Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis Community Involvement Committee October 1, 2014
Agenda 1. Purpose of the study What we’ve learned from you 2. 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 2
Study Corridor 02 1. What is the purpose of the Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis? 3
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. 4
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 5
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 6
What learned from you? 2. What have we learned from you to date? 7
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 • Phasing and implementation 8
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 9
What We’ve Learned From You Sticker Online survey at survey public meeting Conversati ons 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 10
Goals for Today’s Meeting Key takeaways: • Evaluation of alternatives process • Study recommendations • Potential phasing and implementation sequence for corridor improvements We want to feedback from you on: • Recommendations 11
3. Review of study process and status 12
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 13
Study Schedule: Major Activities We are here 14
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) 15
4. Evaluation of Alternatives: Ability to address goals and objectives 16
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! 17
Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit 1 – Curb BRT operates in dedicated curb lanes to Pohick Road North Huntington Penn Daw Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Woodbridge VRE BRT operates in mixed traffic from Pohick Road North to Woodbridge Lanes Proposed P&R 18
Alternative 2: Huntington Bus Rapid Transit 2 - Median Penn Daw Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd Hybla Valley BRT operates in median in dedicated lanes in Fairfax County; transitions to mixed traffic through Prince William County BRT in Mixed Traffic BRT in Dedicated Lanes Woodbridge VRE Proposed Park & Ride 19
Alternative 3: Huntington Penn Daw Light Rail Transit (Median) 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 20
Alternative 4: Metrorail- BRT Hybrid Median Running BRT in the near-term Huntington Beacon Hill Hybla Valley • • • • Metrorail underground to Hybla Valley with BRT in Mixed Traffic supporting BRT in the long-term BRT in Dedicated Lanes Metrorail (Underground) Proposed Park & Ride Woodbridge VRE 21
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 22
Evaluation of Alternatives: Key Findings 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 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 23
• • Evaluation of Alternatives: Findings – • Check out Board 4 • for full evaluation results! • – Slide in Progress – 24
Draft Recommendation Evaluation results suggest: • Median running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the near-term would provide a cost effective transportation solution to support economic development plans. • Metrorail extension to Hybla Valley in the long- term has potential to provide a higher level of local and regional mobility and support long- term corridor development, contingent upon increased future land use density. 25
Hybla Valley with BRT 26
Hybla Valley with BRT and Metrorail 27
5. Key Considerations for Implementation Population and employment growth Traffic capacity Phasing and funding of multimodal improvements 28
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 29
Example: Arlington County 30
Example: Alexandria, VA 31
Woodlawn: Transit Oriented Development Concept Artist’s Rendering 32
Station Activity Density (Population + Employment per Acre) P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) P-4 (14-34) (End of line station) P-3 (7-14) (End of line station) Ballston-Rosslyn Norfolk LRT 33
Station Activity Density Levels P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) P-4 (14-34) P-3 (7-14) 34
Station Activity Density Levels P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) P-4 (14-34) 35
Station Activity Density Levels P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) 36
Station Activity Density Levels P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) 37
Station Activity Density Levels P-6 (70+) P-5 (34-70) 38
Beacon Hill Scenario 2 39
Beacon Hill Scenario 3 40
Woodbridge Scenario 2 41
Traffic Capacity Growth Scenarios and Roadway Requirements 42
Traffic Analysis Approach • Purpose: – Assess potential “worst case” traffic impacts and define need for roadway and intersection capacity • Measures: – Intersection Level of Service (LOS) – Theoretical additional roadway capacity needed • – Theoretical local street capacity + increased transit share + walk and • bike trips 43 • •
Traffic Analysis Findings: Scenario 1 Transit travel time Addition of median transit lanes: 16 Segment Travel Time (min) • Improves transit travel time Auto travel time 12 • Increases automobile travel time • Does not degrade intersection 16.8 8 14.6 performance 13.6 12.1 • Left turns impacted 4 0 1 2 2035 No Build 2035 Build (Janna Lee Ave. to Huntington) 44
Recommend
More recommend
