Transcript Slide 1

Fort Meade Regional Growth
Management Committee
Regional Transportation Briefing
2011
Top Regional Employment Centers
Nearly 50% of job base concentrated in fewer than 20 employment centers
TOP REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS - 2020
CBRE Commercial Submarket
Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Baltimore CBD
Baltimore North
Columbia
Fort Meade
North Bethesda/Potomac
Towson/ Timonium
Baltimore County East
Reisterstown Road Corridor
Route 2/3
Branch Avenue Corridor
BWI Corridor
West Side
Baltimore East
Hunt Valley
Beltsville/Calverton
Rockville
Ellicott City
Sources: BMC Round 7; CBRE SubMarkets; RGMC Staff Analysis
Jobs
96,100
87,600
77,500
71,900
70,000
61,200
54,100
53,300
52,800
48,000
43,600
43,300
42,200
41,800
28,600
23,700
23,100
21,300
1,095,100
Regional Growth Centers
We need a unifying set of themes and templates to address our regional
transportation challenges
Sources: FGGM Agencies; RGMC
Staff Analysis
Fort Meade Job Growth
Fort Meade and related growth could eventually require a highway investment
of up to $4.7 billion
Jobs on
Fort Meade
JOB GROWTH
Jobs off
Fort Meade
Total Jobs
LANE-MILES OF HIGHWAY REQUIRED
Jobs on
Jobs off
Fort Meade
Fort Meade
Total Jobs
Current Jobs (2007)
40,000
116,000
156,000
258
747
1,005
BRAC
FGGM Organic Growth
NSA
Defense Contractors / EUL
Cyber Command (HQ)
Total New Jobs
5,695
2,000
6,680
10,000
2,320
26,695
13,205
4,600
1,620
(10,000)
5,400
14,825
18,900
6,600
8,300
7,720
41,520
172
95
267
Projected Jobs -- 2015 to 2020
66,695
130,825
197,520
430
843
1,272
Cost of New Capacity at $17.5M per lane-mile - $B
Source: FGGM Garrison Command;
RGMC Staff Analysis
$
3.0
$
1.7
$
4.7
NSA Growth Plan
Could add as much as 5.8 million square feet by 2030
National Security Agency
Possible Growth Plan -- 2005-2030
Existing
Space (Square Feet)
Existing
6,250,000
Expansion
Total Main
6,250,000
Offsite
2,196,000
Total
8,446,000
Workforce
Existing
Expansion
Total Main
Offsite
Total
25,000
25,000
7,320
32,320
Expansion
Onsite Increase
Offsite Increase()
Net Increase
Square Feet / Workforce
Existing
250
Expansion
Offsite
300
Average
261
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
6,250,000
1,800,000
8,050,000
942,000
8,992,000
6,250,000
3,000,000
9,250,000
492,000
9,742,000
6,250,000
5,800,000
12,050,000
12,050,000
6,250,000
5,800,000
12,050,000
12,050,000
27,500
6,500
34,000
3,140
37,140
27,500
8,000
35,500
1,640
37,140
28,860
11,000
39,860
39,860
28,860
11,000
39,860
39,860
SF / SF per Existing WF
6,500
(4,180)
2,320
1,500
(1,500)
-
3,000
(1,640)
1,360
11,000
(7,320)
3,680
NSA EIS
227
277
300
242
227
375
300
262
217
527
300
302
Total
217
527
300
302
ASSUMPTIONS
1. The NSA workforce current stands at 32,320, of which 25,000 are located on the main campus and
7,320 are located in nearby commercial developments. This workforce uses space aggregating 8.4
MSF.
2. Three-phase expansion / consolidation program per NSA EIS
3. The population density of the main campus will be increased slightly from a current level estimated at
250 SF / person to achieve 217 SF / person by end of Phase III due to consolidation of offsite workforce
to onsite facilities.
4.
Offsite space is estimated at 300 SF / person and will remain constant over the projected period of
growth
Source: NSA EIS; RGMC Staff Analysis
Fixed: 25K X 250 SF / WF
Per NSA EIS
OWF * SF / OWF
Main - Existing
Existing + NSA EIS
Total - Main
G = 6,750 per phase
NSA EIS (?)
Projected = Existing SF / Existing WF
Exp SF / Exp WF
Fixed
FGGM Workforce Distribution Map
Distribution of Fort Meade workforce typical for top employment centers
Source: NSA; RGMC Staff
Analysis
FGGM Workforce Distribution
Two-thirds reside within 20 miles (81% in 5 jurisdictions); FGGM commuting
generates nearly 300 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per year
Share Workforce by Distance Band (Miles to Fort Meade)
Jurisdiction
Adams
Anne Arundel
Arlington
Baltimore
Baltimore City
Calvert
Caroline
Carroll
Charles
District of Columbia
Fairfax
Frederick
Harford
Howard
Loudon
Montgomery
Prince George's
Queen Anne's
Talbot
York
Total
0 - 10
0%
21%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
27%
27%
*Estimated
Source: FGGM Agency; Google
Maps; RGMC Staff Analysis
10 - 20
0%
17%
0%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
41%
68%
20 - 30
0%
2%
0%
5%
1%
0%
0%
4%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
19%
87%
30 - 40
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
6%
93%
> 40
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
7%
100%
Total
0.3%
39.0%
0.4%
9.4%
4.3%
0.3%
0.1%
7.2%
0.2%
0.8%
1.9%
1.7%
1.7%
22.4%
0.1%
2.9%
4.8%
0.9%
0.1%
1.5%
100.0%
Commuter
Workforce*
141
15,808
156
3,810
1,747
127
53
2,929
61
326
756
681
676
9,077
27
1,180
1,962
371
42
620
40,550
VMT / Year*
Total
2,529,000
63,895,000
1,564,000
31,563,000
11,755,000
1,697,000
954,000
38,763,000
1,098,000
2,868,000
10,578,000
10,312,000
10,609,000
53,360,000
477,000
11,596,000
10,244,000
5,440,000
763,000
11,166,000
281,231,000
Share Per Capita
0.9%
18,000
22.7%
4,000
0.6%
10,000
11.2%
8,300
4.2%
6,700
0.6%
13,300
0.3%
18,000
13.8%
13,200
0.4%
18,000
1.0%
8,800
3.8%
14,000
3.7%
15,100
3.8%
15,700
19.0%
5,900
0.2%
18,000
4.1%
9,800
3.6%
5,200
1.9%
14,700
0.3%
18,000
4.0%
18,000
100.0%
6,900
Meade Coordination Zone
All inbound traffic affects last 5 miles
Source: FGGM Agencies; Google
Maps; RGMC Staff Analysis
Shortfall in Road Capacity
Meade Coordination Zone highways currently at capacity in peak periods;
planned increases in highway capacity will not close gap
Road Capacity vs Traffic Volume
30,000
Highway Capacity
Vehicles per Peak Hour
25,000
Baseline Traffic Volume
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Highway Capacity
Baseline Traffic Volume
Excess (Shortfall)
Delay - Minutes
Source: RGMC Staff Analysis
2018
2009
18,400
18,288
112
2021
2010
18,400
18,412
(12)
2024
2011
18,400
21,111
(2,711)
9
2027
2030
2012
18,400
22,610
(4,210)
14
2013
18,400
22,975
(4,575)
15
2014
18,400
23,610
(5,210)
17
2015
18,400
24,248
(5,848)
19
Two-Part Transportation Strategy
Limit growth in traffic volume while expanding capacity at a few key highway
segments and intersections; received regional endorsement
Roadway
Capacity
Focus limited funding – $50M of
$1.1B – on a few key projects
Demand
Management
Reduce peak load by 27%; to
date 1200 of 4300 have signed
up, but the jury is still out
Key Fort Meade Transportation Resources
Served by a combination of roadways and rail stations
I-95
BWI
MD-295
MD-100
MD-295 / MD-175
MD-175 /
Rockenbach / Disney
MARC - Camden
MARC - Penn
MD-295 / MD-32
MD-175
MD-175 / Reece
EUL
Site M
MD-175 / Mapes
DISA
MD-295 / MD-198
NSA
DMA
MD-32
ADJ
MD-175 /
Llewellyn
MD-32 / MD-198 /
Mapes
Access Control Point
Interchange
Controlled Intersection
MARC Station
MD-175 / MD-32
FGGM Gate Delay Scenarios
Only Rockenbach Gate can be expanded in near term (2011); requires
improvements at Rockenbach / Cooper
Current
VPH at Peak
Growth Projected
Impact
Delay
Backup
(Minutes)
DO NOTHING
ADD ROCKENBACH
CAPACITY / NO TDM
ADD TDM ONLY
ADD ROCKENBACH &
TDM
2,200
(2,200)
3,600
5,100
(1,500)
25
10
Capacity
3,600
Peak Load
2,900
Excess (Shortfall)
700
700
2,200
(1,500)
4,300
5,100
(800)
11
5
Capacity
3,600
Peak Load
2,900
Excess (Shortfall)
700
800
(800)
3,600
3,700
(100)
2
1
Capacity
3,600
Peak Load
2,900
Excess (Shortfall)
700
700
800
(100)
4,300
3,700
600
Additional Workforce
Peak Hour Share
Peak Hour Workforce
TDM Impact
Source: Gannett Fleming; RGMC
Staff Analysis
(Lane Miles)
Capacity
3,600
Peak Load
2,900
Excess (Shortfall)
700
-
7,800 BRAC 5800; Other 2000
28% Gannett Fleming = 40%
2,200
27% RGMC TMP
-
Timing / Impact of Gate Overload
By 2Q-2011, peak delays at gates could reach 20 minutes
2010-Q1
2010-Q2
No Improvements / TDM 0%
2010-Q3 2010-Q4 2011-Q1 2011-Q2
2011-Q3
2011-Q4
Lanes
Headway
Capacity per Lane
Capacity Total
10
10
360
3,600
10
10
360
3,600
10
10
360
3,600
10
10
360
3,600
10
10
360
3,600
10
10
360
3,600
10
10
360
3,600
10
10
360
3,600
Load Existing
Load New
Load Total
Margin
2,853
177
3,031
-
2,853
227
3,080
-
2,853
276
3,129
-
2,853
325
3,178
-
2,853
1,048
3,902
-
2,853
1,944
4,797
-
2,853
2,193
5,047
-
2,853
2,193
5,047
-
Gate Capacity vs Load
Capacity / Load Ratio
569
1.19
520
1.17
471
1.15
422
1.13
(1,197)
0.75
(1,447)
0.71
(1,447)
0.71
-
-
-
-
Gate Delay - minutes
Gate Backup - lane-miles
Source: Gannett Fleming; RGMC
Staff Analysis
(302)
0.92
5
2
20
8
24
10
24
10
Impact of Growth on Local Intersections
System is at capacity and will cause delays until planned upgrades are in
place; timely completion of Rockenbach / Cooper essential
Current
Projected
No Improvements With Improvements*
Rockenbach / Cooper
Peak Delay -- Minutes
Backup -- Lane-Miles
47%
164%
47
11
99%
MD175 / Rockenbach
150%
226%
99%
MD175 / Reece
MD175 / Mapes
MD175 / Llewellyn
76%
69%
124%
90%
93%
94%
124%
104%
93%
94%
124%
104%
MD32 / Mapes
76%
93%
93%
Total Public Intersections
Peak Delay -- Minutes
Backup -- Lane-Miles
99%
127%
19
6
109%
7
2
*Funded improvements only / no TDM
Source: Gannett Fleming; MDOT /
SHA; RGMC Staff Analysis
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Proposed Objective and Principles for Fort Meade program
OBJECTIVE
Using a combination of structures and methods, restrain
future FGGM SOV volume to sustainable level
PRINCIPLES
• Employer-Sponsored. Fort Meade agencies develop, implement and
monitor own TDM programs – individually or collaboratively – consistent with
overall FGGM goal.
• Demand Driven. Design program to provide end user value equivalent to
SOV, including guaranteed ride home.
• Communications Program. Use leadership, internal marketing programs,
and end user input to generate participation.
• Public-Private Partnership. Maximize use of TIP to fund program.
Leverage private sector resources to reduce risk and access additional
capital.
• Savings. Structure program to pay for itself through reductions in new
highway construction; use a portion of savings to ensure program success.
• Environmental Component. Appeal to public’s desire to reduce
environmental impact as a program benefit.
• Regional Template. Document approach and lessons learned; develop and
apply template to support economic development across the region.
Proposed Initial TDM Goals
Near term goal of 27% varies by Agency based on variations in geographic
distribution of workforce
Proposed TDM Goals by Mode and Agency Group
Workforce - %
MODE
SOV
Carpool
Vanpool
Subscrip Bus
Local Transit
Rail Shuttle
Telework
Overall
NSA
73%
7%
2%
6%
2%
1%
9%
100%
DISA / DMA
75%
7%
1%
5%
2%
1%
9%
100%
61%
9%
3%
13%
1%
2%
10%
100%
Meade
74%
7%
1%
6%
2%
1%
9%
100%
Workforce - #
MODE
SOV
Carpool
Vanpool
Subscrip Bus
Local Transit
Rail Shuttle
Telework
Source: RGMC Staff Analysis
Overall
29,200
2,900
600
2,600
800
300
3,600
40,000
NSA
18,800
1,700
300
1,300
600
100
2,200
25,000
DISA / DMA
3,000
500
200
700
0
100
500
5,000
Meade
7,400
700
100
600
200
100
900
10,000
Fort Meade Compared to Pentagon
Restraining the growth of vehicle volume at Fort Meade addresses both shortterm and long-term capacity issues
Pentagon
Current
12/31/2010
Fort Meade
No TDM
2011
2015
With TDM
2011
2015
Workforce Onsite
Commuting Workforce
22,000
22,000
44,550
40,550
52,720
48,720
58,700
54,700
52,720
48,720
58,700
54,700
Automobiles Onsite
Net Occupants
Workforce / Car Ratio
9,000
13,000
2.44
36,500
4,050
1.22
43,800
4,920
1.20
49,200
5,500
1.19
35,600
13,120
1.48
39,900
14,800
1.47
Rail / Local Transit
17.5%
3,900
1%
400
1%
500
1%
500
3%
1,500
3%
1,600
Carpool / Vanpool / SBus
/ Telework
41%
9,100
9%
3,650
9%
4,420
9%
5,000
24%
11,620
24%
13,200
TDM Rate
59%
10%
10%
10%
27%
27%
Source: Pentagon Website; Ft. Belvoir
EIS; RGMC Staff Analysis
Subscription Bus Concept
Make equipment, service, features and incentives competitive with SOV
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Requires no taxpayer subsidy
Point to point service; demand driven schedule and features
Build working relationships with colleagues
Make travel time productive time
Arrive at destination fresh and alert
Experience improvement in quality of life
Reduce commuting costs / fuel consumption / carbon footprint
Avoid investment in peak roadway capacity
Meade Attractive Zips by Quintile
Ten zips significant for Howard, Carroll and Frederick Counties
Zip
21784
21122
21042
22027
21157
21144
21113
21044
21060
21043
21771
21045
21061
21146
21228
21075
21401
21012
21114
21046
21108
21227
20723
21054
21090
21076
20707
20724
City
County
State
Sykesville
Carroll
MD
Pasadena
Anne Arundel
MD
Ellicott City
Howard
MD
Dunn Loring
Fairfax
VA
Westminster
Carroll
MD
Severn
Anne Arundel
MD
Odenton
Anne Arundel
MD
Columbia
Howard
MD
Glen Burnie
Anne Arundel
MD
Ellicott City
Howard
MD
Mount Airy
Frederick
MD
Columbia
Howard
MD
Glen Burnie
Anne Arundel
MD
Severna Park
Anne Arundel
MD
Catonsville
Baltimore
MD
Elkridge
Howard
MD
Annapolis
Anne Arundel
MD
Arnold
Anne Arundel
MD
Crofton
Anne Arundel
MD
Columbia
Howard
MD
Millersville
Anne Arundel
MD
Baltimore
Baltimore
MD
Laurel
Howard
MD
Gambrills
Anne Arundel
MD
Linthicum Heights Anne Arundel
MD
Hanover
Anne Arundel
MD
Laurel
Prince George's MD
Laurel
Anne Arundel
MD
Miles to
FGGM
32.0
16.2
24.0
39.6
46.5
6.3
7.5
14.0
13.7
12.1
38.8
13.0
8.8
15.1
15.3
13.3
18.6
24.7
14.0
10.6
11.0
15.7
9.4
11.4
13.4
5.5
8.7
4.6
14.4
Source: Fort Meade Agency; RGMC
Staff Analysis
Estimated Workforce X Enrollment
Workforce
Miles
Rate
End Users
919
29,416
11%
104
1,668
27,015
4%
72
842
20,200
7%
59
466
18,446
11%
52
360
16,744
18%
65
2,486
15,659
3%
67
2,046
15,348
3%
55
1,089
15,243
4%
47
1,084
14,849
4%
47
998
12,075
4%
43
256
9,942
11%
29
734
9,544
4%
32
1,077
9,473
3%
29
590
8,906
4%
25
544
8,327
4%
23
589
7,834
4%
25
406
7,550
4%
17
301
7,425
7%
21
522
7,311
4%
22
529
5,610
4%
23
501
5,506
4%
21
336
5,268
4%
14
518
4,868
3%
14
392
4,467
4%
17
289
3,873
4%
12
514
2,825
3%
13
311
2,703
3%
8
340
1,563
3%
9
20,704
297,992
5%
965
Bus
Loads
Quintile
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
1
E
E
E
E
E
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
29
Top Regional Zip Codes
Source: Fort Meade Agency; RGMC
Staff Analysis
Carroll / Howard Collection Points
Potential collection points for Fort Meade subscription buses and vanpools
A1
A2
D
B
E
C
Next Steps
Roadway
Improvements
Demand
Management
Overall
• Track construction progress
• Support backup / mitigation efforts
• Scan for new funding opportunities
• Press for rapid implementation
• Support identification of bus collection points and
establishment of bus traffic priority
• Work with Fort Meade Garrison Command and
SHA to monitor local conditions
END