transportation policy area review (tpar) -- a suggested new approach

1

Transportation Policy Area Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR)Review (TPAR)

----A suggested new approachA suggested new approach

June, 2010

2

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

1. Guiding Principles2. The Proposed TPAR Policy in a Nutshell3. Proposed Process Components 4. Transit Process – 2020 Results5. Road Process – 2020 Results 6. Example of Subdivision Process

3

1. Guiding Principles1. Guiding Principles

• Based on Approved Master Plans.

• Process easily understood.

• Seek and Include Input from Stakeholders.

• Separate analysis for transit and roads.

• Public – private financing of solutions.

• Support economic development.

• Monitor, report and adjust key elements.

4

2. The Proposed TPAR in a Nutshell2. The Proposed TPAR in a NutshellAchieving BalanceAchieving Balance

• Guides how to balance transportation and development activity 10 years forward

• Suggests standards of adequacy for– transit services – and road congestion

• Defines a Policy Area to be in balance if it meets both adequacy standards in the 10 year period.

5

The Proposed TPAR in a NutshellThe Proposed TPAR in a NutshellProgramming Transportation ProjectsProgramming Transportation Projects

• If a Policy Area not in balance, then County should program the transit services / road improvements

• The programmed capital improvements must come from the Adopted and Approved Master Plans

• The proposed improvements are to be funded through a public-private partnership.

• Suggest a threshold of private payments before, a capital project and /or transit service program must be programmed

6

The Proposed TPAR in a NutshellThe Proposed TPAR in a NutshellMonitoring and ReportingMonitoring and Reporting

TPAR requires monitoring and reporting of key

elements of the policy:– Development Activity– Collection of Payments– Programming / Implementation of Improvements– Annual Report– Recommendations for action to ensure the

desirable balance.

7

Current Policy AreasCurrent 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

8

3. Proposed Process Components3. Proposed Process Components

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

Proposed Process for TransitProposed Process for Transit

• Establish Geographic Policy Area Categories– Urban– Suburban – Rural

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

10

Identify Transit Inadequacies and SolutionsIdentify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions

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 Metrorail17 Hours

SuburbanLess than 80% and Greater than 30%

20 minutes 14 Hours

Rural More than 5% 30 minutes 4 Hours

Factors Characterizing Bus Transit Quality of Service in Montgomery County#

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

11

"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

12

"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


13

"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


14

5A. ROAD PROCESS5A. ROAD PROCESS – 2020 RESULTS – 2020 RESULTS

15

* Note: Roadways include traffic operations, bikeways and walkways

Proposed Process: Main StepsProposed Process: Main Steps Identify Roadway* Inadequacies and Solutions 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

16

Standard of Roadway PerformanceStandard 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

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

III

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

IV

Average Travel Speed (mph)

I II

17

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

18

4B-13: Example of one Policy Area4B-13: Example of one Policy Area

Policy Areas including their MSPAs

Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary:

2020 Development Forecasts with Existing Roads plus Programmed CIP/CTP

A

B

C

D

E

F

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

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

19

Applying the Model County-wideApplying the Model 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"

20

Setting Standards by Geographic P. AreaSetting Standards by Geographic P. Area

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

21

2020 Road Adequacy with 6-year CIP/CTP2020 Road Adequacy with 6-year 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




22

5. B Testing Road Solutions5. B Testing Road Solutions

23

List of Improvements for TestingList of Improvements for TestingTransportation 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

24

Adequacy of Proposed ImprovementsAdequacy of Proposed 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





Network effects of new Projects

Direct effect of new Projects


these Charts



25

Proposed Process: Main StepsProposed Process: Main StepsC. Cost-Allocation 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

26

Proposed Process: Main StepsProposed Process: Main Steps D. Programming Public Commitments D. Programming Public Commitments

E. Monitor and ReportE. 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

37

27

6. Example of the Subdivision Process 6. Example of the Subdivision Process

1. Identify Policy Area of Development

2. ApplyA. Roadway Cost

B. Transit Cost

3. Subdivision Approved

4. Payment/Surety prior to Record Plat

5. Track TPAR Payments by Policy Area

6. Are road or transit improvements ready for programming?

7. Program Improvements and implement

8. Monitor and Report Progress

28

Full Report is available atFull Report is available atwww.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcdotwww.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcdot

transportation policy area review (tpar) -- a suggested new approach

Documents

tpar policy

proposed tpar

resultsroad process

resultsproposed process

policy areaare road

road adequacy

program improvements

transit improvements