Montgomery Village Transpo Section & Appendix 03-2016

93MONTGOMERY VILLAGE MASTER PLAN • APPROVED AND ADOPTED • MARCH 2016
Acknowledgements
Gwen Wright, Director
Rose Krasnow, Deputy Director
Project Team
Area 2 Division
Glenn Kreger, Chief
Nancy Sturgeon, Master Planner/Supervisor
Renee Kamen, Lead Planner
Michael Bello, Outreach
Luis Estrada Cepero, Urban Design
Steve Findley, Environmental Planning
Aaron Zimmerman, Transportation Planning
Emily Tettelbaum, Zoning
Functional Planning and Policy Division
Pam Dunn, Chief
David Anspacher
Larry Cole
Eric Graye
Greg Russ
Matt Johnson*
Office of the General Counsel
Christina Sorrento
Research and Technology Division
Valdis Lazdins, Chief*
Lisa Tate
Information Technology and Innovation Division
Chris McGovern
Shahzad Etemadi
Park Planning, Department of Parks
Brooke Farquhar
Dom Quattrocchi
Management Services
Bridget Schwiesow
Deborah Dietsch
Darrell Godfrey
Brian Kent
Christopher Peifer
*former staff member

Chapter 6:
Enhance the Village’s
Connectivity
Montgomery
VillageMaster
Plan

70 MONTGOMERY VILLAGE MASTER PLAN • APPROVED AND ADOPTED • MARCH 2016
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 the unbuilt
portions of 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
studying transit and roadway alternatives
to Midcounty Highway and implications to
Montgomery Village and other areas of the
County. None of the recommendations in
this Plan restrict the outcome of that study.
6.1.1 Roadway Network
Montgomery 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
Lost Knife Road
The road code standards should not determine the
design of the community…
Clarence Kettler

Highway (M-83) (not yet constructed west of
Montgomery Village Avenue; not yet 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 2017
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:
• Reclassify 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.
• Reduce the number of planned through
lanes on Goshen Road from 6 to 4 lanes,
and reduce the minimum right-of-way
from 120’ to 105’, which more closely
reflects the completed design of this
roadway improvement.
• Reduce the number of planned through
lanes on Wightman Road from 4 to its
existing 2 lanes between Great Seneca
Creek and Goshen Road. Wightman Road
is far removed from the I-270/MD 355
corridor; its location would not provide
adequate travel service to commuters and
its widening would negatively affect the
character of the semi-rural area that the
road traverses.
• 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. (See Figure
18.) Extending Stewartown Road will
improve local connectivity between the
east and west sides of the Village, as
well as provide access to residential lots
within the potential development of the
former golf course. The road should be
designed as a two-lane undivided section
with on-street parking where feasible, a
shared-use path along the southern side,
a sidewalk along the northern side, and
a targeted design speed of 25 MPH to
discourage speeding traffic. Because of
the unique environmental constraints and
the particular character of the existing
and proposed residential neighborhoods,
several methods for slowing traffic should
be considered for design modifications.
These modifications may include: reduced
horizontal baseline radius, reduced
horizontal distance between curve
tangents, reduced monumental entrance
lengths, increased maximum vertical slope
(up to 10% grade maximum), allowance of
median islands, enhanced pedestrian and
bicyclist circulation, and reduced planting
strip width.
• 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. However,
the alignment of the roadway should be
carefully designed to balance the desires
for vehicular access and pedestrian
connections within the environmental
and community context. 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 (A-276) east of
Watkins Mill Road, Club House Road (P-21)
between Watkins Mill Road and Centerway
Road, 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 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 road (CR-1).
The country road 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).
Figure 18: Stewartown Road Extension Cross-Section (2-lane section West of Montgomery Village Avenue, looking West)

Figure 19: Christopher Avenue Cross-Section (4-lane section West of Montgomery Village Avenue, looking West)
Figure 20: Lost Knife Road Cross-Section (4-lane section East of Montgomery Village Avenue, looking West)

Table 1: Roadway Classifications
MPOHT# Master Planned Street From To Minimum
ROW (Feet)(1)
Through
Travel Lanes(2)
Former MPOHT#
(if changed)
Controlled Major Highways
M-83(3)
Midcounty Highway Goshen Road City of Gaithersburg Line (approx.
1,700 feet west of Montgomery
Village Avenue)
150 6 -
M-83(3)
Midcounty Highway City of Gaithersburg Line (approx.
1,200 feet east of Watkins Mill
Road)
Watkins Mill Road 150 6 -
M-83(3)
Midcounty Highway City of Gaithersburg Line (approx.
650 feet west of Watkins Mill
Road)
Ridge Road 150 6 -
Major Highways
M-21 Woodfield Road Warfield Road Emory Grove Road 120 6 -
M-24 Montgomery Village
Avenue
City of Gaithersburg Line (approx.
830 feet south of Lost Knife Road)
Midcounty Highway 120 6 -
M-25 Goshen Road Warfield Road Odendhal Avenue 105(4)
4(4)
-
Arterials
A-16 Snouffer School Road Goshen Road Ridge Heights Drive 80 4 -
A-17 Watkins Mill Road City of Gaithersburg Line (approx.
1,000 feet north of Windbrooke
Drive)
Germantown Road/Midcounty
Highway
80 4 -
A-18 Lost Knife Road
(See Figure 20.)
Montgomery Village Avenue Odendhal Avenue 100 4 -
A-18 Christopher Avenue
(See Figure 19.)
Village Avenue)
Montgomery Village Avenue 95 4 -
A-36 Wightman Road Brink Road Goshen Road 80 2 -
A-275 Centerway Road Montgomery Village Avenue Goshen Road 80 4 -
A-295 Montgomery Village
Avenue
Midcounty Highway Wightman Road 100 4 M-24 (between
Club House Rd
and Midcounty
Highway)
Table continues on following page...

Table 1: Roadway Classifications - Continued
MPOHT# Master Planned Street From To Minimum
ROW (Feet)(1)
Through
Travel Lanes(2)
Former MPOHT#
(if changed)
Minor Arterials
MA-298 Stewartown Road
(See Figure 18.)
Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Avenue 56 2 New Road
MA-298 Stewartown Road Montgomery Village Avenue Goshen Road 70 2 None
Country Road
CR-1 Warfield Road Wightman Road Woodfield Road 70 2 P-1
Primary Residential Streets
P-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 Montgomery 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 -
P-31 Doubleland Road East Village Avenue Warfield Road 70 2 P-30
P-32 Lewisberry Drive Snouffer School Road East Village Avenue 70 2 None
Business Streets
B-1 Stedwick Road Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Aveune 80 2 A-276
B-2 Club House Road Watkins Mill Road Montgomery Village Avenue 70 2 P-21
B-2 Club House Road Montgomery Village Avenue Centerway Road 80 2 None
B-3 Rothbury Drive 700 feet west of Goshen Road Goshen Road 80 2 A-285
B-4 Contour Road Lost Knife Road Odendhal Avenue 70 2 None
Notes:
(1) ROW widths shown represent the minimum number of feet needed to construct the roadway and bike infrastructure; or in some cases, the amount of ROW already
dedicated.
(2) These are the number of planned through travel lanes for each segment, not including lanes for turning, parking, acceleration, deceleration, or other purposes auxil-
iary to through travel.
(3) The City of Gaithersburg Line cuts across M-83 in several locations, therefore only the portions under the County’s jurisdiction are shown in this table.
(4) Goshen Road is planned to be widened to 4 through lanes within a minimum 103-foot ROW.

Figure 21: Street Network

6.1.2 Transit Network
The 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. Metrobus
also serves the area with routes J7 and J9
connecting the Lakeforest Transit Center to
Bethesda. (See Figure 22.)
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. Reviews by MCDOT have
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, future MD 355 BRT stations,
and future CCT stations located just outside
of the Plan area in the City of Gaithersburg.
6.1.3 Bicycle Network
A 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 wide medians in the center
of several roads and adequate space within
the right-of-way of roads that currently lack
facilities.
Bike Lane Markings

Figure 22: Transit Network

Figure 23: 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 23.):
• 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. (See Figures
19 and 20.) 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. (See Figure 18.) 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 Network
The 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.
This Plan also recommends removal of the
right-turn ramps at Montgomery Village
Avenue and Wightman 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
Route
Number(1)
Street From To Facility Type(1) Notes / Status
Separated Bike Lanes
LB-2 Lost Knife Road
(See Figure 20.)
Montgomery Village Avenue Odendhal Avenue Separated Bike Lanes One-way separated bike lanes preferred.
LB-2 Christopher Avenue
(See Figure 19.)
Village Avenue)
Montgomery Village
Avenue
Separated Bike Lanes One-way separated bike lanes preferred.
Bicycle Lanes
LB-4 Apple Ridge Road City of Gaithersburg Line (approx.
1,000 feet north of Windbrooke
Drive)
Montgomery Village
Avenue
On-Street Striped
Bike Lanes
Unmarked bike lanes currently in place be-
tween Apple Ridge Recreation Area driveway
and Montgomery Village Avenue. Marked
bicycle symbols are needed east of Apple
Ridge Recreation Area driveway and striped
lanes west to Watkins Mill Road.
Dual Bikeways
DB-27 Watkins Mill Road Future Midcounty Highway Apple Ridge Road Shared-Use Path
and Signed Shared
Roadway
Shared-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 implementation.
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
constructed. Shared-use paths should be
on the west side as proposed in County CIP
Project - Goshen South #501107, which has
limits between Girard Street to 1,000 feet
north of Warfield Road.
Table continues on following page...

Table 2: Bikeway Facilities- Continued
Route
Number(1)
Street From To Facility Type(1) Notes / Status
Shared Use Paths
LB-1 Montgomery Village
Avenue
City of Gaithersburg
Line (approx. 830 feet
south of Lost 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
(See Figure 18.)
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 Montgomery Village
Avenue and Goshen Road should be upgraded to
a shared-use path.
LB-5 Warfield Road Woodfield Road 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.
LB-6 East Village Avenue Goshen Road Woodfield Road 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 Goshen Road City of Gaithersburg Line
(west of Watkins Mill Road)
Shared-Use Path Shared-use path should be constructed on the
north side consistent with plans shown in the
MCDOT Midcounty Corridor Study.
Note:
(1) 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.

Chapter 7:
Implementation
Montgomery
VillageMaster
Plan

• Preserve the existing quasi-public open
space and recreation areas owned
and maintained by the MVF and other
Montgomery Village homeowner
associations.
• Address compatibility between existing
and anticipated redevelopment of vacant
parcels.
7.1.3 Public Benefits in the CR Zone
The CR and CRT zones have two
development methods: standard and
optional. The standard method allows
a total density of up to 0.5 floor area
ratio (FAR) in the CR zone and a total
density up to 1.0 FAR in the CRT zone, and
requires compliance with a specific set
of development standards. The optional
method allows for greater density above
the standard method density. The additional
optional method density may be achieved
through a series of incentive increases that
can be combined to achieve the maximum
allowable density, subject to Planning Board
approval.
Public benefits provided under the optional
method must be drawn from among
seven categories outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance. Depending on the zone and
the proposed FAR, applicants must provide
public benefits in a minimum number of the
seven categories. While applicants for the
optional method may propose any of the 36
public benefits listed in Section 4.7.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance, there are certain benefits
that should be prioritized for this Plan area.
These include the following:
• Provision of major public facilities,
including but not limited to, separated
bike lanes along Montgomery Village
Avenue, and road enhancements along
Lost Knife Road to improve pedestrian
and bike access to the Transit Center.
• Connectivity and mobility, including but
not limited to, through-block connections
and streetscape improvements.
• Diversity of uses and activities, including
but not limited to, care centers,
enhanced accessibility for seniors and
the disabled, and affordable housing.
• Quality building and site design, including
but not limited to, exceptional design,
public open space, and structured
parking.
This list of priorities does not preclude
consideration of other public benefits, as
listed in the Zoning Ordinance, to achieve
the maximum permitted FAR. All public
benefits requested by the developer will be
analyzed to make sure they are the most
suitable for the Plan area, consistent with
the Plan’s vision, and satisfy the changing
needs of the area over time.
7.1.4 Coordination with the City of
Gaithersburg
The southern portion of Montgomery
Village is adjacent to the City of
Gaithersburg. This Plan recommends
revitalization of the lower Village area
along the north side of Lost Knife Road.
Lakeforest Mall, in the City of Gaithersburg
on the south side of Lost Knife Road, will
eventually redevelop from a regional
shopping mall to a different use. While
it is unclear what changes will occur at
this large site, its ultimate redevelopment
will impact uses on the north side of Lost
Knife Road. This Plan encourages ongoing
coordination and communication between
the County and the City of Gaithersburg
regarding areas of mutual interest and
concern. Coordination among stakeholders
with an interest in this area will contribute
to a better overall redevelopment scheme.
Enhanced connectivity should be explored,
including possible new north-south access
from Lost Knife Road to Midcounty Highway.
Redevelopment of the Lakeforest Mall
site could provide opportunities to extend
Contour Road to Russell Avenue.
7.1.5 County Capital Improvements
Program
The Capital Improvements Program (CIP),
which is funded by the County Council
and implemented by County agencies,
establishes how and when construction
projects are completed. The CIP cycle starts
every two years when regional advisory
committees and the M-NCPPC hold forums
to discuss proposed items for the six-year
CIP.
Table 3 shows a comprehensive list of
potential capital improvement projects that
may be needed to support implementation
of the Plan’s land use recommendations
over the 20-year life of the Master Plan. This
list assists the executive branch of County
government in estimating the full potential

fiscal impact of the Master Plan if all of its
recommendations came to fruition. All roads
listed on Table 3 were included in the traffic
modeling prepared for this Master Plan.
Wightman Road, for example, is currently
a two-lane road, but for traffic modeling
purposes four lanes were assumed. This Plan
does not recommend that any particular
project listed on the table be funded or built
within any given fiscal year and some projects
may not be built. Funding and construction of
capital imrovement projects occurs through a
separate process from the Master Plan.
Table 3: Capital Improvements Program
Project Name (1)
Description Category Lead
Agency
Coordinating Agencies
Stewartown Road from Montgomery Village Avenue to Watkins Mill Road Construct as two lanes Transportation Developer M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Midcounty Highway from Montgomery Village Avenue to Goshen Road Widen to six lanes Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Midcounty Highway from Montgomery Village Avenue to Ridge Road Construct as six lanes Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA, City of
Gaithersburg
Midcounty Highway (future) and Watkins Mill Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA, City of
Gaithersburg
Midcounty Highway and Montgomery Village Avenue Reconfigure Intersection; remove right turn ramps Transportation Developer,
SHA
M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Midcounty Highway and Goshen Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation Developer,
SHA
M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Lost Knife Road and Montgomery Village Avenue Reconfigure Intersection; remove right turn ramps Transportation Developer,
SHA
M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Montgomery Village Avenue and Stewartown Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation Developer M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Watkins Mill Road and Crested Iris Drive / Stewartown Road Reconfigure Intersection Transportation Developer M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Montgomery Village Avenue and Wightman Road Reconfigure Intersection, remove right turn ramps Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC
Christopher Avenue from City of Gaithersburg Line to Montgomery Village
Avenue
Construct separated bicycle lanes Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA, City of
Gaithersburg
Table continues on following page.

Table 3: Capital Improvements Program - Continued
Project Name (1)
Description Category Lead
Agency
Coordinating Agencies
Lost Knife Road from Montgomery Village Avenue 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 a shared-use path on south side Transportation Developer M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Stewartown Road from Montgomery Village Avenue to Goshen Road Construct a shared-use path on south side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC
Montgomery Village Avenue from Midcounty Highway to Wightman
Road
Construct a shared-use path on east side Transportation MCDOT 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 from Montgomery Village Avenue to Goshen Road Construct a shared-use path on north side Transportation SHA M-NCPPC, MCDOT
Midcounty Highway from Montgomery Village Avenue to plan boundary Construct a shared-use path on north side Transportation MCDOT M-NCPPC, SHA
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 Woodfield 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, MCDGS
Notes:
(1) Does not include currently funded CIP and SHA projects (Goshen Road widening to four lanes, Snouffer School Road widening to four lanes, I-270 and Watkins Mill Road interchange), or improvements needed
at intersections within the City of Gaithersburg.
Agency Acronyms:
M-NCPPC- Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
MCDOT- Montgomery County Department of Transportation
SHA- Maryland State Highway Administration
MCPS- Montgomery County Public Schools
MCFRS- Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service
MCDP- Montgomery County Department of Police
MCDGS- Montgomery County Department of General Services

MONTGOMERY VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
Appendix 1 Transportation Analysis
March 2016
Montgomery County Planning Department
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 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
currently in the National Capital Region Transportation
Figure 1: Master Plan and Study Area Boundaries

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 (PM Peak-hour) Figure 5: MVPlan 2040 (PM Peak-hour)
Figure 4: 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity 2040 (PM Peak-hour w/intersection improvements) Figure 6: MVPlan 2040 (PM 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 is provided below.
• Midcounty Highway & Goshen Road
o Construct a second westbound left-turn lane on
Midcounty Highway
• Midcounty Highway and Montgomery Village Avenue
o Construct a northbound left-turn lane on
Montgomery Village Avenue to future
Midcounty Highway
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 (signed as
southbound) through lane on MD 355
o Construct third and fourth westbound (signed
as northbound) through lanes on MD 355 and
remove a westbound (signed as northbound)
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
• 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 a northbound left-turn lane 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 when it was conducted back in the
2011-12 timeframe. This resulted in the Montgomery
Village/Airpark Policy Area (labeled ‘MVA’ in the following
chart) marginally failing the roadway adequacy test during the
evening peak hour. If the unbuilt segment of Midcounty
Highway (M-83) another roadway or transit (i.e., MD 255 BRT)
alternative been assumed as part of the transportation
network 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
Household
Group
Quarters
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
Household
s
Household
Group
Quarters
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

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.asp
x?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

− 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.asp
x?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.

Table 4a. Intersection Analysis Results
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 (Vision 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 4b. 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 (Vision 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 SchooGoshen 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 RExisting 976 1,090 1,199 1,360 1,232 1,316
23 Snouffer School Road/MuncaWoodfield Road Existing 850 1,108 947 1,176 955 1,190
24 Airpark Road Woodfield Road Existing 732 841 887 1,093 886 1,095
CLV > 1,600
Synchro analysis presented as: LOS (control delay in seconds)
Location Existing 2040 Current Plan 2040 Vision Plan*
CLV Results
Configuration (if different than existing)
* - Montgomery Village intersections analyzed using only Montgomery Village
Current Plan or Vision Plan land use
11 MD 355 Watkins Mill Road
21 Midcounty Hwy Goshen Road

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 7: What is Level of Traffic Stress?

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 8 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 (shown
in Figure 9).
Figure 8: Existing Level of Traffic Stress

Figure 9: Future Level of Traffic Stress

Montgomery Village Transpo Section & Appendix 03-2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Montgomery Village Transpo Section & Appendix 03-2016

Similar to Montgomery Village Transpo Section & Appendix 03-2016 (20)

Montgomery Village Transpo Section & Appendix 03-2016