Scribd
Upload
63 views

White Oak Science Gateway (WOSG) Master Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis

The document summarizes the transportation modeling process and analysis conducted for the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. It describes using a regional transportation model and local area model to evaluate traffic impacts under existing conditions, a future 2040 baseline scenario, and an alternative master plan scenario. The analysis found that the master plan scenario would reduce through traffic while increasing internal trips within the plan area. It also found that with planned roadway and transit improvements, including new interchanges and Bus Rapid Transit, most intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under the master plan scenario.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views

White Oak Science Gateway (WOSG) Master Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis

The document summarizes the transportation modeling process and analysis conducted for the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. It describes using a regional transportation model and local area model to evaluate traffic impacts under existing conditions, a future 2040 baseline scenario, and an alternative master plan scenario. The analysis found that the master plan scenario would reduce through traffic while increasing internal trips within the plan area. It also found that with planned roadway and transit improvements, including new interchanges and Bus Rapid Transit, most intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under the master plan scenario.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 32

White Oak Science Gateway (WOSG) Master Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis

Presentation to the White Oak Science Gateway CAC May 22, 2012

Transportation Modeling Process Overview

Regional Model

Regional Model/Local Model Relationship


Regional Model
Same tool as that used by Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Reflects county-wide and regional traffic effects (including those from Howard and Prince Georges Counties) Output Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) results (used to evaluate area-wide land use/transportation balance and transportation adequacy)

Local Area Model

Local Model
More Detailed/Fine Grain Analysis Output Critical Lane Volumes (CLVs) for intersections (including Four Corners@ US 29/MD 193) Compare with established policy area standard (1475 CLV in this case) Regional model feeds though trips into 3 Local Area Model

Relationship Between Regional and Local Models


Regional and local models work in tandem Local model tool is pragmatic for Plan area where local planning/zoning recommendations will be made Process works for master plan level decision making as in Germantown, Great Seneca Science Center and White Flint 4

White Flint Sector Plan LAM

Regional Model Framework

Regional Model Framework


Trip Generation: How may trips are produced? Trip Distribution: Where are people going?

Regional Model Framework


Mode Choice: What method/mode of travel are people using? Trip Assignment: What route are people taking?

Current Traffic US 29
US 29 Mobility Problems are generally at failing intersections Definition of future relative arterial mobility can be determined with the regional model
8

Transportation Network Assumptions: Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (CLRP)


Highways Transit

WOSG Area Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Network


Five Stations
Connections to: - Silver Spring - Burtonsville P&R - Takoma/Langley - Greenbelt Metro - Murkirk MARC

10

WOSG Land Use/Transportation Scenarios:


1. Existing Conditions: 2010 Land Use/2010 Network

2. Base Future Year: 2040 Round 8.0 Land Use/CLRP Network


3. Master Plan Alternative: Master Plan Alternative Scenario Land Use /CLRP Network + Master Planned interchanges + local roadway network improvements + BRT
WOSG: Summary of Development Numbers
Development Scenario Existing Conditions (Built) Commercial (sq. ft.) 11,187,298 Single Family Dwellings 2,260 Multi-Family Dwellings 4,858 Total Dwelling Units 7,118

Base Future Year (2040 Rnd 8.0)

15,854,064

2,404

5,194

7,598

Master Plan Alternative Scenario

25,434,851

2,785

12,903

15,688

11

Area-wide Transportation Analysis: Policy Area Mobility Review

12

2010 PAMR Analysis

13

2040 PAMR Analysis

14

WOSG Master Plan Alternative Scenario PAMR Analysis

15

Local Area Model Analysis: Intersections

16

Assumptions
Auto Driver Mode Share 2040 Base Future Year Scenario
86% of commuters drive to jobs in plan area

2040 Master Plan Alternative


75% of commuters drive to jobs in five locations:
Site 2 / Percontee Hillandale Shopping Center White Oak Shopping Center Labor College

86% of commuters drive to jobs in all other locations


17

Assumptions
Network for Master Plan Alternative Scenario
Three BRT routes
US 29 New Hampshire Ave Randolph Rd

Old Columbia Pike bridge over Paint Branch Planned interchanges


Fairland Rd / Musgrove Rd Tech Rd / Industrial Pkwy Stewart Ln Briggs Chaney Rd Blackburn Rd / Greencastle Rd

18

Assumptions Trip Generation Rates per 1,000 GSF


Same as Great Seneca Science Corridor
Land Use Office Retail Industrial Other AM Peak Hour 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 PM Peak Hour 1.20 3.00 1.00 1.00

19

AM Peak Hour Trips


40,000 35,000 Peak Hour Trips 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2010 Existing 2040 Base Future 2040 Master Plan Alternative 10,387 12,129

3,475
1,436 7,705 8,098

6,667 9,256

Internal Trips In/Out Trips Through Trips

10,980

Reduction in through trips Increase in in/out trips Large increase in internal trips

PM Peak Hour Trips


40,000 35,000 Peak Hour Trips 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2010 Existing 2040 Base Future 2040 Master Plan Alternative 9,682 11,926 10,235 1,975 10,707 3,563 13,776 8,365 Internal Trips 14,234 In/Out Trips Through Trips

Reduction in through trips Increase in in/out trips Large increase in internal trips

Internal Trips as % of Total Trips


Scenario 2010 Existing Conditions 2040 Base Future Year 2040 Master Plan Alternative AM Peak Hour 7% 15% 25% PM Peak Hour 9% 12% 25%

22

Critical Lane Volume

A planning level tool to assess overall intersection adequacy Does not assess individual lane capacity Does not consider signal timing

23

Critical Lane Volume


the maximum sum of conflicting movements that can be moved through the intersection Northbound / Southbound Eastbound / Westbound

24

Critical Lane Volume Evaluation


LOS Critical Lane Volume Range

A B/C D/E F

0.00

0.60

0.61
0.81

0.80
1.00
Standard for plan area: 0.92

1.00+

25

Critical Lane Volume Standards by Policy Area


CLV Congestion Standards 1800 Policy Area

Central Business Districts/Metro Station Locations: Bethesda, Silver Spring, Friendship Heights, Wheaton, Glenmont, White Flint, Grosvenor, Shady Grove, Twinbrook, Rockville Town Center

1600
1550 1500 1475 1450 1425 1400 1350

Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Silver Spring/Takoma Park, Kensington/Wheaton, Germantown Town Center


North Bethesda Rockville City Fairland/White Oak, Aspen Hill, Derwood Cloverly, Olney, Potomac, North Potomac, R&D Village Clarksburg, Germantown West, Germantown East, Montgomery Village/Airpark, Gaithersburg City Damascus Rural East, Rural West
26

2010 Existing Conditions Scenario Intersection level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F 27

2040 Base Future Year Scenario Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F 28

2040 Master Plan Alternative Scenario Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F 29

2040 Base Future Year Scenario With Interchanges Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F 30

2040 Master Plan Alternative Scenario With Interchanges Intersection Level of Service

AM Peak CLV

PM Peak CLV LOS A LOS B/C LOS D/E LOS F 31

Questions?

32

You might also like