DOCSLIB.ORG

State Highway Administration Maryland Department of Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Highway Administration Maryland Department of Transportation \, \s\ State Highway Administration Maryland Department of Transportation Karl L Hess Highway Information Services Division 707 North Calvert Street, Baitmre, MD 21202 410-333-1310 IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! FOR- A.M. DATE. TIME .P.M. WHILE YOU WERE OUT M OQ^ OF. ,' PHONE NO. J\ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLED TO SEE YOU WfLL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL MESSAGE. / X SIGNED. J L1-A2334 PRINTED IN US A The Howard County Times 6-17-93 Route 94 gets a name change Betsy Stfeff in the county's Bureau of Communica-; A road by any other name ... tions. The fire was actually on Route) may not cause as many prob- 94 just two miles from the station, butj lems. the fire engines were dispatched to the! After a near disaster last April, it other Florence Road, passing the actual looks like Route 94 in western Howard site on the way. : County is going to get a name change. "It was almost 30 minutes before the'' If the county Planning Board approves, engines got to the right location,"t the rural highway will be renamed Jordan said. "Thankfully, the situation Woodbine Road from Route 26 in turned out to be minor, but it could' 5 Carroll County all the way to the have been serious." si, Montgomery County line. In May, Jordan wrote a letter'to the The problem is not that the road State Highway Administration, which •1 currently changes names three times in agreed to support the name change: Howard County — from Woodbine to The county's Fire Prevention Bureau ii Florence to Ellicott Road — but that also lobbying for the change. ; the county also has a Florence Road "This is going to be quite irritating with duplicate house numbers. The two to a tot of people ... but we are trying roads actually cross at one point. to make it as safe as we can," said Lt; After years of confusion, the prob- Ken Byerly of the Fire Prevention lem came to a head on April 8 when a Bureau. report came in to the Lisbon Volunteer TTie Planning Board is holding a Fire Company that there was a fumace public hearing on the change Aug. 5 at fire at 2822 Florence Road, according 10:30 a.m. in the Ellicott Room of the I to Richard Jordan, computer specialist George Howard Building. ~J .oward County Subject: street Renaming - Planning Board Approval Internal^A^n^O^nuUm MD Route 94 (Florence RoadJEllicott Road) to Woodbine ^JttvJElVjPO To: DPW, Traffic Engineering, C. Edward Walter ^ DPW, Bureau of Highways, Andrew Daneker DPW, Real Estate Services, Tina Hackett bJGHWAY INFORM DPW, UtiUty Design/Engineering - Don Lieu SERVICES DIVISION0'* DPW, Bureau of Udlities, Montgomery Road - Robert Beringer DILP, Building Permits DILP, Inspections and Enforcement, Inspections Service Center - Brenda Hill DPZ, Graphics - Mike White DPZ, Division of Land Development and Research - Lenny Sheubrooks FinanceAVater Billing - Charlotte Cavey Tax Assessments Central Communications - Dick Jordan Department of Fire and Rescue Services - Ken Byerly Health Department Board of Education - Bill Grau State Highway Administration - Hal Kassoff C&P Telephone BG&E Lisbon/Woodbine Post Office 0 ( /) %£ J From: Richard Blood, Acting Chief /4. ^^ ^-^^ Division of Land Development and Research Date: August 20, 1993 The purpose of this memo is to inform you that on August 5, 1993 the Howard County Planning Board granted approval for the renaming of a segment of MD Route 94, also known as Florence Road and Ellicott Road, to Woodbine Road. Tne segment of MD Route 94 that was renamed is located between Old Frederick Road and the Montgomery County line, as shown on the attached vicinity map. This street renaming will now establish one continuous road name for MD Route 94 throughout Howard County. The residents street address numbers will remain the same except for the road name change (see attached list). If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Cindy DelZoppo at 313-2354. EJH/CD/cs/woodbine.mem Attachment %?'<*• 's •i<, SOBRINf !/^f/<0 FARMS i/Q VO "WUTESI 1 /P-Jl t^f*-.. ^V i ? JL|. \\ K^W^ CHARLES COUNTY The Maryland Indpendent 9-17-93 SHA will provide new highway signs Charles/•u^^iiit County/^mmtv officialsnffn'ials in a letter from SHA Administrator Hal Kas- By SHANE ARTIM soff last week. lna«pono«nlSl»nwnl«r One aspect of the pending SHA i. —" policy, said administration State Highway Administration spokesman John Healy, will in- officials have pledged to post new volve placing signs before an in- road signs at critical locations in tersection to notify motorists of the county by the end of Septem- the names of the upcoming roads, ber, as part of the countywide re- rather than just those with state addressing for enhanced 911 dis- route numbers. patching of police, fire and emer- "We have a pretty large list of gency services. signs and all have to be hand-let- As far as installing new signs at tered," added Healy, as the other less critical points in the county, reason for the delay in the policy. though, state highway officials County officials, though, are say those locations will have to providing the SHA with some input wait until development of a regarding where new road signs statewide policy this fall. are of critical importance and The SHA's plan was detailed to See Signs, All Signs. C6nf d from A-1 bacco Road (Route 6), for in- should be installed first. and Cobb Island, Boswell said, new road signs where the names stance, Route 425 will be named "The list (of critical sigris) was have changed have been installed. Mason Springs and Ironsides reduced," said Assistant County Boswell noted, for example, that Road and Route 344 will become Administrator Paul Wright of the under the new 911 addressing, Gilroy Road. "critical" list the county for- Route 6 west of U.S. 301 in La warded to the highway adminis- Plata will be changed to Port To- Later, with ' development of tration. bacco Road. East of U.S. 301, the SHA policy, ior example, new The list of signs to be installed Route 6 in La Plata will be road signs will be placed along first nears 90 road signs in the changed to Charles Street. Port Tobacco Road (Route 6) at county along intersections of The county also installs new Quailwood Parkway, Valley Road, state-maintained roads and major road signs on private drives with Chapel Point Road, Rose Hill county roads. more than three homes that have Road and Poseytown Road. been addressed in the new en- The list signs along state roads hanced system. Along Indian Head Highway demoted to less-critical impor- (Route 210), (or example, new tance numbers about 75, and will Two of the critical sign changes by the end of September will be road signs will be placed at the in- be installed by the SHA when it de- changing the signs at the intersec- velops its statewide policy. tersections at Chapmans Landing tion of Route 210 and Route 225 to Road and Glymont Road. According to Sheila Boswell, the read the intersection of Indian county 911 enhancement coordina- Head Highway (Route 210) and The county is required to com- tor, county crews are installing Hawthorne Road (Route 225). plete its 911 enhanced addressing new county road signs roughly Route 224 will be changed to Liv- by 1995. So far, county officials three weeks after residents of an ingston Road. say, roughly 40 percent of the area that has been readdressed county is complete. have been informed. In Bel Alton At intersections along Port To- CHARLES COUNTY The Maryland Indpendent 9-17-93 SHA will provide new highway signs Charles,.i i r'^ontir County officialsnffi/MalQ in a letter from SHA Administrator Hal Kas- By SHANE ARTIM soff last week. maeponaent Suit Wnt«r One aspect of the pending SHA policy, said administration State Highway Administration spokesman John Healy, will in- officials have pledged to post new volve placing signs before an in- road signs at critical locations in tersection to notify motorists of the county by the end of Septem- the names of the upcoming roads, ber, as part of the countywide re- rather than just those with state addressing for enhanced 911 dis- route numbers. patching of police, fire and emer- "We have a pretty large list of gency services. signs and all have to be hand-let- As far as installing new signs at tered," added Healy, as the other less critical points in the county, reason for the delay in the policy. though, state highway officials County officials, though, are say those locations will have to providing the SHA with some input wait until development of a regarding where new road signs statewide policy this fall. are of critical importance and The SHA's plan was detailed to See Signs, A-ll Signs. Cbnf d from A 1 bacco Road (Route 6), for In- should be installed first. and Cobb Island, Boswell said, new road signs where the names stance, Route 425 will be named "The list (of critical sigrts) was have changed have been installed. Mason Springs and Ironsi-e» reduced," said Assistant County Boswell noted, for example, that Road and Route 344 will become Administrator Paul Wright of the under the new 911 addressing. Gilroy Road. "critical" list the county for- Route 6 west of U.S. 301 in La warded to the highway adminis- Plata will be changed to Port To- Later, with the development of tration. bacco Road. East of U.S. 301, the SHA policy, for example, new The list of signs to be installed Route 6 in La Plata will be road signs will be placed along first nears 90 road signs in the changed to Charles Street.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historic Preservation Commission
    DATE: September 9, 2019 TO: Historic Preservation Commission VIA: Howard S. Berger, Supervisor Historic Preservation Section, Countywide Planning Division FROM: Thomas W. Gross, Planner Coordinator Historic Preservation Section, Countywide Planning Division RE: Evaluation for Historic Site Designation: Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation Historic Resource Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railway Bridge MIHP Number 71A-006 Address 8200 bl. Laurel Bowie Road, Bowie, MD 20715 Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Owners (Parcel 14); Adrian J. Rad and Aviva S. Nebesky (Parcel 1) Parcel 1 and that portion of Parcel 14 bounded on the east by Laurel Bowie Road and on the west by a line drawn from the Environmental Setting southernmost point of the western portion of Parcel 1 to the westernmost point of the eastern portion of Parcel 1 Description Map 29, Grid E3, Parcel 14 and Map 29, Grid D3, Parcel 1 Procedural Background September 1974 Survey and documentation of the property initially completed by Michael F. Dwyer. July 1981 Resource included in the Prince George’s County Historic Sites and Districts Plan. September 1985 Survey and documentation updated by Susan G. Pearl January 2008 Survey and documentation updated by EHT Traceries, Inc. August 29, 2019 The property was posted “at least 14 days in advance,” according to the provisions of the Prince George’s County Historic Preservation Ordinance (Subtitle 29-118) and the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance (Subtitle 27-125.03). Evidence of sign posting and written notice to the property owner are attached. August 30, 2019 The property owner, the adjacent property owners, and other interested parties were mailed written notice of the time, date, and location of the public hearing on the application.
    [Show full text]
  • Landover Alternative
    6.0 Landover Alternative Chapter 6 describes existing conditions of the Figure 6- 1: Landover Conceptual Site Plan affected environment and identifies the environmental consequences associated with the consolidation of the FBI HQ at the Landover site. A detailed description of ¨¦§495 the methodologies employed to evaluate impacts for BRIGHTSEAT ROAD ¨¦§95 each resource and the relevant regulatory framework is given in chapter 3, Methodology. The Landover site consists of approximately 80 acres of vacant land located near the intersection of Brightseat Road and Landover Road in Prince George’s County, Maryland. It is bound on the north by Evarts Street, on the east by the Capital Beltway, on the south by Landover Road, and on the west by TRUCK & EVARTS STREET SECONDARY Brightseat Road. Previously, the site was home to the TRUCK VEHICULAR SCREENING GATE Landover Mall, which operated between 1972 and REMOTE DELIVERY 2002. As of December 2014, all facilities associated FACILITY with Landover Mall have been demolished, and only STANDBY SUBSTATION GENERATORS the surface parking lot and retaining walls remain MAIN LANDOVER ROAD VEHICULAR GATE CENTRAL UTILITY WOODMORE TOWNE CENTRE on-site. Commercial uses in proximity to the site (EXIT ONLY) PLANT MAPLE RIDGE include Woodmore Towne Centre, located across the EMPLOYEE Capital Beltway (Interstate [I]-95) to the east, and the APARTMENTS PARKING Arena Plaza Shopping Center. South of Landover VISITOR CENTER Road. West of the site along Brightseat Road is the VISITOR PARKING 202 Maple Ridge apartment complex, while H.P. Johnson Park, additional apartment and single-family residential communities are located north of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2017-2018
    EXCELLENCEANNUAL REPORT 2017–2018 IMPACT SUCCESS MESSAGE ANNUAL REPORT 2017–2018 PRESIDENT’S 2019–2021 Strategic Plan ....................................4 PATHWAYS Culinary Arts Center Opening ....................5 Prince George’s Community College now offers 10 academic Lanham Hall Opening ................................................6 pathways to degrees, certificates, Extension Centers ........................................................20 licensures, workforce trainings, and professional development. Financial Reports .......................................................... 28 Page 11 PGCC Foundation ..........................................................30 Grants ................................................................................................ 32 Donors .............................................................................................. 34 FRONT COVER Drs. Anthony T. Fulton and Thomisha M. Duru are two of the many faculty featured throughout the college in recognition of the great value and talent of our vast array of educators. MESSAGE PRESIDENT’S Prince George’s Community Their hard work and College (PGCC) had an exemplary dedication continue to receive year and set the tone for how the college honorable recognition, including receiving intends to support student success and address the highest rating on the Maryland State the region’s most pertinent needs. Thanks to the Department of Education 2018–2019 Maryland School leadership and collaborative efforts of our Board of Trustees, Report Card.
    [Show full text]
  • Crownsville Small Area Plan
    Crownsville Small Area Plan Adopted May 15, 2000 by Council Bill 22-00 County Executive Janet Owens County Council Daniel E. Klosterman, Chair A. Shirley Murphy, Vice Chair Pamela Beidle Bill D. Burlison John J. Klocko, III Barbara D. Samorajczyk Cathleen M. Vitale Crownsville Small Area Plan Table of Contents Introduction...................................................................................... 1 Vision...............................................................................................5 Concept Plan ....................................................................................6 Plan Highlights .............................................................................. 10 Community History .................................................................... 13 Demographics................................................................................ 16 Economic Development. ................................................................ 17 Land Use and Zoning .....................................................................23 Natural and Historic Resources ......................................................39 Transportation................................................................................45 Public Utilities ...............................................................................52 Community Facilities ....................................................................55 Community Design ........................................................................61 Glossary.........................................................................................73
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
    BEFORE THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER NO. 367 IN THE MATTER OF: Served June 17, 1964 Applications for Certificates ) of Public Convenience and ) Necessity by: ) ) • D. C. Transit System, Inc. ) Application No. 64 Washington, D. C. ) ) Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington ) Application No. 43 Transit Company ) Alexandria, Virginia ) ) Washington, Virginia and Maryland ) Application No. 60 Coach Company, Inc. ) Arlington, Virginia ) ) W M A Transit Company ) Application No. 23 Bradbury Heights, Maryland ) ) The Gray Line, Inc. ) Application No. 65 Washington, D. C. ) APPEARANCES: As shown in the Conference Report attached hereto and made a part hereof. Applications for certificates of public convenience and neces- sity authorizing continuance of operations being conducted on the ef- fective date of the Compact and on the effective date of the Compact as amended, pursuant to Section 4(a), Article XII, Title II, of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact (grandfather clause) were timely filed by D. C. Transit System, Inc.; Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company; Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, Inc.; W M A Transit Company; and The Gray Line, Inc. Public notice of these applications was duly given and every interested party was afforded every opportunity to present its views to the Commission in the disposition of these applications. Under the Compact, no formal hearings are required in disposing of these applications. However, as noted in the attached Conference Report, numerous informal discussions and conferences were held between the Staff of the Commission and all parties of record con- cerning the issues involved. The only issues involved were whether or not the applications were timely filed and whether or not the applicants were bona fide engaged in transportation subject to this Act for which authority was sought.
    [Show full text]
  • ORDER NO. 975 Petition of B. Michael Roll, ) Docket No. 202 Mayor
    WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER NO. 975 IN THE MATTER OF: Served S eptember _:11, 1969 Petition of B. Michael Roll, ) Docket No. 202 Mayor, City of District Heights, ) Prince George ' s County , Maryland ) to Terminate WMA Transit Company ) Routes B and V at Kipling Parkway ) and Marbury Drive. Order No. 674 of this Commission, effective February 13, 1967, authorized WMA Transit Company (WMA) to extend, in District Heights , Maryland, Routes B and V: From junction of Mason Street and Kipling Parkway, orvr Xipl hg Parkway , Glendora Dfl1e- Kipling Parkway to Mason Street and return over . the same routs. Petitioner , in his official capacity, submitted Informal Complaint No. 1937 on June 5, 1969 , claiming that Glendora Drive is too narrow to accommodate bus traffic. A public hearing was held on July 1, 1969. The petitioner stated that although there had been no objection to the original institution of the Glendora Drive extension , soon after operation commenced both his office and the police department received complaints concerning it. Testimony was adduced from a member of the District Heights Police Department that at times buses are unable to proceed around a particular turn on Glendora Drive and the police have had to tow legally parked cars to enable the bus to proceed. The Commission staff studied the route in question. The staff found that the northwestern corner of Glendora Drive is too narrow for buses to pass when cars are parked on both sides of the street . It also determined that beyond the junction of Kipling Street and Marbury Drive there are no streets on which a loop or turn -around could be made by a full-size bus.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Review Policies Draft.Pdf
    City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie, Maryland 20716 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT: Development Review Policies DATE: January 14, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________ The current Development Review Guidelines and Policies document was approved by City Council on November 6, 2017 via Resolution R-65-17. City Council agreed to have City staff update the policies to assist the City’s review of the Bowie, Mitchellville and Vicinity Area Master Plan, which is now being prepared and will be released this summer. Staff conducted three public review sessions with City Council on September 8, September 21 and November 2, 2020. An updated “Draft for Public Comment” version, as well as a Track Changes version of the revised policies, were posted on the City website. No comments were received prior to the December 31st deadline; however, staff received informal positive feedback regarding the proposed revisions from Environmental Advisory Committee members and the Multimodal and Public Spaces (MAPS) subgroup of the Bowie Green Team. On January 13th, the City’s Planning Director gave a presentation on the changes to the Economic Development Committee. A City Council public hearing is scheduled for Monday night. At the meeting, the Planning Director will review the staff recommended changes to the policy elements, which include: Land Use; Economic Prosperity; Transportation; the Environment; Housing and Neighborhoods; Community Heritage, Culture and Design; and, Public Facilities. The recommended Council policies are attached. Specific revisions requested by Council are addressed by staff, as follows: 1. Downzone all the Jesuit Property, take it out of the Established Community and put it into the Rural Area.
    [Show full text]
  • News and Notes From
    News and Notes from THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY January 1979 Vol. VII, No. 1. The Meeting Schedule There will be no meetings of the Society in January or February. The regular meeting schedule will be resumed in March. Nominations for St. George's Day Awards Each year at the annual St. George's Day Dinner the Society presents the St. George's Day awards to individuals and organizations who have made significant contributions to the preservation of cur county's heritage. Since the awards program was initiated in 1974, 39 awards have been presented. We now solicit nominations from the membership for the 1979 awards. Please contact any officer of the Society with your nomination, or write to Paul Lanham, Awards chairman, 3115 Holland Cliff Road, Huntingtown, Maryland 20639. Deadline for nominations is March 1. Note of Thanks The officers of the Prince George's County Historical Society, on behalf of all those who attended, wish to thank the many members and friends who assisted at the annual Christmas Party, and those who brought foods. We would also like to recognize the following persons who spent a great deal -f time, both before and after the event, helping: Joan Speicher, Forrest Bowie, Margaret Fisher, Edith Bagot, Herb Embrey Ted Bissell, Alan Virta, Louise Tatspaugh, Carl Flynn, and Helen Reed. Historical Markers Report Bill Aleshire, a member of the Society's Historical Markers Committee, reports that a dedication ceremony was held on November 4, for the historical marker at Sacred Heart Chapel, one of the cradles of American Catholicism.
    [Show full text]
  • View Resolution
    PGCPB No. 15-68 File No. CSP-03006-02 R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Prince George’s County Planning Board is charged with the approval of Conceptual Site Plans pursuant to Part 3, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Prince George’s County Code; and WHEREAS, in consideration of evidence presented at a public hearing on July 2, 2015, regarding a revision to the Conceptual Site Plan for Woodmore Towne Centre at Glenarden, the Planning Board finds: 1. Request: Relocate the hotel and conference center from Pod B to Pod E, relocate the multifamily from Pod D to Pod B, and add an institutional use to Pod E. 2. Development Data Summary: EXISTING APPROVED Zone(s) M-X-T M-X-T Use(s) Hotel and, conference center, Hotel and, conference center, multifamily residential, multifamily residential, commercial commercial and institutional Total Dwelling Units 900–1,100* 900–1,100 Commercial\ Retail 400,000–1 million sq. ft. 400,000–1 million sq. ft. Commercial Office 550,000–1 million sq. ft. 550,000–1 million sq. ft. Institutional Use None Up to 500,000 sq. ft. Acreage 244.63 244.63 100 -year floodplain 12.92 12.92 Net Tract Area 231.71 231.71 *NOTE: Preliminary Plan of Subdivision 4-06016 authorized 1,079 residential units. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the M-X-T Zone Base Density Allowed 0.40 FAR Residential 1.00 FAR Total FAR Permitted 1.40 FAR Total FAR Proposed 0.38 FAR PGCPB No.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Review Policies.Pdf
    City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie, Maryland 20716 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT: Development Review Policies DATE: February 11, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________ On February 1st, City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed revision to the current Development Review Guidelines and Policies document. After hearing testimony from six interested parties, Council directed staff to make further revisions and return the document for further consideration by Council. The additional revisions requested by City Council are shown in Track Changes on the attached draft, identified as “Draft With February 1 City Council Revisions”. Upon approval by Council, a Resolution will be prepared endorsing the revised policies for final action on an upcoming Consent Agenda. In addition, staff previously provided a draft letter to the Maryland State Highway Administration asking for a re-examination of the road improvement plans for Maryland Route 450 in the Bowie Mainstreet area. The letter was not discussed at the February 1st City Council meeting. A copy of the proposed letter is attached for your review and concurrence. Recommendation Staff recommends Council APPROVE the attached Development Review Policies revision identified as “Draft With February 1 City Council Revisions" and further recommends that Council approve the attached draft letter to State Highway Administrator Tim Smith. Attachments MAYOR Timothy J. Adams MAYOR PRO TEM Adrian Boafo COUNCIL Michael P. Esteve • Henri Gardner • Ingrid S. Harrison • Roxy Ndebumadu • Dufour Woolfley CITY MANAGER Alfred D. Lott City Hall (301) 262-6200 FAX (301) 809-2302 TDD (301) 262-5013 WEB www.cityofbowie.org Bowie Mainstreet Draft Letter to SHA D R A F T February _____, 2021 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of WMA Transit ) Application No
    BEFORE THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER NO. 570 IN THE MATTER OF: Served February 17, 1966 Application of WMA Transit ) Application No. 348 Company to Reroute its Route ) R and Add Route R Express. ) Docket No. 106 By Application No. 348, dated October 20 , 1965, WMA Transit Company requested authority to revise its existing Route R and estab- lish an Express Route R between Greenbelt , Maryland and Washington, D. C., as follows: filar Route From Washington , D. C., over city streets to Eastern Avenue, thence over Maryland Route 201, Calvert Road, Edmonston Road, Springhill Drive, Springhill Terrace, Springhill Lane, Breezewood Drive, Edmonston Road, Maryland Route 193, Maryland Route 201, Crescent Drive, Hillside Road, Laurel Hill Road, Ridge Road, South Way, and Crescent Drive to Maryland Route 201 and return over same route. From junction of Ridge Road and South Way, over Mary- land Route 193 to Goddard Space Flight Center and re- turn over same route. Express Route From Washington, D. C., over city streets to the Baltimore-Washington parkway, thence over Baltimore- Washington Parkway, South Way, Crescent Drive, Mary- land Route 201, Maryland Route 193, Edmonston Road, Springhill Drive, Springhill Terrace, Springhill Lane, Breezewood Drive, Maryland Route 193, Baltimore- Washington Parkway to Washington, D. C., and thence over city streets to terminal. By Orders Nos. 543 and 560, a public hearing was ordered. Notice of the application and hearing thereon was in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Commission. A public hearing on the application was held on February 14, 1966. There were no protests to the application and no one appeared in opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • System, Inc., WMA Transit Company ) and WV & M. Coach Company. On
    WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER NO. 829 IN THE MATTER OF: Served June 18, 1968 Service Improvements by A. B. & W.) Docket No. 179 Transit Company, D. C. Transit ) System, Inc., WMA Transit Company ) and W. V. & M. Coach Company. On December 6, 1967, each of the regular route certi- ficated carriers under the jurisdiction of this Commission was directed to submit a report dealing with these specific problems: 1. Service to the newly expanded Southwest employment area 2. Transportation to suburban job opportunities 3. Circumferential routes between suburban areas D. C. Transit System, Inc., was additionally ordered to report upon the need for improvements in its route structure within the District of Columbia. The directive to the carriers carried a deadline date of January 15, 1968. Reports were filed by all carriers on that date. It would be well, at the outset, to summarize briefly these reports. SUMMARY OF REPORTS FROM THE CARRIERS A. B. & W. Transit Company 1. Southwest This carrier reported that it has seven routes serv- ing the Southwest employment area and, after studying the re- sults of a very recent survey of employees who will be moving to that area this summer, has applied to this commission for a route extension so that its Route No. 7 from Lincolnia can be brought closer into the area of the HUD building. 2. Suburban Jobs The management of A. B. & W., limiting itself to the already existing travel patterns , appears satisfied that it is rendering a good and sufficient service between the central business district of Washington and the sub- urban areas which it serves to and beyond Alexandria.
    [Show full text]