White Flint Sector Plan

Transportation Appendix
January 2009
Table of Contents
1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1
2. Transportation Plan Recommendations ....................................................................... 3
A. Travel Demand Management ................................................................................ 4
B. Transit System ......................................................................................................... 9
C. Street Network....................................................................................................... 15
D. Bicycle and Pedestrian System............................................................................. 23
E. Transportation System Policies............................................................................ 26
F. Staging .................................................................................................................... 28
G. Implementation ..................................................................................................... 29
H. Summary of Changes to the 1994 Plan ............................................................... 30
3. Transportation/Land Use Balance ............................................................................. 31
A. Measures of Effectiveness ..................................................................................... 32
B. Travel Demand Forecasting Process and Assumptions .................................... 53
4. Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................... 59
A. Timeline.................................................................................................................. 59
B. Land Use and Network Alternatives ................................................................... 60
C. Concepts Tested But Not Incorporated .............................................................. 65
D. Alternatives Analysis Summary .......................................................................... 72
List of Figures
Figure 1: Transportation Management Strategies ............................................................... 4
Figure 2:Travel Demand Management Techniques and Target Markets ........................... 7
Figure 3: Metrorail and MARC Station Locations ........................................................... 11
Figure 4: MARC Brunswick Line Plan ............................................................................ 12
Figure 5: Planned Transit Service Concept ...................................................................... 13
Figure 6: Sector Plan Street Network ............................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Rockville Pike Boulevard Concept .................................................................. 19
Figure 8: Rockville Pike Section at Marinelli Road ......................................................... 19
Figure 9: White Flint Mall District Street Network Concept ........................................... 22
Figure 10: Weekday Long-Term Parking Space Demand ................................................ 27
Figure 11: Estimated Transportation Network Infrastructure Capital Costs .................... 30
Figure 12: Land Use Comparison to Bethesda and Silver Spring .................................... 31
Figure 13: Policy Area Mobility Review Chart-2030....................................................... 35
Figure 14: Policy Area Mobility Review Table-2030 ...................................................... 36
Figure 15: Policy Area Mobility Review Table-2005 ...................................................... 38
Figure 16: Intersection Congestion Standards by Policy Area ......................................... 39
Figure 17: Intersection Analysis ....................................................................................... 40
Figure 18: Subregional Network Constraints ................................................................... 42
Figure 19: Metrorail Red Line Capacity and Demand...................................................... 43
Figure 20: WMATA Red Line Forecast Peak Hour Loads .............................................. 44
Figure 21: Sector Plan Cordon Line Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 46
Figure 22: Rockville Pike Traffic Volumes by Time of Day ........................................... 47
Figure 23: Rockville Pike Travel Times by Time of Day and Day of Week ................... 48
Figure 24: Weekday Evening Peak Period Travel Speeds................................................ 50
Figure 25: Existing Public Transit Services...................................................................... 52
Figure 26: Multimodal Connections at Metrorail Station ................................................. 53
Figure 27: Travel/3 Model Network Typology ................................................................ 54
Figure 28: White Flint Local Area Model Subzones ........................................................ 57
Figure 29: Local Area Model Peak Hour Trip Generation ............................................... 58
Figure 30: Land Use Scenarios Considered During Plan Development ........................... 60
Figure 31: Job/Housing Ratio Effect on Plan Trip Generation......................................... 61
Figure 32: Street Network Concepts Considered During Plan Development................... 62
Figure 33: Scenario 12 Roadway Network ....................................................................... 63
Figure 34: Existing Roadway Network............................................................................. 64
Figure 35: Trip Generation Sensitivity to Mode Share Assumptions ............................... 65
Figure 36: Alternative Treatments for Rockville Pike ...................................................... 67
Figure 37: Glatting Jackson Roadway Network Concept ................................................. 69
Figure 38: Montrose Parkway Interchange Sensitivity Analysis ...................................... 70
 1. Purpose
The Public Hearing Draft of the White Flint Sector Plan proposes a conversion of the
White Flint Metrorail station area from an auto-oriented suburbia to a transit-oriented,
mixed-use, urban community. This Appendix provides the technical basis and details for
the transportation system recommendations in the White Flint Sector Plan.

The White Flint Sector Plan Public Hearing Draft is a document that reflects
approximately two years of stakeholder coordination and staff analysis. The Sector Plan
proposes several innovative changes designed to promote the orderly implementation of a
transit-oriented and sustainable urban center for North Bethesda, including:

Expansion of the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area to reflect transit-oriented
policies within walking distance of the White Flint Metrorail station.
Acceptance of congestion levels that reflect the Planning staff and Planning Board
approach to adequacy
An implementation plan that relies on a redevelopment authority, proportional
participation by all developments, and a staging plan to coordinate area wide
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
area wide 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
White Flint from a largely auto-oriented community to a transit-oriented community.
The transportation system needed to accommodate these levels of development must
achieve a 39% Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) for White Flint employees, an
objective that can be met through:

Improved access to transit, including a second Metrorail station entrance, a

MARC station, bus-priority treatments along Rockville Pike and improved transit
circulator services
Implementation of a robust local street network with prevailing block lengths of
350’ or less that promotes walking and bicycling
Management of the long-term parking supply through coordination of both zoning
requirements and public parking provisions
Continuation of proactive travel demand management services through the North
Bethesda Transportation Center (NBTC)
1
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, developed over time as alternatives were
evaluated in an iterative process, contributed to the development of the White Flint Sector
Plan recommendations by documenting:

The balance between long-term land use and transportation systems needed to
provide sufficient mobility the urbanizing White Flint Sector Plan 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 three 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
Chapter 4 describes alternative land use and transportation system
recommendations that were considered but ultimately not included in the Plan.

2
 2. Transportation Plan Recommendations

The White Flint Sector Plan recommends a multimodal transportation system that
leverages the prior public investment in the Metrorail system to create a transit-oriented
community of walkable blocks with multimodal transportation options for residents,
employees, and visitors.

Figure1 shows the range of transportation system strategies examined in the White Flint
Sector Plan, including:

Travel demand management

Transit services
Local street network
Transportation system policies

Figure 1 was used in public presentations during summer 2007 and indicated the
likelihood that the Plan would incorporate the different strategies based on analyses and
coordination performed to date. The cells shaded in light blue indicated those with high
potential. In general, those strategies with high potential were incorporated into the Plan
as described in the following paragraphs. Those strategies with low potential that are not
incorporated in the plan are described in Chapter 4.

3
 Figure 1: Transportation Management Strategies

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.

4
TDM strategies include:

Infrastructure such as high quality pedestrian environments, bus or HOV 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., NBTC and the MWCOG
Commuter Connections), and
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 VMT 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 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 1991 development of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission site in 1991 is an example
of a private sector contribution with a specified set of services which included a parking
reduction agreement and a Traffic Mitigation Agreement. The parking reduction
agreement continues to have a permanent effect on limiting employee parking to
encourage alternative modes of travel. The Traffic Mitigation Agreement included
provision of the free White Flint Shuttle service from 1991 through 2004. The
subdivision approval of the North Bethesda Town Center (LCOR site) is an example of a
private sector contribution with a specified performance measure. Under the growth
policy’s Alternative Review Procedure for Metro Station Policy Areas, the LCOR
approval is conditioned upon a payment of twice the applicable transportation impact tax
and a monitoring program to reduce peak hour vehicle trips by 50% of that otherwise
attributable to the development.

The public sector contributions include the activities of the area Transportation
Management District (TMD). The North Bethesda TMD is operated by the
Transportation Action Partnership (TAP) under the name North Bethesda Transportation
Center (NBTC). NBTC was formed in 1995 to provide services to employers and
employees in the commercial areas of North Bethesda to promote adoption of commuter

5
benefits programs by employers and to inform employees of alternative commuting
options. NBTC now provides services to office and multi-family residential properties.
The NBTC also works to improve transit service in the area, to increase ridership, and to
provide transit-friendly amenities.

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,
summaries the different types of TDM techniques commonly applied to reduce vehicle
traffic generation by their target market and trip reduction focus.

6
 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 draft Sector 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 also 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 encouraged this type of shift as the
highest priority. On the 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).

7
The focus of active TDM strategies in the White Flint Sector Plan is on commuters who
work in the Sector Plan area, for three reasons:

Recurring vehicular travel demand is most constrained by traffic leaving the

White Flint Sector Plan during the evening peak period.
For the types of housing envisioned in the Sector Plan (predominantly
multifamily high-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 White Flint recommends that the mode share and transportation
system performance be monitored biennially 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, similar to that
achieved in the Bethesda CBD staging plan, so that the responsibility for success of the
Sector Plan trip reduction efforts are distributed across all plan area owners and tenants.

Employees working in White Flint

The Sector Plan recommends retaining the 39% Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS)
goal from the 1994 North Bethesda / Garrett Park Master Plan. The NADMS measures
the percentage of travelers who drive to a workplace in White Flint as opposed to taking
other modes.

The Local Area Modeling performed for the Sector Plan analysis presumed that the 39%
NADMS would be achieved for all commercial employees within those portions of the
North Bethesda TMD north of I-270. For monitoring purposes, the NADMS has been
defined as follows:

Employees who normally arrive at their workplace in White Flint 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 White Flint but telecommute
on the day of surveys.

The 1992 Plan identified one possible set of sub-mode share outcomes for ridesharing
(21%), transit use (16%), and walking/biking (2%) that would achieve the 39% NADMS
mode share. The draft Sector Plan does not develop specific sub-modal shares, as travel
trends and technologies evolve over time. The 2005 surveyed mode share breakdown in
White Flint includes a higher amount of transit use (20%) but a lower amount of
ridesharing (4%) and walking/biking (2%), reflecting the fact that the White Flint sector

8
is better served by transit but further from I-270 HOV lanes than the Rock Spring Park
portion of the North Bethesda TMD.

Current estimates of the build-out sub-modal shares incorporate telecommuting

technologies (about 2% on a typical weekday), and a significant increase in the amount of
walking/biking (about 6%) due to the fact that higher levels of housing in the Sector Plan
area will increase the number of White Flint employees who also live in the community.
Transit mode shares should also increase (to about 26%), while ridesharing is estimated
to remain a fairly small component (about 5%).

Residents living in White Flint

The 1992 Plan identified a 70% auto-driver goal for the journey-to-work for North
Bethesda residents. The 2005 Census Update Survey noted that this goal has very nearly
been achieved, with a 72% auto-driver mode share for residents throughout the North
Bethesda/Garrett Park planning area. Dwelling units in the White Flint Sector Plan area
will be predominantly high-rise units, and the 2005 Census Update Survey indicates that
the auto-driver mode share for the journey to work from North Bethesda is 58%, better
than the 1992 Plan goal.

Roadway congestion in White Flint is influenced most heavily by commercial activities

rather than residential activities. The plan recommends a mixed-use TMX zone that
could encourage a higher percentage of residential development than explicitly tested in
the travel forecasting process to date, at which point a more stringent residential mode
share objective might be explored. The residential traffic would become “critical” if the
total end-state floor area of development exceeds 80% of the total development, a ratio
that staff does not view as practical given market conditions.
B. Transit System

The Sector Plan recommends expanding all three modes of transit available in the I-270
corridor to serve White Flint: Metrorail, MARC, and local bus services.
Metrorail

The Sector Plan recommends developing a new northern entrance to the station in the
southeast quadrant of the Rockville Pike / Old Georgetown Road intersection to both:

minimize circuitous travel for pedestrians whose local destinations are north of
the station, and
reduce pedestrian delays by dispersing demand for station elements such as
faregates and escalators.
Staff estimates that the White Flint Metrorail station will require 10 bus bays for
Metrobus and Ride-On bus loading, based on an extrapolation of transit system needs and
the local transit service concept described below. Continued coordination with the North
Bethesda Town Center development will be needed to establish bus bay locations within
the LCOR site and along the reconstructed Rockville Pike.

9
MARC

The 1992 North Bethesda / Garrett Park Master Plan recommends that a new MARC
station be established at Montrose Crossing (at the northern end of Nebel Street
Extended). The White Flint Sector Plan recommends relocating this new MARC station
into the White Flint Sector Plan. Two potential sites are identified as indicated in Figure
3. The northern site is at the Montourri property at the east end of Old Georgetown Road
and the southern site at the Nicholson Court properties south of Nicholson Lane / CSX
overpass. Staff estimates that the MARC station access will require two bus bays for
Ride-On and shuttle services and approximately 10 kiss-and-ride spaces.

The Montourri property site is recommended because it maximizes the potential

development within walking distance to the MARC station, as the land use plan focuses
development toward the Metrorail Station site. The primary advantage to the Nicholson
Court property site is that site access on both sides of the CSX tracks is generally cleared
of forest and includes properties with active redevelopment interests.

The expansion of MARC transit services to Montgomery County communities along the
Red Line requires extensive coordination with both the Maryland Transit Administration
(MTA) and the CSX Corporation. The CSX owns the tracks used by the MTA and their
primary transportation objective is the efficient movement of freight. The MTA provides
commuter rail services and their primary transportation objective for the MARC
Brunswick line is efficient service for long-distance commuters between job centers in
both Washington and Baltimore and distant residential communities.

10
Figure 3: Metrorail and MARC Station Locations

11
The MTA prepared a MARC Growth and Investment Plan in September 2007 that
identifies their planned system expansion statewide through the year 2035, as shown in
Figure 4. The Planning Board discussed this plan with MTA in worksessions on March
27 and July 24, 2008. The MTA plan does not include a station in North Bethesda (or at
Shady Grove, per the 2006 Shady Grove Sector Plan) but does include an “Outer
Montgomery Station”, a third track along portions of the line, a new parking garage at the
Germantown station and parking expansion at Metropolitan Grove, Rockville, and
Kensington. Further coordination with MTA is needed to align the state goals for MARC
station planning with local land use plans. Both MTA and M-NCPPC, however, are
interested in expanding MARC services to include midday, weekend, and off-peak
direction service.

Figure 4: MARC Brunswick Line Plan

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) conducted an initial feasibility assessment

in summer 2008 and found that neither the Montourri or Nicholson Court property was
definitively superior to the other from a feasibility perspective, but that either site would
disrupt service at the Garrett Park MARC station (which is already limited to skip-stop
services), potentially requiring station closure.
The addition of the MARC station is expected to improve the transit market for long-
distance commuters working in White Flint by providing a one-seat ride from Frederick
County and points west (rather than requiring a transfer from MARC to Metrorail at
Rockville). The White Flint market would also benefit from the more direct rail
connection to Union Station.
12
Local Bus Transit Service

Local bus transit services need to be developed and augmented over time to support the
line-haul services provided by the Metrorail and MARC rail transit systems. These
transit services will be integral to achieving the planned 39% NADMS.

Bus transit services are operational elements that require flexibility below the level of
detail explicitly recommended in master plans. The Public Hearing Draft Sector Plan
recommendations for facilitating bus transit service are limited to providing sufficient
intermodal transfer spaces at the Metrorail and MARC stations and preserving right-of-
way for bus priority treatments along Rockville Pike. The conceptual local bus transit
services, however, should include three distinct elements, shown conceptually in Figure
5:

feeder services to Metrorail,

circulator services throughout the North Bethesda commercial core area
shuttle services along Rockville Pike, and

Figure 5: Planned Transit Service Concept

13
The current bus transit system (described in greater detail in Chapter 3), including
Metrobus, Ride-On, and private shuttle services, focus primarily on the first two
elements. Routes such as the 10, 38, and 45 provide feeder services to Metrorail from
residential communities several miles away. For the purpose of Metrorail feeder
services, the Twinbrook and White Flint Metrorail stations are equally valuable
destinations in the North Bethesda commercial core area.

Future feeder services should have the following characteristics:

Service area focus within three miles of the Metrorail stations served
Peak period headways of 20 minutes or less
Primary service along arterial roadways such as Nicholson Lane, Twinbrook
Parkway, Montrose Road, and Randolph Road, with scheduled speeds of 12-13
miles per hour

Currently, Ride-On routes such as the 5 and 26 provide a function that could be described
as including circulator services throughout the North Bethesda commercial core area,
linking land uses in North Bethesda to both the White Flint and Twinbrook Metrorail
stations.

A future circulator route could have the following characteristics:

High frequency during peak commuting and lunch periods with headways of 10
minutes or less
Coverage area within 1.25 miles of either White Flint or Twinbrook Metrorail
stations with stops at both stations

This service profile would likely require six shuttle buses.

Currently, Ride-On route 46 provides shuttle services along Rockville Pike, connecting
the Medical Center, Grosvenor, White Flint, Twinbrook, Rockville, and Shady Grove
Metrorail stations.

A future shuttle service along Rockville Pike could have the following characteristics:

High frequency during peak periods with headways of 15 minutes or less

Skip-stop or overlay of local service to maintain schedule speed of 15 miles per
hour

As White Flint develops into an urban area, expanded services will be needed for all three
types of local bus service. The relative importance of getting riders to land uses in White
Flint (and the greater North Bethesda commercial core area) will increase relative to the
importance of getting riders to the nearest Metrorail station. Routing and scheduling for
feeder services will therefore need to consider local land uses in North Bethesda as well
as the fastest routes to Metrorail.

14
The recommended White Flint land use plans and design guidelines will facilitate good
feeder, circulator, and Pike rapid bus services. Prior efforts to establish shuttle services
in White Flint, such as the free White Flint Shuttle established through the White Flint
Commuter Service Center, have not yet been sustainable, in part due to the challenges of
connecting auto-oriented development with local transit services. As densities increase in
White Flint 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.

C. Street Network

Figure 6 replicates Figure 33 of the White Flint Sector Plan, which presents the proposed
street network with the following elements:

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

blue lines on Figure 33 of the Plan) designed to reflect the County’s new Road
Code emphasis on multimodal access and stormwater management. Special
attention is paid, and will continue to be needed during implementation, to the
construction of new street connections in the White Flint Mall and Mid Pike Plaza
/ Metro West districts.
A secondary network of conceptual business district street connections (shown as
fuschia lines on Figure 33 of the Plan) that will provide internal site accessibility
with a focus on enhancing pedestrian connectivity by reducing block size. These
streets also provide opportunities to establish shared streets with a greater
emphasis on public realm objectives beyond the transportation function. Some of
these streets and alleys may, like Ellsworth Avenue in Silver Spring, be privately
owned and operated and therefore may not conform to County design standards.
These streets are therefore not included in Table 5 of the Public Hearing Draft
Plan identifying required functions, number of through travel lanes, and rights-of-
way.

Specific streets described in the Plan and this Appendix includes:

A reconstructed, pedestrian-friendly Rockville Pike that will incorporate Bus

Rapid Transit (BRT) treatments,
a reconstruction of Old Georgetown Road (MD 187) and Executive Boulevard to
facilitate north-south traffic movement along the western Plan boundary (as
opposed to the existing pattern directing MD 187 traffic to MD 355 at the
Metrorail Station),
a Town Center area focused around a new east-west Main Street (B-10), and
networks of master planned local streets within the White Flint Mall, Mid-Pike
Plaza, and Metro West districts

15
Figure 6: Sector Plan Street Network

16
Master Planned Business Streets

The White Flint Sector Plan has a primary street network that includes major highways,
arterials, and master-planned business streets. These streets are required elements of the
sector 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 White Flint Sector Plan development proceeded in tandem with the development of
the County’s Road Code (Chapter 49) in 2006 and design standards (Executive
Regulation 31-08) 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 the facts that while the County formally
have rural, suburban, and urban areas, a continuum exists both across and within those
three designations.

The Sector Plan proposes that White Flint become as urban as any location in the County,
with allowable Floor Area Ratios (FAR) of 2.5 to 4.0 throughout the Plan area, as
indicated in Figure 17 in the Public Hearing Draft Plan. The White Flint street network
of the future will both appear and function more like those in Bethesda and Silver Spring
do today. The business street system is therefore intended to be a slow-speed
environment, with both the public and private realms designed to emphasize a 25 MPH
target speed.

The exception to the 25 MPH target speed designation is Montrose Parkway. Montrose
Parkway has an arterial function much broader than the White Flint Sector Plan area.
The I-270 corridor in general is a jobs-intensive corridor, and both Rock Creek and the
CSX tracks are barriers (one natural and one man-made) between the jobs in the I-270
corridor and the housing-rich communities of Olney, Aspen Hill and
Kensington/Wheaton.

17
High-quality connections for both autos and transit across these barriers are limited to a
few key routes:

Montrose Parkway
Norbeck Road / Gude Drive
Intercounty Connector

The target speed for Montrose Parkway is set at 35 MPH, recognizing that this facility
will pass through a heavily developed commercial area, but that primary access to the
adjacent land uses will not be to and from Montrose Parkway.

Secondary Grid of Local Streets and Alleys

Figure 33 of the Plan describes a secondary street system of streets and alleys that will be
developed to nest within the master planned business street system. These streets are
designed to facilitate site access (particularly for the larger development sites), improve
the granularity and permeability of the network to enhance pedestrian and bicycle
mobility, and provide flexibility for private street treatments such as festival streets,
shared streets, and streets located above underground parking structures. Notable
considerations include:

Extension of Woodglen Drive north from Nicholson Lane to the Mid-Pike Plaza
district as a service access roadway parallel to Rockville Pike,
development of a grid of streets in the NRC district. Due to security concerns and
space constraints, the proposed east-west connection between Rockville Pike and
Citadel Avenue would likely be limited to a 20’ wide alley for non-motorized
vehicles only; this is the only street on Figure 33 of the Plan for which vehicular
access is not anticipated, and
development of a grid of streets serving White Flint Mall that would be
implemented at such time that the mall structure itself is redeveloped.

These streets are not explicit elements of the master planned street network. They are,
however, needed for pedestrian connectivity purposes. Maximum block lengths of 350’
should be considered an element of master plan consistency in the site plan review
process.

MD 355 / Rockville Pike

The Plan proposes a reconstruction of MD 355 to improve pedestrian access and comfort,
increase pervious area, and facilitate transit priority treatments.

Figures 7 and 8 show the boulevard concept for the Pike, including:
Maintenance of the three continuous through travel lanes,
expansion of the median allowing development of separate left turn lanes with
sufficient space remaining for landscaping and pedestrian refuge, and

18
 development of a curb lane designed for bus-priority treatment and bicycle use
during peak periods and the potential for considering off-peak period parking
should adjacent land uses require parking.

Figure 7: Rockville Pike Boulevard Concept

Figure 8: Rockville Pike Section at Marinelli Road

The plan for the Pike reflects the fact that expansion on the east side is constrained by the
proximity to the Metrorail Red Line tunnel and security requirements for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The Sector Plan recommends a 150’ wide right-of-way for the
Pike which would require 75’ of dedication on each side of the current centerline. Staff
studies for the Pike indicate that a westerly realignment of the roadway centerline may be

19
needed to accomplish the plan goals; such a realignment that held the roadway eastern
curb line constant would result in right-of-way needs along the roadway’s western edge.

The Sector Plan recommends two new local street crossings of Rockville Pike at full-
movement, signalized intersections; Main Street (B-10) and Executive Boulevard
Extended (B-7). The Plan also recommends converting driveway access points into full-
movement signalized intersections at Mid-Pike Plaza (B-16), and the White Flint Mall
access points at Security Lane (B-17) and Nebel Street Extended (B-5). These full-
movement crossings will improve vehicular and pedestrian access across Rockville Pike.

Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) staff have participated in both White
Flint Sector Plan meetings and the Rockville Pike Corridor Master Plan being developed
by the City of Rockville. Both plans envision a reconstruction of Rockville Pike,
although with slightly different typical sections (the City of Rockville is contemplating
retaining the current narrow median and implementing continuous service roadways in a
multiway boulevard concept). The Montrose Parkway interchange, currently under
construction, provides a logical pivot point from which the two different typical sections
might be developed so there is no need to develop a single, consistent section for the two
plan efforts.

The SHA would need to lead the development and evaluation of any substantial
reconstruction of Rockville Pike in White Flint, including the proposed concept shown in
Figure6. This development and evaluation process would begin with a Project Planning
study that considers the Sector Plan concept and possible modifications to it and the
process would continue with Preliminary Engineering. This process requires the
inclusion of the Pike reconstruction in the County’s priority list to the state delegation.
The project planning and preliminary engineering processes combined typically require
three to five years for a project such as the proposed Pike reconstruction, assuming that
the project remains at the top of the County’s priority list. The White Flint Sector Plan
recommends the establishment of a White Flint Redevelopment Implementation
Authority, in part to infuse the property owner and community stakeholder interests into
the County’s priority setting process with an independent funding source to sponsor a
quick rise to the top of the priority list.
Old Georgetown Road and Executive Boulevard Realignment
The Sector Plan recommends the realignment of Old Georgetown Road and Executive
Boulevard to form a more regular grid of streets, thereby increasing redevelopment
potential by creating more efficient block shapes. Three related roadway system
improvements are needed to straighten and realign the roadway grid in this area:
The abandonment of existing Executive Boulevard between Old Georgetown
Road and Marinelli Road,
the establishment of a new alignment for a north-south business street (B-15)
from the Executive Boulevard/Marinelli Road intersection extending north into
the Mid-Pike Plaza development, and
the establishment of a new alignment for an east-west business street (B-10, or
Main Street) from Rockville Pike to Old Georgetown Road.

20
This realignment also facilitates the movement of traffic along Old Georgetown Road
from I-270 toward the Montrose Parkway and points north and east. Currently, this
traffic follows Old Georgetown Road to meet Rockville Pike in the center of the Sector
Plan area.

This connection would carry approximately 28,000 vehicles per day along “Old” Old
Georgetown Road between Executive Boulevard and Montrose Parkway. Without this
connection, this traffic would either be directed toward Rockville Pike (increasing
pressure to widen the Rockville Pike / Old Georgetown Road intersection at the northern
Metrorail station entrance where pedestrian mobility needs are highest) or to cut through
the Mid-Pike Plaza development on local street B-15.

Substantial coordination with Maryland SHA, area property owners, and County
Executive branch agencies is needed to implement this improvement. The Maryland
SHA is establishing stormwater management for the Montrose Parkway interchange at
the southern end of the existing “Old” Old Georgetown Road cul-de-sac, and this
stormwater management will need to be relocated in conjunction with roadway
realignment and property redevelopment. The network of local streets will need to be
renamed in a manner that minimizes disruption and confusion. A through route for MD
187 will need to be established; staff recommends that MD 187 be re designated from the
east-west portion of Old Georgetown Road (M-4) to the extension of “Old” Old
Georgetown Road (M-4a).

Main Street (B-10) and Associated Promenade

The Sector Plan recommends the development of an east-west Main Street (B-10) in a
70’ wide right-of-way connecting Old Georgetown Road at its west end with the North
Bethesda Town Center grid of streets at its east end. LCOR development plans have
shown this roadway labeled as McGrath Boulevard to the east of Rockville Pike. To the
west of Rockville Pike, a separate promenade treatment will be developed outside the
roadway right-of-way on the south side as described in the Plan.

White Flint Mall District

The establishment of a roadway network in the White Flint Mall District exemplifies the
need for both master plan guidance and property owner coordination. One of the explicit
purposes of the Plan is to develop details regarding the design and location of Executive
Boulevard on the east side of Rockville Pike. Figure 9 shows a conceptual proposal for
this street grid, developed November 14, 2008, which reflects the intent of the Public
Hearing Draft Sector Plan to include:

Establishment of Executive Boulevard Extended eastward from Rockville Pike

with appropriate sharing of access by confronting redevelop able properties,
yielding a slightly curvilinear alignment than suggested in the Sector Plan,
establishment of Nebel Street Extended as a compound roadway with two 90-
degree turns. The northern 90-degree turn is at the junction with Executive

21
 Boulevard Extended in a standard T-intersection configuration and facilitates the
development of the property in this intersection’s southeast quadrant as a
potential elementary school site. The southern 90-degree turn occurs at the
southeast quadrant also facilitates site development better than a horizontal curve
design would and facilitates future development of a potential eastern leg
providing access to park property, and
relocation of Nicholson Court at Nebel Street Extended to facilitate through
movement along Nebel Street Extended and a 90-degree intersection
configuration at Nicholson Lane.

Figure 9: White Flint Mall District Street Network Concept

The primary differences between the Sector Plan recommendations and the concept
shown in Figure 9 are that the full grid of planned local streets across the White Flint
Mall site are not incorporated in Figure 9 and that Nebel Street Extended is proposed as a
2-lane roadway in Figure 9 rather than the 4-lane roadway proposed in the Plan. The
status of the Plan’s bike lanes along Nebel Street Extended is not specifically identified in
Figure 9. These differences will be addressed during Planning Board work sessions.

Mid-Pike Plaza and Metro West Districts

The Sector Plan recommends two key business streets (B-16 and B-17) to serve the Mid-
Pike Plaza District and provide access to the major highways that form the District’s

22
boundaries: Rockville Pike (M-6) to the east, Old Georgetown Road (M-4) to the south,
and “Old” Old Georgetown Road (M-4a) to the west.

The street system shown in Sector Plan Figure 33 builds upon the existing driveway
access plans, with the business district streets B-16 and B-17 intersecting the existing
state highways MD 355 and MD 187 at existing signalized intersections and the
secondary streets intersecting the state highways where Mid-Pike plaza currently has
driveway access. Further analysis will be required to establish more precise centerlines
in coordination with the Metro West district. Staff held meetings with property owners in
this district to facilitate private sector development of a more coordinated concept for
local streets as shown for the White Flint Mall district in Figure 9.

D. Bicycle and Pedestrian System

The bicycle and pedestrian system recommendations for White Flint will be implemented
through a combination of land use and zoning policies, local street network
implementation, and pedestrian access and safety improvements.

Bikeway Network

Figure 34 of the Public Hearing Draft Plan proposes a bikeway system with two key
elements:

An off-road, shared-use path system that connects White Flint to other areas of
the County via the Montrose Parkway and North Bethesda Trolley Trail, and
an emphasis on shared-road bikeways within the Plan area, considering the 25
MPH target speeds that 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 markets;
most of the active bicyclist community is interested in quality on-road bike
accommodation. The number of off-road paths in the Plan is therefore fairly minor; great
pedestrian facilities are recommended in promenades and heart-smart trails, but space for
off-road shared use paths are limited to those connections needed to the regional
recreational trail system.

The need for striped bicycle lanes on urban roadways is a matter of agency and staff
judgment, and is one of the items still to be resolved in developing design standards for
the 2007 Road Construction Code.

In September 2007, the Planning Board supported the staff position on the Road Code
that marked bike lanes should generally 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. In the White Flint Sector Plan, the roadways are all recommended to have a

23
target speed at 25 MPH or 35 MPH. The state highways (MD 355, MD 187), Montrose
Parkway, Nicholson Lane, and the northern portion of Nebel Street are the roadways with
traffic volumes forecast higher than 20,000 vehicles per day.

The design for Rockville Pike will improve bicyclist accommodation as bicycles can
share the curb lane with transit vehicles during peak periods. Still, the traffic volumes
and number of lanes will still make on-road bike travel intimidating for a proportion of
bike users.

Furthermore, the Plan contemplates off-peak period parking along portions of the Pike,
and marked bike lanes are incompatible with off-peak period parking. Therefore, the
Sector Plan recommends bicycle lanes along Nebel Street (and its southerly extension) to
serve as a north-south bicycle arterial and an alternative to Rockville Pike. Nebel Street
is a suitable location for bicycle lanes because it serves the eastern side of the Plan area
where less intense land uses are expected and the number of cross street and driveway
interruptions is relatively low.

In the east-west direction, the Plan recommends bike lanes along Marinelli Road to
provide bike access to the Metro West, Metro East, and NRC districts and as an
alternative to Nicholson Lane, where right-of-way is more constrained.

Property owners in the White Flint Mall District are interested in developing Nebel Street
without the space required for separate bicycle lanes. During the Planning Board’s work
sessions, the desirability of separate bicycle lanes along Nebel Street compared to
additional development footprint and context in the White Flint Mall District will be
discussed.

Pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety

The Sector Plan recommends designating the White Flint Sector Plan area a Bicycle and
Pedestrian Priority Area. Per the annotated Code of Maryland, this designation would
facilitate targeting available state funds to areas of the state with the greatest needs
(Section 2-604) and implement plans that increase safety and access for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic (Section 8-204).

Pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety in the White Flint Sector Plan area will be
pursued further through several initiatives, including:
design standards to implement the County’s Road Code,
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

24
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 White Flint 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 TMX zone for much of the White Flint Sector
Plan area. This new 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, including
at least five seconds of startup time (and greater 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,

25
 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. Transportation System Policies

The Sector Plan contains two policy recommendations that are independent of
implementation and staging proposals; expansion of the Metro Station Policy Area
(MSPA) boundary and establishment of a proactive system to manage the supply of long-
term parking spaces.

White Flint Metro Station Policy Area Boundary

The White Flint Sector Plan recommends that the boundaries of the White Flint Metro
Station Policy Area (MSPA) be revised to be coterminous with the current Sector Plan
boundaries. The proposal to revise the MSPA boundaries to incorporate both the Mid
Pike Plaza and White Flint Mall properties predates the current Sector Plan and was
recommended on page 4 of the 2005 Growth Policy proposal presented to the County
Council on November 1 of that year.

In summary, the proposal to revise the Growth Policy boundaries reflects the fact that
most of the County’s MSPA boundaries are located about one-half mile away from the
Metrorail station and revising the White Flint MSPA boundaries should similarly be
revised to promote transit-oriented development within walking distance of the Metrorail
station. The recommended revision increases the number of intersections at which the
1800 CLV intersection congestion standard applies, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this
Appendix.
Parking Management

The Public Hearing Draft of the White Flint Sector Plan recommends establishing a
Parking Lot District (PLD) to actively manage parking demand. This recommendation
reflects an emphasis in the Planning Board and planning staff priorities in applying
parking management strategies to help affect a modal shift from private auto to transit
and non-motorized travel.
From a private-sector perspective, parking management is enhanced through reduced
parking requirements specified in the proposed TMX zone, including one space per
residential unit (and 0.5 spaces per moderately priced dwelling unit) and incorporation of
the lower parking requirements in the southern area of the County (inside the Beltway).
Figure 10 shows that about 48,600 jobs in the Sector Plan area are expected to result from
the land use assumptions in Scenario 12 (the recommended plan).

26
 Figure 10: Weekday Long-Term Parking Space Demand

Commercial Total Square Assumed Number of Jobs Demand for

Land Use Type Footage Square Feet per Weekday Long-
Job Term Parking
Spaces
Office 7.68M 225 34,100 20,800
Retail 3.80M 400 9,500 5,800
Industrial 0.93M 450 2,100 1,300
Other 1.45M 500 2,900 1,800
TOTAL 13.86M 48,600 29,700

With a Sector Plan NADMS goal of 39%, the 48,600 jobs translate to an expectation of
approximately 29,700 employees that will need parking in the Sector Plan area. On a
typical weekday, slightly more than 10% of employees are absent (on leave or business
away from the office). Conversely, parking garage design typically requires
consideration of peak daily and seasonal accumulation factors of about 10% to 15%,
reflecting the fact that when parking space capacity becomes constrained, vehicle-miles
of travel (VMT) may actually begin to increase as motorists hunt for spaces.

The County currently has four Parking Lot Districts, in Silver Spring, Bethesda,
Wheaton, and Montgomery Hills. In these PLDs, whose establishment dates to the
1950s, the primary value was to leverage the value in County-owned land to spur
economic development. In White Flint, there is not as much publicly owned land and the
economic development needs are not as compelling. However, the need to efficiently
manage parking supply and demand is of increasing importance throughout the County.
Therefore, while the Public Hearing Draft Plan uses the term Parking Lot District, the
objective is to create a mechanism that will, in conjunction with the White Flint
Redevelopment Implementation Authority described on page 79 of the Public Hearing
Draft Plan, manage the long-term commercial parking capacity for both public and
private properties. During the Planning Board work sessions, the term “Parking
Management Authority” may be determined to be more appropriate.

Based on experience in the Bethesda and Silver Spring CBDs, staff estimates that even
with a mature Parking Lot District, about 70% of the long-term parking spaces for
commercial properties might be expected to be provided by the private sector. Therefore,
approximately 9,000 parking spaces might ultimately need to be provided in publicly
accessed garages. The most recently constructed or proposed public parking garages
include above-ground garages in Downtown Silver Spring with about 1,500 spaces per
garage and the proposed below-grade Lot 31 garage in Bethesda with 1,100 public spaces
and 300 privately controlled spaces.

27
Figure 35 of the Public Hearing Draft Plan identifies eight locations where public parking
garages may be feasible. These sites include:

Government-owned property such as the State Highway Administration land at

the Montrose Parkway interchange and the County-owned Conference Center site,
land controlled by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
WMATA, both in the North Bethesda Town Center and at the adjacent bus
maintenance facility to the south; and the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission (WSSC), and
private sector redevelopment opportunities in the Mid-Pike Plaza and White Flint
Mall Districts, where parking management opportunities may include private
parking garages for general public use or condominium operational arrangements
with the public sector.

F. Staging

The White Flint Sector 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.

The staging plan recommends a biennial monitoring program of the Sector Plan area.
This program would build upon the reporting process for the North Bethesda
Transportation Management District (TMD). This reporting process includes the
following elements:

Employer-based surveys to establish the non-auto driver mode share (NADMS),

and
traffic data collection during weekday peak periods to establish intersection levels
of service using the CLV process.

Public interest in monitoring transportation conditions suggest that additional resources

might be valuable to conduct additional monitoring studies, listed below in generally
increasing levels of effort:

Measurement of peak period, midday and weekend traffic volumes along MD

355,
measurement of peak period, midday and weekend travel speeds along MD 355,
measurement of peak period cordon line traffic volumes, and
transportation network analysis using a delay-based simulation tool such as
Synchro to reflect both area wide travel conditions and short-term (i.e., 5-year)
forecast conditions.

The White Flint Sector Plan recommends that the staging plan use the non-auto driver
mode share for determining staging success. Other performance measures such as cordon
line volumes or travel speeds could be developed as a staging mechanism, providing that

28
performance standards are defined and monitoring elements are funded through either the
public sector or the proposed development authority.

G. Implementation

The White Flint Sector Plan proposes the establishment of the White Flint
Redevelopment Implementation Authority, an innovative implementation program
designed to accomplish three objectives:

Ensure that the infrastructure required for the Plan is affordable and apportioned
equitably among public and private stakeholders, and
manage infrastructure prioritization and delivery to avoid “lumpy” infrastructure
delivery typical of the development review exaction process

Figure 11 summarizes the transportation infrastructure costs by Sector Plan stage and
expected responsibility. The capital cost estimates reflect the following assumptions:

State projects include the Montrose Parkway interchange and the extension of
Montrose Parkway east to the CSX tracks (Phase II of the SHA project for
Rockville Pike / Montrose Road interchange improvements). The $20M
estimated cost for the latter improvement is symbolic as there are no proposals to
construct the roadway up to, but not across, the CSX tracks.
Local projects include the portions of Nebel Street Extended (north of Randolph
Road), Chapman Avenue, and Citadel Avenue already in the County’s
implementation program.
Private projects include those portions of the public street system described in
Table 5 of the Public Hearing Draft Plan that are in control of individual property
owners and would be required for internal site access and design (such as Mid
Pike Plaza, North Bethesda Town Center, and White Flint Mall).
District projects are those assumed to be the responsibility of the White Flint
Redevelopment Implementation Authority, including the construction or
reconstruction of:
o Rockville Pike ($66M),
o Metrorail Station north entrance ($25M)
o MARC station and supporting access ($13M)
o Circulator shuttles ($5M)
o Local streets not required for site access and design ($62M)
Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimates. New streets in the
network are located where redevelopment is expected to occur so that, in a typical
development process, right-of-way dedication would generally be expected, with
density calculated from the gross tract area prior to dedication. The White Flint
Redevelopment Implementation Authority will have two options for addressing
right-of-way acquisition:
o establish an infrastructure delivery process by which right-of-way is
acquired from its members without fee simple acquisition at a cost to the
public sector, or

29
 o revision of financing schema to include right-of-way acquisition costs,
which staff estimates could increase capital costs by $130M, based on the
extent of “district” street and roadway projects and the fact that right-of-
way costs for new streets in urban areas often equal the remaining capital
construction costs.
Roadway capital costs are based on the following unit costs:
o $50M per mile for Rockville Pike reconstruction based on cost estimates
for similar portions of New York Avenue in Washington DC and US 1 in
College Park, MD.
o $25M per mile for local roadway construction, based on the County’s
four-lane Nebel Street Extended project (CIP project 500401) at $26M per
mile and two-lane Citadel Avenue (CIP project 500310) at $24M per mile

Figure 11: Estimated Transportation Network Infrastructure Capital Costs

H. Summary of Changes to the 1994 Plan

This section summarizes the proposed changes to the transportation system in the 1994
North Bethesda-Garrett Park Master Plan and the 2000 Montrose Parkway Limited
Master Plan Amendment that combined the function of the prior Montrose Parkway
crossing of Rockville Pike with existing Montrose and Randolph Road:

Establish a Parking Lot District or similar parking management authority.

Move the proposed MARC station from Montrose Crossing to the Montourri
property.

30
 Remove the Rockville Pike/Nicholson Lane interchange, replaced by a more
robust network of local streets in the southeastern quadrant of the Sector Plan.
Reconstruct Rockville Pike within a 150’ right-of-way.
Reorient the Old Georgetown Road intersection with Executive Boulevard.
Establish a robust public business street network, with notable changes to the
1994 Plan including
o the addition of Main Street (B-10), Nebel Street Extended (B-5), and street
grid extensions within the Mid-Pike Plaza (B-15, B-16) and White Flint
Mall (B-4, B-17) districts
o the downgrading of the portion of Woodglen Drive (B-3) between
Marinelli Road and Nicholson Lane from formal business street status to
recognize the importance of the connection but the finding that dedication
and construction of the roadway as a standard business street in the
planned 70’ right-of-way is not feasible.
Establish a secondary grid of local streets and alleys.
Expand the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area to match the Sector Plan
boundary.
Establish the White Flint Redevelopment Implementation Authority to manage
transportation system implementation.

3. Transportation/Land Use Balance

The White Flint Sector 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.

The White Flint Sector Plan proposes a level and mix of development comparable to that
included in the Bethesda CBD and Silver Spring CBD Sector Plans. As shown in Figure
12, all three sector plan areas are centered on a Metrorail station, are designated Metrorail
Station Policy Areas (with a few very minor parcel-specific exceptions), and are of
similar geographic size.

Figure 12: Land Use Comparison to Bethesda and Silver Spring

Sector Plan Acres Existing Future
Jobs HH Jobs HH
Bethesda 407 35,800 6,700 50,900 9,400
Silver Spring 367 30,400 5,600 45,700 8,100
White Flint 430 18,100 2,100 48,600 12,300

The Bethesda CBD forecasts shown above are from the April 2004 staging analysis
prepared for the Planning Board in moving from Stage I to Stage 2 of the 1994 Bethesda
CBD plan. The Silver Spring CBD forecast shown above are from the Silver Spring
CBD 2001 Sector Plan. In both Bethesda and Silver Spring, subsequent demographic
forecasts have reflected the policy interest to shift new development from jobs toward

31
housing to achieve a better jobs/housing balance, so the Round 7.1 forecasts for both
Bethesda and Silver Spring have approximately 10,000 fewer jobs, but the 2030 housing
forecasts for both plans are 13,100 and 14,300, respectively.

The primary difference in White Flint is that the change from existing to future is greater
than for Bethesda and Silver Spring, a recognition that the transformational growth in the
two CBDs inside the Beltway occurred ten to fifteen years ago, whereas that envisioned
for White Flint is really just ready to begin.

A. Measures of Effectiveness

The analysis of alternative development scenarios considers three levels of transportation

impacts:

An area wide 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 Sector Plan
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.

Policy Area Mobility Review

Since the early 1980s, every master plan has considered the “balance” between land use
and transportation using an assessment of area wide conditions forecast for end-state
conditions for the plan. Policy Area Mobility Review is the current measure of area wide
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 since 1982.

PAMR provides a measure of transportation system adequacy considering Relative

Transit Mobility and Relative Arterial Mobility for each of the County’s 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 for 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

32
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 area wide 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
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 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”. Sector Plan areas typically address roadway capacity
needs by intersection improvements rather than roadway widening. Therefore, the AGP
process has evaluated Sector Plans in conjunction with the master plan and policy area
surrounding the Sector Plan.

The White Flint Sector Plan is located within the North Bethesda/Garrett Park Policy
Area. Figure 13 shows the forecast Policy Area Mobility Review conditions for all
Policy Areas in the County for 2030 with the White Flint Sector Plan recommendations.

33
Figure 14 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. As indicated in Figure13, the North Bethesda Policy Area is
forecast to operate at:

Relative Transit Mobility of 77% (LOS B – between 75% and 100%)

Relative Arterial Mobility of 37% (LOS E – between 25% and 40%)

The current Growth Policy requires that all Policy Areas have at Relative Arterial
Mobility of at least 40%, or LOS D conditions, regardless of the level of transit service
provided. Staff proposes that this requirement is too stringent and that higher levels of
congestion should be supportable where the Relative Transit Mobility is LOS A or LOS
B. Therefore, the Public Hearing Draft Plan results in congestion levels that would
require additional mitigation from private development should full buildout occur as
forecast and current growth policy standards still apply.

The Planning Board and County Council had several discussions regarding the level of
arterial mobility appropriate in areas with excellent transit service as the PAMR process
was developed and adopted during 2007. The Planning Board’s May 2007
recommendation for PAMR was to allow LOS E arterial mobility in areas with LOS B
transit mobility, a concept described by the green line on Figure 13. The Planning Board
continues to support this concept.

34
Figure 13: Policy Area Mobility Review Chart-2030

35
Figure 14: Policy Area Mobility Review Table-2030

36
The assessment of Policy Area conditions in Figures 13 and 14 reflect the recommended
plan yield for White Flint and 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 15 provides a summary of
2005 PAMR conditions by policy area for comparison purposes. In both 2005 and 2030
conditions, the North Bethesda, Bethesda/Chevy Chase, and Silver Spring/Takoma Park
are the three most urban areas in the County, reflected by:

Shorter than average travel times for journey-to-work by both auto and transit,
reflecting the proximity of both local and regional destinations, and
lower than average roadway network travel speeds for both free flow and
congested travel times

Local Area Transportation Review (LATR)

The White Flint Sector Plan supports redevelopment toward a transit-oriented community
with an emphasis on pedestrian accessibility, connectivity, and safety. The degree by
which additional development can be accommodated within the Sector Plan area by
providing additional intersection capacity requires a value judgment regarding the
tradeoffs between the level of service afforded to vehicles compared to that provided to
pedestrians. Staff interest is in ensuring that no pedestrian crossings are more than 60’ in
length between curbs and refuge areas; generally equivalent to five travel lanes.
Crossings of four lanes or fewer are desirable.

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 16, 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 CLV.

The Public Hearing Draft Plan recommends extending the White Flint Metro Station
Policy Area to encompass the entire Sector Plan area, so that all intersections in the
Sector Plan area would have a congestion standard of 1800 CLV. Currently, some of the
intersections have a congestion standard of 1600 CLV.

37
Figure 15: Policy Area Mobility Review Table-2005

38
 Figure 16: Intersection Congestion Standards by Policy Area

Figure 17 provides a tabular summary of the congested intersections under both existing
conditions and the Public Hearing Draft Plan scenario. As indicated in Figure 17:

None of the intersections in the Plan area currently exceed either the 1600 or 1800
congestion standards.
Just two of the intersections (MD 355 at Old Georgetown Road and Old
Georgetown Road at Executive Boulevard) are forecast to slightly exceed the
1800 CLV congestion standard at Plan buildout during the PM peak hour. Staff
finds that the results in Figure 17 reflect an appropriate indicator of balance for
25-year forecasts.

39
 Figure 17: Intersection Analysis

In addition to the intersection congestion in the Sector Plan and around the cordon line,
staff examined congestion at the southern and western portals where traffic volumes are
expected to be the highest along Montrose Parkway and MD 355. At Montrose Parkway
and Tildenwood Lane, the peak hour forecast CLV is 1943 and at MD 355 and
Strathmore Avenue (MD 547) the peak hour forecast CLV is 1852. These forecasts are
higher than the current CLV congestion standard of 1600 for the North Bethesda Policy
Area. They are typical, however, of CLV forecasts for intersections on heavily traveled
arterial routes in Sector Plans where smart growth development is being encouraged by
County Policy, including the Silver Spring CBD Sector Plan in 2000, the Bethesda CBD
Sector Plan staging analysis in 2004, and the Shady Grove Sector Plan in 2006. Staff
finds that forecast CLV values of up to 2000 are indicative of some delay, but not such
delay to induce diversion to residential streets.

Cordon Line Analysis

A cordon line analysis is a tool to quickly gauge traffic levels by comparing total traffic
volumes entering or leaving area. Over the course of the Sector Plan development
process, three separate cordon line analyses were conducted for different purposes:

40
 A “subregional” cordon line was established, as indicated in Figure 18, to
consider flows into and out of the broader North Bethesda commercial area. 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.
Both model types are described in Chapter 3.
A “Sector Plan boundary” cordon line was established to track vehicles entering
and leaving the Sector Plan area.
An “inner” cordon line was established that matches the “Sector Plan boundary”
cordon line but is drawn south of Montrose Parkway rather than north of
Montrose Parkway. This cordon line excludes Montrose Parkway from the
analysis, which is appropriate for considering cordon line capacity constraints.
For the same reason, it would have been desirable to treat Old Georgetown Road
in the same manner (drawing a cordon line to the east, rather than to the west) but
the number of network concepts that altered Old Georgetown Road and access
options in the Mid Pike Plaza and Metro West Districts precluded consistent
application of this cordon line concept.

Therefore, the inner 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.

41
 Figure 18: Subregional Network Constraints

Other Considerations

The development of the Sector Plan recommendations considered other transportation

system performance measures as described below.

Metrorail System Capacity

About 4,000 people board Metrorail at the White Flint station on a typical weekday. The
morning and evening peak periods account for a total of 73% of the boarding’s. The
number boarding in the morning peak period is very close (about 1,400 to 1,500) to the
number boarding in the evening peak period, indicating that the use of Metrorail for
residents in White Flint (who typically work in the morning) and workers in White Flint
(who typically board during the evening) is about equal. There are more workers than
residents in White Flint but the transit mode share for residents is higher than it is for
workers, based primarily on White Flint’s location in the region (and therefore housing
affordability and parking availability characteristics that affect journey-to-work travel).

42
As of October 2006, about 41% of the spaces of the 1,158 spaces in parking garage at
White Flint are filled its maximum utilization Mondays through Thursdays. On a Friday,
about 31% of the spaces are filled.

The White Flint Sector Plan recommends the addition of a northern Metrorail station
entrance to bring a greater number of jobs and dwelling units within walking distance of
the station platform and disperse transit station pedestrian activity. WMATA is studying
alternatives for the northern entrance. Staff finds, however, that the overall Metrorail
system line-haul capacity is sufficient to accommodate Plan development.

Staff reviewed forecast transit line capacity for the western leg of the Metrorail Red Line
during the development of the MD 355 Corridor Study in 2006. The Washington Area
Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) completed their Metrorail Station Access and
Capacity Study in April 2008, which included an assessment of long-range system
capacity. Both studies concluded that sufficient capacity exists along the western leg of
the Metrorail Red Line to accommodate additional development in White Flint.

Figure 19 presents the M-NCPPC analysis of capacity increases along the Metrorail Red
Line given certain analysis assumptions and constraints considered at the time. At the
Washington, DC boundary, forecasts indicated a peak-hour, peak direction demand of
approximately 19,000 riders, within the forecast 23,000 seat capacity (assuming 2.5
minute headways, 8 car trains, and 120 passengers per car). A similar relationship
between demand and capacity existed at White Flint (with the capacity constrained by a
then-assumed Grosvenor turnback).
Figure 19: Metrorail Red Line Capacity and Demand

43
Figure 20 presents the WMATA summary of the forecast year 2030 AM peak hour flows
in the WMATA analysis completed September 2008. The WMATA forecasts are
slightly more conservative than the M-NCPPC numbers, with a peak load point of
approximately 15,000 riders per hour occurring at DuPont Circle.

From a roadway system perspective, jobs contribute more to congestion than do

households, as the volume-to-capacity constraint is greatest for vehicles leaving White
Flint during the evening peak period. From a Metrorail system perspective, however, it
is the households that potentially contribute to peak-load congestion, as White Flint
employees are either traveling in the reverse-peak direction (i.e., northbound in the
morning) or are traveling at the end of the line (i.e., from Shady Grove to White Flint in
the morning) where demand is far below capacity. The addition of 10,100 new
households, however, is not expected to constrain Metrorail operations on the Red Line
in 2030 because:

4,300 of those households are already in the 1994 Plan and reflected in WMATA
forecasts.
The 5,800 additional households are expected to generate approximately 550 peak
hour commuters, considering the forecast ratio of employed residents per
dwelling unit (0.85, higher than the current 0.71) and the percent of employed
residents traveling during the peak one hour within the peak period (0.28), and the
transit mode share for residential work trips (40%).

Even if all transit users traveled on Metrorail in the peak direction as far as the peak load
point at DuPont Circle, the 550 additional trips per hour would not cause the 2030 peak
hour demand in Figure 20 to approach the 23,000 capacity mark.

Figure 20: WMATA Red Line Forecast Peak Hour Loads

44
Vehicular Traffic Volumes

Figure 21 presents a comparison of existing and forecast traffic volumes at the Sector
Plan cordon line. In general, the cordon line serves as the boundary between the robust
network of local streets in the Sector Plan area and the more sparse network beyond the
Sector Plan boundary, particularly to the south and west. Therefore, traffic volumes at
these locations are substantially higher than in the interior of the Sector Plan.

At the cordon line, the total traffic volume will increase by about 80%, from 297,500
vehicles per day to 517,900 vehicles per day. The heaviest volumes will occur on the two
state highways, Rockville Pike (MD 355) and Old Georgetown Road (MD 187), with
between 65,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day. For comparison purposes, Wisconsin
Avenue (MD 355) and Connecticut Avenue (MD 185) both currently carry 70,000
vehicles per weekday immediately south of the Capital Beltway (as does Arlington
Boulevard in the vicinity of Glebe Road in Arlington County). The daily capacity of MD
355, however, is greater north of the Capital Beltway than south of the Beltway due to
differences in directional traffic flows. To the south of the Capital Beltway, both
localized and regional flows are southbound in the morning and northbound in the
evening. Between the Capital Beltway and the White Flint Sector Plan, the flows will be
more balanced, with forecast peak hour volumes of about 3,500 to 3,700 vehicles in each
direction.

Traffic volumes and volume growth will be lower within the Sector Plan area due to the
more robust roadway network. In general, traffic volumes along Rockville Pike today in
the Sector Plan area range from 45,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day and are forecast to
grow slightly to about 55,000 vehicles per day.

The Sector Plan analysis, like the Growth Policy, focuses on mobility considerations
during weekday peak periods. The stakeholders in the White Flint Sector Plan are
concerned that midday and weekend traffic congestion rivals that experienced during
weekday peak periods. Staff found that while midday and weekend conditions are not
substantially better than weekday peak period conditions, the weekday peak periods
remain the critical time periods for which the transportation system should be designed.

45
Figure 21: Sector Plan Cordon Line Traffic Volumes

46
Figure 22 shows traffic volumes by time of day and day of week on Rockville Pike near
Woodmont Country Club, aggregated by 15-minute time slices over a 13-month period
and presented for a typical week running from Sunday through Saturday. Each of the
weekdays shows a three-pronged peaking characteristic:

A morning peak period with generally 4,000 to 4,500 vehicles per hour,
a midday peak period with generally about 5,000 vehicles per hour, and
an afternoon peak period with 5,500 to 6,000 vehicles per hour.

By contrast, the Saturday volumes peak during the early afternoon with an average of just
over 5,000 vehicles per hour. While both midday and weekend traffic volumes are higher
than the weekday morning peak period, the weekday evening peak period remains the
period with consistently highest traffic volumes.

Figure 22: Rockville Pike Traffic Volumes by Time of Day

Vehicular Travel Times

Like traffic volumes, travel times on Rockville Pike are no worse during midday or
weekends than they are during weekday peak periods. Figure 23 provides an analysis of
the travel time along Rockville Pike between Strathmore Hall and Woodmont Country
Club for various times of day using data collected during late fall 2006. At the posted
speed of 40 MPH, the free-flow travel time speed for this 2.7 mile long segment of
roadway would be about 4 minutes, if all the traffic signals were green. The fastest
observed travel time was 5 minutes on a weekday evening at about 10 PM, and reflects
about one minute of random delay at traffic signals along the route.

47
 Figure 23: Rockville Pike Travel Times by Time of Day and Day of Week

Most of the 37 observed travel times fall into a band between 8 and 10 minutes. A travel
time of 10 minutes means that the congested speed is twice as long as the uncongested
speed. The same relationship can be stated to say that the congested speed is 50% of the
free flow speed. This is the terminology used to describe the Relative Arterial Mobility
metric in the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) element of the County’s Growth
Policy. The 50% value is also the threshold between “LOS D” and “LOS E” conditions
in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual. LOS E conditions
are generally recognized to be those under which the person-throughput of a facility is
optimized.

The reliability of the transportation system is also an element of concern. Two of the 37
travel time runs exceeded 12 minutes, one of them a Saturday in December (14 minutes)
and the other a Tuesday in November (18 minutes). In neither case was there a notable
cause for the delay, such as a special event or an observed or reported incident. These
outliers indicate that as demand approaches true system capacity, the transportation
system can become unstable so that relatively small variations or disturbances in flow can
create fairly substantial delays. These delays are often memorable, since most travelers
budget for expected (i.e., LOS D) conditions.

Figure 23 also shows that, like the midday and weekend traffic volumes, the midday and
weekend travel times are generally about the same as, but not worse than, the weekday
evening peak period travel times. Part of the perception regarding midday and weekend

48
traffic may relate again to budgetary expectations; travelers may have higher mobility
expectations for midday or weekend travel so that a ten minute trip up the Pike at lunch
feels more burdensome than the same trip up the Pike at 5:00 PM. From a system staging
perspective, however, the planning objective is to gain the greatest efficiencies from the
infrastructure, so the Plan is designed to accommodate the weekday peak period travel
demands.
Figure 24 provides a different perspective of travel time northbound during the weekday
evening peak period, showing the specific locations where delays occurred. Generally,
traffic in the Sector Plan area moved at 25 to 35 MPH in this observation, with delay
associated with a red traffic signal at Nicholson Lane.

49
 Figure 24: Weekday Evening Peak Period Travel
Speeds

Local Transit System Coverage and Use

The White Flint Sector Plan is served by a series of Ride-On and Metrobus routes as
shown in Figure 25 and summarized below.

Ride-On Route 5 (Twinbrook to Silver Spring) operates in a two way direction on

Rockville Pike between Old Georgetown Road and Strathmore Avenue. It

50
 operates as often as every ten minutes during peak hours and carries about 2,100
passengers on an average weekday.
Ride-On Route 26 (Montgomery Mall to Glenmont) operates in a two way
direction on Rockville Pile between Old Georgetown Road and Marinelli Road. It
operates as often as every 20 minutes during peak hours and carries about 3,200
passengers on an average weekday.
Ride-On Route 38 (Montgomery Mall to Wheaton) operates in a two way
direction on Rockville Pike between Montrose Road and Nicholson Lane. It
operates as often as every 20 minutes during peak hours and carries about 1,400
passengers on an average weekday.
Ride On Route 46 (Montgomery College to Medical Center) operates in a two
way direction along a large segment of Rockville Pike. It operates as often as
every 15 minutes during peak hours and carries about 4,000 passengers per day.
Ride-On Route 81 (Rockville to White Flint via Tower Oaks) ends at the White
Flint Metrorail Station and uses Marinelli Road to access the station in both
directions. This route provides service every 30 minutes and operates only during
peak hours. It carries about 200 passengers per weekday.
Metrobus Route C8 (College Park to White Flint) ends at the White Flint
Metrorail Station and uses Marinelli Road to access the station in both directions.
This route provides service every 35 minutes during peak hours.

Metrorail serves as the line-haul service in the corridor. The Metrobus and Ride-On bus
services serve two purposes:

A primary purpose to provide feeder service to the Metrorail system, and

a secondary purpose to provide circulator services for the communities in the
study area.

As the White Flint Sector Plan area develops, the secondary purpose will become more
important, but will still be less important than the primary purpose, at least during peak
commuting periods when bus transit system capacity is constrained.

51
Figure 25: Existing Public Transit Services

52
Figure 26 shows the current concept to provide 6 bus bays at the North Bethesda Town
Center development at the LCOR property.

Figure 26: Multimodal Connections at Metrorail Station

B. 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,

53
 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 27 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.

Figure 27: Travel/3 Model Network Typology

54
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.
Travel/3 Forecasting Assumptions

The White Flint Sector 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 were used (Round 7.0 for the initial
forecasts in early 2007 and Round 7.1 for the remaining forecasts in fall 2007 and
early 2008. The Round 7.1 forecasts reflect the recommendations of the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission as of August 2007, including
2,500 new employees at the National Naval Medical Center.
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 White Flint Sector Plan area, the Round 7.1 forecasts include an
increase from 5.6M square feet of development and 2,100 households in
2005 to 7.9M square feet of development and 6,000 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 Sector Plan include:
o Elimination of the WMATA turnback at Grosvenor
o The Corridor Cities Transitway 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

55
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 White Flint Metrorail Station Policy Area as two
transportation analysis zones (TAZ). The White Flint LAM disaggregates these two TAZ
into twelve subzones, and the Sector Plan area is represented by 20 subzones as indicated
in Figure 28.

56
Figure 28: White Flint Local Area Model Subzones

57
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 29 shows the trip generation rates used in the LAM.

Figure 29: Local Area Model Peak Hour Trip Generation

Land Use Units AM PM
Office (at 26% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.36 1.28
Office (at 39% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.22 1.16
Retail (at 26% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 0.70 1.75
Retail (at 39% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 0.67 1.70
Industrial (at 26% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.10 1.10
Industrial (at 39% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.03 1.03
Other Commercial(at 26% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.30 1.30
Other Commercial(at 39% NADMS) 1000 Square Feet 1.21 1.21
Multi-family residential Dwelling unit 0.40 0.46

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.

The trip generation rates shown in Figure 29 are generally lower than those found in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report, particularly for
commercial land uses. They are comparable with rates found in the LATR/PAMR
Guidelines for the Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Friendship Heights CBDs. The trip
generation rates reflect the fact that ITE rates for most commercial locations do not have
the transit availability and usage found in White Flint. 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 White Flint, similar to
those in the Bethesda and Silver Spring CBD, incorporate a discount for pass-by and
diverted-link trips.

58
4. Alternatives Considered
A. Timeline

The White Flint Sector Plan studies began in fall 2006. The analysis of alternative land
use and transportation system scenarios followed an iterative process as summarized
below. Additional details and presentation materials are available at the Plan website.

Summer 2006: Development and evaluation of several alternative concepts for

Rockville Pike as part of the MD 355 / I-270 Corridor Study, with a status report
to the Planning Board on March 7, 2007.
Spring 2007: Analysis of three levels of development characterized as “minimal”,
“moderate”, and “great” change, and multiple local street networks, culminating
in a status report to the Planning Board on October 8, 2007.
Fall 2007: Refinement of the development proposals in the moderate land use
scenario and review of an expanded local street system extending beyond the
Sector Plan area, culminating in a recommended plan concept report to the
Planning Board on January 31, 2008
Spring 2008: Analysis of alternative land uses proposed by property owners and
alternative implementation and financing proposals, culminating in preliminary
recommendations to the Planning Board on September 11, 2008 and the
December 2008 Public Hearing Draft Plan.

59
B. Land Use and Network Alternatives

Figure 30 shows the land use alternatives considered in the development of the White
Flint Sector Plan.

Figure 30: Land Use Scenarios Considered During Plan Development

Date Scenario Title in Transportation Commercial DU Cordon line
Presentations Planning SF volume
Nomenclature
10/2006 Existing Scenario 0 5.6M 2,100 13,000
MWCOG Scenario 1 7.9M 6,000 Not tested
Forecast Level
2030
2/2007 1992 Plan Scenario 2 11.5M 6,400 17,900
4/2007 Minimal Change Scenario 3 13.8M 10,900 20,800
(Scenario 1)
4/2007 Moderate Change Scenario 4 14.0M 13,400 21,200
(Scenario 2A)
4/2007 Great Change Scenario 5 20.1M 20,500 27,900
(Scenario 3)
4/2007 Moderate Change Scenario 6 9.7M 17,300 17,900
with 80%
Residential
(Scenario 2B)
8/2007 August 2007 Scenario 7 11.4M 12,600 18,700
12/2007 Preferred January Scenario 8 11.6M 14,000 19,400
2008
3/2008 Optional FAR 4 Scenario 9 17.6M 16,500 25,100
4/2008 April 15 Scenario 10 14.6M 16,300 22,100
6/2008 June 6 Scenario 11 13.0M 12,600 20,200
6/2008 June 13 Scenario 12 13.9M 12,299 20,900

There is a non-linear relationship between the amounts of residential and commercial

development and the total conceptual cordon line trip generation volumes due to the
different trip generation rates for each land use. Residential uses generate fewer vehicle
trips per square foot than do commercial uses. Figure 31 shows this relationship
graphically.

Scenario 12 has approximately 13.9M square feet of commercial space and about 14.8M
square feet of residential space, a total nearly 29M square feet, of which about 52% is
residential. This is one of the points located along the blue line in Figure30. If the
development is more heavily oriented toward residential use, more total development can
be accommodated with the same peak hour trip generation impact. For instance, at 55%
residential, the Plan could accommodate 30M square feet of development and at 70%
residential, the Plan could accommodate 40M square feet of development. At more than
60
80% residential, the congestion constraints would change as the Sector Plan would
become more of a housing resource than a job resource and the peak load would be for
traffic heading into the Plan area (or home) during the evening peak period.

Table 2 in the Sector Plan identifies a zoning development capacity of nearly 43M square
feet, assuming that all properties build to the theoretical maximum of the proposed TMX
zone. Full buildout, however, is not realistic for two reasons. First, market forces and
site constraints rarely permit full buildout of a given theoretical zoning capacity;
observed yields across a family of zones or a mature master plan area tend to be around
two-thirds of the theoretical capacity. Second, the White Flint staging plan identifies
caps for each of three stages beyond which the Planning Board will not approved
additional development on an areawide basis. And finally, master plans are designed to
have a twenty-year lifespan and countywide trends and forecasts suggest that the level of
development in Scenario 12 will not be fully absorbed by the year 2030.

Figure 31: Job/Housing Ratio Effect on Plan Trip Generation

61
Figure 32 describes the street network concepts considered during Plan development.

Figure 32: Street Network Concepts Considered During Plan Development

Timeframe Network Name Concepts
Fall 2006 0 Existing conditions
Fall 2006 V1 Constrained Long Range Plan – includes Montrose Parkway,
Nebel Street Extended, Chapman/Citadel Avenues
Summer 2007 A1 thru A7 New local streets – evolved according to local land uses
Summer 2007 B New local streets plus Rockville/Woodglen one-way couplet
Summer 2007 C New local streets plus Main/Marinelli and
Nicholson/Executive one-way couplets
Summer 2007 D New local streets plus Nicholson/Executive, Old
Georgetown/Marinelli, and SB Old Old Georgetown one-way
couplets
Summer 2007 E New local streets plus Rockville/Woodglen one-way couplet
Fall 2007 F New local streets plus Rockville/Woodglen and Old
Georgetown/Main one-way couplets
Spring 2008 G Glatting Jackson network (without Randolph crossing CSX at
grade)
Spring 2008 H1 thru H2 Glatting Jackson network plus Montrose Parkway interchange

The Recommended Plan is exemplified by the combination of Scenario 12 and roadway

network A7, shown in Figure 33. Current conditions are shown in Figure 34 for
comparison purposes. The recommended Plan in Figure 33 contains several advantages
as compared to the existing network in Figure 34:

The street grid is far more robust, with a finer grain of streets providing walkable
block lengths and continuity provided by the Nebel Street, Old Georgetown Road,
and Executive Boulevard extensions
The Montrose Parkway provides additional connectivity to I-270 and across the
CSX tracks for both through and local traffic
The number of vehicular travel lanes along Rockville Pike has been reduced,
improving the pedestrian experience.

62
Figure 33: Scenario 12 Roadway Network

63
Figure 34: Existing Roadway Network

64
C. Concepts Tested But Not Incorporated

During the development of the Plan, several network concepts were evaluated as
described in the following paragraphs.

Non-Auto Driver Mode Share of 50%

For a given level of development, the vehicular traffic burden can be reduced by reducing
the percentage of trips made by auto drivers. Walkers, bikers, transit users, and carpool
passengers are all “non-auto drivers”.

Figure 35 provides a comparison of PM peak hour, outbound vehicle trips generated by

White Flint development for three development scenarios:

The 1992 Plan (Scenario 2 in Figure24)

Alternative 2A (Scenario 4 in Figure24)
Alternative 3 (Scenario 5 in Figure24)

And three levels of NADMS:

The current level of 26%

The recommended level of 39%
The highest level achieved in the County (Silver Spring) of 50%

Figure 35: Trip Generation Sensitivity to Mode Share Assumptions

65
Figure 35 yields two primary conclusions:

Adjusting employee mode shares in White Flint can take hundreds of peak hour,
peak direction vehicles off the roadway network. Alternative 2A is similar to the
Plan recommendation, and the difference between the current 26% NADMS (with
a cordon line volume of 22,400 vehicles) and the 39% NADMS (with a cordon
line volume of 21,200 vehicles) is that the higher NADMS has 1,200 fewer peak
hour vehicles.
Changing mode share goals by themselves, however, will not offset all the traffic
growth by master planned development. For each of the three levels of
development shown, the variation in traffic volumes generated by the different
TDM levels is not as great as the variation in traffic generated by different land
use scenarios themselves.

Staff believes that the 39% NADMS is achievable in White Flint given the range of
parking management and TDM strategies noted in Figure 1. While the Silver Spring
CBD is able to achieve a 50% NADMS, staff does not find this achievable in White Flint
for three reasons:

The Silver Spring CBD is currently served by express bus service along the US 29
corridor, and a high level of bus-to-bus transfer at the Silver Spring Transit
Center, where 34 bus bays are planned to accommodate over 90,000 transit
boarding’s per day.
The Silver Spring CBD is approximately three miles closer to the regional core
The Silver Spring CBD has a greater amount of transit-dependent households,
both within the adjacent policy areas and in nearby commuter sheds.

Realignment of North Bethesda Transitway

The North Bethesda Transitway is a master-planned transitway connection to link the

Rock Spring Park activity center to the Metrorail system via the Grosvenor Metrorail
station. The study team considered revising the North Bethesda Transitway alignment to
connect to the White Flint Metrorail station rather than to the Grosvenor Metrorail
station. This option was not recommended for two reasons.

The White Flint Metrorail station is approximately one mile farther from Rock
Spring Park than is the Grosvenor Metorail station. This additional distance
would both reduce the effectiveness of the connection for Rock Spring Park users
as well as increase the cost of the transitway alignment.
An effective transitway connection would be more feasible at the Grosvenor
Metrorail station based on the Metrorail location (aerial versus below grade) and
the amount of immediately adjacent development.

66
Alternative Treatments Along Rockville Pike

During the initial development of transportation network concepts, staff explored a

variety of concepts for Rockville Pike as shown in Figure 36. Several alternative
concepts were evaluated based on their effect on transportation system performance, the
pedestrian experience and character of the Pike, and the expected impacts (both to the
adjacent communities and from a fiscal perspective.
Figure 36: Alternative Treatments for Rockville Pike

Initial stakeholder participation confirmed the staff position that a “do nothing”
alternative would not satisfy the need to improve the pedestrian experience and change
the character of the Pike through good design.

One proposal incorporated line-haul light-rail transit (LRT) in a 50’ wide median for
Rockville Pike. This concept was not pursued further based on the fact that:

Metrorail will provide line-haul services in the corridor with sufficient capacity to
accommodate demand,
the capital costs and space requirements associated with LRT would increase both
the planned implementation costs and right-of-way requirements, and
coordination would be needed with adjacent sections to develop an independent
operating segment.

67
Staff found that an increase in vehicular capacity by adding a general purpose lane would
exacerbate the pedestrian experience and character concerns with the do-nothing
alternative.

Proposals to convert Rockville Pike and Woodglen Drive into either a one-way couplet or
a multi-way boulevard (with continuous service roads) would increase capacity but be
difficult to implement. Similarly, proposals for depressing the Pike below grade could
greatly enhance the local character and experience, but at a prohibitively high cost.

The review of concepts shown in Figure 36 helped direct the Sector Plan
recommendations toward the boulevard treatment included in the Public Hearing Draft of
the Plan.

Transportation System Concepts Proposed by Glatting Jackson

In November 2007, a group of private sector interests hired the transportation consulting
firm Glatting Jackson to assist in the conceptual development of local street networks.
Glatting Jackson held a design charrette and produced the network shown in Figure 37.
The Glatting Jackson network reflected many local street concepts already developed and
incorporated the following new concepts that staff had not previously entertained:

Stop construction of the Montrose Parkway interchange,

raise Nebel Street to intersect Montrose Parkway at grade at the elevation of the
Montrose Parkway bridge across the CSX tracks,
extend the north/south portion of “Old” Old Georgetown Road northward across
Montrose Road as a six-lane road to connect to Rockville Pike near Bou Avenue,
extend the east/west portion of Old Georgetown Road eastward across the CSX
tracks to intersect a realigned Randolph Road at Parklawn Drive, and
widen Rockville Pike to incorporate back-in angled parking and a fourth travel
lane that would provide parking maneuvering space.

68
Figure 37: Glatting Jackson Roadway Network Concept

69
Figure 38 summarizes the staff evaluation of the removal of the Montrose Parkway
interchange. The analysis showed that the at-grade system of roadways would achieve a
superior urban design outcome, but that the at-grade system of streets would not provide
superior mobility and would introduce substantial uncertainty into the planning process,
take several years longer to implement, and have higher capital costs.

The primary limitation to the Glatting Jackson network was that the two new roadway
extensions both had substantial implementation challenges:

The northward extension of Old Old Georgetown Road would pass directly to the
west of the Monterey high-rise condominium, removing off-street parking spaces
and introducing through traffic into a residential enclave.
The eastward extension of Old Georgetown Road would pass across, or adjacent
to, the Pepco substation on Parklawn Drive.

Figure 38: Montrose Parkway Interchange Sensitivity Analysis

70
The concept to realign Executive Boulevard and Old Georgetown Road, connecting Old
Georgetown Road to Montrose Parkway via “Old” Old Georgetown Road, was
incorporated into the Public Hearing Draft Plan recommendations.

Staff finds that while back-in angle parking can be an effective traffic and parking
management solution on roadways with low traffic volumes, it is not appropriate to
introduce backing maneuvers on a major highway with 50,000 vehicles per day. The
concept to include an auxiliary lane which could, during off-peak times, be used for
parallel parking was incorporated into the Public Hearing Draft Plan concept for
Rockville Pike.

Roundabout at Old Georgetown Road and Executive Boulevard

In spring 2007, Master Plan Advisory Group advisory members proposed the
consideration of a roundabout at the junction between Old Georgetown Road and
Executive Boulevard that could potentially facilitate the re-connection of “Old” Old
Georgetown Road as a fifth leg in the intersection. Staff evaluated the performance of
the roundabout using FHWA planning guidelines and concluded that traffic volumes for
Land Use Scenario 4 would exceed the capacity of a two-lane, at grade roundabout by
approximately 50%. A roundabout that included both grade separation of Old
Georgetown Road and right-turn channelization could accommodate forecast traffic
flows but would require prohibitive amounts of right-of-way (for local access ramps) and
capital cost.

Rockville Pike / Nicholson Lane Interchange

The 1994 Plan recommends two grade separated interchanges along Rockville Pike in the
Sector Plan area, at Montrose Parkway and at Nicholson Lane. The Montrose Parkway
interchange is currently under construction, located within a 300-foot wide right-of-way
originally reserved for an Outer Beltway alignment, and following approximately ten
years of planning and design studies by the State Highway Administration.

Conversely, the Nicholson Lane interchange has not yet been the subject of detailed study
and does not benefit from previously reserved right-of-way. During 2006, staff
considered alternative interchange concepts in a tight urban diamond concept. Due to the
proximity of the WMATA tunnel easement, staff determined that below-grade
depressions are not feasible for either Rockville Pike or Nicholson Lane.

More important, the travel demand forecasts prepared for end-state plan conditions
include levels of congestion that do not warrant the physical space or capital expense for
an interchange.

71
Widening of Montrose Parkway or Rockville Pike to Establish BRT/HOV Lanes

The examination of land use scenarios #5 and #9, as well as the Glatting Jackson network
concepts that provided additional Sector Plan capacity demonstrated the need to consider
broader network connectivity. As previously presented, the recommended 29M square
feet of development and the proposed network will result in traffic conditions with
noticeable congestion, but not so severe as to cause adverse impacts such as
neighborhood cut-through traffic or economic impacts to White Flint businesses.

For alternative land use scenarios that included 40M square feet of development,
however, staff found that additional capacity would be required to connect White Flint
(and the broader North Bethesda commercial core) to the Interstate highway system.
This capacity would need to be provided along both Montrose Parkway and Rockville
Pike, and would likely consist of the conversion of these planned roadways from six-lane
to eight-lane facilities, with the additional lanes possibly reserved for high-occupancy
vehicles (HOV) and bus rapid transit (BRT). These potential improvements appear to be
physically feasible, but would require additional right-of-way that would create
community disruption, and add another $100M to $150M to the infrastructure costs
associated with the Plan. These proposals are therefore not included in the Plan.

D. Alternatives Analysis Summary

The transportation and land use recommendations in the Public Hearing Draft of the
White Flint Sector Plan were developed through an iterative process incorporating both
stakeholder and Planning Board review and comments over a two-year period. The Plan
proposes a practical, multimodal transportation system that provides appropriate levels of
mobility for future White Flint and vicinity residents, employees, and visitors.

72