Howard Research and Development Corporation Downtown Columbia Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Feasibility Study: Part 2 - Downtown Columbia to Oakland Mills Multimodal Connection (Part of CEPPA #3) •^*. Note: This is an initial draft report presented to Howard County by the Howard Hughes Corporation. The County staff is in the October 2011 process of reviewing this document and has not yet accepted it. Any questions or concerns regarding this draft report should be directed to the Howard Hughes Corporation. N NELSON NYGAARD Table off Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Purpose for a Route 29 Connection Study ......,.............................,.......,.................,...................,..2 Chapter 2. Findings......................................................................................................................................^^ Chapters. Recommendations .....................,....,..,..........................,.......>.......................................,........,......., 10 Appendix A. Transit Service Impacts.................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix B. Evaluation of Non-hflotorized Access ...................................................,................,,......................24 Appendix C. Trip-MakEng Impact....................................................,,...............................................,.........^ Appendix D. Preliminary Engineering Assessment...........................................................................,..............^? Appendix E. URBEMISDetails.................................................................................................................^ Page II* NelsonVNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures Figure 1 Potentiai Re-AiEgnments of Howard Transit Service.,.......„.,..„...,.,.,..„.,...................„.........„...„..„..„. 5 Figure 2 Needed Circuiation improvements in Oakland Mills and Downtown Columbia.................................... 7 Figures Summary of Trip impacts,.......................„.„.„„...„...„...„„.„„........„.„.....,.„„.„..,...........„.„..„.„„..„„ 8 Figure 4 Existing Transit Routing Near Oakland Milisand Proposed Routing over a Transit Bridge .............. 14 Figure 5 Distance and Travel Time Change Due to Rerouting.....„..,..„..„.,..,...„..„.-.......„.„...........„„...„„.„.. 16 Figure 6 Average Change En Travel Time per Resident Served per Day at Full Build-Out of Downtown Columbia in 2045......,..,,........,..............,...,..,....,......................,.................,..........,.........,........^ Figure? Impacts on Number of Transit Trips by Route..„„...„.......-.....„..,..,......-......-.......................„........... 20 Figure 8 Examples of Trail Slope and Chain Link on Bridge ,.„.,.,............„....„....„„.„......„....„..„.„.....„..„„.„ 25 Figure9 Unmet Desire Lines.,.........-...........-...............................................................„.„„..„„..„.„.,.„.......„.„ 26 Figure 10 Mid-block crossing, White Acre Road................................................................................................. 26 Figure 11 Stevens Forest Road Bike Lane...........................„„.„..„...„„„....,..........„„......„.„...„....,.„„......„....,27 Figure 12 Oakland Mills Multi-Modal Network.................................................................................................... 28 Figure 13 Public Transit Stop - Oakland Mills..................................................................................................... 29 Figure 14 Circuiation Improvements Reference Map,....................„......,.,.....................„.......„....„.„....„.„.....30 Figure 15 Location 1.,.,..,..,,..,.........................,....,....,..,....,...,,.......,..........,,..,....,....,.,,..,...„............................. 31 Figure 16 Location 2.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 17 Location 3......................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 18 Location 4........................................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 19 Location 5........................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 20 AASHTO Muiti-Use Path Guidelines............................................................................................... 33 Figure 21 Location 6.......................................................................................................................................,34 Figure 22 Location 7........................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 23 Location 9........................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 24 Location 10.,....................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 25 Location 11........................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 26 Location 12..................................................................................................................... Figure 27 Location 13..........................................................................................................................„.„„..„... 36 Figure 28 Location 15..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 29 Location 18..............,.............................................,.,.,.,..,..,..,............,.......,..,............^ Figure 30 Full Build-Out Land Use Program....................................................................................................... 41 Figure 31 PotentEai Trip Reductions „...„......„.„.„.„„..,..,...„.„.„......„..„.„.,..........„...„...........„...„.„.„...„.....„„ 42 Figure 32 ITE Trip Generation Estimate..............................„..„......„.....„.......„.................„„...„„„.„„............. 43 Figure 33 AdjustmentstoTripGeneratEon Estimates....„.....„.,.„...„„„.„...„.............„.„...„.............„.....„...„.,., 45 Figure 34 Trip Change Summary............................................................................................................... 46 Figure 35 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Transitway..,.„......„.....,.„.„....,..........„.,.....„.„......................„..„........53 Figure 36 Summary of Trip Reduction Credits....,..........„...„.„...................„„„„........„„„..„„..„.......„„.„„„„...55 Figure 37 Downtown CoiumbEa Land Use Program ..„„...„„„..„.„„........„„.....„.„..„.„.„„„„..„„.„....„„....,.....,. 57 Figure 38 Oakland Mills Land Use Program....................................................................................................... 57 Figure 39 Standard Trip Generation Estimates........................„„.„...............„..........„.....„...................„.....„.,. 58 Figure 40 Data Requirements and Suggested Sources ..,.....,............„..„.„..„.„......„..„...„„......„„.„...„..„.„.... 61 Figure 41 Project Specific Data Inputs ...,..................„........„.„.„...„.„„.„.„......„....„...„..„..„„..„..„...„,.„.„...... 62 Figure 42 Trip Reduction Measures..............„..................„„„..........„...................„.„.„„.........„.,„„„...„.„.„..,63 Page III* NeIson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 43 Summary of URBEMiS Results.........................................................................................................64 Figure 44 Residential Density Vs. Vehide Trave!...„„.....„.„..,.,..„........................................„...,„..,.,...,.......64 Figure 45 ResidentEalDensity impact on Trip Rates....„........„.,.................„........„......„..,..,.„.........„................65 Figure 46 Transit impact on Trip Generation..........................„„„........„.„.„.„...................„.....„......................67 Figure 47 TDM Program Reductions,.....,.......,„......„.......„„„.......„..„.„..........„„.„„.........„...,.....,....;„„..„.......70 Page Iv NelsonVNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. The following studies were conducted on behalf of the Howard Research and Development Corporation as part of commitments to complete Community Enhancements, Programs, and Public Amenities (CEPPAs)as required by Howard County Council Bill No. 58-2009. Neison\Nygaard Consulting Associates of San Francisco, California was commissioned to conduct the transit-related study of a connection over Route 29 as required by CEPPA 5. Prior to submission of the first final development plan, a study must be completed to satisfy CEPPA number 3. which states: "GGP [General Growth Properties] will commission at GGP's expense in consultation with Howard County a study evaluating a new Downtown Columbia Route 29 interchange between Route 175 and Broken Land Parkway and options for a connection over Route 29 connectincj Downtown Columbia to Oakland Mills, including potential bicycie, transit and multimodal improvements. The study will evaluate alternative alignments and geometry, capacity