I-66 Multimodal Study Final Report - Virginia Department of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multimodal PackagesProject lengths for linear improvements (e.g., pathways, bicycle lanes) were determined fromGIS line work developed for this study. Costs for spot improvements, such as intersectionimprovements were calculated per individual location using aerial photographs to determineroadway widths. Intersection calculations assumed one curb extension, four lines of striping,three pavement marking symbols, one high visibility crosswalk, two signs, and two curb rampsfor each approach. Costs assume that facility projects will be implemented by contractorsthrough a bidding process; however, they may vary if projects are done in-house by VDOT.Actual implementation will likely be more costly if bicycle or pedestrian improvements aredone as many small projects as compared to a smaller number of large projects.All construction projects include a contingency, estimated at 25 percent of the construction cost.All construction projects include contingencies for maintenance of traffic, mobilization, andutility and drainage impacts; estimated at 5 to 10 percent of the construction cost. All constructionprojects include a design contingency, estimated at 20 percent of the total construction cost.All construction projects include a right-of-way acquisition contingency, estimated at 10 percentof the total construction cost.Bikeshare station cost estimates assume new 10-slot docks and nine new bikeshare bicycles perstation and all supporting technology requirements (e.g., power, communications). Bicycleparking enhancements at Metrorail stations assumes parking equipment, concrete pads, sheltersand covers, security features, and landscaping. Bicycle parking in other locations assumesbolted or skid mounted U-racks with capacity for six bikes.Prioritization CriteriaWorking with the project team, bicycle and pedestrian system enhancements were prioritizedbased on readily available criteria that relate to the potential to benefit existing and potentialusers of the on- and off-road bicycle and pedestrian system. In addition, other criteria relatedto the likelihood of implementation in the near or long term also were included. Following aredescriptions of each criteria, with the associated score in Table 3.23.Project Timeframe – Represents the project team’s professional judgment on the likely timingof the project. Projects that are anticipated to be completed in the more quickly receive morepoints, and projects anticipated to take longer to complete score fewer points.Project Feasibility – Represents the project team’s professional assessment of the feasibility orease of implementation of a project. Factors include project difficulty or technical complexity,jurisdictional issues, and right-of-way considerations. Projects that are easier to implementreceive more points, projects that are more difficult receive fewer points.Household Density – Measure of the household density (units per square mile) within 3 milesof a project was based on 2010 U.S. Census data. The household density within 3 miles of allprojects are calculated and then classified into three quartiles using GIS analysis tools. Projectswith higher densities in the surrounding areas receive higher scores as they are likely to benefitmore people.Employment Density – Measure of the employment density (jobs per square mile) within 3miles of a project was based on 2010 U.S. Census data. The employment density within 3 miles3-90 I-66 Multimodal Study
Multimodal Packagesof all projects are calculated and then classified into three quartiles using GIS analysis tools.Projects with higher job densities in the surrounding areas receive higher scores as they arelikely to benefit more people.Metrorail Station Proximity – Measure of the proximity of a project to a Metrorail station. Thismeasures the likelihood that a project will improve access to Metrorail stations. Projects thatare located closer to Metrorail stations are assumed to improve access for more individuals, andtherefore receive higher scores.Combined Scores – The element scores for each project were calculated using GIS analysistools. These were then combined to provide a unified score for each project. Project scoresranged between 3 and 15.Table 3.23 Bicycle and Pedestrian Prioritization Criteria and Tiered ScoringCriteria Tier ScoreProject TimeframeShort (within 2 years)Mid (2-5 years)Long (over 5 years)3 points2 points1 pointProject FeasibilityEasyMediumHardHousehold Density 5,511-20,4192,631-5,5100-2,630Employment Density 8,705-48,2832,791-8,704678-2,790Metrorail StationProximityWithin ¼ mile½ mile to ¼ mile1 mile to ½ mile3 points2 points1 point3 points2 points1 point3 points2 points1 point3 points2 points1 pointBicycle and Pedestrian PrioritizationTable 3.24 presents the results of the evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian systemenhancements. It should be noted that incorporation into this study does not necessarilyrepresent a commitment by VDOT to underwrite the cost of planning, designing, orconstructing a particular improvement. The priority ranking does not dictate a specificsequence for undertaking projects. Rather it serves as a statement of support for bicycling andwalking in general, through the improvement of facilities in the study area.I-66 Multimodal Study 3-91
Page 2 and 3:
20120618
Page 4 and 5:
Table of ContentsTable of Contents(
Page 6 and 7:
List of TablesList of Tables(contin
Page 8 and 9:
List of TablesThis page intentional
Page 10 and 11:
List of FiguresList of Figures(cont
Page 12 and 13:
List of FiguresList of Figures(cont
Page 14 and 15:
AcknowledgementsThis page intention
Page 16 and 17:
Executive Summarymobility options a
Page 18 and 19:
Executive SummaryTable ES.1 Mobilit
Page 20 and 21:
Executive SummaryRecommendations fo
Page 22 and 23:
Executive SummaryThis page intentio
Page 24 and 25:
Introduction(HOV) policies, high-oc
Page 26 and 27:
Introduction1.3 Overview of Work Pr
Page 28 and 29:
IntroductionStudy WebpageThe I-66 M
Page 30 and 31:
IntroductionThis page intentionally
Page 32 and 33:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.1Issues an
Page 34 and 35:
Mobility OptionsKeeps mobility opti
Page 36 and 37:
Mobility Optionsanticipated to have
Page 38 and 39:
Mobility OptionsTable 2.2 Mobility
Page 40 and 41:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.2Abbreviat
Page 42 and 43:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.3Cutline L
Page 44 and 45:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.4Peak-Hour
Page 46 and 47:
Mobility OptionsTotal VMT in the st
Page 48 and 49:
Mobility OptionsThere is some shift
Page 50 and 51:
Mobility OptionsThe percentage of t
Page 52 and 53:
Mobility OptionsMode share shows no
Page 54 and 55:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.15 Morning
Page 56 and 57:
Mobility OptionsKey FindingsThis op
Page 58 and 59:
Mobility OptionsFigure 2.17 Interli
Page 60 and 61:
Mobility Options2. Orange Line Bypa
Page 62 and 63:
Mobility OptionsAs travelers make u
Page 64 and 65:
Mobility OptionsTable 2.3 Mobility
Page 66 and 67:
Mobility OptionsThis page intention
Page 68 and 69:
Multimodal PackagesReducing the pro
Page 70 and 71:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.2 Recomm
Page 72 and 73:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.1Travel
Page 74 and 75:
Multimodal PackagesTransit Accessib
Page 76 and 77:
Multimodal PackagesTransportation R
Page 78 and 79:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.4 CLRP a
Page 80 and 81:
Multimodal PackagesMeasures of Effe
Page 82 and 83:
Multimodal PackagesLevel of Service
Page 84 and 85:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.6 CLRP+
Page 86 and 87:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.8 CLRP+
Page 88 and 89:
Multimodal Packages3.4 Package 1 -
Page 90 and 91:
Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.12 Pack
Page 92 and 93:
Multimodal PackagesTable 3.5 Packag
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Multimodal PackagesThe tolls would
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107: Multimodal PackagesCost EstimatesPa
Page 108 and 109: Multimodal PackagesThis package sho
Page 110 and 111: Multimodal PackagesLevel of Service
Page 112 and 113: Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.31 Pack
Page 116 and 117: Multimodal Packagesminute limit was
Page 120 and 121: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.12Packag
Page 126 and 127: Multimodal PackagesMultimodal Trave
Page 128 and 129: Multimodal Packagesemerging focus a
Page 130 and 131: Multimodal PackagesDynamic Merge (J
Page 132 and 133: Multimodal PackagesImproved network
Page 134 and 135: Multimodal PackagesMarketing and Ou
Page 136 and 137: Multimodal Packagesround trip usage
Page 138 and 139: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.16 Annua
Page 140 and 141: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.19 TDM 2
Page 142 and 143: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.20 Map K
Page 144 and 145: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.20 Map K
Page 146 and 147: Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.43 Bicy
Page 148 and 149: Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.44 2040
Page 150 and 151: Multimodal PackagesPrioritization o
Page 152 and 153: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.21 2040
Page 154 and 155: Multimodal PackagesCost EstimatesPl
Page 158 and 159: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.24Priori
Page 160 and 161: Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.46 Map
Page 162 and 163: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.25 Bicyc
Page 164 and 165: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.26Measur
Page 166 and 167: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.26Measur
Page 168 and 169: Multimodal Packagessensitivity test
Page 170 and 171: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.27 Sensi
Page 172 and 173: Recommendationswill be prudent to p
Page 174 and 175: Recommendationscapacity expansion w
Page 176 and 177: Recommendations(ROW) acquisition, w
Page 178 and 179: Recommendationsachieve the objectiv
Page 180 and 181: Recommendationsto improve mobility
Page 182 and 183: RecommendationsTable 4.1 Multimodal
Page 188 and 189: RecommendationsFigure 4.1 Map of Bi
Page 190 and 191: RecommendationsTable 4.3 Bicycle Pr
Page 192 and 193: Recommendationsand TDM. ICM brings
Page 194 and 195: Potential Funding ApproachesFigure
Page 196 and 197: Potential Funding ApproachesTable 5
Page 200 and 201: Potential Funding Approacheslong-te
Page 204: Potential Funding ApproachesThis pa
show all

I-66 Multimodal Study Final Report - Virginia Department of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?