Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis Public Meeting #3 October 8, 2014
Tonight’s Schedule 6:00 – 7:00 pm Open House 7:00 – 7:30 pm Presentation Share Your Ideas 7:30 – 8:00 pm 2
Presentation Agenda 1. Purpose of the study 2. What we’ve learned from you 3. Review of study process and status 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 5. Key considerations for implementation Population and employment growth Traffic capacity Phasing and funding of multimodal improvements 6. Next Steps 3
What the Study Means for Prince William County Issue: Congested commute and weekend travel north into Fairfax County and Alexandria/Arlington/DC Accommodate future traffic growth along Route 1 by widening of Route 1 to Fort Belvoir, including Occoquan River bridge Issue: Plans for significant additional mixed-use town center development in North Woodbridge Provide additional transportation choices and serve as a catalyst to realize planned activity levels Facilitate pedestrian access to transit services, including Woodbridge VRE station 4
Ongoing Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Near Woodbridge Current Projects: • Route 1/123 Interchange Project • Route 1 Widening • Other pedestrian facility improvement projects 5
1. Purpose of the Study 6
Alternatives Analysis Study Outcomes • • Recommend a program of multimodal transportation improvements for adoption by Fairfax County and Prince • William County • Define transit , roadway , and bicycle / pedestrian projects that could be advanced for implementation. 7
Purpose and Need Purpose: Provide improved performance for transit , bicycle and pedestrian , and vehicular conditions and facilities along the Route 1 corridor that support long-term growth and economic development . Needs: • Attractive and competitive transit service • Safe and accessible pedestrian and bicycle access • Appropriate level of vehicle accommodation • Support and accommodate more robust land development 8
Project Goals GOAL 1: Expand attractive multimodal travel options to improve local and regional mobility GOAL 2: Improve safety; increase accessibility GOAL 3: Increase economic viability and vitality of the corridor GOAL 4: Support community health and minimize impacts on community resources 9
2. What we’ve learned from you 10
Where We’ve Been • Study introduction Public Meeting #1 • Existing conditions (Fall 2013) • Goals and objectives • Initial alternatives Public Meeting #2 • Evaluation measures (Spring 2014) • Land use analysis • Evaluation of alternatives Public Meeting #3 • Study recommendations (Today) • Phasing and implementation 11
Outreach Methods • Committee Meetings (technical, elected, community) • Public Meetings • Social Media • News Ads and Press Release • Flyers and Fact Sheets • Metro Station and Bus Ads • Community Event Booths • Bilingual • On-Line and On-Corridor • Targeted Efforts to Engage Diverse Populations 12
What We’ve Learned From You Sticker Online survey at survey public meeting Discussion with community members • Purpose and Need Purpose and Need Weighting of evaluation measures • Weighting of evaluation measures Recommendations and action plan • Recommendations and action plan 13
Goals for the Meeting Key takeaways: • Evaluation of alternatives process • Study recommendations • Potential phasing and implementation sequence for corridor improvements We want to hear feedback from you on: • Draft recommendations • Implementation action plan 14
3. Review of study process and status 15
Alternatives Analysis Study Outcomes The recommended projects would: • Respond to County and State transportation and land use plans and policies • Support economic development goals • Be financially feasible and potentially competitive for federal funding 16
Study Schedule: Major Activities We are here 17
Evaluation Process Public Meeting #1 Screen 1: Initial Alternatives (Fall 2013) Screen 2: Refined Alternatives Public Meeting #2 (Spring 2014) Screen 3: Detailed Evaluation Public Meeting #3 Recommendations (Fall 2014) 18
4. Evaluation of Alternatives: Ability to address goals and objectives 19
Bicycle/Pedestrian and Roadway Recommendations Recommendations: • Roadway: Consistent, 6 vehicular lanes along the corridor • Bike/Ped: 10-foot multiuse path (Note: implementation of recommended section varies along the corridor) • Transit: Under evaluation! 20
Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit 1 – Curb Running BRT operates in mixed traffic from Woodbridge to Pohick North Huntington Penn Daw Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Woodbridge VRE Lanes Proposed P&R BRT operates in dedicated curb lanes to Pohick Road North 21
Alternative 2: Huntington Bus Rapid Transit - Median Penn Daw Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd BRT operates in mixed traffic through Hybla Valley Prince William County BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Lanes Woodbridge VRE Proposed Park & Ride BRT operates in median in dedicated lanes in Fairfax County 22
Alternative 3: Huntington Penn Daw Light Rail Transit Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley Light Rail operates in median in dedicated lanes for entire corridor LRT in Dedicated Lanes Woodbridge VRE Proposed Park & Ride 23
Alternative 4: Metrorail-BRT Hybrid Metrorail underground to Hybla Valley with supporting BRT in the long-term Huntington Beacon Hill Hybla Valley • • • • BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Lanes BRT operates in mixed traffic through Metrorail (Underground) Proposed Park & Ride Woodbridge VRE Prince William County 24
Summary of Key Indicators Based on Scenario 1 Land Use (COG 2035 Forecast) Alt 1: Alt 2: Alt 3: Alt 4: Metro/BRT BRT- Curb BRT- Median LRT Hybrid 26,500 Average Weekday 15,200 16,600 18,400 (BRT 10,600; Ridership (2035) Metro 22,900) $2.46 B* Conceptual Capital Cost $832 M $1.01 B $1.56 B (Metro $1.46B; BRT $1 B) Annual O&M Cost $18 M $17 M $24 M $31 M** (BRT $13M; (BRT $12M; (LRT $19M; (Metro $17M; BRT $8M; (Each Alternative includes $5 M annual Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) Ft Belvoir Shuttle $5M) cost for Ft. Belvoir shuttle service) Cost Effectiveness $28** $19 $20 $27 (Annualized capital + operating cost per (Metrorail: $28; BRT: $29) rider) * This figure represents full BRT construction between Huntington and Woodbridge, then Metrorail extension from Huntington to Hybla Valley ** These figures assume operation of Metrorail between Huntington and Hybla Valley, and BRT between Hybla Valley and Woodbridge 25
Evaluation of Alternatives Goal Example Measures • Goal 1: Local and Regional Ridership • Mobility Travel time savings • Goal 2: Safety and Traffic • Accessibility Pedestrian access • Goal 3A: Economic Economic development effects • Development Implementation • Capital costs Goal 3B: Cost Effectiveness • Operating costs • Goal 4: Community Health Environmental impacts • and Resources Change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 26
• • Evaluation of Alternatives: Findings – • Check out Board 4 • for full evaluation results! • – Slide in Progress – 27
BRT in mixed traffic through Prince William County Draft Recommendation Evaluation results suggest: • Median running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the BRT median in dedicated lanes in Fairfax County near-term would provide a cost effective transportation solution to support economic development plans. • Metrorail extension to Hybla Valley in the long- Metrorail underground to Hybla Valley with term has potential to provide a higher level of supporting BRT in the long-term local and regional mobility and support long- term corridor development, contingent upon increased future land use density. 28
29
5. Key Considerations for Implementation Population and employment growth Traffic capacity Phasing and funding of multimodal improvements 30
Transportation investment supports economic viability and vitality of the corridor Population growth Employment growth Demand for new residential units and commercial space Support high quality Land use planning Transportation investment community development 31
Woodlawn: Transit Oriented Development Concept Artist’s Rendering 32
Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) P-4 (14-34) P-3 (7-14) 33
Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) P-4 (14-34) 34
Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) 35
Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) 36
Station Activity Levels (Population + Employment per Acre) P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) 37
38
Woodbridge Existing N 39
Woodbridge Scenario 2 N 40
Traffic Capacity Growth Scenarios and Roadway Requirements 41
Recommend
More recommend
