September 7, 2017 Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Transcript of September 7, 2017 Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Public Information Meeting
September 7, 2017
Route 28 Corridor
Feasibility Study.
Project Team and
Study Committees
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Agency Involvement
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
The study is fully funded by the Northern
Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA)
Jointly administered by:
Prince William County and City of Manassas
Study Team
Steve BurkeCity of Manassas
Co-Project Manager
Randy Boice
JMT Project Manager
Brian CurtisJMT Deputy Project
Manager
Rodney Hayzlett
JMT Senior Advisor
Rick CanizalesPrince William
County
Co-Project Manager
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Sujith RachaJMT Senior Traffic
Engineer
Ian FrostJMT Senior
Environmental Lead
Technical staff from jurisdictions/agencies
Technical Committee Members
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Prince William County
City of Manassas
City of Manassas Park
Fairfax County
Northern Virginia Transportation
Authority (NVTA)
Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT)
Virginia Railway Express (VRE)
Potomac and Rappahannock
Transportation Commission (PRTC)
Bull Run Regional Park
Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation (DRPT)
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
Prince William County Service Authority
Executive Committee Members
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Senator George Barker Virginia General Assembly
Senator Richard Black Virginia General Assembly
Senator Jeremy McPike Virginia General Assembly
Delegate Tim Hugo Virginia General Assembly
Delegate Randy Minchew Virginia General Assembly
Delegate Bob Marshall Virginia General Assembly
Delegate Jackson Miller Virginia General Assembly
Chairman Corey Stewart Prince William County
Supervisor Martin Nohe Prince William County
Mayor Hal Parrish City of Manassas
Council Member Pamela Sebesky City of Manassas
Mayor Jeanette Rishell City of Manassas Park
Councilman Preston Banks City of Manassas Park
Chairman Sharon Bulova Fairfax County
Supervisor Kathy Smith Fairfax County - Sully District
Supervisor Pat Herrity Fairfax County – Springfield
District
Chris Price Prince William County
Monica Backmon NVTA
Helen Cuervo VDOT
Renee Hamilton VDOT
Maria Sinner VDOT
Todd Horsley DRPT
Scott Kasprowicz CTB
Mary Hughes Hynes CTB
Gary Garczynski CTB
Chief Executive Officer Doug Allen VRE
Paul Gilbert Northern Virginia Regional Parks
Authority
Short-Term
Recommendations
From VDOT 2015 Study
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Previous Study
Short-Term Recommendations from
VDOT 2015 Study
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
VDOT completed a corridor safety and traffic operations study on Route 28 in 2015 from Liberia Avenue to I-66.
The report identified low-cost, short-term improvements to address congestion and safety improvements along Route 28.
Many recommendations have been completed and others are underway.
Study Area and
Goals and Objectives
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Study Area
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
GOAL
Study Goals and Objectives
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
The project goals for the Route 28 Corridor Feasibility
Study are to identify long-term infrastructure
improvements that will improve travel times and
network reliability within the Route 28 Corridor through
Prince William County, the City of Manassas and City of
Manassas Park and develop a plan to implement these
improvement project(s).
Study Goals and Objectives
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Obj. 1: Reduce Congestion (Historic Downtown Manassas)
Obj. 2: Reduce Congestion (Liberia Ave to Compton Rd)
Obj. 3: Facilitate Peak Period Commute Flows
Obj. 4: Increased Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Travel
Obj. 5: Improved Access to Transit Facilities
Obj. 6: Improvement Projects with Public Consensus
Obj. 7: Improvement Projects with Minimal Environmental Impacts
Obj. 8: Improvement Projects with Minimal Existing Conditions Impacts
Obj. 9: Improvement Projects that Complement Route 28 Operations
Key O
bje
ctives S
um
mary
Key Objectives
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Project Development Process
Step 1: Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
• Subject of tonight’s meeting
• Includes development and analysis of alternatives to meet study
goals and objectives
• Identification of a highest ranked alternative
Step 2: Complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process.
• Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in
accordance with FHWA implementing regulations
• Additional opportunities for public input
• Selection of a Preferred Alternative
Step 3: Final Design of the Preferred Alternative
Step 4: Construction
Existing and Future
Traffic Conditions
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Existing Conditions
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Route 28 has
• 2 continuous through lanes in each direction from Godwin Drive to Route 29
• Additional through lanes around Manassas Drive
• 24 signals between Godwin Drive and Route 29
Observed Peak Hours
• AM peak hour (7:45 – 8:45 a.m.)
• PM peak hour (5:30 – 6:30 p.m.)
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
2040 No-Build Alternative
• Maintains existing lane configurations along Route 28
• Includes Fairfax Design Build Project
• 4 lanes in each direction from Old Centreville Road to the Prince William
County line
• Includes transportation projects from 2016 MWCOG Constrained Long
Range Plan
• I-66 Improvements
• Extension of New Braddock Road across I-66
• Includes 2040 MWCOG population and employment growth forecasts
Volumes
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Existing and Future Traffic Conditions
Route 28 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
• Historic Downtown: 2016 21,300 2040 No-Build 29,200
• Between Liberia Ave and Manassas Dr: 2016 46,000 2040 No-Build 60,800
• Bull Run: 2016 57,300 2040 No-Build 76,200
1.4% Annual Growth Rate
Travel Times
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Traffic Operations
* Travel time in the northbound
direction remains essentially the
same compared to the existing
conditions due to the Route 28
widening in Fairfax County
mitigating the northbound delays.
Southbound delays increase due to
no-build condition south of
Compton Road.
4846*
19 23
2237
27
54
Levels of Service (LOS) Results
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Traffic Operations
• Intersections in study area operating over capacity (LOS F)* in
either AM or PM peak hour:
2016 - 4 out of 29 – 14%
2040 No-Build - 16 out of 29 – 55%
* Queuing along the corridor causes additional intersections to operate at
capacity (LOS E)
Qu
eu
ein
g
Alternatives Evaluation
and Screening
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
01
02
03
04
Preliminary Alternatives
03
02Criteria: Meeting study goals objectives
Environmental Impacts
Property Impacts
Traffic Benefits
Policy Considerations/ Long Term Solution
Initial Screening
Four Advanced for Further Evaluation and Study
Feasible Alternatives
Alternatives Evaluation
Alternatives Screening / Evaluation
0101
01
0303
04
05
05 Highest Ranked Alternative
Criteria: Project Cost
Project Benefits
Environmental Impacts
Socioeconomic / Right of Way Impacts
c0101
01
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Preliminary
Alternatives
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
ALT. 1: No Build
ALT. 2A: Godwin Drive extended to match existing Route 28 south of Bull Run
ALT. 2B: Godwin Drive extended to match existing Route 28 north of Bull Run
ALT. 3: Godwin Drive extended to match I-66 near the existing Compton Road crossing (the former Tri-County Parkway alignment)
ALT. 4: Widening Route 28 on existing alignment between Liberia Avenue and the Fairfax County line
ALT. 5: New Route 28 Reversible Lanes between Liberia Avenue and the Fairfax County Line
ALT. 6: Widening Old Centreville Road/Ordway Road throughout its length
ALT. 7: Converting Old Centreville Road/Ordway Road to a reversible facility
ALT. 8: Transit Alternatives to include BRT and/or VRE expansion along the corridor (Not Shown)
ALT. 9A: Euclid Avenue extension north and south
ALT. 9B: Euclid Avenue extension north and south
ALT. 9C: Euclid Avenue extension north and south
ALT. 10A: A new southern alignment (Hastings Drive/Signal View Drive)
ALT. 10B: A new southern alignment (Hastings Drive/Signal View Drive)
ALT. 10C: A new southern alignment (Hastings Drive/Signal View Drive)
Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Study
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Study
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Alternatives
Alt 2B – Godwin Drive
Extended to north of Bull
Run
Alt 2A – Godwin Drive
Extended to south of Bull
Run
Access Points:
• Sudley Road
• Lomond Drive
• Old Centreville Rd
• Route 28 south of Bull Run
Access Points:
• Sudley Road
• Lomond Drive
• Old Centreville Rd
• Ordway Rd – partial access
• Route 28 north of Bull Run
Alternatives
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Alt 4 – Widen Route 28
• Add a lane in each direction
between Liberia Avenue and
end of Fairfax County widening.
• Ties into Fairfax County Design
Build Project south of Compton.
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Alt 9 – Euclid Avenue Extension
North to Rte. 28 & South to
Sudley Rd / Rte. 28 Intersection
Roundabout is being planned for Route
28/ Sudley Road intersection by City of
Manassas
Alternatives
2nd Screening
Evaluation of
Alternatives
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Screening Criteria for Alternative Evaluation
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Screening Criteria established
to attain study objectivesObj. 1: Reduce Congestion (Historic Downtown
Manassas)
Obj. 2: Reduce Congestion (Liberia Ave to Compton Rd)
Obj. 3: Facilitate Peak Period Commute Flows
Obj. 4: Increased Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Travel
Obj. 5: Improved Access to Transit Facilities
Obj. 6: Improvement Projects with Public Consensus
Obj. 7: Improvement Projects with Minimal Environmental Impacts
Obj. 8: Improvement Projects with Minimal Existing Conditions Impacts
Obj. 9: Improvement Projects that Complement Route 28 Operations
Key O
bje
ctives S
um
mary
Screening Criteria for Alternative Evaluation
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Alternative Rating
Planning Level Costs
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Planning Level Costs
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
2017 Planning Level Costs
Construction Cost – using VDOT Project Cost Estimating System (PCES)
ROW Costs
Utility Costs
Environmental Mitigation Costs
Contingency – 10% (applied to total)
Ro
un
de
d u
p t
o
Ne
are
st $
5 M
illio
n
2040 No-Build N/A
Alt 2A 4.25 $240 M
Alt 2B 4.0 $190 M
Alt 4 3.5 $245 M
Alt 9 4.75 $265 MC
on
cep
tua
l Alt
ern
ati
ve
#
Alig
nm
en
t C
olo
r
Len
gth
in M
iles
2017 Planning Level
Costs
Estimated costs subject to change as the project progresses through the project
development process and costs are inflated for future construction years.
Project Benefits
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Project Benefits
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Screening Criteria for Alternative Evaluation
No. of Intersections Operating over Capacity
Multimodal Compatibility
Project Benefits
Change in 2040 ADT in Historic Downtown Manassas
2040 ADT Served by Alternative + Route 28
Ratio of 2040 ADT to Planning Level Cost
Peak Hour Travel Time in 2040 using Alternative
Peak Hour Travel Time Savings in 2040 on Route 28
1
2
3
X Key Objective Attainable
4,5
2,3
1,
2,3
1,
2,3
Obj. 1: Reduce Congestion (Historic Downtown Manassas)
Obj. 2: Reduce Congestion (Liberia Ave to Compton Rd)
Obj. 3: Facilitate Peak Period Commute Flows
Obj. 4: Increased Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Travel
Obj. 5: Improved Access to Transit Facilities
Project Benefits
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Byp
ass
Alt
Ro
ute
28
2
Current Volume 0 57,200 57,200
2040 No-Build 0 0 0 76,200 76,200
Alt 2A -7,700 -16,900 37,200 59,300 96,500
Alt 2B -7,700 -16,800 37,200 59,400 96,600
Alt 4 2,700 6,200 0 82,400 82,400
Alt 9 3,400 -24,300 35,000 51,900 86,900
Ch
ange
in 2
040
AD
T o
n
Ro
ute
28
(Lib
eria
Ave
to
Co
mp
ton
Rd
)
Key Objectives Attainable 1 1 2
Ch
ange
in 2
040
AD
T o
n
rou
te 2
8 in
His
tori
c D
ow
nto
wn
Man
assa
s3
2040
AD
T Se
rved
by
Alt
ern
ativ
e +
Ro
ute
28
(Lib
eria
Ave
to
Co
mp
ton
Rd
)4
Tota
lCo
nce
ptu
al A
lter
nat
ive
#
Alig
nm
ent
Co
lor
Traffic Benefits
(when compared to 2040 No-Build)
Project BenefitsTravel Times on Alternative Routes (min)
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Travel Paths
Alt 2A
Alt 2B
Alt 4
Alt 9
A
B
Alternative #NB AM
Peak Hr
SB PM
Peak HrTotal
2040 No-Build 47 55 102
Alt 2A 20 31 51
Alt 2B 18 31 49
Alt 4 35 43 78
Alt 9 30 36 66
Travel Time Savings on Business
Route 28 (min)
Alternative #NB AM
Peak Hr
SB PM
Peak HrTotal
Alt 2A 24 15 39
Alt 2B 24 17 41
Alt 4 12 12 24
Alt 9 20 19 39
Godwin Drive
Route 29
Environmental Impacts
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Environmental Impacts
4f Properties / Historic Sites / Public Recreation Areas / Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuges
Floodway / Floodplains
Streams / Wetlands
Hazardous Materials
Environmental Justice Concern
Noise Impacts
7
7
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Screening Criteria for Alternative Evaluation
7
7
7
7
Environmental Impacts
X Key Objective Attainable
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
Obj. 3
Obj. 4
Obj. 5
Obj. 6
Obj. 7
Obj. 8
Obj. 9
Improved Access to Transit Facilities
Improvement Projects with Public Consensus
Improvement Projects with Minimal Environmental Impacts
Improvement Projects with Minimal Existing Conditions Impacts
Improvement Projects that Complement Route 28 Operations
Reduce Congestion (Liberia Ave to Compton Rd)
Reduce Congestion (Historical Downtown Manassas)
Increased Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Travel
Facilitate Peak Period Commute Flows
Key Objectives Summary
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
Obj. 3
Obj. 4
Obj. 5
Obj. 6
Obj. 7
Obj. 8
Obj. 9
Improved Access to Transit Facilities
Improvement Projects with Public Consensus
Improvement Projects with Minimal Environmental Impacts
Improvement Projects with Minimal Existing Conditions Impacts
Improvement Projects that Complement Route 28 Operations
Reduce Congestion (Liberia Ave to Compton Rd)
Reduce Congestion (Historical Downtown Manassas)
Increased Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Travel
Facilitate Peak Period Commute Flows
Key Objectives Summary
Screening Criteria for Alternative Evaluation
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Environmental Impacts within 250 Foot Corridor
2040 No-Build 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0
Alt 2A 7.0 / 16.4 / 0 23.4 / 66.7 7370 / 5.4 9
Alt 2B 0.7 / 30.3 / 0 21.2 / 55.7 7050 / 6.2 1
Alt 4 3.9 / 1.1 / 0 5.0 /9.3 2050 / 0.9 50
Alt 9 0.6 / 8.3 / 0 16.9 / 47.8 2030 / 2.8 16
Key Objectives Attainable 3 7 7 7 7
4f P
rop
erti
es:
His
tori
c Si
tes
(acr
es)
/
Pu
blic
Rec
reat
ion
Are
as /
Wild
life
or
Wat
erfo
wl
Ref
uge
s
Flo
od
way
(A
cres
) /
Flo
od
pla
ins
(Acr
es)
Stre
ams
(Lin
ear
Feet
) /
Wet
lan
ds
(Acr
es)
Haz
ard
ou
s M
ater
ials
(#
Site
s)
Co
nce
ptu
al A
lter
nat
ive
#
Alig
nm
ent
Co
lor
Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts are preliminary, based on GIS databases and do not
have the benefit of fieldwork which will occur during the NEPA process.
Socioeconomic / ROW
Impacts
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Socioeconomic / ROW Impacts
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Screening Criteria for Alternative Evaluation
Socioeconomic/ROW Impacts
Relocations - Businesses
Relocations to Residential / Churches / Schools
Conservation Easements
8
8
8
X Key Objective Attainable
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
Obj. 3
Obj. 4
Obj. 5
Obj. 6
Obj. 7
Obj. 8
Obj. 9
Improved Access to Transit Facilities
Improvement Projects with Public Consensus
Improvement Projects with Minimal Environmental Impacts
Improvement Projects with Minimal Existing Conditions Impacts
Improvement Projects that Complement Route 28 Operations
Reduce Congestion (Liberia Ave to Compton Rd)
Reduce Congestion (Historical Downtown Manassas)
Increased Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Travel
Facilitate Peak Period Commute Flows
Key Objectives Summary
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
Obj. 3
Obj. 4
Obj. 5
Obj. 6
Obj. 7
Obj. 8
Obj. 9
Improved Access to Transit Facilities
Improvement Projects with Public Consensus
Improvement Projects with Minimal Environmental Impacts
Improvement Projects with Minimal Existing Conditions Impacts
Improvement Projects that Complement Route 28 Operations
Reduce Congestion (Liberia Ave to Compton Rd)
Reduce Congestion (Historical Downtown Manassas)
Increased Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Travel
Facilitate Peak Period Commute Flows
Key Objectives Summary
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
2040 No-Build 0 0 / 0 / 0
Alt 2A 13 112 / 0 /0
Alt 2B 0 70 / 0 /0
Alt 4 96 5 / 0 / 0
Alt 9 24 51 / 0 / 0
Socioeconomic / Right of Way Impacts
Key Objectives Attainable 3 8 8
Re
loca
tio
ns
to B
usi
ne
sse
s
(#)
Re
loca
tio
ns
to R
esi
de
nti
al
(#)
/ C
hu
rch
es
(#)
/ S
cho
ols
(#)
Co
nce
ptu
al A
lte
rna
tiv
e #
Alig
nm
en
t C
olo
r
Socioeconomic / ROW Impacts
Right of way impacts are preliminary and subject to change as
the project progresses through the project development process.
Highest Ranked
Alternative
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Highest Ranked Alternative
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Ro
un
de
d u
p t
o
Ne
are
st
$5
Mil
lio
n
Ran
kin
g*
Po
ints
Ran
kin
g*
Po
ints
Ran
kin
g*
Alt 2A $240 M 2 19 pts. 2 -20 pts. 4 2.7
Alt 2B $190 M 1 20 pts. 1 -15 pts. 2 1.3 P
Alt 4 $245 M 3 8 pts. 4 -11 pts. 1 2.7
Alt 9 $265 M 4 12 pts. 3 -16 pts. 3 3.3
* Ranking Best (1) to Worse (4)
Hig
he
st R
anke
d A
lte
rnat
ive
by
Tech
nic
al C
om
mit
tee
Co
nce
ptu
al A
lte
rnat
ive
#
Ali
gnm
en
t C
olo
r
2017 Planning Level
CostsProject Benefits
Environmental /
Socioeconomic /
ROW Impacts
Average
Ranking*
Next Steps
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Next Steps
Dates subject to change as the project progresses through
the project development process.
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study
Public Information Meeting in Fairfax
Monday, September 11, 2017
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Centreville Elementary School Cafeteria
14330 Green Trails Blvd, Centreville, VA 20121
Presentation (same as tonight’s) and Question and Answer Session at
7:00 p.m.
Boards and Handouts (same as tonight’s)
Thank you for coming!
Comment sheets are
available
Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study