0% found this document useful (0 votes)

26 views

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG) Tuesday June 7, 2016 Meeting #15 MRO Auditorium 1:30-3:30 PM

The document outlines the agenda and discussion topics for a meeting of the Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group regarding the 2016 Subdivision Staging Policy. Key items to be discussed include proposed revisions to the policy area classification system in response to public comments, clarifying that LATR (Local Area Transportation Review) considers all travel modes and not just automobiles, setting standards for determining adequacy of transportation facilities, and refining how roadway congestion is defined.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

26 views

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG) Tuesday June 7, 2016 Meeting #15 MRO Auditorium 1:30-3:30 PM

Uploaded by

Planning Docs

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 22

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG)

Tuesday June 7, 2016 Meeting #15

MRO Auditorium
1:30-3:30 PM
Agenda
1) Introductions (10 min)
a) Status of SSP Public Hearing Testimony and Draft Responses
b) Public Hearing Draft (for reference) is here:
http://montgomeryplanning.org/research/subdivision_staging_policy/documents/2016SSPPubli
cHearingDraft_051716_final.pdf
c) Remaining agenda items focus on draft response to public hearing comments
2) Policy Area Classification (20 min)
a) NADMS accuracy
b) Classification definition / terminology, process for revision as areas evolve
c) Implications of changing definitions (technical / policy)
d) Schools / transportation equivalency
3) Policy Area Test (20 min)
a) Definition of adequacy
b) Definition of inadequacy (new model results with full BRT included)
4) Local Area Test (30 min)
a) LATR is multimodal
b) Definition of adequacy for delay-based or network-based approaches
c) Why limit CLV screening to 1350+10 CLV
d) How applicant action is affected by site location as contrasted with intersection location
e) Inclusion of primary streets in definition of congestion
5) Impact Taxes (20 min)
a) Consideration of independent modal tests
b) Elimination of exemption for former enterprise zones
6) Updates on parallel efforts (10 min)
a) White Oak
b) TDM / TMAgs
7) Next steps and tentative meetings schedule (10 min)
a) Any additional written testimony due June 9
b) Transportation worksessions June 9 and June 16 (followed by schools in late June)
c) Board action expected June 30.

1
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
June 5, 2016

2016 Subdivision Staging Policy

TISTWG 6/7/16

Draft Review of Worksession #1 on 6/9/16

R E COMME NDATI ON # 1

Reflect: current land use patterns, travel modes,

and planning vision.

Organize the County Policy Areas into four (4) key

categories described as follows and depicted in the map
below:
Core: Down County Central Business Districts and Metro Station
Policy Areas characterized by high-density development and the
availability of premium transit service (i.e., Metrorail/MARC).

Corridor: Emerging Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas

where premium transit service (i.e., Corridor Cities Transitway,
Purple Line/Bus Rapid Transit) is planned.
Wedge: The low-density residential areas of the County.

Rural: The Countys agricultural and rural wedge.

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Reflect: current land use patterns, travel modes,

and planning vision.

Testimony related to Recommendation #1

A. Policy area classification
Terminology
Definition of areas in I-270 corridor
Evolution of classification over time
B. Concern about Non-Auto Driver Mode
Share (NADMS) definitions
C. Schools/transportation equivalency

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern A. Policy Area Classification

Proposed classification synthesizes:

Current and vision
For planning, the key is where do we
want to be in 25 years?
For implementation, the key is where
are we starting from?
Initially grouped by significant differences
in placetypes for analysis of VMT, NADMS,
transit accessibility
Final definition also reflects policy:
Clarksburg Town Center
Metropolitan Grove?

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern A. Policy Area Classification

Should all the Metro Station Policy Areas
(MSPAs) be considered equivalent Core
Areas?
Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Friendship
Heights are already Multimodal
Centers
Twinbrook and White Flint will get
there by 2040
No other MSPA comes close in
having the level of both NADMS and
density (which promotes walking and
biking in addition to transit for
NADMS)
5

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern A. Policy Area Classification

Concern: Terminology
Should support General Plan concepts but
not be confusing or conflicting

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern A. Policy Area Classification

Concern: Terminology
Clarification: We are blending classic planning
Ds of
- Density
- Diversity
- Design
- Distance to Transit
- Distance to Core
The first three are characteristics of
multimodal, mixed-use Centers
The last two may be characteristics of
Centers, or of more residential Communities
7

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern A. Policy Area Classification

Concern: Terminology
Clarification: The Corridor type reflects
two different type of places, synthesizing
classic planning Ds of
- Density
- Diversity
- Design
- Distance to Transit
- Distance to Core
The first three are characteristics of
multimodal, mixed-use Centers
The last two may be characteristics of more
residential Communities
8

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern A. Policy Area Classification

Concern: Terminology
Suggested revisions:
Core becomes: Downcounty Centers
Corridor becomes:
Urban Ring Communities
Corridor Transit Centers
Wedge becomes:
Corridor Communities
Residential Communities
Rural retains label as Rural
Additional Corridor Transit Centers such as
Metropolitan Grove should be considered by
municipalities for impact tax purposes based on
master planned BRT service, minimum threshold
acreage and planned activity unit density

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern B. NADMS Definition

Definitions do vary across different

sources, mostly regarding trip purposes,
treatment of auto passengers, telework,
and day(s) of survey
Key is understanding comparison of like
data points from place to place and/or
from time to time, using a consistent
measure, for categorization or tracking
In example at right, removing telework
(which is a desirable travel reduction tool)
from definition drops NADMS fairly
consistently from place to place
Data sampling uses state of the practice
approaches for observations and
monitoring
1
0

R E C OMME NDAT I ON # 1

Concern C. Synthesizing Transportation and

Schools
TBD

1
1

R E COMME NDATI ON # 1

Recommendation # 1 revised
For example:

Options to address issues raised in testimony

Comment 1
Response to 1

Core: Down County Central Business Districts and Metro

Station Policy Areas characterized by high-density
development and the availability of premium transit service
(i.e., Metrorail/MARC).

Comment 2
Response to 2

New name for Corridor (looks more like an Inner Ring):

Emerging Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas
where premium transit service (i.e., Corridor Cities
Transitway, Purple Line/Bus Rapid Transit) is planned.
New name for Wedge (because it includes the current
corridor and this is confusing): The low-density residential
areas of the County.
(Should there be a fifth category to distinguish current
corridor from residential wedge)

Rural: The Countys agricultural and rural wedge.

1
2

R E COMME NDATI ON # 2

LATR: Clarify Multimodal Status: Based on testimony that

LATR is auto only
Auto: Required for all LATR studies
Transit: Required if more than 50 transit trips generated
Pedestrian: Required if more than 100 pedestrian trips generated
(including transit trips that are pedestrian trips en route to transit)
Bicycle: Required for Pedestrian analyses near bicycle trip
generators (planned bikeshare stations and schools)

All LATR studies must:

Include a qualitative pedestrian/bicycle impact statement which

is part of the current Guidelines

Describe the approach to mitigation based on considering the

following priorities: TDM, ped/bike, transit, and auto
improvements

1
3

R E COMME NDATI ON # 2

LATR: Clarify Multimodal Status: Based on testimony that

All LATR studies must:

Include a qualitative pedestrian/bicycle impact statement which

is part of the current Guidelines

Describe the approach to mitigation based on considering the

following priorities: TDM, ped/bike, transit, and auto
improvements

1
4

R E COMME NDATI ON # 3

LATR: Clarify Pass/Fail Status for Delay-Based Analyses

For CLVs up to 1600, relationship is based on 2010 Highway

Capacity Manual. For CLV standard of 1800 relationship is based on
extension of HCM curve.

If Policy Area CLV

Standard Is

.Then Intersection or
Network Vehicle Delay
Standard Is

1300 (LOS C/D boundary)

35 seconds per vehicle

1450 (LOS D/E boundary)

55 seconds per vehicle

1600 (LOS E/F boundary)

80 seconds per vehicle

1800 (MSPA standard)

120 seconds per vehicle

For intersections in road code urban areas, mitigation must not

increase the total amount of pedestrian time required to wait and
walk to cross the street.
For mitigation that includes transit priority, delays to be weighted
for person trips by vehicle.

1
5

R E COMME NDATI ON # 4

LATR: Clarify Reduced Reliance on CLVs

Currently, operational analysis only required for CLVs above 1600.

Proposal to drop the thresholds to 1350 the lowest (Rural) Policy
Area standard.
Some commenters want greater reliance on CLV so that an
operational analysis would only be required if CLV exceeded Policy
Area Standard between 1350 and 1600.
Most CLVs in the County are below 1350; CLV remains an
appropriate screening tool for these locations. See chart with x axis
as latitude: downcounty to left and upcounty to right of chart.
Given concerns regarding the potential for significant congestion
even if CLV is less than the current standard, retain proposed 1350
standard for triggering operational or network analysis.
Purpose of +10 is to only require operational analysis when an
intersection between 1350 and 1600 CLV is being substantially
affected by the applicants traffic.

1
6

R E COMME NDATI ON # 5

LATR: Refine Definition of Congested Roadway

Recommendation: A network analysis (that considers upstream and

downstream queuing) can be triggered if the location is on a
congested arterial where a published monitoring report shows the
travel time index is greater than 2.0.

Staff concurs with testimony that the intersection need not be on

an arterial roadway if a published monitoring report includes other
classes of roadway.

1
7

R E COMME NDATI ON # 6

A
LATR: Clarify Action Based on Location of Site vs
Intersection

Adjacent Policy
Area CLV
Standard = 1600

LATR adequacy defined based on the intersection location

regardless of the development site.
Under current rules, the applicant must mitigate any impacts at both
locations A (to achieve 1600 CLV) and B (to achieve 1800 CLV)

SITE

As proposed:
-

Applicant would only mitigate for location A and would pay for
County to improve location B

As suggested:
-

MSPA
CLV
Standard
= 1800

Applicant should also only pay for County to improve location

A, based on intent to streamline development in desired MSPA
location.

1
8

R E COMME NDATI ON # 7

Impact Tax: Develop Separate Tax Rates for Each Mode

The current impact tax is not mode specific. It is assessed based on

estimates of vehicular impact but can be spent on any of a wide
variety of roadway, ped/bike, or transit projects.
The Public Hearing Draft proposes to change the calculation
methods to reflect multimodal inputs such as NADMS and trip
length such as VMT, but retains the single factor.
Testimony suggests having separate impact taxes for each mode.
Recommendation is to retain the current approach for three
reasons:
-

Assessing mode-specific taxes based on demand suggests

expenditures should be similarly tracked more appropriate to
assign expenditures based on policy.

Smaller bins for assessing taxes, whether geographic or

functional, result in lumpier assessments from one area to
another

Pragmatic approach for managing calculation and expenditures

for what is a relatively small amount of revenue relative to total

1
9

R E COMME NDATI ON # 8

Impact Tax: Base Tax Rates on Trips, Not Land Use

The current impact tax is based on building size (GSF or DU). The
proposed rates reflect multimodal trends associated with the
different Policy Area and land use classifications to build in general
context-sensitivity.
Testimony suggested that applicants could reduce their impact taxes
through other TDM approaches (in addition to the parking
reduction factor).
Recommendation is to allow applicants to propose a customized,
reduced impact tax rate (as is the case with LATR trip generation
rates) only if they enter into a binding TMAg to monitor their TDM
success :
-