technical memorandum #3: service plan recommendations … · a cost per additional bus of $749,000...

May 2019

Technical Memorandum #3:

Service Plan Recommendations

(Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Metrobus Service Evaluation Study: Riggs Road Line (R1, R2)

Technical Memorandum #3: Service Plan Recommendations i | P a g e

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Riggs Road Line Service Proposal Recommendations .................................................................. 1

Near Term Recommendation 1: Bus Stop Consolidation ............................................................. 1 2.1

Near-Term Recommendation 2: Running Time Recalibration and 30 Minute Midday Service .... 4 2.2

Near-Term Recommendation 3: Extend Route R2 Span ............................................................. 7 2.3

Near-Term Recommendation 4: New Layover Point at Adventist Healthcare White Oak Medical 2.4

Center ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Near-Term Recommendation 5: Snow Routing ............................................................................ 8 2.5

Medium-Term Recommendation: Consolidated R1/R2 Alignment ............................................. 10 2.6

Long-Term Proposal Extend R2 to Either Greenbelt Metrorail or Muirkirk MARC Station ......... 12 2.7

3.0 Alternatives Previously Considered ............................................................................................... 14

MetroExtra ................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1

R1/R2 Service to Prince George’s Plaza .................................................................................... 14 3.2

Service to Takoma-Langley Crossroads Transit Center ............................................................. 14 3.3

Discontinue R2 Service along Powder Mill Road and Calverton Loop ....................................... 14 3.4

North and South Routes .............................................................................................................. 15 3.5

Swap R1 and R2 Routing between East-West Highway and University Boulevard ................... 15 3.6

List of Figures

Figure 1 | Riggs Road Line Candidate Bus Stops for Consolidation ............................................................ 3

Figure 2 | Riggs Road Line Moderate Snow Plan ......................................................................................... 9

Figure 3 | Consolidated R1/R2 and Alignment Alternatives ........................................................................ 11

Figure 4 | Route R2 Extension Alternatives ................................................................................................ 13

List of Tables

Table 1 | Bus Stops that are Candidates for Consolidation .......................................................................... 2

Table 2 | Running Time Recalibration ........................................................................................................... 4

Table 3 | Trips that Need Additional Running Time ...................................................................................... 5

Table 4 | Span Extension Analysis................................................................................................................ 7

Table 5 | Percent Activity per Hour on 23rd

Avenue Segment .................................................................... 10

Table 6 | Analysis of the Impacts of R2 Extensions .................................................................................... 12


Technical Memorandum #3: Service Plan Recommendations ii | P a g e

(Page Intentionally Left Blank)


Technical Memorandum #3: Service Plan Recommendations 1 | P a g e

1.0 Introduction

This technical memorandum presents the final service proposal recommendations for the Riggs Road

Line (Routes R1 and R2) Service Evaluation Study. The recommendations presented in this document

were discussed by the project management team (PMT) and project stakeholders. The project

management team discussed a number of routing concepts and operational changes and added,

modified, and removed a number of the proposals. This memorandum presents both the proposals that

are recommended for implementation (near-, medium-, and long-term) as well as options that were

determined to not be worthy of further study.

The analysis projects operating cost, ridership, fare revenue, and subsidy required for each line. Capital

costs for additional buses are also included in this technical memorandum. Operating costs are based on

a cost per platform hour of $115.37. Ridership estimates are based on reallocating passengers at the bus

stop and route segment level from the current routes to the new services, based on an estimation

methodology that utilizes existing rider activity and applies elasticities to these activity levels. This study

used an average fare of $1.24 per passenger to calculate fare revenue. Subsidy required is based on

subtracting fare revenue from operating cost. A cost per additional bus of $749,000 was used.

2.0 Riggs Road Line Service Proposal Recommendations

NEAR-TERM RECOMMENDATION 1: BUS STOP 2.1

CONSOLIDATION

There are many bus stops that are located within a close proximity to each other which impacts the speed

of travel for the Riggs Road Line and costs for bus stop maintenance. The Transit Service Assessment

showed that Riggs Road bus stops are located close together. Bus stop consolidation will benefit most

riders on the route through faster travel speed and improved reliability. The people who will not benefit

are those who use the bus stops that may be removed. Twenty-six bus stops were identified for potential

consolidation in order to properly space bus stops according to WMATA’s bus stop spacing guideline

(approximately 0.2 to 0.25 miles between stops) and a daily average ridership threshold (50 boardings).

This evaluation considered distance between stops, bus stop utilization, pedestrian connections, if the

stop is used for transferring passengers, if multiple routes use the stop, and any passenger generators

that are served by the stop.

The 26 candidate bus stops will be subject for further WMATA analysis and coordination with partner

jurisdictions. Impacts to costs and ridership would be based on which bus stops are eventually removed.

Table 1 and Figure 1 present the stops that should be considered by WMATA staff.



Table 1 | Bus Stops that are Candidates for Consolidation

Regional

ID Location

Routes

Served Direction

Total

Weekday

Boardings

Total

Weekday

Alightings

Closest Stop

Closest Stop

Distance

(Miles)

Closest Stop Estimated

Walking Time

(Mins. @ 3mph)

1002680 RIGGS RD NE @ 6TH ST NE R1,R2 South 21 3 RIGGS RD NE @ NICHOLSON ST NE (1002663) 0.08 1.6

3002410 ADELPHI RD @ 19TH AVE C8,R1 East 13 3 ADELPHI RD @ FOX ST (3002706) 0.12 2.4

3004277 23RD AVE @ LEWISDALE DR R2 South 10 5 23RD AVE @ HANNON ST (3004261) 0.07 1.4

2000582 CHERRY HILL RD @ GRACEFIELD RD R2 South 3 0 PLUM ORCHARD DR @ CHERRY HILL RD (2000598) 0.19 3.8

3002046 RIGGS RD @ AVALON PL C4,R1 South 11 44 RIGGS RD @ RIGGS RD CT (3002057) 0.11 2.2

3002101 23RD AVE @ CHAPMAN RD R2 North 1 12 23RD AVE @ FORDHAM ST (3002081) 0.12 2.4

3002462 POWDER MILL RD @ FLORAL DR R2 North 4 12 POWDER MILL RD @ PINEWOOD CT (3002464) 0.18 3.6

3002508 CALVERTON BLVD @ 3808 R2 West 10 16 CALVERTON BLVD @ BELTSVILLE DR (3002507) 0.09 1.8

2000656 CALVERTON BLVD @ GRACEFIELD RD R2 West 1 5 CALVERTON BLVD @ SANDY POINT CT (2000646) 0.10 2.0

2000657 CALVERTON BLVD @ GRACEFIELD RD Z6 East 2 11 CALVERTON BLVD@ HUNTERS GATE CT (2000645) 0.10 2.0

2001128 CALVERTON BLVD @ CRAIGLAWN RD R2 West 3 4 CALVERTON BLVD @ GALWAY DR (2001127) 0.12 2.4

2001033 CALVERTON BLVD @ CRAIGLAWN RD Z6 East 3 20 CALVERTON BLVD @ SHANANDALE DR (2000652) 0.11 2.2

3002707 ADELPHI RD @ ERIE ST C8,R1 East 6 3 ADELPHI RD @ EDWARDS WAY (3002708) 0.09 1.8

3003418 ADELPHI RD @ ERIE ST C8 West 4 2 ADELPHI RD @ EDWARDS WAY (3003417) 0.12 2.4

3002470 POWDER MILL RD @ 3120 R2 North 0 0 POWDER MILL RD @ 3210 (3002716) 0.14 2.8

3002472 POWDER MILL RD @ 3120 R2 South 1 0 POWDER MILL RD @ 3210 (3002475) 0.12 2.4

3002439 RIGGS RD @ MISTLETOE PL R2 North 1 4 RIGGS RD @ CRUZE PL (3002429) 0.15 3.0

3002437 RIGGS RD @ MISTLETOE PL R2 South 5 2 RIGGS RD @ LACKAWANNA ST (3002430) 0.11 2.2

3002426 RIGGS RD @ BUCK LODGE TER R2 North 2 11 RIGGS RD @ CRUZE PL (3002429) 0.09 1.8

3002427 RIGGS RD @ BUCK LODGE TER R2 South 5 2 RIGGS RD @ HEATHERWOOD CT (3002422) 0.12 2.4

3002260 RIGGS RD @ QUEBEC ST R1,R2 North 1 9 RIGGS RD @ COOL SPRING RD (3002255) 0.08 1.6

3002262 RIGGS RD @ QUEBEC ST R1,R2 South 10 2 RIGGS RD @ RUATAN ST (3002278) 0.08 1.6

3002104 RIGGS RD @ DREXEL ST C4,R1 North 10 41 RIGGS RD @ DREXEL RD (3002083) 0.09 1.8

3002098 RIGGS RD @ DREXEL ST C4,R1 South 27 15 RIGGS RD @ DREXEL RD (3002086) 0.08 1.6

3001792 RIGGS RD @ CHILLUM RD R1,R2 North 16 34 RIGGS RD @ SHERIDAN ST (3001805) 0.10 2.0

3002714 RIGGS RD @ CHILLUM RD R1,R2 South 24 14 RIGGS RD NE @ EASTERN AVE NE (3001784) 0.08 1.6



Figure 1 | Riggs Road Line Candidate Bus Stops for Consolidation



NEAR-TERM RECOMMENDATION 2: RUNNING TIME 2.2

RECALIBRATION AND 30 MINUTE MIDDAY SERVICE

On-time performance is an issue that was identified for the Riggs Road Line, as well as wide headways

during middays. This proposal combines running time recalibration and 30-minute midday service to

improve on-time performance and meet midday service headway guidelines. This will ensure that the

route has sufficient running time and recovery time. As part of recalibration midday service headway

should be improved from 35 minutes to 30 minutes.

Four scenarios are presented for running time recalibration:

1. Scenario 1 - Adding resources to ensure the line operates exactly on-time while maintaining

existing headways;

2. Scenario 2 - Adding resources to ensure that the line operates within Metrobus’s on-time

performance guidelines (two minutes early to seven minutes late) while maintaining existing

headways;

3. Scenario 3 - A cost neutral proposal that reduces the number of trips on the line so service is

exactly on-time; and

4. Scenario 4 - A cost neutral proposal that reduces the number of trips on the line so service

operates within the on-time performance guideline.

While the cost neutral proposals are not recommended because any reduction in service frequency will

impact the lines ability to meet headway guidelines, the cost neutral proposal will be included in the

evaluation.

The analysis of Running Time Recalibration is presented on Table 2. This includes adding additional time

to allow for 30 minute service, which would be a good use of the additional time created by adding one

more bus to the route during middays. Since service headway does not meet guidelines during certain

times of day, the scenarios that are cost neutral are not recommended. The recommended strategy, due

to cost, is strategy two which brings running time within the guideline. Table 3 presents the trips that need

running time recalibration. This proposal will improve route reliability.

Table 2 | Running Time Recalibration

Annual Hours for

Recalibration

Additional Hours for 30 Minute

Midday Service

Total Hours

Annual Cost Increase

Peak Buses

Scenario 1: Operate Exactly On-Time

1,211 1,000 2,211 $255,083 1

($749,000)

Scenario 2: Operate Within WMATA Guideline

145 1,000 1,145 $132,099 1

($749,000)

Scenario 3: Operate Exactly On-Time Cost Neutral

30 minute service is not feasible, requires the elimination of two weekday roundtrips and one one-way trip on Saturday and Sunday

Scenario 4: Operate Within WMATA Guideline Cost Neutral

30 minute service is not feasible, requires the elimination of one one-way trip on all days



Table 3 | Trips that Need Additional Running Time

Day Route Direction Trip Start

Time Exactly On-Time

Additional Minutes Within Guideline

Additional Minutes

Saturday R2 NORTH 2:00 PM 1 0

Saturday R2 NORTH 5:00 PM 13 6

Saturday R2 NORTH 7:00 AM 4 0

Saturday R2 NORTH 9:00 AM 1 0

Saturday R2 SOUTH 1:00 PM 2 0

Saturday R2 SOUTH 10:55 AM 1 0








Sunday R2 NORTH 3:00 PM 4 0



Sunday R2 NORTH 8:00 AM 11 4


Sunday R2 SOUTH 1:55 PM 2 0

Sunday R2 SOUTH 11:55 AM 3 0

Sunday R2 SOUTH 2:55 PM 4 0



Weekday R2 NORTH 1:33 PM 5 0



















Day Route Direction Trip Start

Time Exactly On-Time

Additional Minutes Within Guideline

Additional Minutes


Weekday R2 NORTH 6:41 AM 5 0





Weekday R2 SOUTH 1:15 PM 3 0


Weekday R2 SOUTH 10:20 AM 1 0


































NEAR-TERM RECOMMENDATION 3: EXTEND ROUTE R2 SPAN 2.3

A problem identified with the Riggs Road Line is that the line does not meet span guidelines and some of

the late trips are crowded. Route R2, which is the only route variation that operates during off-peak

hours, and on weekends does not meet span guidelines. This proposal would extend the span to meet

guidelines on weekends. During weekdays a later trip could be added to address ridership. Based on

ridership data presented in the service evaluation memorandum there is a market for extended span. This

proposal adds trips to meet the span guidelines.

This will address crowding during the weekday late night period and on weekends it will allow the R2 to

meet span guidelines. This will benefit users during late nights and during early morning hours on

weekends, giving riders another option for travel. The analysis is presented on Table 4.

Table 4 | Span Extension Analysis

Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual

NB SB NB SB NB SB

Current Last Trip

10:45 PM 11:10 PM 8:00 PM 9:45 PM 8:00 PM 9:31 PM

Last Trip Boardings

30 6 36 23 25 12

Last Trip Start Time Guideline

10:30PM 10:30PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM

Recommended Trips

1 0 2 1 2 1

Projected Annual Ridership 7,394

Projected Annual Fare Revenue $9,169

Projected Annual Hours 513

Projected Annual Cost $59,185

Projected Subsidy $50,016



NEAR-TERM RECOMMENDATION 4: NEW LAYOVER POINT AT 2.4

ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE WHITE OAK MEDICAL CENTER

The current layover location on the Calverton end of Route R2 is at Plum Orchard Drive and Broadbirch

Drive – just north of the new Adventist Healthcare White Oak Medical Center (now under construction

and expected to open in the summer of 2019). When the hospital center opens, Metrobus will begin

serving a new bus stop that is being built near the entrance to the hospital. The current layover location is

on street and does not provide operators adequate access to restroom facilities. This proposal would

relocate the current terminal approximately 1/3 miles south to the new stop. The new stop is in a pull off

and provides operators access to restroom facilities at the hospital.

NEAR-TERM RECOMMENDATION 5: SNOW ROUTING 2.5

A concern with the ability to serve the entire R2 route during moderate snowfalls was raised by the project

team. Currently, Route R2 is the only Calverton service during a snow event. There are some concerns

with continuing operations on Riggs Road north of University Boulevard, and particularly north of the

Adelphi loop, to Powder Mill Road due to the relatively lower traffic flows, narrow cross section, and

priority for snow removal on Riggs Road.

The recommendation is for “Moderate” snow service (see Figure 2) the service plan will be to operate the

route between Fort Totten Metrorail Station and the Takoma-Langley Crossroads Transit Center, by

diverting it at University Boulevard towards Takoma-Langley Transit Center. Service north of University

Boulevard will be discontinued to mitigate the risk arising from the nature of the roadways.



Figure 2 | Riggs Road Line Moderate Snow Plan



2.6 MEDIUM-TERM RECOMMENDATION: CONSOLIDATED R1/R2

ALIGNMENT

A problem identified for this line is route directness between Calverton and Fort Totten Metrorail Station

and complexity of the route operating patterns serving both 23rd Avenue and Riggs Road between

University Boulevard and East-West Highway. This proposal would consolidate the route alignment of the

Riggs Road into a single alignment using either Riggs Road or 23rd Avenue (see Figure 3). As part of

this service proposal, R1 service will be eliminated and the resources will be converted to additional peak

period/peak direction R2 trips. Service to 23rd

Avenue would be replaced by a modified Route F8 which

would, along with the current TheBus Route 18, connect to/from Prince George’s Plaza Metrorail, which

was is an alternative that is no longer being pursued as it is duplicative of TheBus Route 18 and was not

a popular alternative to service to Fort Totten for 23rd

Avenue passengers.

This proposal will simplify the Riggs Road Line and keep service operating within the corridor. Riders

along Riggs Road and the Calverton Loop would benefit from a more direct service, reduced travel time,

and increased frequencies on Route R2. The proposal would improve on-time performance, as it is easier

to manage the reliability of shorter routes, and provide a shorter trip for Calverton passengers.

The potential elimination of service along 23rd

Avenue was examined using the guideline for Service

Directness. The Service Directness guideline for a framework service states that for a route deviation, the

route productivity of the deviation should be 60% of the overall route productivity. To calculate the

percentage productivity, Ridecheck and running time information was used to get a total activity per hour

for the line and the segment. Total activity was used versus boardings per hour since there is a clear

peak movement, southbound during the AM peak and northbound during the PM peak, therefore total

activity per hour (boardings plus alightings) on the 23rd

Avenue segment was compared to total line

activity per hour. Table 5 below presents the findings of this analysis.

Table 5 | Percent Activity per Hour on 23rd

Avenue Segment

Northbound Southbound Overall Guideline

AM Peak 29% 115% 58% 60%

Midday 77% 49% 62% 60%

PM Peak 113% 28% 65% 60%

Weekday 70% 52% 61% 60%

Saturday 78% 60% 68% 60%

Sunday 74% 56% 66% 60%

Overall the analysis shows that the 23rd

Avenue segment meets the productivity guideline during almost

all periods of the day, with the exception of the AM peak on weekdays. The guideline is met during all

time periods except the AM peak on weekdays in the northbound direction. In the southbound direction

the 23rd

Avenue segment meets the guidelines only during the AM peak period and on Saturday.

When presented to the public, the proposal was met with mixed reactions. In general, R1 riders did not

want to lose their route and R2 riders were split depending on if they were impacted by either realignment

alternative. The proposal is not attractive to customers who would be forced to change their current

Metrobus usage because for these riders, the status quo works. Forty-four percent of riders who do not

use stops that would be impacted by the change are in favor of the change. These riders would also

benefit the most from improved reliability of service.

Based on current ridership it is justified to maintain the existing service along 23rd

Avenue. When PrinceGeorge’s County introduces the proposed weekend service along 23

rd Avenue and if enough ridership is

diverted from Route R2 to the expanded Prince George’s transit service, then Metro would reevaluate thediversion of Route R2 service along 23

rd Avenue.



Figure 3 | Consolidated R1/R2 and Alignment Alternatives



2.7 LONG-TERM PROPOSAL EXTEND R2 TO EITHER GREENBELT

METRORAIL OR MUIRKIRK MARC STATION

This proposal would extend Route R2 from Calverton to Muirkirk MARC Station or Greenbelt Metrorail

Station. There was no specific problem that was identified that this alternative addresses, rather this

proposal is based on an opportunity to create new connections and serve a potential unserved growth

area. This proposal represents significant extensions of Route R2. The route design poses an issue since

the R2 would have to serve certain portions twice in the same direction to maintain service to all of the

Calverton Loop and extend service to either Greenbelt or Muirkirk. Such a long extension would require

significant additional resources in terms of subsidy and vehicles. Alternatively, due of the length of the

route, it is assumed that Route R2 would no longer serve the entire Calverton Loop, instead it would

operate along Powder Mill Road. This would be contingent on the recommendations of extensions of the

proposed R6 and R81 from the Rhode Island Avenue and Baltimore Avenue Lines Study, which would

serve the Calverton Loop. This proposed extension of Route R2 along Powder Mill Road would cut off

direct access between Fort Totten and the new medical center. See Figure 4 for details on the extension

alternatives.

An extension to Muirkirk MARC Station would connect Calverton to some employment areas along

Ammendale Road and to MARC’s Camden Line which has limited service as well as the future Konterra

mixed-use development. An extension to Greenbelt Metrorail Station would be a longer extension that

serves fewer jobs but provides passengers on this line with connection to another Metrorail and buses

serving the Greenbelt area.

This proposal would remove one-seat ride access to the Fort Totten Metrorail Station for people who live

along portions of the Calverton loop that would no longer be served by the R2. Instead Calverton

passengers would have to transfer to the R2 or access the Green Line at College Park Metrorail. Table 6

presents the analysis of the route extensions as a net impact to the current Route R2. Due to the

resources needed to support this extension and the limited level of projected ridership based on current

land use, it is recommended that any extension of Route R2 be considered at a later date when the exten-

sion can be funded and after potential ridership markets are established.

Table 6 | Analysis of the Impacts of R2 Extensions

Annual Statistics Greenbelt Metrorail Muirkirk via Konterra

Ridership Generated by Extension 122,611 43,507

Calverton Ridership Loss to R22 -78,631 -78,631

Net Ridership Change 43,980 -35,124

Additional Revenue $54,535 ($43,554)

Additional Revenue Hours 6,767 2,401

Additional Cost $780,709 $277,003

Additional Subsidy Required $726,174 $320,557

Additional Buses (Cost) 2 ($1,498,000) 1 ($749,000)

1 The R6 and R8 are renamed northern ends of the existing 86 and 83 (respectively). They would run

from the College Park Metrorail Station to Calverton.

2 Reflects loss to Riggs Road Line, most riders would use other modified Metrobus routes



Figure 4 | Route R2 Extension Alternatives



3.0 Alternatives Previously Considered

These proposals were presented to the PMT at the kickoff meeting, however, they are not being

considered further for this line. The reasons vary by service improvement but include ridership levels,

existing service frequency, availability of space at terminals, and operating costs. A description of each

proposal and the reasons it is not being considered further is presented below.

METROEXTRA 3.1

This option would create a branded limited stop route operating along the Riggs Road corridor. The

current Riggs Road Line runs too infrequently to reduce trips to pay for a MetroExtra service. Also

ridership is too dispersed to identify good candidates for MetroExtra stop locations.

R1/R2 SERVICE TO PRINCE GEORGE’S PLAZA 3.2

This proposal would relocate the southern terminal of either Route R1 or R2 from Fort Totten Metrorail to

Prince George’s Plaza Metrorail. Only one route would be moved because there is significant ridership

along the R1 and R2 between East-West Highway and Fort Totten Metrorail. This option was not

considered further for two reasons: first many passengers are traveling to Fort Totten to transfer to other

bus routes as well as the Red Line and second is that this would duplicate The Bus Route 18 or Metrobus

Route C4.

SERVICE TO TAKOMA-LANGLEY CROSSROADS TRANSIT 3.3

CENTER

This proposal would provide Route R1 service to the Takoma-Langley Crossroads Transit Center. This

would be done by having buses deviate along University Boulevard and terminate at the Takoma-Langley

Crossroads Transit Center. Service along the Adelphi Loop would be discontinued. This was not

considered further due to a number of reasons, including: the result would have removed Route R1

service along the Adelphi Loop which generates a significant amount of ridership; there is no capacity at

the transit center for an additional route; and transfer data did not show a large demand for access to

routes or markets that serve this transit center.

DISCONTINUE R2 SERVICE ALONG POWDER MILL ROAD AND 3.4

CALVERTON LOOP

This proposal would eliminate R2 service along the Calverton Loop. Riggs Road Line service would only

operate as far north as the intersection of Powder Mill Road and Riggs Road. This would allow R1 and R2

to be restructured into a single route. Either Metrobus Route 83 or 86 could be extended to serve the

Calverton Loop. There are a number of concerns regarding this proposal. First is that many students use

the Riggs Road Line to access High Point High School from the southern portion of the route and a

school tripper may be needed to maintain this connection. Another concern is that this will result in a loss

of connection for Calverton residents to Fort Totten Metrorail Station, where many passengers transfer to

the Red Line or other bus services, a Green Line connection may not serve the travel patterns as well. A

third concern is the lack of layover space, as the most likely layover point, Hillandale Terminal, likely does

not have the capacity for additional service. Another issue is that the right turn from Powder Mill Road

onto Riggs Road is very tight and it may be difficult for a bus to navigate. A sub-proposal would be to

operate Route R1 at all times and discontinue Route R2 which would remove Riggs Road Line service

north of Adelphi Road. This proposal is not being considered due to the high percent of passengers on

this line who transfer to other bus services at Fort Totten Metrorail that would no longer be connected to

these services. There is also a concern on the legality of a school tripper service.



NORTH AND SOUTH ROUTES 3.5

This proposal would split the Riggs Road Line into a north route and a south route. The south route would

be the same as the R1 and would operate at all times. The north route would be the alignment of the R2

north of East-West Highway but its terminal will move from Fort Totten Metrorail to Prince George’s Plaza

Metrorail Station. Similar to discontinuing service to the Calverton Loop, an issue with this proposal is

related to access to High Point High School from southern areas of this route, which would necessitate a

school tripper. Another issue is that Calverton Loop passengers would lose access to Fort Totten

Metrorail Station and the bus connections available there, and would instead have to use Prince George’s

Plaza Metrorail Station, which would affect travel patterns. Finally, a significant amount of resources will

need to be added since Route R1 would have to operate all day to serve the southern portion of the

route. This proposal is not being considered due to the high percent of passengers on this line who

transfer to other bus services at Fort Totten Metrorail that would no longer be connected to these

services. There is also a concern on the legality of a school tripper service as these are not full time

services that may fall within Federal Transit Authority charter non-compete requirements. Also, this

proposal would likely require significant additional resources.

SWAP R1 AND R2 ROUTING BETWEEN EAST-WEST HIGHWAY 3.6

AND UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD

This proposal is to switch the alignments of Routes R1 and R2 between University Boulevard and East-

West Highway so R2 remains on Riggs Road and R1 operates via 23rd

Avenue. This would be done to

give the longer R2 route a more direct path to and from Fort Totten Metrorail Station while the shorter R1

would be able to serve the neighborhoods along 23rd

Avenue. Riggs Road has higher density of

development while 23rd

Avenue is primarily a single family home neighborhood. A concern may be

modifying the service to the neighborhoods so that 23rd

Avenue has peak only service to and from Fort

Totten Metrorail Station. Part of the analysis of this proposal will be to determine if either The Bus 18 or

Metrobus C4 should be modified to replace service along 23rd

Avenue. Even though these routes connect

to Prince George’s Plaza Metrorail, these services could effectively serve the transportation needs of the

neighborhood. This was not the preferred proposal as it conflicts with the proposal of consolidating

Routes R1 and R2 into a single service.

technical memorandum #3: service plan recommendations … · a cost per additional bus of $749,000...

Documents