Scribd
Upload
77 views14 pages

Subdivision Staging Policy - Transportation Elements

The document proposes changes to transportation adequacy tests to better incentivize efficient growth, encourage multi-modal mobility, and streamline development review. It discusses grouping policy areas by transit access and proposed density. Example groupings include "Core" areas with Metrorail and high density, "Corridor" areas with Metrorail/Purple Line/CCT and medium density, and lower density "Residential" and "Rural" areas. Thresholds for different transportation metrics like vehicle level of service, person delay, and job accessibility would vary by group. The changes aim to shift the transportation test's focus from roadway adequacy to multi-modal access and align development with the General Plan.

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
77 views14 pages

Subdivision Staging Policy - Transportation Elements

The document proposes changes to transportation adequacy tests to better incentivize efficient growth, encourage multi-modal mobility, and streamline development review. It discusses grouping policy areas by transit access and proposed density. Example groupings include "Core" areas with Metrorail and high density, "Corridor" areas with Metrorail/Purple Line/CCT and medium density, and lower density "Residential" and "Rural" areas. Thresholds for different transportation metrics like vehicle level of service, person delay, and job accessibility would vary by group. The changes aim to shift the transportation test's focus from roadway adequacy to multi-modal access and align development with the General Plan.

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/ 14

Subdivision Staging Policy Transportation Elements

Transportation Community Meeting


March 15, 2016

Introduction

PROPOSED CHANGES TO TRANSPORTATION ADEQUACY TESTS


Staff proposes several changes and revisions pertaining to the application of the
Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR) and Local Area Transportation Policy Area
Review (LATR) tests to better incentive efficient growth, encourage multi-modal mobility
solutions and streamline the development review process.

Framework

Comparing Existing & Future Density with Current HBW NADMS by Policy Area
180

70.0%

160

60.0%

50.0%
120
100

40.0%

80

30.0%

60
20.0%
40
10.0%

20

0.0%

Policy Area
Current Estimate of HBW NADMS

2012 Jobs + Housing Density

2040 Jobs + Housing Density

Note: Relevant data for Germantown TC & Shady Grove MSPA unavailable.

HBW NADMS per ACS

Using Three
Metrics to
Group Places

Jobs + Housing Density/Acre

140

Framework

Example Grouping of Policy Areas

Core, or Corridor with Metrorail


Friendship Heights
Silver Spring CBD
Bethesda CBD
Twinbrook
White Flint
Corridor with Metrorail, Purple Line, or CCT
Grosvenor
Wheaton CBD
Rockville Town Center
Chevy Chase Lake
Glenmont
R&D Village
Long Branch
Takoma Langley

Silver Spring / Takoma


North Bethesda
Bethesda / Chevy Chase
Kensington / Wheaton
Germantown Town Center
Shady Grove MSPA

Emerging TOD Area, with planned CCT


Clarksburg TC
Residential Communities
Rockville City
Derwood
Aspen Hill
White Oak
MV/Airpark
Gaithersburg City
Cloverly
Potomac
Germantown West
North Potomac
Fairland Colesville
Clarksburg
Germantown East
Olney
Damascus
Rural Communities
Rural East
Rural West

Framework

Comparing Example Grouping with 1993 General Plan Refinement


1993 General Plan Refinement

Example Grouping of Policy Areas

NAME
Clarksburg TC

Framework

Friendship Heights (1,800)


(1,800)
(1,800)
(1,800)
(1,800)

Area Test Area Payment

None

None

Local
Test

Local
Payment

Impact
Tax

Notes

None

None

Yes

All or Portion
of Impact Tax
Allocated to
Policy Area?

(1,800) Denotes current CLV standard

Framework

Screen

(1,800)

Evaluate

Mitigate

(1,600)
(1,800)
(1,550)
Test Type >>
(1,800)
(1,600)
(1,600)
(1,600)
(1,800)
(1,450)
(1,600)
(1,600)
Germantown Town Center (1,600)
Shady Grove (1,800)

Impact
Tax

Local

Local

Area

Local

Area

Area

30
Trips

1600
clv or
1800
clv for
mspa

Job
Access
by
Transit

25% of
Impact
Tax

25% of
Impact Tax

Yes

(1,800) Denotes current CLV standard

Mitigation
Payment?

Yes

Framework

Emerging TOD, with


planned CCT
Clarksburg TC

Screen

Test Type >>

Evaluate

Mitigate

Impact
Tax

Local

Local

Area

Local

Area

Area

30 Trips

1500
clv

Job
Access by
Transit

25% of
Impact
Tax

25% of
Impact Tax

Yes

Mitigation
Payment?

Yes

Framework

(1,500)
(1,475)
Screen
Test Type >>

Evaluate

Mitigate

Impact
Tax

Local

Local

Area

Local

Area

Area

30 Trips

1500 clv

Job Access
by Transit

Mitigate
Unless
Road Code
Area where
design
standards
to promote
ped/bike
travel apply
(25% of
Impact Tax)

25% of
Impact
Tax

Yes

Mitigation
Payment
No Unless
Road Code
Area where
design
standards to
promote
ped/bike travel
apply

(1,475)
(1,600)*
(1,425)
(1,425)
(1,450)
(1,450)
(1,425)
(1,450)
(1,475)
(1,425)**
(1,425)

(1,500) Denotes current CLV standard


* Retain @ 1600 CLV per prevailing County Policy
** Retain @ 1425 CLV to distinguish from proposed Clarksburg TC Policy area

(1,450)
(1,400)

Metrics

Example of how different


metrics can be applied
Metric

Measurement Tool

Status

Potential Application in Planning Department

Regulatory (SSP)
Area

Local

CIP
programming
guidance

Monitoring

Master Plan
Analysis

Master Plan Test

Accessibility-Jobs &
Person Trips Accessible
within 45 Minutes by
Mode

Travel/4 (for all


modes) &
GIS based analysis
for transit, walk, &
bike

Under
Development

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Arterial Roadway &


Transit Mobility TPAR

Travel/4 (for all


modes) &
Post Processing

Refinement
Underway

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Intersection Delay Person Delay by Mode

CLV/Synchro/HCM

Application Under
Development

No

Yes - Major
Projects Only?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

CLV Level

CLV/Synchro

Existing

No

Yes In
Specific Areas

Yes

Yes

Yes in Specific
Areas

Yes

Metrics

Setting a Threshold for Job Accessibility as the Area Test


Another Potential Approach (Example Only)

One Potential Approach (Example Only)


Policy Area Average/Group Average +
Policy Area Average/ County Average
= Job Access Composite

Policy Area

30 Min

45 Min

60 Min

90 Min

Corridor

40%

50%

60%

70%

Residential

30%

40%

50%

60%

Job Access Composite > 2 = Policy


Area that Passes Area Test Until Next
Assessment (every 2 Years)
Variable is jobs in region within 45
minutes via transit (including walk
access)
Theoretically, more Policy Areas pass
as more high quality transit comes
on line and/or more jobs locate in
more transit accessible areas.

Variable is minimum % of jobs in region


accessible in X time by transit.
Policy Area has to exceed all four
thresholds to pass

Metrics

AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION TEST


Current Process:
Transportation Policy Area Review (Disaggregation by Individual Roadways)
Adequacy of the Main Roads
County-wide Summary (TPAR 12-3A2):
2022 Development Forecasts with
2018 CIP/CTP + "Conditional Transit Hdwy"

A
CLV

DAM

NP

CLK

GTW

GTE

DER

MVA

POT

RDV
OLY

AH

KW
GBG

RKV

SSTP
NB

FWO

BCC

Policy Area
Adequacy
Standards

E
"Rural"

"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service

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

"Urban" Served by Metrorail with


Metro Station Policy Areas

Analysis Combinations
Dev. Forecast

Network

F12-2022

T12-2022-06

Guidance to
reviewers to help
better understand
these Charts
Revised 6-25-12

Policy Areas including their MSPAs


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

Proposed Policy Area

Adequacy Standard

MD650 New Hampshire Ave

US029 Columbia Pike

Policy Area Average

Old Columbia Pike

Randolph Rd / Cherry Hill Rd

Blackburn Rd

Briggs Chaney Rd

Adequacy of the Main Roads in


Fairland White Oak (FWO) (TPAR12-3A):
2022 Development Forecasts with
2018 CIP/CTP + "Conditional Transit Hdwy"

Greencastle Blvd

MD198 Sandy Sp/Spencerville Rd

Fairland Rd

Lockwood Drive

15 Minor Arterials

Current Process:
Transportation Policy Area Review (Disaggregation by Individual Roadways)
Powder Mill Rd

Metrics

AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION TEST

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

Network

F12-2022

T12-2022-06

Guidance to
reviewers to help
better understand
these Charts
Revised 4-5-12

Arterial Performance within the Fairland White Oak (FWO) Policy Area
Note 3: Roadway sequence left-to-right is in order of their increasing peak-flow avg. congestion

Metrics

AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION TEST


Proposed Process:
Transit Accessibility to Jobs

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