DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Service Coordination Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transit Service Coordination Report Transit Service Coordination Report May 2020 i The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration would like to acknowledge the work of the following individuals and agencies who contributed to the development of this Report by identifying potential opportunities for transit as part of the I-495 & I-270 Public Private Partnership Program. These individuals brought diverse perspectives and technical expertise and provided significant input to its development. Transit Work Group Participants Carrie Anderson-Watters, TransIT Services, Frederick County, Maryland Holly Arnold, MDOT Maryland Transit Administration, Baltimore, Maryland Terry Bellamy, Department of Public Works and Transportation, Prince George’s County, Maryland Ron Burns, Department of Development Review and Planning, Frederick County, Maryland Zack Chissell, MDOT Maryland Transit Administration, Baltimore, Maryland Chris Conklin, Department of Transportation, Montgomery County, Maryland David Cookson, Office of Transportation, Howard County, Maryland Gary Erenrich, Department of Transportation, Montgomery County, Maryland Lyn Erickson, Department of Transportation Planning, MWCOG, Washington DC Anthony Foster, Department of Public Works and Transportation, Prince George’s County, Maryland Bruce Gartner, Office of Transportation, Howard County, Maryland Jason Groth, Department of Planning and Growth Management, Charles County, Maryland Martin Harris, Department of Public Works and Transportation, Prince George’s County, Maryland Dan Hibbert, Ride On, Department of Transportation, Montgomery County, Maryland Daniel Koenig, Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC Ryan Long, Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC Phil Mclaughlin, Department of Transportation, Montgomery County, Maryland Heather Murphy, Office of Planning and Capital Programming, MDOT, Hanover, Maryland Tim Norris, MDOT Maryland Transit Administration, Baltimore, Maryland Jitesh Parikh, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC Keilyn Perez, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC Kevin Quinn, MDOT Maryland Transit Administration, Baltimore, Maryland Ramond Robinson, Office of Transportation, Anne Arundel County, Maryland Charlie Scott, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington DC Roman Steichen, TransIT Services, Frederick County, Maryland Martha Arzu, Office of Transportation, Anne Arundel County, Maryland Dusan Vuksan, Department of Transportation Planning, MWCOG, Washington DC Alex Waltz, Department of Planning and Growth Management, Charles County, Maryland Paul Wiedefeld, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington DC ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... VI LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... VII ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ VIII SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4 2.1 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Collaboration .................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Existing and Planned Transit Services .............................................................................. 5 2.4 Benefits for Existing Service ............................................................................................. 7 2.5 Modification of Existing Service ....................................................................................... 8 2.6 Transit Markets and Service Opportunities ..................................................................... 8 SECTION 3: MARYLAND TRANSIT PROGRAMS AND FUNDING ......................................... 10 3.1 Transit Programs in the Study Area ............................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Frederick County ..................................................................................................... 10 3.1.2 Montgomery County ............................................................................................... 10 3.1.3 Prince George’s County .......................................................................................... 10 3.1.4 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ................................................. 10 3.1.5 MDOT MTA ............................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Funding ........................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.1 State and Federal Subsidies .................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Local General Funding and Special Transit Taxes ................................................... 12 SECTION 4: TRANSIT MARKET ANALYSIS......................................................................... 14 4.1 Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................... 14 4.1.1 I-270 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................. 14 4.1.2 I-495 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................. 17 4.1.3 Connecting Express Transit Services ....................................................................... 18 4.2 Planned Transit Services ................................................................................................ 20 4.2.1 MDOT MTA Purple Line .......................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 WMATA Silver Line .................................................................................................. 21 4.2.3 MARC Brunswick Line Capacity Improvements ...................................................... 22 iii 4.2.4 Montgomery County BRT Corridors ....................................................................... 23 4.2.5 Corridor Cities Transitway....................................................................................... 23 4.2.6 Tysons Corner to Bethesda Metrobus Service ....................................................... 23 4.3 Regional Population and Employment Projections ....................................................... 24 4.3.1 Regional Population .................................................................................................... 24 4.3.2 Regional Employment ................................................................................................. 26 4.4 Transit Market ................................................................................................................... 28 4.4.1 Rockville Commuting .................................................................................................. 31 4.4.2 Bethesda Commuting ................................................................................................. 32 4.4.3 Silver Spring Commuting............................................................................................. 33 4.4.4 College Park Commuting ............................................................................................ 34 4.4.5 New Carrollton Commuting ........................................................................................ 35 4.4.6 Largo Commuting........................................................................................................ 36 SECTION 5: TRANSIT ACCESS POINTS .............................................................................. 37 5.1 Overall Managed Lanes Concept ................................................................................... 37 5.2 Types of Managed Lanes Access .................................................................................... 38 5.3 Transit Station Access from Managed Lanes ................................................................. 39 5.4 Managed Lanes Access Observations ............................................................................ 40 SECTION 6: POTENTIAL NEW OR MODIFIED TRANSIT SERVICE CONCEPTS ....................... 42 6.1 Early Input ...................................................................................................................... 43 6.1.1 Montgomery County ............................................................................................... 43 6.1.2 Prince George’s County .......................................................................................... 45 6.1.3 Frederick County ..................................................................................................... 45 6.1.4 Charles County ........................................................................................................ 46 6.1.5 Anne Arundel County .............................................................................................. 46 6.1.6 Howard County ....................................................................................................... 46 6.1.7 MDOT MTA MARC and Commuter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Corridor Revitalization Phase 2 Report
    ROUTE 1 Introduction CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION STUDY Envisioning the Future PHASE 2 REPORT Improving Transportation July 12, 2002 Addressing Environmental Quality Fostering Community Well-Being PRESENTED BY Route 1 Corridor Task Force Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning Next Steps Table of Contents Introduction INTRODUCTION ...................................1 STUDY PURPOSE AND APPROACH ......................1 Study Phasing ................................1 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .........................2 Citizen Workshops..............................2 PHASE 1 REPORT................................2 Promoting the Positive............................3 Transforming the Negative .........................3 Setting the Stage for Revitalization .....................3 Improving Transportation ..........................3 Enhancing Route 1 Appearance.......................3 Addressing the Needs of Youth .......................3 NORTH LAUREL CONCEPT PLAN .......................4 PHASE 2 REPORT ORGANIZATION ......................5 Envisioning the Future Phase 2 Report Topics ...........................5 ENVISIONING THE FUTURE.............................7 INTRODUCTION .................................7 CURRENT LAND USE PATTERN AND TRENDS ................7 Current Residential Land Use Patterns and Trends .............7 Current Commercial Land Use Patterns and Trends ............8 Current Industrial Land Use Patterns and Trends ..............8 LAND USE POLICIES ..............................9 Land Use Policy Goals ...........................9
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution #20-9
    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • MDOT MTA Purple Line Celebrates Winners of Elementary School Art Contest First-Place Selections to Be Displayed on Banners Along 16-Mile Purple Line Corridor
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACTS: Gary Witherspoon Brittany Marshall Office: 240-825-4629 Office: 410-767-8367 Cell: 443-801-4318 Cell: 443-970-0424 [email protected] [email protected] MDOT MTA Purple Line Celebrates Winners of Elementary School Art Contest First-Place Selections to be Displayed on Banners Along 16-Mile Purple Line Corridor RIVERDALE, MD (January 21, 2020) – Students from four elementary schools who turned images of the Purple Line rail project into award-winning art will have their work reproduced on banners displayed at project sites near their schools, the Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA) announced. “There are many talented, young artists in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, and it’s exciting to see the project through their eyes,” said Jeff Ensor, director of the $5.6 billion Purple Line project for MDOT MTA. “It was difficult to select the winners because of the quality of all the entries.” This past fall, third graders from seven elementary schools along the Purple Line’s 16-mile corridor were invited to participate in the art contest. Students were asked to draw either a colorful picture of themselves and their families on the light rail or what they saw during Purple Line construction. Four schools took part and produced 140 pieces of art. Purple Line staff reviewed and selected the first-place artwork, one from each of the schools: http://bit.ly/38og1Y0. Glenridge, Langley Park-McCormick, Riverdale and Woodlin elementary schools participated in the contest. Lesli Leath, a senior community liaison with the Purple Line project and contest organizer, said the winners were selected based on “originality, vibrancy and authenticity.” “Clearly, there’s real artistic talent in schools along the Purple Line corridor,” she said.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Planned Transit Service Improvements
    Metro Transit Central-South (Sector 5) Final Plan 4.5 Public Outreach Conclusions Stakeholder and public comments provided guidance to improve various elements of the plan. About one fifth of the comments favored the plan. Four cities, one county and the University of Minnesota also supported the plan. Several neighborhood groups expressed concerns about specific elements of the plan. The majority of comments (over 60 percent) were in response to the proposed route elimination or service reductions on Routes 7, 8, 18, 19, 22, 52B, 84, 538 and 539. Another frequent comment was concern regarding increased transfers and loss of direct service to key destinations. For example, the proposed elimination of some direct service to the University of Minnesota was the source of many complaints. The Concept Plan was modified to address many of the stakeholder and customer concerns within the current operating budget and the tenants identified in the previous chapters. Of the 55 routes in the sector, 32 or 58 percent of routes were modified in response to public comment. The final plan preserves geographic coverage in all of the urban area, and most of the suburban areas, and direct service to the University of Minnesota from France Avenue/ W. 50th Street, Cedar Avenue/Portland Avenue and Snelling Avenue. This final plan, as modified to address the concerns raised during the public outreach phase, is supported by all five cities and the two counties found in the study area. 5 Planned Transit Service Improvements 5.1 Planned Transit Service Network The service improvement program begins with a high-to-medium frequency grid network of local service in high-density population and employment areas such as south Minneapolis and St.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report
    Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report of the Advisory Committee August 2002 Advisory Committee Imagine the possibilities. In September 2001, Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari appointed 23 a system of fast, convenient and elected, civic, business, transit and community leaders from throughout the Baltimore region to reliable rail lines running throughout serve on The Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Advisory Committee. He asked them to recommend the region, connecting all of life's a Regional Rail System long-term plan and to identify priority projects to begin the Plan's implemen- important activities. tation. This report summarizes the Advisory Committee's work. Imagine being able to go just about everywhere you really need to go…on the train. 21 colleges, 18 hospitals, Co-Chairs 16 museums, 13 malls, 8 theatres, 8 parks, 2 stadiums, and one fabulous Inner Harbor. You name it, you can get there. Fast. Just imagine the possibilities of Red, Mr. John A. Agro, Jr. Ms. Anne S. Perkins Green, Blue, Yellow, Purple, and Orange – six lines, 109 Senior Vice President Former Member We can get there. Together. miles, 122 stations. One great transit system. EarthTech, Inc. Maryland House of Delegates Building a system of rail lines for the Baltimore region will be a challenge; no doubt about it. But look at Members Atlanta, Boston, and just down the parkway in Washington, D.C. They did it. So can we. Mr. Mark Behm The Honorable Mr. Joseph H. Necker, Jr., P.E. Vice President for Finance & Dean L. Johnson Vice President and Director of It won't happen overnight.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessible Transportation Options for People with Disabilities and Senior Citizens
    Accessible Transportation Options for People with Disabilities and Senior Citizens In the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area JANUARY 2017 Transfer Station Station Features Red Line • Glenmont / Shady Grove Bus to Airport System Orange Line • New Carrollton / Vienna Parking Station Legend Blue Line • Franconia-Springfield / Largo Town Center in Service Map Hospital Under Construction Green Line • Branch Ave / Greenbelt Airport Full-Time Service wmata.com Yellow Line • Huntington / Fort Totten Customer Information Service: 202-637-7000 Connecting Rail Systems Rush-Only Service: Monday-Friday Silver Line • Wiehle-Reston East / Largo Town Center TTY Phone: 202-962-2033 6:30am - 9:00am 3:30pm - 6:00pm Metro Transit Police: 202-962-2121 Glenmont Wheaton Montgomery Co Prince George’s Co Shady Grove Forest Glen Rockville Silver Spring Twinbrook B30 to Greenbelt BWI White Flint Montgomery Co District of Columbia College Park-U of Md Grosvenor - Strathmore Georgia Ave-Petworth Takoma Prince George’s Plaza Medical Center West Hyattsville Bethesda Fort Totten Friendship Heights Tenleytown-AU Prince George’s Co Van Ness-UDC District of Columbia Cleveland Park Columbia Heights Woodley Park Zoo/Adams Morgan U St Brookland-CUA African-Amer Civil Dupont Circle War Mem’l/Cardozo Farragut North Shaw-Howard U Rhode Island Ave Brentwood Wiehle-Reston East Spring Hill McPherson Mt Vernon Sq NoMa-Gallaudet U New Carrollton Sq 7th St-Convention Center Greensboro Fairfax Co Landover Arlington Co Tysons Corner Gallery Place Union Station Chinatown Cheverly 5A to
    [Show full text]
  • The Bulletin STATEN ISLAND’S 157-YEAR-OLD RAILROAD
    ERA BULLETIN — SEPTEMBER, 2017 The Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 60, No. 9 September, 2017 The Bulletin STATEN ISLAND’S 157-YEAR-OLD RAILROAD Published by the Electric (Continued from August, 2017 issue) Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box Before the end of 1925, the railroad was Buses adjacent to the railroad appeared in 3323, New York, New able to operate full electric service from St. the 1920s, but the railroad still made a profit. York 10163-3323. George to Tottenville, South Beach, and Ar- Several years later, railroad riding declined lington with 100 new M.U. electric cars. The because of competition from the buses. For general inquiries, or fleet was composed of 90 motor cars num- When the Isle Transportation Company sur- Bulletin submissions, bered 300-389 and ten trailers numbered rendered its franchise on February 23, 1947, contact us at bulletin@ erausa.org. ERA’s 500-509, of which five were eventually con- the Board of Transportation started operating website is verted to motors. Freight was also carried on the buses immediately, retaining the five-cent www.erausa.org. nearly the entire line, including the non- fare with several five-cent zones depending electrified track extending from Arlington on the distance. On July 1, 1948, bus fares Editorial Staff: across the bridge to Cranford Junction, New were increased to seven cents, zone fares Editor-in-Chief: Bernard Linder Jersey. Because the passenger service usu- were abolished, and passengers could buy a Tri-State News and ally operated at a deficit, the company was 2-cent transfer valid on subway lines at Commuter Rail Editor: unable to spend $17 million to extend the South Ferry, Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • Up Mental Hygiene 330 N. Charles Street Baltimore, Mo
    UP MENTAL HYGIENE 330 N. CHARLES STREET BALTIMORE, MO. Governor of Maryland i'<r';|ir rir^ ir ''^ti|M‘»|i i"1'!11^ nyTr-'iCf^ • IrjjfrZj! \-XW jB^X \ ypgSIffl 1 rT^-i vr i7*st;:ss? ^TpS «iSi| s®? 'T? ^C1-, \l b S l/kfy, T nHfc,ij|/ r^ Jbt* .MAni, »■ **—>— 'a}' ' P^ f fi fw/ r t a'inL* Te*i««Ss5S£ The Mahyland State House, Built 1772 The Annapolis Convention or" 1786, forerunner of the Convention that framed the American Constitution, met in the old Senate Chamber. Three years earlier, in this same room, Washington resigned his commission as Commander-in-Chief of the Cont.nenta'. armies. Here also the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain -vas ratified in 1784. Maryland and Massachusetrf are the only twc states with Capitol buildings dating from before Revolution. The building pictured above is the third on this site. The first, bunt in 1617, was destroyed by fire, and the second, built .n 1704, was -.orn down to make room for the present stru jtnre. Government House Residence of the Governor of Maryland Rebuilt 1936 under the administration of Governor Harry W. Nice 'CO r\ .f <? / 7- 1 tJ -^ C^Cg J_ MARYLAND MANUAL 1938 /I Compendium of Legal, Historical and Statistical Information Relating to the S TATE OF MARYLAND /JT en 5,1., Compiled by E. RAY JONES Secretary of State. 20TH CENTURY PRINTING CO BALTIMORE, MD. INTRODUCTION In this copy of the Maryland Manual, for 1938, will be found much valuable information concerning the State of Maryland, including its Charter and Constitution, and the names of all State and County officials, and members and functions of the several commissions, boards and other governmental agencies which have been created.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Metropolitan Region Transportation Demand
    Item #3 [Type text] Page 1 FY15 Washington Reg. TDM Resource Guide & Strategic Mktg Plan Final Report 12-16-14 Page 2 FY15 Washington Reg. TDM Resource Guide & Strategic Mktg Plan Final Report 12-16-14 Page 3 BACKGROUND The Washington metropolitan region initiated its first formal transportation demand management efforts in the early 1970s with Commuter Club, which was established by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG), the General Services Administration, and the Greater Washington Board of Trade to provide basic ridematching for carpools and vanpools. In subsequent years, the program grew into a COG-coordinated network of local rideshare agencies, and in 1989, it became the Ride Finders Network which provided free information and computerized ride matching services to area residents seeking to join car or vanpools or locate appropriate transit arrangements and park-and-ride locations. In 1996, the regional network was renamed Commuter Connections. In 1997, Commuter Connections expanded its services to include regional telework assistance and resources, its first website, a regional Guaranteed Ride Home program, information on bicycling to work, InfoExpress commuter information kiosks, and free assistance to employers for the development and implementation of alternative commute programs and benefits. In 1998 Commuter Connections began to honor employers in the region through the Employer Recognition Awards program. In 2000, Commuter Connections rolled out Bike to Work Day as a regional entity, initially started as a DC based event by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. In 2003, Commuter Connections expanded its marketing efforts through the implementation of a regional mass marketing measure. The purpose of the measure was to brand the Commuter Connections name as the umbrella organization for commuter transportation information in the Washington Metropolitan area and to subsequently increase the use of alternative forms of commuting.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide
    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Commuterdirect.Com for Pricing)
    Rvsd 7/21 Annapolis EFFECTIVE JUNE 27, Fares 2021 Governor Ritchie Highway For more information, or to request From Davidsonville to Washington, D.C. is Zone 3; from Kent LEGEND • College Parkway this document in an alternate format or Island to Washington D.C. is Zone 4. 250 Line Bus Stop translated into another language, please Zone 3 Zone 4 Park & Ride One Way – Full Fare $6.00 $7.00 301 50 contact the department listed below. d One Way – Senior/Disability Fare $5.00 $6.00 ’s Roa ret Ten Trip – Full Fare $60.00 $70.00 arga M t. Ten Trip – Senior/Disability $50.00 $60.00 G S Para mayor información o para solicitar en 301 250 e Monthly Pass Full Fare $204.00 $238.00 ral 450 s H este documento en un formato alternativo o ig 50 179 h Monthly Pass – Senior/Disability $170.00 $204.00 w a Romancoke Road y 2 traducido a otro idioma, por favor contacte el Transit Link Card (refer to commuterdirect.com for pricing) 178 70 Rowe Boulevard 648 450 departamento enlistado abajo. • Commuter Bus Ticket Sales COMMUTER BUS To Washington Rowe Boulevard 450 Commuter Direct MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION via Davidsonville P&R 2 Website: MTA.CommuterDirect.com DAVIDSONVILLE 301 50 W 70 Phone: 410-697-2212 es 50 欲了解更多信息或欲索取另一种格 450 t Str 301 450 Main Street Kent Narrows 2 eet ad 665 Park & Ride Charm Pass (mobile ticket) KENT ISLAND AND Ro lvd 8 iva Aris T B R Stevensville M 式或译成其它语言的本文档， Website: mta.maryland.gov/charmpass ain Str d Park & Ride ee TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Patapsco Regional Greenway the Patapsco Regional Greenway
    THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While the Patapsco Regional Greenway Concept Plan and Implementation Matrix is largely a community effort, the following individuals should be recognized for their input and contribution. Mary Catherine Cochran, Patapsco Heritage Greenway Dan Hudson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Rob Dyke, Maryland Park Service Joe Vogelpohl, Maryland Park Service Eric Crawford, Friends of Patapsco Valley State Park and Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts (MORE) Ed Dixon, MORE Chris Eatough, Howard County Office of Transportation Tim Schneid, Baltimore Gas & Electric Pat McDougall, Baltimore County Recreation & Parks Molly Gallant, Baltimore City Recreation & Parks Nokomis Ford, Carroll County Department of Planning The Patapsco Regional Greenway 2 THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................4 2 BENEFITS OF WALKING AND BICYCLING ...............14 3 EXISTING PLANS ...............................................18 4 TREATMENTS TOOLKIT .......................................22 5 GREENWAY MAPS .............................................26 6 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX .................................88 7 FUNDING SOURCES ...........................................148 8 CONCLUSION ....................................................152 APPENDICES ........................................................154 Appendix A: Community Feedback .......................................155 Appendix B: Survey
    [Show full text]