Go FROM: Glenn Orlin, Deputy Council Administrator

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM #lob November 28, 2017 MEMORANDUM TO: County Council Go FROM: Glenn Orlin, Deputy Council Administrator November 22, 2017 SUBJECT: Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan-evaluation of public school and transportation adequacy at buildout; transportation elements; fiscal impact statement Councilmembers: Please bring your copy of the Final Draft Plan to this worksession. This memorandum addresses public school and transportation adequacy at the time of the buildout, the transportation elements, and the fiscal impact statement. The memo will address issues raised in public hearing testimony, and by agency and Council staff. Some technical corrections will be made to the final document, but they are not identified in this memo. 1. Public school adequacy at buildoul The text on pages of the Final Draft is virtually the same as in the Draft Rock Spring and White Flint 2 plans. In its review of the Rock Spring plan on October 31, the Council agreed on revisions that would be common to all three plans: a new section on dedication of sites for schools, deleting the reference to the King Farm MS as potential refiled for the Walter Johnson Cluster, updates to the enrollment and capacity data, and a few other technical revisions. PHED Committee (and Council staff) recommendation (3-0): Include language about school dedications similar to the language approved for the Rock Spring and White Flint 2 plans, except to note that finding a school site within the boundaries of this plan is unlikely. 2. Transportation adequacy at huildout; transportation plan elements. Every master plan should have a balance between its proposed land use and its proposed transportation network and services. For a quarter-century this "balance" has been defined as what would be needed to meet the current adequate public facilities requirements as described in the Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP). Achieving this balance in a plan is not an academic exercise: if a plan is not balanced, then at some point in the future a proposed master-planned development will be unable to proceed because it will have no means to meet the adequate public facility requirements. According to the newly adopted SSP, the congestion standard for signalized intersections in the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Station Policy Area is a volume/capacity ratio of ( using the Highway Capacity Manual method), which translates to an average vehicle delay of 120 seconds/vehicle (s/v). The Transportation Appendix to the plan notes that all the intersections in the planning area will meet this standard by assuming the 45% non-auto-driver mode share objective is met (see the discussion below) and by three intersection improvements and assumptions, namely:

2 1. At MD 355 (Rockville Pike)/MD 547 (Strathrnore Avenue): add a southbound-to-westbound right-tum lane towards Georgetown Prep; extend the length of the 2-lane eastbound approach from Georgetown Prep; replace the northbound-to-eastbound "hot-right" with a conventional right-tum lane ( l) 2. At MD 355/Tuckerman Lane (north and south): Assume that 40% of the traffic that would otherwise enter or exit the area at the north intersection would be entering and exiting at the south intersection instead ( 2). 3. At MD 355/Tuckerman Lane (southern intersection): Reassign the southbound approach lanes so during weekday peak hours two are left-tum lanes and two are through lanes ( 3). The physical impact of l would be minimal and the lane reassignment in 3 is simple. The redistribution assumption in 2 is reasonable, considering that to some degree this is happening today before and after events at the Strathmore Music Center. Currently eastbound traffic on Grosvenor Lane from the Wildwood Manor and Lone Oak neighborhoods is prohibited from crossing Rockville Pike and entering Beach Drive. (Traffic from Beach Drive to westbound Grosvenor Lane is allowed.) The Final Draft recommends studying the intersection to determine whether this prohibition can be eliminated. The Department of Transportation (DOT) notes such an improvement would be very complex and expensive, having to navigate around the champion Linden white oak tree ( 4-5, especially #6 on 5). The roadway classification map that is part of every plan has been omitted from the Final Draft. It is included in the Appendix ( 6). PHED Committee (and Council stajj) recommendation (3-0): Include the map in the body of the plan. The plan points out that the current NADMS in Grosvenor-Strathmore among residents is 41 %, and it recommends that the goal at buildout should be 45%. The table below shows the NADMS goals in other plans adopted in the last few years: Master Plan or NADMSgoal ½-mile from Inside Sector Plan Area at Buildout Metro? Beltway? Bethesda CBD 55% Yes Yes Silver Soring CBD 50% employees Yes Yes Grosvenor-Strathmore (proposed) 45% Yes No White Flint 51 % residents; 50% employees Yes No Wheaton CBD 30% employees Yes No Shadv Grove 35% residents; 25% employees Yes No Chevv Chase Lake 49% residents; 36% employees No Yes Lvttonsville 50% residents No Yes Long Branch 49% residents; 36% employees No Yes Rock Soring 41 % residents; 23% employees No No White Flint 2 (Council proposed) 40% No No Great Seneca Science Corridor 30% No No Germantown Town Center 25% employees No No White Oak (except Viva) 25% No No White Oak (Viva) 30% No No 2

3 Note that: most of the Grosvenor-Strathmore Plan is within ¼-mile of its Metro station (the walkshed for MSPAs is usually about ½-mile), most of the plan calls for residential development (which typically has a NADMS higher than commercial development); and the plan goals for Downtown Bethesda to the south and White Flint to the north are both higher -- 55% and 50%, respectively. The expected NADMS Grosvenor-Strathmore should be significantly higher than the current 41 %. PHED Committee ( and Council stajj) recommendation (3-0): Adopt a blended NADMS goal of 50% for the buildout of Grosvenor-Strathmore. 3. Fiscal impact statement. On October 24, the Office of Management and Budget transmitted the Executive's Fiscal Impact Statement for this plan ( 7). Executive staff estimate the cost of new capital improvements associated with the additional development in this plan to be $57.4 million. The largest category ($49.6 million) is for transportation, most of it for portions of the MD 355 Bus Rapid Transit line and the North Bethesda Transitway 1, and the balance for biking and pedestrian improvements. The remaining $7.8 million is for the proportional cost of school capacity associated with the additional students generated by the new residential development at buildout. Executive staff also estimates added operating cost ( once all facilities are implemented) to be about $4.9 million/year, split between the operating costs ofbrt and schools. f:\orlin\fyl8\phed\grosvenor\171128cc.doc 1 The 2013 Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan calls for the North Bethesda Transitway to have its eastern terminus either at Grosvenor-Strathmore or White Flint. If the Transitway ultimately goes to White Flint, the fiscal impact of this plan on the capital improvements program would be reduced by $7 million. 3

4 Figure 3. Intersection 2: MD355 at Strathmore Avenue.,:r

5 MD355 at Tuckerman Lane N orth

6 Intersection 3: MD355 at Tuckerman South

7 MEMORANDUM October 10, 2017 TO: Greg Ossont, Deputy Director Department of General Services FROM: Christopher Conklin, P.E., Deputy Director for Policy Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan - MCDOT Comments Thank you for the opportunity to review the July 2017 Planning Board Draft of the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan. MCDOT's most significant comments are summarized below and we have attached detailed page-by-page comments: I) Transportation Analyses: The draft plan does not evaluate the 2012 TPAR tests, and as such we are unable to affirm the viability of the proposed street network. Furthermore, the LATR analysis included in the Transportation Appendix includes an assumption that 40% of westbound right-turns from the northern Tuckerman Lane onto MD 355 will divert to the southern Tuckerman/355 intersection. Per our detailed comments, at present we are unable to concur with this assumption and are seeking additional information on its reasoning. 2) Building Access at Tuckerman / Bus Loop: A high-rise building is identified along a site bound by Tuckerman to the north, the WMATA Bus Loop entrance to the east and south, and the Red Line tracks to the west. This siting is such that we would not support building access onto Tuckerman nor onto the bus loop, and we suggest that the plan consider highlighting the site's limited access options and potential need for off-site access (such as connectivity to the garage on the other side of the bus loop). Similarly, with the redevelopment of this site and the continued growth in bus services utilizing the loop: we believe that over the lifetime of the plan the midblock crossing across Tuckerman Lane should be removed. We suggest that design of the WMATA site's redevelopment instead focus pedestrians toward the nearby signals, and/or toward the pedestrian bridge above Tuckerman Lane. 3) Cross-Sections: Provide the nearest cross-sections for each non-sha roadway segment in Table 6, as well as a list of any proposed changes to minimum rightsof-way. Where there is not a precise cross-section, provide the nearest crosssection and append the number with "mod". Ideally, each modification should be accompanied by a note or footnote describing the intent of the modification.

8 This can be particularly helpful in addressing situations as with P-1 (Montrose Avenue), where there is IO ft less ROW proposed by the plan than required to provide the referenced facility. Identifying standards and providing detail on proposed modifications can more readily identify such issues, as well as propose how the plan's intent toward addressing them. 4) Additional and Modified Graphics: We believe three new/modified figures would be extremely beneficial toward the drafting and implementation of this plan: (1) a map showing existing transit services, as well as areas where the plan feels additional service would be desirable; (2) a map of existing and proposed roadways; (3) a modified bikeways map (figure 24) that follows the design and palette in use with other recent and ongoing master plans. 5) Increased Transit Narrative: The plan provides relatively little information on transit, including existing bus services' capabilities and performance metrics (as might be addressed by 2012 TPAR). There is also limited information on services such as the MD 355 South BRT, North Bethesda Transitway, Ride-On extra, and the elimination of the Red Line's Grosvenor tumbacks. 6) Eastbound Grosvenor Lane: The plan proposes the provision of eastbound thru movements from Grosvenor Lane toward Beach Drive. Such a project would have substantial impacts, either significantly reducing the efficiency of the intersection, or significantly expanding its capacity through additional lanes and pavement. Complex designs would be required to navigate around Red Line piers as well as the root zone of the champion Linden white oak. This would significantly increase the amount of traffic along Grosvenor Lane as well as along park-like Beach Drive, and we have concerns with what would be a very highcost project of potentially limited benefit. 7) Sidewalk toward Pooks Hill: Sidewalk is proposed along the east side of MD 355 between Grosvenor Lane and Pooks Hill Road, intended to fill in gaps along otherwise existing sidewalk. Such a project would create two at-grade and likely uncontrolled crosswalks across high-speed high-volume interchange ramps. We suggest that the plan increase the scale of its proposal to be more similar to the type of facility along the west side of MD 97 (Georgia Ave) at I-495 (Capital Beltway), where a pedestrian bridge provides grade-separated ped/bike accomodations. 8) Private Streets: The plan should more clearly identify whether the two streets within the WMA TA property are intended to be publicly or privately owned and maintained. Should you have any questions regarding our comments on the plan, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Andrew Bossi, Senior Engineer, at

9 Figure 12. Recommended Roadway Classifications - ~ :---=~':11...,.~;-: ~,. ~ '\ I -~ c::j Sedor Plart bdd.1r1 rm Ml!!rOStatllID ~Offlffl~ ~ MajQ;' Hi$h~ - ArtM!l

10 County Capital and Operating Cost Estimates Assumed to be Incurred as a Result of the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan 10/24/2017 O..criptlon 16!, Bus Rapid Transit (BR1) llr,e. Costs apply to sedlon of BRT wilhln the Plan area only. (See Note #6) North Bethesda Transltway Grosvenor-Strathmore Option Bus Rapid Transit (BR1) line. Costs apply to section of BRT within the Plan area only. Blkeshare 20% County share for 3 slatlon lnslalletlon et the Metro slle, Initial bikes, end one set of replacement bfkp.s (See Note#4). 50 Intersection crosswalks 50% County share for crosswalks In the plan area (See Nole #4). SO MD 355 Construd a side path. Costs do not Include existing Strelhmore frontage pelh. Item Cost($} $ 25,700,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 5.900,000 $ 49,600, Tuckerman Lane 44% County share to construct a separate bike lane (See Note #4). 50 Enhance a Metro/ Stralhmore mldblock crossing. i j, 7_5-+El_eme_n_tary:_. 99_st_u_den_ts_x_$_37_,1_9_2_pe_r_st_ud_en_t_{s_e_e_N_o_te_f_9)_., 50 Bethesda Trolley Trail and Rock Creek Tral - Create trail wayfmding signs. 50 MD 355 Construct Americans with DisabiWty Act (ADA) bus stop access between Tuckerman Lene and the Metro tunnel (Includes escalator/slalra, elevator, canopy. bus pun-off, and covered bike parl<lng). $ 8,200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 2, Y!/! $ 3, :"~1;00 ;;; ~t ~ 75 Mkldle: 41 students x $39,600 per student (See Note #9). $ 1,623,600 $ 7,789,983 U> 8 75 High: 53 students x $46,875 per student {See Note #9). $ 2,484,375 tt'i\j;,:~;1 1 ;;,:;.;,.c;,:;>::?\\,'/\?z 1 ;~\>:Ct'J,.? ( f< -,-; ::>,, s::;t-:,;:, <;,.: " c -.,:, -'.-.,,,.. :<-,.,,: '',$ubtolatc,q'bltahmi)tdv.ilrnetitlttprects:i \S' ::;,51, 3a~1s.8a ~!~1l~!l1f'.:i)ft8{/ 1 \li(:i ~:;:}s:\:;.'.'i-\h:~'.'... -t::y1::: -:,~f.\ih\gij~f~~hlji~_µ~ijpj:1#f~,j~/:s~\}i1;\'.:)'~<.-:wl:' - /.te:!):t:ti;;-~ -) t ;::L:ttX~f';'.'J'i/{t:t De rtmant Poga Das.crt on o,,...tlmo ($} On Going ($) Total Co,ot $ t:..,2,g 75 3 Capllel Blkeshare stations $ $ 86,880 l ;., C I &. 8" 75 MD 355 Bus Rapid Tran&U (BRl),: I!... ~,gi "' 11. :, -= u g C U) 75 North Bethesda Transitway Bua Rapid TransK (BRT) 75 Elementary: 99 students x 15,144 per student (Sae Note #8)..Q 0 ]i 75 Middle: 41 students x $14,555 per 1ludenl (See Note #8). 75 High: 53 students x $14,555 per student (See Note #8), $ $ 1,600,000 $ $ $ 350,000 $ $ $ $ 1,499,258 $ 596,755 $ $ 771,415 2,035,880 2,867,426 Notet. and Assumptions: 1) The following departments reported no fiscal Impacts associated with this plan: Recreation, Environmental Protection, and Regional Service Centers, 2) Operating costs are representative of annual costs at full build-out of the plan. 3) Housing fiscal Impacts may Include costs to preserve affordable housing through rental assistance, Costs will be dependent on the level of need. 4) Transportation fiscal Impacts do not lnclude currently programmed or funded County CIP projects, State Highway Administration (SHA) projects that are funded or identified In this plan. and developer contributions/projects that are either wholly assumed or identlfled in the Plan area. CIP projects include: P Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) for MD 355 Design Costs and P Bicycle-Pedestrian Priority Area Improvements for BIPPA Improvements in Grosvenor and Silver Spring. Developer contributions/projects lnclude: 80% of bikeshare capital costs ($200,000); MD 355/MD 547 Intersection changes ($4,000,000); 50% share of Intersection crosswalks ($500,000); a street through WMATA property ($11,100,000); 56% share of separate bike lanes on Tuckennan Lane ($10,400,000); a Metrorruckerman Lane stairway ($300,000); and lighting, public art, and slgnage enhancements to the Metro tunnel under MD 355 ($200,000). 5) Transportation fiscal impacts do not include projects identified in the Plan but located outside of the Plan area including: a shared roadway and side path on Grosvenor Lane ($4,900,000), Americans With Disabilltles Act (ADA) access with sidewalks at the intersection of MD 355/Grosvenor Lana/Beach Drive ($100,000), the study of eastbound movements from Grosvenor Lane on to Beach Drive ($100,000), MD 355 sidewalks between Grosvenor Lane and Pook& Hill Road ($2,300,000), and the study of Rock Creek Trail connections ($100,000). 6) Montgomery County assumes a cost sharing agreement with the State will be developed for BRT on State roads. A cost sharing agreement wlll reduce the total capital cost identified above for MD 355 BRT ($25,700,000), 7) Transportation fiscal impacts were calculated prior to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) TPAR status. Additional expenses may result if the plan does not pass the areawide transportation adequacy test. 8) School operating budget fiscal impacts are based on: ( 1) the addition of 1,397 multi-family high-rise units, (2) the Countywide student generation rates identified in the 2016 Subdivision Staging Policy {See SSP FAQ), and (3) the per-pupil operating costs identified in the FY18 Approved MCPS operating budget 9) School construction costs are based on the Countywide student generation rates and construction costs identified in the 2016 Subdivision Staging policy (See SSP FAQ). Alternative options, including additions to existing schools and reopening former schools, are not included In this analysis. School construction requires approval by the Board of Education, H (j)