Scribd
Upload
62 views11 pages

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG) July 1, 2015 Meeting #10 1:30-3:30 PM Agenda

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG) meets for final review and comment on pro-rata share approach. Some Board members are interested in fairly big changes; pro rata share concept garnered Board interest. Pro-rata shares are based on a percentage of a person's trip generated by a vehicle.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views11 pages

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG) July 1, 2015 Meeting #10 1:30-3:30 PM Agenda

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG) meets for final review and comment on pro-rata share approach. Some Board members are interested in fairly big changes; pro rata share concept garnered Board interest. Pro-rata shares are based on a percentage of a person's trip generated by a vehicle.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 11

Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG)

July 1, 2015 Meeting #10


1:30-3:30 PM
Agenda
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Final review and comment on Pro-Rata Share Approach


Summary and status of LATR Concepts moving forward
Status and schedule for TPAR and trip generation
Status and schedule for travel modeling strategic plan study
Next meetings
a) July 9 Planning Board roundtable discussion
b) September 2 TISTWG

1
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
June 30, 2015

Montgomery County Planning Department


Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG)
Meeting #9 Focus on Pro Rata Share and VMT Approaches
June 10, 2015
1:30 3:30 PM
Introductions
1) Meeting attendees (see attachment for sign-in sheet)
Planning Board Roundtable preparation
2) Preparation for July 9 Planning Board roundtable
a) Review of approach for packet preparation; MNCPPC to distribute draft 7/9 packet and presentation a week
before our 7/1 TISTWG meeting and TISTWG members have until 7/1 to submit additional comments for Board
member review in the packet. During the roundtable, staff/consultants will be participating actively; no
participation by others unless requested by the Board.
b) Discussion of what Board members may be expecting from TISTWG
i) Some are interested in fairly big changes; at February briefing the pro rata share concept garnered Board
member interest as did the concept of person-trip generation and unbundling parking from trip generation
rates. Roger Berliner wrote a letter to Casey Anderson suggesting a bold approach like using VMT, based on
his understanding of the California experience.
ii) Was there consensus that LATR is broken? Restating our three primary objectives: more multimodal, more
predictable, and with more streamlined implementation. Recognize that what is considered streamlined
from the development community perspective may not be viewed as streamlined from the public sector or
civic perspectives. Shifting the burden of implementation to the public sector should reduce the number of
occurrences of recent private sector improvements being subsequently rebuilt by another private sector
applicant, but in general the private sector is equipped to mobilize more rapidly (particularly for small
construction jobs where right-of-way is not needed) than the public sector.
Pro-Rata Share Approaches
3) Discussion of pro-rata share approaches
a) Note that the pro-rata share concept is the basis for TPAR; the total cost of improvements is divided by a total
development amount to obtain a cost per trip within each policy area and the Council sets policy on how much
of that cost per trip is borne by public sector versus private sector
b) Review of packet materials: Upshot of literature review and subsequent discussions is that pro-rata shares work
well for smaller geographic areas with a well-documented set of costs and development forecasts. This
documentation takes time to develop and get approved as the White Flint experience demonstrated (and too
soon to say in White Oak). Grassroots identification of need for a pro-rata share approach and a connection to a
master plan update appear desirable.
c) Pro-rata share approaches can suffer from forward funding issues; the private sector may have greater success
in financing improvements up front. However, there are theoretical solutions to the forward funding issue
including building interest costs into the pro-rata share payment calculation or redefining the time of project
delivery (a question of how APF staging is defined, particularly for larger staged land use projects)
d) Definition of APF also relates to mitigation objectives, particularly for elements like Protected Intersections or
TDM approaches are we truly taking trips off the road to achieve LATR goals, or agreeing to an alternative
policy (the latter is currently true the TDM and non-auto facility equivalencies are policy judgments based on
relationships other than CLVs)
e) Overall TDM approaches are likely to be studied this fall a new group would be formed (perhaps with many of
the same people) to address both the logistical issues such as TMAg timing as well as the issue of equity across
multiple applications (such as how to apply a common district-wide mode share goal to different development
types or different site locations with respect to transit service or pedestrian accessibility)
1

f)

How is a pro-rata share district different from a road club? Usually broader geographic coverage and mandatory
participation in a pro-rata share district
g) Pro-rata share establishment may benefit by being developed in concert with a Sector Plan amendment (as
happened in White Flint). A new master plan is not necessarily a priority, but a master vision or plan is
needed to reflect constituent priorities for transportation elements across different contexts.
Very Low VMT Approach
4) Seems to be general acceptance that the use of VMT as proposed, as a screening device during scoping, is an
appropriate use.
5) A reminder that VMT is already and element of TPAR, and the relationship among vehicle and person miles and
hours of travel (i.e., VMT, PMT, VHT, PHT) by policy area is one of the measures being evaluated in the TPAR update
process. Both hours of travel and accessibility to destinations are logical planning tools for areawide tests at time of
master plan adoption or perhaps in TPAR; the challenge is that they are measures of relative worth that do not
readily connect to any previously defined metric of adequacy.

Subdivision Staging Policy


Status of New Concepts for LATR/TPAR Guidelines
June 30, 2015
Work is in progress on certain elements (in orange boxes) for review at September meeting and
feedback appreciated on other elements (in green boxes) as noted in the table below.
Concept
SA-3

ST-1
ST-4
SR-3

Description
Alternative
Review
Procedures for
Very Low VMT
Trip Generation
Thresholds
Modal analysis
triggers
Protected
intersections

AM-1 through
AM-3
AM-5
AS-3

Modal analyses

Other

Value of peak
hour vehicle trip
Miscellany
clarifications

Other

CLV/Synchro
Pedestrian-bicycle
gap contribution

LATR/TPAR Guidelines elements


Completed proposal for review/comment

Moving forward with 11/30 thresholds (page 26 of April LATR


Concepts handout)
Moving forward with on 11/30 thresholds (page 26 of April LATR
Concepts handout)
Work in progress to identify candidate protected intersections;
appears Major/Major and Major/Arterial locations in Bethesda
CBD, Silver Spring CBD, R&D Village, and Wheaton would be
logical candidates. $12,000/vehicle trip fee in lieu of
improvement
Work in progress to identify candidate ped/bike improvements
and simplified accessibility test to determine value
Work in progress to define Synchro parameters
Work in progress to define gaps and responsibility for filling
them (presumably construction if in ROW, payment in lieu if
private property required)
Escalate $12,000 / vehicle trip value
Considering comments developed by M-NCPPC staff in past two
years

2
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
June 30, 2015

P. 1

LATR CONCEPT SUMMARY


SR-3: Protected Intersections Status Report 4/27/15
This brief memo provides a status report on the identification of potential Protected Intersections.
There seems to be a general consensus that the Protected Intersection concept is appropriate but that it
should not be associated with a statement of no impact or no responsibility, but rather directed
towards a Pay-and-Go mechanism that would:

Allow applicants the option to reassign even existing and background traffic around the
intersection if desired as part of the traffic study
Require a payment for remaining impacts (the $12K / vehicle trip associated with peak hour
trips assigned through the intersection may be a reasonable starting point), and
Such payment to be associated with an area-specific improvement or TDM program (for
instance, the existing TMDs or a current CIP project including the intersection)

The attached maps show some of the initial analysis that we conducted, examining the countywide
dataset of 238 Major-Highway-to-Major-Highway and Major-Highway-to-Arterial intersections. We
started with a simple organizing schema: how many miles of designated master plan roadways of
Business Street or Primary Residential roadway appropriate for some diverted traffic as a matter of
policy are within a mile radius?
The first map shows the Countywide results in quantile form. The next three maps provide a zoom-in on
different areas of the County for a little better resolution (although there is an issue with overlaps on
the zoom-ins also). Generally, every intersection might be expected to have at least 1.5 miles of
designated roadway in the case of a Major Highway transecting the 0.5 mile radius intersecting another
Major Highway or Arterial at a T-intersection. There are exceptions to this rule; the lowest intersection
on the list (Veirs Mill at Aspen Hill) scores at 1.24 because the designations arent carried into the City of
Rockville.
As we reviewed this info, we noted a couple of patterns:

There is some logical overlap between many of the Road Code Urban Areas, denser designated
roadway networks, and the extent to which the pedestrian quality of service should be
prioritized over the motor vehicle level of service.
The top quantile of intersections have a robust network with roughly 8 miles or greater, and
they are all located in four TMDs (Bethesda, Greater Shady Grove, Silver Spring, and White
Flint). While we anticipate some assessment (maybe more qualitative than GIS-based) of
connectivity around all quadrants of each candidate intersection, review of these maps suggest
a potential logical assessment of protected intersections organized into TMD areas. The next
wave of highest-scoring intersections include some in and around Wheaton, Olney, and
Germantown (as evident from the countywide maps).

No formal review or action requested at this point, but any informal thoughts are appreciated.
1
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
April 27, 2015

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections

P. 2

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv
Road_code_urban_areas

miles
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594
8.477595 - 12.123896

2.5

10 Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
swisstopo, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Greater than 8 miles within Buffer

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.000000
2.000001 - 4.000000
4.000001 - 6.000000
6.000001 - 8.000000

8.000001 - 14.000000

P. 3

4 Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Northern Region of Study Area

P. 4

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594

8.477595 - 12.123896

4 Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
swisstopo, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Eastern Region of Study Area

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594

8.477595 - 12.123896

P. 5

4 Mil

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Southern Region of Study Area

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594

8.477595 - 12.123896

P. 6

4 Mile

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy