Activity Centers Are the Locations That Will Accommodate the Majority of the Region’S Future Growth

Activity Centers are the locations that will accommodate the majority of the region’s future growth. They include existing urban centers, priority growth areas, traditional towns, and transit hubs. Together, Activity Centers Activity Centers will play a central role in achieving Region Forward’s 2012 Update prosperity, sustainability, accessibility, and livability goals.

Region Forward Comprehensive Regional Vision Plan

Baseline Progress Activity Centers Report Spatial Component of Measures Progress Toward Region Forward Achieving the Vision

Strategic Investment Tool Coordinates Public and Private Sector Investment to Implement the Region Forward Vision

Version 1 7/17/2012

G S G n

t O

C f f n

n n

D i

a r

e o

R c

r R

o e o

g r w

i n

o a o n Concept Places Applications i r d g F e C o R r s o w r a o l s a t it r r c io d e to r n c C i e o D ir a g D liti in ing on nn Plann CO Pla G Staff

• Hybrid Policy/Technical • Existing Urban Centers • Analysis Approach • Priority Development Areas • Planning • Grounded in Local Planning • Traditional Town Centers • Investment • Reinforces Region Forward • Employment Centers • Aligned with Existing and Planned Transportation System

• Consistent with Environmental Goals Key Outcomes of the 2012 Update

More, Smaller Centers Current: 59; New: 136 Most centers located within current center boundaries Better scale for implementation

Aligned with Major Infrastructure Include several additional Metro and rail stations as centers 70% of new centers served by transit by 2040 Aligned with major highway network

Links Local and Regional Priorities Selection criteria includes Region Forward priorities Provides tool for local governments to support regional goals Supports local and regional environmental goals 3 Concept Core Attributes Background Activity Centers originally emerged from the Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB) vision for the region, adopted in 1998. Among other things, the vision and its related goals and objectives called for better interjurisdictional coordination of transportation and land use planning through the development of a regional map that identified Activity Centers and major transportation corridors.

The first Activity Centers map was approved in 2002, and a second version of themap was adopted in 2007. The 59 Activity Centers on that map were identified based on job Any 2 concentrations in COG’s Cooperative Forecasts and reflected major employment centers in the region. For the past ten years, COG and the TPB have used Activity Centers for technical Additional purposes, including growth forecasts and scenario analysis for transportation planning. Attributes A New Selection Approach For the 2012 update, COG developed a new approach to identify Activity Centers. As the spatial component of Region Forward, Activity Centers will be used as both a technical and policy tool. Aligning Activity Centers with Region Forward will help ensure that the dramatic growth anticipated through 2050 will enhance the region’s prosperity and sustainability. Consequently, the selection criteria for the 2012 update are a hybrid of policy-oriented measures and technical guidelines.

The criteria also provide flexiblity in how places can qualify as Activity Centers, and are designed to be consistent with local planning priorities. As a result, the new Activity Centers are diverse, including existing urban centers, priority growth areas, historic towns, and transit hubs in jurisdictions throughout the region. Activity Center To qualify as an Activity Center, some of the needed attributes must be present today, while others must be accomplished by 2040. A location must meet both of the two core attributes and at least two additional attributes by the noted year (either 2012 or 2040). Core Attributes (required)

Policy: In 2012, the center or priority growth area should Density: By 2040, have a persons per acre density (em- be designated in a jurisdiction’s adopted comprehensive/ ployment + population) that falls within the top one-half of general plan or other locally-adopted land use plan. densities within the jurisdiction.

Additional Attributes (any 2 required)

Intersection Density: In 2012, have at least 55 Land Use Mix: In 2012, have a locally-adopted land use intersections per square mile. plan/ordinance that encourages mixed-use development through such features as a mixed-use designation, form- based codes, or overlay zoning.

Transit Capacity: In 2012, have existing high-capacity/ Housing & Transportation Affordability: In 2012, performance transit (e.g. Metrorail, commuter rail, light demonstrate combined housing and transportation costs rail, or bus rapid transit), have a planned transit station of no more than 45% of regional median income, as identified in the CLRP, or have a planned transit station with measured by the H + T Index. (Region Forward Target) a dedicated local funding source. (Region Forward Target) 5 1

3 4 Places 2 5 Activity Centers are the locations that will accommodate the majority of our region’s growth in the coming decades. 7 As such, they play a central role in fulfilling the vision of Frederick 6 Region Forward. They include existing urban centers, priority growth areas, traditional downtowns, and transit City of Frederick hubs. Centers include established communities like

Georgetown, as well as newly emerging places like 8 Wheaton. A majority of these Activity Centers are mixed- use communities. Others are primarily employment 9 centers or are dominated by major civic or federal 10 11 facilities. 12 14 13 Gaithersburg 15 Activity Centers provide a way for all jurisdictions to 16 Montgomery 29 contribute to our shared regional goals. 17 18 19 22 20 24 Rockville 21 23 Loudoun 30 31 Key Facts 25 Greenbelt 27 26 33 College 28 34 Park 36 Takoma 37 • There are 136 Activity Centers Bowie 52 32 DC Park 35 40 38 39 • Centers are located in every COG member jurisdiction Fairfax Arlington 42 43 Falls Fairfax City Church 41 • 67% of centers are served by high-capacity transit Alexandria 44 45 Prince 46 • 60% fall within old Activity Center boundaries 47 George’s 48

49 Prince William Proposed High Capacity Transit Activity Centers N

Charles Planned High 2.5 5 10 15 20 Highway Miles Capacity Transit 50

51 1

3 4 2 5 Maryland

1) Fort Detrick 15) Montgomery College 7 6 2) Jefferson Tech Park 16) Rockville 3) Downtown Frederick 17) Tower Oaks 4) East Rising 18) Twinbrook 5) Francis Scott Key Mall 19) Glenmont 6) Brunswick 20) White Oak

8 7) Urbana 21) Rock Spring 8) Clarksburg 22) White Flint

9 9) Germantown 23) Grosvenor 10) Metropolitan Grove 24) Wheaton

10 11 11) Gaithersburg 25) National Institutes of Health 12 12) Kentlands 26) Bethesda 14 13 15 13) Crown Farm/ Life Sciences 27) Silver Spring 16 Center 28) Takoma Park* 29 17 18 19 14) King Farm / Rockville Research 29) Konterra 22 20 Center / Shady Grove 30) Greenbelt 24 21 23 31) Bowie MARC 31 30 32) Bowie Town Center 25 27 26 33 33) Langley Park 28 34 36 37 34) College Park Bowie 52 32 35 40 35) West Hyattsville Metro 38 39 42 36) Prince George’s Plaza 43 37) Riverdale MARC 41 38) Port Towns 39) Landover Metro

44 45 40) New Carrollton 46 47 41) Capitol Heights / Addison Road* 48 42) Landover Mall

49 43) Largo Town Center / Morgan Blvd 44) Naylor / Southern Ave 45) Suitland N 46) Branch Ave 47) Westphalia 48) Oxon Hill 49) National Harbor 2.5 5 10 15 20 50) Waldorf Miles 50 51) La Plata 52) Friendship Heights*

* Cross-jurisdictional center with the District of Columbia 51 7 District of Columbia

120

121

28) Takoma Park* 123 122 41) Capitol Heights / Addison Road* 126 124 52) Friendship Heights* 127 53) Walter Reed 125 53 28 54) Columbia Heights 95 97 55) McMillan / Old Soldiers Home 96 98 56) Fort Totten 103 52 99101102 56 57) Brookland 104 100 58) Georgetown 59) Dupont 8081 105 119 77 79 55 57 78 54 60) U / 14th Street Corridor 108 85 109 84 62 61) Rhode Island Ave Metro 107 83 86 61 82 60 62) New York Avenue Corridor 118 88 58 59 65 106 87 67 63) West End 110 89 91 6466 68 69 92 63 64) Farragut Square 90 71 41 65) Convention Center 111 94 93 74 128 114 70 73 66) Downtown DC 130 72 115 67) NoMa 129 134 112 76 68) H Street 135 113 116 75 69) Minnesota Ave 70) Monumental Core 136 71) Capitol Hill 117 72) Southwest Waterfront 73) Capital Riverfront 74) Stadium Armory 131 75) St. Elizabeth’s 76) Poplar Point 132 N * Cross-jurisdictional center with Maryland 133

2.5 5 10 Miles Virginia

120 77) Ballston 108) Merrifield / Dunn Loring 78) Virginia Square 109) Seven Corners 79) Clarendon 110) George Mason University 80) Courthouse 111) Beltway South 121 81) Rosslyn 112) Springfield 123 122 82) Bailey’s Crossroads / Western 113) Engineers Proving Ground Gateway 114) Huntington/ Penn Daw 124 126 83) Columbia Pike Village Center 115) Beacon / Groveton 127 84) Columbia Pike Town Center 116) Hybla Valley/ Gum Springs 125 85) Pentagon 117) Fort Belvoir 95 97 86) Pentagon City 118) Fairfax City 96 98 103 87) Shirlington 119) City of Falls Church 99101102 88) Crystal City 120) Leesburg 104 100 89) Beauregard 121) One Loudoun 8081 90) Landmark / Van Dorn 122) Dulles Town Center 105 119 77 79 78 91) Potomac Yard 123) Route 28 North 108 85 109 84 92) Braddock Road Metro Area 124) Route 28 Central 107 83 86 82 118 88 93) King Street / Old Town 125) Route 28 South 106 87 110 89 91 94) Carlyle / Eisenhower East 126) Route 772 Transit Area 92 95) Dulles Corner / CIT 127) Route 606 Transit Area 90 111 94 93 96) Herndon / Monroe 128) Gainesville 128 114 97) Reston West 129) Innovation 130 115 98) Reston East 130) Yorkshire 134 112 129 99) Tysons West 131) North Woodbridge 135 113 116 100) Tysons Central 7 132) Potomac Town Center 101) Tysons Central 123 133) Potomac Shores 136 117 102) Tysons East 134) Manassas Park 103) McLean 135) Manassas 104) Dulles East 136) Manassas Airport 131 105) Dulles South 106) Centreville 107) Fairfax Center 132

N 133

2.5 5 10 15 20 9 Miles City of Bowie 31

MARC Penn Line COG worked with regional planning directors through the Planning Directors Technical Advisory Committee to develop the Activity Center selection method. Then COG worked directly with each jurisdiction’s planning department to interpret local planning documents and apply the criteria to identify Activity Centers. 32 US Rt 50

US Rt 301

High Capacity Transit Highway N 31 Bowie MARC

Core Attributes Additional Attributes

Policy: The 2010 Bowie MARC and Vicinity Transit Capacity: Bowie MARc is served by the MARC Penn Line Sector Plan Identifies Bowie MARC as a Center

Density: This center has persons density within Land Use Mix: Bowie MARC is planned for mixed use development the top 1/2 for Prince George’s County, MD

32 Bowie Town Center

Core Attributes Additional Attributes

Policy: The 2002 Prince George’s general Plan Intersection Density: Bowie has more than 55 intersections per Identifies Bowie Center square mile

This center has persons density within Density: Land Use Mix: Bowie has mixed use development the top 1/2 for Prince George’s County, MD 11 t

Applications Stakeholders

Activity Centers have been designed to be used by diverse stakeholders for a variety of purposes, including technical analysis, Regional: Metropolitan Washington has several organizations such as COG, The Board of Trade, planning policy, and investment activities. WMATA, and other transit operators that can use Activity Activity Centers provide a way to coordinate Centers for regional programs and activities. programs and resources at the local and regional levels. They can facilitate new initiatives and partnerships across sectors and boundaries to achieve regional goals and fulfill the Region Forward vision.

Government: Local, state, and federal governments can use Activity Centers to guide their decisionmaking in numerous policy areas.

Business, Civic, & Philanthropic: Leaders in these fields can use Activity Centers to guide key investment decisions. Analysis Planning Investment

• Growth Forecasts • Transit Corridor and Station • Activity Center Strategic • Transportation Modeling Area Planning Investment Plan • Demographic Analysis • Transportation Priorities and • Financially Constrained Long Scenario Planning Range Transportation Plan • Wastewater Planning • Transportation Land Use Grants

• Comprehensive, Sector, • Competitive Grant Programs and Master Plans • Capital Improvement Plans • Affordable Housing Planning

• Facility Location Selection • GreenPATH (affordable housing fund) • Site Selection • Place-Based Services

13 Schedule

To Date: • Planning Directors Advisory Committee approved Illustrative Activity Center Map • Activity Centers introduced to COG Board at annual retreat • Region Forward Coalition approved centers for public comment September – October: • Present Activity Centers to city councils and county boards • Launch Strategic Investment Plan work • Develop technical boundaries November: • COG Board approval of Activity Centers