Traffic and Transportation Commission

MINUTES

Boards and Commissions Conference Room
Meeting No. 12-04
December 14, 2004, 7:30 p.m.

Commissioners Present: Richard Resnick, Chair 
Elizabeth Crane
Alice Filemyr   
Stan Klein 
Alan Levine   
Jon Oberg   
Amy Rosselle

City Staff: Katherine Kelly, Larry Marcus

1. Review and Approve Minutes

a. Minutes from the November 2004 meeting were approved with minor changes.

2. CTR Methodology

a. Proposed Step 10 Process and Guidelines

• Under Section II, “Proposed Agenda,” Commissioners agreed that steps 4 and 5 should be switched, so that Step 4 is “Public comment period” and Step 5 reads “Discussion among Traffic and Transportations Commissioners and consensus on recommendations.”
  
• Under Section III, “Proposed Guidelines,” number 4 shall read “Staff shall record public comments, with review by the Traffic & Transportation Commission, which may be presented to the Planning Commission and/or Mayor & Council.”

b. Step 10 with Twinbrook Commons Applicant

• Refer to Attachment A.

3. Town Center Traffic Calming

a. Staff provided copies of a report on Phase I: West End.  Commissioners reached consensus to support the proposed staff alternative.  Commissioner Rosselle agreed to draft a memo of support to Mayor & Council for the staff-proposed alternative.

b. Commissioner Oberg provided a brief summary and write-up of the Woodley Gardens/College Gardens Traffic Calming steering committee meeting.

4. Staff Report and Updates

a. Commissioners requested that staff continue to provide updates on discussions with SHA regarding the I-270 corridor, especially with regard to the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT).

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

1. Introduction by Chair Resnick

2. Scott Parker

a. Overview of land uses

b. Benefits to annexation

i. $3.1 impact tax to City of Rockville
ii. Developer has agreed to TDM fee above and beyond impact tax
iii. Developer has agreed to build a multimodal center above and beyond TDM and impact tax fees.  County would not do this.
iv. Control over where impact tax dollars go for improvements (i.e., in the City vs. anywhere in the County)

c. Timeline of project

i. Dec. 15 Planning Commission public hearing on the Annexation and a recommendation to the Mayor and Council regarding the Map Amendment (MAP2004-00090), the Text Amendment (TXT2004-00213) and the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP2004-00009)
ii. January 10, 2005: Mayor and Council begins public hearings
iii. February, 2005: Mayor and Council Discussion and Instruction

d. Levine: Is the WMATA property to be bought or will it be leased?
Parker: WMATA owns the land.  It will be a long-term lease to the City.

3. Pat Harris

a. Overview on benefits of annexation into City—focus on SOV reductions and 255 affordable housing units


b. JBG has done a lot of community outreach, including walking town meetings and a charette with Twinbrook Commons


c. Discussion:

i. Klein: All community outreach from JBG has been on east side of MD355 (none with Montrose community).
ii. Harris: JBG is willing to reach out to Montrose and work with that community.  Do keep in mind that Montrose is over ¾ mile from site.
iii. Klein: But our impact is traffic overflow and cut-through.

4. Mike Worksoky

a. Reviewed 15 intersections.  Scope determined prior to CTR adoption but we followed CTR standards.


b. Review of existing and background conditions, distributions, plus net new trips.  Also presented parking and multimodal aspects of the project.

5. Discussion

a. Levine: What’s the magnitude of these numbers—the trips generated?  Is this a lot or a little? (Worksoky compared it to a 7(?) story office bldg.)


b. Klein: I’d like to see all-day counts in addition to peak hour counts.


c. Klein: I calculated ~4,000 vpd to the West side of MD355.  (Worksoky stated that he does not have 24-hr. counts so cannot compare generations of peak hr. to vpd at this time)


d. Oberg: Where do we see the percentage of change (i.e., where are the trips distributed from and to?)


e. Workosky: We met w/City and did a “wish list” on what capacity improvements could be done, including spot improvements, pedestrian improvements (countdown signals, restriping, etc.) at every intersection we studied.  Plus a double-left at Rollins and MD355 (create a shared lane to split the queue and limit the desire to cut through neighborhood).


f. Crane:  How do people get from one side of the Metro to the other?  Would Metro be open 24-hrs?
Worksoky and JBG/WMATA:  Planned to be open only during Metro hours.  Metro is not redesigning the interior of the station.  Regarding concern about safety after hours, the grade to Metro entrance will be less, to create better lighting and visibility through station.


g. Oberg: I notice that the plan has the station marked for MARC trains.  Is that planned?
Worksoky, JBG/WMATA: We’ve talked with State about that but it’s not currently on the Master Plan.  The 2nd story of the multimodal center would allow for a MARC station but sharing the track line and platform would be difficult. 


h. Resnick: How will the traffic access shift at the station, since parking will be more equitably distributed on east and west sides?
Worksoky: We didn’t calculate the demand, but rather the access to those entrance locations.  We didn’t model shifting the traffic volumes at the different access intersections.


i. Crane: Re: Halpine and MD355: Requires pedestrian improvements.  Can pedestrian advance signal and left turn arrows be added?
Worksoky: That becomes a traffic operations issue with SHA.  Getting more time is difficult.
Harris: This is something we could investigate, however.


j. Klein: Will the 24-hr. counts be studied?
Kelly and Parker:  City staff needs to discuss this with JBG, determine scope of that work.  We cannot answer that tonight.  We will investigate this.
Resnick: This is something the T&T Commission can put in writing as a request to staff and JBG to investigate if there is consensus among Commissioners.

6. Public Comment

a. John Tyner, TCA

i. TCA has approved the project and the annexation, in general but still have questions about traffic at the site.
ii. We had JBG do a cut-through (Origin-Destination) study on Ardennes.  90% of traffic is generated from the community.
iii. We favor this type of multimodal development.  JBG has gone “the extra mile” to work with our community.
iv. Resnick: Does TCA have specific mitigation requests?
Tyner: One issue was the Uniwest project—but JBG is working with them to realign access and connections between the two projects.

b. Rob Ocelyn (sp?), TCA Transportation Safety Chair

i. Create a connection of Halpine to cross the CSX/Metro tracks.  We suggest a bridge to carry a single-lane of traffic, with ped/back path.  Close Halpine access on MD355.
ii. Ardennes has a cut-through problem from autos heading south on Veirs Mill, taking a right onto Ardennes, to avoid Twinbrook Pkwy.  We want to avoid that and JBG’s studies haven’t addressed that concern.
iii. Suggest a circle @ Ardennes.
iv. Veirs Mill and Broadwood is our single-most dangerous intersection.  We want a light there.

c. Harry Thomas, TCA President

i. We support the annexation and this project.
ii. Veirs Mill and Broadwood is a serious problem and has sight distance issues due to bushes.
iii. We want the $3.1 impact tax for a traffic light (at Veirs Mill and Broadwood) and traffic calming along Ardennes and Lewis
iv. Halpine is a problem.  With the one-lane bridge concept, however, creates a fire vehicle access problem.  Create one lane exit from Halpine onto Chapman. (Klein: slide a fire hose through). 
v. We want the impact tax money to help us mitigate other developments (such as the 525 dwelling units coming to former Maryland Motors site).
vi. Levine: I’m confused about the cut-through traffic---you say it’s a problem but previous speaker said it was traffic generated from the community. 
Worksosky: On Ardennes, from Veirs Mill via Twinbrook Pkwy, 90% of those trips generated from the community
vii. Levine: Regarding fire vehicle access issues and TCA requests for traffic calming, don’t those two conflict (i.e., fire vehicle damaged by speed bumps)
Thomas: We like humps, not bumps.  We want all of our bumps replaced with raised crossings.
viii. Levine: So, I hear your requests as 1) speed humps or raised crossings, not speed bumps, and 2) need a redesigned facility to get across Halpine.
Thomas:  We like the viaduct at MD355 and Park.
ix. Klein:  How long will the study for E. Jefferson (cut-through study to include 24-hr counts) take?
Crane: This will be done, correct?
Resnick: We’ll request staff to do the study.

d. Additional Comments

i. Tyner: Key to us is the net impact of this development.  Remember that there is additional approved development—all of which have net impacts.  This developer has been forthcoming and helpful. 
ii. Marilyn Powell (sp?), Montrose Community: Our concerns center on the total impact of the project.  WB traffic to I-270 pass (and utilize) the intersections along Congressional Lane.  Upgrade and maintain ped access points.

7. Summary

a. Resnick:

i. I didn’t hear specific mitigation requests from Twinbrook citizens.
ii. On the mitigations list I want to see the difference in LOS’s that these improvements would make (how would the LOS change at each intersection).  Without that information I’m not comfortable going to Planning Commission tomorrow with a recommendation for approval.

b. Filemyr: What is staff’s opinion on the Halpine bridge concept?
Marcus:  Could potentially cost $10-12 million


c. Resnick: Staff check with WMATA regarding 24-hr. access through the station (from east to west side of the station).  We request this.


d. Levine: King Farm, although it has had it’s problems, is a good example of annexation.  We’re better off having it in the City than not.  Supporting the annexation allows us control.


e. Oberg: Are there additional mitigations we can look at, such as permit parking within the development, with high fees?  Has this been considered?


f. Resnick:

i. I will speak at Planning Commission tomorrow night and say that we support the annexation but are still studying mitigations.
ii. Staff add a column in the mitigations chart to show LOS before and after.  Plus add “Address cut-through traffic”.
iii. Staff meet with JBG and to discuss Klein’s concerns and requests.
iv. Staff check with WMATA regarding 24-hr. access through Metro station.
v. Staff email T&T Commissioners the schedule for this project (esp. the timeframe for public comment period).  We may need to schedule our next meeting according to that schedule.