DOCSLIB.ORG

MLS DEIS Appendix B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MLS DEIS Appendix B APPENDIX B ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT May 2020 ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................5 2.1 I-495 .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 I-270 .............................................................................................................................................. 7 3 PREVIOUS STUDIES/ALTERNATIVES PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED ....................................................9 3.1 Capital Beltway HOV Feasibility Study .......................................................................................... 9 3.2 Capital Beltway/Purple Line Study ................................................................................................ 9 3.3 I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study .................................................................................... 10 3.4 2004 Capital Beltway Study ........................................................................................................ 10 3.5 West Side Mobility Study ............................................................................................................ 12 3.6 I-270 Innovative Congestion Management ................................................................................ 14 4 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ................. 17 4.1 Overview of Alternatives Development and Screening Process ................................................. 17 4.2 Preliminary Range of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 19 4.3 Screening Criteria for Preliminary Range of Alternatives ........................................................... 28 4.4 Preliminary Range of Alternatives Screening .............................................................................. 30 4.5 Agency and Public Input on Alternatives .................................................................................... 58 4.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 61 5 ENGINEERING DETAILS OF SCREENED ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 62 5.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 62 5.2 Limits of Disturbance .................................................................................................................. 64 5.3 Interchanges and Managed Lanes Access................................................................................... 69 5.4 I-270 Mainline Changes............................................................................................................... 84 5.5 Structures .................................................................................................................................... 84 6 ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED STUDY ........................................................................ 86 6.1 Refined Screening Criteria for ARDS ........................................................................................... 86 6.2 Detailed Analysis of Screened Alternatives ................................................................................ 96 6.3 Rationale for Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study ............................................................ 119 May 2020 i ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT 6.4 Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration .................................................................. 131 6.5 Alternative 9M .......................................................................................................................... 137 6.6 Multi-Modal Considerations ..................................................................................................... 144 6.7 Build Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 145 7 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS AND RELOCATIONS ......................................................................... 146 7.1 No Build Alternative .................................................................................................................. 146 7.2 Build Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 146 8 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES .............................................................................................. 148 9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 149 LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1: Summary of Preliminary Range of Alternatives ......................................................................... 23 Table 4-2: Comparison of Alternatives Nomenclature Between the Preliminary Range of Alternatives and the Screened Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4-3: Recommended Screened Alternatives Summary Table ............................................................ 54 Table 5-1: Mainline Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 63 Table 5-2: Interchange Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 63 Table 5-3: Conditions Where Resources were Considered Impacted ........................................................ 66 Table 5-4: Proposed Interchange Modifications and Managed Lanes Access Locations ........................... 73 Table 6-1: Summary of System-Wide Delay Results from VISSIM Model ................................................. 104 Table 6-2: Summary of Corridor Travel Time Results from VISSIM Model ............................................... 105 Table 6-3: Summary of Density and Level of Service (LOS) Results from VISSIM Model ......................... 106 Table 6-4: Summary of Travel Time Index (TTI) Results for General Purpose (GP) Lanes from VISSIM Model .................................................................................................................................................................. 107 Table 6-5: Summary of Vehicle-Throughput Results from VISSIM Model ................................................ 108 Table 6-6: Summary of the Effects on the Local Roadway Network from MWCOG Model ..................... 109 Table 6-7: Summary of System-Wide Managed Lanes Traffic and Preliminary Capital Costs .................. 111 Table 6-8: Range of Cashflows at Financial Close for Alternative 9 (in millions) ...................................... 113 Table 6-9: Range of Cashflows at Financial Close for Alternative 8 (in millions) ...................................... 114 Table 6-10: Range of Cashflows at Financial Close for Alternative 10 (in millions) .................................. 114 Table 6-11: Range of Cashflows at Financial Close for Alternative 13B (in millions) ................................ 114 Table 6-12: Range of Cashflows at Financial Close for Alternative 13C (in millions) ................................ 115 Table 6-13: Range of Cashflows at Financial Close for Alternative 5 (in millions) .................................... 115 Table 6-14: Preliminary Effects Comparison of the Screened Alternatives (June 2019) .......................... 118 Table 6-15: Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study .............................................................................. 119 Table 6-16: Screened Alternatives Summary ............................................................................................ 130 Table 6-17: Preliminary Effects Comparison of the Screened Alternatives (June 2019 impacts) and the MD 200 Diversion Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 136 Table 6-18: Range of Cashflows at Financial Close for Alternative 9 Modified (in millions) .................... 142 Table 6-19: Summary of Effects Comparison of the Build Alternatives .................................................... 143 May 2020 ii ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT Table 6-20: Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study (Build Alternatives) .............................................. 145 Table 7-1: Right-of-Way Needs of the Build Alternatives ......................................................................... 147 Table 8-1: Preliminary Cost Estimates for Build Alternatives ................................................................... 148 LIST
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment
    MCPB Item #______ Date: 9/29/16 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 2016 TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Michael F. Riley, Director of Parks Mitra Pedoeem, Deputy Director, Administration Dr. John E. Hench, Ph.D., Chief, Park Planning and Stewardship Division (PPSD) FROM: Charles S. Kines, AICP, Planner Coordinator (PPSD) Brooke Farquhar, Supervisor (PPSD) SUBJECT: Worksession #3, Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment Recommended Planning Board Action Review, approve and adopt the plan amendment to be titled 2016 Countywide Park Trails Plan. (Attachment 1) Changes Made Since Public Hearing Draft Attached is the final draft of the plan amendment, including all Planning Board-requested changes from worksessions #1 and #2, as well as all appendices. Please focus your attention on the following pages and issues: 1. Page 34, added language to clarify the addition of the Northwest Branch Trail to the plan, in order to facilitate mountain biking access between US 29 (Colesville Rd) and Wheaton Regional Park. In addition, an errata sheet will be inserted in the Rachel Carson Trail Corridor Plan to reflect this change in policy. 2. Page 48, incorporating Planning Board-approved text from worksession #2, regarding policy for trail user types 3. Appendices 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 15. In addition, all maps now accurately reflect Planning Board direction. Trail Planning Work Program – Remainder of FY 17 Following the approval and adoption of this plan amendment, trail planning staff will perform the following tasks to implement the Plan and address other trail planning topics requested by the Planning Board: 1. Develop program of requirements for the top implementation priority for both natural and hard surface trails.
    [Show full text]
  • 5041 Nicholson Lane Rockville, Md 20852
    FOR SALE | RETAIL BUILDING WITH DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY 5041 NICHOLSON LANE ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 Charles Mann Ken Traenkle 1821 Michael Faraday Drive, Suite 208 703.435.4007 x116 703.435.4007 x102 Reston, VA 20190 [email protected] [email protected] 703.435.4007 veritycommercial.com FOR SALE | RETAIL BUILDING WITH DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY 5041 NICHOLSON LANE | ROCKVILLE, MD TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER COVER PAGE 1 All materials and information received or derived from Verity Commercial its directors, officers, agents, TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 advisors, affiliates and/or any third party sources are provided without representation or warranty as to PROPERTY INFORMATION 3 completeness , veracity, or accuracy, condition of the property, compliance or lack of compliance with EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 applicable governmental requirements, developability or suitability, financial performance of the property, projected financial performance of the property for any party’s intended use or any and all other PROPERTY & DEVELOPMENT 5 OVERVIEW matters. LOCATION INFORMATION 6 Neither Verity Commercial its directors, officers, agents, advisors, or affiliates makes any representation or LOCATION MAP 7 warranty, express or implied, as to accuracy or completeness of the any materials or information AERIAL MAP 8 provided, derived, or received. Materials and information from any source, whether written or verbal, that DEMOGRAPHICS 9 may be furnished for review are not a substitute for a party’s active conduct of its own due diligence to DEMOGRAPHICS MAP & REPORT 10 determine these and other matters of significance to such party. Verity Commercial will not investigate or WITHIN 3 MILE DEMOGRAPHICS 11 verify any such matters or conduct due diligence for a party unless otherwise agreed in writing.
    [Show full text]
  • BETHESDA BRAC IMPROVEMENTS BETHESDA TROLLEY TRAIL CONNECTIONS and PASSENGER DROP-OFF LOOP a $1,100,000 Grant Proposal to the Of
    BETHESDA BRAC IMPROVEMENTS BETHESDA TROLLEY TRAIL CONNECTIONS AND PASSENGER DROP-OFF LOOP A $1,100,000 Grant Proposal to the Office of Economic Adjustment, U.S. Department of Defense Submitted by the Maryland State Highway Administration, Maryland, Department of Transportation October 7, 2011 RE: Federal Register Document 2011-184000: Volume 70, Number 140, July 21, 2011 Notice of Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) for construction of Transportation Infrastructure Improvements Associated with medical facilities related to recommendations of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. A. POINT OF CONTACT : Barb Solberg, Division Chief Highway Design Division Office of Highway Development State Highway Administration 707 North Calvert St. Baltimore MD, 21202 410-545-8830 [email protected] B. EXISTING OR PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE : • Relocation of Walter Reed The Bethesda Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) improvement projects are intended to mitigate gridlock, improve pedestrian access and safety, and support multi-modal transportation systems around the new federally-mandated Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. One of the most noteworthy moves mandated by the 2005 BRAC law was the closure of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in Washington, D.C., with the relocation of most of its functions and personnel to the campus of the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) in Bethesda, Montgomery County, Maryland, establishing the joint service Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC). The intent of consolidating these two premier institutions was to establish the modern “crown jewel” of military medical care and research combining the best of Army, Navy and Air Force practices that could serve the needs of the American military facing new kinds of catastrophic injuries in the era following September 11, 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Trust Maryland Outdoor Spaces - Legislator Favorites 1/21/21
    Chesapeake Bay Trust Maryland Outdoor Spaces - Legislator Favorites 1/21/21 On January 21, 2021, more than 60 legislators attended the Chesapeake Bay Trust’s virtual legislative reception. They were invited to share some of their favorite outdoor spots in their districts and throughout Maryland. Their contributions were so wonderful that we were asked to compile them and send them to attendees. As Senate President Bill Ferguson said, “Our parks are those spaces that bring Marylanders together to get that fundamental belief in love of family, of friends, of each other.” “Our 6,400 parks and green spaces are a great way to boost your mental and overall health” added House Speaker Adrienne Jones.” Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary Jeanne Haddaway-Riccio reminded us all how diverse Maryland is, and we see this in the list of favorite spots below. Below is YOUR list! The sites on the list below are not exhaustive, but were those suggested by legislators and guests present that evening as places they visit to get outdoors and feel refreshed and recharged. The entries include a word or two about the site, at times thoughts from your colleagues, the name of the legislator suggesting the site, and a website for more information. You can visit by yourself or call up your colleagues and ask for a personal tour! Anne Arundel County B&A Trail, great for walking, biking, rollerblading, and more, stretches from Boulters Way in Annapolis to Dorsey Road in Glen Burnie, Maryland. The Earleigh Heights Ranger Station (ca. 1889) is located in Severna Park with parking available on the premises.
    [Show full text]
  • Project List
    Fiscal Year 2014 Maryland Bikeways Program Project List Category Grantee Project Description Extending Northeast Trail to connect Ebenezer Baltimore County Indian Rock Trail Road with Silver Hall Road. Construction of Phase III of Chestertown Rail Town of Chestertown Chestertown Rail Trail Phase III Trail. Construction of shared use path and other City of Frederick Carroll Creek (TEP overrun) improvements as part of the Carroll Creek Park. Construction of WB&A Spur Trail connecting M-NCPPC-PG WB&A Spur Trail the WB&A Trail with Bowie State University Construction and the Bowie MARC station. Construction of a shared use path along Montgomery County Needwood Road Needwood Road connecting to the ICC Shared Use Path. Construction of Section 3 of the shared use Montgomery County Clopper Road Shared Use Path Section 3 path along Clopper Road (MD 117) from Hopkins Road to Kingsview Road. Construction of Bethesda Trolley Trail Montgomery County Bethesda Trolley Trail Wayside II Wayside area and installation of trail lighting. Design of bikeway as part of a green and Town of Capitol Heights Green and Complete Street complete street linking to Capitol Heights Metro station. Design Town of Chesapeake City Bohemia Trail Design 30% design for the Bohemia Trail Design and feasibility study of shared-use path City of Laurel Van Dusen Road along Van Dusen Road. Signed bike routes, bike lanes, and sharrows to Baltimore County Towson Spokes link to the Towson Bike Beltway. Signed bike routes, bike lanes, and sharrows in Baltimore County Southwest Southwest area of county. Bike route signage and bike lanes connecting to Baltimore County Dundalk Ave Baltimore City bike network.
    [Show full text]
  • 17-1102 - Corrected Introduced: May 22,2014 Adopted: May 22,2014
    #6-1 - County Government CIP and Capital Budget Clerk's Note: On June 17,2014, the Council approved several changes to correct inconsistencies in the attachments. These revisions do not change the costs, scopes, or schedules of these projects. Resolution No: 17-1102 - Corrected Introduced: May 22,2014 Adopted: May 22,2014 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND By: County Council SUBJECT: Approval of the FY 2015-2020 Capital Improvements Program, and Approval of and Appropriation for the FY 2015 Capital Budget of the Montgomery County Government Background 1. Section 302 of the County Charter requires the County Executive to send to the County Council by January 15 in each even-numbered calendar year a 6-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP), which the Executive did on January 15, 2014 for the 6-year period FY 2015-2020. Section 302 requires the affirmative vote of at least 5 Council members to approve or modifY the Executive's Recommended CIP. After the Council approves a CIP, Section 302 permits the Council to amend it at any time with the affirmative vote ofat least 6 Councilmembers. 2. Section 303 of the Charter requires the Executive to send to the Council by January 15 in each year a recommended Capital Budget, which the Executive did on January 15,2014 for FY 2015. 3. As required by Section 304 of the Charter, the Council held public hearings on the Capital Budget for FY 2015 and on the Recommended CIP for FY 2015-2020 on February 5 and 6, 2014. Action The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following resolution: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Pita1 Crescent Trail
    pita1 Crescent Trail Fall 1 997 Vol. X No. I Coalition Hosts "Open The Tunnel" Rally If the sentiments of over 100 enthusiastic trail users showing-- up bright - and early on a rain- threatening Saturday morning could be reduced to a single phrase; it might be "Ifyou open it, we will come!" In the nine years since Montgomery County purchased the right-of-way for the old CSX Railroad right-of-way, the Wisconsin Avenue tunnel running beneath the Air Rights and Apex Buildings in downtown Bethesda has remained an unopened link in what has since become the Capital Crescent Trail. That tide may have turned on September 20 when a determined group of Coalition members, area residents, and other Trail supporters - walkers, b?<:rs and skaters, many with their kids in tow - gathered at the Reed Street entrance of the tunnel to protest the County Council's refusal to fund tunnel restoration. The rally was organized by the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail (CCCT)2and by the Greater Bethesda/ she and many other lrailsupporters collecred in apetition drive to open the Wisconsin Avenue Chevy Chase Coalition and by a citizen group led tunnel. Standing with Duncan are Council members Isiah Leggett and Betty Ann Krahnke. by Pam Browning. Following opening remarks from CCCT Chairman John Dugger and County political leaders, Chevy Chase resident Pam Browning, an avid petitioner for the tunnel's opening, presented County Executive Douglas M. Duncan with 8,000 signatures she and many other trail supporters have collected in favor of the tunnel. The petition drive began last May after the County Council voted 6 - 3 against funding to restore and open the tunnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle Statement Montgomery County Sierra Club
    BICYCLE STATEMENT MONTGOMERY COUNTY SIERRA CLUB INTRODUCTION More people in Montgomery County are choosing to get around by bike, whether to save money on gas, for exercise, or because it’s fun. Bicycling isn’t just a great form of recreation but a great transportation option as well: one that can help ease congestion, reduce pollution and improve public health. In the United States, half of all trips taken each day are less than five miles long, a comfortable distance for bicycling, yet more than 60% of all trips under a mile are made by car today. Why is that? In many parts of Montgomery County, bicycling is often difficult or dangerous. Many neighborhoods and destinations are difficult to reach on bike due to a lack of paved paths, changes in topography, or barriers such as streams, highways and busy surface streets, and active rail lines. In addition, sharing busy roads with fast-moving cars and trucks often intimidates potential bicycle users. With Capital Bikeshare coming to Montgomery County, we need to make bicycling accessible, convenient and safe for all age groups and skill levels. Better bicycling conditions will create a virtuous cycle of more biking and walking, in turn leading to less driving, cleaner air, an enhanced sense of community, and fitter citizens. In this document, we look at six principles that policymakers, community leaders, planners and transportation engineers should follow in order to encourage more bicycling in Montgomery County: MAKE A COMPLETE NETWORK: Bicycle lanes and paths should connect to each other and to major destinations like schools, transit stations and job centers, making them a reliable way to get around.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historic Context for the Archaeology of Industrial Labor in the State Of
    A Historic Context for the Archaeology of Industrial Labor in the State of Maryland Robert C. Chidester Masters of Applied Anthropology Program Department of Anthropology University of Maryland at College Park Submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust In Partial Fulfillment of a Maryland Heritage Internship Grant December 2003 Revised Version, March 2004 Abstract This report presents a historic context for industrial labor in the state of Maryland. Industrial labor is defined as the socially-governed activity of transforming nature for the purpose of the efficient processing and manufacture of commercial goods. Labor’s heritage as represented in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, the Maryland Archaeological Site Records, and selected secondary sources is surveyed following the geographical and chronological guidelines presented in the Maryland Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan (Weissman 1986). Types of industry and labor, class relations, the labor movement and the social and domestic lives of industrial laborers are all considered; additionally, industrialization in Maryland is linked to other important themes in the state’s history. An overview of the archaeology of industrial labor is given for each of Maryland’s 23 counties and Baltimore City, emphasizing important excavations. An analysis of the state of labor archaeology in Maryland is given, along with suggestions for important research themes that have been thus far unaddressed or poorly addressed by Maryland archaeologists. i Table of Contents Abstract.....................................................................................i
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Draft Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment
    MCPB Item #_______ Date: 1/21/16 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 14, 2015 TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Michael F. Riley, Director of Parks Mitra Pedoeem, Acting Deputy Director, Administration Dr. John E. Hench, Ph.D., Chief, Park Planning and Stewardship Division (PPSD) FROM: Charles S. Kines, Planner Coordinator (PPSD) Brooke Farquhar, Supervisor (PPSD) SUBJECT: Staff Draft Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment Recommended Action: Approve the Staff Draft as the Public Hearing Draft - see Attachment 1, and schedule the Public Hearing for March 3, 2016. Previous Planning Board Action Approved the Plan Objectives, Outreach Strategy and Schedule, October 6, 2011 o Background and Need for Amendment o Plan Objectives Approved the Preliminary Service Delivery Strategy, December 6, 2012 o Loops and Links Framework o Level of Service Analysis Need for Plan Amendment The Countywide Park Trails Plan (CWPTP) (M-NCPPC, 2008) established the vision for a robust network of natural and hard surface park trails and non-park bikeway connectors linking trails and regional recreational parks and facilities. It offered recommendations for new trails and trail improvements for eight trail planning corridors (Figure 1 - The 2008 CWPTP Trail Planning Corridors). Figure 1 - The 2008 CWPTP Trail Planning Corridors Although the CWPTP has guided park trail planning and alignment decisions for the past 18 years, resulting in many miles of new hard surface and natural surface trails, the Planning Board asked the Department of Parks to revisit the plan to address several objectives, as follows: Incorporate the latest thinking on long range park planning. Analysis and input from the Vision 2030 Strategic Plan for Parks and Recreation in Montgomery County, Maryland (2011) suggested rethinking assumptions about user types and service delivery with an emphasis on locating more multi-use trails near the highest densities of users.
    [Show full text]
  • Thanks to Montgomery Parks for Swift Action to Fix the Capital Crescent Trail Crossing at Little Falls Parkway Collected by the Washigton Area Bicyclist Association
    Thanks to Montgomery Parks for Swift Action to Fix the Capital Crescent Trail Crossing at Little Falls Parkway Collected by the Washigton Area Bicyclist Association Michael Riley, Director of Parks, Montgomery Parks Casey Anderson, Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board Thank you for taking fast and decisive action to make the Capital Crescent Trail at Little Falls Parkway safe for everyone. You and your staff deserve enormous credit for your quick work to prevent future crashes at this intersection with this road diet and speed reduction. Montgomery County Resident Signatures = 256 Other Washington Area Signatures (VA, DC, MD) = 35 Total = 291 *In addition to their signature, some signers included recommendations to study similar treatments at other intersections in the county. While many are not under the Parks Department or Planning Board's jurisdiction, they are included unamended in case it is helpful in future analysis. Montgomery County Signatures # First Name Last Name City State Comments / other intersections to consiDer for low-cost changes like these 1 Carol Linden Bethesda MD 2 Mollyann March Bethesda MD Metropolitan branch crossing at Connecticut avenue. Thank you for making this intersection safer. My husband and I use it quite frequently and I was always worried that no matter what we did we would not be visible to the second lane of traffic. I am so sorry 3 Linda Blackman Bethesda MD that this older gentleman on his usual fun and healthy ride met with such a tragic end. 4 Mark Flugge Bethesda MD 5 Jim Kohlenberger Bethesda MD 6 Ranjit Teja Bethesda MD 7 David Sokolower Bethesda MD 8 Sophia Molina Bethesda MD 9 robin truitt Bethesda MD 10 Donald Cuming Bethesda MD 11 Richard Fisher Bethesda MD 12 Murray Sacks Bethesda MD 13 Geane Schubert Bethesda MD 14 Christopher Gilson Bethesda MD 15 Jan Bove Bethesda MD Very dangerous where the Cabin John Trail crosses Tuckerman.
    [Show full text]
  • • 240-314-5000
    Bikeway Master Plan APRIL 2017 CITY OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND www.rockvillemd.gov • 240-314-5000 Bikeway Master Plan 2017 City of Rockville, Maryland Adopted by the Mayor & Council, April 3, 2017 CITY OF ROCKVILLE BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor and Council Bridget Donnell Newton, Mayor Beryl L. Feinberg Julie Palakovich Carr Virginia D. Onley Mark Pierzchala City of Rockville Staff Craig Simoneau, Director of Public Works Emad Elshafei, Chief of Traffic and Transportation Oleg Kotov, Senior Transportation Planner David Levy, Chief of Long Range Planning and Redevelopment Ann Wallas, Principal Planner Andrew Gunning, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Development Services Former Staff Kevin Belanger, Senior Transportation Planner Matthew Folden, Transportation Planner Katie Mencarini, Senior Transportation Planner Betsy Thompson, Superintendent of Recreation Rebecca Torma, Senior Transportation Planner This Plan was prepared by the City of Rockville Department of Public Works, Traffic and Transportation Division. Internal assistance was provided by the Department of Community Planning and Development Services, Department of Recreation and Parks, and the Police Department. The Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Traffic and Transportation Commission provided input throughout the process. City of Rockville – Bikeway Master Plan 2017 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS City of Rockville Bikeway Master Plan Update Acknowledgements .............................................................. 2 Abbreviations Key……………………………………………………………………………………………………6
    [Show full text]