1 transportation policy area review (tpar) a suggested new approach presentation to m.c. civic...

1

Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR)

A suggested new approach

Presentation to M.C. Civic Federation

November 8, 2010

2

Presentation Outline

1. Guiding Principles / Stakeholder Participation

2. The Proposed TPAR Policy in a Nutshell

3. Proposed Process Component Parts

4. The Main Steps

5. Sample Policy Area Results

3

Guiding Principles• Based on Approved Master Plans.

• Process easily understood.

• Separate analysis for transit and roads.

• Public – private financing of solutions.

• Support economic development.

• Monitor, report and adjust key elements.

4

Stakeholder Participation• PHED Committee Members• Council, Planning, and MCDOT staff• Listening Sessions with selected stakeholders:

– Chambers of Commerce and Employers– Transportation-Related Groups– Leadership of Civic Associations– Developers and their Representatives– Transportation Professionals.

• Presentation to Stakeholders• Presentation to County Executive and staff.

5

The Proposed TPAR Policy in a Nutshell

Achieving Balance • Guidance to improve transportation -

development activity balance - 10 years forward.

• Establish standards of transportation adequacy for both transit services and roadway congestion

• A Policy Area is balanced when both transit services and roadways meet the adequacy standards.

6

The Proposed TPAR Policy in a NutshellProgramming Transportation Projects

• If Policy Area not balanced County should program the transit services / road improvements.

• Programmed transportation improvements must come from Adopted and Approved Master and Sector Plans.

• Proposed improvements funded through a public-private partnership.

• Programming to occur once a threshold of private payments has been reached.

7

The Proposed TPAR Policy in a Nutshell

Monitoring and Reporting

TPAR requires monitoring and reporting of key elements of the policy:– Development Activity– Implementation of Transit Services and Capital

Projects– Annual Report on trends during the prior year– Recommendations for action to ensure

desirable balance.

8

Component Parts of the Process

1. Identify Transit Inadequacies and

Solutions

2. Identify Roadway Inadequacies and

Solutions

3. Cost Allocation Steps

4. Programming Public

Commitments

5. Monitor and Report

9

Analysis Uses 21 Policy AreasAnalysis Uses 21 Policy Areas

RurE

RKV

FWO

SSTP

RurE

RurW

RurW

BCC

AH

DAM

CLV

CLK

GTE

GBGDER

MVA

KW

GTW RurEOLY

NP

NB

RDV

POT

Aspen Hill AHBethesda / Chevy Chase BCCClarksburg CLKCloverly CLVDamascus DAMDerwood DERFairland / White Oak FWOGaithersburg GBGGermantown East GTEGermantown West GTWKensington Wheaton KWMontgomery Village / Airpark MVANorth Bethesda NBNorth Potomac NPOlney OLYPotomac POTR&D Village RDVRockville RKVSilver Spring / Takoma Park SSTPRural East RurERural West RurW

10

SUGGESTED TRANSIT PROCESS

11

Suggested Process for Transit

• Establish Geographic Policy Area Categories

– Urban– Suburban – Rural

• Establish Service Factors– Transit Coverage– Peak Headways– Span of Service

12

# = Consistent with the 2008 Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan and based on guidance from various Master Plans and Sector Plans

Identify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions

Factors Characterizing Bus Transit Quality of Service in Montgomery County#

Transit Service Area

Categories

Coverage:(percent of area

within a 1 mile walk of Metro and/or 1/3 mile walk of bus)

Peak Headways:(equal to or less

than___minutes between buses on average in Peak

Hour)

Span of Service:(equal to or more than ___hours in

duration per weekday on average)

Urban Greater than 80% 20 minutes with Metrorail15 minutes w/o it.

17 Hours

Suburban Greater than 30% 20 minutes 14 Hours

Rural Greater than 5% 30 minutes 4 Hours

13

* Note: Transit includes Transportation Management Districts (TMD)

Yes

No

Are transit adequacy

standards met?

Classify Policy Areas by Transit

Category

No additional transit costs

3

2

1

Go to on

slide 39

21

4

6

5

Identify Transit improvements to meet transit adequacy

standards

Estimate transit service costs

and capital investment

needs

Proposed Process: Main Steps Identify Transit* Inadequacies and Solutions

14

"Urban" Policy Areas served by Metrorail

(Sequenced by Decreasing "Coverage" of Bus Routes)

Number of Bus Routes

Metro Rail?

MARC Com-muter Rail?

Future Light Rail?

Area of the

Policy Area

(sq. mi.)

Pop. Density in 2010 (person per sq.

mi.)

Emp. Density in 2010 (emp. per sq.

mi.)

Coverage (Percent of area within 1 mi. rail;

1/3 of bus)

Peak Headway by Bus in PM Peak

Hour (min.)

Span: Duration of Weekday

Bus Service (hours)

Silver Spring/Takoma Park 33 Y Y Y 10.49 8,622 4,376 96.0% 17.5 13.4North Bethesda 14 Y Y Y 9.25 5,216 7,430 87.4% 21.3 15.0Kensington/Wheaton 20 Y Y 19.26 4,853 1,230 82.0% 22.6 13.6Bethesda/Chevy Chase 16 Y Y 20.24 4,962 4,339 81.2% 17.6 13.5Rockville City 13 Y Y Y 13.64 4,314 5,794 79.9% 17.2 17.6Derwood 3 Y Y 8.22 2,274 2,556 70.0% 20.0 14.9

more than less than more than80.0% 15.0 ## 17.0

Policy Areas Categorized as "Urban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010

## = 20.0 with Metrorail

xx.xInadequate versus the Standards shown

15

"Suburban" Policy Areas

(Sequenced by Decreasing "Coverage" of Bus Routes)


Metro Rail?


Future Light Rail?

Area of the

Policy Area

(sq. mi.)


mi.)


mi.)


1/3 of bus)


Hour (min.)


Bus Service (hours)

R&D Village 5 Y 2.38 3,076 8,764 75.5% 25.0 11.7Gaithersburg City 10 Y Y 11.03 5,446 4,967 75.0% 19.3 14.6Fairland/White Oak 13 20.66 3,700 1,495 48.2% 19.5 11.9Germantown West 10 Y Y 10.98 5,652 1,347 48.0% 21.8 15.7Montgomery Village/Airpark 12 9.41 5,472 1,372 47.1% 19.4 14.9Aspen Hill 10 13.05 4,644 478 43.7% 18.4 15.9Germantown East 5 Y 6.57 3,568 1,310 39.3% 21.0 13.4Cloverly 2 9.83 1,621 137 30.0% 26.5 7.2

North Potomac 7 10.49 2,570 1,427 29.2% 23.6 12.3Olney 4 17.36 1,887 317 26.2% 24.6 9.2Potomac 10 Y 28.07 1,696 431 22.5% 19.1 14.3Clarksburg 2 Y 14.91 934 255 16.4% 30.0 10.2

more than less than more than30.0% 20.0 14.0

Policy Areas Categorized as "Suburban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010


16

"Rural" Policy Areas (Sequenced by Decreasing

"Coverage")


Metro Rail?


Future Light Rail?

Area of the

Policy Area

(sq. mi.)


mi.)


mi.)


1/3 of bus)


Hour (min.)


Bus Service (hours)

Rural West 1 Y 132.90 157 20 8.4% 30.0 6.3Damascus 1 9.42 1,119 248 7.4% 20.0 15.7Rural East 1 117.18 289 48 7.4% 20.0 15.7

more than less than more than5.0% 30.0 4.0

Policy Areas Categorized as "Rural" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010


17

SUGGESTED ROAD PROCESS

18

* Note: Roadways include traffic operations, bikeways and walkways

4. Road Process Main Steps Identify Roadway* Inadequacies and Solutions

Yes

NoApply Transp. Demand Model

Are there future Inadequacies?

14131210-year

Dev. Act. Forecasts

Programmed Projects in

CIP/CTP

11

Summarize Roadway Policy Area and

Corridor Performance

Iterate as

Needed

17

15

16

Projects not yet Programmed

(State/County)

Go to on

slide 39

22

Prepare combinations of projects for CIP/CTP for

performance and to complete within 10 years

19

3B-13: Standard of Roadway Performance3B-13: Standard of Roadway Performance

Urban Street Class

Range of Free Flow Speeds

Typical Free Flow Speed 50 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph

Level of Service

A > 42 > 35 > 30 > 25

B 34 42 28 35 24 30 19 25

C 27 34 22 28 18 24 13 19

D 21 27 17 22 14 18 9 13

E 16 21 13 17 10 14 7 9

F =< 16 =< 13 =< 10 =< 7

Level of Service

A > 84% > 88% > 86% > 83%

B 68% 84% 70% 88% 69% 86% 63% 83%

C 54% 68% 55% 70% 51% 69% 43% 63%

D 42% 54% 43% 55% 40% 51% 30% 43%

E 32% 42% 33% 43% 29% 40% 23% 30%

F =< 32% =< 33% =< 29% =< 23%

III

Basic Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2000) Exhibit 15-2 Urban Street LOS by Class

IV

Average Travel Speed (mph)

I II

Average Speed Relative to the Typical Free Flow Speed (as a percent)

55 to 45 mph 45 to 35 mph 35 to 30 mph 35 to 25 mph

20

Policy Areas including their MSPAs

Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary:

2020 Development Forecasts with Existing Roads plus Programmed CIP/CTP

The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments within the Policy Area:(1) averaged by direction of flow that is, (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled, and(3) normalized for Arterial Class of each of the link segments of the arterial corridor

A

B

C

D

E

F

Applying the Standard to Policy AreasApplying the Standard to Policy Areas

21

Example of Policy Area ResultsExample of Policy Area Results




A

B

C

D

E

F


Average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction

Average for the Peak Flow Direction

Existing + Programmed Projects

Guidance to reviewers to help better understand

these Charts

Average for a

Policy Area

22

TPAR Results County-wideTPAR Results County-wide

BCC

SSTP

NP

NB

KW

RKV

DER

RDVGBG

FWO

OLYPOT

CLK

MVAAHGTE

CLV

DAM

GTW




A

B

C

D

E

F






these Charts

"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas

"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service"Rural"

23

Setting the TPAR Standard for RoadsSetting the TPAR Standard for Roads

BCC

SSTP

NP

NB

KW

RKV

DER

RDVGBG

FWO

OLYPOT

CLK

MVAAHGTE

CLV

DAM

GTW




A

B

C

D

E

F






these Charts



Policy Area Adequacy Standards

24

Adequacy of Forecasts with CIP/CTPAdequacy of Forecasts with CIP/CTP

BCC

SSTP

NP

NB

KW

RKV

DER

RDVGBG

FWO

OLYPOT

CLK

MVAAHGTE

CLV

DAM

GTW




A

B

C

D

E

F





Network effects of new Projects

Direct effect of new Projects


these Charts




25

Adequacy with Sample ImprovementsAdequacy with Sample Improvements

BCC

SSTP

NP

NB

KW

RKV

DER

RDVGBG

FWO

OLYPOT

CLK

MVAAHGTE

CLV

DAM

GTW




2020 Development Forecasts with Existing, Programmed CIP/CTP, Proposed

A

B

C

D

E

F






Direct effect of new Projects


these Charts



26

• RESULTS OF SUGGESTED APPROACH

on three Sample Policy Areas

27

Fairland White OakFairland White Oak

Source: Map layers provided by MNCPPC

0.0 0.5 1.0 miles

N


0.0 0.5 1.0 miles

0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 miles

N N

2010 Growth Percent PercentHouse- 2010 to Growth of Countyholds to 2020 by Area Growth

28,544 345 1.2% 0.8%

2010 Growth Percent Percent

Employ- 2010 to Growth of Countyment to 2020 by Area Growth

30,891 6,225 20.2% 7.8%

Forecast of Growth in Emploment

Fairland / White OakForecast of Growth in Households

28

Germantown EastGermantown East Source: Map layers

provided by MNCPPC

0.0 0.5 1.0

miles N


0.0 0.5 1.0

miles 0.0 0.5 1.0

miles 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

miles N N


8,032 305 3.8% 0.7%



8,603 4,425 51.4% 5.5%


Germantown EastForecast of Growth in Households

29

Bethesda Chevy ChaseBethesda Chevy Chase


0.0 0.5 1.0 miles

N


0.0 0.5 1.0 miles

0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 miles

N N


40,115 3,829 9.5% 8.3%



87,820 8,804 10.0% 19.1%


Bethesda / Chevy ChaseForecast of Growth in Households

30

Forecasts of Development ActivityForecasts of Development Activity

2010 Growth Percent Percent 2010 Growth Percent PercentHouse- 2010 to Growth of County Employ- 2010 to Growth of Countyholds to 2020 by Area Growth ment to 2020 by Area Growth

Bethesda / Chevy Chase 40,115 3,829 9.5% 8.3% 87,820 8,804 10.0% 11.0%

Fairland / White Oak 28,544 345 1.2% 0.8% 30,891 6,225 20.2% 7.8%

Germantown East 8,032 305 3.8% 0.7% 8,603 4,425 51.4% 5.5%

County Total = 362,000 46,000 12.7% 100.0% 510,000 80,000 15.7% 100.0%

Forecast of Development Activity in Montgomery County between 2010 and 2020 by Policy Area based on Summaries from MWCOG and MNCPPC

Forecast of Growth in Households Forecast of Growth in EmplomentPolicy Area

(including their MSPAs)

31

TRANSIT RESULTS FOR SAMPLE POLICY AREAS

32

Example Policy Areas (Sequenced by Decreasing "Coverage" of Bus Routes)

Transit Category


Metro Rail?


Future Light Rail?


1/3 of bus)


Hour (min.)


Bus Service (hours)

Bethesda/Chevy Chase Urban 16 Y Y 81.2% 17.6 13.5

more than less than more than80.0% 15.0 ## 17.0

Fairland/White Oak Suburban 13 48.2% 19.5 11.9

Germantown East Suburban 5 Y 39.3% 21.0 13.4

more than less than more than

30.0% 20.0 14.0

Ruralmore than less than more than

5.0% 30.0 4.0

Transit Adequacy Analysis Examples: for Three Policy Areas Categorized based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and

Span of Service of 2010

## = 20.0 with Metrorail

xx.xInadequate versus the Standards shown =

xx.xInadequate versus the Standards shown =

33

ROADWAY RESULTS FOR SAMPLE POLICY AREAS

34

Sample Road Improvements (Sample Road Improvements (for testing onlyfor testing only))

Transportation Improvement Type Policy CommentsFacility Name and/or Limits Area To be Noted

FY10 AGP Proj. In CTP and CIP for const. by FY14 to count 6 yearsplus 3 following projects by FY16 In Approved CTP

Interchange MD097 (Ga. Ave) at Randolph Rd KW In Approved CIPMontrose Pkwy East; MD355 to MD586 (Veirs Mill Rd) NB In Approved CIPChapman Ave Extd; Randolph Rd to Old Gtwn Rd NB In Approved CIP

Purple Line New Carrollton to Bethesda Co-Wide

TDM Activities in BCC, SSTP, NB, DER, FWO, KW Co-Wide improved monitoring & programs

Observation Dr Roberts Tavern to I-4 (revised extent) CLK 2 lanes each way

Mid-Co. Hwy Shady Grove Rd to MD200 Interco. Conn. DER widen to 3 Lanes each way

Interchange US029 Columbia Pk at Fairland/Musgrove Rd FWO

MD117 Clopper RdI-270 to Longdraft reconstruction GBG improve median/ turn lanes

Mid-Co. Hwy MD027 to Middlebrook Rd (revised extent) GTE 2 lanes each way (design 3)

I-4 Overpass Road bridge over I-270 GTE

MD355 Frederick MD027 Ridge Rd to Little Seneca Pky GTE widen to 2 Lanes each way

Century Blvd I-4 to Existing Century Blvd GTW

Goshen Rd Girard St to Warfield Rd MVA widen to 4 lane divided

Twinbrook PkwyMD355 Rockville Pike to Ardennes Ave NB widen to 3 Lanes each wayMD117 Clopper RdWatkins Mill Rd to Game Preserve Rd NP widen to 2 Lanes each way

Projects that could be Available by 2020

35

Variation in Road Performance in FWOVariation in Road Performance in FWO

10 m

inor

art

eria

ls

Ran

dolp

h R

d / C

herr

y H

ill R

d

Old

Col

umbi

a P

ike

Fai

rland

Rd

US

029

Col

umbi

a P

ike

Gre

enca

stle

Blv

d

Brig

gs C

hane

y R

dPow

der

Mill

Rd

MD

650

New

Ham

pshi

re A

ve

Arterial Roads in the Fairland / White Oak Policy Area

Policy Area

Adequacy Standard

Adequacy of the Main Roads in the Fairland / White Oak Policy Area:2020 Development Forecasts with

CIP/CTP Programmed ImprovementsA

B

C

D

E

F






Direct effect of each new Project

Guidance to reviewers to help better understand these Charts

36

Future Road Performance in FWOFuture Road Performance in FWO

10 m

inor

art

eria

ls

Ran

dolp

h R

d / C

herr

y H

ill R

d

Old

Col

umbi

a P

ike

Fai

rland

Rd

US

029

Col

umbi

a P

ike

Gre

enca

stle

Blv

d

Brig

gs C

hane

y R

dPow

der

Mill

Rd

MD

650

New

Ham

pshi

re A

ve

Arterial Roads in the Fairland / White Oak Policy Area

Policy Area

Adequacy Standard

Adequacy of the Main Roads in the Fairland / White Oak Policy Area:

Proposed New 2020 Projects Compared to CIP/CTP Programmed Improvements

A

B

C

D

E

F








Policy Area

Average

37

Variation in Road Performance in GTEVariation in Road Performance in GTE

Way

fare

r R

d

MD

355

Fre

deric

k R

d

Nee

lsvi

lle C

hurc

h R

d

Mid

dleb

rook

Rd

Brin

k R

d

Obs

erva

tion

Driv

e (p

art)

MD

118

Ger

man

tow

n R

d

MD

027

Rid

ge R

d

Arterial Roads in the Germantown East Policy Area

Approaching Policy Area

Adequacy Standard

Adequacy of the Main Roads in the Germantown East Policy Area:

2020 Development Forecasts with CIP/CTP Programmed Improvements

A

B

C

D

E

F








38

Future Road Performance in GTEFuture Road Performance in GTE

Way

fare

r R

d

MD

355

Fre

deric

k R

d

Nee

lsvi

lle C

hurc

h R

d

Mid

dleb

rook

Rd

Brin

k R

d

Obs

erva

tion

Driv

e (p

art)

MD

118

Ger

man

tow

n R

d

MD

027

Rid

ge R

d

Arterial Roads in the Germantown East Policy Area

Approaching Policy Area

Adequacy Standard

Adequacy of the Main Roads in the Germantown East Policy Area:


A

B

C

D

E

F








Policy Area

Average

I-4

Brid

ge o

ver

I-27

0

Mid

coun

ty H

wy

39

Variation in Road Performance in BCCVariation in Road Performance in BCC

MD

188

Wils

on L

a

MD

41

0 E

ast

-We

st H

wy

MD

18

7 O

ld G

eo

rge

tow

n R

d

Gre

entr

ee R

d

Jon

es

Bri

dg

e R

d

MD

18

5 C

on

ne

ctic

ut

Ave

Ce

da

r L

a

Jon

es

Mill

Rd

MD

61

4 G

old

sbo

ro R

d

Bea

ch D

r

Mac

Art

hur

Blv

d

MD

190

Riv

er R

d

Woo

dmon

t Ave

MD

396

Mas

sach

uset

ts A

ve

Bat

tery

La

Littl

e F

alls

Pkw

y

Will

ard

Ave

Bur

dette

Rd

MD

18

6 B

roo

kevi

lle R

d

MD

191

Bra

dley

Blv

d-La

24 M

inor

Art

eria

ls

Bra

dmoo

r D

r

Sev

en L

ocks

Rd

Fer

nwoo

d R

d

Arterial Roads in the Bethesda Chevy Chase Policy Area

Proposed Policy Area

Adequacy Standard

Adequacy of the Main Roads in the Bethesda Chevy Chase Policy Area:2020 Development Forecasts with

CIP/CTP Programmed ImprovementsA

B

C

D

E

F








MD

355

Wis

c. A

ve

40

Future Road Performance in BCCFuture Road Performance in BCC

MD

188

Wils

on L

a

MD

41

0 E

ast

-We

st H

wy

MD

18

7 O

ld G

eo

rge

tow

n R

d

Gre

entr

ee R

d

Jon

es

Bri

dg

e R

d

MD

18

5 C

on

ne

ctic

ut

Ave

Ce

da

r L

a

Jon

es

Mill

Rd

MD

61

4 G

old

sbo

ro R

d

Bea

ch D

r

Mac

Art

hur

Blv

d

MD

190

Riv

er R

d

Woo

dmon

t Ave

MD

396

Mas

sach

uset

ts A

ve

Bat

tery

La

Littl

e F

alls

Pkw

y

Will

ard

Ave

Bur

dette

Rd

MD

18

6 B

roo

kevi

lle R

d

MD

191

Bra

dley

Blv

d-La

24 M

inor

Art

eria

ls

Bra

dmoo

r D

r

Sev

en L

ocks

Rd

Fer

nwoo

d R

d

Arterial Roads in the Bethesda Chevy Chase Policy Area

Proposed Policy Area

Adequacy Standard

Policy Area

Average

Adequacy of the Main Roads in the Bethesda Chevy Chase Policy Area:


A

B

C

D

E

F








MD

355

Wis

c. A

ve

41

5. Proposed Process: Main StepsC. Cost-Allocation Steps

Set public-private cost

sharing

Yes

No

28

Is the Collection greater than the criteria of ?25

Transit Costs from

page 9

Roadway Costs from

page 10

2221

29Wait before the

Project-Service is Programmed

23

24

Cost per unit of development

Cost estimates for capital facilities and operating expenses

27

Establish criteria for additions into the

CIP/CTP

25

Go to on

slide 12

31

30

Aggregate Policy Area Fees collected

as part of the subdivision process

26a

26b

Set shares for Households and

Employment

Change since prior Executive briefing

42

Proposed Process: Main Steps Programming Public Commitments /

Monitor and Report

Identify as a Committed Project

in the CIP

Schedule and Implement within

10-year Time Frame

33

3̀4

Program the Project-Service

32

From on

slide 11

30

31

36

Yes

No

Monitor & Report on Development and Implementation Commitments

35

38

Go to Next Growth Policy Cycle

On Schedule?

Make Recommendations for Revised or New

Solutions

37Change since prior Executive briefing

43

Full Report is available atwww.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcdo

t

1 transportation policy area review (tpar) a suggested new approach presentation to m.c. civic...

Documents

suggested transit process

proposed tpar policy

policy areas

suggested process

suggested road process

bus transit quality

percent of area

road process main steps