VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis

County of Fairfax, Virginia
VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal
Alternatives Analysis
Recommendations and
Implementation Actions
Board Transportation Committee
December 9, 2014
Leonard Wolfenstein
Tom Burke
Fairfax County Department of Transportation
Department of Transportation
1

Background
• County has requested that Commonwealth fund transit study in this
corridor for many years
• General Assembly funded study in 2013 legislative session
• Executive Steering Committee comprised of state and local elected
and transportation officials met throughout study and guided study
• DRPT managed study
• Study Limits: I-95/495 to Woodbridge (15 miles)
• Study initiation: June 2013
• Public Meetings held October 2013, March 2014, and October 2014
• Study completion: January 2015
2

Four Refined Transit Alternatives Evaluated
Alternative 1:
Bus Rapid Transit 1- Curbside
Alternative 2:
Bus Rapid Transit 2- Median
Alternative 3:
Light Rail Transit
Alternative 4:
Metrorail- BRT Hybrid
3
Proposed P&R

Study Results
Evaluation results suggest:
•Median running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
would provide a near-term cost-effective
transportation solution to support economic
development plans.
•Metrorail extension to Hybla Valley would
provide a higher level of local and regional
mobility in the longer term and support long-term
corridor development, contingent upon
increased future land use density.
4

Study Phasing Approach
Phase I-III: Implement Multimodal
Improvements and BRT (Median Running)
Phase IV: Extend Metrorail to Hybla Valley,
contingent upon future land use
3.1 mi.
7.3 mi
4.6 mi.
3.1 mi.
Napper Rd
Route 1
Widening
Project
Mount Vernon
Memorial Highway
Note: contingent upon
future land use
5

Final Study Recommendations
• Recommends phased implementation of the multimodal
investments of “Alternative 4- BRT/Metrorail Hybrid,” including:
• Roadway Widening: Widen roadway from four lanes to six lanes where
necessary to create a consistent, six-lane cross section along the
corridor;
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Create a continuous facility for
pedestrians and bicyclists along the 15 mile corridor; the configuration
will vary depending upon urban design, right-of-way availability, and
other local considerations;
• Transit: Contingent upon increased land use density and project
funding, implement a median-running-Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system
from Huntington to Route 123 in Woodbridge (curb-running BRT in
mixed traffic within the Prince William County portion) and a 3-mile
Metrorail Yellow Line extension from Huntington to Hybla Valley as
expeditiously as possible;
6

Executive Steering Committee Resolution
• Supports incorporating the recommendations in local,
regional, and statewide plans so the projects will be
positioned for funding;
• Recognizes that supportive land uses, along with
supporting infrastructure may be incorporated in local
plans and regional forecasts in conjunction with the
transit improvement;
• Supports “Alternative 4 BRT/Metrorail Hybrid”
contingent upon supportive land use and funding plan
7

Next Steps: Planning Initiatives
(as presented to ESC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2. Market Study: understand rate of growth anticipated in the corridor
based on economic conditions, transit improvements, and competing
markets
3. Right of Way Survey: Needed for Route 1 and N. Kings Highway to
confirm potential impacts during the environmental review phase
4. Continue involvement and engagement with citizens, business owners
and economic development stakeholders
8

Next Steps: Transportation Project
Development (as presented to ESC)
1. Develop more detailed funding plan
2. Identify Project Sponsor(s)
3. Request class of action determination from FTA and FHWA
4. Initiate environmental documentation for Phases I and II
(Huntington to Fort Belvoir)
9

Draft Implementation Timeline
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Roadway Widening and Bike/Ped, BRT
Market Absorption Study
Phase I Comprehensive Plan Revisions
Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort Belvoir
BRT and Bicycle/Pedestrian, BRT
Phase II Comprehensive Plan Revisions
Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge Improvements
Roadway Widening and Bike/Ped
Phase III Comprehensive Plan Revisions
PhaseIV: Huntington to Hybla Valley Metrorail Extension
Metrorail
Phase IV Comprehensive Plan Revisions
Years (2015-2040)
Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley + Roadway Widening
*
Note: Timelines assume a funding stream to support projects implementation.
Comprehensive
Plan
*Contingent upon increased future land use density.
Planning Scoping/
NEPA PE
Final Design Right of Way Utilities
Relocation
Construction Operation
Legend: General Project Development Sequence
Typical New Starts Funding Steps/Sequence:
FTA SMALL STARTS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
FTA NEW STARTS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS

Suggested Next Steps for County Board
• Direct staff to do the following:
– Initiate process to amend Comprehensive Plan to reflect
transportation recommendation on Transportation Plan Map
(BRT designation for corridor, BRT station locations, and
Metrorail stations)
– Initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment process to consider
land use changes at station areas (approaches below)*
– Conduct Market Study*
– Develop funding plan and identify resources for near-term
activities
– Prepare scope for environmental documentation*
*contingent upon resources
11

Key Components of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for Land Use
• Work with community on land use guidance at
BRT station locations
• Assess infrastructure requirements due to
increased land use density (schools, parks,
public safety, roads – including assessment of
grid of streets)
• Develop refined street cross sections and
corridor design standards
• Refine BRT stop locations
12

Approaches to Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for Land Use
• 2 Approaches:
– A) Pilot BRT Stations (Amend Plan for 3
stations, e.g. Lockheed, Hybla Valley,
Woodlawn)
– B) Phase I of BRT (Huntington to Hybla
Valley- 5 stations)
13

Pros and Cons of Comp Plan Approaches
• Approach A (Pilot Stations)
Pro
–Would provide detailed recommendations at 3 stations (including
Woodlawn already authorized by the Board)
–Would gauge community acceptance for station-related densities
–Would establish a framework for efforts on remaining stations
–Would identify improvements that can be made in the process
before remaining station areas are planned
–Would be more manageable from a staff and funding perspective
Con
–Would take resources and time and not include all stations
–Would only provide partial assessment of impacts along the corridor
14

Pros and Cons of Comp Plan Approaches
(cont’d)
• Approach B (Phase I)
Pro
• Would complete Plan for all 5 stations in Phase I
Con
• Would require significantly greater resources (consultant,
staff, and community) and considerable time for extensive
community engagement
15

Implementation -
Environmental Documentation
• Current determination of study is that Environmental
Assessment (EA) is necessary to advance BRT
• Fairfax County is likely entity to conduct EA
• May be logical to include BRT Phases I & II together in
the EA (Huntington to Fort Belvoir)
• 2 to 3 years needed to conduct EA; will use Route 1 AA
study results as input
• Estimated Cost to conduct EA: $3 to $6 million
• Project is both road widening and transit project – FHWA
and FTA will be federal agencies involved
16

Implementation -
Environmental Documentation (cont.)
• EA can be initiated while Comp Plan process is
underway; however, Comp Plan process should be
completed before EA concludes, so that revised land use
can be factored in assessment.
17

Funding Plan
• Initial funding available in Board Transportation Priorities
Plan
• Assess all potential funding sources
– Evaluate FTA New Starts Program versus other options
– Assess availability of future federal formula funds, e.g.
CMAQ/RSTP
– State Funding Possibilities
– Availability of Regional and Local Funding
– Potential for Innovative Financing, e.g. Public-Private
Partnerships
18

Immediate Actions
• Direct staff to return to Board in early 2015 with
information on resources required to:
–Conduct Comp Plan Amendment (based on preferred
option)
–Conduct Market Study
–Conduct Environmental Assessment
19

• Questions and Discussion
20

VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis

Ähnlich wie VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis (20)

Mehr von Fairfax County

Mehr von Fairfax County (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis