Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG)

December 2, 2015 Meeting #12

MRO Auditorium
1:30-3:30 PM
Agenda
1) Introductions (5 min)
2) Preview of December 3 Planning Board roundtable discussion (30 min)
http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2015/documents/item4_StaffReport_SSPTrans
portationInitiatives_120315_pd_eg_signedpd_v2_final.pdf
a) Opportunities to collapse LATR and TPAR into a single test
b) Downtown Bethesda pro-rata share considerations
c) TPAR transit updates status
d) Trip generation status
3) Updates on parallel efforts (15 min)
a) MCDOT White Oak transportation analysis
b) SHA Transportation Study Guidelines
c) M-NCPPC Assessment of Modeling Tools/Measures/Metrics study
4) Draft materials for review (60 min)
a) Second draft of Subdivision Staging Policy (MS Word)
b) First draft of LATR Guidelines (MS Word, with Appendices 1 3 in PDF)
c) Overview of primary changes (pages 2 3 below)
5) Next steps and tentative meetings schedule (10 min)
a) December 2 TISTWG meeting: second draft of Subdivision Staging Policy; first draft of full LATR
Guidelines
b) December 3 Planning Board Roundtable
c) December 18: TISTWG comments to M-NCPPC on December 2 materials
d) January 8: Response to TISTWG comments
e) February 3 TISTWG meeting
f) Planning Board SSP worksessions: February 11, March 3, March 24 (if necessary)

1
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
November 29, 2015

Description of Agenda Packet Contents and Overview of Primary Changes

Subdivision Staging Policy Amendments Version 2
Version 1 of the proposed Subdivision Staging Policy Amendments were distributed in the packet for the
April 1 TISTWG meeting. Version 2 incorporates changes based on TISTWG comments since April 1,
notably:
Return of Potomac Policy Area to current conditions (no study needed)
Identification of additional Protected Intersections and payment in lieu requirement
Refinement of Very Low VMT approach to include Type 2 (de minimis) cases
LATR/TPAR Guidelines Amendments Version 1
The attached MS Word file containing the LATR/TPAR Guidelines Amendments contains two types of
markups:
Red text denotes proposed changes accumulated by M-NCPPC staff based on case study
experience during the past two years. These changes are predominantly claritive in nature,
including notable systemic changes such as:
o Referring to the traffic statement as a traffic (study) exemption statement
Blue track changes text denotes proposed changes relating to the amendments developed as
part of the TISTWG review process.
Substantial formatting is still required, but the objective at this stage is to distribute this information for
review and comment prior to completing mapping and tabular format. Part of the review and comment
is expected to include consideration of potential Guidelines reorganization to minimize repetition (i.e.,
the proposed deletion of Table 5 as duplicative of Map 1) and improve readability.
The primary new technical materials included in this packet are the development of replacement
LATR/TPAR Guidelines Appendices 1 through 3 that replace the legacy LATR vehicle trip generation rates
with new context-sensitive trip generation rates based on ITE vehicle trip generation rates and modal
split assumptions developed through analysis of Travel/4 trip generation and mode split assumptions.
Additional proposals developed since the last TISTWG review include:
A vehicular delay equivalent for MSPAs at 120 seconds per vehicle as equivalent to the 1800 CLV
standard, based on the assessment of CLV to average HCM delay values as indicated in the chart
below:

2
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
November 29, 2015

An acceptance of twice the value for non-auto facilities (i.e., $24,000 per peak hour vehicle trip)
for improvements that achieve a Level of Traffic Stress of LTS-2 or better for sites that are
required to perform a bicycle quantitative analysis, based on the criteria (>100 peak hour nonmotorized site generated trips and presence of nearby bicycle trip generators) requiring
quantitative analysis.

One other pertinent notice is that the Adams amendment regarding the applicants responsibility for
mitigating minor impacts to a second study intersection when a first intersection is already being
mitigated by the applicant has had several rounds of discussion. While the proposal as of April was to
change the no need to mitigate if less than 5 CLVs to no need to study if less than 5 trips it appears
now that such a change would, in many cases, be superseded by the new no need to study if less than
1% of total intersection volume and less than 5% of site generated trips.

3
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
November 29, 2015

Abstract
The Local Area Transportation Review and Policy Area Mobility Review Guidelines were updated by the Planning
Board on May 13, 2010, June 17, 2011, and February 9, 2012.
Does not
include

On November 13, 2012 the County Council adopted changes to the Subdivision Staging Policy eliminating the Policy
Area Mobility Review (PAMR) as an area-wide test for transportation adequacy and replacing it with Transportation

Amend 14-2
for White
Oak LATR
updates

Policy Area Review (TPAR). The Planning Board approved these revised guidelines to incorporate the Councils action
on January 24, 2013. Since the release of the latest LATR & TPAR Guidelines (January 2013), the County Council
adopted an amendment to the Subdivision Staging Policy (Resolution 17-1204) creating the White Oak Policy Area (July
29, 2014) and the Planning Board approved the results of the revised TPAR transit and roadway adequacy tests (February
5, 2015). This document reflects those changes.
These Guidelines are to be used for preparation and review of transportation impact studies for development in
Montgomery County. This document should be used by transportation engineers, planners, public agency reviewers,
and community members participating in the development review process.
Source of Copies
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3760
Online at: www.mc-mncppc.org/transportation/index.shtm www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation

Contents
Introduction
Applicability
How to Use these Guidelines
Local Area Transportation Review
Intent and Standards
Applicants Preparation of an LATR Traffic StudyTransportation Study
Scope of an LATR Traffic StudyTransportation Study
Additional Guidance on Scope Elements
Submitting an LATR Traffic StudyTransportation Study
Mandatory Referrals
Adequate Public Facilities at Building Permit
Staffs Evaluation of an LATR Traffic StudyTransportation Study
Reviewing Development in MSPAs and CBDs
Multiple Applicants
Information Provided by Staff
Staff Findings
Exceptions to LATR
Alternative Solutions and Mitigation Approaches
LATR Mitigation Options
Non-Auto Transportation Facilities
Applying Trip Reduction Measures
Transportation Policy Area Review
Intent and Standards
Evaluating a TPAR Condition
TPAR Mitigation Options
Appendix
Appendix 1

ITE Vehicle Trip Generation Rate Adjustment Factors

Appendix 2
Appendix 3

Trips by Mode for Developments With Significant Impacts

Mode Split Assumptions by Policy Area

Appendix 4
Appendix 5

LATR Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Guidelines

LATR Delegation Procedures for Certain APF Findings by Staff
at Time of Building Permit
Unbuilt Master Plan Projects for TPAR Mitigation
Inter-agency Traffic StudyTransportation study Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix 6
Appendix 7

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Space Before: 3.65 pt,

Line spacing: Exactly 11.45 pt, Tab stops: Not at 4.25"

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Appendix 10

Provisional Adequate Public Facilities Findings

Policy Area Maps
Traffic StudyTransportation study Scope of Work Agreement Form

Maps, Tables, Figures

Map 1
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Subdivision Staging Policy Areas and Intersection Congestion Standards

1 Intersections to be Included in a Traffic StudyTransportation study

2 Montgomery County Lane Use Factors
3 Example Critical Lane Volume Calculations
4 Checklist for Complete and Adequate Traffic Studies
5 L ATR Intersection Congestion StandardsCLV and v/c
6 Graduated and Maximum Trip Credits Related to Congestion Standards
7 TPAR Transit Adequacy Analysis Results

Figure 1 Montgomery County Transportation Review ProcessLATR and TPAR

Figure 2 Adequacy of Main RoadsCountywide Summary

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Introduction
Section 50-35(k) of the County Code directs the Montgomery County Planning Board to find that public facilities
will be adequate to serve proposed development. This Adequate Public Facilities (APF) finding requires forecasting
traffic generated by proposed development and comparing it to the capacity of existing and programmed roads
and transit. An applicant for proposed development must show that adequate transportation facilities will be
in place within a specified period of time. Alternatively, the applicant must provide those facilities or make a
Traffic Mitigation Payment toward area-wide transportation needs. These guidelines show the methodology for
determining adequacy, specify mitigation for projected traffic generated by proposed development projects, and
describe how Traffic Mitigation Payments are determined.
There are two tests for determining transportation adequacythe Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) test and
the policy area test called Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR). These tests are required by the 2012-2016
Subdivision Staging Policy adopted by the County Council on November 13, 2012.
LATR determines the adequacy of local roads by measuring congestion at roadway intersections based on critical lane
volume (CLV) and volume to capacity ratio (v/c). The estimated vehicle trips generated by a proposed development
are compared to the applicable policy area standard to evaluate likely future congestion. The developments trips that
contribute to nearby intersections exceeding the standard must be mitigated in some fashion.
The TPAR test first considers whether a policy area is considered inadequate for transit or roadways (or both). If the
area is inadequate, a development in the area must make a Traffic Mitigation Payment based on the number of
dwelling units or square footage of nonresidential space, or make improvements that increase capacity in the policy
area to address identified specific roadway and transit inadequacies.
These Guidelines explain the methodology for documenting and analyzing the likely impact of proposed
development on intersection performance, that is, the LATR part of Subdivision Staging. The Guidelines focus on
LATR because this aspect of the transportation adequacy test reflects the majority of the analysis conducted by
applicants using these Guidelines. The TPAR test is updated every two years by the Planning staff and adequacy
standards are established by the Planning Board. The current TPAR standards (2015-2016) updated and approved
by the Planning Board on February 5, 2015 are also presented in this document.
The criteria in these Guidelines determine whether a development can satisfy the requirements for transportation
adequacy. Following the standards of the Subdivision Staging Policy, the Planning Board must not approve a
development if unacceptable weekday peak-hour intersection congestion will result. The Planning Department
staffs review and the Planning Boards decision is based on existing and programmed roads, available and
programmed mass transportation, and physical improvements or trip mitigation measures to be provided by the
applicant.
Together, the two transportation tests provide a picture of traffic impacts, and the necessary improvements to
maintain congestion standards.
APPLICABILITY
LATR is applied to development projects that will generate more than 30 or more total morning or eveninga significant
number of weekday peak hour person trips. A significant number of weekday peak hour person trips is
defined as 75 or more in Metro Station Policy Areas (MSPAs) and 50 or more in all other areas of the
County TPAR is applied to projects that will generate more than three total weekday peak hour trips. Projects that
generate fewer than 30 total weekday peak hour trips must prepare a traffic exemption statement describing the
basis for any exemption from an LATR traffic studytransportation study and/ or TPAR.
Both tests are applied by policy area (see Map 1). Detailed maps, with streets shown, can be found in Appendix
9. Each policy area has a particular congestion standard for intersections, which is applied to meet the LATR test.
Each policy area also has a transportation adequacy determination for roadway and transit service applied in the
TPAR test. These standards and mitigation requirements are adopted by the County Council and specified in these
Guidelines, which are updated as needed to reflect industry standards, local traffic conditions, and Council action.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Project applications requiring LATR/TPAR studies:

preliminary plan (as part of a subdivision application)
site plans not requiring subdivision
conditional use/special exception, and other zoning cases before
the Board of Appeals and County Council
mandatory referral cases (exclusive of transportation projects)
These Guidelines may also apply to building permit review cases
requiring an APF finding, though in some cases (less than 12 months
vacancy, no increase in square footage, fewer than 30 new total
weekday peak hour trips) the APF test may be approved
administratively by Planning Staff.
Provisional Adequate Public Facilities (PAPF) applications
associated with Development Districts, as described in Appendix 8. The
Planning Board may consider the use of the PAPF process for an
individual property, in the absence of a Development District, in the
event that it would accelerate public infrastructure through private
investment.
HOW TO USE THESE GUIDELINES

LATR and TPAR compliance is not required for

developments in the White Flint Policy Area if because
applicants agree are required to participate in the White
Flint Special Taxing District for transportation infrastructure
improvements in lieu of satisfying the transportation APF
tests for LATR and TPAR.
LATR and TPAR mitigation and/or payments are not
required for public facility project mandatory referrals, in
which the Planning Boards review of an LATR study and
comments are advisory. Mandatory referrals are often
unique uses, such as schools or other public services, and
their traffic review follows Mandatory Referral Guidelines,
which requires a pedestrian and bicycle safety statement,
pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan, and a traffic
exemption statement or traffic studytransportation study as
applicable.

These Guidelines are to be used by applicants to prepare traffic studiestransportation studies for Planning
Board approval and by staff when reviewing those studies. These Guidelines are also recognized as the
standard for reports to the Board of
Appeals and Hearing Examiner for conditional use/special exception, and other zoning cases., respectively.
The following chart illustrates the steps needed to arrive at a recommendation for approval of the transportation
test for the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. These Guidelines describe the information needed from the
applicant to determine the answer at each step of the process and the considerations staff must evaluate when
reviewing the document.

Figure 1: Montgomery County Transportation Review Process - LATR and TPAR(note: new graphic in
progress)

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

When a proposed development is projected by the LATR test study to generate a significant impactn unacceptable
level of peak hour congestion, the applicant should consult with Planning Department staff, the Montgomery
County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and the municipalities of Rockville and Gaithersburg
(when applicable) to develop recommendations for trip reduction, including specific intersection improvements or
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit enhancements that can mitigate the projects impact and thereby gain Planning
Board approval.
The Guideline procedures outlined in this document are intended to provide a snapshot of estimated future traffic
transportation conditions for proposed development. These procedures are not intended to establish delay-free
travel conditions.

Map 1: Subdivision Staging Policy Areas and

Intersection Congestion Standards
(note: map to be updated to show
White Oak Policy Area)

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

policy area

critical lane volume

(CLV) standard

policy area

critical lane volume

(CLV) standard

24 Rockville City

1,500

19 North Bethesda

1,550

4 Bethesda-Chevy Chase
17 Kensington-Wheaton
13 Germantown Town Center
30 Silver Spring-Takoma Park
34 White Oak
28 Shady Grove MSPA

26 Rural East
27 Rural West

1,350

Damascus

1,400

5
11
12
14
18

Clarksburg
Gaithersburg City
Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/Airpark

1,425

6
20
21
22
23

Cloverly
North Potomac
Olney
Potomac
R&D Village

2 Aspen Hill
8 Derwood
9 Fairland/White
Oak Colesville

1,450

3
10
29
32
15
16
25
28
31

Bethesda CBD
Friendship Heights CBD
Silver Spring CBD
Wheaton CBD
Glenmont MSPA
Grosvenor MSPA
Rockville Town Center MSPA
Shady Grove MSPA
Twinbrook MSPA

1,475
33 White Flint MSPA

1,600

1,650

Formatted: Font: 8 pt

1,800

Local Area Transportation Review

INTENT AND STANDARDS
The Local Area Transportation Review process considers both quantitative and qualitative multimodal measures of adequacy for
the transportation conditions in the general vicinity of the development site. Quantitative analysis is r equired for each mode (auto,
transit, pedestrian, and bicycle) for which a significant number of peak hour trips is generated by that mode. Qualitative analysis of
pedestrian and bicyclist conditions, defined as a pedestrian and bicyclist impact statement, is required regardless of the number
of trips generated.
Priority Approach to Implement Mitigating Actions
In all areas of the County, priority should be given to identifying mitigating actions that accomplish one or more of the following
objectives, in the following order:

Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1 +

Aligned at: 0.55" + Indent at: 0.8"

Reduce transportation demand, particularly in single-occupant vehicles

Improve pedestrian or bicyclist quality of service
Improve transit quality of service
Improve auto level of service

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt, Font color:

Custom Color(RGB(35,31,32))

In CBDs and MSPAs, the consideration of each priority approach should include a statement of mitigation approaches proposed
and their expected effect on person trip generation by mode with an attempt to achieve any mode share goals in applicable master
or sector plans. Where intersection or roadway widening is proposed as mitigation, the narrative must describe why the highe r
priority approaches of trip reduction, non-auto facilities, or transit services were not sufficient to mitigate LATR impacts (whether
through true shifting of modal demand or through the LATR concepts such as the $12K/vehicle trip mitigation exchange rate for
non-auto facilities). Typical explanations may include the fact that capacity improvements were required to satisfy access permit,
or other safety, requirements; that the LATR maximums for such non-auto facilities were reached; that the developer interests were
better served by a lower-priority improvement approach; or that appropriate non-auto mitigation sites could not be identified in
conjunction with agency staff. The statement should identify potential actions that the public sector might consider to bett er support
the higher priority approaches for interagency staff consideration in CIP and operating budget commentary.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

In other Urban Areas, the consideration of each priority approach should include a similar statement regarding the examinatio n of
non-auto facilities, but without supporting quantitative assessments of modal shift or plan mode share goal achievement.
In other areas of the county besides CBDs, MSPAs, and Urban Areas, the consideration of each priority approach should include a
paragraph describing options considered and why they were not pursued; this statement may be brief and entirely qualitative.
An exception to the priority approach should be made so that any proposed mitigation that is explicitly described in a master plan or
sector plan can be elevated above a higher-priority approach.
Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses
The table below describes the peak hour person trip generation rates by mode that constitute a significant impact:

Location
CBD/MSPAs

Elsewhere

Triggers for quantitative analysis (all peak hour of site generator)

Auto
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Transit
100 person trips
and site located
75 vehicle trips
within a quarter
100 pedestrian
mile of an existing
50 transit trips
trips
or proposed
bikeshare station,
50 vehicle trips
college, or high
school

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Context-Sensitive Trip Generation

The LATR process uses context-sensitive trip generation and mode split analyses to determine the need for an LATR
Transportation Study (as contrasted with a Transportation Study Exemption Statement) and the need for quantitative analysis of
each of the four modes of travel. The LATR process utilizes the most recently published vehicle trip generation rates in the ITE
Trip Generation in concert with context-sensitive trip generation adjustment factors associated with each policy area to define site
vehicle driver, vehicle passenger, transit patron, and non-motorized person trips, using tables in Appendices 1 through 3. The table
below describes the application of Appendices 1 through 3 using a hypothetical 100,000 GSF office building in the Germantown
East Policy Area:
Appendix
1

Title/Purpose
ITE Vehicle Trip Rate
Adjustment Factors

Primary Use
Adjust ITE estimate of
site-generated vehicle
trips

Trips by Mode for

Developments With
Significant Impact

Identify whether site

has significant impact
(and requires LATR
Study)

Mode Split
Assumptions by Policy
Area

Identify which modes

require quantitative
analysis.

Example Case
Using the average rates
from pages 1260 and
1261 of the 9th Edition
of Trip Generation and
Appendix 1, the site is
estimated to generate
156*0.90=140 AM peak
hour vehicle trips and
149*0.90=134 PM peak
hour vehicle trips.
For Germantown East,
the context-sensitive
vehicle trip generation
rates exceed the 34.0
threshold that equates
to 50.0 person trips so
an LATR Study is
required
The number of vehicle
trips exceeds the
threshold of 50 so that
a quantitative auto
analysis is required.
The number of transit
trips (156 * 2.8% /
68.0% = 6) is less than
the threshold of 50 so
that a quantitative
transit analysis is not
required.
The number of nonmotorized trips (156 *
4.9% / 68.0% = 11) is
less than the threshold
of 100 so that
quantitative pedestrian
or bicycle analyses are
not required.

Once the context-sensitive number of person-trips generated by mode is established, certain sites may be eligible to conduct
further mode shifts as follows:

Formatted Table
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt, Font color:
Custom Color(RGB(35,31,32))
Formatted: Superscript

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic

Based on the 2005 WMATA Development Related Ridership Survey findings (Table S-2), sites that are located within
1,000 of a Metrorail station may shift additional trips from auto driver to transit patron based on the actual walking
distance from the sites main entrance to the Metrorail station portal, with a value of:
o 1 percentage point of mode share for every 50 feet closer than 1,000 feet for office development
o 1 percentage point of mode share for every 100 feet closer than 1,000 feet for residential development.
ADDITIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION TBD: A reduction in trip generation rates is yet to
be defined for office and residential developments that provide less than the maximum amount of required parking,
although this reduction should only apply in TMDs where conditions can be managed and monitored (particularly
regarding the likelihood of shared parking opportunities and any adverse effects of spillover parking. Conversely, the
parking management vehicle trip generation rate reduction would not be applicable in Parking Lot Districts where private
sector contributions towards publicly managed shared parking is encouraged.
Applicants wishing to further reduce vehicular impacts through Transportation Demand Management programs may
propose additional TDM programs and services whose effectiveness will be negotiated with M-NCPPC staff, pivoting from
the context-sensitive trip generation rates already incorporated above and with binding elements to be included in a
Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg).

Pedestrian Mode
The LATR quantitative pedestrian analysis requires the consideration of pedestrian capacity analyses to identify the number of
existing pedestrians and total future pedestrians along each sidewalk segment and marked crosswalk . The total future pedestrians
are defined as existing pedestrians plus site generated non-motorized and transit patron trips unless a level of background
pedestrian traffic growth is provided by M-NCPPC staff during the transportation study scoping process based on other recently
conducted studies.
The quantitative pedestrian analysis study area will extend 500 from the site boundary in all directions unless a specific pedestrian
destination, such as a transit station, is agreed upon as a more logical terminus for the analysis during the study scoping p rocess.
Only sidewalks and crosswalks that serve a desire line connecting the development site to the edge of the pedestrian study area
need to be analyzed. For the purposes of capacity analyses, Sidewalk segments within 500 but separated by a non-traversable
barrier such as a freeway segment, railroad, or body of water need not be analyzed. For the purposes of capacity analysis:
transit patron trips should be assigned on a direct path towards the nearest fixed-guideway transit station if one exists
within 1,000 of the study site, or distributed evenly towards any bus stop within the pedestrian study area, and
pedestrian trips should be distributed evenly along sidewalk and crosswalk segments,
unless otherwise directed by M-NCPPC staff during the transportation study scoping process.

For the purposes of ADA compliance, the number of estimated pedestrian trips along any desire line will not affect the need to
address non-compliance; the nexus in this regard is based on the total site generation and proximity to the element of noncompliance.
The pedestrian analysis will consider sidewalk and crosswalk capacities as defined in the current edition of the Highway Capacity
Manual as well as ADA compliance. An adverse impact will be identified if any sidewalk or crosswalk capacity exceeds LOS D or if
the sidewalk is not ADA compliant in terms of effective sidewalk width or provision of curb cuts. Based on the generation of a
significant number of new pedestrian trips, the applicant will be responsible for mitigating LOS D conditions and correcting ADA
non-compliance.
Bicycle Mode
The quantitative bicycle analysis study area will extend 1,000 from the site boundary in all directions unless a spec ific bicycle
destination, such as a bikeshare station, college, or high school, is agreed upon as a more logical terminus for the analysis during
the study scoping process. The bicycle analysis will consist of identifying the current and total future Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
along public streets and shared-use paths within 1,000 of the study area in all directions. The total future LTS will consider
increases in vehicle traffic due to background developments identified by M-NCPPC staff during the study scoping process.
The applicant will identify potential changes to the motor vehicle and bicycle network that could contribute to achievement of an
LTS-2 on any study area roadways where LTS-2 or better conditions do not exist in the study area. The applicant will not be
responsible for implementing any actions identified in this analysis. However, should the applicant agree with M-NCPPC and
implementing agencies to implement any recommendations, they will be considered non-auto facilities with twice the monetary
value (i.e., $24,000 per peak hour vehicle trip rather than $12,000 per peak hour vehicle trip).
LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Transit Mode
The quantitative transit analysis study area will consist of a direct path towards the nearest fixed-guideway transit station if one
exists within 1,000 of the study site, or distributed evenly towards any bus stop within the pedestrian study area. A capacity
analysis of transit conditions will be performed for existing conditions for all fixed-route transit services serving those stations or
stops. Justification of the capability of the transit system to accommodate the projected site-generated transit volume is to be
performed qualitatively in coordination with MCDOT and WMATA, considering the transit service characteristics and adequacy of
the pedestrian access between the transit station and the site.
Auto Mode
The LATR quantitative auto mode analysis test is undertaken in two steps to best measure congestion levels. The initial
Critical Lane Volume (CLV) analysis is performed to screen out intersections with a CLV less than 1,600, the threshold
between stable (but close to congested) and unstable (over-congested) road conditions.
Traffic Transportation Study Exemption Statement

Projects that are projected to generate less than 30 new weekday peak hour trips for LATR and less
than three or fewer peak hour trips for TPAR may need to submit only a more limited traffic
transportation study exemption statement. This statement must demonstrate the conditions that
justify the exemption.
Information to be included in a more limited traffic transportation study exemption statement:

development project locationPlanning Area and policy area

proposed nonresidential square footage
proposed number of dwelling units (single-family or multifamily)
proposed land uses (as defined by DPS)
estimated number of new and total peak hour trips generated by the proposed land uses
proposed access points, location of parking, site circulation
proposed operations (i.e., hours of operation, # of employees, # of residents, deliveries staggered
hours for staff and visitor arrival/departure, etc.)
rationale for exemption demonstrate fewer than 30 total peak hour trips generated (or in the case
of unbuilt development on an amended plan that will generate 30 or more total peak hour trips,
demonstrate no increase in trips)
Houses of worship (over 300 seats or equivalent) must include a study showing on-site vehicular
and pedestrian circulation

For intersections with a CLV of 1,600 or greater, or intersections with a CLV of 1,450 or greater that are within 600 of another signalized
intersection,, the more detailed Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method is used to measure delay. In these cases, the
applicant should use a traffic-flow model such as Synchro or CORSIM.
In the HCM method, intersection level of service can be is expressed as an average vehicular level of delay in seconds
per vehicle volume/capacity (v/c) ratio and the standards are set at levels parallel with the current CLV standards in a
policy area. For example, the 1,600 CLV standard, applicable in the Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Silver Spring/Takoma Park,
Kensington/Wheaton, and Germantown Town Center policy areas (see Map 1) is expressed as a v/c ratio of 1.00 and is
equivalent to 80 seconds of delay per vehicle . For Metro Station Policy Areas (MSPAs), the applicable 1,800 CLV
standard is expressed as a v/c ratio of 1.13 (that is, 1,800/1,600) and is equivalent to 120 seconds of delay per
vehicle.
APPLICANTS PREPARATION OF AN LATR TRAFFIC STUDYTRANSPORTATION STUDY
Applicants should use the following general criteria and analytical techniques to demonstrate the expected impact on public
roadway intersections by the proposed development. The analysis should consider existing traffic, background traffic
generated by developments approved and not yet built, and projected traffic generated by
the applicants project. Planning Department staff may require that traffic from nearby pending applications is included in the
traffic studytransportation study if those applications are likely to be approved by the Planning Board before the subject
applications projected Planning Board hearing date. Otherwise, the traffic studytransportation study would have to be
updated to include the pending applications that were approved between the traffic studytransportation studys scoping and
the Planning Board hearing date. Traffic studies should also reflect any traffic improvements that will be made by nearby
projects.
Scope of an LATR TrafficTransportation Study

1
0

If the project is not exempt does not qualify for a traffic statement, the applicant must prepare a transportationtraffic
studytransportation study. Depending on the project size, uses, and location, the contents of a traffic transportationstudy will
vary. The applicant and Planning Department staff, in a meeting or through correspondence, will establish a scope for the
study using the elements described below. (For zoning and special exception cases, Planning Department staff may consult
with the Hearing Examiner, and initiate a meeting with the applicant and interested groups or individuals to establish the
scope of the traffic transportationanalysis.) A template traffic transportationstudy scoping form is provided in Appendix 10.
Applicants must fill out a scoping form for all applications (even those that do not meet the 30 total peak hour trips threshold for a
traffic transportationstudy) and submit to the Planning Department for review. If staff agrees that only a traffic statement is
warranted or finds the traffic transportation study assumptions to be complete and adequate then the Applicant may proceed with
conducting the analysis based on those assumptions

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

1
1

A quantitative auto analysis traffic study must consider the following elements:
1. CLV of intersections
2. Approved but unbuilt development
3. Existing intersection turning movement counts
4. Trip generation, directional distribution, and trip assignment
5. Mode split assumptions
6. CIP (county) and CTP (state) improvements
7. Circulation and Safety for High Traffic impact venues
8. Land use and size
9. Queuing/delay analysis (if applicable)
10. Pedestrian and bicycle impacts
11. Improvement and mitigation options
12. Traffic mitigation agreement (if needed)

1. Intersections
The number of intersections included will be based on the projected trips generated by the development under
consideration (see page 17, Staff s Evaluation of Traffic TransportationStudy, for specific criteria regarding land at one
location). As shown in Table 1, the number of signalized intersections and significant non-signalized intersections in
each direction is based on the maximum number of total weekday peak hour trips (pass-by, diverted, transportation
demand management, and transit trip reductions may not be taken in this calculation; internal capture reduction and
trip credit for twelve year old developments may be applied) generated by the proposed land uses, unless Planning
Department staff in consultation with MCDOT, SHA, and municipalities if appropriate, finds that special
circumstances warrant a more limited study.
Table 1: Intersections to be Included in a Traffic
TransportationStudy
Weekday Peak Hour
Total Site Trips

Minimum Number of Intersections

in Each Direction

30 249

250 749

750 1,249

1,250 1,749

1,750 2,249

2,250 2,749

>2,750

The term each direction applies to every study intersection. For example, in a hypothetical grid, the first
ring from the site access point or off-site parking, if applicable, would include four intersections. The second
ring would include not only the next four intersections along the streets serving the site, but also the four
intersections with cross streets encountered in the first ring. As the number of intersections in each direction
grows linearly from one to five, the number of total study area intersections grows at a greater rate.

Planning Department staff, in cooperation with the applicant, will use judgment and experience in deciding the
significant intersections to be studied. For example, the ramps and termini of future interchanges will be treated as
signalized intersections. The Countys central business districts (CBDs) and Metro Station Policy Areas (MSPAs) have
more closely-spaced intersections. Accordingly, not every signalized intersection should be studied and as a result,
the study may cover a larger area. Site access driveways are not included in the first ring of intersections.

1
2

When determining the intersections to be studied, Planning Department staff will also consider:

geographic boundaries such as rivers, major streams, parks, interstate routes, railroads
political boundaries, although intersections located within neighboring counties, and the Cities of
Rockville, and Gaithersburg, and the District of Columbia, where the Planning Board does not have
subdivision authority, will be included in the traffic transportationstudy and the studies will be shared
with nearby incorporated cities1
contiguous land under common ownership
the type of trip generated: existing, new, primary, diverted, or pass-by, or internal
the functional classification of roadways, for example six-lane major highway.

If a sites number of peak hour vehicle trips is projected to increase the

critical lane volume through an intersection by fewer than five trips CLVs
and the applicant is required to improve another intersection for the same
project and/or is participating in a traffic mitigation program, the applicant is
not required to make any improvements at that intersection does not need to be
analyzed in the traffic study, even if it would otherwise be identified as
appropriate to study. Applicants may develop a trip distribution and
assignment pattern before the study
scoping process and work with Planning Department staff to determine
which intersections dont require full study. This process will be
documented in the scoping correspondence on the scope of work
agreement form (Appendix 10).
No intersection need be included in an quantitative auto analysis if
the number of peak hour vehicle trips that would be assigned
through that intersection (regardless of direction of travel) would
be both less than 5% of the total site generated traffic and less
than 1% of the intersections total peak hour volume (based on the
most recent count on record with M-NCPPC).

Total trips refers to the sum of all vehicular trips attracted to

and generated by a site including primary, pass-by, diverted,
transportation demand management and transit trips. No
trip reductions should be taken except internal capture and a
trip credit for 12 year old developments, if applicable, in the
30 peak hour trip traffic transportationstudy and tiers of study
intersections
calculations.
Pass-by trips are existing trips often generated by

retail uses located along roadways and designed to

draw from traffic already on the road.
Diverted trips are part of a chain of trips and travel
on adjacent routes to access a particular site in
certain circumstances. Planning Staff will provide
guidance during the scoping process as to whether it is
appropriate to apply this method in the traffic
studytransportation study.

CLV Intersection Analysis Method

An intersections ability to carry traffic is expressed as CLV, the level of congestion at critical locations with
conflicting vehicle movements, usually an intersection. Current CLV standards for each policy area are based on
achieving approximately equivalent combined transportation roadway and transit levels of service in all areas of the
County (see Map 1). Greater vehicular traffic congestion is permitted in policy areas with greater transit accessibility
and use.
For a traffic studytransportation study, the existing, background, and site-generated traffic for identified
intersections should be measured against intersection capacity using the critical lane volume method. The
analysis should be carried out for the peak hour of both the weekday morning and evening peak periods and
should use traffic data for non- holiday weekdays and other non-typical occurrences.
The CLV method is generally accepted by most Maryland public agencies including SHA, MCDOT, the Cities
of Rockville, Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, and M-NCPPC Planning Department. The methodology will fit most
intersection configurations and can be easily varied for special situations and unusual conditions.
While some assumptions, for example lane use factors (see Step 3 below), may vary between jurisdictions and
agencies, the general CLV methodology is consistent. An excellent reference source is SHAs web site: http://
marylandroads.com/Index.aspx?PageId=461. Note that the lane use factors used by SHA differ from the factors used
in Montgomery County listed on Table 2 in these Guidelines. The traffic study should utilize the SHA lane use factors
on state roads only. Utilize the Montgomery County lane use factors for county maintained roads.

8 The CLV method can be used at signalized or unsignalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections, a twoLATR/TPAR Guidelines

phase operation should be assumed. The traffic volumes should be those approaching the intersection as
determined in each step of the traffic studytransportation study (existing, existing plus background, and existing
plus background plus site).
1

In such cases, the coordination of any proposed intersection improvements shall be in accordance with the memorandum of understanding

provided as Appendix 7.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Applicants should use the following steps to determine the congestion level of an intersection with a simple twophase signal operation.
Step 1: Determine the signal phasing, number of lanes, and the total volume of entering turning movements on
all intersection approaches and the traffic movements permitted in each lane.
Step 2: Subtract from the total approach volume any right-turn volume that operates continuously throughout the
signal cycle (a free-flow right-turn bypass). Also, subtract the left-turn volume if it has an exclusive lane. An
exclusive turning lane must be long enough to store all of the turning vehicles in a typical signal cycle without
overflowing into the adjacent through lanes. Otherwise, none or only percentage of the turning volume may be
subtracted from the total approach volume.
Step 3: Determine the maximum volume per lane for each approach by multiplying the volume calculated in
Step 2 by the appropriate lane-use factor selected from Table 2. (Note: Do not count lanes established for
exclusive use such as right- or left-turn storage lanes. The lane use factor for a single exclusive use lane is 1.00.
Consult with Planning Department staff and MCDOT regarding any overlap signal phasing.)
Table 2: Montgomery County Lane Use Factors*
Number of Approach Lanes

Lane Use Factor**

1.00

0.53

0.37

0.30

0.25

* Note that the lane use factors used in Montgomery County, as shown in this table, differ from the
factors used by SHA as discussed on the previous page of these Guidelines. The traffic study should
utilize the lane use factors in this table for County roads.
** Based on local observed data and the 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.

Step 4: Select the maximum volume per lane in one direction (e.g., northbound) and add it to the opposing
(e.g., southbound) left turn volume.
Step 5: Repeat Step 4 by selecting the maximum volume per lane in the opposite direction (e.g., southbound)
and the opposing (e.g., northbound) left-turn volume.
Step 6: The higher total of Step 4 or Step 5 is the critical volume for phase one (e.g., north-south).
Step 7: Repeat Steps 4 through 6 for phase two (e.g., east-west).
Step 8: Sum the critical lane volumes for the two phases to determine the CLV for the intersection. At some
intersections, two opposing flows may move on separate phases. For these cases, each opposing phase
becomes a part of the intersections CLV (see Table 3).
Step 9: Compare the resultant CLV for the intersection with the congestion standards in Map 1.

1
0

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

An example of a CLV calculation for a hypothetical intersection is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Example Critical Lane Volume Calculations
direction
from the
southbound

lane approach
volume

critical lane use

factor

approach
volume

lane volume per

approach

opposing lefts

775 1

0.53

411

200

611 5

800 2

0.53

424

175

599

500

1.00

500

+-

675

westbound

700 3

0.53

371

100

471

eastbound

750 4

0.53

398

150

548

northbound

175

Approach volumes are the sum of through, right, and left turn movements in two lanes.
For a heavy right turn, evaluate worst of rights in one lane or through and rights in two lanes
Approach volumes are the sum of through and right turn movements in two lanes.
4 Approach volumes are through only because of free right and separate left.
5 Intersection Critical Lane Volume = higher sum of highest NB/SB and highest EB/WB = 675 + 548 =
1,223.
1
2
3

lane sketches

The following conditions should be observed where applicable.

Right turn overlaps can be assumed where an exclusive right turn lane exists, except in cases when an
approach is signed for a no turn on red condition.
The CLV for five-leg intersections should be addressed according to the individual signal phases identified
in the field.
In cases where pedestrian crossing time criteria are not met, applicants must inform MCDOT, request that
they revise the signal timing, and include this in the pedestrian statement.
Crossing distances are to be measured from the curb to the edge of the far travel lane (not curb to curb).
Desired times are to be determined by dividing the crossing distance by 3.5 ft/sec and then subtracting
the total clearance time for that associated phase, as per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
The CLV calculation for roundabouts should calculate the sum of the approach flow and circulating flows,
as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual, for each approach and comparing the highest sum to the
LATR standards.
2. Approved but Unbuilt Development
As a general guideline, background traffic from approved but unbuilt developments will be in the same geographic
area as the intersections to be studied will be factored into the study if that background development traffic is
estimated to contribute at least 5 CLV to an intersection. , defined by a polygon connecting the intersections farthest
from the site.
M-NCPPC staff may identify existing development with a substantive amount of vacancy as appropriate
for inclusion as background development if the vacancy is judged sufficient to cause a notable effect on
area traffic volumes. Generally, to be included as background development any individual building
should have at least a 10% vacancy in either gross square feet or dwelling units and the vacant space

10

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

should be of significant size (i.e., large enough to warrant a transportation study if the vacant space were
considered to be a stand-alone development site).
If the background traffic is generated from a large, staged development, the traffic studytransportation study
and its review will also be staged. As noted above, background traffic data should also include effective trip
mitigation programs or uncompleted physical improvements that have been required of nearby developments.
In appropriate cases,Planning Department staff may require that traffic from nearby unapproved applications
also be included in the traffic studytransportation study as described on page 6.

3. Existing Intersection Turning Movement Counts

Generally, i Intersection turning movement counts used in traffic studies must be less than one year old when at the
time the development application is determined to be complete by the Planning Department. is submitted are
acceptable. Traffic counts should not be conducted:
on a Monday or Friday
during summer months or when public schools are not in session (i.e. summer vacation, week of graduation)
on federal, state, or county holidays
on the day before or after federal holidays
during the last two weeks of December and the first week of January or when a major incident or event
results in significantly different traffic volumes and patterns
when weather or other conditions have disrupted normal daily traffic.

For special circumstances such as summer camps, non-summer or summer traffic counts, whichever is higher, will
be used in the study.
4. Trip Generation, Directional Distribution, Directional Split, and Trip Assignment
Trip Generation

Trips projected to be generated by the proposed development and background traffic should be determined in
accordance with the latest Trip Generation Guidelines (see Appendix 1)guidance for developments of significant
impact described under Intent of LATR and in Appendices 1 through 3. Developments that generate fewer than five
peak hour background trips (i.e., subdivisions of four or fewer single-family detached houses) are not generally
included unless located at a critical analyzed intersection, since tracking those trips is not pragmatic.
Trip generation equations and rates are shown in Appendix 1 for general office, retail, residential, fast food
restaurants, child day care centers, private schools/educational institutions, senior/elderly housing, mini-warehouse,
and automobile filling stations with or without ancillary uses. Equations for calculating trips from other land uses or
zoning classifications can be obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) latest edition of the Trip
Generation Manual, as can guidance regarding pass-by, diverted, and internal trip capture rates.
Applicants should use Appendix 1 for trip generation rates and equations for typical land uses within Montgomery
County. Planning Department staff can assist in calculating trips and using the trip generation tables in Appendix 2.
Appendix 3 contains the trip generation rates for the Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Friendship Heights CBDs, which
reflect higher transit use. Planning Department staff is authorized to make minor technical changes to Appendixes
1, 2, and 3 to reflect new information or to correct errors. Applicants should check with staff to ensure they are
using the latest version of the Appendix.
Another special case is retail sites over 200,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Their trip generation rates
will be set after discussion with staff and the applicants analysis of data for one or more similar-sized retail sites
within the County. In lieu of data collection, a trip rate set at two times the rate in the latest edition of ITEs Trip
Generation Manual may be used.
In some cases, adjusting the trips from the trip generation rates and equations in the Appendix may be appropriate.
For example, the effect of pass-by and diverted trips for retail, including fast food restaurants, child day care
centers, and automobile filling stations; and the total trips from mixed uses such as office and retail will be
considered on a case-by-case basis, using the best available information. Deviations, such as use of diverted trips,
may also be appropriate for a particular site. Appropriate rates for these sites could be based on traffic counts of
comparable facilities on vehicles both entering and leaving those sites, preferably in the County, and will be
considered by staff.
Directional Distribution

12

Planning Department staff provides applicants with guidance pertaining to the directional distribution of
background and site traffic generated by office and residential uses from the latest edition of the Trip Distribution
and Traffic Assignment Guidelines (see Appendix 4). The distribution of trips entering and leaving the proposed
development will be determined based on the relative location of other traffic generators, including background
development, employment centers, commercial centers, regional or area shopping centers, transportation
terminals, or other trip table information provided by staff. For land uses not covered in the Appendix, distribution
should be developed in consultation with Planning Department staff.
LATR/TPAR Guidelines

The distributions provided in Appendix 4 are only intended to provide an additional source of information for the
planner/engineer conducting the transportation study. Each study should take a fresh look at the directional
distribution of site-generated traffic based on the specific uses proposed and the characteristics of the adjacent
roadway and surrounding land uses.

11

Directional Split

The directional split is the percentage of the trips entering or leaving the site during the peak hour and the direction
in which those trips are traveling. Appendix 1 contains the directional split for general land uses and Appendix 3
contains directional split assumptions for the Bethesda, Friendship Heights, and Silver Spring CBDs. For all other
uses, refer to the latest edition of ITEs Trip Generation Manual. If data are not available, staff and the applicant
will determine an appropriate in-out directional split.
Trip Assignment

Trip assignment is an estimate of the impact of future traffic on the nearby road network. It tends to be less accurate
farther from the origin or destination of travel. The assignment factors shall be determined in consultation with
Planning Department staff and applied to the generated trips. The resulting volumes will be assigned to the nearby
road network. Site-gGenerated trips, background traffic, and existing traffic will be combined to determine the
adequacy of transportation facilities. Trip assignment will be extended to the nearest major intersection, or
intersections, in consultation with Planning Department staff (see Table 1).
Once an intersection assignment exceeds a CLV of 2,000, diverting estimated traffic to alternate routes may be
considered as long as those roads have adequate capacity to absorb the additional traffic. Diversions will be based on
feasible alternatives and should create a balance that reflects the projects traffic impacts on both primary and
alternate routes, and without excessively burdening local residential streets. Impacts on primary and alternate
intersections must be mitigated in accordance with the policy area congestion standards. Staff, in consultation with
the applicant, SHA, and MCDOT, will resolve these cases individually before presentation to the Planning Board.
5. Mode Split Assumptions
Estimates of transit use should be included if the study is to include trip reduction generated using non-auto trip
factors. Appendices 1 through 3 provide a starting point for consideration of context-sensitive mode
split assumptions. The applicant may propose additional Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) programs or services and conduct additional modal shifts as agreed to with M -NCPPC staff
if the application includes a Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg).For mixed-use developments, the tripgeneration rates and formulas in ITEs Trip Generation Manual include the impacts of transit users. Refer to the
most recent WMATA Metro report or MWCOG projections for
additional assistance in
MSPAs.
6. Capital Improvement Projects and Consolidated Transportation Program Improvements
Transportation projects fully funded for construction within six years in the latest version of the Countys Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), the States Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP), or any relevant municipal
capital improvements program should be included in the study, along with techniques for estimating traffic diversion
to major new programmed facilities.
Applicants should use the CIP and CTP to define a capital improvements project to be included in their traffic
studytransportation study. For an improvement to qualify for use, it must be fully funded for construction in the first
six years of the applicable CIP or CTP as of the date of the traffic studytransportation studys submission.
If a capital project is not currently fully funded for construction within six years of the capital program, but such
funding is reasonably anticipated to occur in the next capital program, Planning Department staff may recommend
the Planning Board delay an APF decision until the County or State is ready to appropriate that funding. The
Planning Board would then require the developer to consult with the County or State when building permit
applications are filed. If the County or State agrees at that time in writing that the capital project will be constructed
within six years, then the developer will contribute an amount equivalent to the cost of the LATR improvements that
they would otherwise be required to make.
7. Circulation and Safety
The traffic studytransportation study should provide peak hour turning movement projections (into and out of the
site) for all driveways to commercial and multifamily residential developments, sites that share access through an
easement agreement, and proposed intersections of any new public streets with existing public roads.
On sites with public or private facilities with 800 or more seats or that can otherwise accommodate 800 or more
people during an event, which may have high traffic impacts, traffic studies should address concerns about site
access and circulation.
8. Land Use and Size

14

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Formatted: Right: 0.29", Space Before: 0.45 pt, Line

spacing: Multiple 1.05 li

The study should include the number and square footage of buildings on the site and whether they are
commercial, residential, or some other use as described in Appendix 2 and in the latest version of the Highway
Capacity Manual.

9. Queuing Intersection Operational Analysis

The study should be based on data from the Highway Capacity Manual methodology, and reflect the different
standards for CBDs and MSPAs (see Map 1). See page 18 for more detail.
The following elements should be incorporated into Intersection Operational Analysis:
LATR study scenarios are described for operational analyses below as one of four scenarios:
Existing
Background (with approved development and any CIP/CTP improvements)
Baseline (with site generated traffic and no mitigation)
Proposed (with site generated traffic and proposed mitigation)
The study area, and operational area network, will be defined as centered upon any intersection with a
CLV greater than 1,600, or a CLV greater than 1,450 if located within 600 of another signalized
intersection. The study area network will be considered to encompass additional signalized
intersections in all directions that meet either of those two criteria (CLV > 1,600 or CLV > 1,450 and
within 600 of another signalized intersection). Upstream dummy links will extend far enough to
accommodate total future vehicular demand during the peak hour.
Operational analysis will also be conducted for any study intersection located on a corridor with a Travel
Time Index greater than 2.5 as defined by the most recent MWCOG Congestion Management Process
(CMP) Technical Report.
The assessment of operational adequacy will be based on the overall network-wide level of vehicular
delay. For study networks located entirely within a Metro Station Policy Area, an adequate networkwide level of vehicular delay is 120 seconds per vehicle or less. For study networks that are entirely
outside a Metro Station Policy Area, an adequate network-wide level of vehicular delay is 80 seconds
per vehicle or less. For study networks that include both portions of a Metro Station Policy Areas and
portions of adjacent policy areas, an adequate network-wide level of vehicular delay is 100 seconds per
vehicle or less.
Simulation network temporal extent will include the peak hour, plus sufficient initialization time so that
network output equals network input within 5% or output stabilizes if demand significantly exceeds
capacity.
Signal phasing and timing: Existing signal timing parameters used for existing conditions and
background/baseline conditions (unless changes explicitly provided by MCDOT at time of study
scoping). Adjustments to signal phasing (including adjustment to cycle lengths) for proposed
conditions are encouraged to seek operational improvements in lieu of vehicular capacity additions, but
are subject to review and concurrence from SHA (phasing, for intersections with State highways) and
MCDOT (phasing and timing).
For existing conditions validation, the total peak hour vehicular throughput should matches existing
conditions counts within 1% at network entry/exit points and within 10% at individual intersection
approaches. Network sink/source nodes may be used to address observed imbalances in flow between
intersections.
For pedestrian crossing time, all intersection approaches for proposed conditions require 3.5 ft/sec
pedestrian crossing time from curb to edge of far travel lane unless crossing of approach is explicitly
prohibited.
Transit vehicle characteristics are to be modeled explicitly only in MSPAs and CBDs, using existing
transit route frequencies and assuming 10 second dwell times unless otherwise directed by M-NCPPC
staff at time of scoping or if development triggers transit quantitative analysis.
Other vehicular operating conditions (i.e., truck percentages, start up lost time, car-following) use
software defaults unless changes are needed to achieve validation.

16

Within Road Code Urban Areas, the analysis must ensure that average pedestrian delay for proposed
LATR/TPAR Guidelines
condition is not greater than average pedestrian delay for baseline condition and that average

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt

Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1 +
Aligned at: 0.32" + Indent at: 0.57"

pedestrian crossing distance for proposed condition is not greater than average pedestrian crossing
distance for baseline condition.

10. Pedestrian and Bicycle Impact Statement

To ensure safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation to and within the site, the study should
include:

pedestrian and bicycle counts at each intersection: pedestrian counts will be recorded at each leg of the
intersection; bicycle counts will be recorded as turn movements
any capital or operating modifications required to maximize safe pedestrian and bicyclist access to the site
and surrounding area
inventory map of existing and proposed sidewalks, off-road shared-use paths, and bikeways near the site
noting whether these facilities are generally consistent with the Countys Road Code design standards for
sidewalk, path, landscape panel width, and street trees
existing and proposed bus stops, shelters, and benches, including real time transit information
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations at nearby intersections, including crosswalks, countdown
pedestrian signals (CPS), push buttons, median refuges, and ADA-compliant ramps and accessible
pedestrian siganls (APS)
information on bus route numbers, service frequency, and end destinations of bus routes
in CBDs and MSPAs, recognition of peak pedestrian and bicycle activity periods
inventory of existing streetlighting and additional lighting needs in the vicinity of the site.

11. Improvement and Mitigation Recommendations

The study should include a feasible range of traffic engineering improvements and/or trip mitigation measures
associated with implementing the development.
12. Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg)
If an applicant is proposing trip reduction measures as mitigation, the study Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg),
which is sometimes referred to as a "hard TMAg" because it is required by the Planning Board and often includes ongoing traffic monitoring, must include:

a description of proposed Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg) provisions, including unless determined by
staff not to be applicable, elements that will be entered into by the Planning Board, the Board of Appeals
and MCDOT, and included in the opinions issued by the Board of Appeals. The description must include,
at a minimum, the following elements:

the vehicle trip reduction goals, including the specific number of peak hour vehicles to be reduced in
both the weekday morning and evening peak periods
the TMAgs actions and a quantitative assessment of how they will achieve the required vehicle trip
reduction goal
the required duration of the TMAg, whether the TMAg will be enforced based on the provision of
specified actions (regardless of outcome), the measured outcome (regardless of actions provided), or
a combination of both
the measures to be used in enforcement
the suggested method of monitoring, if applicable
a security instrument to fund the continuation of the traffic mitigation program for its remaining term
if the applicant defaults
the penalties if the vehicle trip reduction goals are not met.
written statements from both MCDOT and Planning Department staffs concurring with the proposed
approach to traffic mitigation.
Additional Guidance on Scope Elements
The projects size and location will determine its traffic impact, as will the land uses in the proposed development.
In calculating their impact, the applicants traffic studytransportation study must consider the following factors.
Traffic Data and Peak Hours

Traffic studies should be based on the one hour period with the highest trips during the typical weekday morning
(6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and/or evening (4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) peak period. This one-hour period shall be
determined from the highest sum of the existing traffic entering all approaches to each intersection during four
consecutive 15-minute intervals, even if the peak hour spans quarter past or half past full hours (i.e., 8:15 to 9:15 a.m.,
6:30 to 7:30 a.m., or 7:45 to 8:45 a.m.). In some situations Planning Department staff may require analysis for nonweekday or non-traditional peak periods depending on the proposed land uses, such as a major shopping center on a
Saturday for example.
LATR/TPAR Guidelines

13

Traffic Data

Current existing traffic volume data may be available from the Planning Departments intersection traffic count
database, SHA, or MCDOT. New traffic counts should be conducted by the applicant if, in staffs opinion, traffic
volumes have increased due to some change in the traffic pattern, such as the completion of a nearby development
or roadway project after the count was made. Applicants are responsible for collecting new traffic counts if turning
movement data are more than one year old when the project application is considered complete by the Planning
Department or if there are locations for which traffic count data are non existent. All weekday peak-period turning
movement data should be submitted electronically as part of the applicant's traffic studytransportation study.
Intersection traffic counts obtained from public agencies or conducted by the applicant must be manual turning
movement counts of vehicles and pedestrian/bicycle crossing volumes in 15-minute intervals covering the typical
weekday peak periods, 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., or some other agreed upon time
period. The data must be collected in 15-minute intervals to allow selection of the peak hour within the nearest 15
minutes. All weekday peak-period turning movement data should be submitted as part of the applicants traffic
studytransportation study.
All new intersection traffic counts for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles must be submitted digitally to Planning
Department staff to become part of the Planning Departments Intersection Traffic Count database, which is
available to developers, consultants, and others. Traffic counts affected by adverse weather or nearby traffic
incidents will not be accepted (see page 11, Applicants Preparation of an LATR Traffic StudyTransportation Study,
Existing Intersection Turning Movement Counts).
Submitting an LATR Traffic StudyTransportation Study
If an applicant is uncertain whether a traffic studytransportation study is required, a traffic exemption statement
must be filed as a part of an applicants development submittal. The traffic exemption statement must show:

that the number of peak hour vehicle trips generated by the projects proposed land use is fewer than 30 trips
e how the TPAR test is satisfied.
Planning Department staff will review the initial traffic exemption statement and determine if a traffic
studytransportation study is necessary.
If a traffic studytransportation study is necessary, Planning Department staff has 15 working days to develop a study
scope after receiving a written request and working with the applicant. As part of the scope, staff will supply the
applicant with information on approved but unbuilt developments, relevant pending applications, nearby
intersections to study, trip distribution and traffic assignment guidelines, and other information required to
complete the study.
When determined to be complete and adequate, the applicant can return the study with the complete
development application. Planning Department staff has 15 working days to let the applicant know if the study is
complete and adequate.
The traffic studytransportation study and statement submission process begins with the Applicant submitting a filled
out scope of work agreement form (Appendix 10) to be reviewed by Planning Department Staff. Staff will help the
Applicant to research site history, pipeline development, and planned infrastructure, if necessary, in order to
complete the form. After staff finds the traffic studytransportation study or statement assumptions to be complete
and adequate, the Applicant may conduct the study based on those set of assumptions. A signed copy of the scoping
agreement form should be included with the submitted traffic studytransportation study or statement.
TPAR and LATR are separate evaluation processes, but must be examined concurrently as part of a development
application submission. Each applicant must satisfy both TPAR and LATR requirements. The requirements must be
addressed in a single document, which may include a combination of traffic exemption statements and traffic
studies.

18

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Traffic StudyTransportation study Submittals

Two copies of the transportation study must be submitted with the development application. Once
Planning Department staff confirms that the traffic study is complete and adequate, 13 copies must be
submitted within five working days of notification, along with a PDF copy for inclusion in the application file and
available for public review via the Planning Department websites Development Activity Information Center
(DAIC).
A complete and adequate transportation study must include:

A site or area map showing:

o Existing roads serving the site and any CIP or CTP transportation improvements that are fully
funded for construction within six years and that affect traffic at the critical intersections
o Nearby approved but unbuilt developments and associated improvements that would affect
traffic at the critical intersections with their location shown on the area map. (This information
is provided by staff and included as part of the transportation study).

Name and contact information of the licensed or certified professional submitting the traffic
studytransportation study. LATR traffic studies must be submitted by a registered Professional Engineer (PE),
Certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE), Certified Professional Transportation Planner
(PTP) or AICP Certified Transportation Planner (AICP CTP), per the Subdivision Staging Policy. Planners with
the American Institute of Certified Planners certification (AICP without CTP) may not submit a traffic
studytransportation study but they may sign off on a traffic studytransportation study scope of work agreement.
Existing pedestrian and bicycle weekday morning and evening peak period traffic count summaries for the
intersections analyzed in the traffic studytransportation study. The summary should include any safety
deficiencies or conditions that fail to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For approved but unbuilt development:
weekday morning and evening peak hour trips expected to be generated by each nearby approved
but unbuilt development, including the source of the generation rates and equations for each
trip distribution patterns, as percentages, during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. The
pattern of both distribution and assignment should be shown on an area map of the local roadway
network.

For the proposed development:

weekday morning and evening peak hour trips entering and leaving the site, including the site
driveways
trip distribution patterns, as percentages, during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. The
pattern of both distribution and assignment should be shown on an area map of the local roadway
network.
stated trip generation rates, equations, other sources, and/or trip reduction assumptions and
justifications, as agreed to in the scope of work agreement form.

Maps that show separately and in combination:

existing weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes using the affected highway system,
including turning movements at analyzed intersections
projected weekday morning and evening peak hour trips assigned to the affected highway system
and turning movements at analyzed intersections for all nearby approved developments, included as
part of the background
traffic volumes derived by adding trips from approved development to existing traffic
if a roadway CIP/CTP or developer-sponsored project is considered as being in place, the resulting
reassignment and redistribution of trip patterns
projected weekday morning and evening peak hour trips assigned to the affected highway system
and turning movements at analyzed intersections for the proposed development
traffic volumes derived by adding site trips to the sum of existing plus background traffic assigned to
the affected highway system and turning movements at the analyzed intersections.

Any study performed to help determine how to assign recorded or proposed development trips, such as a
license plate study or special turning movement counts.
Copies of all critical lane volume analyses for each analyzed intersection, showing calculations for each
approach.
A list of all transportation improvements, if any, that the applicant agrees to provide and a scaled drawing of
each improvement showing available or needed right-of-way, proposed roadway widening, and area
available for sidewalks, bikeway, landscaping, as required. Coordination with MCDOT, SHA and, if impacted,
the Cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg, should be shown.
Include traffic studytransportation study scoping form previously reviewed and found to be complete and
adequate by staff in the appendix of the traffic studytransportation study.
Electronic copies of all vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic counts in approved digital format submitted
to: www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/latr_guidelines/submission.pdf.
Traffic counts affected by adverse weather, nearby traffic incidents, or other factors resulting in non-typical
volumes will not be accepted.
Before a traffic studytransportation study is accepted for review, the applicant must show proof that the MCDOT
Development Review
Fee (to review the traffic studytransportation study) has been paid, in accordance with Executive Regulation No. 28-06 AM
(Schedule of
Fees for Transportation-related Reviews of Subdivision Plans and Documents).

20

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Once a traffic studytransportation study is determined to be complete and adequate (see Table 4), the date of

Planning Department staff acceptance of that study becomes the completion date. After a traffic studytransportation
study or statement has been submitted as part of an application to the Planning Department staff will inform the
Planning Departments Development Application and Regulatory Coordination (DARC) division, that the study will
be reviewed and determined whether it is complete and adequate (Table 4) for the purpose of distribution to MCDOT
and SHA, if applicable. Traffic counts used in the traffic studytransportation study must have been collected within one
year of the date that the entire application is determined
to be complete by DARC. As part of a development application, the traffic studytransportation study will follow the standard
15
notification

process.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Planning Department staff is available to review the traffic studytransportation studys recommendations with
community representatives. Traffic studies are available for public review as part of the applications general
file. Copies can be made or requested from the applicant, as needed. PDF copies are also available online at
the Planning Departments Development Activity Information Center.
After the traffic studytransportation study is determined to be complete and adequate, Planning Department staff
will distribute the study it to relevant transportation agencies MCDOT, SHA, and neighboring jurisdictions
incorporated cities, as appropriate if applicable. Traffic studies be distributed at or the date when subdivision
plans are distributed for review by the Development Review Committee. These agencies will have 30 days to
review the traffic studytransportation study and comment. Planning Department staff will determine if a traffic
studytransportation studys recommendations are acceptable in consultation with the applicant, MCDOT, and
SHA. Planning Department staff will work with the applicant to obtain other agencies' comments from SHA and
MCDOT five weeks prior to a scheduled Planning Board hearing.
It is the applicants responsibility to determine how to respond to written and/or oral communication by Planning
Department staff regarding issues associated with and/or required modifications to the traffic studytransportation study.
Table 4: Checklist for Complete and Adequate Traffic Studies
Applicants should consider the following questions that Planning Department staff will use to determine whether
a traffic studytransportation study is complete and adequate, and can be accepted for DRC review and eventual
decision by the Planning Board.
Process
Traffic studyTransportation study submitted/receipt date
Contact information of licensed or certified person who prepared it
Has an electronic copy of traffic counts been received/receipt date
Have the fees required by Executive Regulation 28-06 AM been paid?
Does the study follow LATR / & TPAR Guidelines, the traffic studytransportation study scope letter, and
generally accepted transportation planning principles?
Are policy area congestion standards, lane configurations, lane factors, and CLV calculations in the traffic
studytransportation study acceptable?
Information about surrounding area
Are existing traffic conditions presented accurately?
Are pipeline developments adequately represented?
Are background traffic conditions appropriate?
Are the relevant fully-funded transportation network improvements included?
Information about the proposed development
Does the study reflect latest submitted development plan and land uses?
Is site trip generation estimated according to LATR requirements?
Is the TPAR fee calculated based on the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) development impact tax? number of dwelling units and
gross square footage?
Are assumptions for the percent of new, diverted, pass-by, internal, TDM, and transit trips acceptable?
Does site trip distribution represent regional travel patterns in the LATR / & TPAR Guidelines and local road network?
Is site trip assignment acceptable?
Information about proposed mitigation
If proposed, what percentage of LATR trips needs to be reduced and mitigated? Are intersection and roadway
improvements identified?
Is the Pedestrian and Bicycle Impact Statement acceptable?
Are necessary trip reduction measures identified?
Are intersection and roadway improvements identified?
If proposed, are trip reduction measures acceptable?
If proposed, are the required elements of the Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg) identified?
Has the PDF copy of the traffic studytransportation study been submitted?

22

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

STAFFS EVALUATION OF A TRAFFIC STUDYTRANSPORTATION STUDY

Planning Department staff evaluates traffic studies considering the following elements, described here to ensure
consistent review by staff and to provide applicants additional information about how their studies will be analyzed.
The review includes variations for MSPAs, CBDs, and projects with multiple applicants.
Project Size and Location

To warrant an LATR traffic studytransportation study, a proposed development must have a measurable traffic impact
on a local area. Measurable traffic impact is defined as a development that generates 30 or more total weekday
peak hour trips (i.e., existing, new, total trips of entire development not just proposed increase from previous approval;
no pass-by, diverted or transportation demand management reductions taken in this calculation) weekday peak hour
trips in the morning (6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and/or evening (4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) peak periods. If the
proposal generates less fewer than 30 total peak hour trips or is a renovation of an existing development or an
amendment to a previously approved plan and will generate no net increase in peak hour total trips, a traffic
exemption statement is required instead of a traffic studytransportation study.
An LATR traffic studytransportation study is not required for any expansion that generates five or fewer additional peak
hour trips. if If
use and occupancy permits for at least 75 percent of the originally approved development were issued more than
12 years before the LATR traffic studytransportation study exemption scope request then the applicant may take a
credit of existing site trips (based on LATR trip generation methodology not driveway counts to reflect full build-out)
toward determining the 30 trip threshold. These existing trips should be accounted for in the traffic analysis as
'background' traffic. If an
LATR traffic studytransportation study is required and the 12 year existing trip credit is applicable, the number of signalized
intersections in
the study will be based on the increased number of peak hour trips rather than the total number of peak hour trips.
To determine if a development will generate 30 or more total weekday peak hour trips, Planning
ffifcfeusoersrtehseidfeonlltoiawlid
evcerlioteprm
DepartmFeo
ntr sota
ng
iae:nt, all peak hour trips are counted (i.e., no trip reductions taken) even if,
as part of the analysis, some of the trips will be considered as existing, pass by, or diverted trips to the site
from existing traffic.
For retail development, pass-by and diverted trips are included (i.e., no trip reductions taken) in establishing
the 30 total trip -vehicle threshold for a traffic studytransportation study and later, for designing site access
and circulation.
Pass-by and diverted trips are not added to site-generated trips because they are already on the network,
but diverted turning movements are considered in evaluating CLV measurement.
Planning Department staff shall exercise their professional judgment in consultation with the applicant
in determining the appropriate land area to consider. Parcels that will be separated by unbuilt roadways
remain land at one location but parcels separated by business district streets, arterial roadways, major
highways, or freeways may cease to be land at one location even if still in common ownership.
In certain circumstances, Planning Department staff may, in consultation with the applicant, require analysis of
traffic conditions during a different three-hour weekday peak period for example, 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (versus
the standard 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) or 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (versus the standard 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
or during a non-traditional peak period for certain land uses, as previously discussed on pages 13 and 14, to reflect
the sites location or trip-generation characteristics, existing conditions, or background traffic. For example, a
school where classes end before the start of the evening peak period may warrant analysis of an earlier peak
period.
The appliincatn
olelo
hte cSailvceurlaStepsrinthge, Bnuetmhebsedrao,f atrnipdsFuriseindsthhiep fH
igwhitnsgCsBoDurPcoelsi:cy Areas, use the trip generation rates in

Appendix 3, Tables 3-1 or 3-2.

in all other parts of the County:
for general office, general retail, residential, fast food restaurant, private school, child day-care
center, automobile filling station, senior/elderly housing, or mini-warehouse, use the formulas
provided in Appendix 1 and the tables provided in Appendix 2.
for other land uses, use the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), regardless of Manual edition used in previous approval.

For some specialized land uses, trip-generation rates may not be available. In such cases, Planning Department staff
may request that determining rates be a part of the traffic study, most likely by collecting existing driveway counts at
similar land uses. If special rates are to be used, staff must approve them prior to submission of the traffic study.
An applicant shall not avoid the intent of this requirement by submitting piecemeal applications or approval
requests. However, an applicant may submit a plan of subdivision for less fewer than 30 total weekday peak hour
trips if agreeing in writing that, upon filing future applications, the applicant will comply with the
LATR/TPAR Guidelines

17

requirements of the LATR/TPAR Guidelines when the total number of site-generated peak hour vehicle trips at one
location has reached 30 or more. Then, a traffic studytransportation study will be required to evaluate the impact
of the total number of site-generated trips in accordance with the Guidelines.

18

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Planning Department staff may elect to waive the criteria described in this section if the development results in no
net increase in weekday peak-hour trips.
Congestion Standards

The County Council establishes congestion standards throughout the County (stated in terms of CLV levels),
which depend on the character of development and the availability of transit options. These standards are
developed by policy area and adopted in the Subdivision Staging Policy (see Map 1). Planning Department staff
maintains an inventory of intersection traffic data based on traffic counts collected by MCDOT, SHA, and private
traffic consultants to provide applicants with a preliminary assessment of conditions in the vicinity of a proposed
development.
Reviewing Development in MSPAs and CBDs
In reviewing MSPA and CBD applications, staff uses the following criteria.
Adequacy of Traffic Flows

Any intersection with a CLV less than 1,600 will be considered acceptable with no further analysis required.
The CLV will be calculated in accordance with the procedures defined in these Guidelines.
If the CLV is 1,600 or higher, an HCM analysis shall be performed. Existing queues shall be measured by
the applicant and total traffic (existing, background, and site) and planned roadway and circulation
changes shall be taken into account. The HCM methodology shall be applied using simulation software
such as SYNCHRO or CORSIM based on simulation parameters agreed upon by the applicant and
Planning Department staff. The average queue length in the weekday peak hour should not extend more
than 80 percent of the distance to an adjacent signalized intersection, provided the adjacent signalized
intersections are greater than 300 feet apart. The 80 percent standard provides a margin of safety for
peaking. If adjacent signalized intersections are closer together than 300 feet, the average 85th percentile
queue length in the weekday peak hour should not extend more than 90 percent of the distance to the
adjacent signalized intersection. The assumed signal timing analysis must be consistent with the crossing
time required for pedestrians as described in the CLV Analysis Methods section (page 8).

Site Access and Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety

In addition to the traffic flow analysis, applicants must demonstrate that the following guidelines are not violated by
their site development.
Vehicle access points for parking and loading must be located so that they will not interfere with traffic
flows on the adjacent streets or with access points to neighboring buildings or transit terminal areas.
Access directly onto roads classified as arterials or above should be avoided, but if proposed it will be
considered in the context of the application.
In addition to the pedestrian and bicycle impact statement, pedestrian and bicycle safety shall be assessed
based on the potential for conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. Actions shall be taken to
minimize conflicts and ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety on and adjacent to the site.
In MSPA cases where pedestrian crossing time criteria are not met, the applicant must inform MCDOT and
request them to revise the signal timing. Any adjustments must be documented in the traffic studytransportation
study submitted as part of the development application. In the analysis, all pedestrian and bicycle movements
are assumed to be made at the street level.
Other Criteria

Total traffic is defined as the existing traffic, plus trips from approved but unbuilt development, plus the trips
from the proposed development during the peak hour of the weekday morning and evening peak periods.
Critical intersections are those within the CBD or MSPA, defined by Planning Department staff, generally
adjacent to the site, or allowing site traffic to enter an arterial or major road. In some cases, where site
volumes are large, additional intersections within or contiguous to the CBD or MSPA may be identified by
staff for inclusion in the traffic studytransportation study.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

19

Vehicles can be assigned to parking garages encountered on their trip into the CBD or MSPA. The capacity
of parking garages must be accounted for based on guidance from Planning Department staff and
consultation with MCDOT.
Trip generation rates for background and site development traffic are contained in Appendixes 1, 2, and 3.

Multiple Applicants
Applicants can request that trip mitigation programs or intersection improvements be considered for more than one
application. In those cases, the program or improvement must provide enough capacity to allow all participating
applicants to satisfy LATR conditions.
An intersection improvement that is not yet complete may be used by two or more developments to meet LATR
conditions. To be considered, the improvement must provide sufficient capacity to:
result in a CLV that is less than the congestion standard for that policy area; and or
result in a CLV reduction equal to 150 percent of the CLV impact generated by the developments, that is,
the intersection improvement must not only mitigate the impact of a proposed development, but improve
conditions.
Any type of mitigation listed in this document or acceptable to MCDOT, SHA, and the Planning Board can
be used to achieve this goal.
When development is conditioned on intersection and roadway improvements by more than one
1
application, those improvements must be permitted and bonded , under construction, or under contract for
construction prior to the issuance of building permits for any new development. Exceptions may be made
if an applicants trip contribution to an intersection or roadway is less than 25 percent of the sum of total
trips 2.
This requirement may be fulfilled by the creation of a road club or other mechanism approved by the
Planning Board that:
includes the terms, conditions, and responsibilities for funding 100 percent of the cost for design approval,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the improvements as set forth in the individual project APF
approvals; and ensures that all parties contribute in accordance with their respective shares to the total
cost of the improvements
ensures the improvements are either permitted and bonded or under contract for construction within
three years of the first building permit issued for any of the developments dependent on the required
improvements
ensures the improvements are substantially complete and open within five years of the first building permit
issued for any of the developments dependent on the required improvements.
If the second or third conditions above have not been met, no building permit that is conditioned on construction
3
of the improvements may be issued to any other participant in the road club until all above conditions are met .
If a road club or other mechanism is formed, but not all parties responsible for the improvements join, the nonparticipating parties will not be permitted to proceed with platting or construction of their projects until they either
join the road club or, if the improvements have been completed, reimburse the other road club participants for
their share of the total costs. Non-participating parties include those with projects with preliminary plan or APF
approvals, which are obligated to participate in the same improvements, whether the approval occurred before or
after the road club formation.
Construction of an improvement by one applicant does not relieve other applicants of their responsibility to
participate in the cost of that improvement. The final percentage of the construction cost contribution is determined
by the participating applicants.

20

This condition is satisfied if the project is included in the first six years of the Countys Capital Improvement Program or the States Consolidated Transportation
Program and the developers contribution is applied to that project.

Trip total is the sum of the total peak-hour trips generated by all developments required by the Planning Board to participate in the construction of the particular
improvement.

In certain APF approvals, an applicant is not required to build an improvement until a certain number of building permits have already been released. Such a
project would not be responsible for constructing those improvements until the specified number of building permits has been released.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

If the Planning Board is asked to consider extending the time period to comply with APF requirements for an
approved preliminary plan, Planning Department staff will determine if the traffic studytransportation study needs to
be updated based on the APF validity period.
Participation in Transportation Improvements

The Planning Board may require that applicants participate in some capital program transportation improvements.
Participation will be proportional to the developments impact on the improvement and will be determined by
Transportation Planning staff, MCDOT, SHA, and other agencies that fund transportation-related improvements.
If the traffic studytransportation study identifies roadway changes or other transportation-related activities required
to mitigate the proposed developments on- or off-site impact, these changes will be the responsibility of the
applicant as part of LATR.
Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg)

Each applicant in a Transportation Management District (TMD) must have a proposed Traffic Mitigation
Agreement (TMAg) outlining a participation plan for trip reduction measures and other strategies for participating
in efforts to achieve the non-auto mode share goals for that policy area. This plan should be prepared in
conjunction with the areas TMD, MCDOT, and Planning Department staff. The TMAg for TMD participation,
which is sometimes referred to as a "soft TMAg" because there are not the hard requirements by the Planning Board or
on-going traffic montoring, may be structured to incorporate applicable LATR and TPAR requirements. There are
currently five TMDs: Friendship Heights, Downtown Silver Spring, Downtown Bethesda, North Bethesda, and
Greater Shady Grove. TMDs have been recommended for Wheaton and White Oak in the Wheaton CBD Sector Plan
and White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan, respectively, but neither has been established by the County. More
information on TMDs can be found at www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dot-transit/commuter/tmd/index.html.
A TMAg may be required in areas where T transportation D demand M management (TDM) strategies are is
anticipated in the future, or in situations where the applicant has claimed credit for travel volume reductions
by using transit without identifying specific measures to guarantee those reductions.
Proposed Traffic Mitigation Agreements should be:
submitted as a draft, electronically and in writing, with subdivision plan submissions (the draft document
should detail the projects proposed the trip reduction program)
executed and recorded before the issuance of the projects first building permit.
Information Provided by Staff
The following information may be provided to the applicant by Planning Department and MCDOT staffs for use in
the traffic studytransportation study.

Existing traffic counts at selected locations. (The applicant shall be required to update these data if
the application is submitted more than one year after the applicant submits a completed development
application to the Planning Department.)
Trip generation rates or equations and their source.
Initial directional distributions (see Appendix 4) to be refined based on the existing road network
In CBDs, parking garage capacity information and locations of future public parking garages.
A list of approved but unbuilt developments and their locations.
Public and private transportation improvements in the study area, with funding assigned for construction
within six years (see Appendix 6).
Staff Findings
In their report to the Planning Board, staff presents findings for each of the following categories and makes
recommendations about the adequacy of transportation facilities. The Planning Board will use these findings and
recommendations, along with comments and recommendations from the public, MCDOT, SHA, and incorporated
cities and towns, to determine the adequacy of public facilities for the proposed development.
Staff determines adequacy by finding that:
congestion conditions will not exceed policy area standards
proposed intersections improvements are feasible and will improve congestion conditions
the applicant will pay into a fund to make required improvements.
Transportation Solutions

If the applicants traffic studytransportation study identifies a condition that exceeds the congestion standard for the
policy area, Planning Department staff will notify the applicant, MCDOT and SHA so that feasible mitigation can be
developed. The Planning Department staff may recommend and the Planning Board may approve traffic mitigation

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

21

agreements, non-automobile transportation facilities, or physical road improvements, alone or in combination,

as the required means to relieve local congestion. For LATR, priority will be given to non-physical improvements
in MSPAs and CBDs. No transportation mitigation improvement or transportation mitigation payment is required
under TPAR in MSPAs.
The Subdivision Staging Policy seeks to reduce congestion in areas where it may already be unacceptable. It
stipulates that in policy areas where local area conditions exceed the congestion standard, development may only
be approved if the applicant agrees to mitigate the LATR impact by either:

making improvements that bring the local area condition to within the congestion standard, or
reducing CLV by an amount to equal to 150 percent of the CLV impact generated by the development.

Whenever modifications to signalized intersections and other physical improvements are proposed to remedy
congestion standard issues, the traffic studytransportation study must provide preliminary information to establish
the feasibility of implementing the proposed measures. In these instances, the traffic studytransportation study
should include:
alternative intersection improvements that were considered but not recommended, plus the rationale for
not proposing them
existing and proposed pavement
existing and proposed right-of-way
the length and width of proposed modifications
cross sections of existing and proposed improvements in the right-of-way
modifications to receiving lanes (such as additional through or turn lanes) or right-turn lanes
the adequacy of turn radiiparticularly for opposing vehicle movements where additional turn lanes are
proposed
proposed changes to the operation of existing traffic signals (timing, phasing, etc.).
Once the applicant, Planning Department staff, and MCDOT and SHA have identified solutions that will create
local transportation capacity, these solutions will be incorporated as conditions of approval in the Planning
Department staff report. These solutions could include additional traffic engineering or operations changes beyond
those currently programmed, or new transit or ridesharing activities.
For applicants participating in traffic mitigation or intersection improvements to satisfy LATR requirements, that
participation also counts toward meeting LATR for intersections where site-generated trip volume is less than five
critical lane movements.
Establishing Local Congestion Standards

The applicants traffic studytransportation study must identify a development proposals impact and the degree of
intersection congestion for the peak hour of the weekday morning and evening peak periods by comparing the
calculated CLVs with the policy area congestion standards in Map 1. For intersections straddling policy area
boundaries, the higher congestion standard shall be used.
The LATR congestion standards are based on an approximately equivalent level of service that balances transit
availability with roadway congestion in all County policy areas. In areas of greater transit accessibility and use,
greater traffic congestion is permitted (see Map 1).
If staff finds that congestion standards are exceeded under background conditions, an applicant is required to
provide a traffic mitigation program consisting of either or both trip reduction or intersection improvements. The
mitigation program should:

bring the intersection to acceptable levels of congestion, or

reduce CLV by an amount equal to 150 percent of the CLV impact generated by the development.

Unavoidable Congestion

In their analysis, Planning Department staff will identify alternate routes to serve associated trips that could mitigate
congestion. If there are no appropriate alternate routes, then it must be assumed that trips from the proposed
development will increase local area congestion. It is not appropriate appropriate to anticipate that the
developments associated trips associated would use local streets other than for site access unless those streets are
classified as arterial, business district, or higher.

22

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Transportation Demand Management Strategies

As part of the traffic studytransportation study review and approval, staff, in coordination with MCDOT, will
confirm the degree to which transit, ridesharing, or other TDM activities can mitigate vehicle trips generated by a
development. This activity should occur before the traffic studytransportation study scoping letter stage to aid in
preparing and reviewing the report. If the proposed development or immediate area can be served with transit or
ridesharing services, then priority will be given to developing a transit alternative or trip mitigation program using
transit. If it is physically or fiscally ineffective for public agencies to provide transit or ridesharing services, then it
must be assumed that trips from the proposed development will increase local area congestion. In most cases,
TDM strategies will be included in TMAgs and monitored over time to ensure effectiveness.
Project-Related Traffic

Planning Department staff will identify the degree to which local traffic congestion is attributable to the proposed
development by measuring traffic from three sources: existing traffic, background traffic generated by the total of
all nearby approved but unbuilt development, and total trips generated by the proposed development. The more
trips the proposed development contributes to local traffic congestion, the greater the local impact area.

Table 5: LATR Intersection Congestion StandardsCritical Lane Volume and Volume-to-Capacity Equivalencies
These standards for congestion in each policy area are based on critical lane volume measurements
and volume-to-capacity equivalencies based on data in the Highway Capacity Manual.
policy area

critical lane volume standard

volume to capacity equivalent

Rural East
Rural West

1,350

0.84

Damascus

1,400

0.88

1,425

0.89

1,450

0.91

Fairland/White Oak Colesville

1,475

0.92

Rockville City

1,500

0.94

North Bethesda
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Germantown Town Center
Kensington-Wheaton Silver
Spring-Takoma Park
White Oak
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD Wheaton
CBD
Friendship Heights CBD
Glenmont MSPA Grosvenor
MSPA
Rockville Town Center MSPA
Shady Grove MSPA
Twinbrook MSPA
White Flint MSPA

1,550

0.97

1,600

1.0

1,800

1.13

Clarksburg Gaithersburg
City Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/Airpark
Cloverly
North Potomac
Olney
Potomac
R&D Village
Aspen Hill Derwood

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

23

Exceptions to LATR
There are several exceptions or additions to the LATR process and standards.
Protected Intersections

The following intersections are located in policy areas of the County where providing
additional motor vehicle capacity is not desirable as the intersection:
Is located in an Urban Road Code area where pedestrian quality of service is
paramount and additional through or turning lanes would increase pedestrian
crossing distances and exposure, degrading quality of service,
Is located within a sufficiently robust grid of master planned, traffic-carrying
streets that help to diffuse traffic throughout the street network,
Is in an area served by a Transportation Management District where
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are regularly funded
and monitored,

Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1 +

Aligned at: 0.58" + Indent at: 0.83"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

For these intersections, an quantitative auto analysis may include diversion of existing,
background, and/or site generated traffic to alternative routes around the intersection. The
quantitative analysis will identify potential means to mitigate remaining impacts. Mitigation
of remaining impacts will be achieved by paying $12,000 per peak hour vehicle trip
assigned through the intersection for use in programs operated by the Transportation
Management District as payment in lieu of construction or operation.
Protected intersections are:
Wisconsin Avenue and East-West Highway (Bethesda CBD Policy Area)
Wisconsin Avenue and Montgomery Lane (Bethesda CBD Policy Area)
Key West Avenue and Great Seneca Highway (R&D Village Policy Area)
Key West Avenue and Shady Grove Road (R&D Village Policy Area)
Georgia Avenue and Colesville Road (Silver Spring CBD Policy Area)
Georgia Avenue and University Boulevard (Wheaton CBD Policy Area)

Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1 +

Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Alternative Review Procedure for Very Low VMT Developments
An Alternative Review Procedure is available for three types of Very Low VMT Developments, which are defined as residential
developments within the Bethesda or Silver Spring CBDs with less than 10,000 GSF of supporting ground-floor retail:
Type 1 Zero-VMT Development: Very Low VMT Developments that include fewer than 0.18 on-site parking spaces per
development residential unit (and no on-site spaces for supporting retail uses) are automatically exempted from any
transportation mitigation action (i.e., no action under LATR, TPAR, or transportation impact taxes)
Type 2 Very Low VMT Development: Very Low VMT Developments with more than 0.20 on-site parking spaces per residential
unit (and no on-site spaces for supporting retail uses) may be considered to have a de minimis effect and follow the de minimis
rules (i.e., no action under LATR, but still action based on TPAR and payment of transportation impact taxes), based on the
following relationship between the number of on-site parking spaces and development intensity in terms of dwelling units:

If parking is limited to the

following number of on-site
parking spaces per dwelling unit
(and no parking spaces for
supporting retail):
No limit
0.8 spaces per DU
0.6 spaces per DU
0.4 spaces per DU
0.2 spaces per DU

Maximum number of residential

dwelling units for a de minimis
finding

71
74
98
147
295

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

23

Formatted: Font: Italic

Type 3 Mitigated VMT Development: Applicants may propose that M-NCPPC consider their development a Low-VMT case
following the same logic currently applied under the Alternative Review Procedure for Trip Mitigation (a 50% reduction in
vehicle impact monitored through a Traffic Mitigation Agreemen). This Type 3 development follows the same approach, except
that VMT is measured rather than vehicle trips:

Applicant proposes analysis, mitigation, and monitoring to achieve site-generated VMT that is 50% or lower than that
VMT which would otherwise be assumed to be generated by the site.

No action under LATR or TPAR

Payment of twice the applicable transportation impact tax

TMAg with accepted monitoring, mitigation, and incentives/disincentives for achieving the 50% VMT reduction.

Potomac Policy Area

In the Potomac Policy Area the only developments subject to LATR are those with site-generated
trips that will impact the following intersections:
Montrose Road and Seven Locks Road
Democracy Boulevard and Seven Locks Road
Tuckerman Lane and Seven Locks Road
Bradley Boulevard and Seven Locks Road
Democracy Boulevard and Westlake Drive
Westlake Drive and Westlake Terrace
Westlake Drive and Tuckerman Lane
River Road and Bradley Boulevard
River Road and Piney Meetinghouse Road
River Road and Seven Locks Road
River Road and Falls Road
Falls Road and Democracy Boulevard.
White Flint Policy Area
In the White Flint Policy Area, LATR compliance is not required because
applicants are required to participate in the White Flint Special Taxing District
for infrastructure improvements in lieu of satisfying the transportation APF tests.
Subdivision Staging Alternative Review Process
Alternative Review Procedure for Trip Mitigation

The congestion standard for intersections in Metro Station

Policy Areas is a CLV of 1,800 (see Map 1) and development
within these areas is eligible for the Subdivision Staging
Policys Alternative Review Procedure (ARP), which exempts
projects from LATR and requires paying twice the TMD fees
and reducing their trips by at least 50 percent.
For applicants using the Alternative Review Procedure (see
Subdivision Staging Policy Section TA2), the solutions must be
identified, agreed to, and made conditions of approval.
An applicant for a subdivision that will be built completely
within an MSPA need not take any action under TPAR or
LATR if they agree in a contract with the Planning Board and
MCDOT to:
submit an application containing all information,
including a traffic studytransportation study, that
would normally be required for LATR

24

For commercial or residential developments, an

applicant can meet LATR requirements by doing
all of the following:
paying 75 percent of the applicable
development impact tax without claiming any
credit for transportation improvements
participating in and paying an on-going
annual contribution to a Transportation
Management District Organization (TMO)
(TMD) if and when one exists
mitigating 50 percent of their total weekday
morning and evening peak hour vehicle trips
per an executed and recorded TMAg
submitting a traffic studytransportation study
to identify intersection improvements and trip
mitigation measures that would have been
required.

meet trip reduction goals of no less than 50 percent set by the Planning Board as a condition of approving
that subdivision, either by reducing trips from the subdivision itself or from other occupants of that policy
area per an executed and recorded Traffic Mitigation Agreement, and provide a surety document to ensure
that the reduction of trips in fact takes place
participate in programs operated by, and take actions specified by, a TMO TMD to be established for that
policy area (or a group of policy areas) to meet the established mode share goals

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

pay an on-going annual contribution or transportation development impact tax to fund the TMOs TMD's
operating expenses, including minor capital items such as buses, as established by County law
pay 75 percent of the applicable General District Transportation Impact Tax without claiming any credits for
transportation improvements.

To calculate mitigated trips for the Alternate Review Procedure, the applicant must explicitly document the
conversion between person-trips and vehicle trips to account for transit use, vehicle occupancy, walk/bike use,
internal site trip capture, and telecommute options. The estimates should document the effect of home-based
work trips separately from all other trips. Special trip rates in Appendix 2, such as for office uses within 1,000 feet
of Metrorail stations outside the Beltway, or rates for any uses within the Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Friendship
Heights CBDs (Appendix 3), should not be used in either ARP or LATR-TPAR trip calculations. Countywide rates in
Appendixes 1 and 2 are allowed, otherwise calculation rates and procedures recommended by the ITE or the TRB
must be applied and referenced for Planning Department staff to consider the quantification of any trip reduction
proposal.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

25

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND MITIGATION APPROACHES

If an applicants LATR findings indicate an unacceptable intersection congestion level, their options to mitigate that
impact include the physical or program improvements as outlined below.
In general, any mitigation measure or combination of mitigation measures must be scheduled for completion or be
operating before or at the same time the proposed development is scheduled to be completed. The nature, design,
and scale of any additional facility or program must receive approval from any government agency that would
construct or maintain it and the applicant and public agency must execute an appropriate agreement before the
Planning Board approves a record plat.
Both the subdivision plan and the necessary mitigation measures must be consistent with an adopted master
plan or other relevant land use policy statement. For the Planning Board to accept a roadway improvement as a
mitigation measure, the applicant must show that alternative non-auto mitigation measures are not feasible or
desirable. In evaluating mitigation measures proposed by an applicant, the Board must place a high priority on
design excellence to create a safe, comfortable, and attractive public realm for all users, with a particular focus
on high-quality pedestrian and transit access to schools, libraries, recreation centers, and other neighborhood
facilities.
If an approved subdivision already constructed or participated in the construction of off-site improvements to
accommodate its peak hour trips (based upon the LATR requirements the Board imposed when it approved a
development plan), and if the development later converts one or more approved uses or reduces its size so that
the subdivision generates fewer or an equal number of peak hour trips than estimated when the Board imposed
the LATR requirements, the trip mitigation agreement must reduce the developments peak hour trip mitigation
requirement by one trip for each peak hour trip that no longer would be generated by the development. If the
conversion of all or part of the subdivision from one use to another would cause a different trip distribution or
would place new or different burdens on one or more intersections, and if the subdivision is otherwise required to
do so, the subdivision must construct or contribute to improvements specified by the Board to mitigate that result.
Applicants required to make intersection improvements to satisfy LATR may apply the capital cost of those
improvements toward any TPAR mitigation obligation only if the conditions qualifying those improvements as being
appropriate for TPAR mitigation are met.
LATR Mitigation Options
Traffic Mitigation Agreements

The applicant may be required to reduce or mitigate trips by entering into a legally-binding transportation traffic
mitigation agreement (TMAg), which is sometimes referred to as a 'hard TMAg". Each traffic mitigation program will
be required to operate for at least 12 years, but not more than 15 years, once trip reduction requirements are
initially achieved and after use and occupancy permits are drawn. Some elements are designed to continue in
perpetuity.
TMAg measures could include:

subsidizing transit fares to increase ridership

constructing and maintaining a new park-and-ride facility or providing funds to increase use of an existing
park-and-ride facility
funding a private shuttle service, for example, between the site and a nearby Metrorail station or park-andride facility
constructing queue-jumper lanes, providing traffic signal priority treatment for transit (after MCDOT and
SHA have implemented this process) and other techniques to improve bus travel times (only results that
improve travel times will be considered)
parking management activities
establishing live-near-work, flex-time, or telecommuting programs.

Other measures may be suggested by applicants, Planning Department staff, or MCDOT. Creative approaches
to reducing traffic impacts are encouraged. The final trip reduction measures must be approved by the Planning
Department and MCDOT staffs.

26

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

To ensure compliance with the contract conditions, TMAgs will be monitored at a minimum on a quarterly basis, at
the applicants expense, by MCDOT staff or a consultant selected by the Planning Board. If the quarterly monitoring
finds that the goals are not being met, the TMAg will be monitored on a monthly basis until the goals are met
for three consecutive months. When the goals arent being met, staff and the applicant will work together to seek
alternative or additional measures and monthly monitoring will take place until the trip reduction goals are met.
Non-Auto Transportation Facilities
To maintain an equivalent level of service for both auto and non-auto modes of travel, the Planning Board may
permit an applicant to provide fewer roadway improvements or less traffic mitigation in exchange for providing
non-auto transportation facilities that will enhance pedestrian safety or encourage non-auto mode choices.
Such facilities must be implemented to reduce the congestion levels at intersections that exceed the congestion
standard and where an improvement need has been identified. Trip distribution and assignment assumptions in the
LATR Traffic StudyTransportation Study are key factors in determining local intersection impacts and the level of trip
mitigation required.
Table 6: Graduated and Maximum Trip Credits Related to Congestion Standards
non-automobile transportation facility
100 linear feet of five-foot wide sidewalk

trip credit vs. congestion standard

1,350-1,500

1,550-1,600

1,800

0.5

0.75

1.0

100 linear feet of eight-foot wide bike path

bikesha re station (including 12 years operation expenses)
other n on-automobile facilities
maximum trip credits
Note: * or relevant rate in the latest Subdivision Staging Policy

1.0
$12,000 per vehicle trip *
$12,000 per vehicle trip *
60

90

120

Table 6 identifies trip reduction options. Any or all of these may be used for a given application. The
maximum trip reduction per development is a function of the policy area congestion standard for
the development site.
In determining the adequacy of improvements, the Planning Board must balance the environmental and community
impacts of reducing congestion as well as the safe and efficient accommodation of pedestrians, bike riders, and
bus patrons. Periodic monitoring may or may not be required of non-auto transportation facilities.
Non-auto facilities to mitigate congestion may include bikeshare stations (in County-designated expansion areas),
sidewalks, bike paths, Super Shelters, bus shelters and benches, bike racks and lockers, and static or real time
transit information signs, described in more detail below.
Sidewalks, Bike Paths, Pedestrian Refuge Islands, Accessible or Countdown Pedestrian Signals, and Curb Ramps

These features can must be constructed off-site (i.e. across center line of adjacent roadway, outside of extension of lot
lines) and should provide safe access from the proposed or existing development to any of the following uses:
rail or bus transit stations or stops
public facilities (school, library, park, post office, etc.)
recreation centers
retail centers that employ 20 or more persons at any time
housing developments of 27 or more single-family detached units
office centers that employ 100 or more persons
existing sidewalks or bike paths
adjacent private amenity space (sitting area, theater, community center).
Accessible pedestrian signals (for the visually-impaired), retrofitting existing traffic signals with countdown lights, and
reconstructing existing substandard curb ramps (to current ADA guidelines) should be allowed as optional facilities.
These features must be within one-quarter mile of the edge of the proposed development, must not be master
planned facilities, and must be located off-site. Staff will determine the eligibility of off-site improvements. For transit
stations or stops, the frequency of transit service must be at intervals of 20 minutes or less during the weekday
morning and evening peak periods. Appropriate new bikeway segments can be found in the Countywide Bikeways
Functional Master Plan, or in the applicable master or sector plan. The Plan prioritizes bikeways by activity center,
for example Metro stations, CBDs, downtowns, park trails, etc.
LATR/TPAR Guidelines

27

Super Shelters, Bus Shelters, and Benches

An applicant may propose to construct a Super Shelter, bus shelter, or bench, including a concrete pad.
Encouraging bus use can reduce weekday peak hour vehicle trips by diverting some person-trips to buses. Two
types of shelters can be provided: standard bus shelters and Super Shelters.

The County has an agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (CCO) to provide a minimum of 500
standard bus shelters in the County. CCO has first choice of locations for these shelters, a number of
which will carry advertising. Standard bus shelters provided under LATR must be located in areas where
CCO chooses not to provide shelters. CCO must be offered right of first refusal for any new sites before
shelter placement is accepted from the developer.
Super Shelters include heating and lighting, have larger capacity, four walls (with openings to enter and
exit), and a higher level of design than standard shelters. A Super Shelter is located on Rockville Pike near
Marinelli Road (as part of an agreement with Target/Home Depot). They may be provided only where
CCO has chosen not to provide shelters. If agreed to by MCDOT and the developer, Super Shelters should
be incorporated as part of development planning and coordinated with existing and planned locations for
standard shelters.

All shelters must be on a bus route, at an existing stop or a new stop approved by DTS, within one-quarter mile
of the edge of the proposed development. The service frequency must be at 20 minute intervals or less during the
weekday morning and evening peak periods.
Bike Racks and Lockers

An applicant may propose to reduce LATR impact by providing bike racks, lockers, or a secured bike area in a
parking garage for a minimum of eight bikes, at an activity center located within a one-mile radius of the edge of
the proposed development.
Transit Information Signs and Kiosks

An applicant may propose to reduce LATR impact by providing static or electronic signs and information kiosks at
bus shelters, large office buildings, retail centers, transit centers, or residential complexes. The signs should
communicate scheduled or real-time transit information, for example, the scheduled or estimated arrival of the next
bus on a given route. The applicant must work with and obtain approval from WMATA for Metrobus routes or with
the Montgomery County Division of Transit Services (DTS) for Ride On routes.
Static transit information signs may be provided only at locations other than CCO-provided standard bus shelters,
since they include that information. The applicant will be required to provide for way to change static transit
information as often as three times a year.
Other Non-Auto Facilities

An applicant may reduce LATR impact by providing other non-auto facilities, including but not limited to bus
layover spaces, crosswalks or pedestrian bridges, on-road bicycle lanes, park-and-ride lots, park trails, transit
stations, streetlights, transitways, and busways.
For these facilities, pedestrians and bicyclists should be able to safely cross any roadway to reach their destination.
The applicant may provide improvements that Planning Department, MCDOT, and SHA staffs agree would increase
the safety of the crossing.
Applying Trip Reduction Measures
Applicants may only apply a trip reduction measure after the total number of peak hour trips is determined using
standard trip rates. Developments generating more than 30 total weekday peak hour trips will be required to
complete a traffic studytransportation study, which should include proposed trip reduction strategies. Applicants
may be required to gather data on current bus patronage or pedestrian/bicycle activity within the local area to
aid in evaluating the strategies.
Payment Instead of Construction

Where an applicant has made a good faith effort to implement an acceptable improvement and where the Board
finds that a desirable improvement cannot feasibly be implemented by the applicant but that it can be implemented
by a public agency within six years after the subdivision is approved, the County Council has authorized the
Planning Board to accept payment to the County of a fee commensurate with the cost of the required improvement.

28

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Transportation Policy Area Review

INTENT AND STANDARDS
Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR) is a policy area-wide test of public transportation facilities. The test
is separate from LATR in that it considers average transportation system performance for defined policy area
boundaries. This process evaluates the adequacy of transit and roadways separately to allow more in-depth
analysis and staging of improvements of these two types of transportation.
TPAR measures transit adequacy by evaluating neighborhood bus service using three measures of adequacy:
coverage, peak headway, and span of service.

Coverage is the percentage of the transit-supportive area of a policy area that is within -mile of a bus
stop or -mile of a transit station. This definition is consistent with the Transportation Research Boards
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (2nd edition, 2002) that describes a transit-supportive
area as one with a household density of at least three units per gross acre or an employment density of at
least four jobs per gross acre. Transit-supportive areas do not include land uses such as parks, farms, golf
courses, bodies of water, major road rights-of-way, and low-density housing and employment zones.
Peak headway is average time between buses traveling in the same direction during the weekday peak
hour in the peak direction.
Span of service is the average duration of weekday bus service for that subset of routes in each policy area
that is scheduled to operate throughout most of the day without a split in service during the midday hours.

EXEMPTIONS FROM TPAR

* Per County Council 2012-2016 Subdivision Staging Policy Resolution 17-601 (p.17), MPDU and any other lower- and
moderate-income housing which is exempt from paying a development impact tax must also be exempt from any TPAR
payment.
* TPAR compliance is not required for developments in the White Flint Policy Area because applicants are required to
participate in the White Flint Special Taxing District for transportation infrastructure improvements in lieu of satisfying
the TPAR transportation APF tests.
* TPAR payments are not required for public facility project mandatory referrals, in which the Planning Boards
comments are advisory. Mandatory referrals are often unique uses, such as schools or other public services, and their
traffic review follows Mandatory Referral Guidelines, which requires a pedestrian and bicycle safety statement,
pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan, and a traffic statement or traffic studytransportation study as applicable.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

27

TPAR measures roadway adequacy, based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over a 10-year horizon (year
2022 2024) by forecasting travel speed on arterial roads in peak travel directions (derived from the
Planning Departments regional travel demand model). This result is compared to uncongested, free
flow speed. Roads with the most trips are weight-averaged to reflect their impact on the overall
network.
The resulting ratio of forecasted speed to uncongested speed is consistent with analysis standards in
the Highway Capacity Manual. It is then compared with Subdivision Staging Policy adequacy standards
for Urban, Suburban, and Rural policy areas40 percent (level of service D/E), 45 percent (mid-Level
of Service D), and 50 percent (level of service C/D), respectively.
The results of the TPAR roadway adequacy analysis, by policy area, are depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Adequacy of the main roads countywide summary Year 2022 2024 Forecast [graphic below needs to be updated - add two
years to each referenced year, plus new chart approved by Planning Board with more failing policy areas]

Roadways in Three Seven policy areasPotomac, North Potomac, Aspen Hill, Fairland/Colesville, White
Oak, and Gaithersburg City, and Bethesda/Chevy Chase are forecast to be inadequate or approach
inadequacy by 2022 2024.

28

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Table 7 summarizes the TPAR transportation adequacy status and transportation mitigation payment requirement
for each policy area between January 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014 based on staff's updated analysis presented to and
approved by the Planning Board on February 5, 2015.
Table 7: TPAR Transportation Adequacy Analysis Results and Transportation Mitigation Payment Requirements
Policy area

Transit test

Roadway test

TPAR payment *

Rural East

exempt

exempt

Rural West

exempt

exempt

Damascus

adequate

adequate

Aspen Hill

adequate

inadequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Rural areas

Suburban areas

Clarksburg

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Fairland/White Oak Colesville

inadequate

inadequate

25 50% of Impact Tax

Gaithersburg City

adequate

inadequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Germantown East

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Germantown West

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Montgomery Village/Airpark

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Cloverly

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

North Potomac

inadequate

inadequate

25 50% of Impact Tax

Olney

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Potomac
R&D Village
White Oak

inadequate
inadequate
inadequate

exempt
adequate
inadequate

25 % of Impact Tax
25 % of Impact Tax
50% of Impact Tax

Derwood
Rockville City

inadequate
inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

North Bethesda

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Bethesda-Chevy Chase

inadequate

inadequate

25 50% of Impact Tax

Germantown Town Center

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Kensington-Wheaton

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Silver Spring-Takoma Park

inadequate

adequate

25 % of Impact Tax

Urban areas

CBDs and Metro Station Policy Areas

Bethesda CBD

exempt

adequate

Silver Spring CBD

exempt

adequate

Wheaton CBD

exempt

adequate

Friendship Heights CBD

exempt

adequate

Glenmont MSPA

exempt

adequate

Grosvenor MSPA

exempt

adequate

Rockville Town Center MSPA

exempt

adequate

Shady Grove MSPA

exempt

adequate

Twinbrook MSPA

exempt

adequate

White Flint MSPA

exempt

exempt

Note: * 25% TPAR payment is required for each of the transit and roadway tests if determined to be 'inadequate.'

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

29

EVALUATING A TPAR CONDITION

Staff will evaluate the following information submitted by the applicant, using the TPAR adequacy standards in the
relevant policy area.

The developments policy area (geographic location of site).

The type of development as defined in the development impact legislation.

TPAR MITIGATION OPTIONS

If projected transportation capacity in a policy area is not adequate, the Planning Board may approve a subdivision
in that area if the applicant commits to either:
fully mitigate the incremental traffic impact of the subdivision by adding capacity or implementing a trip
reduction program
pay a Transportation Mitigation Payment as provided in County law.
The Transportation Mitigation Payment is charged to developments in policy areas determined as inadequate for
transit or roadway conditions based on the analysis prepared every two years by Planning Department staff and
approved by the Planning Board. It is calculated as an amount equal to a percentage of the General District
Transportation Impact Tax based on the type and amount of development.Table 7 shows which Policy Areas are
required to pay the Transportation Mitigation Payment. The General District Transportation Tax rate for different
types of development is updated by County Council and can be found at:
http://permittingservices.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fee/ImpactTaxes.aspx
The TPAR payment must be made prior to release of any building permit and may not be credited toward the
applicable development impact tax. The funds are used to make transportation improvements that will bring a
policy area into roadway and transit adequacy.

No TPAR compliance is necessary if the Planning Board finds that the proposed development will generate
three or fewer total new peak hour trips, or if the proposed development is in a policy area adequate for
both transit and roadways.
Developments in MSPAs are exempt from Transportation Mitigation Payments.
TPAR compliance is necessary in policy areas found inadequate. Payment rates for either roadways or and
transit being deemed inadequate are to equal 25 percent of the General District Transportation Impact tax
for the same project based on the type and amount of development. In areas deemed inadequate for both
roadways and transit, payment rates are set to equal 50 percent of the General District Transportation
Impact Tax for the same project based on the type and amount of development.

It is possible to provide significant improvements to transit and/or roadway capacity instead of making the payment.
To fully mitigate the subdivisions incremental traffic impact (by adding capacity or implementing a trip reduction
program), added capacity must improve congestion in the affected policy area by addressing roadway
inadequacies or transit inadequacies. Transit improvements can be used to address either roadway or transit
inadequacies if they can be shown to improve roadway capacity. See Appendix 6 for preferred roadway
improvements.
Roadway improvements must:

Improve transportation capacity in the same policy area as the development project
have logical end points and connect at least two signalized intersections
be approved by MCDOT for operation and safety considerations.

Transit improvements to improve capacity under TPAR may only consist of the purchase of new Ride On buses to
provide improved transit service in the relevant policy area if that policy area is inadequate for peak headway or
coverage. The number of buses required to achieve mitigation will be determined in consultation with Planning
Department and MCDOT staffs. If the relevant policy area is inadequate for span of service, the TPAR payment is
the only option.

30

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

The cost of the transportation capacity improvement must be equal to or exceed the value of the TPAR payment
and the expenditure is not creditable for future use under the transportation impact tax (that is, the TPAR payment
and the impact tax are additive). In general, any mitigation measure or combination of mitigation measures must
be scheduled for completion or be operating before or at the same time the proposed development is scheduled
to be completed. The nature, design, and scale of any additional facility or program must receive approval from
any government agency that would construct or maintain it and the applicant and public agency must execute
an appropriate agreement before the Planning Board approves a record plat.

POLICY AREA REVIEW (PAR) BACKGROUND

For the Applicant's reference, TPAR took effect on January 1, 2013. Prior to TPAR, the following PAR
programs were in effect and applicable to development applications during the noted time frames:

Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) - 11/15/07 through 12/31/12

No Policy Area Review - 7/1/03 through 11/14/07
Policy Area Transportation Review (PATR) - 1982 through 6/30/03

If an application seeks to amend a previously approved preliminary plan or site plan for approved but unbuilt
development with a valid APF from the time frames listed above, then the corresponding PAR program is still in
effect for that property. Any new development (not yet approved) would be subject to TPAR.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

31

Appendix
NOTE: APPENDICES 1 THROUGH 3 PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
APPENDIX 4

Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Guidelines

Introduction
This document provides trip distribution guidance to be used in all traffic studies prepared for development sites in
Montgomery County. Vehicle trip distribution and trip assignment are described in Sections VII-D and VII-F of the
Guidelines. For most development sites, the process is a combination of trip distribution and traffic assignment.
Definitions

Trip distribution specifies the location where trips that originate at a development site are destined to, and the origin
of trips that are destined to a development site.
Traffic assignment specifies the individual local area intersections used to access (enter and leave) a development
site.
Discussion

The tables in this appendix provide generalized assumptions for trip distribution for both background
development(s) and the development site. For the purpose of reviewing trip distribution, Transportation Planning
staff divided the region into 16 geographic areas, called super districts. Eleven of these super districts are in
Montgomery County, as shown in Map 4-1. The remaining five super districts represent neighboring jurisdictions.
The trip distribution assumptions are contained in Tables 4-1 through 4-11 for developments within each of the
eleven super districts in Montgomery County. For each super district, the assumed distribution of trips for general
office development and for residential development is listed. For instance, 18.1 percent of trips generated by
a general office development in Germantown (see Table 4-9) would be expected to travel to or from Frederick
County. However, only two percent of trips generated by a residential development in Germantown would be
expected to travel to or from Frederick County.
The trip distribution assumptions in these tables are based on 1990 census journey-to-work information, updated
to reflect regional housing and employment totals as of 1998. The distribution for residential development in each
super district is based on the reported workplace locations for 1990 census respondents who lived in that super
district. Similarly, the distribution for office development for each super district is based on the distribution of all
census households nationwide that reported a workplace in that super district. Trip distribution for other land uses
will be decided based on consultation with staff and the applicant prior to submission of the traffic
studytransportation study.
The application of the trip distribution information in Tables 4-1 through 4-11 is straightforward in cases where
a traffic studytransportation study has a limited number of alternate routes. In other cases, judgment is required
to convert the trip distribution information into traffic assignment information useful for conducting the Local
Area Transportation Review.
Figure 4-2 provides an example of how the trip distribution information can be converted to traffic assignment
information for a hypothetical case in the Rockville/North Bethesda super district with both office and residential
components.
The leftmost column of data shows the trip distribution by super-district as found in Table 4-4 (used for development
in the Rockville/North Bethesda super district). The information located in the center of the table (inside the boxes)
describes the assumed route, or assignment, taken for trips between the site and each super-district. The data
inside the boxes must be developed using judgment and confirmed by Transportation Planning staff. The rightmost
portion of the table multiplies the percent of trips distributed to each super-district by the percent of trips from that
super-district assigned to each route to calculate the percent of total site-generated trips using each combination of
distribution and assignment. The assignment data is then summed to develop an aggregate trip assignment for the
trips generated by the office and residential components of the site, respectively.

32

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Map 4-1: Super Districts in Montgomery County

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

33

Table 4-1: Trip Distribution - Assignment Matrix

Hypothetical Case in North Bethesda with both Office and Residential Components
Part 1 - Office Component
Trip distribution by super district

Trip assignment for origin by super-district

Montrose
west

MD
355
north

Randolph
east

Md 355
south

Bethesda

3.5%

50%

Silver Spring

2.2

100%

Potomas Potomac
Rockville
Kensington
Fairland
Gaithersburg

8.0
12.8

80%
25%

50%
20%

75%

TOTAL

Montrose
west

MD
355
north

0.0%

Randolph
east

Md 355
south

MD 187
south

TOTAL

100%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

1.8%

3.5%

100%

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.0

2.2

100%
100%

6.4
3.2

0.0
9.6

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

1.6
0.0

8.0
12.8
7.2

7.2

80%

20%

100%

0.0

0.0

5.8

1.4

0.0

4.1

80%

20%

100%

0.0

0.0

3.3

0.8

0.0

4.1

100%

10.8

3.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

14.4

100%

1.7

4.3

2.6

0.0

0.0

8.5

100%
100%

5.9
0.9

0.7
0.0

0.0
0.0

1.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

6.5
0.9

100%

1.7

1.7

0.8

0.0

0.0

4.2

100%

2.5

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.0

3.6

100%

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.8

0.0

8.8

100%

6.2

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.8

7.8

100%
100%

4.6
0.0

0.0
0.3

0.0
0.3

0.0
2.3

0.0
0.0

4.6
2.9

43.9%

20.1%

13.5%

18.4%

4.1% 100%

USE >

44%

20%

14%

18%

4%

MD
187
south

TOTAL

Montrose
west

50%

100%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.8%

7.8%

100%

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

0.0

2.4

100%
100%

2.6
7.8

0.0
23.3

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.7
0.0

3.3
31.0

100%
100%

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

2.1
0.6

0.5
0.1

0.0
0.0

2.6
0.7

100%

8.0

2.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.6

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

0.3
0.9
0.0
0.1
9.7

0.9
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.7
1.0
0.0
0.2
13.9

100%

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.1

0.0

6.1

100%
100%
100%

7.8
0.5
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.1

1.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.6

1.0
0.0
0.0

9.7
0.5
0.7

37.7%

27.0%

38%

27%

14.4

75%

25%

Olney

8.5

20%

50%

Germantown
Agricultural Area (West)

6.5
0.9

90%
100%

10%

Agricultural Area (East)

4.2

40%

40%

Washington, DC

3.6

70%

Prince Georges County

8.8

Virginia
Frederick County
Howard County

7.8

80%

4.6
2.9

100%

TOTAL

MD
187
south

Trip assignment for development case

30%

20%
30%
100%
10%

10%

10%

10%
80%

100%

100%

Part 2 - Residential Component

Trip distribution by super district

Trip assignment for origin by super-district

Montrose
west

Bethesda

15.6%

Silver Spring

2.4

Potomas Potomac
Rockville
Kensington
Fairland
Gaithersburg

6.1

Virginia
Frederick County
Howard County

9.7
0.5
0.7

34

80%
25%

20%
75%
80%
80%

10.6

Prince Georges County

Md 355
south

50%

2.6
0.7
1.7
1.0
0.0
0.2
13.9

Randolph
east

100%

3.3
31.0

Olney
Germantown
Agricultural Area (West)
Agricultural Area (East)
Washington, DC

TOTAL

MD
355
north

75%

25%

20%
90%
100%
40%
70%

50%
10%

30%

40%

20%

20%
20%

30%
100%

80%
100%

100%

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

10%
10%

10%

10%
80%

Trip assignment for development case

USE >

MD
355
north

Randolph
east

4.2%
4%

Md 355
south

MD 187
south

TOTAL

15.6%

21.7%

9.4% 100%

22%

9%

100%

Table 4-2: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 1: Bethesda/Chevy Chase

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 1: Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Trip Distribution to Super District for
1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

Office
Development
11.7%

Residential
Development
22.8%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

3.8%

2.1%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

7.3%

1.8%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

9.4%

9.8%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

8.7%

1.6%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

4.3%

0.7%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

7.5%

4.0%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

5.1%

0.4%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

3.3%

0.2%

10. Rural: West of I-270

0.6%

0.0%

11. Rural: East of I-270

2.0%

0.15%

7.4%

39.5%

12. Washington, DC
13. Prince Georges County

12.4%

4.6%

14. Virginia

12.2%

11.7%

15. Frederick County

2.1%

0.2%

16. Howard County

2.2%

0.5%

Table 4-3: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 2: Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 2: Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Trip Distribution to Super District for
1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

Office
Development

Residential
Development

2.2%

9.1%

11.5%

13.3%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

2.2%

0.9%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

3.0%

7.7%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

10.0%

4.6%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

11.9%

2.7%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

3.9%

4.2%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

6.3%

0.8%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

1.3%

0.6%

10. Rural: West of I-270

0.1%

0.6%

11. Rural: East of I-270

2.8%

0.2%

12. Washington, DC

7.2%

32.5%

13. Prince Georges County

24.5%

12.8%

14. Virginia

6.4%

8.9%

15. Frederick County

1.1%

0.2%

16. Howard County

5.6%

1.4%

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

35

Table 4-4: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 3: Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 3: Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Office
Development

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

5.7%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

2.4%

13.0%
1.9%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

21.0%

6.2%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

12.1%

20.5%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

6.8%

1.4%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

2.3%

0.7%

11.1%

13.3%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

5.1%

0.6%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

4.5%

1.7%

10. Rural: West of I-270

1.1%

0.1%

11. Rural: East of I-270

2.2%

0.2%

12. Washington, DC

3.8%

22.1%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

13. Prince Georges County

7.2%

5.1%

10.4%

12.4%

15. Frederick County

2.8%

0.4%

16. Howard County

1.5%

0.4%

14. Virginia

Table 4-5: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 4: Rockville/North Bethesda

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 4: Rockville/North Bethesda
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

3.5%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

2.2%

2.4%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

8.0%

3.3%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

15.6%

12.8%

31.0%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

7.2%

2.6%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

4.1%

0.7%

14.4%

10.6%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

8.5%

1.7%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

6.5%

1.0%

10. Rural: West of I-270

0.9%

0.0%

11. Rural: East of I-270

4.2%

0.2%

12. Washington, DC

3.6%

13.9%

13. Prince Georges County

8.8%

6.1%

14. Virginia

7.8%

9.7%

15. Frederick County

4.6%

0.5%

16. Howard County

5.6 2.9%

0.7%1.4%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

36

Office
Development

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Table 4-6: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 5: Kensington/Wheaton

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 5: Kensington/Wheaton
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Office
Development

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

2.7%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

6.2%

6.9%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

2.6%

1.6%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

12.3%

5.1%

14.8%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

26.0%

11.1%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

10.6%

2.2%

5.5%

6.0%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove
8. Aspen Hill/Olney

10.3%

2.0%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

2.1%

0.6%

10. Rural: West of I-270

0.2%

0.0%

11. Rural: East of I-270

4.3%

0.4%

12. Washington, DC

3.7%

22.6%

13. Prince Georges County

11.9%

9.5%

14. Virginia

4.1%

8.2%

15. Frederick County

1.5%

0.2%

16. Howard County

3.2%

1.5%

Table 4-7: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 6: White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 6: White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Office
Development

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

1.3%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

4.5%

6.8%
9.0%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

1.7%

0.6%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

1.7%

9.3%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

6.1%

5.0%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

23.5%

9.3%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

3.2%

3.8%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

6.2%

1.4%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

0.4%

0.4%

10. Rural: West of I-270

0.1%

0.0%

11. Rural: East of I-270

2.8%

1.1%

12. Washington, DC

3.7%

23.4%

13. Prince Georges County

26.4%

20.1%

14. Virginia

3.4%

7.1%

15. Frederick County

1.6%

0.0%

16. Howard County

5.6%

1.4%

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

37

Table 4-8: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 7: Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 7: Potomac/Gaithersburg/Shady Grove
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Office
Development

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

1.8%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

1.5%

2.2%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

6.6%

2.1%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

5.6%

23.7%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

3.7%

1.9%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

2.2%

0.9%

25.2%

32.4%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove
8. Aspen Hill/Olney

8.5%

5.3%

1.8%

10.9%

3.4%

10. Rural: West of I-270

1.6%

0.1%

11. Rural: East of I-270

7.1%

0.8%

12. Washington, DC

2.5%

8.4%

13. Prince Georges County

6.7%

4.0%

14. Virginia

4.6%

7.9%

12.1%

1.3%

2.6%

0.6%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

15. Frederick County

16. Howard County

Table 4-9: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 8: Aspen Hill/Olney

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 8: Aspen Hill/Olney
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

1.2%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

1.9%

5.5%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

1.9%

1.5%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

6.1%

22.5%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

8.6%

5.7%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

5.5%

2.8%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

9.4%

11.0%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

48

Office
Development

9.3%

26.0%

8.1%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

3.1%

0.8%

10. Rural: West of I-270

0.1%

0.1%

11. Rural: East of I-270

14.1%

1.3%

12. Washington, DC

2.2%

15.2%

13. Prince Georges County

6.4%

7.7%

14. Virginia

3.1%

6.2%

15. Frederick County

4.7%

0.4%

16. Howard County

5.7%

1.9%

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Table 4-10: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 9: Germantown/Clarksburg

Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 9: Germantown/Clarksburg
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Office
Development

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

0.6%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

1.4%

1.6%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

5.5%

1.8%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

3.5%

22.9%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

2.3%

1.6%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

1.6%

0.2%

17.2%

30.2%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove
8. Aspen Hill/Olney
9. Germantown/Clarksburg

8.1%

2.5%

1.3%

25.2%

10.5%

10. Rural: West of I-270

2.6%

0.1%

11. Rural: East of I-270

8.0%

1.0%

12. Washington, DC

0.7%

7.0%

13. Prince Georges County

5.8%

3.8%

14. Virginia

3.0%

7.4%

18.1%

2.0%

2.1%

0.5%

15. Frederick County

16. Howard County

Table 4-11: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 10: Rural West of I-270
Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 10: Rural West of I-270
Trip Distribution to Super District for

Office
Development

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

0.8%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

2.7%

0.7%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

4.3%

2.9%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

2.1%

20.1%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

0.8%

1.2%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

0.0%

0.4%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

7.0%

30.0%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

3.0%

0.4%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

4.1%

7.1%

10. Rural: West of I-270

47.7%

9.1%

11. Rural: East of I-270

1.7%

0.5%

12. Washington, DC

0.0%

7.4%

13. Prince Georges County

2.1%

1.7%

14. Virginia

4.8%

4.5%

18.9%

3.8%

0.0%

0.5%

15. Frederick County

16. Howard County

9.7%

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

49

Table 4-12: Trip Distribution Report in Super District 11: Rural East of I-270
Auto-Driver Trip Distribution for Development in Super District 11: Rural East of I-270
Trip Distribution to Super District for

50

Office
Development

Residential
Development

1. Bethesda/Chevy Chase

0.4%

2. Silver Spring/Takoma Park

0.8%

3.9%

3. Potomac/Darnestown/Travilah

1.3%

1.0%

4. Rockville/North Bethesda

1.3%

17.7%

5. Kensington/Wheaton

3.4%

3.8%

6. White Oak/Fairland/Cloverly

8.8%

2.1%

7. Gaithersburg/Shady Grove

9.0%

23.5%

8. Aspen Hill/Olney

8.8%

6.9%

9. Germantown/Clarksburg

4.9%

4.1%

10. Rural: West of I-270

0.4%

0.1%

11. Rural: East of I-270

27.5%

6.7%

12. Washington, DC

0.5%

7.3%

13. Prince Georges County

9.8%

7.0%

14. Virginia

0.5%

5.2%

15. Frederick County

10.5%

2.0%

16. Howard County

12.1%

2.8%

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

5.9%

APPENDIX 5

Delegation Procedures for Certain APF Findings by Staff at Time of Building Permit

Procedures

For a building permit where a traffic exemption statement is submitted to demonstrate that TPAR is not
applicable and an LATR traffic studytransportation study are not needed, or when the LATR traffic
studytransportation study is conducted with a finding that no mitigation is required, Planning Department staff
can make a finding that public facilities will be adequate to support the proposed development, set the validity
period for the APF approval, and authorize release of the building permit.
For a building permit where the TPAR test requires mitigation less than five trips, Planning Department staff may
authorize release of the building permit by letter if:
1. Planning Department staff finds that the public facilities will be adequate for the proposed development with
the proposed trip mitigation and sets the validity period for the APF approval; and
2. MCDOT, the Superintendent of the Montgomery County Public School System, County Fire and Rescue
Services, the Department of Police, and DPS have been notified of the method of mitigation, and have not
explicitly objected; and
3. interested parties and the applicant have been given notice of the pending case, and have not objected to the
proposed mitigation (see below, Noticing); and
4. a copy of a permit for construction within the right-of-way for the mitigation item has been received from DPS.
Update
pending on
this page consider
changing
threshold
from five to
three or thirty.

For cases requiring mitigation of five or more vehicle trips, the item will be scheduled for an APF finding at a public
hearing before the Planning Board after 1, 2, and 4 above are met. If no objections are raised by any interested
parties or any of the agencies listed in 2 above, the case may be scheduled as a consent item before the Planning
Board.
If an Applicant requests a hearing before the Planning Board or if any interested party or agency listed in 2 or 3
above objects to the proposed mitigation, the item will be scheduled for an APF finding at a public hearing before
the Planning Board.
Noticing

The applicant must notify all confronting and adjacent property owners, and community and homeowners
associations (following the procedure in the Development Review Manual [link]) of the application for APF approval
as well as any proposed mitigation measures. The notice must also state that anyone objecting to the proposal
must do so in writing within 14 days to Transportation Planning and provide the appropriate contact information.

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

51

APPENDIX 6

Eric to double check Improvement and Facility

Types and add footnote with definitions
(T = transit, R = road, facility types from model?)

Unbuilt Master Plan Projects

Master Planned Transportation Improvements Sorted by Policy Area, Mode, and Improvement Type and Not Programmed by 2018
Policy Area(s)

Project Name

Implementation Limits

Improvement Facility
Type
Type

CLK,GTE,GTW,
GBG,RDV,DER,RKV

Corridor Cities Transitway (proposed)

State

Shady Grove to Clarksburg

LRT

BCC,SSTP

Purple Line Transitway (proposed)

State

Bethesda to New Carrollton

LRT

NB,POT

North Bethesda Transitway (proposed) State

Grosvenor Metro to Montgomery Mall

LRT

OLY,AH,KW

Georgia Avenue Busway (proposed)

State

Glenmont to Olney

BRT

POT,BCC,NB,
KW,SSTP,FWO

Capital Beltway

State

American Legion Bridge to Woodrow Wilson R

Bridge

GTE,MVA,
GBG

Midcounty Hwy (proposed)

County

Montgomery Village Av to MD 27

AH

MD 97 Georgia Ave and MD 28

Norbeck Rd

State

Interchange

AH

MD 28 Norbeck Rd

State

MD 97 to MD 182

AH

MD 182 Layhill Rd

State

ICC to Norwood Rd

AH

Aspen Hill Rd

County

MD 586 to MD 185

BCC

MD 355 and Cedar Ln

State

Interchange

BCC

River Rd

State

DC Line to I-495

BCC

Bradley Blv

State

MD 614 to I-495

BCC

Goldsboro Rd

State

MD 396 to MD 191

BCC

Massachusetts Ave

State

Sangamore Rd to MD 614

CLK

I-270 and Newcut Rd

State

Interchange

CLK

MD 27 Ridge Rd

State/Dev

MD 355 - Brink Rd to Skylark Rd

CLK

MD 121 Clarksburg Rd

State/Dev

Top Tidge Dr to Chrisman Hill Dr (Broadway R

Av to I-270)

CLK

MD 121 Clarksburg Rd Relocated

State/Dev

West Old Baltimore Rd to Broadway Ave

CLK

MD 355 Frederick Rd

State/Dev

Brink Rd to Cool Brook Ln

CLK

MD 355 Frederick Rd Relocated

State

Cool Brook Ln to Snowden Farm Pkwy

CLK

A-304 (proposed)

County/
Developer

MD 121 to Newcut Rd Extended

CLK

A-307 (proposed)

County/
Developer

CLK

Observation Dr Extended

County/
Developer

Little Seneca Cr to Roberts Tavern Dr

CLK

Hyattstown Bypass (proposed)

State

MD 355 to MD 355

CLK

Newcut Rd Extended

County/
Developer

West Old Baltimore Rd; Broadway Ave. to

MD 27

CLK

Snowden Farm Pkwy (Proposed)

County/
Developer

MD 27 to Clarksburg Rd

CLK

Snowden Farm Pkwy (Proposed)

County/
Developer

Clarksburg Rd to MD 355

CLK

Brink Rd

County/
Developer

MD 355 to MD 27

CLK

Shawnee La

County/
Developer

Gateway Center Dr to MD 355

CLK

Stringtown Rd

County/
Developer

Overlook Crossing Dr to Snowden Farm

Pkwy

CLV

Norwood Rd

County

MD 650 to MD 182

CLV

MD 28 Norbeck Rd

State

MD182 to Peach Orchard Rd

CLV

Thompson Rd Extended

County

Rainbow Dr to Thompson Dr

52

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

Master Planned Transportation Improvements Sorted by Policy Area, Mode, and Improvement Type and Not Programmed by 2018
Policy Area(s)

Project Name

Implementation Limits

Improvement Facility
Type
Type

DAM

none

DER
DER

MD 355 Frederick Rd and Gude Dr

State

Interchange

ICC and Mid-County Hwy

State

Interchange

DER

Metro Access Crabbs Branch Wy

County/
Developer

Interchange

DER

Crabbs Branch Way Extended

County/
Developer

Shady Grove Rd to Amity Dr

FWO

US 29 and Blackburn Dr

State

Interchange

FWO

US 29 and Fairland

State

Interchange

FWO

US 29 and Greencastle Rd

State

Interchange

FWO

US 29 and Musgrove Rd

State

Interchange

FWO

US 29 and Stewart Dr

State

Interchange

FWO

US 29 and Tech Rd

State

Interchange

FWO

MD 28 Norbeck Rd

State

Peach Orchard Rd to Prince Georges Line

FWO

Briggs Chaney Rd

County

ICC to PG Line

FWO

Burtonsville Blv

State/
Developer

MD 198 to Dustin Rd

FWO

Calverton Blv

County

Cherry Hill Rd to PG Line

FWO

Fairland Rd

County

MD 650 to PG Line

FWO

Greencastle Rd

County

Robey Rd to PG Line

GBG

I-270 and Watkins Mill Rd

County/ State/
Developer

Interchange

GBG,NP

MD 117 West Diamond Ave

State

Seneca Creek St Pk to Muddy Branch Rd

GBG,NP

MD 124 Montgomery Village Ave

State

MD 28 to Longdraft Rd

GBG,NP

Muddy Branch Rd

County

MD 28 to MD 117

GBG,NP

Longdraft Rd

County

MD 124 to MD 117

GBG

Oakmont Ave Extended

County

Oakmont Av to Washington Grove Ln

GBG

Odenhal Ave

County

Lost Knife Rd to Summit Av

GTE

MD 27 and MD 355

State

Interchange

GTE

MD 27 and Observation Dr

State

Interchange

GTE

MD 118 and MD 355

State

Interchange

GTE

MD 118 and Midcounty Hwy

State

Interchange

GTE

MD355 and Middlebrook Rd

State

Interchange

GTE

Shakespeare Dr

County/
Developer

Watkins Mill Rd to MD 355

GTE

Watkins Mill Rd

County

Midcounty Hwy to Midcounty Hwy

GTE

Dorsey Mill Rd

County

Bridge over I-270

GTW

MD 117 Clopper Rd

State

Seneca Creek SVP to east of MD 121

GTW

MD 119 Great Seneca Hwy

State

Longdraft Rd to Middlebrook Rd

GTW

Father Hurley Blv

County

Wisteria Dr to Crystal Rock Dr

GTW

Crystal Rock Dr Extended

Developer
(Kinster Dr to
Dorsey Mill Rd)

Kinster Dr to Dorsey Mill Rd

GTW

Dorsey Mill Rd

County/
Developer

Bridge over I-270

GTW

Observation Dr Extended

County

Waters Discovery Ln to Little Seneca Cr

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

53

Master Planned Transportation Improvements Sorted by Policy Area, Mode, and Improvement Type and Not Programmed by 2018
Policy Area(s)

Project Name

Implementation Limits

Improvement Facility
Type
Type

KW

MD 586 Veirs Mill Rd and Randolph

Rd

State

Interchange

KW

MD 586 Veirs Mill Rd

State

Twinbrook Pkwy to Randolph Rd

KW

Capitol View Ave Relocated

State/
Developer

Edgewood Rd to Stoneybrook Dr

MVA

MD 115 Muncaster Mill Rd

State

Redland Rd to MD 124

MVA

MD 124 Woodfield Rd

State

Emory Grove Rd to Warfield Rd

MVA

MD 124 Montgomery Village Av

State

Russell Av to Midcounty Hwy

MVA

Goshen Rd Widening

County

Odenhal Rd Odendhal Ave to Warfield Rd

MVA

Snouffer School Rd

County/
Developer

MD 124 to Goshen Rd

MVA

Wightman Rd

County

Goshen Rd to Brink Rd

NB

Montrose Pkw (proposed)

State

Maple Av to Parklawn Dr

NB

Montrose Pkw (proposed)

County

Parklawn Dr to MD 586

NB

Old Georgetown Rd

County

MD 355 to Nebel St

NB

Twinbrook Pkw

County

Chapman Av to Ardennes Av

NB

Woodglen Dr Extended

County/
Developer

Nicholson Ln to Marinelli Rd

OLY

MD097 Brookeville Byp (proposed)

State

Goldmine Rd to Georgia Av

OLY

MD 97 Georgia Ave

State

MD 108 to Prince Phillip Dr

OLY

MD 28 Norbeck Rd

State

MD 97 to MD 182

OLY

MD 108 Olney-Laytonsville Rd

State

Muncaster Rd to Olney Mill Rd

POT

MD 189 Falls Rd Relocated

State

Democracy Blvd to Rockville Line

POT

MD 190 River Rd Relocated

State

Riverwood Dr To River Oaks Ln

POT

Montrose Rd Extended

County

MD 189 to Falls Rd Relocated

POT

Montrose Rd

County

Seven Locks Rd to I-270

POT

Westlake Dr

County

Westlake Ter to Tuckerman Ln

RDV

MD 28 Key West Ave and MD119

Great Seneca Hwy

State

Interchange

RDV

Sam Eig Hwy and Fields/

Diamondback Dr

State/County

Interchange

RDV

Sam Eig Hwy and MD 119 Great

Seneca Hwy

State

Interchange

RDV

Shady Grove Rd and MD 28

Darnestown Rd

State

Interchange

RDV

Darnestown Rd Relocated

County

Darnestown Rd to Great Seneca Hwy

RDV

MD 119 Great Seneca Hwy

Relocated

County/State

Darnestown Rd to Sam Eig Hwy

SSTP

Lyttonsville Rd

County

Grubb Rd to Lyttonsville Pl

SSTP

Seminary Rd

County/
Developer

MD 192 to MD 97

RKV,GBG,GTE,
GTE,CLK

I-270 (HOV and widening)

State

I-370 to Frederick Co Line

RURW

MD118 Germantown Rd

State

MD 28 to MD 117

RURW

Whites Ferry Rd Relocated

County

Partnership Rd to west of Partnership Rd

54

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

APPENDIX 7

Inter-agency Traffic StudyTransportation study Memorandum of Understanding

page 1

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

55

page 2

56

LATR/TPAR Guidelines

APPENDIX 8

Provisional Adequate Public Facilities Finding

Section TP4 of the Subdivision Staging Policy provides guidance on Provisional Adequate Public Facilities
(PAPF) applications for Development District Participation, as specified in Chapter 14 of the
Montgomery County Code. Section TP4 is designed to facilitate:

Update
pending

Acceptance of transportation APF mitigation through public/private partnerships, and

Identification and conditioning of APF mitigation requirements in advance of the submission of a

preliminary plan that would trigger APF requirements under Section 50-35(k).

The PAPF process described in Section TP4 includes details on the administration of the application for
development districts. For development districts, the APF of those developments included in the
development district is satisfied once all required infrastructure improvements have been fully financed.
The Planning Board may choose to accept a PAPF application without a development district in the
event that an applicant proposes accelerated public infrastructure through private investment. The
accelerated public infrastructure investment may be for any or all of the types of facilities identified in
Section TP4.
The Planning Board review of a PAPF for an accelerated public infrastructure through private investment
must make the following additional findings:

The APF validity period begins at the time that the Planning Board approved the PAPF.

The duration of the APF validity period should consider the proposed project schedule, and may
be at or near the maximum length allowed by County law, reflecting the fact that the APF
validity period may begin substantially in advance of subdivision approval.

The process (financing or construction) and timing of all infrastructure delivery.

That the value of the public infrastructure, based on the difference between the construction
cost required for access improvements under subdivision regulations and the extent of financing
improvements through the PAPF process provides a timely private investment in public
infrastructure.

The Applicant has no expectation of reimbursement for its private investment.

APPENDIX 9- Policy Area Maps

NOTE: DELETED FROM 11/29/15 DRAFT TO SAVE SPACE

'

APPENDIX 10 - Traffic StudyTransportation Study Scope of Work Agreement

Form
Note: Deleted from 11/29/15 version to save space.

Resolution No:
Introduced:
Adopted:
MARCH 26NOVEMBER 29 DRAFT TRACK CHANGES MARKUP
TISTWG REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ON APRIL 1DECEMBER 2.

17-1203
January 14, 2014
July 29, 2014

OF RESOLUTION

17-1203

FOR

COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

By: Council President at the request of the Planning Board

SUBJECT:

Amendment to the 2012-2016 Subdivision Staging Policy in association with the White
Oak Science Gateway Master Plan

Background
1.

On November 13, 2012 the County Council approved Resolution 17-601, the 2012-2016
Subdivision Staging Policy.

2.

County Code 33A-15(f) allows either the County Council, County Executive, or the Planning
Board to initiate an amendment to the Subdivision Staging Policy.

3.

On December 20, 2013, in accordance with 33A-15, the Planning Board transmitted to the
County Council its recommendations to amend Resolution 17-601 in association with the White
Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. The Draft Amendment to the Subdivision Staging Policy, as
submitted by the Planning Board, contained supporting and explanatory materials.

4.

On February 4, 2014, the County Council held a public hearing on the Draft Amendment to the
Subdivision Staging Policy.

5.

On July 1, 7, and 16, 2014 the Council's Planning, Housing, and Economic Development
Committee conducted worksessions on the Draft Amendment to the Subdivision Staging Policy.

6.

On July 22, 2014, the Council conducted a worksession on the Draft Amendment to the
Subdivision Staging Policy, at which careful consideration was given to the public hearing
testimony, updated information, recommended revisions and comments of the County Executive
and Planning Board, and the comments and concerns of other interested parties.

-1-

Resolution No. _______

Action
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, approves the following Resolution:
The 2012-2016 Subdivision Staging Policy is amended as follows:

Applicability; transition
AP1

Effective dates

This resolution to amend the Subdivision Staging Policy takes effect on July 29, 2014, and applies to
any application for a preliminary plan of subdivision filed on or after that date, except that Section S
(Public School Facilities) takes effect on November 15, 2012.
AP2

Transition

For any complete application for subdivision approval submitted before January 1, 2013, the applicant
may meet its requirements under TP Transportation Policy Area Review by either complying with all
applicable requirements of Transportation Policy Area Review under this resolution or all applicable
requirements of Policy Area Mobility Review that were in force immediately before this resolution was
amended in 2012. The applicant must decide, by the later of March 1, 2013, or 30 days after the
Planning Board adopts guidelines to administer Transportation Policy Area Review, which set of
requirements will apply to its application.

Guidelines for the Administration of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance

County Code Section 50-35(k) ("the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance or APFO") directs the
Montgomery County Planning Board to approve preliminary plans of subdivision only after finding that
public facilities will be adequate to serve the subdivision. This involves predicting future demand from
private development and comparing it to the capacity of existing and programmed public facilities. The
following guidelines describe the methods and criteria that the Planning Board and its staff must use in
determining the adequacy of public facilities. These guidelines supersede all previous ones adopted by
the County Council.
The Council accepts the definitions of terms and the assignment of values to key measurement variables
that were used by the Planning Board and its staff in developing the recommended Subdivision Staging
Policy. The Council delegates to the Planning Board and its staff all other necessary administrative
decisions not covered by the guidelines outlined below. In its administration of the APFO, the Planning
Board must consider the recommendations of the County Executive and other agencies in determining
the adequacy of public facilities.
The findings and directives described in this Subdivision Staging Policy are based primarily on the
public facilities in the approved FY 2013-18 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and the Maryland

-2-

Resolution No. _______

Department of Transportation FY 2012-17 Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP). The Council
also reviewed related County and State and Federal funding decisions, master plan guidance and zoning
where relevant, and related legislative actions. These findings and directives and their supporting
planning and measurement process have been the subject of a public hearing and review during
worksessions by the County Council. Approval of the findings and directives reflects a legislative
judgment that, all things considered, these findings and procedures constitute a reasonable, appropriate,
and desirable set of staged growth limits, which properly relate to the ability of the County to program
and construct facilities necessary to accommodate growth. These growth stages will substantially
advance County land use objectives by providing for coordinated and orderly development.
These guidelines are intended to be used as a means for government to fulfill its responsibility to
provide adequate public facilities. Quadrennial review and oversight, combined with periodic
monitoring by the Planning Board, allows the Council to identify problems and initiate solutions that
will serve to avoid or limit the duration of any imbalance between the construction of new development
and the implementation of transportation improvements in a specific policy area. Further, alternatives
may be available for developers who wish to proceed in advance of the adopted public facilities
program, through the provision of additional public facility capacity beyond that contained in the
approved Capital Improvements Program, or through other measures that accomplish an equivalent
effect.
The administration of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance must at all times be consistent with
adopted master plans and sector plans. Where development staging guidelines in adopted master plans
or sector plans are more restrictive than Subdivision Staging Policy guidelines, the guidelines in the
adopted master plan or sector plan must be used to the extent that they are more restrictive. The
Subdivision Staging Policy does not require the Planning Board to base its analysis and
recommendations for any new or revised master or sector plan on the public facility adequacy standards
in this resolution.
Guidelines for Transportation Facilities
TP

Policy Areas

TP1

Policy Area Boundaries and Definitions

For the purposes of transportation analysis, the County has been divided into 376 areas called traffic
zones. Based on their transportation characteristics, these zones are grouped into transportation policy
areas, as shown on Map 1. In many cases, transportation policy areas have the same boundaries as
planning areas, sector plan areas, or master plan analysis (or special study) areas. Each policy area is
categorized as Urban, Suburban, or Rural. The policy areas in effect for 2012-2016 are:
Urban: Bethesda CBD Metro Station Policy Area (MSPA), Bethesda-Chevy Chase,
Derwood, Friendship Heights MSPA, Glenmont MSPA, Grosvenor MSPA,
Kensington/Wheaton, North Bethesda, Rockville City, Rockville Town Center, Shady
Grove MSPA, Silver Spring CBD MSPA, Silver Spring/Takoma Park, Twinbrook
MSPA, Wheaton CBD MSPA, White Oak, and White Flint MSPA.
Suburban: Aspen Hill, Clarksburg, Cloverly, Fairland/Colesville, Gaithersburg City,

-3-

Resolution No. _______

Germantown East, Germantown Town Center, Germantown West, Montgomery
Village/Airpark, North Potomac, Olney, Potomac, and R&D Village.
Rural: Damascus, Rural East, and Rural West.
The boundaries of the policy areas are shown on maps 2-34.
The boundaries of the Gaithersburg City and Rockville City policy areas reflect existing municipal
boundaries, except where County-regulated land is surrounded by city-regulated land. The boundaries
of these municipal policy areas do not automatically reflect any change in municipal boundaries; any
change in a policy area boundary requires affirmative Council action.
TP2

Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR)

TP2.1

Components of Transportation Policy Area Review

There are two components to Transportation Policy Area Review: Roadway Adequacy and Transit
Adequacy for each policy area.
TP2.1.1

Roadway Adequacy

Roadway adequacy is a measure of congestion on the Countys arterial roadway network. It is based on
the urban street delay level of service in the 2010 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. The travel speed reflects the projected travel demand in
10 years on a transportation network that includes both the existing network of roads and transit
facilities and any road or transit facility funded for completion within 10 years in an approved state,
county, or municipal capital improvements program for which construction is funded to begin within 6
years. It then assigns letter grades to the various levels of roadway congestion, with letter A assigned to
the best levels of service and letter F assigned to the worst levels of service. For a trip along an urban
street that has a free-flow speed (generally akin to posted speed) of 40 MPH, LOS A conditions exist
when the actual travel speed is at least 34 MPH excluding delays experienced at traffic signals. At the
other end of the spectrum, LOS F conditions exist when the actual travel speed is below 10 MPH. The
travel speeds are calculated in the peak direction during the PM peak hour, which presented the worst
condition in the analysis.
Roadway Travel Speed and Arterial LOS
If the actual urban street travel speed is
At least 85% of the free-flow speed
At least 70% of the highway speed
At least 50% of the highway speed
At least 40% of the highway speed
At least 30% of the highway speed
Less than 30% of the highway speed

TPAR Arterial LOS is

A
B
C
D
E
F

-4-

Resolution No. _______

The following standards are established to assess the level of roadway adequacy for the purposes of
Transportation Policy Area Review:
Standards of Acceptable Roadway Average Level of Service
Policy Area Categories
Urban
Suburban
Rural

Acceptable Weighted Arterial Level of Service

Borderline between Levels of Service D and E in peak directions
Mid-Level of Service D in peak directions
Borderline between Levels of Service C and D in peak directions

TPAR evaluates conditions only on the arterial roadway network. Freeway level of service is not
directly measured because County development contributes a relatively modest proportion of freeway
travel, and because the County has limited influence over the design and operations of the freeway
system. However, because arterial travel is a substitute for some freeway travel, TPAR indirectly
measures freeway congestion to the extent that travelers choose local roadways over congested
freeways.
TP2.1.2

Transit Adequacy

Transit Adequacy is based on the use of measures of three transit service performance factors for
combined Ride-On and Metrobus service using the arterial roadway network in the County. It is based
on and consistent with the performance factors defined in the 2003 Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. The three transit service performance
factors are: (1) coverage, which indicates how close service is to potential users; (2) peak headway,
which indicates how frequent the scheduled service is so as to be convenient to users; and (3) span of
service, which indicates over what time duration during a typical weekday the service is available to
potential users. Transit Adequacy is determined by comparing bus route coverage, scheduled headways
and actual hours of operation based on 2011 data to established standards, as illustrated in the table
below.
Transit Adequacy Standards
Minimum Coverage
Urban
80%
Suburban
70%
Rural
50%

Maximum Headway
14 minutes
20 minutes
60 minutes

TP2.2

Conducting Transportation Policy Area Review

TP2.2.1

Geographic Areas

Minimum Span
17 hours
14 hours
4 hours

In conducting Transportation Policy Area Reviews, each Metro station policy area is included in its
larger parent policy area, so that:

the Bethesda CBD, Friendship Heights, and Bethesda-Chevy Chase policy areas are treated as a
single policy area;

-5-

Resolution No. _______

the Grosvenor, White Flint, Twinbrook, and North Bethesda policy areas are treated as a single
policy area;

the Rockville Town Center and Rockville City policy areas are treated as a single policy area;

the Shady Grove and Derwood policy areas are treated as a single policy area;

the Silver Spring CBD and Silver Spring-Takoma Park policy areas are treated as a single policy
area; and

the Wheaton CBD, Glenmont, and Kensington/Wheaton policy areas are treated as a single
policy area.

The Germantown Town Center and Germantown West policy areas are treated as a single policy area.
The Rural East policy area consists of all area east of I-270 that is not located in another policy area.
The Rural West policy area consists of all area west of I-270 that is not located in another policy area.
Any proposed development in a Metro Station policy area is exempt from the transit adequacy test. Any
proposed development in the Rural East or Rural West policy area is exempt from the roadway and
transit adequacy tests.
Any proposed development located in the White Flint Metro Station policy area is exempt from
Transportation Policy Area Review if that development, as a condition of approval of a preliminary plan
of subdivision, is required to provide substantial funds to the Special Tax District created to finance
transportation improvements for that Policy Area. However, the traffic impact of any development in
that policy area must be considered in any Transportation Policy Area Review calculation for any
development that is not exempt under this paragraph where that impact would otherwise be considered.
TP2.2.2

Determination of Adequacy

Each even-numbered year, not later than July 1, the Planning Board must evaluate roadway and transit
adequacy for each policy area. At any time between these assessments, the Planning Board may revise
its evaluation to reflect a material change in a state, county, or municipal capital improvements program.
If the Planning Board revises its measure of adequacy during a fiscal year because of a material change
in transportation capacity, that revision must be used during the rest of that fiscal year in reviewing
subdivision applications.
Using a transportation planning model, the Planning staff must compute the relationship between the
programmed set of transportation facilities and the forecast growth in households and employment,
using the Cooperative Regional Forecast. The traffic model tests this forecast growth for its traffic
impact, comparing the resulting directional traffic volume, link speed, and distribution to the roadway
level of service standard for each policy area. Any policy area that does not achieve the level of service
standards specified in TP2.1.1 is inadequate for roadways. Any policy area that is inadequate for
roadways, for transit, or for both is inadequate for transportation.
An applicant for a preliminary plan of subdivision need not take any action under Transportation Policy
Area Review if the proposed development will generate 3 or fewer peak-hour trips.

-6-

Resolution No. _______

The Planning Board may adopt Transportation Policy Area Review guidelines and other technical
materials to further specify standards and procedures for its adoption of findings of policy area adequacy
or inadequacy.
The transportation planning model considers all forecast development and all eligible programmed
transportation CIP projects. For these purposes, forecast development" includes all households and
employment forecast by the Cooperative Regional Forecast. "Eligible programmed transportation CIP
projects" include all County CIP, State Transportation Program, and City of Rockville or Gaithersburg
projects for which 100 percent of the expenditures for construction are estimated to occur in the first 10
years of the applicable program and for which construction is funded to begin within 6 years.
Because of the unique nature of the Purple Line, the Corridor Cities Transitway, and the North Bethesda
Transitway compared to other transportation systems which are normally used in calculating
development capacity, it is prudent to approach the additional capacity from these systems
conservatively, particularly with respect to the timing of capacity and the amount of the capacity
recognized. Therefore, the capacity from any operable segment of any of these transit systems must not
be counted until that segment is fully funded in the first 10 years of the County or State capital
improvements program and for which construction is funded to begin within 6 years.
To discourage sprawl development, no capacity for new development may be counted outside the
boundary of the Town of Brookeville as of March 9, 1999, as a result of relocating MD 97 around
Brookeville.
TP3

Imposition of Transportation Mitigation Payment

If projected transportation capacity in a policy area is not adequate, the Planning Board may approve a
subdivision in that area if the applicant commits to either: (1) fully mitigate the incremental traffic
impact of the subdivision by adding capacity or implementing a trip reduction program; or (2) pay a
Transportation Mitigation Payment as provided in County law.
If an MSPA is located in an Urban area that does not meet the Roadway Test standard, the
Transportation Mitigation Payment is equal to 25% of the MSPA transportation impact tax for that
subdivision. If any other policy area does not meet either the Roadway Test or Transit Test standard, the
Transportation Mitigation Payment is equal to 25% of the General District transportation impact tax for
that subdivision. If any other policy area that is not otherwise exempt does not meet both the Roadway
Test and Transit Test standards, the Transportation Mitigation Payment is equal to 50% of the General
District transportation impact tax for that subdivision.
Table 1 shows the adequacy status for each policy area from January 1, 2013 - July 1, 2014.
TP4

Development District Participation

Under Chapter 14 of the County Code, the County Council may create development districts as a
funding mechanism for needed infrastructure in areas of the County where substantial development is
expected or encouraged. The Planning Board may approve subdivision plans in accordance with the
terms of the development district's provisional adequate public facilities approval (PAPF).

-7-

Resolution No. _______

TP4.1

Preparation of a PAPF

The development district's PAPF must be prepared in the following manner:

One or more property owners in the proposed district may submit to the Planning Board an application
for provisional adequate public facilities approval for the entire district. In addition to explaining how
each development located in the district will comply with all applicable zoning and subdivision
requirements, this application must:

show the number and type of housing units and square footage and type of the non-residential
space to be developed, as well as a schedule of proposed buildout in five-year increments;

identify any infrastructure improvements necessary to satisfy the adequate public facilities
requirements for development districts; and

estimate the cost to provide these improvements.

TP4.2

Planning Board Review

The Planning Board must then review all developments within the proposed development district as if
they are a single development for compliance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The
Planning Board must identify the public facilities needed to support the buildout of the development
district after considering the results of the following tests for facility adequacy:

Transportation tests for development districts are identical to those for Local Area
Transportation Review. Planning Department staff must prepare a list of transportation
infrastructure needed to maintain public facility adequacy.

The PAPF application must be referred to Montgomery County Public Schools staff for
recommendations for each stage of development in the proposed district. MCPS staff must
calculate the extent to which the development district will add to MCPS's current enrollment
projections. MCPS staff must apply the existing school adequacy test to the projections with
the additional enrollment and prepare a list of public school infrastructure needed to maintain
public facility adequacy.

The PAPF application must be referred to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission for
recommendations for each stage of development in the proposed district. Wastewater
conveyance and water transmission facilities must be considered adequate if existing or
programmed (fully-funded within the first 5 years of the approved WSSC capital
improvements program) facilities can accommodate (as defined by WSSC) all existing
authorizations plus the growth in the development district. Adequacy of water and wastewater
treatment facilities must be evaluated using the intermediate or "most probable" forecasts of
future growth plus development district growth, but only to the extent that development district
growth exceeds the forecast for any time period. If a test is not met, WSSC must prepare a list
of water and sewer system infrastructure needed to maintain public facility adequacy.

-8-

Resolution No. _______

TP4.3

The PAPF application must be referred to the County Executive for recommendations for each
stage of development in the proposed district regarding police, fire, and health facilities.
Adequacy of police, fire, and health facilities must be evaluated using the intermediate or most
probable forecasts of future growth plus development district growth, but only to the extent
that development district growth exceeds the forecast for any time period. Any facility
capacity that remains is available to be used by the development district. If any facility
capacity deficits exist, the County Executive must prepare a list of infrastructure needed to
maintain public facility adequacy.
Planning Board Approval

The Board may conditionally approve the PAPF application if it will meet all of the requirements of the
APFO and Subdivision Staging Policy. The Board may condition its approval on, among other things,
the creation and funding of the district and the building of no more than the maximum number of
housing units and the maximum nonresidential space listed in the petition.
For an application to be approved, the applicants must commit to produce the infrastructure
improvements needed to meet APF requirements in the proposed district as well as any added
requirements specified by the Planning Board. The Planning Board must list these required
infrastructure improvements in its approval. The infrastructure improvements may be funded through
the development district or otherwise. The development district's PAPF must be prepared in the
following manner:
The Planning Board must not approve a PAPF application unless public facilities adequacy is
maintained throughout the life of the plan. The timing of infrastructure delivery may be accomplished
by withholding the release of building permits until needed public facilities are available to be
"counted," or by another similar mechanism.
Infrastructure may be counted for public facilities adequacy, for infrastructure provided by the district,
when construction has begun on the facility and funds have been identified and committed to its
completion, and, for infrastructure provided by the public sector, when:

for Local Area Transportation Review, the project is fully-funded within the first 6 years of the
approved County, state, or municipal capital improvements program;

for water and sewer facilities, the project is fully-funded within the first 5 years of the
approved WSSC capital improvements program;

for public school facilities, the project is fully-funded within the first 5 years of the approved
Montgomery County Public Schools capital improvements program; and

for police, fire, and health facilities, the project is fully-funded within the first 6 years of the
relevant approved capital improvements program.

TP4.4

Additional Facilities Recommended for Funding

The County Executive and Planning Board may also recommend to the County Council additional
facilities to be provided by the development district or by the public sector to support development

-9-

Resolution No. _______

within the district. These facilities may include, but are not limited to libraries, health centers, local
parks, social services, greenways, and major recreation facilities.
TP4.5

Satisfaction of APF Requirements

As provided in Chapter 14 of the County Code, once the development district is created and the
financing of all required infrastructure is arranged, the development in the district is considered to have
satisfied all APF requirements, any additional requirements that apply to development districts in the
Subdivision Staging Policy, and any other requirement to provide infrastructure which the County
adopts within 12 years after the district is created.
TL Local Area Transportation Review (LATR)
TL1 Standards and Procedures
To achieve an approximately equivalent transportation level of service in all areas of the County, greater
vehicular traffic congestion is permitted in policy areas with greater transit accessibility and usage.
Table 2 shows the intersection level of service standards by policy area. Local Area Transportation
Review must at all times be consistent with the standards and staging mechanisms of adopted master and
sector plans.
Local area transportation review for each mode of travel must be completed for any subdivision that
would generate 30 or more a significant number of peak-hour automobile trips by that mode. For any
subdivision that would generate 30-49 peak-hour vehicle trips, the Planning Board after receiving a
traffic study must require that either:
Formatted: Space Before:

all LATR requirements are met; or

the applicant must make an additional payment to the County equal to 50% of the applicable
transportation impact tax before it receives any building permit in the subdivision.
In administering Local Area Transportation Review for any project that would generate 50 a significant
number of or more peak hour vehicle trips by any mode, the Planning Board must not approve a
subdivision if it finds that unacceptable peak hour congestion levelstravel conditions will result after
considering existing roads, programmed roads, available or programmed mass transportation, and
improvements to be provided by the applicant. If the subdivision will affect an intersection or roadway
link for which congestion is already unacceptable, then the subdivision may only be approved if the
applicant agrees to mitigate either:

a sufficient number of trips to bring the intersection or link to acceptable levels of congestion, or

a number of trips equal to 150 percent of the CLV impact attributable to the development.

The nature of the LATR test is such that a traffic study is necessary if local congestion is likely to occur.
The Planning Board and staff must examine the applicant's traffic study to determine whether
adjustments are necessary to assure that the traffic study is a reasonable and appropriate reflection of the
traffic impact of the proposed subdivision after considering all approved development and programmed
transportation projects.

- 10 -

0 pt, No bullets or numbering

Resolution No. _______

If use and occupancy permits for at least 75% of the originally approved development were issued more
than 12 years before the LATR study scope request, the number of signalized intersections in the study
must be based on the increased number of peak hour trips rather than the total number of peak hour trips.
In these cases, LATR is not required for any expansion that generates 5 or fewer additional peak hour
trips.
For Local Area Transportation Review purposes, the programmed transportation projects to be
considered are those fully funded for construction in the first 6 years of the current approved Capital
Improvements Program, the state's Consolidated Transportation Program, or any municipal capital
improvements program. For these purposes, any road required under Section 302 of the County Charter
to be authorized by law is not programmed until the time for petition to referendum has expired without
a valid petition or the authorizing law has been approved by referendum.
If an applicant is participating in a traffic mitigation program or one or more intersection improvements
to meet Local Area Transportation Review requirements, that applicant must be considered to have met
Local Area Transportation Review for any other intersection where the volume of trips generated is less
than 5 Critical Lane Movements.
Any traffic study required for Local Area Transportation Review must be submitted by a registered
Professional Engineer, certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer, or certified Professional
Transportation Planner.
Each traffic study must examine, at a minimum, the number of signalized intersections in the following
table. , An intersection only needs to be examined if the peak-hour site-generated traffic is greater than
1% of the total intersection existing peak-hour traffic and the peak-hour site generated traffic entering
the intersection is greater than or equal to 5% of the total site-generated traffic. unless tThe Planning
Board may also affirmatively finds that special circumstances warrant a more limited study.

Maximum Peak-Hour Trips Generated

< 250
250 749
750 1,249
1,250 1,750
1,750-2,249
2,250 2749
>2,750

Minimum Signalized Intersections

in Each Direction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

At the Planning Boards discretion, each traffic mitigation program must be required to operate for at
least 12 years but no longer than 15 years. The Planning Board may select either trip reduction
measures or road improvements, or a combination of both, as the required means of traffic mitigation.

- 11 -

Resolution No. _______

The Planning Board has adopted guidelines to administer Local Area Transportation Review. To the
extent that they are consistent with this Policy, the Planning Board guidelines may continue to apply or
may be amended as the Planning Board finds necessary.
The Planning Board may adopt administrative guidelines that allow use of Highway Capacity Manual
2010 methodologies and standards for "delay" and queuing analysis at intersections operating at or
above a 1600 Critical Lane Volume threshold to determine the level of intersection congestion.
In administering Local Area Transportation Review, the Planning Board must carefully consider the
recommendations of the County Executive concerning the applicant's traffic study and proposed
improvements or any other aspect of the review.
To achieve safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit system travel, the Planning Board may
adopt administrative guidelines requiring construction of off-site sidewalk, bicycle, or transit system
improvements consistent with County Code 50-25. To support creating facilities that encourage transit
use, walking, and bicycling, to maintain an approximately equivalent level of service at the local level
for both auto and non-auto modes, the Board may allow the applicant to use peak hour vehicle trip
credits for providing non-auto facilities. Before approving credits for non-auto facilities to reduce Local
Area Transportation Review impacts, the Board should first consider the applicability and desirability of
traffic mitigation agreement measures. The Boards LATR and TPAR Guidelines must identify
applicable facilities in terms of actions that can be given trip credits and the maximum number of trips
that can be credited. If the Board approves any credits, it must specify mechanisms to monitor the
construction of any required facility. During each quadrennial Subdivision Staging Policy the Board
must report on the number of credits issued and confirm the construction of any required facility.
In general, any mitigation measure or combination of mitigation measures must be scheduled for
completion or otherwise operational either before or at the same time as the proposed development is
scheduled to be completed. The nature, design, and scale of any additional facility or program must
receive prior approval from any government agency that would construct or maintain the facility or
program, and the applicant and the public agency must execute an appropriate public works agreement
before the Planning Board approves a record plat.
Both the subdivision plan and the necessary mitigation measures must be consistent with an adopted
master plan or other relevant land use policy statement. For the Planning Board to accept an intersection
improvement as a mitigation measure, the applicant must show that alternative non-auto mitigation
measures are not feasible or desirable. In evaluating mitigation measures proposed by an applicant, the
Board must place a high priority on design excellence to create a safe, comfortable, and attractive public
realm for all users, with particular focus on high-quality pedestrian and transit access to schools,
libraries, recreation centers, and other neighborhood facilities.
If an approved subdivision already has constructed or participated in the construction of off site
improvements to accommodate its peak hour trips, based on the LATR requirements the Board imposed
when it approved a preliminary subdivision plan, and if the subdivision later converts one or more
approved uses or reduces its size so that the subdivision generates fewer peak hour trips than estimated
when the Board imposed the LATR requirements, the trip mitigation agreement must reduce the
subdivisions peak hour trip mitigation requirement by one trip for each peak hour trip that the

- 12 -

Resolution No. _______

subdivision would no longer generate. If the conversion of all or part of a subdivision from one use to
another would cause a different trip distribution or would place new or different burdens on one or more
intersections, and if the subdivision is otherwise required to do so, the subdivision must construct or
contribute to improvements specified by the Board to mitigate that result.
TL2 Metro Station Policy Area LATR Standards
In each Metro Station Policy Area, the Planning Board, in consultation with the Department of
Transportation, must prepare performance evaluation criteria for its Local Area Transportation Review.
These criteria must be used to accomplish: (a) safety for pedestrians and vehicles; (b) access to buildings
and sites; and (c) traffic flow within the vicinity, at levels which are tolerable in an urban situation. The
County Executive also must publish a Silver Spring Traffic Management Program after receiving public
comment and a recommendation from the Planning Board. This program must list those actions to be
taken by government to maintain traffic flow at tolerable levels in the Silver Spring CBD and protect the
surrounding residential area.
Any proposed development located in the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area is exempt from Local
Area Transportation Review if the development will be required to provide substantial funds to the
Special Tax District created to finance master-planned public improvements in that Policy Area.
However, the traffic impact of any development in that Policy Area must be considered in any Local
Area Transportation Review calculation for any development elsewhere where it would otherwise be
considered.
TL3

Potomac LATR Standards

In the Potomac Policy Area, only the areas contributing traffic to the following intersections must arebe
subject to a finding of inadequacy under Local Area Transportation Review: (a) Montrose Road at
Seven Locks Road; (b) Democracy Boulevard at Seven Locks Road; (c) Tuckerman Lane at Seven
Locks Road; (d) Democracy Boulevard at Westlake Drive; (e) Westlake Drive at Westlake Terrace; (f)
Westlake Drive at Tuckerman Lane; (g) Bradley Boulevard at Seven Locks Road; (h) River Road at
Bradley Boulevard; (i) River Road at Piney Meetinghouse Road; (j) River Road at Falls Road; (k) Falls
Road at Democracy Boulevard; and (l) River Road at Seven Locks Road. Applicants with site
development that impact other intersections in the Potomac Policy Area are responsible for examining
their impact and identifying potential improvements, but are not subject to any finding of inadequacy
nor are they required to take any action under LATR to implement the identified improvements.
TL4

Unique Policy Area Issues

TL4.1

Silver Spring CBD Policy Area and Transportation Management District

The Local Area Review for the Silver Spring CBD policy area must use the following assumptions and
guidelines:
Each traffic limit is derived from the heaviest traffic demand period in Silver Spring's case, the
p.m. peak hour outbound traffic.
When tested during a comprehensive circulation analysis, the critical lane volumes for
intersections in the surrounding Silver Spring/Takoma Park policy area must not be worse than

- 13 -

Resolution No. _______

the adopted level of service standards shown in Table 2 unless the Planning Board finds that
the impact of improving the intersection is more burdensome than the increased congestion.
The Planning Board and the Department of Transportation must implement Transportation
Systems Management for the Silver Spring CBD. The goal of this program must be to achieve
the commuting goals for transit use and auto occupancy rates set out below.
The County Government, through the Silver Spring Parking Lot District, must constrain the
amount of public and private long term parking spaces.

The parking constraints and commuting goals needed to achieve satisfactory traffic conditions with
these staging ceilings are:
Parking constraint: A maximum of 17,500 public and private long-term spaces when all
nonresidential development is built; this maximum assumes a peak accumulation factor of 0.9,
which requires verification in Silver Spring and may be subject to revision. Interim long-term
parking constraints must be imposed in accordance with the amount of interim development.
Long-term public parking spaces must be priced to reflect the market value of constrained
parking spaces.
Commuting goals: For employers with 25 or more employees, attain 25 percent mass transit
use and auto occupancy rates of 1.3 persons per vehicle during the peak periods, or attain any
combination of employee mode choice that results in at least 46% non-drivers during the peak
periods. For new nonresidential development, attain 30% mass transit use and auto occupancy
rates of 1.3 persons per vehicle during the peak periods, or attain any combination of employee
mode choice that results in at least 50% non-drivers during the peak periods.
Progress towards achieving these goals should be measured annually by scientific, statistically valid
surveys.
To achieve these goals it will be necessary to require developers of new development in Silver Spring to
enter into traffic mitigation agreements and the employers and certain owners to submit transportation
mitigation plans under County Code Chapter 42A.
In accordance with the amendment to the Silver Spring Sector Plan, subdivision applications for
nonresidential standard method projects throughout the CBD may be approved for development or
additions of not more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. However, if, for a particular use the
addition of 5 peak hour trips yields a floor area greater than 5,000 square feet, that additional area may
be approved for that particular use.
TL4.2.

North Bethesda TMD

In the North Bethesda Transportation Management District, the goal is 39% non-driver mode share for
workers in the peak hour.
TL4.3

Bethesda TMD

- 14 -

Resolution No. _______

In the Bethesda Transportation Management District, the goal is 37% non-driver mode share for
workers.
TL4.4

Friendship Heights TMD

In the Friendship Heights Transportation Management District, the goal is 39% non-driver mode share
for workers.
TL4.5

Greater Shady Grove TMD

In the Shady Grove Policy Area, the goal is a transit ridership goal of 35% for residents in the Shady
Grove Policy Area, 25% for residents elsewhere in the Sector Plan, and 12.5% for employees of office
development traveling to work.
Each development that receives preliminary plan approval in the Shady Grove Metro Station Policy
Area and generates at least 100 additional peak-hour vehicle trips, other than pass-by trips, must enter
into a Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg). The trip mitigation requirement for this Agreement is
50% of the residential-related vehicle trips and 65% of the non-residential-related vehicle trips that
would otherwise be expected, based on countywide trip generation rates before any applicable
deduction, such as proximity to a Metrorail station. The breakdown in the reduction of trips should be
identified in the Agreement. County-owned property in the Shady Grove Policy Area must enter into a
TMAg on all new development or redevelopment, with no deduction of existing trips.
TL4.6

Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan

In the Great Seneca Science Corridor, an 18% non-auto driver mode share (NADMS) must be attained
before Stage 2 begins, a 23% NADMS must be attained before Stage 3 begins, and a 28% NADMS must
be attained before Stage 4 begins.
TL4.7

White Oak Policy Area

In the White Oak Policy Area the non-auto driver mode share (NADMS) goal for all new development,
based on the areas future transit service (assuming bus rapid transit) and connectivity opportunities, is
25% in the White Oak Center and Hillandale Center, and is 30% in the Life Sciences/FDA Village
Center.
(a) The Board may approve a subdivision in the White Oak Policy Area conditioned on the applicantFormatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b,
+ Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" +
paying a fee to the County commensurate with the applicants proportion of the cost of a White c,
Indent at: 0.5"
Oak Local Area Transportation Improvement Program, including the costs of design, land
acquisition, construction, site improvements, and utility relocation. The proportion is based on a
subdivisions share of peak-hour vehicle trips generated by all master-planned development in
the White Oak Policy Area approved after October 7, 2014.
(b) The components of the White Oak Local Area Transportation Improvement Program and the fee
per peak-hour vehicle trip will be established by Council resolution, after a public hearing. The
Council may amend the Program and the fee at any time, after a public hearing.

- 15 -

Resolution No. _______

(c) The fee must be paid at a time and manner consistent with Transportation Mitigation Payments
as prescribed in Section 52-59(d) of the Montgomery County Code.
(d) The Department of Finance must retain funds collected under this Section in an account to be
appropriated for transportation improvements that result in added transportation capacity serving
the White Oak Policy Area.
TL5

Protected Intersections

Several Metro Station Policy Areas and other business districts are centered on the intersection between Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line:
two Major Highways and served by a robust grid of local business streets that help disperse local traffic.
In these locations, traffic assignment is often more dynamic than facilitated by LATR procedures, the
addition of vehicular capacity often degrades pedestrian quality of service, and the development of
context-sensitive multimodal solutions is best achieved outside the development review arena with a
broader consideration of travel trends. These locations, designated Protected Intersections, include the
following: (a) Georgia Avenue and Colesville Road, (b) Wisconsin Avenue and East West Highway /
Montgomery Lane, (c) (other locations TBD)Georgia Avenue and University Boulevard, (d) Key West
Avenue and Great Seneca Highway, (e) Key West Avenue and Shady Grove Road. Applicants with site
development that impact these intersections are responsible for examining their impact and identifying
potential improvements, but are not subject to any finding of inadequacy nor are they required to take
any action under LATR to implement the identified improvements other than mitigating their impacts by
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
payment in lieu of construction in an amount defined by guidelines published by the Planning Board.

TA

Alternative Review Procedures

TA1

Metro Station Policy Areas

An applicant for a subdivision which will be built completely within a Metro station policy area need
not take any action under TP Transportation Policy Area Review or TL Local Area Transportation
Review if the applicant agrees in a contract with the Planning Board and the County Department of
Transportation to:

submit an application containing all information, including a traffic study, that would normally
be required for Local Area Transportation Review;

meet trip reduction goals set by the Planning Board as a condition of approving that
subdivision, which must require the applicant to reduce at least 50% of the number of vehicle
trips or vehicle miles of travel (VMT) attributable to the subdivision, either by reducing trips
or VMT from the subdivision itself or from other occupants of that policy area, and provide a
surety document to ensure that the reduction of trips in fact takes place;

participate in programs operated by, and take actions specified by, a transportation
management organization (TMO) to be established by County law for that policy area (or a
group of policy areas including that policy area) to meet the mode share goals established
under the preceding paragraph;

pay an ongoing annual contribution or tax to fund the TMO's operating expenses, including
minor capital items such as busses, as established by County law; and

- 16 -

0"

Resolution No. _______

TA2

pay 75% of the applicable General District development impact tax without claiming any
credits for transportation improvements.
Expiration of Approvals under Previous Alternative Review Procedures

Annual Growth Policy resolutions in effect between 1995 and 2001 contained Alternative Review
Procedures that required any development approved under those procedures to receive each building
permit no later than 4 years after the Planning Board approved the preliminary plan of subdivision for
that development. Any outstanding development project approved under an Alternative Review
Procedure is subject to the expiration dates in effect when that development project was approved.
TA3

Automobile related uses in the Cherry Hill Employment Area

For any property located in the Cherry Hill Employment Area with automobile repair, service,
sales, parking, storage, or related office uses:
TP Transportation Policy Area Review and TL Local Transportation Review are not
required.
This provision applies to any application for a preliminary plan of subdivision, site plan,
or building permit approved before July 26, 2016.

TA4

Public Facility Project

An applicant for a development which will be built solely as a public facility (such as a school,
firehouse, police station, or library) need not take any action under TP Transportation Policy Area
Review or TL Local Area Transportation Review when it undergoes a mandatory referral review by
the Planning Board.
TA5

Affordable Housing

The provision of affordable housing in the County is crucial to providing long lasting reductions to
regional congestion. Long distance trips affect the Countys traffic in many parts of our community.
The provision of affordable housing is a fundamental element of the County's General Plan and part of
the Countys economic development strategy. All trips generated by any moderately priced dwelling
unit (MPDU) and any other low- and moderate-income housing which is exempt from paying a
development impact tax must also be exempt from any TPAR payment.
TA6

Very Low VMT

The reduction of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is an integral element of the Countys transportation
demand management strategy, incorporating both reduced reliance on vehicle trips and facilitating
options for shorter-length trips for those trips that are made by private vehicles. The An applicant for a
subdivision that can be shown to reduce areawide VMT by its development characteristics, as defined in
published Planning Board Guidelines need take no action under LATR, TPAR, or transportation impact

- 17 -

Resolution No. _______

tax. An applicant for a subdivision that can be expected to generate substantially fewer vehicle trips
based on provision of reduced parking spaces as defined in published Planning Board Guidelines need
take no action under LATR as a de minimis application. An applicant for a subdivision located entirely
within a Metro Station Policy Area that can perform Transportation Demand Management actions to
reduce peak period areawide VMT by 50% of the amount that would otherwise be generated may apply
for Alternative Review Procedure TA1 above.

Public School Facilities

S1

Geographic Areas

For the purposes of public school analysis and local area review of school facilities at time of
subdivision, the County has been divided into 25 areas called high school clusters. These areas coincide
with the cluster boundaries used by the Montgomery County Public School system.
The groupings used are only to administer the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and do not require
any action by the Board of Education in exercising its power to designate school service boundaries.
S2

Grade Levels

Each cluster must be assessed separately at each of the 3 grade levels -- elementary,
intermediate/middle, and high school.
S3

Determination of Adequacy

Each year, not later than July 1, the Planning Board must evaluate available capacity in each high school
cluster and compare enrollment projected by Montgomery County Public Schools for each fiscal year
with projected school capacity in 5 years. If at any time during a fiscal year the County Council notifies
the Planning Board of any material change in the Montgomery County Public Schools Capital
Improvements Program, the Planning Board may revise its evaluation to reflect that change.
S4

Moratorium on Residential Subdivision Approvals

In considering whether a moratorium on residential subdivisions must be imposed, the Planning Board
must use 120% of Montgomery County Public Schools program capacity as its measure of adequate
school capacity. This utilization measure must not count relocatable classrooms in computing a school's
permanent capacity. If projected enrollment at any grade level in that cluster will exceed 120%
utilization, the Board must not approve any residential subdivision in that cluster during the next fiscal
year. If the Planning Board revises its measure of utilization during fiscal year 2013 because of a
material change in projected school capacity, that revision must be used during the rest of that fiscal year
in reviewing residential subdivisions.

- 18 -

Resolution No. _______

Table 3 shows the result of this test for July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. Table 3 also shows the remaining
capacity, in students, at each grade level in each cluster. Using average student generation rates
developed from the most recent Census Update Survey, the Planning Board must limit residential
subdivision approvals in any cluster during the fiscal year so that the students generated by the housing
units approved do not exceed the remaining capacity for students at any grade level in that cluster.
S5

Imposition of School Facilities Payment

In considering whether a School Facilities Payment must be imposed on a residential subdivision, the
Planning Board must use 105% of Montgomery County Public Schools program capacity as its measure
of adequate school capacity. This utilization measure must not count relocatable classrooms in
computing a school's permanent capacity. If projected enrollment at any grade level in that cluster will
exceed 105% utilization but not exceed 120% utilization, the Board may approve a residential
subdivision in that cluster during the next fiscal year if the applicant commits to pay a School Facilities
Payment as provided in County law before receiving a building permit for any building in that
subdivision. If the Planning Board revises its measure of utilization during fiscal year 2013 because of a
material change in projected school capacity, that revision must be used during the rest of that fiscal year
in reviewing residential subdivisions.
Table 4 shows the result of this test for July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. Table 4 also shows the remaining
capacity, in students, at each grade level in each cluster. Using average student generation rates
developed from the most recent Census Update Survey, the Planning Board must limit residential
subdivision approvals in any cluster during the fiscal year so that the students generated by the housing
units approved do not exceed the remaining capacity for students at any grade level in that cluster.
S6

Senior Housing

If public school capacity is inadequate in any cluster, the Planning Board may nevertheless approve a
subdivision in that cluster without requiring a School Facilities Payment if the subdivision consists
solely of housing and related facilities for elderly or handicapped persons or housing units located in the
age-restricted section of a planned retirement community.
S7

De Minimis Development

If public school capacity in inadequate in any cluster, the Planning Board may nevertheless approve a
subdivision in that cluster if the subdivision consists of no more than 3 housing units and the applicant
commits to pay a School Facilities Payment as otherwise required before receiving a building permit for
any building in that subdivision.
S8

Development District Participants

The Planning Board may require any development district for which it approves a provisional adequate
public facilities approval (PAPF) to produce or contribute to infrastructure improvements needed to
address inadequate school capacity.
S9

Allocation of Staging Ceiling to Preliminary Plans of Subdivision

- 19 -

Resolution No. _______

The Planning Board must allocate available staging ceiling capacity in a high school cluster based on the
queue date of an application for preliminary plan of subdivision approval.
S9.1

Assignment of queue date

The queue date of a preliminary plan of subdivision is the date:

a complete application is filed with the Planning Board; or
6 months after the prior queue date if the prior queue date expires under S9.4.

S9.2

Calculation of available staging ceiling capacity

The Planning Board must determine whether adequate staging ceiling capacity is available for a project
by subtracting the capacity required by projects with earlier queue dates from the remaining capacity on
Table 3 as updated periodically. Based on this calculation, the Planning Board may:
approve a project for which there is sufficient capacity;
approve part of a project for which there is sufficient capacity, leaving the remainder of the
project in the queue until additional capacity becomes available;
deny an application for a project for which there is insufficient capacity; or
defer approval of a project and leave the project in the queue until sufficient capacity becomes
available for all or part of the project. If insufficient capacity is available, the Board must not
schedule a hearing on the application unless the applicant requests one.
If sufficient capacity is available for a project based on the queue date, the Planning Board must not
deny an application based on pipeline (but not staging ceiling) changes while the queue date is in effect.
S9.3

Applicability of School Facilities Payment

The Planning Board must determine whether a project is required to pay a School Facilities Payment by
subtracting the capacity required by projects with earlier queue dates from the remaining capacity on
Table 4 as updated periodically. Based on this calculation, the Planning Board may:
approve a project for which there is sufficient capacity;
approve part of a project for which there is sufficient capacity, requiring the remainder of the
project to pay the applicable School Facilities Payment until additional capacity becomes
available; or
defer approval of a project and leave the project in the queue until sufficient capacity becomes
available for all or part of the project. If insufficient capacity is available, the Board must not
schedule a hearing on the application unless the applicant requests one.
If a project must pay a School Facilities Payment, the Planning Board must not deny an application
based on pipeline (but not staging ceiling) changes while the Payment requirement is in effect.
S9.4

Expiration of queue date

- 20 -

Resolution No. _______

A queue date for an application for preliminary plan of subdivision approval expires:
6 months after the queue date if sufficient staging ceiling capacity was available for the entire
project on the queue date and the Planning Board has not approved the application or granted an
extension of the queue date; or
6 months after sufficient capacity becomes available for the entire project.
The Planning Board may grant one or more 6-month extensions of a queue date if the applicant
demonstrates that a queue date expired or will expire because of governmental delay beyond the
applicant's control.

Guidelines for Water and Sewerage Facilities

In accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, applications must be considered
adequately served by water and sewerage if the subdivision is located in an area in which water and
sewer service is presently available, is under construction, is designated by the County Council for
extension of service within the first two years of a current approved Comprehensive Water Supply and
Sewerage Systems Plan (i.e., categories 1-3), or if the applicant either provides a community water
and/or sewerage system or meets Department of Permitting Services requirements for septic and/or well
systems, as outlined in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. These requirements are determined
either by reference to the Water and Sewerage Plan, adopted by the Council, or by obtaining a
satisfactory percolation test from the Department of Permitting Services.
Applications must only be accepted for further Planning staff and Board consideration if they present
evidence of meeting the appropriate requirements as described above.

Guidelines for Police, Fire and Health Services

The Planning Board and staff must consider the programmed services to be adequate for facilities such
as police stations, firehouses, and health clinics unless there is evidence that a local area problem will be
generated. Such a problem is one which cannot be overcome within the context of the approved Capital
Improvements Program and operating budgets of the relevant agencies. Where such evidence exists,
either through agency response to the Subdivision Review committee clearinghouse, or through public
commentary or Planning staff consideration, a Local Area Review must be undertaken. The Board must
seek a written opinion from the relevant agency, and require, if necessary, additional data from the
applicant, to facilitate the completion of the Planning staff recommendation within the statutory time
frame for Planning Board action. In performing this Local Area Review, the facility capacity at the end
of the sixth year of the approved CIP must be compared to the demand generated by the "most probable"
forecast for the same year prepared by the Planning Department.

Guidelines for Resubdivisions

- 21 -

Resolution No. _______

An application to amend a previously approved preliminary plan of subdivision does not require a new
test for adequacy of public facilities if:
Revisions to a preliminary plan have not been recorded, the preliminary plan has not expired,
and the number of trips which will be produced by the revised plan is not greater than the
number of trips produced by the original plan.
Resubdivision of a recorded lot involves the sale or exchange of parcels of land (not to exceed a
total of 2,000 square feet or one percent of the combined area, whichever is greater) between
owners of adjoining properties to make small adjustments in boundaries.
Resubdivision of a recorded lot involves more than 2,000 square feet or one percent of the lot
area and the number of trips which will be produced by the revised plan is not greater than the
number of trips produced by the original plan.

Timely Adequate Public Facilities Determination and Local Area Transportation Review under
Chapter 8.
APF1

General.

Except as otherwise provided by law, an adequate public facilities determination or local area
transportation review conducted under Article IV of Chapter 8 must use the standards and criteria
applicable under this Resolution when evaluating the adequacy of public facilities to serve the proposed
development.
APF2

Traffic Mitigation Goals.

Any proposed development that is subject to requirements for a traffic mitigation agreement under
Article IV of Chapter 8 and 42A-9A of the County Code must meet the traffic mitigation goals
specified in paragraphs (1) or (4), as appropriate.
(1)

Subject to paragraph (2), the portion of peak-period non-auto driver trips by employees of a
proposed development must be at least the following percentage greater than the prevailing
non-auto driver mode share of comparable nearby land use:
In Policy Areas With
LATR CLV Standard of
1800 and 1600
1550
1500
1475 and 1450

Required Percentage Greater Than

Prevailing Non-Auto driver Mode Share
100%
80%
60%
40%

LATR CLV standards for each policy area are shown on Table 2.
(2)

The portion of peak-period non-auto driver trips by employees calculated under paragraph
(1) must not be less than 15% nor higher than 55%.

- 22 -

Resolution No. _______

(3)

The applicant for a proposed development in a policy area specified under paragraph (1) is
responsible for reviewing existing studies of non-auto driver mode share; conducting new
studies, as necessary, of non-auto driver mode share; and identifying the prevailing base nonauto driver mode share of comparable land uses within the area identified for the traffic
study. Comparable land uses are improved sites within the area identified for the traffic
study for the proposed development that have similar existing land use and trip generation
characteristics. As with other aspects of the traffic study required by Article IV of Chapter 8,
selection of the comparable studies and land uses to be analyzed and determination of the
prevailing base non-auto driver mode share are subject to review by the Planning Department
and approval by the Department of Transportation.

(4)

Proposed development in the Silver Spring CBD must meet the commuting goals specified
under TL4.

(5)

In accordance with County Code 42A-9A, the applicant must enter into an agreement with
the Director of the Department of Transportation before a building permit is issued. The
agreement may include a schedule for full compliance with the traffic mitigation goals. It
must provide appropriate enforcement mechanisms for compliance.

(6)

As provided by law, these goals supersede traffic mitigation goals established under 42A9A(a)(4).

(7)

As noted in paragraph (5), traffic mitigation agreements are used to assure compliance with
reductions in traffic generation from a subdivision, or to achieve non-auto driver mode share
goals specified in approved master or sector plans. The Director of Transportation must
determine whether a security instrument is required to assure completion and continuation of
the elements of a traffic mitigation agreement. When the Director so finds, the Department
must require a security instrument to be attached to an agreement. Each security instrument
must be held by the Department until performance of each element of the agreement has been
satisfied. If the developer or its successor is unable to satisfactorily perform each element of
an agreement as specified therein, the security instrument must be forfeited and the
Department may retain the funds to operate a program to satisfy the agreements goals.

This is a correct copy of Council action.

_________________________
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council

- 23 -

Resolution No. _______

Table 1- Results of TPAR Test, January 1, 2013-June 30, 2014
Policy Area
Aspen Hill
Bethesda CBD
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Damascus
Derwood
Fairland/Colesville
Friendship Heights
Gaithersburg City*
Germantown East
Germantown Town Center
Germantown West
Glenmont
Grosvenor
Kensington/Wheaton
Montgomery Village/Airpark
North Bethesda
North Potomac
Olney
Potomac**
R&D Village
Rockville City*
Shady Grove
Silver Spring CBD
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
White Oak

Adequacy Status
Adequate under Roadway and Transit Tests
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway and Transit Tests
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Roadway and Transit Tests
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Roadway Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Adequate under Roadway Test; exempt from Transit Test
Inadequate under Roadway and Transit Tests

*Applies to any development that would be located in the policy area but not in the City.
**Under applicable master plans, the Potomac policy area is exempt from the Roadway Test.
The White Flint MSPA and the Rural East and Rural West policy areas are exempt from both the
Roadway and Transit Tests.

- 24 -

Resolution No. _______

Table 2
Local Area Transportation Review Intersection Congestion Standards Critical Lane Volume
and Highway Capacity Manual Volume-to- Capacity Equivalencies
Critical Lane Volume
Congestion Standard
1350
1400
1425

1450

1475

1500
1550
1600

1650
1800

Policy Area
Rural East/ West
Damascus
Clarksburg
Germantown East
Germantown West
Gaithersburg City
Montgomery Village/Airpark
Cloverly
North Potomac
Potomac
Olney
R&D Village
Derwood
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Rockville City
North Bethesda
Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Kensington/Wheaton
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
Germantown Town Center
White Oak
Shady Grove
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
Wheaton CBD
Friendship Heights CBD
White Flint
Twinbrook
Grosvenor
Glenmont
Shady Grove
Rockville Town Center

- 25 -

HCM volume-to-capacity
equivalent
0.84
0.88
0.89

0.91

0.92

0.94
0.97
1.00

1.03
1.13

Appendix 1. ITE Vehicle Trip Generation Rate Adjustment Factors

(note: Policy Areas to be rearranged by ascending number when finalized)

Policy Area #
2
Aspen Hill
3
Bethesda CBD
4
Bethesda/Chevy Chase
6
Cloverly
7
Damascus
8
Derwood
11
Gaithersburg City
12
Germantown East
14
Germantown West
13
Germantown Town Center
17
Kensington/Wheaton
18
Montgomery Village/Airpark
19
North Bethesda
20
North Potomac
21
Olney
22
Potomac
23
R&D Village
24
Rockville City
29
Silver Spring CBD
30
Silver Spring/Takoma Park
32
Wheaton CBD
16
Grosvenor
31
Twinbrook
33
White Flint
15
Glenmont
5
Clarksburg
28
Shady Grove Metro Station
10
Friendship Heights
25
Rockville Town Center
27
Rural West
26
Rural East
34
White Oak
9
Fairland/Colesville

ITE Vehicle Trip Adjustment Factors

Residential
Office
97%
98%
79%
63%
87%
81%
99%
100%
100%
100%
94%
94%
88%
86%
95%
90%
93%
87%
85%
89%
91%
92%
93%
100%
83%
87%
97%
100%
99%
100%
97%
98%
89%
88%
88%
94%
77%
65%
83%
83%
85%
85%
81%
84%
81%
80%
79%
78%
90%
91%
100%
100%
89%
88%
78%
70%
79%
80%
100%
100%
99%
99%
89%
90%
96%
96%

Retail
99%
61%
85%
100%
100%
87%
74%
95%
92%
77%
96%
93%
71%
100%
99%
96%
80%
87%
58%
82%
76%
75%
74%
72%
96%
100%
77%
73%
70%
100%
98%
91%
99%

Other
97%
62%
79%
100%
100%
94%
85%
91%
88%
88%
92%
100%
82%
100%
100%
98%
90%
98%
65%
84%
84%
80%
79%
78%
91%
100%
88%
70%
79%
100%
100%
88%
97%

Appendix 2. Trips by Mode for Developments With Significant Impact

(note: Policy Areas to be rearranged by ascending number when finalized)

Policy Area #
2
Aspen Hill

Bethesda CBD

Bethesda/Chevy Chase

Cloverly

Damascus

Derwood

11

Gaithersburg City

12

Germantown East

14

Germantown West

13

Germantown Town Center

17

Kensington/Wheaton

18

Montgomery Village/Airpark

19

North Bethesda

20

North Potomac

21

Olney

Development Type
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other

Auto Driver
31.3
37.1
36.1
37.0
38.2
35.9
33.2
35.5
28.1
30.9
30.8
30.2
32.1
38.4
36.4
38.3
32.7
38.1
36.3
38.0
30.5
35.7
31.7
35.7
28.4
32.7
26.8
32.2
30.7
34.0
34.5
34.5
30.2
33.1
33.2
33.5
27.6
33.8
28.1
33.5
29.5
34.8
34.9
34.9
30.0
38.8
33.9
38.7
26.9
32.9
25.8
31.2
31.5
37.9
36.2
37.9
32.1
38.1
36.1
38.1

Auto
Passenger
12.9
9.1
11.7
9.1
15.6
9.5
12.7
9.9
11.8
8.7
12.3
8.5
13.2
9.5
12.5
9.6
13.3
10.2
12.7
10.2
13.3
10.2
14.4
10.2
13.4
11.7
16.3
12.2
13.4
12.1
13.3
11.7
13.4
12.5
13.8
11.8
13.6
10.0
15.0
10.2
12.7
9.3
11.9
9.3
13.4
7.6
12.6
7.6
13.0
9.2
14.2
9.8
13.5
9.3
12.0
9.4
13.2
9.7
12.4
9.8

Transit
2.7
1.4
0.7
1.3
8.8
17.8
8.2
17.3
3.8
5.8
1.6
6.3
1.7
0.4
0.1
0.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
1.8
1.1
1.9
2.7
2.0
1.2
1.9
2.2
1.4
0.7
1.3
2.1
1.6
0.6
1.7
2.8
2.7
1.7
2.8
4.1
3.0
1.0
2.8
2.3
1.5
0.9
1.4
4.0
4.3
3.0
4.7
1.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.3

NonMotorized
3.2
2.4
1.6
2.6
12.5
11.8
20.9
12.3
6.3
4.6
5.2
4.9
3.0
1.7
1.0
1.7
2.9
1.7
1.0
1.7
3.4
2.3
2.8
2.3
5.6
3.5
5.0
3.7
3.7
2.4
1.5
2.4
4.3
2.9
2.4
3.1
5.9
3.6
5.2
3.5
3.7
2.8
2.2
2.9
4.3
2.1
2.7
2.3
6.1
3.6
7.0
4.3
3.5
2.4
1.5
2.2
3.0
1.8
1.3
1.8

Total
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0

22

Potomac

23

R&D Village

24

Rockville City

29

Silver Spring CBD

30

Silver Spring/Takoma Park

32

Wheaton CBD

16

Grosvenor

31

Twinbrook

33

White Flint

15

Glenmont

Clarksburg

28

Shady Grove Metro Station

10

Friendship Heights

25

Rockville Town Center

27

Rural West

26

Rural East

34

White Oak

Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential

31.3
37.2
34.9
37.4
28.7
33.4
29.0
34.4
28.4
35.8
31.4
37.3
37.6
37.2
31.8
36.9
27.0
31.5
29.7
31.9
41.5
48.2
41.1
48.1
39.2
47.6
41.0
45.8
39.2
45.6
40.2
45.1
38.6
44.4
39.1
44.6
43.8
52.1
52.1
51.8
32.2
38.3
36.2
38.1
43.3
50.3
41.9
50.2
37.7
39.8
39.6
40.1
38.5
45.4
38.3
44.9
32.4
38.0
36.3
38.1
32.0
37.7
35.6
37.9
28.9

13.4
9.6
12.8
9.7
13.6
11.7
17.0
11.2
13.3
8.7
12.8
7.7
14.1
6.8
9.5
6.5
10.5
5.4
8.6
5.3
18.6
11.3
18.9
11.3
19.3
12.4
20.6
12.9
19.6
12.9
20.8
13.1
19.7
13.4
21.2
13.4
18.6
12.6
17.0
12.7
13.6
10.0
12.9
10.2
19.8
15.5
21.9
15.5
14.6
7.4
11.5
7.3
19.0
12.5
19.9
12.7
14.1
10.2
12.9
10.1
14.1
10.3
13.4
10.1
12.9

2.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
2.9
2.2
1.0
1.9
3.2
2.7
1.7
2.4
10.2
19.9
15.7
20.1
5.0
7.5
3.4
7.0
8.7
9.8
5.7
9.8
8.9
10.0
6.3
11.6
7.3
10.3
5.4
10.4
8.0
10.8
6.2
10.5
7.5
6.1
3.0
6.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
5.1
2.9
5.4
11.6
18.4
8.9
17.9
6.7
9.2
5.1
9.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
3.9

3.2
2.1
1.4
1.9
4.8
2.7
3.0
2.5
5.1
2.8
4.1
2.6
13.1
11.1
18.0
11.4
7.5
5.6
8.2
5.8
6.2
5.6
9.3
5.7
7.5
5.1
7.1
4.8
8.8
6.3
8.6
6.4
8.7
6.4
8.5
6.4
5.1
4.2
2.9
4.2
2.9
1.7
1.0
1.7
5.4
4.2
8.3
3.9
11.1
9.5
14.9
9.7
10.9
7.9
11.7
8.1
2.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
2.6
1.8
0.9
1.8
4.3

50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0

Fairland/Colesville

Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other

34.3
32.9
33.5
31.1
36.5
35.8
37.0

11.3
14.0
11.9
13.0
9.9
12.2
9.7

1.7
1.0
1.7
2.4
1.4
0.5
1.2

2.7
2.1
2.9
3.5
2.2
1.6
2.1

50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0

Appendix 3. Mode Split Assumptions by Policy Area

(note: Policy Areas to be rearranged by ascending number when finalized)

Policy Area #
2
Aspen Hill

Bethesda CBD

Bethesda/Chevy Chase

Cloverly

Damascus

Derwood

11

Gaithersburg City

12

Germantown East

14

Germantown West

13

Germantown Town Center

17

Kensington/Wheaton

18

Montgomery Village/Airpark

19

North Bethesda

20

North Potomac

21

Olney

Development Type
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other

Auto Driver
62.5%
74.2%
72.1%
74.0%
50.9%
47.9%
44.2%
47.3%
56.1%
61.8%
61.6%
60.5%
64.1%
76.8%
72.8%
76.5%
65.4%
76.1%
72.5%
76.1%
61.0%
71.4%
63.4%
71.3%
56.7%
65.4%
53.5%
64.4%
61.5%
68.0%
69.1%
69.1%
60.4%
66.1%
66.4%
66.9%
55.3%
67.6%
56.2%
67.0%
59.1%
69.6%
69.8%
69.8%
59.9%
77.7%
67.7%
77.4%
53.8%
65.8%
51.6%
62.4%
63.0%
75.7%
72.4%
75.8%
64.3%
76.3%
72.1%
76.3%

Auto
Passenger
25.8%
18.2%
23.4%
18.2%
20.8%
12.6%
16.9%
13.2%
23.6%
17.4%
24.7%
17.1%
26.4%
19.0%
25.1%
19.2%
26.6%
20.3%
25.5%
20.4%
26.6%
20.4%
28.7%
20.4%
26.8%
23.5%
32.7%
24.5%
26.9%
24.3%
26.7%
23.4%
26.9%
24.9%
27.6%
23.6%
27.2%
19.9%
30.1%
20.5%
25.4%
18.6%
23.8%
18.7%
26.8%
15.1%
25.1%
15.1%
25.9%
18.4%
28.4%
19.5%
27.1%
18.6%
24.1%
18.8%
26.4%
19.4%
24.8%
19.5%

Transit
5.3%
2.9%
1.3%
2.5%
11.7%
23.8%
10.9%
23.0%
7.6%
11.5%
3.2%
12.6%
3.5%
0.7%
0.2%
0.8%
2.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
5.6%
3.6%
2.2%
3.7%
5.4%
4.1%
2.4%
3.8%
4.3%
2.8%
1.3%
2.7%
4.1%
3.1%
1.2%
3.3%
5.7%
5.4%
3.3%
5.7%
8.1%
6.1%
2.1%
5.6%
4.6%
2.9%
1.7%
2.8%
8.0%
8.6%
6.1%
9.4%
3.0%
0.8%
0.6%
1.0%
3.3%
0.7%
0.5%
0.7%

NonMotorized
6.4%
4.7%
3.2%
5.2%
16.6%
15.7%
27.9%
16.5%
12.6%
9.3%
10.5%
9.9%
5.9%
3.5%
2.0%
3.4%
5.8%
3.5%
1.9%
3.5%
6.8%
4.5%
5.7%
4.6%
11.1%
7.1%
10.0%
7.3%
7.3%
4.9%
3.0%
4.8%
8.6%
5.8%
4.8%
6.2%
11.8%
7.1%
10.4%
6.9%
7.4%
5.7%
4.3%
5.9%
8.6%
4.3%
5.4%
4.7%
12.3%
7.3%
14.0%
8.7%
7.0%
4.8%
2.9%
4.4%
6.1%
3.6%
2.6%
3.5%

Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

22

Potomac

23

R&D Village

24

Rockville City

29

Silver Spring CBD

30

Silver Spring/Takoma Park

32

Wheaton CBD

16

Grosvenor

31

Twinbrook

33

White Flint

15

Glenmont

Clarksburg

28

Shady Grove Metro Station

10

Friendship Heights

25

Rockville Town Center

27

Rural West

26

Rural East

34

White Oak

Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other
Residential

62.6%
74.4%
69.8%
74.8%
57.3%
66.7%
58.0%
68.8%
56.8%
71.7%
62.8%
74.7%
50.1%
49.6%
42.4%
49.2%
54.0%
63.0%
59.5%
63.8%
55.3%
64.3%
54.8%
64.2%
52.3%
63.4%
54.7%
61.0%
52.3%
60.8%
53.6%
60.2%
51.4%
59.2%
52.2%
59.5%
58.4%
69.5%
69.5%
69.1%
64.5%
76.5%
72.3%
76.2%
57.7%
67.0%
55.9%
66.9%
50.3%
53.0%
52.8%
53.4%
51.3%
60.5%
51.0%
59.9%
64.8%
76.0%
72.6%
76.1%
64.0%
75.4%
71.2%
75.8%
57.9%

26.8%
19.3%
25.7%
19.5%
27.3%
23.5%
34.1%
22.4%
26.6%
17.4%
25.6%
15.3%
18.8%
9.0%
12.6%
8.7%
21.0%
10.7%
17.2%
10.5%
24.9%
15.0%
25.2%
15.1%
25.8%
16.5%
27.5%
17.2%
26.2%
17.2%
27.8%
17.5%
26.3%
17.8%
28.3%
17.9%
24.8%
16.8%
22.7%
16.9%
27.1%
20.0%
25.7%
20.3%
26.4%
20.6%
29.2%
20.6%
19.4%
9.9%
15.4%
9.7%
25.3%
16.7%
26.5%
16.9%
28.2%
20.4%
25.7%
20.3%
28.2%
20.6%
26.8%
20.2%
25.8%

4.1%
2.2%
1.8%
2.1%
5.7%
4.4%
2.0%
3.8%
6.3%
5.4%
3.3%
4.8%
13.6%
26.6%
20.9%
26.8%
10.1%
15.1%
6.9%
14.0%
11.6%
13.1%
7.6%
13.1%
11.9%
13.3%
8.4%
15.4%
9.7%
13.7%
7.2%
13.9%
10.7%
14.4%
8.2%
14.0%
10.0%
8.2%
4.0%
8.4%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.7%
6.8%
3.8%
7.2%
15.4%
24.5%
11.8%
23.9%
8.9%
12.3%
6.8%
12.4%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
2.6%
0.3%
0.1%
0.5%
7.8%

6.5%
4.1%
2.7%
3.7%
9.7%
5.4%
6.0%
5.1%
10.2%
5.5%
8.2%
5.1%
17.5%
14.9%
24.0%
15.2%
14.9%
11.2%
16.4%
11.6%
8.2%
7.5%
12.4%
7.6%
10.0%
6.8%
9.5%
6.3%
11.8%
8.3%
11.4%
8.5%
11.6%
8.5%
11.3%
8.6%
6.8%
5.6%
3.9%
5.6%
5.9%
3.5%
2.0%
3.5%
7.1%
5.5%
11.1%
5.2%
14.8%
12.6%
19.9%
13.0%
14.5%
10.5%
15.6%
10.8%
5.2%
3.6%
1.7%
3.5%
5.3%
3.7%
1.9%
3.6%
8.5%

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%

Fairland/Colesville

Office
Retail
Other
Residential
Office
Retail
Other

68.7%
65.7%
66.9%
62.3%
73.0%
71.6%
73.9%

22.6%
28.0%
23.9%
25.9%
19.8%
24.3%
19.4%

3.3%
2.0%
3.4%
4.9%
2.8%
1.0%
2.5%

5.4%
4.3%
5.8%
6.9%
4.3%
3.1%
4.2%

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%