MD

7 Current Conditions Report

A scenic road is defined in Subtitle 23 of the Prince George’s County Code as: “a public or private road, as designated by the County Council, which provides scenic views along a substantial part of its length through natural or man-made features, such as forest or extensive woodland, cropland, pasturage, or meadows; distinctive topography including outcroppings, streambeds and wetlands; traditional building types; historic sites; or roadway features such as curving, rolling roadway alignment and leaf tunnels.”

The County has made extensive efforts to preserve and enhance views along Special Roadways. The 2009 Master Plan of Transportation set a goal of conserving and enhancing these specially designated roads to provide safe and enjoyable travel while preserving the scenic and historic resources within the road right-of-way and on adjacent land.

Current preservation practices Evaluate land development proposals and place new development out of viewsheds as much as possible Preserve and enhance trees and other roadside vegetation Apply agricultural land protection and other land conservation measures Prioritize preservation through comprehensive corridor planning and management Establish conservation easements, woodland conservation, and tree protection measures

What makes a road historic?

College Park, MD

A historic road is defined in Subtitle 23 as: “a public or private road, as designated by the County Council, which has been documented by historic surveys or maps, and which maintains its historic alignment and historic landscape context through views of natural features, historic landscape patterns, historic sites and structures, historic farmstead groupings, or rural villages.” While the original alignments of these historic travel routes have been widened, straightened, and modernized as transportation changed, the various layers of history can still be interpreted that were associated with these travel routes. Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 8

03. SPECIAL ROADWAYS

Prince George's County has many types of scenic and historic roads that have been identified as Special Roadways. Parkways Parkways are linear, landscaped parks surrounding limited-access roads for people driving. They afford scenic and pastoral views while providing important circulation routes. The National Park Service controls five parkways in the national capital region, and two pass through Prince George’s County.

State-designated scenic byways The Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) has designated 18 state scenic byways covering nearly 2,500 miles of outstanding travel experiences offering a taste of Maryland’s scenic beauty, history, and culture. Two scenic byways pass through Prince George’s County.

Suitland Parkway (1944) This winding parkway connects Joint Base Andrews to South Capitol Street in Washington, D.C. It is a major transportation link for visitors and commuters approaching the nation’s capital from the east and a gateway to the District of Columbia for foreign heads of state and dignitaries who arrive at Joint Base Andrews.

Baltimore-Washington Parkway (1954) The Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a 29-mile scenic highway that connects Baltimore to Washington, D.C. and runs through the northern portion of Prince George’s County. This road is also part of the Star-Spangled Banner Scenic Byway based on a theme of events in the Chesapeake Campaign related to the War of 1812.

Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway (2008) The State of Maryland, in partnership with the National Park Service, combined the former Lower Patuxent River Tour along with other routes in southern Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore to form the 560-mile Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway. Numerous sites associated with the War of 1812 and the military campaign that culminated in the birth of "The Star-Spangled Banner" have been marked and interpreted in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

Booth’s Escape (1865) This 66-mile route follows the path that President Abraham Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, took as he fled Washington, D.C. south through Prince George’s County and Charles County before his capture by federal troops in Virginia.

9 Current Conditions Report

Heritage Areas

Anacostia Trails Heritage Area

Maryland has 13 statecertified Heritage Areas. Two are located fully or partially in Prince George's County.

This area covers more than 100 square miles of northern Prince George's County and is dedicated to preserving the area’s history, arts, culture, and natural resources. Twenty of Prince George’s County’s designated Special Roadways fall within the Anacostia Trails Heritage Area.

Southern Maryland Heritage Area A small section of this heritage area reaches into Prince George’s County in the far southern part of the county. Two designated roads are within the Southern Maryland Heritage Area.

Other scenic designations

Mount Vernon viewshed Prince George's County has been working for many decades to preserve the significant viewshed across the Potomac River from the porch of Mount Vernon, the historic home and Potomac riverfront plantation of George Washington. The sweeping panorama covers portions of Prince George’s and Charles Counties, making them important components of the environmental setting of a national historic landmark.

State highways that the County has designated as scenic/historic roads Not all County-designated roads are located on County managed roads. Thirteen designated roads incorporate all or portions of state roads as county designated scenic or historic roads.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 10

04. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

We inventoried all the driving, walking, biking, and transit networks in our County. Prince George's County supports people traveling by many modes. The maps on the following pages show our networks as they exist today for the modes shown below. See the appendices for more detailed mapping.

Driving

Transit

Our road network lets people drive to nearly any place in the County. It includes different types of roads for different purposes. Freeways and expressways let people travel longer distances at higher speeds. Major and minor arterials form the backbone of our street system and link the communities in our County. Collectors connect neighborhoods to major streets, and local streets permit circulation throughout our neighborhoods.

Prince George's County is fortunate to have an assortment of transit options. We have four high-capacity Metrorail corridors: the Yellow/ Green Lines to Greenbelt, the Orange Line to New Carrollton, the Blue/Silver Lines to Largo Town Center, and the Green Line to Branch Avenue. The MARC Camden and Penn rail lines serve the northern part of the County as they travel between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. Not too far in the future, we will also have the Purple Line connecting New Carrollton and College Park/University of Maryland with Montgomery County. We also have an extensive network of local and commuter bus routes operated by WMATA and TheBus.

11 Current Conditions Report

Walking

Biking

Our sidewalks form the principal walking routes through our downtowns and many of our neighborhoods. Some of our major streets also have landscaped sidepaths that create a park-like environment. Away from streets, we also have an interconnected network of shared-use paths that create recreation opportunities while also linking destinations throughout the county.

Prince George's County has different types of bikeways serving the various needs of people biking. We have lengthy networks of shared-use paths and on-street bikeways that let people travel for errands, commuting, or recreation across large distances in the County. We also have denser networks of bikeways to support shorter, local trips in many of our communities.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 12

04. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Road classifications

Roadway Classific Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

Roadway Classification

Legend

5 mile 13 Current Conditions Report

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! !

!! !! ! !!!

Figure 1:

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! !!!! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!

Transit network

¡ 1

495

Legend <

EXISTING T ROUTES & Metro Station Metro Lines !

Bus Stops Bus Service

¡ 50

* 495

¡ 301

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !

! ! !!

! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !!!!

! ! !

! !

!! !! ! !!!

Figure 1:

! !

! ! !

EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES & STOPS

! !

! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !

¡ 1

! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! Legend

! ! !

5 mile

* 95

Metro Lines !!

Metro Station Bus Stops Bus Service

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

¡ 50

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 14

04. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Walkways

Pedestri Facilities

Legend

On Street Sidewalks

495

County Trails

¡ 50

* 495

¡ 301

Pedestrian Facilities

¡ 1

Legend

On Street Sidewalks

5 mile 15 Current Conditions Report

* 95

¡ 50

County Trails

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

Bikeways

Existing Bike Fac

Legend

Bike Facilities

495

¡ 50

* 495

¡ 301

Existing Bike Facilities

Legend

5 mile

Bike Facilities

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 16

* 95

¡ 50

05. US 301/MD 3 ASSESSMENT

We need to future-proof the US 301/MD 3 Corridor. US 301 is a highway running from Delaware to Florida and passing through Prince George's County. MD 3 runs from Bowie to Millersville.

17 Current Conditions Report

We examined the nearly 27-mile stretch of US 301 and MD 3 that extends between Annapolis Road (MD 450) and Cedarville Road/McKendree Road. We call this the US 301/MD 3 Corridor. This area of our County is growing rapidly, so we completed a holistic assessment of the corridor to prepare for future travel needs. Understanding how the corridor operates today helps us to enhance safety, accessibility, and multimodal access along the corridor in the future.

US 301/MD 3 Corridor sub areas Travel demands have increased in the region and the character of the corridor will be greatly influenced by future projects in the area, including local development and the widening of the Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge across the Potomac River to Virginia. These changes will affect how and where traffic moves through the area. To describe transportation conditions, the US 301/MD 3 Corridor is divided into three sub areas based on the changing right-of-way, road configuration, and land use context as shown in the diagram to the right. Land use context designations are from the MDOT SHA Context Driven map tool. In more suburban contexts the configuration of the road network offers increased mobility while these areas have fewer destinations accessible by foot or bike. In rural contexts, the emphasis is on the vehicle mobility.

Anne Arundel County

450 Annapolis Rd

SUB AREA 1

Bowie

Annapolis Road (MD 450) to Mitchellville Road/Queen Anne Bridge Road

50 197 Collington Rd

Mitchellville Rd/ Queen Anne Bridge Rd

SUB AREA 2

Upper Marlboro 214 Central Ave

Mitchellville Road/Queen Anne Bridge Road to Croom Station Road

301

Marlboro Pike

Pennsylvania Ave

Croom Station Rd

SUB AREA 3

Brandywine Croom Station Road to Cedarville Road/ McKendree Road

382 Croom Rd

Charles County

MDOT SHA LAND USE CONTEXT ZONES

Suburban Activity Center Suburban Rural

Branch Ave

Cedarville Rd/ McKendree Rd

PLAN 2035 LOCAL CENTERS

Local Center

05. US 301/MD 3 ASSESSMENT

The US 301/MD 3 Corridor is designed to move people driving between major destinations within Prince George's County and beyond.

US 301/MD 3 Corridor at a glance

Principal arterial with urban and rural land uses Road classification

2–3 50 – 55 28 – 87

While the speed limit on the US 301/MD 3 Corridor ranges between 50 and 55 MPH, observations suggest that vehicles frequently travel faster than the posted speed. The corridor is designed with two or three wide travel lanes in each direction depending on the sub area. It transitions between large, landscaped medians to narrow raised medians, to no medians at all.

Lanes in each direction

MPH

Posted speed limit

thousand

Annual average daily traffic

Cheltenham, MD

19 Current Conditions Report

The annual average daily traffic volumes along the US 301/MD 3 Corridor vary from about 28,000 to 87,000 based on MDOT SHA data. The southern portion of the corridor, near the Charles County border, experiences the highest volume of 87,000 annual average daily trips. Most trips diverge off US 301 and continue north onto Branch Avenue (MD 5). About 28,000 trips continue northbound on US 301 with a gradual increase of trips to 70,000 at the northern terminus near the Anne Arundel County border.

US 301/MD 3 Corridor daily traffic volumes and level of service

Most sections of the US 301/MD 3 Corridor are not currently meeting level of service targets.

450 Annapolis Rd

SUB AREA 1

Bowie

Daily traffic volume

64,300 A B C D Level of service

3 F 50

51,400 A

197 Collington Rd

54,500 A

F Mitchellville Rd/ Queen Anne Bridge Rd

SUB AREA 2

Upper Marlboro 214 Central Ave

301

39,000 A

Pennsylvania Ave

Croom Station Rd

SUB AREA 3

Brandywine

37,600 A

Prince George's County uses LOS standards based on the V/C ratios shown below:

Branch Ave

86,600 B

There are sections of the US 301/MD 3 Corridor where the level of service is LOS E or LOS F, suggesting that these areas may be over capacity. While much of the corridor is heavily congested during the PM rush hour, the southernmost portion from Branch Avenue (MD 5) to Charles County experiences LOS F. There are two segments with LOS E: from Annapolis Road (MD 450) to John Hanson Highway (US 50) and Collington Road (MD 197) to Central Avenue (MD 214). Due to these constrained conditions and planned future development, which can increase demand on roads, it is important to focus on optimizing traffic flow. Traffic impacts due to future development and growth will be further analyzed in the next stages of MPOT 2035.

Level of service (LOS) standards

LOS is based on volume-tocapacity, or V/C, ratios. A V/C ratio measures the level of congestion on a road by comparing the road demand (traffic volumes) with road supply (carrying capacity).

382 Croom Rd

27,700 A

To measure traffic flow, Prince George's County uses a metric called level of service, or LOS, where A is best and F is worst. LOS measures the perceived quality of the flow of traffic by people driving and is based on experienced travel times and speeds, predictability of future traffic conditions and wait times, and experienced comfort of the trip. Plan 2035 identifies criteria for each Transportation Service Area, including criteria for the US 301/MD 3 Corridor.

F Cedarville Rd/ McKendree Rd

LOS A: LOS B: LOS C: LOS D: LOS E: LOS F:

Lower than 0.275 0.276 – 0.450 0.451 – 0.650 0.651 – 0.845 0.846 – 1.000 Higher than 1.000

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 20

05. US 301/MD 3 ASSESSMENT

We studied 8.6 million trips on the US 301/MD 3 Corridor. Just under half of them were regional, meaning they started and ended outside of Prince George’s County. 8.6 million 100% Total trips studied on US 301/MD 3 Corridor

4.5 million 52% Trips within Prince George's County

1.3 million 16% Trips to/from Anne Arundel County

0.7 million 8% 2.1 million 24% Trips to/from Charles County

We used Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS) Trip Analytics to collect data on where drivers on the US 301/MD 3 Corridor are coming from and heading. We completed this process, known as an origin-destination analysis, for both northbound and southbound travel on US 301 between US 50 and the Charles County border. The RITIS Trip Analytics tool produced 24-hour travel data for all months in 2018 and 2019 on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday for light and medium vehicles. Heavy vehicles were excluded from the data set because of tool's bias toward heavy vehicle counts. However, the County is actively planning for increases in heavy vehicle 21 Current Conditions Report

travel on the US 301/MD 3 Corridor. Collecting this data reveals travel patterns within Prince George’s County and surrounding counties. Some 8.6 million trips occurred along the US 301/MD 3 Corridor. Just over half of the trips (52 percent) stayed within Prince George’s County, 24 percent of trips were to or from Charles County, and 16 percent of trips were to or from Anne Arundel County. Breaking down the origins and destinations between the three US 301/MD 3 Corridor sub areas, Sub Area 1 has a total of 1.9 million regional trips, Sub Area 2 has a total of 1.5 million regional trips, and Sub Area 3 has a total of 5.2 million regional trips.

Trips to/from Calvert, Howard, Montgomery Counties or Washington, D.C.

Sub Area 3 has a significantly higher number of trips and approximately 49 percent are coming from within the County, 33 percent occur to and from Ann Arundel County, and the remaining 18 percent are to and from other adjacent counties. The higher trip activity in Sub Area 3 is consistent with current land uses and traffic generators including the Brandywine Crossing Shopping Mall, which is a regional attraction. Given the increase in development in Bowie, Brandywine, and Waldorf (in Charles County), we expect there will be an increase in traffic in both the south and north ends of the corridor.

US 301/MD 3 Corridor sub area crash statistics Sub area

Mileage

Number of crashes

Percent of crashes

Fatal/serious crashes

Pedestrian injuries

Pedestrian fatalities

SUB AREA 1

5 miles

199

21%

Upper Marlboro

9 miles

308

33%

SUB AREA 3

13 miles

421

45%

Bowie

SUB AREA 2

Brandywine

928 crashes occurred on the US 301/MD 3 Corridor from 2016 to 2020. This is two percent of all crashes countywide during that time. We studied all crashes within 100 feet of the US 301/MD 3 Corridor between 2016 and 2020. Most crashes did not result in an injury; however, five percent of crashes on the corridor resulted in a serious or fatal injury. What's troubling is that 70 percent of these fatal or serious-injury crashes involved alcohol. We will keep this statistic in mind as we shape policies around the safety

consequences related to drinking and driving. You can read more about our efforts to improve road safety in the Vision Zero section of this Current Conditions Report. There were no bicycle crashes reported during 2016 and 2020, but there were six pedestrian-involved crashes, with two fatal crashes and four injury-related crashes.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 22

06. TRANSPORTATION EQUITY PRACTICES

Transportation options shape quality of life. MPOT 2035 is an opportunity to improve quality of life by making travel more equitable. "...the costs of childcare and transportation were barriers to employment as the costs could exceed participants’ earning potential." Plan 2035 comment

"High commuting costs, combined with limited transit service and sprawling development patterns outside the Capital Beltway, have exacerbated the cost of living in the County." Plan 2035 comment

A vision for equity

Prince George’s County is a place where everyone has equitable access to safe, reliable, and multimodal travel choices, regardless of race, color, religion, country of origin, immigration status, class, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or English literacy.

23 Current Conditions Report

The statement to the left is our vision for transportation equity in Prince George's County. It draws inspiration from the Prince George’s County Health Department's vision for health equity and transportation priorities you told us through the MPOT 2035 planning process. Up until now, the County’s plans and policies have not specifically defined what transportation equity means. MPOT 2035 gives us an opportunity to establish this vision. With it, we will keep equity front-of-mind as we set goals, actions, and

performance measures to guide our transportation investments. This way, the system is constantly evolving to improve outcomes for everyone who travels in Prince George’s County. While everyone can benefit from our transportation system, we know it has not always been that way. That is why an equitable transportation approach is ultimately one that redistributes resources to uplift communities and populations that have historically been left behind or overlooked.

Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Equality treats everyone the same; equity gives everyone what they need for their situation

Equity, not equality

Equality means that everyone gets treated the same.

Equity means that everyone gets what they need based on their own situation.

We know that race, disability, home location, age, employment status, and other factors can produce different needs for different people. A one-size-fits-all solution, while equal, would result in inequitable outcomes.

An equitable approach understands that different people have different needs. We can design the transportation system so that viable options are available for all people who need to travel in Prince George’s County. The result is a transportation system that helps all people achieve their outcomes.

We need to pay careful attention to unintended outcomes. Much as there is a difference between equality and equity, it is also imperative to think through any unintended consequences of the proposed solutions—will this “solution” create barriers for a different

community? Not everything will result in improvements in all directions for all people, so planners and decisionmakers should also think though the tradeoffs they are or are not willing to accept.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 24

06. TRANSPORTATION EQUITY PRACTICES

Equity in County transportation plans

PLAN REVIEW

We reviewed four recent County transportation plans to evaluate how we approached equity and its implications for transportation outcomes. We asked how much is equity integrated at each of the typical stages of transportation planning and implementation.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT

VISIONING

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

DEFINING SOLUTIONS

EVALUATING & REFINING

Does it set a goal of conducting equitable engagement?

Does it set a vision that defines equity and actions to implement it?

Does it define problems as improving outcomes for all disadvantaged groups?

Does it define solutions as removing barriers for different people in different situations?

Does it include equity in evaluation of progress toward the vision?

2009

Master Plan of Transportation 2014

Plan Prince George's 2035 2018

Transit Vision Plan 2020

Vision Zero Action Plan Yes

25 Current Conditions Report

Partially

Equity Emphasis Areas can help the County prioritize planning efforts in MPOT 2035.

An equitable planning approach is one that helps us overcome barriers to travel. Many people experience transportation barriers throughout the day. Most of these barriers, such as a lack of curb ramps at intersections and infrequent transit service, are so embedded that we often fail to recognize them. By considering each category of the Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) framework developed for the Federal Highway Administration, these barriers are more easily identified.

Barriers to travel

Spatial

Distance and network connectivity factors that inhibit access to key destinations

Temporal

Travel time factors that excessively increase the duration of time-sensitive trips

MWCOG Equity Emphasis Areas

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Equity Emphasis Areas are 350 of the region’s 1,222 Census Tracts that have high concentrations of low-income individuals and communities of color. They also have a higher share of households who rent, single parent households, individuals with disabilities, and workers without a telecommuting option. Equity Emphasis Areas are concentrated in the northwest and central-west parts of Prince George’s County. We can use these areas to help us plan for MPOT 2035. We can analyze how transportation projects may help or harm these communities, and we have the opportunity to actively invest in transportation needs of Equity Emphasis Areas. If we use Equity Emphasis Areas to prioritize transportation projects, we may become better positioned to receive grant funding, as projects in Equity Emphasis Areas are a selection criterion in MWCOG grants for transit station access planning, road safety enhancement, nonmotorized travel improvement, and land use/transportation integration.

Economic

Direct and indirect costs that create economic hardship or preclude users from completing basic travel

Physiological

Non-inclusive transportation system design that creates access barriers for people with different physical and cognitive abilities

Social

Social, cultural, safety, and language barriers that inhibit a user’s comfort with using transportation

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 26

07. LARGE-SCALE TRANSIT CORRIDORS

What will be the next major transit project in Prince George's County? One of the top priorities of MPOT 2035 is to make transit more frequent, convenient, accessible, and affordable for people in Prince George’s County.

Transit focus areas across the county

As transit becomes more appealing, more people are likely to incorporate it into their travel plans. When more people shift to transit from driving, we come closer to achieving our goals to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gases. A powerful way to improve transit in Prince

George’s County is to focus investments along highdemand corridors between major destinations—where service, capacity, reliability, and speed enhancements stand to benefit the most people. These areas are identified in Plan Prince George's 2035 and listed below.

These are the focus of the County’s planned growth and mixed-use development, and they have the capacity to become major economic generators.

These areas have the highest concentrations of economic activity in four targeted industry clusters—healthcare and life sciences; business services; information, communication, and electronics; and federal government.

These focal points for concentrated residential development and limited commercial activity are selected based on access to transit or major highways, including areas around the new Purple Line stations.

Regional Transit Districts

27 Current Conditions Report

Employment Centers

Local Centers

What are high-capacity transit corridors? High-capacity corridors are the backbone of the transit network. They have distinctive characteristics that help make transit trips more reliable, faster, and more convenient, providing a high degree of connectivity between important destinations. These combined factors can make high-capacity transit more appealing and boost ridership.

Frequent service every 5 to 15 minutes

Service operating for most of the day, or even 24 hours

High passenger capacity

Distinctive branding

Stations or enhanced stops, often with transfers to connecting services

Exclusive lanes or dedicated guideways

Examples of current high-capacity transit corridors in the County WMATA Five Metrorail lines serve 15 stations across Prince George’s County. They form the backbone of the current high-capacity transit network.

MARC MARC operates two commuter rail lines serving eight stations in the County.

MDOT MTA MDOT MTA’s under-construction Purple Line, with 11 stations in the County, will soon also offer high-capacity transit service.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 28

07. LARGE-SCALE TRANSIT CORRIDORS

Nearly 100 potential transit corridors have been proposed in Prince George’s County across previous plans. MPOT 2035 is an opportunity to screen these various proposals into a streamlined vision for transit.

We reviewed and screened a range of previously identified transit corridors to help guide the prioritization of future transit enhancements in the county. This evaluation was based on County approved plans and project alignments as of Spring 2022. This prioritization looked at both the high-capacity transit corridors explored in this section of the Current Conditions Report and those medium-capacity transit corridors discussed in the section that follows.

Transit corridor screening process Completed for this Current Conditions Report

1. Identify corridors

2. Screen corridors

Identify candidate transit corridors based on implementation potential. Nearly 100 candidate corridors or segments were initially identified for consideration based on past and ongoing County plans and studies, stakeholder input, and public input.

Screen candidate corridors through review of related plans and studies, planned service expansion and enhancements, already established priority transit corridors, input from MPOT 2035 stakeholders, and public engagement. If needed, refine and modify most promising corridors to prepare for evaluation.

To be completed in future phase of work

3. Evaluate corridors

4. Prioritize corridors

Complete the evaluation using focused criteria:

Prioritize the corridors based on how well they achieve the criteria in step 3 and remove corridors that do not meet minimum thresholds. Corridors selected to advance will be sorted into tiers representing near-, medium-, and long-term priorities for implementation. The overarching goal of MPOT 2035 is to recommend:

• Transit criteria: Population and employment density, ridership, land uses, and feasibility • Growth strategies: Connections to Regional Transit Districts, Local Transit Centers, and Employment Centers • Regional priority: Regional significance and inclusion in multiple plans leading to planning consistency

29 Current Conditions Report

• High-capacity transit: The County’s next major transit corridor investment with the most potential to improve transit service • Medium-capacity transit: A complete bus priority network

Transit plans studied Plan

Plan proposes highcapacity transit corridors

Plan proposes mediumcapacity transit corridors

Prince George’s County BRT Feasibility Study Prince George’s County Transit Vision Plan Prince George’s County 2009 MPOT Plan Prince George’s 2035 MWCOG Prince George’s Transitways Study WMATA ConnectGreaterWashington 2040 WMATA Blue/Orange/Silver Capacity & Reliability Study WMATA Momentum Strategic Plan WMATA Priority Corridor Network DDOT Bus Priority Plan DDOT Bus Transformation DDOT moveDC MDOT MTA Regional Transit Corridors MDOT MTA 50-year Statewide Transit Plan MDOT MTA Southern Maryland Rapid Transit Study

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 30

07. LARGE-SCALE TRANSIT CORRIDORS

Screening resulted in six transit corridors showing promise for enhanced, higher-capacity, high-frequency transit in the County.

High-capacity transit corridors Number

Description

Type of transit

Length

Inner Purple Line Extension: Southern Avenue Metrorail to Prince George's Community College

Light rail or bus rapid transit

15.3 mi

Outer Purple Line Extension: New Carrollton Metrorail to Largo and Prince George's Community College

Light rail or bus rapid transit

8.2 mi

Outer Purple Line Extension: Branch Avenue Metrorail to National Harbor or Virginia

Light rail or bus rapid transit

11.1 mi

Takoma Park to Riverdale Park

Bus rapid transit

4.9 mi

Branch Avenue: Naylor Road Metrorail to White Plains

Light rail or bus rapid transit

7.1 mi

6a*

New Metrorail Line: Blue Line from Washington, D.C. via Southern Avenue to National Harbor or Virginia

Heavy rail or bus rapid transit

TBD

6b*

New Metrorail Line: Silver Line to Greenbelt Metrorail

Heavy rail

TBD

6c*

New Metrorail Line: Silver Line to New Carrollton Metrorail

Heavy rail

TBD

* WMATA is still studying options for a potential Metrorail expansion in Prince George's County. MPOT 2035 will be consistent with the option WMATA ultimately selects.

31 Current Conditions Report

High-Cap High-capacity transit corridors Transit C Countywide

¡ 1

* 495

! 4

Purple

¡ 50

!2 !1

* 95

!3 * 495

!5 ¡ 301

High-capacity corridors

3 4

5 mile

Purple Line

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 32

08. BUS TRANSIT CORRIDORS

Medium-capacity transit corridors fill in the gaps between high-capacity lines. What are mediumcapacity transit corridors? Medium-capacity transit corridors are bus routes that offer convenient, efficient service to major destinations across the county with a faster and more reliable service than local bus routes. While they often operate in mixed traffic with non-transit vehicles, they often have transit priority treatments that help move buses through traffic in key locations.

Landover, MD

33 Current Conditions Report

Medium-capacity transit corridor characteristics

Transit priority treatments • Dedicated bus lanes • Queue-jump lanes • Traffic signal priority

Upgraded bus stops

Frequent operations

Metrobus

TheBus

The busiest Metrobus routes are medium-capacity transit corridors. They generally match up with Metrobus’ Priority Corridor Network.

TheBus’ major routes across Prince George's County are also considered mediumcapacity transit corridors.

• Enhanced customer amenities • Real-time traveler information • Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections • Streamlined transfers to other transit services

• Frequent service • Service operating for most of the day, potentially even 24-hour service • Express or limitedstop service • Larger vehicles to accommodate more travelers

Examples of current medium-capacity transit corridors in the county

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 34

08. BUS TRANSIT CORRIDORS

Screening resulted in 17 medium-capacity transit corridors, which may be good candidates for high-capacity transit further in the future. This network hosts the busiest and most frequent Metrobus and TheBus routes. Medium-capacity transit corridors Number

Description

Type of transit

Length

Washington, D.C. to Westphalia via Pennsylvania Avenue

Bus on shoulder or light bus rapid transit

12.8 mi

Rhode Island Avenue Metrorail to TakomaLangley Crossroads via Riverdale Park

Bus on shoulder or light bus rapid transit

8.2 mi

Greenbelt Metrorail to New Carrollton Metrorail (TheBus 16)

The Bus major route

13.8 mi

Mount Rainier to College Park IKEA (TheBus 17)

The Bus major route

7.8 mi

TheBus 17 extension to Greenbelt Metrorail

The Bus major route

3.6 mi

Takoma-Langley Crossroads to Addison Road Metrorail (TheBus 18)

The Bus major route

24.1 mi

New Carrollton Metrorail to Upper Marlboro (TheBus 21)

The Bus major route

23.8 mi

Naylor Road Metrorail to Clinton Fringe Park and Ride (TheBus 32)

The Bus major route

12.9 mi

Addison Road Metrorail to Capital Plaza (Metrobus A12)

WMATA Metrobus

22.1 mi

Takoma-Langley Crossroads to Greenbelt Metrorail (Metrobus C2)

WMATA Metrobus

25.8 mi

Takoma-Langley Crossroads to Prince George's Plaza Metrorail (Metrobus C4)

WMATA Metrobus

23.8 mi

Southern Avenue Metrorail to Suitland Metrorail (Metrobus P12)

WMATA Metrobus

14.6 mi

Silver Spring Metrorail to New Carrollton Metrorail (Metrobus F4)

WMATA Metrobus

15.2 mi

New Carrollton Metrorail to Fort Totten Metrorail (Metrobus F6)

WMATA Metrobus

22.3 mi

Addison Road Metrorail to Eastover Shopping Center (Metrobus P12)

WMATA Metrobus

17.3 mi

Rhode Island Avenue Metrorail to New Carrollton Metrorail (Metrobus T18)

WMATA Metrobus

15.1 mi

Rhode Island Avenue Metrorail to College Park Metrorail to Laurel via Konterra (Metrobus 83/86/89M)

WMATA Metrobus

16.7 mi

35 Current Conditions Report

MediumMedium-capacity transit corridors Transit C Countywide

¡ 1

17 !

*!5 !4 495

10 ! 11 !

! 13 ! 2 ! ! 16 !6 !9 14

¡ 50

* 95

! 15

! * !8 12

495

!1 ¡

301

5 mile

TheBus (Prince George's County) Metrobus (WMATA)

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 36

09. PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Measure what you treasure.

Performance measures track progress toward our goals. Tracking progress helps us stay accountable as we work to achieve the vision, goals, and actions in MPOT 2035. The purpose of MPOT 2035 is to improve transportation in Prince George's County in a way that supports the needs of our community and aligns with Plan 2035. Establishing

performance measures will help us understand how our actions are helping us achieve our goals. Successful performance measures are "SMART;" that is, they are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-based. Our performance measures also need to focus on the themes we hold most

MPOT 2035 performance measure themes

important. In talking with County staff and stakeholders, and in reviewing the 2009 MPOT and Plan 2035, a handful of consistent themes arise. Aligning these themes with Plan 2035 indicators of success helps inform potential performance measures for MPOT 2035, as shown below.

Plan 2035 indicators of success

*Multimodality

Bike and pedestrian facilities constructed

Safety

Greenhouse gas emissions reduced

Accessibility

Mode split changed

Affordability

Vehicle miles traveled reduced

Energy efficiency & sustainability

Other goals

Mobility

Overall transportation safety improved Vehicle level of service

We need to measure what’s most important to the community, and safety, accessibility, and multimodality* top stakeholder lists. These are the top-ranking priorities from the MPOT 2035 performance measure themes.

Community members

Agency stakeholders

Municipal stakeholders

1. Safety

2. Accessibility

2. Multimodality

2. Accessibility

3. Multimodality

3. Accessibility

3. Multimodality

37 Current Conditions Report

* Multimodality means having many options for how you choose to travel—be it walking, driving, biking, or riding transit.

and non-Equity Emphasis Areas to evaluate whether transportation decisions have disparate impacts on different populations within the County. The policies recommended in MPOT 2035 can then aim to reduce outcome disparities between residents of Equity Emphasis Areas and other County residents.

Mobility

Energy efficiency & Sustainability

Affordability

CONNECTION TO PERFORMANCE MEASURE THEMES

Accessibility

Tracking over time

Performance measure

PERFORMANCE MEASURE PURPOSE

MPOT 2035 evaluation

Summary of performance measures

MPOT 2035 performance measures will be broken out by Equity Emphasis Areas

Safety

Reviewing Plan 2035 and other relevant plans; gathering feedback from community members, agencies, and municipalities; and holding discussions with County staff

helped us get to an initial list of potential performance measures. We whittled that list down to those in the table below, which we will use to evaluate MPOT 2035 and track over time.

Multimodality

We will track our progress using seven performance measures related to our key themes.

Access to jobs by transit Access to jobs by driving Mode share Vehicle miles traveled per capita Vehicle miles traveled on roads Level of service (congested lane miles) Annual crashes by mode and severity

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 38

10. VISION ZERO

Safety is a top priority for County residents, and it needs to be integrated throughout MPOT 2035. Two-thirds of people told us safety is one of their top transportation challenges, and safety ranked highest when we asked people to rank the importance of key transportation themes.

"I can't get across the street in time because I'm old." Community meeting participant

Biggest transportation challenges Unsafe/difficult to walk Speeding/unsafe driving Lack of driving alternatives Traffic congestion Potholes Bus service availability 22%

"Bike lanes that are separated from traffic will make it safer for my kids." Community meeting participant

Importance of transportation themes 68% 62%

49% 46% 39%

Safety Multimodality Accessibility Affordability Energy efficiency 4

1 2 2 3

Vision Zero early successes

Vision Zero impediments

Public participation

Culture of safety

Branding

Limited funding and resources

Collaborating with Street Smart

Political will

Regional partners

Wide roads

Mapping and High-injury network

Driver behavior/Education

Drawing on national and international lessons for Prince George's County

39 Current Conditions Report

In January and February of 2022, we surveyed more than 250 members of the Prince George's County community to hear their thoughts on how transportation can be improved in the County. We also held a series of three evening online public meetings in late January 2022.

Death and serious injury are unacceptable costs of traveling on our roads.

The Vision Zero strategy brings new ways of thinking about transportation safety with the goal to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users. The Safe System approach is the foundation of Vision Zero, which outlines a proactive response to traffic safety.

Our transportation system must be designed and operated in a way that ensures people's mistakes never lead to serious injury or death. We do this by anticipating human mistakes and keeping impacts on the human body at tolerable levels when crashes do happen.

MPOT 2035 can help achieve Vison Zero goals Political will and resources Public information Practical solutions for improving infrastructure Incorporating safety infrastructure in development proposals

Vision Zero peer jurisdictions we studied Vision Zero is a priority in Prince George's County, and we have already begun taking steps to bring safety to the forefront on our roads. We detail these actions on the following pages, but before discussing them, it is helpful to consider best practices from jurisdictions across the country that are leaders in transportation safety. By studying what has worked in these communities, we can identify elements to incorporate into MPOT 2035.

Denver Region, CO Montgomery County, MD Arlington County, VA Contra Costa County, CA

Los Angeles County, CA

Hillsborough County, FL

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 40

10. VISION ZERO

Vision Zero recommendations from peer jurisdictions Topic

Montgomery County, MD

Los Angeles County, CA

Arlington County, VA

Developing a Vision Zero action plan

Montgomery County was one of the first county governments to develop a Vision Zero action plan (a 10-year strategy) and manage implementation of Vision Zero through two-year action plans.

The County's action plan guides efforts to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries on unincorporated county roads through 2025. It sets a vision, goals, and actions to enhance traffic safety in collaboration with agency partners.

This five-year action plan lays out a path toward reaching Vision Zero program goals. It identifies key safety target areas, actions to improve safety in each area, and measures for tracking progress toward eliminating serious and fatal transportation injuries in Arlington County by 2030. The County establishes five Vision Zero principles: accountability, transparency, equity, engagement, and collaboration.

Building Vision Zero into other plans

The county drafted its Vision Zero action plan alongside other county and state transportation plans. The action plan is the county’s local road safety plan in the statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The transportation chapter the county's general plan integrates Vision Zero and calls for prioritizing active transportation options like walking and biking. Transportation items in the county's climate action plan aim to provide infrastructure to support a shift to more active transportation use.

The Action Plan includes evaluating the County Master Plan of Highways to ensure consistency with Vision Zero goals.

County plans and policies, including the Master Transportation Plan, Destination 2027 Health Equity Plan, Public Space Master Plan, and Police Department Strategic Management Plan support the county’s Vision Zero principles. Further, the county’s Neighborhood Complete Streets program addresses transportation safety and access for all modes of travel on local streets through physical improvement projects.

41 Current Conditions Report

Topic

Contra Costa County, CA

Denver Region, CO

Hillsborough County, FL

Developing a Vision Zero action plan

Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCCTA) is developing a Vision Zero Framework. They offer a How-To Guide and accompanying Toolbox for Vision Zero implementation.

The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) frames traffic deaths and serious injuries as a critical, preventable public health epidemic with social equity implications. DRCOG's action plan has a toolkit for local governments to use when planning a Vision Zero strategy. The plan sets out Action Initiatives, an implementation timeline, and measures to track regional progress toward safety improvements.

The Tampa area Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization for Transportation (Hillsborough MPO) developed a Vision Zero Action Plan collaboratively with local communities and agencies from across the county. Resolutions passed by government agencies and business commit these organizations to incorporating the plan into their operations.

Building Vision Zero into other plans

One of the key implementation actions recommended in the Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update was for CCTA to develop a Vision Zero framework and Systemic Safety approach for the County.

Metro Vision, the Denver regional plan, included three objectives: keep the transportation system in good condition, improve system performance and reliability, and improve safety and security. The Vision Zero effort adds six additional objectives: improve collaboration between allied agencies, increase awareness and adoption of Vision Zero, design and retrofit roads to prioritize safety, improve data collection and reporting, increase funding and resources, and increase legislative support resulting in safety improvements.

Hillsborough MPO incorporated Vision Zero into land use policy by defining land use context classifications for various place types along Vision Zero corridors.

Continues on next page

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 42

10. VISION ZERO

Vision Zero recommendations from peer jurisdictions (continued) Topic

Montgomery County, MD

Los Angeles County, CA

Arlington County, VA

Updating processes to support Vision Zero

The County developed a Complete Streets Design Guide and updated road design standards to include Complete Streets. The county's Vision Zero Coordinator works with a steering committee of departments tasked with implementing Vision Zero to host regular meetings, coordinate efforts across departments, share Vision Zero information and collect feedback from employees, and work with advisory committees.

The county is updating its guidelines for recommending road safety enhancements. It is amending the Public Works Highway Design Manual to consider emerging tools, design standards, and best practices to enhance safety for all road users, and it is updating its Livable Communities Design Guidelines to incorporate multimodal safety design measures. Traffic safety enhancements are being incorporated into public works projects along Collision Concentration Corridors.

The county is revisiting the review process for private development and county-led capital projects to affirm that safety is the first priority in transportation. The county is revising design standards to reflect the latest safety best practices, including lessons learned from a systemic crash analysis, and creating a flexible approach for responding quickly to transportation safety issues. Additionally, the county will develop and implement maintenance of traffic plans for development and capital improvement projects that protect the safety of all travelers during construction.

Forging key partnerships

The Vision Zero Action Plan synchronizes land use and transportation by integrating a Safe System approach into community master planning, transportation demand management, and road design guidelines. The county Planning Board supports Vision Zero in its review of proposed development and capital projects. County staff work with community groups to gather feedback and raise awareness for traffic safety projects and campaigns. The county partners with other Vision Zero communities and organizations, like the Road to Zero Coalition, to advocate for federal Vision Zero support.

The county will coordinate with cities and the state department of transportation to create a region-wide culture of traffic safety. The county will partner on safety project delivery, education, and enforcement. To create a better understanding of crash factors, county departments and cities will compile and share crash data from law enforcement, emergency first responders, trauma centers, and hospitals. The county will engage other jurisdictions and organizations that have traffic safety campaigns aligned with regional messaging that the county can build upon.

The county works with the state and neighboring jurisdictions to improve safety on state-maintained roads and coordinate regionally on traffic safety. The county is advancing legislative solutions for transportation safety at the Virginia General Assembly. The county also works with local organizations and interest groups to understand the needs of different transportation users and promote transportation safety. Further, the county works with public safety and healthcare stakeholders to enhance the robustness of crash data.

43 Current Conditions Report

Topic

Contra Costa County, CA

Denver Region, CO

Hillsborough County, FL

Updating processes to support Vision Zero

N/A

The regional Complete Streets toolkit will address safety in street design by incorporating Vision Zero principles, crash profiles, and countermeasures. Quickbuild projects are being deployed at high-priority locations when long-term solutions lack funding or would take too long to build. The state department of transportation is updating its Roadway Design Guide and the State Highway Access Code to support contextsensitive safety design solutions. Local government street design guidelines, standards, and municipal codes are also being updated to reflect Vision Zero.

Vision Zero Hillsborough will be integrated into regular meetings and discussions of the Hillsborough Community Traffic Safety Team to provide a means for integrating Vision Zero objectives into planning, design, and enforcement. Additionally, the county will routinely review and amend transportation manuals and local government land development codes. The county will work with the state department of transportation to update design standards to include bicycle considerations, develop a training program and curriculum, and conduct training sessions.

Forging key partnerships

The county's Vision Zero Framework, How-To Guide, and Toolbox provide resources for local agencies to implement Vision Zero as a consistently applied standard practice across the county. The Framework provides resources for local jurisdictions to develop robust Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs). The county has also worked with the state department of transportation to allow local jurisdictions to apply for state funding to complete the LRSPs.

Regional collaboration occurs among local governments, transportation agencies, law enforcement, advocacy organizations, and community groups. A working group coordinates and improves crash data, shares resources, and focuses enforcement on high-injury networks; sets actions as issues emerge; distributes Vision Zero outreach materials; and shares funding opportunities. Vision Zero education is also provided to K-12 students, with an emphasis on empowering youth leadership and prioritizing communities of concern.

N/A

Continues on next page Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 44

10. VISION ZERO

Vision Zero recommendations from peer jurisdictions (continued) Topic

Montgomery County, MD

Los Angeles County, CA

Arlington County, VA

Tracking progress toward Vision Zero

The County tracks implementation for each of the plan’s three areas: Complete Streets, Multimodal Future, and Culture of Safety. Complete Streets includes metrics on injuries and new treatments built. Multimodal Future includes metrics on vehicle miles traveled, travel mode, and transit stops near protected crossings. Culture of Safety includes metrics on ease of travel, seatbelt wearing, crashes with “big five” violations, crashes involving county-owned vehicles, safety awareness training for county employees, and response times to crashes with injuries.

The county routinely evaluates Vision Zero projects on the Collision Concentration Corridors to track progress and make modifications. The goal is to understand the impact and extent of traffic crashes countywide with a focus on disadvantaged communities. The county is establishing a process for counting people walking and biking, and it produces crash reporting. Additionally, the county provides Vision Zero data to track pedestrian and bicyclist injuries/deaths by sociodemographic characteristics and geography, holds data collection events and surveys, and enhances its infrastructure database to evaluate effectiveness for reducing injury crashes.

The county reports on individual actions and progress toward the goal of zero deaths and serious injuries. It conducts a comprehensive crash analysis, equity analysis, and critical crash reviews to identify crash patterns and quickbuild responses. Annually, the county surveys Arlington residents, commuters, and visitors about transportation safety issues. It also conducts before/after studies to assess how new strategies or infrastructure score against established safety metrics. The county defined quantifiable performance measures for each program target area (e.g., number of speed-related crashes, number of intersection crashes).

Taking Vision Zero from planning to action

Forty-five action items and associated tasks are separated by the strategy plan’s three pillars of Complete Streets, Multimodal Future, and Culture of Safety. Each action item includes a description; budget sources; and information on study, design, and installation/ construction plans.

Actions are organized into five objectives that represent the county’s priorities and help put guiding principles into action: enhance county processes and collaboration, address health inequities and protect vulnerable users, collaborate with communities to enhance road safety, foster a culture of traffic safety, and be transparent, responsive, and accountable. Each action includes metrics for evaluating success and identifies the lead agency for implementation. Annually, the county revises actions if objectives are not met. A “collision concentration corridor” was defined and mapped for the plan.

Actions are grouped in four categories (Data & Evaluation, Process & Organization, Engagement, Partnerships) with several overarching objectives: data, analysis, progress reporting, planning, design, operations and maintenance, public involvement, education and encouragement, intra-agency collaboration, and interagency collaboration. Actions are reviewed, and next steps are identified in an iterative process over a five-year plan. An annual report is released with a public meeting to collect feedback on progress. The county hosts mid-year check-ins with the External Stakeholders Group to gather input on the program.

45 Current Conditions Report

Topic

Contra Costa County, CA

Denver Region, CO

Hillsborough County, FL

Tracking progress toward Vision Zero

N/A

The region tracks progress toward six Vision Zero objectives. The quantifiable metrics include participation of local governments and allied agencies in Vision Zero, police department working sessions, reach of Regional Vision Zero partnership, school workshops, traffic safety improvement projects along the High-Injury Network, crash data, site visits by response teams, traffic safety funding opportunities, and transportation safety legislation.

The county measures its progress toward each of its goals and updates the community through an annual report. There are quantifiable metrics for pedestrian and bicyclist safety infrastructure, accessibility enhancements, narrowed vehicle travel lanes, mural painting events, and severe crashes at high-crash locations. Communication metrics track events held, social media engagements and followers, and involvement of the Vision Zero Coalition. Public perception, behavior, and funding opportunities are also tracked.

Taking Vision Zero from planning to action

N/A

The plan includes a Regional High-Injury network where the majority of serious-injury and fatal crashes occur. The plan includes six objectives. For each objective, there are action initiatives that include sub-actions, regional partners involved and responsible parties, and action year/implementation time frame. DRCOG will track progress on each implemented action initiative at the beginning of each year. Tracking metrics are provided for each objective.

The Action Plan has four themes, each with priority actions: Paint Saves Lives for pop-up design interventions; One Message, Many Voices for outreach and messaging; Consistent and Fair Enforcement; and the Future Will Not be Like the Past for flexible road design standards. These are documented in an annual report. The Hillsborough Community Traffic Safety Team meets regularly to discuss Vision Zero, and each year, the Vision Zero Coalition convenes to share implementation updates, accomplishments, and new actions and initiatives.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 46

10. VISION ZERO

Prince George’s County, State, and regional partners are committed to Vision Zero.

2020-2022

ACTION PLAN Working together, we can achieve ZERO fatalities on our roadways because EVERY person in our community matters.

www.VisionZeroPrinceGeorges.com

#VisionZeroPrinceGeorges

301-883-5600

Suitland, MD

Vision Zero Action Plan

Vision Zero Stakeholder Group

Prince George's County completed its Vision Zero Action Plan in 2020. It is our road map to achieving zero deaths and serious injuries on our streets. The Action Plan is data-driven, innovative, and action-oriented. It builds on the Prince George's County Strategic Roadway Safety Plan and is organized around the "6 E’s," listed below.

The Vision Zero Stakeholder Group, established in 2019, includes representatives from local, county, regional, and state agencies and jurisdictions as well as community and advocacy groups. The group initially convened to outline the County's Vision Zero Action Plan. The group continues to meet to address actions to achieve Vision Zero. There are two stakeholder subgroups. The Vision Zero Crash Review Task Force examines data to identify crash “hot spots” and propose safety improvements. The Communications Task Force discusses public outreach efforts and reviews communication tools.

The 6 E's of transportation safety

Vision Zero Stakeholder Group roles

Education

Action Plan direction

Strategic guidance

Emergency response Engineering

Provide direction to the County to guide development of the Vision Zero Action Plan

Develop the vision, goals, actions, and performance measures to get to zero

Enforcement

Stakeholder coordination

Advocacy

Evaluation

Liaise with agencies, share information, and solicit feedback to inform the Action Plan

Champion Vision Zero Action Plan implementation within member agencies

Equity

47 Current Conditions Report

We provide transparent progress tracking through VisionZeroPrinceGeorges.com. Recent Vision Zero progress Education

Prince George's County hosted the regional transportation safety campaign, Street Smart, in November 2021 at Oxon Hill, a high-injury location, to draw attention to this crucial issue. In February 2022, a “Lives Shatter on Impact” testimonial wall was presented at Prince George’s Community College. More than 500 individuals have signed the Safety Pledge, with 10,000 pledge cards distributed. Prince George’s County is receiving $35,000 of assistance from the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board to design more “traffic gardens” to help kids learn about traffic safety at schools and other public spaces.

Engineering

The Department of Public Works & Transportation (DPW&T) replaced the Temple Hill Road/Clinton Bridge in February 2022 to improve vehicular safety and accommodate pedestrians and bicycle traffic. The Marlboro Pike Coral Hills Bike and Pedestrian Improvement Project also includes bike lanes, upgraded traffic signals, and pedestrian

West Hyattsville, MD

refuge islands, with a goal to improve traffic calming as well as pedestrian and cyclist safety by narrowing the road. Additionally, Prince George's County is receiving technical assistance from MCWOG for road safety studies aligned with five locations identified through the High-Injury Network.

Evaluation

DPW&T launched the Pedestrian Safety Walk Audit toolkit in January 2022. Crash data and evaluation tools are available for members of the public to use.

Enforcement

The Prince George’s County Council enacted CB-0732021, legislation pertaining to speed monitoring systems

in residential districts, in November 2021.

Policy

The Office of the Prince George’s County Executive has expressed support for Maryland House Bill 656 “Safe Access for All (SAFE) Roads Act of 2022.” This bill would require the Maryland State Highway Administration to recommend and implement context-driven design elements for pedestrian and bicycle safety consistent with the United States Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration proven safety countermeasures and the SHA’s context-driven guide and associated strategies. The bill is currently still under consideration by the Maryland House of Representatives.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 48

10. VISION ZERO

Learning from our peers, there are more Vision Zero actions we can bring to Prince George's County.

h eat

io /Ser

us I n j u r y is Unacc

e pt

abl

anc

Safe Vehicles

ke M istakes

Re d u n d

y is

Safe Road Users The Safe System Approach

ble

Safe Speeds

e Res

Safe Roads

po n s ibilit y is S h a re d

Integrate the Six Es and USDOT’s “Safe System” approach The six Vision Zero Es (Education, Emergency Response, Engineering, Enforcement, Evaluation, and Equity) need to be harmonized with the six principles of the Safe System Approach being championed by Federal Highway Administration. The safe systems concept refers to an intentional approach for achieving Vision Zero. It recognizes that humans make mistakes, and we can only achieve Vision Zero by integrating safety improvement efforts amongst all traffic safety

49 Current Conditions Report

MPOT 2035 can play an important role in supporting better street design as part of the development review process. If MPOT 2035 sets basic Complete Streets expectations (e.g. marked crosswalks at all intersection legs, shared-use paths that meet standards for minimum width, sidewalks on both sides of all streets), the County will be better able to hold developers accountable.

uln

et y

e ra

S af

Post-Crash Care

Incorporate Complete Streets into road design standards

stakeholders (road designers, vehicle manufacturers, policy makers, enforcement agencies, families, workplaces, schools, etc.) to create a safe system. A safe systems approach is one in which practitioners work to design, build, and maintain a transportation system that promotes safe road user behaviors (human factors) and protects all road users from physical harm (forgiving systems). This is a shift from a conventional safety approach because it focuses on both human mistakes and human vulnerability.

Consider street maintenance as a tool for maintaining safety Maintenance policies regarding Countyowned roads need to be addressed in MPOT 2035, including pavement markings (i.e., crosswalks and bicycle lanes), snow removal, lighting, and shared-use path maintenance. A prioritization process is needed to create a sense of direction for improving the responsiveness of the maintenance program and allow it to grow over time.

Leverage the Safer Streets Priority Finder Funded through a USDOT Safety Data Initiative Grant, the Safer Streets Priority Finder enables government agencies to understand the risk to vulnerable road users. Safer Streets Priority Finder is a free and open-source resource that allows practitioners and advocates to analyze and understand the risk to vulnerable road users (bicyclists and pedestrians) on their local roads.

Prince George's County High-Injury Network (HIN) map

Monitor and update the High-Injury Network over time Prince George’s County uses a High-Injury Network (HIN) analysis to evaluate the performance of the road network. The HighInjury Network represents one-mile corridors in Prince George’s County with the greatest frequency and severity of crashes involving people walking and biking. The County should continue to monitor crash trends and road safety on these corridors. As safety

enhancements are built and conditions change over time, the County should repeat the data-driven analysis to add or remove corridors in the HIN. Prince George's County can also expand its Vision Zero Crash Dashboard. Maryland has uniform crash reporting requirements, so further analysis could be conducted to better understand crash causation for fatal or serious-injury crashes.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 50

11. SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." - United Nations’ “Bruntlandt Report,” Our Common Future

We consider three types of sustainability in MPOT 2035:

Environmental sustainability

Fiscal sustainability

Socio-cultural sustainability

Environmental sustainability focuses on responsible interaction of human infrastructure and practices with the natural world. The transportation system has a large impact on environmental sustainability in Prince George’s County. A major focus is on improving resiliency so that when major natural events do happen, we are able to respond and adapt.

These practices support long-term economic growth and prosperity without negatively impacting environmental and social aspects of the community. Improving and enhancing fiscal sustainability practices creates resilient transportation systems that can address both shortterm and long-term financial uncertainties related to shifting population demographics, changing employment patterns, aging transportation systems, and climate-driven environmental changes.

MPOT 2035 envisions a countywide transportation system that supports the safe and equitable movement of people and goods. It also supports economic, cultural, recreational, and social activity in Plan 2035 Centers. Equitable access to Plan 2035 Centers, then, is the crux of social and cultural sustainability in Prince George’s County. Social and cultural criteria also encompass objects and structures, such as historical remains and places of worship, and values such as sense of place, local culture, and traditions.

51 Current Conditions Report

Bowie, MD

Sustainability strategies and co-benefits Category

Strategy

Socio-cultural Fiscal

Emissions reduction: electric vehicle

Expand the electric vehicle charging network

Environmental

Set an EV market share goal for the county to support the State’s goal of an additional 255,000 EVs by 2030 Transition transit bus fleet to EV, including school buses Electrify county and public agencies' fleets Identify and implement zeroemission truck corridors Plan for autonomous/connected vehicle technologies, which are typically EV Investigate and provide private vehicle electrification incentives and disincentives (e.g., rebate program) Create an EV carshare program for low-income communities

Emissions reduction: vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction

Advocate for a vehicle carbon, gas, or VMT tax Expand transit capacity and service Expand transportation demand management strategies Expand bicycle, pedestrian, and micromobility system development Expand telework policies and programs Constrain cars in urban areas, limit major new road construction Limit road widening Implement congestion pricing that varies based on travel demands at different times of the day Price parking based on travel demand patterns

Continues over next four pages

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 52

11. SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability strategies and co-benefits (continued) Category

Strategy

Stormwater management

Repair, enhance, or add stormwater systems during road construction projects, including resurfacing Eliminate waivers for stormwater management requirements Increase tree canopy coverage and raingarden systems with infill development, and road projects—ensure continued compliance with Complete and Green Streets Program Prioritize climate resilient infrastructure to ensure stability of the transportation network over time and in response to changing climate conditions Where feasible, construct all critical infrastructure outside the 500-year floodplain Protect access roads to at least the 100-year flood elevation or maximum flood reach, whichever is higher If not already in existence, prepare a hazard mitigation plan with a focus on improving roads and infrastructure to withstand flooding

Heat reduction and adaptation

Focus on infill development, transit-oriented development, and smart growth principles Improve intermodal freight center access Consolidate urban freight centers Increase tree canopy coverage to reduce heat island effects and support active transportation goals Follow land use decisions that support alternative modes of transportation Explore opportunities to co-locate community resilience hubs (including cooling centers and access to critical resources and information) at transit centers using solar arrays to provide clean, resilient energy Cover all surface parking with solar arrays Implement hydration stations at transit hubs and along key active transportation corridors

53 Current Conditions Report

Socio-cultural Fiscal

Environmental

Sustainability strategies and co-benefits (continued) Category

Strategy

Socio-cultural Fiscal

Environmental

Develop extensive shade cover strategies in the places that are most subject to extreme heat and/or most exposed Asset management

Prioritize climate resilient infrastructure to ensure stability of the transportation network over time and in response to changing climate conditions Focus on maintenance improvements that have the highest demand for transportation system users and/or provide critical network connections Improve road efficiencies with transportation system management operations (TSMO) Expand speed management on roads to maximize safety and encourage walking and biking Incorporate green infrastructure elements that reduce heat and increase permeability Identify resilience-friendly federal funding streams and invest in asset management systems

Peoplecentric Complete Streets

Convert some parking spaces on high turnover main streets to loading zones, bus stops, and bicycle parking to serve more people with the same amount of space Widen sidewalks in commercial districts and narrow road cross-sections where traffic volumes are low or parallel vehicle routes exist to prioritize space for people rather than cars Add shade trees, places to sit, water fountains, trash bins, and pedestrian-scale lighting—all things that are overlooked by motorists but critical for generating foot traffic, transit activity, and bicycle comfort Enhance pedestrian crossing facilities with countdown signals, leading pedestrian internals, and high-visibility crosswalks

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 54

11. SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability strategies and co-benefits (continued) Category

Strategy Use transportation infrastructure as community space in neighborhoods that lack parks and open space by reserving parking spaces for permanent parklets, by purchasing underutilized parking lots and paved areas for parks and playgrounds, and by offering an easy permit process for community groups to temporarily close streets for cultural events

Highcapacity transit network

Designate high-capacity transit corridors and routes between all 26 Local Centers and RTDs Implement transit priority and reliability measures along these corridors such as placing transit (buses or trains) in its own right-of-way, adding transit-only lanes or queue jumps at key pinch points, adding transit signal priority in congested urban areas, and allow buses to stop in-lane by constructing bus boarding islands Offer no less than 15-minute service frequencies on this high-capacity network during peak periods and no less than 30-minute service frequencies in off-peak periods Implement reliable real-time bus tracking service through an app as well as at transit stops/stations along this network Maintain well-lit shelters at all transit stops/stations along this network Focus new development along these corridors and require that it adhere to transit-oriented development design guidelines. Office developments should offer subsidized transit passes to employees Work with major event and entertainments venues and transit agencies in the Local Centers and RTDs to offer free transit passes with their event tickets Create special tax districts in the downtowns, employment hubs, and Innovation Corridor Hub to support transit-oriented development initiatives Use tax increment financing at proposed convention, conference, and visitor centers nearby transit-oriented development

55 Current Conditions Report

Socio-cultural Fiscal

Environmental

Sustainability strategies and co-benefits (continued) Category

Strategy

Expand walking and biking opportunities

Convert unused or underused rail and other infrastructure corridors into walking and biking paths

Socio-cultural Fiscal

Environmental

Reduce road widths where traffic volumes can fit into fewer travel lanes and add protected bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks Increase bicycle parking requirements for new developments and increase visibility of bicycle parking in commercial districts Improve wayfinding for bicyclists and pedestrians with travel time estimates to nearby destinations Incorporate bicycle safety classes into public school curriculum and offer bicycle safety classes at local community centers Expand Capital Bikeshare to other Local Centers and RTDs. In parts of the County further from Washington, D.C., work with community organizations to offer low-cost, multi-day bicycle rentals, including for e-bikes and/or scooters Offer e-bike rebates for people who can show proof of selling or getting rid of a vehicle Promote bike/walk to work and bike/walk to school days with local jurisdictions

Frequent community engagement

County transportation planners and operators should regularly attend existing community events (street fairs, sports events, farmers markets, etc.) to spread the word about services, discount programs, and new projects and to listen to residents’ access and mobility concerns Establish a social media presence for transit and road updates that people are excited to follow. The radio is not a good source of traffic and travel information for all residents and social media should increasingly be utilized to share information. To attract followers, the County should invest substantial resources in its social media communications program and use interactive content, such as contests, prizes, and quizzes to generate excitement

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 56

12. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION

What is the future of multimodal transportation in Prince George's County?

Prince George’s County provides options for walking, biking, driving, and riding transit, yet we find ourself underperforming in the transportation satisfaction of our residents.

57 Current Conditions Report

One of the most important elements of Plan Prince George’s 2035 is strengthening connections between communities through a robust transportation network. Across the country, jurisdictions are facing the same crisis of fewer resources available to serve community transportation needs. One of the most prominent factors is the need to rectify historic injustices brought about by unbalanced or biased disinvestment in communities of color leading to inferior transportation infrastructure in areas with denser populations.

We looked to several communities across the United States with similar demographic characteristics to Prince George’s County, specifically as they related to racial mix, transportation commute, and age diversity. We reviewed highway, transit, pedestrian, bike, and shareduse path master plans to identify national best practices so the County can identify existing policies that are good candidates to build on or expand and new policies t should be considered. Many policies found in these plans have been implemented by Prince George’s County in part or in whole.

Summary of peer jurisdictions Peer jurisdictions we studied

Montgomery County, MD Richmond, VA Atlanta, GA Pensacola, FL

Plans we reviewed

2015

2017

City of Richmond, VA

Atlanta Regional Commission

2018

Richmond Bicycle Master Plan

2018

Walk. Bike. Thrive. A Regional Vision for a More Walkable, Bikeable, and Livable Metropolitan Atlanta

2018 Florida-Alabama TPO Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan DRAFT 2018

M-NCPPC Montgomery County

Technical Update to the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways

M-NCPPC Montgomery County

Bicycle Master Plan

Florida-Alabama TPO

Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 58

12. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION

Recommendations from peer jurisdiction plans Plan

Vision Envision a future where bicycling is an integral component of daily life. A well-connected network of bicycle infrastructure coupled with a shift in culture will create an environment that is safe and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities

City of Richmond, VA

Richmond Bicycle Master Plan

Be one of the most connected and safest regions in the United States for walking and bicycling and use active transportation to improve the mobility, safety, and economic competitiveness for residents and communities

Atlanta Regional Commission

Walk. Bike. Thrive. A Regional Vision for a More Walkable, Bikeable, and Livable Metropolitan Atlanta

59 Current Conditions Report

Major focus

Key relevant recommendations

Create an environment that supports bicycling as a viable means of transportation, creates a safe and welcoming place for all users within the established network, connects people to destinations with a time-efficient travel option, and establishes equal access to bicycling for all

• Ensure that all construction projects assume some accommodations will be provided for pedestrian and bicycle access • Incorporate bicycle facilities into zoning bylaws and ordinances • Require the construction of sidewalks, bicycle facilities, shared-use paths and safe crosswalks during the new development efforts • Explore opportunities to revise existing easements to accommodate public access greenway/path facilities • Consider bicycle facilities during transit route reorganization and station upgrades • Consider repaving projects as an opportunity for revising pavement markings to narrow vehicle travel lanes and create space for bicycle lanes and shoulders

Develop policies for decisionmakers to use that support a walkable and bikeable region and map out a pathway for local and regional partners to implement and support identified policies and programs. Organizing principles include:

• Focus investments in areas that enable short trips for walking or bicycling to work, transit, or daily needs • Prioritize active transportation investments in parts of the regions where land use and transportation networks naturally support options for short trips • Ensure that the regional system facilitates seamless transitions between active transportation and other modes, such as transit and driving, which are better suited to long trips • Implement Complete Streets principles on every road with any project receiving federal funds • Prioritize projects that have a positive impact on public health outcomes • Incorporate transit access as a factor when prioritizing proposed bikeway projects • Incorporate Active Transportation in Design Guidelines and Engineering Standards • Create and activate pedestrian or bicycle advisory committees

1. A focus on short trips to maximize the benefits associated with more walking and biking 2. An opportunistic approach to Complete Streets improvements on major streets to enable the region to make the most of limited resources 3. “20-minute neighborhoods,” which include a mix of land uses, create a connected street grid, frequently incorporate bikeways (every half mile), and are convenient to shared-use paths and transit

Continues on next page

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 60

12. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION

Recommendations from peer jurisdiction plans (continued) Plan

Vision Develop a fundamentally sound, balanced and flexible future transportation system that helps to build and maintain livable communities within Montgomery County. Transportation, when planned well, can be an asset to the quality of life in a community. This plan is a multimodal plan and, ultimately, a plan focused on serving people, not just vehicle trips

M-NCPPC Montgomery County

Technical Update to the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways Become a world-class bicycling community. Everyone in Montgomery County will be able to travel by bicycle on a comfortable, safe and connected bicycle network. Bicycling will become a viable transportation option and will elevate the quality of life in the county

M-NCPPC Montgomery County

Bicycle Master Plan

Improve the quality of life for all communities within the planning area by providing education, engineering, enforcement, equity, and encouragement of multi-modal transportation choices

2018 Florida-Alabama TPO Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan DRAFT 2018

Florida-Alabama TPO

Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan

61 Current Conditions Report

Major focus

Key relevant recommendations

Provide a “road map” for making transportation investments within the context of a long-range vision. It ensures the future network of transportation facilities will serve residents, businesses, visitors and people passing through the county

• Align the road design and target speed standards for roads within urban areas so that they are designed for the safety and convenience of all users of the road system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, automobile drivers, commercial vehicles freight haulers and emergency service vehicles

Identify a series of strategies and recommendations that will enable policy and decisionmakers to increase bicycling rates, create a connected and low stress bicycling network, provide equal access to low stress bicycling, and improve the safety of biking

• Establish a bikeway classification system to organize bikeways based on their level of separation from traffic • Create a low-stress bicycling network • Establish a high-capacity network of arterial bikeways between major activity centers to enable bicycle travel with few delays in an environment where all users can safely and comfortably coexist • Adjust road standards and design criteria that apply to all roads that are designated for multimodal use that incorporate non-motorized user feelings of safety • Establish grade-separated crossings for new freeways and those undergoing major changes. Ensure standalone capital projects include grade-separated crossings for bisecting road networks. Where no improvements are planned, incorporate ramp signalization to reduce conflicts • Provide abundant and secure bicycle parking at transit stations as well as commercial and multifamily residential developments • Monitor performance

Identify locations where bicycle or pedestrian projects should be constructed based on factors to help the TPO determine where to focus their resources that led to overall recommendations about prioritization

Prioritize projects with the following factors: • Improve safety • In the proximity of schools and connect people to them • Near an activity center • In evidence-based/anecdotal need areas, such as a worn pathway cut through grass • High rates of zero vehicle ownership

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 62

12. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION

1. Rethink design standards.

Plan 2035 identified that within the decade-long study period from 2010 to 2019, there was no change in the split between people walking, biking, riding transit, and driving. This signals a need for more opportunities, infrastructure, and strategic policies to help lead the County toward it's goal of promoting and providing opportunities for people to use multimodal transportation options. Drawing from the plans we reviewed in peer jurisdictions and building on our existing efforts, we developed 10 recommendations that can be applied to projects throughout Prince George’s County to help us move toward a future where travel is safe and convenient regardless of how you get around.

63 Current Conditions Report

Revise road design standards to accommodate multimodal uses for every road undergoing major renovations and for newly designed infrastructure. As the County is continuing to see changes in the urban/suburban/ rural landscape, there are opportunities to update the transportation network to encourage feelings of safety and belonging for all users. The design standards must reflect these changes to create an inclusive and comprehensive transportation network.

2. Track our progress toward multimodal travel.

Identify ways to track the County’s progress in encouraging people to shift away from single-occupancy vehicles. Shifting to other forms of transportation than single-occupancy vehicles is the overall goal to improve a number of health and wellness outcomes. The alternative to singleoccupancy motor vehicles that is chosen should not be of primary concern except to determine where additional infrastructure resources may be focused.

3. Change what we measure. Modify transportation planning and assessment metrics to reduce focus on automobile movement and increase focus on people movement. Traditional planning processes consider traffic congestion and the effect of vehicle movement through intersections and road segments as key indicators for road widening, interchange design, or construction. These types of projects often negatively affect non-vehicular modes of travel—such as through higher vehicle speeds or wider roads to cross—and they encourage driving by supplying additional road capacity. Adjusting the assessment metrics to provide weight to the needs of non-vehicular users could increase feelings of safety that may affect peoples’ choices of which travel mode to use.

4. Zero in on short trips.

Identify minor origin-destination pairs within Neighborhood Reinvestment Areas and Downtown Areas and monitor non-vehicular travel. Short trips via bicycle or walking (i.e. travel to

school, local markets, parks, etc.) are often undercounted because they are taken by those who are not regularly part of the travel survey and assessment counts (i.e. school-aged children, caregivers, etc.). Understanding where and how many of these trips are happening highlights them in the planning process and can help identify areas where transportation resources could be reallocated in a meaningful way.

5. Build Complete Streets.

Designate Complete Streets Corridors within every Neighborhood Reinvestment Area and Downtown Area. By definition, Complete Streets are designed to accommodate all users of the network, regardless of age, ability, or travel mode. They are also designed to increase feelings of safety by slowing automobile traffic, increasing visibility of people walking and biking, and providing a designated space for all travelers. Placing these in parts of the county where growth is targeted can help provide balance for all the interests competing for priority within the transportation network.

6. Focus funding on key connections.

Prioritize funding of Complete Streets Corridors that connect to major destinations or job centers. Providing options that allow people to vary which travel modes they use supports the Plan 2035 goal of connecting neighborhoods.

7. Prioritize and promote connections to transit.

Address first and last mile walking and biking gaps in the network in each of the eight regional transit districts, including pilot zones in each transit district for PGC Link. This app-based, on-demand "microtransit" service operating in portions of the County offers customers a direct ride between their start and end point. The lack of change to the modal split identified in Plan 2035 indicates that simply having additional infrastructure is not enough to change travel behaviors. If using an alternative mode of transportation is not convenient and does not feel safe, this trend is likely to continue.

8. Operate transit when people need it.

Increase County-operated transit service hours to align with the needs of residents using these services. In our public engagement surveys, we included questions about use of transit in the County. Anecdotally and specifically, the limited hours of availability for Countyprovided transit was a key deterrent to increased use.

9. Focus on building new projects.

Measure transportation mobility success by lane-miles of completed construction of bikeways and supportive facilities. Creating a more specific set

of metrics by which to assess success, including safety studies of before and after implementation, will help the County identify key trends in transportation use and mode share. Currently, repainting a shared bike lane is given equal weight as constructing new lane-miles of bicycle infrastructure. This dilutes any attempt to assess the performance of connections within the bicycle network.

Riverdale Park, MD

10. Make it Prince George's. Dedicate resources to educating users, marketing, and promoting multimodal transportation options in the County to individuals who represent the diversity of the county (i.e. African Americans, senior citizens, women, and youth). While safety is a key deterrent for many in using alternative or active transportation modes, providing education about the many available modes, showcasing people who look like the population in the County as users, and promoting active transportation modes as a healthier and convenient option can lead to success adjusting modal decisions.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 64

13. CIP AND CTP

Capital improvement plans determine what projects get built.

We want to make sure the transportation projects we build are helping to advance the goals and values of MPOT 2035. For this reason, we reviewed all the projects in the two main transportation capital improvement programs that fund projects in the county. These documents are the CIP and CTP. We compared the projects in the CIP and CTP with the proposed projects in the 2009 MPOT and master and sector plans.

65 Current Conditions Report

FY2022 – FY2027

Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program 2022 State Report on Transportation Larry Hogan Governor

FY2022 – 2027

Approved Capital Improvement Program and Budget for the Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation (CIP)

FY2022 – 2027

Boyd K. Rutherford Lt Governor

Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program, 2022 State Report on Transportation (CTP)

James F. Ports, Jr. Secretary

Westphalia, MD

The goal of this comparison was to understand two important questions: • What roads are expected to receive construction projects over the next six years? • How do these projects achieve or advance the 2009 MPOT goals? The CTP included 25 projects and the CIP included 17 projects in Prince George's County. Ultimately, we found that all of the projects are compatible except one: MD 200, the Intercounty Connector. This project is complete and open for service, but some final construction and environmental

elements are still underway. This project was deleted in the 2009 MPOT east of where the current MD 200 ends at US 1 (Baltimore Avenue). There was a proposed new County road, extending east from the current end of MD 200, but this project has since been removed from master planning efforts because of its environmental impacts, and any Intercounty Connector recommendations regarding this future road will no longer be included. Older plans from the 1980s and 1990s emphasized a need to increase road capacity by widening existing roads. Since then, perspectives have shifted to consider more

holistic goals like the greenhouse gas reductions, public health, safety of people traveling by all modes, and quality of life for the residents of the communities traversed by wider and higher-speed roads—especially those who have been excluded from past transportation decisions or experienced a disproportionate share of the burden. Our new approach is to consider additional space on existing roads previously earmarked for additional or wider lanes for people walking and biking, enhancing the streetscape, and other amenities.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 66

14. BIKEWAYS

Everybody walks or rolls.

People love the paths, walkways, and bikeways in Prince George's County, and they want more. Plan 2035 and MPOT 2035 community engagement revealed overwhelming support for building more shared-use paths.

70% Survey respondents who walk or bike regularly as a mode of transportation

Lack of bike lanes Biggest factor keeping survey respondents from using active transportation

+ 100 510 Miles of shared-use paths and bikeways built in Prince George's County since 2009

Miles of planned shareduse paths in Prince George's County

Survey respondents who switched to bicycling during the pandemic

Miles of planned bike lanes in Prince George's County

67 Current Conditions Report

Shared-use path and bikeway needs we heard Maintenance Shared-use path maintenance could be improved. It is sometimes unclear who is responsible for maintenance.

Geographic equity We lack shared-use paths and bikeways in some portions of the County, especially to the south.

Implementation We need to build more of the planned shared-use paths.

Sharrows There should be better guidance on when to use shared-lane markings, if ever.

Transit Connections We need more shared-use path and bikeway connections to Metrorail stations.

Protected Bike Lanes We can add more protected bike lanes and connections to protected bike lanes.

Sidewalks Add and repair sidewalks.

Wayfinding Add more, and more consistent, wayfinding signs on the shared-use path and bikeway network. College Park, MD

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 68

14. BIKEWAYS

MPOT 2035 will build on the County's prior shared-use path, bike, and walk planning efforts. 2009 Master Plan of Transportation The vision for shared-use paths and bikeways within the 2009 Master Plan of Transportation was to “develop a comprehensive network of paved and natural surface trails, sidewalks, neighborhood trail connections, and on-road bicycle facilities for transportation and recreation use.” E C

A PL

ER ST

W ID

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department www.mncppc.org/pgco

COUNTYWIDE MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION November 2009 Bikeways and Trails

Transportation

Trails, Bikeways, and Pedestrian Mobility Policies

Mont gom er y Mi

Bond

ll R

Stre et

U V U V

A-

owd e Gun p

02 C-1

59 A-

t ee R

oa d

ne y

§ ¦ ¨ 95

R o ad

Mui rkir kR

Pik

POLICY 12: Develop a safe school routes strategy as an integral part of a comprehensive Prince George’s County complete streets policy.

Provide bicycle-compatible road improvements along the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail

oad

ore

le Road

Develop a comprehensive and accessible trail network designed to meet the recreational needs of all trail groups

ltim

enda

Provide a continuous network of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails

Old

Amm

POLICY 6: Ensure funding to achieve the objectives of this master plan and the state’s priority list.

! e

A-3

POLICY 10: Promote the use of walking and bicycling for some transportation trips. POLICY 11: Develop theme-based marketing of major hiker/biker/equestrian trails and bicycle commuting routes.

POLICY 5: Plan new development to help achieve the objectives of this master plan.

£ ¤ gg

POLICY 9: Provide trail connections within and between communities as development occurs, to the extent feasible and practical.

POLICY 4: Identify sidewalk retrofit opportunities for small area plans within the Developed and Developing Tiers in order to provide safe routes to school, pedestrian access to mass transit, and more walkable communities.

A-6

Co n

POLICY 8: Design and construct master plan park trails to accommodate all user groups (pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, mountain bikers, and disabled users), to the extent feasible and practical.

POLICY 3: Develop bicycle-friendly roadways in conformance with the latest standards and guidelines, including the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

198

I-108

r R oad

POLICY 2: Provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle linkages to schools, parks, recreation areas, commercial areas, and employment centers.

216

Spring Roa

S a n dy

Bri

POLICY 7: Increase trail funding by one percent of the total county transportation budget (excluding developer funding). Give priority to trails that function as transportation facilities or as links to other transportation facilities.

POLICY 1: Incorporate appropriate pedestrianoriented and TOD features to the extent practical and feasible, in all new development within designated centers and corridors.

Bridge R klyn oa d oo

MPOT 2009 goals for shared-use paths, bikeways, and pedestrian mobility

U V

Mon t g ome r y R oa

Cher

rail rT ive

kw a y

Ro ad

n Pa r hin g t o

Du c

tion enb

Ba l t i

elt

m ore

Sta

-Was

Riggs

d Co

An n

ive Dr

sy nn

Dod ge P

v i ll

Queen

o ad

En t

Ann eB r id g

oa d

e rp rise

ke A

d Roa

r bo

rW ay

n ch

U V

pe ak e B e

ach Ra il Tra il

Roa d

Ro ad

La r

Road ion

Chesa

ad Ro

ouse ite H Wh

oad

t at

Lee

l a nd

Roa d

Ri ent

D'Arcy Road

Ru nT r

Ritc hie

ll R

e Ro

Clagett Landing

Larc

o ad l le R

Bro w

st v i

ranch Trail nB ter

or e

s We

W alk

F ad Ro

Q ueen Ann

Oak Gro ve Road

202

r Tra

o ul

a te

e v ar d

§ ¦ ¨

B ra

978

Churc h Road

e st

Mi l l R o a d Walker

U V

193

Avenue

U V

m p us Way

thw

301

go Lar

So u

£ ¤

978

214

U V

Central Avenue

Paux

r Canoe Trail

fis h e

Mit

e ll

Ro ad

Arena Drive

458

Mt. Oak Road

ad Ro

L ottsfo rd R o

Road oore dm

ch an Br

sta

oo W

ill M

d Vi

704

V U

Accommodate trail connections within this corridor on public parkland and within public road rights-of-way

Road

l Lottsfor

U V

r n o r Bridge

d oa hR

Tr ai

U V ove r

n Ro

u rc

C a t t a il B r a n c h

Lan d

gto

U V 197

£ ¤ 704

llin

U V

oad

Hill Road

332

nue

301

ll B

il Tra

Rollins

U V

nt Ave

l Ro

pe ha

ive nh

ill o ad in R

R ark

£ ¤

193

hmo

Pros pe c

U V

e Lower B

am v erd

MARC Train Stations

ir Drive Bela

Car ro

ran

tB e as

rth

E ll

ch T r ai l

953

U V

976

704

202

M arl bo ro Pi

U V V U V U

U V U V

!! ( !

Metrorail Train Stations

a il

Road pel ha

450

Alcona Street

Purple Line Locally Preferred Alternative Train Stations

Old

c kl e dg

il ra lT

latin

450

Quincy Street

Amtrack Train Stations

i Ra

U V

450

Dr ive

Gre

Kenilwo rth Av en u

2) 21

MD d(

oa sR

410

Miles 2.5

A B& W

450

U V ! (

Gal

V U

Stree

ALT

94th

* 1

-34

564

U V

Riverdale Road

Road olis ap

ad Ro on

Purple Line Locally Preferred Alternative

Existing Water Trails Planned Water Trails

! (

410

Tra nch Bra

Metro Green Line Metro Orange Line

201

di s Ad

Metro Blue Line

V U V !U (

bin

Railroad

Federal

Existing Bike Lanes Planned Bike Lanes

Existing Sidepaths Planned Sidepaths

State Protected National Park System

rk w a n Pa llto

f Road Sherif

! !

U V

P a l m er Drive

Parkway

208

Princess Garden

ALT

U V

V U 197

oad lR H il

495

Greenbelt R oa d C

a rk

! (

501

V U

564

ver

d oa

wn R o a ketto

Han o

hi R elp

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

Good Luck Road

POLICY 7: Konterra streets and trail system: • Primary roads are to have sidewalks and designated bike lanes. • Town center streets should reflect the county’s complete streets policy. • The trail system on the perimeter of the town center should connect to Ammendale Road as a shared-use sidepath along Van Dusen Road Extended (A-3).

M-NCPPC Parks

ad Ro

Oliver Street

illu

POLICY 6: Work with the State Highway Administration and the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation to develop a complete streets policy to better accommodate the needs of all users within the right-of-way.

Planned Bike Routes, Shared Use Roads

193

! * !! 1

e gfi rin

POLICY 4: Develop bicycle-friendly roadways in conformance with the latest standards and guidelines, including the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Existing Bike Routes, Shared Use Roads

U V

U ! ! ( ! ( ( 193

! (

POLICY 5: Evaluate new development proposals in the Developed and Developing Tiers for conformance with the complete streets principles.

Existing Hard Surface Trails Hiker/Biker/Equestrian Planned Hard Surface Trails Hiker/Biker/Equestrian Existing Natural Surface Trails (Hiker/Mountain-Biker/Equestrian) Planned Natural Surface Trails (Hiker/Mountain-Biker/Equestrian)

! !

A d e lp d

! (

Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the existing parkland, natural features, historic sites, and recreational opportunities along the Potomac River corridor from surrounding communities

Metzerott Road

Ro a

U V

212

650

POLICY 3:Small area plans within the Developed and Developing Tiers should identify sidewalk retrofit opportunities in order to provide safe routes to school, pedestrian access to mass transit, and more walkable communities.

e Avenue

201

V U U V

ow ie

Road

Complete Streets Policies

am Road B e a v er D

495

POLICY 2: All road frontage improvements and road capital improvement projects within the Developed and Developing Tiers shall be designed to accommodate all modes of transportation. Continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities should be included to the extent feasible and practical.

LEGEND

n y s id

-1

o ad

ry Hill

S un

R der M i ll Pow

§ ¦ ¨

POLICY 1: Provide standard sidewalks along both sides of all new road construction within the Developed and Developing Tiers.

u re

212

Photo courtesy of Oxon Hill Bicycle and Trail Club.

197

Odell Road

U V

2009 MPOT map of trails and bikeways on

Su i

tla n

Ro a

C-633

Advances in active transportation planning since the 2009 MPOT Much has changed in the field of active transportation planning since the 2009 MPOT. And along with it, some of the thinking has changed within the County about which types of walking and biking facilities are appropriate for which

69 Current Conditions Report

corridors. There is increased understanding that factors like traffic speed and volume affect feelings of comfort and safety when walking and biking. Further, we need to consider racial and economic equity when we plan where to improve walking and

biking infrastructure. New national guidelines on active transportation planning also reflect some of these considerations. We will consider these factors in MPOT 2035 to create a shared-use path and bikeway network for the next two decades.

2018 Trails Strategic Plan The Prince George's County Department of Parks and Recreation developed the Strategic Trails Plan to guide trail development and management and create a framework for trail planning and development that can be used countywide. This plan provides guidance related to trail implementation and program development. The plan inventoried paved shared-use paths and natural surface trails and defined a three-tier organizational system, which is shown to the right. The key point of this classification system is that it focuses on the function of the various types of trails. Primary and secondary trails include everything that is used for transportation. The recreation trails (paved and unpaved) are trails that do not serve a transportation function. The plan assessed policies, practices, and activities related to shared-use path, trail, and bikeway maintenance and implementation, and it identified physical and institutional barriers to trail development and opportunities to overcome the barriers.

Primary shared-use paths Primary shared-use paths provide the highest quality recreation and transportation experience, typically in a greenway or park-like setting. They provide a contiguous network throughout the County, and they are part of a regional bicycle and pedestrian pathway system that should link all of the Plan 2035 activity centers.

Secondary shared-use paths and trails Secondary shared-use paths and trails include off-road sidepaths built adjacent to major roads as basic bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. They also include path systems within residential communities and the many spurs and extensions from primary shared-use paths that provide connections.

Recreation trails Recreation trails include paved loop trails in parks and other institutional settings. They also include natural surface (dirt) trails designed for hiking, mountain biking, equestrian use, and general access through natural areas.

Plan action items The Trails Strategic Plan plan recommended six actions for trail development.

• Coordinating trail planning and development • Adopting new policies to improve trail implementation • Managing the park trail network effectively • Maintaining the park trail network • Activating the trail network • Creating trail partnerships

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 70

14. BIKEWAYS

ŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ

2021 Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Implementation Program

This effort combined current pedestrian and bicycle plans into one updated document. It identified priority projects to fund over the next five years with $15 million in local funding plus state and federal grants. The prioritization process used four factors to score and rank projects.

Project prioritization factors Demand

Connectivity

Prioritizes segments where bicycling can potentially occur daily

Prioritizes segments that link existing and proposed facilities

Safety

Equity

Prioritizes segments with a history of bicycleinvolved crashes

Prioritizes segments in active transportation and transitdependent communities

,051 550 1 Proposed Total

Paved

Anacostia River Trail System

Trail and bikeway network mileage Facility type

501 Existing

Primary trails

Secondary trails

120

Recreational trails

153

Bike lanes

Separated bike lanes

71 Current Conditions Report

359

293 235

115 102 34

255

Unpaved

Bikeways

Compos Bikeway

Legend

Existing Trail & Bikewa

495

Proposed Trail & Bikew

¡ 50

* 95

* 495

¡ 301

Composite Bikeways

Legend

Existing Trail & Bikeways Facilities

5 mile

¡ 50

Proposed Trail & Bikeways Facilities

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 72

15. TRANSFORM MODEL

Prince George’s County has a powerful transportation forecasting model, which we call TransForM. We ran TransForM to assess how well the roads in our county accommodate the amount of traffic that uses them, which we measure using level of service, or LOS, where A is best and F is worst.

Clinton, MD

TransForM uses traffic volumes from a "base" year of 2015. We scaled these volumes up to match 2020 pre-pandemic conditions. From here, we used population and employment estimates from a future year, in this case 2045, to estimate future levels of traffic on our roads. We do this by scaling up the 2020 traffic volumes to match anticipated levels of travel that would correspond to the future-year (2045) population and employment.

73 Current Conditions Report

The model assesses traffic in the AM and PM rush hour periods. The traffic volumes that the model projects for 2045 account for demographic changes, transportation projects under construction, and projects with allocated construction funds within the current Prince George’s County Capital Improvement Program and Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program. With all of these factors, the model includes over 7,500 road segments. We use a formula to determine LOS in each direction that uses a ratio of traffic volume by road capacity and the number of lanes. We call this the volume-to-capacity, or V/C, ratio. A V/C ratio measures the level of congestion on a road by comparing the road demand (traffic volumes) with road supply (carrying capacity). We calculated the AM and PM V/C ratios for 2020 and 2045 to determine the

LOS for each road segment in the model network. Prince George's County uses LOS standards that are based on the V/C ratios shown below. LOS measures the perceived quality of the flow of traffic by people driving and is based on experienced travel times and speeds, and predictability of future traffic conditions and waiting times. These standards come from the 2012 Transportation Review Guidelines that the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission publishes.

Level of service (LOS) standards

Prince George's County uses LOS standards based on the V/C ratios shown below: LOS A: LOS B: LOS C: LOS D: LOS E: LOS F:

Lower than 0.275 0.276 – 0.450 0.451 – 0.650 0.651 – 0.845 0.846 – 1.000 Higher than 1.000

Riverdale Park, MD

Modeling results summary 2020

2045

2020 – 2045

729 roads (10 percent) are below the LOS threshold, which suggests high congestion for these roads.

506 roads (seven percent) are oversaturated—operating at LOS E and F. They do not meet the minimum acceptable LOS thresholds and would require additional capacity if we want them to continue to perform at the LOS standards.

From the Base-Year 2020 Existing Conditions LOS (AM) Scenario to the Future-Year (2045) Conditions LOS (AM) Scenario, 144 roads (two percent) shift from meeting the threshold to going below the LOS threshold.

1,789 roads (24 percent) are below the LOS threshold, which suggests high congestion for these roads.

1,387 roads (18 percent) are below the LOS threshold, which suggests capacity additions would be needed for these roads if we want them to continue to perform at the LOS standards.

From the Base-Year 2020 Existing Conditions LOS (PM) Scenario to the Future-Year (2045) Conditions LOS (PM) Scenario, 311 roads (four percent) shift from meeting the threshold to going below the LOS threshold.

Base-year existing conditions LOS

Future-year conditions LOS

Roads where LOS degrades from meeting to not meeting thresholds

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 74

15. TRANSFORM MODEL

2020 to Roads where LOS goes from meeting thresholds in 2020 Degrade to not meeting them in 2045 for the AM rush hour Facilities

¡ 1

Legend

AM Peak LOS Drops Be

495

¡ 50

* 495

301

5 mile 75 Current Conditions Report

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

2020 to Roads where LOS goes from meeting thresholds in 2020 Degrade to not meeting them in 2045 for the PM rush hour Facilities

¡ 1

Legend

PM Peak LOS Drops Be

495

¡ 50

* 495

301

5 mile

Sources: Prince George's Coun Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 76

16. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

Orienting development around transit is good for transit and development. Here is what transit-oriented development can look like in Prince George's County.

Prince George’s County has long strived to leverage its extensive transit network by promoting transitoriented development, or TOD. Transit-oriented development positions moderate-to-dense clusters of development within a short walk of a transit station, usually a quarter- to halfmile. When development is oriented around transit, using transit becomes more convenient, and the development is also easier to access by transit, boosting its economic potential. By orienting development around transit, we can support economic growth and increase transit use at the same time. As part of MPOT 2035, we considered the current potential for TOD in Prince George’s County and the steps we might take for continued support of TOD.

Hyattsville, MD

77 Current Conditions Report

We looked to leading examples of TOD from across the country to identify practices we can bring to Prince George's County. TOD examples we studied Many of the nation's TOD leaders happen to be here in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Denver, Colorado is another front runner. As we examined the practices used in these places, we focused on TOD station-area planning, financing, and implementation with an eye to affordable housing, streamlining the development review process, and joint development between developers and transit agencies or local governments.

Denver, CO Fairfax County, VA

Montgomery County, MD Arlington County, VA

Key findings Establish a shared vision.

Build in community benefits.

Establish a shared vision for TOD with developers and the community through planning documents and policies.

The site plan approval process can be used to negotiate site-specific and countywide benefits.

Require affordable housing.

Update land use plans in station areas.

Affordable housing can be mandatory through setasides or inclusionary zoning.

Leverage zoning. Zoning is an effective tool for allowing greater densities in exchange for developer-provided public amenities and for setting the level of development that is allowed by right.

Performing comprehensive land use plan updates at station areas can generate growth that supports high frequency transit.

Streamline the development process. Making it easier for developers to get their projects approved can lessen the cost and reduce the time it takes for development to happen.

Use typologies to set expectations. TOD typologies can set expectations about future development and guide the desired level and character of development.

Consider partnerships. Public-private partnerships and WMATA's joint development program are ways to leverage investment, achieve intended development types, and encourage TOD at Metrorail, MARC, and Purple Line stations in Prince George's County.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 78

16. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

TOD typologies for Prince George's County TOD type

Existing and candidate TOD sites

Land uses

Regional Transit Districts

• • • •

Moderate- to high-density and intensity regional-serving centers; mix of office, retail, entertainment, public and quasipublic, flex, and medical uses; balance of uses will vary depending on center’s predominant character and function

•

Branch Avenue Metrorail College Park/UMD Metrorail/Purple Line Greenbelt Metrorail Largo Town Center (future Downtown Largo) Metrorail National Harbor New Carrollton Metrorail Prince George’s Plaza (future Hyattsville Crossing) Metrorail Suitland Metrorail

• • • • • • • •

Addison Road Metrorail Capitol Heights Metrorail Cheverly Metrorail Landover Metrorail Takoma-Langley Crossroads Morgan Boulevard Metrorail Naylor Road Metrorail West Hyattsville Metrorail

Smaller-scale, mixed-use centers; local-serving retail and limited office uses; mid-rise and low-rise apartments and condos, townhouses

• • •

Local Transit Centers

Neighborhood • Annapolis Road/Glenridge Centers • Beacon Heights • Muirkirk MARC • Oxon Hill • Port Towns • Riverdale MARC • Riverdale Park • Seabrook MARC • Southern Avenue Metrorail Campus Centers

• • • •

Bowie MARC UMD East UMD Center UMD West

TOD typologies provide a snapshot of the aspirational character for development in the transit station area.

79 Current Conditions Report

Neighborhood-serving retail and office uses; mid-rise and low-rise apartments and condos, townhouses, and small-lot single-family

Low- to medium-density, mixed-use development oriented toward supporting university research, as well as community housing and retail needs, and student housing needs at Bowie MARC; midrise and low-rise apartments, condos, townhouses, and small-lot single family

They set expectations for the type of development and establish a level of magnitude for possible investments. The typologies define station area characteristics including land use mix, street and block pattern, building placement, building height, and the mobility options people use to move around. The typologies account for characteristics such as land uses, zoning, density, multimodal connectivity, and parking supply.

Density

Multimodal connectivity

Parking supply

40+ dwelling units/ acre; 3+ FAR for new commercial development; greater density within a quarter-mile of Metrorail and light rail stations

Metrorail with frequent local feeder connections (bus and shuttle service) and intermodal facilities, commuter rail (Amtrak and MARC services), fixed guideway (light rail and bus rapid transit), and interstate highways and arterials; walkable and bikeable

Parking varies based on site

15-30 dwelling units/ acre; 1.5-3 FAR for new commercial development

Metrorail or light rail and local transit connections with all types of bus service

Potential for localized parking

10-15 dwelling units/ acre; 0.5-2 FAR for new commercial development

Light rail, commuter rail, or local bus hub

Limited or no parkand-ride facilities

10-15 dwelling units/ acre; 0.5-3 FAR for new commercial development

Light or commuter rail, arterial roads, and local/express bus service

Parking varies based on site

Use plans, regulations, and data to consider development factors like available land, permitted land uses and densities, demand and support for development, property ownership, and environmental preservation.

Develop an evaluation matrix that compares the five most promising station areas and a set of pragmatic recommendations to advance the efforts in the next 5 to 15 years.

Next steps for TOD Identify the five most promising station areas for TOD.

Screen sites for high, medium, and low intensity land use and transit mix scenarios.

National Harbor. Oxon Hill, MD

Assess multimodal factors like walkability, bike access, and parking supply.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 80

17. EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES

MPOT 2035 builds on the foundation of past plans and policies.

O R G E’S C O

N N

SIT

E ID W TY

Transportation

We consulted many plans, policies, and studies to help build MPOT 2035. The cover images show which plans helped shape the sections of this Current Conditions Report, as shown by the section numbers and titles below the images.

V ISI O N

Prince George’s County

Transit Vision Plan

Approved

Countywide Master Plan of Transportation

2018 - 2022

November 2009 The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 www.mncppc.org/pgco

2009 Abstract

Master Plan of Transportation TITLE:

Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation

AUTHOR:

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

SUBJECT:

The Master Plan of Transportation for Prince George’s County

DATE:

November 2009

SOURCE OF COPIES:

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772

SERIES NUMBER:

829092405

ABSTRACT:

120

The Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation updates the earlier Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation, which was approved in 1982 and has since been updated by the transportation recommendations in 34 master and sector plans that have been adopted and approved since 1982. The plan was developed with the assistance of the citizens of Prince George’s County; elected officials; and state, regional and local government agencies. The plan’s goals, policies, and strategies seek to ensure an efficient multimodal transportation infrastructure in the county that accommodates the needs of all user groups. Amendments of this plan by future master and sector plans will be reflected on the Countywide Master Plan of Transportation web page at www.mncppc.org/county/Transportation_MP/.

Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation

2018 – 2022

1. Unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way 5. US 301/MD 3 Assessment 6. Transportation Equity Practices 7. Large-Scale Transit Corridors 8. Bus Transit Corridors 9. Performance Measures 11. Sustainability 12. Multimodal Transportation 15. TransForM Model 16. Transit-Oriented Development 17. Existing Plans and Policies

2. High-Congestion/ Low-Transit Corridors 6. Transportation Equity Practices 7. Large-Scale Transit Corridors 8. Bus Transit Corridors 16. Transit-Oriented Development

Plan Prince George's 2035 (Plan 2035)

1. Unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way 3. Special Roadways 5. US 301/MD 3 Assessment 6. Transportation Equity Practices 9. Performance Measures 11. Sustainability 13. CIP and CTP 14. Bikeways 16. Transit-Oriented Development NUMBER OF PAGES:

2014

The County's 37 master, sector, and transit district development plans prepared since 2008 also inform MPOT 2035.

81 Current Conditions Report

Transit Vision Plan

Angela D. Alsobrooks County Executive

Terry L. Bellamy

DPW&T Director

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DRAFT PLAN AS PREPARED BY

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 1, 2021 REVISED NOVEMBER 10, 2021

FY2022 – FY2027

Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program 2022 State Report on Transportation Larry Hogan Governor

Boyd K. Rutherford Lt Governor

James F. Ports, Jr. Secretary

FY2022 – 2027

2021

13. CIP and CTP

1. Unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way 2. High-Congestion/ Low-Transit Corridors 13. CIP and CTP

11. Sustainability

Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program

Capital Improvement Program and Budget

Climate Action Plan

Prince George’s County

$400

Department of Public Works and Transporation Rushern L. Baker, III County Executive

URBAN

Prince George’s County, Maryland

Street Design

Department of Public Works and Transportation Largo, Maryland

STANDARDS

Specifications and Standards for Roadways and Bridges

2012

Darrell B. Mobley Director

AUGUST 2017

TRANSPORTATION REVIEW GUIDELINES • PART 1 • 2012

2017

2012

Specifications and Standards Urban Street Design for Roadways and Bridges Standards 5. US 301/MD 3 Assessment 15. TransForM Model

Transportation Planning Section

Transportation The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Review Guidelines Prince George’s County Planning Department

Revision 03/14/12

Including

Guidelines for the Analysis of the Traffic Impact of Development Proposals

1. Unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way

2. High-Congestion/ Low-Transit Corridors 15. TransForM Model The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 www.pgplanning.org • Phone: 301-952-3084 • TTY: 301-952-4366

^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐ dƌĂŝůƐ WůĂŶ

2020-2022

ACTION PLAN

WĂƌƚ ϭ͗ WůĂŶ ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ͕ WƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ ZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ WĂƌŬƐ ĂŶĚ ZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ WƌŝŶĐĞ 'ĞŽƌŐĞΖƐ ŽƵŶƚǇ͕ DĂƌǇůĂŶĚ

Working together, we can achieve ZERO fatalities on our roadways because EVERY person in our community matters.

2018

Trails Strategic Plan 14. Bikeways

#VisionZeroPrinceGeorges

2020 – 2022

10. Vision Zero

6. Transportation Equity Practices 10. Vision Zero

Strategic Roadway Safety Plan 1MBOOJOH #PBSE BOE 1VCMJD 3FWJFX %SBGU +VMZ

www.VisionZeroPrinceGeorges.com

2017 – 2020

301-883-5600

Vision Zero Action Plan

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 82

MPOT 2035

Appendices

83 Current Conditions Report

14 COLLEGE PARK

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035 84

TASK 6.1

Unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Review of All Unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way The review of all unbuilt master plan rights-of-way includes all roadway classifications that have not yet been built or expanded to the ultimate master plan right-of-way width and cross section. This effort involved reviewing existing content in Table 4 of the 2009 MPOT, providing greater detail on all existing roadways, where available, and inclusion of additional information and details gathered from subsequent area master and sector plans. Using GIS and available aerial mapping, the team determined the existing condition of these roadways (right-of-way widths along critical segments, number of lanes built, key locations such as intersections and pinch points, and identification of changes in development (urban, suburban, and rural)).

Data Collection and Existing Resources M-NCPPC provided a comprehensive list of active master and sector plans in Prince George’s County to be reviewed. A total of 63 plans were provided dating as far back as 1989 and separated into two categories: pre-MPOT 2009 and post-MPOT 2009. This list provided simplified plan names, plan types, plan years, and additional notes for each item as needed. All of the documents were accessed through links provided to the Prince George’s County Planning Department website. Additional Prince George’s County documents were sourced and reviewed outside of the list provided by M-NCPPC. Prince George’s County’s Plan 2035, 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program, and BRT Feasibility Study Report were all reviewed, in addition to a handful of standards created by DPW&T. These documents were all downloaded from appropriate County agency websites .

Findings Table 4 of MPOT 2009 provides a list of roadway facilities with corresponding identification numbers, as well as project limits, proposed right-of-way widths, proposed number of lanes, and the name of the master/sector plan document from which this information was sourced. Reviewing these documents and pulling relevant information was an iterative process intended to make Table 4 and the GIS layers as clear and descriptive as possible. Table 4 as provided in MPOT 2009 and the Updated Table 4 can be found in Attachment A and Attachment B, respectively. The GIS layer can be found in Attachment C. After reviewing a portion of the plans provided by M-NCPPC, it became clear that a large amount of relevant information would need to be added to Table 4. This finding further shifted the focus away from making new evaluations and toward making sure all relevant information was included. All new information was divided into one of three categories: new facilities, new information added to an existing facility, and new information conflicting with an existing facility.

New Facilities A total of 111 facilities were added to Updated Table 4. These facilities appeared for the first time in master and sector plans newer than MPOT 2009. Most new entries fall under the categories of Primary Roads and Urban Center Streets. However, some new Arterial, Major Collector, and Collector roads were found. Table 4 as provided in MPOT 2009 did not include any Secondary

Master Plan Rights-of-Way August 11, 2022

Roads or Urban Center Streets, meaning these categories are entirely composed of new facilities. All new facilities are shown with blue highlights in Updated Table 4. The data in Updated Table 4 is strictly a compilation of recommendations; the status of these projects has not been explored. These entries should be further explored using the companion GIS map to evaluate build status, where applicable. It was not possible to add some details to the GIS map for new facilities where not enough detail was provided to correctly plot them .

New Information Added to Existing Facilities Table 4 as provided in MPOT 2009 contains several facilities where right-of-way widths and lane numbers are presented as a range of values. Where applicable, data from the additional sector and master plans were added to eliminate and further refine these ranges within tighter limits. These facilities maintain the same Road ID/Facility Name and are presented as new items in Updated Table 4. These new entries are shown with purple highlights in Updated Table 4. Table 1 and Table 2 below show an example of this scenario using new information found for A-61 (Crain Highway). Table 1 A-61 in Table 4 as Provided in MPOT 2009 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) & Year of Approval

A-61

Crain Highway

US 301

Old Crain Highway to Collington Road

Varies

4 to 6

Subregion 6-2009

Table 2 A-61 in Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) & Year of Approval

A-61

Crain Highway

US 301

Old Crain Highway to Central Avenue

Varies

4 to 6

Subregion 6-2009

A-61

Crain Highway

US 301

Central Avenue to Mount Oak Road

120

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

A-61

Crain Highway

US 301

Mount Oak Road to Collington Road

Varies

4 to 6

Subregion 6-2009

Table 4 as provided in MPOT 2009 presented A-61 as one line item with Project Limits stretching from Old Crain Highway to Collington Road. With information sourced from the 2022 BowieMitchellville and Vicinity plan, this listing was refined to eliminate the uncertainty about right-ofway width and lane numbers for a segment of this facility. A total of 30 facilities were further refined using this method (some multiple times using several documents). These refinements were most prevalent along larger segments, typically Arterial and Collector roads.

New Information Conflicting with an Existing Facility Several conflicts were identified between Table 4 as provided in MPOT 2009 and the new data sourced from the master and sector plans. These conflicts are shown with red highlights and are 2

Master Plan Rights-of-Way August 11, 2022

given a footnote number that links the two items and provides further explanation in Updated Table 4. A total of eight conflicts were identified, with most of them being an issue of Road ID appearing differently between planning documents. Other conflicts include right-of-way and/or lane width values appearing differently across documents for the same facility. There is one unique conflict pertaining to F-3/F-12 (Intercounty Connector). Table 4 as provided in MPOT 2009 contained a note saying to “delete east of current MDOT ICC project limits.” Upon further investigation, this note is referencing an offshoot of the ICC in the form of a new County road identified as A-44. A-44 has since been removed from master planning efforts because of its environmental impacts, and any Intercounty Connector recommendations will no longer include this.

Updated Table 4 and GIS map Updated Table 4 reflects all roadway recommendations obtained through active Prince George’s County master planning documents. This includes information provided from the County, from the 2009 MPOT, and from the list of additional master and sector plans provided by Staff. Updated Table 4 is meant to be a summary of these recommendations and does not provide any final recommendations or reevaluations. The GIS map contains geometric shapes representing the items listed in Updated Table 4. Each shape represents an independent segment associated with one line item. These shapes are bounded by the existing right-of-way and do not represent the recommended right-of-way widths listed in Updated Table 4. When selected, each shape will show a dialog box noting the recommended right-of-way width and other relevant data from Updated Table 4. The recommended right-of-way widths do not currently account for pinch points where sensitive obstacles and protected properties need to be avoided. In these situations, the roadway centerline may need to be adjusted and impacts to other properties evaluated. The objective of this GIS map is to compare the data in Updated Table 4 with existing conditions to evaluate the major differences and compounding effects. Projects listed in Updated Table 4 may appear in GIS as overlapping segments or in conflict with recent developments. As some facilities in MPOT 2009 were first recommended as far back as 1989, these facilities may have already been built or reconstructed per recommendations newer than MPOT 2009. Updated Table 4 and its companion GIS map identify the recommended roadway projects and improvements currently active throughout Prince George’s County. These are intended to be reviewed further to inform the final roadway recommendations for MPOT 2035 in later tasks.

Attachment A

Table 4 as Provided in 2009 MPOT

Table 4 as Provided in 2009 MPOT Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Right of Way (Feet)

Project Limits

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

Freeways F-1

I-95

Beltway to Howard County

300-400

8+ C-D roads

Subregion I-1990

F-2

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

MD 295

D.C. line to Anne Arundel County

Varies

4 to 6

Bladensburg-1994

F-3

Intercounty Connector

MD 200

Montgomery County line to Baltimore Avenue

200-300

Subregion I-1990 Bowie 2006 MPOT: Delete east of current MDOT ICC project limits

F-4

John Hanson Highway

F-5

I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway

US 50/ US 301 I-95 /I495 MD 4

DC line to Anne Arundel County

300

6 to 8

Bowie - 2006

Montgomery County line to Woodrow Wilson Bridge

300

8 to 12

Heights - 2000 Westphalia - 2007

F-6

Pennsylvania Avenue Extended

Beltway to Anne Arundel County

300

6 to 8

F-7

Suitland Parkway

NPS Facility

DC line to Pennsylvania Avenue

Varies

4 to 6

Heights - 2000

F-8

Anacostia Freeway

I-295

I-95/I-495 to DC Line

120-200

4 to 6

Heights - 2000

F-9

Branch Avenue

MD 5

Charles County Line to Beltway

300

6 to 8^10

Subregion 5-2009

F-10

Crain Highway

US 301/ MD 3

Charles County to Anne Arundel County (See MD 5) ^11

300 - 450

6 to 8

Subregion 5-2009

F-11

Indian Head Highway

MD 210

Berry Road to Beltway

Varies

6 to 8

Henson Creek - 2006

Expressways E-1

Central Avenue

MD 214

Beltway to Anne Arundel County

150-200

4 to 8

Bowie - 2006

E-3

Pennsylvania Avenue Extended

MD 4

DC Line to Beltway

200

4 to 6

Suitland - 1985

E-4

Branch Avenue

MD 5

Beltway to DC Line

200-300

4 to 6

E-5

Indian Head Highway

MD 210

Charles County to Berry Road

250

Subregion 5-2009

E-6

Landover Road/Largo Road

MD 202

Pennsylvania Avenue/Crain Highway to Barlowe Road

150-200

4 to 8

Landover Gateway-2009

E-7

Berry Road

MD 228

Indian Head Highway to Charles County

250

Subregion 5-2009 MPOT-2009

Heights - 2000

Arterials A-1

Sandy Spring Road

Montgomery County to Anne Arundel County (outside City of Laurel)

120-150

A-2

Cherry Lane

MD 198

Kenilworth Avenue to Laurel-Bowie Road

120

Subregion I-1990

A-3

Van Dusen Road Extended

Virginia Manor Road to A-59

120

Subregion I-1990

A-4

Laurel-Bowie Road

Baltimore-Washington Parkway to City of Laurel

120-200

Subregion I-1990 MPOT Recommendation

A-6

Contee Road Extended

80-120

4 and 6

MPOT-2009

A-8

Powder Mill Road

MD 212

80-120

2 and 6

MPOT-2009

A-9

Baltimore Avenue

US 1

Beltway to City of Laurel

100-120

Subregion I-1990

A-10

Adelphi road

East West Highway to Montgomery County

100-120

Langley Park -1989

A-11

New Hampshire Avenue

MD 650

DC Line to East West Highway and University Boulevard to Montgomery County

100-120

Langley Park -1989

A-12

Riggs Road

MD 212

DC Line to University Boulevard

120

Langley Park -1989

A-13

Queens Chapel Road

MD 500

DC Line to East West Highway

120

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

A-14

Kenilworth Avenue

MD 201

Baltimore Washington Parkway to Sunnyside Avenue

90-120

4 to 6

College Park TDDP-1997

MD 197

Old Gunpowder Road to Sweitzer Lane - 4 lanes; Sweitzer Lane to Baltimore Avenue - 6 lanes Montgomery County to Collier Road - 2 lanes; Collier Road to Ammendale Road - 6 lanes

A-15

East West Highway/Veterans Parkway

MD 410

New Hampshire Avenue to Pennsy Drive

100-120

4 to 6

Landover - 1993

A-16

University Boulevard/ Greenbelt Road/Glenn Dale Boulevard

MD 193

Montgomery County to Annapolis Road

120-200

4 to 6

Greenbelt-2001

A-17

Bladensburg Road

US Alt 1

DC Line to Kenilworth Ave

120

4 to 6

1982 MPOT

A-18

Annapolis Road

MD 450

Kenilworth Avenue to Lanham-Severn Road

120

Glenn Dale-1993

A-19

Lanham-Severn Road

MD 564

Annapolis Road to Springfield Road

120

4 to 6

Glenn Dale-1993

A-20

Landover Road

MD 202

Annapolis Road to Barlowe Road

120

Landover-1993

A-21

Sheriff Road

A-22

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

A-23

Annapolis Road

MD 450

Lanham-Severn Road to Crain Highway

A-24

Collington Road/ Laurel Bowie Road

MD 197

US 301 to Baltimore-Washington Parkway

A-25

Mitchellville Road

Mt. Oak Road to Collington Road

A-26

Lottsford Road/Woodmore Road/ Mt Oak Road

A-27

Watkins Park Road/ Enterprise Road

A-29

Evarts Street/Campus Way

A-30 A-31 A-32 A-33

MD 704

MD 193

Bishop Peebles Drive/Arena Drive/Lake Arbor Way Ritchie road/Morgan Boulevard/FedEx Way Redskins Road/Brightseat Road E. Capitol Street/Central Avenue

MD 214

Addison Road South

DC Line to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

100-120

Landover-1993

DC Line to Annapolis Road

120-150

4 to 6

Glenn Dale-1993

120-150

4 to 6

Bowie - 2006

120

4 to 6

Bowie-2006; Limits include former C-107; MPOT Recommendation

120

4 to 6

Bowie-2006

Largo Drive W to Mitchellville Road

80-150

4 to 6

Bowie-2006

Largo Road to Annapolis Road

120-200

Largo-1990

Brightseat Road to Harry S Truman Drive

120

4 to 6

Morgan Boulevard-2004

FedEx Way to Campus Way

120-150

Morgan Boulevard-2004

Walker Mill Road to Evarts Street

120

Morgan Boulevard-2004

DC Line to Beltway

120-150

6 to 8

Morgan Boulevard-2004

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

120

4 to 6

Addison Road-2000

A-34

Brooks Drive

Pennsylvania Avenue to Addison Road

120

4 to 6

Addison Road-2000

A-35

Walker Mill Road

Silver Hill Road to Beltway

120

4 to 6

Suitland - 1985

A-36

White House Road/Ritchie Marlboro Road

Beltway to Largo Road

120-140

6 to 8

Westphalia - 2007

A-37

Westphalia Road

Pennsylvania Avenue to MC-634

120-140

6 to 8

Westphalia - 2007

A-38

Harry S Truman Drive

White House Road to Largo Drive West (C-346)

80-120

4 to 6

Morgan Boulevard-2000

A-39

Ritchie Marlboro Road

Pennsylvania Avenue to White House Road at Harry S Truman Drive

100-120

4 to 6

Westphalia - 2007

A-40

Silver Hill Road

Branch Avenue to Walker Mill Road

120

4 to 6

Suitland - 1985

A-41

Suitland Road

Silver Hill Road to Allentown Road

89-120

4 to 6

Heights - 2000

A-42

Ager Road

Queens Chapel Road to East West Highway

100

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

A-43

Naylor Road

MD 637

DC Line-Branch Avenue

100-200

Heights - 2000

A-45

St. Barnabas Road

MD 414

Beltway to Silver Hill Road

120

4 to 6

Heights - 2000

A-46

Temple Hill Road

Capital Beltway to Tinkers Creek

120

4 to 6

Henson -2006

MD 458

A-48

Oxon Hill Road

MD 414

Beltway to I-295 Off-Ramp

146-154

4 to 6

A-49

Indian Head Highway

MD 210

Beltway to DC Line

Varies

4 to 6

Heights - 2000

A-50

Allentown Road

MD 337

Branch Avenue to Suitland Parkway

100-120

4 to 6

Henson - 2006

A-51

Allentown Road

Brinkley Road to Branch Avenue

120-150

4 to 6

Henson -2006

A-52

Dower House Road/Dower House Road Extended

Foxley Road to A-66

120

Melwood - 1994

A-53

Woodyard Road

Branch Avenue to Presidential Parkway

120-150

4 to 6

Melwood - 1994

MD 223

Henson - 2006

A-54

Piscataway Road/Woodyard/ Road/Livingston Road/ Farmington Road East

MD 223

Indian Head Highway to Branch Avenue (study corridor from Temple Hill Road to Branch Avenue)

Varies (120 min)

4 to 8

Subregion 5-2009

A-55

Accokeek Road/Livingston Road

MD 373

Indian Head Highway to A-63

Varies (120 min)

Subregion 5-2009

A-56

Kenilworth Avenue/Edmonston Road/Virginia Manor Road/Van Dusen Road

MD 201

Sunnyside Avenue to City of Laurel

120-150

4 to 6

Subregion I-1990

A-57

Piney Branch Road

MD 320

Montgomery County to New Hampshire Avenue

100-120

Langley Park -1989

ICC to Contee Road Extended

120

Subregion I-1990

Old Crain Highway to Collington Road

Varies

4 to 6

Subregion 6-2009

Crain Highway to Brandywine Road

120

Subregion 5-2009

A-59

Mall Road

A-61

Crain Highway

A-63

Brandywine Employment Spine Road

US 301

Page 1 of 5

Table 4 as Provided in 2009 MPOT Road ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Freeways Charles County to F-9 north of A-63

200

5 to 8

Subregion 5-2009

Piscataway road to Branch Avenue

80-120

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2009

Route ID

A-64

Crain Highway

US 301

A-65

Old Fort Road Extended

A-66

Presidential Parkway

MC 637 to Woodyard Road

100-140

4 to 6

Westphalia - 2007

A-67

Suitland Parkway Extended

Pennsylvania Avenue to MC 634

120-140

6 to 8

Westphalia - 2007

A-68

New Arterial

A-69

Branch Avenue

MD 5

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

Facility Name

Oxon Hill road to Brinkley Road

100

Henson Creek - 2006

DC line to St. Barnabas Road

120-150

Branch Ave. Corridor-2008

Major Collectors MC-200

Baltimore Avenue

Guilford Drive to Beltway

90-110

College Park- 2002

MC-300

Church Road

US 1

Oak Grove Road to Annapolis Road

Bowie-2006

MC-417

Evarts Street/Ruby Lockhart Way

Brightseat Road to St. Joseph's Drive

90-110

Landover Gateway-2009

MC-418

Campus Way North

Woodmore Town Center to Ruby Lockhart Way

90-110

Landover Gateway-2009

MC-500

Hagan Road/Temple Hill Road

Piscataway Road to Tinkers Creek; St. Barnabas Road to I-95/I-495

80-100

Subregion 5-2009

MC-501

Old Alexandria Ferry Road

Woodyard Road to Branch Avenue

80-100

Subregion 5-2009

MC-502

General Lafayette Boulevard/McKendree Road (West Brandywine Spine Road)

Branch Avenue to A-55

100

Subregion 5-2009

MC-503

Matapeake Business Drive

A-55 (south of Timothy Branch) to A-55 (at A-63)

100

Subregion 5-2009

MC-600

Oak Grove Road/Leeland Road

MD 193 to US 301

100

Bowie-2006

MC-601

Heathermore Boulevard

MC-602 to East Marlton Avenue

120

Subregion 6-2009

MC-602

New Major Collector

Old Crain Highway to Croom Road

100

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

MC-631

Suitland Parkway Extended

MC-634 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road

100

MC-632

Westphalia Boulevard

MC-631 to A-66

100

Westphalia - 2007

MC-634

Presidential Parkway Extended

A-66 to White House Road

100

Westphalia - 2007

MC-635

D'Arcy Road Extended

MC-637 to MC-631

100

Westphalia - 2007

MC-637

New Road

A-66 to MC-632

100

Westphalia - 2007

MC-700

Palmer Road/Tucker Road

Indian Head Highway to Allentown Road (C-718)

90-100

Henson-2006

MC-701

Brinkley Road

St. Barnabas Road to Allentown Road

80-116

2 to 4

Henson-2006

MC-702

Allentown Road

Allentown Road (C-718) to Brinkley Road

90-100

Henson-2006

MC-703

Old Fort Road North/Old Fort Road East

Livingston Road to Piscataway Road

80-100

Henson-2006

Westphalia - 2007

Collectors C-101

New Road

A-3 to Kenilworth Avenue Extended

Subregion I-1990

C-102

New Road

A-3 to Contee Road Extended

Subregion I-1990

C-105

Sweitzer lane

Contee Road to Sandy Road

Subregion I-1990

C-106

Contee Road

Baltimore Avenue to Laurel Bowie Road

C-107

Old Gunpowder Road

Powder Mill Road to Sandy Spring Road

Subregion I-1990

C-108

Old Baltimore Pike/Cedarhurst Drive

Kenilworth Avenue Extended to north of Alloway Lane

Subregion I-1990

C-109

Muirkirk Road

A-3 to Laurel-Bowie Road

Subregion I-1990

C-110

Greencastle Road

Montgomery County to Old Gunpowder Road

MPOT-2009

C-111

Ammendale Road

Virginia Manor Road to Baltimore Avenue

Subregion I-1990

C-112

Powder Mill Road

Old Gunpowder Road to Baltimore Avenue - 2 lanes; Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue Extended - 4 lanes

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-113

Bond Mill Road

Sandy Spring Road to Brooklyn Bridge Road

MPOT-2009

C-117

Brooklyn Bridge Road

Bond Mill road to City of Laurel

MPOT-2009

C-118

Rhode Island Avenue

Greenbelt Road to Quimby Avenue

MPOT-2009

C-120

Sunnyside Avenue

Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

80-120

4 to 6

Greenbelt-2001

C-123

Beltsville Drive

Calverton Boulevard to Powder Mill Road

Subregion I-1990

C-132

Montpelier Drive

Muirkirk Road to Laurel-Bowie Road

MPOT-2009 MPOT-2009

C-133

Subregion I-1990

Briggs Chaney Road

Montgomery County to Old Gunpowder Road

C-134

Calverton Boulevard

Montgomery County to Beltsville Drive

C-200

Sargent Road

DC Line to Riggs Road

Langley Park -1989

C-201

Cherry Hill Road

Montgomery County to Baltimore Avenue

College Park- 2002

Subregion I-1990

C-202

Paint Branch Parkway

Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

80-100

College Park- 2002

C-203

Campus Drive/Mowatt Lane/ Guilford Drive

Adelphi Road to Baltimore Avenue

80-100

College Park- 2002

C-204

River Road

Paint Branch Parkway to Kenilworth Avenue

College Park TDDP-1997

C-205

Charles Armentrout Drive

Baltimore Avenue to Rhode Island Avenue

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

C-206

North South Connector

80-100

2 to 5

Greenbelt-2001

C-207

Riggs Road

80-100

4 and 2

MPOT-2009

C-208

Cherrywood Lane

C-209

Rhode Island Avenue/Baltimore Avenue

C-210 C-211

MD 212

Greenbelt Road to Greenbelt Metrorail Station and C-206 to Cherrywood Lane University Boulevard to Adelphi Road- 4 lanes; Adelphi Road to Powder Mill Road - 2 lanes Greenbelt Road to Kenilworth Avenue Extended

80-100

2 to 4

Greenbelt-2001

DC Line to Guilford Drive

80-110

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

Brae Brooke Drive

Hanover Parkway to Cipriano Road

Langley Park -1989

Hanover Parkway

Good Luck Road to Greenbelt Road

80-120

Langley Park -1989

C-212

Mandan Road

Brae Brooke Drive to Greenbelt Road

Langley Park -1989

C-213

Ivy Lane

Cherrywood Lane to Kenilworth Avenue Extended

Langley Park -1989

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

C-214

Chillum Road

US 1

DC Line to Queens Chapel Road

C-215

Decatur Street

Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

C-218

Metzerott Road

MD 501

New Hampshire Avenue to University Boulevard

MPOT-2009

C-220

Ellin Road/85th Avenue

Annapolis Road to East West Highway

60-80

2 to 4

Bladensburg-1994

C-221

Riverdale Road

East West Highway to Annapolis Road

2 to 4

Bladensburg-1994

C-222

Quincy Street/52nd Avenue

Kenilworth Avenue to 48th Street

2 to 4

Bladensburg-1994

C-223

57th Avenue

Annapolis Road to Emerson Street

2 to 4

Bladensburg-1994

C-224

Baltimore Avenue

Annapolis Road to US 1

Varies

Bladensburg-1994

C-225

Cooper Lane

Old Landover Road to Annapolis Road

2 to 4

Bladensburg-1994

C-226

Ardwick-Ardmore Road

C-227

Greenbelt Road

C-229

Belcrest Road

C-230

Hamilton Street

C-234

38th Street

C-301

High Bridge Road/ Chestnut Avenue

Annapolis Road to 11th Street

50-80

2 to 4

Bowie-2006

C-302

Fairwood Parkway

Annapolis Road to Church Road

Bowie-2006

C-303

Old Chapel Road

High Bridge Road to Laurel-Bowie Road

Bowie-2006

C-304

Mitchellville Road

Mount Oak Road to Crain Highway

Bowie-2006

C-305

Mount Oak Road

Mitcheville Road to Crain Highway

Bowie-2006

C-306

Northview Drive

Mitcheville Road to New Haven Drive

Bowie-2006

C-307

Excalibur Road

Evergreen Parkway to Crain Highway (A-61)

Bowie-2006

C-308

Mitchellville Road

Collington Road to Renaissance Center

Bowie-2006

US Alt 1

MD 430

MD 208

Annapolis Road to south of Elsie Court

US 1 to MD 193

Queens Chapel Road to Adelphi Road

100

PG Plaza - 1998

Jamestown Road to 38th Avenue

80-100

2 to 4

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

Bladensburg Road to Rhode Island Avenue

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

Page 2 of 5

Bladensburg-1994 Langley Park -1989

Table 4 as Provided in 2009 MPOT Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Right of Way (Feet)

Project Limits

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval Bowie-2006

C-309

Melford Boulevard

Crain Highway to MD Science andFreeways Tech Center (Melford)

C-310

Race Track Road

Annapolis Road to Old Chapel Road

C-311

Old Chapel Road

Laurel-Bowie Road to Race Track Road

Bowie-2006

C-312

Duckettown Road

Springfield Road to Chestnut Avenue

Bowie-2006

C-313

Old Laurel-Bowie Road

Laurel-Bowie Road to 9th Street

50-80

2 to 4

Bowie-2006

C-314

Lanham-Severn Road/9th Street/ 11th Street/Race Track Road

Springfield Road to Jericho Park Road

2 to 4

Bowie-2006

C-315

Race Track Road/Jericho Park Road

Old Chapel Road to Laurel-Bowie Road

2 to 4

Bowie-2006

C-322

Springfield Road

Lanham-Severn Road to Good Luck Road

Bowie-2006

C-327

Princess Garden Parkway

Annapolis Road to Good Luck Road

Glenn Dale-1993

C-328

Cipriano Road

Lanham-Severn Road to Greenbelt Road

Glenn Dale-1993

C-329

Whitfield Chapel Road

Ardwick-Ardmore Road to Annapolis Road

Glenn Dale-1993

C-338

Glenn Dale Road

C-339

Forbes Boulevard

C-340 C-341

MD 564

Annapolis Road to Enterprise Road

2 to 4

Glenn Dale-1993

Lottsford-Vista Road to Lanham-Severn Road

Glenn Dale-1993

Relocated Forbes Boulevard

Lanham-Severn Road to Greenbelt Road

Glenn Dale-1993

Good Luck Road

Kenilworth Avenue to Springfield Road

2 to 4

East Glenn Dale-2005

C-342

Prospect Hill Road/Fletchertown Road

Glenn Dale Boulevard to High Bridge Road

2 to 4

Bowie-2006

C-343

Hillmeade Road

Annapolis Road to Fletchertown Road

2 to 4

Bowie-2006

C-344

Lottsford-Vista Road

Lottsford Road to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

Morgan Boulevard-2004

C-345

McCormick Road/St. Joseph's Drive

Lottsford Road to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

70-120

Morgan Boulevard-2004

C-346

Harry S Truman Drive/Largo Drive W/Largo Center Drive

Arena Drive to Arena Drive (Loop Road0

80-100

Morgan Boulevard-2004

C-347

Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway to Lottsford- Vista Road

2 to 4

Largo-1990

C-348

Mount Lubentia Way

Harry S Truman Drive to Largo Road

Largo-1990

C-349

Kettering Drive/Lake Arbor Way

Largo Road to Campus Way North

2 to 4

Largo-1990

C-374

Carter Avenue

Annapolis Road to Lanham-Severn Road

Glenn Dale-1993

C-376

Bell Station Road

Glenn Dale Boulevard to Annapolis Road

Glenn Dale-1993

C-400

Brightseat Road

Evarts Street to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Landover Gateway-2009

C-401

Barlowe road/Evarts Street

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway to Brightseat Road

Landover Gateway-2009

C-402

Pennsy Drive

Landover Road to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Landover-1993

C-403

75th Avenue

Landover Road to Pennsy Drive

Landover-1993

C-404

Marblewood Avenue

Sheriff Road to Columbia Park Road

Landover-1993

C-405

Sheriff Road

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway to Redskins Road

2 to 4

Landover-1993

C-406

Belle Haven Drive/Hill Oaks Road/Nalley Road

FedEx Way to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

70-80

MPOT-2009

C-407

Hill Road

Central Avenue to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

Morgan Boulevard-2004

C-408

Addison Road

DC Line to Central Avenue

70-80

Addison Road-2000

C-409

Central Avenue/Old Central Avenue

MD 953

MD 322

DC Line to Addison Road

2 to 4

Addison Road-2000

C-410

Marlboro Pike

DC Line to Forestville Road

80-100

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

C-411

Columbia Park Road

John Hanson Highway to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

2 to 4

Landover-1993

C-412

Brightseat Road

C-413

Garden City Drive

C-414

Shady Glen Drive

C-415

Suitland Road

MD 950 MD218

Central Avenue to Redskins Road

Landover-1993

Ardwick-Ardmore Road to Beltway ramps

Landover-1993

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

2 to 4

Morgan Boulevard-2004

DC Line to Silver Hill Road

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

C-416

Cattail Creek Drive

Evarts Street to MD 202

Landover Gateway-2009

C-422

Brooks Drive

Silver Hill Road to Pennsylvania Avenue

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

C-423

Regency Parkway

Marlboro Pike to Suitland Road

80-100

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

C-424

Walters Lane

Cul-de-sac to Pennsylvania Avenue

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

C-425

Donnell Drive

Pennsylvania Avenue to Marlboro Pike

100

Suitland - 1985

C-426

Ritchie Road/Forestville Road

Allentown Road to Walker Mill Road

2 to 4

C-427

Walker Mill Road

Marlboro Pike to Silver Hill Road

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

C-428

Rollins Avenue/Suffolk Avenue

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

2 to 4

Addison Road-2000 Addison Road-2000

Suitland - 1985

C-429

Karen Boulevard

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

2 to 4

C-510

Dangerfield Road

Surratts Road to Woodyard Road; (4 lanes only at approaches to the intersection with Woodyard Road)

Subregion 5-2009

C-511

Coventry Way

Old Branch Avenue to Old Alexandria Ferry Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-512

Kirby Road

Temple Hill Road to Old Branch Avenue

Subregion 5-2009

C-513

Old Branch Avenue/Brandywine Road

Floral Park Road to Branch Avenue to Kirby Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-514

Surratts Road Extended

Piscataway Road to Brandywine Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-515

Temple Hill Road Extended

Piscataway Road to C-514

Subregion 5-2009

C-516

Steed Road

Piscataway Road to Allentown Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-517

Shady Oak Parkway

Branch Avenue to Dyson road

Subregion 5-2009

C-518

Hyde Field/Edelen Collector Facility

MC-703 to Steed Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-519

Gallahan Road

Piscataway Road to Old Fort Road South

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2009 Subregion 5-2009

C-520

Windbrook Drive

Floral Park Road to Piscataway Road

C-521

Thrift Road

Windbrook Drive to Brandywine Road

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2009

C-522

Floral Park Road

Piscataway Road to Brandywine Road

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2009

C-523

Livingston Road

Piscataway Road to Indian Head Highway

Subregion 5-2009

C-524

Livingston Road/Bealle Hill Road

Farmington Road East to Accokeek Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-525

Livingston Road

Indian Head Highway (Independence Road) to Indian Head Highway (at MD373)

Subregion 5-2009

C-526

Manning Road Relocated

Indian Head Highway to Accokeek Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-527

Accokeek Road

A-55 to Floral Park Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-528

Dyson Road

A-63 to Cherry Tree Crossing Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-529

Farmington Road West

Livingston Road to Indian Head Highway

Subregion 5-2009

C-530

Berry Road

Accokeek Road to Livingston Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-531

Danville Road

Accokeek Road to Floral Park Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-532

Gardner Road

Charles County to Accokeek Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-533

Tippett Road

Thrift Road to Piscataway Road

Subregion 5-2009

C-602

Brown Station Road

Old Marlboro Pike to White House Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-603

Old Crain Highway

MD-602 to Old Marlboro Pike

Subregion 6-2009

C-604

Old Marlboro Pike

Woodyard Road to Brown Station Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-605

William Beanes Road Ext

Woodyard Road to Old Crain Highway

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-606

Osborne Road/Osborne Road Relocated

MC-602 to Woodyard Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-607

Rosaryville Road

MC-602 to Woodyard Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-608

Duley Station Road

MC-602 to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-609

Surratts Road

Brandywine Road to Frank Tippett Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

Page 3 of 5

Table 4 as Provided in 2009 MPOT Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Project Limits Freeways

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

C-610

Frank Tippett Road/Cherry Tree Crossing Road

A-63 to Rosaryville Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-611

East Marlton Avenue

Duley Station Road to Heathermore Boulevard

Subregion 6-2009

C-612

Grand haven Avenue

MC-602 to Heathermore Boulevard

Subregion 6-2009

C-613

Brandywine Road/Aquasco Road

A-63 to Charles County Line

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-614

Dille Drive/Dille Drive Extended

Brown Station Road to Ritchie Marlboro Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-615

Croom Road

Charles County to MC-602

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-616

North Keys Road

Brandywine Road to Molly Berry Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-617

Cedarville Road

A-55 to Brandywine Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-618

Candy Hill Road

Molly Berry Road to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-619

Baden-Westwood Road/Bald Eagle School Road/Westwood Road

Aquasco Road to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-620

Molly Berry Road

Candy Hill Road to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-621

Eagle Harbor Road

Aquasco Road to Trueman Point Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-622

Doctor Bowen Road

Charles County to Aquasco Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-623

Horsehead Road

Charles County to Aquasco Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-624

Cross Road Trail

Cherry Tree Crossing Road to North Keys Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-626

Westphalia Road/Old Marlboro Pike

A-37 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road Pennsylvania Avenue to Suitland Parkway

2 to 4

Westphalia - 2007

C-627

D'Arcy Road

MC-631 to Ritchie Road

Westphalia - 2007

C-628

Dower House Road/McCormick Road

Foxley Road to Woodyard Road

Melwood - 1994

C-629

Old Marlboro Pike/Marlboro Pike

Dower House Road to Woodyard Road

Melwood - 1994

C-630

Sansbury Road

D'Arcy Road to MC 634

2 to 4

Westphalia - 2007

C-633

Brown Road

Ritchie Marlboro Road to Brown Station Road

Melwood - 1994

C-700

Livingston Road

Oxon Hill Road to Indian Head Highway at Forest Heights

Henson-2006

C-701

Owens Road

DC Line-Wheeler Road

Heights - 2000

C-702

Iverson Street

Owens Road to Branch Avenue

100

Heights - 2000

C-703

Wheeler Road

DC Line to St. Barnabas Road

Heights - 2000

C-704

23rd Parkway

DC Line to St. Barnabas Road

80-120

Heights - 2000 Heights - 2000

MD 382

C-705

Auth Road

Branch Avenue to Allentown Road

2 to 4

C-706

Auth Road

Auth Road to Capital Gateway

Heights - 2000

C-707

Auth Way

Branch Avenue to Capital Gateway

2 to 4

Heights - 2000

C-708

Oxon Hill Road

National Harbor/I-295 Off Ramp to Livingston Road

Henson-2006

C-709

Kerby Hill Road

Oxon Hill Road to Indian Head Highway

Henson-2006

C-710

Livingston Road

Oxon Hill Road/Old Fort Road North to Indian Head Highway at Palmer Road

Henson-2006

C-711

St. Barnabas Road

Livingston Road to A-68

Henson-2006

C-712

Bock Road

Tucker Road to Livingston Road

Henson-2006

C-715

Barrowfield Road

St. Barnabas Road to Brinkley Road

C-716

Old Branch Avenue

Tinkers Creek to Sharon Road

2 to 4

Henson-2006

C-718

Allentown Road

Old Fort Road North to Tucker Road

2 to 4

Henson-2006

C-719

Old Fort Pace/Old Fort Road South

Allentown Road to Livingston Road

Henson-2006

C-721

Old Fort Road South/Washington Lane

Fort Washington Road to Livingston Road

Henson-2006

C-722

Fort Washington Road

Fort Washington Park to Indian Head Highway

2 to 4

Henson-2006

C-723

Swan Creek Road

Fort Washington Road to Indian Head Highway

2 to 4

Henson-2006

C-724

Livingston Road

Swan Creek Road to Fort Washington Road

Henson-2006

C-725

Tucker Road

Palmer Road to St. Barnabas Road

Henson-2006

C-726

Livingston Road

A-68 to Indian Head Highway at Kerby Hill Road

Henson-2006

C-727

New Road

Bock Road to 800 feet north of Oxon Hill Road

240

Henson-2006

C-728

Branch Avenue Metro Connector Road

Branch Avenue to Branch Avenue Metro Station

44596

MPOT-2009

College Park- 2002

Henson-2006

Primary Roads P-200

Autoville Drive North

Cherry Hill Road to Hollywood Road

P-201

Auburn Avenue

Riverdale Road to Good Luck Road

Bladensburg-1994

P-202

Toledo Road

Belcrest Road to Adelphi Road

PG Plaza - 1998

P-203

Toledo Terrace

East West Highway to Belcrest Road

PG Plaza - 1998

P-204

Nicholson Street

Lancer Drive to Queens Chapel Road

PG Plaza - 1998 Bladensburg-1994

P-205

Edmonston Road

Annapolis Road to Kenilworth Avenue

P-206

Carters Lane

Kenilworth Avenue to Greenvale Parkway

Bladensburg-1994

P-207

Cheverly Avenue

Columbia Park Road to Landover Road

2 to 4

Bladensburg-1994

P-208

Lamont Drive

Riverdale Road to Good Luck Road

Bladensburg-1994

P-209

Finns Lane

Annapolis Road to Riverdale Road

2 to 4

New Carrollton-1989

P-210

Harkins Road

Annapolis Road to Ellin Road/85th Avenue

New Carrollton-1989

P-300

Hall Road

Central Avenue at Jennings Mill Drive to Central Avenue west of Pennsbury

Bowie-2006

P-301

Hillmeade Road Extended

Fairwood Parkway to Annapolis Road

Bowie-2006

P-302

Daisy Lane

Glenn Dale Boulevard to Hillmeade Road

East Glenn Dale-2006

P-303

Northern Avenue

Good Luck Road to Greenbelt Road

East Glenn Dale-2006

P-400

Main Street

Central Avenue to Rollins Avenue

Addison Road-2000

P-401

M-NCPPC Access Road

Morgan Boulevard to M-NCPPC Property

Morgan Boulevard-2004

P-402

Walker Mill Drive/Old Ritchie Road

Shady Glen Road to Ritchie Road

Morgan Boulevard-2004

P-500

Bealle Hill Road

Berry Road to Accokeek Road

Subregion 5-2009

P-501

Manning Road East

Livingston Road to Berry Road

Subregion 5-2009 Subregion 5-2009

P-503

Pinta Street Extended

Kirby Road to Chris-Mar Avenue

P-504

McKendree Road

C-502 to A-55

Subregion 5-2009

P-600

Water Street

Pennsylvania Avenue to Main Street

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

P-601

Governor Oden Bowie Drive/Ring Road

Water Street to Main Street

Subregion 6-2009

P-602

Largo Road

Ring Road to E-6

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

MD 717 MD 202

P-603

Wallace Lane

MC-602 to Midland Turn

Subregion 6-2009

P-604

Tam-O-Shanter Drive

Wallace Lane to Muirfield Drive

Subregion 6-2009

P-605

Midland Turn

Fairhaven Avenue to Wallace Lane

Subregion 6-2009

P-606

Trumps Hill Road

Heathermore Boulevard to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

P-607

US 301 Service Road

Frank Tippett Road to Rosaryville Road

Subregion 6-2009

P-608

Marlboro Pike

P-602 to A-61

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

P-609

Chrysler Way Extended

E-6 to Marlboro Pike

Subregion 6-2009

P-610

Brooke Lane

Ritchie Marlboro Road to Brown Station Road

Melwood - 1994

P-613

Soueid Street Connector

Andris Street to Risen Star Drive

Melwood - 1994

P-614

Richmanor Terrace Extended

Richmanor Terrace to Marlboro Pike Relocated

Melwood - 1994

MD 725

Page 4 of 5

Table 4 as Provided in 2009 MPOT Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Right of Way (Feet)

Project Limits Freeways

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

P-615

New Road/Bridle Ridge Road

P-617 to MC-632

60-70

Westphalia - 2007

P-616

New Road

MC-631 to Westphalia Road

60-70

Westphalia - 2007

P-617

New Road/North Riding Road

P-616 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road

60-70

Westphalia - 2007

P-618

New Road/Marlboro Ridge Road

P-615 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road

60-70

Westphalia - 2007

P-619

New Road

P-615 to MC-631

Westphalia - 2007

Industrial Roads Old Baltimore Pike Extended

Maryland Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue Extended

I-101

Ammendale Road

Industrial Park Property to Old Baltimore Pike

2 to 4

Subregion I-1990

I-102

I-100

Odell Road

Maryland Avenue to Edmonston Road

70 70

2 to 4

Subregion I-1990

I-103

Cook Road/Maryland Avenue Extended

Powder Mill Road to Odell Road

2 to 4

Subregion I-1990

I-108

Bauer Lane Extended

Contee Road Extended to Sandy Springs Road

2 to 4

Subregion I-1990

I-111

Chevy Chase Drive

Bauer Lane Extended to Sweitzer Lane

2 to 4

Subregion I-1990

I-112

Frost Place

Bauer Lane Extended to Sweitzer Lane

2 to 4

Subregion I-1990

I-200

Branchville Industrial Access Road

Greenbelt Road to 51st Place

Langley Park -1989

I-202

54th Avenue Replacement/Ballew Avenue

Branchville Road to 900 ft. south of Berwyn Road

Langley Park -1989

I-203

Riverdale Road

Kenilworth Avenue to East West Highway

Bladensburg-1994

I-204

Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street

B-W Parkway Ramp to Cheverly Avenue

Tuxedo Road-2005

I-205

48th Street

Kenilworth Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

Bladensburg-1994

I-206

Tanglewood Drive/Buchanan Street

Alt US 1 to Kenilworth Avenue

Bladensburg-1994

I-207

46th Avenue

Decatur Street to Lafayette Place

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

I-208

Rivertech Court

NOAA to River Road

College Park TDDP-1997

I-209

Rhode Island Avenue Extended

Rhode Island Avenue to Madison Street

Hyattsville-PA 68-1994

I-300

Prince George's Boulevard Extended

Leeland Road to existing Prince George's Boulevard

Bowie-2006

I-305

Aerospace Road

MD 193 to Forbes Boulevard

Glenn Dale-1993

I-306

Business Parkway

Forbes Boulevard to Martin Luther King Jr. Highway

Glenn Dale-1993

I-308

Ruby Lockhart Way/Palmetto Drive/Woodview Drive

St. Joseph's Drive to Campus Way N

Largo-1990

I-310

New Road

Ruby Lockhart Way to Landover Road

Largo-1990

I-311

Apollo Drive

Lottsford Road to Arena Drive

Largo-1990

I-312

Technology Way/Mercantile Lane

Apollo Drive to Landover Road

Largo-1990

I-313

Peppercorn Place

McCormick Drive to Landover Road

Largo-1990

I-400

Ardwick-Ardmore Road

John Hanson Highway to Beltway

2 to 4

Landover-1993

I-401

Truck Way Extended

Hampton Park Boulevard to Truck Way

Morgan Boulevard-2004

I-402

Morgan Boulevard/MD 214 Access Road

Morgan Boulevard to Truck Way

Morgan Boulevard-2004

I-403

Cabin Branch Drive

Sheriff Road to John Hanson Highway

2 to 4

Landover-1993

I-404

Hubbard Road

Pennsy Drive to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

2 to 4

Landover-1993

I-405

Jefferson Avenue

Pennsy Drive to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

2 to 4

Landover-1993

I-412

Brightseat Business Park Road

Redskins Road to Brightseat Road

2 to 4

Landover-1993

I-413

Hampton Park Boulevard/Kaverton Road

Marlboro Pike to Central Avenue

2 to 4

Landover-1993

I-415

Ritchie Road Spur

Ritchie Road to Hampton Park Boulevard

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

I-416

Cryden Way/Parston Drive

Forestville Road to Kaverton Boulevard

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

I-417

Marlboro Pike

Forestville Road to Kaverton Boulevard

2 to 4

Suitland - 1985

I-502

Louie Pepper Drive

Old Alexandria Ferry Road to Woodyard Road

Subregion 5-2009

I-503

Short Cut Road

A-63 to Brandywine Road

Subregion 5-2009

I-601

Foxley Road/Woodyard Industrial Road

Dower House Road to Woodyard Road

Melwood - 1994

2 to 4

Melwood - 1994

I-602

Fallard Drive

Dower House Road to Dower House Road

I-603

MD 4 Service Road

A-37 to MC-634

2 to 4

Westphalia - 2007

I-604

Old Marlboro Pike Loop

Marlboro Pike to Old Marlboro Pike

2 to 4

Melwood - 1994

Page 5 of 5

Attachment B Updated Table 4

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

Freeways

F-1

I-95

Beltway to Howard County

300-400

Subregion 1 - 2010

F-2

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

MD 295

D.C. line to Anne Arundel County

Varies

4 to 6

Greater Cheverly 2018 | 2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights | Subregion 1 - 2010 | Bladensburg-1994 | 1989 Langley Park-College Park

F-3

Intercounty Connector

MD 200

Montgomery County line to Baltimore Avenue

200-300

MPOT-2009 MPOT: Delete east of current MDOT ICC project limits

F-4

John Hanson Highway

US 50/US 301

DC line to Anne Arundel County

200

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

F-5

I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway

I-95/I-495

Woodrow Wilson Bridge to Suitland Parkway

300

8 to 12

Central US 1-2010

F-5

I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway

I-95/I-495

Suitland Parkway to John Hanson Highway

300

Subregion 4 (2010)

F-5

I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway

I-95/I-495

North of Evarts Street to MD 202

300

10 to 12

Landover Gateway-2009

F-5

I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway

I-95/I-495

MD 202 to Montgomery County line

300

8 to 12

Central US 1-2010

F-6

Pennsylvania Avenue

MD 4

Beltway to Anne Arundel County

300

6 to 8

Subregion 6-2013

F-7

Suitland Parkway

NPS Facility

DC line to Pennsylvania Avenue

Varies

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

F-8

Anacostia Freeway

I-295

I-95/I-495 to DC Line

120-200

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

F-9

Branch Avenue

MD 5

Charles County Line to Subregion 7

300

6 to 8

Subregion 5-2013

F-10

Crain Highway

US 301/MD 3

MD 450 (Annapolis Road) to Mitchellville Road

200

6 to 8

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

F-10

Crain Highway

US 301/MD 3

Mitchellville Road to MD 214 (Central Avenue [E-1])

200

4 to 8

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

F-10

Crain Highway

US 301/MD 3

MD 214 (Central Avenue [E-1]) to Leeland Road

200

4 to 8

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

F-10

Crain Highway

US 301/MD 3

Leeland Road to Subregion 5

300-450

4 to 8

Subregion 6-2013

F-10

Crain Highway

US 301/MD 3

Subregion 6 to MD 5/Charles County

300-450

6 to 8

Subregion 5-2013

F-11

Indian Head Highway

MD 210

Berry Road to Beltway

Varies

6 to 8

MPOT-2009

F-12

Intercounty Connector

MD 200

Montgomery County line to Baltimore Avenue

200-300

Subregion 1 - 2010

E-1

Central Avenue

MD 214

Beltway to MD 193

150-200

4 to 8

MPOT-2009

E-1

Central Avenue

MD 214

MD 193 to Crain Highway

150

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

E-1

Central Avenue

MD 214

Crain Highway to Queen Anne Bridge Road

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity Subregion 4 (2010)

Expressways

E-3

Pennsylvania Avenue Extended

MD 4

DC Line to Beltway

200

4 to 6

E-4

Branch Avenue

MD 5

Beltway to DC Line

200-300

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

E-5

Indian Head Highway

MD 210

Charles County to Berry Road

250

Subregion 5-2013

E-6

Landover Road/Largo Road

MD 202

Pennsylvania Avenue/Crain Highway to Barlowe Road

150-200

4 to 8

Landover Gateway-2009

E-7

Berry Road

MD 228

Charles County to Indian Head Highway (MD 210)

250

Subregion 5-2013

Arterials

A-1

Sandy Spring Road

A-2

Cherry Lane

A-3

Van Dusen Road Extended

A-4

Laurel-Bowie Road

A-6

Montgomery County to Anne Arundel County (outside City of Laurel)

120

Subregion 1 - 2010

Van Dusen Road to Laurel-Bowie Road (MD 197)

120

4 to 6

Subregion 1 - 2010 MPOT-2009

Virginia Manor Road to A-59

120

Jericho Park Road to MD 198

120

4 to 6

Subregion 1 - 2010

Contee Road Extended

Old Gunpowder Road to Sweitzer Lane

80-120

MPOT-2009

A-6

Contee Road Extended

Sweitzer Lane to Baltimore Avenue

80-120

MPOT-2009

A-6

Contee Road Extended

Baltimore Avenue to Anne Arundel County line

120

4 to 6

Subregion 1 - 2010

A-8

Powder Mill Road

MD 212

Montgomery County to Collier Road

80-120

MPOT-2009

A-8

Powder Mill Road

MD 212

Collier Road to Ammendale Road - 6 lanes

80-120

MPOT-2009

A-9

Baltimore Avenue

US 1

Capital Beltway to Howard County

90-120

4 to 6

Subregion 1 - 2010

A-10

Adelphi Road

East West Highway to Pennsylvania Street

100-120

MPOT-2009

A-10

Adelphi Road

Pennsylvania Street to Cool Spring Road

93 min.

2022 Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD

A-10

Adelphi Road

Cool Spring Road to Montgomery County

100-120

MPOT-2009

MD 197

A-11

New Hampshire Avenue

MD 650

DC Line to East West Highway and University Boulevard to Montgomery County

100-120

MPOT-2009

A-12

Riggs Road

MD 212

DC Line to University Boulevard

120

MPOT-2009

A-13

Queens Chapel Road

MD 500

DC Line to East West Highway

120

MPOT-2009

A-14

Kenilworth Avenue

MD 201

Baltimore Washington Parkway to MD 410

90-120

4 to 6

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

A-14

Kenilworth Avenue

MD 201

MD 410 to Carters Lane

4 to 5

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

A-14

Kenilworth Avenue

MD 201

Carters Lane to Sunnyside Avenue

90-120

4 to 6

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

MD 410

NE Branch to 64th Avenue

100-120

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

MD 410

64th Avenue to Pennsy Drive

100-120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

MD 193

Montgomery County to Temple Street

120-200

4 to 8

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

MD 193

Temple Street to Adelphi Road

137 min.

2022 Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD

MD 193

Adelphi Road to Annapolis Road

120-200

4 to 8

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

A-15 A-15 A-16 A-16 A-16

MD 198

East West Highway/Veterans Parkway/Riverdale Road East West Highway/Veterans Parkway/Riverdale Road University Boulevard/Greenbelt Road/Glenn Dale Boulevard University Boulevard/Greenbelt Road/Glenn Dale Boulevard University Boulevard/Greenbelt Road/Glenn Dale Boulevard

A-17

Bladensburg Road

US Alt 1

DC Line to Kenilworth Ave

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-18

Annapolis Road

MD 450

Kenilworth Avenue to Lanham-Severn Road

120

MPOT-2009

A-19

Lanham-Severn Road

MD 564

Annapolis Road to Springfield Road

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-20

Landover Road

MD 202

Annapolis Road to 57th Avenue

120

MPOT-2009

A-20

Landover Road

MD 202

57th Avenue to US 50

120

Greater Cheverly-2018

A-20

Landover Road

MD 202

US 50 to Barlowe Road

120

MPOT-2009

A-21

Sheriff Road

DC Line to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

100

Subregion 4 (2010)

A-22

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

MD 704

DC Line to US 50

120-150

4 to 6

Subregion 4 (2010)

A-22

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

MD 704

US 50 to Annapolis Road

120

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

A-23

Annapolis Road

MD 450

Lanham-Severn Road to MD 193

120-150

4 to 6

Central Annapolis Road 2010

A-23

Annapolis Road

MD 450

MD 193 to Crain Hwy

120

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

A-24

Collington Road/ Laurel Bowie Road

MD 197

Baltimore-Washington Parkway to Old Laurel Bowie Road

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-24

Collington Road/ Laurel Bowie Road

MD 197

Old Laurel Bowie Road to Crain Highway

120

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

A-25

Mitchellville Road

Mt. Oak Road to Collington Road

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

Largo Drive W to Mount Oak Road

80-150

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-26 A-26 A-27

Lottsford Road/Woodmore Road/Mount Oak Road Lottsford Road/Woodmore Road/Mount Oak Road Watkins Park Road/Enterprise Road

MD 193

Mount Oak Road to Mitchellville Road

120

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Largo Road to Oak Grove Road

120-200

MPOT-2009

Page 1 of 8

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

A-27

Watkins Park Road/Enterprise Road

A-29

Evarts Street/Campus Way

A-30 A-31

Route ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

MD 193

Freeways Oak Grove Road to MD 450 (Annapolis Road [A-23])

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Brightseat Road to Harry S Truman Drive

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

FedEx Way to Campus Way

120-150

MPOT-2009

Bishop Peebles Drive/Arena Drive/Lake Arbor Way Ritchie road/Morgan Boulevard/FedEx Way Redskins Road/Brightseat Road

Walker Mill Road to Evarts Street

120

Subregion 4 (2010)

DC Line to Beltway

120-150

6 to 8

Subregion 4 (2010)

Addison Road South

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

120

4 to 6

Subregion 4 (2010)

Brooks Drive

Pennsylvania Avenue to Addison Road

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-35

Walker Mill Road

Silver Hill Road to Beltway

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-35

Walker Mill Road

I-95/I-495 to Ritchie Road (A-31)

120

Subregion 4 (2010)

A-35

Walker Mill Road

Ritchie Road (A-31) to Shady Glen Drive (C-414)

70-80

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

A-36

White House Road/Ritchie Marlboro Road

Beltway to Largo Road

120-140

6 to 8

MPOT-2009

A-32

E. Capitol Street/Central Avenue

A-33 A-34

MD 214

A-37

Westphalia Road

Pennsylvania Avenue to MC-634

120-140

6 to 8

MPOT-2009

A-38

Harry S Truman Drive

White House Road to Largo Drive West (C-346)

80-120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

Pennsylvania Avenue to White House Road at Harry S Truman Drive

100-120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

Branch Avenue to Walker Mill Road

120

4 to 6

Subregion 4 (2010)

Suitland Road

Silver Hill Road to Suitland Parkway

89-120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

Suitland Road

Suitland Parkway to Allentown Road

106

Central Branch Ave 2013

A-42

Ager Road

Queens Chapel Road to East West Highway

100

MPOT-2009

A-43

Naylor Road

MD 637

DC Line-Branch Avenue

100-200

MPOT-2009

A-45

St. Barnabas Road

MD 414

Beltway to Temple Hill Road

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-45

St. Barnabas Road

MD 414

Temple Hill Road to MD 5

210

6 (plus service roads)

Central Branch Ave 2013

A-45

St. Barnabas Road

MD 414

MD 5 to Silver Hill Road

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-46

Temple Hill Road

Capital Beltway to Tinkers Creek

120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-48

Oxon Hill Road

MD 414

Beltway to I-295 Off-Ramp

146-154

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-39

Ritchie Marlboro Road

A-40

Silver Hill Road

A-41 A-41

MD 458

A-49

Indian Head Highway

MD 210

Beltway to DC Line

Varies

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-50

Allentown Road

MD 337

Branch Avenue (MD 5) to Maxwell Drive

145

Central Branch Ave 2013

A-50

Allentown Road

MD 337

Maxwell Drive to Suitland Road

175

6 (plus service road)

Central Branch Ave 2013

A-50

Allentown Road

MD 337

Suitland Road to Suitland Parkway

100-120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-51

Allentown Road

Brinkley Road to Branch Avenue

120-150

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

A-52

Dower House Road/Dower House Road Extended

Foxley Road to A-66

120

Subregion 6-2013 Central Branch Ave 2013

A-53

Woodyard Road

MD 223

Branch Avenue (MD 5) to Mike Shapiro Drive

170

6 (plus service road)

A-53

Woodyard Road

MD 223

Mike Shapiro Drive to Rosaryville Road

120

Subregion 5-2013

A-53

Woodyard Road

MD 223

Piscataway Creek to MD 4

120-150

4 to 6

Subregion 6-2013

Indian Head Highway (MD 210) to MD 5

Varies (120 min)

4 to 6 multilane boulevard

Subregion 5-2013

Central Branch Ave 2013

A-54

Piscataway Road/Woodyard Road/Livingston Road/Farmington Road East Piscataway Road/Woodyard Road/Livingston Road/Farmington Road East Piscataway Road/Woodyard Road/Livingston Road/Farmington Road East

MD 223

Absher Lane to I-504

190

4 (plus service roads)

MD 223

I-504 to Branch Avenue (MD 5)

210

6 (plus service roads)

A-55

Accokeek Road/Livingston Road

MD 373

MD 210 to US 301/MD 5 (at McKendree Road)

Varies (120 min)

4 to 6

Subregion 5-2013

A-56

Kenilworth Avenue Extended

MD 201

Capital Beltway to I-95

120-150

4 to 6

Subregion 1 - 2010

A-57

Piney Branch Road

MD 320

Montgomery County to New Hampshire Avenue

100-120

MPOT-2009

A-59

Mall Road/To Be Named

Old Gunpowder Road to I-95

120-150

4 to 6

Subregion 1 - 2010

A-61

Crain Highway

US 301

Old Crain Highway to Central Avenue

Varies

4 to 6

Subregion 6-2009

A-61

Crain Highway

US 301

Central Avenue to Mount Oak Road

120

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

A-61

Crain Highway

US 301

Mount Oak Road to Collington Road

Varies

4 to 6

Subregion 6-2009

A-63

Brandywine Employment Spine Road

A-64

Crain Highway

US 301

A-55 to F-9 at C-522

120

Subregion 5-2013

Charles County to F-9 north of A-63

5 to 8

MPOT-2009

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2013

4 to 6

MPOT-2009 MPOT-2009

A-65

Old Fort Road Extended

MD 223 to MD 5

A-66

Presidential Parkway

MC 637 to Woodyard Road

200 Varies (80' min.) 100-140

A-67

Suitland Parkway Extended

Pennsylvania Avenue to MC 634

120-140

6 to 8

A-68

New Arterial

Oxon Hill road to Brinkley Road

100

MPOT-2009

A-69

Branch Avenue

DC line to St. Barnabas Road

120-150

MPOT-2009

MC-101

Old Gunpowder Road

A-8 to MD 198

100

Subregion 1 - 2010

MC-102

Van Dusen Road

A-56 to Old Sandy Spring Road

100

Subregion 1 - 2010

MC-103

To Be Named

A-8 to A-56

100

Subregion 1 - 2010

MC-104

To Be Named

C-119 to A-56

100

Subregion 1 - 2010

MC-105

To Be Named

F-12 to A-59

100

Subregion 1 - 2010

MC-106

Muirkirk Road

MC-103 to MD 197

80-100

Subregion 1 - 2010

MC-200

Baltimore Avenue

South of I-495 to Guilford Drive

88-112

Central US 1-2010

MC-201

Hanover Parkway

MD 193 to Hanover Drive

100-120

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

MC-301

Marketplace Boulevard

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to Prince George's Boulevard

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

MC-302

Prince George's Boulevard

Souther terminus to Marketplace Boulevard

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

MC-401

Evarts Street

Brightseat Road to Capital Beltway

100

Subregion 4 - 2010

MC-417

Evarts Street/Ruby Lockhart Way

Brightseat Road to St. Joseph's Drive

90-110

Landover Gateway-2009

MC-418

Campus Way North

Woodmore Town Center to Ruby Lockhart Way

90-110

Landover Gateway-2009

MC-500

Temple Hills Road

MD 223 to Subregion 7

80-100

Subregion 5-2013

MC-501

Old Alexandria Ferry Road

MD 223 to MD 5

80-100

Subregion 5-2013

MC-502

West Brandywine Spine Road

MD 5 to A-55

100

Subregion 5-2013

MC-503

Matapeake Business Drive

A-55 (south of Timothy Branch) to A-55 (at A-63)

100

Subregion 5-2013

MC-600

Oak Grove Road/Leeland Road

MD 193 to US 301

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

MC-601

Heathermore Boulevard

MC-602 to East Marlton Avenue

120

Subregion 6-2009

MC-602

New Major Collector

Old Crain Highway to Croom Road

100

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

MD 5

Major Collectors

US 1

Page 2 of 8

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval MPOT-2009

MC-631

Suitland Parkway Extended

Freeways MC-634 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road

100

MC-632

Westphalia Boulevard

MC-631 to A-66

100

MPOT-2009

MC-634

Presidential Parkway Extended

A-66 to White House Road

100

MPOT-2009

MC-635

D'Arcy Road Extended

MC-637 to MC-631

100

MPOT-2009

MC-637

New Road

A-66 to MC-632

100

MPOT-2009

MC-700

Palmer Road/Tucker Road

Indian Head Highway to Allentown Road (C-718)

90-100

MPOT-2009

MC-701

Brinkley Road

St. Barnabas Road to Allentown Road

80-116

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

MC-702

Allentown Road

Allentown Road (C-718) to Brinkley Road

90-100

MPOT-2009

MC-703

Old Fort Road North/Old Fort Road East

Livingston Road to Piscataway Road

80-100

MPOT-2009

Collectors C-101

Beltsville Drive

MD 212 to Calverton Boulevard

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-102

New Road/Van Dusen Road

A-3 to Contee Road Extended

MPOT-2009

C-103

Montpelier Drive

Muirkirk Road to Laurel-Bowie Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-104

Briggs Chaney Road

Montgomery County to Old Gunpowder Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-105

Sweitzer Lane

A-59 to MD 198

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-106

Contee Road

US 1 to MD 197

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-107

Old Gunpowder Road

Montgomery County to Cherry Hill Road

2 to 4

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-108

Old Baltimore Pike/Cedarhurst Drive

A-56 to Muirkirk Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-109

Muirkirk Road

A-3 to Laurel-Bowie Road

MPOT-2009

C-110

Greencastle Road

Montgomery County to Old Gunpowder Road

MPOT-2009

C-111

Ammendale Road/Konterra South Road

MD 212 to US 1

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-112

Powder Mill Road

Old Gunpowder Road to Baltimore Avenue

MPOT-2009

C-112

Powder Mill Road

Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue Extended

MPOT-2009

C-113

Bond Mill Road

Sandy Spring Road to Brooklyn Bridge Road

MPOT-2009

C-114

Calverton Boulevard

Montgomery County to Beltsville Drive

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-115

Soil Conservation Road

Good Luck Road to Powder Mill Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-116

Springfield Road

Bowie Master Plan to Powder Mill Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-117

Brooklyn Bridge Road

Bond Mill road to City of Laurel

MPOT-2009

C-118

Rhode Island Avenue

MD 193 to US 1

Central US 1-2010

C-119

To Be Named

MC-103 to A-56

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-120

Sunnyside Avenue

Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

80-120

4 to 6

MPOT-2009

C-121

To Be Named

MC-105 to MC-103

Subregion 1 - 2010

C-123

Beltsville Drive

Calverton Boulevard to Powder Mill Road

MPOT-2009

C-132

Montpelier Drive

Muirkirk Road to Laurel-Bowie Road

MPOT-2009

C-133

Briggs Chaney Road

Montgomery County to Old Gunpowder Road

MPOT-2009

C-134

Calverton Boulevard

Montgomery County to Beltsville Drive

MPOT-2009

C-200

Sargent Road

DC Line to Riggs Road

MPOT-2009

C-201

Cherry Hill Road

Montgomery County to Baltimore Avenue

Central US 1-2010

C-202

Paint Branch Parkway/Campus Drive

Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

80-100

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

C-203

Campus Drive/Mowatt Lane/Guilford Drive

Adelphi Road to Presidential Drive

80-100

Central US 1-2010

C-203

Campus Drive/Mowatt Lane/Guilford Drive

Presidential Drive to Guilford Drive

83 min.

2022 Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD

C-203

Campus Drive/Mowatt Lane/Guilford Drive

Guilford Drive to Baltimore Avenue

80-100

Central US 1-2010

C-204

River Road

Paint Branch Parkway to Kenilworth Avenue

2 (short- to medium-term) 4 (long-term)

College Park-Riverdale Park TDDP 2015

C-205

Charles Armentrout Drive

Baltimore Avenue to Rhode Island Avenue

MPOT-2009

C-206

Greenbelt Station Parkway

MD 193 to Greenbelt Metro Station

2 to 4

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

C-207

Riggs Road

MD 212

University Boulevard to Adelphi Road

80-100

MPOT-2009

C-207

Riggs Road

MD 212

Adelphi Road to Powder Mill Road

80-100

MPOT-2009

C-208

Cherrywood Lane

MD 193 to Kenilworth Avenue

80-100

2 (4 south of Breezewood Drive)

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

C-209

Rhode Island Avenue/Baltimore Avenue

DC Line to Guilford Drive

80-110

Central US 1-2010

C-210

Brae Brooke Drive

Hanover Parkway to Cipriano Road

MPOT-2009

C-211

Hanover Parkway

Good Luck Road to Greenbelt Road

80-120

MPOT-2009

C-212

Mandan Road

Brae Brooke Drive to Greenbelt Road

MPOT-2009

C-213

Ivy Lane

Cherrywood Lane to Kenilworth Avenue Extended

MPOT-2009

C-214

Chillum Road

DC Line to Queens Chapel Road

MPOT-2009

C-215

Decatur Street

Baltimore Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

MPOT-2009

US 1

MD 501

C-217

Rivertech Court

River Road to Lafayette Street

College Park-Riverdale Park TDDP 2015

C-218

Metzerott Road

New Hampshire Avenue to University Boulevard

MPOT-2009

C-220

Ellin Road/85th Avenue

Annapolis Road to East West Highway

60-80

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-221

Riverdale Road

East West Highway to Veterans Parkway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-221

Riverdale Road

Veterans Parkway to Auburn Avenue

120

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

C-221

Riverdale Road

Auburn Avenue to Annapolis Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-222

Quincy Street/52nd Avenue

Kenilworth Avenue to Lloyd Street/Service Road

Greater Cheverly 2018

C-222

Quincy Street/52nd Avenue

Lloyd Street/Service Road to 48th Street

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-223

57th Avenue

C-224

Baltimore Avenue

C-225

Annapolis Road to Emerson Street

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

Annapolis Road to US 1

Varies

MPOT-2009

Cooper Lane

Old Landover Road to Annapolis Road

Greater Cheverly 2018

C-226

Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Annapolis Road to south of Elsie Court

C-227

Greenbelt Road

US 1 to MD 193

Central US 1-2010

C-229

Belcrest Road

Queens Chapel Road to Adelphi Road

100

PG Plaza TDDP-2016

C-230

Hamilton Street

MPOT-2009

C-234

38th Street

C-300

US Alt 1

MD 430

MPOT-2009

Jamestown Road to 38th Avenue

80-100

2 to 4

Bladensburg Road to Rhode Island Avenue

MPOT-2009

Church Road

MD 450 (Annapolis Road) to Old Church Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-300

Church Road

Old Church Road to Oak Grove Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-301

Chestnut Avenue

Annapolis Road to 12th Street

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-302

Fairwood Parkway

Annapolis Road to Church Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

MD 208

Page 3 of 8

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Route ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

C-303

Old Chapel Road

Freeways High Bridge Road to Laurel-Bowie Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-304

Mitchellville Road

Mount Oak Road to Crain Highway

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-305

Mount Oak Road

Mitcheville Road to Crain Highway

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-306

Northview Drive

Mitcheville Road to New Haven Drive

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-307

Excalibur Road

Evergreen Parkway to Crain Highway (A-61)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-308

Mitchellville Road

Collington Road to Renaissance Center

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-309

Melford Boulevard

MD Science and Tech Center to Curie Dr

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-310

Race Track Road

Old Chapel Road to Idlewild Drive

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-310

Race Track Road

Idlewild Drive to MD 450

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-311

Old Chapel Road

Laurel-Bowie Road to Race Track Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-312

Duckettown Road

Springfield Road to Chestnut Avenue

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-313

Old Laurel-Bowie Road

Laurel-Bowie Road to Maple Avenue

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-313

Old Laurel-Bowie Road

Maple Avenue to 9th Street

50-80

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-314 C-314 C-314

Facility Name

11th Street/Race Track Road/Lanham Severn Road 11th Street/Race Track Road/Lanham Severn Road 11th Street/Race Track Road/Lanham Severn Road

MD 564

Jericho Park Road to Laurel Bowie Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

MD 564

Laurel Bowie Road to Elm Avenue

100

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Elm Avenue to Springfield Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Race Track Road to Laurel Bowie Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Race Track Road

Jericho Park Road to Old Chapel Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Springfield Road

Lanham-Severn Road to Good Luck Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-327

Princess Garden Parkway

Annapolis Road to Good Luck Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-328

Cipriano Road

Lanham-Severn Road to Greenbelt Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-329

Whitfield Chapel Road

Ardwick-Ardmore Road to Annapolis Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-338

Glenn Dale Road

Annapolis Road to Enterprise Road

2 to 4

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-339

Forbes Boulevard

Lottsford-Vista Road to Lanham-Severn Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-340

Relocated Forbes Boulevard

Lanham-Severn Road to Greenbelt Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-341

Good Luck Road

Kenilworth Avenue to Baltimore-Washington Parkway

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

C-341

Good Luck Road

I-95/I-495 to Springfield Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-342

Prospect Hill Road/Fletchertown Road

Glenn Dale Boulevard (MD 193) to Hillmeade Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-342

Prospect Hill Road/Fletchertown Road

Hillmeade Road to High Bridge Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-343

Hillmeade Road

Annapolis Road to Fletchertown Road

2 to 4

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-344

Lottsford-Vista Road

Lottsford Road to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

MPOT-2009

C-345

McCormick Road/St. Joseph's Drive

MD 202 to Campus Way North

Landover Gateway-2009

C-345

McCormick Road/St. Joseph's Drive

Campus Way North to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Landover Gateway-2009

C-346

Harry S Truman Drive/Largo Drive W/Largo Center Drive

Arena Drive to Arena Drive (Loop Road)

80-100

MPOT-2009

C-347

Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway to Lottsford- Vista Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-315

Jericho Park Road

C-315 C-322

MD 564

MD 953

C-348

Mount Lubentia Way

Harry S Truman Drive to Largo Road

MPOT-2009

C-349

Kettering Drive/Lake Arbor Way

Largo Road to Campus Way North

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-374

Carter Avenue

Annapolis Road to Lanham-Severn Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-376

Bell Station Road

Glenn Dale Boulevard to Annapolis Road

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham 2010

C-377

Fairmont Drive

Summit Point Boulevard to Market Place

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-377

Summit Point Boulevard

Old Central Avenue to Fairmont Drive

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity 2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

C-378

Gwynn Brook Way

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to Fairmont Drive

C-400

Brightseat Road

Evarts Street to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Landover Gateway-2009

C-401

Barlowe Road/Evarts Street

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway to Brightseat Road

Landover Gateway-2009

C-402

Pennsy Drive

Landover Road to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

MPOT-2009

C-403

75th Avenue

Landover Road to Pennsy Drive

MPOT-2009

C-404

Marblewood Avenue

Sheriff Road to 62nd Avenue

Greater Cheverly-2018

C-405

Sheriff Road

Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway to Redskins Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-406

Belle Haven Drive/Hill Oaks Road/Nalley Road

FedEx Way to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

70-80

MPOT-2009

C-407

Hill Road

Central Avenue to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-408

Addison Road

C-409

Central Avenue/Old Central Avenue

MD 322

DC Line to Central Avenue

Greater Cheverly 2018

DC Line to Addison Road

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-410

Marlboro Pike

DC Line to Forestville Road

80-100

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-411

Columbia Park Road

John Hanson Highway to 64th Ave

Greater Cheverly 2018

C-411

Columbia Park Road

64th Ave to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-412

Brightseat Road

Central Avenue to Redskins Road

MPOT-2009

C-413

Garden City Drive

MD 950

Ardwick-Ardmore Road to Beltway ramps

MPOT-2009

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

MD 218

DC Line to Silver Hill Road

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-414

Shady Glen Drive

C-415

Suitland Road

C-416

Cattail Creek Drive

Evarts Street to MD 202

Landover Gateway-2009

C-422

Brooks Drive

Silver Hill Road to Pennsylvania Avenue

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-423

Regency Parkway

Marlboro Pike to Suitland Road

80-100

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-424

Walters Lane

Cul-de-sac to Pennsylvania Avenue

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-425

Donnell Drive

Pennsylvania Avenue to Marlboro Pike

100

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-426

Ritchie Road/Forestville Road

Allentown Road to Walker Mill Road

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-427

Walker Mill Road

Marlboro Pike to Silver Hill Road

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-428

Rollins Avenue/Suffolk Avenue

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

2 to 4

MPOT-2009 Subregion 4 (2010)

C-429

Karen Boulevard

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

2 to 4

C-430

D'Arcy Road

Capital Beltway to Ritchie-Forestville Road

Subregion 4 (2010)

C-510

Dangerfield Road

Surratts Road to Woodyard Road

Subregion 5-2013

C-511

Coventry Way

Old Branch Avenue to Old Alexandria Ferry Road

Subregion 5-2013

C-512

Kirby Road

Temple Hills Road to Old Branch Avenue

Subregion 5-2013

C-513

Old Branch Avenue/Brandywine Road

Floral Park Road to MD 5 (at Brandywine interchange) to MD 5 (at Kirby Road)

Subregion 5-2013

C-514

Surratts Road Extended

MD 223 to Brandywine Road

Subregion 5-2013

C-515

Temple Hill Road Extended

C-514 to MD 223

Subregion 5-2013

C-516

Steed Road

MD 223 to Allentown Road

Subregion 5-2013

Page 4 of 8

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Right of Way (Feet)

Project Limits Freeways

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

C-517

Shady Oak Parkway

MD 5 to Dyson Road

Subregion 5-2013

C-518

Hyde Field/Edelen Collector Facility

MC-703 to Steed Road

Subregion 5-2013

C-519

Gallahan Road

MD 223 to Old Fort Road South

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2013

C-520

Windbrook Drive

Thrift Road to MD 223

Subregion 5-2013

C-521

Thrift Road

Tippett Road to Windbrook Drive

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2013

C-522

Floral Park Road

Piscataway Road to Brandywine Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-523

Livingston Road

MD 223 to Subregion 7

Subregion 5-2013

C-524

Livingston Road/Bealle Hill Road

MD 373 to A-54

Subregion 5-2013

C-525

Livingston Road

MD 210 (at Independence Road) to MD 210 (at MD 373)

2 to 4

Subregion 5-2013

C-526

Manning Road Relocated

MD 210 to MD 228

Subregion 5-2013

C-527

Accokeek Road

A-55 to MD 5 at the Brandywine interchange

Subregion 5-2013

C-528

Dyson Road

A-63 to C-601

Subregion 5-2013

C-529

Farmington Road West

Livingston Road to MD 210

Subregion 5-2013

C-530

Berry Road

MD 373 to A-54

Subregion 5-2013

C-531

Danville Road

MD 373 to Floral Park Road

Subregion 5-2013 Subregion 5-2013

C-532

Gardner Road

Charles County to MD 373

C-533

Tippett Road

Thrift Road to MD 223

Subregion 5-2013

C-602

Brown Station Road

Old Marlboro Pike to White House Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-603

Old Crain Highway

MD-602 to Old Marlboro Pike

Subregion 6-2009

C-604

Old Marlboro Pike

Woodyard Road to Brown Station Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-605

William Beanes Road Ext

Woodyard Road to Old Crain Highway

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-606

Osborne Road/Osborne Road Relocated

MC-602 to Woodyard Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-607

Rosaryville Road

MC-602 to Woodyard Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-608

Duley Station Road

MC-602 to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-609

Surratts Road

Brandywine Road to Frank Tippett Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-610

Frank Tippett Road/Cherry Tree Crossing Road

A-63 to Rosaryville Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-611

East Marlton Avenue

Duley Station Road to Heathermore Boulevard

Subregion 6-2009

C-612

Grandhaven Avenue

MC-602 to Heathermore Boulevard

Subregion 6-2009

C-613

Brandywine Road/Aquasco Road

A-63 to Charles County Line

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-614

Dille Drive/Dille Drive Extended

C-615

Croom Road

C-616

Brown Station Road to Ritchie Marlboro Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

Charles County to MC-602

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

North Keys Road

Brandywine Road to Molly Berry Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-617

Cedarville Road

A-55 to Brandywine Road

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

C-618

Candy Hill Road

Molly Berry Road to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-619

Baden-Westwood Road/Bald Eagle School Road/Westwood Road

Aquasco Road to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-620

Molly Berry Road

Candy Hill Road to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-621

Eagle Harbor Road

Aquasco Road to Trueman Point Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-622

Doctor Bowen Road

Charles County to Aquasco Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-623

Horsehead Road

Charles County to Aquasco Road

Subregion 6-2009

C-624

Cross Road Trail

Cherry Tree Crossing Road to North Keys Road

Subregion 6-2009

MD 382

C-626

Westphalia Road/Old Marlboro Pike

A-37 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road Pennsylvania Avenue to Suitland Parkway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-627

D'Arcy Road

MC-631 to Ritchie Road

MPOT-2009

C-628

Dower House Road/McCormick Road

Foxley Road to Woodyard Road

MPOT-2009

C-629

Old Marlboro Pike/Marlboro Pike

Dower House Road to MD 223

Subregion 6-2013

C-630

Sansbury Road

D'Arcy Road to MC 634

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-633

Brown Road

Ritchie Marlboro Road to Brown Station Road

MPOT-2009

C-700

Livingston Road

Oxon Hill Road to Indian Head Highway at Forest Heights

MPOT-2009

C-701

Owens Road

DC Line-Wheeler Road

MPOT-2009

C-702

Iverson Street

Owens Road to Branch Avenue

100

MPOT-2009

C-703

Wheeler Road

DC Line to St. Barnabas Road

MPOT-2009

C-704

23rd Parkway

DC Line to St. Barnabas Road

80-120

MPOT-2009 MPOT-2009

C-705

Auth Road

Branch Avenue to Allentown Road

2 to 4

C-706

Auth Road

Auth Road to Capital Gateway

MPOT-2009

C-707

Auth Way

Branch Avenue to Capital Gateway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-708

Oxon Hill Road

National Harbor/I-295 Off Ramp to Livingston Road

MPOT-2009

C-709

Kerby Hill Road

Oxon Hill Road to Indian Head Highway

MPOT-2009

C-710

Livingston Road

Oxon Hill Road/Old Fort Road North to Indian Head Highway at Palmer Road

MPOT-2009

C-711

St. Barnabas Road

Livingston Road to A-68

MPOT-2009

C-712

Bock Road

Tucker Road to Livingston Road

MPOT-2009

C-715

Barrowfield Road

St. Barnabas Road to Brinkley Road

MPOT-2009

C-716

Old Branch Avenue

Tinkers Creek to Sharon Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-718

Allentown Road

Old Fort Road North to Tucker Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-719

Old Fort Pace/Old Fort Road South

Allentown Road to Livingston Road

MPOT-2009

C-721

Old Fort Road South/Washington Lane

Fort Washington Road to Livingston Road

MPOT-2009

C-722

Fort Washington Road

Fort Washington Park to Indian Head Highway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-723

Swan Creek Road

Fort Washington Road to Indian Head Highway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

C-724

Livingston Road

Swan Creek Road to Fort Washington Road

MPOT-2009

C-725

Tucker Road

Palmer Road to St. Barnabas Road

MPOT-2009

C-726

Livingston Road

A-68 to Indian Head Highway at Kerby Hill Road

MPOT-2009

C-727

New Road

Bock Road to 800 feet north of Oxon Hill Road

240

MPOT-2009

C-728

Woods Road

Branch Avenue to Branch Avenue Metro Station

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

P-101

Odell Road

A-56 to Muirkirk Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

P-102

Springfield Road

Odell Road to Powder Mill Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

P-103

Sellman Road

Cherry Hill Road to Rhode Island Avenue

Subregion 1 - 2010

P-104

Rhode Island Avenue

US 1 to C-112

Subregion 1 - 2010

P-105

Rhode Island Avenue

US 1 to Sunnyside Avenue

Subregion 1 - 2010

Primary Roads

Page 5 of 8

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Project Limits

Right of Way (Feet)

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval Subregion 1 - 2010

P-106

Riding Stable Road/Brooklyn Bridge Road

Freeways Montgomery County to City of Laurel

P-107

To Be Named

MC-101 to existing Old Gunpowder Road

Subregion 1 - 2010

P-200

Autoville Drive North

Cherry Hill Road to Hollywood Road

MPOT-2009

P-201

Auburn Avenue

Riverdale Road to Good Luck Road

MPOT-2009

P-202

Toledo Road

Belcrest Road to Adelphi Road

PG Plaza TDDP-2016

P-203

Toledo Terrace

East West Highway to Belcrest Road

PG Plaza TDDP-2016

P-204

Nicholson Street

Lancer Drive to Queens Chapel Road

MPOT-2009

P-205

Edmonston Road

Annapolis Road to Kenilworth Avenue

MPOT-2009

P-206

Carters Lane

Kenilworth Avenue to Greenvale Parkway

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

P-207

Cheverly Avenue

Arbor Street to Landover Road

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-208

Lamont Drive

Riverdale Road to Good Luck Road

MPOT-2009

P-209

Finns Lane

Annapolis Road to Riverdale Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

P-210

Harkins Road

Annapolis Road to Ellin Road/85th Avenue

MPOT-2009

P-211

Riverdale Road

NE Branch to Kenilworth Avenue

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

P-212

Crest Avenue/Carlyle Street/59th Avenue

Lockwood Road to Arbor Street

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-213

56th Avenue

Nicholson Street to East West Highway

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

P-214

62nd Avenue/State Street/64th Avenue

Marblewood Avenue to Columbia Park Road

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-215

Old Landover Road/Warner Avenue

Landover Road to Warner Avenue

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-216

Lloyd Street

Park Trail Entrance to MD 201

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-217

North Englewood Drive

Jesse J Warr Recreation Center to Addison Road

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-218

Lydell Road

MD 201 to end of street

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-219

Schuster Drive Road

Lydell Road to end of street

Greater Cheverly 2018

P-300

Hall Road

Central Avenue at Jennings Mill Drive to Central Avenue west of Pennsbury

MPOT-2009

P-301

Hillmeade Road Extended

Fairwood Parkway to Annapolis Road

MPOT-2009

P-302

Daisy Lane

Glenn Dale Boulevard to Hillmeade Road

MPOT-2009

P-303

Northern Avenue

Good Luck Road to Greenbelt Road

MPOT-2009

P-304

Major Lansdale Boulevard

Northview Drive to Western terminus

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-305

Governors Bridge Road

Long Leaf court to Patuxent River

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-306

Hillmeade Road

MD 450 (Annapolis Road) to Fletchertown Road/Prospect Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-307

Mill Branch Road

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to Queen Anne Bridge Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-308

Old Annapolis Road

MD 197 (Collington Road) to MD 450 (Annapolis Road)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-309

Queen Anne Bridge Road Shared-Use Bikeway

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to MD 214

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-310

New Road N

Ballpark Road to Mill Branch Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity 2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-311

6th Street/Duckettown Road

Chestnut Avenue to 130 ft east of Horsepen Road

P-312

Old Laurel Bowie Road

6th Street/Duckettown Road to Maple Avenue

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-313

Chestnut Avenue

MD 564 (Lanham Severn Road) to 6th Street/Duckettown Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

P-400

Main Street

Central Avenue to Rollins Avenue

Subregion 4 (2010)

P-401

M-NCPPC Access Road

Morgan Boulevard to M-NCPPC Property

Subregion 4 (2010)

P-402

Walker Mill Drive/Old Ritchie Road

Shady Glen Road to Ritchie Road

Subregion 4 (2010)

P-403

Rollins Avenue/Suffolk Avenue

Walker Mill Road to Central Avenue

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

P-500

Bealle Hill Road

Berry Road to Accokeek Road

Subregion 5-2013

P-501

Manning Road East

Livingston Road to Berry Road

Subregion 5-2013

P-503

Pinta Street Extended

Kirby Road to Chris-Mar Avenue

Subregion 5-2013

P-504

McKendree Road

C-502 to A-55

Subregion 5-2013

P-506

North Local Residential Roadway

MD 223 to I-507

Central Branch Ave 2013

P-507

South Local Residential Roadway

Clinton Street to Stuart Street

Central Branch Ave 2013

P-508

Clinton Street

P-506 to P-507

Central Branch Ave 2013

P-509

Mimosa Avenue Extended

Existing Mimosa Avenue to P-507

Central Branch Ave 2013

P-600

Water Street

Pennsylvania Avenue to Main Street

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

P-601

Governor Oden Bowie Drive/Ring Road

Water Street to Main Street

Subregion 6-2009

P-602

Largo Road

Ring Road to E-6

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

P-603

Wallace Lane

MC-602 to Midland Turn

Subregion 6-2009

P-604

Tam-O-Shanter Drive

Wallace Lane to Muirfield Drive

Subregion 6-2009

MD 717 MD 202

P-605

Midland Turn

Fairhaven Avenue to Wallace Lane

Subregion 6-2009

P-606

Trumps Hill Road

Heathermore Boulevard to Croom Road

Subregion 6-2009

P-607

US 301 Service Road

Frank Tippett Road to Rosaryville Road

Subregion 6-2009

P-608

Marlboro Pike

P-602 to A-61

2 to 4

Subregion 6-2009

P-609

Chrysler Way Extended

E-6 to Marlboro Pike

Subregion 6-2009

P-610

Brooke Lane

Ritchie Marlboro Road to Brown Station Road

MPOT-2009

P-613

Soueid Street Connector

Andris Street to Risen Star Drive

MPOT-2009

P-614

Richmanor Terrace Extended

Richmanor Terrace to Marlboro Pike Relocated

MPOT-2009 MPOT-2009

MD 725

P-615

New Road/Bridle Ridge Road

P-617 to MC-632

60-70

P-616

New Road

MC-631 to Westphalia Road

60-70

MPOT-2009

P-617

New Road/North Riding Road

P-616 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road

60-70

MPOT-2009

P-618

New Road/Marlboro Ridge Road

P-615 to Ritchie-Marlboro Road

60-70

MPOT-2009

P-619

New Road

P-615 to MC-631

MPOT-2009

Industrial Roads I-100

Old Baltimore Pike Extended

Maryland Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue Extended

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-101

Ammendale Road/Maryland Avenue

Powder Mill Road to Old Baltimore Pike

Subregion 1 - 2010

I-102

Odell Road

Maryland Avenue to Edmonston Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-103

Cook Road/Maryland Avenue Extended

Powder Mill Road to Odell Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-108

Bauer Lane Extended

Contee Road Extended to Sandy Springs Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-111

Chevy Chase Drive

Bauer Lane Extended to Sweitzer Lane

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-112

Frost Place

Bauer Lane Extended to Sweitzer Lane

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-200

Branchville Industrial Access Road

Greenbelt Road to 51st Avenue/Ballew Avenue

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

I-202

Ballew Avenue

Branchville Industrial Access Road to 900 feet south of Berwyn Road

Greenbelt/MD 193 (2013)

Page 6 of 8

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Right of Way (Feet)

Project Limits Freeways

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

I-204

Tuxedo Road

MD 459

MD 201 to 57th Place

I-204

Arbor Street

MD 459

57th Place to Columbia Park Road

Greater Cheverly-2018

I-205

48th Street

Kenilworth Avenue to Kenilworth Avenue

MPOT-2009

I-206

Tanglewood Drive/Buchanan Street

Alt US 1 to Kenilworth Avenue

MPOT-2009

I-207

46th Avenue

Decatur Street to Lafayette Place

MPOT-2009

I-208

Rivertech Court

NOAA to River Road

College Park-Riverdale Park TDDP 2015

I-209

Rhode Island Avenue Extended

Rhode Island Avenue to Madison Street

MPOT-2009

I-300

Prince George's Boulevard Extended

Leeland Road to existing Prince George's Boulevard

100

MPOT-2009

I-305

Aerospace Road

MD 193 to Forbes Boulevard

MPOT-2009

I-306

Business Parkway

Forbes Boulevard to Martin Luther King Jr. Highway

MPOT-2009

I-308

Ruby Lockhart Way/Palmetto Drive/Woodview Drive

St. Joseph's Drive to Campus Way N

MPOT-2009

I-310

New Road

Ruby Lockhart Way to Landover Road

MPOT-2009

I-311

Apollo Drive

Lottsford Road to Arena Drive

MPOT-2009

I-312

Technology Way/Mercantile Lane

Apollo Drive to Landover Road

MPOT-2009

I-313

Peppercorn Place

McCormick Drive to Landover Road

MPOT-2009

I-314

Commerce Drive

Prince George's Boulevard to Prince George's Boulevard

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

I-315

Queen's Court

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to Prince George's Boulevard

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

I-316

Trade Zone Avenue

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to Commerce Drive

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

I-400

Ardwick-Ardmore Road

John Hanson Highway to Beltway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-401

Truck Way Extended

Hampton Park Boulevard to Truck Way

Subregion 4 (2010)

I-402

Morgan Boulevard/MD 214 Access Road

Morgan Boulevard to Truck Way

Subregion 4 (2010)

I-403

Cabin Branch Drive

Sheriff Road to John Hanson Highway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-404

Hubbard Road

Pennsy Drive to Martin Luther King, Jr. Highway

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-405

Jefferson Avenue

Pennsy Drive to Ardwick-Ardmore Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-412

Brightseat Business Park Road

Redskins Road to Brightseat Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-413

Hampton Park Boulevard/Kaverton Road

Marlboro Pike to Central Avenue

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-414

Kaverton Road

D'Arcy Road to Marlboro Pike

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

I-415

Ritchie Road Spur

Ritchie Road to Hampton Park Boulevard

2 to 4

Subregion 4 (2010)

I-416

Cryden Way/Parston Drive

Forestville Road to Kaverton Boulevard

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-417

Marlboro Pike

Forestville Road to Kaverton Boulevard

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-502

Louie Pepper Drive

Old Alexandria Ferry Road to Woodyard Road

Subregion 5-2013

I-503

Short Cut Road

A-63 to Brandywine Road

Subregion 5-2013

I-504

Woodyard Road Node Main Street

I-505 to MD 223

4 w/ on-street parking both sides

Central Branch Ave 2013 Central Branch Ave 2013

I-505

Woodyard Road Node Connector

I-504 to Mike Shapiro Drive

I-506

Woody Terrace Extended

MD 5 to MD 223

Central Branch Ave 2013

I-507

Clinton Local Commercial Roadway

P-508 to I-506 and beyond

Central Branch Ave 2013

I-601

Foxley Road/Woodyard Industrial Road

Dower House Road to Woodyard Road

MPOT-2009

I-602

Fallard Drive

Dower House Road to Dower House Road

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-603

MD 4 Service Road

A-37 to MC-634

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

I-604

Old Marlboro Pike Loop

Marlboro Pike to Old Marlboro Pike

2 to 4

MPOT-2009

S-201

Greenvale Parkway (South)

Carter's Lane to 61st Place

Varies

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-202

58th Avenue

Riverdale Road to Roanoke Avenue

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-203

61st Place

Riverdale Hills Park to northern terminus

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-204

61st Place

Roanoke Avenue to Riverdale Hills Park

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-205

62nd Place

Riverdale Road to Sheridan Street

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-206

63rd Place

Tuckerman Street to Proposed Trailhead

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-207

66th Avenue

Riverdale Road to Patterson Street

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-208

67th Place

Riverdale Road to Patterson Street

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-209

Beacon Light Road

Patterson Street to Furman Parkway

Varies

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-210

Eastpines Drive

Riverdale Road to Oliver Street

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-211

Eastpines Drive

Oliver Street to Greenvale Parkway

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-212

Furman Parkway

Greenvale Parkway to Beacon Light Road

Varies

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-213

Patterson Street

66th Avenue to 67th Place

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-214

Roanoke Avenue

58th Avenue to 64th Avenue

Varies

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-215

Tuckerman Avenue

62nd Place to 64th Avenue

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-216

62nd Place

Sheridan Street to Tuckerman Street

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-217

Greenvale Parkway (North)

Eastpines Drive to Mustang Drive

Varies

2017 East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

S-300

Old Chapel Road

Hillmeade Road to High Bridge Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

S-301

Old Church Road

Church Road to Old Annapolis Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

S-303

Bowie Heritage Trail/Crutchfield Avenue

Falling Water Court to Chestnut Avenue

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

S-304

Bowie Heritage Trail/Chestnut Avenue

Crutchfield Avenue to 6th Street

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

S-305

Bowie Heritage Trail; Pheasant Ridge

Pheasant Ridge Court/Fletchertown Road to High Bridge Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Secondary Roads

Urban Center Streets UC-200

UC-200

Campus Drive (C-203) to UC-201

2022 Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD

UC-201

Mowatt Lane (C-203) to Campus Drive (C-203)

2022 Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD

UC-202

UC-200 to UC-201

2022 Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD

UC-203

UC-201 to Adelphi Road (A-10)

2022 Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD

UC-300

Ballpark Road

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to end of Ballpark Road

116

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-301

Chestnut Avenue/MD 564 (11th Street)

12th Street to 9th Street

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-302

Evergreen Parkway

Northview Drive to Excalibur Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-303

Evergreen Parkway

Excalibur Road to Collington Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-304

Governors Bridge Road

US 301 (Robert Crain Highway) to Long Leaf Court

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-305

Harbour Way

Mitchellville Road to US 301 (Robert Crain Highway)

116

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-306

Heritage Boulevard

Mitchellville Road to US 301 (Robert Crain Highway)

119

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Page 7 of 8

Updated Table 4 Road ID

Facility Name

Route ID

Right of Way (Feet)

Project Limits Freeways MD 197 (Laurel Bowie Road) to North End of BSU MARC Campus Center

Lanes

Most Recent Master Plan Citation(s) and Year of Approval

UC-307

Lemons Bridge Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-308

Annapolis Road

MD 450

MD 197 (Laurel Bowie Road) [A-24] to Moylan Drive

120

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-309

Annapolis Road

MD 450

Moylan Drive to Race Track Road

120

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-310

New Road A – BSU

Railroad Tracks / Lemons Bridge Road (UC307) to MD-197 (Northwest edge of BSU MARC Campus Center)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-311

New Road B - BLTC

West edge of 2035 Plan Center to New Road D - BLTC (UC-313)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-312

New Road C - BLTC

West edge of 2035 Plan Center to New Road D - BLTC (UC-313)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-313

New Road D - BLTC

New Road B - BLTC (UC-311) to MD 197 Collington Road

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-314

Old Jericho Park Road

Lemons Bridge Road (UC-307) to MD 197 (Southwest edge of BSU MARC Campus Center)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-315

New Road F - OTB

11th Street to Railroad Avenue

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-316

New Road G - BSU

MD 197 to New Road A (UC-310)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-317

New Road H - BSU

Old Jericho Park Road (UC-314) to New Road A (UC-310)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-318

New Road I - BSU

Lemons Bridge Road (UC-307) to New Road H (UC-317)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-319

New Road J - BLTC

Mitchellville Road to New Road D (UC-313)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-320

New Road K - BLTC

Northview Drive to New Road L (UC-321)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-321

New Road L - BLTC

New Road K (UC-320) to Evergreen Parkway

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-322

New Road M - BLTC

New Road K (UC-320) to Evergreen Parkway

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-323

Northview Drive

New Haven Drive to Old Collington Road

130

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

UC-324

Old Jericho Park Road Extension

MD 197 (at Old Jericho Road/UC-314) to New Road A - BSU (UC310)

2022 Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity

Key

Notes:

New facility

Intercounty Connector is listed as two unique Road IDs. Some recommendations also include limits of a since-abandoned recommended facility (A-44).

New information added to existing facility

Muirkirk Road is listed as two unique Road IDs with the same information.

New information conflicting with existing facility

Montpelier Drive is listed as two unique Road IDs with the same information.

Briggs Chaney Road is listed as two unique Road IDs with the same information.

Calverton Boulevard is listed as two unique Road IDs with the same information.

Laurel Bowie Road has conflicting limits across these two Road IDs.

Rollins Avenue/Suffolk Avenue is listed as two unique Road IDs with the same information.

There is no road called Main Street. Assumed that this is referring to Old Central Avenue.

Page 8 of 8

Attachment C

GIS Map of Existing Master Plan Rights-of-Way

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Northwestern Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø MONTGOMERY COUNTY

ø 198

GO RMAN AV RD S ANDY S PRING

S EVEN

TH S T

216

TAL BO TT AV

LAUREL

ø 197

* 95

200

¡ 1

EL LA U R

R D

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

R MI WDE PO

RD LL

ø 212

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Fairland-Beltsville & Vicinity

ø 200

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

R MIL L WDE PO

ø 212

* 95

¡ 1

W PO

R DE

Locator Map

D LR M IL

W 495

ø 201

495

TO N

½ mile

MO ED

GS RIG

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY South LaurelMontpelier

* 95

Legend ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Rights-of-Way Area

ø 200

¡ 1

ø 197

LA U

¾ N ø 212

½ mile

ø 201

RE L

W IE R D

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Agricultural Research Center

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Legend LAUREL

Rights-of-Way Area

BO WIE RD

ø 197

9TH ST 11TH ST

Locator Map

ø 564

¾ N

½ mile

ø 193

GREENBELT RD

AM NH LA

VE SE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

RM DE

D LR

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Langley Park & Vicinity

W 495

* 95

* 495

Legend University of Maryland Campus Rights-of-Way Area

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

ø 650

ø 430

ø 212

¡ 1

193

ITY B UNIVERS

LVD

Locator Map

ø ø 410

ø 500

D SR RIGG

¾ N

½ mile

CH AP EL

WDC

410

ø 501

CHILLU M RD

EE QU

ø 208

¡ ALT 1

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

W PO

RM DE

R IL L

W 495

E DM

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

495

* 95

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY College Park-Berwyn Heights & Vicinity

Legend University of Maryland Campus Rights-of-Way Area

GS RIG

ø 212

ø 193

BLVD UNIVERS ITY

¡ ø 430

GREENBELT RD

COLLEGE PARK

KE NI LW OR TH

ø 201

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

øø 410

410

ø 500

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Greenbelt & Vicinity

PO WD ER M IL LR D

¡ 1

Legend University of Maryland Campus Rights-of-Way Area ED

ON M

ø 201

* 95

GREENBELT RD

GREENBELT

KE NI LW OR TH

BERWYN HEIGHTS

193

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

ø 564

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Hyattsville-RiverdaleMt. Rainier-Brentwood

UNIVERSITY PARK

212

RD GS RIG

Legend

410

University of Maryland Campus Rights-of-Way Area

RIVERDALE PARK HYATTSVILLE

501

C HILL UM RD

¡ 1

38TH

500

HAM ILTO N

201

EDMONSTON

ø 208

MOUNT RAINIER

RT H

E Q UE

D EL R HAP NS C

BRENTWOOD COTTAGE CITY 3

N KE

ILW

ANNAPOLIS RD 450

H ST

ø 202

¡ ALT 1

L AN

COLMAR MANOR

DO V E

R RD

Locator Map

WDC

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 50

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Bladensburg-New Carrollton & Vicinity

* 95

¡ 1

ø 410

Legend

NEW CARROLLTON TE RA NS

University of Maryland Campus Rights-of-Way Area

PK W Y

ø 201

ALT 1

RT H

ø 450

ILW

BLADENSBURG

LANDOVER HILLS

ANNAPOLIS RD

202

CHEVERLY

¾ N

WDC

½ mile

¡ 50

D LA N DO VE R R

Locator Map

MA RT IN

ER TH

NG KI

ø 704

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ST 9T H

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham & Vicinity Legend Rights-of-Way Area

GREENBELT RD

ø 193

ø 564

AM NH

RN VE

GL EN

DA LE

BL VD

ø 953

450

S RD A NNA PO LI

ENTE RP RISE R D

N TI AR M

KING HWY ER TH LU

Locator Map

¡ 50

¾ N

½ mile

ø 704

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

LA UR E

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Bowie & Vicinity

LB OW IE R D

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY T 9TH S

11TH ST

ø 564

AM NH LA

E EV

ø GL EN N

CR AI N

HW Y

197

DA L E VD BL

976

D 450 O LIS R A NNA P

ø 3

Locator Map

ø ENTE RPR IS E RD

193

¾ N

ø ½ mile 953

¡ 50

¡ 301

LLI N GTO N RD

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

11TH ST

IE RD OW LB

ø 564

Legend

DA LE

Rights-of-Way Area

CR AIN

LA GL EN N

HW Y

AM NH

RN VE

LA URE

T HS

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY City of Bowie

BL VD

ANNAPO L IS RD

ø ø 450

197

ø ø 976

BOWIE

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

ø 953

ø 704

ø 193

CO L

¡ 50

L IN

G TO N RD

¡ 301

Locator Map

ISE RPR TE EN RD

ø 214

S IN TK WA DR RK PA

N ½ mile

ø 978

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Landover & Vicinity

N RA TE S

Y W PK

RT H

410

Legend

O W IL N

450

Rights-of-Way Area

ANNAPOLIS RD

ø 201

¡ 50

AR M

N TI

T LU

R HE

NG KI

* 95

GLENARDEN

ø 202

ø 704

LA NDOVER RD

Locator Map

FAIRMOUNT HEIGHTS

WDC SEAT PLEASANT

¾ N

½ mile

AL CEN TR

ø 332

ø 214

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Largo-Lottsford

¡ 50

AR M

N TI

TH LU

NG KI

704

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

LA N DOVER RD

ø 193

EN T

D ER IS PR ER

214

AT W

NS KI

202

D RK PA

* 95

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 3

CO L

953

¡ 50

LIN

GT O N

ø 197

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Mitchellville & Vicinity Legend Rights-of-Way Area

EN IS E RPR TE RD

ø 193

¡ 301

ø 214

W NS KI AT

ø 978

DR RK PA

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

ø 202

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 197

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Collington & Vicinity

CRAIN HWY

¡ LLI N GT O N RD

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

¡ 301

ø ø 214

978

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Suitland-District Heights, Capitol

RT IN

LU TH ER

KI N

704

Legend

ø 214

WDC

332 CE NTRAL A

Rights-of-Way Area

DISTRICT HEIGHTS

ø 218

S UI TLA

ND RD

SILV

D ER HILL R

458

R RD

ø 4

* 95

Locator Map

ø 5

N RD TOW

N LLE

NA B BAR

414

¾ N

½ mile

ø 337

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Heights

WDC YL

Legend

Rights-of-Way Area

218

S UI TLA ND

R E R HILL SILV

458

ø 414

AB RN BA

* 95

ø 5

FOREST HEIGHTS

* 295

N ½ mile

N LE AL

337

Locator Map

ø 210

ø 223

D DR O DY A R WO

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

458

WDC

ø 414

S ABA RN BA

L AL

* 95

N OW T EN

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Henson Creek

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 337

ø 5

ø 210

A CAT PIS

RD WA Y

DY A WO O

R RD

Locator Map

223

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

TO LEN AL

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Melwood

WN RD

Legend

* 95

Rights-of-Way Area

ø 4

ø 337

Locator Map

ø 5

ø 223

¾ N

½ mile

Y WO O D

D DR AR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

WA T

LARGO RD

KIN S

PA R

ø 202

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Westphalia & Vicinity Legend Rights-of-Way Area

* 95

ø 337

Locator Map

ø 4

ø ½ mile

WO OD

¾ N

Y A RD RD

223

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Upper Marlboro & Vicinity

ø 193

KINS WA T K PAR

LA RGO RD

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 202

M AR

301

¾ N

½ mile

E PIK

Locator Map

725

AR D M LBO R OL O

UPPER MARLBORO

RO PIKE LBO

IN MA

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY South Potomac Sector

* 95

WDC

* 295

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 210

ø W A

223

A AT

Locator Map

N ½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Clinton & Vicinity Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 223

W CA TA PIS

AY RD

RD DYARD WO O

ø 5

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Tippett & Vicinity

A TAW PIS C

AY RD

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 223

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 725

DMARLB OR OL O E PIK

ø 4

IN MA

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Rosaryville Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 223

CR O OMRD

RD RD YA

¡ 301

ø 382

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Mount CalvertNottingham

ø 4

¡ 301

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CR OO

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

M RD

ø 382

CALVERT COUNTY

N ½ mile

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Accokeek Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 210

LIVINGSTON RD

ø 373

ACCOKEE K RD

228

BE R RY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

PIS CATA WA

ø 223

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Piscataway & Vicinity Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 210

ø 373

LIVINGSTON RD

ACCO KE EK RD

ø 228

BE RRY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Brandywine & Vicinity Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 5

¡ 301

ø 381

BRANDYWINE RD

ø 373

EK RD ACCO KE

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Cedarville & Vicinity

ø 5

Legend Rights-of-Way Area

D KR EE

¡ 301

373

BRANDYWIN RD E

ø 381

AQ D OR SC UA

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Croom-Naylor Legend Rights-of-Way Area

¡ 301

CRO O MR D

ø 382

Locator Map

BR AN DY W IN E

R D

¾ N

ø 381

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Baden Area Legend Rights-of-Way Area

BR AN

DY W

INE RD

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ SC UA O RD

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY O OM RD CR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Westwood Area Legend Rights-of-Way Area

CALVERT COUNTY

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ

UA S

OM RD CRO RD

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Aquasco Legend Rights-of-Way Area

ø 381

CALVERT COUNTY

CHARLES COUNTY

CO AS U AQ

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING UNBUILT MASTER PLAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY Laurel Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend

SE V

E NT

H ST

Rights-of-Way Area

ø 216

* 95

Y S A ND

S PRIN

G RD

OT TALB T AV

198

GO RMAN AV

FO R

T M E A DE R D

¡ 1

Locator Map

ø 197

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

U LA

½ mile

BO W IE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

TASK 6.2

High-Congestion/Low-Transit Corridors

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Identifying High-Congestion/Low-Transit (HC/LT) Corridors Background High-Congestion/Low-Transit (HC/LT) Corridors are defined as corridors of major arterials, expressways, and freeways in Prince George’s County that: 1) Have high levels of congestion, defined as exceeding the link-level volume-to-capacity ratios defined in the County’s Transportation Review Guidelines; and 2) Have low levels of existing and potential transit service, defined as: a) Not identified as having potential for a large-scale transit corridor; and b) Not identified as having potential as a future bus transit corridor; and c)

Either: i)

Not having any existing transit service; or

ii)

Not having local-serving transit stops (for example, long-distance commuter buses traverse the corridor but do not stop frequently along the corridor)

Transit Facilities The HC/LT Corridor selection process considered three broad categories of transit service: existing transit service, the Next Large-Scale Transit Corridor, and potential future bus transit corridors. This evaluation was based on County approved plans and project alignments as of Spring 2022. Figure 1 illustrates existing transit routes and stops in Prince George’s County from the following services: • • • • • • •

TheBus Metrobus Metrorail MTA Commuter Bus Shuttle-UM Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland (RTA) Bus MARC Commuter Rail

Figure 2 illustrates conceptual alignments of potential candidates for the next large-scale transit corridor and for potential future bus corridors. These corridors are identified and described in more detail Appendices 7 and 8.

Level of Service Figure 3 illustrates major arterial, expressway, and freeway segments throughout Prince George’s County. Segments that exceed volume-to-capacity ratio level of service thresholds in either the AM or PM peak period in either the year 2020 existing analysis period or year 2045 future baseline analysis period are displayed in salmon; all other arterial segments are displayed in dark green (see Attachment 15 for details on the level of service calculation).

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !! ! !!!

Figure 1:

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !!! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! !!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!

EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES & STOPS

¡ 1

Legend <

* 495

Metro Station Metro Lines

Bus Stops Bus Service

¡ 50

* 495

¡ 301

! !

! ! !

5 mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Figure 2:

POTENTIAL FUTURE TRANSIT CORRIDORS

¡ 1

Legend

Potential Future Bus Corridor Potential Large-Scale Transit Corridor

495

¡ 50

* 495

301

5 mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Figure 3:

MAJOR ARTERIALS, EXPRESSWAYS, & FREEWAYS

¡ 1

Legend

Congested (AM or PM, 2020 or 2045)

495

Not Congested

¡ 50

* 495

301

5 mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

High-Congestion / Low-Transit Corridors August 11, 2022

Combining HC/LT Factors Figure 4 illustrates the combination of HC/LT factors: existing transit routes and stops, potential large-scale transit corridors, potential future bus corridors, and the congestion status of arterial, expressway, and freeway segments based on the worst-performing period among AM and PM peak periods in 2020 and 2045. Based on visual inspection of these factors, HC/LT corridors were identified. Table 1 lists the 16 selected HC/LT corridors, which are also illustrated in Figure 5. All of the corridors experience congestion during at least one the identified periods across the nearly complete and continuous length of the corridor; there may be small gaps in some corridors where congestion does not exceed established thresholds, but the overall experience of corridor travel is congested. Many of the identified HC/LT corridors have no transit whatsoever and adjacent street networks and land uses are not conducive to walking or bicycling to transit or other destinations. Other identified HC/LT corridors carry transit routes for part or all their length, but do not have more than a few local-serving transit stops, if any.

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !! ! !!!

Figure 4:

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !!! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! !!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!

HIGH-CONGESTION / LOW-TRANSIT CORRIDOR CRITERIA

¡ 1

Legend

495

Bus Stops Bus Service Congested (AM or PM, 2020 or 2045) Not Congested Potential Future Bus Corridor Potential Large-Scale Transit Corridor

¡ 50

* 495

¡ 301

! !

! ! !

5 mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

High-Congestion / Low-Transit Corridors August 11, 2022

Table 1: High-Congestion/Low-Transit Corridors # Facility

From

Transit Considerations

1 MD 198

Montgomery County Line

9th St

transit on corridor; no/few stops

2 I-95

Howard County Line

I-495

transit on corridor; no/few stops

3 I-495

Montgomery County Line

Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge

transit on corridor; no/few stops

4 MD 197

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Jericho Park Road (Bowie State Univ)

no transit

5 MD 193

MD 564

MD 214

no transit

6 MD 3/US 301

Anne Arundel County Line

Charles County Line

no transit

7 US 50

District of Columbia Line

Anne Arundel County Line

transit on corridor; no/few stops

8 Lottsford Rd

MD 202

MD 193

no transit

9 MD 214

US 301

Anne Arundel County Line

no transit

10 White House Rd I-495

MD 202

no transit

11 MD 210

I-495

Charles County Line

transit on corridor; no/few stops

12 MD 223

Dangerfield Rd

Dower House Rd

no transit

13 MD 223

Farmington Rd

Temple Hill Rd

no transit

14 MD 373

Bealle Hill Rd

McKendree Rd

no transit

15 MD 381

US-301

N Keys Rd

no transit

Note: Palmer Rd / Tucker Rd / Allentown Rd from MD 210 to Temple Hill Rd, not included in this table, appears to have no local transit stops in Figure 4 due to a lack of available data; however, TheBus route 37 and WMATA route W7 both serve this corridor with regularly spaced local-serving stops, so it is not considered High-Congestion/Low-Transit.

Figure 5:

HIGH-CONGESTION / LOW-TRANSIT CORRIDORS

ø 1

ø 2

¡ 1

Legend

High-Congestion/ Low-Transit Corridors

495

ø 5

ø¡ * ø 7

ø 9

ø 10

ø 6

* 495

ø 12

¡ 301

ø 13

ø 11

ø 15

5 mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

High-Congestion / Low-Transit Corridors August 11, 2022

Addressing Transportation Concerns in HC/LT Corridors Although Figure 4 illustrates that vehicular congestion is pervasive on the HC/LT Corridors, concerns expressed in public meetings are more comprehensive and multimodal in nature. Public concerns include: •

Lack of safe, comfortable, and connected/continuous bike and pedestrian facility networks and safe crossings of corridors, especially near transit stops

•

Safety for all road users

•

Roads with high design speeds in dynamic areas filled with pedestrians

•

Consideration of development on already crowded roads

•

Desire for first-/last-mile solutions, such as flex route /microtransit service to serve lowerdensity areas

•

Network connectivity

•

Appropriate performance emphasis on highways versus neighborhoods

Potential practices for addressing transportation concerns in HC/LT Corridors include: •

•

• •

Expand network connectivity. Where possible, expanding network connectivity. Providing more travel route options by having more continuous and connected small streets spreads traffic across a wider network and relieves traffic congestion. Connected, especially by grid, networks spread traffic more equitably than cul-de-sac networks, reduce trip lengths, and reduce the need for wide streets. Understand corridor users. Big Data sources such as StreetLight Data and RITIS can provide an understanding of the ultimate origins and destinations of travelers along each HC/LT corridor and help identify other potential solutions. An origin/destination analysis can reveal whether the corridor serves local travelers or is a through-route for origins and destinations beyond Prince George’s County. Clarify corridor priorities. Identifying the primary use of each corridor, the vision for its surrounding land use context, and the performance measures that will guide its planning are prerequisites to designing appropriate solutions. This may come from planning documents such as the General Plan. A limited-access freeway will likely emphasize longer-distance mobility, while a corridor through a dense and vibrant community may prioritize multimodal access and quality of place. Leverage land use solutions. Denser, mixed-use communities can reduce the congestion on HC/LT corridors by providing numerous opportunities for travelers to meet their travel needs locally without the need for a private automobile. When driving is necessary, these communities make it possible to quickly meet their travel needs and within a shorter travel distance. Manage transportation demand. Providing travelers with alternatives and incentives can help reduce the demand for travel or shift travel from the single-occupant vehicle trips that result in corridor-level congestion to other modes, times, and routes. Manage access. Access management by spacing or removing access points and driveways can increase roadway capacity, reduce crashes, and reduce travel times on a particular facility. However, these considerations are most appropriate for corridors emphasizing the through-movement of vehicles and can result in less-direct travel paths to destinations by limiting the connectivity of the network. 9

High-Congestion / Low-Transit Corridors August 11, 2022

•

Develop and apply a Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) strategy. TSMO strategies aim to avoid constructing larger roadways and intersections by better managing and operating existing transportation systems. These solutions include management of special circumstances, such as work zones, traffic incidents, special events, and road weather events; integrated corridor management through active management and integrated decision-making for the corridor as a whole, including traffic signal coordination, ramp management, traveler information, and eventually autonomous vehicle management; and congestion pricing and other traveler incentive programs. Don’t count transit out. Relatively high-volume origin/destination pairs identified through a Big Data analysis may present otherwise unidentified opportunities for transit service or carpooling, vanpooling, or park-and-ride lots. Even corridors that are not themselves wellserved by transit may carry transit service that provides access to important destinations throughout the County. Alternatives to conventional, fixed-route transit—such as partnerships with ridesharing companies and on-demand transit like Call-A-Bus—can provide point-to-point connections for travelers or close first-/last-mile gaps in the transit system.

Implementing HC/LT Corridors: Strengths and Concerns The High-Congestion/Low Transit corridor concept is helpful for identifying current congestion challenges and current limitations on future options for addressing those challenges with conventional transit solutions. However, this assessment should not be used as a justification for indefinitely accepting those limitations on all HC/LT corridors. Although public feedback ranked congestion (measured by vehicular level of service) as the sixth most important of seven transportation indicators of success, the inherent emphasis on congestion on the HC/LT corridors may bias action toward automobile-focused efforts that may alleviate congestion in the short term but ultimately lead to increased automobile travel and congestion. While many of the operational strategies outlined above can help make the best use of existing automobile infrastructure, other automobile-focused solutions—particularly expansion of vehicular capacity—may ultimately induce additional vehicle travel and increase congestion; in the meantime, roadway expansions may suppress the potential for access and travel by other modes such as walking, biking, and transit, thereby further increasing reliance on automobile travel and exacerbating congestion concerns. Given the increasingly multimodal nature of travel in the County and public feedback supporting additional approaches to measuring transportation success, other approaches may be more appropriate to improve and evaluate transportation, such as accessibility, increased nonautomobile mode share, reduced severe and fatal crashes, and reduced vehicle miles traveled.

TASK 6.3

Scenic and Historic Roads

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Existing Special Roadways Background Prince George’s County has changed from what was once a predominantly rural county surrounding smaller communities and neighborhoods to a more urban county with remnants of its rural heritage located mostly in the southern portion. Over the past four decades, however, Prince George’s County has worked hard to inventory, designate, and manage nearly 400 miles of its extensive network of scenic and historic roads. Several reports have inventoried the County’s historic and scenic assets, including the 1984 Scenic Roads Study and the 1992 Prince George’s County Historic Sites and Districts Plan. Other roads have been designated in area master plans, the General Plan, or through separate resolutions of the County Council. Two state-designated scenic byways and two significant parkways, owned and managed by the National Park Service, act as major circulation corridors as well as gateways to the nation’s capital. The existing scenic and historic roads, the two-state designated scenic byways, and the parkways are shown on the Existing Scenic and Historic Roads Inventory Map. The County is also blessed with two National Historic Trails, one of which is also managed as a scenic byway in Maryland. The 2009 Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT) established that the conservation and enhancement of these specially designated roadways are intended to provide safe and enjoyable travel while preserving the scenic and historic resources within the rights-of-way and on adjacent land. The 2009 MPOT also stated that all road designs and construction provide, insofar as practicable, a consistently safe but visually varied environment that is pleasing to all road users and adjacent property owners.

Designated Scenic and Historic Roads A scenic road is defined in Subtitle 23 of the Prince George’s County Code as: “a public or private road, as designated by the County Council, which provides scenic views along a substantial part of its length through natural or man-made features, such as forest or extensive woodland, cropland, pasturage, or meadows; distinctive topography including outcroppings, streambeds and wetlands; traditional building types; historic sites; or roadway features such as curving, rolling roadway alignment and leaf tunnels.” A historic road is defined in Subtitle 23 as: “a public or private road, as designated by the County Council, which has been documented by historic surveys or maps, and which maintains its historic alignment and historic landscape context through views of natural features, historic landscape patterns, historic sites and structures, historic farmstead groupings, or rural villages.” The 2009 MPOT established a Master List of Designated Scenic and Historic Roads (2009 MPOT Table 5: Special Roadways) designated as scenic or historic by the County Council and included additional historic roads that were designated with the adoption of the 2009 plan. The Prince George’s County Planning Department periodically updated the Master List in response to County Council actions. Designated historic roads were identified in the 1828 Levy Court Road Survey and were analyzed by Planning Department staff and refined to list segments that maintain their historic alignments.

Scenic and Historic Roadways Assessment June 10, 2022

The 1828 Levy Court Road Survey of public roads in the County was prepared by a committee appointed by the Prince George’s County Levy Court in 1827. It was the third such survey conducted; the first was prepared in 1739 and the second in 1762. Most of the roads identified in the 1828 road survey can also be identified on the 1861 Simon J. Martenet’s map of Prince George’s County. While the original alignments of these historic travel routes have been widened, straightened, and modernized as transportation changed, the various layers of history can still be interpreted that were associated with these travel routes. Planning Department staff used a 2005 publication of the M-NCPPC Natural and Historical Resources Division, Department of Parks and Recreation, entitled The 1828 Levy Court Road Survey, Prince George’s County: A Description of the Roads as They Currently Exist to document a list of roads that still follow the general pathway of the old roads and still maintain historic alignment and landscape context. The historic road designations that were based on this document are noted in Table 1 of Attachment A (updated 2009 MPOT Table 5). Guidance for the inventory of Scenic and Historic Features used as the basis for designating scenic and historic roads include the document, “Guidelines for the Design of Scenic and Historic Roadways in Prince George’s County, Maryland” and in the publications “National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes” and “National Register Bulletin 30: How to Identify, Evaluate and Register Rural Historic Landscapes.” Natural and cultural resources within the rights-of-way and adjacent to scenic and historic roads continue to be important and efforts have been made over the past decade to continue to protect those resources. Extensive efforts have been made to preserve and enhance the viewsheds of designated scenic and historic roads through the careful evaluation of land development proposals and the placement of new development out of the viewsheds as much as possible and through the preservation or enhancement of the existing vegetation along the roadway. Land conservation measures such as agricultural land protection, the identification of preservation priorities through comprehensive planning, and the establishment of conservation easements, woodland conservation and tree protection measures continue to be the most important tools for protecting the views and context of Prince George’s County’s scenic and historic roads. Corridor planning and management is an important tool used to protect Maryland's state and nationally designated scenic byways as well as the County’s two National Historic Trails.

Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway Since the adoption of the 2009 MPOT, the State of Maryland, in partnership with the National Park Service combined the former Lower Patuxent River Tour along with other routes in southern Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore to form the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway (STSP) marking and interpreting numerous sites associated with the War of 1812 in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington D.C., and the military campaign that culminated in the birth of "The Star-Spangled Banner." A combined General Management Plan for the National Historic Trail (required by federal authorizing legislation) and a Corridor Management Plan (required for potential designation of the route as a National Scenic Byway) was completed in 2012. The plan includes extensive information on the preservation, enhancement and management of the National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway including recommendations specific to Prince George’s County.

Scenic and Historic Roadways Assessment June 10, 2022

Parkways A parkway is a linear, landscaped park designed to encompass a roadway that is restricted to use by automobiles. There are five major parkways in the national capital region, all under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. All the parkways have open qualities worthy of preservation and are characterized by their scenic and pastoral views, while providing important circulation linkages. Two are partly located in Prince George’s County. •

•

Suitland Parkway: The Suitland Parkway opened in 1944. It connects Joint Base Andrews (JBA) to South Capitol Street and serves as a major transportation link used by visitors and commuters approaching the nation’s capital from the east and as a gateway to the District of Columbia for foreign heads of state and dignitaries who arrive at JBA. Baltimore–Washington Parkway: The Baltimore–Washington Parkway opened in 1954. It is a 29-mile scenic highway that connects Baltimore to Washington, D.C., and runs through the northern portion of Prince George’s County. This roadway is also part of the designated Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway, based on a theme of events in the Chesapeake Campaign related to the War of 1812.

State-Designated Scenic Byways The Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (MDOT/SHA) has designated 18 state scenic byways covering nearly 2,500 miles of outstanding travel experiences offering a taste of Maryland’s scenic beauty, history, and culture. Maryland’s scenic byway program is a partnership between MDOT/SHA, the Maryland Office of Tourism Development, Maryland Heritage Areas Program operated by the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), Maryland Department of Planning, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, among others. The program was established in 1988 and since that time seven of the 18 byways have received national designation through the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byway Program. Over the years, Maryland’s State Scenic Byway Program, according to its website, has partnered with local communities on Corridor Management Plans (CMPs) and other measures to assist the local communities’ efforts to protect and enhance the byways. CMPs are flexible documents that change with the community to inventory important intrinsic qualities associated with the byway corridors, and develop management strategies for preserving, enhancing, and interpreting those resources to increase heritage- and nature-based tourism as well as improve the overall quality of life in the communities through which the byways pass. Prince George’s County completed the Croom and Aquasco Roads Scenic Byway Plan Elements: A Corridor Management Program for these Roadways and Other Related StarSpangled Banner Historic Roadways in Prince George’s County concurrently with the National Park Service’s development of the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (STSP CMP). In addition, a rural villages component was completed to address the specific needs of Croom, Aquasco, and Baden, three villages located along the scenic byway. The plan elements focused on the conservation and enhancement of scenic and historic roadways, the rural character of the surrounding landscape, and ways to improve safety and aesthetics in the built environment. The Croom and Aquasco Roads Scenic Byway Plan Elements includes an effort focused on the byway corridor itself. The STSP CMP incorporates recommendations and guidelines for improvements within and beyond the scenic byway’s rights3

Scenic and Historic Roadways Assessment June 10, 2022

of-way. The County’s scenic byway study, partially funded through the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (MDOT/SHA) from the federally funded National Scenic Byways Program, completes a project initiated in 2007, referred to as the Lower Patuxent Scenic Byway, and links the byway corridor with the National Park Service-led effort focused on the Star- Spangled Banner Historic Trail and Scenic Byway.

Related Planning and Management Efforts Three directly related efforts also contribute to the opportunities for managing and enhancing the Special Roadways. Anacostia Trails Heritage Area The Anacostia Trails Heritage Area (ATHA) is one of 13 Heritage Areas certified by the State of Maryland under the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority. The Anacostia Trails Heritage Area encompasses over 100 square miles of Northern Prince George’s County. (“About Maryland Milestones – Anacostia Trails Heritage Area”) The Heritage Area, according to its website is “dedicated to preserving and promoting the historical, artistic, cultural, and natural resources of the Certified Heritage Area. ATHA Inc. performs its work through partnerships, programs, and grantmaking. (“Maryland Milestones/ATHA - Maryland's Heritage Areas”) Our partnerships include Federal partners (Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, NASA Goddard, Greenbelt National Park, and the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge); State Partners (MHAA, Office of Tourism Development) Regional Partners (Prince George’s Conference and Visitors Bureau, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Prince George’s County); and local partners, sites, and municipalities. Our participating municipalities are Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, Edmonston, Berwyn Heights, Greenbelt, College Park, Mt. Rainier, Hyattsville, Brentwood, North Brentwood, Riverdale Park, University Park, the Beltsville area, Bowie, Cheverly, and unincorporated areas around Glenn Dale.” Twenty of Prince George’s County’s designated scenic and historic roads are entirely or partially within the boundaries of the Anacostia Trails Heritage Area. The delineation of the heritage area in relation to designated scenic and historic roads is shown on the scenic and historic road inventory maps. The following designated roads are within the Anacostia Trails Heritage Area: • • • • • • • • • • •

Ager Road Beaverdam Road Duckettown Road MD 201 (Edmonston Road) Good Luck Road Hamilton Street Main Street/Brooklyn Bridge Road MD 197 (Laurel Bowie Road) Old Gunpowder Road Powder Mill Road Springfield Road

Scenic and Historic Roadways Assessment June 10, 2022

Southern Maryland Heritage Area A small section of this heritage area reaches into Prince George’s County in the far southern part of the County and is bordered by Cedarville Road, a designated historic road in the County. Although the Southern Maryland Heritage Area is managed for Charles, St. Mary’s and Calvert counties, some coordination and management opportunities may present themselves over time for the two designated scenic and historic roads. The following designated roads are within the Southern Maryland Heritage Area • •

Dent Road (portion in Heritage Area) Cedarville Road (portion in Heritage Area)

Mount Vernon Viewshed M-NPPC has been working for many decades to preserve the significant viewshed across the Potomac River from the porch of Mount Vernon, the historic home and Potomac riverfront plantation of George Washington. The sweeping panorama or viewshed, also called the Mount Vernon Viewshed Area of Primary Concern, covers portions of Prince George’s and Charles Counties, making them important components of the environmental setting of a national historic landmark. As seen from Mount Vernon, the Piscataway-Accokeek area has remained largely unchanged since the 18th century while locally under an extensive tree canopy. M-NCPPC has been working to maintain and conserve the tree canopy coverage within the Mount Vernon Viewshed Area of Primary Concern, which would retain the local character and livability of these communities while preserving the historic, cultural landscape view. (“Conserving Significant Cultural Landscapes”) The delineation of the viewshed area of concern is shown on the scenic and historic road inventory maps. Other Planning Considerations: Chapter 9 of the 2010 Historic Sites and Districts Plan includes a chapter on Cultural Landscape Conservation, including a discussion of the characteristics of cultural landscapes, why they need protection, and strategies for their protection. Itcites the National Park Service definition, “A cultural landscape may be defined as a geographic area that includes cultural and natural resources associated with a historic event, activity, person, or group of people”. 1 Cultural landscapes can be found along special roadways. They are often associated with the setting of an historic site (such as the Mount Vernon viewshed) or with travel routes associated with significant historic events or activities (such as Booth’s Escape Scenic Byway). Section 4.6-2 of the 2010 Prince George's County Landscape Manual stipulates requirements for buffering development from Special Roadways based on "tier" designation (now Environmental Strategy Area, or ESA designation), which was incorporated into the 2018 revision of the Landscape Manual under the new Zoning Ordinance.

See National Park Service/U.S. Department of the Interior Preservation Brief 36, “Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes, 1994”.

Scenic and Historic Roadways Assessment June 10, 2022

State Roads designated as County Scenic and/or Historic Roads Not all County-designated roads are located on County-managed roadways. The following designated roadways incorporate all or portions of state roads as County-designated scenic or historic roadways: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

MD 373 (Accokeek Road) MD 450 (Annapolis Road) MD 381 (Aquasco Road) MD 381 (Brandywine Road) MD 197 (Collington Road) MD 382 (Croom Road) MD 201 (Edmonston Road/Kenilworth Avenue) MD 193 (Enterprise Road) MD 202 (Largo Road) MD 197 (Laurel Bowie Road) MD 725 (Marlboro Pike) MD 223 (Piscataway Road) MD 193 (Watkins Park Drive)

Resource Conservation Countywide Functional Master Plan The Resource Conservation Countywide Functional Master Plan (RCP) combines the related elements of green infrastructure planning and rural and agricultural conservation into one functional master plan in response to recommendations in the County’s general land use plan, Plan Prince George’s 2035 Approved General Plan (Plan 2035). The RCP incorporates a new functional master plan for rural character and viewshed conservation, the Rural Character Conservation Plan, which consolidates the recommendations from numerous previously approved plans and studies directly related to portions of the County’s special roadways. These studies include corridor management plans for the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and Scenic Byway, its predecessor, the Lower Patuxent Scenic Byway and the Rural Villages study, a Cultural Landscape study prepared for the Mount Vernon Viewshed and Piscataway, and Accokeek Historic Village. They are all contained or referenced in the RCP, adopted in 2017 (https://www.mncppc.org/881/Resource-Conservation-Plan).

Special Roadways Inventory The table and maps, in Attachment A and B respectively, provide information about the location, planning context and special qualities for all 394 miles of Prince George’s County’s designated scenic and historic roads. The table, organized by Planning Subregions 1-7, includes the following elements: • • •

Subregion Designation—Scenic, historic, or scenic/historic designation Road Name— As designated

Scenic and Historic Roadways Assessment June 10, 2022

• • • • • • •

Roadway Limits—The beginning and ending intersection roadways or boundaries. For routes that have different characteristics over their lengths, the roadway is broken down by segments Functional Class—For multiple segments, the functional class is broken down by the corresponding segment, where applicable Source Master Plan— Reference to the subregion or planning area master plans Planning Area— For routes with multiple planning areas over their lengths, the roadway’s planning areas correspond to the segment Additional Recognition—Designated roadways falling into a Heritage Area, the Mount Vernon Viewshed, the Star-spangled Banner National Historic Trail, or the Booth’s Escape State Scenic Byway and Civil War Trail are noted Adjacent Land Use—Lists the various land uses adjacent to the designated roadway including whether the adjacent lands are considered as a preservation priority Features—Listing of related historic designations or settings, special conservation areas, tree canopy, or woodland conservation efforts

The Special Roadways inventory maps illustrate the location of the scenic and historic road designations along with the planning context including: • • • • • • • • • •

MDOT/SHA Scenic Byways National Register Historic Districts Historic Environmental Settings (County) Historic African American Community (County) Priority Preservation Areas (County) Special Conservation Areas Woodland Conservation Areas Tree Canopy Public Land Locations of Maryland Heritage Areas, the Mount Vernon Viewshed (index/context map)

The maps are organized by Planning Subregions 1-7. Representative photographs of each designated scenic and historic road are shown on maps illustrating the existing characteristics. A photographic inventory includes sequential images of each designated road taken 30 seconds apart using a dash-mounted camera. These photos will be made available to County staff as a separate resource tool for future scenic road management.

Attachment A

Scenic and Historic Road Inventory Table

Table 1: Special Roadways Inventory Roadway Limits

Functional Class

Laurel-Bowie Road (MD197)

Normal School Road to 5100 Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) (Lerner Place)

Arterial

Historic

Main Street / BrooklynBridgeRoad

9th Street to Baltimore- Washington Boulevard

Historic

Odell Road

Muirkirk Road to “Paint Branch”+D4:K5D141D5:M5DD4:K5

Historic

Old Baltimore Pike

Prop MD 201 Ext (A-56) to Odell Road Cook Road to Prop MD 201 Ext. (A-56) Edmonston Road to Muirkirk Road

Historic

Old Gunpowder Road

I-95 to Sandy Spring Road

Historic

Old MuirkirkRoad

Loop off of Muirkirk E of CSX RR

Sub-region

Designation

Historic

Road Name

Master Plan

Planning Area

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie and Vicinity

71A/71B

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 1

60/62

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 1

Anacostia Trails Heritage Reserved Open Space Area

Local Industrial Collector

Eastern Avenue to Baltimore-Washington Parkway+D4:K5

Subregion 1

Heavy Industrial, open space, reserved Anacostia Trails Heritage open space, rural Residential, OneArea family Detached Residential,

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 1

60/61

1992 HS&D Plan

Subregion 1

Local

Source

Historic

Powder Mill Road

Edmonston Road to Laurel-Bowie Road

Local

1828 Levy County Survey

Historic

40th Place

Crittenden Street to Hamilton Street

Local

Historic

Ager Road

Hamilton Street to Riggs Road (MD 212)

Historic

Annapolis Road (MD-450)

Scenic/Historic

Historic

Subregion 1

1828 Levy Court Survey

Hyattsville-PA 68

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Langley Park; Hyattsville-PA 68

65/68

Crain Highway (MD 3) to Folly Branch at Buena Vista (Martin Luther King Jr. Highway)

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham and Vicinity Bowie and Vicinity

70/71A

Bladensburg Road (US 1 Alt)

Bladensburg Road to Landover Road

Arterial

Hamilton Street

40th Place to Ager Road

Annapolis Road (MD-450)

Aquasco Road to end

Collector

Local

Maryland State Highway Bladensburg, New Carrollton, Administration and Vicinity

1828 Levy Court Survey

1984 Scenic Road Study

Hyattsville (PA 68)

Subregion 6

Additional Recognition

Adjacent Land Use

Anacostia Trails Heritage Residential-Agricultural, Rural Area Residential, Reserved Open Space Anacostia Trails Heritage Area

Features Special Conservation Area- Patuxent Research Refuge and Patuxent River Corridor Special Conservation Area- BARC Main Street Laurel Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Historic Environmental Setting - Walnut Grange Special Conservation Area Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- BARC

Anacostia Trails Heritage Rural Residential, Residential suburban woodland conservation area, Area development Rossville (Historic African American Anacostia Trails Heritage Community) Area Historic Environmental Setting

Anacostia Trails Heritage Reserved Open Space, , Priority Area Preservation

CCC Lodge (BARC) Historic Environmental Setting - Walnut Grange Special Conservation Area- BARC Special Conservation Area- Patuxent Research Refuge and Patuxent River Corridor

Hyattsville Historic District Anacostia Trails Heritage One-familly Detached Residential, multiHistoric Environmental Setting - Miller-Spicknall Area family high density Residential, House Commercial Shopping Center, Onefamily Detached Residential, One-family Semi Detached and Two-family Detached Residential, Multifamilly Anacostia Trails Heritage Medium Density Residential, Rural Area Residential, Open Space, Multifamily Medium Density Residential condominiums, Mixed use transportation oriented, Commercial office, Townhouse, Historic African American Community Bladensburg Historic Environmental Setting- HillearyCommercial Office, Mixed Use Magruder House Anacostia Trails Heritage Transportation Oriented, Commercial Historic Environmental Setting- Public Area Office, Commercial Shopping Center, Playhouse Special Conservation Area- Anacostia River Historic Environmental Setting and Historic District - Baltimore-Washington Pkwy Anacostia Trails Heritage Historic Environmental Setting - Dueling Area Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Grounds Star Spangled Banner Reserved Open Space, Open Space, Special Conservation Area - Anacostia River NHT/SB

Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Anacostia Trails Heritage Commercial Office, Commercial Area Shopping Center, One-family Detached Residential, Reserved Open Space

Hyattsville Historic District

87A, 87B

Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Rural Residential, Commercial Office, Commerical Shopping Center, Rural Residential, Commercial General Existing, Residential Urban Anacostia Trails Heritage Development, Reserved Open Space, Area Commercial Miscellaneous, Rural Townhouse, Commercial Office, Residential-Estate, Mixed Use Community, Local Activity Center, Onefamily Detached Residential, Residential Agriculture, Townhouse

Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting, Holy Trinity Church Rectory/Holy Trinity Church and Cemetery, Historic Environmental SettingSacred Heart RC Church & Cemetery, Tree Canopy

Sub-region

Designation

Historic

Scenic/Historic

Road Name Ardwick-Ardmore Road/ Yellowood Lane (formerly Ardwick-Ardmore Road)

Bell Station Road

Roadway Limits

Baden-Westwood Road to Croom Road (MD 382)

Annapolis Road (MD 450) to Enterprise Road (MD 193) Old Prospect Hill Road to Enterprise Road (MD 193)

Church Road

0.9 mi. S of Annapolis Road (MD 450) to Oak Grove Road Annapolis Road to 0.9 mi. S of Annapolis Road (MD 450)

Historic

Collington Road (MD-197)

Mitchellville Road to Annapolis Road (MD 450)

Historic

Duckettown Road

Springfield Road to Old-Laurel Bowie Road Old Laurel-Bowie Road to Myrtle Avenue

Historic

Enterprise Road (MD-193) Central Avenue (MD 214) to Annapolis Road (MD 450)

Historic

Glenn Dale Road Old Glenn Dale Road

Annapolis Road (MD 450) to Enterprise Road (MD 193)

Historic

Governor's Bridge Road

Patuxent River to Crain Highway (US 301)

Historic

Hillmeade Road

Prospect Hill Road to Annapolis Road (MD 450)

Scenic/Historic

Historic

Scenic

Laurel-Bowie Road (MD197)

Leeland Road South

Turtle Trail/Mallard Pond to Jericho Park Road

US 301 to Oak Grove Road

Lottsford Road/ Old Lottsford Road

Landover Road (MD 202) to Enterprise Road (MD 193) Landover Road (MD 202) to Lottsford Vista Road

Scenic/Historic

Lottsford Vista Road

US 50 to Lottsford Road

Scenic/Historic

Mill Branch Road

Queen Anne Bridge Road to Crain Highway (US 301)

Historic

3 3

Functional Class

Local

Collector

Source

1992 HS&D

1992 HS&D Plan

Major Collector 1992 HS&D Plan Local

Arterial

Collector Local

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie and Vicinity

1828 Levy Court Survey

Collector

Master Plan

Planning Area

Subregion 6

86B

Glenn Dale

Bowie and Vicinity

71A 71A/71B

Bowie and Vicinity

71B

71A

Largo-Lottsford; Bowie and Vicinity

70/73/74A

Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham and Vicinity

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie and Vicinity

74B

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie and Vicinity

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Major Collector Subregion 6 Master Plan

Bowie and Vicinity

Subregion 6

64/71A

74A

Arterial

1984 Scenic Roads Study 1828 Levy Court Survey

Largo-Lottsford

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Largo-Lottsford

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie and Vicinity

74B

Additional Recognition

Adjacent Land Use

Features

Rural Residential, One-family Detached residnetial, Local Activity Center, Open Histoic Environmental Setting- Cottage at Space,Reserved Open Space, Warington Reserved Open Space Historic Environmental Setting- August DuVal House Rural Residential , Reserved Open Historic Environmental Setting- Spalding-Rigoli Anacostia Trails Heritage Space, Residential-Estate, , Commercial House Area Shopping Center, Commercial Historic Environmental Setting- Marietta Miscellaneous Historic Environmental Setting- Buena Vista at Wixon Farm Special Conservation Area- Belt Woods Historic Environmental Setting- Seton Belt Barn Rural Residential, , Residential-Estate, Historic Environmental Setting- Mullikin's Mixed Use Community, Reserved Open Delight and Cemetery Historic Environmental Setting- Bowleville Space, Residential-Agricultural, Residential Low Development, Local Historic Environmental Setting- St. Barnabas Activity Center, Church, Leeland and Cemetery Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy Multifamily Medium Density Residential, Anacostia Trails Heritage Rural Residential, Commercial Office, Area Major Activity Center, Residential Suburban Development, Rural Residential, One-family Detached Anacostia Trails Heritage Residential, Open Space, Priority Preservation, Sandy Hill Creative Area Disposal Area Residential-Estate, Rural Residential, Residential Low Development, Open Space, Reserved Open Space, , Commercial Shopping Center, Townhouse, One-familly Detached Residential General Commercial Existing, Residential Urban Development, Townhouse, One-family Detached Residential, Rural Residential Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Anacostia Trails Heritage Commercial Miscellaneous, Rural Area Residential, Reserved Open Space, Open Space Rural Residential, Residential-Estate, Open Space

Historic African American Community- Bowie Special Conservation Area- BARC

Historic Environmental Setting- Warington Barn/ Newton White Farms & Cemetery

Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Arthur G. Bowie House Historic Environmental Setting- Boxlee Tree Canopy

Priority Preservation, Residentialadgricultural, Mixed Use Transportation Tree Canopy Oriented, Open Space, City of Bowie Historic Environmental Setting- D.S.S. Goodloe Anacostia Trails Heritage Golf Course, Rural Residential, House Area Commercial Shopping Center, Woodland Conservation Area Commercial Office, One-family WB&A Electric Railway Bridge Detached Residential, ResidentialEstate, Residential Urban Development Residential-Agricultural, Rural Woodland Conservation Area Residential, Residential suburban Historic Environmental Setting- Montpelier of development, Employment and Institutional Area, Commercial Shopping Moore's Plains Center Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Planned Industrial Employment Park, Commercial Office, Residential medium Historic Environmental Setting- Warington Barn/ development, Multifamily high-rise Newton White Farms & Cemetery Residential, Townhouse, Residential suburban development, Rural Residential, Reserved Open Space, Light Industrial, Commercial Shopping Historic Environmental Setting- Warington Barn Center, Townhouse, Rural Residential, , / Newton White Farm & Cemetery Reserved Open Space Commercial Shopping Center, Woodland Conservation Area, Tree Canopy Residential-Agricultural, Open Spac

Sub-region

Designation

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Historic

Mitchellville Road

Mount Oak Road to Collington Road (MD 197) Crain Highway (US 301) to Mount Oak Road

Scenic/Historic

Mount Oak Road

Church Road

Historic

Normal School Road

Jericho Park Road to Laurel-Bowie Road (MD 197)

Scenic/Historic

Oak Grove Road

MD 193 to Leeland Road Largo Road (MD 202) to Watkins Park Road (MD 193)

Historic

Old Annapolis Road

Historic

Old Enterprise Road

Watkins Park Dr. to entrance of Watkins Park Segment through Watkins Regional Park

Scenic/Historic

Queen Anne Bridge Road

US 301 to Mill Branch Road Central Ave to Mill Branch Road Central Avenue (MD 214) to Patuxent River

Scenic/Historic

Queen Anne Road

Queen Anne Bridge Road to Crain Highway (US 301)

Historic

Watkins Park Drive (MD193)

Historic

Scenic/Historic

Historic

Branch Ave.

Historic

Marlboro Pike

Functional Class

Source

Historic

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie and Vicinity

71B/74B

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie & Vicinity

71B/74B

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Bowie and Vicinity

71A/71B

Largo-Lottsford; Subregion 6

74A/79

Largo-Lottsford

Major Collector 1828 Levy Court Survey

Local

1992 HS&D Plan 1990 Largo- Lottsford

Local

1828 Levy County Survey 1828 Levy Court Survey 1984 Scenic Roads Study

Bowie and Vicinity

74B

Local

1992 HS&D Plan

Bowie and Vicinity

74B

1992 HS&D Plan

73/79

1828 Levy Court Survey

Largo-Lottsford; Bowie and Vicinity Largo-Lottsford; Subregion 6

Largo-Lottsford; Westphalia

Oak Grove Road to Old Enterprise Road Arterial Largo Road (MD 202) to Oak Grove Road\

White House Road

Ritchie Marlboro Road to Largo Road (MD 202)

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Woodmore Road

Enterprise Road (MD 193) to Church Rd

Arterial

1992 HS&D Plan

Bowie and Vicinity

74A

1828 Levy Court Survey

1993 Subregion 6 Subregion 6 Subregion 6

79 79 78

Old Marlboro Pike (Wells Corners) to Crain Highway Largo Road to Crain Highway Woodyard Road to Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4)

Local

Ritchie Marlboro Road

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Largo-Lottsford; SuitlandDistrict Heights; Westphalia Westphalia; Subregion 6

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Suitland-District Heights

Old Marlboro Pike to White House Road

Historic

Planning Area

Arterial Collector

White House Road to Ritchie Road 4

Master Plan

Ritchie Road

Ritchie Marlboro Road to Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4)

Additional Recognition

Adjacent Land Use

Major Activity Area, Residential Urban Development, Local Activity Center, , Historic Environmental Setting - Mitchellville Rural Residential, Residential Suburban Anacostia Trails Heritage Storekeeper's House and Store Development, Reserved Open Space, Historic Environmental Setting-Carroll Chapel Area Commercial Office, One-family tree canopy Detached Residential, Townhouse, Commercial Miscellaneous Rural Estate, Open Space, One-family Detached Residential, Commercial Shopping Center, Rural Residential,

Special Conservation Area- Belt Woods Historic Environmental Setting- Mitchellville Storekeeper's House and Store Site Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- St. Barnabas Church, Leeland and Cemetery Tree Canopy

Anacostia Trails Heritage Rural Agricultural Area Resdential Low development, Residential-Agricultural, Residential Suburban Development, ResidentialEstate, Open Space Commercial Shopping Center, Rural Residential, Local Activity Center, Tree Canopy Commercial Office, Commercial Miscellaneous, One-family Detached Residential Reserved Open Space, Open Space, , Woodland Conservation Area,Tree Canopy One-family Detached Residential Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Residential-Agricultural, Reserved Open Historic Environmental Setting- Hazelwood Space, Open Space, Patuxent State Historic Environmental Setting- Mt. Nebo Park, Priority Preservation, A.M.E. Church and Cemetery Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Residential-Agricultural, Reserved Open Corridor Space, Open Space, Patuxent State Historic Environmental Setting- Hazelwood, Park, Priority Preservation Historic Environmental Setting- Mt. Nebo A.M.E. Church and Cemetery, Tree Canopy Residential-Estate, Reserved Open Woodland Conservation Area Historic Space, Residential Suburban Environmental Setting- Chelsea Development, Tree Canopy Planned Industrial/Employment Park, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Townhouse, One-family Detached Tree Canopy Residential, Rural Residential, Residential-Estate, Residential Suburban Development Commercial Shopping Center, Special Conservation Area- Belt Woods Residential-Estate, ResidetialHistoric Environmental Setting- Holy Family Agricultural, Reserved Open Space, Church and Cemetery Open Space, National Register- Suitland Parkway One-family Detached Residential, Mixed Historic Environmental Setting- Suitland Use Transportation Oriented Parkway Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Mixed Use Infill, Commercial Shopping Center, Townhouse, Townhouse, Multifamily Medium Density Residential, Special Conservation Area- Suitland Bog One-family Detached Residential, Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial miscellaneous, Commercial office, Multifamily Medium Density Residential- condominium Light Industrial, Commercial Open Space, Rural Residential, ResidentialEstate, Open Space, ResidentialAgricultural, Residential Medium Development, Residential Suburban Development, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Commercial Miscellaneous

75A

Features

Commercial Shopping Center, Mixed Use Transportation, One-family Detached Residential, Light Industrial, Reserved Open Space

Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- The Cottage & Outbuildings Tree Canopy

Sub-region

Designation

Historic

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Functional Class

Source

Master Plan

Planning Area

Suitland-District Heights

75A/75B

Additional Recognition

Central Avenue to Ritchie Road

Accokeek Road (MD 373)

Arterial Parkway Bealle Hill Road to 0.9 mi W of Branch Avenue (MD 5) Expressway/ 1992 HS & D 0.9 mi W of MD 5 to 0.4 mi west of Branch Avenue (MD 5) Arterial Plan 0.4 mi west of Branch Avenue (MD 5) to MD 5 Expressway/ Arterial

Subregion 5

84/85A 85A 85A

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Accokeek Road West

Livingston Road to end

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

Mount Vernon Viewshed

1828 Levy Court Survey

Features

Ancillary Commercial, Commercial Shopping Center, , Townhouse, Light Industrial, Reserved Open Space, Rural Residential

Walker Mill DriveOld Ritchie Road

Primary

Adjacent Land Use

Special Conservation Area- Mattawoman Creek Stream Valley, Residential-Agricultural, Reserved Open Historic Environmental Setting- UnderwoodSpace, Rural Residential, Residential- Bealle House Estate, Commerical Office Historic Environmental Setting- Asbury Church and Cemetery Tree Canopy, Woodland Conservation Area Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Park Rural-Agricultural MALPF- Daniel Residential-Estate, Commercial Woodland Conservation Area Shopping Center, Priority Preservation Tree Canopy

Historic

Scenic/Historic

Historic

Bealle Hill Road

Berry Road (MD 228) to Accokeek (MD 373) Accokeek Road (MD 373) to Livingston Road Livingston Road to Charles County

Primary

Subregion 5 Master Plan Subregion 5 Master Plan 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Rural-Agricultural, Rural Residential

Historic

Berry Road

Livingston Road to Accokeek Road

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

Mount Vernon Viewshed

, Rural Residential, Rural-Agricultural, Rural-Estate

Booth's Escape SB

Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Reserved Open Space, Commercial Miscellaneous, Ancillary Commercial, Rural Residential, Residential-Estate, Light Industrial,

Woodland Conservation Area, Tree Canopy

Booth's Escape SB

Rural Residential, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Commercial Office, , Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial Miscellaneous, Light Industrial, Local Activity Center

Historic Environmental Setting- Chapel of the Incarnation Historic Environmental Setting- Old Bank of Brandywine National Register- Early Family Historic District Woodland Conservation Area, Tree Canopy

Scenic/Historic

Brandywine Road (County)

Marbury Road to Kathleen Lane Marbury Road to Piscataway Road/ Woodyard Road

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

85A 81A

Brandywine Road (MD 381)

Special Conservation Area- Mattawoman Creek Stream Valley Tree Canopy Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area

Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Park National Register- Moyaone Reserve Historic District Historic Envrionmental Setting- Accokeek Creek Archaeological Site Woodland Conservation Area Reserved Open Space Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Park National Register- Moyaone Reserve Historic District Tree Canopy

Scenic Scenic/Histoirc Hisstoric

Bryan Point Road

Main Boulevard to Farmington Road West Main Boulevard to Accokeek Road East/ Livingston Road Farmington Road W to National Colonial Farm

Local

CR-113-1992 1828 Levy Court Survey Subregion 5 Master Plan

Subregion 5

Mount Vernon Viewshed

, Rural Residential, Commercial Shopping Center, Open Space

Scenic

Cactus Hill Road

Old Marshall Hall Road to Bryant Point Road

Local

Staff recommendation

Subregion 5

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Open Space

Historic

Danville Road

Accokeek Road (MD 373) to Floral Park Road

Collector

Subregion 5 Master Plan

Subregion 5

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Reserved Open Space, Residential Low Tree Canopy Development, Residential-Agricultural Woodland Conservation Area

Historic

Farmington Road East

MD 210 to Livingston Road

Arterial

Subregion 5 Master Plan

Subregion 5

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Rural-Estate, Rural Residential, Commercial Miscellaneous

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Park Priority Preservation, Rural Residential, National Register- Moyaone Reserve Historic Open Space District MALPF- Bonnie Tree Canopy

Mount Vernon Viewshed

National Register- Piscataway Village Historic District Historic Environmental Setting- StantonBlandford House Residential-Agricultural, Residential Low Historic Environmental Setting- Hardy's Tavern Development, Local Activity Center, Historic Environmental Setting- Dr. Edgar Hurtt Reserved Open Space House Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- Hawkins Tobacco Barn, Tree Canopy

Scenic/Historic

Historic Scenic/Historic

Farmington Road West

Floral Park Road

Livingston Road to 650 Farmington Road West

Piscataway Road (MD 223) to Brandywine Road Livingston Road to Piscataway Road (MD 223)

Collector

Collector Local

Subregion 5 Master Plan

Subregion 5 Master Plan 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

84/85A 84

Tree Canopy

Sub-region

Designation

Scenic

Historic

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Gardner Road

Accokeek Road (MD 373) to Charles County

Livingston Road

Old Piscataway Road to Old Saint John’s Way Bealle Hill Road to Farmington Road East Swan Creek Road to Ft. Washington Road Fort Washington Road to Old St. John’s Way Farmington Road East to Floral Park Road Ft. Washington Road to W. Livingston Road Farmington Road West to Indian Head Highway Accokeek Road West to Charles County Bealle Hill Road to Floral Park Road Bealle Hill Road to Charles County

Scenic/Historic

Marshall Hall Road

Old Marshall Hall Road to Charles County

Historic

McKendree Road

Accokeek Road to 0.2 N of Mister Road 0.2 N of Mister Road to 0.6 mi W of US 301 US 301 to 0.6 mi W of US 301

Scenic/Historic

Scenic Scenic/Historic

Old Marshall Hall Road

Livingston Road to Old Colonial Lane/ Cactus Hill Road Cactus Hill Road to Charles County

Piscataway Road (MD 223) Floral Park Road to Woodyard Road

Historic

Sharpeville Road

Accokeek Road to Charles County

Historic

Thrift Road

Windbrook Road to Brandywine Road

Historic

Scenic

Collector/ Local Collector Collector Local Arterial Local Collector Collector/ Arterial Collector Arterial

Local

Staff Recommendation

1828 Levy Court Survey Subregion 5 Master Plan 1992 HS&D Plan Subregion 5 Master Plan Subregion 5 Master Plan 1992 HS&D Plan 1828 Levy Court Survey 1828 Levy Court Survey 1828 Levy Court Survey 1828 Levy Court Survey

Staff recommendation

Primary Primary Subregion 5 Master Plan Major collector

Master Plan

Planning Area

Subregion 5

84/85A

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Reserved Open Space, ResidentialAgricultural

Special Conservation Area- Mattawoman Creek Stream Valley Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

Henson Creek Subregion 5 Henson Creek Subregion 5 Subregion 5 Subregion 5 Subregion 5 Subregion 5 Subregion 5 Subregion 5

80 84 80 80 80/84 80 84 83/84 84 83

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Priority Preservation, Rural Residential, Light Industrial, Residential-Agricultural, Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial Miscellaneous,

National Register- Piscataway Village Historic District Histroric Environmental Setting- St. James Hill Tree Canopy

Subregion 5

85A

Wharf Road

Farmington Road W to Piscataway Bay

Windbrook Drive

Floral Park Road to Thrift Road

Aquasco Farm Road

Additional Recognition

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Brandywine Road to Charles County

Local

1984 Scenic Roads 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

83 NA

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

84/81A/ 81B

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

81A/81B

Local

Collector

Subregion 5

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

81B/85A

Subregion 6

86A, 85A, 85B, 87A

Adjacent Land Use

Open Space, Residential-Agricultural, Priority Preservation

Priority Preservation , Rural-Estate, Rural Residential, Residential Medium Development, Townhouse

Booth's Escape SB

Historic

Scenic/Historic

Collector

Source

Old Branch Ave. (MD-5)

Functional Class

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Features

Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Park MALPF- Daniel Historic Environmental Setting- Dr. William G Hardy House Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Mattawoman Creek Stream Valley Woodland Conservation Area, Tree Canopy

Commercial Miscellaneous, One-family Detached Residential, Reserved Open Space, Commercial Shopping Center, Light Industrial, Commerical Office

Historic Environmental Setting,- Christ Church & Cemetery Tree Canopy

Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Residential-Agricultural, Rural Residential,

Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Park National Register- Moyaone Reserve Historic District MALPF- Bernard George, Catherine Historic Environmental Setting- Dr. William G Hardy House Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

Reserved Open Space, ResidentialEstate, Rural Residential, ResidentialAgricultural, Ancillary Commercial, National Register- Piscataway Village Historic Residential Low Development, District Residential Suburban Development, Local Activity Center, Commercial Shopping Center, One-family Detached Residential, Townhouse Special Conservation Area- Mattawoman Creek Priority Preservation, Rural-Agricultural Stream Valley Tree Canopy Reserved Open Space, ResidentialEstate, ResidentialHistoric Environmental Setting- Thrift School Agricultural,Woodland Conservation House Area, Residential Low Development, Historic Environmental Setting- Wyoming and Residientail Suburban Development, Cemetery Townhouse, Open Space, One-family Tree Canopy Detached Residential Historic Environmental Setting- Accokeek Creek Archaeological Site Archaeological Site (Piscataway Park) Priority Preservation,Open Space, Rural Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Residential, Park, Mayaone Reserve-Piscataway Park MALPF- Bonnie Tree Canopy

Reserved Open Space, ResidentialAgricultural, Rural Residential

Tree Canopy

Priority Preservation, Open Space, Reserved Open Space,

Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Park Woodland Conservation MALPF- Chuck, MALPF- Charles, Joan Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy

Sub-region

Designation

Scenic/Historic

Road Name

Aquasco Road (MD 381)

Roadway Limits

Brandywine Road to Charles County

Jefferson Street to Lottsford Vista Road

Functional Class

Source

Collector

Master Plan

Subregion 6

1828 Levy Court Survey

Largo-Lottsford

Planning Area

Additional Recognition

Commercial Shopping Center, Open Space, Priority Preservation,

86A, 85A, 85B, 87A

Adjacent Land Use

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Subregion 6

86B

Priority Preservation, Open Space, Commerical Shopping Center,

Croom Road (MD 382) to Horsehead Road

Collector/ Local 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

87A

Open Space, Priority Preservation, Commerical Shopping Center,

Bald Eagle School Road

Baden-Westwood Road to Croom Road (MD 382)

Collector/ Local 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

87A

Open Space, Priority Preservation,

Brandywine Road (MD 381)

North Keys Road to PEPCO R/W near Gibbons Church CSX Railroad track (Popes Creek Line) to North Keys Road “Timothy Branch” (Kathleen Lane) to Subregion 6 boundary

Collector

1992 HS&D Plan Subregion 6 Master Plan 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

85B 85A/85B 86A, 85A,85B, 87A

Primary

1992 HS&D Plan

Melwood-Westphalia

78/79

Scenic/Historic

Baden-Naylor Road

Horsehead Road to Aquasco Road

Scenic/Historic

Baden-Westwood Road

Historic

Scenic/Historic

Historic

Brooke Lane

Ritchie-Marlboro Road to Brown Station Road

Historic

Brooks Church Road

Baden-Naylor to Croom Road (MD 382)

Historic

Brown Road

Historic

Brown Station Road

Collector

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86B

Brown Station Road to Ritchie Marlboro Road

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Melwood-Westphalia

Marlboro Pike (MD 725) to White House Road

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Melwood-Westphalia; Subregion 6

78, 79

Special Conservation Area- Cedarville State Forest/ Zehiak Swamp Watershed Historic Environmental Setting- Immanuel Church and Cemetery Historic Environmental Setting- Horsehead Tavern Woodland Conservation Area Reserved Open Space MALPF- John Historic Environmental Setting- Connick's Folly and Cemetery Tree Canopy

Historic Environmental Setting- Green Hill/ Poplar Hill Woodland Conservation Area MALPF- Caitlin, Erin, Historic Environmental Setting- Woodville School, Historic Environmental Setting- Sunnyside (Stone House) Historic African American Community- Aquasco Priority Preservation, Open Space, Historic Environmental Setting- St. Mary's Commercial Shopping Center, Church & Cemetery Commercial Miscellaneous, Commercial Historic Environmental Setting- Villa de Sales Miscellaneous, Reserved Open Space, MALPF- Mary M Historic Environmental Setting- William R. Rouse Historic Environmental Setting- Wood House Historic Environmental Setting- Keech House Historic Environmental Setting- James A. Cochrane Store Historic Environmental Setting- Grimes House MALPF- Carl, Tree Canopy

1828 Levy Court Survey

Features

Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, , Rural Residential, Open Space, Commercial Miscellaneous, Commercial Shopping Center, Priority Preservation, Residential-Estate, Rural Residential, Residential Suburban Development, Reserved Open Space

Open Space, Priority Preservation, One-family detached residential, Residential-Estate, Residential Suburban Development, Open Space Residential-Estate, Rural Residential, , Woodland Conservation Area, Residential Surbabn Development, Reserved Open Space, Open Space, Residential Urban Development, Local Activity Center

Historic Environmental Setting- St. Paul's Church Baden and Cemetery Woodland Conservation Area MALPF- Dorris MALPF- Oliver MALPF- Jerome Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Cedarville State Forest/ Zehiak Swamp Watershed Historic Environmental Setting- St. Paul's Church Baden and Cemetery, MALPF- Samantha, Steven Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area MALPF- Esther Tree Canopy

Special Conservation Area- Cedarville State Forest/ Zehiak Swamp Watershed Historic Environmental Setting- Wilmer's Park Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Oakland (Goodluck) Woodland Conservation Area, Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- NottinghamMyers Church and Cemetery Tree Canopy

Tree Canopy

Sub-region

Designation

Scenic/Historic

Scenic

Scenic/Historic

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Candy Hill Road

Croom Road (MD 382) to Molly Berry Road Nottingham Road to Croom Road (MD 382)

Collector Local

Cheltenham Road

Old Indian Head Road to Duley Station Road

Chew Road

Croom Station Road to Popes Creek RR

Croom Airport Road

Croom Acres Drive to Duvall Road Croom Road to Croom Acres Drive Duvall Road to Selby’s Landing/Patuxent River

Scenic/Historic

Croom Road (MD 382)

Croom Station Road to Mount Calvert Road Duley Station Road to Mount Calvert Road Charles County to Tanyard Road Tanyard Road to Nottingham Road Nottingham Road to Duley Station Road

Scenic/Historic

Croom Station Road

Chew Road to Popes Creek RR Crain Highway (US 301) to Croom Road

Scenic/Historic

Cross Road Trail

North Keys Road to Cherry Tree Crossing Road

Scenic/Historic

Dent Road

Charles County to Cedarville Road

Scenic/Historic

Functional Class

Doctor Bowen Road

Aquasco Road (MD 381) to Swanson Creek/ Charles County

Source

Master Plan

Planning Area

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82B/86A/86B

Local

1984 Scenic Roads Study

Subregion 6

82A

Local

1992 HS&D Plan

Subregion 6

82A

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82B 82B 82B/86A

Additional Recognition

Adjacent Land Use

Open Space, Priority Preservation, , Residential-Agricultural,

Residential-Agricultural, Priority Preservation Priority Preservation, Light Industrial, Residential-Agricultural, Open Space, Reserved Open Space,

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial Miscellaneous, Rural Residential, Residential-Estate, Reserved Open Space, One-family Detached Residential, Open Space, Commercial Shopping Center, Priority Preservation

Subregion 6

Local

1992 HS&D Plan Subregion 6 Master Plan

Subregion 6

82A

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86A

Open Space, , Priority Preservation

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

85B

Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Priroty Preservation

Subregion 6

87B

Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

MALPF- Charles Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- William W. Duley House Historic African American Community- Croom Historic Environmental Setting- Blanche Ogle House Historic Environmental Setting- Coffren Store Historic Environmental Setting- Coffren House Historic Environmental Setting- Croom Schoolhouse Historic Environmental Setting- Dr. William Gibbons House Historic Environmental Setting- Tayman Tobacco Barn Historic Environmental Setting- West End Farm MALPF- John Historic Environmental Setting- Brookfield United Methodist Church Historic Environmental Setting- Waring Tenant House MALPF- Thomas Historic Environmental Setting- Black Swamp School Historic Environmental Setting- Poplar Hill School Historic Environmental Setting- Green Hill/ Poplar Hill MALPF- Dee MALPF- Leland

1828 Levy Court Survey

Tree Canopy

Priority Preservation, Reserved Open Space,

Collector

Historic Environmental Setting- Brookfield United Methodist Church MALPF- Thomas MALPF- Alvin, Rosemarie Special Conservation Area- Jug Bay Complex, Tree Canopy

Open Space, Historic Environmental Setting- St. Mary's Church Site and Cemetery Woodland Conservation Area Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River CorridorHistoric Environmental Setting- Columbia Air Center Site, Special Conservation Area- Jug Bay Complex and Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy

82A 86A 87A, 86B 86B 86A

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Features

Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Residential-Agricultural, Priority Preservation

Priority Preservation, Open Space, Commercial Shopping Center

Historic Environmental Setting- William W. Duley House Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy MALPF- Milly Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Cedarville State Forest/ Zehiak Swamp Watershed Tree Canopy Historic African American Community- Aquasco Historic Environmental Setting- Bowen Farmstead P.A. Historic Environmental Setting- Adams-Bowen House Historic Environmental Setting- Sunnyside (Stone House)

Sub-region

Designation

Scenic/Historic

Road Name

Duley Station Road

Duvall Road

Roadway Limits

Old Indian Head Road to Wallace Lane

Croom Airport Road to Mt. Calvert Road

Functional Class

Source

Major Collector/ 1828 Levy Court Survey Local

Local

Subregion 6

Planning Area

82B

Trueman Point Road to Patuxent River Aquasco Road (MD 381) to Trueman Point Road

Scenic

Farm Road

South Osborne Road to Old Crain Highway

Local

Staff recommendation

Subregion 6

82A

Scenic/Historic

Fenno Road

Nottingham Road to St. Thomas Church Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82B/86A

Historic

Gibbons Church Road

Brandywine Road to North Keys Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86B

Scenic/Historic

Horsehead Road

Aquasco Road (MD 381) to Charles County Aquasco Road (MD 381) to Baden Naylor Road

Collector Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86A/87A

Scenic/Historic

Magruder's Ferry Road

Croom Road (MD 382) to Patuxent River

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

87A

Historic

Marlboro Pike (MD-725)

Main Street to Brown Station Road

Primary

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

Scenic

Martin Road

Molly Berry Road to North Keys Road

Local

1984 Scenic Roads Study

Subregion 6

86B

Scenic/Historic

Mattaponi Road

Croom Road (MD 382) to St. Thomas Church Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86A

HIstoric

Melwood Road

Old Marlboro Pike to Westphalia Road

Trail

1828 Levy Court Survey

Westphalia

Scenic/Historic

Milltown Landing Road

Croom Road (MD 382) to End (Patuxent River)

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

87B

Scenic/Historic

Subregion 6

Additional Recognition

82A/86A

Eagle Harbor Road

Local Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Master Plan

Adjacent Land Use

Residential-Agricultural, Rural Residential, Priority Preservation, Open Space, One-family detached residential, , Residential-Estate,

Historic Environmental Setting- Proctor House Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- Bellefields and Cemetery Historic African American Community- Croom Tree Canopy

Open Space, Priority Preservation

Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor MALPF- Maria Historic Environmental Setting- Waverly Tree Canopy

Open Space, , Priority Preservation, Heavy Industrial, Tree Canopy

87B

Historic African American Community- Aquasco Historic Environmental Setting- Wood House Historic Environmental Setting- Keech House Woodland Conservation Area

Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Jug Bay Complex Reserved Open Space, Open Space, Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Priority Preservation Corridor Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation AreaHistoric Environmental Setting- Gibbons Methodist Open Space, Heavy Industrial Church Site & Cemetery Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area MALPF- John, Hedy Special Conservation Area- Cedarville State Forest/ Zehiak Swamp Watershed Historic Environmental Setting- Horsehead Priority Preservation, Open Space, Tavern Reserved Open Space, Historic Environmental Setting- Immanuel Church and Cemetery Historic Environmental Setting- St. Paul's Church Baden and Cemetery Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Priority Preservation, Open Space, MALPF- Lisa Reserved Open Space, MALPF- Viola Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Ashland Historic Environmental Setting- Compton Bassett Tobacco Barn at Boxwood Open Space, Commercial Shopping Historic Environmental Setting- Compton Center, Woodland Conservation Area, Bassett/ Dependencies Cemetery Priority Preservation Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy Rosemount/Skinner-Martin House Open Space, Commercial Miscellaneous MALPF Esmt Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Mattaponi and Cemetery Open Space, Priority Preservation Special Conservation Area- Jug Bay Complex Tree Canopy Light Industrial, Commercial Open Space, Residential Medium Woodland Conservation Area Development, Rural Residential, Historic Environmental Setting- Blythewood Residential-Agricultural, Rural Medium Tree Canopy Development, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented Historic Environmental Setting- Black Swamp Farm Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Woodland Conservation Priority Preservation, MALPF- Joanne MALPF- Clifford, Roberta Tree Canopy Residential-Agricultural

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Features

Sub-region

Designation

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Functional Class

Source

Master Plan

Planning Area

Scenic/Historic

Molly Berry Road

Scenic/Historic

Mount Calvert Road

Duvall Road to End Croom Road to Duvall Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey 1984 Scenic Roads Study

Subregion 6

86B

Scenic/Historic

Nelson Perrie Road

Bald Eagle School Road to Baden Naylor Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86B

Open Space, Priority Preservation

Scenic/Historic

North Keys Road

Molly Berry Road to Gibbons Church Road Cross Road Trail to Martin Road Molly Berry Road to Cross Road Trail Gibbons Church Road to Brandywine Road

Collector

1992 HS&D Plan 1992 HS&D Plan 1828 Levy Court Survey 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86B

Priority Preservation, Open Space, Reserved Open Space

Nottingham Road

Candy Hill Road to Croom Road (MD 382) Tanyard Road to Candy Hill Road

Subregion 6

86B 86B 86B 82B/86A

Scenic/Historic

Historic

Old Crain Highway

Wells Corners/Old Marlboro Pike to Village Drive West Old Marlboro Pike (E of US 301) to Crain Highway (US 301) Upper Marlboro Town Line south to Crain Highway (US 301)

Historic Scenic

Old Indian Head Road

Duley Station Road to Rosaryville Road Crain Highway to Duley Station Road

Subregion 6

86B

Adjacent Land Use

North Keys Road to Van Brady Road Van Brady Road to Croom Road (MD 382) Baden Naylor Road to Candy Hill Road Candy Hill Road to North Keys Road

Collector Collector 1828 Levy Court Survey Local Collector C-620

Additional Recognition

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Open Space, Priority Preservation

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Open Space, Priority Preservation,

Commercial Shopping Center, Open Space, Priority Preservation

Features MALPF- Holly MALPF- Dorris Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- Sasscer Tobacco Barn Tree Canopy MALPF- Maria Historic Environmental Setting- Mount Calvert Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area MALPF- Oliver Historic Environmental Setting- Kalmia Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- Gibbon's Methodist Church Site & Cemetery Tree Canopy MALPF- John Special Conservation Area- Jug Bay Complex Tree Canopy

Local Local Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey 1828 Levy Court Survey CR-39-1999

Subregion 6

79 79 82A

Historic Environmental Setting- Bowling Heights Historic Environmental Setting- John Henry Quander House Historic Environmental Setting- Gregor Hall Historic Environmental Setting- Wyvill House Historic Environmental Setting- Bleak Hill National Register- Town of Upper Marlboro Historic African American Community- Upper Marlboro Historic Environmental Setting- Kingston and Cemetery Historic Environmental Setting- Church Street Houe/Talbott House Historic Environmental Setting- A.T. Brooke Priority Preservation, ResidentialHouse Agriculture, Open Space, Commercial Shopping Center, One-family Detached Historic Environmental Setting- Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company Residential, Rural Residential Historic Environmental Setting- Church Street Commercial Miscellaneous, Houe/Talbott House Historic Environmental Setting- Site of Overseer's House Historic Environmental Setting- Beacon Hill Historic Environmental Setting- Weston & Cemetery Historic Environmental Setting- James Christmas House Historic Environmental Setting- Sasscers GreenWoodland Conservation Area Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy

Primary Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82A

Priority Preservation, Open Space, Rural Residential, Rural Agricultural,

Tree Canopy Woodland Conservation Area

Sub-region

Designation

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Scenic/Historic

Old Marlboro Pike

Main Street to Roblee Acres Subdivision Roblee Acres Subdivision to Woodyard Road Forestville Road to Washington, D.C.

Scenic

River Airport Road

Croom Road to Patuxent River Park

Historic

Rosaryville Road

Frank Tippett Road to Crain Highway (US 301)

Scenic/Historic

Scenic

Saint Mary's Church Road At Last Farm Road to Aquasco Road (MD 381)

Saint Phillips Road

Aquasco Road to end

Functional Class

Source

Collector/ Local Collector 1828 Levy Court Survey Collector

Master Plan

Planning Area

Subregion 6; Westphalia Westphalia Suitland-District Heights

79 78/79 75A

Additional Recognition

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Adjacent Land Use

Light Industrial, Mixted Use Transportation Oriented, Rural Residential, One-family detached residential, Commercial MiscellaneousCommercial Office, Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial Office, Residential Suburban Development, Local Activity Center, Residential-Estate,

Local

1984 Scenic Road Study

Subregion 6

87A

Open Space, Reserved Open Space, , Priority Preservation,

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82A

Reserved Open Space, Rural Residential, , Residential-Agricultural

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

1984 Scenic Road Study

Subregion 6

Features Woodland Conservation Area Historic Environmental Setting- Site of Overseer's House National Register- Suitland Parkway Historic Environmental Setting- Old Mill Place/Traband House National Register- Town of Upper Marlboro Historic African American Community- Upper Marlboro Historic Environmental Setting- The Cottage & Outbuildings Historic Environmental Setting- Charles Hill & Pumphrey Family Center Historic Environmental Setting- Suitland Parkway Historic Environmental Setting- Melwood Park Historic Environmental Setting- Union (Memorial) Methodist Church Historic Environmental Setting- Thomas J. Turner Houe Historic Environmental Setting- Digges-Sasscer House Historic Environmental Setting- Kingston and Cemetery Historic Environmental Settilng- Crain Highway Monument Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Waring Tenant House MALPF- Clagett, et al, MALPF- Cynthia, David MALPF- Michael, Linda Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Mount Airy Historic Environmental Setting- Holy Rosary Church and Cemetery, Tree Canopy

Historic African American Community- Aquasco Historic Environmental Setting- St. Mary's Church & Cemetery Historic Environmental Setting- St. Mary's Rectory Historic Environmental Setting- Turner House J.E. Tree Canopy

87B

Priority Preservation

87B

Historic African American Community- Aquasco Historic Environmental Setting- Scott Farmhouse Reserved Open Space, Priority Historic Environmental Setting- St. Phillip's Preservation, Commercial Open Space, Chapel Site and Cemetery Historic Environmental Setting- William R. House

Scenic/Historic

Saint Thomas Church Road

Mattaponi Road to Croom Road (MD 382) Fenno Road to Mattaponi Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

86A 86B

Historic

South Osborne Road

0.1 mi. S of Carroll Way to William Beanes Road

Local

Subregion 6 Master Plan

Subregion 6

82A

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Open Space, Priority Preservation, Reserved Open Space,

Rural Agricultural, Rural Residential,

Historic Environmental Setting- Tayman Tobacco Barn Historic Environmental Setting- St. Thomas Episcopal Church and Cemetery National Register- St. Thomas' Episcopal Parish Historic District Historic African American Community- Croom Historic Environmental Setting- St. Simon's Church Site and Cemetery Special Conservation Area- Jug Bay Complex MALPF- William, Lisa MALPF- William, Catherine MALPF- William, Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Solitude Historic Environmental Setting- Overseer-s House (Bacon Hall) Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

Sub-region

Designation

Scenic/Historic

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Functional Class

Source

Master Plan

Planning Area

Tanyard Road

Croom Road (MD 382) to Nottingham Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82B/86B

Historic

Tower Road

Brandywine Road to Old Indian Head Road

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

85B

Historic

Trumps Hill Road

Croom Road (MD 382) to Heathermore Boulevard Heathermore Boulevard to US 301 Crain Highway (US 301) to Croom Road

Primary 1992 HS&D Plan Local 1992 HS&D Plan Primary/ Local 1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82B

Scenic/Historic

Van Brady Road

Molly Berry Road to Old Indian Head Road

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

82A

Local

Historic

Westphalia Road

Pennsylvania Avenue to Presidential Pkwy Ext Presidential Parkway Extended to Ritchie Marlboro Road

Arterial Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Westphalia

Scenic/Historic

Westwood Road

Baden Westwood Road to Bald Eagle School Road

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

87A

Scenic/Historic

Whites Landing Road

Croom Road (MD 382) to End (Patuxent River)

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 6

87A

Scenic

Wyville Road

Old Crain Highway to Old Crain Highway

Local

Subregion 6 Master Plan

Subregion 6

Historic

Allentown Road

Tucker Road to Brinkley Road

Historic

Bock Road

Tucker Road to St. Barnabas Road

Collector

Scenic/Historic

Branch Ave. (MD-5)

Brandywine Road to Crain Highway (US 301)

Freeway

Historic

Branch Ave. (MD-5)

Southern Avenue to Old Alexandria Ferry Road

Major Collector 1828 Levy Court Survey

Arterial/Freeway

Maryland State Highway Administration

Additional Recognition

Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Priority Preservation

Old Branch Ave.

Brandywine Road to Baldwin Avenue St. Barnabas Road to (Just short of) Woodyard Road/Piscataway Rd.]

Light Industrial, Rural Residential, Multifamily Medium Density Residential, Townhouse, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Residential Medium Woodland Conservation Area Development, Commercial Shopping Center, Residential-Agricultural, Residential-Estate, Local Activity Center Open Space Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Priority Preservation

Residential-Angricultural, Priority Preservation

Historic

Old Fort Road

Indian Head Highway to Fort Washington Road (Tantallon area)

Collector

1828 Levy Court Survey

Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor, Tree Canopy Historic Environmental Setting- Wyvill House Historic Environmental Setting- Bleak Hill Tree Canopy

Henson Creek

76B

Henson Creek

76B

, Townhouse, One-family detached Woodland Conservation Area residential, Rural Residential, Reserved Tree Canopy Open Space, Open Space

Subregion 5

85a

Subregions 4, 5, and 6; The Maryland State Highway Heights; Henson Creek-South Administration Potomac

Collector 1828 Levy Court Survey Collector/ Local

Historic Environmental Setting- Turner House Woodland Conservation Area pecial Conservation Area- Patuxent River Corridor Tree Canopy

Light Industrial, Rural Residential, Open Tree Canopy Space, Priority Preservation Rural Residential, ResidentialWoodland Conservation Area, Historic Agricultural, One-family detached Environmental Setting- Trumps Hill residential, Townhouse, ResidentialTree Canopy Estate, MALPF- Clark Open Space, Priority Preservation Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

75A, 76A, 76B, 77, 81A

Subregion 5

81A

Henson Creek

Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

Booth's Escape SB

Commercial Miscellaneous, , Light Industrial, Reserved Open Space, Onefamily Detached Residential

Booth's Escape SB

Commercial Miscellaneous, Light Industrial, Commerical Shopping Center, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, One-family detached residential, Rural Residential, Commerical Office, Townhouse, Multifamily High Density Residential, One-family Tripple-Attached Residential,

National Register- Suitland Parkway Historic Environmental Setting- Suitland Parkway Tree Canopy

Commercial Shopping Center, Rural Residential, Residential-Estate, Commercial Miscellaneous, Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Natural Resource Inventoroy, One-family detached residential, Planned Industrial/Employment Park

Historic African American Community- Chapel Hill National Register- Broad Creek Historic District Historic Environmental Setting- Harmony Hall (Battersea) Historic Environmental Setting- Want Water Ruins Special Conservation Area- Broad Creek Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

Rural Residential, One-family detached residential, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Commercial Miscellaneous, General Commercial Existing, Commercial Shopping Center, , Multifamily Low Density Residential-Condominium

Woodland Conservation Area

Rural Residential, One-family detached residential, Residential-Estate

Special Conservation Area- Piscataway National Park Woodland Conservation Area

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Historic

Features

Rural Residential, Residential-Estate, Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial Office, Commercial Miscellaneous, One-family detached residential

Livingston Road

Adjacent Land Use

Mount Vernon Viewshed

Sub-region

Designation

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Historic

Old Fort Road North

Livingston Road to Old Fort Road South

Historic

Old Piscataway Road

End to Livingston Road

Functional Class

Henson Creek

76B/80

Local

1828 Levy Court Survey

Henson Creek

Old Saint John's Way

Livingston Road to Broad Creek Church Road

Local

Historic

Oxon Hill Road

Broad Creek Church Road to Livingston Road

Collector

1, 2

Scenic

Historic

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Beaverdam Road

Cherry Hill Road

DC line to Anne Arundel County line

Edmonston Road to Springfield Road

I-95 to Baltimore Avenue (US 1)

Edmonston Road (MD-201) Odell Road to Cherrywood Lane

1, 2, 3

Historic

Good Luck Road

Near Perkin’s Chapel on Springfield Road to Kenilworth Avenue (MD 201)

1, 3

Historic

Springfield Road

Powder Mill Road to Duckettown Road

2, 4

Historic

Kenilworth Ave

Eastern Avenue to Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Planning Area

1828 Levy Court Survey

Historic

Scenic/Historic

Master Plan

Collector

1, 2

Source

Freeway

Arterial

Collector

Features

National Register- Broad Creek Historic District Special Conservation Area- Broad Creek, Historic Environmental Setting- Friendly School , Rural Residential, Rural-Estate, Commercial Shopping Center, Ancillary Historic Environmental Setting- Providence ME Commercial, Church & Cemetery Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy Mount Vernon Viewshed

Commercial Shopping Center, Rural Residential

Historic African American Community- Chapel Hill

1828 Levy Court Survey

Henson Creek

1828 Levy County Survey

Henson Creek

Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Rural Residential, Townhouse, Commercial Shopping Center,

Scenic Byway (Connector), NHRD

62, 64, 67, 69

Subregion 1

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 1; Langley Park

Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham and Vicinity

Collector (Local 1828 Levy Court Survey inside BARC)

Freeway

Adjacent Land Use

National Register- Broad Creek Historic District Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Historic Environmental Setting- St. John's Rural Residential, Commerical Shopping Church, Broad Creek and Cemetery Center, Special Conservation Area- Broad Creek Tree Canopy

Local

Collector

Additional Recognition

Maryland State Highway Bladensburg, New Carrollton, Administration and Vicinty; Subregion 4

61/66

61/62/66/68

64/70

69,72

National Register- Broad Creek Historic District Special Conservation Area- Broad Creek Tree Canopy

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Historic District Special Conservation Area- Anacostia River Special Conservation Area- Patuxent Research Anacostia Trails Heritage Refuge and Patuxent River Corridor Area Reserved Open Space, Light Industrial, Special Conservation Area- BARC Star Spangled Banner Heavy Industrial Special Conservation Area- Greenbelt National NHT/SB Park Historic Environmental Setting and Historic District - Star Spangled Banner NHT Special Conservation Area- BARC Tree Canopy Reserved Open Space, Priority Intersects with Historic District/ Historic Anacostia Trails Heritage Preservation, Rural Residential, Priority Environmental Setting of BW Pkwy Area Preservation Historic Environmental Setting CCC Lodge (BARC)

Open Space, Priority Preservation, Rural Residential, Reserved Open Anacostia Trails Heritage Space, Multifamily High Density Area Residential, One-family Detached Residential, Commercial Shopping Center, Mixed use infill

Woodland Conservation Area

Historic Environmental Setting - Walnut Grange Rural Residential, Reserved Open Special Conservation Area- BARC Anacostia Trails Heritage Space, One-family Semi -Detached and CCC Lodge (BARC) Area Two-family Detached Residential, One- Historic Environmental Setting family Detached Residential Beaverdam Creek Bridge Tree Canopy Residential-Estate, Rural Residential, Light Industrial, Multi-family Medium Density Residential- Condominium, Reserved Open Space, Mixed Use Anacostia Trails Heritage Transportation Oriented, Rural Area Residential, Greenbelt, Greenbelt Regional Park, One-family Detached Residential, Townhouse, Commercial Office

Rural Residential, Rural-Estate, Anacostia Trails Heritage Reserved Open Space, Priority Area Preservation, Rural Residential,

Star Spangled Bamer HT/SB Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, OneAnacostia Trails Heritage family Detached Residential Area

Historic Environmental Setting - GSFC Magnetic Testing Site Special Conservation Area- BARC National Register Historic District/Historic Environmental Setting- Baltimore-Washington Parkway Special Conservation Area- Greenbelt National Park Special Conservation Area- BARC Anacostia Trails Heritage Area Historic Environmental Setting - GSFC Magnetic Testing Site Special Conservation Area- BARC Historic Environmental Setting- Perkins Chapel and Cemetery Tree Canopy Special Conservation Area - Anacostia River Historic Environmental Setting and Historic District - Star Spangled Banner NHT Special Conservation Area - Anacostia River

Sub-region

2, 4

3,6

4, 6

Designation

Historic

N/A

Historic

Road Name

Landover Road

Largo Road (MD-202)

Pennsylvania Ave (MD-4)

Suitland Parkway

Roadway Limits

Baltimore-Washington Parkway to Capital Beltway

Drumsheugh Road to Lottsford Road Old Largo Road to Watkins Park Drive (MD 193) Watkins Park Drive (MD 193) to Drumsheugh Lane Marlboro Pike (MD 725) to Old Largo Road

Southern Avenue to Woodyard Road

D.C. Line to Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4)

A-55 to Chalk Point RR Chalk Point RR to Brandywine Road (MD 381) US 301 to Cedarville Road (part of A-55)

5, 6

Historic

Cedarville Road

5, 6

Historic

Cherry Tree Crossing Road Old Indian Head Road to Crain Highway (US 301)

5, 6

N/A

Crain Highway (US-301)

From Old Crain Highway to Croom Road Branch Avenue (MD 5 to Mattawoman Creek (Charles County)

Functional Class

Arterial/ Expressway

Expressway Expressway Expressway Expressway/ Primary

Freeway

Collector Collector Arterial

Source

Scenic Byway (Connector)

1828 Levy Court Survey

Historic

Woodyard Road

NHRD

1992 HS&D Plan

Collector/ Local 1828 Levy Court Survey

Major Collector 2009 MPOT Freeway Maryland DOT/SHA

Rosaryville Road to Old Alexandria Ferry Road Old Branch Avenue to Old Alexandria Ferry Road

Arterial

Landover and Vicinity

Largo-Lottsford Subregion 6 Largo-Lottsford; Subregion 6 Subregion 6

Maryland State Highway Southern Avenue to Woodyard Road Administration

Marlboro Pike to Rosaryville Road 5, 6

Master Plan

1828 Levy Court Survey

Planning Area

75a, 77, 78

75A/76A

Subregion 5 Subregion 6

85A 85B 85A

Subregion 5; Subregion 6

82A/85A/86A

Melwood-Westphalia; Subregion 5; Subregion 6 Subregion 5 Subregion 5

85A82A

77/81A/82A

Adjacent Land Use

Features

Commercial Office, Light Industrial, Onefamily Detached Residential, Multifamily National Register- Baltimore-Washington Parkway Medium Density Residential, Anacostia Trails Heritage Commercial Shopping Center, OneHistoric Environmental Setting- BaltimoreWashington Parkway Area family Semi Detached and Two-family pecial Conservation Area- Anacostia River Detached Residential, , Commercial Miscellaneous, Mixed use transportation Tree Canopy oriented\

Mixed Use Infill, Residential Medium Development, Commercial Office, Reserved Open Space, Residential Suburban Development, Rural Residential, Commercial Shopping Center, Multifamily low density Woodland Conservation Area, Residential, Townhouse, Multifamily Medium Density Residential, Multifamily Tree Canopy high density Residential- efficiency, Residential-Estate, Residential Suburban Development, Residential Medium Development, Residential Low Development, Commercial Miscellaneous, Light Industrial

73 79 73/79 79

Suitland-District Heights; The Heights

2013 Subregion 6 Subregion 5

Additional Recognition

Star Spangled Banner NHT/SB

Open Space, One-family Detached Residential, Multifamily high density Residential, Commercial Shopping Center, townhoue, Multifamily Medium Density Residential, Multifamily Medium Special Conservation Area- Suitland Bog Density Residential-condominium, Rural Woodland Conservation Area, Residential, One-family Detached Residential, Townhouse, Multifamily Medium Density Residential, Multifamily Medium Density ResidentialCondominium, Light Industrial, Mixted Use Transportation Oriented Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Open Space, Mixed Use Town Center, Commercial Office, Multifamily High Density Residential, Reserved Open Space, Mixed Use Town Center, Multifamily Medium Density Residential, Rural Residential, One-family Detached Residential, Light Industrial

National Register- Suitland Parkway Historic Environmental Setting- Suitland Parkway Historic Environmental Setting- Suitland Parkway Tree Canopy

Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Commercial Shopping Center, Open Space, Reserved Open Space, Residential-Agricultural, Priority Preservation

Special Conservation Area- Mattawoman Creek Stream Valley Special Conservation Area- Cedarville State Forest/Zehiak Swamp Watershed Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

Residential-Estate, Light Industrial, Tree Canopy Rural Residential, Open Space, Priority MALPF- Milly Preservation

Booth's Escape SB

Rural Residential, Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial Miscellaneous, Commercial Office, Light Industrial, Residential Medium Density, Local Activity Center

Historic Environmental Setting- James Christmas House Historic Environmental Setting- Sasscers Green Special Conservation Area- Mattawoman Creek Stream Valley Woodland Conservation Area Tree Canopy

Commercial Office, Commercial Shopping Center, Commercial Miscellaneous, Mixed Use Transportation Oriented, Townhouse, One-family Detached Residential, Reserved Open Space, Rural Residential, Limited Industiral, Residential-Agricultural. Local Activity Center,

l, Historic Environmental Setting- Mount Clare Tree Canopy

Sub-region

5, 7

Designation

Scenic/Historic

5, 7

Historic

Scenic/Historic

Road Name

Roadway Limits

Functional Class

Collector

Steed Road

Piscataway Road (MD 223) to Allentown Road

Collector

Woodmore Road

Enterprise Road to Church Road

Source: M-NCPPC and Lardner/Klein Landscape Architects.

Master Plan

Planning Area

Additional Recognition

Adjacent Land Use Reserved Open Space, Rural Residential

Piscataway Road (MD 223) to 12600 Gallahan Road/Old Piscataway 12600 Gallahan Road to Old Fort Road

Gallahan Road

Source

1828 Levy Court Survey

Subregion 5

81B Mount Vernon Viewshed

Arterial

1828 Levy Court Survey

1992 HS and D Plan

Henson Creek; Subregion 5

76B/81B

Bowie and Vicinity

74A

Rural Residential, Rural-Estate, Rserved Open Space, Open Space, Ancillary Commercial Residential-Estate, Residential Suburban Development, Local Activity Center, Rural Residential, Open Space,Reserved Open Space, Agricultural - Natural Resources Residential, Single Famiy, Residential Townhouse, Institutional, Commercial, Parks and Open Space

Features Tree Canopy Historic African American Community- Chapel Hill Tree Canopy Tree Canopy Steed Family Cemetery

Tree Canopy Holy Family Church and Cemetery

Attachment B

Scenic and Historic Road Inventory Maps

Special Roadways Inventory Northwestern Area HOWARD COUNTY

Legend Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

GO RMAN AV

198

S E VEN

TH ST

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

GU NP OW DE R

RO A

S AN DY SPRING RD

OL D

LAUREL

* 95

ø 200

¡ 1

Locator Map

DER M POW

RD ILL

ø 212

2 Old Gunpowder Road

Special Roadways Inventory Laurel Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site

MA IN S

S A ND

D ING R Y S PR

National Register Priority Preservation

Public Land

S EVEN

TH S T

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

TRT /B. BRI DG ER OA 216 D

Historic District

OT TALB T AV

198

GO RMAN AV

FO R

T M E A DE R D

¡ 1

ø 197

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LA

RE L

BO W

Locator Map

1 Main Street/ Brooklyn Bridge Road

200

Special Roadways Inventory Fairland-Beltsville & Vicinity

PW DR .R

OL DG UN

Legend

2 Old Gunpowder Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer National Register Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District ILL DER M POW

ø 212

* 95

CHE

IL L

W 495

¡ 1

RM DE

RO HILL RRY

Locator Map

* 495

3 Cherry Hill Road

Special Roadways Inventory

216

GORMAN AV

198

TAL BO T

South Laurel-Montpelier

D SAN DY SPRING R FO RT M EA DE R D

Legend

4 Old Baltimore Pike

Historic

Scenic

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

5 Odell Road

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

6 Edmonston Road (MD 201)

¡ 1

ø 200

ø 197

7 Old Muirkirk Road OLD MRK. ROAD

13 Powder Mill Road

LT IM OR EP IKE

UR EL

W IE RD

ODELL ROAD

POW DE R

E DM . ROAD(MD20 1)

M IL L

ø 201

Locator Map

POWDER MI

LL ROAD

EDMO N STO N RD

Special Roadways Inventory Agricultural Research Center ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Legend

9 Beaverdam Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer LAUREL BO WI E RD

National Register Priority Preservation

ø 197

Public Land Historic District

BEA VE RDAM ROAD

SP RIN GF IEL D

RO A

9TH ST

ø 564

GREENBELT RD

ø 193

A NH LA

GL EN

ø 953

RN VE SE

BL VD

11TH ST

Locator Map

12 Springfield Road

W PO

RM DE

ILL

Special Roadways Inventory

Langley Park & Vicinity

495

* 95

Legend

495

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer National Register Priority Preservation

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Public Land Historic District

650

212

ø 193

ITY BLV UNIVERS

¡ 1

øø 410

ER AG

410

Locator Map

D SR RIGG

CH A

PE L

WDC

CHILL UM RD

ø ø 500

ILTO

501

38T HA

208 HAM

¡ ALT 1

6 Ager Road

W PO

RM DE

R ILL

Special Roadways Inventory

495

College Park-Berwyn Heights & Vicinity 3

* 495

ø 212

CH E

RR YH

* 95

ILL

Legend

RO AD

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer National Register Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

ø 193

BLVD UNIVERSITY

¡ 1

ø 430

GREENBELT RD

COLLEGE PARK

KEN ILW OR TH

S IGG

ø 201

ø 410

ø 500

Locator Map

3 Cherry Hill Road

Special Roadways Inventory Greenbelt & Vicinity

ø 212

¡ 1

PO WD ER M IL LR D

Legend

6 Edmonston Road

Historic BEAVERDAM ROAD

Scenic

D EDMO N S TO N R

Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

8 Baltimore-Washington Parkway/ Star Spangled Banner National Scenic Byway

National Register Priority Preservation

N MO

O ST

Public Land

Historic District

9 Beaverdam Road

D (M D 20 1)

10 Good Luck Road

ø 201

* 95

GREENBELT RD

GREENBELT

ø AV

GTO HIN

OR TH

KE NI LW

BERWYN HEIGHTS

AS E-W 193 OR M I LT BA

A KW AR NP

Locator Map

GOOD LUCK RO AD

AM NH LA

E EV

564

ø 410

LIS RD ANNAPO

ø 450

ITY B UNIVERS

ø 193

Special Roadways Inventory

LVD

Hyattsville-Riverdale-Mt. Rainier-Brentwood

ø 212

Legend

UNIVERSITY PARK

7 Hamilton Street

Historic Scenic

S RIG G

Scenic/Historic

Historic African American Property

410

Historic Site

410

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer RIVERDALE PARK

8 40th Place

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land

HYATTSVILLE

HAMILTON

ø 500

H AM

ILT ON STRE

208

EDMONSTON

BRENTWOOD

NORTH BRENTWOOD

MOUNT RAINIER

RT H

EL R HA P NS C

8 C PLA

501

H 40T

Q UE

9 Bladensburg Road

¡ ST

38TH A

CHILLU M RD

Historic District

¡ ALT 1

EN AD BL

COTTAGE CITY TH

A RO G. R SB

1A US D(

) LT

ø 201

W IL EN

ø 202

LIS R ANNAPO LA ND OV ER RD

D 450

9 COLMAR MANOR

Locator Map

WDC

¡ 50

Special Roadways Inventory Bladensburg-New Carrollton & Vicinity

* 95

Legend

8 Baltimore-Washington Parkway/ Star Spangled Banner National Scenic Byway

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property

¡ 1

Historic Site NEW CARROLLTON VE

ø 410

TE RA NS

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

10 Annapolis Road (MD 450)

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land

PK W Y

Historic District

11 Landover Road

ø 201

¡ AV

ALT 1

RT H

O LW NI

A NN. ROAD(MD450 )

450

BLADENSBURG

LIS R ANNAPO

LANDOVER HILLS

LAND

O VER

RO AD

¡ 50

LA ND OV ER

CHEVERLY AR KW

202

ø 704

H W

WA RE -

Locator Map

O TIM BA L

N TO NG I H

WDC

N TI AR

T LU

R HE

N KI

Special Roadways Inventory

9T H

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham & Vicinity

Legend

7 Bell Station Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

9 Glenn Dale Road/ Old Glenn Dale Road

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land

GREENBELT R D

Historic District

193

GL EN

ø 564

AM NH

E EV

12 Annapolis Road (MD 450) N

DA LE

BL VD

BE L LS I TA T ON

O AD

7 S RD AN NAPOLI

ø 953

ø 450

Y HW

¡ 50

OLD GLN. DA

L. RD.

EN T

A M

IN RT

ER TH U L

NG KI

ER PRI S E RD

LIS ROAD (MD 450 ) GLENN DALE RO

ANNAPO

ø 704

Locator Map

Special Roadways Inventory

LA UR EL BO W IE RD

Bowie & Vicinity

LA U

RE L-B OW IE RO A

Legend

D( MD 19 7)

3 Duckettown Road

Historic Scenic

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property

DUCKETTOWN ROAD

T 9TH S

NRM. S CH. RO

Historic Site

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer National Register

Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

11TH ST

5 Laurel-Bowie Road (MD 197)

564

AM NH LA

VE SE

4 Normal School Rd

6 Hillmeade Road DE EA LM HIL D

IN H W Y

A RO

CRA

DA VD BL

D OLIS R ANNAP

24 Church Road

ø 976

ø 450

193

24 CHURCH

D RO A

Locator Map

ø 953

RP RIS E RD

EN TE

GL EN

¡ 50

C OL LI N GTO N RD

ø 197

¡ 301

T 9TH S

564

City of Bowie

11TH ST

RD W. ROAD LAUREL-BO

A NH LA

RN VE

Special Roadways Inventory

(MD 197 )

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

LE DA V BL D

ø 193

L BOWIE RD

N EN OLD AN NAPO

ANN

OAD IS R POL

50) D4

ø 976

BOWIE

450

LIS R O

197

Scenic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

12 Annapolis Road (MD 450)

13 Collington Road (MD 197) L CO

¡ 50

O N COLL INGTN. ROA D( RD MD

MIT ICH EL LV IL LE

RO AD

TE RP R ISE RD

953

11 Old Annapolis Rd

National Register

5 Laurel-Bowie Road (MD 197)

Historic Scenic/Historic

HW Y

LAURE

OLI S N AP

CRA IN

Legend

MOU NT O

19 Mount Oak Road

X Mitichellville Road

AK ROAD

¡ 301

I T CHELL ILLE RO V

Locator Map

ø 214

W N KI AT

ø 978

S DR RK PA

410

M HA

VE TE RA N

RN VE

Special Roadways Inventory Landover & Vicinity

SP K Y W

Legend

1 Landover Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic

RT H

450

W IL

Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer National Register

R NAPO LIS D

Priority Preservation

201

LANDO

VER RD

ø 202

¡ 50

AR M

N TI

ER TH LU

NG KI

Public Land Historic District

GLENARDEN

ø LA N DOVE R ROAD

KE N

ILW OR

TH AVENUE

704

FAIRMOUNT HEIGHTS

SEAT PLEASANT

WDC

Locator Map

ø 214

ø 332

AL A CENTR

2 Kenilworth Ave.

Largo-Lottsford

ARDWICK-ARDMO R E RO A

YL LW .L AN

PRI SE R

N TI

R HE

E(FRM.ARDW.

Legend

ROD ).

8 Ardwick-Ardmore Road

Historic

ENT ER

AR M

T LU

NG KI

Special Roadways Inventory

704

Scenic

Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property

T LOT

Historic Site

SF O R DV

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer National Register

. RD. OLD LT

A IST

A RO

Priority Preservation

LANDOVER

Public Land

FORD ROA D LO TTS

10 Enterprise Road (MD 193)

Historic District

15 Lottsford Vista Road

ø 202

RO ISE ERPR E NT

16 Lottsford Road

17 Old Lottsford Rd

AD D (M 3 19 )

DR RK PA . RD NS KI T. AT EN W D OL

21 LA

21 Largo Road

193

214

RD LA

RG O

RO AD

(M D

22 Old Enterprise Rd 22

20 2)

26 D E RO A HO US WHITE

Locator Map

26 White House Road

23 Watkins Park Drive (MD 193)

Special Roadways Inventory

ø 953

Mitchellville & Vicinity

CO L LINGT O N RD

¡ 50

EN TE RP RIS E

197

CH UR CH

Legend

18 Woodmore Road

Historic

AD RO

Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

24 Church Road

National Register Priority Preservation

E RO AD WOO DMOR

Public Land Historic District

27 Oak Grove Road

28 Leeland Road

¡ 301

ø 214

NS KI

978

RK PA DR

ø 193

Locator Map 27

OAK GRO

VE ROA

D OR RG LA

ø 202

28 LEE LA

ROA D

CRAIN HWY

14 CO

Special Roadways Inventory

BR IDG ER OA

Collington & Vicinity

GOV RNR'S .

LLIN GTON RD

ø 197

Legend

14 Governor’s Bridge Road

Historic

MILL BR A H NC

Scenic

A RO

Scenic/Historic

Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

20 Mill Branch Road

National Register

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

25 Queen Anne Bridge Road 25 25 QUE

N N AN E

29 Queen Anne Road

E RO IDG BR

¡ ø

301

ø 214

978

QUEEN ANNE RO A D

Locator Map

Special Roadways Inventory

201

704

¡ R HE

LA N D OVER RD

Y HW

ø 202

Suitland-District Heights, Capitol Heights & Vicinity

AR TI N

LU T

Legend

3 Walker Mill Drive/ Old Ritchie Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property

WDC

CAPITOL HEIGHTS

AL A CENTR

Historic Site

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

214

4 Marlboro Pike (MD 725)

National Register

332

Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

5 Ritchie Road

EN A AV ANI P EN N S YLV

IE CH RIT

UE (MD 4)

218

NAY LO

RR D

DISTRICT HEIGHTS MA

ND RD

RTC. MRL. ROD.

6 Ritchie Road Spur 4

S UI TLA

AD RO

D ER HILL R SILV

RLB OR OP IKE (MD 725

458

)

7 Ritchie Marlboro Road

ø 5

* 95

8 Pennsylvania Avenue/ Star Spangled Banner National Scenic Byway

ø 4

SUITLA N D PARKWAY

NA B BAR

414

ø 337

N OW T EN LL

Locator Map

9 Suitland Parkway

Special Roadways Inventory

ø 704

The Heights

AV 332 CE NTRAL

ø 214

Legend Historic Scenic

WDC

Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property

Historic Site

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

218

S UI TLA ND

National Register Priority Preservation

Public Land

ø 458

VER S IL

Historic District

RD HILL

D ST

ø 414

AB RN BA

N LE AL

* 95

N W TO

ø 337

FOREST HEIGHTS

* 295

ø 210

ø 5

Locator Map D DR O DY A R WO D YR AW A CAT PIS

ø 223

NAY

Special Roadways Inventory

218

SU ITLA

RR D

ND RD

LL RD VER HI SIL

Henson Creek

458

WDC

Legend BR ANC

VEN UE

SR ABA RN

(M D

Scenic Scenic/Historic

1 Branch Avenue (MD 5)/ Booth’s Escape Scenic Byway

Historic

414

T EN LL

N OW

Historic African American Property

Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

2 Old Branch Avenue

National Register Priority Preservation

Public Land

Historic District

337

3 Bock Road 2

4 Allentown Road

VENUE

A CH RAN DB OL

LENTO WN RO AD AL

BO CK

O WO

210

PI SC AT

ø 223

Locator Map

Special Roadways Inventory Melwood

Legend Historic Scenic

* 95

Scenic/Historic

ø 4

Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer National Register Priority Preservation

Public Land

337

Historic District

W TO

ø D

223

OL D

AL XN .

W OO DY AR

N ALLE

FE RR Y

RO AD

ø 5

Locator Map

Special Roadways Inventory

193

ø 214

K WAT

Westphalia & Vicinity

IN S

K DR PAR

Legend

3 Westphalia Road

Historic O RG LA

Scenic

ø 202

Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

4 Ritchie Marlboro Road

National Register

Priority Preservation

Public Land Historic District

7 Melwood Road

ROAD BROWN

WEST PH

D ROA ALIA

8 Brown Road 3

4 WO EL

O D

ø 337

10 Old Marlboro Pike/ SSB NSB

7 RI TC

HI E

MA RL BO RO

RO AD

IKE O LD M ARLBO RO P

WO O D

ø 4

YARD RD

Locator Map

ø 223

¡ 301

Special Roadways Inventory

RIS RP

214

D ER

Upper Marlboro & Vicinity

AT W

ø 978

NS KI R RK D PA

Legend

5 Brown Station Road

Historic Scenic

ø 193

Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site

LA O RG

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

6 Largo Road

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

9 Brooke Lane

10 Old Marlboro Pike/ SSB NSB

11 Wyville Road

12 Old Crain Highway

ø 202

T AT

ION

AR G

BRO WN S

RO A

(M 2) 20

OLD CRAIN HIGHWY.

5 E OKE LAN BRO

12 301

13 10

ø 725

E PIK RO L BO R A M OL D

IN MA

UPPER MARLBORO

ø 4

WYV. ROD.

13 Marlboro Pike (MD 725)

M AR LB R.

17 Crain Hwy/US 301 PI KE

(MD

7 25

)

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Locator Map

CR OO

Special Roadways Inventory

WDC

South Potomac Sector

* 295

Legend

5 Oxon Hill Road

6 Old St. Johns Way

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

7 Old Fort Road North

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

9 Livingston Road

OXN . HL L. R OL D. D 5 SN .J . 6 W .

O LD

FOR T

RO A

OR TH

10 Old Piscataway Rd.

210

IN LIV

GS OA NR TO D

OL DP SC .

TA W

RD .

S PI

ø 223

O LD FO RT RO

AD 12

Locator Map

12 Old Fort Road

Special Roadways Inventory

Legend Scenic W AY

Scenic/Historic

TR Y

Historic African American Property

COV E

Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

A DY

Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

223

7 Woodyard Road

7 RD ODYA WO

3 Brandywine Road (County)/ Booth’s Escape Scenic Byway

National Register

RD RD

AW CAT PIS

2 Old Branch Ave./Booth’s Escape Scenic Byway

Historic

OLD BRAN

CH AVE

NUE

SB BR. AV. BR. AVE O.

Clinton & Vicinity

RO A D

ø 5

Locator Map

AN BR NE WI DY

A RO

301

D O (C UN ) TY

Special Roadways Inventory Tippett & Vicinity

Legend

4 Steed Road

Historic

STEED R O

A CA T PIS

( O AD YR

2 MD 2

Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

ø 223

5 Gallahan Road

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land Historic District

PI SC AT

6 Piscataway Road

8 Thrift Road

9 Windbrook Drive

5 O FT R RI TH

AN AH LL GA AD RO

5 WN

Locator Map

DRIV. DB.

Special Roadways Inventory

G LAR

* 95

OR D

ø 337

Rosaryville

ø 202

ø 725

DMARLB OR OL O

CR AI N

DYA RD RD WOO

OL D

FAR MR OA

Historic Site

VI RY SA RO

23 Rosaryville Rd

24 Old Indian Head Road

25 Cheltenham Road

29 Duley Station Road

19 Croom Station Rd

301

D OA

22 Trumps Hill Road

Historic District

ER LL

20 Chew Road

Public Land

18 CR OMRD O

18 Croom Rd/ MD 382

Priority Preservation

. (M D3

17 Crain Hwy/US 301

National Register

A RO

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

17 CR M. RO D

16 Farm Road

Historic African American Property

223

15 S. Osborne Rd.

Scenic/Historic

12 Old Crain Highway

Scenic

N RO

W OO

7 Woodyard Road

Historic

AY 12 W GH I H

CROOM S TATIO

OSBR. ROA D UTH

A RO

Legend

E PIK

IN MA

ILL TRUM PS H

OLD D. R. IN. H

29 L. CH

. RD

D UL EY

STA

TI O N RO AD

ø 382

Locator Map

Special Roadways Inventory

ø 4

Mount Calvert-Nottingham

¡ 301

Legend

21 Mount Calvert Rd

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

28 Croom Airport Road

National Register

T UN MO

OAD RT R LVE A C

Priority Preservation

Public Land Historic District

37 Nottingham Road

DUV ALL RO AD

CRO O M AIR PO R

T ROAD

44 Candy Hill Road

CRO O M RD

46 Tanyard Road

CALVERT COUNTY

ø 382

CANDY HILL R OA D

Locator Map

TT N

NG H. RO A

TANYARD RO AD

27 Duvall Road

Special Roadways Inventory

CCT. HIL LR OA

WHARF ROAD

Accokeek

BRYN. PNT.

RO AD

Legend

Scenic/Historic

Historic African American Property

Historic Site

GT O

17 Old Marshall Hall Road

National Register Priority Preservation

ROAD ALL LH AL

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

FARM IN

SH AR DM

Public Land

I LIV

MRS. HALL ROD.

STO NG

Historic District

AD N RO

LIV INGSTON RD

ACCO KEEK RD

18 Marshall Hall Road

ø 373

ø 210

E KEEK ROA D W ACCO

16 Bryan Point Road

Scenic

15 Cactus Hill Road

Historic

ø 228

20 Livingston Road

19 20

BE RRY RD

21 Farmington Road West

22 Wharf Road

CHARLES COUNTY

Locator Map

19 Accokeek Rd. West

AW AY

Special Roadways Inventory

PIS CA T

Piscataway & Vicinity

ø 223

Legend

10 Floral Park Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic K ROAD L PAR FLO RA

Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

12 Danville Road

National Register Priority Preservation 12

Public Land

Historic District

13 Accokeek Road (MD 373)

210

T. OD. ES FRM. R

DANV

ILLE RO A D

ø 373

ACCO KEEK

RO AD (M D 373 )

20 Livingston Road 13

RO A

OA YR RR BE

LIV IN GSTON RD

G IN LIV

ACCOK EE K RD

24 Berry Road

25 Bealle Hill Road

26 Sharpeville Road

LLE H

23 Farmington Road East

BE A

BE RRY RD

ILL RO

228

AD RO LL. RV RP SH

CHARLES COUNTY

Locator Map

CA T

AW AY

Special Roadways Inventory

PI S

Brandywine & Vicinity

Legend

10 Floral Park Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property

Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

11 Cherry Tree Crossing Road

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land 10

L FLO RA

Historic District

PARK RO AD

13 Accokeek Road (MD 373)

MD E( NU

301

DY W

1) E ROAD (MD 38 14 BRANDYW IN E RD

ø 381

14 Brandywine Road (MD 381)

A RO

IGH W A Y (US

301)

373

D 37 D (M RO A EEK K O ACC MC K EN DR EE

BR AN

D KR

A CH

AN BR

CRA

IN H

27 Gardener Road

28 McKendree Road

GARDNER ROAD

OAD CDR . R 30

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

29 Crain Highway (US 301)

30 Cedarville Road

Special Roadways Inventory Cedarville & Vicinity

O LD

IN DI

Legend

AN RO AD

AD RO AD HE

Scenic Scenic/Historic

301

38 Old Indian Head Rd

Historic

TO W

Historic African American Property Historic Site

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

39 Tower Road

National Register Priority Preservation Public Land

Historic District

51 Dent Road

ø 381

52 Cedarville Road BRA N

CEDAR V

DYW IN E

ILLE ROA D

NT DE

A RO

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

Special Roadways Inventory CRO

Croom-Naylor OM

Legend

24 Old Indian Head Road

29 Van Brady Road

31 Saint Thomas Church Road

32 Mattaponi Road

35 Cross Trail Road

36 Molly Berry Road

37 Nottingham Road

41 North Keys Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic

Historic African American Property

301

Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer N HEAD R OA

National Register Priority Preservation

OLD INDIA

Public Land 31 S AINT

382

AD C ROSS RO

AT T

VAN B RA D

AD 32

O IR ON P A

D RO A

ø YR OA

TRAIL BE LY RRY R OA D

M OL

NORTH KEYS

C HURCH ROA D

O NN FE

Historic District TH OM AS

NOTTIN GHAM R OAD

44 Candy Hill Road CAN

DY H

D ILL RO A

ROAD

Locator Map

ø 381

BR AN

DY W INE

33 Fenno Road

Special Roadways Inventory Baden Area

ø 382

O CR

Legend

LY MO L

BE RR YR OA

N . CHR. RO

MA R

T IN ROA D

(M D

Scenic 38

Scenic/Historic

Historic African American Property

BRK. CH. RD

Historic Site

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

36 Molly Berry Road

40 Brandywine Road (MD 381)

42 Gibbons Church Rd

43 Martin Road

National Register

GB B

Priority Preservation

Public Land Historic District

381

N R PE

RI ER O

PO IR RIVER A

I W DY

AN BR

LE AG

(M D3

AD O L RO HO SC

BALD E

EN -N AY

BA D

W IN E

45 Baden-Naylor Road

47 Brooks Church Rd

48 Nelson Perrie Rd

50 River Airport Road

53 Horsehead Road

55 Baden-Westwood Road

)

W BDN-WS T

. RO

S UA CO

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

BRA ND Y

RO A

AD RO OR

HO RSE HE AD

ER D

RT R O AD

O LS

ø N

30 Croom Road (MD 382)/ Star Spangled Banner National Scenic Byway

Historic

O CR

R OM

56 Bald Eagle School Road

Special Roadways Inventory Westwood Area

Legend

30 Croom Road (MD 382)/ Star Spangled Banner National Scenic Byway

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site WHIT ES LA

NDIN

DE BA

N-WESTWO OD

G RO

1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

49 Westwood Road

National Register Priority Preservation

ST O AD WE WO O D R

Public Land

RO AD

CALVERT COUNTY

Historic District

ø 382

54 Aquasco Road

55 30

ø 381

O SC UA AQ

55 Baden-Westwood Road

MGRD R'S . FE RY RO AD R

57 Whites Landing Road

MILLTOWN LANDING RO

59 AQ S UA CO

38 1)

(

R OM CRO

58 Magruders Ferry Road

)

A RO

M D

D (MD 3 RO A OM O R

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

59 Milltown Landing Road

Special Roadways Inventory

60 AQ

O RD

AQUA

A RM SC O F

Aquasco

D ROA

Legend

54 Aquasco Road

Historic Scenic Scenic/Historic Historic African American Property Historic Site 1-mile Scenic Byway Corridor Buffer

60 Aquasco Farm Road

National Register DO

CTO R

BO W EN

Priority Preservation Public Land

RO AD

Historic District

61 SAIN T MRY 'S

RC . CH

61 Doctor Bowen Road

D OA 62 .R

ø 381

RO SAINT PHILLIPS

E AG LE H ARBO R

62 Saint Mary’s Church Road

CALVERT COUNTY ROA D

63 Saint Phillips Road

O SC UA Q A

AD RO

D (M

EAGLE HARBOR

64 Eagle Harbor Road

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

TASK 6.4

Existing Transportation System

TASK 6.4

Existing Transit Facilities

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Northwestern Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend

! @

Marc/Amtrak

TH S T

216

ø 198

GO RMAN AV RD S ANDY S PRING

MTA Bus Service UM Shuttle Service

S EVEN

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Marc/Amtrak Station

! @

TAL BO TT AV

RTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

LAUREL

ø 197

* 95

¡ 1

200

EL LA U R

Locator Map

! @

¾ N

½ mile

R MI WDE PO

RD LL

ø 212

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

ø 200

Fairland-Beltsville & Vicinity Legend Marc/Amtrak

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

The Bus Service MTA Bus Service UM Shuttle Service RTA Bus Service Metrobus Service R MIL L WDE PO

ø 212

* 95

¡ 1

W PO

R DE

Locator Map

D LR M IL

W 495

ø 201

495

½ mile

MO ED

GS RIG

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES South LaurelMontpelier

* 95

Legend

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

! @

Marc/Amtrak Station Marc/Amtrak MTA Bus Service UM Shuttle Service RTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 200

¡ 1

ø 197

! @

LA U

¾ N ø 212

½ mile

ø 201

RE L

W IE R D

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Agricultural Research Center

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Legend

LAUREL

! @

BO WIE RD

Marc/Amtrak Station Marc/Amtrak The Bus Service

RTA Bus Service

197

Metrobus Service

! @

9TH ST 11TH ST

Locator Map

ø 564

¾ N

½ mile

ø 193

GREENBELT RD

AM NH LA

VE SE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

W PO

RM DE

D LR

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

W 495

Langley Park & Vicinity

* 95

* 495

Legend

< A <

! @

Metro Station (Yellow/Green) Marc/Amtrak Station Metro Line Marc/Amtrak

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

University of Maryland Campus The Bus Service MTA Bus Service

ø 650

ø 430

ø 212

UM Shuttle Service RTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

¡ 1

193

ITY B UNIVERS

LVD

< A <

Locator Map

ø ø

< ø A

! @

500

D SR RIGG

½ mile

ø 501

CHILLU M RD

< A <

¾ N

CH AP EL

WDC

410

EE QU

ø 208

¡ ALT 1

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

W PO

RM DE

R IL L

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

W 495

College Park-Berwyn Heights & Vicinity

E DM

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

495

* 95

Legend

< A

Metro Station (Yellow/Green)

Metro Line Marc/Amtrak

< A <

University of Maryland Campus The Bus Service GS RIG

MTA Bus Service

UM Shuttle Service RTA Bus Service

ø 212

ø 193

Metrobus Service

BLVD UNIVERS ITY

¡ ø 430

GREENBELT RD

KE NI LW OR TH

COLLEGE PARK

ø 201

Locator Map

< A <

½ mile

øø 410

410

< A <

¾ N

ø 500

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

PO WD ER M IL LR D

Greenbelt & Vicinity

Legend

< A <

! @

Metro Station (Yellow/Green) Marc/Amtrak Station

Metro Line Marc/Amtrak

ON M ST

University of Maryland Campus

The Bus Service

< A <

MTA Bus Service UM Shuttle Service RTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 201

* 95

GREENBELT RD

GREENBELT

KE NI LW OR TH

BERWYN HEIGHTS

193

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

! ø@ 564

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

< A <

Hyattsville-RiverdaleMt. Rainier-Brentwood

UNIVERSITY PARK

212

RD GS RIG

410

< A

Legend

< A <

410

! @

RIVERDALE PARK

Metro Station (Yellow/Green) Marc/Amtrak Station Metro Line Marc/Amtrak

HYATTSVILLE

University of Maryland Campus The Bus Service

< A <

MTA Bus Service

501

C HILL UM RD

HAM ILTO N

38TH A

RTA Bus Service

ø 201

Metrobus Service

EDMONSTON

ø 208

MOUNT RAINIER

RT H

RD PE L CHA S N E Q UE

500

UM Shuttle Service

BRENTWOOD COTTAGE CITY 3

N KE

ILW

ANNAPOLIS RD

H ST

ø 450

ø 202

¡ ALT 1

L AN

COLMAR MANOR

DO V E

R RD

Locator Map

WDC

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 50

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

< A <

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Bladensburg-New Carrollton & Vicinity

* 95

ø 410

TE RA NS

! A < A <

¡ @ !

Legend

NEW CARROLLTON

! @

PK W

Metro Station (Orange) Metro Station (Yellow/Green) Marc/Amtrak Station

Metro Line Marc/Amtrak University of Maryland Campus

The Bus Service

201

MTA Bus Service UM Shuttle Service RTA Bus Service

! A

Metrobus Service

ALT 1

RT H

ø 450

ILW

BLADENSBURG

LANDOVER HILLS

ANNAPOLIS RD

! A 202

CHEVERLY

¾ N

WDC

½ mile

! A

¡ 50

D LA N DO VE R R

Locator Map

MA RT IN

ER TH

NG KI

ø 704

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ST 9T H

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham & Vicinity Legend

! A ! @

GREENBELT RD

193

564

N LA

M HA

Marc/Amtrak Station Metro Line Marc/Amtrak

ø ø

Metro Station (Orange)

GL EN

The Bus Service N

DA LE

MTA Bus Service UM Shuttle Service

BL VD

Metrobus Service

! @

ø 953

450

! A

S RD A NNA PO LI

ENTE RP RISE R D

N TI AR M

KING HWY ER TH LU

Locator Map

¡ 50

¾ N

½ mile

ø 704

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

LA UR E

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

LB OW IE R D

Bowie & Vicinity Legend

! @ ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY T 9TH S

! @

Marc/Amtrak Station Marc/Amtrak MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

11TH ST

ø 564

AM NH LA

E EV

ø GL EN N

CR AI N

HW Y

197

DA L

E VD BL D O LIS R A NNA P

976

450

ø 3

Locator Map

ø ENTE RPR IS E RD

193

¾ N

ø ½ mile 953

¡ 50

¡ 301

LLI N GTO N RD

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

11TH ST

IE RD OW LB

ø 564

City of Bowie Legend

HW Y

Marc/Amtrak

CR AIN

AM NH LA GL EN N DA LE

LA URE

T HS

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

The Bus Service

VD ANNAPO L IS RD

ø ø 450

197

ø ø 976

BOWIE

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 953

ø 704

ø 193

CO L

¡ 50

L IN

G TO N RD

¡ 301

Locator Map

ISE RPR TE EN RD

ø 214

DR RK PA

½ mile

S IN TK WA

¾ N

ø 978

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

N RA TE S Y W PK

Landover & Vicinity

! A

RT H

410

Legend

O W IL N

450

ANNAPOLIS RD

ø 201

A ¡ !

N TI AR M

ER TH

NG KI

* 95

! A < ! A

Metro Station (Blue/Silver) Metro Station (Orange) Metro Line Marc/Amtrak The Bus Service MTA Bus Service

GLENARDEN

UM Shuttle Service Metrobus Service

ø 202

ø 704

! A

LA NDOVER RD

Locator Map

FAIRMOUNT HEIGHTS

WDC

! A <

SEAT PLEASANT

¾ N

½ mile

! A < AL A CENTR

ø 332

! A <

ø 214

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! A

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

¡ 50

A M

IN RT

T LU

R HE

NG KI

Largo-Lottsford

704

Legend

! A <

Metro Station (Blue/Silver) Metro Line The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

LA N DOVER RD

ø 193

EN T D ER IS PR ER

! A <

214

AT W

NS KI

ø 202

* 95

D RK PA

! A <

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 3

CO L

953

¡ 50

LIN

GT O N

ø 197

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Mitchellville & Vicinity Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

IS E RPR TE RD

ø 193

¡ 301

ø 214

W NS KI AT

ø 978

DR RK PA

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

ø 202

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 197

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

CRAIN HWY

¡ LLI N GT O N RD

Collington & Vicinity Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

¡ 301

ø ø 214

978

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø W

KI N

704

RT IN

LU TH ER

! A <

WDC

332 CE NTRAL A

! A < ! A <

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Suitland-District Heights, Capitol Legend

ø 214

! A < ! A

Metro Station (Blue/Silver) Metro Station (Green) Metro Line The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

DISTRICT HEIGHTS

ø 218

! A

S UI TLA

ND RD

SILV

D ER HILL R

458

R RD

! A

* 95

Locator Map

ø S

NA B BAR

! A

414

½ mile

N RD TOW

¾ N

N LLE

ø 337

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES The Heights

WDC

! A

ø S UI TLA ND

! A

ø 414

AB A RN BA

* 95

E R HILL SILV

* 295

¾ N

½ mile

! A

Metro Station (Green) Metro Line The Bus Service

ø 458

MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

! A ø 5

FOREST HEIGHTS

Legend

218

N LE AL

337

Locator Map

ø 210

ø 223

D DR O DY A R WO

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! A

458

WDC

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Henson Creek

! A

ø 414

S ABA RN BA

L AL

* 95

N OW T EN

Legend

! A

Metro Station (Green) Metro Line The Bus Service

MTA Bus Service

337

Metrobus Service

ø 5

ø 210

A CAT PIS

RD WA Y

DY A WO O

R RD

Locator Map

223

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES TO LEN AL

Melwood

WN RD

Legend

* 95

The Bus Service MTA Bus Service

ø 4

Metrobus Service

ø 337

Locator Map

ø 5

ø 223

¾ N

½ mile

Y WO O D

D DR AR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

WA T

LARGO RD

KIN S

PA R

ø 202

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Westphalia & Vicinity Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

* 95

ø 337

Locator Map

ø 4

ø ½ mile

WO OD

¾ N

Y A RD RD

223

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

ø 193

KINS WA T

K PAR

Upper Marlboro & Vicinity

LA RGO RD

Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 202

M AR

301

¾ N

½ mile

E PIK

Locator Map

725

AR D M LBO R OL O

UPPER MARLBORO

RO PIKE LBO

IN MA

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

* 95

WDC

South Potomac Sector

295

Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 210

ø W A

223

A AT

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Clinton & Vicinity Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 223

W CA TA PIS

AY RD

RD DYARD WO O

ø 5

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Tippett & Vicinity

AY A TAW PIS C

Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 223

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 725

DMARLB OR OL

E PIK

ø 4

IN MA

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Rosaryville Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service

ø 223

CR O OMRD

RD RD YA

¡ 301

ø 382

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

ø 4

Mount CalvertNottingham

¡ 301

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CR OO

Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service

M RD

ø 382

CALVERT COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Accokeek Legend MTA Bus Service

ø 210

LIVINGSTON RD

ø 373

ACCOKEE K RD

228

BE R RY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

PIS CATA WA

ø 223

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Piscataway & Vicinity Legend MTA Bus Service Metrobus Service

ø 210

ø 373

LIVINGSTON RD

ACCO KE EK RD

ø 228

BE RRY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Brandywine & Vicinity Legend The Bus Service MTA Bus Service

ø 5

¡ 301

ø 381

BRANDYWINE RD

ø 373

EK RD ACCO KE

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES

Cedarville & Vicinity

ø 5

Legend The Bus Service

K CO

MTA Bus Service

D KR EE

¡ 301

373

BRANDYWIN RD E

ø 381

D OR SC UA

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Croom-Naylor Legend

¡ 301

CRO O MR

ø 382

Locator Map

BR AN DY W IN E

¾ N

ø 381

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Baden Area Legend

BR AN

DY W

INE RD

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ SC UA O RD

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY O OM RD CR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Westwood Area Legend

CALVERT COUNTY

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ

UA S

OM RD CRO

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Aquasco Legend

ø 381

CALVERT COUNTY

CHARLES COUNTY

CO AS U AQ

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Laurel Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend

E NT

H ST

! @

SE V

Marc/Amtrak MTA Bus Service

UM Shuttle Service

216

RTA Bus Service

S A ND

D ING R Y S PR

OT TALB T AV

198

Marc/Amtrak Station

Metrobus Service

! @

GO RMAN AV

FO R

T M E A DE R D

¡ 1

Locator Map

ø 197

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

U LA

½ mile

BO W IE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

TASK 6.4

Existing Bicycle Facilities

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Northwestern Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

ø MONTGOMERY COUNTY

ø 198

GO RMAN AV RD S ANDY S PRING

S EVEN

TH S T

216

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

TAL BO TT AV

2009 MPOT Built Projects

LAUREL

ø 197

* 95

200

¡ 1

EL LA U R

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

R MI WDE PO

RD LL

ø 212

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

ø 200

Fairland-Beltsville & Vicinity Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

R MIL L WDE PO

ø 212

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

2009 MPOT Built Projects

* 95

¡ 1

W PO

R DE

Locator Map

D LR M IL

W 495

ø 201

495

½ mile

MO ED

GS RIG

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES South LaurelMontpelier

* 95

Legend ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

ø 200

2009 MPOT Built Projects

¡ 1

ø 197

LA U

¾ N ø 212

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

½ mile

ø 201

RE L

W IE R D

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Agricultural Research Center

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Legend LAUREL

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

BO WIE RD

Bike Lane Trail Wide Shoulder

197

2009 MPOT Built Projects

9TH ST 11TH ST

Locator Map

ø 564

¾ N

½ mile

ø 193

GREENBELT RD

AM NH LA

VE SE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

W PO

RM DE

D LR

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

W 495

Langley Park & Vicinity

* 95

* 495

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 650

ø 430

ø 212

¡ 1

193

ITY B UNIVERS

University of Maryland Campus

LVD

Locator Map

ø ø 410

ø 500

D SR RIGG

¾ N

½ mile

CH AP EL

WDC

410

ø 501

CHILLU M RD

EE QU

ø 208

¡ ALT 1

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

W PO

RM DE

R IL L

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

W 495

College Park-Berwyn Heights & Vicinity

E DM

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

495

* 95

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

GS RIG

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

2009 MPOT Built Projects

University of Maryland Campus

212

ø 193

BLVD UNIVERS ITY

¡ ø 430

GREENBELT RD

COLLEGE PARK

KE NI LW OR TH

ø 201

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

øø 410

410

ø 500

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

PO WD ER M IL LR D

Greenbelt & Vicinity

Legend

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

ON M ST

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

2009 MPOT Built Projects University of Maryland Campus

ø 201

* 95

GREENBELT RD

GREENBELT

KE NI LW OR TH

BERWYN HEIGHTS

193

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

ø 564

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

Hyattsville-RiverdaleMt. Rainier-Brentwood

UNIVERSITY PARK

212

RD GS RIG

Legend

410

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

RIVERDALE PARK

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

HYATTSVILLE

ø 501

C HILL UM RD

HAM ILTO N

2009 MPOT Built Projects 1

38TH A

University of Maryland Campus

ø 201

500

EDMONSTON

ø 208

MOUNT RAINIER

RT H

RD PE L CHA S N E Q UE

BRENTWOOD COTTAGE CITY 3

N KE

ILW

ANNAPOLIS RD

H ST

ø 450

ø 202

¡ ALT 1

L AN

COLMAR MANOR

DO V E

R RD

Locator Map

WDC

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 50

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Bladensburg-New Carrollton & Vicinity

* 95

¡ 1

ø 410

Legend

NEW CARROLLTON TE RA NS

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

PK W

Bike Lane Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

University of Maryland Campus

201

ALT 1

RT H

ø 450

ILW

BLADENSBURG

LANDOVER HILLS

ANNAPOLIS RD

202

CHEVERLY

¾ N

WDC

½ mile

¡ 50

D LA N DO VE R R

Locator Map

MA RT IN

ER TH

NG KI

ø 704

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

9T H

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham & Vicinity Legend

GREENBELT RD

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

193

ø 564

AM NH

RN VE

GL EN

DA LE

2009 MPOT Built Projects

BL VD

ø 953

450

S RD A NNA PO LI

ENTE RP RISE R D

N TI AR M

KING HWY ER TH LU

Locator Map

¡ 50

¾ N

½ mile

ø 704

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

LA UR E

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

LB OW IE R D

Bowie & Vicinity Legend ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY T 9TH S

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

11TH ST

ø 564

AM NH LA

E EV

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø GL EN N

CR AI N

HW Y

197

DA L

E VD BL D O LIS R A NNA P

976

450

ø 3

Locator Map

ø ENTE RPR IS E RD

193

¾ N

ø ½ mile 953

¡ 50

¡ 301

LLI N GTO N RD

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

11TH ST

IE RD OW LB

ø 564

City of Bowie Legend

HW Y

CR AIN

AM NH LA GL EN N DA LE

LA URE

T HS

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

VD ANNAPO L IS RD

ø ø 450

197

ø ø 976

BOWIE

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 953

ø 704

ø 193

CO L

¡ 50

L IN

G TO N RD

¡ 301

Locator Map

ISE RPR TE EN RD

ø 214

DR RK PA

½ mile

S IN TK WA

¾ N

ø 978

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

N RA TE S Y W PK

Landover & Vicinity

RT H

410

Legend

O W IL N

450

ANNAPOLIS RD

ø 201

N TI AR M

ER TH

NG KI

* 95

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Trail Wide Shoulder

GLENARDEN

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 202

ø 704

LA NDOVER RD

Locator Map

FAIRMOUNT HEIGHTS

WDC SEAT PLEASANT

¾ N

½ mile

AL A CENTR

ø 332

ø 214

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

¡ 50

A M

IN RT

T LU

R HE

NG KI

Largo-Lottsford

704

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

LA N DOVER RD

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 193

EN T D ER IS PR ER

214

AT W

NS KI

202

D RK PA

* 95

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 3

CO L

953

¡ 50

LIN

GT O N

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

197

Mitchellville & Vicinity Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

2009 MPOT Built Projects

IS E RPR TE RD

ø 193

¡ 301

ø 214

W NS KI AT

ø 978

DR RK PA

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

ø 202

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 197

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

CRAIN HWY

¡ LLI N GT O N RD

Collington & Vicinity Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Bike Lane Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

¡ 301

ø ø 214

978

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

ø W

LU TH ER

KI N

704

RT IN

Suitland-District Heights, Capitol

Legend

ø 214

WDC

332 CE NTRAL A

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

DISTRICT HEIGHTS

ø 218

S UI TLA

ND RD

SILV

D ER HILL R

458

R RD

ø 4

* 95

Locator Map

ø 5

N RD TOW

N LLE

NA B BAR

414

¾ N

½ mile

ø 337

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES The Heights

WDC YL

Legend

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

218

S UI TLA ND

E R HILL SILV

ø 458

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 414

AB RN BA

* 95

ø 5

FOREST HEIGHTS

* 295

¾ N

½ mile

N LE AL

337

Locator Map

ø 210

ø 223

D DR O DY A R WO

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

458

WDC

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

Henson Creek

ø 414

S ABA RN BA

L AL

* 95

N OW T EN

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

337

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 5

ø 210

A CAT PIS

RD WA Y

DY A WO O

R RD

Locator Map

223

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES TO LEN AL

Melwood

WN RD

Legend

* 95

Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

ø 4

Bike Lane Wide Shoulder

ø 337

2009 MPOT Built Projects

Locator Map

ø 5

ø 223

¾ N

½ mile

Y WO O D

D DR AR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

WA T

LARGO RD

KIN S

PA R

ø 202

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Westphalia & Vicinity Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

* 95

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 337

Locator Map

ø 4

ø ½ mile

WO OD

¾ N

Y A RD RD

223

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

ø 193

KINS WA T

K PAR

Upper Marlboro & Vicinity

LA RGO RD

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

ø 202

2009 MPOT Built Projects

M AR

301

¾ N

½ mile

E PIK

Locator Map

725

AR D M LBO R OL O

UPPER MARLBORO

RO PIKE LBO

IN MA

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

* 95

WDC

* 295

South Potomac Sector Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 210

ø W A

223

A AT

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Clinton & Vicinity Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 223

W CA TA PIS

AY RD

RD DYARD WO O

ø 5

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Tippett & Vicinity

AY A TAW PIS C

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 223

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 725

DMARLB OR OL

E PIK

ø 4

IN MA

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Rosaryville Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

ø 223

Bike Lane Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

Y OD

CR O OMRD

D RD AR

¡ 301

ø 382

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES

ø 4

Mount CalvertNottingham

¡ 301

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CR OO

Legend Existing Conditions Recreation Secondary Bike Lane

M RD

2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 382

CALVERT COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Accokeek Legend Existing Conditions Recreation Secondary

ø 210

LIVINGSTON RD

ø 373

ACCOKEE K RD

228

BE R RY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

PIS CATA WA

ø 223

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Piscataway & Vicinity Legend Existing Conditions Recreation Secondary Bike Lane Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 210

ø 373

LIVINGSTON RD

ACCO KE EK RD

ø 228

BE RRY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Brandywine & Vicinity Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

ø 5

Bike Lane Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

¡ 301

ø 381

BRANDYWINE RD

ø 373

K RD ACC OKE E

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Cedarville & Vicinity

ø 5

Legend Existing Conditions Primary Recreation Secondary

D KR EE

¡ 301

373

BRANDYWIN RD E

Bike Lane Trail Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

ø 381

D OR SC UA

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Croom-Naylor Legend Existing Conditions Recreation Secondary

¡ 301

Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

CRO O MR

ø 382

Locator Map

BR AN DY W IN E

¾ N

ø 381

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Baden Area Legend Existing Conditions Recreation Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

BR AN

DY W

INE RD

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ SC UA O RD

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY O OM RD CR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Westwood Area Legend Existing Conditions Recreation Wide Shoulder 2009 MPOT Built Projects

CALVERT COUNTY

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ

UA S

OM RD CRO

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Aquasco Legend Existing Conditions Recreation

ø 381

CALVERT COUNTY

CHARLES COUNTY

CO AS U AQ

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES Laurel Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend

SE V

E NT

H ST

Existing Conditions Primary Secondary Bike Lane Sidepath Wide Shoulder

ø 216

* 95

Y S A ND

S PRIN

G RD

2009 MPOT Built Projects

OT TALB T AV

198

GO RMAN AV

FO R

T M E A DE R D

¡ 1

Locator Map

ø 197

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

U LA

½ mile

BO W IE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

TASK 6.4

Existing Pedestrian Facilities

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Northwestern Area

! ! !

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !!

216

! !

! ! ! !! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

RD S ANDY S PRING

198

! ! ! !

! !

S EVEN

TAL BO TT AV

!! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

GO RMAN AV

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

County Trails

!! !

TH S T

! !!

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !!! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! !

EL LA U R

200

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Locator Map

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!

! !

!! !!

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! !!

! ! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

197

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!

!! ! ! !! !

!! ! ! ! !!!

!!!!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

LAUREL ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!! ! !

!!!

212

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

RD LL

!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

½ mile

! !!

!! !! !

!! !

¾ N

R MI WDE PO

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !!

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

ø 200

! ! !

Fairland-Beltsville & Vicinity

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

On Street Sidewalks ! !! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !! ! !

R MIL L WDE

! !

! ! ! !

! !

County Trails

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Legend

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

! !

! ! !!

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!!!! ! !

!!! ! ! !

* 95

! !!

! ! !! !

ø 212

!! !

! ! ! !

!! !!!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

R DE

¡ 1

Locator Map

D LR M IL

W 495

! ! ! ! !

W PO

! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

ø 201

! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! !! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! !!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

½ mile

! !

! ! !

! !

MO ED

495

! !

¾ N

! !! !!!

GS RIG

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities South LaurelMontpelier

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

On Street Sidewalks

! ! ! ! ! !

200

County Trails

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !

197

! !!

! !

!! ! ! !!

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!!

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!!! !

LA U !

!! ! !

¾ N ø 212

½ mile

ø 201

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

RE L

W IE R D

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! !

!! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

Agricultural Research Center

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

! !

! !! ! !!

! !!

! ! ! !

Legend LAUREL

BO WIE RD

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

! !

ø 197

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!! !!

9TH ST

Locator Map

! !! ! ! !

11TH ST !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!!

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! !!!

! !!

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

!! !

! !

! ! !!! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

GREENBELT RD

193

! ! ! !

½ mile

¾ N

AM NH LA

RN VE SE

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

564

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

R DE

Pedestrian Facilities

W 495

! !!

L M IL

! !

Langley Park & Vicinity

* 95

495

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! !

!! !!

Legend

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! !! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails University of Maryland Campus On Street Sidewalks

!! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! !! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

!! !

! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

!! !! !! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! !

!! !

CH AP EL

! ! !!! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !! !

S !

! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!!! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! !

!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

!!!

! !

! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

!! !

!!! !

!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

!! ! ! ! !

!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

!! !

! !

¡ ALT 1

!! !!

! !

208

Locator Map

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! !

EE QU

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

500

410

CHILLU M RD !

! !

501

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

ø ø 410

! !

½ mile

!! ! !!

¾ N

! ! ! !

D SR RIGG

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

WDC

! !

! !! ! ! ! !! !!

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !!

!! ! !

! !!

!! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!!

ITY BLVD UNIVERS ! ! !! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

193

! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! !

!! !! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

!! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!!! !! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

430

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

212

! !! ! ! !

650

! ! ! ! !!! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

!!!

!!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! ! !! ! !! !! !!!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

KE NI LW OR TH ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

AV !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !!

!! !

! ! ! !! !! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !! !

! ! !

!!!

! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!

!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! !!

! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !!

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !!

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !

! !! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !!! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!! !

500

! ! ! !!

! !

E DM

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Locator Map !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

! ! ! !

! !

øø ½ mile

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!!! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!!! !! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

!! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !

410

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022 ! ! !

! !! !

! !

201

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

430

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!

GREENBELT RD

¡ ø

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!!

! !

495

County Trails ! !

! !

193

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

BLVD UNIVERS ITY

! ! ! !

! !!

212

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

COLLEGE PARK !

! ! ! ! !

! !

495

Legend

* !

! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !

On Street Sidewalks !

College Park-Berwyn Heights & Vicinity

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

GS RIG

! !! ! !

! !!

University of Maryland Campus !

! !! !

! !

Pedestrian Facilities ! !

W !

W PO

D R IL L RM DE

! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

! !!

! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

PO WD ER M IL LR D

!! !

! ! ! !

Greenbelt & Vicinity

Legend !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

!!! !

!! !

University of Maryland Campus

County Trails

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

On Street Sidewalks ED

ON M

RD !

! !! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !! !

! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !!

! !

!!! !

!! !!

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

KE NI LW OR TH

! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Locator Map !

! !

! ! !! !! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

193

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

GREENBELT

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

½ mile

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! !!

! !

! ! !! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! !!

! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

BERWYN HEIGHTS

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

* !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

201

! !

GREENBELT RD

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 564

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

38TH

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! !!

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!! !! !

!!!!

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

RT H

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

Locator Map

R RD

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

DO V E

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

WDC

COLMAR MANOR !! ! !

L AN !

! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

ALT 1

! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

ø 202

! !

!! !

! !

ANNAPOLIS RD 450

H ST

! ! !! ! ! !

!!! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

ILW

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

!! !! ! !!! ! ! !

N KE

! ! !

! !! !

! !

! !! !

COTTAGE CITY

! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !!

BRENTWOOD

! !

!!! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !!

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!

!! !

!! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! !!

!!!

! ! ! !

!! !!

!! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

University of Maryland Campus

!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !

! !!!

County Trails

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

201

!! ! !

! !!

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Hyattsville-RiverdaleMt. Rainier-Brentwood

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!! !!

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

EDMONSTON

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

208

!! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

MOUNT RAINIER

!!!

! !

! !! !

!! !! !

E Q UE

! ! !

!! ! !

D EL R HAP NS C

! !

! !!

! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

ø 500

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

HAM ILTO N

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

!! !

! ! !

C HILL UM RD

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!!!! ! ! ! ! !

RIVERDALE PARK

! !

501

! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

HYATTSVILLE

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

410

! !

!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !

!! ! ! ! ! !!

410

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

RD GS RIG

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

UNIVERSITY PARK

! !

212

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! !

½ mile

! !

¡ 50

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

!!! !

! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! !

! !

!! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!

!! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! !! !

!! ! !! ! !

! !! !

! !

!! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

RT H

! ! !

! !

450

! ! ! !

!! !!

BLADENSBURG

LANDOVER HILLS

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Locator Map

ø 704

!! !

! ! !

D LA N DO VE R R

! ! !

ER TH

NG KI

MA RT IN

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

CHEVERLY

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

202

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

½ mile

! !

! !!!

! !

WDC

!! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

¾ N

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

!! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! !! !

!! !

ANNAPOLIS RD

! ! ! ! ! ! !

ILW

! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

!! !!

! !

! ! !!

! !

!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !! !! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!!! ! ! !!

! !

201

! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

County Trails University of Maryland Campus

PK W

! !

!!! !

ALT 1

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TE RA NS

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

410

Legend

NEW CARROLLTON

! !!

! !!! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!

!! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Bladensburg-New Carrollton & Vicinity

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !! !!!! !

! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

9T H

! ! !

Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham & Vicinity

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

Legend

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!!!! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

DA LE

564

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !!!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!!! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

ENTE RP RISE R D

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Locator Map

! !

! !!

! !

¾ !

! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

ø ! !

! !

704

! ! !! !!

! !!

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!!

! ! !

! !

S RD A NNA PO LI

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

KING HWY ER TH LU

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !! ! !

! !

953

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!!!

!! !! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !!!

! !!

! !

!!!

! !!

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

¡ !

½ mile

! !!

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!

N TI AR M

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! !

! !

450

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

AM NH LA

N ER

! ! !

V SE

! !

BL VD

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! !

!!!

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

GL EN

! !

! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! !

193

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

GREENBELT RD

! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

! !

! ! ! !

County Trails

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !

! !!

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Bowie & Vicinity

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

LB OW IE R D

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

LA UR E

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

HW Y ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

CR AI N ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

!! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

301

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !!

! !

!! ! !

LLI N GTO N RD

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !

CO !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !!

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !!

! !

! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! !! !

! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

ENTE RPR IS E RD

!! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

!! !! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

Locator Map

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

953

! ! !

! !

ø ½ mile

! ! !

! !

! !! !

! !

976

¾ N

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

193

! ! ! !

! !

!!!

D 450 O LIS R A NNA P

! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !! !

VD BL

! !

197

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !!

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! !

! !! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

DA L

! !

GL EN N

! ! !!

! !!

! ! !! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

AM NH LA

!!!

! ! !

E EV

564

! ! !! !

11TH ST

! !!

T 9TH S

! ! !

! !!

! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

HW Y !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

CR AIN

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !! ! !! !

! ! !!

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !!

! !

! !!!

! !

! !!

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !!

!! !!!!

! ! !

!!! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!! !! ! !

!! !

! !

! !! !

!! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

!!! ! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !!!

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

!! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!

! !

! !!

! !

!! !!!

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !!!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! !!

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! !!!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

978

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

!! !! !

! ! !! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !! !!! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !!

DR RK PA

! !! !!!

!! ! ! !!

! !!

!! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

!! !

! ! !!

! ! !

!!!

! !

!! ! !

! ! !!

! !

S IN TK WA

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

N ½ mile !!

! !

!! !

! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

!!! !

214

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!! !

! ! !

!! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! !!!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! !

!! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Locator Map

301

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !!! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !

! ! !

! !! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! !! !

!! !

! !!

!! !!

! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! !! !

!!!! !

! !

!! !! !!!!!!! !

! !

ISE RPR TE EN

! !

!! ! !

! !

! !!

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

!!! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !

!! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !! !!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! !!

G TO N RD

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !!!

! !! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !! !

! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! !

L IN !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !!

! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

CO L

! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

!!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!

!! ! !

!! !! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !!

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

193

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

! ! !

! !

BOWIE

704

! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

ø ø

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

976

! ! !

197

! ! !!

! !

! !!

450

! !

City of Bowie

ø ø

953

! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

! !

ANNAPO L IS RD

! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! !

!!!

!! !

! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

DA LE

! !!

! !! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !! ! !! !

! !

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

AM NH

LA GL EN N

N ER

V SE

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

ø 564

IE RD OW LB !

! ! !

! !

! !! !

LA URE

! !! !

! ! !

!! !!

11TH ST

! !

T HS

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! !

! !

VE !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! !! !!! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

!!! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! !!

!!! ! !

! !! !

! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

!!!

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

ø !

410

Landover & Vicinity

Y W PK

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

!! !! ! !

! !

!! !!

! !

!! ! !!! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

N RA TE

! !!! ! !!

! ! !

!! !

! !

!! !

!!!

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !

!!!

!! ! !!! !! !! !! !

RT H

Legend

O W IL N

450

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

ANNAPOLIS RD

201

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

GLENARDEN

! !! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !!

N TI

! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

202

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

AR M

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

704

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

LA NDOVER RD

! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !

!! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! !!

! !!

!! !

! ! !! !! !

! ! !

! !!

!! !

! !

SEAT PLEASANT

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !!!!! !

! !

! ! !

Locator Map ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !! ! !!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !!!!! !

! !!

! ! !

! !!!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

FAIRMOUNT HEIGHTS

! ! ! ! ! ! !

WDC

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!!! !!

!! !

TH LU

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

NG KI

! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

332

AL CEN TR

214

½ mile

¾ N

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !!

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

Largo-Lottsford

! !

! ! !!

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

A M

IN RT

TH LU

NG KI

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

704

Legend !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

!! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

!! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! !

LA N DOVER RD

! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

!!! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! !!! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !! !

!! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !!! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! !!!!!

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !!!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

! !

!!!

! ! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! !

! !!!

! !!

! ! !

! !

!!! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!

! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

!! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !!!

! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

Locator Map

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! !

! !! !!

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! !

!!! !!! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! !! !

!! ! !! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !! ! ! !

!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!

!! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! !!

! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !

!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

202

D RK PA

! !!

!! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

NS KI

AT W

! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !!

! ! ! !

!!!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

ø 214

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

D ER IS PR ER

! !

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

EN T

! !! !

! !

! !!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

193

! ! !

! !

! !! ! !! ! !! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! !

! !

½ mile

! !

LA RGO RD

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

!! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

!!! !!

! !

!!!! ! !

! !!

! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! !!! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! !! !

! !

! !!!

! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

Locator Map

! ! !

! !

! !! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

!! !

!! !!

! !!! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!!! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !!

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !! ! !

!!!

! ! !!

! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

!!!

!! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

!! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

!! !!

! !

!!!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

!! !

! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!! !

! !

! ! !! !

! ! !

!! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

978

! !

! ! !

!! ! !

! !!! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

ø !!

LA RGO RD

! !

202

¾ !!

! !

½ mile

!! ! !

! !

! ! !

301

!! !

! !!

! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! !

!! !

! ! !

!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! !! ! ! ! !! !

DR RK PA

! !!

! ! !

NS KI AT

!! !!

! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

! !!!!

! !! !! !

! ! !! !! !! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! !!

! !!! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

214

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

193

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!!!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

IS E RPR TE

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! !!! !!! !!! !!!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

! ! ! !! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

Legend

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

!!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

!! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Mitchellville & Vicinity

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! !

197

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

ø !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

GT O N

! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

LIN !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

!! ! !

! !

953

CO L

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! !!!

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !! !!

! !

! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

Locator Map

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

½ mile

! !! !

¾ N

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

!! ! !

978

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!! !

! ! !! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

214

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

ø ø ! !! !

!! ! !

301

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!! !

! ! ! !! ! !

¡ !

! !

!! !

! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

!! ! ! ! !!! !

! !

! !!

!! !!

! ! ! !!

! !! !! ! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

!!! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

!! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! !

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Legend

! !

!! !

! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !

! ! ! !

CRAIN HWY

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !! !!!!!!!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

!! !

!!! ! ! ! !!

! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

!! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Collington & Vicinity

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

LLI N GT O N RD !

! !! ! ! ! ! !!

! !! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !!! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

197

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !!! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !! !

! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !

! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

!!! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! !! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

!!! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! !!

! !!!

!! !!

RT MA

Suitland-District Heights, Capitol

! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! !!! !

LU TH ER

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! ! ! ! ! !

KI NG

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

!!!! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Y ! !

!! ! ! ! !!! !

! !

! !!

! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

704

Legend

! ! !

214

WDC

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

AL AV C E NT R

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

332

! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

!!!!

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! !! !

! !

! !!

! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !!

! !! !

! !!!! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

DISTRICT HEIGHTS !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

ø ! !

! ! !!

!! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

!!! !

!! ! ! !!!

! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !!

! !

Locator Map

! !

! !! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

N L LE

! !

D WN R TO

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

458

D ER HIL L R SILV

ND RD

S UI T LA

! ! ! !

218

A NAB BAR T S

414

½ mile

ø 337

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! !

!! ! !

!!!!

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

The Heights

! !

! ! !

! !

Legend

! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !!

!! ! !

!!!

! !

!! !

! !!

! !

! !!

458

! !

On Street Sidewalks

! !

County Trails

D !

R E R HILL SILV

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

S UI TLA ND

! !!

WDC

218

! !

! ! !!

! !! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

!! !! ! !

! !

! ! !

N LE AL

337

! !

!! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! !!

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

FOREST HEIGHTS

! !

! ! !

!!! !

!! !

! !! !!

! !!

414

! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !

! !

!! !

AB A RN BA

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !!

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! !! !! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

Locator Map

!! !!

210

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

* 295

! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

!! ! !

! ! ! !!!

! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

N ½ mile

! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

ø 223

! ! !

!! !

D DR O DY A R WO

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

!! !

!! !! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

ø 4

! !

458

! ! !! !

! ! ! !

WDC

! !

! !!

! !! ! !!

Henson Creek

! !

!!!

!! ! !!

!! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

N OW T EN

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

L AL

414

!! !

! !

R BAS NA R BA

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

337

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! !! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

!! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

!!!

! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! !!!!!

! ! !

! !!

! !

! !!

!! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

!!!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

210

! !!

!!! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! !

A CAT PIS

RD WA Y

DY A WO O

R RD

Locator Map

223

! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

!! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! !! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! !! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

½ mile

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! !

¾ N

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

Melwood ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

WN RD

! !!!

! ! !

!! !

TO LEN AL

! ! ! !

! !!

Legend

* 95

County Trails

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

ø 4

! ! !

337

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Locator Map

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

223

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

ø 5

! !! !

!! !! !!

!! !! !

! !! !

!! !

!! !!

! ! ! ! ! !!

! !! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !

!! !! !! !

! !

Y WO O D

! !! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !

D DR AR

½ mile

! ! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Westphalia & Vicinity

202

! !

!! !!

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !

! !

WA T

! ! !

! !

KIN S

LARGO RD

! !

!! ! !!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! !

! !

PA R

! !

! !!

! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! !

On Street Sidewalks

* 95

! !

!!! !! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! !

!!!

! !

! !!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! !!

!! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! !

337

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !

!! ! !! !!

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Locator Map

! !

! ! !!

! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! !!

! !

!! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !

!! ! ! !

ø !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

WO OD

½ mile

! ! !

¾ N

Y A RD RD

223

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! ! !

!! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Upper Marlboro & Vicinity

! !

K PAR

! !! !!!!

! ! !!

! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

!! ! !

! !!

! !!! !

!! ! !

!! !!!!

! ! !

!! !

!! ! ! !

!!!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

!! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !!

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

!! !! !!

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

KINS WA T

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

193

! !!

! !

! ! !!

! !! !

! !

!! !

! ! !!

! !

!!!

! !

!! !!!! !

! !!! ! ! ! ! !!

!!! ! ! ! !

!! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

!! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

!! ! !!

!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

LA RGO RD

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

202

! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

M AR

! !! ! !!

! !! !! !

! !! !

E PIK

! ! !! !

!! ! ! ! !

¾ ½ mile

Locator Map

725

! !

RO PIKE LBO

! !

UPPER MARLBORO

! ! !

! !

AR D M LBO R OL O

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !

!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!!!! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !

!!!

! ! ! !

!! !

! !

!! !! ! ! !!

! !!

!! !

! !

! !!

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

301

IN MA

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !!

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

WDC

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! !! !

! !!

! !

! !! ! !

! !!

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !!

295

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

South Potomac Sector

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Legend

! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

! !

! ! ! !! !

! !! ! !

!!! !

! ! !!

County Trails

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

!!!! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

!! !

! !

ø 210

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !!

ø RD

223

W A

Locator Map

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! !!

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

!!!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

N ½ mile

A AT

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

!!!

!! ! !

Clinton & Vicinity Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

!!!

! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! !!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!!!!

! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Locator Map

! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!!!!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

! !! !

! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! ! !!

! !

! !!

! ! !

! !!

! !

!! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! !! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! !!!

! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!!! !!

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !!

! !! ! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

ø 5

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

RD DYARD WO O

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

PIS

! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

W CA TA

AY RD

! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

223

!!!

! !!

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

Tippett & Vicinity

A TAW PIS C

Legend

AY RD

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails

! !

! ! !

On Street Sidewalks

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !!!! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

!!!!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

!! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! !!! ! ! !!!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! !!

! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!

!!!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! !

!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

223

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

! !! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

Locator Map

! !

!! ! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !!

½ mile

! ! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!!!

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

E PIK

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

!! ! ! !

! !! !!

!!!

! !

!! ! !

!! !!

! !

725

! !

! ! ! !! !!

DMARLB OR OL

! !

!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!!!

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !

IN MA

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

Rosaryville

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Legend

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

223

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!

!! !

! ! !

!! ! ! !

! !!

!!!

!! !!

!!!! ! !!

! !!! !! ! !

! !! ! !

!! ! !

!! !

!! ! !! !! !

!! !! ! !!

! !! !

!! !

! ! !! ! !!

!! ! !!

! !

!! !! !! ! !

! ! !!

! !

!! !!

! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!!!

! !

!! !

!!!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

!! !

!! !! !!

! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!

!! !! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

!! ! !

! !

!! !!

! !! !! !!!! !! !! !!!

! !! ! !!!!

!!! ! !! !!!! !! ! !

! !

301

!! !! !! ! ! !

! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !!!! !! !

! !! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !! ! !!

! !

!!! !!! ! ! ! !!!

! ! !!

!! !!

! !! !!! ! ! ! !!

!! !! !!!!!!

!! ! !

! ! !!! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

!! ! ! !! ! ! !!

! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! !! !

! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!

!! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!

!! ! !

!! !!

!! !

! ! ! !! !

!! ! !! ! !

! !! !

CR O OMRD

! !

RD RD YA

! !!

! !! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! !!

!!! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!! !!!

! !! ! !

! !!

!! ! !

! !

!! !!

! ! !

!! ! !! !! ! !! !

!! !!!

!! !

! !! ! ! !!!

! !!!! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

!! ! !!!!!! !!!

!! !!

!! ! !!

! !

!! !! !! !! !

! !

382

! !

!!!

!! !!

! !

! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities

ø 4

Mount CalvertNottingham

¡ 301

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

!! !

! !

! ! !

CR OO

!! !

M RD

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!! !!

!! !

! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !

!! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! !

! !!!

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

382

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !!

! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

CALVERT COUNTY

Locator Map

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

¾ !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

N ½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! !

Accokeek

! !

! !!

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

ø 210

! ! ! !!

!! !!

! ! ! ! ! !!

!!!!

LIVINGSTON RD

ø 373

ACCOKEE K RD

! !

ø 228

BE R RY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! ! !

! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

Piscataway & Vicinity

! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!! !

! !

!!!!

! ! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Legend

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails

On Street Sidewalks

ø !

210

!! !! !!

! !! !

373

LIVINGSTON RD

!! !!

! !!

! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! !

ø 223

Pedestrian Facilities

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !!

PIS CATA WA

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

!!!!

ACCO KE EK RD

! !

ø 228

BE RRY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !

! !!

!! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! !!

! !! ! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !!

!! ! !

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !!!

Pedestrian Facilities

!! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

Brandywine & Vicinity Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

ø 5

¡ 301

ø 381

BRANDYWINE RD

ø 373

EK RD ACCO KE

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Locator Map

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

¾ N

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities

Cedarville & Vicinity

ø 5

Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! ! !!

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

BRANDYWIN RD E

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

373

! ! !

¡ 301

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

!! !! ! !! !

K CO

D KR EE

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

381

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

AQ D OR SC UA

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

!! !

! !! !! !!

!!!

! !!

!!!!

!! ! !

!! !!

! !! !

Pedestrian Facilities

! !! !! !! !

!!!! !!

!! !!

!! !

! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! !! !

On Street Sidewalks

! ! ! ! !

! !

County Trails

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! !

! !

!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !! !!

! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!!! !!!! !!

!! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !!! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !

!!!!!

! ! !! !! !!

!! !! !! !

! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

Legend

! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!! !

!! !!

! !!

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! !!!

! ! ! !!

! !

! ! ! !

301

! !

!! !! !

! ! !

Croom-Naylor

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !

! !

!! ! !

!! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!! ! !

! ! !! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

!!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!

! !

! ! !! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !

! ! !! !!

! !! ! ! !!

!! ! !! !! !

!! !! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !! !

!! !

!! !!

! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! ! ! !

! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !

! !! !! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

382

! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

CRO O MR

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !!! !! ! !

! !

Locator Map

! ! ! !

BR AN DY W IN E

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!!!

R D

¾ N

ø 381

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Pedestrian Facilities

!! !! !! !

! ! !

Baden Area !!

! !

!! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Legend

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

BR AN

DY W

County Trails

INE RD

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ SC UA O RD

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY O OM RD CR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities Westwood Area Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails

CALVERT COUNTY

ø 382

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !

ø 381

Locator Map AQ

UA S

OM RD CRO RD

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

CHARLES COUNTY

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

½ mile

! ! !

¾ N

! ! !

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Aquasco Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

ø 381

CALVERT COUNTY !

CHARLES COUNTY

CO AS U AQ

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Pedestrian Facilities Laurel Area

HOWARD COUNTY

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Legend

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

County Trails On Street Sidewalks

! !

! ! !

SE V

! !

E NT

H ST

! !

! ! !

ø 216

* 95

Y S A ND

S PRIN

G RD

OT TALB T AV

198

GO RMAN AV

T M E A DE R D

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

FO R

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Locator Map

ø 197

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

U LA ! ! ! ! ! ! !

RD !

½ mile

BO W IE

¾ N

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

TASK 6.4

Existing Roadway Classifications

Roadway Classification Northwestern Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø MONTGOMERY COUNTY

ø 198

GO RMAN AV RD S ANDY S PRING

S EVEN

TH S T

216

TAL BO TT AV

LAUREL

ø 197

* 95

200

¡ 1

EL LA U R

R D

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

R MI WDE PO

RD LL

ø 212

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

ø 200

Fairland-Beltsville & Vicinity Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

R MIL L WDE PO

ø 212

* 95

¡ 1

W PO

R DE

Locator Map

D LR M IL

W 495

ø 201

495

TO N

½ mile

MO ED

GS RIG

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification South LaurelMontpelier

* 95

Legend ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 200

¡ 1

ø 197

LA U

¾ N ø 212

½ mile

ø 201

RE L

W IE R D

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Agricultural Research Center

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Legend LAUREL

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

BO WIE RD

ø 197

9TH ST 11TH ST

Locator Map

ø 564

¾ N

½ mile

ø 193

GREENBELT RD

AM NH LA

VE SE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

R DE

L M IL

Roadway Classification

W 495

Langley Park & Vicinity

* 95

* 495

Legend University of Maryland Campus Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

ø 650

ø 430

ø 212

¡ 1

193

ITY B UNIVERS

LVD

Locator Map

ø ø 410

ø 500

D SR RIGG

¾ N

½ mile

CH AP EL

WDC

410

ø 501

CHILLU M RD

EE QU

ø 208

¡ ALT 1

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

W PO

RM DE

R IL L

Roadway Classification

W 495

College Park-Berwyn Heights & Vicinity

E DM

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

495

* 95

Legend University of Maryland Campus

GS RIG

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 212

ø 193

BLVD UNIVERS ITY

¡ ø 430

GREENBELT RD

COLLEGE PARK

KE NI LW OR TH

ø 201

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

øø 410

410

ø 500

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

ø 212

¡ 1

Greenbelt & Vicinity Legend University of Maryland Campus

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ON M

201

* 95

GREENBELT

GREENBELT RD

ø RT H O

KE NI LW

BERWYN HEIGHTS

193

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

ø 564

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

ø 212

Hyattsville-RiverdaleMt. Rainier-Brentwood

UNIVERSITY PARK D GS R RIG

Legend

410

University of Maryland Campus

RIVERDALE PARK

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

HYATTSVILLE

501

C HILL UM RD

ø 201

38TH

500

HAM ILTO N

EDMONSTON

ø 208

MOUNT RAINIER

RT H

Q UE

D EL R HAP NS C

BRENTWOOD COTTAGE CITY 38

W IL

AN NAPOLIS RD 450 TH

ø 202

¡ ALT 1

COLMAR MANOR

LA N

DO V

ER RD

Locator Map

WDC

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Bladensburg-New Carrollton & Vicinity

* 95

¡ 1

VE T

ø 410

Legend

NEW CARROLLTON ER AN S

University of Maryland Campus Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

PK W Y

ø 201

ALT 1

RT H

ø 450

L NI

BLADENSBURG

LANDOVER HILLS

ANNAPOLIS RD

LU T

ø 50

Locator Map

L A NDOVE

R RD

CHEVERLY

TIN

202

R HE

NG KI

ø 704

¾ N

WDC

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ST 9T H

Roadway Classification Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham & Vicinity Legend

GREENBELT RD

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 193

ø 564

AM NH

RN VE

GL EN

DA LE

BL VD

ø 953

450

S RD A NNA PO LI

ENTE RP RISE R D

N TI AR M

KING HWY ER TH LU

Locator Map

¡ 50

¾ N

½ mile

ø 704

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

LA UR E

Roadway Classification

LB OW IE R D

Bowie & Vicinity Legend ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY T 9TH S

11TH ST

ø 564

AM NH LA

E EV

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø GL EN N

CR AI N

HW Y

197

DA L E VD BL

976

D 450 O LIS R A NNA P

ø 3

Locator Map

ø ENTE RPR IS E RD

193

¾ N

ø ½ mile 953

¡ 50

¡ 301

LLI N GTO N RD

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

11TH ST

IE RD OW LB

ø 564

City of Bowie Legend

HW Y

CR AIN

AM NH LA GL EN N DA LE

Roadway Classification

LA URE

T HS

BL VD

ANNAPO L IS RD

ø ø 450

197

ø ø 976

BOWIE

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 953

ø 704

ø 193

CO L

¡ 50

L IN

G TO N RD

¡ 301

Locator Map

ISE RPR TE EN RD

ø 214

S IN TK WA DR RK PA

N ½ mile

ø 978

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

ø 410

VE TE NS RA

Y W PK

RT H

Landover & Vicinity

IL N

Legend

O W

450

ANNAPOLIS RD

ø 201

¡ 50

AR M

N TI

T LU

R HE

NG KI

* 95

GLENARDEN

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 202

ø 704

L A NDOVER RD

Locator Map

FAIRMOUNT HEIGHTS

WDC SEAT PLEASANT

¾ N

½ mile

AL CEN TR

ø 332

ø 214

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

¡ 50

A M

IN RT

TH LU

NG KI

Largo-Lottsford

704

Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

LA N DOVER RD

ø 193

EN T

D ER IS PR ER

214

AT W

NS KI

202

D RK PA

* 95

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 3

CO L

953

¡ 50

LIN

GT O N

ø 197

Roadway Classification Mitchellville & Vicinity Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

EN IS E RPR TE RD

ø 193

¡ 301

ø 214

W NS KI AT

ø 978

DR RK PA

Locator Map

LA RGO RD

ø 202

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 197

Roadway Classification

CRAIN HWY

¡ LLI N GT O N RD

Collington & Vicinity Legend

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

¡ 301

ø ø 214

978

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

ø LU TH ER

KI NG

704

Suitland-District Heights, Capitol

RT MA

Legend

ø 214

WDC

ø 332

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

AL AV C E NT R

DISTRICT HEIGHTS

ø 218

S UI T LA

ND RD

D ER HIL L R SILV

458

ø 4

* 95

Locator Map

ø 5

D WN R TO

N L LE

A NAB BAR T S

414

½ mile

ø 337

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification The Heights

WDC YL

Legend

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

218

S UI TLA ND

R E R HILL SILV

458

ø 414

AB RN BA

* 95

ø 5

FOREST HEIGHTS

* 295

N ½ mile

N LE AL

337

Locator Map

ø 210

ø 223

D DR O DY A R WO

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

458

WDC

Roadway Classification

Henson Creek

ø 414

S ABA RN BA

L AL

* 95

N OW T EN

Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 337

ø 5

ø 210

A CAT PIS

RD WA Y

DY A WO O

R RD

Locator Map

223

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification TO LEN AL

Melwood

WN RD

Legend

* 95

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 4

ø 337

Locator Map

ø 5

ø 223

¾ N

½ mile

Y WO O D

D DR AR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

WA T

LARGO RD

KIN S

PA R

ø 202

Roadway Classification Westphalia & Vicinity Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

* 95

ø 337

Locator Map

ø 4

ø ½ mile

WO OD

¾ N

Y A RD RD

223

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

ø 193

KINS WA T K PAR

Upper Marlboro & Vicinity

LA RGO RD

Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 202

M AR

301

¾ N

½ mile

E PIK

Locator Map

725

AR D M LBO R OL O

UPPER MARLBORO

RO PIKE LBO

IN MA

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

* 95

WDC

South Potomac Sector

295

Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 210

ø W A

223

A AT

Locator Map

N ½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Clinton & Vicinity Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 223

RD A RD WO O DY CA PIS

Y TAWA

ø 5

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Tippett & Vicinity

A TAW PIS C

AY RD

Legend Functional Class Freeway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 223

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

ø 725

DMARLB OR OL O E PIK

ø 4

IN MA

Roadway Classification Rosaryville Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 223

CR O OMRD

RD RD YA

¡ 301

ø 382

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification

ø 4

Mount CalvertNottingham

¡ 301

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CR OO

M RD

Legend Functional Class Freeway Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 382

CALVERT COUNTY

N ½ mile

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Accokeek Legend Functional Class Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 210

LIVINGSTON RD

ø 373

ACCOKEE K RD

228

BE R RY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

PIS CATA WA

ø 223

Roadway Classification Piscataway & Vicinity Legend Functional Class Ramp Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 210

ø 373

LIVINGSTON RD

ACCO KE EK RD

ø 228

BE RRY RD

Locator Map CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Brandywine & Vicinity Legend Functional Class Freeway Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 5

¡ 301

ø 381

BRANDYWINE RD

ø 373

EK RD ACCO KE

Locator Map

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Cedarville & Vicinity

ø 5

Legend Functional Class Freeway Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

D KR EE

¡ 301

373

BRANDYWIN RD E

ø 381

AQ D OR SC UA

Locator Map

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Croom-Naylor Legend Functional Class Freeway Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

¡ 301

CRO O MR D

ø 382

Locator Map

BR AN DY W IN E

R D

¾ N

ø 381

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Baden Area Legend Functional Class Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

BR AN

DY W

INE RD

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ SC UA O RD

¾ N

½ mile

CHARLES COUNTY O OM RD CR

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Westwood Area Legend Functional Class Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

CALVERT COUNTY

ø 382

ø 381

Locator Map AQ

UA S

OM RD CRO RD

CHARLES COUNTY

¾ N

½ mile

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Aquasco Legend Functional Class Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 381

CALVERT COUNTY

CHARLES COUNTY

CO AS U AQ

¾ N

½ mile

EAGLE HARBOR

Locator Map

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Roadway Classification Laurel Area

HOWARD COUNTY

Legend

SE V

E NT

H ST

Functional Class Freeway Ramp Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Collector

ø 216

* 95

Y S A ND

S PRIN

G RD

OT TALB T AV

198

GO RMAN AV

FO R

T M E A DE R D

¡ 1

Locator Map

ø 197

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

U LA

½ mile

BO W IE

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

TASK 6.5

US 301 Assessment

TASK 6.6

Transportation Equity Practices

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Prince George’s County Transportation Equity Practices Inventory Defining Transportation Equity Although equity is mentioned several times in the County’s existing plans and policies, no definition of transportation equity emerges to guide direction in the Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT) update. Clearly defining transportation equity is important to identify action items and select meaningful performance metrics that can move the County toward its desired outcomes. Equality means that everyone receives the same treatment. Equity means that everyone gets what they need based on their own situation.

When it comes to transportation, social determinants such as race, disability, home location, age, and employment status often produce different needs and a one-size-fits-all solution, while equal, would result in inequitable outcomes. A history of unequal investment by race and place at all levels of government, including in Prince George’s County, has resulted in disparities in access to safe, affordable, and reliable transportation. An equitable transportation approach is ultimately one that redistributes resources to uplift communities and populations that have historically been left behind or overlooked. Absent an existing definition of transportation equity, MPOT can align with equity work already underway in the County. The Prince George’s County Health Department Health Equity Workgroup has established the following vision for health equity:

Prince George’s County is a place where everyone has equitable access to achieve their full health and wellness potential, regardless of race, color,

Equity Practices Inventory August 11, 2022

religion, country of origin, immigration status, class, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or health literacy skills. This can be adapted to set a vision for transportation equity by replacing health outcomes with transportation outcomes:

The transportation outcomes—access, safety, reliability, and multimodal choices—are derived from the MPOT public input surveys and community meeting discussions. This definition is also consistent with the Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE)’s definition of racial equity. Prince George’s County’s Fire/EMS Department and the City of College Park are GARE members as of 2021 and 2019, respectively, as are Arlington, Montgomery, Anne Arundel, and Charles counties and the District of Columbia.

Equity Practices Inventory August 11, 2022

Plan and Policy Review The following plans were reviewed to evaluate the County’s existing practices and the implications for transportation equity:

• • • •

2009 MPOT (2009) Plan 2035 (2014) DPW&T Transit Vision Plan (2018) DPW&T Vision Zero Action Plan (2020)

The findings are organized by the typical stages of transportation planning and implementation:

➔ Community Outreach & Engagement ➔ Visioning ➔ Defining the Problem ➔ Defining Solutions ➔ Evaluating and Refining

Community Outreach and Engagement An equitable public engagement process and feedback loop is the foundation for an equitable transportation system. An engagement process that includes the full spectrum of users and user needs will result in design improvements that meet the full spectrum of needs in the County. Of the plans listed above, only the Vision Zero Action Plan explicitly pledges an equitable engagement approach. One of the “six Es” is Equity and says, “County stakeholders commit to an equitable approach to Vision Zero by establishing inclusive and representative processes that can bring increased and overdue safety resources to low-wealth neighborhoods and communities.” Equity action item EQT-1 is to “Engage a diverse range of partners within government and community members and others...” The focus of the pledge seems to be on wealth inequities, but it also mentions diversity more generally. Plan 2035 indicates that it included a “comprehensive” public participation process but does not detail how it connected with people representing a range of income levels, races, ages, disability statuses, genders, sexual orientations, or employment statuses. An exception is the County’s immigrant community, which was engaged through a series of focus groups. But Plan 2035 does not detail how the focus group input was processed relative to input from other groups or how it shaped the Plan outcomes. Neither the Transit Vision Plan, nor the 2009 MPOT mention equity as a goal for the engagement or public input process.

Visioning Everything in the planning and implementation process flows from the vision statement. Folding a clear definition of equity into the plan vision ensures that all plan components advance this concept or, at a minimum, respect it and do not hinder its chances at success. Equity appears in

Equity Practices Inventory August 11, 2022

varying degrees in each of the County’s existing plans but without specificity about desired outcomes. 2009 MPOT—Although there is no mention of equity vision in the 2009 MPOT vision, there are a few goals and principles that highlight a desire to maximize benefits for “all users” and to “ensure universal accessibility,” including for elderly, children, and disabled groups. This vision could be improved by clarifying that maximizing benefits for all users means taking an equity, rather than equality, approach. Transit Vision Plan—The Transit Vision Plan includes a goal to support a range of residents with its services: “The County, while considered affluent as a whole, has many communities with higher needs and poor health outcomes. Over three-fourths of the county’s population identifies as being a racial or ethnic minority, and one in five residents was born outside the United States. An integrated transit system consisting of fixed route transit, paratransit, taxicabs, bike share, and a robust pedestrian network is key to supporting this dynamic County.” Although the demographic breakdown is a helpful starting point, to achieve equity, the statement would benefit from a defined set of actions and performance measures to provide more resources to communities with “higher needs.” Vision Zero Action Plan—Equity is included as one of the six Es in the Vision Zero Action Plan, and is defined as process and investment equity for low-wealth neighborhoods and communities. This is a specific, actionable definition. Plan 2035 Vision—Equity appears in the first line of the Plan 2035 vision statement – “Prince George’s County develops sustainably and equitably.” From there, the term appears in a number of other places but not with specificity, which will make it difficult to implement and evaluate equity.

Defining Problems The County can only begin to define solutions when it is clear on the disparities or inequities it is solving. Who lacks access to safe, reliable, or multimodal travel choices? What barriers stand in their way? Many people experience transportation barriers throughout the day. Many of these barriers are normalized, such as a lack of curb ramps at intersections and infrequent transit service, such that we fail to recognize them. By considering each category of the STEPS framework developed for FHWA, these barriers are more easily identified. Spatial—Distance and network connectivity factors that inhibit access to key destinations Temporal—Travel time factors that excessively increase the duration of time-sensitive trips Economic—Direct and indirect costs that create economic hardship or preclude users from completing basic travel Physiological—Non-inclusive transportation system design that creates access barriers for people with different physical and cognitive abilities

Equity Practices Inventory August 11, 2022

Social—Social, cultural, safety, and language barriers that inhibit a user’s comfort with using transportation The plan review indicates inconsistencies as to what populations face transportation barriers and need more transportation resources. The 2009 MPOT is primarily concerned with geographic inequities (transit resources are not evenly distributed throughout the County); the Transit Vision Plan highlights service for automobile-less households, low-income residents, seniors, and “transforming neighborhoods initiative” communities; the Vision Zero Plan focuses on low-wealth neighborhoods and communities; and Plan 2035 talks about improving transportation for the elderly, mentally and physically disabled, low-income households, and Neighborhood Reinvestment Areas. The 2009 MPOT does not address age, disability status, and income as indicators of transportation disparities and none of these plans mention race, color, religion, country of origin, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or English literacy as characteristics that might influence transportation access or mobility. If the data is not currently available to answer equity questions, the County might consider collecting supplemental data and gathering public input from residents who represent a range of identities within these categories. Community feedback collected for Plan 2035 provides insight into some of the economic barriers that low-income communities face: “High commuting costs, combined with limited transit service and sprawling development patterns outside the Capital Beltway, have further exacerbated the cost of living in the County.” “…the costs of childcare and transportation were barriers to employment as the costs could exceed participants’ earning potential.” Supplemental data and analyses might be particularly helpful in answering questions like: •

•

What barriers exist for those with disabilities or seniors? How does transportation access or mobility differ for Neighborhood Reinvestment Areas when compared to other parts of the County?

Defining Solutions Because equity is about giving people what they need for their particular situation, effective solutions are tailored to separately address each type of barrier and may differ by population. Action items and policies should be clear about whose transportation outcomes are being improved and what barriers are being removed. It is important to think through unintended consequences of the proposed solutions—will this “solution” create barriers for a different community? Not everything will result in improvements in all directions for all people so planners and decisionmakers should think though the tradeoffs. 2009 MPOT—The 2009 MPOT “recommends that transit play a more geographically comprehensive role in ensuring quality access and mobility options for all residents and workers.” This solution is not specific enough to remove barriers and is written for “all residents and workers” rather than populations with known mobility or access disadvantages. More detail is needed if the County wishes to advance this goal.

Equity Practices Inventory August 11, 2022

Plan 2035—Plan 2035 proposes a solution, “By diversifying available transportation options, the County has an opportunity to ensure that the physically, economically, and socially disadvantaged have safer and more equitable access to jobs, public services, recreational facilities, and neighborhoods.” Additional detail is needed on how diversifying travel options will increase accessibility and what equity barriers will be solved. Transit Vision Plan—The subsequent Transit Vision Plan provides good examples of specific actions to implement transit access and mobility solutions: “[Prince George’s County Call-A-Bus] priority is given to seniors and persons with disabilities.” “Improve transit access to support non-traditional work hours.” Vision Zero Action Plan—The Vision Zero Action Plan provides an example of action items that provides some, but not all, necessary details: “EQT-3: Provide and use traffic safety data that gets at equity to focus efforts on high-injury areas and behaviors and advance meaningful improvements – including infrastructure investments and enforcement efforts.” Additional clarity is needed on what “gets at equity” means. If the intent is to refer to the “six Es” Equity vision focus on low-wealth communities and neighborhoods, this action could instead call for targeted traffic safety analysis in low-wealth communities. If the term equity is meant to be more broadly interpreted, the action item could be clearer about the populations it is intended to serve.

Evaluation The final step in the planning process is evaluation. It means measuring progress toward the vision so the County stays accountable and can recalibrate if it is not seeing improvement. This is a critical phase in which transportation equity in Prince George’s County is currently lacking— existing plans do not measure transportation equity. For example, in the Vision Zero Action Plan, Equity is the only one of the “six Es” without “indicators of success” or suggested metrics. This omission may be due to the lack of specificity in the visioning stage; the lack of background research when defining the problem; or the lack of focus in defining solutions. It is difficult to select metrics for an undefined concept and an unclear vision. And this lack of evaluation metrics means meaningful progress may not be occurring.

Equity Practices Inventory August 11, 2022

Equity in Practice Outside of the County’s existing plans, there are tools and designations to help put equity into practice. One of the most comprehensive datasets assembled to support equity implementation in the region is the Equity Emphasis Areas (EEAs) database managed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). The EEA designation was first developed by the Transportation Planning Board (TPB), and as of 2021, the concept was adopted for broader application by COG. As shown in the figure below, EEAs are 350 of the region’s 1,222 total census tracts identified as having high concentrations of low-income individuals and communities of color. These census tracts have a higher share of households that rent, single-parent households, individuals with disabilities, and workers without a telecommuting option. In Prince George’s County, the EEAs are concentrated in the northwest and central-west parts of the county. The TPB used EEAs as a tool to analyze adverse impacts for its Long-Range Transportation Plan, Visualize 2045. Prince George’s County could use the EEA’s in a similar way or could take a more proactive approach to equity and use EEAs to create an MPOT that actively invests in EEA transportation needs at a faster rate and higher percentage than it does in non-EEA census tracts. Prince George’s County could also choose to tailor the EEA selection criteria to more closely match the top equity concerns for the County. For example, since the majority of Prince George’s County is non-white, the community of color criterion could be eliminated or assigned a lower weight than it is given in the regional program. The TPB is also using EEAs as selection criteria in all its grant programs that fund planning for access to transit stations, improving roadway safety, alternative modes of travel, and connecting land-use and the transportation system. If Prince George’s County also uses EEAs as criteria for prioritizing its transportation projects, it will be better positioned to win TPB grant funding.

Equity Practices Inventory August 11, 2022

MPOT 2035 is an opportunity to formally fold the EEAs into the transportation planning, implementation, and evaluation framework.

TASK 6.7 & 6.8

Large-Scale & Bus Transit Corridors

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Large-Scale and Emerging Priority Transit Corridors Assessment One of the top priorities of MPOT 2035 is to identify and update strategies to make transit more frequent, convenient, accessible, and affordable for people who live, work, or visit Prince George’s County. One way to improve transit throughout the County is to focus transit investment along highdemand corridors—to impact service capacity, reliability, and speed. For best results, these strategic transit corridors should be selected using credible evaluation criteria: high-capacity, highfrequency, high-speed transit is more efficient in corridors with a strong mix of population and employment densities, a vibrant mix of land uses that attracts diverse trips, and when connecting fast-growing areas or addressing severe service gaps. With a robust transit network serving the County, including 28 fixed-routes provided by TheBus; WMATA’s Metrorail and Metrobus service with 15 Metrorail Stations and 68 bus lines, MARC’s two commuter rail lines with 8 stations, the Regional Transit Agency of Central Maryland (RTA) fixed routes, and the 16-mile light rail Purple Line under construction by MDOT MTA, priority transit corridors are not a new concept and have been the subject of multiple studies and plans. The recent storyline begins in 2018, when the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T) developed a five-year plan for improving and expanding transit, the Prince George’s County Transit Vision Plan. The Transit Vision Plan provides a roadmap for shortterm, mid-term, and long-term improvements to transit in the County. With the intent to enable faster, more frequent, and reliable transit, the Transit Vision Plan recommended the development of a master plan for a countywide fixed-guideway system that would evaluate candidate corridors and assess feasible guideway improvements. Consequently, DPW&T has released a draft BRT Feasibility Study that builds upon past work including WMATA’s Priority Corridors Network study, the 2012 Prince George’s County Transitway Systems Planning Study, and subsequent efforts to develop a network of potential BRT corridors. To build on those efforts, we reviewed and screened a range of identified and potential high- and medium-capacity transit corridors to help guide the prioritization of future transit enhancements in the County. We performed a high-level evaluation of the key corridors identified in previous plans and studies to reaffirm or modify them for inclusion in MPOT 2035. This evaluation was based on County approved plans and project alignments as of Spring 2022. MPOT 2035 will include a program of high-priority corridors to meaningfully enhance transit service across the County.

Corridor Definitions The review of the already identified transit corridors in adopted local and regional plans, including review of transit ridership, socio-demographics, and land use analysis, resulted in a large database containing nearly 100 candidate corridors or corridor segments. Significant differences between the corridors are due to ridership demand responsive to varying land uses and population and jobs densities; function (regional vs. local); and readiness for high-capacity transit modes (heavy rail, light rail, or BRT). The transit corridors have been organized in two tiers:

1. High-Capacity Transit or Large-Scale Transit Corridors 2. Medium-Capacity Transit or Emerging Priority Corridors

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Large-Scale/High-Capacity Transit Corridors High-capacity transit has distinctive characteristics: high passenger capacity, frequent service (preferably 5- to15-minute headways), possibly distinctive branding and stations or, at the least enhanced stops with many serving mobility transit hubs for transfers between transit routes and to other transportation modes. High-capacity transit corridors make transit trips more reliable, faster, and convenient, providing high mobility, access, and connectivity between key origins and destinations and local bus network. These types of corridors show attributes today that are highly transit-supportive and are good candidates for traditional high-capacity transit modes such as heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcar, or BRT. High-capacity transit tends to operate in exclusive lanes or dedicated guideways. WMATA's five Metrorail lines serve the 15 Prince George's County stations that form the backbone of the current high-capacity transit network. They are augmented with two MARC commuter rail lines serving 8 stations: the Camden Line, with stations in Riverdale, College Park, Greenbelt, Muirkirk, Laurel; and the Penn Line with stations in New Carrollton, Seabrook, and Bowie State. The Purple Line, under construction, is the next high-capacity transit corridor in the County. Future high-capacity transit corridors in the County may be rail-based or BRT. They will certainly include all WMATA heavy rail Metrorail line extensions serving the County or the already studied further extension(s) of the Purple Line. Ultimately, when completed, the high-capacity transit network will provide robust transit service to/from key strategic locations identified in the Growth Policy Map in Plan Prince George’s 2035 Approved General Plan (Plan 2035): • • •

8 Regional Transit Districts (RTDs): the focus of the County’s planned growth and mixeduse development with capacity to become major economic generators. 6 Employment Centers: areas with the highest concentrations of economic activity in four targeted industry clusters—healthcare and life sciences; business services; information, communication, and electronics; and the federal government. Local Centers: Plan 2035 designated 26 Local Centers, which include the new Purple Line stations, as focal points for concentrated residential development and limited commercial activity based on access to transit or major highways.

Emerging Priority/Medium-Capacity Transit Corridors Medium-capacity transit corridors are bus routes that offer convenient, efficient, and more reliable and faster service than typical local fixed routes. They have elements that help move buses through traffic in key locations, as well as improve stops and pedestrian and bicycle connections. They operate mostly in mixed traffic with some transit priority treatments such as dedicated bus lanes, queue jumps, traffic signal priority, enhanced stops, and upgraded connections. They may receive additional capital and service investments to make them more attractive to riders and more competitive with other modes in terms of travel time, comfort, and convenience. The medium-capacity transit network, for the purpose of our initial evaluation, initially consists of the busiest Metrobus and TheBus fixed routes. They largely reflect the already identified as Metrobus’ Priority Corridor Network (PCN) and TheBus’ Major Routes, with some modifications and additions. These bus routes provide robust and solid connections to key locations in the County, including all Regional Transit Districts and multiple Local Centers identified in Plan 2035. With implemented enhancements, they will offer frequent service, reliable express and limited-stop service, real-time traveler information, and larger fleet vehicles to accommodate peak and off-peak demand. Any express/limited stop service in these corridors would be on top of local service with more frequent stops to provide more useful, accessible, and reliable bus service coverage.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Local Routes Although we focus on high-demand transit corridors, a connected and complete network will require supportive transit and multimodal transportation options, including regular fixed route bus service, paratransit, emerging mobility strategies, and trip planning, TOD, sensible parking provision, sound curbside management, and safe access for pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as freight delivery vehicles. The County’s regular transit routes might be good candidates for other meaningful enhancements such as increasing service span and frequency, speed and reliability improvements including bus stop consolidation, roadway segments with bus-only lanes, and other bus priority treatments. Additional preparation, such as enhanced transit service, starter service, and/or land use policy changes will better position these corridors for future transit investment.

Corridor Planning Process Our corridor analysis process will confirm and update transit corridors by using these four steps: 1. Identify: Identify candidate transit corridors based on implementation potential. Nearly 100 candidate corridors or segments were initially identified for consideration based on past and ongoing County plans and studies, stakeholder input, and public input. We developed a matrix to track and organize the corridors. 2. Screen: Conduct initial screening evaluation of candidate corridors through review of related plans and studies, planned service expansion and enhancements, already established priority transit corridors, and input from MPOT 2035 stakeholders and public outreach. If needed, refine, and modify most promising corridors to prepare for evaluation. 3. Evaluate: Evaluate screened corridors using focused criteria: a. Transit Criteria: Density of population and employment, ridership, land uses, and feasibility b. Growth Strategies: Connections to Regional Transit Districts, Local Transit Centers, and Employment Centers c. Regional Priority: Regional significance and inclusion in multiple plans leading to planning consistency. 4. Prioritize: Score and rank corridors using a prioritization matrix that scales numerical value to each criterion by assigned weight. The objective is for MPOT 2035 to identify and recommend one next large-scale corridor with the most potential and a complete emerging bus priority network. Corridors selected to advance will be sorted into tiers representing near-, medium-, and longterm priorities for implementation. A brief discussion of potential scenarios, implementation options, and a design toolkit will be included.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

MPOT 2035 goals, countywide priorities, funding availability, and support from the key stakeholders and the public will determine how investments are implemented along the corridors. Corridors should be regularly updated to reflect successful corridor implementation, integrate changing land uses and density and type of development patterns, and remain consistent with the County’s objectives. Through this process, corridors will be reevaluated, and new candidate corridors may be considered. We recognize that to advance and implement the network of transit corridors in the County, longterm strategic transit planning will need to be highly coordinated and supported by the public and key stakeholders and transit service providers, including DPW&T, M-NCPPC, MDOT MTA, WMATA, Montgomery County, and others. The discussion of the corridor identification and evaluation process and the corridor recommendations will not offer detailed answers, solutions, service plans, cost estimates, or recommended transit mode for the corridors. That analysis will be part of the future corridor-focused planning and alternatives analysis specific to each corridor at the transit agency, county, or regional, state, and federal governance level. This report describes the first two steps of the corridor evaluation process (Identify > Screen) for both the Large-Scale/High-Capacity Transit and Emerging Priority/Medium-Capacity Transit corridors.

Step 1: Candidate Corridor Identification For the first step, a comprehensive set of corridor candidates in the County was compiled into a master database matrix spreadsheet. There was some overlap between corridors with a few of the same or similar ones listed in different plans. We did a high-level check of which corridors are no longer applicable, removed duplicates and streamlined the list to account for feedback from multiple transit workshop sessions with DPW&T, the study team, and public outreach sessions. Primary data sources used to compile relevant data for the initial corridor set are listed in Table 1. The most prominent and influential sources for identifying candidate corridors were the draft BRT Feasibility Study and the Transit Vision Plan, both prepared by DPW&T. We listed every single corridor, or segment, as proposed or identified in any relevant plan or study to begin the evaluation, but we excluded corridors in the region that are not within the County’s limits. Figure 1 shows a sample entry from our matrix. The plans and studies previously completed or in progress informed the development of the initial list of candidate corridors and made the draft candidate corridor matrix voluminous. It was timely

1. Identify 2. Screen 3. Evaluate 4. Prioritize

> > > >

all candidate corridors select promising corridors goals, cost, ridership, benefits rank to advance

that multiple relevant plans were released in December 2021. A review of those fresh-off-the-press plans, including the MDOT MTA’s 50-year Statewide Transit Plan and DDOT’s Bus Transformation 4

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

affirmed several candidate corridors considered by this planning effort and provided more context and depth to advance a comprehensive transit strategy for the region. Of note, the ongoing WMATA/Prince George's County bus network redesign will also propose a set of high-frequency corridors, which will be incorporated once they are available.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Table 1: Candidate Corridors Working Matrix Snapshot Sample

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Table 2: Candidate Corridors Identification: Key Sources Plan / Study

Agency

BRT Feasibility Study

Prince George’s County

Transit Vision Plan

Prince George’s County

MPOT 2009

Prince George’s County

2035 Approved General Plan

Prince George’s County

Prince George’s Transitways Study

MWCOG

ConnectGreaterWashington 2040

WMATA

Blue/Orange/Silver Capacity & Reliability Study

WMATA

Momentum Strategic Plan

WMATA

MARC Cornerstone Plan

MDOT MTA

Priority Corridor Network

WMATA

Bus Priority Plan

DDOT

Bus Transformation

DDOT

moveDC

DDOT

Regional Transit Corridors

MDOT MTA

50-year Statewide Transit Plan

MDOT MTA

Southern Maryland Rapid Transit Study

MDOT MTA

Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan

Montgomery County Planning Department

High-Capacity

Medium-Capacity

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Step 2: Screen Candidate Corridors The identified candidate corridors were then screened to identify a smaller group of the most promising corridors to advance for further evaluation. It should be noted that our overall scoping charge was to confirm and prioritize previously identified corridors, rather than identify a set of new corridors. This is understandable since so much useful transit planning work has already been completed, with great analysis and details. To conduct the screening, we used extensive background analysis and recommendations found in the Transit Vision Plan, BRT Feasibility Study, Plan 2035 recommendations, along with multiple WMATA studies impacting Metrorail and Metrobus service expansion and prioritization. We paid attention to transit policies in Plan 2035 and how well corridor candidates could support them—along with the MPOT 2035 vision, goals, and objectives. This is especially true for these policies: •

Relevant to all transit corridors: ◦ ◦

•

Relevant to high-capacity transit corridors ◦

•

Support Policy 2: Expand and improve transit service, particularly on routes connecting Downtowns, the Innovation Corridor, and Regional Transit Districts to maximize the economic development potential and synergies between these areas. TM2.1: Invest in existing bus service and new bus and light-rail transit service to connect Downtowns, the Innovation Corridor, and Regional Transit Districts. Coordinate transit planning initiatives with local municipalities, the County, WMATA, and the State of Maryland. TM2.2 Identify new transitway corridors that will support the Plan 2035 development priorities and amend the Master Plan of Transportation Transit Element to include the updated corridors. Concentrate medium- to high-density residential development along priority transitway corridors to provide the density necessary to sustain higher levels of rail and bus service.

Relevant to medium-capacity transit corridors: ◦

TM2.3 Implement the recommendations for Metrobus Priority Corridor Networks recommended in Momentum—The Next Generation of Metro (Strategic Plan 20132025) through continued coordination with WMATA, the State of Maryland, and the County. Amend the Master Plan of Transportation as necessary.

These policies influenced our consideration for the already identified corridors. Our overall approach to this Phase 1 screening process was straightforward: If a given corridor is already identified as an existing or potential transit corridor in the County by one of the transit providers or other key stakeholders, we were highly motivated to include it—modified or refined if needed, based on cursory review of current conditions and ongoing studies and projects. Our team combined the information from the technical work, coordination with DPW&T and M-NCPPC staff, feedback from the stakeholders and the public and identified approximately 24 corridors showing promise for enhanced, higher-capacity, high-frequency transit in the County, keeping in mind the mid- to longterm 2035 horizon year of MPOT 2035.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Results Our team combined the information from the technical work, coordination with DPW&T and MNCPPC staff, feedback from the stakeholders and the public and identified 24 corridors countywide: • •

7 Large-Scale Transit Corridors ready for high-capacity transit investments. 17 Emerging Priority Corridors suited for smaller-scale transit enhancements. These corridors may be good candidates for high-capacity transit in the future.

These corridors were identified based on cursory review and analysis of: • • • • •

Relevant plans and prior studies MPOT 2035 vison, goals, and objectives Existing and projected transit provision and demand Density: population and employment Land use: mix, growth and expected changes

• • • •

Station/stop area development potential Planning consistency: inclusion in multiple plans and studies Stakeholder input from DPW&T, transit agencies, and municipalities Public workshops

Figure 1 maps the screened high-capacity transit corridors, which are listed in Table 3. The Purple Line, currently under construction, is shown for illustrative purposes only. Figure 2 and Table 4 show the potential medium-capacity corridors. An interactive online GIS working map of these corridors was created for internal feedback: Transit Corridors - MPOT 2035 (arcgis.com). A separate tab was added in the matrix to organize the screening process and facilitate corridor evaluation and prioritization.

Corridors ‘Ingredients’

High-Capacity Transit Corridors • • • • • •

BRT Study corridors Purple Line Extension National Harbor Bladensburg to Takoma Park Branch Avenue Metrorail: Blue Line extension to National Harbor

Medium-Capacity Transit Corridors • •

•

Metrobus Priority Corridor Network – proposed additions Metrobus Frequent Service routes + ‘Major’ TheBus routes – based on service frequency, ridership, span, coverage, and connections ‘Advance’ segments from BRT Study that do not meet High-Capacity Transit criteria yet.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Figure 1: Screened High-Capacity Transit Corridors

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Table 3: Screened High-Capacity Transit Corridors Corridor # ID

Corridor Description

C7M

Transit Type

Agency

Length (m)

Inner Purple Line Extension: Southern Avenue to Prince George's Community LRT/BRT College

DPW&T

15.3

C4A

Outer Purple Line Extension: New Carrollton to Prince George's LRT/BRT Community College via Largo

DPW&T

8.2

C4C

Outer Purple Line Extension: Branch LRT/BRT Ave to National Harbor/Virginia

DPW&T

11.1

C1A

Takoma Park - Riverdale Park

DPW&T

4.9

Branch Ave

Branch Avenue (MD 5/US 301): Naylor LRT/BRT Road to White Plains

DPW&T

21.0

6A*

New Metrorail Line: Blue - DC via Blue X / Heavy Rail /or WMATA Southern Avenue to National Harbor C2 BRT DPW&T and Virginia

6B*

Silver GB

New Metrorail Line: Silver to Greenbelt Heavy Rail

WMATA

6C*

Silver NC

New Metrorail Line: Silver to New Heavy Rail Carrollton

WMATA

BRT

* Pending WMATA's LPA selection. One of the three corridors will be included (most likely Blue X / C2).

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Figure 2: Screened Medium-Capacity Transit Corridors

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Table 4: Screened Medium-Capacity Transit Corridors #

Corridor ID

Corridor Description

Transit Type

C6 PennWestphalia / Route 20

Washington DC - Pennsylvania Avenue - Westphalia

BOS / BRT-lite / DPW&T TBD

12.8

C1.3-1.5 Bladensburg

Riverdale Park - Kenilworth - Rhode Island Ave - DC

BRT-lite / TBD

DPW&T

8.2

Route 16

Greenbelt – New Carrollton

The Bus Major Route

DPW&T

13.8

Route 17

College Park IKEA – Mount Rainier

The Bus Major Route

DPW&T

15.6

Route 17 Extension

Route 17 extension to Greenbelt Metro

The Bus Major Route

DPW&T

3.6

Route 18

Langley Park – Addison Road

The Bus Major Route

DPW&T

24.1

Route 21

New Carrollton – Upper Marlboro

The Bus Major Route

DPW&T

23.8

Route 32

Naylor Road – Clinton Fringe P&R

The Bus Major Route

DPW&T

12.9

A12

Addison Road - Capital Plaza

MetroBus

WMATA

22.1

Takoma Langley Transit Ctr Greenbelt

MetroBus

WMATA

25.8

Takoma Langley Transit Ctr - Prince George's Plaza

MetroBus

WMATA

23.8

D12

Southern Avenue - Suitland

MetroBus

WMATA

14.6

Silver Spring - New Carrollton

MetroBus

WMATA

15.2

New Carrollton- Fort Totten Line

MetroBus

WMATA

22.3

P12

Addison Road - Eastover Shopping Center

MetroBus

WMATA

17.3

T18

Rhode Island Avenue - New Carrollton MetroBus

WMATA

15.1

US 1

Rhode Island Avenue - College Park MetroBus Laurel via Konterra

WMATA or DPW&T

16.7

Agency

Length (m)

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

High-Capacity Corridors - Descriptions BRT Feasibility Study Corridors (DPW&T) Our initial screening work included review of underlying assumptions and data used in the draft BRT Feasibility Study, including ridership, socio-demographics, employment, and land use information. In addition to identifying where individuals who need transit were located, the technical team revisited assumptions about destinations including current employment and activity centers. The update effort confirmed that many corridors from the BRT Study should be retained. Our screened list of High-Capacity Corridors includes several corridors studied and identified by DPW&T; these include corridors in the BRT Feasibility Study that updated the corridors identified in the 2012 MWCOG TLC Prince George’s County Transitways Study. The Transitway Study provided an initial framework for the development of a fixed-guideway transit system beyond Metrorail and the Purple Line in Prince George’s County. It recommended several corridors for concept-level studies, shown in Figure 3: 1. Bladensburg-Takoma-Langley Park (via Kenilworth Avenue, East West Highway, and Riggs Road) 2. National Harbor (connection to South Capitol Street in Washington, DC) 3. Branch Avenue (MD 5/US 301) 4. Inner or Outer Purple Line Extensions (from New Carrollton to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, two slightly different alignments) 5. Greenbelt/Konterra (via CSX corridor, US 1, and Virginia Manor Road) 6. Pennsylvania Avenue – Westphalia (Upper Marlboro to the Washington, DC line) The BRT Feasibility Study reconsidered and updated the proposed 2012 High-Capacity Transit corridors, retaining some, splitting some into segments, and deferring the viability of some corridors until future studies are completed. The study advanced corridors/corridor segments highlighted in green in Table 5. Corridor C7, the Inner Purple Line Extension, ranked the highest.

Table 5: BRT Feasibility Study: Evaluated Corridors

Source: DPW&T

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Figure 3. BRT Feasibility Study: Evaluated Corridors

Source: DPW&T

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Our team reviewed and is in concurrence with the BRT Feasibility Study’s recommendations, including the updated list of corridors. Our analysis suggests retaining all identified corridors/corridor segments shaded in green in Table 2. An example illustrating this approach, consider that Corridor C1, Bladensburg - Takoma Park, was split into five distinct segments for the purpose of the analysis and to develop successful routing concepts. Segments 1 and 2 have strong potential with excellent transit connections, unlike segments 3, 4, and 5. The study recommends developing this corridor as two separate BRT lines, with the Takoma/Riverdale (C1A) line ready for high-capacity transit investment based on its relatively high segment ranking. That became corridor 4, C1A - Takoma Park - Riverdale Park, as shown in Table 2 listing all screened high-capacity corridors. We did not exclude the three segments not mature enough for high-capacity transit. Instead, we propose to include them as a combined medium-capacity corridor. That became Corridor 2, C1.31.5 Bladensburg - Riverdale Park - Kenilworth - Rhode Island Ave – DC, as shown in Table 4 listing all screened Medium-Capacity Corridors. We used the same approach for all the other green-lighted corridor segments, including Inner and Outer Purple Line extension options, but with some exceptions. We agree to omit C5 from further consideration since the proposed alignment is not viable due to conflicts with CSX Transportation railroad tracks. We also concur with the preliminary recommendation in the BRT Study that a potential Konterra BRT could serve the US 1 corridor from College Park to Laurel well. That is an entirely new corridor we are proposing to evaluate - US 1: Rhode Island Avenue - College Park Laurel via Konterra. However, we recommend classifying it as a medium-capacity corridor because of limited fixed-route bus service along US 1. The US 1 corridor is listed as 17 in Table 4 and needs further analysis. BOS Capacity & Reliability Study Corridors (WMATA) We take a slightly different approach to corridor C3 – Branch Avenue, since the general ideas are in sync with the concepts WMATA is proposing for its Blue Line extension to Prince George’s County in terms of corridor alignment, coverage, function, and connections, transit mode aside. We merge the two scenarios into one potential National Harbor high-capacity transit corridor. If we gain more clarity about WMATA’s plans regarding the Blue Line extension, we will adjust our observations. Note that we have considered screening and potentially including more than one of the three WMATA Metrorail extensions into Prince George’s County. But WMATA’s Blue/Orange/Silver Capacity & Reliability Study is still in progress, so there is no Locally Preferred Alternative identified yet. Interim reports released to date indicate the Blue Line’s extension - Southern Ave to National Harbor – (Figure 4) has the most potential of the three remaining heavy-rail alternatives, but since there is no recommendation to date, all three are included in the matrix for illustrative purposes.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Figure 4: Bus-On-Shoulder Capacity & Reliability Study: Potential Blue Line Metrorail Extension

Source: WMATA

Branch Avenue Corridor (MDOT MTA) We include corridor C3 in the BRT Feasibility Study as part of the potential high-capacity transit network, subject to further evaluation. It is one of the most recurring and requested corridors identified as ready and in need of enhanced transit improvements in other regional and statewide plans and we have heard repeated requests from the stakeholders and the public to include it based on that argument alone. Given the rapid growth in southern Prince George’s County and the resulting congestion along US 301 and MD 5, transit alternatives along MD 5 have been studied for over a decade. In 2010, the MDOT MTA completed the Southern Maryland Transit Corridor Preservation Study to evaluate several potential alignments along the corridor. In 2013, and updated in 2015, the Southern Maryland Rapid Transit Study (SMRT) by MDOT MTA was conducted to determine a Locally Preferred Alternative and feasibility of the corridor including examination of environmental features, costs, and ridership estimates. This study was a collaborative effort between MDOT MTA, Prince George's County, Charles County, and other stakeholders interested in potential for high-capacity transit in dedicated lanes along the corridor. MDOT MTA considered two transit modes for the corridor, BRT, and light-rail transit. SMRT also evaluated a range of alignment alternatives for the future transit line, see Error! Reference source not found..

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

The corridor is also listed as one of the regionally significant transit corridors in the MDOT MTA’s 50-year Statewide Transit Plan, DPW&T, in its draft BRT Feasibility Study, also recommends a bus-on-shoulder transit service along this corridor—a concept similar to the one in SMRT. The BRT Study notes this potential transit service should be studied in partnership with MDOT SHA and Charles County since MD 5 is a heavy commuter corridor from Prince George’s and Charles counties, and enhanced transit will benefit commuters across county lines.

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

High-Capacity Corridors—Growth Strategies Screening Corridors in the regional concept were screened at a cursory level for alignment with MPOT 2035 vision, goals, and objectives, key activity and employment clusters, concentrations of transitdependent populations, land use mixes, both existing and expected, and areas with planning initiatives in place that support dense coverage and linear, faster transit operations. We screened the identified High-Capacity Transit corridors for how well they would be responsive to the County’s Growth Policy Strategies (Figure 6) and provide access to eight Regional Transit Districts (RTDs), six Employment Centers, and Local Transit Centers, as designated in the County’s Plan 2035. The results, in Table 6, indicate a clear edge the Inner and Outer Purple Line extensions hold over the other High-Capacity Transit corridors in terms of their potential to satisfy the County’s adopted Growth Policy Strategies.

Table 6: High-Capacity Transit Corridors: 2035 Growth Strategies Screening #

Corridor ID Corridor Description

Regional Transit Local Center Districts

C7M

Inner Purple Line Extension: Southern Ave to Prince 3: S, BA, LTC George's Comm. College

6: 17, 19, 20, 21, 2 22, 23

C4A

Outer Purple Line Extension: New Carrollton to Prince 2: NC, LTC George's Comm. College

4: 12, 16, 17, 21

C4C

Outer Purple Line Extension: Branch Ave to National 3: S, BA, NH Harbor/Virginia

1: 25

C1A

Takoma Park - Riverdale 1: PGP Park

3: 3, 7, 8

Branch Avenue (MD 5/US Branch Ave 301): Naylor Road to White 2: S, BA Plains

2: 22, 23

1: 25

New Metrorail Line: Blue 6A* Blue X / C2 Southern Ave to National 1: NH Harbor 6B* Silver GB

New Metrorail Line: Silver to Greenbelt

6C* Silver NC

New Metrorail Line: Silver to New Carrollton

Employment Growth Areas Score Total

* Pending WMATA's LPA selection. One of the three corridors will be included (most likely Blue X / C2).

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Figure 4. Prince George’s County Growth Policy Map

Source: PLAN 2035, Prince George’s County

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Medium-Capacity Corridors The overarching goal of the screening was to identify and map medium capacity corridors that meet service performance goals, have high ridership potential, and can improve bus service with modest improvements, but are not ready for higher level capital investment. The medium-capacity network for the purpose of our screening initially was determined to host the busiest and most frequent Metrobus and TheBus fixed routes filtered through any longer-term recommendations in the WMATA’s reports and the Transit Vision Plan. Our key sources to identify and screen medium-capacity corridors ultimately come from: Prince George’s County Transit Vision Plan (‘Major Routes’). We considered service standards for a high-level evaluation of the operations of each TheBus route as proposed in the Transit Vision Plan, especially as they apply to Major Routes, which for the purpose of MPOT 2035, at least initially, would equal medium-capacity transit service. The current conditions evaluation by DPW&T shows substantial service improvements required to meet these minimum standards for both service frequency and hours of service for a given route to reach a Major route category designation.

Within the next five years and beyond, a certain number of routes could be upgraded to the Major category if certain service improvements are made: 15 of 28 routes will require improved service frequencies in the peak period to meet minimum service standards and eight will require improved off-peak frequencies to meet minimum standards. To become Major, some identified routes will need to increase span of service and introduce or extend weekend service hours. Ultimately, we follow DPW&T’s recommendations and include all the existing and potential Major TheBus routes, a function of reviewing all the North, Central, and South County Transit Improvement Recommendations by implementation phase/timeframe: short, mid, and long term. Notably, in addition to the above enhancements, based on our cursory service evaluation of all existing and high performing Local TheBus routes, we introduce one additional route that could be modified to be upgraded to a Major route: TheBus 17, with service extended to Greenbelt Metro. Our screening analysis of TheBus routes is in Table 7. The first six routes should become part of the Medium- Capacity Transit network, based on the recommended enhancements alone. We also considered how these TheBus routes would interact with our proposed high-capacity transit

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

network and the ease of transfers to high-capacity corridors—shown in the rightmost column in Table 7.

Table 7: Medium-Capacity Corridors: Screening of TheBus Routes Route

Type

16 17 17X

Description

"Beyond 5 Years" Recommendations

Major Greenbelt – New Carrollton

Extend Weekday Operating Hours C4A at New Carrollton Metro from 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM

Major College Park IKEA – Mount Rainier

Extend Weekday Operating Hours from 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM C1A at US1 & East-West Hwy Extend to Greenbelt Metro

Extend Weekday Operating Hours C7M at Addison Road Metro from 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM Major Langley Park – Addison Road

20 Major

Split Route in Two with Overlap C1A at Prince George's Plaza between Prince George's Plaza Metro and Cheverly

C7M at Addison Road Metro Extend Weekday Operating Hours from Extend Weekday Operating Hours C7M at Silver Hill Road & 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM from 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM Marlboro Pike

21 Major New Carrollton – Upper Marlboro 32

Local

Extend Service to Saturday West Hyattsville Metro – Gwinn Britt Senior Center Split in Two to Make More Direct Extend Weekday Operating Hours to 9:00 PM Greenbelt Metro – New Carrollton Metro

Improve Peak Frequency to 30 minutes from current 40 minutes

Local

Morgan Boulevard

Local

Addison Road Metro – Sheriff Road

Local

Capitol Heights – Morgan Boulevard Metrorail Station

Local

Morgan Boulevard Metro – Largo Town Center Metro

Local

Largo Town Center Metro – Woodmore Town Center

Local

Branch Avenue Metro Maryland Hospital

Local

Padgett’s Corner Shopping Center – Extend Route to Naylor Road Metro Southern Avenue Metro

Local

Southern Avenue Metro – Camp Springs

Extend Weekday Operating Hours to 8:00 PM

24 26 28 30 33 35

C4A at New Carrollton Metro Extend Weekday Operating Hours C4A at Prince George's County from 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM Community College

Major Naylor Road – Clinton Fringe P&R

15X

BRT Study Corridor Connections

Extend Service to Saturday

–

Extend Weekday Operating Hours Not Selected to 9:00 PM

Southern

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Route 36

Type

Description

"Beyond 5 Years" Recommendations

Local

Clinton Fringe P&R – Mattawoman Extend Service to Saturday Beantown Road P&R

BRT Study Corridor Connections

Source: DPW&T

WMATA’s Momentum (Metrobus Priority Corridor Network) WMATA’s 2013-2025 strategic plan, Momentum, The Next Generation of Metro, establishes priorities for near- and long-term actions and identifies seven pivotal capital improvements. One improvement of importance to Prince George’s County is the Metrobus Priority Corridor Network Plan. The Priority Corridor Network was developed to improve bus service, travel speeds, and reliability on 24 regional corridors that serve half of Metrobus ridership. Seven corridors in the Priority Corridor Network are within, or partially within, Prince George’s County. We incorporated those corridors into our proposed medium-capacity corridors network. We also reviewed and used WMATA’s Metrobus Frequent Service maps, including the ones focusing primarily on highlighting frequent Metrobus service in Prince George’s County to identify Metrobus routes that could be added to the future medium-capacity transit network (https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/upload/Sept5MetrobusFrequencyMap_Regional.pdf).

Our screening approach was straightforward: Metrobus routes with daily service frequencies of 12 minutes or better between 7:00 am to 9:00 pm are included in our list of potential Medium-Capacity Transit corridors. Metrobus routes with service frequency between 12 and 20 minutes from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm are also included if their ridership levels are on par with the most frequent routes— those with 12 minutes or better headways. WMATA’s Bus Transformation and DDOT’s Bus Priority Plan These two plans are recent studies that also conducted a robust corridor analysis using transit performance, equity, safety, and land use criteria to prioritize bus service to focus on addressing slow and unreliable bus service in historically under-resourced communities. Nearly all identified priority bus corridors in these two plans are in Washington, D.C., but a few future corridors would extend service into Prince George’s County. We reviewed both the existing and future Bus Priority Corridors and identified a few corridors most relevant to Prince George’s County, with minimal implications due to overlap of these corridors with the corridors we have already identified in other plans: •

Existing relevant Bus Priority Corridors ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦

•

Rhode Island Ave, H St/Benning Rd/Minnesota Ave Benning Rd/Southern Ave Southern Ave S. Capitol St/MLK Jr Ave/11th St

Future corridors: ◦ ◦

New York Avenue Bladensburg

(interactive map: DDOT Bus Priority Program - Website App (arcgis.com)

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Figure 5. WMATA’s Metrobus Frequent Service Map for Prince George’s County

Source: WMATA

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

DPW&T’s draft BRT Feasibility Study DPW&T’s BRT Feasibility Study identified “unused segments supported for gradual advancement,” as discussed in the high-capacity transit corridors section. In addition, we reviewed its analysis of TheBus and Metrobus boarding and maximum loads along the key bus routes that would intersect with the proposed high-capacity transit corridors.

TASK 6.9

Performance Measures

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Performance Measure Assessment Performance measures are metrics used to estimate progress made toward a stated goal. Measuring progress toward a stated goal ensures accountability toward the vision, goal, and plan, and marks overall success. Successful performance measures typically have S.M.A.R.T attributes, meaning they are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-based. This report assesses performance measures that could apply to the Prince George's County Master Plan of Transportation – Plan 2035 Implementation (MPOT 2035), including: • • • • •

Relevant plans’ goals and performance measures Performance measure themes Community, agency, and municipal feedback regarding themes or related metrics Potential performance measures Recommended performance measures and targets

Relevant Plans Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (2009) The 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (2009 MPOT) included a purpose, guiding principles, and high-level goals. The 2009 MPOT also included tier development pattern designations and identified a hierarchy of centers and corridor locations. The 2009 MPOT’s purpose was to provide strategic transportation, particularly transit, and guidance that reflected major changes since 1982, such as Metrorail system completion and expansion. Guiding principles included: • • • •

Public health, safety, and welfare Sustainability Quality Meaningful public transportation

High-level goals included: • •

Provide residents and workers in Prince George’s County with a safe, affordable, multimodal transportation system that effectively contributes to the timely achievement of county growth, development, and revitalization goals. Identify appropriate transportation system elements to support the General Plan development pattern and policies and propose implementation mechanisms for these elements.

Network or sub-level goals included: •

Provide a continuous network of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails that provides opportunities for residents to make some trips by walking or bicycling, particularly to mass transit, schools, employment centers, and other activity centers.

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

• • •

Develop a comprehensive and accessible trail network designed to meet the recreational needs of all trail groups, including equestrians, mountain bikers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Maximize benefits from public investment in the transit infrastructure to all users, while seizing opportunities for quality transit-oriented development (TOD) and supporting the land use pattern prescribed in the General Plan. Manage capacity and minimize congestion of the streets, roads, and highways network by safely and efficiently providing access for all users to existing and planned land uses, with emphasis on General Plan corridors and centers.

The 2009 MPOT looked to integrate land use and transportation planning by focusing on tier development patterns: developed, developing, and rural. The Plan also identified a hierarchy of 26 activity centers and seven corridors within the developed and developing tiers. The 2009 MPOT included guiding principles, high-level goals, and network or sub-level goals. Building on this, MPOT 2035 will incorporate S.M.A.R.T. performance metrics.

Plan Prince George’s 2035 General Plan (2014) Plan Prince George’s 2035 General Plan, also known as Plan 2035, includes comprehensive recommendations for guiding future development with Prince George’s County between 2014 and 2035. Plan 2035 includes a vision, guiding principal themes, guiding principles, a strategic investment map, and high-level Transportation and Mobility Element policies and strategies. Plan 2035’s vision states, “In 2035, Prince George’s County is the community of choice for families, businesses, and workers in the region. It is distinguished by strong, green, and healthy communities; a competitive, innovative, and adaptive economy; vibrant and walkable mixed-use centers; quality open space; restored ecosystems; and iconic destinations. It meets the diverse needs of all Prince Georgians and embraces and builds on the momentum generated by new residents, technology, and business opportunities.” Plan 2035 includes three guiding principal themes: • • •

Work: In 2035 Prince Georgians work in a thriving and diverse economy. Live: In 2035 Prince Georgians live in safe, walkable, and healthy communities. Sustain: In 2035 Prince Georgians sustain our natural resources and rural areas.

Plan 2035 guiding principles include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Concentrate Future Growth Prioritize and Focus our Resources Build on Strengths and Assets Create Choice Communities Connect Our Neighborhoods and Significant Places Protect and Value Our Natural Resources

The Growth Policy Map visually identifies where and how growth should occur across the County. It recommends most future employment and residential growth occur in eight Regional Transit Districts and identifies 26 local centers for medium density growth. Plan 2035 also includes Transportation and Mobility Element Policies and Strategies:

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

• •

•

• •

Ensure that countywide transportation improvements are integrated with and support the Plan 2035 vision and land use pattern. Expand and improve transit service, particularly on routes connecting Downtowns, the Innovation Corridor, and Regional Transit Districts in order to maximize the economic development potential and synergies between these areas. Maintain Level of Service (LOS) standards for roads and highways as identified by Plan 2035. Use complete and green street practices to design, operate, maintain, and retrofit the transportation network in order to improve travel conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and vulnerable populations consistent with the surrounding area’s character. Improve overall safety levels within the County’s transportation network. Pursue a range of transportation facility and systems funding sources and strategies to maintain and enhance the existing transportation network in order to encourage the safe and efficient mobility of all persons. Promote the use of low-carbon transportation methods countywide to improve air quality and traffic congestion. Public investment that supports innovative infrastructure systems should be targeted at Downtowns. Ensure that minimum and maximum parking requirements for transit-accessible areas are appropriate to advance the overall goals of Plan 2035. Improve mobility options for targeted population groups, particularly our elderly, mentally and physically disabled, and low-income households, in suburban and rural areas not served on a regular basis by transit.

Plan 2035 Indicators of Success To measure the success of the above-mentioned vision, guiding principles, investments, and transportation and mobility goals, Plan 2035 outlined 26 indicators of success. The indicators of success most relevant to the Transportation and Mobility Element are highlighted in Table 1. Housing and transportation affordability was another indicator of success but categorized in the Economic Prosperity Element. Additionally, a five-year evaluation of the indicator’s progress was conducted in 2019.

Table 1: Plan 2035 - Transportation & Mobility Indicators of Success

Indicator

Household net worth or wealth

Target

Increase

Higher education Increase attainment

Most Relevant to Transportation Description and Mobility Element

2019 Status

Household net worth or wealth is defined as total assets minus total liabilities. The indicator was measured based upon Decrease median housing value for owner-occupied units. Higher education attainment is defined as the percentage of people 25 years or older Increase that have a bachelor’s degree or advanced degree.

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

Decrease

This indicator is measured by square footage of fast food per capita (total square feet of fast food restaurants divided by the population in the same geography).

No change

Obesity/ overweight rates for adults and youths

Decrease

The Body Mass Index (BMI) is used to determine if a person is overweight or obese and differs based on age and gender. This indicator identifies the percentage of adults and high school students who are obese, based on BMI.

Increase

Percent of households burdened by housing costs

Decrease

This is defined as those who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

Decrease

Housing and transportation affordability

Increase

This is calculated as annual housing costs plus transportation costs divided by Increase income.

Crime rates

Decrease

Crime rates measures the Overall Crime Rate per 100,000 People.

Increase

Mode split refers to the percentage of travelers that use different types of transportation to work. The goal of the No change indicator is to see the percentage of auto trips decrease and other modes increase.

Percent of restaurants that are fast food

Mode split – walk, bike, transit, and auto trips



Decrease

Foreclosure rates Decrease

This indicator measures the percentage of sales in the County that are foreclosure or REO (Real Estate Owned). REO is property owned by a lender, such as a Decrease bank, that has not been successfully sold at a foreclosure auction (Chen, Investopedia, 2019).

Occupied housing units

Increase

Occupied housing units refers to the percentage of total housing units occupied Increase by a renter or owner.

Decrease

If the total income for a family or individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the family (and every individual in it) Decrease or individual is considered in poverty (American Fact Finder, 2019).

Poverty rates

Regional share of employment (county employment as a Increase percent of MSA region employment)

Regional share of employment measures the primary jobs located within the defined area compared to the WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MDWV Increase Metro Area. Primary jobs are defined as public and private-sector jobs, one job per worker.

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

Commercial versus residential Increase tax base

Commercial versus residential tax base examines the assessed value of commercial properties compared to the assessed value of residential properties.

Decrease

Commercial vacancy rates

Decrease

Commercial vacancy rates are calculated by dividing the square feet of new, relet, and sublet space that is vacant by the existing square feet of rentable building area.

Decrease

Wage growth

Increase

Hourly pay or salaries.

Increase

Unemployment rates

Decrease

People actively seeking work that do not have a job.

Decrease

Commuting patterns

Increase

Share of people commuting using nonSOV modes.

Increase

Decrease



The vehicle miles traveled measures the annual vehicle miles of travel in millions by Increase all functional classification systems in the county.



Count of bicycle and pedestrian facilities constructed, including trail projects from the Transportation Section, Prince George’s County Planning Department, Increase M-NCPPC, as well as the Adequate Public Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities Required in County Centers and Corridors.

Vehicle miles traveled (per capita)

Bike and pedestrian facilities constructed.

Increase

Proportion of waste stream that is recycled

Decrease

Waterway health Increase

Measurement of the condition of freshwater streams in the County.

No change

County greenhouse gas emissions

Annual highway vehicle emissions for greenhouse gases measured as million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMT CO2e) per year.

Increase

Recycling rates

Number of LEED® certified buildings

Decrease

Increase



Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program that evaluates the Increase environmental efficiency of building design and operations.

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

Acres of agricultural land preserved

Increase

Land protected for ongoing agricultural use.

Acres of forest planted and preserved

Increase

Plan 2035 defines a forest as an area dominated by trees and other woody or Increase herbaceous plants covering a land area of 10,000 square feet or greater.

Acres of impervious surfaces retrofitted

Increase

Measure of the extent of impervious surfaces that have been improved to provide for percolation.

Increase

Only one of the four indicators of success was meeting the threshold in 2019. While there was an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the evaluation team that conducted the five-year review deemed the indicator a success as the change was small, at 0.2 percent and this was achieved despite an increase in dwelling units and jobs in the County during the analysis period. Regarding mode split (also known in some documents as “mode share”), the evaluation team noted that, currently, there are not enough discussions or financial commitments occurring to substantially improve this metric. However, the evaluation team felt the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita was only a slight and generally moving in the right direction. For all indicators in Table 1, except bicycle and pedestrian facility construction, the evaluation team recommended implementing the recommendations for the Metrobus Priority Corridor Networks recommended in Momentum – The next Generation of Metro (Strategic Plan 20132025) to move these indicators in the desired direction.

Performance Measure Themes Performance themes arise from the 2009 MPOT, Plan 2035, and discussions with County staff in preparing the MPOT 2035. Key performance themes include: • • • • • •

Multimodality Safety Accessibility Affordability Energy efficiency Mobility

Plan 2035 indicators of success include: -

Bike and pedestrian facilities constructed County greenhouse gas emissions Mode split 6

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

Vehicle miles traveled

Aligning the key performance themes with Plan 2035 indicators of success informs potential performance measures for MPOT 2035.

Table 2: Performance Measure Theme Alignment with Plan 2035 Theme

Alignment with Plan 2035

Multimodality

1. Mode split 2. County greenhouse gas emissions

Safety

3. Aligns with Plan 2035’s policy to improve overall safety levels within the county’s transportation network

Accessibility

4. Mode split 5. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities constructed

Affordability

6. Mode split 7. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities constructed 8. Vehicle miles traveled

Energy Efficiency; Sustainability

9. Vehicle miles traveled 10. Mode split 11. County greenhouse gas emissions

Mobility

12. Vehicular Level of Service (LOS)

Community, Agency, and Municipal Feedback Regarding Performance Measure Themes and Metrics The project team presented performance measure themes and indicators of success to the community and to agency and municipal stakeholders. Participants were asked to rank themes and indicators or provide feedback on what was important to them. Overall, safety was the highest-ranked theme among all three groups, and accessibility generally the second-highest ranked. Accessibility also was the largest equity concern for the three groups. Multimodality and related indicators of success was the third-most important, followed by affordability and energy efficiency and sustainability. Mobility, or specifically vehicular level-ofservice (LOS), was typically of lower importance to the public and municipalities, but slightly more important to agencies. Table 3 summarizes MPOT 2035 performance metric themes, alignment with Plan 2035, and feedback from the public, agencies, and municipalities.

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

Table 3: MPOT 2035 Performance Metric Themes and Feedback Theme

Plan 2035 Alignment

Public Feedback

Safety

Policy 5: Improve #1 theme overall safety levels within the county’s Aligns with general transportation network safety comments #2 theme #1 equity concern

Accessibility

Increasing bicycle Supports Indicators of and pedestrian Success: facilities constructed Bike & ped #1 ranked indicator Mode split of success Aligns with general connectivity comments

#4 theme #2 equity concern

Affordability

Supports Indicators of Success: Bike & ped Mode split VMT

Municipality Feedback

#1 theme

#3 theme #1 equity concern

#2 theme #1 equity concern

Increasing bicycle and pedestrian facilities constructed #1 ranked indicator of success

#4 theme #2 equity concern tied with mobility

#4 theme # 2 equity concern

Increasing bicycle Increasing bicycle and pedestrian and pedestrian facilities constructed facilities #1 ranked #1 ranked indicator indicator of success of success Aligns with general transit affordability comments

Multimodality

Agency Feedback

#3 theme Supports Indicators of Success: Increasing non-auto GHG Reduction mode share #3 Mode split ranked indicator of success

Increasing housing and transportation affordability #2 ranked indicator of success

Increasing bicycle and pedestrian facilities constructed #1 ranked indicator of success Increasing housing and transportation affordability #5 ranked indicator of success

#2 theme

#3 theme

Increasing non-auto mode share ranked #5 as indicator of success

Increasing non-auto mode share #2 ranked indicator of success

Decreasing VMT #3 Supports Indicators of indicator of success Energy Efficiency; Success: Ranked as a low Decreasing VMT #3 Sustainability GHG Reduction #1 environmental indicator of success indicator of success Mode split sustainability importance Mobility

Includes LOS criteria by Transportation Service Area

Ranked #6 of 7 as Ranked #3 of 7 as Ranked #4 of 7 as indicator of success indicator of success indicator of success

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

Potential Performance Measures The reviewed relevant plans, particularly Plan 2035, feedback received by the community, agencies, municipalities, and discussions with County staff informed potential performance measures. The consultant team generated an expansive list of potential performance measures as a starting point (Table 4).

Table 4: Potential Performance Metrics by Theme Theme

Potential Performance Measure

Safety

13. Annual collisions by mode, and by fatal and severe injury

Accessibility

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Job accessibility by mode Person trip accessibility by mode Access to transit by mode Route directness 15-minute neighborhoods

19. Percent of trips by mode – can be stratified by trip types (e.g., Affordability

commute)

20. Vehicle miles traveled generated per capita 21. Vehicle miles traveled on roadways in Prince George’s County 22. Daily person trips by mode – can be adjusted per capita to control for

Multimodality

population and employment growth when comparing across time

23. Percent of trips by mode – can be stratified by trip types (e.g., commute)

Energy Efficiency; Sustainability

24. Vehicle miles traveled generated per capita 25. Vehicle miles traveled on roadways in Prince George’s County 26. Vehicle miles traveled per person trip 27. Vehicle LOS – Volume-to-capacity ratio, can be measured on roadway

Mobility

segments, corridors, or intersections

28. Person Delay – goes beyond automobile delay and includes delay to transit passengers, people walking, and people riding bikes

A review of the potential performance measures and each metric’s alignment with the feedback and County discussions helped narrow to a draft list of suggested performance metrics for the MPOT 2035. Selection considerations for each potential metric are described below.

Safety A potential metric for safety would be tracking all collisions annually by mode and fatal and severe injury. Safety is the highest-ranked theme among feedback groups. Forecasting safety outcomes is labor- and data-intensive and a detailed evaluation of the is not part of the scope for MPOT 2035; however, tracking safety outcomes by the number of collisions can provide an indication of progress toward safety goals. The consultant team recommends tracking collisions by mode for fatal and severe injury collisions and separately for all collisions.

Accessibility Access to jobs by transit and automobile is the recommended performance metric for this theme. This metric emphasizes trip-making possibilities over speed of travel, by measuring the number of jobs that can be reached by a particular mode. Focusing on job access through transit and automobile separately, applies a modal equity lens and elevates mode share efforts. We 9

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

recommend a 45-minute travel time budget as the threshold for calculating the number of accessible jobs. Person trip accessibility is a similar metric, but focuses on total trip destinations, not just jobs, within a fixed amount of time by mode. The metric uses the travel demand model to estimate the total desired trip destinations and then calculates access to those destinations by auto and transit similarly to the access to jobs metric. While trips beyond the commute are important, the person trip accessibility metric is too broad in destinations while also too specific in time access. Access to transit by mode is narrowed to transit as a destination, which provides useful information about the proximity of transit networks to Prince George’s County residents; however, access to transit is included as part of the access to jobs by transit calculation. Route directness and 15-minute neighborhoods apply primarily to walkability and pedestrian networks. Route directness is the ratio of the straight-line distance to the pedestrian network distance between any two points and is used to help identify discontinuities and barriers in the pedestrian network. 15-minutes neighborhoods are based on the concept that a complete set of destinations that meet day-to-day needs (schools, libraries, grocery stores, health care, restaurants) is available within a 15-minute walkshed of a given starting point.

Affordability Utilizing performance metrics related to VMT and mode share strive toward affordability efforts. Plan 2035 does not have any direct policies related to increasing transportation affordability, but instead focuses on transit choice. VMT generated per capita, VMT on roadways in the County, and percent of commute trips by modes are the recommended performance measures for MPOT 2035 for this theme.

Multimodality The percent of commute trips by mode is the recommended performance metric for this theme. It aligns with the Plan 2035 indicator of success and measurement method. Change in daily person trips by mode and daily person trips per capita by mode are informative but less familiar to citizens and policymakers, while mode share is a more familiar formulation. Total daily person trips by mode also does not control for the total amount of travel.

Energy Efficiency; Sustainability VMT generated per capita and VMT on roadways in the County are the recommended performance measures for MPOT 2035 for this theme. VMT generated per capita aligns with the Plan 2035 indicator of success and measurement method. VMT is proposed to be quantified in two ways: •

•

VMT on roadways in the County helps inform the subset of VMT occurring specifically on Prince George’s County roadways and evaluates the exposure of Prince George’s County residents and workers to the negative effects of vehicular traffic—such as increased collision exposure and exposure to harmful tailpipe emissions—regardless of whether the traffic is generated by land uses in the County or merely passing through. VMT per capita takes a closer look at generation of VMT per person (typically per capita is evaluated both as a residential population measure and as a “service population” measure, which is population+employment). Shorter trips and trips by multiple people in the same vehicle would generate less VMT than longer, single-occupant trips. This metric interprets the completion of a trip as a valuable good and the VMT required to complete 10

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

that trip as a cost (both internalized by the traveler and externalized locally and globally). This metric favors combined transportation and land use solutions that can bring origins and destinations closer together or allow for the substitution of other modes.

Mobility For the purposes of this plan, mobility is defined as the ability to travel to a variety of places and is distinct from accessibility. One way to think about mobility and accessibility is: mobility is important when you want to travel to a specific store to get your favorite type of tea; accessibility is important when you simply want to have a grocery store nearby for everyday needs and are not particular about the store or a specific type of good. Prince George’s County (like many other jurisdictions) has historically measured mobility (as defined for this plan) using vehicle LOS. Moving forward, there is still value in measuring mobility in this vehicle-centric approach given the other multimodal metrics also recommended for this plan. Therefore, mobility is recommended to be evaluated using roadway segment volume-to-capacity ratios, aligned with the LOS goals for highways and roads in Plan 2035. This metric evaluates whether a roadway has the capacity to handle the vehicular volume without unacceptable levels of delay. Note that there are other methods that can evaluate intersection volume-to-capacity ratios. While intersection LOS can be a valuable tool, the data collection and analysis requirements for a countywide application are impractical. LOS results should be considered cautiously and in the context of other goals and metrics, particularly when using it to inform roadway capacity expansions. As a near-term, first-order effect, roadway capacity expansions should improve vehicle LOS values by increasing the capacity available to serve a given volume. However, vehicular capacity expansion often has second-order effects that overtake the expanded capacity, conflict with other modal goals, and result in similar or worse LOS results over the long-term. For example, increasing vehicular capacity can induce additional demand by making driving more attractive, shifting trips from other times, routes, and modes to the expanded infrastructure and inducing new trips that would not have been made without the infrastructure expansion. Widening roads and intersections also makes travel by walking and biking less safe and comfortable and reduces walk and bike access to transit stops, discouraging travel by those modes and shifting additional trips to the automobile mode. Person delay goes beyond vehicle LOS by looking at delay for other modes including transit passengers, people walking, and people riding bicycles. While this performance measure is too data- and labor-intensive to apply countywide as part of the MPOT 2035 evaluation, it can provide useful information that can help prioritize use and inform decisions on multimodal corridors.

Recommended Performance Measures The narrowed draft list of recommended performance measures per theme is listed in Table 5. A total of six performance metrics are recommended to evaluate MPOT 2035. In addition to tracking these metrics for MPOT 2035, it is recommended they are tracked over time, alongside annual crashes by mode and severity, which cannot be reliably forecasted at a quantitative level across the County.

Performance Measure Assessment August 11, 2022

Table 5: Recommended Performance Metrics and Applicability

Access to Jobs by Auto

Mode Share

VMT per Capita

VMT on Roadways

Level of Service (congested lane miles)

Annual Crashes by Mode and Severity

Mobility

Energy Efficiency / Sustainability

Affordability

Accessibility

Multimodality

Access to Jobs by Transit

Metric

Safety

Tracking over Time

Related Themes

MPOT 2035 Evaluation

Applicability

X X X

Performance Measure Considerations Location-Specific Targets Plan 2035 identified 26 Local Centers and eight Regional Transit Districts, collectively known as Centers, which are mapped on pages 14-16. Local Centers should have medium to medium-high residential density development and be walkable and transit oriented. Regional Transit Districts should have moderate- to high-density and feature Metrorail with frequent local feeder connections and intermodal facilities. Plan 2035 also divides the County into three Transportation Service Areas with corresponding LOS targets. The Transportation Service Areas are mapped on pages 17-19. LOS targets should be different for Centers compared to non-Centers, and may vary by Transportation Service Area, corresponding to the land use context and density that support various transportation modes and travel patterns. The recommended performance measures for MPOT 2035 will also be stratified by Equity Emphasis Areas and non-Equity Emphasis Areas to evaluate whether transportation decisions have disparate impacts on different populations within the County. Equity Emphasis Areas are mapped on pages 20-22. The policies recommended in MPOT 2035 can then aim to reduce outcome disparities between residents of Equity Emphasis Areas and other County residents. 12

Plan 2035 Centers

HOWARD COUNTY

North Area Legend

LAUREL

Center Classification

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Campus Center

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Local Transit Center Neighborhood Center Regional Transit District Town Center

¡ 1

495

GREENBELT COLLEGE PARK

BOWIE

HYATTSVILLE

RIVERDALE PARK

Locator Map

¡ 50

BLADENSBURG

WDC

¾ N

2 mile

CHEVERLY

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Transportation Service Areas

HOWARD COUNTY

North Area Legend

LAUREL

Transportation Service Area 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Transportation Service Area 2

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

Transportation Service Area 3

¡ 1

495

GREENBELT COLLEGE PARK

BOWIE

HYATTSVILLE

RIVERDALE PARK

Locator Map

¡ 50

BLADENSBURG

WDC

¾ N

2 mile

CHEVERLY

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

Equity Emphasis Areas

HOWARD COUNTY

North Area Legend

LAUREL

Equity Emphasis Areas

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

¡ 1

495

GREENBELT COLLEGE PARK

BOWIE

HYATTSVILLE

RIVERDALE PARK

Locator Map

¡ 50

BLADENSBURG

WDC

¾ N

2 mile

CHEVERLY

¡ 301

Sources: Prince George's County GIS Open Data Portal, 2022; Maryland's GIS Data Catalog, 2022

TASK 6.10 Vision Zero

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Vision Zero Principles and Practices Memo This report summarizes initial reconnaissance conducted as part of the Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT) 2035 process. The objective of this memo is to inform the development of MPOT 2035. There is general agreement that Vision Zero should not simply be a stand-alone section of MPOT, but rather be integrated throughout the plan. As such, coordination with team members working on other parts of the plan will be necessary moving forward. This memo includes a scan of best practices from around the United States, a review of the County’s current Vision Zero Action Plan, a list of priority policy areas to be addressed, a discussion of performance metrics, and a summary of stakeholder and public feedback received to date.

Best Practices This section reviews Vision Zero planning from jurisdictions around the United States with a particular emphasis on how Vision Zero has been incorporated into transportation master plans or similar overarching transportation plans. While there are very few current examples of Vision Zero embedded into countywide master plans, most include cross references to safety in some fashion. Jurisdictions for this review of best practices were selected because they are known to be leaders with respect to Vision Zero planning and have incorporated elements that are relevant to informing Prince George’s County’s Master Plan of Transportation. An overview of each of the case studies is provided, followed by a comparative analysis addressing each of the following: 1. How are Vision Zero and safety incorporated into larger plans across a county? 2. What changes are proposed or made to county transportation planning processes? How is Vision Zero taken from planning to action (e.g., land use requirements, design standards)? 3. What are key partnerships (e.g., municipalities and the state)? 4. What evaluation metrics are used and how is progress tracked (at a high level)? 5. What kind of political support is provided and how did things evolve from when the plan was adopted, through development of an action plan, and during implementation?

Overview Location

Montgomery County, MD

Los Angeles County, CA

Montgomery County was one of the first county governments to develop a Vision Zero Plan (a 10year strategy) and manage implementation of Vision Zero through two-year action plans. Vision Zero 2030 Plan (10-year strategy plan) FY22-23 Work Plan (latest two-year action plan)

An Action Plan was developed to guide the county’s efforts on reducing traffic deaths and severe injuries on unincorporated county roadways through 2025. It creates the vision for the future and sets goals and actions to enhance traffic safety in collaboration with agencies and partners. Vision Zero Los Angeles County: A Plan for Safer Roadways (2019)

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Arlington County, VA

A five-year action plan that presents a clear framework toward reaching VZ program goals. The plan identifies key safety target areas, actions that improve safety in each target area, and measures for tracking progress toward eliminating severe and fatal transportation injuries in Arlington County by 2030. Vision Zero – Action Plan (2021)

Contra Costa Transportation Authority, CA

Denver Regional Council of Governments, CO

CCTA is developing a Vision Zero Framework. They offer a How-To Guide and accompanying Toolbox for implementation of Vision Zero.

The Denver Regional Council of Governments includes more than 50 local governments and traffic-related deaths and severe injuries are considered a critical and preventable public health epidemic and social equity issue in the metropolitan Denver area. Taking Action on Regional Vision Zero includes a toolkit for local governments to use when planning a Vision Zero strategy in their own communities. The plan sets out Action Initiatives, an implementation timeline, and measures that will help track regional progress toward safety improvements. Taking Action on Regional Vision Zero: Safer Streets for Metro Denver (adopted 2020)

Hillsborough County, FL

The Vision Zero Action Plan was collaboratively developed by the MPO Policy Committee, with members representing Tampa City Council, the Hillsborough County Commission, HART Board, and others in 2016 and 2017. Resolutions passed by government agencies and business commit these organizations to incorporating the plan into their operations. Vision Zero Action Plan (2017)

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

How are Vision Zero and safety incorporated into larger plans across a county? Location

Montgomery County, MD

The Vision Zero 2030 Action Plan was drafted in parallel with other county and state plans that will affect the future of the transportation network: the Maryland 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the General Plan update (Thrive 2050), and the Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Vision Zero 2030 Plan is Montgomery County’s local road safety plan under the SHSP. The transportation chapter of Thrive 2050 integrates Vision Zero into the policy and practice recommendations which call for prioritizing non-auto travel modes in the coming decades. The CAP’s transportation action items are focused on increasing active transportation options with the necessary safe and supportive infrastructure to support the mode shift.

Los Angeles County, CA

The Action Plan includes evaluating the County Master Plan of Highways to ensure consistency with VZ goals.

Arlington County, VA

The County’s principles of Vision Zero (accountability, transparency, equity, engagement, and collaboration) are supported by existing County plans and policies, including the Master Transportation Plan, Arlington’s Destination 2027 Health Equity Plan, the Public Space Master Plan, and the Arlington County Police Department Strategic Management Plan. Additionally, the County’s Neighborhood Complete Streets program addresses transportation safety and access for all modes of travel on local (non-arterial) streets through physical improvement projects.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority, CA

One of the key implementation actions recommended in the Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update was for CCTA to develop a Vision Zero framework and Systemic Safety approach for the County.

Denver Regional Council of Governments, CO

Hillsborough County, FL

Builds on Metro Vision’s (the region’s plan) supporting objectives (maintain existing and future transportation facilities in good condition, improve transportation system performance and reliability, improve transportation safety and security) with six additional objectives: • • • • • •

Improve collaboration between allied agencies Increase awareness and adoption of VZ Design and retrofit roadways to prioritize safety Improve data collection and reporting Increase funding and resources Increase legislation support resulting in safety improvements

Incorporated Vision Zero into land use policy. Defined land use context classifications for various place types/transects in identified Vision Zero Corridors.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

What changes are proposed or made to county transportation planning processes? How is Vision Zero taken from planning to action (such as land use requirements, design standards)? Location

Montgomery County, MD

The 2018-19 Action Plan prioritized updating the County’s road design standards and roadway classifications to define safe and complete streets. The Vision Zero 2030 Plan was developed through the lens of the new Complete Streets Design Guide. Additionally, the Vision Zero Coordinator will continue to host regularly scheduled coordination and information-sharing meetings, including a steering committee of key departments that will implement that plan and require coordination of efforts and larger VZ Partners meetings between departments and agencies to ensure employees across the government are up to date on VZ efforts and can provide on-going feedback. Implementing departments will also work with advisory committees across the county.

Los Angeles County, CA

Vision Zero Los Angeles County: A Plan for Safer Roadways updates the County’s guidelines for recommending roadway safety enhancements, Public Works’ Highway Design Manual to consider available tools and design standards and other best practices to enhance safety for both motorized and non-motorized users, and Livable Communities Design Guidelines to incorporate multimodal safety design measures. Additionally, traffic safety enhancements will be incorporated into public works projects along Collision Concentration Corridors.

Arlington County, VA

The plan built upon the Master Transportation Plan by continuing a unified planning process that ensures a safe and connected transportation network for all users. The county will revisit the established processes for review and implementation of private development and county-led capital projects to affirm that safety is the first priority in proposed transportation infrastructure and services. The county will update existing or create new county design standards and guidelines to reflect the latest safety research, standards and best practices; include lessons learned from systemic crash analysis; and provide the flexibility to respond quickly to safety issues. The county will also establish and deploy a set of tools and strategies to address safety issues based on their scale and context. Additionally, the county will develop and implement Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plans for development and capital improvement projects that protect the safety of all modes of transportation during construction.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority, CA

N/A

Denver Regional Council of Governments, CO

The county will develop a Complete Streets toolkit for the region addressing safety-related aspects of street design; incorporating VZ principles, crash profiles, and countermeasures; and including further guidance for establishing safe design components. The county will work with CDOT to update its Roadway Design Guide and the State Highway Access Code to support context-sensitive safety design solutions. The county will provide guidance on the implementation of quick-build projects and implement quick-build projects at high-priority locations when long-term solutions may lack sufficient immediate funding or have a long construction timeline. Additionally, the county will update local government street design guidelines, standards, and municipal codes in accordance with VZ design principles and safe design controls.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Location

Hillsborough County, FL

VZ Hillsborough will be integrated into regular meetings and discussions of the Hillsborough Community Traffic Safety Team to provide a means for integrating VZ objectives into planning, design, and enforcement initiatives. Additionally, the County will routinely review and amend transportation manuals and local government Land Development Codes, update FDOT Design Standard Index 600 Series to include bicycle considerations, develop a training program and curriculum, and conduct training sessions.

What are key partnerships (municipalities and the state)? Location

Montgomery County, MD

The Vision Zero 2030 Action Plan will continue to sync up land use and roadways through integrating Vision Zero and its safe systems approach into master planning for communities, transportation demand management programs, and roadway design guidelines. The Montgomery County Planning Board supports VZ through reviews of proposed development and capital projects and the Montgomery County Planning Department supports VZ implementation through working with existing community groups, County outreach staff, and community ambassadors to increase the amount of public feedback and raise awareness for traffic safety projects and campaigns. Additionally, the County will partner with other VZ communities and organizations like the Road to Zero Coalition to advocate for federal support and policy to achieve Vision Zero.

Los Angeles County, CA

The County will coordinate closely with neighboring cities and State agencies (e.g., Caltrans) to share/analyze data, implement projects and education and enforcement efforts, and regionally create a culture of traffic safety. To create a better understanding of collision factors, County departments and cities will share data and the County will convene partners to link and compile collision data from law enforcement, emergency first responders, trauma centers, and hospitals. The County will engage other jurisdictions and organizations that have traffic safety campaigns underway aligned with regional messaging that the County can build upon.

Arlington County, VA

At the state level, Arlington’s Vision Zero Target Areas are similar to VDOT’s Emphasis Areas identified in the 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and the County will coordinate with VDOT on safety issues on VDOT-maintained roadways. The County will also advance legislative solutions for transportation safety at the Virginia General Assembly. At the local level, the County will maintain effective partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions, authorities, agencies, and other organizational bodies to ensure safety concerns can be addressed effectively. The County will facilitate discussions with local organizations and interest groups to understand the needs of different transportation users and promote transportation safety, education, and involvement. Additionally, the County will partner with public safety officials, healthcare providers and others to enhance data quality (since VDOT crash data is limited). Additionally, the County will coordinate with transportation service companies to ensure alignment with VZ practices in company policies.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Location

Contra Costa Transportation Authority, CA

Denver Regional Council of Governments, CO

Hillsborough County, FL

The Vision Zero Framework includes resources (Vision Zero database and “how to” guide) that is intended to set the groundwork for local jurisdictions to develop robust Local Road Safety Plans. CCTA has also confirmed with Caltrans that the Vision Zero Framework will allow CCTA member jurisdictions to apply for HSIP funding for Local Road Safety Plans. CCTA’s How-To Guide and accompanying Toolbox is a resource for local agencies to implement Vision Zero and safety improvement projects consistently countywide. They aim to integrate Vision Zero as a standard practice in local (and regional) transportation planning and traffic operations. The region will pursue collaboration among local governments and allied agencies, which may include state and regional transportation agencies, police departments and state patrol, advocacy organizations, and community-based groups. This includes: organizing a working group to share and expand on VZ updates (in regard to data, resources, policy, and emerging issues) and to develop future actions; facilitating working sessions among police departments to focus on the regional High-Injury Network, crash profiles, contributing violations and behaviors, and equity and empathy; distributing VZ marketing and outreach materials through working groups; sharing funding opportunities; and supporting technology efforts that support Regional Vision Zero. The region will also increase awareness of VZ and support adoption of VZ among local communities, governments, and transportation agencies. This work includes educational campaigns, resources and training, data sharing, and street design tactics. The region will also work with school districts and provide them with tools to host educational seminars or workshops on VZ principles and targeted engagement for K-12 students about traffic safety – emphasizing empowering youth leadership and prioritizing communities of concern. Additionally, the region will improve collection/analysis/reporting of crash data to local communities and governments – including frequent updates to the regional crash database, improved data collection techniques, working with the Colorado Department of Revenue to periodically update the crash form, and establishing and deploying a regional or local response team to investigate crashes and evaluate them for safety enhancements.

N/A

What evaluation metrics are used and how is progress tracked (at a high level)? Location

Montgomery County, MD

The County will track implementation for each of the plan’s three areas: Complete Streets, Multimodal Future, and Culture of Safety. Complete Streets include metrics on injuries and new treatments built. Multimodal Future include metrics on VMT, travel mode, and transit stops near protected crossings. Culture of Safety includes metrics on ease of travel, seatbelt wearing, crashes with “big five” violations, crashes involving County-owned vehicles, safety awareness training for County employees, and response times for trash collisions with injuries.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Location

Los Angeles County, CA

The County will conduct routine evaluation, research, and analysis to understand traffic safety trends and impacts to VZ projects – evaluating projects implemented on the Collision Concentration Corridors to track progress and make modifications; implementing an evaluation plan and conducting special studies to understand the impact and extent of traffic collisions countywide with a focus on disadvantaged communities; establishing a process for ped/bike counts; and prepping/distributing reports related to collisions. Additionally, the County will enhance data collection, management, analysis, and surveillance – making VZ data available for use by departments, tracking ped/bike injuries/deaths by sociodemographic characteristics and geography, implementing data collection events and surveys, and enhancing database of infrastructure to evaluate effectiveness for reducing injury collisions.

Arlington County, VA

The County will provide regular program reporting in terms of individual action items and the goal of zero serious injuries/deaths. The County will also conduct an annual comprehensive crash analysis, equity analysis, and critical crash reviews (to identify action items for quick-build response and short- and long-term crash issues/patterns); an annual benchmark survey of Arlington residents, commuters, visitors to understand/track perceived transportation safety issues; and before/after studies to assess efficacy of new strategies or infrastructure improvements using established safety metrics. The County defined quantifiable performance measures for each program target area (e.g., # of speed-related crashes, # of intersection crashes).

Contra Costa Transportation Authority, CA

N/A

Denver Regional Council of Governments, CO

The region provided tracking metrics for each of six Regional Vision Zero objectives. They mostly include quantifiable metrics related to the participation of local governments and allied agencies, police department working sessions, reach of Regional VZ partnership program, school workshops, traffic safety improvement projects along the High-Injury Network, crash data, site visits by response teams, traffic safety funding opportunities, and transportation safety legislation. There are also metrics on whether an action is complete, such as the publication of the Complete Streets toolkit and updating CDOT’s Roadway Design Guide and State Highway Access Code.

Hillsborough County, FL

Progress on goal areas is measured to determine accomplishments in reducing severe crashes. Crash statistics and other performance indicators will be monitored to quantify success and identify areas for improved or refined strategies. There are quantifiable metrics for infrastructure related to sidewalks, crosswalks, mural painting events, bike lanes and separated bike lanes, bulb outs, signage, ADA treatments, narrowed vehicle travel lanes, signalized intersections with LPIs, and severe crashes at high crash locations. There were measures for communication goals related to Facebook followers, VZ events held, social media engagements, and the involvement of VZ Coalition. Additionally, there were measures related to public perception and behavior as well as for funding. The performance of the effectiveness of the action plan strategies will be summarized and documented in an annual progress report to the Vision Zero Coalition.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

What kind of political support is provided and how did things evolve from when the plan was adopted, through development of an action plan, and during implementation? Location

Montgomery County, MD

Action plan created every two years (2018-2019, 2020-2021, 2022-2023). 45 action items and associated tasks are separated by the strategy plan’s 3 pillars (Complete Streets, Multimodal Future, and Culture of Safety). Each action item includes a description; budget sources; and information on study, design, and installation/construction plans.

Actions are organized into five objectives that represent the County’s priorities and help put guiding principles into action: • • • • •

Los Angeles County, CA

Enhance county processes and collaboration Address health inequities and protect vulnerable users Collaborate with communities to enhance roadway safety Foster a culture of traffic safety Be transparent, responsive, and accountable

Each action item includes details on benchmarks and/or metrics for evaluating success and identifies lead agency for implementation. Annually, the County revises actions as necessary if objectives are not met. A “Collision Concentration Corridor” was defined and mapped for the plan.

Arlington County, VA

Action items are grouped in four categories (Data & Evaluation, Process & Organization, Engagement, Partnerships) with several overarching objectives that may include: data, analysis, progress reporting, planning, design, operations & maintenance, public involvement, education & encouragement, intra-agency collaboration, and interagency collaboration. Action items are reviewed, and next steps are identified in an iterative and collaborative process over a 5-year plan. An annual report is released with a public meeting to collect feedback on progress. The County plans to host mid-year check-ins with the External Stakeholders Group (open to the public) to gather insights and input on the program. Tentatively, the action plan will be updated in 2025.

Contra Costa Transportation N/A Authority, CA Denver Regional Council of Governments, CO

The plan includes a Regional High-Injury network where the majority of serious-injury and fatal crashes occur. The plan includes 6 objectives. For each objective, there are action initiatives that include sub-actions, regional partners involved + responsible parties, and action year/implementation time frame. DRCOG will track progress on each implemented action initiative at the beginning of each year. Tracking metrics are provided for each objective.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Location The Action Plan has 4 action tracks (below) with priority VZ action steps:

Hillsborough County, FL

• • • •

Paint saves lives (pop-up design interventions) One message, many voices (outreach and messaging) Consistent and fair (enforcement) The future will not be like the past (flexible design standards)

The performance of the effectiveness of the action plan strategies will be summarized and documented in an annual report to the VZ Coalition – providing a foundation for continued discussions and development of ideas and innovations for improved safety. The plan will be integrated into regular meetings and discussions of the Hillsborough Community Traffic Safety Team. Annually, the VZ Coalition will reconvene to share updates on implementation of the plan and build on accomplishments through new actions and initiatives.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Review of the Vision Zero Action Plan Prince George’s County is using a multifaceted approach to create a safe transportation system. The Vision Zero Action Plan, created in 2020, serves as a roadmap to achieve zero fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways. The Action Plan is data-driven, innovative, and action-oriented and builds on the Prince George's County Strategic Roadway Safety Plan 2017-2020. The Plan is organized around the 6 Es: Education, Emergency Response, Engineering, Enforcement, Evaluation, and Equity. The Prince George's County Department of Public Works (DPW&T) leads the coordination for implementing the actions. The Action Plan has created a Vision Zero Stakeholder Group composed of representatives from County agencies and external organizations.

Vision Zero Stakeholder Group Established in 2019, the Vision Zero Stakeholder Group initially convened to outline the Prince George's County Two-Year Vision Zero Action Plan. The group continues to meet addressing actions to achieve Vision Zero. The group is charged with: • • • • •

Providing direction to the Project Management Team (DPW&T as County lead) to guide development of the Vision Zero Action Plan; Acting as a liaison to agencies, sharing information and soliciting feedback to inform the Action Plan; Identifying actions specific to members’ agencies; Developing the vision, goals, policy recommendations, actions, performance measures; and Creating recommendations to get to zero

The Vision Zero Stakeholder Group is made up of the following representatives, as listed in the Vision Zero action plan 2020-2022:

There are currently two subgroups, referred to as “task forces,” within the stakeholder group: 1. Crash Review Task Force. Reviews crash analysis reports to identify the County’s crash “hot spots” and propose roadway improvements. 2. Communications Task Force. Discuss public outreach efforts and review communication tools. 10

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Featured actions Education: • • • •

Prince George's County hosted the regional transportation safety campaign, Street Smart, in November 2021 in Oxon Hill, a high injury location to draw attention to this crucial issue. “Lives Shatter on Impact” Testimonial Wall was presented at Prince George’s Community College in February 2022. More than 500 individuals have signed the Safety Pledge, with 10,000 pledge cards distributed. Prince George’s County is receiving $35,000 of assistance from the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board to design more “traffic gardens” to help kids learn about traffic safety at schools and other public spaces.

Enforcement: •

The Prince George’s County Council enacted CB-073-2021, legislation pertaining to speed monitoring systems in residential districts, in November 2021.

Evaluation: • •

DPW&T launched the Pedestrian Safety Walk Audit toolkit in January 2022. Crash data and evaluation tools are public.

Engineering: • • •

DPW&T replaced the Temple Hill Road/Clinton Bridge in February 2022 to improve vehicular safety and accommodate pedestrians and bicycle traffic. The Marlboro Pike, Coral Hills Bike and Pedestrian Improvement Project includes bike lanes, upgraded traffic signals, and pedestrian refuge islands, with a goal to improve traffic calming as well as pedestrian and cyclist safety by narrowing the roadway. Prince George's County is receiving technical assistance from MCWOG/Transportation Planning Board for road safety studies aligned with five locations identified through the High Injury Network.

Policy: •

Policy Gap Analysis Integration of the six Es and USDOT’s “Safe System” approach An important objective for the Prince George’s County MPOT is to integrate the new National Safety Strategy into the existing Vision Zero framework. The six Vision Zero Es (Education, Emergency Response, Engineering, Enforcement, Evaluation, and Equity) need to be harmonized with the six principles of the Safe System Approach being championed by Federal Highway Administration. The safe systems concept refers to an intentional approach for achieving Vision Zero. It recognizes that humans make mistakes, and we can only achieve Vision Zero by integrating safety improvement 11

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

efforts amongst all traffic safety stakeholders (road designers, vehicle manufacturers, policy makers, enforcement agencies, families, workplaces, schools, etc.) to create a safe system. A safe systems approach is one in which practitioners work to design, build, and maintain a transportation system that promotes safe road user behaviors (human factors) and protects all road users from physical harm (forgiving systems). This is a shift from a conventional safety approach because it focuses on both human mistakes and human vulnerability. MPOT should emphasize the expansion of Vision Zero under the current Federal Highway Administration and build on the current Prince George’s County Vision Zero framework.

USDOT’s “Safe System” Approach U.S. DOT adopts a Safe System approach as the guiding paradigm to address roadway safety. A Safe System approach incorporates the following principles: 1. Death and Serious Injuries are Unacceptable. A Safe System approach prioritizes the elimination of crashes that result in death and serious injuries. 2. Humans Make Mistakes. People will inevitably make mistakes and decisions that can lead or contribute to crashes, but the transportation system can be designed and operated to accommodate certain types and levels of human mistakes, and avoid death and serious injuries when a crash occurs. 3. Humans Are Vulnerable. Human bodies have physical limits for tolerating crash forces before death or serious injury occurs; therefore, it is critical to design and operate a transportation system that is human-centric and accommodates physical human vulnerabilities. 4. Responsibility is Shared. All stakeholders – including government at all levels, industry, nonprofit/advocacy, researchers, and the general public – are vital to preventing fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways. 5. Safety is Proactive. Proactive tools should be used to identify and address safety issues in the transportation system, rather than waiting for crashes to occur and reacting afterwards. 6. Redundancy is Crucial. Reducing risks requires that all parts of the transportation system be strengthened, so that if one part fails, the other parts still protect people. Implementation of the NRSS will be arranged around five complementary objectives corresponding to the Safe System approach elements: • • • • •

Safer People: Encourage safe, responsible behavior by people who use our roads and create conditions that prioritize their ability to reach their destination unharmed. Safer Roads: Design roadway environments to mitigate human mistakes and account for injury tolerances, to encourage safer behaviors, and to facilitate safe travel by the most vulnerable users. Safer Vehicles: Expand the availability of vehicle systems and features that help to prevent crashes and minimize the impact of crashes on both occupants and non-occupants. Safer Speeds: Promote safer speeds in all roadway environments through a combination of thoughtful, context-appropriate roadway design, targeted education and outreach campaigns, and enforcement. Post-Crash Care: Enhance the survivability of crashes through expedient access to emergency medical care, while creating a safe working environment for vital first responders and preventing secondary crashes through robust traffic incident management practices.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Design Standards If MPOT 2035 sets some basic Complete Streets expectations (e.g. marked sidewalks at all legs, multi-use shared-use path minimum width because of reference to MUTCD applicable design guidelines, sidewalks on both sides of all street streets), the County will be better able to hold developers accountable. This is a potentially powerful mechanism to reduce the barriers to safe infrastructure. When developing MPOT 2035, Planning Board recommendations should be reviewed 13

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

to identify some best practices that could be incorporated into policy and design standards. MPOT 2035 could serve as a tool to connect policy and design standards through a Vision Zero lens. Prince Georges County’s Urban Street Design Guidelines proactively addresses complete streets. Sections 24-4201(c)(1), Section 24-4201(d), and Section 24-4202(a) of the Subdivision Regulations and Section 27-6206(a) of the Zoning Ordinance require all new streets in Plan 2035 designated centers and Planned Development Zones "to be constructed to the appropriate urban street design standard (USDS) within the 2017 Prince George’s County Urban Street Design Standards or most up-to-date County-approved urban street standards." These standards, and the regulations that require them, were discussed, evaluated, and implemented intentionally and purposefully between 2014-2018, and the regulations requiring them became effective April 1, 2022. These guidelines have impacts on safety, accessibility, multimodality, Vision Zero, and potential impacts on vehicle level of service and other travel-time goals for vehicles. (https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20269/Prince-Georges-CountyUrban-Street-Design-Standards_2017)

Maintenance Maintenance policies regarding County-owned roadways need to be addressed in MPOT 2035, including pavement markings (i.e., crosswalks and bicycle lanes), snow removal, lighting, and shareduse path maintenance. Snow clearance has been identified as a critical issue. County policy states that abutters must clear snow, but this does not work well in practice. Currently, the priority is on roadway snow clearance, but in doing so pushes the snow to shoulders and bike lanes as well as sidewalks, curb-cuts, and bus stops thereby hindering travel by people on bus, bicycle, foot, or mobility device. There is currently no commitment to maintenance of sidewalks. County resources are insufficient and prioritize basic maintenance and services, making sidewalk clearance policies challenging. Specialized equipment and experience are needed and should be addressed in MPOT 2035. To get started, a prioritization process is needed (e.g., snow removal at bus stops and sidewalks along major school walking routes) to create a sense of direction for improving the responsiveness of the maintenance program and allowing it to grow over time. MPOT 2035, though, is not a funded mandate or fiscally constrained, so policy recommendations should be developed that have a practical implementation mechanism. At the same time, aspirational policy recommendations are needed if Vision Zero goals are to be achieved.

Speed monitoring The Prince George’s County Council enacted CB-073-2021, legislation pertaining to speed monitoring systems in residential districts, in November 2021. This bill authorizes the County to set up Residential District Speed Monitoring Systems pursuant to the Transportation Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. House Bill 619 was enacted during the 2021 Session of the Maryland General Assembly which expanded the eligible locations for placement of speed cameras to residential roads. This law amends Section 21-809 of the State Transportation Article to provide that speed monitoring systems may be used in Prince George’s County: on any highway in a residential district with a maximum of 35 miles per hour regardless of whether it is in a work zone or not; in a school zone with a posted speed limit of at least 20 miles per hour; or within one-half mile of the grounds of a building or property used by an institution of higher education. Essentially, HB 619 expands the authority of the County to use speed monitoring systems to include certain roads in residential districts. State law’s procedure for municipal corporations to use speed monitoring systems on County roads within their municipal boundaries remains the same. MPOT should provide a map and a listing of eligible streets for this program and provide guidance for implementation.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

House Bill 656 “Safe Access for All (SAFE) Roads Act of 2022” The Office of the Prince George’s County Executive has expressed support for Maryland House Bill 656. This bill would require the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) to recommend and implement context-driven design elements for pedestrian and bicycle safety consistent with the “safe systems” approach being taken by USDOT and FHWA and the SHA’s context-driven guide and associated strategies. House Bill 656 would require any new construction or improvement project expected to take more than 12 months to complete to implement all possible incremental, near-term safety improvements immediately and maintain each project’s priority ranking. The bill also mandates a funding stream, via the Governor’s annual budget, for Fiscal Years 2024 through 2028, with a 10 percent minimum increase each year beginning in Fiscal Year 2025. The requirement that all types of construction and improvement projects undertaken by SHA contain industry standard context-driven design elements will add another tool in Vision Zero Maryland and Vision Zero Prince George’s programs to continue to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on roadways. Prince George’s County is determinedly advancing Vision Zero, which is a data driven approach to roadway safety. Vision Zero strategy focuses on the High Injury Network. Since, its creation, Vision Zero Prince George’s has successfully worked with MDOT SHA’s Office of Traffic Safety to identify the top 20 roadway corridors within the County with the greatest frequency and severity of pedestrian and bicycle crashes. By identifying these corridors, efforts may be focused on the areas with the highest need for improvements. Prince George’s County has recommended “the evaluation of existing lighting conditions” be added to the bill as insufficient lighting has been identified as a serious safety concern on many County roadways. The lighting of areas adjacent to and on roadways would significantly improve the safety of not only pedestrians and cyclists, but also drivers, by increasing visibility. The passage of HB 656 will have implications for the development of the County’s MPOT. The bill is currently under consideration by the Maryland House of Representatives.

Performance Measures The Prince George’s County Vision Zero program uses a High Injury Network analysis to evaluate the performance of the roadway network. The High Injury Network represents one-mile corridors in Prince George’s County with the greatest frequency and severity of crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians. The network is divided into two categories based on the ownership of the roadway. It includes the 10 corridors with the greatest crash severity for all roadway types and the 10 corridors with the greatest crash severity for County-maintained roadways. Data from the State Highway Administration is used for the analysis. All but one of the identified corridors are within the I-495 beltway corridor. This corresponds to planning subregions 2, 4, and 7 (also referred to as Transportation Service Area 1, or the “inner loop”). It is recommended that several of the highest corridors be identified for each of the other planning subregions as well in order to identify safety areas throughout the County.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Equity is a factor not yet included in this analysis. Priority areas identified by the County should be analyzed for potentially disproportionate effects on people in equity areas. This could be achieved using a speed/equity analysis. An equity analysis with respect to Vision Zero goals should be incorporated into MPOT 2035 in more detail.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Prince George’s County currently has a Vision Zero crash dashboard. Maryland has uniform reporting requirements so further analysis could be conducted to better understand crash causation for serious injuries and fatal crashes. Sonoma County is the first agency to conduct this analysis at a county scale. Sonoma County’s Vision Zero Data Dashboard has some additional features that could be incorporated into Prince George’s County’s dashboard. When published, MPOT 2035 should include a current snapshot of crash history, but reference the dashboard as a tool that is continuously updated.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Pedestrian Crash Statistics from the Prince George’s County Vision Zero Dashboard

Funded through a USDOT Safety Data Initiative Grant, the Safer Streets Priority Finder enables government agencies to understand the risk to vulnerable road users. Safer Streets Priority Finder is a free, open-source resource that allows practitioners and advocates to analyze and understand the risk to vulnerable road users (bicyclists and pedestrians) on their local roadways. With minimal data prep required on the user’s end, this tool uses a Bayesian statistical framework to make a robust estimation of crash risk along the road network. This tool could be used to augment Prince George’s County’s Vision Zero program and provide a proactive prioritization framework for investments identified in the MPOT.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Stakeholder and Public Involvement Public survey An online survey was used to collect feedback from the general public on how transportation can be improved in the County. The survey reached approximately 255 respondents and was active in January and February 2022. Three of the questions are relevant to helping understand the public perceptions of safety-related transportation issues. One question asked participants to choose their top three transportation challenges in the County. Both safety-related issues, “Speeding/unsafe driving” and “Unsafe/difficult to walk” were among the top two issues for more than 60 percent of respondents.

Another question asked participants to rank in order the importance of several themes. For this question, “Safety” received the highest ranking. The response to these two questions suggests a strong public desire that the County incorporate Vision Zero into the Master Plan of Transportation.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

A third question in the survey focused specifically on Vision Zero by asking participants to rank in order their preference in measures that the County should prioritize as part of a Vision Zero plan. Of the variety of measures, 60 percent of respondents gave their highest ranking to “Engineering” solutions. This suggests that infrastructure improvements are the highest priority for increasing safety for vulnerable road users, such as those on foot, on bicycle, and those with mobility impairments. Enforcement ranked a distant second place with about 20 percent of respondents choosing it as their highest priority.

Engineering: -Providing a network of safe bike lanes and sidewalks -Retrofitting existing roads with safer roadway design -Incorporating more inclusive design for people with disabilities (physical, mental, vision impairments, etc.) -Maintaining existing infrastructure, adding pedestrian crossing signals to unsignalized intersections and mid-block crossing locations -Providing accessible public transit options Enforcement: -Providing temporary traffic control devices (stop signs, flashing beacon lights, etc.) -Providing automated speed and red-light cameras where applicable -Issuance of citations for violations of traffic laws Education: -Providing awareness on the County's Vision Zero goals -Helping people better understand the rules of the road-Helping people understand the traffic safety needs of the visually impairedMobility challenged and those with cognitive impairments -Providing training in the community about Vision Zero to encourage people to make safer decisions -Joining the County on safe route to school activities and bike safety trainings Policy: -Lowering speed limits-Eliminating turns on red at signalized intersections -Coordinating with the City's partners at the County and State level -Reviewing policies, regulations and laws and recommending changes -Being consistent about calculating County, State and Local crash data 20

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Stakeholder listening sessions The County held two stakeholder listening sessions in November 2021 to introduce the MPOT 2035 process and garner feedback and discussion from participants. One session was geared toward agency stakeholders and the second toward municipal stakeholders. Each session included topicspecific break-out groups including one specifically on Vision Zero. The facilitated groups provided a three-minute overview including how safety was incorporated into MPOT 2009; overview of the Prince George’s County Vision Zero Action Plan; and the overall safety goals of MPOT 2035. The following questions were then used as prompts for discussion:

Agency Stakeholder Session (November 16, 2021) Question

Feedback from participants

Early successes

Inter-agency collaboration and collaboration with regional partners. The exchange of ideas among agencies. Data transparency, using data to map high injury networks. The branding of Vision Zero.

Impediments

The lack of political will. Funding and resource constraints limit what can be done. The lack of collaboration. The existing infrastructure, i.e., wide roads and high speeds, make it a challenging environment to get started. There is not a culture of safety.

Role of MPOT

MPOT should be something that can generate the political will for speed control and investment in safe infrastructure. Public participation should be prioritized, and Vision Zero outreach and education should occur through the MPOT process. Build a structure that requires interagency coordination. Focus on the need for infrastructure improvements to build safety into designs. Require safety improvements for bike/pedestrian infrastructure to be incorporated into development proposals. When looking at regional transit district development proposals, the roadway around the district should include elements of Vision Zero in the design, acknowledging the increase in urban density should increase walkability. Push for safety education, such as safety tips and public information campaigns.

Opportunities to replicate successes

Examples of good work inside the beltway with protected bike lanes. Some of the focus on improved safety was around key destinations such as schools. The use of pop-up tactical urbanism. Improved urban design standards and application of context sensitive designs.

What should we know about your agency?

Doing safety audits of high pedestrian and bike crash locations. Working with police and EMS. The revamped Vision Zero website. The concept for a “Pedestrian Focus Area” came out of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Network Plan.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Municipal Stakeholder Session (November 17, 2021) Question

Feedback from participants

Early successes

A few years ago in College Park, a few deaths occurred that were spaced close together; State, County, local officials got together to change signals; now all signals are exclusive phasing and “pedestrian area ahead” signs were added. Had an education campaign with people dressed in “turtle shells”— they are good shows but have to keep changing the method to keep the public’s attention and also keep it up over time.

Impediments

Municipalities need funding. Some requests for safety improvements are rejected by the State engineers because of the need to follow federal guidelines. Municipalities have to go to the State DOT first and then to County. We have to rely on elected officials because they sit on the SHA committee. Our streets have a large volume of traffic.

Role of MPOT

Often, engineers say deaths are inevitable and only react, don’t act proactively— need to change this in MPOT. Incorporate a mechanism for the County to provide letters of support to municipalities when trying to lobby the State for certain safety improvements. Provide mechanisms for municipalities to be permitted to implement elements of Vision Zero on roads that the County owns but the municipality maintains and provides emergency services; for example, the County has denied permission for a municipality to install speed cameras even though it is an area by a school with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH.

Opportunities to replicate successes

8 years ago, the County rejected a request for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), saying that there were no warrants for any changes and that RRFBs were not approved by the State; but with the municipality signing a letter holding the County harmless, the County provided a special permit that allowed the municipality to do it.

What should we know about your agency?

We don’t really have a measurement for safety. The Planning Department has influence during development reviews, but can only recommend based on Planning Department policies; ultimately the Dept of Permitting Inspections and Enforcement will make the final determination, or the agency who owns/maintains the roadway, which sometimes is the County.

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Public meeting feedback A series of three evening virtual public meetings were held Tuesday, January 25, 2022 through Thursday January, 27, 2022. The bulk of the meeting time was spent in smaller break-out groups, each of which allowed discussion of all the focus areas for the MPOT. The following provides highlights from feedback related to Vision Zero.

Theme/ area of concern

Multiple individuals asked for consistent and inclusive signage

Many expressed their concerns over safety as some wrote about issues related to pedestrian safety

Illustrative feedback

• • • • • •

Billboards along dangerous roadways Consistent handicapped parking signage Consistent County signage Consistent signage County to County Spanish signage Reduction of speed limits and more signs

•

Overlap between Active Transportation (biking) and Vision Zero safety...providing connectivity to safe recreational shared-use paths without exposure to traffic. Need safer ways to walk and bike Concerned that the timeline “2040” is too long to wait before saving lives

• • • •

Some people asked for traffic and road conditions to be improved

• • • • • •

Some wanted driving safety conditions to be improved while others asked for clarity regarding vehicle movement and expectations

Some individuals wrote about the current pedestrian experience

• • • •

• • • • •

Traffic calming devices Focus traffic calming measures in busier business districts and areas with a lot of pedestrians Time controls in ALL traffic signals Use traffic light signal timing coordination to limit speeds Improved markings on the road Safer road designsfrom the start. We know speed limits and signs don't make a difference without enforcement. Improving mass transit options will reduce the need for cars on the road Better intersection night lights and sound alerts for vision impaired Help achieve goals by pulling over reckless drivers (even before an accident), to prevent “crazy DMV” driving that leads to fatalities More street lights on dark winding roads More roadway lighting on the asphalt More traffic calming and designing streets so that it is uncomfortable to drive fast (narrowing lanes, chicanes, continuous sidewalks) Terrible crosswalk visibility Build sidewalks Never felt so unsafe as a pedestrian anywhere else I’ve lived Poorly timed walk lights that are too short The Vision Zero wording does not seem to address pedestrian safety as a priority

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

Theme/ area of concern

Illustrative feedback

• Many expressed their concerns regarding vehicle speed and asked for the implementation of regulations in efforts to control vehicle speed

• • • • •

• Many individuals asked for the improvement of biking conditions on streets and roads, so bikers feel safe while biking on roads

• • • • • • • •

Several individuals stated that courses, trainings, or some type of teaching mechanism that teaches safety and speed regulations as it would be beneficial in preventing crashes in the future

•

• •

•

Lower speed limit; increase police traffic speed traps; more speed bumps and speed cameras Many speed limits are too high More speed cameras and higher fines Concerns with the equity implications of using speed cameras (automated traffic enforcement) Slower speeds There were differing opinions on speeding fines: some suggested raising fines, some opposed that approach on equity grounds I don’t think there are any protected bike lanes in the entire County. That should be included in the plan with a goal to complete X number of miles per year Protected bike lanes. No right turn on red. Traffic cameras for enforcement. Speed reduction on MD 202 from Bladensburg through to US 50 Clean up the bike median Driver safety courses for repeat offenders A local or neighborhood-scale approach. Teaching traffic safety tools at community level Pedestrian civility and community partners to ensure that the rules of road are jointly adhered to We do not train drivers sufficiently in the U.S. Improve driver training requirements like many European countries do; teach skilled defensive driving and awareness of the need to give room to bicycles and pedestrians. Use educational billboards on dangerous roadways Some suggested public service announcements showing graphic content of accidents, while others reacted that graphic content can be triggering for those who have been crashes or lost family and friends to crashes The Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) is going to be starting a Prince George's County Families for Safe Streets Chapter as a way for people to get involved

Vision Zero Principles and Practices August 11, 2022

PHOTO 1 (this is for a place in the PDF as referenced in the PDF)

TASK 6.11 Sustainability

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Sustainability Practices Sustainability is a guiding principle and value documented in Plan Prince George’s 2035 Approved General Plan (Plan 2035) and is defined as “meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” To support and ensure consistency across Plan 2035 and the Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT 2035), the project team analyzed existing environmental, fiscal, and cultural/social sustainability as it relates to transportation within Prince George’s County. This memorandum covers the following main topics: • • • •

Brief descriptions of relevant plans in the County, region, and state Community feedback A summary of current sustainability issues A list of suggested sustainability practices

To understand sustainable practices in Prince George’s County, three countywide community engagement meetings were held. Approximately 155 participants attended the three meetings, and at least 140 people completed the online survey. Figure 1 illustrates that the aspects of sustainability that have significant impact include environmental sustainability (67 percent), cultural/social sustainability (46 percent), and economic sustainability (43 percent).

Figure 1 - Sustainability Community Feedback

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Environmental Sustainability Introduction Environmental sustainability focuses on the responsible interaction of human infrastructure and practices with the natural world. The transportation system has a large impact on environmental sustainability with increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The not yet adopted 2020 draft Prince George’s County Climate Action Plan notes that the County is experiencing growing climate change concerns and vulnerabilities with 48 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from the transportation sector. In addition to the transportation sector’s GHG emissions and related climate impacts, other environmental sustainability impacts and opportunities include: • • • • •

Issues of permeability and stormwater retention or runoff related to pavement coverage Presence or absence of tree coverage and other “green infrastructure” Air pollution resulting from wear and tear of vehicles and rubber tires Noise pollution that can affect physical and mental health Consumption of natural habitats and undeveloped land for roads and infrastructure

Relevant Plans in the County, Region, and State Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (2009) The 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT) for Prince George’s County included environmental sustainability initiatives framed as environmental stewardship. Environmental stewardship elements were oriented around active transportation and trail planning, complete streets, and infill development. The plan references active transportation and trail planning as environmentally friendly transportation options. The Complete Streets Initiative and Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan encourage non-automobile trips to reduce GHGs and to incorporate environmental justice principles within the planning process. Environmental justice seeks to ensure no one group of people (regardless of race, color, national original, or income) bears a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences. Lastly, the plan recommends prioritization of infill development, transit-oriented development (TOD), and to add vehicle miles traveled minimization to traffic impact analysis studies. The plan has been amended throughout the years to strengthen the environmental sustainability goals and to create strategic measurable targets for project or program implementation.

Prince George’s County’s General Plan In Plan 2035, environmental sustainability is related to the protection and conservation of the natural environment. The plan highlights the careful management of air, water, and land resources and to conserve waterways, forests, agricultural areas, open space, natural systems, and scenic areas. The vision is to ensure growth does not compromise Prince George’s County natural and cultural resources. Plan 2035 envisions Prince George’s County to have greener communities, natural resources and rural areas, TOD, and green jobs. The plan discusses various policies and practices related to sustainability pertaining to the natural environment. 2

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Resource Conservation Plan (RCP) 2017 The RCP is a countywide master plan related to green infrastructure planning and rural and agricultural conservation as a response to the recommendations in Plan 2035. There are three functional master plans that are incorporated into the RCP: 1. The approved Green Infrastructure Plan (GI Plan) assesses the status of the policies and strategies formed in 2014. The document noted any network gaps related to green infrastructure and includes topics such forest and treen canopy coverage, climate change, and sea level rise. 2. The Agricultural Conservation Plan approved in 2012 addresses the agricultural policy plan needed to support long-term sustainability of agricultural and forestry practices. 3. The Rural Character Conservation Plan focuses on policies intended to support rural character conservation and the desired development patterns for rural communities. There is a focus on special roadways, such as parkways, scenic byways, and scenic and historic roads. The functional master plans contained within the RCP are relevant to coordinate reduction of air and water quality issues, vehicle emissions, and construction of new roadways and trails, and the land use characteristics associated with transportation development.

Maryland Department of Transportation (DOT) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act Plan (2020) The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act is a state requirement to submit plans to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 40 percent from 2006 levels by 2030. The 2017 statewide emission inventory found that on-road transportation is the single largest GHG emissions generator in the state at 36 percent of total GHG. The plan aims to achieve this GHG reduction goal through four pillars. 1. Technology – Primarily focused on electric vehicles. 2. Travel choice – Primarily focused on reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by providing access to more non-automobile options. 3. Travel efficiency – Primarily focused on improving systems management and operations. 4. Infrastructure design – Primarily focused on clean energy use and design that is resilient to climate change. The plan evaluated three scenarios for achieving the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent from 2006 levels by 2030. 1. Reference Case – Focused on electric vehicles and compliance with fuel standards. Estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 26 percent below 2006 emissions by 2030. Estimated cost of $14 billion. 2. Policy 1 – Focused on reducing emissions of projects already planned and funded. Estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 33 percent from 2006 levels by 2030. Estimated to cost $14 billion. 3. Policy 2 – Focused on emerging and innovative solutions. Estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 49 percent from 2006 levels by 2030. Estimated to cost between $11.5 billion to $15.5 billion.

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Prince George’s County Climate Action Plan (Draft - 2021) The draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies sources of GHGs, climate concerns and vulnerabilities, and recommended focus areas. Environmental impact issues include GHG emissions and a disconnect between land use policy and practice. This plan has not yet been approved by the County, but there are several important land use and transportation components that the team is considering for MPOT 2035. The draft CAP outlines practices developed through smart growth principles such as infill development and brownfield redevelopment instead of sprawl development. Sprawl development results in a significant loss in tree canopy coverage across the county and requires longer trips to access distant locations, resulting in higher VMT and more impermeable surfaces. Besides these direct effects, loss of tree canopy also contributes to increases in heat, drought, flooding, and higher GHG emissions by removing an important “carbon sink”—an element of the natural environment that absorbs more CO2 than it releases. Due to these factors, climate risks and vulnerabilities in the County include: • • •

Extreme heat and drought More frequent inland and coastal flooding More severe storms

Climate risk and vulnerabilities are exacerbated by the transportation system and cause risks to the continued resilience of transportation infrastructure. The plan rated the impacts of these risks to transportation, with extreme heat and inland flooding having high impacts, coastal flooding and severe storms having moderate impacts, and drought having a low impact on transportation. The draft CAP recommends focusing on and committing to smart growth and transportation by: • • •

Reducing VMT through increased multimodal options and prioritizing land use and transit investments Adhering to land use policies and recommitting to smart growth practices Transitioning to clean transportation such as electric vehicles, both for private and County fleets

Throughout the draft CAP, environmental justice and equity were incorporated as a lens when reviewing historical trends and recommending future strategies.

Local Jurisdiction Plans and Programs Plans and programs from Bowie, College Park, and Hyattsville were reviewed. Overall, local jurisdictions have community-oriented goals, but some objectives or goals aligned with Countylevel ideas. City of Bowie Sustainability Plan (2016)—Goal NW1 of the plan aims to protect, preserve, and enhance existing forest and tree canopy coverage to reach the 45 percent tree canopy goal from the County’s Climate Action Plan. City of College Park, Maryland 2021-2025 Strategic Plan (2021)—Objective 3 of the plan states, “preserve and enrich our environment and natural beauty to attract people and sustain our City’s future.” The plan listed sample tactics such as clean energy initiatives (electric vehicles, solar panels), and identifying opportunities to expand parks and tree canopy.

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Speak Up Hyattsville: The 2017 – 2021 Community Sustainability Plan (2017)—Goal 15 from the plan is aimed at growing in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner. A tactic recommended to achieve this goal is adding electric vehicle charging stations in City parking lots and commercial corridors.

Community Feedback Regarding Environmental Sustainability Based on comments from the group discussions, Table 1 displays the themes brought up by community members.

Table 1: Environmental Sustainability Feedback and Strategies Community Feedback Theme

Relation to Potential Environmental Strategy

Unwanted road expansions

Reduce GHG emissions and VMT

Installation of electric vehicle charging stations

Reduce GHG emissions

Adding more bus shelters

Increased shade coverage for heat adaptation

Increased bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Mode shift and reduction in GHG emissions and VMT

Increased transit service and multimodal connectivity

Mode shift and reduction in GHG emissions and VMT

Address and reduce aggressive/erratic driving

Improve roadway efficiencies

Increase consequences for speeding/erratic driving

Expand speed management to maximize safety and encourage walking and biking

Prioritizing TOD and improved developer coordination

Focus on infill development, TOD, and smart growth principle

Notable direct quotes relevant to environmental sustainability include: • •

•

“I think instead of additional roadways, we need more public transportation. Such would meet the needs of seniors, ADA subject people, etc. And it would allow more historic and scenic byways.” “TOD goes hand-in-hand with Vision Zero. Developers must become a part of the solution in expanding TOD. Prince George’s County must require it. Building for the sake of revenue without consideration for residents’ QOL [Quality of Life] is unconscionable and unsustainable.” “Protected bike lanes and other designs that separate vulnerable users from motor vehicles.”

Environmental issues, causes and transportation implications in Prince George’s County from the reviewed relevant local, County, and state documents, are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Climate Issues, Causes, and Transportation Implications Issues

Causes

Transportation Implications

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Extreme heat

GHG emissions (48% of GHG emissions in Prince George’s County are from the transportation sector) Declining tree canopy coverage due to a disconnect between land use policy and practice

Inland and coastal flooding

Severe Storms

Transportation asset and infrastructure damage, and increased maintenance Disproportional burden of climate issues on individuals within MWCOG equity emphasis areas

GHG emissions (48% of GHG emissions in Prince George’s County are from the transportation sector)

Transportation asset and infrastructure damage, increased maintenance, or inaccessibility

Declining tree canopy coverage due to a disconnect between land use policy and practice

Disproportional burden of climate issues on individuals within MWCOG equity emphasis areas

GHG emission (48% of GHG emissions in Prince George’s County are from the transportation sector)

Transportation asset and infrastructure damage, increased maintenance, or inaccessibility Disproportional burden of climate issues on individuals within MWCOG equity emphasis areas

Suggested Practices for Environmental Sustainability GHG emissions reductions, stormwater management, extreme heat reduction, and material asset management are potential strategies for mitigating environmental impacts related to the transportation sector.

Emissions Reduction Recommended strategies to reduce GHG emissions include investment in electric vehicle infrastructure and implementing VMT reduction strategies and programs. Electric Vehicles Increasing electric vehicle (EV) ownership and usage for private citizens and County-owned fleets can help reach GHG emission reduction goals. EV strategies typically relate to policies and incentives which encourage purchase of EVs, and installation of EV charging infrastructure in the public right-of-way. There are advantages and disadvantages that should be considered when evaluating EV strategies. Advantages Increases use of clean energy—With the expansion of EV charging stations and the potential growth in EV vehicles on the road, a reduction in GHG emissions will occur and reliance on clean energy sources will increase. Eases access for EV owners and users—Installation of EV charging stations throughout the County increases accessibility and ease for EV charging. 6

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Aligns with statewide goals—Maryland has a target of 535,000 zero-emission vehicles registered in the state by 2030. As of December 31, 2020, the state had 29,268 EVs registered. Installing charging stations across the County encourages residents to purchase EVs by removing perceived or actual barriers to reliable charging. Additionally, MDOT is completing a Fleet Innovation Plan aimed at supporting the conversion of MDOT’s light-duty and bus fleet to Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). Corresponds with federal administration investments—The Biden Administration’s $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) aims to further expand EV usage and accessibility in the U.S. Specifically, the act sets aside $7.5 billion for alternative fuels in a new competitive federal program, including $5 billion for a national electric vehicle charging network. Increasing EV manufacturing and consumer options—Automobile manufacturers are seeing the increasing trend of EV purchases and are responding with more electric and hybrid options for consumers. The increasing availability of EVs increases purchasing options for consumers and therefore potentially accelerating private EV ownership. Disadvantages Continuing to prioritize auto travel over other modes—Investment in EV charging stations and infrastructure for privately-owned vehicles may shift funding away from existing transit, pedestrian, and bike networks. Additionally, because electricity is relatively cheap and there are fewer maintenance needs, EV operating costs are substantially lower than internal combustion engine vehicles, which may induce more vehicle travel, and could conflict with other goals. Battery development and supply chain—There are implications in manufacturing EV batteries and the supply chain of building an EV versus a gasoline or diesel-dependent vehicle. While the financial cost of battery development has decreased, the energy requirements to manufacture an EV battery can still be a drawback. In addition, development of batteries requires land-intensive mining and use of heavy metals. Energy source for battery charging—Prince George’s County must consider where the electricity to charge EVs comes from. For example, daytime charging typically comes from solar energy, while nighttime charging typically comes from carbon. Currently, most EVs are charged overnight at a private residence or public-owned facility. Charging stations must have the ability to store unused solar energy to provide cleaner overnight charging opportunities. Unknown long-term investment cost and technology innovations—As with all developing technology, cost efficiencies typically increase over time as the technology is improved. The charging stations utilized for EVs today might not be the same or as efficient as future iterations. Considering when and where to invest in charging stations will be important. A historical example is coin-operated parking meters for on-street parking that have upgraded to card-enabled meters, and now include options for mobile phone-based micropayments without meters. The upfront cost to switch hardware as charging technology improves should be considered. Upfront ownership costs for residents—The upfront costs for residents to purchase an EV, as well as the need to install or access personal charging, can be prohibitive. Without incentives, EVs can be financially out of reach for low-income consumers, who have long been subject to inequitable impacts of transportation and environmental policies. Placement and use of electric vehicle charging stations—The equitable placement of EV charging stations across the County should be considered. A balance of where demand for EV charging stations currently exists—often in high income areas—must be met with the potential or desired growth for future EV use and demand for charging stations in all communities. As with all 7

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

site-specific transportation investments, equitable placement of infrastructure investment impacts residents, their property value, and their ease of access to the investment. Suggested EV Strategies The following strategies could be used to increase EV ownership and reduce GHG emissions in the County. • • • • • • • •

Expand the EV charging network Set an EV market share goal for the County to support the State’s goal of an additional 255,000 EVs by 2030 Transition transit fleet to EV, including school buses Electrify County and public agencies fleets Identify and implement zero-emission truck corridors Plan for Autonomous/Connected Vehicle technologies, which are typically EV Investigate and provide private vehicle electrification incentives and disincentives Create an EV carshare program for low-income communities

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction A reduction in VMT works toward reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Setting VMT metrics is a strategy that is often used by the transportation sector to quantify and track environmental sustainability efforts. VMT is typically associated with longer driving trips, but also unnecessary trips or inefficient trips such as drivers circling looking for parking or inefficient freight deliveries. VMT Reduction Considerations When considering how to implement VMT reduction strategies it is important to distinguish between reducing unnecessary VMT and all VMT. Some citizens could benefit from more VMT to access more quality of life/jobs/healthcare, while others can reduce unnecessary VMT. For example, driving less than 5 miles between errands or destinations could potentially be better met by transit or biking/walking/micromobility. Setting a VMT threshold for all trips could cause undue burden on individuals who must travel longer to reach a job, doctor’s appointment, or education. Suggested VMT Reduction Strategies The following strategies may decrease VMT in the County. While transportation demand management strategies that increase non-automobile mode share are effective, a VMT tax is a more effective strategy. • • • • • • • •

Advocate for a vehicle carbon/gas tax or VMT tax Expand transit capacity and service Expanded Transportation Demand Management strategies Expand bicycle, pedestrian, and micro-mobility system development Expand telework policies and programs Constrain cars in urban areas, limit major new road construction Limit roadway widening Relocate employment and government offices near pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Stormwater Management Stormwater management strategies work toward reducing inland and coastal flooding, which can impact the transportation network and accessibility. In addition, the design of transportation infrastructure can provide opportunities to manage stormwater and mitigate pollution issues created by stormwater runoff. The following strategies could improve stormwater management in the County. • • • • • • •

Repair, enhance, or add stormwater systems during roadway construction projects, including resurfacing Eliminate waivers for stormwater management requirements Increase tree canopy coverage and raingarden systems with infill development, and roadway projects Prioritize climate resilient infrastructure to ensure stability of the transportation network over time and in response to changing climate conditions Where feasible, all critical infrastructure should be constructed outside the 500-year floodplain Access roads should be protected to at least the 100-year flood elevation or maximum flood reach, whichever is higher If not already in existence, prepare a hazard mitigation plan with a focus on improving roads and infrastructure to withstand flooding

Heat Reduction and Adaptation Extreme heat events and drought are issues facing the County. Extreme heat events impact the transportation network and accessibility, as well as people’s willingness to use modes of transportation that reduce VMT, such as walking, biking, and transit. The following strategies could adapt to or reduce extreme heat in the County. • • • • • • • • •

Focus on infill development, TOD, and smart growth principles Improve intermodal freight center access Consolidate urban freight centers Increase tree canopy coverage to reduce heat island effects and support active transportation goals Follow land use decisions that support alternative modes of transportation Explore opportunities to co-locate community resilience hubs (including cooling centers and access to critical resources and information) at transit centers using solar arrays to provide clean, resilient energy Cover all surface parking with solar arrays Implement hydration stations at key transit hubs and along key active transportation corridors Develop extensive shade cover strategies in the places that are most subject to extreme heat and/or most exposed

Transportation Asset Management Transportation asset management (TAM) focuses on surface infrastructure of the transportation system such as roads, sidewalks, and bridges. The County should evaluate its definition of transportation asset management and consider expanding if necessary. 9

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Network maintenance is a crucial aspect of the transportation system. The County can use its knowledge of resident and user travel patterns to prioritize asset maintenance and improvements over time. Roadways, sidewalks, trails, and other assets can deteriorate faster due to extreme heat, flooding, and severe storms. The effects of climate change on heat, flooding, and storm patterns should be considered for long-range asset management plans. Climate change may affect the spatial patterns of impacts—which communities are subject to heat, floods, and extreme storms—as well as frequency and severity of these effects. The following strategies could manage transportation assets in the County. • • • • •

Prioritize climate resilient infrastructure to ensure stability of the transportation network over time and in response to changing climate conditions Focus on maintenance improvements that have the highest demand for transportation system users and/or provide critical network connections Improve roadway efficiencies with Transportation System Management Operations (TSMO) Expand speed management on roadways to maximize safety and encourage walking and biking Incorporate green infrastructure elements that reduce heat and increase permeability

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Fiscal Sustainability Introduction Fiscal sustainability refers to the practices that support long-term economic growth and prosperity without negatively impacting environmental and social aspects of the community. Based on current trends related to shifting population demographics, climate change impacts, and aging transportation systems, governments are challenged with managing the expenditure and revenue sides of budgets. As part of Prince George’s County Master of Transportation Plan, improving and enhancing fiscal sustainability practices creates resilient transportation systems that can address both short-term and long-term financial uncertainties related to demographic, employment, and environmental changes. This section provides a description of fiscal sustainability goals within Prince George’s County planning documents, feedback from community members and stakeholders, and recommendations to improve and enhance fiscal sustainability practices.

Relevant Plans in the County, Region, and State Master Plan of Transportation (2009) In the first section of the plan, the County mentions the intent to “capitalize on public investment in the existing transportation system,” which is a sustainable practice. Rather than expanding transportation systems or adding new ones, which comes with financial, environmental, and social burdens, Prince George’s County ensures a more resilient system and minimal to no disruptive changes to the environment and community by investing and re-investing in existing transportation infrastructure. Prince George’s County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has numerous projects focused on improving and maintaining existing transportation infrastructure and amenities. The plan states that “the County ranks the Developed Tier as having the highest priority for spending public funds and expects to have in place financial incentives and streamlined review policies in order to attract high quality development and redevelopment.” This suggests that the County is focused on investing public funds and incorporating financial incentives in the Developed Tier. This practice may or not may be sustainable depending on the distribution of funding, type of funding, and how the financial incentives impact the community once implemented. One of the TOD goals is to “maximize benefits from public investment in the transit infrastructure to all users, while seizing opportunities for quality TOD and supporting the land use pattern prescribed in the General Plan,” which relates to both equity and fiscal sustainability practices.

The use of traditional and innovative financial methods to fund projects included consideration of future pricing strategies that aim to “redistribute traffic volumes to nonpeak hours, manage through trips, free up capacity for goods movement, and provide income streams for transit and other congestion-reducing enhancements to the transportation system.” Another strategy 11

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

mentioned was to price parking to reflect the true costs of free parking, which promotes environmental, cultural/social, and fiscal sustainability. The integration of pricing strategies that are effective, context-specific, and innovative can promote sustainable travel behaviors and support current and future transportation investments. The “Transportation Infrastructure Financing” section outlines the federal, state, and local roles in financing transportation projects. This section briefly summarizes the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission’s (NSTIFC) assessment of future federal highway, transit investment needs, and lists the recommendations provided by the NSTIFC. The following recommendations include: • • • • •

Transitioning away from current indirect vehicle charging systems to direct user charge systems Vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) fee systems Protect and enhance the Highway Trust Fund One-time increases in and indexing of existing Highway Trust Fund revenue sources State and local investment in user-based mechanisms (i.e., tolling and pricing)

The NSTIFC concluded that current financing mechanisms (such as the gas tax), and current levels of taxation (such as the sales tax) are not sustainable revenue sources for transportation infrastructure. The NSTIFC recommends focusing on implementing direct user charge systems (e.g., VMT fee systems) and continue to invest in public-private partnerships to leverage future revenue streams to meet current transportation capital investment needs. On a local level, the 2009 MPOT echoes the 2002 General Plan objectives of: • • •

Increasing public funding of transportation infrastructure in the Developed Tier Increasing public-sector funding and encouraging more private funding of transportation infrastructure in the Developing Tier Encouraging and increasing the proportion of private sector funding in the Developing and Rural Tiers outside of centers and corridors

Some of the financial strategies include: • • •

Coordinating transportation funding initiatives with neighboring jurisdictions Identifying non-public funding for transit and non-motorized facilities and systems Assessing the transportation funding mechanisms in the County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Prince George’s County submission for the Maryland Department of Transportation’s Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP)

Department of Public Works and Transportation Sustainability Report 2021 The report documents the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act (GGRA) targets, which are divided as follows: •

Prince George’s County: To reduce countywide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 2008 levels by 2050. 12

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

• •

Region (MWCOG): To reduce regional GHG emissions by 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. State (GGRA): To reduce state-level GHG emissions by 40 percent below 2006 levels by 2030.

GHG emission reduction is part of fiscal sustainability because the methods and strategies to reduce GHG emissions can incorporate financing mechanisms such as VMT fee systems and vehicle type incentive programs. Decreased GHG emissions can also help avoid the most severe effects of climate change, which would result in damage and increased infrastructure maintenance costs. The report also mentions the RideSmart Solutions which offer free programs such as Guaranteed Ride Home, reward programs such as IncenTrip and Carpool Now, and commuter benefits programs. The electrification of transit, incorporation of LED street lighting, promotion of transit services, and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities all have implications for fiscal sustainability. Monitoring the cost-savings or revenue gains from these investments is important to evaluate whether fiscal sustainability goals have been met.

Plan Prince George’s 2035 Based on Plan 2035, Prince George’s County has historically focused on transportation improvements focused on the vehicular network. Recently, funds are shifting to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks, and on widening existing roads; however, the connection between land use and transportation remains a challenge. Historically, residents of the County oppose connectivity between neighborhoods or highway toll costs due to privacy, noise, and traffic as stated in Plan 2035. Providing accessible transportation to aging populations living in suburban and rural areas without promoting unsustainable development patterns is another constraint mentioned in numerous studies and reports documented in the plan. Plan 2035 highlights the fiscal challenges associated with sustaining and repairing an aging transportation system. The plan emphasizes the need for the County to increase funding in the transportation system for long-term financial viability and sustainability. Plan 2035 mentions that Prince George’s County established a Green Streets policy and is focusing investment on TOD. The Plan also establishes the CB-86-2015 and CR-085-2016, the new Urban Street Standards meant for the design of new and retrofitted streets. Plan 2035 identifies eight Regional Transit Districts (RTDs) with anticipated future growth, high quality urban design, and multimodal transportation. Current studies and research are identifying key transit corridors to support light rail, bus rapid transit, or enhanced bus services. For example, the Purple Line light-rail transit system is anticipated to link existing employment centers and leverages public investments. Additionally, the development of a Complete Streets policy and support of TOD is connected to enhancement of economic opportunities. The main goals related to transportation investment include the following: • • • •

Expansion of car-sharing and bike-sharing programs Fund trail improvements Expand and improve transit services by connecting Downtowns, the Innovation Corridor, and RTDs to maximize economic development Public investment to support low-carbon transportation methods

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Community Feedback Regarding Fiscal Sustainability Based on feedback from stakeholder participants in the MPOT 2035 community engagement process, 50 percent of participants in all meeting groups responded that fiscal sustainability has the most significant impact on them. The community supports efficient and continuous investment in providing accessible and affordable transportation services. Based on comments from the group discussions, community members want the County to continue to invest in: • • • • •

Transit loyalty programs for students and frequent users Bicycle trails connectivity and bilingual wayfinding signage Intersection improvements and corridors Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and amenities Improved lighting and maintenance of sidewalks

Suggested Practices for Fiscal Sustainability The table below lists recommendations for supporting fiscal sustainability in Prince George’s County and examples of current jurisdictions and organizations that are implementing these practices in Table 3. Fiscal Sustainability Practices and ExamplesTable 3.

Table 3. Fiscal Sustainability Practices and Examples Practices

Examples

Resources

New York’s Climate-Resilience NYC_Climate_Resiliency_Desi Design Guidelines gn_Guidelines_v4-0.pdf Embed resilience standards into future infrastructure investments

Boston’s Smart Utility Standards and Program

Boston Smart Utilities Program | Boston Planning & Development Agency (bostonplans.org)

Hoboken benefitted from the US HUD “Rebuild by Design” competition

Rebuild by Design: Hoboken -Transportation Elements | Adaptation Clearinghouse

San Francisco had US Army Corps initiate study on coastal protection

San Francisco Waterfront Storm Damage Reduction_GI (army.mil)

Identify resilience-friendly federal funding streams

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Practices

Create special tax districts in the downtowns, employment hubs, and the Innovation Corridor Hub

Examples

Resources

Missouri Blueprint_Special Missouri Special Taxing District Taxing Districts.pdf (showmeinstitute.org)

DC Business Improvement Districts

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) | dslbd (dc.gov) DCBID Council

Continue to utilize Tax increment Financing (TIF) at existing and proposed convention, conference, and visitor centers

Gallery Place, Washington, DC

TOD investment near Metrorail stations and Purple Line, Montgomery County’s Transitparticularly stations with Oriented Mixed-Use Zones available space for development

Implement mileage-based or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fees

ocfo_tif_retail_tif_pilot_tafa.pdf (dc.gov) Microsoft Word - TIF Analysis Methodology (dc.gov)

Slide 1 (railvolution.org) DIVISION 59-C-13, TRANSIT ORIENTED, MIXED-USE ZONES (TOMX) (amlegal.com)

Community Transit 2013 Oregon’s voluntary road usage Awareness Survey Key Findings (oregon.gov) charging program called OReGO Program ClearRoad_Orego_Case_Stud y.pdf

Support rebates (i.e., fee exemptions and tax reductions) that give cash back, credit, or California’s Clean Vehicle tax reduction to those who buy Rebate Program (CVRP) zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and fuel cell vehicles)

California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) | DriveClean Clean Vehicle Rebate Project — California Climate Investments

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Practices

Implement congestion pricing that varies based on travel demands at different times of the day

Examples

Resources

Virginia’s I-66 Commuter Choice program

NVTC_I66CommuterChoice_A nnualReport.pdf (novatransit.org)

San Diego’s HOT Lanes on I15

I-15 Express Lanes (keepsandiegomoving.com)

San Francisco SFpark pilot project

Price parking based on travel demand patterns

Invest in asset management systems that optimize maintenance and construction activities across all infrastructure classes (e.g., roads, sewer, water, etc.)

New York’s ParkSmart

SFpark Pilot Program | SFMTA

NYC DOT - Parking Rates Layout 1 (nyc.gov)

Seattle DOT PerformanceBased Parking Program

transportation20140610_6c.pdf (seattle.gov)

IBM smarter cities tools

IBM - United States

Samsara GPS-tracking

MS2 Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS)

Samsara - GPS Fleet Tracking

MS2 - TAMS - Transportation Asset (ms2soft.com)

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Cultural/Social Sustainability Introduction Sustainability guidelines involve not only environmental and economic considerations, but also social and cultural dimensions. Social and cultural criteria encompass objects and structures, such as historical remains and places of worship, and values such as sense of place, local culture, and traditions. MPOT 2035 envisions a countywide transportation system that supports the safe and equitable movement of people and goods within the County and region; it encourages economic, cultural, recreational, and social activity in Plan 2035 Centers. Equitable access to Plan 2035 Centers, then, is the crux of social and cultural sustainability in Prince George’s County. Plan Prince George’s 2035 identifies 26 Local Centers and eight RTDs (PLAN 2035 - Map 1), which present the greatest concentration of social and cultural activities, places, and structures in the County. An equitable approach to access improvements would prioritize and invest most heavily in improvements for Local Centers that overlap with Neighborhood Reinvestment Areas (Map 2) and Equity Emphasis Areas (EEAs). EEAs are census tracts identified by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments as having high concentrations of low-income individuals and communities of color. They also have a higher share of households that rent, single-parent households, individuals with disabilities, and workers without a telecommuting option. In Prince George’s County, EEAs are primarily concentrated in the northwest and centralwest parts of the County. In addition to Local Center and RTD access, other social and cultural sustainability impacts and opportunities include: • • • •

Affordable access to living-wage employment opportunities Active transportation opportunities to support physical and mental well-being Transportation support for traditional agricultural zones and rural communities, identified as Priority Preservation Areas in Plan 2035 (Map 2) Use of transportation facilities to host social activity, such as temporary street closures, permanent parklets on retail streets, or food, beverage, and retail stalls at transit centers

The social and cultural sustainability section covers: • • • •

Local jurisdiction plan and program examples Community feedback regarding cultural/social sustainability Summary of current cultural/social sustainability in the County, including issues, causes, and transportation implications A review of suggested practices for cultural/social sustainability

Local Jurisdiction Plans and Programs Plans and programs from the cities of Bowie, College Park, and Hyattsville were reviewed. All include social and cultural support or development in their policy framework. Many local jurisdiction action items can be expanded to make an impact on transportation outcomes at the County level.

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

City of Bowie Sustainability Plan (2016)—Goal CT5: Involve 6,000 residents in events and programs that strengthen neighborhood connections.

Implementation Strategies: • • • • •

CC1.2: Encourage residents to sign up for City Alert at all City events. CT1.2: Install more amenities in the public gathering spaces (interpretive signs, park benches, picnic tables, drinking fountains, etc.). ED2.1: Develop an outreach campaign to reach audiences that are underrepresented or not represented in current program activities. MC1.1: Develop and implement a promotional campaign to bring awareness of existing trails for biking, hiking, and family walks. MC1.2: Expand existing trails for biking, hiking, and family walks into a safe interconnected network.

City of College Park, Maryland 2021-2025 Strategic Plan (2021)—Objective 8 of the plan states, “Foster and sustain an affordable and stable City for individuals and families to live, work, play and retire here.”

Sample Tactics: • • • •

Targeted service expansion in ways that add high value. Walk and Bicycle Comfort Analysis. Targeted outreach to communities that historically have not engaged with the city. Improve street infrastructure (lighting, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) in certain areas.

Speak Up Hyattsville: The 2017 – 2021 Community Sustainability Plan (2017)—The vision for Speak Up HVL: The 2017 – 2021 Community Sustainability Plan is to create a thriving city, rounded in sustainability and inclusiveness, that advances the lives of its residents through the building of community, connectivity of people and places, and responsible development. As shown in Figure 2 below, connectivity is one of the three major themes for Hyattsville’s sustainability plan alongside community and development. This includes safety, connectivity, and traffic flow on County facilities.

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Figure 2: Themes and goals from Hyattsville’s 2017-2021 Community Sustainability Plan

Community Feedback Regarding Social and Cultural Sustainability Based on comments from the group discussions, Table 4 displays the themes brought up by community members.

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Table 4: Cultural/Social Sustainability Feedback and Strategies Community Feedback Theme

Relation to Potential Cultural/Social Strategy

Unwanted road expansions

People-centric complete streets

Adding more bus shelters

Invest in high-quality transit connections

Increased bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Expand active transportation opportunities for physical and mental well-being

Increased transit service and multimodal connectivity

Invest in high-quality transit connections

Address and reduce aggressive/erratic driving People-centric complete streets Increase consequences for speeding/erratic driving

People-centric complete streets

Notable direct quotes relevant to social and cultural sustainability include: • • •

“Car centric culture, drivers are aggressive thinking they own road.” “Ensure there is a walking path to every community near the Metro stations.” “Stop mixing roads with high design speeds in areas that are dynamic and filled with pedestrians, shopping, turning vehicles, traffic signals, curb cuts etc. Prioritize either roads for vehicles to travel quickly or streets that are focused on community and people.”

Suggested Practices for Social and Cultural Sustainability Potential strategies for mitigating cultural and social impacts related to the transportation sector include: • • • •

People-centric complete streets High-quality transit connections Expanded active transportation opportunities Regular community engagement

All of these interventions should first be implemented in the County’s Neighborhood Reinvestment Areas and Equity Emphasis Areas (EEAs). These improvements are needed everywhere to foster cultural and social sustainability, but they are most urgently needed in the lowest income and most isolated communities. An equitable approach is one that invests more in

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

those who need more. This approach is also most sustainable in that it prevents disparities from widening further.

People-Centric Complete Streets Complete Streets are streets designed and operated to enable safe use and support mobility for all users. Most roadways in Prince George’s County were initially designed or have been altered over time to prioritize vehicles. This includes streets in the Local Centers and RTDs where cultural attractions, social events, and therefore, people are the main attraction rather than cars. This often means than pedestrians and cyclists feel uncomfortable moving around commercial, business, and arts districts and are therefore less likely to patronize businesses in these areas or spend extended periods of time in Local Centers and RTDs. The following strategies could increase activity in Local Centers and RTDs in the County. • • • • •

Convert some parking spaces on high turnover main streets to loading zones, bus stops, and bicycle parking to serve more people with the same amount of space Widen sidewalks and narrow roadway cross-sections to prioritize space for people over cars in commercial districts, where traffic volumes are low, or where parallel vehicle routes exist Add shade trees, places to sit, water fountains, trash bins, and pedestrian-scale lighting – all things that are overlooked by motorists but critical for generating foot traffic, transit activity, and bicycle comfort Enhance pedestrian crossing facilities with countdown signals, leading pedestrian internals, and high-visibility crosswalks Use transportation infrastructure as community space in neighborhoods that lack parks and open space by reserving parking spaces for permanent parklets, by purchasing underutilized parking lots and paved areas for parks and playgrounds, and by offering an easy permit process for community groups to temporarily close streets for cultural events

High-Capacity Transit Network Community feedback collected for Plan 2035 provides insight into some of the economic barriers that low-income communities face: • •

“High commuting costs, combined with limited transit service and sprawling development patterns outside the Capital Beltway, have further exacerbated the cost of living in the County.” “…the costs of childcare and transportation were barriers to employment as the costs could exceed participants’ earning potential.”

Car ownership is a deceivingly expensive endeavor, but without high-quality transit service, it is often the only option. This lack of options and the sprawling development pattern in the County trap people in poverty by combining high transportation costs with low-wage jobs. Bicycling and walking are not practical commuting options for medium- to long-distance trips. Transit can be a competitive alternative to a car when designed thoughtfully. Prioritizing implementation of the strategies in the Urban Street Design Standards throughout areas of the County with a strong pedestrian orientation will make these areas feel more vibrant and approachable for active mode users.

Sustainability Practices August 11, 2022

Expanded Active Transportation Opportunities Car culture is one piece of a sedentary lifestyle that contributes to negative health outcomes and social isolation. Not only do walking and biking have associated health benefits, but they also facilitate social interaction and connect residents more closely with the streets, shops, community resources, and people around them. They are also both extremely affordable modes of transportation. Their downfall is a lack of facilities where people feel safe using these modes and substantial distances between residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. The following strategies could increase biking and walking in the County, thereby improving health outcomes and social connection. • • • • • • • •

Convert unused or underused rail and other infrastructure corridors into walking and biking paths Reduce roadway widths and add protected bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks Increase bicycle parking requirements for new developments and increase visibility of bicycle parking in commercial districts Improve wayfinding for bicyclists and pedestrians with travel time estimates to nearby destinations Incorporate bicycle safety classes into public school curriculum and offer bicycle safety classes at local community centers Expand Capital Bikeshare to other Local Centers and RTDs. In parts of the County further from DC, work with community organizations to offer low-cost, multi-day bicycle rentals, including for e-bikes and/or scooters Offer e-bike rebates for people who can show proof of selling or disposing of a vehicle Promote bike/walk to work and bike/walk to school days with local jurisdictions

Frequent Community Engagement Disengagement and dissatisfaction with civic spaces, public agencies, and local government are nationwide challenges. Regular engagement through multiple platforms can go a long way in connecting residents with needed services, building support for upcoming projects, and creating a sense of ownership of County transportation choices and outcomes. The following strategies could improve community engagement in the County. •

•

County transportation planners and operators should regularly attend existing community events (street fairs, sports events, farmers markets, etc.) to spread the word about services, discount programs, and new projects and to listen to residents’ access and mobility concerns. Establish a social media presence for transit and roadway updates that people are excited to follow. The radio is not a good source of traffic and travel information for all residents and social media should increasingly be utilized to share information. To attract followers, the County should invest substantial resources in its social media communications program and use interactive content, such as contests, prizes, and quizzes to generate excitement.

Sustainability Practices

August 11, 2022

Table 5: Summary of Suggested Strategies and Co-Benefits Co-Benefits Category

Strategy Expand the electric vehicle charging network

Set an EV market share goal for the County to support the State’s goal of an additional 255,000 EVs by 2030

Transition transit bus fleet to EV, including school buses Emissions Reduction: Electric Vehicle

Cultural/ Environmenta Fiscal Social l

Stormwater Management

X X

Identify and implement zero-emission truck corridors

Plan for autonomous/connected vehicle technologies, which are typically EV

Investigate and provide private vehicle electrification incentives and disincentives (e.g., rebate program)

Emissions Reduction: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction

Electrify County and public agencies fleets

Create an EV carshare program for low-income communities

Advocate for a vehicle carbon/gas tax or VMT tax

Expand transit capacity and service

Expand Transportation Demand Management strategies

X X

Expand bicycle, pedestrian, and micromobility system development

Expand telework policies and programs

Constrain cars in urban areas, limit major new road construction

Limit roadway widening

Implement congestion pricing that varies based on travel demands at different times of the day

Repair, enhance, or add stormwater systems during roadway construction projects, including resurfacing

Eliminate waivers for stormwater management requirements

Increase tree canopy coverage and raingarden systems with infill development, and roadway projects – ensure continued compliance with Green Complete Streets Program

Sustainability Practices

August 11, 2022

Table 5: Summary of Suggested Strategies and Co-Benefits Co-Benefits Category

Strategy

Cultural/ Environmenta Fiscal Social l

Prioritize climate resilient infrastructure to ensure stability of the transportation network over time and in response to changing climate conditions

Where feasible, all critical infrastructure should be constructed outside the 500-year floodplain

Access roads should be protected to at least the 100-year flood elevation or maximum flood reach, whichever is higher

If not already in existence, prepare a hazard mitigation plan with a focus on improving roads and infrastructure to withstand flooding Focus on infill development, TOD, and smart growth principle

Heat Reduction and Adaptation

X X

Improve intermodal freight center access

Consolidate urban freight centers

Increase tree canopy coverage to reduce heat island effects and support active transportation goals

Follow land use decisions that support alternative modes of transportation

Explore opportunities to co-locate community resilience hubs (including cooling centers and access to critical resources and information) at transit centers using solar arrays to provide clean, resilient energy

Cover all surface parking with solar arrays

Transportation Asset Management

Implement hydration stations at key transit hubs and along key active transportation corridors

Develop extensive shade cover strategies in the places that are most subject to extreme heat and/or most exposed

X X

Sustainability Practices

August 11, 2022

Table 5: Summary of Suggested Strategies and Co-Benefits Co-Benefits Category

Strategy

Cultural/ Environmenta Fiscal Social l

Expand speed management on roadways to maximize safety and encourage walking and biking

Incorporate green infrastructure elements that reduce heat and increase permeability

Identify resilience-friendly federal funding streams and invest in asset management systems

People-Centric Complete Streets

High-Capacity Transit Network

Convert some parking spaces on high-turnover main streets to loading zones, bus stops, and bicycle parking to serve more people with the same amount of space

Widen sidewalks in commercial districts and narrow roadway cross-sections where traffic volumes are low or parallel vehicle routes exist to prioritize space for people over cars

Add shade trees, places to sit, water fountains, trash bins, and pedestrian-scale lighting – all things that are overlooked by motorists but critical for generating foot traffic, transit activity, and bicycle comfort

Enhance pedestrian crossing facilities with countdown signals, leading pedestrian internals, and high-visibility crosswalks

Use transportation infrastructure as community space in neighborhoods that lack parks and open space by reserving parking spaces for permanent parklets, by purchasing underutilized parking lots and paved areas for parks and playgrounds, and by offering an easy permit process for community groups to temporarily close streets for cultural events

Designate high-capacity transit corridors and routes between all 26 Local Centers and RTDs

Implement transit priority and reliability measures along these corridors such as placing transit (buses or trains) in its own right-of-way, adding transit only-lanes or queue jumps at key pinch points, adding transit signal priority in congested urban areas, and allow buses to stop in-lane by constructing bus boarding islands

Offer no less than 15-minute service frequencies on this high-capacity network during peak periods and no less than 30-minute service frequencies in off-peak periods

Implement reliable real-time bus tracking service through an app as well as at transit stops/stations along this network

Maintain well-lit shelters at all transit stops/stations along this network

X X

Sustainability Practices

August 11, 2022

Table 5: Summary of Suggested Strategies and Co-Benefits Co-Benefits Category

Strategy

Cultural/ Environmenta Fiscal Social l

Focus new development along these corridors and require that it adhere to TOD design guidelines. Office developments should offer subsidized transit passes to employees

Work with major event and entertainments venues and transit agencies in the Local Centers and RTDs to offer free transit passes with their event tickets

Create special tax districts in the downtowns, employment hubs, and Innovation Corridor Hub to support TOD initiatives Evaluate commuter travel markets and expand commuter bus service as warranted. For markets with existing commuter bus service, focus on promoting the service so more people know about it and improving speed and reliability of these services

Utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIF) at proposed convention, conference, and visitor centers nearby TOD

Expand Active Transportation Opportunities

X X

Convert unused or underused rail and other infrastructure corridors into walking and biking paths

Reduce roadway widths where traffic volumes can fit into fewer travel lanes and add protected bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks

Increase bicycle parking requirements for new developments and increase visibility of bicycle parking in commercial districts

Improve wayfinding for bicyclists and pedestrians with travel time estimates to nearby destinations

Incorporate bicycle safety classes into public school curriculum and offer bicycle safety classes at local community centers

Expand Capital Bikeshare to other Local Centers and RTDs. In parts of the county further from DC, work with community organizations to offer low-cost, multi-day bicycle rentals, including for e-bikes and/or scooters

Offer e-bike rebates for people who can show proof of selling or getting rid of a vehicle

Promote bike/walk to work and bike/walk to school days with local jurisdictions

Sustainability Practices

August 11, 2022

Table 5: Summary of Suggested Strategies and Co-Benefits Co-Benefits Category

Frequent Community Engagement

Strategy

Cultural/ Environmenta Fiscal Social l

Establish a social media presence for transit and roadway updates that people are excited to follow.

TASK 6.12

Multimodal Transportation

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations Introduction Plan Prince George’s 2035, the approved General Plan for Prince George’s County provided the roadmap for making Prince George’s County the community of choice for families, businesses, and workers in the region. To achieve this goal, Plan 2035 outlined a two-pronged approach to achieve change in the County—growth policy and strategic investment. This approach was laid upon a foundation of six guiding principles to help maintain and strengthen the resources already available in the County. One of the most essential elements of this plan include connecting communities—namely in the form of a strong transportation network. Across the country, jurisdictions are facing the same crisis of fewer resources available to appropriately service the transportation needs of their citizenry. One of the most prominent factors noted is the need to rectify historic injustices brought about by unbalanced and/or biased disinvestment in communities of color leading to inferior transportation infrastructure in areas with denser populations. Prince George’s County is one of the most ethnically diverse jurisdictions within the United States. Diverse populations use a wide variety of transportation modes. The multimodal options provided by Prince George’s County ought to be as robust and diverse as possible to meet the varied transportation needs of its population. As part of the study for the Master Plan of Transportation, the project team reviewed transportation documents from several jurisdictions to determine best practices as they relate to delivering a successful multimodal transportation network to the public.

Review of Existing Plans The consultant team identified communities with similar demographic characteristics to Prince George’s County, specifically as they related to racial mix, transportation commute, and age diversity. Using this data, they collected and reviewed local bike, pedestrian, and trail use master plans to determine the strategies and policies relating to multimodal transportation that may be relevant and applicable in Prince George’s County. The master plans reviewed included: • • • • • •

M-NCPPC Montgomery County: Technical Update to the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways M-NCPPC Montgomery County: Bicycle Master Plan, 2018 Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)—Walk. Bike. Thrive. A regional vision for a more walkable, bikeable, and livable metropolitan Atlanta Richmond Bicycle Master Plan Florida-Alabama TPO Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan, 2018 Prince George’s County Plan 2035, 2019

The demographics of these jurisdictions are not equivalent to those of Prince George’s County which has the highest percentage of African-American residents. They were selected due to proximity, racial diversity, age diversity, and average commute time, amongst other factors.

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Table 1: 2020 Census Demographics—Race Fact

Pensacola City, FL

Richmond Montgomery City County, MD (County), VA

Atlanta, GA

Prince George’s County, MD

Population, Census, April 1, 2020

54,312

226,610

1,062,061

498,715

967,201

Population, Census, April 1, 2010

51,923

204,214

971,777

420,003

863,420

Persons under 5 years

6.50%

5.80%

6.10%

5.4%

6.50%

Persons under 18 years

24.20%

17.20%

23.10%

17.6%

22.10%

Persons 65 years and over

17.30%

13.80%

16.10%

11.6%

13.90%

Female persons

52.60%

51.60%

51.3%

51.90%

White alone

63.60%

47.70%

60.00%

39.75%

27.10%

Black or AfricanAmerican alone

28.60%

46.90%

20.10%

47.22%

64.40%

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

0.20%

0.50%

0.70%

0.28%

1.20%

Asian alone

1.50%

2.30%

15.60%

4.48%

4.40%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

0.10%

0.20%

0.10%

0.04%

0.20%

Two or More Races

5.20%

2.40%

3.50%

5.82%

2.70%

Hispanic or Latino

5.20%

7.30%

20.10%

6.01%

19.50%

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino

60.00%

42.20%

42.90%

38.52%

12.30%

Each of the documents reviewed were prepared by Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) or jurisdictional planning entities responsible for the development of long-term land use and/or transportation planning. In the review of each, priority was given to identifying the desire to increase the modal split and then the strategy recommendations to achieve this goal. To help 2

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

simplify the findings, for each document below, common elements have been identified so that they can be compared and we can determine if any best practices can be ascertained from what is shared. The documents reviewed include a combination of highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian safety plans—all of which are imperative to understand in order to create a fully multimodal transportation network in Prince George’s County. Many policies found in these plans have been implemented by Prince George’s County in part or in whole. The purpose of this document is to identify best practices in the nation so the County can identify existing policies that are good candidates to build on or expand and new policies whose implementation should be considered. As such, the key recommendations identified are used to help inform the conceptual policy recommendations for the County to consider integrating to create a multimodal jurisdiction.

M-NCPPC Montgomery County: Technical Update to the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways

Identified Vision Its vision is the development of a fundamentally sound, balanced, and flexible future transportation system that helps to build and maintain livable communities within Montgomery County. Transportation, when planned well, can be an asset to the quality of life in a community. This plan is multimodal and focused on serving people, not just vehicle trips.

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Major Focus To provides a “road map” for making transportation investments within the context of a long-range vision. It ensures the future network of transportation facilities will serve residents, businesses, visitors, and people passing through the county. Key Relevant Recommendations Align the road design and target speed standards for roads within urban areas so that they are designed for the safety and convenience of all users of the roadway system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, automobile drivers, commercial vehicles freight haulers and emergency service vehicles.

M-NCPPC Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan, 2018

Identified Vision Montgomery County will become a world-class bicycling community. Everyone in Montgomery County will be able to travel by bicycle on a comfortable, safe, and connected bicycle network. Bicycling will become a viable transportation option and will elevate the quality of life in the county. Major Focus Identifying a series of strategies and recommendations that will enable policy and decision makers to increase bicycling rates, create a connected and low stress bicycling network, provide equal access to low stress bicycling and improve the safety of biking. 4

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Key Relevant Recommendations • • • • •

• •

Establish a bikeway classification system to organize bikeways based on their level of separation from traffic Create a low-stress bicycling network Establish a high-capacity network of arterial bikeways between major activity centers to enable bicycle travel with few delays in an environment where all users can safely and comfortably coexist Adjust roadway standards and design criteria that apply to all roadways that are designated for multimodal use which incorporate non-motorized user feelings of safety Establish grade separated crossings for new freeways and those undergoing major changes. Ensure stand-alone capital projects include grade separated crossings for bisecting roadway networks. Where no improvements are planned, incorporate ramp signalization to reduce conflicts. Provide abundant and secure bicycle parking at transit stations as well as commercial and multifamily residential developments Monitor performance

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)—Walk. Bike. Thrive!

Identified Vision The Atlanta region will be one of the most connected and safest regions in the United States for walking and bicycling and use active transportation to improve the mobility, safety, and economic competitiveness for residents and communities. 5

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Major Focus Developing policies for decisionmakers to use that support a walkable and bikeable region and mapping out a pathway for local and regional partners to implement and support identified policies and programs. The framework is focused around a few regional organizing principles: 1. A focus on short trips will allow the region to maximize the benefits associated with more walking and biking. 2. An opportunistic approach to Complete Streets improvements on major streets will enable the region to make the most of limited resources 3. Create “20-minute” neighborhoods which include a mix of land uses, create a connected street grid, frequently incorporate bikeways (every half-mile) and are convenient to trails and transit Key Relevant Recommendations • • • • • • • •

Focus investments in areas that enable short trips for walking or bicycling to work, transit or daily needs Prioritize active transportation investments in parts of the regions where land use and transportation networks naturally support options for short trips Ensure that the regional system facilitates seamless transitions between active transportation and other modes, such as transit and driving, which are better suited to long trips Implement Complete Streets principles on every roadway with any project receiving federal funds Prioritize projects that have a positive impact on public health outcomes Incorporate transit access as a factor when prioritizing proposed bikeway projects Incorporate Active Transportation in Design Guidelines and Engineering Standards Create and activate pedestrian or bicycle advisory committees

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Richmond Bicycle Master Plan

Identified Vision The City of Richmond envisions a future where bicycling is an integral component of daily life. A well-connected network of bicycle infrastructure coupled with a shift in culture will create an environment that is safe and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. Major Focus To create an environment which supports bicycling as a viable means of transportation, creates a safe and welcoming place for all users within the established network, connects people to destinations with a time-efficient travel option, and establishes equal access to bicycling for all. Key Relevant Recommendations • • • • • •

Ensure that all construction projects assume some accommodations will be provided for pedestrian and bicycle access Incorporate bicycle facilities into zoning bylaws and ordinances Require the construction of sidewalks, bicycle facilities, trails, and safe crosswalks during the new development efforts Explore opportunities to revise existing easements to accommodate public access greenway/path facilities Consider bicycle facilities during [transit] route reorganization and station upgrades Consider repaving projects as an opportunity for revising pavement markings to narrow vehicle travel lanes and create space for bicycle lanes and shoulders 7

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Florida-Alabama TPO Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan, 2018

Identified Vision The TPO Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan will improve the quality of life for all communities within the TPO planning area by providing education, engineering, enforcement, equity, and encouragement of multimodal transportation choices. Major Focus This plan was designed to help identify locations where bicycle or pedestrian projects should be constructed. It considered severalfactors that could be used to help the TPO determine where to focus their resources that led to overall recommendations about prioritization. Key Relevant Recommendations •

• •

Prioritize projects which improve safety. Based upon survey data, people were more deterred from walking riding a bicycle due to vehicular sped (71 percent) than by the need to transport people or things (7 percent). The perception of safety is a key issue that should be considered in prioritization. Prioritize projects which are in the proximity of schools and connect people to them. Prioritize projects that are near an activity center. These could include any one of the following: park, trail, or greenway; transit station; employment center; residential area; or hospital/medical clinic. 8

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

• •

Prioritize projects in evidence-based/anecdotal need areas. If there is a worn pathway or cut through in adjacent grass or reports of people walking in the roadway, it is clear there is a latent demand for additional infrastructure to support walking. Prioritize projects in areas where there are high rates of zero vehicle ownership. This jurisdiction had few options for those who did not have access to a private vehicle. Focusing attention here would produce notable improvements on the assessment of transportation infrastructure

Plan Prince George’s 2035 Approved General Plan Major Focus Plan 2035 frames the path forward for Prince George’s County to achieve its Vision and is the baseline for this Master Plan of Transportation 2035. Transportation, including the built infrastructure and the modes that are used for travel both implicitly and explicitly impact the County’s guiding principles, which include: 1. Concentrate Future Growth 2. Prioritize and Focus Our Resources 9

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

3. 4. 5. 6.

Build on Our Strengths and Assets Create Choice Communities Connect Our Neighborhoods and Significant Places Protect and Value Our Natural Resources

Applying this context to the creation of a fully functional and multimodal County focuses our attention on the fifth principle of connecting neighborhoods and significant places. The policy recommendations built from the review of each of the existing master plans weighs heavily on the value of connections to connect Prince Georgians to each other and to the rest of the Washington metropolitan area. Plan 2035 uses a hierarchy of designations to help focus growth throughout the County. These include regional transit districts, local centers, neighborhood centers, campus centers, town centers, employment areas, established communities, future water and sewer service areas, and rural and agricultural areas. Within these areas, it is imperative that transportation be used as a tool that can focus planned growth to support the overall vision for the County. These designations can be used to directly influence how transportation decisions are made which can support the desired outcome of a multimodal and connected county.

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Figure 1: Regional Transit Districts and Local Centers (Plan 2035)

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Mobility in Prince George’s County The Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T) has begun the effort of addressing major gaps in the countywide transportation network through the addition of infrastructure—roadway improvements, striping, bike lane designation, road diets, and more. These improvements, while important to create a safer transportation environment for all users, has not led to the changes in the modal split desired to improve air quality, health outcomes, and increase active transportation uses. Plan 2035 identified that within the study period (2010–2019), there was no change in the mode split between walking, biking, transit, and auto trips. This indicates that there is a need for more aggressive measures and strategic policies to help lead the County toward its goal of multimodal transportation use. The County provides several alternatives to using a private automobile in the County. Many of these are offered through DPW&T for a low or reduced cost to many residents. These choices include: TheBus DPW&T provides bus service to residents and visitors on more than 28 routes which traverse over 10,000 miles of County roadways. Paratransit County residents have access to four types of paratransit services that can transport them to their destinations. Three of these options are administered by DPW&T (Call-ABus, Call-A-Cab, and Senior Transportation Services) with a focus on individuals without access to existing bus or rail service, persons with disabilities, and seniors over the age of 60. Microtransit—PGC Link Within the County, bus transportation provides an alternative to automobiles that is often not used to its fullest potential. One of the primary reasons for this is the gap between the locations where users board and alight and their final destinations. To combat this first and last mile gap, the County implemented a flexible, on-demand public transit service called PGC Link in 2020 for specific transit zones. This service, while shared with other users, is convenient and less expensive than for-profit rideshare services. Bikeshare Starting in 2017, DPW&T introduced a new transportation option for County residents by investing in bikeshare stations and bikes, currently housing 24 bikeshare stations in the County, connecting to the more than 550 stations in the Washington metropolitan area.

Policy Recommendations Based upon a review and assessment of the master plans mentioned above, there are several recommendations that can be applied throughout the County.

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

Revise roadway design standards to accommodate multimodal uses for every roadway undergoing major renovations and for newly designed infrastructure. As the County continues to see changes in the urban/suburban/rural landscape, there are opportunities to update the transportation network to encourage feelings of safety and belonging for all users. The County’s guidance for complete street design must reflect these changes to create an inclusive and comprehensive transportation network. 2. Identify metrics to assess the success of the County in an increasing modal split away from single occupancy vehicles. It should be noted that shifting the public to other forms of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles is the overall goal to improve several health and wellness outcomes. The alternative modal choice that is selected should not be of primary concern except to determine where additional infrastructure resources may be focused. 3. Modify transportation planning and assessment metrics to reduce focus on automobile movement and increase focus on people movement throughout the jurisdiction. Traditional planning processes consider the effect of vehicle movement through intersections, roadway segments, and traffic congestion as key indicators for roadway widening or interchange design or construction. These types of roadway improvements typically have a negative effect on nonvehicular modes of travel (i.e. speed, roadway surface conditions, etc.). Adjusting the assessment metrics to provide weight to the needs of nonvehicular users could increase feelings of safety that may impact travel mode splits. 4. Identify minor origin-destination pairs within Neighborhood Reinvestment Areas and Downtown Areas and monitor nonvehicular travel. Short trips via bicycle or walking (i.e. travel to school, local markets, parks, etc.) are often undercounted because they are taken by those who are not regularly part of the travel survey and assessment counts (i.e. school aged children, caregivers, etc.). Understanding these trips can help highlight their value in the planning process and identify areas where transportation resources could be reallocated in a meaningful way. 1.

5. Designate Complete Streets Corridors within every Local Center and Regional Transit District. Complete Streets are designed to accommodate all users of the network, regardless of age, ability, or mode. They are also designed to increase feelings of safety by slowing automobile traffic, increasing visibility of pedestrians and cyclists, and providing a designated space for all users. Placing these in parts of the County where growth is targeted can help provide balance for all the competing interests that want to move within the transportation network. 6. Prioritize funding of Complete Streets Corridors that connect to major destinations or job centers. In keeping with the desire of Plan 2035 to connect neighborhoods, it is important to provide individuals with options that allow them to adjust their mode split. 7. Address first and last mile gaps in the network in each of the eight regional transit districts. The lack of change to the modal split identified in the Plan 2035 study period indicates that simply having additional infrastructure in place is not enough to change travel behaviors. If using an alternative mode of transportation is not convenient and does not feel safe, this trend is likely to continue. o Create pilot zones in each transit district for PGC Link (Prince George’s County’s Microtransit service) 8. Increase County operated transit service hours to align with the needs of residents using these services. In our public engagement surveys, we included questions around 13

Multimodal Transportation Recommendations August 11, 2022

use of transit in the County. Anecdotally and specifically, the limited hours of availability for County-provided transit was a key deterrent to increased usage. 9. Measure transportation mobility success by lane-miles of completed construction of bikeways and supportive facilities. Creating a more specific set of metrics to be gathered before and after project implementation by which to assess success will help the County identify key trends in transportation use and mode share. Currently, repainting a shared bike lane is given equal weight as constructing new lane-miles of bicycle infrastructure. This dilutes any attempt to assess the performance of connections within the bicycle network. 10. Dedicate resources to educating users, marketing and promoting multimodal transportation options in the County to individuals who represent the diversity of the County (i.e. African-Americans, senior citizens, women, youth). While safety is a key deterrent for many in using alternative or active transportation modes, providing education about the many available modes, showcasing people who look like the population in the County as users, and promoting active transportation modes as a healthier and convenient option can lead to success adjusting modal decisions.

TASK 6.13

CIP and CTP Review

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Review of County CIP (Capital Improvement Project) and State Consolidated Transportation Plan (CTP) Background The Prince George’s County Planning Department is updating and replacing the Approved 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT). It is comprehensively developing goals, strategies, and policies to better implement Plan 2035, the Prince George’s County General Plan, approved in 2014. Task 6 involves the research, assessment, and report preparation of relevant existing transportation conditions and trends in the County.

Scope of Work The work completed for Task 6.13 is a comparison of all the projects listed in the Prince George’s County FY2022—2027 Approved Capital Improvement Program & Budget for the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (CIP) and the FY2022— FY 2027 Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program, 2022 State Report on Transportation (CTP) and a review of those projects for concurrence with the proposed facilities in the existing MPOT, and master and sector plans. The effort involved the identification and listing of those roadways, by segment, where work is anticipated over the next six years. This technical memo includes list of the proposed work under the CIP and CTP and identifies how that work achieves or advances the MPOT goals.

Data Collection and Existing Resources RK&K compiled a list of the projects for Prince George’s County in the FY2022—FY 2027 Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program, 2022 State Report on Transportation (CTP) and in the Prince George’s County FY2022–2027 Approved Capital Improvement Program & Budget for Public Works and Transportation (CIP). This list includes the CTP or CIP identification number , the project or roadway name, the address or project limits, the description included in the documents, and the status of the project. The projects from these two sources were compared for redundancy. Once complied, these projects were compared to the list of projects complied in Task 6.1, the projects in the Approved 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT), and those in the master and sector plans. The projects were often described differently, so a careful reading of the project description and limits was required.

Findings Roadway Projects The Maryland CTP included 25 projects and the Prince George’s County CIP included 17 projects. When the CIP and CTP were compared, only one project appeared in both reports—the reconstruction and realignment of Virginia Manor Road (Konterra Road) from Old Gunpowder Road to Muirkirk Road in Laurel. This item was listed in the CTP as TSO-04, and in the CIP as 4.66.0019. After factoring for this redundancy, the number dropped to a total of 41 projects.

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022

Once compiled, these lists of projects were compared to the list of projects from the review of unbuilt Master Plan Rights-of-Way complied in Task 6.1. Table 1 and Table 2 presented below, list the CTP and CIP projects, respectively. The tables include the project name, location, description, current status, which County plan it was included in, and whether the CIP or CTP projects are compatible with the earlier county plans. In some cases, there is not a detailed project description, but where there is sufficient right-of-way, the project was considered compatible. Ultimately, the findings were that all of the projects are physically compatible with the rights-ofway, except for one. That item is CTP Line Item MDTA-30, MD 200, the Intercounty Connector. This project is complete and open for service, but some final construction elements, including environmental mitigation and stewardship projects, are still underway. This project is included in the master plans for Subregion I (1990) and Bowie (2006); but was deleted in the 2009 MPOT east of the current MDOT ICC project limits at US 1 (Baltimore Avenue). A number of the older master and sector plans, particularly those written in the 1980s and 1990s, emphasized a need to increase roadway capacity by widening existing roads. Since that time, there has been a re-evaluation of those earlier perspectives. The more recent perspective focuses on bicyclist and pedestrian safety. It also focuses on the quality of life of residents in communities traversed by wider and higher-speed roadways. Therefore, additional rights-of-way on existing roads, and previously earmarked for additional or wider lanes are now often being used for pedestrians and bicyclists, streetscaping, and other enhancements.

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022

Table 1: Prince George’s County Roadway Projects in the MDOT CTP MDOT CTP ID# Project Name

Master or Sector Plan Reference

Compatibility with Master or Sector Plan

Design underway

Westphalia - 2007 The Heights - 2000

Compatible

Location or Project Limits

Description

Status

MD 4 and Suitland Parkway

Construct a new interchange. Bicycles and pedestrians will be accommodated where appropriate. (BRAC Related)

SHA-PG-4

MD 4, Pennsylvania Avenue

SHA-PG-6

MD 5 from Curtis Drive to MD 5, Branch Ave, Southern Avenue (1.2 miles), and MD 637, and on MD 637 (Naylor Road) Naylor Road from MD 5 to Suitland Parkway (1.4 miles)

Construct roadway and streetscape, including sidewalks and crosswalks, Neighborhood Conservation Program

Under construction

Earlier emphasis in local plan Branch Avenue Corridor was on increasing capacity, - 2008 current emphasis is on The Heights - 2000 neighborhood conservation and pedestrian safety.

SHA-PG-7

MD 210, Indian Head Highway

Construct a new interchange. Bicycles and pedestrians will be accommodated where appropriate.

Under construction

Henson Creek-South Potomac - 2006

Compatible

SHA-PG-9

MD 212A, Powder Pine Street to US 1 intersection Mill Road

Reconstruct MD 212A. Project includes sidewalk and crosswalk improvements (1.6 miles). Neighborhood Conservation Program

Under construction

MPOT - 2009

Compatible

MD 210 and Kerby Hill Road/Livingston Road

SHA-PG-11

MD 500, Queens Chapel Road

MD 208 (Hamilton Street) to Eastern Avenue (1.2 miles)

Construct landscaped median with sidewalk and crosswalk improvements. Neighborhood Conservation Program

Under construction

Earlier emphasis in local plan was on increasing capacity, Planning Area 68 - 1994 current emphasis is on neighborhood conservation and pedestrian safety.

SHA-PG-12

US 1, Baltimore Avenue

College Avenue to MD 193 (Segment 1)

Reconstruct US 1. Includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements (1.5 miles).

Under construction

College Park - 2002

Compatible

SHA-PG-13

I-95/I-495, Capital Beltway

Construct a full interchange along I-95/I-495 at the Greenbelt Metro Station and extensions of acceleration and deceleration lanes along I-95/I-495 from US 1 to MD 201.

Design underway

The Heights - 2000

Compatible

SHA-PG-15

MD 3, Robert Crain Highway

US 50 to MD 32

Project to upgrade MD 3 to address safety, operations, and mobility concerns (8.9 miles). Bicycle and pedestrian access will be provided where appropriate.

Project on hold

Subregion 5 - 2009

Compatible

SHA-PG-16

MD 4, Pennsylvania Avenue

MD 223 to I-95/I-495 (Capital Beltway) (3.1 miles)

Upgrade existing MD 4 to a multilane freeway. Bicycles and pedestrians will be accommodated where appropriate. (BRAC Related)

Planning complete

Westphalia - 2007

Compatible

SHA-PG-17

MD 5, Branch Avenue

US 301 interchange at T.B. to north of I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway (10.5 miles)

Project to upgrade existing MD 5 to a multilane freeway. Bicycles and pedestrians will be accommodated where appropriate.

Project on hold

Subregion 5 - 2009 Branch Avenue Corridor Compatible - 2008

SHA-PG-18

MD 5, Branch Avenue

MD 5 and Linda Lane

Geometric improvements

Project on hold

Subregion 5 - 2009

Compatible

SHA-PG-19

MD 210, Indian Head Highway

I-95/I-495 to MD 228 (10.0 miles)

Project to improve mobility along MD 210 and improve intersections. Bicycles and pedestrians will be accommodated where appropriate.

Evaluating potential future breakout projects with Prince George's County.

Henson Creek-South Potomac - 2006

Compatible

SHA-PG-20

US 50, John Hanson Highway

The District of Columbia to MD 704 (5.0 miles)

Feasibility study to investigate improving traffic capacity and operations for US 50.

Planning complete

Bowie - 2006

Compatible

SHA-PG-21

US 301, South Corridor Transportation Study

Between the Potomac River/Virginia state line and I95/US 50 (50.3 miles)

The South Corridor Transportation Study is a multimodal study of US 301 corridor highway and transit improvements.

Project on hold

Subregion 5 - 2009 Subregion 6 - 2009 Central Ave to Mount Oak Road

Compatible

SHA-PG-22

US 301, Crain Highway

US 301 from north of Mount Oak Project to upgrade and widen US 301 from north of Mount Oak Road to US 50 (2.0 miles), and MD Road to US 50 (2.0 miles) and 197 from US 301 to Mitchellville Road (0.3 miles). Bicycles and pedestrians will be accommodated Project on hold MD 197 from US 301 to where appropriate. Mitchellville Road (0.3 miles)

Subregion 6 - 2009

Compatible

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022 MDOT CTP ID# Project Name

Location or Project Limits

Description

Status

Master or Sector Plan Reference

Compatibility with Master or Sector Plan

MD 5 (Mattawoman Beantown Road)

Construct a new flyover from southbound US 301 to MD 5 (Mattawoman Beantown Road).

Project on hold

Subregion 5 - 2009

Compatible

Between MD 97 and I-95 (11.1 miles)

Study of MD 28/MD 198 corridor safety, capacity, and operational improvements in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, between MD 97 and I-95 (11.1 miles). Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations will be included where appropriate.

Completed the MD 198 Segment D (Old Columbia Pike to US 29A) Preliminary Planning Report

MPOT - 2009 Subregion 1 - 2010

Compatible

Subregion 1 - 1990

Compatible

SHA-PG-23

US 301, Crain Highway

SHA-PG-24

MD 28, Norbeck Road, and MD 198, Spencerville Road/Sandy Spring Road

SHA-PG-25

MD 201 Extended I-95/I-495 (Capital Beltway) to and US 1, north of Muirkirk Road (7.1 Baltimore Avenue miles)

Study of capacity improvements on MD 201 and US 1. Bicycle and pedestrian access will be considered as part of this project.

Project on hold

SHA-PG-26

MD 197, Collington Kenhill Drive to MD 450 Road Relocated (1.4 miles)

Upgrade and widen existing MD 197 to a multilane divided highway. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements will be included.

Design underway. Bowie - 2006; Limits County contributed $1.0 include former C-107; Compatible million to planning. MPOT Recommendation

SHA-PG-27

MD 202, Largo Road

Intersection at Brightseat Road

Improve the MD 202 intersection at Brightseat Road. This improvement will enhance capacity, operations, and safety of the intersection. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be included where appropriate.

Project on hold

SHA-PG-28

MD 223, Piscataway Road

Steed Road to MD 4 (7.9 miles)

A study to establish a long-term vision for the MD 223 Corridor. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities will Corridor study complete Subregion 5 - 2009 be included where appropriate.

SHA-PG-29

MD 450, Annapolis Stonybrook Drive to west of MD Upgrade and widen existing MD 450 to a multilane divided highway. Bicycle and pedestrian Road 3 (1.4 miles) facilities will be included where appropriate.

Project on hold

Bowie-Mitchellville 2021

Compatible based on available information

SHA-PG-30

US 1, Baltimore Avenue

MD 193 to I-95 (Capital Beltway) Reconstruct US 1. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be included. (Segments 2 and 3) (1.1 miles)

Planning complete.

College Park - 2002

Compatible

Montgomery County line to Baltimore Avenue

Constructed a new east-west, multi-modal highway in Montgomery County and Prince George's County between I-270 and I-95/US 1.

The facility is open to service. Final construction elements, environmental mitigation, and stewardship projects are underway.

Subregion 1 - 1990 Bowie - 2006 MPOT - 2009: Deleted east of current MDOT ICC project limits at US 1.

Compatible with Subregion 1 - 1990 and Bowie 2006, but not with MPOT - 2009

Old Gunpowder Road to Muirkirk Road, Laurel

Reconstruct and realign Virginia Manor Road (Konterra Drive) in conjunction with the construction of the Inter County Connector and the construction of Konterra development. A four-lane divided section will be constructed between Old Gunpowder Road and Muirkirk Road. Connections will be made to both the Intercounty Connector and the new I-95/Contee Road Interchange. Bicycle and Pedestrian access will be provided.

Under construction

Subregion 1 - 1990

Compatible based on available information

MD 200 Intercounty Connector

MDTA-30

Virginia Manor TSO-04 also Road (Konterra CIP # 4.66.0019 Road)

Landover Gateway 2009

Compatible Compatible, based on available information.

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022

Table 2: Roadway Projects in the Prince George’s County CIP Prince George's CIP ID#

4.66.0019 also CTP # TSO-04

Project Name

Virginia Manor Road (Konterra Road)

Location or Project Limits

Old Gunpowder Road to Muirkirk Road, Laurel

Description

Status

Reconstruct and realign Virginia Manor Road (Konterra Drive) in conjunction with the construction of the Inter County Connector and the construction of Konterra development. A four-lane divided section will be constructed between Old Gunpowder Road and Muirkirk Road. Connections will be made to both the Under construction Intercounty Connector and the new I-95/Contee Road Interchange. Bicycle and pedestrian access will be provided.

Master or Sector Plan Reference

Compatibility with Master or Sector Plan

Subregion 1 - 1990

Compatible based on available information

The first phase of this project at the intersection of Walker Mill Road and Addison Road will begin Addison Road - 2000 construction in FY 2022. The next phases of this project are on hold due to debt affordability concerns.

Addison Road I

From Walker Mill Road to MD 214, District Heights

Initially 4 travel lanes w/median. Improvements: roadway widening, crosswalks, sidewalks, landscaping, street lighting

Auth Road II

From Henderson Way to Allentown Road, Camp Springs

Auth Road, Phase II consists of reconstructing Auth Road from the new Metro Access Road to Allentown Road. This project will add capacity, implement geometric improvements, provide for bicycle lanes, Design not begun resolve storm drainage problems and enhance pedestrian access and safety. Traffic signals, sidewalks, street lighting and landscaping will be installed.

The Heights - 2000

Compatible, based on available information

Brandywine Road & MD 223 Intersection

Brandywine Road & MD 223, Clinton

Improvements at the intersection of Brandywine Road, Old Branch Ave, Piscataway Road (MD 223) and Woodyard Road (MD 223) to include, but not limited to, geometric and safety improvements including traffic signal modifications, pedestrian safety improvements, lane widening and/or additions and realignment of the existing roadways. Drainage improvements and the related stormwater management Design not begun improvements are necessary. This project is subject to Developer and County funding. Developer participation for an adequacy determination requires payment of a pro-rata share toward this project, either through a Planning Board resolution or direct agreement with the County. The project is currently shown as fully funded in the CIP and is critical to retain funding to allow the collection of private funds.

Subregion 5 - 2009

Compatible, based on available information

4.66.0053

Brandywine Road Club Priority Projects

The following improvements are in order of priority: completion of Brandywine Spine Road as a minimum 4-lane arterial roadway from Matapeake Business Drive north to MD-381; Brandywine Spine Road from MD-381 extending north and west to US-301; Brandywine Spine Road from US-301 extending west to Brandywine Area, Various MD-5. This includes any turning lanes, related signalization and pedestrian or bicycle facilities not Under construction deemed to be the responsibility of subdivider. Priority may also be given to improvements on MD 5 in Planning Area 85A agreed to by the State and County which improve safety at intersections with County roadways.

Subregion 5 - 2009

Compatible

4.66.0042

From US 1 to Sellman Cherry Hill Road III Road, Beltsville

Reconstructs 1.6 miles of Cherry Hill Road from Sellman Road to Little Paint Branch, north of US Route 1, and includes widening two bridges and replacing one. The project will reconstruct the existing two-lane Design not begun roadway to provide additional traffic lanes. Also included are bike trails, sidewalks, additional traffic signals and street lighting.

College Park - 2002

Compatible

4.66.0018

Church Road Improvements

From Woodmore Road to MD 214, Woodmore

Geometric and safety improvements to Church Road between Woodmore Road and MD 214 (Central Avenue). Improvements will include intersection improvements, local realignment of the roadway, and the addition of shoulders and roadside drainage where necessary. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway will be improved.

Design not begun

Bowie - 2006

Compatible

4.66.0007

Contee Road Reconstruction

From US 1 to MD 201, Laurel

Reconstruction of Contee Road from US Route 1 to the proposed Konterra Drive east (MD 206). The improvements will include the construction of a four-lane divided roadway with median, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals, curb and gutter and landscaping.

Under construction

Subregion 1 - 1990

Compatible

4.66.0048

Livingston Road

Urban reconstruction of Livingston Road at various locations. Implementation will be phased as funding From MD 210 to St. and priorities permit since the overall length of Livingston Road is 14.8 miles. Capacity improvements Barnabas Road, Oxon Hill and pedestrian safety improvements will be included.

Design not begun

Henson Creek-South Potomac - 2006

Compatible based on available information

4.66.0024

4.66.0041

4.66.0052

Compatible, based on available information

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022 Prince George's CIP ID# 10

4.66.0043

Project Name

Lottsford Road III

Location or Project Limits

Description

Status

Master or Sector Plan Reference

Compatibility with Master or Sector Plan

From Archer Lane to Lottsford Vista Road, Mitchellville

Widen Lottsford Road from Archer Lane to Lottsford Vista Road to provide for four travel lanes, two in each direction. In addition, the work will include the construction of an additional bridge over Western Branch.

Design not begun

Bowie - 2006

Compatible

From Westphalia Road to Dower House Road, Clinton

Improvements along MD 4 in the vicinity of Westphalia Road and Dower House Road as follows: Additional westbound through lane from MD 223 to 1,200 ft east of Dower House Road connecting to the Suitland Parkway project two additional westbound through lanes beginning 1,200 ft east of Dower Design not begun House Road and ending at the double left turn lanes at Suitland Parkway; and two additional eastbound through lanes beginning 1,200 ft west of Suitland Parkway and ending 1,200 ft east of Dower House Road.

Westphalia - 2007

Compatible based on available information

Henson Creek/South Potomac - 2006

Compatible based on available information

Henson Creek/South Potomac - 2006

Compatible based on available information

4.66.0044

MD 4 (Pennsylvania Avenue)

4.66.0051

Maryland 210 Corridor Transportation Improvements

From Charles County line to I-95/I-495, Fort Washington

Design and construction of various improvements to MD 210 corridor. These include, but are not limited to, geometric and safety improvements, including interchange construction, traffic signal modifications, lane widening and/or additions and realignment of existing roadways and pedestrian safety improvements along the MD 210 corridor. Funding is provided through the revenue generated by the MGM resort casino video lottery terminal (VLT) funds; 40% of VLT funds must be designated to the MD 210 corridor per State law.

Oxon Hill Road

Cross Foxes Drive to Harbor View Avenue, Oxon Hill

This project consists of three phases. Phase I(completed), involved resurfacing Oxon Hill Road from Livingston Road to Fort Foote Road North. Phase II involves reconstructing Oxon Hill Road as a collector roadway with curbs, gutters, in-pavement bicycle lanes and closed storm drainage systems from the Under construction National Harbor entrance road to 1,000 feet south of Fort Foote Road North. Phase III involves the further improvement of Oxon Hill Road between Fort Foote Road North to MD 210 to the south.

Rhode Island Avenue

Rehabilitating Rhode Island Avenue in three phases, from MD 193 to US Route 1. Phase I(completed), involved constructing a signalized intersection with turn lanes at Edgewood Road, construction of traffic calming measures, related intersection improvements, bicycle trail/shoulder lanes and the resurfacing of From MD 193 to US Route the roadway.It also included minor improvements to Rhode Island Avenue at the Sunnyside Avenue 1, Beltsville intersection. The total project length is approximately 11,000 feet from MD 193 north to US Route 1. Phase II will involve further improvements between US Route 1 and Edgewood Road. Phase III will extend from Edgewood Road to MD 193.

Design not begun

MPOT - 2009

Compatible based on available information

Suitland Road

Redeveloping and widening Suitland Road to four lanes from Allentown Road to Suitland Parkway. The From Allentown Road to project includes landscaping, streetscape improvements, installation of curbs and sidewalk, streetlights, Suitland Parkway, Suitland crosswalks, traffic signals and other special features. The project also includes replacing the Henson Creek Bridge.

Design not begun

Central Branch - 2013

Compatible

4.66.0032

Surratts Road

Upgrading of Surratts Road to a collector-type roadway. Project extends from Beverly Avenue westward to Brandywine Road. Improvements include Brandywine Road from Thrift Road to approximately 500 Beverly Ave to Brandywine feet north of Surratts Road. A portion of Surratts Road will be relocated to improve the alignment of the Road to Thrift Road, intersection at Brandywine Road. Phase II will provide improvements from Summit Creek Dr. to Beverly Rosaryville Ave, approximately 1,500 feet. and will complete the construction of Surratts Road to a four-lane collector roadway.

Under construction

Subregion 6 - 2009

Compatible

4.66.0047

U.S. 301 Improvements

MD 214 to south of MD 725, Mitchellville

Subregion 6 - 2009

Compatible based on available information

4.66.0025

4.66.0013

4.66.0015

Design not begun

Improving US 301 by providing a third through lane north and south bound between MD 214 and MD 4 to accommodate lane transition; and further widening, as needed, at Trade Zone Avenue, MD 214 and MD Design not begun 725. Associated intersection improvements at Old Central Avenue, Trade Zone Avenue, Leeland Road, Village Drive West and Queen Court also will be undertaken.

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022

Countywide and Non-Site-Specific Projects in the Prince George’s County CIP The CIP identifies 17 line-items that are countywide or at various locations. These projects, listed in Table 3, include curb and road rehabilitation projects, emergency repairs, community enhancements, traffic congestion improvements, and other items.

Table 3: Countywide and Non-Site-Specific Projects in the Prince George's County CIP Prince George's CIP ID# 1

Project Name

4.66.0026 DPW&T Facilities

4.66.0040

Location

Description

Project Class

Status

Various Locations

Improvements and rehabilitation of Department of Public Works & Transportation facilities in Glenn Dale, Brandywine, Forestville, Inglewood and at the flood control pumping stations.

Rehabilitation

Under construction

Project will involve the creation of multiple projects to make roadway improvements that will enhance pedestrian safety, particularly along Rehabilitation roadways or at intersections which have a and New history of crashes. Priority will be given to roadways with high Construction incidences of pedestrianrelated crashes.

Under construction

Countywide

Funding for a variety of street improvements necessitated by new development. Improvements include, but are not limited to, traffic signals, intersection modifications, roadway widening, new construction, resurfacing, landscaping, and contributions to a variety Rehabilitation of State highway projects. The scope of work incorporates stormwater management treatment for legacy impervious areas for MS4/NPDES credits.

Under construction

Countywide

Facilitate design and construction of unanticipated damages to existing roadways, bridges and drainage structures that require immediate attention due to emergency conditions that may affect public health, safety, and welfare. project will also facilitate emergency repairs to traffic signals that are damaged due to vehicular crashes.

Rehabilitation

Under construction

Countywide

Improvements along major roadways and at key intersections to improve appearance, safety and functionality while addressing environmental issues.

Rehabilitation

Under construction

Pedestrian Safety Various Improvements Locations

Developer 4.66.0031 Contribution Projects

Emergency Repairs4.66.0049 Roadways & Bridges

4.66.0008

Green Street Improvements

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022 Prince George's CIP ID#

Project Name

County 4.66.0003 Revitalization & Restoration 2

Curb & Road 4.66.0002 Rehabilitation 2

Location

Description

Countywide

Infrastructure improvements and reconstruction in areas targeted for revitalization. Improvements will include the installation of traffic signals, intersection modifications, drainage structures, street lighting, landscaping, water quality and quantity measures, bicycle Rehabilitation lanes, sidewalks, and other amenities necessary to improve or expand existing roadway infrastructure while enhancing the appearance of the community.

Under construction

Countywide

Funding for rehabilitating County streets, curbs and sidewalks, various safety improvements, installing new sidewalks, construction sidewalk ramps in accordance with ADA Standards, landscaping, traffic calming improvements, revitalization improvements and guardrail installations.

Rehabilitation

Under construction

Revolving fund designed to provide a source of road construction appropriations and funds for projects that a developer failed to complete and was obligated to complete, thereby forfeiting the permit's bond. The fund provides cash advances pending County recovery of the defaulted bond monies. This project also provides a source of funds collected from sign violations along County roads rights of way. Where feasible, projects covered by this fund are completed by DPW&T Office of Highway Maintenance or by individual contracts or work orders.

Rehabilitation

Under construction

Permit Bond Various 4.66.0022 Default Revolving Locations Fund

9.66.0001

Planning & Site Acquisition 2

Countywide

Project Class

Funding for acquiring land for road rights-of-way, reforestation mitigation, and wetland banking in developing areas of the County. Land The demolition of structures on acquired land is also included. It also Acquisition provides funding for future project planning studies in order to verify need, determine scope and develop preliminary cost estimates.

Status

Design stage

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022 Prince George's CIP ID#

Project Name

Location

Description

Project Class

Status

Not assigned

1.66.0002 Sound Barriers

Various Locations

Local funding for the phased construction by the State Highway Administration (SHA) of sound barriers throughout Prince George's County. barriers that have been completed include: I-95 Cherry Hill Road Overpass to CSX Railroad (Knollwood; Powder Mill Estate and Hollywood); I-95 Temple Hill Road to MD 5 (Yorkshire Village, New Temple Hills Terrace and Woodlane), I-95 Auth Road Overpass Construction (Auth Village and Princeton Square); I-95 between MD 450; MD 704 (Lanham and Springdale); the vicinity of MD 410 and US 50; I-95 the vicinity of the Good Luck Estates and Kingswood; I-95 north of MD 212 (Calverton area); and I-95 north of Brooklyn Bridge Road (Laurel Ridge area).

South County 4.66.0050 Roadway Improvements

Various Locations

Intersection improvements to include, but not limited to, geometric and safety improvements including traffic signal modifications, pedestrian safety improvements, drainage improvements, lane widening and/or additions and realignment of existing roadways.

Rehabilitation

Design stage

Countywide

Installing traffic control signals and new streetlights at various locations throughout the County. program includes installing new signals, upgrading existing signals, replaceingaging signals, the Energy Abatement Program, installing traffic surveillance cameras and communications equipment, and the upgrading existing street lighting on County roadways. This project also provides some funding for technology support for the TRIP (Traffic Response and Information Partnership) Center.

Rehabilitation

Under construction

Countywide

Funding to remove and replace street trees located on road rights-ofway throughout the County. This includes the development of a detailed street tree inventory. Resources are provided to support projects required to be performed in accordance with federal and Replacement state mandates as identified in the Countywide NPDES Permit. In addition, This project will provide funding to replace Bradford Pear Street Trees countywide.

Under construction

Upper Marlboro Area

Revitalization of downtown Upper Marlboro to include roadways, sidewalks, visitors center, building facades and streetscape improvements.

Design not begun

1.66.0001

Streetlights and Traffic Signals 2

Street Tree 4.66.0021 Removal and Replacement

8.66.0002

Town of Upper Marlboro

Rehabilitation

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022 Prince George's CIP ID#

Project Name

Location

Description

Countywide

Roadway enhancements including additional turning lanes, improved approaches, traffic signals, signage at various intersections, bus stop pads, traffic calming devices, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, and Rehabilitation thermoplastic pavement markings. This project will also provide roadway improvements to enhance pedestrian safety, particularly along roadways or at intersections with a history of crashes.

Under construction

Countywide

Major roadway improvements and other public infrastructures in proximity to the County's Metro Stations. Street, bridge, and intersection improvements are included to increase the capacity of the roadway network and to facilitate and improve safety of all modes of transportation. Improvements may include roadway widening and reconstruction, drainage improvements, traffic signal installation, street trees, streetlights, storm drainage systems, water quality and quantity improvements and all other improvements necessary to design and construct complete green streets.

Infrastructure

Not assigned

Transportation Countywide Enhancements 2

Transportation improvements which are time sensitive. Work may entail, but will not be limited to, requirements associated with ADA Standards, bus stop pads, traffic calming devices, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, thermoplastic pavement markings to provide maximum safety and nighttime visibility, spot safety road improvements and installation and repair of guardrail.

Rehabilitation

Under construction

Utility Repair Project

Make proper repairs to the streets and roads that have been damaged by the various utility companies laying utility lines under the County right-of-way. Such utility cuts have proliferated in recent years due to additional cable and telecommunication services that must be supported through underground installations.

Infrastructure

Under construction

Traffic 4.66.0004 Congestion Improvements 2

Transit Oriented 4.66.0039 Development Infrastructure

4.66.0005

4.66.0014

Countywide

Project Class

Status

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022

Bridge Projects The CTP and the CIP both include bridge or bridge deck replacements. These are not included in the master or sector plans as they are maintenance projects. There are 12 individual bridges identified for replacement or rehabilitation in the CTP in six CTP line-items shown in Table 4. Table 5 identifies eight specific bridges in the CIP and includes two line-items for general bridge replacement or rehabilitation funding.

Table 4: Bridge Projects in the Maryland CTP MDOT CTP #

Project

Location

Status

SHA-PG-1

Replace bridges 1616205 and 1616206 over Suitland Road

I-95/I-495, Capital Beltway

Under construction

SHA-PG-2

Replace bridges 1616005 and 1616006 over Suitland Parkway

I-95/I-495, Capital Beltway

Under construction

SHA-PG-3

Replace bridges 1615305 and 1615306 over MD 214

I-95/I-495, Capital Beltway

Under construction

SHA-PG-5

Replacement of the bridge decks for bridges 1609903 and 1609904 over MD 717 and full replacement of bridges 1610803 and 1610804 over Race Track Road

MD 4, Pennsylvania Avenue Engineering underway

SHA-PG-8

Replace bridge 16090 over Northeast Branch Anacostia River

MU 277, Riverdale Road

Engineering underway

SHA-PG-10

Replace bridge 16061 over Charles Branch

MD 382, Croom Road

Engineering underway

Table 5: Bridge Projects in the Prince George's County CIP CIP ID #

Project

Bridge 4.66.0029 Replacement Brandywine Road

Location

Project Description

Over Piscataway Creek, Clinton

Replaces the existing structure over Piscataway Creek, constructs scour countermeasures within the creek to protect the bridge substructure, lengthens, widens and raises the structure, and reconstructs the approach roadways. The existing bridge, constructed of concrete, is posted for 22,000 pounds and is in a deteriorated condition.

Status

Design stage

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022

CIP ID #

Project

Location

Project Description

Bridge 4.66.0046 Replacement Chestnut Avenue

Over Newstop Branch, Bowie

Replaces the Chestnut Avenue Bridge over Newstop Branch and reconstructs the approach roadways. The replacement bridge will be longer, wider, and higher than the existing structure. The approach roadways will be modified to reflect the changes to the bridge.

Bridge Replacement 4.66.0038 Governor Bridge Road

Replaces the existing structure. It is a single lane Pratt through-truss bridge with steel stringers and steel beams with an open grid steel deck. Over the Patuxent The structure is load posted for 4,000 pounds and carries a sufficiency River, Bowie rating of 2. Federal funding will be utilized for design and construction of the project at a 80/20 federal/local funding ratio. This structure is jointly owned by Prince George's County and Anne Arundel County.

Status Design stage

Design stage

Bridge 4.66.0028 Replacement Livingston Road

Over Piscataway Creek, Clinton

Replace the existing Livingston Road Bridge over Piscataway Creek, reconstruct the approach roadways and install sidewalks, streetlights and landscaping. The replacement bridge will be longer, wider and higher than the existing bridge. Scour counter measures will also be constructed Design stage to protect the bridge foundation. Right of way, wetlands mitigation and necessary roadway rehabilitation beyond the bridge and approach limits are anticipated to be County funded. The bridge is currently load restricted to 58,000 pounds and was originally constructed in 1932.

Bridge 4.66.0009 Replacement Oxon Hill Road

Over Henson Creek, Fort Washington

Replaces the existing structure, Bridge No. P0310, over Henson Creek and constructs scour countermeasures within the creek channel to protect the bridge substructure. In addition to the construction of a larger and wider structure, the approach roadways will be realigned and reconstructed in accordance with the area's master plan.

Bridge 4.66.0027 Replacement Sunnyside Avenue

Replaces the Sunnyside Avenue Bridge over Indian Creek and widens Over Indian Creek, the roadway west of the CSX crossing to Kenilworth Avenue (MD 201). Beltsville The original bridge was built in 1946 and rehabilitated in 1966 and 1974.

Bridge 4.66.0010 Replacement Temple Hill Road

Over Pea Hill Branch, Clinton

Design not begun

Under construction

Replaces the existing structure, Bridge No. P1505 over Pea Hill Branch with a larger, wider and higher structure. The replacement bridge will be 36 feet long and 68 feet wide to improve vehicular safety and to Under construction accommodate pedestrians and bicycle usage. The roadway approaches will be improved on both sides of the bridge, from Salima Street to 1500feet north, for nighttime visibility and eliminate the sag vertical curve in the vicinity. Roadway lighting will be included.

Review of County CIP August 11, 2022

CIP ID #

Project

Bridge 4.66.0037 Replacement Varnum Street

Bridge 4.66.0045 Rehabilitation Federal Aid

10 4.66.0001

Bridge Repair & Replacement 2

Location

Project Description

Status

Over Edmonston Road Channel, Bladensburg

Replacing the Varnum Street Bridge over the Edmonston Road Channel. The original bridge was built in 1958 and reconstructed in 1982. It is load Design not begun posted for 6,000 pounds.

Countywide

This project provides funding to replace and/or rehabilitate County bridges based on the Maryland State Highway Administration sufficiency Design not begun ratings. It also provides funding for small scale and emergency capital repairs to various bridges located throughout the County.

Countywide

Funding to replace and/or rehabilitate County bridges based on the Maryland State Highway Administration sufficiency ratings. It also provides funding for small scale and emergency capital repairs to various Under construction bridges located throughout the County. This project is also used to inspect and improve/replace pedestrian bridges to better facilitate pedestrian access and mobility.

TASK 6.14

Trails Strategic Plan

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Trails and Bikeways Network Assessment

This review of major trail and bikeway planning in Prince George’s County over the past 15 years, along with related project lists and maps, recommends next steps for the update of the Master Plan of Transportation. In 2009, the Prince George’s County Planning Department developed the Master Plan of Transportation to provide strategic planning, evaluation, and implementation guidance for the County’s growing multimodal transportation network. It defined four sets of core recommendations, with trails, bikeways, and pedestrian mobility as one of the four. To provide more detailed guidance on trail implementation, the Department of Parks and Recreation developed the 2018 Strategic Trails Plan. In 2020, the County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T), developed a pedestrian and bicycle facility implementation program, known as the Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Implementation Program. This plan used the most current Figure 1: Central Avenue Corridor Trail Rendering bikeway facility data to display existing and planned on-road and off-road facilities. Using an interactive map, this plan invited the public to locate and describe further bicycling and walking improvements that they felt were needed. This project includes all planned and existing trails in the County, along with an up-to-date and detailed GIS database with extensive public input and a list of 30 prioritized projects. In the fall of 2021, M-NCPPC initiated an update of the Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT 2035). One of the key elements of the update includes addressing on-road and off-road bikeways as well as pedestrian accommodations. Building on prior planning efforts and relevant transportation recommendations, MPOT 2035 will serve as the roadmap for a safe and equitable multimodal transportation network.

A note on terminology: Most of the planning documents developed to date refer to various types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities as “trails.” This memo mostly reflects that terminology. However, the new Master Plan of Transportation will use “Shared-Use Path” instead, along with a host of other terms from the updated Maryland Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Review of Existing Plans The consultant team reviewed existing countywide plans, GIS data, and related work conducted over the past 15 years.

Trails Network Assessment August 11, 2022

2009 Master Plan of Transportation The 2009 MPOT contains an extensive chapter on trails titled “Chapter IV: Trails, Bikeways, and Pedestrian Mobility.” The vision for trails and bikeways within the 2009 Master Plan of Transportation was to “develop a comprehensive network of paved and natural surface trails, sidewalks, neighborhood trail connections, and on-road bicycle facilities for transportation and recreation use” (2009 MPOT). By including bicycle and pedestrian facilities in MPOT, the County would have an opportunity for planned trails and bikeways to be built through a variety of implementation opportunities. Elements of the chapter include: 1. Definitions of bikeway types. 2. 31 policies related to trail and bikeway planning and design 3. A list and map of 219 specific trail and bikeway facility segments that should be considered for implementation (See Attachments 1 and 2)

Figure 2: The cover of the 2009 MPOT

The 2009 MPOT sets policy goals surrounding roadways, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and trails, bikeways, and pedestrian mobility. The goals included in the trails, bikeways, and pedestrian mobility chapter are important to acknowledge and understand as they serve as the basis of making informed decisions of what is to be included in MPOT 2035. These policy goals are listed below. 1. Providing a continuous network of sidewalks, bikeways, and trails. 2. Developing a comprehensive and accessible trail network designed to meet the recreational needs of all trail groups. 3. Providing bicycle-compatible road improvements along the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail. 4. Improving pedestrian and bicycle access to the existing parkland, natural features, historic sites, and recreational opportunities along the Potomac River corridor from surrounding communities. 5. Accommodating trail connections within this corridor on public parkland and within public roads rights-of-ways. Each of the goals include several specific policies and most of the policies included specific strategies for implementation. The trails and bikeways included in MPOT 2035 are important because not only do they represent the County’s long-term priorities for trail design and construction, they also serve as a guide for which facilities must be implemented during the roadway construction and development review process. In addition to the bike facilities included in the 2009 MPOT, small area master plans and sector plans also proposed trails and bikeways. Identification of specific trail and bikeway facilities in MPOT 2035 sets them up for implementation in a variety of ways, including: • The real estate development process • State and County roadway maintenance, reconstruction or new construction projects • The capital budget process of the Department of Parks and Recreation • Mitigation for environmental impacts of federally-funded projects • Municipal or grant-funded projects 2

Trails Network Assessment August 11, 2022

•

Part of non-transportation utility and infrastructure development projects

2018 Strategic Trails Plan In 2014, the County’s General Plan (Plan 2035) revealed overwhelming support for building more trails. It called for a more systematic approach to trail planning, design, and construction. In response, the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) produced the Strategic Trails Plan to “provide more detailed guidance related to trail implementation and program development.” The plan was developed to guide DPR with respect to trail development and management as well as to create a framework for trail planning and development that can be used countywide. It was approved by the Planning Board in November 2018.The plan:

Figure 3: The cover of the 2018 Strategic Trails Plan

1. 2. 3. 4.

Developed an inventory of paved and natural surface trails. Developed definitions and a framework for organizing the various types of trails. Provided formal recommendations that included specific strategies and actions. Identified physical and institutional barriers to trail development and opportunities to overcome such barriers. 5. Assessed policies, practices, and activities related to trails and bikeways maintenance and implementation. The inventory of existing and proposed trail mileage designated both paved and natural surface trails in the County, along with DPR and non-DPR owned trails. The report noted that there are 333.2 miles in existing trails (120 miles paved and 115.1 miles natural surface). Additionally, there are 725.1 miles of proposed trail additions, (625.4 miles paved and 99.7 miles natural surface). Attachment 3 is a map of existing and proposed trails from the plan. The 2018 plan also established new terminology for different trail types to allow for different levels of design in different contexts.

Figure 4: New Trails Classification Map

One of the Strategic Trails Plan’s primary contributions was to reclassify off-road trails based upon their function as opposed to their surface type or user mode. The new classification system separates recreation trails from those that are used for transportation and recreation. Shared-use paths that are used for both transportation and recreation are further sub-divided as primary and secondary.

Trails Network Assessment August 11, 2022

Primary Shared-Use Paths are those that provide the highest quality recreation and transportation experience, typically in a greenway or park-like setting, and provide a contiguous network throughout the County. They are part of a regional bicycle and pedestrian pathway system and should link all of the activity centers identified in Plan 2035. Secondary Trails (also shared-use paths) include off-road sidepaths built adjacent to major roadways as basic bicycle and pedestrian accommodations; also path systems within residential communities, and the many spurs and extensions of the primary network provide enhanced connectivity. Recreation Trails include paved-loop trails in parks and other institutional settings, and natural surface (dirt) trails designed for hiking, mountain biking, equestrian use, and/or general access through natural areas. In addition to providing definitions and frameworks, the Strategic Trails Plan included a variety of recommendations for prioritization, implementation, and long-term network management. It includes the following recommendations and strategies, along with specific action items: 1. Coordinating trail planning and development a. Educate and expand DPR staff working on trails b. Maintain trail planning data. c. Evaluate new park trails opportunities using the criteria like equity and environment d. Undertake targeted trail planning and feasibility studies in stream valleys and underserved neighborhoods. e. Act as a clearinghouse for trail issues and inquiries f. Update the Master Plan of Transportation and formalize design standards for trails. g. Coordinate plan implementation with the Planning Department and ongoing master plans, sectors plans, and real estate development. h. Inform and engage partner agencies in trails development. i. Provide trail development guidance to developers. j. Represent the County with regional and national organizations promoting trail development. 2. Adopting new policies to improve trail implementation a. Adopt new policies at DPR to guide the trail development process. b. Seek changes in County and State regulatory processes to reduce trail development time and cost. 3. Managing the park trail network effectively a. Upgrade trail infrastructure to enhance user experience b. Increase operational services like maintenance coordinators and trail rangers c. Improve public safety communication and coordination 4. Maintaining the park trail network a. Address the backlog of maintenance needs (resurfacing, invasive species removal, etc.) b. Establish comprehensive trail maintenance program 5. Activating the trail network a. Improve trail marketing 4

Trails Network Assessment August 11, 2022

b. Add educational and training offerings related to trails activities (bike classes). c. Use trail as a venue for more DPR programming. 6. Creating trail partnerships a. Grow the community constituencies that support trails (WABA, Anacostia Watershed Society, etc.) b. Develop formal partnerships with municipalities and with the private sector

2021 Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Implementation Program This effort, headed by DPW&T, “combines current pedestrian and bicycle plans into one updated plan.” The Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Implementation Program was prompted by high rates of change in the County’s development patterns, demographics, and priorities. This initiative also includes on-road bikeways, but the comprehensive, interactive mapping component includes all existing and planned bikeways in the County. Through this program, DPW&T was able to identify priority projects that they will fund over the next five years with $15 million allocated in local funding plus state and federal grants. The planning process resulted in a short list of top tier projects. 1. Public Outreach 2. Existing Conditions Review and Analysis 3. Identify Recommended Projects 4. Prioritization of Projects 5. Project Implementation After compiling robust existing conditions data, the County created a web-based mapping tool to gather public knowledge on bicycle and pedestrian conditions. This map reflected all relevant plans, studies, and future projects. The prioritization process used four factors used for the scoring and ranking of projects: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Demand: Prioritizes segments where bicycling can potentially occur daily. Safety: Prioritizes segments with a history of bicycle-involved collisions. Connectivity: Prioritizes segments that link existing and proposed facilities. Equity: Prioritizes segments in active transportation and transit-dependent communities.

Trails Network Assessment August 11, 2022

After the prioritization process was completed, the resulting rankings were split into three separate tiers to aid in the final project selection process. The accompanying GIS database associated with this work is a good place to start for the update of the Master Plan of Transportation since it reflects the most updated data and recent and extensive public input. Most of the projects identified in the networks project are also included in the 2009 MPOT. Attachment 4 is a map of proposed trails and bikeways from this program.

Figure 5: Network Prioritization Weights Breakdown Graph

Trails Network Assessment August 11, 2022

Existing and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Mileage Progress has been made on trail and bikeway implementation since the last Master Plan of Transportation, along with continuous maintenance and improvement efforts. Below is a table of existing and proposed trails and bikeways based on the three major planning efforts described above. Table 1: Existing and Proposed Trails and Bikeways (2021) Existing

Proposed

Total Mileage

Primary Trail (Paved)

65.5

293

358

Secondary Trails (paved)

181

115.1

333.2

Recreational Trails (Paved and Unpaved)

153

102

255

Bike Lanes

63.9

33.8

97.7

5.8

500.5

549.7

1049.7

Separated Bike Lanes Totals

Source: Prince George’s County Department of Parks and Recreation. [numbers undergoing additional verification]

Initial Public Input According to the online MPOT survey conducted in January and February 2022, 70 percent of the 255 respondents walk or bike regularly as a mode of transportation. Six percent switched to bicycling during the pandemic. Lack of bike lanes is the biggest factor when asked, “What impacts your current use of active transportation?” Bicycling and walking also came up during the agency, municipal, and public meetings as well as the Active Transportation Advisory Group meetings conducted as part of this planning process. Some of the themes included: 1. Maintenance. There is a general lack of maintenance on existing trails and a lack of clarity on who is responsible for maintenance, particularly on trails along roadways outside the park system. We need a better understanding of who will maintain new trails before we build them. 2. Geographic equity. There is a lack of trails and bikeways in the southern part of the County. 3. Implementation. We need to build more of the planned trails 4. Sharrows. There should be better guidance on when to use shared-lane markings, if ever. 5. Transit Connections. We need more trail and bikeway connections to Metro stations. 6. Protected Bike Lanes. Add more protected bike lanes and connections to protected bike lanes. 7. Sidewalks. Add and repair sidewalks. 8. Education. Add more Vision Zero material to driver training materials. 7

Trails Network Assessment August 11, 2022

9. Wayfinding. Add more, and more consistent, wayfinding signs on the trail and bikeway network. 10. Some specific projects mentioned in the public involvement process include: a. MD 564 b. Richie Marlboro Road c. Brown Station Road d. Central Avenue Corridor e. Better connections to the Henson Creek Trail f. Prince George’s Connector (to the Metropolitan Branch Trail)

Next Steps for MPOT 2035 Based on the preliminary review of the existing trails and bikeway work over the past 15 years, the following is the recommended approach to guide the County in the development of the trail and bikeways portion of the 2022 Master Plan of Transportation: 1. Develop a detailed database on the current existing conditions including existing and proposed facilities. 2. Confirm the facility type definitions and framework first identified in the 2018 Strategic Trails Plan. Doing so will allow for consistent language to be used by all County staff, contractors, developers, and stakeholders moving forward. 3. Focus on the future network of all proposed facilities rather than reprioritizing projects. (There have been two major, recent prioritization efforts) 4. Review the 27 policy goals in the 2009 MPOT, update them as necessary, and vet them with the public.

Much has changed in the field of Active Transportation Planning since the 2009 MPOT, as has some of the thinking within the County about which facilities are appropriate for which corridors. There is increased understanding of factors like traffic speed and volume as well as environmental resource sensitivity and racial and economic equity. New national guidelines on facility selection also reflect some of these changes. MPOT 2035 will incorporate these factors as well as all the recent planning work, to create a trail and bikeway for the next two decades.

Attachment 1 2009 MPOT Trail Map

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department www.mncppc.org/pgco

C O U N TY W ID

ST A M

COUNTYWIDE MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION November 2009 Bikeways and Trails

PL N A

Transportation

Trails, Bikeways, and Pedestrian Mobility Policies

Bridge R klyn oa d oo

Mont gom er y d

ll R

U V U V 216

Spring Roa S a n dy d

owd e

AC-1

Gun p

59 A-

t ee R

oa d

ne y

R o ad

! Mui rkir kR

Pik

oad

ore

Roa

U V

Mon t g ome r y R oa

Cher

kw a y

Ro ad

n Pa r

hin g t o

Du c

564

Ba l t i

elt

m ore

Sta

tion

-Was

Riggs

An n

ive Dr

sy nn

Queen

o ad

Ann eB r id g

oa d

ke A

rbo

rW ay

U V

m p us Way

U V

193

978

n ch

Ritc hie

il r Tra

Lar

Ro ad

La r

ad Ro

ach Ra il Tra il

Clagett Landing

pe ak e B e

Road ion

Chesa

D'Arcy Road

Roa d

ranch Trail nB ter

d Roa

ouse ite H Wh

oad

s We

v i l le

ll R

t at

est

F or ad Ro

Bro w

Oak Gro ve Road

202

Mi l l R o a d Walker

Lee

l a nd

a te

U V ad

o ul

go Lar

§ ¦ ¨

o ad

Roa d

Ri ent

B ra

e v ar d

e st

eR Q ueen Ann

Churc h Road

Hill Ro

thw So u

301

978

214

U V

Central Avenue

£ ¤

Paux

fis h e

ad Ro

d Roa

Arena Drive

W alk

458

v i ll

rise

704

V U

ch an Br

Mit

e ll

Ro ad e rp

U V

Mt. Oak Road

En t

L ottsfo rd R o

Road oore dm

ill M

ad Ro

ff Roa

oo W

sta

C a t t a il B r a n c h ove r

Road

d Vi

Dod ge P

Tr ai

Lottsfor

r Canoe Trail

U V Lan d

r n o r Bridge

d oa hR

m rda

u rc

ll B

av e

ton

ark

704

ing

197

U V

oll

U V

£ ¤ ld

e Lower B

! ue

ad ive nh

ill o ad

in R

301

704

ad Ro

£ ¤

193

U V

! (! !

il Tra

MARC Train Stations

Ave n

ir Drive Bela

U V

Alcona Street

E ll

ran

ont

953

Metrorail Train Stations

chm

976

450

202

U V

V U V U

U V

450

Car ro

llat

M arl bo ro Pi

U V

Road pel ha

U V

reet

Amtrack Train Stations

l Ro pe

564

rth

e as

410

Pros pe c

U V

A B& W

Quincy St

c kl e dg

Old

il ra il T dC

Kenilwo rth Av en u

ch T r ai l

oad lR H il

Dr ive

21 MD d(

U V ! (

332

Purple Line Locally Preferred Alternative Train Stations

U V

450

Tra nch Bra

Stree

V U 197

94th

450

-34

U V

Riverdale Road

V U

ay rden Parkw

* 1

Princess Ga

410

Sheri

! !

! (

Road olis ap

ALT

P a l m er Drive

208

ver

ALT

U V

e gfi rin

Han o

V U V ! (U

rk w a n Pa llto

201

a rk

bin

! (

501

Greenbelt R oa d C

Purple Line Locally Preferred Alternative

ad Ro

Planned Bike Lanes

Metro Orange Line

Good Luck Road

e Avenu

Metro Green Line

V U

wn R o a ketto

495

Rollins

Existing Bike Lanes

Federal

ad Ro on

Metro Blue Line

National Park System

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

di s Ad

Planned Sidepaths

State Protected

d oa

Railroad

M-NCPPC Parks

Oliver Street illu

x rail rT ive

Road

hi R elp

Existing Sidepaths

Planned Bike Routes, Shared Use Roads

U V

! ! * 1 !

Existing Bike Routes, Shared Use Roads

U V

o ad

193

U ( ! ! ! ( (

igg

Miles 2.5

e Avenue

193

! (

Road

! (

POLICY 5: Evaluate new development proposals in the Developed and Developing Tiers for conformance with the complete streets principles.

Planned Water Trails

am B e a v er D

A d e lp

POLICY 4: Develop bicycle-friendly roadways in conformance with the latest standards and guidelines, including the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Existing Water Trails

-1

! !

Metzerott Road

LEGEND

n y s id

R der M i ll Pow

201

V U 650

Ro a

tR en

ry Hill

S un

212

U V

ow ie

212

495

U V

§ ¦ ¨

POLICY 1: Provide standard sidewalks along both sides of all new road construction within the Developed and Developing Tiers.

u re

Odell Road

212

Complete Streets Policies

197

U V

Photo courtesy of Oxon Hill Bicycle and Trail Club.

POLICY 12: Develop a safe school routes strategy as an integral part of a comprehensive Prince George’s County complete streets policy.

alt

dale

en Amm

POLICY 11: Develop theme-based marketing of major hiker/biker/equestrian trails and bicycle commuting routes.

POLICY 6: Ensure funding to achieve the objectives of this master plan and the state’s priority list.

A-

§ ¦ ¨ 95

POLICY 10: Promote the use of walking and bicycling for some transportation trips.

POLICY 5: Plan new development to help achieve the objectives of this master plan.

£ ¤ Bri

POLICY 9: Provide trail connections within and between communities as development occurs, to the extent feasible and practical.

A-6

Co n

POLICY 3: Develop bicycle-friendly roadways in conformance with the latest standards and guidelines, including the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

198

I-108

r R oad

POLICY 2: Provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle linkages to schools, parks, recreation areas, commercial areas, and employment centers.

Stre et

Bond

POLICY 1: Incorporate appropriate pedestrianoriented and TOD features to the extent practical and feasible, in all new development within designated centers and corridors.

kw ar

rive

Bac kB

Donnell D

Re ge nc

ill F arm

Bra

U V

anes R oad

725

We ste rn B

ra n

ail Tr

POLICY 2: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the existing parkland, natural features, historic sites, and recreational opportunities along the Potomac River corridor from surrounding communities.

Ox on H

U V U V

Tra il

POLICY 3: Work with the National Park Service, the Department of Public Works and Transportation, the State Highway Administration, and the community to provide signage for the designated Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail on-road bicycle route as part of the national trail system.

295

arl

William B e

725

§ ¦ ¨

Ro a d

F ar

414

ou Do w e r H

U V

l ey

U V

C 636

63 7 MC

Tra il

ee k

Henson Cr

th rlbo Ma

ik ro P

POLICY 1: Provide bicyclecompatible road improvements along the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail on-road bicycle route.

725

337

Brink

U V

ill R o a d

V U

n Ru n

§ ¦ ¨

Ro ad

202

ad Ro as

U V

Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Policies

La rg o

ad Ro

y A uth Wa

ion

il ch Tra ran

P-

St at

a tB

a Tr

210

Ox o n H

Br o

ai l

U V

O xo

Road (C-626)

ia tphal Wes

tre

U V

Pi k e

o ers

b o ro

458

414

ck Ro

U V 5

Old Branch

U V

Tink er

l Branc

ai h Tr

v er

d oa

Gre y ad Woodyard Ro

x R o ad

POLICY 4: No construction of the Potomac Heritage Trail is recommended within public use trail easements on private residential lots. Trail connections within this corridor shall be accommodated on public parkland and within public road rights-of-way. Notwithstanding this, trail easements are still necessary for the preservation of equestrian trails in the Rural Tier and for some master plan trails implemented on private homeowners association land.

R tts rr a Su

ntown R Alle

oad

nded Exte

£ ¤ 301

ad Cro o m Airport Ro

e an

U V 382

Tr a

ad Ro rift Th

nch Tra

ad Ro

yB ran ch Tra il

381

rry

Ro ad

ee Cr

il ra kT

Roa d lo r Ro ad (M D

2 50 C-

Ba d

38 1)

h Tom Walls Bra n c

il Tra

i ne

£ ¤ U V

301

Bea

Matt a

lle H

ek Trail n Cre ma wo

oad ill R

ing nn Ma

s Bra

oth

Li v ad

Liv ing

228

Tim

373

U V

A-5

Roa

U V

in g

s to n

Mc K

Ba d

Mattawoman Cr eek T rail

U V 382

We stw

oo d

Roa d

State Protected National Park System Federal Railroad

Existing Bike Lanes Existing Water Trails

Metro Green Line

Planned Water Trails

I 5

COUNTYWIDE MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION November 2009 Bikeways and Trails

POLICY 4: Preserve existing equestrian trail corridors within the Rural Tier. The provision and preservation of equestrian trail connections to existing parkland and trail systems should be a priority. POLICY 5: Extend the Anacostia Tributary Trail System outside the Capital Beltway to connect to the existing Little Paint Branch Trail and provide the Laurel to Bladensburg trail connection envisioned in the ATHA Management Plan.

POLICY 8: Develop thematic or heritage trails that build upon the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the Port Towns area.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department www.mncppc.org/pgco

381

Miles 2.5

Metrorail Train Stations

POLICY 3: Promote the equestrian heritage of Prince George’s County, focusing on trails that facilitate access to the Prince George’s Equestrian Center, Jug Bay Natural Area, and Rosaryville State Park.

U V

IV PATUXENT R

Planned Sidepaths

POLICY 7: Produce an ATHA Trail Development Strategic Plan. This plan should be created through cooperation with a variety of constituency groups and community representatives and should build upon the trail planning already provided by M-NCPPC. The ATHA Trail Development Strategic Plan should be reviewed by the county’s Bicycle and Trails Advisory Group and integrated into county master plans, as appropriate.

ail r Tr

M-NCPPC Parks

Pau xe n

ate rW

THEME TRAILS Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail

Existing Sidepaths

Planned Bike Lanes

POLICY 2: Work with the state and other stakeholders to develop recreational and interpretative programs, facilities, and thematic trails that build upon the recreational, natural, historic, and scenic attributes of the Rural Tier.

Planned Bike Routes, Shared Use Roads

Black Swam p Tr ai l

ive tR

Existing Bike Routes, Shared Use Roads

POLICY 6: Continue to work with the State of Maryland and Anne Arundel County to extend the existing WB&A Trail across the Patuxent River in order to provide an interjurisdictional trail connection and an important link in the regional trail network.

ad Ro

LEGEND

POLICY 1: Promote and encourage cycling and walking as an alternative to the car for commuting and recreational purposes.

o sc ua Aq

Interpretative Trails and Long Distance Bicycle Route Policies

Horse hea dR oa

U V

chki n

oad

Ro ad

Ho t

mR Croo

al l

oa d Acco

ha ll H

tin Road M ar

Ga r d n e

ars

ill Road dy H

373

210

Can

V U V U

Eques tria n

rth Key s Ro ad No

To w

c h Trail

oa d eR dr e en

oad nR sto

Ro a

Old F ort Ro ad

d oa

oa yR

Bryan Poi nt R oa d

B er r

mington Road We Far st

yR oa

ail ni Tr ttapo Ma

ad A-

Da nv il

Matta p o n i Hiker

d oa R B

C-6

n to gs

e Ro dywin an Br

in Burc h

ch Ro a d

ttin

Liv

TOM

hur

n Ro

Dyso

VER

mas C

Par kR oa d

St. Th o

ad Ro

oad

d oa tR

U V Floral

R AC

Va n

ts Road Su r r a t

A-65

y S t a ti o n

Tan yar d

et pp Ti

Swan Creek Road

F e nn o R

223

oad

U V

Riverview Road

Pis cat aw ay Cr ee k

Frank Tippet t R

Roa

Fort

Ro ad

Old

Livingston

r t F oo

ad t e Ro

210

Wal lac eL

U V

H Fo

Ste

Danger field Ro ad

son

C re

ek Tra i

Pea Hil

i l le

223

al u nt C

d oa

Tr ek

r yv

a il

e al m

rR o

R osa

Os bo rn e

s Branch T Charle rail

Old Alexandri a Fe rry Ro ad

Avenu e

nR ng

s to

Road

oad

Kirb

Hill

oad

p le Tem

National Harbor

U V

rk wa y

! Iv

yR Barnab un Trail W he e le rR oa d (C70 4)

M arl

y wa rk

23r d

Roa

Rit chi eM ar l bo ro

M Ro arbu ad ry

Su itla nd

Su it l a

nT ra i

218

County Road

U V

ad Ro

n Oxo

Attachment 2 2009 MPOT Project List

Attachment 2: MPOT 2009 Project List The table below is the list of projects recommended in the 2009 Master Plan of Transportation. The list with be reviewed and updated, along with accompanying mapping, as part of the MPOT update. Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations

Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) Eastern Trail (Peppermill Drive and Karen Boulevard)

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

Sidepath (hiker/biker)

Peppermill Road (Seat Pleasant Drive to MD 214) Karen Boulevard (MD 214 to Walker Mill Road)

DPW&T4 Addison Road Metro Town Center (2000)

This trail will provide a continuous north/south trail for walkers and bikers, connecting Seat Pleasant Drive withWalker Mill Road. This trail will link Peppermill Villageandproposed GlenwoodHills toPeppermill Community Center, Baynes Elementary School, and the Addison RoadTown Center. A portion of this trail has been approved for construction as part of the Glenwood Hills development.

DPW&T

Addison Road Metro Town Center (2000)

Designated bike lanes and continuous standard or wide sidewalks are needed to provide multimodal access to the Addison Road Metro Station south of MD 214. These facilities will accommodate safe and convenient multimodal access to the Addison Road Metro Station from the communities along Addison Road.

Addison Road Metro Town Center (2000)

The rail trail project will utilize the former location of the Chesapeake Beach railroad to provide a major east/west trail connection through central Prince George’s County. There are no records of right-ofway acquisition for most of the track bed of the former Chesapeake Beach Railway in Prince George’s County. In the Seat Pleasant area, this trail will improve access to the Addison Road Metro, as well as several shopping areas. Inside the Beltway, the trail will also provide access to Walker Mill Regional Park. Outside the Beltway, the trail has already been constructed through the Winshire, Kings Grant, and Fox Chase subdivisions. The trail will link residential communities with existing and planned trails in the Westphalia area and Jug Bay. Additional right-of-way acquisition is required.

Addison Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Eastern Avenue to Walker Mill Road

Chesapeake Beach Rail Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Seat Pleasant (near MD 704) to the Patuxent River (near Jug Bay)

MNCPPC5

1985 Equestrian Addendum Westphalia (2007) Subregion 6 (2009)

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable)

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Old Gunpowder Road Shared-Use Sidepath and Bike Lanes

Shared-use side path and designated bike lanes

MD 198 to MD 212

DPW&T

Anacostia River Trail Extension

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Bladensbur g Marina to DC Line

M-NCPPC

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

ATHA6 (2001) Subregion I (1990)

Bladensburg Town Center Plan (2007)

Comments

Aneight-foot-widesidepathis recommendedalongthe west side of Old Gunpowder Road. This trail will complementthe parktrailcompleted parallel toOld Gunpowder Road through the Cross Creek development, improve access to Fairland Regional Park, and provide a connectiontothe existingLittle Paint BranchTrailand WestLaurel.Designatedbike lanesare alsorecommendedtosafely accommodate fastermovingon-road bicycletraffic. This trail will also serve as a segment of thecontinuous trail from BladensburgtoLaurel that was envisionedinthe Anacostia Trails Heritage Area Management Plan. This trail shouldconnect totheexisting HOA trails in the WestLaurelcommunity.The bikelanesshouldextend northonBond Mill RoadtoBrooklyn Bridge Road. The bike lanes should then extend west to the Montgomery Countyline andeast tothe City of Laurel.

Extend the Anacostia River Trail along the east side of the Anacostia River from Bladensburg Marina into the District of Columbia. This trail will extend the existing ATHA trails network, provide a future connection to the planned D.C. Riverwalk, and provide for improved trail connectivity between Prince George’s County and the existing and proposed trails in the District of Columbia. This project has been funded by the State of Maryland and is scheduled to begin construction in late 2008.

SHA7

BladensburgNew Carrollton and Vicinity (1994)

Provide continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities along this heavily traveled corridor. These sidewalks will improve access to the New Carrollton Metro Station, as well as several commercial areas. Areas of high pedestrian traffic may warrant wide sidewalks. Pedestrian amenities and safety features are also warranted in some areas. On-road bicycle facilities should be provided. Although right-of-way constraints may not allow full bicycle lanes, wide outside curb lanes are recommended.

MD 450 to MD 410

DPW&T

BladensburgNew Carrollton and Vicinity (1994)

Signed bike routes provide bicyclists with access to major destinations in the area. This bikeway will improve access to the New Carrollton Metro and the planned trail facility along MD 450.

On-road bicycle facilities

Riverdale Road to MD 450

DPW&T

BladensburgNew Carrollton and Vicinity (1994)

Signed bike routes provide bicyclists with access to major destinations in the area. This bikeway will improve access to the New Carrollton Metro and the planned trail facility along MD 450.

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

MD 214 to Western Branch

Bowie and Vicinity (2006)

This trail will extend from MD 214 south to Upper Marlboro. It will serve the developing residential communities on the west side of US 301. It will also connect to the Western Branch Trail near Upper Marlboro. Several segments of this trail have either been constructed or approved for construction through recent development proposals.

MD 450 Standard or Wide Sidewalks with On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Standard or wide sidewalks with on-road bicycle facilities

Capital Beltway to Alt. US 1

Riverdale Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle facilities

Finns Lane Bikeway

Collington Branch Stream Valley Trail

M-NCPPC

Subregion 6 (2009)

10 Jericho Park Road Shared-Use Side path and Designated Bike Lanes

Shared-use side path and designated bike lanes

Race Track Road to MD 197

DPW&T

Bowie and Vicinity (2006)

Provide a side path or wide sidewalk for pedestrians and recreational cyclists, and wide curb lanes, bike lanes, or paved shoulders for on-road bicyclists if practical and feasible. These facilities will accommodate nonmotorized access to MARC and Bowie State University.

11 Race Track Road Shared-Use Side path and Designated Bike Lanes

Shared-use side path and designated bike lanes

MD 450 to MD 197

DPW&T

Bowie and Vicinity (2006)

Provide a side path along Race Track Road for pedestrians and recreational cyclists, and wide curb lanes, bike lanes, or shoulders for on-road bicyclists. These facilities will accommodate nonmotorized access to MARC and Bowie State University, as well as the church, school and park facilities along these corridors. Segments of Race Track Road have been improved with sidewalk construction and wide curb lanes.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable)

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owne r

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

Old Maryland 450 Shared-Use Side path and Designated Bike Lanes

Shared-use side path and designated bike lanes

MD 197 to MD 450

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Develop trails and/or wide sidewalks and designated bike lanes along old MD 450 from Bowie to the West Bowie Village if practical and feasible. . This will provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to the West Bowie Village from Bowie Main Street. These facilities will also connect to the recently completed trail along the former MD 450 right-of-way east of MD 197.

Church Road Bikeway

Paved shoulders

MD 450 to MD 214

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

This bikeway will be accommodated with six- footwide asphalt shoulders with side path construction at major intersections.

Church Road Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path

MD 214 to Oak Grove Road

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

An eight-foot-wide side path will accommodate nonmotorized transportation along the portion of Church Road through the Oak Creek Club development.

Oak Grove Shared-Use path

Road Side

Shared-use side path

MD 193 to Leeland Road

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

An eight-foot-wide side path will accommodate nonmotorized transportation along the north side of Oak Grove Road in the vicinity of the Oak Creek Club development.

Chestnut Avenue/ Highbridge Road

Shared-use side path and onroad bicycle facilities

Old Town Bowie to MD 450

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are necessary along this road to improve pedestrian safety in Old Town Bowie and several park and school facilities. This road will also provide an important connection to the existing WB&A Trail. Due to existing steep slopes and right-ofway constraints, improvements may not be possible until the road is realigned.

Mitchellville Road Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path

Mount Oak Road to US 301

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Extend the existing side path along the entire length of Mitchellville Road. This trail will link residential communities and provide access to several commercial areas.

Mount Oak Shared-Use path

Road Side

Shared-use side path

Mitchellville Road to Church Road

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

This trail will link residential communities and connect the bikeway along Church Road with the side path along Mitchellville Road.

Governors Bridge Road Shared-Use Bikeway

Shared-use bikeway

US 301 to the Patuxent River

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Bicycle signage and safety improvements (if necessary) should be incorporated into any frontage improvements along this shared-use roadway.

Mill Branch Road Shared-Use Bikeway

Shared-use bikeway

US 301 to Queen Anne Bridge Road

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Bicycle signage and safety improvements (if necessary) should be incorporated into any frontage improvements along this shared-use roadway.

Queen Anne Bridge Road Shared-Use Bikeway

Shared-use bikeway

US 301 to MD 214

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Bicycle signage and safety improvements (if necessary) should be incorporated into any frontage improvements along this shared-use roadway.

Queen Anne Road Shared-Use Bikeway

Shared-use bikeway

US 301 to MD 214

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Bicycle signage and safety improvements (if necessary) should be incorporated into any frontage improvements along this shared-use roadway.

Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study

Feasibility study

Greenbelt Metro Station

Old Chapel Road Sidewalks and Bikeway

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 197 to Hillmeade Road

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

Continuous sidewalks are needed along this residential corridor to improve access to Bowie Plaza, High Bridge Elementary School, and Highbridge Park.

Woodmore Road Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path

Church Road to MD 193

DPW& Bowie and Vicinity T (2006)

This trail will link residential communities and connect the bikeways alongChurch RoadandMD 193.

MNCPPC

MPOT (new recommendation)

At the time of the detailed site plan for the Greenbelt Station development, conduct a feasibility study for a pedestrian bridge linking the Greenbelt Metro Station with the communities and master plan trails to the west of the railroad tracks. The study should determine if a pedestrian bridge is warranted and/or feasible, identify appropriate locations for the bridge (if necessary), or develop alternative recommendations for improving pedestrian access to the Greenbelt Metro Station from surrounding communities.

MD 564 Side path and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Shared-use side path and designated bike lanes

MD 197 to MD 450

SHA

Bowie and Vicinity (2006) Glenn Dale-LanhamSeabrook and Vicinity (1993)

Providecontinuous bicycle and pedestrian improvementsalong MD 564 with either a wide sidewalk or side path for pedestrians and recreational cyclists, and wide curb lanes, bike lanes, or shoulders for on-road bicyclists if practical and feasible. These facilities are needed to improve pedestrian safety along this heavily traveled corridor. They will improve access to numerous commercial areas and MARC.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable)

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

27 Prospect Hill Road Sidewalk and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Hillmeade Road to MD 953

DPW&T

Bowie and Vicinity (2006)

Provide continuous pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Prospect Hill Road with either a wide sidewalk or side path for pedestrians and recreational cyclists, and wide curb lanes, bike lanes, or shoulders for onroad bicyclists if practical and feasible. These facilities will accommodate nonmotorized access to Northridge Community Park, Glenn Dale Elementary School, and Glenn Dale Neighborhood Park.

28 Fletchertown Road Shared-Use Side path

Side path

Hillmeade Road to Chestnut Avenue

DPW&T

Bowie and Vicinity (2006)

This trail will provide multimodal access to Old Town Bowie and other residential communities.

29 Iverson Street Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks with designated bike lanes

Branch Avenue to Iverson Place

DPW&T

Branch Avenue Corridor, MPOT (new recommendation)

These improvements will enhance access to several commercial areas, the Hillcrest Heights Library, and Hillcrest Heights Elementary School.

30 Silver Hill Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks with designated bike lanes

Branch Avenue to Walker Mill Road

SHA

Branch Avenue Corridor, MPOT (new recommendatio n)

These improvements will enhance access to the Suitland Metro, the Suitland Federal Center, several commercial areas, and Francis Scott Key Elementary School. Sidewalks exist along many segments of Silver Hill Road. Existing sidewalks are narrow and placed immediately behind the curb. Sidewalks should be at least six feet wide and be incorporated into a pedestrianfriendly streetscape with amenities and safety features.

31 52nd Place Bikeway

Shared-use roadway

Edgewood Road to 53rd Avenue

Municipal

MPOT (new recommendatio n)

This shared-use roadway will provide access to the Greenbelt Metro.

32 53rd Avenue Bikeway

Shared-use roadway

Edgewood Road to 53rd Avenue

Municipal

MPOT (new recommendatio n)

This shared-use roadway will provide access to the Greenbelt Metro.

33 Lackawanna Street Bikeway

Shared-use roadway

US 1 to Greenbelt Metro

Municipal

MPOT (new recommendatio n)

This shared-use roadway will provide access to the Greenbelt Metro.

34 St. Barnabas Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Sidewalks with designated bike lanes

Silver Hill Road to Livingston Road

DPW&T

Branch Avenue Corridor, MPOT (new recommendation)

Provide continuous standard or wide sidewalks with designated bike lanes. Pedestrian amenities and safety features should also be included as part of any frontage improvements or road improvement projects. Any comprehensive improvement projects should include discussions with area businesses to consolidate access points in order to improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.

35 Adelphi Road Continuous Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 193 to MD 410

DPW&T

Gateway Arts District (2004)

Continuous sidewalks and onroad bicycle facilities are needed along this road to enhance multimodal access to the Prince George’s Plaza Metro Station. Right-of-way constraints may prohibit bike lanes, but wide outside curb lanes should be considered. Crosswalk improvements and other pedestrian safety features may be appropriate at some locations.

36 Jamestown Road Shared-Use Side path/ Wide Sidewalk and Designated Bike Lanes

Continuous side path/wide sidewalks with designated bike lanes

Queens Chapel Road (MD 500) to Ager Road

DPW&T

Gateway Arts District (2004)

Provide a wide sidewalk or side path with designated bike lanes along both sides of Jamestown Road to provide safe multimodal access to the West Hyattsville Metro Station if practical and feasible. Adequate lighting and crosswalk facilities should also be included.

37 Hamilton Street Continuous Standard or Wide Sidewalks

Continuous standard or wide sidewalks

Ager Road to Magruder Park

Hyattsville

Gateway Arts District (2004)

Continuous sidewalks, pedestrian safety features, and other pedestrian amenities are needed along this pedestrian route to the West Hyattsville Metro Station.

38 38th Street (MD 208) Standard or Wide Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Continuous standard/wide sidewalks with designated bike lanes

Hamilton Street to Bladensburg Road

SHA

Gateway Arts District (2004)

Improved accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists are needed along this major corridor through multiple municipalities. Improved crosswalks, pedestrian safety features, and improved lighting and signage are also recommended.

39 Queens Chapel Road (MD 500) Wide Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Continuous wide sidewalks with designated bike lanes

MD 410 to Washington D.C.

SHA

Gateway Arts District (2004)

Wide sidewalks and designated bike lanes will improve pedestrian access to both the West Hyattsville and Prince George’s Plaza Metro Stations. Segments of the road have been restriped to accommodate bicycle traffic, but continuous facilities for both pedestrians and bicyclists are still needed. Pedestrian safety features and amenities may also be appropriate at some locations.

West Hyattsville TDDP (2006) MPOT (new recommendation) — Buchanan Street to Washington D.C.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 40 Good Luck Road SharedUse Side path and Designated Bike Lanes

41 Folly Branch Stream Valley Trail

Facility Type

Project Limits

Shared-use side path and designated bike lanes

Springfield Road to MD 201

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Glenn Estates (south of MD 564) to Bald Hill Branch

Owner

DPW&T

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval) Glenn DaleLanhamSeabrook (1993) BladensburgNew Carrollton (1994)

M-NCPPC Glenn DaleSeabrook- Lanham and Vicinity (1993) LargoLottsford (1990)

Comments

These facilities will accommodate nonmotorized access to Greenbelt National Park, Parkdale High School, Robert Frost Elementary School, Lamont Elementary School, Catherine T. Reed Elementary School, Robert Goddard Middle School, DuVal High School, Turner Recreation Park, and Good Luck Community Center. This is a major east/west connection through northern Prince George’s County.

Several segments of this trail have been implemented through development applications and M-NCPPC capital improvement projects. This trail provides a key connection in central Prince George’s County that links residential areas with shopping centers and office space. This trail will also improve access to the WB&A Trail and a planned trail along Bald Hill Branch.

42 Whitfield Chapel Road Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 704 to MD 450

DPW&T

Glenn DaleSeabrook- Lanham and Vicinity (1993)

These sidewalk improvements will connect existing residential communities to MD 450, Whitfield Chapel Park, and MD 704.

43 Princess Garden Parkway Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 450 to Good Luck Road

DPW&T

Glenn DaleSeabrook- Lanham and Vicinity (1993)

Current sidewalk facilities are fragmented. The sidewalks will connect existing residential communities with nearby commercial areas and the future Good Luck Road side path.

44 MD 450 Side path Shared-Use side path

Seabrook Road to the Capital Beltway

SHA

Glenn DaleSeabrook- Lanham and Vicinity (1993)

45 Barnaby Run Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Southern Avenue to 28th Avenue

M-NCPPC Heights Master Plan (2000)

Provide a multiuse stream valley trail along Barnaby Run to provide a connection to the public facilities located in the area. Facilities include the North Barnaby Park and Aquatic Facility, Hillcrest Heights Elementary School, Hillcrest Heights Community Center, and the proposed Hillcrest Heights mixed-use development.

46 Henson Creek Trail Extension

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Temple Hill Road to Branch Avenue Metro

M-NCPPC Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

Extend the existing trail to the Branch Avenue Metro. This trail will extend the existing fivemile stream valley trail, provide access to the Branch Avenue Metro and Camp Springs Town Center, and connect to the planned trail along Suitland Parkway.

Heights Master Plan (2000)

47 Tinkers Creek Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Camp Springs Park at Coolridge Road to Piscataway Creek

M-NCPPC Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006) Subregion 5 (2009)

SHA has completed a side path along MD 450 as part of road improvement projects from Race Track Road in Bowie to Seabrook Road. This side path/wide sidewalk should be extended along MD 450 to the Capital Beltway. This facility, in conjunction with sidewalk construction inside the Beltway, will improve pedestrian access to the New Carrollton Metro. Where MD 450 has been reconstructed, wide outside curb lanes have been provided for on-road bicyclists.

This planned trail has been approved for construction through the Bevard North development. This trail will connect to the Pea Hill Branch and Piscataway Creek Trails, provide access to the Clinton area, and provide access between adjoining residential communities.

48 Temple Hill Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Continuous sidewalks and striped and designated bike lanes

MD 414 to MD 223

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the Henson Creek Trail, Crossland High School, Clinton Grove Elementary School, Allenwood Elementary School, Temple Hills Park, and Henson Creek Neighborhood Park.

49 Tucker Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Sidewalks with designated bike lanes

St. Barnabas Road to Allentown Road

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes are recommended along this corridor. They will provide pedestrian and bike access from surrounding communities to the Tucker Road Community Center and Henson Creek Trail.

50 Bock Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Livingston Road to Tucker Road

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access from surrounding communities to the Henson Creek Trail.

51 Brinkley Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

St. Barnabas Road to Allentown Road

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access from surrounding communities to schools, shopping centers, and the Henson Creek Trail.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 52 Allentown Road (MD 337) Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes 53 Allentown Road (MD 337) Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Suitland Parkway to MD 5

SHA

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access to several commercial areas from surrounding residential communities.

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Steed Road to Old Fort Road

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will link established residential communities with existing school and park facilities. Public facilities along the road include Tayac Elementary School, Isaac J. Gourdine Middle School, Friendly High School, and the Allentown Road Fitness and Aquatic Center.

54 Oxon Hill Road (MD 414) Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 210 to Livingston Road West

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access to National Harbor, Oxon Hill Manor, Fort Foote Elementary School, and the Henson Creek Trail. A portion of these improvements are funded through a Department of Public Works and Transportation Capital Improvement Program project. These improvements will also serve as a segment of the Potomac Heritage Trail on-road bicycle route.

55 Oxon Hill Road (MD 414) Sidewalks, Designated Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Safety Improvements

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 210 to St. Barnabas Road

SHA

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

Continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities are needed along this heavily traveled commercial corridor. Pedestrian safety issues also need to be addressed and improved crosswalks, pedestrian refuges, and other features may be appropriate

Subregion 5 (2009)

56 Fort Foote Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Oxon Hill Road (near Kirby Hill Road) to Oxon Hill Road (north of Livingston Road)

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access from surrounding communities to the Fort Foote Community Center, Fort Foote National Park, Fort Foote Elementary School, and Oxon Hill Middle School. These improvements will also serve as a segment of the Potomac Heritage Trail on-road bicycle route.

57 Palmer Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Tucker Road to MD 210

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access from surrounding communities to the Lynnalan Neighborhood Park.

58 Fort Washington Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 210 to Fort Washington Park

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

Provide continuous sidewalks and designated bike lane if practical and feasible. These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access from surrounding communities to the Fort Washington National Park, Potomac Landing Elementary School, Potomac Landing Park, and Tantallon Shopping Center. These improvements will also serve as a segment of the Potomac Heritage Trail on-road bicycle route.

59 Old Fort Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 210 to Fort Washington Road to MD 210 (at Oxon Hill Road)

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

Provide continuous sidewalks and designated bike lane if practical and feasible. These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access from surrounding communities to the Fort Washington National Park. These improvements will also serve as a segment of the Potomac Heritage Trail on-road bicycle route.

60 Old Fort Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 210 (at Forest Plaza) to MD 210 (at Livingston Square Shopping Center)

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

Provide continuous sidewalks and designated bike lane if practical and feasible. These facilities will serve residential communities along Old Fort Road and provide better pedestrian access to nearby park, school, and shopping facilities.

61 Riverview Road

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Fort Washington Road to Swan Creek Road

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

Provide continuous sidewalks and designated bike lane if practical and feasible. These facilities will provide continuous accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists and serve as a segment of the Potomac Heritage Trail On-Road Bicycle Route.

Riverview Road to MD 210

DPW&T

Henson CreekSouth Potomac (2006)

These facilities will provide continuous accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists and serve as a segment of the Potomac Heritage Trail on-road bicycle route. Swan Creek Road provides access from residential communities to Old Forte Village Shopping Center.

62 Swan Creek Road Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable)

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

63 Auth Road Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle improvements

MD 337 to MD 5

DPW&T

64 Livingston Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 210 in Forest Heights to MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road

65 Cattail Branch Stream Valley Trai

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval) Henson Creek-South Potomac (2006)— outside the Beltway MPOT (new recommendation— inside the Beltway

Glenarden Parkway to Beaverdam Creek

DPW&T

Henson Creek-South Potomac (2006)— outside the Capital Beltway MPOT (new recommendation)— inside the Capital Beltway

M-NCPPC

Landover and Vicinity (1993)

Comments

Continuous sidewalks, on-road bicycle improvements, and pedestrian safety features are needed along this major road connection to the Branch Avenue Metro. Auth Road also serves as a connection to Metro from surrounding communities.

These facilities will provide pedestrian and bike access to Oxon Hill Plaza and Glassmanor Community Park.

This trail can be implemented as a stream valley trail and a side path along Barlowe Road extended. Where the trail is implemented in conjunction with Barlowe Road extended, an attractive and inviting streetscape is recommended with appropriate pedestrian-and trail-related amenities that highlight the Cattail Branch and surrounding open space. This trail/greenway should include connections to surrounding schools and neighborhoods. Upon its completion along its entire length, this stream valley trail will provide access to Kenmoor Elementary School, Kenmoor Middle School, Matthew Henson Elementary School, the Palmer Park Community Center, and the Kentland Community Center.

66 Brightseat Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

ArdwickArdmore Road to MD 214

DPW&T

Landover and Vicinity (1993)

Provide continuous sidewalks/wide sidewalks and on-road bicycle accommodations along Brightseat Road. Brightseat Road is a major north-south connection through the Landover Gateway area, and currently facilities for pedestrians are fragmented. The road currently does not include striping for bicycle facilities. However, due to the speed and volume along the road, its connectivity through the sector plan area, and its connection to FedEx Field, designated bike lanes are recommended. Brightseat Road should also include accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians at the planned interchange with MD 202. These facilities will provide safe nonmotorized connectivity to the Landover civic center and commercial core from surrounding neighborhoods.

67 Sheriff Road Wide Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Brightseat Road to Washington DC

DPW&T

Landover and Vicinity (1993)

Extend the existing wide sidewalks along the entire length of Sheriff Road. Designated bike lanes are also recommended. These facilities will improve access to FedEx Field, Cabin Branch Trail, and Cedar Heights Community Center.

68 Cabin Branch Stream Valley Trail

69 MD 202 Continuous Sidewalks and OnRoad Bicycle Facilities

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

MD 214 to Beaverdam Creek

Standard or wide sidewalks with on-road bicycle facilities.

Barlowe Road to MD 450

M-NCPPC

Landover and Vicinity (1993) Addison Road Metro Area Sector Plan (2000)

SHA

Landover and Vicinity (1993) BladensburgNew Carrollton and Vicinity (1994)

This park trail will provide needed recreational opportunities in the Landover and Seat Pleasant areas. It will provide access to numerous park and school facilities, as well as to the Cheverly and Addison Road Metro Stations.

Road improvements along MD 202 should be consistent with the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and improvements and pavement markings should preserve andenhance the existing state-designated Upper Marlboro to College Park Bikeway. If MD 202 is improved from an open to closed section roadway, a standard side path shall be provided along one side and bicycle-compatible pavement markings shall be provided on the outside curb lanes.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 70 Evarts Street Sidewalk and Bike Lanes

71 Adelphi Road Shared-Use Side path

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Existing Evarts Street to the Woodmore Towne Centre

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

Provide continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities on the Evarts Street extension. This extension will provide pedestrian access between the Woodmore Towne Centre and the Landover Gateway regional center and commercial core. In addition, this pedestrian connection across the Beltway will provide for a more unified, walkable study area by providing access across a major pedestrian barrier.

Shared-use side path

MD 650 to MD 193

DPW&T Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt (1989)

The extension of the existing wide sidewalk along Adelphi Road is recommended to improve access to the University of Maryland. On-road bicycle facilities are also recommended, with bike lanes being preferred along this high-volume corridor if right-of-way constraints allow.

72 MD 193 Shared- Use Side path and Designated Bike Lanes

Wide sidewalk or shared-use side path and designated bike lanes

Watkins Regional Park to Montgomery County line

SHA

Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt (1989)—Soil Conservation Road to Paint Branch MPOT (new recommendation)— Paint Branch to Montgomery County Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham and Vicinity (1993)—Cipriano Road to US 50

Provide continuous pedestrian and bicycle accommodations along MD 193 with either a wide sidewalk or side path for pedestrians and recreational cyclists, and wide curb lanes, bike lanes, or shoulders for on-road bicyclists. MD 193 is a major east/west corridor in northern Prince George’s County and provides access to many schools, parks, and commercial areas. Pedestrian safety along the corridor is a concern and the provision of facilities to safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists is a priority.

Largo-Lottsford (1990)—US 50 to Watkins Regional Park

73 Metzerott Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 650 to MD 193

74 Bald Hill Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

MD 450 to Western Branch

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

MNCPPC

Largo Lottsford (1990) Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham (1993)

75 Western Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Enterprise Golf Course to the Patuxent River

MNCPPC

76 Lottsford Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Glenn Dale Community Center to Folly Branch

77 Lottsford Road Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path/wide sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 193 to Harry S Truman Drive

LargoLottsford (1990) Subregion 6 (2009)

LargoLottsford (1990)

DPW&T LargoLottsford (1990)

Pedestrian safety needs to be evaluated as part of future improvements to the MD 193 and Metzerott Road intersection.

This stream valley trail will connect to the planned Folly Branch Trail and Western Branch Trail, as well as the existing trail along MD 450. This trail will provide access to Upper Marlboro and the Prince George’s Equestrian Center. It will also provide a nonmotorized connection between the Largo area and Upper Marlboro, link to the Folly Branch, Collington Branch, and Patuxent River trails, and connect to Watkins Regional Park. The stream valley trail will connect existing park facilities such as the splash park and WB&A Trail with the planned stream valley trail network to the south. This planned facility has been implemented as a wide sidewalk along some frontages. On-road bicycle facilities should be considered as road improvements occur.

78 Campus Way Side path/Wide Sidewalk with Designated Bike Lanes

Shared-use side path or wide sidewalk and designated bike lanes

Evarts Street to Harry S Truman Drive

DPW&T LargoLottsford (1990)

Extend the existing wide sidewalks along the entire length of both existing and planned Campus Way. This road will ultimately connect to the Evarts Street bridge over the Capital Beltway. Designated bike lanes should also be provided. These facilities will provide access between the Woodmore Towne Centre, Landover Gateway area, and the Largo Town Center.

79 Lake Arbor Way Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 202 to MD 214

DPW&T LargoLottsford (1990)

Lake Arbor Way currently includes standard sidewalks along both sides of its entire length. Bicycle compatible road striping and signage is recommended.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable)

Facility Type

80 Lottsford Vista Road Sidewalks and OnRoad Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Lottsford Road to MD 704

DPW&T

81 Ritchie Branch Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Marlboro Pike to Walker Mill Regional Park

82 MD 4 Shared-Use Side path

Side path (hiker/biker)

Capital Beltway to the Washington, D.C. line

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

Largo-Lottsford (1990)

Continuous accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians are needed. Sidewalks are currently fragmented. This will improve access to the Washington Business Park.

M-NCPPC

Marlboro Pike, MPOT (new recommendation)

This planned trail will provide access from the Forestville community to Walker Mill Regional Park. This is a long-term recommendation that will require the acquisition of land along the stream valley within a largely industrial corridor.

SHA

Marlboro Pike, MPOT (new recommendation)

A side path has been recently completed along the north side of MD 4 from Walters Lane to Parkland Drive. It is recommended that this trail be completed along the entire length of MD 4 inside the Beltway. This trail will link adjacent residential communities, provide access to existing bus stops and improve access to commercial areas. There is an existing need for this facility as residents currently walk along the shoulder or parallel to the road to reach nearby bus stops and commercial areas.

83 Marlboro Pike Sidewalk and Bikeway Improvements

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle improvements

Forestville Road to Washington, D.C. line

DPW&T

Marlboro Pike, MPOT (new recommendation)

Planning for the Marlboro Pike Sector Plan has indicated the need for continuous sidewalks and streetscape improvements along this corridor. Pedestrian safety features should also be incorporated, where feasible. Due to right-ofway constraints, full bike lanes may not be feasible.

84 Dower House Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 4 to Melwood Hills Community Park

DPW&T

Melwood-Westphalia (1994)

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes are needed to accommodate nonmotorized trips going to the Westphalia Town Center.

85 MD 223 SharedUse Side path

Side path (hiker/biker)

MD 4 to Livingston Road

SHA

Melwood-Westphalia (1994)—MD 4 to Rosaryville Road. MPOT (new recommendation)— Rosaryville Road to Livingston Road

86 Arena Drive Shared-Use Side path

Wide sidewalk and on-road bicycle facilities

Brightseat Road to MD 202

DPW&T

Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center Metro Areas (2004) Largo-Lottsford (1990)

87 Hill Road Continuous Sidewalks and OnRoad Bicycle Improvements

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 214 to MD 704

DPW&T

Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center Metro Areas (2004)

A shared-use side path or wide sidewalk is recommended along this rapidly developing corridor in southern Prince George’s County. There has been consistent feedback from the community that safe pedestrian facilities are needed along this heavily traveled and rapidly developing corridor. This trail will provide safe access to numerous schools and park facilities, as well as link adjoining residential communities. Currently, sidewalks are fragmented or missing in many areas and a side path is needed to improve pedestrian safety.

Extend the existing wide sidewalks along the entire length of Arena Drive. This facility will improve pedestrian access between FedEx Field and the Largo Town Center.

Provide continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities to improve access between communities and to Oakcrest Elementary School and Peppermill Village Park.

88 MD 214 Continuous Sidewalks

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Capital Beltway to Washington, D.C.

SHA

Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center Metro Areas (2004) Addison Road Metro Town Center (2000)

89 Oxon Run Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Oxon Hill Farm (NPS) to Azalea Acres Park

M-NCPPC

MPOT (new recommendation)

Improved accommodations for pedestrians are recommended along MD 214. Gaps in the sidewalk network should be completed, and new sidewalk construction should provide a buffer between the travel lanes and pedestrian zone. Wide sidewalks are appropriate near Metro and in areas of high pedestrian traffic. Crosswalk improvements, safety enhancements, and on-road bicycle facilities should also be considered.

This trail will provide access to the existing National Park Service (NPS) Trail into the District. It will also provide access to Glassmanor Community Center.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations

Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) MD 704 Shared-Use Side path

Facility Type

Project Limits

Side path (hiker/biker)

MD 450 to the Washington, D.C. line

Owner

SHA

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

MPOT (new recommendation )

A side path or wide sidewalk construction with designated bike lanes is recommended along MD 704 (District of Columbia to I-495). It may be appropriate to use excess capacity along MD 704 to accommodate improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. MD 704 connects to the existing WB&A Trail outside I-495. Trail construction along MD 704 will provide an extension of the existing WB&A Trail to provide a continuous east/west trail connection through central Prince George’s County.

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes are needed to accommodate nonmotorized trips along this employment/industrial corridor. Ritchie Road connects to the wide sidewalks These facilities currently along will Garrett A. improve access to several Morgan Boulevard. shopping centers and James H. Harrison Elementary School. Designated bike lanes are recommended if right-of-way constraints allow. From US 1 west to Cherry Lane there shall be sidewalks and designated on-road bike lanes.

Ritchie Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 214 to Walker Mill Road

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation )

Contee Road Continuous Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 197 to Cherry Lane

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation )

Odell Road Continuous Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Old Baltimore Pike to Powder Mill Road (MD 212)

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation )

Continuous sidewalks are needed along this major route through the Beltsville community. These planned facilities will begin on the east side of Old Baltimore Pike, which is east of the railroad tracks and industrial area.

Sellman Road Sidewalk or Shared-Use Side path and Bike Lanes

Standard sidewalks or shared-use side path (hiker/biker)

Rhode Island Avenue to Cherry Hill Road

MD 197 Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path (hiker/biker)

Laurel to Bowie

Beaverdam Road Designated Bike Lanes MD 201 Shared- Use Side path

Bike lanes

MD 201 to Springfield Road

Shared-use side path (hiker/biker)

US 50 to I-495

Paint Branch Parkway Designated Bike Lanes

Designated bike lanes

US 1 to MD 201

DPW&T

SHA

DPW&T

SHA

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation )

Provide a standard sidewalk or a side path along the north side of Sellman Road from Cherry Hill Road to US 1 if practical and feasible. This needed improvement will provide safe pedestrian access to the Beltsville Community Center from nearby residential communities. This sidewalk will also provide pedestrian access to nearby local businesses. Designated bike lanes should also be provided.

MPOT (new recommendation )

Currently, much of the land between Laurel and Bowie is in federal ownership and is restricted from trails and other recreational uses. However, a side path within the MD 197 right-of-way will provide a trail connection from Bowie to Laurel without impacting the adjacent federal properties. A side path is necessary to safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists along this high-volume, high-speed roadway. This trail will also provide access to the existing WB&A Trail and serve as a segment of the nationally designated East Coast Greenway.

MPOT (new recommendation )

Designated bike lanes shall be provided.

MPOT (new recommendation )

This trail will improve bike and pedestrian safety along a high-volume and high-speed roadway.

MPOT (new recommendation )

Provide designated bike lanes along the entire length of Paint Branch Parkway if feasible. This will improve access to the University of Maryland.

100

BaltimoreWashington Parkway Trail

Shared-use trail

Muirkirk Road to Pedestrian Bridge off Hanover Parkway (Greenbelt)

NPS

MPOT (new recommendation )

MD 410 Continuous Standard or Wide Sidewalks with On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks with on-road bicycle facilities

Montgomery County to the BaltimoreWashington Parkway

SHA

MPOT (new recommendation) Prince George’s Plaza TDDP (1998)

This trail will provide north/south access through the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center from Laurel to Greenbelt in an area where there are no off-road trail options for bicyclists. This trail can tie into the existing pedestrian bridge over the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in the vicinity of Hanover Parkway and Continuous facilities for Gardenway Court. This trail pedestrians and bicyclists are may be similar to the trail needed along this corridor. currently under study along Wide sidewalks are the Suitland Parkway. recommended within the Prince George’s Plaza Transit District, and continuous sidewalk facilities are needed along the rest of the corridor. Bicycle compatible road striping should be considered, although right-of-way constraints may prohibit full bike lanes.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 101 Riggs Road (MD 212)

102 Steed Road Shared-Use Side path and OnRoad Bicycle Facilities

Facility Type

Project Limits

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Powder Mill Road (MD 212) to Washington D.C.

Shared-use side path with onroad bicycle facilities

MD 223 to Allentown Road

Owner

SHA

DPW&T

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

MPOT (new recommendation)

Continuous sidewalks and on-road bicycle accommodations are necessary along this corridor. Currently, sidewalks are fragmented or missing along some segments of the road. Right-of-way constraints may prohibit bike lanes, but wide outside curb lanes should be considered. Crosswalk improvements and other pedestrian safety features may be appropriate at some locations.

MPOT (new recommendation)

Steed Road connects two major corridors within the northern portion of Subregion 5. A shareduse side path with onroad bicycle accommodations are recommended if practical and feasible. Steed Road also links existing residential communities with the planned Tinkers Creek Trail.

103 Auth Way Wide Sidewalks

Wide sidewalks

Auth Road to MD 5

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Continuous wide sidewalks should be provided along both sides of Auth Way as road improvements are made to improve access to the Branch Avenue Metro. Seven-foot-wide sidewalks have been approved along segments of Auth Way through the Camp Springs Town Center.

104 Suitland Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks with designated bike lanes

Allentown Road to the Washington, D.C. line

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

An attractive streetscape with continuous sidewalks, on-road bicycle facilities, and pedestrian safety features are needed along Suitland Road. Suitland Road provides access to the Suitland Federal Center, Suitland Community Park, and several nearby school facilities.

105 Walker Mill Road Side path/Wide Sidewalk

Shared-use side path or wide sidewalk

Ritchie-Marlboro Road to Marlboro Pike

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

This project should be implemented as a shareduse side path or wide sidewalk. This facility will connect to the existing wide sidewalk along Ritchie Marlboro Road at the Capital Beltway interchange. This facility will provide access to Walker Mill Regional Park, John H. Bayne Elementary School, and Walker Mill Business Park.

106 Ritchie Road/ Forestville Road

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 214 to MD 4

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes are needed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists along these roads. These facilities will improve access to Walker Mill Regional Park and multiple employment areas.

107 Cherry Tree Crossing Sidewalks and Bikeway

Sidewalks and bikeway improvements

US 301 to MD 381

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Accommodations for pedestrians are needed to link the residential community with the Brandywine Town Center. The road is also designated as a shared-use bikeway.

108 Mountain Bike Skills Park

Skills park

Hyattsville vicinity

M-NCPPC

MPOT (new recommendation)

Mountain bike users are an underserved user group in Prince George’s County. Many multiuse trails do not provide the variety of scenery or terrain necessary for a challenging mountain bike trail. Similarly, children need safe places to ride where they can improve their bicycling skills. A mountain bike skills park is proposed in north county that will provide a variety of trail experiences and challenges and will better serve the mountain bike users in the county. Similar parks have been constructed in other urban areas that provide for a variety of trail experiences, challenges, and obstacles in relatively small, confined space.

109 Dangerfield Road Sidewalks and Bikeway

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 223 to Sonar Road

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Continuous facilities are needed for pedestrians along this mostly open section road if practical and feasible. Bicycle compatible road improvements and bikeway signage should also be provided.

110 Brown Station Road SharedUse Side path

Side path or wide sidewalk with on-road bicycle facilities

Old Marlboro Pike to White House Road

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Provide a side path or wide sidewalk along Brown Station Road. Where an open section road is maintained, bicycle compatible road improvements such as paved shoulders and bikeway signage should be provided.

111 Surratts Road Sidewalks and Bikeway

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Brandywine Road to Dangerfield Road

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Continuous facilities are needed for pedestrians along this mostly open section road if practical and feasible. Bicycle compatible road improvements and bikeway signage should also be provided.

112 South Osborne Road Bikeway

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle improvements

Marlboro Pike to US 301

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Provide bicycle compatible improvements and bikeway signage as improvements are made.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 113 ArdwickArdmore Road Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

114 Suitland Parkway Trail

Facility Type Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Shared-use side path (hiker/biker)

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Lottsford Vista Road to Pennsy Drive

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation) outside the Capital Beltway

Washington, D.C. line to MD 4

NPS

Landover and Vicinity (1993) inside the Capital Beltway

MPOT, Branch Avenue Corridor (new recommendation)

Comments Continuous accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians are needed. Sidewalks are currently fragmented. This will improve access to the New Carrollton Transit District and Metro station. This trail will extend the existing Suitland Parkway Trail in D.C. along the Suitland Parkway in Prince George’s County. This trail will provide access to the Naylor Road and Suitland Metro Stations.

115 Branch Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

Shared-use side path or sidewalks with designated bike lanes

Capital Beltway to the Washington, D.C. line

SHA

116 Harkins Road Wide Sidewalks

Wide sidewalks

MD 450 to Ellin Road

DPW&T New Carrollton TDDP (1989)

Provide minimum six-foot-wide sidewalks along Harkin Avenue to accommodate pedestrians walking to the New Carrollton Metro Station.

117 Ellin Road Wide Sidewalks

Wide sidewalks

MD 450 to MD 410

DPW&T New Carrollton TDDP (1989)

Provide minimum six-foot-wide sidewalks along Ellin Avenue and 85th Avenue to accommodate pedestrians walking to the New Carrollton Metro Station.

MPOT, Branch Avenue Corridor (new recommendation)

The Branch Avenue Corridor Sector Plan highlights the importance of improving pedestrian safety along and across Branch Avenue inside the Capital Beltway. In conjunction with other streetscape improvements, a shared-use side path or standard/wide sidewalks should be provided in conjunction with designated bike lanes. Safety improvements for pedestrians should also be incorporated into future intersection improvements. There may also be opportunities to construct an urban linear park along some sections of the corridor, as discussed in the sector plan.

118 Muirkirk Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 197 to A3

DPW&T Subregion I (1990)

119 Contee Road Extended (A-6) Shared-Use Side path and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks with designated bicycle lanes

Old Gunpowder Road to City of Laurel

DPW&T Subregion I (1990)

120 Kenilworth Avenue Extended (A-56) SharedUse Side path and Designated Bike Lanes

Old Gunpowder Shared-use Van Dusen Road side path/ Road to to Dusen wide sidewalk Van Sunnyside Road. with Avenue designated bicycle lanes

MPOT (new recommendation)

DPW&T Subregion I (1990) MPOT (new recommendation)

Provide continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes along Muirkirk Road to improve access to the Muirkirk MARC Station and to A-3 south of the Konterra Town Center.

These facilities will improve access to Fairland Regional Park and the planned Konterra development. These facilities will improve access to Fairland Regional Park and the planned Konterra development.

121 Old Baltimore Pike Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path

Muirkirk Road to Odell Road

DPW&T Subregion I (1990)

This side path will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle movement along a heavily traveled industrial road with significant truck traffic.

122 Odell Road Bike Lanes

Bike lanes

Muirkirk Road to Old Baltimore Pike

DPW&T Subregion I (1990)

Designated bike lanes shall be added to this road.

123 US 1 Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path (hiker/biker)

Capital Beltway to Laurel

SHA

Subregion I (1990)

Provide a side path or wide sidewalk along the west side of US 1. This will extend the existing side path along US 1 between Quimby Avenue and Muirkirk Road. This wide sidewalk or side path should ultimately extend from I-495 to Laurel.

124 Powder Mill Road (MD 212)

Bike lanes

MD 197 to MD 201

SHA

Subregion I (1990)

Provide designated bike lanes along MD 212 through the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Paved shoulders are currently provided along in most areas.

125 Van Dusen Road Realigned

Sidewalks Old and bike lanes Gunpowder Road to Konterra Town Center

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

The existing portion of Van Dusen Road across this area will be realigned as part of the planned Konterra project and is expected to connect directly to the town center over I-95. No alignment is set at this time. These facilities will improve access to Fairland Regional Park and the planned Konterra Town Center.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 126 Powder Mill Road (MD 212)

Facility Type

Project Limits

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

MD 201 to Montgomery County

127 Springfield Road Bike Lanes

Designated bike lanes

Odell Road to MD 564

128 Cherry Hill Road Continuous Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

US 1 to Montgomery County

Owner

SHA

DPW&T

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval) Subregion I (1990)

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes are needed along MD 212 in the Beltsville and Calverton areas. Sidewalks are currently fragmented or missing in many areas.

Subregion I (1990)

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes should be provided where a closed section road is utilized. Designated bike lanes shall be provided to open sections where feasible.

Glenn Dale-SeabrookLanham (1993)

SHA

Comments

Subregion I (1990) MPOT (new recommendation inside the Capital Beltway)

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes are needed along this heavily traveled road to improve neighborhood access to existing park facilities and shopping centers.

129 Paint Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Cherry Hill Road to Sellman Road

M-NCPPC

Subregion I (1990), ATHA (2001)

Extend the existing Paint Branch Trail from Cherry Hill Road Community Park to the Beltsville Community Center north of Sellman Road. This trail extension will connect the existing ATHA network inside the Beltway with the existing Little Paint Branch Trail north of Sellman Road and will be an important segment of the trail connection planned between Bladensburg and Laurel in the ATHA Management Plan.

130 Rhode Island Avenue Trolley Trail

Shared-use trail with designated bike lanes

Quimby Avenue to Armentrout Drive

Municipal, SHA, and DPW&T

Subregion I (1990), Langley Park-College Park-Greenbelt (1989) Gateway Arts District (2004)

Provide a shared-use trail along this former trolley right-of-way. Several segments of this trail have been implemented by the City of College Park. Planning work is also being done in Riverdale Park and Hyattsville. Where an existing roadway is within the former trolley right-ofway, bikeway and sidewalk improvements may be appropriate. Designated bike lanes shall be provided from Greenbelt Road north to Quimby Avenue.

131 Pea Hill Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

MD 5 to Tinkers Creek

M-NCPPC

Subregion 5 (2009)

This local stream valley trail will improve pedestrian access in the Clinton area and connect to the Tinkers Creek Trail. An extensive network of trail easements and open space parcels have been established as development has occurred in the stream valley.

132 Edgewood Road Bike Lanes

Designated bike lanes

US 1 to 53rd Avenue

Municipal

US 1 College Park Sector Plan (2002)

This facility may be accommodated as a shared- use roadway east of 52nd Place.

133 Montgomery Road Bike Lanes

Designated bike lanes

US 1 to Powder Mill Road

DPW&T

MPOT (new recommendation)

Provide designated bike lanes consistent with the existing CIP projects.

134 Piscataway Creek Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

MD 223 (near Rosaryville Road) to the Potomac River

M-NCPPC and NPS

Subregion 5 (2009)

135 Butler Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Piscataway Creek Stream Trail to Cosca Regional Park

M-NCPPC

Subregion 5 (2009)

Subregion 6 (2009)

This is one of the primary stream valley trail recommendations in southern Prince George’s County. This stream valley runs through the middle of a rapidly developing portion of southern Prince George’s County. Significant segments of the stream valley have been acquired by the Department of Parks and Recreation as development has occurred. In conjunction with the Charles Branch Trail in Subregion 6, the Piscataway Creek Trail will provide part of a planned “cross-county” connection linking the Potomac River at Fort Washington with the Patuxent River Greenway near Jug Bay. This trail will also provide nonmotorized access to the extensive trail system and recreational facilities at Cosca Regional Park.

This trail will provide trail access from the planned Piscataway Creek Trail to the extensive existing trails in Cosca Regional Park.

136 Cheltenham Woods Community Park Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Piscataway Creek to Cheltenham Community Park

M-NCPPC

Subregion 5 (2009)

This trail will utilize an existing M-NCPPC stream valley park. It will provide trail access through an established residential community and connect to Piscataway Creek Stream Valley Trail and Cheltenham Community Park.

137 Mattawoman Creek Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Beginning at the Potomac River, the entire length of Mattawoman Creek in Prince George’s County

M-NCPPC

Subregion 5 (2009)

A segment of this trail and a trail head facility have been approved for construction through the Homeland subdivision. More land acquisition is necessary along the corridor before additional segments can be completed. Access to Mattawoman Creek should also be provided for canoes and kayaks as part of the development of a water trail.

Water trail (canoes and kayaks)

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where 138 Timothy applicable) Branch Stream Valley Trail

139 Burch Branch Stream Valley Trail

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Brandywine Community Park to Mattawoman Creek

MNCPPC

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

MD 373 to Piscataway Creek

MNCPPC

Master Plan Comments Citation(s) (and year5 Provide a stream valley trail Subregion of (2009) along Timothy Branch approval) between Dyson Road and Mattawoman Creek. This trail will provide access to the developing employment center in Brandywine. Public use trail easements have been acquired as commercial development has occurred.

Subregion 5 This planned trail will connect (2009) the bikeway along Floral Park Road with the planned stream valley trail along Piscataway Creek. It will also provide a trail connection through the open space network outside the Brandywine Special Study Area.

140 Brandywine Road Sidewalks and Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and striped and designated bike lanes

MD 223 to US 301

DPW&T Subregion 5 Currently, a variety of cross (2009) sections exist along Brandywine Road and sidewalks are missing along many segments. Continuous sidewalks will provide a safe pedestrian route between adjoining residential communities, to several shopping centers, and to both Tinkers Creek and Piscataway Creek Stream Valley Trails. Brandywine Road also provides a parallel route to MD 5 for pedestrians and bicyclists. Evaluate the need for sidewalks along MD 223 outside the segment within the Developing Tier.

141 A-65 Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path (hiker/biker) and bicycle lanes or shared-use roadway

Branch Avenue to C-518 (Old Fort Road)

DPW&T Subregion 5 This trail will provide (2009) nonmotorized access through a rapidly developing portion of southern Prince George’s County. Segments of the trail have been approved for construction as part of recent development applications. The trail will also provide connectivity with several planned stream valley trails.

142 Thrift Road Shared-Use Side path and on-road bicycle facilities

Shared-use side path with on-road bicycle facilities

Brandywine Road to Windbrook Drive

DPW&T Subregion 5 Thrift Road provides access to (2009) the existing trails and recreational facilities in Cosca Regional Park. This path will connect residents in surrounding communities with the park. Thrift Road also connects to planned trails along Piscataway Creek and Butler Branch.

143 Old Alexandria Ferry Road Sidewalks and Bikeway

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 5 to MD 223

DPW&T Subregion 5 Continuous sidewalks and on(2009) road bicycle accommodations are needed along this road to serve existing residential communities, as well as business in the corridor. Sidewalks are currently fragmented or missing in many areas.

144 Bryan Point Road

Shared-use roadway

Farmington Road

DPW&T Subregion 5 Signage and bicycle compatible (2009) road improvements should be incorporated into this shared-use bikeway. Bryan Point Road serves as a segment of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail on-road bicycle route with connections to the parkland on Wharf Road, Mockley Point, and Accokeek Farm.

145 Farmington Road West

Shared-use side path/ on-road bicycle facilities

MD 210 to Livingston Road

DPW&T Subregion 5 Farmington Road West serves (2009) as a segment of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail on-road bicycle route.

146 Floral Park Road Shared-Use path 147 Side Accokeek

Shared-use side path

Piscataway Road to Brandywine Road

DPW&T Subregion 5 This facility will connect (2009) Brandywine with Accokeek.

148 Livingston Road Shared-Use Bikeway and Sidewalks

Shared-use bikeway with sidewalk construction in Accokeek

Road Bikeway or Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use Livingston Road side path (if to MD 5 closed section), bikeway improvements where the road remains open section. MD 210 at MD 373 to MD 210 at Gabriel Drive

SHA

Subregion 5 This facility will connect (2009) Brandywine with Accokeek. Improvements will vary depending on the road cross section utilized. Where the road is closed section, a side path should be provided. Where the road remains open section, bikeway DPW&T Subregion 5 improvements Bicycle signageand andsignage safety should be provided. (2009) improvements (if necessary)

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations

should be incorporated into any frontage improvements along this shared-use roadway. A segment of this road serves as a portion of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail on-road bicycle route. Where the road goes through the Accokeek Town Center, standard sidewalks should be provided along both sides.

Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 149 Dyson Road Shared-Use Side path

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Shared-use side path/ wide sidewalk

Brandywine Road to Cherry Tree Crossing Road

DPW&T

Subregion 5 (2009)

Several segments of this facility have been implemented as wide sidewalks. Sidewalk gaps remain along the corridor. This facility will improve access to Gwynn Park High School and Gwynn Park Middle School.

150 Farmington Road West Shared-Use Bikeway

Bikeway, with some sidewalk construction

MD 210 to Livingston Road

DPW&T

Subregion 5 (2009)

Bikeway signage and possibly safety enhancements should be implemented, where necessary. The segments of Farmington Road West that are completely within the Developing Tier should include sidewalk construction along both sides to improve access to the Accokeek Town Center. The segments requiring sidewalk improvements extend from Reserve Road to Livingston Road and Wharf Road to MD 210. Farmington Road West is a segment of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail on-road bicycle route.

151 Charles Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Dower House Road to the Patuxent River

152 MD 382 (Croom Road) Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

US 301 to MD 381

SHA

Subregion 6 (2009)

MD 382 is a heavily used corridor for long distance cyclists. Road improvements should include bicycle accommodations. A study of the corridor has recently been initiated that will explore the needs of both motor vehicles and bicyclists, as well as the preservation of the scenic qualities of the roadway.

153 MD 381 (Aquasco Road and Brandywine Road) Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

US 301 to Swanson Creek (Charles County)

SHA

Subregion 6 (2009)

MD 381 is a heavily used corridor for long distance cyclists. Road improvements should include bicycle accommodations. Sidewalk construction is needed within the Brandywine and Aquasco communities.

154 Croom Station Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

US 301 to MD 382

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

Roads within the Rural Tier are used by recreational and long-distance cyclists. As frontage improvements or other road improvements are made, bicycle compatible striping or paved shoulders should be provided to safely accommodate bicycle movement.

155 Croom Airport Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 382 to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Driving Tour

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

Facility Type

Project Limits

M-NCPPC Subregion 6 (2009) MelwoodWestphalia (1994)

Comments

This is a long-term project where much land remains to be acquired. The trail will provide access to Rosaryville State Park and the Patuxent River, as well as serve as part of the cross-county connection with the Piscataway Creek Stream Valley Trail. The Charles Branch corridor serves as an important connection for equestrians to the state park.

156 St. Thomas Church Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 382 to Fenno Road

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

Roads within the Rural Tier are used by recreational and long-distance cyclists. Bicycle signage and safety improvements (if necessary) should be incorporated into any frontage improvements along this shared-use roadway.

157 Nottingham Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 382 to Watershed Drive

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

158 Tanyard Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 382 to Watershed Drive

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

159 Fenno Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

St. Thomas Church Road to Nottingham Road

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

160 Candy Hill Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

Molly Berry Road to Nottingham Road

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 161 Baden– Naylor Road Bikeway

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 381 to MD 382

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

162 Baden– Westwood Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 381 to MD 382

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

163 North Keys Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 381 to Molly Berry Road

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

164 Molly Berry Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 382 to BadenNaylor Road

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

165 Van Brady Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

Old Indian Head Road to Molly Berry Road

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

Roads within the rural tier are used by recreational and long-distance cyclists. Bicycle signage and safety improvements (if necessary) should be incorporated into any frontage improvements along this shared-use roadway.

166 Cedarville Road Bikeway

On-road bicycle improvements

MD 381 to US 301

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

167 Duley Station Road

On-road bicycle improvements

Wallace Lane to MD 382

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

168 Dower House Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse Trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Piscataway Creek to Rosaryville State Park

M-NCPPC

Subregion 6 (2009)

This trail will preserve equestrian access to Rosaryville State Park from surrounding residential communities.

Comments

169 Mattaponi HikerEquestrian Trail

Natural surface trail (hiker/ equestrian)

Old Indian Head Road to Merkle WMA

Privately owned and maintained within a public use easement (PUE)

Subregion 6 (2009)

A natural surface hiker-equestrian trail is recommended along Mattaponi Creek. This trail will connect to the existing trails at Jug Bay and Merkle Wildlife Management Area, as well as provide a long equestrian trail route within the Rural Tier.

170 Black Swamp Creek HikerEquestrian Trail

Natural surface trail (hiker/ equestrian)

Baden Elementary School to the Patuxent River

M-NCPPC, Privately owned and maintained within a PUE

Subregion 6 (2009)

A natural surface hiker-equestrian trail is recommended along Black Swamp Creek. This trail will require additional parkland acquisition, as well as public use trail easements in some rural, low-density areas. This trail will provide access to parkland and trails along the Patuxent River and Baden Elementary School.

171 Tom Walls Branch HikerEquestrian Trail

Natural surface trail (hikerequestrian)

MD 382 to Letcher Road

Privately owned and maintained within a PUE

Subregion 6 (2009)

This trail will preserve equestrian access along the stream valley to the Patuxent River greenway. It will also provide part of a long equestrian loop within the Rural Tier.

172 Rock Creek Hiker-BikerEquestrian Trail

Multiuse Trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

MD 381 to the Patuxent River

Privately owned and maintained within a PUE

Subregion 6 (2009)

This trail will preserve equestrian access along the stream valley to the Patuxent River greenway.

173 Rosaryville Road Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Improvements

Sidewalks and bikeway improvements

MD 223 to US 301

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

Continuous sidewalks and bicyclecompatible road improvements are needed along this corridor. Sidewalks are currently fragmented. Designated bike lanes or wide outside curb lanes should be considered at the time of road improvement.

174 Frank Tippett Road Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Improvements

Sidewalks and bikeway improvements

Rosaryville Road to US 301

DPW&T

Subregion 6 (2009)

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 175 Southwest Branch Stream Valley Trail

Facility Type

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Project Limits

District Heights Parkway to MD 202

Owner

MNCPPC

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval) SuitlandDistrict Heights (1985) LargoLottsford (1990)

Comments

This trail will provide access to Walker Mill Regional Park from surrounding residential communities. Upon its completion, it will also provide access to the larger trail network outside the Beltway.

176 Tuxedo Road/ Arbor Street Continuous Sidewalks and On-Road 177 Cheverly Bicycle Metro FacilitiesArea Pedestrian Bridge

Standard or wide sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Kenilworth Avenue (MD 201) to Cheverly Avenue

DPW&T Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area (2005)

Provide continuous facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to improve access to the Cheverly Metro. Continuous standard or wide sidewalks should be provided, as well as accommodations for bicyclists.

Pedestrian bridge

Arbor Street to Cheverly Metro

TBD

Provide a pedestrian bridge connecting the Cheverly Metro Station to the Arbor Street mixed-use area. This long-term recommendation will provide safe and convenient pedestrian access between a revitalized Arbor Street and the Cheverly Metro Station.

178 Cheverly Shared- Use Bikeways

Shared- use bikeways

Cheverly Avenue (MD 202 to US 50) Crest Avenue (Cheverly Nature Park to Belmont Street)

179 Columbia Park Road Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Standard or wide sidewalks with designated bike lanes

MD 704 to US 50

180 Cabin Branch Drive SharedUse Side path or Wide Sidewalk

Shared-use side path or wide sidewalk

Columbia Park Road to Sheriff Road

Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area (2005)

Cheverly Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area (2005) BladensburgNew Carrollton and Vicinity (1994) DPW&T Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area (2005) Landover and Vicinity (1993) DPW&T Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area (2005)

These roads are recognized as important bicycle and pedestrian corridors through the Town of Cheverly.

Provide continuous standard or wide sidewalks with designated bike lanes. These facilities will improve access to the Cheverly Metro Station, Kentland Community Center, South Columbia Community Park, and Columbia Park Elementary School. This facility will provide better multimodal access through an employment area and to the Cheverly Metro Station. It may also serve as a segment of the trail facility planned along Cabin Branch.

181 Lower Beaverdam Creek Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Anacostia River Park to Pennsy Drive.

MNCPPC

Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area (2005) for Anacostia River Park to Columbia Park Road. MPOT (new recommendation) for Columbia Park Road to Pennsy Drive.

West Hyattsville TDDP (2006)

This trail will utilize a park trail corridor as well as some on-road improvements along Pennsy Drive to provide nonmotorized access to the Cheverly and Landover Metro stations. It will also provide access from Subregion 4 to the Anacostia Tributary Trails Network. This planned trail along the entire length of Lower Beaverdam Creek within Subregion 4 will be a substantial addition to the existing Anacostia Tributary Trails Network and will provide needed urban greenspace within an industrial corridor. This is a long-term recommendation as significant land acquisition and stream restoration will be required. Evaluate the feasibility of extending the Lower Beaverdam Creek to New Carrollton Metro.

182 Chillum Road (MD 501) Sidewalks and On-Road Bicycle Facilities

Sidewalks and on-road bicycle facilities

Queens Chapel Road (MD 500) to Riggs Road (MD 212)

SHA

183 Ager Road

Wide sidewalks and designated bike lanes

EastWestHighway (MD 410) to Queens Chapel Road (MD 500)

DPW&T West Hyattsville TDDP (2006)

184 Belmont Street Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker)

Valley Way to Crest Avenue

Municipal Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street Cheverly Metro Area (2005)

Provide a trail within the linear park along the undeveloped portions of the Belmont Street corridor. This trail would provide a pedestrian connection along a paper street through a largely residential neighborhood to Arbor Street.

185 Magruder Spring Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker)

Arbor Street to Cheverly Community Center

Municipal Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street Cheverly Metro Area (2005)

Provide a trail between Arbor Street and Cheverly Community Park. This trail would provide access to the Arbor Street and Cheverly Metro areas from the eastern portion of the Town of Cheverly.

MPOT (new recommendation)— Ingraham Street to MD 212)

Continuous sidewalks and bicycle compatible roadway striping are needed along this corridor to improve access to the West Hyattsville Metro Station. Due to right-of-way constraints, full bike lanes may not be feasible, but wide outside curb lanes should still be considered. Pedestrian safety features may also be appropriate at some locations. These facilities will improve multimodal access to the West Hyattsville Metro Station. Other pedestrian safety features and amenities may also be appropriate.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 186 Melwood Road Legacy Trail

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

DPW&T and MNCPPC

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval) Westphalia (2007)

Comments

Trail and shared-use bikeway

MD 4 to Westphalia Road

The facility will preserve segments of Melwood Road within a green buffer as part of the Westphalia trails network. Where feasible, the road alignment should be converted into a trail corridor. Where Melwood Road provides access to existing residences, Melwood Road should be designated as a shared-use bikeway.

187 MC-634 Side path

Shared-use side path

A-52 to White House Road

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

The Westphalia Sector Plan recommends extending the existing side path along Presidential Parkway and along the entire length of MC-634 and A-66. This facility will provide access to the town center, Little Washington, and several park facilities. Onroad bicycle facilities may also be appropriate.

188 Westphalia Road (C626) SharedUse Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle facilities

RitchieMarlboro Road to MC-634

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

A shared-use side path should be provided as part of the planned improvements to Westphalia Road if practical and feasible. On-road bicycle facilities may also be appropriate.

189 A-66 Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle facilities

MC637 to MC632

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

The Westphalia Sector Plan recommends extending the existing side path along Presidential Parkway along the entire length of MC-634 and A-66. Where A-66 goes through the Westphalia Town Center, wide sidewalks and designated bike lanes may be appropriate.

190 C-636 Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle facilities

MC-632 to P-615

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

Provide a shared-use side path along this collector road leading into the Westphalia Town Center. Where the road is part of the town center, wide sidewalks and designated bike lanes may be appropriate.

191 Ritchie Marlboro Road (A-39) Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle facilities

MD 4 to White House Road

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

The existing wide sidewalk along the Marlboro Ridge portion of Ritchie Marlboro Road should be extended along the entire length of the road. This trail will link adjacent residential communities and connect two stream valley trails. On-road bicycle facilities may also be appropriate.

192 MC-635 SharedUse Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle Facilities

MC637 to MC631

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

Provide a shared-use side path along this major collector leading into the Westphalia Town Center. Where the road is part of the town center, wide sidewalks and designated bike lanes may be appropriate.

193 D’Arcy Road (C-627) SharedUse Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle facilities

Westphalia Road (C-626) to the Capital Beltway

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

Provide a side path along D’Arcy Road in conjunction with bicycle compatible road striping if practical and feasible. This facility will provide nonmotorized access across the Capital Beltway.

194 Sansbury Road (C630) SharedUse Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle facilities

D’Arcy Road (C627) to Ritchie Marlboro Road

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

Provide a side path along Sansbury Road in conjunction with bicycle compatible road striping if practical and feasible. This facility will provide nonmotorized access to Arrowhead Elementary School and the Little Washington community.

195 White House Road SharedUse Side path

Shared-use side path and on-road bicycle facilities

RitchieMarlboro Road to MD 202

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

Provide a side path or wide sidewalk along the entire length of White House Road. This will connect to the existing wide sidewalk along Ritchie Marlboro Road at the Capital Beltway.

196 Marlboro Pike (C-604) Sidewalks and Designated Bike Lanes

Sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Main Street (Upper Marlboro) to MD 4

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

Consistent with existing frontage improvements, continuous sidewalks should be provided along Marlboro Pike. On-road bicycle facilities should also be provided with bike lanes being preferable if right-of-way constraints allow.

MPOT (new recommendation)

197 MC-637 SharedUse Side path or Wide Sidewalk with Designated Bike Lanes

Side path or wide sidewalk with designated bike lanes

MC634 to MC632

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

198 A-52 Shared-Use Side path

Shared-use side path

MD 4 to A-66

DPW&T Westphalia (2007)

This facility will provide multimodal access to the Westphalia Town Center from the existing Dower House Road corridor.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 199

200

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Back Branch Stream Valley Trail

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Western Branch to the Westphalia Town Center

M-NCPPC

Cabin Branch Stream Valley Trail (Westphalia area)

Multiuse trail (hiker/biker/ equestrian)

Western Branch to the Westphalia Town Center

M-NCPPC

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval) Westphalia (2007) MelwoodWestphalia (1994)

Westphalia (2007) MelwoodWestphalia (1994)

Comments

This multiuse trail will accommodate trail users in the Westphalia area and will provide multimodal access to the town center and Melwood Community Park. A segment of this trail has been constructed through the Marlboro Ridge development.

Provide a multiuse stream valley trail along this main east/west park corridor to connect to existing and planned residential developments on both sides of the stream valley. Equestrians should be accommodated throughout the greenway. This trail will connect to the planned Marlboro Ridge equestrian center, the Westphalia central park and other area trails. A segment of this trail has been approved for construction through the Marlboro Ridge development.

201

Cheverly to Bladensbur g Waterfront Park

a. Side path

along MD 201 from Lydell Road to 52nd Avenue

Cheverly Euclid Park to Bladensburg Waterfront Park

Various agencie s

Port Towns Sector Plan (2009)

This connection will provide access from the town of Cheverly and points to the south to the ATHA network. It will involve improvements along state, county and municipal roads, as well as some park trail construction. This recommendation is already incorporated into the Preliminary Port Towns Master Plan.

MPOT (new recommendatio n)

A bridge in this area will provide direct pedestrian access and a nonmotorized trail connection to the New Carrollton Metro and link areas outside the beltway with the Metro station.

b. Sidewalk and

bikeway improvements along 52nd Avenue from MD 201 to Lloyd Street

c. Trail

construction along (paper street) 52nd Avenue to MD 201

d. Sidewalk and

bikeway improvements along Lloyd Street from MD 201 to WSSC Property

e. Trail

construction from Lloyd Street to the Waterfront Park

202

Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study (New Carrollton Metro)

Conduct a feasibility study forapedestrian bridgeoverthe Capital Beltwayinthe vicinity of Whitfield Chapel Parkto Garden City Drive (new recommendation, draft Glenn Dale Sector Plan).

Over the Capital Beltway in the vicinity of the New Carrollton Metro

M-NCPPC

203

MD 202 at Kilmer Street

Pedestrian safety improvements and crosswalk enhancements

Intersection improvements

204

73rd Avenue Trail

Eight-foot wide asphalt trail

Parkwood Street to Buchanan Street

SHA

MPOT (new recommendatio n)

Pedestrian safety improvements are needed at this intersection to safely accommodate pedestrians crossing from the existing apartments to the shopping center.

M-NCPPC

MPOT (new recommendatio n)

An eight-foot wide asphalt trail should be provided in the median of 73rd Avenue as part of the Cheverly to New Carrollton bicycle and pedestrian route. North of Upshur Street, this route may consist of sidewalks and bikeway signage.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 205 75th Avenue Sidewalks and Bikeway

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

Continuous sidewalks, bikeway signage and pavement markings

ArdwickArdmore Road to Parkwood Street

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

These improvements will serve as a segment of the Cheverly to New Carrollton bicycle and pedestrian route.

206 Parkwood Street Trail

Eightfoot wide side path along the south side of Parkwood Street

75th Avenue to Warner Avenue

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

These improvements will serve as a segment of the Cheverly to New Carrollton bicycle and pedestrian route.

207 Warner Avenue

Provide bikeway and wayfinding signage

Parkwood Street to Old Landover Road

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

These improvements will serve as a segment of the Cheverly to New Carrollton bicycle and pedestrian route.

208 Old Landover Road

Continuous sidewalks and designated bike lanes

Warner Avenue to MD 202

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

These improvements will serve as a segment of the Cheverly to New Carrollton bicycle and pedestrian route.

209 Purple Line Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study

Evaluate bicycle and pedestrian access along and to the Purple Line

New Carrollton to Montgomery County

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

Bike and pedestrian access needs to be incorporated into the planning and design of the Purple Line. Multimodal access should be preserved and enhanced along the entire corridor, and nonmotorized connections need to be provided to each station. This study will evaluate the best ways to accommodate nonmotorized trips along and to the Purple Line.

210 College Park Woods Trail 211 Nevada Street Spur Trail

Trail Connector

De Pauw Place to Paint Branch Trail

MNCPPC

MPOT (new recommendation)

This will connect College Park Woods, University of Maryland office buildings, and student housing to the Paint Branch Trail

Trail Connector

Nevada Street (Berwyn Heights) to Indian Creek Trail

MNCPPC

MPOT (new recommendation)

This trail will improve access from Berwyn Heights to the Indian Creek Trail.

212 Anacostia River to WB&A Trail Study

Feasibility Study to evaluate potential bike and pedestrian routes between the ATHA network and the WB&A Trail

Bladensburg Waterfront Park to WB&A Trail

213 Martins Lane Sidewalks and Bikeway

Sidewalk and bikeway signage

Riverdale Road to Charles Carroll Middle School

214 Martins Lane Trail Bridge

Bridge and trail connector

End of Martin’s Lane to Charles Carroll Middle School

MNCPPC

MPOT (new recommendation)

DPW&T Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan (1994) MNCPPC

Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan (1994)

Conduct a detailed planning study for the area between the ATHA network and the WB&A Trail. The ATHA network and the WB&A Trail are the major trail systems in the northern portion of Prince George’s County, but access from the surrounding communities and between the two trails needs to be improved. This study will look at sidewalk, bikeway, and trail improvements necessary to 1) connect the WB&A Trail with the ATHA network, 2) improve access to the Bladensburg Waterfront Park from surrounding communities, 3) identify priority pedestrian safety needs (sidewalk retrofits, crosswalk improvements, etc.), and 4) improve nonmotorized access to the New Carrollton Metro. The planned connection between the trails may ultimately serve as a segment of the nationally significant East Coast Greenway route. The study should identify both short- and long-term needs and build upon existing master plan recommendations. For the key improvements that can be implemented in the short-term, the appropriate implementing agencies and approximate cost estimate should be identified for inclusion in future county capital improvement programs. Provide continuous sidewalks and bikeway signage.

This pedestrian bridge will connect the end of Martins Lane with the middle school and the existing trails around the school.

Table 2: Trail and Bikeway Recommendations Facility Name (adjoining road, where applicable) 215 Westbrook Drive Trail

Facility Type

Project Limits

Owner

Master Plan Citation(s) (and year of approval)

Comments

Trail or side path along median of Westbrook Drive

85th Avenue to Charles Carroll Middle School

DPW&T Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan (1994)

This trail will utilize the existing median and improve access to the middle school.

216 85th Avenue

Bikeway signage and pavement markings

Westbrook Drive to MD 450

DPW&T Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan (1994)

Sidewalks exist along both sides of this segment of 85th Avenue. Bikeway signage and striping may be appropriate.

217 85th Avenue

Wide Sidewalk

MD 450 to Harkins Road

DPW&T Bladensburg-New Carrollton and Vicinity Master Plan (1994)

This wide sidewalk will improve access between the planned side path along MD 450 and the New Carrollton Metro.

218 Buchanan Street Sidewalks and Bikeway

Standard sidewalks and bikeway signage

72nd Avenue to Chesapeake Road

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

Complete the sidewalk network along Buchanan Street and provide bikeway signage.

219 Chesapeake Road

Standard sidewalks and bikeway signage

Buchanan Street to MD 450

DPW&T MPOT (new recommendation)

Complete the sidewalk network along Chesapeake Road and provide bikeway signage.

Attachment 3

2018 Strategic Trails Plan Map A

Attachment 4

2021 Networks Project Map

Miles

Date: 3/4/2022

Existing Conditions Bike Lane Sidepath Trail Wide Shoulder

Proposed Facilities (2021) Bicycle Boulevard Bike Lane Separated Bike Lane Shared Lane Shared Use Path

495 < A <

< A <

! A

50 95

! A

! A ! A ! A

! A

! A ! A

! A

495

301

User: aocohen

Path: C:\Users\aocohen\OneDrive - Toole Design\Documents\ArcGIS\Projects\MPOT\MPOT.aprx

TASK 6.15 TransForM Model

TASK 6.16

Transit-Oriented Development

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Transit Oriented Development Practices Background The Prince George’s County Planning Department is updating and replacing the Approved 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (2009 MPOT). It is comprehensively developing goals, strategies, and policies to better implement Plan 2035, the Prince George’s County General Plan, approved in 2014. Task 6 involves the research, assessment, and report preparation of relevant existing transportation conditions and trends in the County. The work completed for Task 6.16 is focused on a review of successful transit-oriented development (TOD) practices and a baseline analysis of TOD practices and potential strategies for the County.

Scope of Work Prince George’s County has long strived to leverage its extensive transit infrastructure by promoting TOD to support economic growth and increase transit use. As part of this update to the 2009 MPOT, the consultant team worked to identify the current potential for TOD in Prince George’s County and a framework for continued support of TOD. The following tasks were performed and are summarized in the following sections: • • • •

Peer review of successful TOD practices along similar transit corridors across the country, including station area planning, financing mechanisms, and implementation. Review of current plans, policies, regulations, and zoning in place that affect TOD potential in the County. Baseline analysis of the County’s transit corridors and station areas: land uses, existing and projected socio-demographics, transit ridership, multimodal transportation network and use, and parking supply and demand. Definition of station TOD typologies (i.e., mixed-use center, urban, suburban, higher education campus, etc.) in the County – considering characteristics such as land uses, zoning, density, multimodal connectivity, and parking supply.

Peer Review The consultant team conducted a review of peer agencies to identify examples of station area planning, financing mechanisms, and implementation. These examples focus on different aspects such as affordable housing, facilitating development review, and joint development. Strategies used by peer agencies could be used by Prince George’s County to strengthen local TOD efforts. City of Denver The City of Denver developed a TOD Strategic Plan that includes an implementation action plan with both city-wide, high-level policy recommendations and station-level action items. The plan identifies 29 stations and color-codes them on a scale of development potential and market readiness. A handful of stations rise to being most ready for transit-oriented development. The plan also identifies a TOD typology with design and land use standards for each station type. The purpose of the typology is to: “provide a snapshot of the aspirational character, set expectations for development, and establish a level of magnitude for possible investments.”

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

Denver’s TOD typology includes five different station types (Downtown, Urban Center, General Urban, Urban, and Suburban) along with functional overlays for some stations (Innovation, Institutional, and Entertainment). The typologies define station area characteristics, including land use mix, street and block pattern, building placement, building height, and the mobility options people use to move around. The functional overlays identify stations with a unique setting to “[provide] additional context and [clarify] future expectations”. Montgomery County, Maryland Montgomery County has been more successful than any other agency in the country in creating affordable housing. More than 13,000 affordable housing units have been produced from 1974 through 2011, an average of 358 per year. Zoning has incentivized this in areas two key areas with multimodal transit. The approach is through mandatory set-asides. Highlights of the program include: • • • •

Mandatory set-asides – for all developments of more than 20 units, 12.5% must be moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) 22% density bonus for 15% MPDUs Maximum income limits vary, but are typically 60% to 70% of median household income Developers can transfer MPDUs to an alternative site in the same planning policy area

The county has been able to focus development at the Bethesda and Silver Spring Metrorail Stations through zoning methods. Originally designated as central business districts, the zoning gave developers an option to provide greater densities in exchange for developer-provided public amenities to support the increased density. Then in 2014, the zoning ordinance was revised to classify Bethesda and Silver Spring as commercial residential (CR) zones. The CR designation provided more flexibility in land uses and further incentives for greater density and height. The CR zones encourage a commercial and residential mix of uses and 24/7 activity. They also incentivize provision of open spaces, affordable housing, and strategies to retain small, neighborhood-oriented businesses. In 2015, Montgomery County also helped streamline its commercial and residential development process by creating a Development Ombudsman position who guides high-priority projects through the development process, identifies challenges, and works to improve efficiency as these projects move through development review. Arlington County, Virginia Starting in the 1970’s, Arlington County’s vision for TOD has resulted in one of the nation’s best models. The county focused efforts around five WMATA Orange Line stations along the RosslynBallston corridor. Prior to the Metrorail service, the county adopted defined growth strategy policies for the corridor that called for a “concentration of mixed-high density use near Metro stations in bulls eyes of approximately ¼-mile in radius”. Later efforts included a Long-Range County Improvement Program, a general land use plan for the corridor, and sector plans for each station. Each effort laid out the vision, policies, and aspirations for the intended development. Zoning was used to set by-right development levels. Maximum development was through a special exception site plan process. The county’s site plan process allowed the county to negotiate development and benefits including transportation infrastructure, limited parking and transportation demand management. 2

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

To encourage TOD and other development, Arlington County published a County Profile containing an overview of demographic, economic, educational, and transportation highlights in the county. Fairfax County, Virginia The Innovation Center Station on Phase 2 of the Silver Line is a good case study for TOD. To help develop the station as an innovation hub, Fairfax County partnered with businesses, public/private universities, research institutions and incubators. The county also engaged the community through special events and workshops. To address parking demand from the TOD at the station, the county formed a public-private partnership with a developer that contributed $52 million toward stormwater infrastructure, roadways, and a parking garage. Fairfax County has also been successful in creating affordable housing. Fairfax County created the first inclusionary zoning program in the United States. The program resulted in 1,112 renteroccupied and 1,336 owner-occupied units between 1992 and 2011, an average of 117 per year. The program elements include: • • • • • •

Sliding scale of requirements for most property types Single-family: 20% density bonus for 12.5% affordable dwelling units (ADUs) Multi-family (under four floors): 10% density bonus for 6.25% ADUs, 20% for 12.5% ADUs One-third of rental ADUs reserved for households with incomes below 50% area median income (AMI), two-thirds for incomes below 70% AMI Established an ADU Task Force Developers can provide a portion of the required ADUs with a buy-out option for others

To support future high frequency bus rapid transit (BRT) along Richmond Highway between the Huntington Metrorail Station and Fort Belvoir, the county prepared and adopted a comprehensive land use plan update to allow greater densities at planned BRT stations. Each station includes uniquely planned densities, mix of uses, amenities, and a grid of streets that will promote walkability. The Dunn Loring-Merrifield Metrorail Station is another good case study for TOD. Utilizing WMATA’s joint development process, a surface parking lot was transformed into the Avenir Place residential and commercial mixed-use development with a parking garage and replacement bus loop. The development includes 720 multi-family dwelling units and 125,000 square feet of retail space, including a grocery store anchor with a “Main Street” of ground floor shops. WMATA has made the joint development program guidelines available to developers to clearly outline the process and agreements needed to pursue a purchase, lease or joint venture for TOD. Dunn Loring is one of eighteen projects completed jointly by WMATA between 2002 and 2016 using the joint development program. Findings Lessons learned that are highlighted in the peer examples above include: • • • •

Sharing a vision for TOD with developers and the community through planning documents and policies Using TOD typologies to set expectations and guide desired level and character of development Using zoning to allow greater densities in exchange for developer-provided public amenities and to define by right development levels Utilizing functional overlays to define the type of expected development 3

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

• • • • • • •

Performing comprehensive land use plan updates at station areas to support high frequency transit Requiring affordable housing through mandatory set-asides or inclusionary zoning Streamlining the development process Using the site plan approval process for negotiating site-specific and county benefits Utilizing partnerships to achieve intended development types Using public-private partnerships to leverage investment Utilizing WMATA’s joint development program to promote TODs at WMATA-owned property adjacent to Metrorail stations

Review of Current Plans, Policies, Regulations and Zoning The consultant team performed a review of current plans, policies, regulations, and zoning in place that affect TOD potential in the County. The following summarizes the documents and materials reviewed. Purple Line TOD Study, May 2013 Of the 11 future Purple Line stations, the five stations without recent sector plans were studied for their potential for TOD in the Purple Line Transit-Oriented Development Study: • • • • •

UM West Campus College Park Metro-UMD M Square Riverdale Park Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

The study summarizes existing conditions, provides a market analysis, and lays out a detailed development strategy for the five stations including a zoning template and specific implementation strategies which include: • • • • • • •

Business technical assistance Business financial assistance Mitigation of construction-related impacts Residential implementation strategies Federal affordable housing tools Expanded state/local affordable housing tools Redevelopment funding alternatives

It should be noted that following this 2013 study, plans and zoning were developed for each of the five stations that replace the content developed as part of the study. Plan 2035, Prince George’s Approved General Plan, May 6, 2014 Plan 2035 provided the following related to TOD: • •

Strategic Investment Map (Map 2) identifies three areas designated as Downtowns, an area designated as the Innovation Corridor, and five Neighborhood Reinvestment Areas. Growth Policy Map (Map 11) identifies eight Regional Transit Districts along with employment areas.

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

• • •

Table 16 provides a classification system along with attributes for the eight Regional Transit Districts and 26 local centers which are further classified as Local Centers, Neighborhood Centers, Campus Centers and Town Centers. The County has 15 Metrorail stations, 8 MARC stations, and 1 Amtrak intercity rail station. The Purple Line will have 11 stations in Prince George’s County. There has been a decline in employment around Prince George’s Metrorail stations.

Plan 2035 includes policies to: • • • • • •

Direct a majority of projected new residential and employment to Regional Transit Districts that are designated as Downtowns. Revise the County Code to create a streamlined development review process and standards for the Downtowns and the Innovation Corridor to encourage business development. Support new sidewalk and trail connections between transit facilities and residential and employment areas in the Downtowns, the Innovation Corridor, Regional Transit Districts, and Local Centers. Include block size, building placement, and density requirements in the Zoning Ordinance that support walkable, mixed-use development in identified Regional Transit Districts and Local Centers. Amend the Level of Service (LOS) standards or exempt the Downtowns from the adequate public facility transportation requirements to encourage development in transit locations. Incentivize compact development.

Connect Greater Washington, The Region’s Transit System Plan, Draft Report, October 2014 by WMATA The Washington DC region’s transit plan prepared by WMATA contains the following TOD goal: •

Goal 2: “Facilitate transit-oriented, mixed-use communities that capture employment and household growth, providing choices in where to live, work, and play”.

Prince George’s County Transit Vision Plan, 2018 - 2022 by the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation As the guiding document for transit in the County for the past several years, this document highlights the following TOD-related policies: •

•

“Key decision makers within the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T) understand the need to improve TheBus and Call-A-Bus systems in order to “catch up” to the changes in the County and to support County economic development initiatives and Transit Oriented Development goals.” (page ES-3) County Transit Vision Statement (p. ES-4): “Prince George’s County is a premier destination with a first-class public transit system that enhances the quality of life and provides mobility options for all residents. This robust system supports transit-oriented development, fuels economic development, and expands service to improve connectivity between jobs, housing, retail, medical, recreational, and faith-based destinations. The transportation network features safe, pedestrian friendly streets, and convenient last-mile connections while supporting alternative transportation modes including taxis, bike share and ride-share services.” 5

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

•

Goal 3 – Objective 3: “Continue to develop transit development strategies and policies in conjunction with M-NCPPC to support and guide Transit Oriented Development and land uses that reflect County land use and development goals and which support fixed route transit.” (ES-5) Future Rapid Transit Corridors Strategy. “These fixed guideway systems are critical for enhanced access, mobility and economic development. In addition, they are essential to provide mechanisms to support transit-oriented development, connect to the fixed guideway networks of adjoining jurisdictions, and bridge the regional jobs/housing imbalance and as a meaningful tool to reduce vehicular congestion.” (ES-22)

Designing for Transit, Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines, Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Programming, Revised January 2020 The State of Maryland developed this document to provide a framework and design guidelines for TOD. Highlights include: •

• • •

“A successful TOD creates a place that fully leverages the presence of transit to become a vibrant community node, capitalizes on the synergy that occurs by locating the highest intensity of development in close proximity to transit, and introduces a diversity of land uses and elements that contribute to a vibrant place.” The document provides a summary chart and characteristics for four different TOD place types: Downtown; Urban Neighborhood; Town, Suburban, or Employment Center; and Village Center or Rural Town. “A station’s parking facilities can provide joint development opportunities.” Area Land Uses: ◦ ◦

◦

“Local comprehensive plans and small area plans need to support TOD, as well as local zoning and development regulations.” “Working together, state policies and local jurisdictions’ appropriate area land uses can catalyze economic development and expand housing choices.” “…area land uses can redefine where and how economic activity will occur and help community revitalization efforts focus around transit stations.” The MDOT Secretary’s Office, MDOT MTA, and MDOT SHA can assist with TOD designation, land assembly, and planning and feasibility studies. MDOT can provide technical assistance in plan development and site plan review.

Unlocking the potential for inclusive transit-oriented development in Prince George’s County, Station vision and economic impact, December 2020 by Ernst & Young This TOD-specific document summarizes the current state and potential for TODs in Prince George’s County. Specifics include: • •

2008 Maryland legislature adopted definition of TOD: “a dense, mixed-use deliberately planned development within a half-mile of transit stations that is designed to increase transit ridership”. Provides a comprehensive summary of TOD challenges and opportunities within Prince George’s County: ◦

Defines state-, county- and general station-level barriers to TOD including:

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ◦

Offers potential solutions to increase funding, establish a stronger and more coordinated vision, and address physical constraints: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

◦

Limited financing and funding for TOD Permitting delays and development uncertainty Stations that lack personality Lack of united stakeholder vision for TOD Poor connectivity, access, and walkability Low office footprint and difficulty attracting retail tenants Location of most Metro station areas within floodplain areas

Establish state TOD designation for additional stations Expand existing tax credit program to all industries creating jobs in TODdesignated areas Expand the feasibility of value-capture programs Streamline by-right development and make permitting/approval/fee waiver process more predictable Seek public-private partnerships wherever practical

Highlights four specific station areas at New Carrollton, Greenbelt, Morgan Boulevard, and Southern Avenue.

Building the Transit-Oriented Region: An Implementation Strategy for Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties, February 2021 by the Greater Washington Partnership A companion document to Unlocking the potential for inclusive transit-oriented development in Prince George’s County, this report highlights the benefits that the County will gain from increased TOD: •

•

“TOD must be equitable. Proactive strategies are needed to ensure that households of all incomes and businesses of diverse ownership can benefit from TOD.” Increasing inclusive TOD in the region was identified as part of the Greater Washington Partnership’s Blueprint for Regional Mobility. The County could see significant increases in residential units, office square footage, retail square footage, permanent jobs, and new county tax revenues through increased TOD based on the hypothetical examples at Greenbelt, New Carrollton, Morgan Boulevard, and Southern Avenue. Four strategies for realizing TOD include: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦

Formalize TOD vision and implementation plans at the State and County levels including specific visions for station areas. Prioritize equity by establishing establish equity-related goals for TOD-related programs, tracking progress, and encouraging preservation and production of affordable housing and small business space. Target resources and incentives to TOD areas including through fee waivers, tax abatements, tax credits, loans, and grants. Streamline processes for TOD projects including policies and guidelines, processes to acquire and develop land around stations, permitting for transit-supportive projects in TOD areas, and by-right development for TOD-supportive uses.

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study/Master Plan, June 2021 by the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation This document references a prior planning effort: •

Recaps the County’s 2018 Transit Vision Plan goal to support short- and long-term economic development for the intended outcome of creating a robust transit system that provides employers access to the workforce needed for continued success (page 11).

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 10-Year Strategic Plan for Joint Development, 2022 The purpose of the plan is to “accelerate development” at Metro stations, “prioritize Metro planning and investments”, “align Metro and jurisdictional interests”, and “attract private sector investment” utilizing WMATA’s established joint development program. The plan identifies Prince George’s Plaza (Hyattsville Crossing) as a completed joint development and identifies other Metro stations in the County as future joint development sites. Identified acceleration strategies include: •

Partner with local jurisdictions ◦ ◦ ◦

•

Right-size transit facilities ◦ ◦ ◦

•

Reduce parking Modernize pick up/drop off zones Optimize bus infrastructure

Increase development readiness ◦ ◦ ◦

•

Coordinate site infrastructure needs and funding Pursue policies and funding that support housing goals Leverage local economic development strategies

Evaluate site conditions and development feasibility Resolve entitlements and other site issues Secure gap funding commitments

Minimize implementation risks ◦ ◦ ◦

Complete compact public hearings for transit facility changes pre-RFP Simplify solicitations and proposal requirements Offer smaller parcels

The plan discusses station evaluation for individual stations in terms of development potential, infrastructure needs, and market readiness. Stations within the region are then prioritized into groups based on existing joint development agreements or planned future solicitations. Prince George’s County Transit District Overlay and Development District Overlay Zones The County has been successful with the implementation of TOD through Transit District Overlay and Development District Overlay zones. •

T-D-O: Transit District Overlay:

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

◦

•

“Intended to ensure that development in a designated district meets the goals established in a Transit District Development Plan. Transit Districts may be designated in the vicinity of Metro stations to maximize transit ridership, serve the economic and social goals of the area, and take advantage of the unique development opportunities which mass transit provides.”

D-D-O: Development District Overlay: ◦

“Intended to ensure that development in a designated district meets the goals established in a Master Plan, Master Plan Amendment or Sector Plan. Development Districts may be designated for town centers, Metro areas, commercial corridors, employment centers, revitalization areas, historic areas and other special areas as identified in approved plans.”

Baseline Analysis The County has 15 Metrorail stations, 8 MARC stations, and 1 Amtrak intercity rail station. The Purple Line will have 11 stations in Prince George’s County. Table 1 summarizes the existing and future rail transit corridors and stations within the County.

Table 1: Existing and Future Rail Corridors and Stations Transit Corridor

Stations

Green/Yellow Line West Hyattsville, Prince George’s Plaza (Hyattsville Crossing), College Park (U of (North) MD), Greenbelt Orange Line

Cheverly, Landover, New Carrollton

Blue/Silver Line

Capitol Heights, Addison Road, Morgan Boulevard, Largo Town Center (Downtown Largo)

Green Line (South) Southern Avenue, Naylor Road, Suitland, Branch Avenue Takoma-Langley Crossroads, Riggs Road, UM West Campus, UM Campus Center, Purple Line (future) UM East Campus, College Park Metro-UMD, M Square, Riverdale Park, Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights), Glenridge, New Carrollton Metro MARC Line

Camden

Riverdale Park Town Center, College Park, Greenbelt, Muirkirk, Laurel

MARC Penn Line

New Carrollton, Seabrook, Bowie State University

Amtrak

New Carrollton

As part of Plan 2035, the County identified eight locations as Regional Transit Districts: • • • • • • • •

Branch Avenue Metro College Park/UM Metro/M Square Purple Line Greenbelt Metro Largo Town Center (Downtown Largo) Metro National Harbor New Carrollton Metro Prince George’s Plaza (Hyattsville Crossing) Metro Suitland Metro

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

Table 2 summarizes the baseline conditions for each Regional Transit District.

Table 2: Baseline Conditions for Regional Transit Districts Station

Land Uses1

Metrorail Daily Ridership2

Branch Avenue

Commercial Shopping Center, Mixed-Use Transp. Oriented

2019: 5.2K 2022: 0.8K

Metrorail, Bus

College Park

Mixed-Use Infill

2019: 3.7K 2022: 0.7K

Metrorail, MARC, 1,290 space paid Future Purple Line, parking garage Bus

Greenbelt

Mixed-Use Infill, Mixed-Use Transp. Oriented, Reserved Open Space

2019: 5.4K 2022: 1.1K

Metrorail, MARC, Bus

3,399 paid spaces in surface lot

Largo Town Center (Downtown Largo)

Major Activity Center, Mixed-Use Infill, 2019: 4.0K Mixed-Use Transp. 2022: 0.8K Oriented

Metrorail, Bus

2,200 paid spaces in surface lot and parking garage

Bus

Private paid parking garages and surface lots and metered street parking

Mixed-Use Transp. Oriented, Residential National Harbor N/A Medium, Rural Residential

Average Multimodal Transit Network

Parking Supply3

3,072 paid spaces in surface lots

Mixed-Use Transp. Oriented

2019: 6.7K 2022: 1.2K

Metrorail, MARC, Amtrak, Future Purple Line, Bus

3,519 paid spaces in surface lots and parking garages

Prince George’s Mixed-Use Infill, Plaza Mixed-Use Transp. (Hyattsville Oriented Crossing)

2019: 4.3K 2022: 1.2K

Metrorail, Bus

1,068 space paid parking garage

2019: 4.4K 2022: 0.8K

Metrorail, Bus

1,890 space paid parking garage

New Carrollton

Suitland

Mixed-Use Town Center

1 Source: General Plan Centers 2035 Zoning https://mncppc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=5760b4d195444efe8dbec58311d91f2d 2 Metrorail average daily rail entries. The 2022 data through January 31, 2022. https://wmata.com/initiatives/ridershipportal/Rail-Data-Portal.cfm. 3 https://wmata.com/service/parking/parking-details.cfm.

Of the 11 future Purple Line stations, five were identified as potential locations for TODs in the Purple Line Transit-Oriented Development Study: • • • • •

UM West Campus College Park Metro-UMD M Square Riverdale Park Riverdale Road (Beacon Heights)

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

As part of the Purple Line TOD Study, detailed market analyses were performed for each station. The work resulted in specific land use and policy recommendations for each station.

Station TOD Typologies Typologies will guide expectations for the character and intensity of development at specific TOD sites. Recommended TOD typologies are based on classifications provided in Plan 2035 as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: TOD Typologies Density

Multimodal Connectivity

Parking Supply3

TOD Type

Candidate Sites

Land Uses

Regional Transit Districts

• Branch Ave Metro • College Park/UM Metro/M Square Purple Line • Greenbelt Metro • Largo Town Center (Downtown Largo) Metro • National Harbor • New Carrollton1 Metro • Prince George’s Plaza (Hyattsville Crossing) Metro1 • Suitland Metro

Metrorail with frequent local Moderate- to highfeeder density and connections (bus intensity regional40+ Dwelling and shuttle serving centers; Units/Acre; 3+ service) and mix of office, retail, FAR for New intermodal entertainment, Commercial facilities – public and quasiParking Development; commuter rail public, flex, and varies based greater density (Amtrak and medical uses; on site within a MARC services), balance of uses quarter-mile of fixed guideway will vary depending Metro and light (light rail and bus on center’s rail stations rapid transit) and predominant interstate character and highways and function arterials; walkable and bikeable

Local Transit Centers

• Addison Road Metro • Capitol Heights Metro • Cheverly Metro • Landover Metro • Takoma-Langley Crossroads • Morgan Boulevard Metro • Naylor Road Metro • West Hyattsville Metro

Smaller-scale, mixed-use centers; local-serving retail and limited office uses; mid-rise and low-rise apartments and condos, townhouses

15-30 Dwelling Units/Acre; 1.53 FAR for New Commercial Development

Metrorail or light rail and local transit connections with all types of bus service

Potential for localized parking

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

TOD Type

Candidate Sites

• Annapolis Road/ Glenridge2 • Beacon Heights2 • Muirkirk MARC • Oxon Hill Neighborhood • Port Towns Centers • Riverdale MARC • Riverdale Park2 • Seabrook MARC • Southern Avenue Metro

Campus Centers

• • • •

Bowie MARC UMD East2 UMD Center2 UMD West2

Multimodal Connectivity

Parking Supply3

Land Uses

Density

Neighborhood serving retail and office uses; midrise and low-rise apartments and condos, townhouses, and small-lot singlefamily

10-15 Dwelling Units/Acre; 0.5- Light rail, Limited or no 2 FAR for New commuter rail, or park-and-ride Commercial local bus hub facilities Development

Low- to mediumdensity, mixed-use development oriented toward supporting university research, as well as community housing and retail needs, and student housing needs at Bowie MARC; midrise and low-rise apartments, condos, townhouses, and small-lot single family

10-15 Dwelling Units/Acre; 0.53 FAR for New Commercial Development

Light or commuter rail, Parking arterial roadways, varies based and local/express on site bus service

Sources: 1) Plan 2035 Center Classification System, Plan 2035 Prince George’s Approved General Plan, May 6, 2014. 2) Designing for Transit, Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines, Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Programming, Revised January 2020. New Carrollton and Prince George’s Plaza (Hyattsville Crossing) already have significant TOD development. Future Purple Line centers. 3 All TOD Types: Surface parking is discouraged; takes the lowest priority. On-street parking can be a buffer between pedestrians and traffic. Structured parking placement should not disrupt traffic or pedestrian flow within the TOD. Provide kiss-and-ride facilities within 800 feet of primary station entrance. Prioritize carpools and vanpools with reserved parking. 1 2

Note: The decision about where to relocate the FBI should be made in the Fall of 2022. Both Greenbelt Station and the former Landover Mall site are candidate sites. The decision will likely affect where those locations fall on a list of most promising locations for TOD.

Next Steps This peer analysis, review of current plans and policies, baseline TOD analysis, and defined TOD typologies will guide the following additional work that will be conducted by the consultant team: • •

Identify the five most promising station areas for TOD. Screen the sites for high-medium-low land use and transit mix scenarios and needed TOD elements including mobility and access, variety of services, and redevelopment potential – 12

Transit-Oriented Development Practices August 11, 2022

•

to gauge support for compact development and infrastructure that supports integrated transit and land use and can leverage nearby development. Use existing local and regional plans and GIS resources to consider a mix of developable and available land, permitted land uses, parking supply, demand, cost, and regulations, property ownership, real estate market dynamics, allowed densities and support for higher densities, walkability, bike access, community resources, land preservation, environmental resources, and transit stations’ physical characteristics. Develop an evaluation matrix that cross-compares the five most promising station areas and a set of pragmatic recommendations to advance the efforts in the next 5 to 15 years.

TASK 6.17

Existing Plan Review

Prince George’s County Master Plan of Transportation 2035

Existing Plans and Policies Background The Prince George’s County Planning Department is updating and replacing the Approved 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT). It is comprehensively developing goals, strategies, and policies to better implement Plan 2035, the Prince George’s County General Plan, approved in 2014. Task 6 involves the research, assessment, and report preparation of relevant existing transportation conditions and trends in the County. The work completed for Task 6.17 is focused on a review of the existing plans and policies.

Scope of Work Task 6.17 involves the review of the plans and policies listed below and identification of potential conflicts and overlaps. The study team determined who would review which document and RK&K’s assignments are identified. • • • • • • • •

DPW&T Specifications and Standards for Roads and Bridges – RK&K DPW&T Urban Street Design Standards – RK&K DPR Trail Strategic Plan DPW&T Vision Zero Action Plan DPW&T Transit Vision Plan – RK&K Prince George’s County Capital Improvement Program – RK&K (limited to roadways and transit) Plan Prince George’s 2035 (limited to Transportation and Mobility) Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations

Data Collection and Existing Resources The reports used in this review were located and downloaded from digital sources on Prince George’s County Government websites.

Findings The following section highlight the findings of each report’s review, either independently or in relation to another report:

DPW&T Specifications and Standards for Roads and Bridges (2012) (SSRB) The review of this document primarily focused on the roadway classifications and associated right-of-way width. Road classifications are set based on their primary function, traffic volumes, and adjacent land uses. Design standards are tied to the functional class. Prince George’s County applies sixteen classifications, four of which are Scenic and Historic. Three other classifications relate specifically to hiker/biker trails within the urban right-of-way or on private easements. Table 1 presents the twelve classifications compared to the information provided in Table 4 of the 2009 MPOT. Freeways and Expressways are not classified by Prince George’s County as they are Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration facilities where the

Existing Plan Review August 11, 2022

right-of-way is obtained and owned by the State of Maryland. Table 4 of the 2009 MPOT provides the right-of-way width for each roadway listed. Within each roadway classification the right-of-way width varies. On some roadways, the right-of-way width is presented by a range or indicated as “varies.” The typical right-of-way width shown in the table is the number represented most often. Each standard detail for roadway classifications includes a typical section with dimensions and a table showing the right-of-way width. It should be noted that the dimensions shown in the typical sections are not precisely consistent with those in the table. For Standard 100.06 – Urban Primary Residential Road, the width from right-of-way line to right-of-way line is 62’ (72’ for an alternate configuration). However, the companion table shows 60’ (70’). For Standard 100.07Urban Secondary Residential Road, the width from right-of-way line to right-of-way line is 52’. However, the companion table shows 50’. For those roadways where an alternate configuration (wider typical section) is to be applied, the master plan right-of-width may be insufficient in some locations. These “pinch points” may result from an obstacle on the property or other situations where the property is protected (e.g., parkland, cemetery, historic building). In these situations, the roadway centerline may need to be adjusted away for the obstacle resulting in a greater impact in the property opposite the obstacle.

Table 1: Right-of-Way Width Comparison SSRB Design R/W Width (alternate configuration width)

2009 MPOT Classification

Typical R/W Width (ft)

No DPW&T Classification

Freeways

300

No DPW&T Classification

Expressways

200

Classification

Standard No.

Urban Arterial

120 (130)

100.01

Arterials

120

Urban Major Collector

100

100.02

Major Collectors

100

Urban 4-Lane Collector

100.03

Collectors

Urban 5-Lane Collector

80 (90)

100.04

Urban Primary Residential Road

60 (70)

100.06

Primary Roads

Urban Commercial and Industrial Road

100.05

Industrial Roads

Urban Secondary Residential Road

100.07

Rural 4-Lane Arterial

130

100.08

Rural 2-Lane Collector

100.09

Rural Primary Residential Road

100.10

Rural Secondary Residential Road

100.11

Rural Private Residential Road

100.12

Sources: SSRB and 2009 MPOT

Existing Plan Review August 11, 2022

DPW&T Urban Street Design Standards (2017) (USDS) The Urban Street Design Standards was developed for use in Prince George’s County’s Regional Transit Districts and Local Centers as established in Plan 2035 Prince George’s Approved General Plan. It recognizes that designs standards in and around transit districts and local centers warrant special consideration, partly because of the multimodal aspect around Complete Streets. They transform traditional suburban-style development into more urban environments increasingly focused on transit, walking, and bicycling. The new urban street typologies serve to overlay the functional classification of the roadway. In these areas, additional considerations are to be evaluated. The urban street typologies generally overlay on Urban Arterials (Std. No. 100.01), Urban Major Collectors (Std. No 100.02), Urban 4-Lane Collectors (Std. No. 100.03), Urban 5-Lane Collectors (Std. No. 100.04), Urban Commercial and Industrial Road (Std. No. 100.05), Urban Primary Residential Road (Std. 100.06), and Urban Secondary residential Road (Std. No 100.07). The overlays contain elements and dimensions that encourage multimodal use of the roadway: slower design speeds, fewer travel lanes, wider sidewalks, greater bicycle accommodation, and shorter crossing distances. New standards for these roadways, shown in Table 2, were created to supplement those listed above.

Table 2: Urban Street Design Standards USDS Classification

Design R/W Width (ft) (alternate configuration widths*)

Standard No.

Mixed Use Boulevard (A) 2 Travel Lanes

99 (89) (83)

100.20

Mixed Use Boulevard (B) 2 Travel Lanes

92 (82) (76)

100.21

Mixed Use Boulevard (A) 4 Travel Lanes

119 (109)

100.22

Mixed Use Boulevard (B) 4 Travel Lanes

116 (106)

100.23

Mixed Use Boulevard (A) Center Turn Lane

100.24

Mixed Use Boulevard (B) Center Turn Lane

100.25

Neighborhood Connector (A)

83 (75)

100.26

Neighborhood Connector (B)

66 (58)

100.27

Neighborhood Residential

60 (53)

100.28

Industrial Road

48 (57)

100.29

Shared Street

100.30

Alley

100.31

Separated Bike Lane

N/A

100.32

Bike Lane

N/A

100.33

Shared Lane Marking

N/A

100.34

Shared Use Path

N/A

100.35

Perpendicular Curb Ramp Configuration

N/A

100.36

Curb Extension

N/A

100.37

Street Tree Placement in R/W

N/A

600.21

Existing Plan Review August 11, 2022

* Figures in parenthesis indicate alternative configurations related to reductions in median width or optional on-street parking. Source: USDS

In most cases, the design right-of-way width for the additional urban street types exceed that of the comparable design right-of-way width defined in Standards 100.01 – 100.07. To assess the potential impact associated with these differences, DPW&T and M-NCPPC must define the boundary of the regional transit districts and local centers and determine which roadways within that boundary warrant a new classification based on adjacent land uses and modal share. Typically, reconsiderations of this type would be done through the master plan update process. Standard Nos. 100.32 – 100.37 and 600.21 can be accommodated without impact to the planned right-of-way width. These classifications are intended to repurpose the existing roadway to support the complete streets concept and increase all users’ sense of safety and comfort.

DPW&T Transit Vision Plan The Prince George’s County DPWT Transit Vision Plan 2018-2022 provides recommendations based on a set of goals and objectives to create an action plan. The Transit Vision Plan focuses mainly on enhancements and improvements to the existing bus service – additional service, modification of routes, customer service improvements, and first mile/last mile connections. The Plan recommends implementation phasing and provides estimated improvement costs by phase. The final section of the Plan includes a brief section on a future rapid transit corridor strategy, recommending the preparation of a Master Plan for a Fixed Guideway System within the County. This plan would evaluate corridors and assess feasible guideway improvements within each corridor. The Plan goes on to say that the improvement recommendations in the earlier parts of the plan form the foundation for transition over time to enhanced rapid transit service in major corridors.

Prince George’s County Capital Improvement Program (2022) The Department of Public Works and Transportation FY 2022-2027 Prince George’s County Capital Improvement Program, while not specifically conflicting with the Transit Vision Plan, is very focused on roadway improvements, with little funding for transit. The four line items for transit are: #4.66.0006 – Bus Mass Transit/Metro Access #7.66.0002 - Southern Maryland Rapid Transit #7.66.0001 - Maryland Purple Line #4.66.0039 - Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure

Plan 2035, Prince George’s Prince George’s Approved General Plan The Transportation and Mobility Element of Plan 2035, Prince George’s Approved General Plan (2014) is the plan most relevant to the Transit Vision Plan. The transportation and mobility goal provided below presents no conflicts with the Transit Vision Plan. Provide and maintain a safe, affordable, accessible, and energy-efficient multimodal transportation network that supports the County’s desired land use pattern and Plan 2035 goals.

Existing Plan Review August 11, 2022

Plan 2035, with a longer-term perspective than the five-year vision plan looks beyond improvements to the existing bus services and looks to the need to invest in transit and to identify future corridors. It mentions specifically the Southern Maryland (MD 5) Transit Corridor. The plan identifies the challenges of land use and development patterns that do not presently support transit. It recommends prioritizing investment in targeted areas, with the need to focus on development of a network. The following table lists the 37 master, sector, and transit district development plans prepared since 2008 that inform the Master Plan of Transportation.

Table 3: Master, Sector, and Transit District Development Plans Plan

Date

2021 Preliminary Bowie-Mitchellville and Vicinity Master Plan

2021

City of College Park Complete and Green Streets Implementation Plan: 30 Percent Design 2021 for Five Street Segments Preliminary Adelphi Road-UMGC-UMD Purple Line Station Area Sector Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment

2021

Greater Cheverly

2018

Mount Rainier Pattern Book

2018

East Riverdale-Beacon Heights

2017

Prince George's Plaza TDDP

2016

Central Avenue Connector Trail Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan

2015

College Park-Riverdale Park TDDP

2015

Approved Landover Metro Area and MD 202 Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment

2014

Central Avenue - Metro Blue Corridor TOD Implementation Project Mobility

2014

Eastover/Forest Heights/Glassmanor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment

2014

Landover Metro Area & MD 202 Corridor

2014

Plan Prince George's 2035 Approved General Plan

2014

Southern Green Line

2014

Central Branch Avenue Corridor Revitalization Sector Plan

2013

Greenbelt Metro Area and MD 193 Corridor

2013

Largo Town Center

2013

Subregion 5

2013

Subregion 6

2013

Bowie MARC

2010

Central Annapolis Rroad Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment

2010

Central US 1 Corridor

2010

City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan

2010

Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham

2010

New Carrollton TDDP

2010

Subregion 1

2010

Subregion 4

2010

Existing Plan Review August 11, 2022

Landover Gateway Sector Plan

2009

Marlboro Pike

2009

Port Towns

2009

Takoma/Langley Crossroads

2009

Branch Avenue Corridor

2008

Capitol Heights TDDP

2008