Short answer: No.

The type of median busway proposed under the Better BRT plan has never been studied in detail before.

A median busway was not studied as part of the US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Study released in April 2017 by the Maryland Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). The Alternatives examined by that study did not include any kind of median bus lane south of New Hampshire Avenue, and looked only at managed curb lanes and use of shoulders further north on Route 29. The scope of the 2017 study did not include examination of a median bus lane from the onset due to the county executive’s expressed desire that MDOT and MCDOT only study BRT implementation strategies that required minimal construction and resources.

The 2013 Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan developed by Montgomery Planning recommended some kind of median busway south of New Hampshire Avenue to Sligo Creek Parkway. However, a median busway was seen as a politically challenge to propose to the public due to a misconception that the project would negatively impact adjacent neighborhoods. As a result, it was decided that engineers and planners of MDOT, MCDOT, and Montgomery Planning would not be allowed to examine a median busway.

It is false to claim that a median busway along Route 29 south of New Hampshire Avenue has been rejected or “won’t work” due to engineering reasons.

This concept has worked in other US cities

The Better BRT plan states that six travel lanes, a single-lane median busway, and a raised median with vegetation can fit within 84’ of existing road space on Route 29. This exact configuration within 84’ has already been done successfully in Eugene, Oregon.Therefore, it is also false to claim that this configuration is somehow experimental or new in the United States, because said configuration is already in place on a US BRT system that complies with federal standards including the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Below are images of a section of Eugene, Oregon’s BRT system where there are six 11’ wide lanes on either side of a 18’ wide containing a single-lane busway and a planting strip. In this particular cross section, the two inner lanes happen to be turn lanes, while the outer four are travel lanes. Regardless, all lanes are 11’’ and demonstrate that a single lane median busway with adjacent raised-median planting strip can fit within the existing 84’ cross section of Route 29.

But wasn’t a median lane once proposed for Route 29?

While the type of median busway proposed by the Better BRT plan has never before been studied for the Route 29 corridor, a median HOV lane was proposed for Route 29 in the late 1980s. The differences between Better BRT and the past median HOV ideas must be understood.

The Better BRT plan preserves a raised median on Route 29 throughout the vast majority of the corridor, with every pedestrian crosswalk having a refuge at least 10’ wide (16’ wide at the Four Corners intersection crosswalks).

By comparison, the median HOV lane proposed 30 years ago involved the complete removal of the median of Route 29 throughout the corridor, including at areas with crosswalks, as shown in the image below.

Completely removing the raised median on Route 29 would have a negative impact on adjacent neighborhoods and the pedestrian experience. The Better BRT plan is a much different approach than preserves a raised median and pedestrian refuges.

But weren’t reversible lanes considered and then determined to be too dangerous?

Another prior busway proposal for Roue 29 that is radically different from the Better BRT plan involved contra-flow bus lanes. A contra-flow busway involves buses operating on the “wrong side” of the median, using the left lane in the off-peak direction as a lane for bus in the peak direction. For example, for evening operations, the three northbound lanes of Route 29 would remain general traffic lanes for all vehicles, while the southbound left lane would be closed to southbound traffic using overhead lane control signals and be restricted buses travelling in the northbound direction. The operations of such a contra-flow operation or complex and confusing due to having buses on the opposite side of the median from other traffic travelling in the same direction. While the lane being used for buses would be closed to oncoming traffic using overhead lane control signals, contra-flow operations are confusing to many motorists and thus are rarely found on arterial roads like Route 29 in the United States.

The Better BRT plan is different than a contra-flow operation as it does not involve buses using the wrong side of the median or buses using temporarily repurposed general lanes that would normally carry traffic in the opposite direction. Under the Better BRT plan, buses in the median busway would be physically separated from opposing traffic by raised curbs and/or vegetation strips in the median adjacent to the bus lane(s).