Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
abstract
This report outlines the proposed framework for the
Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan. It defines a
vision by establishing goals and objectives, and
recommends realizing that vision by creating a bicycle
infrastructure network supported by policies and
programs that encourage bicycling. This report proposes
a monitoring program designed to make the plan
implementation process both clear and responsive.
4
6
8
10
13
14
18
24
26
28
contents
Introduction
30
32
36
36
55
58
58
59
59
59
60
62
63
Implementation
Low-Stress Bicycling
Infrastructure
Bikeways
Bicycle Parking
Programs
Policies
Prioritization
Bikeway Prioritization
Programs and Policies
64
64
65
A-1
63
On September 10, 2015, the Planning Board approved a Scope of Work for the Bicycle Master Plan. Task
4 of the Scope of Work is the development of a methodology report that outlines the approach to the
Bicycle Master Plan and includes a discussion of the issues identified in the Scope of Work. This report is
intended to fulfill Task 4 of the Scope of Work, and will be used to develop the Working Draft of the Bicycle
Master Plan.
1
This report addresses many of the issues identified in the Scope of Work :
What is the state of practice in using data and
performance metrics to develop a bicycling
network?
What are acceptable levels of traffic stress for
current and potential cyclists?
How should the plan classify bikeway
recommendations, including bikeway type
(such as bike lanes, shared use path, separated
bike lane, etc.)?
If separated bikeways are needed to create a
low-stress bicycling environment, when
should they be implemented as separated
bike lanes (a bike-only facility) or shared-use
paths (a facility shared with pedestrians)?
In what contexts are neighborhood greenways
appropriate and what are the best practices
for design elements?
What is the value of signed shared roadways
in master plans?
In what conditions are separated bike lanes a
replacement for dual bikeways?
Where are long-term bicycle storage
facilities needed in the County and how much
space do they require for bicycle parking and
other bicycle-supportive elements (such as
showers, lockers, repair facilities and changing
rooms)?
1
Issue 3, 11, 12, and 14 are in development. Issue 13 is best addressed by the Montgomery County Department of Transportation.
3
The third step consists of
Monitoring the Vision by setting up
an ongoing monitoring and
evaluation program to track how
well the vision of the plan is being
fulfilled by evaluating our success in
meeting the goals and objectives of
the plan. This monitoring program
supports the implementation of the
plan by providing an ongoing
assessment of how effective we are
in creating the bicycle environment
envisioned in the plan.
The interested but concerned population is one of the Four Types of Transportation Cyclists, an approach coined by Roger Geller, a
bicycle planner for the City of Portland, Oregon. See https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497
An essential first step in preparing the Bicycle Master Plan is to define the plans vision. This effort begins by
imagining a future that meets the goal of providing all residents access to a comfortable, safe and
connected bicycle network, and expressing that vision through the goals and objectives of this plan.
Defining a vision for the Bicycle Master Plan does not simply mean stating the goals on paper. It also lays
the foundation for a strong monitoring program, which supports the implementation of the plan by
providing an ongoing assessment of how effective we are in meeting plan goals and objectives. Of course, a
vision is only as good as its components. One way the Bicycle Master Plan can deliver a world-class bicycle
plan is by defining a clear and measurable vision.
Vision statements paint a clear picture of what the plan is intended to achieve. They can be further
explained through goals that identify the conditions needed to achieve the vision statement.
Goals are broad conditions that are needed to achieve the plans vision statement. They are general and
brief and can always be improved. Goals do not prejudge a solution, but rather articulate the conditions that
might lead to a particular solution. Each goal is described by one or more objectives that indicate the steps
that need to be taken to realize the plans goals. Goals are only as effective as the objectives that describe
them.
Objectives are specific conditions that must be met to advance a particular goal. They are achievable,
measurable and time-specific. Objectives are effective when they show a meaningful change among
different scenarios. They do not prejudge a solution, but rather articulate the conditions that might lead to a
particular solution. Objectives are more likely to be evaluated when they are carefully defined, avoid wiggle
room, and do not require substantial new data collection.
Metrics are the standards of measurement applied to objectives. They determine the data needed to assess
how well the objectives are being met.
Data Collection obtains specific information that is required to derive each metric. It indicates the source of
the data and whether the data is currently available, could be available with modifications to existing survey
instruments or need to be collected through a new survey.
10
GOAL
Provide complete, safe, and attractive accessibility
for bicyclists using sound engineering and
planning, interagency coordination, and public
involvement.
OBJECTIVES
Ensure that bicycle facilities are an integral part
of street design so that lanes and pathways
form an integrated network.
Provide a complete and safe bicycle network.
Build on Davis cycling past by experimenting
or piloting new technology or programs for
bicycles.
Staff reviewed the goals and objectives for these plans: Arlington, VA, Boston, MA, Cambridge, MA, Davis, CA, Fort Collins, CO,
Minneapolis, MN, Portland, OR, San Diego, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, Sacramento, CA, Seattle, WA, and Washington, DC.
TARGETS
A. By 2020, 10% of all trips in Cambridge will be
made by bicycle.
B. By 2030, 20% of all trips in Cambridge will be
made by bicycle.
C. By 2020, the percentage of children walking
and bicycling to school will increase 20% over
2015 numbers
D. Crash rates will continue to decrease with a
goal of zero fatalities or serious injuries by 2030
E. All streets will be bicycle friendly
F. New facility are prioritized based on the Bicycle
Network Vision
Bicycle Master Plan Approach to Goals, Objectives, Methods and Data Collection
GOAL 1
METRIC
OBJECTIVES
11
12
Montgomery
County will
become a
world-class
bicycling
community.
GOAL 1
GOAL 2
GOAL 3
GOAL 4
13
GOAL 1
Increase bicycling rates in
Montgomery County
14
1.1
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of residents who commute by bicycle.
1.2
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of commuters who bicycle as part of
their commute to a Transportation
Management District (Bethesda, Friendship Heights,
North Bethesda, Shady Grove, Silver Spring, White
Oak).
15
1.3
OBJECTIVE
1.4
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of boardings at rail stations that access
the station by bicycle (Red Line, Brunswick Line,
Purple Line).
METRIC
Percentage of public school students who bicycle to
elementary, middle and high school.
16
17
GOAL 2
Create a highly
connected, convenient
and low-stress bicycling
network
18
Based on a Level of Traffic Stress evaluation of all roads where it is legal to bicycle in Montgomery County.
2.1
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of potential bicycle trips that can be
made on a low-stress bicycle network.
2.2
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of Red
Line, Brunswick Line, Purple Line, and Corridor Cities
Transitway stations that can access the station on a
low-stress bicycling network.
19
2.3
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of dwelling units located within the
attendance zone of elementary, middle and high
schools that are connected to each school through a
low-stress bicycle network.
2.4
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of
each public library, recreation center and
regional/ recreational park that can access the
library on a low-stress bicycling network.
20
2.5
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Number of rail stations in Montgomery County with
a bike station (Red Line, Brunswick Line and Purple
Line).
2.6
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of Montgomery County public schools
with at least 1 short-term bicycle parking for each 20
students of planned capacity (elementary schools
middle schools, high schools).
21
2.7
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of blocks in commercial areas will have
at least ## percent of the amount of short-term
bicycle parking required by the current zoning code
by 20##.
2.8
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of Montgomery County public facilities
with 1 short-term bicycle parking space per 10,000
square feet of floor area (public libraries and
recreation centers).
22
2.9
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of Montgomery County regional and
recreational park facilities that have bike racks.
23
GOAL 3
Provide equal access to
low-stress bicycling for all
members of the
community
24
3.1
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of potential bicycle trips that can be
made on a low-stress bicycle network in areas
where the median income is below XX percent of
the County average median income.
3.2
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
Percentage of dwelling units within 0.5 miles of the
nearest Metrobus or RideOn bus stop that will be
able to access the bus stop on a low-stress bicycling
network in areas where the median income is below
XX percent of the County average median income.
25
GOAL 4
Improve the safety of
bicycling
26
4.1
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
The ratio of bicycle crashes to bicycle trips at the ##
highest crash locations in the County.
4.2
OBJECTIVE
METRIC
The number of bicyclist fatalities per year.
27
Increased bicycling
Connectivity
Equity
Safety
Economic development
Environmental quality
Health
Livability
28
Therefore, we propose to focus the initial master plan assessment on the objectives of increase bicycling,
connectivity, equity and safety. Once we can successfully assess these objectives, we should consider the
following aspirational objectives, which would make the evaluation of the goals more comprehensive:
Aspirational Objectives
Increase the percentage of people who access
a Montgomery County bus rapid transit (BRT)
station by bicycle to # percent by 20##.
Increase the percentage of people who bicycle
for non-work and non-school trips by
# percent by 20##.
Increase the percentage of people who bicycle
to work in:
Clarksburg Town Center to ##
percent by 20##.
Germantown Town Center to ##
percent by 20##.
Olney Town Center to ## percent by
20##.
# percent of dwelling units located within 1.0
mile of each BRT station will be able to access
the rail station on a low-stress bicycling
network by 20##.
29
An essential step in preparing the Bicycle Master Plan is to make recommendations on how to realize the
plans vision. This section includes concrete actions that government, property owners, stakeholders and
the public can take to fulfill the vision. It includes identifying a network of bicycle parking and bikeways, and
recommending bicycling-supportive programs and policies.
31
low-stress bicycling
In 2006, Peter Geller, a bicycle planner with the
city of Portland, Oregon, proposed an approach to
classifying people who bicycle that he called the
four types of transportation cyclists. These types
included the strong and fearless group, who are
comfortable bicycling regardless of road conditions;
the enthused and confident group, who are
comfortable sharing the roadway with traffic, but
prefer their own space; the interested but
concerned group who would bicycle more if they
felt safer; and the no way no how group, who are
not currently interested in bicycling.
7%
5%
51%
37%
STRONG &
FEARLESS
ENTHUSED &
CONFIDENT
INTERESTED
BUT
CONCERNED
NO WAY,
NO HOW
Very comfortable on
non-residential streets
without bike lanes.
Very comfortable on
non-residential streets
with bike lanes.
Everyone else.
32
Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil, Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey, Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, forthcoming.
The Bicycle Master Plan team is using two tools to identify those Montgomery County streets that are
excessively stressful for the interested but concerned population.
The first tool, shown in the graph below, conveys the types of bikeways that are needed to make bicycling
mainstream under different combinations of traffic speed and volume. For instance, a road with a posted
speed limit of 35 mph and a daily traffic volume of 9,000 vehicles would require a separated bikeway to
attract the interested but concerned population.
33
13 PERCENT
9 PERCENT
10 PERCENT
68 PERCENT
34
Mekuria, Maaza, Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity,
San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012.
Intersection Approaches
Presence of right turn lane(s).
Length of right turn lane.
Turn lane configuration (bike lane shifts vs. bike
lane continues straight).
Unsignalized Crossings
Width of cross street.
Speed limit of cross street.
Presence or absence of median refuge.
35
infrastructure
The Bicycle Master Plan will recommend at least
two types of bicycle infrastructure: bikeways and
bicycling parking.
bikeways
Bikeway recommendations will focus on increasing
bicycling among the interested but concerned
population by identifying a network of bikeways
composed of neighborhood streets, off-road paths
and infrastructure improvements on streets where
bicycling is stressful for most people.
Montgomery County currently classifies each
master-planned bikeway as one of five facility types:
Shared use paths are paved, two-way paths
that are typically 10 feet wide, but can vary
between 8 feet and 14 feet wide, and are
designated for walking, bicycling, jogging and
skating. They are separated from motorized
traffic by a curb, barrier or landscaped panel.
Shared use paths are sidepaths when they are
located within a street right-of-way, and trails
when they are located within a separated
right-of-way.
36
37
Benefits
TRAILS
Typical Application
Off-Road Trails:
38
SEPARATED BIKEWAYS
39
Benefits
SIDEPATHS
Sidepaths are shared use paths that are located
within the road right-of-way. They provide two-way
travel designated for walking, bicycling, jogging and
skating. Sidepaths are typically 10 feet wide, but can
vary between 8 feet (in constrained locations) and
14 feet wide (where usage is likely to be higher).
Sidepaths are separated from motorized traffic by a
curb, barrier or landscaped panel.
Typical Application
40
MacArthur Boulevard
Key West Avenue
Olney-Laytonsville Road
Briggs Chaney Road
Benefits
Typical Application
Woodglen Drive
Nebel Street (forthcoming)
Spring Street (forthcoming)
41
STRIPED BIKEWAYS
42
Typical Application
None
43
44
Typical Application
Typical Application
None
45
BIKEABLE SHOULDERS
Typical Application
River Road
SHARED ROADS
SHARED STREETS
Shared Streets constitute an urban design
approach where pedestrians, bicycles and motor
vehicles can comfortably coexist. They are typically
located on low traffic volume, low traffic speed and
high pedestrian volume streets, and often eliminate
design features such as curbs, road surface
markings, traffic signs and traffic lights.
47
Typical Application
None
49
7 The March 2016 Draft Rockville Pike Plan recommends two-way separated bike lanes from the city line to Veirs Mill Road.
50
comfort with shoulder striping. This visual separation may not increase comfort for all riders, but some, likely more
confident riders, will feel more comfortable in the restriped context.
51
52
BICYCLE PARKING
55
9 This approach was used by WMATA to plan for bicycle parking at each Metrorail station and by the Planning Department
56
in the Bethesda Minor Master Plan Amendment and as part of the Silver Spring Bicycle Parking Station Study.
57
programs
policies
10
58
Protected intersections are a way to extend the safety of separated bike lanes to the intersection. They will be
described in greater detailed in the Working Draft of the Bicycle Master Plan. For more information on
protected bike lanes, see http://www.protectedintersection.com.
prioritization
Since bicycle infrastructure, programs and policies
take time to implement, the Working Draft of the
Bicycle Master Plan will prioritize those that
contribute most to the vision of the plan as
measured by the goals and objectives.
BIKEWAY PRIORITIZATION
04
MONITORING THE VISION
An essential third step for the Bicycle Master Plan is to establish a monitoring program that tracks how well
the vision of the plan is being fulfilled through the goals and objectives, and enables transparency and a
ccountability in plan implementation. While regular monitoring would occur every one or two years after
the Bicycle Master Plan is adopted, target values and a baseline evaluation are now being developed as part
of the plan. The monitoring template below reflects each of the plans objectives and includes target values
for the plan to achieve in 2022 and 2027, five and 10 years after the plan is adopted.
A template for a detailed monitoring report is provided in Appendix B.
60
61
approach to phasing
separated bike lane
implementation
To implement low-stress bicycling networks quickly,
many jurisdictions are installing separated bike lanes
through lower cost improvements, such as
flexible delineator posts. While flex posts
discourage automobiles from stopping or waiting in
the bike lane, they do not create a bikeway that is
comfortable for all users, require frequent
maintenance and lack aesthetic treatments. The
Working Draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will discuss
how these lower-cost bikeways can transition to
more permanent separation, such as raised
separated bike lanes, with aesthetic treatments and
stormwater management facilities.
approach to
implementing on-road
bicycle facilities
incrementally
Like many jurisdictions, Montgomery County
implements bicycle facilities as part of facility
planning projects and through the development
approval process. There is a long history of
constructing discontinuous sections of sidepaths
along the frontage of development projects, with
the idea that, over time, continuous facilities can be
completed at a lower cost and with less impact to
the community. While this is a reasonable approach
for off-road bikeways, it creates challenges when
using the approach for on-road facilities. The
Working Draft of the Bicycle Master Plan will
develop an incremental approach to implementing
on-road facilities, such as separated bike lanes,
buffered bike lanes and conventional bike lanes, as
part of the development review process.
63
64
intersection templates
65
Objective 2.2: Percentage of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each station that are connected
to the station through a low-stress bicycling network:
o
o
o
o
Objective 2.3: Percentage of dwelling units within the attendance zone of each public school
that are connected to each school through a low-stress bicycle network:
o
o
o
Libraries
Recreation Centers
Regional and Recreational Parks
Objective 2.8: Percentage of Montgomery County public facilities with 1 short-term bicycle
parking space per 10,000 square feet of floor area:
o
o
Elementary Schools
Middle Schools
High Schools
Objective 2.4: Percentage of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of a public facility will be connected
to that facility through a low-stress bicycling network:
o
o
o
Red Line
Brunswick Line
Purple Line
Corridor Cities Transitway
Libraries
Recreation Centers
Objective 2.9: Regional and recreational parks with short-term bicycle parking.
A-1
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Glenmont
Wheaton
Forest Glen
Silver Spring
Takoma
Shady Grove
Rockville
Twinbrook
White Flint
Grosvenor
Medical Center
Bethesda
Friendship Heights
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
39.2%
0.8%
14.0%
0.7%
26.2%
0.0%
0.0%
20.9%
0.0%
6.7%
30.9%
0.0%
2.6%
17.6%
Objective 2.2: Percentage of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each MARC Brunswick Line station that
are connected to the station through a low-stress bicycling network.
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Dickerson
Barnesville
Boyds
Germantown
Metropolitan Grove
Gaithersburg
Washington Grove
Rockville
Garrett Park
Kensington
Silver Spring
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
5.0%
0.6%
1.8%
18.1%
15.8%
7.3%
6.2%
0.0%
44.3%
0.0%
0.0%
12.0%
A-2
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Bethesda
Connecticut Avenue
Lyttonsville
Woodside
Silver Spring Transit Center
Silver Spring Library
Dale Drive
Manchester Place
Long Branch
Piney Branch Road
Takoma / Langley
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
12.5%
5.2%
18.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
13.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.6%
Objective 2.2: Percentage of dwelling units within 2.0 miles of each Corridor Cities Transitway station
that are connected to the station through a low-stress bicycling network.
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
East Gaither
West Gaither
Crown Farm
DANAC
LSC Central
LSC West
LSC Belward
Kentlands
NIST
First Field
Metropolitan Grove
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
31.5%
64.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
n/a
n/a
27.4%
n/a
0.0%
15.8%
23.4%
A-3
Elementary School
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Arcola
Ashburton
Bannockburn
Barnsley
Beall
Bel Pre
Bells Mill
Belmont
Bethesda
Beverly Farms
Bradley Hills
Brooke Grove
Brookhaven
Brown Station
Burning Tree
Burnt Mills
Burtonsville
Candlewood
Cannon Road
Carderock Springs
Rachel Carson
Cashell
Cedar Grove
Chevy Chase
Clarksburg
Clearspring
Clopper Mill
Cloverly
Cold Spring
College Gardens
Cresthaven
Daly
Damascus
Darnestown
Diamond
Drew
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
24.7%
17.9%
17.5%
16.5%
16.8%
14.8%
25.1%
99.7%
4.1%
0.0%
53.8%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
32.1%
11.9%
0.0%
16.9%
31.1%
55.5%
4.1%
0.0%
0.0%
32.6%
3.6%
34.0%
5.5%
0.0%
23.1%
6.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
35.0%
20.1%
A-4
Elementary School
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
DuFief
East Silver Spring
Fairland
Fallsmead
Farmland
Fields Road
Flower Hill
Flower Valley
Forest Knolls
Fox Chapel
Gaithersburg
Galway
Garrett Park
Georgian Forest
Germantown
Glen Haven
Glenallan
Goshen
Great Seneca Creek
Greencastle
Greenwood
Harmony Hills
Highland
Highland View
Jackson Road
JoAnn Leleck
Jones Lane
Kemp Mill
Kensington Parkwood
Lake Seneca
Lakewood
Laytonsville
Little Bennett
Luxmanor
Marshall
Maryvale
Matsunaga
McAuliffe
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
69.4%
28.6%
12.8%
0.0%
19.9%
0.0%
0.0%
50.8%
43.3%
40.8%
0.0%
21.3%
10.6%
6.3%
0.0%
79.6%
0.8%
5.9%
2.5%
4.1%
58.2%
14.2%
40.8%
59.5%
46.3%
3.9%
0.0%
65.6%
73.0%
9.9%
11.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.4%
52.7%
42.3%
50.2%
A-5
Elementary School
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
McNair
Meadow Hall
Mill Creek Towne
Monocacy
Montgomery Knolls
New Hampshire Estates
North Chevy Chase
Oak View
Oakland Terrace
Olney
Page
Pine Crest
Piney Branch
Poolesville
Potomac
Resnik
Ride
Ritchie Park
Rock Creek Forest
Rock Creek Valley
Rock View
Rockwell
Rolling Terrace
Roscoe Nix
Rosemary Hills
Rosemont
Sargent Shriver
Sequoyah
Seven Locks
Sherwood
Singer
Sligo Creek
Somerset
South Lake
Stedwick
Stone Mill
Stonegate
Strathmore
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
3.7%
0.0%
39.0%
0.0%
42.4%
0.0%
0.0%
22.8%
41.8%
31.4%
16.1%
65.1%
4.2%
35.1%
9.2%
8.5%
90.8%
25.0%
14.5%
0.0%
11.5%
15.0%
70.5%
3.9%
23.5%
5.2%
27.9%
26.0%
5.0%
0.0%
29.7%
12.1%
11.3%
7.5%
0.3%
2.0%
82.2%
7.9%
A-6
Elementary School
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Strawberry Knoll
Summit Hall
Takoma Park
Travilah
Twinbrook
Viers Mill
Washington Grove
Waters Landing
Watkins Mill
Wayside
Weller Road
Westbrook
Westover
Wheaton Woods
Whetstone
William B. Gibbs Jr.
Wilson Wims
Wood Acres
Woodfield
Woodlin
Wyngate
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
0.0%
6.2%
3.4%
0.1%
59.7%
62.6%
20.1%
0.0%
28.6%
26.3%
41.0%
68.4%
63.8%
49.7%
10.4%
27.2%
47.3%
18.5%
58.8%
6.9%
73.8%
20.5%
A-7
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Argyle
John T. Baker
Benjamin Banneker
Cabin John
Briggs Chaney
Roberto W. Clemente
Eastern
William H. Farquhar
Forest Oak
Robert Frost
Gaithersburg
Herbert Hoover
Francis Scott Key
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Kingsview
Lakelands Park
Col. E. Brooke Lee
A. Mario Loiederman
Montgomery Village
Neelsville
Newport Mill
North Bethesda
Parkland
Rosa M. Parks
John Poole
Thomas W. Pyle
Redland
Ridgeview
Rocky Hill
Shady Grove
Silver Spring International
Sligo
Takoma Park
Tilden
Julius West
Westland
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
4.1%
0.0%
3.4%
18.8%
19.1%
2.7%
0.0%
4.4%
0.0%
16.2%
3.4%
1.4%
2.2%
4.0%
0.0%
33.9%
2.8%
27.6%
2.2%
0.0%
2.3%
23.2%
8.7%
38.2%
52.2%
13.0%
0.0%
27.7%
48.3%
0.9%
15.9%
22.5%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
A-8
Middle School
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
White Oak
Earle B. Wood
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
15.8%
16.4%
9.7%
A-9
High School
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Montgomery Blair
James Hubert Blake
Winston Churchill
Clarksburg
Damascus
Albert Einstein
Gaithersburg
Walter Johnson
John F. Kennedy
Col. Zadok Magruder
Richard Montgomery
Northwest
Northwood
Paint Branch
Poolesville
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Seneca Valley
Sherwood
Springbrook
Watkins Mill
Wheaton
Walt Whitman
Thomas S. Wootton
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
6.8%
0.0%
46.3%
0.6%
13.3%
4.0%
4.8%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.7%
18.9%
0.0%
32.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.8%
0.8%
1.0%
8.5%
0.0%
11.4%
4.8%
A-10
Library
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Aspen Hill
Bethesda
Chevy Chase
Damascus
Davis/Special Needs
Fairland
Gaiterhsburg
Germantown
Kensington Park
Little Falls
Long Branch
Noyes Childrens
Olney
Poolesville
Potomac
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Silver Spring
Twinbrook
Wheaton
White Oak
Average
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
23.0%
0.1%
0.0%
1.2%
10.0%
2.7%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
15.8%
20.7%
20.2%
17.8%
0.1%
20.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
34.6%
0.0%
9.4%
10.1%
A-11
Recreation Center
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
0.2%
20.8%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
40.5%
36.2%
0.0%
42.8%
0.0%
0.0%
54.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
10.1%
0.0%
0.0%
16.5%
30.8%
14.2%
54.2%
0.0%
14.3%
18.5%
20.5%
0.0%
10.9%
20.9%
24.9%
13.9%
0.0%
34.0%
26.3%
0.6%
35.9%
A-12
Recreation Center
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
2.3%
7.1%
3.4%
25.4%
0.0%
25.0%
1.7%
21.6%
A-13
2017
(baseline)
2019
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
1.2%
1.0%
67.9%
34.0%
0.0%
0.0%
41.5%
40.6%
45.8%
69.5%
20.4%
0.0%
18.0%
57.5%
36.6%
A-14
Library
Aspen Hill
Bethesda
Chevy Chase
Damascus
Davis/Special Needs
Fairland
Gaithersburg
Germantown
Kensington Park
Little Falls
Long Branch
Noyes Childrens
Olney
Poolesville
Potomac
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Silver Spring
Twinbrook
White Oak
Rate
Actual
2017
2019
Target
2022
2027
(baseline)
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
90%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
A-15
Recreation Center
Bauer Drive Recreation Center
Clara Barton Recreation Center
Damascus Community Recreation Center
East County Community Recreation Center
Fairland Community Recreation Center
Germantown Recreation Center
Gwendolyn E Coffield Recreation Center
Kensington Community Center
Leland Community Recreation Center
Long Branch Community Recreation Center
Longwood Community Recreation Center
Mid County Community Center
North Potomac Recreation Center
Plum Gar Neighborhood Recreation Center
Potomac Community Recreation Center
Scotland Neighborhood Recreation Center
Upper County Neighborhood Recreation Center
Wheaton Neighborhood Recreation Center
White Oak Community Recreation Center
Wisconsin Place Recreation Center
Rate
Actual
2017
2019
Target
2022
2027
(baseline)
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
80%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
A-16
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
12
4
4
A-17
Actual
2017
2019
(baseline)
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
19
TennisPlex
12
22
0
0
0
6
0
0
10
6
0
Target
2022
2027
(5-year target)
(10-year target)
A-18