Transit System Enhancement Study Final Report

City of Bowie, Maryland

November 2006

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 1

2. Current and Future Needs and System Assessment ...... 3

3. Results of Resident and Business Surveys ...... 29

4. Potential Transit Improvement Options...... 33

5. Assessment of Costs and Benefits...... 45

6. Funding Opportunities ...... 55

7. Recommendations and Next Steps...... 59

Transit Sy stem Enhancement Study

Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Transit Sy stem Enhancement Study

Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

1. Introduction

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to document existing needs and project demand for public transit in the City of Bowie, examine existing transit service and routes, and make recommendations for enhancement of current services to residents and workers in the city in order to move forward. In addition, the study explores whether a City-sponsored or subsidized bus service would be a cost-effective option. The study focuses on short to medium term improvements to the transit system in Bowie, although it is informed by the long-term vision for transit presented in the 2005 Master Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment for Bowie and Vicinity.

Study Background and Rationale

In 2003, TranSystems (then known as Multisystems) completed the Regional Bus Study for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), in coordination with the relevant governmental jurisdictions (the State of Maryland and Prince George’s County) including TheBus and Maryland Transit Administration. The study examined both Metrobus and locally provided service (e.g., TheBus). The study was designed to determine service, facility and financial needs and was not cost constrained. The plan included a specific restructuring plan for Bowie service which would shift service from a collection of long, circuitous routes connecting to Metrorail stations, to a hub- based model focused on three new or enhanced transit centers.

In July of 2005, the Prince George’s County Planning Board approved the Master Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment for Bowie and Vicinity, developed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The Plan included a short section on transit and outlined policies and strategies to improve transit service and encourage transit-oriented development for the Bowie area, particularly in the Bowie Regional Center. Proposed expansion was divided into four phases, beginning with the enhancement of existing transit services within the Bowie Regional Center, commuter parking lot, and Bowie Town Center in Phase 1 and culminating in a redevelopment of the Bowie Gateway Center into a transit center and commuter parking facility. Under the Plan, as transit service would expand its geographic reach, the principal transit mode would shift from fixed-route bus to regional rapid transit. Table 1-1 below summarizes the phased transit service timetable included in the Bowie and Vicinity Master Plan.

Table 1-1: Phased Transit Service Timetable in the Bowie and Vicinity Master Plan Principal Transit Phase Mode Service Description Enhance existing transit service by increasing ridership, updating existing routes One Fixed-route bus and service, and diverting single-occupant vehicle trips to transit service. Expand existing transit service by emphasizing employer incentives in new Two Fixed-route bus developments within Bowie Regional Center. Extend geographic reach of transit service to other parts of the planning area Three Fixed-route bus such as Pointer Ridge and a link to Largo Town Center Metrorail by coordinating with the Maryland Department of Transportation. Shift the principal transit mode to regional rapid transit and integrate with Four Bus rapid transit Metrorail, especially along the US 50 Corridor and central and eastern Prince George's County.

In addition to the 2003 WMATA Regional Bus Study and the 2005 Bowie Master Plan, one other relevant planning effort is worth mentioning here. Prince George’s County is in the process of developing an updated Five Year Transit Plan for the County. Community workshops related to this plan were held in the spring of 2006, and the study is

Transit System Enhancement Study 1 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland currently ongoing. When complete, the plan is expected to include recommendations for both County-provided fixed- route service (TheBus) and paratransit service (Call-A-Bus).

Study Process

The Bowie Transit System Enhancement Study was conducted during the summer and fall of 2006. The study process included the following main steps.

Study initiation and review of the City’s goals and objectives;
An assessment of current and potential future needs, including a review of demographics, travel characteristics, and development projects in and around the City of Bowie;
A telephone survey of Bowie residents and a written survey of businesses in Bowie;
An assessment of the current transit system and ridership in the City of Bowie;
Development of potential transit improvement options including type of service, route, and operator options, and refinement of these options based on input from project stakeholders;
Estimates of ridership for the potential transit improvement options;
Estimates of the costs (both capital and operating) for the potential transit improvement options;
An evaluation of the benefits and costs of the potential transit improvement options to identify the most promising options;
Identification of opportunities for funding partnerships for the recommended service enhancements; and
Development of preliminary and final recommendations.

The study process included several opportunities for gathering input from the Bowie City Council and the public, as well as an ongoing dialogue with Bowie City Staff. Presentations to the City Council related to this study included:

A distribution of the results of the telephone survey of Bowie residents at a City Council work session in July 2006;
A presentation on the findings of the assessment of current and potential future needs, assessment of the current transit system, and the potential transit improvement options at a City Council work session in n September 2006; and
A presentation on the results of the business survey, refined transit improvement options, the costs and benefits of these options, funding opportunities and preliminary recommendations at a City Council work session in October 2006.

Transit System Enhancement Study 2 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

2. Current and Future Needs and System Assessment

This chapter provides an assessment of the current and future needs for transit service in the City of Bowie, as well as the ridership and effectiveness of the current transit system. This chapter first addresses the findings of the assessment of current and future needs for transit service, and then summarizes the characteristics of the current transit system.

Current and Future Needs Assessment

To assess the current and future needs for transit services in the City of Bowie, a number of factors related to demographics and travel behavior were examined. Each of the following sections describes one of these factors.

Existing Population Characteristics

According to the City of Bowie Department of Planning & Economic Development, the population in the City of Bowie was estimated to be approximately 55,400 in 2006. The City has an area of approximately 18 square miles, giving it an average density of about 3,100 persons per square mile. This moderate-density community is separated geographically from the higher-density areas of Prince George’s County that are located within the Capital Beltway.

The population of the City of Bowie has increased by more than 10% since 2000 and by almost 50% since 1990. Bowie’s population in the 1990 U.S. Census was 37,589 and in the 2000 U.S. Census was 50,269. The City’s population growth rate between 1990 and 2000 far exceeded that of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) region; the region-wide growth rate between 1990 and 2000 was 14.6%.

Table 2-1 illustrates these population growth trends for the City of Bowie, Prince George’s County, and the MWCOG region as a whole.

Table 2-1: Population Growth Comparison, 1990-2000 Population Change, 1990 to 2000 Jurisdiction 2000 1990 Number Percent City of Bowie 50,269 37,589 12,680 33.7% Prince George’s County 801,515 729,268 72,247 9.9% MWCOG Region 4,211,964 3,675,121 536,843 14.6%

Population Density Figure 2-1 shows the population density within the City of Bowie as well as nearby areas, in households per acre. As the figure indicates, the areas with the greatest population density (in excess of 7 units per acre) are in the south- central portions of the City, near Bowie Town Center as well as near Mitchellville Road and Mt. Oak Road. Much of the rest of the City has a density ranging between 2 and 6 units per acre, while some areas on the eastern side and western edges of the City are below 2 units per acre. The population density of nearby areas in Prince George’s County outside the incorporated boundary of Bowie is generally under 2 units per acre.

It is worthwhile to note that a population density of 3 households per acre is generally considered a threshold for successful fixed-route transit service 1, so other more flexible types of transit service may be appropriate for portions of Bowie. It is also important to note that population densities may soon change in some areas as new development occurs.

1 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2 nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2003.

Transit System Enhancement Study 3 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 2-1: Population Density of Bowie and Surrounding Areas

R a ce T ra 3 ck R d d. . n R er A ev nn S P e am r Ar nh inc un La e G de eo l C rg ou e' n s C ty 197 ou nty

d. lis R apo Ann

d. R is ol Bowie ap nn A Be lair Dr.

E

n

t 50

e

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d Col . lington 50 N Rd o .

r

t

h

v

i

e

w

D

r

.

M

i . t Rd c re h mo e d Mt. Oak Rd. l oo l W v i l l e

R d

C .

h u 301 r c h

R

d . Dr. dge r Ri nte Poi Central Ave. ve. ral A Cent Households per Acre 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 6 6+ 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 City of Bowie Miles

Age Distribution The median age of residents in Bowie according to the 2000 Census was 36.3 years, slightly older than the median age in the Washington region (34.9 years) and the United States (35.3 years). Nearly 27 percent of the population in the City of Bowie is under 18 years old, which is a higher proportion compared to the regional average of 25 percent. Nine percent of the City population, or about 4,700 residents, are age 65 and older. This percentage is the same as in the Washington region as a whole. The higher proportion of children but higher median age in Bowie is the result of a higher proportion of adults ages 35 through 64 in the City compared to the region as a whole.

The median age in the City of Bowie increased by 3.5 years between 1990 and 2000. This compares to an increase of 2.2 years for the entire MWCOG region. Despite this increase in the median age, the number of children under age 18 in the City of Bowie increased by nearly 50 percent between 1990 and 2000, more than twice the rate in the MWCOG region as a whole. The number of persons age 65 and older in Bowie nearly doubled between 1990 and 2000. This compares with an increase of approximately 20 percent in the region as a whole during the same period. The increases in the senior population and the youth population are notable because these groups are often frequent users of transit services.

Figure 2-2 shows the distribution of seniors within the City of Bowie as well as nearby areas, by Census Block. As the figure indicates, the highest concentrations of seniors within Bowie are seen between Mitchellville Road and Route 301 south of Collington Road (which includes the Pin Oak Village senior housing development), the neighborhoods west of Bowie Town Center and south of US 50 (which include the Summerville at Woodward Estate development), and to a lesser extent, the area west of Route 3 and south of Annapolis Road (including the Autumn Meadows development).

Figure 2-3 shows the distribution of children under age 18 in the City of Bowie and nearby areas, by Census Block. As shown in the figure, most of the southern portions of Bowie (south of US 50), including areas along Central Avenue, have significant concentrations of children under age 18. A few areas north of US 50 in Bowie also have many children under 18, primarily near High Bridge Road and south of Annapolis Road near White Marsh Park.

Automobile Availability Three percent of the 15,426 occupied housing units in the City of Bowie, or 415 units, do not have vehicles available, according to the 2000 Census. This percentage increases to approximately 10 percent when only renter-occupied housing units are considered. By comparison, 11 percent of the region’s occupied housing units and 23 percent of the renter-occupied housing units do not have vehicles available. Residents of zero-vehicle households are significantly more likely to take transit than those in other households, so looking at the distribution of these households is an important step in assessing the need for transit service.

Figure 2-4 shows the distribution of households within the City of Bowie and nearby areas that do not have a vehicle available, by Census Block Group. As the figure indicates, the highest concentrations of zero-vehicle households in the area are seen east of Bowie Town Center (between Mitchellville Road and Route 301) and west of Bowie Town Center (between Northview Drive, US 50 and the railroad tracks).

Disability Status Disability status is another factor that may contribute to demand for transit services. The United States Census Bureau tracks disability status as part of the decennial census, by three population age groups: children and young adults (age five to 20 years), adults (age 21 to 64 years), and seniors (age 65 years and over). According to the 2000 Census, 6.3% of Bowie residents between age 5 and 20 have a disability. Of the adult population in the City of Bowie, 12.9% have a disability. Approximately 36% of seniors aged 65 and older in the City of Bowie have a disability according to the 2000 Census. These percentages are comparable to the figures for the MWCOG region as a whole.

Transit System Enhancement Study 5 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 2-2: Distribution of Residents Age 65+ in Bowie and Surrounding Areas

R a ce T ra ck 3 R d. d. n R er A ev n S ne am P A nh rin ru La c n e G de eo l C rg ou e's nt 197 C y ou nty

d. lis R apo Ann

d. R lis po Bowie na n Be A lair Dr.

E

n

t 50

e

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d Collingto . n N R 50 o d.

r

t

h

v

i

e

w

D

r

.

M

i t d. c e R h or e m Mt. Oak Rd. l d l oo v W i l l e

R d . C

h u 301 r c h

R

d . Dr. dge r Ri nte Poi Central Ave. # of Residents Age 65+ ve. ral A by Census Block Cent 0 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 or more 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 City of Bowie Miles Figure 2-3: Distribution of Children Under 18 yrs. in Bowie and Surrounding Areas

R a ce T ra ck 3 R d. d. n R er A ev n S ne am P A nh rin ru La c n e G de eo l C rg ou e's nt 197 C y ou nty

d. lis R apo Ann

d. R lis po Bowie na n Be A lair Dr.

E

n

t 50

e

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d Colling . ton 50 N Rd o .

r t h

v

i e

w

D

r .

M

i t d. c e R h or e m Mt. Oak Rd. l d l oo v W i l l e

R d . C

h u 301 r c h

R

d . Dr. dge r Ri nte Poi Central Ave. # of Residents Under Age 18 ve. ral A by Census Block Cent 0 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 or more 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 City of Bowie Miles Figure 2-4: Distribution of Zero-Vehicle Households in Bowie and Surrounding Areas

R a ce T ra ck 3 R d d. . n R er A ev nn S P e am ri Ar nh nc un La e G de eo l C rg ou e's nt 197 C y ou nty

d. lis R apo Ann

d. R lis po Bowie na n Be A lair Dr.

E

n

t 50

e

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d Colling . ton N R 50 o d. r t h

v

i e

w

D

r .

M

i t d. c e R h or e m Mt. Oak Rd. l d l oo v W i l l e

R d . C

h u 301 r c h

R

d . Dr. dge r Ri nte Poi Central Ave. # of Zero Vehicle Households ve. ral A by Census Block Group Cent 0 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81 or more 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 City of Bowie Miles

Existing Employment and Activity Centers

According to the MWCOG Round 7.0 Cooperative Forecasts of Employment to 2030, published in 2005, the number of jobs in the City of Bowie in 2005 was estimated at approximately 11,100. 2 This represents an increase of nearly 3,500 jobs, or 46 percent, from 2000 employment levels. The largest concentration of employment within the city lies in the area bounded by Mitchellville Road on the east, Collington Road/US 50 on the north, the railroad tracks on the west, and Mt. Oak Road on the south. This area, which includes Bowie Town Center, had approximately 3,900 jobs in 2005. The second-largest concentration of employment in the city is to the northeast of Bowie Town Center, in the triangle between Collington Road, US 50, and Route 301; this area had approximately 1,600 jobs in 2005.

The MWCOG publication Economic Trends in Metropolitan Washington: 2000-2004 indicates that employment in Prince George’s County increased by approximately 10,000 jobs between 2000 and 2004, an increase of 3.3%. This compares to an increase of 3.4% in the District of Columbia and an increase of 4.9% in the Washington DC-MD-DC Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) over the same period.

Table 2-2 illustrates these employment growth trends for Prince George’s County, the District of Columbia, and the MSA as a whole from 2000 through 2004. (Figures for Bowie were not available from this source.)

Table 2-2: Employment Growth Comparison, 2000-2004 Employment Change, 2000 to 2004 Jurisdiction 2004 2000 Number Percent Prince George’s County 312,994 303,060 9,934 3.3% District of Columbia 672,400 650,200 22,200 3.4% DC-VA-MD MSA 2,677,815 2,553,077 124,738 4.9%

According to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, over the last five years, Prince George’s County experienced an unemployment rate higher than the regional average. In 2004, Prince George’s County had an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent, while the regional unemployment rate was 3.7 percent. However, over the last five years, nearly 1.5 million square feet of commercial space was constructed in the City of Bowie, an amount that may help attract more job growth and could help reduce the unemployment rate in Prince George’s County.

Figure 2-5 shows the distribution of significant activity centers within the City of Bowie. These locations include educational institutions, hospitals, major shopping centers, municipal buildings such as Bowie City Hall, and other key land uses. As the figure indicates, these activity centers are distributed through many portions of Bowie, but are most concentrated near US 50 in the center of the city and near Annapolis Road in the north-central portion of the city.

2 This figure represents the sum of 2005 employment in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are wholly or mostly within the incorporated boundary of the City of Bowie.

Transit System Enhancement Study 9 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 2-5: Activity Centers in Bowie and Surrounding Areas

1. Bowie Library 16. Allen Pond Park 2. Bowie Center for the Performing Arts 17. Bowie State MARC Station 17 3. Huntington Community Center 18. YMCA (Moylan Dr.) R 4. Bowie Community Center 19. Heartfield's Assisted Living 20 a ce 5. South Bowie Community Center 20. Bowie State University T ra 6. Bowie High School 21. Freestate Mall ck R 7. Tall Oaks High School 22. Bowie Town Center d. 8. Maryland Science and Technology Center (Melford) 23. Bowie Gateway Center 3 9. Hall Road Village Activity Center 24. Bowie City Hall 3 d. 10. Bowie Baysox Stadium 25. Bowie Health Center n R er 11. Karington 26. Bowie Senior Center ev S 12. Home Depot/ BJ's Wholesale Club 27. Bowie Market Place Shopping Center am nh 13. Bowie Park-and-Ride 28. West Bowie Village La 14. City Gymnasium 29. Pointer Ridge Shopping Center 15. Whitemarsh Park 30. The Shoppes at Highbridge

19

Rd. 197 s A poli P a n nn r A i n

n

e

c

21 e 1 A

2 r 27 G 6 4 u

e n

o d

r e

g . 30 l

d 28 e R C ' s s li o o u ap Bowie C n n n o t

A u Be y lair Dr. n

t

y 24 8

E

n

t

e 50

r

p

r

i s 23 e 13

25

R

d 26 . Co llington 12 50 R 22 d. N

o

r t h

v

i e

w

D

r .

M

. i Rd t re c dmo Mt. Oak Rd. h oo e l W l v i l l Activity Centers e

R d Library/ Community Centers . C h 7 301 u Performing Arts Center r c h

R

Educational Institutions d 5 . Dr. Malls/ Shopping Centers dge r Ri 29 nte Poi Governmental Buildings Central Ave. Hospitals ve. 9 ral A Cent Mixed-use Developments

Senior Centers/ Senior Housing

Recreation/ Sports/ Parks 11 Transportation Facilities City of Bowie 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles

Existing Travel Patterns

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 76 percent of Bowie resident workers commute to work by driving alone, compared with 68 percent of workers in the Washington region. Six percent of Bowie’s resident workers use public transportation, compared with 11 percent of the Washington region’s workers. Twelve percent of resident workers in Bowie use carpooling to reach their jobs, compared with 13 percent of workers in the region. In terms of length of commute to work, two-thirds of Bowie residents commute to work in less than 45 minutes. By comparison, 72 percent of workers in the Washington metropolitan region have commutes of this length.

Table 2-3 summarizes the distribution of place of work for residents of Prince George’s County, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Of the 397,403 resident workers in Prince George’s County, 39 percent work within Prince George’s County. Approximately 32 percent work in the District of Columbia, 10 percent work in Montgomery County, and smaller numbers work in other areas.

Table 2-3: Place of Work for Residents of Prince George’s County, 2000 Number of Place of Work Workers Percent of Total Prince George’s County 155,671 39% District of Columbia 126,138 32% Montgomery County 40,240 10% Baltimore MSA 21,970 6% Fairfax County 18,258 5% All other locations 35.126 9% Total Resident Workers 397,403 100%

Table 2-4 summarizes the distribution of place of residence for workers employed in Prince George’s County, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Of the 295,286 workers employed in Prince George’s County, 53 percent live in the county. Approximately 18 percent live in the Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), 9% live in Montgomery County, and smaller numbers live in other areas.

Table 2-4: Place of Residence of Workers Employed in Prince George’s County, 2000 Number of Place of Residence Workers Percent of Total Prince George’s County 155,671 53% Baltimore MSA 51,833 18% Montgomery County 26,825 9% Charles County 13,834 5% District of Columbia 13,665 5% All other locations 33,458 11% Total Jobs 295,286 100%

Data on the place of work for residents of the City of Bowie is also available from the 2000 United States Census. A summary of this data grouped by Census Designated Place (CDP) is shown in Table 2-5. As the table indicates, the distribution of workplaces for Bowie residents is fairly similar to that for Prince George’s County residents as a whole, except that a higher percentage of Bowie residents commute to the Baltimore MSA and a lower percentage commute to the District of Columbia and Montgomery County. It is worthwhile to note that approximately 13 percent of Bowie residents commute to locations in Maryland that do not fall within a Census Designated Place. These trips cannot be classified into a specific county or Metropolitan Statistical Area, but are likely to be destined to unincorporated portions of Prince George’s County, and to a lesser extent, unincorporated portions of other counties in Maryland.

Transit System Enhancement Study 11 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Table 2-5: Place of Work for Residents of the City of Bowie, 2000

County or Metropolitan Number of Percent of State Place Statistical Area Workers Total

Maryland Prince George's County Bowie 4,000 14.7% College Park 670 2.5% Greenbelt 520 1.9% Laurel-South Laurel-West Laurel 490 1.8% Beltsville 465 1.7% New Carrollton-Lanham-Seabrook 440 1.6% Mitchellville 300 1.1% Lake Arbor 240 0.9% Goddard 235 0.9% Glenn Dale 230 0.8% Greater Landover 200 0.7% Greater Upper Marlboro 195 0.7% Other Prince George's County 2,454 9.0% Prince Geoge's County Total 10,439 38.3%

Montgomery County 1,841 6.7%

Baltimore MSA 2,581 9.5%

Other Counties 102 0.4%

Not in a Census Designated Place 3,460 12.7% Maryland Total 18,423 67.5%

District of Columbia 6,125 22.5% District of Columbia Total 6,125 22.5%

Virginia Arlington 1,070 3.9% Alexandria 300 1.1% Other Virginia 1,149 4.2% Virginia Total 2,519 9.2%

Other States 214 0.8% Other States Total 214 0.8%

GRAND TOTAL 27,281 100.0%

Transit System Enhancement Study 12 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Future Population, Employment and Development

Population and Employment According to MWCOG Round 7.0 Cooperative Forecasts of Housing and Population to 2030, the population of the City of Bowie is expected to grow by approximately 5,400 between 2000 and 2030, an increase of approximately 10 percent. 3 By comparison, the Round 7.0 Forecasts indicate that Prince George’s County is anticipated to grow by 23 percent and the DC-MD-VA MSA is expected to grow by 45 percent over the same period.

In terms of projected employment growth, the MWCOG Round 7.0 Forecasts indicate that the number of jobs in the City of Bowie is expected to grow by approximately 5,600 between 2000 and 2030, an increase of nearly 75 percent. 4 By comparison, the Round 7.0 Forecasts indicate that employment in Prince George’s County is expected to increase by 61 percent and employment in the DC-MD-VA MSA is projected to grow by 49% over the same period.

Table 2-6 illustrates these population and employment growth trends for the City of Bowie, Prince George’s County, and the DC-MD-VA MSA as a whole. As the table indicates, employment in Bowie is expected to grow much faster than population between 2000 and 2030; the same is true for Prince George’s County as a whole. These changes will have significant implications for transit needs in Bowie, as the demand for transit services to jobs in Bowie is likely to increase.

Table 2-6: Comparison of Projected Population and Employment Growth, 2000-2030 Population Growth Employment Growth Jurisdiction Number Percent Number Percent City of Bowie 5,400 10% 5,600 74% Prince George’s County 185,100 23% 206,400 61% DC-MD-VA MSA 2,058,000 45% 1,391,700 49%

Development Projects The City of Bowie maintains an inventory of development sites and highway projects that are underway, approved, or planned to occur in and around Bowie called the Development Sites & Highway Projects Outline . The projects in this inventory are divided into “Pipeline” projects (projects for which an official subdivision or zoning application has been filed, is under review, or a decision is pending) and “General Interest” projects (those that have been recognized or considered for development due to their location, scale or proposed uses). For the purpose of this study, the “Pipeline” projects are considered to be most relevant to assessing transit needs.

The 2006 update of this inventory indicates the following about “Pipeline” projects in and around Bowie: • There are at least 13 development projects in and around Bowie that have 100 or more housing units to be built (i.e., not completed or under construction as of December 2005); of these, three are senior or retirement housing developments and three are mixed-used developments that also have significant employment or commercial uses. • Five projects are underway or planned that have at least 100,000 square feet of commercial, retail or industrial space to be built; three of these also have 100 or more housing units to be built. • One elementary school, Northview Elementary, is under construction in the neighborhood to the west of Bowie Town Center. This school will have 476 seats in a two-story building totaling 78,000 square feet.

Figure 2-6 shows the locations of these key projects, grouped by project type. Further detail about each project can be found in the City’s 2006 Development Sites & Highway Projects Outline .

3 This figure represents the sum of population projections in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are wholly or mostly within the incorporated boundary of the City of Bowie. 4 This figure represents the sum of employment projections in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are wholly or mostly within the incorporated boundary of the City of Bowie.

Transit System Enhancement Study 13 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

It is important to note that, with a few exceptions, most of these ongoing or planned development projects are located outside the current incorporated boundary of the City of Bowie. The additional travel demand generated by developments outside the municipal boundary will have significant implications for transit needs around Bowie in coming years. The following are a few examples of planned developments outside Bowie’s incorporated boundary: • Karington: Planned development located west of Route 301 and south of Central Avenue on unincorporated county land that is expected to include 650,000 square feet of office use, 343,000 square feet of retail use, and more than 1,200 residential units of a variety of types. • Hall Road Village Activity Center: Planned development in the southern portion of Bowie, near Central Avenue and Hall Road, expected to include 30,000 square feet of retail, 114 multi-family housing units, and a new public library. This development lies on unincorporated land but is surrounded by incorporated areas. • Oak Creek Club: Planned development to the southwest of Bowie, south of Central Avenue and east of Church Road, expected to include 1,179 residential units, a 26,000 square feet of retail/office center, a church and day care facility, and an 18 hole golf course. As part of the conditions for approval of this development by the Prince George’s County Planning Board, the Oak Creek Homeowner’s Association is required to operate a private bus service that will connect the subject property to the nearest Metrorail station. Service is required to run at least every 15 minutes during weekday AM and PM peak hours and the buses must have a capacity of at least 20 persons. • Fairwood: Mixed-use development to the west of Bowie and north of US Route 50, with an expected build- out of a maximum of 1,799 dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of retail, and 250,000 square feet of non residential uses. As of December 2005, 477 homes were occupied in the development and 416 were under construction. The Prince George’s County Planning Board required that the developer consider transit and non-vehicular modes in the site design for the development, but no requirement regarding the provision of transit service was included in the conditions of approval. The Bowie City Council recently adopted an updated annexation policy that establishes the principles to be used by the City in future annexations. During the process of developing this annexation policy, the City conducted an analysis of future development potential within a “Possible Growth Limit” boundary, which in most cases is beyond the current boundary of the City. It appears that some of the planned future developments (such as the Hall Road Village Activity Center) fall within this “Possible Growth Limit,” while others (such as Fairwood) fall outside the “Possible Growth Limit.”

Together, these planned developments suggest that in the future, there may be greater demand for transit services to the south and west of the current incorporated areas of Bowie. Much of this demand is likely to be for services oriented to commuters from these areas to the District of Columbia and inner portions of Prince George’s County. However, the planned employment and retail uses could generate some demand for transit services to bring residents of Bowie and other parts of Prince George’s County to these developments. The density of development, the pace at which development occurs, and the extent to which these developments attract trips from Bowie versus other parts of Prince George’s County will determine how these areas might be served by transit in the future.

Current Transit System/Ridership Assessment

While the previous section discussed the factors related to the need for transit service in Bowie, this section describes the performance of the existing transit services in the city. Much of this section is focused on fixed route services provided by Metrobus (WMATA), but other services including WMATA’s MetroAccess paratransit service, the City of Bowie’s transportation service for seniors, and the volunteer driver service provided by the FISH program are also described. The section concludes with a brief description of the Bowie Park-and-Ride facility near US 50 and Collington Road.

Transit System Enhancement Study 14 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 2-6: Key Projects from Bowie's 2006 Development Sites & Highway Projects Outline

1. Maryland Science & Technology Center (Melford) 2. Waterford (formerly Pleasant Prospect) 3. Collington Center/ Foreign Trade Zone 4. The Palisades at Oak Creek/ Cameron Grove East R 5. Oak Creek Club a ce 6. Locust Hill T ra 7. Cameron Grove ck R 8. Hall Road Village Activity Center d. d. 9. Fairview Manor (AKA Collingbrook) n R 3 er 10. Beechfields (formerly Christian Hope Ministries) ev S 11. Fairwood m ha 12. Karington an L 13. Amber Ridge Shopping Center

197

Rd. P olis p A na r n i

A n n

c n

e e

G A

e r

u

o

n . r d g d

R e e s i l l ' o s p Bowie C a C nn o o A u Belair D u r. n

n t

y

t

y 1

E

n

t e 11 50

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d Col . lington 10 50 N Rd o .

r t 9 h v

i e

w

D

2 r .

M

i t Rd. c re h mo e d Mt. Oak Rd. l oo l W v i l l 301 e

R d

C .

h u

r c h

R 13 d .

Dr. dge r Ri nte Poi Central Ave. 8 ve. ral A Cent 7 Project Type 4 Local or Major Activity Centers (Mixed-use) 12 Senior Housing or Retirement Community 5 Residential

Schools

Employment and Institutional Area 3

Commercial/Shopping Centers 6 City of Bowie 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles

Existing Metrobus Routes Serving Bowie

Metrobus operates five lines that serve various parts of Bowie, plus an additional express line (B29,31) that runs through Bowie to the Crofton section of Anne Arundel County:

Route Numbers Line Name B21,22 Bowie State University B24,25 Bowie-Belair B27 Bowie-New Carrollton C21,22,26,29 Central Avenue C28 Pointer Ridge

These routes are shown in Figure 2-7 on the next page.

The B21,22 line serves the northwestern section of the city with an outer terminus at Bowie State University. On morning inbound trips toward New Carrollton, the route travels toward the east through the Belair neighborhood serving Millstream, Stonybrook, Buckingham, and Kembridge. Outbound trips—toward Bowie State—go straight on MD 197. In the afternoon, the pattern reverses so that outbound trips go through the neighborhoods while inbound trips go straight down MD 197. It travels on US 50 between New Carrollton and Bowie. Major generators served by the line include the Market Place shopping center and the Bowie Park & Ride lot. Buses run roughly every 30 minutes during peak periods with 70-minute service in the midday. The first inbound trip leaves at 5:00 a.m. and the last outbound trip leaves at 7:35 p.m. There is no weekend service on this line.

The B24,25 line serves the northeastern section of the city. The outer terminus is the Bowie Park & Ride lot, but the line spends most of its time in Bowie to the north and east, serving streets such as Millstream, Belair Dr., Tulip Grove Dr., and Collington Rd. (MD 197). The pattern is essentially the same inbound and outbound. The line uses Annapolis Road (MD 450) between Bowie and New Carrollton station. Major generators in Bowie served by this line include the Market Place shopping center, the Bowie Senior Center and Health Center. In the morning, buses run every 35 minutes, while they run every 30 minutes in the afternoon. During the midday, buses run every hour. The first inbound trip leaves at 5:04 a.m. and the last outbound trip leaves at 8:00 p.m. There is no weekend service on this line.

The B27 line is a direct route between New Carrollton Metrorail station and Bowie State University, via Lanham- Severn Road. It has no midday service, but does run into the evening. The only generators in and near Bowie served by this route are Bowie State, and the old section of Bowie. Service runs every 30 minutes during peak periods and hourly in the evening. The first outbound trip leaves at 5:58 a.m. and the last inbound trip leaves at 9:36 p.m. There is no weekend service on this line.

The B29,31 line is an express line from Crofton in Anne Arundel County to New Carrollton station. On its way in to New Carrollton in the morning and on its way out in the afternoon, the buses stop at the Bowie Park & Ride lot. There are four inbound buses (every half hour from 6:15 to 7:50) in the morning, and eight outbound buses (every half hour from 4:30 to 6:00 and then hourly until 9:43) in the afternoon and evening.

The C21,22,26,29 line mostly serves the Central Avenue corridor. At its outer end, the line serves the Collington Center area and Pointer Ridge at the southern end of Bowie. Collington Center is served only during peak periods (with approximately 5 trips in each peak). Pointer Ridge has a higher level of service with half-hour frequencies during the peaks and hour frequencies in the midday and evenings. Weekday service starts at 4:48 a.m. and ends at 10:22 p.m. This line provides all of the weekend service to Bowie. On Saturdays the C29 route serves the Central Avenue corridor and Pointer Ridge, and then meanders northward through Bowie all the way to Bowie State. Generators served on weekends include the Park & Ride lot, Bowie Town Center, and the Health Center.

Transit System Enhancement Study 16 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 2-7: Existing Transit Routes in Bowie and Surrounding Areas

Bowie State University

R a ce T ra 3 ck d. R R d rn . ve Se A m nn ha P e an r Ar L inc un e G de eo l C rg ou e' n s C ty 197 ou nty

d. lis R apo Ann

Whitemarsh . d Park R is ol ap Bowie nn A Be lair Dr.

E

n

t e 50

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d Collin . gton 50 N R o d. r t h

v

i e

w

D

r . Legend Allen Pond

Park M

i t Existing Transit Routes d. c e R h or e dm Mt. Oak Rd. l o l BOWIE-BELAIR W Bo24 B25 v i l l e

BOWIE STATE UNIV B21 B22 R d C .

h BOWIE-NEW CARROLL B27 u r 301 c h CENTRAL AVENUE C21,22,26,29 R

d CROFTON NEW CARR B29 B31 . Dr. POINTER RIDGE C28 dge r Ri nte Poi Points of Interest Central Ave. ve. Governmental Buildings ral A Cent Educational Institutions

Malls/Shopping Centers

Hospitals

Recreation/Parks

Park-and-Ride

Rail Station 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles City of Bowie

This service operates hourly beginning at 8:07 a.m. and ending at 8:54 p.m. at Bowie State. On Sundays, the route serves Bowie only at Pointer Ridge, with hourly service running from 8:37 a.m. to 8:29 p.m.

The C28 line serves the southern portion of Bowie, from Pointer Ridge to US 50. It meanders through several neighborhoods, running on Pointer Ridge Dr., Pittsfield La., Mitchellville Rd., Peach Walker Dr., Nottinghill Dr., and Northview Dr. before reaching various generators near the Town Center. The route runs immediately past Bowie Town Center and serves the Park & Ride lot, the Senior Center and the Health Center. Between Bowie and New Carrollton, the route operates on US 50. The C28 runs mostly during peak periods, with a frequency of every 30 minutes during the morning and afternoon rush hours. There is one midday trip inbound at 10:49 a.m. The first inbound trip leaves at 5:15 a.m. and the last outbound departure from New Carrollton is at 7:17 p.m. There is no weekend service on this line, but the C29 covers its service area on Saturdays.

Existing Metrobus Ridership TranSystems obtained May 2006 ridership data on these lines from WMATA. The total number of riders by time period is shown in Table 2-7 below. It is important to note that these figures represent all of the riders on these lines, not just riders boarding and alighting in Bowie. The weekday peak period is defined as 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (the standard WMATA definition).

Table 2-7: Ridership on Bowie Metrobus Lines, May 2006 Weekday Weekday Weekday Percentage Peak Off-Peak Total in Bowie Saturday Sunday Line Boardings Boardings Boardings (Weekdays) Boardings Boardings B21,22 620 251 871 100% N/S N/S B24,25 606 345 950 33% N/S N/S B27 207 47 254 40% N/S N/S C21,22,26,29 1,731 848 2,580 8% 928 553 C28 354 55 409 100% N/S N/S Notes: N/S=No Service Shaded routes serve Bowie exclusively.

The productivity of a route is a measure of how many riders it attracts per unit of service provided. It allows for routes to be compared fairly, since a route that operates more service would be expected to carry more riders. The productivities of the Bowie lines—in terms of boardings per vehicle revenue hour—are shown in Table 2-8.

Table 2-8: Productivity (Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Hour) on Bowie Metrobus Lines, May 2006 Weekday Weekday Line Peak Off-Peak Saturday Sunday B21,22 46.4 32.0 N/S N/S B24,25 32.1 27.0 N/S N/S B27 25.2 19.9 N/S N/S C21,22,26,29 44.1 32.4 29.8 25.0 C28 26.6 10.9 N/S N/S Notes: Shaded routes serve Bowie exclusively.

Overall, the Metrobus lines serving Bowie perform reasonably well. In an ongoing network evaluation being performed by TranSystems for WMATA, all of these lines passed the peak-period productivity measures being used

Transit System Enhancement Study 18 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland to identify underperforming lines. 5 Of course, not all of the ridership on these lines is derived from service in Bowie. The great majority of the ridership on the C21,22,26,29 line comes from the Central Avenue corridor, and most of the ridership on the B27 comes from the Lanham-Severn Road corridor. The lines that serve Bowie exclusively are the B21,22 and the C28. The B24,25 carries riders from the Annapolis Road corridor, but also serves many Bowie residents.

One of the reasons that the productivities of these routes are relatively high is that the frequency operated on them is relatively low. The most frequent service on any of the lines is every 30 minutes, which is typically considered a minimal level of service. The fact that these routes attract a significant number of riders in spite of the low frequency is an indicator that there is potential for additional transit ridership in Bowie. Clearly the best transit market is among commuters to Washington DC who use Metrobus services to reach the Metrorail system.

The productivity figures shown above are based on data collected on Metrobus fareboxes. More detailed data collected by WMATA on-board checkers were also examined. These data are older than the farebox data, since on- board counts are conducted only periodically. For the B21,22 line, the most recent checks are from January 2003; for the B24,25 line, the most recent checks are from December of 2002; for the B27 line the most recent checks are from January 2003; for the Central Avenue line, the most recent checks are from the Fall of 2005; and for the C28, the most recent checks are from December 2002.The graphs on the following pages illustrate the detailed ridership counts, showing the ons and offs and the load present at each stop on the route. The Central Avenue line is not included, since it has few stops in Bowie.

Of the five Metrobus lines, the B21,22 and the C28 derive virtually all of their ridership from Bowie, while the other three lines derive most of their ridership from areas west of Bowie. On the B21,22, many stops generate small numbers of riders (fewer than 10), while the Market Place and stops near the Park & Ride lot generate higher numbers of riders. The stop with the greatest number of westbound boardings is Bowie State, with nearly 80 riders. There are virtually no westbound offs and eastbound ons other than at New Carrollton station; thus, this line is essentially a pure feeder to the Metrorail system (or possibly employment opportunities at New Carrollton).

The B24,25 line gathers most of its riders on the Annapolis Road corridor rather than in Bowie. Only about one third of the westbound ons (94 of 300) and eastbound offs (103 of 310) occur in Bowie. There is somewhat more local riding on this line, as there are 25 eastbound ons and 14 westbound offs in Bowie.

On the B27 line, it is also the case that about one third of the riders are going to or from Bowie (including Bowie State University). These riders are split between Bowie State and the old section of Bowie. The rest of the riders board along Lanham-Severn Road.

The C28 line, similar to the B21,22, is almost a pure feeder route with very little local riding. Indeed, more than half of the riders on the line board at the Bowie Park & Ride lot; the local stops on Nottinghill, Peach Walker and Pointer Ride Drive generate relatively few riders.

Overall, the major transit trip generators in Bowie appear to be Bowie State University, the Market Place, and the area around the Bowie Park & Ride lot. The Health Center and the Senior Center—at least as of the winter of 2003— generated relatively few trips on these routes. Given that the routes are oriented toward commuter trips to Washington, this finding is not unexpected.

5 In the regional network evaluation, the standard for suburban lines (the classification of all of the Bowie lines) was 25 passengers per hour during peak periods and 18 in off-peak periods.

Transit System Enhancement Study 19 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

B21,22 Westbound

250

200

150 Ons Offs

Riders Load 100

50

0

l r ) X X a T) a a a P X d ) Dr W) (N) ( L L Dr L X D X R Rd l ll Dr N) S) ( y ir lk a a a nd a on hill lis Rd n n (T tr (T Hil ha lan Dr L L l s n La am Dr to Bayt Bo ) e d ( d ( L y tla err s mble La n o e Wa po g E C tic R R k tic La (S) e rb e i a us n ( l l c Mo he rbrook field La Ke ling B i ' us e e ag & Bee K s llstr ys l B g Jr he & r & Media L jes S S Barrister La & Kr & g & d oll ' n R ap ap c & & BaDr n Mi & Maddoxra La Co C y i & Whit h Ma & r & yle La/Faith La K C m Dr Ki & Kavanaugh La G L & d & & Mabank Dr D a e Dr Kemmert 97 L R d r k Dr r & Kinde & g Rd & 1 s Ba am Dr Dr & o m m gh D id d d & &R Lot & u ie Old ChOl & Maye o a ridg Dr r ie P w DrB & M wie Rd8 & r e Dr & owie Rd R ie Dr gh kin mb l w B e R n ie v ow owieBo Rd 40& Rockledge Drllstr yb in c ge o h -B B 7 Rd m Millstream D n kinghak ridg emb id Bo wi Bowiet Rd & Annw t l # a Mi o c c Bu K Kembridge Dr Ke - - r re re Millstreamlstream Dr & Madeleyt La br urel- w DrBo & Rt u urel-& t Millstream Dr &S MarquetteBu Bu La m Kenhilrel a l-Bo rel lling e No n Sta. & urel-a wie ls MillstreamMil D e Market Place & Kembridge Dr u L e u o a L h Stonybrook Dr & StonehavenKemb La Ke r La L Rd Bo Mil T La 7 La rthvi 7 e l- au o 97 7 i e 19 L rrollt 19 ur 97 97 197 CoN a wie State1 19 Univ ow a 1 7 1 C B L 9 Bo l- 1 w e r 7 Ne u 19 La 97 1 Stop

B21,22 Eastbound

300

250

200

Ons 150 Offs

Riders Load

100

50

0

) A a a a a r ) r r T L L T) S) La Dr L X L X D S D T) ( y Rd Dr ( r Rd ( n Rd n n La ill ld La e ia h s m e ill D o a o o gh e ale La ior tte La a ( c it li t t nh u d r a L r d in Way a o dg (E) g e sfi r L ue ic mory F rea e ic H n K na g e pe q t Me ap t B lli lling a n r s Me & n ls mmert i av je Me & & Marg dys Walk ockl y e & av K & Kimble La e Ma check La (W) a R Co t & Bus Co B K B & Barrister& Su Sage La & y Rd 7 & K & Dr & & Ma r n & An & Mil s Ba e Dr e Dr r D o u g & am Dr t & Gr d & 19 e Lo d k ce D m am Dre R B g Dr &ri Dr &e Dr idg o la e ing & Old Chapel Rd ( M L King Jr Ctr & in w Drl g r o m am Dr & ie & Rt r ie ge id br P trea llstr e n Rdoll & Tongue Ave & n F v mb d r am Dr & y rea am Drs llstr to owie Rd owie Rd w owie Rd & Rust h emb h e et t e ll Mi C Dr ie rt Ke ckingham Dr & Babbittrk Las Mi g B B B o Kenhil mb K Buckinghamu Dr & Belair Dr ll Mi in 7 owie Rd Univ tatio w mbri KembridgeB Dr & Keswick La llstr Millstr 9 B e S N e Ke BuckinghamSton Ma DrMi oll 1 urel- urel- owie Rd urel- t n view Bo K e Mi C a a B a a o Bucking L urel-L L t t th Millstream7 Dr & Maa or Th 9 7 L 7 urel- 7 e S 1 a i N 19 7 19 L 197 Laurel-Bowie19 Rd & Whitehall Dr 197 Laurel-Bo 19 7 Bow 19 New Carroll Stop

Transit System Enhancement Study 20 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

B24,25 Westbound

300

250

200

Ons 150 Offs

Riders Load

100

50

0

d r d a a a a a ) a d r r d d d d d d C te X X L X a a L E X X L d D X 7 X ve X X G R n R La L L La ( a R R D t R La R R R R r Rd t Rd n e n n k d e e a La L r o Blv e re n 60 k y A D s S ayo m Lr Lao r Dr r ick La tt ory La L y a ille La ge e le 9 o e l Rd le li in ay B t C so o g a y o ag eckl L e e d v 13509 l Av o rl e a o ll B g r gto l n a it ff ssexS ue m h l reaml Drrn n # rid cel a ll imo sto r rbie St X p 5thrd am od E us in io in o i rr kyl n ta u q Mediac Le t e Ce e & b hoice Cirn D e b ington Laa 8 e h o us B l ll a S & r y k d r C Waltera n Da alt lv d & a# e h Mo & v n & en ngue Ave T S e a & c in G h s ir L n n R i a nnap d B & o & F Tra & & c M r w ig ' ir n as & R L & t S T & & Sedgewr & S & MeD Mills & MaT & H le is d Garden Pkwy A R o & Dr r r & Trir D & r & Gle & B l & Ell W ld Chs & & s L r & Col r & Co r Dr D & r D m r & Ma & Ma & & & S G & &Atwe o d & Sed R e s d n D Dr D ir t PlaD r & Ma Dr Rd olis Rd & Rd d & Ga p R & is fi e d i e D Dr D ve e lai ir lair e D D Dr n s p d d & S d R a R d l it olis RRd R k Sta. id r ro v ve a r Dre k m amtrea la Rd & Collingtonli R R R n s lis o p n te Rd & o o l ela i r e m y s Rdlis o lis i R p lis & Wests to R iew n G r Be e B B lls ama lan li o lis olis isRd Rd olisl isRd olis An is a Wh o n Harll & n v to G B ela rea e oylany Dr o ap Annao p l s p o Annapolisp Rdo & #10910 l n & p o thviewe h g lip Gr B Mat Mi e Mo n p a o li a a p Annaa Rd k r C n u p ip e ls tr M Mo ap n n p o n p n a napolnapo An d & Princ s rkins Rdarr & Sherw o h ort T li l Millstr lls n A a a n n n nn li Harki N lt N olli u u Th Mil Millstri n nnap ap polisAn Rd & LottsfordAnnapolisA Vista ARd &Rd Forbes Blvd RdR A C T T M A Annapolis Rd & ChurchAn nn Rdn X An nn a An Annapolisli Rds s& Fontana Dr X Ha ea C A Anna A n AnnapolisA Rd & Silvergate La X Annapoo i w A p napo wie ParH napolis Rd & Martha Ann pol n Ne o n na a A B 197 A n A Ann Stop

B24,25 Eastbound

300

250

200

Ons 150 Offs

Riders Load

100

50

0

r r a r e G d e d d 7 d d d X a a L a a a a X R v Rd R Rd v D Rd lvd d X R R R r X La Dr a X L D L L L Rd (T) A n l y k 60 B D r Dre Rd d e L y La e e r L l ill r g n Dr lis m Dr o 9 R le te Lae t e d Rd X3509 ia L r ley La g ai h n r o ti pe ana s n ista ell Avea s o ice eCi 1 rn d ank La ett l ea ino ti e p ha 5th a a t roo e w rg l a o eam Dr. b mo u T a s gto t n t h b rb V e e Ma r Me e Fox r i n n a S C ngton Bl d & o# sto n Da v c me & Trinity T w ongue Av L & 8 i Fon F e n terprin bridgd & # & & arq gewick & & T T olli y C m ld h R n a 's Chh r M d & Ce a & Bus Bay a s & is & alv E L a R D & Ma La & Ber Dr & & C h . W. Rd h ie l G & Sil is n Dr & Malin La r r & Made& i Dr Dr r & s B & s n itf Rd & Morle o d d & l n a & Millst Dr m& MaroonDr D LaD r la r e D d u d & Anna li a s p R & d & Hill o d & Churchla R r m a D e ve Dr R B R d L li a d & Gle Rd R& Sir Walt p R y D e m et Placer & SeSaB ve n n Sta R po o n lis R olis Rd & Rd At & Sirs s d & Higa tr am k o w Dr & o s a & Rd p lis Rs li i is Moyl e am D Belai ro t e & Healt lis Annapolisn Rd & #7990 Rd & Wa An lis li Rd o R nn Mo lls tr Sussexir Gro g o n d & Whs apolis Rd olis Rd &o Baltimore Lao Xs is A llstrea s re Mar a ip G in rrollt rkinp A RdR nnapli n apolis Rdnapo &olis Seap p li pol i Mi llstreast l p l thvi a s A o Annapolisn Rdn &p Ellerbie St a Annanapoap napols Rd & Martha MoylanM e BelairTulip Dru Grov & Tulipli Grover wDr Dr Han li is An A olisn Rd & Lottsfordn n po nnapn li pol Mill MillstreamMi Drh & M Bel T u ide Lot o An p A n a A A o a Mill T T No R An pol Annaa An A n p Ann thvie Annapolisap Rda & Riverdalennap Rd X Anna n n a r & n n A A Ann Annapolis Rd & Twin Cedar La X 197 Colo k New Ca n n An nn N r A A A a P ie Stop w Bo

Transit System Enhancement Study 21 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

B27 Westbound

80

70

60

50 Ons 40 Offs

Riders Load 30

20

10

0

e e . . . ll . k t...... ) e S e. e. Pl. e. Dr Av Rd va Rd Rd. Rd (T u Rin z Av rd in St kwy. Av m e d Av n Av elt D r u ok h o RdP h a n G' rtl a le Ave.0th St. ate Drb le o t n t ale Rd h o 1 g n & l Cr 8th Av r 4 Ma ia n d Jr Ctr (T) ilr wa n s a 9 b 9 r r an erwood St ingfield Rd.ee Ro t ip e L & ElliBay ' r Wi r n Haven n & & d & C & 85iv & My Ra St & p e odstream & Dr. R st Sh t & G orbee o Sa R & us S & t & Map S F Rd & 96th Ave n & s Rd B t S 9th & Gr & n ern Rdr & 93d & We n th S Rd d & et r v e R ess Gardelis Rdd Rd i & 1 h th d n R & ern Rd ern Rd c o R & rk M L1 Kingt 9 9th St & Church La.r B ern Rd v ve v ev n n a n & 9 ern Rd & Co e n v e S ri ap lis d io v v Rd Se Se n Annapolis R Rd & # 7970H t ity d & Se ern Rd m- P po s ta s Se R rn v m- m- am-Se An a li S e m- a h ha Harkins m- rn Se ha n nn po Harkins Rd & Annapolisn Rd. iver am-Se a e ev ha nh n an Rd & a to h S n m- a L La am-Severs A nh am-Severev a a L Lanham-SLa h nn an Lanham-Severna h Rd S& Driscollm- Dr. L oli A rroll L L a nh an p an m- a Lanham-Severn Rd &L Sea Lanham-SevernL R nh L Ca ha a n L Lanham-Severn Rd & W Anna a L New Bowie State Un Stop

B27 Eastbound

100

90

80

70

60 Ons 50 Offs

Riders Load 40

30

20

10

0

) . . k . ) d. t. X e. e. X all X e. e. e T (T St. Rd R S v v St. n . v . v Pl. A Av Av A ss 7970 o k Rd. A Ri Dr Dr e r ( G' o # ale d th o th Du de Rd.ll n d 5th Ave ian r 4 6 Cruzller m a o Ct y ' polis Rd. & rd 8 tation Rd. en Rd. & X hurch La oa a 93 9 9 ea v s isc r Ba & Cr & & & nta Ro C ail Rd m S Cipr str Dr & Myrt us Rd s Rive & d Sa Hillme & Cowa & R B & a n Rd R& Main Rd Rd od & St & Annis oli d r n n & Forbe & d 9th St & & 10th St. & l p lis Rdnh & R rn t & Glen Daled Blvd. Rd h L King Jr Rd o Rd e er er d rn RdWo & R 9t St 1th StM n po La rn eve v v R & Green Be Ha R n h 1 tio ap s & e S rn Rd & Seabro ve & Rd n er & Annaoli na Se Se rn & ern 9t a nn -Sev e Se Rd d d rn ev A p An am- m- eve m- R e ev S sity Harkins Rd & Sherwood St -Sevh m n R S r Harkins na S m- er n - ton St m ha nha nha -Sev v ern -Severm am- An polis Rd Lan n a a m ha v m a oll a ha L am-L Lanham-SevernSe Rd & 98th Ave. nh n La h ha an Se nh n L - -Severham-Sev La La n La Ann Lan La am- m Lanham-SevernLanha Rd & Wingate Dr. X nh La State Unive a nham e New Carr L a L Lanha wi Bo Stop

Transit System Enhancement Study 22 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

C28 Westbound

250

200

150 Ons Offs

Riders Load 100

50

0

a a a ) a ve Dr L Dr N) S N) X Dr A y X La ( Rd L l L ( L ( a Dr A r e ll La e l h La L a n Rd ay n Rd od w a ic e a ler a c B ral o ford La L Hi r uth Ct L L hu in Entrto to Bay A t swick La r P o err ll Pil me view s aven Dr g s g nw k Pk Ridg ow P od h H Ma in in us en o a d & lym we & o so B C nypacke chellville & & Pecan La w Coa orthshire La & oll oll ev O n & Pick t P Po Dr r & Enfield Dr r C & BuC D in & Arbo Dr r Dr Ne ew N r & Na te t d & ointera er Dr & e dlew N D o on & R P P L d Mea er e & r & Nort en r & L ti l & d n r & Milk & D ew Dw e a l e & r & Penn Manor La & l a Dr Ne i ie C D d Dr & v d D e Pittsfield Lale &Rd #1611D r Walk alker Dr ill h w w Ha A R l e & l Dr l e La tsfi lvi er h W lk W hill gh thv alt ie a ld & Pol k c h Walka g hil n v vie Hall Rd & Devonwood Dr e Pit e al a c l Dr n g tti Northvor h h ntr Hall fi h Walker Dr W & il i in N He rollton St ter Ridge Dr & Press W Pe c ea Peach h tt r Ce n Pointer Ridgeitt Dr & Perrell h P ch Peach NottinghillNo Dr & orthview DrNort & New Nort ter RidgeP Dr & Pe Mitch a Peach Walkering DrNott & NoMt Oak Rd N wie Ca inter Ridg n Pea tt Poi tsfield La Pe Peach Walker oDr & Panther La X Bo wie Park & Ri Po it o Poi P Peac NottinghillN Dr & Needlewood La (S) B New Stop

C28 Eastbound

250

200

150 Ons Offs

Riders Load 100

50

0

) A B d X r a a a a a 0 a a e y y R Dr Dr D L (N) L L (N) (S L L Rd (N) 1 La L L La n a e La d La e n La e ll La e Dr r k r n e ir ch o a a a c le a 16 g ic Ridg to in Entr hu a ther La L L # d no r s Ba s Ba s ield Drnghill sh wo rsch ec ll ll Pri w kford La sw e u ing Ma f i h t o P ellvil o & ic Ri s Ma t B ll & h a e n o & w Hav ort Nu P owe owe ad L P nypacke r n & & BuC r P P r & Perrell itc d n P Poi n Ne r & Na & En N & & PanDr & D r Dr l & en ot D & Nott & Newsomer La blewood L & M ie a ointer & P & L & & & r D o Dr & d Me f L P e w Dr r & Newl Co ker ker lke & s & tatio d alth CtDr w Dr Dr N er l Dr Dr l a r n ld & r Rd S i ie e ill hil & lk r D Pitt ie a e Dr D R w i ew ill D g e Po f L g all n iew Dr He thv v i n Wa lker lk Wa h W lville Rd & Arbors Hi d to & v e gh gh i Wa a a h c lker l & ld ge H k th i vie or rth thv tin n h ch a e Pitt e Ri id w h N o r t ott hill Dr h Walker Dra & W W ac fi r R ar or N N g c ac e Pe s e r Northview P NDr & BoCollington Rd No No Nottinghill D e Pe ch ch P Pointer Ridgee Dr & Perrell e Nort Notti P a a ch WaMitchield La int t i Pea a f Pitt ter Ridge Dr & Pe ottin Pe Pe Peach Walker Dr & tsPlymouth Dr n Po ow N it Poin New CarrollB Pe P Poi Stop

Existing Metrobus Route Cost

Transit System Enhancement Study 23 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

The cost of operating the Metrobus routes serving Bowie is borne by Prince George’s County. All of these routes are classified as “non-regional” so that the County can essentially dictate to WMATA how much service should be operated on them.

The operating cost for these routes, shown in Table 2-9, is estimated using the non-regional rate per platform hour 6 from WMATA. For FY 2007, this rate is $83.51 per hour. As a point of reference, the annual operating cost for the average Metrobus line is approximately $1.7 million.

Table 2-9: Annual Operating Cost on Bowie Metrobus Lines Line Annual Operating Cost B21,22 $ 618,500 B24,25 $ 893,000 B27 $ 292,000 C21,22,26,29 $ 2,272,000 C28 $ 505,500

Generally speaking, the operating cost for these lines is not very high compared to other Metrobus lines throughout the region because the service level is relatively low.

Other than the Central Avenue line (which provides relatively little service to Bowie but a relatively frequent service overall), the Bowie lines rank low among all 167 Metrobus lines in terms of weekday revenue hours of service: the B24,25 ranks 96th, the B21,22 ranks 123rd, the C28 ranks 133rd, and the B27 ranks 154th. The average number of hours per weekday per line for the whole Metrobus system is 59; all of the Bowie lines are below this system average, and the average among the four lines that serve Bowie extensively is 20 revenue hours per weekday.

Other Transit Services

As noted previously, there are several other types of transit and paratransit services that serve Bowie and nearby areas, in addition to WMATA’s Metrobus routes. These services are described briefly below.

WMATA MetroAccess MetroAccess is a shared ride, curb-to-curb paratransit service for people who cannot use public transportation due to a disability. To qualify for MetroAccess service, individuals must complete an application (certified by a health care professional) and participate in a functional assessment to determine which Metro services will best meet their transportation needs. MetroAccess operates service to any location in the District of Columbia; to Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland; and to Arlington and Fairfax Counties, the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax and Falls Church in Virginia that is within three-quarters of a mile of any fixed-route service operated by Metrorail, Metrobus, or any of the above local jurisdictions.

MetroAccess provides service during the same hours and on the same days as does regular fixed-route service. MetroAccess fares range between $2.50 and $6.50 each way, depending on the distance (measured in “zones”) traveled. Individuals who are certified as eligible for MetroAccess service who live outside of the service area can be picked up if they come to a location that is within the MetroAccess service area.

MetroAccess serves most areas in the City of Bowie and some areas outside the City boundary – with specific service areas determined by a three-quarter mile buffer around WMATA Metrobus routes.

6 The total platform hours for a line is defined as all of the time the buses on that line are in service from the time they leave the garage to the time they return to the garage. The total revenue hours are those hours that the buses are in “revenue service”, that is, picking up and dropping off passengers (and therefore collecting revenue).

Transit System Enhancement Study 24 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

TheBus (Prince George’s County) Prince George’s County operates more than 20 fixed-route bus routes around the county which are open to the general public. None of these routes operate within the City of Bowie, but some operate in nearby communities, including Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and Largo. A map of TheBus services can be found on the WMATA website at www.wmata.com/metrobus/maps/md.pdf . TheBus operates Monday through Friday only; no service is provided on Saturdays, Sundays or major holidays. Service generally operates on half-hour frequencies during peak periods and 30- to 60-minute frequencies during midday hours, with the span of service generally between 6:00AM and 7:00PM. Fares are 75 cents for adults and 35 cents for Seniors & Disabled patrons, with the first child under age five riding free. Total ridership on TheBus routes during Fiscal Year 2005 was more than 2.8 million boardings, or approximately 11,000 boardings per weekday.

Call-A-Bus (Prince George’s County) Call-A-Bus is a demand responsive curb-to-curb service operated by Prince George’s County. Service is available to all residents of Prince George’s County who are not served by or cannot use existing bus or rail services. However, priority is given to seniors and disabled persons. Hours of service are 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM, Monday through Friday (excluding County holidays). Reservations can be made up to fourteen (14) days in advance. Same day requests are accepted, but are subject to availability of resources. Regular fares are $1.00 and fares are 50 cents for senior citizens and persons with disabilities.

Call-A-Cab (Prince George’s County) Call-A-Cab is a transportation assistance program that provides mobility at a reduced cost for senior (age 55 and over) and/or disabled Prince George’s County residents. This program allows eligible residents to purchase coupon books that can be used to pay for rides with participating cab companies when Metrobus, Metrorail, and/or Call-A- Bus are not available. Senior and/or disabled residents may purchase up to fourteen (14) $20.00 coupon books in a six-month period at $10.00 per book. As of fall 2006, there were seven participating providers in the Call-A-Cab program, including one that provides service to and from Montgomery County. While the one cab company that is based on Bowie (Bowie Cab Company) does not participate in the Call-A-Cab program, any Bowie resident who meets the eligibility criteria can use the Call-A-Cab program by calling one of the participating providers. The Prince George’s County Department of Public Works & Transportation reports that approximately 18,900 passenger trips were taken using Call-A-Cab in Fiscal Year 2006, or an average of more than 1,500 per month. Approximately 350 coupon books are purchased per month, and approximately 20 new users register for the program each month. These figures are all county-wide statistics; Prince George’s County does not track usage or registration for the Call-A-Cab program by location within the County.

Senior Transportation Services (Prince George’s County) The Senior Transportation Services (STS) Program provides regularly scheduled transportation throughout Prince George's County to senior and disabled County residents. Service is provided Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). Participants must provide their own escorts, if needed. Transportation is only provided curb-to-curb.

STS provides transportation for a number of programs for senior citizens. The Department of Family Services, Aging Division, offers a variety of programs designed to assist older adults throughout the County. The transportation programs are described briefly below. • Nutrition Program - Senior County residents may receive free transportation to strategically located group sites for a nutritional lunch and companionship. Senior residents, who are homebound and cannot attend a nutrition site, may be eligible to have meals delivered to their residence.

Transit System Enhancement Study 25 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

• Medical Program - Senior and disabled County residents may receive transportation throughout the County for medical purposes, especially dialysis. Residents may call up to fourteen (14) days in advance to schedule routine medical appointments. • General Transportation - Limited transportation is provided for County seniors to visit senior activity centers, for shopping trips and other recreational purposes.

Connect-A-Ride (Corridor Transportation Corporation) The Corridor Transportation Corporation (CTC) was established in 1987 for the purpose of operating a fixed route community-based bus service in the mid Baltimore/Washington suburban area. The CTC was formed through the joint efforts of the Greater Laurel business community along with local and state elected officials and agency representatives. The corporation is established as a charitable corporation with a volunteer Board of Directors. The CTC administrative component is a part of the Baltimore/Washington Corridor Chamber of Commerce.

In addition to service in Laurel, the CTC manages transit service contracts for Howard County and the State of Maryland. CTC manages Howard Transit (the County's fixed-route system), and a paratransit service which operates within the county. CTC manages the Connect-A-Ride system, which operates in a four county area. Connect-A-Ride operates within portions of Prince George’s County, but not in the City of Bowie. The nearest Connect-A-Ride routes are to the north of Bowie in Laurel, Maryland City, and Odenten.

CTC’s Connect-A-Ride routes generally operate Monday through Saturday, with limited service on Sundays and holidays. Service generally operates on frequencies of 30 to 60 minutes during peak periods and 60 to 120 minutes on Saturdays. The span of service is generally between 6:00AM and 6:00PM on weekdays and 9:00AM to 6:00PM on Saturdays, although some routes operate later in the evening. Fares are $1.75 for adults and 75 cents for Seniors & Disabled patrons, with children five and under riding free.

Senior Transportation Services (City of Bowie) In addition to Prince George’s County’s transportation programs, the City of Bowie provides its own transportation service for senior citizens. The City of Bowie Senior Transportation Services offers (within the city limits of Bowie): • Curb-to-curb transportation for Bowie senior citizens ages 55 and older to the Senior Center, medical appointments, scheduled shopping days, Senior Clubs, and other trips on a priority basis. Transportation is offered within the city limits of Bowie. • Curb-to-curb transportation for non-senior Bowie residents with disabilities for medical appointments and other trips within the City limits. A lift-equipped van is available for those in need.

Hours of service Senior Center trips are for pick-up between 8:30AM and 9:30AM, and departures from the Senior Center at 2:00PM, Monday through Friday. Hours of service for medical appointments are from 10:00AM to 12:30PM, Monday through Friday. Shopping trips are provided on Mondays and Thursdays, depending on the resident’s location (Pin Oak Village residents on Mondays only; residents in other areas on Thursdays only). Other trips (not to Senior Center, medical appointments, or shopping) are provided as time and scheduling permits. According to Larry Pierce, City of Bowie Director of Community Service, this service is considered “closed end” in that it serves a specific set of locations in Bowie rather than responding to any trip request that might come up. The vans are fully used performing their existing trips and do not have excess capacity or time to provide additional service.

Bowie Senior Transportation Services operates a fleet of eight vans, six of which are owned by the City of Bowie and two of which are owned by Prince George’s County. Ridership on Bowie Senior Transportation Services was 24,194 trips in 2004. Table 2-10 summarizes the total ridership during June 2004 by trip purpose.

Transit System Enhancement Study 26 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Table 2-10: Ridership on Bowie Senior Transportation Services by Trip Purpose, June 2004 Number of Trips Trip Purpose (Monthly Total) Percent of Total Trips to Senior Center 860 39% Out of Town Trips 406 18% Medical Trips 184 8% Shopping Trips 315 14% Meal Trips 403 18% Other Trips 51 3% TOTAL 2,219 100%

FISH of Greater Bowie FISH (Friendly Instant Sympathetic Help) of Greater Bowie is an organization of Bowie volunteers providing assistance to their neighbors in an emergency. This includes limited transportation, referral service, emergency meals, grocery shopping, and visits to the elderly. There are roughly 40 active volunteer drivers on the roster. These volunteers provide approximately 60-75 rides per month to residents of Bowie and the surrounding area.

Bowie Park-and-Ride

As noted previously, several of the WMATA Metrobus routes serving Bowie stop at the Bowie Park-and-Ride, which is located on Northview Drive near the interchange of US 50 and Collington Road. The Park-and-Ride is the last westbound stop on several Metrobus routes (the B21-B22, B29-B31, and C28) before they head to the New Carrollton Metrorail station. This fringe parking facility is operated and maintained by Prince George’s County and has a capacity of 657 spaces.

According to recent Prince George’s County figures, utilization at the facility was 501 vehicles (approximately 76% of capacity) in an August 2006 count, 547 vehicles (83%) in an April 2006 count, and 412 vehicles (63%) in an October 2005 count. In addition to parking for transit riders and carpoolers, the Bowie Park-and-Ride has secure bicycle lockers for patrons wishing to cycle to Metrobus.

Transit System Enhancement Study 27 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Transit System Enhancement Study 28 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

3. Results of Resident and Business Surveys

This chapter summarizes the results of two surveys that were conducted to support the Bowie Transit Enhancement Study. The first was a telephone survey of Bowie residents that was conducted during the summer of 2006. The second was a written survey of businesses in Bowie that was conducted during the fall of 2006. Together these surveys provided valuable information about current travel patterns and transit usage among residents and workers in Bowie, as well as the opinions of the respondents about public transit. The results of the telephone survey of residents are presented first, followed by the results of the survey of businesses in Bowie.

Telephone Survey of Bowie Residents

ETC Institute, in association with TranSystems Corporation, conducted a scientific survey of residents in Bowie, Maryland during the summer of 2006. The purpose of the survey was to gather information from residents to help plan improvements to public transportation services in Bowie. The specific types of information that were gathered on the survey included the following:

 Demographic characteristics of residents  The reasons that residents were currently using public transportation  Satisfaction with the quality of existing public transportation services  The kinds of trips that residents would consider using public transportation services to complete  The frequency that residents would consider using public transportation services  The destinations that residents thought should be served with public transportation  Support for using City taxes to fund public transportation services.

Methodology

The survey was conducted by phone by ETC Institute during late June and early July 2006. The survey was administered to a random sample of 406 Bowie residents who indicated that they currently use public transportation services or would be willing to use them. The overall results have a precision of at least +/-4.9% at the 95% level of confidence.

Major Findings

The findings of the telephone survey of residents were summarized in a separate report entitled 2006 Community Transportation Survey Final Report conducted for the City of Bowie Maryland dated July 2006. The items below summarize the most significant findings of the resident survey.

• Current Usage of Public Transportation. Thirty-three percent (33%) of those surveyed indicated that they currently use public transportation services; 67% did not. Among those who used public transportation services, 66% indicated that they used public transportation because it was convenient; 25% used it to save money, and 16% used it to save time.

• Satisfaction with Metrobus and Metrorail Services  Metrobus. Among those who had an opinion, 58% rated Metrobus service as “excellent” or “good”; 28% rated the service as “fair,” and 14% rated the service as “poor”.  Metrorail. Among those who had an opinion, 80% rated Metrorail service as “excellent” or “good”; 17% rated the service as “fair,” and 2% rated the service as “poor” (note: total does not equal 100% due to rounding).

Transit System Enhancement Study 29 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

• How Likely Residents Would Be to Use Public Transportation Services in Bowie. More than three- quarters (77%) of those surveyed indicated that they would use public transportation services in Bowie if the service were convenient, inexpensive and easy to use. The types of trips that residents would be most likely to use public transportation to complete were: shopping trips (54%), social/recreational trips (47%), and work trips (44%).

• Issues that Would Influence Residents to Use Public Transportation. Residents were asked to rate how important 12 issues would be to their decision to used public transportation services in Bowie. The six most important items based on the sum of residents who rated the item as “important,” “very important,” or “extremely important” are listed below:  Availability of up-to-the-minute information (94%)  Comfortable and safe passenger shelters (93%)  Low fares or free service (91%)  Comfortable, quiet vehicles (89%)  Direct connections from home (88%)  Convenient connections (88%)

• Support for Using City Taxes to Fund Improved Public Transportation Services in Bowie. Nearly three-fourths (70%) of those surveyed thought city taxes should be used to fund improved public transportation services in Bowie; 14% were not supportive, and 16% did not have an opinion.

• Support for an Annual Fee to Fund New Public Transportation Services in Bowie. Fifty-three percent (53%) of those surveyed supported an annual fee to pay for new local public transportation services in Bowie if residents could ride free; 27% did not support the fee, and 20% did not have an opinion.

Survey of Businesses in Bowie

Staff from the City of Bowie mailed out a survey to 600 businesses in the City. The survey form included 13 questions that asked about current and potential use of public transportation service in Bowie. The questionnaire is shown on the next page.

Sixty-one completed surveys were returned to the City, representing a return rate of 10.2%. These returned forms represent roughly 1,400 employees, of whom 414 (29%) are Bowie residents. Given the estimate of 11,100 jobs in the city, this survey represents about 13% of all employees.

Among the respondents, 17% indicated that any employees were currently using public transportation to get to work (about 50 total transit commuters). More than 60% of respondents were aware of public transportation service in the city, and 30% indicated that employees had expressed a desire for alternatives to driving. About 20% of employers were willing to offer incentives to employees to encourage them to use alternative modes, but the large majority of these said they would be willing only to provide information to their employers. Few employers indicated a willingess to offer financial incentives for using public transportation. Nearly one third of employers currently offer flexible work hours to their employees.

Just over half of the respondents indicated support for using city tax dollars to pay for improved service. When asked to estimate the number of new potential users of transit if service were improved, about 80 employees were identified as likely users. Nearly two thirds of employers saw value in transit connections to surrounding areas such as Laurel,

Transit System Enhancement Study 30 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Crofton, Greenbelt, and Upper Marlboro. Finally just under half of respondents felt that improved bus service would help them attract and retain employees, and the same amount thought that a “guaranteed ride home” program would encourage more public transportation use.

While the survey overall paints a relatively lukewarm attitude toward public transportation overall, this reflects a wide divergence in views among the employers. In some cases, zero employees were using transit and none would even if service were improved. In other cases, more than half of the employees were regular users. Many employers clearly had no interest in public transportation, while some expressed strong opinions on the value of transit and desires for improved service. The most common request was increased weekend and evening service. It was noted particularly that students at Bowie State University are prevented from working at part-time jobs to help pay for their education because of the lack of evening and weekend transit connections.

Transit System Enhancement Study 31 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Transit System Enhancement Study 32 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

4. Potential Transit Improvement Options

This chapter presents potential options for improving transit service in the City of Bowie that were developed in Task 4 of the Bowie Transit System Enhancement Study. These options were developed based on the needs and system deficiencies identified earlier in the study process. These assessments, which included a telephone survey of Bowie residents, a review of socio-economic data, and a review of existing Metrobus ridership, cost, and productivity data, are presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report.

Potential Transit Improvement Options

To address needs and deficiencies in transit service in the City of Bowie, a variety of potential improvement options have been identified. These options include: • Option 1: Increase service frequency, no change in route structure • Option 2A: Increase service frequency, implement minor changes in route structure • Option 2B: Maintain current service frequency, implement minor changes in route structure • Option 3: Change system to a hub-and-circulator structure • Option 4: Implement demand-responsive service throughout Bowie • Option 5: Establish transit links to Crofton, Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and/or Greenbelt

In addition to the above options, three other types of improvements have been considered: • A short-term improvement option that would provide weekday afternoon and Saturday service to Bowie Town Center and other key destinations using City vehicles • The possibility of using a taxi user-side subsidy program similar to the Prince George’s County Call-A-Cab program to meet some of the identified transportation needs • Improvements that would provide real-time transit information to Bowie customers using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology These options could address a number of needs and resident requests identified during the telephone survey and earlier study analyses, including the following: • Provide up-to-the-minute information about transit service • Improve the frequency of service to reduce customer wait times • Provide a longer span of service, including more evening and weekend service • Provide more convenient connections to destinations within Bowie (for instance, trips from neighborhoods to Bowie Town Center or to medical or recreational destinations in Bowie) • Serve all parts of Bowie, both the higher-density neighborhoods (many of which are already served by WMATA fixed-route buses) and newer, lower-density developments • Consider emerging developments and activity centers, such as the Maryland Science and Technology Center (Melford) and the Hall Road Local Activity Center • Explore the potential for links to neighboring communities, including Crofton, Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and/or Greenbelt The improvement options listed above are not mutually exclusive; in fact, several of them could work in combination to address the transit needs earlier in the study process. For instance, an improvement strategy could include Option 2 (which would alter some routes to better serve certain activity centers in Bowie) and Option 4 (which would improve service to a number of neighborhoods in the city). The following sections briefly summarize each of the service improvement options that have been identified.

Transit System Enhancement Study 33 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Option 1: Increase Service Frequency, No Change in Route Structure

One option for improving transit service in Bowie would be to increase the frequency of Metrobus service without changing the structure of the current routes. Currently, the headways on the routes serving Bowie are generally 30 minutes during weekday peak periods and 60 minutes during the midday and evening periods. For the purpose of analyzing improvement strategies, it has been assumed that headways would be improved as follows in this option: • Improve weekday peak period headways to 15 minutes on all routes serving Bowie • Improve midday and evening headways on weekdays to 30 minutes on all routes serving Bowie • Improve headways on Saturday and Sunday to 30 minutes on the C29 line (the only route that serves Bowie on weekends) Since this option would not involve any changes to the current Metrobus route structure, it has been assumed that service would continue to be operated by WMATA in this option. The cost and funding implications of such an increase in service will be addressed in the next phase of this project.

Option 2A: Increase Service Frequency, Implement Minor Changes in Route Structure

A second option for improving transit service in Bowie would be to increase the frequency of Metrobus service, and also make minor route changes to serve areas that have experienced new development, or previously-developed areas that are under-served by transit. In Option 2, headways would be improved as follows: • Improve weekday peak period headways to 15 minutes on all routes serving Bowie • Improve midday and evening headways on weekdays to 30 minutes on all routes serving Bowie • Improve headways on Saturday and Sunday to 30 minutes on the C29 line

In addition, the following changes would be made to the structure of the Metrobus routes serving Bowie: • The B24-B25 line would be extended to start at the intersection of Elder Oaks Boulevard and Mitchellville Road. From there the route would serve Elder Oaks Boulevard, Pin Oak Village, Excalibur Road, Evergreen Parkway, Northview Drive to the Health Center and Senior Center, then the Bowie Park-and-Ride before continuing on its current route to Annapolis Road to New Carrollton Station. • The B29 line would be altered slightly to serve the Maryland Science and Technology Center (Melford) between Bowie Gateway Center and Crofton.

The proposed route changes in Option 2A are shown in Figure 4-1. Since this option would involve only minor changes to the current Metrobus route structure, it has been assumed that service would continue to be operated by WMATA in this option. The cost and funding implications of such an increase in service will be addressed in the next phase of this project.

Option 2B: Maintain Current Service Frequency, Implement Minor Changes in Route Structure

Option 2B would involve the same minor changes in route structure as in Option 2A, but no changes in service frequency. Headways would remain the same as at present – generally 30 minutes during weekday peak periods and 60 minutes during the midday and evening periods. This would be a considerably lower-cost option than Option 2A but could generate some modest ridership gains due to the increase in route coverage.

The proposed route changes in Option 2B are shown in Figure 4-1.

Transit System Enhancement Study 34 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 4-1: Proposed Service Improvement

Bowie State OptUinioversnity s 2A & 2B

R a ce T ra 3 ck R d. d. n R er ev S am An nh n La e P Ar rin un ce de G l C eo o rg un e' ty s C 197 ou nty

d. lis R apo Ann

Whitemarsh d. Park R is ol Bowie ap nn A Be lair Dr.

E

n

t 50

e

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d . Collington 50 R N d. o

r t h

v

i e

w

D

r Legend .

Proposed Modified Routes Allen Pond B29- B31 Park M

i . t Rd c B24- B25 ore h dm Mt. Oak Rd. e o l o l W v i l Existing Transit Routes l e

R BOWIE STATE UNIV B21 B22 d .

C

BOWIE-NEW CARROLL B27 h u 301 r c CENTRAL AVENUE C21,22,26,29 h

R POINTER RIDGE C28 d . Points of Interest Dr. dge Governmental Buildings r Ri nte Poi Educational Institutions Central Ave. ve. Malls/Shopping Centers ral A Cent Hospitals

Recreation/Parks

Park-and-Ride

Rail Station

City of Bowie 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles

Option 3: Change System to a Hub-and-Circulator Structure

Option 3 would restructure the routes serving Bowie from a collection of long, circuitous routes eventually connecting to Metrorail stations, to a hub-based model focused on three new or enhanced transit hubs. Flexible circulator services would feed into these hubs, providing commute connections as well as superior internal circulation within Bowie. These circulator services would run at much higher frequency than the current level of service on the Metrobus routes in the area and would be operated with small vehicles. The three proposed hubs would then be connected to Metrorail via frequent, high-quality services, operated with standard buses.

The proposed Option 3 restructuring scheme is described in more detail below and shown in Figure 4-2: • Metrobus route B29-B31 to Crofton would operate on the same route and headways as at present. Metrobus lines B21 through B25, and C21 through C26 would be restructured as described below. The Metrobus B27 line to Bowie State would operate additional trips to make up for the elimination of service to Bowie State on the B21-B22 (described below). Service on the B27 would be improved to every 15 minutes during the weekday peak periods, and hourly service would be maintained through the midday and early evening periods. • The area north of Annapolis Road would be served by a flexible circulator (Circulator 1) feeding a hub at the Bowie Market Place Shopping Center and serving Bowie State University. The B24-B25 would begin at the Market Place Shopping Center and become a direct, higher-frequency route to New Carrollton station. Service on both Circulator 1 and the B24-B25 would operate at 20-minute headways in the weekday peak periods (compared to 40-minute headways on the current B24-B25) and at 60-minute headways in the midday and evening periods. The weekday span of service would be from 6:00AM to 10:00PM. • The area between Annapolis Road and US 50 would be served by a flexible circulator (Circulator 2) feeding a hub at the Bowie Park-and-Ride facility. An express route (the enhanced B21-B22) would run from the Park-and-Ride to the New Carrollton station using the HOV lanes on US 50. On weekdays, both Circulator 2 and the express route would run on 15-minute headways in the peak periods and 60-minute headways off-peak. The weekday span of service would be from 6:00AM to 10:00PM. • The area between US 50 and Central Avenue would be served by two flexible circulators (Circulators 3 and 4) feeding the Bowie Park-and-Ride: o Circulator 3 would start at Mitchellville Road and Mt. Oak Road and would serve the neighborhoods to the east of Mitchellville Road before serving the Bowie Gateway Center, Bowie Town Center, the Senior Center, the Health Center and the Park-and-Ride. o Circulator 4 would begin near the intersection of Hall Road and Central Avenue and would proceed north via Pointer Ridge Drive, Peach Walker Drive, and Northview Drive to the Senior Center, the Health Center, and the Park-and-Ride. o Both Circulator 3 and 4 would connect to the enhanced B21-B22 express, while the C28 (Addison Road-Pointer Ridge) would be eliminated. Circulator 4 would connect to the C21-C22-C26 routes at a new hub near Hall Road and Central Avenue. o On weekdays, both Circulator 3 and 4 would operate on 15-minute headways in the peak periods and 60-minute headways during off-peak periods. The weekday span of service would be from 6:00AM to 10:00PM. • Circulators 2 and 3 would be structured to provide service directly to the Park-and-Ride in the AM and PM peak periods, and service via the Senior Center and Health Center before the Park-and-Ride in the midday. • The new circulators proposed in this option would be “route deviation” services. They would generally operate like a fixed route, following a predetermined alignment, but they would have the flexibility to leave the route temporarily to pick up or drop off passengers at their doors, or at other points closer to their origins or destinations. After such a deviation from the “regular” route, the vehicle would resume the regular route at the same point it left the route, or as close as possible to that point, so as to not miss any passengers who may be waiting at stops along the regular route.

Transit System Enhancement Study 36 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 4-2: Proposed Service Improvement Option 3

Bowie State University

R a ce T ra ck R d. 3 d. n R er ev S am A nh nn La e Pr Ar inc un e de Ge l C org ou e' nt s C y 197 ou nty d. lis R apo Ann

Whitemarsh . d Park R Bowie is ol ap nn A Be lair Dr.

E

n

t e 50

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d

. Co llington 50 Rd N .

o

r t h

v

i e

w

Legend D r . Allen Pond Option 3 Circulators Park M

. i Rd t Bowie Circulator 1 re c mo Mt. Oak Rd. h od e o l W l v i l l Bowie Circulator 2 e

R d . Bowie Circulator 3 C h 301 u

r c Bowie Circulator 4 h

R

d Bowie Circulator 2 (Midday Routing) . Dr. dge r Ri nte Bowie Circulator 3 (Midday Routing) Poi Restructured WMATA Routes Central Ave. ve. tral A BOWIE STATE UNIV B21 B22 Cen BOWIE-BELAIR B24 B25 BOWIE-NEW CARROLL B27 CENTRAL AVENUE C21,22,26 CROFTON NEW CARR B29 B31

City of Bowie 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 Miles

The hub-and-circulator scheme described above would apply to weekday and Saturday service only. The weekday headways and spans of service are described above. On Saturdays, the four circulators would operate on 30-minute headways from 8:00AM to 7:00PM, and connecting service to Metrorail would be provided by a single Metrobus route from the Park-and-Ride and the Metrobus C29 in the south end of Bowie, both on 30-minute headways. On Sundays, the circulators would not run and the Metrobus C29 line would serve the southern part of Bowie on 30 minute headways.

The proposed flexible circulator service could potentially be operated by WMATA, Prince George’s County, the City of Bowie, the Corridor Transportation Corporation (CTC), or by a private contractor to any of these entities. The cost, funding, and governance implications of providing the proposed circulators, as well as the implications of altering the connecting Metrobus routes, will be addressed in the next phase of this project.

Option 4: Implement Demand-Responsive Service throughout Bowie

Currently, demand-responsive service (curb-to-curb shared dial-a-ride service) is available for seniors and disabled residents through WMATA’s MetroAccess, Prince George’s County’s Call-A-Bus, and the City of Bowie’s Senior Transportation Services. However, the first two of these services are not open to the general public and the third does not have available capacity for general public riders, which means that residents who live beyond walking distance of the Metrobus fixed-route services in Bowie do not have direct access to transit service.

Option 4 would establish demand-responsive transit service for the general public across the City of Bowie, in locations that lack the density to support fixed-route or flexible bus lines. This demand-responsive service would provide access to the proposed flexible circulator services and restructured Metrobus routes in Option 3, or the existing Metrobus routes if Option 3 is not selected for implementation. Demand-responsive service would be provided in three service zones, as shown in Figure 4-3. These zones include: • Demand-Responsive Service Zone 1: Areas in the southwest section of the city, west of the railroad tracks, that are not within ½ mile of fixed bus routes • Demand-Responsive Service Zone 2: Areas along and east of Route 3 and sections of central Bowie that are not within ½ mile of fixed bus routes • Demand-Responsive Service Zone 3: Areas north of Annapolis Road that are not within ½ mile of fixed bus routes Residents of these designated service areas (all within the Bowie city limits) would be eligible to use the service.

The span of service would be Monday through Saturday, with service offered on weekdays between 6:00AM and 10:00PM, and on Saturdays from 8:00AM to 7:00PM (to match the span of the proposed circulators in Option 3 and the Metrobus routes serving Bowie).

Service in each of the three zones would provide connections between a number of designated stops and the two nearest transit hubs. (When schedules allow, customers could be picked up and dropped off at their homes rather than at the designated stops.) Drop-offs and pick-ups at each hub would occur at least once per hour at scheduled times, throughout the entire span of the service day. Since the proposed hubs are also activity centers, many customers’ trips would end there, but customers would also have the option of transferring to the circulator routes or Metrobus routes for continuing service to other destinations.

Customers would call in advance to reserve a pick-up at a specific stop (or at their home) for a trip to a hub on the outgoing trip, perhaps using the same advance window that would be required for a deviation on the flexible circulators. Initially, a reservation would be required for the return trip as well, from a hub to a designated drop-off stop (or home address). As demand and travel patterns become more established over time, however, it may be possible for customers to board a vehicle when it makes its scheduled stop at a hub without a reservation.

Transit System Enhancement Study 38 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland Figure 4-3: Proposed Service Improvement Option 4

Bowie State University

R a ce T ra ck R d. 3 d. n R er ev S am An nh n La P e A rin ru ce nd G el eo C rg ou e' n s C ty 197 ou nty d. lis R apo Ann Demand-Responsive Service Area 3

Whitemarsh . d Park R Demand-Responsive is Bowie ol Service Area 2 ap nn A Be lair Dr.

E

n

t e 50

r

p

r

i

s

e

R

d

. Co llington 50 R N d.

o

r t h

v

i e

w

Legend D

r . Proposed Demand-Responsive Service Area Allen Pond Park Demand-Responsive M

. i Service Area 1 Option 4 Circulators d t re R c mo Mt. Oak Rd. h od e o l W l Bowie Circulator 1 v i l l e

R Bowie Circulator 2 d C .

h Bowie Circulator 3 u 301 r c h

Bowie Circulator 4 R d . Dr. Bowie Circulator 2 (Midday Routing) dge r Ri nte Poi Bowie Circulator 3 (Midday Routing) Central Ave. ve. ral A Restructured WMATA Routes Cent BOWIE STATE UNIV B21 B22 BOWIE-BELAIR B24 B25 BOWIE-NEW CARROLL B27 CENTRAL AVENUE C21,22,26 CROFTON NEW CARR B29 B31

City of Bowie 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles

Vehicle schedules would most likely be developed centrally by a scheduler/dispatcher, although some services of this type allow drivers to take trip requests by cell phone and from boarding passengers, and then plan appropriate routes during the operation of the service. Centralized trip reservations would allow for a check of the distance from the customer’s residence to the Metrobus and circulator routes, so that individuals living within walking distance of fixed or flexible services would not be provided with demand-responsive service.

In theory, the City’s existing senior service could be expanded to provide this demand-responsive service, but the service could also potentially be provided by Prince George’s County, the Corridor Transportation Corporation (CTC), or by a private contractor to any of these entities. The cost, funding, and governance implications of providing demand-responsive service in Option 4 will be addressed in the next phase of this project.

Option 5: Establish Transit Links to Crofton, Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and/or Greenbelt Currently, the only transit connections extending outside the incorporated boundary of the City of Bowie are to WMATA’s New Carrollton and Addison Road Metrorail stations (and points along Lanham Severn Road, Annapolis Road, and Central Avenue in between), and limited service to Crofton in the peak direction (from Crofton through Bowie to New Carrollton in the AM peak, and the reverse in the PM peak). Journey-to-Work data from the 2000 U.S. Census suggest that there may be a small market for commute-oriented service from Bowie to locations such as Laurel, Greenbelt, and Upper Marlboro. In addition, there may be some demand for shopping or recreational trips between Bowie and Crofton, Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and Greenbelt. This potential was highlighted in responses to Question 9 of the phone survey, which asked respondents to name other places in Prince George’s County that should be connected to Bowie public transportation. 22 respondents (5.4% of the total) mentioned connections to Upper Marlboro, 11 respondents (2.7%) mentioned Greenbelt, and 4 respondents (1%) mentioned Laurel; these were among the highest response rates for a single, specific destination.

Option 5 would establish limited service between Bowie and Crofton, Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and/or Greenbelt. For the purpose of this assessment, it has been assumed that the service to Crofton, Laurel and Upper Marlboro would be provided on 30-minute headways during weekday peak periods (6:00AM to 9:00AM, 3:30PM to 6:30PM), and hourly headways on Saturdays from 9:00AM to 5:00PM. The service to Greenbelt is proposed as an extension of the existing TheBus Route 15, which currently runs from the Greenbelt Metrorail station to the Goddard Corporate Park in Lanham. Route 15 operates on hourly headways from 6:00AM to 7:00PM, Monday through Friday.

The proposed connector routes would make several stops at key locations in Bowie and several stops in the destination community and would run express in between. Exact routes have not been determined at this point, but approximate routings have been assumed for the purpose of developing conceptual ridership and cost estimates. These approximate routes are shown in Figure 4-4. The proposed connector services to Crofton, Laurel, and Upper Marlboro could be operated by WMATA, Prince George’s County, or potentially by the CTC; the latter two agencies already operate similar cross-county routes in nearby areas. The connector to Greenbelt would be operated by Prince George’s County as an extension to its existing TheBus Route 15.

Transit System Enhancement Study 40 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland P E AT ON AV U NALDS XE DO NT Figure 4-4: Propos F ed Service ImA provement R W N Y N A P O D Y R W L CE OptionK 5 IS EE P R R N D O D T R T S G N S H D I A H P N S V 2 A A A W R E G RD E G RING R P SP O E ANDY Laurel R A S M L I D T T E L F U A OR T B T ME X ADE E RD N PATUX AN T ENT FRWY NA F PO R L W IS Y RD PA LA T U UX R E E N L T R HW D Y

E V A E R O IM T IE RD L UREL BOW N A LA 3 B Y W H E AT ST S 3 Y W H E T A T S Bowie State Crofton University

ST 9TH 11TH ST To Grreenbelt 3 Metrorail Station

Y GRE ENB D W ELT R D A K

Goddard V P G Bowie Marketplace L 197 I N Corporate Park E D N O S T D 495 D A O G R L N E N IN R RD E B IS V H V L L V PO I E L S S D NNA A M A L

A E W H Y

N

R E LA W

D R H

O V N IM E Bowie I T A T E Greenbelt/ L R R A A N C B S P Lanham K I W 4 50 Y 9 D 5 R IS S S HWY 50 W OL Y 50 E U Bowie Park & Ride AP US HW D N R AN 50 E S LA I NDO R VER P RD R E PRA T TT S N T E

Y W 495 L E H A 301 AV R N AL E TR M D EN L O C A W P V E E E L AV G R TRA R EN O R C E W G D I A 4 T 9 K 5 L E A I C N A N R Y PITO G L S ST O W

P R H D A

R N I K A

K D R y ENT D t R R C n y u t o n C u o s ' C e l g e r d o n LA e R u G G r PEN O A NSY R e Legend LVA D NIA c e AVE n in r n P A Potential OpD tion 5 Routes N R Upper OW NT LE BALOWIE- CROFTON Marlboro B R STA A TE N HWY STATE C 4 E WILL HWY RD H BOWIE- GREENBELT IAM BEANES RD 4 W MARLBORO A V E BOWIE- LAUREL 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 BOWIE- UPPER MARLBORO Miles City of Bowie

Short-Term Option: Provide Weekday Afternoon and Saturday Service within Bowie with City Vehicles Based on input from the public and the phone survey, a short-term option has been considered which would add service between schools and neighborhoods in Bowie and key destinations including Bowie Town Center, Bowie Market Place, the Bowie City Gymnasium, and other locations. This service could be operated with the existing City- owned van fleet that is used to provide the City’s Senior Transportation Services. Since the senior service generally concludes its operation by 2:30PM on weekdays, the vehicles could be used to provide service for several hours afterwards, focusing on transportation of young people to work or recreational destinations after school. This proposed service could operate in the following way: • On weekdays: Vehicles would begin at Bowie High School and the middle schools at the end of the school day. Vehicles would collect riders there and transport them to key destinations such as Bowie Town Center, Bowie Market Place, the Bowie City Gymnasium, community centers, and other locations. Later in the afternoon, the vehicles would collect riders at these locations and transport them to their neighborhoods on a route-deviation basis. The service would use three to four vehicles and operate from approximately 2:30PM to 6:30PM. • On Saturdays: Vehicles would collect riders in various neighborhoods on a demand-responsive basis (similar to the service proposed in Option 4) and bring them to the same key destinations as above. Later in the day, vehicles would perform return trips. This service would use three to four vehicles and operate from 10:00AM to 6:00PM. The implications of this service in terms of conceptual costs and operator requirements would need to be further explored, but this is an option that could potentially be initiated in a short time frame, particularly because it would not require the purchase of additional vehicles.

Potential Taxi User-Side Subsidy Program for Bowie Residents

Another option that could be implemented fairly quickly to meet a portion of the transportation demand identified in this study would be the establishment of a taxi user-side subsidy program, similar to the Prince George’s County Call-A-Cab program, for all City of Bowie residents. This program could be administered by the City or possibly through a partnership with Prince George’s County.

This type of program, called a “user-side subsidy” because it distributes travel subsidies directly to users, has several advantages: 7 • Existing operators are relied upon to provide the service, avoiding the need for costly new services; • The subsidy can be targeted to a well-defined user group, and to particular types of trips; • The amount of subsidy provided is automatically adjusted to the number of trips made, not to the vehicle- hours or miles of service provided.

There are several primary mechanisms that could be used to implement such a program. These include: • Voucher systems: After a subsidized trip is made, the driver completes a voucher for the subsidized portion of the trip cost (most commonly 50 percent) and collects the balance in cash from the user. Completed vouchers are submitted to the subsidizing agency, which then reimburses the service provider for the voucher amounts. • Scrip systems: Booklets of “scrip” good for one payment on participating transportation service providers are sold to eligible users at a fraction of their value. Users then pay for their trips using the scrip, which typically

7 This discussion is adapted from User-Side Subsidy Programs for Special Needs Transportation: A Planning Handbook , USDOT Urban Mass Transportation Administration, June 1983.

Transit System Enhancement Study 42 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

comes in small denominations, and service providers redeem the scrip they collect at the subsidizing agency for full value. • Coupon (or ticket) systems: Coupons are distributed or sold to eligible users. Each coupon entitles the user to a one-way trip either at a fraction of the normal charge, or (in the case of meter fare systems) fully subsidized up to a certain dollar limit. Service providers redeem coupons for a set reimbursement per coupon. • Direct purchase systems: The subsidizing agency purchases regular tickets, tokens, or passes good for use on various systems from the provider, and gives or sells them to eligible users at a reduced rate. • Cash payment systems: The subsidizing agency distributes cash payments to eligible users to be spent for transportation on any mode of their choice.

User-subsidy programs for taxis and special-needs transportation services (such as lift-equipped vans) are used in many cities and counties around the country. The Prince George’s County Call-A-Cab program (discussed in Chapter 2) and the Transfare program in Norwood, MA (described in Chapter 6) both use the scrip model. Other agencies including the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA); DuPage County, Illinois; Houston METROLift; the City of Los Angeles; and Seattle-King County provide user-side subsidies with either voucher, scrip, or coupon/ticket systems.

The choice of a subsidy mechanism will depend on a number of factors, including ease of use; administrative requirements and costs; potential for fraud on the part of users or providers; up-front expense to users; cash flow concerns for service providers; and the ease of controlling the total subsidy cost. Further analysis would be required to determine the likely demand for such a service, the best subsidy mechanism, the logistics of user registration, operating costs, and funding arrangements.

Improvements to Provide Real-Time Transit Information to Bowie Customers

One of the key findings from the telephone survey was that the most important factor that would influence Bowie residents to use public transportation would be having up-to-the-minute information about transit services. Ninety- four percent of respondents rated this factor as “important,” “very important,” or “extremely important.” In a context such as the City of Bowie (with fixed-route bus service but no rail service within the City), providing real-time information would generally involve the following ITS elements: • Equipping the buses serving Bowie with Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) technology, which generally includes Global Positioning Systems (GPS) receivers and communications technology to transmit information to a central location • Adding real-time bus location functionality to the Control Center that dispatches the buses that serve Bowie (this is necessary in most cases, although some vendors may supply systems that are independent of the operator’s dispatching system) • Providing ways to disseminate the real-time bus information to customers in Bowie; this could involve Dynamic Message Signs (DMSs) at transit stops displaying the arrival time of the next bus, a website interface with information about bus locations and next arrival times, or information distribution through portable devices (e.g., mobile phones or PDAs)

Some of the infrastructure described above would be specific to the transit operator (e.g., the AVL technology would be installed on the vehicles of whatever entity is operating the service) but other infrastructure (such as the Dynamic Message Signs at the transit stops) is less specific to an operator and could be provided by the City of Bowie. In addition, there are vendors (such as NextBus, Orbital, or Siemens) that specialize in supplying entire real-time transit information systems; in the case of Bowie a vendor like this might be an effective option. Further analysis of the feasibility, costs and benefits of providing real-time transit information in Bowie is beyond the scope of this study, and a follow-up study is recommended if the City would like to pursue this option.

Transit System Enhancement Study 43 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Transit System Enhancement Study 44 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

5. Assessment of Costs and Benefits

This chapter summarizes the costs and benefits of potential options for improving transit service in the City of Bowie that have been developed in the Bowie Transit System Enhancement Study. These options were developed based on the needs and system deficiencies identified in earlier stages of the study. The options were refined based on input from the Bowie City Council, Bowie City Council, and residents. The assessment of costs and benefits was conducted on this refined set of options. This chapter first presents a summary of the refined set of improvement options, followed by summaries of the projected ridership, vehicle requirements, estimated operating costs and estimated revenues for each option. This is followed by a discussion of operator options and principles for operating a Bowie service. The memo concludes with an evaluation matrix summarizing the benefits and costs of the improvement options.

Refined Set of Transit Improvement Options

The following is a brief summary of the refined set of transit improvement options that were developed based on feedback from study stakeholders.

The refined potential transit improvement options include: • Option 1: Increase service frequency, no change in route structure • Option 2A: Increase service frequency, implement minor changes in route structure • Option 2B: Maintain current service frequency, implement minor changes in route structure • Option 3: Change system to a hub-and-circulator structure • Option 4: Implement demand-responsive service throughout Bowie • Option 5: Establish transit links to Crofton, Laurel, Upper Marlboro, and/or Greenbelt

In addition to the above options, three other types of improvements have been considered: • A short-term improvement option that would provide weekday afternoon and Saturday service to Bowie Town Center and other key destinations using City vehicles • The possibility of using a taxi user-side subsidy program similar to the Prince George’s County Call-A-Cab program to meet some of the identified transportation needs • Improvements that would provide real-time transit information to Bowie customers using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology The improvement options listed above are not mutually exclusive; in fact, several of them could work in combination to address the transit needs identified earlier in the study process. For instance, an improvement strategy could include Option 2 (which would alter some routes to better serve certain activity centers in Bowie) and Option 4 (which would improve service to a number of neighborhoods in the city). In addition, the option of using City vehicles for weekday afternoon and Saturday service could be pursued in the short-term or as a fall-back if other options were not adopted.

Projected Ridership

In Task 5 of the study, conceptual estimates of the changes in ridership that would be generated by each of the proposed transit improvement options were developed. The following sections summarize the methodology used to estimate ridership and the estimation results.

Transit System Enhancement Study 45 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Ridership Estimation Methodology

The ridership estimates for the proposed transit improvement options were developed in the following way: • Ridership and operating statistics for existing services in the area (including WMATA Metrobus routes, Prince George’s County TheBus routes, and the Corridor Transportation Commission (CTC) Connect-A- Ride routes) were obtained as a baseline; • Operating parameters of the proposed improvement options (including the number of vehicle trips per day or the number of revenue-hours or platform-hours 8 per day) were calculated; • Ridership estimates (in average boardings per weekday) were produced using the best available data and the method appropriate to the type of improvement; as described below: o In Option 1 and Option 2A, the change in ridership from existing Metrobus ridership levels was estimated based on the elasticity of demand with respect to changes in headways (i.e., customer wait times); 9 o In Option 2A and Option 2B, the change in ridership due to the extension of the Metrobus route B24-B25 was estimated by multiplying the number of added revenue-hours by the average productivity of the route in the City of Bowie (14 boardings per revenue-hour); in these options, the change in ridership due to the addition of service to the Maryland Science & Technology Center was estimated by multiplying the number of trips by the average productivity (2.4 boardings per trip) of the C21 route to Collington Center, a fairly similar activity center; o In Option 3, the ridership on the proposed circulators was estimated by starting with the ridership on the existing Metrobus routes that traversed the same streets, applying elasticity factors to account for changes in the level of service, and then applying a productivity bonus (12 boardings per revenue-hour in the peak periods, 10 in the off-peak periods) for new in-town travel; the reduction in ridership on the Metrobus routes serving Bowie was estimated based on the change in revenue-hours of service and the existing productivity of the routes; o In Option 4, the ridership on the proposed demand-responsive service was estimated by multiplying the number of platform-hours by an assumed productivity (5 boardings per platform- hour) which is typical for this type of service; the same method was used for the potential Short- Term Option of using City buses to provide demand-responsive services on weekday afternoons and Saturdays; o In Option 5, the ridership on the proposed cross-county connections was estimated by multiplying the number of revenue-hours by the average productivity of Prince George’s County TheBus services and CTC Connect-A-Ride services on similar routes (13 boardings per revenue-hour). • The number of Bowie boardings on the improvement options (including Bowie riders originating in Bowie in the morning and returning to Bowie in the evening) was estimated based on the percentage of Bowie ridership on existing services; for some routes (e.g., Metrobus route B21-B22) this percentage was 100 percent, while for others (e.g., the proposed cross-county connectors in Option 5) the percentage was less because ridership would be generated outside of Bowie as well.

Ridership Projections Using the methodology summarized above, conceptual ridership estimates were developed for each of the service improvement options. The projected ridership for the various service improvement options is presented in Table 5-1 below. These estimates represent the incremental change in weekday ridership compared to the present-day ridership on the Metrobus lines serving Bowie.

8 The total platform hours for a line is defined as all of the time the buses on that line are in service from the time they leave the garage to the time they return to the garage. The total revenue hours are those hours that the buses are in “revenue service”, that is, picking up and dropping off passengers (and therefore collecting revenue). 9 The elasticities used in the estimates were standard industry figures from “Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes”, Barton- Aschman Associates, July 1981.

Transit System Enhancement Study 46 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Table 5-1: Projected Ridership on Service Improvement Options Total change in Change in Improvement Option ridership ridership in Bowie 1. Increase frequency/no change in route structure +950 +650 2A. Increase frequency/minor changes in routes +1050 +750 2B. Same frequency/minor changes in routes +120 +120 3. Hub-and-circulator structure +800 +500 4. Demand-responsive service across Bowie +240 +240 5. Links to Crofton/Laurel/Upper Marlboro/Greenbelt +700 +350 Short-Term Option (Weekday afternoons/Saturdays) +75 +75

As can be seen in Table 1, Options 1 and 2A generate the largest increase in total ridership, approximately 1,000 boardings per weekday, while Option 3 generates an increase of approximately 800 daily boardings and Option 5 an increase of 700 daily boardings. Option 2B, Option 4, and the Short-Term Option generate significantly less ridership overall. In terms of Bowie ridership, Options 1, 2A and 3 generate the highest levels, with increases ranging from 500 to 750 daily Bowie boardings.

Other Benefits

In addition to the ridership that would be generated by the service improvement options, a number of other qualitative benefits could be realized as well. The following is a summary of these qualitative benefits with an indication of which options they would likely be associated with: • Improved transportation choice and mobility: All options • Improved access to jobs within Bowie, both for Bowie residents and residents in other areas: Options 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 5 • Greater access to shopping, medical, and recreational destinations within Bowie: Option 3, Option 4 and the Short-Term Option • Reduced automobile emissions leading to improved air quality: All options • Reduced automobile fuel use: All options • Strengthening of the land use-transit connection in support of City and regional land use goals, including those in the Bowie and Vicinity Master Plan : All options

Vehicle Requirements The various improvement options considered in this study would generally involve increases in the number of buses required to provide the services, due to the increased levels of service they would provide. The magnitude of the increases varies considerably, however, depending on the extent to which the options build on existing service (which can lead to smaller vehicle requirements) or introduce completely new services. The need for additional vehicles also depends on whether a service would operate during peak periods (when the need for vehicles is greatest) or during off-peak or weekend periods (when spare vehicles are often available). In general, the vehicle requirements for the Bowie service improvement options were identified by estimating the amount of service being added (in platform-hours per day) and the number of hours each vehicle can operate during a given time period (for instance, 12 platform-hours in a day, or 3 platform-hours in one peak period). Consideration is also given to the proposed service schedule and the cycle length of each route to ensure that an adequate number

Transit System Enhancement Study 47 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland of vehicles is available to provide the service schedule. Table 5-2 summarizes the estimated vehicle requirements for each of the proposed improvement options.

Table 5-2: Estimated Vehicles Required for Service Improvement Options Additional Vehicles Improvement Option Required 1. Increase frequency/no change in route structure 10 2A. Increase frequency/minor changes in routes 11 2B. Same frequency/minor changes in routes 1 3. Hub-and-circulator structure 3 4. Demand-responsive service across Bowie 3 5. Links to Crofton/Laurel/Upper Marlboro/Greenbelt 13 Short-Term Option (Weekday afternoons/Saturdays) None

As can be seen in Table 5-2, the number of additional vehicles required varies from one in Option 2B to as many as 13 in Option 5. It is important to note that Option 3 includes a decrease of 2 buses for WMATA Metrobus service but an increase of 5 buses for the operator of the community circulators. It is also worthwhile to note that different types of vehicles would be required for different improvement options. Options 3 and 4 would involve the addition of smaller, neighborhood-sized buses to Bowie, while Options 1, 2A, 2B and 5 would likely use standard transit buses. The Short-Term Option does not require the addition of vehicles, because it would use City-owned vehicles during periods when the City’s Senior Transportation Service is not operated.

Estimated Operating Costs

As a part of the evaluation of costs and benefits of the various improvement options, conceptual estimates of the annual operating costs of the options were developed. The following sections summarize the methodology used to estimate operating costs and the resulting cost estimates.

Operating Cost Estimation Methodology

The operating cost estimates for the proposed transit improvement options were developed in the following way: • Operating parameters of the proposed improvement options (including the number of vehicle trips per day or the number of revenue-hours or platform-hours per day) were calculated; • Unit operating costs were obtained from the various entities that could potentially operate the services; these unit costs were as follows: o WMATA: $83.51 per platform-hour o Prince George’s County: $58.00 per platform-hour o CTC/private operator: $55.00 per platform-hour 10 • Operating cost estimates were produced by multiplying the number of platform-hours of service by the appropriate unit cost: the WMATA cost for Options 1, 2A, and 2B; the Prince George’s County rate for Options 3 and 4; and the CTC/private contractor rate for Option 5.

10 This cost represents the approximate unit operating costs for CTC and for Charles County, which contracts service to a private operator.

Transit System Enhancement Study 48 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Operating Cost Estimates Using the methodology summarized above, conceptual operating cost estimates were developed for each of the service improvement options. The estimated operating costs for the various service improvement options are presented in Table 5-3 below. These estimates represent the incremental changes in operating costs compared to the current service levels, and are shown in 2006 dollars.

Table 5-3: Operating Cost Estimates for Service Improvement Options Estimated Annual Improvement Option Operating Cost 1. Increase frequency/no change in route structure $2,600,000 2A. Increase frequency/minor changes in routes $2,700,000 2B. Same frequency/minor changes in routes $100,000 3. Hub-and-circulator structure $600,000 4. Demand-responsive service across Bowie $800,000 5. Links to Crofton/Laurel/Upper Marlboro/Greenbelt $1,000,000 Short-Term Option (Weekday afternoons/Saturdays) 2/3 increase over current Senior bus cost

As can be seen in Table 5-3, Options 1 and 2A have the highest annual operating costs of all the options, with costs of about $2.6 to $2.7 million above current levels. Option 3 has an incremental cost of approximately $600,000 over current levels; this represents a decrease of $500,000 for WMATA and an increase of $1.1 million for Prince George’s County (assuming the County operates the new community circulators). Option 2B has the smallest incremental increase in costs over current levels, since this option involves only minor changes to routes and no changes in service frequencies.

Estimated Revenues

Another step in the process of evaluating the costs and benefits of the various improvement options is the development of revenue estimates. For the purpose of this analysis, fare revenues are the only type of revenues that have been estimated, even though other types of revenue (such as advertising revenue) could contribute to the operation of the proposed services. The following sections summarize the methodology used to estimate fare revenues for the proposed improvement options.

Revenue Estimation Methodology

The fare revenue estimates for the proposed transit improvement options were developed in the following way: • Projections of the annual ridership on each option were developed based on the daily ridership projections (summarized previously) and assumptions about the number of days per year each service would operate; weekday services were assumed to run 255 days per year, while Saturday services were assumed to run 52 days per year; • Assumptions were made about the fare structures that would be used in each improvement option; it was assumed that Options 1, 2A, and 2B would use the current WMATA Metrobus fare structure, Options 3 and

Transit System Enhancement Study 49 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

5 would use the Prince George’s County TheBus fare structure, and Option 4 and the Short-Term Option would be free to Bowie residents; • Average fares per trip were obtained from WMATA and Prince George’s County, to take into account the effect of discounted fares for seniors, youth, and disabled customers; the average fare on Metrobus was assumed to be $0.69/trip, while the average fare on TheBus was assumed to be $0.37/trip. • Annual fare revenue estimates were developed by multiplying the projected annual ridership by the average fare per trip on each service.

Revenue Estimates Using the methodology summarized above, conceptual fare revenue estimates were developed for each of the service improvement options. The estimated fare revenues for the various service improvement options are presented in Table 5-4 below. These estimates represent the incremental changes in fare revenues compared to the current levels, and are shown in 2006 dollars.

Table 5-4: Fare Revenue Estimates for Service Improvement Options Estimated Annual Fare Improvement Option Revenue 1. Increase frequency/no change in route structure $190,000 2A. Increase frequency/minor changes in routes $210,000 2B. Same frequency/minor changes in routes $20,000 3. Hub-and-circulator structure $80,000 4. Demand-responsive service across Bowie $0 5. Links to Crofton/Laurel/Upper Marlboro/Greenbelt $40,000 Short-Term Option (Weekday afternoons/Saturdays) $0

As can be seen in Table 5-4, Options 1 and 2A have the highest annual fare revenue of all the options, at approximately $200,000 per year. The fare revenue on Option 3 is estimated at approximately $80,000, assuming the circulators are operated by Prince George’s County. This reflects both the lower projected ridership on this option and the lower average fare on TheBus as compared to Metrobus. Option 4 and the Short-Term Option are not projected to generate revenue because they are assumed to be fare-free.

Estimated Net Operating Cost/Required Subsidy

Based on the estimated operating costs and estimated revenues on the proposed improvement options, estimates of the net operating cost and required subsidy can be developed. The estimation process is straightforward: the estimated fare revenues are subtracted from the estimated operating costs to produce the net operating cost. If the result is a positive number, the service will generate an operating surplus. If the result is a negative number, the service will generate an operating deficit and will require a subsidy.

The estimated net operating costs for the various service improvement options are presented in Table 5-5 below. These estimates represent the incremental change in operating surplus or deficit compared to current levels, and are shown in 2006 dollars.

Transit System Enhancement Study 50 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Table 5-5: Net Operating Cost Estimates for the Service Improvement Options Estimated Estimated Estimated Improvement Option Annual Annual Fare Operating Operating Cost Revenue Deficit 1. Increase frequency/no change in route structure $2,600,000 $190,000 $2,410,000 2A. Increase frequency/minor changes in routes $2,700,000 $210,000 $2,490,000 2B. Same frequency/minor changes in routes $100,000 $20,000 $80,000 3. Hub-and-circulator structure $600,000 $80,000 $520,000 4. Demand-responsive service across Bowie $800,000 $0 $800,000 5. Links to Crofton/Laurel/Upper Marlboro/Greenbelt $1,000,000 $40,000 $960,000 Short-Term Option (Weekday afternoons/Saturdays) 2/3 increase over $0 2/3 increase over current Senior current Senior bus levels bus levels

As can be seen in Table 5-5, Options 1 and 2A have the highest annual operating deficit of all the options, of more than $2.4 million per year. The projected operating deficit on Option 3 is approximately $520,000, assuming the circulators are operated by Prince George’s County. Option 4 is assumed to be fare-free, so its considerable operating costs are not offset by fare revenue, generating a substantial operating deficit. Although Option 5 is not assumed to be fare-free, the relatively low ridership projections suggest that these connectors will generate relatively little revenue in relation to their operating costs.

Operator Options and Operating Principles As noted in the Chapter 4, there are a number of different possible operators for the proposed service improvements in Bowie. These potential operators include: • WMATA • Prince George’s County • The City of Bowie • Another operator – a private contractor, the CTC, or another entity As part of the assessment of costs and benefits of providing improved transit services in Bowie, consideration has been given to the principles that should be applied in operating such services. These principles will help determine the study recommendations regarding which option(s) to pursue and which entity or entities should be the operator.

Principles for operating a Bowie service include the following: • Local “Ownership”: For the service to be successful, Bowie must have some “ownership” of the service. Ownership need not come through operations; it could come by Bowie providing funding of a discretionary nature—the “ownership” comes as long as Bowie supports the service. • Service Quality and Image: The service must be seen as a high-quality service. Vehicles should be smaller than a full size bus and attractive. Vehicles will most likely be different from current fleets of the existing operators in the area, except that WMATA does have smaller buses for neighborhood services in Washington, DC. • Organizational Structure: Due to the logistics and complexity of introducing some of the proposed service improvements, the operation probably needs to be run by a private or public operator, not by the City of

Transit System Enhancement Study 51 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Bowie itself. To the extent that Bowie can take advantage of an existing administrative structure, there should be a cost advantage. • Management Options: There are several different possibility for managing the types of service improvements being considered: o Existing Agency: The services could be managed by an existing agency. There would need to be a person working for the operator who would be in charge of the Bowie service that Bowie’s representatives could communicate with and meet with regularly. o City Transit Division: Alternatively, Bowie could consider creating a transit division within the city that would contract for service with a private operator. Bowie would hire an individual as a city employee to manage the private operator, probably with an assistant for support. o Special Services Company: As another alternative, Bowie could set up a Special Service Company to oversee the public transportation system. This entity could potentially be either a private non-profit or a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). The company would contract for service with any of the available operators (WMATA, Prince George’s, CTC, or a private operator). The board of the company could include representatives of the various financial sponsors of the service. The City of Bowie might be represented, as well as any business or developer providing funding. Votes might be distributed proportional to the support each participating entity provides to the service. The company could be set up so that funding provided by partners are deductible business expenses. • Citizen Oversight: Bowie should appoint a citizens advisory committee (CAC) for the service. Members would be appointed by the various governing bodies of the community, including the City Council. Whichever operator is selected needs to have a mechanism to meet with the CAC. The CAC would meet quarterly with the operator to go over the service and performance. The CAC would also advise the City Council on the performance of the service.

Evaluation of Benefits and Costs Based on all of the factors that have been analyzed for the proposed service improvement options – ridership, operating costs, and several qualitative factors such as the complexity of the option – an evaluation of the relative benefits and costs or each option has been completed. The purpose of this evaluation is to allow the improvement options to be compared to each other, in order to identify which option or options may be worth pursuing further. In evaluating benefits and costs, four key evaluation criteria were identified. These criteria are described below: • Benefits to Bowie: This criterion represents the degree to which an improvement option benefits residents and workers in the City of Bowie. Ridership, and particularly ridership in Bowie, is the most significant factor, but other qualitative benefits such as greater mobility and improved access to jobs, shopping, and other key destinations are considered in this criterion as well. • Cost: This criterion is an indicator of the overall cost of the option, in terms of both capital costs (number of vehicles required) and net operating costs. • Local Control: This criterion represents the degree to which the City of Bowie could exert local control over the proposed improvement option. Since the degree of local control is shaped by which entity operates the service, an assumption has been made about who would operate each service; these assumptions are consistent with the assumptions used in developing the operating costs and revenue estimates. • Logistics/Complexity: This criterion is an indicator of the overall level of complexity of each option, in terms of the logistics involved and the amount of time that would likely be required to implement the option. The less complex the option, the shorter the lead time will be to implement it. Table 5-6 shows the results of the evaluation of the proposed improvement options, using the four evaluation criteria described above. Each option has been rated on a relative scale of Least Favorable, Neutral/Moderately Favorable, and Most Favorable.

Transit System Enhancement Study 52 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Table 5-6: Evaluation of Benefits and Costs of Improvement Options Benefits to Cost Local Logistics/ Improvement Option Bowie Control Complexity 1. Increase frequency/no change in route structure
 
2A. Increase frequency/minor changes in routes
 
2B. Same frequency/minor changes in routes 

3. Hub-and-circulator structure
   4. Demand-responsive service across Bowie     5. Links to Crofton/Laurel/Upper Marlboro/Greenbelt     Short-Term Option (Weekday afternoons/Saturdays) 



 
Legend Neutral/Moderately Least Favorable Most Favorable Favorable

The results of this evaluation indicate that Option 3 is the most favorable option overall for the City of Bowie to pursue. Assuming that Prince George’s County operates the proposed community circulators, Option 3 provides significant benefits to the City of Bowie in terms of ridership, improved mobility and access, and other benefits, at a reasonable cost, with a moderate degree of local control and moderate complexity. Other options, such as Option 1 and 2A, may provide greater ridership benefits, but they come at a significantly greater cost and, if operated by WMATA, would have a lesser degree of local control. The evaluation also suggests that Option 4 may be worthwhile to pursue in the longer term, as it produces moderate benefits at moderate costs, with a reasonable degree of local control and reasonable complexity. The Short-Term Option may be worthwhile to pursue in the immediate term if other options are not pursued, or until they are implemented. This option yields relatively small benefits in comparison to the other options, but it would benefit a specific segment of the Bowie population at reasonable costs, with good local control and moderate complexity.

Transit System Enhancement Study 53 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Transit System Enhancement Study 54 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

6. Funding Opportunities

This chapter identifies potential funding sources for improved transit services in the City of Bowie. This list of sources is not tied to any particular service recommendation, although certain service options imply specific funding sources (for example, option 2B involving minor changes to existing Metrobus routes implies that it would be funded the same way the existing routes are funded). Rather, this discussion is intended to identify the broad range of possible funding sources that may be relevant depending on which service option is pursued.

Potential Funding Sources

Funding sources for public transportation can be divided into four categories: • Federal • State • Local • Private sector

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) publishes a booklet entitled Getting on Board: A Guide to Statewide Transit Services that contains descriptions of all of the applicable state and federal funding programs. Some of the material below is drawn from that booklet.

Federal Sources Federal money for public transportation comes through two channels: metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) or state governments. Since Bowie is part of the Washington area MPO and thus part of a large metropolitan area, it could only qualify for funding through the MPO. There are three potential funding streams from the FTA for services in Bowie: • Section 5307 • Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) • Job Access/Reverse Commute (JARC)

For small metropolitan areas (below 200,000 population), section 5307 funds can be used for capital expenses or operating. Bowie would only be able to use 5307 money for capital, since it is part of a large metropolitan area. Section 5309 funding can also support capital purchases. Bowie would be able to participate in federal capital funding for buses. Such a request would have to be part of the MPO’s TIP/regional plan, but there is likely to be a wait in line for both the federal capital funds and any available matching funds from the state. As in most areas, a congressional earmark might be required to jumpstart this process.

The CMAQ and JARC programs could potentially support new service in Bowie, but these funds are typically spoken for years in advance. The case would need to be made to MTA that service in Bowie needs more urgent support than other competing services in Maryland. If Bowie had no existing service, it might be possible to argue this case, but given the current Metrobus routes, it is not clear an expansion of Bowie service would be considered a high priority for the state in order to reduce congestion or promote access to jobs.

State Sources

Beyond acting as a source for matching funds for federal programs, the Maryland Transit Administration has two programs that use state dollars to fund transit operations. The Statewide Special Transportation Assistance Program, or SSTAP, supports general-purpose transportation services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. MTA allocates these funds to the counties and Baltimore City based on a formula consisting of 60% equally among the jurisdictions and 40% based on the combined elderly and disabled population. There is a local share requirement of

Transit System Enhancement Study 55 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

25% for the net operating cost and 5% for capital projects. Some of Bowie’s buses used for senior transportation were purchased through the SSTAP program.

The second program is called Rural and Community Based (RCB) Services. This program is designed to assist locally operated transit systems experiment with new routes. Specific projects are funded on a four-year cycle. The funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative costs, and require a local match for 2nd (10%), 3rd (25%) and 4th (25%) year projects. The new circulator services in Bowie being proposed in this project would be appropriate for the RCB program, but there is a great deal of competition for these funds.

Local Sources

There are two potential sources for local funding of improved service in Bowie: Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie itself. The County currently spends about $11 million annually on the service it operates, called TheBus. This does not include county and state contributions toward Metrobus service that operates throughout the county. If the County decides that it would operate the new proposed circulators in the recommended plan, it would presumably use county funding to support those services. Funding that currently supports the Metrobus routes that are proposed to be scaled back could be redirected to the new circulators that would replace portions of the Metrobus routes. The City of Bowie already contributes money to the County through existing taxes, and so the ultimate source of some of those operational funds is Bowie residents and businesses.

Of course, the City of Bowie could decide to fund improved services directly out of the city budget. Given increased demands on the budget because of the new police force and other rising costs, it may be necessary to impose new fees or raise taxes on residents and/or businesses in order to generate the needed revenue.

Private Sources

Bowie could also look for private contributions to support improved transit. In particular, stores, shopping centers or other Bowie employers might sponsor buses to be “wrapped” in their logos. Or, businesses could be asked to help sponsor the system, with logos prominently displayed on the buses. Based on previous analysis done for southeast Connecticut, this revenue will probably cover only around 5% to 10% of the budget, unless businesses were willing to make a larger contribution than the value of the advertising.

The Eco-pass program in Colorado could be a model for Bowie. In this program, large employers or whole residential neighborhoods pay an annual fee to the transit operator, and then all employees or residents get to ride free. Businesses in centers served by the system might be asked to provide all their employees with yearly passes to eliminate auto-based lunch trips. There would have to be some negotiated amount for such a program

Some municipalities in fast-growing areas have imposed impact fees on developers or required them to provide operating assistance to transit operators as a traffic mitigation measure. The City of Bowie does not have the authority to impose such fees unilaterally, but it could do so in conjunction with the County and the MNCPPC.

Examples in Other Areas

The remainder of the memorandum provides examples from other areas around the country of ways that local transit systems are funded. Some of these methods may not be directly applicable for Bowie, but they provide useful background information.

MBTA Suburban Bus Program: The MBTA provides funding to communities, most of whom contract with private operators for service. This service is a variety of types (fixed route, paratransit) depending upon the community. This program has been in existence for thirty years and some operations are more successful than others. Success

Transit System Enhancement Study 56 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland depends upon the level of town oversight and interest. Without continued enthusiastic oversight, the services lose their general appeal and serve a reduced audience.

Broward County, Florida provides grants and vehicles to communities to operate local services. Broward directly operates transit services, but uses this program to handle local needs. Services vary depending upon the community and some are more successful than others.

An example of a city/region that contracts with a private operator for service is Middletown, CT . Middletown is legally a regional transit district, but functionally it is a city entity. The Mayor appoints the board, and the bulk of the service and funding come from the city (with important contributions from the state). Towns outside of Middletown also contract with the district for operations. There are three employees of the Transit District who oversee private contractors providing fixed route and paratransit services. The three employees handle finances, grants, policy issues, etc.

When it first began, the pulse fixed route service in Westport, CT was considered a very successful and innovative service. This was a town-run service instigated by one person, a school teacher. The service began with small Mercedes buses, so was highly regarded by this affluent community. After some problems with a private taxi operator, the service was taken over by Norwalk Transit District. It now consists of twelve 30-foot vehicles with upholstered seats. There is one fixed route between downtown and the Saugatuck station. There are also 4 circulation routes that take people from the community to the train station, and deliver people from the train station to local work sites. In the evening, the shuttles are at the train station to await the train. In addition, they have after- school shuttles that take high schoolers to downtown and to the YWCA and to religious schools. Parents demand that there be enough buses running so that school kids don’t have to stand.

Westport provides 20% of the operating cost or around $225,000 per year. The service has a 20% fare recovery ratio and the State pays the rest. The fare is $1.25. There is a Unipass Metro North uses which gives Westport users a half fare on the Westport bus service.

The Annapolis Department of Transportation (ADOT) provides transit and commuter solutions through three shuttle routes and a fixed-route system comprised of eleven routes. The Annapolis system was started in 1978 in response to the end of service by a private bus company that had previously served the city. The service started with two buses in 1978 and has grown to 28 buses currently providing over one million passenger trips per year. The service is directly operated by ADOT with City employees and City-owned vehicles. Vehicle storage and most vehicle maintenance is performed at City-owned facilities, and ADOT does its own planning and marketing for the service.

The City of Annapolis transit service was initially funded by substantial grant funding from the Federal government. However, the City has recently been faced with a reduction in available Federal funding because the City of Annapolis was re-classified into the Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the 2000 United Status Census. Previously it had been its own small statistical area, which allowed flexibility in the use of certain categories of Federal transit funding. The State of Maryland has helped make up some, but not all, of the shortfall, and other sources of funding will need to make up the remaining gap.

The City of Franklin, TN provides fixed-route transit service and flexible, route-deviation service to Franklin residents, workers and visitors. The service is provided by rubber-tired trolley vehicles operating on clean-burning bio fuel, and the trolleys serve Franklin’s historic downtown, schools, newer retail developments, and other key destinations. Service is provided on three routes on weekdays which operate on hourly headways from approximately 6AM to 6PM. On Saturdays, service is provided on one route operating on hourly headways from 9AM to 6PM. As a complement to these routes, Flexible Service is offered within ¾ mile of all fixed route stops. Passengers must call the Franklin Transit Authority FTA 24 hours in advance to make a Flexible Service reservation.

Transit service in the City of Franklin was initiated in May 2003 as the result of a strong partnership between the City of Franklin and the Transportation Management Association (TMA) Group, a public-partnership committed to

Transit System Enhancement Study 57 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland providing mobility options for Middle Tennesseans. The Franklin Transit Authority provided more than 90,000 fixed- route passenger trips and 10,000 Flexible Service trips between its May 2003 inception and September 2005. Average monthly ridership has grown from 2,600 trips in the first year of operation to over 4,300 trips during the summer of 2005. Franklin Transit Authority services are managed and operated by the TMA Group with a staff of 8 operators and 2 administrative personnel. The original operating funding for the service was approximately a 50% Federal, 25% State, and 25% local split; the state portion of the funding decreases over time. The TMA Group as a whole is jointly funded by Williamson County Government and the City of Franklin using Surface Transportation Program Funds and Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, with matching money from private sector members.

The Town of Norwood, MA provides taxi fare financial assistance through a joint program called Transfare that is partly funded by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Norwood residents over 60 years of age, and those with disabilities, are eligible. The Town handles pre-registration of all applicants, and assists the elderly and disabled in obtaining their transportation tickets. Tickets are 5 to a book, with a $3 value per ticket. Books cost $5, and there is a maximum of 4 books per month.

Lessons Learned

To be successful, there must a local advocate that pushes to get the service implemented. To last, the service should fit into an existing operating structure so there is organizational stability (totally new organizations can be fragile). To be innovative, with good communications within a community, there needs to be a communicator at the helm with influence over the service.

Transit System Enhancement Study 58 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

7. Recommendations and Next Steps

This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations from the Bowie Transit System Enhancement Study, as well as a summary of recommended next steps. The recommendations in this chapter were developed based on the findings of the earlier analyses in the study and were presented in preliminary form at a Bowie City Council work session in October 2006. Based on feedback received at this work session, the recommendations were modified to create the final set of recommendations in this chapter.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following is a summary of key conclusions and recommendations developing in the Bowie Transit System Enhancement Study:

• The City should pursue the implementation of Improvement Option 3 (changing the system to a hub-and- circulator structure) by partnering with Prince George’s County as the operator of the new circulators and continuing to work with WMATA as the operator of the connections between the hubs and the Metrorail system. This plan would need to be incorporated into the County’s Five Year Transit Plan.

• In the short term or as a fall-back, the City should supplement current service with the City-owned buses that are currently used to provide the City’s Senior Transportation Services, or pursue Improvement Option 2B (minor changes to existing Metrobus routes with the same service frequency as at present).

• Another option that could be implemented fairly quickly to meet a portion of the transportation demand identified in this study would be the establishment of a taxi user-side subsidy program, similar to the Prince George’s County Call-A-Cab program, for all City of Bowie residents. This program could be administered by the City or possibly through a partnership with Prince George’s County.

• In the longer term, the City should work with Prince George’s County or the Corridor Transportation Corporation (CTC) to implement Improvement Option 4 (demand-responsive service) and Improvement Option 5 (cross-county transit connections). These connections should be implemented on an incremental basis (one route at a time).

• The City should explore the potential for the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies to improve the quality of transit information provided to riders in Bowie, particularly the possibility of providing real-time information about bus locations and arrival times.

• The City should explore the potential for establishing public-private partnerships to help provide improved transit services to residents, workers, students, shoppers, and visitors in Bowie. The examples discussed in Chapter 6 of this report, such as the Eco-pass program in Colorado or the recently-established service in Franklin, Tennessee can offer insights into how such partnerships could be established and benefit service in the City of Bowie.

Transit System Enhancement Study 59 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland

Next Steps

The following is a summary of recommended next steps in the process of enhancing the transit system in the City of Bowie:

• The City should begin discussions with Prince George’s County regarding potential opportunities to work together to implement community circulators or other enhanced services in Bowie. If the County is amenable to this plan, it will be incorporated into the Five Year Transit Plan. Alternatively, if the County does not wish to proceed with this option, it could work with WMATA to implement the minor service changes included in Option 2B.

• In the short term, or if the County will not pursue service improvements within the next Five Year Plan, the City may wish to pursue a more scaled-back approach using City vehicles to provide service on weekday afternoons and Saturdays. A separate operations analysis would be needed to determine the logistics of such a service including operating rules, staffing requirements, and operating costs.

• The City may also wish to pursue the establishment of a taxi user-side subsidy program open to all Bowie residents. Further analysis would be required to determine the likely demand for such a service, the best subsidy mechanism, the logistics of user registration, operating costs, and funding arrangements.

• The City should consider funding a study of opportunities to enhance the transit system in the City using ITS technologies. Such a study could address needs and opportunities, types of technologies available, possible implementation strategies, and the costs of potential improvements.

• The City may wish to engage the Bowie business community in discussions about the importance of transit to economic competitiveness in the City and the possibility of establishing public-private partnerships to improve transit services in Bowie.

Transit System Enhancement Study 60 Final Report City of Bowie, Maryland