Growth Policy Study: Draft Report

Appendix E- Addendum to the 2008 Master Plan

Implementation Status Report
(Resolution 16-376 F11)

Lead Staff: Glenn Kreger

_____________________________________________________________

Objective:

To assess the progress toward implementing the facilities recommended in each

master/sector plan.
__________________________________________________________________

Draft Report:
The addendum to the 2008 Master Plan Implementation Status Report contains the
following information:

Status Report for the December 2008 Twinbrook Sector Plan

Shady Grove Sector Plan Implementation
Clarksburg Staging and Buildout
Policy Areas Map
Status of Capital Facilities (matrices)

The report, in its entirety, can be found on the GrowingSmarter.Org website under
Resources.

http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/research/growth_policy/growth_policy09/agp_gro
wing_smarter.shtm
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix F – Biennial Highway Mobility Report
(Resolution 16-376 F11)

Lead Staff: Justin Clarke

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
The purpose of the Highway Mobility Report (HMR) is to document the Department’s annual analysis of
constraints to mobility within Montgomery County. These transportation indicators are intended for use
by the Planning Board and County Council to inform their commentary on this year’s State Consolidated
Transportation Program (CTP) project priorities. Recommendations and analysis provided with this
report will be an update of work provided in the May, 2008 HMR.

__________________________________________________________________

Progress Report:
Vehicle-based data collection is nearly complete for this project. All Global Positioning System (GPS)-
based travel time samples have been collected and processed via Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Intersection traffic count collection continues and approximately ¾ of the counts have been received by
staff and entered into our agency intersection database. Staff time is currently focused on the generation
of travel time maps and graphs comparing 2009 and previous year data as well as critical lane volume
(CLV) analysis of intersection counts. Intersection rankings by raw CLV and also by CLV to Local Area
Transportation Review (LATR) ratio are in development as intersection data is delivered by consultant
teams.

Following the recent development of updated demographic inputs, the necessary TRAVEL/3 model run
for year 2013 vehicular congestion analysis has been completed. Staff is currently reviewing the results
of this effort.

Beyond vehicular data, staff has identified pedestrian, bus and Metro rail data sources. Work has begun
testing various displays of this data. Where relevant, this transit and pedestrian information will be
incorporated into the 2009 HMR report to illuminate mobility throughout the County, particularly with
regard to comparisons among transportation modes.

A working outline of the 2009 report follows. Numerous graphics in the form of maps, tables and charts
will be included in the report along with text sections.
Working Report Outline:
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Recommendations from Staff
B. Key Findings
C. Highlights (One Page)
D. Key Changes from 2008 HMR Report
II. MOBILITY ANALYSIS
A. Objectives
1. Purpose
B. Current Congestion Analysis
1. Measures of Congestion (Description)
2. Critical Lane Volume (CLV via Traffic Counts)
a) Description of data parameters
b) Comparison of CLV data with LATR standards
c) 10 Most Congested Intersections
e) Analysis of remaining congested intersections
f) Key Changes in CLV (Increase/Decrease of CLV by 15% or more/less)
h) Charts of variation with time (Historical Comparison)
i) Diurnal Analysis for AM/PM Peak Periods
3. Arterial Travel Times and Speeds (GPS – Motion Maps Data)
a) Priority Analysis Corridors with Historical Comparisons
b) Mobility within Select Policy Areas of the AGP (I-270/North Areas)
4. Congested Corridors (Synthesis of CLV and GPS data)
C. Trends in Transportation Analysis
1. Relationship Analysis Between MNCPPC Data and the Larger Transportation
Picture
a) How have vehicle travel/transit ridership changed over the past year(s)?
(re: changes in gas prices and recent economic downturn)
(1) National Trends - FHWA/DOT VMT Data
(2) State Trends VMT Trends- SHA
(3) County Trends
b) How do our Vehicle Counts relate to other modes – ped./bus/rail?
(1) Pedestrian Count Analysis
(2) Bus System Analysis
 (3) Metro Rail Analysis
(4) Comparison of auto vs. transit travel time (2005 and 2030
horizon years)
c) What is happening to resident Mode Share in Montgomery County?
(1) Montgomery County Census Update Data
D. Future Congestion
1. Model Inputs and Parameters
2. Forecasted Volume to Capacity Ratios
3. Relative Mobility
E. Increasing Mobility
1. Key Infrastructure Improvements (i.e. what improvements have been made to the
system since the last report was completed in 2008?)
F. Next Steps
1. Forthcoming Analysis/Data (e.g. COG Arterial Congestion Monitoring Data)

III. METHODOLOGY
A. Report History
B. Sample Calculations
C. Data Sources and Reliability

IV. APPENDIX
A. Supplemental Graphs, Tables and Charts
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix G – Prioritization of Public Facilities
(Resolution 16-376 F11)

Lead Staff: Lawrence Cole

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
To prioritize the facilities needed to realize the vision in approved master/sector plans
__________________________________________________________________
Progress Report:
The following table was created as a tool to assist in the prioritization of projects for the
County’s CIP. One assumption is that the projects already in the CIP would remain as priorities
and would not be required to compete against new candidates. This tool would be used to
determine which new projects should enter the CIP as planning, design, or construction projects.

The first two columns reflect the type of project and location of the projects. These are not
scored criteria, but are intended to give more general information to decision-makers to ensure
that we’re not unknowingly choosing mostly one type of project or projects mostly in one area of
the county.

The following criteria use a point system to reflect the important characteristics of a project:

Sustainability: The next two columns give higher priority to where our highest investments in
transit are and where the greatest outcome can be achieved with County funds.

Master/Sector Plan Goals and Objectives: The goals and objectives in the Staging
Requirements and Constrained Long Range Plan have already been codified as higher County
priorities and are given greater weight in the table.

Connectivity, Design Excellence, and Diversity: The multiple factors in these categories are
equally weighted and are intended to promote more holistic planning and design of projects,
promoting accessible, multiple-use facilities that meet the needs of multiple users.

A sample listing of projects is provided, two from each team area, with a total point score to
illustrate the potential outcome of the use of this table to determine the County’s priorities.
 Master Plan area Master/Sector
Sustainability Plan Goals and Connectivity Design Excellence Diversity Total
Objectives
Project

Type

Serves multiple
Env. protection
Linking jobs to

Promotes Non-
neighborhoods

neighborhoods
HMR Top Ten

Neighborhood
Multi-purpose

Conservation/
private/public
Coordination
preparedness

development

and interests
Priority area

Long Range

SOV Travel
Constrained
requirement

Community
Emergency

to services
Leveraged

Forecasts
0-15 pts

Linking
housing

Identity
Staging

Traffic

Safety
10 pts

10 pts
funds
5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts

5 pts
Plan

HP
Project types: Road, Pedestrian/Bicycle, Transit, Police, Fire and Rescue, School, Library, Parks and Recreation, or
Other Community Facility.

Priority areas:

1. Urban areas as defined in Chapter 49 (Grosvenor, Shady Grove, Twinbrook, White Flint, Silver Spring,
Wheaton, Bethesda, Friendship Heights, and Glenmont Metro Station Policy Areas; Germantown Town
Center; Clarksburg Town Center; Damascus Town Center; Olney Town Center; Flower/Arliss /Piney
Branch commercial area; Montgomery Hills Parking Lot District; North Bethesda Commercial/Mixed-Use
area, and Silver Spring Parking Lot District.) – 15 pointsAreas within ½ mile of on-MSPA Metro Stations
(Forest Glen, Medical Center, Takoma, and Shady Grove) – 10 pts
2. Areas within ½ mile of other existing or programmed transit stations – 5-8 points
3. MD Smart Growth Priority Funding Area other than the above – 3 points
4. Non- MD Smart Growth Priority Funding Area other than the above – 0 points
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix H – Changes to Policy Area Boundaries

Lead Staff: Wayne Koempel

__________________________________________________________________
Objective:
To recommend changes to Policy Area boundaries
__________________________________________________________________
Progress Report:

Examination of possible changes to Policy Area boundaries has begun. The following areas are
being examined.

The Gaithersburg City and Rockville city Policy Area boundaries are being adjusted to
better match their municipal boundaries.

Expansion of the Germantown Town Center Policy Area east from Crystal Rock Drive to
I-270 north of Germantown Road (MD 118) as recommended in the new Germantown
Master Plan.

The R & D Village Policy Area should be adjusted to account for the City of
Gaithersburg’s annexation of the Crown Farm.

Create a new Life Sciences Center Policy Area from part of the R & D Village Policy
Area.
o The Life Sciences Center Policy Area would be created from traffic zones 218,
219, and 220.
o This proposal would result in the remaining R & D Village Policy Area being a
non-contiguous grouping of traffic zones 166, 215 (less Crown Farm), and 216.

Expand the White Flint Policy Area to conform to the White Flint Sector Plan
boundaries.
In addition, investigation will continue to determine if other boundary changes need to be
addressed.
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix I – Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR)
(Resolution 16-376 F11)

Lead Staff: Eric Graye

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
To present the results of the annual Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) for Board approval

______________________________________________________________________________

Progress Report:
Using the Department’s Travel/3 transportation model in support of the application of the PAMR
methodology, staff will evaluate the year 2013 relationship between the set of transportation
projects fully-funded in the four-year capital program and the geographic pattern of existing and
approved but un-built (i.e., “pipeline”) jobs and housing units in the County. A key result of this
analysis will be the determination of a revised set of required trip mitigation percentages by
policy area. Staff will be requesting the Planning Board’s acceptance these trip mitigation
requirements for FY 10.

Staff has initiated coordination efforts with MCDOT and County Council staff to confirm the
identification of the appropriate transportation projects to be assumed in the 2013 PAMR
network. The development of the 2013 existing plus pipeline demographic scenario is
underway. This demographic dataset will also include adjustments to account for Base
Realignment and Closures (BRAC)- related employment in the County.

Status: Staff expects to deliver the 2013 PAMR test results to the Planning Board in May 2009.
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix J –School Capacity and Enrollment
(Resolution 16-376 F11)

Lead Staff: Pam Dunn

__________________________________________________________________

Objective: To present the results of the annual school test for Board approval.

__________________________________________________________________

Progress Report:

Adequate school capacity is a calculation that compares projected enrollment numbers and
existing and planned facility capacity based on program needs. The annual school test determines
if residential subdivisions in any school clusters should be subject to either a school facilities
payment or a moratorium.

The County Council approves the school test methodology in the Growth Policy Resolution.
Once the Council approves the CIP, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) recalculates
the projected school capacity (based on final determination of funded capacity) and provides all
data for the school test as required by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.

The FY2010 school enrollment and capacity information will be presented to the Planning Board
either just prior to the staff draft of the 2009-2011 Growth Policy or as part of this document.
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix K – Allocating Development Rights
(Resolution 16-376 F12c)

Lead Staff: Shahriar Etemadi and Cathy Conlon

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
To evaluate the possibility of establishing a system whereby development rights can be traded
amongst developers
______________________________________________________________________________

The evaluation of trading development rights results from an interest to both streamline the
provision of transportation capacity and, over time, reduce the unused backlog of pipeline
capacity that requires new development entering the queue to reflect the growth of the assumed
30 million square feet of approved commercial development already in the queue ahead of them.
There are two general issues to describe in this analysis:

The geographic areas between which development capacity could be traded, and
The administrative methods to exchange the capacity

Geographic Areas

Two general approaches are described below.

Development capacity trading within the same MSPA.

Establish a development ceiling stage within the same MSPA and allow one or more
applicants to trade development potential of their property within a candidate MSPA.
This could be called MSPAs Transfer of Development Rights (MTDR). An example of
this would be the application called Woodmont Central, currently pending at the Planning
Department within the Woodmont Triangle Area. Two separate sites within the
Woodmont Triangle area have submitted a request to exchange development density
between the two sites in order to maximize the development potential of both sites.
Without trading the development density, these two sites could not each contain the land
uses proposed on each location.

Under the MDTR scenario, some of the design and planning regulations must be
modified to accommodate this request. The existing zoning ordinance limits the ability of
taking full advantage of this density transfer. All master plan recommendations relating
to transportation design must be strictly enforced. This capacity trading will allow the
flexibility to pace and locate developments within the area. It also maximizes the benefit
of development potential transferred from one property to another closer to the Metrorail
station to take advantage of better use of transit. If the receiving parcel uses the full
potential of sending parcel, this location (sending area) could be designated for public use
such as a neighborhood park.

This incentive facilitates development of property that is otherwise limited by location or

parcel size restrictions. Another advantage is in case a property is on a recorded lot and
proposed a standard method of development with restriction on less than full density
build out, the excess density can be transferred to a new development for higher density.
Other development restrictions such as height could also be modified.

Development capacity trading from non-MSPAs into MSPAs

A second scenario would be to allow an applicant or applicants that have extensive

approved development in the pipeline in a location not well served by transit to transfer
the development right to an area down-county where the market for development is more
desirable or provides a better transportation system with higher levels of transit mobility.
The transfer of development rights would be the same amount placed in a location
allowing higher density. The primary concern with this method would the equity of re-
evaluating transportation system requirements that were conditions of the sending
development (and may have already been built). This concern could be alleviated in part
by limiting the distance of the allowed transfer, such as limiting sending areas to be only
from policy areas that are adjacent to the receiving MSPA.

Administrative Mechanisms

Four types of administrative mechanisms to address APF requirements for trading

development rights are described below.

Status quo: Multiple applicants share one improvement

Currently, transportation improvements required for LATR may be the responsibility of

more than one applicant. Each applicant affecting a substandard transportation element,
such as an over-congested intersection, is conditioned to make the same improvement but
whoever proceeds first with implementation of their project is responsible for completing
the total improvements to gain building permits. The applicant who is making the total
improvements must be compensated by other applicants responsible for the same
improvement based on a pro-rata-share of their impact. The definition of pro-rata share is
agreed to by the applicants themselves.

Development capacity trading in zoning ordinance

Status: Staff is looking into the possibility of changes in the zoning ordinance to implement the
concept described in the Woodmont Triangle area in other areas of the County. If the zoning
ordinance is modified to allow for transfer of rights to each other, the sites could be developed as
a mixed use development in the MSPA. In addition, if the transfer of rights is allowed, additional
floor area ratio (FAR) could be obtained for an optional method of development vs. standard
method. The exchange of development rights achieves both mixed use objectives as well as
facilitating planned development levels in the MSPAs.

Transportation improvement cap and trade

This policy would allow an applicant who provides more than the transportation
capacity necessary to mitigate its impact, to transfer the excess transportation capacity for
use of a second development or offer it “for sale” to the second applicant within the same
policy area. If this policy is adopted for all areas and is not limited only to MSPAs, it
encourages the applicants to provide more than necessary capacity at earlier stage of
development (which means it could be provided at a lower cost). For example, the
Montgomery General Hospital will likely design and construct a transit station that
provides for more than their required trip mitigation. In this case, the excess credit
created by the applicant could be transferred to another applicant at a value to be agreed
upon between the two applicants.

Status: At the time of review and implementation of the PAMR trip mitigation projects, the
county would determine how much of that PAMR project counts for the mitigation requirement
for the application being reviewed and how many additional trips were mitigated that can be
applied to the applicant’s second development or be sold to a different applicant for their use of
PAMR trip mitigation. This transfer of trip mitigation must be within the same policy area for
two reasons:

1. To ensure that the trip mitigation created within a policy area benefits the same policy
area in the future and;

2. The same mitigation measure (trip credit) in an area where is less expensive to implement
is not equally transferred to an area where the same mitigation measure is more expensive
resulting in loss of mitigation measure value for the public.

Transportation mitigation bank

A transportation mitigation bank similar to the Forest Conservation Bank (with

modifications tailored for addressing the transportation facilities issues) could be set up to
 collect, spend, and keep track of all the resources to improve overall transportation
in the county. In this model, the Montgomery General Hospital could theoretically
collect a refund from the Transportation Mitigation Bank for the excess capacity being
constructed. Any other applicant in the Olney Policy Area could then proceed by paying
a deposit into the bank equivalent to the amount of capacity used.

Staff has three primary concerns with this process. First, unlike the Forest Conservation
Bank, in which the exchange rate is always acres of forest, the multimodal and
geographic aspect of transportation impacts and mitigation create a public acceptance
challenge that all congested intersections or transit centers can be valued equally. Second,
this complexity requires establishment of:

exchange currency (dollars, square feet of different types of land uses, or

trips/VMT),
cash flow management (how to incorporate construction escalation costs and
completion dates into the valuation process)
effect on taxes, fees, and credits
public concern that the approach from a theoretical perspective would be a
return to the days of “pay-and-go”.

Status: Staff does not recommend further pursuit of this method at this time as the complexity
outlined above would create administrative and legal complexities that outweigh the benefits,
particularly considering that simpler alternatives exist as outlined above.
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix L - Report on Current Jobs/Housing Balance
(Resolution 16-376 F12d)

Lead Staff: Eric Graye and Pam Dunn

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
To report on the current jobs/housing balance by policy area across the County evaluating
implications for housing affordability and traffic congestion.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Progress Report:
Jobs and housing units are considered to be “in balance” when there are roughly as many jobs as
workers living in the County. On average, there are about 1.6 workers per household in
Montgomery County, and roughly one household per housing unit. As a result, a ratio of 1.6 jobs
per housing unit is considered “balanced”.

A balance of jobs and housing is intended to meet two main goals: to provide an adequate
number of employment opportunities for County residents, and to minimize the distance a
worker has to travel to his or her job.

These goals have important secondary affects: a balance of jobs and housing helps to minimize
the impact of growth on the transportation network and helps improve housing affordability
through reduced transportation costs.

The County’s current and forecast jobs/housing ratios are being calculated as part of the Round
7.2 forecast. These ratios will be evaluated in relationship to the new PAMR analysis. Evaluation
of jobs/housing in relationship to PAMR by policy area can provide useful information on the
significance of congestion thresholds or Master Plan Staging. For example, a policy area with
PAMR mitigation over fifty percent and a jobs/housing balance below .5 could indicate the need
for either increased transit (due to the high proportion of households and low proportion of jobs),
or prioritization of planned road improvements, or exemption from all/part of PAMR mitigation
for high job growth development.

In addition to evaluating jobs/housing in relationship to PAMR, jobs/housing balances will be

evaluated against a housing/transportation affordability index developed as part of the 2007-2009
Growth Policy. The value of this comparison is to help target policy efforts aimed at retaining
existing affordable housing.
Over the past decade, the County and the region have moved to the current 1.6 jobs-per-housing
unit ratio. This ratio is used by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG).
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is currently developing a Constrained
Long Range Plan (CLRP) Aspirations Scenario using the 1.6 ratio as a regional goal.

Jobs/housing ratios will be calculated using the Round 7.2, 2030 forecast as well as a Round 7.2,
2030 “balanced” forecast. This “balanced” forecast is similar to the COG (CLRP) Aspirations
Scenario.

Status: The Round 7.2 forecast and “balanced” forecast have recently been completed. Staff
expects the PAMR analysis to be completed within the next couple of weeks.
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix M –Potential Changes to the APF Tests for
Transportation and School Adequacy

Lead Staff: Shahriar Etemadi and Pam Dunn

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
To evaluate revisions to PAMR, LATR and school capacity. And, to evaluate revision to the
derivation of the transportation impact and school impact taxes.
______________________________________________________________________________

Progress Report:
The retention of the Adequate Public Facilities review for transportation and school facilities
remains an important element of the development approval process. Staff analyzed alternatives
to LATR and PAMR in both the 2007 Growth Policy and the 2008 subsequent studies and did
not find a better framework on which to build the APF process. Therefore, staff recommends the
retention of the basic Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) and Policy Area Mobility
Review (PAMR) tests as well as the school test.

However, staff will evaluate revisions to the currents tests such as threshold changes for both
transportation congestion and school capacity, development of a cordon-line method exemption
and a parking cap method exemption from PAMR and LATR, and review of adequacy tests for
other public facilities. In addition, impact tax calculations will be analyzed possibly changing the
transportation impact tax calculation based on trips to one based on VMT. In the same vein,
school impact taxes will be evaluated on a square foot basis compared to unit type. These
changes would benefit development with lower carbon footprints.

Staff believes that the LATR and PAMR processes can be improved and propose to examine
several policy options that will help incentivize high-quality, transit-oriented growth and
streamline development review processes where appropriate. Staff has started to pursue some of
these recommendations as part of the White Flint and Gaithersburg West master planning
processes.

1. Definition of Adequacy

Transportation:
The Planning Board recommended in 2007 that the relationship between Transit Level of
Service (LOS) and Arterial Level of Service in the PAMR process be symmetrical so that
the areas with LOS B transit service could support LOS E arterial service. Staff will
revisit these recommendations through our outreach process. We will also consider the
effect of altering or removing the partial mitigation requirements. Figure 1 shows the
current PAMR “chart” identifying Policy Areas requiring both full mitigation and partial
mitigation.

Figure 1

Changes to certain Policy Area boundaries to better define transit station services areas
are recommended in the draft White Flint, Germantown, and Gaithersburg West master
plans. These changes would revise LATR congestion standards at intersections within
the expanded boundaries.

Schools:
The Planning Board recommended in 2007 a capacity threshold of 110% for payment of
a school facility fee and a threshold of 130% for moratorium. The County Council
approved a capacity threshold for payment of the school facility fee of 105% and the
threshold for moratorium of 120%. Staff will revisit this recommendation.
Status: For PAMR, staff proposes the following changes:

The PAMR congestion standards be revised to return to the Planning Board’s May 2007
equivalency of Relative Arterial Mobility and Relative Transit Mobility, as this
equivalency provides more consistent equity between the arterial and transit mobility
axes as described in 2007 and during the White Flint Sector Plan worksessions. This
proposal places another “stairstep” in the lower right corner of the PAMR chart.
The partial mitigation areas be retained (but would be adjusted to reflect the new shape of
the stairsteps).

2. Definition of De-Minimis Thresholds

Transportation:
The 2007 Growth Policy established a de-minimis threshold of 3 vehicle trips to trigger
PAMR mitigation. The staff and private sector efforts required to define mitigation
measures for small (< 30 vehicle trip) applications was not practical, with public sector
review costs often exceeding the value of the mitigating action. The Planning Board
determined in July 2008 that payment-in-lieu of $11,000 per vehicle trips for applicants
generating between 3 and fewer than 30 vehicle trips is an appropriate solution. Staff
will consider whether de-minimis thresholds should be adjusted for either LATR or
PAMR.

Status: Staff proposes at this time that no change be made to the De-Minimis PAMR threshold,
based on the potential for alternative means to mitigate the PAMR requirements
described elsewhere in Appendix M and in the smart growth criteria in Appendix N.

Schools:
The 2007 Growth Policy established a de-minimis threshold of greater than 3 units to
apply the cluster capacity tests. A large proportion of the County’s future housing growth
is expected to be in multi-family units. Given this assertion, increasing the de-minimus
for application of the school test may be relevant. Staff will re-evaluate this
recommendation.

3. Adjustments to Acceptable Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Rates

The LATR/PAMR Guidelines contain vehicle trip generation rates appropriate for
developments in Montgomery County. Separate rates are included for the Silver Spring,
Bethesda, and Friendship Heights CBDs and a discounting factor is available for offices
near Metrorail stations to reflect the higher transit mode share at those locations. The
LATR/PAMR Guidelines also note that staff may consider case-by-case adjustments
from the approved trip generation rates if the adjustment can be documented from
reliable sources.

In fall 2008, the Transportation Research Board released Transit Cooperative Research
Project (TRCP) Report 128, Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. This
 research report contains data collected at transit-oriented developments nationwide,
including sites in Montgomery County, and derives certain trip generation relationships
that are similar to those already incorporated in our LATR/PAMR Guidelines. Staff will
evaluate TCRP 128 to determine if another category of pre-approved trip generation rates
for TOD are suitable for incorporation in the LATR/PAMR Guidelines.

Status: Staff is in the process of reviewing and evaluating TRCP Report 128 and other
resources.

4. Value of Trip Mitigation Actions

Transportation:
The value of providing transit services needs to be reviewed. The PAMR process
introduced the concept of buying a transit vehicle for Ride-On to operate as a mitigating
measure. The value (one vehicle plus 12 years of operating costs equals 30 peak hour
vehicle trips) reflected our estimates of costs and benefits but was not found to be a
practical option by any applicants. Table 5 in the LATR Guidelines for Non-
Automobile Transportation Facilities, shown in Figure 2, will be updated to reflect staff’s
recommendations in the July 15, 2008 memorandum to the Planning Board.
Figure 2

Status: Staff recommends the following changes:

Elimination of the following facilities that are either not well defined or are generally
well below the $11,000 per vehicle trip value established by the Planning Board:
o Curb Extension/Pedestrian Refuge Island/Handicap Ramp
o Information Kiosk
Acceptance of additional proposals from applicants for other types of facilities, to be
agreed upon at the time of application using the $11,000 per vehicle trip value:
o Bus layover space (within transit centers)
o Crosswalks
o On-road bicycle lanes
o Park-and-ride lots
o Park trial
o Pedestrian overpasses/underpasses
 o Streetlights
o Transit “queue jumper” construction
o Transitway/busway construction
o Utilities undergrounding in urban areas
o Real time bus information signs at selected locations
o Sidewalk/bike path construction to complete missing links
o Pedestrian safety improvements including handicapped ramps.

Staff also recommends retaining the $11,000 per vehicle trip value. The staff intent in
summer 2008 was to update the value annually based on the Construction Cost Index.
While the Engineering News Record CCI rose 5.1% from April 2008 to April 2009
(higher than the general rate of inflation), staff recommends no increase to the $11,000
value at this time based on our observation of County efforts to avoid actions that might
dampen economic stimulus activities.

5. Alternative Review Procedures for Metro Station Policy Areas (MSPAs)

Transportation:
This Growth Policy should examine additional methods to incentivize development in
our Metro station areas, where our transit investment and potential for non-auto
commuting is greatest. Allocating development capacity to Metro Station Policy Areas
(MSPAs) has been a part of the Growth Policy in Montgomery County for more than a
decade. Over the years, the Planning Board has evaluated different ways to optimize the
balance between the allocated development and adequacy of transportation capacity to
accommodate that land use. Currently, the LATR/PAMR Guidelines allow development
to be exempted from the LATR/PAMR requirements if applicants agree to pay additional
impact taxes and commit through a binding Traffic Mitigation Agreement to reduce 50%
of their vehicle trips. The Alternative Review Procedure has been in place for over eight
years and has not yet been tested (only the LCOR North Bethesda Project has entered
into an agreement). Our understanding is that the risk of non-performance in the Traffic
Mitigation Agreement process creates a level of risk that reduces the attractiveness of this
Alternative Review Procedure.

Other Alternative Review procedures could allow for development to occur without the
test for adequacy of transportation facilities. The options listed below would create
incentives to channel development into the MSPAs.

Waive the LATR / PAMR tests in MSPAs, alone or in combination with

replacement adequacy definitions per concepts outlined in the following bullets

This alternative would suggest that there is no mobility adequacy requirement for
development in MSPAs. However, even if traffic congestion in the MSPAs is
determined to be not a concern from a policy perspective, development within the
MSPAs also increases traffic on major highways, arterials and primary residential streets
connecting to the MSPAs.
 Establish congested operating speed requirements for arterials serving MSPAs

Arterials serving MSPAs could be provided with a set of adequacy standards such as
requiring traffic to be maintained at 40% of the design speed or free flow speed of traffic
on the roadways within a secondary boundary of the MSPAs. This would restrict
development within MSPAs with possible improvement mitigation may be more feasible
outside the core area.

Status: Staff proposes to pursue the following elements for this exemption process:

The traffic speed to be maintained at 40% of the free flow speed of traffic on
the roadways crossing the MSPAs reaching the next policy area boundary

This standard will be applied to any application that will add more than 5 peak
hour trips per lane at the MSPA boundary (mirroring the 5 CLV de-minimis
policy already in the Growth Policy) in the peak direction.

Both the peak hour in the AM and PM peak periods and in both directions will
be analyzed (with removal of off-peak direction analysis considered at
discretion of staff).

A minimum of three runs must be made between 9 PM and midnight to

establish the free flow speed.

Sufficient runs need to be made during the peak hour to establish a 95%
confidence level within +/- 3 MPH.

Establish cordon line caps (vehicles or seats) and/or long-term parking space
caps to limit in-commuting to MSPAs to a maximum amount supported by the
adjacent network

A cordon line limit of traffic volume for all major highways, arterials and primary
residential streets at the boundary of the MSPAs must be maintained. As long as this limit
is maintained, development can continue in the MSPAs. The limit could be set by
allowing adjacent policy areas to “sink” to the lowest allowable levels of mobility as
defined by PAMR.

A screen line limit of traffic volume will be established only at specific locations where
the aim is to protect residential neighborhoods from increasing traffic as the consequence
of increased traffic in the MSPAs.
 Limit the number of parking spaces in the MSPAs to limit traffic increase in the MSPAs.
Periodical Parking study is necessary to ensure that the demand does not exceed supply.
For example, when the usage of parking supply reaches a limit, the development must
stop or additional reduction in trips results in reduced demand for parking within the
established limit.

Status: Establish a cordon line analysis of traffic entering the MSPAs on the designated major
roads and arterials connecting to the MSPAs. For example, in the Silver Spring MSPA,
the Growth Policy establishes 17,500 vehicles leaving the policy area during the evening
peak hour as a maximum.

Establish a multimodal cordon line analysis

Combine the capacity of transit and highway systems to arrive at a “seats per hour”
capacity ceiling for development within the MSPA. This will be accomplished by
establishing a multi modal cordon line limit of transportation capacity around the
MSPAs. For example, suppose the average traffic volume to capacity ratio of all
roadways leaving an MSPA is 95%. A parallel measure of the volume to capacity ratio
of all transit modes could be calculated by counting the ratio of occupied seats in each
transit mode to the total number of available seats. Suppose in the same MSPA, this ratio
is 75%. The average transportation capacity of all modes in this area could be estimated
to be 85% (the average of the two). With this policy, development can occur until the
established limit of combined transportation capacity for the area is reached even if one
of the two systems is operating above its congestion standard. Cordon line capacity
could also then be increased by adding transit service.

Status: Staff does not recommend this method at this time due to the need for extensive data
collection and analysis needed to set standards. This concept should be pursued as part of
the implementation of the White Flint Sector Plan and could therefore be a subject of the
next biennial Growth Policy Study.

Establish an implementation authority and funding structure

Establish a transportation capacity ceiling for development within the MSPA, a defined
set of end-state transportation improvements, and a staging and implementing mechanism
to manage the funding, staging, and construction of the improvements. This is the
approach proposed in the Public Hearing Draft of the White Flint Sector Plan. Staff does
not propose expanding this method for any other MSPAs until the White Flint proposal
has been vetted.
 6. Expansion of MSPA Alternative Review Procedures to additional urban areas

The entire North Bethesda Transportation Management District could be allowed to use
Alternative Review Procedure (ARP) as a permitted procedure for APF testing. This area
contains three MSPAs with permitted ARP testing for APF and the remaining area of
North Bethesda surrounding these MSPAs could be permitted for use of ARP under the
umbrella of the TMD to monitor traffic mitigation.

Status: Staff recommends allowing all Urban Areas of the county as defined by the County
Council in 2007 as part of the Road Code to be able to be tested for APF by the
Alternative Review Procedure.

7. Proposed Revision to the Transportation and School Impact Tax

Transportation:
Transportation impact taxes could shift basis of calculation from vehicle trips to vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). In addition, a greater degree of disaggregaton of areas could be
incorporated in the analysis to reflect trip-length ranges for transportation impact fees.
For example, a single family detached home in Damascus would have a higher trip length
on average than a single family detached home in Fairland based on VMT.

Separate transit infrastructure needs could be identified, and a higher proportion of the
transportation impact tax could be appropriated for strategic locations.

Schools:
School impact taxes could shift basis of calculation from dwelling unit type to square
footage. In addition, the amount of the school facility payment and school impact tax
could be recalculated based on updated school construction cost figures.

Status: Several jurisdictions nationwide have used square footage of new construction as the
basis for assessing impact fees. During the 2007-2009 Growth Policy, staff investigated
the calculation of school impact taxes on dwelling unit size rather than type.

GIS was used to link parcel file data (which contains housing unit size) with data on
household demographic characteristics. Student generation rates were calculated for
single-family dwelling units by size and type. These student generation rates were
multiplied by the per seat cost of school construction in order to calculate school
construction cost impact by unit size and type.

Data limitations did not allow for a calculation of the school construction cost per square
foot for multi-family dwelling units. In addition, linking the parcel file and demographic
data yielded results that encouraged further investigation of the process.

Once work on the 2008 Census Update Survey is complete, staff will re-examine the
reliability on relevance of calculating school impact fees based on dwelling unit size.
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix N – Smart Growth Criteria and Exemption

Lead Staff: Pam Dunn, Mark Pfefferle, and Cathy Conlon

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
To explore the option of creating an exemption from certain requirements of the adequate public
facilities ordinance (APFO) test for the Growth Policy in exchange for development that meets
specific standards and criteria for Smart Growth.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Progress Report:
The current adequate public facilities ordinance focuses on transportation tests, school tests and
impact taxes that are designed to ensure that necessary facilities are provided as development
occurs. This approach limits the locations where development can occur and in doing so,
potentially limits the ability to create the types of sustainable, well-designed and strategic
development that is desired.

Based on a review of best practices in the area of Smart Growth, great potential exists for
development of an exemption process similar to California’s SB375 legislation. In addition,
LEED ND and LEED for New Construction and Major Renovation are well-known certification
programs designed to encourage Smart Growth. Elements of these programs provide reliable
standards for the assessment of sustainable development.

Under the realm of Growth Policy an exemption from an APFO finding (for transportation)
should be based on design elements that improve transportation efficiency. Staff believes these
elements should include the following prerequisites that lead to reduced auto travel:
Connectivity – Projects located in areas with the highest transit service

Diversity – Projects that provide a mix of residential and commercial uses as well as a
mix of housing types

Design – Projects built with compact design taking advantage of the maximum zoning
density
Below is a draft Smart Growth Criteria whereby projects meeting the criteria are eligible for a
reduction in PAMR mitigation. The framework is designed to encourage development in areas
that are well-served by transit or areas that are well-served by other services. In addition, these
projects must provide a mix of residential and commercial uses; they must contribute to diversity
in housing affordability; and they must make efficient use of resources through compact design
and increased energy efficiency or production.
 Montgomery County - Smart Growth Criteria

All projects must meet the following criteria to be considered for an exemption:

Project must be mixed-use with a minimum 50% residential use (SB375) and

Project must seek to achieve the maximum density of the site using 75% or more of the maximum density
allowed in the zone (including all applicable bonuses) subject to limits in the Master or Sector Plan (based
on SB375) and

Building(s) exceeds energy efficiency standards by 17.5% for new buildings or by 10.5% for existing
building renovation. Or, building(s) has on-site energy production such that 2.5% of the annual building
energy cost is off-set by the renewable production system (LEED New Construction/Major Renovation)

And, the project must provide either one of the following above and beyond that required for plan approval:
o 1 workforce housing unit (whu) for x vehicle trips such that x=[1/2(total number of trips requiring
mitigation)/(relative value of 1 whu to the cost of mitigating 1 trip)] rounded to the nearest whole
number (based on SB375)or
o 1 moderately-priced dwelling unit (mpdu) for y trips such that y = [1/2(total number of trips
requiring mitigation)/(relative value of 1 mpdu to the cost of mitigating 1 trip)] rounded to the
nearest whole number (based on SB375)

Mixed-Use Transit Proximity Mixed-Use Urban with Proximity to Basic

Services
Projects that meet the following criteria are
eligible for 100% PAMR Exemption: Projects that meet the following criteria are
eligible for 50% PAMR Exemption:

Project must be located within ½ mile of an Project must be located within a Road Code
existing or planned major transit stop or high- Urban Area and be located within ½ mile of at
quality transit corridor. A high-quality transit least 10 Basic Services ;
corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus
service where service intervals are no longer Basic Services include but are not limited to:
than 15 minute during peak commute hours. A bank, place of worship, convenience grocery,
project shall be considered to be within one- day care, cleaners, fire station, beauty,
half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels hardware, laundry, library, medical/dental,
within the project have no more than 25% of senior care facility, park, pharmacy, post office,
their area farther than one-half mile from a restaurant, school, supermarket, theater,
transit stop or corridor and if not more than community center, fitness center or museum,
10% of the residential units in the project are (based on LEED for New Construction/Major
father than one-half mile from the stop or Renovation)
corridor. A planned transit stop or corridor is
one that is funded for construction within the
first four years of the Consolidated
Transportation Program and/or the Capital
Improvement Program (SB375)
There are other options for incentives that staff did not include in the above framework yet may
continue to explore over the next couple of months. These include:

Opportunities for public participation/subsidies

Tax breaks

Reduced fees (all types)

o Project/Subdivision/Site Plan
o Zoning
o Building permits
o Inspection
o Infrastructure review (roads, water/sewer, utilities)

Eliminate/reduce LATR requirements

o Permit lower required LOS at tested intersections
o Permit increased CLV thresholds

Expedited Plan Review

Reduce/modify regulatory requirements

o Waive road right-of-way, cross-section and access requirements that inhibit
desirable project design
o Expand parking lot districts or otherwise find additional ways to lower parking
requirements
o Permit stream buffer encroachment or elimination
o Wetland preservation (follow MDE requirements but no more stringent)
o Eliminate minimum onsite forest requirements in optional method zones and look
at other places where our ordinance is more stringent than the state law

Several of the above incentives would require coordination with other County agencies and/or
changes in regulations that do not fall within the jurisdiction of Growth Policy.
Growth Policy Study: Progress Report
Appendix O – Carbon Trading/Offsets at the Local Level

Lead Staff: Mark Pfefferle

__________________________________________________________________

Objective:
To explore the possibility of using carbon trades/offsets or other programs to equate to vehicle
trips generated and carbon emissions generated as a direct result of development.

__________________________________________________________________

Progress Report:

Planning Staff is working with George Washington University students in a Capstone project to
analyze potential carbon offsets at the local level. The students are conducting research by
assessing various policy instruments (taxes, regulations, trading, and offsets) and have found
four local governments that are currently addressing carbon emissions. They are assessing their
existing programs that provide incentives to developers for implementing the reduction practices.
The students will continue to evaluate the pros and cons of the various systems and determine
one that is best for Montgomery County. The results of the Capstone project will be presented to
the Planning Board on May 7, 2009.

Upon completion of the Capstone project staff will need to continue the study by determining
carbon reductions from various building elements including green roofs; solar, wind power, and
geothermal energy; and energy efficiency measures. Once the reductions are determined, a
carbon equivalency will need to be established.

Staff will be requesting the Planning Board’s acceptance of researching, developing and
incorporating carbon offsets into future growth policies.