Growth Policy Study: Appendix G – Prioritization of Public Facilities

(Resolution 16-376 F11)

Lead Staff: Larry Cole

__________________________________________________________________

Summary:
A set of criteria are proposed for use in the prioritization of projects requiring capital funding.

__________________________________________________________________
The identification and prioritization of new capital projects should reflect both the Growth
Policy vision and the needs identified in Master Plans. Staff will use the following criteria in
prioritizing projects for capital funding. The highest priority projects support Growth Policy
principles for connectivity, design, diversity, and the environment as outlined below.

Sustainability, in terms of cost, environmental impact, and social equity

o giving higher priority to Metro Station Policy Areas, other urban areas, and
State Priority Funding Areas
o leveraged funds – where the County can maximize its investment by using
developer, State, and/or Federal funds

Master/Sector Plan Goals and Objectives

o staging requirements
o Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP)

Connectivity
o meeting transportation serviceability goals
 Highway Mobility Report (HMR)
 traffic forecasts
 emergency preparedness
o coordinating public facilities with private development
o linking jobs to housing
o linking neighborhoods to services
Design excellence
o ensuring safety
o giving higher priority to projects that serve more than one purpose
o promoting neighborhood conservation and enhancing community identity
o restoration of, or minimal impacts to, natural resources
o promoting, directly or indirectly, the preservation of historic resources
G-1
 Diversity
o promote travel other than SOV: pedestrian accommodation, bikeways,
transit; multi-modal Quality of Service
o provide community facilities that serve all types of neighborhoods and
interests

The candidate projects have been evaluated in a matrix format that facilitates comparison
across the evaluation criteria described above. For this first round of prioritization of projects
for the CIP, the transportation projects shown generally reflect only County roads in the top ten
of the HMR, the CLRP, and the candidate projects for Facility Planning-Transportation listed in
the current CIP as beginning in FY11 or later. The only exceptions are bus priority projects that
are already listed as candidate Facility Planning projects in the current CIP. The non-
transportation projects are those the Vision team leaders see as most important to enter the
CIP in the next few years.

The proposed scoring promotes the overall Growth Policy goals of prioritizing non-SOV
transportation facilities that would enhance TOD and community connections and
cohesiveness.

Additional topics for the Board’s discussion could include:

Giving greater weight to downcounty projects that are just outside designated urban
areas and/or the ½-mile radius of Metro stations

Adding potential County/State intersection projects since the Council has expressed a
willingness to at least partially fund such projects

Using this methodology to determine the County’s priorities for State projects

The use of additional scoring factors for non-transportation projects, to reflect, for
example, school clusters with the highest student teacher ratios and planning areas with
the lowest park acreage per resident.

Making more of the criteria tied to specific measurable values, such as using over-the-
norm crime and traffic crash rates for “safety”.

G-2
 Sustainability – Master/Sector
Appendix G cost and social Plan Goals and Design
Project Type Master Plan area equity Objectives Connectivity Excellence Diversity Total
Priority area Leveraged Staging Constrained Highway Traffic Emergency Coordination Linking jobs Linking Safety Multi- Neighborhood Environmental Historic Promotes Serves multiple
funds requirement Long Range Mobility Report Forecasts preparedness with private or to housing neighborhoods purpose Conservation/ protection preservation Non-SOV neighborhoods
Plan Top Ten public to services Community Travel and interests
development Identity

Maximum Points Total Points 15 points 5 points 10 points 10 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 5 points 105

15 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 75
Georgia Ave. Busway BRT Glenmont

Second District Police Station Relocation Community Facility Bethesda CBD 15 5 10 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 65

10 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 65
NIH Circulation&NBTrail Extension Road/Ped/Bike Bethesda Chevy Chase
Shady Grove Sector 15 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 65
County Service Park relocation Public Facility Plan
15 5 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 65
Observation Dr Road Germantown
Wheaton CBD,Sector
Kensington-Wheaton, 15 5 0 10 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 60
UnivBlvd bus enhan tp-w Transit Four Corners, Takoma
Kensington-Wheaton,
15 5 0 10 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 60
Veirs Mill Road bus enhan w-r Transit Wheaton CBD
8 0 0 10 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 58
Montrose Parkway East Road White Flint
15 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 55
Randolph Rd bus enhan, MD 355 to US 29 Transit White Flint
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 55
Clarksburg Transit Center Transit Clarksburg
Food Science Incubator Community Facility Takoma Park 10 5 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 5 50
N-W Silver Spring, 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 50
InterimCapitalCrescentTrail (Stewart Ave-SS Ped/bike
Metro) Silver Spring CBD
3 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 48
Falls Road Bike Path Ped/bike Potomac

Complete other trails in the bicycle

network: Bethesda Avenue to Bradley Blvd Bike Trail Bethesda CBD 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 5 45

Complete other trails in the bicycle

network linking NIH to Woodmont Triangle Bike Trail Bethesda CBD 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 5 45
Forest Glen BW (MD97-Sligo Creek Pk) Ped/bike Forest Glen 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 45
Flower Avenue SW (Piney Branch Rd-Carroll Ped/bike
Avenue) East Silver Spring 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 45
Clarksburg Library Library Clarksburg 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 45
Georgia Ave/Forest Glen Rd Interesection 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45
Improvements Road Forest Glen
Glenmont Metro Bikeways Bike/Pedestrian Aspen Hill 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45
Hillandale Transit Center Transit White Oak 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 43
Olney Transit Center Transit Olney 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 43
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 43
Wheaton, Four
University Blvd BRT Transit Corners, Takoma Park
Improve Wayne Ave Intersections Road Improvement Silver Spring CBD 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 40
University Blvd at MD 320 (Piney Branch)
widen to provde right turn onto
southbound MD 320 Road Improvement East Silver Spring 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 40
Install traffic signals to provide safe
pedestrian and bicycle crossing (subject to
conditions and operational studies):
Arlington Road at Montgomery Lane;
Arlington Road at Bradley Shopping
Center; Old Georgetown Road at Cordell
Ave; Woodmont Ave at Montgomery Lane;
Old Georgetown Road at Glenbrook Road Bike/Ped Safety Bethesda CBD 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 40
Provide intesection improvents within
Sector plan boundary: Connecticut Ave and
Bradley ln Road Improvement Bethesda CBD 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 40
North Bethesda- 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 40
StrathmoreAvSW(StillwaterAv-GarrettPk) Ped/bike Garrett Park
Shady Grove Study 15 5 5 5 5 5 40
Fields Road Local Park Park Area/G'burg West
Mid-county fire station Fire station SG Sector Plan 15 5 5 5 5 5 40
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 38
Jones Mill Rd Bike Lanes (Beach Dr-Jones Bridge
Ped/bike
Rd) Bethesda Chevy Chase
MacArthur Blvd BW (Stable La-I-495) Ped/bike Potomac 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 38
Improve Batttery Lane Park Park Woodmont Triangle 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 35
Washington Avenue streetscape/sidewalk Pedestrian
improvements Improvements Twinbrook 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 35
Forest Glen Bikeway bet. Sligo Creek and 10 5 5 5 5 5 35
Metro Bikeway Forest Glen
Randolph Road widening Road White Flint 3 0 0 10 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 33
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 33
Lake Forest Transit center modernization Transit Gaithersburg Vicinity
Arcola & Georgia intersection Wheaton (located in 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 33
improvement Road K/W)
Brookville Bypass Road Olney 10 5 5 5 5 30
East Gude Shared Use Bikepath Bikepath Upper Rock Creek 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 30
Father Hurley Blvd widening Road Germantown 3 0 0 10 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
Middlebrook Rd Extended, widen Road Germantown 3 0 0 10 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
Dale Drive Sidewalk (MD97-US29) Ped/bike N-W Silver Spring 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 28
Falls Road SW-Wes (River Rd-Dunster Road) Ped/bike Potomac 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 28
Franklin Avenue SW (US29-MD193) Ped/bike N-W Silver Spring 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 28
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 28
Goldsboro Rd BW (MacArthur Blvd-River Rd)Ped/bike Bethesda Chevy Chase
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 28
Midcounty Hwy BW/SW (Woodfield-Shady Grove)
Ped/bike Gaithersburg Vicinity
Tuckerman La SW (Gainsborough-Westlake)Ped/bike Potomac 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 28
Dufief Mill Sidewalk (MD28-Travilah Rd) Ped/bike Potomac 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 28
Sligo Creek/Wheaton Regional Park Bike/Pedestrian Kemp Mill 3 5 5 5 5 5 25
Shady Grove Rd /Midcounty Hwy Road Shady Grove 3 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Shady Grove Rd/Epsilon/Tupelo Road Shady Grove 3 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 23
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Arlington Rd widening Road Bethesda CBD
East Gude Dr/Crabbs Branch/Cecil Road Twinbrook 3 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 18
Winters Run Local Park Park Upper Rock Creek 5 5 5 15
Upper Rock Creek Local Park Park Upper Rock Creek 5 5 5 15
Olney Longwood Park&Ride Transit Olney 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 13
Upcounty Park&Ride expansion Transit 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 13
Growth Policy Study: Appendix H – Changes to Policy Area Boundaries

Lead Staff: Wayne Koempel

__________________________________________________________________

Summary:

Major changes include: creating a new Life Sciences Center policy area, adjusting the
Germantown Town Center to match master plan recommendations, adjusting White Flint to
match the sector plan boundary, and adjusting for Gaithersburg and Rockville municipal
boundaries.
__________________________________________________________________

The following changes to policy area boundaries are recommended for consistency to master
plans or sector plans or changes to municipal boundaries. The maps that follow show Policy
Areas with recommended changes. Some of the traffic zone boundaries shown reflect the
proposed restructuring of the traffic zone system.

Expansion of the Germantown Town Center policy area east from Crystal Rock Drive to
I-270 north of Germantown Road (MD 118) as recommended in the new Germantown
Master Plan.
o Restructured traffic zone 249-5005 would be shifted from the Germantown West
policy area to the Germantown Town Center policy area.
o The remainder of traffic zone 249 would remain in the Germantown West policy
area.
Creation of a new Life Sciences Center policy area from part of the R & D Village policy
area.
o The Gaithersburg West Master Plan envisions the transformation of the Life
Sciences Center area into a dynamic live/work community while ensuring growth
opportunities for research, medical, and bioscience.
o The Life Sciences Center Policy Area would be created from traffic zones 218 (the
Life Sciences Center), 219 (the Public Service Training Academy area), and 220
(Johns Hopkins University Belward Campus area).
o The Gaithersburg West Master Plan recommends realignment of the Corridor
City Transitway through the Life Sciences Center policy area and recommends a
transit station in each of the traffic zones.

H-1
This proposal would result in the remaining R & D Village policy area being a non-
contiguous grouping of traffic zones 166, 215 (less Crown Farm), and 216.
o Traffic zone 166 is south of the Life Science Center policy area. It includes the
Universities at Shady Grove, Human Genome Sciences, Traville and Rickman.
 Two parcels of land were moved from the North Potomac policy area to
the R & D Village policy area and from traffic zone 165 to restructured
traffic zone 166 so that five adjacent parcels of land under common
ownership would all be in the same policy area.
 A small area along the eastern boundary of traffic zone 166 was annexed
by the City of Rockville and moved to the Rockville City policy area.
o Traffic zone 215 south of the Crown Farm remains in the R & D Village. The
Crown Farm portion moves to the Gaithersburg City policy area. The
Washingtonian residential portion of traffic zone 215 remains in the R & D
Village. The part of the Washingtonian residential annexed by the City of
Gaithersburg has been moved to traffic zone 214 and the City of Gaithersburg
policy area.
o Traffic zone 216, the Shady Grove Executive Center area, remains in the R & D
Village policy area.
The White Flint policy area is expanded to conform to the White Flint Sector Plan
boundaries. As part of the traffic restructuring effort, the White Flint traffic zones 136
and 137 have been expanded to include the areas of traffic zones 125, 127, and 133
included in the White Flint Sector Plan.
Two minor changes are recommended for the Rockville Town Center policy area.
o At the northeastern boundary of the Rockville Town Center policy area, the
houses along Lincoln Street with even street number addresses were outside the
Town center policy area. The boundary has been changed to include both sides
of Lincoln Street in the Town Center policy area.
o Part of the southern boundary was moved from E. Jefferson Street to Fleet
Street so that the houses along both sides of E. Jefferson street would be in the
Rockville City policy area.
There are maps of the Gaithersburg and Rockville City policy areas showing the changes
made to better conform the City policy areas to their municipal boundaries. There are
also maps showing the affected County policy areas. Except for the Crown Farm which
was discussed earlier the changes are minor. Most of the changes are in the
Gaithersburg City policy area with the Derwood, Montgomery Village/Airpark, and
North Potomac policy areas the most affected.

H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-10
H-11
H-12
H-13
H-14
Growth Policy Study: Appendix I - Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR)
Lead Staff: Eric Graye
______________________________________________________________________________

Summary:
Using the Department’s Travel/3 transportation model in support of the application of the
PAMR methodology, staff evaluated the year 2013 relationship between the set of
transportation projects fully-funded in the four-year capital program and the geographic
pattern of existing and approved but un-built (i.e., “pipeline”) jobs and housing units in the
County. A key result of this analysis was the determination of required FY 10 trip mitigation
percentages by policy area. These trip mitigation requirements (depicted below) were
reviewed and adopted by the Planning Board on May 14th.

I-1