August 13, 2025

Ms. Lakisha Hull
Director, Prince George’s County Planning Department
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Wayne K. Curry Administration Building
1301 McCormick Drive, Largo MD                             via: gopgc@mncppc.org

Dear Director Hull:

Thank you for your active engagement with the public on the preparation of Go Prince George’s. We wish to provide some initial comments on the draft Go Prince George’s in advance of its formal consideration. First, we wish to express our overall enthusiastic support for the greatly revised Master Plan for Transportation, a welcome move towards a multimodal, complete streets approach to transportation. Here are some highlights of exciting elements of the draft plan: 

1. Urban Street Design Standards are integrated into Functional Classification of roadways — this is a crucial guide for how road engineers decide how to design a road. This is an important advance to achieving full implementation. 
2. Urban Street Design Standards are applied to both designated regional and local centers streets, and beyond. We strongly support this approach.
3. Road diets – roads downsized from 6-8 lanes to 2-4 lanes, per Urban Street Design Standards. This is a major advance for fostering safer streets, connected communities, and economic development. Right-sizing these roads are essential to attracting transit-oriented development, such as along the Central Ave./Blue Line corridor. 
4. Bicycle facilities are fully integrated into each road designation – this is a significant improvement. Example: Facility Recommendations (section 3).
5. Bus priority (Transit policy – Policy TR) policy and cross-sections are included, along with 5 high capacity routes identified. Bus priority, however, is not consistently mentioned in section 3. Bus lanes are identified for MD 458 for example which we support, but not for MD 410.

Recommendations for improvements:

1. Eliminate Vehicle LOS (level of service) for Local and Regional Centers, and other appropriate areas. We recommend the following language:

Policy RH 4: Eliminate vehicular LOS requirements within all Local and Regional Centers. This strategy amends Table 21 of Plan 2035, applicable recommendations of the 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation, and the Transportation Review Guidelines.

The above proposed language will replace the draft’s vague policy – “Policy RH 4: Establish realistic and appropriate traffic level-of-service (LOS) standards for the determination of adequacy of roads and highways within a first-tier suburb.” 

Our Policy RH 4 recommendation is taken from the West Hyattsville-Queen Chapel Sector Plan, which states:  “TM 1.17. Eliminate vehicular LOS requirements within the West Hyattsville Local Transit Center. This strategy amends Table 21 of Plan 2035, applicable recommendations of the 2009 Countywide Master Plan of Transportation, and the Transportation Review Guidelines.”

This recommendation was also suggested in a draft of the West Hyattsville plan to be considered for application within all Regional Transit Districts and Local Centers. We agree.

2. Add intersection design guidance as a separate strategy. We appreciate the many mentions of intersection features as important to complete streets, and in notes for specific facilities. However, a policy or strategy devoted to the complexity of intersection design would help advance many of the plan’s goals. Intersections are the most challenging aspect of street design in an urban environment, thus warrant specific attention. 

Regarding “Policy CG 7 Regularly refine and update the County’s adopted Urban Street Design Standards to reflect best street design practices.” We recommend the following additional strategy:

Strategy CG 7.4 Work with DPW&T and MDOT to identify and establish best practices for intersection design guidance.

3. Design speed of 20-25 mph for Urban Streets should be cited as a specific goal and receive explicit attention. We ask the plan state 20-25 mph design speed be used as a key metric to guide roadway design decisions. Design speed is not mentioned in the draft, even though it states “Intended Functional Operating Speed: (20-25 mph)” and maximum speed limit of 20 or 25 mph. Solving for a 20-25 mph street as an overarching goal provides a framework that is more comprehensive than listing individual tools and practices that help reduce vehicle speeds to intended speeds. 
4. Use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household as a key measure for development review. The draft cites the Plan 2035 identification of VMT as an important measure, but the draft makes no mention of using vehicle miles travel as a part of the development review process to assess the traffic and pollution impacts of each project. Using VMT per household helps create understanding of traffic network impacts, location efficiency, and mitigation needs. CSG has done this kind of analysis here and here. Scoring each new development for its VMT per household performance will help identify developments most beneficial to the county, the transportation network, and the environment. It will also call attention to mitigation needs for less location-efficient projects. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort

Policy Director