Transportation Impact Study Technical Working Group (TISTWG)

October 7, 2015 Meeting #11

MRO Auditorium
1:30-3:00 PM Agenda
1) Introductions (5 min)
2) Review of July 9 Planning Board roundtable discussion (15 min)
a) Process for Pro-Rata Share expansion beyond White Oak
b) Very Low VMT proposal
c) Opportunities to collapse LATR and TPAR into a single test
3) Proposed TISTWG schedule (5 min)
4) Updates on parallel efforts (15 min)
a) MCDOT White Oak transportation analysis
b) M-NCPPC TPAR and trip generation studies
c) SHA Transportation Study Guidelines
d) M-NCPPC Assessment of Modeling Tools/Measures/Metrics study
5) Summary and status of LATR Concepts moving forward (10 minutes)
a) April LATR Concepts Memo:
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/latr_guidelines/documents/TISTWG_LAT
RConceptsMemo_040115.pdf
b) Noted subsequent amendments:
i) Retail addendum to Very Low VMT approach (ground floor retail OK if no parking provided)
ii) Protected intersections (requires TMD with per-trip payment; offsets TPAR/impact taxes)
6) October 7 focus on (35 minutes):
a) SR-3: Protected Intersections (attached)
b) AM-5: Intersection operations guidance (attached)
c) AS-1, AS-2: Ped/bike value establishment (shift from subdivision staging policy to countywide
bicycle functional plan effort)
7) Next steps and tentative meetings schedule (5 min)
a) December 2 TISTWG meeting: second draft of Subdivision Staging Policy; first draft of full LATR
Guidelines
b) December 3 Planning Board Roundtable (focus on parallel studies cited above)
c) December 18: TISTWG comments to M-NCPPC on December 2 materials
d) January 8: Response to TISTWG comments
e) February 3 TISTWG meeting
f) Planning Board SSP worksessions: February 11, March 3, March 24 (if necessary)

1
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

Subdivision Staging Policy

Status of New Concepts for LATR/TPAR Guidelines
October 1, 2015
Certain elements (in green boxes) ready for discussion at October meeting. Work in progress on
elements in orange boxes, and feedback appreciated on other elements (in blue boxes) as noted in the
table below.
Concept
SA-3

ST-1
ST-4
SR-3

Description
Alternative
Review
Procedures for
Very Low VMT
Trip Generation
Thresholds
Modal analysis
triggers
Protected
intersections

AM-1 through
AM-3

Modal analyses

AM-5
AS-3

CLV/Synchro
Pedestrian-bicycle
gap contribution

Other

Value of peak
hour vehicle trip
Miscellany
clarifications

Other

LATR/TPAR Guidelines elements

Completed proposal for review/comment

Moving forward with 11/30 thresholds (page 26 of April LATR

Concepts handout)
Moving forward with on 11/30 thresholds (page 26 of April
LATR Concepts handout)
Select Major/Major and Major/Arterial locations in Bethesda
CBD, Silver Spring CBD, R&D Village, and Wheaton would be
logical candidates. $12,000/CLV increase fee in lieu of
improvement dedicated to TMD with credit against
TPAR/impact tax. See attachment.
Retain current LATR value of linear feet of sidewalk/bike path
and $12,000/vehicle trip fee for other improvements with
credit against TPAR/impact tax
Scoping and analysis parameters proposed. See attachment
Work in progress to define gaps and responsibility for filling
them (presumably construction if in ROW, payment in lieu if
private property required)
Escalate $12,000 / vehicle trip value
Considering comments developed by M-NCPPC staff in past
two years

2
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

LATR CONCEPT EXPLORATION

AM-5: CLV/HCM Thresholds
October 7 TISTWG Meeting Discussion Memo
This brief memo provides a status report on the proposed guidance for conducting operational analyses using simulation models. The table
below builds on the April 1 LATR Concepts Memo to provide additional detail for scoping and analysis using simulation models. The primary
changes suggested to the LATR are:

Replacement of queue lengths as a measure of effectiveness with total vehicle delay as it is more meaningful to constituents and easier
to document
Elimination of single-site analyses except for isolated locations. Use of stochastic models with execution of five runs averaged for other
sites (non-isolated sites and locations along severely congested arterials)
Requirement that improvements to address vehicular congestion not increase average pedestrian delay for locations in road code urban
areas

The following terms are used in the table below:

Operational analysis describes roadway network simulation software mostly commonly including Synchro/SimTraffic and VISSIM
LATR study scenarios described below as:
o Existing
o Background (with approved development and any CIP/CTP improvements)
o Baseline (with site generated traffic and no mitigation)
o Proposed (with site generated traffic and proposed mitigation)
Severely congested arterials defined as locations with travel time indices > 2.5 as included in the most recent MWCOG Congestion
Management Process (CMP) Technical Report.

1
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

Analysis Element

Scoping: Operational analysis needed if:

CLV > 1600 in MSPA / CBD

CLV > 1450 if:

- within 600 of another signalized
intersection, or
- on a roadway segment explicitly identified
in the LATR/TPAR Guidelines as a severely
congested arterial warranting operational
analysis (see list below table)
Scoping: Analysis tools:
Independent intersection analysis using HCM or
deterministic models like Synchro only acceptable
where CLV > 1600, no adjacent signalized
intersection within 600, and not on a severely
congested arterial. In all other cases warranting
operational analysis, importance of
upstream/downstream effects requires stochastic
modeling, with averaging of vehicle delay results
from five independent runs. Acceptance of either
VISSIM or SimTraffic. Other tools may be allowed
with written concurrence of M-NCPPC staff.
Scoping: Analysis Parameters

In Current
LATR/TPAR
Guidelines?

Proposal

Rationale/comments

Yes

Retain

No

Add

Consider upstream/downstream traffic impacts,

consider multimodal performance measures noted
below
Consider upstream/downstream traffic impacts where
travel times suggest traffic counts may be significantly
lower than current demand due to spillback. Consider
multimodal performance measures noted below

Generally; p. 18 Refine
identifies
simulation
software such as
SYNCHRO or
CORSIM

Retain flexibility but clarify when deterministic models

like HCM and Synchro are allowed and when stochastic
that results from VISSIM or SimTraffic are required.

2
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

Analysis Element

Simulation network geographic extent: Include

primary subject intersection(s); those triggering
operational analysis (1600 CLV or 1450
CLV+adjacent signal within 600); continue test of
1450 CLV+600 proximity to expand network until at
least 600 exists in each direction to next
intersection with 1450 CLV. Include upstream
approach links sufficient to accommodate forecast
vehicular demand.
Simulation network temporal extent: Peak hour,
plus sufficient initialization time so that network
output equals network input within 5% or output
stabilizes if demand significantly exceeds capacity.
Signal phasing and timing: Existing signal timing
parameters used for existing conditions and
background/baseline conditions (unless changes
explicitly provided by MCDOT at time of study
scoping). Adjustments to signal phasing (including
adjustment to cycle lengths) for proposed
conditions are encouraged to seek operational
improvements in lieu of vehicular capacity
additions, but are subject to review and
concurrence from SHA (phasing, for intersections
with State highways) and MCDOT (phasing and
timing)
Validation: Total peak hour vehicular throughput
matches existing conditions counts within 1% at
network entry/exit points; within 10% at individual
intersection approaches. Network sink/source
nodes allowed to address balance between
intersections

In Current
LATR/TPAR
Guidelines?
No

Proposal

Rationale/comments

Add

Specify geographic extent of modeling to incorporate

both adjacent intersections and sufficient input link
storage.

No

Add

Specify initialization time

No

Add

Facilitate operational improvements. Minimize study

effort needed to ensure multimodal performance
(vehicles and pedestrians) as part of baseline
conditions.

No

Add

Provide reasonable guidance regarding validation of

existing conditions with readily available data

3
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

Analysis Element

Pedestrian crossing time: All intersection

approaches for proposed conditions require 3.5
ft/sec pedestrian crossing time from curb to edge of
far travel lane unless crossing of approach is
explicitly prohibited.
Transit vehicle characteristics: To be modeled
explicitly only in MSPAs and CBDs, using existing
transit route frequencies and assuming 10 second
dwell times unless otherwise directed by M-NCPPC
staff at time of scoping or if development triggers
transit quantitative analysis.
Other vehicular operating conditions (i.e., truck
percentages, start up lost time, car-following) use
software defaults unless changes needed to achieve
validation
Analysis: Measures of Effectiveness
Vehicular delays: Network average delay per
vehicle not to exceed HCM equivalent per site
Policy Area LOS/CLV standard, or less than existing
conditions.
Queue Lengths

Vehicle throughput: Ensure that simulation results

include peak hour entering vehicles matching
forecast demand volume network wide (within 1%
of total entering vehicles)

In Current
LATR/TPAR
Guidelines?
Yes, p. 18
references CLV
assumptions on
p. 10.

Proposal

Rationale/comments

Retain

Ensure mitigation for vehicular operational concerns

retains minimum crossing time standards

No

Add

Incorporate bus operations in areas of greatest

concern

No

Add

Simplify analysis unless needed for validation.

No

Add

Yes; p. defines
as 80% or 90%
to upstream
intersection

Delete

No

Add

Network average delay per vehicle facilitates use of

coordinated signal timing to distribute delays
throughout network rather than constructing
improvements at one location.
Spillback adversely affects stochastic model
performance from a vehicular delay perspective;
proposed conditions would generally use signal timing
to limit spillback. Documentation of queue lengths
more arduous to check, report, and confirm than are
network-wide delay measures.
Ensure that forecast volumes are reflected in
simulation

4
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

Analysis Element

Pedestrian delays (For Road Code Urban Areas

only): Ensure that average pedestrian delay for
proposed condition is not greater than average
pedestrian delay for baseline condition and that
average pedestrian crossing distance for proposed
condition is not greater than average pedestrian
crossing distance for baseline condition.

In Current
LATR/TPAR
Guidelines?
No

Proposal

Rationale/comments

Add

In urban areas, a primary objective is to not degrade

pedestrian conditions. Pedestrian delay may be
calculated in an offline spreadsheet assuming random
arrivals (delay equals 50% of signal wait time at any
curb-to-curb crosswalk, with consideration of twophased crossing using medians/islands, if proposed).
Pedestrian volume crossing each approach may use
existing counts, unless the application triggers a
pedestrian quantitative analysis, in which case the sitegenerated pedestrians need to be added to existing
counts.

Severely Congested Arterials

The definition of severely congested arterials is, for the 2016 edition of the LATR/TPAR Guidelines, proposed to be derived from the MWCOG
2014 Congestion Management Process Technical Report assessment of arterial congestion from the two sources of data presented (floating car
studies compiled by MWCOG in Figures 30 and 31 and 2013 probe vehicle data assembled by the University of Maryland in Appendix A):
http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/bF1YXlld20140530134434.pdf
The severely congested arterials are those identified with a Travel Time Index (typical peak period travel time divided by free flow travel time) of
> 2.5 in either the morning or evening peak hours. They would be identified explicitly in the LATR/TPAR Guidelines as follows:
-

US 29 (Colesville Road) between New Hampshire Avenue (MD 650) and the Capital Beltway
MD 185 (Connecticut Avenue) between Knowles Avenue (MD 547) and East West Highway (MD 410)
MD 355 (Wisconsin Avenue) between Jones Bridge Road and the Capital Beltway

5
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

Next Steps

Respond to TISTWG comments

Develop flowchart approach to help communicate thresholds and analyses
o Intersection location, CLV, and proximity to adjacent intersections
o Simulation tool type (deterministic or stochastic)
o Requirements for explicit assumptions for transit vehicles and pedestrians

6
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
October 4, 2015

Page 71 of 284
2014 Congestion Management Process (CMP) Technical Report (Draft)
May 30, 2014

Figure 30: Travel Time Index on Selected Arterials during 8:00-9:00 am on Middle Weekdays in 2013

Note:

Congestion levels are categorized by the value of TTI:

TTI = 1.0: Free flow

1.0<TTI<=1.3: Minimal
1.3<TTI<=1.5: Minor
1.5<TTI<=2.0: Moderate
2.0<TTI<=2.5: Heavy
2.5<TTI: Severe

Page 72 of 284
2014 Congestion Management Process (CMP) Technical Report (Draft)
May 30, 2014

Figure 31: Travel Time Index on Selected Arterials during 5:00-6:00 pm on Middle Weekdays in 2013

Note:

Congestion levels are categorized by the value of TTI:

TTI = 1.0: Free flow

1.0<TTI<=1.3: Minimal
1.3<TTI<=1.5: Minor
1.5<TTI<=2.0: Moderate
2.0<TTI<=2.5: Heavy
2.5<TTI: Severe

Page 209 of 284

2014 Congestion Management Process (CMP) Technical Report (Draft)
May 30, 2014

Figure A7: Travel Time Index on the Non-Interstate NHS in Montgomery County, MD during Weekday
8:00-9:00 am, 2013

Page 210 of 284

2014 Congestion Management Process (CMP) Technical Report (Draft)
May 30, 2014

Figure A8: Travel Time Index on the Non-Interstate NHS in Montgomery County, MD during Weekday
5:00-6:00 pm, 2013

P. 1

LATR CONCEPT SUMMARY

SR-3: Protected Intersections Status Report 4/27/15
This brief memo provides a status report on the identification of potential Protected Intersections.
There seems to be a general consensus that the Protected Intersection concept is appropriate but that it
should not be associated with a statement of no impact or no responsibility, but rather directed
towards a Pay-and-Go mechanism that would:

Allow applicants the option to reassign even existing and background traffic around the
intersection if desired as part of the traffic study
Require a payment for remaining impacts (the $12K / vehicle trip associated with peak hour
trips assigned through the intersection may be a reasonable starting point), and
Such payment to be associated with an area-specific improvement or TDM program (for
instance, the existing TMDs or a current CIP project including the intersection)

The attached maps show some of the initial analysis that we conducted, examining the countywide
dataset of 238 Major-Highway-to-Major-Highway and Major-Highway-to-Arterial intersections. We
started with a simple organizing schema: how many miles of designated master plan roadways of
Business Street or Primary Residential roadway appropriate for some diverted traffic as a matter of
policy are within a mile radius?
The first map shows the Countywide results in quantile form. The next three maps provide a zoom-in on
different areas of the County for a little better resolution (although there is an issue with overlaps on
the zoom-ins also). Generally, every intersection might be expected to have at least 1.5 miles of
designated roadway in the case of a Major Highway transecting the 0.5 mile radius intersecting another
Major Highway or Arterial at a T-intersection. There are exceptions to this rule; the lowest intersection
on the list (Veirs Mill at Aspen Hill) scores at 1.24 because the designations arent carried into the City of
Rockville.
As we reviewed this info, we noted a couple of patterns:

There is some logical overlap between many of the Road Code Urban Areas, denser designated
roadway networks, and the extent to which the pedestrian quality of service should be
prioritized over the motor vehicle level of service.
The top quantile of intersections have a robust network with roughly 8 miles or greater, and
they are all located in four TMDs (Bethesda, Greater Shady Grove, Silver Spring, and White
Flint). While we anticipate some assessment (maybe more qualitative than GIS-based) of
connectivity around all quadrants of each candidate intersection, review of these maps suggest
a potential logical assessment of protected intersections organized into TMD areas. The next
wave of highest-scoring intersections include some in and around Wheaton, Olney, and
Germantown (as evident from the countywide maps).

No formal review or action requested at this point, but any informal thoughts are appreciated.
1
Prepared by Renaissance Planning Group
April 27, 2015

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections

P. 2

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv
Road_code_urban_areas

miles
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594
8.477595 - 12.123896

2.5

10 Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
swisstopo, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Greater than 8 miles within Buffer

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.000000
2.000001 - 4.000000
4.000001 - 6.000000
6.000001 - 8.000000

8.000001 - 14.000000

P. 3

4 Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Northern Region of Study Area

P. 4

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594

8.477595 - 12.123896

4 Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
swisstopo, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Eastern Region of Study Area

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594

8.477595 - 12.123896

P. 5

4 Mil

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Miles of Road within 0.5 Miles of Major Intersections - Southern Region of Study Area

Intersections_all_v3_Dissolv

miles

Road_code_urban_areas
1.242687 - 2.823399
2.823400 - 4.107865
4.107866 - 5.662161
5.662162 - 8.477594

8.477595 - 12.123896

P. 6

4 Mile

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community