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% 140 50.0% Jobs + Housing Density/Acre 120 HBW NADMS per ACS 40.0% 100 80 30.0% Using Three 60 20.0% Metrics to 40 10.0% Group Places 20 0 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.
Framework Emerging TOD Area, with planned CCT Clarksburg TC Example Grouping of Policy Areas Residential Communities Rockville City Derwood Aspen Hill Core, or Corridor with Metrorail White Oak MV/Airpark Friendship Heights Gaithersburg City Silver Spring CBD Cloverly Bethesda CBD Potomac Twinbrook Germantown West White Flint North Potomac Fairland Colesville Corridor with Metrorail, Purple Line, or CCT Clarksburg Germantown East Grosvenor Silver Spring / Takoma Olney Wheaton CBD North Bethesda Damascus Rockville Town Center Bethesda / Chevy Chase Chevy Chase Lake Kensington / Wheaton Rural Communities Glenmont Germantown Town Center R&D Village Shady Grove MSPA Rural East Long Branch Rural West Takoma Langley
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 Local Local Impact Notes Test Payment Tax None None None None Yes All or Portion of Impact Tax Allocated to Policy Area? (1,800) – Denotes current CLV standard
Framework Screen Evaluate Mitigate Impact Mitigation (1,800 ) Tax Payment? (1,600) (1,800) (1,550) Test Type >> Local Local Area Local Area Area (1,800) (1,600) 30 1600 Job 25% of 25% of Yes Yes (1,600) Trips clv or Access Impact Impact Tax (1,600) 1800 by Tax (1,800) clv for Transit (1,450) mspa (1,600) (1,600) Germantown Town Center (1,600) Shady Grove (1,800) (1,800) – Denotes current CLV standard
Framework Emerging TOD, with planned CCT Clarksburg TC Screen Evaluate Mitigate Impact Mitigation Tax Payment? Test Type >> Local Local Area Local Area Area 30 Trips 1500 Job 25% of 25% of Yes Yes clv Access by Impact Impact Tax Transit Tax
Framework (1,500) (1,475) (1,475) Screen Evaluate Mitigate Impact Mitigation (1,600)* Tax Payment (1,425) Test Type >> Local Local Area Local Area Area (1,425) 30 Trips 1500 clv Job Access Mitigate 25% of Yes No – Unless by Transit Unless Impact Road Code (1,450) Road Code Tax Area where (1,450) Area where design design standards to (1,425) standards promote to promote ped/bike travel (1,450) ped/bike apply travel apply (1,475) (25% of (1,425)** Impact Tax) (1,425) (1,450) (1,500) – Denotes current CLV standard (1,400) * Retain @ 1600 CLV per prevailing County Policy ** Retain @ 1425 CLV to distinguish from proposed Clarksburg TC Policy area
Metrics Example of how different metrics can be applied … Metric Measurement Tool Status Potential Application in Planning Department CIP – programming guidance Regulatory (SSP) Monitoring Master Plan Master Plan Test Analysis Area Local Accessibility -Jobs & Travel/4 (for all Under Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Person Trips Accessible modes) & Development within 45 Minutes by GIS based analysis Mode for transit, walk, & bike Arterial Roadway & Travel/4 (for all Refinement No No Yes Yes No Yes Transit Mobility –TPAR modes) & Underway Post Processing Intersection Delay - CLV/Synchro/HCM Application Under No Yes - Major Yes Yes No Yes Person Delay by Mode Development Projects Only? CLV Level CLV/Synchro Existing No Yes – In Yes Yes Yes – in Specific Yes Specific Areas Areas
Metrics Setting a Threshold for Job Accessibility as the Area Test One Potential Approach (Example Only) Another Potential Approach (Example Only) Policy Area Average/Group Average + Policy Area 30 Min 45 Min 60 Min 90 Min Policy Area Average/ County Average Corridor 40% 50% 60% 70% = Job Access Composite 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 Variable is minimum % of jobs in region minutes via transit (including walk accessible in X time by transit. access) Policy Area has to exceed all four Theoretically, more Policy Areas pass thresholds to “pass” as more high quality transit comes on line and/or more jobs locate in more transit accessible areas.
AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION TEST Metrics Current Process: Transportation Policy Area Review (Disaggregation by Individual Roadways) Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary (TPAR 12-3A2): A 2022 Development Forecasts with 2018 CIP/CTP + "Conditional Transit Hdwy" CLV B GTW DAM GTE NP CLK DER MVA POT RDV AH OLY KW GBG C RKV SSTP NB FWO BCC Policy Area D Adequacy Standards E "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: Analysis Combinations Guidance to (1) averaged by direction of flow, and F Dev. Forecast Network reviewers to help (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled. F12-2022 T12-2022-06 better understand Note 2: Bottom-of-Bar is the average for the - - these Charts Peak Flow Direction, while the Top-of-Bar is the - - average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction 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"
Metrics AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION TEST Current Process: Transportation Policy Area Review (Disaggregation by Individual Roadways) Adequacy of the Main Roads in Greencastle Blvd Powder Mill Rd Fairland White Oak (FWO) (TPAR12-3A): MD198 Sandy Sp/Spencerville Rd A 2022 Development Forecasts with 2018 CIP/CTP + "Conditional Transit Hdwy" Lockwood Drive 15 Minor Arterials Briggs Chaney Rd Randolph Rd / Cherry Hill Rd B MD650 New Hampshire Ave Blackburn Rd Old Columbia Pike Fairland Rd Policy Area Average C US029 Columbia Pike Proposed Policy Area D Adequacy Standard E 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: Analysis Combinaions Guidance to (1) averaged by direction of flow, and F Dev. Forecast Network reviewers to help (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled. F12-2022 T12-2022-06 better understand Note 2: Bottom-of-Bar is the average for the these Charts - - Peak Flow Direction, while the Top-of-Bar is the average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction - - 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
AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION TEST Proposed Process: Metrics Transit Accessibility to Jobs
Recommend
More recommend
