MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MCPB Item No. 12 Date: 05-31-12 Briefing: White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan
Eric Graye, Planning Supervisor, Functional Planning and Policy Division, [Link]@[Link], 301-495-4632 Mary Dolan, Chief, Functional Planning and Policy Division, [Link]@[Link], 301-495-4552 Nancy Sturgeon, Planner Coordinator, Area 2 Division, [Link]@montgomeryplanning,org, 301-495-1308
Completed: 05/24/12 Description The Planning Department staff has been working with the White Oak Science Gateway Citizens Advisory Commiittee (CAC), appointed by the Planning Board in March 2011, on the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. The CAC includes representatives from residential communities as well as business and property owners. All CAC meetings are open to the public and there is an opportunity at every meeting for the general audience to participate. Ten CAC meetings and two community forums were held between April 2011-May 2012. In addition, Planning staff attends local citizens association meetings and presents information on the Master Plan, as requested. At a CAC meeting held on November 15, 2011, break-out groups discussed the future possibilities of the commercial centers, focusing on White Oak, Hillandale, and the North White Oak/Cherry Hill Road area. At a CAC meeting held on April 24, 2012, staff presented illustrative concepts of these major centers as well as an overview of the density being considered for these areas for traffic modeling purposes. Staff also provided a primer on Master Plan staging, using the staging plans of the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan and White Flint Sector Plan as examples. In addition, a brief update on the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan was provided. With input from stakeholders, staff prepared a future development scenario and has completed a preliminary analysis of the potential traffic impacts on the local road network. A summary of these results was presented to the CAC at a meeting held on May 22, 2012. Summary The Board will be briefed on the preliminary results of the traffic modeling analysis performed in support of the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan. These results are summarized in a PowerPoint presentation (attached) that will be presented to the Board at its May 31, 2012 meeting. Attachment
1.
White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis PowerPoint Presentation
EG/MD/NS/kr
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 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Office
Retail Industrial Other
1.30
1.00 1.00 1.00
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 10,980 3,475 1,436 7,705 8,098 6,667 9,256
Internal Trips
In/Out Trips Through Trips
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 9,682 1,975
3,563 13,776
8,365
Internal Trips
14,234 In/Out Trips Through Trips
10,707 11,926
10,235
2040 Base Future 2040 Master Plan Alternative
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
0.61
0.60
0.80
0.81
1.00+
1.00
Standard for plan area: 0.92
25
Critical Lane Volume Standards by Policy Area
CLV Congestion Standards Policy Area
1800
Central Business Districts/Metro Station Locations: Bethesda, Silver Spring, Friendship Heights, Wheaton, Glenmont, White Flint, Grosvenor, Shady Grove, Twinbrook, Rockville Town Center
Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Silver Spring/Takoma Park, Kensington/Wheaton, Germantown Town Center
1600
1550
1500 1475 1450 1425 1400
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
1350
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