DOT Transportation Engineering Projects

Draft BRT Study Available

The Draft New Hampshire Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Study is now available online and will be on the agenda of the Prince George's County Planning Board on February 19 and the Montgomery County Planning Board on March 12.

New Hampshire Ave Flash Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Project Manager
Justin Willits
[email protected]

Description

The Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is advancing BRT for the New Hampshire Avenue corridor consistent with the 2013 Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan. Flash will provide high quality transit service that improves the speed and reliability of bus service in the corridor.

The New Hampshire Avenue BRT Study will engage the public and:

Consider multiple approaches to improve bus speed and reliability
Define route end points and future station locations
Identify station accessibility needs
Consider how to connect with existing transit
Document potential impacts or tradeoffs for consideration

Learn more about the future of Flash across the County Watch our explainer video to learn more about Flash

New Hampshire Ave Flash Map
Click image to enlarge

Overview map of New Hampshire Ave Flash BRT corridor from DC-MD line to Randolph Rd

Jump back to the top of the page

Updates

Project Timeline

Project Status Phases Timeline. The project is in planning phase. Existing conditions analysis: 2021-2022. Defining and evaluating alternatives: 2022-2024. Selection of preferred alternative: 2024-2026. Undated phases pending funding: design/engineering, construction, open for service.

Current Project Status

The project is currently in the planning phase where the major elements of the project will be defined.

February 2026 – Status Update

The Draft New Hampshire Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Study is now available online and will be on the agenda of the Prince George's County Planning Board on February 19 and the Montgomery County Planning Board on March 12. At a future date, the Montgomery County Council will review and select a locally preferred alternative. Jump to the Resources section to view the report appendices.

August 2025 – Status Update

The project team is finalizing the study for submission to the Planning Board and then Montgomery County Council. Council will then select a locally preferred alternative, which is expected to occur in Fall 2025.

May 2025 – Status Update

The project team is soliciting feedback from the public about the alternatives being studied for the New Hampshire Avenue BRT. Details about the alternatives and a survey are available for review and input.

Jump back to the top of the page

Get Involved

Click here for information about past events.

Contact Us

Our project team can be reached at [email protected]. We are happy to hear your thoughts and answer your questions. We are also available to speak to your organization or at community events about the project.

Join our mailing list to receive project updates and notification of upcoming events.

Corridor Advisory Committee

Corridor Advisory Committees follow Master Plan guidance as approved by the Montgomery County Council: “A vital facet of facility planning is to receive input and feedback from affected property owners, civic and business groups, and transit riders and road users, including public forums and workshops, electronic newsletters, and other forms of outreach. Accordingly, a citizens' advisory group comprised of residents, business owners and other relevant stakeholders must be created for each corridor which enters into facility planning to make recommendations to the County on the design, construction and proposed station locations for the transit corridor.

Click here for information about CAC meetings

New Hampshire Ave Flash CAC Members

Kevin Belanger
Interested Resident

Sophie Boreshe
Interested Resident

Marie Michelle Bunch
Interested Resident

Hector Chang
Interested Resident

Raka Choudhury
Interested Resident

Brian Downie
Saul Centers

Eileen Finnegan
Interested Resident

Gail Fisher
Interested Resident

Richard Garifo
Interested Resident

Gretchen Goldman
Interested Resident

Craig Grunewald
Interested Resident

Kayleigh Gunnoud
Takoma Langley Crossroads Development Authority

June Henderson
Friends of White Oak

Miguel Hernandez
Interested Resident

Louis Krupnick, A.I.A., LEED
Interested Resident

Maura Moser
Interested Resident

Peter Myo Khin
Tamarack Triangle Civic Association

Daphne Pallozzi
CHI Centers, Inc.

Robert Peters
Colesville Civic Association

Shane Pollin
Hillandale Gateway, LLC

Elise Rahimi
Interested Resident

James Shippey
Interested Resident

Peter Tantisunthorn
Interested Resident

Clay Teunis
Interested Resident

Jason Weaver
Interested Resident

Dan Wilhelm
Greater Colesville Citizens Association

Elizabeth Williams
Interested Resident

Jump back to the top of the page

Resources

Draft New Hampshire Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Study

MCDOT has identified a recommended preferred alternative for Flash BRT service along an approximately 8.5-mile portion of New Hampshire Avenue (MD 650). The proposed New Hampshire Avenue Flash BRT service would serve Langley Park, Adelphi, Hillandale, White Oak, and Colesville as well as parts of western Prince George’s County and the City of Takoma Park.
Read the Report

Appendices

All About the New Hampshire Avenue BRT Alternatives

Alternative 1: Mixed Traffic with Queue Jumps

A low-cost solution involving Flash BRT buses mixing with general traffic. Flash BRT buses will be allowed to skip long queues at intersections with special queue jump lanes. More details are available in the Alternative 1 layout PDF.

Alternative 1 Example Street Cross Section
Click image to enlarge

Typical lane diagram for Alternative 1 with all buses, trucks, and cars using all the lanes. Only Flash BRT buses will be able to use the queue jumps to skip long queues at traffic lights.

Alternative 1 Map
Click image to enlarge

Alternative 1 map: The bus travels in mixed traffic along the entire corridor.

Alternative 2: Mixed Traffic and Curbside Lanes

A low-cost solution involving Flash BRT buses mixing with general traffic with queue jumps on the northern portion of New Hampshire Avenue. On the southern portion, buses have their own exclusive bus lane, running alongside the curb. More details are available in the Alternative 2 layout PDF.

Alternative 2 Example Street Cross Section
Click image to enlarge

Typical lane diagram for Alternative 2. For the mixed traffic portions, all buses, trucks, and cars can use all the lanes. For the curbside lane portions, only buses (of all kinds) can use the dedicated curbside lanes.

Alternative 2 Map
Click image to enlarge

Alternative 2 map: The bus travels in mixed traffic with curbside bus lanes on the southern third of the corridor.

Alternative 3: Median Lanes

A high-cost solution which involves Flash buses using exclusive lanes in the median of the street (which are more expensive to construct). Local buses share the rest of the street with general traffic. More details are available in the Alternative 3 layout PDF.

Alternative 3 Example Street Cross Section
Click image to enlarge

Typical lane diagram for Alternative 3 (which is the same for Alternative 4). For the mixed traffic portions, all buses, trucks, and cars can use all the lanes. Single median lanes are used where space is limited, and this lane will always go the same direction as rush hour traffic, switching directions at midday. When there are one or two Flash median lanes, boarding will also occur in the median. Any median lane configuration would be for Flash only, with local buses using the regular mixed traffic lanes.

Alternative 3 Map
Click image to enlarge

Alternative 3 map: The bus travels in median bus lanes in the southern section, a single median lane in the middle section, and mixed traffic in the northern section.

Alternative 4: Additional Median Lanes

A high-cost solution involving buses using exclusive lanes in the median of the road (which are more expensive to construct). This solution involves more dual median lanes than single median lanes. More details are available in the Alternative 4 layout PDF.

Alternative 4 Example Street Cross Section
Click image to enlarge

Typical lane diagram for Alternative 4 (which is the same for Alternative 3). For the mixed traffic portions, all buses, trucks, and cars can use all the lanes. Single median lanes are used where space is limited, and this lane will always go the same direction as rush hour traffic, switching directions at midday. When there are one or two Flash median lanes, boarding will also occur in the median. Any median lane configuration would be for Flash only, with local buses using the regular mixed traffic lanes.

Alternative 4 Map
Click image to enlarge

Alternative 4 map: Starting from the southern end (MD-DC line), the bus travels in median bus lanes, then a single median bus lane before 495, then switches back to double median lanes and travels in mixed traffic in the northern section.

Hybrid Alternative

A low-cost solution involving Flash BRT buses mixing with traffic in some areas, and using exclusive lanes along the curb in others. More details are available in the Hybrid Alternative layout PDF.

Hybrid Alternative Example Street Cross Section
Click image to enlarge

Typical lane diagram for the hybrid alternative. For the mixed traffic portions, all buses, trucks, and cars can use all the lanes. Where there are queue jumps in the mixed traffic portion, only Flash BRT buses will be able to use them to skip long queues at traffic lights. For the curbside lane portions, only buses (of all kinds) can use the dedicated curbside lanes.

Hybrid Alternative Map
Click image to enlarge

Hybrid alternative map: Starting from the southern end (MD-DC line), the bus travels in curbside lanes until Piney Branch Ave, then mixed traffic with queue jumps until after crossing the beltway, then curbside lanes until just before US 29, and then mixed traffic for the rest of the northern portion.

Results of Alternative Analysis

A low-cost solution involving Flash BRT buses mixing with traffic in some areas, and using exclusive lanes along the curb in others. More details are available in the Hybrid Alternative layout PDF.

Each of the alternatives were analyzed on a scale of how well they perform relative to the project goals and to each other for the Flash BRT travel time, the local bus travel time, general traffic travel time, construction cost, and property impact. Analysis of the alternatives found:

The hybrid alternative received the best overall evaluation due to its improvements to local bus travel time, favorable BRT travel time, and relatively lower construction costs and property impacts compared to alternatives #3 and #4.
Alternative #1 performed the best for general traffic travel time but provided the least benefit to travel time for local bus and BRT.
Alternatives #3 and #4 would require high construction cost and property impacts, and while the BRT would have the best relative travel time in this alternative, the local bus travel time would be adversely impacted, as they would continue to operate in mixed traffic, not in the dedicated transit lanes.

Alternative Analysis Table
Click image to enlarge