Recommendation
Staff recommends the Mayor and Council receive a briefing on the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study. A second briefing is recommended in September 2009, after additional re-alignment analysis is completed and the Montgomery County Council and the City of Gaithersburg have made formal recommendations on this project. At that time the Mayor and Council should consider the City of Rockville’s recommendation on the project.

Discussion
General Overview
The I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study is a joint project planning study undertaken by the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA). The study includes 31 miles of proposed highway improvements along the I-270 and US 15 corridor between I-370 in Montgomery County and north of Biggs Ford Road in Frederick County. It also includes the 14-mile Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), a proposed rapid transit corridor within Montgomery County that extends from Shady Grove Metrorail station in Rockville to the COMSAT area just south of Clarksburg.

The recently released 2009 I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA) is both an update and expansion of the earlier work completed in May 2002. The May 2002 study evaluated combinations of highway alternatives and transit alternatives. The highway alternatives included different combinations of General Purpose (GP) and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The transit portion included three different alternatives: Premium Bus, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Light Rail Transit (LRT). This latest update was in part due to the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) determining a need to examine the potential for Express Toll Lanes (ETLs) on I-270.

ETLs are toll lanes that coexist adjacent to non-toll GP lanes, and tolls are paid at highway speed using an E-ZPass transponder. ETLs are designed to alleviate congestion in the GP lanes by providing relatively free-flowing traffic and are usually barrier-separated from GP lanes. In the state of Maryland, all vehicles using ETLs pay a toll - with the toll varying by the level of congestion in the GP lanes (i.e., higher congestion, higher tolls).

In May 2009, the results of the alternatives considered in the latest AA/EA were presented to the public. Two public hearings were scheduled in June 2009 to update the citizens on the project’s progress and allow the public to review the study and provide comments. In addition, the public has an option to comment on the project until July 31, 2009. A summary of the study prepared specifically for the public hearings is provided separately in the Mayor and Council's briefing materials.

This evening, City staff will present the several alternatives, and numerous permutations, currently under consideration by the State Highway Administration (SHA) and Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)

Corridor Cities Transitway
The AA/EA study proposes three types of transit, light rail transit (LRT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and premium bus route. Both, the LRT and BRT would start at Shady Grove Metrorail station and end just south of Clarksburg, at COMSAT. The route would include thirteen stations, park and ride lots and a dedicated transitway that would have limited vehicular interaction at the local street crossings. Both, LRT and BRT under Alternatives 6 and 7 would have additional premium bus service that would operate between Frederick County and corridor park and rides, major activity centers and transit stations.

The BRT allows for more flexibility than the LRT and creates less visual impact. It could limit the number of transfers from one bus to another by allowing buses to go from standard roads to the transitway and then go to back to standard roads again. The LRT would require a person to drive or take a bus to the station and then wait for the rail line. While the travel time using BRT is marginally slower on the CCT, the overall time would be better since there are limited transfers. If the persons end destination were not along the CCT, then they would have to transfer to a bus again. In addition, new technology of buses may allow for a quieter and non-polluting system using a diesel/electric hybrid bus. This is especially important since there is a plan to have a hiker/biker trail adjacent to the transit line. Also, unlike LRT that requires a depot adjacent to the line, a BRT depot can be housed and maintained at any bus depot. Additionally, according to the AA/EA, the BRT will have less visual impact than the LRT largely due to the overhead catenary system and supporting aerial structures that would be present along the transitway.

Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) - Alternative Alignment Study - MTA is evaluating the possibility of realigning a portion of the transit route. The proposed realignments would occur in Gaithersburg and in Montgomery County. Gaithersburg has requested that they evaluate moving the Crown Farm alignment to match with the approved development of the site. They have also requested MTA to look at moving the transit to the west side of Great Seneca Highway to serve the Kentlands community.

Montgomery County has requested MTA to evaluate realigning the transit system to match the Gaithersburg West Master Plan draft. The Gaithersburg West Master Plan draft proposes to remove two stations and add three stations, which will result in an increase of the route. This new alignment would help to accommodate the additional planned growth in this area that is proposed in the Master Plan draft.

When evaluating cost-effectiveness, the results show that the two BRT alternatives meet a “medium” cost-effectiveness rating and meets federal criteria for funding. The LRT alternatives have a “low” cost-effectiveness rating and does not meet federal criteria for funding. The proposed realignments of the transit system should increase the amount of potential users. If the increase in riders is great enough, then there is a possibility that the cost-effectiveness of the project could improve, which would allow for the LRT to be built instead of BRT. However, improving the cost-effectiveness to the point that LRT would move to a level that would allow for federal funding is unlikely.

Highway Improvements
The highway improvements along I-270 and US 15 would add GP lanes, auxiliary lanes and managed lanes. These highway improvements account for 83 to 90 percent of the total cost of the entire project. The managed lanes that have been proposed could be HOV, High-Occupancy Toll (HOT), ETLs or reversible lanes. The HOV lanes give an advantage to carpoolers, vanpoolers and buses, however; only those vehicles can use the lanes; lanes require enforcement, which is often difficult and slows traffic; and no revenues are collected. The HOT lanes go further in that they allow for carpoolers, vanpoolers and buses to use the lanes without paying, and they also allow for single occupancy vehicles to pay for use of the lanes. These lanes have been difficult to manage with the current technology. The ETLs however, require everyone to pay regardless of how many people are in the vehicle. The price of using the lanes would increase or decrease depending on how crowded the GP lanes are with traffic. The advantage of the ETLs is that they will result in improved level of service on GP lanes and will provide a source of revenue. The disadvantage is that everyone has to pay to use the lanes, which may not encourage carpooling.

The additional type of lanes that are being proposed are reversible lanes. These lanes are currently in place along I-95 in Virginia. They are lanes that are barrier separated from the GP lanes. They operate in the direction of peak hour traffic. If they were to be implemented in the County, then the lanes would operate southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening. The benefit of these lanes allows for less pavement, and therefore, less environmental impacts. They however, can be closed for numerous hours when the direction of the lanes change. Also, SHA has stated that you need a 70/30 directional split. If more traffic is traveling in the opposite direction of the peak hour, there could be traffic jams in that direction.

Start/Stop	Alternative 1: No Build Alternative	Alternative 6.1: No Build Transit Alternative	Alternative 6.2: Transit TSM	Alternative 6A or 6B	Alternative 7A or 7B
Transit	None	None	Premium Bus Route Service	6A: LRT	7A: LRT
				6B: BRT	7B: BRT
I-270/US 15 Highway Improvements
Shady Grove Road to MD 124	None	4 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs	4 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs	4 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs	4 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs
MD 124 to Newcut Road		3 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs	3 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs	3 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs	3 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs
Newcut Road to MD 121		3 general purpose lanes and 1 ETLs	3 general purpose lanes and 1 ETLs	3 general purpose lanes and 1 ETLs	3 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs
MD 121 to north of MD 80		2 general purpose lanes and 1 ETLs	2 general purpose lanes and 1 ETLs	2 general purpose lanes and 1 ETLs	2 general purpose lanes and 2 ETLs
		ETLs terminate north of MD 80 near Park Mills Road
North of MD 80 to I-70		3 general purpose lanes	3 general purpose lanes	3 general purpose lanes	4 general purpose lanes
I-70 to Biggs Ford Road		3 general purpose lanes	3 general purpose lanes	3 general purpose lanes	3 general purpose lanes
Cost for Each Alternative
Capital Cost Estimates (Total in $ millions)	None – Routine Maintenance and programmed improvements listed in the MWCOG CLRP		$3,965.76	$4,656.43	$4,328.82
Annual O&M Costs			$14,793,350	$28,129,100	$26,858,800
Cost-Effectiveness			Base Line for other alternatives	6A: $32.90	7A: $32.43
				6B: $18.50	7B: $18.25

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative – This alternative is updated from 2002, to include the latest demographic forecasts and the latest planned transportation improvement in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP). It does not provide any major changes to the existing transportation network but, it does include minor repairs, maintenance and safety improvements as well as programmed improvements identified in the State’s fiscally constrained long range transportation plan.

Alternative 6.1: No Build Transit – This alternative is identical to the highway component of Alternative 6A/B but without the transit component. According to the AA/EA, it is solely for the assessment of transit performance and therefore an Environmental Assessment was not completed.

Alternative 6.2: Transit TSM – This alternative provides a baseline for the Federal Transit Administration cost effectiveness evaluation, an important component of the transit Alternative Analysis. It is designed to provide comparable quality and levels of transit service at lower cost than Alternatives 6A/B, without major investment in a transit fixed guideway and using the same assumptions for the highway network as Alternatives 6A/B. This alternative would use existing transit facilities with routine maintenance and minor improvements, but would provide new stations at the CCT station locations, park and ride facilities in the same locations as for Alternative 6A/B, additional new premium bus routes serving major activity centers and an enhanced feeder bus route to Metrorail and MARC stations. According to the study, this alternative is solely for the assessment of transit performance and therefore, an Environmental Assessment was not completed.

Alternative 6A/B: The highway component (represented by “6”) would expand I-270 to add GP lanes, barrier separated express toll lanes, auxiliary lanes (used for acceleration and deceleration that are connected between consecutive interchange ramps), and direct access ramps along I-270. Along US 15 this alternative would add GP lanes and auxiliary lanes. The highway component for this alternative covers the same footprint as Alternative 7. The transit portion of Alternative 6 is represented by "A" for LRT and "B" for BRT.

Alternative 7A/B: The highway portion of this alternative would add GP lanes, barrier separated express toll lanes, and direct access ramps along I-270. In addition, US 15 would also expand to have GP lanes and auxiliary lanes. The difference from this alternative to the Alternative 6A/B, is that it would allow for one more ETL from Newcut Road to north of MD 80 and one more GP lane from north of MD 80 to I-70. The LRT system for this alternative is the same as Alternative 6A, including the amenities. Similar to Alternative 6, the transit portion of Alternative 7 is represented by "A" for LRT and "B" for BRT. (Attachment A provides maps for Alternatives 6A/B and 7A/B)


Public Hearing Meetings
Public hearing meetings were held in June 2009 in Gaithersburg and Frederick to discuss the alternative plans proposed in the May 2009 AA/EA. The purpose of the public hearings was to describe recent project developments, including the proposed highway alternatives and environmental analysis presented in the AA/EA. At this time, there are no changes being proposed for the transitway. SHA is in the process of evaluating alternative alignments that would be located in Montgomery County and Gaithersburg. The final report on these alignments will be available in Fall 2009.

Project Impact on the City of Rockville
A portion of the proposed CCT that would be located within the City of Rockville limits will be run through the King Farm development and be adjacent to the Upper Rock development (Attachment B). This portion of the CCT in King Farm would be located in the existing median strip of King Farm Boulevard and is proposed to have two transit stations. These two stations are the last stops before it connects to the Shady Grove Metrorail station. Additionally, the transitway would run adjacent to the Upper Rock Development between Upper Rock and I-270; however, no stations are planned in this area. The alignment of the CCT would then cross I-270 near Shady Grove Road. The latest proposal for improvements that was completed in May 2009, does not propose a changing the CCT alignment that is located in the City.

Other Jurisdictions
During its meeting of July 21, 2009, the County Council reviewed recommendations from the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee, Planning Board and the County Executive. The County Council decided not to take action at this time and to further review those recommendations. The Council is divided between the BRT and LRT options for the CCT and is reviewing a modified version of Alternative 7 as recommended by the Planning Board (Attachment C). The proposed alternative would add four (two each direction) managed lanes to Frederick County or adding four managed lanes to MD 121 and two reversible managed lanes from MD 121 to Frederick County. The County Council is also considering a 2002 Alternative 3 - similar to Alternative 7 with no barriers - supported by the County Executive.

The City of Gaithersburg (Attachment D) has not made a formal recommendation on all aspects of this study, but expects to do so in the fall of 2009, when the additional analysis has been completed regarding the realignment sections of the CCT located in Gaithersburg. Although the City of Gaithersburg does prefer LRT, given that the cost-effectiveness of LRT is low and would not be funded by the federal government, they are supportive of BRT. They also are supportive of the realignment of the CCT in Kentlands and Crown Farm. However, they are concerned about the CCT operations and maintenance facility at site 6 along Metropolitan Grove Road and its immediate vicinity of the transit station.

The Frederick County Commission and several municipalities in Frederick County met on July 16, 2009 with the State representatives to discuss this project as well. The Commissioners noted that they would be making their recommendation to the State in late August.

The Corridor Cities Transitway Coalition, consisting of a group of people from local jurisdictions and private companies, has stated that they support the LRT option.

Noise
The study also reviewed potential noise and vibration from the BRT and LRT throughout the route, including in King Farm. The study showed that noise and vibration would not have an impact in King Farm. This study, however, did not include the horn noise with the LRT.

Funding
Funding of the project is anticipated to be through a combination of Federal-aid highway funds and Maryland Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) funds. The collection of tolls on the HOT/ETLs, if selected as a build alternative, would also help to provide funds. The funding would determine the type of transitway and the amount of highway expansion to be built. An additional component, a hiker/biker trail that would be adjacent to either transit system, is not anticipated to be funded as part of the total package.

Cost Effectiveness
Alternative 6.2 TSM provide a baseline for the cost-effectiveness evaluation for alternatives 6A/B and 7A/B. Each of the build alternatives, 6A/B and 7A/B, would optimize public investment by increasing the efficient use of the transportation system by reducing travel times and encouraging the use of transitway. When evaluating the LRT and the BRT for cost-effectiveness, the results show that the two BRT alternatives 6B at $18.50 and 7B at $18.25 per hour of user benefit meet the threshold with a “medium” cost-effectiveness rating. Based on federal funding criteria, the BRT would then be acceptable to proceed into preliminary engineering where more detailed studies would be conducted on the alignments and costs. The LRT has a cost-effectiveness for 6A at $32.90 and 7A at $32.43 per hour of user benefit; therefore, the LRT alternatives have a “low” cost-effectiveness, and does not meet federal criteria for funding.

Mayor and Council History
The Mayor and Council voted in November 2008 to support the light rail system in their Consolidated Transportation Program Priorities letter to Montgomery County.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City associated with this agenda item.

Next Steps
The City of Rockville will continue to monitor the progress of the analyses related to the CCT realignment and will come back to the Mayor and Council with recommendation in September 2009. SHA is looking to finalize the choice of an alternative in Fall 2009.

Attachments

Department Head:



Craig Simoneau, P.E.; , Director of Public Works
Approved on: 07/21/2009

Assistant City Manager:


Jenny Kimball, Assistant City Manager
Approved on: 07/22/2009

City Manager:

Scott Ullery, City Manager
Approved on: 07/22/2009