planning board roundtable 7/9/15 1. 2 status and schedule of subdivision staging policy and related...
TRANSCRIPT
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
LATR Assessment
Planning Board Roundtable7/9/15
1
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
2
Today’s topics
• Status and schedule of Subdivision Staging Policy and related studies• LATR• TPAR• Travel/4 model development• Travel Modeling Strategic Plan• Trip generation / relationship to parking
generation• Type and extent of LATR revisions on the table,
with a focus on:• Establishing new Pro-rata Share Districts• Incorporating VMT into the LATR process
• Relationship to other Department initiatives• Master plan work program• Development Review Manual
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
3
Today’s topics
• Status and schedule of Subdivision Staging Policy and related studies• LATR• TPAR• Travel/4 model development• Travel Modeling Strategic Plan• Trip generation / relationship to parking
generation
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
4
Study basics
Implementing Subdivision Staging Policy Work Program
Coordinated with • PHED/Council consideration of SSP Amendment #14-02 for White Oak• Development of new trip generation rates
Element LATR TPAR
Scope Full consideration of options (similar to 2012)
Limited changes to transit performance calculations
Working group
~30-member TISTWG (monthly meetings)
Technical staff
Timeframe Initial recommendations fall 2015 followed by Planning Board and Council review through fall 2016
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
5
Study basics
• Building from best and emerging practices nationwide
• Balance of ideas and perspectives from agency, business, and civic representatives (ten meetings to date)
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
6
Key Objectives“LATR should be designed to implement the County’s plans”
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
7
Key ObjectivesImplementing and complementing other planning and zoning policies facilities evolution of all policies over time.
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
8
Key Objectives
• Three primary objectives• Improve multimodal
analysis, • Increase
predictability, • Streamline
implementation
• Three primary elements• Scoping• Analysis• Mitigation
• Multiple land use contexts
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
9
LATR Type Hierarchy
Pro-rata
share
• Where do we know what we want to build (both public and private)?
• Apply special districts
Negotiated Exaction
• Where do we want to emphasize ped, bike, transit?
• Apply equivalent mitigation approaches
Impact Mitigation
• Where do we want to achieve L/QOS standards (for any or all modes)?
• Apply modal tests
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
10
Pro-Rata Concept
private sector funding for total system
supplyPRO RATA SHARE = ----------------------------------------------------- unit of development demand
Simple, powerful, flexible concept.
Requires fairly extensive context-sensitive development:• What functional objectives should the system achieve
(i.e., how to define supply and demand)?• Geographic area?• Type/timeframe of improvements?• Interim monitoring / measurement?
Once established, private-sector participation is streamlined.
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
11
Balancing Objectives
Increased predictability in areas of greatest planned growth
Increased analysis in areas where growth less desirable
Philosophical Approach #1:Streamline growth in urban areas
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
12
Balancing Objectives
Increased analysis in areas of greatest activity where multimodal travel demands and facility needs are greatest.
Philosophical Approach #2:Identify needed multimodal solutions in urban areas
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
13
Balancing Objectives
Proposed approach: Increased analysis in areas of greatest activity where multimodal travel demands and facility needs are greatest, coupled with increased predictability in mitigation
Philosophical Approach #3:Balance between streamlining and analysis
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
14
Balancing Objectives
Proposed approach: Develop additional pro-rata share districts (or equivalent approaches such as VMT or PMT fees) in conjunction with local community involvement and detailed study.
Evolution Over TimeShift towards Pro-Rata Share in smart growth areas
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
15
LATR Evolution
Currently, the County has:
• a pro-rata share approach in White Flint
• Alternative Review Procedures and guidance for preferential bike/ped/transit approaches in the other MSPAs / CBDs, and
• $12K/vehicle trip for non-auto solutions countywide
Pro-rata share
Negotiated Exaction
Impact Mitigation
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
16
LATR Evolution
Pro-rata share approaches can be considered for any geographic area, but are most successful when combined with the planning and policy aspects of master planning.
New Special Taxing Districts are not necessarily needed, pro-rata share approaches can take many forms.
Pro-rata share
Negotiated Exaction
Impact Mitigation
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
17
LATR Evolution
Bethesda may be a good candidate for the next pro-rata share district as its plan moves forward.
Many new negotiated exaction approaches are being developed.
These new approaches are also being considered now for the County’s remaining urban areas.
Pro-rata share
Negotiated Exaction
Impact Mitigation
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
18
LATR Evolution
Other fixed guideway station areas can be added to the Urban Area construct. The CCT and Purple Line stations are ready for such consideration.
Over time, some or all of the other BRT network stations could be identified as Urban Areas and additional pro-rata share locations may emerge from local stakeholder interests.
Pro-rata share
Negotiated Exaction
Impact Mitigation
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
19
Pro-rata share elements
Successful pro-rata share district elements:• Compact geographic area• Common stakeholder interests• Inventory of unbuilt transportation system and
private development• Reflects needs and interests of constituents• Coordinated with state, regional, and local
implementers and operators• Includes regular monitoring and revision
processes and schedules
Examples: Delaware TID, Florida MMTDs, special districts in Baltimore, MD and Portland, OR.
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
20
Very-Low VMT Concept
Type of Development
VMT effect Qualified as
Effect on existing tests
Type 1: Zero VMT Development
Reduces areawide VMT (only residential applications in Bethesda/Silver Spring with very limited on site parking)
Defined by lookup table in Planning Board Guidelines
No action under LATR, TPAR, or transportation impact taxes
Type 2: Very Low VMT Development
Limited VMT (only residential applications in Bethesda/Silver Spring with relatively limited on site parking
Defined by lookup table in Planning Board Guidelines
No action under LATR
Type 3: Mitigated VMT Development
Reduction of site VMT by 50% as negotiated in “hard” Traffic Mitigation Agreement
Negotiated Traffic Mitigation Agreement
No action under LATR/TPAR; additional transportation impact tax
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
21
Very-Low VMT ConceptType 1: Zero-VMT Development: Limit parking to <
0.16 spaces per dwelling unit (no additional parking for up to 15KGSF ground floor retail).
Type 2: Very Low VMT Development: Limit parking on sliding scale per table below (no additional parking for up to 15KGSF ground floor retail):
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
22
Suite of LATR revisions Scoping
• Primary measure person-trips, not vehicle-trips• Specific person-trip thresholds for auto, ped, bike,
and transit analyses and mitigation• Low-VMT Alternative Review Procedure• Identify “protected intersections” where no
further auto capacity to be added
Analysis• Bike/ped gap closure• Bike/ped accessibility incentives• Multimodal operations
Mitigation• Priorities: TDM, bike/ped, transit, auto
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
23
Current concept
activities
M-NCPPC LATR Assessment
24
Next stepsLATR• Develop draft changes to LATR Guidelines (summer 2015)• Review / refine with TISTWG (fall 2015)• Develop final recommendations/report (winter 2015)• Present to Planning Board (early 2016)*
TPAR• Assess changes (summer 2015)• Review/refine with partner agency staff (fall 2015)• Develop final recommendations/report (winter 2015)• Present to Planning Board (early 2016)*
Trip Generation • Develop/refine approach (summer 2015)• Review/refine with partner agency staff (fall 2015)• Develop final recommendations/report (winter 2015)• Present to Planning Board (early 2016)*
* - additional status roundtable discussions to be held in 2015