DOCSLIB.ORG

The Capital Beltway and Public-Private Partnerships

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Capital Beltway and Public-Private Partnerships The Capital Beltway And Public-Private Partnerships Prepared for: The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships By: Matthew T. Brown Timothy P. Cronin Saurabh Lall Joseph R. Lataille Margaret Sacks December 2007 This "capstone" project was completed during the Fall 2007 semester in fulfillment of requirements for the Master of Public Policy and Master of Public Administration degrees at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University, under the guidance of instructor Nancy Y. Augustine, PhD. Any reproductions of this product must be approved by the authors. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of the National Council for Public Private Partnerships (NCPPP), a graduate level research team from The George Washington University Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration conducted a study to evaluate the approaches Virginia and Maryland are taking to add capacity to their respective portions of the Capital Beltway (I- 495). The research team used several methods to conduct the investigation, including reviewing applicable literature and interviewing over a dozen stakeholders, including past and current government leaders, transportation officials, legal experts, and various other stakeholders. To achieve the objectives of the report, the team developed the following research questions in consultation with NCPPP: 1. To what extent and how have Virginia and Fluor-Transurban satisfied NCPPP’s six criteria for a successful public-private partnership with their effort to add capacity to the Capital Beltway? What areas do they need to improve on, if any? 2. What are the key challenges and obstacles Maryland faces for building additional highway lanes on their portion of the Capital Beltway? 3. If Maryland decides to pursue widening the Capital Beltway, do the conditions exist for Maryland to use a public-private partnership to finance, build, maintain and operate the additional lanes? If not, what conditions need to exist for a public-private partnership to be a viable option in Maryland? Highway congestion is a major problem, especially in large metropolitan areas such as Washington, DC, and the enormous cost of implementing the necessary infrastructure improvements only exacerbate the problem further. Many state and local governments are unable to fund and complete in a timely manner their roadway and bridge projects. The growing gap between available funding and intensifying transportation demands requires alternative solutions for delivering new highway infrastructure and capacity. To confront the challenge, governments are increasingly straying from traditional methods of financing highway construction to somewhat controversial agreements with the private sector that involve toll collection, user fees, or the leasing of infrastructure. As part of the Interstate Highway System, the Capital Beltway (I-495) is the busiest corridor servicing commuters in the National Capital Region. Despite the various improvements implemented since opening to traffic in 1964, this major transportation route has exceeded capacity and is in need of significant upgrade and preservation. Given the extent of the demands and the existing financial constraints at all levels of government, it is likely that any sort of expansion to the Beltway will entail utilizing an innovative and efficient method of project delivery. iii Virginia and Maryland have been studying methods for improving mobility on the Beltway since the mid-1990s. Recently, Virginia partnered with Fluor-Transurban, Inc. to expand and preserve the existing highway and develop new High Occupancy Toll Lanes on a 14- mile segment of the Beltway. Under this partnership agreement, Virginia will retain ownership of the new lanes while Fluor-Transurban will design, build, maintain, operate, and finance the project over an 80-year concession period. For its part, Maryland has conducted extensive studies of its 42-miles of I-495 and is exploring similar lane management systems and the idea of partnering with the private sector. However, they continue to study the issue and have no firm plans for adding capacity to the Beltway. While both jurisdictions share responsibility for this 64-mile stretch of roadway, each faces unique challenges in adding capacity and coping with congestion. The research team decided it would be beneficial to examine the inter-workings of this agreement and predict its long-term success using NCPPP’s six criteria for a successful public-private partnership. Across the Potomac River, the team took an in-depth view of where Maryland stands on Beltway improvements and the challenges they face in building additional highway lanes. Since Maryland’s plans to improve its portion of the highway are still in development, the team examined whether or not the requisite conditions exist to duplicate Virginia’s PPP efforts. In the end, the research team uncovered thirteen key findings: Key Findings: Research Question #1 1. Virginia’s partnership with Fluor-Transurban satisfies NCPPP’s six criteria for a successful public-private partnership and we predict its success. 2. Since highway PPPs are still in their nascent stages of operation and no projects of this magnitude currently exist in Virginia, it is difficult to facilitate an equivalent comparison. Research Question #2 3. Maryland’s highest transportation priority is system preservation. 4. Given the limited financial resources for current projects, expanding the Capital Beltway is currently cost-prohibitive using traditional financing methods. 5. The potential environmental impacts of Beltway expansion and the resulting political opposition may create an contentious environmental approval process. 6. There is limited local support for expansion of the Capital Beltway in Maryland. 7. Montgomery County and Prince George’s County have other transportation priorities. 8. There is a lack of political consensus on how to move forward with expanding capacity on the Capital Beltway. iv Research Question #3 9. Maryland does not have adequate legislation to pursue public-private partnerships for highway projects. 10. Maryland does not currently have a political champion for highway related public-private partnerships. 11. Maryland’s TP3 Guidelines prohibit unsolicited proposals for highway projects. 12. Maryland already has a tolling authority (MDTA) to help finance highway projects. 13. Local opposition to tolling will likely prevent Maryland from pursuing a PPP agreement for the Capital Beltway. From these key findings emerged the following conclusions and recommendations: Conclusion 1: Virginia has an extensive history of successful public-private partnerships that has enabled them to be a leader in this innovative method of constructing and financing highway projects. Conclusion 2: Maryland does not have the support necessary to widen the Capital Beltway. Conclusion 3: Maryland is not well-suited to enter into a public-partnership for highway projects. Recommendation 1: NCPPP should continue its educational activities across all sectors to enhance knowledge of public-private partnerships and their applicability to transportation projects, specifically the expansion of the Capital Beltway in Maryland. Recommendation 2: NCPPP should continue its relationship with the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at The George Washington University as a means of furthering research into topics relating to the Beltway and PPPs. Topics recommended for future research include: • The politics of PPPs: Exploring the roles and positions of the executive and legislative branches in implementing PPP transportation projects • PPPs and the Maryland General Assembly • Issues and options pertaining to a comprehensive approach to regional congestion management (e.g. highway expansion, smart growth, transit options, etc.). v TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1 Issue Summary and Importance....................................................................1 Purpose and Objectives................................................................................. 3 The National Council for Public Private Partnerships................................. 3 Report Overview............................................................................................ 4 RESEARCH METHODS AND CHALLENGES................................................... 5 Research Questions....................................................................................... 5 Research Design ........................................................................................... 6 Research Challenges ..................................................................................... 7 CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................. 9 Public-Private Partnerships........................................................................... 9 Virginia Transportation Overview ...............................................................13 Maryland Transportation Overview.............................................................18
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1542‐1550 First Street, Sw Design Review
    COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW 1542‐1550 FIRST STREET, SW DESIGN REVIEW WASHINGTON, DC August 4, 2017 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 17-13 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.17-13 DeletedEXHIBIT NO.17A Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW 3914 Centreville Road 15125 Washington Street Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 136 Washington, DC 20036 Chantilly, VA 20151 Haymarket, VA 20169 Tel: 202.296.8625 Tel: 703.787.9595 Tel: 703.787.9595 Fax: 202.785.1276 Fax: 703.787.9905 Fax: 703.787.9905 www.goroveslade.com This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization by Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Contents of Study .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Area Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC
    1 Reimagining DC 295 as a vital multi modal corridor: The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC Jonathan L. Bush A capstone thesis paper submitted to the Executive Director of the Urban & Regional Planning Program at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Professional Studies in Urban & Regional Planning. Faculty Advisor: Howard Ways, AICP Academic Advisor: Uwe S. Brandes, M.Arch © Copyright 2017 by Jonathan L. Bush All Rights Reserved 2 ABSTRACT Cities across the globe are making the case for highway removal. Highway removal provides alternative land uses, reconnects citizens and natural landscapes separated by the highway, creates mobility options, and serves as a health equity tool. This Capstone studies DC 295 in Washington, DC and examines the cases of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway, Milwaukee’s Park East Freeway, New York City’s Sheridan Expressway and Seoul, South Korea’s Cheonggyecheon Highway. This study traces the history and the highway removal success using archival sources, news circulars, planning documents, and relevant academic research. This Capstone seeks to provide a platform in favor DC 295 highway removal. 3 KEYWORDS Anacostia, Anacostia Freeway, Anacostia River, DC 295, Highway Removal, I-295, Kenilworth Avenue, Neighborhood Planning, Southeast Washington DC, Transportation Planning, Urban Infrastructure RESEARCH QUESTIONS o How can Washington’s DC 295 infrastructure be modified to better serve local neighborhoods? o What opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Congestion Analysis Report for the Baltimore Region Top 10
    Quarterly Congestion Analysis Report for the Baltimore Region Top 10 Bottleneck Locations 2nd Quarter 2018 Table of Contents About the region .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 How bottleneck conditions are tracked .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Maps Defined ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Top 10 Bottleneck Map .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Top 10 Bottleneck List ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 #1-10 Ranked Bottlenecks with Maps, Timeline, Traffic Counts and Notes .......................................................................................................................... 8-27 Speed Maps for the Baltimore Region (AM and PM Peak) ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report
    I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study - FINAL REPORT- Presented to: Submitted By: September 2015 Cover Letter Tollway Towers North, Suite 870 15770 North Dallas Parkway Ali K. Soroush, Ph.D. Dallas, TX 75248 Project Manager Tel: 214-245-5300 [email protected] Fax: 214-889-5049 Date: September 23, 2015 To: Morteza Farajian, Ph.D. Program Manager Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships Virginia Department of Transportation Subject: I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report Dear Mr. Farajian, C&M Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the Final Report of the I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study. This report presents an overview of the proposed project, an assessment of existing traffic conditions and socioeconomic data in the project area, and an overview of field data collection and analyses. The report also presents details regarding the modeling approach, methodology, and, most importantly, the traffic and revenue forecast. The C&M project team expresses its sincere gratitude to VDOT for providing the opportunity to participate in this project. Respectfully, Carlos M. Contreras, MBA Ali Soroush, Ph.D. President Project Manager I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Prepared For: By: Final Report September 2015 Disclaimer The results of this study constitute the opinion of C&M with respect to the tolled facility’s future traffic and revenue. The traffic and revenue projections provided in this report were developed based on standard professional practices and the information available at the time the study was executed, subject to the time and budget constraints of the study’s scope of work.
    [Show full text]
  • Bowie Washington Clinton Oxon Hill Camp Springs
    503 Z7 to/from Laurel to/from Columbia 409 Z2 to/from Olney C8 to/from White Flint to/from Elkridge Z11 to/from Laurel Racetrack Burtonsville Park & Ride Montgomery 295 St 302 Main St Z6 Sandy Spring Rd 89M WESTFARM to/from Burtonsville/ RTA provides local service Castle Blvd Z7 Old Sandy 87 Z2 Z7 to/from throughout Central Maryland, Spring Rd Z8 Z6 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit Center to/from Greencastle/Briggs Chaney (Silver Spring m ) Sweitzer Ln including Laurel. 503 COLUMBIA PIKE 302 Gorman Ave 5th St WHITE OAK 409 K6 Industrial Intercounty Connector Van Dusen Rd 87 Pkwy CALVERTON 141 89 89M 89 Laurel Tech Broadbirch Dr 141 to/from Rd Galway Dr Gaithersburg Park & Ride Calverton Blvd Laurel 301 Washington Blvd Van Dusen Rd Fort Meade Rd B30 Z6 Z7 Regional Z7 302 LAUREL Baltimore-Washingtonto/from Pkwy BWI Airport via Arundel Mills Z7 502 Hospital Ashford 4th St LOCKWOOD DR Blvd 502 to/from Arundel Mills Z11 K9 R2 Beltsville Dr 87 C8 FDA Cherry Ln Z2 C8 Red Clay Rd PATUXENT RIVER Plum Orchard Dr Towne Centre 502 Old Z8 Mulberry St Laurel 87 Annapolis Rd Broadbirch Dr Broadbirch R2 Z6 95 301 White Oak Cherry Hill Rd 89 Cherry Ln Adventist St Cypress 302 502 89M Laurel-Bowie Federal Medical Center 87 Z7 Rd Research South Laurel NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE AmmendaleVirginia Rd B30 Muirkirk Park & Ride Center 86 Manor Ritz Way Baltimore Ave COLUMBIA PIKE Rd Rd Z7 Centerpark Powder Mill Rd Laurel-Bowie Rd89M 87 Office Park Contee Rd 301 89 Z2, Z6, Z7, Z8, Z11 to/from Powder Mill Rd Muirkirk Rd 89M Muirkirk Paul S.
    [Show full text]
  • CSG Transportation Policy Academy & DC Fly-In 2012 June 26-28, 2012 Washington, DC
    CSG Transportation Policy Academy & DC Fly-In 2012 June 26-28, 2012 Washington, DC Tuesday June 26th Morning - Legislators Arrive 2pm-5pm Virginia Megaprojects Tour Officials from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will lead a bus tour of major transportation projects under construction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The officials will greet guests between 1:30 and 2 at the Phoenix Park Hotel. A Chariots for Hire shuttle bus will depart promptly at 2 from in front of the hotel. The bus will travel I-295 into Maryland and then over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge into Virginia with a scheduled stop at recently renovated Jones Point Park, which was part of a beautification effort associated with construction of the new bridge. The tour will continue through the Springfield Interchange and along I-495, where High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Express Lanes are currently under construction, one of the largest public-private partnership-financed projects in the country. The bus will make a stop at the Westpark Drive Bridge to give tour attendees a view of the project. Finally, the tour will wind its way through Tysons Corner to assess progress on the project to extend Metrorail to Dulles Airport. The bus will take the George Washington Parkway back to the District and drop attendees off at the Phoenix Park Hotel. Virginia Department of Transportation officials scheduled to attend the tour: Garrett W. Moore, P.E., Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia District Administrator John D. Lynch, P.E., Virginia Department of Transportation Regional Transportation Program Manager Larry O. Cloyed, PMP, Virginia Department of Transportation Senior Project Manager Steven M.
    [Show full text]
  • Springfield Springfield
    SpringfieldSpringfieldBurke FranconiaFranconia ❖❖ KingstowneKingstowne ❖❖ NewingtonNewington GotGot TheThe BeatBeat Community,Community, PagePage 99 Rebecca Kronz, a bass Classified, Page 16 Classified, drummer at West Spring- ❖ field High School, prac- tices with the rest of the drumline before taking the stage at 2009 Sym- phony of Design Indoor Sports, Page 14 ❖ Percussion and Winter Guard Competition. Calendar, Page 10 Good Friends, Good Food News, Page 3 Requested in home 02-27-09 home in Requested Time sensitive material. sensitive Time County Ups Postmaster: Attention PERMIT #31 PERMIT Elkton, MD Elkton, PAID Tax Rate Postage U.S. County Line, Page 8 STD PRSRT Photo by Robbie Hammer/The Connection Photo www.ConnectionNewspapers.comFebruary 26-March 4, 2009 Volume XXIII, Number 8 Read us onlineSpringfield at connectionnewspapers.com Connection ❖ February 26 - March 4, 2009 ❖ 1 2 ❖ Springfield Connection ❖ February 26 - March 4, 2009 www.ConnectionNewspapers.com Springfield Connection Editor Michael O’Connell News 703-917-6440 or [email protected] Group Enjoys 35 Years of Fine Dining Long-time dining club “We love good food and whips up dinners with we love good international-themes. conversation and we love By Steve Hibbard getting together.” The Connection — Margie Jones, West Springfield Photo by Photo resident and charter member or 35 years, a gourmet dining group from West Springfield has on a pontoon boat ride with cocktails and been whipping up to-die-for Hemingway’s “A Moveable Feast.” When F Hibbard Steve meals and rotating host nights they did a Russian meal, they drank vodka among members. Through all the table talk shots. When they had a ’50s party, the la- of politics and religion and keeping up with dies wore poodle skirts and saddle shoes.
    [Show full text]
  • ORDER NO. 1156 ---Authorize a Change in Its Route C. the Change
    WASHINGTON METROPOLITA AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. ORDER NO. 1156 IN THE MATTER OF: Served July 23, 1971 Application of WMA Transit ) Application No. 699 Company for Amendment of WMATC Certificate of Public ) Convenience and Necessity ) No. 8 to Change Its Route C. ) By Application No. 699 filed May 21, 1971, WMA Transit Company (WMA) sought amendment of its Certifi- cate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 8 to ----authorize a change in its Route C. The change was requested by the Prince George's County Police Depart- ment and would entail discontinuing service over 24th Avenue and Iverson Street, and replacing it with service over 23rd parkway in Hillcrest Heights, Maryland. .. A survey of passengers affected showed a majority favored the rerouting. In addition, the applied-for --route appears to be safer and more conducive to bus operations as 23rd Parkway is a divided road. No com- munications opposing the proposed rerouting have been received by the Commission following full public notice. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. That Application No. 699 be, and it is hereby, granted. 2. That the WMATC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 8 be, and it is hereby, amended incor- porating third revised page 3 cancelling second revised page 3 as attached hereto and made a part hereof. BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION: DO UGL N. S CHNE IDER , Executive Director t (A0 I CERT. NO. 8 No. 7 From Washington, D. C., over city streets to Southern Avenue, thence over Maryland Route 5, Curtis Drive, 28th Parkway, 27th Avenue, Berkley Street, 23rd Parkway, Kenton Place, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Audit of the Springfield Interchange Project
    AUDIT OF THE SPRINGFIELD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Federal Highway Administration Report Number: IN-2003-003 Date Issued: November 22, 2002 Memorandum U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation Office of Inspector General Subject: ACTION: Report on Audit of the Springfield Date: November 22, 2002 Interchange Project IN-2003-003 From: Alexis M. Stefani Reply to Attn. of: JA-30 Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation To: Federal Highway Administrator This report presents the results of our audit of the Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) Springfield Interchange project (Springfield project). The Springfield project, when completed, will improve traffic flow at the junction of Interstates (I)-95, 395, and 495 in Fairfax County, Virginia, which is one of the busiest and most congested interchanges in the country. As originally planned, the project would be constructed in eight phases and involve building or reconfiguring two major junctions along the I-95 corridor. We reviewed the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) oversight of the Springfield project. Our objectives were to determine (1) factors contributing to increased cost estimates and the reasonableness of the current cost estimate, (2) reasonableness of the current schedule, and (3) adequacy of project funding. In addition, we evaluated how deficiencies in VDOT’s project cost estimating process affected Virginia’s ability to implement its 3-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (3-year Transportation Plan).1 Exhibit A describes our objectives, scope, and methodology. This audit was done as part of a series of major project reviews. Congressman James P. Moran also requested a review.
    [Show full text]
  • School Boundary Advisory Committee
    School Boundary Advisory Committee Board of Education of St. Mary’s County February 11, 2015 1 School Boundary Advisory Committee Second New Elementary School (2014 – 2015) Redistricting Policy - JCAA I. Purpose The purpose of this policy is to provide for the realignment of school district boundaries as a result of new school construction, overcrowding at existing schools, or closing existing schools. II. Policy Statement Section 4-109 (c) of the Education Article, Maryland Annotated Code provides that: With the advice of the Superintendent of Schools, the Board of Education of St. Mary’s County (the Board) shall determine the geographic attendance area for each school established under this section. In accordance with 13A.02.09 of the Code of Maryland Regulations, St. Mary’s County Public Schools hereby adopts the following policy to be applied to the redistricting and closing of schools. 1. The Board has the primary responsibility to provide school facilities that address changing enrollment patterns and that sustain high quality educational programs and equitable educational opportunities in a way that meets its instructional expectations. The Board fulfills this responsibility through the facilities planning process. The academic achievement of all students in a safe and orderly learning environment through partnership with our community is of primary importance to the Superintendent of Schools and the Board. Enrollment in St. Mary’s County is not static. The fundamental basis of this policy is to provide a sound educational environment for a changing and growing community. The number of students, their geographic distribution, and demographic characteristics of this population are all a concern for the public school system.
    [Show full text]
  • Hogan Highlights Progress on Maryland Route 5 in Brandywine
    Hogan Highlights Progress on Maryland Route 5 in Brandywine Posted by TBNDavid On 06/26/2017 BRANDYWINE, MD – One of the record number of road projects happening across the state this summer has reached a construction milestone. The $55.7 million project at the MD 5 (Branch Avenue) interchange with MD 373 (Accokeek Road) and MD 381 (Brandywine Road) in Brandywine began last summer and is now one-third complete with construction of the Spine Road overpass underway. This project is one of the prime examples of Governor Larry Hogan’s commitment to bring congestion relief to Maryland and will result in a safer commute for thousands of residents in Charles County and southern Prince George’s County. “Our administration promised to fix Maryland’s crumbling roads and bridges, as well address the worst traffic in the nation, and with the MD 5 interchange project, we are doing exactly what we said we would do,” said Governor Larry Hogan. “This important project will help remove a major bottleneck in Prince George’s County and ensure safer and more efficient travelling for our citizens.” Today, MD 5 carries three lanes in each direction and is divided by a median. During morning and evening rush hours, drivers experience delays at two congested intersections – Accokeek and Livingston roads – which directly connect to neighboring communities. Construction crews recently began primary construction of the Spine Road overpass, which will connect two new service roads on each side of Branch Avenue. Pile driving for the new bridge began this month, in conjunction with waterline installation on both sides of MD 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Capital Beltway and Its Impact on Industrial and Multi-Family Expansion in Virginia JULIA A
    The Washington Capital Beltway and Its Impact on Industrial and Multi-Family Expansion in Virginia JULIA A. CONNALLY and CHARLES O. MEIBURG, Bureau of Population and Economic Research, University of Virginia This paper reports on the impact of the Washington Capital Beltway on industrial and multi-family expansion in Northern Virginia. Between 1960 and 1965 industrial employment grew 71 percent, primarily because of the many industries which located near the Beltway. Interviews with 48 industry execu­ tives indicated that access to the circumferential was a sig­ nificant factor in their location decision. The wholesale­ distribution and research and development firms gave the greatest weight to accessibility to the Beltway. As well as promoting industrial growth, the Beltway has altered the com­ muting patterns of the industrial workers. One-half of 2, 100 employees surveyed used the circumferential to commute. The Beltway has expanded the labor market to include Maryland and a much larger section of Northern Virginia. The Beltway area also spawned more than 3, 000 new apartment units be­ tween 1964 and 1966. Like the industrial workers, 50 percent of the apartment residents commute via the Beltway, but their travel pattern is quite different. The large majority are em­ ployed in the District and Arlington County; only a few work in nearby industries. The implications of the study include the continued growth of industrial and multi-family development in the Beltway area, resulting in increased traffic on both the radials and the Beltway, with the greatest pressure occurring at the interchanges. The study concludes with an approach toward the control of land development in interchange areas.
    [Show full text]