Testimony: Support and recommendations improving Go Prince George’s (MD)

Posted on by Elena Sorokina

March 23, 2026

Hon. Darryl Barnes, Chair
Prince George’s County Planning Board, M-NCPPC

Hon. Krystal Oriadha, Chair
Prince George’s County District Council
Wayne K. Curry Administration Building
1301 McCormick Dr, Largo, MD 20774 Via: onlinesignup@co.pg.md.us

RE: Support and recommendations improving Go Prince George’s: The Preliminary Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (CR-079-2021)

Dear Chair Barnes and Oriadha:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Please accept this testimony on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG), the leading organization advocating for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. We also support and work closely with RISE Prince George’s, a group of county residents and allies advocating for policies and practices that build shared, sustainable prosperity in Prince George’s County by creating safe, walkable, inclusive and transit-oriented communities.

We applaud the Go Prince George’s plan for fully applying the 2023 DPW&T Urban Street Design Standards mandated by the County Council. These standards call for right sizing dangerously wide roads; slower, saner operating speeds; and bicycle facilities. These street design standards will make Regional Transit Districts and Local Center safer, more walkable, and foster economic growth. We also commend the application of these standards for other applicable roadway segments. 

But the plan could be even better. It most especially needs to show how, where, and in what order of priority these good policies are going to be implemented. We urge the County to address this for each of its policy statements, and also show it on a legible maps. 

The other overarching comment we have is that this plan misses the opportunity to address the flawed, outmoded vehicular Level of Service (LOS) metric as it has been applied to Regional Transit Districts and Local Centers. We urge the County to eliminate this counterproductive approach for transit centers that we seek to make walkable, multimodal, and guided by the Urban Street Design Standards. The West Hyattsville-Queens Chapel Road has already taken this action. A similar action should be adopted for all centers in Go Prince George’s.

Below are additional comments on the plan. 

  • Sidewalks and Pedestrian Mobility PR – We support the policies stated, but they are not backed up by specific ways to follow through.
    • Vision Zero and High Injury Network PR 1 – Vision Zero policy should be amplified, it should have maps, and have implementation strategies that are measurable — miles of retrofitted roadways, sidewalks; number of intersections redesigned for safer crossings. These actions should be ranked and prioritized based on clear criteria to achieve Vision Zero goals. At minimum, the plan should publish a map of the High Injury Network from the Vision Zero Action Plan and provide implementation strategies that are measurable.
    • Sidewalk gaps should be identified, mapped, and prioritized. These, and all maps, should be legible to guide specific decision-making.
    • Safe Routes to School PR 7  – Go Prince George’s should identify all schools that will have a safe routes to school plan – starting with priority locations. All schools should be mapped with their walkshed and bikeshed, identifying risk factors, crash records and facilities, intersection retrofit needs, sidewalk and crossing gaps and other needs. These assessments should rank and prioritize schools and actions.
  • Bikeways BK 1 – Strategy BK 1.2 – distinguish between the need for grade-separated crossings for major highways such as interstates, where pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited, versus arterials like MD 214, where people walking and bicycling should be better accommodated. Interstates form impenetrable barriers as do rivers and railroad tracks whereas poor road design creates unnecessary barriers on MD 214 and similar arterials. Implementation of the Urban Street Design Standards and SHA’s Complete Streets policy should improve the at-grade multimodal facilities for all users.
    • Strategy BK 1.3 – We support this strategy. Identify and prioritize overbuilt roadways to receive the reduced travel lane treatments. 
    • Strategy BK 1.4 – “where feasible” seems out of place. Please better define the county’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing the existing bicycle network. 
    • Strategy BK 2 – This document should present a bikeway plan that connects centers and surrounding neighborhoods, identifies gaps, and prioritizes implementation. 
  • Transit TR – Bus priority policy and cross-sections are included and some High Capacity Transit routes are identified. However, it’s missing proposed bus lanes like on MD 458, the New Hampshire Flash BRT on MD 650, and others from previous plans. The plan should also include maps and ordering of implementation priority for all these bus priority, High Capacity Transit and BRT routes. The plan also lacks guidance on bus shelter standards, these should be added, and criteria for priority implementation. 
  • Complete and Greet Streets (CG): We support the full incorporation of the Urban Street Design Standards.
    •  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. 

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.

  • Add: 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 operating 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. 
  • Strategy CG 1.10 Development a ten-year implementation plan for Urban Street retrofits  – this statement should be followed up with specific steps and priorities for implementing the design standards, and retrofitting at each Regional Transit District and Local Center. 
  • Policy CG 14 – this on-street parking management recommendation needs follow through – how, where and when — in what order, will this occur?
  • Roads & Highway
    • LOS – RH 4 – The plan should eliminate the use of vehicular Level of Service (LOS) around Metro stations altogether – not just consider vague “realistic and appropriate” measures for first tier suburbs. Alternative measures also should be developed and used such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to assess overall traffic generation from roadway projects and land development. 

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.

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.

  • 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. 
  • Policy RH 5 – integrate TDM and increased street network connectivity into this system performance approach.
  • Policy RH 6, 7, 8 – require local street connectivity for all new subdivisions, and site plans. Also identify and prioritize street connection retrofits to increase local access and reduce concentration of local travel on a few arterial roads. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort
DC and Prince George’s Policy Director