Fort Meade Regional Growth Management Committee

Regional Transportation Briefing

West Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce

March 22, 2011

Top Regional Employment CentersNearly 50% of job base concentrated in fewer than 20 employment centers

Sources: BMC Round 7; CBRE Sub-Markets; RGMC Staff Analysis

CBRE Commercial Submarket JobsBethesda/Chevy Chase 96,100Baltimore CBD 87,600Baltimore North 77,500Columbia 71,900Fort Meade 70,000North Bethesda/Potomac 61,200Towson/ Timonium 54,100Baltimore County East 53,300Reisterstown Road Corridor 52,800Route 2/3 48,000Branch Avenue Corridor 43,600BWI Corridor 43,300West Side 42,200Baltimore East 41,800Hunt Valley 28,600Beltsville/Calverton 23,700Rockville 23,100Ellicott City 21,300

1,095,100

TOP REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS - 2020

CBRE Commercial Submarket JobsBethesda/Chevy Chase 96,100Baltimore CBD 87,600Baltimore North 77,500Columbia 71,900Fort Meade 70,000North Bethesda/Potomac 61,200Towson/ Timonium 54,100Baltimore County East 53,300Reisterstown Road Corridor 52,800Route 2/3 48,000Branch Avenue Corridor 43,600BWI Corridor 43,300West Side 42,200Baltimore East 41,800Hunt Valley 28,600Beltsville/Calverton 23,700Rockville 23,100Ellicott City 21,300

1,095,100

TOP REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS - 2020

Regional Growth CentersWe need a unifying set of themes and templates to address our regional

transportation challenges

Sources: FGGM Agencies; RGMC Staff Analysis

Fort Meade Job GrowthFort Meade and related growth could eventually require a highway investment

of up to $4.7 billion

Source: FGGM Garrison Command; RGMC Staff Analysis

Jobs on Fort Meade

Jobs off Fort Meade Total Jobs

Jobs on Fort Meade

Jobs off Fort Meade Total Jobs

Current Jobs (2007) 40,000 116,000 156,000 258 747 1,005

BRAC 5,695 13,205 18,900 FGGM Organic Growth 2,000 4,600 6,600 NSA 6,680 1,620 8,300 Defense Contractors / EUL 10,000 (10,000) - Cyber Command (HQ) 2,320 5,400 7,720 Total New Jobs 26,695 14,825 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 - $B 3.0$ 1.7$ 4.7$

JOB GROWTH LANE-MILES OF HIGHWAY REQUIRED

NSA Growth PlanCould add as much as 5.8 million square feet by 2030

Source: NSA EIS; RGMC Staff Analysis

Existing Phase I Phase II Phase III TotalSpace (Square Feet)

Existing 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 Fixed: 25K X 250 SF / WF

Expansion 1,800,000 3,000,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 Per NSA EIS

Total Main 6,250,000 8,050,000 9,250,000 12,050,000 12,050,000 Offsite 2,196,000 942,000 492,000 - - OWF * SF / OWF

Total 8,446,000 8,992,000 9,742,000 12,050,000 12,050,000

WorkforceExisting 25,000 27,500 27,500 28,860 28,860 SF / SF per Existing WF

Expansion 6,500 8,000 11,000 11,000 Main - Existing

Total Main 25,000 34,000 35,500 39,860 39,860 Existing + NSA EIS

Offsite 7,320 3,140 1,640 - - Total - Main

Total 32,320 37,140 37,140 39,860 39,860 G = 6,750 per phase

ExpansionOnsite Increase 6,500 1,500 3,000 11,000 NSA EIS

Offsite Increase() (4,180) (1,500) (1,640) (7,320) NSA EIS (?)

Net Increase 2,320 - 1,360 3,680

Square Feet / WorkforceExisting 250 227 227 217 217 Projected = Existing SF / Existing WF

Expansion 277 375 527 527 Exp SF / Exp WF

Offsite 300 300 300 300 300 Fixed

Average 261 242 262 302 302

ASSUMPTIONS1.

2. Three-phase expansion / consolidation program per NSA EIS

3.

4.

National Security AgencyPossible Growth Plan -- 2005-2030

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.

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.

Offsite space is estimated at 300 SF / person and will remain constant over the projected period of growth

FGGM Workforce Distribution Map Distribution of Fort Meade workforce typical for top employment centers

Source: NSA; RGMC Staff Analysis

FGGM Workforce DistributionTwo-thirds reside within 20 miles (81% in 5 jurisdictions); FGGM commuting

generates nearly 300 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per year

Source: FGGM Agency; Google Maps; RGMC Staff Analysis

0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 > 40 Total Total Share Per CapitaAdams 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% 141 2,529,000 0.9% 18,000 Anne Arundel 21% 17% 2% 0% 0% 39.0% 15,808 63,895,000 22.7% 4,000 Arlington 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.4% 156 1,564,000 0.6% 10,000 Baltimore 0% 4% 5% 0% 0% 9.4% 3,810 31,563,000 11.2% 8,300 Baltimore City 0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 4.3% 1,747 11,755,000 4.2% 6,700 Calvert 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% 127 1,697,000 0.6% 13,300 Caroline 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 53 954,000 0.3% 18,000 Carroll 0% 0% 4% 1% 3% 7.2% 2,929 38,763,000 13.8% 13,200 Charles 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 61 1,098,000 0.4% 18,000 District of Columbia 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0.8% 326 2,868,000 1.0% 8,800 Fairfax 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1.9% 756 10,578,000 3.8% 14,000 Frederick 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1.7% 681 10,312,000 3.7% 15,100 Harford 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1.7% 676 10,609,000 3.8% 15,700 Howard 5% 13% 4% 0% 0% 22.4% 9,077 53,360,000 19.0% 5,900 Loudon 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 27 477,000 0.2% 18,000 Montgomery 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 2.9% 1,180 11,596,000 4.1% 9,800 Prince George's 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 4.8% 1,962 10,244,000 3.6% 5,200 Queen Anne's 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0.9% 371 5,440,000 1.9% 14,700 Talbot 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 42 763,000 0.3% 18,000 York 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1.5% 620 11,166,000 4.0% 18,000

27% 41% 19% 6% 7% 100.0% 40,550 281,231,000 100.0% 6,900 27% 68% 87% 93% 100%

*Estimated

Total

Commuter Workforce*

JurisdictionVMT / Year*Share Workforce by Distance Band (Miles to Fort Meade)

7.5%

35%

20%

30%

Source: FGGM Agencies; Google Maps; RGMC Staff Analysis

Meade Coordination ZoneAll inbound traffic affects last 5 miles

Shortfall in Road CapacityMeade Coordination Zone highways currently at capacity in peak periods;

planned increases in highway capacity will not close gap

Source: RGMC Staff Analysis

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Highway Capacity 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400 18,400

Baseline Traffic Volume 18,288 18,412 21,111 22,610 22,975 23,610 24,248 Excess (Shortfall) 112 (12) (2,711) (4,210) (4,575) (5,210) (5,848)

Delay - Minutes 9 14 15 17 19

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

Ve

hic

les

pe

r P

ea

k H

ou

r

Road Capacity vs Traffic Volume

Highway Capacity

Baseline Traffic Volume

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

Ve

hic

les

pe

r P

ea

k H

ou

r

Road Capacity vs Traffic Volume

Highway Capacity

Baseline Traffic Volume

Two-Part Transportation StrategyLimit growth in traffic volume while expanding capacity at a few key highway

segments and intersections; received regional endorsement

Reduce peak load by 27%; to date 1200 of 4300 have signed

up, but the jury is still out

Reduce peak load by 27%; to date 1200 of 4300 have signed

up, but the jury is still out

Focus limited funding – $50M of $1.1B – on a few key projects

Focus limited funding – $50M of $1.1B – on a few key projects

Roadway CapacityRoadway Capacity

Demand ManagementDemand Management

MD-175 / Rockenbach / Disney

MD-175 / Reece

MD-175 / Mapes

MD-295 / MD-32

MD-175 / Llewellyn

MD-295 / MD-198

MD-32 / MD-198 / Mapes

MD-295

MD-32

I-95

MARC - Camden

MARC - Penn

MD-100

Controlled Intersection

Interchange

MD-175 / MD-32

BWI

MD-175

MD-295 / MD-175

MARC Station

NSA

DISA

DMA

EUL

ADJ

Access Control Point

Site M

Key Fort Meade Transportation ResourcesServed by a combination of roadways and rail stations

FGGM Gate Delay ScenariosOnly Rockenbach Gate can be expanded in near term (2011); requires

improvements at Rockenbach / Cooper

Current Growth Projected Delay Backup(Minutes) (Lane Miles)

DO NOTHING Capacity 3,600 - 3,600 Peak Load 2,900 2,200 5,100 Excess (Shortfall) 700 (2,200) (1,500) 25 10

Capacity 3,600 700 4,300 Peak Load 2,900 2,200 5,100 Excess (Shortfall) 700 (1,500) (800) 11 5

Capacity 3,600 - 3,600 Peak Load 2,900 800 3,700 Excess (Shortfall) 700 (800) (100) 2 1

Capacity 3,600 700 4,300 Peak Load 2,900 800 3,700 Excess (Shortfall) 700 (100) 600 - -

Additional Workforce 7,800 BRAC 5800; Other 2000Peak Hour Share 28% Gannett Fleming = 40%

Peak Hour Workforce 2,200

TDM Impact 27% RGMC TMP

VPH at Peak

ADD ROCKENBACH CAPACITY / NO TDM

ADD ROCKENBACH & TDM

ADD TDM ONLY

Impact

Source: Gannett Fleming; RGMC Staff Analysis

Timing / Impact of Gate OverloadBy 2Q-2011, peak delays at gates could reach 20 minutes

2010-Q1 2010-Q2 2010-Q3 2010-Q4 2011-Q1 2011-Q2 2011-Q3 2011-Q4

Lanes 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Headway 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Capacity per Lane 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 Capacity Total 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600

Load Existing 2,853 2,853 2,853 2,853 2,853 2,853 2,853 2,853 Load New 177 227 276 325 1,048 1,944 2,193 2,193

Load Total 3,031 3,080 3,129 3,178 3,902 4,797 5,047 5,047 Margin - - - - - - - -

Gate Capacity vs Load 569 520 471 422 (302) (1,197) (1,447) (1,447) Capacity / Load Ratio 1.19 1.17 1.15 1.13 0.92 0.75 0.71 0.71

Gate Delay - minutes - - - - 5 20 24 24 Gate Backup - lane-miles - - - - 2 8 10 10

No Improvements / TDM 0%

Source: Gannett Fleming; RGMC Staff Analysis

Impact of Growth on Local IntersectionsSystem is at capacity and will cause delays until planned upgrades are in

place; timely completion of Rockenbach / Cooper essential

Current No Improvements With Improvements*

Rockenbach / Cooper 47% 164% 99%Peak Delay -- Minutes 47 Backup -- Lane-Miles 11

MD175 / Rockenbach 150% 226% 99%

MD175 / Reece 76% 93% 93%MD175 / Mapes 69% 94% 94%

MD175 / Llewellyn 124% 124% 124%90% 104% 104%

MD32 / Mapes 76% 93% 93%

Total Public Intersections 99% 127% 109%Peak Delay -- Minutes 19 7 Backup -- Lane-Miles 6 2

*Funded improvements only / no TDM

Projected

Source: Gannett Fleming; MDOT / SHA; RGMC Staff Analysis

Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Proposed Objective and Principles for Fort Meade program

Using a combination of structures and methods, restrain future FGGM SOV volume to sustainable level

Using a combination of structures and methods, restrain future FGGM SOV volume to sustainable level

OBJECTIVE

PRINCIPLESPRINCIPLES

• 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.

• 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 GoalsNear term goal of 27% varies by Agency based on variations in geographic

distribution of workforce

Source: RGMC Staff Analysis

MODE Overall NSA DISA / DMA Meade

SOV 73% 75% 61% 74%Carpool 7% 7% 9% 7%Vanpool 2% 1% 3% 1%

Subscrip Bus 6% 5% 13% 6%Local Transit 2% 2% 1% 2%

Rail Shuttle 1% 1% 2% 1%Telework 9% 9% 10% 9%

100% 100% 100% 100%

MODE Overall NSA DISA / DMA Meade

SOV 29,200 18,800 3,000 7,400Carpool 2,900 1,700 500 700Vanpool 600 300 200 100

Subscrip Bus 2,600 1,300 700 600Local Transit 800 600 0 200

Rail Shuttle 300 100 100 100Telework 3,600 2,200 500 900

40,000 25,000 5,000 10,000

Workforce - #

Proposed TDM Goals by Mode and Agency Group

Workforce - %

Fort Meade Compared to PentagonRestraining the growth of vehicle volume at Fort Meade addresses both short-

term and long-term capacity issues

Source: Pentagon Website; Ft. Belvoir EIS; RGMC Staff Analysis

PentagonCurrent 12/31/2010 2011 2015 2011 2015

Workforce Onsite 22,000 44,550 52,720 58,700 52,720 58,700 Commuting Workforce 22,000 40,550 48,720 54,700 48,720 54,700

Automobiles Onsite 9,000 36,500 43,800 49,200 35,600 39,900 Net Occupants 13,000 4,050 4,920 5,500 13,120 14,800

Workforce / Car Ratio 2.44 1.22 1.20 1.19 1.48 1.47

17.5% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3%3,900 400 500 500 1,500 1,600

41% 9% 9% 9% 24% 24%9,100 3,650 4,420 5,000 11,620 13,200

TDM Rate 59% 10% 10% 10% 27% 27%

Carpool / Vanpool / SBus / Telework

Fort MeadeWith TDMNo TDM

Rail / Local Transit

Subscription Bus ConceptMake 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 QuintileTen zips significant for Howard, Carroll and Frederick Counties

Source: Fort Meade Agency; RGMC Staff Analysis

Enrollment Rate End Users

Bus Loads

21784 Sykesville Carroll MD 32.0 919 29,416 11% 104 2 A21122 Pasadena Anne Arundel MD 16.2 1,668 27,015 4% 72 2 A21042 Ellicott City Howard MD 24.0 842 20,200 7% 59 2 B22027 Dunn Loring Fairfax VA 39.6 466 18,446 11% 52 2 B21157 Westminster Carroll MD 46.5 360 16,744 18% 65 2 B21144 Severn Anne Arundel MD 6.3 2,486 15,659 3% 67 2 C21113 Odenton Anne Arundel MD 7.5 2,046 15,348 3% 55 2 C21044 Columbia Howard MD 14.0 1,089 15,243 4% 47 1 C21060 Glen Burnie Anne Arundel MD 13.7 1,084 14,849 4% 47 1 C21043 Ellicott City Howard MD 12.1 998 12,075 4% 43 1 D21771 Mount Airy Frederick MD 38.8 256 9,942 11% 29 1 D21045 Columbia Howard MD 13.0 734 9,544 4% 32 1 D21061 Glen Burnie Anne Arundel MD 8.8 1,077 9,473 3% 29 1 D21146 Severna Park Anne Arundel MD 15.1 590 8,906 4% 25 1 D21228 Catonsville Baltimore MD 15.3 544 8,327 4% 23 1 D21075 Elkridge Howard MD 13.3 589 7,834 4% 25 1 E21401 Annapolis Anne Arundel MD 18.6 406 7,550 4% 17 1 E21012 Arnold Anne Arundel MD 24.7 301 7,425 7% 21 1 E21114 Crofton Anne Arundel MD 14.0 522 7,311 4% 22 1 E21046 Columbia Howard MD 10.6 529 5,610 4% 23 1 E21108 Millersville Anne Arundel MD 11.0 501 5,506 4% 21 1 E21227 Baltimore Baltimore MD 15.7 336 5,268 4% 14 - E20723 Laurel Howard MD 9.4 518 4,868 3% 14 - E21054 Gambrills Anne Arundel MD 11.4 392 4,467 4% 17 1 E21090 Linthicum Heights Anne Arundel MD 13.4 289 3,873 4% 12 - E21076 Hanover Anne Arundel MD 5.5 514 2,825 3% 13 - E20707 Laurel Prince George's MD 8.7 311 2,703 3% 8 - E20724 Laurel Anne Arundel MD 4.6 340 1,563 3% 9 - E

14.4 20,704 297,992 5% 965 29

Quintile Estimated Workforce

Workforce X Miles

Miles to FGGM Zip City County State

Top Regional Zip Codes

Source: Fort Meade Agency; RGMC Staff Analysis

A2

C

B

D

E

Carroll / Howard Collection PointsPotential collection points for Fort Meade subscription buses and vanpools

A1

Next Steps

Overall • Work with Fort Meade Garrison Command and SHA to monitor local conditions

Roadway Improvements

• 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

Demand Management

END