DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transportation Effects Chapter 3.0 Transportation Effects This chapter describes the existing and planned transportation systems, services and facilities in the Purple Line corridor, explains how the No Build Alternative and the Preferred Alternative would potentially impact them, and identifies mitigation strategies to offset unavoidable effects. This chapter is organized by transportation category. Categories covered in this chapter include public transportation services, the roadway network, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking facilities, and freight railroad services and facilities. Changes to this Chapter since the AA/DEIS This chapter, previously Chapter 3: Transportation and Traffic, in the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) has been updated since publication of the AA/DEIS. The future year of analysis, the horizon year, has been advanced from 2030 to 2040. As noted in Chapter 1.0, FTA requires that a project sponsor quantify measures using at least a 20-year horizon. The AA/DEIS, completed in 2008, used a horizon year of 2030; five years later, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) uses 2040 to be consistent with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Transportation Planning Board forecasts. For additional information refer to Purple Line Travel Forecasts Results Report (2013) and Purple Line Traffic Analysis Technical Report (2013). New topics covered in this chapter are freight and passenger railroad facilities, and safety and security. In the AA/DEIS this chapter included a discussion of construction impacts. Because of the advancement of the design of the project, MTA is able to provide a greater level of detail on construction impacts and so this topic is now covered in its own chapter, Chapter 5.0. 3.1 Public Transportation subsequent changes in travel patterns that would result from the introduction of the Purple Line into 3.1.1 Introduction the transportation system. Since that time MWCOG has developed the Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecasts. Long-term operational effects of the Preferred Alternative on public transportation use and This FEIS reflects two changes in forecasting since services were considered by examining forecasted the publication of the 2008 AA/DEIS: (1) the use of ridership demand and potential changes to existing the Round 8.0 forecasts rather than the Round 7.0 facilities once the Purple Line becomes operational. forecasts; and (2) a horizon year of 2040 rather than 2030. The inclusion of the employment shifts The 2008 AA/DEIS was prepared using information resulting from the closure of the Walter Reed Army and data from the MWCOG Round 7.0 Cooperative Medical Center and the transfer of its functions to Land Use Forecasts and a forecasting tool based on the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MWCOG’s regional forecasting model. The pursuant to the Base Realignment and Closure Act, regional model, with a horizon year of 2030, was are the most significant differences between Round used to estimate the No Build conditions and the 7.0 and Round 8.0 within the corridor; there is also Purple Line Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 3-1 3.0 Transportation Effects August 2013 some growth in regional population and employ- 3.1.2 Affected Environment ment over the 2030-2040 period. As described in Chapter 1.0, existing rail transit For further information see the Purple Line Travel services in the corridor include three Washington Forecasts Results Report (2013) and the Purple Line Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Validation and Calibration Technical Report (2013). Metrorail lines, all three of Maryland Transit Administration’s (MTA) commuter rail lines (MARC), and Amtrak at New Carrollton. Metrorail The Regional Travel Demand Model trains operate approximately every 4 to 6 minutes during peak periods and 6 to 12 minutes during off A regional travel demand forecasting model is a mathematical representation of the peak periods. availability of transportation facilities (roads More than 75 bus routes provided by Montgomery and transit) and the demand for travel in an County Ride On, Prince George’s County TheBus, urban area. and WMATA Metrobus operate in the corridor. Of The region covered in the MWCOG model these, only 13 provide east-west service, predomi- covers 22 jurisdictions and about 6,800 nately disconnected routes that do not serve the square miles and includes the District of Columbia and parts of three states: corridor from end-to-end. The University of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Maryland operates Shuttle-UM in much of the corridor; while this service is not open to the The model uses population and employment data, approved zoning, and the highway and general public, it does serve a large number of transit networks, to calculate the expected University of Maryland (UMD) students, faculty, demand for transportation facilities. and employees in the corridor. Metrorail and MARC primarily serve north-south trips in the corridor. The only east-west transit service is provided by buses, whose speed and Ridership reliability is affected by the roadway congestion. In Ridership forecasts are used to gauge the com- addition, county bus services terminate at the parative attractiveness of alternatives under county boundary in the Takoma Park/Langley Park consideration. They are measured in terms of area, so travelers on those services crossing the (1) total and new daily transit trips and (2) peak respective county boundaries must transfer. period boardings by station. Table 1-3 in Chapter 1.0 shows existing scheduled A “transit trip” is defined as the travel of one person transit travel times for trips in the corridor. from trip origin to trip destination, regardless of the 3.1.3 No Build Alternative number of transfers or mode changes required. For example, a trip from home to work, using bus and As described in Section 2.3.1, the No Build Alter- Metrorail, would be counted as one “transit trip.” native includes the existing highway network and The term “passenger” is sometimes used to refer to transit service, plus those transportation improve- a transit trip. ments that have been included in the Financially Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP) for imple- A “boarding” is defined as the number of times a person enters a vehicle for travel. A single pas- mentation by 2040, except for the Purple Line. senger’s trip from origin to destination could The end-to-end travel time between Bethesda and include multiple boardings—for example, a New Carrollton on Metrorail is 55 minutes, but this boarding of a Ride On bus, followed by a boarding route does not provide access to any of the inter- of Metrorail. mediate stops that would be available on the Purple Line. 3-2 Purple Line Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation August 2013 3.0 Transportation Effects The CLRP includes new north-south and east-west Long-term Operational Effects bus service within Prince George’s County, but does not extend new service throughout the Purple Line Total and New Transit Trips corridor. As noted in Chapter 2.0, Montgomery The Preferred Alternative is projected to generate County is evaluating a bus rapid transit network, 28,626 new transit trips for the entire Washington but this is not funded for construction, and is not DC region in 2040. This is an increase of 1.7 percent included in the No Build Alternative. As the No in total regional transit ridership over the No Build Build Alternative would not include a new mode or alternative. Ridership forecasts are shown in new exclusive right-of-way, it is not anticipated to Table 3-1 broken out by the four transit service substantially increase the reliability of the existing types for both work and non-work trips, to show bus system. It is expected that increasing roadway how the Preferred Alternative would shift trips. The congestion will lengthen bus running times and forecasts for 2030 are included for comparison of result in longer travel times for cars and buses. projections to the horizon year previously presented in the AA/DEIS. Both 2030 and 2040 ridership Automobile travel times for a trip between Bethesda forecasts in this FEIS use the Round 8 Cooperative and New Carrollton are expected to increase by Forecasts. approximately 30 percent and 40 percent during the 1 morning and evening peak periods, respectively. Travel Patterns The projected bus transit travel time between Travel forecasts show that while there is consider- Bethesda and New Carrollton is anticipated to able existing transit travel within the Purple Line increase to 108 minutes under the No Build Alter- corridor itself, the majority of transit trips in the native. This condition will decrease the reliability of Purple Line corridor have an origin or destination the bus service, impair its ability to meet its outside the corridor. For example, many transit operations schedule, and adversely affect the trips that begin or end in the corridor are part of a predictability of expected headways and transit trip that extends into Washington DC or areas to travel times. the north of the Purple Line corridor. These trips commonly use the Metrorail Red, Green, and 3.1.4 Preferred Alternative Orange Lines, especially in the Shady Grove/ Rockville area and the Glenmont area. While the The Preferred Alternative, described in detail in major activity centers in the corridor account for Section 2.3.2, would provide new east-west light rail the majority of the trips, a substantial number of transit (LRT) service between Bethesda and New these transit trips are associated with areas in Carrollton. The Preferred Alternative would travel between the Metrorail lines, and depend on street- in dedicated or exclusive transit lanes for 13.9 miles running bus service operating in congested mixed of its 16.2-mile length, allowing the Purple Line to traffic.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railroad Emergency Response Manual
    Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Railroad Emergency Response Manual Approved by the COG Fire Chiefs Committee Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Second Edition May 2020 MWCOG Railroad Emergency Response Manual 2nd Edition – May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual could not have been written without the assistance of many Dedicated rail safety personnel and members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regional emergency response agencies that have spent many hours providing the material for the creation of this manual. We thank all emergency responders from all jurisdictions, including our federal agency partners that shared their firsthand experiences of recent commuter railroad incidents. Many of their experiences were incorporated into sections of this manual. Many Railroad representatives, private industry and governmental organizations provided their invaluable technical assistance. This committee would like to thank Steve Truchman formerly of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Greg Deibler from Virginia Railway Express (VRE), David Ricker from the Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC), Paul Williams of Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation and Mike Hennessey of CSX Transportation, all of whom provided the specific diagrams, illustrations and other technical information regarding railroad equipment. We recognize Elisa Nichols of Kensington Consulting, LLC for her contributions to this manual as well as representatives from many Federal Agencies who also provided information on the technical accounts of railroad equipment and their integrity on past railroad incidents. The members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Passenger Rail Safety Subcommittee gratefully presents this manual to both Fire and Rescue Service and Railroad organizations in an effort to instill readiness within our own personnel that they might effectively and collaboratively respond to a railroad incident.
    [Show full text]
  • CSX Baltimore Division Timetable
    NORTHERN REGION BALTIMORE DIVISION TIMETABLE NO. 4 EFFECTIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2005 AT 0001 HOURS CSX STANDARD TIME C. M. Sanborn Division Manager BALTIMORE DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DESCRIPTION PAGE INST DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Instructions Relating to CSX Operating Table of Contents Rules Timetable Legend 2 Instructions Relating to Safety Rules Legend – Sample Subdivision 3 Instructions Relating to Company Policies Region and Division Officers And Procedures Emergency Telephone Numbers 4 Instructions Relating to Equipment Train Dispatchers Handling Rules 5 Instructions Relating to Air Brake and Train SUBDIVISIONS Handling Rules 6 Instructions Relating to Equipment NAME CODE DISP PAGE Restrictions Baltimore Terminal BZ AV 7 Miscellaneous Bergen BG NJ Capital WS AU Cumberland CU CM Cumberland Terminal C3 CM Hanover HV AV Harrisburg HR NI Herbert HB NI Keystone MH CM Landover L0 NI Lurgan LR AV Metropolitan ME AU Mon M4 AS Old Main Line OM AU P&W PW AS Philadelphia PA AV Pittsburgh PI AS.AT Popes Creek P0 NI RF&P RR CQ S&C SC CN Shenandoah SJ CN Trenton TN NI W&P WP AT CSX Transportation Effective January 1, 2005 Albany Division Timetable No. 5 © Copyright 2005 TIMETABLE LEGEND GENERAL F. AUTH FOR MOVE (AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT) Unless otherwise indicated on subdivision pages, the The authority for movement rules applicable to the track segment Train Dispatcher controls all Main Tracks, Sidings, of the subdivision. Interlockings, Controlled Points and Yard Limits. G. NOTES STATION LISTING AND DIAGRAM PAGES Where station page information may need to be further defined, a note will refer to “STATION PAGE NOTES” 1– HEADING listed at the end of the diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • BA-3105 Hubbard's Run Masonry Arch Railroad Bridge, Bridge 8-B
    BA-3105 Hubbard's Run Masonry Arch Railroad Bridge, Bridge 8-B Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 09-25-2012 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM no Property Name: Hubbard's Run Masonry Arch Railroad Bridge Inventory Number: BA-3105 Address: CSXT Milepost BAA 6; HDR Sta. 698+25; Bridge 8-B City: Zip Code: 21227 County: Baltimore USGS Topographic Map: Relay Owner: CSX Transportation Is the property being evaluated a district? no Tax Parcel Number: Tax Map Number: Tax Account ID Number: Project: CSXT Capital
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland State Rail Plan
    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Pete K. Rahn, Secretary of Transportation April 2015 www.camsys.com Maryland Statewide Rail Plan prepared for Maryland Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814 date April 2015 Maryland Statewide Rail Plan Table of Contents 1.0 About the Plan ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Plan Development ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Plan Organization ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Purpose of the Rail Plan ............................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Federal Compliance .................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Maryland’s Rail History .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Amtrak and Conrail ................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 MARC ........................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Short Lines ................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Mission, Vision, and Goals ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Control Point Virginia Tower
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation __X___ Amendment of a previous designation _____ Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Property name _Control Point (CP) Virginia Tower_______________________________________ If any part of the interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. Address __Southeast Corner of 2nd Street SW and Virginia Avenue SW, Washington, DC_________ Square and lot number(s) __0582 0856_________________________________________________ Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ______ANC 6D_____________________________ Date of construction __1904-1906____ Date of major alteration(s) __1930s___________________ Architect(s) __Unknown______________ Architectural style(s) ____________________________ Original use _Railroad Interlocking Control Tower_ Present use ___Railroad Infrastructure Property owner _CSX Transportation, Inc._____________________________________________ Legal address of property owner _500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ________________ NAME OF APPLICANT(S) _CSX Transportation, Inc.____________________________________ If the applicant is an organization, it must submit evidence that among its purposes is the promotion of historic preservation in the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • DC State Rail Plan Website
    STATE RAIL PLAN: FINAL REPORT 2017 State Rail Plan Table of Contents Contents Chapter 1 The Role of Rail in District Transportation ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Federal Authority For States ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Institutional Governance Structure of The District’s Rail Programs .......................................... 1-2 1.4 Multimodal Transportation System Goals .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Rail Transportation’s Role within The District’s Transportation System ................................... 1-5 1.5.1 Role of Freight Rail ................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5.2 Role of Commuter Rail .......................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5.3 Role of Intercity Rail ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2 Approach to Public and Agency Participation ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Stakeholder Roundtables ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad
    Report to Congress VOLUME I Potential Improvements to the Washington⎯Richmond Railroad Corridor National Railroad Passenger Corporation May 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS . TC-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1 . CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 2: THE CORRIDOR TODAY . 5 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE GOALS . 24 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGIES . 29 CHAPTER 5: INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS . 37 . CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION . 56 List of Tables TABLE 1: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-5 TABLE 2: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond ES-10 Corridor . TABLE 3: Description of Project Groups . ES-14 TABLE 4: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-15 TABLE 5: Potential Improvements by Category . ES-16 TABLE 2-1: Track Ownership and Operating Control . 7 TABLE 2-2: Station Ownership and Use . 11 TABLE 2-3: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 13 TABLE 2-4: Amtrak Train Service in the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 14 TABLE 3-1: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond 24 Corridor . TABLE 3-2: Projected Train Movements by Direction Between Washington and 25 Alexandria Between 3:30PM and 7:30PM, Year 2015 . .. TABLE 5-1: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 54 TABLE 5-2: Description of Project Groups . 55 TABLE 5-3: Potential Improvements by Category . 56 List of Figures FIGURE 1: Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 2: Southeast Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 3: Demand for Intercity Corridor Train Services, Washington-Richmond ES-11 FIGURE 4: Selected Rail Lines in Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroad Emergency Response Manual
    National Capital Region Council of Governments RAILROAD EMERGENCY RES PONS E MANUAL Not to be reproduced without written consent of NCR COG Passenger Rail Safety Sub-Committee First Edition May 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual could not have been written without the assistance of many dedicated people. Members of the District of Columbia Fire and EMS Department, namely BFC Damian A. Wilk, that have spent many hours providing the material for the creation of this manual. We thank the emergency responders from other jurisdictions and federal agencies that shared their first hand experiences of recent commuter railroad incidents. Many of their experiences were incorporated into sections of this manual. Railroad representatives provided their invaluable technical assistance. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) CSX Transportation, Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) provided the specific diagrams and illustrations. Representatives from many Federal Agencies also provided information on the technical accounts of railroad equipment and their integrity on past railroad incidents. The members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Passenger Rail Safety Subcommittee gratefully presents this manual to both Fire and Rescue Service and Railroad organizations in an effort to instill readiness within our own personnel that they might effectively respond to a railroad incident. SCOPE AND UPDATES This Manual provides specific information on rail equipment and procedures. Due to the size and diversity of the National Capital Area, only general information on tracks and facilities is provided. Each jurisdiction should create appendices to this manual covering the unique rail lines, stations, yards, tunnels, and bridges, in their area.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Part I (“Challenges”) Traces the Development, Current Condition, and Utilization Levels of Baltimore’S Rail Network
    Main Report Part I: Challenges Chapter One INTRODUCTION A. Committee report direction In November 2001, after the railway infrastructure of Baltimore, Maryland had attracted public attention due a catastrophic fire in CSX Transportation’s tunnel under Howard Street, the Congress made the following request: Baltimore, Maryland freight and passenger infrastructure study.⎯The conference agreement includes $750,000 to conduct a comprehensive study to assess problems in the freight and passenger rail infrastructure in the vicinity of Baltimore, Maryland. FRA shall carry out this study in cooperation with the state of Maryland, Amtrak, CSX Corporation and Norfolk Southern Corporation, as outlined in the Senate bill (Sec. 351). The Administrator of FRA shall submit a report, including recommendations, on the results of the study to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act.1 [Section 351 of the Senate bill reads as follows:] SEC. 351. (a) Of the funds appropriated by title I for 16 the Federal Railroad Administration under the heading "Railroad Research and Development," up to $750,000 may be expended to pay 25 percent of the total cost of a comprehensive study to assess existing problems in the freight and passenger rail infrastructure in the vicinity of Baltimore, Maryland, that the Secretary of Transportation shall carry out through the Federal Railroad Administration in cooperation with, and with a total amount of equal funding contributed by, Norfolk Southern Corporation, CSX Corporation, and the State of Maryland. (b)(1) The study shall include an analysis of the condition, track, and clearance limitations and efficiency of the existing tunnels, bridges, and other railroad facilities owned or operated by CSX Corporation, Amtrak, and Norfolk Southern Corporation in the Baltimore area.
    [Show full text]
  • North Terminal Midday Storage Site Investigations
    NORTH TERMINAL MIDDAY STORAGE SITE INVESTIGATIONS May 23, 2016 Virginia Railway Express North Terminal Midday Storage Site Investigations This page intentionally left blank Virginia Railway Express North Terminal Midday Storage Site Investigations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) are collaborating on the master planning effort for train storage and maintenance at Amtrak’s Ivy City terminal facility. An early determination of that effort was that the forecasted demand for train storage and maintenance functions within the existing facility on the west side of the Northeast Corridor exceeds available space. Amtrak recommended that VRE consider relocating its midday storage function to vacant Amtrak property on the west side of the Northeast Corridor as: 1. Relocating Amtrak train storage to that location would separate its trains from Amtrak’s maintenance facilities; 2. VRE does not perform any significant maintenance function on its trains during midday storage; and 3. Locating VRE train storage on the east side of the Northeast Corridor would reduce present operating conflicts through C and K interlockings. Recent changes in the Amtrak-VRE Operating Agreement empower Amtrak to start reducing VRE storage in the present Ivy City facility beginning in July 2018. VRE engaged AECOM to investigate other potential sites in the vicinity of Washington DC to locate possible sites for new train locomotive and rail car midday storage yards for VRE trains. New storage locations are required due to limited capacities in the near future at the present storage locations. The site should be capable of housing up to twenty VRE 10-car passenger trains (or a total of 174 units) during the primary middle hours of the weekday.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment Transportation and Transit
    Transportation and Transit Assessment Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning – January 2020 Route 1 Transportation and Transit Assessment ROUTE 1 TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT Master Plan into the General Plan Update allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of the corridor I. INTRODUCTION and an opportunity to evaluate Route 1 in a wider The Route 1 Corridor serves the easternmost part context relative to Howard County as a whole. of Howard County, which runs parallel to I-95 (Map These papers will be used as resources by the 2, pg. 5). Before the Interstate system was general plan consultant team. The content of these constructed, Route 1 served as the main papers is based on the work of RKG and its north/south highway serving the eastern U.S. from consultant team, Howard County staff, the HoCo By Maine to Florida. As such, the land use patterns Design consulting team, and input from citizen along this historic highway are typically engagement. The Transportation and Transit characterized by vintage motels and hotels, II. PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENTS assessment will address transportation and transit roadside restaurants, trucking terminals, infrastructure needs in the corridor. warehouses and various other uses. The roadway Transition from the Corridor Plan Transportation-related policy considerations are was designed to support the movement of goods In 2018, a Route 1 Corridor Master Plan was presented to support the vision for economic and people. initiated to develop recommendations on development, and case studies provide precedents revitalization strategies specific for Route 1 and was from other areas in Maryland that are located along Over many decades, Route 1 has become a anticipated to be an amendment to the current State Highway Administration (SHA) roads and that secondary corridor to the interstate highway General Plan, PlanHoward 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • DC2RVA Tier II Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(F)
    APPENDIX F REFINED OPERATIONS ANALYSIS MODELING TECHNICAL MEMOS MEMO Date: November 7, 2017 To: Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation From: DC2RVA Project Team Subject: Results of DRPT’s Refined Operations Analysis to Satisfy FRA Requests and Enable FRA Support for Issuance of the DC2RVA Project Tier II Draft Environmental Statement 1.0 SUMMARY This report describes the approach, assumptions, and results of a refined operations analysis undertaken by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in support of the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact Statement and Service Development Plan (the DC2RVA Project). Table 1 contains a summary of the modeling results from the refined operations analysis simulations undertaken by DRPT (see table on page 2). 2.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The DCRVA Project proposes to increase track capacity between Arlington, Richmond, and Centralia, Virginia, to improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and travel time in a corridor shared by increasing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic. The DC2RVA Project is part of the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor, which extends from Washington, D.C. through Richmond and continues east to Hampton Roads (Norfolk and Newport News), VA and south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then continues west to Atlanta and south to Florida. The DC2RVA Project connects to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
    [Show full text]