Rout e 1 M ult im odal Alt ernat ives Analysis Com m unit y Involvem ent Com m ittee M arch 18, 2014
Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Background and Process 3. Proposed Alternatives for Further Evaluation & Land Use Scenario Development 5. Q&A, Discussion 6. Upcoming M eetings and Next Steps 2
2. Background and Process 3
Project Corridor Route 1 4
Project Schedule 2013 2014 We are here 5
Outcome of the Study • A recommended multimodal alternative for implementation in the Route 1 corridor by the technical team • The recommended alternative w ill have three elements: – Transit : M ode and alignment – Vehicular : Number of automobile travel lanes – Bike/ Ped : Facilities and location Bike/ped Bike/ped Transit Vehicular Travel Lanes Vehicular Travel Lanes 6 6
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 7
Existing Corridor Travel Patterns (Auto plus Transit) Daily trips (auto and transit) to, Arlington from, and within Route 1 corridor County DC 6% City of Total Trips Alex. Route 1 From/To % of Transit 13 % Fairfax Total Total Share County DC 52,000 6% 29% 24 % Arl/Alex 116,000 13% 6% 34 % Route 1 Within Rt.1 Corridor 310,000 34% 1% Fairfax Other 216,000 24% 0% Prince William Other 124,000 14% 0% 14 % Other Areas 95,000 10% 2% Prince Total 913,000 100% 3% William County 8
Transit Travel Markets Transit Users On an average weekday, where do people who 8% 14% live in the corridor travel to? Metrorail/ Bus to Metro • The majority of corridor transit users (52%) are Bus Only commuting to Downtown, using Metrorail Commuter 78% Rail • 86% of corridor transit users are traveling to Arlington or Downtown Transit Users 5% On an average weekday, where do people who travel Metrorail/ Bus to Metro to the corridor come from? Bus Only 30% • 64% of transit commuters to the corridor Commuter Rail use the bus 64% • Most transit trips begin and end in the corridor 9
Reminder: Highlights of Last Meeting • Presented Purpose and Need • Identified the transportation problems we want to solve • Presented preliminary options for: – Transit modes – Vehicular lanes – Bike/Ped facilities 10
Step 1: Identify the best transportation options Range of Alternatives Initial Alternatives Refined Alternatives 11
Step 2: Combine options into multimodal alternatives Complete Technical Analysis + Evaluate Alternatives against Goals and Objectives 12
Arriving at Recommended Multimodal Alternative: How do we choose one? Key Evaluation Factors: • Transit system performance • Identify Bicycle and pedestrian network Evaluate goals and improvements alternatives objectives • Traffic operations • Implementation/ ability to phase project • Financial feasibility • Capacity to meet current and Perform Develop future needs technical evaluation • ROW and impacts on analysis factors community resources • • • 13
Multimodal Evaluation Process Today’s meeting answers How do we get from Screen 1 to Screen 2? Discuss the process for evaluating options under each category: Transit , Vehicular , and Bike/Ped At the end of the presentation, we will have confirmed: Which alternatives will be further evaluated? (We’ll have filled in the boxes!) One of these options will ultimately be the recommended alternative. 14
2. Proposed Alternatives for Further Evaluation & Land Use Scenario Development 15
Vehicular Travel Lanes Alternatives Existing Lanes Expanded Lanes: Three or four lanes, depending on location along the corridor Key Evaluation factors: • Level of Service (LOS) • Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) • ROW impacts Converted Lanes Other, qualitative factors: • Maintaining existing speeds • Minimizing lane transitions • Reducing pedestrian crossing distance/time Consistent Lanes 16
Vehicular Lane Evaluation Compares less favorably Compares more favorably Other, qualitative factors: • Desire to maintain existing speeds (45 mph) • Minimize lane transitions that contribute to travel delays • Minimize pedestrian crossing distance/time 17
Vehicular Lanes Evaluation: Overview 1. Confirmed recommendation from prior studies and plans (VDOT and Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan): Consistent , 6 vehicular lanes along the entire corridor 2. Evaluated the Consistent 6-Lane Alternative to other options using quantitative and qualitative measures 3. Confirmed Findings with VDOT 18
Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives Sidewalk + bus/bike lane Sidewalk + bike lane General General Purpose Lane Purpose Lane or Dedicated Key Evaluation factors: or Dedicated Transit Lane Transit Lane • Safety and comfort for cyclists of all abilities Multiuse path Sidewalk + buffered • ROW impacts bike lane (bike and ped) Measures and factors: • Bicycle compatibility index and Bicycle Level of Service • Possible to implement incrementally / flexible over 8’ time General General Purpose Lane Purpose Lane or Dedicated or Dedicated Transit Lane Transit Lane 19 19
Bicycle and Pedestrian Evaluation In-street bike lane Shared bus/bike Buffered bike Multiuse path and sidewalk lane and sidewalk lane and sidewalk Legend for ratings: Compares more Compares less favorably favorably Improves walk & bike Improves walk & bike Improves walk & bike Improves walk & bike access to destinations access to destinations access to destinations access to destinations Provides access along full corridor In-street bike lane not Shared bike/travel lane Bike lane buffered from Bike lane buffered from Provides safety and recommended for 45 not recommended for 45 mph traffic 45 mph traffic with curb mph+ 45 mph+ and landscape strip comfort given high auto speeds and volumes Requires some new Requires little new ROW Requires significant new Requires some new ROW ROW ROW Requires additional right- of-way 20
Bicycle and Pedestrian Evaluation: Overview Confirmed recommendation based on trade-offs among accessibility, safety, and required right-of-way 10-foot M ultiuse Path Note: implementation of recommended section varies along corridor 21
Transit Evaluation: Overview Range of Alternatives 1. Screened a w ide range of transit alternatives based on basic project requirements to arrive at four initial alternatives Initial Alternatives 2. Analyzed four transit alternatives to identify the most promising modes (e.g. rail, bus) and routes for further evaluation Refined Alternatives 22
Initial Alternatives Four Initial Transit Alternatives: Huntington • Enhanced Bus Beacon Hybla Valley • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Light Rail Transit (LRT) • M etrorail Enhanced Bus BRT LRT Metrorail Woodbridge VRE Proposed P&R 23
How do we refine the initial alternatives for further evaluation? 1. Quantitative Key Indicators: • Ridership • Estimated Capital Cost Initial Modes • Estimated O&M Cost • Cost per Rider 2. Preliminary Land Use Scenario Refined Alternatives for Further Evaluation Analysis 24
T ransportation Investment helps to increase 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 25
Land Use: Transit-Supportive Activity Densities Scenario 1: Scenario 3: Scenario 2: “ Base Land Use Scenario” = How much do population and What is a reasonable growth 2035 MWCOG regional employment need to increase expectation for a corridor that forecast to achieve density levels invests in high-quality transit typically supportive of (BRT or LRT)? Metrorail ? +169% over +25% over 2035 2035 regional regional forecast forecast +246% +531% +15% +202% +25% Large Town/Suburban Center (Express Bus) Medium Town/Suburban Center (Fixed Route Bus) Rural or Village Center (Demand Response) P Source: DRPT Multimodal Design Guidelines (2013) 26 26
Scenario 1: 2035 MWCOG Population and Employment Forecast 2010 Population+ Employment +77% • The 2035 regional 2035 MWCOG (regional) 19,700 Forecast forecast anticipates high growth that varies along +20% 20,300 the corridor • Base scenario for +41% 6,600 potential FTA grant application +38% +46% 6,100 10,800 • +28% Station areas (within ½- 2,900 mile) in the north and at Woodbridge are Urban Core (Rail) supportive of express Urban Center (BRT/ LRT) +155% bus; areas near Fort Large Town/Suburban Center (Express Bus) Belvoir are less dense Medium Town/Suburban Center 4,600 (Fixed Route Bus) Rural or Village Center(Demand Response) Source: DRPT Multimodal Design Guidelines (2013) 27
Beacon: Bird’s Eye View Today Source: Bing Maps 28
Beacon Hill: Land Use Scenario One (2035 COG Projection) 29
Beacon Hill: Land Use Scenario One (2035 COG Projection) 30
Recommend
More recommend
