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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Executive SummaryTable ES.1 Mobility OptionsNameOption A – HOV RestrictionsOption B1 – I-66 Bus/HOV/HOT Lane System Option 1Option B2 – I-66 Bus/HOV/HOT Lane System Option 2Option C1 – I-66 Capacity Enhancement Option 1Option C2 – I-66 Capacity Enhancement Option 2Option D – Integrated Corridor ManagementOption E – Arterial Capacity EnhancementOption F – Metrorail Level of Service and CapacityOption G – Bus Transit Level of Service and CapacityBrief DescriptionDesignate I‐66 lanes in both directions as Bus/HOVduring peak periodsConvert I‐66 into an electronically tolledBus/HOV/high occupancy/toll (HOT) roadwayConvert I‐66 into an electronically tolledBus/HOV/HOT roadway and add a lane in eachdirectionAdd lane designated HOV in both directions duringpeak periodsAdd lane in both directions; designate HOV in peakperiod, peak direction onlyDeploy ICM strategies throughout the corridorEnhance U.S. 50 through application of accessmanagement principles and implementation of a bus-onshoulderlaneProvide an alternative connection between theI-66/Dulles Connector Road Corridors and SouthArlington through an interline connection between theOrange Line and Blue LineImplement a range of enhancements to local, commuter,and regional bus services, including bus route changesand additions throughout the study areaOption H – Transportation Demand Management Enhance TDM strategies drawn from the I-66Transit/TDM StudyOption I – Bicycle/Pedestrian System Enhancements Implement a range of bicycle and pedestrianimprovements of varying scalesThe effectiveness of the mobility options in addressing the issues and needs was assessed usingvarious performance measures derived from an abbreviated application of the TPB traveldemand forecasting model and other off-model analytical methods. Section 2.0 of this reportpresents the mobility option formulation and evaluation discussion.Multimodal PackagesUsing the detailed assessment of the mobility options and input from the PARC, projectstakeholders, and the public, the mobility options were combined into four multimodalpackages. These four packages (outlined in Table ES.2) were comprised of elements ofpreviously tested mobility options with some modifications and enhancements to betteraddress the congestion and mobility goals of the corridor. All packages include a highway andtransit component, ICM solutions, TDM programs, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements.ES-4I-66 Multimodal Study
Executive SummaryAs documented in Section 3.0 of this report, all of the multimodal packages tested includedtransportation projects documented in the CLRP for 2040, along with the recommended busservices and TDM measures from the 2009 DRPT I-66 Transit/TDM Study. Metrorail corecapacity improvements, including 100 percent eight-car trains on the Metrorail Orange andSilver Lines, were also included as part of the 2040 Baseline scenario for all the packages.Section 3.0 of this report describes the multimodal package assessment process and results.Table ES.2Recommended Multimodal PackagesPackageMultimodal Package Elements#1 Option B1. I-66 Bus/HOV/HOT Lane System – Option 1Option G. Bus Transit Level of Service and CapacityOption D. Integrated Corridor ManagementOption H. Transportation Demand ManagementOption I. Bicycle/Pedestrian System Enhancements#2 Option B2. I-66 Bus/HOV/HOT Lane System – Option 2Option G. Bus Transit Level of Service and CapacityOption D. Integrated Corridor ManagementOption H. Transportation Demand ManagementOption I. Bicycle/Pedestrian System Enhancements#3 Option C1. I-66 Capacity Enhancement – Option 1Option G. Bus Transit Level of Service and CapacityModification: Additional buses serving Rosslyn and D.C. Core (i.e., K Street) destinationsOption D. Integrated Corridor ManagementOption H. Transportation Demand ManagementOption I. Bicycle/Pedestrian System Enhancements#4 Option G. Bus Transit Level of Service and CapacityModification: Improve bus routing and LOS; improved headways further on Priority BusInclude U.S. 50 bus-on-shoulder operationOption D. Integrated Corridor ManagementOption H. Transportation Demand ManagementOption I. Bicycle/Pedestrian System Enhancements, including complementary bicycle facilityalong U.S. 50Sensitivity TestsThe evaluation of the four multimodal packages highlighted strengths and weaknesses in eachpackage. This led to questions about how specific changes to a package might alter the results.To address these questions, two sensitivity analyses were conducted by modifying packagefeatures and performing a full run of the travel demand forecasting model. For the firstsensitivity test, Package 1 was modified to test having the HOT operations only in effect duringpeak periods. The second sensitivity test modified Package 3 to have the new lane operate as aBus/HOV/HOT lane 24/7 rather than as a Bus/HOV lane in the peak periods. Section 3.12 ofthis report discusses this analysis in more detail.I-66 Multimodal Study ES-5
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 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:
Page 124 and 125:
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 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 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
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 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Potential Funding Approacheslong-te
Page 202 and 203:
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?