2016 Subdivision Staging Policy Draft Policy Area Test and Transportation Impact Tax Slides For MCPB Worksession #4 On 6/28/16

2016 Subdivision Staging Policy
Draft Policy Area Test and Transportation Impact Tax

Slides for MCPB Worksession #4 on 6/28/16
DI SCUSSION TOP I CS
Policy Area Transportation Test

Public Hearing Draft recommendations
Possible modifications in response to testimony
Transportation Impact Tax
Public Hearing Draft recommendations
Possible modifications in response to testimony
Local Area Transportation Review follow up
Clarification of a couple recommendations
2
P UB L I C H E AR I NG DR AFT
Recommendation #3:
Adopt a new Policy Area transportation test based
on transit accessibility.
Transit Accessibility test:
TPAR (current Policy Area adequacy test):
No Roadway Adequacy Test
Roadway Adequacy Test - must meet a minimum

Level of Service (LOS) of 40% (LOS E)
Transit Adequacy Test - the proportion of transit

accessibility that can be achieved within the next 15
years based on land use changes and the
implementation of transit facilities within this time
frame. Compares 2015 with 2025 and 2040 setting a
threshold for adequacy at 40%.
Transit Adequacy Test - must meet minimum levels

of span of service and coverage, and maximum
headway for local bus service
Under Transit Accessibility Test
Under TPAR
Red Policy Areas (MSPAs) and Green (rural) Policy Areas

are exempt from the Transit Accessibility Test
(Recommendation #4)
Currently all Urban policy areas are adequate for

roadway LOS with the exception of White Oak and
Bethsda Chevy-Chase
If a policy area is found to be inadequate - achieving less

than 40% of expected transit accessibility in 40% of the
time to 2040, mitigation equals 25% of the applicable
impact tax
Within the Urban policy areas all MSPAs are exempt

from Transit Adequacy Test
Rural Areas are also exempt from the Transit Adequacy
Test
If either Roadway or Transit Test is inadequate, mitigation
equals 25% of the applicable impact tax
Transit Accessibility Test by Policy Area

The proportion of transit accessibility
that can be achieved within the next
15 years based on land use changes
and the implementation of transit
facilities within this time frame.
Compares 2015 with 2025 and 2040
setting a threshold for adequacy at
40% (as 2025 is 40% of the time frame
between 2015 and 2040)
Adequate Transit Accessibility

Percentage of Jobs Accessible with the
2040 Transit Network achievable with
the 2025 Transit Network.
N/A
Less than 10%
10%-20%
20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
50%-60%
60%-70%
Policy Area
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
Results of the Transit Accessibility Test by Policy Area

If transit accessibility measured in 2025 is at least 40% of
2040 transit accessibility, the policy area is adequate with
respect to its transit accessibility goal.
If transit accessibility measured in 2025 is less than 40% of
2040 transit accessibility, the policy area is inadequate and
mitigation is required.
Friendship Heights
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
White Flint
Grosvenor
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
Glenmont
Rockville Town Center
Shady Grove Metro Station
Adequate Transit
Accessibility
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
Silver Spring/Takoma Park

North Bethesda
Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Kensington/Wheaton
Rockville City
White Oak
Derwood
R&D Village
Gaithersburg City
Germantown Town Center
adequate
inadequate
adequate
inadequate
inadequate
adequate
adequate
adequate
inadequate
inadequate
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Potomac
North Potomac
Germantown East
Germantown West
Montgomery Village/Airpark
Olney
Cloverly
Clarksburg
inadequate
inadequate
adequate
adequate
inadequate
adequate
adequate
inadequate
inadequate
adequate
Rural East
Rural West
Damascus
exempt
exempt
exempt
Policy Area

Results of the Transit Accessibility Test by Policy Area
Consider partial mitigation:
If transit accessibility in 2025 is between 30%-40%
of 2040 transit accessibility, the policy area is
inadequate and partial mitigation is required equal
to 15% of the applicable impact tax.
If transit accessibility in 2025 is less than 30% of
2040 transit accessibility, the policy area is
inadequate and full mitigation is required equal to
25% of the applicable impact tax.
Friendship Heights
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
White Flint
Grosvenor
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
Glenmont
Adequate Transit
Accessibility
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt

North Bethesda
Kensington/Wheaton
Rockville City
White Oak
Derwood
R&D Village
Gaithersburg City
adequate
partial mitigation
adequate
full mitigation
partial mitigation
adequate
adequate
adequate
partial mitigation
full mitigation
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Potomac
North Potomac
Germantown East
Germantown West
Olney
Cloverly
Clarksburg
full mitigation
partial mitigation
adequate
adequate
full mitigation
adequate
adequate
full mitigation
full mitigation
adequate
Rural East
Rural West
Damascus
exempt
exempt
exempt
Mitigation - If transit accessibility

measured in 2025 is between less
than 40% of 2040 transit
accessibility, the policy area is
inadequate mitigation is required.
If transit accessibility in 2025 is
between 30%-40% of 2040 transit
inadequate and partial mitigation is
required equal to 15% of the
applicable impact tax.
If transit accessibility in 2025 is less
than 30% of 2040 transit
inadequate and full mitigation is
required equal to 25% of the
applicable impact tax.
Red - MSPAs
Green
Yellow
Orange
Road Code Urban Areas
Recommendation #4:
Do not apply the Policy Area test in the Red
Policy Areas (MSPAs) or the Green (rural)
Policy Areas.
No testimony specifically addressing this element.
Not a change from the current TPAR Transit
Adequacy Test application.
1
0
Friendship Heights
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
White Flint
Grosvenor
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
Glenmont
Transit
Accessibility
Adequacy
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
2014 TPAR
Transit Adequacy
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt

North Bethesda
Kensington/Wheaton
Rockville City
White Oak
Derwood
R&D Village
Gaithersburg City
adequate
inadequate
adequate
inadequate
inadequate
adequate
adequate
adequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
adequate
inadequate
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Potomac
North Potomac
Germantown East
Germantown West
Olney
Cloverly
Clarksburg
inadequate
inadequate
adequate
adequate
inadequate
adequate
adequate*
inadequate
inadequate
adequate*
adequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
Policy Area
Comparison of Transit Accessibility Results to TPAR

Transit Adequacy Test
Rural East
Rural West
Damascus
T R A N S P O RTAT I O N
R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S
Orange Policy Areas:
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Derwood
Gaithersburg City
Kensington/Wheaton
North Bethesda
R&D Village
Rockville City
White Oak
Examples:
Under TPAR
Adequate roadway level of service
Inadequate transit service
Mitigation payment = 25% of impact tax
No roadway adequacy test
No mitigation required
Derwood
Under TPAR
No mitigation required
12
T R A N S P O RTAT I O N
R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S
Derwood
Gaithersburg City
Kensington/Wheaton
North Bethesda
R&D Village
Rockville City
White Oak
Under TPAR
Inadequate roadway level of service
Inadequate for transit service
No mitigation payment

Under TPAR
Inadequate Transit Accessibility - less than 30%
13
T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS
Derwood
Gaithersburg City
Kensington/Wheaton
North Bethesda
R&D Village
Rockville City
White Oak
R&D Village
Under TPAR
Gaithersburg City
Under TPAR
Adequate transit service
Inadequate Transit Accessibility between 30%-40%
14
T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS
Yellow Policy areas:

Aspen Hill
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Fairland/Coleville
Germantown East
Germantown West
Potomac
Montgomery Village/ Airpark
North Potomac
Olney
Aspen Hill
Under TPAR
Inadequate Transit Accessibility less than 30%
Clarksburg
Under TPAR
Transit Accessibility N/A
No Mitigation payment
15
T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS
Yellow Policy Areas:

Aspen Hill
Clarksburg
Cloverly
Fairland/Coleville
Germantown East
Germantown West
Potomac
Montgomery Village/ Airpark
North Potomac
Olney
Fairland/Colesville
Under TPAR
Inadequate Transit Accessibility between 30%-40%
Germantown East
Under TPAR
Inadequate Transit Accessibility less than 30%
16
T R ANSPORTAT I ON
R E COMME NDATI ONS
Green Policy Areas:

Damascus
Rural East
Rural West
Damascus
Under TPAR
No Mitigation payment
Exempt from transit test
Rural East and Rural West

Under TPAR
Exempt from roadway and transit tests
Exempt from transit test
17
T E ST I MONY
Determine the accessibility of jobs and housing to transit
within the policy plan area not the region.
The proposed Transit Accessibility metric is intended to
provide a relative comparison among Policy Areas as to
how each is progressing toward attaining its own unique
threshold for accessibility as reflected by planned land use
and transit system improvements.
Transit Accessibility combines walk-access to transit with
transit access to regional destinations, so that both access
to transit and access on transit elements of the transit
trip are considered.
We strongly object to the proposed change to go to transit

accessibility as a new transportation adequacy test. The Board
should better address delays and queuing that result from
congested traffic congestion. A consequence of the proposal
would be a worsening of traffic conditions while planners
embrace a future and unfunded multimodal transit plan.
The Public Hearing Draft includes a framework for more
detailed review of the road network in a congested area than
exists under the current SSP process.
The transit accessibility test incorporates a metric job
accessibility via transit that measures adequacy in terms of
progress toward transit accessibility goals based on those
transit system assumptions that are funded.
1
8
T E ST I MONY
I support the changes to the SSP. Moving away from traffic
impact tests based solely on traffic delay is a first step toward a
more sustainable future for Montgomery. We need growth
guidelines that evaluate whether development offers more
transportation options particularly transit, walking and biking
and decreases the amount residents have to drive.
Staff concurs that the Public Hearing Draft reflects an
approach that is (1) consistent with views of some (but not all)
in the community as expressed at community meetings, (2)
responsive to many concerns heard at the Infrastructure and
Growth Forum in March 2015, (3) sensitive to new initiatives
nationwide that examine how best to measure adequacy for all
users, (4) reflective of some of the overarching objectives
identified through the TISTWG process and (5) responsive to
the Planning Board request to look beyond level of service for
new approaches during this SSP review.
1
9
T E ST I MONY
MCDOT supports the intentions of the Public Hearing
Draft of the 2016 SSP revisions and the focus on
improving transit accessibility, analyzing people instead of
vehicles, improving transparency, and streamlining
processes. However, we believe it better to understand
the concerns with the current TPAR process. We feel
TPAR to be conceptually successful at its goals.
Transit Accessibility most succinctly addresses the interest
(incorporated within the Councils request) to develop a
metric that measures progress in the development of the
master planned BRT network. The TPAR metrics are
useful in assessing a short term transit service plan but
not as well suited for defining adequacy for a longer term
horizon.
There have been no substantial TPAR contributions made

since the approval of TPAR. Therefore, it may be premature
to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the program
given how few new developments have yet utilized it.
The exclusion of TPAR as a regulatory tool in the 2016
Draft SSP is largely in response to its limitations with
respect to the evaluation the transportation adequacy
benefits of premium transit service. None of the existing
funding sources (Countywide Transportation Impact Tax,
Special District Tax, TPAR exactions, or PAMR exactions)
have at this point contributed a significant percentage of
the funds required to support expansion projects in the
CIP.
2
0
PUB L I C H E AR I NG DR AFT
Recommendation #12
Update Transportation Impact Taxes using
current CIP projects.
Adjust rates based on estimates of current
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) for trips to
work which is a readily available and
relevant measurement to use in
establishing Policy Area specific rates for
residential development.
A similar and complementary metric for
commercial development is the non-auto
driver mode share for trips to work.
2
1
PU B L I C H E AR I NG DR AFT
Public Testimony
Transportation Impact Taxes

Last update was in 2007 based on a CIP more than
9 years old
Align tax districts with policy area categories
Concern with change in the rate for office use and

change in discount factors applied by policy area
categories.
Related concern is that some policy areas may have

higher rates as a result of the change in discount
factors
Opportunity to include discount factors related to

per capita VMT, NADMS, and recognizing parking
reductions where applicable
Recent bill introduced by members of the Council
proposed removing the rate reduction for MSPAs as
well as the premium applied to the Clarksburg rate
2
2
Transportation Impact Taxes

Recommendation #
Public Testimony
Update Transportation Impact Taxes using current CIP

projects.
Concern with change in the rate for office use and

change in discount factors applied by policy area
categories.
Adjust rates based on estimates of current Vehicle Miles of

Travel (VMT) for trips to work which is a readily available
and relevant measurement to use in establishing Policy
Area specific rates for residential development.
Related concern is that some policy areas may have

higher rates as a result of the change in discount factors
A similar and complementary metric for commercial

development is the non-auto driver mode share for trips to
work.
2
3

IMPACT TAXES
General District Rate
Comparison
Land Use
2007 Calculated
Rates
2007 Adopted
Rates
$8,380
$5,884
$10,649
2016 Rates When

2016 Calculated Applying 2007 Percentage
Rates
Adjustment to 2016
Calculated Rates
2015 (Current)
Rates - General
District
Residential
SF Detached
MF Residential
SF Attached
Garden Apartments
High - Rise Apartments
Multi-Family Senior
$11,499
$8,032
$8,713
$6,776
$4,840
$1,936
$14,613
$13,966
$8,351
$9,250
$6,607
$2,643
$11,427
$8,886
$6,347
$2,539
$13.45
$6.69
$0.00
$11.96
$0.70
$1.06
$0.00
$12.75
$6.35
$0.00
$11.40
$0.65
$1.05
$0.00
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Bioscience
Retail
Place of Worship
Private School
Hospital
$11.56
$5.39
$18.80
$9.69
$4.85
$0.00
$8.67
$0.51
$0.77
$0.00
$16.04
$7.43
$25.93
24
Multipliers for General District

Transportation Impact Tax Rates
Policy Area Type
Adjust Residential Rates based on

Home Based Work Vehicle Miles of
Travel
Residential
Commercial
Red Policy Areas
0.25
0.75
Adjust Commercial Rates based on

Home Based Work mode share
Orange Policy Areas
0.75
1.00
Set ancillary retail rate at zero for

first 10,000 GSF in vertical mixed use
Yellow Policy Areas
1.25
1.25
Green Policy Areas
2.00
1.25
Proposed adjustment for Reduced

Parking
25

IMPACT TAXES
General District
Rate Comparison
2015 (Current)
Rates - General
District
Current MSPA & Clarskburg Rates
2015 (Current)
Rates - Metro
Station
2015 (Current)
Rates Clarksburg
New Rates in Public Hearing Draft After Factors

Applied to 2015 Current General District Rates
Core
Corridor
Residential
Rural
0.25
0.75
1.25
2.00
$13,966
$6,984
$20,948
$3,492
$10,475
$17,478
$27,932
$11,427
$8,886
$6,347
$2,539
$5,714
$4,443
$3,174
$1,269
$17,141
$13,330
$9,522
$3,808
$2,857
$2,222
$1,587
$635
$8,570
$6,665
$4,760
$1,904
$14,284
$11,108
$7,934
$3,174
$22,854
$17,772
$12,694
$5,078
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.25
$9.56
$4.76
$12.75
$6.35
$15.94
$7.94
$15.94
$7.94
$8.55
$11.40
$14.25
$14.25
$12.75
$6.35
$0.00
$11.40
$0.65
$1.05
$0.00
$0.00
$6.35
$6.35
$3.20
$0.00
$5.70
$0.35
$0.50
$0.00
$0.00
$3.20
$15.30
$7.60
$0.00
$13.70
$0.90
$1.35
$0.00
$0.00
$7.60
26
$4.76
$6.35
$7.94
$7.94
27

IMPACT TAXES
28
With a parking incentive

29

IMPACT TAXES
Estimated Transportation Impact Taxes
Recommeded Tax
Current Tax
Difference
Structure Without Parking
Structure
From Current
Incentive Applied
Project Type
Example
Location
DU's
Office SF
Retail SF
425 Residential Units, 20,000 sf Retail
Red
425
20,000
$1,462,950
$845,369
($617,581)
Orange
425
20,000
$2,925,475
$2,251,106
($674,369)
Yellow
425
20,000
$2,925,475
$3,656,844
$731,369
Green
425
20,000
$2,925,475
$5,679,950
$2,754,475
30

IMPACT TAXES
Project Type
425 Residential Units, 230,000 sf Office,

40,000 sf Retail
40,000 sf Retail
40,000 sf Retail
40,000 sf Retail
Recommeded Tax
Current Tax
Difference
Structure
From Current
Incentive Applied
Example
Location
DU's
Office SF
Retail SF
Red
425
230,000
40,000
$3,037,450
$3,215,744
$178,294
Orange
425
230,000
40,000
$6,085,975
$5,411,606
($674,369)
Yellow
425
230,000
40,000
$6,085,975
$7,607,469
$1,521,494
Green
425
230,000
40,000
$6,085,975
$9,630,575
$3,544,600
31

IMPACT TAXES
Recommeded Tax
Current Tax
Difference
Structure
From Current
Incentive Applied
Project Type
Example
Location
DU's
Office SF
Retail SF
150,000 sf Office, 20,000 sf Retail
Red
150,000
20,000
$1,066,500
$1,605,375
$538,875
Orange
150,000
20,000
$2,140,500
$2,140,500
$0
Yellow
150,000
20,000
$2,140,500
$2,675,625
$535,125
Green
150,000
20,000
$2,140,500
$2,675,625
$535,125
32
R E DUCED PAR K I NG
I NCE NT IV E
Eligible for properties in Reduced Parking

Areas
Applicable for sites proposing a number

of spaces equal to or less than the
Baseline Minimum
Reduced Vehicle Trip Generation Rates

proportional to percentage reduction
from the minimum requirement
Transportation Impact Tax discounted for

parking reductions in the Reduced
Parking Areas
40
LATR FOLLOW UP
42
INTERSECTION
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
47
OPERATIONAL
ANALYSIS EXAMPLES
Red intersections
require operational
analysis.
But is a network
analysis needed?
48
OPERATIONAL
ANALYSIS EXAMPLES
Step 1. Is
intersection CLV >
1600? If there were
no background
traffic, that would
only apply to the red
locations on this
map.
OR
49
OPERATIONAL
ANALYSIS EXAMPLES
Step 2A. Is
intersection CLV >
1450 and
development
increases CLV by 10?
AND
Within 600 of
another signal?
Assume for the
moment, that all
orange locations
apply; look for
adjacent 1450s or
600 spacing
This is 800
This is 300
50
OPERATIONAL
ANALYSIS EXAMPLES
Step 2B. Is
intersection CLV >
1450 and
development
increases CLV by 10?
AND
On a document
congested roadway
per MWCOG with
TTI > 2.0?
51
PEDESTRIAN IMPACT
For site with > 100 peds/hour

- Fix (or fund) ADA non-compliance within 500
radius of site boundaries
- Ensure LOS D for crosswalk pedestrian space
at study intersections within 500 of site or
within URCA/BPPA
For any intersection within URCA/BPPA
- If operational analysis is triggered, mitigation
must not increase average pedestrian crossing
time
52
BICYCLE IMPACT
For sites with significant bicycle trip generation

(100 non-motorized trips per hour plus
school/bikeshare proximity):
- Identify routes/improvements need to provide
LTS=2 (or Low) conditions to all
destinations within 1,500 feet of site
boundaries
53
TRANSIT IMPACT
For sites with significant transit trip generation (>50

trips/hour)
-
Inventory buses at stops/stations within 1,000 of site
Adverse effect exists if average passenger load of buses on

any one route exceed LOS D at that station during the
peak hour
Rationale: additional 50+ transit riders likely to include

trips on most popular routes
Mitigation to be defined in conjunction with MNCPPC and

transit operator.
One possibility would be to identify the number of

additional buses required to achieve LOS D for route
(Ex. 1 stop, 4 buses with 40 seats each and 240 total pax
= 60 pax/bus = 1.50. Achieving 1.25 would require 240/50
= 4.8 buses or need for 0.8 of a bus (equals mitigation
cost for applicant)
54
RESOURCE SLIDES
55
P OL I CY AR E A C ATE G OR IES
Map of proposed policy area categories
Map of current policy area categories
56
ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT
ADEQUACY MEASURES
NADMS
Mildly responsive to land use and
transportation changes
Only measures progress towards
plan implementation/adequacy where
NADMS specified by policy
ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT
ADEQUACY TEST
VMT
Site-level monitoring an option but reduces
applicant predictability
Related to congestion concerns, part of
national interest led by Californias SB 743,
but not related to master plan
implementation/adequacy
58
Friendship Heights
Bethesda CBD
Silver Spring CBD
White Flint
Grosvenor
Twinbrook
Wheaton CBD
Glenmont
1,397,959
1,346,446
1,323,371
1,270,391
1,268,554
1,234,181
1,200,581
1,006,288
1,142,379
983,099
269,244
301,822
216,277
207,528
215,938
196,814
131,862
172,459
159,438
127,475
1,913,126
1,859,479
1,792,117
1,707,890
1,693,911
1,652,567
1,575,229
1,532,455
1,505,618
1,275,198

North Bethesda
Kensington/Wheaton
Rockville City
White Oak
Derwood
R&D Village
Gaithersburg City
896,521
797,331
754,231
485,434
537,279
128,915
306,032
175,651
222,917
195,351
269,515
126,010
162,059
100,796
78,628
287,480
80,010
168,499
65,469
38,152
1,329,032
1,161,807
987,919
860,758
801,302
569,144
472,153
458,996
398,589
336,800
62%
35%
69%
27%
30%
65%
48%
59%
37%
27%
Aspen Hill
Fairland/Colesville
Potomac
North Potomac
Germantown East
Germantown West
Olney
Cloverly
Clarksburg
148,517
38,561
149,876
63,637
49,404
66,822
98,457
16,008
10,437
2,807
20,615
66,420
37,297
59,169
14,684
38,370
18,111
3,161
16,328
1,197
289,590
252,034
212,029
157,798
155,173
153,136
126,401
99,175
85,030
8,278
15%
31%
60%
63%
14%
44%
65%
4%
22%
22%
12,154
3,423
2,259
7,334
314
1,862
19,321
3,619
2,969
Rural East
Rural West
Damascus
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
exempt
R E SOUR CE SL I DE
6
0
R E SOUR CE SL I DE
6
1
R E SOUR CE SL I DE
6
2
B ACK G ROUND
Multimodal Trip Generation Rates
Proposed significant threshold (to be defined by Board) is 50

person trips
(Would be 75 person trips in MSPAs if LATR studies were to

apply in MPSAs)
Can be further reduced by proximity to transit (<1,000) and

parking reduction (2:1 ratio of parking below baseline to vehicle
trips for residential, 3:1 ratio for office, none for retail/other).
First 15,000 GSF of ground floor retail provided without offstreet parking in a mixed-use development exempted from trip
generation by any mode for purposes of assessing impacts.
6
3
B ACK G ROUND
Proposed re-instatement of mitigation priorities from

pre-2012 Guidelines, but with a modification in
priorities to:
Trip reduction
Ped / bike facilities
Transit facilities
Intersection improvements
Roadway link improvements
Ped / bike and transit facilities have an equivalency of

$12K per vehicle trip
Consideration of priority improvements to be

documented in LATR study
Table from pre-2012 Guidelines as example of concept
Priorities can be reversed if a lower priority type of

improvement is implementing a master planned facility.
6
4
65
66
ADD MWCOG TTI MAP
67
R E SOUR CE SL I DE
6
8
R E SOUR CE SL I DE
6
9
R E SOUR CE SL I DE
7
0
B ACK G ROUND
Multimodal Trip Generation Rates
Proposed significant threshold (to be defined by Board) is 50

person trips
(Would be 75 person trips in MSPAs if LATR studies were to

apply in MPSAs)
Can be further reduced by proximity to transit (<1,000) and

parking reduction (2:1 ratio of parking below baseline to vehicle
trips for residential, 3:1 ratio for office, none for retail/other).
First 15,000 GSF of ground floor retail provided without offstreet parking in a mixed-use development exempted from trip
generation by any mode for purposes of assessing impacts.
7
1
B ACK G ROUND
Proposed re-instatement of mitigation priorities from

pre-2012 Guidelines, but with a modification in
priorities to:
Trip reduction
Ped / bike facilities
Transit facilities
Intersection improvements
Roadway link improvements
Ped / bike and transit facilities have an equivalency of

$12K per vehicle trip
Consideration of priority improvements to be

documented in LATR study
Table from pre-2012 Guidelines as example of concept
Priorities can be reversed if a lower priority type of

improvement is implementing a master planned facility.
7
2
73
74
ADD MWCOG TTI MAP
75
EXTRA SLIDES
76

2016 Subdivision Staging Policy Draft Policy Area Test and Transportation Impact Tax Slides For MCPB Worksession #4 On 6/28/16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Subdivision Staging Policy Draft Policy Area Test and Transportation Impact Tax Slides For MCPB Worksession #4 On 6/28/16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Subdivision Staging Policy Draft Policy Area Test and Transportation Impact Tax Slides For MCPB Worksession #4 On 6/28/16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Subdivision Staging Policy

Draft Policy Area Test and Transportation Impact Tax

Policy Area Transportation Test

TPAR (current Policy Area adequacy test):

No Roadway Adequacy Test

Roadway Adequacy Test - must meet a minimum

Transit Adequacy Test - the proportion of transit

Transit Adequacy Test - must meet minimum levels

Under Transit Accessibility Test

Red Policy Areas (MSPAs) and Green (rural) Policy Areas

Currently all Urban policy areas are adequate for

If a policy area is found to be inadequate - achieving less

Within the Urban policy areas all MSPAs are exempt

Transit Accessibility Test by Policy Area

Adequate Transit Accessibility

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

Results of the Transit Accessibility Test by Policy Area

Silver Spring/Takoma Park

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

Silver Spring/Takoma Park

Mitigation - If transit accessibility

Silver Spring/Takoma Park

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

Comparison of Transit Accessibility Results to TPAR

Germantown Town Center

Orange Policy Areas:

Yellow Policy areas:

Yellow Policy Areas:

Green Policy Areas:

Rural East and Rural West

We strongly object to the proposed change to go to transit

There have been no substantial TPAR contributions made

Transportation Impact Taxes

Concern with change in the rate for office use and

Related concern is that some policy areas may have

Opportunity to include discount factors related to

Transportation Impact Taxes

Update Transportation Impact Taxes using current CIP

Concern with change in the rate for office use and

Adjust rates based on estimates of current Vehicle Miles of

Related concern is that some policy areas may have

A similar and complementary metric for commercial

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

2016 Rates When

Multipliers for General District

Adjust Residential Rates based on

Red Policy Areas

Adjust Commercial Rates based on

Orange Policy Areas

Set ancillary retail rate at zero for

Yellow Policy Areas

Green Policy Areas

Proposed adjustment for Reduced

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

Current MSPA & Clarskburg Rates

New Rates in Public Hearing Draft After Factors

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT