Appendix A:

Benchmarking Peer Jurisdictions with Areawide Transportation Review Processes One of the initial tasks that was done in preparing this report was to conduct a benchmarking review of a sample of peer jurisdictions nationally who are known to thought to have an areawide transportation review process for the impact of proposed development. The graphic below identifies the names of all of the jurisdictions who were contacted. Those whose names are in larger, red font were those who were found to be were found to be closer peers and who have a functioning areawide transportation review process. In total thirteen jurisdictions were contacted and/or researched on their websites about their process. A questionnaire was developed and in some cases filled in by staff of those jurisdictions and in other cases the pertinent features about their process were filled in by the consultant team. Some of this was done in conjunction with all getting information on their Local Area Transportation Review procedures as well.
Growth Management Act: Concurrency Reviews
King Co. WA Vancouver City; Clark Co. WA
Portland, OR

Urban Growth Boundaries

Boulder, CO

Boston, MA Westchester, Co. NY

Baltimore City Santa Clara Co. CA

Montgomery Co. MD
Rockville City Alexandria, VA

Congestion Management Programs

Adequate Public Facility Ordinances

Orlando. FL Broward Co. FL (FDOT Dist 4) Miami Dade Co. FL

Developments of Regional Impact (DRI)

Seven main features of Areawide Transportation Reviews are identified and assessed in this peer comparison: Cumulative impacts versus Development of Regional Impact Jurisdictional coverage and area versus corridor coverage; including corridor-by-corridor summaries Time frame of the assessment of areawide impact; as well as the frequency of the adequacy assessment When during the development process does adequacy get assessed and what linkages are there to other processes Use of public/private funding for transportation programs and projects Transit adequacy methods 162

Increased monitoring of roadway travel times and speeds, as well as monitoringr transit travel times and speeds using an operations orientation

The responses of the peer jurisdictions about their processes were reviewed and a summary of potential refinements that might be applicable to the TPAR were made. The following are generalizations made from the summary material: Using just Forecasts for areawide review, including a 6-year or 10 year time horizon, will give better travel patterns and more realistic transportation needs Follow more of an operations orientation by Have a Coordination Overlap element of TPAR that has both a regulatory focus as well as transportation improvement focus Refine TPAR so that all PM Peak Period transit routes are used in the measure of Average Headway Implement the proposed TPAR monitoring idea to use the actual performance of arterials; use the slowness ratio to compare to the modeled congestion measure Test using Automatic Vehicle Location data to monitor transit speeds, The following is a set of presentation material that was used to assess the results of benchmarking review of this sample of peer jurisdictions.

1. Cumulative Impacts versus Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) Methods in Florida

A cluster of proposed concurrent non-regional projects that may have an areawide impact would not be reviewed accumulatively
D1

D3
D2

SF Res. MF Res. Institutional Industrial Large Mixed Use

D4

Areawide review in Mont. Co. now uses the pipeline of approved development irrespective of project size A refinement would be to use the 6-year Forecasts to match the 6-year CIP/CTP Cumulative impacts and up-stream and down-stream effects are accounted for Residential uses tend to be smaller sized projects but accumulates high; nonresidential ones have un-even time stages Using just Forecasts for areawide review will give better travel patterns and more realistic transportation needs Potential TPAR Draft of 1-10-12
Refinement #1

Areawide example: Statewide DRI methods in Orlando or Broward Co., FL Created Reg. Pl. Councils: run models, coordinate reviews, but TIA still local DRIs done one-at-a-time (see D1 to D4) Nearby and/or concurrent DRIs (D2+D3) may be combined if applicants agree Really Big Ones (D4) may have multiyear staging that gets reassessed later Non-DRI-sized approved projects ( ) are part of background; but a new cluster of them ( ) are not reviewed cumulatively Uses 3-year CIP in the analysis 5

163

2A. Jurisdictional Coverage and Area vs. Corridor Coverage

Seattle
Redmond Bellevue

Rural

Suburban

Urban
0 9 18

Maps are shown at the same Scale

King Co. WA

18

Areawide review in Mont. Co. accounts for the entire County, although Rockville and Gaithersburg have own methods Three Policy Area Types are used in the proposed TPAR: Urban, Suburban, and Rural The Policy Area Types are based upon availability of transit facilities & services Transportation Adequacy Standards for transit & roads vary by Policy Area Type Roadway standards for average speeds based upon modeled travel times; and Draft of 1-10-12 corridor-by-corridor summaries are used

Areawide Example: King Co, WA only has Concurrency Reviews in eastern 2/3 of the County; excludes urban parts Urban cities have their own TIA reviews Transit service is concentrated in the western urban parts, thus the King Co. Concurrency is only automobile based Relies on Urban Growth Boundaries based on WA State Growth Mgmt. Act Concurrency uses standards for average speed based on observed corridor-bycorridor travel time samples (next page) 6

2B. Corridor-by-Corridor Summaries

Rural
Clark Co., WA
Urb an G ro

Suburban
Por tl
Van

wth Ar ea

Urban
0 9 18

and

cou ver, WA

, OR

18

Areawide review in Vancouver and Clark Co., WA: proposing that corridor concurrency become the focus of the review and not rely on current TIA methods Annual monitoring of corridor travel times in the Urban Growth Area within Clark Co.; coordinates reviews with CIP projects Council considering a roadway Built-Out corridor category; then monitor impacts focus on a Mgmt. Plan with Access Mgmt., Travel Demand Mgmt., & Tran. Sys. Mgmt. Removing text on specific way to collect travel time anticipating new data sources Follow more of an operations orientation
Draft of 1-10-12
Potential TPAR Refinement #2

Concurrency standards from 2000 HCM for average speed; annual travel time samples for selected set of corridors; averaged to a set of 25 Travel Sheds Observe more samples than done in the Mont. Co monitoring of arterial corridors Highways of Statewide Significance are not included in areawide methods Corridor Concurrency controls over TIAs Sheds with >15% of total miles failing Concurrency are failing Travel Sheds 39 jurisdictions have local TIA methods 7

164

3A. Time Frame of the Assessment of Areawide Impact

Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR)
Pipeline of Development Housing 5 Jobs 10 15 20 Years of Development

For many years the housing pipeline equated to about 5 to 10 years of development; while jobs equated to about 10 to 15 years of development

Proposed Trans. Policy Area Review (TPAR)

Potential TPAR Refinement #3a

Cooperative Forecasts of Development

2018 2022 Housing Jobs

2042 Master Plan Development

Assessment of CIP/CTP Subdivision Staging Coord- Conditional Deficiencies Policy Assessment ination plus listing of program and against 6-year CIP/CTP Over- project recommendations; a Regulatory Focus -- a Transportation lap Improvement Focus
Monitoring of Arterial Corridor Travel Times
20 11 20 14 20 18 20 22

Master Plan time frame used in Cost Allocation Process

Concurrency Reviews at King Co., WA; Vancouver, WA

Draft of 1-10-12

Year-by-Year Monitoring

Annual Monitoring for Concurrency Assessments of the Roadway Operations of Selected Corridors

3B. TPAR Adequacy Assessment Frequency

Subdivision Staging Policy changed to once every 4 years raises the issue of will new policy updates be current enough Next assessment (2016) would not give current transportation improvement guidance to the intervening CIP and CTP reviews
Trans. Policy Area Review (TPAR-2012) Trans. Policy Area Review (TPAR-2016)
Cooperative Forecasts of Development 2018 2022 Housing Jobs 2042 Master Plan Development

4-year Gap not sufficient for regulatory focused or transportation improvement focused guidance
Cooperative Forecasts of Development 2022 2026 Housing Jobs 2046 Master Plan Development

Subdivision Staging Policy should keep but put less emphasis on denial of development if inadequacies; rather put more emphasis on identifying and removing future Conditional Deficiencies Refine TPAR to have it focus on identifying Conditional Deficiencies once every 2 years; put more resources into analyzing solutions that attains adequacy more quickly and maintains it
Potential TPAR Refinement #3b

Draft of 1-10-12

165

4. When During the Development Process Does Adequacy get Assessed -- Linkages
Montgomery Co, MD: Planning and Regulatory Review Processes
More Comprehensive

Northern Virginia Jurisdictions: Planning and Regulatory Review Processes

More Comprehensive

General Plan Master Plan Zoning Sectional Map Amendment (Rezoning) Subdivision (Site Plans) Record Plats

Subdivision Staging Policy Profers System

General Plan Master Plan Zoning Sectional Map Amendment (Rezoning) Subdivision (Site Plans) Record Plats
More Site Specific

More Site Specific

Draft of 1-10-12

Subdivision Staging Policy (prior APFO) is dual focused: assess adequacy of facilities including transportation, and guidance to County CIP and State CTP Proposed TPAR provides even stronger linkage to transp. decisions and funding Many subdivisions take about the same time to develop as the CIP/CTP time horizon of 6 years funded for construction

Reliance on Profers at the time of zoning or rezoning reviews and approvals Exactions to have the private sector development pay for public improvements in lieu of raising State transp. revenues VDOT: a very strong state agency; no local transportation agencies in most counties to implement trans. improvements; (Little linkage to transport programs and projects) 10

5A. Use of Public/Private Funding for Transportation Programs and Projects

1978 Statewide Proposition 13 Referendum 1990 Congestion Management Program (CMP); with new Agencies (CMA) in about 30 Counties Plus: Local Option Sales Taxes; Gas Tax Subventions to Trans. Plus: Land Use Impact Analysis Program with Annual Monitoring and Conformance Element; City TIAs County Plus Federal and State Clean Air Act Provisions
Improvements in CIP/CTP
New Public Sector Investments Exaction of Private Sector Funds

TPAR needs tops-down as well as bootoms-up funding

TPAR Payments

Example: Santa Clara Co. CMP (every 2 yr.) covers 15 cities (San Jose); CMA is the Valley Trans. Authority; (see summary on the next page)

A tops-down approach that focuses more on the adequacy of transportation funding than growth management; has carrots of added trans. funding Local TIAs are a bottoms-up approach; yet if cities and towns do not meet conformance to the countywide CMP; get stick of Deficiency Plan + holdback Other Example: Contra Costa TMA has raised over $240 million in exactions
Draft of 1-10-12

11

166

5B. Use of Public/Private Funding for Transportation Programs and Projects

Element # 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

Draft 2009 Congestion Management Program, Santa Clara Valley Trans. Authority; page 10 Source:of 1-10-12

12

6. Transit Adequacy Methods

2 1 Classify Policy Areas by Transit Category Are transit adequacy standards met? Yes 3 No additional transit costs
30.0 35.0

Route-by-Route and Average Adequacy: Fairland / White Oak (FWO) in 2010

#21

#39

C8

#10

No 4 Identify Transit improvements to meet transit adequacy standards 5 Estimate transit service costs and capital investment needs

25.0

Z2
PM Peak Headway (min)

#22 #24
20.0

Average Split Service

R2/R 5 Z6 Average Full

6 Go to Part 3 Cost Alloc.

15.0

Source: Exhibit 3.1: Identifying Transit Inadequacies and Solutions, Moving Toward a New Transportation Policy Area Review, April 2010, p. 8

Z8/Z9
10.0

Steps 2 and 4 shown above are from the Proposed TPAR Report and are being developed for the 2012 TPAR Refinement Review of potential Peer Jurisdictions provides little insight into whether peers may be doing similar work with transit services; exception: Santa Clara, CA using a transit accessibility measure from their modeling It is expected that MNCPPC will do Step 2 based upon data from MCDOT and WMATA Will also initiate Step 4 while working with MCDOT to assess/refine new transit services MCDOT to take lead in Step 5; with MNCPPC documenting Draft of 1-10-12 the analysis to the MCPB

Z11/Z13
5.0

#20 K6 Z8

Ride-On Routes Metrobus Routes

0.0 0:00 6:00 12:00

Adequate PM Peak Adequate PM Peak Headway and Span Headway and Span
18:00 0:00 24:00

Span (hours)

Chart above shows 2010 Headway and Span in Fairland White Oak Policy Area Agree with MCDOT refinement for Span being measured only for Full Service However, would refine TPAR so that all PM Peak Period transit routes are used in the measure of Average Headway
Potential TPAR Refinement #4

13

167

7A. Increased Monitoring of Roadway Travel Times and Speeds using an Operations Orientation
Montgomery Co., MD: Mobility Assessment Report (MAR), Oct 2011, Congested Roads Prior monitoring reports (2004 to 2009) did similar GPS-based samples of travel time and speed on arterials in Mont. Co. King Co., WA: Transportation Concurrency Management (TCM) Program, Sept 2010 Annually sample 350 miles of arterials for travel time/speed using 8 GPS devices 3 to 10 runs daily over a 1 to 3 day period to get peak 2-hours between 4:00 to 6:30 PM on T, W, or Th in March, April, May Percent of sampled roadway miles per Travel Shed operating at less than the LOS standard speed is the criterion for Concurrency approvals; Washington State DOT during 2008/09 studied travel times on area freeways WA DOT Performance Measurement Grey Book annually using operations data sources; uses slowness ratio of observed speed vs. free flow speed, the inverse of a travel time index
Potential TPAR Refinement #5a

Proposed TPAR used modeled corridorby-corridor arterial speed vs. free flow speed (slowness ratio) as the criterion for future roadway congestion levels

Draft of 1-10-12

MAR 2011 introduced a new monitoring data source of private sector observed travel time and speed, also used by MDOT, to describe Congested Roadways (p. 18) and used the travel time index measure A full set of the new monitoring data source is now available; meets proposed TPAR monitoring idea to use the actual performance of arterials as a consistency check

MDOT/SHA Planning Office is working on using similar operations data for their monitoring and performance activities 14

7B. New Monitoring for Transit Travel Times and Speeds using an Operations Orientation
Montgomery Co., MD: Mobility Assessment Monitoring of Transit Performance by Peer Report (MAR), Oct 2011, Transit Analysis Jurisdictions: Santa Clara Co, CA Transit monitoring analysis presents route There are few examples of the monitoring coverage, headways, and ridership for of actual transit performance in the Ride-On and Metrobus for route-by-route areawide methods of Peer Jurisdictions TPAR Refinement testing bus operational The Santa Clara CO. CMA is also the main data of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) transit agency serving the area including from Ride-On and Metrobus to assess operating LRT, BRT, Express, and local monitored bus travel times and speeds bus services; yet even the monitoring WMATA and MWCOG performing a element of their CMP is absent information regional bus Hot Spot study of locations Their Transit Accessibility measure is a where buses operate most slowly, which derived one from their modeling system can be compared to monitored arterial and not actually monitored; their Transit locations of slow travel to better monitor Sustainability Policy is based on average Transit Deficiencies over time boarding per Revenue Hour or station The measure of transit slowness vs. road Monitoring of transit travel time and speed slowness is also the modeled measure is not part of the Concurrency methods in used as one of the two parts of the current King Co. or Vancouver, WA; yet nearby TriPolicy Area Mobility Review chart analysis; Met of Portland, OR is using bus AVL data, test using AVL data to monitor transit at finer spatial and temporal scales, to also service speeds, which may also help in monitor at the end of each day their bus measuring the effect of BRT service in travel times and speed TPAR and the Subdivision Staging Policy Potential TPAR Draft of 1-10-12 Refinement #5b 15

168

Appendix B:
Cooperative Coordination Roles for TPAR

1. Identify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions

2 1 Classify Policy Areas by Transit Category Are transit adequacy standards met? Yes 3 No additional transit costs

Note: the term transit also accounts for the Transportation Demand Districts (TMDs) and their associated activities

No 4 Identify Transit improvements to meet transit adequacy standards 5 Estimate transit service costs and capital investment needs

6 Go to Part 3 Cost Alloc.

Exhibit 3.1: Identifying Transit Inadequacies and Solutions (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Main MNCPPC Roles Step 1: Calculates the factors used to set current classification of Policy Areas Step 2: Assesses adequacy using data from MCDOT, WMATA, and MDOT/MTA Step 3: no role Step 4: Initiates in a sketch-fashion what general factors of improved service are needed; works with MCDOT to assess specific transit services they identify Step 5: Documents the analysis results including area-by-area summaries
Draft of 1-18-12

Main MCDOT Roles Step 1: Reviews classifications Step 2: Sets standards consistent with the 2008 Strategic Transit Plan Step 3: Reviews that adequacy is being met in each Policy Area and that no additional costs are needed there Step 4: Identifies specific service factors needing improvement for future budgeting Step 5: Estimates the transit service operating costs and capital investment needs 3

2. Identify Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions

10-year Dev. Act. Forecasts 11 12 Apply Transp. Demand Model Programmed Projects in CIP/CTP 16 Projects not yet Programmed (State/County) 13 Summarize Roadway Policy Area and Corridor Performance 14 Are there future Inadequacies? No

Yes Iterate as Needed

15 Prepare combinations of projects for CIP/CTP for performance and to complete within 10 years

17 Go to Part 3,

Exhibit 3.6: Identifying Roadway Inadequacies and Solutions (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Cost Alloc.

Step 11: Prepares and coordinates intra-County allocation; calculate interpolations when needed Step 12: Applies Model with input from MCDOT re transportation improvements; apply QAQC Step 13: Converts model results to summaries by Policy Area and corridor within Policy Area Step 14: Identifies Policy Areas with conditional deficiencies for Subdivision Staging Policy need Step 15: Iterates model application combinations to assess the potential projects from MCDOT Step 16: Keeps a list of Master Plan possible projects for MCDOT, MDOT, and cities to consider Draft of 1-18-12

Main MNCPPC Roles

Main MCDOT Roles

Step 11: Prepares-coordinates proposed CIP; coordinates with CTP of MDOT; maintains a list Step 12: Suggests improvements to address conditional deficiencies, edits for networks Step 13: Reviews modeling results Step 14: Assess conditional deficiencies and identifies potential CIP/CTP projects to test Step 15: Further reviews modeling results Step 16: Selects potential additional projects from Master Plan list

169

21

Transit Costs from Part 1

22

Roadway Costs from Part 2

3. Allocate Costs
29 Wait before the Project-Service is Programmed

23 Cost estimates for capital facilities and operating expenses 24 Cost per unit of development 25 Establish criteria for additions into the CIP/CTP
26b 26a

No 27 Aggregate Policy Area Fees collected as part of the subdivision process 28 Is the Collection greater than the criteria of 25 ?

Set publicprivate cost sharing

Exhibit 3.10: Develop and Allocate Costs of the Needed Improvements (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Yes Set shares for Households and Employment 30 Go to Part 4 CommitMonitor

Main MNCPPC Roles Step 23: Assist MCDOT when requested Step 24: Develops methods and calculates proposed cost per unit of development Step 25: Reviews criteria from Executive; coordinates with the draft CTP Step 26a: Reviews proposed cost sharing re Subdivision Staging and Master Plans Step 26b: Assist MCDOT in the setting of proposed shares by development type Step 27-29: Monitor and support
Draft of 1-18-12

Main MCDOT Roles Step 23: prepares cost estimates Step 24: Reviews proposed cost per unit of development; suggests refinements Step 25: Recommends criteria to the Executive re CIP; coord. re draft CTP Step 26a: Sets proposed cost sharing percentages by Policy Area for CC review Step 26b: Set proposed shares Step 27-29: Monitor TPAR fees relative to proposed criteria 5

4. Program Public/Private Commitments and 5. Monitor and Report

31 From Part 3, Cost Alloc . 32 Program the Service Identify as a Committed Project in the CIP Schedule and Implement within year Time Frame

Note 1: the layout of this part of the diagram was altered somewhat to better fit this page
33 Monitor & Report on Development and Implementation Commitments 37 Make Recommendations for Revised or New Solutions 36 No On Schedule? Yes 38 Go to Next Growth Policy Cycle 35

34

Exhibit 3.11: Programming Public Commitments Monitor and Report Progress (Source: Proposed TPAR Report, April 2010)

Note 2: See a relevant excerpt from the Proposed TPAR Report (p. 24) on the next slide here

Main MNCPPC Roles Step 31-32: no role other than review Step 33: Clearly indicate to MCDOT and officials that a particular CIP/CTP project is being used for development approval Step 34: Provide administrative flexibility such as that on p. 23 Proposed TPAR re TPAR payments and their scheduling Step 35: Provide periodic reports on development approvals CIP/CTP reliance Step 36-38: Foster cooperative approach with MCDOT for new solutions
Draft of 1-18-12

Main MCDOT Roles Step 31-32: Responsible to program CIP projects and budget services; Coordinates with MDOT who programs CTP projects Step 33: Assures that elected officials are explicitly making a firm commitment to specific projects relied on for approvals Step 34: Schedule and implement within the commitment time frame Step 35: Provide periodic reports on CIP/CTP implementation commitments Step 36-38: Foster cooperative approach with MNCPPC for new solutions 6

170

Appendix C: List of Unbuilt Master Plan Projects

Menu of Master Planned Transportation Improvements -Sorted by Policy Area, Mode, and Improvement Type -Not Programmed by 2018
Policy Area(s) Project Name Implementation Limits
Shady Grove to Clarksburg Bethesda to New Carrollton Grosvenor Metro to Montgomery Mall Glenmont to Olney American Legion Bridge to Woodrow Wilson Bridge Montgomery Village Av to MD 27 Interchange MD 97 to MD 182 ICC to Norwood Rd MD 586 to MD 185 Interchange DC Line to I-495 MD 614 to I-495 MD 396 to MD 191 Sangamore Rd to MD 614 Interchange MD 355 - Brink Rd to Skylark Rd Top Tidge Dr to Chrisman Hill Dr (Broadway Av to I-270) West Old Baltimore Rd to Broadway Ave Brink Rd to Cool Brook Ln Cool Brook Ln to Snowden Farm Pkwy MD 121 to Newcut Rd Ex) ImproveFacility ment Type Type T LRT T T T R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Little Seneca Cr to Roberts Tavern Dr MD 355 to MD 355 R R LRT LRT BRT 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3

CLK,GTE,GTW,G Corridor Cities Transitway State BG,RDV,DER,RK (Proposed) V BCC,SSTP Purple Line Transitway (Proposed) State NB,POT OLY,AH,KW North Bethesda Transitway (Proposed) Georgia Avenue Busway (Proposed) State State State County State State State County State State State State State State
State/Dev State/Dev State/Dev

POT,BCC,NB,KW Capital Beltway ,SSTP,FWO GTE,MVA,GBG Midcounty Hwy (Proposed) AH AH AH AH BCC BCC BCC BCC BCC CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MD097 Georgia Ave & MD028 Norbeck Rd MD028 Norbeck Rd MD182 Layhill Rd Aspen Hill Rd MD 355 & Cedar Ln River Rd Bradley Blv Goldsboro Rd Massachusetts Ave I 270 & New Cut Rd MD027 Ridge Rd MD121 Clarksburg Rd MD121 Clarksburg Rd Relocated MD355 Frederick Rd MD355 Frederick Rd Relocated A-304 (Proposed) A-307 (Proposed) Observation Dr Extended Hyattstown Bypass (Proposed)

State/Dev State County/Dev County/Dev County/Dev State

171

Menu of Master Planned Transportation Improvements -Sorted by Policy Area, Mode, and Improvement Type -Not Programmed by 2018
Policy Area(s)
CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLV CLV CLV DAM DER DER DER DER FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO FWO

Project Name
New Cut Rd Extended Snowden Farm Pkwy (Proposed) Snowden Farm Pkwy (Proposed) Brink Rd Shawnee La Stringtown Rd Norwood Rd MD 028 Norbeck Rd Thompson Rd Extended NONE MD355 Frederick Rd & Gude Dr ICC & Mid-County Hwy Metro Access Crabbs Branch Wy Crabbs Branch Way Extended US 29 & Blackburn Dr US 29 & Fairland US 29 & Greencastle Rd US 29 & Musgrove Rd US 29 & Stewart Dr US 29 & Tech Rd MD 028 Norbeck Rd Briggs Chaney Rd Burtonsville Blv Calverton Blv Fairland Rd Greencastle Rd

Implementation
County/Dev County/Dev County/Dev County/Dev County/Dev County/Dev County State County

Limits
West Old Baltimore Rd; Broadway Ave. to MD 27 MD 27 to Clarksburg Rd Clarksburg Rd to MD 355 MD 355 to MD 27 Gateway Center Dr to MD 355 Overlook Crossing Dr to Snowden Farm Pkwy MD 650 to MD 182 MD182 to Peach Orchard Rd Rainbow Dr to Thompson Dr

ImproveFacility ment Type Type R 2 R R R R R R R R 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3

State State County/Dev County/Dev State State State State State State State County State/Dev County County County

Interchange Interchange Interchange Shady Grove Rd to Amity Dr Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Peach Orchard Rd to PG Line ICC to PG Line MD 198 to Dustin Rd Cherry Hill Rd to PG Line MD 650 to PG Line Robey Rd to PG Line

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3

172

Menu of Master Planned Transportation Improvements -Sorted by Policy Area, Mode, and Improvement Type -Not Programmed by 2018
Policy Area(s)
GBG GBG,NP GBG,NP GBG,NP GBG,NP GBG GBG GTE GTE GTE GTE GTE GTE GTE GTE GTW GTW GTW GTW GTW GTW KW KW KW MVA MVA MVA

Project Name
I 270 and Watkins Mill Rd MD117 West Diamond Ave MD124 Montgomery Village Ave Muddy Branch Rd Longdraft Rd Oakmont Ave Extended Oden'hal Ave MD027 & MD355 MD027 & Observation Dr MD118 & MD355 MD118 & Mid County Hwy MD355 & Middlebrook Rd Shakespeare Dr Watkins Mill Rd Dorsey Mill Rd MD117 Clopper Rd MD119 Great Seneca Hwy Father Hurley Blv Crystal Rock Dr Extended Dorsey Mill Rd Observation Dr Extended MD586 Veirs Mill Rd & Randolph Rd MD586 Veirs Mill Rd Capitol View Ave Relocated MD115 Muncaster Mill Rd MD124 Woodfield Rd MD124 Montgomery Village Av

Implementation

Limits

County/State/De Interchange v State Seneca Creek St Pk to Muddy Branch Rd State MD 28 to Longdraft Rd County County County County State State State State State County/Dev County County State State County Dev (Kinster Dr to Dorsey Mill County/Dev County State State State/Dev State State State MD 28 to MD 117 MD 124 to MD 117 Oakmont Av to Washington Grove Ln Lost Knife Rd to Summit Av Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Watkins Mill Rd to MD 355 Midcounty Hwy to Midcounty Hwy Bridge over I-270 Seneca Creek St Pk to east of MD 121 Longdraft Rd to Middlebrook Rd Wisteria Dr to Crystal Rock Dr Kinster Dr to Dorsey Mill Rd Bridge over I-270 Waters Discovery Ln to Little Seneca Cr Interchange Twinbrook Pkwy to Randolph Rd Edgewood Rd to Stoneybrook Dr Redland Rd to MD 124 Emory Grove Rd to Warfield Rd Russell Av to Midcounty Hwy

ImproveFacility ment Type Type R 1 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 2

173

Menu of Master Planned Transportation Improvements -Sorted by Policy Area, Mode, and Improvement Type -Not Programmed by 2018
Policy Area(s)
MVA MVA MVA NB NB NB NB NB OLY OLY OLY OLY POT POT POT POT POT RDV RDV RDV RDV RDV RDV SSTP SSTP

Project Name
Goshen Rd Widening Snouffer School Rd Wightman Rd Montrose Pkw (Proposed) Montrose Pkw (Proposed) Old Georgetown Rd Twinbrook Pkw Woodglen Dr Extended

Implementation
County County/Dev County State County County County County/Dev

Limits
Oden'hal Rd to Warfield Rd MD 124 to Goshen Rd Goshen Rd to Brink Rd Maple Av to Parklawn Dr Parklawn Dr to MD 586 MD 355 to Nebel St Chapman Av to Ardennes Av Nicholson Ln to Marinelli Rd Goldmine Rd to Georgia Av MD 108 to Prince Phillip Dr MD 97 to MD 182 Muncaster Rd to Olney Mill Rd Democracy Blvd to Rockville Line Riverwood Dr To River Oaks Ln MD 189 to Falls Rd Relocated Seven Locks Rd to I-270 Westlake Ter to Tuckerman Ln Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Darnestown Rd to Great Seneca Hwy Darnestown Rd to Sam Eig Hwy Grubb Rd to Lyttonsville Pl MD 192 to MD 97 I-370 to Frederick Co Line MD 28 to MD 117 Partnership Rd to west of Partnership Rd

ImproveFacility ment Type Type R 2 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 3

MD097 Brookeville Byp (Proposed) State MD097 Georgia Ave MD028 Norbeck Rd MD108 Olney-Laytonsville Rd MD189 Falls Rd Relocated MD190 River Rd Relocated Montrose Rd Extended Montrose Rd Westlake Dr MD028 Key West Ave & MD119 Great Seneca Hwy Sam Eig Hwy & Fields/Diamondback Dr Sam Eig Hwy & MD119 Great Seneca Hwy Shady Grove Rd & MD028 Darnestown Rd Darnestown Rd Relocated MD119 Great Seneca Hwy Relocated Lyttonsville Rd Seminary Rd State State State State State County County County State State/County State State County County/State County County/Dev State State County

RKV,GBG,GTE,G I-270 (HOV and Widening) TE,CLK RURW RURW MD118 Germantown Rd Whites Ferry Rd Relocated

174