Appendix : Transportation Analysis

Contents

. Purpose
. Transportation Plan Recommendations
A. Travel Demand Management
B. Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and Local Transit System
C. Street Network
. Transportation and Land Use Balance
A. Measures of Effectiveness
B. Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR)
C. Local Area Transportation Review (LATR)
D. Cordon Line Analysis
E. Travel Demand Forecasting Process and Assumptions
F. Local Area Modeling Process and Assumptions

Figures

Figure : Transportation Management Strategies

Figure : Travel Demand Management Techniques and Target Markets
Figure : Current CCT Alignment
Figure
: Draft Plan CCT Alignment and Stations
Figure : Ride On Routes and Average Ridership
Figure : Round .
Ridership for Existing CCT Alignment
Figure : Cost Effectiveness of the Existing CCT Alignment
Figure : Characteristics of Transit Oriented Development
Figure : Characteristics of Residential Transit-Oriented Development
Figure : Characteristics of Mixed-Use Transit-Oriented Development
Figure : Transit Trends for Journey to Work Trips for Selected TODs
Figure : Walk/Bike Trends for Journey to Work Trips for Selected TODs
Figure  : Staff’s August  Forecast for   Development
Figure 
: Round .
Forecast for   Development Comparisons
Figure : Gaithersburg West Street Network
Figure : Illustrative Concept of Sam Eig as a Controlled Major Highway
Figure : LSC Street Network
Figure : Gaithersburg West and LSC Bike Network
Figure : LSC Policy Area Land Use
Figure : Policy Area Mobility Review Chart-
Figure : Policy Area Mobility Review Table-
Figure : Policy Area Transportation Review Table-
Figure : Intersection Congestion Standards by Policy Area
Figure : Intersection Analysis
Figure : Sector Plan Cordon Line Traffic Volumes
Figure : Draft Plan Trip Generation Comparison
Figure : Travel/ Model Network Typology
Figure : LSC Area Local Area Model Subzones
Figure : Local Area Model Peak Hour Trip Generation
Figure : LSC Land Use Scenarios Considered In Plan Development (TAZs , , and )


. Purpose

The public hearing draft of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan proposes a conversion of the Life Sciences Center (LSC)
area from auto-oriented suburbia to a transit-oriented, mixed-use, community. This Appendix provides the technical
basis and details for the transportation system recommendations in the Gaithersburg West Master Plan.

The Plan proposes several innovative changes designed to promote the orderly implementation of a transit-oriented
and sustainable center for the LSC, including:

• realigning the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) with line-haul service between the proposed LSC CCT stations
• accepting congestion levels that reflect the Planning staff and Planning Board approach to adequacy
• establishing a local street network that will create a finer grid than exists today and will improve vehicular and
pedestrian connections between districts
• an implementation plan that relies on proportional participation by all developments and a staging plan to
coordinate area wide transportation system implementation in lieu of assigning piecemeal transportation exaction
requirements to individual development applications.

Since the early s, the balance between land use and transportation system recommendations in master and
sector plans has applied the procedures and general policies contained in the County’s Growth Policy. The current
Growth Policy applies an area wide mobility measure called Policy Area Mobility Review and a localized measure of
congestion called Local Area Transportation Review. These measures, used to define adequacy for development review
cases, are adapted for master plan analysis by applying the Department’s TRAVEL/ regional travel demand model and
Local Area Model as described in detail in Chapter of this Appendix.

The land use and transportation systems are balanced to promote end-state development that provides the
density needed to redevelop the LSC area from an auto-oriented community to a transit-oriented community. The
transportation system needed to accommodate these levels of development must achieve a  percent non-auto
driver mode share (NADMS) for LSC employees, an objective that can be met through a combination of strategies,
including:

• improved access to transit, including realigning the CCT through the LSC and improved transit circulator services in
combination with the concentration of future development within walking distance of transit
• implementing a finer local street network with block lengths of  feet or less that promotes walking and
bicycling
• managing the long-term parking supply by coordinating zoning requirements and public parking provisions
• commencing proactive travel demand management services through the establishment of the Greater Shady
Grove Transportation Management District (TMD).

Establishing this balance between land use and transportation required an iterative review of alternative land use and
transportation concepts, as described in this Appendix, which documents:

• the need to balance long-term land use and transportation systems to provide sufficient mobility in the developing
LSC area and surrounding communities, using appropriate evaluation tools and measures of effectiveness
• the staging, implementation, and monitoring mechanisms that manage land use and transportation
implementation details over two to three decades as the Plan is implemented.

The Appendix covers two areas.

• Chapter  describes the recommendations at a greater level of detail than described in the Plan.
• Chapter demonstrates that the Plan’s end-state conditions will result in an appropriate balance between land use
and transportation.


. Transportation Plan Recommendations
The Gaithersburg West Master Plan recommends a multimodal transportation system that recognizes the prior
planning for the CCT system to create a transit-oriented community of walkable blocks with transportation options for
residents, employees, and visitors.

Figure  shows the range of transportation system strategies examined in the Plan, including:

• travel demand management

• transit services
• local street network
• transportation system policies.

Figure  indicates the likelihood that the Plan would incorporate the different strategies based on analyses and
coordination performed to date. The shaded cells indicate those strategies with high potential. In general, those
strategies with high potential were incorporated into the Plan.

Figure : Transportation Management Strategies

Strategy Opportunities Constraints Potential

Reduce Single Flexible, low capital Operational costs, High
Management

Occupant Vehicle cost monitoring

Demand

mode share
cost

Increase parking Reduce traffic, provide Establishing parking Moderate

charges revenue lot district, garage
locations
Construct CCT Serve planned Capital costs, High
through LSC area development near LSC operational costs
Transit Services

stations, reduce traffic

congestion
Express bus service Capture long-distance Operating cost Moderate
using value-priced riders
lanes from I-  and
ICC
Shuttle services Low capital cost Operating cost Moderate
Add local mid-block Provide alternate Capital costs, High
streets routes, reduce walking defining final
distances alignment and
implementation
Local Street Network

responsibilities
Left turn prohibitions Reduce congestion Circuitous trips (cars Moderate
and buses), public
acceptance
Add turn lanes Reduce congestion Increase pedestrian High (for
crossing distances, selected
capital cost locations)
Grade separated Reduce congestion Capital cost, Moderate
interchanges attractiveness, (for selected
inhibits pedestrian locations)
crossings, public
acceptance


 Strategy Opportunities Constraints Potential
CCT bridging over Reduce congestion Capital cost, Moderate (for
roadways attractiveness, selected locations)
public acceptance
Accept higher Consistent with Operating costs, Moderate
congestion levels urbanizing area, no public acceptance
Policies

capital cost
Increase residential Create mixed use Economic and Moderate
uses centers, provide market feasibility
housing near jobs,
lower trip generation
rates
Staging Plan Provide services at None High
time of development

A. Travel Demand Management

Travel Demand Management (TDM) describes a wide range of programs and services designed to reduce the use
of single-occupant vehicle trips. TDM is the set of public policy strategies to provide travel options that reduce and
spread demand by travel destination, mode, route, and time of day to most efficiently use transportation system
infrastructure and resources. TDM strategies can be implemented by both public and private sector activities and
include:

• infrastructure such as high quality pedestrian environments, bus or high occupancy vehicle facilities or preferential
treatments, telework centers, commuter information stores, car-sharing (i.e., Zipcar) and bike-sharing stations, and
well-located transit stations or stops with real-time transit information
• services such as transit services, vanpools, ride-matching, Guaranteed Ride Home services, alternative commute
option information (i.e., Greater Shady Grove Management District and the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Government Commuter Connections)
• policies that affect the use of infrastructure and services, including parking supply management, preferential
parking treatments for carpools/vanpools, transit subsidies, flexible work schedules, tax incentives, congestion
pricing, and distance-based or Vehicle Miles of Travel pricing.

Montgomery County Travel Demand Management Applications

Current TDM strategies include a variety of programs and services integrated between the private and public sectors.
The Office of Legislative Oversight has summarized the County’s existing TDM activities in their December  report
-, titled Transportation Demand Management Implementation, Funding, and Governance.

Private sector contributions include requirements of Planning Board conditions determined at the time of
development review and approval (subdivision), often through a Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg) to either
provide a specified set of services or to achieve a specific performance objective. TMAgs are described in the Planning
Board’s Local Area Transportation Review/Policy Area Mobility Review (LATR/PAMR) Guidelines.

Public sector contributions include the activities of the area Transportation Management District (TMD). The proposed
Greater Shady Grove TMD will provide services to employers and employees in the commercial areas of the LSC to
promote adoption of commuter benefits programs by employers and to inform employees of alternative commuting
options. The Greater Shady Grove TMD will also work to improve transit service in the area, to increase ridership, and
to provide transit-friendly amenities.

In , the County Council adopted Bill -, an important link between the public and private sector TDM
programs. This TDM law requires employers with more than  employees located in one of the County’s four
Transportation Management Districts to implement a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), participate in an annual
commuter survey, and submit an annual report of TMP activities.

Target TDM Markets

TDM strategies can be customized to target markets that consider land use (i.e., residential, commercial, or special
event) and time of day (i.e., peak period, midday, or all day). Figure , from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development an ITE Proposed Recommended Practice, summarizes the
different types of TDM techniques commonly applied nationally to reduce vehicle traffic generation by their target
market and trip reduction focus.

Figure : Travel Demand Management Techniques and Target Markets


Many TDM techniques are effective in reducing auto travel at all times of day, others are targeted to peak period
conditions. The Plan recommends a continued focus on weekday peak period modal shifts to optimize transportation
system performance when congestion is greatest. As Montgomery County begins to consider climate change and
energy requirements identified in the  Climate Protection Plan the emphasis of travel demand management can
be expected to shift somewhat from managing traffic congestion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The two
objectives (peak period mobility versus daily or annual carbon footprint) are often, but not always, in sync. Shifting
travel modes from auto to walking or biking will serve both objectives and TDM policies should make this shift the
highest priority.

On the other hand, shifting an auto trip from the peak period to the off-peak period will serve the historic TDM
objective of managing peak period performance, but has a smaller effect on greenhouse gas emissions (the difference
between travel speeds and emissions during peak and off-peak periods).

The Plan’s TDM strategies focus on commuters who work in the LSC area, for three reasons.

• Recurring vehicular travel demand is most constrained by traffic leaving the LSC area during the evening peak
period.
• For the types of housing envisioned in the LSC (predominantly multifamily mid-rise units), the location and market
provide high levels of transit use without the application of external TDM actions.
• TDM strategies applied at the workplace are often more effective than those applied at the residential level, due
to both economies of scale and the fact that the employer/employee relationship can often be more productively
applied than the residential owner/tenant relationship.
•
The staging plan for the LSC recommends that the mode share and transportation system performance be monitored
periodically to track planned progress in targeted modal shifts and a reduction in per-unit vehicle trip generation rates.
The implementation plan relies on a strong linkage between public and private TDM efforts so that the responsibility
for success of the LSC trip reduction efforts are distributed across all plan area owners and tenants.

LSC Employees
The Plan recommends a  percent non-auto driver mode share (NADMS) goal for the LSC. The current NADMS for
this area is  percent. The NADMS measures the percentage of travelers who drive to and from work in the LSC as
opposed to taking other modes.

The Local Area Modeling performed for the LSC analysis assumed that the  percent NADMS would be achieved over
time for all commercial employees within the LSC located north of Darnestown Road. For monitoring purposes, the
NADMS has been defined as:

• employees who normally arrive at their LSC workplace during the busiest two hours of the morning peak period
from : a.m. to : a.m.
• auto drivers, including those in single-occupant vehicles (SOV) and those in carpools and vanpools.
• non-auto commuters, including transit riders, carpool/vanpool passengers, walkers, bicyclists, as well as those who
have an LSC workplace but telecommute on the day of surveys.

The last master plan for the LSC area, the  Shady Grove Study Area Master Plan estimated, on average,
approximately  percent of the home-to-work trips originating outside the study area bound for Shady Grove would
arrive at work via transit. As noted previously, the NADMS goal for this Plan in the LSC is  percent.

When comparing these two mode shares it should be noted that the land area in the  Shady Grove Plan is roughly
twice as large as the LSC and reflects a relatively dispersed land use pattern located both east and west of I- . Also,
the  percent NADMS goal for the LSC includes transit use, as well as other sub-mode shares such as ridesharing,
walking, or biking. The Plan considers a  percent NADMS goal in the LSC area achievable for several reasons,
including:

• the realignment of the CCT through the LSC


• the concentration of planned development within walking distance of the three proposed CCT stations in the LSC
• complementary feeder-bus service to the proposed CCT stations
• implementation of an active TDM program in the LSC (including employer-sponsored subsidized transit fares,
parking management strategies, and staggered work hours).

LSC Residents
The  Shady Grove Study Area Master Plan identified a  percent auto-driver goal for the journey-to-work for
study area residents. The  Census Update Survey noted that this goal has very nearly been achieved in the R&D
Village Policy Area, with a percent auto-driver mode share reported for area residents.

B. Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and Local Transit System

To serve the LSC area, this Plan recommends realigning the CCT with line-haul service between the proposed LSC CCT
stations. To reduce delays for transit and vehicles, this realignment may require CCT grade separations at Key West
Avenue (MD ) and Great Seneca Highway (MD ). Project planning for the CCT takes into account the potential
need to reconfigure existing bus service to avoid duplication and ensure the most efficient allocation of vehicles and
personnel. There are currently six Ride On routes from the Shady Grove Metro Station, three of which provide service
to the LSC area, including Shady Grove Adventist Hospital and the Traville Transit Center. When the CCT is in place,
these routes may need to be readjusted to ensure the most efficient service. This Plan also recommends developing
express bus service using value-priced lanes from I-  and the Intercounty Connector (ICC), as well as shuttle bus
routes to serve the LSC area.

As LSC densities increase with zoning requirements and design guidelines that require buildings to be street-oriented
rather than parking-lot oriented, the number of potential transit riders and the attractiveness of transit will also
increase.

Corridor Cities Transitway

Figure : Current CCT alignment
Background
The Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) has been included in
County master plans in one form or another for over 
years. The CCT is envisioned as either a bus rapid transit
(BRT) or light rail transit (LRT) system providing frequent
(five to ten minute) service between the Shady Grove Metro
Station and Clarksburg (i.e., the COMSAT site).

Purpose
The CCT’s primary purpose is to provide improved mobility
options within the corridor as well as improved access
to the Metrorail system. The CCT is viewed as central to
establishing active, pedestrian oriented, mixed-use centers
along the entire corridor—not just in the Gaithersburg West
area. As such, the visions for the centers and the CCT are co-
dependent.


While adopted master plans envision the CCT extending into Frederick County, the current Environment Assessment underway
by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) includes only the segment between Shady Grove and the COMSAT site in
Clarksburg. Any eventual first phase of actual construction of the CCT would likely involve a segment that began at the Shady
Grove Metrorail Station and ended at some location south of the COMSAT site (e.g., Metropolitan Grove or Germantown).

Station Locations and Functions
The activity centers served by the CCT stations include
Shady Grove, King Farm, Crown Farm, Quince Orchard
Park, Metropolitan Grove, Germantown and the
southern edge of Clarksburg. One overriding objective in
recent past (Shady Grove and Twinbrook) and current
(Germantown and Gaithersburg West) planning efforts
is to establish a vision for pedestrian oriented mixed-use
communities with transit supportive densities within
one-half mile of most station areas. Combining a mix of
activities with high quality transit service will reduce the
growth rate of single occupant auto trips—sometimes
significantly. There are 
planned station locations along
the alignment between Shady Grove and COMSAT. The
current plan is for seven of the 
stations to have parking
for transit riders, including the Washingtonian (Crown Farm)
and Decoverly stations.

Current CCT Study

The Maryland Transit Administration has completed an
updated Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment
(AA/EA) of the CCT. The assessment updates information
from the CCT’s  Environmental Impact Statement and
guide the selection of a preferred mode (bus rapid transit or
light rail).

Alternative Alignment Recommended by the Figure : Draft Plan CCT Alignment and Stations
Gaithersburg West Master Plan
At its southern end, the CCT current master planned
alignment (the blue line on Figure
) goes over
I-  heading west after leaving King Farm and
serves the Crown Farm development in the City of
Gaithersburg before entering the Gaithersburg West
study area along the south side of Decoverly Drive.
The Plan proposes two stations, the DANAC station
on Decoverly Drive just before the alignment goes
over Great Seneca Highway and the Decoverly Station
located on the west side of Great Seneca Highway.

The red line represents potential modifications to the

CCT alignment. The modified alignment within Crown
Farm is a result of the local review of the development
carried out by the City of Gaithersburg and has
been closely coordinated with the Maryland Transit
Administration.
The Plan recommends the CCT alignment be extended
south along Broschart Road to better serve the
Shady Grove Life Sciences Center, the current Public
Service Training Academy site, and the Johns Hopkins
University (JHU) Belward Research Campus with
stations at each of these locations. Commuter parking
would likely be available at no more than two of the Figure 1: Draft Plan CCT alignment and stations
stations and more likely, just one of the three stations.


 The analysis of this proposed change to the alignment of the CCT is being carried out by the MTA using updated land
use forecasts provided by the Planning Department. The analysis is expected to be completed after the release of
the Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment in May . It will inform the selection of a Locally Preferred
Alternative scheduled to occur in Fall .

Staff believes the proposed alignment shift will better support the Plan’s vision, complement the other planning
efforts along the I-  Corridor, and better fulfill the potential of the CCT. Accordingly, CCT planning should continue
and should assume that shifting the alignment south better meets the Plan’s vision, even if it requires additional
environmental impact analysis.

It should also be noted that some communities near the proposed alignment have requested consideration of other
modifications to the alignment on the Belward campus. While these additional modifications are not currently being
studied by the MTA, staff feels that the dialogue should continue so as not to preclude further consideration at a later
date.

CCT Staging Considerations

It is possible the CCT will involve a staged or phased implementation—regardless of mode or alignment. Key factors to
consider in the staging plan include:

• frequent service (ten minutes or less)

• average scheduled speed faster than conventional local bus service—a minimum of  mph.
• new, low floor, hybrid electric or other clean technology, and branded vehicles
• distinctive, well-lit station areas that are far enough apart to maintain an attractive average scheduled speed.

Existing Ride On Service

Nine Ride On routes serve the Gaithersburg West Plan area with service that varies so the daily ridership shown in the
table to the right includes passengers boarding outside the planning area.

Ride On Strategic Plan

The September  Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan indicates that Travilah is an underserved area of the
County. Additional service in that area would likely result in additional service in the Gaithersburg West area.

Potential Bus Service Changes in Response to Introduction of the CCT

Project planning for the CCT takes into account the need to reconfigure the existing bus service in order to avoid
duplication and ensure the most efficient allocation of vehicles and personnel. Preliminary concept level planning of
how a route network might evolve if the CCT were in place has been conducted by the MTA in consultation with the
County’s Ride On staff and with WMATA’s Metrobus staff.

As of this writing, the operating plan for the bus service envisioned under the CCT’s BRT alternative calls for improved
service frequencies on the above routes and does change any route terminals. Under the LRT alternative, the Rockville
routes and Route
would have improved service frequencies with no change in the routes’ beginning or end points.
The remaining routes (those more oriented to the LSC area) would be shorter, operate more frequently, and be
designed as feeder routes for the CCT.


The forecast provided by MTA includes updated estimates for Germantown, Twinbrook, and White Flint as well.

Note that the analysis of the alternative alignment effectively expands the scope of the LPA decision to include alignment (master plan or new alignment through
LSC area) as well as mode (bus rapidtransit or light rail). If the new alignment is chosen as part of the LPA, it is possible the Federal Transit Administration will
require the MTA to conduct another supplemental environmental assessment, which could delay the project entering the FTA’s New Start pipeline.


 Figure : Ride On Routes and Average Ridership
Average
Route Peak Period
From To Weekday
No. Frequency
Ridership
Shady
Shady Grove

Grove  
Hospital
Metrorail

Rockville Lake Forest  ,
Germantown
 Rockville  ,
Transit Center
 Rockville Lake Forest  ,
Shady
Traville
 Grove  
Transit Center
Metrorail
Shady
Traville
 Grove   
Transit Center
Metrorail
Shady
Germantown

Grove  
Transit Center
Metrorail
Shady
 Grove Poolesville  
Metrorail
Shady
Kingsview
 Grove   
Park & Ride
Metrorail


Preliminary Ridership, Cost, and Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for the CCT
The MTA project team has released the following preliminary ridership (year  ) estimates for the current CCT
alignment using Round .
demographic projections. The average weekday ridership is estimated to range from ,
to ,.

Figure : Round .
Ridership for Existing CCT Alignment

MTA has also estimated the cost effectiveness of the alternatives under consideration (see Figure ).

Figure : Cost Effectiveness of the Existing CCT Alignment

The Annualized Cost per Hour of User Benefit (column D) takes into account the annualized costs of the respective
alternatives and the extent to which travel time benefits occur when compared to the TSM or
Transportation System
Management alternative.
This variable is used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to evaluate projects across
the country competing for federal funds. Under the current FTA guidelines, the cost per hour for the Light Rail Transit
(LRT) alternatives exceeds the amount that the FTA would consider competitive for funding. The BRT alternatives
are well below the FY  threshold cost of $ . per hour, indicating greater funding potential for BRT. The cost
estimates are not expected to change prior to the availability of the AA/EA document in May  but are expected to
change when the alignment through the Life Sciences Center area is examined by the MTA project team.


The TSM alternative is an alternative that includes improved bus service operating over existing roadways. There is no
transitway that would be constructed under this alternative. 
Transit Supportive Density Considerations
The Planning Department has reviewed the considerable amount of existing and evolving research on station area
densities, pedestrian accessibility and connectivity, transit mode share, and other issues related to transit oriented
development. The following examples represent the issues and options.

The FTA-sponsored report by Reconnecting America, Station Area Planning: How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Place,
identifies different types of activity centers in the context of function, density, and level of transit service as shown in
the following tables.

Figure : Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development

Source: Station Area Planning, Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, February
, page .


Some representative or general TOD residential categories include the following:
Figure : Characteristics of Residential Transit Oriented Development

Source: Station Area Planning, Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, February
, page .


An example of s similar typology for mixed use sites is presented below.

Figure  : Characteristics of Mixed-Use Transit-Oriented Development

Source: Station Area Planning, Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, February , page  .

Non-Auto Mode Share

The available research indicates that the percent of work trips by residents in a Transit Oriented Development made by
transit, walking, or bicycle varies but in general, is much higher than for the region overall. This is especially the case in
maturing regions with heavy rail systems as noted in the tables below from the Transit Cooperative Research Program
(TCRP) Report : Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel.


Figure : Transit Trends for Journey to Work Trips for Selected TODs

Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report , Transportation Research Board, , page .


Figure : Walk/Bike Trends for Journey to Work Trips for Selected TODs

Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report , Transportation Research Board, , page .


TOD Density Thresholds and the CCT
In general, minimum job densities that are transit-supportive for fixed-guideway line-haul services, i.e., that establish
a ridership base for peak period service that is frequent and reasonably competitive with an auto trip ranges from
 to  jobs/acre. The corresponding minimum number for residential development ranges from  to  dwelling
units/acre. The ranges and mix can vary by station but these are the minimum densities to support transit. The density
threshold is typically applied within one-half mile of the station with the higher densities within ¼ mile of the station.

Staff has examined the station area densities along the CCT alignment using the COG Round .
land use forecasts, for
all stations except the LSC area. The Round .
forecasts were developed in  as the Planning Department began
analyzing the I-  Corridor master plans. In the LSC area, jobs and housing were estimated for year   and were
provided to the MTA for their evaluation of the proposed alignment in August . A summary of the estimate of jobs
and housing in the August  forecasts used by MTA is presented below:

Figure : Staff’s August   Forecast for   Development


Figure 
shows how these densities compare with other station area densities—both along the CCT and along
Metrorail. The estimates reflect densities with an approximate radius of half mile station areas since that is the
approximate size of the sub-zones used in the analysis.

Figure 
: Round .
Forecast for   Development Comparisons


The examination of the station area densities indicates that the initial   land use forwarded to the MTA exceeds the
generally accepted minimum densities for TOD station areas and is approximately double the station area job density
planned for Crown Farm and the west side of King Farm. In general, the station area densities along the CCT at some
other stations (excluding the more recently planned station areas in Germantown, Shady Grove, Crown Farm, King
Farm) are below the minimum densities.

In summary, the staff analysis of station area densities in Round .

led to the conclusion that additional density
should be concentrated at selected CCT stations where redevelopment potential is highest to more closely reflect TOD
level densities and therefore, also to improve CCT competitiveness for federal funding.


C. Street Network

The Plan’s street network includes major highways, arterials, and master-planned business streets. These streets are
required elements of the Plan and associated development, and should be built according to County design standards
to accommodate both regional (for major highways and arterials) and local (for business streets) travel needs.

Section
-  of the County Code defines the functional classification system for roadways.

• A Major Highway is meant nearly exclusively for through movement of vehicles at a moderate speed. Access must
be primarily from grade-separated interchanges and at-grade intersections with public roads, although driveway
access is acceptable in urban and denser suburban settings.
• An Arterial is meant primarily for through movement of vehicles at a moderate speed, although some access to
abutting property is expected.
• A Business District Street is meant for circulation in commercial and mixed-use zones.
• A Primary Residential Street is meant primarily for circulation in residential zones, although some through traffic is
expected.
•
The Gaithersburg West Master Plan takes into consideration the County’s Road Code (Chapter
) developed in 
and design standards (Executive Regulation -) developed in  and . Executive Regulation - stresses
the need to develop context-sensitive solutions with street designs that reflect and emphasize the planned adjacent
land uses. The design guidance reflects that while the County formally has rural, suburban, and urban areas, a
continuum exists both across and within those three designations.

Figures  and  present the proposed overall street network for the Plan area and a closer view of the LSC district.
The proposed road network has the following elements:

• A network of traffic-carrying, master-planned, business district streets (shown as fuchsia lines for major highways
and blue lines for arterials in both figures) designed to reflect the County’s new Road Code emphasis on
multimodal access and stormwater management.
•
• A secondary network of business district streets will provide internal site accessibility to the LSC with a focus on
enhancing pedestrian connectivity by reducing block size.


Figure : Gaithersburg West Street Network

Specific streets are described in the Plan and this Appendix.

Sam Eig Highway

To support proposed development levels while maintaining a suburban level of mobility for automobile users, this
Plan sees the need to reconstruct Sam Eig Highway as a grade-separated boulevard treatment within a -foot wide
right-of-way with three through lanes in each direction; shoulders suitable for peak-period, peak-direction use by BRT;
and two-lane, one-way, frontage roads providing connections to Fields Road and Diamondback Drive with a flyover
ramp connection from eastbound Great Seneca Highway to northbound Sam Eig Highway. The concept plan (Figure )
illustrates how this would function, and the minimum right-of-way expansion needed to accommodate improvements.


Figure : Illustrative Concept of Sam Eig as a Controlled Major Highway


Key West Avenue (MD )
This Plan shows the need to accommodate build-out levels of development on an expanded roadway network. The
predominant east-west vehicle movement in the Plan area is accommodated on Key West Avenue, a major highway,
following construction efforts to expand that roadway and reroute through traffic to it, as evidenced by its designation
as MD Route .

If the area develops at build-out levels, the Plan’s staging would ultimately require reconstructing Key West Avenue
within a -foot wide right-of-way between Great Seneca Highway and Shady Grove Road to provide a consistent
design treatment that includes a wide landscaped median, four through travel lanes in each direction, and a separate
curb lane that can provide multiple functions. (During peak periods, the curb lane should serve as a through lane for
transit vehicles only and a right turn lane for other vehicles.)

The Plan’s staging recommendations require a decision on the ultimate configuration for Key West Avenue prior to
Stage of development (build-out). The recommended -foot wide right-of-way would facilitate the development of
urban-diamond interchanges at Great Seneca Highway and Shady Grove Road with Key West Avenue elevated above
the cross streets. The roadway would need to be reconstructed as an urban boulevard between the two interchanges,
and the distance between existing building faces would accommodate the wider right-of-way.

Longdraft Road (A-)

Longdraft Road forms the boundary between the City of Gaithersburg and the Plan area. The east side of Longdraft
Road is in the City of Gaithersburg and the west side is part of this master plan. The  master plan classified
Longdraft Road from Pheasant Run Drive (in the City of Gaithersburg) to the railroad as an arterial (A- ). That plan
also identified sections of Longdraft Road and Watkins Mill Road as an arterial route (A- ) that would extend from
Quince Orchard Road to Great Seneca Creek with a recommended right-of-way of  feet and four travel lanes. This
proposed route assumed that Watkins Mill Road would be extended from its current terminus at Route , across
I- . At Clopper Road, Pheasant Run Drive would connect Watkins Mill Road with Longdraft Road.

At the request of the City of Gaithersburg, the County Department of Transportation (DOT) studied this route and
recommended using Clopper Road, rather that Pheasant Run Drive, as a link between Watkins Mill Road extended and
Longdraft Road. This Plan recommends that Longdraft Road and Watkins Mill Road be classified separately as A- and
A- , respectively. This Plan recommends that the arterial designation for the northernmost portion of Longdraft Road,
from Clopper Road to the railroad, be removed.

In 
, DOT initiated a facility planning study for Longdraft Road from Quince Orchard Road to Clopper Road. The
study examined whether this two-lane,  / mile section of Longdraft Road should be widened to accommodate
existing and future traffic projections. In addition to potential road way improvements, the study examined bicycle and
pedestrian enhancements.
In July  the County Council’s Transportation and Environment Committee determined the Longdraft Road facility
planning study should not proceed to Phase II, referring the elements recommended by the Planning Board and
resident coalition to other programs within DOT’s capital and operating budgets to move forward. By doing so these
elements likely will be implemented sooner than if they remained within a project planning study.

• Renumber Longdraft Road as A- (from A- ) from Quince Orchard Road to Clopper Road (excluding the section
from Longdraft Court to Golden Post Lane, which is completely within the City of Gaithersburg).
• Remove the arterial designation of Longdraft Road north of Clopper Road to the railroad.

Watkins Mill Road (A-)

As discussed above, Watkins Mill Road and Longdraft Road were recommended in the  master plan as an arterial
route (A- ) from Quince Orchard Road on the south to Great Seneca Creek on the north.


This Plan recommends that the two roads continue to be designated as arterials, but considered as separate routes
with individual numbers. A portion of Watkins Mill Road (from Route  to just north of Windbrooke Drive) is in the
City of Gaithersburg and is designated as an arterial. The City of Gaithersburg has planned an extension of Watkins Mill
Road south of Route  to Clopper Road, with a new interchange at I- . The extension of Watkins Mill Road and
the new I-  interchange are funded for planning and engineering in the State’s 
Comprehensive Transportation
Program. This Plan supports the City’s efforts to complete this connection.

Watkins Mill Road from Windbrooke Drive to Great Seneca Creek is in Montgomery Village and is not within the
Plan’s boundaries. There are four public schools along this section of Watkins Mill Road and the community has raised
concerns about traffic safety. The 
CIP included a traffic calming project to analyze options to reduce travel
speed and improve safety on this road. This project is required by the County Council before construction of a new
interchange at I-  and Watkins Mill Road extended.

• Classify Watkins Mill Road (A- ) from Great Seneca Creek to

 feet north of Windbrooke Drive as an arterial
with an -foot right-of-way and four lanes.
• List the right-of-way requirements for Watkins Mill Road from Clopper Road to
 feet north of Windbrooke Drive
as “not applicable,” since this section is in the City of Gaithersburg.
• Support further study to address traffic safety and the potential for traffic calming measures along Watkins Mill
Road in Montgomery Village.
• Support the extension of Watkins Mill Road from Route  to Clopper Road in the City of Gaithersburg.

The Plan recommendations also include:

• removing the proposed grade-separated interchange between Darnestown Road and Shady Grove Road, since
the intersection is forecast to operate near capacity with an at-grade solution. Land use and travel demand
distribution will focus east-west travel along Key West Avenue (MD ), requiring a higher infrastructure
investment at plan build-out, including a grade-separated interchange at Key West Avenue junction with Shady
Grove Road
• retaining Darnestown Road as a four-lane arterial, recognizing adjacent community interest in a down-
classification of the roadway but also the need for four lanes of capacity and an arterial function
• retaining Game Preserve Road as an unclassified master plan roadway, recognizing adjacent community and Rustic
Road Advisory Committee interest in a rustic road classification. Analysis performed during plan development
indicates that the roadway currently has safety concerns that do not support rustic road classification. The interest
in reclassification is prompted in part by concerns regarding through traffic that will be reduced by the completion
of the parallel arterial Watkins Mill Road between MD  and MD 
• reducing the number of through travel lanes on Oakmont Avenue from four lanes to two lanes, but retaining a
reconstructed Deer Park Bridge over the CSX tracks, recognizing the need to retain a grade-separated arterial
roadway function for the adjacent commercial area and neighboring communities.

Master Planned Business Streets

The business street system is intended to be a slow-speed environment, with both the public and private realms
designed to emphasize a  mile per hour target speed.


Figure : LSC Street Network


Secondary Grid of Local Streets

Figure  describes a secondary street system that will be developed to nest within the Major Highway and Arterial
street system. These streets are designed to facilitate site access (particularly for the larger development sites) and
enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility by improving the network’s permeability.

In addition to pedestrian connectivity, the tighter street grid can extend operational flexibility options such as left turn
restrictions at major congested intersections and access management along major roads. These business streets are
predominantly two lanes, with parking on one (-foot wide right-of-way) or both sides ( - or -foot wide right-of-
way). They should include curb extensions at crosswalks to further reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicle traffic.

The locations of roads where development is in place provide an opportunity to thread between existing buildings and
environmental constraints while still providing a grid network for pedestrians and vehicles. Details on final alignments
will be subject to further engineering evaluation at the time of new development or redevelopment.

Notable new roads include:

• B-, Blackwell Road should be extended on to the PSTA site to Medical Center Drive Extended (A-d), or if
possible, to Darnestown Road to provide a business district road parallel to Key West Avenue specific to the LSC.

• B-, a new road connection of the Decoverly development access road to Research Boulevard.

• B- and B-
, new roads connecting the LSC Belward District to the highway network. Connection to the existing
signalized intersection with Darnestown Road helps preserve mobility for pedestrians as well as vehicles.

• B-, a new road connecting the LSC Central District to Key West Avenue. The section south of Blackwell is shown
as split into two one-way pairs with a green, walkable space between to take advantage of the space between
existing hospital buildings.

• B-, a new road connection from Medical Center Drive to Travilah Gateway Drive. This connection, also
constructed as a local business district street, would provide a direct pedestrian connection across Darnestown
Road between the LSC Central District CCT stop, the Universities at Shady Grove (USG) site and the Traville
development. It may also be necessary to realign the current USG entrance of Travilah Gateway Drive to better
match a new road opposite Darnestown Road.

• B-, would be a new road extending Great Seneca Highway south of Darnestown Road to connect to Travilah
Gateway Drive. The connection, constructed as a local business district street, would also provide a direct
pedestrian connection across Darnestown Road into LSC South along the most direct path for persons walking
from a future CCT stop on the PSTA site. This connection would provide an additional access point at an already
signalized location.


D. Bicycle and Pedestrian System

The Plan’s bicycle and pedestrian system will be implemented through a combination of land use and zoning policies,
local street network implementation, and pedestrian access and safety improvements.

Bikeway Network

The Plan proposes a bikeway system with three key elements.

• An off-road, shared-use path system connecting Gaithersburg West to other areas of the County via bikeways
adopted in the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan ().

• Shared-use paths along major highways and arterial roadways, separating cyclists from higher speed vehicles.

• An emphasis on slower, signed-shared bikeways on new roadways within the LSC. These roads would use a 
mile per hour target speed to facilitate shared space, rather than separated modal facilities and the Road Code
emphasis on bike accommodation on all streets.

Off-road shared use paths and on-road bicycle accommodations serve different users; a majority of the avid cycling
community is interested in quality on-road bike accommodation. However, the Plan’s higher speed highways and
arterials encourage separating cyclists from vehicles. The Plan’s large number of off-road paths complement the
adopted paths in the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan.

In September  , the Planning Board supported the Road Code requirement that generally marked bike lanes should
be provided as a matter of course on roads with daily traffic volumes of more than , vehicles per day or a posted
speed of
 miles per hour or greater.

County Wide Bikeways

The Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan was updated and adopted in . County wide bikeway
classifications follow.

• Shared use paths (formerly Class I)

An off-road asphalt or concrete path (optimally ’-’ wide) that is separated from motorized traffic by either a
minimum five-foot landscape panel or by a physical barrier such as a wall or fence. The path may be adjacent and
parallel to a road or may be completely separate from a road in its own right-of-way. The path is designed and
intended to be shared by multiple users—bicyclists, walkers, joggers, skaters, etc. Shared use paths are generally more
appropriate in areas where there are fewer conflicts with driveways and intersecting streets and where separation
from motor vehicles is highly desirable.

• Bike lanes (formerly Class II)

A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or
exclusive use of bicyclists. The bike lane is four to six feet wide and is available in both directions adjacent to the curb,
with the cyclist traveling in the same direction as the motor vehicles. Bike lanes are more appropriate along major
travel corridors with higher speeds and volumes and where a defined space for bicyclists is desired.

• Signed shared roadway (formerly Class III)

A roadway that has been designated as a preferred route for bicycle use, but there is no separation or striping that
delineates the bike travel area from travel area for motor vehicles. Shared roadways feature a wide curb lane (closed
section roads), paved shoulders (open section roads), or low traffic volumes and speeds (neighborhood streets).
Shared roadways are appropriate where vehicle speeds and volumes are lower, where inadequate right-of-way makes
bike lanes or a shared use path infeasible or in rural areas where there may be room to bike on the shoulder of the
road.


In certain situations, a roadway may be recommended for dual bikeways—two types of bike facilities. Some roadways
can accommodate both on-road and off-road bicycle facilities, in which case the route may be recommended for
both a shared use path and a bike lane or a shared use path and shared roadway. This is called a dual bikeway. The
State Highway Administration is now providing wider (up to -feet) outside travel lanes on all reconstructed roads to
accommodate bikes. When these areas are less than three feet, and do not qualify as bike lanes, they are considered
to be bicycle areas.

County wide bikeways provide direct or indirect connections to municipalities, as well as existing and proposed transit
stations, activity centers, employment centers, and residential neighborhoods. They also provide connections between
major activity centers and regional recreational park destinations and connect communities located outside the
County’s growth areas to the County wide bikeway network. The  Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan
attempts to strike a balance between recommended improvements for both off-road (shared use paths) and on-road
bikeways (bike lanes, shared roadways). It identifies a network of bikeways that will support those who wish to travel
by bicycle and accommodate varying skill levels and abilities.

The County wide bikeway network is integrated with other facilities, including local bikeways, sidewalks, and park
trails. In most residential neighborhoods, it is not possible or feasible to provide both a sidewalk and a bike path.
Therefore, the neighborhood sidewalk often accommodates both pedestrians and bicyclists. By law, bicyclists are
permitted on sidewalks in Montgomery County.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Access and Safety

Pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety will be pursued through several initiatives, including:

• design standards to implement the County’s Road Code

• design guidelines for private sector development in the Plan area
• zoning requirements for bicycle parking and other amenities
• engineering, education, and enforcement programs under the County Executive’s Pedestrian Safety Initiative.

In  , the County Council adopted several amendments to Chapter

 of the County Code concerning streets and
roads to improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodation, stormwater management, and context-sensitive design.
In December , the Council approved Executive Regulation - AM, Context Sensitive Road Design Standards,
which specify certain design standards and processes for implementing the revised road construction code, most
notably the typical cross-section standards for many types of roads and streets, the required stormwater management
criteria for capturing runoff within the right-of-way, and considerations for establishing target speeds and street tree
placement. Continued effort is needed to complete the range of street design standards and intersection design
standards that will be needed to promote pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety in new or reconstructed roadway
design.

The Planning Board will adopt urban design guidelines for the LSC that will provide guidance for the pedestrian realm
to improve access, comfort, and safety, including:

• building orientation to maximize pedestrian accessibility

• street tree planting
• design treatments for sidewalks and driveways
• street lighting
• signing and marking.

The Plan proposes the LSC Zone for much of the LSC area. This zone is designed to facilitate pedestrian access and
safety through several means:

• pedestrian-oriented activity at street level with uses such as storefront retail and restaurants
• safety-oriented environmental design including clearly marked sidewalks and crosswalks
• street trees providing canopy and landscaping on all streets, including street furniture such as benches, trash
receptacles, and planters


• continuous, direct, and convenient connections to transit stations for pedestrians and bicyclists.

As both public and private sector projects are implemented, all agencies need to elevate pedestrian and bicycle access
and safety considerations in their review of design and operational elements, including:

• maximum -foot curb radii

• signal timing, including pedestrian countdown signals that provide the ability to complete roadway crossing
at a speed of . feet per second or slower, and at least five seconds of startup time (and greater time where
pedestrian volumes result in platooning)
• maximum crosswalk lengths of  feet between pedestrian refuges
• accessible bus stop locations at or near marked crosswalks
• signing and marking per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, including marked crosswalks on all
approaches to signalized intersections and elimination of lane markings across intersections
• street lighting designed to improve the visibility of pedestrians at levels specified by the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America
• designing mixed-use streets, pedestrian walkways, and alleys using Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design criteria.

. Transportation and Land Use Balance

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan transportation analyses reflect the procedural guidance established by the County
Council’s Growth Policy, applied through the LATR and PAMR processes described below, followed by a description
of regional transportation and land use assumptions and a brief summary of the alternative local land use scenarios
analyzed.

This Plan establishes a new LSC Policy Area for the LSC Central, LSC West and LSC Belward transit station areas, with
policy attributes the same as for the Germantown Town Center Policy Area. The current LATR standard for local
intersection congestion in the LSC is 
 CLV. The Plan would increase this standard to  CLV.

Figure  shows the Plan’s proposed level and mix of development in the LSC Policy Area.

Figure : LSC Policy Area Land Use

Area Acres Existing Future
Jobs HH Jobs HH
LSC Central,  , 

,
,
West, Belward

A. Measures of Effectiveness

Alternative development scenarios with varying amounts of commercial and residential development were analyzed
for three levels of transportation impacts.

• An area wide mobility analysis indicates the degree to which the alternative local land use and transportation
scenarios provide an appropriate balance between land use and transportation per current County policies.
• An intersection congestion analysis indicates the degree to which alternative land use or transportation changes
affect congestion hot-spots within the LSC area.
• A cordon line analysis demonstrates the effects of vehicles generated by local land use scenarios as compared to
through travel.

The first two measures are elements of the County’s Growth Policy, called Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) and
Local Area Transportation Review (LATR). Both PAMR and LATR are summarized below and detailed background
information is available on the Department’s website, www.montgomeryplanning.org.


B. Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR)

PAMR measures transportation system adequacy considering Relative Transit Mobility and Relative Arterial Mobility
for each of the County’s  policy areas. PAMR is used in the implementation of the Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance (APFO) to forecast conditions considering the County’s pipeline of approved development and near-term
transportation system improvements for which funding is committed during the next four years.

Since the early s, every master plan has considered the balance between land use and transportation using an
assessment of area wide conditions forecast for end-state conditions for the plan. PAMR is the current measure of
area wide transportation adequacy, introduced into the County Growth Policy in  . It is similar to the Policy Area
Transportation Review measure that was an element of the Growth Policy from  to  .

PAMR continues a long-standing County policy that higher levels of roadway congestion are appropriate in areas with
higher quality transit service. This policy provides multimodal equity across the County and facilitates the development
of pedestrian-oriented, rather than auto-oriented, improvements in Metro Station Policy Areas. Through PAMR, the
County Council has established transit and arterial level of service (LOS) standards for each policy area by considering
area wide adequacy on two scales: relative transit mobility and relative arterial mobility.

Relative transit mobility, defined as the relative speed by which journey to work trips can be made by transit as
opposed to by auto, is based on the Transit/Auto Travel Time level of service concept in the  Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. It is defined as the relative speed by which
journey to work trips can be made by transit, as opposed to by auto. This concept assigns letter grades to various levels
of transit service, so that LOS A conditions exist for transit when a trip can be made more quickly by transit (including
walk-access/drive-access and wait times) than by single-occupant auto. This LOS A condition exists in the Washington
region for certain rail transit trips with short walk times at both ends of the trip and some bus trips in HOV corridors.
LOS F conditions exist when a transit trip takes more than an hour longer than single-occupant auto trip.

Relative arterial mobility is a measure of congestion on the County’s arterial roadway network, defined as the relative
speed by which auto trips move during peak congestion periods as compared to the free-flow speed. It is based on the
urban street delay level of service in the  Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research
Board. This concept measures congestion by comparing modeled (congested) speeds to free-flow speeds on arterial
roadways. It then assigns letter grades to the various levels of roadway congestion, from A to F. For a trip along an
urban street that has a free-flow speed (generally akin to posted speed) of
 miles per hour, LOS A conditions exist
when the actual travel speed is at least
miles per hour, including delays experienced at traffic signals. At the other
end of the spectrum, LOS F conditions exist when the actual travel speed is below  miles per hour.

In addition to its APFO utility, PAMR is also used in the development of master plans to determine whether or not
a plan’s end-state land use and transportation recommendations are in balance. Master plan study areas typically
address roadway capacity needs by intersection improvements rather than roadway widening. Therefore, the AGP
process has evaluated master plan study areas in conjunction with the master plan and policy area surrounding these
areas.

The LSC Policy Area is located within and comprises a major portion of the R&D Village Policy Area. Figure  shows
the forecast PAMR conditions for all policy areas in the County for   assuming the Gaithersburg West Master
Plan “high” scenario with a . percent NADMS. Figure  summarizes the supporting travel data, including vehicle
miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of travel (VHT) for both free-flow and congested conditions. Given the high
scenario’s assumptions, the R&D Village Policy Area is forecast to operate at:

• Relative Transit Mobility of  percent (LOS D – between  and  percent)

• Relative Arterial Mobility of
 percent (LOS D – between
 and  percent).

The current Growth Policy requires that all Policy Areas have a Relative Arterial Mobility of at least
 percent, or LOS
D conditions, regardless of the level of transit service provided. The PAMR results derived from the analysis of the
scenario described above just meets this threshold.


The PAMR analysis performed thus far has evaluated a range of scenarios. The demographics and development
intensity of the high scenario reflect the upper bound of the scenarios tested and result in the highest travel demand.
The Plan recommends a less intense development level than the high scenario. Therefore, staff is confident that the
Plan-recommended scenario will balance land use and transportation.

Figure : Policy Area Mobility Review Chart-

Figure : Policy Area Mobility Review Table-


The areas highlighted in blue in Figures  and  are those most likely to be affected by redevelopment in the Plan
area. The assessment of the policy area conditions reflect the upper bound of the demographic scenarios tested for
the LSC in combination with Round . demographic forecasts for all other areas in the Washington metropolitan
region. Therefore, while the exhibits are appropriately labeled with a horizon year of  , staff does not expect that
the full master plan yield for any of the Policy Areas will be achieved by the year  . Figure  provides a summary
of year  PAMR conditions by policy area for comparison purposes.

Figure : Policy Area Transportation Review Table - 

C. Local Area Transportation Review (LATR)

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan supports redevelopment toward a transit-oriented community with an emphasis
on pedestrian accessibility, connectivity, and safety.

The intersection analysis applies the Critical Lane Volume (CLV) methodology from the Department’s LATR guidelines.
The CLV values are converted to a volume-to-capacity, or v/c ratio, by dividing the current or forecasted CLV values by
the applicable congestion standard.

As shown in Figure 
, the County’s Growth Policy establishes acceptable levels of congestion for different policy areas
based whether alternative modes of transportation are available. In rural policy areas, where few auto alternatives
exist, the congestion standard is   CLV (which equates to the middle range of LOS D). In Metro Station Policy Areas,
where multiple alternatives to auto transport are provided, the congestion standard is .

The Public Hearing Draft Plan recommends creating a Town Center policy area to encompass the entire LSC district, so
that intersections within the district and served by the CCT would have a congestion standard of  CLV. Currently,
intersections in the LSC area have a congestion standard of 
 CLV. Intersections along Shady Grove Road in the Plan
area have a congestion standard of  CLV where the Rockville Policy Area overlaps.


Figure  : Intersection Congestion Standards by Policy Area

Figure 
summarizes the congested intersections for existing conditions and the high land use scenario. However,
the draft Plan recommends one million square feet less commercial use than tested in the high land use scenario. As
indicated in Figure 
:

• Currently, all but three of the tested signalized intersections pass the congestion test. Shady Grove Road at Key
West Avenue (MD ), Great Seneca Highway at Muddy Branch Road, and Darnestown Road (MD ) at Muddy
Branch Road exceed either the 
 or  CLV congestion standards at full buildout of the high scenario.

• Nine intersections tested under the high land use scenario would exceed the  CLV standard. At four of these
locations, forecast CLVs over  (a v/c ratio of .) warrant planning for grade-separated interchanges. The
draft Plan also retains the recommendation for an eastbound left flyover ramp from Great Seneca Highway to Sam
Eig Highway to keep the intersection within the congestion standard.

• Five of the at-grade intersections tested under the high land use scenario are forecast to exceed the  CLV
congestion standard at Plan buildout during either the morning or evening peak hour: Shady Grove Road at
Corporate Boulevard, Key West Avenue and Broschart Road, Darnestown Road and Muddy Branch, Key West
Avenue and Omega Drive/Medical Center Drive, and Key West Avenue and Darnestown Road. At these locations,
the forecast CLVs range from  to  , indicative of delays associated with Metro Station Policy Area
development. Grade-separated interchanges are not warranted at this level of forecast congestion, but at-grade
improvements will be required as development occurs.


• Analysis of the draft Plan’s recommended land use on intersection congestion remains in progress. To date,
the draft Plan’s recommended land use generates about  percent fewer vehicle trips than the high land use
scenario represented in Figure . Considering the effect of through traffic, staff expects the CLVs for the Plan
recommendations to generally be about five percent lower than those shown in Figure .

Figure : Intersection Analysis

D. Cordon Line Analysis

A cordon line analysis is a general tool to quickly compare total traffic volumes entering or leaving the Gaithersburg
West Master Plan area. In developing the master plan, a subregional cordon line was established, as indicated in Figure
, to consider flows into and out of the area surrounding but including the LSC. This cordon line reflects the boundary
between analysis that applied the TRAVEL/ system level model and analysis that applied the Local Area Model.


The cordon line is used two ways. First, to assess forecast traffic volumes based on trip generation and second,
to establish a constant level of through traffic for quick-response sensitivity tests to land use alternatives with a
conceptual cordon line volume. These conceptual cordon line volumes are reflected in the bar chart comparisons of
land use volumes and may differ slightly from the volumes shown on traffic assignments.

Vehicular Traffic Volumes

Figure  compares existing and forecast traffic volumes at the studied cordon line. In general, the cordon line serves
as the boundary between the LSC area, where land uses are proposed to change as a result of this plan, and the area
outside of the cordon, which is subject to other plans or is otherwise not forecast to change development densities. As
a result, traffic volumes at these locations are substantially higher than in the interior of the master plan area.

At the cordon line, the total traffic volume will increase by about
percent, from , vehicles per day to ,
vehicles per day. The heaviest volumes will occur on the major highways where they meet I- , Sam Eig Highway and
Shady Grove, with between , and , vehicles per day.

Traffic volumes and volume growth will be slightly lower within the LSC area due to the expanded roadway network. In
general, traffic volumes along Key West Avenue today in the Plan area are , vehicles per day and are forecast to
grow to between , and , vehicles per day.


Figure : Sector Plan Cordon Line Traffic Volumes


Draft Plan Trip Comparison

Figure  : Draft Plan Trip Generation Comparison

The Plan’s recommendations for transportation
infrastructure and staging are based on a high
land use scenario, even though the Plan’s selected
recommendations are at a slightly lower density. Figure
 compares the scenario and the Plan’s recommended
trip generation characteristics.

• existing land uses within the cordon generate about

,  vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and

, trips in the evening peak hour.
• The high scenario generates

,  vehicle trips
in the morning peak hour and , trips in the
evening peak hour.
• Comparatively, the Plan recommendations generate
, vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and
,  in
the evening peak hour, a difference of about  percent between the two land use scenarios.

The Plan also recommends a slightly lower non-auto driver mode split (NADMS) of  percent, compared to the high
scenario NADMS of . percent, resulting in slightly higher per-square foot trip rates per square foot of use modeled.

E. Travel Demand Forecasting Process and Assumptions

The travel demand forecasting process includes three levels of analysis: TRAVEL/ , TRAVEL/ post processing, and CLV
intersection analysis.

The Department’s regional travel demand forecasting model, TRAVEL/ , is used to develop forecast travel demand
results for weekday travel and PM peak periods. TRAVEL/ is a four-step model, consisting of:

• trip generation: person trips generated by land use type and density within each TAZ
• trip distribution: person trips generated in each TAZ that travel to each of the other TAZs within the metropolitan
area
• mode split: travel mode of the person trips, including single-occupant auto, multiple-occupant auto, transit, or a
non-motorized mode such as walking or bicycling
• traffic assignment: roadways used for vehicular travel between TAZs.


The TRAVEL/ model incorporates land use and transportation assumptions for the Metropolitan Washington region,
using the same algorithms applied by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) for air quality
conformity analysis. Figure  shows the relationship of Montgomery County to the regional travel demand network,
featuring the coding of street network characteristics to reflect the general level of adjacent development density.

Figure : Travel/ Model Network Typology

The TRAVEL/ provides system-level results that are used directly to obtain the Policy Area Mobility Review forecasts
for the County’s Policy Area Transportation Review. The system-level results are also used as inputs to the finer grain
analytic tools described below.

The second level of analysis consists of post processing techniques applied to the TRAVEL/ forecasts, as described
in NCHRP Report . These techniques include refinement of the AM and PM peak hour forecasts to reflect a finer
grain of land use and network assumptions than included in the regional model, such as the location of local streets
and localized travel demand management assumptions. The NCHRP  analyses are used to produce the cordon line
analyses.

The third level of analysis includes intersection congestion, using the Critical Lane Volume (CLV) methodology
described in the Department’s Policy Area Mobility Review/Local Area Transportation Review Guidelines.


Travel/ Forecasting Assumptions

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan forecasts assumed the following parameters:

• A   horizon year, the most distant horizon year for which forecast land use and transportation system
development is available.

• Regional growth per the MWCOG Cooperative Forecasting Process. The most current round of Cooperative
Forecasts was used.

• For the Washington region, the Round . forecasts include an increase from . million jobs and . million
households in  to
. million jobs and . million households in  .

• For Montgomery County, the Round . forecasts include an increase from , employees and
,
households in  to  , employees and

,  households in  .

• For the LSC area, the Round . forecasts include an increase from .M square feet of development and , 
households in  to .M square feet of development and , households in  .

• Transportation improvements in the region’s Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP), a fiscally constrained
transportation network. Notable projects assumed to be in place for the buildout of the LSC area include:

• elimination of the WMATA turnback at Grosvenor

• the Corridor Cities Transitway (realigned through the LSC) from Shady Grove to Clarksburg

• the Purple Line between Bethesda and Silver Spring

• the Montrose Parkway, including an interchange at Rockville Pike

• the Intercounty Connector

• express toll lanes on I-  from I-  to the city of Frederick.

F. Local Area Modeling Process and Assumptions

The Department’s Local Area Modeling (LAM) process uses NCHRP Report  techniques to convert the TRAVEL/
system level forecasts to intersection-level forecasts. The LAM process is then used as a pivot-point technique to
reflect changes to the localized land use or transportation network, providing both cordon line and network analysis
results.

The TRAVEL/ model represents the R&D Village Policy Area as six TAZs. The LSC LAM disaggregates these six TAZs into
twenty three ( ) subzones as indicated in Figure .


Figure : LSC Area Local Area Model Subzone


The LAM process uses trip generation rates that are customized to reflect both existing conditions and future changes,
considering both the land use types and changes in travel behavior.Figure  shows the trip generation rates used in
the LAM.

Figure : Local Area Model Peak Hour Trip Generation

Land Use Units AM PM
Office (at % NADMS)  Square Feet .  .
Retail (at % NADMS)  Square Feet . .
Industrial (at %  Square Feet . .
NADMS)
Other Commercial (at  Square Feet . .
% NADMS)
Multifamily residential Dwelling unit .
 .
(garden apartment)
Multifamily residential Dwelling unit .

.

(highrise)

These trip generation rates reflect a combination of varied land uses and their Local Area Transportation Review rates
for typical development in Metro Station Policy Areas such as White Flint and were calibrated to match the observed
traffic counts, considering the amount of through traffic in the roadway network so that the LAM volumes at the
network cordon line are within  percent of observed count data for both morning and evening peak hours.

The trip generation rates shown in Figure  are generally lower than those found in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report, particularly for commercial land uses. These trip generation rates reflect the
fact that ITE rates for most commercial locations do not have Gaithersburg West’s transit availability and use potential
of the CCT. The difference for residential uses is not quite as high because ITE trip generation rates for multifamily
housing do reflect the fact that most multifamily housing units have, almost by definition, sufficient density to support
transit service. Finally, the retail trip generation rates in the LSC zone also incorporate a discount for pass-by and
diverted-link trips.

Land Use Alternatives Tested

Figure  shows the LSC Policy Area land use alternatives considered for the LAM in the development of the
Gaithersburg West Master Plan.

Figure : LSC Policy Area Land Use Scenarios Considered in Plan Development (TAZs , , and )
Scenario commercial square feet dwelling units
Existing .m 
 Plan – Low Scenario .m 
Medium Scenario .
m
,
High Scenario .m , 
Recommended Scenario .m
,