DOCSLIB.ORG

Service Planning and Integration Report Montgomery County Department of Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Service Planning and Integration Report Montgomery County Department of Transportation Service Planning and Integration Report Montgomery County Department of Transportation Executive Summary Montgomery County has been a leader in developing transit alternatives that provide enhanced mobility and reduce reliance on single occupant vehicles for transportation within the County and to neighboring areas. The County operates an expansive local bus system, known as Ride On that is an important component of a balanced transportation system. In addition, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) operates numerous Metrobus routes and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) operates express commuter routes along several corridors in the County. These bus services complement a rail transit system that consists of two branches of the Metrorail Red Line, and MARC Commuter Rail Service. New transit services envisioned for the County in the short term, include the Corridor Cities Transitway and the Purple Line, projects that are currently in advanced stages of planning and design by the Maryland Transit Administration This report presents a brief overview of the proposed RTS including service criteria guidelines, and detailed service plan concepts for each corridor. The service plan concepts present a corridor description which reviews the existing state of the corridor including: sources of activity, demographics, and land use. The corridor specific concepts review the planned land use so that changes in the characteristics of the corridor over time can be understood. The corridor specific sections review the existing transportation network in the corridor, and identify the transit service operations today. The existing routes are categorized as primary and secondary with respect to the RTS operations. Primary service operates along the same roadway as the RTS, and secondary service intersects or connects points along the corridor with other transit service. The existing transit service review also identifies key stops and current boardings and alightings for those stops. The service concept plans also provide preliminary direction on the integration of the local service with the RTS service. The plans review potential fleet requirements in terms of number of vehicles required to meet the service levels. The plan also provides an operational effort estimate based on the revenue hours and required fleet. Full implementation of the RTS concept is possible, and may even be desirable. If implementation needs to occur in phases, several logical configurations for each corridor are developed. These phasing plans are a potential path forward for increasing service levels as the system is developing; however, the service could be deployed in its full configuration at any time. The goal of the implementation strategy is not to prescribe a serial process that needs to be done in order to have a successful RTS or a substitute for the RTS. It simply identifies different service levels that can be established serially or independently as the RTS planning and implementation continues and evolves. Citizen input is an important part of any transportation plan. The work done as part of this study received input and guidance from a study working group chaired by Dan Wilhelm, and a Steering Committee. The RTS Steering Committee included: Arthur Holmes, Jr., Chair, Montgomery County Department of Transportation, Director Shyam Kannan, WMATA, Managing Director of Planning Leif Dormsjo, Maryland Department of Transportation, Acting Deputy Secretary Mark Winston, County Executive’s Transit Task Force David Hauck, County Executive’s Transit Task Force Dan Wilhelm, County Executive’s Transit Task Force Casey Anderson, Maryland-National Capital Parks & Planning Commission, Planning Board Member Steve Silverman, Montgomery County Department of Economic Development Joe Beach, Montgomery County Deparment of Finance Marc Hansen, Montgomery County Office of the County Attorney Jennifer Hughes, Montgomery County Office of Management & Budget David Dise, Montgomery County Department of General Services Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 Study Process .............................................................................................................................. 1-2 Service Integration Concept Overview .................................................................................. 1-5 RTS SERVICE CRITERIA GUIDELINES ............................................................................. 2-1 Service Guidelines for RTS...................................................................................................... 2-3 Physical Criteria for RTS .......................................................................................................... 2-7 RANDOLPH ROAD CORRIDOR SERVICE PLAN ........................................................... 3-1 General Corridor Overview ..................................................................................................... 3-1 Existing Sources of Activity ........................................................................................ 3-2 Existing Demographics ................................................................................................ 3-3 Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Planned Land Use Changes ........................................................................................ 3-4 Transportation Network ............................................................................................ 3-11 RTS Concept ............................................................................................................................. 3-15 Summary of CTCFMP Service .................................................................................. 3-15 Recommended Service Plan ...................................................................................... 3-15 Corridor Outcome and Summary .......................................................................................... 3-20 MD 355 CORRIDOR SERVICE PLAN .................................................................................. 4-1 General Corridor Overview ..................................................................................................... 4-1 Existing Sources of Activity ........................................................................................ 4-2 Existing Demographics ................................................................................................ 4-3 Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-3 Planned Land Use Changes ........................................................................................ 4-4 Transportation Network ............................................................................................ 4-12 RTS Concept ............................................................................................................................. 4-18 Summary of CTCFMP Service .................................................................................. 4-18 Recommended Service Plan ...................................................................................... 4-18 Corridor Outcome and Summary .......................................................................................... 4-25 i Table of Contents GEORGIA AVENUE CORRIDOR SERVICE PLAN .......................................................... 5-1 General Corridor Overview ..................................................................................................... 5-1 Existing Sources of Activity ........................................................................................ 5-2 Existing Demographics ................................................................................................ 5-2 Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................... 5-3 Planned Land Use Changes ........................................................................................ 5-4 Transportation Network ............................................................................................ 5-12 RTS Concept ............................................................................................................................. 5-16 Summary of CTCFMP Service .................................................................................. 5-16 Recommended Service Plan ...................................................................................... 5-16 Corridor Outcome and Summary .......................................................................................... 5-21 VEIRS MILL CORRIDOR SERVICE PLAN ......................................................................... 6-1 General Corridor Overview ..................................................................................................... 6-1 Existing Sources of Activity ........................................................................................ 6-2 Existing Demographics ................................................................................................ 6-3 Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................... 6-3 Planned Land Use Changes .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Easements to District of Columbia for Metropolitan Branch Trail
    Joint Development and Real Estate Committee Item III-A November 18, 2010 Easements to District of Columbia for Metropolitan Branch Trail Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary MEAD Number: Resolution: Action Information 100906 Yes No TITLE: Easements to DC for Metropolitan Branch Trail PURPOSE: Board approval to negotiate and execute an Easement Agreement with the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (District) for construction, operation and maintenance of portions of the Metropolitan Branch Trail (MBT) on Metro property near the Brookland-CUA, Fort Totten and Takoma Metrorail stations. DESCRIPTION: The District is constructing the MBT, a shared-use walk and bicycle path, along an eight-mile section of rail right-of-way from Union Station, Washington, DC to Silver Spring, Maryland. When completed, the MBT will be an important transportation route providing direct access to seven Metro Red Line stations and one Green Line station, also connecting to the Washington area`s regional trails at the Capital Crescent Trail and the East Coast Greenway. Based on counts on similar regional trails, the District expects more than 1 million users per year. Surface easements for the MBT on three Metro properties have previously been approved by the Board and the remaining three parcels are submitted for approval in this action. The District is currently in the design stage for these sections of the trail but to comply with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) grant requirements, the real estate must be acquired and agreements entered into, prior to allocation of FHWA funding. Easements are required on the following properties: Brookland-CUA (10,036 square feet); Fort Totten (65,154 square feet); and Takoma (10,683 square feet).
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Glen Apartments Montgomery County, Maryland August 14, 2020
    Forest Glen Apartments Montgomery County, Maryland August 14, 2020 Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for: Montgomery Housing Partnership, Inc. Mr. Donald R. Hague 12200 Tech Road, Suite 250 Silver Spring, MD 20904 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................... 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 3 1 Site Location Map ........................................................................................................ 6 1A Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 7 2 Existing Lane Use ......................................................................................................... 8 3A Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 9 3B Updated Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 10 3C Existing Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes .................................................................... 11 4 Existing Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities ..................................................... 12 4A Results of Pedestrian Crossing Timing Analysis ......................................................... 13 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 14 5 Trip Generation for Subject Site
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    WHITE FLINT METRORAIL STATION NORTH ENTRANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report Montgomery County, Maryland November 2019 September 8, 2017 [This page intentionally left blank] White Flint Metrorail Station North Entrance Feasibility Study Final Report November 2019 Lead Agency Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Planning 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Shyam Kannan, Managing Director of Planning Robin McElhenny, Program Manager of Station Planning Sara Benson, Project Manager [This page intentionally left blank] White Flint Metrorail Station North Entrance Feasibility Study Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Overview ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study and Design Process ................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Report Organization ......................................................................................................... 3 2. Station Profile .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Highest and Best Use Analysis Redevelopment Site Located at 5801 and 5809 Annapolis Road Cheverly, MD
    Highest and Best Use Analysis Redevelopment site located at 5801 and 5809 Annapolis Road Cheverly, MD Prince Georges County Redevelopment Authority | February 2018 www.greendooradvisors.com Executive Summary Green Door Advisors (GDA) was retained by Prince George’s County Redevelopment Authority (Redevelopment Authority) to conduct a highest and best use market analysis for a proposed development at 5801 and 5809 Annapolis Road within the town limits of Cheverly, MD. The Redevelopment Authority previously issued an RFP for development of this site, and it was planned for the development of 244 luxury two-bedroom condominium units priced from $300,000 to $350,000, but the selected developer was unable to execute the development agreement. In 2013, GDA completed a residential market and financial analysis to help determine whether the original disposition agreement was viable given the residential market, it was determined that the original program was not financially feasible given market conditions. Now that the Redevelopment Authority is preparing to issue a new solicitation for redevelopment of the subject property, GDA has completed a follow-up study to determine the highest and best use for the site based upon current market conditions. This study examines the market opportunity for multiple potential product types including hotel, rental and for-sale housing, office, and retail development. The following table presents a summary of the market opportunity for each of the product types: Product Type Level of Opportunity Summary Hotel Strong • Opportunity for 95-115-room Limited Service Hotel by 2020/2021. • Subject site is established hotel location. Condominiums Low • No condominiums actively selling in the market area.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • South Shore Park Comprehensive Plan for Strategic Place Activation Report Prepared As a Collaboration Between A.W
    South Shore Park Comprehensive Plan For Strategic Place Activation Report prepared as a collaboration between A.W. Perry, Place Strategists and Vanz Consulting. The material produced herein has been compiled at the exclusive request of A.W. Perry as a framework for the activation of their real estate holdings in Hingham & Rockland. Any conclusions presented reflect the research and opinions of A.W. Perry, Place Strategists and Vanz Consulting. These materials do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Towns of Hingham or Rockland. 15 November 2019 SOUTH SHORE PARK | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR STRATEGIC PLACE ACTIVATION 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR STRATEGIC PLACE ACTIVATION (CPSPA) FOR THE SOUTH SHORE PARK A Comprehensive Plan for Strategic Place Activation (CPSPA) for the South Shore Park The following report includes Step 1 | Deep Dive + Discovery, Step 2 | The Scientific (SSP), Hingham and Rockland, MA, is developed to meet the market demand and Research Plan, Steps 3 | Programmatic Plan, and Step 4 | Place Activation Guidelines. opportunities, providing the required spatial environments for a more seamless and Steps 1 and 2 focus on analyzing the existing site conditions, and the initial proposed resilient development phasing. conceptual master plan design. These steps aim to provide the analytical framework for Steps 3 and 4 that focus on proposing a programmatic development scheme for A bottom up approach is adopted to ensure the link between a large-scale the overall master plan and two sets of guidelines to be adopted by specialists along comprehensive framework and the human scale. The focus of the CPSPA is to the development process.
    [Show full text]
  • 1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233
    DOT/RSPA/DPB/-50/81/19 Planning and JANUA RY 1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233 Public Transportation Conference Proceedings Terminals Pre pa red for: Office of University Research Washingt on, D.C. 20590 U.S. Deportment of Transportation S.G.,t.I.u. LtdttARV Research and Special Programs Administration tiJ J :) 3 T,:'1 :I;:))'.''; f ... f\l?;)' NOTICE This document is disseminated tmder the sponsorship of the Department of Trans­ portation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Technical Report Documentation Page I , Roporr No. 2. GoYe Mt,\~f"'lt At~e!s1on No. J. Rec1p1enf s Cotalog No, DOT/RSPA/DPB-50/81/19 4 . T itle end Subr1de 5. Report D ote Planning and Development of Public Transportation January 1981 Terminals 6. Pe,fo,m,ng 0,9,on, zotion Code 8. Pe,fo,m1ng O,gon110t1on Report ,....,o . I 7. Atori sJ ester A. Hoel, Larry G . Richards UVA/529036/CEBl/107 /i:-nitnr~'l 9. P e ,lorm 1n9Or9on1 1ot 1on Nome ond Address 10. 'Nork Un,t No. (TRAISJ Department of Civil Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Science 11. Controct or G,ont No, Univer sity of Virginia, Thornton Hall DOT-OS-50233 Charlottesville, VA 22901 13. Type of Repo, r ond Period Cove red 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond A ddre ss Office of University Research Final Report Research and Special Programs Administration u . S . Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Final PMOC Safetrackreport (June2017)
    Monthly Report SafeTrack Program Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) June 2017 Progress Surge 15 – Building forms for new grout pads between Cheverly and Landover Stations October 25, 2017 PMOC Contract Number: DTFT60-14-D-00011 Task Order Number: 006, Project Number: DC-27-5272, Work Order No. 02 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. (215) 309-7926 [email protected] Length of Time PMOC Assigned to Project under current Contract: 3 years, 5 months Length of Time PMOC Lead Assigned to Project: 5 years, 6 months TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2 B. PROGRAM STATUS ....................................................................................................... 2 C. CORE ACCOUNTABILITY INFORMATION ....................................................................... 3 D. MAJOR PROBLEMS/ISSUES ........................................................................................... 4 MAIN REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 7 1. PROGRAM STATUS ........................................................................................................... 7 2. PROGRAM COST ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • White Flint Traffic Operations Analysis
    White Flint Traffic Operations Analysis White Flint Sector Plan Prepared for: Montgomery county Department of Public Works and Transportation Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. April 7, 2014 Previous Draft: March 24, 2014 WHITE FLINT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 HISTORY .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 4 2.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................ 4 2.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... 7 3.0 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 10 3.1 PLANNED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................. 10 3.2 BACKGROUND THROUGH TRIPS AND GROWTH ......................................................... 11 3.3 PIPELINE DEVELOPMENTS ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ADDRESS NAME PERMIT CAMPUS WAY SOUTH , Largo SAKURA
    ADDRESS NAME PERMIT CAMPUS WAY SOUTH , Largo SAKURA HIBACHI AND SUSHI EXPRESS 66465 LAUREL BOWIE RD, BOWIE DANCIA ORIENTAL MART LLC 66206 00 E UNIVERSITY BLVD, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UMCP - FOOTNOTES 55245 00 E UNIVERSITY BLVD, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UMCP - XFINITY CENTER EVENT LEVEL STANDS & PRES 50888 00 E UNIVERSITY BLVD, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UMCP - XFINITY CENTER NORTH CONCOURSE 50890 00 E UNIVERSITY BLVD, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UMCP - XFINITY CENTER SOUTH CONCOURSE 50891 00 E UNIVERSITY BLVD, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UMCP - XFINITY PLAZA LEVEL 50892 1 BETHESDA METRO CENTER, BETHESDA STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY 66506 1 BETHESDA METRO CTR, BETHESDA MORTON'S THE STEAK HOUSE 50528 1 BETHESDA METRO CTR, GADQ, BETHESDA HYATT REGENCY BETHESDA 53242 1 DISCOVERY PL, SILVER SPRING DELGADOS CAFÉ 64722 1 GRAND CORNER AVE, GAITHERSBURG CORNER BAKERY #120 52127 1 MEDIMMUNE WAY, GAITHERSBURG FLIK INTERNATIONAL CORP @ MEDIMMUNE 56734 1 MEDIMMUNE WAY, GAITHERSBURG MEDIMMUNE CAFE 52313 1 PRESIDENTIAL DR, COLLEGE PARK UMCP-UNIVERSITY HOUSE PRESIDENT'S EVENT CENTER 57082 1 SCHOOL DR, GAITHERSBURG FIELDS ROAD ELEMENTARY 54538 1 WISCONSIN CIR, CHEVY CHASE FROSTING-A-CUPCAKERY 55639 1 YOST PL, CAPITOL HEIGHTS CENTRAL AVENUE RESTAURANT & LIQUOR 50450 10 HIGH ST, BROOKEVILLE SALEM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 54491 10 UPPER ROCK CIRCLE, ROCKVILLE MOM ORGANIC MARKET 65996 10 WATKINS PARK DR, LARGO KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN #5296 50348 100 BOARDWALK PL, GAITHERSBURG COPPER CANYON GRILL 55889 100 EDISON PARK DR, GAITHERSBURG WELL BEING CAFÉ 64892 100 LEXINGTON DR, SILVER
    [Show full text]
  • New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment
    New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment May 2011 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment Final Report Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Department of Planning and Joint Development Office of Station Area Planning and Asset Management May 2011 Lead Agency: Consultant: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Parsons Brinckerhoff Authority Dudley Whitney, AICP, Project Manager Station Area Planning and Asset Management 1401 K Street NW Steven E. Goldin, Director Suite 701 Robin McElhenny, Manager of Station Area Planning Washington, DC 20005 John Magarelli, PE, Project Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Assessment of Existing Conditions ES-1 Future Bus Bay Requirements ES-3 Introduction 1 Existing Conditions 7 Station Characteristics 7 Rail Service 9 Bus Service 10 Assessment of Existing Conditions at New Carrollton Metro Station and Recommended Short-Term Improvements 15 Estimate of Future Bus Bay Requirements 25 Future Land-Use 26 Methodology 29 Bus Bay Requirements 30 Future Estimates 31 Appendix A: Calculation of Future Bus Bay Requirements 35 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment List of Figures Figure ES-1: Passenger Queues on the East Side ES-2 Figure 1: New Carrollton Metrorail Station Surrounding Area 1 Figure 2: Overview of the New Carrollton Bus Bays 7 Figure 3: Overview
    [Show full text]