Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We're starting our planning board meeting for Thursday, April 23rd. We're doing things a little bit different order today. We have a full audience today for Bring Your Child to Work Day. And we're going to start with our director's roundtable with the report from the parks director, Mitty Figueredo. Welcome, Ms. Figueredo. Thank you.

And welcome to all you kids and parents. Welcome to Montgomery Parks and Montgomery Planning. We have a very important parks director's report today. I have a special assistant here with me on the dais. Jackson Harlow is going to be helping me with this director's report. And you're going to learn about what some of your parents do at work every day and why it's so cool. Because let me tell you something. Every day at Parks, we have fun. So who here likes climbing trees? And please, right, we have a job for that. This here is Nick, and every day he removes dangerous branches and trees in our parks to make sure that our trees are healthy and safe. Who loves playgrounds? Well, some people don't just play on playgrounds. They design them. Brian here in this picture is testing out a boulder to make sure that this boulder is fun to play on. That's part of the job. In streams. Our aquatic scientists do that too, but they're also checking the water quality and studying the fish and the other critters in our streams. Who here likes to do arts and crafts? Well, Chris is our exhibit shop manager. He is an actual real artist. He and his team build some amazing things like giant animals and park displays. Imagine building things that so many people get to see and touch in real life. Who likes to go on hikes with their family, with their friends? Well, our trail planners like Kyle here get to design and build the trails that you walk on and ride your bikes on, and sometimes they test them by hiking or mountain biking. Who likes ice skating? You could be like a princess like Elsa or Anna, or you could teach skating, or you could even, and this would be what I would like, drive a Zamboni. Who likes to have a party? Well, this is Mike Coppersmith and he is our party king. He throws some of the biggest parties in Montgomery County like our Sligo Creek Fest. Just look at how much fun he's having at work. And who likes to take pictures with their friends? Well, we have a job for that too. You can become a park photographer and you can take pictures of people having fun in parks. Who's ever dressed up like a police officer for Halloween or wanted to ride a motorcycle? Our park police catch robbers in real life to make sure that we're all safe in parks. And sometimes they get to ride motorcycles or horses. Who loves animals? Our nature center programmers take care of turtles, birds, snakes, and they teach kids and grownups about them too. And who here likes horses? Me too. Barn managers take care of our park police horses, and they even get to ride them. For me, that would be the best day at work. And who likes riding bikes? Todd here loves riding his bike, especially in the woods. The favorite part of his job is teaching other people how to mountain bike. And make sure you ask your parents to sign you up to take one of our mountain biking classes. And lastly, who here likes to skateboard or wants to learn how to skateboard? Even our leaders, like our planning board chair, Artie Harris, loves skateboarding. You never know where your interests can take you. And if any of these jobs sound like fun, you know, you could start today. You don't have to wait to be a grown-up. You can help us clean up parks. You can plant native plants in your yard. And then one day, you could be working in parks too. Thank you for being such a great audience, and I hope you have a wonderful day.

So thank you, Director Figueredo, for showing us all these career options that you could have at Montgomery Park. So how many of you out there have heard of a job that you might want to have one day in Montgomery Parks? Raise your hand if you... Or Montgomery Planning. Well, I wish you could stay with us all day, but it's time to get all the children to their other activities, other fun activities that we have planned for you And a big thank you to all the parks and planning staff for helping organize and putting on these activities today. And I wish you have a great day at all your fun activities. And I hope you, at the end of the day, you talk to all your friends about all the cool things you did on Take Your Children to Work Day with your parents. Okay, so thank you so much. And for those watching live stream, we're going to take a 10-minute break. and then be back with the rest of our items. For everyone else in the room, we're going to take a large group photo and make sure you get to your next activity. So thank you, everyone. We're in the main part of our meeting this morning. We're going to start out with preliminary matters. 1A is adoption of resolutions. We have seven this morning. The first four all board members can vote on. They are Paramount Self-Storage Sketch Plan, Paramount Self-Storage Site Plan, Paramount Self-Storage Forest Conservation Plan, and Flint Ridge Lot 14 Block A Forest Conservation Plan Amendment. Do I have a motion for approval of these four resolutions?

I move to approve these four versions.

Second. Sorry, second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. The next three, all the members can vote except Commissioner Padawan. So the number five is Inglesia de Cristo Miel, Maryland, preliminary plan. The sixth is Inglesia de Cristo Miel, Maryland, Forest Conservation Plan. And the seventh and last is Shady Grove Dash, in Forest Conservation Plan to have a motion to approve these three resolutions. Move to approve the resolutions. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And so it's 4-0-1 abstain. And then the next, we're on approval of minutes. We have the first. All commissioners except Commissioner Bartley and Pedawim can vote on this. It's the minutes of March 27, 2026 to have a motion for approval of this March 27th minutes. Move to approve the March 27th minutes. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The 3-0-2. OK. And then the next three, all commissioners can vote on the minutes of April 9th, the minutes of April 16th, and the closed session minutes of April 9th. I have a motion to approve these three minutes. Move to approve the minutes. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Bartley, you're... Okay, five. Five-zero. Thank you. And then next we have two regulatory extensions. 21927 Green Book Drive Administrative Subdivision Regulatory Extension Request Number 211701 Princess Distillery Road Preliminary Plan Regulatory extension request number one, where staff is recommending approval of these two extensions. Do I have a motion to approve these two extensions?

Move to approve the extension requests.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it 5-0. All right. Next, do we need to take a one-minute break? Okay. We're going to take just a one-minute break to switch over to our next item, item number five, the U.S. 29BRT Sligo Creek Parkway to Tech Road mandatory referrals. where staff is recommending approve the mandatory referral and transmit comments to MCDOT. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. We're on item number 5, US 29BRT, Sligo Creek Parkway to Tech Road, mandatory referral, where staff is recommending approving the mandatory referral and transmitting comments to MCDOT. This morning, we have Eli Glazier with the Planning Department presenting this item. Welcome, Mr. Glazier.

Thank you, Chair Harris, members of the board. For the record, my name is Eli Glazier, transportation planner with the Transportation Planning Division in Montgomery Planning. I worked on this project with Karen Guz-Dwar of the Planning Department, and I'm joined at the table today by Jamie Henson on my left and Nino Ranjo on my right from MCDOT, who are leading the design and project management of this project and other bus rapid transit projects across Montgomery County. sort of the run of show for today. I'll do an introduction about mandatory referral and the project, get into the history of how we got here on this project a little bit, and then turn it over to the MCDOT team to talk about the design of the corridor, the pedestrian bicycle improvements, the engagement that's been done to date, the work that they've done and continue to do to reduce impacts of the project, and then the project schedule before I'll take over again and talk about the master plan consistency, and some of the other best practices recommendations that we have. We'll have an opportunity for public testimony and then sort of open it up for a fuller conversation. So on the introduction, just as a reminder, state law requires that all federal, state, local, government, and public utility projects, public utilities submit proposed projects for mandatory referral review by the commission. The law requires the planning board to review and approve the location, character, grade, extent of any road, park, public way, or ground, public building or structure, public utility prior to the project being located, constructed, or authorized. This includes transportation projects like this. The role of the planning board in this process is advisory. And staff, sort of our task today is to review MCDOT's current design with an eye towards master plan consistency, best practices, and vision zero, and advise on potential improvements. So the proposed project is median running bus rapid transit lanes for approximately five miles between about Franklin Avenue at the south end and Tech Road at the north end. There are, in the image to the right, you can see that sort of south from Franklin Avenue and north from Industrial Parkway. The bus lanes, the buses are in mixed traffic, and then there are alternating sections of single and dual median lane, dedicated lanes for the buses throughout the rest of the corridor. The project includes a nearby relocation of four bus rapid transit stations on the corridor, two at Four Corners and two at Burt Mills, The project adds transit signal priority at 16 intersections. And I think it's important to note that the specific design effort that is in front of you today is focused solely on the transit component. There's a separate capital improvements program project to identify and construct pedestrian and bicycle improvements along US 29 and to the stations on US 29 as the project progresses. I think. This project is really one of the county's most significant efforts to create high-quality, high-capacity transit in East County. The project will improve the existing flash service between Silver Spring, Briggs-Cheney, and Burtonsville, and the faster transit vehicle speeds. The project will allow buses to travel faster by increasing the reliability and travel times at the most congested locations along US-29. This project has been a long time coming. A vision for dedicated transit facilities on US 29 has existed since at least 1996. Bus rapid transit and dedicated lanes have been analyzed in at least 20 county and state studies and nine countywide and regional studies. The planning board, as you might expect, has played a significant role in shaping this project over those years. Most recently, the planning staff led a detailed review of MCDOT's mobility and reliability study in 2020. That study evaluated different options for high quality transit on US 29. The planning board at that time pushed for additional county funding for MCDOT to further optimize the bus rapid transit concept. That advocacy was successful and led to additional funding that helped fund the 2022 addendum to that study. After completing the phase two study, MCDOT came back to the planning board for review. And the planning board at that time supported the median lane option that was detailed in that study. The county executive also supported the median lane option that was detailed in that study. And then the council supported and funded the 35% design for the median lane option detailed in that study. is the design that's under review today. MCDOT submitted this project to planning staff for managerial referral in February of this year. And after the project was submitted for review, at the request of the district council member on March 2, the Transportation and Environment Committee directed MCDOT to study the impact of removing one or both transit lanes through Four Corners as design advances. I think it's important to note that MCDOT will study this change as it continues towards final design, but they will be continuing towards final design of the concept currently being reviewed by the planning board. So I think that's important. Project overview, I'll turn it over to Nino.

Thank you for the board for having us today. Eli went a little bit already on the background of the project. I think it's important to go to the next steps and look at the overall program as a whole. So MCDOT's BRT program is pushing several initiatives. We have a couple of projects in design now. MD355 with Viers Mill Road starting some early construction as well. We have additional efforts in terms of planning studies, New Hampshire, North Bethesda. But today, of course, our focus is US 29, which is in existing service. Phase one, the existing service, was open in October 2020. And that connects Bertonsville to Silver Spring. Service is about seven to eight minutes, typically, and operates every day with the shoulders on the buses operating on the shoulders along Tech Road. It's about five miles. The project of phase two is further implementing and developing this BRT, and it goes from Sligo Creek to Tech Road. It's a median running bus lane hybrid, so there are several layouts that I will walk through the board shortly, that single median lane, two-way median lane, and mixed traffic. Our initiative here is completing 35% preliminary engineering, and there will be station improvements at two key locations, four corners, and burnt mills. regarding this project. In addition to the various layouts that I just mentioned, there will also be new traffic signals. There are about 16 on this corridor. There'll be adjusted neighborhood access at several locations. And there are some implemented bicycle and pedestrian facilities where deemed appropriate. We're also looking to connect them to the existing and proposed stations. Collection of slides is a section of the proposed layout for US 29. Just to orient the board and the audience, I'll walk you through the graphics here. On the top right hand of your screen is a legend here. So flash buses are indicated by orange, local buses indicated by the blue. And the mixture of usage of lanes is that diagonal blue and orange. On the left is context of where we're located. And then in the center of your screen is the presentation of existing conditions on the top and proposed on the bottom, just to help guide the audience through the next few slides. So the first section here is Franklin to I-495, the beltway. We have an existing condition of three lanes of traffic in both directions with pretty wide grass and also concrete median in the center of the roadway. Right now, transit is operating on the outer lanes. both flash and local buses. Our proposition is utilizing that center median and converting it to a strictly northbound BRT lane, and that will be utilized by flash. We are maintaining three lanes of traffic in both direction, and local buses will be utilizing the outer lanes. It's important to note that in this particular section, just due to space constraints, the southbound flash will be utilizing the outer lane going southbound.

Sorry, can I ask one question? Oh, sorry.

No, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean for the south lane. You just said it very fast. So the northbound use, when you say FLASH, you mean the future BRT, correct? I just want to make sure I understand the terminology correctly. So the FLASH is actually phase two is our BRT designation, correct?

That is correct. We have existing flash now, and they are operating on the outer lanes on US 29. So they're exclusively using the outer travel lanes of the roadway.

Okay.

And in our proposition in this particular section, the northbound will be a dedicated lane to BRT. So that will be the northbound lane. But southbound, they will be positioned on the outer lanes as existing.

And that would be a mixed?

Yes, it will be a mixed.

Okay. Thank you.

Just a couple of just quick questions on this. Could you just explain the decision to put the northbound in the center lane in this section and not the southbound?

From my understanding, it's primarily driven by the peak direction and the volumes of that time, and northbound dictates at that section.

And thanks. And you mentioned that the space constraints prevented, obviously, both in the middle here. I mean, this is a section where I think, ideally, both would be in dedicated lanes. Other sections, I saw that you were proposing to, or you are proposing to take additional right of way to accommodate the lanes in different configurations. But in this section, was it not feasible to take additional right-of-way? Was it just prohibitively expensive to take additional right-of-way? Because to me at least, this is actually kind of a critical section of the design. And honestly, kind of south of Sligo Parkway as well as you get further into downtown. So I'm just kind of curious what the overall thinking was on whether additional right of way wasn't feasible, and what else kind of went into the decision.

Sure, and I could start if others would like to add in. But if you look at this corridor from Sligo Creek all the way to Tech Road, our team's understanding is that there are two key areas here. There's burnt mills and four corners that we need to navigate this BRT system. So ultimately, it's about travel times and balancing the needs of the BRT and the impacts to adjacent areas, such as residential neighborhoods or commercial areas. Here, from my understanding, we are putting in the median BRT through. double in two directions at four corners where it's critical. But we are able to maintain their improved travel times for BRT here from Franklin to I-495, which is the northbound configuration.

I'm the BRT Implementation Manager at DOT with the county. So specifically, I think you also asked about south of there. So our project really stops at Sligo, so we're not looking south of Sligo. So our effort specifically doesn't look at the reversible lane section, which begins somewhere, I can't remember if Sligo or somewhere south of there. So we're really not looking at that. And as part of these projects, we're really trying to figure out how to shoot a gap on implementation that minimizes our property needs, that addresses the key issues, which are really, in this corridor, commuter travel. This is a very high volume corridor. I think it's really the highest volume corridor in the county. And so it's much less, as you look across our corridors, commercial. And so it's very peakish, so highly peaked in the AM inbound. much more so than in PM outbound. And so that's why you see a lot of the intensity and the benefit is really in the southbound AM direction. When we did a microsimulation analysis for this section, it turned out that this section south of the beltway, it made much more sense from an analysis perspective, which frankly is a bit counterintuitive. You're saying the same things that were my first impressions when I saw it, which is, why would we do that? And the reason is because we felt like there would be more benefit. So you end up with some slightly different patterns moving around the beltway. The beltway kind of mixes things up where you need to get to the beltway to make movements. And so our analysis found that that northbound only was the optimal approach to move buses through the corridor.

And that makes sense. So generally, what is the travel time then for the southbound buses from 495 into downtown? Because it seems like the configuration on the southbound side really isn't

changing a whole lot so are we expecting any benefit from kind of the sort of tangential benefit from the other piece of the design and so keep in mind this is just for the section below 495 yeah right so it's not for the section north of there right that really is the critical piece to get through as as uh mr renho was noting really burnt mills and four corners those are the places where it's really hard to get through and you get the most travel time benefit um and and so yeah i We're glad to share some of that analysis if needed. But at the end of the day, unfortunately, or I guess I shouldn't say unfortunately, the most optimal approach really was that northbound focus. It's, again, somewhat counterintuitive. I know I don't have a better answer. Yeah, that's okay.

And I understand that the project also ended at Sligo Parkway, as you mentioned earlier. I guess where I was sort of going, and I don't want to delay. We can keep moving. Sure, and I'll do my best to answer your question.

I feel like I'm not answering you very well. I'm sorry about that.

No, it's okay. I understand kind of what the modeling is showing and what you're explaining. In retrospect, I wish that the project had extended south of Sligo Parkway because as you move closer to downtown, there's a lot more conflicts and buses. I think, you know, I haven't seen modeling on that section. I haven't kind of seen any analysis there, but At least anecdotally, that section has a lot more conflicts in terms of where vehicles are trying to move in different directions and crossover lanes. There's also the reverse directional lanes there currently. And there's a lot of right-of-way space. And I understand we're trying to sort of, as you explained, trying to balance all these things and also accommodate what will continue to be a lot of commuter traffic for sure. It seems like we're not going to really achieve travel time benefits south of Sligo Parkway, which I don't know what the current travel time, the average travel time is for buses going from there to the transit center in downtown Silver Spring. I imagine that it's longer than we would expect, given that it's not that far of a distance. That was kind of what I was just getting at, that I was wondering kind of generally for southbound, what the travel time differences are and what other options were considered. But yeah, thanks. I appreciate the explanation.

Thank you very much. The next section here is going through four corners, critical part of the project. On the top of your screen is the existing condition. Here, running from center and branching out to both east and west, you have four lanes of traffic from the existing concrete and grass median. On the outer lanes, both flash and existing service is utilizing. that for their service, and our conceptual proposal is putting in two-way running median BRT here, and there will be a flash station as indicated. It's important to note that the three lanes of traffic in both directions will be reduced to four, even though that outer lane is primarily used by local and flash transit in the existing condition and will continue to be used by local transit in the proposed condition.

Are we reducing one lane here on each direction?

We are to accommodate the median running BRT, yes.

How can we do that? The four corners is the most difficult part. I really have a heartburn on this. I support transit, but not to the cost of making a nightmare even worse. Yes, ma'am.

So we have sort of, there are future slides about this, but the team, Mr. Henson mentioned some of the micro simulation and modeling that was done as part of this. The team has travel time analysis that compares what would happen in the near future if nothing was done compared to what the project is proposing. And it's not the doom and gloom scenario that you're picturing in your head. So that's sort of on the modeling side. And then I'll get into this later as well. What is shown here in the conceptual configuration at the bottom is completely in line with the master plan vision for the corridor, the number of travel lanes, and the number of dedicated transit lanes.

Well, let's just think about reality. I know all the models, all the studies, all of those are just a model. The reality of the fact, and I'm very familiar with that because I worked right there. The reality of the fact is that, and I saw it because we have a lot of intersections that go to F. And then when we do that, they're going to be again more F. And I do not know if something, we don't have a double F. So when we say F, and it's going to stay at F, Is it going to be double F or triple F? What is the impact? And I don't know. Maybe you could say that all the model and analysis show that it's going to be really worse. The only thing I know is that it is terrible right now. And if we reduce two lanes, one lane on each direction, It's going to be a nightmare for the traffic there. And I just don't see how is that possible. I just don't see it. And I support to have transit, but not to the cost of creating a nightmare, another nightmare.

Excuse me. I think they have a lot to go through. And they want to hear all the questions. But why don't we, please. Write down your questions or something. And let's get through this. This is a long presentation. And then we can go through each one, OK? If you don't mind. Thank you.

Thank you. And just to reiterate that point, we'll go through the presentations. And this is a constant theme that we have heard through public outreach. We've noted it as such. And we'll go into further details as we go through the presentation. The next section here is the Burnt Mill Shopping Center, just north of Court Corners, of course. An existing condition is three lanes of traffic in both direction, similar to the rest of the corridor. Both flash and local buses are utilizing the outer lanes. And there are some existing left turn lanes in the center of the roadway buffered by existing median concrete. What we're proposing is maintaining those three lanes of traffic in both directions and proposing a southbound BRT here with a flash station.

What's going to happen to the left turn?

We are still able to maintain left turn bays, and as we continue through this Burnt Mills area, there will be a sharing of that roadway space between the BRT and the vehicles.

I don't understand. Is the left turn going to be shared with the BRT lane, or is it going to be shared with the travel lane?

Sure. So as you can see, and kind of just walk through the proposed conditions, it's a pretty wide section where the southbound BRT and flash station is. That projects through this burnt mills area of the project.

Could you show it with your cursor what you're talking about? I have a hard time to follow. I'm sorry.

Sure. And here we have this. I can see that.

So this area that's shared here between, it shows the bus stop, the transit station, and the bus lane. This area is wide enough that where there isn't the bus stop, there's room for a left turn bay that's independent of the bus rapid transit lane and independent of the through travel lanes.

Oh, OK. So you're going to fit it back there. So it's going to be a separation that send it back there for the left turn. So it's not going to be interfering with each of them.

It won't come at the expense of either. It's separate.

OK. OK. Thanks.

I think you can also just click left or right. Next section that we're going through is Four Corners to Stewart Lane. Existing condition is three lanes of traffic in the northbound direction. three lanes of traffic in the southbound direction, transit utilizing the outer lanes. And what we're proposing here is a peak direction BRT lane in the center of the roadway. Depending on time of day, that certain BRT, whether it's AM or PM, will utilize that roadway space. Three lanes of traffic is maintained. Local traffic is going to be utilizing the outer lanes. And it's important to note that in this particular configuration, the non-peak direction that BRT will be sharing that with the travel lanes alongside the median BRT. So if there's any kind of particulars on describing that, I can go through it right now.

I thought that when you get from Burnt Mill to Stewart Lane, BRT goes off the Lockwood. I thought that's what you were planning.

Our primarily focus is through U.S. 29 corridor. There is a existing spur that goes through that Lockwood area that we are showing on the map on the left-hand side, but this primarily on U.S. 29.

Oh, so that one that is Lockwood is not part of the BRT? I got it wrong then when I was reviewing it yesterday.

Correct. And so for this one, what we're referring to is from Four Corners to Stewart Lane, except for Burnt Mills. And I think that might have been, was that part of your question as well?

My question is that from Burnt Hill, Burnt Mill Shopping Center to Stewart Lane, you have shown that the blue line, the single lane, the blue line, I guess, was mixed. Yeah, the blue line is mixed. I thought that you're proposing to go through Lockwood.

No, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. No, we stay on US 29. So this phase two project stays on US 29. So it stays on US 29. So in essence, it's the blue line here that remains straight through.

So if you go back in here, the orange shows the flash

Both flash services, there's an orange operation and a blue operation. The blue operation solely stays on US 29. The orange operation will benefit from the dedicated lanes for the portion that's on US 29 and then spurs off onto Lockwood, like you've identified, and then comes back onto US-29 further north.

So that's a separate flash that is not part of the BRT? I'm getting confused. That's OK. That's OK.

It's a little bit confusing. These are different operating patterns. We have two operating patterns. Both are flash. Right? So they're slightly different operating patterns. They're both running at roughly 15-minute headways. And where they overlap, north of Stewart and Burnt Mill South, the combined headways, roughly seven and a half minutes. Right? they complement each other. In that middle section, we have one line that diverges to Lockwood and becomes quasi-local, right, to touch all the development. We have some service that goes over to FDA a few times a day, and it becomes quasi-local as it goes around that loop, then joins together to go back north.

So there are two flash buses. One stays on the orange. Correct. That is 15 minutes, and one stays on the blue. That is 15 minutes also. That's also 15 minutes, correct. Okay.

But when their powers combine, seven and a half minutes. So that's the key.

Yeah, if they don't need to go to Lockwood. Or do you think that it's going to, Still, the time may be improved a little bit when it is separated, but the orange wouldn't be half, I guess.

The time will absolutely improve for the blue line as well because the majority of its congestion is through burnt mills and four corners, which it's sort of the same service pattern as the blue line.

Okay, got it. Thank you.

The last section here is Stewart Lane to Industrial Parkway. There is an existing condition, a large green ditch median that we are utilizing this space. And there are existing three lanes of travel in both the northbound and southbound direction, just like the rest of the corridor with outer lanes being utilized by transit. Our proposition is cutting back and narrowing that grass median and putting in the median BRT alongside. and maintaining three lanes of traffic in both directions.

I'm sorry. I can't help it not say it. But this is the whole five miles. The only section that you reduce lanes was through North Volcona. Everywhere else, the number of lanes stayed the same. But when it got to fourth corner, you reduce one lane on each direction. That doesn't make sense to me. Something should be done there.

When we, please. I know, I couldn't wait.

I had to say it because they're finishing in here. They're not going to come back here.

But they will if you ask them to come back. Okay, let's just... Go ahead, please.

And we can certainly talk through it further. But Four Corners is the most difficult location on the project. There are businesses. And we've presented at the local church there. That's right alongside the roadway. And it's a balancing act of trying to squeeze in this BRT. And there will be more pieces of information as we go through the presentation. And we can certainly go back to this. Holistically, with a proposed median running BRT with dedicated lanes, there will be impacts to the intersections. There are 16 total signals here. 13 will have signal modifications. There will be three proposed signals new. They're at Timberwood Avenue, Crestmore Drive, and Hillwood Drive. There will be also proposed left turn restrictions as well. They are at Layton Avenue, Brewster Avenue, Lorain Avenue, Hillwood Drive, Lockwood Drive, and Northwest Drive. And I want to kind of take a pause here to focus in on that. There are two parts to this. Besides the space concern of accommodating meeting-running BRT, having the existing condition of uncontrolled left turns to three lanes of traffic is a safety concern. And we've done our investigation, and there is a history of crashes at these intersections that we can certainly share later. And that's a benefit of restricting those left turns. Back in June as well, we've presented this to the community, and we provided alternative access at either a nearby signal or existing signal that is on the corridor to access the particular neighborhoods.

So there is a way for people somewhere to make, you know, not very far away, but to make a left turn. Okay.

That is correct. In ridership, the mobility and reliability study was done in 2022, but we looked at recent data just to see what the lay of the land is in terms of trip data. Right on local, and this is the fall of 2024, of course, there's about 1,100 trips per day on the corridor, and the existing flash BRT is about 2,500. Z routes, which is an old nomenclature, which is being renamed through the Better Bus Network from Omada, about 4,400 trips per day, with a total of 8,100 on the US 29 core. And this is within the project limits. There have been discussions in this presentation about travel time. And I think that is a critical metric at looking at this project. Before you, there are two tables. The first table at the top of the screen is the corridor itself. And the second is a particular section, which is from 650 to 193, which is a key section which houses both Four Corners and Burnt Mills. We're looking primarily at two types of vehicles, passenger vehicles, single-occupant vehicles, versus BRT. I'm going to walk you through this. So going through the corridor. Itself, looking at passenger vehicles or single occupant vehicles, in the AM southbound, the no-build condition is 46 minutes of travel time. And that will increase to 47 minutes in the median bus lane configuration. Thanks, Eli. In the PM northbound, the existing is 32 minutes, which should be saved by six minutes to 26 minutes of travel time with the median bus lane configuration. And I want to focus in here on the BRT. So with the AM southbound, existing is 47 minutes of no-build, of course. of travel time, and that's shortened dramatically to 28 minutes. And in addition, PM northbound goes from 36 to 31 minutes. And this is corridor travel times from Sligo Creek to Tech Road. Next table, MD 650 to 193, a key section. We'll look at the single occupant vehicles and BRTs again. AM southbound for single occupant vehicle goes from 14.9 to 14.3 minutes. So it's actually shortened based off of the mobility and reliability study. PM northbound goes from 6.3 to 5.5 minutes. And BRT, you will see the dramatic savings going from 18.2 18.2 to 14.4.1, excuse me, MAM southbound and PM northbound going from 7.2 to 7 minutes. I know I threw a lot of numbers at the board there, and I could walk through back any of that again.

Say the logic that what is actually happening. I know the model traffic shows that the 47 minutes changed to 28 minutes. And 18.2 changed to 4.1. That's a big change. What do you think is the logic behind that? It should be some kind of visible logic behind it.

So the logic there, in particular the southbound, that's the easiest one, right? There's a lot of congestion. I don't think anybody would argue that. There's a lot of congestion on 29. The buses are stuck, right? I mean, they're stuck in the same traffic, and there's a fair amount of delay. And so what this does, and in those two specific sections, We are able to really significantly improve such that while this table doesn't show it, and I should note that this is not new analysis. This is analysis that the board would have seen, I believe, in 2022. So we're just pulling from analysis that we've already done a while back. So these are all things that are not new that we're quoting here. And so you're seeing that almost 15-minute improvement in the southbound direction such that the southbound transit trip in the morning is actually faster by, and I can't remember off the top of my head, between five and 10 minutes than the vehicle travel time, really pushing to hopefully begin to induce travel off of cars to buses, right? That southbound benefit is, I've been doing this a while now, that's one of the best benefits that I've seen really ever on a project. I'm not exaggerating. I've done quite a few of these. And this is one of the best benefits. We were here, our staff was talking to you about New Hampshire, and we had some nice benefits, but nothing like that. And so it is a significant benefit for that AM southbound. Lesser so, frankly, for the northbound, right? And that's largely because of the nature of the corridor. The corridor's very peakish. And people, when they need to go to work, they've got to get there by 8.30 or 9 or whatever time, right? When our kids were here, you've got to start time. And we had to be here. A little more flexible for most folks on the back end. And so you're seeing that in the analysis results. And so while you'll have traffic for longer in the afternoons, it's not quite as peakish in the afternoons typically. And so that's why you begin to see a little bit less benefit in the afternoon. So that's kind of the big picture number. Now for the vehicle travel, while you're not seeing quite so much impact there, right? I assume that's probably your main question, so I'll try to address that too. When we start putting these transit improvements in, What you begin to find, in particular with transit signal priority, is the main line has significant benefits. So that main line in the main direction begins to have pretty significant benefits. When you start doing aggressive signal priority, one of the things that happens is you move more vehicles through with the buses because you need to move the buses through so you end up actually moving more cars through more quickly and more efficiently. So that's what you're seeing. So what's a bit counterintuitive, frankly, is that you don't get a ton of impact. There is a little bit of impact at Four Corners. We've not been shy about that. We've said that before. I'm not gonna pretend that there isn't. But when you look at it at a bit macro level and corridor level, it's really mostly noise. Now, it's not gonna feel that way when you're at that intersection, right? There will be delay there. But when you include the benefit that you're getting from TSP and other changes throughout the corridor, It's really going to be noise in a commute.

In the first section that you explained, you put the BRT dedicated line on northbound. But the maximum efficiency is coming to the southbound. That is mixing with traffic. You think that, based on your analysis, The northbound should benefit more because you have a dedicated lane. But actually, we see it on the southbound that it doesn't have its dedicated BRT line. That's a little bit confusing for me that why is that.

Right. And it's segment by segment. So that's the real beauty of this is you can treat the segment the way it needs to be treated. There's not one consistent from top to bottom where you're needing this same treatment from top to bottom. The big deal from the Beltway North is getting to the Beltway. And then the traffic begins to get metered a little bit further off as you're able to get some traffic onto the beltway. You divert roughly a lane of traffic to the beltway. And then it becomes less problematic. When you've got that traffic diverting to the beltway, there's not the congestion from there. But in that northbound direction, when people are trying to get to the beltway, It's more crowded. And so that was where I was trying to talk through Mr. Linden about that. And it's a bit counterintuitive, right? And I will freely admit that. But when you've got traffic that's trying to go up, you've got these weird patterns. And the Beltway really skews things. It's not an end. it becomes at the Beltway, not an in in the morning and out in the PM, because you've got some different patterns where you need to get to the Beltway.

I understand that. But we don't see the benefit on the northbound, because on the northbound, the node width is 36. And the median vice lane, it just saves five minutes. And I'm saying that it should have saved more based on exactly what you're explaining. But anyway, we could move on.

For the record, David Anspacher, transportation planning division chief. I want to highlight this slide a little bit more because I think this is an absolutely critical slide. And just to go over it one more time. Overall, for the corridor, the southbound AM travel time drops from 47 to 28 minutes. That's a savings of 19 minutes. That's what we've been talking about. Within the Four Corners and Burnt Mills area, the travel time drops from 18 minutes to about four minutes. That's a savings of 14 minutes. So the vast majority, 70% to 80% of the benefits in the southbound direction of this project are accruing because of the dedicated lanes in Four Corners and Burnt Mill. That is absolutely central to this project, and frankly, in my opinion, without the dedicated lanes through these areas, we don't have a project.

I get it, but I support that, and I'm happy about it, but I just don't see that in the you know, four corner area, they're reducing two lanes, one lane on each direction. And we are actually improving the traffic. That just doesn't make sense to me. Because it's so congested there.

It's looking, I mean, the travel time is looking at the full corridor. And so I think what they're describing is there are other intersections where travel might move a little bit more smoothly given the different treatments you're considering, which balances out the conflicts that will be, or more of the congestion that may happen in the Four Corners area. So, you know, most cars, like it would be interesting to hear if you've sort of studied this, like most cars probably don't go from top to bottom in this corridor. And so this travel time is a little bit theoretical in that sense. Yes. But still, I think it demonstrates that basically on, you know, the net effect of the corridor is basically that travel time is the same for cars, but dramatically better for buses.

So how many miles is it between Maryland 650 to 193? How many miles is that? Is it four miles, five miles? Because you're talking about the corridor. You're not talking about the bus. You know, sometimes the backlog could go up to a mile or two.

No, I mean, the corridor travel time is the full set. That's the top. No, the second one. The second one is the, yeah, 650 to 190.

Yeah, how many miles is that?

It's about two.

Two miles.

So for two miles we are talking about, to me, that's not a corridor.

Well, why don't we, can we just... No, the corridor is full.

Yeah, but even for that two-mile stretch, the model is showing that the travel times are even slightly better for cars.

One... Please, why don't you just keep going here, and we can come back with any questions.

I'm going over bicycle and pedestrian improvements. And at the onset of this project, we wanted to assess the potential enhancements for bike-ped facilities. And that's a three-part process. First is reviewing the documented recommendations, which is numerous, such as the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan, the 2023 Pedestrian Plan, and the Complete Streets Design Guide. As we progress through that, we are identifying conflicting recommendations and developing and evaluating a concept design primarily focusing on what are the property needs and cost implications. So you have two efforts here. Just to make it clear, we have US 29 phase 2 BRT, and then we are looking at the bike pad parallel to this. And what are some of those improvements that we can incorporate as part of US 29, and what are some of those that can be split into a separate CIP, separate project that are not precluding any of the improvements that we are introducing? Station accessibility, we want folks to get to the station. So there are several improvements that we are looking at from the existing condition. That includes PED signals, median PED refuge. So we are maintaining that refuge, even though we are including BRT corridor wide, wider curb ramps, and access ramps to stations. And this is all, of course, meeting ADA compliancy. I will be going over public outreach. And we had a pretty extended amount of outreach throughout the neighborhoods of US 29. And one of the key things that matched with assessing the existing studies and plans and some of the public feedback we received was focusing on Northwest Branch, specifically Crestmore to Northwest Branch. The existing condition is a pretty narrow sidewalk, specifically on the eastern side. And we're looking to widen that path to be able to accommodate both pedestrians, and cyclists. So in order to accommodate that, we're narrowing lanes, but maintaining, of course, the number of lanes, maintaining the existing southbound curb on the top of your screen, but widening the ultimate trail area on the eastern side. So I'm going to focus more into that as well. And you can see that in the existing condition and proposed condition, there are three lanes of traffic in both directions. So three lanes northbound, three lanes southbound. Thank you, Eli, with existing concrete median, grass median, which we're utilizing again for BRT. I want to focus on the far right-hand side of your screen. That six-foot sidewalk is It's a high estimate. Actually, there are areas where it's closer to 5, even 4 feet, just because there's utility poles there, overgrowth. It's a pretty tight area. And with the narrowing of lanes and some curb line shifts, we're actually widening that out to 8 to 10 feet, which is arguably the only connection between these two parts of US 29. And we're incorporating that as part of US 29 and Flash BRT.

I think when you think about getting east-west in the county on a bike, this connection is one of the most tremendous pinch points that exist. Having this project provide an opportunity to make this connection, to help connect Four Corners to Burnt Mills, to get to Trader Joe's, to get to the shopping center down there is potentially very transformative for people. I'm sure there are folks, commissioners, that have walked or tried to get down the sidewalk that Nino is talking about here. And it is brutal. It is brutal. So this is huge.

I'll add briefly on. It was so much so that we felt we had to include it as part of this project because we didn't think if we left it off of this project because, as Mr. Glazer noted earlier, we've got a separate set of projects that will be separate and mandatory referral that would be in different CIPs that will come to you. We felt like it was so important to get this section because we didn't think it could be done after the fact. And so we included it in this section in a way that we didn't think we could get it done later. It was that important.

Just real quick, I think this is great. You're 100% on point with how difficult and uncomfortable this section is. My only very small suggestion might be, and I know this space is constrained, but in this area there is, particularly on the northbound side, fast moving cars. This is an area where cars often pick up speed. And an 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalk helps tremendously with comfort. I think what also might help, if there's an opportunity to do so, would be some sort of planted or vegetated, some sort of additional buffer so that the sidewalk doesn't immediately kind of meet the fast moving cars. This obviously is a huge safety improvement over the current condition. And I think what I'm explaining might be an additional comfort improvement to make people actually want to use this. But I recognize that the space is constrained.

And one of the things that we'll be thinking through as we advance this is how do we separate it? And in talking to the communities and the communities adjacent, the bicycling community to understand Well, we haven't gone into details. When we went to the public, we showed various ways to approach this, whether it's better to leave it as 8 to 10 foot open or put some sort of barrier there. And that's where we're much less clear. That becomes a design level element that we eagerly engage the cycling community and the local community to understand what they would prefer there. Yeah.

And I know that once we're trying to accommodate bikes and pedestrians potentially in this area, so that also matters. constraints the space further potentially. Just something to consider as you continue your outreach with folks.

It's yet another trade-off in this very tight quarter, right? The theme of the day is trade-off, right? And trying to think through how we help manage and think through as a group how to manage these trade-offs together.

Yeah, I think that was going to make a similar comment, is it looks like the wide-away space is enough to accommodate a reasonably-sized side path plus a two-foot or so barrier, although I don't think it conforms fully to the complete streets, but I think it would be a worthwhile thing to take a look at.

referencing the community engagement that we've performed. We've been out in the community for an extended amount of time. We have had four public meetings held specifically for this project and several corridor advisory committees and technical advisory committees going in the past year. Does this not include our additional efforts as well with Silver Spring Advisory Committee, East County Citizens Advisory Board, Greater Silver Spring Chamber of Commerce. We had a couple of tables at Winterfest. And then earlier this year, we visited the Columbia Towers community and presented to them on the proposed improvements. We've also met with several property owners and businesses as well. And they've been documented as well on the project website as four key things. Safety, which we talked lightly about with Crestmore, pedestrian traffic and cyclist safety, but there's safety concerns up and down the corridor from Sligo Creek to Tech Road. Congestion, which we've talked about through Four Corners and Burnt Mills. Construction, local businesses, if this project does continue to get funded and we progress towards construction, impacts to access parking operations as that construction progresses. progresses in property acquisition, both residential and commercial. The feedback that we received in our own analysis, we started to look at this corridor as we're wrapping up 35% design. And where can we reduce impact but still maintain the theme and nature of this BRT project? So first most is Burnt Mills Auto. We initially anticipated impacting the Burnt Mills Auto building. And as we progressed through design, we heard negative owner and public feedback on this particular property. And we met with the property owner and walked the site just to understand their needs and how we can navigate this with the proposed BRT. After these conversations and as we progress through design, we've shifted the roadway west here through Burt Mills and adjusted the station design, reduced the travel lane widths, and also working with SHA to reduce that speed to help avoid ultimately that building impact. Not noted here as well was another need of that property owner was maintaining access to US 29, which we are looking to maintain. Burt Mills East Special Park. We've had several meetings with fine folks at parks. And then we initially anticipated expanding sidewalks in the park property on the eastern side. And we regularly met with parks to refine these layouts very closely. We adjusted the layouts to maintain the same footprint as the existing sidewalk, as you see on your screen there. We are looking to not go beyond that. And just to note, there will be a perpetual easement, which will allow minor grading, sidewalk work, and signage upgrades to tie in that sidewalk. And we're avoiding park property acquisition as a whole.

I'm just curious, what was Park's reason for not wanting the expanded sidewalk? Like there's a utility pole there, but that's a utility issue. But did they have a specific reason for it?

I can't speak completely for parks, but one of the concerns is if you look at that image, we're pretty close to that structure already. There is also concerns in terms of the project as a whole as we go to construction that we're not doing any sort of setting up construction materials offsite. And ultimately, we don't want to go any further as that utility pole was pretty close to that property. If you look closely to that image, it may seem like there's a larger offset, but it's pretty close.

And Parks also talked about the character of the building. It's obviously very close to the road, right? I mean, Parks is wanting to make sure that they're able to maintain the historic nature of the building and the character of the location. And so they're very zealous to conserve their right of way in those sorts of instances to make sure that they're preserving the integrity of the facilities they're charged to protect. And I don't want to speak, I feel like I maybe spoke a little too much, but I feel like we're parroting what we've heard from them. So I don't feel like that's a stretch.

And I do want to add one last thing. There is a consequential effect. If we widen that sidewalk, you most likely have to relocate those utility poles as well. So that's further offset from the existing condition.

Sure. So there's that impact. There's also historic properties co-located with the park stuff. So I see where you're going with the question. And I think ideally, yes, there would be a larger sidewalk here. If it's the direction of the board that the MCDOT team should explore that, I think staff would support that.

For me, I would encourage us talking to our friends over at Parks and encouraging them to rethink their position on this. I mean, it is a historic site, but we're not talking about impacting the building in any meaningful way. And I think bringing people closer to a building is not even an impact at all. If we're bringing cars closer to a building, you know, we can have a different conversation potentially, but, but this is a real opportunity because it was just before this area that we talked about the other, we were expanding the sidewalk there.

This is, it's across, yeah, it's across the street.

Oh, this is across the, this is, this is on the West side. Are we looking at the West side?

It's on both sides, but it's on both sides.

But I think that, you know, I would encourage us and also MCDOT to re-engage parks on this. I think this is a real opportunity.

It's not just parks. Look at the pole. That pole and look at all the other things hanging to it.

We relocate utility poles all the time. I recognize that's a cost, and we have to engage PEPCO and probably others on that. It's costly. But this is why these projects matter. We were just talking about the whole reasons why it's important to expand the sidewalk and the side path. just before this to make it more comfortable, this is part of that same stretch to get to places people want to go, including the Trader Joe's, including that other shopping center, including the shopping center it's in. I think this is an opportunity to widen it further. And I don't think it's an impact to the historic site.

Why don't we do this? We could engage to look at it, I'm sure, to understand the bigger impact of it. Are you relocating utility poles along the, is your current design requiring location of utility poles?

There will be multiple places where we're going to hit utility poles and we'll have to move them.

In this area too?

I don't think so.

Why don't we just, at the end, we can look at, you know, we can revisit and see what, you know, but why don't we, that's a good point you brought up.

I think the utility pool is one thing, and I know that's not a parks issue, but what I'm saying is, If Park's main objection is the historic site, I think that's something we can overcome and should overcome. Because a more comfortable walking and cycling route on this takes, for me at least, takes priority over cutting into lawn, cutting into grass. I mean, that's what we're talking about.

I would agree with you. That's why I said let's put it on the table, look at the potential for having a wider sidewalk there, and just to understand. OK?

I would ask one more thing, is that what is on the approaches? And it may be easy to go to the park, but what is the extent? Is it worthwhile just to do a short stretch going under such an expensive, because it's not one pole. When you remove one, it's going to be at least two or three poles. And then you're not going to be able to stretch it beyond the park property. It doesn't make sense to go through that cost.

Right, and so that's where we would go through and start figuring out how, you know, in some places we'll jog our sidewalks. So, for example, in our Veers Mill project, we've gone through an activity where we've jogged our sidewalks to make sure we've missed the poles so that we don't have to do exactly what you're concerned about, what we're concerned about, which is, you know, taking out a stand of poles, right? Sometimes one might as well be ten, right? If you take out a poll, sometimes you might as well take out 10 polls because of the timeline. And so for us, we're concerned about the funding, so please don't hear me otherwise. But what really happens with utilities is it's a time impact. And so what may look like one poll in a visual like this could be six to nine months on an impact timeline. And that's where we get really concerned.

I think I would encourage us to explore options. Sure, and we're eager to do that. including options to expand it without moving the pole, as you mentioned, whether that's a jog, whether that's just having the pole sort of in the middle. I know that's not best practice all the time. But there are places where that's the case, where that's been done because other options aren't available. Why don't we keep going here?

We assess the entire corridor, and where are some low-hanging fruit that we can narrow some of the travel lanes, shift some of the geometry to avoid impacts to residences and businesses. And one such area is at Four Quarters, particularly the CVS. As you can see in that image, there's an existing retaining wall that supports and props up that sidewalk at the frontage of that business. We were initially impacting that, and we're looking to reduce the travel lanes and speed limits to avoid that completely. And this is kind of the thematic approach that we're looking at to squeeze in BRT while being sensitive to the needs of the businesses and residents on this corridor. Schedule in early 26 and going through the mandatory referral process, of course. Depending on our funding situation, we will progress to final design. and work through towards right-of-way acquisitions, utility relocations, construction towards the end of 2029, mid-2029. But that depends on how our funding is set up. We do have some 35% effort that we're still wrapping up as part of the current effort. That's looking to close shortly.

So is it funded for construction? And is it a state or federal fund supporting it? Because this is U.S. 29.

We are currently not funded for construction or final design.

I will note that the executive has put that in his budget, and that is before council to consider.

With the county bond, or do we have grants?

There are no grants yet because we don't have. So we end up having to look for various local, and local can mean a variety of things. It may mean state. It may mean actual local. They mean bonds. And so I believe, and I'd have to go back and look. I can't recall. I think these were go bonds that the executive, I'll defer to his budget, but I think they were go bonds that he was looking for this. although I'm not 100% sure. And then ultimately, we're looking for these projects to be funded as part of a federal capital improvement grants program. This would be a small starts application. And so we're also investigating how this would work as a small starts project. It's likely it would. We're not in the project development process, so it's not yet in that program. But that would be where we would want to go, assuming it gets funding.

And I think it's also important to note that the success and viability of this project in that program, is generally very strongly dependent on the improvements that it provides. So thinking, again, about dedicated lanes and burnt mills and four corners, a project that doesn't deliver the travel time savings for transit that has been described here is going to be much less competitive for that grant money. Thank you to the MCDOT team for walking through the project. I'll just fairly quickly go through the mandatory referral analysis. We'll look at Thrive, the functional plans, the area plans, best practices, environment and climate, historic preservation, and then parks. Thrive recommends building a frequent, fast, convenient, reliable, safe, and accessible transit system. This is very consistent with that. It converts general traffic lanes to bus-only lanes, which improves transit speed and reliability. On the master plan of highways and transitways side, this table is from the staff report, and what it shows is that The blue cells are where the proposed project aligns with the master plan recommendations, both for general purpose lanes and transit lanes and speed limit. And the red cells are where it does not. The project generally makes strong efforts to achieve master plan transit lanes that are identified in the master plan of highways and transitways. It also, particularly within Four Corners and between Lorain and Four Corners, achieves the general purpose travel lanes. All other places within the corridor, with the exception of between Tech Road and Stewart Lane, The master plan identifies between four and five general purpose lanes. And as the project team has noted, this project maintains six general purpose lanes. I think, again, the project team is, I think, well aware of the trade-offs and the tensions that exist between sort of the feelings and perceptions about traffic and congestion and what the model says and trying to thread the needle between acquiring right-of-way, repurposing non-travel lanes for buses, compared to achieving sort of perfectly the master plan vision for a reduced number of general purpose lanes that exist. So I think Nino also mentioned this, but the project is looking to lower posted speed limits in a number of places. This is a state road, and... They have been working closely with SHA with the understanding that lower speed limits are obviously safer. They also intuitively allow cars to travel closer together, so there's improved throughput with a lower speed limit, and then also it allows the lanes to be narrowed so we can continue to save on right-of-way acquisition and things like that. So I think the project is substantially consistent with the master plan of highways and transitways, though it does maintain an elevated speed limit and more general purpose lanes than the plan envisions. We sort of have interspersed staff comments throughout this based on the appropriate master plan. And here, I think we would like the project team to consider additional measures to lower the posted speed limits for the reasons that I said before. I think we want definitely to reinforce the idea that The county's neighborhoods, the neighborhoods along US 29 are places to be and not just places to travel through as quickly as possible. The bicycle master plan, there are two main bikeways in the project corridor, the Burtonsville Silver Spring Breezeway and the side path on the west side of US 29. The Burtonsville Silver Spring Breezeway connects Silver Spring to Howard County by way of Burtonsville. Generally, it's on parallel streets to US 29, but within, the section that we've talked about that the project team has spoken to, it's right on US 29. It sort of branches off at Lockwood Drive. So the project team is making an effort to construct that, as we've discussed. Again, probably not to the standard that's identified in the Complete Streets Design Guide, but within the existing space that's available between the retaining walls that sort of cut between Four Corners and Burr Mills, they're doing the job to the best of their ability. And then on the west side of US-29, so that breezeway is on the east side, the west side For the entire project extent, essentially, there's supposed to be a shared use path, a side path, that's almost entirely unconstructed. This project specifically has no plans to construct it, but there is the separate CIP project that we talked about that will advance separately. And I think we find this project partially consistent with the bike plan because they're building that project that we talked about, but then also their work does not preclude future improvements that the master plan identifies. We have one comment, one additional project here that we think the project team should consider. As I said, the master plan breezeway side path turns off of US-29 onto Lockwood Drive. This project also envisions closing what's now channelized like a free right from northbound US 29 onto Lockwood Drive and staff the staff comment would be rather than closing this for all modes we should be maintaining access for people biking because it The asphalt exists already, and the extent to which we can change the motor vehicle circulation, so they're using the signalized intersection, but then allow bicyclists to continue directly across would be great.

I think that sounds great. I assume we also would include pedestrians in that, too.

There's an existing sidewalk along here, so I think what we're envisioning is... side path that would transition then on to it would allow people to continue sort of in shared lanes on Lockwood or onto the sidewalk as as they felt comfortable ultimately the bike master plan does call for a side path on Lockwood as well so that would that's something that would likely only happen through future redevelopment of that but this is sort of This is an opportunity that the project presents within the scope of what's already being proposed as part of the project. So that's what we're thinking. So that's the comment. And then, yeah, essentially, it would 11 feet, 12 feet, whatever, within the existing right of way that is supposed to be closed. Area master plans, four corners. The 1996 Four Corners Plan identifies that there needs to be a long-term solution for improving transit on US 29. Transit improvement was identified between Burtonville and Silver Spring Metro. This is consistent with that. The White Oak Plan, improving pedestrian access to transit by providing sidewalks. This project is doing that. They're adding proposed MARC crosswalks at the Lockwood intersection and SHA separately. is pursuing sidewalks on Burnt Mills Avenue and along the north side of US 29 to connect to this project. The White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan 2014 recognizes that bus rapid transit is essential to achieving the plan's vision. The staff report included talk of Viva White Oak, et cetera. Providing a high quality transit option on US 29 was seen in 2014 and continues to be important to the success of those areas. The 2023 Fairland-Briggs Training Master Plan, it sees bus rapid transit as a core component of the area's transit network. We see this as partially consistent because while the project enhances and expands the service, the proposed station design does not necessarily have most of the features that the Fairland-Briggs Training Plan envisioned. I think the key feature in the comment from staff would be that existing stations, existing flash stations for Flash Phase 1 have short-term bike parking, which you can see in the image here on the left. It's just like a stylized URAC. I think what we would ask is that the project team explore the use of longer-term bicycle parking, like bicycle lockers or things like that. Because if you're – I think Mr. Henson noted that Flash – this is a commuter service largely, like – people are taking US 29 to get to and from work and things like that. And you may take a bus in in the morning and then eight hours or nine hours later come home. And the short-term bike parking is not really appropriate for that. You're going to want a more secure bike parking option.

Do the flash buses currently have racks on the front? And those have, what, a capacity of two or something?

It's called a ZenSide, and I think it's two, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Oh, bikes can also go on the inside? They're on the inside.

Oh, they're only on the inside.

Our stock photo of that is actually Mr. Ansbacher using that on the Flash bus.

Got it. And so future bus procurement for Flash will continue to have some capacity on the inside?

Right. We're generally trying to keep our, even though the fueling will be different, the internal design would be generally consistent.

Okay. Okay.

University Boulevard envisions the full transformation of 3.5 miles of University Boulevard into this pedestrian-oriented multimodal corridor, envisions a more compact corridor-focused land use pattern. We find this consistent because providing high-quality BRT service in the plan area will support that more compact corridor-focused vision. On to transportation best practices. The Complete Streets Design Guide, I think in general, the project's roadway cross-sections show wider lane widths for the general purpose travel lanes than the Complete Streets Design Guide defaults. I think we see this. I know Nino has spoken already at length about sort of the impact reduction that they've tried to accomplish and using reduced lane widths to reduce right-of-way impacts and potential easements and things like that. I think we also see additional opportunities to narrow travel lanes and use the excess space to provide, I think, additional transit buffers where none currently exist. So there's a couple of things at play here. The dedicated lanes themselves and the fact that they'll be a different color should do a lot to discourage people driving in them. sections, particularly where buses are expected to transition to or from the lane, that there is no protection. And I think the concern that staff has is that in certain sections, not having that additional median curbing will encourage people to use the bus lane as sort of a cue jump around congestion that may exist. So the extent to which I don't think it would need to be substantial, but at certain locations, just exploring the use of additional curbing to remove the temptation to do that. So we've identified here at Lanark Way, but then also northbound between University Boulevard West and Timberwood Avenue, and then northbound and southbound between Stewart Lane and Industrial Parkway. There could be some opportunities.

I think this suggestion sounds great. My only comment, and I think this actually might relate to one of staff's other comments that could be coming up about a particular intersection. But in instances where, particularly at intersections, where if there's a curb, protecting the lane kind of between intersections. But at particular intersections, if cars do make it into the lane, then they're sort of in the lane, right? And they can't get out. They may do that intentionally or not. But if we recommend this approach, which I think it's good, and I think we should recommend it, thinking carefully about how to prevent cars from entering kind of those points of... more vulnerability, I guess you might say, because once they're in, they're in. And then they may feel stuck, and that sort of creates a dangerous situation for them. I think it's good. It should be done. But I guess there's design challenges here and there.

I'm sorry. I don't agree. Adding a concrete barrier, narrowing the lane, and adding a concrete barrier creates hazardous condition for the drivers. This doesn't make sense to me. I drive, when I see a concrete barrier, I take two feet away. You make the lane 10 foot to add a concrete barrier right next to the lane, and then we want to call it safe. I don't agree with that. I don't agree.

Yeah, but I think we've got all the evidence and the research says that if you narrow lanes and install the barriers, what people do is slow down. And you're engineering a situation in which driving is safe.

Slow it down another way, not make it more dangerous. Find another way to slow down then. You want to kill people because we want to slow them down.

I don't think that there's anything that's going to be dangerous about installing barriers and reduction in lane size, which is going to slow the cars. The danger is the car speed.

Concrete barrier introduces a danger to the drivers. Period.

That's a fact. OK. You made your point. We've got people to present their presentation.

Pedestrian level of comfort. It's generally no surprise the existing level of comfort for pedestrians is poor through this area. Scores are currently undesirable, which is the worst score from the southernmost point of the study area north through Four Corners and up to White Oak, though there are very limited portions that have better level of comfort scores. In the north portion of the study area north of New Hampshire Avenue, there's very limited sidewalk coverage. Existing level of traffic stress, Existing level of traffic stress for bicyclists is high, inappropriate for kids, inappropriate for most adults. And several sections you're not supposed to travel on as a bicyclist, largely where there are interchanges that intersect with US 29. The staff recommendation in terms of multimodal access, understanding that the separate CIP exists, is to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the identified stations in the US 29 head bike CIP, and then provide additional CIP funding to meet the multimodal corridor needs that will exceed $25 million, just given the challenges that exist. And the priorities that we have identified in the staff report, essentially what we did is for each of the stations, we ran our colleague John Ryder ran an analysis that looked at relative pedestrian comfort and access to those stations. And we were interested first in, we were looking at that, and then looking at the relative daily boardings of what we would expect ridership to be at those stations. So stations that scored, that had worse existing pedestrian comfort, but better existing daily ridership were scored highly and were prioritized over stations that had low ridership and higher pedestrian comfort or some other combination. So what we've identified is For the CIP, we would ask that MCDOT focus on pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the Four Corners Station, which scored the highest, and then Burnt Mills Shopping Center and the White Oak Transit Center, which were tied at the second priority, and then Tech Road as third. So that doesn't speak to the specific improvements that are needed, but it's just saying that these are the stations that it is the least comfortable to access and have the highest ridership among the flash stations. So that's it.

One quick question on this. What do we mean by, so for burnt mills, this is the expected relative daily boarding or the expected daily boardings and then relative to other stations? It's relative to other stations. Relative to other stations, but it's the expected?

It's current, but I think we would expect relatively as boardings and alightings increase that they would likely increase at the same rate across. So the ones that were already the busiest would continue to be the busiest.

Okay. Does this basically mean that there's limited bus stops currently at I guess I'm trying to understand why ridership, why boardings is so low, basically showing zero. I know it's not actual zero boardings, but it's a relative score.

So I think the only thing I could speak to is that, I think it's a bit of a constrained location today. And the lightings may actually be a bit higher than the boardings, because there are more sort of destinations and fewer origins. I think people may be boarding at April Lane or Oak Leaf Drive, which is further north, but still within a walkable distance. But it's a good note.

Yeah.

I'll keep moving.

Yeah. One quick Tech Road one, the relative Why did you worse? OK, better is 0.4. OK, I see. I see. So worse is that.

Yeah, it's actually, yeah, it's not terrible there. But yeah, so I think we just like some general prioritization there.

OK, great.

Other comments, just in general, or nearing the end here, standard comment, but just ensure that on the curbs that are being changed that we maintain the 15-foot radius. which is identified in the Montgomery County Code. Locations where curbs are moving that this would be applicable include Woodmoor Circle, Southwood Avenue, and Crestmoor Drive. The tight turn radii obviously reduces turning speeds, improves visibility, and reduces the likelihood and severity of collisions. Add pedestrian scale lighting at appropriate locations to meet the street lighting design requirements target. Obviously, this is a state road, so to the extent that M.SHA allows the street-lane design requirements that the county has to be used as the metric to identify, to address deficiencies in the illuminance of the station areas. Other comments, consider changes to the US 29 median at Timberwood Avenue to prevent left turns from the westbound approach. The proposed triangular median, which I'll show in the next slide, is intended to do several things, allow transit vehicles to transition between curb running and median running operations, allow cars traveling southbound to turn left onto Timberwood Avenue, prevent cars from driving from one block of Timberwood Avenue across US 29 to the other block, and prevent cars from turning left onto southbound US 29. So what's shown here in the graphic in green are the permitted movements onto this leg of Timberwood Avenue. So south is to the left. So southbound US 29 traffic can turn left onto Timberwood Avenue. And westbound, which is west is sort of at the top of the screen, westbound Timberwood Drive, Timberwood Avenue traffic can turn right onto US 29. What is not permitted is the dashed red line shown there, where essentially a car would go straight towards the barrier, merge into the bus lane, and then continue on to southbound US 29.

I'd like to make a comment. You're showing streets and giving street names, and you're giving a micro-focus snapshot of it. So we can't really make heads or tails exactly where these streets are on- 29 so is there any way you could like give us a map and show us exactly where these streets are I'm familiar with 29 I travel it every day but I'm not specifically familiar with the individual streets so Timberwood Avenue is like just north of Four Corners Town Center it's like coming down the hill from University Boulevard and it's one of the first streets That's still not a good enough description for me. Give me a landmark. Is it next to the CVS, Chipotle? Is it north of there? I mean, is it by Trader Joe's? Where is it exactly on the map? Thanks.

Right next to the CVS, I think. So it's right here. So this is what's shown here. And the recommendation from staff is to do something to this intersection to limit the likelihood that people will that illegal left turn from Timberwood on to Southbound US 29. So the CVS in this graphic is right here where my cursor is. So that could be done a number of ways. You could add a little bit of a median barrier where this blue line is. You could extend the median that's proposed on the other side to make it visually unappealing to make that connection. Just something should probably be done to limit the temptation to make that left, especially across multiple lanes of traffic.

Is it prohibited right now? Or can people make left turn? And if it is not prohibited and we want to make it that no left turn, what are the other options for people? This is a very congested area and you know that that turn around North Fork Corner, how people make, it's very confusing. So, you know, I understand that You believe that this is a difficult movement, and it should be prohibited. But is there another way for people to do it? Maybe then they have to put signage and wayfinding that if someone wants to make a left toward the south of US 29, where they have to go.

Commissioner Pedewin's comment was just I echo that, not just for this, but as we talk about, and I know some people are going to, in their testimony, saying they didn't want the left turns or whatever, eliminate in certain places. But I do think as you talk either now or in the future, when you say you want to eliminate something, just also say how will people be able to navigate if you eliminate that. It could be very easy to just say, we eliminate this, but these are other ways to get there. And it does or doesn't increase time by x or y.

And the driving also, because driving means, again, people have to use air pollution. We just don't want people to make circles. And the important thing is that when we prohibit and there are a detour, we need to make sure that we have the wayfinding and signage to direct people while they're driving not to get distracted, that they know where to go.

But I also want to make clear, this is already a prohibited left turn. We're setting up a situation in which you can't do what you're not supposed to do.

I know, but there were some other places where you could not By having the bus, you could not make turns through there. And so in those kinds of times, just- Yeah, I think the project team has slides that can speak to those locations.

I think in this specific location, the existing configuration is that it is prohibited. And it's incredibly important that that movement not happen, because it would put people in direct conflict with buses that have the right of way, which is incredibly dangerous.

By signing, that's what my first question. I didn't know if it was prohibited or not. If it is prohibited, it has to be very clear that it's prohibited. So signage is very important. And then if there is a better way to make the left turn, you just direct them with the signage that where they could make the left turn.

If I could, I just want to see if we can try to get through the rest of the presentation. We do have 10 people, I think, who are signed up to testify. And I think it would be helpful for the board's questions and comments to reflect maybe some of the things you hear from the testimony, too. So if you have specific questions about any of the things you see on any of these slides, note the number of the slide. We can pull it back up afterwards for conversation. But I just want to make sure we're moving along with this. Thank you, Director Sertori.

On the environment side, all of the forest conservation law requirements have been satisfied. There's an approved forest conservation exemption. The project crosses three watersheds, intersects with flood plains, streams, and wetland areas. The proposed work takes place within the right-of-way and the existing roadway, minimizing the environmental impacts. And our environmental and climate team note that improved public transit supports sustainability by improving connectivity and reducing reliance on single passenger vehicles. On the historic preservation side, the Robert B. Morris Water Filtration Plant is a master plan of historic preservation site. Historic preservation staff reviewed the proposal and find that what's proposed does not impact the historic structures or the character of the site and supports the work. On the park side, as noted, there are no park impacts that we discussed. But in future, as the design advances and this moves towards construction, To the extent that there are park impacts, Montgomery Parks will have the following park construction permit conditions, which are standard about construction plans being submitted, coordination on sidewalk design, coordination on design at Burt Mills East, like Nino had discussed, and then some other comments about easement that were already discussed. At this point, I would turn it back over to the chair.

Great, great. Thank you for your detailed testimony. A lot of information there. So we have 10 speakers. We'll take the first five. We'll come on up. It's James Williamson, Kevin Harris, Sharon Canavan, Erkan Polat, and John Holden.

I'm sorry?

Yeah, yeah. I'm just saying we have how many? One, two, three, four, five, six. OK. And one more. Howard Feldman can come up, too. OK, so why don't we get going. Welcome, Mr. Williamson. You have three minutes. State your name, and then you can give your presentation.

JAMES WILLIAMSON. For over 30 years, Montgomery County has been trying to impose a median busway through Silver Spring along Route 29. No one is opposed to a bus rapid transit in principle. We are opposed to any road change that will make Route 29 Colesville Road through burnt mills and four corners worse than it is now. This latest plan is the absolute worst ever, and I've seen them all. It is so bad the county DOT, the previous planning board, and planning department and council staff all rejected a flash bus in the median, but did support a managed lane. But for some inexplicable reason, the ideologues on the T&E committee were able to convince the rest of the council to vote for flash buses only in the median. This is despite DOT saying, and I'm quoting, a managed lane would provide the most travel time savings to all commuters. And council staff saying, quoting, the managed lane option is clearly superior in nearly every meaningful metric. So what are we doing here? Four years ago, DOT and the planning department supported the managed lane option. Now they're advocates for the flash buses in the median. Do you believe what they recommended four years ago or what they say now? The road hasn't changed, nor has Four Corners or Burnt Mills. Or is this just a political decision so the powers that be can gaslight the public that you are prioritizing transit? But you aren't prioritizing transit. All metro buses, ride-on buses, commuter buses, and school buses must drive in mixed traffic, not in the flash-only median, thus more than doubling their travel time than if in a managed lane. This plan was all supposed to fit in the existing roadway. Ha, it doesn't. In order for this mistake to happen, commercial property must be taken on the southbound side of Route 29, both before and after the Four Corners intersection and farther down. On the northbound side of 29, commercial and residential property is to be taken from the sidewalk at the Woodmore Shopping Center, the Woodmore Concrete Monument sign, frontage of houses on Colesville Road, and in burnt mills from businesses, including all of the auto body shop there, as shown in the last public presentation, as well as the removal of a travel lane in each direction through four corners. As an aside, State Highway will rebuild a median on Georgia Avenue through Montgomery Hills as a pedestrian refuge for safety. Maintaining the median as a pedestrian refuge for safety is also in the Four Corners master plan. But the monstrosity plan before us now has a bus in the median, too. Safety, refuge, and bus and stations in the median don't go together at the Four Corners intersection with over 100,000 vehicles every day. This is a classic bait and switch. Little to nothing that was promised will happen. If implemented, we, the nearby residents who never asked for this failure waiting to happen, will bear the brunt of construction delays with more cut-through traffic in our neighborhoods and failed intersections, all to make the road worse. Not just my opinion, but that of county DOT, the planning board, planning department, and council staff. Again, I'll ask, what are we doing here? And why are you doing this not for us, but to us? Any takers?

Thank you for your presentation. Next is Kevin Harris, please.

I understand he won't be able to make it.

Okay, then next is Sharon Canavan.

I am Sharon Canavan, president of Northwood Four Corners Civic Association and a member of the US 29 Corridor Advisory Committee. Our community of 1,600 households borders on US 29 and University Boulevard and backs up to Northwest Branch. So in and out of our community is somewhat constrained. We are concerned a median bus lane will decrease pedestrian safety, add travel time for non-flash vehicles, and close off one of only two neighborhood access points from US 29. going north. Removing two vehicle lanes at four corners for BRT lanes and stations will create a traffic bottleneck right before a significant percentage of southbound vehicles exit onto the beltway. We believe a managed lane is less disruptive and will better serve more public transportation alternatives and other drivers. It's working on University Boulevard. It can work here. The mandatory referral document acknowledges the existing pedestrian level of comfort is poor near Four Corners, where sidewalks and crossings are rated as either undesirable or uncomfortable. Moving the flash bus stations to the middle will increase discomfort for riders standing amidst high volume traffic. Removing two lanes at Four Corners will increase cut-through traffic in our neighborhood as drivers try to avoid added congestion. We already get a substantial amount of cut-through traffic in our communities just to avoid waiting on US 29 to get through that intersection. Despite repeated requests, transportation agencies haven't analyzed potential cut-through traffic or increased car idling. This does not align with the county's Vision Zero pedestrian safety and climate goals. A median bus lane will only serve the BRT bus. This design is unfair and inequitable, as it doesn't reduce drive time for metro or ride-on buses, school buses from the White Oak Depot, or commuter buses, cars, commercial vehicles, and commuters who must drive. Data shows that drive time for southbound non-flash buses would be 47 minutes in the morning, but only 20 minutes with a managed lane. Twice as many transit riders on US 29 use metro or ride-on buses. So the choice for a median bus lane penalizes the majority of public transportation users. The mandatory referral document also notes concrete buffering for a median bus lane will prevent opportunistic drivers from bypassing congestion. However, it appears that analysis of the bus lane on University Boulevard and the University Boulevard corridor plan showed a 99% compliance level. And state legislation enables electronic enforcement for bus lanes if needed. I noticed this morning in looking at the T&E report for their hearing on Monday that the CIP includes enforcement cameras on the back of buses. The current median bus lane design also limits access to our neighborhood. The only entrance from northbound US 29 will be at Southwood Avenue. And it's not clear if the design provides increased signal time or an adequate turn lane to stack the vehicles that will no longer be able to turn left from Colesville onto Lorain Avenue. The UBCP acknowledged the complexity of the Four Corners intersection. Reducing travel lanes and incorporating median BRT stations will further stress this intersection. In summary, a managed lane running in the same curb lane bus as used today will meet the goals of an efficient BRT line. A managed lane would be less disruptive, more time efficient, more pedestrian friendly, and deliver benefits more widely to the public by serving all types of transportation users. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Erkan Polat.

Yes, thank you. I'm a resident at Paint Branch Park, condominium complex. I actually live in one of the townhomes there. And the suggested project terminates right around Tech Road, which is basically one of my egresses and ingresses. Actually, I use Industrial Parkway as the ingress into my neighborhood. And actually, last night, coming home from yoga, there was some construction. And construction limited the road to one lane. And it severely impacted me to the point of increasing my travel time at 9 PM to about 20 minutes in a one mile stretch. Now, my primary concerns, as others have made noise on, is that the efficiency, while on paper, might be advertised as pros here and some negatable, negligible cons there. I believe the most egregious aspect of this is the construction duration. There was a chart that the gentleman displayed earlier that showed that the construction period would be about two years. This is a highly strained thoroughfare already. The managed lane seems to me to be the best option on paper as the planners and designers have already articulated. in so many ways. However, I do recognize that the managed lane is perhaps not the best intention for the future. I think, as one of the earlier speakers mentioned, we can all get behind the mass transit efforts. However, at what cost? The costs on the construction side seem to be outweighing, not to mention, as one of the commissioners earlier mentioned as well, the likelihood of more failed intersections, especially around Four Corners and Burnt Mills. On the surface, I think the most obvious issue is going to be that the buses are still going to be having to navigate The traffic, they're still going to be a part of traffic. I do not think that the current metrics account for how much that will actually impact the flow. I think it seems to me that they appear to think everything's just going to work hunky-dory. and as intended, but I think that that's something that needs to be factored in as well. Again, I stress the construction duration and the fact that these buses are still going to, despite median-only lane, they will still be required to switch from shoulders to medians, and what's going to happen in those windows is unclear. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Next is John Holden.

My name is John Holden. I've lived more than 30 years in Montgomery County, 23 years in South Four Corners, which is adjacent to US 29. I am the Neighborhood Association's representative to the US 29 Corridor Advisory Committee, so I'm very familiar with the history and the details of this project. This proposed median lane configuration would widen the road, take private residential and commercial property, remove two general travel lanes, add three more traffic signals, double the number of failed intersections, and replace the median with barrier-separated lanes that will only be for flash buses. All other buses, Metrobus, ride-on, school, and commuter buses, would be forced to stay in the remaining lanes, which will be fewer in number and more congested. This creates an unfair two-tiered transit system. The construction period and then the ongoing negative impacts on businesses would threaten commercial development in this part of East County. The current plan would also threaten the county's Vision Zero safety goals and its climate goals. There is an alternative that is less disruptive, more effective, and can be implemented more quickly, a curb-running managed bus lane that provides benefits to all transit riders. This option was studied in 2022. It was not presented today. And the county council staff analysis found, quote, the managed lane option is clearly superior in nearly every meaningful metric. And, quote, the managed lane option would provide the most travel time savings to all commuters, not just those who can use BRT to get to their destination, close quote. One of the stated reasons for not selecting the managed lanes back then was concern about enforcement, but that concern is now moot. Curbside bus lanes have been implemented on Maryland 193, University Boulevard, Maryland 97, Georgia Avenue, and on 16th Street in Washington, D.C., and all show that lane enforcement is not currently an issue. Montgomery Planning said that there was only 1% noncompliance with the bus lane on University Boulevard. And if enforcement does become an issue, note that in 2024, the Maryland General Assembly passed Bill SB 943, allowing electronic monitoring of bus lanes to address any of these problems if needed. work on this plan until the county council decides how it will proceed on the capital budget request for the project. Your postponing will not delay the project. The Council's Transportation and Environment Committee is discussing this project on Monday, and a decision by you before then would be premature and irresponsible. Thank you.

Next is Caroline. Oh, no. She's a team. So Howard Feldman, please.

Thank you very much. My name's Howard Feldman. I'm past president and current director of public relations at the Southeast Hebrew Congregation. Our synagogue is located on Lockwood Drive, and our members live primarily within a mile on both sides of 29. As an Orthodox congregation, our members attend synagogue multiple times per day, either by vehicle or walking. On the Sabbath and holidays, we exclusively walk. Of course, during the week, we commute to jobs, and we drive carpools, go shopping, et cetera. So we have clearly a vested interest in this project. We strongly oppose this proposal. The guiding principle of any infrastructure project should be that the net benefits outweigh the harms. Yet this project will provide little demonstrable benefits to commuters on Route 29 and will definitely harm local residents. First, the closing of the northbound Lockwood Drive slip lane, which was just glossed over earlier today, That is a bad idea. That will channel traffic to the neighborhoods. It will make a slow entrance onto Lockwood Drive because now it will be a right turn. Those of you who have driven north on 29 know Lockwood comes off easy. But now you're going to go up and have to make a right turn to do that. People will turn into the neighborhoods on different streets to go around that because it's going to be so slow. It's going to back up 29 further. So And people end up on Burnt Mills. What happens on Burnt Mills? Burnt Mills is one lane passable with two lanes with parked cars. People will not get through. This is going to bollocks everything up completely. Furthermore, the elimination of the southbound Route 29 turn lane onto Lockwood Drive will also push traffic into the neighborhoods. The elimination of the 29 median will make it harder to walk across in our area, something we do multiple times per day. We often need to pause on the median when crossing 29 to wait for turning vehicles, even when we have the signal. We had one member who was physically limited, couldn't walk across 29 on one signal. So you had to wait in the middle at the median. And now the median will be gone. And also, we don't even understand, when southbound buses are coming at you and you're going north in the turn lane to turn onto Burnt Mills, just how will that work? I can't understand that. Third, there are issues precluding some of the turns from and to Northwest Drive. Barring left turns northbound from Northwest Drive forces traffic out of the neighborhood only on Burnt Mills Avenue, which has also backed up more than one traffic signal. Additionally, elimination of the left turn lane from Route 29 onto Northwest Drive limits residents in Burnt Mills Manor to one neighborhood entrance. The intersection of Burnt Mills Avenue and Route 29 has experienced countless accidents, and when it is blocked, it's helpful to have another entrance into the subdivision. Furthermore, the Northwest Drive turn-in is eliminated. Emergency vehicles may be delayed entering the neighborhood and thereby endangering life. Route 29 intersection. There's a serious accident rate at that intersection. That's something you should be addressing. The relocation of the bus stops to the median will undoubtedly lead pedestrians crossing lanes of moving traffic to catch a bus, and thereby unacceptable pedestrian safety risks as they dash out to the median. Fifth, the project may adversely impact accessibility, operation, and viability of our local businesses. As we've heard, Trader Joe's, Burnt Mills Auto Body, and Carroll Fuels, just how will it affect customers and their operations? Sixth, We've already discussed this one, and the commissioner picked up on that right away. The elimination of two traffic lanes south of Timberwood is going to only severely congest traffic. All this being proposed for a project that isn't necessary. Since COVID, southbound traffic on 29 through Burnt Mills is actually lighter than it was. I know. I deal with it every day. I can tell you that's the case. The project isn't necessary to help those heading north from Silver Spring to White Oak, a potential Viva White Oak expansion for whom traffic already flows smoothly in the morning. The current flash buses are half empty. Our buses in Metro are not dissatisfied with the bus commute times and availability. The increased elimination of traffic lanes in the area does little to help those who need to commute to other parts of the county or beyond. The project would not provide any significant benefit to those people. And, of course, the project will consume significant taxpayer resources. For all of these reasons, we urge the committee to not recommend this proposal and instead urge that resources be directed toward targeting safety improvements at existing problematic intersections. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll next go to our team presenters. Jose Massini Torres, you have six minutes, please.

And thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Woodmore Pinecrest Citizens Association, which serves about 1200 homes in the Four Corners, Silver Spring community and East County. The borders of our neighborhood are Colesville Road, on U.S. 29th, University Boulevard, 495, and the Northwest Branch. Our neighborhood and other adjacent neighborhoods have spent a great deal of time working with the respective transportation agencies on solutions to some of the mobility issues in the corridor for about 13 years. We respectfully request the board deny MCDOT's request for a mandatory referral because it proposed a sign to reconfigure Route 29 between Sligo Creek Parkway and Tech Road For median running, Flash Plus only lanes creates more problems than it solves. In fact, if the proposed design moves forward, it will make mobility worse for all modes of travel than the previous alternative that was selected by MCDOT, the planning department, the planning board, and council staff, as well as adjacent neighborhoods. At the time, the council staff stated, quote, the managed lane option is clearly superior in nearly every meaningful metric. Also, quote, the managed lane option would provide the most travel time savings to all commuters. The median lane concept of the next step was not a data-driven decision. The voluminous data that was produced during the study period resulted in the same recommendation two times, the managed lane in the area. The proposed configuration would wind the road, acquire private residential and commercial property, including in Woodmoor, Remove at least two general travel lanes. Remove the median which serves as a pedestrian refuge. Replace the median with constant barriers for separate lanes for flash BRT buses only 24 hours a day. Reduce lane width. Add numerous traffic signals along the corridor, including at Timberwood and Prestonville. Prohibit left turns along the corridor unless signalized. requiring more left-turn lane storage, resulting in additional widening for double left lanes and forced flash bus riders to wait at stations for up to 15 minutes in the middle of one of the most complicated intersections in the state. Removing the median conflicts with the Four Corners Master Plan, which recommends maintaining the median for pedestrian refuge. All other buses, including school buses traveling from the East County Bus Depot to the schools in our area, will be prohibited from using the median flash-only lanes and will be forced into the remaining lanes. In some parts of our area, there would only be two through travel lanes. With the proposed design, trips for local bus riders, metro bus, ride-on school, commuter buses, would be significantly longer if flash-only median lanes are implemented, creating a two-tier transit system that would be unfair and unequitable. MCDOT's data from the U.S. 29 Mobility and Reliability Study, which we attached for the presentation, show that the AM South Bend travel time for non-FLASH buses would be 47 minutes with the median lane configuration, but 20 minutes with a managed lane. Even the FLASH BRT bus travel time would be shorter in the managed lane than in the median lane configuration. There are more than twice as many writers on the slower and fair required Metro buses and right on buses on us 29 there are writers eating the free and more frequent flashback. The ridership number of trips in this area route 29 are attached and they demonstrate whether removal of general travel lanes and the median for the use of one bus route is not justified. solutions should improve transit service for all and not penalize the majority of transit users, along with all other users. Removing general travel lanes in this major crossroads will cause cascading impacts affecting all users of U.S. 29 from downtown Silver Springs beyond White Oak, as well as users of University Boulevard. You can see MCDOT's evaluation of 33 previous studies of U.S. 29 to that point. Property acquisition is much more than previously revealed and is likely to increase as the proposed design moves forward beyond 35%. The acquisition includes removal of at least one business, removing front page residential and commercial property, and compromising the Woodmore Shopping Center by taking the sidewalk in front of the north section of the center. The commercial area has suffered over the years from repeated road windings. Property owners are hesitant to invest due to the lack of certainty about what the next road project and study will be. This proposal would discourage reinvestment in the area. Neither MCDOT nor MDSHA provided any analysis of the traffic that will be diverged on the neighborhood streets, Woodmore streets, to avoid the congestion caused by the removal of general travel lanes. This diversion would be dangerous and contrary to the county's Vision Zero safety goals. The planning department did not provide any additional traffic impact analysis either. Managed lanes for all buses would provide better mobility and can be implemented more quickly and with significantly less cost. The managed lanes for all buses would also involve less disruption, avoiding not only two to three years of construction impact, but also 24-7 left turn prohibitions and the safety impact of the median lane design. Our enforcement concerns mentioned by MCDOT for the managed lanes are moot. Two years ago, the Maryland General Assembly passed SB 943 regarding electronic monitoring of bus lanes to address any problems if needed. And so far, the electronic monitoring has not been needed on MD 193, MD 97, or 16th Street in Washington, D.C., where managed bus lanes are already in place and lane enforcement has not been a major issue. As you know, the council member for this council district requested changes to the design, which are currently under consideration. This is an additional reason why the planning board should not recommend approval of the current proposed design since it may be changed in the very near future. Due to the impact on mobility, safety, property, and transit ridership, it remains unclear what would be accomplished with this very costly median lane design that would impact tens of thousands of residents and businesses, and why not the managed lane? We respectfully request the Board not approve mandatory referral for this proposal. We look forward to your response in continuing to work with agencies to improve safety and mobility for all travelers on this corridor and the surrounding area. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your presentation. Next is, we'll start back with Carolina Paladines.

Yes, hello, Committee. Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to have me speak on behalf of an actual person who works on 29 South, to be more specific. I work at the Four Corners Office condominiums, which is right on the corner of Colesville Road and University Boulevard, going southbound right before 495. And I also are not agreeing to the bus rapid transit that the county wants to put us this is a business that my mother has established here and these kind of names the last 35 years and obviously as time progresses traffic patterns change but lately traffic has been pretty bad and it is only getting worse and I believe that if something like this is put On 29 now, it's just going to be more of a hassle, not just for me as a business owner, but for residents in the area as well, especially Four Corners. It's just a very congested area. I haven't heard anybody mention about Blair, which is literally across from my office. And I can tell you that the kids sometimes don't respect the crosswalks. And if we have something like this where there is a bus rapid transit and we're having teenagers crossing the street, I just feel like it's just going to be more of a pedestrian danger for everyone. Also, you've got to realize construction impacts. This is not something temporary. It's going to be at least two to three years for them to construct something like this. And I feel that's something that we shouldn't go through. Traffic is just going to get even worse. It already worse is now. And I actually live off of 29, actually by the White Oak area. And just for me to commute from White Oak to my office, which is here right off of 29 on the same road, in the morning, it takes me about 25 to 30 minutes on a straight line, no stopping, just to get to work. And for me, that's already a hassle. And this is something I do on a daily basis. And Again, I feel like this is something that's just going to worsen everything else. Besides that, just creating, like I said before, not just for us as business owners and pedestrian danger. The community, residents who already live around here so many years, we're trying to already focus on trying to get traffic out of here the right way. But unfortunately, I feel like this BRT project is not something good for us at all. And as a business owner, I haven't even been mentioned about something like this. Someone from the Woodmore community who's actually there this morning, Mr. James, came to me and said, hey, have you been told that they want to do this BRT project in this area? I said, absolutely not. I haven't got anything in the mail. So I am blindsided. I don't even have an idea that the county wanted to propose something like this for us. So it's a little upsetting. Because I might even think of them taking some of our parking spots here for our customers and for our workers who are in this.

Ma'am, could you wrap up your testimony, please? Could you wrap up your testimony?

Yes, I am just not. I hope that they do not approve this. I just don't want them to approve something like this because it's just going to cause more issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Bill Pugh. Good morning. Can you all hear me? Yes, we can. Please start.

Hi, Chair Harris and board members. My name is Bill Pugh. I'm the Transportation Director with the Coalition for Smarter Growth. We've worked extensively in Montgomery County as well as the rest of the D.C. region over our 29-year history. Overall, the coalition supports the U.S. 29 BRT project. This is one of the county's most important bus corridors, serving over 8,000 trips per day. The BRT is a critical component of the county's Thrive 2050 Master Plan and the new housing and development that are coming to the county to US 29. This includes the Viva White Oak and other plan redevelopment. We know that we simply can't serve the needed new homes and development without providing other transportation options. that give people an alternative to sitting in congestion. Thrive calls on the county to build a frequent, fast, convenient, reliable, safe, and accessible transit system. It also notes that almost all new residents and non-residential development will be located on planned transit, such as the BRT corridors. That Thrive calls on the county to convert existing general purpose traffic lanes to dedicated transit lanes in a manner consistent with county policies. We've seen in other parts of the region, such as Arlington and Falls Church, where they have added thousands of new residents, that when there is good transit walkability, that corridors such as Roslyn-Balston, the main corridor of the city of Falls Church, have not seen traffic volumes increase. So recommend or support the recommendation for the bus priority lanes through Four Corners. This is also critical to the success of the BRT. If riders are having to sit in traffic, they're not going to use the system as much as this investment is worth doing. We heard from staff that the Four Corners plan, this is consistent as it, in quotes, seeks to transition Four Corners from an auto-dominant center into a mixed-use, people-oriented center. Sorry, the adopted University Boulevard plan. These are the community's adopted goals, and we think that the US 29 BRT will be consistent and help this area transition into what the community has envisioned. Also, a recommendation, we recommend that in the next design phase and service planning that Montgomery DOT find opportunities for Metrobus and other ride-on lines to use parts of the dedicated lanes and other facilities to make sure that they take advantage of these new faster bus priority improvements. We also appreciate the county's parallel effort to improve walking and biking along the corridor. Again, I thank you for the time and see this as a crucial project for the county's vision. This is the adopted vision of the community, the Thrive Plan, and making sure that the new residents and existing residents can benefit from alternatives to the congestion that we've heard. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Our last person today is Harriet Quinn. Ms. Quinn, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chair Harrison, Commissioners. My name is Harriet Quinn. I'm a resident of Four Corners, a member of the U.S. 29 Corridor Advisory Committee representing the Woodmoor Pinecrest neighborhood, which is adjacent to Route 29. I'm a member of the Silver Spring Transportation Management District Advisory Committee representing the planning areas of Kemp Mill, Four Corners, and Eastern Silver Spring. I'm speaking as an individual, and I've also reviewed all of the 34 studies that have been done related to this corridor. I'm also a frequent user of the flash bus, ride my bike over the northwest branch to get to the flash that was discussed during the presentation. The flash bus, by the way, already has transit signal priority. One of the purposes of the Transportation Management District Advisory Committees is to encourage the use of transit and other commuting options in the business district and to cut traffic congestion. This proposal will discourage transit use and increase congestion. concur with the testimony of the Woodmore Pinecrest Association and ask the planning board to deny McDot's request for mandatory referral for this design. There are so many issues with this design, which creates many more problems with mobility and unfortunately doesn't really solve anything. The proposed design is not consistent with the Four Corners Master Plan, is not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, is not safe or efficient, and there is a much safer, better performing, more efficient alternative that is consistent with the master plan that has been ignored in the staff presentation. That managed lane alternative was previously recommended by MCDOT, the planning department, planning board, and council staff, and surrounding neighborhoods. This current design to remove at least two general travel lanes while also expanding the road and taking residential and commercial property to create a lane only for flash buses discourages transit riders by forcing the majority of the riders on local buses on 29 in this area, as well as all the school buses coming from the East County Bus Depot to schools in our area, into a reduced number of travel lanes, making their trips much longer due to the increased congestion caused by this design. There are over twice as many riders on all the other buses through Four Corners than total riders using the free and more frequent flash BRT buses. Not everyone using transit along 29 can get the flash bus, and from the ridership numbers you were sent, that is obvious. Not everyone can use transit to get to work. Non-flash riders and other commuters will be penalized with further delays. As others have discussed, it's very clear from the mobility study that the managed lane for all buses, with or without HOV vehicles, is the best solution and was previously supported by those agencies. The design isn't safe for flash bus riders who would be forced to wait in the middle of the high-impact area of the Four Corners intersection for up to 15 minutes to board the bus. The removal of general travel lanes and left turns in Four Corners will cause significant congestion. And we ask that you take another look at the Four Corners Master Plan because that is not consistent with the Four Corners Master Plan. Forcing more cut-through traffic is a very extensive process. discussion in the Fork Wonders Master Plan, which recommends solutions to reduce that cut through traffic. Thank you.

Thank you so much. So why don't we begin our discussion.

One of the things that... Mr. Chair, can I first just respond to a few things there, if okay? So just listening to some of the testimony, I just wanted to take a moment to make sure that the public understands that the planning board's role here as part of the mandatory referral isn't to advance or reject... this project, and it's not to select the alternative that is ultimately advanced. That's the role of the County Council that those decisions were made in 2022. The role of the board, as you all know, of course, is to review the project that is submitted to the board and to provide comments on the project design, as you all have been bringing up throughout this discussion. A major theme of the comments was the managed lanes alternative, which, along with the median lanes alternative, was considered as part of the previous study. I do want to correct the record there. The planning board, the county executive, and the county council ultimately all recommended the median lanes project. If it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, MCDOT could take a moment to talk over the managed lanes project and why that, or alternative in why that wasn't ultimately advanced.

That would be great because that was one of my questions. Yes, please do.

Yeah, it was my question also. So it would be very helpful if you explain exactly the management as part of your discussion. Also, because what I heard from the public discussing that The median lane is just now for the BRT, so it doesn't include the other ones that while the managed lane was doing that. Then if it is just for BRT, what is the interval? Is it the whole day long, every 15 minutes? that it's going to be used, you know, it's going to be busy. I hope that if we're going to do one lane, it's going to be used all the time. So I wasn't sure how that one uses. And also, if the alternative were suggested, you confirmed that the alternative that council picked was not the management, was the median. So that's what you're coming. Okay, yeah, please go ahead and tell us that.

Correct. And that is, and so we are following the direction of what Council directed us to do with advancing the 35% design for the median transit lane. So that's what we're here to talk about. But maybe going back and zooming out a little bit and talking through the managed lanes and some of the pros and cons of that, I think, is just to give a little bit of background. You know, in an ideal world, managed lanes are wonderful. You can look at it from an analysis perspective. You can try to fit a lot more traffic in there. But the reality is they're really difficult. They're really difficult to maintain. They're going to actually induce traffic to come through the neighborhood. So part of the purpose of managed lanes is to make the traffic go faster. One of the things that would almost certainly happen with managed lanes is you would end up with more traffic going through the neighborhood on US 29 rather than maintaining the comparable travel flow with more emissions and more of the externalities that come with higher travel volumes. But also, when you start looking at the details of a managed lane, we would have expected as the county DOT for technology to advance, the legal framework to advance, that might have been able to better support that. And frankly, it hasn't. What we're seeing in practice is it hasn't. I can't sit here. and tell you a single project anywhere in the United States where they've had a successful arterial managed lane like this. And there are plenty of successful bus lanes. We've got multiple examples of those, right? University Avenue was mentioned. That's a bus lane, right? They're actually relatively easy to enforce, right? If you're a car and you're in the lane, you shouldn't be. You've got a bus that goes by, they can ticket them ultimately once we get the various agreements. What gets harder is how do you actually enforce a managed lane? In particular, if there's some sort of element, I don't know that there would be a tolling element to manage that. That's what happens on the Virginia side, so to maintain the throughput. But how would you manage it? Would you put barriers? The barriers take space. Then you have to have some sort of overhead gantry. You have to have enforcement mechanisms, none of which we have in place to actually manage it in a way that would deliver the results that a very idealistic analysis produce. An idealistic analysis assumes that everybody's doing the right thing every single time, and that it works exactly the way as anticipated. And the operationalization of that is just not there, right? How do you deal with left turns? It's not clear, right? You've got the get over. You go through the lane. How do you get to the pocket? How long can that be? How would you actually manage it? How do you enforce it? There are so many concerns. When we've had offline conversations with SHA, they don't know how they could even do it. Even if it was an idea that wanted to be advanced, it is not clear how that would actually happen and how you could actually operationalize it. I can't sit here in good faith and tell you how we as the agency, and it would be SHA who owns the road, but how we could even work with our colleagues at SHA to advance it.

Well, I understand that's selected, that alternative. So there is no question about that alternative is selected at that time by the county council. So we are beyond that. But the question is that I read in the document that in 2022, the council requested that you look at the options of this alternative, this dedicated lane, median lane, and see that if you could not reduce the number of the lanes at North 4th Corner. I just read it somewhere in the document. That's something that A council requested, but you haven't done that, and I don't know why not. And they said you're going to get back to it later, something like that.

Are you referring to maybe the more recent interaction between our director, Director Conklin, at the T&E committee of, I don't know, a month and a half ago?

Maybe that was the one.

I thought that it was at the time that they— I can't speak to that because I wasn't around at that point. I don't recall that. Okay.

It was a request. Right.

Specifically by Councilmember Mink to look at various ways to potentially adjust going through Four Corners. Yeah. And what the Director committed to at that point as part of the final design process. So once the final design is funded and commences, that we would look at what we would call alternative technical concepts that would consider how we might be able to reduce a lane through Four Corners if feasible. And so while we're designing, that we would go through a process that could evaluate the feasibility and the feasibility of reducing that from two to one lane. So we have two bus lanes going through currently. How might we do that with either presumably with just one lane through there, a single reversible lane?

So that would help not to reduce the lanes.

And we'd have to figure out the technical elements of that, right? Because you've only got a finite amount of space.

I don't know why you want to wait on final design. But that makes it very difficult. I think this is the time that we have to do that. And could you tell me that in dedicated BRT lane, is it going to be all day long? The BRT is going to be using it on 15 minutes intervals.

So we don't have necessarily an operating plan yet. But the idea, because this is a long lead, right? You don't have an operating plan for something that's seven years out.

But what is the plan?

So the plan typically when we're building these BRT projects is that we're having somewhere on the order of magnitude of six to 10 minute headways for our buses. in particular on peak periods and off-peak periods, maybe 10 to 15, depending on the corridor and the need.

So the lane would be used the whole day long. But the lane would be used? It's not going to be sit idle. Correct.

And so we'd have to reverse it at some point during the day. We'd have to check with demand, right? The easy parts are the AM inbound peak and the PM outbound peak. But would we change over at 11 in the morning? Would it be 12? Those are things that we'd have to figure out and probably be responsive to demand on.

Okay. I think it's an important point to note, though, also that relating to the services that the congestion, all of the concerns that we've heard are about the peak period. That the bus service that happens, I'll speak to the congestion more. Like the congestion issue on US 29 is in the peak periods. And the bus service exists at its most frequent during that period and continues to exist from, I believe, 5 a.m. to 1 a.m. So there's significant service happening in the off-peak as well that will use these links.

Well, one more question, and that's my last question, hopefully, is that what is your anticipated? I understand we cannot tell, but there is a flash bus right now is going, okay? What is the percentage of the car would be reduced when people, if you have the BRT? So is it going to help? Because right now I hear that the traffic is 70,000, 80,000 ADT and maybe even more. And I saw a ridership. that was showed that what is under existing in the documents and what is it gonna be when BRT, the percentage wasn't really high comparing to that people shift because it's just for five miles. A lot of people have to go way beyond that five mile. It just may help people that they have a business feeling that they saw. I really don't know what is the goal, what is the best and what do you think in reality would happen?

Right. In reality, what we tend to expect, and this is a little bit different, right, because as I noted previously, most of our projects make transit more competitive with vehicle travel. This project actually makes transit better timelines than vehicle travel, in particular if you're close to a stop. So typically, you would expect to get a relatively small percentage of vehicles that are driving to shift to transit. It depends on the amount of the decrease in travel time for the transit and how that compares to the vehicles. Without doing, you know, I can't sit here and quote specific model results that I would trust for ridership. We've done micro simulation, which were the travel time results, which I have much more faith in. The ridership modeling is a different animal. I don't know off the top of my head, but typically you could expect that you might be able to divert 2% to 5% of vehicles traveling to transit. Now, when you're talking about, I can't remember off the top of my head, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 AADT, and it varies across the quarter, a little bit less at the top and a little bit more as you get to the beltway. That's a pretty significant number, right, with 8,000 or so riders that are on the corridor today across the services, right, and another few percent. You're talking about a pretty decent potential boost in ridership in transit.

I'd also speak, I think we heard testimony that the dedicated lanes really only benefit the flash service, and that is true the way it's set up. But at the same time, with the travel time savings that staff have walked through, I think we would also anticipate, if we're talking about 19-minute travel time savings in the inbound direction, significant likelihood to shift from some of those existing ride-on WMATA services to the flash service.

And at this point, there's no motivation to shift between services, right? With the ability to build flash, similar to what our colleagues at WMATA operate. They didn't build infrastructure for this, but recall on New Hampshire Avenue where they have a local and an express service. And so this is normal to bifurcate service like this. When you get more advanced corridors, more diverse corridors, You bifurcate the service. You had limited stop and local stop, very similar to what WMATA has done on New Hampshire Avenue and what we would talk about here. And so you begin to pick up some of that local ridership, shifting to a very much faster and longer distance travel.

Yeah, just to confirm that. So the BRT right now, the way you are proposing it, it's going to be used by both, except in one location, the blue and orange That's it, but nothing else. No other transit can use that.

That's correct. OK. It's possible our colleagues at MTA who are operating commuter buses might be able to use that, but broadly speaking, that is correct.

OK, why don't we try to wrap this up. One of the things, let me just say this. Because it's over five miles of very different areas, it's a complicated plan. It seems complicated because you're in one area. You have median both directions, reversible stops in the median, stops on the side. I mean, it's just, and some of it's because of the, you know, where it's built, some places are just built out. But given the council had asked you to look at this, and given that it does reduce the time, I would support it. I mean, I have recommended you continue moving forward with it. But my comments are mostly implementation. We've seen what happened to the Purple Line when it's how do you, as MDOT does this, how do they implement it in a way that it causes the least disruption to businesses, it causes the least disruption to the community. And I think implementation is so important so that people have confidence that when things are done, It doesn't take forever. It doesn't cause as much disruption, even though there's going to be some, or some of the disruption is mitigated. I know it doesn't support you right now, but I think for businesses, and sometimes when they know they're going to do large construction projects, they set aside some money to support the small businesses for their disruption. And I know they've done that with some of the very large mass transportation projects. And I know Seattle and some other places, when they get funding for the project, it includes these other costs that help support these other pieces. And so my recommendation is that when this moves forward, that there's money for, or there's definitely a really thought out implementation plan. And then there's also the potential for a plan to support small businesses around the Four Corners and around the Burke Mills and other, when this happens. And then one of the other questions, last question I have is, you had this chart that showed the change in the, the speed of the track, how much less time it would take to go through the five-mile area, the whole area, and then you just did through the burnt mills and the Four Corners. If you bifurcated burnt mill and Four Corners, was there also, of that 14 minutes, how much was the savings through burnt mills versus Four Corners? Do you know in the chart I was talking about? Did you look at that just out of curiosity?

That actually is straight out of the previous mobility study. There are actually two segments that we combined. There's a second segment, and I think one of the, I think it's, Yes, so you have this. Right, but this is actually two segments. So when we did the micro-simulation, it broke it down into segments across the quarter, and this is actually a combination of two. There's another single section that breaks them out a little bit more. A little bit hard to get the exact numbers because they're two codependent areas, but yes, there is analysis that you can actually, and the public can go back and look through to see the specifics of each area.

Okay, and then I mentioned that you have some... stations where you're island-based and some were curb-based, there was no way to make them in through this so that.

Right. And the reasoning for keeping them the same is because you want people to board in the same place every time, whether the bus is using that center facility or not. So what we don't want to have is, say, you're in Four Corners, and having our riders think, am I supposed to board on the curb, or am I supposed to board in the middle? So you really need to have those combined stations in a single place where folks know where to board them every time. And so the best way to do that is typically in the center. I would note that there are, I can't speak to exactly how many, but I know at least one of the Purple Line stations, at least at University, at the transit center at New Hampshire will have a similar center platform. Now, I think, I can't recall if that's all center or if it's on the sides. I can't remember the exact running way. But that is also in the center. Our colleagues in the city of Alexandria and Arlington County have their metro way service. We would actually begin to mimic some of their station layouts in the middle.

Okay, so maybe I misunderstood. So all of your boarding for this station new system is all center?

I'm sorry.

No, it varies.

Go ahead. Yeah, so I think what Ms. Renson is saying is that the sort of directionality of the dedicated lanes that you talked about, how it's like broken up into individual sections, In the locations where there are two dedicated lanes, like through Four Corners, both stations in both directions are in that median space because always people will board in a light in that median space. In north of that, in Burnt Mills, one of the stations is in the median in the southbound direction because it's always southbound in that location. And the other in the northbound direction is on the curb, because it's always going to be on the curb. What we don't want is to create a situation where, based on the time of day, somebody is waiting at a station that is not actually being served because that service is in the dedicated lane. Also, that reduces the duplicate, like spending extra money constructing transit stations that you don't need.

If I could add, the mobility and reliability study, we're adopting the immediate hybrid version. There are other iterations of this that looked at more of a consistent layout. Due to the nature of the corridor, as you mentioned, Chair, there are residential areas, commercial areas, and they need to be treated differently as such. And I kind of want to go back to the comment that you started with regarding construction, if I could. Gentleman here provided testimony that he encountered one lane of traffic in operation. I know that if we are funded and proceed to construction, it would be our due diligence to analyze the traffic and what is a configuration that would work. Is that maintaining two lanes of traffic? And what does that look like in terms of a neighborhood point of view? Four corners will be treated as a northern section, which could be constructed potentially in one swing. But these are things that we're considering as we progress through design.

Thank you. Those are my comments. I'm just seeking direction on that. So the comment about the implementation plan and small business support, is there interest from the board in including something to that effect in the transmittal letter to MCDOT? Would that be helpful?

Would it be helpful if we bring up the summary slide of the staff's comments you can consider as well as your own? Right.

Great. Thank you. So there's two slides. The first slide, additional measures for posted speeds, the breezeway side path on Lockwood, bike parking, narrow travel lanes, prioritizing improvements, and then Timberwood Avenue changes, lighting, curb radius. And then we had also talked about from Commissioner Linden, some sort of vertical separation or barrier potentially on the proposed wider sidewalk side path on US 29. And then we'd had a conversation about the Burnt Mills East potential sidewalk widening with parks as well.

And could I add one thought to put in the mix here, too? Would it be possible to go back to page 73 for a moment? I'm just going to use this page as an example. There's nothing. I mean, there is something specific on this page I wanted to note, but I just want to use that as an example. So the crosswalk going across Timberwood is a bit of, you know, it's not entirely perpendicular. It's a small thing. The curb ramp is also pointing more diagonally into the street instead of straight across. I think in most cases, although I haven't reviewed the actual designs across the entire corridor, like these designs, but I would put in a recommendation that strong preference for crosswalks that are directly perpendicular to the extent possible, curb ramps that point directly across for people with visual challenges so they're not directed out into the street. Eli mentioned before the curb radii tightening. I would second that, but I think that's already a comment. But these kinds of things, the more that we can be consistent with this, I mean, these are pretty significant accessibility issues and benefits if we can get these right. So I would put a plug in for that.

Certainly will, and the plans that were submitted, mandatory referral does not necessarily reflect the latest condition. We've looked to add crosswalks at the signalized intersections where, for example, Timberwood's not signalized currently, and we'll look to shorten the pedestrian crossings as much as possible.

Yeah, shortening's great, for sure. And straight across, you know, the types of things that I know the planning staff always focuses on with other mandatory referrals, but just baking that in across the board. That's my only addition there.

Other comments or questions from the board?

Well, I do not know. Could you go through your comments? Because I don't agree with that comment to reduce the number of lanes and instead put a concrete barrier. In my opinion, that was not safe. That is not safe. So I do not know if that's part of your comments. I was trying to check on my computer.

So yeah, comment four is to narrow travel lanes to the default widths. So against a curb, that would be 11 feet. And use the excess space to provide concrete transit buffers where none exist in the current district.

Yeah, I don't agree with that.

I think we wanted to clarify what those would look like first, if that's OK. They would be standard, they could be standard curb height as opposed to something like a jersey barrier. They would be much lower to the ground. The lanes as proposed, I believe, are 12 feet wide. They could be reduced, you know, one foot each, two feet each. There could be a combination. So I do think that there is space and And narrowing the lanes is consistent with how we've approached projects.

So this image shows, among other things, when we say barrier, it's just a six-inch curve like any other, which is already The project plan already provides for the entire length, other than at these sections where the bus transitions to or from the dedicated lane. So what the recommendation is is just in those locations where there is the transition to extend the barrier a little bit, that existing six-inch curb barrier.

It's a buffer, not a barrier. Barrier sounds much more interesting.

Yeah. It's a buffer. It's a buffer. It's a concrete buffer.

I don't like the idea of concrete buffer. It is not safe. I have hit, personally, with not fast speed, OK, a concrete curb at the edge of the sidewalk. I was going 25 mile per hour, and I didn't see it. It was right next to the lane that I was going and completely damaged my car, and I was shifted. This kind of thing is not safe. It's just not safe. I do not know if that's a common practice that we have been doing those. Is it a common practice?

It's not dissimilar from when, you know, with protected bike lanes, sometimes those have concrete buffers. But there is a space. That this would maybe be, it depends how it's designed. It could be slightly different. slightly wider, but a similar height off the ground, probably, to what you would often see with a protected bike lane. And there are reasons why we choose more kind of hardened buffers like that, because they're more effective. And also, they're also more visually effective. They're more visually effective, too.

More effective for who? That's what I have a hard back. It has to be safe for everyone.

The goal is to keep vehicles out of the lane.

And there's ways to make them very visibly noticeable.

You know, we're not trying to... The purpose is not trying to hide them. The purpose is to make them very noticeable so that everyone's aware of where they are and everyone can stay in their own space.

Is that a common practice? Do we have them anywhere else? If it is a common practice that is approved, then... Let's use the terminology and see if that's a common practice. If it is just something that we are making up and it hasn't been used much in here, then I have a problem with it.

Just to add to the conversation, these concrete buffers They help separate the different modes of transportation that are on the corridor. And what we have, we're at 35% design currently. There's a lot of control that we still have for these particular design elements. There's curb reveal. There's also various types of curbing that we could use. And this is very different from the barrier. So the barriers are mostly limited to just the stations. But corridor-wide, you have that existing condition now with travel lanes alongside concrete curb at various heights. So those are the things that we have control over. And that is a practice to separate modes of transportation.

That's fine, as long as it is something that widely accepted for safety and with the traffic design that is standard, I'm fine with it. I just didn't like the idea.

I'll just add, we were in Long Branch earlier this week for our Eastern Silver Spring plan, and as I was walking through that area, I noticed they have this exact type of thing implemented for the Purple Line. And it's great because I noted as well, this is really great. It's separating the purple line from the route lane traffic. So it makes that distinction to make sure that it's separate.

Yeah, as long as there is proper space and distance that it has proper design. I just didn't see much space there. For half a foot, we wanted to put a barrier. I said, that doesn't make sense.

All right.

I'd like to add some comments. I've been waiting patiently, and so you might have to forgive me the length of my comments. But first and foremost, I'd like to thank the citizens that showed up on teams and in person to have your voices heard. I know in some of our Worker Day lives, we don't have the opportunity to show up and have our voices heard. But your voice is a vote, and they're meaningful to me. And I not only hear you, but I listen to you. And upon listening to you, I understand that you do not like this project and you don't want it to go forward. And if I had a decision as to whether or not I could say go forward or not, I would side with the citizens and say not go forward. Mr. Anspacher pointed out that the board won't accept or reject the project, but to provide comments on the project design. And I do have comments on the project design. But fortunately, we have a well-informed board member that is not only an expert with regards to engineering, but she's an expert in the life of the roadway and experienced it firsthand, similar to me. And instead of me making the same comments as that board member, Mitra, I would just say I would co-sign anything that Mitra said with regards to this without amendment or edit. the reality of this roadway. She captured the reality of reduction in lanes. And one of the things I find interesting is that one of the most dangerous intersections in Montgomery County is the intersection of Route 29 and University Boulevard. I don't know if it's the most dangerous intersection, but it's one of the most dangerous intersections. And what I find interesting is that during this presentation, nobody mentioned how it would make that intersection more safe and how the citizens who use it more often would be better off with the improvements or the suggested improvements to this roadway and introduction of BRT and reduction of the lanes. Another curious thing about this project is that in a world where everything is moving faster, we're looking to make this intersection move slower, and that the people who utilize their vehicles to help fend for themselves in the workplace and provide a living for their families are going to be asked to go slower in the reduction of lanes and the size of the lanes, and somehow that's considered an advancement. With the latest technologies, engineering, cars, reducing the speed limit and the possibility of reducing the time that a person can travel from their home to the workplace, to the grocery store, or taking their kids to soccer practice, ballet, music lessons, making it more difficult to transgress Route 29, I don't see as a benefit. There is two items of evidence that seem to be at conflict, whether or not the county council supports A managed lane or whether or not the county council supports a dedicated median. And I'm not sure who to side with with regards to what the county council feels about a managed lane or dedicated lane. But, you know, our goal again here is to offer our comments, and those are my comments. Thank you.

I think we have an answer to the last question is that they supported the median lane that's why we're here if they didn't if the county council hadn't we wouldn't be talking about this we'd be talking about something else making choices this is not a confusion over what the county council recommended or anybody else did what was recommended was a median lane And I think that there's considerable pedestrian safety included in this presentation, including, but not limited to, the barrier and buffer separations for people accessing the transit. I think we've got clear evidence that this actually does improve and support people's commuting and moving along this corridor. We've got a great deal of evidence for that. People in the buses, people on the cars at different times of day are going to be going faster than they would otherwise in the difference of one minute at one of eight different parts that we're studying here, I think is a worthwhile trade-off for the amount of time saving and community saving that we're saving. Otherwise, we have pedestrian improvements in side lanes throughout this thing. The reason that we're not talking about the deaths at the intersection is because that's not what the topic is today. I think that there's considerable evidence from the staff and from this report that this is going to improve things considerably. And I understand the concerns. are the people that have come and testified today. I appreciate them showing up as well. But that does not preclude looking at the evidence that we've been presented and looking at the work that's been done over the last, at this point, four years to put together something that offers an improvement over what is currently available. And I want to just make sure that we're not sitting here that there is no... uncertainty about what the county council has recommended. Because if they'd recommended something different, we wouldn't be here talking about this project. So I think it's a good project. I think it's worthwhile. I think there's been relatively reasonable comments about construction time, barrier safety, all those kind of things. But we've got considerable evidence that this is going to improve traffic and travel along the corridor. It's going to improve pedestrian safety. And I suggest we go forward with it and put our comments in there like that.

okay say one one more quick thing sorry and i i know we're i know we're way over on this but um i also just wanted to i wanted to thank mcdot you know for it's been a long road you mentioned i think it was in 1996 potentially was the first someone mentioned 96 was the first time something like this had been envisioned like nearly 30 years exactly 30 years ago um studies since then you know it's come a long way and i think it's reached a point where you've you've more than demonstrated the value of this approach, as has been mentioned by Commissioner Hedrick and others. And I wanted to second everything he said. And I just wanted to just quickly point out that we've heard from many people here in the room and appreciate all the comments and concerns there. We heard from one person online who mentioned that she personally rides the Flash today. And I want us to be able to focus on transit riders because Transit riders, walkers, cyclists, others who either choose not to use a car or out of necessity cannot use a car or otherwise just get around in these ways that this project would benefit. This project is not only for them, but it also is for everyone else because you mentioned that it doesn't take a lot. of moving cars off the road and shifting modes to transit to make a difference for everyone, to make a difference. There's 70,000 to 80,000 vehicles on ADT on Colesville today. You mentioned potentially 2% to 5% could shift. Honestly, it doesn't even take 2% to 5% to make a meaningful difference with relieving some congestion at pinch points. And that's the amazing thing about these kinds of projects, that although it seems like maybe we're cutting on the margins, The margins matter when it comes to traffic and congestion. And so I wanted to note that. But again, kind of refocusing on transit and the riders. Transit riders, along with renters, along with low-income folks, along with many others whom we don't see in this room, are often not in rooms like these. And there's reasons for that. And, um, I think it's an, you know, I know that you all did a lot of work through this project to specifically reach out to people who, who take transit, who need to take trends, who are daily riders, riders out of necessity. Um, and I assume that a lot of their input was incorporated into these, into these designs. And that's important too. Um, in fact, that's, that's primarily important because this project will serve their needs. It will encourage more people to take transit in the future, which serves the entire county because it improves our climate action goals. It's more environmentally sustainable. It helps facilitate more growth that we need. Thrive was mentioned several times. Thrive envisions this kind of growth, but this kind of growth can't happen without transit like this and without more transit. So no project is perfect. And this is no exception. Like the trade-offs have been mentioned, I would prefer this to continue down into downtown Silver Spring and get more time savings there. On the whole, this is a huge benefit. And it's good to have, you know, Jamie, you mentioned your experience with other similar projects. It is... really rare to find these time savings. And that demonstrates the opportunity here. It also demonstrates the enormous value we're about to provide to thousands of riders. Well, maybe not about. Seven years from now, hopefully, thousands of riders and more who will take this and benefit working people, you know, people who want a faster trip to get to work and home to their family. So for all those reasons and more, I support the project. I support this concept. I support the comments that staff has made. Consideration of a couple others that we made too. And I hope that, you know, I wish you luck in getting funding. I know that funding is really hard to access right now from the federal government. So the last thing I would just note real quick is knowing that there is a delayed timeframe here and construction will take a long time. I really like MCDOT to consider what can we do in the interim to speed up transit and add service on US 29 and elsewhere, because these projects take a long time. But transit riders shouldn't be expected to wait, and our climate goals can't wait, and everything else can't wait either. So if there's anything we can do to speed up trips in the meantime, increase service for ride-on on these key corridors, that would be fantastic. And I know it's not cheap to do those things, but it really should be a priority. And I would encourage you to try to make that happen in the next few years.

So thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Vice Chair Linden, for the big picture here. I totally agree with you on those points. And another big piece is that we're planning for growth. We talked about Viva White Oak. that will start developing shortly. And I think there's 5,000 potential homes or apartments and things like that. And then we are in terms of we want We're planning for more growth in the East County, definitely for equity sakes. They have been disinvested in for the longest. And then also connections to Howard County. So I think this is all great and great Please, we hope it starts as soon as possible for many reasons. So we need to vote on this. Commissioner Peterman wanted to make one last point, but we need to vote and move forward on here because we have to go to the county council for our budget hearings.

Yes, yes. I just want to make sure that I do support the transit, okay? The only question I have in here, and I see plenty of it while I'm sitting in here, is that we shouldn't take the options away from the other mode of transportation. Transit should add to another option for people available, but not to the point that take the options from other people that they want to use other modes of transportation. That's why that I support this project, but I am really hoping that when it comes to your final design, you don't take the option of people not to be able to drive around Four Corners and Burns Mill to the cost of their time. that they be able to still continue with the same kind of things, preference that they have. In Montgomery County, we are all here for options, okay? So when I support pedestrian, I support bikes, I support transit, and I support riding. I drive. That's my preference to drive. But I don't want that option to be taken away from me because we want to add some more. I'm willing to go to some discomfort as long as it's not going to stop me from being able to go from point A to point B with the mode of the transportation that I would like to choose.

So we're going to wrap up here. Thank you for your presentations. It's very detailed. You spent decades in the planning, so we really appreciate that. And do I have a motion to approve the mandatory referral number MR2026016 and transmit comments to the MCDOT?

This is comments only, correct? Yes.

Yes, we're approving, yeah, transmitting the mandatory referral with comments to MCDOT.

Yeah, I'll move to approve the mandatory referral and transmit comments to MCDOT. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you so much. We're going to postpone item number six, which is briefing on the demographic characteristics of children in Montgomery County until next week, and this ends our planning board meeting for today. Thank you for attending, and And happy bring your kids to school day. Thank you.