Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout250506a John F. Barr, President Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice President BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS May 6, 2025 OPEN SESSION AGENDA 8:00 AM INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER, President John F. Barr 8:00 A.M. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION - (Citizen participation is scheduled for a minimum of 30 minutes and each citizens’ comment will be limited to 3 minutes. This time limit will be strictly enforced by the President. Please see the County’s website at WASHCO-MD.NET for complete Meeting Conduct and Meeting Sequence Rules.) 8:30 AM RECESS 9:00 AM INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER, President John F. Barr APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 15, 2025 9:05 AM COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS 9:20 AM STAFF COMMENTS 9:25 AM 1. DRUG TREATMENT COURT MONTH (MAY 2025) Board of County Commissioners of Washington County to Jennifer Bricker, Drug Court Coordinator, Circuit Court for Washington County 9:35 AM 2. PRESERVATION MONTH (MAY 2025) Board of County Commissioners of Washington County to Meghan Jenkins, Historic District Commission 9:40 AM 3. PUBLIC HEARING –MODIFICATION OF WATER AND SEWER FEES FY2026 Mark Bradshaw, Director, Environmental Management; Kelcee Mace, Chief Financial Officer 4. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CERTAIN LANDFILL USER FEES FOR FY2026 David Mason, Deputy Director, Solid Waste; Kelcee Mace, Chief Financial Officer 5. PUBLIC HEARING – MODIFICATION OF CHARGES, RENTALS, AND FEES AT THE HAGERSTOWN REGIONAL AIRPORT FOR FY2026 Neil Doran, Director, Hagerstown Regional Airport; Kelcee Mace, Chief Financial Officer Derek Harvey Randy Leatherman Randall E. Wagner Page 2 of 3 OPEN Session Agenda May 6, 2025 Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting. 10:00 AM 6. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (APFO) AND THE BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE (BETO) Jill Baker, Director, Planning and Zoning 10:20 AM 7. CONTRACT RENEWAL (PUR-1696) ORACLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT Brandi Kentner, Director, Purchasing; Josh O’Neal, Chief Technology Officer, Information Systems 8. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE (INTG-25-0190) THIRTEEN (13) NEW CONSOLETTE 2-WAY RACK MOUNTED RADIOS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS Brandi Kentner, Director, Purchasing; Thomas Weber, Deputy Director, Wireless Communications; Alan Matheny, Director, Emergency Services and Communications 9. SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT (PUR-1748) KEYSTONE (CAD) INTERFACE Brandi Kentner, Director, Purchasing; Alan Matheny, Director, Emergency Management and Communications 10:30 AM 10. DESIGNATION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE CODE OFFICIAL TO SERVE AS AN ASSISTANT STATE FIRE MARSHAL Greg Cartrette, Director/Code Official, Permits and Inspections; Rosalinda Pascual, Deputy County Attorney 10:35 AM 11. WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT – FIVE YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Andrew Eshleman, Director, Public Works; Shawn Harbaugh, Director, Transit 10:40 AM 12. WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT – TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION AND FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONSOLIDATION PLAT Andrew Eshleman, Director, Public Works; Shawn Harbaugh, Director, Transit 10:45 AM CLOSED SESSION – (To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals (1). Confidential personnel matters to be discussed. • Discussion of Appointments to Board of Zoning Appeals • Hiring Recommendation for open position in Business and Economic Development To consider a matter than concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State (4). Page 3 of 3 OPEN Session Agenda May 6, 2025 Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting. • Discussion of incentive program offerings for cannabis industry sectors. To consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter (7). Providing legal advice to Board is covered by attorney/client privilege. • Discussion of County-involved legal matters) 11:30 AM RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION ADJOURNMENT Citizens’ comments regarding the items on this Agenda or any other item of County business may be directed to the contactcommissioners@washco-md.net. You may also contact each Commissioner individually at: John F. Barr, President: jbarr@washco-md.net or (240) 313-2205; Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice President: jcline@washco-md.net or (240) 313-2208; Derek Harvey, Commissioner: dharvey@washco-md.net or (240) 313-2206 Randy Leatherman, Commissioner: rleatherman@washco-md.net or (240) 313-2209; Randall E. Wagner, Commissioner: rwagner@washco-md.net or (240) 313-2207. Additionally, you may contact Michelle Gordon, County Administrator at mgordon@washco-md.net or (240) 313-2202. Open Session Item SUBJECT: Drug Treatment Court Month (May 2025) PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Board of County Commissioners to Jennifer Bricker, Drug Court Coordinator, Circuit Court for Washington County REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Proclamation Presentation WHEREAS, according to All Rise, treatment courts are the most successful justice system intervention in our nation’s history for reducing crime by addressing substance use and mental health disorders; and WHEREAS, treatment courts save an average of more than $6000 for every individual they serve; and WHEREAS, treatment courts provide a range of economic benefits to the community, such as reduced costs in court and prison expenditures, increased tax revenues, lowered foster care expenses, and decreased costs related to victimization; and WHEREAS, treatment courts combine accountability with evidence-based treatment; and WHEREAS, treatment courts annually refer more than 150,000 people to lifesaving treatment and recovery support services; and WHEREAS, according to All Rise, treatment courts significantly improve substance use and mental health disorder treatment outcomes and prevent fatal overdoses; and WHEREAS, treatment courts facilitate community-wide partnerships, bringing together public safety and public health; and WHEREAS, there are now more than 4,000 treatment courts nationwide; and WHEREAS, treatment courts demonstrate that when one person rises, WE ALL RISE. NOW THEREFORE, We, the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2025 as “Drug Treatment Court Month” in Washington County and urge all citizens to join in recognizing and participating in this special observance. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Preservation Month (May 2025) PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Board of County Commissioners to Meghan Jenkins, Historic District Commission RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Proclamation Presentation WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth and sustainable development, revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability; and WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds; and WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of heritage that has shaped us as a people; and WHEREAS, the sharing of knowledge between historic trades persons, historians, museums and citizens is essential for the appreciation and continued existence of historic resources; and WHEREAS , Historic Preservation is supported by the Washington County Historic District Commission, Washington County Historical Advisory Committee, and many other State and local preservation efforts. THEREFORE, We, the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, hereby proclaim the month of May 2025, as “Preservation Month” in Washington County and urge all citizens to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – Modification of Water and Sewer Fees FY2026 PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Mark Bradshaw, Director of Environmental Management; Kelcee Mace, Chief Financial Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION: [Note: The Commissioners may move to adopt the proposed fee schedule for FY2026, as presented or as modified, at any point after the closure of the public hearing.] REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to permit any member of the public to appear and testify concerning the proposed modification of certain water and sewer fees. DISCUSSION: An increase in administrative and miscellaneous fees is necessary to keep pace with the costs these fees offset. The presented Schedule of Rates for FY2026 reflects proposed changes to several fees including allocation fees, design review fees, deduct meter fees, delinquent account fees, wastewater sludge processing fees, and new cross connection control fees. FISCAL IMPACT: Fee changes project a revenue impact of $189,700 for FY 2026. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Summary of Proposed Schedule of Utility Rates for FY2026 AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY | SOLID WASTE | ENGINEERING SERVICES SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR FY2026 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 FULL-SERVICE SEWER & WATER RATES Base for 6,000 gal Per Account Quarterly Sewer Rates Quarterly Water Rates Residential Full Service $145.90 $121.12 Commercial I Full Service $152.25 $124.50 Commercial II Full Service $155.33 $166.66 Commercial III Full Service $155.33 N/A Volunteer Service $146.90 $121.76 Volume per 1,000 gal Quarterly Sewer Rates Quarterly Water Rates Residential Full Service $8.93 $14.93 Commercial I Full Service $9.94 $13.17 Commercial II Full Service $10.70 $11.80 Commercial III Full Service $10.70 N/A Volunteer Service $8.98 $15.03 CITY / COUNTY JOINT SERVICE SEWER AREA Residential/Commercial Collection Service All additional charges are from the City of Hagerstown MISC. FEES Non-Metered Sewer Charge $199.48 - per quarter Non-Metered Water Charge $210.70 - per quarter Sewer Wholesale (Per 1,000 gallons) $8.51 Deduct Meter Fee $30 - per quarter BAY RESTORATION FUND FEE Residential $15 - per quarter Commercial The Fee will be calculated based on water usage or wastewater generated, converted into EDU's and billed at the rate of $5 per month per EDU DELINQUENT ACCOUNT SEWER & WATER BILLING FEES Maintenance fee for delinquent account Assessed when the account is not paid within the 10-day period following (non-business hours) $83 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY | SOLID WASTE | ENGINEERING SERVICES SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR FY2026 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 ALLOCATION FEES Joint Sewer Service Connection Fee Sewer service connection fee for areas jointly served by the City of Hagerstown and the Wash. Co. Dept. of Water Quality. For Example, Maugansville, Fountainhead & Pangborn. Allocation Fee for Sewer Service Connection $8,600 Allocation Fee for Water Service Connection $3,200 Grinder Pump for Sewer Price is variable depending on the direct cost of the pump. This fee is in addition to the Allocation Fee for Sewer Service. Meter Fee for Water Price is variable depending on the direct cost of the meter. This fee is in addition to the Allocation Fee for Water Service. Infrastructure Management Program Fee This fee is in addition to the Allocation Fee for Sewer Service and is to help fund the cost of the emergency alarm communications system infrastructure. Cedar Springs Infrastructure Development Fee $1,000 per acre or per Sewer EDU, whichever is greater This fee is in addition to the Allocation Fee for Sewer Service and is only ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Design Review Fees - Drawings One/two lot simplified subdivision plat $30 Multiple lot subdivision development plan or preliminary $30 (per drawing) Multiple lot subdivision combined Preliminary/Final $120 (per drawing) Design Review Fees - Specification Water Design Review Fees - Specification Sewer Permits $25 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY | SOLID WASTE | ENGINEERING SERVICES SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR FY2026 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 LABORATORY ANALYSIS SAMPLE COLLECTION $25 - Per Sample (Specialty samples require additional charges) ORGANIC ANALYSIS *FORMALDEHYDE $225 *PAINT FILTER TEST $13 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON $30 *SEMI-VOLATILES (EPA 625 & EPA 525) $170 *TCLP, HERBICIDES $100 *ACID/BASE NEUTRALS (EPA 8260) $225 *TCLP, PESTICIDES $100 *PESTICIDES & PCB's (EPA 608) $80 *TCLP, SEMIVOLATILES $250 *HERBICIDES $125 *TCLP, VOC'S $120 *BTEX $50 *VOLATILE ORGANICS (EPA 524 or EPA 624) $100 *MTBE $50 TTO's VOC, Semi Volatiles, Dioxin, Pest. and Herb. $645 *TPH $50 TRIHALOMETHANES $55 HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAA5) $90 PESTICIDE / PCBs 508 $250 BTEX OR MTBE Method 602 $50 *DIOXIN $300 *GROSS BETA + GROSS ALPHA $80 HERBICIDES $125 *IGNITABILITY TEST ON SOLID $20 *CHLOROFORM $80 INORGANIC ANALYSIS ACIDITY $15 NITRATE+NITRITE $16 ACID/ALKALINITY $25 *ODOR $15 ALKALINITY $17 OIL & GREASE $38 AMMONIA NITROGEN $16 ORTHO PHOSPHORUS $19 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) $25 PH (CORROSIVITY) $6 CALCIUM $14 SETTLEABLE SOLID $10 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) $35 SULFATE $24 CHLORINE (FREE OR TOTAL) $8 SULFIDE $24 CHLORIDE $22 SULFITE $24 *COLOR $15 *SURFACTANTS $50 S. CONDUCTANCE $11 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) $20 T. CO2 $15 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN $22 T. CO2 & BI-CARBONATE (BY NOMOGRAPH) $18 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS $22 *CYANIDE $35 TOTAL SOLIDS $15 DISSOLVED OXYGEN $8 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) $12 FLUORIDE $19 TOTAL TOXICITY (MICROTOX) $50 HARDNESS $13 TURBIDITY $8 *HEXAVALENT-CHROMIUM $25 VOLATILES SOLIDS (INCLUDING TS) $20 *PHENOL $25 POT ASH (POTASSIUM & CALCULATION) $30 *FLASHPOINT $25 TOTAL N (TKN+NO3+NO2) $38 ORTHO-PHOSPHOROUS $19 PERCENT SOLIDS $16 NITRATE $16 *Subcontracted test - price may change, as contracted ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY | SOLID WASTE | ENGINEERING SERVICES SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR FY2026 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 LABORATORY ANALYSIS FEES METAL ANALYSIS BY FLAME AA (Parts Per Million) & GRAPHITE FURNACE AA (Parts Per Billion) ALUMINUM $12 NICKEL (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 *ANTIMONY $12/$24 POTASSIUM (FLAA) $12/$24 ARSENIC (GFAA) $12/$24 SELENIUM (GFAA) $12/$24 BARIUM (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 SILICON (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 CADMIUM (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 SILVER (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 CHROMIUM (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 *TCLP, METALS $50 COPPER (FLAA/GFAA) $12 *TIN $12 IRON (FLAA) $12 *TITANIUM $12 LEAD (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 *VANADIUM $12 MAGNESIUM (FLAA) $12/$24 ZINC (FLAA/GFAA) $12 MANGANESE (FLAA/GFAA) $12/$24 SAMPLE PREP. DISSOLVED METALS $10 MERCURY (COLD VAPOR) $24 SAMPLE PREP. FOR METAL DIGESTION $25 MOLYBDENUM $12 *Subcontracted test - price may change, as contracted MICROBIOLOGY CRYPTOSPORIDIUM / GIARDIA $850 SAMPLE DILUTION $10 E. COLI/FECAL COLIFORM (MPN, EC, MUG) $35 TOTAL COLIFORM/E. COLI COLILERT COUNT $35 HETEROTROPHIC PLATE COUNT $35 TOTAL COLIFORM/E. COLI - PRESENT/ABSENT $35 RUSH SAMPLE FEE FOR POSITIVE TEST $20 TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN) $35 WASTEWATER INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PERMIT FEES Permit Application Fees Significant Industrial User Flows greater than 25,000 gal/day or deemed significant by MDE Non-Significant Industrial User Flows less than 25,000 gal/day Permit Maintenance Fees Fees are based upon industrial process wastewater flow and are collected on an annual basis Less than 1,000 gal/day $250 1,000 to 9,999 gal/day $500 10,000 to 25,000 gal/day $1,000 Greater than 25,000 gal/day $2,000 WASTEWATER SLUDGE PROCESSING FEES (Sludge Dewatering) Sludge less than 4% solids $0.07 per gal with a minimum charge for 1,000 gal Sludge between 4% to 7% solids $0.07 per gal with a min charge for 1,000 gallons, plus landfill tipping fee Sludge greater than 7% Unable to process CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL POLICY Commercial I account $65 annually Commercial II account $65 annually ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY | SOLID WASTE | ENGINEERING SERVICES SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR FY2026 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 DEFINITIONS Allocation Fee for Sewer / Water Service Connection - the drinking water system and/or to discharge a prescribed amount of flow to the sewer system. This fee helps offset the capital costs of new treatment facilities, water distribution lines, water tanks, sewer capacity expansion improvements, etc. The Allocation Fee for Sewer / Water Service Base for 6000 gal Per Account The fee includes the cost of infrastructure to provide water and/or sewer services and the operating costs associated with providing that service. These are fixed costs to serve each customer no matter how much wastewater is produced or water drinking water is consumed. Customers are also charged a volume fee for every 1000 gallons over the 6000 gallon base. Bay Restoration Fund / BRA Fee experienced a decline in water quality due to over enrichment of nutrients (mainly phosphorus and nitrogen). Effluent from wastewater treatment plants is one of the top three major contributors of nutrients entering the Bay (urban and agricultural runoffs are the other two). The purpose of the bill is to create a dedicated fund, financed by wastewater treatment plant users, to upgrade Maryland’s wastewater treatment plants with enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) technology so they are capable of achieving wastewater effluent quality of 3 mg/l total nitrogen and 0.3 mg/l total phosphorus. The signing of this bill initiated Maryland’s efforts to further reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the Bay by over 7.5 million pounds of nitrogen per year and over 260 thousand pounds of phosphorus per year, which represent over one-third of Maryland’s commitment under the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement. Cedar Springs Infrastructure Development Fee City / County Joint Service Sewer Area Example, Maugansville, Fountainhead & Pangborn. Washington County is responsible for the sewer pipes / pumping stations and Hagerstown is responsible for the sewer treatment. The sewer flow goes to Hagerstown's treatment plant. Commercial I - Commercial II Deduct Meter Fee - machines at a convenience stores. The meter is read quarterly and deducted from the sewer bill. EDU Dwelling Unit is assumed to be equal to 200 gallons each per day of water use and sanitary sewage production. Infrastructure Management Program Fee owned sewer systems (Emergency Alarms & Communications). Joint Sewer Service Connection Fee Water Quality. For Example, Maugansville, Fountainhead & Pangborn. This fee helps offset the capital costs of upgrading the sewer system and for Laboratory Analysis Fees testing to businesses, municipalities and area residents. Non Metered Sewer Charge usage. For example, a customer that has a private well and Washington County sewer service. Residential/Commercial Collection Service - routine/emergency maintenance of sewer infrastructure in the City/County Joint Service Area. All other charges are billed by the City of Residential Full Service Sewer Residential Full Service Water Sewer Wholesale - Volume per 1000 gal above the base of 6000 gallons. The volume charge covers the cost of sewer and/or drinking water treatment and supports the construction, Volunteer Service - Wastewater Industrial Pretreatment Program Fees - Wastewater Sludge Processing Fees plants. Sludge is a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process and to be safety disposed of the sludge is dewatered in a mechanical/chemical Open Session Item SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Establishment and Modification to Certain Landfill User Fees for FY2026 PRESENTATION DATE: May 06, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: David Mason, P.E., Deputy Director, Solid Waste; Kelcee Mace, Chief Financial Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION: [Note: The Commissioners may move to adopt the proposed fee schedule for FY2026, as presented or as modified, at any point after the closure of the public hearing.] REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to permit any member of the public to appear and testify concerning the proposed establishment and modification of certain landfill user fees for FY2026. DISCUSSION: Solid Waste revenue requirements show that an increase in Solid Waste revenue is necessary to support the Fund. Increases in expenses of various line items have increased more than 160% since 2018, when rates were last increased. The Department is proposing two options for Residential Permits for FY26. The first utilizes the existing permit structure with increased fees. The second will offer an All-Inclusive Permit; one price includes trash, recycling and yard debris in one permit. One of the reasons for offering the All-Inclusive permit is to try to increase the County’s Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) numbers. Washington County is currently not meeting the required MRA rate of 35%. We will still offer separate recycling permits for those residents who have curbside trash pick-up and want to recycle. The fees are outlined in the attached Fee Schedule. The proposed increases include the permit fees, the tonnage rate for Rubble/Building Debris and the bulk rate for tires and mattresses as outlined in the attached Fee Schedule. FISCAL IMPACT: The change in fees will increase revenue in total by $263,605 or 2.47%. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Proposed schedule of fees for FY2026. AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form All-Inclusive Permit (Residential) Citizen $186.00 **$200.00 Second Permit, Same Owner $121.00 **$150.00 Senior Citizen Age 62 or over $156.00 **$150.00 Service-Related Disabled Veterans $156.00 **$150.00 Citizen (6 months)$121.00 **$150.00 Senior Citizen Age 62 or over (6 months)$103.50 **$100.00 Service-Related Disabled Veterans (6 months)$103.50 **$100.00 Recycling Permit $36.00 $40.00 *If this fee structure is adopted, it would eliminate the other stand-alone residential permits & fees except recycling. **Fees shown as current is the combined cost of current stand-alone permits when purchased together. Residential Trash Permit Citizen $130.00 $135.00 Second Permit, Same Owner $65.00 $67.50 Senior Citizen Age 62 or over $95.00 $98.00 Service-Related Disabled Veterans $95.00 $98.00 Citizen (6 months*)$65.00 $67.50 Senior Citizen Age 62 or over (6 months*)$47.50 $49.00 Service-Related Disabled Veterans (6 months*)$47.50 $49.00 (*Regular/Senior/DAV permits purchased after January 1st will be half price) Residential Yard Debris Permit Yard Debris Permit with purchase of Residential Permit $20.00 $25.00 (must be purchased at the same time) Stand Alone Yard Debris Permit $25.00 $50.00 Residential Recycling Permit Recycling Permit $36.00 $40.00 (Recylcing permit needed for use of recycle bins and cardboard bins at all facilities) SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED RATES FOR FY2026 - SOLID WASTE SERVICES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY | SOLID WASTE | ENGINEERING SERVICES PERMIT FEES CURRENT PROPOSED ALL-INCLUSIVE PERMIT FEES (ALTERNATIVE)*CURRENT PROPOSED DIVISION OF SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED RATES FOR FY2026 - SOLID WASTE SERVICES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY | SOLID WASTE | ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION OF Commercial Solid Wate Collection License Less than 5 employees $10.00 $10.00 Over 5 employees $100.00 $100.00 (All commercial permits must be renewed by July 1 each year) Forty West Landfill Inbound Scale Fees Minimum scale fee (< 360lb MSW/<320lb Yard/<260lb Rubble/<660 Recycle)$10.00 $10.00 Municipal Solid Waste $55.00 /ton $55.00 /ton Yard Debris (leaves, grass, brush)$63.00 /ton $63.00 /ton Recycling $30.00 /ton $30.00 /ton Domestic Sludge / Industrial Sludge $60.00 /ton $60.00 /ton Rubble / Building Debris $75.00 /ton $78.00 /ton White Goods $52.00 /ton $55.00 /ton E-Waste $52.00 /ton $55.00 /ton Industrial Waste $52.00 /ton $55.00 /ton High volume/low weight (foam, rubber, etc.)$120.00 /ton $120.00 /ton Tires (auto & light truck, 5 or less)**$3.00 each $3.00 each Tires (less than 22-inch rim size)**$162.00 /ton $250.00 /ton Tires (equipment)**$250.00 /ton $250.00 /ton Dirt (Clean Fill)$20.00 /ton $20.00 /ton Mattresses/Box Springs $5.00 each $5.00 each Mattress Recycling Bulk Rate $120.00 /ton $200.00 /ton Carcasses (must call ½ hour before delivery)$100.00 /ton $100.00 /ton Appliances containing Freon $5.00 each $5.00 each ** any customer with 6 or more tires for disposal must have a Temporary Scrap Tire Waiver from the Maryland Department of Transportation. Please call 410-537-3314 to obtain the waiver. Forty West Landfill Outbound Scale Fees Minimum Scale Fee (<660 lb Mulch / <1,000 lb Soil Amendment)$10.00 /ton $10.00 /ton Mulch $30.00 /ton $30.00 /ton Soil Amendment (Compost)$30.00 /ton $30.00 /ton Must have a tarp to cover all loads of mulch and soil amendment. TIPPING FEES CURRENT PROPOSED Open Session Item SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – Modification of Charges, Rentals, and Fees at the Hagerstown Regional Airport for FY2026 PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Neil Doran, Airport Director; Kelcee Mace, Chief Financial Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION: [Note: The Commissioners may move to adopt the proposed fee schedule for FY2026, as presented or as modified, at any point after the closure of the public hearing.] REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to permit any member of the public to appear and testify concerning the proposed increase in current charges, rentals, and fees at the Hagerstown Regional Airport. The new schedule of rates and charges, if adopted, will become effective July 1, 2025. DISCUSSION: An approximately 3% increase in T-Hangar rental charges is necessary to maintain compliance with fair market value grant assurance required by the FAA as well as aging facilities and operations. There are no other fee increases being proposed in the FY26 budget. FISCAL IMPACT: Based on the proposed rate schedule, approximately $16,070 in revenue will be generated from T-Hangar rental charges. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Proposed schedule of rates and charges for FY2026. AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form To be effective 3% $303.00 /month $312.00 /month $287.00 /month $296.00 /month $200.00 /month $206.00 /month $181.00 /month $186.00 /month $171.00 /month $176.00 /month 3% T-Hangar Building 4-B $1,138.00 /month $1,172.00 /month T-Hangar Buildings 8 & 9 $380.00 /month $391.00 /month T-Hangar Building 7 $362.00 /month $373.00 /month T-Hangar 2-A $569.00 /month $586.00 /month T-Hangar 4-D $621.00 /month $640.00 /month T-Hangar 4-G $670.00 /month $690.00 /month T-Hangar 7-I $490.00 /month $505.00 /month Hangar 13A, B & C $621.00 /month $640.00 /month 3% $142.00 /month $146.00 /month $188.00 /month $194.00 /month $552.00 /month $569.00 /month $580.00 /month $597.00 /month $198.00 /month $204.00 /month $34.00 /month $35.00 /month $200.00 /month $206.00 /month $209.00 /month $215.00 /month $154.00 /month $159.00 /month 3% $762.00 /month $785.00 /month $640.00 /month $659.00 /month $710.00 /month $731.00 /month $213.00 /month $219.00 /month $3,096.00 $3,189.00 Commercial Office 8-L Corporate Hangar & Office Multi-Unit Complex: Combination Office and Hangar Large Multi-Engine Hangars Hangar Offices Small Single Engine Hangars PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES FOR FY 2026 HAGERSTOWN REGIONAL AIRPORT - Richard A. Henson Field July 1, 2025 Applies to Based Aircraft with signed tie-down or ramp parking lease Grass (adjacent to Taxiway Papa) Class MGTOW in lbs 1 6,500 - 10,999 2 11,000 - 15,999 3 16,000 - 33,999 4 34,000 - 65,000 5 66,000 - 99,999 6 100,000 - up MGTOW = refers to an aircraft's Maximum Gross Take Off Weight ^^Applicable unless separate agreements exist governing a price paid to the airport for use of parking spaces, such as by Rental Car Concessionaires. $99.00 Twin Engine Piston $145.00 Medium Jet - Class 3/4 Negotiated by Airport Director Large Aircraft - Class 5/6 Negotiated by Airport Director Turboprop Negotiated by Airport Director Negotiated by Airport Director Negotiated by Airport Director Negotiated by Airport Director Negotiated by Airport Director $145.00 $99.00Single Engine Piston 2025 $69.00 Large Aircraft - Class 6 $450.00 LANDING FEES 2025 Mid-Sized Jet - Class 3/4 $300.00 Note: Applicable to short-term, transient visitor parking on airport-owned aprons not leased to other entities such as portions of East Apron, Terminal Apron and Firehouse Apron. Does not apply to airport tenants, customers and users of separately leased areas such as Rider Jet Center FBO, Plane TRANSIENT RAMP FEES / OVERNIGHT AIRCRAFT PARKING FEES 2025 Single Engine Piston 2026 $450.00 $400.00 $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 $24.00 $100.00 $20.00 TERMINAL GROUND VEHICLE PARKING FEE 0 - 60 minutes - Free Daily Max Fee - $5.00 2025 2026 Terminal (Ground) Vehicle - Secured Parking Lot Use Fee^^: ^Note: Landing fees do not apply to locally-based, state, federal or military aircraft and those under 6,499 lbs MGTOW. MONTHLY AIRCRAFT TIE-DOWN / RAMP PARKING FEES $69.00 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING – Amendments to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and the Building Excise Tax Ordinance (BETO) PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Jill Baker, AICP, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning RECOMMENDATION: The purpose of this public hearing is to take public comment on proposed amendments to the APFO and BETO. The Commissioners may take a consensus vote on whether to approve or deny the request or wait until a later date to deliberate. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The proposed amendments for these ordinances are being contemplated due to a lack of consistency, efficiency and coordination with local municipalities specifically regarding school mitigation efforts. The focus on school mitigation is due to significant capital costs associated with maintenance and repair of existing schools and construction of new schools that historically have been funded predominately by the Board of County Commissioners. Because the two ordinances are currently linked together regarding school mitigation, it becomes confusing as to what fees are due because of APFO requirements and what are due because of BETO requirements. These amendments seek to break that link between the two documents and let them stand on their own in adherence to their individual purpose. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the APFO is to ensure that public facilities and services needed to support new development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such development. The intent being that development may proceed at a reasonable rate while providing time for the County to budget and plan for the capital costs that will be associated with the impacts of development. APFO’s can only be adopted and enforced by the elected body of individual jurisdictions. For example, the County adopted APFO does not apply to lands within incorporated municipalities. The BETO was adopted in 2015 as a mechanism to generate revenue from new building construction throughout the County to help offset impacts on local infrastructure. The BETO applies to all lands in the County including within municipalities. FISCAL IMPACT: Increasing the excise tax while repealing APFO AMC should result in similar, but possibly higher, revenues for impacts of development on local infrastructure. CONCURRENCES: Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form ALTERNATIVES: Leave Ordinances as they are or discuss some other modifications not presented by Staff. ATTACHMENTS: Amended APFO in track changes Amended BETO in track changes. FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION □Property Owner □Contract Purchaser Applicant □Attorney □Consultant □Other: Address Primary Contact Phone Number Address E-mail Address □ Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance □ Water and Sewer Plan □ Forest Conservation Ordinance □ Zoning Ordinance □ Subdivision Ordinance □ Other □ Solid Waste Plan Section No. Please provide the proposed text on a separate sheet of paper as follows: strike-through should be used for deletions [deletions], unchanged wording in regular type, and new wording should be underlined [new wording]. Applicant’s Signature Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 20 . My commission expires on Notary Public FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY Rezoning No. Date Filed: □ □ Fee Worksheet □ □ Changes □ ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE Adopted this 16th day of October, 1990. This Ordinance is effective as of December 1, 1990. Revision 1 - August 13, 1991 Revision 2 - August 31, 1993 Revision 3 - August 29, 1995 Revision 4 - November 26, 2002 Revision 5 – December 16, 2003 (Effective January 1, 2004) Revision 6 – May 25, 2004 Revision 7 – November 1, 2005 Revision 8 – June 18, 2013 Revision 9 – October 22, 2013 Revision 10 - 2025 2 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE ARTICLE I - PURPOSE 1.1 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance of Washington County, Maryland. 1.2 PURPOSE It is the purpose of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County that public facilities and services needed to support new development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such new developments. In meeting this purpose, public facility and service availability shall be deemed sufficient if the public facilities and services for new development are phased, or the new development is phased, so that the public facilities and those related services which are deemed necessary by the local government to operate the facilities necessitated by that new development, are available concurrently with the impacts of the new development. ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS 2.1 GENERAL (a) For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meanings given herein. Words in the present tense include the future, the singular number includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular. The word “shall” is mandatory and the word “may” is permissive. The words “used for” shall include “arranged for,” “designed for,” “intended for”, “maintained for,” “constructed for”, or “occupied for”. The word “individual” shall mean natural person, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability limited partnership, association, club, company, corporation, limited liability company, real estate investment trust, business trust or similar legal entity or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee of any of them. The word “land” shall include water surface and land under water. The term “Ordinance” shall refer to this Ordinance and all subsequent additions or amendments thereto. 3 (b) A Developer shall not avoid the intent of this Ordinance by submitting piecemeal applications for preliminary plats or site plans. However, a Developer may seek approval of only a portion of the subdivision or development, provided that the impact from all previously approved preliminaries or site plans from that development shall be considered during the adequate public facilities review of each subsequent portion of the development. 2.2 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES For the purpose of this Ordinance, the term “Adequate Public Facilities” shall be defined as those facilities relating to roads, sewerage disposal systems, schools, water supply and distribution systems, and interim fire protection systems meeting established minimum standards. 2.3 DEFINITIONS 2.3.01 Affordable (aka Workforce) Housing In accordance with the Housing and Community Development Article of the Maryland Annotated Code §4-1801, affordable housing means residential dwelling units where housing costs (rent or mortgage payments) do not exceed 30% of a household's income and being affordable to households earning 60% or less of the area median income. 2.3.1 Agricultural Purposes A parcel of land that has been determined by the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation as having an “Agricultural Use Assessment” or a parcel of land that is primarily involved in a bona fide and continuing agricultural activity, such as, the raising of farm products for use or sale, including animal or poultry husbandry, and the growing of crops such as grain, vegetables, fruit, grass for pasture or sod, trees, shrubs, flowers and similar products of the soil. 2.3.1.1 Background Enrollment Growth The average annual impact of equated student enrollment changes during the preceding three (3) years in the school attendance areas serving the proposed development as determined in Section 5.4 with appropriate adjustments made in the 4 determination by the Board of Education to eliminate student enrollment changes caused solely by school redistricting. 2.3.2 Board of County Commissioners (Board) The legislative body of Washington County, Maryland. 2.3.3 Board of Education (BOE) The elected Board of Education of Washington County. 2.3.4 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan of the County. 2.3.5 County Washington County, Maryland. 2.3.6 County Engineer The duly designated Chief Engineer of Washington County, Maryland. 2.3.7 County Health Department The Washington County Health Department. 2.3.8 Developer Any individual commencing proceedings under this Ordinance to affect a subdivision or development of land for himself or for another. 2.3.9 Extraordinary Hardship Extraordinary hardship is a condition that exists when strict compliance with this Ordinance would result in an unusually and extraordinarily severe financial economic impact on the owner or Developer. 5 2.3.10 Immediate Family Member Immediate family member shall mean father, mother, step-father, step-mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, stepson, stepdaughter, grandchild. 2.3.11 Improvements Improvements shall mean storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water supply lines, roads, curbs, gutters, gas lines, electricity lines, water lines, septic tanks, wells, walks, and other accessory works and appurtenances, dwellings, farm buildings, and other principal or accessory structures. 2.3.12 Lot A parcel of real property marked by the Developer as a numbered, lettered or otherwise identified tract to be utilized as a unit of land intended for building development or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds, the description of which has been recorded among the land records of Washington County. 2.3.12.1 Minor subdivision A minor subdivision is the division of a lot, tract or parcel into seven (7) or fewer lots for the immediate or future transfer of property ownership. 2.3.13 New Development New development consists of new subdivisions and site plans for new construction received for approval by the Washington County Planning Commission after the effective date of this Ordinance as set forth in Article XII. New development also consists of construction activity requiring a building and/or zoning permit but does not consist of construction activity for agricultural purposes provided that, after said development, the parcel does not lose the “Agricultural Use Assessment” classification as determined by the Department of Assessments and Taxation.10 2.3.14 Original Tract of Land. A parcel of real estate unsubdivided as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. 2.3.15 Planning Commission (Commission). The Washington County Planning Commission. 6 2.3.16 Plat A map, plan, chart or drawing indicating the subdivision or resubdivision of land filed or intended to be filed for the record. 2.3.16.1 Remaining Lands The residual portion or tract of land which remains after lots or parcels have been subdivided from the original tract of land.11 2.3.17 Residential Development The term “residential development” as used in this Ordinance means any lot, building or portion thereof used exclusively for dwelling units, including concomitant uses, and other uses of a residential nature for the individuals residing in said dwelling units. 2.3.18 Right-of-Way A land area designated, dedicated, or reserved for use as a highway, street, alley, interior walk, or for a drainage channel, or other public use. 10 Section 2.3.13 amended 8/31/93 11 Section 2.3.16.1 added 8/31/93 7 2.3.19 Road A public right-of-way, intended for vehicular traffic, including freeways, expressways, arterials, parkways, thoroughfares, collector streets, local streets, cul- de-sacs, marginal access streets, avenues, boulevards, lanes and other public ways, and as now or hereafter or otherwise designated. 2.3.20 Simplified Plat The term “simplified plat” as used in this Ordinance is a map, plan, chart or drawing indicating the proposed subdivision or resubdivision of land filed or intended to be filed with the Planning Commission and where the intent of the subdivider is neither to develop the land nor to divide land containing existing development. 2.3.21 Site Plan A drawing that shows all of the existing conditions of a specified area (the site) and all of the improvements and changes proposed to be made on the site. A site plan is the drawing required by the Zoning Ordinance for all new development and certain additions and must contain all applicable information as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. 2.3.21.1 State Rated Capacity As used in this Ordinance, State Rated Capacity shall refer to the capacity of each school as determined by the state of Maryland. Portable classrooms shall not be used in computing the school capacity for the purposes of this Ordinance. 2.3.22 Subdivision Ordinance The Washington County, Maryland Subdivision Ordinance, and all subsequent additions or amendments thereto. 8 2.3.23 Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance of Washington County, Maryland, and all subsequent additions or amendments thereto. 9 ARTICLE V - SCHOOLS 5.1 ADEQUACY All new residential development shall be served by public schools that: (a) Are currently adequate; or (b) Have construction of additional capacity funded and scheduled for completion within the same school attendance area in the current or the next year of the approved Washington County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) following final plat or site plan approval. Adequate is defined in Section 5.4.1below. The additional capacity funded and scheduled shall be exclusive of any capacity created pursuant to a developer- funded mitigation program; or (c) Have been identified by the Board of Education (BOE) as part of an approved redistricting plan scheduled to occur in the same school year or the school year following final plat or site plan approval that will render the public schools adequate. 5.1.1 CAPACITY CREATED BY MITIGATION PROGRAM Construction of capacity that is funded and to be created by a mitigation program may not be used in a determination of adequacy for any Developer other than the Developers who are parties to the mitigation program. 5.2 EXEMPTIONS Article V of this Ordinance does not apply to: (a) New development to be developed exclusively for non-residential uses; 33 Article V repealed and reenacted 12/16/03 34 Article V amended 11/1/05. 35 Article V amended 10/22/13 (APF-13-002) 10 (b) New development to be developed and managed according to the applicable regulations and guidelines of the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Housing for Older Persons Act; (c) Public or private elementary and secondary schools, and public safety facilities; or (c) Minor Subdivisions.38 5.3 DATA ON WHICH ADEQUACY SHALL BE DETERMINED. The BOE shall provide actual enrollment data to the Board of County Commissioners for the last school day of September, December, March and June and the State Rated Capacity for each elementary and secondary school. 5.4 DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY 5.4.1 The Planning Commission shall determine whether public school facilities are adequate for the proposed new development upon recommendation by the Planning Department after evaluating enrollment information provided by the BOE. The Planning Commission shall determine that a school is adequate if the school has the capacity as follows: (a) Elementary, middle and high schools are adequate if the school has available capacity to accommodate student enrollment, including approved new development without exceeding the State Rated Capacity (SRC). (b) Available capacity for individual schools shall be determined in accordance with Section 5.5, below. 38 See Section 2.3.12.1 Minor Subdivision. A minor subdivision is the division of a lot, tract or parcel into seven (7) or fewer lots for the immediate or future transfer of property ownership. (c) Final approval will not be granted for developments in the review process until schools obtain adequate status through the determination made according to the procedures described in Sections 5.5 and 5.6 below. 11 5.5 MEASURING FOR AVAILABLE CAPACITY (a) Adequacy of every elementary, middle and high school serving the proposed development shall be tentatively measured at the time of preliminary consultation and preliminary plat review and shall be finally measured and determined as of the date of final plat or site plan submission, or the first date upon which all necessary documentation and materials have been submitted, whichever occurs last, based upon data published by the BOE. (b) If approval has not been received from the Planning Commission within twelve (12) months of the date of plan submission, the most recent quarterly school enrollment data must be utilized by the Commission for APFO review unless a delay occurs not attributable to the applicant. (c) For determining adequacy, enrollment shall mean the total of the BOE official enrollment figures, background enrollment, pupils generated from the proposed development, and pupils generated from other previously approved developments, including developments in municipalities. (d) On a biennial schedule, student yield from approved development may be subtracted from the equation to determine adequacy in an amount equal to the number yielded by the dwelling units constructed. (e) Pupil generation rates shall be determined by the Board of County Commissioners with advice from and consultation with the BOE and shall reflect the characteristics of the school attendance area within which the proposed development is located. 5.6 OPTIONS FOR MITIGATION OF INADEQUATE SCHOOL CAPACITY (a) If a school is not adequate as defined in Section 5.4.1 but does not exceed 120% of State Rated Capacity: i. The Developer and/or Home Builder shall be subject to an annual permit limitation of not more than 25 dwelling unit permits per calendar year. Permits for multi-family apartment and condo units shall be limited to a permit for one structure to contain up to 35 dwelling units per calendar year. Notes shall be placed on record plats referring to the restrictions delineated in this section. Permit allocations are assigned based on the master plan development not by phases or other subsets. Permit allocations may not be transferred to other 12 developments. Permit applications that cannot be permitted due to the annual limitation shall be deferred to the subsequent year, subject to the same review and mitigation requirements. Unused allocations of permits may not be carried over into a new calendar year. Emergency or Public Benefit Projects: Development proposals that directly address public health, safety or welfare as delineated in Section 9.3A, may be exempt from the permit limitation or permitted outside of the annual cap as determined and approved by the Board. ii. If a school is not adequate as defined in section 5.4.1 and an adjoining school district at the same level is at least twenty (20%) percent below State Rated Capacity, then the Developer may request the BOE to determine the viability of redistricting to accommodate the new development. If the BOE determines that redistricting is a viable alternative, and the BOE approves a specific redistricting plan that would result in all the schools serving the proposed development meeting the standards established in Section 5.4.1, then the school shall be considered adequate. (b) If a school is not adequate as defined in Section 5.4.1 and the development proposal exceeds 120% of the SRC, the Developer shall be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development by providing one or more of the following mitigation measures to receive final plat approval. The Board of County Commissioners, at their sole discretion, may approve a mitigation proposal under this section. Failure to obtain an approved mitigation plan within two (2) years from the date of final plan submittal shall result in denial of the final plat and/or site plan. i. Facility Improvements. A Developer may propose construction of capital facility improvements to the inadequate school(s) affected by the development when it has been determined that said contribution(s) will provide impactful relief of overcapacity issues in a school within a five-year period starting from the date of final plat approval. Temporary or portable classrooms shall not be included as part of any mitigation plan under this subsection. If approved as a mitigation plan, the Developer will be required to sign a Memorandum of Agreement with the County affirming their responsibility and commitment to complete the construction project. The Board may, at their sole discretion, require a bond to be posted to ensure that the project will be completed. 13 Any Developer proposal to create improvements to meet adequacy shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning to review with the BOE for guidance and recommendations on the proposed improvements. Plans shall be reviewed for consistency with any BOE adopted mitigation policy then in effect and the most current Education Facilities Master Plan. Mitigation plans along with staff recommendations will be forwarded to the Board for discussion and deliberation by the Department of Planning and Zoning. ii. Redistricting. If a school is not adequate as defined in section 5.4.1 and an adjoining school district at the same level is at least twenty (20%) percent below State Rated Capacity, then the Developer may request the BOE to determine the viability of redistricting to accommodate the new development. If the BOE determines that redistricting is a viable alternative, and the BOE approves a specific redistricting plan that would result in all the schools serving the proposed development meeting the standards established in Section 5.4.1, then the school shall be considered adequate. iii. Financial contributions. Monetary contributions to a public facility improvement fund earmarked for public school construction may be proposed when it has been determined that said contribution(s) will provide impactful relief of overcapacity issues in a school within a five-year period starting from the date of final plat approval. Use of this mitigation option will require the Developer to provide a detailed analysis of the monetary contribution being proposed. The analysis shall include: 1. A monetary figure based on the proposed cost per dwelling unit. 2. A narrative explaining the rationale and/or formulas that resulted in the cost per dwelling unit. 3. A narrative explaining how the monetary contribution will provide impactful relief in the affected school district(s) within five years of final plat approval. Financial contributions must be paid prior to final plat approval. Any sums paid as part of the mitigation plan are not refundable. 14 iv. Other mitigation strategies. The Developer may propose an alternative method of mitigation that must provide impactful relief for overcapacity issues in a school within a five-year period starting from the date of final plat approval. Use of this mitigation option must be accompanied by a detailed narrative and/or financial analysis that support their desire to use an alternative mitigation plan. 5.7 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL 5.7.1 The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to limit the number of building permits in any school attendance area. The decision to limit building permits shall be based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission upon receipt of a recommendation from the BOE taking into consideration the adequacy of the school attendance area and enrollment capacity in immediately adjacent school attendance areas. 5.7.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to cap the number of residential building lots approved for development on an annual basis. ARTICLE IX - EXCEPTIONS, AGENCY PARTICIPATION 9.3 A In its sole discretion, the Board of County Commissioners or its designee may approve a mitigation program that allows a development to proceed in a school district otherwise designated as inadequate for development under the following conditions: (a) The Board of County Commissioners determines that approving this development benefits the community by: (i) encouraging certain types of development that offer advantages to the community, including but not limited to the following: (1) development in designated revitalization areas; (2) renovation of abandoned or under-utilized structures; (3) affordable or workforce housing as defined in 2.3.01 or community revitalization projects; or (4) developments with preliminary plat approval prior to July 1, 15 2005. BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Adopted June 17, 2003 Effective July 1, 2003 Revision 1 (Amended)-Adopted June 22, 2004 Effective as of July 1, 2004. Revision 2 - Adopted and effective October 12, 2004 Revision 3 - adopted July 12, 2005 Effective as of July 12, 2005. Revision 4 - adopted May 2, 2006. Effective as of May 2, 2006, except as otherwise provided herein. Revision 5 - Repealed and reenacted, with amendments, on June 17, 2008 Effective July 1, 2008 Revision 6 - Repealed and reenacted, with amendments, on June 23, 2009 Effective June 26, 2009 Revision 7 (Amended)-Adopted March 1, 2011 Effective March 1, 2011 Revision 8 (Amended) - Adopted September 13, 2011 Effective September 13, 2011 Revision 9 (Amended) - Adopted August 28, 2012 Effective August 28, 2012 Revision 10 (Amended) - Adopted March 26, 2013 Effective March 26, 2013 Revision 11 (Amended) - Adopted August 4, 2015 Effective August 4, 2015 BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Revision 12 (Amended)-Adopted September 10, 2019 Effective September 10, 2019 Revision 13 (Amended) - Adopted June 28, 2022 Effective June 28, 2022 Revision 14 (Amended) – Adopted Effective BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 1 1. Establishment of tax. 1.01 In accordance with Section 2-701 of the Code of the Public Local Laws of Washington County, as amended from time to time, there is a building excise tax on all building construction in Washington County. 2. Definitions. 2.01 The words and phrases used in this Ordinance shall have their usual meaning, unless otherwise defined in this section. 2.02 Addition construction means construction that requires a building permit and that increases the gross square footage of an existing nonresidential nonretail structure or nonresidential retail structure, or the habitable gross square footage of an existing residential structure. 2.03 Applicant means the individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity whose signature or name appears on the building permit application. 2.04 Basement means that portion of a building that is partly or completely below grade and has a ceiling height of at least seven feet. 2.05 Board or Board of County Commissioners or County Commissioners means the Board of County Commissioners for Washington County, Maryland. 2.06 Building means any permanent structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. Building does not include an accessory structure or a temporary structure, as defined in the Washington County building code. 2.07 Common area means the interior or exterior circulation paths, rooms, spaces or elements that are not for public use and are made available for the shared use of two or more people in a multifamily residential structure, including lobbies and laundry facilities. 2.08 Construction means construction or alteration of a building or part of a building that requires a building permit. 2.09 Director of Finance means the Director of Budget and Finance for Washington County or the Director's designee. BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 2 2.10 Director of Permits and Inspections means the Director of the Division of Permits and Inspections for Washington County or the Director's designee. 2.11 Farm construction means construction intended to be actively used for farm use but does not include residential construction thereon. 2.12 Farm or agricultural use means the raising of farm products for use or sale, including animal or poultry husbandry, animal husbandry facilities, aquaculture, and the growing of crops such as grain, vegetables, fruit, grass for pasture or sod, trees, shrubs, flowers, and similar products of the soil. 2.13 Gross square footage means the entire interior area of a structure, finished or unfinished. 2.14 Habitable gross square footage means the entire interior area of living space in a residential structure, finished or unfinished, including but not limited to bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, basements, and storage or utility spaces, but not including porches, garages, unfinished attics, and crawl spaces. Habitable gross square footage does not include the common areas of multifamily residential structures having three or more dwelling units. 2.15 Mixed-use structure means a structure or part of a structure, but not a separated occupancy, having any combination of residential use, nonresidential nonretail use, or nonresidential retail use. 2.16 Nonresidential means the use of a structure for purposes other than living or permanent habitation. 2.17 Nonresidential nonretail means the use of a structure for assembly, business, factory, storage, utility, education, institutional, transient accommodations or habitation, or hazardous uses. 2.18 Nonresidential retail means the use of a structure open to the public for the display and sale of merchandise, and involves stocks of goods, wares, or merchandise incidental to such purposes, including but not limited to restaurants, stores, members- only discount stores, and other commercial sales enterprises not solely engaged in the wholesale distribution of merchandise. 2.19 Principal use means the foremost purpose for the use, its raison d'etre. A principal use may be accompanied by one or more accessory uses that are incidental to or supportive of the principal use. The ratio of the gross square footage of the structure BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 3 devoted to any principal and accessory uses is not a factor in determining the principal use of the structure. 2.20 Redevelopment area means the "Hagerstown Redevelopment Area," consisting of all that land zoned Downtown Mixed-Use District or within a Hagerstown Conversion District overlay zone as set forth in the Hagerstown Zoning Ordinance as of June 26, 2009, and those areas in other municipal corporations as may be designated by the Board of County Commissioners by resolution upon request. 2.21 Residential means the use of a structure for living or permanent habitation, or a structure having one (1) or more dwelling units, including but not limited to boarding houses, but not including institutional uses or transient accommodations such as hotels, country inns, bed and breakfast inns, and the like, which shall be considered nonresidential nonretail uses. 2.22 Separated occupancy means a discrete part of a structure having a principal use that is distinct from other uses in the same structure, including but not limited to a store in a mall or an office in a multi-unit office building. 2.23 Structure means a building or part of a building. 3. Residential Construction. 3.01 Base building excise tax. The base amount of the building excise tax for residential construction is $2.00 per square foot of habitable gross square footage. 3.02 Addition construction. The amount of the building excise tax for residential addition construction is one-half of the amount per square foot set forth in §3.01. 3.03 Credits from previous Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) regulations. Residential units that have paid an Alternate Mitigation Contribution (AMC) in accordance with preceding APFO requirements to gain final plat approvals shall receive credit for the first $1.00 per square foot of building excise tax. The Department of Planning and Zoning shall provide a report to the Department of Permits and Inspections delineating units that may receive this credit. 3.04 Calculation of amount. The amount of building excise tax to be paid by an applicant shall be determined by the Director of Permits and Inspections. 4. Nonresidential Construction BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 4 4.01 Nonresidential nonretail construction. The building excise tax for nonresidential nonretail construction is $1.50 per square foot of the gross square footage. 4.02 Nonresidential retail construction. The building excise tax for nonresidential retail construction is $1.50 per square foot of the first 15,000 square feet of gross square footage and $3 per square foot of any gross square footage over 15,000 square feet. 4.03 Addition construction. The amount of the tax due under this section shall be determined according to the increase in the gross square footage of the structure at the same rate per square foot set forth in §§4.01 and 4.02, as the circumstance may require. 4.04 Mixed-use structures. The building excise tax for mixed-use construction is the tax imposed under this Ordinance for the principal use of the structure as determined by the Director of Permits and Inspections. 4.05 Separated occupancies. The building excise tax for separated occupancy construction is the tax imposed under this Ordinance for the principal use of the separated occupancy. 5. Payment of tax. 5.01 Building excise tax paid before issuance of building permit. An applicant for a building permit shall pay the building excise tax before the building permit for the respective structure is issued. 5.02 Refunds. The Director of Finance shall refund to the applicant the building excise tax paid if the building permit is cancelled or expires so long as work has not commenced. If, upon appeal by an applicant pursuant to §10.03 who has paid the building excise tax, the County Administrator determines that the Director of Permits and Inspections has erred in calculating the building excise tax, the Director of Finance shall refund to the applicant the difference between the amount of building excise tax paid by the applicant and the correct amount as determined by the County Administrator. 6. Exemptions. 6.01 Farm construction. Farm construction is not subject to the building excise tax so long as the construction continues to be actively used for farm use. Should the BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 5 construction be used for some purpose other than active farm use, then the building excise tax shall be remitted to the Director of Finance at the then existing amount of the building excise tax. 6.02 Government construction. No building excise tax shall be imposed on construction by the Board of County Commissioners, any municipality, the Washington County Board of Education, Hagerstown Community College, the State of Maryland, or the federal government. 6.03 Replacement construction.* No building excise tax shall be imposed on construction that replaces an existing structure as long as there is no: (a) Increase in the habitable gross square footage of a residential structure; (b) Change in the use of a structure from a nonresidential nonretail use to a nonresidential retail use; or (c) Increase in the gross square footage of a nonresidential structure. 6.04 Residential accessory structures. No building excise tax shall be imposed on residential accessory structures that are not habitable. 6.05 Schools. No building excise tax shall be imposed on construction of public or private elementary or secondary schools or higher education institutions issued a certificate of approval by the Maryland Higher Education Commission pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Educ. §11-202. 6.06 Redevelopment area. No building excise tax shall be imposed on construction in a redevelopment area as defined in §2.20 of this Ordinance. 6.07 Enterprise zones. No building excise tax shall be imposed upon non- residential construction within enterprise zones in the County. 6.08 Religious corporations. No building excise tax shall be imposed upon structures: (a) Owned by corporations organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. 501, and (b) Used primarily for religious purposes. • * The building excise tax on any increase in habitable gross square footage or gross square footage created by the construction shall be computed in accordance with §§ 3, 4, and 7 of this Ordinance. BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 6 6.09 Fire, Rescue, or Ambulance Companies. No building excise tax shall be imposed upon structures: (a) Owned by corporations authorized to provide fire protection or firefighting service, rescue, or ambulance service as described in Section 10-401 of the Code of Public Local Laws for Washington County, Maryland; and used primarily for the delivery of fire, rescue, or ambulance service. 6.10 Residential construction occurring within the Hancock and Cascade Elementary School attendance districts shall be exempt from excise tax for a period of ten (10) years from the effective date of this amendment (Revision 14). This exemption also applies to construction of residential additions outlined in 3.03. 7. Change in use. 7.01 General. Upon receipt of a building permit application for a change in use that requires a zoning certification, the building excise tax shall be imposed based on the use applied for in the building permit application, subject to any credit allowed by §7.07. 7.02 Conversion from nonresidential to residential. When an existing structure is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts its use from a non-residential use to residential use, the building excise tax is 70% of the amount set forth in§ 3.01 on all existing gross square footage. Any addition construction will be taxed at the amount set forth in §3.02. Conversion construction under this §7.02 is not entitled to the credit set forth in §7.05. 7.03 Conversion from residential to non-residential nonretail. When an existing structure is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts its use from residential use to nonresidential nonretail use, the building excise tax is as set forth in §4.01 on all existing habitable gross square footage. Any addition construction will be taxed at the amount set forth in §4.03. 7.04 Conversion from residential to non-residential retail. When an existing structure is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts its use from residential use to nonresidential retail use, the building excise tax is as set forth in §4.02 on all existing gross square footage. Any addition construction will be taxed at the amount set forth in §4.03. 7.05 Credit. A credit shall be granted for any building excise tax due under this BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 7 §7 for any excise tax previously paid upon prior construction of the structure since July 12, 2005. No refund shall be granted if the credit for any building excise tax previously paid exceeds the building excise tax imposed under this §7. 8. Special excise tax fund. 8.01 Establishment of fund. The Director of Finance shall establish a special non-lapsing fund to be known as the special excise tax fund. All revenues from the building excise tax shall be deposited in the special excise tax fund. Interest earned by money in the special excise tax fund shall accrue to the special excise tax fund. 8.02 Use of special excise tax fund – non-residential construction. Revenues deposited in the special fund that are generated by the building excise tax imposed on nonresidential construction may only be used for: (a) Primary, secondary, or higher education capital expenditures; (b) Public safety capital expenditures; (c) Public infrastructure projects; and (d) Debt reduction related to capital improvements expenditures. 8.03 Use of special excise tax fund - residential construction. The revenues from the building excise tax imposed on residential construction may only be used as follows: (a) 70% for schools; (b) 25% for roads; (c) 5% for general county government capital improvement expenditures except roads. 8.04 The revenues from the building excise tax imposed on residential construction used for general county government improvement expenditures may only be used for the capital costs of public works, improvements, and facilities. 8.05 The revenues from the building excise tax imposed on residential construction used for schools may only be used for the capital costs required to accommodate new construction or development in the County. BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 8 8.06 At the end of a fiscal year, any unspent or unencumbered balance in the special fund shall remain in the fund, available for use in future fiscal years for purposes specified in this subsection and does not revert to the general fund of Washington County. 8.07 Capital costs include the costs of land acquisition for public works, improvements, facilities, and schools. 9. Municipalities. 9.01 Building excise tax applicable. This building excise tax shall apply to all construction in Washington County, including construction within the boundaries of a municipal corporation. 9.02 Collection of tax by a municipal corporation (a) All municipal corporations located within Washington County shall assist the County Commissioners in the collection of the building excise tax within the municipal corporation by: (i) Collecting the tax prior to the issuance of a building permit and remitting the tax monthly to the Director of Finance, but in no case more than 30 days after the end of the month during which it was collected, and shall deliver therewith a full and accurate accounting of the collections in a format specified by the County; or (ii) Requiring the tax to be paid to the Director of Finance prior to the issuance of a building permit. (b) The failure of a municipality to comply with the requirements of §9.02(a) shall disqualify that municipality from retaining any funds for administrative costs provided for in §9.03 of this Ordinance for the period of non-compliance. (c) For residential construction, the municipal corporation: (i) Shall assist the County Commissioners in the collection of that portion of the building excise tax that is dedicated to schools and general county government capital expenditures as provided under §8.03 of this Ordinance, by collecting and remitting that amount of the tax to the County Director of Finance; and BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 9 (ii) May retain the remaining portion of the building excise tax. (d) For non-residential construction, the municipal corporation: (i) Shall assist the County Commissioners in the collection of 75% of the building excise tax on non-residential construction as provided under § 8.02 of this Ordinance, by collecting and remitting that amount of the tax to the County Director of Finance; and (ii) May retain the remaining portion of the building excise tax. (e) The municipal corporation is not required to retain any portion of the building excise tax as provided under §9.02. (f) Any portion of the building excise tax not retained by a municipal corporation under §§9.02(c).(ii) or 9.02(d)(ii) shall be remitted to the County Director of Finance monthly, but in no case more than 30 days after the end of the month during which it was collected, and shall deliver therewith a full and accurate accounting of the collections in a format specified by the County. The failure of a municipality to comply with the requirements of §9.02(f) shall disqualify that municipality from retaining any funds for administrative costs provided for in §9.03 of this Ordinance for the period of non-compliance. (g) The director of finance of a municipal corporation retaining any revenue from the building excise tax under §§9.02(c)(ii) or 9.02(d)(ii) shall deposit the revenues into a non- lapsing special fund. (h) The revenues from the municipal corporation's special fund indicated in §9.02(g) may only be used for the capital costs of public works, capital improvements, and facilities required to accommodate new construction for development of: (i) Roads; (ii) New construction or development of parks and recreational facilities; (iii) New construction or development of water and sewer infrastructure; and (iv) New construction or development of public safety facilities. BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 10 (i) At the end of a fiscal year, any unspent or unencumbered balance in the municipal corporation's special fund shall remain in the fund, available for use in future fiscal years for purposes specified in §9.02(h) of this section, and does not revert to the general fund of the municipal corporation. 9.03 Administrative fees for collection. (a) A municipal corporation that collects and remits the excise tax to the County Commissioners may deduct from the revenues collected a fee of two percent (2%) of the revenues remitted to the County Commissioners under this section, not including any portion retained pursuant to §9.02, for administrative costs. (b) If the municipal corporation can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners that the direct administrative costs of collecting the building excise tax exceed the two percent (2%) rate authorized in the §9.03(a), the Board, in its sole discretion, after receiving the recommendation of the Director of Finance, may authorize the municipal corporation to withhold all or any portion of the direct administrative costs claimed for collecting the building excise tax remitted to the County Commissioners or may direct that the municipal corporation be reimbursed with the costs. 10. Appeals 10.01 Administrative appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a decision regarding the calculation of the amount of building excise tax, the granting or denial of an exemption, or otherwise interpreting or applying this building excise tax, may appeal the decision to the County Administrator within 30 days of the date of the written decision of the Director of Permits and Inspections, provided that either: (a) Processing of the building permit is delayed pending the decision (b) of the County Administrator; or (c) The applicant pays the building excise tax prior to filing the appeal. 10.02 Burden of proof. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the decision of the Director of Permits and Inspections is erroneous. BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 11 10.03 Procedures. Appeals must be filed in writing with the County Administrator, with a copy of the appeal to the Office of the County Attorney, stating the grounds of the appeal. Appeals from any decision of the Director of Permits and Inspections under this Ordinance shall be de nova. The County Administrator shall hold such hearings as are necessary and may request additional information from the Appellant. The decision of the County Administrator shall be in writing and shall be rendered within a reasonable time. 10.04 Judicial review. (a) Any party aggrieved by a decision of the County Administrator may file for judicial review of the decision in accordance with Maryland Rules 7- 201, et seq., provided that such appeal is filed within thirty (30) days of the date of the written decision of the County Administrator. This and all subsequent appeals shall be on the record of the decision of the County Administrator and may not be heard de nova. (b) The decision of the Circuit Court may be appealed to the Court of Special Appeals or, upon certiorari, to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Maryland Rules. (c) The County Commissioners may file a responsive pleading and be a party to or file for judicial review in the Circuit Court or take an appeal to the (d) Court of Special Appeals or, upon certiorari, to the Court of Appeals, of any decision made under this Ordinance. 10.05 Reports to the Board of County Commissioners. The County Administrator shall immediately report to the Board of County Commissioners on appeals from decisions of the Director of Permits and Inspections including the issues raised, the decision, the decision on any further appeal, and any changes made to County policies and procedures as a result of the appeal. 11. Enforcement. 11.01 Misdemeanor. It is unlawful for any person or entity to enlarge, alter or change any use of property or to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, make, put together, or convert any building in the County, or attempt to do so, or cause the same to be done, without first paying any building excise tax imposed by this Ordinance. Any person or entity who shall so violate this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined up to BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 12 five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisoned for up to thirty (30) days, or be both fined and imprisoned. Each day that the violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense. 11.02 Action to enforce. In the event the building excise tax is not paid as required, the Office of the County Attorney or its designee may institute an action to recover the building excise tax and enjoin the use of the property until the building excise tax is paid. The person who fails so to pay shall be responsible for the costs of such suit, including reasonable attorney's fees. 11.03 Lien and enforcement same as County real property taxes. If not paid as required by this Ordinance, the building excise tax shall automatically constitute a lien against the property being developed and shall be levied, collected, and enforced in the same manner as are County real property taxes, and shall have the same priority and bear the same interest and penalties as County real property taxes for lien purposes. 12. Annual reports. 12.01 Reports by the municipal corporations. (a) On or before September 30 of each year, each municipal corporation that retains revenues under §9.03 of this Ordinance shall report annually to the Board of County Commissioners: (i) The amount of revenues the municipal corporation received and the number of single-family and multifamily residential units that generated these revenues; (ii) The amount of revenues remitted to the Board of County Commissioners and the amount retained by the municipal corporation; and (iii) A detailed accounting of how the revenues that were retained by the municipal corporation were distributed among the acceptable uses specified in§ 9.03 of this Ordinance and the specific projects for which the revenues were used. (b) The report prepared by each municipal corporation shall be based on the fiscal year ending on June 30 of the year the report is submitted. 12.02 Reports by the Director of Finance. The Director of Finance shall BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 13 prepare and submit an annual report on or before November 30 of each year to the Board of County Commissioners that shall include the following information for the prior fiscal year: (a) The total amount of building excise taxes collected; (b) The amount of funds appropriated from the special excise tax fund; (c) The amount of funds expended from the special excise tax fund; (d) The amount of funds from County sources appropriated for each of the categories set forth in § 8 of this Ordinance; and (e) The funds remaining in the special excise tax fund. 12.03 Reports by the Board of County Commissioners. On or before December 31 of each year, the Board of County Commissioners shall: (a) Report to the members of the Washington County legislative delegation: (i) The amount of revenues by school district that the Board of County Commissioners received from nonresidential building types, residential units, and the number and types of units that generated these revenues; and (ii) The manner in which the revenues were distributed among the acceptable uses specified in § 8 of this Ordinance and the specific projects for which the revenues were used. (b) Submit to members of the Washington County legislative delegation the report prepared by each municipal corporation under § 12.01 of this Ordinance. (c) The reports prepared by the Board of County Commissioners shall be based on the fiscal year ending on June 30 of the year the reports are submitted. 13. 13.01 Open Session Item SUBJECT: Contract Renewal (PUR-1696) Oracle Products and Services for Information Technology Department PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Brandi Kentner, CPPO, Purchasing Director; Josh O’Neal, Chief Technology Officer, Information Systems RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to renew the contract for Oracle Products and Services for the Information Technology Department with Mythics, LLC of Virginia Beach, VA based on its quote in the amount of $327,322.07. This approval is also contingent on the approval of the FY26 budget. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The service under this contract provides cloud services, which consist of Planning and Budgeting, Fusion Financials, Fusion Purchasing, Fusion Transactional Business Intelligence, Fusion Self Service Procurement, Human Capital Management, Payroll, and Fusion Time and Labor. The cloud-based applications are suites that can help businesses streamline operations, automate processes, and make data driven decisions. This contract is for two (2) years, with an option by the County to renew for three (3) additional consecutive one (1) year period, this is the third and final year. The initial award was awarded under the OMNI Partners, Public Sector contract R190801 to Mythics, LLC. DISCUSSION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is available in the department’s operating budget account 5150180- 10-11000 for these products and services. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Mythics, Inc. Quote #WC-Fusion-031425 AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Mythics Quote: WC-Fusion-031425 Contract:Region 4 Contract #R240202 Price Valid Thru: July 1, 2025 Line Oracle Cloud Service Service Service Extended Item Cloud Service Part Number Metric Period Quantity Price 1 Planning and Budgeting Cloud Service B73946 Hosted Named User 12 100 49,625.58 2 Fusion Financials Cloud Service B69711 Hosted Named User 12 25 62,031.98 3 Fusion Purchasing Cloud Service B69717 Hosted Named User 12 10 14,474.13 4 Fusion Transactional Business Intelligence Cloud Service B84576 Hosted Named User 12 200 62,031.98 5 Fusion Self Service Procurement Cloud Service B69721 Hosted Named User 12 200 6,616.74 6 Human Capital Management Base Cloud Service B85800 Hosted Employee 12 1500 80,641.57 7 Payroll Cloud Service for United States B86334 Hosted Employee 12 1150 33,290.49 8 Fusion Time and Labor Cloud Service B75365 Hosted Named User 12 1500 18,609.59 $327,322.07 $327,322.07 *Applicable State taxes will be added unless an exemption is provided. Electronic Delivery: By confirming, referencing or placing an order based on this quote, you are agreeing that the software products or cloud services being purchased are for electronic delivery only and there is no transfer of tangible property. Terms and Conditions This estimate is an invitation to you to purchase products and/or services from Mythics. Your order is subject to Mythics' acceptance and to applicable Oracle terms and conditions per reference to an existing agreement/contract or a newly excuted agreement accompanying your order. The services period for the cloud services commences on the date stated in this ordering document. If no date is specified, then the "Cloud Servcies Start Date" for each cloud service will be the date that the end user is issued access that enables the end user to activate the end user's cloud services (the "Cloud Services Start Date"). You acknowledge that in reliance on this order, Mythics will issue a non-cancellable order with its supplier for products or services purchased. Non-Payment will constitute an immediate default of this contract and upon notice from Mythics, End-User shall be prohibited from continued use of software licensed and/or services until payment has been received in full for outstanding balance. You agree that Mythics has the right to terminate your services or support with Oracle due to non-payment. You agree that this order is placed pursuant to the terms and conditions of Region 4 Contract #R240202 Purchasing Instructions: Please reference Mythics Quote WC-Fusion-031425 and include the following statements in your Purchase Order: 1. This order is placed pursuant to the terms and conditions of : Region 4 Contract #R240202 2. Reference Mythics Quote WC-Fusion-031425 4525 Main St. Suite 1500 Va Beach, VA 23462 Cloud Service Quarterly in Arrears NET 30 Mythics LLC 4525 Main St., Suite 1500 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Fed Tax ID# 54-1987871 Sales Rep: Anna Keane Email: akeane@mythics.com Phone: 757.362.1863 Cloud Account Admin: Kim Edlund Email: kedlund@washco.md.net 1. Data Center Region: "North America" 2. No Auto-Renewal:Notwithstanding any statement to the contrary in the service specifications, You expressly agree that the cloud services acquired under this order will not auto-renew. 3. Option Years:You must provide Mythics a minimum of 30 days notice prior to the expiration of a service term of the end user's intent to exercise an Option Year and you must execute an order for the new option period prior to the expiration date of the existing service period. The cloud services listed above may not be renewed at the option year pricing listed above if: (i) Oracle is no longer making such cloud services generally available to customers, or (ii) You are seeking to cancel or reduce the number of user licenses of the cloud services set forth in this ordering document. Payment of this order is due in full in accordance with the above referenced terms. This is a non-cancellable order. Form: Quote 102723 Open Session Item SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase (INTG-25-0190) Thirteen (13) New Consolette 2-way Rack Mounted Radios for the Washington County Department of Emergency Management and Communications PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Brandi Kentner, CPPO, Director of Purchasing; Thomas Weber, Deputy Director of Wireless Communications; Alan Matheny, Director of Emergency Management & Communications RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize by Re solution for the Washington County Department of Emergency Management and Communications to p urchase thirteen (13) APX New Consolette 2-way rack-mounted radios to be installed in the server room of the Primary ECC. These radios would be primarily for emergency use only. The radios will be pu rchased from Motorola Solutions of Linthicum Heights, MD, for a total proposal price of $159,326.91 and to utilize another jurisdiction’s contract (#21-069) that was awarded by the Metropolitan Washington Council of G overnments to Motorola Solutions. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Department of Emergency Management and Communications is requesting to purchase the thirteen (13) radios to be installed in the server room of the Primary ECC. These radios would be primarily for emergency use only. Each dispatch position would need to use these radios in the event of a total system-wide failure of our county emergency P25 radio system. These radios would allow the dispatchers to communicate on the Maryland State radio system which is totally separate from our radio system. The state uses the 700/800 MHz frequency band, and our system is in the 450 MHz band. The current consolette radios at each dispatch position are only capable of communicating on the 450MHz band and not compatible with the state system. We originally intended to use 13 of our new Motorola APX XN portable radios for this emergency situation but it was discovered during a planned radio core outage a few weeks ago that the state system has insufficient coverage inside the ECC dispatch floor and rendered our portables useless to communicate. The 13 consolette radios are ten times as powerful as a portable and each has an external antenna on the 300' tall tower at Elliott Pkwy. DISCUSSION: The Code of Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the Public Local Laws) §1-106.3 provides that the Board of County Commissioners may procure goods and services through a contract entered into by another governmental entity, in accordance with the terms of the contract, regardless of whether the County was a party to the original contract. the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments took the lead in soliciting the resulting agreement. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that participation by Washington County would result in cost benefits or administrative efficiencies, it could approve the purchase of the tower in accordance with the Public Local Laws referenced above by resolving that Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form participation would result in cost benefits or in administrative efficiencies. The County will benefit from direct cost savings in the purchase of the radios because of the economies of scale this buying group leveraged. I am confident that any bid received as a result of an independent County solicitation would exceed the spending savings that the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments contract provides through this agreement. Additionally, the County will realize savings through administrative efficiencies as a result of not preparing, soliciting, and evaluating a bid. This savings/cost avoidance would, I believe, be significant. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the department’s Capital Budget account 599999-30 - 10500-ADM002 911 Backup Center for this purchase. ATTACHMENTS: Motorola Quote dated 4/11/25 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. RS-2025- (Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase [INTG-25-0190] Thirteen [13] New Consolette 2-way Rack Mounted Radios for the Washington County Department of Emergency Management and Communications) RECITALS The Code of Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the “Public Local Laws”), § 1-106.3, provides that the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland (the “Board”), “may procure goods and services through a contract entered into by another governmental entity in accordance with the terms of the contract, regardless of whether the county was a party to the original contract.” Subsection (c) of § 1-106.3 provides that “A determination to allow or participate in an intergovernmental cooperative purchasing arrangement under subsection (b) of this section shall be by resolution and shall either indicate that the participation will provide cost benefits to the county or result in administrative efficiencies and savings or provide other justifications for the arrangement.” The Washington County Department of Emergency Management and Communications seeks to purchase thirteen (13) APX New Consolette 2-way rack mounted radios from Motorola Solutions of Linthicum Heights, Maryland, for a total proposal price of $159,326.91, and to utilize another jurisdiction’s contract (#21-069) that was awarded by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to Motorola Solutions. Eliminating the County’s bid process will result in administrative and cost savings for the County. The County will benefit with direct cost savings because of the economies of scale the aforementioned contract has leveraged. Additionally, the County will realize administrative efficiencies and savings as a result of not preparing, soliciting, and evaluating bids. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board, pursuant to § 1-106.3 of the Public Local Laws, that the Washington County Department of Emergency Management and Communications is hereby authorized to purchase thirteen (13) APX New Consolette 2-way rack mounted radios from Motorola Solutions of Linthicum Heights, Maryland, for a total proposal price of $159,326.91, and to utilize another jurisdiction’s contract (#21-069) that was awarded by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to Motorola Solutions. Adopted and effective this ____ day of May, 2025. Page 2 of 2 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND _____________________________ BY: ______________________________________ Dawn L. Marcus, County Clerk John F. Barr, President Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Mail to: Office of the County Attorney ______________________________ 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101 Zachary J. Kieffer Hagerstown, MD 21740 County Attorney ⾗ㅤㆇㆇㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ッッ㉅マ㉞㉞⎍ ざ⾏〮⿏⿘　⿇〸《　⇖⾟《う　〸て⇗ ⎆⎈⇖ざ⇖ざ⾏〮⿏⿘　⿇〸《　⇖〮〸⇖〮〸⾰⇖⎄⎃⎇⇗ ⿏⾏⿇⾰〦〮〸《ざ　⍿⇖⿸⾨⇗⎅⎄⎊⎇⎃⇗ う〮⇗ 〮ㅏㅤ㈣㈣ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ッッ㉅マ㉞㉞⎍ ざ⾏〮⿏⿘　⿇〸《　⇖⾟《う　〸て⇗ ⎄⎉⎅⎆⎅⇖⾰⿰⿰⿘《〸〸⇖〖⿨ざて⇗ ざ⿘⿰⿰⿘⾏⿸〮〖《〦〸⍿⇗⿸⾨⇗⎅⎄⎊⎌⎈⇗ う〮 〞㋛㇘㊤マ⇖⾨ぶ㊤マ⎍⎃⎇⎂⎄⎄⎂⎅⎃⎅⎈ ⾰㌖㈣ㅤ㉅ぶ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖⾨ぶ㊤マ⎍⎃⎉⎂⎄⎃⎂⎅⎃⎅⎈ 〞㋛㇘㊤マ⇖⾟㉅マぶ㊤マッ⇖⾗㌟⎍ ⾨ぶㆵㅤマㆇ⇖⿰マぶ㉅㌟ 〮㉅⎁⇖⾏イイ㇘㋛ㆵ㊤⇖⾰㌖マイ㋛㊤ㅤ㋮マ ⾨ぶㆵㅤマㆇ⎁⿰マぶ㉅㌟# ㆙㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ㉞㇘ㆇ㋛㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⎁イ㇘㆙ ⍻⎆⎉⎃⍼⎋⎃⎄⎉⎉⎊⎊ ⾰ㆵッ⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⎍ ざ⾏〮⿏⿘　⿇〸《　⇖⾟《う　〸て⇗ 〸㇘㆙⇗ざマゎマ㉅⇗ ㊤㌄マゎマ㉅#㌄ぶ㉞ㅏイ㇘㆙ッ⎁ㆵマ㊤⇗ ⎆⎃⎄⎆⎆⎄⎉⎊⎃⎈⇗ ⾟㇘ㆵ㊤㉅ぶイ㊤⎍⇗⇖⎆⎉⎆⎆⎄⇖⇖⿸ざ⾟《⿇ ⿰ㅤㆵマ ⍸ ⿘㊤マ㆙⇖　㋛㆙ゎマ㉅ ⾏〖⾟ ⾨マ㉞イ㉅ㅤ㈣㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ 〞㊤㌟ ⿰ㅤ㉞㊤⇖〖㉅ㅤイマ ⾰㌖㊤⎁⇖⿰ㅤ㉞㊤⇖〖㉅ㅤイマ 〮ぶㆇマ⇖〖㉅ㅤイマ ⾰㌖㊤⎁⇖〮ぶㆇマ 〖㉅ㅤイマ ⾏〖ぞȞ⇖⾟㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ ⎄⿰⎆⎊〸〮〮⎌〖ざ⎄⾏　⎃⎉⎋⎄⾏⿰⿰⇖⾗⾏　⾨⇖⾟《　〮《⿰⾰〸〸⾰ ⎄⎆⎄⎃⍿⎆⎆⎃⎁⎃⎃⎄⎆⎇⍿⎅⎌⎃⎁⎃⎃⎉⍿⎄⎌⎋⎁⎃⎃⎋⎃⍿⎈⎊⎇⎁⎃⎃ ⎄ぶ ⿰⎌⎌⎋⾏⾗ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾏⾨⾨⎍⇖⿰⿘⿸⿘〸⾰⾨⇖⾺〦《　〸 〖⾏　⾰⿰⇖ざ⎂⾟⿰《⾟⿨⎂ぎう ⎄⎆⎈⎅⎋⎁⎃⎃⎉⍿⎋⎉⎇⎁⎃⎃⎆⎄⎉⎁⎋⎃⎇⍿⎄⎄⎋⎁⎇⎃ ⎄ゎ ⿇⎋⎈⎄⾏⿇ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾏⾨⾨⎍⇖⾏⾰〮⎂⾨⾰〮ぞ⿰⎂⾨⾰〮 《⾺⾗⇖⾰　⾟〦て〖⇖⾏〖ぞ⇖⾏　⾨ ⾏⾨〖 ⎄⎆⎋⎊⎌⎁⎃⎃⎄⎄⍿⎇⎅⎊⎁⎃⎃⎈⎅⎊⎁⎇⎃⎉⍿⎋⎈⎉⎁⎅⎃ ⎄イ ⿏⾏⎃⎃⎉⎌⎇⾏⾏ ⎃⎄⎋⎈⾏⾨⾨⎍⇖⎊て⇖⾰〮〮⾰　〸⿘⾏⿰ 〮⾰〦ぎ⿘⾟⾰⇖⿏〸⿸ ⎄⎆⎉⎃⎇⎁⎋⎃⎊⍿⎋⎉⎅⎁⎇⎃⎉⎃⎇⎁⎋⎃⎊⍿⎋⎉⎅⎁⎇⎃ ⎄ッ ⿇⾏⎃⎃⎇⎉⎌⾏⾏ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾰　⿏⎍⾰ぞ〸⾰　⾨⾰⾨ ⾨⿘〮〖⾏〸⾟⿏⇖⾏〖ぞ ⾟《　〮《⿰⾰〸〸 ⎄⎆⎈⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎊⍿⎄⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎆⎆⎃⎁⎃⎃⎇⍿⎅⎌⎃⎁⎃⎃ ⎄マ ⿇⾏⎃⎃⎈⎋⎃⾏⾏ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾏⾨⾨⎍⇖〸⾨⿸⾏⇖《〖⾰〦⾏〸⿘《　⎄⎆⎇⎌⎈⎁⎃⎃⎉⍿⎇⎆⎈⎁⎃⎃⎅⎌⎊⎁⎃⎃⎆⍿⎋⎉⎄⎁⎃⎃ ⎄ㄊ ⾟⾏⎃⎄⎈⎌⎋⾏⾗ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾏⾨⾨⎍⇖⾏⾟⇖⿰⿘　⾰⇖⾟《〦⾨⇖う〮⎄⎆⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃ ⎄ㅂ ⿇⎈⎄⾏〸⎃⎉⎋⎄⾰　⿏⎍〮⿸⾏〦〸の《　⾰ ⎄⎆⎄⍿⎉⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎅⎄⍿⎇⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎌⎌⎃⎁⎃⎃⎄⎅⍿⎋⎊⎃⎁⎃⎃ ⎄ㅏ ⿇⾏⎃⎈⎈⎃⎋⾏⾏ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾨⾰⿰⎍⇖⾨⾰⿰⾰〸⾰⇖ぎ⿏⾺⇖⾗⾏　⾨ ⎄⎆⎋⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎄⎃⍿⎇⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎇⎋⎃⎁⎃⎃⎉⍿⎅⎇⎃⎁⎃⎃ ⎄ㅤ ⿇⎋⎃⎉⾗⿰ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾰　⿏⎍⇖⾏〮〸〦《⇖⾨⿘⿇⿘〸⾏⿰⇖⾟⾏⿘ 《〖⇖⾏〖ぞ ⎄⎆⎈⎉⎊⎁⎃⎃⎊⍿⎆⎊⎄⎁⎃⎃⎆⎇⎃⎁⎅⎃⎇⍿⎇⎅⎅⎁⎉⎃ ⎄ㅱ 〞⾏⎃⎌⎄⎄⎆⾏⾗ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾏⾨⾨⎍⇖⾗⾏〮⾰⿰⿘　⾰⇖〦⾰⿰⾰⾏〮⾰ 〮ざ ⎄⎆⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃ 〞う《〸⾰⎆⎃⎉⎅⎋⎉⎅ざぶ㉞ㅏ⾟㇘⇖⾰⾟⾟⇖⎄⎆⇖⾟㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⎄⎆⾨マ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤㉞ ⾏ㆵ㌟⇖㉞ぶㆇマ㉞⇖㊤㉅ぶㆵ㉞ぶイ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ㄊ㇘ㆇㆇ㇘㌄ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖㈺㋛㇘㊤マ⇖ㅤ㉞⇖ゎぶ㉞マッ⇖㇘ㆵ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖㉞㋛ゎㅱマイ㊤⇖㊤㇘⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㊤マ㉅㆙㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖イ㇘ㆵッㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㋮ぶㆇㅤッ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖マ㌖マイ㋛㊤マッ⇖㌄㉅ㅤ㊤㊤マㆵ⇖イ㇘ㆵ㊤㉅ぶイ㊤⇖ゎマ㊤㌄ママㆵ⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖⍻㊤ㅏマ⍷⍷うㆵッマ㉅ㆇ㌟ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ㅂ㉅ママ㆙マㆵ㊤⍷⍷⍼⇖㊤ㅏぶ㊤⇖ぶ㋛㊤ㅏ㇘㉅ㅤ㌩マ㉞⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⇖㊤㇘⇖㈣㋛㉅イㅏぶ㉞マ⇖マ㈺㋛ㅤ㈣㆙マㆵ㊤⇖ぶㆵッ⎂㇘㉅⇖㉞マ㉅㋮ㅤイマ㉞⇖㇘㉅⇖ㆇㅤイマㆵ㉞マ⇖㉞㇘ㄊ㊤㌄ぶ㉅マ⇖⍻イ㇘ㆇㆇマイ㊤ㅤ㋮マㆇ㌟⇖⍷⍷〖㉅㇘ッ㋛イ㊤㉞⍷⍷⍼⎁⇖⿘ㄊ⇖ㆵ㇘⇖うㆵッマ㉅ㆇ㌟ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ㅂ㉅ママ㆙マㆵ㊤⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤㉞⇖ゎマ㊤㌄ママㆵ⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⍿⇖㊤ㅏマㆵ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖〮㊤ぶㆵッぶ㉅ッ⇖〸マ㉅㆙㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖う㉞マ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖〮㊤ぶㆵッぶ㉅ッ⇖〸マ㉅㆙㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⾟㇘ㆵッㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖〮ぶㆇマ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖〮㋛㈣㈣ㆇ㌟⇖㉞ㅏぶㆇㆇ⇖ㅂ㇘㋮マ㉅ㆵ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㈣㋛㉅イㅏぶ㉞マ⇖㇘ㄊ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖〖㉅㇘ッ㋛イ㊤㉞⎁ ⇗⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖〮㇘ㆇ㋛㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⍿⇖⿘ㆵイ⎁⎍⇖⎈⎃⎃⇖ざマ㉞㊤⇖⿸㇘ㆵ㉅㇘マ⍿⇖うㆵㅤ㊤マッ⇖〮㊤ぶ㊤マ㉞⇖⇖⎉⎃⎉⎉⎄⇖⎛⇖⍸⎍⇖⎆⎉⎄⎄⎄⎈⎋⎃⎃⇗⇗ 〖ぶㅂマ⇖⎄ ⿰ㅤㆵマ ⍸ ⿘㊤マ㆙⇖　㋛㆙ゎマ㉅ ⾏〖⾟ ⾨マ㉞イ㉅ㅤ㈣㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ 〞㊤㌟ ⿰ㅤ㉞㊤⇖〖㉅ㅤイマ ⾰㌖㊤⎁⇖⿰ㅤ㉞㊤⇖〖㉅ㅤイマ 〮ぶㆇマ⇖〖㉅ㅤイマ ⾰㌖㊤⎁⇖〮ぶㆇマ 〖㉅ㅤイマ ⎄ㅾ ざ⎌⎉⎌⾗⿇ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾰　⿏⎍⇖⿸う⿰〸⿘⿨⾰て 《〖⾰〦⾏〸⿘《　 ⎄⎆⎆⎉⎆⎁⎃⎃⎇⍿⎊⎄⎌⎁⎃⎃⎅⎄⎊⎁⎋⎃⎅⍿⎋⎆⎄⎁⎇⎃ ⎄ㆇ ⿇⎆⎉⎄⾏⿏ ⎃⎉⎋⎄⾰　⿏⎍⇖〖⎅⎈⇖〸〦う　⿨⿘　⿇ 〮《⾺〸ざ⾏〦⾰⇖⾏〖ぞ ⎄⎆⎆⎆⎃⎁⎃⎃⎇⍿⎅⎌⎃⎁⎃⎃⎄⎌⎋⎁⎃⎃⎅⍿⎈⎊⎇⎁⎃⎃ ⎅⿏⿨　⎉⎅⎆⎆⾟ ⎃⎊⎉⎄⾏〖ぞ⇖⾟《　〮《⿰⾰〸〸⾰⇖〦⾏⾟⿨ ⿸《う　〸⇖⿨⿘〸 ⎄⎅⎅⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎅⍿⎇⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎅⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎅⍿⎇⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃ ⎆⿰〮ぎ⎃⎃〞⎃⎃⎅⎃⎆⾏ ⎌⎌⎇⎄⾨⾰ぎ⿘⾟⾰⇖⿘　〮〸⾏⿰⿰⾏〸⿘《　⎄⎆⎆⎅⎌⎁⎉⎊⎇⍿⎅⎋⎈⎁⎊⎄⎆⎅⎌⎁⎉⎊⎇⍿⎅⎋⎈⎁⎊⎄ ⿸⾟⾨⇖⎈⎃⎃⎃⇖⾨マ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤ 〮㌟㉞㊤マ㆙ ⎇⾺⿏　⎊⎇⎊⎃⾏ ⎃⎅⎃⎅⾏〮〮て⍿⾏⾨〖〸〦⍿⿸⾟⾨⇖⎈⎃⎃⎃ ⾨⾰〮⿨〮⾰〸⇖⿏〮⾰〸⇖⿠⾟⿨⇖⾗ぞ⇖ ⾟⾗⿰ ⎄⎆⎄⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎄⍿⎌⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎄⎅⎊⎁⎈⎃⎄⍿⎉⎈⎊⎁⎈⎃ ⎈⿏⿨ぎ　⎇⎋⎉⎈⾏ ⎃⎅⎃⎅⿰⿘⾟⾰　〮⾰⍿⾟⾨⍿⇖⿸⾟⾨⇖⎈⎃⎃⎃ ⾨《⾟う⿸⾰　〸⾏〸⿘《　 ⎄⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃ ⎉⾺⿨　⎋⎉⎌⎈⾏〮⎃⎅⎃⎅⾰〸⿏⾰〦　⾰〸⇖⾟⾏⾗⿰⾰⇖⎄⎃⍺⎄⎅⎇⎊⎁⎃⎃⎈⎉⎇⎁⎃⎃⎆⎌⎁⎌⎈⎇⎊⎌⎁⎇⎃ ⎊⾨〮⎄⎈⎅⎄⎄⎃⎊⎃⎋⾟⎅⿇⇖⎅⎈⾺〸⇖⾟⾏〸⎈⾰ 　⾰〸ざ《〦⿨⇖〖⾏〸⾟⿏ ⾰〸⿏⾰〦　⾰〸⇖⾟⾏⾗⿰⾰ ⎄⎆⎆⎁⎃⎃⎆⎆⎁⎃⎃⎅⎋⎁⎃⎈⎅⎋⎁⎃⎈ ⎋⿏⿨ぎ　⎇⎋⎉⎄⾏ ⎃⎅⎃⎅⿰⿘⾟⾰　〮⾰⍿⿸⾟⾨⇖⎈⎃⎃⎃ ⾨⾰〮⿨〮⾰〸⇖〮て〮〸⾰⿸ ⾟《　⾺⿘⿇⇖〸《《⿰⇖⇖〮て〮〸⾰⿸ ざ⎂《う〸⇖《⿸⾟ ⎄⎅⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎅⎈⎃⎁⎃⎃⎅⎄⎅⎁⎈⎃⎅⎄⎅⎁⎈⎃ ⎌⾺⎅⎆⎋⎃⾏ ⎃⎅⎃⎅〮⿸⍿⿸⾟⾨⇖⎈⎃⎃⎃⇖⾨⾰〮⿨〮⾰〸⎄⎆⎅⍿⎅⎊⎈⎁⎃⎃⎅⎌⍿⎈⎊⎈⎁⎃⎃⎄⍿⎌⎆⎆⎁⎊⎈⎅⎈⍿⎄⎆⎋⎁⎊⎈ ⎄⎃⾺⿏　⎊⎇⎉⎌⾏ ⎃⎅⎃⎅⾏〮〮て⍿〖⎂〮⍿⿸⾟⾨⇖⎈⎃⎃⎃ ⾨⾰〮⿨〮⾰〸⇖⎂⇖〦⿇う⇖〖ざ〦 〮〖⿰て⇖ざ⎂⇖う〮⾏⇖〖ざ〦⇖⾟《〦⾨ ⎄⎆⎄⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎄⍿⎆⎃⎃⎁⎃⎃⎋⎈⎁⎃⎃⎄⍿⎄⎃⎈⎁⎃⎃ ⿇㉅ぶㆵッ⇖〸㇘㊤ぶㆇ ⎄⎈⎌⍿⎆⎅⎉⎁⎌⎄⍻う〮⾨⍼ 　㇘㊤マ㉞⎍ ㏥⇖⇗⎄⎁ ⾏⇖ㅏマぶッ㉞マ㊤⇖ㅱぶイㅾゎ㇘㌖⇖ㅤ㉞⇖ㅤㆵイㆇ㋛ッマッ⇖㌄ㅤ㊤ㅏ⇖マぶイㅏ⇖⾨マ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤⍿⇖ゎ㋛㊤⇖ㆵ㇘⇖ぶㆵイㅤㆇㆇぶ㉅㌟⇖㈣マ㉅ㅤ㈣ㅏマ㉅ぶㆇ⇖ッマ㋮ㅤイマ㉞⇖ぶ㉅マ⇖ㅤㆵイㆇ㋛ッマッ⇖⍻マ⎁ㅂ⎁⇖㊤ㅏマ ㅏマぶッ㉞マ㊤⇖ㅤ㊤㉞マㆇㄊ⍿⇖ㅂ㇘㇘㉞マㆵマイㅾ⇖㆙ㅤイ⍿⇖マ㊤イ⍼⎁⇖⇗⾨㋛㉅ㅤㆵㅂ⇖㉞ㅤ㊤マ㌄ぶㆇㅾ㉞⇖ㅤ㊤⇖㌄ぶ㉞⇖㉞㊤ぶ㊤マッ⇖㊤ㅏぶ㊤⇖《㈣マ㉅ぶ㊤㇘㉅㉞⇖㌄㇘㋛ㆇッ⇖㉅マㆇ㇘イぶ㊤マ⇖㊤ㅏマㅤ㉅ ⿸⾟⾟⎊⎈⎃⎃⇖ㅏマぶッ㉞マ㊤⇖㊤㇘⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖ッマ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤⇖ㅤㄊㆵママッマッ⎁ ⎅⎁ 〸ㅏマ㉞マ⇖⾨マ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤㉞⇖ぶ㉅マ⇖イ㇘ㆵٶㅂ㋛㉅マッ⇖ㄊ㇘㉅⇖㇘ㆵマ⇖ッマ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤⇖㊤㇘⇖㇘ㆵマ⇖⾏〖ぞ⇖イ㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ⍿⇖ㅤ⎁マ⎁⇖⎄⎍⎄⇖ッㅤ㉅マイ㊤⇖イ㇘ㆵㆵマイ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⎁ ⎆⎁ ざぶ㉞ㅏㅤㆵㅂ㊤㇘ㆵ⇖⾟㇘㋛ㆵ㊤㌟⇖ッマ㉞ㅤ㉅マ㉞⇖㊤㇘⇖㉅マ㋛㉞マ⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤ㅤㆵㅂ⇖う⿏⾺㇘ㆵㆇ㌟⇖イ㇘ㆵ㊤㉅㇘ㆇ⇖㉞㊤ぶ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ぶㆵ㊤マㆵㆵぶ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖ㆇㅤㆵマ⎁⇖⇗⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖ぶイイマ㈣㊤㉞ ㆵ㇘⇖㉅マ㉞㈣㇘ㆵ㉞ㅤゎㅤㆇㅤ㊤㌟⇖ㄊ㇘㉅⇖〦⾺⇖㈣マ㉅ㄊ㇘㉅㆙ぶㆵイマ⇖㇘㉅⇖ッぶ㆙ぶㅂマ⇖㊤㇘⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖イ㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ㉞⇖イぶ㋛㉞マッ⇖ゎ㌟⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㋛㉞マ⇖㇘ㄊ⇖㇘㋛㊤㇘ㄊゎぶㆵッ ぶㆵ㊤マㆵㆵぶ㉞⇖⍻ㅤ⎁マ⎁⇖㊤ぶㆇㅾㅤㆵ⎂㇘㋛㊤⇖㇘ㆵ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖〮㊤ぶ㊤マ⇖㇘ㄊ⇖⿸⾨⍺㉞⇖⎊⎃⎃⿸⿏㌩⇖㉞㌟㉞㊤マ㆙⍼ 〞う《〸⾰⎆⎃⎉⎅⎋⎉⎅ざぶ㉞ㅏ⾟㇘⇖⾰⾟⾟⇖⎄⎆⇖⾟㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⎄⎆⾨マ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤㉞ ⾏ㆵ㌟⇖㉞ぶㆇマ㉞⇖㊤㉅ぶㆵ㉞ぶイ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ㄊ㇘ㆇㆇ㇘㌄ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖㈺㋛㇘㊤マ⇖ㅤ㉞⇖ゎぶ㉞マッ⇖㇘ㆵ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖㉞㋛ゎㅱマイ㊤⇖㊤㇘⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㊤マ㉅㆙㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖イ㇘ㆵッㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㋮ぶㆇㅤッ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖マ㌖マイ㋛㊤マッ⇖㌄㉅ㅤ㊤㊤マㆵ⇖イ㇘ㆵ㊤㉅ぶイ㊤⇖ゎマ㊤㌄ママㆵ⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖⍻㊤ㅏマ⍷⍷うㆵッマ㉅ㆇ㌟ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ㅂ㉅ママ㆙マㆵ㊤⍷⍷⍼⇖㊤ㅏぶ㊤⇖ぶ㋛㊤ㅏ㇘㉅ㅤ㌩マ㉞⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⇖㊤㇘⇖㈣㋛㉅イㅏぶ㉞マ⇖マ㈺㋛ㅤ㈣㆙マㆵ㊤⇖ぶㆵッ⎂㇘㉅⇖㉞マ㉅㋮ㅤイマ㉞⇖㇘㉅⇖ㆇㅤイマㆵ㉞マ⇖㉞㇘ㄊ㊤㌄ぶ㉅マ⇖⍻イ㇘ㆇㆇマイ㊤ㅤ㋮マㆇ㌟⇖⍷⍷〖㉅㇘ッ㋛イ㊤㉞⍷⍷⍼⎁⇖⿘ㄊ⇖ㆵ㇘⇖うㆵッマ㉅ㆇ㌟ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ㅂ㉅ママ㆙マㆵ㊤⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤㉞⇖ゎマ㊤㌄ママㆵ⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⍿⇖㊤ㅏマㆵ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖〮㊤ぶㆵッぶ㉅ッ⇖〸マ㉅㆙㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖う㉞マ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖〮㊤ぶㆵッぶ㉅ッ⇖〸マ㉅㆙㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⾟㇘ㆵッㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖〮ぶㆇマ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖〮㋛㈣㈣ㆇ㌟⇖㉞ㅏぶㆇㆇ⇖ㅂ㇘㋮マ㉅ㆵ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㈣㋛㉅イㅏぶ㉞マ⇖㇘ㄊ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖〖㉅㇘ッ㋛イ㊤㉞⎁ ⇗⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖〮㇘ㆇ㋛㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⍿⇖⿘ㆵイ⎁⎍⇖⎈⎃⎃⇖ざマ㉞㊤⇖⿸㇘ㆵ㉅㇘マ⍿⇖うㆵㅤ㊤マッ⇖〮㊤ぶ㊤マ㉞⇖⇖⎉⎃⎉⎉⎄⇖⎛⇖⍸⎍⇖⎆⎉⎄⎄⎄⎈⎋⎃⎃⇗⇗ 〖ぶㅂマ⇖⎅ ⎇⎁ ⿘ㆵ㉞㊤ぶㆇㆇぶ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⍿⇖イ㇘ㆵٶㅂ㋛㉅ぶ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⍿⇖ぶㆵッ⇖㇘㋮マ㉅㊤ㅏマ㉞ㅏ㇘㋛ㆇッマ㉅⇖㊤㉅ぶㅤㆵㅤㆵㅂ⇖㉞マ㉅㋮ㅤイマ㉞⇖㌄ㅤㆇㆇ⇖ゎマ⇖㈣㉅㇘㋮ㅤッマッ⇖ゎ㌟⇖⾟ぶ㈣ㅤ㊤ぶㆇ⇖⾏㉅マぶ ⾟㇘㆙㆙㋛ㆵㅤイぶ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖ぶ㉞⇖ッマ㉞イ㉅ㅤゎマッ⇖ㅤㆵ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖ㅤㆵイㆇ㋛ッマッ⇖〮㊤ぶ㊤マ㆙マㆵ㊤⇖㇘ㄊ⇖ざ㇘㉅ㅾ⇖⍻〮㇘ざ⍼⎁ ⾟ぶ㈣ㅤ㊤ぶㆇ⇖⾏㉅マぶ⇖⾟㇘㆙㆙㋛ㆵㅤイぶ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖〮㊤ぶ㊤マ㆙マㆵ㊤⇖㇘ㄊ⇖ざ㇘㉅ㅾ⇖⍻〮㇘ざ⍼ •⿘ㆵ㉞㊤ぶㆇㆇ⇖⍻⎄⎆⍼⇖ㆵマ㌄⇖㆙㋛ㆇ㊤ㅤゎぶㆵッ⇖イ㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ⇖⎅㌄ぶ㌟⇖㉅ぶッㅤ㇘㉞⇖ㅤㆵ⇖⎌⎄⎄⇖ッㅤ㉞㈣ぶ㊤イㅏ⇖ゎ㋛ㅤㆇッㅤㆵㅂ⇖㉞マ㉅㋮マ㉅⇖㉅㇘㇘㆙⎁⇖⇗⿘ㆵ㉞㊤ぶㆇㆇ⇖㉅ぶッㅤ㇘ イ㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ㉞⇖ㅤㆵ⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤ㅤㆵㅂ⇖㉅ぶイㅾ⇖ㅤㆵ⇖㉞マ㉅㋮マ㉅⇖㉅㇘㇘㆙⎁⇖⾟㇘ㆵㆵマイ㊤⇖㊤㇘⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤ㅤㆵㅂ⇖ぶㆵ㊤マㆵㆵぶ⇖イ㇘ぶ㌖⎁ •〸マ㉞㊤⎂㉞㌄ママ㈣⇖イ㇘ぶ㌖⇖ぶㆵッ⇖ぶㆵ㊤マㆵㆵぶ⎁ •⿘ㆵ㉞㊤ぶㆇㆇ⇖⍻⎄⎅⍼⇖ぶ㉞㉞㇘イㅤぶ㊤マッ⇖ッマ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤㉞⇖ぶ㊤⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤ㅤㆵㅂ⇖ッㅤ㉞㈣ぶ㊤イㅏ⇖㈣㇘㉞ㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ㅤㆵ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖⎌⎄⎄⇖イ㇘㆙㆙㋛ㆵㅤイぶ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖㉅㇘㇘㆙⍿⇖㇘ㆵマ⇖ٷ㇘㇘㉅ ぶゎ㇘㋮マ⇖㉞マ㉅㋮マ㉅⇖㉅㇘㇘㆙⎁⇖〸マ㉅㆙ㅤㆵぶ㊤マ⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤ㅤㆵㅂ⇖マ㊤ㅏマ㉅ㆵマ㊤⇖イぶゎㆇㅤㆵㅂ⇖㊤㇘⇖⇗〦⿠⎇⎈⇖ㅱ㋛ㆵイ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ゎ㇘㌖マ㉞⇖ぶ㊤⇖マぶイㅏ⇖ッマ㉞ㅾ⇖㈣㇘㉞ㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⎁⇖⇗〦⿠⎇⎈ ㅱ㋛ㆵイ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ゎ㇘㌖マ㉞⇖㊤㇘⇖ゎマ⇖㈣㉅㇘㋮ㅤッマッ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖ㅤㆵ㉞㊤ぶㆇㆇマッ⇖ゎ㌟⇖⾟⾏⾟⎁⇖⇗〦㋛ㆵ⇖ㆵマ㌄⎂⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ㈣㉅㇘㋮ㅤッマッ⇖⎄⎃⍺⇖マ㊤ㅏマ㉅ㆵマ㊤⇖ㅱ㋛㆙㈣マ㉅⇖イぶゎㆇマ㉞ ㄊ㉅㇘㆙⇖〦⿠⎇⎈⇖ㅱ㋛ㆵイ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ゎ㇘㌖マ㉞⇖㊤㇘⇖ㆵマ㌄⇖ッマ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤㉞⎁⇖〸マ㉞㊤⇖イぶゎㆇマ㉞⎁⇗ •⿘ㆵ㉞㊤ぶㆇㆇ⇖⍻⎄⍼⇖ッマ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤⍿⇖ㅤㆵ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖〮マ㉅㋮マ㉅⇖⾰㈺㋛ㅤ㈣㆙マㆵ㊤⇖〦㇘㇘㆙⎁⇖⇗　㇘⇖〦⿠⎇⎈⇖ㅱぶイㅾゎ㇘㌖⇖㈣㉅㇘㋮ㅤッマッ⇖㇘㉅⇖ㅤㆵ㉞㊤ぶㆇㆇマッ⎁⇖⇗う㉞マ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ ㈣㉅㇘㋮ㅤッマッ⇖⎅⎈⍺⇖マ㊤ㅏマ㉅ㆵマ㊤⇖イぶゎㆇマ⇖ゎマ㊤㌄ママㆵ⇖イ㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖ッマ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤⎁ •〖㉅㇘㋮ㅤッマ⇖㇘㋮マ㉅㊤ㅏマ㉞ㅏ㇘㋛ㆇッマ㉅⇖〸マイㅏㆵㅤイㅤぶㆵ⇖㊤㉅ぶㅤㆵㅤㆵㅂ⇖㊤㇘⇖ざぶ㉞ㅏ⾟㇘⇖〦ぶッㅤ㇘⇖〮㌟㉞㊤マ㆙⇖〸マイㅏㆵㅤイㅤぶㆵ⎁ ㏥⇖⇗うㆵㆇマ㉞㉞⇖㇘㊤ㅏマ㉅㌄ㅤ㉞マ⇖ㆵ㇘㊤マッ⍿⇖㊤ㅏㅤ㉞⇖㈺㋛㇘㊤マ⇖マ㌖イㆇ㋛ッマ㉞⇖㉞ぶㆇマ㉞⇖㊤ぶ㌖⇖㇘㉅⇖㇘㊤ㅏマ㉅⇖ぶ㈣㈣ㆇㅤイぶゎㆇマ⇖㊤ぶ㌖マ㉞⇖⍻㉞㋛イㅏ⇖ぶ㉞⇖⿇㇘㇘ッ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖〮マ㉅㋮ㅤイマ㉞〸ぶ㌖⍿⇖㉞ぶㆇマ㉞⇖㊤ぶ㌖⍿⇖ぎぶㆇ㋛マ⇖⾏ッッマッ⇖〸ぶ㌖⇖ぶㆵッ⇖㇘㊤ㅏマ㉅⇖㊤ぶ㌖マ㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖ぶ⇖㉞ㅤ㆙ㅤㆇぶ㉅⇖ㆵぶ㊤㋛㉅マ⍼⎁⇖⾏ㆵ㌟⇖㊤ぶ㌖⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖イ㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⇖ㅤ㉞⇖㉞㋛ゎㅱマイ㊤⇖㊤㇘⇖㌄ㅤㆇㆇ⇖ゎマぶッッマッ⇖㊤㇘⇖ㅤㆵ㋮㇘ㅤイマ㉞⎁ 〞う《〸⾰⎆⎃⎉⎅⎋⎉⎅ざぶ㉞ㅏ⾟㇘⇖⾰⾟⾟⇖⎄⎆⇖⾟㇘ㆵ㉞㇘ㆇマ㊤㊤マ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⎄⎆⾨マ㉞ㅾ㉞マ㊤㉞ ⾏ㆵ㌟⇖㉞ぶㆇマ㉞⇖㊤㉅ぶㆵ㉞ぶイ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ⇖ㄊ㇘ㆇㆇ㇘㌄ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖㈺㋛㇘㊤マ⇖ㅤ㉞⇖ゎぶ㉞マッ⇖㇘ㆵ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖㉞㋛ゎㅱマイ㊤⇖㊤㇘⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㊤マ㉅㆙㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖イ㇘ㆵッㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㋮ぶㆇㅤッ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖マ㌖マイ㋛㊤マッ⇖㌄㉅ㅤ㊤㊤マㆵ⇖イ㇘ㆵ㊤㉅ぶイ㊤⇖ゎマ㊤㌄ママㆵ⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖⍻㊤ㅏマ⍷⍷うㆵッマ㉅ㆇ㌟ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ㅂ㉅ママ㆙マㆵ㊤⍷⍷⍼⇖㊤ㅏぶ㊤⇖ぶ㋛㊤ㅏ㇘㉅ㅤ㌩マ㉞⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⇖㊤㇘⇖㈣㋛㉅イㅏぶ㉞マ⇖マ㈺㋛ㅤ㈣㆙マㆵ㊤⇖ぶㆵッ⎂㇘㉅⇖㉞マ㉅㋮ㅤイマ㉞⇖㇘㉅⇖ㆇㅤイマㆵ㉞マ⇖㉞㇘ㄊ㊤㌄ぶ㉅マ⇖⍻イ㇘ㆇㆇマイ㊤ㅤ㋮マㆇ㌟⇖⍷⍷〖㉅㇘ッ㋛イ㊤㉞⍷⍷⍼⎁⇖⿘ㄊ⇖ㆵ㇘⇖うㆵッマ㉅ㆇ㌟ㅤㆵㅂ⇖⾏ㅂ㉅ママ㆙マㆵ㊤⇖マ㌖ㅤ㉞㊤㉞⇖ゎマ㊤㌄ママㆵ⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⾟㋛㉞㊤㇘㆙マ㉅⍿⇖㊤ㅏマㆵ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖〮㊤ぶㆵッぶ㉅ッ⇖〸マ㉅㆙㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖う㉞マ⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⍺㉞⇖〮㊤ぶㆵッぶ㉅ッ⇖〸マ㉅㆙㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖⾟㇘ㆵッㅤ㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⇖㇘ㄊ⇖〮ぶㆇマ㉞⇖ぶㆵッ⇖〮㋛㈣㈣ㆇ㌟⇖㉞ㅏぶㆇㆇ⇖ㅂ㇘㋮マ㉅ㆵ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖㈣㋛㉅イㅏぶ㉞マ⇖㇘ㄊ⇖㊤ㅏマ⇖〖㉅㇘ッ㋛イ㊤㉞⎁ ⇗⿸㇘㊤㇘㉅㇘ㆇぶ⇖〮㇘ㆇ㋛㊤ㅤ㇘ㆵ㉞⍿⇖⿘ㆵイ⎁⎍⇖⎈⎃⎃⇖ざマ㉞㊤⇖⿸㇘ㆵ㉅㇘マ⍿⇖うㆵㅤ㊤マッ⇖〮㊤ぶ㊤マ㉞⇖⇖⎉⎃⎉⎉⎄⇖⎛⇖⍸⎍⇖⎆⎉⎄⎄⎄⎈⎋⎃⎃⇗⇗ 〖ぶㅂマ⇖⎆ Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session SUBJECT: Sole Source Procurement (PUR-1748) Keystone (CAD) Interface PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Brandi Kentner, CPPO, Buyer, Purchasing; Alan Matheny, Director of Emergency Management & Communications RECOMMENDATION: Move to authorize a sole-source procurement for CAD Interface software, maintenance, and annual licensing fees used by the Division of Emergency Management and Communications (DEMAC) in the amount of $145,037 from Keystone Public Safety Inc., of Maple Shade, NJ. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: DES wishes to apply Sections 1-106.2(a)(1) & (2) of the Code of Local Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland, to the procurement requested. These sections state that a sole source procurement is authorized and permissible when: (1) Only one source exists that meets the County’s requirements. This request requires the approval of four of the five Commissioners in order to proceed with a sole - source procurement. If approved, the following remaining steps of the process will occur as outlined by the law: 1) Not more than ten (10) days after the execution and approval of a contract under this section, the procurement agency shall publish notice of the award in a newspaper of general circulation in the County and 2) An appropriate record of the sole source procurement shall be maintained as required. The above approval is for the software, maintenance, and annual licensing fees for the following systems within the Emergency Management and Communications department: Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Licensing for the main and the backup 911 Center, which includes the Keystone Client and the Web Client. This also consists of the CryWolfe Interface, used for processing false alarm information and for billing. All other interface components are provided by outside software that communicates with the internal CAD system in order to complete call processing, dispatching, logging, mapping, recording, reporting, and web access. DISCUSSION: This is a sole-source procurement request; the requested vendor (Keystone) is the provider of the CAD operating software utilized by the County's Emergency Communication Center. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the department's operating budget 50 5150-10-11440 for this purchase. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Keystone Public Safety’s quote dated 4/5 /2 5 Invoice Date 4/5/2025 Invoice # 5275 Bill To WASHINGTON COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ATTN: JAMES MILLS 16232 ELLIOT PARKWAY WILLIAMSPORT, MD 21795-4083 1400 BARLOW COURT PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 Terms P.O. No Net 30 Total Balance Due Payments/Credits DescriptionQuantity Rate Amount Software Maint: 07/01/2025-06/30/20261 0.00 0.00 ALPHA PAGING1 2,014.00 2,014.00 CAD (23 Users)1 78,046.00 78,046.00 CryWolf Interface1 1,236.00 1,236.00 EPCR Interface1 3,634.00 3,634.00 ESO Interface1 1,639.00 1,639.00 Keystone Client (30 Users)1 2,323.00 2,323.00 Keystone RT1 2,513.00 2,513.00 MCC7500 Radio Interface1 2,904.00 2,904.00 MOSCAD Interface1 1,449.00 1,449.00 OS Support (51 Users)1 1,785.00 1,785.00 Update Server1 783.00 783.00 Web Client Users (24 Users)1 1,599.00 1,599.00 ZETRON Interface1 4,363.00 4,363.00 MSP CAD2CAD1 9,072.00 9,072.00 NICE SQL Interface1 1,487.00 1,487.00 UniVerse Maint: 07/01/2025-06/30/2026: PRIMARY SYSTEM UniVerse: S/N 20070869 (51 Users)1 7,050.00 7,050.00 UVNET1 2,743.00 2,743.00 Software Maint: 07/01/2025-06/30/2026: BACKUP SYSTEM CAD - Backup (23 Users)1 2,179.00 2,179.00 Interfaces - Backup1 1,024.00 1,024.00 KeyGuard - Backup1 5,028.00 5,028.00 Keystone Client - Backup (30 Users)1 1,822.00 1,822.00 OS Support - Backup (51 Users)1 1,785.00 1,785.00 UniVerse Maint: 07/01/2025-06/30/2026: BACKUP SYSTEM UV - Backup S/N 32423408 (52 Users)1 7,188.00 7,188.00 UVNET - Backup1 1,371.00 1,371.00 $145,037.00 $145,037.00 $0.00 Open Session Item SUBJECT: Designation of Washington County Fire Code Official to serve as an Assistant State Fire Marshal PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Greg Cartrette, Director of Permits and Inspections/Code Official RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move for approval of Director Permits & Inspections/Code Official to be designated as the Washington County Fire Code Official to serve as the Assistant State Fire Marshal. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The county may by law designate a Fire Code Official to serve as Assistant State Fire Marshal pursuant to Public Safety Article, Section 6-304. DISCUSSION: By State Law, the county may designate a Fire Code Official to serve as an Assistant State Fire Marshal. We propose the Director of Permits & Inspections/Code Official to serve in this role as the fire code works hand and hand with the building code. With approval by Commissioners of the adoption of the Washington County Fire Prevention Code, it is recommended that a local Fire Code Official be appointed to enforce this local code. We anticipate the designation to be approved by the State Fire Marshal. FISCAL IMPACT: None currently. CONCURRENCES: County Administrator, Deputy County Attorney ALTERNATIVES: Stay with SFM ATTACHMENTS: N/A AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Washington County Transit – Five Year Transit Development Plan PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Andrew Eshleman, Director of Public Works and Shawn Harbaugh, Director of Washington County Transit RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): For Informational Purposes Only REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Washington County Transit is required to complete a Transit Development Plan (TDP) every five years. The strategic document outlines the short-term goals and objectives for the transit system in Washington County. The plan evaluates current transit services, unmet needs, establishes goals and a course of action for improvement. DISCUSSION: The year-long plan process includes evaluating the following: • Goals and Previous Studies • Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns • Review of Existing Services • Community Outreach • Transit Service Alternatives • Transit Service Plan – short, mid, long-term improvements and associated operating and capital expenses FISCAL IMPACT: N/A CONCURRENCES: HEPMPO ALTERNATIVES: ATTACHMENTS: Link to Draft Plan AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Technical Memorandum No. 1: Goals & Previous Studies 1-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan KFH Group, Inc. Rockville, MD | Austin, TX Washington County Transit Development Plan Draft Plan – April 2025 Table of Contents i │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table of Contents Chapter 1: Goals & Previous Studies Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Previous Studies ................................................................................................................................... 1-2 HEPMPO Direction 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan (2022) ...................... 1-2 Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040 (2023) ........................................... 1-3 Washington County Transit Development Plan (2019) ............................................ 1-3 Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Population Profile ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Historical Population ............................................................................................................ 2-1 Future Population Projections ........................................................................................... 2-3 Census Changes ..................................................................................................................... 2-4 Population Density ................................................................................................................ 2-6 Transit Dependent Populations ...................................................................................................... 2-8 Autoless Households ........................................................................................................... 2-12 Senior Adult Population..................................................................................................... 2-12 Youth Population ................................................................................................................. 2-12 Individuals with Disabilities .............................................................................................. 2-12 Title VI Demographic Analysis....................................................................................................... 2-17 Minority Population ............................................................................................................ 2-17 Low-Income Population ..................................................................................................... 2-17 Limited-English Proficiency .............................................................................................. 2-20 Disadvantaged Communities ........................................................................................................ 2-21 Land Use Profile .................................................................................................................................. 2-24 Major Trip Generators ........................................................................................................ 2-24 Employment Travel Patterns ............................................................................................ 2-35 Summary of Needs ............................................................................................................................ 2-34 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Service Area ............................................................................................................................................ 3-2 Overview of Existing Transit Services ............................................................................................ 3-4 Fixed-Route Service ............................................................................................................... 3-5 ADA Paratransit and SSTAP Program ............................................................................ 3-7 JOBS Opportunity Bus Shuttle ........................................................................................... 3-7 Table of Contents KFH Group, Inc. │ ii Management and Organizational Structure .............................................................................. 3-8 Fare Policy ............................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Existing Facilities, Fleet, and Technology .................................................................................. 3-10 Maintenance and Parking Facilities .............................................................................. 3-10 Fleet .......................................................................................................................................... 3-12 Technology ............................................................................................................................. 3-14 Marketing ............................................................................................................................... 3-14 Existing Service Performance Review ......................................................................................... 3-16 Performance by Routes ...................................................................................................... 3-19 Performance by Stop .......................................................................................................... 3-25 Route Profiles ........................................................................................................................ 3-27 Other Area Transit Providers .......................................................................................................... 3-74 MDOT MTA Commuter Bus .............................................................................................. 3-74 Human Services Transportation...................................................................................... 3-76 Private Providers .................................................................................................................. 3-78 Park & Ride Facilities .......................................................................................................... 3-80 Chapter 4: Community Outreach Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Washington County Transit – Bus Rider Survey ....................................................................... 4-2 Trip Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 4-2 Transportation Need ............................................................................................................. 4-2 Likes and Desired Improvements ...................................................................................... 4-4 Respondents’ Demographic Information ....................................................................... 4-5 Washington County Transit Community Survey ...................................................................... 4-5 Overall Public Transportation Usage and Community Awareness....................... 4-6 Trip Characteristics of Public Transportation Users ................................................... 4-6 Public Transportation Challenges and Desired Improvements .............................. 4-6 Unmet Transportation Needs and Possible Transit Service Improvements ....... 4-7 Respondents’ Demographic Information ....................................................................... 4-8 Washington County Transit Driver Survey .................................................................................. 4-8 Route Analysis and Issues ................................................................................................... 4-9 Potential Areas for Service Expansion ........................................................................... 4-10 Potential System-Wide Alterations and Policy Changes ........................................ 4-10 Washington County Transit Employer Survey ......................................................................... 4-11 Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 5-1 Fixed-Route Service Alternatives .................................................................................................... 5-3 Systemwide Fixed-Route Modifications .......................................................................... 5-3 Fixed-Schedule Service Pilot ............................................................................................. 5-30 Sunday Service ...................................................................................................................... 5-33 Table of Contents iii │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Later Evening Service .......................................................................................................... 5-34 More Frequent Service ........................................................................................................ 5-35 Microtransit/On-Demand Solutions .............................................................................. 5-36 Implement Microtransit Pilot Service ............................................................................ 5-38 Other Improvements......................................................................................................................... 5-42 Fare Structure ........................................................................................................................ 5-42 Branding and Marketing ................................................................................................... 5-46 Capital Enhancements ....................................................................................................... 5-47 Chapter 6: Transit Plan Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 6-1 Service Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 6-2 Short-Term Improvements (Years 1-2) ........................................................................... 6-3 Mid-Term Improvements (Years 3-4) .............................................................................. 6-6 Long-Term Improvements (Year 5 and Beyond) ....................................................... 6-10 Title VI Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 6-17 Conceptual Financial Plan for Operating .................................................................................. 6-17 Conceptual Financial Plan for Capital ......................................................................................... 6-21 Useful-Life Standards........................................................................................................................ 6-21 Vehicle Plan – Baseline Estimate .................................................................................................. 6-21 Financial Plan for Capital ................................................................................................................. 6-23 Other Capital Expenses and Funding Sources ........................................................................ 6-24 Benefits of the Transit Plan ............................................................................................................. 6-26 Appendix A: Trip Generators Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey Results Appendix E: Washington County Transit Driver Survey Results Appendix F: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Appendix G: WCT Facility Expansion Feasibility Study Chapter 1: Goals & Previous Studies 1-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Chapter 1: Goals & Previous Studies Goals and Objectives During the February 2024 TDP kick-off meeting at WCT headquarters in Hagerstown, MD, members of Washington County Transit (WCT), Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization (HEPMPO), and Washington County Public Works met with the study team to discuss the TDP process and outline potential goals for transit in Washington County. Based on the input received, the following goals and objectives were defined for this study: Meet Diverse Travel Needs: Meet the travel needs of residents by providing trips to workplaces, schools, shopping destinations, medical facilities, and recreational sites – as much as is feasible. Expand Service Coverage: destinations arising from emerging economic and industrial hubs. Enhance Regional Connectivity: Connect residents to jobs and services outside of Washington County. Optimize Network Efficiency: Improve intercity and county connections for a more efficient transit network. Innovate Service Models: Explore the potential for new on-demand service models such as microtransit service. Modernize Fare Structures: Streamline and modernize fare structures using the latest technology. Improve Pedestrian Connectivity: Improve pedestrian connectivity to enhance accessibility. Forge Strategic Partnerships: Generate support through partnerships with human service agencies and the business community. Invest in Infrastructure: Provide major transit infrastructure improvements to support continued growth in transit services and meet evolving needs. Chapter 1: Goals & Previous Studies KFH Group, Inc. │ 1-2 Previous Studies This section reviews recent plans and studies that have addressed transportation needs and land use in Washington County. It offers a summary of relevant plans and studies, highlighting the challenges, objectives, and recommendations pertaining to transportation and transit in the county. Combined with a review of existing conditions and community outreach efforts, this analysis will help develop service alternatives for the study. The study team examined the following plans: • HEPMPO Direction 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan (2022) • Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040 (2023) • Washington County Transit Development Plan (2019) HEPMPO Direction 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan (2022) The Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization recently completed the Direction 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan. The plan focuses predominantly on projected development in the region and how the transportation network and transit service must adapt to meet the needs of that development. Challenges or Issues Objectives Recommendations •Traffic congestion continues to increase; population and freight volume grows. •Bus driver shortage. •Projected funding shortage for WCT. •Peak service gaps exist between Hagerstown and Martinsburg, Clear Spring, and Boonsboro. •Improve bus stop amenities at high-ridership stops. •Improve headways and service during off-peak hours. •Improve transit services and funding possibilities through coordination strategies. •Add bus stop amenities at Valley Mall and the Premium Outlets – Walmart. •Implement new service to Martinsburg, Clear Spring, and Boonsboro. •Add Sunday service to Valley Mall and Premium Outlets. •Short-term coordination strategies involve forming coalition groups, implementing common fare instruments in the HEPMPO region, establishing joint operating and marketing plans, and establishing a centralized one-call center for dispatching. Chapter 1: Goals & Previous Studies 1-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2040 (2023) Washington County recently completed its 2040 Comprehensive Plan which seeks to guide development over the next 20 years. The Transportation chapter, the key takeaways of which are listed below, was partially developed through the analysis of the other two plans summarized in this section. Washington County Transit Development Plan (2019) The previous Washington County TDP was completed in 2019. Assessing the extent to which progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the previous TDP is important to shape the direction of the current planning effort. Challenges or Issues Objectives Recommendations •About 39% of commuters who rely on public transportation do not have access to a car. •More Washington County workers are commuting from outside of the county. •As of 2022, WCT ridership was 75% of pre-pandemic levels. •Expand service hours to meet the increasingly complex transportation needs of transit-dependent populations. •Adapt transit service to meet new development patterns in Washington County. •Identify opportunities to implement transit-oriented development and increase density around transit stops and routes. •Provide transit service to new housing and warehouse developments outside of downtown Hagerstown. •Work with major employers to encourage workers to use Challenges or Issues Objectives Recommendations •WCT riders predominantly lack access to vehicles and are reliant on transit service as a result. •Transit service is lacking outside of the Hagerstown area. •Provide appropriately- scaled public transportation services in the rural/agricultural areas of the county. •Improve service frequency in the urban areas of the county. •Implement WCT Sunday service. •Hire additional bus operators. •Develop a smartphone payment app. •Create a Hagerstown-Boonsboro route with the potential for greater expansion. •Incorporate Hopewell Express into WCT. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Use s and Travel Patterns Introduction This chapter analyzes demographic data, land use and travel patterns to assess the need for transit in and surrounding Washington County. It documents and examines the study area's major trip-generators as well as the underserved and unserved population segments. In addition to a review of the demographic factors pertinent to a Title VI analysis, it includes a general population profile, and the identification and assessment of underserved population subgroups. The chapter also develops a land-use profile based on Washington County’s major trip generators and resident commuting patterns. The primary data sources comprise the 2020 Census, along with the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for both 2017-2021 and 2018-2022 1 (as available). This analysis, combined with existing services assessment and a review of community outreach efforts and previous studies will inform the alternatives and recommendations in subsequent chapters. Population Profile This section provides a broad overview of Washington County's population, identifies and assesses the underserved population subgroups, and examines the demographic factors pertinent for Title VI. Historical Population As of the 2020 Census, Washington County’s population was 154,705 (Table 2-1). Although growth over the past 10 years has slowed (almost halved) compared to the rapid rate of the 2000s, it still represents an increase over both 2010 and 2000. The population growth rate of Washington County during the past ten years, 4.9%, is less than that of the state of Maryland (7.0%), though the growth rate of Hagerstown’s population is higher than that of the state at 9.7%. The most recent estimated population of Washington County is 154,645 according to the 2018-2022 ACS five-year estimates. Figure 2-1 illustrates the population change in the last two decades. 1 2022 ACS Five-Year Estimates were not accessible at the Census Block Group level at the time of the analysis Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-2 Table 2-1: Historical Populations for Washington County Place 2000 Pop. 2010 Pop. 2020 Pop. 2000-2010 % Change 2010-2020 % Change 2000-2020 % Change Hagerstown, MD 36,687 39,662 43,527 8.1% 9.7% 18.6% Washington County 131,923 147,430 154,705 11.8% 4.9% 17.3% State of Maryland 5,296,486 5,773,552 6,177,224 9.0% 7.0% 16.6% Washington County (By Age Groups) 11-19 Years 16,832 17,264 18,411 2.6% 6.6% 9.4% 20-64 Years 79,441 89,273 88,941 12.4% -0.4% 12.0% 65+ Years 18,694 21,543 25,877 15.2% 20.1% 38.4% SOURCE: U.S. DECENNIAL CENSUS Figure 2-1: Population Change in Washington County 8.1% 9.7% 18.6% 11.8% 4.9% 17.3% 9.0% 7.0% 16.6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% %2000-2010 %2010-2020 %2000-2020 Hagerstown Washington County State of Maryland Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Future Population Projections According to the projections provided by the Maryland Department of Planning in Table 2-2, Washington County is expected to experience a gradual population increase ranging from six to nine percent per decade over the next 20 years. Overall, this represents a growth rate of 16%. This growth rate is notably higher than the projected growth rate for the entire state of Maryland (9.1%). Table 2-2: Future Population Projections for Washington County Place 2020 Pop. 2030 Pop. 2040 Pop. 2020-30 % Change 2030-40 % Change 2020-40 % Change Washington County 154,705 164,900 179,450 6.6% 8.8% 16.0% State of Maryland 6,177,224 6,413,690 6,739,410 3.8% 5.1% 9.1% Washington County (By Age Groups) 10-19 years 18,411 18,430 22,769 0.1% 23.5% 23.7% 20-64 years 88,941 111,312 117,915 2.2% 3.7% 6.0% 65+ years 25,877 35,162 38,766 35.9% 10.2% 49.8% SOURCE: MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Figure 2-2 illustrates the population growth of Washington County using historical and projected population data. Based on the estimates, it is projected that the population of Washington County will increase by nearly 16% over the next 20 years. This growth rate is slightly lower than the population growth experienced in the previous 20-year period, which was just over 17%. These projections indicate a steady rate of population growth for Washington County, continuing the trend of the past two decades. Notably, the senior population is expected to increase by 50% over the next two decades. Figure 2-2: Washington County Population – Future Projection 131,923 147,430 154,705 164,900 179,450 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-4 Census Changes The US Census Bureau published the newly established urban area delineations based on the 2020 Census in January 2023. The US Census changed the definitions for urban-rural classification in 2020. Areas with 5,000 or more population are ‘Urban’ while the precise definitions for Urban and Rural areas are based on both population and housing density. Contrary to 2010, the Census no longer distinguishes between Urban Clusters and Urbanized Areas; however, the FTA has published a list of Urbanized Areas (with 50,000 or more inhabitants) based on the new Census delineations that are pertinent to FTA programs. The set of federal statutes governing FTA’s funding programs (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53) still defines an urbanized area as “an urban area encompassing a population of not less than 50,000 people.” Further, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 still makes this distinction to prescribe FTA’s distribution of formula grant funding to urbanized vs. non-urbanized areas. Figure 2-3 visualizes an overlay of 2020 FTA UZAs over 2010 UZAs in the study area. Washington County has two Urbanized Areas – the “Hagerstown, MD--WV--PA--VA Urban Area” and a small portion of the “Waynesboro, PA--MD Urban Area” where it crosses into the county by Highfield-Cascade—and no non-urbanized areas with at least 5,000 people living in them, as pertinent to the FTA program. Over the last decade, the boundaries of the Hagerstown area did not change significantly, but it is worth noting that Boonsboro and Sharpsburg, previously included in the 2010 boundaries, were removed in 2020. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-3: Census 2020 Changes in the Study Area Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-6 Population Density Population density serves as a valuable indicator for determining the feasibility of various public transit services within a specific study area. Although there may be exceptions, an area with a population density of 2,000 persons per square mile typically has the capacity to support traditional fixed-route transit services that operate frequently, and on a daily basis. On the other hand, an area with a population density below this threshold but above 1,000 persons per square mile might be more suitable for alternative transit options, such as flex fixed-route or demand-response services including microtransit on-demand services. These alternative services can better accommodate the transportation needs of areas with slightly lower population densities. Figure 2-4 illustrates the distribution of population density in Washington County, focusing on the census block group level. The majority of the population is concentrated around Hagerstown. In terms of population density, block groups with a density of at least 2,000 people per square mile are primarily concentrated within and around Hagerstown. Outside of this area, these high-density block groups can also be found in Smithsburg, in a dense suburban area between Halfway and Williamsport, and approximately five miles south of downtown Hagerstown. The latter is an outlier, likely resulting from the presence of a prison complex within this block group. The majority of Washington County is highly rural. Boonsboro, Williamsport, and Hancock are the only other towns with block groups with over 1,000 people per square mile. Outside of these settlements, most of the eastern half of the county has densities between 100 and 500 people per square mile, whereas the western reaches of the county do not exceed 100 (except for Hancock). Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-4: Population Density, Washington County Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-8 Transit Dependent Populations To understand the public transportation requirements, it is important to identify specific segments within the overall population that are more inclined to utilize transit services. These segments often include transit-dependent populations who either lack access to private vehicles or are unable to drive themselves due to factors such as age or income constraints. Analyzing the size and distribution of these transit-dependent populations helps assess the effectiveness of existing transit services and evaluate the extent to which they meet the needs of the community. By identifying these populations and their geographical locations, informed decisions can be made regarding service improvements and adjustments to better serve the community. The Transit Dependence Index (TDI) is an aggregate measure displaying relative concentrations of transit dependent populations. Five factors make up the TDI calculation: population density, autoless households, elderly populations (age 65 and over), youth populations (ages 10-17), and below poverty populations. The factors above represent specific socioeconomic characteristics of Washington County residents. For each factor, individual block groups were classified according to the prevalence of the vulnerable population relative to the county average. The factors were then put into the TDI equation to determine the relative transit dependence of each block group. As illustrated in Figure 2-5, the relative classification system utilizes averages in ranking populations. For example, areas with less than the average transit dependent population fall into the “Very Low” classification, whereas those with more than twice the average will be classified as “Very High.” The classifications “Low, Moderate, and High” all fall between the average and twice the average; these classifications are divided into thirds. Figure 2-5: Transit Dependent Populations Classification System Very Low Threshold Low Moderate High Very High Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold Study Area Average Twice the Study Area Average First Tier Second Tier Third Tier Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-9 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-6 exhibits the TDI rankings assigned to different areas within Washington County. Regions characterized as having a "Very High Need" can be found in and around Hagerstown, along I-81 near Williamsport, and in a large block group south of Hagerstown. This latter block group is home to a correctional facility which explains its high transit need classification despite being in an otherwise rural area. Outside of Hagerstown and the two highlighted block groups, the only other areas above “Very Low Need” are found in Williamsport, Smithsburg, and Boonsboro. The Transit Dependence Index Percent (TDIP) provides a complementary analysis to the TDI measure. It is nearly identical to the TDI measure except for the exclusion of population density. Figure 2-7 displays the distribution of need levels in different block groups within Washington County. Across the county, the only block groups with “Very High Need” are found in downtown Hagerstown. Outside of this area, there are only four block groups with greater than “Low Need” and all four only rise to the level of “Moderate Need.” These are located northwest of Williamsport, between Williamsport and Halfway, just outside Halfway, and east of Funkstown. The rest of the county is split between “Very Low Need”— primarily found in the southern part of the county—and “Low Need,” primarily found in the western and northeastern parts of the county. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-10 Figure 2-6: Transit Dependence Index Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-11 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-7: Transit Dependence Index Percentage Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-12 Autoless Households Households that do not have at least one personal vehicle are more reliant on public transit for their transportation needs compared to households with car access. While both the TDI and TDIP measures account for households without vehicles, it is crucial to display this specific segment of the population separately. This is important because, in Washington County, most land uses are located at distances that are impractical for non-motorized travel. Figure 2-8 illustrates the proportionate number of households without vehicles. Similar to the TDIP map, block groups with “Very High” concentrations of the autoless households are predominantly found in downtown Hagerstown, with “Moderate” and “High” concentrations found northwest of Williamsport, between Williamsport and Halfway, and northwest of Maugansville. Senior Adult Population A second socioeconomic group analyzed by the TDI and TDIP indices is the senior population. Individuals aged 65 years and older may scale back their use of personal vehicles as they age, leading to greater reliance on public transportation compared to those in other age brackets. Figure 2-9 presents the relative distribution of seniors in Washington County. The block groups categorized as having a "Very High" concentration of seniors are primarily situated outside the urban areas, with notable concentrations around Williamsport and Funkstown. Other “High” concentrations are found around Hancock, Big Pool, and Boonsboro. Youth Population Youths and teenagers, aged 10 to 17 years, who cannot drive or are just beginning to drive but do not have an automobile available, appreciate the continued mobility offered by public transportation. Figure 2-10 illustrates the areas with high concentrations of youth populations. Areas with “Very High” concentrations of youth populations are found near many of the smaller towns in the county, including Funkstown, Boonsboro, Smithsburg, and Clear Spring. Outside of these areas, there is no clear pattern to the distribution of block groups with “Moderate” or “High” concentrations. They are found in all regions of the county, except the northeast corner. Individuals with Disabilities Individuals with disabilities often face challenges in operating personal vehicles, leading to a higher reliance on public transportation. Figure 2-11 depicts the block groups with high concentrations of individuals with disabilities. All block groups with at least “Moderate” concentrations are found in the vicinity of Hagerstown, ranging as far as Williamsport and Smithsburg. With the exception of one block group southeast of Fountainhead-Orchard Hills, all “Very High” block groups are found within downtown Hagerstown. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-13 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-8: Classification of Autoless Households Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-14 Figure 2-9: Classification of Senior Adults Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-15 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-10: Classification of Youths Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-16 Figure 2-11: Classification of Individuals with Disabilities Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-17 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Title VI Demographic Analysis As part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal subsidies. This includes agencies providing federally funded public transportation. The following section examines the minority and below-poverty populations of Washington County. It then summarizes the prevalence of residents with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP). Washington County Transit (WCT) is not required to evaluate its service and fare changes under Title VI because it does not meet the FTA thresholds regarding UZA population (200,000 or more in population), and the number of vehicles operated in peak service (50 or more fixed-route vehicles). However, based on MTA guidance, it should still consider the following analysis before implementing any changes as a part of this TDP. Minority Population It is important to ensure that areas with an above-average percentage of racial and/or ethnic minorities are not disproportionately impacted by any proposed alterations to existing public transportation services. Figure 2-12 depicts the percentage of minority persons above or below the study area mean per block group in Washington County. Out of the total 105 block groups, 44 had a minority population higher than the county average of 22.8%. These block groups with above-average minority populations are primarily situated in the vicinity of Hagerstown. The only above-average block group outside the Hagerstown region is located just south of Boonsboro. Low-Income Population The second socioeconomic group included in the Title VI analysis represents those individuals who earn less than the federal poverty level. These individuals face financial hardships that may make the ownership and maintenance of a personal vehicle difficult. In such cases, they may be more likely to depend on public transportation. Figure 2-13 depicts the percentage of below poverty individuals above or below the study area mean per block group. Among the 105 block groups, 38 had a below poverty population exceeding the county average of 12.3%. These block groups are found throughout the county, though many are concentrated around Hagerstown. Elsewhere, above-average low-income populations are found in the northeast corner of the county, northwest of Boonsboro, and west of Hancock. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-18 Figure 2-12: Minority Individuals Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-19 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-13: Individuals Below Poverty Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-20 Limited-English Proficiency Ensuring inclusive public transportation involves not only catering to various socioeconomic groups but also effectively communicating and providing information to individuals with different linguistic backgrounds. The Limited English Proficiency (LEP) population comprises individuals whose primary language is not English, and their proficiency in English is below the level of "very well." According to the Safe Harbor Provision of Title VI2, organizations that receive federal funding must offer written translations of all essential documents for each language group that constitutes either five percent or 1,000 persons (whichever is lower) of the total population in the service area. This requirement aims to guarantee equal access to vital information for diverse language communities. According to Table 2-3, the majority of Washington County residents primarily use English as their language of communication, accounting for 91.8% of the population. Spanish is the next most common language, with 2,659 residents or approximately two percent of the county population speaking it. Since there are over 1,000 Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals residing within the WCT service area who speak Spanish and meet the Safe Harbor threshold, it is mandatory for WCT to provide services to this Spanish-speaking LEP population within their service area. Additionally, WCT must ensure that all vital documents are available in the Spanish language. Table 2-3: Limited English Proficiency for Washington County Washington County # Population % Population Total Pop. (5 yrs. and over) 146,073 Speak only English 134,096 91.8% Spanish 1.8% French, Haitian, or Cajun 149 0.1% German or other West Germanic languages 8 0.0% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages 98 0.1% Other Indo-European languages 200 0.1% Korean 7 0.0% Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese) 391 0.3% Vietnamese 10 0.0% Tagalog (incl. Filipino) 75 0.1% Other Asian and Pacific Island languages 22 0.0% Arabic 48 0.0% Other and unspecified languages: 150 0.1% SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, FIVE-YEAR ESTIMATES 2022, TABLE C16001. 2 Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (FTA C 4702.1B), https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Title_VI_FINAL.pdf, Chapter III Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-21 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Disadvantaged Communities A disadvantaged community refers to a group of people or a specific geographic area that experiences significant social, economic, or environmental challenges, that results in a lack of access to resources and opportunities as compared to more privileged communities. These communities may include low- income neighborhoods, rural areas, minority populations, and marginalized groups who have historically been disadvantaged due to systemic inequities and discrimination. The preceding sections provide an in-depth examination of the study area's demographic composition, including the classification of transit-dependent population categories and a Title VI demographic analysis. Although this analysis offers valuable insights into the study area, various equity-focused federal transportation programs utilize additional indicators to identify disadvantaged communities. This analysis that is specific to Washington County will supplement our knowledge of the existing transit-dependent population and provide valuable insights for addressing transportation equity. Various federal programs utilize diverse indicators to identify disadvantaged communities, and there are several tools available for this process. These tools help federal agencies and policymakers identify and address disparities, leading to targeted interventions and equitable investments. Here is a compilation of commonly used terminology and federal online mapping tools across various programs: • Areas of Persistent Poverty (defined by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law): Census Tract that has a poverty rate of at least 20%, measured by the 2014-2018 five-year data series, are defined as an area of persistent poverty. Three online tools visualize these areas—FTA Mapping Tool for AoPP and HDC,3 RAISE Mapping Tool,4 and USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer.5 • Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts or Historically Disadvantaged Communities (defined by USDOT consistent with Justice40 initiative): These communities include certain qualifying census tracts based on 22 indicators that fall into six distinct categories. These categories include transportation-access disadvantage, health disadvantage, environmental disadvantage, economic disadvantage, resilience disadvantage, and equity disadvantage. These communities can be found on the FTA's Mapping Tool for AoPP and HDC. • Disadvantaged Community Census Tracts identified by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): A community is identified as disadvantaged if it falls within a census tract that meets the threshold or exceeds it for one or more environmental, climate, or other burdens that include but are not limited to transportation, housing, health, workforce development, and energy. The Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST)6 (an online mapping tool) helps to identify disadvantaged communities that can benefit from programs under the Justice40 Initiative. • Overall Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tract (defined by USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer7): It is a combination of CEQ’s transportation disadvantage component and ETC’s transportation insecurity component. The ETC Explorer allows 3 https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/75febe4d9e6345ddb2c3ab42a4aae85f 4 https://maps.dot.gov/BTS/GrantProjectLocationVerification/ 5 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/0920984aa80a4362b8778d779b090723/page/ETC-Explorer---Homepage/ 6 https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/-97.5 7 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/0920984aa80a4362b8778d779b090723/page/Understanding-the-Data/ Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-22 users to explore and visualize five transportation-related factors: Transportation Insecurity, Climate and Disaster Risk Burden, Environmental Burden, Health Vulnerability, and Social Vulnerability. Figure 2-14 through Figure 2-16 illustrate the Disadvantaged Census Tracts in Washington County as identified by the aforementioned programs. The result of this analysis is summarized below: • Figure 2-14 shows screenshot from the FTA’s Mapping Tool. o Twelve Census Tracts (CTs) in the Hagerstown area are classified as Historically Disadvantaged Communities. o Nine CTs located in and around Hagerstown are designated as an Area of Persistent Poverty. o Eight CTs fall under both categories simultaneously. • Ten CTs in Washington County are classified as disadvantaged by the CEQ tool due to meeting more than one burden threshold and associated socioeconomic criteria, including health, housing, and workforce development (Figure 2-15). • Figure 2-16 illustrates State results of the DOT Overall Transportation Disadvantage CTs for Washington County. These tracts score higher in transportation access (an indicator of transportation insecurity), which means residents in this area face challenges such as lengthy commute times and limited access to personal vehicles or public transportation options. These census tracts are spread throughout various areas of Washington County with concentrations around Hagerstown. Figure 2-14: Results of FTA Mapping Tool for AoPP and HDC SOURCE: HTTPS://USDOT.MAPS.ARCGIS.COM/APPS/DASHBOARDS/75FEBE4D9E6345DDB2C3AB42A4AAE85F Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-23 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-15: Results of CEQ Mapping Tool SOURCE: HTTPS://SCREENINGTOOL.GEOPLATFORM.GOV/EN/#13.61/39.64611/-77.72025 Figure 2-16: Results of ETC Explorer Mapping Tool SOURCE: HTTPS://EXPERIENCE.ARCGIS.COM/EXPERIENCE/0920984AA80A4362B8778D779B090723/PAGE/ETC-EXPLORER---HOMEPAGE/ Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-24 The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have several grant programs that consider disadvantaged communities and use these tools to assess their needs. Some of these grant programs include: • The Justice40 Initiative, signed into Executive Order in 2021, aims to deliver 40% of the overall benefits of federal investments in climate and clean energy, which includes sustainable transportation. • The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program, formerly known as the RAISE and TIGER grant programs, is a competitive grant program administered by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT). It is covered under the Justice40 Initiative. The BUILD grant provides funding for transportation infrastructure projects that promote economic growth, enhance mobility, improve safety, and advance environmental sustainability. To be eligible for the grant, the project should be located in areas designated as "Areas of Persistent Poverty." • The Areas of Persistent Poverty (AoPP) grant is a federal program established under the Consolidated Appropriations Act that provides funding to designated communities experiencing long-term economic distress and persistent poverty. These communities, identified through specific criteria, receive targeted assistance to improve transportation infrastructure, services, and accessibility in addition to other initiatives related to economic development, job creation, education, healthcare, and affordable housing. Entities that are eligible recipients or subrecipients under 5307, 5310, or 5311, and are situated in Areas of Persistent Poverty or Historically Disadvantaged Communities, are considered eligible applicants. Land Use Profile Major Trip Generators Identifying land uses and major trip generators throughout the county provides a better understanding of the travel needs and demands of Washington County residents and Washington County Transit riders. These trip generators are largely clustered by land use and are in proximity to each other. That is, similar land uses are geographically grouped together. Shopping trip generators are typically located near other shopping trip generators, multi-family housing by other multi-family housings, etc. They also serve as trip origins and destinations. When looking at a countywide scale, the clusters of trip generators can be seen to be concentrated within the urban areas. Hagerstown and its surroundings contain most of these destinations, though the county’s other notable population hubs of Boonsboro/Cavetown, Smithsburg, Williamsport, and Hancock also contain clusters of transit origins and destinations. Washington County’s rural areas contain few trip generators, except for the growing warehouse development in the greater Hagerstown area. At a macro level, the distribution of all trip generators in the county can be seen in Figure 2-17. A detailed list of all trip generators and their categories can be found in Appendix A. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-25 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan The categories in which the trip generators fall are as follows: Multifamily Housing: Residential structures that house more than one unit or family, often on multiple floors or larger tracts of land. These properties are shown in Figure 2-18. Two subcategories of multifamily housing have been implemented for a better visualization of the housing demographics: General: Regular market- multifamily structures. Low Income: Subsidized properties in which the entire property is reserved for affordable housing for lower income populations. Major Employers: Employers who employ more than 150 people. Some of these include FedEx, Meritus Health, and Amazon. A map of major employers can be found in Figure 2-19. Medical: Major medical facilities including hospitals, medical centers, and urgent care. Meritus Health, which operates the Meritus Medical Center in Hagerstown, serves as both a major employer and a large medical trip generator. See Figure 2-20 for details. Shopping: department stores such as Walmart Supercenter. The shopping destinations can be found in Figure 2-21. Education: Large educational institutions such as Hagerstown Community College and area high schools. See Figure 2-22. Human Services: Organizations and agencies that provide a variety of services for health, wellness, or social programs. These include, but are not limited to, libraries, community and activity centers, adult daycare centers, recovery organizations, assisted living facilities, and second-hand stores. Figure 2-23 shows the distribution of human services. Warehouses: Warehouses and distribution centers that serve as major employment hubs are shown in Figure 2-24. To account for the current rapid expansion of this development, the category is split into Existing Warehouses and Planned Warehouses. Recreation: Recreational destinations which could draw visitors from both within and outside of the county. These include Greenbrier State Park, Washington Monument State Park, and the C&O Canal Trail, all displayed in Figure 2-25. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-26 Figure 2-17: All Major Trip Generators – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-27 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-18: Multifamily Housing – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-28 Figure 2-19: Location of Major Employers – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-29 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-20: Medical Facilities – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-30 Figure 2-21: Shopping Centers – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-31 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-22: Educational Facilities – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-32 Figure 2-23: Human Services Agencies – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-33 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-24: Warehouses – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-34 Figure 2-25: Recreational Destinations – Washington County, MD Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-35 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Employment Travel Patterns In the assessment of transportation needs in Washington County, it is crucial to consider not only the locations of major employers within the county, but also the commuting patterns of its residents, including those who work both within and outside the county. Washington County employment is centered around Hagerstown, but a significant number of commuters still leave the county to work in other employment hubs such as Frederick. According to the 2021 ACS Five-Year Estimates, 77% of the workers in Washington County who are 16 years of age or older are employed within the county. This proportion of in-county commuting is higher than the overall average for the state of Maryland, which stands at approximately 69%, as indicated in Table 2-4. Table 2-4: Journey to Work Patterns for Washington County Place of Residence: Maryland Washington County Source: ACS, Five-Year Estimates 2021, Table B08130 The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) dataset from the Census Bureau is an additional data source that provides valuable insights into employee travel patterns. According to 2021 data, the top five employment destinations for residents of Washington County were Hagerstown, Robinwood, and Halfway in Washington County, as well as Frederick and Ballenger Creek in Frederick County. Other notable employment destinations include Baltimore, Rockville, and Washington, DC. (Table 2-5).8 In summary, out of 61,941 workers residing in Washington County, 13.4% commute to work in Frederick County, an additional 7.1% commute to Montgomery County, and four percent of commuters work in Franklin County, PA. 8 Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2021. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-36 Table 2-5: Top Ten Destinations of Work for Washington County Residents Destination County Percent Hagerstown 18.10% Frederick Frederick 6.60% Robinwood CDP 3.80% Ballenger Creek Frederick 2.90% Halfway CDP 2.40% Fountainhead-Orchard Hills 2.30% Baltimore Baltimore 2.00% Rockville Montgomery 1.40% Washington, DC DC 1.10% Gaithersburg Montgomery 1.10% In terms of individuals residing outside of Washington County but working within the county, Frederick, MD and Waynesboro, PA are the only cities that together account for over 3.5% of total commuters (Table 2-6). This indicates that there is more outbound commuting than inbound commuting. Overall, around half of the Washington County workers (47.3%) are Washington County residents. Just over 12% of all workers commute from Franklin County, PA, followed by Berkeley County, WV (8.6%), Frederick County, MD (7.1%), Montgomery County, MD (2.0%), and Baltimore County, MD (2.0%). Table 2-6: Top Ten Places of Residence for Washington County Workers Destination County Percent Hagerstown 13.80% Halfway CDP 4.00% Fountainhead-Orchard Hills 2.30% Frederick Frederick 2.20% Robinwood CDP 2.10% St. James 1.40% Waynesboro Franklin (PA)1.30% Maugansville 1.20% Baltimore Baltimore 1.10% Martinsburg Berkeley (WV)0.90% The workplace destinations of Washington County residents by Census Tracts are illustrated in Figure 2-26, while the residences of Washington County workers are illustrated in Figure 2-27. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-37 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-26: Commuting Patterns for Washington County Residents Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-38 Figure 2-27: Commuting Patterns for Washington County Workers Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-39 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan The LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics were further analyzed at the Census Tract level to better understand the commuting patterns of people living and working in Washington County. This analysis involved geographically joining their origins (place of residence) and destinations (place of work) to examine commuting flows9, which were categorized into three groups: 1. Living in Washington County and working outside the county of residence (Figure 2-28). 2. Working in Washington County and residing outside the county (Figure 2-29). 3. Living and working within Washington County (Figure 2-30). Figure 2-28 through Figure 2-30 display commuting patterns for Washington County residents and workers. This data shows that there is a moderate outbound commuting flow (by Census Tract) from Washington County, particularly from east of Hagerstown to Frederick, highlighting the position of Frederick as the primary regional employment hub. Most of the county’s inbound commuters come from Pennsylvania—Mercersburg, Greencastle, State Line, and Waynesboro. Considering that the majority of residents both live and work within Washington County, commuting patterns are largely concentrated around Hagerstown, with notable flows originating west and north of the city. 9 There is no way of knowing the percentage of individuals who actually travel to work from this dataset, as many jobs shifted to remote work post-pandemic. Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-40 Figure 2-28: Washington County Outbound Commuting Patterns Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-41 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 2-29: Washington County Inbound Commuting Patterns Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns KFH Group, Inc. │ 2-42 Figure 2-30: Washington County Intra-County Commuting Patterns Chapter 2: Review of Demographics, Land Uses and Travel Patterns 2-43 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Summary of Needs When combining the demographic, land use, and commuter trends contained within this section, the following needs and themes emerge: • Washington County's population showed slower growth in the last decade compared to the rapid rate of the 2000s but still increased over the past decade. Projections suggest a steady population increase of six to nine percent per decade over the next 20 years, representing an overall growth rate of approximately 16%, in line with that of the previous two decades. It should be noted that Washington County is projected to experience a substantial increase in its aging population over the next two decades, nearly 22% of its total population. • The TDI analysis revealed that the vast majority of areas identified as having high transit needs are located in the vicinity of Hagerstown, which is in line with WCT’s current network. This initial analysis suggests that if WCT seeks to improve service to meet these high-needs communities, then improving service along the current network would be more beneficial than expanding service to new areas. • WCTs routes offer public transit coverage to nearly all major trip generators identified in the county. However, there are certain areas that remain unserved by any of the WCT routes and require attention: o Minor population centers such as Hancock and Boonsboro. o West of Hagerstown where new warehouse and distribution center development is occurring. Outreach is required to assess if workers at these facilities would utilize transit service there. • Most commuting travel occurs within Washington County. Nevertheless, significant commuting flows exist from Washington County to Frederick and from southern Pennsylvania to Washington County. Intercity and Commuter transit service in the greater Washington County area is currently limited, so exploring new connections could be a way to attract new riders. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services Introduction This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the existing public transportation services in Washington County. Washington County Transit (WCT) is the primary public transit provider in the county and the primary focus of this review. However, there are other public transportation services that also serve the county and provide connections to destinations in neighboring counties and the Baltimore metropolitan area. The existing services review is meant to highlight strengths and identify opportunities for improved service performance across the public transportation network in Washington County. The combined results of the existing services review, review of transit needs, community input, and review of previous studies will be used as the basis for developing service and organizational alternatives to improve public transportation in the county. This chapter is divided into the following sections: • Washington County Transit – Description of the governance and organizational structure of WCT, and an overview of existing services, including route profiles. • Funding and Fare Policy – Identification of operating budget and funding sources and description of the fares available to passengers. • Existing Facilities, Fleet, and Technology – Overview of the WCT facilities, current vehicle fleet, and technology related to safety and security and passenger information. • Service Performance Evaluation – Performance analysis at the system and route levels, compared to the Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA) service standards. • Other Area Transportation Providers – Identification of other transportation services that operate within Washington County. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-2 Service Area Washington County is located in western Maryland and bordered by Pennsylvania to the north, West Virginia and Allegany County to the west, Frederick County to the east and Northern Virginia to the south. The winding Potomac River defines its western and southern borders. The southernmost tip is at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers. Washington County is one of three Maryland counties in Appalachia, recognized by the Appalachian Regional Commission. The county has nine incorporated towns: Hagerstown is located about 68 miles from Washington, DC, and 74 miles from Baltimore. The Census Bureau also recognizes numerous Census Designated Places (CDPs) in the county. The county is characterized by its access to the Potomac River to the west and its location in the Hagerstown Valley, which is part of the Great Appalachian Valley. Hagerstown is nearly completely bordered to the east by South Mountain State Park and to the west by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Historic Park, which aligns with the Potomac River. In the north, Hagerstown Valley includes part of Franklin County, PA. The Hagerstown, MD--WV--PA--VA Urban Area (UA), which covers Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, is the major urban area in the county. The remainder of the county is largely rural. I- 70 runs east to west through the county, while I-81 runs north to south from the town of Williamsport to the border of Pennsylvania. Washington County is a member of the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization (HEPMPO) which is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region. Figure 3-1 illustrates the study area that includes cities, census designated places, UA areas (with populations exceeding 50,000), major transportation routes, and surrounding states and counties. Hagerstown (the county seat)Boonsboro Clear Spring Funkstown Hancock Keedysville Sharpsburg Smithsburg Williamsport Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-1: Washington County, MD Service Area Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-4 Overview of Existing Transit Services Washington County Transit (WCT) is the primary public transit operator in Washington County. It provides two types of service: fixed routes and ADA paratransit and JOBS shuttle. All WCT programs produced an annual ridership of over 357,398 riders in FY2023. An overview of the service is provided in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Overview of WCT Services WCT Services Weekday Service Span Saturday Service Span Areas Served Fixed Route Services Valley Mall (#111, #113) 7:45 a.m. – 8:25 p.m. 8:45 a.m. -8:25 p.m. Southern Hagerstown, Valley Mall 6:45 a.m. – 8:45 p.m. 8:15 a.m. – 8:45 p.m. Northern Hagerstown, YMCA Robinwood (#221) 6:15 a.m. – 6:15 p.m. - Community College, Meritus Smithsburg (#222, #223) 7:15 a.m. – 6:15 p.m. 7:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. Eastern Hagerstown, Smithsburg Funkstown (#331 6:15 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 8:15 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. Funkstown, Southern Hagerstown West End (#333) 6:45 a.m. – 9:15 p.m. 7:45 a.m. – 9:15 p.m. Walmart, Western Hagerstown Williamsport (#441) 6:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 7:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. Valley Mall, Williamsport Maugansville (#443) 6:15 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 8:45 a.m. – 5:45 p.m. Hamilton Park, Airport, Health Dept., Citi, Maugansville Premium Outlets (#552) 7:15 a.m. – 7:15 p.m. 9:15 a.m. – 7:15 p.m. MVA, Premium Outlets, Walmart Demand Response Services ADA Paratransit 6:15 a.m. – 9:45 p.m. 7:45 a.m. – 9:45 p.m. Within ¾ mile of fixed routes JOBS Shuttle Program Specific Program Specific Program Specific SSTAP (Vouchers) - - Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Fixed-Route Service WCT offers fixed-route bus service primarily within the urbanized area of Washington County. Fixed- route bus service includes nine routes that originate in Hagerstown and serve Funkstown, Halfway, Long Meadow, Maugansville, Robinwood, Smithsburg, Valley Mall, Williamsport, and throughout the City of Hagerstown. Service is available Monday through Friday, 6:15 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. and Saturday, 7:45 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. Service is not available on Sunday and some major holidays. The nine routes operated by WCT include: 1. Valley Mall-offers two runs including a day run (#111) and a night run (#113) 2. Long Meadow-offers a total of three runs that includes a run aligned along Locust Street (#116), another run along Eastern Boulevard (#117), and a night run (#114) 3. Robinwood, #221 4. Smithsburg-offers two runs including a weekday run (#222) and a Saturday run (#223) 5. Funkstown, #331 6. West End, #333 7. Williamsport, #441 8. Maugansville, #443 9. Premium Outlets, #552 The fixed-route schedules begin at various times in the early morning and generally run every hour until the evening. A night run is provided for Valley Mall and Long Meadow. Table 3-1, on the previous page, summarizes the service span and the areas served by each route, while Figure 3-2 illustrates the WCT fixed-route network. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-6 Figure 3-2: WCT Fixed Route Network Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan ADA Paratransit and SSTAP Program WCT also has ADA Paratransit service within a ¾ mile area around all fixed routes, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (shown in Figure 3-2). A specialized transportation service through a Ride Assist Program is provided to those 60 years of age and older, as well as individuals with disabilities who cannot ride the fixed routes. This service is funded by the Statewide Specialized Transportation Assistance Program (SSTAP) and ADA Complementary Paratransit Service. Paratransit service runs Monday through Friday between 6:15 a.m. and 9:15 p.m., and on Saturday from 7:45 a.m. to 9:15 p.m., with limited evening service. Service is not provided on Sunday or WCT-recognized holidays. Customers can request trips until 4:00 p.m. the day prior, with requests accepted up to 14 days before the trip. Trips can be scheduled by calling WCT at 240-313-2750, Menu Option 2, or by emailing WCT at paratransit@washco-md.net. The cost for a one-way trip is $2.00. Before COVID, the SSTAP service was not actively promoted to its full utilization due to the availability of funding and an extensive waitlist. Voucher sales were paused each April because the program had run out of funds. Additionally, the local match for funding was non-cash, consisting of in-kind contributions that could not be directly spent, which limited the program's flexibility. The services were provided by three local taxi companies—Bonnie’s Transportation, Easy Transport & Grab-A-Ride, LLC. Recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has begun a 25% cash match, enhancing the program's flexibility and opening the possibility for future advertising. Previously, the service was outsourced to specific taxi providers. Now, however, users can choose any local taxi sedan service, which increases their options and convenience. JOBS Opportunity Bus Shuttle Job seekers receive service through the Job Opportunity Access Program in cooperation with the Washington County Department of Social Services (WCDSS). Job Opportunity Bus Shuttles (JOBS) assist low-income households with transportation to and from work and childcare facilities. The JOBS shuttle offers point-to-point service within a defined area, including stops at childcare facilities within the service area when the primary trip purpose is employment related. The service area encompasses Williamsport, Clear Spring, Citicorp, Smithsburg, Funkstown, Hagerstown, Maugansville, and the surrounding communities. Trips can be scheduled by calling WCDSS Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. WCDSS oversees the program and submits riders' work schedules to WCT, which handles scheduling and assigns vehicles and drivers. WCDSS then notifies JOBS riders of their schedules. There is a 20-minute pick-up and drop-off window. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-8 Management and Organizational Structure WCT is operated under the county’s Division of Public Works. The Transit Director reports directly to the Division of Public Works Director and oversees a staff of 58 administrative, operations, and maintenance staff. Figure 3- 3 presents the organizational chart for WCT. The Division of Public Works is responsible for providing public transportation services, operating the Hagerstown Regional Airport, maintaining the county-owned highways, and operating and maintaining the county’s parks, buildings, and facilities. The division is governed by Washington County’s Board of Commissioners which adopts policy and approves WCT’s budget. Figure 3-3: Washington County Transit Organizational Chart Washington County Board of Commissioners County Administrator Division of Public Works Director Transit Director Operations Supervisor 8-FT Bus Operators 25-PT Bus Operators 10-PT Para/JOBS Drivers Communication & Outreach Manager 2-FT Communications Specialists Fleet & Facility Manager 2-FT Fleet Techs 1-FT Facility Maintenance Worker 6-PT Line service Attendents Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-9 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Fare Policy Washington County Transit provides various fare options to accommodate different riders. The base adult fare is $1.25 per one-way trip. Seniors (ages 60 and older), individuals with disabilities, and military veterans (with proper ID) are eligible for a peak fare of $0.95 and an off-peak fare of $0.60. Students with a valid school ID can ride for $0.85, and children under the age of five ride for free. WCT also offers Ride Cards and Period Passes. Ride Cards do not expire and are discounted by one dollar when multiple cards are purchased. The fares for Stored Ride Cards are shown in Table 3-2. Period Passes allow for unlimited rides and are available in three formats: 31-day, semi-annual, and annual. Table 3-2 also summarizes the different period pass options. It is important to note that fares for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and military veterans vary between peak and off-peak hours. Off-peak hours are from 9:45 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and from 7:00 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday all day, while all other times are considered peak. Table 3-2: Washington County Transit Fares Fare Type Cost Stored Ride Card Period Pass (Unlimited Rides) 20-Rides Bulk Discount (must purchase 2+) 31-Days Semi-Annual Annual Adult (ages 18-59) $1.25 $24.00 $23.00/each $50.00 $250.00 $450.00 Senior (ages 65+), Individuals with Disabilities, Medicare/Medicaid/ Military Veteran– ID Required $0.95 Peak $0.60 Off-Peak $18.00 Peak $11.00 Off-Peak $17.00 Peak/each $10.00 Off-Peak/each $38.00 Peak $23.00 Off-Peak $190.00 Peak $115.00 Off-Peak $342.00 Peak $207.00 Off-Peak Students (ages 5-17) Students (ages 18+) – ID Required $0.85 $16.00 $15.00/each $34.00 $170.00 $306.00 Children (Under age 5) Excludes Groups Free Free Free Free Free Free Source: Washington County Transit, website accessed June 2024 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-10 Existing Facilities, Fleet, and Technology Maintenance and Parking Facilities Washington County Transit’s administrative office and vehicle maintenance/storage facility is located at 1000 West Washington Street in Hagerstown. The building provides administrative offices, conference rooms, indoor vehicle storage, a full-service vehicle maintenance facility, and a bus wash bay. The WCT Transfer Center is located at 123 West Franklin Street in downtown Hagerstown. The facility is the central hub for each of WCT’s routes. Buses arrive at the center every 30 or 60 minutes, depending upon the route, to allow transfers to other WCT routes. The facility provides covered seating, garbage bins, and an automated fare machine for waiting passengers. For WCT drivers the facility boasts a break room as well as a restroom for drivers. The facility has only one entrance and exit on West Franklin Street, with no alternative exit on a different street or a designated emergency exit. This configuration can create significant challenges and operational difficulties during street blockages or emergencies. WCT Administrative Office and Vehicle Maintenance/Storage Facility Google Map View of the Transfer Center Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-11 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Bus Stops WCT has approximately 226 designated bus stops throughout its service area, as indicated on the system-wide transit map available on its website. However, only around 84 of these stops have a bus stop sign, and only 10 stops are equipped with shelters. Most of these stops with signs are located at or near major facilities such as grocery stores, shopping centers, medical complexes, and community colleges. WCT Transfer Center WCT Bus Shelters: From left, Frederick Street at Potterfield Pool; Walmart Supercenter Source: Google Maps Street View Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-12 Fleet WCT’s fleet comprises 22 revenue vehicles and five non-revenue support vehicles. Of the revenue vehicles, 13 are designated for fixed routes, seven for paratransit, and two for JOBS trips. All revenue vehicles are ADA accessible, except for the two allocated for the JOBS shuttle service. The fleet primarily consists of medium-duty ElDorado buses, with a smaller number of light-duty Ford buses used for demand-response services. The newer ElDorado EZ-Ride buses are mid-sized and feature low floors. In FY2023, peak service operated with 13 vehicles, supported by seven spare vehicles, totaling 20 active vehicles. This configuration resulted in a spare ratio 1 of 54%, exceeding the MTA’s maximum spare ratio of 20%. Currently, WCT operates eight peak vehicles on weekdays and seven on Saturday out of a total of 13 vehicles for fixed-route service, resulting in three spares. For ADA Paratransit, WCT uses two out of five peak vehicles, leaving three spares. These spare vehicles are also shared with the JOBS Shuttle, which operates with two vehicles. This results in a combined spare ratio of 66.6%, which is significantly higher than the MTA’s spare ratio of 20%. WCT has reported that some of their buses have been out of service for extended periods due to major repairs. This situation requires a higher number of spare vehicles to ensure that WCT has enough operational buses available for daily service. The average age of the fleet is about 5.5 years. Two 2015 ElDorado buses, one 2009 Ford, and one 2015 Chevy have surpassed their useful life and need to be retired. The majority of the vehicles (16) are fueled by diesel, while the remaining 11 run on gasoline. 1 MTA’s definition of Spare Ratio is provided in the LOTS Manual here: https://www.taminc.org/assets/docs/MTA/Locally%20Operated%20Transit%20System%20%28LOTS%29%20Program%20Manual%2007.22.pdf According to FTA, the spare ratio is defined as “the total number of spare vehicles (also known as rolling stock) available for fixed-route service (regardless of type) divided by the total number of fixed-route vehicles required for annual maximum service (regardless of type).” “Vehicles operated in maximum fixed-route service” is the count of revenue vehicles utilized during the peak week, day, and hours when maximum service is provided. https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/procurement/third-party-procurement/spare-ratio#:~:text=Spare%20ratio%20is%20defined%20as,service%20(regardless%20of%20type). WCT Bus With a Ramp Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-13 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 3-3 lists each vehicle and its specifications. Table 3-3: WCT Vehicle Roster, 2024 UNIT# YEAR Make Model Mileage Seating/ WC Fuel Type ADA Accessible Condition Status Use 713 2015 ElDorado Passport 247,764 25/2 Diesel Ramp Fair Active Fixed route 714 2015 ElDorado Passport 267,542 25/2 Diesel Ramp Fair Active Fixed route 715 2021 ElDorado Passport 103,398 23/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 716 2021 ElDorado Passport 107,105 23/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 717 2021 ElDorado Passport 93,807 23/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 718 2021 ElDorado Passport 74,951 23/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 719 2021 ElDorado Passport 105,257 23/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 720 2021 ElDorado Passport 84,630 23/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 801 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 27,904 24/2 Diesel Ramp Poor Active Fixed route 802 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 34,011 24/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 803 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 18,913 24/2 Diesel Ramp Poor Active Fixed route 804 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 24,601 24/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 805 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 20,447 24/2 Diesel Ramp Good Active Fixed route 504 2009 Ford E-450 214,633 5/3 Diesel Lift Fair Active Paratransit 505 2015 Chevy 3500 148,096 5/3 Diesel Lift Fair Active Paratransit 506 2017 Ford E-350 129,620 9/3 Gasoline Lift Good Active Paratransit 507 2017 Ford E-350 125,769 9/3 Gasoline Lift Good Active Paratransit 508 2021 Ford E-450 46,748 13/3 Gasoline Lift Good Active Paratransit 509 2017 Ford E-450 20,127 13/3 Gasoline Lift Good Active Paratransit 510 2017 Ford E-450 19,103 13/3 Gasoline Lift Good Active Paratransit 205 2019 Ford Transit 149,857 12 Gasoline N/A Fair Active JOBS 206 2019 Ford Transit 159,902 12 Gasoline N/A Fair Active JOBS Truck 1 2005 Chevy Silverado 35,141 2 Diesel N/A Fair Active Support S-1 2008 Chevy Uplander 81,956 6 Gasoline N/A Fair Active Support S-3 2022 Chevy Equinox 5,643 5 Gasoline N/A Good Active Support S-4 2024 Chevy Malibu 295 5 Gasoline N/A New Active Support S-5 2024 Chevy Malibu 301 5 Gasoline N/A New Active Support SOURCE: WCT Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-14 Technology Since 2010, WCT has been using RouteMatch software to coordinate demand-response services and expanded its use to fixed routes in 2019. However, WCT will soon transition to a new dispatching and scheduling system, utilizing Ecolane for demand-response and Passio for fixed- route services. WCT also employs advanced technologies to enhance public transit services, including communication systems and video monitoring systems. One of the specialized technologies used by WCT is Mobile Data Collectors (MDCs), which transform vehicles into smart, connected assets. These MDCs are equipped with capabilities like GPS tracking, audio-video recording, time-of-day tracking, and door open/close tracking. Demand-response operators receive their trip information via the onboard MDC; similarly, fixed-route operators get their run/route information through the same system. Additionally, WCT uses both onboard and facility video monitoring systems. For customers, WCT provides the RouteShout app, a smartphone app that displays real-time information to locate fixed-route buses. RouteShout offers access to bus schedules, next arrival times, route maps, and service announcements. Riders can also save their favorite stops and plan trips using this free app. Marketing WCT maintains an online presence through its webpage hosted on the Washington County Government website, where bus schedules and other essential information are easily accessible, providing users with a user-friendly and visually appealing experience. The organization also maintains its social media presence on the Washington County Government's Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram pages. These platforms are utilized for marketing and public announcements. WCT’s distinctive white buses are easily recognizable, featuring two prominent bands of blue and red, and prominently labeled as "County Commuter." However, on its brochures and posters, WCT uses a different transit logo branded as ‘WCT.’ This branding inconsistency is notable, as the ‘WCT’ logo is not consistently reflected on their webpage. The website primarily references 'WCT' to refer to ‘Washington WCT Branding Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-15 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan County Transit’ without any mention of 'County Commuter,' indicating a shift or inconsistency in branding from the previous 'County Commuter' name. Inconsistencies were also found in WCT's bus schedule roster, causing confusion. The brochure initially states that drivers are not permitted to pick up or drop off passengers outside designated stops for safety reasons. However, it also mentions that buses can stop at major intersections if it is safe to do so for picking up or dropping off riders. Furthermore, inconsistencies were observed between the schedules on the individual route maps and the main bus schedule. For example, while the bus schedule states that Valley Metro service begins at 7:45 a.m. on weekdays, the individual route map indicates a start time of 8:45 a.m. The route maps also provide detailed turn-by-turn directions of the bus, which are typically unnecessary but still beneficial since WCT allows buses to stop at intersections upon rider request. Overall, WCT's marketing and advertising efforts could be improved. By enhancing its marketing through consistent branding and improving the accuracy of published information, WCT could boost recognition within the community and improve accessibility and clarity. SOURCE: WASHINGTON COUNTY, MD GOV. INSTAGRAM PAGE, ACCESSED JUNE 2024. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-16 Existing Service Performance Review The performance review begins by looking at the operating data for all WCT’s services. This data includes ridership (one-way passenger trips), vehicle revenue miles, vehicle revenue hours, and operating expenses. While there are many performance indicators, typically the most useful single measure is the passenger trips per revenue hour, as it reflects usage in relation to the amount of service provided. The majority of transit operating costs are hourly (wages and benefits), so higher values of trips per hour reflect better use of existing resources and lower costs per trip. In this study, MDOT MTA’s established performance standards are also used to review the system performance. MDOT MTA applies performance standards to the LOTS to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of each system’s services. The performance standards are based on a composite of hundreds of national peer agencies with similarly sized operations. Services are rated as “Successful,” “Acceptable,” or “Needs Review,” based on how they perform in each of the operating measures. These standards are utilized to determine whether new services requested by each system should be funded based on their potential for success. MDOT MTA’s current standards for small urban transit services are shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: MDOT MTA Performance Standards Small Urban Fixed-Route Bus Revised LOTS Performance Standards Successful Acceptable Needs Review Small Urban Demand Response SOURCE: ATP FY 2023 SUBMITTED TO MTA, FORM 2A Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-17 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 3-5 presents systemwide operating statistics and performance trends, including unlinked passenger trips, services supplied (vehicle hours), effectiveness (passenger trips per revenue hour), financial indicators (operating cost, farebox revenue, and farebox recovery ratio), and efficiency (operating cost per passenger trip and operating cost per hour) trend data for WCT’s fixed routes and demand response for the last six fiscal years. It should be noted that this data does not include SSTAP trips. The tables are color-coded based on how the performance measures align with MDOT MTA’s established performance standards for FY2023—these standards are variable from year to year. Associated with each table are two graphs showing ridership with mileage and productivity trends, and ridership with operating cost per trip and operating cost per mile trends. These are included in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5. Table 3-5: WCT Systemwide Operating Statistics, FY2019 – FY2024 Total Fixed Route FY2019 FY2020^ FY2021^ FY2022 FY2023 FY2024** One-Way Trips 480,164 377,798 286,149 300,365 348,048 187,755 Total Service Miles 524,162 469,206 472,761 531,773 528,700 253,181 Total Service Hours 35,403 32,035 32,168 39,203 39,814 18,897 Total Revenue Miles NA NA NA 485,108 478,694 230,226 Total Revenue Hours NA NA NA 32,706 32,390 15,510 Total Operating Costs $2,290,057 $2,330,704 $2,371,415 $2,524,625 $2,633,360 $1,460,353 Total Farebox $312,922 $241,161 $193,586 $207,370 $221,041 $122,113 Local Operating Revenue $716,592 $618,720 $665,807 $707,618 $681,687 $340,836 Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile* 0.92 0.81 0.61 0.62 0.73 0.82 13.56 11.79 8.90 9.18 10.75 12.11 $4.37 $4.97 $5.02 $4.75 $4.98 $5.77 NA NA NA $5.20 $5.50 $6.34 $64.68 $72.75 $73.72 $64.40 $66.14 $77.28 NA NA NA 77.19 81.30 94.16 31% 27% 28% 28% 26% 23% * Presents trips per vehicle service miles and hours for FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 **FY2024 data includes only the first two quarters of FY2024 ^COVID years MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-18 Figure 3-4: WCT Fixed Routes Ridership, Productivity and Mileage, FY2019 – FY2024 Trend Figure 3-5: WCT Fixed Routes Operating Cost per Trip and per Hour, FY2019 – FY2024 Trend - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 - 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 FY 2019 FY 2020^FY 2021^FY 2022 FY 2023 FY2024** To t a l O n e -Wa y T r i p s Tr i p s p e r H o u r One-Way Trips Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour* - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 FY 2019 FY 2020^FY 2021^FY 2022 FY 2023 FY2024** One-Way Trips Operating Cost per Hour Operated Operating Cost per Trip Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-19 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan According to Table 3-5, systemwide ridership in FY2023 reached 348,048 trips, which is 71% of the FY2019 level, indicating that ridership has not fully rebounded to its pre-pandemic levels. Productivity also remained below pre-pandemic levels, with 10.75 passenger trips per hour in FY2023, a 21% decrease from 13.56 trips per hour in FY2019. Despite a 15% increase in operating costs from $2,290,057 in FY2019 to $2,633,360 in FY2023, the operating cost per hour remained somewhat consistent (with a slight two percent increase), while the operating cost per trip increased by 59%. These figures underscore the impact of the pandemic on ridership recovery. Performance by Routes Table 3-6 provides operating statistics during FY2023 for each route, followed by Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7, which illustrate key performance indicators. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-20 Table 3-6: WCT Annual Route Performance, FY2023 - (A D A & JO B S ) (S . 53 1 1 ) * SS T A P One-Way Trips 57,754 36,780 37,199 7,893 33,747 52,420 38,460 37,920 29,878 15,997 2,300 7,050 Total Service Miles 61,163 48,909 36,007 33,480 29,772 28,645 64,907 59,249 34,632 131,936 NA NA Total Service Hours 3,855 3,595 3,136 1,628 2,037 2,217 3,724 3,667 3,672 12,283 NA NA Total Revenue Miles 60,542 48,288 35,497 32,859 29,153 28,023 64,287 58,630 34,010 87,405 NA NA Total Revenue Hours 3,763 3,501 3,060 1,535 1,945 2,123 3,632 3,575 3,580 5,676 NA NA Total Operating Costs $315,071 $279,155 $232,448 $142,793 $159,089 $167,080 $314,386 $301,459 $258,622 $463,257 $41,464 $131,664 Total Farebox $35,667 $22,713 $22,993 $4,866 $20,856 $32,356 $23,749 $23,285 $18,411 $16,145 $6,420 $18,061 Local Operating Revenue $82,919 $66,278 $48,623 $44,859 $39,941 $38,494 $88,128 $80,169 $46,307 $145,969 $8,761 $28,401 Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile 0.95 0.76 1.05 0.24 1.16 1.87 0.60 0.65 0.88 0.18 NA NA 15.35 10.51 12.16 5.14 17.35 24.69 10.59 10.61 8.35 2.82 NA NA Mileage (Total Service Miles/Hour) 15.87 13.60 11.48 20.57 14.62 12.92 17.43 16.16 9.43 10.74 NA NA Operating Cost per Trip 5.46 7.59 6.25 18.09 4.71 3.19 8.17 7.95 8.66 28.96 18.03 18.68 Operating Cost per Mile Operated $5.15 $5.71 $6.46 $4.27 $5.34 $5.83 $4.84 $5.09 $7.47 $3.51 NA NA Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Mile $5.20 $5.78 $6.55 $4.35 $5.46 $5.96 $4.89 $5.14 $7.60 $5.30 NA NA Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-21 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan - (A D A & JO B S ) (S . 53 1 1 ) * SS T A P Operating Cost per Hour Operated $81.73 $77.65 $74.12 $87.71 $78.10 $75.36 $84.42 $82.21 $70.43 $37.72 NA NA Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour 83.73 79.74 75.96 93.02 81.79 78.70 86.56 84.32 72.24 81.62 NA NA Farebox Recovery Ratio 11.3% 8.1% 9.9% 3.4% 13.1% 19.4% 7.6% 7.7% 7.1% 3.5% 15.5% 13.7% Local Operating Revenue Ratio 26% 24% 21% 31% 25% 23% 28% 27% 18% 32% 21% 22% Deadhead Miles 621 621 510 621 619 622 620 619 622 44,531 NA NA Deadhead Hours 92 94 76 93 92 94 92 92 92 6,607 NA NA Percent of Ridership in the system 16.2% 10.3% 10.4% 2.2% 9.4% 14.7% 10.8% 10.6% 8.4% 4.5% 0.6% 2.0% Percent of Cost in the system 11.2% 9.9% 8.3% 5.1% 5.7% 6.0% 11.2% 10.7% 9.2% 16.5% 1.5% 4.7% SOURCE: ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ATP) DATA MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR URBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-22 Figure 3-6: Ridership, Productivity and Mileage by Routes, FY2023 Figure 3-7: Operating Cost per Trip and per Hour by Routes, FY2023 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 - 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ri d e r s h i p Pr o d u c t i v i t y & M i l e a g e Productivity (Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour*)Mileage One-Way Trips - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 Ri d e r s h i p Co s t Operating Cost per Trip Operating Cost per Hour Operated One-Way Trips Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-23 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan As evident from Table 3-6 and Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7: • In FY2023, the average fixed-route productivity was 12.7 trips per hour, with an average operating cost of $79.08 per hour and a farebox recovery rate of 9.4%. • The Valley Mall route had the highest ridership with 57,754 unlinked passenger trips in FY2023, followed by the West End route with 52,420 trips. Together, these routes accounted for about one- third of the total fixed-route ridership. • The Valley Mall route had the highest operating costs at $315,071 in FY2023, closely followed by the Williamsport route at $314,386, both due to their high service miles in the system. • The West End route was the highest performing route, with a productivity of 24.7 trips per hour. The Funkstown and Valley Mall routes also performed above average, with 17.4 and 15.4 trips per hour, respectively. • The Smithsburg route was the lowest performing among the fixed routes in the system, with the lowest ridership share (2.2%) and operating costs ($142,793) due to its minimal service hours. Because of its extremely low ridership compared to other fixed routes, it had the highest operating cost per hour ($87.71) and per trip ($18.09) in the system. Additionally, it had the highest mileage, averaging over 20 miles per hour. • The ridership for the Long Meadow, Robinwood, Williamsport, and Maugansville routes hovered around the average fixed-route ridership of 36,895. All of these routes also had below-average productivity within the system. • Premium Outlets route also had a below-average ridership (29,878) and performance (8.35 trips per revenue hour) among the fixed routes. • Demand-response services recorded nearly 16,000 unlinked passenger trips in FY2023, achieving a productivity rate of 2.82 trips per revenue hour. Figure 3-8 illustrates the systemwide ridership trends from FY2019 to FY2024 by quarter, broken down by routes. The data shows a recurring pattern where ridership typically decreases during the winter months (January to March) and increases during the summer months (July to August). Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-24 Figure 3-8: Quarterly WCT Ridership Trends by Routes, FY2019 - FY2024 Note: Ridership data for the last two quarters of FY2024 is taken from WCT’s daily ridership record. All other data is sourced from WCT ATP 2A forms. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Ju l - A u g - S e p Oc t - N o v - D e c Ja n - F e b - M a r Ap r - M a y - J u n Ju l - A u g - S e p Oc t - N o v - D e c Ja n - F e b - M a r Ap r - M a y - J u n Ju l - A u g - S e p Oc t - N o v - D e c Ja n - F e b - M a r Ap r - M a y - J u n Ju l - A u g - S e p Oc t - N o v - D e c Ja n - F e b - M a r Ap r - M a y - J u n Ju l - A u g - S e p Oc t - N o v - D e c Ja n - F e b - M a r Ap r - M a y - J u n Ju l - A u g - S e p Oc t - N o v - D e c Ja n - F e b - M a r Ap r - M a y - J u n FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 ADA Paratransit Demand Response Services Funkstown JOBS Opportunity Bus Shuttle Long Meadow Maugansville Premium Outlets Robinwood Smithsburg Valley Mall West End Williamsport SSTAP Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-25 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Performance by Stop On Thursday, April 11, 2024, KFH Group staff conducted ridership counts on all the WCT routes, including the night runs. KFH team members rode each route for the entire span of service, noting the boardings and alightings at each designated stop (also referred to as a timed stop) and major road intersections. KFH Group staff then summed up the boarding and alighting data and calculated the total activity at each stop. Due to the logistical complexity of the survey effort, some data was unusable. The total activity of each route, as well as the number of round trips with no data for each route during the survey period, are summarized in Table 3-7. Table 3-7: Activity by Route During Ridership Survey Total Activity Average Activity /Round Trip Round Trips Round Trips With Missing Data Funkstown - 331 151 11.6 13 0 Long Meadow Eastern - 117 78 7.8 10 1 Long Meadow Night - 114 10 5.0 2 0 Long Meadow Locust - 116 66 6.0 11 0 Maugansville - 443 129 10.8 12 1 Premium Outlets - 552 137 13.7 10 2 Robinwood - 221 221 18.4 12 0 Smithsburg - 222 32 8.0 4 1 Valley Mall - 111 189 21.0 9 2 Valley Mall Night - 113 20 10.0 2 0 West End - 333 220 18.3 12 2 Williamsport - 441 219 18.3 12 0 Systemwide, 591 total boardings and alightings took place at the Transfer Center, equating to over one- third of the total stop activity on April 11, 2024. Of the other stops in the system, 12 had stop activity greater than 10, led by Walmart at The Center at Hagerstown and the Valley Mall Food Court with 71 and 70 total stop activity, respectively. A map showing the total combined stop activity is presented in Figure 3-9. The study team found that most stops with significant trip activity were trip destinations rather than origins. Most people begin their bus rides at the Transfer Center. Although boardings are spread across many intersections, no single stop, apart from the Transfer Center, was identified as a significant trip origin. Routes such as Robinwood, Long Meadow, Smithsburg, and Williamsport, which serve apartment complexes, residential, or retirement communities, did not report considerable stop activity at the stops or intersections serving those areas. Stop activity by each route is further analyzed in detail and presented alongside each route profile in the next section. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-26 Figure 3-9: Total Combined Stop Activity for All WCT Routes Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-27 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Route Profiles The route profiles found on the following pages provide an inventory of Washington County Transit’s routes. Each profile includes route-specific data including: Each profile also displays major origins and destinations near the route, as well as average stop activity per day per stop. A quarter-mile buffer is drawn along the entire route, as almost every major intersection is a potential stop. This will help us to better understand the approximate route service coverage, revealing the communities and businesses that may have convenient access to the service. Service Days and Hours Daily Round Trips Headways (approximate) Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Recovery Ratio Route Mileage (Miles per Hour) Annual Operating Cost Operating Cost per Hour Passenger Trips per Hour (Productivity) Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-28 Valley Mall Route Valley Mall Route Description The Valley Mall route provides WCT riders with access to the Valley Mall with two route options: Valley Mall, and Valley Mall Night Run. Regarding performance metrics, all the routes have been combined and reported as the Valley Mall route. In FY2023, this route had both the highest ridership and highest operating costs in the system. The Valley Mall route alignment begins at the Transfer Center and takes Potomac Street, Maryland Avenue, Oak Ridge Drive, and Halfway Boulevard before reaching the Valley Mall food court area. Major destinations along the way include South End Shopping Center and Lowe’s. Figure 3-10 displays the Valley Mall route alignment. The Valley Mall Night Run route has a different alignment and service hours compared to the Valley Mall Day Run. From the Transfer Center, the route uses Burhans Boulevard towards Noland Village. The Valley Mall Night Run operates from 6:15 p.m. to 6:55 p.m., and once again from 7:45 p.m. to 8:25 p.m. The Valley Mall Night Run is illustrated in Figure 3-10. #111 - Valley Mall Route #113 - Valley Mall Night Run Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-29 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Service Description Service Characteristics Weekday Saturday Service Span: 12.5 hours 11.5 hours Service Hours: 7:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 6:15 p.m. – 8:25 p.m. 8:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 6:15 p.m. – 8:25 p.m. One-Way Trips: Day: 11 Night: 2 Day: 10 Night: 2 Headways: Day: 1 hour Night: 1.5 hours Day: 1 hour Night: 1.5 hours Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/ Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 57,754 15.35 15.87 $315,071 $81.73 11.3% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-30 Figure 3-10: Valley Mall Routes Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-31 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Stop Activity The stop activity recorded on the Valley Mall route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-11. Out of the total stop activity of 189 along the Valley Mall route, 60 of those boardings and alightings took place at the Transfer Center, making it the busiest stop. After the Transfer Center, the next busiest stop was the Valley Mall Food Court with a stop activity of 23. This stop, combined with the broader retail hub created by the presence of Valley Mall, Valley Part Commons, and Valley Plaza in close proximity drove most of the ridership on the route. Collectively, the Valley Mall Food Court, Martin’s Valley Park Commons, and Underpass Way at Valley Mall Road had a stop activity of 52. Outside of this region, the only stop with an activity greater than seven was South End Shopping Center at Maryland with a stop activity of 32 (18 outbound, 14 inbound). Fifteen of the 28 timed stops had no activity. The intersection flag stop with the highest activity was South Potomac Street and Baltimore Street with seven boardings and alightings. The Valley Mall Night route had much less stop activity with only 20 total boardings and alightings and no stop other than the Transfer Center having an activity over two. The only cluster of ridership of note was in the vicinity of the Valley Mall. The Valley Mall Night route stop activity is presented in Table 3-9 and visualized in Figure 3-12. Table 3-8: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Valley Mall Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 31 1 32 W Washington St @ S Potomac St 1 0 1 S Potomac St @ W Washington 0 0 0 S Potomac St @ W Memorial Blvd 0 0 0 Rose Hill @ Corbett St 0 0 0 Rose Hill @ E First 0 0 0 W Wilson Blvd @ Pope Ave 0 0 0 South End S C @ Maryland 7 11 18 Oakridge Dr @ Downsville 2 0 2 Oakridge Dr @ Hickory 1 0 1 Oakridge Dr @ Knotty Pine Dr 0 0 0 Oakridge Dr @ Halfway Blvd 0 0 0 K-Mart - Valley Plaza @ Wesel 0 4 4 Martin's Valley Park Commons 7 7 14 US Social Security Admin @ Underpass 1 0 1 Underpass Way @ Valley Mall Rd 4 11 15 Valley Mall Food Court 17 6 23 Oakridge Dr @ Halfway Blvd 0 0 0 Oakridge Dr @ Knotty Pine Dr 0 0 0 Oakridge Dr @ Hickory 0 0 0 Oakridge Dr @ Downsville 0 0 0 South End S C @ Maryland 9 5 14 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-32 Bus Stop On Off Activity W Wilson Blvd @ Pope Ave 0 1 1 Rose Hill @ E First 0 0 0 Rose Hill @ Corbett St 0 2 2 S Potomac St @ E Memorial Blvd 0 0 0 S Locust St @ E Lee St 0 0 0 W Washington St @ S Potomac St 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 28 28 Table 3-9: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Valley Mall Night Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 4 0 4 S Burhans @ W Antietam St 0 0 0 S Burhans @ Center 0 0 0 Sherman @ Sweeney 0 0 0 Sherman @ Noland 0 0 0 Noland Village Community Building 0 0 0 Noland @ Virginia 0 0 0 Virginia @ Greenberry 0 0 0 Virginia @ Glenside 0 0 0 Martin's - Valley Park Commons 2 0 2 U.S. Social Security Administration @ Underpass 0 0 0 Underpass @ Valley Mall 0 0 0 Valley Mall - Food Court 2 0 2 Dollar Tree @ Massey 0 0 0 Virginia @ Glenside 0 0 0 Virginia @ Greenberry 0 0 0 Noland @ Virginia 0 0 0 Noland Village Community Building 0 0 0 Sherman @ Noland 0 0 0 Sherman @ Sweeney 0 0 0 S Burhans @ Center 0 0 0 S Burhans @ W Antietam St 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 4 4 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-33 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-11: Weekday Stop Activity, Valley Mall Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-34 Figure 3-12: Weekday Stop Activity, Valley Mall Route, Night Run Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-35 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Long Meadow Route Long Meadow Route Description The Long Meadow route consists of three different iterations: the Long Meadow Night Run, Long Meadow via Locust, and Long Meadow via Eastern. While the Long Meadow Night Run and Long Meadow via Eastern routes share very similar alignments, their hours of operation are different. More details about each of the Long Meadow Routes are included in the following sections. The Long Meadow Night Run operates Monday through Saturday from 6:55 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. and again from 8:25 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. Beginning at the Transfer Center, the route travels along Washington and Locust Streets before stopping at the Fairground and Potomac Avenue stop. The route then proceeds along Potomac Avenue to the YMCA and the Long Meadow Shopping Center, eventually heading back to the Transfer Center, as shown in Figure 3-13. The Long Meadow via Locust route has a route very similar to the Long Meadow Night Run. However, instead of traveling along Eastern Boulevard and serving the YMCA, the Long Meadow via Locust route continues on Potomac Avenue to Conamar Drive and provides service to Johns Hopkins Medical Center, as shown in Figure 3-13. The Long Meadow via Locust route operates Monday through Saturday. Weekdays, the hours are from 6:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., providing service every hour. On Saturday, the service runs from 9:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. The Long Meadow via Eastern route operates in a loop, with Washington Street, Dual Highway, Eastern Boulevard North, Northern Avenue, and Burhans Boulevard being the major roads of travel. Major destinations along this route are multiple medical offices, the Longmeadow Shopping Center, the YMCA, Western Maryland Hospital Center, and North Hagerstown High School, as shown in Figure 3- 13. Long Meadow via Eastern operates Monday through Saturday. On weekdays, service runs from 7:15 a.m. until 5:45 p.m., and on Saturday, service starts at 8:15 a.m. and ends at 5:45 p.m. #114 - Long Meadow Night Run #116 - Long Meadow via Locust #117 – Long Meadow via Eastern Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-36 Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Saturday Service Span: Via Eastern: 10.5 hrs. Via Locust: 10.5 hrs. Night run: appr. 2 hrs. Via Eastern: 9.5 hrs. Via Locust: 8.5 hrs. Night run: appr. 2 hrs. Service Hours: Via Eastern: 7:15 a.m. – 5:45 p.m. Via Locust: 6:45 a.m. – 6:15 p.m. Night run: 6:55 p.m. – 8:45 p.m. Via Eastern: 8:15 a.m. – 5:45 p.m. Via Locust: 9:45 a.m. – 6:15 p.m. Night run: 6:55 p.m. – 8:45 p.m. One-Way Trips: Via Eastern: 11 Via Locust: 11 Night run: 2 Via Eastern: 10 Via Locust: 9 Night run: 2 Headways: Via Eastern & Locust: 1 hr. Night run: 1.5 hr. Via Eastern & Locust: 1 hr. Night run: 1.5 hr. Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 36,780 10.51 13.6 $279,155 $77.65 8.10% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-37 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-13: Long Meadow Routes Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-38 Stop Activity The stop activity of the Long Meadow Eastern route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-10 and Figure 3-14. Of the 78 total boardings and alightings, the Transfer Center was responsible for 36 of those. As with the Long Meadow Locust route, no other stop had activity greater than six, which was reached by both Professional at Eastern and the intersection flag stop just before it, Eastern Boulevard North and Opal Court. Of note, five sequential stops – Eastern Boulevard North and Conrad Court, Eastern Boulevard North and Opal Court, Professional at Eastern, Professional Court and Cameo Drive, and Cameo Drive at Diamond – had a total stop activity of 23. These five stops are concentrated around multiple medical facilities and professional offices. The stop activity of the Long Meadow Locust route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-11 and Figure 3-15. The Transfer Center was responsible for 30 of the 66 total boardings and alightings along the route. No other stop had a total activity of more than six with the next busiest stop being the intersection flag stop at North Locust and Broadway. Eleven of the 19 timed stops had no ridership, and intersection flag stops had more stop activity (22) than did timed stops (14), with the Transfer Center removed. The Long Meadow Night route had very minimal stop activity with only 10 total boardings and alightings and no stop having activity greater than two. The activity by stop for the Long Meadow Night route is shown in Table 3-12 and Figure 3-16. Table 3-10: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Long Meadow Eastern Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 22 0 22 E Washington @ S Locust 1 0 1 E Washington @ S Mulberry 1 0 1 E Washington @ S Cannon 2 0 2 Dual @ Tracy 0 1 1 Professional @ Eastern 5 1 6 Cameo @ Diamond 2 2 4 Diamond @ Eastern 0 1 1 Eastern @ Security 1 0 1 YMCA @ Eastern 2 2 4 Northern @ Oak Hill 0 0 0 Northern @ Fountain Head 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Northern 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Fairview 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Beechwood 0 0 0 N Burhans @ Mitchell 0 0 0 N Burhans @ Mechanic 0 0 0 W Washington @ S Walnut 0 1 1 Transfer Center 0 14 14 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-39 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 3-11: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Long Meadow Locust Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 12 0 12 N. Locust @ E. Washington 1 3 4 N. Locust @ East Ave 0 0 0 N. Locust @ E North Ave 2 2 4 Fairground @ Potomac 0 0 0 Potomac @ E Irvin 0 0 0 Potomac Ave & Mealey Pkwy 0 0 0 Potomac @ Moller 0 0 0 U S Post Office @ Conamar Dr 1 0 1 Cul-de-sac @ Conamar 0 0 0 U S Post Office @ Conamar Dr 1 1 2 Oak Hill @ Meadow View 0 1 1 St. Maria Goretti High School @ Oak Hill 0 0 0 Oak Hill @ May 0 0 0 Oak Hill @ W Hillcrest 0 0 0 N Potomac @ Charles 2 0 2 N Potomac @ Bethel 0 0 0 N Potomac @ W Church 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 18 18 Table 3-12: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Long Meadow Night Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 2 0 2 N. Locust @ E. Washington 0 1 1 N. Locust @ East Ave 0 1 1 N. Locust @ E North Ave 1 0 1 Fairground @ Potomac 0 0 0 Potomac @ E Hillcrest 0 0 0 Potomac @ Mealey 0 0 0 Potomac @ E Magnolia 0 0 0 YMCA @ Eastern 1 1 2 Oak Hill @ Northern 0 0 0 Oak Hill @ W Hillcrest 0 0 0 Oak Hill @ Prospect 0 0 0 N Potomac @ Charles 0 0 0 N Potomac @ W Church 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 1 1 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-40 Figure 3-14: Weekday Stop Activity, Long Meadow Route Via Eastern Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-41 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-15: Weekday Stop Activity, Long Meadow Route Via Locust Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-42 Figure 3-16: Weekday Stop Activity, Long Meadow Route, Night Run Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-43 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan #221 – Robinwood Route Robinwood Route Description The Robinwood route serves major destinations such as Hagerstown Community College, Meritus Health Center, and Weis Markets, along with origins such as Brandywine Apartments. It operates on weekdays only, hourly, from 6:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. The Robinwood Route is shown in Figure 3-17. Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Service Span: 12 hrs. Service Hours: 6:15 a.m. - 6:15 p.m. One-Way Trips: 12 Headways: 1 hr. Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 37,199 12.16 11.48 $232,448 $74.12 9.9% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-44 Figure 3-17: Robinwood Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-45 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Stop Activity The stop activity of the Robinwood route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-13 and Figure 3- 18. The Robinwood route is among the most productive for Washington County Transit, with a total activity of 221, 98 of which are attributed to the Transfer Center. Outside of the Transfer Center, three stops have a total activity greater than 10: Hagerstown Community College (22), Meritus Medical Center Main Entrance (14), and Weis Markets at Center at Antietam Creek (12). No other stop has activity greater than five. Of the 32 timed stops, only five had no stop activity. No intersection flag stop had activity of more than three. Table 3-13: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Robinwood Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 56 0 56 N Walnut St @ W Washington St 1 0 1 W Antietam St @ S Potomac St 3 1 4 E Antietam St @ S Locust St 3 1 4 E Antietam St @ S Cannon Ave 0 1 1 Family Healthcare @ E Antietam 0 2 2 Dual Highway @ S Colonial Dr 0 0 0 Mt Aetna @ Dual 4 1 5 Mt Aetna @ Yale Dr 0 0 0 Mt Aetna @ Robinwood Dr 0 3 3 Robinwood Dr @ Medical Campus Rd 1 4 5 Francis Murphy Apartments 1 2 3 Robinwood Dr @ Robins Glenn 1 0 1 Youngstoun Ct @ Youngstoun 1 2 3 Stonecroft/Brandywine Apts 0 0 0 Hagerstown Community College 9 13 22 Robinwood Dr @ Robins Glenn 3 2 5 Robinwood Dr @ Professional 2 0 2 Meritus Medical Center Main Ent. 12 2 14 Robinwood Professional Center-Blue 0 2 2 Robinwood Professional Center-Yellow 2 1 3 Mt Aetna @ Robinwood Dr 0 0 0 Mt Aetna @ Yale Dr 3 1 4 Mt Aetna @ Dual 1 0 1 Weis Markets @ Center at Antietam Creek 11 1 12 Pangborn Blvd & Manor Dr 1 1 2 The Bradford Apartments 1 0 1 E Franklin St & N Cannon 0 5 5 E Franklin St @ N Locus St 0 3 3 E Franklin St @ N Potomac St 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 42 42 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-46 Figure 3-18: Weekday Stop Activity, Robinwood Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-47 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Smithsburg Route Smithsburg Route Description The Smithsburg route is one of WCT’s least productive and cost-effective routes, characterized by notably low ridership throughout FY2023. The Smithsburg route has been underperforming in every productivity and cost-effective measure. The Smithsburg route offers two schedules, one on weekdays and one on Saturday, with slightly different alignments. More details on the two schedules are below. The Smithsburg Weekday route operates Monday through Friday from 7:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. Starting at the Transfer Center, the Smithburg Weekday bus travels outbound primarily along Jefferson Boulevard, providing access to the Town of Smithsburg, as shown in Figure 3-19. The Smithsburg Saturday route serves many of the same destinations as the Smithsburg Weekday route. However, it also provides service to Meritus Health and Stonecroft Apartments, covering key destinations of the Robinwood route, which operates only on weekdays, before proceeding to Smithsburg, as shown in Figure 3-20. It operates from 7:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Saturday Service Span: 11 hrs. 11 hrs. Service Hours: 7:15 a.m. – 6:15 p.m. 7:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. One-Way Trips: 5 (2 morning, 2 afternoon, 1 evening) Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 7,893 5.14 20.57 $142,793 $87.71 3.4% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" #222 – Smithsburg Weekday Route #223 – Smithsburg Saturday Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-48 Figure 3-19: Smithsburg Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-49 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-20: Smithsburg Weekend Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-50 Stop Activity The stop activity of the Smithsburg route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-14 and Figure 3- 21. Of the routes operating during the day, Smithsburg had the lowest stop activity with a total of only 32, eight of which were at the Transfer Center. No other stop had an activity greater than three (N. Cleveland Avenue at E. Franklin and Washington Garden Apartments). Table 3-14: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Smithsburg Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 4 0 4 N Walnut @ W Washington 0 0 0 E Antietam @ Summit 0 0 0 Antietam St @ S Potomac 0 0 0 E Antietam St @ S Locust St 0 0 0 E Antietam St @ S Mulberry 0 0 0 E Antietam @ S Cannon 0 0 0 Housing Authority of Washington County 0 0 0 Family Healthcare 0 0 0 N Cleveland @ E Washington 1 0 1 N Cleveland Ave @ E Franklin 2 1 3 N Cleveland Ave @ Liberty 0 0 0 N Cleveland Ave @ Jefferson St 0 0 0 N Cleveland Ave @ Security 0 0 0 Security Rd @ Brookline 0 0 0 Security Rd @ Sunbrook 0 0 0 Potomac Heights 0 0 0 Washington Garden Apts 0 3 3 Jefferson Blvd @ Antietam 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Scott Hill 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Mayfair 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Wesley 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Robinwood 0 1 1 Jefferson Blvd @ White Hall 0 0 0 Elwood Auto Exchange 1 0 1 Jefferson Blvd @ Iroquois 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Old Georgetown 0 0 0 Martin's @ Village Square 0 0 0 AC&T Jefferson @ Mapleville 0 1 1 Meritus Pediatric & Adult Medicine 0 0 0 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-51 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Bus Stop On Off Activity S Main St @ E Bishop Ln 0 0 0 Hedley Farms Bakery 3 0 3 Veteran's Park @ W Water (Smithsburg) 0 0 0 Mapleville @ Jefferson 0 0 0 Martin's @ Village Square 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Old Georgetown 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Iroquois 0 0 0 Elwood Auto Exchange 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ White Hall 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Robinwood 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Wesley 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Mayfair 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Scott Hill 0 0 0 Jefferson Blvd @ Antietam 0 0 0 Washington Garden Apts 2 0 2 Potomac Heights 0 0 0 Security Rd @ Sunbrook 0 0 0 Security Rd @ Brookline 0 0 0 Security @ N Cleveland 0 0 0 N Cleveland Ave @ Jefferson St 0 0 0 N Cleveland Ave @ Liberty 0 0 0 N Cleveland Ave @ E Franklin 0 0 0 N Cleveland @ E Washington 0 0 0 Family Healthcare 0 0 0 Housing Authority of Washington County 0 0 0 E Antietam @ S Cannon 0 1 1 E Antietam St @ S Mulberry 0 1 1 E Antietam St @ S Locust St 0 0 0 Antietam St @ S Potomac 0 0 0 E Antietam @ Summit 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 4 4 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-52 Figure 3-21: Weekday Stop Activity, Smithsburg Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-53 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan #331 – Funkstown Route Funkstown Route Description The Funkstown route provides service to the Town of Funkstown, which is located south of Hagerstown, shown in Figure 3-22. This route has the second highest productivity of 17.35 passenger trips per hour and farebox recovery ratio of 13.1% among all the routes in the system. It operates Monday through Friday 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. and Saturday from 8:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Saturday Service Span: 12.5 hrs. 10.5 hrs. Service Hours: 6:15 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 8:15 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. One-Way Trips: 12 10 Headways: 1 hr. 1 hr. Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 33,747 17.35 14.62 $159,089 $78.10 13.10% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-54 Figure 3-22: Funkstown Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-55 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Stop Activity The stop activity of the Funkstown route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-15 and Figure 3-23. The route had a total stop activity of 151, with 63 of those boardings and alightings attributable to the Transfer Center. Of the other stops, Martin’s – Hagerstown Commons had the highest activity at 21, followed by Mt. Aetna at Howell and Frederick Street and Rowland Avenue, both with eight. This stop activity suggests that Martin’s is the primary trip generator along the route. Also notable is the fact that only nine of the boardings and alightings along the route took place in downtown Funkstown. Table 3-15: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Funkstown Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 40 0 40 E. Washington @ S. Locust 3 1 4 E. Washington @ S. Cannon 2 1 3 Family Healthcare @ S. Cleveland 2 1 3 S. Cleveland @ S. Cannon 0 0 0 Mt. Aetna @ Eastern 0 0 0 Mt. Aetna @ Howell 6 2 8 Howell @ Edgewood 1 1 2 Martin's - Hagerstown Commons 8 13 21 E. Baltimore @ S. High (Funkstown) 0 0 0 N. Westside @ W. Poplar (Funkstown) 0 0 0 Frederick @ Kenly 1 2 3 Frederick @ Bowman 3 3 6 Frederick @ E. First 0 1 1 Frederick @ Commonwealth 0 0 0 Frederick @ Memorial 0 0 0 Frederick @ E. Baltimore 1 4 5 Potomac Towers @ Baltimore 0 2 2 Baltimore @ Summit 0 1 1 Transfer Center 0 23 23 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-56 Figure 3-23: Weekday Stop Activity, Funkstown Route, Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-57 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan #333 – West End Route West End Route Description The West End route is one of WCT’s busiest and most productive routes. In FY2023, it achieved the highest productivity with 24.7 passenger trips per hour and recorded the second highest number of unlinked passenger trips in the system. It is also a cost-effective route, with the lowest cost per trip and the second lowest operating cost per hour in the system. Additionally, it had the highest farebox recovery rate of nearly 20%. Walmart is a key stop on this route. Figure 3-24 illustrates the West End route. Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Saturday Service Span: 14.5 hrs. 13.5 hrs. Service Hours: 6:45 a.m. – 9:15 p.m. 7:45 a.m. – 9:15 p.m. One-Way Trips: 14 13 Headways: 1 hr., (1.5 hrs. after 5:45 p.m.) 1 hr., (1.5 hrs. after 5:45 p.m.) Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 52,420 24.69 12.92 $167,080 $75.36 19.4% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-58 Figure 3-24: West End Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-59 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Stop Activity The stop activity of the West End route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-16 and Figure 3-25. The West End route is one of the most popular routes in Washington County with a total stop activity during surveying of 220, 109 of which are attributable to the Transfer Center. Walmart at The Center at Hagerstown is the busiest stop for any route with 71 total boardings and alightings. The next busiest stop is WCT at W. Washington with a stop activity of eight. No intersection flag stop has a stop activity greater than two. Only five of the 16 time stops have zero stop activity. Table 3-16: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, West End Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 51 3 54 Salem Ave @ Kinslow St 3 1 4 Salem Ave @ Central Ave 2 0 2 Salem @ Indiana 1 0 1 AC&T @ Garland Groh 0 2 2 Garland Groh @ Hagers Crossing 0 0 0 Walmart @ The Center at Hagerstown 35 36 71 Uno's @ Garland Groh 0 2 2 McDonald's @ Garland Groh 2 1 3 First Data @ Western MD Pkwy 0 0 0 Parkway Professional Center @ W MD Pkwy 1 2 3 MD-144 @ Western MD Pkwy 0 0 0 WCT @ W Washington 6 2 8 W Washington St @ Elgin Blvd 0 0 0 W Washington St @ S Walnut St 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 55 55 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-60 Figure 3-25: Weekday Stop Activity, West End Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-61 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan #441 – Williamsport Route Williamsport Route Description The Williamsport route travels outbound from the Transfer Center along Walnut Street, Virginia Avenue, and Burhans Boulevard, serving Noland Village and Valley Mall before proceeding to Williamsport. It also serves the Old Orchard Shopping Center, Brookmead Apartments, and the Homewood at Williamsport Retirement Community. The Williamsport route is detailed in Figure 3-26. Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Saturday Service Span: 12 hrs. 11 hrs. Service Hours: 6:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 7:45 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. One-Way Trips: 12 11 Headways: 1 hr. 1 hr. Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 38,460 10.59 17.43 $314,386 $84.42 7.6% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-62 Figure 3-26: Williamsport Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-63 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Stop Activity The stop activity of the Williamsport route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-17 and Figure 3- 27. The route is one of the busiest in Washington County with 219 total stop activity during the survey period. Of those 219 boardings and alightings, 86 are attributable to the Transfer Center. Outside of the Transfer Center, the busiest stop by far is Valley Mall Food Court with a total stop activity of 45 (32 outbound, 13 inbound). After the Valley Mall Food Court, there are five other stops with stop activity between five and nine: Virginia Avenue at W. Howard (seven), S. Conococheague Street at E. Potomac (nine), E. Potomac Street and N. Artizan Street (six), E. Potomac Street at N. Clifton (eight), and Virginia Avenue and Hoffman Drive (five). Eighteen boardings and alightings took place within downtown Williamsport. Table 3-17: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Williamsport Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 51 0 54 Salem Ave @ Kinslow St 3 1 4 Salem Ave @ Central Ave 2 0 2 Salem @ Indiana 1 0 1 AC&T @ Garland Groh 0 2 2 Garland Groh @ Hagers Crossing 0 0 0 Walmart @ The Center at Hagerstown 35 36 71 Uno's @ Garland Groh 0 2 2 McDonald's @ Garland Groh 2 1 3 First Data @ Western MD Pkwy 0 0 0 Parkway Professional Center @ W MD Pkwy 1 2 3 MD-144 @ Western MD Pkwy 0 0 0 WCT @ W Washington 6 2 8 W Washington St @ Elgin Blvd 0 0 0 W Washington St @ S Walnut St 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 58 55 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-64 Figure 3-27: Weekday Stop Activity, Williamsport Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-65 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan #443 – Maugansville Route Magaunsville Route Description The Maugansville route provides access to the census-designated place of Maugansville located just north of Hagerstown. The route travels along Pennsylvania Avenue, serving the health department, Martin’s, Goodwill, Hagerstown Regional Airport, and Hamilton Park. The Maugansville route is detailed in Figure 3-28. Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Saturday Service Span: 12.5 hrs. 9 hrs. Service Hours: 6:15 a.m. – 6:45 p.m. 8:45 a.m. – 5:45 p.m. One-Way Trips: 13 5 Headways: 1 hr. 2 hrs. Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 37,920 10.61 16.2 $301459 $82.21 7.7% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-66 Figure 3-28: Maugansville Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-67 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Stop Activity The stop activity of the Maugansville route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-18 and Figure 3- 29. The Maugansville route saw a total of 129 stop activities, with 35 of those occurring at the Transfer Center. There are only three other stops with activity greater than five: Horizon Goodwill at Pennsylvania (19), Meritus Medical Plaza at Crayton (11), and N. Prospect Street and W. Church Street (11). The latter stop is home to the corporate office of Horizon Goodwill, suggesting that the corporation may be responsible for a significant portion of the ridership along the route. Twenty-one of the 36 timed stops had no stop activity, nor did the section of the route between Fountainhead at Pennsylvania to Beachwood at Pennsylvania. Table 3-18: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Maugansville Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 19 0 19 Jonathan @ W North 1 0 1 Pennsylvania @ Boys and Girls Club 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Park Ln 0 0 0 Wash Co Health Dept. @ Pennsylvania Ave 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Club 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ North Pointe 1 0 1 Maugans @ Sprint 1 1 2 Maugans @ Woodland Heights 0 1 1 Meritus Medical Plaza @ Crayton 6 5 11 Maugans @ Seneca Ridge 0 0 0 Maugans @ Maugansville 1 0 1 Binkley @ Maugansville 0 0 0 Village Mill @ Maugansville 1 3 4 Love's Travel Center @ Showalter 1 4 5 Pennsylvania Ave @ Fortney 5 0 5 Horizon Goodwill @ Pennsylvania 14 5 19 Breeze Hill @ Citicorp 1 1 2 Henson @ Pennsylvania 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Showalter 0 0 0 Pennsylvania Ave @ Maugans 0 1 1 Sylvania Building @ Pennsylvania 0 0 0 Pennsylvania Ave @ N Pointe Dr 0 1 1 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-68 Bus Stop On Off Activity Fountainhead @ Pennsylvania 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Northern 0 0 0 Pennsylvania @ Fairview 0 0 0 Fairview @ Glenwood 0 0 0 Haven @ Outer 0 0 0 Outer @ Kensington 0 0 0 Wayne @ Glenwood 0 0 0 Beachwood @ Fairchild 0 0 0 Beachwood @ Pennsylvania 0 0 0 Pennsylvania Ave @ Park Ln 0 0 0 Boys & Girls Club @ Pennsylvania 0 0 0 N Prospect @ W North 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 16 16 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-69 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-29: Weekday Stop Activity, Maugansville Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-70 #552 – Premium Outlets Route Premium Outlets Route Description The Premium Outlets route is the second of WCT’s least productive routes. The major stops on this route include Walmart, Premium Outlets, MVA, Goodwill, and South End Shopping Center. In FY2023, the Premium Outlets route had the second lowest number of passenger trips. Figure 3-30 displays the Premium Outlets route. Service Description Service Characteristics Weekdays Saturday Service Span: 12 10 Service Hours: 7:15 a.m. – 7:15 p.m. 9:15 a.m. – 7:15 p.m. One-Way Trips: 12 10 Headways: 1 hr. 1 hr. Transfer Points Hagerstown Transfer Center Key Performance Statistics (FY2023) Passenger Trips Passenger Trips/Rev. Hour Route Mileage Operating Cost Operating Cost/Rev. Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio 29,878 8.35 9.43 $258,622 $70.43 7.1% MTA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUBURBAN FIXED ROUTE Red= "Needs Review" | Blue= "Acceptable" | Green= "Successful" Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-71 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-30: Premium Outlets Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-72 Stop Activity The stop activity of the Premium Outlets route on April 11, 2024, is presented in Table 3-19 and Figure 3-31. The total activity for the route during the survey period was 137, with 55 of that attributable to the Transfer Center. Of the other stops, Walmart at Walmart Drive had the greatest stop activity at 25, followed by Col. Henry K. Douglas Drive and Walmart Drive (11), Southend Shopping Center at Maryland (15 – eight outbound, seven inbound), and West Oak Ridge Drive at Premium Outlets Boulevard (seven). Based on these stops, the primary draw for the Premium Outlets route are the numerous shopping centers along the route. Table 3-19: Total Stop Activity, Boardings and Alightings, Premium Outlets Route Bus Stop On Off Activity Transfer Center 38 0 38 N Walnut St @ W Washington St 0 0 0 S Walnut St @ W Washington St 0 0 0 S Walnut @ W Antietam St 0 0 0 S Walnut @ S Prospect St 0 0 0 Summit Ave @ W Memorial Blvd 0 0 0 Summit Ave @ Reynolds Ave 0 0 0 Summit Ave @ W Howard St 0 0 0 Summit Ave @ W 1st St 0 0 0 W 1st St @ Guilford Ave 0 0 0 W 1st St @ Maryland Ave 0 1 1 Maryland Ave @ W Wilson Blvd 0 0 0 Southend SC @ Maryland 3 5 8 West Oak Ridge Dr @ Premium Outlets Blvd 1 6 7 Premium Outlets Food Court 0 1 1 Sharpsburg Pike @ Rose Glow 0 0 0 Walmart @ Walmart Dr 13 12 25 Sharpsburg Pike @ Rose Glow 0 0 0 West Oak Ridge Dr @ Premium Outlets Blvd 1 0 1 Southend SC @ Maryland 6 1 7 Maryland Ave @ W Wilson Blvd 0 0 0 W 1st St @ Maryland Ave 0 0 0 W 1st St @ Guilford Ave 1 0 1 Summit Ave @ W 1st St 0 0 0 Summit Ave @ W Howard St 1 1 2 Summit Ave @ W Memorial Blvd 1 0 1 S Walnut @ S Prospect St 0 0 0 S Walnut @ W Antietam St 0 1 1 S Walnut St @ W Washington St 0 0 0 Transfer Center 0 17 17 Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-73 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-31: Weekday Stop Activity, Premium Outlets Route Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-74 Other Area Transit Providers It is important to understand the transportation market in the Washington County region and identify areas for collaboration and/or expansion. This section provides a detailed discussion of the existing transportation providers serving Washington County, such as commuter bus services operated by MDOT MTA, human services transportation providers, and other private transportation providers, excluding Washington County Transit. Figure 3-32 illustrates various regional public transportation services operating in Washington County, along with existing Park & Ride lots. MDOT MTA Commuter Bus The Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA) offers commuter bus service from Hagerstown to the Shady Grove Metro Station, with select trips continuing to the Rock Spring Business Park in North Bethesda. The Hagerstown-Shady Grove/Rock Spring (505) route starts in the Motor Vehicle Administration (MDOT MVA) Park & Ride lot in Hagerstown (as shown in Figure 3-32). The 505 Route then travels to the Shady Grove Metro Station via the Meyersville Park & Ride in Frederick County, where there are connections with the WMATA Metro Red Line and other regional providers. Three of the four southbound trips then continue to the Rock Spring Business Park, while four out of six northbound trips start at the Rock Spring Business Park. The complete one-way trip from Hagerstown to Rock Spring takes approximately two hours, while the trip to Shady Grove Metro Station takes about 90 minutes. Service begins in Hagerstown at 4:30 a.m. and ends at 7:00 p.m. Pre-COVID, this service operated over 18 trips a day, but it has now decreased to 10 trips. The service runs Monday through Friday to accommodate commuters. Fares are based on zones and range from $5.00 to $7.00 for a one-way trip. Ten-trip tickets and monthly passes are available, as well as reduced fares for individuals 65 years of age and older and those with disabilities. This service provides Washington County residents with access to employment opportunities in Montgomery County and the District of Columbia. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-75 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 3-32: Regional Public Transportation Services and Park & Ride Lots, Washington County Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-76 Human Services Transportation There are several agencies that provide transportation for their clients and the populations that they serve—older adults, people with disabilities, children, and people with low incomes. The majority of the subsidized human services and employment transportation is provided through the Washington County Community Action Council. There are several other non-profit and government agencies serving Washington County residents that provide or support transportation to the populations and amenities that they support. The main agencies that support human services transportation in Washington County are described below. Washington County Community Action Council, Inc. The Washington County Community Action Council offers transportation services for the elderly, low- income individuals, and people with disabilities in Washington County through their Community Action Transit (CAT) program, which began in 2009. The Transportation Subcommittee of the Washington County Disabilities Advisory Committee supports the CAT program, aiming to create a more coordinated human services transportation network in the county. CAT focuses on assisting people with disabilities, older adults, and low-income populations by providing rides to employment via the Hopewell Express, medical appointments, and special groups and events upon approval. The Hopewell Express provides free transportation for low-income workers from downtown Hagerstown to employment centers along the Hopewell Road corridor. This service operates hourly from Monday through Friday, covering 24 hours a day to accommodate shift and overnight work schedules. It begins operations on Monday at 5:00 a.m. and runs continuously through Saturday at 7:30 a.m., starting from 1000 West Washington Street. Key stops include 29 E. Antietam Street, E. Antietam St. (behind Cannon Avenue and King Street), 1000 W. Washington Street (Wash-Co Commuter), 130 W. Franklin Street (Christ Reformed Church), Tractor Supply, FedEx, Staples Distribution Center, PetSmart, Home Depot, and Lenox (as shown in Figure 3-32). CAT also offers medical transportation for residents of Washington County. This grant-funded service is currently free for riders and does not require an application or approval process. While individual medical transportation is free, there is a fee for group services. Additionally, all CAT vehicles are wheelchair accessible, ensuring accessibility for all passengers. Easterseals Adult Day Services-Hagerstown Easterseals is a non-profit agency serving people with disabilities of all ages. The Easterseals Adult Day Services in Hagerstown provides clinical services, engaging daily activities, transportation, field trips, and nutritious meals for older adults and adults with disabilities. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-77 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Washington County Health Department-Medical Assistance Transportation Program The Washington County Health Department provides health-related services to the residents of Washington County. The Washington County Health Department houses the Division of Behavioral Health, providing mental health services and support. They fund transportation services for individuals on medical assistance. For example, the Washington County Health Department contracts with the Community Action Council for transportation through the Job Opportunity Bus Shuttle, County Commuter, and Hopewell Express. Washington County Human Development Council, Inc. Washington County HDC is a non-profit organization established to address the need for more provider agencies in Western Maryland. Its mission is to facilitate the integration of individuals with intellectual disabilities from institutional settings into the community and independent living environments. HDC offers a variety of programs, including day services, nursing services, and residential and community learning services. Additionally, HDC provides reliable and safe transportation services for individuals participating in all of their day programs, ensuring transport to and from centers, homes, community activities, and job sites. Meritus Health Meritus Health is a private, nonprofit health system and the largest healthcare provider in Western Maryland, offering a broad range of inpatient and outpatient services to the community. To help reduce transportation barriers to medical care, Meritus launched a free transportation initiative in 2024 with support from Maryland Physicians Care. The program operates a fleet of eight vans and provides over 15,000 free rides annually for patients who need transportation to appointments across the health system. This service is especially valuable for individuals without personal vehicles, those with mobility challenges, or patients under temporary driving restrictions. Hagerstown Housing Authority – McCleary Hill The Hagerstown Housing Authority (HHA) has partnered with Uber to provide transportation services for residents of McCleary Hill, a housing development located on the west end of Hagerstown near West Washington Street and Hopewell Road. This service is funded through ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds and is aimed at addressing mobility challenges for residents with limited transportation options. Recent trip data shows consistent ride usage to key destinations, including the Transfer Center, medical offices, and shopping areas. Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-78 Other Non-profit/Human Service Providers Other major human service agencies and non-profits that receive 5310 funding include: • The ARC of Washington County • Diakon Child, Family & Community Ministries, Washington County • Goodwill Industries Inc. of Hagerstown (Horizon), Washington County • Star Community, Inc. • Way Station, Inc. • Unified Community Connections, Inc. Private Providers BayRunner Shuttle (Intercity Bus Service) BayRunner Shuttle operates intercity bus service connecting Grantsville, Frostburg, Cumberland, Hancock, Hagerstown, and Frederick to Baltimore-Washington International Airport and the Baltimore Greyhound Bus Terminal. Daily trips depart from the Washington County Transit Transfer Center in Hagerstown at 10:40 a.m. and arrive at the Baltimore Greyhound Bus Terminal at 12:20 p.m. and at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and Rail Station at 12:40 p.m. Another trip operates daily except for Saturday, and departs Grantsville at 6:40 p.m. and arrives at the Baltimore Greyhound Bus Terminal at 8:20 p.m. and at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and Rail Station at 8:40 p.m. Bay Runner Shuttle at the Transfer Center in Hagerstown Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services 3-79 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Taxi and Private Car Service Many companies offer taxi service in Washington County. Washington County-based taxi services include: Source: Google Maps and Yelp Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) Uber and Lyft provide on-demand, ride-hailing transportation services in Washington County. Service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week; however, the supply of vehicles is limited and varies by time of day and geographic area. These services are primarily concentrated in urban areas. Customers are required to set up an account with Uber or Lyft and link a debit/credit card to their account. No cash is exchanged between drivers and passengers, and two or more passengers can split payments. Both Uber and Lyft offer several classes of service at different costs, which vary by the vehicle used and whether the ride is shared with other passengers. To reserve a trip, customers are required to use a smartphone to request a vehicle, indicating their pickup location and destination. Passengers are sent the vehicle type, color, and license plate number of the vehicle coming to pick them up. Upon arrival at the requested origin, drivers wait two minutes for passengers. After two minutes, the driver cancels the trip and charges the passenger a cancellation fee. All American Ambulance Transport Bonnies Transportation Downtown Sedan Yellow Cab Services LLC Atomic Taxi and Sedan Dispatch Affordable Taxi Glenns Transportation Easy Transport Grab A Ride Hagerstown Airport Shuttle & Car Service Valley Cab, Hancock, MD Miller Transportation Chapter 3: Review of Existing Services KFH Group, Inc. │ 3-80 Park & Ride Facilities A quick guide to the MTA/State Highway Administration (SHA)/Private/and County Park & Ride lots in Washington County is provided in Table 3-20 and visualized in Figure 3-32 on page 73. Table 3-20: Washington County Park & Ride Facilities Name Location Parking Spaces Bus Service Boonsboro Old National Pike (US-40-Alt) & Rohrersville Rd (MD-67) 69 - Downsville Pike I-70 (Exit-28) & MD-632 (Approx. 10700 Downsville Pike, Hagerstown 21740) 109 - East Hagerstown I-70 (Exit-32) & US-40 (10350 Auto Pl, Hagerstown 21740) 68 - Hagerstown Motor Vehicle Administration I-70 (Exit-29) & MD-65 (Sharpsburg Pike) 18306 Col Henry K Douglas Dr Hagerstown 21740 168 Commuter Hancock MD-144 & Center St (261 E Main St, Hancock 21750) 100 - Mapleville Road I-70 (Exit-35) & MD-66 (10215 Mapleville Rd, Hagerstown 21740) 155 - Maryland State Highway Administration I-70 (Exit-29) & MD-65 (Sharpsburg Pike) 18320 Col Henry K Douglas Dr Hagerstown 21740 82 - MVA Upper Lot I-70 (Exit-29) & MD-65 142 Sharpsburg Pike I-70 (Exit-29) & MD-65 (Sharpsburg Pike) 10541 Sharpsburg Pike, Hagerstown, MD 21740 76 Conococheague Street, Williamsport I-81 (Exit 1) & MD-63 (N Conococheague St) 103 North Hagerstown I-81 & MD-58 at Exit 7A 17 Source: Commuter Connections, Accessed June 2024, https://www.commuterconnections.org/park-ride-lots-in-the- metropolitan-washington-baltimore-regions/ and MDOT SHA Park & Rides, Accessed June 2024, https://maryland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=346cc9c1f3b949b5a5104e0303129a95 Chapter 4: Community Outreach 4-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Chapter 4: Community Outreach Introduction This chapter summarizes the community outreach process and the input that was received during the development of the TDP. This information will assist in identifying underserved and unserved areas and populations to be considered for potential improvements and expansions in the future. The analysis delves into the public perception and awareness of WCT. It sheds light on how well the service is currently meeting community needs, areas requiring improvement, and factors that could enhance safety, reliability, and overall usage within the county. Combined with the results of the review of existing services and review of needs, this information will serve as a basis for developing future service recommendations. Community outreach involved collecting feedback from WCT riders, county residents, fixed-route bus drivers, and major employers through both online and paper surveys. The survey questionnaires are provided in Appendix B. This chapter is organized into four sections summarizing the results from each survey: 1. WCT Bus Rider Survey: Review of rider feedback collected onboard buses. 2. WCT Community Survey: Review of community feedback obtained through an online survey. 3. WCT Driver Survey: Review of feedback from WCT bus drivers collected via paper surveys. 4. WCT Employer Survey: Review of feedback from major employers in Washington County regarding the commuting needs of their employees, gathered through an online survey. Chapter 4: Community Outreach KFH Group, Inc. │ 4-2 Washington County Transit – Bus Rider Survey On Thursday, April 11, 2024, the consultant team, in collaboration with WCT, conducted a rider satisfaction survey at the Hagerstown Transfer Center and onboard buses to collect feedback from riders regarding their service experience that day. An online survey link was also made available via SurveyMonkey® for riders who wished to share their feedback electronically. To gather additional input, surveys were left onboard for a week. A total of 199 completed surveys were received. Below is a summary of the rider survey results, with detailed responses provided in Appendix C. Over 40% of the responses came from the Valley Mall route, followed by West End (28%), Robinwood (23%), and Premium Outlets (23%). The distribution of survey respondents across bus routes closely aligns with established ridership trends within the system. Trip Characteristics • The Transfer Center is the most common trip origin, while Valley Mall and Walmart are the most common destinations. • The most common trip purpose is for commuting to work. • Half of the respondents use WCT almost daily. • Most of the riders' typical bus usage times were evenly distributed across three periods: 8:00 a.m. to 10:59 a.m., 11:00 a.m. to 1:59 p.m., and 2:00 p.m. to 4:59 p.m. • Over one third of respondents had to transfer in order to complete their journey. Transportation Need • The existing WCT network covers most respondents’ transportation destinations. • The respondents heavily rely on the bus system for independent living. A majority of respondents (54%) would walk/bicycle or take a taxi/Uber/Lyft (38%) to complete their trip if bus service was not available. Chapter 4: Community Outreach 4-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Chapter 4: Community Outreach KFH Group, Inc. │ 4-4 Likes and Desired Improvements • The most sought-after improvement by riders in Washington County Transit service is the addition of Sunday service, and that was followed by frequent service. • Approximately 20% of respondents were willing to pay a higher fare for service improvements, while another 41% suggested specific fare increases, with amounts ranging from $1.00 to $2.00, with $2.00 being the most common response. • Riders generally have a positive impression of Washington County Transit but are looking for improvements in the hours of service and the WCT website. • Additional comments: o Positive Feedback: Respondents expressed appreciation for WCT and its drivers, highlighting positive experiences: - "I'm very thankful for WCT." - "Kim and a few other drivers provide excellent service." - "I love Wash Co. Transit. Everyone is great." - "Keep up the good work." o Negative Feedback: Some riders raised concerns about service and driver behavior, including: - Drivers not pulling close enough to the curb or offering the ramp, making it difficult to board and alight. - Issues with buses arriving late in the evening or leaving early. - Technical problems, such as the route app and fare boxes, are consistently not working. • Suggested Improvements: - Sunday and late evening services (the most frequent request). - Improve bus stop infrastructure, including benches for elderly riders, lights, and trash cans at stops. - "Bring back leather seats." - Offer Wi-Fi on buses. - Address issues with loitering and drug-related activity at the Transfer Center. • Provide larger buses to allow more storage space for riders, for wheelchairs, and specifically on the route that has a large number of riders picked up from the HCC stop. o Introduce daily and weekly pass options. Chapter 4: Community Outreach 4-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Respondents’ Demographic Information • Most respondents were from Hagerstown and surrounding areas, including Williamsport and Funkstown. • Over half identified as Caucasian/White, with more than a third identifying as African American/Black, and nearly all speaking only English at home. • Approximately 44% of respondents were between the ages of 25 and 49, while 37% were between 50 and 64. • The majority of riders reported annual incomes below $20,000 (56%), followed by 20% who reported earning between $21,000 and $39,000. • Although most respondents did not have a driver's license, the majority had access to a smartphone. Washington County Transit Community Survey On August 22, 2024, KFH Group, in partnership with WCT, launched an online community survey via SurveyMonkey. Washington County facilitated survey distribution through its website, social media platforms, and poster displays. A press release was issued on the county’s website page, and survey handouts with QR codes were distributed at key locations across the county (including senior centers) to encourage participation. The survey was available in both English and Spanish and closed on September 10, 2024, with a total of 83 responses collected. A summary of the survey responses is provided below, with detailed responses presented in Appendix D. Chapter 4: Community Outreach KFH Group, Inc. │ 4-6 Overall Public Transportation Usage and Community Awareness • The majority of the county’s population still rely upon cars as their primary mode of transportation. • About 28% of survey respondents utilize public transportation, and more than half of those respondents walk to transit stops. • Over half of the respondents were aware and held a positive impression of WCT services. • While more than half of public transportation users ride WCT County Commuters, over a third also use the MTA Commuter Bus and BayRunner for regional travel. Additionally, services like the Meritus Courtesy Van, Uber, and paratransit were mentioned as options, though they are used less frequently (typically less than once a month). Trip Characteristics of Public Transportation Users • Less than half of the survey respondents who ride WCT use the service regularly, with many riding at least once a week. • The most common trip purposes were for shopping and medical visits, reflecting the key shopping destinations served by WCT in the county. Notably, commuting for work ranked fourth on the list, following errands, which suggests that WCT may not be adequately meeting the needs of commuters. • The majority of the public transit users walked to their respective transit stops. Public Transportation Challenges and Desired Improvements • The top two reasons for not using public transportation were the lack of service near home, school, or place of work, and a preference for driving. • Respondents who “are able to use public transportation for some trips” highlighted key improvements as "very important" to increase their public transit usage. These include better service availability near home, work or school, improved access to information, enhanced security, more frequent service, and shorter travel times. Additionally, most indicated they would be willing to use public transit if these improvements were made Chapter 4: Community Outreach 4-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Unmet Transportation Needs and Possible Transit Service Improvements • Most survey respondents indicated a need for expanded or improved public transportation in the county. • The locations for additional or improved service include: o Within Hagerstown: Service to the Wilson Boulevard corridor, Stotler Road, Greenwich Park, Sharpsburg Pike area, McCleary Hill Housing, MVA Park & Ride, communities west of Walmart to Hagerstown, Lakeside Village Mobile Home Park, downtown loop, neighborhoods on the east side of town, airport service, Fahrney-Keedy Complex, and Rosehill Manor. o Within Washington County: Service to Williamsport, the southern part of Washington County, Downsville to Halfway/Hagerstown/Williamsport, Paramount – Longmeadow, other areas in the county undergoing new development, Clear Spring, Hancock, Boonsboro, Sharpsburg, Ringgold, and to and from airport service. o Regional connections to: - Multimodal transit hubs in Baltimore and Washington, DC - Nearest MARC station – Frederick, MD, Martinsburg, WV - Frederick County - Shady Grove Metro, Gaithersburg, MD o Sunday service for religious trip purposes. o Night shift to Amazon warehouses. o Increased bus frequency to Smithsburg, routes to HCC and hospital, Walmart (West End). o MARC rail extension to Washington County. • Suggestions for improvements in Washington County include: o Expanded transit service for older adults and people with disabilities. o Service that would connect communities within Washington County. o Local service within a community (such as local circulator shuttle or on-demand service). • Service availability near home and to desired destinations were the top factors that could encourage non-riders to use public transportation. Additionally, non-riders indicate that if their transportation needs were met, the top five reasons for their trips, in order, would be shopping, medical visits, social/recreation activities, work, and errands. • A majority of respondents indicate a preference for receiving transit information through the website and email. • Additional comments concerning public transportation in Washington County: o Positive feedback: - “Thank you to all the wonderful bus drivers!” - “Doing a tremendous job. I don't have any problems!” Chapter 4: Community Outreach KFH Group, Inc. │ 4-8 o Concerns: - Long commute times due to the lack of direct routes, requiring transfers, and the limitation of having only one transfer center. - Safety concerns related to missing pedestrian infrastructure: “If we could, please bring the bus stop back in front of the airport terminal at HGR. It is a lot safer than having to cross Showalter Road and wait in the rain/snow/heat.” • Stops are being skipped during evening hours. • Limited service hours and long wait times between buses (large headways). - Lack of bus connections to communities outside of Hagerstown. o Suggested Improvements: - Expand bus service to areas currently underserved. - Extend service hours, especially along main corridors. - Provide reliable, convenient connections to Washington, DC, and Baltimore. - Introduce Sunday service for shopping and errands. - Establish employment transportation services, either through partnerships or on-demand options. - Increase storage space on buses for items like grocery bags. - Offer special services for downtown events. - Implement transportation services for high school students. Respondents’ Demographic Information • Most respondents were from Hagerstown and had both a driver’s license and car ownership. • The majority were 50 years of age or older, predominantly Caucasian/White, and nearly all spoke only English at home. • Respondents were evenly split between full-time employment and retirement, with a diverse range of annual household incomes—$40,000 to $60,000, was the most common income bracket. Washington County Transit Driver Survey The WCT Bus Driver Survey, designed by KFH Group and distributed by WCT staff to all fixed-route bus drivers on August 6, 2024, received eight responses. Each driver was asked to provide input specific to their respective routes. The feedback collected offers valuable insights into system-wide issues related to fixed routes, highlights specific comments regarding various routes, identifies locations for potential service expansion, and presents drivers' recommendations to address these challenges. The findings from the driver survey are summarized below, with a detailed analysis available in Appendix E. Chapter 4: Community Outreach 4-9 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Route Analysis and Issues A summary of the route analysis, highlighting demand levels and issues identified through the survey, is provided below: • 111 – Valley Mall o A route with “larger-than-average” demand. o Frequent OTP issues due to: - Extremely high demand at Valley Mall stop. • Insufficient time allocated to complete the route. • Delayed starting due to following the 117 Long Meadow route, which also faces OTP issues. o Peak-hour delays from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. • 117 – Long Meadow via Eastern o Suffers greatly from OTP issues due to: - At-grade train crossings. - School bus traffic. - Frequent unnecessary stops. o Suggestion to relocate the YMCA stop to the roadside instead of entering the property. • 221 – Robinwood o Higher level of service delays due to: - High wheelchair usage. - Higher passenger complaints on this route, more than average and more specifically at the Hagerstown Community College stop. • 222 – Smithsburg o Issues with traffic congestion on Eastern Boulevard were noted between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. • 331 – Funkstown o Traffic was identified as a major and consistent barrier to OTP. • 333 – West End o A route with “larger-than-average” demand. - Busiest stop: Walmart @ The Center at Hagerstown. - Higher traffic levels were noted from 2:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. • 443 – Maugansville o A route with “larger-than-average” demand. o Busiest stop: Horizon Goodwill @ Pennsylvania. - No issues with OTP. • 441 – Williamsport and 552 – Premium Outlets o No issues with OTP. Chapter 4: Community Outreach KFH Group, Inc. │ 4-10 Potential Areas for Service Expansion Bus driver feedback highlighted specific areas that need fixed-route services and suggested potential route extensions to meet community needs. These suggestions are summarized below: • Hopewell Station Apartments/Lakeside Village: o Riders from these communities currently walk for over half an hour to the nearest stop at Valley Mall to access WCT services. o The closest routes available are Valley Metro and Williamsport. • Leitersburg Pike: o There is a suggestion to extend Route 116 (Longmeadow via Locust) to serve communities along Leitersburg Pike (SR 60), including Longmeadow Family Dental Care, Longmeadow Animal Hospital, and Warehouse Cinemas. • Clear Spring and US 40: o A need for transit services has been identified in Clear Spring, a small town located approximately 12 miles west of Hagerstown along US 40. This will require the creation of a new route. Potential System-Wide Alterations and Policy Changes Driver feedback has identified several potential system-wide alterations and policy changes aimed at improving OTP, reducing service delays, addressing conflicts between passengers and drivers, meeting high demand at certain bus stops, and providing safe and reliable service. These suggestions are summarized below: • Upgrade vehicles and equipment: o Transitioning from 500-series to 800-series buses on high-demand routes is suggested to enhance service capacity. o To prevent driver-passenger confrontations caused by the limited availability of wheelchair spaces, upgrade buses on the Robinwood Route to accommodate more than two wheelchairs. o Upgrade outdated fareboxes as well as destination signs and tablets onboard buses which were linked to causing fare disputes and service delays. • Communication o Improve communication between WCT and new passengers. o Implement conflict resolution training for drivers instructing them how to effectively manage tense situations, such as fare disputes. Chapter 4: Community Outreach 4-11 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan • Consider making the system fare-free to both remove conflicts and speed-up the service. o Language barriers pose challenges for drivers; providing translation services and cheat sheets with common phrases would be beneficial. • Other policies: o Increase buffer time in schedules for routes facing OTP issues due to traffic. o Staff a WCT employee at the transit center to assist with inquiries, ticket sales, and safety complaints. o Implement fare-free transfers at major locations outside the city center, such as South End Shopping Center and Valley Mall. o Allow the use of a light source to flag down vehicles at flag stops after sunset. Washington County Transit Employer Survey KFH Group, in collaboration with WCT, launched the online WCT Employer Survey via SurveyMonkey on September 11, 2024. WCT staff compiled a list of major employers in the county along with their contact information. Following this, the consultants sent email invitations to these employers, inviting them to participate in the online survey. A total of 15 employers were contacted, including but not limited to Meritus Health, Washington County Government, Amazon, Hagerstown Community College, the City of Hagerstown, and FedEx. The survey closed on September 23, 2024, but no responses were received. The Employer Survey was designed to gather input on employee transportation needs, particularly considering recent growth in warehouses and distribution centers. The survey aimed to collect feedback from employers on employees' commuting patterns, job site locations, shift schedules, parking availability, and the types of transportation services and programs they may offer. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives Introduction This chapter presents a range of service alternatives for Washington County Transit (WCT) to consider for implementation during the five-year period covered by this TDP. The majority of these alternatives were developed to address ongoing issues related to ridership and on-time performance, in addition to other transportation needs identified through the TDP planning process. Feedback and refinements from WCT staff and the TDP working group will contribute to the finalization of a comprehensive five- year plan. The TDP alternatives outlined in this chapter were developed after a comprehensive review of existing WCT services, demographic analysis, and public outreach (input collected through an onboard rider survey, online community survey, and a WCT driver survey). The improvements address various issues related to WCT services and are elaborated further in this report. They primarily focus on addressing prevalent system issues and identifying unmet transit needs in the county. The alternatives discussed in this document include a summary of each proposal as well as the potential advantages, disadvantages, and estimates of costs and ridership. They focus on: • Fixed-Route Service Alternatives and Expansion o Systemwide Route Adjustments o Fixed-Route Service Expansion o Sunday Service o More Frequent Service o Later Evening Service • Fixed-Schedule Service • Microtransit/Mobility On-Demand Service • Fare Structure Revision • Branding and Marketing • Capital Enhancements o Bus Stop Improvements o Technology Enhancements Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-2 The proposed improvements concentrate on: • Streamlining the routes by making them more bidirectional. • Improving the on-time performance of routes. • Shortening travel time for customers through service modifications. • Decreasing headways (the time between buses heading in the same direction). • Reducing transfers. • Expansion into new geographical areas. • Extending service hours. • Exploring the feasibility of mobility-on-demand options in Washington County and proposing innovative microtransit solutions. • Improving accessibility and convenience for riders to use the service. The alternatives serve as a starting point to be modified based on changing needs and additional input. Due to inevitable funding uncertainty, the alternatives will be categorized in the Draft Plan based on their implementation time and funding requirements: Each alternative is detailed and includes (where applicable): • A summary of the service alternative • Potential advantages and disadvantages • Likely ridership impacts • An estimate of operating and capital cost Short-term improvements: •Cost-neutral or systemwide adjustments that incur minimal costs. These encompass minor refinements to routes that do not require additional costs or capital. They can be implemented in the near-term. Mid-term improvements: •Implementing significant changes in route alignments to increase route frequency or extend service hours will involve additional costs and resources, including vehicles. These adjustments are feasible within the next few years. Long-term improvements: •Introducing new routes to serve previously uncovered service areas or implementing cutting-edge on-demand solutions like microtransit may entail the need for new pedestrian infrastructure, additional vehicles, and capital investments. These changes may take a few years and are contingent upon state and federal funding. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Fixed-Route Service Alternatives This section discusses the potential service alternatives for WCT. These options serve as a starting point and can be adjusted based on Washington County's needs and feedback from the working group. In addition, due to indeterminate economic times, the directive was to create a route network that achieved greater efficiencies while initially keeping costs constant. Cost information is presented as fully allocated costs, meaning that all program costs were considered on a per-unit basis when assessing the operating budget. The year-end FY2024 operating cost was $92 per hour, as provided by the WCT staff. This figure may overstate the incremental cost of minor service expansion, as certain administrative expenses may not increase with the addition of a few service hours. A proposed route map is shown for each modified route. Systemwide Fixed-Route Modifications Valley Mall Option 1 • Remove the alignment through Oak Ridge Park Apartments. • New route alignment will begin at the Transfer Center, turning right onto Wilson Avenue, then heading west on Wilson Boulevard. It will make a brief diversion onto Maryland Avenue to stop at South End Shopping Center, return to Wilson Avenue, turn left onto Virginia Avenue, and right onto Halfway Boulevard to continue to Martin’s Valley Park Commons and Valley Mall before returning to the transfer point. The proposed modifications are shown in Figure 5-1. • Maintain bidirectional service throughout the route. • Align both daytime and nighttime routes to follow the same alignments. • These changes are expected to decrease the total round trip time by over 10 minutes, which could aid in improving the route's On Time Performance (OTP). Advantages: • Improves OTP. • Increases ridership. • Simplifies route schedules. Combining the day and night alignments into a single, unified schedule, eliminates the need for separate schedules and route names for each. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • Reduces ADA-related coverage. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-4 Option 2 • This alignment will mirror Option 1, with an additional extension to the west of I-81 to serve affordable housing and mobile home park communities as shown in Figure 5-1. The route will continue along Halfway Boulevard west of I-81, stopping at Halfway @ Stotler Road, then turning left onto Hopewell Road to reach Hopewell Station and Hopewell Manor Apartments before returning along the same path. • The resulting total round trip time would be one hour and 30 minutes, which would reduce the headway to 45 minutes by utilizing two buses. • The additional cost of operating this service for a service span of 13 hours on weekdays and 12 hours on weekends totaling 3,850 hours of additional service annually is $354,200 (utilizing $92/hour as the average operating cost of the system). There will also be an additional capital cost to acquire a vehicle. Advantages: • Expands service coverage to new areas. • Enhances connectivity of nearby communities to Valley Mall, located west of I-81. • Reduces headway and increases bus frequency. • Increases ridership. Disadvantages: • Would require additional capital and an increase in operational costs. • Timed connections at the transfer center may only be available at certain times of the day. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-1: Valley Mall Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-6 Williamsport Option 1 • Increase bidirectional service on this regional route, creating direct connectivity between Williamsport-Valley Mall and the Hagerstown Transfer Center by removing the large loop around Williamsport as shown in Figure 5-2. • Remove the alignment along Governor Lane Boulevard; instead, route along East Sunset Avenue to serve Springfield Farms Apartments in Williamsport, then continue on South Artizan Street to connect with Potomac Street back to the same alignment to Valley Mall and then the Hagerstown Transfer Center. • The headway remains the same utilizing one bus. Advantages: • Bidirectional connectivity. • Increases ridership. • No additional operating or capital costs. Disadvantages: • Reduces ADA-related coverage. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-2: Williamsport Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-8 Premium Outlets Option 1 • Minor route adjustment near Walmart and MD 65 as shown in Figure 5-3. • Rename it to Premium Outlets/Walmart Route, as most of the ridership is concentrated at Walmart. • This route has been slightly extended to include upcoming development, “The Shops at Sharpsburg Pike,” along Sharpsburg Pike. Once construction is complete, the route can be adjusted to deviate into the new development. • The bus will stop at the Premium Outlets only if passengers are waiting at the stop or request to be dropped off. Also, this route also has the potential to make connections with the MTA 505 commuter bus at certain times of the day. • The headway remains the same utilizing one bus. Advantages: • Expanded service coverage to upcoming development along Sharpsburg Pike (MD 65 corridor). • Increased ridership. • No additional operating or capital costs. Option 2 • Extend the existing Premium Outlets alignment to serve McCleary Hill, Parkway Medical Center, and Sky Zone Trampoline Park, as illustrated in Figure 5-3. • The route will begin at the Hagerstown Transfer Center, proceed to South End Shopping Center following the current alignment, continue to Premium Outlets and Walmart, and return. On the return trip, the bus will skip the Outlets stop and bypass entering the South End Shopping Center, using Maryland Avenue as a stop instead. Rather than returning directly to the Transfer Center, the bus will turn left onto Franklin Street from Walnut Avenue, head to Parkway Medical Center (a potential call-and-ride stop), and continue to McCleary Hill where it will also serve the Sky Zone Trampoline Park. The route will then return to the Transfer Center via West Washington Avenue, making a stop at the WCT main office before completing the loop. • The bus holds at the Premium Outlets for approximately five minutes. Under the proposed alternative, the bus would only stop if there were passengers waiting at the stop or requesting to be let off. • The bus currently holds at the Walmart stop for approximately 10 minutes. Under the proposed alternative, the bus would only make a quick stop to pick up or drop off passengers. • The entire route will take over an hour to complete one round trip using a single bus. Advantages: • Expanded service coverage. • Increased ridership. Disadvantages: • There could be OTP issues. • May have additional operating or capital costs. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-9 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-3: Premium Outlets Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-10 Smithsburg It is recommended to discontinue the Smithsburg fixed-route service. An alternative is proposed under this chapter’s “Fixed-Schedule Service Pilot” section, which offers a demand-based solution for serving this area. Funkstown Option 1 • Streamline the route by removing the large loop and creating a bidirectional route along Frederick Street (see Figure 5-4). The route will turn around at Martin’s Hagerstown Commons. • Estimated round trip time remains the same: 30 minutes. • Retain one-hour headways using one bus. Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • No additional operational or capital costs. • Enhances efficiency and productivity. • Increases ridership. Disadvantages: • Reduces ADA-related service coverage. Option 2A and 2B Extend service to the Medical Center and Community College. If ridership grows, consider extending the route to serve both Meritus Medical Center and Community College, enabling direct connections between Funkstown, the Meritus Medical Center, and the Community College. • Option 2A: Extension to Meritus Medical Center only (see Figure 5-4) o Maintain a 45-minute headway using one bus. • Option 2B: Further extension to Community College (see Figure 5-4) o The resulting headway is one hour using one bus, or 30 minutes using two buses. o Maintaining one-hour headways would incur an additional annual operating cost of $174,800. This option may require acquiring an additional bus, as the route currently uses only one bus to maintain the one-hour headway with a 30-minute total round trip time. o Maintaining 30-minute headways with two buses would result in an additional annual operating cost of $524,400 plus a capital cost of $420,000 for acquiring one extra bus. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-11 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • Increased service coverage provides enhanced accessibility. • Increased ridership. Disadvantages: • Requires additional operating costs and capital. Figure 5-4: Funkstown Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-12 Robinwood Option 1 Minor route adjustments are proposed to streamline the route as shown in Figure 5-5 and explained below: • Include the stop at Weis Markets in both directions. • Adjust the route to enter the Medical Center main entrance, looping back rather than circling the entire campus. It is recommended that the bus stops at the Medical Center on both inbound and outbound runs. Alternatively, to save time, the bus could stop at the hospital first, followed by the College on eastbound trips. On westbound trips, the bus could stop on North Edgewood Drive, allowing riders to board from the same side of the road, and avoiding the need to cross. • Keep the primary route on Robinwood Drive, and remove the segments that diverge onto smaller roads to serve Francis Murphy Apartments, Stonecroft/Brandywine Apartments, and Youngstoun Court @ Youngstoun. Consider designating these locations as “Call-and-Ride” stops when technology allows. o Call-and-Ride stops offer a flexible way for riders to request a pick-up only when needed. At these stops, riders can either scan a QR code posted at the location, signaling the driver for pick-up, or call the operations center to notify them directly. Without a request, the bus will bypass these stops, reducing travel time and maintaining route efficiency while still ensuring access for those who need it. • There will be no change to the existing one-hour headway. Advantages: • Streamlines service. • Enhances efficiency and productivity. Disadvantages: • Reduces ADA-related service coverage. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-13 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-5: Robinwood Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-14 Option 2 • Introduce Saturday service using the same alignment. (Currently, the Saturday service is provided by Smithville Saturday route alignment with five round trips a day.) • Proposed service hours: 9:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. with hourly headways using one bus. • The additional annual service would total 400 hours, with an operating cost of $36,800 and no added vehicle expenses. Advantages: • Expands service availability to weekends, improving access for riders. Disadvantages: • Requires additional operational costs. New Route: Hagerstown-Funkstown-Robinwood • Combine the Robinwood and Funkstown routes into a continuous, bidirectional loop (see Figure 5-6). • It will take 50 minutes for one bus to complete a full loop from Hagerstown to Funkstown to Robinwood and back. However, since both the Funkstown and Robinwood routes have issues with OTP, the proposal is to run the bus at hourly intervals. • To improve frequency and provide bidirectional service, we recommend using two buses—one running in each direction of the loop. Staggering their departure times would effectively reduce the headway to 30 minutes, but the buses will be operating in alternating directions. This way, riders can expect a bus every 30 minutes, but one bus will go from Hagerstown to Robinwood, and the other will go from Hagerstown to Funkstown. • This consolidation would not require additional capital investment or operating costs. Advantages: • Bidirectional loop service. • Improves OTP. • Increases route efficiency and frequency. • Enhances accessibility and connectivity. Disadvantages: • Reduces service coverage. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-15 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-6: Proposed New Hagerstown-Funkstown-Robinwood Route Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-16 Long Meadow Option 1 • Remove the Long Meadow via Eastern alignment entirely. Maintain the Long Meadow via Locust alignment up to the post office and expand service to include the YMCA, then loop back (see Figure 5-7). • Relocate the YMCA stop to the roadside instead of entering the property. • Due to one-way streets, the route will function as a loop, with a 30-minute round trip using one bus. • Operate with a one-hour headway using one bus; the bus could either be utilized for other services in the remaining half-hour, or increase the route frequency to a 30-minute headway. • Maintaining the one-hour headway reduces operating costs by allowing the bus to have a 30-minute window of free time, which can be utilized for other routes or services. • Reducing the headway to 30 minutes would maintain the same operating costs as the combined Long Meadow Eastern and Long Meadow Locust routes. While the frequency would improve, it would not result in cost savings or reduce the number of buses, as the service level would essentially remain unchanged. • Keep the nighttime alignment consistent with the daytime route alignment. Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • Allows flexible use of bus. • Increases route frequency. • Enhances overall service efficiency. • Simplifies route schedules. Combining the various alignments into a single, unified schedule eliminates the need for separate schedules and route names for each. Disadvantages: • Reduces service coverage. Option 2A • Combine the Long Meadow via Locust and Eastern alignments into a single streamlined bidirectional route (see Figure 5-7). • The roundtrip time would be 50 minutes, which means a 50-minute headway in both directions using one bus. However, from any given stop the combined service frequency will vary based on the direction of the buses. • This alignment eliminates the need for the bus to cross the railway line at Northern Avenue, addressing OTP issues on this route. • Keep the nighttime alignment consistent with the daytime route alignment. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-17 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • Increases route frequency. • Improves OTP. • Simplifies route structure, easy for riders to understand. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • Reduces ADA-related service coverage. • Timed connections at the transfer center may only be available at certain times of the day. Option 2B • Merge the Long Meadow via Locust and Eastern alignments into a bidirectional loop (see Figure 5-7). • This option avoids the railway crossing at Northern Avenue, improving OTP reliability. • It will take a little over half an hour (35 minutes) to complete a loop in one direction. • The bus service will follow a loop that alternates directions (clockwise and counterclockwise), providing bidirectional service with a one hour 10 minutes headway in each direction. However, the combined service frequency at any given stop will vary based on the direction of the buses. Essentially, there will be two buses from each stop within the one hour 10 minutes interval—one coming from each direction of the loop. • Keep the nighttime alignment consistent with the daytime route alignment. Advantages: • Bidirectional loop service. • Increases route frequency. • Improves OTP. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. • Increases service coverage compared to Option 2A. Disadvantages: • Reduction in service coverage compared to existing service. • Timed connections at the transfer center may only be available at certain times of the day. • Potential rider confusion due to varying headways at certain stops in different directions. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-18 Option 3: • This option provides an alternative only for the Long Meadow via Eastern alignment by creating a shorter, bidirectional route that removes the western portion of the existing loop while maintaining stops on the eastern loop with higher ridership (see Figure 5-7). • The total round trip time would be 30 minutes. Maintain a one-hour headway using one bus so that the bus could be utilized for other services in the remaining half-hour. • This option avoids the railway crossing at Northern Avenue, improving OTP reliability. Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • Improves OTP. • Improves ridership. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • Reduces ADA-related service coverage Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-19 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-7: Long Meadow Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-20 Maugansville Option 1 • Combine the Maugansville and Long Meadow via Locust routes to form a bidirectional route with an added stop at the regional airport (see Figure 5-8). • This option removes service to certain areas currently served by the Maugansville route, including the Hamilton Park and Oak Hill West neighborhoods, as well as the Citi Commerce stop near the Maryland-Pennsylvania border. • A complete round trip will take approximately one hour and 20 minutes using one bus. • By using two buses from the combined routes, this option offers a 40-minute headway. There will be no additional operational or capital costs with this option. Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • Increases route frequency. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • Reduces service coverage. • Timed connections at the transfer center may be available only at certain times of the day. Option 2: • Integrate Maugansville and Long Meadow via Locust into a loop route, maintaining service across all current stops on both routes and adding a stop at the regional airport (see Figure 5-8). This route will also expand service to the Paramount-Long Meadow neighborhood. • This configuration enables a direct connection from Hagerstown to Maugansville, the airport, and the Long Meadow neighborhood in both directions. • A full loop will take one hour and 10 minutes, with a 35-minute headway using two buses in opposite directions. There will be no additional operational or capital costs with this option. Advantages: • Bidirectional loop service. • Expands service coverage. • Increases route frequency. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • Timed connections at the transfer center may only be available at certain times of the day. • Increased complexity in scheduling and coordination for bidirectional loops. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-21 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-8: Maugansville Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-22 West End Option 1 • It was noted from the driver's survey that completing the existing West End route within the scheduled time is too difficult. Therefore, this option proposes realigning the route along US Route 40 to provide a faster, more direct bidirectional service, as most ridership is concentrated at the Transfer Center and Walmart, as shown in Figure 5-9. • This option helps improve OTP and ensures a bidirectional flow. • Keep the nighttime and weekend alignments similar to the daytime route alignment. Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • Enhances OTP. • Simplifies route schedules. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • Reduces ADA-related service coverage. Option 2 • Expand the West End Route to include McCleary Hill and Sky Zone Trampoline Park. • Maintain a bidirectional route starting at the Transfer Center, proceeding to the WCT office on W. Washington Street, Parkway Medical Center, Sky Zone Trampoline Park, McCleary Hill, and then to Walmart, as shown in Figure 5-9. The route would return to the Transfer Center via the same alignment. • Keeping the route at one-hour headways would require a capital investment for acquiring one additional bus and additional operational costs (estimated at $190,900 annually). o As an alternative, eliminating the Long Meadow via Eastern route would allow the bus to be repurposed for this route, avoiding additional capital and operational costs. Advantages: • Expanded service coverage. • Bidirectional service. • Enhances OTP. • Increases ridership. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • May increase operating or capital costs, or require eliminating another route to accommodate this expansion. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-23 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-9: West End Route Alternatives Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-24 New Route: West End-Long Meadow Eastern Option 1: • Combine the West End and Long Meadow via Eastern routes into a single cohesive route as shown in Figure 5-10. The new alignment will start at the Transfer Center, proceed to Walmart, McCleary Hill, and return to the Transfer Center before heading east on US 40 to serve destinations along US 40 and Eastern Boulevard North (previously covered by Long Meadow via Eastern). The route will turn right onto Professional Court, loop around Cameo Drive and Diamond Drive, and return to Eastern Boulevard before heading back to the Transfer Center. • The majority of the Long Meadow via Eastern loop will be eliminated, with the YMCA stop now served by the Long Meadow via Locust route. Similarly, the current looped alignment of the West End route will be streamlined, but Parkway Medical Center (a potential call-and-ride stop) and the WCT office will still be served. • This alternative requires only one bus to complete the entire route within an hour, maintaining one- hour headways. Since both previous routes (West End and Long Meadow via Eastern) already operated on hourly headways sharing one bus, there will be no additional capital or operating costs. Advantages: • No additional operating or capital costs. • Streamlined service on most of the segments. • Expanded service coverage to new areas such as McCleary Hill Housing. • Improves OTP. • Improves ridership. • Optimizes overall service efficiency. Disadvantages: • The route still includes loops on the western part of the alignment, which may result in longer travel times for riders traveling from McCleary Hill to Walmart, particularly from one direction. • Reduces ADA-related service coverage. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-25 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-10: Proposed New Route West End-Long Meadow Eastern Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-26 New Route: West End-Valley Mall-South End • Combine the Valley Mall and West End routes into a bidirectional loop, connecting key destinations such as Valley Mall, Walmart Supercenter, and South End into a single, cohesive route. Extend service to McCleary Hill Housing and along Hopewell Road. This integration enhances connectivity to major trip activity centers and expands access to these key destinations from other service areas, minimizing the need for transfers and thereby improving overall service efficiency (See Figure 5- 11). • The loop can be completed in an hour in one direction. With two buses operating in opposite directions (clockwise and counterclockwise), passengers will benefit from hourly headways in each direction. Additionally, at any given stop, two buses will be available within an hour, traveling in opposite directions, though the headways between them may vary due to the staggered scheduling. For example, Valley Mall will have a bus every half hour, with buses traveling in opposite directions to the Transfer Center. • Keep the nighttime and weekend alignments similar to the daytime route alignment. • The existing West End route uses one bus for a 30-minute round trip, with the bus repurposed for the remaining 30 minutes, while the Valley Mall route maintains a one-hour round trip with one bus. Combining the two routes will result in additional operating costs and may require reallocating a bus or adding a new one. • Proposed service hours from 6:45 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. (mirroring the existing West End service span) will add 10 extra hours on weekdays and 8.5 hours on Saturday, totaling approximately 2,925 additional annual service hours. • The additional operating costs are estimated at $269,100 annually. • Capital costs may include one additional bus, estimated at $420,000. Advantages: • Bidirectional service. • Enhances and expands connectivity to major destinations. • Minimizes the need for transfers. • Increases frequency. • Improves OTP. • Optimizes overall service efficiency and ridership. Disadvantages: • Requires additional operational and capital costs. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-27 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-11: Proposed New Route West End-Valley Mall-South End Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-28 New Route: South Loop The rider survey revealed a lack of direct routes in the system, requiring transfers at the Hagerstown Transfer Center, as WCT operates on a hub-and-spoke model. This option addresses that issue by proposing the South Loop, a circumferential route that links major stops on the periphery of the system, as shown in Figure 5-12. By linking key destinations, the loop allows passengers to travel between nearby areas without having to route through the central transfer hub. This reduces travel time, increases efficiency, and provides a more direct connection between areas located on the outskirts of the transit network. It offers a solution to enhance both convenience and accessibility for riders, especially those traveling between peripheral locations. It also enhances service along the US 40 corridor, linking the Transfer Center to key destinations, and making travel more efficient for passengers. • This option proposes adding an additional service in the form of a large "South Loop" as shown in Figure 5-12. While not currently recommended (being that it is not financially viable at this time), it should be considered as an option for future service expansion to improve connectivity along major corridors and between key destinations. • It would be ideal to pair this loop with streamlined route alignments that serve Walmart, Valley Mall, Funkstown, and Robinwood from the Transfer Center at hourly headways. • This loop will provide improved direct access between various destinations. For example, passengers from Funkstown could travel directly to Valley Mall or the Community College, and those living along Hopewell could reach Walmart, Valley Mall, or Medical Center directly. • The loop will take approximately one hour and 30 minutes to complete in one direction. With two buses running in opposite directions, there will be a bus available in each direction every one hour and 30 minutes. • Proposed service hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. on Saturday, totaling 5,850 annual revenue hours. Service includes eight bidirectional loops on weekdays and six on Saturday. • The additional operating cost for this service is estimated at $538,200 annually. • Capital costs for acquiring two buses are estimated at $840,000. Advantages: • Bidirectional loop service. • Minimizes the need for transfers. • Enhances and expands connectivity to major destinations. • Increases service along major corridors. • Increases rider convenience. Disadvantages: • Requires additional operational costs, drivers, and vehicles. • Complicates scheduling and may require more coordination with existing routes to avoid conflicts. • There is a risk of underutilization or ridership competition with other routes, especially if demand is lower than expected. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-29 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-12: Proposed New Route South Loop Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-30 Fixed-Schedule Service Pilot To enhance connectivity to Hagerstown from smaller communities like Smithsburg, Boonsboro, and Clear Spring in Washington County, a pilot fixed-schedule service is proposed. This service would operate on specific days and times, enabling cost-effective, grouped trips and providing reliable access to key destinations in Hagerstown. The schedule would prioritize travel needs, such as shopping, recreational, and medical trips, including dialysis. This approach is particularly suited for rural and small population centers outside urbanized areas, where sustaining a traditional fixed-route service is cost- prohibitive. This service will replace the existing Smithsburg fixed-route. This service model provides scheduled, predictable service, combining curb-to-curb pickups in smaller communities with key stops in Hagerstown, such as the Transfer Center and major retail or medical/dialysis centers. Riders would book trips at least a day in advance based on the set schedule. This helps to group the trips and reduce costs. If no rides are booked, the vehicle could be repurposed elsewhere. Depending on the need, the proposed service would offer at least one morning, midday, and evening round trip in a day, ensuring flexibility for riders who do not want to spend an entire day in Hagerstown. The goals of this pilot include: • Assessing Initial Demand and Transit Needs: Implement a minimum one-year trial to test demand in these areas, with the potential for limited expansion if ridership supports establishing a fixed-route. • Enhancing Access: Providing access from rural areas to major shopping centers, recreational facilities, social activities, and medical services in Hagerstown. Pilot Service Recommendations • Smithsburg: o Three days a week service (two weekdays and one Saturday), with morning, midday, and evening trips. o Curb-to-curb service in Smithsburg; stops in Hagerstown may include the Transfer Center, Senior Center, Weis, and other key destinations. o Considering a one-hour round trip with three daily runs, three days a week, this service would require approximately 450 service hours annually, at an estimated annual cost of $41,400 utilizing one vehicle. • Boonsboro: o Two days a week service (on weekdays), with morning, midday, and evening trips. o Curb-to-curb service in Clear Spring; stops in Hagerstown may include the Transfer Center and the Meritus Medical Center. o Considering a round trip duration of one hour, with three daily runs, two days a week, this service would require a total of 300 hours of service annually. The estimated annual cost for this level of service would be $27,600. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-31 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan • Clear Spring: o Once per week service (on a weekday), with morning, midday, and evening trips. o The service would be curb-to-curb in Clear Spring, while the recommended stops in Hagerstown (in addition to Transfer Center) may include Valley Mall and Walmart Supercenter at the Garland Groh Boulevard. o Considering a one-hour round trip and three daily runs, this service would require approximately 150 service hours annually, costing an estimated $13,800. The proposed fixed-schedule services are illustrated in Figure 5-13. Table 5-1: Potential Impacts of Fixed-Schedule Service Advantages Disadvantages • Addresses a need articulated in the rider and community surveys. • Expands service coverage. • Offers mobility options to connect smaller communities farther away from Hagerstown to Hagerstown for essential shopping, medical/dialysis and social/recreational trips. • Would not require additional capital to run the service. • Will reduce operating costs when compared to existing operating costs of Smithsburg fixed-route service. • Requires WCT to effectively market this new service and update its print and web materials. • Takes away fixed-route service to Smithsburg, thus removing the mandatory ADA service in Smithsburg and other areas within ¾ mile of the route. Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • The total annual operating expense for the combined service 3 times a day, 6 days a week, is estimated to be about $82,800 as opposed to the existing operating cost of the Smithsburg fixed route which is over $150,000 annually. • Current service on the Smithsburg route achieves over 7 trips/hour with 5 roundtrips a day, or about 35 trips a day. If we predict the new service will be about the same for Smithsburg (7 trips/hour) and be 50% as successful for Boonsboro, and Clear Spring – 3.5 trips per hour is used, totaling 4,725 trips per year. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-32 Figure 5-13: Proposed Fixed-Schedule Service Pilot Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-33 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Sunday Service The rider and community survey highlighted that the most requested improvement from riders is the addition of Sunday service. Although implementing this service is not financially feasible at the moment, it is important to demonstrate responsiveness to customer feedback. Currently, WCT operates a Saturday service, which is a scaled-down version of the regular weekday schedule, with the Robinwood Route suspended and fewer daily trips on other routes. Introducing a similar limited service on Sunday would enhance mobility and potentially increase ridership. This proposed alternative would: • Add Sunday service to the following routes: Funkstown, Long Meadow, Maugansville, Premium Outlets, Smithsburg, Valley Mall, West End, and Williamsport. • Use Saturday schedules as the basis for Sunday service. Table 5-2: Potential Impacts of Sunday Service Advantages Disadvantages • Addresses a need articulated in the rider and community surveys. • Additional service days would attract additional and new riders. • Allows residents and shift workers to consider transit as a more viable mobility option on Sunday. • Expanding service to Sunday will increase operating costs and could require additional drivers and vehicles. • Sunday service is typically less productive than weekday and Saturday service. Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • Annual operating costs for Sunday service, mirrored after Saturday service, would cost roughly $296,700. • Associated administrative costs for the creation of new schedule materials and increased preventative maintenance costs. • Added operating costs for running the ADA service. • Current service on these routes achieves about 15.5 trips/hour. If we predict Sunday service will be 50% as successful – 7.7 trips per hour is used, totaling 24,945 trips per year. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-34 Later Evening Service Currently, WCT provides night service on routes such as Long Meadow (via Locust), Valley Mall (with a different route than weekday service), and West End, operating between 8:30 a.m. and 9:15 p.m. While this schedule meets the needs of many who work non-traditional shifts, rider surveys indicate that later evening hours are the second most requested improvement, with "work" being the primary purpose for transit trips. This alternative proposes extending operating hours by an additional hour on all routes from Monday to Friday. Adding one extra hour would expand service on routes that currently do not have late evening options, as well as increase late evening service on high-ridership routes that already offer limited evening service. This extension would allow for late-night trips, resulting in approximately 1,750 additional service hours, and extending service until 9:30 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on routes with hourly headways. This change would also require extending ADA service hours. The potential impacts of this proposal are outlined in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Impacts of Adding Late Evening Hours Advantages Disadvantages • Addresses a need articulated in the rider and community surveys. • More attractive to workers. • Increases social opportunities. • Would not require additional capital to run the service. • Requires WCT to update its print and web materials. • Additional service would increase annual operating expenses. • Still may not be enough to capture working hourly employees. Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • Using WCT’s average fixed-route operating cost of $92 per hour, one additional late evening hour Monday through Friday would cost approximately: $161,000 annually in operating expenses at hourly headways. • An additional 1,750 revenue hours. • There are additional ADA operating costs associated with this expansion, which will be further detailed in the draft plan. • Ridership per hour will be slightly lower since it is on the peripheral. If we predict ridership based on productivity during the last two hours of the current service, an average of five trips per hour is used, resulting in a total of 8,750 trips per year for hourly headways. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-35 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan More Frequent Service Valley Mall and West End are the highest ridership routes in the system, while Robinwood, despite having moderate ridership, connects to significant trip generators like Meritus Medical Center and the Community College. Survey feedback highlighted these three routes as the top priorities for increased service frequency, reflecting their importance to riders. This alternative proposes to supplement these three routes —Valley Mall, West End and Robinwood by reducing their headways to 30-minutes under two service span scenarios: 1. Peak hour service: Covers the peak service periods, identified by the agency as 6:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays only. 2. All day service (both weekdays and Saturday): varies by each route. Since the routes currently operate on hourly headways, multiple scenarios are available for implementation – one initial route (West End), two phased groupings (West End and Valley Mall) -- since these routes have the highest ridership per hour, and then Robinwood Route or all at once if funding is available. This will require adding three additional all-day vehicles per day to the service routes. All routes would continue to operate in their same “new” pattern. The potential impacts and cost estimates of this proposal are outlined in Table 5-4. Table 5-4: Potential Impacts of Increased Route Frequency Advantages Disadvantages • Addresses a need articulated in the rider and community surveys. • The ability to start the service in the morning a half hour earlier and end in the evening a half hour later, thus extending the service span for each weekday (if that is the most optimal time to add the additional service). • Provides higher service along key corridors. • Increases convenience for customers. • • Any route and schedule adjustments would require WCT to update its print and web materials. • Increasing frequencies may reduce productivity and add to annual operating costs (as service would double, but ridership likely would not). Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • Requires up to 3 vehicles, each estimated to be about $90,000, totaling $270,000. • The fully allocated annual operating cost for all-day service would be about $807,300.00 annually, with total annual revenue hours estimated at 8,775. For peak-hour service, the total annual revenue hours would be 4,625 and the estimated annual operating cost will be $425,500. • There will also be an additional cost associated with hiring 3 drivers which will be detailed in the final plan. • On average, these 3 routes provide 19.53 passenger trips per hour. It is likely that overall ridership increases, but productivity drops because trips are spreading over more hours. Thus, 9.77 “new” passenger trips per hour (50% of the current trips/hr.) are achieved for all-day service, the annual ridership increase would be around 85,688. For peak-hour service only, the expected increase in new riders per hour would be 13.67 assuming 70% of the current trips/hr. that would result in an additional 63,228 passengers annually. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-36 Microtransit/On-Demand Solutions As on-demand ride-hailing apps like Uber and Lyft have become a common mobility option over the past decade, demand has risen for public transit services that utilize mobile technology to provide on- demand transportation services. In the past few years, microtransit services have emerged across the country, and many transit systems have implemented these services or are exploring the potential for mobility on-demand options for the communities they serve. To better understand where microtransit service might be appropriate in Washington County, a microtransit propensity analysis was performed. This analysis is described below. Microtransit Propensity Index (MPI) The MPI was created to help transit providers make decisions on where to establish microtransit zones based on demographic, geographic, and infrastructural factors that may impact an area’s propensity for service. An MPI score was calculated for each Census Block Group in Washington County, based on several variables. The index incorporated 10 factors, with the transit center proximity and intersection density acting as a multiplier to highlight areas within the service area of major transit stations or transfer centers, and with a high intersection density since there are many one-way roads. The factors used for the index included population density (PD), job density (JD), major trip generators (MTG), railroad crossing density (RRC), percent below poverty (PBP), percent no vehicle households (PNV), percent youth population (PYP), percent senior population (PSP), and percent disabled population (PDP) that were deemed positive indicators of microtransit propensity. Areas within 1.5 miles of a high-frequency transit center/hub (TC) received a multiplier to indicate that a first-mile-last-mile connection could be made with fixed-route and intercity bus services. Internet and smartphone access were not included in the analysis since broadband connectivity and smartphone use are widespread throughout the county. The MPI was calculated using the following formula: ((𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃+𝐽𝐽𝑃𝑃+𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀+𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅)∗1.5 + (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ))∗(𝐼𝐼𝑃𝑃+𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅) The MPI – as well as population density, job density, major destinations, intersection density, percent youth population, percent senior population, percent disabled population, percent below poverty, and percent no vehicle households – was scored based on a block group’s relation to the study area’s mean of each metric. To ensure consistency, the following scoring measure was developed to aggregate each factor’s score into the overall MPI. Population/Concentration- MPI Factor Score 0- < Study Area Average (SAA)- > SAA and < 1.33 times the SAA- > 1.33 times the SAA and < 1.67 times the SAA- > 1.67 times the SAA and < 2.00 times the SAA- > 2.00 times the SAA- Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-37 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-14 illustrates the microtransit propensity by block group in Washington County, highlighting areas with the greatest potential for on-demand service. The highest-propensity areas in Washington County are all concentrated in Hagerstown. Figure 5-14: Microtransit Propensity in Washington County Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-38 Implement Microtransit Pilot Service This alternative proposes the implementation of a one-year Microtransit pilot program in the northern part of Hagerstown, specifically north of Dual Highway. This initiative aims to replace and convert the existing underperforming Long Meadow Route into a microtransit route and streamline the Maugansville Route to prioritize the regional connection of Hagerstown with Maugansville and the airport. Additionally, we propose eliminating the West End fixed route. This change is recommended because both the Transfer Center and Walmart fall within the proposed microtransit zone. As a result, many riders, not only within the microtransit zone but also outside the zone just south of Dual Highway (US 40), may walk to the Transfer Center or into the zone to request a vehicle to Walmart. This could disrupt the West End fixed-route service. By eliminating the West End route, we would actually increase service to Walmart, not just from the Transfer Center but also from other areas, reducing transfers at the Transfer Center. This is expected to capture more ridership and improve service performance, though it may not reduce the overall cost of providing the service. The buses from the two eliminated fixed routes would be repurposed to run this service. This strategy is designed to optimize efficiency and reliability while enhancing the overall rider experience, offering a more modern and effective transportation solution. Additionally, the areas proposed for the microtransit service are eligible for potential funding through programs like Raise and Areas of Persistent Poverty (AoPP) grants, as mentioned in TM 2A under the "disadvantaged population" section. It is important to note that this is a pilot program, and thus can be reassessed and switched back to fixed routes if it does not perform as expected. Utilizing app-based technology, the microtransit zone will provide on-demand transportation solutions catering to various trip purposes, such as shopping, medical appointments, work commutes, entertainment outings, recreation activities, religious trips, and other local needs. Additionally, the program will facilitate first-mile-last-mile connections to existing fixed-route services at the Hagerstown Transfer Center, enhancing accessibility and convenience for riders who need to travel to other destinations in Hagerstown and regionally. The potential microtransit zone for the pilot program in Hagerstown is depicted in Figure 5-15 and is accompanied by two tables: Table 5-5 which details service specifics to achieve a 15-minute response time; and Table 5-6 which summarizes the impact of this proposed microtransit pilot. This estimated information offers a preliminary analysis of the proposed Microtransit service. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-39 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 5-15: Proposed Microtransit Zone in Hagerstown Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-40 Table 5-5: Proposed Microtransit Zone in Hagerstown Service Characteristics Service Area 4.6 sq. mi. Service Hours 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m., M-S Peak Vehicle 2 Response Time 15 minutes Avg. Trip Distance 1.5 mi. Avg. Speed 15 mph Estimated Annual Operating Cost ~$280,000/vehicle Estimated Ridership (low-medium low) 2-2.5 rides/vehicle hr. ~300-360 per week or 14,200-18,000 per annum Capital Cost 0 (Initially use existing Long Meadow Route and West End buses) Within Zone Statistics: Population ~21,800 Jobs ~9,300 People in poverty ~5,200 24% Car free Households ~1,400 15% Minority population ~7,200 33% Senior Population (65+) ~2,900 13% Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-41 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 5-6: Potential Impacts of Microtransit Advantages Disadvantages • On-demand, e- public. • Enhanced rider experience. • Increases service levels (on-paratransit ambulatory customers. • All vehicles are ADA (wheelchair) accessible. • Expands service coverage, improving accessibility for individuals with disabilities and those living in underserved areas. • Alleviates demand from traditional ADA and demand-response services. • Replaces low-productivity routes. • Reduces operating costs and improves system productivity. • No increase in technology procurement cost. • Potential funding could be achieved via Raise and AoPP grants. • Training of drivers on federal ADA paratransit requirements. • Expenses related to marketing of new service and updating print and web materials. • Customers may be unable to pay cash while boarding the vehicle. • If demand outpaces supply, it may potentially increase the agency's cost. • There is a possibility of microtransit and traditional demand-response services overlapping or competing with each other. Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • Operational costs for the Pilot Microtransit route in Northern Hagerstown are estimated at $200,000 per vehicle annually, for a 12-hour service Monday to Saturday. However, since the existing Long Meadow and West End Routes would be replaced, there may be no additional operational or capital cost to run this service. • Modest savings are anticipated through the provision of fewer paratransit trips. • Microtransit might draw riders away from traditional demand-response services, resulting in reduced ADA and demand-response ridership. • Increased ridership on fixed routes is expected. • Anticipated microtransit ridership is approximately 2-2.5 trips per vehicle hour initially. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-42 Other Improvements Fare Structure The current fare structure is overly complicated, with difficult calculations for both riders and drivers. The existing regular fare is set at $1.25, but issues arise due to the need for exact change, especially in coins. Additionally, fares vary by time of day (peak versus off-peak hours) and by rider demographics, further complicating the fare structure. These factors contribute to confusion and disputes between drivers and riders, which slow down service. Moreover, the current farebox recovery rate is less than 10 percent, which by MTA set performance standards “needs review,” making it necessary to explore alternative fare structures that are easier to navigate, more efficient, and can improve revenue collection and farebox recovery. Proposed Recommendations: Table 5-7 below outlines the recommended fare policy and fare products along with their advantages and disadvantages, followed by Table 5-8 which shows the proposed fare structure. Table 5-9 provides a summary of the estimated costs and potential ridership impacts associated with implementing this alternative. These adjustments aim to streamline the system and increase farebox recovery while ensuring an easy-to-navigate system for all riders. It is important to note that any major changes to fare products will require a Title VI study to ensure that the new fare structure does not disproportionately burden minority and low-income populations. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-43 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 5-7: Recommended Fare Policy and Fare Products Recommendation Advantages Disadvantages Streamline fare structure, eliminate peak and off-peak fares, and maintain a single fare throughout the day. Expand reduced fares to students. The fare products are detailed below. • Easy to understand and implement. • Eliminates multiple fare tiers (regular, student, senior) and time-based pricing. • Improves fare collection efficiency and speeds up bus service. • Provides a more subsidized fare for students. • Increases overall farebox recovery. • Helps improve ridership count collection. • Additional costs associated with system upgrades, farebox modifications, and a Title VI study. • Loss of subsidies during off-peak hours for some riders. • Potential technical issues with fareboxes may persist. • Fare evasion may still be a concern. • Additional costs may arise from public outreach and marketing efforts to promote the new fare structure, as well as from staff training to ensure smooth implementation. 1. Set a one-way regular fare at $2 and a reduced fare at $1. • Consistent with rider survey findings that show passengers are willing to pay $2 for better service. • Rounded fare makes calculations easier and removes obstacles with exact change. • Expected farebox recovery is 15-20%. • Some riders may find the $2 fare expensive (a 60% increase compared to the current $1.25 fare). 2. Retain the existing Period Passes (31-days, semi-annual, and annual passes) while introducing new Period Passes that offer unlimited rides, as detailed in the cells below: • Eliminates the need for transfers. • Simplifies fare collection. • Offers unlimited trips within a set period of time, providing flexibility for frequent riders. • Improve convenience and the overall rider experience. • Attractive for non-profit organizations and community service agencies. • Upfront cost could discourage some riders, especially those with irregular travel patterns or financial constraints. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-44 Recommendation Advantages Disadvantages o Day Pass o A convenient option for frequent riders who take at least two trips daily and multiple transfers, especially those who cannot afford a monthly pass. o Uncertainty about rider uptake. o Potential concerns about farebox recovery if too many riders choose the Day Pass. o Weekly Pass o Provides convenience for frequent riders who take round trips at least three days a week. o May raise equity concerns, especially for low-income riders who may find the upfront cost unaffordable. 3. Stored Ride Cards – Retain the 20-ride and bulk discount passes. • Convenient for non-regular riders who need occasional flexibility. • Does not expire until all rides are used. • Useful for non-profit or human services agencies that can distribute them to their clients at a subsidized rate. • Potential for low uptake of these passes. • May increase administrative costs due to low uptake. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-45 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 5-8: Proposed Fare Structure Fare Type Cost Stored Ride Card Period Pass (Unlimited Rides) 20- Rides (must purchase Day Pass Weekly Pass 31- Days Semi- Annual Annual Adult (ages 18-59) $2.00 $38.00 $35/each $4.00 $10.00 $60.00 $350.00 $660.00 Senior (ages 65+), Individuals with Disabilities, Medicare/Medicaid/ Military Veteran– ID Required $1.00 $19.00 $18.00 $2.00 $5.00 $30.00 $175.00 $330.00 17) Students (ages 18+) $1.00 $19.00 $18.00 $2.00 $5.00 $30.00 $175.00 $330.00 Children (Under age 5) Excludes Groups Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Table 5-9: Cost Estimates and Ridership Impacts Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts Costs of implementation including a Title VI study are estimated at $50,000. • Simplified fare structure is easier for riders to understand and more convenient, potentially encouraging new riders. However, the jump from $1.25 to $2.00 (60% increase) may deter some low-income riders, particularly if they don’t perceive an improvement in service quality. Nonetheless, the overall convenience and benefits of the new structure are expected to outweigh initial resistance, leading to a gradual increase in ridership over time. • More affordable fares for students may boost student ridership. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-46 Branding and Marketing Based on our analysis of existing conditions and discussions with WCT staff, we have identified a need for consistent branding and marketing for WCT. We observed the following inconsistencies: 1. Branding Issues: Both the “County Commuter” and “WCT Transit” logos are used inconsistently across various marketing materials. For example, while buses display “County Commuter,” the website does not reference it, and WCT’s logo does not appear on their webpage but does on other materials. Additionally, the term “County Commuter” may create confusion, as WCT provides more than just commuter services. 2. Information Consistency: WCT’s bus schedules and service information are inconsistent across marketing materials. Additionally, major services, like the travel training program, are not effectively promoted on the website or in other marketing resources. Recommendations: We recommend that WCT seek marketing and public information assistance from a private firm specializing in public transit. A professional firm could help streamline WCT’s branding and communication efforts, although costs will vary based on specific tasks required. Suggested areas for improvement include: 1. Comprehensive Branding Effort: WCT requires a cohesive branding strategy to establish a recognizable public transit image rather than just a “County Commuter” service. Key branding considerations include: a. A memorable brand name that reflects the local community and avoids acronyms. b. A unified logo, consistent vehicle colors, and a paint scheme that can be easily identified. c. Consistency across all marketing materials, including the website. This branding effort should be treated as a business investment aimed at increasing public recognition, ridership, and service levels. Whether handled by a professional firm or in-house, it should maintain a professional look and feel. 2. Enhance Website Content and Resources: WCT’s existing website provides schedules, maps, and rider guides for its existing services. However, to enhance user experience and information access, the following improvements are suggested: a. Improve Transit Information: Add information and include links to other regional transit providers, like CAT and MTA, along with details of all WCT services. b. Simplify Schedules and Maps: Develop clear, easy-to-read schedules and enhanced maps for WCT’s fixed routes. Be consistent about the bus stop policy across all the materials. A unified route schedule combining day and night alignments into one will eliminate the need for multiple route names, separate schedules and maps. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-47 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 5-10: Potential Impacts of Branding and Marketing Advantages Disadvantages • Creates a recognizable public transit image of WCT. • Promotes WCT’s services within the community. • Greater visibility can lead to increased ridership, future partnerships, and possible funding opportunities. • Provides a comprehensive list of services. • Enhances user experience and information access. • Cost is the only disadvantage. • It would require additional administrative time. Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • Estimate a cost of $25,000-$35,000 for professional branding and a marketing campaign, contingent upon the specific services recommended by the professionals. • In-house marketing would be substantially cheaper, mainly requiring administrative time. • Additional marketing will enhance ridership. • Though difficult to estimate the impact, it will lead to marginal increases in ridership. Capital Enhancements Bus Stop Improvements WCT currently has a mix of designated bus stops and a flag stop-based system. The existing conditions were reviewed, and public outreach revealed several safety and operational challenges with the current flag stop system. Riders often flag buses at unsafe intersections, creating risks for both themselves and the bus operators. Drivers may be forced to bypass these flagged stops when it is unsafe to pull over, leading to inconvenience and missed connections. During darker service hours, inadequate lighting exacerbates safety concerns, making it difficult for riders to flag buses and for drivers to see them, resulting in missed pickups and frustration. Additionally, the lack of proper bus stop infrastructure further reduces visibility and accessibility, especially in the evenings. Moreover, many of the designated bus stops do not even have a bus stop sign. Operationally, the flag stop system disrupts the bus's on-time performance. Frequent, unpredictable stops to pick up individual riders can slow down the bus, causing delays that might accumulate and impact the schedule of other routes and creating a ripple effect throughout the system. These challenges underscore the need for transitioning to a more structured and efficient designated stop system. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-48 This study recommends: 1. Transition from Flag Stops to Designated Stops a. Bus Stop Feasibility Study: Conduct a comprehensive bus stop feasibility study to identify optimal locations for designated stops based on boarding and alighting patterns. The study should also include an assessment of existing designated stops to determine infrastructure and accessibility improvements. Enhancements will focus on increasing comfort, safety, access, and the overall attractiveness of the stops. Public input on preferred stop locations should be gathered as part of this process to ensure community needs are met. Collaboration with local authorities, jurisdictions and major stakeholders will also be essential to secure necessary approvals for bus stop locations and required improvements. b. Phased Approach: The transition may be implemented in phases or all at once. A phased approach is recommended to gradually eliminate flag stops, ensuring all designated and proposed stops are equipped with consistent infrastructure and signage. A phased approach allows riders to adjust to the new system over time, allows operational flexibility, provides more time for marketing, and makes the transition more financially manageable based on funding availability. 2. Ongoing Safety and Infrastructure improvements To ensure the effectiveness of the designated bus stop system, the following ongoing improvements are recommended: a. Infrastructure and Lighting at Existing Stops: Evaluate and address critical safety issues, prioritizing lighting installations in areas with high evening ridership. Provide clear instructions to riders and drivers on safely flagging buses during dark periods. Encourage riders to stand in well-lit, visible areas or safe locations and use a flashlight or their phone's light to signal the bus effectively. Enhance stops with shelters, benches, and trash receptacles at high-traffic locations or unique stops that warrant such amenities. b. Signage Installation: Standardize and install clear, visible signage at all designated stops to improve rider and driver awareness. c. Accessibility Enhancements: Work with local jurisdictions to ensure all stops meet accessibility standards, including adding pathways, crosswalks, and curb ramps where necessary. These enhancements will require long-term planning and implementation. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives 5-49 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 5-11: Potential Impacts of Bus Stop Improvements Advantages Disadvantages • Improves accessibility and safety. • Enhances the overall image of the transit system. • Adds comfort and convenience for riders. • Costs of conducting a feasibility study and costs of purchasing and installing bus stop signs and amenities. • Requires maintenance. • Requires coordination with land owners and local jurisdictions. • Could discourage ridership as people may have to now walk to a bus stop to board a bus as opposed to their nearest intersection. Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • Around $50,000 for a feasibility study. • Costs related to ongoing infrastructure improvements are estimated at: o Shelter with bench including installation: $15,000 to $ 20,000 per shelter o Bench only: $1000-$1500 o Trash can: $1,000-$1,500 o Bus stop sign: $100-$200 • Encourages ridership by improving visibility, accessibility, and safety but likely not a significant increase. Technology Enhancements WCT is in the process of transitioning to the Passio software for its fixed-route service operations. This transition, including staff training and system activation, is expected to be completed by mid-2025. To maximize the benefits of this new system, the study recommends enhancing its capabilities in phases to improve service efficiency and accessibility by adding the following features: 1. Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs): Invest in APCs to improve data collection and enable more precise tracking of ridership patterns. This data can help optimize routes and schedules. 2. Call-and-Ride Stops: Establish “call-and-ride” stops in areas with low trip activity to ensure riders still have access to bus service when needed. Passio’s system supports this feature by enabling the placement of QR codes at these stops, allowing riders to scan and request a bus. This feature offers flexibility by providing bus routes with a deviation option when necessary. Chapter 5: Washington County Transit Service Alternatives KFH Group, Inc. │ 5-50 3. Fare Collection Enhancements: Utilize Passio’s capabilities to streamline fare collection by integrating digital payment options and upgrading existing electronic fare boxes, offering riders more convenient and efficient payment methods. 4. Real-Time Arrivals Display: Implement a real-time arrivals display at the Transfer Center to provide passengers with up-to-date information on bus schedules, improving the overall rider experience. Table 5-12: Potential Impacts of Technology Improvements Advantages Disadvantages • Allows riders to pre-purchase passes. • Streamlines onboard fare payment. • Reduces time spent counting and managing cash fares. • Gives riders real-time transit information. • Valuable for transit service planning. • Ensures accurate reporting. • Improves operational efficiency. • Enhances rider accessibility and convenience. • Procurement and ongoing maintenance costs. Cost Estimates Ridership Impacts • Prices are contingent upon technology procurement and associated choices. • Offering easier and more efficient fare payment methods, maintaining service to low-activity stops without removing them from routes, and providing riders with up-to-date information can help increase ridership. • When the data generated is used effectively, these tools can provide the basis for better route and schedule design leading to increased ridership. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Chapter 6: Transit Plan Introduction This five-year plan is the product of an intensive TDP process. The recommended projects were derived through a detailed evaluation of existing services (Chapter 2), a comprehensive needs analysis incorporating demographic data (Chapter 3), public input gathered through survey and outreach efforts (Chapter 4), and an alternatives analysis (Chapter 5). Washington County Transit (WCT) staff and the TDP Working Group provided guidance throughout the planning process. As documented in the report, key demand was for the following: • Punctual buses • Shorter streamlined routes • New service design • Later evening service • More frequent service • Sunday service One of the most significant features of the five-year plan is the recommendation to redesign select routes within the current route network to streamline all routes and increase on-time performance (OTP), convenience, and accessibility for riders. The costs shown in this chapter are based on projected hourly operating costs and estimates of capital costs. Depending on the timing and implementation choices, costs may differ due to inflation or variable market costs. Guidance from the Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA) indicates that, in the near term, funding for extensive service expansion is unlikely. As such, this plan calls for a mix of primarily cost-neutral and palatable costing improvements in the short term, and expansionary projects in later years. WCT can begin with these improvements, achieved primarily by shifting resources within the network. All proposed services are conceptual and will require operational planning and community outreach before implementation. More punctual buses Sunday service More frequent buses Later evening hours Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-2 The five-year plan is organized into the following sections: • Service Plan – Brief narratives outlining the proposed improvements, broken into short-, mid-, and long-term implementation timeframes. • Title VI Analysis – Review of service changes to ensure they do not have a disproportionately high negative impact on below poverty or minority populations. • Conceptual Financial Plan for Operating – Estimated operating costs for the five-year TDP period, based on existing operating costs and estimated expenses for proposed service improvements. • Conceptual Financial Plan for Capital – Estimated capital costs for the five years of the TDP, based on information from WCT’s most recent Annual Transportation Plan and estimated capital needs to implement the proposed operating plan. Service Plan The proposed projects for the service plan are summarized in the implementation timeline below. Each of the improvements proposed in the service plan has been derived from the review of alternatives in the preceding chapter. However, this plan reflects the decisions of the study team, TDP Working Group, and WCT staff on the preferred sub-alternatives for the route network redesign. Brief descriptions of the proposed improvements are provided in this section, and additional details can be found in Chapter 5. In general, the short-term projects correspond to Years 1 and 2, mid-term projects to Years 3 and 4, and the long-term projects to Year 5 and beyond. Actual implementation will vary based on the availability of funding and other changing conditions. WCT will continue to provide demand-response and ADA paratransit service as an equivalent service to bus route service, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. ADA complimentary paratransit service is available to people who are certified as not able to utilize fixed-route public transportation. Service is provided to and from locations within ¾-mile of a bus route during normal operating hours. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Short-Term Improvements (Years 1-2) Fixed Route Modifications The fixed route adjustments are intended to make WCT trips more convenient, direct, and dependable. The adjustments make the routes more consistently bi-directional, increasing their understandability for riders as well as enhancing their on-time performance. The adjustments should be implemented in the short term and follow the route adjustments described in detail in Chapter 5. The modified route network continues to utilize the basic framework of transit service within the core urbanized area of the county. The service network was designed to operate with the same number of vehicles currently in use, achieved through strategic adjustments to specific routes. This was accomplished by altering certain routes. The components of the proposed network are summarized in Table 6-1 and shown in Figure 6-1. Changes should occur on each route but vary depending upon route specific needs, including: • Minor stop adjustments • New route patterns • New service area The only costs associated with the recommended route adjustments are those related to schedule redesign and printing. Table 6-1: Proposed Route Adjustments Route Description Headway Valley Mall Minor route adjustments to maintain bidirectional service, align both daytime and nighttime routes to follow similar paths and help with OTP. 60 min Premium Outlets Minor route adjustments near Walmart and Premium Outlets and the route slightly extended to include a stop at the upcoming development, “The Shops at Sharpsburg Pike.” Renaming the route to Premium Outlets/Walmart is recommended. 60 min Maugansville Minor route adjustments, eliminated Citi Corp stop. 60 min Improvement Highlights • Streamlines routes, making WCT more convenient, appealing, and understandable for riders. • Uses boarding data from the onboard data collection effort conducted by stop in April 2024 to maximize service to and from key origins and destinations. • Improves on-time performance. • Maintains service frequency. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-4 Figure 6-1: Proposed Short-Term Fixed-Route Network Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Implement Revised Fare Structure The implementation of a revised fare structure is recommended during the second year of this TDP to simplify fare options for both riders and drivers, improve operational efficiency, reduce fare-related disputes, and enhance revenue collection and farebox recovery. Rider feedback highlighted confusion about the current fare system, particularly around peak and off-peak pricing, which often caused boarding delays and disagreements. The revised fare structure aims to: • Streamline the fare system by eliminating peak and off-peak pricing. • Establish a consistent fare throughout the day. • Expand reduced fare eligibility to include students. Recommended fare structure and products: • Set a flat, one-way fare of $2.00 for regular riders, and $1.00 for those eligible for reduced fares. • Introduce unlimited ride passes, including a one-day and seven-day pass, with updated pricing for all period passes. • Retain 20-ride and bulk discount passes, with revised pricing to reflect the updated fare structure. Related Costs & Title VI Considerations While this recommendation is considered cost-neutral in terms of operations, there will be administrative costs associated with implementation. These costs include expenses for printing new fare media (e.g., day and weekly passes), updating informational materials, conducting public outreach to inform riders, training staff, and making any necessary system configuration changes. Although a Title VI analysis is typically required before implementing fare changes, WCT is not required by FTA to conduct a fare change evaluation for this adjustment. However, WCT may choose to conduct the assessment in-house. If a professional consultant is engaged, the cost for a comprehensive Title VI analysis is estimated at approximately $30,000. Improvement Highlights • Simplifies fare system for all users by removing complex tiers and time-based pricing. • Reduces boarding times and improves service reliability by minimizing fare disputes. • Supports students by expanding access to reduced fares. • Improves farebox recovery, which is currently low. • Enhances data accuracy by improving ridership count collection. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-6 Mid-Term Improvements (Years 3-4) New Route: Hagerstown-Funkstown-Robinwood The study identified a need to improve transit connectivity between Hagerstown, Funkstown, and Robinwood, driven by the presence of major trip generators in the Robinwood area and the lack of direct connections from Funkstown. Currently, the Funkstown Route operates as a one-way loop, which limits bidirectional travel. Riders traveling from Funkstown to Robinwood must first return to the transfer center in downtown Hagerstown to make a connection—resulting in long and inconvenient trips. To improve connectivity and introduce bidirectional service, this recommendation proposes consolidating the existing Funkstown and Robinwood routes into a single, continuous loop, with service operating in both directions as shown in Figure 6-2. This revised design simplifies travel between all three areas and reduces transfer-related delays. Additionally, both current routes have experienced on- time performance (OTP) challenges. The proposed consolidated loop is designed to operate with an approximate 50-minute cycle time, which allows for hourly headways and includes buffer time to support improved OTP. The new route will be implemented using two buses, operating in opposite directions to provide bidirectional service. Since the proposed route uses existing vehicles and resources, the recommendation is cost-neutral and is proposed for implementation in Year 3 of the plan. Improvement Highlights • Enhances access to major trip generators and essential services. • Introduces bidirectional service, eliminating unnecessary transfers. • Maintains hourly service frequency. • Supports improved OTP. • Cost-neutral implementation. Route Consolidation: Long Meadow via Eastern & Locust Currently, the Long Meadow area is served by two alternating route alignments—Via Eastern and Via Locust—operated by a single bus on an hourly headway. The Eastern alignment functions as a one-way loop and has been a consistent source of on-time performance (OTP) issues, as identified through service review and rider/driver feedback. These challenges are compounded by low ridership and limited productivity compared to other routes in the system. To improve reliability and efficiency, this recommendation proposes consolidating the two existing alignments into a single, streamlined, bidirectional route as shown in Figure 6-2. The new alignment will maintain access to key stops and eliminate both low-performing stops and railroad crossings that have contributed to delays. As a result, there will be a slight reduction in service coverage. The proposal also aligns the daytime and nighttime route patterns to ensure greater consistency. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan The revised route will continue to operate with one bus on an hourly headway, requiring no additional vehicles or operating funds. As a result, this change is cost-neutral and is recommended for implementation in Year 3 of the plan. Improvement Highlights • Streamlines and introduces bidirectional Long Meadow Route. • Supports improved reliability (enhances OTP). • Simplifies route by having one route alignment day and night. • Maintains hourly service frequency. • Cost-neutral implementation. Fixed-Schedule Service Pilot (Smithsburg/Boonsboro/Clear Spring) Smaller communities in Washington County—such as Smithsburg, Boonsboro, and Clear Spring—have limited or no transit connectivity to Hagerstown due to their rural nature and lower population densities. Boonsboro and Clear Spring currently have no transit service, while Smithsburg is served by a fixed route, which has been identified as the lowest-performing route in the system in terms of both productivity and cost-effectiveness. Rider and community surveys further confirmed a need for improved, affordable access from Boonsboro and Clear Spring to key destinations in Hagerstown. To address these needs, a pilot fixed-schedule service is recommended as a more scalable and cost- efficient model for serving rural communities. This service would replace the existing fixed route in Smithsburg and introduce new connectivity to Boonsboro and Clear Spring. The pilot would operate on designated days and times, offering curb-to-curb pickups in the smaller communities and timed stops in Hagerstown. This recommendation is shown in Figure 6-2. Riders would book their trips at least one day in advance, allowing for grouped scheduling, improved efficiency, and flexibility. The service will prioritize essential travel needs, including medical trips (such as dialysis), shopping, and recreational travel, with morning, midday, and evening round trips offered to prevent riders from needing to stay in Hagerstown all day. While the implementation process described in Chapter 5 provides an overall framework, services should be tailored to meet the specific needs of each community based on feedback and local travel patterns. Some communities may require more frequent service, while others may benefit from fewer, but strategically timed trips. At a minimum, the service should operate with at least one morning, midday, and evening trip. Riders would be required to pre-book trips at least one day in advance. The scheduled approach allows for trip grouping, better vehicle utilization, and service optimization—vehicles can be reassigned elsewhere on days when no trips are booked. The service would prioritize essential trip types such as medical (including dialysis), shopping, and recreational activities, offering morning, midday, and evening round trips to minimize excessive wait times in Hagerstown. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-8 This recommendation is cost-neutral, as it repurposes the existing vehicle currently assigned to the Smithsburg route. The total cost of operating the pilot service across all three communities is lower than the cost of the existing Smithsburg fixed route. The pilot is recommended for implementation in Year 4 of this plan. After operating the pilot for at least one year, ridership and performance should be evaluated to determine whether the service warrants expansion, adjustment, or discontinuation. General Considerations There are some additional administrative costs associated with introducing the new fixed-schedule service, particularly related to public outreach, developing and printing schedules, and branding and marketing. It is recommended that the service be given a distinct identity—such as “Hagerstown Connect” or “Hagerstown Shuttle”—to build public recognition. A targeted public outreach campaign should be conducted to increase awareness, inform potential riders, and encourage the use of the new service. Improvement Highlights • Addresses a need articulated in the rider and community surveys. • Expands access from rural areas to essential services in Hagerstown, including healthcare, retail, and social destinations. • Replaces the underperforming Smithsburg fixed route with a more sustainable model. • Offers cost-effective, predictable mobility for small communities. • Provides for cost-neutral implementation. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-9 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure 6-2: Proposed Mid-Term Fixed Route Network Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-10 Long-Term Improvements (Year 5 and Beyond) Branding and Marketing WCT needs a more consistent and cohesive branding and marketing strategy. The study identified several branding issues, including the inconsistent use of service names and logos across the website and printed materials, as well as discrepancies in how schedule and service information is presented across various platforms. These concerns were also echoed by WCT staff. In addition, some services were found to be underpromoted, or entirely missing from WCT’s marketing channels, including the website. This recommendation proposes that WCT seek marketing and public information support from a professional firm specializing in public transit communications. A dedicated firm can provide expertise to streamline WCT’s branding and improve public engagement. While the exact cost will depend on the scope of services selected, this plan estimates a cost of approximately $35,000 for a professional branding and marketing campaign. This recommendation is proposed for implementation in Year 5 of the plan. Key areas for improvement include: • Developing a comprehensive branding strategy. • Enhancing the website’s content and transit resources. • Improving the presentation of transit information, including clearer schedules and simplified maps. These efforts are further detailed in Chapter 5. Although this recommendation does not require any major capital or ongoing operating funding, it does involve a one-time investment in professional services. The expected benefits of this investment extend beyond aesthetics, contributing to better public awareness, improved user experience, and potential ridership growth. Improvement Highlights • Creates a recognizable public transit image of WCT. • Increases awareness of WCT services in the community. • Boosts visibility, potentially supporting future ridership, partnerships, and funding. • Enhances user experience and information access. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-11 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Sunday Service Currently, WCT only provides weekend service on Saturdays, leaving a service gap on Sundays that particularly affects transit-dependent riders. Introducing Sunday service would significantly enhance access for residents who need to travel for work, errands, shopping, medical appointments, religious activities, and social or recreational activities over the weekend, thereby improving overall quality of life. Sunday service has been consistently identified as one of the most requested improvements based on rider and community feedback. To address this demand, it is recommended that WCT introduce Sunday service on the following routes, mirroring the existing Saturday service structure: Funkstown, Long Meadow, Maugansville, Premium Outlets, Smithsburg, Valley Mall, West End, and Williamsport. This expansion is recommended beyond the five-year timeframe of this plan. The annual operating expenses are estimated to be about $296,700. No additional capital would be required; however, the increased mileage will necessitate increased costs of preventive maintenance and a faster vehicle replacement schedule. Additional ADA service costs and administrative expenses will also be incurred as part of this proposed service expansion. Improvement Highlights • Responds to a need identified in the rider and community surveys. • Allows residents and shift workers to consider transit as a more viable mobility option on Sundays. • Would not require additional capital to run the service. Extend Evening Hours Rider surveys indicated that later evening hours were the second most desired improvement, with ‘work’ being the number one transit user trip purpose. WCT should extend its evening hours (Monday through Friday) on all routes by one additional hour from each route’s current ending time. This expansion is recommended beyond the five-year timeframe of this plan. Adding one extra hour would expand service on routes that currently do not have late evening options, as well as increase late evening service on high-ridership routes that already offer limited evening service. Extending service with hourly headways would incur an estimated annual operating cost of $161,000. This expansion would also incur additional costs for extended ADA service hours, though no additional capital investment is needed. Improvement Highlights • Provides higher service by expanding service span. • Responds to a need identified in the rider and community surveys. • Provides more opportunities for workers. • Increases social opportunities. • Increases convenience for customers. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-12 More Frequent Service To better meet rider needs and attract new users, increasing service frequency is recommended on three key routes: Valley Mall, West End, and Robinwood. This recommendation proposes reducing headways to 30 minutes through two phased-service scenarios. While these improvements would offer significant benefits in terms of convenience and ridership, they are not recommended for implementation during the current five-year timeframe of this plan due to associated operating and capital costs. Phase 1: Implement Peak-Hour Service To begin, WCT should increase frequency on the three routes during peak service periods, targeting both riders with no other travel options, and “choice” riders who may be more likely to use transit with improved convenience. Peak periods are defined by WCT as 6:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays only. The operating cost to implement 30-minute service on these three key routes Monday through Friday is estimated to be about $425,500 annually in operating expenses. Three additional vehicles would cost about $1,260,000. Phase 2: Implement All-Day Service As a long-term goal, it is recommended that service frequency on these three routes be extended to 30-minute headways throughout the entire service day, Monday through Friday. This would significantly improve convenience and service quality on key corridors. The additional cost to implement this change would be about $807,300. There will be no additional cost for acquiring vehicles. Improvement Highlights • Addresses a need articulated in the rider and community surveys. • Provides higher service along key corridors. • Extends the service plan for both by starting service 30 minutes earlier in the morning and ending 30 minutes later in the evening. • Increases convenience for customers. Microtransit Pilot in Hagerstown This study recommends launching a one-year microtransit pilot program in the northern part of Hagerstown, specifically north of Dual Highway. This area was selected due to characteristics that support both successful implementation and long-term sustainability of microtransit services. Two service scenarios, also shown in Figure 6-3, are proposed for consideration. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-13 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Scenario 1: First Mile/Last Mile Connection to Transfer Center This scenario proposes replacing the underperforming Long Meadow Route with microtransit service designed to provide first mile/last mile connections to the Transfer Center. The microtransit zone would serve areas within ¾ mile of the existing fixed-route alignment. With one vehicle in service, average response times are expected to range from 15 to 30 minutes. • Service Span: Same days and hours as the current Long Meadow Route. • Capital Needs: May require an additional vehicle if demand exceeds initial capacity. • Operational Cost Impact: Expected to be cost-neutral unless an additional vehicle is added. Scenario 2: Expanded Microtransit In this expanded scenario, the West End Route would also be converted to microtransit, enhancing direct service to Walmart and reducing overlap with the West End fixed-route service. Additionally, the Maugansville Route would be streamlined to focus on its core function—connecting Hagerstown with Maugansville and the regional airport. The expanded microtransit zone would include both the Long Meadow and West End areas that cover the Walmart area. With two vehicles, this service could offer response times ranging from 15 to 30 minutes, depending on demand. • Service Span: Same days and hours as the current West End Route. • Capital Needs: One additional vehicle may be needed. • Operational Cost Impact: Expected to remain cost-neutral unless additional capacity is required. This microtransit pilot is recommended for implementation beyond the five-year timeframe of this plan. Scenario 1 is shown as Zone 1 and Scenario 2 expands to Zone 2 in Figure 6-3. General Considerations While the general implementation guidance in Chapter 5 provides a foundation, it is critical to customize the pilot based on community needs and stakeholder feedback. Microtransit service design should consider travel patterns, demand hotspots, and integration with fixed-route services. To support successful implementation, it is recommended that research and planning services be conducted in advance, led by a qualified consultant. This preparatory study would help evaluate service design, operational feasibility, and cost-effectiveness before the pilot is launched. The estimated cost for this preliminary study exceeds $50,000 and would require additional funding, which could potentially be secured through FTA grants or other federal assistance programs. Improvement Highlights • Provides a first mile/last mile mobility option that connects residential and commercial areas while providing connections to fixed routes for regional travel. • Offers a more flexible and responsive service model than traditional fixed-route transit. • Acts as a pilot program for broader implementation in other areas of Hagerstown, allowing lessons learned to inform future service design and deployment. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-14 Figure 6-3: Proposed Microtransit Zone in Hagerstown Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-15 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Capital Enhancements Transition from Flag Stops to Designated Stops WCT currently uses a combination of designated bus stops and flag stops. While this approach offers flexibility, it has led to some recurring challenges related to several safety and operational issues. Riders often flag buses at locations without safe pull-off areas or adequate lighting, particularly during early morning and evening hours. This creates visibility and safety issues for both riders and drivers. In some cases, operators must bypass riders when it is unsafe to stop, resulting in missed trips and reduced reliability. Additionally, many designated stops lack visible signage, which reduces their effectiveness. From an operational perspective, frequent and unpredictable stopping contributes to schedule delays and affects overall on-time performance. Therefore, this study recommends transitioning from a flag stop system to a fully designated bus stop system, with the implementation approach outlined below. This improvement is recommended for implementation beyond the five-year timeframe of this plan. 1. Bus Stop Feasibility Study WCT should conduct a systemwide study to evaluate existing stops and identify optimal locations for new designated stops based on ridership patterns, safety, visibility, and accessibility. The study should also assess infrastructure needs—such as signs, lighting, and shelters—and include public input to reflect rider preferences. Coordination with local jurisdictions and property owners will be essential to secure approvals. The total cost of the study, including the preparation of an RFP, is estimated to cost approximately $50,000. 2. Phased Transition A phased approach is recommended to gradually eliminate flag stops and roll out designated stops with consistent signage and infrastructure. This approach gives riders time to adjust, allows flexibility in operations, supports marketing and outreach, and helps distribute costs based on funding availability. Priority should be given to high-ridership corridors and locations with documented safety concerns. Improvement Highlights • Improves accessibility and safety. • Enhances the overall image of the transit system. • Increases reliability of the service. • Adds comfort and convenience for riders. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-16 Technology Enhancements WCT is currently in the process of transitioning to Passio software to manage its fixed-route operations. This transition, including staff training and full system activation, is expected to be completed by mid- 2025. Building on this foundation, this study recommends expanding WCT’s technology capabilities, given below, outside the five-year timeframe of this plan to improve service efficiency, data accuracy, and rider experience. 1. Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs): Invest in APCs to improve data collection and enable more precise tracking of ridership patterns. This data can help optimize routes and schedules. 2. Call-and-Ride Stops: Establish “call-and-ride” stops in areas with low trip activity to ensure riders still have access to bus service when needed. Passio’s system supports this feature by enabling the “Request & Go” feature on the Passio Go App, which will allow riders to request a bus at the designated call-and-ride stop. This feature offers flexibility by providing bus routes with a deviation option when necessary. 3. Fare Collection Enhancements: Streamline fare collection by integrating digital payment options and upgrading existing fare equipment to improve convenience and efficiency for both riders and operations. This enhancement will include the installation of electronic fareboxes on all fixed-route buses, such as those provided by Genfare. It will also include procuring an electronic ticketing platform and integrating it with Passio to enable mobile ticketing, digital pass validation, and real- time fare tracking. 4. Real-Time Arrivals Display: Providing up-to-date service information enhances the overall passenger experience and supports more effective trip planning. WCT is already in the process of implementing a real-time arrivals display at the Transfer Center using Passio’s kiosk URL, which will be connected to a TV monitor on site. Cost Considerations Each of the recommended technology enhancements will incur costs for hardware purchase and installation, as well as the procurement, integration, and ongoing maintenance of the necessary technology platforms. Total costs will vary based on vendor pricing, system compatibility, and the scope of future service expansion. Estimated costs for each enhancement are detailed in Table 6-6 on page 6-26. Improvement Highlights • Allows riders to pre-purchase and store digital passes. • Streamlines onboard fare collection and reduces cash handling. • Gives riders real-time transit information. • Provides more opportunities for transit service planning. • Ensures accurate reporting. • Improves operational efficiency. • Enhances rider accessibility and convenience. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-17 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Title VI Analysis Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Public transportation agencies have the ability and responsibility to enhance the social and economic quality of life for people in their communities. As such, public transportation agencies must ensure that changes in services do not have a disproportionately high negative impact on those below- poverty or minority populations. WCT is not required by the FTA to evaluate its service and fare changes under Title VI due to thresholds regarding UZA population (200,000 or more) and number of vehicles operated in peak service. However, based on MTA guidance, WCT should still consider the impacts of proposed changes based on the distribution of Washington County’s minority and below-poverty populations. Chapter 2 includes maps that show this distribution. In addition, Appendix F outlines the key service changes in light of Title VI. It includes maps that depict the distribution of below-poverty and minority populations along with proposed changes. Overall, minority and below-poverty individuals stand to benefit from the proposed service changes included in this TDP, as do all Washington County residents. The proposed routes have nearly the same geographic coverage as existing routes, and the operating changes are intended to increase service quality and availability. However, the fare increase proposed in Year 2 of this plan may result in cost burden impacts, particularly for low-income and minority populations. It is recommended that WCT conduct an in-house Title VI evaluation of the fare changes to assess potential impacts and, if any disproportionate effects are identified, implement appropriate measures to mitigate or offset those impacts. WCT should continue its monitoring and evaluation efforts once these service changes are implemented to ensure that below-poverty and minority populations do not experience adverse and disproportionate impacts. Conceptual Financial Plan for Operating Washington County develops an annual grant application for MDOT MTA that includes operating and capital grant programs. This grant application must be approved by the County Executive each year. The amounts for county, state, and federal shares of the total operating budget in Table 6-2 below are based on the shares in the FY2025 ATP transportation award. The TDP serves an important role in the MTA’s annual process of reviewing grant applications: typically, the projects proposed in a County’s annual grant application must have been identified in the TDP in order to receive funding. Table 6-2 presents the conceptual financial plan for transit operations, including operating, maintenance, and administrative expenses, covering the TDP’s five-year period. The estimated total budget for each year assumes that all service improvements occur in the proposed implementation phase, and at the level of service planned. As noted previously, the actual implementation will be based on several factors—primarily detailed service planning and funding availability. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-18 Several assumptions were used in developing the operating cost estimates: • The projected cost per revenue hour and the operating costs to maintain the current level of service assume a three percent annual inflation rate. • For the initial year, the expenses are based on Washington County’s proposed operating expenses in the ATP FY2026 Revenue Budget. • The operating cost per vehicle revenue hour for fixed-route service in FY2024, which is $92 (as provided by WCT), was used for the calculations. • ADA service costs were estimated using WCT’s provided hourly operating cost of $92, along with the number of peak vehicles required for weekday and weekend service. • With the proposed implementation of the new fare structure in Year 2 of this plan, a farebox recovery ratio of 11.04% is used in Year 2 local passenger fare revenue. This estimate is based on a projected 40%increase in average fare and a transit fare elasticity of -0.25. The elasticity assumption is informed by TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 12, which indicates lower fare sensitivity among transit-dependent riders in small urban areas. Regarding the potential funding to support the proposed services, there are a variety of unknown factors and issues. At this time, MDOT MTA does not anticipate increases in current federal and state programs that support current WCT services. Therefore, any service expansions or improvements will most likely require additional local support. Washington County should continue to work with MDOT MTA annually through the ATP process to explore opportunities through current federal and state funding programs, as well as any new ones that become available over the next five years. For instance, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has recently developed new funding programs that support innovative mobility projects such as microtransit services. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-19 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 6-2: Conceptual Financial Plan for Operating Projects Year FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2025 Proposed Operating Expense with Inflationary Increase1 $3,726,240 $3,838,027 $3,953,168 $4,071,763 $4,193,916 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - New Fixed Route-Funkstown-Robinwood-Hagerstown $ - $ - $ - New Fixed Route-Consolidated Long Meadow $ - $ - $ - Fixed Schedule Service Pilot-Smithsburg/Boonsboro/Clear Spring $ - $ - Sunday Service Related ADA Operating Costs Later Evening Hours (Hourly Headways)-All Routes Related ADA Operating Costs More Frequent Peak-Hour Service for Key Routes - - - More Frequent All-Day Service for Key Routes Microtransit Pilot in Hagerstown Total New Operating Expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Proposed Transit Operating Expenses $3,726,240 $3,838,027 $3,953,168 $4,071,763 $4,193,916 Anticipated Funding Sources for Operating FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-20 Federal Section 5307 $1,280,559 $1,318,975 $1,358,545 $1,399,301 $1,441,280 Subtotal State $1,280,559 $1,318,975 $1,358,545 $1,399,301 $1,441,280 State Section 5307 $142,284 $146,553 $150,949 $155,478 $160,142 SSTAP $177,040 $182,351 $187,822 $193,456 $199,260 Subtotal State $319,324 $328,904 $338,771 $348,934 $359,402 Local Passenger Fares (Fixed Route, SSTAP and ADA)2 $237,000 $423,581 $436,289 $449,378 $462,859 County General Fund $840,799 $1,643,996 $1,693,316 $1,744,116 $1,796,439 WCDSS $109,000 $112,270 $115,638 $119,107 $122,680 CARES Fund $929,558 - - - - Advertising Revenue $10,000 $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255 Subtotal Local $2,126,357 $2,190,148 $2,255,852 $2,323,528 $2,393,234 Total Projected/Proposed Operating Revenues $3,726,240 $3,838,027 $3,953,168 $4,071,763 $4,193,916 1Operating Expense is based on Washington County’s proposed operating expenses in the ATP FY2026 Revenue Budget. A three percent annual inflation rate is applied starting from FY2027. 2For FY2026, the amount from the proposed FY2026 budget has been used. Starting in FY2027, a farebox recovery ratio of 11.04% is applied, based on an estimated 40% increase in average fare and a transit fare elasticity of -0.25 following the implementation of the new fare structure. An elasticity of -0.25 is based on guidance from TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 12, which notes lower elasticity among transit-dependent riders in small urban areas. Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-21 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Conceptual Financial Plan for Capital The capital plan provides the basis for maintaining, replacing, and expanding the capital infrastructure needed to maintain WCT’s current level of service and to implement the TDP operating plan. The capital plan consists of a vehicle replacement plan along with any other capital expenses. Useful-Life Standards Useful-life standards are developed by MDOT MTA based on the vehicle manufacturer’s designated life cycle and the results of independent FTA testing. If vehicles are allowed to exceed their useful life, they may become much more susceptible to breakdown, possibly resulting in increased operating costs and a decrease in service reliability. The vehicle useful-life policy, as outlined in the 2022 MTA LOTS Manual and FTA guidance, is summarized in Table 6-3. Table 6-3: Revenue Vehicle Useful Life Policy Vehicle Plan – Baseline Estimate Table 6-4 provides the existing WCT vehicle inventory, along with an estimated replacement year for each vehicle, taking into account the projected replacement years from Washington County’s FY2025 ATP. Vehicle Classification Useful Life Years Miles Revenue Specialized Vehicles (Accessible Minivans, Vans, Accessible Taxicabs & Sedans) 8 100,000 Light-Duty Small Bus (25’ to 35’) 10 150,000 Medium-Duty Bus (25' to 35') 14 200,000 Heavy-Duty Bus (Medium Size, 30’ to 35') 14 350,000 Heavy-Duty Bus (Large Size, Over 35') 14 500,000 Non-Revenue Specialized/Fleet Support Vehicles (Pick-Up Trucks, Utility Vehicles & Sedans) 8 100,000 Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-22 Table 6-4: WCT Vehicle Inventory UNIT# YEAR Make Model Year Mileage (2024) Seating/ WC Condition Use Life Criteria-Life Criteria-Possible Replacement Planned Replacement Year 713 2015 ElDorado Passport 247,764 25/2 Fair Fixed route 200,000 14 2029 N/A 714 2015 ElDorado Passport 267,542 25/2 Fair Fixed route 200,000 14 2029 N/A 715 2021 ElDorado Passport 103,398 23/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2035 N/A 716 2021 ElDorado Passport 107,105 23/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2035 N/A 717 2021 ElDorado Passport 93,807 23/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2035 N/A 718 2021 ElDorado Passport 74,951 23/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2035 N/A 719 2021 ElDorado Passport 105,257 23/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2035 N/A 720 2021 ElDorado Passport 84,630 23/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2035 N/A 801 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 27,904 24/2 Poor Fixed route 200,000 14 2036 N/A 802 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 34,011 24/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2036 N/A 803 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 18,913 24/2 Poor Fixed route 200,000 14 2036 N/A 804 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 24,601 24/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2036 N/A 805 2022 ElDorado EZ-Rider 20,447 24/2 Good Fixed route 200,000 14 2036 N/A 504 2009 Ford E-450 214,633 5/3 Fair Paratransit 150,000 10 2019 N/A 505 2015 Chevy 3500 148,096 5/3 Fair Paratransit 150,000 10 2025 N/A 506 2017 Ford E-350 129,620 9/3 Good Paratransit 150,000 10 2027 N/A 507 2017 Ford E-350 125,769 9/3 Good Paratransit 150,000 10 2027 N/A 508 2021 Ford E-450 46,748 13/3 Good Paratransit 150,000 10 2031 2026 509 2017 Ford E-450 20,127 13/3 Good Paratransit 150,000 10 2027 2028 510 2017 Ford E-450 19,103 13/3 Good Paratransit 150,000 10 2027 2028 205 2019 Ford Transit 149,857 12 Fair JOBS 150,000 10 2029 N/A 206 2019 Ford Transit 159,902 12 Fair JOBS 150,000 10 2029 N/A Truck 1 2005 Chevy Silverado 35,141 2 Fair Support 100,000 8 2013 2025 S-1 2008 Chevy Uplander 81,956 6 Fair Support 100,000 8 2016 N/A S-3 2022 Chevy Equinox 5,643 5 Good Support 100,000 8 2030 N/A S-4 2024 Chevy Malibu 295 5 New Support 100,000 8 2032 N/A S-5 2024 Chevy Malibu 301 5 New Support 100,000 8 2032 N/A Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-23 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Financial Plan for Capital Table 6-5 provides a financial plan for vehicle replacement and expansion. The following assumptions were considered in developing the capital plan: • The plan is initially based on the vehicle replacement schedule identified in the previous table. The capital plan includes: o One replacement small cutaway in Year 1 and two small cutaways in Year 3 of this plan. o An additional three vehicles for expansion beyond the five years of this plan for “key” routes, half-hour headways implementation. Table 6-5: Conceptual Financial Plan for Capital Year 1 2 3 4 5 Long-Term Replacement 1 - 2 - - Expansion - - - - - 3 Replacement Vehicles Small Cutaway 1 - 2 - - 30' Medium/Heavy Duty Buses - - - - - Support vehicle - - - - - Expansion Vehicles Small Cutaway - - - - - 30' Medium/Heavy Duty Buses - - - - - 3 Microtransit - - - - - Replacement 115,112 - 230,224 - - - Expansion - - - - - 1,260,000 Federal 92,090 - 184,179 - - 1,008,000 State 11,511 - 23,022 - - 126,000 Local 11,511 - 23,022 - - 126,000 1Actuals for Year 1 provided by the agency ($115,112 for a small cutaway, $420,000 for a bus, and 62,000 for a support vehicle). Also, costs shown reflect current estimates and do not account for future inflation; actual costs are expected to be higher in later years. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-24 Other Capital Expenses and Funding Sources The financial plan for equipment and other capital investments is outlined in Table 6-6. These expenses include preventive maintenance costs, as well as other capital needs such as technology upgrades, branding and marketing, and feasibility studies related to the proposed transition to a designated bus stop system and the microtransit pilot in Hagerstown. In addition, a WCT Facility Expansion Feasibility Study has been completed in coordination with Washington County, HEPMPO, City of Hagerstown, and MDOT MTA to assess long-term operational needs at the existing WCT facility on W. Washington Street. The sketch-level cost estimate for the expansion is approximately $23.3 million, including administration, maintenance, vehicle storage, and site improvements. The WCT Facility Expansion Feasibility Study is attached as Appendix G. The County is actively pursuing federal and state funding opportunities. Washington County, in partnership with MDOT MTA, has applied for $2.83 million in FY25 BUILD (formerly RAISE) planning funds to support final design and NEPA clearance for the facility expansion1. Additionally, the Quit Claim Deed for Alley No. 1-35, necessary to accommodate the expansion, is expected to be approved by the City of Hagerstown by June 2025. While the facility expansion is not included in this TDP’s conceptual financial plan for capital, this TDP supports the County’s ongoing efforts to advance the facility project as part of meeting long-term infrastructure and transit service needs in Washington County. 1 2025 Build Grant Application: https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/OPCP/FY2025_BUILD_Project_Description.pdf Chapter 6: Transit Plan 6-25 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Table 6-6 Financial Plan for Other Capital Equipment Projects1 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Long-Term Preventive Maintenance2 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Professional Services & Marketing Campaign - - - - $40,000 Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs)3 - - - - - $83,000 Request & Go Passio Feature Upgrade - - - - - $15,000 Fare Collection Enhancement4 - - - - - $195,000 - ---- Bus Stop Feasibility Study - ---- $60,000 Microtransit Feasibility Study - ----$60,000 Total Projected Non-Vehicle Capital Expenses $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $430,000 Federal Section 5307 $320,000 $320,000 $320,000 $320,000 $344,000 State $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $43,000 Local $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $43,000 Total Projected Non-Vehicle Capital Funds $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $430,000 1Prices shown reflect current estimates and do not account for future inflation; actual costs are expected to be higher in later years. 2Provided by WCT for FY2026. 3$1,000 per vehicle is assumed for APC hardware installation, based on a fleet of 13 fixed-route revenue vehicles, along with an estimated $70,000 for the APC software upgrade and integration with Passio. 4Onboard e-fareboxes (e.g., Genfare) are estimated at $15,000 per bus, assuming 13 revenue vehicles in the fleet. Online payment systems typically have no upfront cost but involve vendor fee agreements and transition costs for setup and integration. Chapter 6: Transit Plan KFH Group, Inc. │ 6-26 Benefits of the Transit Plan This TDP presents recommendations for transit improvements in Washington County that: • Improve service through progressive route modifications and innovative microtransit solutions to make transit attractive and usable. • Meet identified transportation needs, including improved access to jobs, schools, and medical services, as well as enhancements to service span and frequency. • Enhance connectivity and accessibility by integrating new service areas, ensuring coverage reaches previously underserved regions. This plan aims to improve services within the confines of the County’s relatively flat transit operating budget. Most of the recommendations could be implemented through cost-neutral changes of transit policies and practices. New services and transit improvements that would require additional funding were developed to address issues identified during the needs analysis and depend on the future availability of new or additional funding. With the uncertain economy, public transportation can contribute to the quality of life of county residents by providing a way for residents to get to work and school, access necessary medical services, and support local business and economic development. Appendix A Appendix A: Trip Generators A-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix A: Trip Generators Educational Facilities Trip Generator Address City *ALSO A MAJOR EMPLOYER Human Service Agencies Trip Generator Address City Maplegrove Estate 70 Maplegrove Ct Smithsburg Coffman Nursing Home 1304 Pennsylvania Ave Hagerstown Meritus Pediatric and Adult Medicine Smithsburg 22911 Jefferson Blvd Smithsburg Complete Care Hagerstown 14014 Marsh Pike Hagerstown Creekside Village (Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing) 1183 Luther Dr Hagerstown Fahrney-Keedy Senior Living Community 8507 Mapleville Rd Boonsboro Maugansville Mennonite Home 13434 Maugansville Rd Hagerstown Sterling Care South Mountain 141 S Main St Boonsboro Somerford House & Place Hagerstown 10116 Sharpsburg Pike Hagerstown Julia Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 333 Mill St Hagerstown Commonwealth Senior Living at Hagerstown 310 Cameo Dr Hagerstown Holly Place 268 S Potomac St Hagerstown Hagerstown Healthcare Center 750 Dual Hwy Hagerstown C J's Senior Care 147 King St Hagerstown Sterling Healthcare Boonsboro Boonsboro Appendix A: Trip Generators KFH Group, Inc. │ A-2 Trip Generator Address City Meritus Medical Laboratory - Smithsburg 22911 Jefferson Blvd Smithsburg Homewood at Williamsport 16505 Virginia Ave Williamsport Senior Activities Center 535 E Franklin St Hagerstown School Age Child Care Inc 67 N Main St Smithsburg Senior Living 19800 Tranquility Cir Hagerstown Washington County Commission on Aging, Inc. 535 E Franklin St Hagerstown Lions Community Park 12835 Bikle Rd Smithsburg Fresenius Kidney Care Hagerstown 12931 Oak Hill Ave Hagerstown DaVita Washington County Dialysis Center 246 Eastern Blvd N #104 Hagerstown FMC of Hagerstown 19426 Leitersburg Pike Hagerstown Fresenius Kidney Care Robinwood 11110 Medical Campus Rd Ste 149 Hagerstown Meadow Kidney Care 12931 Oak Hill Ave Hagerstown Diakon Adult Day Services At Rvnwd 1109 Luther Dr Hagerstown My Favorite Place 22527 Jefferson Blvd Smithsburg Easterseals Adult Day Services - Hagerstown 701 E 1st St Hagerstown Carrie's Daycare 22038 Jefferson Blvd Smithsburg Trinity Learning Center 16 N Main St Smithsburg Adult Care Services Inc 12646 Beck Rd Hagerstown Shelle's Shining Stars 1216 Star Dr Hagerstown Andrea Lewis Daycare 20019 Babylon court Hagerstown H A Lewis Community Hall 11735 White Hall Rd Smithsburg Washington County Recreation & Fitness 11400 Robinwood Dr Hagerstown Memorial Recreation Center Inc 109 W North Ave Hagerstown Visit Smithsburg 21 W Water St Smithsburg Smithsburg Library 66 W Water St Smithsburg Hagerstown VA Clinic 1101 Opal Ct Hagerstown Healing Waters Wellness Center 38 E Water St Smithsburg 102 Freedom Ct, Smithsburg, MD 102 Freedom Ct Smithsburg MATClinics 1101 Opal Ct Suite 301 Hagerstown 101 United Ct, Smithsburg, MD Smithsburg Smithsburg TruHealing Hagerstown 111 S Potomac St Hagerstown Serenity Treatment Center 580 Northern Ave suite d Hagerstown Survival Recovery 2207 Beverly Dr Hagerstown Bonham Brian K MD 22911 Jefferson Blvd Smithsburg New Season Treatment Center – Hagerstown 16110 Everly Rd Suite #2 Hagerstown Brook Lane 13121 Brook Ln Hagerstown First United Bank & Trust 22940 Jefferson Blvd Smithsburg St Paul's United Methodist Church 51 S Main St Smithsburg South County Food Pantry & Micah's Backpack 64 S Main St Boonsboro St Anne's Episcopal Church 9 Maple Ave Smithsburg Trinity Lutheran Church 15 N Main St Smithsburg Washington County Community Action - Food Distribution Center 110 Summit Ave Hagerstown Feeding by Faith - Food Distribution Center 901 S Potomac St Hagerstown Bulldog Federal Credit Union 22317 Jefferson Blvd Smithsburg Good Samaritan Outreach Program - Food Distribution Center 14 W Washington St Hagerstown Maryland Food Bank - Western Branch 220 McRand Ct Hagerstown Battlefield Bible Church - Food Distribution Center 7708 Sharpsburg Pike Boonsboro Tender Loving Home Care Inc 38 W Main St Hancock Tri-State Community Health Center 130 W High St Hancock Monterey House Hancock Hancock Martha's House 47 W Main St Hancock Homecenter Pharmacy 154 W Main St Hancock Appendix A: Trip Generators A-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Trip Generator Address City River Bend Family Medicine 131 N Pennsylvania Ave Hancock Interfaith Service Coalition 116 W High St Hancock Hancock Town Hall & Community Center 126 W High St Hancock Hancock Presbyterian Church 17 E Main St Hancock Hancock Mayor 126 W High St Hancock Help Center Inc 146 W Main St Hancock Good Shepherd Pre School 168 W Main St Hancock Hancock Historical Society 126 W High St #106 Hancock Hancock Visitors Center 439 E Main St Hancock Hancock Veterans Memorial Branch Library 231 Hancock Veterans Parkway Hancock Interfaith Service Coalition- Food Distribution Center 116 W High St Hancock Bountiful Harvest Outreach - Food Distribution Center 14346 Maple Ridge Hancock Church of the Nazarene 265 W Main St Hancock Hancock United Methodist Church 170 W Main St Hancock Hancock Foods Inc 214 W Main St #216 Hancock Food Lion 345 N Pennsylvania Ave Hancock Charlotte's Home Inc 212 Maple Ave Boonsboro BodySense PT 6 Tiger Way Boonsboro Boonsboro Family Worship Center - Food Distribution Center 7605 Old National Pike Boonsboro Williamsport Senior Center 215 Otho Holland Dr Williamsport San Mar Family and Community Services 8504 Mapleville Rd Boonsboro Boonsboro Town Hall 21 N Main St Boonsboro Brookdale Hagerstown 20009 Rosebank Way Hagerstown Boonsboro Volunteer Fire Department 5 St Paul St Boonsboro Boonsboro Free Library, a branch of the Washington County Free Library 401 Potomac St Boonsboro Appendix A: Trip Generators KFH Group, Inc. │ A-4 Trip Generator Address City Bhawani Manor Care Assisted 9946 Downsville Pike Hagerstown Hagerstown Health Care Center-Hgrstwn 750 Dual Hwy Hagerstown Emerald Pointe 19402 Sapphire Dr Hagerstown Kidney Center of Hagerstown 246 Eastern Blvd N #101 Hagerstown Sonshine Day Care Center 218 E Washington St Hagerstown Hager's Crossing Community Center 12608 Sedgwick Way Hagerstown The Fit Room at Fairgrounds Park 532 N Cannon Ave Hagerstown Hagerstown Parks and Recreation 351 N Cleveland Ave Hagerstown The Gael Center 1535 Oak Hill Ave Hagerstown Fairgrounds Park 351 N Cleveland Ave Hagerstown Washington County Building Grounds 1307 S Potomac St Hagerstown Washington County Regional Park 20025 Mt Aetna Rd Hagerstown Hagerstown Field House 290 E Memorial Blvd Hagerstown Hagerstown Ice & Sports Complex 580 Security Rd Hagerstown Washington County Free Library 100 S Potomac St Hagerstown Western Maryland Regional Library 101 Iko Way Hagerstown NovaCare Rehabilitation - Hagerstown 220 Champion Dr Suite 102 Hagerstown Pacific Rehab Inc 1423 Dual Hwy # 16 Hagerstown Life Treatment Center 1741 Dual Hwy Hagerstown WellSpan Rehabilitation - Hagerstown 13 Western Maryland Pkwy #202 Hagerstown W House Inc 519 N Locust St Hagerstown Phoenix Health Center 217 E Antietam St Hagerstown ADAC 370 Virginia Ave Hagerstown Ideal Option 265 Mill St Suite 100 Hagerstown Bridge to Holistic Healing, LLC 223 N Prospect St Suite 306 Hagerstown Active Physical Therapy 1101 Opal Ct #306 Hagerstown North Hagerstown Rehab 580 Northern Ave # 2 Hagerstown Community Food Bank - Food Distribution Center 601 Washington Ave Hagerstown Raven House Food Pantry 32 East Ave Hagerstown N.O.R.M.A.L. - Food Distribution Center 625 W Franklin St Hagerstown Bridge of Life - Food Distribution Center 14 S Potomac St Hagerstown Hagerstown Presbyterian Church - Food Distribution Center 20 S Prospect St Hagerstown Soul Haven - Food Distribution Center 14E W Franklin St Hagerstown Hagerstown Rescue Mission - Food Distribution Center 125 N Prospect St Hagerstown Adventist Community Center - Food Distribution Center 50 E Franklin St Hagerstown Zion Soup Kitchen - Food Distribution Center 201 N Potomac St Hagerstown Trinity Food Pantry - Food Distribution Center 15 Randolph Ave Hagerstown Word of Life - Food Distribution Center 13024 Pennsylvania Ave Hagerstown Community Action Council - Food Distribution Center 101 Summit Ave Suite 201 Hagerstown Salvation Army - Food Distribution Center 534 W Franklin St Hagerstown Acts 9 - Food Distribution Center 35 E Washington St Hagerstown Appendix A: Trip Generators A-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Medical Facilities Trip Generator Address City Brook Lane 13121 Brook Ln Hagerstown Meritus Medical Center* 11116 Medical Campus Rd Hagerstown UNI Urgent Care 11236 Robinwood Dr Ste 101 Hagerstown Robinwood Professional Center 11110 Medical Campus Rd Hagerstown Western Maryland Hospital Center 1500 Pennsylvania Ave Hagerstown MedExpress Urgent Care 1741 Dual Hwy, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Hagerstown *ALSO A MAJOR EMPLOYER Multi-Unit Housing Category Trip Generator Address City General Stone Ridge Apartments & Townhomes 1401 Haven Rd Hagerstown General Hyde Park Apartments 1426 Kensington Dr Hagerstown General The Bradford Apartments 55 Manor Dr Hagerstown General Londontowne and Robinwood Apartments 900 Queen Annes Ct Hagerstown General Parkview Place Apartments 507 Lynnehaven Dr #2 Hagerstown General Edgewood Hill Apartments 1730 Edgewood Hill Cir UNIT 101 Hagerstown General Kenley Square Apartments 1150 Kenly Ave Hagerstown General St. Clair Terrace Apartments 910 St Clair St Hagerstown General Cortland Apartments 12837 Little Elliott Dr Hagerstown General Meadows Apartments 1681 Langley Dr Hagerstown General Reserve at Collegiate Acres 18303 Buckeye Cir Hagerstown General Rosewood Village 11211 John F Kennedy Dr #106 Hagerstown General Pangborn Heights Apartments 502 Lynnehaven Dr Hagerstown General Washington Garden Apartments 1000 Security Rd Hagerstown General Hagerstown Apartments 1522 Iris Ct Hagerstown General Long Meadow Apartments 300 Northern Ave Hagerstown General The Georgian on South Potomac 55-57 S Potomac St Hagerstown General The Ridge 17940 Garden Ln Hagerstown General Apartments of Hagerstown Llc 1809 Dual Hwy UNIT 202 Hagerstown General Burhans Village 435 Peleton St Hagerstown General Country Village Apartments 2 Orchard Manor Dr Boonsboro General Mountain View Apartments 999 Orchard Manor Dr Boonsboro General Old School Apartments 230 Potomac St Boonsboro General Springfield Farms Apartments 415-A Baker Hill Ln Williamsport General Milestone Garden Apartments 12 Oaktree Ln Apt D Williamsport Appendix A: Trip Generators KFH Group, Inc. │ A-6 Category Trip Generator Address City General Hunter Hill Apartments 13322 Hunter Hill Dr Hagerstown General Penn Ave Apartments 14130 Pennsylvania Ave Hagerstown General Hopewell Manor Apartments 16612 Spiceberry Ct Hagerstown General Hopewell Station Apartments 11351 Cici Way Hagerstown General Seneca Ridge Apartments 18310 Ashley Dr Hagerstown General Greenside Apartments 14036 Village Mill Dr #509 Maugansville General Quaker Creek Apartments 404 Quaker Creek Dr Hancock General Parkside Homes 130 W North Ave Hagerstown General Noland Village 1071 Noland Dr Hagerstown General CW Brooks 45 W Baltimore St Hagerstown General Frederick Manor 218 Taylor Ave Hagerstown General Potomac Towers 11 W Baltimore St Hagerstown Low Income Gateway Crossing 40 Elgin Blvd Hagerstown Low Income Walnut Towers 11 S Walnut St Hagerstown Low Income Douglass Court 415 Park Pl Hagerstown Low Income McClearly Hill 12527 Magnetite Dr Hagerstown Low Income Parkside Homes 130 W North Ave Hagerstown Low Income Noland Village 1071 Noland Dr Hagerstown Low Income CW Brooks 45 W Baltimore St Hagerstown Low Income Frederick Manor 218 Taylor Ave Hagerstown Low Income Potomac Towers 11 W Baltimore St Hagerstown SOURCE: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, HAGERSTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY Shopping Centers Trip Generator Address City Valley Mall 17301 Valley Mall Rd Hagerstown Longmeadow Shopping Center 1537 Potomac Ave Hagerstown Martin's Grocery 1650 Wesel Blvd Hagerstown Kohl's 17145 Cole Rd Hagerstown Weis 12817 Shank Farm Way Hagerstown Martin's Farm Market 13613 Pennsylvania Ave Hagerstown Target 17213 Cole Rd Hagerstown JCPenney 17301 Valley Mall Rd Ste 400 Hagerstown Walmart Supercenter 17850 Garland Groh Blvd Hagerstown Martin's Food 18726 N Pointe Dr Hagerstown Marshalls 17646 Garland Groh Blvd Hagerstown Sanders Market 25451 Military Rd Highfield-Cascade ALDI 10447 Sharpsburg Pike Hagerstown ALDI 565 Dual Hwy Hagerstown Appendix A: Trip Generators A-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Trip Generator Address City Martins' Food 1650 Wesel Blvd Hagerstown SHOP 'n SAVE 1161 Maryland Ave Hagerstown Walmart Supercenter 10420 Walmart Dr Hagerstown Hagerstown Premium Outlets 495 Premium Outlets Blvd Hagerstown Save-A-Lot 1161 Maryland Ave Hagerstown Weis 31 Eastern Blvd N Hagerstown Lidl 733 Dual Hwy Hagerstown Major Employers Trip Generator Address City No. of Employees Washington County Public Schools 10435 Downsville Pike Hagerstown 3,705 FedEx Ground 1409 Oakmont Dr Hagerstown 2,654 Meritus Health 11116 Medical Campus Rd Hagerstown 2,590 Volvo Group Trucks 13403 Volvo Way Hagerstown 1,836 Washington County Government 100 W Washington St Hagerstown 1,418 Amazon HSE1 13905 Crayton Blvd Hagerstown 1,200 Fiserv 1 Western Maryland Pkwy Hagerstown 993 Bowman Development Corporation 10228 Governor Lane Boulevard Williamsport 861 Hagerstown Community College 11400 Robinwood Dr Hagerstown 700 Walmart 17850 Garland Groh Blvd Hagerstown 565 ARC of Washington County 820 Florida Ave Hagerstown 552 Moore RMG 100 Jamison Court Hagerstown 545 Brook Lane Health Services 13121 Brook Ln Hagerstown 475 City of Hagerstown 1 E Franklin St Hagerstown 459 Direct Mail Processors 1150 Conrad Ct Hagerstown 450 Dot Foods 16301 Elliott Pkwy Williamsport 440 Staples Distribution 11540 Hopewell Rd Hagerstown 392 Tractor Supply Company 11935 Hopewell Rd Hagerstown 275 Fives Landis Corporation 16778 Halfway Blvd Hagerstown 168 SOURCE: WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Recreation Trip Generator Address City Washington Monument State Park 6620 Zittlestown Rd Middletown Greenbrier State Park/Annapolis Rocks 21843 National Pike Boonsboro C&O Canal Trail 142 W Potomac St Williamsport Appendix A: Trip Generators KFH Group, Inc. │ A-8 Warehouses Trip Generator Address City Status Home Depot Direct (The) 16500 Hunters Green Parkway Hagerstown Existing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated 100 Western Maryland Parkway Hagerstown Existing Save-A-Lot Foods 9822 Prosperity Lane Williamsport Existing item America, LLC 12105 Insurance Way Hagerstown Existing Federal Express 1409 Oakmont Drive Hagerstown Existing United Parcel Service (UPS) 217 East Oak Ridge Drive Hagerstown Existing Kane Logistics, Inc. 14557 Industry Drive Hagerstown Existing Lowe's Distribution 990 Wesel Boulevard Hagerstown Existing Wolters Kluwer Health 16522 Hunters Green Parkway Hagerstown Existing Lenox Distribution Center 16507 Hunters Green Parkway Hagerstown Existing Kellogg Snacks 11841 Newgate Boulevard Hagerstown Existing Staples Distribution Center* 11540 Hopewell Road Hagerstown Existing Pepsi Bottling Group 16421 Elliott Parkway Williamsport Existing Tractor Supply Company* 11935 Hopewell Road Hagerstown Existing Dot Foods, Inc.* 16301 Elliott Parkway Williamsport Planned MidAtlantic Crossroads Sterling Rd Williamsport Planned 55 West Oak Ridge Drive 18320 Col Henry K Douglas Dr Hagerstown Planned Wright Road Industrial LLC 16248 Wright Rd Williamsport Planned Cushwa Farm Warehouse 11119-11193 Hopewell Rd Hagerstown Planned 12001 Hopewell Road 12001 Hopewell Rd Hagerstown Planned Bowman Sunfish 11715 Greencastle Pike Hagerstown Planned Bowman Byers Warehouse 12207 Brookfield Ave Hagerstown Planned Western Maryland Parkway 2 Western Maryland Pkwy Hagerstown Planned National Pike Logistics Center (Dickinson) Bldg. 1 16856 National Pike Hagerstown Planned Creekside Logistics Center 16407 Leon Grimm Dr Hagerstown Planned Bowman Showalter Warehouse 18304 Peak Cir Hagerstown Planned Currwood (2 Bldgs.) 1681 Langley Dr Hagerstown Planned Crayton Blvd Warehouse 13905 Crayton Blvd Hagerstown Planned 2003 Mason Dixon LLC 14625 Daley Rd Hagerstown Planned Northpoint-Amazon 2 811 Wesel Blvd Hagerstown Planned Northpoint 790 Wesel Blvd Hagerstown Planned R&L Carriers 12037 Greencastle Pike Hagerstown Planned National Pike Logistics (Dickinson) Bldg. 2 16827 National Pike Hagerstown Planned Northpoint- Herbalife 1060 Wesel Blvd Hagerstown Planned Northpoint-Amazon 1115 Wesel Blvd Hagerstown Planned Hetzer 10808 Hopewell Rd Williamsport Planned Trammell Crow-Rhoton Farm 12610-12564 MD-63 Hagerstown Planned Core Development 598 Western Maryland Pkwy Hagerstown Planned *ALSO A MAJOR EMPLOYER NOTE: SOME ADDRESSES FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE Appendix B Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire B-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire  Washington County Transit Rider Survey  Washington County Transit Community Survey  Washington County Transit Driver Survey  Washington County Transit Employer Survey Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire KFH Group, Inc. │ B-2 Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire B-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire KFH Group, Inc. │ B-4 Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire B-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire KFH Group, Inc. │ B-6 Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire B-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire KFH Group, Inc. │ B-8 Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire B-9 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire KFH Group, Inc. │ B-10 Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire B-11 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire KFH Group, Inc. │ B-12 Appendix C Washington County Transit Rider Survey Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results C-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results Trip Characteristics The riders were asked about their current route. Over 40 percent of the responses came from the Valley Mall route, followed by West End (28 percent), Robinwood (23 percent), and Premium Outlets (23 percent). The routes with the lowest percentage of total responses were Longmeadow Night Run (9 percent) and Smithsburg (10 percent). This distribution closely mirrors the established ridership trends in the system. Figure C-1 provides a visual representation of the responses by route. Figure C-1: Which Bus Route Are You Currently Riding? The survey inquired about where riders boarded and alighted, and the responses varied. The Transfer Center was the top boarding point, while Valley Mall and Walmart were the top destinations listed. 43.62% 13.30% 8.51%11.17%12.77% 23.40% 9.57% 20.74% 28.19% 22.34% 13.83% 22.87% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results KFH Group, Inc. │ C-2 Thirty-eight percent of respondents indicated that they would need to transfer to a different bus to complete their journey, emphasizing the importance of the Transfer Center in the WCT network. Respondents were also asked about how often they use Washington Transit buses. Exactly half mentioned using the bus five to six times per week, while another 31 percent reported using it three to four times per week. Only four percent of respondents use the system less than once per week. The most popular trip purpose of Washington Transit riders was for work (44 percent of respondents), followed by retail/errands (24 percent) and medical trips (24 percent), as shown in Figure C-2. Figure C-2: What Is the Purpose of Your Bus Trip Today? Transportation Need The rider survey also asked the riders if they needed to travel to places not served by Washington Transit. Eighty-seven percent indicated that their transit needs are fully met by the current network. Of the 13 percent who listed destinations not currently met, no single destination was mentioned more than once. Riders were also asked if the absence of the bus system would impact their ability to live independently. The majority, 73 percent, stated that it would indeed affect their ability to live independently. Furthermore, when asked how they would complete their current trip if bus service was not available, 54 percent said they would walk or bike, 37 percent would use Uber/Lyft or a taxi, and 12 percent would be unavailable to complete the trip. Just six percent of respondents said they would drive to complete the trip as depicted in Figure C-3. 21.69%2.65% 44.44% 24.34% 24.34% 10.58% 7.94% Home School Work Medical Retail/Errands Social/Recreation Other (please specify) Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results C-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure C-3: If You Were Not Taking the Bus, How Would You Complete This Trip? Likes and Desired Improvements When asked about the most desired improvements that Washington Transit can make, many respondents replied that they need Sunday service (56 percent) followed by more frequent service (31 percent) and more evening service (25 percent). The responses are shown in Figure C-4. Riders were also asked if they would be open to paying a higher fare for more frequent service, and 61 percent indicated that they would. Figure C-4: If Washington Transit Made Improvements, What Would Be Most Useful to You? 5.64% 54.36% 28.21% 9.23% 18.46% 11.79% 3.08% Drive Walk/Bicycle Taxi Uber/Lyft Family/Friends Wouldn’t make trip Other (please specify) 31.75% 24.87% 19.58% 56.08% 8.99% 9.52% 6.88% 24.34% 8.47% 5.82% More frequent service More evening service More bus stop signs/ benches/ shelters Sunday service Real time bus arrival information More direct routes/Less transfers Service earlier in the morning Service later in the evening On-time performance Other (please specify) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results KFH Group, Inc. │ C-4 The survey participants were asked to rate Washington County Transit on several aspects of the service. Viewed in terms of overall satisfaction (i.e., percent of responses which were “Strongly Satisfied” or “Satisfied”), the elements of WCT service which received the highest approval are “Overall Service” (83 percent), “Cost of Bus Fare” (81 percent), and “Cleanliness of Buses” (80 percent). The elements of service with the lowest approval are “Bus Running On-Time” (66percent), “WCT Website” (65 percent), and “Hours of Service” (64 percent). Figure C-5 presents a summary of responses. Figure C-5: Please Rate WCT in The Following Areas 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Strongly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Strongly Dissatisfied Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results C-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Demographics The Washington County Transit rider survey included demographic questions about age and employment status. Forty-four percent of the survey respondents are between 25 and 49 years of age, 37 percent are between 50-64, and 13 percent are 65 or older. Only six percent of respondents are under 25 years old, as illustrated in Figure C-6. Fifty-six percent of riders make under $20,000 annually, while another 20 percent make between $21,000 and $39,000. Only two percent of respondents make over $60,000 per year, as presented in Figure C-7. A majority of riders do not have a driver’s license (62 percent) but do have access to a smartphone (85 percent), as depicted in Figure C-8 and Figure C-9, respectively. Over half of the survey respondents identified as Caucasian/White, with more than a third identifying as African American/Black (see Figure C-10), and nearly all speaking only English at home. Figure C-6: Please Indicate Your Age Group Figure C-7: What is Your Total Annual Household Income? 1.11%4.44% 44.44% 36.67% 13.33% 17 or under 18-24 25-49 50-64 65 or above 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55.74% 20.22% 7.65% 1.64%0.55%0.00% 14.21% Under $20,000 $20,000 -$39,999 $40,000 -$59,999 $60,000 -$79,999 $80,000 -$100,000 Over $100,000 Don't Know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results KFH Group, Inc. │ C-6 Figure C-8: Do you Have a Driver’s License? Figure C-9: Do you Have a Smartphone with Internet Access? Figure C-10: How Would You Classify Yourself? 38% 62% Yes No 85% 15% Yes No 54.26% 34.57% 1.06%3.19%0.00% 6.91% Caucasian/White AfricanAmerican/Black Asian AmericanIndian/AlaskaNative NativeHawaiian/OtherPacific Islander Prefer Not ToAnswer 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Appendix C: Washington County Transit Rider Survey Results C-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Rider Feedback The last question asked riders to provide any additional comments they had for Washington County Transit. A selection of responses, both positive and negative, are provided below: • “I have always been very grateful for our bus drivers and rely on it heavily since I didn't drive. I've been using it for 46 years. Thank you.” • “Kim and a few other drivers provide excellent service. I'm glad the service exists. Sunday and Evening service would be great.” • “Please put up more benches for us old people :)” • “Some drivers are very rude and don't pull to the curb, making it a struggle to get on. Some won't put down the ramps.” • “Would like to be able to see inside of the bus the next route the bus is taking.” • “Need to fix the fare box at the transfer center.” • “It provides my ride to and from work. Drivers do their best to see that passengers get to their designated stops on time.” • “Too many addicts at Transfer Center. Begging / asking for drugs.” • “Break up the bus runs going in the same direction or add 1/2 hours on these routes. It allows more flexibility for riders. Also when for when bus leaves early or you miss but it avoids waiting another hour.” • “The drivers and staff are very nice and kind to us. We think all staff as family. Keep up the good job!” • “It is difficult to get a job with limited and no Sunday service. Sometimes the buses are nasty. But the bus drivers are very nice and helpful. I feel safe on the bus but some of the stops are questionable, however I am grateful for the service.” • “I'm kindly asking that you provide a daily pass and a weekly pass.” • “More consistent GPS for buses. Lights at bus stops + trash cans” • “I use a walker or a cane. Full time drivers will pull closer to the curb for me to get on and off. Part time don't get close to the curb and don't offer the ramp making it difficult to get off and on.” • “Sometimes drivers, drive like they are in a race car, very unsafe. There has been times the bus is going so fast they pass people standing at the bus stop. I feel like someone goes out the way to speak to the driver and they don’t respond is very unprofessional. Also it will help if the bus driver let ppl off the bus before more passengers board, would be to like right though.” • “Best service I've ever experienced. Appendix D Washington County Transit Community Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey Results Primary Mode of Transportation The first few questions sought to understand the public’s travel habits. First, respondents were asked if they use any of the public transportation services in Washington County, and only 28 percent said yes, as seen in Figure D-1. They were then asked what their primary mode of transportation was. The overwhelming majority of respondents use a car for their main transportation needs. Only 16 percent of people who took the survey reported any public transit use. Figure D-2 shows this. Those people who did use public transit were asked about the method they predominantly used to access the public transit stops, and the majority (58 percent said they walked to stations. This was then followed by car usage (29 percent) as seen in Figure D-3. Figure D-1: Use of Washington County Public Transportation 28% 72% Yes No Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ D-2 Figure D-2: Primary Mode of Transportation Figure D-3: Access Method to Public Transportation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 16% 78% Bicycle Uber/Lyft Taxi Vanpools or carpools Electric Scooter Other (please specify) A friend or family member drives Walk Public Transportation Car 0% 0% 3% 3% 5% 8% 11% 29% 58% Vanpools or carpools Electric Scooter Taxi Bicycle Uber/Lyft Other (please specify) A friend or family member drives Car Walk Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Awareness of WCT’s Services A question was asked if the greater public was aware of the services WCT provides. While 28 percent of people reported being unaware of the transit services WCT already provides, the majority of respondents (52 percent) indicated they already knew about these services and had a positive impression of them. See Figure D-4. Figure D-4: Awareness of WCT’s Services Staying on the topic of the public’s transportation knowledge and habits, the community survey asked respondents if they use any of the public transit services listed on the survey. Multiple selections could be made. The top responses were WCT/County Commuter at 51 percent, MTA Commuter Bus at 36 percent, and BayRunner at 35 percent. Twenty-nine percent of people also chose the “other” response and went into detail about their selection. Some of these other modes include the Meritus courtesy van, Uber and local paratransit. The full results can be found in Figure D-5. Figure D-5: Transportation Services Used 52% 20% 28%Aware, positive impression Aware, negative impression Not aware 29% 35% 36% 51% Other: BayRunner Shuttle MTA Commuter Bus WCT/County Commuter Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ D-4 Public Transit Usage The community survey asked, if the respondents currently use public transportation services, how frequently do they use them? Roughly 53 percent of respondents use public transit less than once per week. The remaining respondents evenly stated that they use public transit services one to four days per week and five days or more (both around 24 percent. Figure D-6 shows the full results. When the same respondents were asked the purpose of their trip, the most popular response was Shopping (62 percent), followed by medical (56 percent), and general errands (38 percent). The full results can be found in Figure D-7. Notably, only 35 percent of respondents indicated that they commonly use the service for commuting to work, indicating that it is not primarily acting as a commuter service for workers. Figure D-6: Public Transit Usage Frequency Figure D-7: Public Transit Purpose 24% 24% 53% 5 days/week or more 1-4 days/week Less than 1 day/week 6% 9% 15% 18% 18% 29% 35% 38% 56% 62% Government Service Agency Attend Senior Meal Site School Attend Senior Center Other (please specify) Social/Recreation Work Errands Medical Shopping Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Locations Not Served by Transit Further inquiry into the travel habits of the public, the survey asked if there was a need for additional or improved public transportation in Washington County. The public answered with a large majority responding with “yes,” (90 percent) meaning WCT does not properly serve all the destinations they wish to reach, and only 10 percent said “No,” meaning that there are no places they wish to reach that are not served by WCT. Figure D-8 shows this breakdown. Figure D-8: Need for Additional or Improved Public Transportation in Washington County The next question stated, “Please indicate the locations that need additional or improved service.” Some of those responses include: • “Wilson Boulevard in general” • “More frequent stops in Smithsburg” • “Greenwich Park” • “We need an easier way to get to the airports in Baltimore and Washington” • “… into Washington county and getting connected to the Metro” • “Would like to see hourly all day/seven days a week service to DC metro” • “Service along Sharpsburg Pike beyond the Walmart. There are no sidewalks for pedestrians and/or wheelchairs” 90% 10% Yes No Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ D-6 Reasons for Not Using Transit The public was asked to choose from a list of reasons why they do not currently use public transportation. Almost half of the respondents (47 percent) indicated that there was a lack of service near the locations they frequently travel to. The second and third most common responses were “I prefer to drive” (40 percent) and “There is not adequate pedestrian infrastructure for me to access public transportation from my home” (24 percent) respectively. It is clear that many people are discouraged from using public transportation due to reasons related to the WCT service area. Those who use public transit were asked to skip the question. Full results of the responses can be found in Figure D-9. Figure D-9: Reasons for Not Using Public Transit 0% 3% 6% 10% 10% 10% 13% 13% 14% 14% 15% 21% 21% 24% 40% 47% I have limited mobility, and it is hard for me to use transit Public transit is too expensive Public transit services are unreliable I do not feel safe using public transit Using public transportation is confusing I have to wait too long for the bus or train Need my car for emergencies/overtime Other (please specify) N/A Need my car before/after work/school Trips via public transit take too much time Do not know if service is available and/or location of transitstops or stations The hours of operation are too limited There is not adequate pedestrian infrastructure for me to access public transportation from my home I prefer to drive. No service is available near my home/work/school Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-7 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Service Improvements that will Encourage Transit Usage Going off the previous question, the survey asked community members who were only able to use public transit for some trips, which improvements they felt were “very important” for them to ride public transportation more often. By and large, the most commonly desired improvement was better service availability near important locations, at 90 percent. Improved access to information, better security, and more frequent service were among other improvements listed. When non-riders were asked what improvements would make them more likely to use public transit, improved service near their homes topped the list at 51 percent. This was followed by improved service to desired locations (44 percent), shorter wait times (23 percent), and on-demand services (23 percent). Figure D-10 and Figure D-11 provide details on the responses. When non-riders were asked whether they would ride public transportation if the service was improved for their circumstances, 87 percent said that they would (Figure D-12). This is notable because it shows a willingness to utilize public transit services if they are improved. Non-riders were also asked if public transit was available and met their needs, what would be their main trips reasons. Shopping was mentioned as their main trip purpose (45 percent) followed by medical (42 percent), social/recreation (38 percent), and work (36 percent). Figure D-10: Desired Improvements by Riders 29% 59% 62% 62% 62% 69% 73% 74% 74% 75% 90% Less crowded vehicles Improved connectivity to the DC Metro area Improved reliability Service later in the evening Service earlier in the morning Guaranteed ride home for emergencies/overtime Shorter travel time More frequent buses Better security on board the vehicles Improved access to transit information Better service availability near my home/work/school (where): Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ D-8 Figure D-11: Desired Improvements by Non-riders Figure D-12: Willingness to use Public Transportation 1% 8% 12% 14% 14% 18% 19% 22% 23% 23% 23% 44% 51% Other Lower fares If I felt safer riding More reliable service If I understood how it works Shorter travel time Service between (please provide both the origin and… Better sidewalk infrastructure to access transit stops and… N/A On-demand service similar to Uber/Lyft in my… Shorter wait/pickup time Service to my desired locations Service near my home 87% 13% Yes No Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-9 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Preferred Distribution Method for Transit Information The survey asked the community how they would like to receive information about their public transit services. Seventy-six percent reported that they would like to receive this information on WCT’s website. Others would like to receive information on public transit through email, social media, direct mail, and brochures. Figure D-13 shows all the options that respondents chose. One respondent who chose “other” suggested “A trip planner app on the website. Enter start and stop points and arrival/departure times and receive a route, price, and buy a ticket.” Figure D-13: Receiving Information on Public Transit 76% 50% 32%29% 24%23%23% 14%13%13%12%9% 4%3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ D-10 Demographic Information Resident Zip Codes Participants in the survey were asked what their home zip code was. Most people live in Hagerstown, with a few people also residing in the surrounding towns and communities. Vehicle Ownership Next, the community survey asked if respondents had a driver’s license. A significant portion of the respondents replied “Yes” at 80 percent, with only 20 percent responding with “No.” Immediately following this question, the survey asks if the respondent has a car. The responses to this question are very similar to the last question with 73 percent replying “Yes” and only 27 percent responding with “No.” Figure D-14 and Figure D-15 show these results. Figure D-14: Driver’s License Figure D-15: Car Ownership 80% 20% Yes No 73% 27% Yes No Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-11 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Age Distribution In order to learn more about the community members who were surveyed, the survey asked respondents for some demographic information. To begin, participants’ age was inquired. Nearly half (40 percent) of those surveyed selected the 65 or older age range. Following that, 30 percent selected the 50-64 age group and 20 percent chose 25-49. Only three percent of respondents were below 24 years old. The breakdown can be seen in Figure D-16. This distribution shows a clear bias towards older age groups. Figure D-16: Age 1%2% 26% 30% 40% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 17 or under 18-24 25-49 50-64 65 or older Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ D-12 Ethnicity The next two questions dealt with people’s ethnic backgrounds. First, they were asked if they identified as Hispanic or Latino in origin. Ninety-six percent of those surveyed replied “No” to this question. Respondents were then asked to classify their ethnic background with the choices given. A large margin of responses chose Caucasian/White at 87 percent, followed by African American/Black at 12 percent. A lower number, three percent, replied to this question by choosing American Indian/Alaska Native. The ethnic distribution can be better seen in Figure D-17 and Figure D-18. Figure D-17: Hispanic or Latino Origin Figure D-18: Ethnic Background 4% 96% Yes No 0% 0% 3% 12% 87% Asian Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native African American/Black Caucasian/White Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-13 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Employment Status and Annual Household Income Continuing with demographic information, the survey asked community members about their employment status. Nearly half, or 46 percent, indicated that they are employed full-time. A significant number also stated that they are retired (35 percent). Only seven percent indicated they were employed part-time, seven percent said they were students, and two percent of the respondents chose unemployed as their answer. This can be seen in Figure D-19. Figure D-19: Employment Status Community members who participated in the survey were then asked about their annual household income. The largest number of community members surveyed indicated that their annual household income was between $41,000 and $60,000. This represents 21 percent of all those surveyed. The income range with the second highest number of responses, at 19 percent, was more than $100,000. The full details of the annual household income can be found in Figure D-20. The data is fairly evenly distributed between income ranges. Figure D-20: Annual Household Income 46% 7% 1% 35% 1%0%2% 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Employed, full-time Employed, part-time Student, full- time Retired Homemaker Student, part- time Unemployed Other (please specify) 15%16% 21% 13% 16% 19% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% $20,000 or less $21,000 to$40,000 $41,000 to$60,000 $61,000 to$80,000 $81,000 to$100,000 More than$100,000 Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ D-14 Language Spoken at Home The last of the questions on demographics concerned languages. Specifically, the survey asked if community members speak any language other than English at home. A significant majority of participants chose “No,” indicating that English is the only language spoken at home. Eight percent replied that there are other languages spoken in their households. Community members who replied “Yes” could add in specific languages. The only additional language that was added is Haitian Creole, spoken by two people. Figure D-21 shows the data below. Figure D-21: Languages Other than English Spoken at Home Community Comments The last part of the survey provided community members an opportunity to share their ideas, opinions, and suggestions. A significant number of comments touched on the topic of service. Some would like expanded bus service to places that currently have none. Others wish for expanded service windows, particularly on main corridors. The suggestion to connect MARC rail service to Hagerstown was brought up a few times. Still more commented on their desire to have reliable and convenient connections to Washington, DC and Baltimore City. Some members of the public did take time out to show their appreciation for public transit services provided by WCT. Below are some examples of comments community members left. • “The service has been very limited for a number of years, and needs to change with the times. To improve and broaden their services.” • “Without access to MARC trains in Hagerstown, public transit is significantly lacking and cannot be taken seriously. MARC connection would allow rezoning, new developments, more business, less traffic, and greater bus utilization. Frederick's station and its associated prosperity along with Brunswick's new developments is evident of success…” 8% 92% Yes No Appendix D: Washington County Transit Community Survey D-15 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan • “Later services than we currently have. I cannot go to a lot of events downtown as I can’t walk home.” • “I just moved to Washington County and began using Para Transit a few weeks ago. I was nervous about scheduling the trip and about transit as a whole. Christine Foreman of the Transit Department was very helpful in calming my reluctance to schedule the trip. Her reassurances and kind spirit were truly a blessing. I really appreciate her thoughtfulness. The drivers for Para Transit (Sarah and the afternoon substitute driver) were very kind as well.” • “a regular route to Frederick or Shady Grove would be nice…” • “Thank you to all the wonderful bus drivers!” • “If we could, please bring the bus stop back in front of the airport terminal at HGR. It is a lot safer than having to cross Showalter Road and Wait in the rain/snow/heat.” • “I cannot emphasize enough the importance of pedestrian infrastructure. My bank is 1/10th of a mile from my house, an easily walked distance. It is not safe to walk that short distance that requires walking on the shoulder of a busy state highway and crossing a busy intersection….” • “Consider adding other transfer stops. I have to walk a mile to get to Walmart on Spark Drive. Then to get to Valley Mall, I have to bus further in town just for a transfer.” • “It is very difficult to solely rely on the current transportation. We have no convenient access for those who work outside of Hagerstown. Those who are in the county have no real means of getting into Hagerstown. Buses coming once an hour and sharing routes makes it difficult to rely on the schedule and causes issues for those who use this as transportation to work. People will buy in when services are expanded, please don’t wait to see the need to provide it. It’s long overdue. Appendix E Washington County Transit Driver Survey Appendix E: Washington County Transit Bus Driver Survey E-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix E: Washington County Transit Driver Survey Results Route Analysis and Issues Drivers provided feedback about specific WCT routes and their relative demand level and respective issues. This section will provide an overview of this information for the major routes identified in the survey. 111 – Valley Mall The Valley Mall run was identified by three separate drivers as a route with “larger-than-average demand.” These results were consistent with the on/off ridership count results conducted by the consultants on April 11 (provided in Chapter 2B). According to the survey results, this high demand due to the connection to the Valley Mall stop, causes frequent On-Time Performance (OTP) issues on the line. The drivers stated that the schedule for the route does not include enough time to complete it before the next route. They also found it difficult to begin the route on time because it follows directly after the 117 Long Meadow via an Eastern route, which also has consistent issues with OTP. One driver noted that issues often occur in the 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. time period. 117 – Long Meadow via Eastern The Long Meadow via Eastern run was not identified as a high-demand route, and this result is consistent with KFH Group on/off counts showing its stops among those with the lowest activity. Despite its low activity levels, drivers identified this route as one which suffers greatly from OTP disruption. Potential causes noted include at-grade train crossings, school bus traffic, and frequent unnecessary stops. One specific stop noted is the YMCA—rather than entering the property, one driver suggested that the stop be moved to the roadside instead. 221 – Robinwood The Robinwood route was not identified as a high-demand route by the driver survey nor the on/off counts. Multiple drivers did, however, indicate that there is a higher level of service delays due to wheelchair usage and passenger complaints on this route than average. One driver indicated that this was more specifically related to the Hagerstown Community College stop on this route. Appendix E: Washington County Transit Bus Driver Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ E-2 222 – Smithsburg While the Smithsburg route was identified as relatively low-demand by both sources, one driver noted that the issues with traffic congestion on Eastern Boulevard between the hours 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. caused significantly slower bus times.. 331 – Funkstown The Funkstown run was also not identified as a high-demand route by either the driver survey or the on/off counts. Traffic was identified as a major and consistent barrier to OTP performance. 333 – West End The West End run was identified by four separate drivers as a route with “larger-than average demand.” This result was supported by the on/off rider counts conducted separately, with the Walmart @The Center at Hagerstown being one of the most active stops in the system. Despite this notably high ridership, the drivers reported few issues. Higher traffic levels were noted from 2:45 p.m. to4:45 p.m. 443 – Maugansville While one driver identified the Maugansville run as higher-than-average demand, the on/off rider counts conducted separately show that its stops show only moderately high activity, with the Horizon Goodwill @ Pennsylvania stop driving much of its ridership. No persistent issues with OTP were noticed. 441 – Williamsport, 552 – Premium Outlets Neither the Williamsport run, nor the Premium Outlets run were identified by either source as a high- demand route. No major issues with OTP were identified. Potential Areas for Service Expansion The drivers surveyed were asked to report on areas which passengers need to go to on a regular basis but are not currently serviced by WCT. The drivers reported the following areas: Hopewell, Lakeside Village, Leitersburg Pike, Clear Spring, and Rt 40 West. In the following sections, each of these options will be considered. Appendix E: Washington County Transit Bus Driver Survey E-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Hopewell Station & Lakeside Village Hopewell Station and Lakeside Village are both residential communities near Valley Mall and Halfway. Bus drivers stated these locations as potential service extensions because customers in this area currently need to walk to the nearest stop at Valley Mall to use WCT services. Despite being a five- minute drive from the Valley Mall stop, it would take a resident of Hopewell Station one hour and 43 minutes to walk to the same location (Google Maps). From Lakeside Village, the drive to Valley Mall takes only three minutes, while walking the same route takes 28 minutes. There are no current viable public transit options for either route. The current WCT routes closest to these points are the Valley Mall and Williamsport routes. They are within the ¾ mile ADA paratransit route buffer for the current WCT routes. Leitersburg Pike One driver identified Leitersburg Pike as a potential extension to WCT service. Leitersburg Pike is in Northeast of Hagerstown on Rt. 60. Currently, service to this area is only extended to Lowe’s & Weis Market by route 116 – Long Meadow via Locust. It may be feasible to extend this route’s service further along Leitersburg Pike, which would connect some communities and services to the WCT network, such as Longmeadow Family Dental Care, Longmeadow Animal Hospital, and Warehouse Cinemas Leitersburg. Clear Spring & Rt. 40 West Clear Spring is a town roughly 12 miles driving West of Hagerstown, which one driver mentioned as a potential extension to WCT services. Rt. 40 West is the most direct route from Hagerstown to Clear Spring, although utilizing Interstates 70 and 81 allows for a quicker trip. Adding this stop would likely necessitate the addition of an entirely new route, and it would be the furthest stop from Hagerstown center in the system, with the next furthest being Smithsburg at roughly 8.5 miles driving. System-Wide Alterations Drivers were asked to provide open-ended suggestions for improvements to both the passenger and driver experience and service. Responses to these questions fell primarily into the following categories: Equipment, Communication, and Policy Changes. Equipment Multiple bus drivers made comments referencing the limitations of the WCT buses in relation to picking up passengers in wheelchairs, including the fact that the buses may only transport two passengers with wheelchairs at a time. This causes some confrontations between passengers and drivers when they need Appendix E: Washington County Transit Bus Driver Survey KFH Group, Inc. │ E-4 to wait for a separate vehicle to come and pick up the passenger, causing delays for both parties. A possible remedy for this would be to either upgrade equipment to accommodate more passengers with wheelchairs, or to have support vehicles more readily available to aid in this situation. This appears to be largely concentrated on the Robinwood route. One driver noted that the model of bus currently being used (500-series) was restricting the usability of transit, especially on the high-demand West End route. The suggestion to address this is to upgrade the buses to 800-series, at least on those routes with high ridership. Many drivers noted that faulty/out-of-date on-board equipment such as destination signs, tablets, and fareboxes were causing confusion and delays in the system. Specifically, delays in exchanging fares were referenced by four separate drivers as causes for issues in service. Communication Many drivers reported issues related to communication in the system, especially between WCT and new passengers. This is why one driver suggested improved communication at the bus stops with the new passengers. Another recommended providing cards with pertinent information such as key phone numbers. Another area of improvement for WCT effectiveness is about direct communication between the drivers and the passengers. One driver suggested that drivers should receive conflict resolution training to better diffuse tense situations like fare disputes. Another driver even suggested a fare-free system, thus circumventing one of the most prominent causes of conflict and delay. Another respondent noted that language presented a major challenge to drivers, so having translating services on hand and a cheat sheet of common phrases would be helpful. Finally, multiple drivers noted that they were impressed by the level of internal communication at WCT, but still said that improved communication would further improve efficiency. Policy Change Many drivers noted more fundamental policy changes to improve OTP performance. The most frequent alteration recommended was to allow for more buffer time for routes that currently face OTP issues (such as 117 and 111). Since these issues are largely caused by reoccurring traffic problems, it is unlikely that they will be able to improve quickly to meet the current schedules. Loosening up these runs would also leave more time for the bus drivers to provide customer service. Another suggestion is to staff a WCT employee at the transit center to answer questions and sell tickets. This would also help with complaints about safety concerns at the Transit Center. Additionally, one recommendation was to allow for fare-free transfers at major locations outside of the city center like South End Shopping Center, or Valley Mall. Finally, one driver noted the difficulty of spotting passengers waiting on the roadside after sunset and recommended the use of a light source to flag vehicles down. Appendix F Title VI of the Civil Appendix F: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 F-1 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Appendix F Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The FTA provides guidance to help public transportation agencies verify that service and fare changes are not discriminatory in nature. WCT can take the following steps when evaluating service changes: • Describe proposed changes and the rationale behind them. • Describe the impacts of service changes on below poverty and/or minority communities. In particular, establish why the proposed service would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on below poverty and/or minority populations. • Describe transit alternatives available to riders impacted by proposed changes and identify measures that would be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. Also describe any enhancements or offsetting that would be implemented in conjunction with the service. • Describe how the agency intends to reach out and involve minority and below poverty populations to make sure their viewpoints are considered. • Determine whether it is necessary to disseminate information that is accessible to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons. If so, describe the steps that will be taken to provide information in languages other than English. The first three bullets are addressed for each relevant service change. The last two bullets are addressed below. Minority and Below Poverty Involvement To satisfy the requirements of Title VI, WCT will continue to reach out to minority and below poverty populations to make sure their viewpoints are considered. WCT uses press releases, advertising, public notices, websites, rider bulletins, and other means to communicate with the general public, minorities, and below poverty populations. WCT advertises public meetings in the local newspaper, onboard vehicles, and issues press releases on service changes and proposals. WCT staff members also regularly attend community events to publicize available transit options and involve minorities and below poverty individuals. WCT staff visit schools, senior/assisted-living complexes, and human service agencies to engage segments of the population that tend not to provide input. Appendix F: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 KFH Group, Inc. │ 2 Limited English Proficiency WCT must determine whether it is necessary to disseminate information accessible to persons with LEP. According to the 2018-2022 American Community Survey, the service area includes a total of 3,817 or 2.6%, persons with Limited English Proficiency (those persons who indicated that they spoke English “not very well”). The need for resources to address the LEP population primarily pertains to those who speak Spanish at home (almost 2,659 LEP individuals). WCT staff assist LEP individuals by using language identification flashcards and contacting CTS Language Link for translation services. This applies whether the interaction occurs over the phone, in writing, in person at the administrative office, or onboard a WCT vehicle. Staff and drivers are trained to refer LEP customers to appropriate language support resources, and all new hires receive training on assisting LEP persons as part of their customer service and sensitivity training. Proposed Service Changes This Title VI analysis focuses primarily on the system-wide route adjustments among the proposed service changes. For the remaining proposed changes, individuals from minority and low-income populations are expected to share in the benefits proportionately, if not more so. As a result, no additional measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects—or to provide enhancements or offsets—are necessary to ensure compliance with non-discrimination requirements. Implementing Sunday service, adding an additional evening hour, and reducing headways during peak hours on “key” routes are changes that increase the level of service of the entire system. These service changes do not come at the expense of reductions in service in other areas. For those improvements that do pertain to particular routes, the routes were chosen due to current activity in order to benefit the greatest number of riders. Maps of Washington County’s minority and below poverty populations are shown in Chapter 2. In Census block groups where the population in question is greater than the average for all block groups, WCT should demonstrate that any proposed service and fare changes avoid discrimination. The relevant service changes are listed below, including information to help verify that the changes are not discriminatory in nature. • The redesign of routes results in more bi-directional routes, better connectivity and better on-time performance. Route frequencies remain the same. As shown in Figure F-1 and Figure F-2, the redesign has nearly the same geographic coverage as the current service. • The redesign is unlikely to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on below poverty or minority populations. Service is only eliminated on a few short segments in the network. Moderate service coverage reduction has occurred with the proposed elimination of the Smithsburg Route; however, the overall impact is nominal due to poor ridership. Appendix F: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 F-3 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan • Due to the minor nature of the coverage changes, no measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects, or enhancements or offsetting, would need to be implemented to ensure non- discrimination. Proposed Fare Changes • The proposed changes include an increase in fares for existing services and the introduction of new fare products, such as a day pass. • The addition of a day pass may offer benefits for low-income and minority riders, as it provides unlimited rides for a day at a lower up-front cost. These passes are often more accessible and affordable for riders who cannot afford to purchase a weekly or monthly pass. • However, the fare increase may have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on low-income and minority populations. While WCT is not required by the FTA to conduct a formal Title VI fare equity analysis, it is recommended that WCT either: o Conduct an in-house evaluation of potential impacts of fare changes on Title VI populations, or o Engage a professional consultant to assess whether the proposed changes present a cost burden to these populations. If adverse impacts are identified, WCT should consider measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects. Possible strategies may include fare capping, expanded eligibility for reduced fares, or other offsetting enhancements to promote equitable access to transit services. Appendix F: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 KFH Group, Inc. │ F-4 Figure F-1: Title VI Analysis – System-Wide Route Adjustments – Low Income Population Appendix F: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 F-5 │ Washington County Transit Development Plan Figure F-2: Title VI Analysis – System-Wide Route Adjustments – Minority Population Appendix G WCT Facility Expansion 1 January 2025 2 The Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization (HEPMPO) would like to thank the stakeholders involved for their valuable contributions throughout the planning process. • City of Hagerstown o Mayor and City Council o Planning Commission o Engineering Department o Planning and Zoning Department • Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Transit Administration • Orchard Hills Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses • Washington County o Board of Commissioners o Public Works Department o Washington County Transit ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Facility History ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Summary .................................................................................................................................. 8 2 W.C.T. Facility Space Needs Assessment ...................................................................................... 10 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 10 Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 11 Quit-Claim for Alleyway No. 1-35 ......................................................................................................... 12 Current to Future Comparison ............................................................................................................. 13 Current Circulation and Operations ...................................................................................................... 16 Space Program and Operating Needs Requirements ............................................................................. 21 3 Environmental Screening Needs .................................................................................................. 29 Environmental Screening .................................................................................................................... 29 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 36 4 Conceptual Facility Design and Site Plan Layout ............................................................................ 37 Initial Site Concepts............................................................................................................................ 37 5 Financial Analysis and Capital Funding Strategy ............................................................................ 40 Cost Estimation .................................................................................................................................. 40 Capital Funding Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 41 Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 43 6 Quit Claim ................................................................................................................................ 43 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 43 Application ......................................................................................................................................... 43 7 Lot Consolidation ...................................................................................................................... 46 8 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 47 Attachment A — Aerial Location Map ................................................................................................... Attachment B — Environmental Resource Map ..................................................................................... Attachment C — National Wetlands Inventory Map and Hydric Rating Map ............................................ 4 Attachment D — FEMA MAP ................................................................................................................ Attachment E — USFWS Species List ................................................................................................... Attachment F — Facility Expansion Rough Order of Magnitude .............................................................. Attachment G — Photograph Log ......................................................................................................... 5 1 INTRODUCTION Background The Washington County Transit (d/b/a WCT) desires to expand its current facility located at 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740, to provide additional space to meet its current and future (year 2050) administrative and operational needs. Such needs are supported by WCT’s historic growth and its Five-Year Transit Development Plan (TDP), which projects the authority’s current annual ridership to increase by 30 percent in transit demand from 2010 to 2030. The WCT facility is situated on the Washington County-owned parcel (Parcel #25035194) that encompasses approximately 1.7 acres (73,616 square feet). The facility includes approximately 16,056 square feet and provides administrative offices, conference rooms, indoor vehicle storage, a full-service vehicle maintenance facility, and a bus wash bay. Figure 1 is an ariel view of the WCT. The WCT parcel is divided into two sections by the City of Hagerstown-owned alleyway (Alleyway No. 1-35) as illustrated in Appendix A. Figure 1. WCT Aerial View Source: Google Earth 6 Today, WCT employs a staff of 59 administrative, operations and maintenance employees and operates 21 revenue vehicles and 5 support vehicles. Maintaining a state of good repair of WCT’s vehicles is adequate given the current service levels. Changes in future service repair levels have the potential to create challenges. The facility’s storage space is insufficient to house the current number of vehicles under cover, necessitating outdoor storage which reduces the life of the vehicle and creates maintenance challenges during winter months. In addition to accommodating the WCT’s building facility, the 73,616 square feet parcel also accommodates on-site parking (i.e., 48 spaces for staff, drivers, visitors, revenue, and non-revenue vehicle storage, and transit vehicle circulation). WCT currently allows for one Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking space. The current parking vehicle storage and circulation area is inadequate and in turn creates unsafe conditions for pedestrians and constrains transit bus circulation. Facility History The property located at 1000 W Washington St, Hagerstown, MD, initially operated as an automotive dealership (Hoffman Chevrolet) until its acquisition by Washington County in 1974. This acquisition initiated its conversion into a pivotal infrastructure for WCT’s public transportation services. In 1989, the facility underwent a substantial expansion to augment WCT’s capacity for vehicular storage and maintenance, addressing the escalating demands of the transit system. A comprehensive renovation was executed in 2009, primarily targeting the modernization of the administration sector and the enhancement of the maintenance and vehicle storage areas. This renovation aimed to optimize operational efficiency and improve the aesthetic appeal for both personnel and visitors. The facility now exemplifies the ongoing dedication to delivering superior public transportation services within Washington County. Figure 2 is an aerial photo of the dealership prior to 1972. 7 Figure 2. Hoffman Chevrolet Source: Kevin Cerrone, Washington County Transit Since 1989, the physical dimensions of the WCT transit facility have remained constant. However, the service area has significantly expanded to accommodate a burgeoning population and the increased demand for public transportation. Ridership has experienced considerable growth, indicative of the community’s reliance on and confidence in the transit services provided. Furthermore, WCT’s transit vehicle fleet has evolved, incorporating newer, larger, and more technologically advanced models to better meet passenger needs and enhance operational efficiency. Figure 3 is a picture interior storage of WCT’s 2022 Eldorado EZ Rider 32’ fixed route buses. 8 Figure 3. WCT Fixed Route Buses Project Summary This project determined the existing space constraints and long-term (2050) needs of the current WCT facility. The study’s space needs analysis was then used to support the proposed facility expansion conceptual design and site layout requirements --- inclusive of the City of Hagerstown’s Land Management Code and Stormwater Management Ordinance requirements – and identify any potential environmental impacts using a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) screening analysis approach. The existing WCT property and facility is highly constrained given that it does not accommodate the current number of WCT fleet vehicles and administrative staff, inhibits safe bus circulation, and is entirely impervious. And as previously noted, WCT’s current Five- Year TDP predicts ridership growth over 30% to year 2030 compared to current ridership levels. This growth will necessitate the hiring of additional staff and/or the operation of more vehicles, further accentuating the current facility constraints. 9 For these reasons, WCT, in collaboration with the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning (HEPMPO) and its on-call transportation planning technical consultant, Michael Baker International, Inc., conducted this feasibility study to comprehensively evaluate the on-site expansion of its current facility located at 1000 W Washington St. The study included a Facility Space Needs Assessment (for current conditions to 2050), an Environmental Screening Analysis, Conceptual Facility Design, Site Plan Layout and Cost Estimate, Quit-Claim of the alleyway, Financial Analysis and Capital Funding Strategy, and Property Survey and Lot Consolidation. Specifically, the study achieved the following objectives: » Objective #1 – Determine WCT’s facility space needs to the year 2050 (i.e., Direction 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan) to accommodate administrative office space, vehicle maintenance, vehicle circulation, vehicle storage areas and parking needs. » Objective #2 – Perform an inventory of existing environmental screening analysis of site conditions to identify potential constraints. This will include an evaluation of the City of Hagerstown’s zoning and stormwater management requirements pursuant to the City of Hagerstown’s Land Management Code v3.11, Article 4 Zoning and Stormwater Management Chapter 213 of the City Code. » Objective #3 – Prepare conceptual facility design and site layout alternatives (maximum of 2) to address the space and operational needs. Conceptual design and site layout will meet current City International Building Code (IBC) standards and include ADA compliance. » Objective #4 – Determine a probable cost estimate for the preferred conceptual facility design and site layout plan and determine the required capital budgeting and programming needs. Sources of funding, such as FTA competitive and applicable formula grant programs, and other federal, state, and local sources will be identified. » Objective #5 – Determine critical path forward to include decisions and timeframes to proceed the study’s implementation. 10 2 W.C.T. FACILITY SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT Executive Summary Washington County Transit has completed this comprehensive Transit Facility Space Needs Assessment to evaluate and plan for the expansion of its current facility at 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD. This expansion aims to meet the administration and operational needs projected through the year 2050, supported by WCT’s historic growth and its 5-Year TDP, which anticipates a 34% population growth from 2010 to 2050. The assessment was conducted as part of the Direction 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan, with the objective of determining the facility space requirements necessary to accommodate future needs for administration office space, vehicle maintenance, vehicle circulation, vehicle storage areas, and parking facilities. This analysis ensures that WCT can enhance its operational efficiency and service delivery to meet the increasing demands of the community. The study involved a detailed evaluation of current facilities, projected growth, and future trends in transportation and infrastructure. The primary objective was to identify the facility space requirements for WCT, considering projected staffing and service levels, and determining if the current 1000 W. Washington St. property could accommodate the facility expansion needs, including meeting the City’s zoning and stormwater management code requirements, and achieving the successful Quit-Claim of the City-owned alleyway bisecting the property. This was achieved through a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Key findings indicate that the existing facilities are operating at near full capacity, necessitating expansion to accommodate future growth. Projections show a need for a 140 % increase in facility space to meet the demands of a growing population and expanded services by 2050. Space constraints are currently affecting operational efficiency and safety, including maintenance schedules, vehicle storage and circulation, and administrative functions, leading to increased operational costs and reduced service reliability. Input from staff, riders, and community stakeholders underscores the urgent need for expanded and modernized facilities to improve service quality and meet future needs. The methodology included structured interviews with key stakeholders, such as Andrew Eshleman (Washington County Director, Public Works), Shawn Harbaugh (WCT Director/Facility and Fleet Manager), and 11 Matt Mullenax (HEPMPO, Executive Director), that provided in-depth insights into projected needs and expectations. Quantitative data from current utilization metrics, historical growth trajectories, and future service demand forecasts were analyzed to model various scenarios. The American Public Transit Association’s (APTA) Facility Space Needs Calculator (FSNC) was used to convert qualitative and quantitative data into specific space requirements, ensuring realistic and achievable recommendations. A thorough walkthrough of the current WCT site identified potential areas for expansion or modification and documented immediate issues influencing future spatial planning. Comprehensive research and validation analysis of the space program and operating requirements for each functional area within the proposed facility were also conducted. The recommendations include the reconfiguration of the existing facility and construction of a new storage facility and employee parking area to meet projected space needs and achieve the City’s zoning and stormwater management requirements. Upgrading current facilities with modern infrastructure, including alternative fueling methods, is essential to enhance operational efficiency and safety. Developing a long-term strategic plan that aligns facility expansion with projected growth in ridership and service areas, including phased development to manage costs and minimize service disruptions, is crucial. Exploring funding opportunities and partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies will support facility expansion and modernization efforts. By addressing these space needs, WCT will be well-equipped to handle current demands and future growth, ultimately improving service delivery and operational efficiency. Needs Assessment A comprehensive work analysis was conducted with a specific focus on evaluating the administration, maintenance, and vehicle storage requirements. This analysis entailed a meticulous assessment of the current infrastructure, identifying deficiencies and areas for enhancement. Additionally, projections were formulated to anticipate future needs, considering potential growth and shifts in operational dynamics. This assessment aims to delineate future facility requirements for sustained operational success. Key areas of focus included the following: » Administration: Evaluating office spaces, meeting rooms, and administration support areas to ensure alignment with current and projected staffing requirements. This included assessing the adequacy of workspace configurations, technological infrastructure, and support services to enhance productivity and accommodate future administration expansions. 12 » Maintenance: Reviewing maintenance facilities, storage areas, and infrastructure to support ongoing upkeep and long-term site sustainability. This involved analyzing the capacity and efficiency of existing maintenance operations, identifying potential bottlenecks, and recommending improvements to ensure the facility can handle increased maintenance demands and technological advancements. » Fleet Storage: Determining the spatial requirements for interior storage of revenue vehicles, non- revenue vehicles, and vehicle circulation. This included evaluating the current storage capacity, assessing the need for additional space to accommodate fleet expansion, and ensuring optimal vehicle circulation to enhance operational efficiency and safety. The findings from this analysis were pivotal as they outlined the specific requirements necessary for the project team to make informed decisions regarding the size and scope of the new facility. By defining these needs, WCT can ensure that the expanded facility will be appropriately sized and equipped to support its operations both presently and in the future. This comprehensive approach not only addresses immediate infrastructure needs but also incorporates strategic foresight to adapt to evolving operational demands, thereby ensuring long-term viability and success. Quit-Claim for Alleyway No. 1-35 As part of the needs assessment, it was assumed that the Quit-Claim deed to Alleyway No. 1-35 would be successfully obtained through the City Council approval of Washington County’s Quit Claim application request. In Section 6 Quit Claim, provides an elaboration of the Quit Claim application process that was submitted to the on September 4, 2024 (note at the time of this study’s preparation the Quit Claim request is still pending City approval). Figure 4 is a visual of the Quick-Claim deed request to the applicable portion of the alleyway. The alleyway area is integral to the spatial planning and architectural design phases, as the incorporation of the alleyway into the site plan would facilitate the expansion of critical infrastructure. The additional land area provided by the alleyway will reduce safety risks by eliminating the no-low visibility of the cross traffic of the alleyway for vehicles exiting the bus wash, enhance logistical efficiency by optimizing bus storage with universal parking, designated space for interior circulation, the elimination for Line Service Attendants to have a CDL, and thereby improving overall required operational site space needs. 13 Obtainment of the Quit-Claim deed to the alleyway is essential for aligning the facility’s operational capabilities with both current and projected future demands. If the Quit-Claim deed is not obtained, then this would necessitate an additional 10-foot setback along the northern lot’s alleyway. This setback will result in a significant reduction of available fleet vehicle storage capacity and introduce further operational challenges for WCT. Figure 4. Quit-Claim Area of Alleyway No. 1-35 Current to Future Comparison The collected data was pivotal in conducting a comprehensive analysis of current facility requirements, identifying potential areas for expansion, and making informed decisions regarding spatial calculations. This information is essential for understanding the evolving facility needs of WCT and for strategizing future initiatives that align with their projected growth. The data was meticulously analyzed to address the following key questions: » Does WCT’s current facility adequately meet their operational requirements? 14 » What are the spatial requirements to accommodate WCT’s projected growth? Utilizing the collected data, insights from interviews, and the APTA FSNC, the assessment team developed theoretical floor plan layouts to ascertain the spatial requirements. Table 1 itemizes WCT’s current spatial allocation against its projected requirements. Table 1. WCT Space Needs Assessment Use Current Sq. Ft. Need Sq. Ft. Current Needs Met Administration 2,314 5,230 Needs Not Met Maintenance 5,191 6,882 Needs Not Met Interior Vehicle Storage 7,715 24,458 Needs Not Met Total Building 15,220 36,570 Needs Not Met Vehicle Parking ~48 spaces* 27 / 36 spaces** Needs Met Stormwater Management 0 8,000 SF Needs Not Met *Number of existing physical spaces. ** Number of spaces required (27) per the City’s Land Management Code (LMC) Article 4 Zoning requirements for parking / Number of physical spaces to be provided as part of the proposed expansion. Table 2 presents a detailed breakdown of the facility’s administration, maintenance, and storage areas, both for the current year and projected for 2050. Accompanying this table, Figure 5 offers a current visual representation, while Figure 6 provides a future visual depiction of the facility. Table 2. Facility Breakdown Use Current Sq. Ft. Year 2050 Sq. Ft. Administration 2,134 5,230 Maintenance 5,191 6,882 Interior Vehicle Storage 7,715 24,458 15 Figure 5. Current Facility Space 16 Figure 6. 2050 Facility Space The results of the assessment, when contrasted with the current facility’s capabilities, reveal that the existing infrastructure is insufficient to meet the anticipated operational and spatial requirements projected for the year 2050. This discrepancy underscores the necessity for strategic upgrades and expansions to ensure that the facility can accommodate future demands, advancements, and increased capacity needs. Current Circulation and Operations ADMINISTRATION The current administration area (delineated in yellow) in Figure 5 has reached its maximum capacity with all offices and workspaces currently occupied. Any increase in staff or services would necessitate the sharing of offices and workspaces. Furthermore, this area lacks adequate workflow circulation, and the alignment of workspaces is suboptimal. The dispatch office is located within this area, posing a risk as all employees have access to freely walk about the building. 17 Table 3 delineates all the administration working areas. Table 4 enumerates all full-time and part-time employees utilizing this area. Table 3. Administration Work Area Area Room Dimension Size Sq Ft. Area Notes Lobby 100 15' X 14' 210 Administration Restroom 101 5' X 7' 35 Administration ADA Gender Neutral Public Restroom Copy/Storage 102 18' X 10' 180 Administration Hallway 103 22’ x 4’ 88 Administration Administration Restroom 104 4' X 4' 16 Administration Women's Restroom Kitchenet 105 8' X 7' 56 Administration Restroom 106 4' X 4' 16 Administration Men's Restroom Office 107 10' X 10' 100 Administration Operation Supervisor Office 108 10' X 14' 140 Administration Fiscal Technician Office 110 8' X 10' 80 Administration Training Room Office 129 12' X 11' 132 Administration Communication Specialist Office 131 10' X 12' 120 Administration Communication and Outreach Manager Office 132 10' X 8' 80 Administration Communication Specialist Office 109B 10' X 16' 160 Administration Directors Conference Room 109A 14' X 17' 238 Administration Hallway 111 4' X 10 ' 40 Administration Administration - Maintenance Break Room 130 18' X 14' 252 Administration Drivers Lounge Other 191 Administration Hallways, Wall space, Miscellaneous Total 2,134 18 Table 4. Administration Area Employee Count Use Full-time Part-time Total Administration 6 0 6 Operations 8 31 39 Total 14 33 45 MAINTENANCE The current maintenance area (delineated in orange) in Figure 5 has reached its maximum capacity in terms of office space, workspaces, storage, and parts areas. The maintenance department currently lacks additional office space to accommodate future personnel. The facility is equipped with only two fully operational repair bays, each with inherent limitations. Furthermore, the maintenance department faces constrained storage capacity for equipment and tools, necessitating the use of portions of the repair bays for storage purposes. Table 5 delineates all the maintenance working areas. Table 5. Maintenance Working Area Area Room Dimension Sq. Ft. Area Notes Parts Room 112 23' X 8' 184 Maintenance Parts Storage Parts Storage Lower 32' X 8' 256 Maintenance Parts Storage Repair Bay 113 48' X 16' 768 Maintenance Large Repair Bay (Primary) Repair Bay 115 48' X 17' 816 Maintenance Large Repair Bay (Primary) Office 114 10' X 22' 220 Maintenance Fleet and Facility Manager Storage Area 116 13' X 15' 195 Maintenance Equipment Storage Restroom 117 14' X 6' 84 Maintenance Gender Neutral Restroom and Shower Fire/Sprinkler Room 122/133 14' X 7' 98 Maintenance Rooms Merged Together Hallway 123 14' X 4' 56 Maintenance Maintenance - Bus Storage Locker Room 124 10' X 8' 80 Maintenance Operator/Maintenance Lockers Repair Bay 125 16' X 40' 640 Maintenance Repair Bay Restroom 126 6' X 6' 36 Maintenance Operator/Maintenance Gender Neutral Restroom 19 Area Room Dimension Sq. Ft. Area Notes Restroom 127 6' X 6' 36 Maintenance Operator/Maintenance Gender Neutral Restroom Office 128 12' X 8' 96 Maintenance Line Service Attendant Office Other 1,630 Maintenance Other Storage Areas, Walkways, Wall Space Total 5,195 Washington County Transit is currently encountering difficulties in recruiting Line Service Attendants due to the requirement for candidates to possess a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), necessitated by the need to traverse the alley between parcels. This stipulation significantly restricts the candidate pool, complicating the recruitment process. A successful Quit Claim would preclude the CDL requirement, as vehicles would no longer need to exit the property. This modification would streamline the hiring process, enabling WCT to attract a broader spectrum of candidates and fill positions more efficiently. Additionally, it would reduce the costs associated with CDL training and certification, resulting in further operational savings. The existing bus wash system is constrained by its design as a portable, walk-around unit rather than a conventional drive-through system. This battery-operated apparatus can only service a limited number of vehicles and requires over eight hours to recharge. Furthermore, the water supply necessitates continuous refilling, presenting an additional challenge. These limitations substantially impact the efficiency and effectiveness of vehicle maintenance operations. The prolonged charging time and frequent water refills lead to extended downtime, thereby reducing the number of vehicles that can be serviced within a given timeframe. This not only affects the cleanliness and upkeep of the fleet but also has potential implications for vehicle longevity and public perception. Currently, only diesel-powered vehicles can be refueled onsite. However, the fueling station’s location within the paratransit vehicle parking and employee parking area poses significant challenges. This arrangement can lead to congestion and potential safety hazards, as well as disrupt the workflow and accessibility for both paratransit operations and staff. The future facility will need to have the capability to support and accommodate alternative fuels for WCT future fleet transition. 20 FLEET VEHICLE STORAGE Due to current constraints in vehicle storage capacity (delineated in blue) in Figure 5, only fixed-route vehicles are accommodated indoors, while all paratransit and non-revenue vehicles are stored externally. Ideally, all fleet vehicles, irrespective of their revenue-generating status, should be housed indoors. Indoor storage is advantageous as it preserves the vehicles by shielding them from continuous exposure to environmental elements, provides a secure environment to mitigate theft and damage, and ensures a safe, well-illuminated area for vehicle access. Table 6 delineates the current interior storage area and Table 7 identifies the location where each fleet vehicle is stored. Table 6. Current Interior Storage Area Mode Sq. Ft. Storage 1 Fixed Route 3,720 Storage 2 Fixed Route 3,995 Total 7,715 Table 7. Storage Location ID Mode Length FT Year Make Model Storage 713 Fixed Route 30 2015 Eldorado Passport Interior 714 Fixed Route 30 2015 Eldorado Passport Interior 715 Fixed Route 30 2021 Eldorado Passport Interior 716 Fixed Route 30 2021 Eldorado Passport Interior 717 Fixed Route 30 2021 Eldorado Passport Interior 718 Fixed Route 30 2021 Eldorado Passport Interior 719 Fixed Route 30 2021 Eldorado Passport Interior 720 Fixed Route 30 2021 Eldorado Passport Interior 801 Fixed Route 32 2022 Eldorado EZ-Rider Interior 802 Fixed Route 32 2022 Eldorado EZ-Rider Interior 803 Fixed Route 32 2022 Eldorado EZ-Rider Interior 804 Fixed Route 32 2022 Eldorado EZ-Rider Interior 21 805 Fixed Route 32 2022 Eldorado EZ-Rider Interior 505 Paratransit 21 2015 Chevy 3500 Exterior 506 Paratransit 22 2017 Ford E-350 Exterior 507 Paratransit 22 2017 Ford E-350 Exterior 508 Paratransit 23 2021 Ford E-450 Exterior 509 Paratransit 23 2017 Ford E-450 Exterior 510 Paratransit 23 2017 Ford E-450 Exterior 205 Paratransit 16 2019 Ford Transit Exterior 206 Paratransit 16 2019 Ford Transit Exterior T-1 Non-Revenue 16 2005 Chevy Silverado Exterior S-1 Non-Revenue 15 2008 Chevy Uplander Exterior S-3 Non-Revenue 15 2022 Chevy Equinox Exterior S-4 Non-Revenue 15 2024 Chevy Malibu Exterior S-5 Non-Revenue 15 2024 Chevy Malibu Exterior Space Program and Operating Needs Requirements ADMINISTRATION The proposed administration area expansion and reconfiguration (delineated in yellow) in Figure 6 will encompass ADA upgrades and designated spaces for cubicles, workstations, restrooms, nursing room, breakroom, conference rooms, meeting rooms, and a training room. These spaces are designed to support the administration functions of the transit system, providing comfortable, efficient, and accommodating environment for staff to perform their duties. The breakroom includes a kitchen, computer workstations, restrooms, mailboxes, communication boards, and material storage areas. The lounge serves as a multifunctional space for all staff, offering a place to rest, collaborate, and access essential resources. Lockers and restrooms ensure personal belongings are secure and staff have access to necessary facilities. The nursing room supports staff with nursing needs, and computer workstations enable administration tasks and communication. Table 8 provides a proposed detailed breakdown of the administration area. Table 9 enumerates all full-time and part-time employees utilizing this area. 22 Table 8. Administration Area Area Room Size Sq. Ft. Department Title/Function Large Office 109B 180 Administration Director Small Office 108 100 Administration Fiscal Technician Small Office 129 95 Administration Communication Specialist Small Office 132 95 Administration Communication Specialist Small Office 131 100 Administration Communication & Outreach Manager Small Office 107 100 Administration Operations Supervisor Small Office 153 100 Administration Safety and Training Coordinator Small Office 150 95 Administration Meeting/Interview Room Small Office 151 100 Administration Expansion Small Office 152 100 Administration Expansion Small Office 154 100 Administration Expansion Large Storage Room 180 350 Administration File Storage Conference Room 109 400 Administration Conference Room Training Room 110 200 Administration Training Room Restroom 101 35 Administration ADA Gender Neutral Public Restroom Restroom 104 16 Administration Gender Neutral Restroom Restroom 106 16 Administration Gender Neutral Restroom Restroom 126 36 Administration Operator/Maintenance Gender Neutral Restroom Restroom 127 36 Administration Operator/Maintenance Gender Neutral Restroom Copy & Supply 161 40 Administration Copy Room Nursing Room 160 80 Administration Private Room Phone/Computer 140 50 Administration Employee Room Vault 190 100 Administration Vault, Safe, and Counting Room IT Utility Room 191 150 Administration Utility Room Nook 170 140 Administration Counter, Sink, Microwave Employee Lounge 300 450 Administration Kitchenette, Tables, Quiet Room, TV, Mailboxes 23 Area Room Size Sq. Ft. Department Title/Function Office 128 120 Administration Line Service Attendant Office Small Storage Room 200 100 Administration Lost and found Fire/Sprinkler Room 122/123 98 Administration Rooms Merged Restroom 117 84 Administration Gender Neutral Restroom and Shower Locker Room 124 100 Administration Operator/Maintenance Lockers Hallway 103 300 Administration Hallway Hallway 111 140 Administration Hallway Hallway New 104 Administration Left Side N/S Hallway New 240 Administration Service to Lounge Vestibule/Hallway 100 200 Administration Vestibule/Hallway Hallway New 80 Administration Bathroom Shower Hallway Other 400 Administration Space Adjusting Total 5,230 Table 9. Administration Area Employee Count Use Full-time Part-time Total Administration 7 2 9 Operators 8 38 46 Total 15 40 55 MAINTENANCE The proposed maintenance area expansion and reconfiguration (delineated in orange) in Figure 6 will encompass designated spaces for service bays, parts storage, wash systems, administration offices, functional equipment placement, equipment storage, restrooms, and showers. The service bays are outfitted for vehicle maintenance and repairs, ensuring the fleet remains in optimal condition. Parts storage and wash systems are critical for maintaining vehicle performance and cleanliness. Administration offices within this area facilitate maintenance management, while equipment storage ensures all necessary tools and materials 24 are readily accessible. Restrooms and showers provide essential facilities for maintenance personnel. Table 10 provides a proposed detailed breakdown of the maintenance area. Table 10. Maintenance Area Area Room Size Sq. Ft. Department Title/Function Large Office 210 150 Maintenance Fleet and Facility Manager Small Office 100 100 Maintenance Service Coordinator Large Bay 201 900 Maintenance All Vehicles All Repairs Large Bay 202 900 Maintenance All Vehicles All Repairs Large Bay 203 900 Maintenance All Vehicles All Repairs Storage 220 700 Maintenance Equipment Storage Fluid Room 230 150 Maintenance Bulk Fluid Storage 250 500 Maintenance Parts Storage Tire Area 240 500 Maintenance Tire Repair Bus Wash 1,612 Maintenance Bus Wash Hallway/Walkway/Delivery 470 Maintenance Total 6,882 Maintenance bay counts are derived from the FSNC, which projects the total future vehicle inventory, segmented by vehicle dimensions and service modes. Table 11 provides a detailed analysis of the WCT’s fleet projected composition, while Table 12 specifies the square footage of the universal maintenance bays and the corresponding fuel lane requirements. Table 11. Fleet Breakdown Vehicle Type Total Fixed Route 15 Paratransit 12 Non-Revenue 6 Total 33 25 Table 12. Maintenance Bay and Fuel Lane Requirement Item Quantity Size Sq. Ft. Total Maintenance Bays 3 900 2,700 Fuel Lane 1 5,000 5,000 Implementing onsite fueling is crucial and offers significant cost-saving potential for WCT. By negotiating fuel prices with a vendor, WCT can secure a reduced rate compared to standard pump prices, resulting in substantial financial savings over time. Currently, 42% of the fleet operates on gasoline, while 58% utilizes diesel. Among revenue vehicles, 33% use gasoline and 67% use diesel. It is recommended to utilize a fuel tank with capacities of 2,000 gallons for gasoline and 10,000 gallons for diesel. This capacity would accommodate weekly refills and provide a buffer period in case of scheduling delays or delivery issues. An onsite fueling station and management system not only ensure a steady supply of gasoline but also enhance operational efficiency by reducing downtime associated with offsite refueling. The onsite fueling system can improve fleet management by enabling better monitoring and control of fuel usage, leading to more accurate budgeting and forecasting, as well as the implementation of fuel-saving strategies. Overall, investing in an onsite and modern fueling system is a strategic move that supports WCT’s operational objectives and financial health, and increases WCT’s commitment to environmental sustainability. The facility will need to have the capability to support future alternative fueling methods, including the infrastructure necessary for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, compressed natural gas, hydrogen fueling stations, or other sustainable energy sources. The facility must have the capability to support at least one of these alternatives fueling methods if selected, ensuring the WCT system remains environmentally friendly and future-ready, and aligning with the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Zero Emissions and FTA’s Low or No Emissions Program goals. 26 A stationary bus wash, equipped with a chassis wash, capable of servicing both paratransit-sized vehicles and fixed-route buses, is essential for WCT’s operations and maintenance needs. Implementing a comprehensive wash system will prevent early vehicle deterioration by removing corrosive substances and debris, thereby extending the lifespan of the WCT fleet. A traditional drive-through wash system would allow for continuous operation, servicing a higher volume of vehicles with greater consistency. A state-of-the-art wash system should also incorporate water recycling technology. This not only aligns with WCT’s environmental sustainability goals by reducing water consumption but also results in significant cost savings over time. By having a proper wash system, this will enhance operational efficiency, improve vehicle maintenance standards, and project a more professional image to the public. It would also contribute to the overall longevity and performance of the fleet, ensuring that the vehicles remain in optimal condition and continue to provide reliable service to the community. FLEET VEHICLE STORAGE The proposed new 21,300 sq. ft. fleet vehicle storage space area expansion (delineated in blue) in Figure 6 will encompass designated spaces for the storage of both revenue-generating and non-revenue vehicles. Within this new storage facility, vehicles will be systematically arranged in lines and parked in a nose-to-tail configuration to optimize spatial efficiency. The vehicle storage aisles will require the width for operators to perform a proper pre-trip allowing for the space to deploy the vehicle lift. The storage facility is engineered to shield vehicles from environmental elements and ensure they are readily accessible for dispatch and maintenance operations. Table 13 delineates the spatial requirements for vehicle storage, derived from the APTA FSNC. Additionally, Table 14 provides a detailed breakdown of the projected fleet vehicles by size. Table 13. Vehicle Storage Requirements Storage Mode Size Sq. Ft. Fixed Route 12,000 Paratransit 7,500 Non-Revenue 1,800 Total 21,300 27 Table 14. Vehicle Length Breakdown Length 15 FT 16 FT 21 FT 22 FT 23 FT 30 FT 32 FT Fixed Route 8 7 Paratransit 6 1 2 3 Non-Revenue 4 2 PARKING The proposed parking area expansion and reconfiguration will encompass designated spaces for the parking of employee and visitor vehicles. The parking area is strategically positioned to provide convenient access to the facility while ensuring the safety and security of vehicles. The parking allocation is calculated based on the City of Hagerstown’s Land Management Code v3.11, Article 4: Zoning Ordinance, O. Off-Street Parking Requirements, 4. Required Number of Parking Spaces as follows: • Office building: One space per 200 square feet of net floor area • Transportation terminals (trucking, etc.): One space per main shift employee. Table 15 details the net office space, Table 16 specifies the peak main shift employees, and Table 17 provides a count for all parking spaces. Table 15. Net Office Space Area Room Size Sq. Ft. Department Title/Function Large Office 109B 180 Administration Director Small Office 108 100 Administration Fiscal Technician Small Office 129 95 Administration Communication Specialist Small Office 132 95 Administration Communication Specialist Small Office 131 100 Administration Communication & Outreach Manager Small Office 107 100 Administration Operations Supervisor Small Office 153 100 Administration Safety and Training Coordinator Small Office 150 95 Administration Meeting/Interview Room 28 Area Room Size Sq. Ft. Department Title/Function Small Office 151 100 Administration Expansion Small Office 152 100 Administration Expansion Small Office 154 100 Administration Expansion Large Office 210 150 Maintenance Fleet and Facility Manager Small Office 100 100 Maintenance Service Coordinator Total Rounded Up 1,600 = 8 parking spaces Table 16. Peak Main Shift Employees Table 17. Total Parking Spaces Code Category Spaces Needed Peak Main Shift Employees 19 Office Space Sq ft / 200 Sq Ft 8 Total 27 Position/Time 0500 0530 0600 0630 0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 0930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700 1730 1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 2100 2130 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Para-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Para-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Para-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Para-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JOBS-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JOBS-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JOBS-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JOBS-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mechanic 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mechanic 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Service Cord 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maint. Worker 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA - F/T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total 2 10 12 14 15 15 17 18 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 15 17 15 18 14 15 15 15 15 15 12 9 4 4 4 4 3 2 29 NEEDS ANALYSIS CONCLUSION After a thorough analysis of Washington County Transit’s current and projected operational needs, it is evident that a larger facility is imperative to support the organization’s growth and enhance service delivery. Expanding the administration space is crucial to accommodate additional staff and streamline administrative functions. Furthermore, a comprehensive storage facility is essential to securely house all transit vehicles, protecting them from environmental elements, ensuring they are readily accessible for deployment, extending the lifespan of the vehicles, and increasing WCT’s overall operational safety. Additionally, the inclusion of a maintenance area with ample storage and three repair bays is vital for the efficient servicing of the fleet, minimizing downtime and extending the lifespan of the vehicles. This strategic expansion will enable WCT to meet current demands and future operations, thereby ensuring continued excellence in transit services for the community. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING NEEDS The environmental screening conducted on the WCT property and the following findings do not fulfill requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but rather are intended to highlight the NEPA environmental subject areas that will require further investigation through the project’s engineering and design phase (assuming federal funds will be used in the design and/or construction phase) . Should the project progress, the appropriate coordination must occur with state and federal agencies as indicated throughout this document. Environmental Screening The environmental screening process relied on field views and desktop research of online data sources to provide the necessary site context for each of the following topics. No outside agency coordination was conducted for this study. The location of environmental resources identified within or adjacent to the project area can be found on the Environmental Resources Map included as Appendix B. LAND USE & ZONING Existing land use types in the area are mixed, consisting of commercial, transportation, and residential uses. The WCT facility property is located within a mixed-use area, consisting of residential uses and commercial businesses such as, an automobile garage, a gas station and convenience store connecting to a Salon and Barber shop, as well as other non-residential uses, including the adjacent Jehovah’s Witnesses church 30 property. The WCT parcel consists of the administrative building, indoor vehicle storage, a vehicle maintenance building, paved parking/bus circulation, and a bus wash bay. Prior to 1972, the WCT parcel was originally a Chevrolet Dealership. The southern lot housed the main building and customer parking, while the northern lot was used to store the majority of the vehicles for sale. According to the City of Hagerstown’s Land Management Code (LMC), Article 4 Zoning, the WCT property zoned Commercial – General (CG), which is to provide locations for businesses of a general nature to serve the community. According to the City Engineering and Planning Departments, the WCT transit facility use of the property is a conforming permitted use under the LMC. In addition to the meeting the LMC’s off-street parking requirements, the proposed expansion will also need to conform to the CG’s applicable maximum bulk and area requirements specified as follows: » Setbacks: o Front = 15 ft. o Rear = 30 ft. o Side = 20 ft. (25 ft. when adjoining a residential district) » All Public Street Frontages Are Front Yards. On corner lots and through lots, all sides of a lot adjacent to streets shall be considered front yards, but only the side of the lot opposite the frontage of the building shall be considered the rear yard. o Height: 60 ft. CITY STORMWATER Washington County Transit prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for their facility previously on May 1, 2023. This document details the facility’s discharge of BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), non-tidal bacteria, nutrients such as phosphorous, and sediment into Antietam Creek. Potential pollutants include activities such as transit vehicle fueling and maintenance, as well as potential leaks from tanks #1-#5 that are tied to either city sewer or to a sample location. WCT has enacted stormwater control measures to address these issues. These include BMPs (Best Management Practice) such as materials storage for waste, minimizing drips and debris of vehicles in storage, and storage of motor oils and fluids in the vehicle and equipment maintenance areas. WCT also has detailed spill response procedures in place to address minor or major discharge and resulting waste disposal. 31 The City of Hagerstown’s Stormwater Management regulations specified under Chapter 213 of the City Code apply to the WCT facility expansion project. Discussions with the City Engineer confirmed that the § 213-9 Redevelopment standards including those listed below, will specifically apply. » § 213-9 B.(1) Reduce impervious area within the limit of disturbance (LOD) by at least 50% according to the Design Manual; » § 213-9 B.(2) Implement ESD to the MEP to provide water quality treatment for at least 50% of the existing impervious area within the LOD; or » § 213-9 B.(3) Use a combination of Subsection B(1) and (2) of this section for at least 50% of the existing site impervious area. » § 213-9 C. Alternative stormwater management measures may be used to meet the requirements in Subsection B of this section if the owner/developer satisfactorily demonstrates to the City Engineer that impervious area reduction has been maximized and ESD has been implemented to the MEP. » § 213-9 D. The City may develop separate policies for providing water quality treatment for redevelopment projects if the requirements of Subsections A and B of this section cannot be met. HAZARDOUS WASTE The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U. S. EPA) NEPAssist Tool was queried to identify potential sources of hazardous materials releases within the project study area. No Superfund, Brownfields, or Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) facilities under the jurisdiction of the EPA were identified within the study area. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo) properties were also reviewed. According to the U.S. EPA, the “RCRAInfo system enables cradle-to-grave waste tracking of many types of information regarding the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers. RCRAInfo characterizes facility status, regulated activities, and compliance histories in addition to capturing detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.” These facilities have the potential to be an environmental concern for the Subject Parcel through the migration of soil and groundwater contaminants during leaks or spills. One RCRAInfo property, a very small quantity generator, is located approximately 0.10 miles south of the project area, along Concord Street at Coderman’s Auto Body. This location is also a site of air pollution concern, 32 described as a General Automotive Repair with minor emissions of total particulate matter, metal hap, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Another site of air pollution concern, Amoco, is located approximately 0.05 miles from the facility, along West Washington Street to the west. This location is described as a Gasoline Service Station with minor emissions of total particulate matter. There are no other hazardous waste sites within 0.25 miles of the project area (Appendix B). Hazardous waste facilities are mapped on the Environmental Resources Map in Appendix B to provide a general sense of where some hazardous materials facilities are located in the vicinity of the project area. However, these databases are not wholly inclusive of hazardous materials facilities, and some hazardous contaminants are capable of migrating significant distances. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) would consider hazards in much greater detail (note the Environmental Screening process confirmed no previously recorded or knowledge of a Phase I ESA for the WCT property). SECTION 106 Aboveground Properties A review of the Maryland Historical Trust’s Cultural Resources Information System, Medusa, identified no previously recorded, historic-age (50 years of age or older) aboveground properties within or surrounding the subject parcels. The surrounding parcels contain a mixture of late-nineteenth century through mid-twentieth century housing, early-to-mid-twentieth century commercial buildings, and an early-twentieth century former school building. An architectural survey is recommended to determine if historic properties are present within the project’s area of potential effects. Archaeological Sites A review of Medusa found no previously recorded archaeological sites or archaeological investigations on or adjacent to the subject parcels. There have been five previous archaeological surveys and there are five previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the subject parcels. These resources are located within the Hagerstown Historic District and the Hagerstown City Park Historic District and include Pre-Contact Native American resources and nineteenth and twentieth century historic occupations in downtown Hagerstown. Historic maps, atlases, and aerial photography from the early 1900s through present-day indicate that the subject parcels were not developed until the early 1950s and the commercial use of the parcels appears to 33 have been unchanged since then. Prior to the 1950s this area was outside the historically developed downtown and was likely in agricultural use. The potential for Pre-Contact archaeological resources on the subject parcel is considered low due to its location away from available water sources and because of the development of the parcel in the 1950s. Similarly, the archaeological potential for historic period resources is low because this immediate location does not appear to have been occupied prior to the 1950s. WATER RESOURCES Waterways A cursory review of Maryland’s Environmental Resource and Land Information Network (MERLIN) did not identify any waterways within 0.25 miles of the project study area. Wetlands A cursory review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) did not identify any wetlands within the project study area. A review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for the project area and surrounding area identified soils as non-hydric, Urban land. The NWI Map and hydric rating soils map are both included in Appendix C. A desktop review of topographic mapping and aerial imagery by Michael Baker wetland staff determined that there is no potential for wetlands to occur within the boundaries of the project area. Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped the project study area on Flood Insurance Map 24043C0138D, effective August 15, 2017. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, the study area is mapped within Zone X (Area of Minimal Flood Hazard). A FEMA FIRMette is included within Appendix D. 34 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES Databases were queried to identify recreational resources within the vicinity of the study area. These websites included MERLIN, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)’s website, DNR’s Maryland Trail Atlas, the State of Maryland’s Recreation Atlas, and aerial imagery. There are several recreational resources in the project vicinity. Hellane Park is a city-owned recreational park located about 0.14 miles northwest of the project area. This park is home to the West End Little League and Hagerstown Colt League’s baseball fields, as well as being used by locals for its bike paths and playground equipment. Additionally, National Road Park is another city-owned recreational park designed by neighborhood residents to honor Maryland’s National Road history and to provide an innovative play area for children. This park is located about 0.22 miles east of the project area, along West Washington Street. No protected federal lands, state game lands, state forests, or recreational trails were identified in the project vicinity. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources Below is a summary of each recreational resource’s Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) status. • Hellane Park is an outdoor recreational venue owned by the City of Hagerstown. This park may qualify as a Section 4(f) resource. • National Road Park is a small park owned by the City of Hagerstown. This park may qualify as a Section 4(f) resource. No other protected federal lands, state game lands, state forests, conservancies, Rails to Trails, or recreational trails were identified within the study area. Likewise, no properties receiving Land and Water Conservation Fund grants were identified within 0.25 miles of the study area. The distance between the proposed project area and the identified recreational resources is great enough that the project will likely not result in a Section 4(f) use. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES A threatened and endangered species assessment was completed for the WCT facility and immediate surrounding area using the online US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool. IPaC is a project planning tool which streamlines the USFWS environmental review 35 process by providing an official species list containing a list of species and critical habitat that should be considered under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A response from the USFWS dated September 3, 2024, details the results of the assessment (Appendix E). The results indicate potential impacts to a candidate species, the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexipus). However, no critical habitats were found to exist within the designated project area. Further coordination with the USFWS is required through submission of a project review request to the local Maryland Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office. Additionally, seven migratory birds of conservation concern are expected to occur or may be affected by project activities at this location, including Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). These species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Activities for this project are unlikely to affect the listed species in the project area. However, if the presence of migratory birds is confirmed in the project location, then the local Maryland Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office should be contacted to assist with implementing proper conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. Official species lists obtained from IPaC are valid for 90 days. After 90 days, project proponents should confirm their results by requesting an updated official species list for their project in IPaC. NEPA DOCUMENTATION If the proposed project plans to receive federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the project is subject to NEPA, Section 106 (36 CFR PART 800), and Section 4(f) (36 CFR 59.3) requirements. It is likely that the proposed work will fall under the Categorical Exclusions (CE) identified in Title 23 Chapter I, Part 771, subsections § 771.116, § 771.117, and § 771.118. Coordination should be initiated with the state and/or federal funding agency(ies) to discuss environmental documentation requirements. If FTA funding is applicable, then FTA’s CE Worksheet is the anticipated document type. OTHER PERMITTING Additional environmental permits regulated by Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act will likely not be required for impacts to wetlands, waterways, and floodways, or for installation of new outfalls. As the project progresses, early coordination with applicable federal, state, and local agencies is recommended to ensure the appropriate permit(s) and types of permit(s) are selected for the project. 36 Recommendations Based on the cursory desktop environmental screening, this study recommends the following as project design progresses: 1. The project team should consider conducting a Phase I ESA to determine if further action is in order. Communications with Washington County and WCT staff confirmed that a Phase I ESA was not previously performed for the property. 2. An architectural survey is recommended to determine if historic properties are present within the project’s area of potential effects. 3. The results of an online IPaC query indicate potential impacts to a candidate species, the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexipus), under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. The project team should coordinate with the USFWS through submission of a project review request to the local Maryland Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office. 4. Coordination should be initiated with the state and/or federal funding agency(ies) to discuss environmental documentation requirements. If FTA funding is applicable, then FTA’s CE Worksheet is the anticipated document type. 5. Early coordination with applicable federal, state, and local agencies is recommended to ensure the appropriate permit(s) and types of permit(s) are selected for the project. 37 4 CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN AND SITE PLAN LAYOUT Initial Site Concepts Working with WCT management, HEPMPO, Maryland Transit Association (MTA), and Hagerstown City staff, Michael Baker created a design concept that would address administration, maintenance, storage needs, ensure ADA compliance, and meet City of Hagerstown Code requirements. It was determined that expanding the current facility to their northern parcel and conducting a Quit-Claim for the portion of Alleyway No. 1-35 bisecting the property. Doing so would allow the property to be designed as one continuous parcel optimizing and maximizing the current building footprint and defined setbacks. Based on this design the consultant team created a design scheme that focused on the feasibility of expanding the facility northward. Other considerations in the development of these schemes include: » Allowing WCT to maximize its current facility footprint without having to rebuild parts of the facility. » Allowing WCT the continue to operate at the current level and build in phases without disrupting the daily day-to-day operations. » Eliminating the safety concerns of vehicles traveling in the alley for transit vehicles leaving the facility and crossing over the alleyway. » Eliminating the need for LSA’s to have a commercial driver's license. » Accommodating inside storage of all WCT fleet vehicles. » Including program space for additional administration space for expansion and workspaces to include a large conference room and adequate training area. » Supporting future needs for alternative energy/fuels. » Providing for a modern and expanded gasoline and diesel fueling and storage. » Streamlining servicing vehicles and reduce additional circulation. 38 Design Scheme Site Layout The proposed WCT facility expansion design scheme illustrated in Figure 7 will fully utilize the existing ~1.7- acre lot owned by Washington County, as well as the additional alleyway. The administration building will remain in its current location and expand into the existing maintenance area. The maintenance operations will be relocated to the current fixed-route vehicle storage area. The bus wash facility will remain unchanged but will incorporate a stationary bus wash system. Fleet vehicle storage will be situated in the current overflow parking lot and will be connected to the maintenance department. Employee parking will also be located in the current overflow parking lot. A significant concern with this scheme is the necessity of acquiring the alleyway through a Quit-Claim deed. If the Quit-Claim is denied by the City Council, this scheme will be unfeasible, rendering the proposed plans inoperative. However, after consultations with the Planning Commission and City Council, it has been determined that the Quit-Claim is feasible under specific conditions, allowing for the advancement of transit infrastructure in Hagerstown and Washington County. 39 Figure 7. Site Layout 40 5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND CAPITAL FUNDING STRATEGY Cost Estimation A probable cost estimate of the sketch-level design concepts for the proposed WCT facility expansion was developed and is itemized in Table 18. The probable cost estimate was calculated using construction industry standards and procedures based on the parameters shown in Table 18. The probable cost estimate was prepared to assist WCT with programming the project into its capital improvements plan and to begin developing a capital budgeting strategy to achieve the project. Table 18. WCT Facility Expansion Probable Cost Estimate Element GSF NSF Cost Subtotal Administration 5,230 2,916 $ 307/ sf $ 895,212 Maintenance 6,882 1,691 $ 319/ sf $ 539,429 Interior Vehicle Storage (structure to support alternative fuels) 24,458 21,300 $ 359/ sf $ 7,646,700 Parking Lot 15,800 15,800 $ 43,901 Fleet Fueling Island and Staging 5,040 5,040 $ 2,983,994 Stormwater Management 8,000 8,000 $ 68,789 Additional Scope $ 1,171,335 Total 65,410 54,747 $ 13,349,360 Cost Escalation to Mid-point construction $ 2,336,138 Escalation Construction Cost - Subtotal $ 15,685,498 Construction Contingency $ 3,137,100 Engineering/Arch Design $ 2,823,390 Construction Management During Construction $ 1,694,034 Estimated Probable Total Cost $ 23,340,022 41 The sketch level-based cost estimate of approximately $23,340,022 supports WCT’s capital planning and budgeting process, which will identify and program appropriate and available funding necessary to finance the proposed improvements. Appendix F provides a further breakdown for each line item. Given the estimated costs, it is recommended that WCT consider the next phase to obtain funding for the engineering and design and then for the construction of the project. Capital Funding Strategy Table 19 identifies a number of potential funding resources that could be used to program WCT’s capital budget for the proposed facility expansion project. It is highly recommended that WCT continue to build both public and private support for its facility expansion project to maximize and leverage these programs to the greatest extent possible. Table 19. WCTA Facility Expansion Funding Resources Funding Source Summary Federal FTA Bus & Bus Facilities Infrastructure Investment Program The FTA Bus & Bus Facilities Infrastructure Investment Program (49 U.S.C. 5339) makes federal resources available to states and direct recipients such as EPTA to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants. FTA Capital Investment Grant (5309) This FTA discretionary grant program funds transit capital investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. Federal transit law requires transit agencies seeking Capital Investment Grant (CIG) funding to complete a series of steps over several years. • For New Starts and Core Capacity projects, the law requires completion of two phases in advance of receipt of a construction grant agreement: Project Development and Engineering. • For Small Starts projects, the law requires completion of one phase in advance of receipt of a construction grant agreement: Project Development. FTA Low- or No-Emission Grant Program The Low- or No-Emission Grant Program 5339I provides funding for eligible uses to include purchasing or leasing low- or no-emission buses, acquiring low- or no-emission buses with a leased power source, constructing or leasing facilities and related equipment (including intelligent technology and software) for low- or no-emission buses, constructing new public transportation facilities to accommodate low- or no-emission buses, and rehabilitating or improving existing public transportation facilities to accommodate low- or no-emission buses. USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (or RAISE) program provides 42 Equity (or RAISE) Discretionary Grant Program funding for capital investments in surface transportation that will have a significant local or regional impact. For capital projects located in urban areas, the minimum award is $5 million. For capital projects located in rural areas, the minimum award is $1 million. The maximum grant award is $25 million. Congressionally Directed Spending Requests In fiscal year (FY) 2025, the Senate will accept requests for earmarks, formally called congressionally directed spending (CDS). Earmarks allow Members of Congress to request that federal funds be set aside for specific projects in their states. This is an opportunity for state, local, and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations to apply for funding for projects that would benefit from a one-time allocation of funds. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program CMAQ provides funding to areas in nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide, and/or particulate matter. States that have no nonattainment or maintenance areas still receive a minimum apportionment of CMAQ funding for either air quality projects or other elements of flexible spending. Funds may be used for any transit capital expenditures otherwise eligible for FTA funding as long as they have an air quality benefit. Economic Development Initiative (EDI) - Community Project Funding (CPF) grant The Economic Development Initiative (EDI), Community Project Funding (CPF) grant is a congressionally legislated provision that directs specific approved funds to be awarded to a particular entity for a specific amount and to be spent on the project or purpose identified in the authorizing legislation. This provision is made explicit in a particular a fiscal year’s appropriations bill.04.CPF grants have been used for a variety of economic development and community development purposes across the country. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) expanded tax credits for various renewable and clean energy initiatives, such as investments in electric vehicles (EVs), EV charging stations, alternative fuels, and renewable technologies including solar, wind, geothermal, and battery storage. State MDOT, Maryland Transit Administration The Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA) directs funding and statewide assistance to Locally Operated Transit Systems (LOTS). Additionally, a number of funding programs are available to transportation operators throughout the State. These programs support both public transportation and specialized transportation services. MDOT Transportation Discretionary Grants The MDOT Discretionary Grants are designed to support a wide range of transportation projects across Maryland. These grants are part of the Maryland Department of Transportation’s efforts to enhance infrastructure and improve transportation systems statewide. Statewide Transit Innovation Grant The MDOT MTA Statewide Transit Innovation Grant is a competitive grant program with the goal of supporting local efforts to improve transit reliability, improving access and connections to activity centers, and improving transit mobility options. The program seeks to fund cost - effective public transportation projects that reduce delays for people and improve connectivity between regional and economic population centers. Projects may incorporate bus, rail, or other transit modes. Toll Credits – Maryland Toll Credit Account Balance Federal law permits States with toll facilities to earn credits that can be applied towards the non-Federal share requirement on Federal-aid projects. Toll facilities may include toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries that serve as a link on a public highway. A toll authority may be a public, quasi-public, 43 or private entity, including a chartered multistate agency or State Department of Transportation. The private entity may be under contract or concession agreement with the State. A State may earn toll credits when a public, quasi-public, or private agency uses toll revenues to build, improve, or maintain highways, bridges, or tunnels that serve the public purpose of interstate commerce. Currently, Maryland’s FY23 ending toll credit balance is $462,058,788. Next Steps WCT and the Washington County Board of Commissioners should continue working with HEPMPO and MDTO MTA to execute a funding strategy, inclusive of the funding opportunities identified above, that includes preparing and submitting an application for the FY25 USDOT RAISE Discretionary Grant to secure funding for the facility’s engineering and design, including NEPA clearance. Completing the design phase of the project will position the County to pursue multiple funding options for the project’s construction. Additionally, WCT and the Washington County Board of Commissioners should continue to advocate for the Hagerstown City Council’s approval of the Quit Claim Deed for the portion of Alleyway No. 1-35 necessary to support the facility expansion project. The Quit Claim process is detailed in the following section. 6 QUIT CLAIM Purpose The purpose of the Quit Claim Deed request is to facilitate the planned expansion of WCT’s W. Washington Street transit facility that houses our administration offices, and bus maintenance and storage operations. The planned expansion will be accommodated on WCT’s existing property inclusive of the proposed Quit Claim area of Alley No. 1-35. Washington County Transit been a steadfast presence at this location for several decades, providing over 516,000 annual passenger trips. However, due to the significant increase in public transit demand over the years and our projected future mobility growth, we find our current space increasingly constrained. Application The Washington County Public Works Department has submitted a Quit Claim application to the City of Hagerstown for the portion of the city owned Alley No. 1-35 that divides the Washington County Transit (WCT) 44 property (Parcel #25035194) located at 1000 W. Washington Street, Hagerstown, MD into two separate lot areas. In pursuant to the Hagerstown City’s Quit-Claim Policy E-260. Washington County Transit is working with the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle MPO to examine the facility expansion needs and determine the requirements for accommodating these needs within the confinements of our current property (Parcel #25035194). Obtaining the City’s approval of this Quit Claim request will permit WCT to maximize its current property area for the planned expansion, which is crucial to meet the growing needs of our community and to continue providing efficient and reliable public transit services. The Figure 8 is a sketch plan exhibit illustrates WCT’s property boundaries in conjunction with Alley No. 1-35. As illustrated, Alley No 1-35 extends between Devonshire Rd. and Nottingham Rd. and its eastern segment divides our property into two separate lots along our entire parcel boundary. WCT is submitting this Quit Claim request for the eastern segment of Alley No. 1-35 only. The western segment, which is not part of WCT’s Quit Claim request, serves as the primary driveway access to the Jehovah’s Witness property located at 30 Nottingham Rd, Hagerstown, MD (Parcel No. 25033752), secondary access to the 1020 W. Washington Street property, and rear access to the commercial property located at 1014 W. Washington St. Washington County has notified each of these property owners of the County’s Quit Claim request through certified mailings, copies of which are attached to this application. 45 Figure 8. Quit-Claim Parcel On October 9, 2024, WCT, HEPMPO, and Michael Baker attending the Hagerstown Planning Commission meeting. During the meeting WCT and Michael Baker presented the case for the needs of the Quit-Claim and the impacts making their recommendation to city council would have for the future of WCT. On October 15, 2024, WCT and Micheal Baker attended the City Council work session and presented the case for support of the Quit-Claim. During this meeting WCT and Michael Baker presented a presentation and answered questions from City Counsel. The result of this meeting was that City Council was in favor of the Quit-Claim under the following two conditions. » WCT needs to confirm favor of the request with the other two property owners. o On December 4, 2024, WCT received written acknowledgment and support from the two property owners. » WCT needs to continue to work with Jehovah Witness to address their parking and access concerns/needs. 46 o On December 11, 2024, WCT supported the Jehovah's Witness parking plan in support of the Quit Claim at the Planning Commission Workshop. 7 LOT CONSOLIDATION Pending the Hagerstown City Council’s approval of the Quit Claim Deed Request, Michael Baker’s subconsultant partner and Maryland Licensed Professional Land Surveyor (PLS), Frederick, Seibert & Associates, Inc (FSA) will proceed with preparing a lot consolidation plan of the existing Washington County- owned parcel. The lot consolidated plat will incorporate the Quit Claimed portion of the Alleyway No. 1-35 and into Parcel #25035194 and consolidate the parcel’s existing seven (7) lots (delineated in yellow) as illustrated in Figure 9 into one single and contiguous parcel area. The final lot consolidation plat will ultimately be recorded with the County. Figure 9. WCT Parcel #25035194 Lots Source: City of Hagerstown Tax Maps. https://www.hagerstownmd.org/250/Mapping-Surveying 47 8 APPENDICES Attachment A — Aerial Location Map Nott in g h am R d Ea s t Pl W Washin g t o n S t Devo n s h i r e Rd De v o n s h i r e R d Wak e field R d W Washingto n S t Appendix A Aerial Location Map WCT Expansion Feasibility Study City of Hagerstown, Washington County, MD 39.648408°, -77.738841° 0 70 140 210 28035Feet ¥ Approximate Project Area (WCT Parcel Boundary) Esri Community Maps Contributors, WashCo MD, West Virginia GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Maxar, Approximate Alleyway No. 1-35 Take Alleyway No. 1-35 Attachment B — Environmental Resource Map No t t i n g h a m R d Pa r k A v e Water St Wabash Ave N Mon t Valla A ve W Washington St Eas t P l Concord S t We s t P l S M o n t V a lla A ve No t t i n g h a m R d Wa kef i e l d R d Wa k e fie l d R d Be r ner Ave Bry an P l Oxf o rdCir Avalon A v e De v o n sh i re R d Devons hir eRdWashington Ave Wash ingtonAve W Franklin St Concord St Av alon A v e Be rne r Av e Bu e n a V is t a Ave W S i de A v e W Washingto n St Esri Community Maps Contributors, WashCo MD, West Virginia GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Maxar, Microsoft Appendix B Environmental Resources Map WCT Expansion Feasibility Study City of Hagerstown, Washington County, MD 39.648408°, -77.738841° 0 170 340 510 68085Feet ¥ Approximate Project Area (WCT Parcel Boundary) Approximate Alleyway No. 1-35 Take Legend Recreational Resources Park Hazardous Waste RCRA Site Air Pollution Attachment C — National Wetlands Inventory Map and Hydric Rating Map WCT Facility Expansion Feasibility Study U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine August 5, 2024 0 0.06 0.120.03 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:3,762 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Project Area Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Washington County, Maryland Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 Page 1 of 5 43 9 2 2 5 0 43 9 2 2 6 0 43 9 2 2 7 0 43 9 2 2 8 0 43 9 2 2 9 0 43 9 2 3 0 0 43 9 2 3 1 0 43 9 2 3 2 0 43 9 2 3 3 0 43 9 2 3 4 0 43 9 2 3 5 0 43 9 2 3 6 0 43 9 2 3 7 0 43 9 2 3 8 0 43 9 2 3 9 0 43 9 2 4 0 0 43 9 2 2 5 0 43 9 2 2 6 0 43 9 2 2 7 0 43 9 2 2 8 0 43 9 2 2 9 0 43 9 2 3 0 0 43 9 2 3 1 0 43 9 2 3 2 0 43 9 2 3 3 0 43 9 2 3 4 0 43 9 2 3 5 0 43 9 2 3 6 0 43 9 2 3 7 0 43 9 2 3 8 0 43 9 2 3 9 0 264950 264960 264970 264980 264990 265000 265010 265020 265030 265040 265050 265060 264940 264950 264960 264970 264980 264990 265000 265010 265020 265030 265040 265050 39° 38' 56'' N 77 ° 4 4 ' 2 2 ' ' W 39° 38' 56'' N 77 ° 4 4 ' 1 7 ' ' W 39° 38' 51'' N 77 ° 4 4 ' 2 2 ' ' W 39° 38' 51'' N 77 ° 4 4 ' 1 7 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 35 70 140 210Feet 0 10 20 40 60Meters Map Scale: 1:764 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Washington County, Maryland Survey Area Data: Version 23, Sep 12, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 23, 2020—Nov 20, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Washington County, Maryland Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI UrB Urban land-Hagerstown complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes 0 1.7 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.7 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Washington County, Maryland Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Washington County, Maryland Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Washington County, Maryland Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/5/2024 Page 5 of 5 Attachment D — FEMA MAP National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 7/30/2024 at 3:35 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 77°44'39"W 39°39'7"N 77°44'2"W 39°38'40"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 Attachment E — USFWS Species List 09/03/2024 13:28:03 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Chesapeake Bay Ecological Services Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401-7307 Phone: (410) 573-4599 Fax: (410) 266-9127 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2024-0127041 Project Name: WCT Expansion Feasibility Study Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological Project code: 2024-0127041 09/03/2024 13:28:03 UTC   2 of 7 ▪ evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov). The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List Project code: 2024-0127041 09/03/2024 13:28:03 UTC   3 of 7 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Chesapeake Bay Ecological Services Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401-7307 (410) 573-4599 Project code: 2024-0127041 09/03/2024 13:28:03 UTC   4 of 7 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2024-0127041 Project Name:WCT Expansion Feasibility Study Project Type:Government / Municipal (Non-Military) Construction Project Description:Washington County Transit (WCT) desires to expand its current facility located at 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD to provide additional space to meet its current and future administrative and operational needs. The WCT facility is situated on a single parcel with an area of approximately 1.7 acres that is bisected by a publicly owned alleyway. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@39.648181550000004,-77.73900020629408,14z Counties:Washington County, Maryland Project code: 2024-0127041 09/03/2024 13:28:03 UTC   5 of 7 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 1 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 Project code: 2024-0127041 09/03/2024 13:28:03 UTC   6 of 7 INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. Project code: 2024-0127041 09/03/2024 13:28:03 UTC   7 of 7 ▪ IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:County of Dauphin Name:Ashley Elslager Address:4431 N Front Street, 2nd Floor City:Harrisburg State:PA Zip:17110 Email ashley.elslager@mbakerintl.com Phone:7172212035 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency:County of Washington You have indicated that your project falls under or receives funding through the following special project authorities: BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW (BIL) (OTHER) Attachment F — Facility Expansion Rough Order of Magnitude Washington County Transit - Facility Expansion Rough Order of Magnitude 12.31.2024 Maintenance Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Maintenance Expansion (5,191 SF to 6,882 SF)1,691 SF 319.00$ $539,429 TOTAL 539,429$ Administration Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Administration Expansion (2,314 SF to 5,230 SF)2,916 SF 307.00$ $895,212 TOTAL 895,212$ Interior Bus Storage Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Interior Bus Storage Expansion / New Building (21,300 SF)21,300 SF 359.00$ $7,646,700 16' Masonry Structure, Structure to Support Alternative Fuels, Reinforced Masonry Walls 12"x16" Block Grout Filled, Long Roof Truss, TOTAL 7,646,700$ Stormwater Management Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Stormwater Management 889 SY 55.00$ $48,889 Clearing, Grubbing, Selective Tree Removal (Bioretention Area)1 LS 19,900.00 $19,900 TOTAL 68,789$ Bus Fueling Island & Staging Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Bus Fueling Island 900 SF 464.00$ $417,600 New Concrete Pavement 617 SY 59.00$ $36,416 Metal Fencing - Bus Staging Area 176 LF 78.00$ $13,728 Automatic Sliding Gate 1 EA 16,250.00$ $16,250 Inground Split Tank, 10,000 Diesel / 2,000 Gasoline 1 EA 2,500,000.00$ $2,500,000 TOTAL 2,983,994$ Parking Lot Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Asphalt Mill & Overlay 1" to 3" 777 SY 5.00$ $3,886 Grading Site 133 SY 3.00$ $398 New Asphalt Parking Lot 133 SY 59.00$ $7,821 New Concrete Pavement 106 SY 59.00$ $6,247 Line Striping Parking, Parking Stalls 18 STALL 35.00$ $630 Handicap Symbol, ADA Sign & Post 1 EA 444.00$ $444 Concrete Parking Bumpers 18 EA 82.00$ $1,476 Miscellaneous Sidewalk Repair 1 LS 6,500.00$ $6,500 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb Repair 1 LS 6,500.00$ $6,500 Miscellaneous Landscaping 1 LS 10,000.00$ $10,000 Page 1 of 2 Washington County Transit - Facility Expansion Rough Order of Magnitude 12.31.2024 TOTAL 43,901$ Additional Scope Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost Relocate Wood Utility Poles (Verizon - 30% Premium Incl)3 EA 3,042.00$ $9,126 Chain Link Fence 1,194 LF 59.00$ $70,446 Remove Existing Utility Structure 1 EA 25,000.00$ $25,000 Fenced Grass Area and Patio 1,055 SF 15.00$ $15,825 Site Development / Demolition 1 EA 678,438.00$ $678,438 NDPES Permit and SWPPP 1 LS 12,000.00$ $12,000 Legal Fees 1 LS 87,500.00$ $87,500 Karst Geology Risk to Foundations, Sink Hole Filling 1 LS 213,000.00$ $213,000 Environmental Compliance 1 LS 60,000.00$ $60,000 TOTAL 1,171,335$ Direct Cost - SUBTOTAL $13,349,360 Escalation to Mid-point Constr (2027)17.50%$2,336,138 Project Adjusted Cost - SUBTOTAL 15,685,498$ 20.00%$3,137,100 15.00%$2,823,390 9.00%$1,694,034 PROJECT TOTAL COST 23,340,022$ Construction Contingency Engineering Design CM & A-E During Construction Page 2 of 2 Attachment G — Photograph Log Appendix G – Photograph Log Washington County Transit Facility Expansion Feasibility Study 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Photograph 1: View of WCT Administrative and maintenance facility, facing northeast. Photograph 2: View of fueling and servicing area, facing east. Appendix G – Photograph Log Washington County Transit Facility Expansion Feasibility Study 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Photograph 3: View of paratransit vehicle parking, vehicle servicing area, and underground diesel tank storage facing south. Photograph 4: View of parking lot for revenue vehicles, employee parking, and operator training lot, facing north. Appendix G – Photograph Log Washington County Transit Facility Expansion Feasibility Study 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Photograph 5: View of maintenance bays, facing west. Photograph 6: View of fixed route vehicle storage, facing west. Appendix G – Photograph Log Washington County Transit Facility Expansion Feasibility Study 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Photograph 7: View of alleyway, facing west. Photograph 8: View of alleyway, facing east. Appendix G – Photograph Log Washington County Transit Facility Expansion Feasibility Study 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Photograph 9: View of maintenance bay, facing east. Photograph 10: View of maintenance parts storage, facing northeast. Appendix G – Photograph Log Washington County Transit Facility Expansion Feasibility Study 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Photograph 11: View of fixed route vehicle storage, facing northwest. Photograph 12: View of fixed route vehicle storage, facing east. Appendix G – Photograph Log Washington County Transit Facility Expansion Feasibility Study 1000 W. Washington St, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Photograph 13: View of farebox dump station, utility room, and walkway in maintenance area, facing east. 56 – HEPMPO 33 West Washington St. Ste. 402 - 4th Floor. Hagerstown, MD 21740 HTTPS://HEPMPO.COM/ Open Session Item SUBJECT: Washington County Transit – Transit Administration and Fleet Maintenance Facility Consolidation Plat PRESENTATION DATE: May 6, 2025 PRESENTATION BY: Andrew Eshleman, Director of Public Works and Shawn Harbaugh, Director of Washington County Transit RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to approve the recordation of the Transit Administration and Fleet Maintenance facility consolidation subdivision plat contingent upon City of Hagerstown plan review approval. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Hagerstown Eastern Panhandled Metropolitan Planning Organization (HEPMPO) covered the costs associated with a Washington County Transit (WCT) Facility Study. If WCT is to remain at the current location, the study and conceptual plans indicated a need to vacate property lines and quit claim portions of an alley to create a larger contiguous parcel. The contiguous parcel would allow for the existing facility to be renovated and expanded in the future without the constraints of the individual lot lines and public alley which otherwise renders the property unviable. On January 28, 2025 the County Commissioners approved a Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant application to the US Department of Transportation for the planning and design of a renovated and expanded administrative, maintenance, and transit vehicle storage facility at Washington County Transit’s current location at 1000 W. Washington Street Hagerstown, MD. The grant application implied WCT would use the property as a contiguous parcel. DISCUSSION: A quit claim ordinance for a portion of the alley was approved by the Hagerstown City Council. Regardless of the success of the BUILD grant application, vacating internal lot lines, quit claiming the alley and consolidating the lot lines increase opportunities to utilize the property without the property line setback constraints compared to the existing condition. The property is zoned Commercial General (CG). The consolidation subdivision plat is currently under review by the City of Hagerstown and County Commissioner Board President signature will be required to record the final plat. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form FISCAL IMPACT: None CONCURRENCES: County Attorney ALTERNATIVES: Do not record plat ATTACHMENTS: Consolidation Subdivision Plat, Quit Claim deed and description AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A 1 NO TITLE EXAM THIS QUIT CLAIM DEED, made this ___, day of _________ 2025, by and between CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, a municipal corporation existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of Maryland, party of the first part, Grantor, and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, party of the second part, Grantee. RECITALS The GRANTOR has an interest in an approximately 12 foot wide alley which runs east- west between Devonshire Road and Nottingham Road, in the City of Hagerstown, Maryland, commonly known and designated as Alley 1-35. The Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, as its duly constituted legislative body, and pursuant to Section 5-204 of the Local Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland and the Charter of the City of Hagerstown, have determined that the eastern portion of said Alley 1-35, as hereinafter described and shown, is no longer needed for a public purpose. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland, as its duly constituted legislative body on April 29, 2025 passed an ordinance declaring the hereinafter described property is not needed for a public purpose. WHEREAS, The Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown have determined to Quit Claim any interest that it may have in the eastern portion to said alley to the Grantee herein. The purpose of this Quit Claim Deed is to transfer ownership of all that hereinafter described property to the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland. WHEREAS, Each and every paragraph of this Recital is incorporated in the remainder of this Quit Claim Deed and constitutes a part thereof. WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, the GRANTOR, for no monetary consideration, but for other good and valuable consideration, does by these presents release and forever quitclaim to GRANTEE, all the right, title, interest, estate, claims, and demands, both at law and in equity of the GRANTOR in and to the hereinafter described portion of the bed of Alley 1-35, situate and lying in Election District 25, City of Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland, with a legal description prepared by Frederick Seibert & Associates, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference. The above-described parcel is hereby conveyed subject to and together with any and all conditions, restrictions, limitations, easements and rights of way of record applicable thereto. The City specifically reserves unto itself a perpetual and permanent easement over all of said 2 quitclaimed property for access to the electric and communication system including all trenches, conduits, cables, poles, guy wires & anchors, and other facilities over, under, and upon said property, for the purpose of constructing, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing, operating and/or removing said utility lines, with the further right to install, maintain, operate and replace its facilities without responsibility for any damages caused thereby to trees, bushes and undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the safe and proper operation and maintenance thereof. This easement is for the benefit of the City and shall be covenant running with said lands and binding upon the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, its heirs, successors and assigns. This deed has been prepared without the benefit of a title examination. All parties affirm their understanding that only a title examination will disclose the status of title, including but not limited to, the quality and quantity of title; the possibility of other persons having an interest in the property conveyed by this deed, as well as any other matters disclosed by an examination of title. Notwithstanding this disclosure and having been fully informed of the cost of accomplishing an examination of title, they elect not to have an examination of this title and release the scrivener of this deed from all and any loss, claim, damages and/or liability resulting from a condition of title which might have been disclosed by a title examination of the property conveyed by this deed. AFFIDAVIT OF TOTAL PAYMENT TO GRANTOR(S) Pursuant to the Annotated Code of Maryland, Tax General Article Section 10-912, the herein Grantor(s) hereby state under the penalties of perjury that: (1) It is a Resident Entity of the State of Maryland; (2) The purchase price of the herein described property is $0.00, as recited herein; The above property is conveyed subject to and together with all the conditions, restrictions, easements, and rights of way of record applicable thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized representative, and its corporate seal to be hereunto duly affixed and attested by the City Clerk. WITNESS AND ATTEST CITY OF HAGERSTOWN AS TO CORPORATE SEAL: By: (SEAL) Donna K. Spickler William B. McIntire City Clerk Mayor 3 STATE OF MARYLAND, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, to wit: I HEREBY CERTIFY, That on this _____ day of _______________, 2025, before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, personally appeared William B. McIntire , who acknowledged himself to be the Mayor of the City of Hagerstown, a Maryland Municipal Corporation, and that he as such Officer being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing Quit Claim Deed for the purposes therein by signing, in my presence, the name of the City of Hagerstown, by himself as Mayor, and certified that this conveyance is not part of transaction in which there is a sale, lease exchange or other transfer or all or substantially all of the property and assets of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland. AS WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the above instrument was prepared by or under the supervision of an attorney admitted to practice of law in the State of Maryland. ______________________________________ Jason Morton Mail to: Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Attn: Mr. Andrew Eshleman, P.E., Director, Public Works October 24, 2024 Description of lands to be quit claimed by the City of Hagerstown to The County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Situate on the north side of West Washington and along the west side of Devonshire Road in Election District No. 25, City of Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland and being more particularly described in accordance with a survey dated October 2024 by Frederick, Seibert and Associates, Inc. as following; Beginning at a point at the most northeastern corner of Lot 11, Section F, Wakefield Addition to Hagerstown and recorded at Plat folio 175, said point also being the intersection of the western right-of-way line of Devonshire Road with the southern right- of-way line of a 12 foot public alley, thence running along the northern boundary of Lots 9, 10 and 11 of Wakefield Addition to Hagerstown and along the southern right-of- way line of said 12 foot public alley N 76°52‘23“ W 192.33 feet to the most northwestern corner of Lot 9, Section F Wakefield Addition to Hagerstown, thence crossing said alley, N 36°37‘19“ E 13.08 feet to the most southwestern corner of Lot 220, Section C Wakefield Addition as recorded at Plat folio 255, thence running with the northern right- of-way line of said 12 foot public alley S 76°52‘23“ E 189.43 feet to intersect the western right-of-way line of Devonshire Road, thence across the mouth of said alley and with the western right-of-way line of Devonshire Road, S 24°02‘37“ W 12.22 feet to the place of beginning; Containing 2290 square feet of land, more or less; Said lands being that portion of a 12 foot public alley running along the north side of Lots 9,10 and 11 of Section F Wakefield Addition to Hagerstown and Washington County Plat folio 175. FMF/vab.2024-0280 desc EXHIBIT A