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



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.



Study Phasing ApproachPhase 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.

Mount Vernon

Memorial Highway

Napper Rd

Route 1 W

idening Project

Note: contingent upon future land use



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;



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



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



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)



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, BRTMarket Absorption StudyPhase I Comprehensive Plan Revisions

Phase II: Hybla Valley to Fort BelvoirBRT and Bicycle/Pedestrian, BRTMarket Absorption StudyPhase II Comprehensive Plan Revisions

Phase III: Fort Belvoir to Woodbridge ImprovementsRoadway Widening and Bike/PedMarket Absorption StudyPhase III Comprehensive Plan Revisions

PhaseIV: Huntington to Hybla Valley Metrorail ExtensionMetrorailMarket Absorption StudyPhase IV Comprehensive Plan Revisions

Years (2015-2040)

Phase I: Huntington to Hybla Valley + Roadway Widening

Draft Implementation Timeline

Comprehensive Plan

Planning Scoping/NEPA PE

Final Design Right of Way Utilities Relocation

Construction Operation

Legend: General Project Development Sequence

Note: Timelines assume a funding stream to support projects implementation.*Contingent upon increased future land use density.

*

FTA NEW STARTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

FTA SMALL STARTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Typical New Starts Funding Steps/Sequence:


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



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 locationsDepartment of Transportation

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)


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



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



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



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.



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



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



• Questions and Discussion


VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis

News & Politics

Transcript of VDRPT Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives Analysis