Route 1 Multimodal Alternative Analysis Status Update

County of Fairfax, Virginia

Route1Multimodal Alternatives Analysis

Status Update

Fairfax County Board of SupervisorsTransportation Committee

June 10, 2014


• Purpose of Presentation– Provide update of study activities– Present Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle

Recommendations– Present Refined Transit Alternatives– Show Land Use Analysis– Prepare for discussion of preferred transit

alternative in Fall 2014


Study Area• 14 mile section of Route 1

• Extends from I-95/I-495

Beltway, through Fairfax

County, to Route 123 at

Woodbridge in Prince

William County

• Funded with $2 million from

the Commonwealth

• Conducted by Department

of Rail and Public

Transportation


Study Overview

• Define the key mobility issues and establish a “needs statement”

• Consider a range of multimodal transportation solutions to address the needs

• Conduct transportation analysis for the alternatives

• Conduct land use analysis to support the alternatives

• Perform financial analysis to test viability of the alternatives

• Recommend a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and determine required level of environmental documentation


Public Meetings Topics

October 2013 • Purpose and need, goals and objectives

• Initial set of alternatives

March 2014 • Refined alternatives• Ridership Forecasts• Land use assessment

October 2014 • Financial analysis• Evaluation of alternatives• Recommendation for Locally Preferred

Alternative


Purpose and Need

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

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.


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


Outcome of the Current Study • A recommended multimodal transportation plan for

implementation in the Route 1 corridor

• The recommended plan will have three elements:– Transit: Mode and alignment– Vehicular: Number of automobile travel lanes– Bike/Ped: Facilities and location

Vehicular Travel Lanes

Bike/ped

Transit Vehicular Travel Lanes

Bike/ped


Public Meeting #2: What Participants Said• Promote additional mixed use development in the proposed station areas

75% of survey respondents say it would be worthwhile to have additional mixed-use development at the proposed stations to support a high quality transit investment.

• Create new street and sidewalk connections within the proposed station areas 74% of survey respondents say it would be worthwhile to create new street and sidewalk connections in the proposed stations areas to support a high quality transit investment.

• Improve traffic flow Residents and travelers in the corridor consistently cite traffic congestion as a major concern.

• Sense of urgency for improvements Need for safer, more connected pedestrian and bicycling environment.

• Interest in a future Metrorail investment55% of respondents favored the Metrorail/BRT Hybrid, Alternative 4.

Note: Survey responses came from the public meeting and from an on-line version made available after the meeting.

The survey is not intended to be statistically valid.


Step 1: Identify the best transportation options

Range of Alternatives

Initial Alternatives

Refined Alternatives


Step 2: Combine options into multimodal alternatives

Complete Technical Analysis + Evaluate Alternatives against

Goals and Objectives


Existing Lanes: Varies from 4 to 6 lanes

Expanded Lanes: Three or four lanes, depending on location along the

corridor

Converted Lanes

Consistent Lanes


Vehicular Lanes Recommendation

Consistent, 6 vehicular lanes along the entire corridor

1. Recommendation from prior studies and plans (VDOT and Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan)

2. Technical evaluation based on traffic and right-of-way analysis

3. Confirmed findings with VDOT

14

Bicycle and Pedestrian Alternatives

Sidewalk + bike lane Sidewalk + bus/bike lane

General Purpose Lane or Dedicated Transit Lane




Sidewalk + buffered bike lane

Multiuse path (bike and ped)

Key Evaluation factors:• Safety and comfort for

cyclists of all abilities• ROW impacts

Measures and factors:• Bicycle compatibility index

and Bicycle Level of Service• Possible to implement

incrementally / flexible over time

8’


Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendation

10-foot Multiuse Path (both sides of street)

1. Technical evaluation based on trade-offs among accessibility, safety, and required right-of-way

2. Note: implementation of recommended section varies along corridor


Initial Transit Alternatives

Four Initial Transit Alternatives:• Enhanced Bus• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)• Light Rail Transit (LRT)• Metrorail

Enhanced Bus

BRT

LRT

Metrorail

Proposed Park & Ride

Huntington

South County

Center

Fort Belvoir

Beacon Hill

Woodbridge VRE

Lorton Station

Blvd.

Hybla Valley

Gunston Road

P

P

Penn Daw

Lockheed Blvd

South County

Center

Gum

Springs

Woodlawn

Pohick Rd North


Four Refined Alternatives for Further Evaluation

1. Bus Rapid Transit 1- Curbside

2. Bus Rapid Transit 2- Median

3. Light Rail Transit 4. Metrorail- BRT Hybrid

Huntington

Penn DawBeacon Hill

Lockheed BlvdHybla Valley

South County

Center

Gum

Springs

Woodlawn

Fort Belvoir

Pohick Rd North

Lorton Station BlvdGunston Rd

Woodbridge VRE

P

PProposed P&R

Metrorail (Underground)

LRT in Dedicated Lanes

BRT in Dedicated Lanes

BRT in Mixed Traffic


Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit 1 – Curbside

BRT operates in dedicated curbside lanes from Huntington to Pohick Road North

HuntingtonPenn Daw

Beacon Hill Lockheed Blvd

Hybla Valley

Woodlawn

Fort Belvoir

Pohick Rd North

Lorton Station Blvd

Woodbridge VRE



South County

Center

Gum Springs

Gunston Road

P

PProposed Park & Ride

Alternative 1: Bus Rapid Transit 1 – Curbside

BRT operates in mixed traffic between Pohick Road North

and Woodbridge

HuntingtonPenn Daw


Hybla Valley

Woodlawn

Fort Belvoir

Pohick Rd North

Lorton Station Blvd

Woodbridge VRE



South County

Center

Gum Springs

Gunston Road

P


Alternative 2:Bus Rapid Transit 2 - Median

BRT operates in median in dedicated lanes in Fairfax County; transitions to mixed traffic in Prince William County

HuntingtonPenn Daw


Hybla Valley

Woodlawn

Fort Belvoir

Pohick Rd North

Lorton Station Blvd

Woodbridge VRE



South County

Center

Gum Springs

Gunston Road

P


Alternative 3: Light Rail Transit (Median)Light Rail operates in median in dedicated lanes for entire corridor

LRT in Dedicated Lanes

P

P

HuntingtonPenn Daw


Hybla Valley

Woodlawn

Fort Belvoir

Pohick Rd North

Lorton Station Blvd

Woodbridge VRE

South County

Center

Gum Springs

Gunston Road


Alternative 4: Metrorail- BRT Hybrid

Metrorail operates underground from Huntington to Hybla Valley; Transfer to BRT service at Hybla Valley to Woodbridge

Huntington

Beacon Hill

Hybla Valley

Woodlawn

Fort Belvoir

Pohick Rd North

Lorton Station Blvd

Woodbridge VRE

South County

Center

Gum Springs



Metrorail (Underground)

P


Gunston Road

P

23

4. Land Use Analysis How does land use relate to

the alternatives?


Scenario 1: “Base Land Use Scenario” = 2035 MWCOG regional

forecast

Scenario 2: What is a reasonable

growth expectation for a corridor that invests in

high-quality transit (BRT or LRT)?

Scenario 3: How much do population and employment need to

increase to achieve density levels typically supportive

of Metrorail?

+25% over 2035 regional

forecast

+15%

+25%

+246%+531%

+202%

+169% over 2035 regional

forecast

Source: DRPT Multimodal Design Guidelines (2013)

Large Town/Suburban Center (Express Bus)

Medium Town/Suburban Center (Fixed Route Bus)

Urban Center (BRT/ LRT)

Source: DRPT Multimodal Design Guidelines (2013)

Urban Core (Rail)


Beacon Hill: Land Use Scenario One(2035 COG Projection)


Beacon Hill: Land Use Scenario Two


Beacon Hill: Current County Comprehensive Plan(Envisioned “build-out” level of development)


Beacon Hill Station Scenario ThreeGrowth and Development that would support Metrorail


Arriving at a Preferred Alternative Evaluate the Alternatives based on Project Goals

and Objectives and Implementation FactorsExample Measures:

• Ridership • Traffic Impacts• Travel time • Safe bike/ped facilities• Capital and operating

costs

• Cost effectiveness• Ability to spur economic

development • Impacts on right-of-way

and environmental resources

• Decrease in vehicle miles traveled


Funding Options• Currently Evaluating All Funding Options

– Federal (FTA, TIGER, Formula)– State – Regional– Local– Private/Developer– Other

• Board 6-Year Transportation Funding Priorities have transit set aside of $199 m to advance transit projects once preferred option has been determined


• Recommendations for a program of road, bike and pedestrian improvements, and a high-quality transit alternative to be carried forward for implementation

• Consideration of project funding options

• Determination of the appropriate level of environmental documentation

• Ultimately, consideration of revisions to County Comprehensive Plan to balance future land use with future transportation

Study Products


Upcoming Schedule

• June to August – Complete Analysis; Make Recommendation

• September - Technical Advisory Committee

Executive Steering CommitteeCommunity Involvement Committee

• October - Public Meeting• December - Board Consideration of Locally

Preferred Alternative


• Questions

News & Politics

Route 1 Multimodal Alternative Analysis Status Update