1 Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR) -- A suggested new approach June, 2010.
-
Upload
sherman-bryant -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR) -- A suggested new approach June, 2010.
1
Transportation Policy Area Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR)Review (TPAR)
----A suggested new approachA suggested new approach
June, 2010
2
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
1. Guiding Principles2. The Proposed TPAR Policy in a Nutshell3. Proposed Process Components 4. Transit Process – 2020 Results5. Road Process – 2020 Results 6. Example of Subdivision Process
3
1. Guiding Principles1. Guiding Principles
• Based on Approved Master Plans.
• Process easily understood.
• Seek and Include Input from Stakeholders.
• Separate analysis for transit and roads.
• Public – private financing of solutions.
• Support economic development.
• Monitor, report and adjust key elements.
4
2. The Proposed TPAR in a Nutshell2. The Proposed TPAR in a NutshellAchieving BalanceAchieving Balance
• Guides how to balance transportation and development activity 10 years forward
• Suggests standards of adequacy for– transit services – and road congestion
• Defines a Policy Area to be in balance if it meets both adequacy standards in the 10 year period.
5
The Proposed TPAR in a NutshellThe Proposed TPAR in a NutshellProgramming Transportation ProjectsProgramming Transportation Projects
• If a Policy Area not in balance, then County should program the transit services / road improvements
• The programmed capital improvements must come from the Adopted and Approved Master Plans
• The proposed improvements are to be funded through a public-private partnership.
• Suggest a threshold of private payments before, a capital project and /or transit service program must be programmed
6
The Proposed TPAR in a NutshellThe Proposed TPAR in a NutshellMonitoring and ReportingMonitoring and Reporting
TPAR requires monitoring and reporting of key
elements of the policy:– Development Activity– Collection of Payments– Programming / Implementation of Improvements– Annual Report– Recommendations for action to ensure the
desirable balance.
7
Current Policy AreasCurrent Policy Areas
RurE
RKV
FWO
SSTP
RurE
RurW
RurW
BCC
AH
DAM
CLV
CLK
GTE
GBGDER
MVA
KW
GTW RurEOLY
NP
NB
RDV
POT
Aspen Hill AHBethesda / Chevy Chase BCCClarksburg CLKCloverly CLVDamascus DAMDerwood DERFairland / White Oak FWOGaithersburg GBGGermantown East GTEGermantown West GTWKensington Wheaton KWMontgomery Village / Airpark MVANorth Bethesda NBNorth Potomac NPOlney OLYPotomac POTR&D Village RDVRockville RKVSilver Spring / Takoma Park SSTPRural East RurERural West RurW
8
3. Proposed Process Components3. Proposed Process Components
1. Identify Transit Inadequacies and
Solutions
2. Identify Roadway Inadequacies and
Solutions
3. Cost Allocation Steps
4. Programming Public
Commitments
5. Monitor and Report
9
Proposed Process for TransitProposed Process for Transit
• Establish Geographic Policy Area Categories– Urban– Suburban – Rural
• Establish Service Factors– Transit Coverage– Peak Headways– Span of Service
10
Identify Transit Inadequacies and SolutionsIdentify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions
Transit Service Area Categories
Coverage: (percent of area within a 1
mile walk of Metro and/or 1/3 mile walk of bus)
Peak Headways: (equal to or less than ___
minutes between buses on average in Peak Hour)
Span of Service: (equal to or more than
____hours in duration per weekday on average)
Urban Greater than 80% 20 minutes
with Metrorail17 Hours
SuburbanLess than 80% and Greater than 30%
20 minutes 14 Hours
Rural More than 5% 30 minutes 4 Hours
Factors Characterizing Bus Transit Quality of Service in Montgomery County#
# = Consistent with the 2008 Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan and based on guidance from various Master Plans and Sector Plans
11
"Urban" Policy Areas served by Metrorail
(Sequenced by Decreasing "Coverage" of Bus Routes)
Number of Bus Routes
Metro Rail?
MARC Com-muter Rail?
Future Light Rail?
Area of the
Policy Area
(sq. mi.)
Pop. Density in 2010 (person per sq.
mi.)
Emp. Density in 2010 (emp. per sq.
mi.)
Coverage (Percent of area within 1 mi. rail;
1/3 of bus)
Peak Headway by Bus in PM Peak
Hour (min.)
Span: Duration of Weekday
Bus Service (hours)
Silver Spring/Takoma Park 33 Y Y Y 10.49 8,622 4,376 96.0% 17.5 13.4North Bethesda 14 Y Y Y 9.25 5,216 7,430 87.4% 21.3 15.0Kensington/Wheaton 20 Y Y 19.26 4,853 1,230 82.0% 22.6 13.6Bethesda/Chevy Chase 16 Y Y 20.24 4,962 4,339 81.2% 17.6 13.5Rockville City 13 Y Y Y 13.64 4,314 5,794 79.9% 17.2 17.6Derwood 3 Y Y 8.22 2,274 2,556 70.0% 20.0 14.9
more than less than more than80.0% 15.0 ## 17.0
Policy Areas Categorized as "Urban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010
## = 20.0 with Metrorail
xx.xInadequate versus the Standards shown
12
"Suburban" Policy Areas
(Sequenced by Decreasing "Coverage" of Bus Routes)
Number of Bus Routes
Metro Rail?
MARC Com-muter Rail?
Future Light Rail?
Area of the
Policy Area
(sq. mi.)
Pop. Density in 2010 (person per sq.
mi.)
Emp. Density in 2010 (emp. per sq.
mi.)
Coverage (Percent of area within 1 mi. rail;
1/3 of bus)
Peak Headway by Bus in PM Peak
Hour (min.)
Span: Duration of Weekday
Bus Service (hours)
R&D Village 5 Y 2.38 3,076 8,764 75.5% 25.0 11.7Gaithersburg City 10 Y Y 11.03 5,446 4,967 75.0% 19.3 14.6Fairland/White Oak 13 20.66 3,700 1,495 48.2% 19.5 11.9Germantown West 10 Y Y 10.98 5,652 1,347 48.0% 21.8 15.7Montgomery Village/Airpark 12 9.41 5,472 1,372 47.1% 19.4 14.9Aspen Hill 10 13.05 4,644 478 43.7% 18.4 15.9Germantown East 5 Y 6.57 3,568 1,310 39.3% 21.0 13.4Cloverly 2 9.83 1,621 137 30.0% 26.5 7.2
North Potomac 7 10.49 2,570 1,427 29.2% 23.6 12.3Olney 4 17.36 1,887 317 26.2% 24.6 9.2Potomac 10 Y 28.07 1,696 431 22.5% 19.1 14.3Clarksburg 2 Y 14.91 934 255 16.4% 30.0 10.2
more than less than more than30.0% 20.0 14.0
Policy Areas Categorized as "Suburban" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010
xx.xInadequate versus the Standards shown
13
"Rural" Policy Areas (Sequenced by Decreasing
"Coverage")
Number of Bus Routes
Metro Rail?
MARC Com-muter Rail?
Future Light Rail?
Area of the
Policy Area
(sq. mi.)
Pop. Density in 2010 (person per sq.
mi.)
Emp. Density in 2010 (emp. per sq.
mi.)
Coverage (Percent of area within 1 mi. rail;
1/3 of bus)
Peak Headway by Bus in PM Peak
Hour (min.)
Span: Duration of Weekday
Bus Service (hours)
Rural West 1 Y 132.90 157 20 8.4% 30.0 6.3Damascus 1 9.42 1,119 248 7.4% 20.0 15.7Rural East 1 117.18 289 48 7.4% 20.0 15.7
more than less than more than5.0% 30.0 4.0
Policy Areas Categorized as "Rural" based upon Transit Coverage, Peak Headway, and Span of Service of 2010
xx.xInadequate versus the Standards shown
14
5A. ROAD PROCESS5A. ROAD PROCESS – 2020 RESULTS – 2020 RESULTS
15
* Note: Roadways include traffic operations, bikeways and walkways
Proposed Process: Main StepsProposed Process: Main Steps Identify Roadway* Inadequacies and Solutions Identify Roadway* Inadequacies and Solutions
Yes
NoApply Transp. Demand Model
Are there future Inadequacies?
14131210-year
Dev. Act. Forecasts
Programmed Projects in
CIP/CTP
11
Summarize Roadway Policy Area and
Corridor Performance
Iterate as
Needed
17
15
16
Projects not yet Programmed
(State/County)
Go to on
slide 39
22
Prepare combinations of projects for CIP/CTP for
performance and to complete within 10 years
16
Standard of Roadway PerformanceStandard of Roadway Performance
Urban Street Class
Range of Free Flow Speeds
Typical Free Flow Speed 50 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph
Level of Service
A > 42 > 35 > 30 > 25
B 34 42 28 35 24 30 19 25
C 27 34 22 28 18 24 13 19
D 21 27 17 22 14 18 9 13
E 16 21 13 17 10 14 7 9
F =< 16 =< 13 =< 10 =< 7
55 to 45 mph 45 to 35 mph 35 to 30 mph 35 to 25 mph
III
Basic Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2000) Exhibit 15-2 Urban Street LOS by Class
IV
Average Travel Speed (mph)
I II
17
3B-13: Standard of Roadway Performance3B-13: Standard of Roadway Performance
Urban Street Class
Range of Free Flow Speeds
Typical Free Flow Speed 50 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph
Level of Service
A > 42 > 35 > 30 > 25
B 34 42 28 35 24 30 19 25
C 27 34 22 28 18 24 13 19
D 21 27 17 22 14 18 9 13
E 16 21 13 17 10 14 7 9
F =< 16 =< 13 =< 10 =< 7
Level of Service
A > 84% > 88% > 86% > 83%
B 68% 84% 70% 88% 69% 86% 63% 83%
C 54% 68% 55% 70% 51% 69% 43% 63%
D 42% 54% 43% 55% 40% 51% 30% 43%
E 32% 42% 33% 43% 29% 40% 23% 30%
F =< 32% =< 33% =< 29% =< 23%
III
Basic Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2000) Exhibit 15-2 Urban Street LOS by Class
IV
Average Travel Speed (mph)
I II
Average Speed Relative to the Typical Free Flow Speed (as a percent)
55 to 45 mph 45 to 35 mph 35 to 30 mph 35 to 25 mph
18
4B-13: Example of one Policy Area4B-13: Example of one Policy Area
Policy Areas including their MSPAs
Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary:
2020 Development Forecasts with Existing Roads plus Programmed CIP/CTP
A
B
C
D
E
F
The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments within the Policy Area:(1) averaged by direction of flow that is, (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled, and(3) normalized for Arterial Class of each of the link segments of the arterial corridor
Average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction
Average for the Peak Flow Direction
Existing + Programmed Projects
Guidance to reviewers to help better understand
these Charts
Average for a
Policy Area
19
Applying the Model County-wideApplying the Model County-wide
BCC
SSTP
NP
NB
KW
RKV
DER
RDVGBG
FWO
OLYPOT
CLK
MVAAHGTE
CLV
DAM
GTW
Policy Areas including their MSPAs
Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary:
2020 Development Forecasts with Existing Roads plus Programmed CIP/CTP
A
B
C
D
E
F
The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments within the Policy Area:(1) averaged by direction of flow that is, (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled, and(3) normalized for Arterial Class of each of the link segments of the arterial corridor
Average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction
Average for the Peak Flow Direction
Existing + Programmed Projects
Guidance to reviewers to help better understand
these Charts
"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas
"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service"Rural"
20
Setting Standards by Geographic P. AreaSetting Standards by Geographic P. Area
BCC
SSTP
NP
NB
KW
RKV
DER
RDVGBG
FWO
OLYPOT
CLK
MVAAHGTE
CLV
DAM
GTW
Policy Areas including their MSPAs
Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary:
2020 Development Forecasts with Existing Roads plus Programmed CIP/CTP
A
B
C
D
E
F
The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments within the Policy Area:(1) averaged by direction of flow that is, (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled, and(3) normalized for Arterial Class of each of the link segments of the arterial corridor
Average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction
Average for the Peak Flow Direction
Existing + Programmed Projects
Guidance to reviewers to help better understand
these Charts
"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas
"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service"Rural"
Policy Area Adequacy Standards
21
2020 Road Adequacy with 6-year CIP/CTP2020 Road Adequacy with 6-year CIP/CTP
BCC
SSTP
NP
NB
KW
RKV
DER
RDVGBG
FWO
OLYPOT
CLK
MVAAHGTE
CLV
DAM
GTW
Policy Areas including their MSPAs
Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary:
2020 Development Forecasts with Existing Roads plus Programmed CIP/CTP
A
B
C
D
E
F
The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments within the Policy Area:(1) averaged by direction of flow that is, (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled, and(3) normalized for Arterial Class of each of the link segments of the arterial corridor
Average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction
Average for the Peak Flow Direction
Existing + Programmed Projects
Network effects of new Projects
Direct effect of new Projects
Guidance to reviewers to help better understand
these Charts
"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas
"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service"Rural"
Policy Area Adequacy Standards
22
5. B Testing Road Solutions5. B Testing Road Solutions
23
List of Improvements for TestingList of Improvements for TestingTransportation Improvement Type Policy CommentsFacility Name and/or Limits Area To be Noted
FY10 AGP Proj. In CTP and CIP for const. by FY14 to count 6 yearsplus 3 following projects by FY16 In Approved CTP
Interchange MD097 (Ga. Ave) at Randolph Rd KW In Approved CIPMontrose Pkwy East; MD355 to MD586 (Veirs Mill Rd) NB In Approved CIPChapman Ave Extd; Randolph Rd to Old Gtwn Rd NB In Approved CIP
Purple Line New Carrollton to Bethesda Co-Wide
TDM Activities in BCC, SSTP, NB, DER, FWO, KW Co-Wide improved monitoring & programs
Observation Dr Roberts Tavern to I-4 (revised extent) CLK 2 lanes each way
Mid-Co. Hwy Shady Grove Rd to MD200 Interco. Conn. DER widen to 3 Lanes each way
Interchange US029 Columbia Pk at Fairland/Musgrove Rd FWO
MD117 Clopper RdI-270 to Longdraft reconstruction GBG improve median/ turn lanes
Mid-Co. Hwy MD027 to Middlebrook Rd (revised extent) GTE 2 lanes each way (design 3)
I-4 Overpass Road bridge over I-270 GTE
MD355 Frederick MD027 Ridge Rd to Little Seneca Pky GTE widen to 2 Lanes each way
Century Blvd I-4 to Existing Century Blvd GTW
Goshen Rd Girard St to Warfield Rd MVA widen to 4 lane divided
Twinbrook PkwyMD355 Rockville Pike to Ardennes Ave NB widen to 3 Lanes each wayMD117 Clopper RdWatkins Mill Rd to Game Preserve Rd NP widen to 2 Lanes each way
Projects that could be Available by 2020
24
Adequacy of Proposed ImprovementsAdequacy of Proposed Improvements
BCC
SSTP
NP
NB
KW
RKV
DER
RDVGBG
FWO
OLYPOT
CLK
MVAAHGTE
CLV
DAM
GTW
Policy Areas including their MSPAs
Policy Area Adequacy Standards
Adequacy of the Main Roads County-wide Summary:
2020 Development Forecasts with Existing, Programmed CIP/CTP, Proposed
A
B
C
D
E
F
The bars show the range of PM Peak Period Congested Speed relative to "Free Flow Speed" for arterial segments within the Policy Area:(1) averaged by direction of flow that is, (2) weighted by the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled, and(3) normalized for Arterial Class of each of the link segments of the arterial corridor
Average for the Non-Peak Flow Direction
Average for the Peak Flow Direction
Existing + Programmed Projects
Network effects of new Projects
Direct effect of new Projects
Guidance to reviewers to help better understand
these Charts
"Urban" Served by Metrorail with Metro Station Policy Areas
"Suburban" Served by Bus and Limited Commuter Rail Service"Rural"
25
Proposed Process: Main StepsProposed Process: Main StepsC. Cost-Allocation StepsC. Cost-Allocation Steps
Set public-private cost
sharing
Yes
No
28
Is the Collection greater than the criteria of ?25
Transit Costs from
page 9
Roadway Costs from
page 10
2221
29Wait before the
Project-Service is Programmed
23
24
Cost per unit of development
Cost estimates for capital facilities and operating expenses
27
Establish criteria for additions into the
CIP/CTP
25
Go to on
slide 12
31
30
Aggregate Policy Area Fees collected
as part of the subdivision process
26a
26b
Set shares for Households and
Employment
Change since prior Executive briefing
26
Proposed Process: Main StepsProposed Process: Main Steps D. Programming Public Commitments D. Programming Public Commitments
E. Monitor and ReportE. Monitor and Report
Identify as a Committed Project
in the CIP
Schedule and Implement within
10-year Time Frame
33
3̀4
Program the Project-Service
32
From on
slide 11
30
31
36
Yes
No
Monitor & Report on Development and Implementation Commitments
35
38
Go to Next Growth Policy Cycle
On Schedule?
Make Recommendations for Revised or New
Solutions
37
27
6. Example of the Subdivision Process 6. Example of the Subdivision Process
1. Identify Policy Area of Development
2. ApplyA. Roadway Cost
B. Transit Cost
3. Subdivision Approved
4. Payment/Surety prior to Record Plat
5. Track TPAR Payments by Policy Area
6. Are road or transit improvements ready for programming?
7. Program Improvements and implement
8. Monitor and Report Progress
28
Full Report is available atFull Report is available atwww.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcdotwww.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcdot
29