DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report WHITE FLINT METRORAIL STATION NORTH ENTRANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report Montgomery County, Maryland November 2019 September 8, 2017 [This page intentionally left blank] White Flint Metrorail Station North Entrance Feasibility Study Final Report November 2019 Lead Agency Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Planning 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Shyam Kannan, Managing Director of Planning Robin McElhenny, Program Manager of Station Planning Sara Benson, Project Manager [This page intentionally left blank] White Flint Metrorail Station North Entrance Feasibility Study Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Overview ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study and Design Process ................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Report Organization ......................................................................................................... 3 2. Station Profile .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Location and Description ...................................................................................... 4 2.2 Station Area Planning and Development Context.............................................................. 5 2.3 Previous Station Planning Studies ..................................................................................... 7 2.4 Site Visit and Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 9 3. Demand Assessment.................................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Ridership Forecasting ..................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Pedestrian Activity (Rockville Pike & Old Georgetown Road Intersection) ....................... 17 4. Engineering Feasibility ............................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................ 19 4.2 Architecture ................................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Elevator Evaluation......................................................................................................... 26 4.4 Geotechnical .................................................................................................................. 29 4.5 Structure ........................................................................................................................ 30 4.6 Mechanical ..................................................................................................................... 40 4.7 Electrical......................................................................................................................... 43 4.8 Plumbing ........................................................................................................................ 46 4.9 Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 49 4.10 Egress Analysis ............................................................................................................... 50 5. Environmental Scan ................................................................................................................... 52 5.1 Environmental Considerations ........................................................................................ 52 5.2 Environmental Resources ............................................................................................... 53 6. Constructability and Risk Assessment ........................................................................................ 59 Final Report i November 2019 White Flint Metrorail Station North Entrance Feasibility Study 6.1 Constructability Review .................................................................................................. 60 6.2 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................. 65 7. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Capital Cost Estimates ......................................................... 66 7.1 Soft Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................... 66 7.2 Estimating Assumptions ................................................................................................. 66 8. Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................. 67 8.1 Preliminary Design Approach .......................................................................................... 68 8.2 ROM Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................. 73 8.3 Design Considerations for Preliminary Engineering (PE) .................................................. 73 List of Figures Figure 1-1 | White Flint Metrorail Station Location .................................................................................. 2 Figure 1-2 | Study Process ....................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-1 | Future bridge across WMATA tracks and station platform .................................................... 7 Figure 2-2 | Improvement 2A – 2010 White Flint Station Access Plan ...................................................... 8 Figure 2-3 | Existing North Service Rooms – Platform Level ................................................................... 10 Figure 2-4 | Cross Section – Platform North End Wall ............................................................................ 11 Figure 2-5 | Cross Section – North Service Rooms & Adjacent Train Tunnels .......................................... 12 Figure 2-6 | Longitudinal Section – North Service Rooms ....................................................................... 13 Figure 2-7 | Photo of Existing Tunnel Structure at North End of Station ................................................. 14 Figure 2-8 | Photo of Existing South Station Entrance ............................................................................ 14 Figure 4-1 | Revised North Entrance Configuration ................................................................................ 22 Figure 4-2 | Roof Plans .......................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4-3 | Mezzanine Structural Approaches ...................................................................................... 25 Figure 4-4 | Geotechnical Subsurface Profile ......................................................................................... 30 Figure 4-5 | Cross Section of Existing South Mezzanine – Slab on Grade ................................................ 31 Figure 4-6 | Cross Section of Existing Platform – Canopy Columns Supported on Invert ......................... 32 Figure 4-7 | Site Visit Photo – Platform Manhole Removed with Standpipe Visible ................................ 33 Figure 4-8 | Long Section of Existing Cut-and-Cover Tunnel – Finished Grade Depth of 1.5’ ................... 33 Figure 4-9 | Site Visit Photo – Additional Soil Cover Over Existing Tunnel: Looking North ....................... 34 Figure 4-10 | Site Visit Photo – Additional Soil Cover Over Existing Tunnel: Looking South ..................... 34 Final Report ii November 2019 White Flint Metrorail Station North Entrance Feasibility Study Figure 4-11 | Cross Section of Existing Cut-and-Cover Tunnel ................................................................ 36 Figure 4-12 | Cross Section – Platform North End Wall Local Demolition ............................................... 37 Figure 4-13 | Ventilation Fan Units – North End Service Rooms ............................................................. 41 Figure 4-14 | North End Sanitary Drainage Below Inbound Track ........................................................... 49 Figure 5-1 | Project Location and Environmental Scan Study Area Map ................................................. 54 Figure 6-1 | Potential Construction Storage, Staging and Material Lay Down Areas ............................... 63 Figure 8-1 | Preferred Alternative Longitudinal Section ......................................................................... 69 Figure 8-2 | Preferred Alternative Platform Level .................................................................................. 70 Figure 8-3 | Preferred Alternative Mezzanine Level ............................................................................... 71 List of Tables Table 2-1 | Forecasted Station-Level Daily
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Background Information for State Transportation Priorities Letter
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Marc Elrich Christopher R. Conklin County Executive Director February 25, 2020 Mr. Sidney Katz, President Montgomery County Council 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville, MD 20850 Dear Council President Katz: Each year, the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) compiles a Consolidated Transportation Plan (CTP) that outlines the State's capital investment program. The projects included in the CTP are determined by MDOT based on their assessment of project priorities. A component of their analysis is letters provided by Counties and other jurisdictions that outline local priorities. Montgomery County last updated its priorities in 2017. Since that time, numerous factors have changed including the initiation of construction of the Purple Line and the US 29 Flash. Additionally, Vision Zero has been adopted by the County and MDOT has advanced a Traffic Relief Plan for 1-270 and 1-495. These significant changes, coupled with change of County Executive and Council indicate that it is time to update the County Priorities Letter. On behalf of County Executive Ehich, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation began work on a new priorities letter in the fall of 2019. A preliminary draft was developed and refined to reflect the priorities of the Executive Branch, including MCDOT. This draft was provided to the County's State Delegation for review and comment and was provided to the Montgomery County Planning Board. In December 2019, the Planning Board was provided with a briefing and held a work session to discuss the preliminary letter. Additionally, several suggestions were received from members of our State delegation. It is now time for the County Council to review the preliminary draft, with the benefit of the comments from the Planning Board and our Delegation.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilgus, Sketch Plan No. 320190070
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. Date: 07/25/2019 Wilgus, Sketch Plan No. 320190070 Tamika Graham, Senior Planner, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301.495.4551 Patrick Butler, Supervisor, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301.495.4561 Carrie Sanders, Chief, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301.495.4653 Completed: 7/15/2019 Description Proposed mixed-use development with up to 1,274,498 square feet of total development, with up to 1,025,789 square feet of multi-family and townhouse residential uses and up to 248,709 square feet of commercial uses, with associated public benefits to support incentive density. Location: Montrose Road to the north, Towne Road to the east, Montrose Parkway to the south, and East Jefferson Street to the west. Mast er Plan: 2018 White Flint 2 Sector Plan. Zone: CR-2.0, C-1.0, R-1.5, H-200; CR-2.0, C-0.25, R-1.75, H-75; and CRN-0.75, C-0.0, R-0.75, H-50. Size: 16.64-acre tract. Applicant: Wilgus-Montrose Associates LLC. Application Acceptance: March 25, 2019. Review Basis: Chapter 59, Sketch Plan. Summary ▪ Staff recommends approval with conditions. ▪ Proposal to transform the Property from a gas station surrounded by wooded areas, into an infill development project with several housing types, including 15% moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs), retail, and open spaces. ▪ Proposal includes the previously approved office uses on a portion of the Property, known as Wilgus East (Parcel N174 and Parcel N231), to be redeveloped as a mixed-use development.
    [Show full text]
  • TCRP Report 102 – Transit-Oriented
    TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH TCRP PROGRAM REPORT 102 Transit-Oriented Sponsored by Development in the the Federal United States: Transit Administration Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2004 (Membership as of January 2004) SELECTION COMMITTEE (as of January 2004) OFFICERS CHAIR Chair: Michael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA J. BARRY BARKER Vice Chair: Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner, New York State DOT Transit Authority of River City Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MEMBERS KAREN ANTION MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT Karen Antion Consulting SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC GORDON AOYAGI Montgomery County Government E. DEAN CARLSON, Director, Carlson Associates, Topeka, KS RONALD L. BARNES JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads Central Ohio Transit Authority DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN LINDA J. BOHLINGER GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center and Professor, School of Policy, HNTB Corp. Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles ANDREW BONDS, JR. BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Prof. of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JENNIFER L. DORN JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, Landstar Logistics, Inc., Jacksonville, FL FTA HENRY L. HUNGERBEELER, Director, Missouri DOT NATHANIEL P. FORD, SR. ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Metropolitan Atlanta RTA RONALD F. KIRBY, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments CONSTANCE GARBER HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT York County Community Action Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Saul Centers White Flint
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. Date: 05/30/2019 VOB Development, Sketch Plan No. 320190040 & Preliminary Plan No. 120190160 Troy Leftwich, Planner Coordinator, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301-495-4553 Amy Lindsey, Planner Coordinator, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301.495.2189 Patrick Butler, Supervisor, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301-495-4561 Carrie Sanders, Chief, Area 2 Division, [email protected], 301-495-4653 Completed:5/20/2019 Description Sketch Plan: Request to transform the existing car dealership, bank, retail building and associated surface parking lots into mixed-use development with a maximum of 1,051,012 square feet of development, including up to 110,169 square feet of non-residential uses and up to 940,843 square feet of residential uses, with a minimum 13% MPDUs, including up to 4% bonus density. Preliminary Plan: Request to consolidate Lots 5, 9, and 10, and Parcels 613 and 614, and the ROW referred to as S-21 and SHA-32 into two (2) lots, Lot 1 to be approximately 145,712 square feet in size and Lot No. 2 to be approximately 21,490 square feet in size with Lot 2 proposed to be dedicated to the Parks Department; for a maximum of 1,051,012 square feet of development, with up to 110,169 square feet of non- residential uses and up to 940,843 square feet of residential uses for up to 1,000 units, with a minimum 13% MPDUs, including up to 4% bonus density.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Information From
    Bus Information From E m o ry Ol ne G y P rov r e Rd Wickham Dr La in yt c o e n P North sv h d il il R le ip ld R ie n Branch r D f L D d d r ve oo rs l A W e 57 Park e dha S v at d Browns Bridge Rd J7 en a o 52 R Montgomery La d yb r Y5 k O ro 58 dw eforest o G n J9 ke R 53 a 53 Y5 General e a Y7 Y8 Lakeforest Mall Oa 90 t ks n White Flint StationH r 61 Y7 Hospital Blvd J7 J9 J7 J9 54 B o O a Park & Ride l t Y9 vd ln p g d M R e S Y8 54 55 57 59 61 n o Y5 y 53 J7 J9 i rn J7 J9 54 55 124 r ingw S 53 h 115 e o a Y9 Goshen Rd Y5 Y7 od Y7 n d 56 61 54 Russell s t Dr d Z2 Y5 Y7 Y8 a s Ashton Rd 55 56 57 58 y R Metropolitan 64 a Rock Y8 Y9 Y8 Y9 270 59 S Y9 52 53 Ave 59 61 W c 52 Z2 pr Grove 61 61 n Z2 52 ing e u Z2 52 R Bro Dr r 65 57 Creek Sparta d oke Farm o wy M n k R 52 im MD 124 P 54 60 d t G Park Z2 l y 55 Z2 52 a Park & Ride rr i B r Rd e a 57 60 P 59 ring F r d p re 57 d l dy S J9 56 d 64 O San e S lney Metropolitan ri Gaithersburg t O Z2 Grove Rd 61 205 J7 ck Z2 Cl Montgomery op Firstfield J9 J9 A Scaggsville Rd p County ve 52 er 201 70 Lime Kiln Rd R 56 Fairgrounds 57 Y5 d Rd e 61 202 79 Bready Rd 355 v Y7 61 A J9 204 100 124 Z2 New Hampshire t i Y8 205 r 58 Br r D 201 im D m 124 M y Olney idc Y9 st u 202 m o 90 m u d o e a n r 53 d 56 u ty n d Theatre R 53 108 e e a D 54 S H c R r 204 w y l A J9 Ave u 57 l p i i B MD 117 il d 71 78 h o E Dia 60 M m o P o d Park & Ride 57 nd Washington 64 205 A e v e w l ve 65 i e Towne Av c r B Old e Z2 n w i o Bank St 54 r o d 124 J9 54 D Grove P D N r iamo 54 nd Ave 59 B oc a 71 78 205 53 to
    [Show full text]
  • FTA WMATA Inspection Reports December 2016
    FOIA Exemption: All (b)(6) Inspection Form Form FTA-IR-1 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Agency/Department Information YYYY MM DD Inspection Date Report Number 20161201-WMATA-WP-1 2016 12 01 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Rail Agency Rail Agency Name Track Sub- Department Authority Department Name Email Office Phone Mobile Phone Rail Agency Department Contact Information Inspection Location Twinbrook (A13) to Rockville (A14) Inspection Summary Inspection Activity # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activity Code TRK-JSB-OBS TRK-WI-PI Inspection Units 1 1 Inspection Subunits 1 1 Defects (Number) 0 2 Recommended Finding No Yes Remedial Action Required1 No Yes Recommended Reinspection No Yes Activity Summaries Inspection Activity # 1 Inspection Subject Job Safety Briefing Activity Code TRK JSB OBS Job Briefing Accompanied Out Brief 1000- Outside Employee TRST 6431 Yes No Time No Inspector? Conducted 1230 Shift Name/Title Related Reports N/A Related CAPS / Findings N/A Ref Rule or SOP Standard Other / Title Checklist Reference Related Rules, SOPs, RWPM Standards, or Other MSRPH Main RTA FTA Yard Station OCC At-grade Tunnel Elevated N/A Track Facility Office Inspection Location Track Type X X Track Chain Marker From To Line(s) A 1 Number and/or Station(s) Twinbrook (A13) Rockville (A14) Head Car Number Number of Cars Vehicles Equipment N/A N/A N/A TRST 6431 provided a comprehensive job safety briefing to the work gang prior to Number of Defects 0 accessing the right of way (ROW) at Twinbrook. The briefing outlined the work Recommended Finding? No limits of the inspection, the protection that would be used (Train Approach Description Warning with Foul Time in red areas), the required Personal Protective Equipment Remedial Action Required? No (PPE), a review of hot spots, and a review of hazards which would be encountered on the ROW.
    [Show full text]
  • White Flint Station Access Plan Final Report White Flint Station Access Plan
    Acknowledgements Lead Agency: Consultant: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Parsons Brinckerhoff Authority Philip Braum, Principal in Charge Station Area Planning and Asset Management Jessica Juriga, PE, AICP, Project Manager Shannon Yadsko, AICP Steven E. Goldin, Director Robin McElhenny, Manager of Station Area 1401 K Street NW Planning Suite 701 Kasondra Johnston, Station Area Planner Washington, DC 20005 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 KGP Design Studio William B. Gallagher, Jr., AIA Luciana Varkulja The following agencies and stakeholders were involved in this project, including, but not limited to: 1099 14th Street NW Suite 101L Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Washington, DC 20005 Commission (M-NCPPC) LCOR Development Group North Bethesda Transportation Center Parsons Transportation Group John Bumanis, PE David Glenn 100 M Street SE Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20003 Final Report White Flint Station Access Plan Final Report White Flint Station Access Plan Contents Executive Summary ES-1 White Flint Metrorail Station Today ES-2 White Flint Metrorail Station in the Future ES-2 Evaluation of Improvement Alternatives ES-3 Introduction 1 Project Purpose and Scope 2 Existing Station Characteristics 7 Existing Station Area Land Use 7 Existing Ridership 7 Existing Access 10 Future Station Characteristics 17 Future Land Use 17 New Transportation Facilities 19 Future Ridership 20 Station Improvement Alternatives 25 Capacity Analysis of Alternatives 26 NFPA 130 Emergency Egress Analysis 27 Evaluation of Alternatives 27 Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • Pa R K & R Id E
    800.745.RIDE commuterconnections.org !"a$!"a$ 800.745.RIDE !"a$ ImIm!"a$Im A} !"a$!"a$ !"`$ ?Ï!"a$ !"a$ !"a$ !"a$!"a$ !"a$Im Im!"a$Im!"a$ !"a$Im !"a$Im )" !"a$ FINKSBURG 14 6 A| !(6 Iq (!10 !"a$!"a$Im !"b$ CASCADE Im HYDES EMMITSBURG HUNT VALLEY A¡ !"a$ MAUGANSVILLE GLYNDON Im !"a$ !"a$)"5 W A S H I N G T O N !(23 !"a$Im18 !"a$ImIm!"a$!"a$Im ?ç Iu I¥ (!7 ImIm !"a$Im FORK Ix CLEAR SPRING ?è Aø Im 4 !( !(14 Io RISING SUN REISTERSTOWN AÇ ?þ !"c$ BIG POOL Iy SMITHSBURG LITTLE ORLEANS BERKELEY SPRINGS ?ë TANEYTOWN !(5 ?Ë CONOWINGO COLORA ?Î B A L T I M O R E 17 KINGSVILLE GREAT CACAPON ?¾ !"a$ ?ï ?ó LUTHERVILLE TIMONIUM (! Iq ?Ó THURMONT C A R R O L L !(24 DARLINGTON GLEN ARM JOPPA !(2 1 8 ROCKY RIDGE ?Í (! 15 (!8 ")!( KEYMAR !(3 JARRETTSVILLE !(10 !(4 OWINGS MILLS ?¾ !(7 Iu A{ ?Ï AÓ !"d$ 5 STEVENSON 25 M O R G A N ?Ë PORT DEPOSIT ELKTON (!3 (! ?¾ !(9 Io Aw NORTH EAST "5 AÃ Ig ?ï WESTMINSTER Ay !(1 TOWSON ) HEDGESVILLE 4 PAW PAW FALLING WATERS ?Å UNION BRIDGE ?ù (!2 (! !"d$ MONKTON !"d$ Iy ?¿ ?Ó 9 ?Î UPPERCO ") %&l( 7 !( CHARLESTOWN WHITE MARSH Ix !"e$ FAIRPLAY !"a$ %&l( Io CHURCHVILLE ?ñ !"c$ ")12 ")2 NEW WINDSOR C E C I L PIKESVILLE PARKVILLE LEVELS ")8 (!7 13 (!27 AÇ SPARKS GLENCOE !(4 RANDALLSTOWN (!2 6 NOTTINGHAM • SYKESVILLE !(3 1 Highways/Major Roads Highways/Major 11 H A R F O R D !( CHESAPEAKE CITY WOODBINE (! (!1 !(1 Iu B A L T I M O R E ")3 Iy KEEDYSVILLE ")9 ?Ï A} 10 13 MARRIOTTSVILLE (!2 ?Ò FINKSBURG !"d$ ") (! ROSEDALE !(15 LIBERTYTOWN !(10 14 ")6 • 3 !"c$ (! HOV/Express Lanes Access Lanes HOV/Express )"5 ")1 A¡ HYDES LISBON )"21 B E R K E L E Y F R E D E R I C K 15 4 ?Ð SHARPSBURG 5 ") WINDSOR MILL (! ?Õ !(2 !(7 18 ") ?Ì COOKSVILLE 19 MIDDLE RIVER FORK GWYNN OAK Baltimore (! MIDDLETOWN • ?Û ROHRERSVILLE 4 WOODSTOCK Free vs.
    [Show full text]
  • PHED COMMITTEE #La October 30, 2017
    PHED COMMITTEE #lA October 30, 2017 MEMORANDUM October 26, 2017 TO: Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee FROM: Glenn Orlirt°Deputy Council Administrator SUBJECT: White Flint 2 Sector Plan-follow-up on transportation; staging; infrastructure financing Councilmembers: Please bring your copy of the Final Draft Plan to this worksession. 1. MSPA or not? The Planning Board recommends that the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area (MSP A) be expanded to include the northern and western portions of the White Flint 2 Planning Area. The Planning Board believes that the northern and western portions of the area bear a close resemblance to the White Flint or Twinbrook MSP As. and so should be treated the same way under County laws, regulations, and policies. The boundary of every MSP A is unique, but each has been drawn so that most of the area is within a ½-mile walking distance of its Metro station. This is because the propensity to walk to Metro falls off beyond a ½-mile perimeter. In fact, WMATA itself describes its stations' walk sheds to be the area within ½ mile along a road or path network, accounting for barriers such as highways, bridges, railroads, streams, etc. 1 Very little of White Flint 2 is within a ½-mile walk of either the Twinbrook or White Flint Metro Stations. The map on ©1 is from WMATA's Walkshed Atlas and shows the area (in violet) within½­ mile walking distance of the Twinbrook Station. The only property within the current White Flint walkshed is the Guardian Realty building at 6000 Executive Boulevard (©2).
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Attainment Report
    2017 ANNUAL ATTAINMENT REPORT On Transportation System Performance Implementing the Maryland Transportation Plan & Consolidated Transportation Program Larry Hogan Boyd K. Rutherford Pete K. Rahn Governor Lt. Governor Secretary Our administration is dedicated to providing reliable, safe and efficient transportation to all who live in and travel through the State of Maryland. Our transportation system facilitates economic growth, fosters job creation, supports business development and improves our overall quality of life. The Helen Delich Bentley Port of Baltimore and the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport transport travelers and goods, as well as employ thousands of workers who contribute to our economic vitality and quality of life. The Maryland Department of Transportation Attainment Report provides a comprehensive review of how well transportation is performing for the State of Maryland. This report will detail our progress on major projects, including our commitment of an unprecedented additional $2 billion in shovel-ready infrastructure projects, restoration of hundreds of millions of dollars in highway user revenues to local governments, and the replacement or repair of every structurally deficient state-owned bridge. We have exceeded expectations with our success stories at the Port of Baltimore and BWI Marshall Airport. Maryland is now welcoming the world by accommodating some of the largest containers ships on the East Coast, especially those new larger ships coming through the Panama Canal. And, BWI Marshall Airport has set an all-time record high of nearly 24 million passengers coming through the gates of our airport. We are focused on improving our transportation infrastructure with the transformative Baltimore LARRY HOGAN Link Transit System, which is a long-term commitment to major improvements for mass transit in the Baltimore region.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements Study
    Acknowledgements Lead Agency: Prepared By: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Parsons Brinckerhoff Authority 1401 K Street NW Office of Long Range Planning Suite 701 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20001 Project Manager: Toole Design Group Kristin Haldeman 6525 Belcrest Road Manager, Access Planning & Policy Analysis Suite 400 Office of Long Range Planning Hyattsville, MD 20782 Metro would like to thank the members of the Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB) Pedestrian and Bicycle Subcommittee and others who contributed to the development of this plan. Metrorail Bicycle & Pedestrian Access Improvements Study Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Metrorail System Overview and Planning Context 5 Chapter 3: Stakeholder Involvement and Station Typology 19 Chapter 4: Recommendations 29 Chapter 5: Implementation 47 Appendices A: Detailed best practice interview results B: Case study recommendation tables and reference maps C: Online questionnaire results memorandum D: Station typology memorandum E: Detailed implementation table F: Sample bicycle and pedestrian station assessment checklist G: Best practice and key challenges photo montages from case study analysis H: Bike parking analysis spreadsheet Maps (Electronic Appendices) EA-1: Mode of Access (by station) EA-2: Increases in Population and Employment Density within Three Miles of Stations, 2005-2030 EA-3: Metro Owned Bicycle Lockers and Racks EA-4: Existing Bicycle Facilities EA-5: Distances Riders Traveled by Car (by station) EA-6:
    [Show full text]
  • White Flint Sector Plan
    White Flint Sector Plan Transportation Appendix January 2009 Table of Contents 1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Transportation Plan Recommendations ....................................................................... 3 A. Travel Demand Management ................................................................................ 4 B. Transit System ......................................................................................................... 9 C. Street Network....................................................................................................... 15 D. Bicycle and Pedestrian System............................................................................. 23 E. Transportation System Policies............................................................................ 26 F. Staging .................................................................................................................... 28 G. Implementation ..................................................................................................... 29 H. Summary of Changes to the 1994 Plan ............................................................... 30 3. Transportation/Land Use Balance ............................................................................. 31 A. Measures of Effectiveness ..................................................................................... 32 B. Travel Demand Forecasting Process and Assumptions
    [Show full text]