SLIDE 1
A Presentation by the Project Managers: Rick Canizales Prince - - PDF document
A Presentation by the Project Managers: Rick Canizales Prince - - PDF document
A Presentation by the Project Managers: Rick Canizales Prince William County & Jana Lynott, AICP Northern Virginia Transportation Commission for the: Public Open House and Hearing December 6, 2005 George C. Marshall High School Fairfax
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Slide 3
Loudoun Count y Loudoun County Prince William Prince William Count y County Fairfax County Fairfax Count y Arlingt on County Arlington Count y Alexandria Alexandria D.C. D.C.
TransAction 2030 TransAction 2030
Northern Virginia Region
City of Fairfax City of Fairfax Falls Church Falls Church Manassas Park Manassas Park Manassas Manassas
The TransAction 2030 Plan includes the nine jurisdictions of Northern Virginia and will focus on road, transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements in eight regional corridors: Basemaps shapefiles: VDOT Slide 4
TransAction 2030
8 Regional Multimodal Corridors
VA Route 7 and Dulles Toll Rd VA Route 28 Loudoun County Parkway/ Tri-County Parkway/ VA 234/ VA 659 Fairfax County Parkway Prince William Parkway I-495 Beltway I-95/ I-395-US Route 1 I-66/ US
- 29/ US
- 50
95 495 395 1 7 28 234 7100 3000 66 267
SLIDE 4
Slide 5
Updating the 2020 Plan
2020 Plan was pre pare d in 1999; muc h ha s c hange d sinc e the n
– Some pr
- je c ts we r
e c omple te d or a r e unde r way
– Mor
e studie s we r e c onduc te d
– Numbe r
- f ve hic le mile s tr
ave le d in re gion ha s grown by 2.1% annually
– T
r ansit tr ips have inc r e ase d by 4% annually
No new projects beyond those already in the 2020 Plan have been added to TransAction 2030 Plan. Data sources: Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia Transportation Commission Slide 6
“In the 21st c e ntur y, Nor the r n Vir ginia will de ve lop and sustain a multi-modal tr anspor tation syste m that suppor ts our e conomy and quality of life . It will be fiscally sustainable , pr
- mote ar
e as of conc e ntr ate d gr
- wth, manage both de mand and capacity, and
e mploy the be st te chnology, joining r ail, r
- adway,
bus, air , wate r , pe de str ian, and bicycle facilitie s into an inte r c onne cte d ne twor k.”
2020 Vision
In 1999, Northern Virginia’s elected officials, aided by the contributions of citizens, mapped out a vision for our region’s transportation future. This vision continues to guide this update of the 2020 Plan. Source: Northern Virginia 2020 Transportation Plan, December, 1999 Slide 7
SLIDE 5
0.5 1 1.5 2 Jobs in Millions
Northern Virginia Employment
Em ploym ent 1.05 1.69 2000 2030
T he Washington DC Me tropolitan R e gion will add 2 million pe ople and 1.6 million jobs by 2030
Re gion is gr
- wing
Our region is growing and we’ll need to plan ahead to protect and improve our quality of life in Northern Virginia. The Washington metropolitan region is projected to add 2 million people and 1.6 million new jobs by 2030. Nearly half of the employment and more than half of the population growth is expected to occur in Northern Virginia, where new home construction is not expected to keep up with this demand. Even if new home construction continuing at a strong pace, there will still be more jobs in the region than there are homes for workers. More and more people will commute to jobs in Northern Virginia from outside the region– either because they can’t find homes in the region, or they can’t find homes that they can afford. This will lead to longer commutes, more congestion, and poorer air quality. Data sources: Reality Check: Envisioning Our Regions Growth, Participant’s Guide Book, ULI Washington, February 2, 2005. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 6.4a Population and Employment Forecasts.
SLIDE 6
Slide 8
Cong e stion Me ans L
- ng e r
Commuting T ime s
It’s no secret that road congestion causes longer commuting times. Recent studies show that the Washington, D.C. region is the third most congested in the nation and suffers from over 125,000 hours per year of traffic delay – this translates to over 33 hours per person --almost a whole week of vacation that the average resident spends sitting in traffic every year! And the situation is only getting worse. Photo credits: The Washington Post, December 28, 2004 Data source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2004 Annual Urban Mobility Report, http://mobility.tamu.edu/
SLIDE 7
Slide 9
Challe nge s c ontinue with de ma nd e xc e e ding c apac ity…
Demand exceeds capacity on all forms of transportation in our region. Use of Metrorail has grown 30% over the past eight years and use of Metrobus has grown 25% since 1997. Photo credits: James A. Parcell, Washington Post Slide 10
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Jan-00 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-01 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-03 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-03 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan-04 Mar May Jul Sep Nov
Gr
- wth in T
ransit Use
Commute r rail use also rising.
Use of Virginia Railway Express (VRE), has grown by 76% since 2000, as roadway commuters flock to the train. Photo credits: Virginia Railway Express Data source: Virginia Railway Express
SLIDE 8
Slide 11
Activitie s
E xte nd planning horizon to 2030 Update proje c t c osts. Ove r $15 billion ne e de d to c omple te T ransAc tion 2030 Plan proje c ts. Re move c omple te d proje c ts, those unde r way, or those in CL RP Br ing the analysis of tr ansit pe r for manc e up to the same le ve l as that done for highways in 1999 Unde r stand the inte ra c tions be twe e n mode s (highway, tr ansit, bic yc le , pe de strian) Provide a varie ty of oppor tunitie s to e nga g e the public Prioritize proje c ts a gainst agr e e d-upon c rite r ia
Slide 12
2020 Plan
T e c hnic al a nalysis fo c use d o n auto mo de
– Pe rfo rmanc e me asure s g e ne rate d fro m the COG mo de l
L imite d numbe r o f tra nsit me asure s
– E xample s: ho use ho lds within walking dista nc e
- f rail, daily transit bo arding s, c hang e in
ro adwa y c o ng e stio n as a re sult o f transit pro je c ts
No pe d, bike pe rfo rmanc e e va luatio n
The 2020 Plan provided only limited analysis of transit performance. There was no evaluation of the performance of our pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Since 1999, the transportation modeling has evolved and tools have become available to better assess the effects of transit, bicycle and pedestrian investments. We’ve made use
- f these tools in our update to the transportation plan, and believe the result is a much
better understanding of our transportation system and ultimately, a better plan.
SLIDE 9
Slide 13
Highway Pe r for manc e
The next several slides show examples of the different types of analysis underpinning the draft Plan. The maps show the performance of different transportation systems, or
- networks. The full set of maps for each networks (2005 existing conditions, 2030 CLRP,
and TransAction 2030) will be posted on the Project Website along with the final Plan document once approved. Each of the performance measures address 3 networks. The 2005 network of existing conditions based on what’s built today. The 2030 CLRP network shows conditions expected in 2030 when the already-funded projects have been built. Finally, the TransAction 2030 Plan network assumes funding will be found and all the projects proposed in this plan are built. This is the “spaghetti” map showing stop-and-go traffic on our roadways in 2005. The red denotes what we like to call LOS G in NOVA, or one or more hours of stop-and-go traffic per each rush hour period.
SLIDE 10
Slide 14
Par k and Ride L
- t Pe r
for manc e
Red dotes denote park and ride lots that fill up before the end of the morning rush hour. Orange dots are those that fill up by the end of the rush hour, and green dots are those with additional capacity.
SLIDE 11
Slide 15
T r ansit Pe r for manc e
F ive me asure s Se rvic e c o ve rag e Passe ng e r lo ad F re que nc y o f se rvic e Ho urs o f se rvic e T rave l time
One of the cornerstones of this planning update is the inclusion of more analysis of transit performance, also called Transit level of service. We looked at five transit LOS measures…. Service coverage—how much of Northern Virginia is served by transit? Passenger load—how crowded are trains and buses? Frequency of service—how often can you hop a train or bus to get to major destinations? HOURS OF service—how many hours during the day can you complete a trip on public transportation? Travel time—how does my travel time on transit compare with what it would be by car.
SLIDE 12
Slide 16
Passe nge r L
- ad
Passenger load LOS shows the level of crowding on trains and buses. As you can see from this map, passenger’s on Metrorail’s Orange line experience fairly crowded standing conditions during the peak morning rushhour. Slide 17
T r ave l T ime
Travel time LOS compares the difference in door-to-door travel times between activity centers, by transit and by auto It’s faster to travel by transit from Tysons to downtown than it is by car and just as fast to get to Reston, Merrifield, Rosslyn, and Ballston.
SLIDE 13
Slide 18
Multimodal L OS Analysis
He lps us to unde rstand the inte ra c tio ns be twe e n mo de s (a uto , transit, bic yc le , pe de stria n) Auto L OS base d o n vo lume / c apac ity ratio s Bus L OS inputs: fre que nc y (ho urly buse s in
- ne dire c tio n) multiplie d by a djustme nt
fa c to rs fo r:
– Ho urs o f se rvic e – Stre e t-c ro ssing diffic ulty – Pe de strian L OS in se g me nt – Ba rrie rs (e .g ., ditc he s) be twe e n side walk and bus sto ps
Multimodal LOS analysis helps us to understand the interactions between modes and evaluate the effects of proposed investments on each mode. Auto LOS is based on volume/capacity ratio, a measure that VDOT has used for many years. The transit, bicycle and pedestrian LOS measures are based on the users point of view and comfort: for instance-how frequent does the bus come, how much room does a bicyclist or pedestrian have between its travel way and traffic. Slide 19
Multimodal L OS Analysis
Bic yc le L OS inputs:
– Curb la ne tra ffic vo lume s – Bike lane / sho ulde r pre se nc e – Po ste d spe e d – T ruc k pe rc e ntag e – Pave me nt c o nditio n
Pe de strian L OS Inputs:
– T raffic vo lume s – Side walk pre se nc e & width – Se paratio n fro m traffic – Pro te c tive barrie r pre se nc e
SLIDE 14
Slide 20
Florida DOT
Multimodal L OS
The best way to understand this is through photos. Point out different LOS by mode. Slide 21
NOTE: Auto LOS shown here is based on the FDOT method
Multimodal L OS
This slide depicts the interaction between modes along a segment of the US Route 1 Corridor in Prince William County.
SLIDE 15
Slide 22
Public Involve me nt Oppor tunitie s
T e le phone sur ve y We bsite Community e ve nts T e le phone Hotline Public He ar ing There were numerous opportunities for public comment during this update. Slide 23
T e le phone Sur ve y Me thodology
Re pre se ntative sample of 1,263 Northe rn Vir ginia adults 18+ – At le ast 100 inte rvie ws c onduc te d in all
jurisdic tions
– Aggre gate data we ig hte d to c ompe nsate for
the e ffe c ts of ove r-sa mpling the se jur isdic tions
– Base s shown on c har
ts ar e unwe ighte d
Mar gin of E r ror +/ - 2.8 pe r c e ntage points Apr il 26 to May 10, 2005
SLIDE 16
Slide 24
T wo-thir ds of re side nts ar e frustr ate d with the tr ips the y take most ofte n.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very Frustrating 25% 11% 20% 39% Somewhat Frustrating 41% 47% 41% 37% Not Very Frustrating 21% 22% 25% 13% Not At All Frustrating 12% 19% 14% 10% Total Sample (N=1263) Core Suburbs (N=206) Inner Suburbs (N=601) Outer Suburbs (N=456)
Slide 25
Almost nine in te n c ite d tr affic as a r e ason for the ir fr ustr ation with trave l.
2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 11% 86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Need More Public Transportation Time It Takes Too Many Homes Construction Accidents Timing of Traffic Lights Inconsiderate or Aggressive Drivers Traffic
Base=Very or Somewhat Frustrated N=829
Responses to an Open-Ended Question
SLIDE 17
Slide 26
Commute r s who take tr ansit ar e le ss fr ustr ate d than ar e those who always dr ive alone .
16% 15% 29% 8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% % Very Frustrated % Not At All Frustrated
Take Transit to Work Always Drive Alone
Slide 27
Summar y of Public Pr ior itie s for T r ansit and Road Wide ning
60% 43% 31% 31% 29% 18% 18% 13% 42% 56% 39% 21% 37% 46%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
- Rt. 7/Dulles
(N=336) Beltway (N=437) Route 28 (N=287) Interstate-66 (N=574) Interstate 95 (N=276) FF Pkwy (N=201) PW Pkwy (N=116)
Highest Priority Transit Highest Priority Road Widening
Note: Excludes the Tri-County Parkway because there are no transit projects.
* * * * * *Statistically significant difference between transit and road widening *
In most radial corridors, such as I-95, transit is favored. In most circumferential corridors, such as county parkways, road widening is favored.
SLIDE 18
Slide 28
Summa r y of Me a n Willing ne ss to Pay for T ransit and Road Wide ning
$2.10 $2.22 $1.84 $1.73 $1.87 $2.12 $2.26 $2.06 $1.40 $1.57 $1.24 $1.45 $1.41 $1.48 $1.62 $1.46
$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 Route 7/ Dulles Route 28 Fairfax Cnty Prkwy Prince William Cnty Prkwy Beltway I-66 I-95 Grand Mean*
Highest Priority Transit Highest Priority Road Widening
Note: Excludes the Tri-County Parkway because there are no transit projects. * The bases for the grand mean are 691 for transit and 668 for road widening. The overall difference between willingness to pay for transit and road widening is highly significant.
Interestingly, those who chose transit as their top priority are willing to pay more to get their top priority project built than are those who chose road widening. Slide 29
Half of all r e sponde nts sa id that public tra nsportation is the ir top priority, c ompa re d to just
- ve r
- ne -quar
te r who c hose r
- ad improve me nts
5% 6% 9% 28% 50% 15% 12% 18% 23% 24% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
HOV Lanes Bike Trails and Lanes Sidewalks and Crosswalks Roads and Highways Public Transportation
Most Important Second Most Important
Base=Total Sample N=1,263
74% 20% 18% 27% 51%
Those from PWC as likely as Arlington County residents to favor transit improvements. Q: Which one of these of these transportation improvements is most important to you? Second most important to you?
SLIDE 19
Slide 30
Most and Se c ond Most Ac c e ptable F unding Me thods
20% 23% 46% 19% 34% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Increase Gas Tax Increase Income Tax Increase Sales Tax
Most Acceptable Second Most Acceptable
Base=Total Sample N=1,263
39% 57% 72%
Slide 31
Pr
- je c t a nd Ne twor
k Pe r for manc e E valuation
In Fall 2005, the NVTA approved two sets of evaluation criteria. The first, our project- based evaluation criteria were used to answer the question, “how well does a project perform compared to other projects within a corridor” and to rank the projects by mode and by corridor. The second set of criteria are used to test how well the TransAction 2030 Plan network (assuming all TransAction 2030 Plan projects are built) performs compared to the 2005 network (our existing road and transit network) and the region’s Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP).
SLIDE 20
Slide 32
Conc lusions
We no w have dra ft list o f prio r itie s T e le pho ne surve y and o the r public input indic ate s de sire fo r e nha nc e d multi- mo dal transpo rtatio n syste m T ransit L OS sho ws are a s whe re additio na l transit se rvic e warrante d Hig hway L OS illustra te s tha t T ransAc tio n 2030 le ve l o f funding is ne e de d. F unding sho rtfall o f o ve r $15 billio n
SLIDE 21
Slide 33
T he NVT A Ne e ds to He ar F r
- m You!