Transportation Policy Area Review: A New Approach for Balanced Transit and Roads

1. Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR)A suggested new approachPresentation to M.C. Planning Board July 15, 2010

2. Presentation Outline Guiding Principles / Stakeholder Participation The Proposed TPAR Policy in a Nutshell Proposed Process Component Parts The Main Steps Sample Policy Area Results

3. Guiding Principles Based on Approved Master Plans. Process easily understood. Separate analysis for transit and roads. Public – private financing of solutions. Support economic development. Monitor, report and adjust key elements.

4. Stakeholder Participation PHED Committee Members Council, Planning, and MCDOT staff Listening Sessions with selected stakeholders: Chambers of Commerce and Employers Transportation-Related Groups Leadership of Civic Associations Developers and their Representatives Transportation Professionals. Presentation to Stakeholders Presentation to County Executive and staff.

5. The Proposed TPAR Policy in a NutshellAchieving Balance Guidance to improve transportation - development activity balance - 10 years forward. Establish standards of transportation adequacy for both transit services and roadway congestion A Policy Area is balanced when both transit services and roadways meet the adequacy standards.

6. The Proposed TPAR Policy in a NutshellProgramming Transportation Projects If Policy Area not balanced  County should program the transit services / road improvements. Programmed transportation improvements must come from Adopted and Approved Master and Sector Plans. Proposed improvements funded through a public-private partnership. Programming to occur once a threshold of private payments has been reached.

7. The Proposed TPAR Policy in a NutshellMonitoring and Reporting TPAR requires monitoring and reporting of key elements of the policy: Development Activity Implementation of Transit Services and Capital Projects Annual Report on trends during the prior year Recommendations for action to ensure desirable balance.

8. Component Parts of the Process 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. DAM RurE CLK RurE GTE MVA GTW RurE RurW OLY GBG DER RDV CLV NP AH RKV RurW FWO KW NB POT SSTP BCC Analysis Uses 21 Policy Areas

10. SUGGESTED TRANSIT PROCESS

11. Suggested Process for Transit Establish Geographic Policy Area Categories Urban Suburban Rural Establish Service Factors Transit Coverage Peak Headways Span of Service

12. Identify Transit Inadequacies and Solutions # = Consistent with the 2008 Montgomery County Strategic Transit Plan and based on guidance from various Master Plans and Sector Plans

13. Proposed Process: Main StepsIdentify Transit* Inadequacies and Solutions Classify Policy Areas by Transit Category Are transit adequacy standards met? Yes No additional transit costs No Estimate transit service costs and capital investment needs 21 3 2 6 4 5 1 Identify Transit improvements to meet transit adequacy standards Go to on slide 39 • Note: Transit includes Transportation Management Districts (TMD)

17. SUGGESTED ROAD PROCESS

18. 4. Road Process Main StepsIdentify Roadway* Inadequacies and Solutions 10-year Dev. Act. Forecasts Summarize Roadway Policy Area and Corridor Performance No Apply Transp. Demand Model Are there future Inadequacies? Programmed Projects in CIP/CTP Iterate as Needed Yes 16 22 14 13 11 12 17 15 Prepare combinations of projects for CIP/CTP for performance and to complete within 10 years Projects not yet Programmed (State/County) Go to on slide 39 • Note: Roadways include traffic operations, bikeways and walkways

19. 3B-13: Standard of Roadway Performance

20. Applying the Standard to Policy Areas

21. Example of Policy Area Results

22. TPAR Results County-wide

23. Setting the TPAR Standard for Roads

24. Adequacy of Forecasts with CIP/CTP

25. Adequacy with Sample Improvements

26. RESULTS OF SUGGESTED APPROACH on three Sample Policy Areas

27. Fairland White Oak

28. Germantown East

29. Bethesda Chevy Chase

30. Forecasts of Development Activity

31. TRANSIT RESULTS FOR SAMPLE POLICY AREAS

33. ROADWAY RESULTS FOR SAMPLE POLICY AREAS

34. Sample Road Improvements (for testing only)

35. Variation in Road Performance in FWO

36. Future Road Performance in FWO

37. Variation in Road Performance in GTE

38. Future Road Performance in GTE

39. Variation in Road Performance in BCC

40. Future Road Performance in BCC

41. 5. Proposed Process: Main StepsC. Cost-Allocation Steps Transit Costs from page 9 Roadway Costs from page 10 Cost estimates for capital facilities and operating expenses Wait before the Project-Service is Programmed Is the Collection greater than the criteria of ? Cost per unit of development No 28 25 22 21 29 23 24 27 25 31 30 Aggregate Policy Area Fees collected as part of the subdivision process Set public-private cost sharing Establish criteria for additions into the CIP/CTP Set shares for Households and Employment Yes Go to on slide 12 26a 26b Change since prior Executive briefing

42. Proposed Process: Main Steps Programming Public Commitments / Monitor and Report Program the Project-Service Identify as a Committed Project in the CIP Schedule and Implement within 10-year Time Frame ` Monitor & Report on Development and Implementation Commitments 30 33 34 32 31 37 36 35 38 Change since prior Executive briefing Make Recommendations for Revised or New Solutions No On Schedule? From on slide 11 Yes Go to Next Growth Policy Cycle

43. Full Report is available atwww.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcdot