March Draft 2009

Gaithersburg West Master Plan

Transportation Appendix
Gaithersburg West Master Plan Transportation Appendix

Draft as of 3/11/09

Table of Contents
1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1
2. Transportation Plan Recommendations ....................................................................... 2
A. Travel Demand Management .................................................................................... 4
B. Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and Local Transit System .................................. 8
C. Street Network......................................................................................................... 23
D. Bicycle and Pedestrian System ............................................................................... 32
E. Staging ..................................................................................................................... 34
3. Transportation/Land Use Balance ............................................................................. 36
A. Measures of Effectiveness ...................................................................................... 37
B. Policy Area Mobility Review .................................................................................. 37
C. Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) ........................................................... 41
D. Cordon Line Analysis ............................................................................................. 43
E. Travel Demand Forecasting Process and Assumptions.......................................... 46
F. Local Area Modeling Process and Assumptions ..................................................... 48
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Transportation Management Strategies ............................................................... 3
Figure 2: Travel Demand Management Techniques and Target Markets .......................... 6
Figure 3: Current CCT alignment ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Draft Plan CCT alignment and stations ............................................................. 10
Figure 5: Ride-On Routes and Average Ridership ........................................................... 12
Figure 6: Round 6.4 Ridership for existing CCT alignment ............................................. 13
Figure 7: Cost Effectiveness of the Existing CCT alignment. .......................................... 14
Figure 8: Characteristics of Transit Oriented Development ............................................. 15
Figure 9: Characteristics of Residential Transit Oriented Development .......................... 16
Figure 10: Characteristics of Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development ........................ 17
Figure 11: Transit Trends for Journey to work trips for selected TODs .......................... 18
Figure 12: Walk/bike trends for Journey to work trips for selected TODs ...................... 19
Figure 13: Staff‟s August 2008 Forecast for 2030 Development ..................................... 20
Figure 14: Round 6.4 Forecast for 2030 Development Comparisons .............................. 21
Figure 15: Forecast for 2030 LSC Development Comparisons for TOD ........................ 22
Figure 16: Gaithersburg West Street Network.................................................................. 23
Figure 17: Illustrative concept of Sam Eig as a Controlled Major Highway.................... 25
Figure 18: LSC Street Network ....................................................................................... 30
Figure 19: Gaithersburg West and LSC Bike Network .................................................... 32
Figure 20: Land Use Comparison to Bethesda and Silver Spring .................................... 36
Figure 21: Policy Area Mobility Review Chart-2030....................................................... 39
Figure 22: Policy Area Mobility Review Table-2030 ...................................................... 40
Figure 23: Policy Area Transportation Review Table - 2005 ........................................... 40
Figure 24: Intersection Congestion Standards by Policy Area ......................................... 42
Figure 25: Intersection Analysis ....................................................................................... 43
Figure 26: Sector Plan Cordon Line Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 45
Figure 27: Draft Plan Trip Generation Comparison ......................................................... 45
Figure 28: Travel/3 Model Network Typology ................................................................ 47
Figure 29: LSC Area Local Area Model Subzones ......................................................... 49
Figure 30: Local Area Model Peak Hour Trip Generation ............................................... 49
Figure 31: LSC Land Use Scenarios Considered During Plan Development .................. 50
 1. Purpose
The Public Hearing Draft of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan proposes a conversion of
the Life Sciences Center (LSC) area from auto-oriented suburbia to a transit-oriented,
mixed-use, community. This Appendix provides the technical basis and details for the
transportation system recommendations in the Gaithersburg West Master Plan.

The Plan proposes several innovative changes designed to promote the orderly
implementation of a transit-oriented and sustainable center for the LSC, including:

Realignment of the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) with line-haul service

between the three proposed LSC CCT stations.
Acceptance of congestion levels that reflect the Planning staff and Planning Board
approach to adequacy.
A proposed local street network that will create a finer grid than exists today and
improve vehicular and pedestrian connections between districts.
An implementation plan that relies on proportional participation by all
developments, and a staging plan to coordinate areawide transportation system
implementation in lieu of assigning piecemeal transportation exaction
requirements to individual development applications.

Since the early 1980s, the “balance” between land use and transportation system
recommendations in master plans and sector plans has applied the procedures and general
policies contained in the County‟s Growth Policy. The current Growth Policy applies an
areawide measure of mobility, called Policy Area Mobility Review, and a localized
measure of congestion called Local Area Transportation Review. These measures, used
to define adequacy for development review cases, are adapted for master plan analysis
through application of the Department‟s TRAVEL/3 regional travel demand model and
Local Area Model as described in detail in Chapter 3 of this Appendix.

The land use and transportation system are balanced to promote an end-state level of
development that provides zoning density levels needed to facilitate the redevelopment of
the LSC area from a largely auto-oriented community to a transit-oriented community.
The transportation system needed to accommodate these levels of development must
achieve a 30% Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) for LSC employees, an
objective that can be met through a combination of strategies, including:

Improved access to transit, including the realignment of the CCT through the LSC
and improved transit circulator services in combination with the concentration of
future development within walking distance of transit.
Implementation of a finer local street network with prevailing block lengths of
350 feet or less that promotes walking and bicycling.
Management of the long-term parking supply through coordination of both zoning
requirements and public parking provisions.

1
 Commencement of proactive travel demand management services through the
establishment of the Greater Shady Grove Transportation Management District
(TMD).

The establishment of this balance between land use and transportation required an
iterative review of alternative land use and transportation concepts, as described in this
Appendix. These Appendix materials document:

The balance between long-term land use and transportation systems needed to
provide sufficient mobility in the developing LSC area and surrounding
communities, using appropriate evaluation tools and measures of effectiveness.
The staging, implementation, and monitoring mechanisms that manage land use
and transportation implementation details over two to three decades as the Plan is
implemented.

The Appendix covers two areas of substance:

Chapter 2 describes the recommendations at a greater level of detail than

described in the Plan.
Chapter 3 demonstrates that the end-state conditions in the Plan will result in an
appropriate balance between land use and transportation.

This Draft Appendix is being released during the second week of March 2009 to provide
technical information prior to the public hearing scheduled for March 26. The materials
in this Appendix, plus supplementary analysis, will be incorporated into a complete set of
Plan Appendices.

2. Transportation Plan Recommendations

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan recommends a multimodal transportation system that
recognizes the prior planning for the CCT system to create a transit-oriented community
of walkable blocks with multimodal transportation options for residents, employees, and
visitors.

Figure 1 shows the range of transportation system strategies examined in the

Gaithersburg West Master Plan, including:

Travel demand management

Transit services
Local street network
Transportation system policies

Figure 1 indicates the likelihood that the Plan would incorporate the different strategies
based on analyses and coordination performed to date. The cells shaded in light blue
indicate those strategies with high potential. In general, those strategies with high
potential were incorporated into the Plan as described in the following paragraphs.

2
 Strategy Opportunities Constraints Potential
Reduce Single Flexible, low capital Operational costs, monitoring High
Management

Occupant Vehicle cost

Demand

mode share
Increase parking Reduce traffic, Parking Lot District establishment, Moderate
charges provide revenue garage
locations
Construct CCT Serve planned Capital costs, operational costs High
through LSC area development near LSC
stations, reduce traffic
Transit

Express bus service Capture long-distance Operating cost Moderate

using value-priced riders
Services

lanes from I-270

Shuttle services Low capital cost Operating cost Moderate

Add local Provide alternate Capital costs, definition of final High

“midblock” streets routes, reduce alignment and implementation
walking distances responsibilities
Left turn Reduce congestion Circuitous trips (cars and buses), Moderate
prohibitions public acceptance
Local Street Network

Add turn lanes Reduce congestion Increase pedestrian High (for

crossing distances, capital cost selected
locations)
Grade-separated Reduce congestion Capital cost, attractiveness, Moderate (for
interchanges inhibits pedestrian crossings, selected
public acceptance locations)

CCT bridging over Reduce congestion Capital cost, attractiveness, Moderate (for
roadways public acceptance selected
locations)
Accept higher Consistent with Operating costs, public acceptance Moderate
congestion levels urbanizing area, no
capital cost
Increase Create mixed use Economic and market feasibility Moderate
residential centers, provide housing
Polices

uses near jobs, lower trip

generation rates
Staging Plan Provide services at None High
time of development

Figure 1: Transportation Management Strategies

3
A. Travel Demand Management

Travel Demand Management (TDM) describes a wide range of programs and services
designed to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicle trips. Simply put, TDM is the set
of public policy strategies to provide travel options that reduce and spread demand by
travel destination, mode, route, and time of day to most efficiently utilize transportation
system infrastructure and resources. TDM strategies can be implemented by both public
and private sector activities. TDM strategies include:

Infrastructure such as high quality pedestrian environments, bus or High

Occupancy Vehicle facilities or preferential treatments, telework centers,
commuter information stores, car-sharing (i.e., Zipcar) and bike-sharing stations,
and well-located transit stations or stops with real-time transit information.
Services such as transit services, vanpools, ride-matching, Guaranteed Ride Home
services, alternative commute option information (i.e., Greater Shady Grove
Management District and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government
Commuter Connections).
Policies that affect the use of infrastructure and services, including parking supply
management, preferential parking treatments for carpools/vanpools, transit
subsidies, flexible work schedules, tax incentives, congestion pricing, and
distance-based or Vehicle Miles of Travel pricing.

Montgomery County Travel Demand Management Applications

Current TDM strategies in Montgomery County include a variety of programs and

services integrated between the private and public sectors. The Office of Legislative
Oversight has summarized the County‟s existing TDM activities in their December 2008
report 2009-6, titled Transportation Demand Management Implementation, Funding, and
Governance.

The private sector contributions include requirements of Planning Board conditions

determined at the time of development review and approval (subdivision), often through
a Traffic Mitigation Agreement (TMAg) to either provide a specified set of services or to
achieve a specific performance objective. Traffic Mitigation Agreements are described in
the Planning Board‟s Local Area Transportation Review / Policy Area Mobility Review
(LATR/PAMR) Guidelines.

The public sector contributions include the activities of the area Transportation
Management District (TMD). The proposed Greater Shady Grove Transportation
Management District will provide services to employers and employees in the
commercial areas of the LSC to promote adoption of commuter benefits programs by
employers and to inform employees of alternative commuting options. The Greater
Shady Grove Transportation Management District will also work to improve transit
service in the area, to increase ridership, and to provide transit-friendly amenities.

4
In 2002, the County Council adopted Bill 32-02, an important link between the public
and private sector TDM programs. This TDM law requires employers with more than 25
employees located in one of the County‟s four Transportation Management Districts to
implement a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), participate in an annual commuter survey,
and submit an annual report of TMP activities.

Target TDM Markets

TDM strategies can be customized by target markets, including consideration of the type
of land use (i.e., residential, commercial, or special event) and time of day (i.e., peak
period, midday, or all day). Figure 2, from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development proposed Recommended Practice,
summarizes the different types of TDM techniques commonly applied nationally to
reduce vehicle traffic generation by their target market and trip reduction focus.

5
 Figure 2: Travel Demand Management Techniques and Target Markets

Many TDM techniques are effective in reducing auto travel at all times of day, others are
specifically targeted toward peak period conditions. The Plan recommends continuation
of a focus on weekday peak period modal shifts to optimize transportation system
performance when congestion is greatest. As Montgomery County begins to consider
climate change and energy requirements identified in the 2009 Climate Protection Plan
the emphasis of travel demand management can be expected to shift somewhat from
managing traffic congestion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The two objectives
(peak period mobility versus daily or annual carbon footprint) are often, but not always,
in synch. Shifting travel modes from auto to walking or biking will serve both objectives
and TDM policies should encourage this type of shift as the highest priority. On the

6
other hand, shifting an auto trip from the peak period to the off-peak period will serve the
historic TDM objective of managing peak period performance, but has a smaller effect on
greenhouse gas emissions (the difference between travel speeds and emissions during
peak and off-peak periods).

The focus of active TDM strategies in the Gaithersburg West Master Plan is on
commuters who work in the LSC area, for three reasons:

Recurring vehicular travel demand is most constrained by traffic leaving the LSC
area during the evening peak period.
For the types of housing envisioned in the LSC (predominantly multifamily mid-
rise units), the location and market provide high levels of transit use without the
application of external TDM actions.
TDM strategies applied at the workplace are often more effective than those
applied at the residential level, due to both economies of scale and the fact that the
employer/employee relationship can often be more productively applied than the
residential owner/tenant relationship.

The staging plan for the LSC recommends that the mode share and transportation system
performance be monitored periodically to track planned progress in targeted modal shifts
and a reduction in per-unit vehicle trip generation rates. The implementation plan relies
on a strong linkage between public and private TDM efforts so that the responsibility for
success of the LSC trip reduction efforts are distributed across all plan area owners and
tenants.

Employees working in the LSC

The Plan recommends a 30% Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) goal for the LSC.
The current NADMS for this area is 16%. The NADMS measures the percentage of
travelers who drive to and from work in the LSC as opposed to taking other modes.

The Local Area Modeling performed for the LSC analysis presumed that the 30%
NADMS would be achieved over time for all commercial employees within the LSC
located north of Darnestown Road. For monitoring purposes, the NADMS has been
defined as follows:

Employees who normally arrive at their workplace in the LSC during the busiest
two hours of the morning peak period from 7:00 to 9:00 AM.
Auto drivers include those in single-occupant vehicles (SOV) and those driving
carpools and vanpools.
Non-auto drivers include transit riders, carpool/vanpool passengers, walkers,
bicyclists, as well as those who have a workplace in the LSC but telecommute on
the day of surveys.

The last Master Plan for the LSC area, the 1990 Shady Grove Study Area Master Plan
estimated, on average, approximately 12% of the home-to-work trips originating outside

7
the Study Area which are bound for Shady Grove would arrive at work via transit. As
noted previously, the NADMS goal for this Plan in the LSC is 30%. When comparing
these two mode shares it should be noted that the land area in the 1990 Shady Grove
Study Area Master Plan is roughly twice as large as the LSC and reflects a relatively
dispersed land use pattern located both east and west of I-270. Also, the 30% NADMS
goal for the LSC includes transit use, as well as other sub-mode shares such as
ridesharing and walking/biking. The Plan considers a 30% NADMS goal in the LSC area
achievable for several reasons, including: (1) the realignment of the CCT through the
LSC; (2) the concentration of planned development within walking distance of the three
proposed CCT stations in the LSC; (3) complementary feeder-bus service to the proposed
CTT stations; and (4) implementation of an active TDM program in the LSC (including
employer-sponsored subsidized transit fares, parking management strategies and
staggered work hours).

Residents living in the LSC

The 1990 Shady Grove West Study Area Plan identified a 75% auto-driver goal for the
journey-to-work for Study Area residents. The 2005 Census Update Survey noted that
this goal has very nearly been achieved in the R & D Village Policy Area, with a 73%
auto-driver mode share reported for residents in that area.

B. Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and Local Transit System

To serve the LSC area, this Plan recommends the realignment of the CCT with line-haul
service between the three proposed LSC CCT stations. To reduce delays for transit and
vehicles, this realignment may require CCT bridges over Key West Avenue (MD 28) and
Great Seneca Highway (MD 119). Project planning for the CCT takes into account the
potential need to reconfigure existing bus service to avoid duplication and ensure the
most efficient allocation of vehicles and personnel. There are currently six Ride On
routes from the Shady Grove Metro Station, three of which provide service to the LSC
area, including Shady Grove Adventist Hospital and the Traville Transit Center. When
the CCT is in place, these routes may need to be readjusted to ensure the most efficient
service. This Plan also recommends the development of express bus service using value-
priced lanes from I-270 and the Intercounty Connector (ICC), as well as shuttle bus
routes to serve the LSC area.

As densities increase in the LSC area with zoning requirements and design guidelines
that require buildings to be street-oriented rather than parking-lot oriented, the number of
potential transit riders and the attractiveness of transit will both increase.

8
Corridor Cities Transitway
Figure 3: Current CCT alignment

Background

The Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)

has been included in County master
plans in one form or another for over
20 years. The CCT is envisioned to be
either a bus rapid transit (BRT) or light
rail transit (LRT) system providing
frequent (5-10 minute) service between
the Shady Grove Metrorail Station and
Clarksburg (i.e., the COMSAT site). 1
Figure 1 shows the Current CCT
alignment.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CCT is to

provide improved mobility options
within the corridor as well as improved access to the Metrorail system. The CCT is
viewed as central to the establishment of active pedestrian oriented mixed use centers
along the entire corridor – not just in the Gaithersburg West area. As such, the respective
visions for the centers and the CCT are co-dependent.

Station Locations and Functions

The major corridor cities or activity centers served

by the CCT stations include Shady Grove, King
Farm, Crown Farm, Quince Orchard Park,
Metropolitan Grove, Germantown and the southern
edge of Clarksburg. One overriding objective in
recent past
(Shady Grove and
Twinbrook) and
current
(Germantown and Gaithersburg West) planning
efforts is to establish a vision for pedestrian oriented
mixed use communities with transit supportive
1
While adopted master plans envision the CCT extending into Frederick County, the current Environment
Assessment underway by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) includes only the segment between
Shady Grove and the COMSAT site in Clarksburg. Any eventual first phase of actual construction of the
CCT would likely involve a segment that began at the Shady Grove Metrorail station and ended at some
location south of the COMSAT site (e.g., Metropolitan Grove or Germantown).

9
densities within one-half mile of most station areas. It is the combination of a mix of
activities coupled with high quality of transit service that reduces the growth rate of
single occupant auto trips – sometimes significantly. There are 14 planned station
locations along the alignment between Shady Grove and COMSAT. The current plan is
for 7 of the 14 stations to have parking for transit riders, including the Washingtonian
(Crown Farm) and Decoverly stations.

Current CCT Study Underway

The Maryland Transit Administration is currently nearing completion of an updated

Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA of the CCT. It is anticipated
that the study will be completed during May 2009. The purpose of the study is to update
information from the 2002 Environmental Impact Statement on the impacts of the CCT
and to help in the selection of a preferred mode (bus rapid transit or light rail).

Alternative Alignment Recommended by Gaithersburg West Master Plan t

At its southern end, the CCT

current master planned alignment
(the blue line on Figure 4) goes
over I-270 heading west after
leaving King Farm and serves the
Crown Farm development in the
City of Gaithersburg before
entering the Gaithersburg West
study
area as it runs along the south side
of Decoverly Drive. The proposed
DANAC station is located on
Decoverly Drive just before the
alignment goes over Great Seneca
Highway. The Decoverly Station is
located on the west side of Great
Seneca Highway.

The red line represents potential

modifications to the CCT
alignment in this area. The
modified alignment within Crown
Farm is a result of the local review Figure 4: Draft Plan CCT alignment and stations
of the development carried out by the City of Gaithersburg and has been closely
coordinated with the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA).

The Plan recommends the CCT alignment be extended south along Broschart Road to
better serve the Shady Grove Life Sciences Center, the land where the Public Service
Training Academy is currently located, and the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Belward

10
Research Campus with stations at each of these locations. Commuter parking would
likely be available at no more than two of the stations and more likely, just one of the
three stations.

The analysis of this proposed change to the alignment of the CCT is being carried out by
the MTA using updated land use forecasts provided by teh Planning Department. 2It is
not anticipated that the analysis will be completed until sometime after the release of the
Alternatives Analysis / Environmental Assessment in May 2009. Once completed, the
analysis is expected to inform the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative –
scheduled to occur sometime in Fall 2009.3

The staff believes the proposed alignment shift through the LSC area will both better
support the vision for the area, complement the other planning efforts along the I-270
corridor, and better fulfill the potential of the CCT. As a result, it is recommended that
the CCT planning move ahead under the assumption that the concept of the proposed
modification of the alignment south to serve the LSC area better fulfills the Plan vision –
even it results in the need for additional environmental impact analysis.

It should also be noted that some communities near the proposed change in the
alignment have recently requested that other modifications to the alignment on the
Belward campus be considered. While potential additional modifications are not
currently being studied by the MTA, the staff feels that the dialogue should continue so
as not to preclude further consideration at a later date.

CCT Staging Considerations

It is possible the CCT will involve a staged or phased implementation – regardless of

mode or alignment. Some key factors to consider in the staging plan include the
following:

The service should be frequent (ten minutes or less)

The average scheduled speed needs to be faster than conventional local bus
service – a minimum of 15 mph.
The vehicles should be new, low floor, hybrid electric or other clean technology,
and branded.
Station boarding areas should be distinctive, well-lit, and far enough apart to
maintain an attractive average scheduled speed.

2
The forecast provided MTA include updated estimates for Germantown, Twinbrook, and White Flint as
well.
3
Note that the analysis of the alternative alignment effectively expands the scope of the LPA decision to
include alignment (master plan or new alignment through LSC area) as well as mode (bus rapid transit or
light rail). If the new alignment is chosen as part of the LPA, it is possible the Federal Transit
Administration will require the MTA to conduct another supplemental environmental assessment, which
could delay the project entering the FTA‟s New Start pipeline.

11
Existing Ride-On Service

There are nine Ride-On routes that serve the general Gaithersburg West planning area.
The extent to which they operate in the Figure 5: Ride-On Routes and Average Ridership
planning area varies so the daily ridership Peak Average
Route
shown in the table to the right includes From To Period Weekday
No.
passengers boarding outside the planning Frequency Ridership
area. Shady Shady
43 Grove Grove 15 900
Metrorail Hospital
54 Rockville Lake Forest 20 2,200
Germantown
55 Rockville Transit 15 6,900
Center
56 Rockville Lake Forest 20 2,500
Shady Traville
66 Grove Transit 30 110
Metrorail Center
Shady Traville
67 Grove Transit 30 130
Metrorail Center
Shady Germantown
74 Grove Transit 30 750
Metrorail Center
Shady
76 Grove Poolesville 30 600
Metrorail
Shady
Kingsview
78 Grove 30 230
Park & Ride
Metrorail

Ride – On Strategic Plan

The September 2008 Draft Strategic Plan for Ride-On indicated Travilah as an
underserved area of the County. Additional service in that area would likely result in
additional service in the Gaithersburg West area.

Potential Bus Service Changes In Response To Introduction of CCT

Project planning for the CCT takes into account the need to re-configure the existing bus
service in order to avoid duplication and insure the most efficient allocation of vehicles
and personnel. Preliminary concept level planning of how a route network might evolve
if the CCT were in place has been conducted by the MTA – in consultation with the
County‟s Ride-On staff as well as WMATA‟s Metrobus staff.

As of this writing, the operating plan for the bus service envisioned under the BRT
alternative for the CCT calls for improved service frequencies on the above routes and
does not call for any route terminals to change. Under the LRT alternative, the Rockville

12
routes and Route 43 would have improved service frequencies with no change in where
these routes begin or end. The balance of the routes (those more oriented to the LSC area)
would be shorter, operate more frequently, and be designed as feeder routes for the CCT.

Preliminary Ridership, Cost, and Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for the CCT

The MTA project team has released the following preliminary ridership (year 2030)
estimates for the CCT using Round 6.4 demographic projectiojns. The average weekday
ridership is estimated to range from 21,000 to 30,000. The estimates reflect Round 6.4
demographic forecasts and the current CCT alignment.

Figure 6: Round 6.4 Ridership for existing CCT alignment

13
In addition, the MTA has released estimates of the cost effectiveness of the alternatives
under consideration (see table below).

Figure 7: Cost Effectiveness of the Existing CCT alignment.

The “Annualized Cost Per Hour of User Benefit” (column “D” in the table) is a variable
that takes into account the annualized costs of the respective alternatives and the extent to
which travel time benefits occur when compared to the “TSM” or Transportation System
Management alternative.4 This variable is used by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) to evaluate projects across the country that are competing for federal funds to help
construct the project. Under the current guidelines used by the FTA, the cost per hour for
the Light Rail Transit (LRT) alternatives exceeds the amount that the FTA would
consider competitive for funding. The BRT alternatives are well below the FY 2009
threshold cost of $23.99 per hour, indicating greater funding potential for BRT. The cost
estimates are not expected to change prior to the availability of the AA/EA document in
May 2009 but are expected to change when the alignment through the Life Sciences
Center area is examined by the MTA project team.

Transit Supportive Density Considerations

There is a considerable amount of existing and evolving research on station area

densities, pedestrian accessibility and connectivity, transit mode share, and other issues
related to transit oriented development

4
The TSM alternative is an alternative that includes improved bus service operating over existing
roadways. There is no transitway that would be constructed under this alternative.

14
 The Planning Department has reviewed available current material on this issue and
provides the following examples as representative.

The Federal Transit Administration has sponsored a report by Reconnecting America,

“Station Area Planning: How to Make Great Transit-oriented Places,” that identifies
different types of activity centers in the context of function, density and level of transit
service as shown in the following tables.

Figure 8: Characteristics of Transit Oriented Development

Source: Station Area Planning, Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development,
February 2008, page 8.

Some representative or general TOD residential categories include the following:

15
Figure 9: Characteristics of Residential Transit Oriented Development

Source: Station Area Planning, Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development,
February 2008, page 12.

16
An example of a similar typology for mixed use sites is presented below:
Figure 10: Characteristics of Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development

Source: Station Area Planning, Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development,
February 2008, page 13.

17
Non –Auto Mode Share

The available research indicates that the percent of work trips by residents in a Transit
Oriented Development environment made by either taking transit, walking, or by bike
varies but in general, is much higher than for the region overall. This is especially the
case in maturing regions with heavy rail systems as noted in the tables below from the
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 128: “Effects of TOD on
Housing, Parking, and Travel.”

Figure 11: Transit Trends for Journey to work trips for selected TODs

Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 128, Transportation Research Board, 2008, page 9.

18
Figure 12: Walk/bike trends for Journey to work trips for selected TODs

Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 128, Transportation Research Board, 2008, page 10.

19
TOD Density Thresholds and the CCT

In general, minimum job densities that are “transit-supportive” for fixed-guideway line-
haul services – i.e., establish a ridership base for peak period service that is frequent and
reasonably competitive with the auto trip is thought to be in the 25-50 jobs/acre range.
The corresponding minimum number for residential development is in the 10-35 dwelling
units/acre range. The ranges and mix can vary by station but these are the minimum
densities to support transit. The area over which the density threshold is typically applied
is the area within one-half mile of the station with the higher densities nearer the station
(within ¼ mile of the station).

The staff has examined the station area densities along the CCT alignment using the COG
Round 6.4 land use forecasts, for all stations except the LSC area. The Round 6.4
forecasts were developed in 2003 as the Department began analyzing I-270 corridor
master plans. In the LSC area, jobs and housing were estimated for year 2030 and were
provided to the MTA for their evaluation of the proposed alignment in August 2008.

A summary of the estimate of jobs and housing in the August 2008 forecasts used by
MTA is presented below:

Figure 13: Staff’s August 2008 Forecast for 2030 Development

TAZ 218 TAZ 219 TAZ 220

20
Figure 14 shows how these densities compare with other station area densities – both
along the CCT and along Metrorail – where we are reasonably comfortable making those
estimates.5

Figure 14: Round 6.4 Forecast for 2030 Development Comparisons

5
The estimates of station area densities are based upon traffic zones and in some cases, the traffic zones
may extend slightly beyond one-half mile from the station in question. Nevertheless, the staff believes this
approach or methodology provides a good relative comparison of the densities currently planned for the
various station areas. It should be noted that Round 6.4 does not include the land use assumptions in the
Germantown Draft Plan now before County Council and that Round 7.0 does not include land use
assumptions in the White Flint Draft Plan.

21
Figure 15: Forecast for 2030 LSC Development Comparisons for TOD

August 2008 Forecast

The examination of the station area densities indicates that the initial 2030 land use
forwarded to the MTA exceeds the generally accepted minimum densities for TOD
station areas and is approximately double the station area job density planned for Crown
Farm and the west side of King Farm. In general, the station area densities along the CCT
at some other stations (excluding Germantown, Shady Grove, Crown Farm, King Farm –
the more recently planned station areas) are below the minimum densities.6

In summary, the staff analysis of station area densities in Round 6.4 led to the conclusion
that additional density should be concentrated at selected CCT stations where
redevelopment potential is highest to improve CCT competitiveness for federal funding.

6
Again, it important to note that not all stations should necessarily meet the generally accepted density
thresholds. The guidelines are intended to be applied along the entire corridor so that there is an indication
of whether the land use in the corridor overall is dense enough to be “transit supportive”.

22
C. Street Network

Figures 16 and 18 replicates figures on pages 37 and 65 of the Gaithersburg West Master
Plan, which present the proposed overall street network for the plan area and a closer
view of the LSC district. The proposed road network has the following elements:

A network of traffic-carrying, master-planned, business district streets (shown as

fuschia lines for major highways and blue lines for arterials in both figures)
designed to reflect the County‟s new Road Code emphasis on multimodal access
and stormwater management.

A secondary network of business district streets (shown as orange lines in the

figure on page 37) will provide internal site accessibility to the LSC with a focus
on enhancing pedestrian connectivity by reducing block size.

Figure 16: Gaithersburg West Street Network

23
Specific streets described in the Plan and this Appendix include:

Sam Eig Highway

To support proposed development levels while maintaining a suburban level of mobility

for automobile users, this Plan sees the need to reconstruct Sam Eig Highway as a grade-
separated boulevard within a 250‟ wide right-of-way with three through lanes in each
direction, shoulders suitable for peak-period, peak-direction use by BRT, and two-lane,
one-way, frontage roads providing connections to Fields Road and Diamondback Drive
and a flyover ramp connection from eastbound Great Seneca Highway to northbound
Sam Eig Highway. A concept plan was developed to illustrate how this would function,
and the minimum right-of-way expansion needed to accommodate improvements, shown
in Figure 17.

24
Figure 17: Illustrative concept of Sam Eig as a Controlled Major Highway

Key West Avenue (MD 28)

This Plan shows the need to accommodate buildout levels of development on an

expanded roadway network. The predominant east-west vehicle movement in the Plan
area is accommodated on Key West Avenue, following construction efforts to expand
that roadway and reroute through traffic to it, as evidenced by its designation as MD
Route 28.
25
Were buildout levels of proposed land uses to occur, in order to proceed to that level of
development in accordance with the staging plan, this plan sees the need to ultimately
reconstruct Key West Avenue (MD 28) within a 200‟ wide right-of-way between Great
Seneca Highway and Shady Grove Road to provide a consistent design treatment
including a wide landscaped median, four through travel lanes (in each direction), and a
separate curb lane that can provide multiple functions. During peak periods, the curb lane
should serve as a through lane for transit vehicles only and a right turn lane for other
vehicles.
The staging recommendations in the Plan require a decision on the ultimate configuration
for Key West Avenue prior to Stage 3 of development (buildout). The recommended
200‟ wide right-of-way would facilitate the development of urban-diamond interchanges
at Great Seneca Highway and Shady Grove Road with Key West Avenue elevated above
the cross streets. The roadway would need to be reconstructed as an urban boulevard
between the two interchanges, and the distance between existing building faces would
accommodate the wider right-of-way.

Longdraft Road (A-33)

Longdraft Road forms the boundary between the City of Gaithersburg and the Gaithersburg West
Master Plan. The east side of Longdraft Road is in the City of Gaithersburg and the west side is
part of this Master Plan. The 1985 Master Plan classified Longdraft Road from Pheasant Run
Drive (in the City of Gaithersburg) to the railroad as an arterial (A-33). The 1985 Plan also
identified sections of Longdraft Road and Watkins Mill Road as an arterial route (A-17) that
would extend from Quince Orchard Road to Great Seneca Creek with a recommended right-of-
way of 80 feet and 4 travel lanes. This proposed route assumed that Watkins Mill Road would be
extended from its current terminus at Route 355, across I-270. At Clopper Road, Pheasant Run
Drive would connect Watkins Mill Road with Longdraft Road.

At the request of the City of Gaithersburg, the County Department of Transportation (DOT)
studied this route and recommended using Clopper Road, rather that Pheasant Run Drive, as a
link between Watkins Mill Road extended and Longdraft Road. This Plan recommends that
Longdraft Road and Watkins Mill Road be classified separately as A-33 and A-17, respectively.
This Plan recommends that the arterial designation for the northernmost portion of Longdraft
Road, from Clopper Road to the railroad, be removed.

In 2004, DOT initiated a facility planning study for Longdraft Road from Quince Orchard Road
to Clopper Road. The study examined whether this 2-lane, 1 1/2 mile section of Longdraft Road
should be widened to accommodate existing and future traffic projections. In addition to
potential roadway improvements, the study examined bicycle and pedestrian enhancements. In
July, 2008 the County Council T&E Committee determined the Longdraft Road facility planning
study should not proceed to Phase II, referring the elements recommended by the Planning Board
and resident Coalition to other programs within DOT‟s capital and operating budgets to move
forward. By doing so these elements likely will be implemented sooner than if they remained
within a project planning study.

26
 Renumber Longdraft Road as A-33 (from A-17) from Quince Orchard Road to Clopper
Road (excluding the section from Longdraft Court to Golden Post Lane, which is
completely within the City of Gaithersburg).
Remove the arterial designation of Longdraft Road north of Clopper Road to the railroad.

Watkins Mill Road (A-17)

As discussed above, Watkins Mill Road and Longdraft Road were recommended in the 1985
Master Plan as an arterial route (A-17) from Quince Orchard Road on the south to Great Seneca
Creek on the north. This Plan recommends that the two roads continue to be designated as
arterials, but considered as separate routes with individual numbers. A portion of Watkins Mill
Road (from Route 355 to just north of Windbrooke Drive) is in the City of Gaithersburg and is
designated as an arterial. The City of Gaithersburg has planned an extension of Watkins Mill
Road south of Route 355 to Clopper Road, with a new interchange at I-270. The extension of
Watkins Mill Road and the new I-270 interchange are funded for planning and engineering in the
State‟s 2004 Comprehensive Transportation Program. This Plan supports the City‟s efforts to
complete this connection.

Watkins Mill Road from Windbrooke Drive to Great Seneca Creek is within the boundaries of
this Master Plan and the Montgomery Village community. There are four public schools along
this section of Watkins Mill Road and the community has raised concerns about traffic safety.
The 2004 CIP included a traffic calming project to analyze options to reduce travel speed and
improve safety on this road. This project is required by the County Council before construction of
a new interchange at I-270 and Watkins Mill Road extended.

Classify Watkins Mill Road (A-17) from Great Seneca Creek to 400 feet north of
Windbrooke Drive as an arterial with an 80-foot right-of-way and 4 lanes.
List the right-of-way requirements for Watkins Mill Road from Clopper Road to 400
feet north of Windbrooke Drive as “not applicable,” since this section is in the City of
Gaithersburg.
Support further study to address traffic safety and the potential for traffic calming
measures along Watkins Mill Road in Montgomery Village.
Support the extension of Watkins Mill Road from Route 355 to Clopper Road in the
City of Gaithersburg.

The Plan recommendations also include:

Removal of the proposed grade-separated interchange between Darnestown Road and

Shady Grove Road, as the intersection is forecast to operate near capacity with an at-
grade solution. Land use and travel demand distribution will focus east-west travel along
Key West Avenue (MD 28), requiring a higher infrastructure investment at plan build-
out, including a grade-separated interchange at Key West Avenue junction with Shady
Grove Road.
Retention of Darnestown Road as a four-lane arterial, recognizing adjacent community
interest in a down-classification of the roadway but also the need for four lanes of
capacity and an arterial function
Retention of Game Preserve Road as an unclassified master plan roadway, recognizing
adjacent community and Rustic Road Advisory Committee interest in a rustic road
classification. Analysis performed during plan development indicates that the roadway
currently has safety concerns that do not support rustic road classification. The interest in

27
reclassification is prompted in part by concerns regarding through traffic that will be
reduced by the completion of the parallel arterial Watkins Mill Road between MD 355
and MD 117.
Reduction in the number of through travel lanes on Oakmont Avenue from four lanes to
two lanes, but retention of a reconstructed Deer Park Bridge over the CSX tracks,
recognizing the need to retain a grade-separated arterial roadway function for the adjacent
commercial area and neighboring communities.

28
Master Planned Business Streets

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan has a street network that includes major highways,
arterials, and master-planned business streets. These streets are required elements of the
Master Plan and associated development; these streets should be built according to
County design standards to accommodate both regional (for major highways and
arterials) and local (for business streets) travel needs.

Section 49-31 of the County Code defines the functional classification system for
roadways, including:

A Major Highway is a road meant nearly exclusively for through movement of

vehicles at a moderate speed. Access must be primarily from grade-separated
interchanges and at-grade intersections with public roads, although driveway
access is acceptable in urban and denser suburban settings.
An Arterial is a road meant primarily for through movement of vehicles at a
moderate speed, although some access to abutting property is expected.
A Business District Street is a road meant for circulation in commercial and
mixed-use zones.
A Primary Residential Street is a road meant primarily for circulation in
residential zones, although some through traffic is expected.

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan takes into consideration the County‟s Road Code
(Chapter 49) developed in 2006 and design standards (Executive Regulation 31-08)
developed in 2007 and 2008. Executive Regulation 31-08 stresses the need to develop
context-sensitive solutions; street designs that reflect and emphasize the planned adjacent
land uses. The design guidance reflects that while the County formally has rural,
suburban, and urban areas, a continuum exists both across and within those three
designations.

The business street system is therefore intended to be a slow-speed environment, with

both the public and private realms designed to emphasize a 30 MPH target speed.

29
Figure 18: LSC Street Network

Secondary Grid of Local Streets

The Figure on page 37 of the Plan describes a secondary street system that will be
developed to nest within the Major Highway and Arterial street system. These streets are
designed to facilitate site access (particularly for the larger development sites) and
improve the granularity and permeability of the network to enhance pedestrian and
bicycle mobility.

In addition to pedestrian connectivity, the tighter grid of roads can extend operational
flexibility options such as left turn restrictions at major congested intersections and
access management along major roads. These business streets are predominantly two
lanes, with parking on one (60‟ wide ROW) or both sides (70‟ or 100„ ROW). They
should include curb extensions at crosswalks to further reduce pedestrian exposure to
vehicular traffic.

30
The locations of roads (in the Master Plan of Highways figure on page 37) where
development is in place provide an opportunity to thread between existing buildings and
environmental constraints while still providing a grid network for pedestrians and
vehicles. Their final alignments will be subject to further engineering evaluation at the
time of new development or redevelopment.

Notable new roads include:

B-1, Blackwell Road should be extended on to the PSTA site to Medical Center
Drive Extended (A-261d), or if possible, to Darnestown Road so as to provide a
business district road parallel to Key West Avenue specific to the LSC.
B-2, a new road connection of the Decoverly development access road to
Research Boulevard.
B-3, B-4, new roads to connect the LSC Belward District to the highway network.
Connection to the existing signalized intersection with Darnestown Road helps
preserve mobility for pedestrians as well as vehicles.
B-8, a new road connecting the LSC Central District to Key West Avenue. The
section south of Blackwell is shown as split into two one way pairs with a green,
walkable space between to take advantage of the space between existing hospital
buildings.
B-16, a new road connection from Medical Center Drive to Travilah Gateway
Drive. This connection, also constructed as a local business district street, would
provide a direct pedestrian connection across Darnestown Road between the LSC
Central District CCT stop, the Universities at Shady Grove site and the Traville
development. It may also be necessary to realign the current Universities at Shady
Grove entrance of Travilah Gateway Drive to better match a new road opposite
Darnestown Road.
B-18, would be a new road extending Great Seneca Highway south of
Darnestown Road to connect to Travilah Gateway drive. The connection,
constructed as a local business district street, would also provide a direct
pedestrian connection across Darnestown Road into LSC South along the most
direct path for persons walking from a future CCT stop on the PSTA site. This
connection would provide an additional access point at an already signalized
location.

31
D. Bicycle and Pedestrian System

The bicycle and pedestrian system

recommendations for Gaithersburg
West will be implemented through
a combination of land use and
zoning policies, local street network
implementation, and pedestrian
access and safety improvements.

Bikeway Network

Figures on pages 70 and 73 of the

Draft Master Plan propose a
bikeway system with three key
elements:

An off-road, shared-use path

system that connects
Gaithersburg West to other Figure 19: Gaithersburg West and LSC Bike Network
areas of the County via
bikeways adopted in the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan (2005)
Shared-use paths along major highways and arterial roadways, separating cyclists
from higher speed vehicles
An emphasis on slower, signed-shared bikeways on new roadways within the Life
Sciences Center area. These roads would use a 30 MPH target speed to facilitate
shared space, rather than separated modal facilities and the Road Code emphasis
on bike accommodation on all streets.

Off-road shared use paths and on-road bicycle accommodations serve different users;
where a majority of the avid cycling community is interested in quality on-road bike
accommodation. However, the higher speeds of the highways and arterials in the plan
area encourage separation of cyclists from vehicles on those roads. The number of off-
road paths in the Plan is therefore significant; building on the adopted paths from the
Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan.

In September 2007, the Planning Board supported the staff position on the Road Code
that generally marked bike lanes should be provided as a matter of course on roads with
daily traffic volumes of more than 20,000 vehicles per day or a posted speed of 45 MPH
or greater.

Pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety

Pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety in the LSC area will be pursued through several
initiatives, including:
design standards to implement the County‟s Road Code,

32
 design guidelines for private sector development in the plan area,
zoning requirements for bicycle parking and other amenities, and
engineering, education, and enforcement programs under the County Executive‟s
Pedestrian Safety Initiative.

In 2007, the County Council adopted several amendments to Chapter 49 of the County
Code concerning streets and roads to improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodation,
stormwater management, and context-sensitive design. In December 2008, the Council
approved Executive Regulation 31-08 AM, Context Sensitive Road Design Standards,
which specify certain design standards and processes for implementing the revised road
construction code, most notably the typical cross-section standards for many types of
roads and streets, the required stormwater management criteria for capturing runoff
within the right-of-way, and considerations for establishing target speeds and street tree
placement. Continued effort is needed to complete the range of street design standards
and intersection design standards that will be needed to promote pedestrian and bicyclist
access and safety in new or reconstructed roadway design.

The Planning Board will adopt Design Guidelines within the LSC that will provide
guidance for the pedestrian realm to improve access, comfort and safety, including:

building orientation to maximize pedestrian accessibility

street tree planting
design treatments for sidewalks and driveways
street lighting
signing and marking

The draft Plan proposes application of the LSC zone for much of the LSC area. This
zone is designed to facilitate pedestrian access and safety through several means:

pedestrian-oriented activity at street level with uses such as storefront retail and
restaurants,
safety-oriented environmental design including clearly marked sidewalks and
crosswalks,
street trees providing canopy and landscaping on all streets, including street
furniture such as benches, trash receptacles, and planters, and
continuous, direct, and convenient connections to transit stations for pedestrians
and bicyclists.

As both public and private sector projects are implemented, all agencies need to elevate
pedestrian and bicycle access and safety considerations in the review of design and
operational elements, including:

maximum curb radii of 30‟,

signal timing, including pedestrian countdown signals that provide the ability to
complete roadway crossing at a speed of 2.5 feet per second or slower, and at

33
 least five seconds of startup time (and greater time where pedestrian volumes
result in platooning),
maximum crosswalk lengths of 60‟ between pedestrian refuges
accessible bus stop locations at or near marked crosswalks,
signing and marking per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
including marked crosswalks on all approaches to signalized intersections and
elimination of lane markings across intersections,
street lighting designed to improve the visibility of pedestrians at levels specified
by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, and
design of mixed-use streets and pedestrian walkways/alleys using Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design criteria.

E. Staging

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan recommends a staged implementation that requires
the completion of certain transportation infrastructure within each stage and a progressive
achievement toward the planned NADMS in stages generally proportional to the assumed
land use growth. Approximately 3.7 million square feet of non-residential development
is approved and un-built in the LSC pipeline of development. This increment of
development is not subject to the Plans‟s staging requirements as long as a project‟s
Preliminary Plan continues to be valid. The following staging requirements apply to the
LSC Central, West, and Belward Districts.

Stage 1

Before Stage 1 begins, the following actions must take place:

Fund and begin operating the Greater Shady Grove Transportation Management
District (TMD);
Create a LSC policy area with urban standards and characteristics;
Document the baseline of non-auto driver mode share (estimated at 16%) through
monitoring and traffic counts and;
Include the entirety of the Rickman property, located along Travilah Road, into
the new LSC Policy Area.

Stage 1 allows up to 6 million square feet (including existing and pipeline of

development) of non-residential development recommended by this Plan. This increment
of development is calculated at the low end of density that reasonably supports higher
investment in transit such as Bus Rapid Transit, one of the modes being considered for
the CCT. The initial review of this Plan‟s land use recommendations, facility needs, and
staging is expected to occur during Stage 1.

Stage 2

Before Stage 2 begins, the following actions must take place:

34
 Relocate the Public Service Training Academy (PSTA);
Fund the CCT from the Shady Grove Metro Station to Belward property in the
County‟s six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or State Consolidated
Transportation Plan (CTP);
Fund the LSC Loop trail in the County‟s six-year CIP;
Construct and open to traffic a least one public street connection across both the
Belward property and the PSTA to provide a direct connection between Key West
Avenue, Muddy Branch Road, and Great Seneca Highway and;
Document a five percentage point increase over the baseline for the non-auto
driver mode share.

Stage 2 allows up to 12 million square feet (including existing and pipeline development)
of non-residential development recommended by this Plan.

Stage 3

Before Stage 3 begins, the following actions must take place:

Begin operating the CCT from the Shady Grove Metro to Clarksburg;
Determine the need for an elementary school in LSC West (on the PSTA site);
Document a 15 percentage point increase over the baseline for non-auto driver
mode share and;
Fully find the widening of Key West Avenue and the interchanges the LSC area,
or transportation projects providing equivalent mobility, in the County‟s six-year
CIP or the State CTP.

Stage 3 allows up to 15 million square feet (including existing and pipeline development)
of non-residential development.

Plan Evaluation Six Years After Adoption

State law requires revisiting master plans every six years. This Plan‟s review will be
particularly important in assessing how the area is developing, impacts on infrastructure
delivery, and if the vision is being achieved. The review of the Plan should examine:

the ratio of jobs to housing – are local workers occupying the housing?;
the built form‟s evolution;
absorption rates to determine the rate of needed infrastructure delivery;
costs to the County;
the CCT‟s delivery schedule;
traffic generation and roadway performance and;
the area institutions‟ investment in the Plan‟s vision.

35
 3. Transportation/Land Use Balance
The Gaithersburg West Master Plan transportation analyses reflect the procedural
guidance established by the County Council‟s growth policy. This guidance is described
below, followed by additional description of regional transportation and land use
assumptions and a brief summary of the alternative local land use scenarios analyzed.

This Plan establishes a new LSC Policy Area for the LSC Central, LSC West and LSC
Belward transit station areas, with policy attributes the same as for the Germantown
Town Center Policy area.
Figure 20 shows how the Plan‟s proposed level and mix of development in the LSC
Policy Area.

Figure 20: LSC Policy Area Land Use

Area Acres Existing Future
Jobs HH Jobs HH
LSC 567 9,200 0 44,600 4,525

36
A. Measures of Effectiveness

The analysis of alternative development scenarios considers three levels of transportation

impacts:

An areawide mobility analysis indicates the degree to which the alternative local
land use and transportation scenarios provide an appropriate balance between land
use and transportation per current County policies,
an intersection congestion analysis indicates the degree to which alternative land
use or transportation changes affect congestion hot-spots within the LSC area, and
a cordon line analysis demonstrates the relative effects of vehicles generated by
alternative local land use scenarios as compared to through travel

The first two measures are elements of the County‟s Growth Policy, called Policy Area
Mobility Review (PAMR) and Local Area Transportation Review (LATR). Both PAMR
and LATR are summarized below and detailed background information is available on
the Department‟s website, www.montgomeryplanning.org
.

B. Policy Area Mobility Review

Since the early 1980s, every master plan has considered the “balance” between land use
and transportation using an assessment of areawide conditions forecast for end-state
conditions for the plan. Policy Area Mobility Review is the current measure of areawide
transportation adequacy, introduced into the County Growth Policy in 2007. It is similar
in nature to the Policy Area Transportation Review measure that was an element of the
Growth Policy from 1982 to 2003.

PAMR provides a measure of transportation system adequacy considering Relative

Transit Mobility and Relative Arterial Mobility for each of the County‟s 21 policy areas.
PAMR is used in the implementation of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
(APFO) to forecast conditions considering the County‟s pipeline of approved
development and near-term transportation system improvements for which funding is
committed during the next four years.

PAMR continues a long-standing County policy that higher levels of roadway congestion
are appropriate in areas with higher quality transit service. This policy provides
multimodal equity across the county and facilitates the development of pedestrian-
oriented, rather than auto-oriented, improvements in Metro Station Policy Areas.
Through PAMR, the County Council has established transit and arterial level of service
(LOS) standards for each policy area by considering areawide adequacy on two scales:

Transit LOS is established by considering relative transit mobility, defined as

the relative speed by which journey to work trips can be made by transit as
opposed to by auto, and

37
 Arterial LOS is established by considering relative arterial mobility, defined as
the relative speed by which auto trips move during peak congestion periods as
compared to the free-flow speed.

Relative transit mobility is based on the Transit/Auto Travel Time level of service
concept in the 2003 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual published by the
Transportation Research Board. It is defined as the relative speed by which journey to
work trips can be made by transit, as opposed to by auto. This concept assigns letter
grades to various levels of transit service, so that LOS A conditions exist for transit when
a trip can be made more quickly by transit (including walk-access/drive-access and wait
times) than by single-occupant auto. This LOS A condition exists in the Washington
region for certain rail transit trips with short walk times at both ends of the trip and some
bus trips in HOV corridors. LOS F conditions exist when a trip takes more than an hour
longer to make by transit than by single-occupant auto.

Relative arterial mobility is a measure of congestion on the County‟s arterial roadway

network. It is based on the urban street delay level of service in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. This concept
measures congestion by comparing modeled (congested) speeds to free-flow speeds on
arterial roadways. It then assigns letter grades to the various levels of roadway
congestion, with letter A assigned to the best levels of service and letter F assigned to the
worst levels of service. For a trip along an urban street that has a free-flow speed
(generally akin to posted speed) of 40 MPH, LOS A conditions exist when the actual
travel speed is at least 34 MPH, including delays experienced at traffic signals. At the
other end of the spectrum, LOS F conditions exist when the actual travel speed is below
10 MPH.

This review of policy areas has been part of the Annual Growth Policy since 1982.
During that time, the Average Congestion Index (ACI) has also been used in the
development of Master Plans to determine whether or not the end-state land use and
transportation recommendations of the Master Plan are “in balance”. Master Plan Study
areas typically address roadway capacity needs by intersection improvements rather than
roadway widening. Therefore, the AGP process has evaluated Master Plan Study Areas
in conjunction with the master plan and policy area surrounding these areas.

The LSC area is located within and comprises a major portion of the R & D Village
Policy Area. Figure 21 shows the forecast Policy Area Mobility Review conditions for
all Policy Areas in the County for 2030 assuming the Gaithersburg West Master Plan
“High” Scenario with a 32.5% NADMS. Figure 22 provides a tabular summary of the
supporting travel data, including vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of
travel (VHT) for both free-flow and congested conditions. Given the assumptions of the
“High” Scenario, as indicated in Figure 21, the R & D Village Policy Area is forecast to
operate at:

Relative Transit Mobility of 63% (LOS C – between 60% and 75%)

Relative Arterial Mobility of 40% (LOS D – between 40% and 55%)

38
The current Growth Policy requires that all Policy Areas have a Relative Arterial
Mobility of at least 40%, or LOS D conditions, regardless of the level of transit service
provided. The PAMR results derived from the analysis of the scenario described above
just meets this threshold.

It should be noted that the PAMR analyses performed thus far in support of the Plan has
evaluated a range of scenarios . The demographics associated with the “High” Scenario
reflect the upper bound of the demographic scenarios tested in terms of intensity of
development and resultant travel demand. The level of development reflected in the
Plan-recommended scenario is less intense than that assumed in the “High” Scenario.
Therefore, staff is confident that the Plan-recommended scenario will be “in balance”
from a Master Plan perspective.

Figure 21: Policy Area Mobility Review Chart-2030

39
 Figure 22: Policy Area Mobility Review Table-2030

The assessment of Policy Area conditions in Figures 21 and 22 reflect the upper bound of
the demographic scenarios tested for the LSC in combination with Round 7.1
demographic forecasts for all other areas in the Washington metropolitan region.
Therefore, while the exhibits are appropriately labeled with a horizon year of 2030, staff
does not expect that the full master plan yield for any of the Policy Areas will be
achieved by the year 2030. Figure 23 provides a summary of year 2005 PAMR
conditions by policy area for comparison purposes.

Figure 23: Policy Area Transportation Review Table - 2005

40
C. Local Area Transportation Review (LATR)

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan supports redevelopment toward a transit-oriented

community with an emphasis on pedestrian accessibility, connectivity, and safety.

The intersection analysis applies the Critical Lane Volume (CLV) methodology from the
Department‟s Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) guidelines. The CLV values
are converted to a volume-to-capacity, or V/C ratio, by dividing the current or forecasted
CLV values by the applicable congestion standard.

As shown in Figure 24, the County‟s Growth Policy establishes acceptable levels of
congestion for different policy areas based on the degree to which alternative modes of
transportation are available. In rural policy areas, where few alternatives to auto
transport exist, the congestion standard is 1350 CLV (which equates to the middle range
of LOS D). In Metro Station Policy Areas, where multiple alternatives to auto transport
are provided, the congestion standard is 1800.

The Public Hearing Draft Plan recommends creating a Town Center policy area to
encompass the entire LSC district, so that intersections within the district and served by
the CCT would have a congestion standard of 1600 CLV. Currently, intersections in the
LSC area have a congestion standard of 1450 CLV. Intersections along Shady Grove
Road have a congestion standard of 1500 CLV where the Rockville Policy Area overlaps.

41
Figure 24: Intersection Congestion Standards by Policy Area

Figure 25 provides a tabular summary of the congested intersections under both existing
conditions and the High land use scenario tested for the Draft Plan. (Note that the Draft
Plan recommended land use contains approximately one million square feet less
commercial use than the High land use scenario tested.) As indicated in Figure 25:

Currently, all but three of the tested signalized intersections pass the congestion
test. Shady Grove Road at Key West Avenue (MD 28), Great Seneca Highway at
Muddy Branch Road, and Darnestown Road (MD 28) at Muddy Branch Road
exceed either the 1450 or 1600 CLV congestion standards if full buildout of the
High Scenario were to occur.
Nine intersections tested under the “High” land use scenario would exceed the
1600 CLV standard. At four of these locations, forecast CLVs over 2000 (a v/c
ratio of 1.25) warrant planning for grade-separated interchanges. This plan also
retains the recommendation for an east bound left flyover ramp from Great
Seneca Highway to Sam Eig Highway.
Five of the at-grade intersections tested under the high land use scenario are
forecast to exceed the 1600 CLV congestion standard at Plan buildout during
either the AM or PM peak hour. Those intersections are Shady Grove Road at

42
 Corporate Boulevard, Key West Avenue and Broschart Road, Darnestown Road
and Muddy Branch, Key West Avenue and Omega Drive/Medical Center Drive,
and Key West Avenue and Darnestown Road. At these locations, the forecast
CLVs range from 1668 to 1721, indicative of delays associated with Metro
Station Policy Area development. Grade separated interchanges are not warranted
at this level of forecast congestion, but at-grade improvements will be required as
development occurs.

At the time of Draft Appendix publication, analysis of the Draft Plan land use on
intersection congestion remains in progress. The Draft Plan land use scenario generates
about 10% fewer vehicle trips than does the High land use scenario represented in Figure
25. Considering the effect of through traffic, staff expects the CLVs for the Draft Plan
scenario to generally be about 5% lower than those shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Intersection Analysis

43
D. Cordon Line Analysis

A cordon line analysis is a general tool to quickly compare total traffic volumes entering
or leaving the Gaithersburg West Master Plan area. Over the course of the Master Plan
development process, a “subregional” cordon line was established, as indicated in Figure
18, to consider flows into and out of the area surrounding but including the LSC. This
cordon line generally reflects the boundary between analysis that applied the TRAVEL/3
system level model and analysis that applied the Local Area Model.

The cordon line has two different types of use. The assessment of forecast traffic
volumes based on trip generation and a constant level of through traffic was applied for
quick-response sensitivity tests to land use alternatives with a conceptual cordon line
volume. These conceptual cordon line volumes are reflected in the bar chart comparisons
of land use volumes and may differ slightly from the volumes shown on traffic
assignments.

Vehicular Traffic Volumes

Figure 26 presents a comparison of existing and forecast traffic volumes at the studied
cordon line. In general, the cordon line serves as the boundary between the LSC area,
where land uses are proposed to change as a result of this plan, and the area outside of the
cordon, which is subject to other plans and/or is otherwise not forecast to change
development densities. As a result, traffic volumes at these locations are substantially
higher than in the interior of the Master Plan.

At the cordon line, the total traffic volume will increase by about 43%, from 392,000
vehicles per day to 561,000 vehicles per day. The heaviest volumes will occur on the
Major highways where they meet I-270, Sam Eig Highway and Shady Grove, with
between 79,900 and 88,000 vehicles per day.

Traffic volumes and volume growth will be slightly lower within the LSC area due to the
expanded roadway network. In general, traffic volumes along Key West Avenue today
in the Plan area are 52,000 vehicles per day and are forecast to grow to between 56,000
and 65,000 vehicles per day.

44
Figure 26: Sector Plan Cordon Line Traffic Volumes

Draft Plan Trip Comparison

Figure 27: Draft Plan Trip Generation Comparison

The Recommendations in the
Plan for transportation
infrastructure and staging are
based on the highest land use
scenario tested, The High
Land Use scenario. However,
subsequent to development of
the recommendations in the
Plan, a slightly lower density
was selected for the Draft
Plan. A comparison of the
High and Draft Plan trip

45
generation characteristics is included to show the difference.

The Existing land uses within the cordon studied generate about 31,700 vehicle trips in
the AM peak hour and 34,900 trips in the PM peak hour.
The High Land Use tested generates 44,700 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 50,800
trips in the PM peak hour.
Comparatively, the Draft Plan generates 40,600 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and
41,700 in the PM peak hour, a difference of about 10% between the two land use
scenarios.

The Draft Plan also recommends a slightly lower Non-Auto Driver Mode Split
(NADMS) of 30%, rather than the “High” Land Use scenario NADMS of 32.5%,
resulting in slightly higher per-square foot trip rates per square foot of use modeled.

E. Travel Demand Forecasting Process and Assumptions

The travel demand forecasting process includes three levels of analysis. The
Department‟s regional travel demand forecasting model, TRAVEL/3, is used to develop
forecast travel demand results for weekday travel and PM peak periods. TRAVEL/3 is a
four-step model, consisting of:

Trip generation; the number of person trips that are generated by given types and
densities of land uses within each TAZ,
trip distribution; how many person trips generated by each TAZ will travel to
each of the other TAZs within the metropolitan area,
mode split; which mode of travel the person trips will use, including single-
occupant auto, multiple-occupant auto, transit, or a non-motorized mode such as
walking or bicycling, and
traffic assignment; the roadways that will be used for vehicular travel between
TAZs.

The TRAVEL/3 model incorporates land use and transportation assumptions for the
Metropolitan Washington region, using the same algorithms as applied by the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) for air quality conformity
analysis. Figure 28 shows the relationship of Montgomery County in the regional travel
demand network, featuring the coding of street network characteristics to reflect the
general level of adjacent development density.

46
Figure 28: Travel/3 Model Network Typology

The TRAVEL/3 provides system-level results that are used directly to obtain the Policy
Area Mobility Review forecasts for the County‟s Policy Area Transportation Review.
The system-level results are also used as inputs to the finer grain analytic tools described
below.

The second level of analysis consists of post processing techniques applied to the
TRAVEL/3 forecasts, as described in NCHRP Report 255. These techniques include
refinement of the AM and PM peak hour forecasts to reflect a finer grain of land use and
network assumptions than included in the regional model, such as the location of local
streets and localized travel demand management assumptions. The NCHRP 255 analyses
are used to produce the cordon line analyses.

The third level of analysis includes intersection congestion, using the Critical Lane
Volume (CLV) methodology described in the Department‟s Policy Area Mobility Review
/ Local Area Transportation Review (PAMR / LATR) Guidelines.

47
Travel/3 Forecasting Assumptions

The Gaithersburg West Master Plan forecasts assumed the following parameters:

A 2030 horizon year. This is currently the most distant horizon year for which
forecast land use and transportation system development is available.
Regional growth per the MWCOG Cooperative Forecasting Process. The most
current round of Cooperative Forecasts was used.
o For the Washington region, the Round 7.1 forecasts include an increase
from 3.0 million jobs and 1.9 million households in 2005 to 4.2 million
jobs and 2.5 million households in 2030.
o For Montgomery County, the Round 7.1 forecasts include an increase
from 500,000 employees and 347,000 households in 2005 to 670,000
employees and 441,300 households in 2030.
o For the LSC area, the Round 7.1 forecasts include an increase from 6.9M
square feet of development and 3,300 households in 2005 to 12.9M square
feet of development and 8,000 households in 2030.
Transportation improvements in the region‟s Constrained Long Range Plan
(CLRP), a fiscally constrained transportation network. Notable projects assumed
to be in place for the buildout of the LSC area include:
o Elimination of the WMATA turnback at Grosvenor
o The Corridor Cities Transitway (realigned through the LSC) from Shady
Grove to Clarksburg
o The Purple Line between Bethesda and Silver Spring
o The Montrose Parkway, including an interchange at Rockville Pike
o The Intercounty Connector
o Express Toll Lanes on I-270 from I-370 to the city of Frederick

F. Local Area Modeling Process and Assumptions

The Department‟s Local Area Modeling (LAM) process uses NCHRP Report 255
techniques to both convert the TRAVEL/3 system level forecasts to intersection-level
forecasts. The LAM process is then used as a pivot-point technique to reflect changes to
the localized land use or transportation network, providing both cordon line and network
analysis results.

The TRAVEL/3 model represents the R & D Village Policy Area as six (6) transportation
analysis zones (TAZs). The LSC LAM disaggregates these 6 TAZs into twenty three (23)
subzones as indicated in Figure 29.

48
Figure 29: LSC Area Local Area Model Subzones

The LAM process uses trip generation rates that are customized to reflect both existing
conditions and future changes, considering both the land use types and changes in travel
behavior. Figure 30 shows the trip generation rates used in the LAM.

Figure 30: Local Area Model Peak Hour Trip Generation

Land Use Units AM PM
Office (at 30% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.30 1.20
Retail (at 30% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.00 3.00
Industrial (at 30% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.00 1.00
Other Commercial(at 30% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.00 1.00
Multi-family residential (Garden apartment) Dwelling unit 0.48 0.83
Multi-family residential (Highrise) Dwelling unit 0.44 0.48

These trip generation rates reflect a combination of Local Area Transportation Review
rates for typical development in Metro Station Policy Areas such as White Flint and were
calibrated to match the observed traffic counts, considering the amount of through traffic
in the roadway network so that the LAM volumes at the network cordon line are within
2% of observed count data for both AM and PM peak hours.

49
The trip generation rates shown in Figure 30 are generally lower than those found in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report, particularly for
commercial land uses. The trip generation rates reflect the fact that ITE rates for most
commercial locations do not have the transit availability and usage found in Gaithersburg
West with the CCT. The difference for residential uses is not quite as high because ITE
trip generation rates for multifamily housing do reflect the fact that most multifamily
housing units have, almost by definition, sufficient density to support transit service.
Finally, the retail trip generation rates in the LSC zone also incorporate a discount for
pass-by and diverted-link trips.

Land Use Alternatives Tested

Figure 31 shows the LSC Policy Area land use alternatives considered for the LAM in
the development of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan.

Figure 31: LSC Policy Area Land Use Scenarios Considered During Plan Development (TAZs 218,
219 and 220)

Scenario Title in Commercial DU

Presentations SF
Existing 3.5M 0
1990 Plan – “Low” 7.2M 500
Scenario
“Medium” Scenario 12.4M 4,800
“High” Scenario 16.1M 9,700
“Recommended” 15.2M 4,525
Scenario

50