DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Potential New Roadway Connections TRANSPORTATION ISSUE: Roadway Connections and Capacity 1.1 Potential Roadway Connections Policy 1: Create a more connected roadway network. Potential Capacity Enhancement 1.1 Study potential benefits and impacts of connecting Pleasant Drive to Planned Roadway in Adopted Plan Pleasant Road. FREDERICK RD Potential Intersection Project 1.2 Study connecting Piccard Drive south across Gude Drive to the Senior Center, with a potential connection to Aster Boulevard. SHADY GROVE RD 1.3 Study potential benefits and impacts of connecting Yale Place to West Gude Drive. 115 355 1.4 Study potential benefits and impacts of extending Rutgers Street south to connect to North Campus Drive. 1.3 E. GUDE RD INTERSTATE 3.2 1.5 Study the potential to connect North Street to N. Washington Street. 270 RUTGERS ST 1.6 Study realigning Edmonston Drive at Veirs Mill Road to form a traditional YALE PL four-way intersection. 1.2 3.1 1.4 1.7 Study potential benefits and impacts of connecting Scandia Way to Tower Oak Boulevard. N CAMPUS DR 1.8 Study extending Cabin John Way to Wootton Parkway. RESEARCH BLVD 1.9 Study connecting Milboro Drive to Wootton Parkway. MANNAKEE ST 1.10 Study connecting Stratton Drive to Oakenshield Drive. MARTINS LN 1.11 Study extending Lewis Avenue south of Halpine Road into the 1.5 NORBECK RD Twinbrook Metro station area and connecting with the planned ‘Street B’ to NORTH ST be renamed as Fishers Lane or Parklawn Drive 28 28 3.3 Policy 2: Develop creative solutions to capacity issues on major W. MONTGOMERY AVE arterials and highways. N VAN BUREN ST 2.1 3.4 2.1 Study potential design approaches to peak hour congestion on MD 28 from I-270 interchange to Great Falls Road. FIRST ST 3.5 2.2 Study potential design approaches to congestion on Wootton Parkway, 1.6 including smaller scale projects such as additional turn lanes where needed. VEIRS MILL RD S WASHINGTON ST MARYLAND AVE Policy 3: Advocate to the State Highway Administration (SHA) for 586 capacity and intersection improvements. 2.2 3.1 Advocate to SHA for a study of an interchange at I-270 and Gude 3.6 Drive. WOOTTON PKWY 1.7 3.2 Advocate to SHA for capacity improvements at the intersection of Gude 1.8 ROCKVILLE PIKE Drive and MD 355, including grade separation. 1.9 3.3 Advocate to SHA to investigate allowing a left turn movement from East 189 Middle Lane onto northbound MD 355. 1.10 1.11 3.4 Work with SHA to investigate the impact of allowing a northbound movement from South Washington to North Washington Street. 3.5 Advocate with SHA to investigate allowing a left turn from eastbound MD 28 onto northbound MD 355 as part of any SHA project to improve that intersection. 3.6 Advocate with SHA to investigate allowing a left turn movement from 3.7 eastbound Edmonston Drive onto northbound MD 355. MONTROSE RD 355 3.7 Advocate with SHA to investigate allowing a left turn movement from westbound Twinbrook Parkway onto southbound MD 355, and from Rollins Avenue to northbound MD 355. Planned Bus Rapid Transit System TRANSPORTATION 115 D NE Shady Grove R EDW ISSUE: Bus Transit Service and Facilities D OOD RD N 370 A Existing WMATA Metrorail (Red Line) Metro Station L MU FR D N E E CA D R ST 270 E ER R MI IC LL Policy 4: Plan and implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines in Rockville. K Planned Montgomery County Flash BRT Route RD R D REDLAND BOULVARD AT 4.1 Support implementation of the Corridor Cities Transitway. SHADY GROVE STATION SOMERVILLE ROAD Planned MTA Corridor Cities Transitway D R E V 4.2 Support implementation of MD 586/Veirs Mill Road BRT with station locations that best serve O G R A Montgomery County / MTA Potential Station Location Rockville. F G I IELD T S RD Y H D E R KING WATKINS POND / A H R 4.3 Conduct station area planning for BRT stations, including pedestrian and bicycle access S D FARM INDIANOLA DRIVE City of Rockville Proposed / Alternate Station Location planning. A V E SHADY R 355 Y GROVE PICCARD 4.4 Continue to work with Montgomery County on MD 355 BRT, including identification of station R locations. ROAD D R KEY WEST D 4.5 Work with Montgomery College to identify the best location for a BRT station, including an AV E E D U GUDE DRIVE G evaluation based on long term land use and economic development plans. W R E S E Policy 5: Improve all bus stops in Rockville, in collaboration with Montgomery County and A R Y E WMATA. C W H K G P U B E D L G E V LE D D L R Policy 6: Study local bus service improvements including a potential Rockville bus O C circulator. 28 MONTGOMERY COLLEGE ISSUE: Commuter Rail and Freight Rail W M D O Policy 7: Advocate to MTA to expand MARC commuter rail service with midday and reverse ARN N EST TG OW O T commute service, and off peak and Saturday service at Rockville Station. N RD M S E E NORTH R E Y K A A WASHINGTON V N Policy 8: Mitigate the impacts of railroad infrastructure and operations in Rockville. E N NORBECK RD A STREET M Rockville 28 8.1 Consider the impacts of railroad noise and operations when making land use and development Metro decisions. D E R Station E AV R Y O E IM 8.2 Seek cost effective means for connecting over or under the CSX railroad corridor. L MIDDLE T R L U A H LANE B 270 FIRST D (MD355) R STREET EDMONSTON S L ISSUE: Rockville Station: Our Multimodal Hub L DRIVE GLEN MILL RD (MD 28) A F (VEIRS RD) T A BROADWOOD Policy 9: Redesign and reconstruct Rockville Station as a 21st century multimodal transit E R DRIVE G MARYLAND AVE hub. 586 ATLANTIC VE R IRS AVENUE 9.1 Initiate a planning and redesign effort for Rockville Station to ensure that the project receives D MIL D L R O D attention in the near future. O W D A EDMONSTON O R B 9.2 Bring all agency partners including WMATA, CSX, MTA, and Montgomery County DOT, FTA, and W 355 OO DRIVE (MD355) TWINBROOK TTO FRA to the table with the best transit center design talent. N P KWY W ED PARKWAY MONSTON DR 9.3 Add capacity at the new Rockville Station transit center to accommodate the dozens of WOODMONT LEWIS AVE additional bus rapid transit buses per hour and ensure seamless transfers between bus and rail 189 R O modes. C K V D IL R L E H L E IN A P 9.4 Provide direct access to the Red Line platform from the pedestrian bridge level. LP L E P A P I N IK H E 9.5 Improve pedestrian facilities in the Rockville Station area, including full crosswalks, smaller D R Twinbrook turning radii, pedestrian warning signals, and other measures to ensure safe access. S T O K C W HALPINE Metro O E Policy 10: Improve Twinbrook Metro Station as an asset for the community. L R ROAD O Station AK S B L 10.1 Study potential design approaches to enhancing the aesthetics and circulation at Twinbrook SEVEN V D D R T Station. S S L L FA M N ONTR O O S SE RD R E F F HUBBARD RANDOLPH RD E J E DRIVE MON 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles TROSE PKWY Pedestrian and Bicycle System TRANSPORTATION ISSUE: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Policy 11: Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. Shady Grove Ë )"115 N Metro EED Crosstown Routes WOOD RD 370 ¦¨§ Station MU 11.1 Develop and implement a Vision Zero Plan for Rockville. N CA D ST 270 R MD 355 ER ¨§ D MIL ¦ N L A RD DL E C D R R R A Research Corridor to Montrose E V B O B 11.2 Continue to implement the Complete Streets Policy and review public capital as well as R S G B Y R D Upper Rock to Potomac Woods A A N private development projects for opportunities to construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities on H G S A C FIEL IT H DS H RD W E King Farm to Tower Oaks R A new roadways. R Y D Ë A LincolnV Park to Twinbrook Metro 355 E )" R Y F 11.3 Promote and designate safe pedestrian routes to schools, community and government centers, RE East TwinbrookR D D E R IC and other key pedestrian destinations. R KEY WEST D K AV E Fallsgrove to Rock Creek E D R U D G W R E Rock Creek to Rockshire S E A 11.4 Study reduction of corner radii, turning movement conflicts and crossing distances at R Y E C W H K G P U B E D L G E V intersections in high pedestrian areas, starting with the Town Center and Twinbrook Metro station LE D D L R O C areas. H U Ë N )" G 28 E T R S F E O E K R A D 11.5 Facilitate consolidation and width reduction of curb cuts and driveways to minimize impacts W N N M DR DA O A R N M NE T ST G OW O on pedestrians and cyclists.
Recommended publications
  • National Capital Region Federal Parking Study

    National Capital Region Federal Parking Study

    National Capital Region Federal Parking Study An Accessibility-Based Approach for Federal Facilities Parking Policies September 2017 Notice This document was prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the National Capital Planning Commission. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. ii Page Intentionally Left Blank iii Acknowledgements The U.S. Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) prepared this study on behalf of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). The project team consisted of David Daddio (team leader), Jessica Baas, and Drew Quinton of the Transportation Planning Division, Stephen Zitzow-Childs of the Organization Performance Division, and Scott Smith of the Technology Innovation & Policy Division. Kael Anderson of NCPC’s Planning Research and Policy Division was the project lead. Michael Weil, Michael Sherman, Jennifer Hirsch, and Paul Jutton contributed to the effort. NCPC and the Volpe Center would like to thank the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for providing access to the regional transportation model. Dusan Vuksan, Roland Milone, and Meseret Seifu fielded questions and supplied model outputs. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................
  • WMATA Upcoming Opportunities

    WMATA Upcoming Opportunities

    Metro’s Capital Program Overview American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington (ACEC/MW) Transit Panel January 28, 2021 Laura Mason, EVP Capital Delivery 1 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Metro’s Capital Program Overview Moving the Region . Metro provides transit to move essential workers and is vital to commerce in the region • 54% of region’s pre-pandemic jobs are within a 1/2-mile radius of all Metro rail stations and Metro bus stops . Metro is accelerating safety and state of good repair programs during period of low ridership . Capital Program invested $1.7 billion in FY2020; FY2021 forecast ~$2 billion, FY2022 proposed $2.6 billion. 2 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Metro’s Capital Program Overview $28 Billion $22 Billion $12.3 Billion in known estimated 10-Year Six-Year Capital capital needs Capital Plan Improvement Program Identified key investments for safety & Design & engineer projects reliability projects, and enhancements to before implementation improve operating efficiencies Purpose: • Employ Best Practices to Advance the Capital Program Objectives: • Effective & Efficiently Advance $2.1 Billion Average Annual Program • Expand Competition to Attract Top Talent and Best Solutions Note: Preliminary forecast subject to Board review and approval 3 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Metro’s Capital Program Overview FY2021-FY2027 Capital Program Priorities Rail Bus & Paratransit Operations and Admin Support • Station Platform Rehabilitation • Bus Acquisition/Replacement
  • Creating a Future for Greenbelt Road/MD-193

    Creating a Future for Greenbelt Road/MD-193

    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL REPORT Creating a Future for Greenbelt Road/MD-193 WASHINGTON, DC SPONSORED BY: City of Greenbelt City of College Park Town of Berwyn Heights Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments June 4-5, 2018 Washington ABOUT ULI WASHINGTON A DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ULI Washington is a district council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a nonprofit education and research organization supported by its members. Founded in 1936, the Institute today has over 32,000 members worldwide representing the entire spectrum of land use planning and real estate development disciplines working in private enter-prise and public service. As the preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, ULI facilitates the open exchange of ideas, information, and experi- ence among local, national, and international industry leaders and policy makers dedicated to creating better communities. ULI’s mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creat- ing and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI Washington carries out the ULI mission locally by sharing best practices, building consensus, and advanc- ing solutions through educational programs and community outreach initiatives. ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL (TAP) PROGRAM The objective of ULI Washington’s Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) program is to provide expert, multidisciplinary, and objective advice on land use and real estate is-sues facing public agencies and nonprofit organizations in the Metropolitan Washing-ton Region. Drawing from its extensive membership base, ULI Washington conducts one and one-half day Panels offering objec- tive and responsible advice to local decision-makers on a wide variety of land use and real estate issues, ranging from site-specific projects to public pol- icy questions.
  • September 4, 1997

    September 4, 1997

    Agenda for Meeting 12-2015 CITY OF ROCKVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Don Hadley, Chair Anne Goodman Charles Littlefield David Hill Gail Sherman Jack Leiderman John Tyner, II Wednesday, June 24, 2015 7:00 p.m. Mayor and Council Chamber City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue Andrew Gunning, Staff Liaison Marcy Waxman, Senior Assistant City Attorney Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Reports online: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-4 I. REVIEW AND ACTION Request for Street Name Change. At the request of Choice Hotels International, a proposal has been made to change the name of Renaissance Street, which is currently being constructed between Middle Lane and E. Montgomery Avenue in Rockville Town Center. Several options have been suggested by the applicant for consideration. Planner: Margaret Hall, 240-314-8226. II. WORKSESSIONS A. Comprehensive Master Plan Update – Presentation of the Transportation Report. Staff will discuss the transportation scan with the Commission, which describes trends and data regarding transportation conditions in the City. Emad Elshafei, Chief of Traffic and Transportation, 240-314-8508. B. Draft Bikeways Master Plan. The draft bikeways plan will also be discussed and direction will be requested from the Commission. Planner: Kevin Belanger, Traffic and Transportation, 240-314-8509. City of Rockville Planning Commission Agenda for Meeting No. 10-2015 June 24, 2015 Page 2 III. COMMISSION ITEMS A. Staff Liaison Report B. Old Business C. New Business D. Minutes (none) E. FYI Correspondence IV. ADJOURN City of Rockville Planning Commission Agenda for Meeting No. 10-2015 June 24, 2015 Page 3 HELPFUL INFORMATION FOR STAKEHOLDERS AND APPLICANTS I.
  • Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011

    Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011

    Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011 Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning August 2011 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning Jim Hamre, Director of Bus Planning Krys Ochia, Branch Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Parsons Brinckerhoff Brian Laverty, AICP, Project Manager Nicholas Schmidt, Task Manager 1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20005 Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Existing Conditions ES-1 Policies and Procedures ES-2 Future Demand ES-3 Recommendations ES-4 Introduction 1 Study Process 3 Coordination 3 On-Site Observations 3 Operating Issues 3 Future Demand 4 Permitting and Enforcement 4 Existing Conditions 7 Key Observations 8 Operating Issues 9 Policies and Procedures 17 Permitting 17 Enforcement 19 Future Demand 25 Methodology 25 Results 28 Recommendations 33 Facility Design 34 Demand Management 37 Permitting 39 Enforcement 42 Contents | i Figures Figure ES-1: Future Shuttle Demand Estimate ES-4 Figure 1: Location of Peer U.S. Transit Agencies 4 Figure 2: Study Stations 7 Figure 3: Vehicles in Tight Turning Areas May Block Bus Bay Entrances (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 4: Long Kiss & Ride Queue (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 5: Pedestrian Shortcut (Southern Avenue Station) 11 Figure 6: Shuttle Blocking Kiss & Ride Travel Lane (King Street Station) 12 Figure 7: Shuttle Blocking Bus Stop (Anacostia Station) 13 Figure 8: Typical Signs Prohibiting Non-Authorized Access to Station Bus Bays
  • FTA WMATA Safetrack Project Management Oversight Report May

    FTA WMATA Safetrack Project Management Oversight Report May

    FOIA Exemption: All (b)(6 Monthly Report SafeTrack Program Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) May 2017 Progress Surge 14 – Prince George’s Plaza Station to Greenbelt Station – Track 2 at completion of Surge 14. June 26, 2017 PMOC Contract Number: DTFT60-14-D-00011 Task Order Number: 006, Project Number: DC-27-5272, Work Order No. 01 OPs Referenced: 01, 25 Hill International, Inc. One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 PMOC Lead: Michael E. Radbill, P.E. Length of Time PMOC Assigned to Project under current Contract: 3 Years, 1 Month Length of Time PMOC Lead Assigned to Project: 5 Years, 2 Months TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1 B. PROGRAM STATUS ....................................................................................................... 2 C. CORE ACCOUNTABILITY INFORMATION ....................................................................... 3 D. MAJOR PROBLEMS/ISSUES ........................................................................................... 4 MAIN REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 6 1. PROGRAM STATUS ........................................................................................................... 6 2. PROGRAM COST ............................................................................................................
  • National Transportation Safety Board the Accident the Investigation

    National Transportation Safety Board the Accident the Investigation

    National Transportation Safety Board Railroad Accident Brief Derailment of WMATA Metrorail Train in Interlocking Falls Church, Virginia The Accident On July 29, 2016, about 6:14 a.m. eastern daylight time, outbound (westbound) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrorail train 602 derailed while traversing a crossover in the East Falls Church interlocking, operating on the Silver Line in Falls Church, Virginia. About 63 passengers were on board the six-car passenger train, all of whom were evacuated out of the lead car, assisted by the Metro Transit Police Department. Three passengers reported injuries, including one who was hospitalized. The Investigation Crosstie Standards Metrorail Train 602 derailed while traversing a crossover moving from track K1 to track K2. Two National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators noted the track gage measurement near the point of derailment (POD) was nearly 2 inches wider than acceptable by WMATA standards.1 For tracks of similar construction to the accident area, WMATA requires that track gage in excess of 57-1/4 inches be removed from service—track gage near the POD measured 59 inches.2 Investigators also identified many defective crossties in the area of the derailment. WMATA track standards require there be no more than 120 inches between nondefective rail fasteners for tracks of similar construction; however, in this accident area, investigators noted over 400 inches of track with no effective rail fasteners because of deteriorated crossties.3 WMATA has standards that address defective crossties; however, it was not apparent that the track structure in the accident area was consistently maintained to those standards.
  • FY2021 2Nd Quarter Capital Program Project Pages

    FY2021 2Nd Quarter Capital Program Project Pages

    (CIP0002) Bus Onboard Location Equipment and Software Program FY2021 Q2 Initiative Type Program Mode Bus Invest. Program Bus Maintenance/Overhaul Location Systemwide Invest. Category Bus and Paratransit Investments Description This program supports the design and replacement of automat- ic vehicle location (AVL) and related equipment on buses. This equipment is vital to bus operations, bus location tracking Global Positioning System (GPS) and bus diagnostics. Strategic Objectives Supported Outcome FY2021 is the second year of the 5-year replacement program which will conclude in FY2024. FY2021 in- cludes design, acceptance and installation on the first group of buses. This project supports Metro’s state of good repair and fleet reliability metrics. Safety Cust. Sat. Reliability Ridership Op. Impact FY2021 Funding ($M) FY21 Current FY21 Forecast YTD % Budget Ex- Budget pended $2.0 $1.8 - $1.8 45% Active Procurement & Awarded Contracts Funding Sources YTD Expended Company Vendor Activity Formula $- Clever Devices Ltd. Equipment/Ma- PRIIA $- terials Other $- Federal Subtotal $- System Performance $- Reimbursable/Debt/Other $- DC Dedicated Funding $0.4 MD Dedicated Funding $0.4 Overall Status VA Non-Restricted Dedicated Funding $0.3 VA Restricted Dedicated Funding $0.1 Programs are ongoing Local Subtotal $1.3 Development & Evaluation Net Accruals $(0.4) Implementation & Construction TOTAL $0.9 Operations Activation Note: all figures are preliminary and unaudited (CIP0004) Bus Maintenance Equipment Replacement Program FY2021 Q2 Initiative Type Program Mode Bus Invest. Program Bus Maintenance/Overhaul Location Systemwide Invest. Category Bus and Paratransit Investments Description This program replaces existing equipment past useful life and provides new equipment to support the repair and maintenance of the bus and non-revenue fleets.
  • Park & Ride Commuter Lots

    Park & Ride Commuter Lots

    Park &RideCommuterLots Serving I–270 and US 29 Corridors in Montgomery County A Handy Guide to Free Parking and An Easier Commute to Work Effective July 2002 Tired of fighting the traffic ? Want to make your commute to work easier and less stressful? Spending too much money parking your car downtown? Need a place to meet your carpool or vanpool? Free Park & Ride Commuter Lots may be the answer to your quest. Commuters may park their vehicles in most of Montgomery County’s Park & Ride Lots at no cost. There are a few lots, however, that may require a parking permit and fee. You can meet your carpools or vanpools, or take public transit from these lots. Park & Ride...Make it easier for yourself. Use this brochure as a guide to Park & Ride Commuter Lots along the I-270 and U.S. 29 Corridors, including selected Lots in neighbor- ing jurisdictions. For more information on bus routes serving these lots, contact the following service providers. Montgomery County Commuter Services Free personalized assistance to help commuters join a carpool or vanpool. Promotes alternative trans- portation benefits for employees. The Commuter Express Store, located at 8401 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, sells fare media, such as Metrobus/rail passes, tickets, and tokens, and Ride On bus passes and tickets. Pick up timetables and transportation information (301) 770-POOL (7665) www.rideonbus.com (click on Commuter Services) Ride On Bus (routes, schedules, fares) (240) 777-7433 (touchtone) (240) 777-5871 (rotary) (240) 777-5869 (TTY/TDD) www.rideonbus.com (passes and tokens sold online) Prince George’s County THE BUS (301) 324-BUSS (routes & schedules) 1-800-735-2258 (TDD) Department of Public Works and Transportation (301) 925-5656–Office of Transportation www.goprincegeorgescounty.com CONNECT-A-RIDE A fixed route community–based bus service in the mid–Baltimore/Washington suburban area.
  • Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment: Work Session No

    Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment: Work Session No

    ONTGOMERY OUNTY LANNING EPARTMENT M C P D THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. Date: 09/10/2020 Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment: Work Session No. 4: Mobility Analysis Nkosi Yearwood, Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-1332 Patrick Reed, Planner Coordinator, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-4538 Jessica McVary, Master Plan Supervisor, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-4723 Carrie Sanders, Chief, Mid-County Planning Division [email protected], (301) 495-4653 Completed: 09/04/2020 SUMMARY The fourth Shady Grove Sector Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment work session will focus on: 1. Key Plan area transportation comments and recommendations; 2. Comments received from the public, stakeholders and the Planning Board in previous work sessions; and 3. Suggested changes for the Planning Board’s consideration. On December 5, 2019, staff presented the Plan’s key preliminary transportation recommendations to the Planning Board. The Board largely supported the preliminary recommendations, including enhancements to Crabbs Branch Way, general Vision Zero safety recommendations, and the removal of the MD 355 and Gude Drive interchange from the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways. During the Board’s review of the preliminary recommendations in December 2019, the Planning Board posed transportation-related questions regarding the
  • Wilgus, Sketch Plan No. 320190070

    Wilgus, Sketch Plan No. 320190070

    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. Date: 07/25/2019 Wilgus, Sketch Plan No. 320190070 Tamika Graham, Senior Planner, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301.495.4551 Patrick Butler, Supervisor, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301.495.4561 Carrie Sanders, Chief, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301.495.4653 Completed: 7/15/2019 Description Proposed mixed-use development with up to 1,274,498 square feet of total development, with up to 1,025,789 square feet of multi-family and townhouse residential uses and up to 248,709 square feet of commercial uses, with associated public benefits to support incentive density. Location: Montrose Road to the north, Towne Road to the east, Montrose Parkway to the south, and East Jefferson Street to the west. Mast er Plan: 2018 White Flint 2 Sector Plan. Zone: CR-2.0, C-1.0, R-1.5, H-200; CR-2.0, C-0.25, R-1.75, H-75; and CRN-0.75, C-0.0, R-0.75, H-50. Size: 16.64-acre tract. Applicant: Wilgus-Montrose Associates LLC. Application Acceptance: March 25, 2019. Review Basis: Chapter 59, Sketch Plan. Summary ▪ Staff recommends approval with conditions. ▪ Proposal to transform the Property from a gas station surrounded by wooded areas, into an infill development project with several housing types, including 15% moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs), retail, and open spaces. ▪ Proposal includes the previously approved office uses on a portion of the Property, known as Wilgus East (Parcel N174 and Parcel N231), to be redeveloped as a mixed-use development.
  • Maryland State Rail Plan

    Maryland State Rail Plan

    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Pete K. Rahn, Secretary of Transportation April 2015 www.camsys.com Maryland Statewide Rail Plan prepared for Maryland Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814 date April 2015 Maryland Statewide Rail Plan Table of Contents 1.0 About the Plan ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Plan Development ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Plan Organization ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Purpose of the Rail Plan ............................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Federal Compliance .................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Maryland’s Rail History .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Amtrak and Conrail ................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 MARC ........................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Short Lines ................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Mission, Vision, and Goals ..............................................................................