Roundtable with the Montgomery County Planning Board

Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR-12) Refinement Status Update

Support to MNCPPC for Refinements of the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) Process and the draft Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR) Process March 8, 2012
3-8-12

Overview of the Topics for Discussion

Introductions including purpose of the TPAR-12 refinement process (Eric Graye) Status of Key Parts of the TPAR-12 Refinement Process (Bob Winick)

Cooperative Coordination Activities with MCDOT (Eric Graye)

Next Steps and Project Schedule (Mary Dolan)

Status of the Refinement Study for the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) Procedures (Paul Silberman)
3-8-12

Purpose of the TPAR-12 Refinement

Revise the areawide transportation review process

Based on Policy Area Review proposed by MCDOT and County Executive Leggett (TPAR-10);
Improve transparency of the methodology

Improve the ability to forecast needed improvements

3-8-12

Regulating Development Improving Transportation

APFO and Annual Growth Policy each had a duality: Primarily a regulatory review and approval process Secondarily giving annual guidance about needed transportation improvements in the CIP and CTP TPAR-10: emphasized identifying transportation improvements and their funding

TPAR-12: is being refined so that it is regulatory as well as a transportation improvement focused coordination and funding process
3-8-12

Key Parts of the TPAR-12 Refinement

Implement the concepts proposed in TPAR-10 Transform TPAR-12 to be an element of the Subdivision Staging Policy
1. Identify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions 2. Identify Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions

Subdivision Staging Policy Document

3. Allocate Costs

TPAR-12
4. Program Public / Private Commitments

Refinements

5. Monitor and Report

Exhibit 2.1: Parts of the Proposed Transportation Policy Area Review Process (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

3-8-12

Cover the Status of Several Parts of TPAR-12

Benchmarking to processes of Peer Jurisdictions Part 1: Identify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions Part 2: Identify Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions Parts 3 and 4 to be covered in next Topic on Coordination Part 5: Monitor and Report Working on countywide as well as Policy Area-byPolicy Area summaries for transit and roads

3-8-12

Areawide Transportation Review Processes

Sampled ten peer jurisdictions that have some type of areawide procedure (many state-based) Researched LATR procedures there and elsewhere
Growth Management Act: Concurrency Reviews
King Co. WA Vancouver City; Clark Co. WA
Portland, OR

Urban Growth Boundaries

Boulder, CO

Boston, MA Westchester, Co. NY

Baltimore City Santa Clara Co. CA

Montgomery Co. MD
Rockville City Alexandria, VA

Congestion Management Programs

Adequate Public Facility Ordinances

Orlando. FL Broward Co. FL (FDOT Dist 4) Miami Dade Co. FL

Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) 3-8-12

Seven Main Features Assessed

1. Cumulative Impacts vs. Development of Regional Impact 2. A. Jurisdictional Coverage; Area vs. Corridor Coverage B. Corridor-by-Corridor Summaries

3. A. Time Frame of the Assessment of Areawide Impact B. TPAR Adequacy Assessment Frequency 4. When During the Development Process Does Adequacy get Assessed Linkages 5. Use of Public/Private Funding for Transportation Programs and Projects 6. Transit Adequacy Methods 7. A. Increased Monitoring of Roadway Travel Times and Speeds using an Operations Orientation B. New Monitoring for Transit Travel Times and Speeds using an Operations Orientation
3-8-12

3A. Time Frame of the Assessment of Areawide Impact

Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR)
Pipeline of Development Housing 5 Jobs 10 15 20 Years of Development

For many years the housing pipeline equated to about 5 to 10 years of development; while jobs equated to about 10 to 15 years of development

Proposed Trans. Policy Area Review (TPAR-10)

Potential TPAR-12 Refinement #3a

Cooperative Forecasts of Development

2018 2022 Housing Jobs

2042 Master Plan Development

Assessment of CIP/CTP Coord- Conditional Deficiencies Subdivision Staging Policy Assessment ination plus listing of program and against 6-year CIP/CTP Over- project recommendations; a Regulatory Focus -- a Transportation lap Improvement Focus

Master Plan time frame used in Cost Allocation Process

Concurrency Reviews at King Co., WA; Vancouver, WA

3-8-12

Monitoring of Arterial Corridor Travel Times

Year-by-Year Monitoring

Annual Monitoring for Concurrency Assessments of the Roadway Operations of Selected Corridors

3B. TPAR Adequacy Assessment Frequency

Subdivision Staging Policy changed to once every 4 years raises the issue of will new policy updates be current enough Next assessment (2016) would not give current transportation improvement guidance to the intervening CIP and CTP reviews
Trans. Policy Area Review (TPAR-12)
Trans. Policy Area Review (TPAR-16)
Cooperative Forecasts of Development 2018 2022 Housing Jobs 2042 Master Plan Development

4-year Gap not sufficient for regulatory focused or transportation improvement focused guidance
Cooperative Forecasts of Development 2022 2026 Housing Jobs 2046 Master Plan Development

Subdivision Staging Policy should keep but put less emphasis on denial of development if inadequacies; rather put more emphasis on identifying and removing future Conditional Deficiencies Refine TPAR to have it focus on identifying Conditional Deficiencies once every 2 years; put more resources into analyzing solutions that attains adequacy more quickly and maintains it
Potential TPAR-12 Refinement #3b

3-8-12

5A. Use of Public/Private Funding for Transportation Programs and Projects

1978 Statewide Proposition 13 Referendum 1990 Congestion Management Program (CMP); with new Agencies (CMA) in about 30 Counties Plus: Local Option Sales Taxes; Gas Tax Subventions to Trans. Plus: Land Use Impact Analysis Program with Annual Monitoring and Conformance Element; City TIAs County

Plus Federal as bottom-up funding and State Clean Improvements Air Act in CIP/CTP Provisions
New Public Sector Investments Exaction of Private Sector Funds

TPAR needs top-down as well

TPAR Payments

Example: Santa Clara Co. CMP (every 2 yr.) covers 15 cities (San Jose); CMA is the Valley Trans. Authority

A top-down approach that focuses more on the adequacy of transportation funding than growth management; has carrots of added trans. funding Local TIAs are a bottom-up approach; yet if cities and towns do not meet conformance to the countywide CMP; get stick of Deficiency Plan + holdback Other Example: Contra Costa TMA has raised over $240 million in exactions
3-8-12

Part 1: Identify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions

2 1 Classify Policy Areas by Transit Category Are transit adequacy standards met? Yes 3 No additional transit costs

Note: the term transit also accounts for the Transportation Demand Districts (TMDs) and their associated activities
4

No 5 Estimate transit service costs and capital investment needs

Exhibit 3.1: Identifying Transit Inadequacies and Solutions (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Identify Transit improvements to meet transit adequacy standards

6 Go to Part 3 Cost Alloc.

Classify Policy Areas by type of transit service and population and employment densities Adequacy based on coverage, peak headway, and span of service over the day Correspondence from MCDOT last spring asked for study of variations that we have been addressing Developed a sketch-level approach to do that and to better identify inadequacies and solutions
3-8-12

12

2010 Transit Summaries Bethesda/Chevy Chase

Route Coverage Adequate at 81.2%
Route-by-Route and Average Adequacy: Bethesda / Chevy Chase (BCC) in 2010
35.0

30.0

32

17.4 Hours just All-Day Routes 36 23 30 29 1 29

25.0

33 20.4 Minutes All Routes

47

PM Peak Headway (min)

20.0

J4 Adequate Average PM Peak Headway for all Routes

T2 34
J7/J9 70 11

15.0

46

10.0

L8 J1J3

5.0

Ride-On Routes Metrobus Routes

0.0 0:00 6:00 12:00

Adequate Average Adequate Average Span for just AllSpan for just AllDay Routes Day-Routes
18:00

24:00 0:00

Span (hours)

17.0 Hours

Ride-On Route and #

Metrobus Route and #

3-8-12

13

2010 Transit Adequacy Summary from TPAR-10

Policy Areas Categorized as "Urban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010 (update of 6-30-11) "Urban" Policy Areas Number Number served by Metrorail of Bus of Peak Number
(Sequenced by Decreasing "Coverage" of Bus Routes) Routes 33 14 20 16 13 3 Only 14 3 7 6 0 1 MARC Commuter Rail? Y Y Y Y Y Future Light Rail? Y Y Y Y Area of the Policy Area (sq. mi.) 10.49 9.25 19.26 20.24 13.64 8.22 Pop. Emp. Density Coverage Density (Percent of area in 2010 in 2010 within 1 mi. rail; (person (emp. per 1/3 of bus) per sq. sq. mi.) mi.) 8,622 5,216 4,853 4,962 4,314 2,274 4,376 7,430 1,230 4,339 5,794 2,556 Peak Span: Duration Headway by of Weekday Bus in PM Bus Service Peak Hour (hours) (min.) of All Day Metro Rail?

Silver Spring/Takoma Park North Bethesda Kensington/Wheaton Bethesda/Chevy Chase Rockville City Derwood

19 11 13 10 13 2

Y Y Y Y Y Y

96.0% 17.5 18.4 87.4% 21.3 17.3 82.0% 22.6 17.9 81.2% 17.6 17.5 79.9% 18.7 17.6 70.0% 20.0 19.3 more than less than more than 80.0% 14.0 ## 17.0 = deficient vs.standard xx.x ## = 20.0 with Metrorail

2010 Transit Adequacy Summary from TPAR-12

Policy Areas Categorized as "Urban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010 (update of 1-30-12) "Urban" Policy Areas Number Number served by Metrorail of Bus of Peak Number
(Sequenced by Decreasing "Coverage" of Bus Routes) Routes 35 15 29 17 16 7 Only 14 4 12 6 2 2 MARC Commuter Rail? Y Y Y Y Y Future Light Rail? Y Y Y Y Area of the Policy Area (sq. mi.) 10.49 9.25 19.26 20.24 13.64 8.22 Pop. Emp. Density Coverage Density (Percent of area in 2010 in 2010 within 1 mi. rail; (person (emp. per 1/3 of bus) per sq. sq. mi.) mi.) 8,622 5,216 4,853 4,962 4,314 2,274 4,376 7,430 1,230 4,339 5,794 2,556 Peak Span: Duration Headway by of Weekday Bus in PM Bus Service Peak Hour (hours) (min.) of All Day Metro Rail?

Silver Spring/Takoma Park North Bethesda Kensington/Wheaton Bethesda/Chevy Chase Rockville City Derwood

21 11 17 11 14 5

Y Y Y Y Y Y

96.0% 18.2 18.9 87.4% 21.3 17.7 82.0% 20.7 18.5 81.2% 20.4 17.4 79.9% 17.7 17.7 70.0% 21.1 18.8 more than less than more than 80.0% 14.0 ## 17.0 = deficient vs.standard xx.x ## = 20.0 with Metrorail

3-8-12

14

2010 Transit Summary Fairland / White Oak

Route Coverage Adequate at 48.2%
Route-by-Route and Average Adequacy: Fairland / White Oak (FWO) in 2010
35.0

30.0

21 39

C8

18.8 Hours just All-Day Routes 10

25.0

Z2
PM Peak Headway (min)

22 24
20.0

R2/R5
19.1 Minutes All Routes

15.0

Adequate Average PM Peak Headway for all Routes

Z6

Z8/Z9 Z11/Z1 3

20

10.0

K6 Z8

5.0

Ride-On Routes Metrobus Routes

0.0 0:00 6:00 12:00

Adequate Average Adequate Average Span for just AllSpan for just AllDay-Routes Day-Routes
14.0 Hours
18:00 0:00 24:00

Span (hours)

Ride-On Route and #

Metrobus Route and #

3-8-12

15

Transit Adequacy for Suburban Policy Areas

Policy Areas Categorized as "Suburban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010 (update of 6-30-11)
Number of Bus (Sequenced by Decreasing Routes "Coverage" of Bus Routes) R&D Village Gaithersburg City Fairland/White Oak Germantown West Montgomery Village/Airpark Aspen Hill Germantown East Cloverly North Potomac Olney Potomac Clarksburg 5 10 13 10 12 10 5 2 7 4 10 2

"Suburban" Policy Areas

Number Number of Peak of All Day Only 2 3 7 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 7 6 8 9 8 3 0 4 1 8 0

Metro Rail?

MARC Commuter Rail?

Future Light Rail? Y Y Y

Area of the Policy Area (sq. mi.) 2.38 11.03 20.66 10.98 9.41 13.05 6.57 9.83 10.49 17.36 28.07 14.91

Y Y

Y Y

Pop. Emp. Peak Density Coverage Span: Duration Density Headway by (Percent of area of Weekday in 2010 Bus in PM in 2010 within 1 mi. rail; Bus Service (person Peak Hour (emp. per 1/3 of bus) (hours) per sq. (min.) sq. mi.) mi.) 3,076 8,764 75.5% 25.0 16.1 5,446 4,967 75.0% 19.3 18.1 3,700 1,495 48.2% 19.5 17.8 5,652 1,347 48.0% 21.8 18.0 5,472 1,372 47.1% 19.4 17.9 4,644 478 43.7% 18.4 18.4 3,568 1,310 39.3% 21.0 17.7 1,621 137 30.0% 26.5 7.2 * 2,570 1,427 29.2% 23.6 13.7 1,887 317 26.2% 23.3 20.0 1,696 431 22.5% 19.1 16.2 934 255 16.4% 30.0 10.2 * more than less than more than 30.0% 20.0 14.0 = deficient vs.standard xx.x

Policy Areas Categorized as "Suburban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010 (update of 1-30-12)
Number of Bus (Sequenced by Decreasing Routes "Coverage" of Bus Routes) R&D Village Gaithersburg City Fairland/White Oak Germantown West Montgomery Village/Airpark Aspen Hill Germantown East Cloverly North Potomac Olney Potomac Clarksburg 5 10 14 9 9 10 5 2 7 5 10 2

"Suburban" Policy Areas

Number Number of Peak of All Day Only 2 1 7 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 1 3 9 7 7 6 8 3 0 4 1 8 1

Metro Rail?

MARC Commuter Rail?

Future Light Rail? Y Y Y

Area of the Policy Area (sq. mi.) 2.38 11.03 20.66 10.98 9.41 13.05 6.57 9.83 10.49 17.36 28.07 14.91

Y Y

Y Y

Pop. Emp. Peak Density Coverage Span: Duration Density Headway by (Percent of area of Weekday in 2010 Bus in PM in 2010 within 1 mi. rail; Bus Service (person Peak Hour (emp. per 1/3 of bus) (hours) per sq. (min.) sq. mi.) mi.) 3,076 8,764 75.5% 25.0 15.8 5,446 4,967 75.0% 20.0 17.6 3,700 1,495 48.2% 19.1 18.8 5,652 1,347 48.0% 21.8 18.6 5,472 1,372 47.1% 19.4 18.0 4,644 478 43.7% 18.9 19.3 3,568 1,310 39.3% 21.4 17.7 1,621 137 30.0% 26.5 8.0 * 2,570 1,427 29.2% 24.3 17.1 1,887 317 26.2% 25.0 22.3 1,696 431 22.5% 21.1 16.4 934 255 16.4% 30.0 14.0 more than less than more than 30.0% 20.0 14.0 = deficient vs.standard xx.x

3-8-12

16

Transit Adequacy Analysis is still Underway

Worked with MCDOT staff to:
Identify a set of potential Ride-On route additions to peak headway for 12 routes in 8 suburban Policy Areas to address conditional inadequacies Identify the amount and allocation to Policy Area of the corresponding capital and operating costs

Incorporation of a Bus-Rapid Transit solution in one or more corridors would be desirable, but may be difficult:
There is no clear guidance from the BRT studies of a most feasible route that could be implemented within 10-year time of TPAR-12 The broader and sketch-level methodology used for TPAR-12 is too general to be a determinant of the feasibility of a BRT route Need more study to see if BRT analysis can applied to TPAR
3-8-12

17

Part 2: Identify Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions

10-year Dev. Act. Forecasts 11 12 Apply Transp. Demand Model Programmed Projects in CIP/CTP 16 Projects not yet Programmed (State/County) 13 Summarize Roadway Policy Area and Corridor Performance 14 Are there future Inadequacies? No

Yes Iterate as Needed

15 Prepare combinations of projects for CIP/CTP for performance and to complete within 10 years

17 Go to Part 3, Cost Alloc.

Exhibit 3.6: Identifying Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

This part uses the transportation demand model compares various combinations of future roadway networks and levels of development activity TPAR-12 using MWCOG Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecasts while TPAR-10 used the prior approved set, (Round 7.2(a)) Fewer conditional roadway improvements identified TPAR-12 uses roadway performance based on Dec 2010 version of the Highway Capacity Manual, a new version As a result, the performance results differ from TPAR-10
3-8-12

18

Trends of Employment versus Household Forecasts

120,000 110,000 100,000
2035 2030 2025 2020

Development Activity Forecasts for Montgomery County for 2005 to 2040 (from MWCOG 7.2a) Round 8.0 Forecasts shown by the dashed lines

2040

RKV NB GBG

BCC

Employment Forecast by Policy Area

90,000
2015

80,000 70,000 60,000

2010 2005

SSTP
50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0
0 5, 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ,0 0 15 ,0 0 20 ,0 0 25 ,0 0 30 ,0 0 35 ,0 0 40 ,0 0 45 ,0 0 50 ,0 0 0

See next Exhibit for more detail

RDV DER GTE CLK

FWO GTW KW

Household Forecasts by Policy Area

3-8-12

19

Employment vs Household Forecasts (details)

60,000 55,000 50,000

Development Activity Forecasts for Montgomery County for 2005 to 2040 (from MWCOG 7.2a) Round 8.0 Forecasts shown by the dashed lines Detailed View of Growth Trends for Selected Policy Areas

Employment Forecast by Policy Area

45,000
2040

RDV

FWO

40,000 35,000
2025

2035 2030

DER

GTW

30,000
2020

25,000
2015

GTE

20,000 15,000 10,000

2010 2005

CLK POT MVA

OLY
5,000

AH

RurE

DAM
0
0

CLV
5, 00 0

RurW
0 10 ,0 0

NP
0 0 0 15 ,0 0 20 ,0 0 25 ,0 0 30 ,0 0 0

Household Forecasts by Policy Area

3-8-12

20

A
CLV

Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary (TPAR12-2B3): 2018 Development Forecasts with 2012 Roads + 2018 Programmed CIP/CTP

DAM

CLK POT OLY

GTW NP GTE AH GBG RKV MVA RDV DER

KW SSTP NB BCC

FWO

D E

Policy Area Adequacy Standards

"Rural"

"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service

"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas

Note 1: The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments in the Policy Area: (1) averaged by direction of flow, and (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled. Note 2: Bottom-of-Bar is the average for the Peak Flow Direction, while the Top-of-Bar is the average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction

Analysis Combinaions Dev. Forecast F12-2018 Network T12-2018_03 -

Guidance to reviewers to help better understand these Charts

Revised 2-27-12

Policy Areas including their MSPAs

Note 3: Policy Area sequence left-to-right is in order of their increasing 2010 transit "Coverage"

3-8-12

21

Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary (TPAR 12-2D4): 2022 Development Forecasts with 2018 CIP/CTP + "Conditional Projects"

CLV

DAM CLK POT OLY

NP

GTE MVA

GTW DER RDV AH KW GBG RKV NB BCC SSTP

C
FWO

D E

Policy Area Adequacy Standards

"Rural"

"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service

"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas

Note 1: The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments in the Policy Area: (1) averaged by direction of flow, and (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled. Note 2: Bottom-of-Bar is the average for the Peak Flow Direction, while the Top-of-Bar is the average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction

Analysis Combinaions Dev. Forecast F12-2022 Network T12-2022-5 -

Guidance to reviewers to help better understand these Charts

Revised 2-27-12

Policy Areas including their MSPAs

Note 3: Policy Area sequence left-to-right is in order of their increasing 2010 transit "Coverage"

3-8-12

22

Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary (TPAR 12-2F3): 2040 Development Forecasts with 2012 Roads + 2018 Programmed CIP/CTP

B
CLV DAM CLK POT OLY NP GTE AH MVA DER RDV KW SSTP FWO GBG RKV BCC NB GTW

D E

Policy Area Adequacy Standards

"Rural"

"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service

"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas

Note 1: The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments in the Policy Area: (1) averaged by direction of flow, and (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled. Note 2: Bottom-of-Bar is the average for the Peak Flow Direction, while the Top-of-Bar is the average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction

Analysis Combinaions Dev. Forecast F12-2040 Network T12-2018_02 -

Guidance to reviewers to help better understand these Charts

Revised 2-27-12

Policy Areas including their MSPAs

Note 3: Policy Area sequence left-to-right is in order of their increasing 2010 transit "Coverage"

3-8-12

23

Seven Locks Rd

A TPAR-10 Analysis Result for Example Purposes

Burdette Rd Greentree Rd

Adequacy of the Main Roads in the Bethesda Chevy Chase Policy Area: 2020 Development Forecasts with CIP/CTP Programmed Improvements
Average for the NonPeak Flow Direction Average for the Peak Flow Direction

Willard Ave

Little Falls Pkwy

24 Minor Arterials

MD191 Bradley Blvd-La

MD186 Brookeville Rd

Bradmoor Dr

Fernwood Rd

Woodmont Ave

MD396 Massachusetts Ave

Existing + Programmed Projects Network effects of new Projects Direct effect of each new Project

D E

Proposed Policy Area Adequacy Standard

MD190 River Rd

Battery La

Policy Area Average

MD188 Wilson La

MacArthur Blvd

Beach Dr

MD187 Old Georgetown Rd

MD410 East-West Hwy

MD614 Goldsboro Rd

Guidance to reviewers to help better understand these Charts

The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments within the Policy Area: (1) averaged by direction of flow that is, (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled, and (3) normalized for Arterial Class of each of the link segments of the arterial corridor

MD355 Wisc. Ave

Jones Mill Rd

Cedar La

MD185 Connecticut Ave

Arterial Roads in the Bethesda Chevy Chase Policy Area

3-8-12

Jones Bridge Rd

24

31 From Part 3, Cost Alloc

Part 5: Monitoring and Reporting

32
Program the Service Identify as a Committed Project in the CIP Schedule and Implement within year Time Frame 33 Monitor & Report on Development and Implementation Commitments 37 Make Recommendations for Revised or New Solutions 36 No On Schedule? 35

34

Exhibit 3.11: Programming Public Commitments Monitor and Report Progress (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Yes 38 Go to Next Growth Policy Cycle

Note: the layout of this part of the diagram was altered somewhat to better fit this page

The emphasis is on the administrative aspects of monitoring, which is more a concern of the MCDOT and Executive TPAR-12 to put more emphasis on the monitoring of system use and performance, relying on the work of the future Mobility Assessment Reports, like the one from this past fall prepared by Planning staff TPAR-12 has experimented with newly available operational data (from Ride-On bus AVL system) to estimate transit speed performance TPAR-12 also testing a more comprehensive set of observed speed data for arterial performance, using some in the LATR test case
3-8-12

25

Key Parts of the TPAR-12 Refinement

Implementing Countywide and Area-by-Area Summaries for Transit and Roads While it would be desirable to identify potential Core Urban Areas and related policies; it will need to await the completion of work at MWCOG on revising the regional Traffic Analysis Zones to which the Cooperative Forecasts are assigned Need to outline similarities and differences between PAMR and TPAR-12 approaches

3-8-12

26

Cooperative Coordination Activities with MCDOT

TPAR-10 and TPAR-12 both involved extensive coordination and a close working relationship between MNCPPC and MCDOT staffs, which have included:
Developing a mutual understanding of the cooperative forecasts of development activity Identifying CIP/CTP projects fully funded within 6-years (see next slide) Reviewing conditional deficiencies relative to the specified standards Specifying potential solutions for road projects and transit service improvements that could be implemented with a 10-year horizon to address the conditional deficiencies

3-8-12

27

Cooperative Coordination Activities with MCDOT

Accounting for longer range (30-year) development in cost allocations Still coordinating on cost totals and allocations methods; likely TPAR Payment amount Sharing interpretation of analysis results and methodological refinements Testing of new operational data sources for utility in monitoring system performance

TPAR-12 to have an appendix outlining agency roles; see later slides as examples

3-8-12

28

Updated TPAR 2012 List of CIP/CTP Projects (Feb. 28, 2012, revised) Project Name
Stringtown Road Woodfield Rd Extended Redland Rd Redland Rd Fairland Rd Improvement Greencastle Road Watkins Mill Rd Extended Father Hurley Blvd Extended Citadel Ave. Extended Montrose Parkway West Nebel St. Extended Century Boulevard Snouffer School Road Snouffer School Road North Chapman Ave Extended Montrose Parkway East Montrose Parkway East Intercounty Conn. (MD 200) Woodfield Rd. (MD 124) Rockville Pike (MD 355) / Montrose Parkway Interchange Paul S. Sarbanes Transit Ctr Intercounty Conn. (MD 200) Intercounty Conn. (MD 200) Connecticut Ave. (MD 185) Connecticut Ave. (MD 185) Georgia Ave (MD 97) Watkins Mill Rd Bridge of I-270 Purple Line

Improvement Type and/or Limits

COUNTY PROJECTS (CIP )
I-270 to MD 355 and MD 355 to St. Clair Road (4 lanes) North of Main St. (MD 108) to Ridge Rd (Md 27) (2 lanes) Crabbs Branch Way to Needwood Rd (4 lanes) Needwood Rd to Baederwood Lane (3 lanes) US 29 to Prince George's County line (3 lanes) Greencastle Ridge Terrace to Fairland Park Entrance ( 4 lanes) MD 355 to MD 117; without a connection yet across I-270 (4 lanes) Wisteria Dr to Germantown Rd (MD 118) (4 lanes) Marinelli Rd to Nicholson Lane (2 lanes) Montrose Rd to Hoya St. (4 lanes) Chapman Ave. to Randolph Rd (4 lanes) Complete connecting loop road to Crystal Rock Drive (4 lanes) Sweet Autumn Drive to Centerway Road (5 lanes) Centerway Rd to Ridge Heights Drive (4 lanes) (Webb Tract) Randolph Rd to Old Georgetown Rd (2 lanes) Parklawn Dr to Veirs Mill Road (MD 586) (4 lanes) MD 355/Montrose Parkway Interchange to Parklawn Dr (4 lanes)
1

Policy Area
CLK DAM DER DER FWO FWO GBG GTW NB NB NB GTW MVA MVA NB NB NB
Countywide

Open Open Open by by by 2012? 2018? 2022? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

STATE PROJECTS (CTP)

I-370 to I-95 (6 lane freeway) Airpark Road to Fieldcrest Road (6 lanes) Includes connection on Montrose Parkway West from Hoya St to Randolph Road Silver Spring Metro/MARC/Ride-On I-95 to US 1 (4 lane freeway) Collector/Distributor Lanes along I-95, MD 200 to MD 198 I-495 to Jones Bridge Road (BRAC project) (add 4th SB Lane) Manor Road to I-495 (BRAC project) (add 4th NB Lane) Interchange of Georgia Avenue (MD 97) / Randolph Rd (interchange would be a later project) (Modeling set-up for the 2022 Netwqork assumed it being available) MVA NB SSTP
Countywide Countywide

BCC BCC KW GBG

Countywide

DEVELOPER or CITY PROJECTS

MD 355 to MD 27 (4 lanes) Snowden Farm Parkway MD 27 to MD 355 ( 4 lanes) Little Seneca Parkway Footnote 1: Existing plus FY12 CIP Amendment to the FY11 Approved CIP CLK CLK

3-8-12

29

2. Identify Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions

10-year Dev. Act. Forecasts 11 12 Apply Transp. Demand Model Programmed Projects in CIP/CTP 16 Projects not yet Programmed (State/County) 13 Summarize Roadway Policy Area and Corridor Performance 14 Are there future Inadequacies? No

Yes Iterate as Needed

15 Prepare combinations of projects for CIP/CTP for performance and to complete within 10 years

17 Go to Part 3,

Exhibit 3.6: Identifying Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Cost Alloc.

Step 11: Prepares and coordinates intra-County allocation; calculate interpolations when needed Step 12: Applies Model with input from MCDOT re transportation improvements; apply QAQC Step 13: Converts model results to summaries by Policy Area and corridor within Policy Area Step 14: Identifies Policy Areas with conditional deficiencies for Subdivision Staging Policy need Step 15: Iterates model application combinations to assess the potential projects from MCDOT Step 16: Keeps a list of Master Plan possible projects for MCDOT, MDOT, and cities to consider 3-8-12

Main MNCPPC Roles

Main MCDOT Roles

Step 11: Prepares-coordinates proposed CIP; coordinates with CTP of MDOT; maintains a list Step 12: Suggests improvements to address conditional deficiencies, edits for networks Step 13: Reviews modeling results

Step 14: Assess conditional deficiencies and identifies potential CIP/CTP projects to test Step 15: Further reviews modeling results
Step 16: Selects potential additional projects from Master Plan list

30

21

Transit Costs from Part 1

22

Roadway Costs from Part 2

3. Allocate Costs
29 Wait before the Project-Service is Programmed

23 Cost estimates for capital facilities and operating expenses 24 Cost per unit of development 25 Establish criteria for additions into the CIP/CTP
26b 26a

No 27 Aggregate Policy Area Fees collected as part of the subdivision process 28 Is the Collection greater than the criteria of 25 ?

Set publicprivate cost sharing

Exhibit 3.10: Develop and Allocate Costs of the Needed Improvements (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Yes Set shares for Households and Employment 30 Go to Part 4 CommitMonitor

Main MNCPPC Roles

Step 23: Assist MCDOT when requested Step 24: Develops methods and calculates proposed cost per unit of development Step 25: Reviews criteria from Executive; coordinates with the draft CTP Step 26a: Reviews proposed cost sharing re Subdivision Staging and Master Plans Step 26b: Assist MCDOT in the setting of proposed shares by development type Step 27-29: Monitor and support
3-8-12

Main MCDOT Roles

Step 23: prepares cost estimates Step 24: Reviews proposed cost per unit of development; suggests refinements Step 25: Recommends criteria to the Executive re CIP; coord. re draft CTP Step 26a: Sets proposed cost sharing percentages by Policy Area for CC review Step 26b: Set proposed shares Step 27-29: Monitor TPAR fees relative to proposed criteria

31

Part 3. Allocate Costs

Still working on approaches for having a TPAR Payment in-lieu of the current PAMR Payments Would apply in various circumstance during the process of review and approval of proposed development

Costs could possibly be based on the number of trips estimated by 2040 using information from the Cooperative Forecasts and equations from the modeling Allocations between public and private sectors would be proposed by the Executive and decided on by the Council
3-8-12

32

Part 4. Program Public/Private Commitments

31 From Part 3, Cost Alloc Program the Service Identify as a Committed Project in the CIP Schedule and Implement within year Time Frame 32 33 Monitor & Report on Development and Implementation Commitments 37 Make Recommendations for Revised or New Solutions 36 No On Schedule? Yes 38 Go to Next Growth Policy Cycle 35

34

Exhibit 3.11: Programming Public Commitments Monitor and Report Progress (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Note: the layout of this part of the diagram was altered somewhat to better fit this page

County governmental finances and the economy is not too favorable for either sector making needed commitments The Governors transportation funding proposal would bring much needed revenue to the CTP if acted on Federal reauthorization seems mired in election politics yet we need to plan and to regulate with such uncertainty
3-8-12

33

Next Steps and Project Schedule for TPAR-12

Presentation to the Board in early April Public hearing mid-April Board Worksessions early May Deliver the Board Draft to the Council by May 20th

3-8-12

34

County Councils Review Process:

Councils Hearing would likely mid June Council Worksessions would take place in July Final Council action expected by August recess

3-8-12

35

Status of the Refinement Study for the LATR Procedures

Work on the LATR refinement has been proceeding generally concurrently with TPAR-12 Refinement activities Established a Working Group of staff who perform LATR type studies; (from SHA, MCDOT, MCDED, the municipalities, and consultants who prepare and/or review such studies in the region); met three times so far Prepared a review of LATR procedures used in peer jurisdictions (somewhat different mix of peers than ones considered in the TPAR refinement) Assessed current LATR Guidelines relative to the findings from the peer jurisdictions Used innovative policies and analytical survey tools to develop alternative tests for revisions to the LATR
3-8-12

36

Coming Work for the Refinement Study for the LATR Procedures
Currently working on a test of alternative methods and procedures using a hypothetical development proposal at a specific location in the County Key variables: HCM vs. CLV; non-auto LOS, person-trip/ multi-modal LOS; vehicle trip rates; performance monitoring; and pay-and-go alternative review Remaining steps include: Vetting the results with the Working Group Making recommendations to Planning Staff Provide limited training on the new approaches Does not include working with staff to prepare a new draft Guidelines for Administering the LATR Scheduled completion for late April
3-8-12

37