montgomery village transportation plan public hearing draft 7.24.15

Montgomery Village Master Plan Public Hearing Draft

Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning DepartmentMontgomeryPlanning.org

61MONTGOMERY VILLAGE MASTER PLAN • PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT • JULY 2015

Chapter 6: Enhance the Village’s

Connectivity

Montgomery Village Master

Plan


62 MONTGOMERY VILLAGE MASTER PLAN • PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT • JULY 2015

6�1 Introduction Montgomery Village is well-served by several north-south and east-west major highways, and arterials, in addition to nearby I-270 and MD 355 (North Frederick Avenue), which are located south and west of the Master Plan boundary. The Village is also served by multiple local bus routes connecting the Village Center to other regional transit centers and rail stations. The transportation goals for this Plan are to improve mobility, reduce automobile dependency, and implement a complete street approach to ensure the transportation network is safe and efficient for all users regardless of mode of travel. To accomplish these goals, it will be necessary to expand and enhance opportunities to make walking, biking, and transit connections within the Village; between the retail centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; to the transit hubs; and to the neighboring activity centers of Germantown and the City of Gaithersburg.

The MVMP does not address Midcounty Highway (M-83), since decisions about this road will not be resolved within the time frame of this Master Plan. The Montgomery

County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is currently studying transit and roadway alternatives to Midcounty Highway and implications to Montgomery Village and other areas of the County.

6.1.1 Roadway NetworkMontgomery Village Avenue serves as the spine of the MVMP area for vehicular traffic. With its wide, tree-lined median and its divided configuration that offers scenic views of Lake Whetstone, this street has become a point of pride for the community. It serves a critical purpose in linking much of the Village with the City of Gaithersburg, Lakeforest Mall, and I-270 to the south, while providing connections to other roadways linking to Germantown to the west.

The majority of the planned roadway network within the MVMP area has been constructed, including Lost Knife Road, Watkins Mill Road, East Village Avenue, Apple Ridge Road, Arrowhead Road, and Montgomery Village Avenue (north of Club House Road and south of Midcounty Highway). However, there are a few roads that have not been built or widened to their maximum number of lanes as envisioned in the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways (MPOHT) such as Snouffer School Road (from two to four lanes), Goshen Road (from two to six lanes), Woodfield Road (from two/four to six lanes), Montgomery Village Avenue (between Club House Road and Midcounty Highway; from four to six lanes), and Midcounty Highway

Lost Knife Road

The road code standards should not determine the design of the community…

Clarence Kettler


(M-83) (not constructed west of Montgomery Village Avenue; not widened from four to six lanes east of Montgomery Village Avenue).

The widening of Snouffer School Road from two to four lanes is funded for construction (CIP projects #501109 and #501119) with construction anticipated to begin in 2015 and to be completed in 2019. Goshen Road is also funded to be widened from two to four lanes (CIP project #501107) with construction anticipated to begin in 2019 and to be completed in 2022. Just outside of the Master Plan area, there is an interchange at I-270 and Watkins Mill Road funded for construction by the State of Maryland (project #MO3512115). Construction is anticipated to begin in 2016 and ultimately open to traffic in 2018.

This Plan recommends amending the MPOHT to implement the goals of this Plan with the following network changes in Montgomery Village:

• Downgrade the functional classification of Montgomery Village Avenue from major highway (six lanes) to arterial (four lanes) for the segment between Club House Road and Midcounty Highway. This segment is currently constructed as a four-lane median divided road. If the classification of this segment is changed to arterial it would effectively prevent Montgomery Village Avenue from being widened any further. The portion along the frontage of the Village Center (between Stedwick Road and Club House Road) is envisioned to be more pedestrian-oriented than it is

currently in order to encourage activity between the redeveloped Village Center and the redeveloped Professional Center.

• Extend Stewartown Road as a two-lane minor arterial (MA-298) across the former golf course from Montgomery Village Avenue at its current terminus to Watkins Mill Road at the intersection with Crested Iris Drive. Extending Stewartown Road will improve local connectivity between the east and west sides of the Village, as well as provide access for the future, potential development of the former golf course. The road should be designed as a two-lane undivided section with on-street parking, a shared use path along the southern side, and a targeted design speed of 25 MPH to discourage speeding traffic. Methods for slowing traffic that should be taken into consideration include the horizontal road alignment and narrow travel lanes. Based on the general location of the proposed road, as shown on the roadway classification map, construction of the Stewartown Road extension will not impact the stream valley buffer. (See an illustrative cross-section of Stewartown Road on page 73.) The existing segment of Stewartown Road between Montgomery Village Avenue and Goshen Road should be assigned the same minor arterial (MA-298) MPOHT classification as the unbuilt extension.

• Reclassify Stedwick Road east of Watkins Mill Road (A-276), Club House Road west of Montgomery Village Avenue (P-21), and the eastern 700-foot segment of Rothbury Drive (A-285) as business streets (B-1, B-2, and B-3, respectively) in the MPOHT. Additionally, Contour Road (currently not in the MPOHT) should be classified as a business street (B-4). This classification will allow these streets to better support the existing shopping centers or the vision for redeveloped adjacent properties.

The Master Plan process provides an opportunity to review the roadway network and evaluate the appropriateness of classifications in the MPOHT. The following recommendations are relatively minor amendments to the MPOHT:

• Remove Burr Oak Drive (A-285 in the 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity Master Plan and A-277 in the 1971 Gaithersburg Vicinity Master Plan) between Rothbury Drive and Wightman Road from the MPOHT. This north-south road was intended to connect the eastern terminus of Rothbury Drive (which at that time did not connect with Goshen Road) to Wightman Road but was removed from the Montgomery Village Development Plan in 1972 (Council Resolution 7-843, Item III, F, 8/29/72, referred to as road A-277) and abandoned through the Circuit Court of Montgomery County (Equity #44848, 11/8/72) in 1972. In 1978,


Rothbury Drive was platted to show an extension eastward from its then terminus to Goshen Road. The property where Burr Oak Drive was supposed to be constructed has been developed as the residential community Gables Rothbury Square in the 2000s.

• Remove Odendhal Avenue (M-21) between Lost Knife Road and Goshen Road from the MPOHT. It was annexed by the City of Gaithersburg in April 1991 (Annexation X-157), subsequent to the adoption of the 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity Plan, and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the County. Odendhal Avenue was originally planned to connect

to Woodfield Road (also numbered M-21); however, development has occurred that precludes that connection from being made.

• Reclassify Warfield Road between Wightman Road and Woodfield Road from a two-lane primary residential (P-1) to a two-lane country arterial (CA-1). Warfield Road currently functions as an east-west arterial rather than a collector of local residential traffic. The country arterial classification better recognizes the function of Warfield Road while also allowing its rural character to be preserved and acknowledging its proximity to the Agricultural Reserve.

• Lewisberry Drive between Snouffer

School Road and East Village Avenue should be assigned the primary residential (P-32) MPOHT classification. This road currently serves as an important collector for the residential communities between East Village Avenue and Snouffer School Road. The new classification better reflects the function of Lewisberry Drive.

• Renumber Doubleland Road between East Village Avenue and Warfield Road as P-31 in the MPOHT. It was shown in the 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity Master Plan as sharing the P-30 classification number with Fieldcrest Road Extended (now referred to as East Village Avenue).

Table 1: Roadway Classifications

MPOHT# Master Planned Street From To Minimum ROW (Feet)

Through Travel Lanes

Former MPOHT# (if changed)

Controlled Major HighwaysM-83* Midcounty Highway (MD 124) Goshen Road City of Gaithersburg Line (aprox. 1,700 feet

west of Montgomery Village Avenue)150 6-Divided -

M-83* Midcounty Highway City of Gaithersburg Line (aprox. 1,200 feet west of Watkins Mill Road)

Watkins Mill Road 150 6-Divided -

M-83* Midcounty Highway City of Gaithersburg Line (aprox. 650 feet west of Watkins Mill Road)

Germantown Road/Watkins Mill Road 150 6-Divided -

Major HighwaysM-21 Woodfield Road (MD 124) Warfield Road Emory Grove Road 120 6-Divided -M-24 Montgomery Village Avenue

(MD124)City of Gaithersburg Line (aprox. 830 feet south of Lost Knife Road)

Midcounty Highway (MD124) 120 6-Divided -

M-25 Goshen Road Warfield Road Odendhal Avenue 120** 6-Divided** -

Table continues on following page...


Table 1 and Figure 17 show the proposed classifications for the MPOHT network within the MVMP area.

Table 1: Roadway Classifications - Continued

MPOHT# Master Planned Street From To Minimum ROW (Feet)

Through Travel Lanes

Former MPOHT#(if changed)

ArterialsA-16 Snouffer School Road Goshen Road Ridge Heights Drive 80 4 -A-17 Watkins Mill Road City of Gaithersburg Line (aprox. 2/10

mile north of Windbrooke Drive)Germantown Road/Midcounty Highway 80 4 -

A-18 Lost Knife Road Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124) Goshen Road 100 4-Dividedw/ separated bike lanes

-

A-18 Christopher Avenue City of Gaithersburg Line (aprox. 1/4 mile west of Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124))

Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124) 95 4-Dividedw/ separated bike lanes

-

A-36 Wightman Road Warfield Road Goshen Road 100 4 -A-275 Centerway Road Montgomery Village Avenue Goshen Road 80 4-Divided -A-295 Montgomery Village Avenue Midcounty Highway (MD 124) Wightman Road 100 4-Divided M-24 (between

Club House Rd and Midcounty Highway)

Minor ArterialsMA-298 Stewartown Road Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Avenue 70 2 New RoadMA-298 Stewartown Road Montgomery Village Avenue Goshen Road 70 2 New Road

Country ArterialsCA-1 Warfield Road Wightman Road Woodfield Road 70 2 P-1

Primary Residential StreetsP-10 Apple Ridge Road Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Avenue 70 2 -P-11 Stedwick Road (loop) Watkins Mill Road Watkins Mill Road 70 2 -P-19 Arrowhead Road Montgmoery Village Avenue Fern Hollow Way 70 2 -P-20 Rothbury Drive Arrowhead Road 700 feet west of Goshen Road 70 2 -P-30 East Village Avenue Goshen Road Woodfield Road 70 4-Divided -P-31 Doubleland Road East Village Avenue Warfield Road 70 2 P-30P-32 Lewisberry Drive Snouffer School Road East Village Avenue 70 2 None

Business StreetsB-1 Stedwick Road Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Aveune 80 2 A-276B-2 Club House Road Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Avenue 80 2 P-21B-3 Rothbury Drive 700 feet west of Goshen Road Goshen Road 80 2 A-285B-4 Contour Road Lost Knife Road Odendhal Avenue 70 2 None

Notes:* The City of Gaithersburg Line cuts across M-83 in several locations, therefore only portions under the County’s Jurisdiction are shown in this table.**Goshen Road is planned to be widened to an interim section of 4-lanes within a 107-foot ROW; design presented to the Planning Board 1/14/10.


Figure 17: Street Network


6.1.2 Transit NetworkThe Village Center currently operates as the primary transit hub within the MVMP area. Many of the County Ride On bus routes serving Montgomery Village drop-off and pick-up at Village Center bus stops along Montgomery Village Avenue, Stedwick Road, or Club House Road. These Ride On routes connect to the Lakeforest Transit Center, located just outside of Montgomery Village in the City of Gaithersburg. From the Lakeforest Transit Center, bus routes connect to the Metropolitan Grove and Rockville MARC Stations, as well as the Shady Grove and Rockville Metrorail Stations. (See Figure 18.)

The Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan recommends two Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects in the mid-County area: the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) and MD 355 North (BRT Corridor 3). The MD 355 BRT project is not currently funded for construction and was not assumed as part of the future transportation network for purposes of the local area traffic analysis for this Master Plan.

This Master Plan makes no recommendations to construct additional BRT lines within Montgomery Village. Instead, this Plan envisions increased bus service with the possibility of new bus stop locations within the Village as the need arises due to growing demand from build-out of the proposed redevelopment sites. The Lakeforest Transit Center will continue to play a larger role as the centerpiece of the Montgomery Village transit network. A study released by MCDOT

in April 2015, Lakeforest Transit Center Feasibility Study, demonstrated that there is currently the demand to expand bus capacity from the two existing bus bays to eight bays and will likely be the demand for nine bays by 2020 and ten bays by 2040, based on current employment and population projections. Depending on the possible densities and uses that may replace the Lakeforest Mall, there could potentially be a greater demand for bus capacity at the Transit Center. The County will work in close coordination with the City of Gaithersburg regarding the future of the Lakeforest Mall and its potential impacts on the Montgomery Village Master Plan area if and when plans to redevelop the site are made public.

This Plan also envisions enhancing the transit ridership shed by making improved bicycle and pedestrian connections from the Village south to the Metropolitan Grove and Gaithersburg MARC Stations, the Lakeforest Transit Center, and future CCT stations located just outside of the Plan area in the City of Gaithersburg.

6.1.3 Bicycle NetworkA high-quality bicycle network is important for the health, accessibility, quality of life, and vibrancy of a community. Creating an interconnected bicycle network also has the potential to increase access to transit and reduce the extent to which residents drive their automobile for short trips to the grocery store, café, library, or office, for example. Montgomery Village is an area that does not possess a significant formal bicycle network,

as there are currently no striped or separated bike lanes within the Plan area. Recently, the first on-street bicycle markings (“sharrows”) in the area were added to Watkins Mill Road just south of the Village in the City of Gaithersburg. Also in the City of Gaithersburg, the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has a project underway to improve safety (i.e., upgrade sidewalks, construct additional turn lanes, etc.) at a number of signalized intersections along Montgomery Village Avenue between MD 355 and Lost Knife Road. As part of this project, bicycle lanes will be striped along that segment of Montgomery Village Avenue. Montgomery Village offers a unique opportunity to improve the County’s bicycle infrastructure network due to the unusually wide medians in the center of several roads and adequate space within the right-of-way of roads currently lacking facilities to accommodate new shared-use paths.

Bike Lane Markings


Figure 18: Transit Network


Figure 19 Bikeway Network


Unsurprisingly, due to high vehicular speeds, high traffic volumes, and lack of bicycle infrastructure, much of the Village currently scores poorly on the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis. The LTS analysis measures the amount of stress that bicyclists feel when riding on a roadway alongside vehicular traffic. The areas in Montgomery Village that currently score well and allow bicyclists to feel relatively safe without dedicated bicycle infrastructure tend to be located in residential neighborhoods with low speeds and lower levels of traffic volumes. However, such areas can be considered “islands of connectivity” where bicyclists experience “low stress” on quieter residential streets, but they are hemmed in and constrained from reaching other areas due to surrounding roads and highways that are less comfortable and have a higher level of stress. This Plan envisions improving bicycle infrastructure on roads that are currently challenging for most riders while also creating safe connections to and from the islands of connectivity in residential neighborhoods. See the Appendix for additional information on the LTS analysis conducted for Montgomery Village.

This Plan recommends amending the 2005 Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan to provide for the following bicycle infrastructure within the MVMP area (See Figure 19.):

• Montgomery Village Avenue (LB-1) – Provide a shared use path on the eastern side from Lost Knife Road to

Wightman Road. This should connect to the existing shared-use path along the shore of Lake Whetstone between Stedwick Road and Lakeshore Drive. South of Lost Knife Road and in the City of Gaithersburg, SHA is planning to construct on-street striped bike lanes.

• Lost Knife Road / Christopher Avenue (LB-2) – Provide a separated bike lane on each side of the street from MD 355 (just inside the City of Gaithersburg) east to Odendhal Avenue. These lanes will serve as an important connection from the proposed separated bike lanes on Montgomery Village Avenue to the Lakeforest Transit Center. Given the wide median on both Lost Knife Road and Christopher Avenue, there is adequate space within the existing right-of-way to accommodate separated bike lanes and the current number of travel lanes.

• Stewartown Road (LB-3) – Provide a shared-use path along the southern side from Watkins Mill Road across the former golf course to Montgomery Village Avenue. The existing sidewalk along the southern side between Montgomery Village Avenue and Goshen Road should be upgraded to a shared-use path.

• Apple Ridge Road (LB-4) – Provide on-street bicycle lanes from Watkins Mill Road to Montgomery Village Avenue. There are currently striped

bicycle lanes between the Apple Ridge Recreation Area driveway and Montgomery Village Avenue; however, bicycle markings are not currently displayed in the lanes. Bicycle lane markings should be included for this segment and striped lanes with markings extended westward to Watkins Mill Road.

• Warfield Road (LB-5) – Provide a shared-use path along the southern side from Wightman Road to Woodfield Road. There is currently a segment of shared-use path constructed on the southern side of Warfield Road from just west of Doubleland Road to Miracle Drive with other segments of existing shared-use path connecting to the residential neighborhoods to the south.

• East Village Avenue (LB-6) – Provide a shared use path from Goshen Road east to Woodfield Road. There are currently sidewalks along both sides of the street with available space for either sidewalk to be replaced with a shared-use path. Preference should be given, if feasibly possible, to installing the path on the northern side to link pedestrians and cyclists with the Marion Community Center, Village Montessori School, and other civic amenities.

• Centerway Road (LB-7) – Provide a shared-use path, preferably along the northern side from Goshen Road to Montgomery Village Avenue.


This shared-use path will provide an important connection from the redeveloped Village Center/Professional Center to the planned shared-use path along Goshen Road and residential communities on the eastern side of Montgomery Village, as well as to the Whetstone Elementary School and Centerway Park.

• Wightman Road (SP-28) – Extend the shared use path along the northern side of the street from Goshen Road west to Brink Road. There are currently several segments of a shared-use path constructed on the north side of Wightman Road. Completion or reconstruction of this path would allow for linkage with the shared-use path currently planned on the north side of Snouffer School Road (east of Goshen Road).

• Watkins Mill Road (DB-27) – Construct the missing pieces of shared-use path from Stedwick Road North to Club Lake Road and from Millstream Drive to Apple Ridge Road on the west side of Watkins Mill Road. For both of these missing segments there exists a double-wide sidewalk that should be reconstructed as a 10-foot asphalt path and ultimately connect with the existing asphalt path north of Club Lake Road. South of Stedwick Road South, an asphalt shared-use path is already constructed on the east side of Watkins Mill Road south to near the City of Gaithersburg Line. In the City

of Gaithersburg there are “sharrow” markings provided on Watkins Mill Road, indicating to motorists that cyclists may be traveling on the road.

• Goshen Road (DB-29) – Upgrade the signed shared roadway designation to on-street striped bike lanes, consistent with the bicycle infrastructure proposed in the Goshen Road South County CIP road widening project (#501107), which will construct a shared-use path on the west side and on-street striped bike lanes.

This Plan does not make recommendations for additional bicycle facilities along Woodfield Road or Snouffer School Road, since they are mostly located outside of the Plan area. The 2005 Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan currently recommends a shared-use path on both Woodfield Road and Snouffer School Road with additional shared roadway signage on Woodfield Road. With the recommendations of this Master Plan and the currently planned bicycle infrastructure network constructed, residents in neighborhoods throughout Montgomery Village will be able to safely and efficiently ride a bicycle from their homes to the Village Center, Lost Knife Road corridor, Lakeforest Mall, and Lakeforest Transit Center.

6.1.4 Pedestrian NetworkThe Montgomery Village Foundation recently commissioned a Village-wide trail network survey to assess the existing conditions and locations of the sidewalks, hard and natural surface trails. This project highlighted

missing links in the existing system, as well as opportunities to connect neighborhoods to each other. One of those links lies within the former Montgomery Village golf course. Through the redevelopment of sites within the Village, this Plan recommends expansion of the sidewalks and the trail system where possible, including the pursuit of opportunities to achieve these goals within the Pepco right-of-way.

To improve pedestrian safety in the Lost Knife Road area, this Plan recommends removing the right-turn ramps at intersections along Montgomery Village Avenue, specifically at Midcounty Highway and Lost Knife Road. Removal of the right-turn ramps will decrease pedestrian crossing distance; slow vehicles, which will need to stop at red traffic signals; and reduce the complexity and conflicts that bicyclists experience with right-turning vehicles. This Plan also encourages the City of Gaithersburg and the State Highway Administration to consider removing the other right-turn ramps at intersections along Montgomery Village Avenue just south of the Plan area in the City of Gaithersburg at the Lakeforest Mall entrance, Russell Avenue and MD355.


Table 2: Bikeway Facilities

RouteNumber*

Street From To Facility Type* Notes / Status

Separated Bike LanesLB-2 Lost Knife Road Montgomery Village Avenue

(MD 124)Odendhal Avenue Separated Bike Lanes One-way separated bike lanes preferred.

LB-2 Christopher Avenue N. Frederick Avenue (MD 355) Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124)

Separated Bike Lanes One-way separated bike lanes preferred.

Bicycle LanesLB-4 Apple Ridge Road Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Avenue On-Street Striped Bike

LanesUnmarked bike lanes currently in place between Apple Ridge Recreation Area driveway and Mont-gomery Village Avenue. Marked bicycle symbols are needed east of Apple Ridge Recreation Area driveway and striped lanes west to Watkins Mill Road

Dual BikewaysDB-27 Watkins Mill Road Future Midcounty Highway Apple Ridge Road Shared-Use Path and

Signed Shared RoadwayShared-use path constructed on east side south of Stedwick Road South and on the west side north of Club Lake Road. Missing and substandard segments on Watkins Mill Road north of Stedwick Road south should be constructed on the west side. In lieu of a shared-use path, separated bike lanes should be evaluated at the time of imple-mentation.

DB-29 Goshen Road Warfield Road Odendhal Avenue Shared-Use Path and On-Street Striped Bike Lanes

Shared-use path and bike lanes not currently con-structed. Shared-use paths should be on the west side as roposed in County CIP Project - Goshen South #501107

Shared Use PathsLB-1 Montgomery Village

AvenueLost Knife Road Wightman Road Shared-Use Path Shared-use path to be on the eastern side and tie

into existing shared-use path built on eastern side along Lake Whetstone between Stedwick Road and Lake Shore Drive. Bike Lanes planned by SHA south of Lost Knife Road.

LB-3 Stewartown Road Watkins Mill Road Goshen Road Shared-Use Path Shared-use path should be constructed on the southern side between Watkins Mill Road and Montgomery Village Avenue. Existing sidewalk on southern side between Montgmoery Village Avenue and Goshen Road should be upgraded to a shared-use path.

LB-5 Warfield Road Woodfield Road (MD 124) Wightman Road Shared-Use Path Connect with existing portions of shared-use path along southern side from just west of Doubleland Road to Miracle Drive.

Table continues on following page...


Table 2: Bikeway Facilities- Continued

RouteNumber*

Street From To Facility Type Notes / Status

LB-6 East Village Avenue Goshen Road Woodfield Road (MD 124) Shared-Use Path Shared-use path preferred on north side to link with the Marion Community Center, Village mon-tessori School, and other civic amenities.

LB-7 Centerway Road Goshen Road Montgomery Village Avenue Shared-Use Path Shared-use path preferred on north side to link with Whetstone Elementary School and Center-way Park.

SP-28 Wightman Road Goshen Road Brink Road Shared-Use Path Several existing segments of shared-use path exist on north side. Extend planned shared-use path on north side of Snouffer School Road along north side of Wightman Road.

SP-70 Midcounty Highway (MD 124)

Goshen Road Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124)

Shared-Use Path Shared-use path should be constructed on the south side consistent with plans shown in the MCDOT midcounty Corridor Study.

Note: *An update to the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan is currently underway and route numbers, facility types, and terminology may be changed during that process.


Table 3: Capital Improvements Program

Project Name* Description Category Lead Agency

Coordinating Agencies

Stewartown Road from Montgomery Village Avenue to Watkins Mill Road Extend the road Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Wightman Road from Goshen Road to Brink Road Widen to four lanes Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Midcounty Highway (MD 124) from Montgomery Villave Avenue to Goshen Road

Widen to six lanes Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT

Midcounty Highway (MD 124) from Montgomery Villave Avenue to Plan Boundary

Extend the road Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA, City of Gaithersburg

Montgomery Village Avenue and MD 355 Reconfigure Intersection Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT, City of Gaithersburg

Watkins Mill Roand and MD 355 Reconfigure Intersection Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, SHA, City of Gaithersburg

MIdcounty Highway and Watkins Mill Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA, City of Gaithersburg

Midcounty Highway and Montgomery Village Avenue Reconfigure Intersection; remove free right turn Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT

Midcounty Highway (MD 124) and Goshen Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT

Lost Knife Road and Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124) Reconfigure Intersection; remove free right turn Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT

Montgomery Village Avenue and Stewartown Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Watkins Mill Road and Crested Iris Drive / Stewartown Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Christopher Avenue from City of Gaithersburg to Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124)

Construct Separated bicycle lanes Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA, City of Gaithersburg

Lost Knife Road from Montgomery Village Avenue (MD 124) to Odendhal Avenue

Construct Separated bicycle lanes Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA, City of Gaithersburg

Stewartown Road Extension from Montgomery Village Avenue to Wat-kins Mill Road

Construct shared-use oath on south side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Stewartown Road from Montgomery Village Avenue to Goshen Road Construct shared-use path on south side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Montgomery Village Avenue from Midcounty Highway (MD 124) to Wightman Road

Construct a shared-use path Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, SHA

Apple Ridge Road from Apple Ridge Recreation Area driveway to Mont-gomery Village Avenue.

Provide bicycle lane markings Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Apple Ridge Road from Apple Ridge Recreation Area driveway to Watkins Mill Road.

Construct bicycle lanes Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Midcounty Highway (MD 124) from Montgomery Village Avenue to Goshen Road

Construct a shared-use path on south side Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT

Midcounty Highway from Montgomery Village Avenue to plan boundary Construct a shared-use path on the south side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHANote: *Does not include currently funded CIP and SHA project (Goshen Road widening to four lanes, Snouffer School Road Widening to four lanes, I-270 and Watkins Mill Road interchange). Some of these projects may be provided by developers through the regulatory process.

Table continues on following page.


Table 3: Capital Improvements Program - Continued

Project Name* Description Category Lead Agency

Coordinating Agencies

Watkins Mill Road from Stedwick Road to Apple Ridge Road Construct a shared-use path and upgrade existing sub-standard paths on west side

Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Warfield Road from Woodfield Road to Wightman Road Construct missing shared-use path segments on south side

Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

East Village Avenue from Goshen Road to Woodfiels Road Construct a shared-use path on north side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Centerway Road from Goshen Road to Montgomery Village Avenue Construct a shared-use path on north side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

Wightman Road from Goshen Road to Brink Road Construct a Shared-use path on north side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC

New Public Elementary School If needed, location TBD Schools MCPS M-NCPPC

New Fire Station Location TBD Public Safety MCFRS M-NCPPC, MCDGS

New Sixth District Police Station Near Watkins Mill Road / MD 355 Interchange Public Safety MCDP M-NCPPC, MCDGSNote: *Does not include currently funded CIP and SHA project (Goshen Road widening to four lanes, Snouffer School Road Widening to four lanes, I-270 and Watkins Mill Road interchange). Some of these projects may be provided by developers through the regulatory process.

Agency Acronyms:N-NCPPC - Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning CommissionMCDOT - Montgomery County Department of TransportationSHA - State Highway AdministrationMCPS - Montgomery County Public SchoolsMCFRS - Montgomery County Fire and Rescue ServiceMCDP - Montgomery County Department of PoliceMCDGS - Montgomery County Department of General Services


AcknowledgementsGwen Wright, DirectorRose Krasnow, Deputy Director

Project TeamArea 2 Division Glenn Kreger, Chief Nancy Sturgeon, Master Planner/Supervisor Renee Kamen Michael Bello Luis Estrada Cepero Steve Findley Aaron Zimmerman

Functional Planning and Policy Division Pam Dunn, Acting Chief David Anspacher Larry Cole Eric Graye

Legal Christina Sorrento

Research and Technology Division Valdis Lazdins, Chief* Lisa Tate

Park Planning, Department of Parks Brooke Farquhar Dom Quattrocchi

Management Services Bridget Schwiesow Deborah Dietsch Darrell Godfrey Brian Kent Christopher Peifer*former staff member

MONTGOMERY VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Appendix 1 Transportation Analysis July 2015

M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

Appendix 1: Transportation Analysis 2

Master Plan and Study Area Boundaries The transportation analysis for the Montgomery Village Master Plan takes into account a larger study area and smaller master plan area defined by the Plan boundary (see Figure 1). The study area is comprised of the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) which are within and contiguous to the Plan boundary. The definition of the Plan area is important in that it is the first step in establishing the interface between the regional transportation model and the Master Plan local area model intersection analysis. The Plan boundary is formally established by the Planning Board during its deliberations on the Plan scope of work. The more detailed transportation analysis is conducted for the area within the Plan Boundary.

Intersection Capacity and Roadway Traffic Volumes There are a number of ways to measure the quality of service provided by a transportation network. In Montgomery County, the method of measuring network performance is established by the County’s Subdivision Staging Policy (formerly called the Growth Policy). This policy requires consideration of the critical lane volume (CLV) at major intersections as the the key metric used to measure the quality of service provided by the network. CLVs are essentially the sum of vehicles passing through an intersection at a single point during the peak hour. The level of CLVs considered acceptable varies by Policy Area within the County. Master Plan intersections included in this analysis are located within the Montgomery Village/Airpark Policy Area, which currently has a congestion standard of 1,425 CLV. Intersections at or above 1,425 CLV are considered to be “failing” or not within the acceptable standard for the Policy Area. Several intersections are located within the City of Gaithersburg which has a slightly higher congestion standard of 1,450 CLV. Master Plan Area Traffic Analysis A traffic analysis was conducted to estimate projected levels of congestion in the year 2040 at key roadway intersections within and just outside of the Plan area. The analysis assumed that the roadway network in the year 2040 would include the funded I-270 interchange at Watkins Mill Road, un-built roadway links (including M-83 west of Montgomery Village Avenue), and other road widening projects, such as Goshen Road and Snouffer School Road from two to four lanes

Figure 1: Master Plan and Study Area Boundaries


currently in the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP), and proposed network changes recommended in this Plan (such as the Stewartown Road extension). The following tables summarize the land use assumptions for the two study scenarios: Current Adopted Master Plan (1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity Plan) – Year 2040 Inside MV

256 Residential Units

90k SF Retail

No New Industrial

No New Office

Outside MV*

No New Residential

12k SF Retail

188k SF Industrial

No New Office

* This is the area just outside of Montgomery Village in the vicinity of the Airpark. Redevelopment of the Lakeforest Mall was not assumed.

In general, the analysis indicates that most intersections within Montgomery Village (with the exception of those along Midcounty Highway) would operate well below the area congestion standard of 1,425 critical lane volume (CLV). Intersections outside of the Plan area, particularly along MD

355 in the City of Gaithersburg (CLV congestion standard of 1,450), that are currently congested will continue to be challenging for drivers (see Figure 2). For a complete analysis, please refer to the Transportation Evaluation White Paper, prepared by Renaissance Planning Group, regarding the travel demand modeling assumptions and results of the CLV analysis. This White Paper is presented later in this Appendix.

Proposed Master Plan (Montgomery Village Plan) – Year 2040 Inside MV

2,460 Residential Units

261k SF Retail

-4k SF Industrial

88k SF Office

Outside MV*

No New Residential

12k SF Retail

188k SF Industrial

No New Office

* This is the area just outside of Montgomery Village in the vicinity of the Airpark. Redevelopment of the Lakeforest Mall was not assumed.

Figure 2: Existing CLVs


Figure 3: 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity 2040 (p.m. Peak-hour) Figure 3: MVPlan 2040 (p.m. Peak-hour)

Figure 4: 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity 2040 (PM Peak-hour w/intersection improvements)

Figure 4: MVPlan 2040 (P.M. Peak-hour w/intersection improvements)


Table 4A and 4B provided in the accompanying Transportation Evaluation White Paper summarizes the intersection analysis results for the 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity Plan in 2040 relative to the future Montgomery Village Master Plan in 2040. A list of potential specific roadway mitigation options (beyond the currently planned widenings or funded CIP/SHA projects) that could help alleviate additional traffic generated by new development in the Master Plan area are listed below.

• Midcounty Highway & Goshen Road o Construct a second westbound left-turn lane on

Goshen Road • Midcounty Highway and Montgomery Village Avenue

o Construct a northbound left-turn lane on Montgomery Village Avenue

o Construct eastbound left- and right-turn lanes on future Midcounty Highway

o Convert all free-right/channelized ramps to right-turn lanes

• Midcounty Highway (future) & Watkins Mill Road o Construct left- and right-turn lanes on all four

approaches • MD 355 & Montgomery Village Avenue

o Construct a fourth eastbound through lane on MD 355

o Construct third and fourth westbound through lanes on MD 355 and remove a westbound left-turn lane

• MD 355 & Watkins Mill Road o Construct a third northbound left-turn lane on

Watkins Mill Road o Construct a second eastbound right-turn lane

on MD 355 o Construct a second westbound left-turn lane on

MD 355 o Construct a third westbound through lane on

MD 355 • Lost Knife Road and Montgomery Village Avenue

o Construct a second southbound left-turn lane on Montgomery Village Avenue

o Construct a second westbound right-turn lane on Lost Knife Road

o Convert all free-right/channelized ramps to right-turn lanes

• Montgomery Village Avenue and Stewartown Road o Construct northbound and southbound left-

turn lanes on Montgomery Village Avenue o Construct a southbound right-turn lane on

Montgomery Village Avenue • Watkins Mill Road and Crested Iris Drive / (future)

Stewartown Road o Construct northbound and southbound left-

turn lanes on Watkins Mill Road o Construct a northbound right-turn lane on

Watkins Mill Road Note that the analysis conducted for this Master Plan is not intended to be a blanket traffic study for new development in Montgomery Village. Instead, it is intended to demonstrate


that at a high level the anticipated year 2040 transportation network, in combination with numerous intersections improvements, new roadway links, and road widenings (many of which are anticipated to be obtained through the regulatory/development review process) can adequately support the zoning recommendations and increased densities in Montgomery Village. Policy Area Roadway Network Adequacy Test In support of the 2012 Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP), a Transportation Policy Area Review (TPAR) analysis was performed for each policy area in the county to test the roadway network’s adequacy in 2040 (see chart below). The year 2040 TPAR analysis took into account buildout of all the adopted master plans by the year 2040 in combination with the implementation of all the unbuilt master planned projects anticipated to be constructed by 2040. It should be noted that this analysis differs from TPAR analysis for year 2024 that is currently used in the context of the regulatory review process. It should also be noted that, unlike the local area traffic analysis performed in support of this Master Plan, the segment of Midcounty Highway (M-83) between Middlebrook Road and Montgomery Village Avenue was not included in the year 2040 TPAR analysis. This resulted in the Montgomery Village/Airpark Policy Area (labeled ‘MVA’ in the chart below) marginally failing the roadway adequacy test during the evening peak hour. If the unbuilt segment of Midcounty Highway (M-83) or the Planning Department’s preferred transit and MD 355 BRT alternatives had been assumed in the 2012 SSP year 2040 TPAR analysis, the Montgomery

Village/Airpark Policy Area would likely have shown roadway adequacy for the currently adopted Plan in year 2040. Given that the Montgomery Village Master Plan area is a small subset of a much larger policy area and the magnitude of planned growth in Montgomery Village is anticipated to be relatively minor, the transportation network is considered to be in balance with the land use and densities proposed by the Montgomery Village Master Plan.


Montgomery County Planning Department Montgomery Village Master Plan Transportation Evaluation White Paper1 This White Paper describes the transportation systems analyses performed by Renaissance Planning Group and Parsons Transportation Group in support of the Montgomery Village Sector Plan under a task-order on-call contract. The primary purpose of the on-call contract is to assess intersection system performance for the master plan vision, using the regional MWCOG travel demand model, NCHRP 765 post-processing assessments, and CLV/Highway Capacity Manual techniques as generally used to implement the County’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) as described in the Planning Board’s Local Area Transportation Review / Transportation Policy Area Review Guidelines. Executive Summary The Montgomery Village Sector Plan is addressing the planned obsolescence of the Town Sector Zone, established in 1965 for development of one of the earliest master-planned communities in Montgomery County, as well as other community needs. From a transportation system perspective, Montgomery Village is located on the east side of I-270 between the City of Gaithersburg and the agricultural reserve. Traffic volumes and intersection congestion near the agricultural reserve are fairly low, and both traffic volumes and congestion are greater closer to I-270. The Midcounty Highway Extended project (M-83) is the most significant master planned improvement remaining to be built in the 1 White Paper prepared by Renaissance Planning Group with Parsons Transportation Group: July 27, 2015

vicinity of the Plan area and will change travel patterns to and through Montgomery Village. The primary points of forecast congestion at analyzed intersections are along MD 355, which is fully within the City of Gaithersburg, and along parallel Midcounty Highway where it borders the City of Gaithersburg. The analysis considered conditions both under the currently adopted 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity Master Plan (described as the Current Plan) and under the staff’s proposed changes (described as the Vision Plan). Increased development under the Vision Plan is focused in the Lost Knife Corridor, and intersection capacity improvements would be warranted at the Montgomery Village Avenue with Lost Knife/Christopher Road intersection to accommodate that growth. Otherwise, the level of forecast congestion, and alleviation of congestion under potential intersection capacity enhancements, are fairly similar under both the Current Plan and Vision Plan scenarios. Travel Demand Forecasting Analysis Process The following steps were undertaken to develop peak hour forecasts and conduct operational analysis of plan area intersections. The first section describes the travel demand modeling conducted to generate 2040 daily forecasts, and the second outlines the process used to gather existing intersection counts and develop 2040 peak hour forecasts. Travel Demand Modeling • Obtained 2015 and 2040 models from M-NCPPC

• Regional travel demand model version: MWCOG Version 2.3.52

o Baseline model incorporates land use from the Round 8.2 Cooperative Forecasts


o The 2015 Existing year existing model was modified to include the land use inputs for the zones representing Montgomery Village as shown in Table 1. This revised land use data was provided by Montgomery County planning staff in order to correct the underlying land use assumed in the Round 8.2 Cooperative Forecasts for this Sector Plan.

TAZ Households Population Employment

Household Group Quarters Total Industrial Retail Office Other Total

478 1,023 2,562 8 2,570 0 0 0 123 123 484 2,009 4,518 21 4,539 0 687 0 116 803 485 2,094 4,478 187 4,665 10 688 987 342 2,027 486 1,818 4,327 27 4,354 0 0 303 118 421 489 1,559 4,660 13 4,673 220 316 80 0 616 490 1,635 5,438 13 5,451 0 0 0 209 209 491 2,287 6,021 16 6,037 0 158 38 24 220 492 1,612 5,455 0 5,455 1,910 0 364 175 2,449

Total 14,037 37,459 285 37,744 2,140 1,849 1,772 1,107 6,868

Table 1: Land Use Inputs for 2015 Existing


• Model Assumptions o A number of modifications were made to the

model network in the Montgomery Village vicinity to more accurately reflect existing and future conditions The existing model network was

modified to include East Village Avenue and Stewartown Road, correct the number of lanes on Goshen Road and also closing of Watkins Mill Road across I-270

The future model scenarios were modified to include East Village Avenue and Stewartown Road and correcting the alignment of the extension of the Midcounty Highway

• The future Vision Plan scenario additionally included the extension of Stewartown Road to Watkins Mill Road

o The model structure was used as-is, including the year 2020 transit constraint and two-step assignment for HOT lanes

− The 2020 constraint year utilized baseline land use; not an interim Vision land use plan

− The multistep distributed processing was deactivated for the model run due to licensing constraints

− Intrastep distributed processing was included in the model run with four subnodes

• Montgomery Village 2040 Current Plan and Vision Plan Model Runs

o Two land use plans were considered for the year 2040 resulting in two separate model runs The 2040 Current Plan represents

maintaining the current plan for development within Montgomery Village

• The model run for the 2040 Current Plan included the land use inputs as shown in Table 2 for the TAZs representing Montgomery Village

The 2040 Vision Plan is a departure from the Current Plan representing higher household, population and employment expectations

• The model run for the 2040 Vision Plan included the land use inputs as shown in Table 3 for the TAZs representing Montgomery Village

o Daily traffic was extracted from the model Using daily volumes from the model – as opposed to peak period volumes – makes for a simpler comparison to available AADT data.


TAZ Households Population Employment


478 1,023 2,664 12 2,676 0 0 0 123 123 484 2,265 5,225 40 5,265 0 909 0 116 1,025 485 2,094 4,564 276 4,840 10 691 987 342 2,030 486 1,818 4,471 50 4,521 0 0 303 118 421 489 1,559 4,835 24 4,859 220 316 80 0 616 490 1,635 5,648 24 5,672 0 0 0 209 209 491 2,287 6,254 33 6,287 418 188 38 24 668 492 1,612 5,668 0 5,668 1,910 0 364 175 2,449

Total 14,293 39,329 459 39,788 2,558 2,104 1,772 1,107 7,541

TAZ Households

Population Employment


478 1,023 2,664 12 2,676 0 0 0 123 123 484 3,288 7,586 40 7,626 0 1,334 0 116 1,450 485 2,924 6,373 276 6,649 0 618 1,319 342 2,279 486 1,908 4,693 50 4,743 0 78 160 118 356 489 1,730 5,366 24 5,390 220 316 169 0 705 490 1,725 5,959 24 5,983 0 0 72 209 281 491 2,287 6,254 33 6,287 418 188 38 24 668 492 1,612 5,668 0 5,668 1,910 0 364 175 2,449

Total 16,497 44,563 459 45,022 2,548 2,534 2,122 1,107 8,311

Table 2: Land Use Inputs for 2040 Current Plan

Table 3: Land Use Inputs for 2040 Vision Plan


• Daily traffic forecasts were estimated utilizing procedures from the NCHRP 765: Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level Planning and Design

o The forecasts were developed individually for each intersection in isolation

− Forecasts were not balanced between intersections

− The 2013 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT ) was used as the existing count data (see below for source of the counts)

− The 2015 model results (using Round 8.2 land use with Montgomery Village corrections) were used as the base year traffic assignment

− The 2040 Current and Vision Plan model results (using Round 8.2 land use with the exception of Current and Vision Plan data, respectively, within Montgomery Village) were used as the future year traffic assignment

− No interim year model results were used for the post-processing

o The daily forecasts resulting from the NCHRP 765 post-processing were taken as-is with minimal manual adjustments For new or extended facilities, such as

new legs of the Midcounty Highway, the post-processed forecasts of adjacent segments were used to scale raw model

data of the new segments as the processing does not work as well with “new” links

Another example includes adjusting daily forecasts for MD 355 as the model appeared to underestimate volume on MD 355 and overestimate volume on I-270

Existing and 2040 Intersection Analysis • Acquired count data from Montgomery County’s

Intersection Analysis website (http://www.mcatlas.org/Intersections/)

o Used most recent counts only o Counts for a number of locations were

unavailable from the website; these locations were supplemented with data obtained from traffic counts provided by M-NCPPC on 3/12/15

o AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were extracted for each location based on the peak hour as indicated in count file

− The peak hour did not necessarily align with a clock hour, e.g., it could be 7:45-8:45 AM

− The peak hour listed in the count file generally aligned with the highest total traffic hour (i.e., the hour with the highest number of total turn movements)

o While existing traffic data was available for a range of years, the traffic counts were all assumed to be consistent with existing

http://www.mcatlas.org/Intersections/


conditions; therefore, no growth factors were applied to the data

• Acquired daily roadway volume data from the Maryland State Highway Administration

o Traffic data was extracted from shapefiles provided at the SHA website: http://www.roads.maryland.gov/pages/GIS.aspx?PageId=838

o The data used for this study was AADT from the year 2013

• Development of peak hour forecasts o K-factors were calculated for each approach of

the analysis intersections based on the existing intersection turning movement counts (TMCs) and AADT data, where available

o The K-factors were applied to the post-processed daily traffic volume on each approach of each intersection to calculate an initial estimate of peak hour traffic

− Where a K-factor was unavailable due to incomplete AADT data, such as on lower functional class roadways, a 10% growth rate was assumed if existing traffic count data was available.

− When existing traffic data was not available for approaches, the peak hour traffic was developed by averaging peak and daily volume ratios of the other legs at the intersection.

− No interim year model results were used for the post-processing

o The daily forecasts resulting from the NCHRP 765 post-processing were taken as-is with minimal manual adjustments For new or extended facilities, such as

new legs of the Midcounty Highway, the post-processed forecasts of adjacent segments were used to scale raw model data of the new segments as the processing does not work as well with “new” links

Another example includes adjusting daily forecasts for MD 355 as the model appeared to underestimate volume on MD 355 and overestimate volume on I-270

Existing and 2040 Intersection Analysis • Acquired count data from Montgomery County’s

Intersection Analysis website (http://www.mcatlas.org/Intersections/)

o Used most recent counts only o Counts for a number of locations were

unavailable from the website; these locations were supplemented with data obtained from traffic counts provided by M-NCPPC on 3/12/15

o AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were extracted for each location based on the peak hour as indicated in count file

− The peak hour did not necessarily align with a clock hour, e.g., it could be 7:45-8:45 AM

http://www.roads.maryland.gov/pages/GIS.aspx?PageId=838


http://www.mcatlas.org/Intersections/


− The peak hour listed in the count file generally aligned with the highest total traffic hour (i.e., the hour with the highest number of total turn movements)

o While existing traffic data was available for a range of years, the traffic counts were all assumed to be consistent with existing conditions; therefore, no growth factors were applied to the data

• Acquired daily roadway volume data from the Maryland State Highway Administration

o Traffic data was extracted from shapefiles provided at the SHA website: http://www.roads.maryland.gov/pages/GIS.aspx?PageId=838

o The data used for this study was AADT from the year 2013

• Development of peak hour forecasts o K-factors were calculated for each approach of

the analysis intersections based on the existing intersection turning movement counts (TMCs) and AADT data, where available

o The K-factors were applied to the post-processed daily traffic volume on each approach of each intersection to calculate an initial estimate of peak hour traffic

− Where a K-factor was unavailable due to incomplete AADT data, such as on lower functional class roadways, a 10% growth

rate was assumed if existing traffic count data was available.

When existing traffic data was not available for approaches, the peak hour traffic was developed by averaging peak and daily volume ratios of the other legs at the intersection.

o The intersection traffic was balanced. The initial estimates of traffic on inbound links to the intersection were summed, as were the estimates of the outbound traffic. These two sums were averaged, and the individual inbound and outbound approaches were scaled proportionally based on this total. This was done because each approach link has its own K-factor and growth rate from the traffic forecasts which will often lead to unbalanced traffic coming into and out of the intersection.

o Forecast turning movements were estimated based on the existing TMCs and the approach link volumes calculated above

− Utilized a Fratar (iterative balancing) technique

− The existing TMCs act as a seed value for the balancing

− The 2040 forecast link volumes are the target values for the balancing

− No manual adjustments were made to the resulting balanced turning movement volumes; some link volume totals differed slightly from those forecasted due to rounding of numbers during the balancing process




Intersection Analysis Tables 4a and 4b summarize the Critical Lane Volume (CLV) and Synchro analysis for the existing conditions, future 2040 Current Plan and future 2040 Vision Plan. Locations with a CLV value greater than 1600 are colored in yellow to denote levels of notable congestion. The study area intersections outside the City of Gaithersburg are located in the Montgomery Village/Airpark Policy Area which has a CLV standard of 1425. Intersections within the City of Gaithersburg are subject to the City’s plans and policies. Currently, the City has a CLV standard of 1450 CLV, although the 2009 Transportation Plan Element of the city’s Comprehensive Plan suggests revisiting it to allow higher levels of congestion. For each intersection with a substandard 2040 Vision Plan scenario CLV, potential improvement scenarios are identified on subsequent lines, with the rightmost column indicating the number of lanes on each intersection approach for that scenario. Given the high levels of traffic volume at the MD 355 analysis intersections and the City’s intent to rethink their 1450 CLV standard, improvements to intersections within the City only are identified to the extent needed to reach a 1600 CLV.


ID E-W Road N-S Road Conditions AM PM AM PM AM PM

Existing 1,421 1,712 1,393 1,679 1,422 1,700

Synchro Analysis

- - E (63.7) F (100.8) E (67.2) F (103.6)

Test improvements

- - 1,317 1,509 1,344 1,526 NB: 2L | 4T | R / SB: 4T | R / EB: 2L | 4T | R / WB: 2L | 4T | 2R

Synchro Analysis

- - E (55.0) E (77.2) E (57.4) F (80.2)

2 Russell Avenue Montgomery Village Avenue Existing 861 1,124 907 1,189 955 1,243

Existing 923 1,308 946 1,526 993 1,656

Synchro Analysis

- - D (42.5) F (124.7) D (45.5) F (148.8)

Test improvements

- - 946 1,270 993 1,379 NB: L | 3T | R / SB: 2L | 3T | R / EB: 2L | 2T | R / WB: 2L | 2T | 2R

Synchro Analysis

- - D (40.9) F (81.0) D (43.0) F (98.0)

Existing 783 1,482 1,213 1,643 1,283 1,795 Future: NB: L | 2T | R / SB: 2L | 2T | T+R / EB: L | 2T | R / WB: 3L | 2T | 2R

Synchro Analysis

- - F (121.7) F (163.6) F (155.1) F (206.4)

Test improvements

- - 1,213 1,305 1,283 1,439 NB: L | 3T | 2R / SB: 2L | 2T | T+R / EB: L | 2T | R / WB: 3L | 2T | 2R

Synchro Analysis

- - F (120.3) E (61.8) F (153.4) F (81.6)

5 Stedwick Road Montgomery Village Avenue Existing 998 987 1,026 1,172 1,026 1,176

6 Centerway Road Montgomery Village Avenue Existing 699 887 663 837 681 744

7 Stewartown Rd Montgomery Village Ave Existing 549 611 478 550 504 538 Future (Vis ion plan only): NB: L | T | T+R / SB: L | 2T | R / EB: L+T+R / WB: L+T+R

8 Apple Ridge Rd Montgomery Village Ave Existing 788 660 774 679 764 675

9 Wightman Road Montgomery Village Avenue Existing 726 744 835 682 820 670 Future: NB: L | T | R / SB: L | T | R / EB: L | T | T+R / WB: L | T | T+R

10 Centerway Road Snouffer School Road Existing 1,816 1,466 1,362 1,159 1,354 1,140 Future: NB: L | 2T / SB: T | T+R / EB: L | R

CLV Results

Configuration (if different than existing)Location Existing 2040 Current Plan 2040 Vision Plan*

4 Midcounty Hwy Montgomery Village Avenue

1 MD 355 Montgomery Village Avenue

3 Lost Knife Road Montgomery Village Avenue

Table 4a. Intersection Analysis Results


ID E-W Road N-S Road Conditions AM PM AM PM AM PM

Existing 1,045 1,136 2,292 2,173 2,319 2,212

Synchro Analysis

- - F (232.8) F (248.2) F (240.8) F (259.6)

Test improvements

- - 1,575 1,523 1,591 1,547 NB: 3L | 2T | R / SB: 2L | 2T | R / EB: L | 3T | 2R / WB: 2L | 3T | T+R

Synchro Analysis

- - F (87.7) E (73.5) F (90.4) E (77.0)

12 M83 (Mid-County Highway) Watkins Mill Road Existing 0 0 727 911 725 903 Future: NB: L | 2T | R / SB: L | 2T | R / EB: L | 2T | R / WB: L | 2T | R

13 Stedwick Rd Watkins Mill Rd Existing 655 854 919 1,112 909 1,107

14 Club House Dr Watkins Mill Rd Existing 699 1,045 777 1,199 780 1,189

15 Crested Iris Dr Watkins Mill Rd Existing 635 575 740 671 795 868 Future (Vis ion plan only): NB: L | T | R / SB: L | T+R / EB: L+T+R / WB: L+T+R

16 Apple Ridge Rd Watkins Mill Rd Existing 914 841 1,043 985 1,098 1,041

17 East Village Ave Goshen Rd Existing 683 666 576 550 584 558 Future: NB: 2T | R / SB: L+T | T / WB: L | R

18 Wightman Rd/Snouffer Schoo Goshen Rd Existing 963 1,325 1,050 1,417 1,046 1,435 Future: NB: L | T | T+R / SB: L | T | T+R / EB: L | T | T+R / WB: L | T | T+R

19 Stewartown Rd/Trams Way Goshen Rd Existing 694 706 564 566 647 625 Future: NB: L+T | T+R / SB: L+T | T+R / EB: L+T+R / WB: L+T+R

20 Centerway Road Goshen Road Existing 958 1,027 840 859 810 905 Future: NB: L | T | T+R / SB: L | T | T+R / EB: L | T | R / WB: L | T | T+R

Existing 1,349 1,485 1,392 1,761 1,451 1,806 Future: NB: L | 2T | R / SB: 2L | 2T | R / EB: 2L | 2T | R / WB: L | 2T | R

Synchro Analysis

- - E (76.9) F (140.7) F (84.0) F (149.1)

Test improvements

- - 1,073 1,545 1,138 1,587 NB: L | 2T | R / SB: 2L | 2T | R / EB: 2L | 3T | R / WB: 2L | 3T | R

Synchro Analysis

- - D (53.5) F (87.8) E (56.6) F (96.2)

22 Midcounty Hwy Saybrooke Blvd/Woodfield R Existing 976 1,090 1,199 1,360 1,232 1,31623 Snouffer School Road/Munca Woodfield Road Existing 850 1,108 947 1,176 955 1,19024 Airpark Road Woodfield Road Existing 732 841 887 1,093 886 1,095

CLV > 1,600Synchro analysis presented as: LOS (control delay in seconds)

Location Existing 2040 Current Plan 2040 Vision Plan*

CLV Results

Configuration (if different than existing)

* - Montgomery Vil lage intersections analyzed using only Montgomery Vil lage Current Plan or Vision Plan land use

11 MD 355 Watkins Mill Road

21 Midcounty Hwy Goshen Road

Table 4b. Intersection Analysis Results


Tables 4a and 4b demonstrate that the majority of intersections are expected to operate at acceptable CLV levels with the following exceptions:

• Two locations, MD 355 at Montgomery Village Ave (Location 1) and Centerway Rd at Snouffer School Rd (Location 10) operate at substandard levels under existing conditions.

• Location 1 (within the City of Gaithersburg) maintains substandard operation under the future scenarios and as such may require additional improvements Reconfiguring the intersection to bring

the CLV to an acceptable level would require adding a fourth eastbound through lane as well as converting one westbound left-turn lane into a through lane and adding an additional through lane (for a total of two left and four through lanes).

• Location 10 (in unincorporated Montgomery County east of the Plan area boundary) is expected to operate sufficiently well in the future scenarios as a result of the widening of Snouffer School Rd

• Only one location, Lost Knife Rd at Montgomery Village Ave (Location 3), is expected to operate above the acceptable threshold in the Vision Plan scenario but within the acceptable limit under the Current Plan scenario. This location is bounded by the City of Gaithersburg to the west and the Lost Knife Corridor to

the east, where most of the additional development in the Vision Plan is focused.

• An additional southbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane could provide sufficient capacity to bring the intersection to an acceptable operational level

• Four locations, (Locations 1, 4, 11, and 21), are shown to have unacceptable CLV levels under both the Current and Vision plans

• Two of the four are located on MD 355, at Montgomery Village Ave (Location 1) and at Watkins Mill Rd (Location 11), and the other two on Midcounty Hwy, at Montgomery Village Ave (Location 4), and at Goshen Rd (Location 21) Location 1 can be improved as

described above Location 4 shows an unacceptable CLV

with an assumed configuration of one left and right turn lanes each and two through lanes on the new eastbound approach of Midcounty Hwy, two through lanes of westbound Midcounty Hwy, a new northbound left turn lane and a shared southbound left and through lane. To get the intersection to an acceptable CLV level, the assumed condition would need to be augmented with a third northbound through lane.

Location 11 will see an increase in traffic in future scenarios due to the land use


changes, but also due to the bridging of Watkins Mill Rd across I-270. To bring the intersection to an acceptable CLV level, an additional northbound left and a through lane would need to be added, the southbound leg of Watkins Mill would need to be reconfigured to allow for two left and two through lanes, an additional eastbound right turn lane and an additional westbound left and a through lane would need to be added.

Location 21 assumes an additional southbound through lane as a result of the widening of Goshen Rd. To bring the intersection to an acceptable CLV, an additional eastbound and westbound through lane would need to be added.

As noted above, Locations 1 and 11 along MD 355 are located fully within the City of Gaithersburg, but are along key roadways that connect Montgomery Village to I-270. Locations 4 and 21 along Midcounty Highway are located at the edge of the Montgomery Village Master Plan area, and are bounded by the City of Gaithersburg. Forecast traffic and congestion levels are influenced primarily by levels of increased development throughout the I-270 corridor, not by the increased development in the Montgomery Village Master Plan area. Improvements to any of these four locations would require coordination with the City and the identification of potential capacity additions, particularly along MD 355 within the City at Locations 1 and 11, are for informational purposes. The City of Gaithersburg is currently coordinating with state,

regional, and local agencies to examine potential designs for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along MD 355. The Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan also contemplates increasing the City’s CLV standards to allow greater levels of congestion. Sensitivity Tests The primary sensitivity test within this sector plan is the comparison of the Current Plan and Vision Plan. Though the Vision Plan shows increases in land utilization compared to the Current Plan, traffic does not necessarily increase uniformly in proportion to the land use. The Vision Plan has additional growth of about 2,200 households (corresponding to an increase of 5,200 residents based on the average residents per household factor of the zones within the plan area) and 800 jobs compared to the Current Plan. The residential growth is focused in the Montgomery Village Center, former golf course site, and the Lost Knife Corridor. The commercial growth is more distributed throughout the existing neighborhood centers, providing additional retail opportunities within walking distance of the predominantly residential environment. It should be noted that much of the projected growth in study area TAZs will occur just outside the borders of the Montgomery Village Master Plan area in the City of Gaithersburg and around the airpark. The number of trips as modeled would increase with increased land use, but the distribution of trips will shift to account for shifting activity locations, and therefore traffic on individual roads may increase or, in some cases, even decrease with increases in population or employment. As an example, an increase in employment in one location may lead


to a decrease in traffic away from the location if the home to work ratio becomes more balanced, therefore meaning shorter trips are necessary to get from home to work. This is reflected in the forecast volumes, and consequent CLV results increasing at a number of locations under the Vision Plan scenario, but decreasing in others. At all locations, the differences between the Current and Vision Plans are low enough that operations are expected to be similar under both plans; that is, with only one exception (Montgomery Village Ave and Lost Knife Rd) there are no locations where intersections are expected to have congestion in one plan and not the other.


Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Figure 5: What is Level of Traffic Sress?


This plan explores the usage of the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) method which is currently being used in the update to the Bicycle Master Plan to identify roadways stress on bicyclists. LTS analysis measures the amount of stress that bicyclists feel when riding on a roadway alongside vehicular traffic. Figure 7 below is a depiction of the existing LTS in Montgomery Village.

With the Plan recommendations, it is estimated that the LTS will improve significantly, should improvements to existing infrastructure and additions to missing links occur over time.

Figure 6: Existing Level of Traffic Stress


Figure 9: Future Level of Traffic Stress

M-NCPPCMontgomery County Planning Department

8787 Georgia AvenueSilver Spring, MD 20910

MontgomeryPlanning.org

Montgomery Village Master PlanPublic Hearing Draft • July 2015

montgomery village transportation plan public hearing draft 7.24.15

Documents

village center

east village avenue

master plan of highways

arrowhead road

woodfield road

goshen road

master plan boundary

apple ridge road