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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multimodal PackagesTable 3.27 Sensitivity Tests Measures of Effectiveness (continued)Measures ofEffectiveness 2007 CLRP +Cutlines Daily Person ThroughputBeltway Cutline1. I-66HOT/HOV/Bus LanesSensitivity Test1. HOT PeakPeriods2. Support ofWiden I-66HOT/HOV/BusLanes3. Support ofAddedHOV/Bus Laneto I-66Sensitivity Test2. Added HOTLane All Day4. Support ofEnhanced BusServiceRail 36,482 37,324 41,561 41,959 41,629 34,973 34,923 33,625Bus 1,850 7,618 4,050 4,229 4,039 11,764 11,074 11,475Auto 278,021 277,443 292,057 309,262 304,223 277,806 256,593 275,671Total 316,353 322,385 337,668 355,450 349,891 324,543 302,590 320,770West of Glebe Road CutlineRail 67,791 116,838 123,285 124,620 124,726 115,321 115,916 114,294Bus 5,633 11,849 8,090 8,379 8,123 17,544 16,770 15,957Auto 344,527 333,976 338,386 368,083 366,199 342,421 354,535 331,846Total 417,951 462,663 469,760 501,082 499,047 475,285 487,221 462,096Clarendon CutlineRail 92,034 145,344 149,638 150,876 151,084 142,363 142,984 144,326Bus 6,904 16,602 13,760 14,038 13,785 22,272 21,787 21,042Auto 358,640 364,629 362,299 391,079 389,078 373,228 382,377 362,029Total 457,578 526,574 525,697 555,993 553,946 537,863 547,147 527,397Potomac River CutlineRail 157,599 184,416 180,456 181,007 180,210 183,268 182,488 185,455Bus 5,125 13,844 18,689 18,997 18,734 19,157 18,844 18,301Auto 268,982 297,741 297,881 305,772 302,186 298,686 300,189 295,580Total 431,706 496,001 497,026 505,775 501,130 501,111 501,520 499,3353-104 I-66 Multimodal Study
Recommendations4.0 RecommendationsThis section presents recommendations and conclusions drawn from the I-66 Multimodal Studyevaluation of potential long-term, multimodal improvements for the I-66 corridor inside theCapital Beltway. As detailed in Section 3.0, the I-66 Multimodal Study examined four multimodalpackages of improvements. Each package included transit services, bicycle and pedestrianfacilities, travel demand management strategies (TDM), technological applications, androadway improvements that worked to complement each other with the objective ofmaximizing the potential for the package to achieve the twin goals of the study: improvingmobility and reducing highway and transit congestion.The recommendations are presented in two categories: 1) core recommendations, which areconsidered a top priority and tie to the study approach; and 2) package recommendations,which are derived from the multimodal packages evaluated in this study. The package recommendationsmade use of the evaluation of measures of effectiveness (Table 4.1) and the recommendationframework (Table 4.2) in identifying promising strategies to meet the study goalsof improving mobility and reducing highway and transit congestion in the corridor.Core recommendations represent improvements identified in earlier studies that have beensupported or adopted by the region. Some of these improvements have been advanced into theregional Financially Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP), while others are awaiting identificationof funding prior to becoming part of the regional CLRP. These identified improvementsin infrastructure and transit/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) services were assumed to be partof the 2040 Baseline for this study and, as such, should be implemented before the recommendedpackage elements are considered for implementation. This tiered approach providesthe opportunity for reassessment and confirmation of the future need for any improvementsabove and beyond the core recommendations.Package recommendations represent a combination of multimodal improvements (transit,bicycle and pedestrian, TDM, technology, and roadway) that the study analysis indicates couldbe gathered together as the most promising package that would further improve mobility andreduce highway and transit congestion in the study corridor. Performance measures were generatedfor each of the four multimodal packages and two sensitivity analyses to help assesshow well the corridor issues and needs and study goals are addressed. Person-miles traveled(PMT) in the study area was used as a measure to assess improved mobility. Congestedvehicle-miles traveled (VMT) in the study area was used as a measure to assess reduced highwaycongestion. Congested VMT values also reflect an impact to bus transit operations in thatbuses are affected by highway congestion. Load factors for transit (average number of passengersper vehicle) were looked at as a measure of congestion on the bus and rail system. Finally,person throughput at four study area cutlines was reviewed as a further indicator of multimodalmobility.The recommended package of multimodal improvements is a long-term planning-level proposalthat is not intended to “leap frog” over other improvements adopted for the corridor. It4-1
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:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Multimodal Packagesminute limit was
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121: Multimodal PackagesTable 3.12Packag
Page 122 and 123: Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.38 Pack
Page 124 and 125: Multimodal PackagesFigure 3.40 Pack
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 156 and 157: Multimodal PackagesProject lengths
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 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?