Scribd
Upload
87 views34 pages

M C P D: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

The Montgomery County Planning Board will be briefed on the preliminary results of the traffic modeling analysis conducted for the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. The analysis examined three scenarios: existing 2010 conditions, a 2040 base future scenario, and a 2040 master plan alternative scenario. The master plan alternative scenario assumes higher density development as outlined in the master plan, along with proposed transportation network improvements like new interchanges and the Bus Rapid Transit system. The analysis found that the master plan scenario reduces through trips while increasing internal trips within the area. It also showed improvements in intersection levels of service compared to the 2040 base scenario, with no intersections operating at the worst level of service F. The results will be presented to the Planning Board to inform

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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
87 views34 pages

M C P D: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

The Montgomery County Planning Board will be briefed on the preliminary results of the traffic modeling analysis conducted for the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. The analysis examined three scenarios: existing 2010 conditions, a 2040 base future scenario, and a 2040 master plan alternative scenario. The master plan alternative scenario assumes higher density development as outlined in the master plan, along with proposed transportation network improvements like new interchanges and the Bus Rapid Transit system. The analysis found that the master plan scenario reduces through trips while increasing internal trips within the area. It also showed improvements in intersection levels of service compared to the 2040 base scenario, with no intersections operating at the worst level of service F. The results will be presented to the Planning Board to inform

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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/ 34

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

MCPB Item No. 12 Date: 05-31-12 Briefing: White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan

Eric Graye, Planning Supervisor, Functional Planning and Policy Division, eric.graye@montgomeryplanning.org, 301-495-4632 Mary Dolan, Chief, Functional Planning and Policy Division, mary.dolan@montgomeryplanning.org, 301-495-4552 Nancy Sturgeon, Planner Coordinator, Area 2 Division, nancy.sturgeon@montgomeryplanning,org, 301-495-1308

Completed: 05/24/12 Description The Planning Department staff has been working with the White Oak Science Gateway Citizens Advisory Commiittee (CAC), appointed by the Planning Board in March 2011, on the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. The CAC includes representatives from residential communities as well as business and property owners. All CAC meetings are open to the public and there is an opportunity at every meeting for the general audience to participate. Ten CAC meetings and two community forums were held between April 2011-May 2012. In addition, Planning staff attends local citizens association meetings and presents information on the Master Plan, as requested. At a CAC meeting held on November 15, 2011, break-out groups discussed the future possibilities of the commercial centers, focusing on White Oak, Hillandale, and the North White Oak/Cherry Hill Road area. At a CAC meeting held on April 24, 2012, staff presented illustrative concepts of these major centers as well as an overview of the density being considered for these areas for traffic modeling purposes. Staff also provided a primer on Master Plan staging, using the staging plans of the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan and White Flint Sector Plan as examples. In addition, a brief update on the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan was provided. With input from stakeholders, staff prepared a future development scenario and has completed a preliminary analysis of the potential traffic impacts on the local road network. A summary of these results was presented to the CAC at a meeting held on May 22, 2012. Summary The Board will be briefed on the preliminary results of the traffic modeling analysis performed in support of the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. These results are summarized in a PowerPoint presentation (attached) that will be presented to the Board at its May 31, 2012 meeting. Attachment
1.

White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis PowerPoint Presentation

EG/MD/NS/kr

White Oak Science Gateway (WOSG) Master Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis
Presentation to the White Oak Science Gateway CAC May 22, 2012

Transportation Modeling Process Overview

Regional Model

Regional Model/Local Model Relationship


Regional Model
Same tool as that used by Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Reflects county-wide and regional traffic effects (including those from Howard and Prince Georges Counties) Output Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) results (used to evaluate area-wide land use/transportation balance and transportation adequacy)

Local Area Model

Local Model More Detailed/Fine Grain Analysis Output Critical Lane Volumes (CLVs) for intersections (including Four Corners@ US 29/MD 193) Compare with established policy area standard (1475 CLV in this case) Regional model feeds though trips into 3 Local Area Model

Relationship Between Regional and Local Models


Regional and local models work in tandem Local model tool is pragmatic for Plan area where local planning/zoning recommendations will be made Process works for master plan level decision making as in Germantown, Great Seneca Science Center and White Flint 4

White Flint Sector Plan LAM

Regional Model Framework

Regional Model Framework


Trip Generation: How may trips are produced? Trip Distribution: Where are people going?

Regional Model Framework


Mode Choice: What method/mode of travel are people using? Trip Assignment: What route are people taking?

Current Traffic US 29
US 29 Mobility Problems are generally at failing intersections

Definition of future relative arterial mobility can be determined with the regional model
8

Transportation Network Assumptions: Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (CLRP)


Highways Transit

WOSG Area Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Network


Five Stations Connections to: - Silver Spring - Burtonsville P&R - Takoma/Langley - Greenbelt Metro - Murkirk MARC

10

WOSG Land Use/Transportation Scenarios:


1. Existing Conditions: 2010 Land Use/2010 Network 2. Base Future Year: 2040 Round 8.0 Land Use/CLRP Network 3. Master Plan Alternative: Master Plan Alternative Scenario Land Use /CLRP Network + Master Planned interchanges + local roadway network improvements + BRT
WOSG: Summary of Development Numbers
Development Scenario Existing Conditions (Built) Commercial (sq. ft.) 11,187,298 Single Family Dwellings 2,260 Multi-Family Dwellings 4,858 Total Dwelling Units 7,118

Base Future Year (2040 Rnd 8.0)

15,854,064

2,404

5,194

7,598

Master Plan Alternative Scenario

25,434,851

2,785

12,903

15,688

11

Area-wide Transportation Analysis: Policy Area Mobility Review

12

2010 PAMR Analysis

13

2040 PAMR Analysis

14

WOSG Master Plan Alternative Scenario PAMR Analysis

15

Local Area Model Analysis: Intersections

16

Assumptions
Auto Driver Mode Share 2040 Base Future Year Scenario
86% of commuters drive to jobs in plan area

2040 Master Plan Alternative


75% of commuters drive to jobs in five locations:
Site 2 / Percontee Hillandale Shopping Center White Oak Shopping Center Labor College

86% of commuters drive to jobs in all other locations


17

Assumptions
Network for Master Plan Alternative Scenario
Three BRT routes
US 29 New Hampshire Ave Randolph Rd

Old Columbia Pike bridge over Paint Branch Planned interchanges


Fairland Rd / Musgrove Rd Tech Rd / Industrial Pkwy Stewart Ln Briggs Chaney Rd Blackburn Rd / Greencastle Rd

18

Assumptions
Trip Generation Rates per 1,000 GSF
Same as Great Seneca Science Corridor
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Office
Retail Industrial Other

1.30
1.00 1.00 1.00

1.20
3.00 1.00 1.00

19

AM Peak Hour Trips


40,000 35,000 Peak Hour Trips

30,000
25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2010 Existing 2040 Base Future 2040 Master Plan Alternative 10,387 12,129 10,980 3,475 1,436 7,705 8,098 6,667 9,256

Internal Trips
In/Out Trips Through Trips

Reduction in through trips Increase in in/out trips Large increase in internal trips

PM Peak Hour Trips


40,000 35,000 Peak Hour Trips

30,000
25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2010 Existing 9,682 1,975

3,563 13,776

8,365

Internal Trips
14,234 In/Out Trips Through Trips

10,707 11,926

10,235

2040 Base Future 2040 Master Plan Alternative

Reduction in through trips Increase in in/out trips Large increase in internal trips

Internal Trips as % of Total Trips


Scenario 2010 Existing Conditions 2040 Base Future Year 2040 Master Plan Alternative AM Peak Hour 7% 15% 25% PM Peak Hour 9% 12% 25%

22

Critical Lane Volume


A planning level tool to assess overall intersection adequacy Does not assess individual lane capacity Does not consider signal timing

23

Critical Lane Volume


the maximum sum of conflicting movements that can be moved through the intersection Northbound / Southbound

Eastbound / Westbound

24

Critical Lane Volume Evaluation


LOS Critical Lane Volume Range

A B/C D/E F

0.00
0.61

0.60
0.80

0.81
1.00+

1.00

Standard for plan area: 0.92

25

Critical Lane Volume Standards by Policy Area


CLV Congestion Standards Policy Area

1800

Central Business Districts/Metro Station Locations: Bethesda, Silver Spring, Friendship Heights, Wheaton, Glenmont, White Flint, Grosvenor, Shady Grove, Twinbrook, Rockville Town Center
Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Silver Spring/Takoma Park, Kensington/Wheaton, Germantown Town Center

1600

1550
1500 1475 1450 1425 1400

North Bethesda
Rockville City Fairland/White Oak, Aspen Hill, Derwood Cloverly, Olney, Potomac, North Potomac, R&D Village Clarksburg, Germantown West, Germantown East, Montgomery Village/Airpark, Gaithersburg City Damascus

1350

Rural East, Rural West


26

2010 Existing Conditions Scenario Intersection level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV
LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F

27

2040 Base Future Year Scenario Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV
LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F

28

2040 Master Plan Alternative Scenario Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV
LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F

29

2040 Base Future Year Scenario With Interchanges Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV
LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F

30

2040 Master Plan Alternative Scenario With Interchanges Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV
LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F

31

Questions?

32

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