king farm avoidance summary report 2011-06-22

8/3/2019 King Farm Avoidance Summary Report 2011-06-22

1/15

CORRIDOR CITIES TRANSITWAY

King Farm Avoidance

Feasibility Study

SUMMARY REPORT

June 2011


2/15

Corridor Cities Transitway

King Farm Avoidance Feasibility StudySummary Report

Background

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct the Corridor Cities Transitway(CCT) in Montgomery County, Maryland, between the Clarksburg area and the Shady Grove MetrorailStation. The proposed 13 - 15 mile corridor generally follows the I-270 corridor through the County and

would serve the Corridor Cities of Rockville, Gaithersburg, Germantown and Clarksburg (see Figure1). The alignment is included in the Montgomery County Master Plans and right-of-way has beenpreserved by the County and within the municipal jurisdictions of Gaithersburg and Rockville asdevelopment has been approved. The CCT corridor has seen rapid growth since the 1960s as suburbanhousing and employment have followed along I-270 (formerly US 240).

The CCT alignment has been actively evaluated for more than a decade, during which three NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning documents were developed and approved. The I-270/US 15Multi-Modal Corridor Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was approved in 2002, the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA) in2009, and the Corridor Cities Transitway Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) in 2010.

In December 2010, a public hearing was held on the information presented in the SEA document for threealternative alignment segments Kentlands, Life Sciences Center and the Crown Farm. These werebeing evaluated in response to formal requests by Montgomery County and the City of Gaithersburg fortheir ability to enhance CCT service and provide more service benefits to the corridor in light ofsubstantial changes to land use master plans and anticipated transit oriented development for these areas.

Purpose of Feasibility Study

At the December 2010 hearing, local residents of the King Farm community voiced concern about theproposed CCT alignment traversing through their neighborhood on the Master Plan alignment. Theyraised issue with loss of the King Farm Boulevard landscaped median, street closures across King FarmBoulevard, the schedule and number of transit vehicles traveling through the community, transit vehicle-generated noise, pedestrian and vehicular travel pattern disruption and aesthetic issues of locating theCCT along King Farm Boulevard. On January 18, 2011 at a Mayor and Council meeting, King Farm

community citizens voiced their concerns to the Councilors. On January 25, 2011, the Mayor andCouncil sent a letter to the Maryland Department of Transportation requesting the MTA to study twoalternative CCT alignments operating along I-370 and Shady Grove Road instead of the King FarmBoulevard alignment.

Scope of Study

Excerpted from King Farm Avoidance Feasibility Study Full Report June 2011


3/15

370

INTERSTATE

270

INTERSTATE

270

INTERSTATE


4/15

interchange. It was also determined the feasibility study would evaluate in-street and off-street

alignments as well as dedicated and shared lane typical sections.

Alternative Corridors Existing Conditions

The Study Area for this feasibility study encompasses the area in Montgomery County between andsurrounding the corridors (an approximate two-mile distance) between the Shady Grove Metrorail Stationand the Crown Farm on Fields Road (seeFigure 2). The Crown Farm development is proposing a CCTstation within the development. The southern boundary of the Study Area is Redland Road, the northernboundary is I-370, and the eastern boundary is determined by the Metro Access Road to I-370 and Crabbs

Branch Way. Land use within this Study Area is a combination of light industrial, government, office/professional, commercial and mixed-use transit oriented development (TOD). The King Farm andWashingtonian communities have the densest land uses within the feasibility study limits.

I-370: Interstate 370 was constructed to connect I-270 with the Shady Grove Metrorail Station. In late2010, the Intercounty Connector (ICC) toll road altered I-370s transportation role to become the westernroadway link between the ICC and I-270 with the Shady Grove Metrorail Station access transforming intoan interchange movement. As a result, the ICC roadway improvements along I-370 used most of the

available highway median from the Metro Access interchange to the MD 355 interchange. Average dailytraffic volumes range from approximately 100,300 to 115,600 vehicles per day.

Shady Grove Road: Shady Grove Road in the study area is a five lane arterial between the Metro Accessinterchange (east) to the I-270 interchange (west) with numerous driveway and public street access points.East of MD 355 the land uses are industrial/manufacturing. West of MD 355 the land uses includecommercial, office and light industrial. Shady Grove Road is a heavily travelled urban arterial and itsintersection with MD 355 is one of the most highly congested Montgomery County intersections.Average daily traffic volumes range from approximately 36,700 to 44,500 vehicles per day.

King Farm Boulevard: King Farm Boulevard is a four lane minor arterial from MD 355 (Frederick Road)to a cul-de-sac just west of Piccard Drive near I-270 and Redland Boulevard. Land use along King FarmBoulevard is predominantly residential with moderate commercial uses in the eastern half of thecommunity. The western half community land use is dominated by office/employment properties andincludes an assisted living community. Average daily traffic volumes are approximately 3,000 vehiclesper day.

Alignments

A total of 23 initial BRT and/or LRT alignment and typical section alternatives within the feasibilitystudy limits were considered based on the CCT service concept and the potential for exclusive right ofway (side-street running or median), dedicated or shared lane operations. An engineering screeninganalysis was performed and the number of initial alignment and typical section alternatives were reducedto 17 potential alternatives.


5/15

270

INTERSTATE

370

INTERSTATE

KingFarm

Avoidance

FeasibilityStudy

STUDY

CORRIDORS

June2011

Figure2

Grove

300

0

300

600


6/15

3. BRT along Crabbs Branch Way to I-370 was dismissed because there was inadequate spacing fora new westbound on-ramp between the Metro Access Road and MD 355 interchanges.

The remaining 17 alternatives encompassed both BRT and LRT transit modes, operated in various right-of-way conditions (median or street-side running), and followed various alignment links (either I-370 orShady Grove Road) to connect the Shady Grove Metrorail Station and the proposed Crown Farm Station.A majority of the alignments followed Shady Grove Road to MD 355, CSX Railroad right-of-way,Crabbs Branch Way or Metro Access Road. Table 1 (follows text) identifies the alignment alternativesevaluated and Figures 3 and 4 show the Shady Grove Road and I-370 alignment alternatives,respectively.

Evaluation

Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives

Seventeen alternative alignments were compared to the King Farm Boulevard Master Plan alignment(referred to as 1A) using the following criteria (further described in Table 2): length, number of crossings,number of parcels affected and acreage required, number of displacements, potential stations, forecastyear 2035 estimated travel time and travel time reliability, estimated change in 2035 daily ridership, andestimated differences in capital and operating costs. Criteria and methodologies are summarized in Table

2.

Table 2: Criteria, Methodology, and Ranking

Criterion Methodology/Importance Goal

LengthMeasure in linear feet; Effects on capital and operatingcosts, impacts, and travel time

Shorter route with leastimpacts

Number ofCrossings

Count driveways and roadways; impact and performancecriterion; relates to safety

Fewer crossings

Number andAcreage ofParcels Affected

Based on Montgomery County tax parcel maps andmeasured by GIS; impact criterion; relates to capital costand residential/business impacts

Lower acreage = lowercosts, lower impacts

Number andType ofDisplacements

Count parcels that would require relocation of currentowners/tenants; impact criterion; relates to capital costand residential/business impacts

Lower socioeconomicimpacts

Potential StationsIdentify potential locations; performance criterion; dailyridership, accessibility of transit, travel time

Provide optimal numberand location to capturegreatest ridership

2035 EstimatedTravel Time

Estimate travel time based on mean speed, number ofstops, dwell time, relate to entire route travel time.Important ridership attraction, utility of transit for usersversus alternate method of travel, shorter commute time

Shorter travel timewould contribute toridership attraction

2035 EstimatedTravel Time

Determine whether travel time can be reliable withrespect to factors affecting speed and reliability;

Reliability of schedulewould contribute to

e


7/15

BeginAerialStructure

TransitwayAerialStructure:

ShadyGroveRoadto

FieldsRoad

(Approx.2,200LF)

270

INTERSTATE

370

INTERSTATE

EndAerialStructure

Transitway

AerialStructure:

EastSid

eofMD-355to

ShadyGroveRoadMedian

(Appr

ox.1,400LF)


SouthSideofSha

dyGrove

RoadOverMD

-355

(Approx.350

LF)


EastSideofCSXTracksto

SouthSideofShadyGroveRoa

d

(Approx.400LF)


EastSideofMD-355toSouth

SideofShadyGroveRoad

(Approx.300LF)

KingFarmAvoidance

FeasibilityStudy

SHADYGROVE

ALIGNMENTOPTIONS

June2011

Figure3

NORTH

nes

300

0

300

600

e


8/15BeginAerialStructu

re

BRTAerialStructure:

I-370Median

(Approx.6,600LF)

BRTAerialStructure:

E

astSideofMD-355

toI-370Median

(

Approx.1,700LF)

270

INTERSTATE

3

70

INTERSTATE

En

dAerialStructures

KingFarm

Avoidance

FeasibilityStudy

I-370ALIG

NMENTOPTIONS

J

une2011

Figure4

300

0

300

600


9/15

Operations and Performance

Traffic OperationsThe results of the traffic analysis informed the development of alternatives and served as a basis forrecommendations regarding the relative advantages / disadvantages of each in terms of traffic impacts andCCT operations. With regard to the I-370 alternatives, a number of segments were projected to operate atLOS F, a gridlocked condition, making these unreliable segments in which to operate the CCT in mixedtraffic. At-grade median or curb-running alignments along Shady Grove Road would result in the CCTexperiencing an average of between 3 and 32 seconds of delay, at individual intersections between CrownFarm and the Shady Grove Metro station. The CCT Master Plan alignment operating along King Farm

Boulevard has a travel time advantage over most of the alignment alternatives of at least three minutes.Alignment alternatives which have a lower travel time compared to the CCT Master Plan alignment alsoinvolve more costly aerial structures and also result in less ridership. The King Farm Boulevardalignment is preferred from an operational standpoint as there are much lower volumes of traffic and willneither impart, nor suffer from, delay at numerous signalized intersections.

Ridership

All alternative alignments to the King Farm Boulevard alignment result in some loss of daily passengerboardings on the CCT. First, all trips associated with the East Gaither Station are lost. Second, passenger

trips to and from the West Gaither Station are reduced in the Shady Grove alignments and almostcompletely lost in the I-370 alignments (some passengers will choose to use a local bus from the CrownFarm Station to access the West Gaither Station area). Third, for all but one alternative, there is a smallreduction in passenger trips between Shady Grove and CCT stations north of West Gaither.

Passenger trips are reduced by between 5.6 and 8.9 percent for alternative alignments along Shady GroveRoad, with the largest reduction seen for alternative 2B-5 that uses at-grade crossings, in shared-use lanes,of the congested intersections. For the I-370 alternative alignments, ridership is reduced by 14.7 to 16.8

percent, largely due to the loss of the West Gaither Station.

Operating and Maintenance Costs

All of the alternative alignments would have increases in operating costs over the CCT Master Planalignment, ranging between $182,000 and $3,055,000 more annually. Those alternatives with the largestincrease in travel time incur the largest increase in operating costs. The additional travel time and/ordistance increases revenue vehicle miles and/or hours, and often requires additional peak period vehiclesto operate the service. Increases in all three operating statistics results in higher operating costs.

Property Impacts

The impacts of the various alternative alignments are shown in Table 1. The I-370 and Shady GroveRoad alignment corridors are relatively free of environmental resources and therefore, the impacts tothese resources are expected to be minor. Property impacts would range from minor sliver takes to fulldisplacement of businesses depending on which potential alignment is considered. The range of propertyacquisitions is from 15 47 acres for alignment 2A-3 to 0 acres for alignments 3A-2 and 3B-2 Alignment


10/15

million, would be realized with alternative 3B-1, which would provide an exclusive busway alongside

MD 355 and in the median of I-370. Other BRT alternatives would have estimated costs ranging from$30 million to $196 million above the base Master Plan alignment cost estimate for King Farm Boulevard($60 million). LRT alternatives estimated costs range between $16 million and $220 million above thebase Master Plan alignment cost of $108 million.

Summary Observations

MTA has completed its analysis of alignment options to the Master Plan alignment along the median ofKing Farm Boulevard. From the onset of this analysis MTA has maintained that it cannot compromisewith basic goals of the Purpose and Need for the project. The goals were established over two decadesago and represent the core reasons that the CCT was selected as an important investment in the I-270corridor.

The four goals in the project Purpose and Need include the following:

Support Orderly Economic Growth Enhance Mobility Preserve and Protect the Environment Optimize Public Investment

The Master Plan alignment along King Farm Boulevard was identified specifically for the purposes ofmeeting these goals. For example, the alignment has been included in the City of Rockville master plansfor over two decades and was preserved by the developers of King Farm in the communitys design. Forthat reason, the alignment would result in minimal impacts to the human and natural environments,support the economic development goals of Montgomery County, and provide an economically andenvironmentally sustainable transportation option for connecting activity centers within MontgomeryCounty well into the future. Additionally, as part of the goal to enhance mobility, the MTA intends tomaximize transit performance quality whenever feasible, thus avoiding designs that would operate transit

in mixed traffic or cross busy streets that could erode travel times and reliability of service. Theseperformance objectives should therefore carry through to any alternatives proposed and analyzed inresponse to the communitys request for avoidance of King Farm Boulevard.

The following performance standards were established for the alignments under study:

No or minimal erosion to ridership; No or minimal additional capital or annual operations and maintenance costs. Minimal reductions in transportation performance, including travel delays, transit travel times,

and traffic conflicts; No or minimal additional impacts to the natural and human environment;

MTA recognized from the beginning that trade-offs among these goals and reasonable yielding on someperformance standards may be necessary to come to a decision on the most appropriate alternative tocarry through into future phases of project development that balances the communitys concerns with thegoals for the project. Upon conclusion and careful consideration of the analysis results, MTA hasd t i d th t f th li t ti t di d t id t it ti Ki F B l d


11/15

and Shady Grove Road for some of the alternatives. These stations serve considerable densities of

residential and employment development and are designed to provide direct connections to otherdestinations along the corridor.2. Performance erodes. Each of the alignments studied as options to King Farm Boulevard add

increased distance to the alignment. This distance ranges from about 0.25 miles to more than 2.5miles over the current alignment length. This additional distance adds vehicle travel time whichadds inefficiencies to operations and reduces ridership on the system. Another performance issuerelates to the reliability of the transit travel times. Traffic volumes are much heavier on the otherroadways proposed for transit service, and on the cross streets, thus introducing the potential fordelays at traffic signals and on congested streets. In-street operating BRT alternatives in whichbuses share the road with general traffic are the least reliable because of projected worsening trafficconditions on I-370, Shady Grove Road, and MD 355. Alternatives that use an aerial guidewayperform the best, but the costs to construct aerial alignments far outweigh the benefits.

3. Property impacts increase. The impacts to existing property and established businesses aresubstantial for most of the alignment alternatives. In large part this is because the right-of-way hasnot been preserved in city and county master plans like it has along King Farm Boulevard. Limitedexceptions to this include the alignments that operate along I-370 or that operate BRT in mixedtraffic. However, the negative impacts to ridership, travel time, and financial costs far outweigh the

benefits, particularly when compared with the Master Plan alternative.4. Costs increase. Capital and operations and maintenance costs when compared with the Master

Plan alternative along King Farm Boulevard varied considerably. Generally the alignmentalternatives added from $20 million to $220 million for LRT and $15 million to $200 million forBRT in capital cost. The additional annual operations and maintenance costs ranged from a low of$340,000 to $1.8 million. Alignments that assumed transit operations on shared use lanes sawminimal capital cost increases ($20 million or less) and some cost decreases ($11 million to $53million) in comparison with the King Farm Boulevard alignment. However, the shared use lane

alignment alternatives come with substantial costs in others areas, most notably ridership decreasesin the thousands. They would also introduce conflicts with vehicular traffic and thus transitreliability and travel delays for all system users.


12/15


13/15


14/15

Corridor Cities Transitway 9King Farm Avoidance Feasibility Study June 2011

Table1:KingFarmAvoidanceAlternatives

AlignmentsLength(miles)

#ofcrossings

Parcelsaffected(#/acres)

DisplacedBusinesses

Stations

2035Estimated

TravelTime

(minutes)

2035TravelTime

Reliability

2035ChangeinEstimated

DailyRidership

ChangeinAnnual

OperatingCost

($1,000)

ChangeinCapitalCostincluding

ROW($ millions)

SummaryAssessment

IDTypeofAlignmentBriefDescription

2C2

Exclusive,aerial

ShadyGroveStationto

CrabbsBranchWaytoShadyGroveRd;crossI

270to

Fields

Rd

3.17

(+0.85)0

28parcels

11.86acres15

Potential

newstationat

GaitherRoad

9.4

(+1.2)High

2,8856%

+$949LRT:+$209

BRT:+$151

Highpropertyimpacts Businessdisplacements Goodtransitservicereliability Onereplacementstation;

differentmarket

HighcapitalandO&Mcosts

2C3

Exclusive,atgrade,median

ShadyGroveStationto

CrabbsBranchWayto

ShadyGroveRd;crossI270toFieldsRd

3.17(+0.85)

631parcels12.46acres

15

Potential

new

stationat

Gaither

Road

11.4(+3.2)

Moderate3,420

7%+$1,457

LRT:+$128

BRT:+$73

Highpropertyimpacts Businessdisplacements Onereplacementstation;

differentmarket

2D ShadyGroveRoadviaCSXROW

2D1

Exclusive,atgrade

ShadyGrove

Station

along

CSXalignmenttoShadyGroveRd;crossI270to

FieldsRd

3.0(+0.68)

6 29parcels12.83acres16

Potentialnew

stationatGaitherRoad

9.4(+1.2)

Moderate 2,8856%

+$821 LRT:+$130BRT:+$133

Heavyimpactstolandandexistingdevelopment

Onereplacementstation

2D2

Exclusive,aerial

ShadyGroveStationalong

CSXalignmenttoShadyGroveRd;crossI270to

FieldsRd

3.0

(+0.68)0

29parcels12.83acres

16

Potentialnew

stationat

Gaither

Road

7.5

(0.7)High

2,380

5%+$338

LRT:+$234BRT:+$237

Heavyimpactstolandandexistingdevelopment

Traveltimeimprovesslightly Highcapitalcost. Onereplacementstation;

differentmarket


15/15

Corridor Cities Transitway 10King Farm Avoidance Feasibility Study June 2011

Table1:KingFarmAvoidanceAlternatives

AlignmentsLength(miles)

#ofcrossings

Parcelsaffected(#/acres)

DisplacedBusinesses

Stations

2035Estimated

TravelTime

(minutes)

2035TravelTime

Reliability

2035ChangeinEstimated

DailyRidership

ChangeinAnnual

OperatingCost

($1,000)

ChangeinCapitalCostincluding

ROW($ millions)

SummaryAssessment

IDTypeofAlignmentBriefDescription

3A I370viaMetroAccess

3A1

Exclusive,atgrade,

median

ShadyGroveStationtoI370rampontoI370;left

atFieldsRd

5.01(+2.69)

34parcels2.08acres

0No

Station10.0(+1.8)

Moderate6,89015%

+$2,496 BRT:+$71

15%decreaseinridership Nostations(lostmarket) Considerableincreasein

alignmentdistance.

SubstantialincreaseinannualO&Mcosts.

BRTonly

3A2

Shareduse,atgrade

ShadyGrove

Station

to

I

370rampontoI370;left

atFieldsRd

5.01(+2.69) 0 0parcels 0 NoStations 12.2(+4.0) Low 7,46016% +$3,055 BRT: $64

Over15%decreaseinridership Considerabletraveltimeand

alignmentdistanceincrease.

Lowreliabilityoftransitservice. Nostations(lostmarket) Lowercost(capital)option,but

considerablechangeinannual

O&Mcost

BRTonly3B I370viaMD355

3B1

Exclusive,atgrade,

median

ShadyGroveMetrorail

Park&RidetoMD355to

I370;

left

at

Fields

Rd

3.18(+0.86)

513parcels6.36acres

3No

Stations9.3

(+1.1)Moderate

6,71015%

+$932 BRT:+$6 15%decreaseonridership Nostations(lostmarket)

3B2

Shareduse,atgrade

ShadyGroveMetrorail

Park&RidetoMD355to

I370;leftatFieldsRd

3.78(+1.46)

10 0parcels 0No

Stations13.1(+4.9)

Low7,69517%

+$2,351 BRT: $64

Over15%decreaseinridership Considerableincreaseintravel

timeandalignmentdistance.

Nostations(lostmarket) Lowercost(capital)option,but

considerablechangeinannualO&Mcost

Lowreliabilityoftransitqualityofservice.

king farm avoidance summary report 2011-06-22

Documents